DOCSLIB.ORG

(2000) Flow and Temperature

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(2000) Flow and Temperature Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Endangered Fishes in the Green River Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam Humpback chub Gila cypha Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Final Report Project FG-53 September 2000 Cover illustrations © Joseph R. Tomelleri FLOW AND TEMPERATURE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENDANGERED FISHES IN THE GREEN RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF FLAMING GORGE DAM prepared by Robert T. Muth,1 Larry W. Crist,2 Kirk E. LaGory,3 John W. Hayse,3 Kevin R. Bestgen,4 Thomas P. Ryan,2 Joseph K. Lyons,5 Richard A. Valdez6 1 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, Colorado 80228 2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 3 Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439 4 Larval Fish Laboratory, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 5 Technical Services Center, Water Supply, Use, and Conservation Group, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225 6 SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants, 172 West 1275 South, Logan, Utah 84321 Final Report Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Project FG-53 September 2000 Final Report September 2000 PRINCIPAL AUTHORS OF CHAPTERS OR MAJOR SECTIONS Chapter or Section Principal Authors Chapter 1: Introduction John W. Hayse, Kirk E. LaGory Chapter 2: Flaming Gorge Flow John W. Hayse, Robert T. Muth, Recommendations Investigation Kirk E. LaGory, Larry W. Crist Chapter 3: Hydrology and Joseph K. Lyons, Kirk E. LaGory, Geomorphology of the Green River Thomas P. Ryan Chapter 4: Fishes of the Green River 4.1 Overview Robert T. Muth 4.2 Colorado Pikeminnow Kevin R. Bestgen 4.3 Razorback Sucker Robert T. Muth 4.4 Humpback Chub Larry W. Crist, Richard A. Valdez Chapter 5: Flow and Temperature Robert T. Muth, Larry W. Crist, Recommendations Kirk E. LaGory, Kevin R. Bestgen, Thomas P. Ryan, John W. Hayse Appendix A: Supporting Information Thomas P. Ryan, Kirk E. LaGory on the Hydrology of the Green River System iii Final Report September 2000 iv Final Report September 2000 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program). The Recovery Program is a joint effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Western Area Power Administration; the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; upper basin water users; environmental organizations; and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association. Authors of this synthesis report thank members of the Flaming Gorge Research Group and workshop participants (Appendix C) for their assistance and thoughtful input. L. Lentsch helped develop the foundation of this report. Technical reviews by D. Beyers, R. Marston, N. Poff, D. Propst, J. Stanford, R. Strand, B. Trush, and H. Tyus improved the report. We also thank the Recovery Program Biology Committee and other interested agencies or individuals for their reviews and comments. K. Fenton assisted in the production of maps and other selected figures. M. Moniger edited the final report. Administrative staffs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office; Argonne National Laboratory; and Recovery Program Director’s Office assisted in compiling various drafts of this report. Disclaimer.—Opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective agencies or the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The mention of trade names, commercial products, or firms and businesses does not constitute endorsements or recommendations for use. v Final Report September 2000 vi Final Report September 2000 CONTENTS PRINCIPAL AUTHORS OF CHAPTERS OR MAJOR SECTIONS .................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ xi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... xv NOTATION ................................................................ xix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... xxiii 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope .................................................. 1-2 1.2 Changes in River Ecosystems of the Colorado River Basin .................. 1-3 1.2.1 The Green River System ........................................ 1-7 1.3 1992 Biological Opinion on Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam ............... 1-9 2 FLAMING GORGE FLOW RECOMMENDATIONS INVESTIGATION .......... 2-1 2.1 Study Area ........................................................ 2-1 2.2 Study Objectives and Approach ........................................ 