DOCSLIB.ORG

Systemic Studies of the Genus Gila (Cyprinidae) of the Colorado River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Systemic Studies of the Genus Gila (Cyprinidae) of the Colorado River Basin Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-1968 Systemic Studies of the Genus Gila (Cyprinidae) of the Colorado River Basin Paul Bernard Holden Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Holden, Paul Bernard, "Systemic Studies of the Genus Gila (Cyprinidae) of the Colorado River Basin" (1968). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2890. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2890 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SYSTEHATI C STUDIES OF THE GENUS GILA (CYPRINIDAE) OF THE COLORAD O RIVER BASIN by Paul Bernard Holden A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of HASTER OF SCIENCE in Fishery Biology UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Log an, Utah 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to the late Dr. Donald R. Franklin whose efforts formed the groundwork for this study. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Clair Stalnaker and Dr. Robert Behnke who guided the research and preparation of this manuscript. Thanks goes to several individuals who provided fish specimens; Rod Stone and John Livesay of the Utah State De partment of Fish and Game, Dr. W. Minckley of Arizona State University and Ernest Lachner of the U. S. National Museum. This project was financially supported by an NDEA Fellowship and the Utah Cooperative Fishery Unit . Paul B. Holden TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v ABSTRACT vi INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE FO~ffi 4 PROCEDURES RESULTS . • 12 Results of the taximetric program by level 19 DISCUSSION 27 §_. robusta and Q. elegans 27 Q. elegans and Q. ~ 30 Q. robusta seminuda 35 Q. robusta intermedia 37 Q. robusta jordani 38 EVOLUTION AND PHYLOGENY 39 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 46 LITERATURE CITED 48 APPENDIXES 51 Ap pendix A. Annotated synonymy of t he s ubgenus Gila of t he Co l orado Ri ver basin 52 Appendix B. Characters and States as Used in the Taxi- me t ries Program 55 Appendix c. Tables 57 VITA 68 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Summary of the intra- and interspecific morphol ogic relationships of robusta, elegans and cypha as determined in this study . 13 2 . Comparison of vertebrae numbers between members of the ~complex . 15 3 . Comparison of principal dorsal and anal fin ray counts between members of the Gila complex . 16 4. Comparison of gill raker number between members of the Gila complex 17 5. Comparison of predorsal lengths between members of the ~ complex 57 6. Comparison of anal origin to caudal base lengths between members of the Gila complex . • . • . 58 7. Comparison of head lengths between members of the Gila complex . 59 8 . Comparison of head depths between members of the Gila complex 60 9. Comparison of snout lengths between members of the ~complex 61 10. Comparisons of interorbital lengths between members of the Gila complex . 62 11. Comparison of pelvi c insertion to pectoral insert ion l engths between memb e rs of the Gila complex . 63 12. Comparison of snout to occiput lengths between members of the Gila complex . 64 13 . Comparison of jaw lengths between members of the Gila complex . 65 14 . Comparison of dorsal base lengths between members of the Gila complex 66 15 . Comparison of peduncle depths between members of the Gila complex 67 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Q. ~ Q. elegans and Q. robusta from top to bottom . 5 2. Map of the Colorado River basin showing rivers and localities mentioned in the text . 8 3. Results of the taximetrics program for 309 Gila specimens 20 4. I ntergradation in morphology between Q. cvpha (top) and Q. elegans (bottom) 31 v ABSTRACT Systematic Studies of the Genus Gila (Cyprin~dge) of the Colorado River Basin by Paul Bernard Holden, Master of Science Utah State University, 1968 Major Professor: Dr. Clair Stalnaker Department: Wildlife Resourses Three hundred and nine specimens of Gila from the Colorado River basin were studied. A form of numerical taxonomy, taximetrics, was used to help classify the s pecimens. The data from these fish indicate that many of the present hypotheses concerning t heir taxonomy are not valid. The concept of ecosubspeci es or ecological subspecies does not fit the Colorado basin Gila. The roundtail and bonytail chubs, g. robusta Baird and Gir.ard and ~· elegans Baird and Girard respectively, currently treated as subspecies, are well separated morphologically, ecologicall y and reproductive ly and therefore are better considered two valid species . The relationship between g. ~M iller and Q· elegans is clouded by the presence of what appear to be intergrade forms . Future i nvestiga- tions are needed to piece t oge ther the puzzle surr ounding these two fis h. The subspecies name seminuda (Cope and Ya rrow) , present ly a ttributed to fish from throughout the Colorado basin, more correctly is allied to the~ of the Virgin River. Preliminary study indicates this popu- lation may be sufficiently different to warrent subs pecies recognition . No specimens of g. r obusta intermedia (Girard) were examined but the literature suggests this form may also be a valid species. (74 pages) INTRODUCTION The cyprinid genus Gila is presently divided into three subgenera; Gila , Siphateles and Snyderichthyes (Uyeno, 1960) . Richardsonius is included as another subgenus by some authors (Eddy, 1957) . This study is concerned with the systematics of the subgenus Gila of the Colorado River basin with emphasis on the upper basin forms presently recognized as f.