_

Surveys for Loach Minnow. in Big Bonito and Tonto Creeks of the Fort-Apache Indian Reservation, 1993

Report to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Stuart C. Leon Fishery Resources Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service t •

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Staff of the Arizona Fishery Resources Office are grateful to the White Mountain Apache Tribe for the continued support of stream survey efforts. We are especially indebted to Mr. Keith Jones and Mr. John White, representatives of the Chairman's office, for their interest and assistance during surveys. The White Mountain Apache Game and Fish Department provided the assistance of Mr. Kelly Meyer, Tribal Fishery Biologist, and technicians Easton Roberts and Tim Gatewood. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service volunteers Bob Young and Larold Gloshay also provided valuable assistance under less than favorable conditions. Finally, special thanks are extended to Mr. Tom Ensman and our 1993 Youth Conservation Corps members Jeremiah Kessay, Gabriel DeClay, and Presley Beach -- their strong backs, endurance, and persistence ensured success during the surveys of Tonto Creek. O F

INTRODUCTION

Loach minnow, Rhinichthvs cobitis, are specialized bottom-dwelling inhabitants of cobble-bottomed riffle habitats in the drainage of Arizona and New Mexico (Rinne 1989, Propst and Bestgen 1991). Individual populations are separated by large distances and represent the upstream ends of the historic range. Populations continue to persist in and the Blue and White rivers in Arizona, and portions of the Gila and San Francisco drainages in New Mexico (USFWS 1990). As a result of the continued deterioration of its status, the loach minnow was 'listed as a threatened species on October 28, 1986 (USFWS 1986).

The species became the subject of considerable controversy on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona during August 1992. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that an Indian Health Service's proposed water diversion and water ti-7.atment facility on the North Fork White River would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the White River population (USFWS 1992). The jeopardy opinion was primarily based on potential habitat modifications (principally dewatering of riffles downstream of the proposed facility) that , would adversely impact resident loach minnow. Scientific support for the jeopardy opinion was further enhanced by the reasonable supposition that the White River population represents a distinct genetic component within the species -- the loss of which would be ethically intolerable and disastrous to recovery efforts.

Attempts to empirically address issues brought forth in the jeopardy opinion were hindered by the lack spf. knowledge concerning the loach minnow population in the White River, and the general absence or inadequacy of biological inventory information for other streams of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The status of the species would presumably improve if new populations of loach minnow were to be round on the Reservation. Improved species status would allow for increased consideration of potentially adverse actions involving individual populations.

The need for surveys of specific stream reaches on the Reservation that might harbour new populations of loach minnow was recognized. Previous surveys concentrated on a few stream segments that were easily accessible but did not necessarily have suitable habitat for the loach minnow (Propst et al. 1985). Many streams with potentially suitable habitat had never been surveyed. Consequently, surveys for loach minnow commenced during July 1993 in remote locations of the Big Bonito Creek drainage of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. This report summarizes the findings of these surveys. In the context of loach minnow distribution throughout the streams of the Reservation, results presented herein remain preliminary. Continued surveys are necessary to finally delineate the distribution of this species.

1 STUDY AREA

Big Bonito Creek lies in the White Mountain geographic subprovince in the east and southeast portions of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The stream receives runoff from the southern slopes of the Wilderness Area and traverses through spruce-alpine and Ponderosa pine forests before contributing its flow to the on the southern boundary of the Reservation. The lower portion of the drainage is characterized by deeply incised canyons bordered by broad basalt flow plateaus. Significant tributaries to Big Bonito Creek include Little Bonito and Tonto creeks. Much of the drainage lies above 2000 meters (m) elevation, the uppermost limit of loach minnow distiributions in New Mexico (Propst and Bestgen 1991).

For purposes of survey, five locations were selected in the lower reaches of Tonto Creek and two locations were selected in Big Bonito Creek (Table 1). All survey sites were at or below 2000 m elevation (Figure 1). Ease of accessibility was not a determining factor in site selection; considerable hiking and manual transport of equipment was necessary to reach and survey all stream segments. ,

In Tonto Creek, locations 1 and 2 were characterized by a narrow stream channel and floodplain confined by abrupt rises in elevation. Predominant habitats were pools and runs with rubble and boulder substrates; riffle habitats of any significance were rarely encountered. The stream channel widened in location 3 and riffle habitats were more common. Location 4 was centered at the confluence of Cienega and Tonto creeks. Pool, run, and riffle macrohabitat types were found throughout this stream segment. Location 5 on Tonto Creek encompassed a 1-km reach downstream of Fort Apache road Y47. Habitats encountered were analogous to those of location 4.