2-1 2.3 Research Flows .................................................... 2-4 2.4 Development of Integrated Flow Recommendations ........................ 2-6 2.4.1 Workshops and Technical Reviews ............................... 2-7 2.4.2 Synthesis ................................................... 2-7 3 HYDROLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY OF THE GREEN RIVER ............ 3-1 3.1 Characteristics of the Green River Basin ................................. 3-1 3.2 Operations of Flaming Gorge Dam ..................................... 3-4 3.3 Description of Green River Reaches Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam ...... 3-6 3.4 Flows in the Green River Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam ............... 3-9 3.4.1 Seasonal Distribution of Green River Flows ....................... 3-14 3.4.2 Peak Flows in the Green River ................................. 3-14 3.4.3 Base Flows in the Green River ................................. 3-18 3.4.4 Tributary Contributions to Green River Flow ...................... 3-25 3.4.5 Stage-Flow Relationships and the Effect of Hydropower Operations on Daily Fluctuations ......................................... 3-27 3.5 Green River Water Temperatures ..................................... 3-30 3.5.1 Summer Water Temperatures .................................. 3-32 3.5.1.1 Water Temperature in Reach 1 .......................... 3-32 3.5.1.2 Water Temperature in Reach 2 .......................... 3-33 3.5.1.3 Water Temperature in Reach 3 .......................... 3-33 vii Final Report September 2000 3.5.2 Ice Conditions .............................................. 3-34 3.6 Geomorphic Processes in the Green River .............................. 3-36 3.6.1 Channel Planforms ........................................... 3-37 3.6.1.1 Restricted and Fixed Meanders .......................... 3-37 3.6.1.2 Canyon Reaches with Abundant Debris Fans ............... 3-39 3.6.2 Sediment Dynamics, Shoreline Complexity, and Low-Velocity Habitats ........................................ 3-40 3.6.3 Sediment Dynamics and Spawning Substrates ..................... 3-44 3.6.4 Vertical Accretion of Banks and Channel Narrowing ................ 3-45 3.6.5 Floodplain Inundation ........................................ 3-47 3.7 Summary of Relationships between Flow, In-Channel Habitats, and Floodplain Inundation .............................................. 3-50 4 FISHES OF THE GREEN RIVER .......................................... 4-1 4.1 Overview ......................................................... 4-2 4.1.1 Native Fishes ................................................ 4-2 4.1.2 Nonnative Fishes ............................................. 4-6 4.2 Colorado Pikeminnow .............................................. 4-12 4.2.1 Distribution and Status Overview ............................... 4-12 4.2.2 Life History Overview ........................................ 4-12 4.2.3 Research on Colorado Pikeminnow for the 1992 Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion ........................................... 4-13 4.2.4 Research on Colorado Pikeminnow for the 1990–1996 Flaming Gorge Flow Recommendations Investigation ...................... 4-14 4.2.5 Ecology of Colorado Pikeminnow in the Green River System ......... 4-14 4.2.5.1 Distribution and Abundance ............................ 4-14 4.2.5.2 Life History by Season ................................ 4-21 4.2.5.3 Recruitment Dynamics ................................ 4-32 4.2.5.4 Limiting Factors for Colorado Pikeminnow in Historic Green River Habitat .................................. 4-37 4.2.6 Summary of Seasonal Flow-Habitat Relationships for Colorado Pikeminnow in the Green River System .......................... 4-41 4.2.6.1 Spring ............................................. 4-41 4.2.6.2 Summer and Autumn ................................. 4-42 4.2.6.3 Winter ............................................. 4-43 4.3 Razorback Sucker ................................................. 4-49 4.3.1 Distribution and Status Overview ............................... 4-49 4.3.2 Life History Overview ........................................ 4-50 4.3.3 Research on Razorback Sucker for the 1992 Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion ........................................... 4-51 4.3.4 Research on Razorback Sucker for the 1990–1996 Flaming Gorge Flow Recommendations Investigation ............................ 4-51 4.3.5 Ecology of Razorback Sucker in the Green River System ............. 4-52 4.3.5.1 Distribution and Abundance ...........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?
    COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, or the Vestige oF a Failed Past? Liam Patton* Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 42 I. THE EVOLUTION OF HYDROPOWER ON THE COLORADO PLATEAU ..... 45 A. Hydropower and the Development of Pumped Storage .......... 45 B. History of Dam ConstruCtion on the Plateau ........................... 48 C. Shipping ResourCes Off the Plateau: Phoenix as an Example 50 D. Modern PoliCies for Dam and Hydropower ConstruCtion ...... 52 E. The Result of Renewed Federal Support for Dams ................. 53 II. HYDROPOWER AS AN ALLY IN THE SHIFT TO CLEAN POWER ............ 54 A. Coal Generation and the Harms of the “Big Buildup” ............ 54 B. DeCommissioning Coal and the Shift to Renewable Energy ... 55 C. The LCR ProjeCt and “Clean” Pumped Hydropower .............. 56 * J.D. Candidate, 2021, University oF Colorado Law School. This Note is adapted From a final paper written for the Advanced Natural Resources Law Seminar. Thank you to the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review staFF For all their advice and assistance in preparing this Note For publication. An additional thanks to ProFessor KrakoFF For her teachings on the economic, environmental, and Indigenous histories of the Colorado Plateau and For her invaluable guidance throughout the writing process. I am grateFul to share my Note with the community and owe it all to my professors and classmates at Colorado Law. COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 42 Colo. Nat. Resources, Energy & Envtl. L. Rev. [Vol. 32:1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLATEAU HYDROPOWER ...............
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Outdoor Recreation in Utah 2020 a High-Level Review of the Data & Trends That Define Outdoor Recreation in the State
    the State of outdoor recreation in utah 2020 A high-level review of the data & trends that define outdoor recreation in the state. Jordan W. Smith, Ph.D. & Anna B. Miller, Ph.D. Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University about the Institute The Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (IORT) was founded in 1998 by the Utah State Legisla- ture through the Recreation and Tourism Research and Extension Program Act (S.B. 35). It is mandated to focus on: tourism and outdoor recreation use; the social and economic tradeoffs of tourism and outdoor recreation for local communities; and the relationship between outdoor recreation and tourism and pub- lic land management practices and policies. The purpose of the Institute is to provide: better data for the Legislature and state agencies in their deci- sion-making processes on issues relating to tourism and outdoor recreation; a base of information and expertise to assist community officials as they attempt to balance the economic, social, and environmen- tal tradeoffs in tourism development; and an interdisciplinary approach of research and study on outdoor recreation and tourism, a complex sector of the state’s economy. The Institute is composed of an interdisciplinary team of scientists with backgrounds in the economic, psychological, social, and spatial sciences. It is led by Dr. Jordan W. Smith (Director), Dr. Anna B. Miller (Assistant Director of Research and Operations), and Chase C. Lamborn (Assistant Director of Outreach and Education). The Institute delivers on its mission through a broad network of Faculty Fellows. Jordan W. Smith, Ph.D.1, is the Director of the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism and an As- sistant Professor in the Department of Environment and Society at Utah State University.
