FISHES OF EAGLE CREEK, ARIZONA, WITH RECORDS FOR THREATENED SPIKEDACE AND LOACH MINNOW (CYPRINIDAE)

PAUL C. MARSH,1 JAMES E. BROOKS,2 DEAN A. HENDRICKSON,3 and W.L. MINCKLEY4 lArizona State University Center for Environmental Studies Tempe, AZ 85287-1201 2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish Hatchery Dexter, NM 88230 3Arizona Game and Fish Department Nongame Branch Phoenix, AZ 85023 4 Arizona State University Department of Zoology Tempe, AZ 85287-1501

ABSTRACT The known ichthyofauna of Eagle Creek, Arizona, comprises 9 native and 11 non-native species. Reported here are records of native spikedace, Meda fulgida, and loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, the former encountered first in 1985, and the latter known only from a single collection in 1950 and not collected since. Evidence of impacts of alien fishes on the original Eagle Creek fauna is implied by their relative diversities and abundance above and below an artificial barrier. During intensive study in 1987, natives were abundant upstream where non-native fishes were scarce, while downstream reaches occupied by substantial numbers of exotics contained few indigenous fish. A native headwater-dwelling trout (Oncorhynchus sp.) may now be replaced by introduced rainbows (0. mykiss).

INTRODUCTION A survey of selected streams in May 1985 to ascer- tain status of spikedace and loach minnow included Most indigenous fishes of the Colorado River basin Eagle Creek, Arizona, one of only a few habitats that in western North America will soon face extinction if continues to support a large proportion of its original current trends of depletion are not reversed (Deacon fish fauna. In 1950, Robert R. Miller, University of et al. 1979; Williams et al. 1985, 1989; Johnson 1987). Michigan Museum of Zoology, collected fishes, includ- Two such species are spikedace (Meda fulgida) and ing loach minnow, from Eagle Creek (heretofore an loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), each representing a unpublished record, UMMZ 162744). He failed to monotypic genus endemic to middle-elevation, lotic capture spikedace, nor was either loach minnow or habitats in the Gila River basin of Arizona and New spikedace taken in extensive sampling of the stream Mexico, USA, and Sonora, Mexico (Miller and Winn in the 1970s (Minckley and Clarkson 1979), or early 1951; Miller and Hubbs 1960; Minckley 1973; US. Fish 1980s (Minckley unpublished). A dozen juvenile spike- and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1989a-b). Both species dace 12 to 22.5 mm total length (TL) were identified are Federally listed as threatened (U.S. Department of from the 1985 collections (Bestgen 1985), constituting Interior [USDI] 1986a-b) and further protected by the the first records from the stream. States of Arizona and New Mexico (Arizona Game and An intensive survey of Eagle Creek, including its Fish Commission 1982; New Mexico State Game Com- 42-km-long central gorge accessible only on foot, was mission 1985). performed in July 1987. Spikedace proved locally

