of the rio yaqui recovery p lan · this recovery plan deals with fourthreatened or endangered taxa,...

OF THERIO YAQUI

RECOVERYP LAN

1995

YAQUI FISHES

RECOVERYPLAN

Preparedby:

Kevin S. CobbleU.S.FishandWildlife Service

SanBernardinoNationalWildlife Refuge1408 10th Street

Douglas,Arizona85607

for

Region2U.SFishandWildlife ServiceAlbuquerque,New Mexico

Approved:Service

Date:

BEAUTIFUL SHINER

1/

YAQUI CHUB

YAQUI TOPMINNOW

YAQUI CATFISH

-- Prints taken trots Arizona Game and Fish poster, NATIVE FISH OF ARIZONA

MEXICAN STONEROLLER

YAQUT SUCKER

LONGFIN DACE

ROUNDTAIL CHUB

Prints taken from Arizona Game and Fish poster, NATIVE FISH OF ARIZONA

Yaqui FishesRecoveryPlan December1994

DISCLAIMER

Recoveryplansdelineatereasonableactionswhich arebelievedto be requiredto recoverand!or protect listed species. Plans are publishedby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,sometimespreparedwith the assistanceof recoveryteams,contractors,Stateagencies,andothers.Objectiveswill be attainedandany necessaryfundsmadeavailablesubjectto budgetaryand otherconstraintsaffecting the parties involved, as well as the need to addressother priorities.Recoveryplans do not necessarilyrepresentthe views, official positions,or approvalof anyindividuals or agenciesinvolved in theplan formulation,otherthanthe U.S. FishandWildlifeService. Theyrepresenttheofficial positionoftheU.S. Fishand Wildlife Serviceonly aftertheyhavebeensignedby the RegionalDirectoror DirectorasaDproved. Approvedrecoveryplansare subjectto modification as dictatedby new findings, changesin speciesstatus, and thecompletionof recoverytasks.

This revisedrecoveryplan was essentiallycompletedwhenthe Secretaryof Interior’s policyinitiatives regardingpublic participationin recoveryplan preparationand implementationwasannouncedon July 1, 1994. TheNotice ofOpportunityfor PublicReviewandCommentfor thisrevisedrecoveryplanwaspublishedin the FederalRe2isteron June7, 1994. Although therehasbeenconsiderablecommunicationswith the public, expertson the speciesandaffectedagencies,the implementationschedulehasnot beenexpandedto include a participationplan asenvisionedby thenewpolicy initiatives. As implementationcontinues,the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Servicewill work with affectedstakeholdersto ensure recoveryproceedsin a mannerthat minimizesthesocialand economiccoststo the affectedpublicswhile recoveryis achieved. Futurerevisionswill incorporatea participationplan.

Literaturecitationsshould readasfollows:

U.S. FishandWildlife Service. 1994. Yaqui FishesRecoveryPlan. USD1 Fish andWildlifeService,Albuquerque,New Mexico. 48 pp.

Additional copiesmay be purchasedfrom:

Fish and Wildlife ReferenceService:5430 GrosvenorLane, Suite 110Bethesda,Maryland 20814

301/492-6403or 1-800-582-3421

The fee for the Planvariesdependingon thenumberof pagesof the Plan.i

Yaqui Fishes RecoveryPlan December1994

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Preparationof the Yaqui fishesrecovery plan benefitedfrom review and commentby the followingmembersof theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Region2 DesertFishesRecoveryTeam:

W. L. Minckley, Arizona StateUniversity, DesertFishesRecoveryTeam LeaderTom Burke, U.S. Bureauof ReclamationDavid Propst,New Mexico Departmentof GameandFishKirk Young, Arizona GameandFish DepartmentJeromeA. Stefferud,U.S. ForestServiceJeff Simms,U.S. Bureauof LandManagementAlejandro Varela-Romero,CentroEcologicode Sonora,Mexico

This recoveryplanhasgonethrough severalrevisionsandhashad a long road to completion. Manypeople have contributedtheir time and expertisetowards improving this plan, expecially Dr. W.L.Minckley. Dr. Minckley’s first-handknowledgeandhistorical perspectiveon the fishesof theRio Yaquihasbeeninvaluableto their conservationand to thecompletionof this recoveryplan. His assistanceonthis plan is greatlyappreciated.

ii

Yaqui FishesRecoveryPlan December1994

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CurrentStatus: Four Yaqui fish speciesareincludedin this plan,two listedas endangered,the Yaqui chub (Gilapurpurea)(LJSFWS 1984)and Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsisoccidentalissonorensis)(USEWS 1967), andtwothreatenedspecies,theYaqui catfish (Ictaluruspricei)(USFWS 1984), andthe beautifulshiner(Cyprinellaformosa)(USFWS1984). All formerlyoccurredthroughouttheRio Yaqui Basinin USA and Mexico. Currentdistributionin Mexico is imperfectly knoim. USA populationsarelimited primarily to the San Bemardino/LeslieCanyonNWRandWest Turkey Creek,CochiseCounty,Arizona. Beautiful shinerandYaqui catfishalso occurredin the MimbresRiver in New Mexico.

Habitat RequirementsandLimiting Factors: In theUnited States,Yaqui fishesareheavily dependenton artesianwells and spring flows on San BernardinoNWR (SBNWR). Three streamsections, Leslie Creek,WestTurkeyCreekandBlack Draw,containYaqul fishes. Waterdevelopmentandpumping of undergroundaquifersconstitutethe greatestthreatto survival of Yaqui fishes,followed closely by introductionof non-nativeorganisms.

RecoveryObjectives: Stabilizeexisting populationsand downlistYaqui chub andYaqui topminnow. ReintroduceYaqui catfishand beautifulshinerinto historic habitats in theUSA andestablishself-sustainingpopulations.

RecoveryCriteria: Althoughpresentin theUS, thesepopulationswill not continueto persistunlessthey aremanagedintensively.Also, populationsand habitatsneedto be stabilizedin Mexico beforedelisting canbe considered.

Action Needed:1. Developco-operativeeffort with Mexico for the recoveryof Yaqui fishes.2. Securehabitatandwater sourcesfor the Yaqui fishesin theUSA andMexico.3. Conductresearchon thebiology andhabitatrequirementsof Yaqui fishes.4. Managethe fish andtheir essentialhabitats.5. Introduceandmaintainself-sustainingpopulationswithin their historic range.6. Monitor existingandestablishedpopulationsandhabitats.

Total EstimatedCostsof Recovery:Costs: (000’s)Year Need 1 Need2 Need3 Need4 Need5 Need6 Total

1995 5.0 50.0 15.0 140.0 1.0 5.0 216.01996 5.0 50.0 15.0 140.0 2.0 5.0 217.01997 5.0 1500.0 10.0 150.0 2.0 6.0 1673.01998 5.0 50.0 10.0 150.0 2.0 6.0 223.01999 5.0 5.0 15.0 160.0 3.0 8.0 196.02000 5.0 5.0 10.0 160.0 3.0 8.0 191.02001 5.0 5.0 10.0 175.0 3.0 10.0 207.02002 5.0 5.0 13.0 175.0 2.0 10.0 210.02003 5.0 5.0 10.0 185.0 2.0 10.0 217.02004 5.0 5.0 13.0 185.0 2.0 10.0 220.0

RecovervCost 50.0 1680.0 121.0 1620.0 22.0 78.0 3570.0

Dateof Recovery: Dowalistingshouldbe initiated 10 years following the approvalof this plan if recoverycriteriaaremet.

iii

Yaqui Fishes RecoveryPlan December1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DISCLAIMER 1

EXECUTWESUMMARY ii

Part I - iNTRODUCTION

Locationand Descriptionof the Rio Yaqui Basin 4

Historical Perspectives 5

Accountsof Listed Taxa 6

Beautiful Shiner 6Yaqui chub 9Yaqui catfish 10Yaqui topniinnow 12Other Biotic components 14

Decline ofAquaticBiota 16

ConservationEfforts 19

PART II- RECOVERY

ObjectivesandConditions 20

StepdownOutline 23

Narrative 25

LiteratureCited 33

PART LII - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 41

APPENDIX 44

iv

Yaqu3. Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

I. Introduction

This RecoveryPlandealswith four threatenedor endangeredtaxa,beautifulshiner(Cyprinellaformosa),

Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea), Yaqui catfish (Ictaluriss pricei) and Yaqui topminnow1 (Poeciliopsis

occidentalissononenris),which inhabittheRio Yaqui drainagebasinof southeasternArizona (AZ) (Fig.

