DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) Rapid Watershed Assessment Upper Gila Watershed 1 Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination writ e to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) Table of Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................... 7 Precipitation .................................................................................................................................. 10 Land Ownership ............................................................................................................................ 10 Fires………………………………………………………………………………………………13 Land Use / Land Cover ................................................................................................................. 13 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................ 27 Invasive Species ............................................................................................................................ 28 Common Resource Areas ............................................................................................................. 29 Conservation ................................................................................................................................. 31 Soil Resource Inventory ................................................................................................................ 32 Socioeconomic Data (2010) ........................................................................................................ 36 References ..................................................................................................................................... 37 List of Tables Table 1. Upper Gila Watershed acreage distribution. ..................................................................... 6 Table 2. Land ownership in the Upper Gila Watershed ................................................................ 12 Table 3. Extent of NLCD classes in the Upper Gila Watershed. .................................................. 16 Table 4. SW Region Gap analysis ecosystem acreages. ............................................................... 18 Table 5. NHD Water Course Type and Extents ........................................................................... 20 Table 6. Listed Uses. NS = Not Supporting, NA = not assessed, x = Fully Supporting ............. 23 Table 7. Possible Causes of Impairment ....................................................................................... 25 Table 8. Threatened and Endanged Plant and Animal Species.....................................................27 Table 9. Invasive Species Recognized by the SWEMP. ............................................................... 28 Table 10. 5 year Trends in Applied Conservation Practices. Reported in Acres. ....................... 31 Table 11. 5 Year Trends in Location Specific Applied Conservation Practices. Reported in Feet if Linear (i.e. Fence) ...................................................................................................................... 31 Table 12. Criteria Used for Soil Erosion Susceptibility Model. .................................................. 33 Table 13. Soil Erosion Potential Model Results. A greater rank indicates greater potential for erosion. .......................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 14. Socioeconomic Data of the Counties in the Upper Gila Watershed (2010).................36 List of Figures Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) Figure 1. Upper Gila Watershed Overview ................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Upper Gila Watershed Hydrologic Soil Group .............................................................. 8 Figure 3. Upper Gila Watershed Shaded Relief ............................................................................. 9 Figure 4 Upper Gila Watershed Annual Precipitation. ............................................................... 10 Figure 5. Upper Gila Watershed Land Ownership. ..................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Whitewater Baldy Complex in the Upper Gila Watershed……………………………………………………………………………………..…14 Figure 7. Subset of the National Land Cover Dataset over the Upper Gila Watershed. ............. 15 Figure 8. Subset of the SWREGAP over the Upper Gila Watershed. The 10 dominant ecosystems are displayed in the legend. ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 9. National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD) of the Upper Gila Watershed ............................. 19 Figure 10. Gauging Stations in the Upper Gila Watershed ......................................................... 21 Figure 11. Monthly Average of Mean Daily Flow on the Upper Gila Watershed at Gila River near Gila, NM. Period of observation: 1927-2011. ...................................................................... 22 Figure 12. 303(d) Impaired Waters .............................................................................................. 24 Figure 13. Declared Groundwater Basins of the Upper Gila ....................................................... 26 Figure 14. Common Resource Areas of the Upper Gila. .......... ...................................................29 Figure 15. National Cooperative Soil Survey coverage of the Upper Gila Watershed. .............. 32 Figure 16. Upper Gila Watershed Erosion Potential. .................................................................. 34 Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) Overview Figure 1. Upper Gila Watershed Overview. 5 Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) Overview The Upper Gila Watershed is located in southwestern-central New Mexico and it covers 1,270,253 total acres (5,141 sq. km). Portions of the Upper Gila Watershed are in Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties. Table 1 summarizes the distribution of the Upper Gila Watershed. County Acres % of HUC in % of County in County Acres in HUC Total County HUC Catron 4,442,108 787,200 62 18 Grant 2,543,536 372,307 29 15 Sierra 2,711,883 110,746 9 4 Sum (∑) -- 1,270,253 100 -- Table 1. Upper Gila Watershed acreage distribution. Upper Gila Watershed (HUC8 15040001) Physical Setting Geology: The watershed is in the Transition Zone between the Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range physiographic provinces. The Colorado Plateau physiographic province consists of flat-lying, undeformed sedimentary rocks. The Basin and Range physiographic province is dominated by faulting, volcanism, magma intrusion, erosion and sedimentation. This produces elongated valleys filled with sediment and rock debris with north to north-west trending fault-block or volcanic highlands. Most of the watershed is designated a wilderness area. Much of the river, in this reach, is bedrock controlled. Rivers respond by aggrading during climates that promote large sediment yield and large, stable discharges; and incise during climates that produce flashy flows and reduce the sediment supply. Groundwater quality and quantity is a concern. Depth to groundwater is a concern if the shallow unconfined aquifer does not produce enough water for the resource or increased population demands are ‘mining’ the water. Groundwater quality ranges from good to fair for livestock or crops. Soils: Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the Upper Gila Watershed are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D). Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of deep or deep, moderately well drained or well-drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Literature Cited for the Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule on Threatened Species Status for the Headwater Chub and Roundtail Chub Distinct Population Segment
    Literature Cited for the Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule on Threatened Species Status for the Headwater Chub and Roundtail Chub Distinct Population Segment Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2006. Arizona statewide conservation agreement for roundtail chub (Gila robusta), headwater chub (Gila nigra), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), Little Colorado River sucker (Catostomus spp.), bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), and Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi). December 2006. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Branch Native Fish Program, Phoenix, Arizona. 63 pages. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2017. February 1, 2017, letter to Steve Spangle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service re: Conservation commitment for roundtail chub (Gila robusta). 2 pages. Baird, S. F. and C. Girard. 1853. Report of an expedition down the Zuni and Colorado Rivers. Report of the Secretary of War. Fishes: 147-154. Brandenburg, W. H., J. L. Kennedy, and M. A. Farrington. 2015. Determining the historical distribution of the Gila robusta complex (Gila chub, Gila intermedia, headwater chub, Gila nigra, and roundtail chub, Gila robusta) in the Gila River Basin, New Mexico, using morphological analysis. Final Report to New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 19 pages. Carman, S. M. 2006. Colorado River Basin chubs, roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Gila chub (Gila intermedia), headwater chub (Gila nigra), recovery plan. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Conservation Services Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 63 pages. Carter, J. M, M. J. Clement, A. S. Makinster, C. D. Crowder, and B. Hickerson. 2017. Classification success of species within the Gila robusta complex using morphological and meristic characters – a reexamination of taxonomic designations.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys Cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda Fulgida) in the Southwestern United States
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda fulgida) in the Southwestern United States Joseph C. Dysthe1*, Kellie J. Carim1, Yvette M. Paroz2, Kevin S. McKelvey1, Michael K. Young1, Michael K. Schwartz1 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT, United States of America, 2 United States a11111 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS Loach minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and spikedace (Meda fulgida) are legally protected Citation: Dysthe JC, Carim KJ, Paroz YM, McKelvey with the status of Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and are endemic to KS, Young MK, Schwartz MK (2016) Quantitative the Gila River basin of Arizona and New Mexico. Efficient and sensitive methods for moni- PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow ’ (Rhinichthys cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda fulgida)in toring these species distributions are critical for prioritizing conservation efforts. We devel- the Southwestern United States. PLoS ONE 11(9): oped quantitative PCR assays for detecting loach minnow and spikedace DNA in e0162200. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162200 environmental samples. Each assay reliably detected low concentrations of target DNA Editor: Michael Hofreiter, University of York, UNITED without detection of non-target species, including other cyprinid fishes with which they co- KINGDOM occur. Received: April 27, 2016 Accepted: August 18, 2016 Published: September 1, 2016 Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all Introduction copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used Loach minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and spikedace (Meda fulgida) are cyprinid fishes that were by anyone for any lawful purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub Listing Petition
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE FISH LAKE VALLEY TUI CHUB (SIPHATELES BICOLOR SSP. 4) AS A THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Tui Chub, Siphateles bicolor (Avise, 2016, p. 49) March 9, 2021 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1 March 9, 2021 NOTICE OF PETITION David Bernhardt, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Martha Williams Principal Deputy Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Amy Lueders, Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 [email protected] Marc Jackson, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reno Fish and Wildlife Office 1340 Financial Blvd., Suite 234 Reno, Nevada 89502 [email protected] Dear Secretary Bernhardt, Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b); section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 553(e); and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity, Krista Kemppinen, and Patrick Donnelly hereby petition the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS” or “Service”), to protect the Fish Lake Valley tui chub (Siphateles bicolor ssp. 4) as a threatened or endangered species. The Fish Lake Valley tui chub is a recognized, but undescribed, subspecies of tui chub. Should the service not accept the tui chub as valid subspecies we request that it be considered as a distinct population as it is both discrete and significant.
