Biological Assessment for Tie Proposed Miner Flat Dam Project

Home , Cherry Creek (Arizona), White River (Arizona)

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR TIE PROPOSED MINER FLAT DAM PROJECT

April 1988

Submitted to: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services - 3616 West Thomas, Suite 6 Phoenix, Arizona 85019

Submitted by: U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and White Mountain Apache Tribe Fort Apache Indian Reservation Whiteriver, Arizona 85941

1 .,1 k. MRIVALFIKT4.1E1.,11.;74wr.7.7. ;7 A

-TABLE. OF CONTENTS , -

Section Page ,. P,q1,11,1,,, a5TZ.j - - ;a1"."-"''' T .....„ •• I.';',,...... INTRODUCTION,....-x, , , . : ,4.1 t1.--4..t. 1 , .4 , .4 4 ,. f z* ... 4- ',- 4. 4 1 i..:#,... "4 C, ,5;.K $ G :4 ..,/ -% ri ' P;4 ,. ' I, .....1.1 .1 1. * * * * * * . • II. DESCRIPTION OF/ THE P4R.,,O,P,O,S4,E3?„1,P,R0,4,,EC . • • • • • 3 113 ;4 , • i)d: , .,, , :; - . :,6.: ,•:":1,,Vg , fay ,ylogryili • {i4 A ;!.°4Aa A. Miner :Fiat-'-'Dam -and,Reservoir:l...",. 3 1: : Maintenance of Recreation and Fishery Pool . • 13. , 3 LE„.,, .B .. Expansio ;o Canyonpay.F.Irr,.,igat ion. !1 roj ect E. • , 12 , , , C 13 :Water ;Resourpea,yiR.--.47.-.,,i., .e.,. qw.— .' -. • . . . . . 13 •41 . - 1 1. ' ' 'Salt ,` killer' 'S t aim flo .'.'W's u. ;,.-,:;:.. ' : • . • •• • 13 '2: North Fork White River); Clear: Miner * Flat Dam., • ... 15 - - . I,mpact , of, Jfiner .F,3,at tDam on .. Stra amf lows, • '0, "1.4, 1' . I 7 , ‘ . 4 Below Canyon.-pay. -Irrigation Diversion • • • • 22 4 .• , 4. -1dpice of , Miner. ' Flat Dam on Streamf lows . -..) v. . . • • 22 ils'a ....,t40.01:6;tatit k Ct". liJ. ,,' ali4.0.•i . 1-0.:A. % . 1••,.#.1 ,.. 4. ' .4,,,, 4. , .., ,• • ; 1 1 - ..0.50:11 - . R. :' 0 1 I'U•A ., '4 :" 0 C'' 11 .97 71 CL ..!:.-.1 it 7 -. r'. y r. ^V*# EXISTING'STATUS OF- ENDANGERED" AND,',i. ,' . .6 *- -THREATENED' , , „4.4., ,,..,, , SPECIES'''. , •.. ' .t '.' . : „..%.` . ', * • • 28 .,-.:.,,-.,-,.-.,,,,-..:.,....* -...---...,.,, ' - 1 } g.va -Ot‘r4I'I'' 4(Al-dqe(A4-4Šz .lo, iari. A. 7 Peregrine Falcon oi;,.:„,./-.L.r:A4.1:13.;) * * * * * . . . . 28 • -; . . • . • . .• 28 . . i -- i #.1' ., C,.:I Southern - S,potted Owl 1--.'3 1 (L :, ! ! ' • • Y''; • • 30 D:'," t Gdo ding i. ' - t 1 t . ' e,., On i'on:4,,,( il ki Um',, 'gOo dingli. ) • • •• • • • • 31

• • • 111 ,. • • • 32 . * * • • . 33

E. '1 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 43 -;N.'; k:11 A'. 'Peregrine,.• F,a1 C91141z3 • 51,±0-1.,, • 'h . . . • • 43 B. °I: Bald 'Eagle • ..4 • - • • • . - • • • • . . 43 .Southern-Spotted Owl • • • • • • 45 , • , ' #..#,;#,••„« • vooaing s Onion . • . . . 45

. . . 46

• • . . . 47 , ..,04, ' 1.•." Water Quality '''' ';'' • • • • • 411 II; •

, ,... , 2..., ; Water Temperature„ . • • • 49 • r r ' j . ; , Habitat Lo.ii-,; '...', • • • • . • • • . • • 50 4. 4. F.3.`ow Regimes. • , i'. . . • ...... • • • . 51 5 .' :. Water , Temperatures • „:.• 55 7 • 6.":Minimum'InstreaM...FloWs''. • • • • 56 iP

'-CUMULATIVE IMPACTS,':' ' ' • • 58 • A !., .4..1 !:1... ,: .,,,. I' '. ' '

LITERATURE CITED' 11 ;

E•

LIST OF TABLES

Tabl Page

1 SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT . . • •

2 IMPACT OF MINER FLAT DAM ON STREAMFLOWS BELOW DAM AND HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION TO OFFSET IRRIGATION PUMPING ...... 17

MINER FLAT STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS AND LACK OF EFFECT OF RESERVIOR FILLING ON PEAK FLOW MONTHS ....21

IMPACT OF MINER FLAT 'DAM ON STREAMFLOWS BELOW CANYON DAY DIVERISON ...'23

IMPACT OF MINER FLAT DAM ON STREAMFLOWS BELOW HIGHWAY 60 SALT. RIVER BRIDGE AND ABOVE ROOSEVELT LAKE ....25

LOCATION OF FISH SAMPLING STATIONS (FEBRUARY 18-20, 19881 ....36

7 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH SAMPLING STATIONS (FEBRUARY 18-20, 1988) ....37

8 NUMBERS OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE NORTH FORK WHITE RIVER (FEBRUARY 1988) . . . . O O O O • • 38

9 NUMBERS OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE EAST FORK WHITE RIVER (FEBRUARY 1988) ....39

10 NUMBERS OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE WHITE RIVER (FEBRUARY 1988) ....40 LIST OF FIGURES

Ficrize Page

1 LOCATION OF PROPOSED MINER FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR ......

iii I. INTRODUCTION

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 97-304) and rules pursuant 6 that act provide a means to conserve endangered and/or threatened species, and their habitats. All federally funded projects must be evaluated, as specified under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) as to how they might affect endangered and/or threatened species.

. As provided by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. , Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided, a list of endangered/ • I . threatened; candidate, and proposed species which might be 'affected by the

Miner Flat Dam and Canyon Day Irrigation Project (Table 1). Because there are listed species that could be affected by the proposed project, a

Biological Assessment must be prepared and submitted to the USFWS.

According to the Proposed Rules in Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 126, pp.

29990-29997:

The biological assessment shall determine which species' or critical habitat may be present in the action area and the potential effects of the action on such species or habitat. The biological assessment also shall include an analysis of cumulative effects.

This Biological Assessment describes the proposed project and addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures that could occur with construction and operation of the project.

' TABLE 1

SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT . THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT

Species Status Occurrence

Apache Trout Threatened Headwaters of the White River drainage and some lakes.

Bald Eagle Endangered Breeding populations along the Salt and Verde rivers. Winters statewide.

Peregrine Falcon Endangered Winters statewide, but not 'known to breed in the project area.

) Loach Minnow Threatened, e River and tiPF k, White River.

Gooding's Onion Candidate for . Montane conifer forests near Threatened Mount Baldy. Status

Southern Spotted Owl. Candidate for Distribution on the Rdierva- Threatened tion not known. Status

Source: Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona, December 6; 1985. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

. Miner Flat Dam and Reservoir

'A concrete gravity dam at the Miner Flat site would be constructed

on the basalt foundation below the existing topography of the narrow

valley floor. Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the proposed dam

and reservoir. The depth of talus and alluvium overlying the basalt is • limited, and excavation into the top of the basalt to a depth of 10 feet has been determined suitable. At the upstream face of the dam, the

foundation would be excavated to an elevation of 5,907 feet. Moving from

the upstream face of the dam to the downstream toe, excavation of the foundation would be conducted in a stair-step fashion to a base elevation of 5,895 feet. At that elevation, excavation of the basalt would be continned downstream for an additional 100 feet to provide a,basin for stilling of discharges over the crest of the dam.

'The abutments of the damsite would be excavated to a depth of 10 to 15 feet to remove weathered materials. The walls*pf the damsite would be excavated to conform with the backslopes required for the stilling basin and hydropower facilities. From the base of the dam, mass concrete in lifts of 5 feet or less would be constructed to an elevation of 6,062

feet, the crest of the dam.

The dam would require 114,500 cubic yards of mass concrete. It

has been estimated that 75 percent of the concrete would consist of

aggregate materials. obtained from the valley floor of the proposed p reservoir area. There are an estimated 400,000 cubic yards of aggregate

material within 1 mile of the damsite, and an estimated 50 percent could

reasonably be 'recovered. Consequently, the estimated 86,000 cubic yards • •>‘-- .. "t J s "- K 1 1(,

/6‘)IN •

-,-.-.-. - 0 PZI 1 Z Cf1Cf) 0 I- : H >i 7 T 1

1 4 :0 1 l

H 4 :2: tri 2. 7C/ 0 0 H Z 0 0 > 4 6

11)t 1 )

I .

\? •

3 11 - 1

It 0)

•

A - 1111 -- 11

I, 4

1 !:tti • (

0 0 •

5 110 of aggregate requirements for mass concrete are readily available.

.Testing of the aggregate materials has shown that they are suitable for

use in the concrete mix;

The top of the dam would conform to the underside of the flow of

water during design flood. An ogee shape would support the discharge of

water across the top and down the face of- the dam without the development

of negative pressures that would cause deterioration of the face of the

dam. For discharges less than the design flood, pressures on the face of

the dam'would be positive. The dam crest of 260 feet in length would be

used for the discharge of all spills from the reservoir, ranging from

average annual floods to the flood produced by the maximum probable precipitation.

'Preliminary design provides for 20 feet of over-topping of the dam. With that 20 feet, spillway capacity across the crest Of the dam would total 115,000 cubic feet per.second (cfs). The maximum flood of record at the gaging station on the North Fork White River near McNary was

1,290 cfs in 1946. The highest discharge of record on the White River near Fort Apache was 14,600 cfs in December 1978. The preliminary spillway capacity at the Proposed Miner Flat Dam exceeds records of historic floods by an order of magnitude.

' The outlet works of the proposed Miner Flat Dam would consist of

an intake structure on the upstream face of the dam and a 10 foot diameter

conduit through the concrete gravity dam. The outlet works would be

constructed in the first phases of construction so that the facility could

be utilized to temporarily, divert streamf low around the construction area. 6

• Temporary diversion would be accomplished by the construction of , 1 coffer dams upstream and downstream from the construction area. The

upstream coffer dam would divert the streamflois of the North Fork White

River into a temporary extension of the outlet works. The extension would

interconnect with the permanent outlet conduit at the intake chamber on

the upstream face of the dam. The permanent outlet conduit would then

convey water through the construction area of the dam and discharge into

an artificially constructed channel for conveyance of the flows back to

the natUral channel of the North Fork White.River. The downtream coffer dam would prevent backwater from the North Fork White River from entering the construction site and would prevent transport of concrete residues • , into the river.

