411%
PETITION TO DESIGNATE CRITICAL HABITAT FOR TIIE GILA TROUT, ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE
APRIL 12, 1994
GREATER GILA BIODIVERS1TY PROJECT VB., ENDANGERED SPECIES SERIES NO. 8 April 12, 1994
Mollie Beattie, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 "C" Street, Room 3256 Washington, DC 20240
David Hogan, the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation hereby formally petition for a rule designating critical habitat for the Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae gilae) pursuant to Section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(e), Section 3(5)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, and the Endangered Species Act Implementing Regulations found at 50 C.F.R. 424.14 (d). Petitioners present evidence that critical habitat designation by the Service for the Gila trout is prudent, determinable, and essential for this subspecies' survival and recovery to non-endangered status in the United States.
PETITIONERS
David Hogan is an ecologist for the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, and is the author of this petition. He is studying and monitoring the current and historic destruction of riparian and aquatic ecosystems in the southwest and the resulting detrimental effects on numerous sensitive aquatic species. He lives in the vicinity of several remaining populations of the Gila trout. The Greater Gila Biodiversity Project is a non-profit organization devoted to the protection and restoration of the Greater Gila Ecosystem and the species that inhabit this biological wonderland. The Southwest Center for Biological Diversity is an organization devoted to protecting and advocating for the biological diversity of southwestern North America, with an emphasis on sensitive ecosystems and public education. Because the health of southwestern rivers and wetlands indicates the health of their surrounding watersheds, the Center has created the Desert Rivers Biodiversity Initiative in an effort to bring increased conservation attention to these beleaguered ecosystems. The Biodiversity Legal Foundation is a non-profit public interest organization dedicated to the preservation of all native wild plants and animals, communities of species, and naturally functioning ecosystems in this country. Through visionary educational, administrative, and legal actions, the B.L.F. endeavors to encourage improved public attitudes and policies for all living things. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1992, three Gila trout experts, David Propst, Jerome Stefferud, and Paul Turner, published the paper Conservation and Status of Gila Trout (Oncorhvnchus 2ilae)(see APPENDIX A). In this paper, they document and describe historical conservation efforts, and the current status of the subspecies. Most importantly, they recommend a new conservation stiategy. Instead of focusimg conservation efforts exclusively on the reclamation of isolated extreme headwater streams of the Gila National Forest for the reintroduction of Gila trout, they recommend that, "...entire sub-drainages with multiple tributaries must be reclaimed and managed for 0. gilae." Much of this petition was written in an effort to expand upon the information presented in Propst et al.'s 1992 paper, and to offer a practical solution to the ongoing destruction of Gila trout habitat; the designation of critical habitat for the subspecies by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae gilae) was only described as a species in 1950 after nearly all populations had been decimated by the introduction of non-native fish species such as the rainbow (0. mykiss) and cutthroat (0. clarki) trouts, and habitat destruction by grazing. It faces almost certain extinction in the near future if key upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats within the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Gila, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests are not rested from livestock grazing and restored. Besides the well documented hybridization of native Gila trout with introduced salmonids, habitat destruction brought about by livestock grazing over the last one-hundred years is the primary cause of this subspecies' decline. The status of Southwestern riparian (and thus aquatic) habitats has been recently described by "range" experts:
Although management has greatly improved riparian habitat in some areas, field data compiled in the last decade showed that riparian areas throughout much of the west were in the worst condition in history due mainly to complications initiated by improper grazing management techniques. (Krueper 1992)
Despite the fact that the Gila trout was designated an endangered species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in March of 1967, the subspecies' status has declined precipitously. Although some reintroduction and replication of remaining natural populations (or genetic variations within the subspecies) is necessary, it should not be the land management agency's main focus. While numerous populations of Gila trout have been reintroduced to portions of its historic range, aquatic or riparian habitat restoration plans of any significant substance have not been proposed. Having allowed nearly a century of poor livestock management, the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Gila, Kaibab, Prescott. and Tonto National Forests are responsible for many areas of severely degraded riparian and aquatic habitats. Many of these degraded areas are within the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Area of the Gila National Forest, which is supposedly, according to the Wilderness Act, "protected from man induced changes in the environment". Nearly all watersheds currently supporting populations of Gila trout are within grazing allotments which are considered by the Gila National Forest to be in "unsatisfactory" condition. Degraded acreage within these allotments in watersheds supporting Gila trout amounts to more than 60,000 acres. Yet, grazing continues.... Forest Service fire suppression over the last eighty years has also caused severe impacts to the Gila trout. By interrupting the frequent, cool burning natural fire cycle that prevailed in the Gila Headwaters bioregion in pre-european settlement times, the Forest Service has allowed forest fuels to build to dangerous proportions. In 1989, these unnatural conditions, in conjunction with drought and a lightening storm, sparked the devastating Divide Fire in the Black (Mountain) Range of the Gila National Forest. The resulting flash flooding and scouring of Main and South Diamond Creeks, as well as the emergency removal of over five-hundred fish from Main Diamond (and the subsequent death of just under three-hundred during transport and holding) eliminated what was once considered by the USFWS to be "the most stable and secure population of Gila trout". Chances are fair that unnatural fire episodes and subsequent flooding could eliminate other populations of Gila trout. Recent events have shown that the Gila trout is no where near recovery despite its protective endangered status. It is imperative that the USFWS designate critical habitat over entire watersheds containing pure populations of Gila trout, as a tool to facilitate its' recovery. The designation of entire watersheds as critical habitat for the species is necessary due to the fact that the condition of aquatic and riparian habitats are directly related to the condition of upland habitats. According to a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency publication:
Improper grazing of upland vegetation increases the amount, and concentrates and increases the speed of overland runoff to streams. Accelerated runoff from uplands can trigger downcutting by streams with soft bottoms. Downcutting lowers the stream bed and water table, dries out the riparian area, destabilizes stream banks, increases erosion, and further accelerates runoff. (Chaney et al. 1993)
If uplands are severely grazed, then riparian habitats suffer through unnatural flash-type flooding and other events detrimental to the recovery of species dependent on riparian or aquatic habitats. But simply designating critical habitat where the Gila trout is presently found will not keep the species from extinction in the long-term. Critical habitat designation must also include all watersheds containing hybrid Gila-rainbow trout, as well as other watersheds within the pre-european settlement range (or historic range) of the subspecies that are determined to be critical to its' long-term survival. According to the Endangered Species Act, the Secretary of the Interior is required to "focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements," within the critical habitat area, "that are essential to the conservation of the species". The Critical habitat definition also includes, "specific areas outside the geographical area (currently) occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with provisions of (the listing section) of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species." Because of this definition, several other watersheds not presently supporting either pure Gila trout stock, or hybrid Gila-rainbow trout of undetermined purity, within the headwaters of the Gila, San Francisco, and Verde River watersheds must also be designated as critical habitat in an effort to return the species to significant, representative portions of its historic range. This action is essential for the conservation of the species due to the likelihood of extirpation of isolated, and widely separated populations. Because the vast majority of watersheds within the Gila Headwaters bioregion have been severely impacted by livestock grazing practices for so long, the elimination of livestock and restoration of upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats within those watersheds is necessary to recover the Gila trout.
I will give evidence that humanity has initiated the sixth great extinction spasm (in Earth's history), rushing to eternity a large fraction of our fellow species in a single generation....I will argue that every scrap of biological diversity is priceless, to be learned and cherished, and never to be surrendered without a struggle.
Edward 0. Wilson, The Diversity of Life, (1992) TABLE OF CONTENTS
L ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE ...... 1
ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE DISTRIBUTION ...... 2 Aqua Fria River ...... 2 Verde River ...... 2 Gila River ...... 2 Mimbres River ...... 7 San Francisco River ...... 8
ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE BIOLOGY ...... 10 Reproduction ...... 10 Fecundity ...... 10 Growth ...... 10 Food Habits ...... 11 Parasites...... 11
IV. PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF ONCORYNCHUS GILAE GILAE HABITAT ...... 12 Water Quality and Quantity ...... 12 Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior ...... 13 Cover or Shelter ...... 13 Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring...... 14 Feeding Sites ...... 14 Food ...... 14 Water ...... 15
V. ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE POPULATION NUMBERS ESTIMATE ...... 16
VI. CAUSES OF DECLINE ...... 17 Introduction: The Extinction Process ...... 17 Introduction of Non-native Salmonids ...... 19 Livestock Grazing ...... 20 General Grazing Impacts ...... 20 Grazing Impacts to Primary Constituent Elements of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae habitat ...... 22. - Grazing Politics ...... 24 Elimination of Beaver ...... 26 Fire Suppression ...... 28
VII. CRITICAL HABITAT ...... 30 Critical Habitat Designation Essential ...... 30 Historical Conservation Efforts ...... 30 Critical Habitat under the Endangered Species Act ...... 31 Agency Neglect ...... 32 Critical Habitat Designation Determinable ...... 39 Critical Habitat Designation Prudent 39 Additional Areas Essential to the Conservation of the Species 39
VIII. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATIONS 41 Critical New Mexico Watersheds 44 Critical Arizona Watersheds 46
IX. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 59 Hybrid Gila-Type Trout Conservation 59 Stream Renovation or Reclamation 59 Beaver Reintroduction 59 Reintroduction Recommendations 59
X. REFERENCES 62 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE. 1. Gila Headwaters Bioregion
2. Pre-European Settlement distribution of Oneorhynchus gilae gilae 4
3. Current distribution of Oncorh ynch us 2i1ae iglae
4. Recommended Oncorhynchus gilae gilae Critical Habitat; East Fork Verde River 48
5. Recommended Oncorhvnchus gilae gilae Critical habitat; West Clear Creek 50
6. Recommended Oncorhynehus gilae gilae Critical Habitat; Eagle Creek 5)
7. Recommended Oncorhynchus gilae gilae Critical Habitat; Wet Beaver Creek 53
8. Recommended Oncorhpnchus Rilae gilae Critical Habitat; Sycamore Creek 54
9. Recommended Oncorhynchus gilae gilae Critical Habitat; Oak Creek 55
10. Recommended Oncorhynchus Rilae gilae Critical Habitat; Fossil Creek 56
11. Recommended Oncorhynchus gilae gilae Critical Habitat; Gila National Forest (See Insert)
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE 1. Relict Pre-European Settlement and Reintroduced Populations of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae 6
2. List of presently known pure populations of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae 42
3. List of presently known gila-type trout (or hybrid) populations of undetermined purity 43
4. Other Potential Oncorhynchus gilae gilae reintroduction sites 58 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX PAGE A. Conservation and Status of Gila Trout, Oncorhynchus Rilae (Propst et al. 1992) 73
B. Current Status of Oncorhynchus Rilae milae 83
C. Riparian areas protective management practices for grazing activities 91
D. Gila National Forest Grazing Allotments and Allotment Management Plan Dates 92
E. Gila National Forest Plan Management Areas Currently Occupied by Oncorhynchus Rilae Oise 96
F. Newspaper Column Regarding the Stocking of Trout in Arizona 138 I. ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE
One of the first records of Gila trout appears to have come from Snyder (1915) who misidentified salmonid specimens taken by Dr. Edgar A. Mearns from Clear Creek and Oak Creek in Arizona as Salmo irrideus (Sublette et al. 1990). The species remained in obscurity until 1950 when Miller described salmonid specimens taken from Main Diamond Creek as Salmo gilae. By that time, Gila trout were apparently extirpated from Arizona (Miller 1950; Propst, pers. comm. 1994). Classification of western trouts and salmon as Oncorhynchus was first attempted by Regan (1914), but due to general reluctance by others (Jordan and Everman 1920, Tchemavin 1937, 1938a) to upset accepted nomenclature stability, the name remained controversial until 1993 when Stearly and Smith (1993) presented evidence in Phylogeny of the Pacific Trouts and Salmons (Oncorhynchus) and Genera of the Family Salmonidae indicating that pacific trouts were best classified as Oncorhynchus to reflect common lineage's and similarities with western Salmonids. In 1992, Behnke re-described Oncorhynchus gilae and Oncorhynchus apache as two subspecies of one species:
"Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae gilae) Native trout have long been known from the Gila River Basin of New Mexico and Arizona. In 1950, Miller described the Gila trout as Salmo gilae, and, in 1972, he described the Apache trout as S. apache. Since then, data from karotyping, electrophoresis, and mitochondria] DNA comparisons have substantiated the close genetic relationship of Gila and Apache trout (much closer than the relationship among the four major sub-species of cutthroat trout). To reflect this consanguinity, I recognize the Gila and Apache trout as two subspecies of one species.
Taxonomic Notes The morphological and meristic characters and the karotypes of Gila and Apache trout substantiate a close relationship. Divergence from a common ancestor in the Gila River basin probably occurred during the mid to late Pleistocene. Loudenslager et al. (1986) presented data from electrophoretic analysis of 36 gene loci for four populations of Gila trout and five populations of Apache trout, which were compared with Rio Mayo (Mexican trout), two populations of hatchery rainbow trout, and three subspecies of cutthroat trout (Lahontan, Yellowstone, and Colorado River). The index of genetic similarities between Apache and Gila trout was 0.93. Genetic similarities was 0.86 between Gila trout and rainbow trout and 0.85 between Apache trout and rainbow trout. The genetic similarity between Apache trout and Gila trout (grouped together) to cutthroat trout (three subspecies grouped) was 0.72. The Rio Mayo trout had genetic similarities of 0.90 to rainbow trout and 0.81 to Gila and Apache trout. Preliminary results of mitochondria] DNA analysis indicate close similarities between Gila and Apache trout, and closer similarity of these two forms of rainbow than to cutthroat trout (B.R. Riddle and T.L. Yates, University of New Mexico, unpublished data). Thus morphological and genetic studies agree that Gila and Apache trout are closely related to each other and that both have greater affiliations with rainbow than with cutthroat trout." (Behnke 1992) 11. ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE DISTRIBUTION
Historically found throughout numerous streams and rivers of the Gila Headwaters bioregion (see FIGURE 1), including the Aqua Fria, San Francisco, and Verde River drainages of Arizona, and the Gila and San Francisco River Drainages of New Mexico, Onocorhynchus gilae gilae has been eliminated from nearly all of its historic range (See FIGURES 2 and 3). All relict historic and reintroduced populations of 0. g. gilae are found within the Gila National Forest of New Mexico (See TABLE l).
AQUA FRIA RIVER The issue of the possible historic presence of O. g. gilae in the Agua Fria River basin has been the subject of some confusion. Behnke and Zam (1976) found that spotting patterns on 0. gilae x 0. myk-iss collected in Sycamore Creek, a tributary of the Agua Fria River (Prescott National Forest), in 1975 extended the possible historic range of O. g. gilae to the Agua Fria River basin. However, a newspaper column published in October of 1974 (newspaper unknown, see APPENDIX E) mentioned the introduction of "Gila trout and Arizona trout" in "Sycamore Creek" as well as several other Arizona locations between 1962 and the early seventies. Because of this publication, some have thought that Sycamore Creek, the tributary to the Aqua Fria River on the Prescott National Forest, was stocked with Gila trout in the early seventies (Stefferud, pers comm. 1994). If 0. g. gilae were in fact stocked in the Agua Fria River tributary Sycamore Creek (Prescott National Forest) without total eradication of rainbow trout, between 1962 and 1973 or 74, the population could have become hybridized, resulting in the collection of 0. gilae x 0. rnykiss hybrids in 1975 (Behnke, pers. comm. 1994). A thorough records check carried out by Arizona Game and Fish Department Fisheries staff Todd Pringle (pers. comm., 1994) may have put the issue to rest. This check has revealed that Gap Creek was the only place in Arizona stocked with Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae gilae), and that stocking took place in 1974. Because stocking records indicate that 0. g. gilae were never introduced to the Aqua Fria River tributary Sycamore Creek of the Prescott National Forest, Behnke and Zarn's (1976) finding would indicate that 0. g. gilae were indigenous to the Aqua Fria River. 0. g. gilae are currently extirpated from the Agua Fria River drainage.
VERDE RIVER Sahnonid specimens collected in West Clear Creek in 1892 or 1894, and from the headwaters of Oak Creek prior to 1890 (Snyder 1915) led both Miller (1972) and Minckley (1973) to conclude that 0. g. gilae was indigenous to the Verde River basin of central Arizona. Although a population of 0. g. gilae was reintroduced in 1974 to Gap Creek, a tributary to the Verde River, from Main Diamond Creek, it persisted only until 1990 when only six adults were found in several separate, isolated pools. It was assumed that this population was not viable (Propst el al. 1992), and this prediction seems to have come true: 0. g. gilae ha N c been absent from Gap Creek since 1991 (Stefferud, Warneke, pers. comm. 1993).
GILA RIVER Miller (1950) relates interviews undertaken by F.A. Tompson of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish with "old-timers" of the Gila region regarding the early-european settlement distribution of 0. g. gilae:
In 1896 Salmo gilae ranged as far down the Gila River as thc mouth of the box canyon. which is about 7 miles northeast of Cliff....'Speckled trout' were once so abundant in Gillita (sic) and Willow Creeks (tributaries to the Middle Fork of the Gila) that it was possible to catch them at the rate of about one a minute. The usual weight of these fish varied from one-half to 1 pound and FIGURE I
GILA HEADWATERS BIOREGION (Mogollon Rim Portion)
3 FIGURE 2
PRE-EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION OF ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE (Taken from Propst el al.'s 1992 Conservation and Status of Gila Trout (Oncorhvnchus Rilae)
Little
•••• 111:1::01:.7• Colorado River ••••••■•• ••••••••• •••••••■•• ••••••••V• •••111••••g• •••••11: IMO ••••••
Verde R. Aqua Fria R.
River
4 FIGURE 3
CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF ONCORIIYNCHUS GILAE GILAE (Adapted from Current Distribution map in Population, Status, and Distribution of Gila trout in New Mexico (Mello and Turner 1980)
0
CC 4
(CONTINENTAL \DIVIDE L
/ 49 2 ""' • - I 0 / • AMP' •";/.'A 4 j SAN FRANCISCO RIVER ' ALDO LEOPOLD ,1 WILDERNESS 's .r
/ V • 5 / if FR. )
R
A
0 10 20 SILVER CITY 20 KILOMETERS
(1) Spruce Creek, (2) Iron Creek, (3) McKenna, (4) South Diamond, (5) McKnight, (6) Sheep Corral, (7) Little Creek, (8) Mogollon Creek, Trail Canyon Creek, Woodrow Canyon Creek, (9) White Creek, ( 10) Dry Creek, (11) Sacaton Creek
5 TABLE 1
RELICT PRE-EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT AND REINTRODUCED POPULATIONS OF ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE
Relict Pre-Settlement Populations
1) Iron Creek (Tributary to the West Fork of the Gila River) 2) South Diamond Creek (Tributary to the East fork of the Gila River) 3) Spruce Creek (Tributary to the San Francisco River)
Reintroduced Populations
1) Dry Creek (Tributary to the San Francisco River) 2) McKnight Creek (Introduced) (Tributary to the Mimbres River) 3) Mogollon / Woodrow Canyon Creeks (Tributary to the Gila River) 4) Sacaton Creek (Tributary to the Gila River) 5) Sheep Corral Creek (Tributary to the Gila River) 6) Trail Canyon Creek (Tributary to Mogollon Creek and the Gila River) 7) White Creek (Tributary to the West Fork of the Gila)
* McKenna (potentially relict pre-settlement) and Little Creek (reintroduced) are possibly hybridized populations
6 they averaged about 12 inches in length....Native trout fishing was good on South Diamond Creek and Black Canyon....but on certain parts of Mogollon Creek, particularly the West Fork.. ..there was an over population of native trout and these fish were dwarfed. The largest fish caught by one 'old tinier' in the early day's weighed 2 pounds and was taken at the junction of the Middle and West Forks of the Gila, just west of the Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument. In 1898, the gila trout was found in all of the Gila headwaters and was generally referred to as 'mountain trout'....In 1915, trout were caught as far down the Gila as Sapillo Creek....At the present time the water is generally too warm in that section of the Gila River for any species of trout.
Tributaries to the Gila River presently support the majority of the remaining historic and reintroduced populations of 0. g. gilae (please see APPENDIX B for the current status of these populations). Of the five relict historic populations remaining in the late eighties, including Main and South Diamond, Spruce, McKenna, andiron Creeks, the Main Diamond Creek population has been completely eliminated, the South Diamond Creek population was nearly eliminated, and the McKenna Creek population may be contaminated with genes of O. mykiss (Propst et al. 1992). Only the Spruce and Iron Creek populations appear to be relatively stable (Stefferud, pers comm, 1993). Reintroduced populations of O. g. gilae within the upper Gila River Drainage are currently found in Sheep Corral Creek (from Main Diamond Creek), Little Creek (from McKenna Creek), Trail Canyon Creek, Woodrow Canyon and Mogollon Creeks (from South Diamond Creek and the Mescalero Fish Hatchery), Sacaton Creek (from Iron Creek), Dry Creek (from Spruce Creek), and White Creek (from Iron Creek) (Propst et al 1992; Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993).
MIMBRES RIVER Most researchers feel that the Mimbres River Drainage is outside the historic range of 0. g. gilae (Behnke 1992, Propst etal. 1992, Minckley, pers. comm. 1993). Behnke (1992) indicated his opinion that "trout" collected by Emory (1848) were misidentified Chihuahua chub (Gila nigrescens). Sublette et al. (1990) offer a different opinion, however:
It is highly probable that a salmonid was native to the Mimbres River of New Mexico and elsewhere in the mountainous regions of the Guzman basin in Chihuahua, Mexico. Evidence of this stems from a report by Emory (1848) of a trout taken from the Mimbres River, New Mexico. Although no specimens exist to substantiate this observation, it is believed to be a credible record because Emory demonstrated an ability to distinguish trout (Salmonidae) from superficially similar species of Gila (represented in the Mimbres River by Gila nigrescens). Sublette etal. (1990) go on to describe the fmding of a species of Salmonidae from Arroyo Seco, a headwater of the Rio Casas Grandes drainage (Laguna de Guzman basin) in 1955. Several researchers including Needham and Gard (1959) and Behnke (1979) have drawn the conclusion that the "Arroyo Seco" trout shares a common ancestry with the Gila trout and others of the lower Colorado River basin. Sublette ei aL (1990) do not draw a conclusion regarding whether the "trout" found by Emory (1848) in the Mimbres River was the "Arroyo Seco" trout, the Gila trout or some other unknown species of Salmonidae. It appears the issue will remain unresolved. A population of 0. g. gilae was introduced to McKnight Creek, a tributary to the Mimbres River, from Main Diamond Creek in 1970 (Propst etal. 1992). Though severely reduced by flooding prior to and resulting from the 1989 Divide Fire, this population remains extant.
7 SAN FRANCISCO RIVER Although Miller (1950) felt that 0. g. gilae were not indigenous to the San Francisco River Drainage, current evidence indicates that both Oncorhynchus gilae apache and Oncorhynchus gilae gilae may have occurred in this drainage (Propst, pers. comm. 1994). Although it may never be known for certain, evidence presented in the literature seems to indicate that the O. g. gilae subspecies was found in possibly only those San Francisco River tributaries adjacent to the headwaters of the West Fork of the Gila River (Propst, pers. comm. 1994). According to Propst etal. (1992):
Natural occurrence of 0. gilae in Spruce Creek (San Francisco River Drainage), however, was doubted by Miller (1950, 1972) because residents of the area reported the San Francisco River (a Gila River tributary) barren of trout prior to 1905 when miners had trout transported from Gila River headwater streams to five tributaries of the San Francisco River. Morphomeristic distinctions and inaccessibility of upper Spruce Creek influenced others to contend that 0. gilae. was probably native to at least part of the San Francisco Drainage (Behnke and Zarn, 1976; David, 1976; Behnke, 1979). Taxonomic investigations have confirmed the purity of the Spruce Creek population of 0. gilae and support its natural occurrence in the San Francisco Drainage (David, 1976; Loudenslager et al. 1986; B.R. Riddle, pers. comm.)
According to the USFWS (1993), "Trout" (of an unspecified species) also inhabited the Blue River drainage, a tributary to the San Francisco River. In 1970, Behnke concluded that Gila trout were historically present in the Blue River. Yet, Minckley (1973) and later Behnke (1992) concluded that based on a specimen collected from the Blue River tributary, ICP Creek, that Apache trout were indigenous to the Blue River. It is not likely that both 0. g. gilae and 0. g. apache subspecies were found in a drainage the size of the Blue River. Williams et aL (1985), also make an unreferenced statement that Apache trout were historically found in the Blue River drainage. But, due to the large scope of the Williams et al. (1985) report, mistakes were made regarding the distribution of the Gila trout, thus casting doubt on their conclusions regarding the distribution of Apache trout. Regardless of the subspecies, no physical barriers are known to exist which would have prevented trout from migrating up the San Francisco River from the Blue River drainage (Behnke 1970). Because of this, and the conclusion that 0. g. apache were likely the only native trout in the Blue River drainage (Behnke 1992, Minckley 1973), it seems likely that 0. g. apache were the dominant salmonid in the San Francisco River system. According to Mulch and Gamble (1956), a "pure strain" of native trout occurred in Eagle Creek, the next major tributary to the San Francisco River west of the Blue River and the Arizona/New Mexico border. Although the species or subspecies of this native trout was not specified, Minckley (1973) indicated that Gila robusta grahami, a subspecies which is currently present in the Eagle Creek drainage (USFWS 1993), and 0. g. gilae shared a similar indigenous range. Also, according to the USFWS (1993), "Trout collected in 1973 from Chitty Creek, a tributary to Eagle Creek, were tentatively identified by W. L. Minckley and confirmed by R. R. Miller as Gila x rainbow trout hybrids (R. R. Miller, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, pers. comm.)." This information, although geographically unusual, indicates that Eagle Creek is potentially within the historic range of 0. g. gilae. Several tributaries of the San Francisco River, including the Blue River, and the Arizona headwaters of the San Francisco River, are capable of supporting trout populations. These two rivers are adjacent to tributaries of the Black River which is widely known to have supported 0. g. apache (Behnke and Zam 1976; Behnke 1979, 1992; Minckley 1973; Miller 1972). Because of this, it seems likely that O. g. apache were found in more tributaries of the San Francisco River than O. g. gilae. When considered in this context, 0. g. gilae likely only occurred in Eagle Creek (Minckley 1973, USFWS 1993) and those tributaries to the San Francisco River adjacent to the headwaters of the West Fork of the Gila River (Propst, pers. comm. 1994) including Whitewater Creek, Mineral Creek, and Dry Creek.
8 Currently, Spruce Creek supports the only relict historic population of O. g. gilae in the San Francisco River Drainage. 0. g. gilae were =sported from Spruce Creek to establish a population in Big Dry Creek, the only reintroducedpopulation within the San Francisco River Drainage. (Propst el aL 1992)
9 III. ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE BIOLOGY
Discussion of the life history and ecology of any native western North American salmonid must be tempered with the realization that habitat characteristics, growth, and fecundity are not narrow and well defined among these species. Trout are opportunistic feeders. Growth depends not only on food supply, but also on inter and intraspecific competition, water temperature, length of growing season, and physical habitat characteristics. Fecundity is dependent upon body size and condition (Behnke and Zarn 1976, Behnke 1979). (Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan, USFWS 1993)
Reproduction Spawning appears to occur during spring and summer in New Mexico. In McKnight Creek, where the population density is relatively low, female Gila trout mature at age III at a minimum size of 172 nun TL. In the more highly populated Main Diamond Creek, females reach maturity at age IV or V at a minimum size of 133 mm ii (Nankervis 1988). Males tend to mature one or two years earlier than females in any given stream (P. Turner, pers. comm.). Rinne (1980) reported spawning from April through June when water temperatures were 8 (degrees) C or greater. (The Fishes of New Mexico, Sublette et al. 1990)
Female Gila trout typically construct redds near one bank (about 1/4 of a stream width away) in water 6-15 cm deep within 5 m of cover. Nests are about 3-4 cm deep in fine gravel and coarse sand (0.2-3.8 cm) substrate. Redd size varies from <0.1-2.0 m2. Spawning activity typically occurs between 1300 and 1600. Rinne noted one pair of fish normally occurred over a redd and spawning behavior was typical of salmonids. (Revised Gila trout Recovery Plan, USFWS 1993)
Incubation required 8-10 weeks with the larvae emerging from the redds at 15-20mm total length. Redd construction and spawning occurs as early as March in lower elevation streams and incubation and emergence probably can occur in less than eight weeks in warmer water temperatures (P. Turner, pers. comm.). (The Fishes- of New Mexico, Sublette et al. 1990)
Fecundity Fecundity for Gila trout is related to size, age, and rate of growth (Nankervis 1988). According to Regan (1964), the number of eggs produced from females held in hatcheries averaged about 150. Nankervis (1988) reported the mean fecundity per female to be 143 and 335 eggs in Main Diamond and McKnight Creeks respectively. Maximum fecundity observed was 686 eggs. Mean ova diameter ranges from 2.72-4.00mm. (The Fishes of New Mexico, Sublette et al. 1990)
Growth Age and growth rates of O. g. gilae vary with the limiting factors of its habitats. In Main Diamond Creek, Hanson (1971) found the mean total lengths of this species at the end of the first through fifth years to be 47-97, 90-176, 120-226, 157-303, and 163-337, respectively (Turner and McHenry 1985; Turner 1986). Gila Trout in Main Diamond Creek, where they are notably slow growing due to overcrowding, are known to attain age IX (Nankervis 1988). Elsewhere in new Mexico, Turner (1987b) found the maximum life span to be age V. (The Fishes of New Mexico, Sublette et al. 1990)
Fry (20-25 mm TL) emerged from redds in 56-70 days and inhabit riffle areas (Rinne 1980). By the end of the first summer, fry attained a total length of 70-90 mm in lower elevation streams and 10 40-50 mm in higher elevation streams (Rinne 1980). Turner (1986a) reported similar rates of growth during the first growing season with Gila trout in Iron Creek attaining a mean TL of 49 mm and 84 mm in Little Creek. (Revised Gila trout Recovery Plan, USFWS 1993)
Food Habits Regan (1964) reported that adult dipterans, trichopteran larvae, ephemeropteran nymphs, and aquatic coleopterans were the most abundant food items in stomachs of Gila trout in Main Diamond Creek. There was little variation in food habits over the range of size classes sampled (47-168 mm TL). These taxa were also predominant in stomach contents of other trout species in the Gila River drainage, indicating the potential for interspecific competition Gila trout diet shifted on a seasonal basis as the relative abundance of various prey taxa changed. In February, diptopteran larvae (primarily Simuliidae) were very abundant in the stream and were the principal prey of Gila trout. By May, the principal prey shifted to ephemeropteran nymphs (primarily Paraleptophlebia sp.) that were present at densities of 1,541/m2. No single prey taxon dominated the diet of Gila trout in June. In October, Gila trout shifted to consuming primarily terrestrial insects and benthic Helicopsyche sp. (Tricoptera: Helicopsychidae). Gila trout fed mainly between 0900 and l300....As in Regans 1964 study, there was a large overlap in food habits throughout all size classes of Gila trout. Hanson (1971) noted that Gila trout established a feeding hierarchy in pools during a low flow period in Main Diamond Creek. Larger fish aggressively guarded their feeding stations and chased away smaller fish. Van Eimeren (1988) compared the food habits of Gila trout and speckled dace in little Creek and found no significant overlap in diet despite the fact that the two species were found in general proximity. (Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan, USFWS 1993)
Parasites Various parasites of 0. g. gilae have been described by Mpoame and Rinne (1983, 1984) (Sublette etal. 1990).
11 IV. PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE HABITAT
Specific known aquatic habitat requirements for Oncorhynchus gilae gilae are based on studies done on extreme headwater streams occupied by the species since its description in 1950 (Miller), and are, therefore, fairly limited. It seems likely, however, that the species now occupies only those aquatic habitats that are physiologically similar to the wider areas occupied by the species in pre-settlement times (S. Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). Interviews conducted by New Mexico Game and Fish personnel and related by Miller (1950) indicate that 0. g. gilae occurred and thrived in the main stem of the Gila River as low as its junction with Sapillo Creek and near the Gila Cliff Dwellings. Others feel that 0. g. gilae only seasonally occupied the lower elevation mainstem and forks of the Gila River (Propst, pers. comm. 1994). Because water temperature, water purity, and presence of ponds and deep riffles seem to be the limiting factors in the distribution of most western trout species, and because 0. g. gilae were historically present (Behnke 1970; Behnke and Zarn 1976; Miller 1950, 1972; Minckley 1973; USFWS 1993) it is probable that waters in lower portions of the Gila River headwaters within the present day Apache- Sitgreaves, Coconino, Gila, Tonto, and Prescott National Forests were cooler, carried less sediment and pollution, and impounded more frequently. Because these waters offered better habitat conditions, including more space and food, and that young trout are known to reach larger sizes in less time in lower elevations (Rinne 1980, Turner 1986, USFWS 1993), it is possible that 0. g. gilae was more abundant in larger bodies of water with appropriate habitat conditions, and at lower elevations than currently occupied by the subspecies. Because of this, it seems likely that those headwater creeks and streams that today support populations of 0. g. gilae were close to the edge of the subspecies' distribution.
Water Quality and Quantity When acclimated at 10 (degrees) C and 20 (degrees) C respectively, critical thermal maxima for Gila trout were found to be 28.25 and 25.57 (degrees) C (Lee and Rinne 1980). Possibly a result of the larger beaver populations and resulting ponding (Parker et a/. 1985), but more likely a result of the presence of extensive and abundant riparian vegetation, water temperatures were cooler (Bock et al. 1992) in the pre-european settlement Gila River from its mouth at the Colorado River, all the way to the headwater streams currently occupied by 0. g. gilae. The added cooling effect of the steep canyon walls beginning approximately seven miles northeast of Cliff, New Mexico, in addition to presence of beaver and extensive riparian vegetation, probably brought temperatures down even further to within a thermal range tolerated by 0. g. gilae. The Gila River above this point in pre-settlement times likely flowed much more slowly than at the present due to extensive beaver dams and vegetative debris, except during infrequent flood events (Parker etal. 1985). Again, possibly due to the presence of thousands of beaver and their dams, the pre- european settlement Gila River was potentially drastically different than today, and could well have supported an almost continuous series of large, deep, shaded ponds, surrounded by riparian vegetation and thick with aquatic insects. These historic aquatic and riparian habitat conditions, in addition to more intact terrestrial habitat conditions, also likely contributed to stream and river waters that carried much less silt (Parker et al. 1985, Jacobs 1991). Waters currently occupied by 0. g. gilae are generally free of siltation (USFWS 1993). These pre-settlement conditions could have created habitats better suited for supporting large, healthy populations of trout (Clarkson and Wilson 1991) than those currently found in the headwaters at lower elevations on the mainstem and forks of the Gila River. Historic riparian and aquatic habitat conditions were likely similar on the Agua Fria, San Francisco, and Verde Rivers.
12 Space for Individual and Population Growth, and Normal Behavior In The Fishes of New Mexico, Sublette el al. (1990) describe aquatic habitat currently occupied by 0. g.
Gila trout inhabit clear runs in mountain streams that are typically narrow and shallow. During prolonged drought, they may be confmed to pools.
Substidte material and composition in streams occupied by 0. g. gilae generally varies with the gradient of the stream bed and amount of water discharged. Waters currently occupied by 0. g. gilae are generally free of siltation, and substrates are dominated by cobble. The ratio of riffle habitat area to pool habitat area differs among streams. Although no long-term records have been kept regarding stream discharge for any steam occupied by 0. g. gilae, flows are generally known to be of low volume on average, with fluctuations depending mainly on precipitation events. (USFWS 1993) Though the above text adequately describes higher elevation habitats currently occupied by 0. g. gilae, it does not address pre-european settlement distribution habitat quality conditions. Because studies have been limited to the higher elevation streams currently occupied by 0. g. gilae, limited conclusions have been drawn regarding aquatic habitat quality preferred by 0. g. gilae in lower elevation larger bodies of water. However, there exists a reasonably high probability that populations of 0. g gilae were quite stable in low-high gradient streams with varying discharge. Further, because of habitat destruction and siltation, and general lack of 0. g. gilae occurrence at lower elevations currently impacted by unnatural flooding, 0. g. gilae appear to be intolerant of "flash"-type flooding and likely evolved better adaptation to slower, less destructive flooding, which can still occur over the course of a few hours. Historical records (Miller 1950) of the presence and abundance of 0. g. gilae at lower elevations, along with extensive beaver dams and riparian gallery vegetation (Please see: CAUSES OF DECLINE, Livestock grazing and Elimination of Beaver) on the Gila River within the present day Gila National Forest, possibly indicate that although short-duration flooding did occur in pre-settlement times, destructive flash flooding did not.
Cover or Shelter Hanson (1971) reported that Gila trout in Main Diamond Creek were concentrated in pools and used cover (stream improvement structures, branches, logs, and undercut banks) extensively. Rinne (1978) found volume, surface area, and mean depth of pools to be the most important factors in determining Gila trout abundance, biomass, and size in McKnight Creek. Although the number of Gila trout individuals per riffle was similar to the number per pool, Gila trout individuals were significantly larger in pools. The mean size of Gila trout in pools was 134 mm TL, while the mean size in riffles was only 80 mm TL. Important aspects of pool habitat appeared to be volume, mean depth, and maximum depth; while volume, surface area, and percent cover appeared to be the most important aspects of riffle habitat. Importance of pool depth was also illustrated in a study comparing artificial and natural pools in Main Diamond and McKnight Creeks (Rinne 1981). Mean and maximum size of Gila trout in pools created by stream improvement structures were about 25 percent greater than in natural pools, largely because of 40-100 percent greater mean and maximum depths in artificial pools. (Revised Gila Trout Recover), Plan, USFWS 1993)
Again, analysis of pool habitat utilized, and often favored, by 0. g gilae focuses on current conditions. Due mainly to the presence of much larger beaver populations and abundant riparian vegetation (Ariz. Dept. Env. Qual. 1993, Chaney and Platts 1990, Davis 1977, Kay 1988, Jacobs 1991, Parker et al. 1985. Platts and Onishuk 1988, Young, pers. comm. 1994), pool habitat was fonnerly common throughout all elevations of the Gila River headwaters. Extensive and impenetrable riparian
13 vegetation generally created more available biomass, which consistently impounded portions of the river, forming deeper sections and pools, including those areas at lower elevations on the mainstem and forks of the Gila River. Reports of 0. g. gilae concentration in natural and artificial pools well covered and sheltered by branches, logs, and undercut banks (USFWS 1993) likely indicate that these conditions were more common within the historic range of the species.
Sites for Breedino, Reproduction, and Rearine of Offspring Oncorhynchus gilae gilae likely breed in those areas where they are most commonly found such as deeper, well covered ponds and riffles (Minckley 1973). Redds are deposited in nests built near or under banks, likely in those areas with the most cover. "Rinne noted one pair of fish normally occurred over a redd..." (USFWS 1993), possibly serving as guardians. Fry generally inhabit riffle areas (Rinne 1980), possibly to avoid predation by mature 0. g. gilae or other species which seem to prefer pond habitat (Hanson 1971, Rinne 1978). Under natural or historic conditions, deeper pools and riffles generally form in areas of abundant riparian vegetation and beaver ponds (Clarkson and Wilson 1991, Jacobs 1991, Parker et al. 1985, Platts 1991). Riparian species hold and contribute to undercut banks, and downed debris sometimes blocks stream flow. When climax riparian vegetative communities and beaver are present, it is likely that maximum 0. g. gilae reproductive habitat, including breeding habitat, safe nest locations, and nursery habitat, is available. The abundance of deep pool and riffle 0. g. gilae reproductive habitat has been altered since the introduction of livestock and severe reduction of beaver populations (Kay 1988, Parker et al. 1985, Platts and Onishuk 1988) in the Gila Headwaters bioregion. Livestock grazing has contributed to the reduction and loss of historic riparian habitat conditions, which, in turn, has led to the reduction and elimination of deep and well covered pool and riffle 0. g. gilae reproductive habitat.
Feedine Sites Hanson (1971) and Rinne (1978) found that 0. g. gilae tend to concentrate in ponds and deeper riffles. 0. g. gilae concentrate and feed in these areas largely due to the presence of cover. 0. g. gilae indivicInnIs seem to prefer slowly swimming or waiting in darker, or well covered, sections of pools and riffles. From these areas, individuals watch for struggling insects on the waters surface, or investigate stream bottom debris for aquatic or sunken terrestrial insect species. Under natural or historic conditions, deeper pools and riffles generally form in areas of abundant riparian vegetation and beaver ponds (Clarkson and Wilson 1991, Jacobs 1991, Parker et aL 1985, Platts 1991). Riparian species hold and contribute to undercut banks, and downed debris sometimes blocks stream flow. As a result, historic riparian and aquatic habitat conditions likely contributed to increased and improved 0. g. gilae aquatic feeding habitat. The abundance of deep pool and riffle O. g. gilae reproductive habitat has been altered since the introduction of livestock and severe reduction of beaver populations (Kay 1988, Parker et al. 1985, Platts and Onishuk 1988) in the Gila Headwaters bioregion. Livestock grazing has contributed to the reduction and loss of historic riparian habitat conditions, which, in turn, has led to the reduction and elimination of deep and well covered pool and riffle feeding habitat.
Food This species feeds primarily on aquatic insects, particularly on caddis flies, mayflies, chironomids, and beetles. Gila trout in Little Creek (Grant County, New Mexico) were found to feed principally on simuliid larvae and terrestrial organisms (Van Eimeren 1988). Peak feeding occurs between 9:00 a.m.-and 1:00 p.m. (Sublette et al. 1990)
14 Again, the drastic change from pre-settlement aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial conditions to those found today has likely dramatically affected populations of terrestrial and aquatic insects utilized by 0. g. gilae (Young, pers. comm. 1994). Caddis flies, mayflies, chironomids, and beetles all depend and thrive on conditions found associated with large amounts of shaded standing water, abundant decaying aquatic vegetative debris, and thick, jungle-like riparian vegetation. Aquatic insects require decaying organic debris for shelter and food (Stokes 1983). With the reduction of riparian vegetation, this type of debris has likely been reduced. Early explorers and settlers loathed dense riparian and marshland areas because of the teaming biting flies and mosquitoes found in and around those wetlands.
Water Currently, water levels and runoff regime in the headwaters of the Gila River are likely greatly altered compared to pre-european settlement conditions. This alteration has likely contributed to the reduction or elimination of O. g. gilae aquatic habitat. While the average annual amount of water flowing through the headwaters of the Gila River is likely unchanged, the patterns and degree of runoff is different. Historically, many springs, creeks, and streams of the Gila headwaters that presently flow for only a few months a year, were perennial, which resulted in greater habitat availability for aquatic species such as 0. g. gilae. Today, streams in the Gila headwaters are often subject to severe flash flooding in summer months, and unnaturally high flood levels in the winter. As a result, most smaller creeks and streams tend to be annual in nature, with waters flowing off much quicker than in pre-european settlement times (Clarkson and Wilson 1991, Jacobs 1991, Parker etal. 1985, Platts 1991). This is likely due to several factors. The presence of livestock increases runoff levels after nearly any precipitation event due to reduced terrestrial and riparian vegetative cover (please see CAUSES OF DECLINE: Livestock Grazing). As a result of these short term increases in runoff quantity, water that would normally be found slowly seeping out of the ground and maintaining the perennial flow, is no longer present. By reducing riparian vegetation cover, and widening stream beds through bank trampling, livestock also contribute an increased evaporation rate resulting from the greater exposure of waters to solar radiation. In some areas of the historic range of O. g. gilae such as near the confluence of the West, Middle, and East Forks of the Gila River in New Mexico, and the Arizona towns of Payson and Sedona, ground water pumping and stream diversions have contributed to the loss of stream water and resulting elimination or reduction of downstream trout habitat.
15 V. ONCORIIYNCHUS GILAE GILAE POPULATION NUMBERS ESTIMATE
Although the historic and current range of O. g. gilae is fairly well understood, and it is well known that populations of O. g. gilae have been greatly reduced from their pre-european settlement numbers due to hybridization and habitat degradation, historic population numbers of the subspecies remain unknown because of disagreement over the distribution of the subspecies within its historic range. However, based on numbers of the species tracked since the early sixties (Regan 1964, 66; Hanson 1971; Mello and Turner 1980), it is likely that historic numbers of the subspecies were in excess of one-hundred thousand throughout its pre-settlement range within the Gila Headwaters bioregion of Arizona and New Mexico. Initial declines in populations of the subspecies may have occurred concurrent with the elimination of large populations of beaver from the Gila Headwaters bioregion in the early nineteenth century. Further declines likely took place with the introduction of livestock to the historic range of 0. g. gilae in the late nineteenth century. Potentially drastic declines possibly took place over the course of a limited number of years with the introduction of non-native Sahnonids to portions of the subspecies' range also beginning in the late nineteenth century (Propst et aL 1992 and pers. comm. 1994). By 1950, when Salmo gilae was described by Miller, only the Iron Creek, Main Diamond Creek, McKenna Creek, South Diamond Creek, and Spruce Creek populations remained extant, with a total approximate average population munber of 6,367 individuals. Population numbers were likely similar when reintroduction of the subspecies to additional drainages began around 1970. By 1980, at least 89 0. g. gilae had been lost in the stocking of Sheep Corral Creek, but population numbers had increased by approximately 6,955 (average high estimate) to approximately 10,175 (average estimate) fish as a result of reintroduction efforts and initial population success in both Gap Creek and McKnight Creek. But by 1993, however, populations had been reduced by approximately 7,565 (average estimate)', leaving approximately 2,610 fish in the wild. (Regan 1964, 66; Hanson 1971; Mello and Turner 1980; Propst 1992; Warneke etal. 1992).