1) andnorthwesternSonora(SON), Mexico (US Bureauof Sport Fisheriesand Wildlife [USBSFW]

1966, US Fish & Wildlife Service[USEWS]I984a, 1986, 1994a). Headwatersof this river systemalso

providedhistoric habitat in theUSA for four additional indigenousfishes,longfin dace(Agosiac~f,

chrysogaster),Mexicanstoneroller(Campostomaornatum), roundtail chub (Gila robusta)andYaqui

sucker(Catostomusbemardini)(Minckley 1973, 1985; McNatt 1974), all currentlycandidatesfor listing

in both theUSA andMexico(USEWS1994a, SecretariadeDesarrolloSocial [SEDESOL]1994;Table

1). Sevenoftheeightspeciesare alsoconsideredimperiledby the Stateof Arizona(Arizona Game&

Fish Department[AZGFD] 1992). Livestock overgrazing,erosion,water diversion,aquiferpumping,

non-indigenousspecies,destructionor alterationof mostnatural fish habitatsanddroughthavecaused

theextirpationof four of the eight taxain the Rio Yaqui basin,USA.

This Plan hasbeenintegratedwith the San BernardinoNational Wildlife RefuseManagementPlan

(USFWS 1987) and San BernardinoNational Wildlife RefuseComDrehensiveMana2ementPlan

(USFWS 1994b [in preparation]). Most of the listed and candidatespeciesphysically occur, are

reintroducedor are to bereestablishedon that refuge,whichalso encompassesdesignatedcritical habitats

for beautiful shiner,Yaqui chubandYaqui catfish(USFWS 1984a). This Planwas thereforeprepared

in context and as part of the conceptual,ecosystem-levelmanagementprogram for an “Area of

Ecological Concern” definedin the ComprehensiveManaRementPlan to include “associatednatural

resourcecomponentsand their respectivejurisdictions.” “Interjurisdictional efforts could...[thus]lead

to cooperativemanagementagreementsbetweenthe Service[USFWS] andotherland ownersincluding

thegovernmentof Mexico whenpossible.” Only in this mannercan the intent of this Planbe attained

to foster sustainableecosystemfunction in the USA portion ofthe basin andhopefully theentire Rio

‘Various commonnamesareappliedtotopminnows. “Gila topminnowis commonlyusedfor all populationsof Poeciliopsis~ asRobinsCtal. (1991)chosenotto recommendcommonnamesfor subspeciesandthatepithetwashistoricallyapplied(Baileyet al. 1948). Meffe etal. (1983)suggested,alternatively,that thename“Sonoran”topminnowbeusedfor thetwo formscombined,with “Yaqui’ and Ciila’ for therespectivesubspecies.Minckley& Deacon(1991)followedthelastsuggestionandprovidedcommonnamesfor subspeciesofwesternfreshwaterfishes;thisapproachis appliedhere.

1

Yaqui Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

TABLE 1. Federal and State Listing status ofRio Yaqui fishes.Taxaextripatedfrom theUSA portionof theRio Yaqui basinaremarkedwith an asterisk(*); beautiful

shinerhasbeensuccessfullyreintroducedon SanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR

Listing Status’Taxa Designated

USA AZ MEXICO Critical Habitat

Agosiachiysogas:er,longfin dace Candidate2 not listed Threatened not appl.Campostomaornatum,

Mexicanstoneroller Candidate2 Endangered Endangered not appl.

* Cypnnellaformosa,beautiful shiner Threatened Endangered Threatened yesGila purpurea,Yaqui

chub Endangered Endangered Endangered yes

*~jj~ robusta,roundtail

chub2 Candidate2 Threatened Rare not appl.

* Catostomusbernardim,Yaqui sucker Candidate2 Endangered Rare not appl.

*Iddup~ pricei, Yaqui

catfish Threatened Endangered Rare yes

Poeciliopsisoccidentalissonoriensis,Yaqui top-minnow Endangered Endangered Threatened no

1 . ReferencesincludeAZGFD 1992; SEDESOL1994; and USBSFW1966,USEWS1984a, 1994a.

2 . Roundtailchubalsois listedby theNM StateLegislature(1974)asequivalentto federallythreatened.

2

YaquiFish historicrangein SEAZ

ARiZONA

(I

P~myu

Wflkox PlaynBasin

W. Turkey

¾

N) 1k

.1kN

AZ

3


Yaqui watershed.Meansto accomplishthis end includea) habitatstabilization,restorationandenhance-

ment, b) reestablishmentand population stabilization for threatenedand endangeredspecies,c)

enhancementofotherindigenousaquaticbiota in waysthat preventcontinueddeteriorationto preclude

future listings andtherebyd) optimize regional biological diversity bothon andoff National Wildlife

Refuge lands.

A. Location and Description of the Rio Yaqui Basin

The Rio Yaqui basinlies betweenLongitude270 and 320 N and Latitude 1070 and 1100, 40’ W. It

comprises—73,000km2 of whichonly —1500 km2 (<2.0%) is in the USA. BeginningastheRio Papi-

gochic in westernChihuahua(CHI), the streamentersSONto receiveRio deBavispe,thenflows south

into Golfo deCalifornia nearCiudadObreg6n(Hendricksonetal. 1981). Total annualdischargenear

the mouthaverages2800ha3, making it one of the largerstreamsin the region.

The drainagein the USA includespartsof CochiseCo., AZ, andHidalgo Co., NM. Aquatichabitats

with indigenousfishes are in the SanBernardinoand southernSulphurSpringsvalleys,AZ. Four

species(Yaqui chub,sucker,catfishandtopminnow)are (or were) foundnowhereelse in the USA. The

USA part of the Rio Yaqui systemreceivesrunoff from the Swisshelm,Chiricahua,Mule, Pedregosa,

Perilla andPeloncillo mountains. Waterssupporting indigenousfishes include Rucker, Leslie and

Whitewatercreeks,areachin Black Draw (= SanBernardinoCreek= Rio de SanBernardinoin Mexico)

and associatedci~negas,pools/marshesandspringsfed by flowing artesianwells in SanBernardino

Valley (McNatt 1974, Miuckley 1985). Other thancattle-wateringtanks,no permanentsurfacewaters

now exist in theNM portion (USFWS 1986).

Geologicandbiotic evidencejoin to supportthe presumedintimate drainageconnectionsin the recent

pastbetweentheSulphur Springs(WilIcox Playa)Valley andRio Yaqui watershed. First, both Douglas

and SanBernardinovalleysare relatedto theSulphur SpringsValley and SanSimon Trough,respec-

tively, concordantwith regionaltrendsin geologic structure(Meinzer& Kelton 1913,Cooper1959,

Menges& McFadden1981). Second,an early report (Rutter 1896)existsfor Yaqui chubfrom Morse

4

Yaqui Fishes Recove~ Plan December1994

Canyon(WestTurkeyCreek),which entersSulphurSpringsValley from the ChiricahuaMountains. The

specimens’identity cannotbe confirmed sincetheywerelost in the SanFranciscoEarthquakeof 1904

(Miller & Lowe 1964, 1967; Hendricksonet al. 1981). However,WestTurkeyCreekalsosupportsa

populationof longfm dace( Agosiacf, chrysogaster)morphologicallydistinct from thosein the Gila

Riverbasinandmost similar to thosefrom the Yaqui (Hendrickson1987). The samegeneticrelation-

ship hasbeenconfirmedby C. A. Tibbits andT. E. Dowling (Arizona StateUniversity [AZSU], unpubl.

data)usingallozymeand mtDNA technology.The SulphurSprings Valley is thereforeincludedhere

aspart of the potentialrecoveryareafor RioYaqui fishes.

