A Fish Distribution Study of the Blue and San Francisco Rivers, Arizona by, Tim Hurst & Dr. W. L. Minckley Abstract

Eastern fish, which thrive on competition, are widely introduced into altered western streams. The extirpation, and in some cases, the extinction of many native Arizona fish has occurred. Therefore, the continued conservation of western native freshwater fish is extremely important. An examination of fish distributions on the Blue and San Francisco Rivers in southeastern Arizona, from collections made from June of 1994 to July of 1995, was made. This study consists of several steps, a description of fish found in abundance in the region, graphs showing the potential interactions that may be occurring between the different species, a visual perspective as to where the different species of fish are using a mapping program called GIS (Geographical Information System), and finally, an examination of the data in context to draw conclusions as to what kinds of interactions may be occurring. Introduction & Methods Western North American freshwater fish are different then those in the east. Habitats in the east are much more connected, therefore more biodiversity exists. There are as many as 600 species of fish in the east. In sharp contrast to only 200 or so species in the west. The low diversity in the west makes fishes a high priority for conservation. For example, according to Dr. W. L. /vfmckley's and James E. Deacon's book Battle Against Extinction (1991), almost half of all fish species (-122) listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered, or being considered for listing, are west of the continental divide. Why such a difference? Eastern fishes are "specialists" that thrive despite competition for space and food. Western fishes, in contrast, are "generalists" that usually live in well defined niches and are poor competitors. Western fish are more adapted to high variance systems (high altematly with low runoff in streams). Introduced eastern fishes cannot tolerate high flow periods and are often flushed downstream. This downstream flushing no longer occurs in many western streams since man's building of dams and other structure that stabilize flow. What has been created is a more connected habitat, ideal for eastern fishes, such as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and others in western streams. Unaltered streams such as the Blue River in eastern Arizona, are, however, largely unaffected by non-native introductions because frequent flooding events prevent there persistence in the system. In contrast, streams such as the Lower Colorado River, dubbed by many to be one of the most altered streams in North America, supports substantial populations of non-native fish. In other words, it is not only that non-native fishes have been introduced into western streams, we have created more habitat for their continued existence at the expense of natives. Non-native fish are now out-competing natives for both food and space, in many streams, a major reason why many native western fish are on the brink of extinction. This study focuses on the types of native and non-native fishes in one particular area of Arizona, the Blue and San Francisco rivers. These rivers are located in Greenlee county, near the mining towns of Clifton and Morenci. The Blue River's headwaters start in New Mexico and flow into Arizona into and through its mouth at the San Francisco River. This unaltered, remote stream flows through canyons and recieves many tributaries. Five species of native fish can be found in abundance. They include longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Sonoran sucker (Catostomus insignis), desert sucker (Pcmtosteus cicrrki), and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitus). Both Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) and Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache) were found there historically. While non-native fish such as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) were collected in recent years, they were not abundant. Abundance of non-natives in the San Francisco River, however, is a different matter. The San Francisco River has its headwaters flowing from Arizona into New Mexico and back into Arizona in Greenlee county. With its deeper pools, it supports a fairly large population of non- native fishes. For example common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) were collected or seen in abundance, especially in the deeper pools. This river is less remote than the Blue and more altered by humans. This study places collections of fish made on the Blue and San Francisco Rivers in perspective by looking at several parameters. Collections were made from June 1994 to July 1995, starting from Raspberry Creek on the Blue River to its confluence with the San Francisco River and onto the western Forest Service border. Collectors included Paul Marsh, Brian Bagley, Tim Hurst, Terry Inman, Glen Knowles, and others from the Apache Sitgraves United States Forest Service office. This was done using a Smith-Root model 15-A gasoline powered backpack electrofisher and, on rare occasions, a 6 by 4 feet 1/8 inch mesh nylon seine. The number of each species of fish were tabulated and habitat data recorded for each locality sampled. I took these data and examined it relative to several parameters. First, described are the types of fish found in abundance. Second, I prepared three tables and graphs that depict some of potential interactions that many occur between different species. From these data, I computed drawn correlation coefficients. Third, localities were mapped on a Geographical Information System (GIS) using Arc Info and Arc View. This allows us an accurate visual perspective onto where certain species of fish were found. Finally, I described why the apparent interactions may be occurring. I must, however, stress the limitations of the data that is being presented. Different localities received different amounts of electrofish shocking time (minutes of electroshocking). Therefore, fish abundances at certain localities many be greater then was accounted for. Also, many statisticians may not think that the correlation coefficients found in this region are substantial, but we must realize that we are dealing with a western stream that already does not have a whole lot of competition. For this reason, I am taking correlation coefficients a lot lower then if! were dealing with a more congenial habitat. Description of Fish Found in the Blue River, the San Francisco River, and Selected Tributaries

