DOCSLIB.ORG

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Natural Resource Condition Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Natural Resource Condition Assessment National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/BICA/NRR—2012/554 ON THE COVER Reflections on Bighorn Lake Photograph by: Henthorne, NPS Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/BICA/NRR—2012/554 M. R. Komp1 A. J. Nadeau1 E. Iverson1 L. Danzinger1 S. Amberg1 K. Kilkus1 J. Sopcak1 C. Jean2 M. Myers3 B. Drazkowski1 1GeoSpatial Services Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota 700 Terrace Heights, Box #7 Winona, Minnesota 55987 2National Park Service - Greater Yellowstone Network 2327 University Way, Suite 2 Bozeman, MT 59715 3National Park Service - Intermountain Region Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Colorado State University July 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from the Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Network and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). Please cite this publication as: Komp, M. R., A. J. Nadeau, E. Iverson, L. Danzinger, S. Amberg, K. Kilkus, J. Sopcak, C. Jean, M. Myers, and B. Drazkowski. 2012. Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area: Natural Resource Condition Assessment. Natural Resource Report NPS/BICA/NRR—2012/554. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 617/115821, July 2012 ii Contents Page Figures............................................................................................................................................. v Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xix Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... xvii Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... xix Chapter 1 NRCA Background Information .................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Introduction and Resource Setting ................................................................................. 5 2.1 Park History and Enabling Legislation .............................................................................. 5 2.2 Park Significance ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Geographic Setting, Climate and Biota ............................................................................. 6 2.4 Resource Stewardship ...................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Status of Supporting Science ........................................................................................... 15 Chapter 3 Study Scoping and Design ........................................................................................... 27 3.1 Preliminary scoping ......................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Study Design .................................................................................................................... 28 3.3 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 36 Chapter 4 Natural Resource Conditions ....................................................................................... 37 4.1 Cottonwood-dominated Woodlands ................................................................................ 38 4.2 Cushion Plant Community ............................................................................................... 45 4.3 Sagebrush Steppe Community ......................................................................................... 53 4.4 Juniper, Pine, Mountain Mahogany Community ............................................................. 61 4.5 Bighorn Sheep ................................................................................................................. 74 iii Contents (continued) Page 4.6 Wild Horses ..................................................................................................................... 90 4.7 Bats ................................................................................................................................ 105 4.8 Game Birds .................................................................................................................... 112 4.9 Land Birds ..................................................................................................................... 129 4.10 Peregrine Falcon .......................................................................................................... 146 4.11 Bighorn Lake Species .................................................................................................. 157 4.12 Tailwater Trout Fishery ............................................................................................... 163 4.13 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 173 4.14 Viewscape .................................................................................................................... 195 4.15 Seeps and Springs ........................................................................................................ 211 4.16 Erosion ......................................................................................................................... 