Basin-widediversityof aquatichabitatsis high (Hendricksonet al. 1981). Mountaincreeksarecold,

clear andsupportboth indigenousand non-indigenoustrouts. However, most fishes in the basin,

including thosetreatedhere,occupyintermediate-to low-elevation,warmwatercreeks,ci6negas,and

moderate-to large-sizedrivers. Creekstypically havealternatingriffles andpoolsin whichheterogene-

ity is enhancedby undercutbanks,bouldersandwoody debris. Gravelbottomsin swift areasarevege-

tatedwith algae. Cidnegas,stream-associatedmarshlandswith low, emergentaquaticplantsand hydric-

adaptedtrees(e.g.,Salixspp.),werehistorically commonbut havesufferedseveredegradationsincethe

arrival of Europeans(Hendrickson& Minckley 1985). Riversvary from pool-riffle typeswith boulder

andgravelbottomsto long, stronglyflowing reachesover gravelandsand(Campoy-Favelaetal. 1989).

Nearthe sea,riverinefish faunasincludeanumberof marineforms (Hendricksone al. 1981,Minckley

et al. 1986).

B. Historical Perspectives

The upper RioYaqui watershedhasattractedhumanssinceprehistoric times,with evidenceof active

usedatingto the Clovis culture>10,000yearsago(Ardizone 1980,Neily & Beckwith 1985). Spanish

presencedatesto 1694 when PadreEusebioFranciscoKino passedthrough the SanBernardinoarea

(Lanning 1981,Hendrickson& Minckley 1985). Ferallivestockwere abundantby 1822,whenthe San

BernardinoLand Grant was acquiredby Ignacio Perez. The Land Grant was purchasedin 1884 by

“Texas” JohnSlaughter,for cattleand farming operationswhich lasteduntil 1937, whenthe property

wassold (Ervin 1965) andpassedamonga numberof ownersuntil The NatureConservancy(TNC)

5

Yaaui Fishes Recovery Plan December1994

boughtit in 1979(Lanning 1981). Leslie Creekwasacquiredby TNC in 1988. The two parcelswere

respectivelytransferredto USFWSin 1982 and 1988, for the purposeof establishingSanBernardino

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).

C. Accountsof Listed Taxa

The four listedfishesof the upperYaqui basin,alongwith four co-occurringCandidate-2taxa, comprise

auniquesub-setof theaquatic-dependentbiotaof theUSA. Sevenof 12 organisms(including oneeach

of frog, snake,snail and plant in addition to the fishes)occuronly in the immediatevicinity of San

Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR An ecosystem-basedRecoveryPlan similar to that recentlycompleted

for the AshMeadowsNWR in NV for anumberof fishes,molluscsandplants(USFWS 1990)is thus

timely andappropriatefor the upper Rio Yaqui biota. Detailed accountsfor listed speciesfollow;

referencesfrom which comparableinformation maybeobtainedon Candidate-2taxaareprovided later.

1. Beautiful shiner

a. Descfiption—Bodycompressed,depthaboutsameas lengthof head. Snoutpointed,mouth oblique.

Lateral line slightly decurved, with 36-40 scales. Anal fin-rays 8-9; dorsal andpelvic fin-rays 8.

Pharyngealteeth0,4-4,0. Non-breedingbody coloration tan to olivaceousdorsally, metallic silver

laterally, belly usuallylighter. Dorsolateralscalesoutlined with melanophores.Breedingmalesyellow-

orangeto orangeon caudaland lower fins; dorsalfin dark. Body bluish, often maskedwith washof

orange,pink or yellow. Dorsumof headred to orange,sides of headbrassyto brassy-orange(Minckley

1973).

b. Nomenclature—Thetaxon presentlyknown as Cyprinella formosawas originally described as

Monianaformosaby Girard (1857) from Rio Mimbres, CHI. The type locality was correctedto

Mimbres River, Luna Co., NMby Gilbert (1978). Chernofi’ & Miller (1982) discussed its taxonomy

and distribution and synonym ized Monianaformosa,Notropissantamariae(Laguna Santa Maria, CHI;

Evermann & Goldsborough 1902) and N. mearnsi(San BernardinoCreek, SON; Snyder 1915 [likely

both AZ and SON, Taylor 1967]) as Notropisformosus,later assignedto the genusCyprinella by

6


Mayden(1985, 1989). Treatmentof N formosusas a subspecies of red shiner(Notropis lutrensis)by

Contreras-Balderas(1975) andGilbert (1978)hasnot beenaccepted(Matthews 1980, 1987,Chemoff

& Miller 1982, Smith & Miller 1986).

c. Historic Distribution—Beautifulshinerhistorically occurredin the USA only in SanBernardino

Valley andMimbresRiver, NM (Minckley 1973, Subletteet al. 1990). Its range in Mexico included

the RioYaqui system(hereafter‘Yaqui beautiful shiner”), Guzmanbasin(rios del Carmen,SantaMaria

andCasasGrandes,CHI, andRioYaqui, CHI-SON; “Guzmanbeautiful shiner”), (Fig. 2) and themuch

smaller Bavicora and Sauz basins to the south and east in CHI, respectively (Smith & Miller 1986). The

species was first recorded from what is now San Bernardino/Leslie Canyon NWR(and the USA) by

Miller & Winn (1943); it was extirpated there by 1970 (Minckley 1973, 1985; DeMarais& Minckley

1993). The Guzman beautiful shiner (or a derived form; R.R. Miller in Propst & Stefferud1994)

disappeared from Mimbres River, NMafter 1951 (Koster 1957, Rogers 1975, Sublette, etal. 1990, New

Mexico GameCommission 1974), but persists in Mdxico (Propst & Stefferud 1994). This Plan also

includes recommendations for recovery for the Guzman beautiful shiner.

d. CurrentStatus—Beautiful shiner is suffering reductions in natural range in Mexico as a result of

changes in land and water use and impacts of non-indigenous species (e.g., Miller 1978; Chernoff &

Miller 1982; Hendrickson et al. 1981; Hendrickson 1984). Hendrickson et al. (1981) mapped

distributionof theYaqui beautiful shinerin 1978 and expressed concern that it might soon be negatively

influenced by introductions of non-indigenousfishes, especiallyof the closely related red shiner.

Campoy-Favelaet al. (1989)recommendedendangeredstatusfor the speciesin the lower Rio Yaqui

systembasedon negativechangesin abundanceand distributionbetween1978 and 1987-88. Recent

recordsfor Guzmanbeautiful shinerin rios CasasGrandes,del Carmenand SantaMaria basinswere

providedby Propst& Stefferud(1994). The speciespersistsin permanentlywateredstreamcoursesof

the BavicoraBasin,but thesehabitatshavebeendiminishedby agriculture(D. E. Propst,pers. comm.).

We haveno information on current statusof the speciesin the SauzBasin.

Presentoccurrenceof theYaqui beautiful shinerin the USA originatesfrom stockcollectedunderpermit

from the Mexican Governmentin 1989 from Rio Moctezuma,CIII andheld at DexterNationalFish

7

N~ USA

MEXICO

RANGE OF

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

SEA OF CORTEZ

KNOWN AND PROBABLEFORMER RANGE

—

IFigure 2

GEOGRAPHICDISTRIBUTIONOF

BEA UTIFUL SHINER

Mimbru.

RANGE OFGUZMAN FORM

Arizona j New

FORM SEPARATION

BOUNDARY ISONORA CHIHUAHUA

0 100

8

- Yaaui Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

Hatchery & Technology Center (NFHTC), Dexter, NM. That stock from was released on San

Bernardino NWRin 1990 and now lives as reproducing populations in three ponds. Dexter NFHTCalso

has in culture a stock of the Guzinan beautiful shiner previously captured from Rio Casas Grandes, CHI

(Jensen 1993), in anticipation of future reintroduction.