Native Fish

Longfin Dace (Agosia chrysogaster) Longfin dace are small fish that rarely exceed 100 mm in length and generally live at elevations below 1,500 meters. They live in sandy bottomed desert streams to clear cooler streams in conifer zones (Minckley, 1973). The adaptability of this fish allows it to live in a wide range of temperature extremes. For example, they have been found living with desert pupfish, who are already quite tolerant to high temperatures. These night feeding opportunistic omnivores eat algae, detritus, and aquatic insects (Kepner, 1982). Potential interactions may occur with speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and loach minnows (Tiaroga cobitis) (Rinne, 1992). The red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), an introduce non-native bait fish, is believed to directly effect the number of longfin dace, due to competition (Jalde et al, 1991). Spawning generally occurs from December to July and is often correlated with flooding events and the biannual rain pattern (Kepner, 1982). It is currently listed as a Candidate 2 species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) Speckled dace are a small fish that usually reach 45 to 63 mm in length and live from 3 to 4 years (Addley, 1994 and John, 1964). It is generally found in headwater streams at elevations ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 meters. Speckled dace live in swift flowing pool and riffle creeks in water that is usually less then 0.5 meters deep. This fish is unique because it is the only native fish to be found in all seven freshwater drainages in the western United States. Like the longfin dace, they are opportunistic omnivores feeding generally on algae, detritus, and smaller aquatic invertebrates (Minckley, 1973). These feeding habitats are believed to strongly overlap with that of desert suckers (Pcmtosteus clarki) (Fisher et al, 1981). In addition, many non-native fish, such as red shiners (Cyprinella lutrensis) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), are believed to compete directly with speckled dace for food (Joseph et al, 1977). Spawning generally occurs during the spring and late summer. Spawning appears to be induced by and increase in water temperature, day length, and spring runoff (John, 1964).

Sonoran Sucker (Catostomus insignis) This large native sucker fish can reach lengths of 800mm and is found at elevations ranging from 300 to over 2,000 meters (IVfmcIdey, 1973). They generally inhabit shallow swift waters as juveniles and migrate to deeper calm waters as adults (Clarkson, 1982). They usually eat algae, aquatic invertebrates, and sometimes even seeds. Spawning generally occurs in late winter to early spring (Minckley, 1973). They are often found in close interaction with desert suckers (Pantosteus clarki) and will occasionally hybridize with them (Clarkson & Minckley, 1988).

Desert Sucker (Pantosteus dark) Desert suckers are a medium sized sucker fish that reach from 100 to 280 nun in length at maturely (vfmcIdey, 1973). They can be found in riffles and often migrate to protected areas near boulders and "large adults frequent strongly flowing, deeper waters near undercut banks." Thus, desert suckers live in similar habitats to Sonoran suckers (Catostomus insignis) (Schreiber & Minckley, 1981). However, they eat more vegetative material than Sonoran suckers, feeding primarily on algae and other aquatic plants (Amine, 1969). Their range can overlap with longfm dace (Agosia chrysogaster), loach minnows (Tiaroga cobitus), and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), but they are rarely preyed upon by other fish (Fisher et al, 1981 & Rinne, 1992).