    [Show full text]
  • Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside This Issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department Led a Multi-Agency Team #TRENDINGNOW
    Volume 1 | Issue 3 | September 2015 Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside this issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department led a multi-agency team #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 that was tasked with developing a watershed-based, fisheries management plan A New Conservation Tool: the for the entire Verde River watershed that would balance sport fish opportunities Chub CCAA ........................... 2 and native fish conservation. That watershed plan is nearing completion. Apache Trout Research ......... 2 IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 The Verde Watershed Fisheries that resources will typically be be available to the public Management Plan was applied to address the primary online at www.azgfd.gov. Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- developed using the emphasis first. led Activities ........................... 3 The Verde Watershed Department’s new Watershed- Gartersnake and Leopard Frog A Verde Watershed Fisheries Fisheries Management Plan is based Fish Management Recovery Updates ................. 3 Process. This process is Management Plan web map the first plan developed using systematic, data-driven, and was developed as the main this process. The team also BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 communication tool for evaluated the effectiveness of addresses socio-political Desert Fish Research and concerns. Department fisheries and the planning process, and Recovery at ARCC ................ 4 aquatic management decisions provided recommendations The team—which included in the Verde River watershed. for future watershed-based state and federal biologists— The web map displays each fish management planning delineated management units individual management unit efforts. and identified a primary and on an interactive map, secondary management allowing users to easily The Verde Watershed emphasis for each unit so that identify high-priority Fisheries Management Plan is more specific prescriptions management units and the in the final stages of review under those categories could primary emphasis for that unit.
    [Show full text]
  • LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda Vitata RECOVERY PLAN
    DRAFT LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda vitata RECOVERY PLAN prepared by: C.O. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 August 1994 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico ' DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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 approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ...) i ' ,4 , ' P DRAF1- ig l Li &a-liATION8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 199. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan. Phoenix, AZ pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 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]
  • 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]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Parker Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan
    Parker Fisheries Resource Office Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Little Colorado River Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan prepared by: C. 0. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 October 1997 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: ~~~ector Regi Date: r~IAN 09 1998 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the stakeholders involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals ofany individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan LITERATURE CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepido-meda vittata Recovery Plan. Albuquerque NM. 51 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 800/582-3421 Fees charged for Recovery Plans vary depending on the number of Plans requested.
    [Show full text]
  • GILA TROUT (Oncorhynchus Gilae)
    (Technical Review Draft, April 2002) GILA TROUT (Oncorhynchus gilae) (Third Revision) RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approved: January 12, 1979) (First Revision Approved: January 3, 1984) (Second Revision Approved: December 8, 1993) Prepared by John Pittenger (Purchase Order 201819M251) for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: XXX Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed to be required to recover and/ or protect listed species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or national Marine Fisheries Service are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Services. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Services. Objectives of the plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. They represent the official position of the National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator/Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater
    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
    [Show full text]