1If McKenna and Little Creek populations of 0. G. GILAE are found to be contaminated through hybridization with 0. MYKISS, total 0. G. GILAE population numbers may have been reduced by as many as 8,515, leaving as few as 1,660 fish in the wild.
16 VI. CAUSES OF DECLINE
Introduction: The Extinction Process A fragmented landscape is one in which habitat "islands" are separated from one another by marginal or unsuitable habitat. Fragmentation may be caused by biogeographical influences (in the case of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae, dry stream stretches, waterfalls, etc...), natural disturbances (unusually high natural flooding, landslides, etc...), or by human intrusion (livestock grazing, non-native species introduction, road building). Though 0. g. gilae populations were naturally fragmented due to the dependence of the subspecies on aquatic habitats in an arid region, habitat fragmentation has been greatly exacerbated through human intrusion. The very small size of current 0. g. gilae populations, limited genetic diversity, and their complete isolation from other populations, increases the chances of local extirpation and total extinction of the subspecies (Propst et al. 1992). Human induced events, as well as stochastic processes such as floods and fires, unseasonal weather fluctuations, and disease, could easily decimate any single or many remaining populations of 0. g. gilae (See APPENDIX B)(Propst etal. 1992). Anthropogenic problems such as hybridization with introduced non-native trout species also threaten populations of 0. g. gilae with extinction (Behnke 1992, Minckley 1973, Propst et al. 1992, Sublette et al. 1990, Turner 1986, USFWS 1993). "Single stockings (of 0. g. gilae in reintroduction efforts) coupled with low numbers probably contributes to unnaturally low genetic diversity of replicate populations." (Propst et al. 1992). This low genetic diversity could result in inbreeding depression, and or lack of dynamic response to environmental changes (Propst etal. 1992, and pers. comm. 1994)2. If populations were larger, more numerous, and connected to one another, a proportionally larger number of 0. g. gilae would be expected to survive stochastic and systematic threats (though not with hybridization), and be able to recolonize an extirpated or reduced population (Propst et al. 1992). Because of the presence of rainbow and cutthroat trouts in nearly all waters between current 0. g. gilae populations, 0. g. gilae are no longer able to establish new populations in lower elevations outside of their currently occupied isolated tributaries due to hybridization (USFWS 1993). Simply put, all 0. g. gilae washed down from the isolated tributaries potentially breed with the non-native rainbow or cutthroat trouts, resulting in the loss of the pure strain and the creation a hybridized population. Natural recolonization, in addition to human management, of endangered species populations must be considered a recovery goal to be accomplished prior to the de-listing of any given endangered or threatened species or subspecies.
The total population of a species is often comprised of metapopulations maintained by a dynamic balance of local extinction and colonization (Wilson 1992). By analyzing population dynamics in terms of metapopulation interaction, Levins (1969, 1970) has shown why species may not occupy all available suitable habitat, and why populations may become extinct even though suitable habitat patches are available. Assuming that patches of suitable habitat are randomly or evenly distributed across a large region, but are separated from one another by unsuitable areas, L,ande's model (1987) predicts the equilibrium occupancy of suitable habitat by females as a function of the proportion of the landscape which is suitable, and the demographic potential of the species (i.e. life history and dispersal behavior). Lande (1988) has pointed out several problems with his model which are applicable to 0. g. gilae. The model "depends strongly" on the assumption that suitable habitat patches are randomly or evenly distributed across a region, that suitable habitat is at equilibrium, that initial populations are large enough
2Hatchery propagation can also contribute to the loss of genetic diversity, when "wilderness genes" are effectively eliminated (Propst et al. 1992) through the propagation of multiple generations in an unnaturally "sterile" environment.
17
110 to be immune to extinction due to demographic or environmental stochasticity, and that there is no loss of fitness due to inbreeding depression. Lamberson et al. (1992) have extended Lande's analysis by developing a model which accounts for environmental stochasticity. To predict long-term population dynamics of northern spotted owls in fragmented landscapes, they determined that populations tend towards stable equilibrium when initial populations are sufficiently large and their search efficiency is relatively high. "If search efficiency was low, however, even very large initial populations crashed." This is known as the Allee effect: as populations become smaller and more scattered, or as the habitat becomes more fragmented, dispersing males become less successful at finding suitable territories and females become less successful at finding potential mates. Patterson (1978) has noted that the non-random process of extinction inevitably leads to the extirpation of rare and local species from small habitat "islands". Small habitat patches in the case of birds and mammals, or severely isolate.; populations in the case of fish, even in great numbers, do not serve the biological needs met by larger patches or connected populations. Specifically, isolationinduced impacts to fish species such as 0. g. gilae are many times worse due to lack of ability to disperse, and include such impacts as inbreeding depression. Species in small habitat fragments go extinct in a very predictable sequence (Cutler 1991, Patterson 1978)- a sequence which starts with the rarest subspecies such as 0. g. gilae. While Patterson is concerned with the sequence rather than the causes of extinction, it is clear that small populations have a very limited genetic pool from which to draw upon in the face of changing environmental conditions. They are also more likely to be wiped out in a single stroke, leaving no regenerative base (APPENDIX B). In Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty, Shaffer (1987) agrees:
...that extinction may often be the result of chance events, and that the likelihood of extinction may increase dramatically as population size diminishes.
But Shaffer goes on to point out that predictable human intrusions greatly increased the chance of extinction. It is probable that the most severe threat to 0. g. gilae within the foreseeable future are the highly predictable human induced processes of extirpation and extinction which are complementary to stochastic processes. Recent models have shown that extinction occurs much faster than genetic/stochastic models predict due to the addition of non-stochastic causes (Lamberson el al. 1992, Pimm 1993) such as crazing.
Conclusions Were the separate populations of O. g gilae connected to one another by segments of suitable habitat, local extinction due to stochastic and more systematic processes could be overcome by re- colonization from unaffected sites within the same watershed or drainage. Isolated populations are also genetically separated, narrowing the genetic variance necessary to enable dynamic responsiveness to environmental changes. If human induced extinction processes were eliminated, and populations were allowed to recover within an entire watershed, it is likely that there would be ample genetic variation to eliminate or greatly reduce the risk of disease or inbreeding, and greatly reduce the possibility of chance extinction or extirpation of the entire sub-population. But again, those genetic variants must be given a chance at full recovery within separate headwater stream watersheds through reclamation, and elimination of destructive habitat alteration activities. By not addressing the issue of protection for entire watersheds in the protection or reclamation of 0. g. gilae habitat, land management acencies such as the Gila National Forest have artificially perpetuated the isolation of the subspecies. Replication of remaining indigenous populations of 0. g. gilae was a valid first step towards the recovery of the species. However, by not eliminating destructive habitat impacts such as grazing of livestock and fire suppression, and only reintroducing populations to tiny,
18 isolated stream stretches, management agencies have accomplished relatively little towards facilitating the recovery of the subspecies. The designation of critical habitat for 0. g. gilae is presently the best option available for accomplishing the goal of protecting entire watersheds from human induced processes of habitat degradation. With human induced impacts reduced, 0. g. gilae populations could have an increased survival rate in the face of stochastic events. Without the designation of critical habitat, current land management agency activities will continue and the potential for human induced or chance extinction of the subspecies will remain high.
Introduction of Non-native Salmonids Besides the destruction and alteration of riparian and aquatic habitats through the grazing of livestock, the introduction of Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout) and 0. clarki (cutthroat trout) is the most important factor in the near extinction of Gila trout. Though a few streams were stocked with 0. mykiss and 0. clarki possibly as early as the late nineteenth century, stocking of streams within the historic range of 0. g. gilae didn't begin in earnest until the early nineteen hundreds (Propst, pers. comm. 1994). Although the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has followed a policy of not stocking rainbow or cutthroat trout into streams supporting 0. g. gilae since 1923 (Miller 1950, Propst et al. 1992), streams within the historic range of 0. g. gilae were not adequately surveyed for the species until the early-late fifties, allowing for nearly three decades of introduction of non-native salmonid species to habitats potentially still supporting pure stocks of 0. g. gilae. The introduction of non-native salmonids and the resulting effects on 0. g. gilae are well covered in the literature: In The Fishes of New Mexico, Sublette et al. (1990) describe the general situation:
The decline of Gila trout in New Mexico has been the result of habitat degradation, hybridization with the rainbow trout (0. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (0. clarki), and competition with brown trout (Salmo trutta) and other introduced trouts (Hatch et al. 1984; Rinne 1988).
Propst et al. (1992), state,
Reasons for the decline of O. gilae are similar to those given for other interior North American salmonids (Miller, 1950, 1961; Behnke and Zarn, 1976; Behnke, 1979). Competition and predation by introduced salrnonids, hybridization with rainbow (0. mykiss) and cutthroat (0. clarki) trouts, habitat degradation and loss, and changes in water quality and quantity contributed to the range reduction of O. gilae.
The only reason pure populations of 0. g. gilae exist today can be attributed to chance. Remaining populations in the late sixties were all found in stretches of streams that were isolated either by natural or man-made barriers from other stretches of streams that supported introduced salmonids. This situation is described in the Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993),
These populations of Gila trout (South Diamond, Iron, McKenna, and Spruce Creeks) are located in small headwater streams and have survived because they have been isolated by natural barriers such as stretches of thy stream or impassable waterfalls.
It is likely that these isolated stream stretches were not stocked with the non-natives due to remoteness.
19 Livestock Grazing
General Grazing Impacts Grazing impacts to riparian and aquatic ecosystems, and thus the species dependent on those systems, are well documented. In Effects of Livestock Grazing on Neotropical Migratory Lan dbirds in Western North America (Bock et al. 1992), the effects of grazing on riparian habitats, and thus aquatic habitats, are detailed;
Livestock gazing has caused geographically extensive impacts on western riparian areas (Carothers 1977, Chaney etal. 1990). Grazing tends to be more damaging in riparian bottom lands than in adjacent uplands (Platts and Nelson 1985), especially in arid regions where livestock are attracted to water, shade, more succulent vegetation, and flatter terrain (Plats 1991). Cattle compact soil by hoof action, remove plant materials, and indirectly reduce water infiltration, all of which result in decreased vegetation density (Holechek et al. 1989). Grazing can potentially eliminate riparian areas through channel widening, channel aggrading, or lowering the water table.
In Rinne and Minckley's (1991) Native Fishes of Arid Lands, Minckley states,
Arroyo cutting due to watershed abuses such as overgrazing stimulates further erosion, draining water tables to decrease stability even more.
In Effects of Land Use Practices on Western Riparian Ecosystems (Krueper 1992),
One of the most significant adverse impacts within western riparian systems has been the perpetuation of improper grazing practices (Hastings and Turner 1965, Ames 1977, Davis 1977, Glinski 1977, Marlow and Pogacnik 1985). Chaney et al. (1990) noted that initial deterioration of western riparian systems began with severe overgrazing in the late nineteenth century. Native perennial gasses were replaced with annual or non-native grass species, salt-cedar, juniper, mesquite, rabbit brush, and other shallow rooted vegetation less adapted for soil stabilization. Wind and water erosion stripped productive topsoil and began down-cutting and entrenchment of riparian systems. This resulted in lowered water tables and caused perennial water courses to become ephemeral or dry. Chaney et al. (1990) estimate that resultant desertification reduced arable land of the west by 225 million acres (90 million hectares). Although management has greatly improved riparian habitat in some areas, field data compiled in the last decade showed that riparian areas throughout much of the west were in the worst condition in history due mainly to complications initiated by improper grazing management techniques (Chaney et al. 1990)
A better example than Main and South Diamond Creeks, and indeed, the vast majority of the Gila headwaters, of these impacts cannot be found. All known 0. g. gilae populations, both native and reintroduced, are subject to the destructive influences of current and historic livestock grazing. Even within the un-grazed Wilderness Allotment, harmful effects of historic gazing practices discontinued in 1962 such as erosion of bottom lands soils and thinned or absent riparian vegetation are still visible. Habitat destruction and introduction of non-native trout species are often cited by the responsible land management agencies regarding the severe reduction in range of 0. g. gilae (USFWS 1993; USFWS, NMSU. NMGF. USFS 1993). The reasons and methods of the introduction of non-native trout are well documented and often dealt with in literature regarding the species (Behnke 1973, Bickle 1973, David 1976, Hanson 1971, Miller 1961, Minckley 197-3, Propst etal. 1985, 1992, Sublette 1990, USFWS 1993). Yet, on the rare occasion when 0. g. gilae habitat destruction and alteration is mentioned, little or 20 no attention is given to the cause of these impacts. Domestic livestock grazing is second only to hybridization with introduced salmonids in the creation of negative impacts to historic and current populations of 0. g. gilae. In Land Erosion — Normal and Accelerated — in the Semi-arid West, Bailey illustrates the connection between the health of terrestrial habitats and riparian/aquatic habitats:
(observations, measurements, and history). ..amply justify the conclusions that many watersheds in the semi-arid west may develop a sufficiently complete plant-and-soil mantle to allow an infiltration rate equal to the greatest magnitude and intensity of storms.
In Environmental Conservation, Dasmann (1972) relates precipitation runoff events in Utah:
Both watersheds (along the Wasatch Front in Utah) received equally heavy rain, yet the watershed of Parrish Canyon produced severe floods, whereas the adjacent Centerville Canyon produced little or no flooding. Investigation showed that the Parrish Canyon watershed (emphasis added) was heavily overgrazed; whereas the Centerville Canyon watershed was protected from excessive grazing.
The direct connection between the health of upland vegetation or habitat conditions, and the health of riparian or aquatic habitat conditions is well illustrated in the Environmental Protection Agency report Managing Change, Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas (Chancy et al. 1993):
Improper grazing of upland vegetation increases the amount, and concentrates and increases the speed of overland runoff to streams. Accelerated runoff from uplands can trigger downcutting by streams with soft bottoms. Downcutting lowers the streambed and water table, dries out the riparian area, destabilizes stream banks, increases erosion, and further accelerates runoff.
Evidently, as indicated by text from the Diamond Bar Allotment Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (1993), the Forest Service agrees:
The amount of residual forage in the uplands and riparian areas is critical for maintaining a healthy watershed. Riparian and upland areas provide ground cover which holds soil in place, cushions the impacts of raindrops, and provides for sediment retention. Cumulative watershed effects are the results of downslope and/or downstream interaction of rtmoff from the management of activities that reduce the productive land and water base. The primary physical causes of increased peak flow and increased runoff are soil compaction and removal of vegetative cover.
Soil compaction and removal of vegetative cover are closely associated with livestock grazing. As the above texts illustrate, flash-type flooding, often associated with images of the southwest, was likely a rare occurrence within 0. g. gilae's historic range in pre-settlement times. While it is probable that high volume, short duration flooding did occur throughout 0. g. gilae's indigenous range, destructive flash flooding carrying tons of topsoil and piles of vegetation did not. In an undisturbed state, southwestern semi-arid lands were much more capable of absorbing large amounts of precipitation (Lusby 1970) in uncompacted soils, cryptogamic soil crusts (Anderson et al 1982; Anderson and Rushforth 1982, Fletcher and Martin 1946, Loope and Gifford 1972), and intact terrestrial and riparian vegetation. On the rare occasion that flooding did occur, waters in creeks, streams, and rivers rose slowly over the course of many hours or days. Because of this, downstream vegetation and soils remained intact, as opposed to
21 being swept away, and were better able to absorb run-off, thus preserving vegetation and soils even further downstream.
Grazine Impacts to Primary Constituent Elements of Oncorhvnchus kilae gllae Habitat Pre-settlement aquatic and riparian habitat conditions within O. g. gilae's historic range have been drastically altered by the presence of livestock. One of the first trappers in the Gila Headwaters bioregion, James Pattie (1831) wrote of his experiences traveling on the Gila River, its forks, and tributaries, above the Cliff/Gila Valley in 1824:
On the morning of the 13th we started early, and crossed the (Gila) river, here a beautiful, clear stream about thirty yards in width, running over a rocky bottom, and filled with fish. We made but little advance this day, as bluffs came in so close to the river, as to compel us to cross it thirty-six times. We were obliged to scramble along under the cliffs, sometimes upon our hands and knees, through a thick tangle ofgrape-vines and under-brush (emphasis added).
Further upstream, past the confluence of the forks of the Gila River and the "boiling springs" (near the confluence of the forks of the Gila River), Pattie and his companion found,
The banks....were very brushy, and frequented by numbers of beaver.
The massive trapping of beaver, by Pattie and others after him, and the introduction of livestock greatly altered the landscape described about by Pattie.
When first introduced to western North America, and to this day, livestock congregate where abundant water and succulent vegetation was and is available for consumption (Chaney et a/. 1993). Included in these historic and current wetland impacts are the riparian and aquatic habitats of the Gila Headwaters bioregion of Arizona and New Mexico occupied by 0. g. gilae. Though there was probably a reduction in the amount of land covered by riparian vegetation with the elimination of vast populations of beaver (please see Elimination of Beaver, below) and resulting increases in water runoff velocity and incremental lowering of the water table, much of this vegetation likely remained when livestock were first introduced in large numbers to the historic range of O. g. gilae. The effects of large numbers of livestock congregating in these wetland habitats were well described by Sampson and Weyl (1918) in Range Preservation and its Relation to Erosion Control on Western Grazing Lands:
The greatest anmage from erosion on range lands occurs where the areas have been overgrazed and the ground cover destroyed or seriously impaired. Before the ranges had been overstocked and the ground cover impaired, erratic runoff and erosion were practically unknown (emphasis added). After the breaking up of the vegetative cover in the early (eighteen) nineties, however, many streams originally of steady year-long flow and teaming with trout became treacherous channels with intermittent flow through which the water from rainstorms was plunged, or rose and fell according to the size and frequency of the storms and carried so much sediment in the water that fish and similar life could not exist.
Livestock grazing has severely impacted primary constituent elements of 0. g gilae habitat, and as a result, populations of O. g. gilae that were once found in the mainstem of the Gila River from the mouth of the box canyon approximately seven miles northeast of Cliff, New Mexico, and upstream, were likely the first to disappear. From there, localized extinction and hybridization of the species proceeded upstream to the higher elevations, leaving populations of the species in only those isolated stream stretches where the species is currently found. The impacts of domestic livestock on populations of trout are well summarized by Clarkson and Wilson (1991):
A majority of the Ungulate damage to stream banks is undoubtedly caused by the domestic cow. Although we cannot unequivocally assure that our models explain a cause-and- effect relationship between cattle use and trout standing crops, the literature abounds with treatises that document the debilitating effects of livestock use on bank morphology and trout populations (see reviews by Szaro 1989, Marcus et a/. 1990, Chaney et al. 1990, Armour etal. 1990, Plans 1991). The avenues of impacts include (Plans and Raleigh 1984): 1) Increased stream temperature due to loss of overhanging vegetation that is less suitable for the biology of trouts; 2) Increased sedimentation from bank and upland erosion that trap and suffocate eggs and fry; 3) Increased channel width due to hoof-induced bank sloughing and consequent erosion that reduces trout cover, decreases winter stream temperatures, and increases susceptibility to formation of anchor ice; 4) Stream channel trenching or braiding that degrades instream habitats and increases the stream's susceptibility to catastrophic floods; and 5) Plant community alteration and/ or vegetation loss that reduce bank cohesiveness, cover attributes, and terrestrial food inputs.
Sublette et al. (1990) also describe livestock impacts to trout populations:
Most streams occupied by Rio Grande cutthroat have been impacted by overgrazing of livestock. Limited vegetation in the watershed, especially in riparian areas, has led to altered stream nutrient and sediment loads, and has modified flow regimes along with the morphology of the stream course. Trampling of stream banks by livestock has further accelerated habitat deterioration. Trout survival in many of these steams is impaired because of the lack of productive riffle areas, suitable spawning sites, undercut banks (to escape predation), pools (for resting, feeding, and over wintering), and shade (in proper proportions which preserves cold water temperatures yet allows adequate solar gain essential for primary production).
Riparian vegetation that once cooled the waters of the main stem of the Gila River and other lower elevation tributaries was quickly reduced, and in many areas, eliminated, through trampling and consumption by livestock, and flash flooding resulting from the grazing of surrounding uplands and upstream riparian vegetation. Although floods are generally considered to be a stochastic event, today "flash"-type flooding throughout the range of 0. g. gilae is a result of very deterministic processes such as livestock grazing and fire suppression. As a result of the elimination of the once thick riparian vegetation, much more of the river's surface area became exposed to sunlight, effectively warming the water to temperatures considerably higher than those necessary for the health of O. g. gilae populations. According to Rinne (1978) riffle habitat is also quite important to 0. g. gilae, but is generally favored by the species only when extensive cover (i.e. riparian vegetation) is present. Again, there has been what seems to be a drastic decline in amounts of shaded riffle habitat throughout a majority of O. g. gilae's historic range. Erosion and siltation from the gazing of uplands and upstream riparian vegetation increases water turbidity which in turn affects invertebrate populations, effectively simplifying the invertebrate fauna and reducing 0. g. gilae's main food source (Young, pers. comm. 1994). Increased unnatural siltation and water turbidity also covers valuable gavel substrates favored as spawning habitat by 0. g. gilae (Young, pers. comm. 1994). Riffle habitat, utilized by newly hatched fry, is altered by the siltation process. Siltation resulting from unnatural erosion fills pools and ponds which are preferred by 0. g. gilae, and clogs fine gavels and coarse sandy substrates necessary for nest construction. Deep, cool pools once teaming with 0. g. gilae were quickly eliminated in lower elevation and low gradient sections of the mainstem and forks of the Gila River when riparian habitat sources of woody
"r; debris were destroyed upstream. In some areas of 0. g. gdae's historic range, old-growth logging upstream eliminated large downed tree deadfall which historically functioned in much the same way as beaver dams when washed into a stream or river. Livestock also trampled overhanging stream and pool banks eliminating favorite 0. g. gilae lurking and spawning locations. Remaining small dams formed behind temporary and semi-permanent vegetative debris piles were swept away during unnatural flash flooding. Remaining deep pools preferred by 0. g. gilae are rapidly filled by unnatural accelerated siltation. Flash flooding often "smoothes out" bottom lands along with eliminating vegetation that would normally hold stream banks, thus eliminating a diversity of aquatic habitats. Also, Livestock congregating in stream beds often dislodge or destroy redds. Once abundant aquatic invertebrate populations utilized by 0. g. gilae were dependent on decaying (mostly riparian) vegetation, clear, silt free slower moving waters, and in general, a richer diversity of aquatic habitats. These invertebrate populations were also likely severely reduced in the process of riparian vegetation elimination and aquatic habitat siltation resulting from livestock grazing. The presence of livestock increases runoff levels after nearly any precipitation event due to reduced terrestrial and riparian vegetative cover (please see CAUSES OF DECLINE: Livestock Grazing). Terrestrial3 and riparian vegetative cover would normally slow mnoff, allowing the ground to absorb larger quantities of rain water. As a result of these short term increases in runoff quantity, water that would normally be found slowly seeping out of the ground and maintaining the perennial flow, is no longer present. By reducing riparian vegetation cover, and widening stream beds through bank trampling, livestock contribute an increased evaporation rate resulting from the greater exposure of waters to solar radiation. As a result, livestock grazing throughout entire watersheds (not just riparian areas), has insured that successful maturing and development of O. g. gilae individuals is much less likely today than in pre- settlement times. Populations of 0. g. gilae that are generally considered to be "stable" (Stefferud, pers. comm., 1993), that is populations that are not annually subject to wide fluctuations in numbers since discovery or reintroduction, are largely found in areas of the Gila National Forest where little or no livestock grazing occurs. As illustrated in the above information, ungrazed or lightly grazed watersheds are much more likely to support streams with perennial flow, and are less subject to destructive flooding. Dry creek, Iron Creek, Mogollon Creek, Spruce Creek, and White Creek all currently support "stable" populations of O. g. gilae. The Iron Creek, Mogollon Creek, and White Creek populations are all found within the ungrazed Wilderness Allotment. Although the Dry Creek and Spruce Creek populations of O. g. gilae are within the grazed Dry Creek Allotment, the higher elevations of the allotment where the populations are found are ungrazed due to rugged terrain and lack of forage (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993).
Grazing Politics Though well documented, impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats depended on by 0. g. gilae are consistently ignored by both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Gila National Forest. In the original recovery plan issued for the species, the USFWS perpetuates the myth that very few human induced
30flen ignored as a componant of terrestrial vegetative cover, cryptogamic, or mycrophytic soil crusts play an extremely important role in the stabilization of uplands soils (Anderson et al. 1982; Fletcher and Martin 1946; Kleiner and Harper 1977; Loope and Gifford 1972). Cryptoaamic soil crusts are formed when blue-green algae, lichens, and mosses grow in an uninterupted sheet or crust on the surface of the soil. Present in most western arid lands below approximately 6500ft. in elevation, these crust are known to increase water infiltration, slow or halt water and wind erosion of soils between vascular plant species, and increase vascular plant health and vigor through nitrogen fixation. Loss of cryptoaamic crusts throughout the southwest has likely contributed to an increase in destructive flash-type flooding. Cryptogamic crusts are severely impacted by even light livestock grazing, and take a minimum of twenty years of complete rest from grazing to recover. 24 impacts occur in wilderness areas by stating:
....Main Diamond and South Diamond Creeks are within the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Area and are, therefore, protected from man-induced changes in the environment (USFWS 1983).
In fact, 0. g gilae habitat in Main Diamond and South Diamond Creek was severely impacted in 1989 due to the unnaturally hot, highly destructive Divide Fire, and resulting unnatural flooding as a result of both the fire, and long-term destructive grazing practices within both watersheds. Impacts from both the fire and the flooding were a direct result of "man induced changes in the environment"...the grazing of livestock and the suppression of the natural fire cycle. In the Reasons for Decline section of the Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan issued in 1994 (USFWS 1993), the USFWS states,
Miller (1961) reported dramatic changes in native fish faunas and aquatic habitats in the southwest and cited destruction of vegetation and resulting erosion, sedimentation, and lowering of water tables as the greatest impacts on aquatic habitats.
The USFWS goes on to quote from Miller (1961),
The aboriginal habitats have become modified in various ways. There has been a shift from clear, dependable streams to those of intermittent flow subject to flash floods that carry heavy loads of silt. As a result of loss in volume and destruction of vegetation, there has been a trend towards rising temperatures in the surviving waters. The smaller creeks, springs, marshes, and lagoons have disappeared, due in part to severe lowering of the water table. There has been destruction of trees, grasses, and aquatic plants; pollution from industrial and domestic wastes; deep channeling (arroyo cutting) of stream beds; and gully erosion on bare hillsides.
The USFWS fails address the cause of the above impacts.. .the grazing of domestic livestock. Yet, in the Loach Minnow Recovery Plan (1991) the USFWS states,
Livestock grazing that results in widespread removal of covering gasses and shrubs from the watershed, or denuding of riparian vegetation, may induce dramatic changes in precipitation runoff, suspended sediment, and bedload that increases turbidity, clogs interstitial spaces of coarse substrates, and enhances erosion of stream channels and banks.
Similar information regarding livestock grazing impacts to watersheds is presented by the USFWS in other reports (Propst et al. 1986 and 1988). In the Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993), the agency maintains that "the extent of gazing effects on habitats of Gila trout is equivocal". This statement is false. Ample evidence is given above that livestock grazing has caused direct negative impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats depended upon by 0. g. gilae. Livestock gazing of upland habitats has also caused alterations in runoff regimes, resulting in erosion and destabilization of stream banks, elimination of riparian and preferred deeper pond and riffle habitat, and a general change in the vigor and persistence of O. g. gilae populations. In a 1993 letter to John Rogers, Southwest Regional Director for the USFWS, regarding the status of the Gila trout, riparian expert Robert Ohmart. Ph.D. (Oilman 1993) states "Unmanaged livestock grazing (on the Gila National Forest) is the major issue (in the decline of 0. g. gilae) and until your agency and the Recovery Team recognize this and make some tough decisions, the fish is doomed to extinction". Apparently, the USFWS has made a conscious decision to specifically ignore impacts to 0. g 25 gilae caused by the grazing of domestic livestock. In failing to secure habitat protection from the negative impacts of livestock grazing over a significant portion of O. g. gilae's pre-settlement range, and in failing to designate key areas as critical habitat, the USFWS has failed to implement the Endangered Species Act.
Elimination of Beaver
Beaver, as a native component of southwestern riverine ecosystems, played an extremely important evolutionary role in the maintenance of 0. g. gilae's aquatic habitat. In Erosional Down cutting in Lower Order Riparian Ecosystems: Have Historical Changes Been Caused by the Removal of Beaver?, Parker et al. (1985) described the effects of beaver on western streams and rivers:
...many attributes of riparian zones, hydrology, and water quality are significantly and positively affected by the activity of beaver. Beaver affect water and riparian zones in several. ..ways. For example, the amount of surface water is markedly increased by dams. Another important aspect of beaver dams, especially in moderately broad valleys, is to decrease peak discharge during a runoff event. When increased discharge flows into an area with beaver dams, we observe a major effect of beaver on riparian systems; the flow is spread over a wide linear distance. Yet another result associated with ponds and high water tables is increased bank and ground storage. Moving from hydrology to water quality, we have found that a beaver dam complex significantly reduces the concentrations of suspended solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphorus.
In Waste of the West, Jacobs (1991) also describes the importance of beaver:
(Beaver)... .build check dams that slow stream flow, reduce flooding, raise water tables, promote riparian growth, create deep pools of excellent animal and plant habitat, trap nutrients and water- borne particles, decrease water pollution, and maintain lower water temperatures. Old beaver ponds eventually fill with rich sediments, becoming lush meadows with meandering streams, and later provide a fertile base for large trees.
Parker etal. (1985) detail causes behind the decline of western beaver populations:
This difficulty in assigning cause (of trends in degradation or erosional downcutting of streams) may be complicated additionally by several not-so-obvious activities of ranching. For example, fur trapping must have been important in depressing or eliminating populations of beaver in some areas (e.g., Collier 1959). But, for two reasons, in some areas of the arid west the demands of ranching also must have been important in affecting beaver. First, production of hay required the diversion of stream water, and beaver actively dammed the diversion ditches (E. Solace, personal communication). Second, while riparian areas supported the most lush and productive vegetation, some of these areas could be little used for grazing. This is because when the soils are saturated with water, cattle venturing onto them become mired and die. And by keeping water tables high in these meadows, beaver caused the problem. Thus two sources of reduced stock production could be eliminated by the same actions: killing beaver and destroying their dams.
26 Jacobs (1991) continues with a description of direct livestock impacts to beaver:
Cattle, sheep, and goats consume seedlings and small trees -- cottonwood, willow, and aspen are prominent examples -- needed by beaver for food, lodging, and dam construction. Livestock grazing in watersheds causes violent flooding that destroys beaver dams. Trampling livestock also damage beaver dams, as well as the banks and protective root structures needed for homes by bank beaver. Irrigation for ranching destroys habitat, and stockmen slaughter beaver as pests.
It has been estimated that four-hundred million beaver were found in North America prior to european settlement. Today, fewer than nine-million remain... .a 98% reduction in beaver numbers (Kay 1988). Some of the first serious impacts to beaver populations within the historic range of O. g. gilae were described by Coblentz's (1961) The Swallowing Wilderness; The Life of a Frontiersman: James Ohio Pattie:
How numerous these creatures (beaver) were, and how they were hunted, is revealed in some of Pattie's reports. For example, on their first night on the "Helay," or Gila, River of New Mexico they caught thirty beavers. A little later, on a branch of the Gila, the San Francisco, they took no less than thirty-seven in one night. The total catch, in a few days' trapping, was two hundred and fifty animals. Not long afterward, on another tributary of the Gila, to which they gave the name Beaver River (San Pedro River), they gathered another two-hundred skins and only ceased the slaughter when their pack animals had all the furs they could carry.
At these levels of hunting, and with the heavy livestock grazing that was yet to come, it is difficult to believe that any southwestern beaver populations have ever recovered to historic numbers since the late 1820's and early 1830's. It is probable that this loss of beaver population numbers greatly affected water temperatures, water tables, and riparian vegetation (Parker et al. 1985) throughout southwestern riverine systems, as well as numerous other species who had evolved with a dependency on the presence of beaver. Some have argued that beaver cut down riparian trees, thus degrading riparian habitat. Pre- settlement beaver populations, however, had little negative effect on abundant riparian vegetation. In fact, beaver played a critical part in the ecological processes of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Beaver dams played the role of maintaining water saturation levels in bottom lands and collection of silt. Saturation of soils led to maximum riparian vegetation coverage, which in turn stabilized erosion of sensitive bottom land soils. Rich silt that would otherwise be washed downstream was captured behind the beaver dams, and as the dams filled in over many years, began in turn to support new riparian vegetation. (Jacobs 1991, Kay 1988, Parker et al. 1985, Platts and Onishulc 1988) Most importantly, the presence of beaver dams, along with extensive riparian vegetation and watersheds generally more stable than today, created a rich diversity of aquatic habitats greatly lacking today throughout the former range of O. g. gilae. This rich diversity of habitats created a richer diversity of aquatic invertebrate species dependent on those habitats, which in turn created a larger food base for populations of all native fish including 0. g. gilae (Young, pers. comm. 1994). Riparian and aquatic habitats depended on by 0. g. gilae were first dealt a setback with the near elimination of the beaver in the Gila Headwaters bioregion (Pattie 1831). Later, with the incredibly heavy stocking levels of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, riparian vegetation was completely eliminated in many areas, along with most of the few remaining beaver dams, leading to the erosion. sometimes to bedrock (Sundt pers. comm. 1994), of bottom land soils in the Gila Headwater's bioregion. Many species of trout thrive in cool, high elevation beaver ponds (Clarkson and Wilson 1992. Minckley 1973, Sublette el al. 1990), and the drastic reduction in the number of these ponds in the bioregion has
27 likely contributed to the decline of O. g. gilae.
Fire Suppression
The suppression of the natural fire cycle in the Gila National Forest over the last eight decades has had a potentially significant effect on populations of 0. g. gibe. The Forest Service's Multiple Use policy, actually favoring extractive use of the forest, has led to a literally explosive situation. Natural fires in pre- settlement times burned quite frequently, averaging at least once every ten years (Swetnam and Dieterich, 1983, USFS 1992) in the ponderosa pine forest that blankets much of the Gila Headwaters bioregion. Fires were less frequent in higher elevations in habitats such as mixed conifer and spruce/fur, but were still much more frequent than historically and presently allowed by the Forest Service due to economic pressures. Dieterich (1983) estimated that fires burned through mixed conifer stands in east-central Arizona at an interval of twenty-two years. In Fire Suppression Effects on Fuels and Succession in Short-Fire-Interval Wilderness Ecosystems, van Wagtendonk (1983) states,
In such ecosystems (ponderosa pine), fire suppression allows fuels to accumulate and small trees to increase in the understory until a fire exceeding the (human) suppression capability occurs and the entire stand bums.
Stand replacement fires, as opposed to smaller, cooler, natural fires, can only lead to the severe degradation of watersheds. van Wagtendonk (1983) continues with,
The effects of fire suppression in mixed conifer forest have been an increase in fuel accumulation and a shift in composition towards shade tolerant species. These changes have increased the potential for a high-intensity crown fire, not only by providing more available energy but also by creating pathways for flames to reach the overstory canopies. Such crown fires usually exceed the capacity of suppression forces.
Because of the severe build-up of fuels over the last eighty years, and lack of any coherent control bum policy that could potentially favor the restoration of wildlife and forest habitats, recent fires have been devastating. In 1992, the Gila National Forest Prescribed Natural Fire Plan for the Aldo Leopold and Gila Wilderness Areas detailed the potential impacts of continuing fire suppression:
The no action alternative (continued fire suppression) would have the most negative impacts to the habitats and finally the individual species. The unnatural buildups of down woody materials (fuels), over the last 100 years, brings a threat of catastrophic stand replacement fires into these areas. These types of unnatural fires have been on the increase over the past twenty years and fire researchers expect these fires to increase in size, frequency, and intensity, if fuels are not reduced.
Instead of burning slowly across the forest floor, pruning and cleaning out the habitat so to speak, today's fires are oftentimes explosively hot (Brown 1983), leaving the forest floor to burn extensive amounts of the forest crown, and most times, all other vegetation. This kind of destructive burning can have the same effects as heavy livestock grazing; protective plant cover of the forest over- and understory is effectively removed allowing for devastating flooding after summer or winter rains. This resulting unnatural flooding destroys aquatic and riparian habitat depended upon 0. g. gibe by eliminating bottom lands woody vegetation that would normally hold stream banks and shade stream waters. Flooding after devastating unnatural fires also carries heavy loads of silt and ash, drastically reducing amounts of 28 dissolved oxygen necessary for all aquatic life. On most main Gila River tributaries where there once occurred a rich diversity of aquatic habitats including deep stream stretches, meandering branching trickles, and ponds created by beaver or piled downed vegetation, there now exists only the flat steam bed with eroded banks and small sickly patches of riparian vegetation. This type of unnatural flooding is precisely what occurred in the Main and South Diamond watersheds as a result of the 1989 Divide Fire. What was once considered the "most stable and secure population of Gila trout" (USFWS, 1983, 1991, 1993), the Main Diamond Creek population of 0. g. gilae would have been eliminated as a direct result of this fire had they not been removed prior to the flooding, scouring, and sedimentation (Anderson 1991). The degraded condition of the Main and South Diamond watersheds is not unique in the Gila or -- any other southwestern National Forest. The same potential for devastating unnatural fire exists throughout most areas of southwestern National Forests, and could well impact other populations of O. g. gilae. Although the Gila National Forest has issued a Biological Evaluation for the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness Prescribed Natural Fire Plan, this document and proposed plan only refer to the two wilderness areas. Numerous sensitive, candidate, threatened, and endangered species occur and depend on critical habitat outside of the wilderness areas, and are also in need of a control burn policy. The time is now to begin a program of control burns throughout all southwestern National Forests in an effort to eliminate the potential for further unnatural fire disasters. But the improvement of wildlife habitats must be the goal, as opposed to economically driven "range improvement" control burn fire policy presently carried out by the Forest Service. And when prescribed or natural fires do burn, they must not be considered an opportunity to begin salvage-type logging activities. To maintain the integrity of watersheds, forest material must be left in the forest, especially in those areas designated as wilderness, or proposed in this petition for critical habitat designation.
29 VII. CRITICAL HABITAT
CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION ESSENTIAL
Critical habitat designation is essential to maintain and ultimately recover Oncorhynchus gilae gilae. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must designate critical habitat in order to fulfill its Endangered Species Act mandate.
HISTORICAL CONSERVATION EFFORTS The success of historical 0. g. gilae conservation efforts has been quite limited. According to Miller (1950) and Propst etal. (1992):
Efforts to conserve the subspecies began in 1923 with the establishment of Jenk's Cabin Hatchery by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. However, this effort, and another at Glenwood Hatchery were unsuccessful and discontinued (Jenk's Cabin in 1939 and Glenwood in 1947). A policy of not stocking non-native salmonids into stream reaches supporting 0. gilae has been followed by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish since 1923 (Miller 1950). During the 1930s, log stream improvement structures were placed by-the Civilian Conservation Corps in many Gila Drainage streams, including Main and South Diamond Creeks.
Although state and federal agencies were sincere in their efforts to conserve the subspecies through the construction of hatcheries and stream improvement structures, these efforts were largely superficial when continued habitat destruction and stocking of non-native salmonids is considered. Although the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish reportedly followed a policy of not stocking non-native salmonids to streams known to support 0. g. gilae starting in 1923, thorough surveys for unknown populations of the subspecies did not begin in earnest until 1950 (Propst et al. 1992), allowing for nearly thirty years of unintentional destructive stocking of non-natives. Stream improvement structures were constructed in response to the need to offset the unnatural flooding and erosion destruction of preferred trout habitat. Flooding and erosion that was negatively affecting populations of trout in the Gila National Forest was largely a result of livestock grazing that continues to this day (Chaney et a/. 1993, Clarkson and Wilson 1991, Dasmann 1972, Krueper 1992, Sampson and Weyl 1918, Sublette et al. 1990, USFS 1993). After the listing of 0. g. gilae in 1967 and the issuance of a Revised Recovery Plan for the subspecies (1..JSFWS 1993), conservation efforts have continued to focus on the replication of each of the genetically unique remaining indigenous populations through the reclamation of "suitable" streams and subsequent reintroduction of 0. g. gilae. Propst et al. (1992) indicate that:
The loss or near loss of at least three and as many as five populations of O. gilae in <1 year and the consequent change in status from proposed downlisting to distinct possibility of extinction suggested recovery strategies of the last 20+ years need re-evaluation.
Propst et al. (1992) suggest a new strategy:
...entire sub-drainages with multiple tributaries must be reclaimed and managed for 0. gilae. Such an approach is necessary because montane streams of the upper Gila River watershed have a history of regularly occurring and devastating fires, floods, and droughts (S. Service, pers. comm.; P. Stewart, pers. comm.) The persistence of multiple size-class populations of O. gilae in tributaries to McKnight and South Diamond Creeks when the mainstream populations were nearly eliminated by natural events attests to our contention that larger, hydrologically diverse drainages 30 provide greater security for O. gilae than small isolated streams.
Despite the fact that evidence presented in this petition indicates that recent "devastating" fires and floods are largely a result of non-stochastic, anthropogenic problems (as opposed to considering these events as "natural"), this proposed new approach to the conservation of the subspecies is valid and extremely important. The designation of critical habitat for 0. g. gilae is essential for the protection and management of many suitable "entire sub-drainages with multiple tributaries".
CRITICAL HABITAT UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Critical habitat designation gives listed species and their habitats statutory protections beyond those which they enjoy by virtue of being listed as threatened or endangered. Regarding this subject, the USFWS (1993) states:
Recovery planning and critical habitat designation are different processes. Specific management recommendations are more appropriately discussed in recovery plans, management plans, and through Section 7 consultation.
The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), is to "provide a means whereby the ecosystems (emphasis added) upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved" [Sect. 2 (b) ]. To this end, Congress provided for the routine designation of critical habitat, "to the maximum extent prudent and determinable" [Sect. 4 (a)(3) ]. Designation of critical habitat adds a level of protection not otherwise available to species, such as 0. g. gilae, threatened by habitat destruction or modification. These species are protected by provisions which apply to all listed species, but are further protected by a set of provisions which apply only to designated critical habitat. According to the USFWS (1993):
The designation of critical habitat will not, by itself, lead to recovery, but is one of several measures available to contribute to the conservation of a species. Critical habitat helps focus conservation activities by identifying areas that contain essential habitat features (primary constituent elements) regardless of whether or not they are currently occupied by the listed species. Such designations alert Federal Agencies, States, the public, and other entities about the importance of an area for the conservation of a listed species. Critical habitat can also identify areas that may require special management or protection. Areas designated as critical habitat receive protection under Section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal Agency which are likely to adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 requires that Federal Agencies consult on their actions which may affect critical habitat and insure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It also requires conferences on Federal actions which are likely to result in the modification or destruction of proposed critical habitat.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act contains two distinct mandates. First, it requires that all federal agencies insure that their actions are "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species". Second, it mandates that agencies refrain from taking actions likely to "result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat" that has been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be critical. [Sec. 7(2)]. According to the current definition of "jeopardy", the first mandate prohibits only those actions which threaten the survival of an entire species. In contrast, the Endangered Species Act defines critical habitat as an area essential to the recovery of a species. Thus, the Section 7 mandate, the prohibition against destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat, forbids any
31 agency actions that are likely to threaten either the survival or the recovery of listed species. Critical habitat protections are enforceable. Once critical habitat is designated, statutory protections apply. The USFWS alone has the authority to designate critical habitat and modify critical habitat boundaries, regardless of which agencies have jurisdiction over the land involved.
AGENCY NEGLECT Although much attention has been focused on the reclamation of a few headwater creeks and streams and the reintroduction of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae, United States government agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, have almost entirely failed to deal with the largest issue surrounding the decline of 0. g. gilae... severe habitat degradation. Ongoing 0.. g. gilae conservation activities are currently based largely on the assumption that intensive management (i.e. continuous reintroduction efforts, stream "improvement structure" construction, etc...) of the subspecies must and will continue. Because of the nature of government, long- term funding for continuing management activities cannot be guaranteed. Actual recovery of the subspecies, as opposed to long-term intensive maintenance, should be the goal.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Protection afforded 0. g. gilae under its current endangered listing has proven to be insufficient in providing long-term habitat protection for the subspecies. In failing to designate critical habitat for the subspecies, the USFWS has seemingly acquiesced to the continued degradation of occupied 0. g. gilae habitat, and habitat essential to the survival and recovery of the subspecies. By not designating critical habitat for 0. g. gilae, the USFWS has lent de facto support to the myth that public lands wilderness designation automatically protects sensitive species from further population declines and habitat loss. In a 1993 letter to Mr. Peter Galvin of the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, Ms. Jennifer Fowler-Propst, USFWS New Mexico Ecological Services State Supervisor (Fowler- Propst 1993), indicates that:
The Service does not plan on designating critical habitat for the Gila trout because of numerous other high priority endangered species activities, and limited benefits from designation of critical habitat in a wilderness area (emphasis added).