The 10 feet of diameter in 'the temporary diversion works and permanent outlet works was determined necessary for the conveyance of

2,000 cfs during construction. The temporary diversion works was designed for a difference in the upstream and downstream water surface elevations of 8 feet..

The capacity of the temporary diversion works (2,000 cfs) is considered adequate in preliminary design because, as previously stated, the maximum discharge of record at the gaging station on the North Fork

White River near McNary (66 square miles). was 1,290 cfs in 1978: Design capacity for the temporary diversion works does not necessarily require a capacity in excess of the 5 to 10 year frequency flood. The design capacity should be sufficient to accommodate the excavation of the foundation and construction of the base of the dam to sufficient height 7

to prevent accumulation of sediment or debris within the construction , area.

In final'design, consideration would be given to both higher and

lower temporary diversion-capacities. Preliminary investigations have

- shown. that diversion capacity can be increased to 4,200 cfs with 12 feet

of diameter and the raising of the upstream water level by 5 feet.

An intake system for the permanent outlet works would be

constructed on the upstream face of the dam. The intake facility would

have 5 sides facing the reservoir and be equipped with slide gates at 3 -f levels. The slide gates would provide for the discharge of water from

selected elevations in the reservoir for control of the temperature

downstream releases. A gate control tower would be constructed at an

elevation of 6,082 feet or 20 feet above the crest of the dam. A platform

would be constructed from the tower to the left or east abutment for the

purpose of providing access to the gate control tower for heavy equipment,

including cranes.

Upon construction of the gravity dam to sufficient height to

impound water above the crest of the upstream coffer dam, use of the

temporary diversion works would be discontinued, the coffer cam would be

removed, and that portion of the temporary diversion works upstream from

the dam would be removed.

The permanent outlet works with 10 feet of diameter would be

extended from the downstream face of the dam to interconnect with

hydropower generating facilities on the left or east side of the natural

'channel of the North Fork White River. Energy lass computations disclose

that a discharge of 500 cfs through the outlet works would result in a 8

head loss of 0.49 feet. Since the total head available for hydropower

production is 152 feet at full pool, energy losses in the outlet works are

negligihle.

The outlet conduit would serve as a facility for temporary

diversion during construction, as a permanent outlet works after

'construction, and as a penstock for hydropower production after

construction. Between the downstream face of the dam and the location of

the hydroelectric generating station, a branch in the outlet pipes would .

be made and valves would be installed on those branches. One valve would

be used to control the quantity of water received by the hydroelectric

generating station and another valve would control a branch of the outlet

works discharging directly to the stilling basin at, the toe of the dam.

In this manner, all reservoir releases exceeding the capacity of the

hydropower facilities would be directed around the hydroelectric

generating station into the natural channel of the North Fork White River.

If ongoing planning With the USFWS at the Alchesay National Fish HatcherY

results in implementation of a pipeline from the proposed dam to the

hatchery, a third branch of the outlet works would be constructed and

provided with controls for discharge of water into that pipeline.

Hydropower facilities at the proposed Miner Flat damsite are 'a

major e ent of the Canyon Day Irrigation Project.

dropower production at the d site would exceed head requirements for

pumping of 340 feet for the 3,0 0 acres of the Canyon Day irrigation

project:

The innual ropower production of the Miner Flat Dam would be

5,200 Megawatt hours (MWH) with a design discharge of 200 cfs. More detailed investigations of hydropower potential at the Miner Flat damsite

disclose that a design capacity of 415 cfs (25,000 acre-feet. per month)

would increase annual electrical energy from 5,220 MWH to 6,093 MWH. At

$0.04 per kilowatt hour, annual electrical energy value would increase

from $208,800 to $243,700 per year. The annual electrical value would

increase approximately 17 percent. Total construction costs would

increase from an estimated $1,172,000 to $1,740,000, an increase of 48

percent., Annual cost of the 2 facilities would range from $131,900 to

$196,000 per year. The net value of the increased production of

electrical energy with the larger capacity hydroelectric facilities (3.6

megawatts) appears less than the net value of the lower capacity

facilities (1.8 megawatts). However, other factors such'as the capability

to produce more energy with the larger facilities may override this

r' preliminary analysis.

The proposed Miner Flat Dam is situated immediately to the east

of existing 14.4 and 69 kilovolt transmission lines that parallel Arizona

Highway 73 between PinetoP and Whiteriver. These existing transmission

lines are less than 5,000 feet to the west of the damsite; consequently,

minor construction would be necessary. to interconnect the proposed

hydropower facilities with the transmission system of the local electrical

cooperative. Minor amounts of hydroelectrical generation would be used

at the damsite for operation of the outlet controls and lighting.

Access to the construction site is currently available from the

right or west abutment along roads constructed for drilling and geologic

investigations. Existing access roads cross the North Fork White River

approximately three-quarter mile above the damsite and provide access to 10 the left or east abutment. Dul'ing construction, additional access roads to the east abutment may be required.

Upon 'filling of 'the reservoir, access to the gate control structure would be provided by an interconnecting roadway between Lower

Log Road and the left or east abutment of the dam. Access to the . hydropower facilities would also be from the left abutment.- A bridge across the crest of the dam is being considered in the planning stages.

The cost of a bridge across the crest would exceed the cost of an interconnection with the Lower Log Road, but'may be more desirable.

Access to the reservoir area can be gained by existing roadways.

The lowest level in the reservoir behind. the proposed Miner Flat

Dam would be approximately 5,910 feet. The normal water surface elevation in the reservoir at full pool would be at an elevation of 6,062 feet.

Total storage in the reservoir was determined from a contour Map at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet with contour intervals of 10 feet and intermediate contours of 5 feet. The topographic map was developed from aerial photography (flown in November 1980) and ground control developed by the White Mountain Apache Tribe specifically for the implementation of this project.

The storage capacity determined from the previously described mapping would be 8,900 acre-feet. Below an elevation of 6,000 feet in the proposed reservoir, the storage capacity would be 2,500 acre-feet.

Elevation of 6,000 feet is proposed as the minimum level in the reservoir in order to provide capacity for the collection of sediment and to maintain a minimum pool for recreation, fish, and wildlife. The reservoir, however, would be capable of being drained completely. The reservoir hehindAiiner Flat Dam (FigUre, 1) would begin at river mile 35.4 and'extend to river mile 37.8. The reservoir would be approximately 2.4 miles long with a maximum width of 1,200 to 1;400 feet.

When the reservoir level is drawn down to an elevation of 6,000 feet, the upstream end of the reservoir would. .terminate at river mile 36.8 or approximately 1 mile downstream from the upper end of the reservoir when ..,4/1 full. Accordingly, the width of the reservoir in the widest area near the . p dam would diminish by approximately 200 feet. The surface area of the reservoir at full pool (elevation of 6,062 feet) would be 185 acres. The reservoir area at minimum pool (elevation of 6,000 feet) would be 62 acres.

1. Maintenance of Recreation and Fishery Pool

, Based on data for the period 1958 through 1979, simulated operation studies disclosed that the reservoir behind the proposed Miner

Flat Dam would be maintained at full pool during 76 percent of the time.

The reservoir would be drawn down by 20 feet or less 91 percent of the time. Consequently, fluctuating water levels would not significantly diminish reereation and fishery values during most months of most years.

In 11 of 32 years of the operation study, a full reservoir was maintained through 10 or more months of the year.

In extremely dry years, such as 1959 and 1961, the reservoir level. would be lowered the full 62 feet from the elevation of 6,062 feet to an elevation of 6,000 feet.- In 1959, a shortage of less than 10 percent of the annual diversion requirement for the Canyon Day Irrigation Project would have been experienced. In 1961, full draw-down of the Miner Flat reservoir to the 6,000 feet level would have been required, and an 12

irrigation shortage of about 20 percent of the annual diversion

requirement for 3,000 acres would have been experienced. The driest year

recorded orn the Salt. River near Roosevelt during the period 1941 through

1980 was 1961.

In most years: minimum instream releases of 20 to 30 cfs from the

Miner Flat Dam during the non-irrigation season would not affect the

filling of the reservoir prior to the start of the irrigation season.

However, in extremely dry years such as 1961, a minimum release of more

than 10 cfs would limit the capacity to fill the reservoir prior to the

start of the irrigation season.

• Expansion of Canyon Day Irrigation Project

Currently, the Canyon Day Irrigation Project consists of 885 acres

irrigated land with an annual irrigation water use of approximately •

00 acre-feet. The proposed project would increase irrigated land to

3,000 acres and annual water use to 15,750 acre-feet. During the

irrigation season, also the period of lowest natural streamflow, releases

into the natural channel of the North Fork White River would augment

natural streamflow in the 19 miles between Miner Flat Dam and the point

of diversion near the Canyon Day community.

Releases of water from the proposed Miner Flat Dam for diversion

by the Canyon Day Irrigation Project would be conveyed in the natural

channel of the North Fork White River and the White River for a distance

of about 19 miles. Sufficient (42 cfs) water would be released from

storage behind the Miner Flat Dam to provide for the water requirements of . di the 3,000 acre irrigation project during the Summer months. During the

dry years, atreamflows of the North Fork White River and the White River in the 19 miles of natural channel would be enhanced by the addition of 50: 1 or more cfs. In this manner, 'the instream fishery between the dam and , . diversion points for the Canyon Day Irrigation Project would be enhanced.

: Another element in the planning of the Canyon Day irrigation

project is the capability to adjust annual cropping patterns based upon

forecasts of runoff. During the irrigation season, the months of May,

June, and July are typically the driest. The streaMflows during these

months are highly dependent upon the water content of the winter snowpack.- t.4 In years when the snoWpack is light, low streamflaws can be expected

between May and July.

Projected farming operations of the Canyon Day Irrigation Project

have been based upon reestablishment of the alfalfa crop on a rotation of

3 to 5 years. Therefore, in any year of operation, 600 to 1,000 acres of

alfalfa would be reestablished. In years with limited snowpack, grain

crops could be planted and the reestablishment of alfalfa could be

delayed. The diversion requirements of grain are'40 to 50 percent lower

than those of alfalfa and a significant reduction in the diversion

requirements for irrigation could be attained. In this manner, further

enhancement of downstream flows could be achieved during dry years, if

necessary to maintain the ecological integrity of aquatic and riparian

ecosystems.

C. Water ResoUrces

1. ,Salt River Streamflows

To determine the influence of the operation of the Miner Flat Dam

on streamflows, computer simulation models were utilized. These studies 14

resulted in month-by-month determinations in streamf lows that would occur

with operation of the Miner Flat Dam.

Demands for water from the expanded Canyon Day Irrigation Project

were computed monthly during the irrigation season. Water requirements

were derived from consumptive use by alfalfa corresponding to climatic'

data at Whiteriver. Using an irrigation efficiency rate of 62 percent, it

was determined that 29 percent of the diversion requirement would return

to the surface flow of the White River through infiltration into the soil

and subsurface flow. Return flows would contribute to the Salt River for use at downstream locations.

