My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9398
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9398
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:33:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9398
Author
SWCA, I.
Title
Feasibility Assessment for a Multi-Species Management Program, Lower Colorado River.
USFW Year
1994.
USFW - Doc Type
Salt Lake City.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />This was recently done after a Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program <br />was developed for the coastal sage scrub community in Southern California, habitat of the <br />threatened California gnatcatcher. A similar conservation planning process under Section 4( d) <br />could be developed for the Lower Colorado River corridor; however, a threatened species would <br />be necessary, and no suitable species currently exists. Two proposed species, the southwestern <br />willow flycatcher and the flannel mouth sucker, have been suggested for this role. However, the <br />flycatcher is proposed for listing as "endangered," not "threatened," and available data support <br />this listing status. The listing process for the flannelmouth sucker has just begun, and whether <br />it will achieve listing is uncertain. Downlisting of one of the four big river fishes from <br />endangered to threatened is considered highly unlikely. <br /> <br />Other complications presented by this alternative include the facts that no incidental take is <br />allowed for endangered species under 4(d), and only the State of California has the necessary <br />enabling legislation (in California's case, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act) <br />authorizing conservation planning (in the form of the NCCP Actf. It is considered unlikely <br />that Arizona and Nevada would pass such legislation, or that an MOU could be arranged <br />between the states delegating planning authority to California. Therefore this alternative has <br />been eliminated from further consideration. <br /> <br />2. Section 6 Authorization <br /> <br />Under this alternative, the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada would enter into an MOU <br />with the Service to use Section 6 monies for research, recovery actions, and monitoring. This <br />alternative has been eliminated because Section 6 funding of recovery actions does not inherently <br />provide incidental take authorization or an enhanced permitting process and consequently, would <br />not fully achieve the Steering Committee's goals. However, using Section 6 dollars as part of <br />another ESA compliance action, such as a RIP or an HCP, is a viable strategy. <br /> <br />III. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND MATRIX <br /> <br />California Fish and Game Code, ~ 2800, et seq., 1991. <br /> <br />FINAL REPORT <br /> <br />December 20, 1994 <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.