Though the Wilderness Act was meant to halt or curtail many historic extractive activities on certain public lands, it has been interpreted by most land managers as including language mandating the continuation of livestock grazing. This is clearly not the case (see United States Forest Service, below). Serious impacts to 0. g. gilae such as livestock grazing and fire suppression are not addressed by Wilderness designation. Often, land management agency staff and biology or wildlife professionals interpret the lack of official USFWS critical habitat designation for 0. g. gilae as an indication that there is no special reason to reduce aquatic, riparian, and upland habitat degradation resulting from National Forest activities. Without the USFWS critical habitat designation, it becomes obvious to the land manager that critical habitat designation is not essential for the conservation and recovery of the species. In essence political reality becomes perceived biological reality. Under the Actions Needed list in the Executive Summary of the Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993), critical habitat designation, habitat restoration efforts, and rest from livestock grazing go completely unmentioned as techniques for maintaining viable populations and at least partial recovery of 0. g. gilae, both stated goals of the Service. The USFWS is responsible for neglecting to take actions necessary for the survival and recovery of 0. g. gilae. For example, although numerous infbrmal consultations have taken place between the Gila
32 National Forest and the USFWS regarding potential project impacts to populations of O. g. gilae, only one formal consultation has been initiated by the Gila National Forest or the USFWS (Burton, pers. comm. 1994). On July 29, 1991, the Gila National Forest requested fonnal consultation with the USFWS regarding impacts to several sensitive species within the Diamond Bar grazing Allotment that could potentially result from new management activities (USFWS 1992). This consultation was initiated as a result of public outcry over impacts to wilderness values within the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Area potentially resulting from increased livestock associated development activities. However, on November 13, 1991, Silver City Forest Supervisors Office staff contacted the USFWS with the information that the consultation had been in "error", as only the Regional Forester could request formal consultation (USFWS 1992). Gila National Forest staff were well aware of the fact that the Draft Biological Opinion (USFWS 1991) found that the proposed Forest Service action would jeopardize the continued existence of the Gila trout. Rather than canceling the cows, the Gila National Forest instead canceled the consultation, basing the cancellation on a technicality. Thus, because the consultation had been initiated by a District Ranger's Office, consultation was reinitiated with a new Allotment Management Plan preferred alternative. The new Gila National Forest proposal involved alternating yearly stocking of 600 cows in those areas within the Diamond Bar Allotment east of the north-south division fence. "Limited grazing" would continue in, and immediately adjacent to, aquatic habitat in South Diamond Creek occupied by 0. g. gilae (USFWS 1992). Grazing would also occur in the Main Diamond Creek and Black Canyon watersheds, both of which must be considered essential to the recovery and long-term survival of the subspecies. Formal consultation was reinitiated by the Regional Forester on July 7, 1992. Despite potentially severe impacts to terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitats essential for the continued survival and recovery of 0. g gilae that would result from the implementation of the Forest Service proposal, and despite the fact that the USFWS concluded that the original proposal would jeopardize the continued existence of the Gila trout, the new consultation did not result in a jeopardy finding for the subspecies. Had critical habitat been designated for 0. g. gilae in watersheds such as South Diamond Creek, Main Diamond Creek, and especially Black Canyon Creek, all of which are essential for the recovery and long-term survival of the subspecies, the USFWS would likely have made a jeopardy finding in both cases regarding the proposed Forest Service actions. Further neglecting to address a principal cause of the decline Of 0. g. gilae, the USFWS makes several serious errors in the Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) under the heading Factors
Affecting Population Persistence; Grazing. r On active grazing allotments where Gila trout are presently found, for example, the extent of livestock grazing impacts on the subspecies is not limited by "location and topography of the streams" as stated by the USFWS (1993). In fact, just the opposite is generally the case. In extremely rugged terrain, livestock are more likely to congregate in narrow canyon bottoms, therefore concentrating effects on aquatic and riparian systems. The USFWS (1993) continues:
....(livestock grazing) is not considered a principal factor in the decline of the species, or restricting its recovery.
Despite the severely degraded condition of numerous streams that are critical to the long-term survival of the subspecies such as Main Diamond and Black Canyon Creeks, once again the USFWS has apparently chosen to ignore the cause of this degradation; livestock grazing. While Gila trout experts have proposed a new strategy for the conservation of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae (Propst et al. 1992), the USFWS seemingly continues to carry the antiquated belief that the reclamation of only a few small headwater creeks and streams in the Wilderness Allotment is necessary for the recovery of the subspecies. Livestock grazing continues to drastically limit the potential of many streams to support reintroduced populations of 0. g. gilae outside the Wilderness Allotment.
33 The USFWS (1993) also erroneously states that "Much of the Gila Wilderness...has not been grazed by domestic livestock for more than 50 years." In fact, livestock grazing was only discontinued on the Wilderness Allotment in 1962 (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993), 33 years ago. Even after three decades, historic grazing impacts remain visible. Continuing, the USFWS states:
"(of the five) streams within (grazing allotments), livestock are restricted from Main Diamond, Sheep Corral, and Sacaton Creeks by pasture fences or topography; only South Diamond, McKnight, and Little Creeks are directly affected by grazing".
Main Diamond, Sheep Corral, and Sacaton Creeks, however, are in fact grazed by livestock, directly affecting aquatic and riparian habitats to the detriment of 0. g. gilae. All six streams are also impacted by the affects of upland vegetation grazing and soil compaction, which in turn increases water runoff velocity, altering aquatic and riparian habitat conditions essential to the survival and recovery of O. g. gilae. In Table 9. of the Grazing section, "Streams occupied by Gila trout, their location, and name of the gazing allotment through which they flow" are listed. The Table indicates that Main Diamond Creek is presently occupied by Gila trout despite the fact that this population was eliminated as a result of the 1989 Divide Fire and livestock grazing. Although genetic purity has yet to be determined (Burton, Propst, pers. comm. 1994), McKenna and Little Creeks are also listed as streams occupied by Gila trout. No allotment names are listed for Dry and Spruce Creeks, giving the reader the impression that both are within the un-grazed Wilderness Allotment. Both Dry and Spruce Creeks, however, are within the grazed Dry Creek Allotment. The Table is also misleading in that only those allotments actually occupied by populations of O. g. gilae are listed. No reference to allotments within the surrounding watershed, which directly affects aquatic and riparian habitat quality of O. g. gilae population sites, is made. It is not the role of the USFWS to defend inappropriate livestock grazing on arid western lands, as it does in the Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan's Grazing section (USFWS 1993). Quoting from Platts (1991) is inappropriate. Instead, it is the responsibility of the USFWS to implement and obey the Endangered Species Act by eliminating causes that prevent the survival and recovery of listed subspecies such as Oncorhynchus gilae gilae. Without the official designation of critical habitat, the USFWS will continue to neglect the restoration of entire watersheds supporting 0. g. gilae to pre-european settlement conditions...conditions essential for the long-term viability of the species.
United States Forest Service By maintaining current aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat conditions different than those adapted to by 0. g. gilae over thousands of years, the Forest Service has committed and acquiesced to the very real possibility of extinction of the subspecies. It is not likely that the U.S. Forest Service will protect habitat essential for the survival and recovery of O. g. gilae without official critical habitat designation. Since the listing of the species, serious declines in its status as a result of Forest Service activities have taken place (see APPENDIX B). Several populations of 0. g. gilae are located within the Aldo Leopold and Gila Wilderness Areas. In the Forest Service Manual (USFS 1992), the authors describe Wilderness Area management priorities:
Where there are alternatives among management decisions, wilderness values shall dominate over all other considerations except where limited by the Wilderness Act, subsequent legislation, or regulations (FSM 2320.3)
4"The solution to the livestock-fishery issue is certainly not to argue whether livestock grazing degrades riparian and aquatic systems, but to identify and develop grazing strategies that are compatible with fish habitat productivity" (Plans 1991) 34 Intact ecosystems and native species populations are important Wilderness values;... "other considerations" include livestock grazing. The protection of native ecosystems and species is not limited in any way by the Wilderness Act, subsequent legislation, or regulations. In fact, subsequent legislation such as the Endangered Species Act increases' the level of protection required for native ecosystems and species. The Gila National Forest, however, erroneously interprets the Congressional Grazing Guidelines as they apply to the management of livestock in Wilderness areas. As a result, alternatives such as the elimination of livestock grazing from certain grazing allotments is not considered (USFS 1993), even when endangered species populations continue to decline. For example, in the Diamond Bar Allotment Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USFS 1993), the authors make frequent mention of the Wilderness Act and its references to the grazing of livestock in wilderness areas. They fail to mention the Endangered Species Act and its stated intent which was to stop and reverse the process of human-induced species extinction. In the Congressional Grazing Guidelines, it is stated:
The legislative history the Wilderness Act is very clear in its intent that livestock grazing, and activities and the necessary facilities to support a livestock grazing program, will be permitted (emphasis added) to continue in National Forest wilderness areas, when such grazing was established prior to classification of the area as wilderness.
"Will be permitted". ..not mandated as interpreted by the Forest Service. Grazing in perpetuity for most wilderness areas was not a condition of the passage of the Wilderness Act, and it allows for the continued control of livestock numbers by District Rangers, Forest Supervisors, and Regional Foresters. Again, this is illustrated in the Congressional Grazing Guidelines:
Any adjustments in the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness areas should be made as a result of revisions in the normal grazing and land management planning and policy setting process, giving consideration to legal mandates, range condition, and the protection of the range resource from deterioration (emphasis added).
The "legal mandates" mentioned in these guidelines would include the Endangered Species Act. If livestock numbers are found to be contributing to the deterioration of range resources and or the decline of endangered species, then, pursuant to the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act, their numbers must be reduced. Because grazing in wilderness areas was not mandated by the Wilderness Act, livestock numbers must still be reduced under the Endangered Species Act if those livestock are continuing to contribute to, or cause, the decline of a listed species, or prevent the recovery of that species... .clearly the case with 0. g. gilae. - Although the Forest Service often briefly mentions state or federally listed species in the course of environmental review, thorough analysis of a project's potential impacts to these species, their critical habitat, or the numerous other sensitive and candidate species potentially occurring within a given proposed project area is generally lacking. For example. though 0. g. gilae was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1967, the Gila National Forest Plan, issued in 1986, fails to list any special actions to prevent further declines in populations of 0. g. gilae (USFS 1986). The Forest Service generally ignores suitable, yet currently unoccupied habitat for listed species.5 Considering these facts, it is reasonable to imagine that there is a near complete lack of attention directed towards the habitat and distribution needs of a species without designated critical habitat. Further proof that the Forest Service ignores the habitat requirements of species not officially
5The Forest Service is unlikely to consult with the USFWS regarding a proposed project's impacts to a listed fish or riparian dependant bird species, for example, when the project is located on uplands outside of the species' currently occupied habitat. 35 recognized as threatened or endangered, or granted critical habitat by the USFWS, can be found, again, in the Diamond Bar Allotment Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USFS 1993). In this document, though the authors indicate that one of the objectives of the project and issuance of the allotment management plan (AMP) is to improve Gila trout, spilcedace, loach minnow, and round-tail chub habitat, no reference is made to improving habitat conditions for the at least twelve other sensitive species present. These species are only briefly mentioned elsewhere in the document and protection of potential critical habitat for the above listed endangered and threatened species is not listed as an objective. One must also keep in mind what the Forest Service generally means by habitat improvement; true causes of habitat degradation such as livestock grazing are basically ignored in favor of quick fixes such as the construction of stream drop structures or more fence building. Nearly all grazing allotments currently or recently supporting populations of 0. g. gilae on the Gila National Forest have working Allotment Management Plans that have been issued since the 1967 listing of the species (Pope, Sundt, pers. comm. 1993-94). But despite this illusion of proper management, all but three, the Cow Creek, Watson Mountain, and the Wilderness Allotments, are in "unsatisfactory" condition (USFS 1992) and include the Davis Canyon, Dry Creek, Diamond Bar, East Canyon, Mimbres, Mogollon Creek, Powderhom, Rain Creek Mountain, Rough Canyon, Sacaton, and South Fork Allotments. Even in the Cow Creek, Watson Mountain, and Wilderness Allotments, terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions appear to be much less than ideal. The "satisfactory" condition status of the Cow Creek and Watson Mountain Allotments is also largely a result of their size; both are fairly small at under six-thousand acres and may be easier to manage. The term "unsatisfactory" is used to describe a gazing allotment that is not meeting Forest and Land Management Plan objectives. The terms "unsatisfactory" and "satisfactory" generally apply to economic output of range "resources" 'VV.: THIN a given allotment, but are sometimes used to described limited habitat conditions as well. On the Diamond Bar Allotment, at least eight significant revisions of either permit change with management stipulations, and or Allotment Management Plan renewal or updating actions have taken place since the listing of 0. g. gilae (USFS 1993). Yet, seemingly due to lack of guidance in the form of critical habitat designation from the USFWS, and lack of a comprehensive 0. g. gilae recovery vision on the part of the Forest Service, the population of 0. g gilae in Main Diamond Creek has disappeared, populations in South Diamond Creek, were severely reduced, and problems with Black Canyon Creek riparian and aquatic habitat conditions as they relate to 0. g. as POTENTIAL CRITICAL HABITAT HAVE NEVER been addressed in any grazing plans for this the Diamond Bar Allotment. If critical habitat including the Main and South Diamond Creek watersheds had been designated, the Gila National Forest may have been held responsible for the improvement of O. g. gilae occupied allotment conditions. Although nearly all of the allotments currently supporting 0. g. gilae are in "unsatisfactory" condition, the Gila National Forest continues to allow stocking numbers that have changed little over the last ten years. Several of the allotments in "unsatisfactory" condition have Allotment Management Plans that have been re-issued or revised since the listing of the species (USFS 1994)(see APPENDIX D) and include the Davis Canyon, Dry Creek, Diamond Bar, East Canyon, Mimbres, Powderhom, Rain Creek Mountain, Rough Canyon, and Sacaton Allotments. At the time of their most recent re-issuance or revision (see APPENDIX D), the Dry Creek, Diamond Bar, East Canyon, Mimbres, and Powderhom Allotments all contained at least a portion of a watershed supporting 0. g. gilae, yet the re-issuance or revision of their Allotment Management Plans did not address causes of decline of the subspecies, or set goals for bringing the allotment into "satisfactory" condition. Other allotments within the Gila National Forest encompass aquatic habitat that should be considered critical for the survival and recovery of 0. g. gilae, yet are not occupied by the subspecies due to past hybridization, or continuing habitat destruction. Encompassing much of the Negrito Creek watershed, the Eagle Peak, Negrito, and Yeguas Allotments are all currently in "unsatisfactory" condition (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993). Yet, Negrito Creek is likely within the historic range of O. g. gilae, and offers
36 many opportunities for potential reintroduction of the subspecies. Reintroduction efforts are not likely to succeed in a degraded watershed. Also, although 0. g gilae are not currently present, the Black Canyon watershed supports aquatic habitats that should be considered critical towards the recovery and long-term survival of the subspecies. Yet, possibly due to the lack of critical habitat designation by the USFWS, or lack of O. g gilae recovery vision on the part of the Gila National Forest, the Diamond Bar and Sapillo grazing Allotments are not managed for the benefit of the subspecies. Currently, both allotments are in "unsatisfactory" condition (USFS 1993). Because of this ongoing mismanagement, the Gila National Forest has neglected its responsibility under the Endangered Species Act to protect listed threatened or endangered species. According to Section 7 (a) of the Endangered Species Act in regards to Federal Agency Actions and Consultations:
The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
Instead of implementing policies that would benefit 0. g. gilae, thus furthering the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, the Gila National Forest has instead apparently chosen to permit the ongoing degradation of both those watersheds currently supporting 0. g. gilae, and those not currently occupied but which may be considered critical for the subspecies' recovery, and long-term survival. Degradation of these watersheds is a result of continuing livestock grazing and the perpetuation of "unsatisfactory" allotment conditions. Conditions are similar on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (USFS 1987). Despite the fact that at least one USFWS listed threatened species is currently present in Eagle Creek, or was present in the recent past6, the majority of the Forest Service grazing allotments within the Eagle Creek watershed are in "unsatisfactory" condition (Wells, pers. comm. 1994). Out of ten Forest Service grazing allotments within the Eagle Creek watershed, only three are in "satisfactory" condition 7. Of those three, one is in Non-use (Mud Springs), and another (Bee Springs) has had stock numbers "reduced" (Wells, pers. comm. 1994), thus indicating, that rest from livestock grazing has contributed significantly to the improved condition of the allotments. Despite the "unsatisfactory" condition of seven Forest Service grazing allotments8 within the Eagle Creek watershed, and the importance of Eagle Creek to sensitive aquatic and riparian dependent species (USFS 1986), livestock stocking numbers for those seven allotments have remained virtually unchanged for the last ten years (Wells, pers, comm. 1994). In failing to improve watershed conditions directly affecting a listed species, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest has violated the Endangered Species Act. Because 0. g. gilae are not currently present, 0. g. gilae habitat requirements are not - considered in the management of the Eagle Creek watershed. On the Coconino National Forest (USFS 1987), all of the Oak Creek watershed, and portions of the Sycamore Creek watershed are found within the Windmill grazing Allotment on the Sedona Ranger District (USFS 1986, 1987). Although these streams provide a unique opportunity for the reintroduction of O. g. gilae, they are not managed by the Forest Service towards this goal. It is difficult to determine whether this is a result of a lack of direction from the USFWS, or lack of vision on the part of the USFS. According to Mike Munoz, Resource Staff for the Sedona District of the Coconino National Forest, (pers.
6The presence of Meda fugida (spikedace) has been documented in Eagle Creek (USFWS 1986). 7The Bee springs, Mud Springs, and the recently combined Horsesprings and Baseline Allotments are all in "satisfactory" condition (Wells, pers. comm. 1994) 8Eagle Creek Forest Service grazing allotments in "unsatisfactory" condition include the Big Dry, Dark Canyon, East Eagle, N 0 Bar, Tule, Water Canyon, and Wildbunch Allotments. 37 comm. 1994), the Windmill Allotment "is not meeting (the Coconino National Forest) Land and Resource Management Plan objectives." Therefore, the allotment is in "unsatisfactory" condition (USFS 1987). Yet, livestock grazing with no significant changes in stocking numbers continues (Munoz, pers. comm. 1994). Therefore, Forest Service Allotment Management Plan policy as it relates to sensitive, candidate, threatened, or endangered species, is inadequate towards the Endangered Species Act mandated goal of recovering and down listing populations of species such as 0. g. gilae. 9 The above examples indicate that management for habitat requirements of species not currently present on Forest Service lands is not likely to take place without the designation of critical habitat by the USFWS.
DISCUSSION The difference between insuring a species' sunlval and providing for its recovery is extremely significant to 0. g. gilae conservation efforts. Historical conservation success of the subspecies has been fairly limited (Propst et al. 1992). Given our limited knowledge of both 0. g. gilae biology and the complex inner workings of aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial ecosystems, it is very difficult to estimate how much habitat disruption an 0. g. gilae population can withstand, in addition to other limiting factors such as hybridization, before its survival is in doubt. Regardless of the sincerity of USFWS and Forest Service efforts to protect the species through the recovery plan process, it is much easier to determine whether an action will impair the value of a specific area to 0. g. gilae. The Section 7 prohibition against destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat gives agencies a more concrete standard to use in evaluating proposed actions, and thus would help to prevent the piecemeal reductions in 0. g. gilae habitat quality. Designation of critical habitat for 0. g. gilae would also promote long-range planning to insure adequate habitat protection for populations of the species. Federal agencies would know exactly which areas of federal lands are essential for long-term 0. g. gilae recovery, and could make decisions with this in mind. Potential conflicts could be detected and avoided or resolved before time, effort, and money have been invested. Currently, agencies first develop a proposal and then determine whether the proposed activity would jeopardize (existence. not recovery) 0. g. gilae populations. This creates expectations and pressures to proceed with an action as planned, regardless of how it affects 0. g gilae and their habitat. Further degradation of currently occupied habitat by Forest Service activities is ongoing, and habitat essential to the partial recovery of the species is ignored simply because the species is not presently found in much of its former range. Critical habitat designation over wide portions of the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness Areas, as well as outside these areas, is essential due to the fact that virtually no habitat protection is granted to any aquatic species in the wilderness designation, as wilderness designation has almost nothing to do with livestock numbers. Even the un-grazed Wilderness Allotment can be grazed again at any time as stipulated by the Gila National Forest Supervisor (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993). Therefore, it is essential that the USFWS be given a greater advisory role in the implementation of habitat protection measures for 0. g. gilae through the designation of critical habitat. Without designation of critical habitat, the USFWS will remain unable to proceed with complete habitat protection efforts necessary for the recovery of the species.
9New recommendations for livestock grazing developed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality which cause fewer impacts to aquatic and riparian species can be found in APPENDIX C. 38 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION DETERMINABLE
Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is "not determinable" when one or both of the following is true:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat [424.12 (a) (2)]
Neither of these stipulations apply to 0. g. gilae. Critical habitat for Oncorhynchus gilae gilae is easily determined: Please see section IV. PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE HABITAT.
CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION PRUDENT
Designation of critical habitat for Oncorhynchus gilae gilae is prudent. Designation is "not prudent" in situations where the identification of a species' location is likely to increase known threats to it (such as malicious taking) or, more generally, when it is not beneficial [50 CFR 424.12 (a)(1) ]. The latter has traditionally been interpreted to refer to situations in which the main threats to a species' continued existence and recovery are not related to problems of habitat destruction or modification. Again, there are two main threats to the continued survival of 0. g. gilae; hybridization with non-native salmonids, and habitat destruction through livestock grazing and other factors. In designating critical habitat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to follow specific provisions of the Endangered Species Act which provide no alternatives on what must be designated. As defined in Section (3)(5)(A) of the Act, critical habitat is to include areas currently occupied or not which are determined to be essential to the conservation of the species (USFWS 1993). Section 3(3) of the Act defines "conservation" to mean, "the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary."
ADDITIONAL AREAS ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE
According to the Implementing Procedures of the Endangered Species Act, in determining critical habitat, the Secretary of the Interior is required to consider the following:
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal, and generally, (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distribution of the species (emphasis added). [424.12 (b)]
39 The Secretary is required to "focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements, "within the critical habitat area, "that are essential to the conservation of the species" [424. 12 (b)]. Principal constituent elements of critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types. [424.12 (b)]
And lastly, in regard to additional areas determined to be critical, the Procedures state:
When several habitats, each satisfying the requirements for designation as critical habitat, are located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be designated as critical habitat (emphasis added) . [424.12 (d)]
Example: Several dozen or more small ponds, lakes, and springs are found in a small local area. The entire area could be designated critical habitat if it were concluded that the upland areas were essential to the conservation of an aquatic species (emphasis added) located in the ponds and lakes.
The designation of entire watersheds as critical habitat for 0. g. gilae is, therefore, reasonable, prudent, and essential for the conservation of the subspecies. "Primary constituent (habitat) elements", under the Endangered Species Act, relevant to the survival of O. g. gilae include "spawning sites", "feeding sites", and "water quality or quantity". Because the condition of these aquatic "primary constituent elements", as they relate to 0. g. gilae, is directly linked to the condition of terrestrial habitats in the surrounding watershed, it is essential that the critical habitat designation include these terrestrial habitats so that aquatic "primary constituent elements" may be protected.
40 VIII. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Relatively small, isolated populations of O. g. gilae are subject to an increased chance of extirpation (USFWS 1991, 1993; Propst et al. 1992). Therefore, recovery of the subspecies depends on the restoration of aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitats to pre-settlement conditions over a significant portion of its' historic range. Though two relict pre-european settlement and five reintroduced populations of 0. g. gilae occur in the un-grazed Wilderness Allotment within the Gila National Forest, past fire suppression activities and grazing prior to 1962 have left effects that, without restoration efforts, could potentially eliminate any one, or possibly all, of these populations. Because of the limited pre-settlement distribution of O. g. gilae, appropriate choices for critical habitat and recovery areas are quite limited. Further reducing available choices is the degraded state of many of the streams compromising the original range and preferred habitat of 0. g. gilae. Given these current limitations, it is vital that the few remaining secondary drainages capable of providing habitat for 0. g. gilae be reclaimed wherever possible.' ° This is especially important considering the vulnerability of isolated headwater tributaries within 0. g. gilae's historic range to unnatural fire or flooding, or more natural conditions such as drought. At the very minimum, we request that critical habitat designated for 0. g. gilae include all those streams where known, pure populations of the subspecies now exist (See TABLE 2 and FIGURE 11), as well as other waters where isolated populations of unknown purity still exist (TABLE 3 and FIGURE 11). In addition to protecting entire watersheds with streams known to support pure populations of O. g. gilae and hybridized Gila/rainbow trout, critical habitat designation should include watersheds supporting other streams within the species' known pre-settlement range. With this in mind, we request critical habitat designation for sixteen watersheds, nine in New Mexico, and seven in Arizona (see below), which we believe would guarantee a first-stage recovery of the species. Because of lingering uncertainty surrounding the potential historic presence of 0. g. gila in the Aqua Fria River, all watersheds in Arizona proposed as critical habitat for the subspecies are within the San Francisco and Verde River basins. The designation of a watershed and stream as critical habitat for 0. g. gilae does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate to reintroduce the subspecies at this time. In some watersheds, including Black Canyon and Negrito Creek, stream renovation could potentially eliminate populations of other sensitive fish species such as Catostomas clarki, Rhinichthys osculus, and Tiaroga cobitis. In these instances, critical habitat designation would still contribute to the protection and restoration of the watershed. This way, options would remain open in anticipation of some future time when either new methods of stream renovation are developed, or funding becomes available for the large task of protecting significant numbers of other sensitive species in streams targeted for renovation and reintroduction of O. g. gilae. Therefore, it is extremely important that critical habitat be designated in these areas, despite the fact that reclamation is currently problematic. Reintroduction efforts must correspond with watershed restoration efforts such as the removal of livestock (already accomplished within the un-grazed Wilderness Allotment of the Gila National Forest), restoration of riparian areas, reintroduction of beaver, and implementation of a beneficial control bum policy. In particular, we believe that a full reintroduction of 0. g. gilae into the New Mexico and Arizona watersheds listed below, corresponding with habitat restoration and recovery, would provide enough protection (please see CAUSES OF DECLINE; Habitat and Population Fragmentation) to downgrade the USFWS listing of O. g. gilae from endangered to threatened.
1°Stream reclamation projects carried out to benefit 0. g. gilae must not irreparably harm populations of other sensitive aquatic species, however. 41 TABLE 2
LIST OF PRESENTLY KNOWN PURE POPULATIONS OF ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE
(1) Big Dry Creek (tributary to the San Francisco River), above the Golden Link Cabin
(2) Iron Creek (Middle Fork, Gila River), above the current fish barrier
(3) McKnight Canyon (Mimbres River tributary) and tributaries, above the barrier falls
(4) Mogollon Creek and tributaries including Corral Creek above the falls immediately upstream from the mouth of Trail Canyon
(5) Sacaton Creek (Gila River tributary)
(6) Sheep Corral Creek (tributary of Sapillo Creek), above the barrier falls
(7) South Diamond Creek, including Burnt Canyon and all other permanent tributaries
(8) Spruce Creek (tributary to Big Dry Creek), above its lower falls
(9) Trail Canyon (Mogollon Creek tributary)
(10) White Creek (West Fork Gila River tributary), above the fish barrier
42 TABLE 3
LIST OF PRESENTLY KNOWN GILA-TYPE TROUT POPULATIONS OF UNDETERMINED PURITY
* denotes waters where gila-type trout of undetermined purity exist, and should be protected from reclamation and reintroduction of pure stock of O. g. gdae, or the introduction of non-native salmonids .
(1) Aspen Canyon Creek (upper), Falls Canyon, and the entirety of Squaw Creek, all of which are tributaries to Black Canyon
(2) Langstroth Canyon, Trail Canyon, and Rawmeat Creeks above their confluence with White Creek
(3) Little Creek (Gila River)
(4) Lookout Canyon (upper)(Mogollon Creek)
(5) McKenna Creek (West Fork Gila River)*
(6) Mogollon Creek (upper West Fork) and tributaries
(7) Prior Creek (Middle Fork Gila River)*
(8) Sycamore Canyon Creek, Manzinita Canyon Creek, Miller Springs Canyon Creek, and all other tributaries to Turkey Creek, including at least one unnamed canyon know to support Gila-type trout above a barrier*
(9) Turkey Creek (Gila River), above Miller Spring Canyon*
(10) Unnamed Branch, West Fork Gila River located approximately two miles upstream from junction of Forest Trails 151 and 814*
(11) Whitewater Creek (San Francisco River) watershed sections including all tributaries above Redstone Park, and Lipsey Canyon
43 CRITICAL NEW MEXICO WATERSHEDS (Please see FIGURE 11)
Black Canyon Watershed This is one of the major watersheds of the upper Gila River system, including roughly thirty miles of permanent stream. Only the three forks of the Gila River and the San Francisco River contain more miles of suitable trout habitat, with the Negrito Creek system providing roughly the same mileage. Black Canyon is both historical habitat for 0. g. gilae and is the major watershed of the Black Range, where the [list°, teal geographic population has now dwindled to likely fewer than three hundred fish (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993) with seasonal variation in numbers. According to the Endangered Species Act, geographic populations are to be given the same consideratio and protection as separate species. Clearly, the recovery of 0. g. gilae within its original Black Range habitat is provided for under the Act. The only means to ensure such recovery is to reclaim the entire Black Canyon secondary drainage. At present, the stream system supports brown, rainbow, and Gila hybrid trout. In addition to Black Canyon itself, four tributaries support populations of trout: Apache, Aspen Canyon, Falls Canyon, and Squaw Creeks. In addition, several potential barrier sites are located in the lower portion of Black Canyon near its mouth at the East Fork of the Gila River. Temporary populations of trout have been observed in another tributary, Bonner Canyon (Bruce Anderson, pers. comm. 1993). All of these factors make Black Canyon and its tributaries some of the most significant reintroduction habitat available. In 1979, and again in 1983, a recovery goal of fifteen to twenty streams supporting 0. g. gilae and a population of twenty-thousand 0. g. gilae in the wild was seen by the USFWS's Gila Trout Recovery Team as sufficient to down list the trout to threatened status. Turner (1986) estimated that fifteen- thousand, eight hundred rainbow trout lived in a portion of Mineral Creek, a small stream of less than half the size and length of Black Canyon. Mention of Black Canyon as a reintroduction site was made in an article, To Save a Species, appearing in the 1971 March-April issue of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department's publication, New Mexico Wildlife. Black Canyon was again mentioned as "being considered" for reintroduction efforts on page twenty-eight in the US WS's 1984 Draft Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan. This section states that, "Specific transplants shoi.,1 inch ider 251. The population of Gila trout in South Diamond Creek should be replaced in a restoration strewn in the lower Gila drainage such as the West Fork of Mogollon Creek....0ther candidate sites being considered include the East Fork of Mogollon Creek and Black Canyon Creek." Thus, if federal and state officials had acted on stated intentions to place 0. g. gilae into Black Canyon at any time between 1971 and 1988 and worked towards the restoration of the watershed, the recovery goal of twenty-thousand 0. g. gilae in the wild would seemingly have been easily attained. Instead, the total remaining population of O. g. gilae is barely recovering from it's all-time low, some twenty years after formal listing. It is our recommendation that these long delayed plans for the reclamation and recovery of O. g. gilae in Black Canyon be carried out as soon as possible. About thirty miles total of stream habitat are included.
Main Diamond Creek Main Diamond Creek once held approximately 50% of the known population of O. g. gilae, yet today is totally fishless. Even before the Divide Fire, its trout population was relatively small at approximately 5000 fish. But the stream is a significant part of the historical Black Range distribution of 0. g. gilae. The condition of the riparian areas, and thus the aquatic habitats, is "unsatisfactory", as it has been for decades. The food base and other in-stream conditions for trout appear to be good, but less than optimal in the headwater sections and poorer below. As recently as 1939, 0. g. gilae were said to inhabit Main Diamond Creek well below Running Water Canyon (Miller 1950), but by 1989 they were confined to the main stream about four miles above the same canyon. We recommend efforts towards a lull recovery of 0. g. gilae populations to a point two miles below Running Water Canyon. Approximately nine stream miles are included.
44 East Fork Gas River Approximately seventeen East Fork Gila River miles are included in this watershed.
Mogollon Creek and all Tributaries above Moaollon Creek Falls This is another stream that at one time was proposed for full reclamation to facilitate the recovery of 0. g. gilae. Instead, only the very headwaters above Trail Canyon have been reclaimed. The Mogollon Creek watershed is exceeded only by Black Canyon, Negrito, the Gila River forks, and perhaps Whitewater Creek in its natural ability to support trout populations. The watersheds above Mogollon Creek are also in far better condition than many others in TABLES 2 and 3 Approximate stream mileage for these sections of Mogollon Creek is twenty miles.
Head of West Fork Gila River and all Tributaries above White Creek This includes Cub Creek, which contains brown and Gila hybrid trout. Approximately fifteen total stream miles are included.
Biz Dry Creek and Tributaries Below Golden Link Cabin Lower Big Dry Creek (above the North Fork and Johnson's Cabin) provides good habitat for brown trout up to twenty inches. Spider Creek and its tributary, Camp Creek, have reliable flow, but are fishless, due to a falls at the mouth of Spider Creek. Big Dry Creek is protected from migration of non- native sahnonids by a dry stretch of several miles before the creek empties into a stream without trout. The approximate total length of these stream reaches is nine miles.
Mineral Creek Mineral Creek and its three tributaries are protected below from migration of non-native salmonids by a dry stream reach of several miles. As mentioned above, biologist Paul Turner concluded in 1976 that, "Based on the findings of these surveys, Mineral Creek at present would only support a marginal trout fishery... Grazing control in the lower portions of the stream would be desirable." Despite the marginal nature of the fishery, Turner estimated a population of fifteen-thousand, eight-hundred rainbow trout in the stream, not including an undetermined number in the lower two and one-half miles, which wasn't sampled. The watershed comprises approximately fifteen miles of live stream.
Rain and Mozollon Creeks below the Mogollon Creek Falls This stream reach is protected by a dry segment of lower Mogollon Creek. Rainbow and brown trout currently occupy the lower portions of Mogollon Creek, while rainbow trout inhabit Rain Creek. The existence of Gila-type trout in the upper headwaters of Rain Creek is not currently known or documented. Approximate total stream mileage from these segments is ten miles. •
Nezrito Creek Watershed Negrito Creek is another possible 0. g. gilae reintroduction watershed, and thus its habitat values should be protected. It provides excellent water quality in the section beginning two miles below the Cullum Ranch and the entrance of the North Fork, primarily because of large springs. The stream is currently protected from invasion of rainbow trout by poor water quality and low trout populations in the San Francisco and Tularosa Rivers, into which it flows. The upper reaches along Forest Road 141 are currently stocked with rainbow trout. About thirty-one miles total stream habitat are included.
Full reclamation of numerous major headwater tributaries to the Gila River, thus allowing for healthy genetic interchange of O. g. gilae populations the bulk of which, it must be remembered, were not historically isolated from each other -- should be one of the primary goals of the recovery program, mainly due to the extremely limited historic range of 0. g. gilae. Until that goal is reached, reintroduction
45 *Many thanks to Rex Johnson, President of Southwest Trout, for his assistance toward the identification of streams included in the above watersheds proposed for critical habitat designation. and recovery of the above-listed streams (and their watersheds), as well as those below, should provide a reasonable margin of safety for the species.
CRITICAL ARIZONA WATERSHEDS Although the headwaters of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers within the Gila National Forest of New Mexico offer excellent opportunities for the reclamation of streams and reintroduction of 0. g. gilae, many miles of appropriate trout habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests of Arizona within the historic range of 0. g. gilae must not be dismissed. Stable populations of 0. gilae in Arizona would help ensure the wild survival of the species in the event of catastrophic flooding, tire, or some other unpredictable event in one or more of New Mexico's populations. These areas in Arizona may be especially im,—,rtant in the re-creation (possibly over hundreds of years) of the original, or at least similar, genetic variation found in the species hundreds of miles away from New Mexico populations. The importance of the presence of wild populations of 0. g. gibe in Arizona is referred to in part II of the 1993 Revised Gila Trout Recovery Plan where the USFWS states:
The objective of the recovery plan is to reestablish populations of Gila trout throughout (emphasis added) its native range.
All watersheds recommended as critical habitat for 0. g. gilae in Arizona have been identified as potential Wild and Scenic Rivers by the Southwestern Regional Office of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS 1993), and are found on the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests. A significant portion of the F-ngle Creek watershed is found on the San Carlos Apache Nation Reservation.
East Fork Verde River Located within the Tonto National Forest, the perennial East Fork of the Verde River supports excellent habitat for numerous sensitive fish species including the Gila roundtail chub, desert sucker, and Sonora sucker. More importantly, both rainbow and brown trout are present, indicating the suitability of this river for 0. g. gilae reintroduction efforts. Part of the recommended critical habitat designation would fall within the Mantzal Wilderness. Approximately forty-two miles of the East werde River are included in this critical habitat recommendation (Please see FIGURE 4).
West Clear Creek Located on the Coconino National Forest and identified by the Arizona Game and Fish Department as a "wild trout management area",. West Clear Creek also "reportedly once supported Gila trout". This suggestion is supported by Snyder (1915) who reported on Dr. Edgar Mearns's collection of fishes from tributary rivers of the Gulf of California. Apparently, "life color descrir a of trout collected from West Clear Creek, another tributary of the Verde, conesponded with Gila trout." (USFWS 1993). Numerous other sensitive fish species are currently present in West Clear Creek, and include the roundtail chub, speckled dace, longfin dace, and Sonora and desert suckers. Spikedace likely once inhabited the lower reaches of this creek. Portions of the West Clear Creek watershed are within the West Clear Creek Wilderness area. Approximately forty-three West Clear Creek miles are included in this critical habitat designation recommendation (Please see FIGURE 5).
Ea le Creek Located on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the San Carlos Apache ' . ation Reservation, the Eagle Creek watershed provides another good opportunity for the reintroduction of O. g gilae, in both the mainstem of Eagle Creek, and in numerous other tributaries including Chitty Creek. Rainbow trout are 46 currently stocked in Eagle Creek each spring, and in addition to these non-natives, native fish present include longfin dace, speckled dace, and desert mountain sucker. Historically, native fish species present in Eagle Creek included the loach minnow, Gila chub, and razorback suckers. Approximately forty miles of Eagle Creek, are included in this critical habitat recommendation (Please see FIGURE 6)
Wet Beaver Creek Located within the Coconino National Forest, "The amount, diversity, and quality of the riparian vegetation adjacent to (Wet Beaver Creek) make (riparian) values remarkable" (USFS 1993). The first several miles of "this remote, relatively undisturbed creek provides high quality habitat for roundtail chub, speckled dace, desert suckers, and Sonora suckers. Below this (upper) canyon reach, the native fish community is similar to that in the upstream reach, but longfin dace, and at one time loach minnow....could also be found" (USFS 1993). This creek also supports rainbow and brown trout. Portions of the Wet Beaver Creek watershed are within the Wet Beaver Wilderness area. Approximately thirty-five miles of Wet Beaver Creek are included in this recommendation for critical habitat (Please see FIGURE 7).
Sycamore Creek (upper Verde River basin) The Sycamore Creek watershed is located entirely within the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests. "As with many streams that drain the Coconino National Forest, Sycamore creek provides important habitat for the protection and management of Arizona's native fishes" (USFS 1993). Portions of the Sycamore Creek watershed are within the Sycamore Creek Wilderness area. Upper portions of Sycamore Creek are appropriate for the reintroduction of 0. g. gilae. The entire drainage should be designated as critical habitat to eliminate the continued or potential introduction of non-native sahnonids (Please see FIGURE 8).
Oak Creek (upstream of Sedona) Identified by the Coconino National Forest as "an extremely valuable cold water fishery", Oak Creek is a perennial stream with "diverse, healthy, and abundant riparian vegetation." (USFS 1993). Its watershed is located entirely within the Coconino National Forest. It currently supports several native fish species including speckled dace, desert suckers, and Sonora suckers, as well as stocked populations of rainbow trout and wild populations of brown trout (USFS 1993). Because of the scenic and environmental values of this watershed, portions are currently designated as the Casner Canyon Research Natural Area and the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness. Approximate total stream mileage proposed for critical habitat designation is twenty miles (Please see FIGURE 9).
Fossil Creek The Fossil Creek watershed is located entirely within the Coconino and Tonto National Forests. "The extremely high diversity of habitats associated with this stream provides for a corresponding high diversity of wildlife habitats and abundance of wildlife species. 'The headwaters of Fossil Creek are unique in that it is one of the few stream reaches remaining in Arizona which supports an entirely native fish community. Native fish present in the headwaters include speckled dace, roundtail chub, and razorback sucker. Despite the diversion of water for hydropower generation, Fossil Creek below the headwaters still supports roundtail chub, speckled dace, longfin dace, desert sucker, and Sonora sucker" (USFS 1993). Fossil Creek above the diversion to the Irving Power Plant provides excellent habitat for the reintroduction of O. g. gilae. Portions of the Fossil Creek watershed are within the Fossil Springs Botanical and Wilderness Areas. Approximately fourteen miles of Fossil Creek are included in this critical habitat recommendation in an effort to prevent future introduction of non-native salmonids to any portion of this creek (Please see FIGURE 10).
