DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Biological Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Biological Assessment Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Biological Assessment Prepared for BLM Wyoming State Office 5353 Yellowstone Road Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 Prepared by Environmental Planning Group, LLC 208 East 800 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 July 20, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Consultation History .............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Preparation of Plan of Development ...................................................................................... 3 1.4 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 6 1.4.1 Biological Resource Surveys .................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Geotechnical Investigation ........................................................................................ 7 1.4.3 Construction or Upgrade of Access Roads ............................................................... 7 1.4.4 Vegetation Management ........................................................................................... 8 1.4.5 Construction of 500-kilovolt Transmission Line ...................................................... 9 1.4.6 Rebuilding 345-kilovolt Transmission Line ............................................................. 9 1.4.7 Stringing of Transmission Line ............................................................................... 10 1.4.8 Series Compensation Station Construction and Substation Reconfiguration ......... 10 1.4.9 Right-of-way Reclamation ...................................................................................... 11 1.4.10 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................... 11 1.4.11 Environmental Design Features .............................................................................. 11 1.4.12 Decommissioning .................................................................................................... 12 1.5 Deconstructing the Action .................................................................................................... 12 2.0 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Species Considered in Analysis ........................................................................................... 17 2.2 Species Information ............................................................................................................. 20 2.3 Project Action Area and Analysis Areas for Species ........................................................... 21 2.4 Direct Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................ 22 2.5 Indirect Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................... 23 2.6 Water Depletion Analysis .................................................................................................... 23 2.7 Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................................................................ 23 3.0 Environmental Baseline and Current Status .................................................................................... 24 3.1 Fish ....................................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Bonytail (Gila elegans) – Endangered .................................................................... 24 3.1.1.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 24 3.1.1.2 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 24 3.1.1.3 Taxonomy and Life History .................................................................... 24 3.1.1.4 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................. 25 3.1.1.5 Primary Threats to Survival .................................................................... 25 3.1.1.6 Species Recovery .................................................................................... 26 3.1.2 Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) – Endangered ................................. 26 3.1.2.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 26 3.1.2.2 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 26 3.1.2.3 Taxonomy and Life History .................................................................... 26 3.1.2.4 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................. 27 3.1.2.5 Primary Threats to Survival .................................................................... 28 3.1.2.6 Species Recovery .................................................................................... 28 3.1.3 Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) – Endangered ......................................................... 28 3.1.3.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 28 3.1.3.2 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 29 Energy Gateway South Transmission Project i July 20, 2015 Biological Assessment 3.1.3.3 Taxonomy and Life History .................................................................... 29 3.1.3.4 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................. 29 3.1.3.5 Primary Threats to Survival .................................................................... 29 3.1.3.6 Species Recovery .................................................................................... 30 3.1.4 June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) – Endangered ...................................................... 30 3.1.4.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 30 3.1.4.2 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 30 3.1.4.3 Taxonomy and Life History .................................................................... 