Marsh, Paul C., James E. Brooks, Dean A. Hendrickson and W.L. Minckley. 1990. Fishes of Eagle Creek, Arizona, with Records for Threatened Spikedace and Loach Minnow (Cyprinidae). Journal of the Arizona- Nevada Academy of Science 23(2):107-116. 108 JOURNAL OF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE VOL. 23 common in the canyon-bound reach, but no loach response to regional precipitation in winter (including minnows were taken. The stream had also been snowmelt in spring) and during summer monsoons; stocked annually since 1981 with razorback suckers the latter commonly produces flash flooding. The (Xyrauchen texanus) as part of a program of reintro- lowermost reach is often intermittent during spring duction toward recovery of that similarly-imperiled and autumn droughts. species in Arizona (Minckley et al. 1991). Our sampl- Water temperatures vary at high elevation from ing provided the opportunity to assess survival of freezing in winter to -24°C in summer, and in lower stocked fish. reaches between winter minima of 4-10°C and maxima The present paper summarizes information on the near 30°C in summer. In 1976-77, dissolved oxygen fishes and aquatic ecology of Eagle Creek, emphasizing remained near 100% of saturation throughout the year, the 1987 survey, but also reviewing other records pH ranged from 7.6 to 9.2, specific conductance from and research. The stream has been studied sporadi- 140 to 370 minhos cm4, and total dissolved solids 134 cally, and substantial, although scattered literature to 324 mg 1-1 (Sommerfeld 1979). exists as agency reports and published papers on its Stream substrate is dominated by cobbles and riparian ecology, physical-chemical environment, and boulders, with sand restricted to margins and runs, aquatic and terrestrial biology. The bibliography and silts accumulating only locally in pools. Aquatic includes all published and unpublished reports known microphytes are common, with the green alga to us that pertain to the system. Our work on Eagle Cladophora glomerata sometimes choking riffles follow- Creek was supported by the Arizona Game and Fish ing long periods of low discharge. Vascular macro- Department, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Con- phytes are rare, other than the periodic occurrence of tract No. YA-512-CT-216), USFWS, and Arizona State pondweed (Potamogeton spp.) and pondmat (Zanni- University. chellia sp.) (Sommerfeld 1979). Benthic invertebrates, mostly larvae and nymphs of aquatic insects, are abun- DESCRIPTION OF THE STREAM dant and diverse (Kynard 1976, Minckley 1979b). Riparian vegetation is variably developed along lower Eagle Creek, Graham and Greenlee counties, Eagle Creek, essentially absent or consisting of flood- southeastern Arizona (Fig. 1), is a second-order stream resistant seepwillow (Baccharis salicifolia) and burrobush with headwaters originating in mixed-conifer forests (Hymenoclea monogyra) in narrow canyons where scour near 2800 m elevation along southern slopes of the is severe, and of gallery forests of Fremont cottonwood White Mountains. The stream passes -20 km through (Populus fremontii), Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii), a broad, grassy valley and then enters and passes an Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrightii), walnut (Juglans additional 64 km through deep, steep-walled canyons major), hackberry (Celtis spp.), and other low- to to the Gila River. The lower portion flows through middle-elevation trees in wider reaches where terraces desert-grassland and desert terrain (Minckley and occur (Minckley and Clark 1979, 1981). Narrow-leafed Clark 1981). Its total watershed comprises about cottonwood (P. angustifolia), various willows (Salix 2000 km2. spp.), and alder (Alnus oblongifolia) flourish at high Gradient is 90 m km-1 or more in the headwaters, elevations (Papoulias et al. 1988; Szaro 1989). moderates to 4.9 m km-1 in the upper valley, and then Eagle Creek appears comparatively undisturbed by increases to 7.4 m km-1 in downstream canyons. human activities, but this may be more apparent than Discharge volumes are confused by an interbasin water real. Eastern Arizona has for years been subjected to transfer from the Black River (Salt River drainage) and three major environmental perturbations: heavy graz- removal of water for industrial and domestic use at ing by domestic cattle; extensive, open-pit mining for Clifton-Morenci, Arizona. However, for the period copper; and logging in forested areas. All these factors 1946 through 1969, Minckley (1979a) computed an must have negatively influenced the Eagle Creek average discarge of 0.94 m3 sec-1, augmented 27% (to watershed. A direct modification, water transferred by 1.2 m3 sec-1) by water transfer, then reduced 9% (to pumping from Black River via an aqueduct constructed 0.86 m3 sec-1) by withdrawal above a gauge -20 km in 1945 into Willow Creek, augmenting withdrawals upstream from the mouth. Variation in mean annual downstream at a diversion structure and pumping discharge in the same time period was 0.21 to 2.74 m3 facility, must also have had undocumented effects. sec 4, and maximum daily discharge was near 600 m3 Over the years, several diversion structures have been sec 4 in 1965 (USGS 1954, et seq.). Higher discharges built (the first in 1897), washed away by flooding, and may have occurred in 1977-78 and 1983 (unpublished immediately rebuilt. These consisted of low (-2.0 m) data). Peak flows typically occur twice a year, in dams with sloping spillways until replaced in 1984 by

ISSUE 2, 1991 FISHES OF EAGLE CREEK, ARIZONA 109

Cr.%

CHITTY CANYON DRY PRONG-.

EAST EAGLE CREEK

MIDDLE HONEYMOON sv PRONG

BLACK RIVER WET PRONG AQUEDUCT

BEAR CANYON,'

(."