    [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]
  • Annual Report of Operations for Flaming Gorge Dam Water Year 2013
    Annual Report of Operations For Flaming Gorge Dam Water Year 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior January 2015 Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents Annual Report of Operations for Flaming Gorge Dam ............................................................ 1 Operational Decision Process for Water Year 2013 ................................................................. 2 Step 1: Flow Requests for Research, and Other Federal, State and Stakeholder Input ........ 2 Step 2: Development of Spring Proposal .............................................................................. 4 Step 3: Solicitation of Comments ........................................................................................ 4 Step 4: Final Decision .......................................................................................................... 4 Basin Hydrology and Operations .............................................................................................. 5 Progression of Inflow Forecasts............................................................................................ 5 Summary of Flaming Gorge Operations ............................................................................... 6 Spillway Inspection ............................................................................................................... 8 Flow Objectives Achieved in Water Year 2013 ....................................................................... 8 Spring Flow Objectives......................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Record of Decision Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement I. Summary of Action and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam. The EIS describes the potential effects of modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam to assist in the recovery of four endangered fish, and their critical habitat, downstream from the dam. The four endangered fish species are Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and bonytail (Gila elegans). Reclamation would implement the proposed action by modifying the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program). Reclamation’s goal is to implement the proposed action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project. The purpose of the proposed action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), including those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact. As the Federal agency responsible for the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, Reclamation was the lead agency in preparing the EIS. Eight cooperating agencies also participated in preparing this EIS: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Status of Humpback Chub, Gila Cypha, and Catch
    Population Status of Humpback Chub, Gila cypha, and Catch Indices and Population Structure of Sympatric Roundtail Chub, Gila robusta, in Black Rocks, Colorado River, Colorado, 1998- 2012 Picture 1. Humpback chub on grid board (2012). Photo credit: T. Francis, USFWS. Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Project Number 131 (22a3) Final Report April, 2016 Travis A. Francis U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado River Fishery Project 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 140 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 -and- Dr. Kevin R. Bestgen Dr. Gary C. White Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 i Suggested Citation: Francis, T.A., K.R. Bestgen, and G.C. White. 2016. Population status of humpback chub, Gila cypha, and catch indices and population structure of sympatric roundtail chub, Gila robusta, in Black Rocks, Colorado River, Colorado, 1998-2012. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 199. Final Report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Project Number 131. Grand Junction, Colorado. ii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UCRC Annual Report for Water Year 2019
    SEVENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 2 UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South 400 East • Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • 801-531-1150 • www.ucrcommission.com June 1, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Biden: The Seventy-Second Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, as required by Article VIII(d)(13) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 (“Compact”), is enclosed. The report also has been transmitted to the Governors of each state signatory to the Compact, which include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Arizona. The budget of the Commission for Fiscal Year 2021 (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021) is included in this report as Appendix B. Respectfully yours, Amy I. Haas Executive Director and Secretary Enclosure 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................. 8 COMMISSIONERS .................................................................................... 9 ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS ........................................................... 10 OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION ....................................................... 10 COMMISSION STAFF ............................................................................. 10 COMMITTEES ......................................................................................... 11 LEGAL COMMITTEE ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau
    I NVENTORY & M ONITORING N ETWORK Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau Dustin Perkins1, Mike Scott2, Greg Auble2, Mark Wondzell3, Chris Holmquist-Johnson2, Eric Wahlig2, Helen Thomas1, and Aneth Wight1; 1Northern Colorado Plateau Network, P.O. Box 848, Bldg. 11, Arches National Park, Moab, UT 84532 2U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, FORT Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave., Building C, Fort Collins, CO 80526; 3National Park Service, Water Resources Division, 1201 Oakridge Dr., Ste. 150, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Introduction and Green rivers in Canyonlands National Park. The Yampa River is the longest relatively free-flowing river Water has always been in short supply in the western reach remaining in the Colorado River basin. The U.S., making it a consistent source of conflict. In Green River is highly regulated by Flaming Gorge Dam the Colorado River drainage, an increasing human but is partially restored below its confluence with the population fuels increased demands for water from Yampa River. There have been large-scale changes the river and its tributaries. As a result, streamflow to the Green River since Flaming Gorge Dam was in virtually all of these systems has been altered by completed in 1962. reservoirs and other water-development projects. In most cases, reduced flows have significantly altered Monitoring of these rivers and their riparian peak flows and increased base flows that structure vegetation focuses on processes that affect the river floodplain vegetation, stream-channel morphology, channel, active bars, and riparian floodplains. To get and water quality (e.g., temperature, suspended a complete picture of river conditions, the NCPN sediment, nutrients).