~· r obusta (Baird and Girard), f. robusta elegans (Baird and Girard) and f · ~Miller. Baird and Girard (1853), working on fish collected in the Zuni River, Ne~' Nexico 1 described the genus Gila and three species,~· robusta, f. elegans and f. gracilis (Baird and Girard also published the descrip­ tions in the 1853 Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, published in 1854). Cope and Yarrow (1875) named several Gila from collections of the Wheeler Survey in southwestern United States; included was f· seminuda from the Virgin River, Utah. By 1896, 13 species and five genera had been used for the Colorado River basin Gila . The revision by Jordan and Evermann (1896) reduced these to two genera (Gila and Leuciscus) and f ive species. Listed in Gila were three species, robusta, e legans and seminuda, with six synonyms. Leuciscus contained two species, intermedius (Girard) and niger (Cope) with two synonyms. Ellis (1914), with little critical examination , suggested that robusta and elegans might be considered one polymorphic species with a subspecies seminuda . Also, he listed Q. pandora (Cope) and f. egregia (Girard) as synonyms of r obus ta in error. Q· pandora refers t o the Gila of the upper Rio Grande basin, Q. egregia refers to the genus Richardsonius. Jordan, Evermann and Clark (1930) retained robusta, elegans and seminuda as f ul l species, and the two species of Leuciscus listed by Jordan and Evermann (1896) were both included under Tigoma gibbosa Girard. Miller (1946) described a new species, g. ~. from the Grand Canyon of Ari­ zona and suggested that robusta, elegans, seminuda and intermedia (Tigoma gibbosa) were only subspecies of a single species, robusta . Tanner (1950) named a new species, g. jordani, from the White River of Nevada. La Rivers (1962) considers this form a subspecies of g. robusta. The American Fisheries Society (1960) mentioned only g . robusta and g. ~ as full species. Uyeno (1960) established some of the relation­ ships between fishes allied to the genus Gila in an osteological study. His work primarily considered the taxonomy of this group above the species level. Appendix A is an annotated synonymy of the subgenus Gila of the Colorado basin. The present classification of ~ and elegans as subspecies does not fit the idea of subspecies being geographical units of species, for these forms are sympatric. It suggests rather that these forms are ecosubspeci es or ecological subspecies (Hubbs, 1943) which show rapid paralle l evolution in disjunct yet similar habitats, and therefore pre­ cludes the idea of a single evolutionary line for each form. Although these fish have been named several times by different authors, no thorough taxonomic study has been undertaken. Many of the hypotheses concerning the taxonom ic status of these forms have never been tested. The intent of this study was to contribute towards a better understanding of the populations referred to as the Gila complex . The objectives of the study were: 3 1. To determine the systematic relationships between the members of the Qi!! complex in the upper Colorado River basin. 2 . To determine the amount of intraspecific variation exhibited by the several members of this complex. 4 DESCRIPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE FORMS The large amount of taxonomic confusion in these forms can be attributed to: instability of a few morphologic characters, notably squamation ; and an apparent cline in morphology believed to be adapted for varying current conditions which is the basis for the present ecosubspecies concept. At one end of the apparent c line is the small , chubby, generalized int ermedia of the Gila River basin (Arizona), thought of as a small stream form; robusta is hypothesized to be a slow to moderately swift current form of medium sized rivers; elegans is the intermediate form with characters adapted for life in large swift rivers; the morphology of ~ is hypothesized to be highly adapted for life at or near the bottom of torrential, turbid channels (Miller, 1946).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR
    Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR Colorado River at Mile 50. Cover: Salt River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and biological diversity in the western state-specific experts reviewed the results for each state. RUnited States. As evidence mounts The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s that climate is changing even faster than we outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The feared, it becomes essential that we create Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the sanctuaries on our best, most natural rivers modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers that will harbor viable populations of at-risk Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. species—not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a terrestrial species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fish, wildlife and people can flourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s finest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offices in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Zuni Bluehead Sucker BISON No.: 010496
