FISHES OF BURRO GREEK James Johnson Murray Itzkowitz Ichthyology W. L. Minckley January 4, 1966 The Fishes of Burro Creek Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona Introduction: Arizona has three major river drainage systems--the Gila- Salt River, the Little Colorado River and the Bill Williams River. All three systems drain into the Colorado River--the Little Col- orado just above the Grand Canyon National Park, the Gila at Yuma and the Bill Williams about 130 miles north of Yuma at Parker Dam. The Little Colorado and the Gila River drainages both have major cities in their patterns and many studies have been made of their fish fauna and ecology (Gilbert and Scofield, 1898, Miller, 1961, Minckley, personal comm.). The Bill Williams River is unique in its isolation since the only major towns in its drainage are Wikieup and Bagdad with a combined population of less than two thousand. Even the major roads (U.S. 66, 89, and 60) encircle this area rather than going through it. The only access is via Arizona highway 93. This isolation may be the reason why the Bill Williams River and its major tributaries, the Santa Maria River, the Big Sandy River, and Burro Creek are relatively unknown as far as scientific studies are concerned. This paper relates the 0 fish fauna of one of the tributaries of the Bill Williams River-- Burro Creek. One or the biggest problems involved in this study was finding adequate maps of the area. Even when maps were finally obtained, / . A* . ' e 0° " 1 , •••• ' / , i s.1 !W ol - LPN! 1 -- GvAt i. v i a s wv m v.,\ )1 1. g -2- the roads leading into the area were extremely difficult to find. Nowt of Burro Creek is accessable only via "jeep roads", horse- back or walking. Stream Description: The main body of water is above (east) of the Arizona 93 bridge with very little permanent water below this bridge. Burro Creek was crossed in three places below State Highway 93 and its junction with the Big Sandy--two of these locations were dry and although the other had water, no fish were observed. This stream wasvery muddy and appeared to be eroding a new channel within the limits of the old stream bed; it is assumed that this was not permanent water. It was only 0.5 meters in width and 10 cm. at its greatest depth. The stream was followed over one mile up- stream and the condition of the water did not change. At and above Arizona 93 bridge, fish were scattered in iso- --401' lated pools. Some of these pools may dry A(Ninckley, personal comm.) at times but are connected during flood conditions. The fish pop- ulation varies with the depth and the amount of cover in each pool. ir the smaller, shallow pools contained numerous Notropis lutrensis, Agosia. chrrsogaster and Gila robusta. The larger pools in the area contained the above fish in the shallows and also Cyprinus carpio, Ictalurus melas and Lepomis cyanellus in varying abundance. One Catostomus insignis was also captured in the pool directly below the bridge. The water upstream is connected by very shallow (10 cm.) riffles and fish (mainly Gila robusta) were seen fleeing across _3_ these shallows when chased by the seine. This can demonstrate that the fish wailb. pool to pool and thus may not always maintain stable populations in each pool. This may also be the way the fish avoid being left stranded in drying pools. The larger pools often have a depth greater than one meter r and have spotty vegetation with overhanging rocks for cover. 471.. 0 Larger seines (* inch mesh) were used in these pools and thus the smaller fish were observed but not captured. The fish taken were: Catostomus insignis, Gila robusta and Cyprinus carpio. Except for Gila, the fish were of the same relative size and no young-of-the- year were taken. A study of the scales' growth rings showed that these fish were hatched during the same year. In a very large pool (400x50x1-2* mj about 3/4 mile above the bridge, a large school of suckers was observed, but avoided capture. Nineteen, 6 to 10-incheGila were captured at this location. Above this pool, the stream formed a number of small, stagnant pools and then disappeared underground for an unknown distance. The next major collecting site was approximately five miles above the first, at "Burro Creek Ford". At the Ford there is a large (600x50x1 164 pool formed by a stone and stick dam constructed by beavert. The upper reaches of this pool were difficult to seine because of the fresh willow cuttings that littered the bottom. Lepomis oyanellus was extremely abundant here but only in small sizes (2 to 7 cm.). Carp of various sizes were also found, the smaller