DOCSLIB.ORG

31St Annual Researchers Meeting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
31St Annual Researchers Meeting 35TH ANNUAL RESEARCHERS MEETING OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY PROGRAM AND SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM JANUARY 14–15, 2012 CLARION INN HORIZON DRIVE GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO Registration will occur outside the Clarion Inn Conference Room starting at 9:00 am on Tuesday 14 January 2013. A registration fee of $25 (cash preferred or check please, no credit cards accepted) will offset the costs of the meeting room and refreshments. If you are giving an oral paper please be sure your presentation is copied from CD/DVD or portable USB drive to the laptop running the projector before your session begins. Push pins will be available to hang posters before Tuesday’s evening social. REGULAR SESSIONS Tuesday, January 14, 2012 8:30 Registration: Fee is $25.00 (Cash or check) to offset costs of meeting room and refreshments. 9:30 WELCOME/ INTRODUCTION TO THE JOINT ANNUAL RESEARCHERS MEETING. Tom Chart, Dave Campbell and Angela Kantola (Information and Education Update: Leith Edgar and Melanie Fischer) Session 1: Hydrology (Moderator: Kevin McAbee) 9:40 HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY FOR 2013. Jana Mohrman Session 2: Nonnative Fish Control (Moderator: Kevin McAbee) 10:00 POPULATION TRENDS OF SMALLMOUTH BASS IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN WITH AN EVALUATION OF REMOVAL EFFECTS. André R. Breton, Dana L. Winkelman, John A. Hawkins, and Kevin R. Bestgen 10:20 SMALLMOUTH BASS OTOLITH MICROSTRUCTURE ANALYSES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GREEN RIVER BASIN FISH AND FLOW MANAGEMENT. Kevin R. Bestgen and Angela A. Hill 10:40 Break (20 minutes) Session3: Nonnative Fish Control (Continued) (Moderator: Kevin McAbee) 11:00 SMALLMOUTH BASS REMOVAL IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN: SUMMARY OF 2013 DATA AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NONNATIVE FISH WORKSHOP. Tildon Jones, Kyle Battige, Jenn Logan, Lori Martin, John Hawkins, Cameron Walford, Matt Breen, Katie Creighton, Julie Howard, Ben Kiefer, Joe Skorupski, Travis Francis, and Aaron Webber. 2 11:30 POPULATION DYNAMICS MODELING OF INTRODUCED SMALLMOUTH BASS IN THE 1 2 UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. André R. Breton , Dana L. Winkelman , Kevin R. Bestgen3, and John A. Hawkins3 12:00 Lunch Session 4: Nonnative Fish Control – Northern Pike Walleye (Moderator: Jerry Wilhite) 1:00 POPULATION ABUNDANCE AND DYNAMICS OF INTRODUCED NORTHERN PIKE, YAMPA RIVER, COLORADO, 2004–2010. Koreen A. Zelasko, Kevin R. Bestgen, John A. Hawkins and Gary C. White 1:20 SUMMARY OF NORTHERN PIKE REMOVALS IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. Kyle Battige 1:40 WALLEYE EXPANSION IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN: PREDATOR REPLACEMENT 3.0. Paul Badame, Tildon Jones, Travis Francis, Joe Skorupski, Matt Breen, Katherine Creighton, Julie Howard 2:00 WRAP-UP. Kevin McAbee, Nonnative Fish Coordinator 2:15 Break (15 minutes) Session 5: Nonnative Fish in Grand Canyon and other Techniques (Moderator: Scott Durst) 2:30 TURBIDITY EFFECTS ON SPATIAL DYNAMICS OF RAINBOW TROUT ABUNDANCE AND GROWTH, GRAND CANYON, AZ. Scott P. VanderKooi, Michael D. Yard, Josh Korman, Theodore Kennedy and Charles B. Yackulic 2:50 NON-NATIVE FISH CONTROL IN COLORADO RIVER TRIBUTARIES IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK. Brian Healy, Clay Nelson, Emily Omana Smith, and Melissa Trammell 3:10 IMPULSIVE SOUND AS AN INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES SUPPRESSION STRATEGY. Jackson Gross 3:30 Break (15 minutes) Session 6: Other Activities (Moderator: Tom Czapla) 3:45 ENTRAINMENT OF NATIVE FISH IN THE MAYBELL DITCH, 2011-2012. D.W. Speas, J.A. Hawkins, P.D. Mackinnon, K.R. Bestgen and C. W. Walford 3 4:05 CONTAMINANTS INVESTIGATIONS IN ENDANGERED COLORADO R. FISH CRITICAL HABITAT: DETERMINATION OF SELENIUM IN FISH FROM DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE GUNNISON RIVER, AND EPA STUDY OF PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS AND PESTICIDES IN GRAND VALLEY WASHES. Barb Osmundson 4:35 RECOVERY PLANS FOR THE FOUR COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISHES RECOVERY PLANNING UPDATE. Richard A. Valdez and Tom Czapla 5:05 PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCHER OF THE YEAR AWARD 6:00 SOCIAL – A RATHER SUBSTANTIAL PRIZE WILL BE DRAWN FOR A FIELD OFFICE Wednesday, January 15, 2012 Session 7: Native Fish (Moderator: Tom Chart) 9:00 RESPONSE OF THE NATIVE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE YAMPA AND GREEN RIVERS TO NONNATIVE FISHES AND FLOWS. Kevin R. Bestgen, C. Walford, A. Hill, T. Wilcox, and J. Hawkins 9:30 USE OF COAL CREEK, WHITE RIVER DRAINAGE, CO, BY FLANNELMOUTH AND 1 2 3 BLUEHEAD SUCKER. Greg Fraser , Kevin R. Bestgen and Dana L. Winkelman 9:50 NATIVE FISH INVENTORY AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT ON THE DOLORES RIVER, UT; AND FUTURE MOVEMENT STUDY USING PASSIVE INSTREAM ANTENNA. Daniel Keller and David Speas 10:10 Break (20 minutes) Session 8: Endangered Fish (Moderator: Tom Czapla) 10:30 STEWART LAKE FLOODPLAIN: ROAD TO RAZORBACK SUCKER RECOVERY? Joseph A. Skorupski Jr., Ian Harding and Matthew J. Breen 10:50 HUMPBACK CHUB IN CATARACT CANYON. Julie Howard 11:10 ENDANGERED HUMPBACK CHUB TRANSLOCATIONS TO COLORADO RIVER 1 TRIBUTARIES IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK. Emily C. Omana-Smith , Brian D. Healy, Clay Nelson, and Melissa Trammell 11:30 WAHWEAP: THE UTAH WARM WATER STATE FISH HATCHERY. Zane C. Olsen 11:40 WRAP-UP: Tom Czapla 4 ABSTRACTS Abstract Format (abstracts appear as they are listed in the agenda): TITLE Authors: If only one author contact information follows directly. If multiple authors from the same agency, contact information follows directly. If multiple authors from different agencies, contact information is subscripted. Presenter’s names are italicized. Abstract (Presentations are 20 minutes, typically split into 15 minutes for the presentation and 5 minutes for follow-up questions; but the author can use the total 20 minutes for the presentation and take questions from individuals during breaks, social, etc.) Session 1: Hydrology HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY FOR 2013. Jana Mohrman, Hydrologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A review of the 2013 hydrology will be presented. A summary of how “dry year” fish flow targets were met will be presented. Despite low flow conditions there were small volumes of water carried over to 2014 in the Yampa and the 15-mile reach with the concern that dry years often come back to back. Some new issues will be showcased in the 15-mile reach. Session 2: Nonnative Fish Control – Smallmouth Bass POPULATION TRENDS OF SMALLMOUTH BASS IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN WITH AN EVALUATION OF REMOVAL EFFECTS André R. Breton1, Dana L. Winkelman2, John A. Hawkins3, and Kevin R. Bestgen3 1Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University, 1484 Campus Mail, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1484, [email protected] 2U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State, 1484 Campus Mail, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1484 3Colorado State University, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Larval Fish Laboratory, 1474 Campus Mail, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1474 3Colorado State University, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Larval Fish Laboratory, 1474 Campus Mail, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1474 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu were rare in the upper Colorado River basin until the early 1990’s when their abundance dramatically increased in the Yampa River sub-basin. Smallmouth bass established a self-sustaining population and eventually colonized the downstream Green River sub-basin. The rapid increase of smallmouth bass in the upper Colorado River basin overlapped with significant reductions in native fish populations in some locations. Thus, an integrated and widespread bass removal program was instituted to reduce 5 those negative effects. Our analyses indicated that smallmouth bass densities were substantially reduced in most years by electrofishing removal efforts. Environmental effects were also responsible for declines in smallmouth bass densities in some reaches but only in some years. Abundant year classes of young smallmouth bass produced in