C. Ecology—Lifehistory and ecology of the beautiful shiner are poorly known. It is a mid-water-

column species, remaining near but rarely within beds of plants or other cover along pond margins. In

Mexico, Hendrickson et al. (1981) reported it on riffles of small streams and in intermittent pools of

creeks with high percentages of riffle habitat when flowing in wet periods. The fish has adapted well

to ponds and is thriving at San Bernardino NWR(USFWS 1994b).

2. Yaqui chub

a. Description—Headand anterior body thickened, thinning posteriorly. Scales large, broadly imbricate,

radii on all fields. Scales in lateral line <59. Dorsal, anal and pelvic fm-rays typically 8 (rarely 7).

Dorsal-fin origin behind pelvic-fin insertion; pharyngeal teeth 2,5-4,2. Body dark over-all, usually

lighter below. Some breeding males with distinctive, bluish sheen over body; reproductive females

straw-yellow to light brown. Lateral bands scarcely developed or absent. Vertically elongate, diffuse,

trangle-shaped caudal spot usually present (Minckley 1973).

b. Nomenclature—TheYaqui chub was originally described as TigomapurpureaGirard (1857) from

Rio San Bernardino, SONalong with a number of other animals likely based on specimens collected on

both sides of the border (Taylor 1967); as noted before, the chub was also recorded from Sulphur

Springs Valley (Rutter 1896). Its nomenclatorial history following assignment to the genus Gila by

Miller (1945) is straightforward (reviewed by Minckley 1973). Hendrickson etal. (1981) noted, how-

ever, that western populations classified as Yaqui chub appeared differentiated, and DeMarais (1991)

subsequently segregated and named all but the San Bernardino creek population as a new species, Gila

eremica.

c. Historic Distribution—Historicrangeof Yaqui chubwas originally thoughtto includethe uppermost

9


Rio Yaqui basinwest in SON to dos SonoraandMatape(Minckley 1980, Minckley & Brown 1994).

With identification of Gila eremicaas distinct, the known distribution for Yaqui chub became restricted

to the now-occupied area in the USAof San Bernardino/Leslie Canyon NWR(Black Draw, various

ponds and Leslie Creek), House Pond on the Slaughter Ranch Historic Site (under easement for USFWS

management) and West Turkey Creek in the Chiricahua Mountains (private and US Forest Service lands)

(DeMarais & Minckley 1991, 1993). It was historically and is currently known in Mexico only from

the short perennial reach of Rio San Bernardino (= Black Draw), just south of the USA-Mexican

Boundary (Varela-Romero etal. 1992).

d. Current Status—Thecurrent distribution of Yaqui chub is equivalent to its known historic range

(DeMarais & Minckley 1993). A large percentage of existing populations resulted from reintroductions,

and the species has responded positively to management by developing large and viable stocks in diverse

habitats(USFWS 1994b). DeMarais& Minckley (1991, 1993) reviewed its distribution, morphology

and genetics and were unable to discern evidence for any detrimental effects of pastor presenthabitat

changes, population variations or manipulations related to management efforts.

e. Ecology—Yaquichub live in deep pools in creeks, scoured areas of ci~negas and other stream-

associated, quiet waters. They seek cover in daylight, especially undercut banks and in areas of

accumulated debris. In artificial ponds adults similarly tend to occupy the lower part of the water

column and seek shade. They feed mostly on algae, insects and detrital material (Galat & Gerhardt

1987). Young occupy near-shore zones, often near the lower ends of riffles. Growth to maturity is

rapid, often within the first summer of life. Spawning is protracted throughout the warmer months, with

greater activity in spring. Reproductive potential is high and large populations develop quickly from

a few adults (DeMarais & Minckley 1993).

3. Yaqui catfish

a. Description—Bodyslender, streamlined; old (large) fish thicker bodied. Caudal fin shallowly forked;

anal fin with broadly rounded distal margin, 23-25 rays. Body profusely speckled in young, adults more

10

Yaqui FiBhes Recovery Plan December1994

unicolored, dark gray to black dorsally, white to grayish beneath. Barbels jet-black except on immediate

chin where gray to whitish. Channel and blue catfishes (Ictaluruspunctatus,I. furcatus)with more

deeply forked caudal fin in both, distal margin of anal fin less broadly rounded (24-29 rays) or es-

sentially straight (>30 rays), respectively, and anal fin-base much longer in both (Minckley 1973).

Another, undescribed catfish resembling I. pricei has been introduced and is established in the Gila River

drainage (D. Propst, New Mexico Department of Game & Fish [NMDGF],pers. comm.), but its

morphology, status and overall distribution are yet to be determined.

b. Nomenclature—Yaquicatfish was originally described as Wllariuspricei by Rutter (1896) from Rio

San Bernardino, SON. The namepricelwas transferred among a number of genera before being settled

in Ictalurus (see Hendrickson et a). 1981). Ictalurus meeki(Regan 1907), described from the upper Rio

Papigochic, was tenatively referred to synonymy off. pricei by Hendrickson et at. (1981). Taxonomic

status of Mexican catfishes in other than the rios Yaqui-Casas Grandes basins remains unclear, although

Hendrickson (1984) also referred catfish from Rio San Lorenzo, Sinaloa to this species and anticipated

other localities from more southern Mexican rivers as collections become available.

c. Historic Distribution—The original range of forms referred to Yaqui catfish in Mexico included the

rios Yaqui and Casas Grandes basins, from the latter of which it is apparently extirpated (Smith & Miller

1986, Propst & Stefferud 1994), south through the Rio Fuerte system (Miller 1976, 1978). Distribution

in the Rio Yaqui basin in 1978 was mapped by Hendrickson et at. (1981). A population of Yaqui

catfish stocked into the upper Santa Cruz River, AZ in 1899 (Chamberlain 1904) persisted until the late

1950’s (Miller & Lowe 1964, 1967). It reportedly originated from Rio Sonora in SON, from which

basin the species is otherwise known from a single collection (Miller 1940). Other than from the Santa

Cruz stocking, no records supported by specimens are known from the USA(Minckley 1973, 1985).

d. CurrentStatus—Yaqui catfish was captured under permit from the Mexican Government from rios

Aros, SONand Sirupa, CHI in 1987 and 1990, respectively, and is currently under culture at Dexter

NFHTC(Jensen 1993) in anticipation of future reintroduction. The fish is considered imperiled in

Mexico, at least in the Rio Yaqui basin, due to habitat modification and loss and actual and potential

hybridization with channel and blue catfishes, both of which are non-indigenous (Hendrickson et at.

11


1981; Miller 1989, Kelsch& Baca1991). Post-1978distributionalrecordswereprovidedby Campoy-

Favelaetal. (1989),who alsocommentedon its reducedrelativeabundanceanddownwardpopulation

trendsin Mdxico.

e. Ecology—Littleis known of the ecology of Yaqui catfish. Minckley (1973, 1985) thought it to

resemble channel caffish. It wasmostcommonlycaughtin largerrivers in areas of medium to slow

current over gravel/sand substrates (Hendrickson etal. 1981). The species grows rapidly and achieves

large sizes in ponds at Dexter NFHTC(Jensen 1992, 1993).

4. Yaqui topminnow2

a. Description—Dorsalprofile slightly curved, body elongate. Caudal fm roundedto almostsquare.

Males small, rarely >25 mm standardlength; femaleslarger, sometimes>50 mm, usually30-45mm.

