THE SOUTHWESTERNNATURALIST 47(2):182-18647(2) :182-186 JuNEJUNE 2002

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF THE SUCKER IN THE CARSON AND SANTA FE NATIONAL FORESTS, NEW MEXICO

BOB CALAMUSSO,*JOHN N. RINNE, AND PAUL R. TURNER

United States Department of AgricultureForest Service, RockyMountain ResearchStation, The SouthwestForest Science Complex,Flagstaff, AZ 86701 (BC, JNR) Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences,New Mexico State University,Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003 (PRT) * Correspondent:[email protected]

ABSTRACT-Rio Grande sucker (Catostomusplebeius) was once common in the Rio Grande basin; however, its current status in New Mexico is unknown. We surveyed 20 streams for Rio Grande sucker in the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests in northern New Mexico. Rio Grande sucker were found in 3 streams on the Carson National Forest. In 2 of these streams Rio Grande sucker co-occurred with (Catostomuscommersoni). On the Santa Fe National Forest, Rio Grande sucker occupied 11 streams in the Jemez drainage and 2 streams in the Chama River drainage. Rio Grande sucker co-occurred with white sucker in 1 of the 2 streams draining into the Chama River drainage. The abundance of Rio Grande sucker was inverselyproportional to stream gradient.

RESUMEN-E1 matalote del Rio Grande (Catostomusplebeius) antes era muy comuin en la cuenca del Rio Grande. Sin embargo, su estado actual en Nuevo Mexico es desconocido. Se condujo una investigaci6n en 20 arroyos en los Bosques Nacionales de Carsony Santa Fe en el norte de Nuevo Mexico, buscando al matalote del Rio Grande. El matalote fue encontrado en 3 arroyos en el Bosque Nacional Carson.En 2 de estos arroyosel matalote del Rio Grande ocurri6 con el matalote blanco (Catostomuscommersoni). En el Bosque Nacional Santa Fe, el matalote del Rio Grande se encontr6 en 11 arroyos en la cuenca del Rio Jemez y 2 arroyos de la cuenca del Rio Chama. El matalote del Rio Grande convivio con el matalote blanco en 1 de los 2 arroyos que desembocan en la cuenca del Rio Chama. La abundancia del matalote del Rio Grande fue inversamentepro- porcional la pendiente del arroyo.