low flow and warm years such as 2006 and 2007 have potential to overwhelm removal efforts. Despite the potential for post- removal bass population recovery in some reaches from recruitment and immigration, recent electrofishing removal effort (ca. 2008–2011) has resulted in declining smallmouth bass population trends. We recommend that the Recovery Program (1) maintain efforts to reduce smallmouth bass in areas perceived to be production areas; (2) consider other tools such as flow and temperature management to reduce smallmouth bass reproduction; (3) prevent escapement of resident smallmouth bass and other fishes from reservoirs and other sources; (4) prevent colonization of smallmouth bass from the Duchesne River into the Green River; (5) continue use of tagged fish to obtain reliable abundance estimates to understand population dynamics; (6) evaluate switching to removal of smallmouth bass on all passes (no tagging) in reaches only when pre-determined criteria are met; (7) re-assess available capture-recapture data from reaches not integrated in analyses discussed here; and (8), integrate re-evaluations of smallmouth bass removal effectiveness into a carefully designed adaptive management strategy to assess implications for recovery of the four endangered fish species. SMALLMOUTH BASS OTOLITH MICROSTRUCTURE ANALYSES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GREEN RIVER BASIN FISH AND FLOW MANAGEMENT Kevin R. Bestgen and Angela A. Hill, Larval Fish Laboratory, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523, (970) 491- 1848, [email protected] Otolith microstructure analysis, particularly daily
Load more

Recommended publications
  • • 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]
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory
    STATE OF ARIZONA HISTORIC PROF€RlY INVENTORY FORM Salt River Bridge PROPERTY IENTlRCAllON county Gila Inventory nmbu W037 milepost 262.44 inventory route SR 288 locadon 04.3 M N Jct SR 88 featwe lhsoctad Salt River citylvimnity Rooaevelt USOS quadrangle Salt River Peak disk id 83 UTM rmferma 12.507250.3719952 STRUCTURAL INFORMATION main span number 1 main rpan type 310 appr. rpan number 0 appr. type degreeof rkw 0 guardrail type 6 main span length 215.0 swstructure steel rigid-conneded Parker through truaa struave length 220.0 subatrwhre concrete abutments and wingwah on spread footlngs roadway width 18.2 fioor/docking concrwte deck over steel atringen, structuo width 19.3 othu features lower chord: 2 channels w/ double ladna; umer chord: 2 channels w/ cover plate and do-&&dng; vertlcd 2 channela wlth king: diagonal: 2 channels or 2 angles w/ Menplates; floor beam: I-beam: steel pipe gwdds' HISTORICPL INORMATION eonstruaion date 1920 deslgnsr/enginssr US Bureau of Public Rwds project number FHP 12-E builder/mntraaor information sour- ADOT brldge records structve owm Arlzona DepmZrnent of Transportation alteradon datda) alteradom NATlONA REGISTER EVAUATION For add'hnal infwrnation, sw "Vehicular Bridges in Pvirona 1880-1964" Nadonal Reglstw Multiple Propwly Documentation Form NRHP digibility bted MIHPaHwla A x 6- C~ signif. statement longest and oldest riveted through twsin Arizona FORM COMRmD BY Clayton B. Fraesr, Prhdpal FRASERdeslgn 420 South County Road 23E Loveland, Colodo 80537 31 Oaober 2004 SALT RIVER BRIDGE PHOTO INFORMPTlON dw of phom.: November 2002 vkw && south east ~na:02.11.287 02.11.288 32 1 FRASERDESIQN SALT RIVER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION HISTORY In 1918 the newly formed U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • PRELIMINARY REPORT of INVESTIGATIONS of SPRINGS in the MOGOLLON RIM REGION, ARIZONA By
    United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey PRELIMINARY REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS OF SPRINGS IN THE MOGOLLON RIM REGION, ARIZONA By J. H. Feth With sections on: Base flow of streams By N. D. White and Quality of water By J. D. Hem Open-file report. Not reviewed for conformance with editorial standards of the Geological Survey. Tucson, Arizona June 1954 CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................................... 1 Introduction................................................. 3 Purpose and scope of investigation.......................... 3 Location and extent of area ................................ 