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitus) Loach minnows are a small stream fish that live only about 24 months and obtain a length of 60mm at maturity (Ivfmcldey, 1973 & Britt, 1982). They are generally found in gravel riffles in creeks and moderately large rivers. They usually sink due to their small swim bladders, and they must swim vigorously in order to move (Minckley, 1973). Loach minnows live at elevations ranging from 4,300 to 7,100 feet above sea level. "Elevation, water flow, and food availability are believed to be some of the most limiting factors in the distribution of these fish (Anonymous, 1979)." Loach minnows are believed to directly compete with desert suckers and speckled dace for food and space (Rinne, 1992). Foods generally consist of aquatic insect larvae, but they are also opportunistic omnivores that feed on what is readily available to eat (Minckley, 1973). Adipose (fat) tissue is stored during the summer months in order to compensate for low food supplies during the winter months. They generally spawn during the late winter and early spring beneath algal mats (Britt, 1982). Eggs are attached to the underside of rocks and both the male and female protect the egg cavities, a rare occurrence in minnows (Spiller, 1993 & Vives et al, 1990). The introduced fish, the red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) has also been known to out- compete loach minnows in certain habitats (Anonymous, 1979). However, if habitat conditions are good, predation is not normally a serious threat to the loach minnow. Currently, this species occupies only about 15% of its historic range. "Of the approximately 2,600 kilometers of stream habitat historically occupied by the loach minnow 2,220 km no longer supports the species (Divine, 1986)." There declines have been generally due to dams and irrigation projects destroying normal variance in the streams and creating more habitat for non-native invasions effecting loach minnow distributions (Anonymous, 1979). In addition, a lot of their riffle habitat is destroyed by livestock grazing and four wheel drive vehicles have all destroyed their habitat (Marsh, 1991). They are currently listed as Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Gila Trout (Salmo gilae) The Gila trout is a native Arizona trout that lives larger streams (USFWS, 1979). They generally live in marginal habitats (Regan, 1966). Fry are found in riffle habitats. It is believed to be able to adapt to more extreme habitats then other sahninod fishes. They are opportunistic omnivores that eat both larval and adult insects (USFWS, 1979). Gila trout spawn in the early summer in fine gravel and sand substrates (Hogan, 1994 & USFWS, 1979). They often hybridize with rainbow trout and this has swamped the genetics of Gila trout and other native trout (Minckley, 1973). The warming of many streams may have destroyed a lot of their habitat (Regan, 1966). This fish is a potential native game fish that, if managed properly, can have positive implications in the future (USFWS, 1979). While not collected reciently in the Blue river, it is known to have once occurred there. It is currently listed as Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Apache Trout (Sahno apache) The Apache trout live at elevations ranging from 3,500 meters to optimal zone between 2,400 and 2,800 meters in small, clear and cold streams (IvfmcIdey, 1973). Historically found in the Blue River in Arizona and in New Mexico (Nicolas, 1986); there original range is now reduced to approximately 48 km or less of small steams, reduced from an estimated original range of approximately 965 km (Arizona trout, 1979). Spawning generally occurs from March to April (Minckley, 1973). Again, hybridization often occurs with rainbow trout witch has destroyed their gene pool substantially (Arizona Trout Recovery Team, 1979). It has been found that this trout generally loses out when it is place in competition with other introduced sahninods (Nickolas, 1986). It is currently listed as Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Non-Native Introduced Fish

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) The rainbow trout is one of the most widely introduced sport fish in the Eastern Hemisphere. They are usually found in cooler (<25 degrees Celsius) streams and lakes. They can live up to 11 years (Minckley, 1973). They eat mostly aquatic and terrestrial insects (Li et al, 1976) and algae (Needham et al, 1953). Spawning occurs in streams during the winter and early spring in gravel substrates (Minckley, 1973). Competition with natives is common and it has been found that dace generally feed less in the presence of exotic trout (Freeman, 1992). In addition, they are believed to hybridize with the Apache trout, Salmo apache (Miller, 1950).