47
FIGURE 4
EAST FORK VERDE RIVER RECOMMENDED ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CRITICAL HABITAT , • fr ; I 'A • .8
.• Sp, • 6A141.14 I H A •" ''':.i".7'A 1 .4„ BUJ al l. NATIONAL., 0.:. I " T/I. - , ,,,i3c,•• e. Cinc .0 "a - - - - I _ „to_ • Lake imolk. 0 - - - - _ . A LITTE.A1 • _ Slot,V11.1c1,1,or zr tinsm-• I • NR• I NerIlla1 ■• ■s■ • .• E.. „.1tuca lhofe. I $ ". 9. sPnINGS " IQHF '`"'" liertter heeede _ f _ _ _ - - •-• - LDERNESS':' lake ,..‘" SP& Sr . , ' 4 44 . 4§$"" - - 0-• g - say 1/ g je - • 0 a d, ;17 -° NI 1..• i "A,„ 43_ tO A• ; I ,. , „... „4. 4- - ."'- . IA 4 I I 4 • t) -:-1-7.- l ,., FU. I : , • ••1'. 0,43 2 ■ 2 7 1 t 14.11,,,, . ,, . , 1109)" ••• ...... stA-v, . + 1:1-' ' .4 ,,,, ' 1 • ,:;„,": 8482s : . ..„, •,!,.. . "•' ''' i% >, i: ,t,...„ ' ‘r',..,.-l - `‘ , -; - "". .. \ z u I !..4.-.40- ,. , '''''' . 1 • 0; grP i VI.. • i, s,,,, 4 ,,,,,, ,.../ , - , 17..7. 1 ' Xi ‘‘ .'' • ift-,,,: &pe t . J • ',:/ .; ., II Illir' 1. Social s...... ,..4,..,.. n' • Aia n ./ '0. "VALLEY 04. .1 0 '. I 1 ,0- - ,.•• -,,,,..- „sto_._-__,.... 1 . + lb 'pare( ! %?.; , 1 ,, I .., .7. . 1 A ...... -z4. . • .... as 1 cs.as i " I - - ,- - 1 son 1 ., I S•• I SINm' V' . '' I ' :P• - 41 - - - 1 -..RE-.,. --11:- +._,....,___' _1187th ...,,,+% ..* Itsys: .. • + - 4 .a/.. I 1 ,, - , Gerd: I "PM , . , : . 1 . ,. .;:: ' fill .,.., ... Coe • 8 - 4, r - •--, ,..,- - 8 ,.-4:4,• T.I.,,,vi . .--1,444;- .„,. . .. a, , • barn les.hr S AS e ' -0...... 3.4 4:-.•.. .„ ,,..d.4,,? 4,.,.c.., I ., . , , ,,. . i I 4" ; W l I '• 1_,,;.1, _ 4iits. ....+•' y. `, • s at r Iv*See 1 ' l••' , N , Q•La i - 2 ... l . le a11... e 4 l . t '1, --* ... AA- _L..2_ I___ 33-. • (.4 .L: r .' - * .-.i f G.. . • I gig .,,, 1 ,..g..1*.n" lair I . . ,, 1 ..c.....,, .... f.v.4„.. •.• '1 I 1. ....:., I .17 i , _...... ,... - ,,tirr 1 1 : :fa :...... a:,,,.,,,., ,.. I „"-,.. 7:::. --7- . . - , uni... , in I ,.... 4 1i, ,..,,,,,„„, . ac .4' ... V... I .. ..,i.;:a#3 i,51 , $ : .-.. , g. es _ . , 7,1, b -- ; w ------\I , / ..v ;,,, v.• . i ir - - 4'. '''T L.. ' dx f ,I , I : $,mg-o ,' I 1, •,A-1-ie.:-""'.- le i - •. N. 1.),--, ..._ .... : ....(I''t -- A; 4 F. .- 1 1. I ....r. .... f t• .1 •1 ,,,.•• • . 8- . . ‘ o 41 ...... „. 1,11 0. 4.,`,..,c, I , :4 L ' - •v:o„''.., ..:\ ,..,,t,,•,,,. ,,, ; ,• .,.,!..,... - o,,,- i 1 ,.14 1- - • E - _ I .I ,..g... 1 .4, 1 -....- Ride,NT0,17. 1 I L'FTL, _IQ. *' a t4::. R i :ii,)1 . -71 5.4d1.1 .1 , i V , ...: .5.12. ... 4 I • ' 1 I I 1..„ . il ‘e .., II 1clI ...' 1 . 0 e a 7%17 • 4' T 'a t I • xi il I _1 .1r.,.. /;;,,4?:''''".', _.....;!_s, ' ' _ 14In.'■ 4 al° :4. ,c..0.. ; .. ' 1,41, 41 1 , . .), -1.,,..,..• 01, .• .; , •• 00..../iht..r'S.• . ; 7. 'le.. . N N. I , =am o lo.1 c0i; - , ,41...!, 1 ! . 4„,1,,J.- s. i .. . 144" _ 4? ; -21_, i I ■ - ' . , , -‘, lc, , . • I: 8• ....: . R. .. 1 I , I Wu • •I ( I i ... x:t.:.:■ 4 • 6 I 4 ' I ...As._ ,.... ye. N -1- ..:.. 0_, .*•7, j . - w . 1 . . )F - •- .1, ...,. ,, iii s • , , ...... ,.:-.. .. . % s 1 :'• .,. .!.4: M A R NA L' 44. t....°,. - ..%0 - V.:: 4 i st ,,,,i,10N ± . : 1: , 1.:: :-: • .... ." ' +earl... i iO 8 1 II : C: ea _ _ !•1._ I a= 4,0.4. i l .„ ;: .4. :1.< ) : ... 43.4)I I .1 _ . , . " ' I .'..•i1.::, • ,.„ ...• F - 7r - - 4111 1-21 7 : 7 8 1 . 1 ...cp.., s. .1 is ., .41:4 , J e-T, 7. ihmt‘ . iit ; .1 :74 , , R• 11 I . - 4 • , C. 41 - _.....,_,0.....t " t ?...ae?, ' c 01a .. - I 4kr,,....., ,,,,-,....) , - 1 1 1‘1 ..., 1 .....,. 4...... :. '.. 1 -- g. Lt ',7 $. • ?.4* 7"- . 74 4 . :;.0. , ..._ .. ..---, 1 (III , : _ _ _ I • 1 -.... 1:. 1.,"11 '"" ..,„" . . : ,4 L. 1 , . I fly I I I ,- 7" - ...... ] 4 I I.. 1, • 4 clt. 77 7:-17 71*.•. ' +-41--:--\- IL:- + --' ..IML41,71 / I .4 I k 1 1 1 ' I: ' I ‘ 41 I I . i \ xi I I li•if4; 7 I .1. I 7. •44‘ 'L l• . "4'6,,LUS. •1 I "Z% .,I i is.' ,• .:.:. • , ., 1 I ' VI: . j . : %T,' WZ Z -I- -. 1. - _. ...p 4 / , a...#. 1 • ••••• 4 a 1 7.:7 . V.1:: I'S ,f • . I 11. i I \ - . I l - I A,1 • 1'-- 1- )1.a.• I /1. 333 ..ea 1., a 0.: .... , ,, ...r, • , 1 • I 1 .. ,. i 04. j . c • _I c - • COWi n t. a- ..s. foaNr...e_4 ...... L . i. el 1 ill 44 l''n, g"i3 1 ..- '' V't-1 . MAZAI ZI:1 " -1.%: 1 e".....• 9 11 ill SP," 10‘1 S. .... 1 1 :) a, (*. :::•:::: LI*. " v I. .Z)• ;t.4.-""*.'1' ' % • i st .1 0 I 1 . . .. 7 - -, - .P - -- , • caw , 0 . L 1 .. 4 li -• I ea a• ^4 "" - .' - . 1•0,i;••;?", r '-'• - - :-.I -- + .- + . 4Y ' +I.,i iitri,•,,,,, + - .. I : .,•• .. r I .. I , I 9...7-II , I • n :::.:* .. ao . .C 1 C.) .7o i 8 I P 1 I ..e„ .,!Ea'rI:i • White'S. e .... 11 Ccaclure11 1 II ‘Co:: .\ 7 r;..2 MOU k t' °44: .1 1 WILDERNESS '0.P* 1 I ,, ...." MST .... 4. 13.. slit:411:1+7:• j"::. -\":sjil-1 I id, ,..1" • ------.,1-.: 4.- -71: -, -..- : ....- \-#- : -I : 7 7 1: .,7 .-- -- , 4p },-.. c.a.-.}, + :_ 8,:HI.. )1 • 1.)- • ' • 44- 1 I 4 - - am 1 1 n % I " N I -Sel ' • " • ' '• .. - ..::.;) .. 1.1101 40 n flit 7G1, ,r .. . r‘s . '. Or' ... 0 I _• t / I• ... .'. ':' 41 ,- _ ,...... 114 1..• 4• ...C-n • I r.„.„ , - 4 ,-.... - 141/6t .0- 1 • „, p. - ,e - --, I -- L- 7• ...... -.--, 1 . v- . , - I '11MESTON ;HILLS • i 1 i l' ■ :::. '..? I 8 . I 1 , 1 . '71' • , 8 t ..„,,, 1 0,01 • "we I 11 • . : 1%.4 • .. • ... g • , ... 1 ID. .-•-..4 h. •_. -1I .: _I_ _ _I c.a. i gt I., ./hawal ;..•, 4 1 - - - - • I g 1 I ...ft , ; II I ila Y /4,. . 'RAW RI 11 . )",•,".• Iv h. I -• Mtn 0 a ...... 1. • 1 I / Caw... '' .8:•,,, 0 • „ ec 7 1'ex it-. it ... i_ _ _ _ I_ _ CPi _ _ _S....,._ ! 1 i .-- .3:_i_ __II-44.-2,_ 7. t.. e . I .4 c,„„„, 1 .. -r, e.; - I. -, r F=, --,-, ...di lO 0.. :el L,Td___. 1,6 ;:z Irn,il,3: tO . 1_0_ ,_ II --....-/_ __ 1 s ti PAS ... I ' ' , .• 1.. sonhg-cc'I ' r le , vo, a s HO 0 • I I I - • 4 op 1 , i 4-n R 4.- -- - 1 *-- ._ _9' .- ...... - I " -7-. 1.. s =„ 1. .. , .0. ,,,.• ,.., . 1 - As t -.-- : --- 71 7T -. -- . - - ,..,.r., i ---.4.0 ..., ,.... i -- a. 1.1 4indI " "SPWW , .„ 5111USVM I i i .4.. ‘1" I .....;;e1..t, ,.. "-. I .- -1:-, - 4___I___.,,;. •,_.16,:." ._ , c;10 ; -.- -37 7 1 -‘1, 1 -. .7 4 1 I 7 - i i . - . I % I I '-'. I 3 __,_..„,_,...' , - 1%. " ,_ ;•ged g..g re I 331 I lei I I A , .--.. 9 .. T- I 3 /Qs : .. V / • , I . 4/ / ''' sow :I a. iil 1 I I Clialt I ". , .I r •3:131 1 5 fr tl"s I 4 3L -- -....i..T (411P.G*If - - ."""":" I I I w 1 7 '''''. , .. .. 4 , 1 cv.: . - - ( .;e I . • ; 4* - - - # I - -- t-+ . .„ ‘I -,- - 0 / : I „a ..." - . ...._-_-, i 1, I I .• , A I 07....17 _ fi.„_, 11.7 .4,____,____,__ *r,, , I ,.... , _ ,. I _._ _ C • gt: 0'44111 I 1 1 1 R , - - 'loot _ _ I __ _ _ _".e.• s I g . I mos• i .. ' ,---' •I ' I ' I '''`: "._1.4-- 1 11 777 4" i .0' 1 GILA 1 ...... I •••• ' Caen I : .A. 17 I * +.• *• R- -1-- ---•••• . _‘.... X--.....r.. •.__I _____.• _ 48 : •... I 6 -' --- R - I ___.. il -- t North Pi." ; • ...4% I. • I TV I - li kUP4r - 1 I, , CRAp.11., Sw• . a , 'Is 4 . ------.....„„o_ _ _.,,_ 7 I - - I -7 -. . I ■ ‘*:1 - - - - - &Imo 11 - - - . * I k - - - , 1 $ 1 4 V, fikain .a CYlAarCIN 0/1/ - I - - - Th - - 1 I 07,3333 , ' - 1 .i"/ 0 T: 44.. - 'n.- - - - SP • • I .. - S113 A -.Butte, . /1st ' I .a; ) 1 C. 1 ' I I „ ■ - i - I 1 ( N I I I • 'AAA I W.. I . • . I We" : friolle "I •' I .V. 1 • 1• V' l 7 . . . I 4016 CD I I I . . : . I'' i.t 0, . . g) • " a et I Bead..• I ''1. • 4'....A\ 'A I 1_ • ••
, R. 9 E. .,.... • .3 M$1.18 .1.7A...... TT0. !! ..,,.... 1 _t • 1 /..“'"' " h c." - - J to$.7 .CJh.A• '$0,. ;- .. '• „ i 1 P..,s- + • p `", .q.;t, II v...... Z • i •4:,...,: ,. R. '...\ L.i."." , 1 ••• i I. ••.. I Twiintynine MO 13 II* x 1•0i •./ il P7r1•11■111..1 Ativ..•• • • OGOLLON. .• IV - 1 •••• 4, PI I a? 1 Sp. --- a t" i --1 11110LR r if,lluiI 5 , 3.. , _ L,,, , • • I .s? .ATION110,11 " - s - 61 +' IVRATA/ • YAM L•IF YAW Wis•Nn - 7464- Pero W01040VIA0 I• so 1.6 I WIS Hs • 1; ...17.011
I - - - - S, , R\ Q4,1 pen. nsu..--cp__ iN \ " t K c t_ a -,,-- 1;A 1., \ 11, ( . JP 1;•••,, 4 I 4 \ • 611 Lake 4- I 4 1_1 - • - • I , II .V. I 7.3 # 1.• SS „ I son+ lAyrta •-_-`,41.) Pant
0 0I0 WC' 0•0 ?0,76,0 94 _ • 24,,ss.self‘r I • 7• - - 1 • I o l,...110 oe. •= ••• I T - 1 • 0 I 4 ' • 1" , " - .*4-'4 IloS,•74 1, 1 1 •• ono 2.I Can • I • - 1.1 1 , Real 10•4•0•00 .t1. • • Hall.. • fesiCresse I.«, I ..•": I „ „ 14 • .6 004 //St ir
V •• 1 A* , Bum. ,13, k'e t A".. 5 4 2• • 4 .- :• ••••-••••• - artto•mr • • U"'"" k. lacti7 SHG IIR I , •M•sa I 'fider•G I l ctit - I 0140 0 1 1•• I . 4 cmor!,. .A • 011161 C nna"V! , .... i ); I* , I I se . 4 , I. 014 t.0 ".I I / (.... 6sa .. I!, I, S. sfiffe••••••■ : tv,P" • ,, 2 F• 17' ., 4 ,.; - T, a .49 .•C1 • „ - et - I AIM° . vP' % . - + 0 J'---- ,S .•.--,... ••"->" +- P,S,,-„,Z. ; B I y itts. Sow I „, wo I •••`.., . $.:,. A see.4 • ...,„ . , u OBLUBTBRPRA" ii , , , , .4,- FL- ..., ...... C.••••• I . . R. . I S I , 1 \ 'N I . -. .. ■ .... ■ 711,4, " bl .."? _ _•• + ,...... _1i. ,....., - 4 I s■ -. 4' ''.4'1"P". FL . 1 1 'L I 17 IA:A i 1101 - I . 6B P L6 .% . 1 C •CLS•F POILT. L C0.7,4, L , I' " i .., i Is Is 1.....- : *TA *T M J I6I ‘J ." '... TA: . .1 % I . : ' " * " "II 11:D E• ,• I I •• .. 1 . I FIV \ " RATN -1 -5...... :*.... I ApIms ! T. US" I _ IIIRCHIMiS4_ _sv„),C't._ %. I_ . _ _ __ om_ i N. , I s•L, ill." .....4 „i______+.....4111 .....' -...-...-... ,. 1 . i'criPle4 7,..T. -, .7' + + - 1... .1 I X „".- I r: "•1_ - re5 4•1 Su•Imas 4, 1I mod • .„ i ' ,,,, i ••,,.., . • 3. not R. .. J*0•■• il „XV:, b: II 4. bi as • I . .4+ ..„...... ,,.,.„, • I '' *1. sI,,* * ick«r, vow% " - ::: • P 4 I 1 i Hai. 1 • I . S. ou - - - P4P-V, '0% -1:-tX- i 1 I •E_I, 44...... , • I I- A.0. I 0.•0. j .0 I , • ..• '•:.• I ' /,• . - 440nummet s is -F•e.."( 1 s s .1. •. t• i 1 • - ' ' i, ' e ' •0#10% P•ul - ' 1 Yorisa f I tg: - r • c , • • '-,_ c., rt 1 ,rf _ _i . _ _,..i.. -*- 1- -AA! f■I - " ------51W N I I 1 Butte I i 1 • ■ .1 I .. f I )1""' + a. . ril, h. I Wil ,, 1 . I o I „• ,. ' I c NefT011•00( ...,00-'•`• cyp.4. tu ,s • 0 11 L. 1 " 004. • '4* 00AN111311$011011 Ste. I 1 .24.C:. I • . VJ _ TP \-- ...limit. I .,77 fit: co f A -‘ I as • .6 - I ss . 0_ • • 1.■ I. I . i 4 7 e" '.:i:.i .:* . 1 .,„•• I I I 1_1_ .:44Lf.. *'.. : I f i 1411I ' AL 4 - N 7-- 7/- -Era 1 1 '‘ - -. - - ilk7 T I - 1 I 'Asa F,, to • t • ',. ,7'" A •• culs - I .1'411": i 4:4*. I .. i Gr.... • 6ow: " ' 71u " Sifoo‘, ‘0. 1 '1 S " • A tr i Peeks." 01 I ; VALLEY )C1, a• ."/. . ,' I ' :: - I - % C 7 .1 - - 1 - - LI.sa -1- - 1 - 1 4, , „ i•.,,.. I . 11 .1 . 1 1 S 4 ,t1 - I v, TA,. ; 01 mz,,..1 %,...y I "4,17:71 ▪ , . MIN i: I 4- 1 . 1■0 .„„ ,_._ .,_ , -1 - ..74RG .. Wilorret-, S r4.. 1 I. , 1 -•-• • so, ' o . , •1, ‘:. 1 „ :fr-6 1 Ajlir,. a, 1. I • .• • 1 ,..i...„ 11 •• 1 ,, „ ■ I 4 , U - a , .... 4‘.,_- ••••• - as 0.••,-..,.(s• I.,. " •n.r. •••• Ilt " t --- : .c.‘oo."11, H,ms il I' • • .if.r.: 4111_ 0: .4 _ ...1 f,.. • I IIA,_ , .. 7,,,. _ _ _ 0..01,, _ _I _ c.v., .. I r -- -.---- •-■•.1.11... .--.- ___s... I L-. -1- - -...- 4 49 1 Co..*1 I , I • W 0 r , l Tia s•• C1,,,ekt.., 1 'd. i ' %r.' 1.. , • : . " • . I \ l , I/. 1 7...„,"..,.:1. a- v• I 1,-- a a: A*.il ra I I I ■ . • - , - - - 4 - . i . 6...... ).. sa,• . •-% I _...... s • I ''. • ..:. 'IT 1 I ' It."' I ..t. I b •
FIGURE 5
WEST CLEAR CREEK RECOMMENDED ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CRITICAL HABITAT
. - Ý-- ' •- , ••■• rise is Hogc,i . 0 1 0 1. .,, N11 .411tettr ledo. • 10.4 . I tr • saaabase 1/ • 1 IcK1 * - , 825 ( c-”^er,; -- - ..> __-- Beaver t 1 ± 1 4 4,.. -77 9 ,..... se k •-•" . - -, . ' .4 7 . 5. . JP ' ,6/' ‘.;-4. , .-. s4 0 \.,7 ' Leer 1.* Flat I _Butte - `\1-•. - , ,,, • I (,) , _ tlZfr • - - It „ e - c r'Aw.@ 414(1_\ feeawd D " d od , ---, +\ 4- • . --, ---- - , Fn. ,,, ‘, ' szs_ 1, cm" I - • 's I '-'---- - s u..- , a. :-;;; ,- ' ___,...j.... ar ,,,, 4 IOArroq1+ ,. "1-• ale .e. a* .. 0‘.. AP re - - Mtn - , .-- I 1..,.. 1 r"-.....;e - __i_... - 2 I '2Aa PAro,, z ,Sfi - - +----- + - I ,-I-\ --n..§. + . r a j I is 4.. a. r• i- ° . ..4,, Nta444444.1 I N4. x lc .1 _ T... -- . : ••/.. i■ - ' ■,-.1_,... i. 7 _.- ._.... 0 • - • 14'1.1 _l oda I 11 1 •\.. .,...:.,„ - :o - I - - 21 (4...... m. \ 1 1, C • --- 1...... P. - la e • t4... -i-.- -3-1-Land -i-l---11+‘ ‘ ittatts Pao Bi- t :C:./ -4-.• Vow. I ' Roundup Bask. •••• 44I / 7 - 4 C .1 2 - I I t . '-- .4..---- "r..J...... -.' **- A. -1- 1r- a.. 4 Fivemile I • I IA t• • 4 \ % -4
50
▪• • - ▪ ▪
41:111.■ „ % . • , * er3 ▪ 4 }ooi ) Ili,' • • ="ii• — , • • 4-4 Spr - rri,3-1 - ▪ LUX •r 2 2 ,, Foster V. i Mob ToN SP/ • ••10,, ' I Jones .92 'h....Pos.22, : i ' '■'-' - S' 41? , ; 2120.6.2 r*- .,.1-t-' " -4 -33. 1 w...,,,, :,.,+ -Seta ,.., —. .., ."..._. . . 1 - , r r 4 + -7-- 0 4._ 7) cm. Y 0‘ 11 D C.a.•• .20 7 'Cl 4 J.,...i C4.".. • • , ...... • 0 7 .,_..., ..:.., ... , t1 .C.ni7 :: : IX '....a. liki . Wor. -- .•- ‘1 / 2•_, i /2 4,14.•. •I .4..z5:L_, iN3 2,12.:...' , I -2' • r: ' 0.‘z. 1.4 ,'.. N ..:2'.'4% Canii,b;IT" 0/491 0„., //, Butte vy 11 2.70e •„, ••\ el412. I \ 210, 4, 1,;,, SI 0. , - rm ,. 1 •• ' (a...2r.. I 071 Al 04 ..z LIB II 4ri J.( , C000tual b ‘ 2 . le se il I - 0/70.47 \,..-'. . %,1_ # • \ "'"‘ I II 1 - A,, — ac ‘: i + .. - -. ' 11- 1.,S1 Z.:t 'I ° l 1 , Itt ,p e'•••/ :rake • / i , ...... , _ \I St .." ;+ v VC27•F , p,_.., v.' •I ;p' 20 I i 4 %C'31 1 12 1/1 \ ‘ 24 3 , ) ' S4-"S-P•61"rt1277 ..--- I I 1..'.; '' '?. - "! ' ' 1 i APACHK y' ■2 am .. ''''' ,;, T -7'' ...... L I '''\''q' •, .222 2 ' " ‘t ' ‘' - -,./ J ,? + -,— + 719 , 4 e...• u 142 + + —4,—+ I + -- _ --trif.. +- ,-..,...- -+—•,--+.., 4 , + +-a---+ k, , c , , ,... I Fred. , _ ird,..rk ,,. 1 ., i..., i • ° VeY 2 ,I , 41.!:. 1,, , g 4a ."( - 1A cAtif .iP77 .m. w ) 1 '.....q....ter 11 % L v 2.6, ., ,!/c.,10 ■ $ , ' 1„,, i l'•'••••• • tsp. . ' 2 APACHE lam, ,1 sy, i. , 1. / , ' , N \ , ,...- 7. C `4-' 4.' ...., MA LO + .4_ ,/0621 n ,t4_-_-__ 1 :E,,,,',, .4,... +I 1 - pi,...... 4:: . 11 '\•2 -' 4 , . Pd-Ac.--:. ;+ .;7,...... I ----' 1'1 10 0212..54 . A1/4 Loo , 6,.. I. W 6 .-.,. 4 `,... 1 / • No 2 21.. Ski 0.r#7 T 1 ''. r , 7,23" -41-L- 1 ITT.' 'T 60 12 n D, K ..., ,.,; . -\„, .....- ,,,, 4. .., , rA ... ,, ,...I...0.... A • 06 I \"_:,'2'‘-t ''... 2 '''',41:1 T gikli - t> / - • - N ‘ ; u &Woe Flat ,,k. (I 1 2 :1 1% -- , ' -••• •-; W.:F' .4. --S2---- + I (I'm!, '*''' pli-x 031 --- .■22.N*, .222:, , -i• ' -I- S'2-C-- T a= -1-- c r'..II4,T •.f------4 + . , , ',fro* ....-- .. (9 , , . , 1...::_, 4 0 _ % C.V - 'Ir's' 1 , I), -,..,2,. ,..1," %.,.. !? , i 63 Se. 11, .t3 Tor 7: $1:434 1,1 .,;* ,.. 8.4 • • e ), A 2, P2■271: r2 2.. : s4 7131r, "r‘ • 1147 - - - - - A ,,,,,, 1 ...' .....:, A - t ,n. -; ''' W3133\4314 , c* R -- Z-$--- -r---1-8 -=----\ --. ' 0 ..„... 1V- +- + 4- ,. • - 1,- ...- • --, +/ 74- 1 \ >4 I,P,'"'\ ' \ Teo, beer , 4 i s 17 I033 MIN Tanis 1 'I ) 0,, 1' - 21 VS" 4147 ! 0 I d . „ft.... T• go/ . ‘.. ' . 1% ; 22 . 22 a2411 '.24 \ 22 V-L..504 64 - V '• I C1 . " +V.,. — ▪ 7.2.7-31.1 A q ,`..'" 4 - I . oN + 1.4,,,.., t!• . Be .e..=•,,, D• šr / N ,..‹, - /0. 34 ' /.. Pow 1 N Hole 2. , ( II iz .fft N4 11 * Banlie4, , 4 twit,. I , ••••• •11 Oak 330.333_, W/110... — .4. Hill o 1 Im shead 0,13 (717 ',A.\ 1 1 C IS - 1 y il 1 4- 01 13.34.43‘433. In - ; R- Butts], 34 0, Ant. ta.I 0,Z. Mad - _ — E I - c•No 2 - -1- -2- - -4 °Sink liolo Woo .12 Fiverni I --Yr 4 ---- -4- ▪ I 7r -` MN, 2I J. a + ff eV' Pa." No. e. 1 4 ' 4Ana l.a.0 i A thbo , pit: ••- 4 A•al /ea ,..: I ‘ I .,_. i 1' •....3 1Bom 6 • ... 1 %0. Ho;4 I e .V- 1 ' 4. "_.• %. 4,_ .if...., 1.3,,,.1....,..e..... ahan II3k4414.• 4:211C4'. 2204 <' 1 SIg HIN I : t - • • - 7 1 KA x " ., , f i''' • !LAW- , IS -1. ------Me 1 1- 71C ,3-1 ..••••• ---o- -2..a:.— 4. , a Hone + i Regi % 1 0 4 l'•. , Kioall'31 I Wool ------O. a 21 ,,,, . IN :,,d 10167.17.1 i ' , ‘ *'° . a a.. El. )V 38.---%_ ka".11 , ,,' 14 4 . 1 ,-- --' ,1 ' r N„ ej , ,5..... , 4 C., 4- Hut•.st• 2 . . u o ( 4 = . 4 0 47,',..". V4.1:* 1 , I to s,....., „,-$.• , • Ce.`". ••' ,,„ a4r ; I') _.. . .5 ; 7. r AS S. 14 , -4.V. ... Ye • .„) Pork —,,,• W..4.201F S. I' *O• ar• I j -lIZi %.. 'x'al l 221-.:2-.. ...j SO • S•7071• 1 - - s4.1 74- SLR' +,---;-;_- + + A 1 - - ,TI - r ' ---c -S, a- sn.k,, B m , .02 C662% WOE, - 4• 1 +-.r --+ L.t • a . F k . . •-•• 1 u 11 C, Az • 1 4fi. t RIDgE ' )1, l / i ,,, ' # . . ') 8:..1" . ,_ I L.1-01' -"' , I 7. 7 44 "..4 - 1 A dr A Itt 7(:, ' .":,74 :7• ' ` I• •Z 0 , Nuss- _Vr_.2._1_ yar k 3. %%4 :13,4 es. 1 t _(7 .,,_ ____, ?r i ð- .!■• ,11 % ;:ia-t"'" 1 Lcihen Ups I ..I -F---- T • l + --%%•- + . 4- , 3 " + j- .-4).+ I- -4?-r` .--‘1 °MHOS. f .. c / • .. ' /2.6 V) Woo t -..1 I 1 -- - 20 T P•• ".... A.... 161. ■ 4.3Th' VC" !Or beldam..' 2,2-..•'''' .,„. ... 4. -,y '62.-7-; . • .7-. ...,\,... • , .It ii P•403 ofcCir21*(4,"" • .17. C • 1 ,...4, I 0._ oil, le... . ,i , _, I-- ...... E Lake \ • n -. . rg ..t-I..s ij \CI •••d_ . WTICti011le ' L + -4+ O 14,,,,,i ,.„ --- I • --- .44-; Buckhorn .: ; \0 • I. 1 ;* • \ .4a5.-- -1.. 44 Park MUI No .0, S- .0 , • O _ „I. •.-. -----,.., ...z „. • r• 2 fl,., 311 01 &Ohre ? !!1•221 . r 4.• t.4. / • AS /-•• No 2/ 2... 311 ! / ....Th .... • VE.111 ( , t.,,,, is\ • • -0/20224- A .0127R, venc# /1 ;.,-- #44,' , V : 110C14,4_ :asin 7711 r4G VA•L‘EY,2'.„ "•-- &rem • 22 A . CIC6S G y6: • a • I c reR FOR k..4 _i „) J'AinluN ,, f' T . Bull 1 .( ,! , , 1 ' ....-- .;_ 1- I c.: _ .4'1'2 -1Y4C). ÍS • LEAT ..... WO 1' :eg....)1_...:,:ei.e, .:,....,... . ,H°° 4 -147. , Ay • -4• - ( ,,r v 1 • II S II • lork 3 Rim n Tank \ )3 , .,,r- ,...-•, i i 3 443_7 Mad . - . Nor, • OW . :1. 1 ZI fFI, /pi7 WZ:4 1 1 1. ° - 1 foss H•ere onvo 1--: I ..k,"" .k.'' .1; n:0443.4.3 ' ' - - 1- ,-- .1'-‘I - ka ' ,'1,4•.$ 4 \ No Kirdal . et' ' 42' • 2.2_.L.4 6. V (FR'T •a 1 No • i 4. , - t •' 21PFN-,71- il i." — I 1-17 '• . -Ifr) ea. I 'A N-• j . t \ IF 3333d4 " qw. •ft13 kk ,r,S-1': \ 2 i '4•'•• 1+1 A1 7 1k..„ 4 r N. 2 e !( 4 5" 141-79j Noodolli / t: 'P... '(;,1 "i IIIR / ..•44"-- ? ' 66° • " Salmon ■ e.„, • e 12, ff..2 y4A lo.1 2 ' c'1„,,: A C22. , $444 - aver+ s„..„.111”i^ Salmon ° 74147 "OTE'C "e;. S. Mee& 1 l a CEGORAIN • ) 11 s' I Teen ( le. ., , S c' d 4. • trl .3 13., - '" R 2% ‘. ..7 1.1 • T IN 13 4 316Cfr 30■37 \l'i. - Yee/e O. -, . 1 I 30 13, 4°.3; -"'Scoldler, - , ...M■sa I/ ma. 7 + L'VR: °+-." ...... M00 12 N4itler.% krnttt -; 0 Lo - TEAL , • ,. .,: LIRAS: • S r.' 1 (FT4 i • . at 21 11.1 ! t 3 \-• "A, - 1I l: 11 _.+ P_Inotroa NIA -77; t•V42-' . %-. s•a,; 1.-. -- j 1 s. GO Cr .. ',C1 ,./- I - f • • a. i ' - fr a C:k-sN' s l .1.- - \ 1 .., N 4• i-12:Ch!ig iiiy X , *, , •‘:, I it? 1 •• 1 ▪ ,•411147 a4. \ 3•KntynIrm• • .4 - l: .,L..4 2_ , _ T, ' . - _ ,...... $ 1 7 , left eSILI1 I I s 1 N A Tama s4 -1-- ' ' . l I tfacitake !' a 311 k i , 4.A I . I e *, ' .1 • : I'' Hal* 1 4 . lablii) SP • i 1 • *" , .' 1.6=,EN'Tte*.P - *1 11; POCK )(wildcat .71:1 : , Spy I Baker alto 74425 i SP • RIC' 4. .,.. -A -SPc 11 2.1 ' n s . 1 .:t o ..'r„ 4 te • L ; /A• --.... S • .' 11\1 ' I, P.....e.- , -- 4 ' I (- SS oth , 1 I 7- I F•. 0 „o --i - --7- ,P1 V I 707,6 A anch , le2A11 9, 7 0044 . ---- - 7 7- - -- - c,°— 1 „._• 4 1_ .,_ • - - t . P 1'1- to 4...... ,,ii.<''''.& — Pattmct "4. V cP , . ..,„ „OC,S , I • N 0 i • tv: k * - 3 . 1....* 1\112741 - 1411c tk"\- 1{ 4- 1- 7 N- - 1 4- ' " ", . “ "iftj C1/i‘ C 4 Lar. c. 0 Kill 11 ."- $4!.._ , - 22 I Washin017,„'.7%.% _.---- ....47,42) cc!--ksy_ L Z.7*.tx, 1-. -HLY Wm_ •.:16.!*."
51 FIGURE 6
EAGLE CREEK RECOMMENDED ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CRITICAL HABITAT
52 .4
FIGURE 8
SYCAMORE CREEK RECOMMENDED ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CRITICAL HABITAT R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. •
• ` " 1: 11 •- % N TR yit LIAM&
R.• • .1
Li
- 'N , IT YOGIS , ISISS1,1
1 —71 A-OS. •.• T— —• -1 -UT • 01:4-4 ILF
• 1-...1K.A- AA.. ADAM
%MAR ).1 - • 1 - •N iESC (TR 1,1 ,<. T.„.., , G7.1--- . (I,V.,•: •;,...... I, I '-'- - NATPNAL•AL • .,, 1 ..• .. , ‘ -. 1 .,- -- F...2.5... I . 24 .:._ .,....- A"- YID — 77 —17 \ .1411 141 - I A.', I-RT.:11 1". * —4 • 1 :C ' . . \A •4 T 7 J1 — — ./......
1 ... ItS_ \ ,. 7... - 7•4,.. 10•4>ATC5-, 7 7- 7- .., 1,.. 1 FIAT17- -K% et't - '1..:...... 6R 1 S I ' '' I- ... - - 177 + -- --.- UFIR I '--11 D 0, I — I •
+ ==. - - •■•■Itl-C M TON:AI 7 --
FIGURE 9
OAK CREEK RECOMMENDED ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CRITICAL HABITAT
, - Socks: • rLake ) RM 0141(‘'.■ 4,1:44 ort- •
___! !M+ _.:u_ :
ICA.N.A1 f 0 . •k 9L. ' Gr. fflOd- c1/40, I 71 „2,:.,...... 69376 . Ho. l'• G, .IIN, , , 4 -,F — • T ..I I t - \ \-1 0,4r; S.„ OWL S,,,. I4 I 296 .-f-'-,'1 t■-g Lv.4 RT,R44.,..• ° 89■1 6Nur • V FR c # it ..s ...... 4.o _Scnocd+ _I r: —C).-+ • C'TNK L f,u4C 40 . . , • 11, i 5,:b., 7:tN;714 , e n • ' • a 4.‘ ore" 1 • . 41-'-71-..IjRIFT- • 7 4/" .. ° * Crate 41 Red • Vh, 31 . e,.... •C„, .." Iil ":4 HillHill. 71:1 . .4.L:{,,,,t ;IA \it"' ,_ + •.'"#* VC' *. 4-I. j , .,. --. 4 N. • ,, .9 .i..44=4440.4 La 71, g,,, ,N A - , SR! Come* _,P0 ,t ;stiep I ' - I' r ... • ican- c4.--44:1 ' ° A,„ ..4•., i ' pocket 1 '' * T SIMP 8, e rr rk - Lod .. N Lau Vas; , • 44 op 4.4,4 . &aura . ieuzzard191z-e - ,. 9 ,1 4 — San- 1,•IF _ R:RD * '10' Rattler q' • S.eaa,l, LT,"TA B ey Pasture" - " _ ades.2— n I ^ - 1 - ec". • KIAlw / -LiSSS+S• Ç 2.. pionts; 4 CASs.. •■6/ TTB, .7\6. C.- MN. + -/ 11F Sod PRRYY;,— ' R 4 14.iaLouno 1- — if-, .7. - Sautik • ■ 1 ,7cr • Ir? 17 et c D .1 ' - • G- 44r Mormon „>ARI eA- ountain - TIT'5 -43ci ""ZRA.• 1• Lost is I A; %.44:?,411)- >.12 P414 I „ I l'a, o'„-r I_ far —72 1 -2144n Ç! flu /W•L. -(/ --- —‘ —tIZ .4ify. i 10, —4.— t, I. , . hi tO. ' hoxv. - ANION. 0 /. .../.1., It ALCH, 76 , 9 in • •
Sold is, , (in •si i4A 4 4:4!ei egg/ I StIa • 1 LITAVOLJI Staaaq.aer , Ca Oit01 1 Butt* - .;-WeA 2!re 1P , jir c r ° 0 Sedoni 'ilr.-;%; to . . 94. 444, - ° " j4 ,HAFOpL r FA.0 t iF
55
▪
FIGURE 10
FOSSIL CREEK RECOMMENDED ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE CRITICAL HABITAT
--._,---7..c..,-----,_ - , , - - , , -,4--- --s-;7-•--;-.0- -",-;:,:. ,,.....\ fj.i i , -, --- .....4,) I A , 4 P1/4‘ t I l ;: : 2 T 4., ..KfIgt\r,,"L..: r -c___.. . ei,, e°le 4 JI -17- - _ _ ' la.aa --„ , IIC.,Isor'Spr,4KY 4 1\3‘ a k ...7 . ,• H" 1. , ill . , e V , I 1 I I lOok * RIr( Tank \ A.. _ 4. 1 , ( i, i No I i I - _ iy# . - 1 4 0.7,,1' A• rdr. ,,, . , i &ilk , 1819 Si'. il A Dome N. 21 Hill .. lisslru, A j,...' ;., . ,-• Butts( a li 1,,, art (1*,(1,/,?;"%.::, _ . \ . I. • \ k - -- , p ., '/*i PO4.1 .- - ?Vicar Sp t,-_- - ,- ,------it- ot677, . 1.0 0 N %/,1 ‘%\ , 1-' L'. I 1 ..,„ _ 1 msi Syr! ',...... „y. 9 .„,.f.,j 1 ; 1_1 Cr - - - 4 4 -H1 1 g 1-.•.,7 - -- - i N• N,.44 i) 4 I f +- !II ...„.11 o , !h. „ iv,. IP..... 1 II \ I :7*i; 'to ‘17. -41; •• II, .,• ... . etdm Clear Creek Clta• Creek : .,.. ,...... F '" 1, , No I _„....• i • , . olf(uti. " ,_ Jr - .-1-, * - /•••41, t1 '" • A.-f :0. .7 r" 0.H.' ,.,•••• ' P \IV k....I •gH • D C0FIED_,,,,i . : Cany0^ „ I - -,!.... c'N ,. , 1 Saanon_Lakot, v. 1 4 s 1-414 4 a3 1,1f3V'T- ' . •• 1 sa ,...... v-:,:i: c .11 L.k. "v41 ' i7 Cara, la , 4 S.. ' ",,:„ 7 s • , 4 , 1.44 il 1 so"" ir7: 0 0 VOmor ,H ,79 r I k ii-,w" . l• ■ la "lk, (.,•.; la t•• I Ç - 04U: 1 3 e ,* .4 C. 1 Thirteenf - .... -/' -.-. 0, I .1. •3 ...„.e, t 0 -- CA ' t ("` " .0. '... ic_ _•_ - -3 M leS r '' HolT.....1. . 4 i- - - - 1c •-■ , o SOWK° s I"-- * I 6...,..,- X.44: ,alt....N. 2 0.;.:t- ,---/ 10,_.. I \ 0 MOG( Irteen 'IS,rdinrcen24 • , ...... Ag . ,' lz ....L.::,i..,... Saiscitralreki ,c* . \.. 1, Aar •I. Roc*, MUMIS C•09041 I' _ ..., • . . P : r Moe 1 4, v - Z 1 / e - -0. L., 7 _IT I I ,1r".- 'cc- . HICKS END „.4 14. P1048;40. R - -‘ 4‘.$ 'I 4891488K ' I I '0 T.7 ite '0' 1 I 1.•• a• '• 14 ' ' S.. , Mud" " 1 .•.., .. i A() / i v s 'V (. 4 'i T....I , ' 1 )1 • I "OR I s '+- 1...'.! ..-'.1_ °- ..-,1ii.....-4,, ri-1, .,....1 1.7.. . in ) I 1 ..7 1„..,_ - - -- - c-,,,j 6> • .4_ ...ii.., , 1 ...... 14 I 4 '6. , ■ • • 1 2,1 1 )6. 1 , , 7.....„6„.. , 45- Ai 4.3 43„ 1 . . 1 tIllel4alie . . 0 1 i A.J404 , I ti 4.f.,0, 1 "'•••o, • 1 ... 'N 1" : • go. , ••■ C• `-' ..4 " , aeo.,,, sl h ` 44 tr k...1,4,,.. 11 .• 1.2 ' i e.: „, - , .„,_ 1 pa4; 1 '1 12 /2 NI,• R ••,,, ,Spr , 6112 re... 84101811, I j I o, , 11)c 5 --I 4 V 1:- ■ '...,_ - LI-spr- , E 1 cas I s p..,.. 1„,"-if,' ,...,,,.L.;m.s.v.,,,, ,• co ..„. ,, /10,4 . - I . I 9 7,H'." \I e •-vokr224 Baktil 'iv '''> \ 1 l 4°71'. 4. , „ ._. H•••••/±. -1,4-, -ccl 1 i N., 'el ro'_I_ ii_--‘ git _ 10 1 .., :l°4.,■-,,,-11-1"±:t.l• _, Beam I , Doloo. fi 1 • 4 Ci C) I 1k7"1111. 1i Wilbe1 r 4 eC • totAGS I - a.s.,=.1 It , „Ln. y - ..R II• I 8 IX 6 L .,, ,.... T 1 i,o7;j ■1' I ; I I. 4.1 '", I I '1- i /moat ,L. 1 I SL Dele tSpr i - L.ate 1 sw e I .-) ••,,' I * I . ... ., : , 41- (erT . i...11 ...60,..;ns, ------i -- +_ ;•P , 0 f • 1 ti )P 1 s : •i•7 ' ...... ID i It, er ." ---z it i AWE l. . 11 ' ik."..p ' )41 - , l'^ 1 , i• 14:),•;,'0%fit„ ,sgag .te:; , non 1 • - , Spa i Peaek+lher... r ' • . + f 6;01 .---.---.1 ' '1 I I' I s, I \ \ N, . I " 3 431. , straw,...), + I: C ,,, k* I *a _ ,Zaa 1 . sa *t.i,,,,tx...,:. .. ,t, 1 , a• ; Shwa -1 ' .• '''. . w Dr1;10:1:_f I 4). k 1 3822 • IL KNOW PAM' 1 11 / I j OW - - •1." \' 104. I ,. I OM I § $' I 0 \ " ry ' y my„ 351 .3,1-3, 3,2,/ .c7.4 , u:__. •01,, , : 4. _, ..,-.04 StrIsrarrY VIP' "Straw 4" a i ae( r i •• _ ,, I 1 Sprit -a....._ --1- h. .... ( I .1 i \lt ---. la.% "1_ i. .r.' ,..6,4,1* _41,L-1 - I t *O ive e .- 1. + - I I- n, re" _ 1 - 7,"t9v-r I ( , r (....,1 c--..= 1 ro f I 4' i" ' 4)11 °A,:t - ",- I . I . -1 111 i • 1 trmawth... -;;Pube i ...- - '",-. 6 /2 ,V -- ../ ••.1- oi / ..i. ,. s. • *.%41.7e,e . d.. 171 I 4, • 1 , 0 1 : -,) m••• ..4/.4,, • r 7 Es" r k I II.' Sclt, err, 1 .. 1...7- ''Ll. -A4 1 ' I - - , - r•T 2‘ - - 4- .:- ' - ■ - '' 7{-'*•._ ,_.-> ,R,; • C7 &;-,ri 4,, • 1 7 -,,r,..., 1 " TA, C „,,o.A., ' i 4-,. 1 , F143 At, , ,f,$* 1 I. /... ..■ A V" I ,0 1 I - \ I . 7 1 '1 '1 /_..... _ I I _ _ ___ • 1 ,f *--/i Ir- -\.--IzZa -!-1.;:::;„..." ..1.1,rlettz!tr..'k _.a.d.r - 7e 01- I 1 • it tK , ; I 6 &WO,* - -• 1, a - , ' gr 1 f ' I "" - (.1 ', • 9 Cikr' i• - .116- , e: ‘3•pt„3„,;31J : , . L I 1 ''''.1. . ' :'e u ° 11/11• 1 .6i01 S _ I .. -1 r_ ...". i 9" -\ ' I -.72 1140(iii Ii „ - f. k :1 4 7...t...... Sialy eadlopstiffRIc.rt '01 .I. 1 I ., / 1 --...) :,...... , ta4" I I t T ( HA -,. a ki, 31 4I- ,, ,1 Ja IN, . &Tr et 1 ;.7st , 1 ,„. .. 1 ..0)..,4 ■■•• id A Kt , ...... , I , I i . . i I „. , . .„..r i 444. .. V '%1 I - I ' .1 1 .9'3 1. 6-1 V),t,4 I -; e I k 1..441 - ' I ' 4eFt-11 --,c-- 4.8." -if-II4.-52 u l• -.7 a, I • -- L - . . \ -... ' I" ) .4. .e rle27.7Z-1777$:.:k7le ; ' tc../ANic:( 4411avelz.1771:Z.(77=31771:$17::: • j •••• syn i• soar et • -.. - - C . I .it I 1 ,,,.., , n • . 1 ., .4 ( 1 ,64.. :i I 1 I fc, .• ) 1 . /tc, I 1 Iistuck:eaNdi 44..1..: I I o 1 1 k,!rii•I i I . s; ....4,i + ' " s ! <'' 1;i1 - 44!1` o_W'- F -'i - -4-s-i, ,b41iiit) -,,7 -_( ,-2_I_1, ; I le- - .7 1 7 7 '1- A e IV ' 1 \ - IT '4 .IL , KL ,.. IN 1 I Lowe, ECM;•■■■ P N., I ''': A! 1 ' , 4513 0 4920 $ / ' li ,,‘■.-e , T.,,IIA ZATZALt et'; ..Z- I go! I 1,1„ ...P. C-,... 1, , , • , , • C4 . I " 1.ge: 1.,..fsf0„,//1 V ) %,,, In \vs ; •i c...4 64 . --„,, - - -1°- + -.44--- I F c, 1 7; G I 7 - .1I 7.4 - 1;-,18140 -1 , .. '- I - I -R L \ a IO# P • 4 I ' ° :A I ACT„.-., , LI„ \ I 6;..... , 1 /- .1. , &'' 1 n •A i \ "‘1%,:t,'RIFE \ I I I 1 - frzt 1. , cedar i j),. n.,, writ, r.: ,,,,, In ,.,- i 14 4. '' #14, I I.AR:',...; ' CI, C'088 • I ), , \ ., : • I. . V+ 1 / '"/ i 1.sPr...4 ., . 1 t P - `72.11 er Irch P° . .1: I - - - -I 1 I ... 4.P.s ,.4 'CC‘G„,.'let.1 ( `-.... 1 1-- 4 . ') 4 k tk: 1 7. '" ; ' •-• I ‘ ' I Cfl C; I / I ) ck1 ;\: 1 , ,'.. 1 c.:.... 7C V ., '. i • , .t. • • . ' C; .7 . •0 C: c'4, • c' ".d.l P. ' Ser ;' 1-\ 4 ' / \ ' i. I:3 .i I ,.... i ..". - 4--a o ---, -...r , 113 I , 33 1 2 0 II. I 1111 ,....,;.; Spo Pl VII1 \ . -- 6.4-31". \„,... ,..11 I A , III "r/ir 414, - - ' ' (', I ,1 , ? / 1-0:11/ , I., ,46 0- ?1,13 . R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E.
56 To summarize, we request that watersheds supporting all streams named and described in TABLES 2 and 3 as well as the eight priority New Mexico streams and seven priority Arizona streams, all be designated critical habitat for Oncorhynchus gilae gilae. Stream restoration in those areas severely impacted by livestock grazing and other factors should focus on these areas, as well as others supporting sensitive aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial species. Finally, we suggest consideration of several additional New Mexico streams for reintroduction of 0. g. gilae (Please see TABLE 4) Each stream is isolated and relatively safe from migration of non-native salmonids, and each is currently able to support trout populations; all but one do, in fact, now support trout.