4 Previous investigations.................................... 5 Personnel and acknowledgments ............................ 5 Geography .................................................. 6 Land forms and physiographic history ...................... 6 Drainage ................................................ 6 Climate ................................................. 6 Development and industry.................................. 8 Minerals"................................................. 9 Water ................................................... 9 Geology .................................................... 10 Stratigraphy ............................................. 10 Rocks of pre-Mesozoic age ............................. 10 Upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks .................... 10 Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary rocks .............. 11 Lake beds .......................................... 11 San Carlos basin
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory | Pages 164-191
    NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet section number G, H page 156 V E H I C U L A R B R I D G E S I N A R I Z O N A Geographic Data: State of Arizona Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods The Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory, which forms the basis for this Multiple Property Documentation Form [MPDF], is a sequel to an earlier study completed in 1987. The original study employed 1945 as a cut-off date. This study inventories and evaluates all of the pre-1964 vehicular bridges and grade separations currently maintained in ADOT’s Structure Inventory and Appraisal [SI&A] listing. It includes all structures of all struc- tural types in current use on the state, county and city road systems. Additionally it includes bridges on selected federal lands (e.g., National Forests, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base) that have been included in the SI&A list. Generally not included are railroad bridges other than highway underpasses; structures maintained by federal agencies (e.g., National Park Service) other than those included in the SI&A; structures in private ownership; and structures that have been dismantled or permanently closed to vehicular traffic. There are exceptions to this, however, and several abandoned and/or privately owned structures of particular impor- tance have been included at the discretion of the consultant. The bridges included in this Inventory have not been evaluated as parts of larger road structures or historic highway districts, although they are clearly integral parts of larger highway resources.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River: Lifeline Of
    4 The Colorado River: lifeline of the American Southwest Clarence A. Carlson Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 80523 Robert T. Muth Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 80523 1 Carlson, C. A., and R. T. Muth. 1986. The Colorado River: lifeline of the American Southwest. Can. J. Fish. Aguat. Sci. In less than a century, the wild Colorado River has been drastically and irreversibly transformed into a tamed, man-made system of regulated segments dominated by non-native organisms. The pristine Colorado was characterized by widely fluctuating flows and physico-chemical extremes and harbored unique assemblages of indigenous flora and fauna. Closure of Hoover Dam in 1935 marked the end of the free-flowing river. The Colorado River System has since become one of the most altered and intensively controlled in the United States. Many main-stem and tributary dams, water diversions, and channelized river sections now exist in the basin. Despite having one of - the most arid drainages in the world, the present-day Colorado River supplies more water for consumptive use than any river in the United States. Physical modification of streams and introduction of non-native species have adversely impacted the Colorado's native biota. This paper treats the Colorado River holistically as an ecosystem and summarizes current knowledge on its ecology and management. "In a little over two generations, the wild Colorado has been harnessed by a series of dams strung like beads on a thread from the Gulf of California to the mountains of Wyoming.