30 3.1.4.4 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................. 31 3.1.4.5 Primary Threats to Survival .................................................................... 31 3.1.4.6 Species Recovery .................................................................................... 31 3.1.5 Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) – Endangered .......................................... 32 3.1.5.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 32 3.1.5.2 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 32 3.1.5.3 Taxonomy and Life History .................................................................... 32 3.1.5.4 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................. 32 3.1.5.5 Primary Threats to Survival .................................................................... 33 3.1.5.6 Species Recovery .................................................................................... 33 3.1.6 Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) – Endangered .......................................... 33 3.1.6.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 33 3.1.6.2 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 33 3.1.6.3 Taxonomy and Life History .................................................................... 33 3.1.6.4 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................. 34 3.1.6.5 Primary Threats to Survival .................................................................... 35 3.1.6.6 Species Recovery .................................................................................... 35 3.2 Birds ..................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.1 Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) – Candidate ............................ 35 3.2.1.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 35 3.2.1.2 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 37 3.2.1.3 Taxonomy and Life History .................................................................... 37 3.2.1.4 Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................. 38 3.2.1.5 Primary Threats to Survival .................................................................... 40 3.2.1.6 Species Recovery .................................................................................... 42 3.2.2 Least Tern, Interior Population (Sternula antillarum) – Endangered ..................... 42 3.2.2.1 Regulatory Status .................................................................................... 42 3.2.2.2 Designated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monit
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monitoring of Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants August 31, 2011 Jones cycladenia Daniela Roth, USFWS Barneby ridge-cress Holmgren milk-vetch Jessi Brunson, USFWS Daniela Roth, USFWS Uinta Basin hookless cactus Bekee Hotze, USFWS Last chance townsendia Daniela Roth, USFWS Dwarf bear-poppy Daniela Roth, USFWS INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE These guidelines were developed by the USFWS Utah Field Office to clarify our office’s minimum standards for botanical surveys for sensitive (federally listed, proposed and candidate) plant species (collectively referred to throughout this document as “target species”). Although developed with considerable input from various partners (agency and non-governmental personnel), these guidelines are solely intended to represent the recommendations of the USFWS Utah Field Office and should not be assumed to satisfy the expectations of any other entity. These guidelines are intended to strengthen the quality of information used by the USFWS in assessing the status, trends, and vulnerability of target species to a wide array of factors and known threats. We also intend that these guidelines will be helpful to those who conduct and fund surveys by providing up-front guidance regarding our expectations for survey protocols and data reporting. These are intended as general guidelines establishing minimum criteria; the USFWS Utah Field Office reserves the right to establish additional standards on a case-by-case basis. Note: The Vernal Field Office of the BLM requires specific qualifications for conducing botanical field work in their jurisdiction; nothing in this document should be interpreted as replacing requirements in place by that (or any other) agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered, Candidate & Proposed Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 MARCH 2011 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE & PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. Review your county list of threatened and endangered species and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Conservation Data Center (CDC) GIS T&E database to see if any of these species have been identified in your area of work. Additional information on these listed species can be found on the USDI FWS web site under “endangered species”. Consideration of these species during the planning process and determination of potential impacts related to scheduled work will help in the conservation of these rare plants. Contact your Plant Material Specialist, Plant Materials Center, State Biologist and Area Biologist for additional guidance on identification of these plants and NRCS responsibilities related to the Endangered Species Act. 2 Table of Contents Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 4 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 6 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 8 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 10 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 12 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 14 Astragalus limnocharis var.