DOCSLIB.ORG

Yampa River Nonnative Fish Control Strategy (YAR Strategy; Valdez Et Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yampa River Nonnative Fish Control Strategy (YAR Strategy; Valdez Et Al Upper Colorado River Basin Nonnative and Invasive Aquatic Species Prevention and Control Strategy Nonnative Fish ad hoc Committee: Patrick Martinez, Krissy Wilson, Pete Cavalli, Harry Crockett, Dave Speas, Melissa Trammell, Brandon Albrecht, and Dale Ryden Smallmouth bass predation on endangered bonytail Northern pike predation on native roundtail chub February 2014 i Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................v Agency abbreviations used in Tables ES-1a through ES-8a. .......................................... viii Table ES-1a. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section I: Prevention. ......................................................................................................... ix Table ES-1b. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section I: Prevention (continued). .......................................................................................x Table ES-1c. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section I: Prevention (continued). ..................................................................................... xi Table ES-1d. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section II: Eradication, Control, and Management. ......................................................... xii Table ES-1e. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section II: Eradication, Control, and Management (continued). ..................................... xiii Table ES-1f. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section II: Eradication, Control, and Management (continued). ..................................... xiv Table ES-1g. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section II: Eradication, Control, and Management (continued). .......................................xv Table ES-1h. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section II: Eradication, Control, and Management (continued). .................................... xvi Table ES-1i. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section III: Research and Monitoring. ............................................................................ xvii Table ES-1j. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section III: Research and Monitoring (continued). ....................................................... xviii Table ES-1k. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section III: Research and Monitoring (continued). ......................................................... xix Table ES-1l. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section III: Research and Monitoring (continued). ...........................................................xx Table ES-1m. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section IV: Policy and Enforcement. ............................................................................... xxi Table ES-1n. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section IV: Policy and Enforcement (continued). .......................................................... xxii Table ES-1o. General Recovery Program Support Action Plan. Section V: Information and Education ......................................................................... xxiii Table ES-2a. Green River Mainstem Action Plan ....................................................... xxiv Table ES-2b. Green River Mainstem Action Plan (continued) .....................................xxv Table ES-3a. Yampa and Little Snake Rivers Action Plan ......................................... xxvi Table ES-3b. Yampa and Little Snake Rivers Action Plan (continued) ..................... xxvii Table ES-3c. Yampa and Little Snake Rivers Action Plan (continued) .................... xxviii Table ES-4a. Duchesne River Action Plan .................................................................. xxix Table ES-5a. White River Action Plan ..........................................................................xxx Table ES-6a. Colorado River Mainstem Action Plan .................................................. xxxi Table ES-6b. Colorado River Mainstem Action Plan (continued) ............................. xxxii ii Table ES-6c. Colorado River Mainstem Action Plan (continued)............................. xxxiii Table ES-7a. Gunnison River Mainstem Action Plan ............................................... xxxiv Table ES-8a. Dolores River Action Plan .....................................................................xxxv Purpose .................................................................................................................................1 Strategic Plan Need and Justification ..................................................................................1 Supporting Documents.........................................................................................................4 Evolution of the Basinwide Strategy ...................................................................................6 Goal and Objectives .............................................................................................................7 Implementation and Coordination .......................................................................................8 Management Strategy and Actions ......................................................................................9 I. Prevention .......................................................................................................................11 Stocking Procedures ...................................................................................................11 List for acceptable (Compatible) nonnative aquatic species 12 Non-compatible List for invasive aquatic species ......................................................13 Rapid response to new invaders or invasive species in new locations .......................14 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) .............................................14 II. Eradication, Control, and Management .........................................................................15 Integrated Pest Management ......................................................................................15 Electrofishing ..............................................................................................................16 Pesticides ....................................................................................................................17 Nets .............................................................................................................................18 Escapement screens ....................................................................................................18 Exclusion barriers ......................................................................................................21 Downstream buffers ....................................................................................................21 Mandatory harvest and monetary incentives ..............................................................23 III. Research and Monitoring .............................................................................................24 Propagule pressure .....................................................................................................24 Population modeling ...................................................................................................25 Sources of nonnative fishes .........................................................................................26 Streamflow