222 4.17 Visitor Experience as Affected by Surface Water Hydrology ..................................... 233 Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 243 5.1 Component Data Gaps ................................................................................................... 243 5.2 Component Condition Designations .............................................................................. 244 5.3 Park-wide Condition Observations ................................................................................ 246 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 249 iv Figures Page Figure 1. Symbols used for individual component assessments with condition or concern designations ..................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2. Non-native plant composition of areas mapped as gross areas ..................................... 40 Figure 3. Average percent bare ground cover from Tercek (2012) for all sample frames in BICA ............................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 4. Average percent cryptobiotic/lichen/fungi cover from Tercek (2012) for all sample frames in BICA ................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 5. Percentage of plots occupied by cheatgrass and halogeton in the Tercek (2012) study .................................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 6. BICA bighorn sheep estimated population size, 1985-2003 ......................................... 77 Figure 7. 1992-1994 monthly precipitation totals compared to mean precipitation ..................... 83 Figure 8. Pryor Mountain wild horse population, 1971-2009 .....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Lake Long Term Issues
    RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake Long Term Issues Group Boysen Buffalo Bill Bull Lake YELLOWTAIL DAM, BIGHORN LAKE and AFTERBAY Yellowtail Afterbay Dam Substation Visitor Center Yellowtail Dam YELLOWTAIL DAM, BIGHORN LAKE AND AFTERBAY Yellowtail Unit • Authorization: Flood Control Act of Dec. 22, 1944 (ch.665 Stat. 887) Senate Document 191—USACE/Reclamation plan for Missouri River Basin Development • Project Purposes – Flood Control – Hydropower – Irrigation – Recreation – Fish & Wildlife – Sediment storage Yellowtail Unit Project Purposes- Flood Control (Exclusive flood storage = 259K af), Coordinated with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Authorization: Public Law 89-664, October 15, 1966 Purpose “In order to provide for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the proposed Yellowtail Reservoir and lands adjacent thereto in the States of Wyoming and Montana by the people of the United States….” BIGHORN RESERVOIR ALLOCATIONS Dam Crest Maximum Water Surface or Top of Surcharge Elev. 3660.00 (1,381,189 Acre-Feet) Elev. 3660.0 SURCHARGE - 52,829 Acre-Feet Top of Exclusive Flood Elev. 3657.00 (1,328,360 AF) EXCLUSIVE FLOOD CONTROL - 258,331 Acre-Feet Top of Joint Use Elev. 3640.00 (1,070,029 Acre-Feet) JOINT USE - 240,342 Acre-Feet Top of Active Conservation Elev. 3614.00 (829,687 Acre-Feet) Spillway crest Elev. 3593.00 ACTIVE CONSERVATION - 336,103 Acre-Feet FISH WILDLIFE RECREATION AGRICULTURE POWER MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL Top of Inactive Elev. 3547.00 (493,584 Acre-Feet) Powerplant Penstock Elev. 3450.00 INACTIVE CONSERVATION - 477,576 Acre-Feet Irrigation Outlet Elev. 3400.00 River Outlet Elev.
    [Show full text]
  • 155891 WPO 43.2 Inside WSUP C.Indd
    MAY 2017 VOL 43 NO 2 LEWIS AND CLARK TRAIL HERITAGE FOUNDATION • Black Sands and White Earth • Baleen, Blubber & Train Oil from Sacagawea’s “monstrous fish” • Reviews, News, and more the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade Journal VOLUME 11 - 2017 The Henry & Ashley Fur Company Keelboat Enterprize by Clay J. Landry and Jim Hardee Navigation of the dangerous and unpredictable Missouri River claimed many lives and thousands of dollars in trade goods in the early 1800s, including the HAC’s Enterprize. Two well-known fur trade historians detail the keelboat’s misfortune, Ashley’s resourceful response, and a possible location of the wreck. More than Just a Rock: the Manufacture of Gunflints by Michael P. Schaubs For centuries, trappers and traders relied on dependable gunflints for defense, hunting, and commerce. This article describes the qualities of a superior gunflint and chronicles the evolution of a stone-age craft into an important industry. The Hudson’s Bay Company and the “Youtah” Country, 1825-41 by Dale Topham The vast reach of the Hudson’s Bay Company extended to the Ute Indian territory in the latter years of the Rocky Mountain rendezvous period, as pressure increased from The award-winning, peer-reviewed American trappers crossing the Continental Divide. Journal continues to bring fresh Traps: the Common Denominator perspectives by encouraging by James A. Hanson, PhD. research and debate about the The portable steel trap, an exponential improvement over snares, spears, nets, and earlier steel traps, revolutionized Rocky Mountain fur trade era. trapping in North America. Eminent scholar James A. Hanson tracks the evolution of the technology and its $25 each plus postage deployment by Euro-Americans and Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Quality, Performance, and Uncertainty in Taxonomic Identification for Biological Assessments