Rio Grande sucker, (Pantosteus) 1999). Rio Grande sucker also inhabit 6 river plebeius is an obligate riverine fish that favors basins draining 4 states of Mexico (Hendrick- low gradient (<3.5%), low velocity stream son et al., 1980; Abarca et al., 1995). reaches (Calamusso, 1996). Once common in Because of the apparent decline of the Rio the Rio Grande Basin of Colorado and New Grande sucker and its uncertain status, this Mexico (Koster, 1957; Sublette et al., 1990; study was initiated in 1992 to document cur- Langlois et al., 1994; Rinne, 1995), it currently rent distribution, status, and habitat use of the is listed as endangered in Colorado (Swift-Mill- in the Carson and Santa Fe National er et al., 1999a, 1999b) and appears to be de- Forests of north-central New Mexico. Our goal clining in the northern portions of its range in was to document the extent of decline of Rio New Mexico Calamusso (Calamusso, 1992; and Grande sucker populations in northern New Rinne, 1996). In New Mexico, its current dis- Mexico. tribution is reported as the Rio Grande above the 36th and its tributaries north of parallel MATERIALSAND METHODS-Study Area-The area is the 33rd et al., Rio parallel (Sublette 1990). generally mountainous with rivervalleys, mesas, and Grande suckers also occur in the Mimbres Riv- plateaus. Elevations range from 1,708 m in low-ele- er, and introduced populations are established vation grasslandsto 4,001 m at Wheeler Peak in the in the Rio Hondo (Pecos drainage), Gila River Carson National Forest. Mean annual water yield basin, and San Francisco drainage (Sublette et from the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests is al., 1990; Platania, 1991; Calamusso and Rinne, 425.3 hm3 and 458.7 hm3, respectively, and drains June 2002 Calamussoet al.-Rio Grande sucker in New Mexico 183 into the Canadian, Pecos, and Rio Grande ; the and 1 new population (Little Tusas) was found. latter receives the amount of this water largest yield. Previously documented populations of Rio There are 926 km of perennial streams in the Grande sucker in the Rio Grande del Rancho Carson National Forest and 994 km in the Santa Fe and El Rito creek (Sublette et al., 1990) National Forest. appear to have been Rio Grande North-central New Mexico has a variable climate extirpated. Many tributaries the Carson with cool summers and moderate winters. Mean dai- draining National Forest and lands exhibited habitat character- ly air temperature ranges from -31.7?C to 10.0?C in adjacent winter and from -1.1? to 35.0?C in summer. Mean istics that are considered suitable (gradient < annual precipitation in the study area varies from 3.0%, pools and glides; Calamusso, 1996) for 25.4 cm to 88.8 cm per year, with the greater amount Rio Grande sucker, but they did not contain falling at higher elevations. Rio Grande sucker. These tributaries are now Distribution-Delineation of the historic distribu- inhabited by nonnative white sucker, Catosto- tion of Rio Grande sucker began in 1992 with a re- mus commersoni.In the Santa Fe National For- view of museum and records, agency reports, pub- est, 11 populations were confirmed (Fig. 1) lished literature. Additional data were obtained from and 2 new (Rock Creek, Polvedera the New Mexico of Game and Fish and populations Department were documented. of streams of New Mexico Museum of Southwestern Creek) Surveys University that were determined to have suitable Rio Biology. These locations were subsequently plotted Grande sucker habitat in the Santa Fe National on United States Geological Survey 7.5-min quad- Forest revealed an abun- rangle maps and incorporated into a geographical (Jemez Drainage) information system. We surveyed historic watersheds dance of Rio Grande sucker. White sucker and watersheds that were likely to contain Rio were not found in any streams of the Jemez Grande sucker during the summers of 1992 through River drainage in the Santa Fe National Forest 1999. Fish were captured with a Smith-Root Model above an irrigation dam that is located below 12 backpack electrofisher using voltages ranging the confluence of the Jemez River and Rio from 300 to 400 volts with of 75 to 90 frequencies Guadalupe at the southern Forest Service sec. commenced at pulses per Electrofishing surveys boundary. In the Chama River drainage, Pol- the lower reaches of each stream and moved in an vedera Creek Rio Grande sucker, direction. supported upstream Surveys proceeded upstream whereas in Canones Creek Rio Grande sucker until Rio Grande sucker were no longer captured. co-existed with white sucker. Rio Grande suck- Denty-y-Density of Rio Grande sucker was esti- er were not collected in stream reaches mated from 36 study reaches (18-100 m in length) any in 6 streams during the summers of 1992, 1994, and sampled with gradients >3.2%. 1995. A multiple-pass depletion method using a Density-The Rio Tusas had the highest backpack electrofisher was used to sample fish (Zip- mean density of Rio Grande sucker (2,350 pin, 1958). Upper and lower limits of each study sec- fish/ha) followed by Rock Creek (2,150 fish/ tion were blocked with a 6-mm mesh seine to pre- ha), Little Tusas (2,000 fish/ha), Rio de las Va- vent fish from moving in or out of the section during cas (1,540 fish/ha), American Creek (1,280 All of fish collected were sampling. species recorded, fish/ha), and the Rio Vallecitos (871 fish/ha); measured to the nearest to the (TL) mm, weighed however, of variance indicated that nearest and released below the area. analysis g, sexed, study there was no difference in of variance (PROC ANOVA, SAS Institute significant density Analysis between or streams F= Inc., 1988) was used to determine differences in years among (ANOVA, P= 3 density between years within streams and among 0.169, 0.9, df). of Rio Grande sucker in streams. A Bonferroni Adjustment was used to judge Density study sec- significance for all possible pairwise comparisons tions varied from a high of 5,400 fish/ha in the among streams and to protect from type I error. To Rio Tusas in August 1994 to a low of 100 fish/ evaluate Rio Grande sucker abundance relative to ha in American Creek in June 1995. Stream stream gradient we used a simple linear regression reaches with densities of Rio Grande sucker model. All tests were conducted at the 0.05 signifi- -2,000/ha or greater had a mean gradient of cance level. 0.8%, whereas sections with densities <1,000/ ha had a mean gradient of 1.8%. Regression RESULTS-Distribution-Sixteen streams con- models indicate that abundance of Rio Grande tained Rio Grande sucker in the study area suckers was positively correlated with decreas- (Fig. 1). In the Carson National Forest, 2 pop- ing gradient (R2 = 0.29, P < 0.01; model: y = ulations of Rio Grande sucker were confirmed -0.073x + 0.238). 184 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 47, no. 2

- Carson National Forest (\ I-

11

10

SantaF National Forest

Sante Fe

Albuquerque

N Distribution of Rio Grande Sucker Current w E / /\ Historic / Extirpated ? S \/ Extirpated

FIG. 1-Historic (documented) and current distribution of Rio Grande sucker in the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests, New Mexico. Streams are: 1) Rio Costilla, 2) Little Tusas Creek, 3) Rio Tusas, 4) Rio Vallecitos, 5) Canjillon Creek, 6) El Rito Creek, 7) Rio Grande del Rancho, 8) Canones Creek, 9) Polvedera Creek, 10) Clear Creek, 11) Rio De Las Vacas, 12) Palomas Creek, 13) American Creek, 14) Rock Creek, 15) Rito Cafe, 16) Rio Cebolla, 17) San Antonio Creek, 18) Rio Guadalupe, 19) Jemez River, 20) East Fork, Jemez River.