57 TABLE 4
OTHER POTENTIAL NEW MEXICO ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE REINTRODUCTION SITES
(1) Bear Canyon Creek, above Bear Canyon Reservoir: the reservoir should be managed as a warm water fishery allowing the dam to act as a barrier to upstream invasion of rainbow and other trout
(2) Cienaga Creek, a tributary to the San Francisco River near Reserve, NM
(3) Clear Creek (Middle Fork Gila River): although this stream is often dry in its lower section, it reportedly contained "native trout" as recently as 1980
(4) Cow Creek, Meadow Creek, and Trout Creek, all tributaries to Sapillo Creek
(5) Little Creek below the instream fish barrier: this section supports far better trout habitat than upper Little Creek due mainly to the presence of large springs just below the barrier
(6) Panther Canyon Creek, above barrier falls, tributary to the Gila River
(7) South Fork Whitewater Creek above Devil's Elbow, including tributaries
(8) Taylor Creek and tributaries above Wall Lake: Wall Lake should be managed as a warm water fishery, allowing its dam to be a barrier to trout migration
58 LX. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Hybrid Gila-Type Trout Conservation
Because the type locality for SaImo gilae (Miller 1950), or Oncorhynchus gilae gilae, was upper Main Diamond Creek, a historically isolated tributary of the East Fork of the Gila River, and that there now remain only three indisputably pure relict populations of the subspecies, as well as the fact that closely related trouts were historically present in adjacent major watersheds (San Francisco River, Rio Grande), it seems likely that original populations of O. g. gilae encompassed a broader genetic base than is now recognized (Propst, pers. comm. 1994). Accordingly, hybrid, or nearly pure populations of Gila- type trout still found in isolated tributaries may well contain genes from the original 0. g. gilae populations not yet found or encountered in accepted "pure" strains of O. g. gilae. For this reason, we have earmarked certain small streams within the Gila National Forest for protection from reclamation or deliberate introduction of either existing 0. g. gilae stock, or non-native salmonids. We have included watersheds supporting these populations in our critical habitat recommendations (please see TABLE 3.).
Stream Renovation or Reclamation
In the process of renovation/reclamation of streams and creeks for the reintroduction of 0. g. gilae to portions of its historic range, other native species, such as the Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebews), desert mountain sucker (Catostomus clarki), Sonoran sucker (Catostomus insignis) and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) were wiped out (Propst et aL 1992; USFWS 1991, 1993). This is not a responsible conservation method. All of the above species are considered sensitive and possibly deserving of USFWS threatened or candidacy status by numerous experts, conservation groups, and government agencies, and must not be ignored in the future during the course of stream renovation/reclamation. We suggest that if native species are present in a stretch of stream to be reclaimed, that collection and temporary holding of a significant number of these native species be accomplished prior to stream treatment. After treatment of the stream, these fish would be returned to the point of catch. In this manner, potentially significant populations of these sensitive fish species would be preserved in conjunction with the return of pure populations of O. g. gilae.
Beaver Reintroduction
The reintroduction of beaver to currently un-grazed areas of the Coconino, Gila, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests, including areas such as the Wilderness Allotment of the Gila National Forest, would go a long ways towards the stabilization of bottom lands soils and vegetation, and could contribute to the stabilization of O. g. gilae, as well as other sensitive aquatic species, populations in unstable watersheds. Allotments which are currently grazed by livestock and are in "unsatisfactory" condition should be rested, and after riparian vegetation has made a substantial recovery, beaver should be reintroduced.
Reintroduction Recommendations
Although many feel that the Mimbres River Drainage is outside the historic range of 0. g. gilae (Behnke 1992, Propst et al. 1992, Minckley, pers. comm. 1993), The Emory Survey (1848) reported "trout" in the Mimbres River. Behnke (1992) indicated that he felt this was a misidentification of the Chihuahua chub. However, he does not address reports indicating that Lieutenant Emory was fully capable of identifying trout species. It appears the issue will remain unresolved. 59 Because the issue remains uncertain, we recommend against any further introductions of the subspecies to that drainage. Ample habitat, both within the un-grazed Wilderness Allotment of the Gila National Forest, and outside (only with removal of cattle and sincere habitat restoration efforts) in both Arizona and New Mexico, within the currently accepted historic range of 0. g. gilae is available for reclamation efforts. We suggest that the USFWS and US Forest Service adopt these policies. Also, because of confusion surrounding the actual historic distribution of 0. g. gilae in the San Francisco River drainage, we recommend that all reintroductions of the subspecies to this drainage be limited to tributaries of the San Francisco River adjacent to the extreme headwaters of the West and Middle Forks of the Gila River (including Thy Creek, Mineral Creek, Negrito Creek, Whitewater Creek, etc...), and to portions of the Eagle Creek drainage.
60 Please respond to: David Hogan, P.O. Box 1788, Silver City, New Mexico 88062; Phone # (505) 538-0961
Respectfully Submitted,
David Hogan Kieran Suckling
Ecologist Director P.O. Box 1788 Greater Gila Biodiversity Project Silver City, New Mexico 88062 P.O. Box 742 , New M 88062
• 1 % /to Robin Sil r, M. .C. "Jasp on Director Executive Director Southwest Center for Biological Diversity Biodiversity Legal Foundation P.O. Box 39639 P.O. Box 18327 Phoenix, AZ 85069 Boulder, CO 80308-8327
cc: Mathew Kennea, Attorney-at-Law Mark Hughes, Attorney-at-Law X. REFERENCES
Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality. 1993. Evaluation of activities occurring in riparian areas. Phoenix, AZ. 75 pp.
Ames, C.R. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian management: Grazing. Pp. 49-51 In: Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: A symposium (proceedings), R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones (tech. coords.), Tucson, AZ. July 9. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43.
Anderson, B. L. 1991. Fire and Gila trout recovery in wilderness watersheds. New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. November 1991: 123-128
• 1994. Personal communication with Bruce Anderson, Wildlife Biologist for the Gila National Forest on January 31, 1994, regarding the Main Diamond Creek population of Gila trout.
Anderson, David C., Kimball T. Harper, and Ralph C. Holmgren. 1982. Factors influencing development of cryptogamic soil crusts in Utah deserts. J. Range Manag. 35(2): 180-185.
Anderson, David C., and S.R. Rushforth. 1982. Recovery of cryptogamic soil crusts from grazing on Utah winter ranges. J. Range Manag. 35(3): 355- 359.
Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16: 7-11.
Behnke, R. J. 1970. Rare and endangered species report: New information on Gila tout, Salmo Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit, Colorado state University, Fort Collins, CO. 12 pp.
. 1973. Gila trout, Salmo gibe. Endangered Species Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 5 pp.
. 1979. Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Salmo of western North America. USDA Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO, 163 pp.
. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 6 Bethesda, Maryland.
1994. Personal communication with Dr. Robert Behnke On January 15, 1994, regarding the indigenous presence of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae in the Agua Fria River basin.
and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. Gen. Tech. Rep. USDA Forest Service, RM-28: 1-45. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Bickle, T.S. 1973. Gila trout management plan. USDA Forest Service, Gila National Forest, Silver City, New Mexico. 47 pp.
62 Bock. C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1992. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Brown, J.G. 1983. The unnatural fuel buildup issue. In: a symposium (proceedings), J.E. Lotan, B.M. Kilgore, W.0 Fischer, and R. W. Mutch (tech coords.). Missoula, Montana. November 1983. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. IMT-182, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Burton, Jerry. 1994. Personal communication with Jerry Burton of the USFWS Albuquerque Ecological Services Office on March 23, 1994, regarding Gila trout consultations for the Gila National Forest.
Carothers, S.W. 1977. Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitats: an overview. Pages 2-4 In: Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: A symposium (R.R. Johnson, and D.A. Jones, (tech. coords.) USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 45 pp.
. 1993. Managing change; livestock grazing on western riparian areas. US Environmental Protection Agency. Denver, CO. 31 pp.
Clarey, W.P., and B.F. Webster. 1989. Riparian grazing guidelines for the intermountain region. Rangelands: 12-4, August. Pgs. 209-212.
Clarkson, R.W., and J.R. Wilson. 1991. Evaluation of the U.S. Forest Service fish habitat relationship system in east-central Arizona trout streams. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch. Tech. Rep. No. 8. Phoenix, AZ. 40 pp.
Coblentz, Stanton A. 1961. The swallowing wilderness; the life of a frontiersman: James Ohio Pattie. Tomas Yoseloff, New York, NY. 188 pp.
Collier, E. 1959. Three against the wilderness. E.P. Dutton and Company, New York, NY.
Cutler, Alan. 1991. Nested faunas and extinction in fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology Vol. 5, No. 5: 496-505.
Dasmann, Raymond F. 1972. Environmental Conservation. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 473 PP.
David, R.E. 1976. Taxonomic analysis of Gila and Gila x rainbow trout in southwestern New Mexico. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 36 pp.
63 Davis, G.A. 1977. Management alternatives for the riparian habitat in the Southwest. Pp. 59-67 In: Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: A symposium (proceedings), R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones (tech. coords.), Tucson, AZ. July 9. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Davis, J.W. 1982. Livestock vs. riparian habitat management — there are solutions. In: J.M. Peek and P.D.Dalk, eds. Proceedings 10, Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium. University of Idaho, Forest and Range Management Station, Moscow, Idaho. 614 pp.
Dieterich, John H. 1983. Fire history of southwestern mixed conifer: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management, 6(1983): 13-31.
Engel, Gerry. 1994. Personal communication on January 4, 1994, with Gerry Engel, Mimbres District Ranger for the Gila National Forest, regarding allotment management status for allotments within the McKnight Creek watershed.
Emory, W.H. 1848. Notes of a military reconnaissance from Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri to San Diego, in California including parts of the Arkansas, del Norte, and Gila rivers. By Lieut. Col. W.H. Emory, made in 1846-47, with the advance guard of the "army of the west." Wendell and Benthuysen, Print., Washington, DC.
Fletcher, Joel E., and W.P. Martin. 1946. Some effects of algae and molds in the rain-crust of desert soils. Ecology 29(1): 95-100.
Fowler-Propst, J. 1993. September 15, 1993 letter to Peter Galvin of the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project regarding FWS justification for lack of critical habitat designation for the Gila trout.
Galvin, Peter. 1994. Personal communication with Peter Galvin, Forest Service subcontracted Mexican spotted owl surveyor, on February 18, 1994, regarding the return of livestock to the Diamond Bar Allotment and intensive grazing of the Main Diamond Creek watershed within one year of the Divide Fire.
Glinski, R.L. 1977. Regeneration and distribution of sycamore and cottonwood trees along Sonoita Creek, Santa Cruz County, AZ. Pp. 116-123 In: Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: A symposium (proceedings), R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones (tech coords.), Tucson, AZ. July 9. USDA Forest Service Gen: Tech. Rep. RM-43. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Hanson, J.N. 1971. Investigations on Gila trout, Salmo gilae (Miller) in southwestern New Mexico. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruses, New Mexico. 44 pp.
Hastings, J.R., and R.M. Turner. 1965. The changing mile. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, AZ.
Hatch, M.D. 1978 and 1979 (revised). Fishes and invertebrates, pp. E1-E58. In: Hubbard, J.P., C.C. Marshall, H. Campbell, G. Schmitt, and M.D. Hatch, Handbook of species endangered in New Mexico, New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.
64 Holechek, J.L., R.D. Piper, and C.H. Herbel. 1989. Range management: principles and practices. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Hubbs, C., and A.A. Echelle. 1972. Endangered and non-game fishes of the upper Rio Grande basin. pp. 147-167, figs. 1-2. In: Symposium on rare and endangered wildlife of the southwestern United States. New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe. Jacobs, Lynn. 1991. Waste of the west; public lands ranching. Tucson, AZ. 602 pp.
Johnson M.C., and J.N. Rinne. 1982. Movement, home range, and growth of a rare southwestern trout in improved and unimproved habitats. North American J. of Fisheries Management 2: 150-157.
Jordan, D.S., and B.W. Evermann. 1920. American food and game fishes. Doubleday. Page and Co., New York.
Kay, Charles. 1988. Leave it to the beavers. Montana Magazine. May/June: 15-16.
Kleiner, Edgar F., and K.T. Harper. 1977. Soil properties in relation to cryptogamic groundcover in Canyonlands National Park. J. of Range Manag. 30(3): 202-205
Kinch, G. 1989. Grazing management in riparian areas. Technical Reference 1737-4, US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO.
Krueper, D.J. 1992. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Lamberson, R.H., R. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, and C.Voss. 1992. A dynamic analysis of northern spotted owl viability in a fragmented forest landscape. Conservation Biology 6/4: 505-512
Uncle, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. American Naturalist 130: 624-635.
Lee, D.S., and J.N. Rhine. 1980. Critical thermal maxima of five trout species in the southwestern United States. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 109: 632-35.
Legendre, P., C.B. Schreck, and R.J. Behnke. 1972. Taximetric analysis of selected groups of western North American Salmo with respect to phylogenetic divergences. Syst. Zool. 21(3): 292-307.
Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15: 237-240.
Loope, Waiter L., and Gerald F. Gifford. 1972. Influence of a soil tnicrofloral crust on select properties of soils under pinyon-juniper in southeastern Utah. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 27(2): 164-167
Loudenslager, E.J., J.N. Rinne, G.A.E. Gall, and R.E. David. 1986. Biochemical genetic studies of native Arizona and New Mexico trout. Southwest. Nat. 31: 221-34.
65 Lusby, G.C. 1970. Hydrologic and biotic effects of grazing vs. non-grazing near Grand Junction, Colorado. J. Range Manage. 23(4): 256-260.
Madina, L.A., and S.C. Martin. 1988. Stream channel and vegetation changes in sections of McKnight Creek, New Mexico. Great Basin Naturalist. 48(3):373-381
Madrid, Robert. 1994. Personal conversation with Bobby Madrid, Range Conservationist for the Glenwood District of the Gila National Forest, regarding habitat conditions in the Mogollon Creek watershed.
Marcus. M.D., M.K. Young, L.E. Noel, B.A Mullen. 1990. Salmonid-habitat relationships in the western United States: A review and indexed bibliography. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment station Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-188. 84 pp.
Mello, K. and P.R. Turner. 1980. Population status and distribution of Gila trout in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report No. 6: 1-53, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Miller, R.R. 1950. Notes on the cutthroat and rainbow trouts with the description of a new species from the Gila River, New Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 529:1-43.
. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters. 46:365-404.
. 1972. Classification of the native trouts of Arizona with the description of a new species, Salmo apache. Copia. 3: 401-422.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 293 pp.
. 1993. Personal communication with W. L. Minckley on December 19, 1993, regarding the pre- european settlement range of 0. g. gilae.
Mpoame, M. and J.N. Rinne. 1983. Parasites of some fish native to Arizona and New Mexico. Southwest Nat. 28: 399-405.
. 1984. Helminths of Apache (Salmo apache), Gila (S. gilae), and brown (S. trutta) trouts. Southwest Nat. 29 (4): 505-6
Mulch, E.D., and W.C. Gamble. 1956. Game fishes of Arizona. Arizona Department of Game and Fish, Phoenix, AZ. 19 pp.
Munoz, Mike. 1994. Personal communication with Mike Munoz, Range Staff for the Sedona Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest on February 5, 1994, regarding grazing allotment conditions in the Sycamore Creek and Oak Creek watersheds.
66 Nankervis, J.M. 1988. Age, growth, and reproduction of Gila trout in a small headwater stream in the Gila National Forest. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 58 pp.
Needham, P.R., and R. Gard. 1959. Rainbow trout in Mexico and California with notes on the cutthroat series. Univ. of Calif. Pub. Zool. 67(1): 1-124
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1971. To save a species; In: New Mexico Wildlife, March/April issue. Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Ohmart, Robert D. 1993. Letter from Robert Ohmart, Ph.D. to John Rogers, USFWS Southwest Regional Director, on October 18, 1993, regarding the status of Gila trout and impacts to the subspecies resulting from the grazing of domestic livestock.
Parker, Kenneth W., and R. W. Harris. 1959. The 3-Step method for measuring condition and trend of forest ranges; a resume of its history, development, and use. p.55-59. In: Techniques and Methods of Measuring Understory Vegetation - A Symposium. South. Forest Exp. Stn., and Southeast. Forest Exp. Stn.
Parker, M., Fred J, Wood Jr., Bruce H. Smith, Robert G. Elder. 1985. Erosional downcutting in lower order riparian ecosystems: have historical changes been caused by removal of beaver? In: Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management, Reconciling Conflicting Uses; First North American Riparian Conference: R. Roy Johnson, Charles D. Ziebell, David R. Patton, Peter F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre, Technical Coordinators. April 16-18, Tucson, Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120, Fort Collins, CO.
Pattie, James 0. 1831. The personal narrative of James 0. Pattie. J.B. Lippencott Company, New York. 269 pp.
Pimm, Stuart L., Jared Diamond, Timothy M. Reed, Gareth J. Russel, and Jared Verner. 1993. Times to extinction for small populations of large birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol 90: 10871-10875.
Platts, Bill, and Martin Onishuk. 1988. Good beavers, bad beavers. Idaho Wildlife. March/April issue. 5 PP.
Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Pp. 389-423 In: W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonids Fishes and their Habitats. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Pub. 19: 389-423. Bethesda, MD. 751 pp.
and R.F. Raleigh. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat. Pp. 1105-1117 In: Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. Committee on Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management, National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Streamside and upland vegetation use by cattle. Rangelands 7:5-70
67 Pope, Ralph. 1994. Personal communication with Ralph Pope, Range Conservationist for the Silver City Ranger District of the Gila National Forest on January 27, 1994, regarding habitat conditions in the Mogollon Creek watershed.
Pringle, Todd. 1994. Personal communication with Arizona Game and Fish Fisheries Staff Todd Pringle on February 17, 1994, regarding stocking records for the Gila trout in Arizona
Propst, D.L. 1994. Personal communication with David Propst on March 1, 1994, regarding Gila trout taxonomy, indigenous distribution, and conservation.
M.D. Hatch, and J.P. Hubbard. 1985n. Gila trout (Salmo gilae), Fish/SA/SA/GI: 1-2. In: Handbook of species endangered in New Mexico. New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.
K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1986. Distribution, status, biology, and conservation of the spikedace (Meda fulgida) in New Mexico. USFWS, Albuquerque, Endangered Species Rept. No. 15, pp. 1-93
K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1988. Distribution, status, biology, and conservation of the loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis Girard, in New Mexico. USFWS, Albuquerque, Endangered Species Rept. No. 17, pp. 1-75.
J.A. Stefferud, and P.R. Turner. 1992. Conservation and status of Gila trout, Oncorhynchus gda. Southwestern Naturalist 37(2):117-125.
Quinn, J. F., and A. Hastings. 1987. Extinction in subdivided habitats. Conservation Biology. 1:198-208.
Regan, C.T. 1914. The systematic arrangement of the fishes of the family Salnionidae Annals and Magazine of Natural History 13 (series 8): 405-408.
Regan, D. M. 1964. Ecology of Gila trout, Salmo gilae, in Main Diamond Creek, New Mexico. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 57 pp.
. 1966. Ecology of Gila trout in Main Diamond Creek, New Mexico. US Fish and Wildlife Service Tech. Pap., Sport Fish. 5, pp. 1-24
Rinne, J.N. 1978. Development of methods of population estimation and habitat evaluation for management of the Arizona and Gila trouts. Pages 113-125 In: J. Moring, ed. Proceedings of the wild trout - catchable trout symposium. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.
. 1980. Spawning habitat and behavior of Gila trout, a rare salmonid of the southwestern United States. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 109: 83-91
. 1981. Stream habitat improvement and native southwestern trouts. USDA Forest Service Research Note, RM-409, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 4 pp.
68 . 1988. Native southwestern (USA) trouts: status, taxonomy, ecology, and conservation. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 35(3-4): 305-20.
Minckley, W.L. 1991. Native fishes of arid lands: a dwindling resource of the desert Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-206. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 45 pp.
Sampson, A.W., and L.H. Weyl. 1918. Range preservation and its relation to erosion control on western grazing lands: USDA Bulletin No. 675. 35 pp.
Shaffer, Mark L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Pages 69-86. In: Soule' (editor), Viable Populations for Conservation. School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 189 pp.
Snyder, J.O. 1915. Notes on a collection of fishes made by Dr. Edgar A. Mearns from rivers tributary to the Gulf of California. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 49: 573-86.
Stearly, R.F., and G.R. Smith. 1993. Phylogeny of the pacific trouts and salmons (Oncorhynchus) and genera of the family Salmonidae. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 122: 1-33
Stefferud, J. 1993. Personal communication with Jerry Stefferud on December 18, 1993, regarding population numbers and status of 0. g. gilae populations.
1994. Personal communication with Jerry Stefferud on February 8, 1994, regarding possible 0. g. gilae historic range within the Agua Fria River drainage.
Stefferud, S. 1993. Personal communication with Sally Stefferud on December 10, 1993, regarding the taxonomy and status of several sensitive southwestern fish species.
Stokes, Donald W. 1983. A guide to observing insect lives. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA. 371 1)13.
Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 393 pp.
Sundt, Chuck. 1993, 1994. Personal communication with Chuck Sundt, Gila National Forest Range Conservationist, on August 17, 1993 and January 3, 1994, regarding riparian and upland habitat conditions, and status and management of grazing allotments within the Gila, San Francisco, and Tularosa River watersheds. • Swetnam, T.W., and J.H. Dieterich. 1983. Fire history of ponderosa pine forest in the Gila Wilderness, New Mexico. In: a symposium (proceedings), J.E. Lotan, B.M. Kilgore, W.C. Fischer, and R.W. Mutch (tech coords.), Missoula Montana. November 1983. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Szaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants 9: 69-138.
69 Tchernavin, V. 1937. Skulls of salmon and trout. Salmon and Trout Magazine 88: 235-242. (Fish Monger's Hall, London.)
. 1938a. Notes on the chondrocranium and branchial skeleton of Salmo. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London B 108: 347-364.
Turner, P.R. 1986. Restoration of the endangered Gila trout. Proc. Ann. Conf. Western Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies, 66: 122-33.
. 1987b. Restoration of the endangered Gila trout. Proc. Ann. Conf. Western Assoc. Fish and Wild!. Agencies, 66: 122-33. . 1989. Annual and seasonal changes in populations of Gila trout in headwater streams. Final Report to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 93 pp.
and M.L. McHenry. 1985. Population ecology of the Gila trout with special emphasis on sport fishing potential. Unpublished final report to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 70 pp.
U.S. Government Printing Office. 1990. Congressional Grazing Guidelines. Washington, DC. 26 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973; as amended through the 100th congress. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 45 pp.
.1983. Draft revised Gila trout recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 52 pp.
. 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposal to determine the spikedace to be a threatened species, and to determine its critical habitat. Federal Register 509117): 25390-25398
• 1991. Draft revised Gila trout recovery plan; second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 90 pp.
• 1991. Loach minnow recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 38 pp.
1991. Draft biological opinion for the diamond bar allotment draft environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 11 pp.
• 1992. Biological opinion for the diamond bar allotment draft environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 12 pp.
1993. Colorado River endangered fishes critical habitat; draft biological support document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah. 225 pp.
. 1993. Revised Gila trout recovery plan. Albuquerque New Mexico. 113 pp.
70 New Mexico Game and Fish, New Mexico State University, US Forest Service. 1993. The Gila trout, recovery in action. Public relations information published cooperatively by the above agencies.
U.S. Forest Service. 1986. Forest service manual, amendment 52. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC.
.1987. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 295 pp.
. 1987. Coconino National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 270 pp.
. 1986. Gila National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 324 pp.
. 1987. Kaibab National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 264 pp.
. 1986. Prescott National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 164 pp.
. 1987. Tonto National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 284 pp.
. 1992. Implementation schedule, Aldo Leopold and Gila Wilderness Areas, Gila National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 65 pp.
. 1992. Prescribed natural fire plan and biological evaluation; Aldo Leopold and Gila Wilderness Areas, Gila National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 22 pp.
. 1993. Resource information report; Potential wild, scenic, recreational river designation, National Forests of Arizona. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 375 pp.
. 1993. Diamond Bar grazing allotment draft environmental impact statement; Gila National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. pp.
. 1993. July 7th letter from J. Stefferud (Tonto National Forest) to Gila National Forest Supervisor regarding the renovation of White Creek. Tonto National Forest, Phoenix, AZ. 15 pp.
. 1994. Gila National Forest grazing allotments, and allotment management plan dates; database printout. USDA Forest Service, Silver City, NM. 5 pp.
71 United States Government Accounting Office (USGAO). 1992., Rangeland management, Interior's monitoring has fallen short of agency requirements. USGAO, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee of National Parks and Public Lands, Committee in Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. van Eimeren, P.A. 1988. Comparative food habits of Gila trout and speckled dace in a southwestern headwater stream. M.S. Thesis. New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. van Wagtendock, J.W. 1983. Fire suppression effects on fuels and succession in short-fire-interval wilderness ecosystems. In: a symposium (proceedings), J.E. Lotan, B.M. Kilgore, W.C. Fischer, and R.W. Mutch (tech coords.). Missoula, Montana November 1983. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, MT
Wameke, J. 1987. Fisheries inventory of Gap Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona Unpublished Report. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 9 pp. R it • T. McMahon, and S. Mondragon. 1992. Fish investigation progress report Gap Creek, Yavapai County. Statewide fisheries investigations, survey of aquatic resources, Federal Aid project F-7-M-34. Arizona Dept. of Game and Fish, Phoenix, Arizona 5 pp.
. 1993. Personal communication with Jim Warneke on December 15, 1993, regarding current status of the Gap Creek, Arizona, 0. G. GILAE population.
Wells, Nancy. 1994. Personal communication with Nancy Wells, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Clifton Ranger District Range Staff on March 23, 1994, regarding condition of grazing allotments within the Eagle Creek watershed
Williams, J.E., D.B. Bowman, J.E. Brooks, A.A. Echelle, R.J. Edwards, D.A. Hendrickson, and J.J. Landye. 1985. Endangered aquatic ecosystems in North American deserts with a list of vanishing fishes of the region. J. Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci. 20: 1-62.
Wilson, Edward 0. 1992. The diversity of life. The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 424 pp.
Young, Kirk. 1994. Personal communication With Kirk Young, wildlife biologist for the non-game division of ADGF on February 4, 1994.
72 APPENDIX A
CONSERVATION AND STATUS OF GILA TROUT, ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE
David L. Propst Jerome A. Stefferud, and Paul A. Turner
73 THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 37(2):117-125 JUNE 1992 •
CONSERVATION AND STATUS OF GILA TROUT, ONCORHYNCHUS alLAk
DAVID L. PROPST, JEROME A. STEFFERUD, AND PAUL R. TURNER
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM 87504 Tonto National Forest, Post Office Box 5348, Phoenix, AZ 85010 Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
- Aes rancr —Gila trout, Oncorhynchus gilae, formerly occurred in suitable habitat in much of the Gila River drainage, New Mexico and Arizona, but, when described in 1950, it was restricted to a few remote headwater streams in New Mexico. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 and New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 afforded some protection and provided impetus for efforts to conserve the species. In the past 20 years, conservation efforts focused mainly on establishing additional populations. Success of recovery efforts has been mixed. Prior to 1989, 11 populations (five relictual and six re-established) existed. Natural events in 1988 and 1989 eliminated one population and severely reduced two others. A fourth population (natural) may be contaminated with genes of Oncorhynchus mykiss and its replicate therefore may be impure. Successful conservation of 0. gibe will require continued protection and enhancement of extant populations, re-establishment of the species in large drainages rather than small headwater streams, and modification of traditional recovery strategies.
When described in 1950, Gila trout, Onco- River drainage in Ari.zona. Descriptions of spec- rhynchus gilae (Miller), was present in a few imens collected in West Clear Creek (also Verde streams in the Gila River drainage in New Mex- River drainage) in 1892 or 1894 (Snyder, 1915), ico and eliminated from its range in Arizona. The but subsequently lost, agree reasonably well with only known pure populations at that time were 0. gilae from New Mexico (Minckley, 1973). in Main Diamond (type locality) and Spruce Eagle Creek, a Gila River tributary downstream creeks (Fig. 1). Natural occurrence of 0. gilae in of the confluence of the San Francisco River may Spruce Creek, however, was doubted by Miller have had Gila trout (Minckley, 1973). Behnke (1950, 1972) because residents of the area re- and Zarn's (1976) extension of range of 0. gilae ported the San Francisco River (a Gila River to the Agua Fria Drainage in Arizona was based tributary) barren of trout prior to 1905 when upon spotting patterns of specimens of 0. gilae x miners had trout transported from Gila River 0. mykiss collected from Sycamore Creek in 1975. headwater streams to five tributaries of the San Reasons for decline of 0. gilae are similar to Francisco River. Morphomeristic distinctions and those given for other interior North American inaccessibility of upper Spruce Creek influenced salmonids (Miller, 1950, 1961; Behnke and Zarn, others to contend that 0. gilae was probably native 1976; Behnke, 1979). Competition and predation to at least part of the San Francisco Drainage by introduced salmonids, hybridization with (Behnke and Zarn, 1976; David, 1976; Behnke, rainbow (0. mykiss) and cutthroat (Oncorhynchus 1979). Taxonomic investigations have confirmed dark° trouts, habitat degradation and loss, and the purity of the Spruce Creek population of 0. changes in water quality and quantity contrib- gilae and support its natural occurrence in the uted to the range reduction of 0. gilae (Sublette San Francisco Drainage (David, 1976; Louden- et al., 1990). stager et al., 1986; B. R. Riddle, pers. comm.). After 1950, substantial effort was made to lo- Based upon specimens taken from upper Oak cate other genetically uncontaminated popula- Creek prior to 1890, Miller (1972) and Minckley tions of 0. gilae. Purity was evaluated using mor- (1973) considered O. gilae also native to the Verde phomeristic characters of 0. gilae described by
74 June 1992 Props( et al.-Conservation and status of Oncorhynchw gilae 119
Miller (1950, 1972). Regan (1964, 1966) re- MATERIALS AND METTIODS-Much of the infor- ported a "pure" population of 0. gilae in Mc- mation presented herein was obtained from agency and Kenna Creek but presented no evidence. Hanson contract reports, theses, and field notes of various work- ers covering almost 30 years of work on 0. gilae. The (1971) obtained specimens from South Diamond frequency with which populations were sampled varied and McKenna creeks that were confirmed to be greatly; some were sampled seasonally for several years pure 0. gibe. David (1976) found and confirmed while others were sampled only once or twice. Methods the purity of 0. gilae in Iron Creek. No other used and reporting detail varied considerably. We made naturally occurring pure population of 0. gilae no attempt to evaluate the efficacy of any worker's methods or precision, nor did we critically evaluate has been found (Hanson, 1971; David, 1976; data each presented. Rather, our purpose is to provide Mello and Turner, 1980; B. R. Riddle, pers. an overview of each population of 0. gilae and whether comm.). its status has changed. To that end, we used only the Efforts to conserve 0. gilae began in 1923 with most basic information available for each population: the establishment of Jenks Cabin Hatchery by estimated total population, number of individuals es- ti the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish mated or collected per meter, and total length (TL) of specimens. Estimated numbers were determined by Miller, 1950). However, this effort and another ( mark-recapture or depletion census methods. Number at Glenwood Hatchery were unsuccessful and reported, collected, or found was the number obtained discontinued (Jenks Cabin in 1939 and Glen- in one electrofishing pass. wood in 1947). A policy of not stocking non- For our sampling, one electrofishing pass was made native salmonids into stream reaches supporting at each site to obtain specimens that were weighed and 0. gilae has been followed by the New Mexico measured for total and standard lengths. Elapsed Department of Game and Fish since 1923 (Mil- shocking time and site length were recorded. Except ler, 1950). During the 1930s, log stream im- for voucher specimens, all individuals were returned provement structures were placed by the Civilian to the point of capture. Conservation Corps in many Gila Drainage streams, including Main and South Diamond RESULTS AND DISCUSSION-Hisiory and Sta- creeks. tus-Main Diamond Creek-Although Miller Additional impetus to conserve 0. gilae was (1950) did not provide specific comments on the provided by the Endangered Species Preservation abundance of 0. gilae in Main Diamond Creek, Act of 1966, by which the species was listed as subsequent workers consistently noted the high endangered (United States Fish and Wildlife Ser- density of 0. gilae in about 6.1 km of occupied vice, 1967), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, habitat. Regan (1964, 1966) estimated a popu- and the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act lation of 4,300 (50 to 201 mm, n = 337) in June of 1974. A recovery plan prepared by the United 1962. Hanson (1971) estimated that 2,983 to 4,170 States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1979 and 1983 (49 to 191 mm, n = 157) 0. gilae inhabited the stressed the need to perpetuate and replicate each stream in 1969 to 1970, and Mello and Turner surviving population of 0. gilae as a distinct ge- (1980) estimated 4,750 (60 to 239 mm, n = 46) netic entity. The justification for this objective 0. gilae in November 1974. P. R. Turner and was based on evidence that each population sur- M. McHenry (in litt.) estimated 2.30 fish/m (39 viving in isolation was genetically distinct (David, to 209 mm, n = 223) at a study site in September 1976; Loudenslager et al., 1986). A key recovery 1984. In August 1985, 1.96, 2.14, and 3.89 fish/m activity was selecting streams suitable for -re-es- (31 to 254 mm, n = 633) were estimated at study tablishment of 0. gilae, chemically treating these sites from the upper to lower inhabited reaches streams to remove non-native salmonids, and sub- of the crcek.,Fish 60 mm TL were estimated sequently translocating individuals of 0. gilae from at 1.05 and 0.97 fish/m at a site in September a donor stream to the renovated stream. Since 1986 and 1987 and 0.95 and 0.75 fish/m at a site 1970, 0. gilae has been translocated to seven in September 1987 and 1988 (Nankervis, 1988). streams in Arizona and New Mexico. In July 1989, the Divide Fire burned much of Our purpose is to review the status of the five the watershed of upper Main and South Dia- relictual populations of 0. gilae, evaluate the fate mond creeks. During the fire, 566 0. gilae were of translocated populations, comment upon the evacuated from Main Diamond Creek to Mes- strategies used to conserve and recover the species, calero National Fish Hatchery. After the fire, and consider the potential for recovery of 0. gibe. rainstorms washed ash and charcoal into the
75 NM
Francisco River
MF EF
0 .30 km Gila River Mimbres River
1—Historic range of Gila trout (cross-hatched areas), Oncorhynchut gibe (Miller), and Apache trout (hatched area), 0. apache (Miller), in Arizona and New Mexico (A) and current range of 0. gilae in New Mexico (B). WF West Fork Gila River, MF •• Middle Fork Gila River, and EF East Fork Gila River; 1 ••• Main Diamond Creek, 2 •• South Diamond Creek, 3 ■• McKenna Creek, 4 •• Iron Creek, 5 Spruce Creek, 6 McKnight Creek, 7 Sheep Corral Creek, 8 Little Creek, 9 Dry Creek, 10 Mogollon Creek, 11 = Trail Canyon, and 12 •• Sacaton Creek.
76 120 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 37, no. 2 stream and frequent flooding mobilized unstable fish/m (two electrofishing passes). At another site, slope materials and incised portions of the upper 0.80 fish/m (39 to 258 mm, n = 468) were col- reaches of the stream to bedrock. Much of this lected in September 1987; 191 of these were trans- eroded material was deposited in middle and low- located to Trail Canyon. South Diamond Creek er reaches of the creek. Many of the log stream- was again used as a donor stream in October improvement structures originally installed in the 1988, when 508 individuals (one-third of those 1930s were damaged or destroyed. collected) were taken from 4.0 km of stream to Only one 0. gilae (approximately 130 mm) was supplement the Trail Canyon translocation and collected when about 0.6 km of Main Diamond to establish a population in Woodrow Canyon. Creek was electrofished on 20 and 21 July 1989. As in Main Diamond Creek, alternating flood When sampled, creek water was black and opaque; and low-flow conditions prevailed in South Di- mid-afternoon water temperature was 16.3°C, amond Creek after the Divide Fire. In November dissolved oxygen 7.6 mg/I, pH 8.1, total sus- 1989, surface water was present only in 0.6 km pended solids 73,724 mg/1, conductivity 472 mi- of Burnt Canyon (R. A. Ward, pers. comm.). In cromhos/cm (at 25°C), and total hardness (cal- May 1990, about 9.5 km of South Diamond Creek cium carbonate) 1,328 mg/I. Deposits of sand and Burnt Canyon were electrofished, including and charcoal on the floodplain indicated much reaches that were dry the previous autumn. Elev- higher flows prior to our sampling. On 20 Oc- en 0. gilae (120 to 213 mm) were observed or tober 1989, 1.5 km of stream were sampled at captured in South Diamond Creek and 21(58 to five locations, and no 0. gilae was captured or 146 mm) in Burnt Canyon. observed. The water was clear, temperature was McKenna Creek-Although Regan (1964, 6.5°C, dissolved oxygen 9.2 mg/1, and conductiv- 1966) and Hanson (1971) reported 0. gilae in ity 97 micromhos/cm in early afternoon. Finally, McKenna Creek, neither provided data on the no 0. gilae was collected or observed when the size of the population. Mello and Turner (1980) entire previously inhabited reach of 6.1 km was estimated the stream contained 400 to 500 age- sampled on 12 May 1990. Mid-day water tem- 1 + 0. gilae (68 to 205 mm) in about 1.2 km of perature was 8.9°C, dissolved oxygen 7.8 mg/I, stream in May 1975. An estimate of 400 to 500 pH 7.9, conductivity 101 micromhos/cm, and the age-1+ fish was made in 1984 (P. R. Turner water was clear. and M. McHenry, in litt.). Seasonal monitoring of the macroinvertebrate A recent phylogenetic study, using mitochon- community was initiated in August 1989. Fre- drial DNA, found evidence that the McKenna quent flooding, scoured and unstable substrata, Creek population of 0. gibe was contaminated and altered channel morphology initially sup- with genes of 0. mykiss (B. R. Riddle, pers. pressed aquatic macroinvertebrate abundance and comm.). The comparatively high level of genic diversity. Subsequently, abundance, diversity, and polymorphism in the population suggested the biomass steadily increased until August 1990 when introduction of 0. mykiss had occurred recently, floods again scoured the channel. Post-flood sam- possibly since 1974 when David (1976) obtained pling reflected a nearly complete loss of the mac- specimens for morphomeristic analyses. roinvertebrate fauna (G. Z. Jacobi, pers. comm.). Iron Creek-When discovered in 1975 (David, South Diamond Creek-Oncorhynchus gilae 1976), 0. gilae inhabited a 1.3 km headwater normally inhabited about 5.2 km of South Dia- reach of Iron Creek above 200+ m of dry channel mond Creek and its tributary, Burnt Canyon. and coexisted with Salmo trutta downstream for Within these reaches, surface flow is commonly about 5.5 km. Mello and Turner (1980) esti- interrupted. Hanson (1971) reported this popu- mated Iron Creek supported 600 to 800 0. gilae lation but provided no assessment of abundance. (52 to 218 mm)lin 1976. In 1972, T. Bickle (in litt.) reported the streams In 1981, Iron Creek below the dry channel supported 300 0. gilae and Mello and Turner was chemically treated to eliminate fish from a (1980) estimated a July 1976 population of 500 3-km reach above an artificial waterfall barrier. to 700 age-1+ fish. In July 1984, P. R. Turner Before and during the treatment, 2,776 S. truck: and M. McHenry (in litt.) estimated 1.44 and and 280 0. gilae (age-1+) were taken from the 2.59 fish/m at two sites. In August 1983, 0.47 treated reach (P. R. Turner and M. McHenry, fish/m (two electrofishing passes) were collected in litt.); 38 0. gilae survived and were returned from a site which in September 1987 yielded 2.66 to the renovated reach. An additional 105 (1984)
77
June 1992 Propst et A1.-Conservation and status of Oncorhynchus VIM 121
TABLE 1-Estimated number of Oncorhynchus gibe per linear meter of stream at three sites on Iron, McKnight, and Little creeks, 1984 to 1990. Estimates based upon mark-recapture or depletion sampling methods. Length range of specimens (millimeters total length) in parentheses.