    Scientific Name: Catostomus discobolus yarrowi Common Name: Zuni bluehead sucker BISON No.: 010496 Legal Status: ¾ Arizona, Species of ¾ ESA, Proposed ¾ New Mexico-WCA, Special Concern Threatened Threatened ¾ ESA, Endangered ¾ ESA, Threatened ¾ USFS-Region 3, ¾ ESA, Proposed ¾ New Mexico-WCA, Sensitive Endangered Endangered ¾ None Distribution: ¾ Endemic to Arizona ¾ Southern Limit of Range ¾ Endemic to Arizona and ¾ Western Limit of Range New Mexico ¾ Eastern Limit of Range ¾ Endemic to New Mexico ¾ Very Local ¾ Not Restricted to Arizona or New Mexico ¾ Northern Limit of Range Major River Drainages: ¾ Dry Cimmaron River ¾ Rio Yaqui Basin ¾ Canadian River ¾ Wilcox Playa ¾ Southern High Plains ¾ Rio Magdalena Basin ¾ Pecos River ¾ Rio Sonoita Basin ¾ Estancia Basin ¾ Little Colorado River ¾ Tularosa Basin ¾ Mainstream Colorado River ¾ Salt Basin ¾ Virgin River Basin ¾ Rio Grande ¾ Hualapai Lake ¾ Rio Mimbres ¾ Bill Williams Basin ¾ Zuni River ¾ Gila River Status/Trends/Threats (narrative): Federal: FWS Species of concern, USFS Sensitive: Region 3, State AZ: Species of concern, State NM: Endangered. Status The Zuni bluehead sucker was once common in the Little Colorado River and Zuni River drainages, but its historic range has been reduced by approximately 50% (Propst and Hobbs 1996) and its numbers by about 90% in the last 25 years (NMDGF 2000). The Zuni bluehead sucker currently inhabits less then 10% of its probable historic range, and within its current range, its distribution is fragmented, and its status in Arizona is uncertain (Propst 1999). Merkel (1979) reported that on July 21 1971, a sizable population of Zuni Mountain suckers was discovered deep in the Nutria Box where water was flowing. Biologist had assumed that the suckers had been extirpated as a result of fish eradication efforts in the 1960's.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonora Sucker
    scientific name common name Catostomus insignis Sonora sucker Bison code 010520 ______________________________________________________________ Official status Endemism ________________________ State AZ: threatened Colorado River Basin _______________________ Status/threats Dams, diversions, groundwater pumping and introduced species Distribution The species is widespread and abundant in the Gila and Bill Williams river drainages in Arizona and the Gila and San Francisco drainages in southwestern New Mexico. The species is widespread and abundant in the Verde and Gila headwaters. Habitat Streams and rivers from 300 to 3000 m in elevation, primarily in pool habitats. Pool habitats over sand gravel substrates. Life history and ecology Can attain a size of 0.8 m and a weight of greater than 2.0 kg. Used as food by early, primitive human populations. Food habits vary with availability. In one stream, Aravaipa Creek, it is principally a carnivore, whereas elsewhere in pool habitats diet consists of plant debris, mud, and algae. Observed to "suck" cottonwood seeds at surface as is common for the common carp. Young often feed in large schools at stream margins on micro-crustaceans, protozoans and other animal and plant groups. Breeding Similar to most slim-bodied suckers, the species spawns in smaller streams over gravel substrates. Males darken in color and often display extreme tuberculation. Males &(usually 2) flank a single, larger female. Gametes are emitted with considerable to extreme substrate agitation and fall into gravel interstices. Cleaning of gravels occurs much as reported for salmonid species. Key Habitat Components: pools with sand-gravel substrates for adults and shallow, low velocity riffles and backwaters for young Breeding season Protracted, from as early as January to February at low elevations to as late as July.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gila and Little Colorado General Stream Adjudications
    THE GILA AND LITTLE COLORADO GENERAL STREAM ADJUDICATIONS Cynthia M. Chandley 1 ©© 2014 2014 Snell Snell & & Wilmer Wilmer Arizona’s Watersheds 2 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Scope of Adjudications Gila Adjudication Little Colorado River Adjudication 30,000 5,000 SOCs SOCs Claimants 85,000 14,000 Claimants 3 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Initiation of Arizona’s Adjudications SRP initiates U.S. Supreme Court Phelps Dodge Verde River Buckeye Irrigation decides jurisdiction in on- initiates Little Adjudication District intervenes going state adjudications. Colorado River Ariz. v. San Carlos Adjudication Apache Tribe (U.S. 1983) 1974 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1983 1985 Arizona Supreme SRP initiates Phelps Dodge initiates Court consolidates Salt River Gila River Adjudication Arizona Arizona Supreme Court Gila River cases Adjudication Adjudication statues decides state jurisdiction ASARCO initiates San revised over federal and Indian Pedro River Adjudication water rights. U.S. v. Superior Court (Ariz. 1985) 4 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Maricopa County Court Proceedings • 1986 – Judge Goodfarb issues Pretrial Order No. 1 • 1990 – Arizona Supreme Court grants interlocutory review of six key issues 5 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Arizona Supreme Court Rulings • Issue 1: Service of process – Gila I (1992) • Issue 2: Subflow – Gila II (1993) & Gila IV (2000) • Issue 3: Indian reserved water rights – Gila V (2001) • Issues 4 & 5: Federal reserved groundwater rights – Gila III (1999) • Issue 6: To be decided. 6 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Major Adjudication Issues Subflow Trial No. 1; Adjudication Gila III and San Subflow Order Carlos Apache Court defines ADWR Subflow defines saturated Tribe, et al. v. ADWR Subflow 50%/90-day test Technical Report floodplain Holocene Superior Court Delineation ADWR Revised alluvium and evidentiary Report Subflow Report hearing 1986 1988 1993 1994 1995 1999 2000 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2014 2012 20142014 Pretrial Order Gila IV – affirms Gila II: rejects Subflow Subflow trial No.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)