    J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2008, 27(4):906–919 Ó 2008 by The North American Benthological Society DOI: 10.1899/07-175.1 Published online: 28 October 2008 Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments 1 2 James B. Stribling AND Kristen L. Pavlik Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Susan M. Holdsworth3 Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mail Code 4503T, Washington, DC 20460 USA Erik W. Leppo4 Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Abstract. Taxonomic identifications are central to biological assessment; thus, documenting and reporting uncertainty associated with identifications is critical. The presumption that comparable results would be obtained, regardless of which or how many taxonomists were used to identify samples, lies at the core of any assessment. As part of a national survey of streams, 741 benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected throughout the eastern USA, subsampled in laboratories to ;500 organisms/sample, and sent to taxonomists for identification and enumeration. Primary identifications were done by 25 taxonomists in 8 laboratories. For each laboratory, ;10% of the samples were randomly selected for quality control (QC) reidentification and sent to an independent taxonomist in a separate laboratory (total n ¼ 74), and the 2 sets of results were compared directly. The results of the sample-based comparisons were summarized as % taxonomic disagreement (PTD) and % difference in enumeration (PDE). Across the set of QC samples, mean values of PTD and PDE were ;21 and 2.6%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Data Summary Report for Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Preliminary Analysis of 2011 and 2012 Data
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Water Quality Data Summary Report for Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Preliminary Analysis of 2011 and 2012 Data Natural Resource Data Series NPS/GRYN/NRDS—2013/482 ON THE COVER Field activities in Layout Creek, Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Photograph courtesy of NPS Water Quality Data Summary Report for Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Preliminary Analysis of 2011 and 2012 Data Natural Resource Data Series NPS/GRYN/NRDS—2013/482 Authors Andrew Ray Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Network National Park Service 2327 University Way, Suite 2 Bozeman, Montana 59715 Katie Kleehammer W. Adam Sigler Montana State University Water Quality Extension Land Resources and Environmental Sciences P.O. Box 173120 Bozeman, MT 59717-3120 Editor Nina Chambers Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative P.O. Box 2705 Jackson, WY 83001 May 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Level I History.Indd
    Crow Tipi Village A. Wolf Activity 2 History - The Power of a Story Trails Through the Years By Christy Fleming The Bad Pass Trail, marked by rock cairns, was still not an easy trip. It was a well known weaves its way along the rugged western edge fact by those that drove along the trail, that they of Bighorn Canyon, from the mouth of the Sho- should always carry a tire repair kit with them as shone River to the mouth of Grapevine Creek. they were almost guaranteed at least one fl at tire One may guess from its name that the Bad Pass along the way. trail was not an easy trail. It was better than the alternatives of crossing the mountains or the Today the park road follows closely the original dangers of possibly drowning in the untamed path of the Bad Pass, some times following over waters of the Bighorn River coursing through the the top of it. If this trail could talk it would have canyon. The Crow told stories of evil spirits that years of stories to share. The stories of adventure resided in the canyon, serving as an additional have now turned to stories of wildlife viewing deterrent to river travel. and recreation. As the years go by more stories will be added and others will study them. Who Native people walked and camped along this knows, maybe someday in the future, students trail for 10,000 to 12,000 years while traveling will be studying our impact on the Bad Pass Trail. to the buff alo plains.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008
    Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008. ISSN: 1809-127X NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Baetidae: Range extensions and new state records from Kansas, U.S.A. W. Patrick McCafferty 1 Luke M. Jacobus 2 1 Department of Entomology, Purdue University. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA. The mayfly (Ephemeroptera) fauna of the U.S.A. other central lowland prairie states as well state of Kansas is relatively poorly documented (McCafferty et al. 2001; 2003; Guenther and (McCafferty 2001). With respect to small minnow McCafferty 2005). Some additionally common mayflies (family Baetidae), only 16 species have species will be evident from the new data we been documented with published records from present herein. Kansas. Those involve Acentrella turbida (McDunnough, 1924); Acerpenna pygmaea Our examination of additional unidentified (Hagen, 1861); Apobaetis Etowah (Traver, 1935); material of Kansas Baetidae housed in the Snow A. lakota McCafferty, 2000; Baetis flavistriga Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, McDunnough, 1921; B. intercalaris McDunnough, Kansas, and collected mainly by the State 1921; Callibaetis fluctuans (Walsh, 1862); C. Biological Survey of Kansas, has led to the pictus Eaton, 1871; Centroptilum album discovery of 19 additional species of Baetidae in McDunnough, 1926; C. bifurcatum McDunnough, Kansas, resulting in a new total of 35 species of 1924; Fallceon quilleri (Dodds, 1923); Baetidae now known from the state. The records Paracloeodes minutus (Daggy, 1945); P. given alphabetically below also represent the first dardanum (McDunnough, 1923); P. ephippiatum Kansas records of the genera Camelobaetidius, (Traver, 1935); P.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Angiosperm Pollen. 7. Nitrogen-Fixing Clade1
    Evolution of Angiosperm Pollen. 7. Nitrogen-Fixing Clade1 Authors: Jiang, Wei, He, Hua-Jie, Lu, Lu, Burgess, Kevin S., Wang, Hong, et. al. Source: Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 104(2) : 171-229 Published By: Missouri Botanical Garden Press URL: https://doi.org/10.3417/2019337 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Annals-of-the-Missouri-Botanical-Garden on 01 Apr 2020 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Kunming Institute of Botany, CAS Volume 104 Annals Number 2 of the R 2019 Missouri Botanical Garden EVOLUTION OF ANGIOSPERM Wei Jiang,2,3,7 Hua-Jie He,4,7 Lu Lu,2,5 POLLEN. 7. NITROGEN-FIXING Kevin S. Burgess,6 Hong Wang,2* and 2,4 CLADE1 De-Zhu Li * ABSTRACT Nitrogen-fixing symbiosis in root nodules is known in only 10 families, which are distributed among a clade of four orders and delimited as the nitrogen-fixing clade.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan Benton Lake National Wildlife
    Glossary accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory and activities for people of different abilities, es- birds or other animals during the breeding sea- pecially those with physical impairments. son. A.D.—Anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord.” canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost adaptive resource management (ARM)—The rigorous layer, in a vegetative stand; mid-level or under- application of management, research, and moni- story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy toring to gain information and experience neces- closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the sary to assess and change management activities. amount of overhead vegetative cover. It is a process that uses feedback from research, CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. monitoring, and evaluation of management ac- CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. tions to support or change objectives and strate- CO2—Carbon dioxide. gies at all planning levels. It is also a process in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of which the Service carries out policy decisions the general and permanent rules published in the within a framework of scientifically driven ex- Federal Register by the Executive departments periments to test predictions and assumptions and agencies of the Federal Government. Each inherent in management plans. Analysis of re- volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar sults helps managers decide whether current year. management should continue as is or whether it compact—Montana House bill 717–Bill to Ratify should be modified to achieve desired conditions. Water Rights Compact. alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identi- compatibility determination—See compatible use.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents 2
    Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) List of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Taxa from California and Adjacent States including Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels 1 March 2011 Austin Brady Richards and D. Christopher Rogers Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Acknowledgments 5 2.0 Standard Taxonomic Effort 5 2.1 Rules for Developing a Standard Taxonomic Effort Document 5 2.2 Changes from the Previous Version 6 2.3 The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic List 6 3.0 Methods and Materials 7 3.1 Habitat information 7 3.2 Geographic Scope 7 3.3 Abbreviations used in the STE List 8 3.4 Life Stage Terminology 8 4.0 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 8 5.0 Literature Cited 9 Appendix I. The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic Effort List 10 Phylum