WILLOW CREEK SHEEP WASH

„ CIENEGA CREEK

,

1 iI ..--/ .... L I I ,...... ,...... ,R WHITEWATER CREEK SYCAMORE CANYON

P-BAR RANCH

PUMP STATION DIVERSION DAM----3r BAT CAVE

SAN FRANCISCO RIVER

GILA RIVER

FIGURE 1. SKETCH MAP OF EAGLE CREEK, GRAHAM AND GREENLEE COUNTIES, ARIZONA, SHOWING MAJOR TRIBUTARIES AND PLACE NAMES MENTIONED IN TEXT, AND LOCATION IN ARIZONA (INSET). 110 JOURNAL OF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE VOL. 23 a vertical-fall dam -5.0 m in height, which constitutes Miller's Sheep Wash locality is too low in elevation a fish barrier in all but major flood periods. As dis- (1400 m) for salmonid residency, except in winter. cussed later, this structure may be of some benefit to Identity of the original trout in the headwaters of fishes in the system. Eagle Creek remains an enigma, and a chronology of references to the population is provided for historic STUDY AREAS AND METHODS and future information. Miller (1950, 1961, 1972), Mulch and Gamble (1954), Lowe (1960), and Miller and Eagle Creek was subdivided for discussion into five Lowe (1964, 1967) all recorded such a population. At zones or reaches (Fig. 1): 1) headwater streams, above those times, all native trouts in the Gila River basin the U.S. Forest Service Honeymoon Campground; were referred to 0. gilae (Miller 1950). The Apache trout 2) Eagle Creek from Honeymoon to Sheep Wash remained unnamed until 1972 (Miller 1972). Eagle (30 km); 3) Sheep Wash to P-Bar Ranch (32 km); Creek fish were not mentioned in that contribution 4) P-Bar Ranch to the diversion dam (10.6 km); and other than to decry a lack of preserved material of an 5) diversion dam to the Gila River (21.2 km); only the original form, thus implying that non-native, intro- four downstream sections were sampled in 1987. duced trout had by then hybridized with or otherwise Methods including battery- and generator-powered supplanted a native form. Miller identified trout in the backpack and bank-mounted electrofishing units, gill adjacent Blue River drainage (K-P Creek immediately and trammel nets, seines, and angling were used as northeast of Eagle Creek) as 0. apache, but provided appropriate to habitats sampled. Headwater collections evidence of hybrid influence from 0. mykiss, or (upstream from Honeymoon) reported by Papoulias perhaps 0. gilae, in that population as early as 1904 et al. (1988) and summarized here were largely made (Miller 1961, 1972). Evidence exists for stocking of 0. by backpack electrofishing equipment; seining was gilae into the range of 0. apache (San Francisco River done in all downstream reaches. The diversity of drainage; Miller 1950), and David (1976) alluded to techniques over almost four decades (1950-1987), possible hybridization between the two native species. localization of most sampling at vehicular access points The K-P Creek population was removed by ichthyo- (reaches 1 and 4), and different emphasis of different cide and replaced by fish from Ord Creek, Apache studies and collecting efforts, makes interpretations of County, via hatchery production (Anonymous 1969, abundance and distribution tentative at best, and Minckley and Brooks 1985), so that situation cannot should be kept in mind. be re-examined. Minckley (1973) speculated on biogeographic RESULTS AND DISCUSSION grounds that the original Eagle Creek fish might have been 0. gilae, but identified specimens available to him Twenty kinds of fishes have been recorded from as rainbow trout. Later, specimens were obtained from Eagle Creek, nine native species (including reintro- above a waterfall in Chitty Creek (Fig. 1), which duced razorback sucker) and 11 non-native forms. All clearly had morphological and pigmentation characters but a native trout (Oncorhynchus sp.), loach minnow, like those of a native form (Minckley unpublished). and introduced black bullhead (Ameiurus me/as) were Kynard (1976) compared fish from uppermost Chitty taken in the 1987 survey (Table 1). Creek with rainbow, Gila, and Apache trout, and con- Miller's 1950 collection near Sheep Wash, the first cluded they were a differentiated form of the Apache sample of fishes from Eagle Creek known to us, con- trout. Loudenslager et al. (1986) assumed the original tained only native species, and included all but two Chitty Creek population was 0. gilae, and demon- kinds known or expected from the system. Longfin strated by electrophoresis of allozymes that, if so, it dace (Agosia chrysogaster), roundtail chub (both Gila had been genetically swamped by introduced rainbow. robusta and a problematic, Gila intermedia-like form), Unfortunately, their genetic data are inadequate to loach minnow, speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), determine if the original population was 0. gilae or desert sucker (Pantosteus clarki), and Sonora sucker 0. apache. Most recently, Papoulias et al. (1988) tenta- (Catostomus insignis) were captured; only a native trout tively identified fish both above and below the Chitty (Oncorhynchus sp.) and the spikedace were not Creek waterfall as hybrids between 0. mykiss and recorded. 0. gilae. Dowling and Childs (in review) found only The indigenous trout Miller failed to collect in 0. mykiss allozymes and mitochondrial DNA in 22 fish Eagle Creek in1950 has been identified in the literature collected from Chitty Creek in 1989, and concluded that as either Apache (Oncorhynchus apache) or Gila trout any native genome that might have been present had (0. gilae), depending upon one's source of information. been supplanted by rainbow trout. Thus, the question ISSUE 2, 1991 FISHES OF EAGLE CREEK, ARIZONA 111

Table 1. Summary of fish collections (number and relative abundance as percentage, in parentheses) from Eagle Creek, Graham and Greenlee counties, Arizona, 13-18 July 1987. Abbreviations and locations (Greenlee Co.) as follows: Honeymoon (HM): T2N, R28E, S32; Sheep Wash (SW): T1S, R28E, S32; P-Bar Ranch (PB): T4S, R28E, S5; Phelps Dodge diversion dam (DD): T4S, R28E, S23; and Gila River confluence (GR): T5S, R29E, S31. Native trout (Oncorhynchus sp.), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) and black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), the only other species known from the system, were not taken in 1987.