It was determined that the expansion of 2,115 irrigated acres to the 3,000-acre level of development would consume an additional 8,460 acre-feet of water per year. During the period of simulated operation

(1958 through 1980), the streamflows of the Salt River above Roosevelt Dam averaged 668,840 acre-feet per year. Similarly, the streamflows of the

, Verde River above Tingle Creek averaged 463,060 acre-feet per year. The combined Salt River and Verde River streamflows of 1,131,900 acre-feet per • i year were regulated'in the reservoirs of the Salt River Project for the benefit of the Salt River Valley Water User's Association, the principal . downstream user. Increased depletion by the expanded Canyon Day .

Irrigation Project would reduce annual combined streamf lows of the Salt and Verde rivers above the reservoirs by less than 3/4 of 1.0 percent'.

The impact of the upstream depletion on the water available for use below

Granite Reef Dam, however, is virtually zero. Natural streamflow losies between the Canyon Day Irrigation Project and Roosevelt Lake, differences

in reservoir evaporation at Roosevelt Lake with and without Miner Flat .4‘14.1 15

Dam; and:unused spills at Roosevelt Dam, cOmpletely offset the upstream depletion.

Any portion of the 3/4 of 1.0 percent depletion found to be measurable at Roosevelt Lake 'would be reflected in the reservoir level of

Roosevelt Lake._ A decline in reservoir level due to upstream depletion would be overcome during periods of spill. , Rather than the historic level of uncontrolled discharges into the Salt River Valley and subsequent discharge into the Gulf of California, the quantity of water equivalent to an accumulated upstream depletion would be recovered in Roosevelt Lake during periods of spill and the quantity of the spill would be reduced.

Simulation studies disclose that by maintaining reservoir releases from

Roosevelt Dam for use below Granite Reef Dam at historic levels, depletions of Canyon Day would lower the level of, Roosevelt Lake by an average of 4.38 feet and reduce the hydropower potential of the Salt River system by (exclusive Of the Verde River) by 0.36 percent.

There are 4 locations on the White and Salt rivers that were investigated to determine the impacts. of Miner Flat Dam on streamflows.

The 4 locations were: North Fork White River near the proposed Miner Flat

Dam, White River below the irrigation diversion to Canyon Day, Salt River at the crossing of U.S. Highway 60, and Salt RiVer above Roosevelt Lake.

Simulation studies have resulted in month-by-month determinations of changes in streamf low that would occur with operation of Miner Flat Dam.

2. North Fork White River near Miner Flat Dam

The streamf lows of the North Fork White River near.Miner Flat Dam averaged 62,021-acre-feet per year during the period 1958 thro,igh 1984.

Streamflows at Miner Flat Dam were predicted by a multiple linear 16

regression equation using the itreamflows of the North Fork White River

near McNary, East Fork White Rivet near Fort Apache, and White River near 1111 Fort Apache as independent variables. Daily streamflows were collected by the White Mountain Apache .

Tribe on the North Fork White River at Lower Log Bridge during the period

of March 1983 through August 1984. The stream gaging station is at the

upper end of the reservoir created by Miner Flat Dam. Monthly streamf lows

of the North Fork White River at Lower Log Bridge are highly correlated

with the Monthly streamf lows of the White River near Fort Apache.

Simulated impacts on,streamflow during dry, near average, and

,above average years are summarized in Table 2 In the dry year (1959) the

reservoir was filled in October, the start of the water year. The

reservoir remained full through Match. The only difference in streamf low

during the non-irrigation season was due to replacement of evaporation

losses, ranging from 14 acre-feet in November to 85 acre-feet in March.

With the beginning of the irrigation season in April, it was

0111 necessary to begin releases from the reservoir due to the inadequacy of

streamf lows at the diversion point to the Canyon Day' Irrigation Project to

meet the combined irrigation and minimum downstream demands. By June of . e 1959, it was necessary to release 3,115 acre-feet in addition to the

natural flow at the dam, estimated at 865 acre-feet. The release of 3,115

acre-feet in addition to natural flow reduced reservoir contents in Miner

Flat Dam to minimum levels (2,580 acre-feet less evaporation or 2,558 • 1 acre-feet).

Later in the irrigation season of 1959, streamflowt were greater 4 than demands for irrigation, and it was possible to begin replacement

N TABLE 2

IMPiCT OF MINER FLAT DAM ON STREAMFLOWS BELOW DAM AND HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION TO OFFSET IRRIGATION PUMPING

Storage Natural Regulated Change Contents in Flow Flow. in Flow Hydropower Pumping Reservoir at Dam at Dam at Dam Production Demand Month (AF) (Al) (AF) (Al) (KWH) (KWH)

Dry Year 1959

October 8,586 3,986 3,964 -22 519,107 November 8,579 2,075 2,061 -14 269,831 December 8,539 1,769 1,748 -21 228,460 January 8,529 1,590 1,529 -61 119,782 February 8,515 1,586 1,515 -71 197,782 March 1 8,501 2,055 1,970 -85 257,033 April 7,827 2,448 3,048 600 385,932 1,891,444 May 5,695 1,372 3,457 .2,085 394,6301,465,409 .June 2,558 865 3,980 3,115 324,546 1,356,916 July 2,564 1,463 1,441 -22 117,673 657,511 August 7,883 5,946 600 -5,346 . 76,151 1,125,509 September 7,866 1,825 600 -1,225 76,092 1,052,227

Annual 26,980 25,913 -1,067 2,967,119 7,551,016

Near Average Year - 1960

October 8,586. 1,936 1,202 -734 157,373 0 November 8,579 4,706 4,692 -14 614,255 0 • December 8,639 3,986 3,966 -20 518,266 0 January 8,529 5,071 5,011 -60 654,539 0 February 8,515 .3,704 3,633 -71 474,309 0 Marchi 8,501 16,556 16,471 -85 1,565,661 0 - Aprili 8,518 13,460 13,362 98 1,566,856 1,180,236 May 8,524 8,870 8,789 -81 1,147,843 1,334,550 June 8,534 3,597 3,521 -76 460,008 1,610,736 July 6,718 1,181 2,960 1,779 355,865 1,123,091 August 6,717 .1,574 , 600 -974 72,131 • 770,335 September 4,828 1L085 2,962 1,877 314.819 1,061,146

Annual 65,726 67,169 1,443 7,901,925 7,080,094

Table 2 (Continued)

Storage Natural Regulated Change Contents in Flow Flow in Flow Hydropower Pumping Reservoir at Darnh at.Dam at Dam Production Demand Month (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (KWH) (KWH)

Above Average Year - 1965

October 8,586 2,353 2,331 -22 305,208. 0 November 8,579 1,602 1,588 -14 207,918 0 December 8,539 1,729 1,708 -21 223,266 0 January 8,529 6,836 6,775 -61 885,032 0 February 8,515 4,710 4,639 -71 605,568 0 March 8,501 7,527 7,442 -85 971,001 0 April 8,518 23,729 23,630 -99 1,566,856 1,129,695 May 8,524 15,916 15,835 -81 1,567,216 1,216,015 June 8,534 7,197 7,121 -76 • 930,447 1,083,641 July 8,551 5,123 5,057 -66 661,263 717,456 August 8,571 4,900 4,852 -48 634,963 1,030,369 September 8,577 2.226 2,035 -191 266,382 855,925

Annual .83,848 83,013 -835 8,82'5,120 6,033,101 19

storage in Miner Flat Dam. The August streamflow of 5,946 acre-feet was

used to provide a minimum flow below the dam of 600 acre-feet while

returning reservoir storage to near capacity (7,883 acre-feet).

In June 1959, streamflowsbelow the dam were increased by 3,115

acre-feet and August streamflows were reduced by 5,346 acre-feet. The

. naturally low streamflows of June (865 acre-feet) were augmented, and the

relatively high streamflows during thunderstorms in August (5,946 acre-

feet) were reduced to minimum flows.

A. similar review of the near average water year (1960) discloses

that July and September streamflows were increased,by 1,779 and 1,877

acre-feet, respectively. Streamf lows were reduced to minimum (600 acre-

feet) in August.

In the above average year, reservoir contents in Miner Flat Dam

were at maximum operating levels (6,062) throughout the year The

difference in streamflows under natural conditions and regulated

conditions was due to replacement of evaporation losses from the reservoir

surface at Miner Flat Dam.

'Table 2 also provides monthly hydropower production at Miner Flat

Dam for comparison with pumping requirements to lift water for irrigation

within the Canyon Day Irrigation Project. The electrical requirements for

pumping include both' the existing and proposed irrigation totalling 3,000

acres. In a dry year, such as 1959, hydropower production (2,967,119 kwh)

Would have been inadequate to meet pumping demands (7,551,016 kwh).

average and above average streamf low years, such as 1960 and 1965,

hydropower production is significantly greater than pumping demands. 20.

Throughout the period of operation (1958 through 1984), the average

,hYdropower production exceeds the average pumping demands.

The impact of Miner Fiat Dim upon annual flooding characteristics

of the North Fork White River is expected to be minimal. Table 3

summarizes the period of record from 1959 through 1984. The minimum

reservoir contents, minimum reservoir elevation and maximum drawdown are

:I summarized in the table. In addition, the month in which the reservoir

would fill is compared with the Month of peak streamflow. In all cases

the reservoir would have filled before the month of peak streamflow.-

Therefore, flood peaks are passed through Miner Flat Dam with minimal

reduction. In 1961, the reservoir had filled 2 months prior to the month

of peak streamf low. In 1984, the month of peak streamf low was January, but

the reservoir created by Miner Flat Dam had filled 52 months earlier in

September 1979.

• The impacts of Miner Flat Dam and reservoir on the streamf lows Of

the North Fork White River and White River as previously described

diminish as distance downstream from the dam increases. The streamflows

of the North Fork White River near Miner Flat Dam account for

approximately 42 percent of the streamf lows of the White River at the -

diversion. point to the Canyon Day irrigation Project. The remaining 58

percent of the streamf lows are principally contributed by Diamond Creek

(approximately 5.8 miles downstream from Miner Flat Dam) and the East Fork

White River (approximately 18.6 miles downstream from Miner Flat Dam).