fish running in schools of one hundred individuals or more. Above the pool the water was contained in a series of pool- riffles that terminated 1/3 of a mile above the beaver pond. At this *headwaters" a soft deposit of marl was noted extending 50 m. downstream. The calcium carbonate deposit indicates that the water must be traveling for some distance underground, picking up carbon dioxide from the respiration and decomposition taking place in the soil. This carbon dioxide combines with water to form the weak acid, carbonic acid. In the presence of an acid, calcium combines with the bicarbonate ion to form the soluable calcium bicarbonate. When the stream surfaced, the carbon dioxide began to diffuse into the atmosphere, increasing the pbt, causing the calcium bicarbonate to change into insoluable calcium carbon- ate which precipitated. An absence of fish and plants was noticed in this area, possibly because of the changing chemical composi- tion of the water. Above the marl pool was a valley with trees and grass growing in it. There was no sign of any previously existing stream except for the eroded bedrock. Upstream, about one mile, three, separate, dry stream beds were found which joined into one and remained dry for at least three to five miles upstream. Below the beaver pond the water seeped through the dam and again formed a series of pool-riffles. Lepomis cyanellus wore still abundant, but instead of carp, small Gila robusta were found. These two species were the only fish found for i mile below the pool. 4t The stream then formed two, large, deep pools (100x20x5 4) with large boulders and relatively little shallow water. A gill net was set up in one of these pools for two nights and the species of fish taken there were Gila robusta, Iotalurus melas, Cyprinus carpio, and Catostomus insignis. Lepomis and Agosia were also caught with a seine, but the pools were too deep and rocky to do c(1 an effective job seining. Below the second pool the water fell about 10 meters in a series of fast riffles to a large, deep, boulder-strewn pool lying between sheer, rock walls. The riffles were seined and Lepomis and Notropis were taken. This is the greatest distance Up Burro Creek that Notropis lutrensis was recorded. It seems that this ten-meter drop acts as a barrier against at least the Notropis, even though they were found in pools half-way up the falls. Be- low this area, Notropis is commonly found, but not in such numbers as just below the Arizona 93 bridge. The large pool below the "falls" was not seined but several large fish, believed to be suckers, were seen. From here the water formed a series of large, deep pools, most of which were too deep and rocky to seine. Fish seen in these pools were: G. robusta, Iotalurus Lopomis Notropis a., Cyyrinus carpio, and a sucker of unknown:genus. It may also be noted that the abundance of Lepomis and Notropis was nearly the same as near the 93 bridge. Although this series of pools was not connected to those near the 93 bridge, the compar- m A y able densities of Notropis and Lepomis indicate% that these pools A are connected more often that to those pools above the water falls. History of Introduced Species: Lepomis cyanellus--First described by Rafinesque in 1819, the green sunfish is generally distributed in warm waters from the Great Lakes, south to Mexico, and east of the Rockies to the Alleghenies. It was introduced into Utah in 1890 in the Weber River and Utah Lake (Sigler and Miller, 1963). This fish was collected in the Salt River between Phoenix and Tempe and at the mouth of the Gila River in 1926, and in Lake Mead in 1942 (Miller and Lowe, in Lowe, 1964). Ictalurus melas-rFirst described as SilUrus melas by Rafinosque in 1820, there are no reliable records of their introduction into Nevada, but it was probably around the mid-1800's (LaRivers, 1962). The black bullhead was first collected in Arizona in the Colorado River at Yuma in 1904 (Lowe, 1964). Notropis lutronsis--This fish ranges widely over the central United States, from Illinois and South Dakota, southwardi.and west- ward to the basin of the Rio Grande in Texas and New Mexico. Its distribution in northern Mexico is not well known. It is an inhab- itant of both creeks and rivers, tolerating the muddy waters of the Great Plains (Miller, 1952). In his 1952 paper, Miller states that Notropis lutrensis seems wholly unsuited for the waters of the Colorado River; it is "therefore not considered to be harmful" to the present fauna of the river. He does not take into consideration what will happen to the rauna of the tributaries of the Colorado River that N.