In Big Bonito Creek, location 1 included about 800 in of stream due east of KL Ranch. This stream segment traversed a relatively broad floodplain and contained riffle habitats of substantial areal expanse. Location 2 was located in the ID Ranch area several km upstream of the confluence with the Black River. Habitats in this stream reach were predominantly boulder-strewn pools and long, sand-bottomed runs; riffles were rare. No sites were located in the distance between locations 1 and 2 because the channel is bordered by steep or vertical canyon walls and contains few riffle habitats.

METHODS

All surveys were conducted using a Coffelt Mark 10 backpack electrofishing device. The frequency selector switch was set to CPS during each sampling event in an attempt to reduce the incidence of mortalities. Stunned fishes were collected using either a 3/8-inch mesh block seine or hand-held 3/8-inch mesh dipnets, or a combination of both. All riffle habitats within the predetermined survey areas were sampled intensively; pool habitats were sampled less frequently. Fishes taken were identified, measured to the

2 Table 1. Locations of sampling events in Tonto and Big Bonito creeks, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, July - October, 1993. Field Stream Location Length in Stream Designation Date Location (m) Location 0 Tonto Creek 1 13 July 100 N 33 39' 8.9" W 109° 48' 51.2" T4N, R24E, Sec.35 NW 1/4 0 2 14 July 200 N 33 39 7.3" W 109° 48' 51.2" T4N, R24E, Sec.35 NW 1/4 3 15 July • 200 N 33° 34' 7.9" W 109° 49' 25.8" T4N, R24E, Sec. 34 0 4 19-20 July 1000 N 33 39' 30.1" W 109° 46' 34.3" T4N, R25E, Sec. 20, 30 5 5 August 1000 N 33° 40' 49.7" W 109° 44' 21.3" T4N, R25E, Sec. 21 NE 1/4 and 22 NW 1/4

Bonito Creek 1 18-19 October 800 NO FIXED LOCATION T4N, R25E, Sec. 8 2 3 November 400 NO FIXED LOCATION T3N, R23E, Sec. 23 NE 1/4

„ ... /,:- •-, : „,' I _1_1._ . 44` 1.. LI I , . 1 „,. , ' — ••4:-.- ---- VT: .1- -..-*- ---•-7.-4- i',1:;' , .. ‘. ,,, A, , , • ).., 4 --'1 177 . I i' ,-: I •I'fi. ..• Z I t i '. I • • 7" l• • • a • ' . - I 1 ‘ I • • :" 1.41 1 , .I. ,:.., .., .4-,1,.;:4■ I, '1\' . !. ,.. (,' I I I • , / '• ■ , .....- - - ...,, .' , i : ■ .... ' 1 it .. ." .1 ....■ ) r. 1 P f 1' .' - I - . L r. ." ', .. _ ..... ,,,,.. J le •.- ; .- „i , y ...... ,. .r ...... /... I . • , ,,„...._,..____., . , ., , ,-.. ., ...... I l ': r / 1 1 -- 7 ---: 1 1 --. i.- --e -- 4. ..:- !,.. -; f• '.- . 11 ) J j.0-lr' :" ".. j.'-' I" I '° . ' - -'' ,. i ,( --'• !- . ' 5 ' — -!..? ,.,..., ''.2.1.._ . , --- •••. 4., . • 14...K --- I 1 . , •,. , __-. ', ! • : •-, . , .-„tif", I --/ r. -, R" , .,.' C .. , ::. - ... I, s . • / . / k.. e ' ,' . I, • :---• or. 1 I I . - , • , •", -4, . a.) 1 , F.t;.J.F.-- ....1-,' I -. - : 2.::'... : ,1- . - • ..r.- - - I , - 6 '4, .-.L. ...t , - ...,..-....,...,,.. .., _ . ),•,, '71./ ...! •.... • ' : - ' - L , 1,I. I - -1- - .„-,' r G ...... r.; 1 1> ,,1 , 1 .. , 1. i t'''' 1- '' ' 1-' - i - . 1.) .. 1 ,I I I ...... , I ''-•, •:. -I, 1 . -. '• . i . :'':/t .: ssi` ,'-''--;?- • ,C,. „ ,1'...' , .., , (:•Ri ... 1 i ) r , . ,...... ;7 ,-,.... . ;f• ;-:,\I 4,..y.:1.:?..: .... ''—'c - 1 . 1I 7 j r -'":"" : ','----• , ::-'t ,l_k , . .1 AJ-' ' 1 C\.)I 2 ".-- -7. -- - 4 lc ..,-,. 4 .,"',f: -=k-f ''i-' :0,7. } - -,. ) 5 -I . --7- 7 . ,4- •-..,,- _ ' I i r ---1-- J.1 • I ." • ; 54.."' ",, I :: ! . (F., r . ....,,.....4...r • ;". •:•--• \ ..../ , ' ••• . - - -4 -- :_•,.., 1 1 :,' , t , ■ f - '- r ---:- , (1,-.I. ..-,.. I ,,, i...nt, , 1 s I) -r _. --, •'• ----- \, • 1 I I k ■. .. 1 ' , S . . SJ S- — -- , - . - 1 1 . t-r• ,,_I--7---1--1--_ .: — ,t- , - .4;, :".. i •:- 1.;_?„ S' 1 I ' ' ,,.... ;j i ,,,A ...• 1 e II T ..C,.. _, ,,,,. 1 I I ,J . I. I / i - - 4- 1 1 1 1 , .1 7:77 44- 4:-.7,..._7-7-4 -• -pa -.2.-,7.' -P.- •- I I ' I \ -„,.. 1 - - , 1 1 -1-,. •' I • -,— _ . "... 1' 1 .. , 1 -) \ , ,...„...:;1- .....:. ,I.. ., - , .,....), , I s , . . L.., •••••• T" I 1 71 7 LI ...... „/ -:- -...1,, f '----• 7 I • ,InALpel A .,,•;..!.3`‘ - , : I • ' ' :r 1 -... 1 ,.., tL _ .., . ' I f :.:;.,.... •4 r• • --- . ,.- i 2.-<• ... '7 .' j• .- .1.: L.--1 I 1 i-:' -1.. .__ .• - 2 1 . __ „...,,.. __,,,,..,_ ,:..t---.-: _..s_____,:.- 4, ...t- •.- •.:-, • • • • i2 -,- 5 • .. .. I ' - I • :' -I : ii '.: ,' .,-/- , i -.... V 7 - ; "- • ' . t • \.,1 if••r:/• :1 . y ..),..- 1.•/ •• .• . ,.1...!", (.1" 1 — -,-..4...I -.1.'-‘,...... -- .., _ • i • ------i — Ig.‘t`r....y: ,,, .-%- - 4 • \ 2 rt --../ „. I . e- ' 1 • • , f - ■ ,: z.,.• .1 - '...-'---.1., :•-• I re. -, - — : < :1.12:i- .1 ... > I • i 1 .1 1 0 1.1t41 :•ny„. --!-•i l „