While Diamond Creek is ungaged, it is known that the East Fork White River

above the gaging station contributes an additional 25 percent of the

average annual streamf lows at the diversion point to Canyon Day. 21

. ! TABLE 3

MINER FLAT STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS AND LACK OF EFFECT OF RESERVOIR FILLING ON 'PEAK FLOW MONTHS 1.11

Months Minimum. Minimum <. End of of Full ; Reservoir Reservoir Maximum Month of End of Reservoir Water ' Contents Elevation DraWdown Reservoir Month of Prior to Year (AF) (AF,MSL) ; (FT) Filling Peak Flow Peak Flow

1959 2,558 6,000 ; 62 10/31/58 4/30/59 6 1960 4,828 6,030 32 10/31/59 3/30/60 5 1961 3,425 6,012 50 2/28/61 4/30/61 .2 1962 6,546 6,046 16 12/31/61 4/30/62 4 1963 2,932 6,005 57 9/30/62 4/30/63 7 1964 6,620 6,046 16 9/30/63 4/30/64 7 1965 . 8,501 6,059 0 9/30/63 4/30/65 19 1966 8,501 6,059 0 9/30/63 3/30/66 30 1967 5,895 6;048 14 9/30/63 4/30/67 43 1968 8,501 6,059 0 ' 7/31/67 4/30/68 9 1969 8,501 6,059 0 7/31/67 4/30/69 21 1970 7,819 6,055 7 7/31/67 5/31/70 34 1971 4,757 6,029 33 7/31/70 4/30/71 9 1972.. 8,501 6,059 0 7/31/71 3/31/72 8 1973 8,501 6,059 0 9/30/72 5/31/73 8 1974 3,450 6,013 , 49 9/30/73 4/30/74 7 1975 6,096 6,042 20 12/31/74 4/30/75 4 1976 8,501 6,059 0 12/31/74 5/31/76 17 1977 7,483 6,052 10 12/31/74 4/30/77 28 1978 7,844 6,055 7 7/31/77 3/31/78 8 1979 7,862 6,055 7 8/31/78 4/30/79 8 1980 . 8,501 6,059 0 9/30/79 4/30/80 7 1981 8,501 6,059 0 9/30/79 4/30/81 19 1982 8,499 6,059 0 9/30/79 4/30/82 31 1983 8,501 6,059 0 9/30/79 5/31/83 44 1984 . 7,864 6,055 7 9/30/79 1/31/84 52 22

3. Impact of Miner Flat Dam on Streamflows Below Canyon Day Irrigation Diversion

Table 4 summarizes irrigation demands, return flows and changes in streamf low below thediversion to the Canyon Day Irrigation Project. The same dry, near average, and above average . years used in the previous section are presented for comparison. In the dry year (1459), streamflows were reduced to minimums (600 acre-feet) in April and August. In April, it was possible to maintain minimum streamflows and satisfy irrigation demands (4,344 acre-feet) primarily from the direct flow of the White

River at the diversion point. This resulted in the reduction of natural streamflOws of the river by 3,987 acre-feet. Only minimal releases from , Miner Flat Dam were necessary in April.

In August 1959; natural streamf lows, stemming from thunderstorms, increased from a lo4 leVel in June (606 acre-feet) to 13,390,acre-feet.

Because the natural streamf lows were adequate to meet irrigation demands and minimum streamf lows, streamf lows were stored at Miner Flat Dam. This resulted in the reduction of natural streamf lows at the diversion by 7,174 acre-feet.

In June 1959, natural streamflows were 606 acre-feet. A minimum release at the diversion point (600 acre feet) combined with return flows from April and May resulted in a downstream flow increase of 934 acre- feet. Similar analyses can be made for the near average and above average iears. presented'in Table 4.

4. Impact of Miner Flat Dam on Streamflows of the Salt River

Table 5 presents the impact of Miner Flat Dam on streamf lows below

U.S. Highway 60 crossing of the Salt River and the Salt River above 23 PI

IMPACT OF MINER FLAT DAM ON STREAMFLOWS BELOW CANYON DAY DIVERSION 111

Return Historic Modified Change in Irrigation Flow Below Flow near Flow near Flow at Demand Diversion ' Diversion Diversion Diversion Month (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF)

DrV Year - 1959

October 0 619 8,460 9,056 596 November 0 309 3,650 3,946 296 110 December 0 152 2,880 3,012 132 January 0 71 ' 2,430 2,440 10 February 0 31 2,420 2,380' -40 March 0 12 3,600 3,527 -73 April 4,344 3 4,590 603 -3,987 May 3,365 737 1,880 . 1,337 • -543 June 3,121 939 606 1,540 934 July . 1,510 999 2,110 1,578 -532 August , 2,585 756 13,390 6,216 -7,174 September 2,416 817 3,020 600 -2,420

Annual . 17,341 5,445 49,036 36,235 -12,801 11

Near Average Year - 1960

October 0. 818 • 3,300 3,384 84 November 0 409 10,270 10,665 395 December 0 199 8,460 8,638 178 Januari, 0 . 66 - 11,190. 11,195 5 February 0 . 119 7,750 7,559 -191 March . ' 0 62 40,090 39,943 -147 April 2,710 34 32,300 29,456 -2,844 May 3,065 439 20,750 18,043 -2,707 June 3,699 740 7,480 '4,444 . -3,036 July 2,579 998 1,400 1,598 198 August 1,769 937 2,390 600 -1,790 September. 2,437 769 1,160 1,370 210

Annual 16,259 5,590 146,540 136,895 -9,645

0. 24

Table 4 (Continued)

Return • Historic Modified .Change in Irrigation Flow Below Flow near Flow near Flow at Demand. Diversion Diversion Diversion Diversion Month'- (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF)

Above Average Yeir - 1965

October 0 595 4,350 4,922 572 November 0 . 297 2,460 2,744 •284 December 0 144 2,780 2,903 123 January 0 68 15,630 15,637 7 February 0 • 30 10,280 10,238 -42 March 0 12 17,370 17,297 -73

April 2,594 4 • 58,140 55,451 -2,689 May 2,793 440 38,480 36,046 -2,434

June 2,489 694 • 16,540 14,669 -1,871 July 1,648 769 11,320 10,376 -944 August 2,366 664 10,760 9,009 -1,751 September 1,966 734 4,030 2,607 -1 423

Annual 13,856 4,451 192,140 181,899 -10,241 25 "

TABLE 5 IMPACT OF MINER FLAT DAM ON STREAMFLOWS BELOW HIGHWAY 60 SALT RIVER BRIDGE AND ABOVE ROOSEVELT LAKE N

Salt River Bridge Above Roosevelt Lake Historic Modified Flow Historic Modified Flow • Flow Flow Change Flow Flow Change Month (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF)

Dry Year - 1959

October '33,100, 33,696 596 41,220 41,816 596 November 12,600 12,896 296 13-,820 14,116 296 December 11,220 11,352 132 12,670 12,802 132 January 9,490 9,500 10 11,130 11,140 10 February 9,350 9,310 -40 11;300 11,260 -40 March, 12,000 11,927 -73 • 14,160 14,087 -73 April: 12,950 8,963 -3,987 14,310 10,323 -3,987 May 6,500 5,957 -543, 7,810 7.,267 -543 June ' 4,390 5,324 934 4,680 5,614 934 July 9,010 8,478 -532. 14,040 13,508 -532 August 56,090 48,916 -7,174 81,830 74,656 -7,174 September 12,450 • 9,626 -2,824 14,070 11,246 -2,824 , Annual 189,150 175,945 -13,205 241,040 , 227,835 -13,205

Near Average Year - 1960

October 15,490 15,574 84 33,940 34,024 84 November 44,850 45,245 395 74,890 75,285 395 December 77,040 77,218 178 164,500 164,678 178 January 104,000 104,005 5 161,100 .161,105 5 February 42,320 42,129 -191 ' 57,980 57,789 -191 March , 144,800 144,653 -147 180,600 180,453 -147 April 83,860 81,016 -2,844 97,810 94,966 -2,844 May 39,170 36,463 -2,707 .41,630 38,923 -2,707 June 15,990 12,954 -3,036 16,940 13,904 -3,036 July 6,920 7,118 198 8,040 8,238 198 August 8,740 6,933 -1,807 10;550 8,743 -1,807 September 6,360 6,570 210 8,090 8,300 210

Annual 589,540 579,878 -9,662 •,856,070 846,408 -9,662 26

Table 5 (Continued)

Salt River Bridge Above Roosevelt Lake Historic Modified Flow Historic . Modified Flow Flow Flow Change Flow - Flow Change' Month (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF)

Above Average Year - 1965

October '16,260 - 16,832 572 18,150 18,722 572 November 10,330. 10,614 284 . 11,320 11,604 284 December 11,440 11,563 123 12,780 12,903 123 January 78,830 78,837 - 7 114,500 114,507 7 February 64,010 63,968 -42 78,290 78,248 -42 March 86,490 86,417 -73 103,600 103,527 -73 April 170,400 167,711 -2,689 201,200 198,511 -2,689 May 83,600 81,166 -2,434 91,180 88,746 -2,434 June • 28,620 26,749 -1,871 33,110 31,239 -1,871 July 22,090 21,146 -944 24,390 23,446 -944 August 29,410 27,659 -1,751 32,030 30,279 -1,751 September 12,040 10,617 -1,423 13,860 12,437 -1,423

Annual 613,520 603,279 -10,241 734,410 1,570,577 -19,963 27

Roosevelt Lake. It was assumed that any change in streamf low of the White

River at the diversion point to the Canyon Day irrigation project would be carried downstream without change in magnitude. This may be a conservative assumption. It is possible that during periods of streamflow reduction below the Canyon Day Irrigation Project, the higher, natural streamf lows may be subjected to higher channel losses than would be experienced with reduced streamf lows.

The change in streamf lows due to Miner Flat Dam at the Salt River bridge and above Roosevelt Lake had the greatest effect in April 1959, when streamf lows were reduced below natural levels and in June 1959, when the lowest natural'streamflows were slightly enhanced. During most months of near average and above average streamf lows, impacts of Miner Flat Dam , are small.

The impact of Miner Flat Dam on the operation of Roosevelt Dam and

Reservoir is minimal. Investigations disclose that all historic releases from Roosevelt Dam can be achieved with construction of Miner Flat Dam and operation of the Canyon Day Irrigation Project. The impact upon the operation at Roosevelt would be to lower the storage contents of Roosevelt

Lake between periods of spilling, thereby subjecting the reservoir area to slightly lower rates of evaporation and slightly reduced hydropower production. Average hydropower production would be reduced by an estimated 0.36 percent on the Salt River system. Hydropower production on the Verde River system would be unchanged. 28

III. EXISTING STATUS OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

The USFWS Regional Office of Endangered Species has prepared a

list which includes federally listed, proposed, and candidate species that

occur on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, and Apache, Gila, and Navajo

counties, Arizona (Metz 1985). The species listed are peregrine falcon,

bald eagle, southern spotted owl,'Gooding's onion, Apache trout, and loach

'minnow.

A. Peregrine Falcon

The endangered peregrine falcon breeds in Arizona at elevations

between 5,000 and 9,000 feet On steep rocky cliffs near water and winters

throughout Arizona. The USFWS does not provide information concerning

known or historic nesting sites 4s, a measure to prevent the loss of young

birds through capture for ude- in falconry. There is a worldwide illicit

market for this species for use by falconers. The peregrine falcon preys .

primarily upon waterfowl 'and other birds and its winter distribution is

probably associated with concentrations of waterfowl, pigeons, and other

favored prey species.

Field investigations of the vertical cliffs at the proposed Miner

Flat damsite in March, April, and August of 1984 and in the 'spring and

summer of 1986 did not reveal the presence of peregiines nor were any

potential nests or "whitewash" areas associated with nests and perching

sites observed.

B. Bald Eagle

A resident population of endangered bald eagle breeds along the

Salt and Verde rivers (fewer 'than 15 nests) and migratory birds winter ,statewide near rivers, reservoirs, and lakes. Todd (no date) discussed

wintering of bald eagles and concluded that most wintering eagles in

Arizona frequent waters of the Mogollon Plateau and White Mountains. He

further reported that eagle movements are usually positively correlated

with waterfowl movements and that eagles can usually be found near lakes

where Canada geese are present. Todd (1983, pers. corn.) reported that

. although there are few definitive winter prey 'studies on eagles that they

probably rely heavily upon fish for winter food.