Anal fin of maleelongatedinto acopulatoryorgan(gonopodium),extendingforward pasttip of snout

when in copulatory position. Ova fertilized internally, young developing within female’s body and born

alive. Gravid females with abdomens distended and urogenital areas darkened. Body tan to olivaceous,

darker above, oftenwhite on belly. Scaleson dorsumdarkly outlinedby melanophores,extendingas

specks to upper belly and pre-pectoral area. Lateral band dark, continuous along sides posterior to

dorsal-fm origin. Fin-rays outlined with melanophores; fins lacking dark spots. Breeding males black,

with some gold on predorsal midline and orange at base of gonopodium and sometime on bases of dorsal

and pelvic fins (Minckley 1973).

b. Nomencl.ature—Yaquitopmmnnow was originally described as Girardinus occidentalisby Girard

(1859) from Rio San Bernardino, SON. It was transferred among a number of genera until Hubbs &

Miller (1941) reviewed and stabilized it as Poecihiopsis. It was subsequentlyrecognizedas a full

species,Poecihiopsissononensis(Miller & Lowe 1964, 1967)until relegatedto subspecificrank under

2Earlier recove,yefforts andplanningfor topminnowswere directedby a RecoveryPlan (USFWS 1984b,underrevision)which includedboth the Gila andYaqui subspecies(Brooks 1985, Bagley et al. 1991, Brown & Abarca 1992)andalso,atleast tacitly, Mexican stocks. Only the Yaqui topminnow populationsin the USA arespecifically coveredby thepresentPlan.

12

Yaqui FisheB Recovery Plan December 1994

P. occidentahisby Minckley (1969, 1973).

c. Historic Distribution—Distributionsof subspeciesof Sonorantopmmnnoware imperfectly known.

Poeciliopsiso. sonoriensis(Yaqui topminnow)in the northern Rio Yaqui basin must have come into

contactwith P. o. occidentalis(Gila topminnow) somewhere in the middle Yaqui basin, since the latter’s

geographic range extends from the Gila basin southwest through the rios Sonora and Matape to include

the lower Rio Yaqui basin (Vrijenhoek et a!. 1985). It is unknown if sonoriensisand occidentahisgrade

into one another, hybridize in a narrow band or co-occur. Statements of known historic distribution

therefore include a composite of both, which collectively inhabit most of the Rio Yaqui basin <1300 m

elevation(Hendricksonet a!. 1981, Campoy-Favelaet a!. 1989). The northern limit in the Rio de

Bavispe subbasin is the Rio San Bernardino. None is recordedin the Rio Papigochic subbasin

(Hendricksonet a!. 1981,Campoy-Favelaeta!. 1989).

d. Current Status—Topminnowdistribution and abundancehaveundoubtedlydeclineddue to habitat

deterioration and loss through stream incision, drainageof ci~negasand habitatdesiccation. A large

population expired in 1969, for example, with drying of Astin Spring, Cochise Co., AZ (Minckley 1973;

DeMarais & Mlnckley 1993). In 1978, however, topminnows were abundant in lower-elevation habitats

of the Yaqui basin along stream margins, and equallyso in thermalwatersfed by artesiansourcesat

higher elevations (Hendricksonetal. 1981). Campoy-Favela er a!. (1989) also found them abundant

in lower-elevation habitats in 1987-88. Management efforts on the San Bernardino/Leslie Canyon NWR,

including removal of western mosquitofish, (Gambusiaaffinis), rehabilitation of cidnegas and springs

and reintroductions(Minckley & Brooks 1985, USFWS1986), have succeeded in maintaining 15

separateandviable populations(USFWS 1994b).

Western mosquitofish, a diminutive but voracious non-indigenous predator widely introducedthroughout

the western USA for mosquito control, is the factor to which much of the general decline and

disappearance of topminnows from the Gila basin has been attributed (Schoeniherr 1973, 1977; Meffe

1983, 1985, Minckley et a!. 1991), was first recorded in AZ in the 1920’s and quickly spread to

populate essentially all aquatic habitats (Minckley eta!. 1977). For some reason, however, it did not

appear in collections

13

Yaqui FisheB Recovery Plan December1994

in theRio Yaqui basin,USA until 1979. As soonasit established,negativeimpactson topminnows

wereevident, includingreductionsin numbers,changesin population structure (loss of smaller size

classes)and physicaldamageto adultsasa resultof direct attacks (Galat& Robertson1988,1992).

Westernmosquftofishwererarelypresentin collectionsfrom northwesternMexico in 1978 (Hendrickson

et a!. 1981, Hendrickson1984), but have continuedto spread(Campoy-Favelaet a!. 1989,JuArez-

Romeroet a!. 1991,Varela-Romeroet a!. 1992)at thepresumedexpenseof topminnows.

e. Ecology—Farmoreis knownoftheecologyoftheGila River subspeciesof Sonorantopminnowthan

for the Yaqui form (Schoenherr1973, 1977, Constantz1976, Meffe 1985, Minckley et at. 1991 &

referencescited). Galat& Robertson(1988, 1992) specificallystudiedtheYaqui form in spring-and

artesian-fedhabitatsandBlack Draw on theSanBernardinoNWR. Bothtopminnowslive in shallow,

warm, quiet watersandonly occasionallyin moderateto relatively swift currents. Preferredhabitats

usually include densematsofalgaeanddebrisalongstreammarginsor in eddiesbelow riffles, typically

over sandysubstratescoveredwith organicmudsanddebris. Theybecomemostabundantin marshes,

especially those fed by thermal springs or artesian outflows (in part Simms & Simms 1992).

Topminnowseat detritus, living vegetativematerial, amphipodcrustaceansandaquatic insectlarvae

including mosquitos (Minckley 1973, Gerking & Plantz 1980). FemaleYaqui topminnowsmayhave

>20 young per brood at intervals of —20 days. Reproductionoccurs year-aroundwhere winter

temperaturesareamelioratedby inflow of springs, but under conditions of fluctuating temperature begins

in early April and ends in October(Minckley 1973, Galat & Robertson 1988, 1992). Few individuals

in nature live more than a year.

5. Other Biotic Components

a. ThhesandOtherVeitebnztes—Longfindace,Mexicanstoneroller(Campostoinaornatum), roundtail

chub (Gi!a robusta)and Yaqui sucker (Catostomusbernardini), comprise the remainder of the eight-

speciesfish faunaoriginally inhabitingthe upperRio Yaqui, USA. The first two still occur, the dace

on boththe SanBernardinoand LeslieCreek properties,in RuckerCanyonandin WestTurkey Creek

(SulphurSpringsValley). As notedearlier,the Yaqui longfin daceis morphologicallyandgenetically

14

Yaaui Fishes Recovery Plan December1994

distinct from that of theGila Riverbasin (Hendrickson1987, Tibbits & Dowling AZSU, pers.comm.)

Mexicanstonerollerhasonly recentlybeenfoundin SanBernardinoCreek(DeMarais& Minckley

1993), but occurrednaturally in RuckerCanyon,from which it wasoriginally describedasCampostoma

pricel (Jordan& Evermann1886). This nominal specieswas synonymizedwith C. ornatumby Burr

(1976). It’s populationfluctuatesdramatically,promptingMinckley (1973)to erroneouslyreport its ex-

tirpation (Burr 1976,Minckley 1985)after samplingat a time of low population.

Minckley (1973) likely alsoerredby questioninglocality dataanddismissingtherecordof specimens

of roundtail chub labled as caughtin 1954 from San BernardinoCreek he sawat theUniversityof

Arizona (UAZ) in —1967. At the time he (pers.comm.)wasunawarethat the chub lived just down-

streamfrom theUSA-Mexicanboundaryin Arroyo Caj6n Bonito, SON (Hendricksonet a!. 1981).

Unfortunately,theUAZ specimenshavenotbeenrelocated.This chub almostcertainlyenteredtheUSA

portion of thedrainagein wet periods,apatternalsolikely the casefor Yaqui catfishandYaqui sucker

in the San Bernardinoareaand for the Yaqui catfishin the Mimbressystem. It is thus includedasa

speciesto be desired in the upperRio Yaqui “Area of Ecological Concern.” The only older name

applied to roundtail chubsfrom the Yaqui basinis Gi!a minacaeMeek (1904),synonymizedwith G.

robustaby Miller (1976). Basedon preliminarygeneticdata,roundtailchubsfrom theYaqui system

may, however, be asdistinctive as longfin dacefrom thosein the Gila River system(T.E. Dowling,

AZSU, pers. comm.).