Site Creek Date Upper Middle Lower Iron Creek Aug 1985 0.28 (51-196) Aug 1986 0.79 (64-206) Aug 1987 0.76 (77-221) 0.88 (95-224) 0.57 (95-322) Jul 1988 1.00 (63-270) 0.45 (74-250) Jun 1989 0.21 (82-191)' 0.93 (65-213)' 0.20 (63-210)' May 1990 0.21 (60-215)' McKnight Creek Sep 1984 1.58 (38-237) 2.83 (38-247) Oct 1985 0.69 (52-223) 1.05 (38-221) Oct 1986 1.22 (55-224) 1.48 (55-263) 0.56 (57-265)1 Oct 1987 1.45 (44-178) 2.09 (47-265) . . . 2.38 (48-237): Oct 1988 0.04 (99-214) , 0.07 (111-235) : :: 0.04 (132-206)...... - . 0.67 Oct 1989 - (67-230) -- .: 111(70-237) t e••'..0.52 (85-217) :24trIcrI...:,,. Oct 1990 0.16 (75-202r 0.47 (64-242r ' 0.33 (74-214)' i '„,, :-...... Z.:. Little Creek Nov 1985 0.45 (65-258) 0.54 (66-245) . 0-32 (78-222)' Oct 1986 0.74 (66-202) 1.22 (66-206) 1.03 (68-172) Oct 1987 0.20 (71-216) 0.37 (69-205) 0.64 (70-250) May 1989 0.09 (110-246) 0.05 (110-143) 0.12 (123-340) 'Values based on one electrofishing pass. and 51(1985) O. gilae from above the dry channel range oi 0. gilae (Miller, 1950, 1972), received were moved to the renovated reach. a transplant of 307 0. gilae from Main Diamond Sampling of Iron Creek since 1985 at three Creek in November 1970 after about 8.5 km of locations indicated a steady but irregular and stream above an artificial waterfall barrier were variable increase in numbers of 0. gilae (Table chemically treated to eliminate a native popula- 1). This sampling also found a few individuals tion of Rio Grande sucker, Calostomus plebeius of S. 1R:ILIA survived the 1981 treatment, and, based (Hanson, 1971). Following low flows in 1971, upon sizes in 1987 to 1989, at least one pair had <20 0. gilae were observed during a visual survey spawned in 1986. (T. Bickle, in litt.), and an additional 110 0. GIBE Spruce Creek-Although Miller (1950) was from Main Diamond Creek were transplanted in aware of the Spruce Creek population of 0. gilae, April 1972 (Mello and Turner, 1980). Surveys a taxonomic assessment was not made until 1970 below the artificial barrier in 1972 found over when specimens were obtained for R. J. Behnke, 100 0. gilae, and these fish were transferred above who considered them pure 0. gilae (Hanson 1971). the barrier (Mello and Turner, 1980). In July David (1976) also believed the creek supported 1976, Mello and Turner (1980) estimated a pop- a pure population of 0. gilae, albeit slightly di- Atlation of 800 to 1,000 0. ILIAC. They credited - vergent from Gila Drainage populations. T. Bickle the log .stream-improvement. structures placed (in litt.) reported 1,200 0. gilae in about 3.7 km thc stream after 1971 low flows with enhancing: of Spruce Creek in 1972, but Mello and Turner survival of the introduced population: - (1980) estimated only 500 to 700 in June 1975. Beginning in 1984, permanent study sites were In June 1983, P. R. Turner and M. McHenry regularly sampled in McKnight Creek. Abun- (in litt.) reported 0.12 fish/m (126 to 270 mm) dance and size range of 0. gilae increased until and 0.18 fish/m (58 to 207 mm) in October 1984. August 1988, despite a channel altering flood in In October 1985, 96 were removed to establish a 1985 (Medina and Martin, 1988). IR August replicate population in Dry Creek. 1988, another flood scoured most of thL stream McKnight Creek-McKnight Creek, a Mimbrcs channel, destroyed almost all natural trout cover River tributary and outside the presumed native and stream-improvement structures, and elimi-
78 122 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 37, no. 2
natcd all young-of-year trout in thc scoured reach. However, floods in 1987 and 1988 reduced the Few 0. gliae were found in McKnight Creek in number of trout, and densities were low in May October 1988, and, in October 1989, mainly 1989. young-of-year 0. gilae were found in the stream. Dry Creek-Prior to renovation, 1.9 km of A supplemental stocking of 202 0. gilae evacuated Dry Creek above a 30-m waterfall were estimated from Main Diamond Creek in July 1989 was to support 1,978 age-1+ 0. mykiss x O. gtlae (64 made in October. Sampling in October 1990 in- to 309 mm) and 1,823 S. trutta {86 to 323 mm). dicated successful reproduction and that the pop- Two chemical treatments (June 1984 and June ulation was recovering from the flood. Average 1985) eliminated all trout. In October 1985, 96 standard length of age-0 trout in 1989 and 1990 0. gilae were translocated from Spruce Creek and was 20 to 30 mm longer than in previous years evenly distributed through the renovated reach. (1984 to 1987). Sixty 0. gilae (100 to 253 mm) were collected in Sheep Corral Creek-Although Sheep Corral September 1987, and most were found in the Creek had low discharge that made its suitability lower 0.4 km. In August 1990, 0. gilae was com- for establishment of 0. gilae uncertain, Hanson paratively common (0.11 fish/m), but only where (1971) recommended trout be translocated to a fish were concentrated in 1987. Based upon the fishless reach above a waterfall. Accordingly, 89 size range (76 to 236 mm) of fish collected in 0. gilae from Main Diamond Creek were placed 1990, reproduction of 0. gilae has occurred. in a 1.3 km reach it- 972 (Mello and Turner, Mogollon Creek-Initial renovation of the 1980). In August 1974, Mello and Turner (1980) drainage focused on Trail Canyon, a Mogollon found only two 0. gilae in 207 m following a flood Creek tributary, where a 2.5-m waterfall at its the preceding month. In June 1975, the entire mouth protected 1.8 km of habitat for 0. gilae inhabitable reach of the stream was sampled, and from upstream movement of non-native trout. A 15 fish were found. In July 1976, eight age-0 pre-treatment survey yielded 0.46/m 0. mykiss and 35 age-1+ were collected (Mello and Turner, X O. gilae (88 to 209 mm). Two chemical treat- 1980). A sampling in July 1983 found 26 0. gilae ments (October 1986 and September 1987) were (39 to 291 mm) in 210 m of stream. required to remove all salmonids. In September Gap Creek-In 1974, Gap Creek, a tributary 1987, 191 0. gilae from South .Diamond Creek of the Verde River, Arizona, received a stocking were translocated to Trail Canyon, and a second of 0. gilae from Main Diamond Creek (Minckley stocking of 306 0. gilae (also South Diamond and Brooks, 1985). In October 1981, the popu- Creek fish) was made in October 1988. In Oc- lation was reported to number 150 individuals. tober 1989, 0.20 fish/m (75 to 270 mm) were This population persisted through 1986 in a 0.5 collected; 93 were moved to Mogollon Creek. to 0.8 kin reach below the original planting site A pre-treatment inventory of Mogollon Creek (J. E. Brooks, pers. comm.). In 1987, 70 0. gilae in May 1986 found 0. mykiss x 0. gilae, S. trutta, (40 to 300 mm, n 38) were collected or observed and R. osculus in a 14.5-km reach above a 3 m in a 2.3-km reach (P. Warnecke, in litt.). In Au- waterfall. The length and complexity (dry chan- gust 1990, only six 0. gilae (281 to 364 mm, n nel, braided reaches, spring seeps, and intermit- =. 4) were found in 2.0 km of available habitat. tent tributaries) of the creek necessitated three Each of these six fish was found alone in an chemical treatments (1986 to 1988) to remove all isolated pool, thus making the possibility of re- salmonids. In October 1989, 102 age-0 0. gilae production remote under existing flow conditions. from Mescalero National Fish Hatchery (pro- Little Creek-Nine kilometers of Little Creek duced from South Diamond Creek fish obtained above an artificial waterfall barrier were chem- in April 1989) were stocked in the lower 3 km ically treated in July 1982 to remove 0. mykiss of the treated portion of the Mogollon Creek. and S. trutta.. Native Rhinichthys oscu:us, Gatos- Following two chemical treatments in July 5 41 5' L 1 C . iisignis,''` 'A d Catostomus ihat= 1988, 212 0. gilae from South Diamond Creek ited the treated reach; all species except R. oscu/us were translocated to Woodrow Canyon, another were eliminated. In December 1982, 26 age-0 Mogollon Creek tributary, in October 1988. (72 to 100 mm) and 74 age-1+ (>129 mm) 0. Sacaton Creek-High fire potential in the Iron gilae were translocated from McKenna Creek to Creek watershed (S. Servis, pers. comm.) neces- Little Creek. Annual sampling through 1986 in- sitated selection of a stream that might support dicated an increase in abundance of 0. gilae. a population of 0. gilae from the unreplicated
79 June 1 992 Propst et al. —Conservation and st.atus of Oncorhynchus iliac 1 23
Iron Creek. Because it was barren and all of its cautious optimism. Limited habitat and low flow is diverted to livestock tanks through 10+ abundance make the status of 0. gilae in Sheep km of narrow, shallow concrete-lined ditches (J. Corral Canyon and Gap Creek tenuous. Sacaton S. Pittenger, and H. M. Bishop, pers. comm.), Creek was stocked with 0. gilae only to have a Sacaton Creek was selected to receive 40 individ- replicate of the Iron Creek population until a uals (122 to 165 mm) from Iron Creek. Fish were larger, more suitable stream is renovated. translocated in June 1990. Rclictual populations of 0. gibe were limited Evaluation of Conservation and Recovery Strat- to small headwaters and recovery has been ac- egies— In 1987, sufficient confidence in recovery complished mainly in similar streams. Such hab- and conservation efforts for 0. gibe, plus expec- itats are capable of supporting only small pop- tations of future progress (Turner, 1986), re- ulations which seasonally and annually vary sulted in a proposal to downlist the species from greatly in abundance. Natural events such as fire, "endangered" to "threatened" (United States Fish flood, and drought may eliminate these popula- and Wildlife Service, 1987). In anticipation of tions. Livestock grazing, timber harvest, and min- this change in status, in 1988, the New Mexico eral extraction can negatively affect habitats of State Game Commission delisted the McKnight 0. gilae, but such activities have been curtailed Creek population and downlistcd all other New in most watersheds having populations of 0. gilae. Mexico populations from Group 1 (=endan- Accidental or deliberate introduction of non-na- gered) to Group 2 (=threatened). However, be- tive salmonids, particularly 0. mykiss, however, fore the end of the comment period for federal remains a threat to surviving populations of 0. downlisting (26 July 1989), a flood eliminated gilae. >95% of the McKnight Creek population (Au- The loss or near-loss of at least three and as gust 1988), a forest fire and associated after-ef- many as five populations of 0. eat in <1 year fects eliminated the Main Diamond Creek pop- and the consequent change in status from pro- ulation (July to September 1989), and drought posed downlisting to distinct possibility of ex- and forest fire-related impacts reduced the South tinction suggested recovery strategies of the past Diamond Creek population by >95% (June to 20+ years need re-evaluation. Recovery efforts November 1989). In addition, evidence was found focused on reclamation of isolated headwater that the McKenna Creek population might be streams. This strategy was based upon the belief contaminated with genes of 0. mykiss; thus, the that additional populations equated to enhanced genetic purity of the Little Creek population is security for each rclictual population (presum- also suspect. These events prompted postpone- ably, each is genetically distinct) and, thus, the ment of the proposal to downlist 0. gilae (G. L. species as a whole. The events of 1988 and 1989 Burton, pers. comm.). amply demonstrated this approach was inade- The McKnight Creek population should re- quate; a decade of progress was almost undone cover; age-0 fish were found in 1989 and 1990. and long-term survival of 0. gilae is only mar- The few surviving 0. gilae in South Diamond ginally better than when the first recovery plan Creek, coupled with continued low flows and as- was published. Instead, entire sub-drainages with sociated habitat loss, make natural recovery of multiple tributaries must be reclaimed and man- this population uncertain. Instability of the Main aged for 0. gilae. Such an approach is necessary Diamond Creek watershed will probably pre- because montane streams of the upper Gila River dude re-establishment of 0. gilae for several years. watershed have a history of regularly occurring If suspected contamination of the McKenna Creek and devastating fires, floods, and droughts (S. population by 0. mykiss is true and it occurred Servis, pers. comm.; P. Stewart, pers. comm.). before fish were translocated to Little Creek, there The persistence -of multiple size-class populations has been an irrevocable loss of a distinct genetic of 0. gilae in tributaries of McKnight and South lineage. Diamond creeks when the mainstream popula- Populations of 0. gilae in Iron and Spruce creeks tions were nearly eliminated by natural events appear secure. Reproduction was confirmed in attests to our contention that larger, hydrologi- Dry Creek and the size range of specimens in- cally diverse drainages provide greater security dicates establishment of 0. gilae. Although much for 0. gilae than small isolated streams. of Mogollon Creek remains to be stocked, success In the past, renovated streams have been stocked of the population in Trail Canyon is cause for with individuals from a donor stream. Because
80 124 The Southweziern Nacuraltsi vol. 37, no. 2
populations in donor streams were typically small of 0. gibe to much of its native range in the upper and transport methods (pack mule and helicop- Gila River drainage (including the San Francisco ter) limited numbers, relatively few fishes were River portion) can be accomplished. Restoration taken to establish new populations. No stream in the Verde Drainage should be considered. (except the renovated portion of Iron Creek, Trail However, a much greater, long-term commitment Canyon, and McKnight Creek) reclaimed for 0. of resources by responsible agencies will be nec- gibe has received multiple stockings. Single stock- essary to accomplish this. The alternative is main- ing coupled with low numbers probably contrib- tenance of a few relictual biological and evolu- utes to unnaturally low genetic diversity of rep- tionary curiosities, each subject to unpredictable licate populations. In longer or larger streams, loss by drought, fire, flood, or human interference. greater numbers and multiple stockings are nec- essary simply to re-establish a population within Efforts to conserve Gila trout have involved a large a reasonable time frame (3 to 5 years). Presum- number of employees of state and federal agencies, ably, greater numbers and multiple stockings news media, and universities. Among these are B. An- would also enhance genetic diversity. Hatchery derson, H. M. Bishop, T. Bickle, W. E. Britton, J. E. propagation is a means of producing the numbers Brooks, S. Brown, G. L. Burton, L. Chacon, R. E. required but should be used only if very stringent David, G. Divine, S. Harvill, M. D. Hatch, R. C. Hayes, A. L. Hobbes, E. Jacquez, J. F. Kramer, K. safcgaurds can be imposed. Paramount are the Loy, M. McHenry, K. Mello, J. Nankervis, C. W. maintenance of "wildness," genetic diversity, and Painter, C. S. Pease, J. Pederson, D. P.lers, J. S. absolute assurance that gametes of 0. gilae are Pittenger, B. R. Riddle, M. H. Salmon, C Schmitt, not contaminated by those of other salmonids. N. W. Smith, P. Van Eimeren, R. A. W rd, D. M. Because of slight genetic differences, a central Whitney, and J. C. Whitney. The United States Fish tenet of past recovery efforts was replication and and Wildlife Service, United States Forest Service, Ncw maintenance of each of the five relictual popu- Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and New lations as distinct, non-mixing entities. We be- Mexico State University have provided funding, logis- lieve that policy needs re-consideration, partic- tic support, and encouragement for the conservation of the Gila trout. A. L. Pino kindly typed various versions ularly if larger drainages are to be reclaimed for of this manuscript. The reviews and comments of R. 0. gibe. Prior to isolation in remote headwaters J. Behnke, R. E. David, G. Z. Jacobi, J. E. Johnson, as a result of human-induced environmental and R. R. Miller are appreciated. changes and establishment of non-native salmo- nids, 0. gibe was widespread in suitable habitats of the Gila River drainage, Arizona and New LITERATURE CITED Mexico, and some gene flow likely occurred among. BEHNKE, R.. J. 1979. Monograph of the native trouts populations within each of the river systems of of the genus Salmo of western North America. USDA its native range. To continue to perpetuate arti- Forest Serv., Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, ficial isolation of each relictual lineage through Colorado, 163 pp. conservation activities does not seem biologically BEHNKE, R. J., AND M. ZARN. 1976. Biology and sound. Rather, future renovations in the Gila management of threatened and endangered western River sub-drainage should utilize stocks from each trouts. General Tech. Rcpt., USDA Forest Serv., relictual population of the sub-drainage. There RM-28:1-45. is sufficient genetic distinctiveness of the Spruce DAVID, R. E. 1976. Taxonomic analysis of Gila and Creek population (David, 1976; B. R. Riddle, Gila x rainbow trout in southwestern New Mex- pers. comm.) to justify using only it in sub-drain- ico. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, New Mexico State Univ., age renovations in the San Francisco River. Las Cruces, 36 pp. Nonetheless, we also believe each of the five re- HANSON, J. N. 1971. Investigation on Gila trout, lictual populations and their replicates should &limo gilae Miller, in southwestern New Mexico. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las continue to be managed as distinct entities to help Cruces, 44 pp. ensure maintenance of maximum genetic diver- LOUDENSLAGER, E. J., J. N. RINNE, G. A. E. GALL, sity. AND R. E. Davit). 1986. Biochemical genetic Most of the losses of 0. gilae between 1988 and studies of native Arizona and New Mexico trout. 1989 were the result of stochastic environmental Southwestern Nat., 31:221-234. events. The pure McKenna Creek lineage may MEDINA, A. L., AND S. C. MARTIN. 1988. Stream be extinct, but the other four survive. Restoration channel and vegetation changes in sections of
81 June 1992 Propst et al.—Conservation and status of Oncorhynchui plot 125
McKnight Creek, New Mexico. Great Basin Nat., REGAN, D. M. 1964. Ecology of Gila trout, S-almo 58:373-381. gibe, in Main Diamond Creek, New Mexico. Un- MELLO, K., AND P. R. TURNER. 1980. Status of the publ. M.S. thesis, Colorado State Univ., Fort Col- Gila trout. Endangered Species Rept., U.S. Fish lins. Wild!. Serv., 6:1-53. 1966. Ecology of Gila trout in Main Dia- MILLER, R. R. 1950. Notes on the cutthroat and mond Creek in New Mexico. Tech. Paper, USDI rainbow trouts with the description of a new species Bur. Sports Fish. Wild!., 5:1-24. from the Gila River, New Mexico. Occas. Papers SNYDER, J. 0. 1915. Notes on a collection of fishes Mus. Zoo!., Univ. Michigan, 529:1-42. made by Dr. Edgar A. Mcarns from rivers tributary . 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of to the Gulf of California. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus., the American Southwest. Papers Michigan Acad. 49:573-586. Sci., Arts and Letters, 46:365-404. SUBLETTE, J. E., M. D. HATCH, AND M. SUBLETTE. . 1972. Classification of the native trouts of 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. Univ. New Mex- Arizona with the description of a new species, Salmo ico Press, Albuquerque. apache. Copeia, 1972:401-422. TURNER, P. R. 1986. Restoration of the endangered MINCKLEY, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona • Gila trout. Proc. Ann. Conf. Western Assoc. Fish Game Fish Dept., Phoenix. Wild!. Agencies, 66:122-133. MINCKLEY, W. L., AND J. E. BROOKS. 1985. Trans- UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1967. plantations of native Arizona fishes: records through Native fish and wildlife; endangered species. Fed. 1980. J. Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci., 20:73-89. Register, 32:4001. NANKERVIS, J, M. 1988. Age, growth and reproduc- . 1987. Endangered and threatened wildlife; tion of Gila trout in a small headwater stream in proposed reclassification of the Gila trout (Salina the Gila National Forest. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, New gibe) from endangered to threatened. Fed. Register, Mexico Stau Univ., Las Cruces. 52:37424-37427.
82 APPENDIX B
CURRENT STATUS OF ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE POPULATIONS
Listed habitat conditions for watersheds outside of the Wilderness Allotment described below generally came from personal communications with Gila National Forest personnel (Madrid, pers. comm. 1994; Pope, pers. comm. 1994; Sundt, pers. comm. 1993, 1994). Their time and cooperation with this status review of watershed conditions is greatly appreciated. However, terms such as "poor, fair, good, and excellent" used below must be at least partially defined. These terms originated with the 3-Step Method for measuring trend in range condition created by the USDA Forest Service (Parker and Harris 1959) to describe the economic value of any given range land, and its potential to support any given number of livestock. Also included in the background of the definition for these terms are hints at descriptions of the potential for certain areas of land to support mainly economically important vegetation types. Unfortunately, they have little to do with pre-settlement ecological habitat conditions. According to historic reports and evolution theory, populations of O. g. gilae were likely thriving at the time of initial european settlement of the Gila Headwaters bioregion. Therefore, we view aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat conditions that were found in the Gila headwaters bioregion just prior to european settlement as optimum, and use this idea as a baseline for aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat health comparisons. Although it is not always the case, those terms utilized by the 3-Step process can generally be interpreted by biologists as describing ecological habitat conditions poorer than indicated by the term. Grazing allotment acreages and "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" conditions are taken from the Gila National Forest Wilderness Implementation Schedule (1993) and the Gila National Forest Plan (1986) (For relevant sections, please see APPENDIX E). Other information such as stocking levels was gleaned from Gila National Forest allotment management folders. Management of livestock numbers on grazing allotments within the Gila National Forest is likely to continue without significant change, even on those allotments in unsatisfactory condition, until an allotment management plan is re-issued (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993).h 1
WILDERNESS ALLOTMENT POPULATIONS
Several relict pre-european settlement and reintroduced populations of Oncorhynchus gilae gilae are currently found in the approximately 300,000 acre ungrazed Gila National Forest Wilderness Allotment, and are described below. Though much of this allotment is in a process of healing as a result of being closed to livestock grazing since 1962 (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993), several factors continue to contribute to the degradation of many of its' watersheds and include the suppression of natural fires and elimination of beaver. The designation of critical habitat for 0. g gilae will serve not only as a red flag for the Forest Service in the planning of potentially extractive activities, but would also encourage National Forest land managers to consider beneficial, as opposed to extractive, activities in critical habitat areas such as the Wilderness Allotment. Controlled burns may be necessary in the Wilderness Allotment to restore watershed stability. Also, beaver were nearly trapped out of the Gila headwaters bioregion in the nineteenth century, and may be critical to the restoration of viable populations of O. g. gilae.
liGila National Forest gazing Allotment names and planning dates can be found in APPENDIX D.
83 POPULATION STATUS Iron Creek Artificially Stable Although the Iron Creek population of O. g. gilae appears to be doing well with more than one- thousand fish found during 1992 surveys (Stefferud, pers. comm., 1993), catastrophic fire due to unnatural fuel buildup in this watershed is a distinct possibility (USFWS 1993, Propst et al. 1992). The population of 0. g. gilae occupies approximately 4.3 km of Iron Creek (Propst et a/. 1992) and is found between approximately 8,000 and 9,000 ft. in elevation. Salmo trutta are currently present in this section of stream, and their yearly removal through electrofishing is required to maintain the viability of the Iron Creek 0. g. gilae population (Stefferud, pers. comm, 1993). Because this kind of maintenance can be assured by government agencies, but not guaranteed, this population cannot be considered viable in the long-term without total removal of the brown trout. The Iron Creek watershed is within the Wilderness grazing Allotment.
Little Creek Possibly Extirpated If the Little Creek population of 0. g. gilae is not contaminated with the genes of rainbow trout, this stream appears to support one of the most stable reintroduced populations of O. g. gilae based on population numbers and variety of age-classes (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). The Little Creek population is found throughout 9 km of the stream above an artificial waterfall barrier (Propst et al. 1992), between approximately 5,500 and 6,600 ft. in elevation. Last checked in 1993, one-hundred fish stocked in 1982 have produced a population of more than six-hundred. (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). 0. g. gilae stocked in Little Creek were collected from McKenna Creek, casting doubt on their genetic purity. Other native species (Catostomus sp. and Rhinichthys osculus) were eliminated in the course of reclaiming this stream (Propst et al. 1992). The Little Creek watershed is found within the Wilderness Allotment.
McKenna Creek Possibly Extirpated Questions have been raised regarding the genetic purity of the McKenna Creek population of O. g. gilae (Propst et al. 1992):
A recent phylogenetic study, using mitochondrial DNA, found evidence that the McKenna Creek population of O. gilae was contaminated with genes of O. mykiss (B.R. Riddle, pers. comm.). The comparatively high level of genetic polymorphism in the population suggested the introduction of 0. mykiss had occurred recently, possibly since 1974 when David (1976) obtained specimens for morphomoristic analysis.
The "recent" contamination of this population indicates the possibility that 0. mykiss were either illicitly or mistakenly introduced to McKenna Creek since 1974. Genetic purity, although extremely important for all remaining native 0. g. gilae populations, doesn't necessarily detract from the importance of this area as critical habitat. The McKenna Creek population was last surveyed in 1991 (Stefferud, pers. comm., 1993). This small population of unknown genetic purity appears to be doing well, although it is limited by the small stretch of appropriate stream habitat, 1.2 km (Propst et aL 1992), between approximately 6,600 and 7,400 ft. in elevation. Turner and McHenry (1984) estimated that four-five hundred age-1+ fish were present in this stream. The McKenna Creek watershed is within the Wilderness grazing Allotment.
84 Mogollon Creek Stable Reclaimed in 1986 and 1987, approximately 24.3 km of Mogollon Creek and its tributaries Trail Creek and Woodrow Canyon Creeks are currently occupied by 0. g. gilae between the approximate elevations of 6,800 and 8,000 ft. Stock from South Diamond Creek and the Mescalero Fish Hatchery12 was reintroduced on three separate occasions to the Mogollon Creek watershed (Propst c/ al. 1992). The initial stocking of 191 0. g. gilae (from South Diamond Creek) took place in 1.8 km of Trail Canyon Creek in 1987 between approximately 6,700 and 7,200 ft in elevation. A 14.5 km stretch of Mogollon Creek upstream of Trail Canyon was stocked in 1989 with 102 0. g. gdae raised in the Mescalero Fish Hatchery between approximately 6,800 and 7,400 ft. in elevation. Woodrow Canyon Creek, at approximately 6 km in length, was stocked with 219 0. g. gilae from South Diamond Creek in 1988 at elevations between approximately 7,000 and 7,800 ft. (Propst etal. 1992). Judging from the variety of age classes and numbers of fish (over 500), these populations of 0. g. gilae Mogollon Creek and its tributaries appears to be doing well. It was last checked in 1993 (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). Brown trout were either not eliminated in the stream treatment or have since been illicitly reintroduced to Woodrow Canyon Creek (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993), and are presently competing and preying upon 0. g. gilae, leaving question as to the long-term viability prospects for this population. Some question also exists as to whether 0. g. gilae were present in Mogollon Creek in times just prior to european settlement due to a report that 0. g. gilae was introduced to Mogollon Creek in 1915 (USFWS 1993). The Mogollon Creek watershed, including the Trail Canyon Creek watershed, in the Gila National Forest is within the Wilderness and Rain Creek Mountain Allotments. The Rain Creek Mountain Allotment is currently grazed by livestock. Habitat conditions are unknown to Gila National Forest personnel (Pope, pers. comm., 1994, Madrid, pers. comm., 1994). Portions of the Mogollon Creek watershed currently occupied by 0. g. gilae are found within the Wilderness Allotment. The remainder of the Mogollon Creek watershed is found within the Davis Canyon, Mogollon Creek, Rain Creek Mountain, Rough Canyon, and Watson Mountain Allotments. The Davis Canyon Allotment totals 7,583 acres, with all acreage within the Mogollon Creek watershed. The Mogollon Creek Allotment is 1,207 acres in size, with all acreage within the Mogollon Creek watershed. The Rain Creek Mountain Allotments contains 16, 293 acres, of which approximately 3/4 (or 12,219 acres) are within the Mogollon Creek watershed. The Rough Canyon Allotment is 5,325 acres in size, and the entire allotment is within the Mogollon Creek watershed. And finally, the Watson Mountain Allotment is made up of 4,952 acres, half of which (or 2,476 acres) are within the Mogollon Creek watershed. The following is a list of allotment conditions within the Mogollon Creek watershed: Davis Canyon, "unsatisfactory"; Mogollon Creek, "unsatisfactory"; Rain Creek Mountain, "unsatisfactory"; Rough Canyon, "unsatisfactory"; Watson Mountain, "satisfactory". (USFS 1993). Maximum livestock numbers allowed for the above allotments is as follows: Davis Canyon, 175; Mogollon Creek, 31; Rain Creek Mountain, 151, Rough Canyon, 75, Watson Mountain, 89. The actual number of head currently found on each allotment is as follows: Davis canyon, 135; Mogollon Creek, 31; Rain Creek Mountain, 151; Rough Canyon, 63; Watson Mountain, 156-87. The Gila National Forest intends to re-issue or revise allotment management plans for these allotments as follows: Davis Canyon, 1995; Mogollon Creek, 1994; Rain Creek Mountain, 1996; Rough Canyon, 1996, Watson Mountain, 1994. (USFS 1994) On the Davis Canyon Allotment, actual livestock numbers have remained stable over the last ten years. No significant change in stocking numbers has taken place on the Mogollon Creek Allotment. The Rain Creek Mountain Allotment has been fully stocked for the last ten years. The Rough Canyon Allotment appeared to be seriously degraded in Forest Service photos taken in
12The Mescalero Hatchery fish reintroduced to the Mogollon Creek watershed were propagated from stock collected in South Diamond Creek (Propst, pers. comm. 1994). 85 1971. No riparian growth existed along the Rough Canyon bottom lands, and upland vegetation, including most shrub species, was very limited according to range analysis. The Gila National Forest recommended Non-use of the allotment in 1972, but this proposal was rejected by the permitee. At that same time, actual livestock numbers were dropped from 80 to 60 head, and have remained relatively stable since that time. Non-use of the allotment was never pursued by the Forest Service. Watson Mountain maximum livestock numbers have declined since the early eighties, yet actual numbers have remained steady over that same time period.
White Creek Stable Two-hundred and fifty Oncorhynchus gilae gilae from Iron Creek were reintroduced to approximately 24 km of this tributary to the West Fork of the Gila River between the approximate elevations of 7,000 and 9,000 ft. in October of 1993. At least 200 0. g. gilae are currently present in White Creek. Eight miles of White Creek were treated in both June and August 1992 to eliminate non- native salmonids (USFS 1993). In June of 1993, the stretch of creek was treated once again to make certain that the elimination of non-natives was complete. With eight miles of creek reclaimed, White Creek currently sports one of the largest stretches of creek free of non-natives capable of supporting 0. g. gilae in the Gila National Forest. The White Creek watershed is within the Wilderness Allotment.
OTHER POPULATIONS
POPULATION STATUS Dry Creek Stable The reintroduced Dry Creek population of O. g. gilae found between approximately 8,000 and 9,200 ft in elevation appears to be doing well. Reclamation of 1.9 km above a 30 m waterfall (Propst et al. 1992) and reintroduction of stock from Spruce Creek to this stream was accomplished in 1985 and is checked up on "every couple of years" (Stefferud, pers comm. 1993). Last checked in 1990, population numbers had increased from the original stocking number of ninety-six to more than two-hundred fish. (Propst et al. 1992, Stefferud, pers. comm., 1993). The Dry Creek watershed is found entirely within the currently grazed Dry Creek Allotment. (Please see Spruce Creek below for riparian and upland habitat conditions). The Big Dry Creek watershed, which includes the Spruce Creek watershed, is also found entirely within the Dry Creek Grazing Allotment. The Dry Creek Allotment is 18,191 acres in size, with approximately 1/3 (or 6,064 acres) of the allotment found within the Dry Creek watershed occupied by 0. g. gilae, or recommended for critical habitat designation. (Please see Spruce Creek conditions and management status).
Gap Creek Extirpated Located in a tributary to the Verde River of Arizona, the riintroduced Gap Creek population of 0. g. gilae (from Main Diamond Creek) is now extirpated (Wameke, pers. comm. 1993; Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). This population was plagued with setbacks from the start when the subspecies was stocked in 1972. Heavy flooding in the early eighties, possibly a result of poor watershed conditions, necessitated the collection of O. g. gilae from pools downstream and over several barriers for transport back to the upstream reintroduction site (Wameke 1987). Lack of reproductive success may have also been a factor in the decline of this population (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). The population dwindled in the late eighties to less than one-hundred fish, and by 1990, only four-six fish (Propst et al. 1992) were located in electrofishing surveys. The population was gone by 1991 (Stefferud, pers. comm., 1993; Warneke, pers. comm. 1993).
86 Main Diamond Creek Extirpated Main Diamond Creek once supported what was considered the "most stable and secure population of Gila trout" (USFWS 1993). The status of this population was drastically changed by the intensely hot 1989 Divide Fire, which was largely a result of past fire suppression activities and drought. Grazing of livestock in watersheds affected by the Divide Fire likely contributed to lack of plant cover and downed vegetative material available to hold soils before and after the fire. Despite fire and grazing erosion, and sedimentation impacts, livestock were returned to the Diamond Bar Allotment, and specifically the Main Diamond Creek watershed, within one year of the fire (Galvin, Forest Service spotted owl survey contractor, pers. comm., 1994). The indigenous population of at least four thousand 0. g. gilae (Mello and Turner 1980) was completely eliminated as a result of the fire, associated flooding, and destruction of habitat, as well as removal of five-hundred and sixty-six fish (Propst et a/. 1992) to the Mescalero Fish Hatchery in anticipation of the flooding. Approximately 364 fish died during the course of this evacuation and holding, and all remaining fish (approximately 202, according to Propst et a/. 1992), were eventually stocked in McKnight Creek (Anderson, pers. comm. 1994, Propst et al. 1992). Main Diamond Creek is within the South Fork and Diamond Bar Allotments, both of which are currently grazed by livestock (Sundt, pers. comm., 1993). The South Fork grazing Allotment is currently in "unsatisfactory" condition (USFS 1993). The South Fork Allotment Management Plan will not be re- issued or revised until 1995 (USFS 1994). Through a memorandum of understanding with the pennitee, the number of livestock on the South Fork Allotment have been reduced by approximately one-hundred head for five years to study the effects of the Divide Fire in the area (Sundt, pers. comm., 1994). Riparian and upland habitats within the Main Diamond Creek watershed are in extremely poor condition due to years of mismanagement. Cutbanks and arroyos along the stream bed are very common, and in many places once thick riparian vegetation is now absent. As a telling example of Forest Service grazing policy on lands gravely in need of long-term rest, the Gila National Forest steadfastly refuses to remove livestock entirely from the Diamond Bar Allotment. (Please see South Diamond Creek below for Diamond Bar Allotment status).
McKnight Creek Severely Reduced / Nearly Extirpated (1989) Oncorhynchus gilae gilae was originally stocked in 8.5 km of McKnight Creek in 1972 with specimens taken from Main Diamond Creek (Propst etal. 1992) between approximately 7,000 and 8,500 ft. in elevation. In the late seventies, populations in this stream reached eight-hundred to one-thousand fish (Mello and Turner 1980). Devastated by floods before (Madina and Martin 1988) and resulting from the 1989 Divide Fire and grazing, the McKnight Creek population seems to be recovering (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993), mainly due to a restocking of the stream with 0. g. gilae evacuated from Main Diamond Creek. >95% or more of the population was eliminated by the floods (Propst etal. 1992) leaving approximately 40-50 fish, and since 1990, has been monitored annually (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). The McKnight Creek watershed is found within the East Canyon, Mimbres, and Powderhorn grazing Allotments. Livestock numbers in the Mimbres Allotment were recently reduced due to "sensitive resources" such as the Mimbres River riparian habitat (Gerry Engel, pers. comm., 1994). Due to extremely poor grazing management and an intense fire in the nineteen-fiffies, flooding in the fifties completely eliminated most soils within the bottom lands of McKnight Creek (Madina and Martin 1988), leading to "poor" current riparian conditions. Upland habitats are currently in "fair-good" condition (Sundt, pets. comm., 1994) The Fast Canyon Allotment totals 10,476 acres, with approximately 1/3 (or 3,492 acres) of the allotment found within the McKnight Creek watershed, and is currently in "unsatisfactory" condition. The Mimbres Allotment is 35,140 acres in size, with approximately 1/8 (or 4,393 acres) of the allotment found within the McKnight Creek watershed, and is currently in "unsatisfactory" condition. The Powderhorn
87 Allotment is 38,961 acres in size, with 1/3 (or 12,987 acres) found within the McKnight Creek watershed, and is currently in "unsatisfactory" condition. The Gila National Forest intends to re-issue or revise allotment management plans for these allotments as follows: East Canyon, 1998; Mimbres, 1999; Powderhorn, 1994 (USFS 1994). The grazing permit for the East Canyon Allotment currently allows for 175 head and is fully stocked. Stocking levels have been this high for a number of years and "aren't likely to change soon" (Engel, pers. comm., 1994). The Mimbres Allotment grazing permit maximum livestock numbers were recently reduced from 700 to 500 head. Actual numbers of livestock currently on the allotment were reduced from 550 to 500 head. On the Powderhorn, much of the allotment has been in Non-use for over five years and because there has been no pressure from the pennitee to change this status, it will likely remain in Non-use for "at least one-two more years" (Engel, pers. comm., 1994). The remainder of the Powderhom Allotment has been stocked with 50-94 head for four-five years. Up to 270 head where allowed on the allotment in the early eighties.
Sacaton Creek Stable Last checked in 1993 (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993), the Sacaton Creek population of 0. g. gilae, occupying approximately 12 km of the stream, appears to be stable although only three years had elapsed since the reintroduction with Iron Creek stock. The portion of Sacaton Creek occupied by 0. g. gilae is found between approximately 6,700 and 8,200 ft. in elevation. Two hundred O. g. gilae presently occupy Sacaton Creek, all originating from forty fish collected from Iron Creek. Because Sacaton Creek was barren of fish species prior to stocking, some question remains as to the long-term viability of this population. The Sacaton Creek watershed is found within the Rain Creek Mountain and Sacaton grazing Allotments, both of which are currently grazed. Because of light stocking and winter-use only designation on the Sacaton Allotment, riparian and upland habitat conditions are "good" (Sundt, pers. comm., 1994) The Rain Creek Mountain Allotment is made up of 16,293 acres, of which 1/4 (or 4,074 acres) are within the Sacaton Creek watershed. The Sacaton Allotment is 786 acres in size, and approximately 1/5 (or 157 acres) is found within the Sacaton Allotment. The Rain Creek Mountain Allotment is currently in "unsatisfactory" condition. The Sacaton Allotment is in "unsatisfactory" condition as well, and the allotment management plan will not be re-issued or revised until 1996 (USFS 1994). (Please see Mogollon Creek for Rain Creek Mountain Allotment status). A maximum number of 120 livestock is currently allowed on the Sacaton and the allotment is fully stocked. Early eighties maximum numbers ran at approximately 180 head.
Sheep Corral Creek Unstable Eighty-nine 0. g. gilae from Main Diamond Creek were reintroduced to 1.3 km of Sheep Corral Creek in 1972 between the approximate elevations of 5,400 and 6,600 ft. Though one of the smallest streams yet chosen for the reintroduction of O. g. gilae, the largest 0. g. gilae specimen ever collected and recorded was found here (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). Because Of the low discharge of this creek, and the fact that the introduced population of eighty-nine fish (1972) dwindled to possibly less than twenty fish after a floods in 1974 and 1980 (Mello and Turner 1980, Propst et aL 1992), long-term prospects for this population seem tenuous. The Sheep Corral Creek watershed is found within the Cow Creek grazing Allotment. The Cow Creek Allotment is 5,943 acres in size, of which, approximately 1/4 (or 1,486 acres) of the allotment is within the Sheep Corral Creek watershed. The Cow Creek Allotment is currently in "satisfactory" condition (USFS 1993). The Gila National forest plans to re-issue or revise the Cow Creek Allotment Management Plan in 1994 (USFS 1994). The Cow Creek Allotment has been in Non-use for approximately four years (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993), which could explain its status as "satisfactory". Gila National Forest policy stipulates that Non-use designation of any given allotment is only good for three
88 years, after which livestock must be returned or the permitee will lose grazing rights. Apparently, the Gila National Forest Supervisor has indicated that livestock numbers will be reduced upon their return to the Cow Creek Allotment (Sundt, pers. comm., 1993). Even with this short rest from livestock grazing, the Sheep Corral Creek watershed cannot be considered stable. Past logging upstream has contributed to unnatural flooding and erosion, and historic grazing contributed to the elimination of much of the historic riparian vegetation. Unnatural flooding, due to logging and historic grazing, has scoured this creek leaving some areas barren of bottom land topsoil. Despite the Non-use designation, the Cow Creek Allotment was stocked with livestock from the Redstone Allotment in 1991. During the eighties and prior to the Non-use designation, maximum numbers were steady at 75 head, and actual numbers averaged sixty head.
South Diamond Creek Severely Reduced (1989) / Nearly Extirpated In addition to Main Diamond Creek, South Diamond Creek was also severely impacted by the 1989 Divide Fire. Prior to the fire, 5.2 km of this stream and its tributary, Burnt Cabin Creek, was generally occupied by the subspecies (Propst et al. 1992) at approximate elevations between 8,200 and 9,600 ft. According to 0. g. gilae population estimates from South Diamond Creek in 1988, and estimated post fire population numbers (Propst et al. 1992), less than 2% of the 0. g. gilae population remained in South Diamond Creek after the fire and subsequent flooding and siltation. Prior to the fire, the South Diamond Creek/Burnt Cabin Creek population was estimated at over one-thousand, five-hundred fish in 1988 (Propst et a/. 1992). Only eleven Gila trout were found in post fire surveys in South Diamond (Propst et al. 1992), though a minimum population of two-hundred fish are known from Burnt Cabin Creek (Stefferud, pers. comm. 1993). Also according to Stefferud (pers. comm. 1993), the Burnt Cabin Creek population (in tributary to South Diamond Creek) appears to be stable. (See Main Diamond Creek above for habitat conditions). The South Diamond Creek watershed is found entirely within the Diamond Bar Allotment. The Diamond Bar is 145,000 acres in size, and approximately 1/4 (or 38,250 acres) of this allotment is found within the South Diamond Creek watershed. The Diamond Bar Allotment is currently in "unsatisfactory" (USFS 1993) condition, and the allotment management plan is in the process of being re-issued. The grazing permit for this allotment currently stipulates that 1188 head of livestock is the maximum number allowed, while actual numbers of livestock are currently at 833. These numbers have been in effect for approximately ten years with little change. The Forest Service is in the process of preparing an updated Allotment Management Plan for the Diamond Bar, which proposes the elimination of livestock from approximately half the allotment. Although the elimination of livestock on the eastern half of the allotment would contribute to better riparian and aquatic habitat conditions in and around Main Diamond Creek, South Diamond Creek, and the eastern half of Black Canyon Creek, essential 0. g. gilae reintroduction habitat in the western half of Black Canyon between its confluence with the East Fork of the Gila and the developed Forest Service Black Canyon campgrounds is ignored because of the species' absence. Current Forest Service proposals for the management of the Diamond Bar Allotment appear to be inadequate for the protection and recovery of O. g. gilae in the Main Diamond, South Diamond, or Black Canyon Creek watersheds.
Spruce Creek Stable As the only remaining natural population of O. g. gilae within the San Francisco River watershed, the importance of the Spruce Creek population's potentially unique genetics cannot be understated. As of 1991 when the creek was last surveyed, this population appears to be thriving with possibly as many as one-thousand 0. g. gilae present (Stefferud, pers comm. 1993). The population is found within a 3.7 km stretch of Spruce Creek between the elevations of 6,800 and 8,800 ft.
89 The Spruce Creek watershed is found entirely within the Dry Creek grazing Allotment and is currently grazed (Sundt, pers. comm. 1993). The Spruce Creek watershed (as part of the Big Dry Creek watershed) supports riparian and upland habitats that appear to be in "good" condition due mostly to lack of livestock grazing because of rugged terrain. Early elimination of beaver and mining, and disrupted natural fire cycle seem to be the only factors currently impacting riparian habitat conditions (Sundt, pers. comm. 1994). The Dry Creek Allotment is 18, 191 acres in size, with approximate 1/9 (or 2,021 acres) of the allotment found within the Spruce Creek watershed. The Dry Creek Allotment is currently in "unsatisfactory" condition (USFS 1993), and the allotment management plan will not be re-issued or revised until 1995 (USFS 1994). The grazing permit currently stipulates that 275 head of livestock is the maximum number allowed, while actual numbers of livestock are currently at 215. "Unsatisfactory" conditions are largely a result of minimal allotment management and lack of current Allotment Management Plan. Work was begun on a new AMP in 1990, but appears to have been dropped or delayed. Livestock stocking numbers have remained fairly stable over the last ten years. Actual numbers have varied between 210 and 240 head over that time period.
90 APPENDIX C
RIPARIAN AREAS PROTECTIVE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GRAZING ACTIVITIES
* Lon2-term rest to allow recovery (emphasis added); Rest-rotation grazing system (high-intensity, short duration)
* Good range management (Carrying capacity of range balance with number of animals)
*Improve watershed conditions - reduce overgrazing, improve cover, and control erosion
* Protective fencing
* Timing of grazing - cool season vs. warm season treatments
* Manage vegetation for minimum herbage stubble height
* Establish special use riparian pastures
* Develop alternative water sources away from riparian areas
* Herding of livestock away from riparian areas
* Salt blocks located out of riparian areas
Sources: USGAO, 1992; Clary and Webster, 1989; Davis, 1982; Elmore and Beschta, 1987; Chaney, Elmore, and Plans, 1990; Kinch, 1989
(Taken from Table 21. of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Evaluation of Activities Occurring in Riparian Areas, 1993)
91 APPENDIX D
GILA NATIONAL FOREST GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AND ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN DATES
92 ailot_no allot_name FY_PLAN_APPROV FY_PLAN_REVISED planned_FY
00200 BERENDA 85 1997 00201 BLACK RANGE 82 88 1994 00203 CAVE CREEK 65 83 1996 00206 HERMOSA 68 84 1995 00208 KINGSTON 83 91 00209 MACKEY 69 71 1995 00213 NORTH PALOMAS 81 1995 00214 NORTH WAHOO 67 83 1998 00215 POVERTY CREEK 63 90 1996 00216 SILVER CREEK 63 78 1994 00217 SOUTH FORK 67 85 1995 00219 SOUTH WAHOO 63 77 1994 00221 WEDGEWOOD 77 93 00222 ALEXANDER 70 1994 00223 BLACK MOUNTAIN 83 1994 00224 BURNT CABIN 66 83 1994 00226 CORDUROY 71 82 1994 00228 TURKEY RUN 87 1995 00229 V+T 70 1995 00230 BEAVERHEAD HORSE PASTURE 1995 00231 ADMINISTRATIVE SITE 0 00232 KINGSTON HORSE PASTURE 1995 00233 STRAIGHT GULCH HORSE PASTURE 1995 2MISC MISCELLANEOUS USE 0
00303 CENTERFIRE 86 1994 00304 TORIETTE 86 1994 00305 LANEY 83 86 1997 00306 UNDERWOOD LAKE 85 2000 00307 LUNA 86 1998 00308 DILLMAN CREEK 83 1996 00309 MANGITAS 86 1999 00310 PUEBLO CREEK 86 1995 00313 SPUR LAKE 93 00316 TROUT CREEK 83 1996 3MISC MISCELLANEOUS USE 0
00400 ALMA 71 84 1994 00401 WHITEROCKS 85 1996 00402 APACHE CREEK 83 1996 00403 BLUE CREEK 69 87 1995 00404 CEDAR BREAKS 85 1995 00405 CITIZEN 71 76 1994 00406 DRIPPING SPRINGS 85' 1995 00407 DRY CREEK 72 1995 00408 HARDEN CIENEGA 70 77 00409 HARVE GULCH 76 79 1994 00410 HOLT GULCH 67 70 1995 00411 LIGHTNING MESA 85 1994 00412 COPPER CREEK 77 1995 00413 MOGOLLON 85 1994
93 allot no allot name FY_PLAN_APPROV FY_PLAN_REVISED planned_F
00414 MULECREEK 75 76 1995 - 00415 PINE CIENEGA 85 1996 00416 PLEASANTON 85 1994 . 00417 POTHOLES 85 1995 00418 ROBERTS PARK 66 79 1994 00419 SACATON 73 1996 00421 SHELTON CANYON 88 00422 TENNESSEE 81 1996 00424 WINCHESTER 76 80 1995 00426 DEEP CREEK 66 92 00427 DEVILS PARK 81 1994 00428 KELLY 84 1995 00723 DAVIS CANYON 81 1995 00725 RAIN CREEK-74 MOUNTAIN 68 1996 00726 ROUGH CANYON 82 1996 4MISC MISCELLANEOUS USE 0
00225 CANYON CREEK 85 1996 00227 INDIAN CREEK 85 1998 00502 DIAMOND BAR 84 1994 00503 EAST CANYON 76 88 1998 00505 JORDAN MESA 71 83 1995 00506 TAYLOR CREEK 86 1995 00507 MIMBRES 85 1999 00508 POWDERHORN 82 1994 00509 SAPILLO 64 81 1994 00510 SHEPPARD 84 1996 00511. SHINGLE CANYON 84 5MISC MISCELLANEOUS USE 0
00600 ALEXANDER 86 2000 00601 APACHE CANYON 85 1999 ' 00602 BLACK BOB 85 1999 00603 COX CANYON 81 2000 00604 CROSS V 85 1998 00605 DARK CANYON 81 1998 00606 DEADMAN 85 1997 00607 DEEP CANYON 83 1997 00608 EAGLE PEAK 1994 00609 GOVINA 72 1995 00611 LONG CANYON 78 1996 00613 SU 74 2001 00614 CORNER MOUNTAIN 71 1994 00615 Y CANYON 8. 1994 00617 0 BAR 0 69 2002 00618 FRISCO PLAZA 67 86 1996 00619 LEGGETT , 78 1995 00620 LOWER PLAZA 80 2003 00622 NEGRITO 87 2004 00623 T BAR 76 2000 00624 YEGUAS 87 2004 allot no allot name FY_ PLAN _ APPROV FY PLAN REVISED planned FY ------00625 WILLOW CREEK PASTURES 0 00626 SALIZ WATERSHED 0 00627 FAIR GROUNDS 0 00628 GILA WILDERNESS 0 00629 SPECIAL USE PASTURES 0 6MISC MISCELLANEOUS USE 0
00500 ALLIE CANYON 84 1994 00501 AVALANCHE PEAK 84 1994 00504 FIERRO 86 00512 NOONDAY 87 1995 00513 MUD SPRINGS 65 90 00514 GALLINAS 87 1995 00515 COLD SPRINGS 70 75 1994 00516 HOT SPRINGS 87 00517 CARRIZO 81 87 1994 00700 BEAR CREEK 68 82 1994 00701 BULLARD PEAK 71 75 1995 00702 BURRO MOUNTAIN 65 80 1995 00703 C BAR 66 75 1994 00705 COW CREEK 64 1994 00706 FERGUSON MOUNTAIN 1994 00707 FORT BAYARD 81 0 00708 GILA RIVER 84 1995 00710 HOO DOO 87 00711 MANGUS VALLEY 85 1995 00713 READING MOUNTAIN 86 1995 00714 REDSTONE 66 1994 00715 SCHOOLHOUSE MOUNTAIN 81 1994 00716 SILVER CITY WATERSHED 82 1994 00717 SILVER DALE 83 1995 00718 TWIN SISTERS 1995 00719 WALKING X 75 81 1995 00720 WALNUT CREEK 66 82 1995 00721 WHITE SIGNAL 71 75 1994 00722 BROCK CANYON 66 1994 00724 MOGOLLON CREEK 65 81 1994 00727 SPAR CANYON 88 00728 WATSON MOUNTAIN 1994 00729 RECREATION CORRIDOR 0 00730 LITTLE ROUGH 93 7MISC MISCELLANEOUS USE 0
00808 XSX 81 0 1994 8MISC MISCELLANEOUS USE 0
00901 AGUA FRIA 78 1995 00902 ALAMOCITA 72 81 1998 00903 APACHE CREEK 83 93 00905 CANYON DEL BUEY 62 80 1996 00906 DEMETRIO 72 82 1995
95 APPENDIX E
GILA NATIONAL FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT AREAS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE
Management Area 4B (Includes the Dry Creek and Sacaton Allotments)
MANAGEMENT AREA 41B This 208,521 acre Management Area is on the Glenwood Ranger District. Area 48 Descriptions is bounded on the west by the Arizona—New Mexico state line. On the north the boundary begins at Whiterocks and runs southeast to Highway 180, north along 1E to Saliz Pass, southeast to Brushy, and east to Mogollon Divide. The eastern boundary runs nearly straight south from Round Mountain to Pleasanton and jogs east to Rock Spring, Windy Point, and soeth to the Forest boundary. The Forest boundary bounds the south with a jog up to the San Francisco River and meet to the state line. Elevations range from approximately 8,800 feet on the top of West Baldy to approximately 3,800 feet on the San Francisco River. Vegetation includes approximately 8,860 acres of mixed conifer, 14,838 acres of Ponder+ . pine, 2,025 acres of riparian, 143,205 acres of pinyon/juniper, 17,288 scrips desert shrub, and 24,324 acres of grassland. This area includes 2,884 acres at suitable timber. The estimated numbers of primary game species include 120 oklk 1,583 deer, 480 turkey, 40 antelope, and 145 bighorn sheep. Other game and nongame species occupy the area, including species associated with riparian habitats.