Reach

Species HM to SW SW to PB PB to DD DD to GR

Rainbow trout Oncorhynch us mykiss* 2 (1.8) 0 0 0 Longfin dace Agosia chrysogaster 7 (6.4) 218 (16.0) 30 (8.7) 65 (15.6) Common carp Cyprinus carpio* 0 0 0 5 (1.2) Roundtail chub Gila robustaa 2 (1.8) 72 (5.3) 27 (7.8) 5 (1.2) Spikedace Meda fulgida 0 337 (24.7) 59 (17.1) 1 (0.2) Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis* 0 0 10 (2.9) 242 (57.9) Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas* 0 2 (0.1) 2 (0.1) 51 (12.2) Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus 45 (40.9) 116 (8.5) 60 (17.4) 3 (0.7) Sonora sucker Catostomus insignis 11 (10.0) 375 (27.5) 63 (18.3) 12 (2.9) Desert sucker Pantosteus clarki 13 (11.8) 100 (7.3) 75 (21.7) 11 (2.6) Undetermined larval suckers 30 (27.3) 105 (7.7) 0 0 Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus 0 10 (0.7) 0 0 Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis* 0 26 (1.9) 14 (4.1) 2 (0.5) Channel catfish ktalurus punctatus* 0 lb 5 (1.4) 7 (1.7) Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris* 0 0 0 3 (0.7) Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis* 0 0 0 10 (2.4) Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui* 0 3 (0.2) 0 0 Largemouth bass M. salmoides* 0 0 0 1 (0.2)

Total specimens 110 1364 345 418 Percentage native 98.2 97.8 91.0 23.2 Percentage non-native 1.8 2.2 9.0 76.6 Total species 6 10 10 14 Number native species 5 6 6 6 Number non-native species 1 4 4 8

*non-native (introduced) species, a-includes a problematic, intermedia-like Gila. b-a single specimen was taken by angling in this reach. 112 JOURNAL OF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE VOL. 23