DISCUSSION-Distribution-Once widely dis- ing in the study area, especially in the Carson tributed and abundant throughout the upper National Forest, on lands adjacent to the Rio Grande of Colorado and New Mexico, the Carson National Forest, and in tributaries in Rio Grande sucker was the only catostomid en- the Santa Fe National Forest draining into the demic to this drainage (Koster, 1957; Sublette Chama River (Calamusso, 1992; Calamusso et al., 1990; Langlois et al., 1994). It is reason- and Rinne, 1996; Calamusso and Rinne, 1999). able to assume that Rio Grande suckers once We hypothesize that the decline in range occupied all low gradient (<3.2%), middle-el- and numbers of the Rio Grande sucker is re- evation tributaries to the Rio Grande in Colo- lated to introduction and range expansion of rado and New Mexico north of the 33rd par- nonnative fishes, especially white sucker, into allel. In New Mexico, the species appears to be the Rio Grande drainage. In all streams where declining across its range (Propst, 1999; B. Cal- Rio Grande sucker have been extirpated or are amusso, pers. obser.) and definitely is declin- declining, white sucker are now present. A re- June 2002 Calamussoet al.-Rio Grande sucker in New Mexico 185 view of historic records for the Carson Nation- abundance for salmonids in general. Recovery al Forest indicates that Rio Grande sucker were efforts directed at this species should consider once present in the Rio Tusas, Rio Vallecitos, the effect of nonnative species and stream gra- Rio Grande del Rancho, Rio Costilla, and El dient on the persistence and abundance of Rio Rito Creek, however, our surveys from 1992 to Grande sucker when considering reintroduc- 1999 found Rio Grande sucker in only 2 of tion sites. these streams (Rio Tusas, Rio Vallecitos; Fig. This was the 1). Currently, Rio Grande sucker is the only study accomplished through financial of catostomid that inhabits the Little Tusas, support the United States Department of Agri- culture whereas white sucker co-occur with Rio Rocky Mountain Research Station Middle Rio Grande New Grande sucker in the Rio Vallecitos and Rio EcosystemProgram (Albuquerque, Mexico) under the direction of D. Finch and by Re- Tusas. In the Rio Costilla, Rio Grande del Ran- gion 3 of the United States Forest Service. We ac- and El Rito Rio Grande sucker cho, Creek, ap- knowledge the assistanceof R. N. Schmal andJ. Coo- pears to have been replaced by white sucker. per for funds from Region 3. M. Knapp, D. Storch, Historically, Rio Grande sucker probably oc- H. Medina, L. Suazzo, F. Cortez of the Carson Na- cupied Canjillon Creek, a tributary to the Cha- tional Forest and S. Swift-Millerof the Rio Grande ma River that lies west of El Rito Creek (Fig. National Forest assistedwith field work and provided technical thanks 1), but they were not found during our sur- support. Many to M. Hatch and D. of the New Mexico of Game and veys. White sucker now inhabit Canjillon Propst Department Fish for providing information on Rio Grande suck- Creek. The Rio Fernando de Taos, a tributary er in New Mexico and helping define study objec- to the Rio Grande, and adjacent to the Carson tives. K. Young provided technical support for map National Forest, is within the historic of range production and reviewedthe manuscript.R. Deitner the Rio Grande sucker. The lower reaches of provided statisticaladvice. this stream had habitat characteristics suitable for the native sucker (gradient 1%, numerous LITERATURECITED pools and glides), however no Rio Grande suckers were found. White sucker are now ABARCA,F. J., K. L. YOUNG, I. PARRA,R. H. BETrASO, AND K. COBBLE.1995. River fishes abundant in the low reaches Yaqui relevant gradient (<2%) to the Madrean Province: U.S.-Mexico collabo- of this stream. In the Santa Fe National Forest, rations. In: Debano, L. F., et al., technical coor- Rio Grande sucker inhabit Polvedera Creek dinators. Biodiversity and management of the and co-occur with white sucker in Canones Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of south- Creek. Streams of the Carson and the Santa Fe western United States and northwesternMexico. National Forests that drain into the Chama Riv- United States Department of Agriculture,Forest er have no known permanent barriers to col- Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Ex- onization by white sucker. periment Station. General Technical Report RM- In contrast, Rio Grande suckers were the GTR-264. catostomid found in streams in the Santa BEHNKE, R. J. 1992. Native of western North only America. American Fisheries Fe National Forest, River Society Monograph Jemez drainage. 6:1-275. Streams in the of the Santa Fe Jemez drainage CALAMUSSO,B. 1992. Current distribution of Catos- National Forest do not contain white sucker tomus plebeius and Gila pandora on the Carson Na- due to a barrier to movement upstream creat- tional Forest, New Mexico with preliminarycom- ed by an irrigation dam on the Jemez River ment on habitat preferences. Proceedings of the (Fig. 1). Additional research is warranted to Desert Fishes Council 24:63-64. determine mechanisms by which white sucker CALAMUSSO,B. 1996. Distribution, abundance, and and other nonnative species limit abundance habitat of Rio Grande sucker (Catostomusplebeius) and distribution of Rio Grande sucker in New in the Carsonand Santa Fe National Forests,New Mexico and Colorado. Mexico. Unpublished M.S. thesis, New Mexico State University,Las Cruces. Our results suggest a strong correlation be- CALAMUSSO,B., AND N. RINNE. 1996. Distribution tween and J. decreasing gradient increasing of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout and its co-oc- abundance of Rio Grande sucker. McPhee currence with the Rio Grande sucker and Rio (1963) noted this relation for trout and scul- Grande chub on the Carson and Santa Fe Na- pins in Idaho, and Behnke (1992) noted an tional Forests. In: Shaw,D. W., and D. M. Finch, inverse relationship between gradient and technical coordinators.Desired future conditions 186 TheSouthwestern Naturalist vol. 47, no. 2