The Management Area is made up of 12 grazing allotments; Kelly, Whiterooks, Alms, Devils Park, Nerve Gulch, Roberts Park, Citizen, Pleasanton, Ceder Breakt Lightning Mesa, Dry Creek and Secaton. The present permitted use on these allotments is 33,882 AUMs.
Unique or spacial features include Frisco Hat Springs on the San Francisco Rive and key bighorn sheep habitat along the river. This Management Area also contains the bulk of the juniper control acreage on the District. Therm are 20,183 acres of the Gila Wilderness in this management unit.
Analysis Area: Contiguous Analysis Area 48 LTHA 4801
Management Manage this area to provide for a long term increase of approximately 10 percen Emphasis: in herbaceous forage for wildlife. Through coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, featured species population levels will be estab- lished and managed. Coniferous and woodland forest habitats will be managed to provide a quality and quantity of habitat that compliments the level of herba- ceous forage end cover for this area. Management of the wilderness resource wit be directed toward protecting and restoring natural conditions and maintaining the physical and biological characteristics of the wilderness environment. Manage the 2884 acres of suitable timber to provide a long—term sustained yield of 1180 MCF per decade. Fuelwood harvest will be managed to sustain approxi- mately 10,350 cords per decade. Pest range condition monitoring indicates that significant portions of the management area are in satisfactory condition. No livestock adjustments are anticipated. Capacity for livestock will be verifier through updated standard range analysis procedures. Permittes management and
96 Investment may be used to sustain permitted numbers above projected levels provided the management emphasis can be maintained. The long term forage objective is to manage for a livestock/wildlife utilization ratio of 80/20. The following Visual Quality acres have been inventoried for this Management Area: 1. Preservation 20,183 Acres 2. Retention 0 Acres 3. Partial Retention 87,099 Acres 4. Modification 77,239 Acres 5. Max. Modification 24,000 Acres Management emphasis will be to maintain the visual quality values identified in the Forestaide Standards and Guidelines. The following Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been established for the Management Area: WILDERNESS: Primitive 14,720 Acres Semi—Primitive 6,483 Acres OTHER: Semi—Primitive 38,000 Acres Semi—Primitive Motorized 5,080 Acres Roaded Natural 145,258 Acres Acres of Proposed Vegetation Modification Practices by Resource Area in Decade 1 Resource Practice Acres Seeding 50 Wildlife Prescribed Burns: PJ Shrub 125 Ponderosa Pin/Nixed Conifer 75 Fuels Managements Hazard reduction 350 Range Treatment Pending Additional Funding: PJ 48813 Range: PJ 7000 Fuelwood PJ: Fuelwood harvest 2070 Unsuitable Timber: Salvage harvest 160 Suitable Timber: Sheltarwood removal 0 Intermediate cut 0 Precommercial thinning 0 Regeneration cuts: Shalterwood 0 Clearcut (wildlife) 0 Selective Harvest (unevenage mgt.) 0 Note: The timber inventory used to generate this data is not statistically reliable below the whole forest level. As a result, the actual types of harvest on the management eras may vary substantially from the guideline shown above. 1 27
97
Timber Acres* Forested lands withdrawn (Wilderness) 19,383 Acres Unsuitable (Pinyon/Juniper) 121,743 Acres Unsuitable Forested Lands (physically 8,1139 Acres unsuitable or not capable) Forested lands not appropriate 0 Acres Suitable timber 2_084 Acres Total forested lands 154,099 Acres
RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 48 WILDERNESS 801 Within Establish the acceptable social and biological limits of change for Wilderness the Gila Wilderness and establish capacities in the first decade, with emphasis on the social carrying capacity. 48 WILDLIFE CO1 All Implementation schedules and inventories will be conducted to meet the objective indicated in the management emphasis. Planning emphasis is placed on game species end T&E species. Management plans for T&E species will be addressed as recovery plans are completed and approved. Complete four habitat studieWinventories and four habitat implementation schedules per decade. Integrate habitats to provide the following levels of primary components: Wale Area Old Growth 5,E79 Acres Cover Habitat 9,987 Acres Squirrel Habitat 444 Acres Turkey Habitat 949 Acres Herbaceous WL 7,920 Acres Forage/Cover Resulting habitat levels are expected to support the following wildlife population levels: Projected Population Elk 120 Deer 1,720 Turkey 770 Pronghorn 55 Big Horn Sheep 240 Other game and nongame species are expected to respond as follows* High, middle and low sere( stage coniferous forest habitats and associated geme/nongame populations should remain relatively stable. Species richness and species populations associated with riparian habitats should increase as the composition, density, vigor, stand structure, stream bank stability and available wildlife forage/cover enhanced are to meet Regional riparian objectives. A slight increase in herbaceous wildlife forage/cover is programmed to maintain existing habitats of other gems and nongame species. A maintenance of current populations of other game 128
98
ii515015q3LE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
end nongame species" with forage/cover habitat requirements is expected.
CD3,C06 Non- Wildlife habitat improvements will be constructed where needed to Wilderness maintain the projected level of wildlife populations.
Existing game species emphasized in this area include elk, deer, antelope, bear, turkey, javelins, bighorn sheep, small gams, gems birds, and waterfowl.
C09,CO6 Non- Include wildlife habitat improvement projects in Sole Area Improvement Wilderness (SAI) plans for fuelwood and timber eels areas.
CO3,034, Non- Riparian treatments will be applied to areas of tow conditions to 038,C07 Wilderness meet Regional riparian goals. This treatment may consist of fencing, seeding, and/or planting.
Wildlife habitat development is projected at the following levels for the first decode:
Water Developments (trick tanks, rockheaders, spring developments, etc.) Structures Brush Pile Developments Structures Prescribed Burns Acres Gress & Forb Seeding Acres Control of Habitat Access Miles Opening Creation Acres
c34,C07 Non- Habitat improvement emphasis is placed on game fish. Areas and WI Ede rness species emphasized includat AREA SPECIES 1. Ben Francisco River Warm water gams species 2. Dry Creek Trout, preferably native
C05,038 All Continue th -toned and endangered species habitat improvements as Identified through approved recovery plans. Objectives are to maintain T&E habitats and address recovery needs on a class by case basis.
TILE and sensitive species within this ores include:
Bald eagle, Bell's Vireo, black hawk, coatimundi, Gila woodpecker, Gray vireo, leach minnow, nerrowhead gertersnake, Site trout and Sonoran mountain kingsnake.
Threatened and endangered species habitat improvement includes 76 scree of prescribed fire for the first decade.
C09,C10, Non- Provide maintenance of habitat improvements to sustain projected C11 Wilderness habitat levels. Maintenance priority is 1) T&E species, ej game species, end S) other species.
Habitat maintenance for the area includes 16 acres of opening maintenance. ; C16,L01 Non- During transportation planning, road and trail densities will be Wilderness evaluated, maintaining emphasized carrying capacity within these key habitat areas. cie,coe, Key habitat areas include the San Francisco River and important side 031 drainages, Secaton, Sun Dial Mountain, Devils Perk, Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek, Devils Creek.
1 29
99 APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CO3 Within Integrated historic wildlife habitat distributions with wilderness Wilderness management objectives and the Gila prescribed fire program. C12 Within Continue to cooperate with the New Mexico State Game end Fish WI lde mesa Department on stocking of fry on Dry Creek during the first decade. Evaluate the need for restrictions of stocking and modification of angling impact at the end of the first decade. 48 RANGE 002 All Grazing allotments generally will be managed to a level of D or above. Based on existing data, this is projected to result in a long term capacity of approximately 33,880 AUMe. Any additional forage capacity that becomes available after Management Area emphasized Levels for livestock and wildlife have been attained will generally be allocated according to the long term management emphasis ratio. 002 There are approximately 152,918 acres classified as full capacity rangeland in this analysis area of which 71,1E0 acres are currently unsatisfactory. About 57,844 acres are estimated to be unsatisfactory by the fifth decade. Unsatiefectory condition rangelands will be treated through development of improved allotment management plans. Treatment will include: 1) Structural or non-structural range improvements necessary to Implement or maintain the prescribed intensity level. 23 Adjust stocking levels as necessary to maintain the management emphasis. 005 ALL Construct and reconstruct range improvements needed to manage at level 0 on a 40 year cycle. Total existing improvements in the management area are: Allotment boundary fence 185.8 Miles Earthen stack tanks 218 Wells 17 Springs 43 Pipelines 68.2 Hiles Trick tanks 1 Storage tanks 20 Corrals 68 Cattle guards 18 Allotment Interior fences 138.0 Miles Other Priority for expenditure of funds is: Reconstruction Allotment boundary fences Water developments Allotment interior fences Other 004,003 Non- Mon-structural range improvements will be accomplished at the Wilderness following rates Acres of Treatment PJ 7,000 ---- 004,003 In addition to the nonstructural range improvement work scheduled for accomplishment 18,673 acres of reinvasion Pinyon Juniper and 43,300 acres of new invasion Pinyon Juniper have been identified. The treatment of these additional acres can be accomplished if funding becomes available through other means. 1 30
100 APPLICABLE
RESOURCE ACTIVITY STAN:MT.§ thp_QUIDEIJNES 005 Within Where possible, redesign, relocate, and/or replace range Wilderness improvements as they are reconstructed to lessen the impact on the wilderness resource. 008 Lower Inventory the Lower San Francisco Canyon to determine if pert of the San Francisco river should be considered for RNA designation. If any area appears to qualify, make a recommendation to the Regional RNA Study Committee so that the areas can be evaluated in relation to other areas in the Region. 48 TIMBER E08 Non- No timber will be harvested from this Management Area in the Wilderness first decade. E08 Non- PJ fuslwood harvest will not exceed 2,070 acres in the first decade. Wilderness Volume control will be on a per acre basis. 48 U108 J04 The following is the recommend revocation of other Federal agency withdrawals: Township/Range Withdrawal Type To to L Withd_rempl r_mt TM:11W — Power grts 771 Classification 1128, R20W, Power Site Soc. 2,3,10,11 Reserve 12,13,14,15,22, 23,24,28,27,31, 82,88,84,88 ALM Total 6,587 J05 Lands with USDA withdrawals in effect recommended for revocation are as follows: DESCRIPTION LOCATION ACRES Rii. Too Roadside f9S,R2OW Sec. 5,8,7,17,18, 947 Zone (400') 20,29,32 J11 Rescind the San Francisco River Wilderness Study Area special closure to ell entry for the decade March 15 through July 16 annually. Renege the area above Mule Creek to remain open to all entry year-round. The area below Mule Creek will be closed to motorized vehicle use year-round. The Lower San Francisco River area will be managed to maintain its existing semi-primitive recreation oppor- tunities. No fuelwood, timber, or other forest products will be harvested, nor will any facilities be constructed during the first decade. J12 Lands identified for acquisition for the management arse ere as follows: Location Acres Non- WI lderneas Skt/4 Sec. 2 1108, Æ1 W 180 E1/2,SW1/4 Sec. 23 T128,RPOW 80 NE Portion NE1/4 Sec, 19 T12S,R1SW 30 Within Wilderness Portion SWI/4.8E1/4 Sec. 18 T12S,R1SW 10 Portion N1/2,10,1/4 Sec. 5 7128,618W 15 Portion 81/2,8W1/4 Sec. 32 T11S,R19W 15 Total 290
131 APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIyITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES J12 Non— Lands identified for base for exchange within the Management Area are Wilderness se follows: Location Acres Portion sEt(i,8u174 Sec. 28 T10S,R2OW 10 NE1/4,N111/4 Sec. 99 T108,R20W 40 SMI/4,NE1/4 Sec. 33 T10S,R20W 40 Portion E1/2,SEt/4 Sec. 39 T10S,R20W 20 W1/2,NhI/2 Sec. 24 T11S,R20W 80 H1/2,NE1/4,NW1/4 Sec. 24 T11S,R2OW io E1/2,NE1/4 Sec. 23 T118,R2OW ao N1/2,SW1/4 Sec. 23 T11S,R20W ao SW1/4,8N1/4 Sec. 29 T11S,R2OW ao SE1/4 Sec. 22 T118,R20W 160 N1/2,NE1/4 Sec. 27 7118020W BO Portion NEt/4,NW1/4 Sec. 2 T128,R20W 5 Portion Nh1/4,NE1/4 Sec. 11 T128,R20W 2 Portion MI/2, NEG8Et/4,NE1/4 Soc. 14 T12S,R2OW 20 Total 687 48 FACILITIES L12 Non— ROAD ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST DECADE Wilderness Roads Constructed Roads let Decade Existing Closed Road Density RtRIIMata Mew' roads vet!ime Miles/Section 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 41.1 0.77 L19 Non— Require user maintenance on local roads that serve non—Forest Service Wilderness facilities and property. L19 Non— Road maintenance will be as follows: Wilderness Maintenance Level Miles Frequency. Level 2 120.0 Every 5 Years Level 2 58.1 Every 2 Years Level 3 16.5 Every 9 Years Level 4 0.4 Every 9 Years 1-23 All Trail maintenance will be as follows: Trail Maintenance Levels Trail Difficulty Level 1 2 9 4 Easiest o o o o More Difficult 0 4.3 10.8 0 Most Difficult o o o o 48 PROTECTION P01 All Complete the fire management analysis planning and implement fire management area plans within the first decade. PCH Within Prescribed natural fires within the Gila Wilderness will be guided Wilderness by the Prescribed Natural Fire Plan.
132
102
a
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS Ate GUIDELINES
PO4 ALL Unless other resource values dictate, suppression actions will be planned to control fires at no larger than the designated sizes:
Firs Intensity Level Max. Size lAcres) Riparian Level 1 and 2 60 Level 3 end 4 26 Level Desert Shrub Level 1 and 2 2000 Level 3 and 4 1000 Level 5 60 Grassland Level l and 2 2000 Level 3 and 4 1000 Level 5 600 PJ Level 1 and 2 2000 Level 3 and 4 1000 Level 5 600 Unsuitable Timber Level 1 and 2 1000 Level 3 end 4 260 Level 6 25 Suitable Timber Level 1 end 2 100 Level 3 and 4 20 LevelS eo
P12 All When fire management planning is completed, utilize planned and unplanned ignitions when within established prescriptions to accomplish fuel treatment goals outside wilderness and wilderness goals inside wilderness.
P12 To reduce natural fuels, 350 acres of prescribed burning are planned the first decade.
P13 Non- Accomplish fuel breaks to Regional standards based on preetteck Wilderness planning.
Pie Gila Maintain high quality visual conditions. The form, line, texture, Wilderness and color of characteristic landscapes will be clearly distinguish- (Class 1 Area) able when viewed as middle ground. Cultural resources and ecosystems will remain unmodified by air pollutants. Determine baseline information and the background condition of the above Air Quality Related Values and specify limits of acceptable change that will protect affirmatively these values in Class I areas (7,380 acres in Bile Wilderness before 19903.
PIS Bile (7,380 acres) - Perform Prevention of Significant Deterioration (POD) Wilderness permit application reviews to determine the potential effect in- (Class 1 Area) creased emissions from major stationary sources will have on Air Duality Related Values (AURV1 of this Motional Forest Class I ores. Impacts of sir pollution generating activities will be predicted using current modeling techniques.
NANAGEMBif AREA 4C This 95,469 acre Management Ares is on the Glenwood Ranger District. It Description: includes an area north and south of Mule Creek, from the San Francisco River all of the Forest Service lend south. Elevations range from 7,820 feet on the top of Radar Brushy Mountain to approximately 4,200 feet on the San Francisco River. Vegetation includes approximately 3,098 acres of Ponderosa pine; 874 acres of riparian; and 81,718 acres of pinyon, juniper and grassland. This area includes 698 acres of suitable timber. The estimated numbers of primary game species include 733 dear, 190 turkey, 20 pronghorn sheep, and 70 bighorn sheep. Other game and nongame species occupy the area, including species associated with riparian habitats.
133
103 Management Area 4D (Includes the Closed Los Olmas Allotment)
KÑ Ot AÆA 4) This 41,483 acre Management Area is on the Glenwood Ranger District. The Descriptiont western boundary, located approximately four miles east of Glenwood, roughly approximates the Gila Wilderness boundary with a Jag over to Rock Spring and down to Windy Point. The northern boundary is Mineral Creek and the eastern boundary is the Crest Trail. The southern boundary runs from a point south of Mogollon Baldy to Lone Pine Hill. Elevations range from 11,000 feet at the highest point on the Forest, Whitewater Wady, to approximately 4,900 feet at Whitewater Picnic Ground. Vegetation includes approximately 29,308 scree of mixed conifer, 8,838 acres of Ponderosa pine, 515 acres of riparian and 2,807 acres of pinyon/juniper. The estimated number of primary game species include 70 elk, 318 deer, and 285 turkey. Other game and nongeme species occupy the area, including species associated with riparian habitats. The management area has no grazing allotments. This remote area of high peaks and deep canyons was probed by prospectors early in this century, and sites of pest mining activity still can be observed in various locations. Approximately 34,221 acres lie within the Gila Wilderness. Analysis Arm Contiguous Analysis Area 40 Management Wildlife habitat will be managed to sustain existing habitat diversity and Emphasial species populations to the extent that they complement wilderness characteristics. Manage this area to provide for a long term increase of approximately 25 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife. Through coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, featured species population levels will be established and managed. Coniferous and woodland forest habitats will be managed to provide a quality and quantity of habitat that compliments the level of herbaceous forego end cover for this arose. Management of the wilderness resource will be directed toward protecting and restoring natural conditions and maintaining the physical and biological characteristics of the wilderness environment. Over 90 percent of this area lies within the Gila Wilderness, and direct wildlife habitat projects will not be planned unless compatibility with wilderness values can be assured. No range emphasis is prescribed since this area does not include any range allotments. Management of wilderness scree will be directed towards protecting end restoration of natural conditions. The physical and biological characteristics of the wilderness environment will be maintained in a near—natural condition. The following Visual Quality acres have been inventoried for this Management Area; 1. Preservation 34,221 Acres 2 Retention 0 Acres 8. Partial Retention 3,930 Acres 4. Modification 8,442 Acres ' 5. Max. Modification 0 Acres Management emphasis will be to maintain the visual quality values identified in the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines.
140
104 The following Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been established for this Management Area: WILDERNESS: Primitive 18,121 Acres Seal—Primitive 18,100 Acres OTHER: Semi—Primitive 2,842 Acres flooded Natural 4,400 Acres Acres of Proposed Vegetation Modification Practices by Resource Area in Decade 1 Resource Practice Acres iniailfe Prescribed Burns: PJ Shrub 35 Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer 40 Timber Suitability Acres: Forested lends withdrawn (Wilderness) 32,830 Acres Unsuitable (Pinyon/Juniper) 285 Acres Unsuitable Forested Lands (physically 2,287 Acres unsuitable or not capable) Forested lands not appropriate 4,185 Acres Suitable Timber Q_Acres Total forested lands 38,50 Acres
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANJAPDS AND GUIDELINES 801 Within Establish the acceptable social and biological limits of change Wilderness for the Gila Wilderness and establish capacities in the first decade, with emphasis on the social carrying capacity. 803 Apache Cabin may be used as • centrally located storage site for stock feed, tools, end supplies for Forest and State Game and Fish wilderness administrative purposes. ao WILDLIFE C01 All Inventories and implementation schedules will be conducted to meet the objectives indicated in the management emphasis. Wildlife planning emphasis is on game species and T&E species. Management plans for ME species will be addressed as recovery plans are completed and approved. Complete four habitat studies/inventories and two implementation schedules per decade. CO2 All Habitat inventories will be keyed to project areas as identified by other resource uses. Integrate habitats to provide the following levels of primary components: Whole Area Old Growth 17,488 Acres Cover Habitat 8,041 Acres Squirrel Habitat 2 Acres Turkey Habitat 227 Acres Herbaceous WI 2,188 Acres Forega/Cover
141
105 APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDAPDS AND GUIDELINES
Resulting habitat levels ere expected to support the following wildlife population levels:
Projected Population
Elk 85 Deer 370 Turkey 455 Big Horn Sheep 50
Other game end nongame species are expected to respond as follows:
High carol stage coniferous forest habitats and associated geme/nongame populations will decline slightly. This would occur in conjunction with a slight increase in those species populations tied to low and middle seral stage coniferous forest habitats. An increase in species richness would occur in monotypic habitat types as natural wilderness habitat diversity (juxtaposition of different Beret stage habitats) is restored. ( Natural fire frequencies allowed to play their historic role in wilderness habitat distribution)
Species richness and species populations associated with riparian habitats should increase as the composition, density, vigor, stand structure, stream bank stability and available wildlife forage/cover continue towards Regi^^il riparian objectives.
cos,coe Non,- Wildlife habitat improvements will be construe,— where needed to Wilderness meet the increase in wildlife populations.
Existing game species emphasized in this area include . deer, antelope, bear, turkey, javelins, bighorn sheep, grouse.
003,COS Non- From present indications wildlife habitat developments are projected Wilderness as follows for the first decade:
Water Developments (trick tanks, rockheaders, spring developments, etc.) 2 Structures Prescribed Burns 75 Acres
C04,C07 Non- Habitat improvement emphasis is placed on native game fish Wilderness (preferably the native Gila trout where suitable). Areas and species emphasized include:
AREA SPECIES 1. White water creek Trout 2. Rain creek Trout 3. Lipsey canyon Trout 4. Mineral creek Trout 5. South Fork Whitewater Trout B. West Fork Mogollon Creek Trout 7. Dry Creek Trout
Fish habitat improvements projected for the first decade include three stream improvement structures.
cos.coe Non- Continue threatened and endangered species habitat improvements as Wilderness identified through approved recovery plans. Objectives are to maintain TSE habitats end address recovery needs on a case-by-case basis.
142
106
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STAMARDS AND GUIDELINES
TELE end sensitive species within this area include:
Wildlife: Bald Eagle and Gila Trout
Plants: Allium Goodingii and Erigaron Haesii.
C08,C10, Non— Provide maintenance of habitat improvements to sustain existing C11 Wilderness habitats. Maintenance priority is 1) T&E species, 2) game species, and 3) other species.
Habitat maintenance is projected as follows:
Water Developments (trick tanks, rookheaders, spring developments, etc.) 1 Structure Stream Improvement 2 Structures
CO3 Within The wildlife habitat increases will result from implementation of Wilderness the Gila prescribed fire program.
Within Continue to improve Gila trout habitats within designated drainage Wilderness according to the Gila Trout Recovery Plan. Utilize methods that reduce the appearance of man's impact on the environment until recovery is complete. Restore to sport fisheries population levels.
Designated areas include portions of the Dry Creek and Spruce Creek drainages.
C11 Within Continue to maintain natural and recovered habitats for threatened Wilderness and endangered species. Maintenance projected for the:
Man—made barriers 8 Structures Stream improvement structures 10 Structures 40 LANDS .112 Within Pursue acquisition of the following privets lends: Wilderness General Description Legal Description Spruce Creek and Golden 1118 and 1128, R18W, Link Mining Patent Sections 32, 33, 4, and 5
40 FACILITIES Lie Non— ROAD ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST DECADE Wilderness Roads Constructed Roads let Decade Existing Closed Road Density Conatr. Reconetta Closed flpeAt Travel:ism MileaeSection 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.04
L21,L22 All Perform trail reconstruction at the following minimum rates:
Decade 1 Miles South Fork 212 8.2
123 ALL Trail maintenance will be as follows:
Trail Maintenance Levels Trail Difficulty Level 1 2 3 4 Easiest 0 0 7.0 0 More Difficult 0 18.7 48.8 0 Most Difficult - - - - RA 0 0 - 0
1 43
107
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STAMARDS AND GUIDELINES 40 PROTECTION PO4 All Unless other resource values dictate, suppression actions will be planned to control fires at no larger than the designated sizes: Fire Intensity Levels max PJ Level 1 and 2 500 Level 3 and 4 500 Level 6 50 Unsuitable Timber Level 1 and 2 1000 Level 3 and 4 250 Level 5 25 PCI All Complete the fire management analysis planning and implement fire management area plans within the first decade. PCM Within Prescribed natural fire within the Gila Wilderness will be guided Wilderness by the Prescribed Natural Fire Plan. P12 All When fire management planning is completed, utilize planned and unplanned ignitions within established prescriptions to accomplish fuel treatment goals outside wilderness and wilderness goals inside wilderness. P13 Non— Accomplish fuel breaks to Regional standards based on preettack Wilderness planning. PIG Gila Maintain high quality visual conditions. The form, line, texture, Wilderness end color of characteristic landscapes will be clearly distinguish- (Class I Area) able when viewed as middle ground. Cultural resources and ecosystem will remain unmodified by air pollutants. Determine baseline information and the background condition of the above Air Quality Related Values and specify limits of acceptable change that will protect affirmatively these values in Class I areas (34,221 acres prior to December, MO). P18 Gila Perform prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSO) permit Wilderness application reviews to determine the potential effect increased (Class I Area) emissions from major stationary sources will have on Air Quality Related Values ( AIRY) of this National Forest Class I area. Impacts of air pollution generating activities will be predicted using current modeling techniques.
144
108 Management Area 58 (Includes the Diamond Bar Allotment)
IWIAGEMENT AREA 58 This 144,507 acre Management Area is on the Mimbres Ranger District. It is Description: approximately five miles east of Gila Center and seven miles southeast of Beaverhead. It is bounded on the west by the East Fork of the Gila River; on the south by Apache Creek and the Continental Divide; on the east by the Continental Divide; and on the north; in a area adjacent to main Diamond Creek. Elevations range from approximately 10,077 feet on the top of Reeds peek to approximately 6,000 feet on the East Fork of the Gila River. Vegetation includes approximately 19,797 acres of mixed conifer; 59,500 acres of Ponderosa pine; 1,078 acres of riparian; and 50,749 acres of pinyon, juniper, and grassland. The estimated numbers of primary game species include 270 elk, 377 deer, 1035 turkey, and 15 antelope. Other game and nongame species occupy the area, including species associated with riparian habitats.
The Management Area is made up of one grazing allotment; the Diamond Bar. The present permitted use on this allotment is 16,095 AUMs.
Approximately 121,511 acres of this area are within the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses.
Analysis Area: Contiguous Analysis Area 58 LTMA 5803
Management Menage this area to provide for a long term increase of approximately 20 Emphasis: percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife. Through coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, featured species population levels will be established and managed. Coniferous and woodland forest habitats will be managed to provide a quality and quantity of habitat that compliments the level of herbaceous forage and cover for this area. Management of the wilderness resource will be directed toward protecting and restoring natural conditions and maintaining the physical end biological characteristics of the wilderness environment. Fuelwood harvest will be managed to sustain approximately 1,600 cords per decade. Past range condition monitoring indicates that minor portions of the Management Area are in unsatisfactory condition. Appropriate livestock adjustments may be necessary to bring permitted numbers in line with capacity. No livestock adjustments will be made solely as a result of this plan. Permitted livestock numbers will be established through updated standard range analysis procedures. Permittee management and investment may be used to sustain permitted numbers above projected levels provided the management emphasis can be maintained. The long term forage objective is to manage for a livestock/wildlife utilization ratio of 75/25.
The following Visual Quality acres have been inventoried for this Management Area:
1. Preservation 121,511 Acres 2. Retention 750 Acres 3. Partial Retention 9,600 Acres 4. Modification 2,782 Acres 5. Max. Modification 0 Acres
Management emphasis will be to maintain the visual quality values identified in the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines.
The following Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS1 has been established for the Management Area:
WILDERNESS: Primitive 66,831 Acres Semi—Primitive 54,680 Acres
OTHER: Roaded Natural 13,132 Acres
109
I 52 Acres of Proposed Vegetation Modification Practices by Resource Area in Decade 1
Resource Practice- Acres wiTaci-6. Planting: Riparian 16 Prescribed Burns: PJ Shrub 60 Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer 40 Wildlife Browse Pruning: PJ Shrub 10
Fuels Management: Hazard Reduction 500
Fuelwood PJ: Fuelwood harvest 320
Unsuitable Timber: Salvage harvest 20
Timber Suitability_Acres: Forested lands ( Wilderness) 115,573 Acres Unsuitable Pinyon/Juniper 4,474 Acres Unsuitable Forested Lands (physically 1,489 Acres unsuitable or not capable) Forested lands not appropriate 5,351 Acres Suitable timber 0 Acres Total forested lands 127,897 Acres
APPLICABLE RESOURCE_ ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
58 RECREATION 401 Maintain the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail corridor to the visual quality objective of preservation.
58 WILDERNESS 901 Gila Establish the acceptable social end biological limits of change for Wilderness the Gila Wilderness and establish capacities in the first decade, with emphasis on the social carrying capacities.
801 Aldo Establish the acceptable social and biological limits of change for Leopold the Aldo Leopold Wilderness and establish capacities in the first decade, with emphasis on social carrying capacity.
803 Reeds Peak Lookout may be used as a centrally located storage site for stock feed, tools, and supplies for Forest Service and State game and fish wilderness administrative purposes.
58 WILDLIFE CO1 Wildlife planning emphasis is on game species end T6E species while maintaining populations for all other species present. Management plans for T&E species will be addressed as recovery plans are completed and approved.
Complete one habitat study/inventory end one habitat implementation schedule to meet the objectives indicated in the management emphasis for the first decade.
CO2 All Wildlife coordination will identify mitigation measures of habitats affected by other resource activities. Habitat inventories will be keyed to project areas as identified by other resource uses.
153
110
APPLICABLE A RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Integrate habitats to provide the following levels of primary components. Whole Area
Old Growth 17,387 Acres Cover Habitat 17,662 Acres Squirrel Habitat 376 Acres Turkey Habitat 1,267 Acres Herbaceous WL 4,918 Acres Forage/Cover
Resulting habitat levels are expected to support the following wildlife population levels:
Projected Population
Elk 355 Deer 405 Turkey 1,085 Pronghorn 15
Other game and nongame species are expected to respond as follows:
High seral stage coniferous forest habitats and associated game/nongame populations are expected to decrease slightly. This would occur in conjunction with an a slight increase in those species populotions tied to low and middle sera( stage coniferous forest habitats. An increase in species richness would occur in monotypic habitat types as habitat diversity (juxtaposition of different serel stage habitats) is restored in wilderness zones.
Species richness and species populations associated with riparian habitats should increase as the composition, density, vigor, stand structure, stream bank stability and available wildlife forage/cover are improved to meet Regional riparian objectives.
An increase in herbaceous wildlife forage/cover is expected in conjunction with restoring historic fire frequencies to wilderness zones. An associated increase in populations of "other game end nongeme" species with forage/cover habitat requirements is expected.
CO3,0O6 Non— Wildlife habitat improvements will be constructed where needed to Wilderness maintain the projected level of wildlife populations.
C08 Existing game species emphasized in this area include elk, deer, bear, and turkey.
CO3,C06 Non— Include wildlife habitat improvement projects in Sale Area Wilderness Improvement (SAI) plans for fuelwood.
CO3,C04 All Riparian treatments will be applied to areas of low conditions C06 ,C07 os needed to stabilize habitat levels. This treatment may consist of fencing, seeding, and/or planting.
1 54
111
a APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA..... STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Non— Wildlife habitat developments during the first decade projected Wilderness at the following wildlife habitat improvement levels:
Brush Pile Developments 10 Structures Prescribed Burns 100 Acres Planting Browse/Riparian 5 Acres Browse Pruning 10 Acres
C04,C07 Non— Habitat improvement emphasis is placed on game fish while maintaining Wilderness existing populations of native fish species present. Areas and species emphasized include:
AREA SPECIES 1. Block Canyon Trout 2. South Diamond Gila trout 3. E. Fork Gila Trout 4. Aspen Canyon Trout
Fish habitat improvements during first decade will involve the following wildlife ectivity levels: Stream Improvement Structures 5 Planting Riparian, etc. 10 Acres Stream Cover Structures 3
005,C08 All Continue threatened and endangered species habitat improvements as Identified through approved recovery plans. Objectives are to maintain T&E habitats end address recovery needs on a case by case basis.
Known T&E and sensitive species within this Management Area include:
Wildlife: Bald Eagle, Black Hawk, Gila Trout, Loech Minnow, Narrowhead Gertersnake, Roundteil Chub, Sonora Mountain Kingsneke, Spikedece, and Mountain Silver—spot Butterfly
Threatened and endangered species habitat developments are projected at the following improvement levels for the first decade:
Stream Cover 2 Structures Stream Improvements 2 Structures
CO9,C10, Non— Provide maintenance of habitat improvements to sustain existing C11 Wilderness habitats. Maintenance priority is 1) T&E species, 2) game species, and 3) other species.
Habitat maintenance is projected et the following Level within the first decade:
Opening Maintenance 5 Acres Stream Improvement 7 Structures
C01,CO3 Within Inventory and monitor effects of other resource activities on Wilderness available wildlife habitat. Integrate historic wildlife habitat Information with five year updates of the Fire Management Implementation Plan and Wilderness Management Implementation Plan.
C05,C08 Within Continue to improve Gila trout habitat within designated drainage Wilderness according to the Gila Trout Recovery Plan until recovery is complete and the species is restored to fishable populations.
I 55
112
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
58 RANGE 002 All Grazing allotments generally will be managed to e level of C or above. Based on existing data, this is projected to result in a long term capacity of approximate!_y 14,895 AUMs. Any additional forage capacity that becomes available after Management Area emphasized levels for livestock and wildlife have been attained will generally be allocated according to the long term management emphasis ratio.
002 All Lands classified as full capacity rangelands equal 87,315 acres, of which 7,256 acres are currently unsatisfactory. Approximately 6,142 acres are estimated to be unsatisfactory by the fifth decade. Unsatisfactory condition rangelands will be treated through implementation of approved allotment management plans. Treatment will include:
1) Structural or non—structural range improvements necessary to implement or maintain the prescribed intensity level.
2) Adjust stocking levels as necessary to maintain the management emphasis.
004 Outside Approximately 1,000 acres of non—structural PJ maintenance is needed Wilderness within the corridor between the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. The treatment of these areas can be accomplished if funding becomes available through other means.
005 Within Where possible, redesign, relocate, and/or replace range improvements Wilderness as they are reconstructed to Lessen impact on the wilderness resource.
DOS Alt Reconstruct range improvements needed to manage at level C on a 40 year cycle. If a more cost effective alternative to replacement is available, it may be implemented. Priority for expenditure of funds is as follows:
Reconstruction: Allotment boundary fence 60.7 Miles Water Developments Wells 5 Springs 4 Earthen Stock Tanks 45 Storage tanks 5 Allotment interior fences 59 Miles Corrals 21
DOB Inventory the Rocky Canyon area to determine if part of the area should be considered for research natural designation (Arizona pine). If any area eppears to qualify, make a recommendation to the regional RNA study committee so the area can be evaluated in relation to other areas in the region.
58 TIMBER EQS Non— PJ Fuelwood harvest will not exceed 320 acres in the first decode. Wilderness Volume control for fuelwood will be on the per acre basis.
156
113
APPLICABLE ffsouRcE ACTIVITY AREA... STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
E08 Non- Construct one mile of road to harvest fuelwood in the first decade. Wilderness
56 WATER,SOIL F06 Non- Inventory and monitor watershed restoration improvement needs for AND AIR Wildernu.s maintenance. Maintenance of structures should continue throughout the planning horizon.
58 MINERALS 009 The following lends were acquired by the Forest Service with the AND GEOLOGY mineral rights outstanding to the private parties:
Location Acres T13S,R10W, Sec. 11 157.00 112S,R13W, Sec. 14 37.50 T12S,R13W, Sec. 15 90.00 T129,R13W, Sec. 22 185.00 T13S,R13W, Sec. 2 159.14
The Forest Service will pursue acquisition of these outstanding rights. If the owner chooses to exercise his/her property rights, It will be done in a manner to minimize impacts on the surface resources.
58 LANDS J12 All Lends identified for acquisition for this Management Area are as follows:
Location Acres NE174,SW1/1- Sec. 34 T12S,R12W 40 SW1/4,SE1/4 Sec. 34 T12S,R12W 40 S1/2,SW1/4 Sec. 34 T126,R12W 80 N1/2,NE1/4 Sec. 4 T12S,R12W BO SW1/4,NE1/4 Sec. 4 T12S,R12W 40 NW1/4,SE1/4 Sec. 4 T12S,R12W 40 E1/2,SW1/4 Sec. 4 T12S,R12W 80 SW1/4,SW1/4 Sec. 4 T12S,Rt2W 40 SE1/4,SE1/4 Sec. 5 T12S,R12W 40 N1/2,14E1/4 Sec. 8 T129,Rt2W 80 N1/2,NE1/4 Sec. 30 T129,R12W 6 NE1/4,NW1/4 Sec. 8 T12S,Rt2W 40 S1/2,NW1/4 Sec. 8 T125,R12W 80 SE1/4,NE1/4 Sec. 7 T12S,R12W 40 N1/2,5E1/4 Sec. 7 T12S,R12W 80 N1/2,N1/2 Sec. 32 T1IS,R11W 5 SEI/4,SEI/4 Sec. 29 T129,F111W Total
58 FACILITIES L12 Non- ROAD ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST DECADE Wilderness Roads Constructed Roads 1st Decade Existing Closed Road Density Consta Reconsta_ Closed Roads Travelwegs Miles/Section
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.3 2.11
L19 Non- Require user maintenance on local roads that serve non-Forest Wilderness facilities or property.
1 57
114
VOLIDABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES L18 Non- Road maintenance will be as follows: Wilderness Maintenance Level Miles Frequency Leval 2 5.0 Every 10 years Level 9 82.6 Every 3 years L23 All All maintenance will be as follows: Trail Maintenance Levels Trail Difficulty Level I 2 3 4 .. Easiest 0 a 0 0 More Difficult 0 0 25.3 0 Most Difficult o 80.0 0...... _0 __ L24 If funding becomes available, construct as much of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail as funding will allow in any given time decade. L24 Utilize volunteer programs when possible, to construct portion of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and support facilities. 58 PROTECTION P01 All Complete the fire management analysis planning and implement firs management area plans within the first decade. PC1 Within Prescribed fire within Gila end Aldo Leopold Wildernesses will be Wilderness guided by the Prescribed Natural Fire Plan. PO4 All Unless other resource values dictate, suppression actions will be planned to control fires at no larger than the designated sizes: Fire Intensity Level _ Mext_SizelAcces1 Riparian Level 1 & 2 100 Leval 3 & 4 50 Level 5 16 Grassland Level 1 & 2 1000 Level 3 & 4 500 Level 5 250 PJ Level 1 & 2 1000 Level 3 & 4 100 Level 5 100 Unsuitable Timber Level 1 & 2 1000 Level 3 & 4 100 Level 5 25 P12 Outside Reduce fuels in this management area by prescribed burning of 500 Wilderness acres par decade. P13 Outside Accomplish fuel breaks to Regional standards based on pre-attack Wilderness planning. WAMAibit AnEA 5c This 193,662 acre Management Area is on the Mimbres Ranger District. It Description: includes an area approximately four miles north of Mimbres and 18 miles northeast of Silver City. The area is bounded on the West by Highway 15, Sapillo Creek, and south to the Forest boundary; on the north by Apache Creek, Black Canyon, and the Continental Divide; on the east by the Block Range Divide; and on the south by Hendricks Mountain and Rabb Park. Elevations range from approximately 10,077 feet on the top of Reeds Peak to approximately 5,200 feat. Vegetation includes approximately 13,965 acres of mixed conifer, 66,570 acres of Ponderosa pine, 886 acres of riparian 109,747 acres of pinyon-juniper, 188 acres of desert shrub, and 2,296 acres plain grassland. This management area includes 388 acres of suitable timber. The estimated numbers of primary game species 1 58
115
include 200 elk, 563 deer, and 805 turkey. Other game and nongeme species occupy the area including species associated with riparian habitats.
The Management Area is made up of nine grazing allotments; Sapillo, Mimbres, Powderhorn, East Canyon, Sheppard, Allie Canyon, Avalanche Peak, Fierro and Shingle Canyon. The present permitted use on these allotments is 34,800 AUMs.
Approximately 69,861 acres of this Management Area are within the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas.
Analysis Area: Contiguous Analysis Area 5C LTMA's 5C04, 5C05
Management Manage this area to provide for a tong term increase of approximately 10 Emphasis: percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife. Through coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, featured species population levels will be established and managed. Coniferous end woodland forest habitats will be managed to provide a quality end quantity of habitat that compliments the level of herbaceous forage and cover for this area. Management of the wilderness resources will be directed toward protecting and restoring natural conditions end maintaining the physical and biological characteristics of the wilderness environment. Menage the 396 acres of suitable timber to provide a long—term sustained yield of 161 MCF per decade. Fuelwood harvest will be managed to sustain approximately 10,400 cords per decade. Pest range condition monitoring indicates that substantial portions of the Management Area are in satisfactory condition. Additional forage can be provided for both livestock and wildlife. Intensify livestock management activities to provide for a long term increase to meet the projected management level. No livestock adjustments will be made solely as a result of this plan. Permitted livestock numbers will be established through updated standard range analysis procedures. Permittee management and investment may be used to sustain permitted numbers above projected levels provided the management emphasis can be maintained. The long term forage cbjective is to manage for a livestock/wildlife utilization ratio of 90/10.
The following Visual Quality acres have been inventoried for this Management Area:
1. Preservation 69,861 Acres 2. Retention 5,200 Acres 3. Partial Retention 34,895 Acres 4. Modification 67,078 Acres 5 Max. Modification 16,628 Acres
Management emphasis will be to maintain the visual quality values identified in the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines.
The following Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been established for the Management Area:
WILDERNESS: Primitive 21,780 Acres Semi—Primitive 48,101 Acres
OTHER: Semi—Primitive 20,000 Acres Semi—Primitive Motorized 2,580 Acres Roaded Natural 101,100 Acres Rural 141 Acres
Acres of Proposed Vegetation Modification Practices by_Resource.Area. in Decade. 1
Resource Practice Acres
Wildlife Planting: Riparian 7 Seeding 10
1 59
116
Proeosed Vegetation Modification LContinuedl:
Resource Practice Acres
Wildlife Prescribed Burns: PJ Shrub DO Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer 20 Wildlife Browse Pruning: PJ Shrub 10
Fuels Management: Hazard Reduction 500
Range Treatment Pending Additional Funding: PJ 11830
Range: PJ 2800 Fuelwood PJ: Fuelwood harvest 2080
Unsuitable Timber: Salvage harvest 100
Timber Suitability_ Acres: Forested lends withdrawn (Wilderness) 67,022 Acres Unsuitable Pinyon/Juniper 73,920 Acres Unsuitable Forested Lands (physically 14,612 Acres unsuitable or not capable) Forested lends not appropriete 25,736 Acres Suitable timber 396_ -Acres Total forested lands 161;686 Acres
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
5C RECREATION A01 All Maintain the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail corridor to the Visual Duality Objective of preservation within wilderness and Partial Retention outside wilderness.