Red Shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) This is an introduced non-native bait and forage fish (Koehn, 1965). Its effect on native fish populations are often extreme. For example, "the present range of the red shiner in Arizona almost exactly complements the presently reduce ranges of Meda (Spikedace) and Tiaroga (loach minnow)." It therefore has attributed significantly to the decline of native fish. One of the main problems with this fish is its tremendous adaptability to differences in turbidity, intermittent streams, and high temperature (Minckley, 1973). In other words, the more adaptable a fish is, the more dangerous it is. They will always, however, avoid swift turbulent flowing areas and can be easily flushed out by floods (Douglas et al, 1994). In addition "red shiners probably out- compete juvenile native fishes in marginal habitats (Lanigan et al, 1981)." Red shiners are omnivorous and feed both on plankton and aquatic insect larvae in lakes and, in streams, algae, invertebrates, and young fish. They usually spawn in calm waters between March and June (Minckley, 1973).

Flathead Catfish (Pilodictis olivaris) This is a non-native introduced sport fish that lives typically in large rivers in deeper pools near cover. They were first introduced prior to 1950 in the Gila R. and in the Lower Colorado River in the 1960s. They are relatively sedimentary and feed mostly at night in clear waters. To eat, they engulf their pray with their large carnivorous mouth (Minckley, 1973). They tend to be opportunistic carnivores that "choose their pray based on abundance and ease of capture." In areas where it is in abundance, it has been known to be the most dominant predator causing severe declines in native fish populations (Thomas, 1994). This is what has happened in much of the San Francisco River, in Arizona and New Mexico. Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) This is an introduced non-native freshwater catfish for sport and commercial fishing. Channel catfish are now found in all drainage systems in the United States. They can reach up to 800 mm and 20 kg in weight (Minckley, 1973). They usually inhabit deep waters and shallow areas often pose as barriers to their movement (Harrison, 1953). Channel catfish are opportunistic omnivores feeding actively in swift riffles at night. They generally spawn in the spring (Minckley, 1973). They have also caused declines of native fish in much of the San Francisco River in Arizona and New Mexico.

Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) The common carp is a non-native introduced food fish. They are so widely introduced that they now inhabit all waters below and elevation of 2,000 meters. Like the red shiners, they are able to live in a "broad spectra of tolerances to chemical conditions, temperatures, currents, foods, and spawning condition, and therefore probably influence most species with which they occur (Minckley, 1973)." Carp are also opportunistic feeders that eat whatever is available. Fry generally feed on zooplankton (Edwards et al, 1982). Spawning occurs form late February to June. Other fish populations have also declined in the presence of carp (Minckley, 1973).

Potential Fish, Not Found in Recent Collections

Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieui) Spikedace (Meda fulgida) Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Collections made by DeMarth & DeMarais 1988. Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) Flathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) - Collections made by DeMarai & DeMarais 1988. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) - Collections made by Novy & Brees in 1977. Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) Graph #1 A comparison of the CPE of speckled dace vs. elevation

6000

c 0 5000 0 ). 0 4000 III

3000 0 1 2 3 4 Speckled Dace CPE log+1 y = 4598.5 + 54.111x RA2 = 0.005

This graph compares the log +1 of catch per unit effort (CPE) of speckled dace verses elevation in the Blue and San Francisco rivers and tributaries. There is no correlation coefficient. This proves that elevation changes found within the drainages were not significant enough to control speckled dace's distribution. Graph #2 A comparison of Desert Sucker CPE vs. Elevation

6000 c 0 . •94 5000 Z1; LU 4000

3000 0 1 2 3 Desert Sucker CPE log-f-1 y = 4884.2 - 149.86x RA2 = 0.033

This graph compare long +1 of catch per unit effort (CPE) of desert sucker verses elevation. Again, a weak correlation coefficient of .033 was reached. Desert suckers are also found in greater abundances at higher elevations. The area sampled is a transitory elevation for desert suckers. Graph#3 A comparison of Total CPE vs. speckled dace CPE