of identity of the original Eagle Creek trout may both speckled and longfin daces (Minckley unpub- remain unanswered. lished), and Papoulias et al. (1988) caught both those Arizona Game and Fish Department targeted fishes in headwater tributaries. Loach minnow has not 0. mykiss as the primary trout species to be managed been found since Miller's original record, as noted in Chitty Creek (Stephenson no date), while U.S. before, although apparently suitable habitat was pre- Forest Service and another branch of Arizona Game sent and sampled intensively by methods that effec- and Fish Department considered the creek a "highest tively captured the species in other places. priority stream" due to occurrence of endangered Records of reintroduced razorback suckers in Eagle 0. gilae (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and Creek are few (Minckley et al. 1991). Two subadults Arizona Game and Fish Department no date). Since (21.1 and 22.3 cm standard length [SL]) were caught in the original population has not yet been identified, the impoundment above the diversion dam in August and may never be, these contrsting strategies should 1986. These fish were stocked 43 to 49 km upstream, be resolved to a common goal. Clearly, the first has sometime between 1981 and 1985. The only other been achieved. Nonetheless, from our perspective, collection known to us was of 10 individuals in July remoteness and isolation of the habitat makes it an 1987 in the reach downstream from Sheep Wash excellent candidate for the preservation and manage- (Table 1). They were 47 to 72 mm SL (mean 58 + 8 ment of either 0. apache or 0. gilae, and we urge that mm), and presumably represented survivors from such a plan be developed and implemented. 33,750 individuals ( 60 mm SL) stocked near the Absence of spikedace from Miller's collection may mouth of Willow Creek (Fig. 1) on 22 June 1987. have resulted from a number of factors. First, local A suite of 10 non-native fishes was taken from populations of this species expand and contract spati- Eagle Creek in 1987 (Table 1). Rainbow trout, planted ally in response to natural variations in their desert in the system for sport fishing, was the only non- stream environments (Propst et al. 1987, Meffe and native caught from Honeymoon to Sheep Wash. Red Minckley 1987, Minckley and Meffe 1987). We did not shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), fathead minnow (Pime- capture spikedace at or upstream from Sheep Wash phales promelas), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), in 1987, although it occurred abundantly less than a channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and smallmouth kilometer downstream. Secondly, spikedace could bass (Micropterus dolomieui) were taken between Sheep have moved upstream from the Gila River after 1950, Wash and the diversion dam. Red shiner and fathead if the species occurred there, but we know of no minnow likely were derived from baitfish releases. records of spikedace occupying the Gila River main- Channel catfish could have been an unauthorized stream in eastern Arizona at any time (Miller and stocking, may have entered from livestock ponds in Hubbs 1960, Minckley 1969, 1973; USFVVS 1989a) uplands of the watershed, or might have moved into although suitable habitat still appears present there. Eagle Creek from the Gila River. The bullhead likely Furthermore, the original diversion dam in Eagle Creek entered as a contaminant among stocked channel cat- could have posed a barrier to such movement. A last fish and/or moved into Eagle Creek from ponds. The alternative that spikedace were entrained from the presence of smallmouth bass presents an enigma. Black River and pumped into Willow Creek is also There are no records of this species being stocked in unlikely since spikedace are not historically known to the system. It is uncommon in eastern Arizona and occur upstream from the mouth of Cibique Creek western New Mexico, and to our knowledge has not (ca. 50 stream-km below the mouth of Black River) in been recorded from the Gila River mainstream in the Salt River system (USFWS 1989a). We conclude Arizona. We believe the fish originated in Black River, that an undetected population of spikedace was pre- where smallmouth bass are abundant (Minckley 1973), sent when Miller first visited the stream. and was transferred by pumping via Willow Creek to Other fishes taken by Miller in 1950 (except loach the Eagle Creek mainstream. minnow) were present and relatively abundant in Diversity of non-native forms doubled below the Eagle Creek during our 1987 survey (Table 1). Diversity diversion dam, where common carp (Cyprinus carpio), among native fishes varied little (5 to 6 species per flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), mosquitofish (Gam- reach) among the four designated sample reaches, but busia affinis), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), was abruptly reduced in the upstream section near plus red shiner, fathead minnow, yellow bullhead, Honeymoon, and above. The problematic, G. inter- channel and flathead catfishes, and mosquitofish were media-like chub was the only native fish we found at taken in 1987 and earlier studies. Black bullhead was Honeymoon, and it was restricted to that site in 1987. not taken by us; it was rare in Eagle Creek in the 1970s Earlier collections in that area have, however, included (Minckley and Clarkson 1979), absent in collections ISSUE 2, 1991 FISHES OF EAGLE CREEK, ARIZONA 113 since 1980 (unpublished data), but taken in 1987 in a Creek system. The six remaining native forms have stock pond on Tule Creek, a tributary of Sheep Wash large, reproducing populations within the central, by Papoulias et al. (1988). Its sporadic occurrence in the canyon-bound reach of the stream. creek may result from movement from such habitats. Downstream from a diversion dam, in the lower Common carp are throughout the lower Colorado portion of Eagle Creek, native fishes are far less abun- River basin, where they occur in greatest abundance dant. The fauna is dominated by predatory and com- in larger streams and reservoirs. The few adults taken petitive introduced fishes, which largely accounts for in Eagle Creek must have moved upstream from the the paucity of native individuals, a pattern prevailing Gila River. Flathead catfish also likely moved upstream throughout most of the American Southwest. Red from the Gila river, where that species has become shiner, comprising more than half the total fish in common since its introduction before the 1950s (Miller samples from lower Eagle Creek, is implicated in the and Lowe 1964). Mosquitofish may have arrived via decline of spikedace throughout the Gila River system any number of routes: as bait; intentionally planted for (Minckley 1973, USFWS 1989a), related woundfin mosquito control; "naturally" from confluent waters; (Plagopterus argentissimus) in the Virgin River basin or from stock ponds during floods. Although only one (USFWS 1979, Deacon 1988), and likely other species largemouth bass was taken, several others were reli- (Minckley and Deacon 1968). Large- and smallmouth ably observed. All were near the Gila River, wherein basses and catfishes are demonstrated predators on they occur rarely, and were likely immigrants. Because native suckers and minnows (Minckley 1973, Marsh of its popularity as a sportfish, largemouth bass is and Langhorst 1988, Marsh and Brooks 1989). And, widely distributed and could have originated in Eagle mosquitofish clearly force populations of native Creek from any number of places. Sonoran topminnows (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) and other Relative abundance of the various native and fishes to extinction (Myers 1965, Meffe 1985). non-native fishes changed dramatically among reaches The diversion structure in Eagle Creek acts as a (Table 1). Native species comprised more than 90% of barrier to upstream movement of fishes, and thus nearly 1600 specimens taken above the diversion dam. benefits native fishes of the system. Persistence of Speckled dace and the two native suckers were domi- substantial native populations upstream from the nant above Sheep Wash; longfin dace, spikedace, and barrier is because they effectively withstand natural Sonora sucker predominated in the next two reaches. impacts of violent flooding, while non-native fishes Introduced species comprised at most a few percent do not. Native fishes are scarcely, if at all, displaced of total samples, except for yellow bullhead (8.5%) by floods (Mincldey and Meffe 1987). Floods wash non- between P-Bar Ranch and the diversion. Below the native fishes downstream, and if they pass below the diversion, native fishes except for longfin dace became barrier, they cannot return. Thus, their populations rare, and introduced species comprised more than 75% and, in turn, impacts on the native species, are period- of collections. Red shiner, uncommon above the diver- ically terminated or reduced. However, a small im- sion, accounted for more than half the fishes taken poundment above the diversion structure may also below that structure. provide refuge for lentic-adapted, non-native fishes during flood, so that a few survive to later re-colonize. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It also attracts fishermen and other recreationists, who may release baitfish or transfer non-native fishes from Records for at least 20 kinds of fishes, 11 of which below to above the dam. Some transfers are uninten- are non-native, are known from Eagle Creek, eastern tional or unknowing, as baitfish or by children, but Arizona. Of nine native species, one yet-to-be- others are likely with intent to establish or augment identified trout may have been extirpated through populations upstream. hybridization or other interactions with introduced Such transfers have already occurred in Eagle trouts. A second, the threatened loach minnow, was Creek. We had not before 1987 taken red shiners taken in 1950, but has not again been encountered. We upstream from the diversion, and suspect that occur- suspect that loach minnow persists in Eagle Creek, but rence there resulted from baitfishing activities. Flood- has not been collected because of its secretive nature, ing in 1977-78 (Minckley 1979) and again in 1983 low numbers, and restricted distribution, and the size (Minckley and Meffe 1987, unpublished) removed and complexity of the stream. A third native fish, the most non-native fishes from the system, even in the imperiled razorback sucker, has been reintroduced in reach downstream from the diversion, yet by 1987 both the upper Gila River basin in an attempt to reinstate red shiner and channel catfish had again achieved the its populations, and occurs sporadically in the Eagle upstream area. Although the native fish fauna of Eagle 114 JOURNAL OF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE VOL. 23