, Grubb and Kennedy (1982) studied wintering bald eagles in Arizona

and in the national forests and found that waterfowl, primarily the

American coot, were, the major prey, followed by ungulate carrion and small

mammalian prey. Fish were a small Percentage of the winter prey.

:Haywood and Ohmert .(1983) studied the breeding biology of bald

eagles on the Salt and Verde rivers and found that breeding eagles Prey

extensively upon carp and catfish (73 percent) and to a lesser extent upon

mammals.(5 percent), reptiles and'amphibians (4 percent); and birds (1

percent).

Grubb (1985, pers. corn.) also studied the foraging patterns of

nesting bald eagles along the Salt River and found that they were very

opportunistic and able to exploit. a variety of food sources. Over a 3

year period of study, 750 foraging. ,•locations _ were observed but eagles only visited the same foraging sites (a 100 meter square area) 6 percent of the

time The eagles along the Salt River appear to have adapted to rapid 110 changes in water depth and turbidity by shifting their prey base and

foraging locations. For example, when the carp are spawning in Saguaro 111 30

Lake, eagles will fly relatively long distances to take advantage of

abundant prey

The nearest active bald eagle nest to the project area is near the

Highway 60 bridge in the Salt River Canyon (Grubb, 1985, pers. corn.) -A

historic'nesting site is located at the confluence of the Black and White

rivers but this site has not been used for several years (Caid, 1983,

pers. corn.). In 1986, an active nest was located in the northwestern

portion of the Reservation on Canyon Creek (Arizona Wildlife View 1986).

Large, low elevation reservoirs and rivers provide suitable

breeding habitat for bald eagles if nesting sites are available and if

.there are relatively large expanses of shallow water where fish can be

readily captured. In general, however, recreational use of such sites is

high and bay interfere with eagle breeding success. No nesting eagles

have been recorded near the lakes and streams on or near the Mogollon Rim,

although eagle concentrations are sometimes observed on lakes of the

Reservation through the winter until as late as June (Dodd, 1985, pers.

corn.). These eagles are thought to be winter residents which migrate. north as summer approaches.

Wintering bald eagles are regularly observed along the White River and North Fork White River in the project area Although there have been no studies concerning the eagle's winter predatory habits on the

Reservation, it is probable that the eagles rely on waterfowl, fish, small mammals, and carrion for winter food.

C. Southern Spotted owl

The occurrence of the spotted owl on the Reservation has not been

documented. Ganey (1985, pers. corn.) studied.the spotted owl in Arizona, 31

,excluding the Reservation, but expects that the owl occurs on the

Reservation. Ganey and Balda (1985) reported that concentrations of

spotted owls occur along'the MOgollon Rim west of the Reservation and in

the White Mountains just east of the Reservation in a variety of habitats

including narrow canyons and cliffs at elevations similar to those of the

proposed Miner Flat Dam and reservoir. Since August 1984, 90 sites have

been identified in Arizona which are occupied by spotted owls.

Most of the habitats occupied by spotted owls are located in steep

canyons with vegetation typically being mixed-conifer or ponderosa pine

with riparian vegetation along the canyon bottoms (Ganey and Balda. 1985).

Steep canyons and cliffs with caves are heavily used, especially during

hot weather for thermoregulation.

Field studies conducted in the spring and summer of 1986 at the

proposed dam and reservoir Site failed to reveal the presence of the

spotted owl. Methods described by Forsman (1983) were followed. A

specially made tape recording of the spotted owl call was obtained

from the Arizona Game and Fish Department for use in the nocturnal calling

survey.

D. Gooding's Onion (Allium goodingii)

Gooding's onion is listed by the USFWS as a "candidate species"

whose status is currently under review. Although this species of wild

onion has no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act, there is

considerable information to support an endangered or threatened

designation. Development and publication of rules for endangered or

threatened status fOr'this plant are anticipated (Metz, 1983, pers. coin. ). • 32

Fletcher (1984), Wagner and Sabo (1977), and Fletcher (1984)

studied'Gooding's onion and concurred that the species qualifies for

• listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, with the

primary threat to the species being habitat destruction. The preferred

habitat of this plant has been reduced by recreation activities, grazing,

logging, and possibly the removal of beaver. in some locations (Fletcher

1984).

The original collection of Gooding's onion in 1912 was on the

White Mountain Apache Reservation near "Bonita Creek” (Spellenberg 1982).

It was also collected on the Reservation near Maverick in 1960. .•

Throughout its distributional range this species occurs at elevations

between 6,500 and 9,400 feet, in shaded canyons, on organic soils with a

history of little disturbance:'

This species would not be expected to occur within the dam Or

reservoir site or at the Canyon Day Irrigation Project. The elevation of

areas to be affected by the proposed project is below 6,500 feet in

elevation,and has been heavily grazed by livestock. Additionally, in the

reservoir area, severe flooding has scoured much of the.valley floor

rendering it unsuitable habitat for this onion. Field reconnaissance of

the reservoir area in May and August of 1984, failed to find this species

present.

E. Apache Trout

The endemic threatened Apache trout occurs in the headwater r streams of the White, Black, San Francisco, and Little Colorado rivers in

the White Mountains. None are reported to occur within the project area

Populations occur in, but are not limited to, Boggy Creek, Crooked Creek,

•

• 33

South Fork Diamond Creek; East Fork White River, Firebox Creek, Little

Diamond Creek, Big Bonito Cienega, Flash Creek, Deep Creek, North Fork : . Diamond Creek, and Paradise Creek. Originally, the distribution of Apache_

'trout included most of the White River drainage, but during the 1900s this

species became restricted to the highest and most pristine mountain

.streams. ' Interbreeding between the Apache trout and introduced non-

native trout species resulted in proliferation of hybrids which have

replaced the genetically pure Apache trout over much of its former range.

,Efforts to protect the-Apache trout by preventing interbreeding

have result in the establishment of a viable population of Apache trout On

the Reservation. In addition, the USFWS has been Propagating the Apache

trout at the Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery on the Fort Apache

Indian Reservation from eggs taken from fish in the East Fork White River.

Approximately 120, 1983 year class fish and 700, 1984 year class fish are

being reared and Will be spawned in the spring of 1986 (David, 1985, pers.

corn.). In 1988, Williams Creek Hatchery will have 25,000 to 30,000,

1-year old Apache trout available for stocking on the Reservation and in

national forest waters.

. Loach Minnow

The species most likely to be affected by the proposed project is

the loach minnow. This species was listed as threatened in the Federal

species also has been koposed in portions of the following streams:

Aravaipa Creek (Arizona), Gila River (New Mexico), San Francisco River

(Arizona and New Mexico), Tularosa River (New Mexico), Blue River (Arizona 34 1 and New Mexico), Campbell Blue Creek (Arizona and New Mexico), and Dry

Blue Creek (New Mexico).

4 Critical habitat in the White River watershed has not yet been

proposed. According to Johnson (1985, pers. corn.),

The current knowledge of the extent and status of the White River population is very scanty, and further information is needed in order to determine if the habitat in the White River is indeed of sufficient importance to the species to warrant inclusion in the designated critical habitat. If Tiaroaa cobitis does become listed, populations of the species outside of designated critical habitat will be protected against taking and against Federal actions which might jeopardize the survival of the species.

According to Minckley (1973), the loach minnow was known to occur

in the White River between 1963 and 1972. Its occurrence in the White

River and the East Fork of the White River was documented in 1985 •by

Propst et al. through limited sampling of Several streams on the

Reservation. It was collected near Stago Bridge on the East Fork and near

the confluence of East Fork and North Fork on the mainstem of the White

River. According to Propst (1985, pers. corn.), apparently suitable loach

minnow habitat is available in the North Fork White River although the

North Fork was not sampled. Minckley (1985, pers. corn.) stated that he

believes the loach minnow undoubtedly occurs in the North Fork White River

and could be found in suitable habitats up to an elevation of

' approximately 6,700 feet. Metz (1985a, pers. corn.) stated that data o

the USFWS indicate that the loach minnow may not be found in the Miner

Flat Dam project area, but that papulations4 do occur in the White River.

An intense electrofishing survey of the North Fork White River in

the proposed reservoir inundation area and immediately upstream was

conducted in June of 1986 during a period ot seasohal low flow

(Inter-Fluve, 1986, pers. corn.). Although the sampling effort was 35

.concentrated in those habitats most likely to,contain the loach minnow

(i.e., margins and leading edges of riffles and cobble/rubble substrates),

other stream habitats also were surveyed. No'loach minnows were found

during this investigation.

It February 1988, 15 potential loach minnow riffle habitats were

surveyedin the North Fork White River, East Fork White River, and White

River, utilizing electrofishing techniques (Westech 1988). Table 6 lists

the location of the sampling stations. Table 7. presents the physical

characteristics of the habitat sampled and Tables 8 through 10 list the

numbers and species of fish identified at each sampling site. 1 " Suitable habitat for the loach minnow is cobble andrubble-

bottomed riffles where the current velocity iš moderate to rapid.

Typically, the fish are found singly or in pairs beneath excavated rocks

or near such rocks (Propst, 1985, pers. com.). Habitat quality influences

the minnow's abundance but specific habitat optimums and limits have not

been defined. Recurrent flooding is essential to the ecology of the . . . . . , minnow in keeping riffle substrates free of embedding sediments and

helping to reduce competition with invading non-native fishes (Minckley,

1973):

According to Rinne (1984) determining critical depths and stream , velocities for the loach minnow is problematic due to its occurrence over

a range of depths and velocities.. In the Middle Fork of the Gila River,

the loach minnow lives in swift water averaging 50 cm/sec, whereas it

occurs in the Tularosa River in current less than half this velocity. In

Aravaipa Creek, the species occurs in riffles averaging 10 cm or less in , depth, but in large rivers it occupies riffles deeper than 25 cm.. Rinne 100.1 36

TABLE 6 • : LOCATION OF FISH SAMPLING STATIONS - (FEBRUARY 18-20, 1988)

St-ream Segment - Legal Description

East Fork White River Riffle 1 NW1/4NW1/4 S35 T4N R22E

East Fork White River Riffle 4 NE1/4SE1/4 S29 T5N R23E

East Fork White River Riffle/Run 5 SE1/4NE1/4 S29 T5N R23E

North Fork White River Riffle 9 SW1/45W1/4 S4 T6N R23E

North Fork White River Riffle 10 NW1/4NW1/4 $9 T6N R23E

North Fork White River Riffle 11 SE1/4NE1/4 S8 7;6N R23E

White River Riffle 2 NW1/4NW1/4 T5N R22E

White River Riffle 3 SW1/4NW1/4 S35 T5N R22E

White River Riffle/Run 6 SE1/4NE1/4 S34 T5N R22E

White River 'Riffle 7 SE1/4NE1/4 S34 T5N R22E

White River Riffle 8 SE1/4NE1/4 $34 T5N R22E

White River Riffle/Run 12 NV1/4NE1/4 S34 T5N R22E

White River Riffle/Run 13 SW1/4NE1/4 S34 T5N R22E

White River Run 14 SE1/4NW1/4 S34 T5N R22E

White River Riffle 15 SW1/4 S14 T4-1/2N R22E

Source: Westech, Helena, Montana, February 1988. 37

TABLE 7

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH SAMPLING STATIONS (FEBRUARY 18-20, 1988)