0 100 200 Speckled dace CPE y= 12.815+ 1.1239x RA2 = 0.884

Speckled dace make up the largest part of the total CPE. true. The largerastreamis,themorehabitatandspace. Streamsrankinghigherinsizewillhavemore species offishthansmallerones.Afairlygoodcorrelation coefficientof37.8%showsthistobe

No. Species found (by size)vs.thetotalnumberofspecies found. o Graph #4Acomparisonofthestreamrank y = 1

0.80259 +0.94161x 2

Stream Rank 3

4 RA2

=0.378 5

6 Discussion

Fish distributionn the Blue and San Francisco Rivers and selected tributaries are unremarkable. The fish biodiversity (number of species of fish) per site was consistent with how biodiversity decreases upstream, in the headwaters, and the downstream parts of streams and increases in the middle portion of a stream, the portion of the stream sampled. Species such as speckled dace, usually most abundant at higher elevations and absent in low desert streams, were found throughout the reach. A similar pattern existed for longfin dace, typically found in low- desert areas, which penetrated the whole study area.

Conclusion The hypothesis that fish are longitudinally zoned in Arizona with a broad, central, transitional zone between low and upland faunal elements was clearly supported. Local conditions are the only thing affecting the distributions of fish. No pattern of environmental change with altitude existed. No definite trends in species' distribution of abundance could be derived from the available data, other then the point that more species are found in larger habitats. Bibliography

Addley, R. C. & Hardy, T.B., "Virgin River Fishes Suitability Criteria Outline," for the USBLM (May 12, 1994).

Amin, 0. M. "Helminth Fauna of Suckers (Catostomidae) of the Gila River System, Arizona. IL Five Parasites from Catostomus spp. "(1969).

Anonomus, "Habitat Study of Rountail Chub (Gila robusta grahami), Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Gila National Forest Silver City, New Mexico," (1979).

The Arizona Trout Recovery Team, "Recovery Plan for Arizona Trout, Salmo apache" (1979).

Britt, K. D. JR., "The Reproductive Biology and Aspects of Life History of Tiaroga cobitis in Southwestern New Mexico." (1982).

Clarkson, R. W. "Morphology and Feeding Behavior of Hybrids Between Catostomus insignis and Pantosteus clarki (Catostomidae)," (1982).

Clarkson, R. W. & Minckley, W. L.,"Morphology and Foods of Arizona Catostirnid Fishes: Catostomus insignis, Pantosteus clarki, and Their Putative Hybrids." Copeia, (2).1988, pg 422-433.

Divine, G., "Loach Minnow," USDI FWS Albuqueque, N. M. (1986).

Douglas, M. E., Marsh, P. C., and Minckley, W. L. "Indigenous Fishes of Western North America and the Hypothesis of Competitive Displacement"

Edwards, E. A. & Twomey, K., "Habitat Suitability Index Modesls: Common Carp",Biological Servieces Program and Division of Ecological Services, FWS/OBS-82/10.12 July 1982.

Fisher, S.G., Bush, D. E. & Grimm, N. B. "Duel Feeding Chronologies in Two Sonoran Desert Stream Fishes, Agosia cluysogaster (Cyprinidae) and pantosteus clarki (Catostomidae)." The Southwestern Naturalist 26(1):31-36 (1981)

Freeman, M. C. and Grossman, G. D. "A Field Test for Competitive Interactions Among Foraging Stream Fishes," Copeia, 1992 (3) (898-902) (1992).

Harrison, H. M., "Returns From Tagged Channel Catfish In the Des Moines River, Iowa," Iowa Academy of Science Vol. 60 1953 (pp.636-644).

Hogan, D. "Petition to Designate Critical Habitat for the Gila Trout, Onchorynchus gilae gilae." (1994).

Jakle, M., "Summary of Fish and Water Quality Sampling Along the San Pedro River from Dudleyville to Hughes Ranch near Cascabel, Arizona, October 24 and 25, 1991 and the Gila River from Coolidge Dam to Ashurst/ Hayden Diversion Dam, October 28-31, 1991 (Fish and Wildlife),USDI, Bureau of Reclamation (1991).