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment UT- 080 – 06 – 280 October OIL SHALE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHITE RIVER MINE, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, Utah 84078 Phone: 435-781-4400 Fax: 435-781-4410 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, UT 84078 (435) 781-4400 Fax: (435) 781-4410 IN REPLY REFER TO: UT-080-06-280 September 18, 2006 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review and comment is the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Oil Shale Research, Development And Demonstration Project at the location of the former White River Shale Oil Company Mine in Uintah County, Utah. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) directing the preparation of the document. The EA describes the three phases of work that would occur to test the ATP retort process, and its ability to extract oil from mined oil shale. The project is located approximately 30 miles south of Vernal, Utah, within Township 10 South, Range 24 East of Uintah County, Utah. The Proposed Action calls for 3 different phases of work. The first phase would consist mainly of hauling stockpiles of oil shale to a retorting demonstration plant in Canada. The second phase would consist of moving a demonstration retort processing plant to the former White River Mine area, processing stockpiles of oil shale that are on the surface, and eventually re-opening the White River Mine, and the commencement of mining of oil shale.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Species List
    APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST Common Name Scientific Name State Class Status1 A Caddisfly Farula constricta OR Insect BS Adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum OR Plant BS Agave, Arizona Agave arizonica AZ Plant FE Agave, Murphey Agave murpheyi AZ Plant BS Agave, Santa Cruz Striped Agave parviflora AZ Plant BS Agoseris, Pink Agoseris lackschewitzii ID Plant BS Albatross, Short-tailed Phoebastris albatrus AK, CA Bird FE Alkaligrass, Howell’s Puccinellia howelli CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Lemon’s Puccinellia lemmonii CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Parish’s Puccinellia parishii CA, MT Plant BS Alpine-aster, Tall Oreostemma elatum CA Plant BS Alpine-parsley, Trotter’s Oreoxis trotteri UT Plant BS Alumroot, Duran’s Heuchera duranii CA Plant BS Amaranth, California Amaranthus californicus MT Plant BS Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis AZ, UT Snail FE Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila CA Plant FE Chlorogalum purpureum var. Amole, Purple CA Plant FT purpureum Amphipod, Malheur Cave Stygobromus hubbsi OR Crustacean BS Amphipod, Noel’s Gammarus desperatus NM Crustacean PE Angelica, King’s Angelica kingii ID Plant BS Angelica, Rough Angelica scabrida NV Plant BS Apachebush Apacheria chircahuensis NM Plant BS Apple, Indian Peraphyllum ramosissimum ID Plant BS Arrowhead, Sanford’s Sagittaria sanfordii CA Plant BS Aster, Gorman’s Eucephalus gormanii OR Plant BS Aster, Pygmy Eurybia pygmaea AK Plant BS Aster, Red Rock Canyon Ionactis caelestis NV Plant BS Avens, Mountain Senecio moresbiensis AK Plant BS Baccharis, Encinitis Baccharis vanessae CA Plant FT Balloonvine Cardiospermum corindum AZ Plant BS Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. Balsamroot, Big-scale CA Plant BS macrolepis Balsamroot, Large-leaved Balsamorhiza macrophylla MT Plant BS Balsamroot, Silky Balsamorhiza sericea CA Plant BS Balsamroot, Woolly Balsamorhiza hookeri var.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(S): Noel M
    Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(s): Noel M. Burkhead Source: BioScience, 62(9):798-808. 2012. Published By: American Institute of Biological Sciences URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.5 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Articles Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 NOEL M. BURKHEAD Widespread evidence shows that the modern rates of extinction in many plants and animals exceed background rates in the fossil record. In the present article, I investigate this issue with regard to North American freshwater fishes. From 1898 to 2006, 57 taxa became extinct, and three distinct populations were extirpated from the continent. Since 1989, the numbers of extinct North American fishes have increased by 25%. From the end of the nineteenth century to the present, modern extinctions varied by decade but significantly increased after 1950 (post-1950s mean = 7.5 extinct taxa per decade).
    [Show full text]
  • Native Unionoida Surveys, Distribution, and Metapopulation Dynamics in the Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage, UT
    Version 1.5 Native Unionoida Surveys, Distribution, and Metapopulation Dynamics in the Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage, UT Report To: Wasatch Front Water Quality Council Salt Lake City, UT By: David C. Richards, Ph.D. OreoHelix Consulting Vineyard, UT 84058 email: [email protected] phone: 406.580.7816 May 26, 2017 Native Unionoida Surveys and Metapopulation Dynamics Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage 1 One of the few remaining live adult Anodonta found lying on the surface of what was mostly comprised of thousands of invasive Asian clams, Corbicula, in Currant Creek, a former tributary to Utah Lake, August 2016. Summary North America supports the richest diversity of freshwater mollusks on the planet. Although the western USA is relatively mollusk depauperate, the one exception is the historically rich molluskan fauna of the Bonneville Basin area, including waters that enter terminal Great Salt Lake and in particular those waters in the Jordan