    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that 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 approval 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. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife
    •UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Division of Fishery Services Phoenix, Arizona Progress Report • FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Black and Salt Rivers Ft. Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian ,Reservations Arizona January 21, 1966 February 3, 1966 Initial Report Black and Salt Rivers Ft. Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations Arizona Introduction During the past several years, the Bureau of Sport'Fisheries'and Wildlife, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has-intensified its fishery managementi assistance to the Ft. Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations. During this period many reports summarizing fishery management activities have been submitted. None, however, has dealt with the important Black and Salt Rivers or their fishery potential. This report summarizes the- results of preliminary fishery investigations on the Salt and Black Rivers, including fishery potentials, and Is directed to the Tribal organization and•agencies of the San Carlos and Ft.-Apache Indian Reservations. The Black and Salt Rivers of Arizona flow through some of the most- spectacular canyons of the Southwest. The Salt River Canyon crossing at Highway 60 is often referred to as.the second-Grand Canyon of Arizona, with vividly colored canyon walls rising vertically more than 3,000. feet. The Black River follows a major - - - rift through basalt rock that is often narrow and exceeds 26000 feet in depth in many places. Canyons, alternately widening and boxing, extending from alpine to upper sonorian life zones, are characteristic of the study area Stands of virgin . spruce and ponderosa pine lend beauty to the.
    [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]
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • GR-03-13 Revised Title 5, Criminal Code
    GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY SACATON, AZ 85147 ORDINANCE GR-03-13 THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL HEREBY AMENDS THE 2009 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY CODE BY RESCINDING TITLE 5, CRIMINAL CODE, AND ENACTING THE REVISED CRIMINAL CODE WHEREAS, the Gila River Indian Community Council (the "Community Council") is the governing body of the Gila River Indian Community (the "Community), a federally recognized and sovereign Indian tribe; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section l(a)(9) of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Community (March 17, 1960) (the "Constitution") to promote and protect the health, peace, morals, education, and general welfare of the Community and its members; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a)(17) of the Constitution to provide for the maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice by establishing a Community Court and police force and defining the powers and duties thereof; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a)(19) of the Constitution to pass ordinances necessary or incidental to the exercise of any of their powers authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a) of the Constitution; and WHEREAS, the power to enact laws and ordinances is an inherent function of self-government which the Community has exercised over the years; and WHEREAS, the safety of the Community, the ability to prosecute criminal behavior, and the ability to order longer or enhanced sentences as appropriate to the offense and
    [Show full text]
  • Relation of Sediment Load and Flood-Plain Formation to Climatic Variability, Paria River Drainage Basin, Utah and Arizona
    Relation of sediment load and flood-plain formation to climatic variability, Paria River drainage basin, Utah and Arizona JULIA B. GRAF U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 375 S. Euclid, Tucson, Arizona 85719 ROBERT H. WEBB U.S. Geological Survey, 1675 W. Anklam Road, Tucson, Arizona 85745 RICHARD HEREFORD U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Division, 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 ABSTRACT sediment load for a given discharge declined fill that rises 1-5 m above the modern channel abruptly in the early 1940s in the Colorado bed. Flood-plain deposits are present in all Suspended-sediment load, flow volume, River at Grand Canyon (Daines, 1949; Howard, major tributaries of the Paria River. The area of and flood characteristics of the Paria River 1960; Thomas and others, 1960; Hereford, flood plains is slightly greater than 20 km2, and were analyzed to determine their relation to 1987a). The decline in suspended-sediment sediment volume is estimated to be about 40 climate and flood-plain alluviation between loads has been attributed to improved land use million m3 (Hereford, 1987c). Typically, flood 1923 and 1986. Flood-plain alluviation began and conservation measures initiated in the 1930s plains are not present in first-order drainage ba- about 1940 at a time of decreasing magnitude (Hadley, 1977). A change in sediment-sampler sins but are present in basins of second and and frequency of floods in winter, summer, type and in methods of analysis have been higher order where the stream channel is uncon- and fall. No floods with stages high enough to discounted as causes for the observed decrease fined and crosses nonresistant bedrock forma- inundate the flood plain have occurred since (Daines, 1949; Thomas and others, 1960).
    [Show full text]