,

Figure 1. Sampling locations in Tonto and Big Bonito creeks, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, July - November, 1993. nearest millimeter (mm), weighed to the nearest gram (g), and returned to the stream. In some instances it was expedient to weigh and measure only a subsample of the total catch of a species.

Survey locations were usually defined as the segment of stream which could be effectively sampled during one day. Within survey locations, hauls were defined as completed sampling events within each macrohabitat (eg. riffle, run, pool) type. Multiple sampling efforts were usually required to complete each haul.

RESULTS

No loach minnow were taken during surveys of lower Tonto and Big Bonito creeks. Species collected included speckled dace (Rhinichthvs osculus), desert sucker (Catostomus clarki), Sonora sucker (C. insignia), rainbow trout (Oncorhvnchus mvkiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta). In Tonto Creek, a total of 1,569 fishes were taken in 30 hauls among five locations. Speckled dace ;.., ere most predominant, comprising 79.3% of all fishes taken. Other species occurring in Tonto Creek samples .and their relative abundances included desert sucker (12.7%), Sonora sucker (1.3%), rainbow trout (6.6%), and brown trout (0.2%). Of these species, Sonora sucker and the trouts were most likely under-represented in our samples because of purposeful bias towards riffle habitats. Total length characteristics for each species are presented in Table 2.

Riffles were diminutive in size in locations 1 and 2 in Tonto Creek. Riffles encountered in locations 3, 4, and 5 were relatively substantial in areal expanse but were considered only marginally suitable for loach minnow occupation.

In comparison to areas in Tonto Creek where similar effort was expended to capture fishes, the fish fauna of Big Bonito Creek was found to be relatively depauperate. Samnling yielded the same five species but only 33 specimens. No fishes were taken or observed in location 2 despite repeated sampling events in riffle and run habitats. In location 1, speckled dace were again predominant (86.8%). Desert sucker comprised 5.3% of all fishes taken, with Sonora sucker, rainbow trout, and brown trout each contributing one individual (2.6%) to the catch. As in Tonto Creek, the Sonora sucker and trouts were probably under-represented in our samples because of bias towards riffle habitats.