trend and reservoir release effects on nonnative fishes ..........................27 Potential effects of climate change .............................................................................28 Electrofishing evaluation ............................................................................................30 Hybridization with nonnative fishes ...........................................................................30 Population and food web impacts to native aquatic communities .............................31 Emerging techniques ..................................................................................................32 Genetic biocontrol ...............................................................................................32 iii Non-physical, stimulus barrier screens ................................................................33 Physical techniques .............................................................................................33 Chemicals ............................................................................................................34 Invertebrate control .............................................................................................34 Biocontrol ............................................................................................................35 Environmental DNA (eDNA) ..............................................................................35 IV. Policy and Enforcement ...............................................................................................35 Cross-jurisdictional Coordination ..............................................................................36 Illegal introductions ....................................................................................................37 Illegal introductions: Water quality model for nonnative/invasive species ...............38 Native Fish Conservation Areas .................................................................................39 V. Information
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Roundtail Chub
    Roundtail Chub - Gila robusta Abundance: Rare Status: NSS1 (Aa) NatureServe: G3 S3 Population Status: Greatly restricted in numbers and distribution and extirpation is possible. Limiting Factor: The biggest limiting factor for roundtail chub is invasive species. This threat has significant impacts through competition and predation. The threat of invasive species is growing with introductions of new species and the expansion of existing species. This is particularly true of predatory fish. Population of roundtails in Wyoming are imperiled due to limited distribution and declines in numbers. Comment: NSS Ranks are reviewed and revised with each SWAP revision. No changes were made for this species in this revision. Introduction Roundtail chub, along with flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis, and bluehead sucker C. discobolus are all relatively large-bodied species native to the Colorado River drainage. These three imperiled fish are collectively called “the three species” and their conservation has been a cooperative effort spanning state lines (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2006, updated in 2011). Once common throughout the drainage, roundtail chub currently occupy approximately 45% of their historic range in the Colorado River Basin (Baxter and Stone 1995; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002). They still occur in relatively low numbers throughout the Green River drainage of Wyoming, with lentic populations in the Finger Lakes of the New Fork Drainage (Baxter and Stone 1995; Gelwicks et al. 2009). Roundtail chubs are omnivorous. Larvae feed on diatoms and filamentous algae (Neve 1967). Juveniles feed on aquatic insects, crustaceans, and algae. (Bestgen 1985). Adults consume these food items as well as terrestrial gastropods, insects, and reptiles (Rinne 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Eocene–Early Miocene Paleotopography of the Sierra Nevada–Great Basin–Nevadaplano Based on Widespread Ash-Flow Tuffs and P
    Origin and Evolution of the Sierra Nevada and Walker Lane themed issue Eocene–Early Miocene paleotopography of the Sierra Nevada–Great Basin–Nevadaplano based on widespread ash-fl ow tuffs and paleovalleys Christopher D. Henry1, Nicholas H. Hinz1, James E. Faulds1, Joseph P. Colgan2, David A. John2, Elwood R. Brooks3, Elizabeth J. Cassel4, Larry J. Garside1, David A. Davis1, and Steven B. Castor1 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA 3California State University, Hayward, California 94542, USA 4Department of Earth and Environment, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604, USA ABSTRACT the great volume of erupted tuff and its erup- eruption fl owed similar distances as the mid- tion after ~3 Ma of nearly continuous, major Cenozoic tuffs at average gradients of ~2.5–8 The distribution of Cenozoic ash-fl ow tuffs pyroclastic eruptions near its caldera that m/km. Extrapolated 200–300 km (pre-exten- in the Great Basin and the Sierra Nevada of probably fi lled in nearby topography. sion) from the Pacifi c Ocean to the central eastern California (United States) demon- Distribution of the tuff of Campbell Creek Nevada caldera belt, the lower gradient strates that the region, commonly referred and other ash-fl ow tuffs and continuity of would require elevations of only 0.5 km for to as the Nevadaplano, was an erosional paleovalleys demonstrates that (1) the Basin valley fl oors and 1.5 km for interfl uves. The highland that was drained by major west- and Range–Sierra Nevada structural and great eastward, upvalley fl ow is consistent and east-trending rivers, with a north-south topographic boundary did not exist before with recent stable isotope data that indicate paleodivide through eastern Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 Through April 2022
    Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 through April 2022 Concurrence by Kathleen Callister, Resources Management Division Manager Kent Kofford, Provo Area Office Manager Nicholas Williams, Upper Colorado Basin Power Manager Approved by Wayne Pullan, Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation • Interior Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin • Power Office Salt Lake City, Utah May 2021 Purpose This Flaming Gorge Operation Plan (FG-Ops) fulfills the 2006 Flaming Gorge Record of Decision (ROD) requirement for May 2021 through April 2022. The FG-Ops also completes the 4-step process outlined in the Flaming Gorge Standard Operation Procedures. The Upper Colorado Basin Power Office (UCPO) operators will fulfil the operation plan and may alter from FG-Ops due to day to day conditions, although we will attempt to stay within the boundaries of the operations defined below. Listed below are proposed operation plans for four different scenarios: moderately dry, average (above median), average (below median), and moderately wet. As of the publishing of this document, the most likely scenario is the moderately dry, however actual operations will vary with hydrologic conditions. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program), the Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group (FGTWG), Flaming Gorge Working Group (FG WG), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) provided input that was considered in the development of this report. The FG-Ops describes the current hydrologic classification of the Green River Basin and the hydrologic conditions in the Yampa River Basin. The FG-Ops identifies the most likely Reach 2 peak flow magnitude and duration that is to be targeted for the upcoming spring flows.
    [Show full text]