Estimated Average Maximum Temp. (oF) Station Length Width Depth Width Depth Total Area Air Water

1. 100 in 8-15 in 2-20 cm 10 in 12 cm 1500 m2 +31 +34

2 40 in 5-15 in 1-20 cm 8 in 15 cm 600 m2 +43 +34

3' 90 in 50-70 in 2-50 cm 55 in 20 cm 6300 m2 +40 +38

4 100 in 10-20 in 5-20 cm 15 in 10 cm 2000 m2 +44 +42

5 1 40 in 15-20 in 5-75 cm 17 in 35 cm 800 m2 +45 +42

6, 70 in 6-15 in 1-30 cm 8 in 20 cm 1050 m2 +41 . +44

7 100 in .10-15 in 2-45 cm 12 in 25 cm 1500 m2 +43 +37

60 in 5-15 in 2-20 cm 6 in 10 cm 900 m2 +45 +40

25 in 15 in 2-20 cm 20 in 12 cm 375 m2 +49 +40

10' 40 in 15-20 in 6,-25 cm 17 in 15 cm 800 m2 +40 +40

2 11 . 100. in 5-15 in 5-25 cm 7 in 15 cm 1500 m +36 +40

12 50 in 2-5 in 5-75 cm 3 in 40 cm 250 m2 +29 1-34

13' 50 in 5 in 5-75 cm 5 in .35 cm 250 m2 +32 +35

14 - 20 in 5-7 in 10-80 cm 6 in 45 cm 400 m2 +32 +35

15 125 in 15-45 in 5-30 cm 25 in 15 cm 5625 m2 +53. +38

Source: Westech, Helena, Montana, February 1988. 38

' TABLE 8

'NUMBER'S OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE NORTH FORK WHITE RIVER (FEBRUARY 1988)

, Station Species Number • Percent

9 Catastomus insignis 1 100.0%

10 C.insignis 2 100.0%

11 C.insignis 17 94.4% Rhinichthys osculus . 1. 5.6%

Total C.insignis 20 95.2% R. osculus 1 4.8%

Source: Westech, Helena, Montana, Februar'y 1988. TABLE 9

NUMBERS OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE EAST FORK WHITERIVER (FEBRUARY 1988)

Station Species Number Percent

1 Catastomus insignis 4 100.0%

4 C.insignis 41 97.6% Rhinichthys osculus 1 2.4%

C.insignis 17 94.4% Tiaroga cobitis' 1 5.6%

Total C. insignis 96.9% R. osculus 1.6% T. cobitis 1.6%

0 •te- Source: Westech, Helena, Montana, February 1988. 40

TABLE 10

NUMBERS OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE . WHITE RIVER (FEBRUARY 1988)

Station Species Number Percent

2 Catastomus insignis 13 100.0%

3 C. insignis 51 98.1% Gila robustus robustus 1 1.9%

C. insignis 164 92.1% G. robustus robustus/ 13 7.3% Micropteris dolomieui 1 0.6

C. insignis 49 96.1% Rhinichthys osculus 2 3.9%

C. insignis 38 92.7% C. robustus robustusZ 2 4.9% M. dolomieui 1 2.4%

12 C. insignis 12 100.0%

13 C. insignis 11 91.7% . G. robustus robustus(/ 1 8.3%

14 Ç. insignis 2 100.0%

15 C. insignis 21 87.5% R. osculus 2 8.3% G. robustus grahami 1 4.2%

Total C.insignis 197 89.1% R. osculus 4 1.8% M. dolomieui 2 0.9% G. robustus robustus 17 7.7% G. robustus grahami 1 0.5%

Source: Westech, Helena, Montana, February 1988. 41

(1984) also cited Minckley in describing that loach minnow populations

fluctuate naturally thus reducing their utility as indicators of environ-

mental change.-

The loach minnow once was locally common in approximately 1,625

miles of the Verde, Salt, San Pedro, San Francisco, and Gila river

systems, but currently occupies 238 miles of its former range (Federal

by habitat destruction and through competition and predation by non-native

fishes. The Federal Register states (Vol. 50, No 117) that the following

have destroyed loach minnow habitat:

Conversion of' flowing water into still water by impoundment; alteration of flow regimes (including conversion of perennial waters to intermittent or no flow, and the reduction, elimination, or modification of natural flooding patterns); alteration of water temperature (either up or down); alteration of silt and bedloads; loss Of marshes.and backwaters; and alteration of stream channel' characteristics from well defined, surface level, heavily vegetated channels with a diversity of substrate and habitats, into deeply cut unstable arroyos with little riparian vegetation, uniform substrate and little habitat diversity.

In the White River drainage, potential predators of the loach

minnow include the roundtail chub and the following non-native (i.e.,

introduced) fishes rainbow trout, brown trout, channel catfish, green

sunfish, yellow bullhead, smallmouih bass, and northern pike. The extent

to which' these predators influence loach minnow abundance and distribution

in the White River drainage is not known; however, based on data 'collected

by Propst et. al (1985) in the upper White River drainage, it would appear

that predation by non-native fishes at the time of sampling was probably

light. Of 197 fish collected in the upper White River drainage, less than

1 percent of these fish (e.g., rainbow and brown trout) are potential

. predators Of the loach minnow. 42

The most abundant fishes collected by Propst et al. (1985) in the

upper White River diainage were the native minnow the speckled dace and

the Sonoran sucker, also a native fish. These two .species composed mare

than 70 percent of the fishes collected.

The predominance of native fishes in the upper White River

drainage, even though non-native fishes also co-exist, probably relates

to the periodicity and magnitude of flooding events and the geomorphic

configuration of the drainage. According to Minckley and Meffe (i987),

little or no displacement of native fishes by non-native fishes •

occurs in "natural or semi-natural" streams, particularly where the

streams are bound by steep canyons with bedrock lying close to the

streambed. Almost the entire White River drainage is bound by canyons

with cliffs of basalt where extreme flooding is a periodic event.

• In narrow canyons with impermeable bedrock, flood energies cannot

be attenuated by overflow, infiltration, or widening of channels;

Consequefitly, the floods destructiveness is amplified. Native fishes,

which have evolved under conditions of periodic high intensity flooding,

have adapted structurally and behaviorally and are better able to survive

high volume, short-term floods than are non-native species which evolved

under less extreme flooding cycles. Floods in the Southwest are an

important mechanism for reducing populations of non-native fish which

could displace or eliminate native fish from their natural habitat by

predation or through competition (Minckley and Meffe, 1987). 43

IV. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

.. Peregrine Falcon

No adverse impact of the proposed project on the peregrine falcon

is expected. Dr. David Ellis (1985, pers. coin.) studied maps of the

proposed project and could find no indication that any peregrine breeding

site would be adversely affected by the project. Dr. Ellis over past

years has studied peregrine falcons in Arizona and has mapped breeding

habitat. Apparently, there are no existing or historic breeding sites

.within the project area.

Field reconnaissance of the project area conducted in March,

April, and August of 1984 and in 1986 did not reveal the presence of any

peregrines; Areas above and below the cliffs of the proposed project area

and the cliffs were observed with binoculars for the presence'Of

peregrines or "whitewash" areas that often are characteristic of falcon

nesting sites. No evidence of peregrines or peregrine nesting was found.

Wintering peregrine falcons could be attracted to the reservoir

• created by the Miner Flat Dam because of the waterfowl that would probably

congregate there. Attraction of peregrines to the reservoir area would

pose little risk to the birds and could actually enhance their winter

habitat. An increased prey base combined with the rugged terrain of the

project area and the relatively low human use in the winter could benefit

the peregrine-

. Bald Eagle

The proposed Miner Flat Dam and Canyon Day Irrigation Project

would not adversely affect wintering or nesting bald eagles. Wintering 44

bald eagles frequent the entire project area, particularly in close

proximity to the White River. The proposed project should have no

significant adverse impact on eagle populations, providing that minimum

flow is maintained in the White River. A minimum flow is required to

maintain fish populations and to attract waterfowl, both of which - are

important winter food sources for the bald eagle. The reservoir created .

by the Miner Flat Dam would not adversely affect winter eagles. Because

the reservoir would be narrow and deep, there would not be good "fishing"

habitat created for eagles. Eagles depend upon shallow and relatively

clear water where fish can be seen and captured. Although the reservoir

would not create fishing habitat, it would be attractive, however, to

wintering waterfowl. During the winter, the reservoir would probably not

be heavily used by recreationalists; therefore, it would serve as a

resting area for waterfowl and a hunting area for eagles attracted to the

waterfowl.

Nesting bald eagles on the Salt River and downstream reservoirs

would not be affected by the proposed project. Depletions in streamf lows

in the Salt River would be negligible because the Black River, Cibecue

Creek, Canyon Creek, Cherry Creek, and other tributaries contribute flows

in the Salt River. Flow depletion by the proposed project would reduce

streamflows above the Salt River reservoirs by less than 0.75 of 1

percent.

Flows and turbidity levels rapidly change in the Salt River

because of rapid precipitation and runoff events. Nesting bald eagles

have adapted to such changes through exploitation of a wide food base and

'through the ability o quickly shift from one food source to another. Any

small change in runoff or turbidity caused by the project would not

adversely affect the southern bald eagle population.

C. Southern Spotted Owl

Based upon field studies, the spotted owl is not thought, to

occur in the proposed dam and reservoir area; however, if future studies do document its presence, the proposed project would have an adverse impact On owls nesting, roosting, and/or breeding in the project area

Inundations of the riparian vegetation and cliff faces would destroy the spotted owl habitat in the project area. The influx of fishermen and other recreationalists in the spring and summer during breeding and nesting could displace birds living near the reservoir'.

D. Gooding's Onion

Based on field reconnaissance of the project area and on literature reviews of ecological and distribution data for Gooding's onion it is highly improbable that this species occurs in the area that w-auld be affected by the proposed dam and irrigation project. This species' apparent affinity for undisturbed, dark soils with a high organic content 1/1 would probably. limit its distribution on the Reservation to siteš within the Baldy-Gordo soil association at elevations from 7,000 to more than

9,000 feet. Suitable soil conditions do not occur within the project area and the elevation of the area is lower than the probable distribution range of the species. There would be no direct adverse impact of the I!! project on Gooding's onion.-

'Possible indirect beneficial impacts of the project would relate to reduced grazing pressures that increased alfalfa production would . 46

allow. By increasing irrigated alfalfa production, the cattle herd on the

Reservation could be maintained at an economically viable level. If

Gooding's onion were to be found on the Reservation, habitat could b e

protected from grazing, a known detrimental factor to the plant's

existence. Increased alfalfa production would offset any losses in livestock carrying capacity that would result if areas were protected from

grazing to preserve populations of the onion.