Creek remains essentially intact, that situation could LOUDENSLAGER, E.J., J.N. RINNE, G.A.E. GALL change rapidly if large populations of non-native and R.E. DAVID. 1986. Biochemical genetic species were to become established above the diver- studies of native Arizona and New Mexico trout. sion dam. Eagle Creek should thus be monitored The Southwestern Naturalist 31:221-234. frequently to ensure that potentially detrimental LOWE, C.H. 1960. Fishes. Pages 171-172 in Arizona changes are detected early and appropriate manage- Its People and Resources. University of Arizona ment strategies to conserve the native fauna are Press, Tucson AZ. developed and implemented. MARSH, P.C. and J.E. BROOKS. 1989. Predation by ictalurid catfishes as a deterrent to re-establishment LITERATURE CITED of hatchery-reared razorback suckers. The South- western Naturalist 34:188-195. ANONYMOUS. 1969. Annual planting report. Ari- MARSH, P.C. and D.R. LANGHORST. 1988. Feeding zona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. and fate of wild larval razorback sucker. Environ- APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL FORESTS and mental Biology of Fishes 21:59-67. ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT. MEH,E, G.K. 1985. Predation and species replacement No date. Fisheries and riparian habitat improve- in American southwestern fishes: a case study. ment for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The Southwestern Naturalist 30:173-187. Implementation plan. Apache-Sitgreaves National G.K. and W.L. MINCKLEY. 1987. Persistence Forests, Southwest Region, and Arizona Game and stability of fish and invertebrate assemblages and Fish Department, Pinetop, AZ. Unpaginated. in a repeatedly disturbed Sonoran Desert stream. ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION. 1982. The American Midland Naturalist 117:177-191. Threatened native wildlife in Arizona. Arizona MILLER, R.R. 1950. Notes on the cutthroat and rain- Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ, 12 pgs. bow trouts, with the description of a new species BESTGEN, K.R. 1985. Results of identification of col- from the Gila River, New Mexico. Occasional lections of larval fish made in the upper Salt and Papers of the University of Michigan Museum Gila rivers, AZ. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife of Zoology 529:1-42. Service, Albuquerque, NM, 7 pgs. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna DAVID, R.E. 1976. Taxonomic analysis of Gila and of the American Southwest. Papers of the Michi- Gila X rainbow trout in southwestern New Mexico. gan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 46: Master's thesis, New Mexico State University, 365-404. Las Cruces, NM, 36 pgs. . 1972. Classification of the native trouts DEACON, I.E. 1988. The endangered woundfin and of Arizona, with the description of a new species, water management in the Virgin River, Utah, Salmo apache. Copeia 1972:401-422. Arizona, Nevada. Fisheries (Bethesda, Maryland) and C.L. HUBBS. 1960. The spiny-rayed 13:18-24. cyprinid fishes (Plagopterini) of the Colorado DEACON, J.E., G. KOBETICH, J.D. WILLIAMS, S. River system in western North America. Miscel- CONTRERAS, et al. 1979. Fishes of North America laneous Papers of the University of Michigan endangered, threatened or of special concern. Museum of Zoology 115:1-39. Fisheries (Bethesda, Maryland) 4:29-44. MILLER, R.R. and C.H. LOWE. 1964. Part 2. An anno- DOWLING, T.E. and M.R. CHILDS. In review. The tated check-list of the fishes of Arizona. Pages 133- impact of hybridization on a threatened trout 151 in C.H. Lowe (editor). The Vertebrates of (Oncorhynchus apache: Salmonidae: Pisces) of Arizona, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. southwestern United States. Conservation . 1967. Part 2. The fishes of Arizona. Biology. Pages 133-152 in C.H. Lowe (editor). The Verte- JOHNSON, J.E. 1987. Protected fishes of the United brates of Arizona, University of Arizona Press, States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Tucson, AZ. Bethesda, Maryland, 42 pgs. MILLER, R.R. and H.E. WINN. 1951. Additions to KYNARD, B.E. 1976. A study of the pollution sources the known fish fauna of Mexico: three species and their effect on the aquatic habitat of Eagle and one subspecies from Sonora. Journal of the Creek watershed, Apache-Sitgreaves National Washington Academy of Science 41:83-84. Forest, AZ. Final Report, Cooperative Agreement MINCKLEY, W.L. 1969. Native fishes of Arizona. No. 16-514-CA, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Moun- Part II-spiny-rayed minnows. Wildlife Views tain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tempe, (Arizona Game and Fish Department) 16:4-9. AZ, 82 pgs. 1