Yaqui sucker was abundant in Astin Spring in Black Draw in 1967 (Minckley 1973), but disappeared

upon system-wide drying in or about 1969 (Minckley 1973, DeMarais & Minckley 1993). It was

common in Mexico in 1978 (Hendricksoneta!. 1981) and remained so in 1987-88 (Campoy-Favela et

a!. 1989). This species was also described from the Rio SanBernardinoby Girard (1857), It’s only

synonym is Catostomussononensis(Snyder 1915). Morphological similarity of Yaqui and Sonora

(Catostomusinsignis) suckers, the latter of which occurs in the adjacent Gila River basin, hasled a

number of workersto considerthe first at mosta subspeciesof thesecond(or conspecific;Minckley

1973, Hendrickson eta!. 1981). In light of demonstrated differences between Gila and Yaqui forms of

longfin dace and roundtail chub (see above), this perception might best be re-examined.

15

Yaciui Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

Two other regionally indigenous aquatic dependentvertebrates,Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana

chiricahuaensis)and Mexican garter snake (Thamnophiseques)havealsobecomerare or disappeared

locally. The first was common into the 1970’s on San BernardinoNWR before suffering severe

population declines due to non-indigenousbullfrogs (Rana catesbelana).The nativefrog is eatenby

adult bullfrogs and now persists only in Leslie Creekwhere bullfrogs havenot yetappeared(Rosen&

Schwalbe in press). Bullfrog-free areas have been establishedelsewhere,in which leopardfrogs reappear

or persist when reintroduced. In addition, tadpolesfrom Leslie Creekare reared at the Arizona-Sonora

Desert Museum, Tucson, AZ. Capture efforts for Mexican garter snakes yield large (old) animals, in-

dicating bullfrogs also have negative impacts on young snake survival. Four small ponds fenced against

bullfrogs have been created on San Bernardino NWRin attempts to re-establish viable indigenous frog

populations and enhance the snake as well. CooperatorsincludeAZGFD, NationalBiological Survey,

UAZ and USFWSPhoenix Ecological Services Office (USEWS 1994b).

b. Invertebrates—TheSan Bernardino springsnail (Pyrgidopsisbernardina) (Hershler 1994) is a

Candidate-2species clearly in jeopardydue to habitat loss and degradation,westernmosquitofish

predationand efforts to eliminatenon-indigenousfishes(USFWS 1994b). Limited habitatposesthe

snail’s most severeproblem. Only a single spring provides the shaded,hillside seepagehabitat

presumablynecessaryfor their survival. Researchis neededto determinehabitatand other factors

neededto insure survival.

c. Plants—TheHuachucawaterumbel,LJ!aeopsisschaifflerianasubsp.recurva,wasrecordedalongthe

marginsofHousePondon theSlaughterHistorical Sitein 1981, alongBlack Draw —0.8 km upstream

from the USA-MexicanBoundary in 1989-90, and alongRio SanBernardino,SON nearHighway2

in 1988. The first and lastweredestroyedby dredgingandflood, respectively,soonafterbeingrecorded

(Warrenet a!. 1991). USFWS (1994b) cited otherlocales for this plant on SanBernardinoNWR.

Suckling(1993)petitionedthe US Departmentof Interior for listing asendangered;no actionhasyet

beentaken. ArizonaTNC personnelhavetransplantedHuachucaumbel with limited success;alternative

meansfor protectionandrestorationneedexploring.

D. Declineof the AquaticBiota

16

Yaqui FisheB Recovery Plan December 1994

1. Watershed-level Effects of Human Uses

Most of the USA-Mexican borderlands(Gehlbach1981, Humphrey 1986), including all of southeastern

AZ and southwestern NM, have been heavily usedfor cattle grazingand local farming. Mining and

other activities also effected some detrimentalhabitator landscapechanges.Diversityof naturalland-

scapesquickly diminishedundergrazingpressure,especiallywhenrangeswereoverstocked(Wagoner

1960). ChihuahuanDesertscrubexpanded,grasslandsdeterioratedor locally disappearedandriparian

and aquatichabitatswere destroyedor reducedto disturbed,disjunct remnants(USFWS 1994b).

Today’s regional vegetation nonethelessremains a desert grassland, closely intermingled with

Chihuahuandesertscrubon drier sites(Lanning 1981). Mesquite(Prosopisg!andu!osa)bosquesarethe

predominantlowland communities,alongwith pocketsof riparian broadleafedwoodlandsandcidnega

habitatswherewaterpersistsat or nearthesurface(Marrs-Smith1983)

2. Influences on Aquatic Habitat and Biota

Physicalandotherimpactsassociatedwith watershed use and misuse led, in turn, to dramaticreductions

in aquatichabitatsandbiota. In the pastas today,waterwasa scarceand sought-aftercommodity.

Relatively abundantsuppliesin theupperRio Yaqui basin, especiallyafterartesianwells were built in

the later 1800’s, led to large-scale cattle grazing andconcentratedfarming.

Severe grazing pressure (including trampling) also led to incision of stream channels that drainedand

desiccated cidnegas, diversionandmodificationof streamchannelsthemselves and excessive exploitation

of undergroundaquifers;all reducedthequantity andquality of natural surfacewaters. Streamsfrom

springs and wells were channeled to fields and tanks. Black Draw changed from a marshy swale

(ci~nega) in the 1850’s to a creek lined with cottonwoods (Popu!usfremontii)in the 1890’s to an arroyo

by the 1960’s that was three to five meters deep, to 25 mwide and usually dry (Brandt 1951, Lanning

1981, DeMarais & Minckley 1993). Similar patterns typified the region (Hastings 1959, Hastings &

Turner 1965, Cooke & Reeves 1976, Hendrickson & Minckley 1985, Williams et a!. 1985). In-

troduction of non-indigenous species into stock-watering ponds and elsewhere came later, and their

spread to remnant natural habitats contributed further to a general decline in aquatic communities

17


(Minckley 1973, 1985, 1991). Included were highly predatory taxa such as largemouth bass

(Microptensssalmoides),bullfrog, and western mosquitofish, andcompetitors/predatorssuchas bullhead

catfish (Amelurusspp.),bluegill (Lepomismacrochirus)and black crappie (Pomoxisnigromacidatus).

Paraphrased below are DeMarais & Minckley’s (1993) summaries of specific habitat and fish-faunal

changes in the San Bernardino/Leslie Canyon NWRarea. Comments generalizing their coverage, origi-

nally prepared with specific reference to Yaqui chub, are in brackets[I.

Decline of Ithe aquaticbiota] musthavebegunwith regional arroyo cutting in the late 1800s (Hastings 1959; Hastings& Turner, 1965;Cooke& Reeves,1976;Hendrickson& Minckley, 1985). [Yet]EdgarA. Mearnscollected chubs andthreeotherfishes,Yaqui sucker,beautifulshiner, and Sonorantopminnow, from Black Draw nearthe borderin 1893(Snyder, 1915).

Thenext known collectionswerein 1943 (Miller & Simon, 1943). Five nativespecies[includingYaqui chub] wereinAstin Spring~ the mostupstreampermanentwaterin Black Draw about 3.2 km north of the Boundaiy. Othersin-cludedsucker,longfln dace,shiner,andtopminnow. Only the lastwasbetweenAstin Spring and3.2 km southof theborder. Thesamefive remainedin 1950 when Black Draw [wassampled]from the Boundaiyto 3.2 km downstream(HendricksonetaL, 1981). Astin Spring wasnot visited, butall but thesuckerwere recordedfrom otherartesian-fedwaters.

Chubs,suckers,andtopminnowsremainedin Astin Spring in 1965. Black Draw wasintermittent, supportingonlylongfln daceandtopminnowin isolatedpools along its upper4.3 km. The shinerpersistedin oneartesian-fedpond.Black Drawwasdiy belowAstin Springto the borderin 1966, andintermittentwith only topminnowin a [single]poolin 1968. Astin Springat that time supportedoneof two knownpopulationsof chubsalongwith the lastYaqui suckerjs]and oneof no morethaneight amall stocksof topminnowin the United States(Minckley, 1973;Hendricksonet aL,1981). The secondstockof chub,estimatedat 20 or fewer(McNafl, 1974), persistedin marshesfedby an artesianwell(USFWS, 1986); the lastwas seenin 1976.