    [Show full text]
  • "Non-Native Fish Control in Backwater Habitats in the Colorado River, Colorado" Melissa Trammel, SWCA, Flagstaff AZ
    1.) “Observations on the effectiveness and maintenance of the Highline Lake fish barrier net.” Patrick J. Martinez1 and Chris Foreman2 1Colorado Division of Wildlife, 711 Independent Avenue, Grand Junction CO 81505, Ph: 970-255-6164 E-mail: [email protected] 2Highline State Park, 1800 11.8 Road, Loma CO 81521, Ph: 970-858-7208 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT—A 363 foot wide x 19 foot deep x 0.25 inch aperture spillway barrier net fabricated of Dynema was installed in Highline Lake in August 1999 to control escapement of juvenile and adult nonnative fish. The net’s placement met the screening requirement in the Procedures for Stocking Nonnative Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin and allowed the stocking of bluegill and largemouth bass into Highline Lake in 1999 and 2000. Fish sampling and marking was performed in Highline Lake to evaluate fish escapement from the reservoir and downstream movement of nonnative fish toward the Colorado River. Fish were captured in June of both 1999 (1,091 fish=100% nonnative) and 2000 (1,420=99% nonnative), measured for total length, weighed and given a right pelvic fin clip (except trout) to denote their origin in the reservoir. Largemouth bass stocked into the reservoir in September of 1999 (7000 @ 4.2 in.) and 2000 (7000 @ 4.0 in.) were also marked with right pelvic fin clips. Monitoring of the net’s performance included observations on 1) maintaining a seal between the net’s bottom skirt and the lake bottom, 2) sand and gravel being wave-washed onto the net nearshore, and 3) the net’s main float-line submerging during a period of high flow through the reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta) Status Survey of the Lower Colorado River Basin
    ROUNDTAIL CHUB (GILA ROBUSTA) STATUS SURVEY OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN Jeremy B. Voeltz, Wildlife Technician Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division Final Report to The Central Arizona Project Native Fish Conservation and Nonnative Aquatic Species Management and Control Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office Phoenix, Arizona and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office Phoenix, Arizona Technical Report 186 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Manager: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 January 2002 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • 371 Tonto National Forest Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area Fact Sheet
    371 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST SALT RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS AREA FACT SHEET The following list of required equipment is designed to promote the personal safety of all visitors and to minimize the impacts of use on the unique and valuable natural resource that we all share in the Upper Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area. Each permitted boating party must be in possession of these required items. Forest Service River Rangers will check for compliance with these requirements. A Firepan - An open metal container or tray, enclosed with rigid sides at least 3 inches high. Fire pans must be large enough to prevent a campfire and its ashes from spilling onto the ground. A Container suitable for storage and removal of all charcoal and ash generated on your trip from the river corridor. A Portable Toilet System to collect all solid human waste for proper disposal at an appropriate waste facility. All solid human waste must be carried out of the river corridor (including toilet paper and personal hygiene items). ' REMINDERS V' Group size is limited to 15 people. V' Attach a boat tag to every watercraft used. V' Possession or transportation of any part of native plants is prohibited. V' Dead and down material may be collected for use as firewood for campfires only. V' Pack out all litter: garbage, food remains, and trash (Orange peels, seed shells and cigarette butts are considered litter). V' The U.S. Coast Guard recommends use of Type III or Type V Personal Flotation Device by each person, on all watercraft. Information regarding current stream flows and snow pack relevant to the Salt River may be accessed by calling the Salt River Project at (602) 236-5929 or logging on to the websites listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconnaissance of Headwater Springs in the Gila River Drainage Basin, Arizona