Riffle habitats in location 1 on Big Bonito Creek were comprised primarily of cobbles and gravels, but the constituent cobbles tended to be firmly embedded. As a result, the riffles were not considered suitable for loach minnow occupation. The longitudinal expanse of riffle habitats in location 2 was greatly reduced; habitats common in this stream reach were long, sand-bottomed runs and pools with rubble and boulder substrates.

3 Table 2. Total length statistics for fishes taken during surveys -- Bonito Creek drainage, 1993.

Species Stream Location N x TL (mm) Range (mm) speckled dace Tonto 1 64 60.95 45 - 82 2 207 62.95 42 - 92 ,. 3 171 61.16 45- 96 4 199 65.76 38 - 113 5 87 55.41 22- 80

Big Bonito 1 33 70.61 35 - 95

desert sucker Tonto 1 22 183.32 10 - 371 2 49 94.45 18 - 335 3 15 48.27 20 - 110 4 61 100.54 24 - 371 5 52 101.04 24 - 258

Big Bonito 1 2 59.00 48 - 70

Sonora sucker Tonto 1 •• • 2 5 337.80 117 - 450 3 4 3 430.00 406 - 459 5 12 287.42 89 - 454

Big Bonito 1 1* >300 rainbow trout Tonto 1 9 127.44 47 - 279 2 37 114.65 44 - 298 3 34 60.27 47 - 143 4 21 87.38 48 - 323 5 3 109.00 66 - 175

Big Bonito 1 1 91.00

brown trout Tonto 1 2 3 4 1 336.00 5 2 380.50 307 - 454

Big Bonito 1 1 312.00

* Specimen seen but not collected DISCUSSION

The decline of loach minnow has been attributed to disturbance and destruction of its preferred riffle habitat and the introduction of non-native species (Hinckley 1973, Propst et al. 1988). The lower portions of Big Bonito and Tonto creeks were selected for survey because the remoteness of these streams has prevented any measureable disturbance or destruction of riffle habitats. The natural flow regime has not been markedly altered within the drainage; Hurricane and Tonto lakes are situated on Big Bonito and Tonto creeks, respectively, but do not withhold or otherwise control runnoff. Non-native species have had, access to the drainage since at least 1941. Brown trout were introduced into t he Big Bonito system after Hurricane Lake was constructed in 1959. Tonto Lake was originally constructed in 1941, with modifications to the dam occurring in the early 1960's. Tonto Lake was historically stocked with rainbow and cutthroat trouts. Current management of Tonto Lake includes the use of rainbow trout and the threatened (0. apache).

The absence of loach minnow from lower Big Bonito and Tonto creeks is probably related to the qua;ity and quantity of riffle habitats. In Tonto Creek, riffle habitats were usually diminutive in size and few in number. Larger riffles occurred within attenuated segments of stream, usually where the drainage widened, and were separated by substantial distances from similar riffle areas elsewhere in the stream. In location 1 on Big Bonito Creek, riffles were found to be of greater size but the constituent gravels and cobbles tended to be embedded.

The native fish community within Tonto Creek is in relatively excellent condition. Although under-represented in samples, the non-native trouts do not appear to have caused significant, negative impacts to resident native fishes. Sonora sucker were more common in samples than brown trout. Rainbow trout less than 100 mm were most frequently taken during riffle hauls, with adults being rare. Interestingly, no apache trout were encountered during the surveys.

The paucity of fishes taken in samples of Big Bonito Creek can not be explained based on present data. While the long-term presence of brown trout is implicated, the gut of a single adult specimen taken in location 1 contained only trichopteran larvae and detritus.

4 LITERATURE CITED

Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, Arizona. 293 pp.

Propst, D.L., and K.R. Bestgen. 1991. Habitat and biology of the loach minnow, Tiarocla cobitis, in New Mexico. Copeia 1991(1): 29-38.

Propst, D.L., K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1988. Distribution, status, biology, and conservation of the loach minnow, Tiaroaa cobitis Girard, in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report No. 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 75 pp.

Propst, D.L., P.C. Marsh, and W.L. Minckley. 1985. Arizona survey for spikedace (Meda fulaida) and loach minnow (Tiaroaa cobitis): Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations and , 1985. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 8 pp.

Rinne, J.N. 1989. Physical habitat use by loach minnow, Tiaroaa cobitis (Pisces:Cyprinidae), in southwestern desert streams. Southwestern Naturalist 34(1): 109-117.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the loach minnow. Federal Register 51(208): 39468-39478. October 28, 1986.

. 1990. Loach minnow recovery plan. Prepared by P.C. Marsh for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 38 pp.

. 1992. Draft adverse biological opinion for the Indian Health Service's proposed water diversion and water treatment plant on the North Fork White River, White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation, Navajo County, Arizona. Prepared by Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Phoenix, Arizona. 57 pp.

5