Atm Spring failed in 1969. Justbeforedesiccationabout200 adultseachof Yaqui chubandthen-federally-listedSonorantopminnow(US Bureauof Sport Fisheriesand Wildlife, 1966) weretransferredto Leslie Creek(Minckley,1973; Minckley & Brooks 1985),whereboth speciesestablished(Minckley, 1973, 1985;McNatt 1974; Silvey, 1975).Yaqui suckerwasextirpatedfromtheUnited StateswhenAtin Springdried, and beautiful shinerdisappearedsoonaftertheartesianwell feedingits pond wascappedin c. 1970(Minckley, 1973). Topminnowpopulationswere reducedtosurvivors in Leslie Creekand five isolatedsprings/artesianflows.

In 1970-72,Leslie Creekwasproposedfor a sportfishing lake (AZGFD 1972; Wigel & Olding, 1976). Althoughpresenceof listedtopminnowand rareYaqui chub deterredtheproject (Silvey, 1975), it wasnot until the watershedwasjudgedinadequatein sizeto support suchan impoundmentandquestionsof water-rightsarosethat the projectwasshelved. LeslieCreekthen almostdisappearedduring a drought in 1975-76. As insuranceagainstextinction, about225 chubsweretransferredin 1976 to Dexter[NFH](Johnson& Jensen1991). Theysurvivedto reproduceprolificallyin a 0.04-hapond.

18

Yaaui Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

Few collections were made in WhitewaterDrawjust eastofDouglasbefore it wasessentiallydried inthe 1970’s, presumablydueto upstreamwater developmentand livestock overgrazing,and severelypollutedneartheUSA-Mexicanborderby smeltingoperations(W.L. Minckley, AZSU, pers.comm.).Basedon specimensdepositedattheUniversity of Michigan,RR Miller caughtthreeindigenousspeciesin 1939 (longfm dace,Mexicanstoneroller,Yaqui topminnow),alongwith introducedcommon carp(Cyprinuscaipio),goldftsh (Carassiusauratus)andblack bullhead(Amejurusme!as). JamesR. Simoncaughtall the samespeciesexceptstonerollerin two collectionsin 1943. In the 1960’sand 1970’s,Minckley (AZSU, pers. comm.)seinedonly goldfish and black bullhead until 1979, whenwesternmosquitofishappeared.The lasthasnow spreadthroughoutthelower WhitewaterCreekdrainagein AZ,andpresumablyin Mexico.

E. ConservationEfforts

DeMarais& Minckley (1993)also reviewedsubsequentconservationefforts (againspecifically for Yaqui

chub), someof whichmay begeneralizedto thewhole biota as follows.

Acquisitionof habitatstarted in 1979 with purchaseof the San BernardinoRanchby TheNature Conservancy(TNC). Thepropertywastransferredto USFWS ownershipin 1982to establishthe SanBernardinoNWR (USFWS, 1987). Thehistoric“TexasJohn” Slaughterhome,outbuildings, and one major spring/pondcomplexwere deededto the JohnsonHistoricalFoundation, with biological managementremainingUSFWSresponsibility. LeslieCreek, which surviveda proposedimpoundmentrevisitedandagainrejectedin 1984 (EarthTechnologyCorporation,1984). wasaddedto theNWR in 1989,againthrough TNC purchasetransferredto USFWS.

Habitat improvementscommencedimmediatelyupon acquisitionof SanBernardinoRanchin 1979 (1982

by USEWS)and Leslie Canyonin 1988. Biological processesdamagedby poor grazingpractices,

intensefarmingandoccasionaldroughtswere restored. Desirablewoody plantswerereestablishedalong

streamcourses,which alongwith installation of gabionstructures,reducederosionandstabilizedbanks.

Undesirablewoodyspecieswere thinned,weedsin abandonedfields were mowedto benefit indigenous

grassesand somereseedingwas implemented.

Effortsto removenon-indigenousfishes(e.g., blackbullhead,blackcrappie,bluegill, largemouthbass)

andto combatspreadofwesternmosquitofish,which appearedin 1979, commencedwith renovationof

HousePond,exclusionofundesirablespeciesthrough barriers,and removalof nativespeciesanddrying

by diversion or cappingof artesianflows followed by reestablishmentof habitatand nativebiota.

Finally, ci~negaswere restoredby piping water, allowing flow into suitableareassuch asabandoned

farm fields and constructedpondswith associatedstreamruns whereindigenousYaqui fishescouldex-

pandpopulationsafter naturaldispersalor stocking.

19


Yaqui chubsfrom DexterNFHTCwerestockedon SanBernardinoRanchin 1980, immediately following TNC purchase.[rwo of three] stockingssucceeded.[TheDexterNFH] stockfailed [in 1984] for unknown reasonsandwasimmediatelyreinstatedwith 100 fish [fromNorth Pondstockestablishedin 1980]. HousePondwas [renovatedin 1984-85 to remove]mosquitofish,aspeciesincompatiblewith topminnowsalsomanagedthere. lilt was] restockedwith chubs[andtopminnow]in 1986. Also in 1986, becausesecurepopulationswere establishedon theNWR, Yaqui chub wasremovedfrom DexterNFH [andstockedin WestTurkey Creek,wherethey established](Minckley & DeMarais 1993).

Yaqui chub reappearedin Black Draw in 1987, eitherfrom the 1980 stockingor throughupstream

dispersalfrom Mexico. ConsiderableUSEWS effort had by then beenexpendedin erosioncontrol and

revegetation,andpositiveresultsof this, coupledwith consecutivewet yearsandappearanceof Mexican

stoneroller(notbeforerecordedfrom thestream[Hendricksonetal. 1981]), makethe lattermosttenable

(DeMarais& Minckley 1993). While theseactivitiesproceeded,further planswere implementedto

acquireextirpatedspeciesfrom Mexico for cultureandultimate reintroductionbackinto historic habitats.

After arrangingfor appropriateMexicanpermits,personnelfrom USFWS,AZGFD, AZSU andEl Centro

deEcologico,Hermosillo, SON collaboratedin two trips for Yaqul catfish(Rio Aros, SON 1987; Rio

Sirupa,CHI 1990)andonefor beautiful shiner(Arroyo Moctezuma,CIII, 1989). Yaqui catfish areat

DexterNFHTC (Jensen1993), whereit hasbeenstudiedmorphologicallyandgeneticallyfor positive

identification (Miller 1989, Kelsch & Baca 1991) and to ascertainbasic information required for

successfulculture. The shinerswere heldat DexterNFHTC. then400 individualsof Yaqui beautiful

shiner were reintroducedin May 1990 on SanBernardinoNWR. It establishedandexpandedinto

today’s sub-populations.

II. RECOVERY

A. Objectives

The primary objective of this RecoveryPlan is to restorethe Rio Yaqui fishes as secureand self-

sustainingmembersofthe indigenousfish faunaoftheaquaticecosystemsin which theyonceoccurred.

The SanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNWRwill serveasa refugium and sourceof stocksfor recoveryof

thesefishes. The limited amountof habitatavailablein the USA andthe fact that this habitatis at the

northernlimits of rangefor essentiallyall speciesmeansthat recoverycannotbe accomplishedentirely

in the USA. Otherjurisdictions (including private landowners)in theUSA andMexico mustbe full

partnersin theRio Yaqui fishesrecoveryeffort in order for themto be delisted. The mostintensive

20


managementefforts may occuron refuge lands in AZ, but the Plan also calls for reintroductionof

Guzmanbeautiful shinerand Yaqui catfishinto their suspectedformer rangein theMimbresRiver

watershed,NM. This, plus inclusionof theSulphurSprings(Willcox Playa)Valley, AZ, aspart of an

“Area of Ecological Concern,”expandsthe needfor partnershipswith otherFederal,State, local and

private agenciesand individuals. It also is clear that expansionof securepopulationsof thesubject

speciesinto M&uco will berequiredin orderfor recoveryto occur. Everyeffort mustbe madeto work

cooperativelywith theMexicanFederal,Stateand~localgovernmentsandprivate individualsto ensure

survival ofthesespecies.