E. Apache Trout

Existing populations of Apache trout would not be adversely affected by the proposed project because the Miner Flat Dam and reservoir and the Canyon Day Irrigation Project lie downstream from the lake and streams which currently support this species. Upstream movement of fish out of the reservoir into Apache trout range could displace Apache trout from their current habitat and increase the probability of hybridization:

Barriers to upstream movement of fish out of the reservoir could be constructed to prevent interaction between introduced fishes and the

Apache trout.

The proposed project could benefit the Apache trout if the reservoir and river between the dam and irrigation project were to b e managed for Apache trout re-introduction. The cooler water temperatures in the reservoir and downstream from the .dam would probably create suitable habitat for the Apache trout. Measures would have to be taken, however, to remove non-native predatory fish such as the northern pike from the watershed. Pike could very effectively reduce re-introduced

trout numbers and inhibit successful re-establishment. Non-native trout 47 011 species, would also have to be removed to prevent hybridization with the

Apache trout.

F. Loach Minnow

Potential impacts of the project on the loach minnow would be related to: changes in water quality and water temperature, alteration of habitat, changes in flow regimes, and shifts in existing competition and predation characteristics within the watershed.

. , Water Quality

Short-term impacts to water quality would occur during construction of the dam. Removal of streambed and floodplain gravel

(aggregate) for concrete preparation within the area to be inundated would increase turbidity downstream in the absence of control measures.

Increased sediment loads could damage fish gills and clog interstices in the streambed gravel, habitats for aquatic invertebrates and minnows.

Equipment working in the North Fork White River or adjacent to the river could leak or release fuel or grease into the river and adversely affect the aquatic biota.

Concrete being poured for the dam could contaminate river water by seepage around the concrete forms and could pose an impact to fish and

aquatic invertebrates. Depending upon the toxicity and concentration of

concrete-derived chemicals in the water, mortality to fish could occur. •

To prevent undesirable materials from entering the river during

construction, the river flow would be diverted through the construction

- area in a large pipe. Coffer dams would be constructed around the damsite

to prevent seepage of contamination away from the site or back seepage of 48

river water into the damsite. When coffer dams fill, the water, sediment,

and other contaminants would be delivered to a settling basin located on

the terrace above the cliffs between the river and the highway or at a

more desirable location. The water would percolate into the soil or

evaporate and the solids left behind would be disposed of in a manner to

prevent environmental contamination. To minimize possible impacts from

construction equipment', machinery would be steaMcleaned before entering

the stream and maintenance Of vehicles would be prohibited on the

floodplain'or at locations where toxic materials could enter the river.

A possible adverse impact of the project could be the super-

saturation of nitrogen in water spilling over the dam. The supersaturation of nitrogen in water below the dam may partially or completely destroy downstream fish populations. This phenomenon has been observed below dams, spillways, and natural falls on rivers and streams of

the western United States Supersaturation of nitrogen is Caused by the entrapment of air bubbles in turbulent water below a dam or falls. If air bubbles are forced to a significant depth beneath the water surface, the pressure of the water on the air bubble may force nitrogen gas into the water. This phenomenon, known as nitrogen supersaturation, permits the entry of excessive levels of nitrogen in the bloodstream of downstream fish and can cause death as the excess nitrogen escapes into the bloodstream (Ebel 1971).

At the proposed Miner Flat Dam, average annual streamf lows of the

North Fork White River'have been estimated at approximately 90 cfs.

Because the capacity of the outlet works through the dam' is 500 cfs or approximately 5 1/2 times the average flow rate, spills across the top of 49

the dam would be relatively infrequent.. Nevertheless, spills from the

reservoir storage would occur and the potential for nitrogen

supersaturation would exist.

Nitrogen supersaturation must be considered irrespective of the

height of the dam and means of spilling. The principal factors causing

nitrogen supersaturation are the degree of turbulence and the depth t o

which the water plunges in the stilling basin below the dam, spillway,. or natural falls.

At the Miner Flat Dam, a relatively shallow pool of 20 feet or

less is contemplated below the dam. During periods of spill, turbulence

throughout the 20 feet of depth in the pool could be expected. The pool -

would be excavated into the natural rock underlying and extending, below

the dam. The 20 feet of depth below the dam was not considered sufficient

to increase excessive levels of nitrogen into the water; however,

deflection of spillway water reaching the base of the dam has been

considered in preliminary design. By deflecting high velocity spills

upward, thereby preventing a "plunge," the potential for nitrogen super-

saturation could.be reduced to tolerable limits.

2. * Water Temperature

Under conditions Of normal precipitation, the reservoir would be

filled' to capacity during periods of spring runoff and again during the

summer monsoon season. Because the reservoir for the Miner Flat Dam would

lie in a narrow canyon and have a very low surface to volume ratio, solar

heating would be minimal. Water temperatures throughout the reservoir

would remain relatively cool well into the summer. 50

As the reservoir would warm through solar heating and due to

increased warm water runoff during the monsoon season, thermal strati-

fication could occur (i.e., the cooler water would sink to the bottom

because of higher density and .the warmer water would rise to the top).

The cooler water would be released from the lower portions of the

reservoir during the irrigation season, normally the warmest months, and

maintain cooler stream temperatures than currently exist during the summer

in the North Fork White River. During the winter, water released from the

dam would create warmer stream temperatures than currently exist in the

North Fork White River.

Cooler stream temperatures in the summer months would benefit

salmonid fish species and nutrients released from the deeper reservoir

waters which would enhance production of aquatic invertebrate--the food

base of most fish. The effect of lower summer temperatures on the loach

minnow populations is difficult to predict.

With the construction and operation of the Miner Flat Dam, it is

conceivable that water temperature regimes and flows would simulate

streamf low and stream temperature conditions that existed in the early - . part of this century.. Because the loach minnow presumably occurred under

4 . pristine conditions in the North Fork White River, water temperature and

water flow regimes resembling pristine streamf low conditions would not be -., - 16 expected to adversely affect this species. r P

;II 3. Habitat Loss

Construction of the Miner Flat Dam would not be expected to

adversely affect suitable loach minnow habitat upstream from the dam. 6 electrofishing survey in 1986 did not reveal the presence of the loach 51 minnow n the reservoir inundation zone or immediately upstream of the inundation zone.

Although there have been no surveys in the North Fork White River j upstream from the proposed Miner Flat reservoir, it is unlikely that the loach minnow occurs in the upper river reaches. The stream gradient and water Velocity are too high for loach Minnow habitat and the proper stream bottom substrates are lacking. In addition, the North Fork White River upstream from the Miner Flat Project site is probably above the elevational limit of the loach minnow.

. Flow Regimes

! Potential impacts on the loach minnow from operation of the Miner

Flat Dam would be related to changes in the existing flow regimes Of the

North Forx White River and White River. During the winter and spring high . „ stream flow periods, the peak flows water would be captured by the lam and _ . the periods of extreme flow downstream would be reduced in frequency and magnitude. Operation of the dam during the summer irrigation season would increase summer flows between the dam and Canyon Day over what occurs under free-flowing conditions. Both the attenuation of spring floods and increased summer flows could affect the loach minnow.

According to Minckley and Meffe (1987), floods approaching or exceeding mean discharge by 2 orders of magnitude invariably cause a shift from populations of both native and non-native fish species to predominantly native species. Floods near 1 order of magnitude deplete, but rarely destroy, non-native populations, whereas floods less than 1 . , order of magnitude have no discernable effect on fish populations. 52

' Based upon data of Westech (1988), the current populations of fish sampled in riffle habitats in the North Fork White River and the White

River were composed of 100 percent and 99.7 percent, respectively, of native species. The periodic high magnitude floods in the North Fork

White River and White River and the canyon-bound nature of these rivers in the project area apparently have maintained predominantly native populations of fish.

'Although operation of the Miner Flat Dam would reduce the magnitude and duration of high flow events, the dam and reservoir could be operated to release water during•reservoir filling to enhance naturally occurring flood peaks. The reservoir would collect flood flows of the

North Fork White River, but considerable flows would be contributed by

Diamond Creek (approximately 6 miles downstream from the damsite), the

East Fait White River, and numerous ephemeral drainages. In addition, due to the relatively low storage capacity of the reservoir (i.e., 8,900 acre- feet), flood flows would spill from the reservoir during years of high :1 runoff. By operating the dam to periodically maximize flood peaks, natural flooding would be maintained and the proliferation of nonnative fishes would be inhibited.'

'There are documented examples in regulated streams (i.e., Salt and

Verde rivers) where emergency releases of water from impoundments have created flash flooding and have essentially destroyed non-native fishes'

(Minckley and Meffe 1987). This effect, however, appears to occur only in canyon-bound reaches of rivers where flood energy is maximal. Because significant portions of the White River and its tributaries are canyon- bound and constrained by bedrock, simulated floods by the timely release 53

of water from the dam would be expected to be effective in destroying non-

native fish populations.

During May and .June, normally low flow periods in the White River

drainage,. 42 cfs of water. . would be released from the Miner Flat Dam into the river channel for irrigation of crops at Canyon Day. Analysis of

I • river/discharge data indicates that a release of 42 cfs into the North

Fork White River would increase the water surface at most riffles by

approximately 0.6 foot._ This increased water level, during the summer low

. flow period, would alter the habitat characteristics of some riffles. The

deeper riffles would have increased water velocities and greater water

• depths, whereas shallow riffles and periodically dry gravel/cobble areas

would be inundated by shallow running water.

Although some riffles probably would be rendered suboptimal loach

minnow habitat due to increased discharges from the dam, other riffles

would be created which probably would be suitable habitat for loach

— minnows .'; The possible loss of loach minnow habitat due to an increased

water of 0.6 foot would be offset by the creation of riffle habitats at

stream margins and areas in the stream which would normally be dry during

the low flow summer period.

Data repotted by Rinne (1984) and observations of habitat occupied

by the loach minnow in the East Fork White River indicate that the habitat

of the lOach minnow is somewhat variable. Rinne's studies indicate that

the loach,minnow occurs over a range of water depths and current

velocities. In Aravaipa Creek, the loach minnow occurs in riffles

averaging 10 cm or less in depth, but in large rivers it occupies riffles

deeper than 25.cm. In the East Fork White River, the lOach minnow was 1

54 •

found at a water depth of 35 cm - in a fast-flowing run with a cobble

substrate (Vestech 1988). The occurrence of the loach minnow in the East

Fork White River in water typically not thought of as suitable habitat

raises questions about the ecological amplitude of the species and

sensitivity to environmental variables.

The site where the loach minnow was found by Westech (1988) is the

same where Propst et al. reported a population in 1985. Subsequent to the

study by Propst et al., the riffle habitat where the loach minnow occurred

in the East Fork White River has been altered by stream channelization.

The loach minnow may occur in atypical habitat in the East Fork White

River (i.e., a relatively deep, fast run) because it has been displaced from its preferred habitat a shallow riffle) by stream alteration:

There is not sufficient data to determine how much and what types of habitat modification the loaCh minnow can withstand and still maintain viable populations. There are indications, however, that the species can survive some streamf low modifications. Historically, streamf lows in the

East Fork White River have, been diverted for crop irrigation by construction of small dams spanning the stream to direct water into ditch syStems. The only known loach. minnow population in the East Fork White

River occurs downstream approximately 100 meters from 4 dam and diversion

. . and several more such irrigation structures'occur both upstream and downstream of the population: Because data on abundance and distribution of the loach minnow in the East Fork are not available prior to irrigation development, the impact of past, artificial streamflow modifications on the loach minnow cannot be determined. 55

:Water Temperatures .