John, Kenneth R.,"Survival of Fish in Intemittent Streams of the Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona," Ecology, Vol. 45, No 1. (1964).

Joseph, T. W., Sinning J. A., Behnke, R. J. , Holden, P. B., "An Evaluation of the Status, Life History, and Habitat Requirements of Endangered and Threatened Fishes of the Upper Colorado River System, Western Energy and Land Use." Team Office of Biological; Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (1977). Kepner, W C., "Reproductive Biology of Longfin Dace (Agosia Chrysogaster) in a Sonoran Desert Stream, Arizona," (1982). Thesis with W L. Minckley.

Koehn R. K, "Developement and Ecological Significance of Nuptial Tubercles of the Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis", Copeia N.4 December 31, 1965 (pp. 462-467).

Lanigan, S. H. and Berry C. R Jr. "Distibution of Fishes in the White River, Utah", The Southwestern Naturalist Vol 26(4):389-393.

Li, H. W. & Moyle, P. B. , "Feeding Ecology of the Pit Sculpin, Cottus Pitensis, in Ash Creek, California", Bulletin Southern California Academy of Sciences Vol 75.

Marsh, P. C., "Loach Minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, Recovery Plan" U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuqueerque, NM (1991).

Miller R. R., "Notes on the Cutthroat and Rainbow Trouts with the Description of a New Species From the Gila River, New Mexico" Occasional Papers of hte Museum of Zoology University of Michigan Nu. 529 (1950).

Minckley, W. L., Fishes of Arizona, Arizona Game and Fish Department, (1973).

Needham, P. R & Welsh, J P. "Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson) in the Hawaiian Islands," The Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 17, No. 3 July, 1953.

Nickolas, J. J., "A Natural History for the Arizona Golden Trout, Salim apache Miller, 1972 (Salmonidae)" (1986).

Regan, D. M., "Ecology of Gila Trout In Main Diamond Creek in New Mexico," Technical Papers of The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife USDI FWS (1966).

Rime, J. N., "Physical Habitat Utilization of Fish in a Sonoran Desert Stream, Arizona, Southwestern United States," Ecology of Freshwater Fish 1992: 1: 35-41. (1992 Munksgaard).

Schreiber, D,C. & Minckley, W.L., "Feeding Interrelations of Native Fishes in a Sonoran Desert Stream," Great Basin Naturalist Vol 41, No. 4 (1981) Pgs409- 426).

Spine r, S. F., "Biological Opinion on the Effects to Loach Minnow and Apache Trout From the Proposed Campbell and Isabelle Timber Sales",(1993).

Thomas, M. E. "Monitoring the Effects of Introduced Falathead Catfish on Sport Fish Populations in Altamaha River, Georgia" Georgia Department of Nawtural Resources Wild=life Resources Division" (1994).

USFWS, "Gila Trout Recovery Plan," (1979).

Vives, S. P., "Loach Minnow," The Nature Conservancey Arizona Field Office, (1990). Historic Blue and San Francisco River Fish Collections

Blue River 2 miles north Blue Catostomus insignis 9 Pantosteus clarki 52 Ago sia chrysogaster 2 Rhinichthys osculus 2

Blue River Station 2 Rhinichthys osculus * Tiaroga cobitis * A. chrysogaster * C. insignis * P. clarki * O. mykiss * *

Blue R. above Fritz Ranch Pantosteus clarki * Catostomus insignis * Agosia chrysogaster * Rhinichthys osculus *

Blue R. Sta 1 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S23 T2N R3OE Pantosteus clarki * Rhinichthys osculus * O. mykiss * Tiaroga cobitis * Blue R. Sta 2 SE 1/4 Se1/4 Sll T2N R3OE O. mykiss * C. insignis * P. clarki * A. chrysogaster * R. osculus *

Blue R.. Sta. 3 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Si T2N R3OE 0. mykiss * C. insignis * P. clarki * A. chrysogaster *

Blue River Sta 5 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 T4N R32E A. chrysogaster * R. osculus * C. insignis *