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders
    The Bottom Line: The Impact of the Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders By Leslie James he Endangered Species Act (ESA) is arguably the most powerful environmental law ever enacted. Since its passage in 1973, it has had far-reaching Timpacts on power production from federally owned multiple-purpose projects, such as the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). Operational changes resulting from efforts to address ESA issues impact not only power production but repayment of the federal investment in the project. While differing approaches and programs have been established in an attempt to address ESA issues at Glen Canyon Dam, operations have proved to be significant and costly. Background: Colorado River Storage Project In 1956, Congress passed the Colorado River Storage Glen Canyon Dam. Project Act to provide storage facilities for the Upper Basin states so that they could meet Colorado River Compact needs. Operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the CRSP of total CRSP generation. Flaming Gorge Dam is on the consists of multipurpose dams that release water to meet Green River, a major tributary of the Colorado River, and Colorado River Compact, municipal and industrial (M&I), has three units producing about 132 MW of generation. and irrigation requirements. As the water is released, electric power and energy are produced to help pay for ESA Impacts on Glen Canyon Dam Operations the projects. The Western Area Power Administration The Glen Canyon Dam power plant generates power (WAPA) markets and transmits that electricity to for municipal, industrial, irrigation pumping, and other preference power entities pursuant to federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Itinerary: the Yampa River: 5 Days/4 Nights
    Itinerary: PO Box 1324 Moab, UT 84532 (800) 332-2439 The Yampa River: (435) 259-8229 Fax (435) 259-2226 Email: [email protected] 5 Days/4 Nights www.GriffithExp.com T h r o u g h Dinosaur National Monument O v e r v i e w of The Yampa River Meeting Place Best Western Antlers 423 West Main Street Vernal, UT 84078 Meeting Time : 6 : 3 0 pm (MDT) The evening before your trip Orientation: 6 : 3 0 pm (MDT) the day BEFORE d e p a r t u r e H e r e you will learn what to expect and prepare for, receive your dry bags, sign Assumption of Risk forms, and get a chance to ask last minute q u e s t i o n s . Morning Place : Best Western Antlers 423 West Main Street Vernal, UT 84078 M o r n i n g T i m e : 7 : 0 0 a m (MDT) Return Time : Approximately 5 : 0 0 - 6 : 0 0 P M Rapid Rating: C l a s s I I I - I V (water level dependent) # of Rapids : 16 River Miles: 72 P u t i n : Deer Lodge Park Ranger Station T a k e - out : Split Mountain boat ramp Trip Length: 5 D a y s / 4 N i g h t s Raft Type(s): O a r b o a t s , Paddleboats and Inflatable Kayaks Age Limit: Minimum Age is 10 y e a r s o l d What makes this trip special? The Yampa River through the Dinosaur National Monument has it all! As the last free-flowing river in the entire Colorado River drainage, the Yampa is incredibly wild in May and June.
    [Show full text]
  • Razorback Suckers Are Making a Comeback in the Upper Colorado River Basin
    Winter 13 Razorback suckers are making a comeback in the upper Colorado River basin iologists are thrilled that the recovery programs’ stocking Hatchery programs have been very successful. In the upper efforts are bearing fruit and razorback suckers are becom- basin, razorback suckers are being raised by the Ouray National Bing more numerous throughout the upper Colorado River Fish Hatchery, Randlett and Grand Valley units near Vernal, Utah basin. “We catch so many razorbacks these days; it takes us lon- and Grand Junction, Colorado. Following analysis of razorback ger to complete our Colorado pikeminnow sampling trips,” says sucker stocking and survival by Colorado State University’s Larval U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) researcher Travis Francis. Fish Lab, the Recovery Program increased the size of razorback Historically, the razorback sucker occurred throughout warm- sucker for stocking from an average of about 11 inches to about 14 water reaches of the Colorado River Basin from Mexico to Wyoming. PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY UDWR-MOAB inches and is stocking the fish in the fall when fish survive better. When this species was listed in 1991, its numbers were much reduced To increase growth, the Program raises the fish in a combination and biologists were worried it might become extinct. Thanks to of outdoor ponds during warmer months and indoor tanks in the the efforts of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation winter. Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery This past summer, many wild-spawned razorback larvae drift- Program, these fish are making a real comeback today. Hatchery- ed from a middle Green River spawning bar into the Stewart Lake produced fish are being stocked to re-establish the species in the JUVENILE RAZORBACK SUCKER, MAY, 2013 wetland about 11 miles downstream.
    [Show full text]