River-Utah Lake drainage. These mollusk taxa serve vital ecosystem functions and are truly a Utah natural heritage. Unfortunately, freshwater mollusks are also the most imperiled animal groups in the world, including those found in UT. The distribution, status, and ecologies of Utah’s freshwater mussels are poorly known, despite this unique and irreplaceable natural heritage and their protection under the Clean Water Act. Very few mussel specific surveys have been conducted in UT which requires specialized training, survey methods, and identification. We conducted the most extensive and intensive survey of native mussels in the Jordan River-Utah Lake drainage to date from 2014 to 2016 using a combination of reconnaissance and qualitative mussel survey methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the Jordan River Compiled by Dan Potts, Local Naturalist/Ichthyologist, Revised 2011
    Fishes of the Jordan River compiled by Dan Potts, local naturalist/ichthyologist, revised 2011 TROUTS, SALMONS (SALMONIDAE) natives Bonneville cutthroat trout Onchorhynchus clarki rare introduced exotics Brown trout Salmo trutta rare Rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss locally common, stocked annually NOTE: All of the trouts are found primarily in and near tributary streams to the Jordan, except rainbows that are found in areas where they are stocked as sport fish by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. MINNOWS (CYPRINIDAE) natives Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus locally common Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus locally common Utah chub Gila atraria uncommon introduced exotics Common carp Cyprinus carpio common, pervasive Goldfish Carassius auratus rare Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas rare Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucus rare NOTE: Common carp are so common that they account for the vast majority of the fish by weight throughout the Jordan River. Fathead minnow and golden shiner were introduced into Utah Lake as a prey species and have found their way downstream in very limited numbers. Goldfish were probably introduced as pets, but have persisted over the years. The three remaining natives are less common and mostly found in upstream reaches, especially below the Narrows. SUCKERS (CATOSTOMIDAE) natives Utah sucker Catostomus ardens common Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhychus uncommon June sucker Chasmistes liorus rare NOTE: Utah sucker are the second most abundant fish species by weight in the Jordan River, and are found throughout. Mountain sucker are much less numerous and much smaller. June sucker is a “lake” species of Utah Lake, and are currently listed as an endangered species by the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Version 2020-04-20 June Sucker (Chasmistes Liorus) Species Status
    Version 2020-04-20 June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) Species Status Statement. Distribution June sucker is endemic to Utah Lake and its tributaries. The species spends the majority of the year in Utah Lake, but conducts an annual spawning migration up the tributaries in late spring and early summer (often peaking in June, hence its name). Primary spawning locations are the Provo River, Hobble Creek, and the Spanish Fork River (Fonken, 2017). A refuge population exists in Red Butte Reservoir, and hatchery and grow-out facilities are located at the state fish hatchery in Logan, Utah and at Rosebud Ponds in Box Elder County. Table 1. Utah counties currently occupied by this species. June Sucker BOX ELDER CACHE SALT LAKE UTAH WEBER Abundance and Trends Managers estimated that fewer than 1,000 June sucker existed at the time of their Endangered Species Act listing in 1986 (USFWS, 1999). As self-sustaining populations of this species no longer existed in the wild, managers began a captive breeding program, and stocked artificially propagated June suckers into Utah Lake on an annual basis. Additionally, they established a June sucker refuge population in Red Butte Reservoir. Recent modeling has shown an increasing population in Utah Lake, with current estimates of approximately 3,000 spawning adults (Conner, 2018). Statement of Habitat Needs and Threats to the Species. Habitat Needs In addition to the main body of Utah Lake, June sucker requires complex delta habitat in order to complete its life cycle. Historically, tributaries dispersed into a series of braided channels and wetlands at their interface with Utah Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes As a Template for Reticulate Evolution
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America Max Russell Bangs University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Evolution Commons, Molecular Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Bangs, Max Russell, "Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1847. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1847 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biology by Max Russell Bangs University of South Carolina Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences, 2009 University of South Carolina Master of Science in Integrative Biology, 2011 December 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. _____________________________________ Dr. Michael E. Douglas Dissertation Director _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Marlis R. Douglas Dr. Andrew J. Alverson Dissertation Co-Director Committee Member _____________________________________ Dr. Thomas F. Turner Ex-Officio Member Abstract Hybridization is neither simplistic nor phylogenetically constrained, and post hoc introgression can have profound evolutionary effects.
    [Show full text]