Blue R. 1/4 mile above Juan Miller Rd. P. clarki * C. insignis * R. osculus * A. chrysogaster * C. lutrensis * R. osculus 175 P. clarki 43 T. cobitis 4 A. chrysogaster 2 T. cobitis * Blue R. Sta 2 SE 1/4 Se1/4 Sll T2N R3OE 0. mykiss * C. insignis * P. clarki * A. chrysogaster * R. osculus *

Blue R. Sta. 3 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Si T2N R3OE O. myldss * c. insignis * P. clarki * A. chrysogaster *

Blue River Sta 5 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 T4N R32E A. chrysogaster * R. osculus * C. insignis *

Blue R. 1/4 mile above Juan Miller Rd. P. clarki * C. insignis * R. osculus * A. chrysogaster * C. lutrensis * R. osculus 175 P. clarki 43 T. cobitis 4 A. chrysogaster 2 T. cobitis * Blue R. 300 m above a e at FR 475C NE 1/4 NW 1/4 S6 R 31E T2S C. insignis 5 P. clarki 13 A. chrysogaster 9 R. osculus 35 C. lutrensis * T. cobitis *

Coleman Ck. sta 1&2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 S32 T4 1/2N R31E

Salmo trutta *

Salmo trutta *

Cambell Blue Ck. R. osculus * S. trutta * C. insignis * R. osculus * P. clarki * A. chrysogaster * R. osculus * T. cobitis * A. chrysogaster * P. clarki ** P. clarki * 0. mykiss * C. insignis * R. osculus * T. cobitis * C. insignis * P. clakri * A. chrysogaster * C. insignis * P. clarki * S. trutta * A. chrysogaster * R. osculus * R. osculus * R. osculus *

Buckaloo Ck.

0. mykiss * Salmonid hybrid *

Blue R. Sta. 4 NE1/4 SE1/4 T4N R32E A. chrysogaster * C. insignis * R. osculus * C. insignis *

Stra _ horse Ck. SW 1/4 S 29 T2N R3OE O. mylciss * R. osculus * A. chrysogaster * P. clarki *

Rasoberry Ck. S16 T2N R30E. P. clarki * A. chrysogaster * R. osculus * Blue R. Station 1 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S23 T2N R3OE O. mykiss * T. cobitis * R. osculus * P. clarld * A. chrysogaster *

Blue R. 1/4 mile above Juan Miller Rd. P. clarlci * T. cobitis 4

San Francisco R. at mouth of Harden Ck. P. clarlci 2 R. osculus 7 A. chrysogaster 77 Ictalurus punctatus 8 C. insignis 3

Harden Ciene2a Ck. 1 mile above S. Francisco R. R. osculus 130 G. robusta 39 A. chrysogaster 34

Harden Ciene a Ck. P. clarki 13 G. intermedia 39 A. chrysogaster 10 R. osculus 6 Pimephles promelas 2 C. insignis 13 Ictalurus punctatus 0 Micropterus salmoides 12 P. clarki 47 G. robusta 0 R. osculus 0 P. clarki 76 C. insignis 50

San Francisco R. 5 miles above Clifton R. osculus * C. insignis * P. clarki * Pimephales promelas * C. lutrensis * A. chrysogaster *

San Francisco R. NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S32 R3OE T14S A. chrysogaster * C. lutrensis * Pylodictis olivaris * P. clarki * C. insignis * I. punctatus *

San Francisco R. above Evans Point NW 1/4 S 5 T4S R31E P. olivaris * I. punctatus 55 C. insignis 10 A. chrysogaster 59 V

P. olivaris * A. chrysogaster * C. lutrenis * P. olivaris * C. insignis * I. punctatus * C. carpio *

ye Clifton P. clarld * R. osculus 4 C. lutrensis 4 P. olivaris * I. punctatus 7

ntour I. punctatus * P. olvaris * C. carpio * C. lutrensis * C. lutrensis * P. olivaris * I. punctatus * P. olivaris *