Silicea 11 Phylum Cnidaria 12 Phylum Platyhelminthes 14 Phylum Nemertea 15 Phylum Nemata 16 Phylum Nematomorpha 17 Phylum Entoprocta 18 Phylum Ectoprocta 19 Phylum Mollusca 20 Phylum Annelida 32 Class Hirudinea Class Branchiobdella Class Polychaeta Class Oligochaeta Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Chelicerata, Subclass Acari 35 Subphylum Crustacea 47 Subphylum Hexapoda Class Collembola 69 Class Insecta Order Ephemeroptera 71 Order Odonata 95 Order Plecoptera 112 Order Hemiptera 126 Order Megaloptera 139 Order Neuroptera 141 Order Trichoptera 143 Order Lepidoptera 165 2 Order Coleoptera 167 Order Diptera 219 3 1.0 Introduction The Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) is charged through its charter to develop standardized levels for the taxonomic identification of aquatic macroinvertebrates in support of bioassessment. This document defines the standard levels of taxonomic effort (STE) for bioassessment data compatible with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioassessment protocols (Ode, 2007) or similar procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellowtail Dam and Reservoir Brochure
    River About Yellowtail Recreation Afterbay Yellowtail Dam and Afterbay Dam 313 Bighorn Bighorn Lake is 71 miles long and is a Yellowtail Dam & Visitor Center Reservoir Dam deep blue-water fishery created by Ok-A-Beh Type.............................................. Concrete arch Yellowtail Dam. Over 190 miles of Fort Smith (feet) Park Height above foundation ........................ 525 shoreline showcase colorful geology and HQ Crest length (feet)......................................... 1,480 an area rich in history and tradition. Much ake Crest width (feet)............................................... 22 of the reservoir’s length is within the L Crest elevation (feet).................................... 3,660 n Bighorn Canyon where wildlife is r o Base thickness at center (feet)............... about 145 h abundant and the scenery is spectacular. ig Volume (cubic yards)...............................1,546,000 B Spillway: A32 foot diameter tunnel The Afterbay Lake belowReservation the reservoir Boundary is in the left abutment controlled by a good spot for trout fishing. Flows in two radial gates 25 feet wide by Bighorn River below the Afterbay Dam 64.4 feet high. The spillway are clear and cold. This has allowed the capacity in cubic feet per river to become a world class trout fishing BIGHORN CANYON Crow second (cfs) at elevation 3,660.............. 92,000 area. NATIONAL River Outlet: Two 84 inch diameter is located on the RECREATION AREA Indian Yellowtail Dam conduits controlled by ring-follower The Bighorn Canyon National Bighorn River at the mouth of Bighorn gates with a capacity (in cfs) of................. 5,000 Recreation Area (NRA) Reservation Canyon about 43 air miles from Billings, Power outlets: Four 12 foot diameter surrounds the reservoir and Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera from the Middle-Upper Eocene European Ambers: Generic Composition, Zoogeography and Climatic Implications
    Zootaxa 4290 (3): 401–443 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2017 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4290.3.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CF4550B2-72EC-45C7-A156-542D76E28EB4 Coleoptera from the middle-upper Eocene European ambers: generic composition, zoogeography and climatic implications VITALII I. ALEKSEEV Department of Zootechny, Kaliningrad State Technical University, Sovetsky Avenue 1. 236000, Kaliningrad, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The paper contains a review of coleopteran genera known from Baltic, Bitterfeld and Rovno amber localities. Altogether 420 genera (191 extinct and 229 extant) from 78 families are listed from these three Lagerstätten (as of 7 March 2017). The listed beetles were analyzed zoogeographically and distributional maps for 72 genera were compiled. One-quarter (56) of the genera that have survived since the Eocene have cosmopolitan ranges at present; 35 extant genera have been extripated from the Palaearctic since the Eocene. Approximately 40% of beetle genera from the middle-upper Eocene Eu- ropean ambers can be encountered in the wild in present-day Europe, while 5 of these genera are supposed to be European relict endemics originating in Fennosarmatia. The general similarity of the Baltic amber (s.l.) beetle assemblage to modern south Palaearctic fauna is the strongest, the Nearctic elements are more numerous in the middle-upper Eocene European ambers than the Oriental taxa. The simplified Mutual Climatic Range (MCR) method was used for palaeoclimate recon- struction based on fossil beetles. The coleopteran assemblage of Baltic amber is interpreted as indicative of warm temper- ate, humid, equable climate with reduced thermal seasonality [annual average temperatures range from +10–20˚C; mean of the coldest month temperatures around +10˚C; mean of the hottest month temperature around +20–24˚C; annual pre- cipitation around 750–1500 mm].
    [Show full text]