    Reconnaissance of Headwater Springs in the Gila River Drainage Basin, Arizona GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-H econnaissance. of Headwater Springs in the Gila River Drainage Basin, Arizona £y J. H. FETH and J. D. HEM CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-H UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1963 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract_ _______________________________________________________ HI Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Location and extent of area____________________________________. 3 Previous investigations.________________________________________ 3 Geography______________________________________________________ 8 Geology._________________________________________________________ 9 Stratigraphy-_________________________________________________ 9 Rocks of pre-Mesozoic age._________________________________ 9 Upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks.________________________ 10 Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary rocks.__________________ 11 Lake deposits.________________________________________ 12 Travertine.,_ _________________________________________ 15 Igneous activity.______________________________________________ 17 Precambrian and Cambrian(?) intrusive rocks_________________ 17 Extrusive rocks___________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic River System
    United States Department of Agriculture Eligibility Report for Forest Service Southwestern the National Wild and Region May 2009 Scenic River System Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper – May 2009 Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Compiled By: Evelyn Treiman, Recreation Planner Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 30 S Chiricahua Street PO Box 650 Springerville, AZ 85938 Approved By: Chris Knopp Forest Supervisor June 2009 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Colorado Ecological Services IN REPLY REFER TO: Front Range: Western Slope: l'WS/R6/ES CO Post Office Box 25486 445 W. Gunnison Avenue Mail Stop 65412 Suite 240 Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 Grand Junction, Colorado 8150 I -5711 ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F-0006 TAILS 65413-2008-F-0073-R00l December 26, 2017 Memorandum To: Deputy State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Resources and Fire, Lakewood, Colorado , \ ,,~~ From: Western Slope Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Grand Junction, Colorado Subject: Programmatic Biological Opinion for Water Depletions Associated with Bureau of Land Management's Fluid Mineral Program within the Upper Colorado River Basin in Colorado. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) final programmatic biological opinion (PBO) for impacts to four endangered Colorado River fish species (Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), bonytail chub (Gila elegans), and humpback chub (Gila cypha)) and their critical habitats from water depletions associated with Bureau of Land Managements's (BLM) Fluid Mineral Program (project) authorized by BLM within the Upper Colorado River Basin in Colorado. This PBO is a reinitiation of consultation on this project completed on December 19, 2008 (ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F-0006, TAILS65413-2008-F-0073), and is in response to your May 31, 2017, request for reinitiation of consultation, which included the May 26, 2017, programmatic biological assessment (2017 PBA) for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Loach Minnow in the Black River Drainage, Arizona Final
    & Status of Loach Minnow in the Black River Drainage, Arizona Final Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office P.O. Box 9980 Phoenix AZ 85068-0980 Submitted by Paul C. Marsh Arizona State University Center for Environmental Studies Tempe AZ 85287-3211 In Fulfillment of Federal Grant 6-FG-32-00710 24 March 1997 Black River, located in Apache and Greenlee counties in eastern Arizona, joins with White River to form the Salt River. Black River is formed by East and West Forks of the Black River, which have headwaters originating near 9,000 and 11,000 feet (2743 and 3353 m) elevation, respectively. The stream drains portions of the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, Fort Apache (White Mountain) Indian Reservation, and private lands. The Black River system contains six native fish species: Apache trout ( Oncorhynchus apache) historically present and recently reintroduced to the system (Gee 1938, Anonymous 1988, Stephenson 1988), roundtail chub ( Gila robusta), speckled dace ( Rhinichthys osculus), loach minnow ( Tiaroga cobitis) discovered in 1996 (Bagley et al 1996), Sonora sucker ( Catostomus insignis), and desert sucker ( Pantosteus dark). Black River also is inhabited by six non-native species: rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss), Apache x rainbow trout hybrid (0. apache x 0. mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta), brook trout (Salvelinus font/nails), fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas), and smallmouth bass ( Micropterus dolomiew). Black River is managed as a trout fishery (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1995, Stephenson 1988) and historically has been stocked with non-native species. Recent stockings have included federally threatened, native Apache trout. Stream renovations and surveys have typically revolved around trout management.
    [Show full text]