ISSUE 2, 1991 FISHES OF EAGLE CREEK, ARIZONA 115

1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game MYERS, G.S. 1965. Gambusia, the fish destroyer. and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ, 293 pgs. Tropical Fish Hobbyist 1965:31-35. 1979a. II.B. Hydrology and climate. NEW MEXICO STATE GAME COMMISSION. 1985. Pages 17-38 in W.L. Minckley and M.R. Sommer- Regulation Number 624, as amended 28 March feld (editors). Resource inventory for the Gila 1985. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, River complex, eastern Arizona. Final Report, Santa Fe, NM. Contract No. YA-512-CT6-216, U.S. Bureau of PAPOULIAS, D., D. VALENCIANO and D. HEND- Land Management, Safford, AZ. RICKSON. 1988. A fish and riparian survey of 1979b. IV.B. Benthic invertebrates. the Clifton Ranger District. Final Report, Arizona Pages 502-510 in W.L. Minckley and M.R. Som- Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ, 136 pgs. merfeld (editors). Resource inventory for the Gila + appendices (draft). River complex, eastern Arizona. Final Report, PROPST, D.L., K.R. BESTGEN and C.W. PAINTER. Contract No. YA-512-CT6-216, U.S. Bureau of 1986. Distribution, status, and biology of the spike- Land Management, Safford, AZ. dace, Meda fulgida, in New Mexio. Endangered and J.E. BROOKS. 1985. Transplanta- Species Report No. 15, U.S. Fish and Wildlife tions of native Arizona fishes: records through Service, Albuquerque, NM, 93 pgs. 1980. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of SOMMERFELD, M.R. 1979. IV.A.4. Eagle Creek. Science 20:73-90. Pages 375-414 in W.L. Minckley and M.R. Som- MINCKLEY, W.L. and T.O. CLARK. 1979. III.B. Vege- merfeld (editors). Resource inventory for the Gila tation of the area. Pages 85-121 in W.L. Minckley River complex, eastern Arizona. Final Report, and M.R. Sommerfeld (editors). Resource inven- Contract No. YA-512-CT6-216, U.S. Bureau of tory for the Gila River complex, eastern Arizona. Land Management, Safford, AZ. Final Report, Contract No. YA-512-CT6-216, U.S. STEPHENSON, R.L. No date. Arizona cold water Bureau of Land Management, Safford, AZ. fisheries strategic plan 1985-1990. Federal Aid . 1981. Vegetation of the Gila River Project FW-11-R, Arizona Game and Fish Depart- resource area, eastern Arizona. Desert Plants 3: ment, Phoenix, AZ, 50 pgs. 124-140. SZARO, R.C. 1989. Riparian and scrubland com- MINCKLEY, W.L. and R. CLARKSON. 1979. IV.C. munity types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Fishes. Pages 510-531 in W.L. Minckley and M.R. Plants 9:69-1380. Sommerfeld (editors). Resource inventory for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (USDI). 1986a. Gila River complex, eastern Arizona. Final Report, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Contract No. YA-512-CT6-216, U.S. Bureau of determination of threatened status for the spike- Land Management, Safford, AZ. dace. Federal Register 51(126):23769-23781. MINCKLEY, W.L. and J.E. DEACON. 1968. South- 1986b. Endangered and threatened western fishes and the enigma of "endangered wildlife and plants; determination of threatened species." Science 159:1424-1432. status for the loach minnow. Federal Register MINCKLEY, W.L., P.C. MARSH, J.E. BROOKS, J.E. 51(208):39468-39478. JOHNSON and B.L. JENSEN. 1991. Management U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS). 1979. toward recovery of razorback sucker (Xyrauchen Recovery plan for woundfin, Plagopterus argentis- texanus). In W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon (edi- simus Cope. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albu- tors). Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Man- querque NM, 67 pgs. agement in the American West. University of . 1989a. Spikedace, Meda fulgida, recovery Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, in press. plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, MINCKLEY, W.L. and G.K. MEN-h. 1987. Differential NM, 60 pgs. (draft). selection by flooding in stream-fish communities 1989b. Loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, of the arid American southwest. Pages 93-104 in recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, W.J. Matthews and D.E. Heins (editors). Evolu- Albuquerque, NM, 60 pgs. (draft). tionary and Community Ecology of North Ameri- U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS). 1954, et seq. can Stream Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Water resources data for Arizona. U.S. Geological Norman, OK. Survey, Water Data Reports, Phoenix, AZ, pagi- MULCH, E.E. and W.C. GAMBLE. 1954. Game Fishes nation variable. of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, WILLIAMS, J.E., J.E. JOHNSON, D.A. HENDRICK- Phoenix, AZ. SON, S. CONTRERAS-BALDERAS, J.D. WIL- 116 JOURNAL OF THE ARIZONA-NEVADA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE VOL. 23