for southwestern riparian ecosystems: bringing nary comments on their longitudinal distribu- interests and concerns together. United States tion. Southwestern Naturalist 36:186-193. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky PROPST, D. L. 1999. Threatened and endangered Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. fishes of New Mexico. Technical Report No. 1. General Technical Report RM-GTR-272. Pp. 157- New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, San- 167 ta Fe, New Mexico. CALAMUSSO,B. AND J. N. RINNE. 1999. Native mon- RINNE, J. N. 1995. Reproductive biology of the Rio tane fishes of the Middle Rio Grande Ecosystem: Grande sucker, Catostomus plebeius, (Cyprinifor- status, threats, and conservation. In: Finch, D. M., mes) in a montane stream, New Mexico. South- et al., technical coordinators. Rio Grande Ecosys- western Naturalist 40:237-241. tems: linking land, water, and people. Toward a SAS INSTITUTEINC. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. sustainable future for the Middle Rio Grande Ba- Release 6.03. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Car- sin. United States Department of Agriculture, olina. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Sta- SUBLETTE, J. E., M. D. HATCH, AND M. SUBLETTE. tion. Proceedings RMRS-P-7. Pp. 231-237. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of HENDRICKSON,D. A., W. C. MINCKLEY,R. R. MILLER, New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. D. J. SIEBERT,AND P. H. MINCKLEY.1980. Fishes of SWIFT-MILLER,S. M., B. M. JOHNSON,R. T. MUTH,AND the Rio Yaqui Basin, Mexico and the United D. LANGLOIS.1999a. Distribution, abundance, States. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy and habitat use of Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus of Science 15(3):65-106. plebeius) in Hot Creek, Colorado. Southwestern KOSTER,W.J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mex- Naturalist 44:42-48. ico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquer- SWIFT-MILLER,S. M., B. M.JOHNSON, AND R. T. MUTH. que. 1999b. Factors affecting the diet and abundance LANGLOIS, D., J. ALVES,AND J. APKER. 1994. Rio of northern populations of the Rio Grande suck- Grande sucker recovery plan. Colorado Division er (Catostomus plebeius). Southwestern Naturalist of Wildlife, Montrose, Colorado. 44:148-156. MACPHEE,C. 1966. Influence of differential angling ZIPPIN, C. 1958. The removal method of population mortality and stream gradient on fish abundance estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management 22: in a trout-sculpin biotope. Transactions of the 82-90. American Fisheries Society 95:381-387. PLATANIA,S. P. 1991. Fishes of the Rio Chama and Submitted8June 2000. Accepted6 March 2001. upper Rio Grande, New Mexico, with prelimi- AssociateEditor was Paul R. Krausman.