5C WILDERNESS 601 Gila Establish the acceptable social and biological limits of change for Wilderness the Gile Wilderness and establish capacities in the first decade, with emphasis on the social carrying capacity.
601 Aldo Establish the acceptable social and biological limits of change for Leopold the Aldo Leopold Wilderness and establish capacities in the first Wilderness decade, with emphasis on social carrying capacity.
5C WILDLIFE CO1 All Primary wildlife planning emphasis is on game species and T&E species. Management plans for T&E species will be addressed as recovery plans are completed and approved. Plans and inventories will be conducted to meet the objectives indicated in the management emphasis.
Complete three habitat studies/inventories and two habitat implementation schedules per decade.
002 All Habitat inventories vi 1. 1 be keyed to project areas integrated with other resource uses.
160
117
•
APPLICABLE RESOURCE . ACTIVITY_ AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Integrate habitats to provide the following levels of primary components. Whole Area Old Growth 15,308 Acres Cover Habitat 16,474 Acres Squirrel Habitat 677 Acres Turkey Habitat 1,101 Acres Herbaceous MIL 5,298 Acres Forage/Cover Resulting habitat levels ere expected to support the following wildlife population levels: Projected Population Elk 225 Deer 680 Turkey 845 Other game end nongame species are expected to respond as follows: High middle and low seral stage coniferous forest habitats and associated game/nongame populations are expected to remain relatively stable. Species richness and species populations associated nith riparian habitats should increase as the composition, density, vigor, stand structure, stream bank stability and available wildlife forage/cover are improved to meet Regional riparian objectives. An increase in herbaceous wildlife forage/cover is programmed to maintain projected habitat levels. Current populations of "other game end nongame" species with forage/cover habitat requirements are expected. . CO3,C013 Non— Wildlife habitat improvements Trill be constructed where needed to Wilderness maintain the projected level for wildlife. Existing game species emphasized in this area include elk, deer, bear, and turkey. CO3,C06 Non— Include wildlife habitat improvement projects in Sale Area Wilderness Improvement (SAI) plans for fuelwood and timber sale areas. CO3,CC4, All Riparian treatments will be applied to areas of low conditions C06,C07 as needed to meet Regional riparian goals. This treatment may consist of fencing, seeding, and/or planting. Non— Wildlife habitat developments are projected as follows for the Wilderness first decade: Water Developments (trick tanks, rockheaders, spring developments, etc.) 2 Structures Brush Pile Developments 25 Structures Prescribed Burns 100 Acres Planting Browse/Riparien 5 Acres Grass & Forb Seeding 10 Acres Opening Creation 20 Acres Browse Pruning 10 Acres
161
a
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND bOIDELINES
C04,C07 Non— Habitat improvement emphasis is placed on game fish while maintaining Wilderness existing populations of native fish species present. Areas and species emphasized include:
AREA SPECIES I. Mimbres River ircTuI 2. McKnight Gila Trout
Fish habitat improvements during the first decade will involve the following wildlife activity levels:
Improvement Activity: Stream Improvement Structures 4 Planting Riparian, etc. 2 Stream Cover Structures 4
C05,COB All Continue thieotened end endangered species habitat improvements as identified through approved recovery plans. Objectives are to maintain T&E habitats and address recovery needs on a case by case basis.
T&E and sensitive species within this area include:
Wildlife: Bald eagle, Gila trout, black hawk, end Sonora Mountain Kingsnake.
Threatened and endangered species habitat developments for the first decade include three stream cover structures.
C09,C10, Non— Provide maintenance of habitat improvements to sustain projected. C11 Wilderness levels of wildlife populations. Maintenance priority is 1) T&E species, 2) game species, and 3) other species.
Hebitat maintenance improvement activity is projected as follows for the first decade:
Water Developments ( trick tanks, rockheaders, spring developments, etc.) 1 Structure Protection Fencing 1 Wiles Opening Maintenance 5 Acres Stream Improvement 10 Structures Other Special Improvements 1 Structure
C01,CO3 Within Inventory end monitor effects of other resource activities on Wilderness available wildlife habitat. Integrate historic wildlife habitat information with five year updates of the Fire Management Implementation Plan and the Wilderness Management Implementation Plan. 5c RANGE 002 All Grazing allotments generally will be managed to a level of C or above. Based on existing date, this is projected to result in a long term capacity of approximately 37,200 AUMs. Any additional forage capacity that becomes available after Management Area emphasized Levels for livestock and wildlife have been attained will generally be allocated according to the long term management emphasis ratio.
162
119
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
D(12 Lands classified as full capacity rangelands equal approximately 154,233 acres, of which 16,966 acres are currently unsatisfactory. Approximately 14,593 acres are estimated to be unsatisfactory by the fifth decade. Unsatisfactory condition rangelands will be treated through implementation of approved allotment management plans. Treatment will include:
11 Structural or non-structural range improvements necessary to implement or maintain the prescribed intensity level.
2) Adjust stocking levels as necessary to maintain the management emphasis.
DO5 ALL Construct and replace range improvements needed to manage at level C on a 40 year cycle. If more cost effective alternatives to replacement ere available, they may be implemented. Priority for expenditure of funds is as follows:
Reconstruction: Allotment boundely fences 245 Miles Water developments Wells 19 Storage tanks 9 Springs 22 Earthen stock tanks 148 Allotment interior fences 171 Miles Other ( Corrals ) 62 ( Cattleguardn) 1
004,003 All Non-structural range improvements will be accomplished as follows for the first decade:
Acres of Treatment PJ 2800
004,003 In addition to the nonstructural range improvement work scheduled for accomplishment 11,830 acres of new invasion Pinyon Juniper hove been identified. The treatment of these additional acres con be accomplished if funding becomes available through other means.
005 Within Where possible, redesign, relocate, and/or replace improvements as Wilderness they are reconstructed to lessen the impact upon the wilderness resources.
5C TIMBER E06 Non- No timber will be harvested from this Management Area in the first Wilderness decade.
E06 Non PJ Fuelwood harvest will not exceed 2,080 acres in the first decade. Wilderness Volume control for fuelwood will be on the per acre basis.
E06 Non- Use sanitation and selvage cutting practices in the unsuitable Wilderness timber areas.
E06 Non- Construct two mites of road to harvest fuelwood in first decade. Wilderness
F04 Limit forage utilization in the upper Mimbres end McKnight drainage bottoms to 10% for improved watershed condition.
1 63
120
APPL(CABLE pEpOURCE ACT)VITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
5C LANDS J12 All Lands identified for acquisition for this management area are as follows:
.....Location . _ Acres E1/2,CW1/4 Sec. 20 -T14S,R-1-1W ------id- S1/2,NE1/4 Sec. 27 T143,R11W 80 W1/2,SE1/4 Sec. 27 T14S,R11W 80 SE1/4,NE1/4 Sec. 33 T14S,R11W 40 E1/2,SE1/4 Sec. 33 T14S,R11W 80 SW1/4,SE1/4 Sec. 33 T14S,R11W 40 Portion E1/2 Sec. 17 T15S,R11W 180 SE1/4,SW1/4 Sec. 20 T15S,R11W 40 E1/2,W1/2,NW1/4 Sec. 29 T15S,R11W 80 NE1/4,SW1/4 Sec. 29 T15S,R11W 40 Portion N1/2 Sec. 33 T15S,R11W 80 W1/2,SW1/4 Sec. 8 T18S,R11W 80 Total 780
J12 Lands identified for base for exchange for the Management Area are as follows:
Location Acres NE1/4 Sec. 38 T15S,R12W 160 90 Portion SW1/4 Sec. 25 T15S,R12W - Total m13
J04 Non- Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry all remaining lands not Wilderness currently withdrawn for the roadside zones between district boundaries along New Mexico State Highway No. 15 from wilderness boundary to wilderness boundary on each side of the highway.
J05 Lands with withdrawals in effect recommended for continuation are as follows:
DESCRIPTION LOCATION ACRES Copperas-Cliff Dwellings T14S,R13W Sac. 4,5, 468 Roadside Zone (600') 8,9,20,29,32
5C FACILITIES LO1 Cooperate with the Continental Divide Trait Advisory Committee and the Na,, Mexico State Trail Advisory Committee for designation of the Continental Divide Trail on the general alignment of Trail No. 74.
L12 ROAD ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST DECADE
Roads Constructed Roads 1st Decade Existing Closed Road Density Constr Raconstr. Closed Roads Travelways Miles/Section
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 37.5 0.84 r L18 Non- Require user maintenanch on local roads that serve non-Forest Wilderness Service facilities end property.
L19 Non- Road maintenance will be as follows: Wilderness
Naintenance_Level Miles Frequency -Level- 2 28 — Every 10 years Level 3 43.1 Every 2 years Level 4 5.0 Annually
1 64
121
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS Ah13 GUIDELINES
L23 All Trail maintenance will be as follows:
Trail Maintenance Levels Trail_Difficulty.Level 1 2 . 3 4 .... Easiest o 0 o o More Difficult o o 3.9 0 Most Difficult - - - - 2.5 130.1 o 0
L24 All If funding becomes availoble construct as much as possible of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail as funding will allow in any given time decade.
L24 All Utilize volunteer programs when possible to construct portions of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trait and support facilities.
5C PROTECTION P01 All Complete the fire management analysis planning end implement fire management area plans within the first decade.
POI Prescribed natural fire within the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses will be guided by the Prescribed Natural Fire Plans.
All Unless other resource values dictate, suppression actions will be planned to control fires at no larger than the designated sizes:
Fire Intensity Level lAcres1 Riparian Level 1 and 2 80 Level 3 end 4 50 Level 5 10 Grassland Level 1 & 2 100 Level 3 & 4 100 Level 5 25 PJ Level 1 & 2 1000 Level 3 & 4 100 Level 5 100 Unsuitable Timber Level 1 & 2 1000 Level 3 & 4 100 Level 5 25 Suitable Timber Level 1 & 2 100 Level 3 &4 20 Level 5 20
P12 Non— Reduce fuels in this Management Area by prescribed burning of Wilderness 500 acres per decade.
P13 Non— Accomplish fuel breaks to Regional standards based on preattack Wilderness planning.
MANAGEMENT AREA BD This 51,183 acre Management Area is on the Mimbres Ranger District. It is Description: Located approximately six miles east of San Lorenzo, NM. It is bordered on the west and south by the Forest boundary, on the east by the Black Range Divide, and on the north by Hendricks Mountain and Rabb Park. Elevations range from 9,186 on the Black Range Divide to approximately 6,000. Vegetation includes approximately 7,704 acres of mixed conifer; 8,900 acres of Ponderosa pine; 240 acres of riparian; 35,851 acres of pinyon, Juniper, end grassland; end 488 acres of desert shrub. The estimated numbers of primary game species include 15 elk, 215 deer, end 115 turkey. Other game and nongame species occupy the area, including those species associated with riparian habitats.
1 65
122
Management Area 7E (Includes the Cow Creek Allotment)
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
P13 All Accomplish fuel breaks to Regional standards based on preatteck planning.
MANAGEMENT AREA 7E This 88,327 acre Management Area is on the Silver City Ranger District. It is Description: bounded on the west by the Forest boundary, on the south by the North Fork of Walnut Creek, and on the North by Sapillo Creek and an area just south of the Gila River. The eastern boundary runs from Maverick Mesa to Tadpole Ridge, through Signal Peak over to the Continental Divide. Elevations range from approximately 8,000 feet on the top of Signal Peak to approximately 8,000 feet. Vegetation includes approximately 1,400 acres of mixed conifer; 29,000 acres of Ponderosa pine; 800 acres of riparian and 58,000 acres of pinyon, juniper, and grassland. This area includes 10,897 acres of suitable timber. The estimated Levels of primary game species include 128 elk, 500 deer, end 255 turkey. Other game and nongame species occupy the area, including those associated with riparian habitats.
The Management Area is made up of five grazing allotments; Reading Mountain, Twin Sisters, Cow Creek, Beer Creek, and Walnut Creek. The present permitted use on these allotments is 8,953 AUMe.
The southeastern portion has had a history of mining activity. An active exploration mine is located within the area. The old mining town of Pines Altos is on the southeastern boundary of the area.
Approximately 13,120 acres south of Sapillo Creek are part of the Gila Wilderness.
Analysis Area: Contiguous Analysis Area 7E LTMA 7E04, 7E01, and 7ED3
Management Manage this area to provide for a long term increase of approximately 40 percent Emphasis: In herbaceous forage for wildlife. Through coordination with the New Mexico Department of Some and Fish, featured species population levels will be established and managed. Coniferous and woodland forest habitats will be managed to provide a quality and quantity of habitat that compliments the level of herbaceous forage and cover for this area. Management of the wilderness resource will be directed toward protecting and restoring native conditions and maintaining the physical and biological characteristics of the wilderness environment. Manage the 10,897 acres of suitable timber to provide a long—term sustained yield of 4,571 MCF per decade. Fuelwood harvest will be managed to sustain approximately 4,850 cords per decade. Past range condition monitoring indicates that significant portions of the Management Area are in unsatisfactory condition. In order to improve this condition, appropriate livestock adjust- ments may be necessary to bring permitted numbers in line with capacity. No Livestock adjustments will be made solely as a result of this plan. Permitted Livestock numbers will be established through updated standard range analysis procedures. Permittee management and investment may be used to sustain per- mitted numbers above projected levels provided the management emphasis can be maintained. The long term forage objective is to manage for a livestock/wildlife utilization ratio of 80/40.
The following Visual Quality acres have been inventoried for this Management Area:
1. Preservation 13,120 Acres 2. Retention 2,041 Acres 3. Partial Retention 20,001 Acres 4. Modification 33,898 Acres 5. Max. Modification 17,287 Acres
Management emphasis will be to maintain the visual quality levels identified in the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines. 123 220
The following Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been established for the Management Areas WILDERNESS: Primitive 9,820 Acres Semi-Primitive 3,500 Acres OTHER: Semi-Primitive 788 Acres Semi-Primitive Motorized 30,779 Acres Roaded Natural 41,500 Acres Rural 182 Acres Acres of Proposed Vegetation Modification Practices by Resource Area in Decode 1 Resource Practice Acres Wildlife Prescribed Burns: PJ Shrub 80 Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer 70 Fuels Management: Hazard Reduction (Suitable) 750 Fuelwood PJ: Fuelwood harvest 980 Range Treatment Pending Additional Funding: PJ 2380 Unsuitable Timber: Salvage harvest 100 Suitable Timber: Shelterwood removal 391 Intermediate cut 0 Precommercial thinning 88 Regeneration cuts: Shelterwood 32 Clearcut (wildlife) 15 Selective Harvest (unevenage mgmt.) 24 Note: The timber inventory used to generate this data is not statistically reliable below the whole forest level. As a result, the actual types of harvest on the Management Area may vary substantially from the guideline shown above. Timber Suitability_Acres: Forested Lands Withdrawn (Wilderness) 12,578 Acres Unsuitable (Pinyon/Juniper) 42,950 Acres Unsuitable Forested Lands (physically 9,847 Acres unsuitable or not capable) Forested Lands not Appropriate 0 Acres Suitable Timber 10,897 Acres Total Forested Lands 75,881 Acres
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES - - - - - 7E RECREATION A01 Maintain the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail corridor to the Visual Quality Objective of partial retention. AD1 Continue the exclusion of grazing and fuelwood harvest in the Cherry Creek corridor. 22 I
124
— WilbABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY _ AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 7E WILDERNESS BOI Oils Establish the acceptable social end biological limits of change Wilderness for the Gila Wilderness and establish capacities in the first decade, with emphasis on the social carrying capacity. 7E WILDLIFE 001 All Inventories end plans will be conducted to meet the objectives indicated in the management emphasis. Planning emphasis is placed on big game, small game, game fish and threatened and endangered species. TE.E species will receive priority over other species where needs are identified through approved recovery plans. Complete 12 habitat studiee/inventories end ten habitat implementation schedules per decade. CO2 All Conduct wildlife field reviews during initial planning stages. Specify habitat management objectives designed to meet future habitat capability goals. Integrate Habitats to provide the following levels of primary components Whole Area Old Growth 3,412 Acres Cover Habitat 6,585 Acres Squirrel Habitat 840 Acres Turkey Habitat 533 Acres Herbaceous WI 4,434 Acres Forage/Cover Resulting habitat levels ere expected to support the following wildlife population levels: Projected Population Elk 210 Deer 888 Turkey 280 Other game and noncoms species are expected to respond as follows: High Beret stage coniferous forest habitats and associated geme/nongame populations are expected to decline slightly. This would occur in conjunction with a slight increase in those species populations tied to low and middle seral stage coniferous forest habitats. A slight increase in species richness would occur in monotypic habitat types as habitat diversity (juxtaposition of different Beret stage habitats] is enhanced. Species richness and species populations associated with riparian habitats should increase as the composition, density, vigor, stand structure, stream bank stability and available wildlife forage/cover are improved to meet Regional riparian objectives. An increase in herbaceous wildlife forage/cover is programmed to improve habitats for other game and nongame species. An associated increase in populations of "other game and nongamen species with forage/cover habitat requirements is expected. 222
125 APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Game species improvements are emphasized along with maintenance of ell other wildlife species.
Game species emphasized in this area include elk, deer, beer, turkey, small game, and game birds.
CO3,C0B, Non— Include wildlife habitat improvement projects in fuelwood and Œ2,Q1 Wilderness timber Sale Area Improvement (SAI) plans.
CO3,C04, Non- Riparian treatments (planting, seeding, protection fencing, CO6,C07 Wilderness etc.) are applied to areas of tow condition.
CO3,COB Non— Wildlife habitat development is projected as follows for the first Wilderness decade:
Improvement activity: Water Developments 5 Structures ( trick tanks, rockheaders, spring developments, etc.) Protection Fencing 5 Mites Brush Pile Development 100 Structures Prescribed Burns 160 Acres Opening Creation 70 Acres
CO3 This includes reconstruction of unmaintained range improvements which benefit to wildlife species along with other improvements.
C04,C07 Non— Habitat improvement emphasis is placed on game fish areas and Wilderness existing populations of native fish species. Primary species emphasized include:
AREA SPECIES 1. LEWii.- Gila River Warm water app. 2. Sheep Corral Creek Trout 3. Cow Creek Trout
Fish habitat improvement activities scheduled for the first decade Include five stream improvement structures.
005,C08 All Accomplish threatened and endangered species habitat improvements as identified through approved management and recovery plans.
T&E and sensitive species within this area include:
Wildlife: Gila trout, Sonora Mountain King:make, Spike dace, Loach minnow, Roundtail Chub, Apache, (sub—species) Goshawk (sensitive).
Plants: Pediocactus papyranoenthus, and Talinum humils.
cos,cos Non— Threatened and endangered species habitat developments are Wilderness projected at the following improvement levels for the first decade:
Protection Fencing 5 Miles Stream Cover 2 Structures Stream Improvements 9 Structures
CO8,C10 Non— Accomplish maintenance of habitat improvements to sustain projected C11 Wilderness population levels. Maintenance priority is 1) ME species, 2) game species, end 3) other species.
223
126
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 4 Habitat maintenance is projected at the following level by the first decade:
Water developments 4 Structures (trick tanks, rockheadera, spring developments, etc.) Wetland developments 1 Structures Protection Fencing 2 Miles Control of Habitat Access 2 Miles Opening Maintenance 6 Acres Stream Improvement 18 Structures
C15,L01 Non— During transportation planning, road and trail densities will be Wilderness evaluated within key habitat areas.
c12,coe Key habitat areas include Goose Lake, Sheep Corral Creek, Gila River, Cow Creek, Bear Creek, end Walnut Creek.
003 Within The wildlife habitat increases will result from implementation Wilderness of the Gila prescribed fire program.
Within Continue to improve Gila trout habitat within designated drainages Wilderness according to the Site Trout Recovery Plan, until recovery is complete. Use methods that reduce the appearance of man's impact on the environment.
Designated area includes a portions of Sheep Corral Creek drainage.
7E RANGE 002 All Grazing allotments generally will be managed to a level of B or above. Based on existing data, this is projected to result in a long term capacity of approximately 7,270 AUMs. Any additional forage capacity that becomes available after Management Area emphasized Levels for livestock and wildlife have been attained will generally be allocated according to the long term management emphasis ratio.
002 Lands classified as full capacity rangelands equal 83,584 acres, of a. which 31,782 acres are currently unsatisfactory. About 28,558 acres are estimated to be unsatisfactory by the fifth decade.
004,009 Nonstructural range improvement needs have been identified to include 2,380 acres of reinvasion Pinyon/Juniper. The treatment of these acres can be accomplished if funding becomes available through other means.
1406 All Construct and reconstruct range improvements needed to manage at Level B on a 40 year cycle. Priority for expenditure of funds is: 1]. allotment boundary fences; 2). water developments; 3). allotment interior fences; and 4). other range improvements.
Total existing improvements in the Management Area are;
Allotment Boundary Fence 130.8 Miles Earthen Stock tanks 29 Wells p 4 Springs 19 Allotment Interior Fences 23 Miles Corrals 32 Cattleguards 9
005 Within Where possible, redesign, relocate, end/or replace range Wilderness improvements as they are reconstructed to lessen the impact upon the wilderness resources.
224
• 127
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 008 Inventory Pinos Altos Mountain to determine if a research natural area designation (Arizona pine) would be appropriate for any portion of the area. Recommend qualifying areas to the Regional RNA Study Committee for review and consideration. 7E TIMBER BJB Non- Timber will be harvested from the following LTMAs end slopes es Wilderness in the indicated decades: Approximate % SloEs Cattiories ------LTMA of Area___ 0-40%_ _40%+0-2000 40%+1.2000 Ft_ct - 14 B1313 Non- PJ FueLwood harvest will not exceed 980 acres in the first decade. Wilderness Volume control for fuelwood will be on the per acre basis. 7E LANDS J12 All Lands identified for acquisition for the Management Area are as follows: LOCATION - - - - ACRES E17,N111/4 Sec. 24 T1BS,R13W eo W1/2,NE1/4 Sec. 24 T18S,R13W 80 TOTAL 180 J12 All Lands identified for base for exchange for the Management Area are as follows: LOCATION ACRES W1/2,h1/2 Sec. 4 T178,R13W 180 J05 All Lands with withdrawals in effect recommended for revocation are as follows: DESCRIPTION LOCATION ACRES Power Site Reserve T15S,R15W Sec. 503,7 780 7E FACILITIES LO1 Cooperate with the Continental Divide Trail Advisory Committee and the New Mexico State Trail Advisory Committee for designation of the Continental Divide Trail on the general alignment of Trail No. 74. L12 Non- ROAD ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST DECADE Wilderness Roads Constructed Roads jet Decode Existing Closed Road Density Constr... Reconstra Closed Roads Travelomys Miles(Section 0.5 2.5 0.0 1.5 11.4 0.80 L19 Non- Require ueer maintenance on local roads that serve non-Forest Wilderness Service facilities and property. L19 Non- Road maintenance will be as follows: Wilderness Maintenance Level -Miles- - Frequency Level 2 98.5 Every five years Leval 3 25.8 Annually Level 4 0.4 Annually
225
128 APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 123 All Trail maintenance will be as follows: Trail Maintenance Levels Trail Difficulty_Level 2 3 4 Easiest 0 0 0 More Difficult 0 48.7 10.5 Most Difficult ------7.5 0 - -0 - - - - - 124 Utilize volunteer programs when possible to build trail and support facilities. 7E PROTECTION P01 All Complete the fire management analysis planning and implement fire management area plans within the first decade. POI Within Prescribed natural fire within the Gila Wilderness be guided Wildernese by the Prescribed Natural Fire Plan. PO4 All Unless other resource values dictate, suppression actions will be planned to control fires at no Larger than the designated sizes: Fire Intensity Levels MxSizejAcret Riparian Level 1 and 2 80 Level 3 and 4 40 Level 5 10 Grassland Level l and 2 2000 Level 3 and 4 1000 Level 5 500 PJ Level 1 and 2 2000 Level 3 and 4 100 Level 5 100 Unsuitable Level 1 and 2 1000 Timber Level 3 and 4 50 Level 5 30 Suitable Level 1 and 2 100 Timber Level 3 and 20 Level 5 20 P12 All When fire management planning is completed, utilize planned and unplanned ignitions within established prescriptions to accomplish fuel treatment goals outside wilderness end wilderness goals inside wilderness. Non— Reduce fuels in 750 acres per decade by prescribed burning. WI lderness P13 Non— Accomplish fuel breaks to Regional standards based on preettack Wilderness planning. P16 All Maintain high quality visual conditions. The form, line, texture, Gila end color of characteristic landscapes will be clearly distinguish- Wilderness able when viewed as middle ground. Cultural resources and ecosystem (Class 1 Area) ecosystem will remain unmodified by air pollutants. Determine baseline information and the background condition of the above Air Quality Related Values and specify limits of acceptable change that will protect affirmatively these values in Class I areas. This management area has approximately 7700 acres of Class 1 area, (Gila Wilderness prior to 1860.) Gila Perform Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSO) permit Wilderness application reviews to determine the potential effect increased (Class 1 Area) emissions from major stationery sources will have on Air Quality Related Values (AORV) of this National Forest Class I area (Gila 226
129 APPCICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS ANO GUIDELINES
Wilderness prior to 113130.1 Impeots of sir pollution generating activities will be predicted using current modeling techniquee.
ITIMIERELIT-NREI4 7F This 103,720 acre Management Area is on the Silver City Ranger District. It Descriptions is bounded on the north by the Wilderness-Silver City District boundary, on the east by the Mimbrea-Silver City District boundary. The southern boundary runs from the Continental Divide across Signal Peak, up to Maverick Mesa along Sepillo Creek and out to an area south of the Gile River to Shelley Canyon. The Gila River is the prominent feature in this area. Elevations range from approximately 7,752 feet at Granny Mountain to approximately 4,600 feet at the Gila River. Vegetation includes approximately 1,257 scree of mixed conifer, 23,821 acres of Ponderosa pine, 4839 acres of riparian, 73,093 acres of woodland, and 910 acres of plains grassland. This area includes 10,812 acres of suitable timber. The estimated levels of primary game species include 152 elk, 565 deer, 480 turkey, and 20 bighorn sheep. Other game and nongame occupy the area including those associated with riparian habitats.
The Management Area is made up of six grazing allotments; Rough Canyon, Mogollon Creek, Watson Mountain, Brock Canyon, Spar Canyon, and Red Stone. The present permitted use on these allotments is 14,786 AUMs.
Approximately 50,488 acres in the north half of this unit is in the Gila Wilderness.
Analysis Area: Contiguous Analysis Area 7F LTMA 7F02
Management Manage this area to provide for a long term increase of approximately 40 percent Emphasis: in herb:meow: forage for wildlife. Through coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, featured species population levels will be established and managed. Coniferous and woodland forest habitats will be managed to provide a quality and quantity of habitat that compliments the level of herbaceous forage and cover for this area. Management of the wilderness resource will be directed toward protecting and restoring natural conditions and maintaining the physical and biological characteristics of the wilderness environment. Manage the 10,812 acres of suitable timber to provide a long-term sustained yield of 4,842 MCF per decade. Fuelwood harvest will be managed to sustain approximately 1,850 cords per decade. Past range condition monitoring indicates that significant portions of the Management Area are in unsatisfactory condition. In order to improve this condition, appropriate livestock adjust- ments may be necessary to bring permitted numbers in Line with capacity. No livestock adjustments will be made solely as a result of this plan. Permitted Livestock numbers will be established through updated standard range analysis procedures. Permittae management end investment may be used to sustain per- mitted numbers above projected levels provided the management emphasis can be maintained. The long term forage objective is to menage for a Livestock/wildlife utilization ratio of 80/40.
The following Visual. Quality acres have been inventoried for this Management Area:
1. Preservation 50,488 Acres 2. Retention 8,822 Acres 9. Partial Retention 20,332 Acres 4. Modification 12,580 Acres 5. Max. Modification 13,718 Acres
Management emphasis will be to maintain the visual quality levels identified in the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines.
227
130 Management Area 8B (Icludes the Wilderness Allotment)
MANAGEMENT AREA 813 This 237,603 acre Management Area is on the Wilderness Ranger District. The Description: area is bounded on the north and east by the XSX Range Allotment and the Middle Fork of the Gila River; on the south by the main Gila River; and on the west by Mogollon Beady, Center Baldy, LookouvMountain, and Shelly Peek. The majority of the area is within designated wilderness. Elevations range from approximately 10,770 on Mogollon Oaldy to 4,770 on the main Gila River. Vegetation, includes approximately 62,349 acres of woodlands, 116,460 acres of Ponderosa Pine, 45,430 acres of mixed conifer, 4,337 acres of riparian and 9,027 245
131 acres of grassland. The estimated levels of primary game species include 1,820 elk, 1,213 deer, 1,890 turkey, and 22 antelope. Other game and nongame species occupy the aree, including those associated with riparian habitats.
There are no grazing allotments within the Management Area. Permitting groaning, use is confined to Livestock grazing in support of outfitter/guide operations that were permitteo prior to 1964.
Approximately 236,409 acres of the area are located in the Gila Wilderness. The area is dominated by and characteristic of primitive conditions present in the early 1900's on the hogollon Mountains. Extreme(y rugged topography, cut by deep canyons, prevails. The area comprises the headwaters and tributaries of the Gila River. Vegetation varies from grassland through spruce—fir forests. Current recreational use of the area is relatively low due to the travel time from existing large metropolitan areas (El Paso, Tucson, and Albuquerque) where most use originates. The primary recreational use occurs within areas adjacent to perennial streams and river bottoms.
The Management Area contains no suitable timber. The area includes the Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument, which currently is operated by the Forest Service under a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service.
Analysis Area: Contiguous Analysis Area 80 LIMA — NONE
Management Manage this area to provide for a long term increase of approximately 40 percent Emphasis: in herbaceous forage for wildlife. Through coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, featured species population Levels will be established and managed. Coniferous and woodland forest habitats will be managed to provide a quality and quantity of habitat that compliments the level of herbaceous forage and cover for this area. There are no grazing allotments within the Management Area. Permit grazing to continue in support of outfitter/guide operations that were permitted prior to 1964. Management of the wilderness resource will be directed towards protecting and restoring natural conditions and maintaining the physical and biological characteristics of the wilderness environment.
The following Visual acres have been inventoried for this Management Area:
1. Preservation 238,409 Acres 2. Retention 1,194 Acres 3. Partial Retention 0 Acres 4. Modification 0 Acres 5. Maximum Modification 0 Acres
Management emphasis will be to maintain the visual quality values identified in the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been established for this Management Area as follows:
Primitive 52,480 Acres Semi—Primitive 183,929 Acres Roaded Natural 1,184 Acres
Acres of Proposed Vegetation Modification Practices by Resource Area in Period 1
—.:SOUrC Practice " Acres Wildlife Prescribed Burns: PJ Shrub 120 Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer 500
Timber Suitability Acres Forested lends withdrawn (Wilderness) 226,801 Acres Unsuitable (Pinyon/Juniper) 988 Acres Total forested lands 227,789 Ac
MUM
132
ft
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
BB RECREATION AO@ All Continue to cooperate with the National Park Service on operation and maintenance of the Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument and the related support fccilities. Goals and objectives of management of the monument will be supplied by the National Perk Service. Evaluate the existing cooperative agreement between the Forest Service end the National Perk Service on a ten year interval, at the time of the plan update (modify as necessary).
Al5 All Continue to cooperate with the New mexico State Game and Fish Department on maintenance of the Heart Bar Dispersed Recreation Area. Evaluate the agreement on a ten year interval, at the time of the plan update (modify as necessary).
88 WILDERNESS 001 Gila Establish the acceptable social and biological limits of change Wilderness for the Gila Wilderness and establish capacities in the first decade, with emphasis on the social carrying capacity.
1303 All Fences crossing the Gila River from the Management Area boundary near the East Fork bridge to Turkey Creek will be constructed of smooth break-away style wire by the end of the first decade.
603 All Discourage floaters when water flow on the Gila River is below 50 CFS.
803 All White Creek barn, White Creek Cabin, Mogollon Baldy Lookout, Prior Cabin, and Miller Springs Cabin may be used as centrally located storage sites for stock feed, tools, shelter, end supplies for Forest Service and State Game end Fish administrative purposes.
603 All Current permitted recreation livestock grazing use in support of outfitter-guide operations (established prior to 1964) will be continued. Category 1 range analysis will be conducted on permitted areas by the end of the first decode. All other recreational livestock grazing use will be permitted only during the approved trip plan period.
68 . WILDLIFE CO1 All Conduct wildlife inventories and monitoring with the objective of maintaining habitat in a condition virtually unaltered by men's influence. Inventories and monitoring activities will be conducted when possible in conjunction with other resource activities ( preettack planning, monitoring limits of acceptable change). Provide wildlife habitat information for a five year update of Fire Management Implementation Plan and Wilderness Management Implementation Plan. Maintain projected population levels and avoid invasion of non-indigenous species.
CO2 All Conduct wildlife field reviews during initial planning stages. Specify habitat management objectives designed to meet future habitat capability goals.
Complete ten habitat studies/inventories and five habitat implementation schedules per decade.
Whole Area
Old Growth 36,633 Acres Cover Habitat 30,107 Acres Squirrel Habitat - Acres Turkey Habitat 2,201 Acres Herbaceous WL 24,969 Acres Forage/Cover 247
4- 133
4 APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA - - - - STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Resulting habitat levels are expected to support the following wildlife population levels:
Projected Population
Elk 2,250 Deer 1,840 Turkey 2,460 Pronghorn 20 Big Horn Sheep 60
Other game and nongame species are expected to respond as follows:
High seral stage coniferous forest habitats and associated geme/nongame populations will are expected to decline slightly. This would occur in conjunction with a slight increase in those species populations tied to low and middle seral stage coniferous forest habitats. An increase in species richness would occur in monotypic habitat types as habitat diversity (juxtaposition of different seral stage habitats) is restored to natural wilderness distributions.
Species richness and species populations associated with riparian habitats should continue as the composition, density, vigor, stand structure, stream bank stability and available wildlife forage/cover are managed in their natural state.
An increase in herbaceous wildlife forage/cover is anticipated as wilderness habitats for other game and nongame species are restored to historic natural fire occurrences. An increase in populations of "other game and nongame" species with forage/cover habitat requirements is expected.
Game species provided for in this area include elk, deer, bear, and turkey. 4 CO3,C06 Non— Projects will be designed to maintain or improve wildlife habitat to Wilderness the extent possible provided other resource outputs can be met.
RB- From present indications, wildlife habitat developments are projected as follows:
Improvement Activity Prescribed Burns 500 Acres Relocation of Trails 2 Miles
C05,CO8 All Implement threatened and endangered species habitat improvements as Identified through approved management and recovery plans.
T&E and sensitive species within this area include:
Wildlife: Gila Trout, Black Hawk, Bald Eagle, Sonoran Mountains Kingsnake, Loach Minnow, Roundtail Chub, Spike Dece,Marrowhead Gartersnake, end Mountain Silverspot Butterfly.
Plants: Allium gooddingii, Erigeron hessii end Sanecio quarens.
Designated areas include portions of the McKenna Creek, Little Creek, and Iron Creek drainages.
248
134 APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
C05,C06 Threatened end endangered species habitat developments are projected at the following improvement levels:
Improvement Activity Prescribed Fire 120
CO3 Within Integrated historic wildlife habitat distributions with the Gila Wilderness prescribed fire program and the Gila wilderness implementation program.
C11 Within Continue recovery of the Gila trout and maintain natural and Wilderness recovered habitats for threatened and endangered species. Maintenance projected for the following:
Man—made barriers 2 Structures Natural barriers 2 Structure
C12 Within Continue to cooperate with the New Mexico State Game and Fish Wilderness Department on stocking of fry on West, Middle, and Main Forks of the Gila River during the first decade. Evaluate the need for restrictions of stocking and modification of angling impact at the end of the first decade.
C12 Within Require the New Mexico State Game and Fish Department to maintain Wilderness wildlife trick tanks under permit in operable condition. When maintenance cost exceeds 50 percent of replacement cost, the Improvements will be removed and the need for replacement evaluated. If needed, replacement will be en improvement that does not detract significantly from wilderness character.
C15,L01 During transportation planning trail densities will be evaluated within key wildlife habitat areas.
88 RESEARCH 008 The proposed Turkey Creek Research Natural Area, consisting of 1335 • NATURAL AREA acres of riparian hardwood, is located in Sec. 9, 10, 15, and 18, T14S, R16W NMPM. This major ecosystem will be maintained in its present natural condition. es LANDS JO4 Non— By the end of the first decade recommend for withdrawal all lends Wilderness not currently withdrawn within the Highway 15 corridor. This corridor extends from the District boundary to the Gila Cliff Dwelling National Monument end includes the National Forest System lands outside the Wilderness boundary.
J12 All Lands identified for acquisition for the Management Area are as follows:
LOCATION ACRES SW1/4:Ni74 Sect. 15 T14S,R16W 40
J01 All Game end Fish Department cabins at Prior and Miller Springs will be maintained at their present state of repair. No major reconstruction will be undertaken. A structure will not be replaced if structural damage exceeds 50 percent.
J04 All Lands with withdrawals presently in effect recommended for revocation ere as follows:
DESCRIPTION LOCATION Water Power 112S,R14W Sec. 13,22,23,24,28,38 Water Power T13S,R14W Sec. 24,25,28,27,33,34 35,38 249
135
APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
DESCRIPTION LOCATION Water Power T14S,R15W Sec. 7,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29 Power Site Reserve T14S,R16W Sec. 11,13,14,14,16,17,18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30, 31,32 Water Power T14S,R1SW Sec. 11,12,13,14,15,16,19, 20,21,22,23,24,28,29,30,31,32
813 FACILITIES LO1 All The existing transportation system as depicted on the Wilderness Transportation System maps will serve existing and future needs within the wilderness. Relocation of the trensportetion system is authorized for health and safety, visitor use dispersement, resource protection, end to avoid rights—of—way acquisition across fee lend. The system contains approved helispots end the following:
Trail IMilesj Roads_IMiles) 328.7-- 2.0
L12 Non— ROAD ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST DECADE Wilderness Roads Constructed Roads 1st Decade Existing Closed Road Density Constr, Reconstr. Closed Roads Travelways Miles/Section
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
L19 Outside Road maintenance will be as follows: Wilderness
Maintenance Level Miles Frequency Level 4 2.0 Twice annually
L23 All Perform trait maintenance at the following levels: •
Trail Maintenance Levels Trail Difficulty Level 1 2 3 4 — Easiest 8.9 30.2 8.7 0.1 More Difficult 44.9 157.7 66.6 0 Most Difficult 7.4 0 0 0
( Additional trail maintenance will be accomplished through volunteers and other manpower programs.)
L21,1_22 All Perform trail reconstruction as follows, unless other resources dictate (update every five years).
MILES Pitt Ranch 189 3.0
BB PROTECTION P01 All Complete the fire management analysis planning and implement fire management area plans Within the first decade.
Pan All Prescribed fire within the Gila Wilderness will be guided by the Prescribed Natural Fire Plan.
P02 All Continue current level of participation in public education and personal contacts.
PO4 All Unless other resource values dictate, suppression action will be planned to control fires at no larger than the designated sizes: 250
136
• • APPLICABLE RESOURCE ACTIVITY AREA STANDAR3S ANC GUIDELINES Intensity Level Max. Size (Acres) Riparian Level 1 & 2 300 Level 3 & 4 100 Level 5 Grassland Level 1 & 2 5000 Level 3 & 4 1000 Level 5 20 Woodland Level 1 & 2 5000 Level 3 & 4 1000 Level 5 40 Ponderosa Level 1 & 2 5000 Pine Level 3 & 4 1000 Level 5 30 Mixed Level 1 & 2 5000 Conifer Level 3 & 4 1000 Level 5 20 Spruce Level 1 & 2 1000 Fir Level 3 & 4 100 Level 5 20 P16 Gila Maintain high quality visual conditions. The form, line, texture Wilderness and color of characteristic landscapes will be clearly distinguish— (Class 1 Area) able when viewed as middle ground. Cultural resources and ecosystems will remain unmodified by air pollutants. Determine baseline information and the background condition of the above acceptable change that will affirmatively protect these values in Class I areas. P16 Gila Perform Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD) permit Wilderness application reviews to determine the potential effect increased (Class 1 Area) emissions from major stationary sources will have on air quality related values ( AQRV) of National Forest Class I areas (Gila Wilderness prior to Dec. 1980) . Impacts of air pollution generating activities will be predicted using current modeling techniques.
25 I
111111111111 11 1111 1 110 11=1.11.= m MISI .11P 111 11111.1•1.1.111MMI 1.11.11•111111•111Mir 01•111• 1 ...I. • mi. • • • .8 err
137 44- •
APPENDIX F
NEWSPAPER COLUMN REGARDING THE STOCKING OF TROUT IN ARIZONA
loomeasalesexts,a,soonse=comamemenammameass= .d,"The state feels that there Is no danger a extinct th44e BM. They are not rare. „it , would be Outdoor Editor lip bit a set of circiunstanceilo _happen wi Olken oui," hi said. •-• • _V; . / ROBERT THOMAS \ *ech said • there' ?Vat ".zery-4 WrfrjldliIe people -with ihe ttce... agency of needless effort u1d have beea • nalt)l Local control ened to us " he said. .oin the formation , re waa a , far switeping attempt to put out an— still best list...We had no •klea what they were dO/P?9 - Viiitigum. All we knew that — .wham, out conwe °Est- (;)c-t-: z 3, Pit e .:. . • • .1:,-. As it was." Essbach continued, “we were taw:able .4NE OF THE BEST illustrat)ens of the dangers of fed get the Kalbab squirrel removed from the nat.!' ciettell of wildlife is the .Eto'dingered Species Act. . • The department, he said, will have to do &kt of work .. •A few weeks ago the Arizona Game and Fish Caimission convince the federal wildlife experts — who apparev Compelled by the .1973 law to prohibit the public from never bother to make on-the-aPot checks — ttilake•the citing two 'species of 'native trout because they were an ed the list. rare and endangered species list. • This week I went to a location of a plant of Glli Trout I - ..• thi department. . ,,• . . • ••• • . : "The fact Is the two species, Seinio gill and Salrno apache, • , • . (re neither rare nor endangered. 2n tht company Of John Waters, laid and recreat ; - ofticer for the Prescott National Forest, and Emilio Lai: "... Tile lawmakers in Washington, despite a wealth of vppe.):tiatelet 0 01 forest •ranger: I saw What .1, 0,0.,•:114P evidence to the contrary, hurriedly passed the law because managffent can do. . re, many years ago, the two trout were considered rare: t'.-14-re7, hi Sycamore Creek south of CanivNerd4 • : Ilowever, long before anyone ever thought of such a law,, ote•the Prescott National Forest and the game departmt - ' tile Arizona Game and Fish Department began on its own IA' spent tit lot of money and effort to preserve a Speelea initiative a program to replenish and redistribute the two !alive trout plus introduce the "endangered" Gila Trout.- ' ebiall, co d fish. • r" -51Te—irtert-bucd. Gila species Triere- pl ied LIhem litaiting% 1962' in the Stirling Springs Fish Hatclie.' ry,In _yakot S c rnore_ Creek, an area of rock - — dtik Creek Canyon, the ..departn l , 111 roils le1411 gfound water Tow. ' • - *.#.40,.e0: ‘i'.S. *V* •.•_• , 414re fingerlings eachi.ilar.„ - ' f ...' • - ' -ltdaugals, a. live stream from DO* Virerpa . , 1 illecording to Al sliach, chief of fliaesieS- for the •4• • of Sycamore with Tank Canyon "Itifne • ritne.nt, the flab are (aim •thriving In ,BeciteLtIge Valleir, , 42atiee tiset,%.• whose exact ideatificat)0.1 v4: genet Canyon, Judgal. 4strass Treekaliettaed4 4017i1 „ Rho is imdeteithined.„ • . I• 44110 MI . and . rivers as Grant, Ash, North,:thtuider; 'Nita •Becaime tivaiii.native trout can interbreed with Gila' a 11:11P.,jfitieral; Sycamore and Gap...: WO as iainbow trout, the Forest Service plan .•: ;11111:921ting program was desigaerfcg atratolp purpose:. magement'utilized .two barriers one a ...4. natal yalnattre tit perpetuation of the fish and ' I and the other a, Waterfall heightened • i MI li a I V10114: Of In °511 11 the purity for the state's fisherman.' •••* ttah. ..:. pteet - .-..C ti)&11PC ct leiW days — as a ;emit' 4 direel ' r4;11 W, Aa'qgittne • department will 1)eigin posting ken aid ltraters showed m$ low cattle,ba4kw- fen( - Otte Of the-14Wtxntion to t uergraz trstrea strea. m containing these fish At a poster telling the fr 'tie these !tab are now unlawful to take. . Ode vegetation, pollution and :tramplingat the bed. .. i'e a damn , tin ctu-reoW' aaid-7"--- he:Youth Conservation Corplionstructed a w ft acTh:- - i 'that bars cattle at both ends of the upper portion Sgamore but swings to allow water-borne debris to p :untr without plling up and damaging the fence. I • Tlie entire arti, With its towering canopy of syeam, 138 watlut-ailtaqk POodercsa Pine and boxelder and its mis iintroduced genius such as orchard, wheatgrass o - and '411V-is ,asinviting oast' -
T. • e • XM f1t4?es itke gurgling stream and watclk34( ..movernentk ofabe many trout is reassuring etjaenm-,, - ntrif belongs to the local people, id to s't r‘tl'es tthd Washinirton bureaucrat.