LIAMS, M. NAVARRO-MENDOZA, D.E. McAL- A.A. ECHELLE, R.J. EDWARDS, D.A. HEND- LISTER and J.E. DEACON. 1989. Fishes of North RICKSON and J.J. LANDYE. 1985. Endangered America endangered, threatened, or of special aquatic ecosystems in North American deserts concern 1989. Fisheries (Bethesda, Maryland). with a list of vanishing fishes of the region. Journal 14:2-20. of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 20:1- WILLIAMS, J.D., D.B. BOWMAN, J.E. BROOKS, 62.

BOOK REVIEW

SOME STRANGE CORNERS OF OUR COUNTRY. CHARLES F. LUMMIS, with a foreword by LAWRENCE CLARK POVVELL. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 1989. 270 p.

Charles Lummis wandered the Southwest in the late eighteen hundreds, lived with the peoples and recorded their daily activities on film and in print. Serious scholars have always had his works available for study but with this new release his keen insights are now readily open to all for inspection. Seldom do we have an oppor- tunity for a window to the past to be opened as wide as this book occasions. For the professional anthropologist and the interested lay reader, here is an interesting and informative reprint of Lummis' original 1891 book. Powell, in his foreword, gives us good insight into what motivated Lummis and the extent of his travels. This knowledge is necessary to understand why this is such an excellent work and what a valuable source of information it is. For within these pages we come to learn what it was like to live then with peoples we still know very little about today. Through Lummis we come to know their culture, religion and the land in which they lived a bit better. Physical descriptions of the region abound in this volume but Lummis opened with two fine selections to lead the reader into the day-to-day way of life of the Pueblo Indians and New Mexicans. The Grand Canyon and Petrified Forest are at best, difficult to adequately describe. Yet Lummis was able to put into words what most of us have difficulty seeing. These and all of the places he describes are still with us, but we cannot see them as they were one hundred years ago. Guided by his first hand account, we can visit Tonto Bridge and Montezuma's Castle and Well and let our imagination drift back into time and have at least some ideas of what it was really like to see these places before they changed to accommodate modern visitors. To help the reader visualize what has been described, the book is lavishly illustrated with fine drawings and engravings which more than complement the period flavor of the text. Probably some of the most interesting of his descriptions of Pueblo and Mexican life are those that give us some factual insight into their religions, superstitions and techniques for surviving in a marginal environment, especially since they almost cost him his life. His brushes with both Indian and Mexican witchcraft are extremely interesting, even today, these practices are still with us, and yet knowledge of them is rare and discussion is virtually non-existent. Today, most of the places described by Lummis are regularly visited by tourists. We will never see them as he did. But by learning from his experiences and with a bit of imagination we can at least take a small step back into the past we will never know personally. This book is highly recommended reading for anyone with even a passing interest in the subject matter.

—Al Richmond, Jr. Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