Mater temperature changes downstream from the Miner Flat Dam would

affect the ecology of the river. Water temperatures would be cooler in

the summer and warmer in the winter than temperatures under existing

conditions. These temperature changes probably would not negatively

affect the loach Minnow directly, but could have indirect effects.

Because of the moderation of water temperatures below the dam, habitat for

trout would be improved. Trout could be expected to survive longer, grow

faster, and consequently prey more effectively upon the loach minnow.

Although'the improvement of habitat for trout would be a recreational

benefit of the project, it could potentially negatively affect the loach -

minnow.

Potential increased trout predation could be mitigated by nr)t

stockingtrout below the proposed dam or by stocking a trout species that

would have minimum impact on the loach minnow. A trout spediei that would

probably have little or no impact on the loach minnow would be the Apache .

trout.

The Apache trout feeds primarily upon aquatic invertebrates

•(Harper 1976, Robinson 1978) and does not attain large sizes in streams.

Trout size is significant because as trout get large then they tend to

shift in food habits from primary dependence on plants and insects to

small fish and minnows. The Apache trout, by virtue of its size and food

habits, would not be expected to prey heavily upon the loach minnow. cø The Apache trout would have to be stocked; therefore, the size of

fish introduced could be closely regulated. Population size and growth of

the fish once they were in the stream could be effectively managed by 56

fishing pressure. Rinne et al. (1979) and Robinson (1986, pers. corn.)

reported that Apache trout are relatively easily caught by fishermen.

According to Hansen (1983, pers. com/), based on electrofishing and creel

census data, 80 percent of stocked trout in the North Fork White River are

caught by fishermen and 20 percent are lost to mortality.

Additional evidence that the Apache trout would have little impact upon the loach minnow is provided by the historic distribution of this species. Minckley (1973) reported that the White River, downstream to the confluence with the Black River, historically supported very high populations of the Apache trout. Prior to 1900, both the loach minnow and

Apache trout apparently occurred in the same portions of the White River

Watershed and presumably evolved behavior and habitat use patterns that allowed co-existence. ,Re-introduction of the Apache trout into its former habitat would not be expected to adversely affect the maintenance of existing loach minnow populations.,

Stocking Apache trout in the North Fork White River and White

River below the proposed dam would probably be feasible because this

species is being reared at the Williams Creek Hatchery and plans are being

made to expand facilities at the Williams Creek Hatchery for additional

Apache trout propagation. Re-introduction of the Apache trout in the

North Fork White River and White River would be compatible with the recovery plan (U.S. Department of the interior 1979) which recommends re-

introduction of the species into its former habitat.

. Minimum Instream Flows

Instream flows sufficient to support populations of the loach

minnow would have to be maintained between the Miner Flat Dam and Canyon 57

Day Irrigation Project as well as downstream from the irrigation project

to prevent impacts to the loach minnow and other species. Regulated

release Of water to the channel of the North Fork White River for

downstream irrigation would provide cool, stable water temperatures with

low sediment loads. Fishes as well as aquatic invertebrates could be

expected to benefit: However, during periods of low winter precipitation

and low snowpack, planning would have to be implemented to ensure that

filling of the reservoir and irrigation diversion would not take

.. precedence over maintaining minimum instream flows. Such planning could

include planting dryland grain crops at Canyon Day rather than alfalfa so

that irrigation water requirements would - be lower and minimum instreap

flows would be maintained.'

Downstream from the Canyon Day Irrigation Project, minimum

instream flows would also be maintained.- Sven during the driest years, at

least 10 cfs of water would need to be released downstream past the Canyon

Day Irrigation Project. A 10 cfs release during the driest years would

actually improve streamf low conditions over what existed in 2 of the

driest years on record. For example, during June and July of 1959 and

1961, instream flows would have been increased by a release of 10 cfs by

2.2 to 16.7 percent. 58

. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

'Current and future activities on the Fort Apache Indian

Reservation that could exert impacts cumulative to those that would occur

with construction and operation of the Miner Flat Dam include:

. 1) Logging and road construction in the headwaters of the White

River drainage.

2) Sand and grinel- extraction areas on or near the floodplains of

the White River and its tributaries.

'3) Channelization activities to reduce river channel migration

and loss of land adjacent to the river during floods.

, 4) Livestock grazing.

Sediment would be suspended and deposited in the North Fork White

River and White River during construction of the Miner Flat Dam. Sediment

can negatively affect aquatic ecosystems by abrading and smothering stream

' dwelling organisms affecting behavior and reproduction of some species of

fish.

Additional sediment would be generated by logging and associated

roads, gravel extraction areas on and adjacent to the river floodplains

and river channelization. The White Mountain Apache Tribe is currently

reducing the allowable annual timber harvest in areas drained by the North

: Fork and the East Fork White River from 50.4 to approximately 23.2 million

board feet per year.

' Presently, there are 2 gravel extraction areas in the project

area--one near Canyon Day on the White River and the other on the North

Fork White River downstream from the Alchesay National Fish Hatchery.

These gravel quarries increase turbidity and sediment in the waters and 1

destroy aquatic habitat where the excavation areas, encroach on the -streams.

Extensive river channelization in.the East Fork White River from

the confluence with the North Fork, upstream approximately 4 miles has

1001@d4Od dopomited sediment in downstream riffle habitats on the White

River and has altered stream habitat. Pool and riffle areas and natural

Stream meanders have been reduced and the stream has been constrained by

berms. Known habitat for the loach minnow has been degraded or destroyed

due to these operations.

Livestock grazing and the construction and operation of feedlots

could act cumulatively with the Miner Flat Project to temporarily decrease

water quality. 'During construction, sediment and chemicals from concrete

and other sources would enter the North Fork White River. Livestock

grazing and concentration in the riparian zones would add a small-

increment'of turbidity as well as some animal wastes. Livestock feedlots

also could add animal wastes, particularly ammonia and other nitrogen

compounds to the surface waters in runoff. Ammonia and nitrites can be

toxic to aquatic organisms if concentrations are sufficiently high. LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED

Caid, J., Wildlife Biologist, White Mountain Apace Tribe, Whiteriver, Arizona, personal communication (December 12, 1983) with Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.--

Caid, J., personal communication (December 3, 1985) with Joe C. Elliott, • Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana. -

David,.R., Fisheries Biologist, Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona, personal communication (November 19, 1985) with Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Dodd, N., Wildlife Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Pinetop, Arizona, personal communication (December 3, 1985) with Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Ebel, W. 1971. Dissolved Nitrogen Concentration in Columbia and Snake Rivers in 1970 and Effect on Chinook Salmon and Steelhead.' U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Tech. Rep. NMFSSSRF-646.

Ellis, - D., Wildlife Biologist, Institute for Reptor Studies, Laurel, Maryland, letter (December 2, 1985) to Joe C. Elliott, Ecological ' Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Fletcher, R. 1984. Allium goodingii Status Report Supplement. Unpublished report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 3, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Forsman, E. 1983. Methods and Materials for Locating and Studying . Spotted Owls. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-162.

Ganey, J., Wildlife Biologist, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, letter (December 3, 1985) to Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant,- Helena, Montana.

Ganey, J. and R. Balda. 1985. Ecology of Mexican Spotted Owls in Arizona • A . Progress Report. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. • Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region. 3, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Arizona Game and Fish Department, Nongame Branch, Phoenix, Arizona.

Grubb, T., Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest . Service, Forest Sciences Laboratory, Arizona - State University, Tempe, Arizona, personal Communication (November 22, 1985) with Joe C. , Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

.Grubb, T. and C. Kennedy. 1982. Bald Eagle Winter Habitat on Southwestern National Forests. 'U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper RM-237. Hansen, J., Fisheries Biologist, Alchesay National Fish Hatchery, Whiteriver, Arizona, personal communication (December 12, 1985) with Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Harper, K. 1976. On the Biology of Salmo apache and its Management Implications. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Haywood, D. and R. Ohmart. 1983. Draft Annual Report - Study of the Breeding Biology of Bald Eagles in Arizona - 1982. Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Inter-Fluve, Inc. 1986: Fisheries consulting firm, Bozeman, Montana, letter (June 10, 1986) to Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Johnson, J., Chief, Endangered Species; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, letter (December 12, 1985) to Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana. '

Johnson, R., L. Haight, and J. Simpson. 1980. Owl Populations and Species Status in the Southwestern United States, pp. 40-59. In: Owls of the West. Proceedings of the National Audubon Society Symposium, Tiburen, California.

Metz, G.D., Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona, personal communication (December 2, 1985) with joe - C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Metz,'G.D.. letter (November 28, 1985) to Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Metz, G.D., letter (December 6, 1985) to Joe . Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Minckley, W.L., Professor of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, personal communication (December 2, 1985) to Joe C. Elliott; Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Phoenix: Sims Printing Company, 293 pp.

Minckley; W.L. and G. Meffe..: 1985. Differential Selection for Native Fishes by Flooding in Stream's of the Arid Southwest (in press). W.A. Matthews and D.C. Heins (eds), Ecology and Evolution of Stream Fish' Communities. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Propst;''D., Fisheries BiolOgist, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Sante Fe, New Mexico, letter (December 3, 19-85) to Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana. Propst, D., P. Marsh, and W. Minckley. 1985. Arizona Survey for - .I Spikedace (Meda fulqida).and Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis): Fort Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations and Eagle Creek, 1985. A report to the Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 8 pp. -

Rinne, J. 1984. Indicator or Diversity of Species Management: The Case of Native Southwestern Fishes. Workshop on Management of Nongame Species and Ecological Communities, June 11-12, 1984, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 75-92.

Rinne, J., B. Robertson, R. Major, and K. Harper. 1979. Sport Fishing for the Native Arizona Trout, Salmo apache, in Christmas Tree Lake: A Case Study. In: Wild Trout II Symposium, Mammoth, Wyoming.

Robinson, F. 1978. Feeding by Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and Arizona Trout (Salmo apache) at Various Light Levels. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, ArizOna.

Robinson, F., former, Fisheries Biologist on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, personal communication (January 12, 1986) with Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Spellenberg, R. 1982. Status Report on Allium goodingii. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

.Todd, R., Nongame Biologist, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona, personal communication (December 9, 1983) with Joe C. Elliott, Ecological Consultant, Helena, Montana.

Todd, R. No date. Multi-agency Findings on the Distribution of Bald Eagles for Arizona in the January Months of 1979-1981. Arizona Game Fish Department, Federal Aid Project W-53-R-31, Work Plan 5, Job 1, Special Report.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Arizona Trout Recovervy Plan, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Wagner, W. and D. Sabo. 1977. Status Report for Allium goodingii. Un- -published report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivce, Albuquerque, New Mexico..

Westech. 1988. .Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) survey, Fort Apache Reservation, February 17-20, 1988. -