1. Conditions for downhsting or delisting3

All the following conditionsmustbe met within currently occupiedhabitatfor a periodof 10 years

beforeconsiderationof delisting for beautiful shinerandYaqui catfishor downlistingfor Yaqui chub

and topminnow:

a—SecureandprotectSanBernardinoValley aquifersso that all artesian-wellandotherflows from

subsurfacesourcesare perennial. Secureand protectLeslie Creek, Black Draw and Mimbres

River, NM watershedsto ensureadequate,perennialflow. And,

b--Eradicateall non-indigenousfish speciesand otherundesirableorganismssuchasbullfrogs

from critical habitat. And,

c—protectcritical habitatandotherhabitatswherespeciesof concernoccuror arereestablishedfrom

humandisturbancesincluding excessivegrazing, irrigated agriculture,mining, introductions of

non-indigenousspeciesandwaterdiversionor removal.

In addition to criteria a-cjust listed, the following objectivesmustbemet for eachof the four listed

3lnvariably, subjectivewordsbecomecontroversialwhen usedrelative to downlisting/delisting of imperiled species.Thefollowing definitions apply for purposesof this Plan: Secureis usedin the inclusive senseof legal protection andprotectionfrom natural(physical,chemicalor biological) catastrophesaswell as technologicallyandeconomicallypossible;Reestablishedmeansmaintaining a self-sustainingpopulation, with no or minimal human intervention; and Self-sustainingpopulationsare reproducingnaturally and maintaining sizesand structuresindicative of persistencefor a reasonableperiod of-time. Reasonable,in this context, is defined asthrough tens to hundredsof generations.

21


species.

a. Beautiful shiner—Delistwhen:

1) Arizona populationsof Yaqui beautifulshiner arereestablished,self-sustainingandsecure

for at least10 yearsin all suitable,existing and reclaimedSan Bemardino/LeslieCanyon

NWR habitats;

2) Guzmanbeautifulshiner is reestablished,self-sustainingand securefor at least10 yearsin

theMimbresRiver andotheravailablehabitatswithin its historic rangein NM; and

3) self-sustainingpopulationsof both forms aresecurewithin their historic rangesin Mexico.

b. Yaqui chub—Dueto the limited historic distributionofYaqui Chub,delistingis not currently con-

sideredan option. Downlistto threatenedstatuswhen:

1) self-sustainingpopulations are establishedand secureon SanBernardinoandLeslieCanyon

NWR lands,and

2) self-sustainingpopulationsare establishedand securein WestTurkey Creek,AZ undera

formal ConservationManagementPlan orotherbindingagreement,acceptedandimplemented

by thejurisdictionsinvolved.

c. Yaqwtopininnow—Downlistto threatenedwhen self-sustainingpopulationshavesurvivedat least

10 yearsin all suitable,existing andreclaimedSanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR habitats.

d. Yaqui catfish— SanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR and associatedwaters,becauseof their

physicalsize,canonly actasa geneticandpopulationrefugium.Delisting canoccurwhenrecovery

in theform ofprotectionofwild populationsfrom threatsofhybridization, negativeinteractionswith

non-indigenousspeciesor othernagativeimpacts is assuredin Mdxico and Mexicanpopulationsare

22

- Yaaui Fishes Recovery Plan December1994

thereforesecureandself-sustaining.

2. StepdownOutline

Items in the stepdown(andnarrative,which follows) mayappearto emphasizeRio Yaqui habitats

andimperiledtaxa. Using thesamerecoveryactionswhereapplicablefor Rio Mimbreshabitats

andtheGuznianbeautiful shineris, however,the intent.

1.0 Cooperateon recoverywith Mexico.

1.1 Pursueagreementsand developmentof managementplansfor long-term survivaloffishesof concernin Mdxico.

1.2 Developand implementcooperativemanagementplans.

2.0 Manage existing habitats and populations.

2.1 Determineaquiferrechargezone,capacitiesandconfigurationandcharacteristicsof sub-surfaceflow.

2.2 Protectwatershedand aquifer.

2.3 Determineamountsof waterrequiredto maintain listed species.

2.4 Reviseandcontinueimplementionof SanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR MasterPlan.

2.4.1 Developwater-useplan for San Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR.

2.4.2 Developandimplementgeneticmonitoring plans andschedulesfor eachspecies.

2.4.3 Developand implement managementplan for eachspeciesof concern.

2.5 Developor enhancenew andexisting habitats;monitor successof habitatmanagement.

2.6 Eradicate and secure againstreinvasion or new introductionsof non-indigenousspecies.

3.0 Determine biological requirementsof listed species.

3.1 Examine and document life histories.

23

Yacjui Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

3.2 Determineimpactsof intra- and interspecificinteractionsin habitatsoccupiedbycombinationsof species.

3.3 Determinehabitatrequirementsandhabitatutilization.

3.4 Determineanddelineategeneticcompositionof existingpopulations.

3.5 Monitor healthof fish populationsand occupiedhabitats.

4.0 Protect historic habitats of fishesof concernin the USA.

4.1 Maintain levelsandquality of subsurfacewaterssufficient to sustainspringsand

flow of artesianwells, therebyprotectingsurfacewaters.

4.1.1 Apply properor enhancedland-usepractices.

4.1.2 Excludedevelopmentsuchas mining or irrigatedagriculture.

4.1.3 Forgeagreementsto assureaquiferwaterquality.

4.2 Work with waterusersandappropriateagenciesand individualsto preventoveruseofwaterfrom essentialaquifers.

4.3 Obtaininstreamflow water-rightsfor sufficient waterto maintainsurfaceflows inwatercoursesimportantto recovery.

4.4 Acquireandprotector protectthroughconservationagreements,habitatmanagementplansor otherbindingagreementstheessentialwatersandhabitatsneededfor long-termsurvivalof fishesof concern.

5.0 Assesshabitats for reintroduction and reestablish the speciesofconcernwithin

appropriate habitats in historic ranges.

5.1 IdentiI~y areasfor possiblereintroductions.

5.2 Develop culture techniques for and effect reintroductions of Yaqui catfish.

5.2.1 Develop breeding protocol.

5.2.2 Determine fish size, time of year and stocking densities required to insuresurvival.

5.2.3 Stockandmonitor successofreintroductions.

5.3 Reintroduce,reestablishandmonitorpopulationsof otherspeciesof concern.

24


5.4 Work with public agenciesandprivate landownersto manageexisting andreintroducedpopulationsoffishesof concern.

6.0 Developinformation and education programs for all species,their habitats and theecosystem(s)upon which they depend.

6.1 Developcomprehensiveprogramsof informationandeducation.

6.2 Insurebroaddisseminationof information in both EnglishandSpanish.

6.3 Establishandmaintainarchivesof publishedandunpublishedmaterialsrelevantto

aquaticorganismsandaquatichabitatsof concernin permanentdepositories.

2. Narrative

1.0 Cooperateon recoverywith Mexico. Dueto limited habitat in theUSA, closecooperation

with M6xico mustoccurprior to considerationof downlistingor delistingany oftheYaqui fishesor

the Guzmanbeautiful shiner. Although the small parts of historic Rio Yaqui and Rio Mimbres

watershedsoccurringin theUSA maybeadequateto providerefugiato preventextinction, full re-

covery to delistingcannotoccurwithout protectionof the speciesand their habitatsin Mexico.

1.1 Agreementsandmanagementplansto insurelong-term survival of Rio Yaqui fishesand

Guzmanbeautiful shinerin Mexico mustbepursuedthroughall conceivablesources,including

but not limited to the International Boundary & Water Commission,U.S. StateDepartment

relativeto North AmericanFree TradeAgreementstipulationsandsideagreements,SEDESOL

of Mexico, andotherappropriategovernmentalagencies,andwith conservation-orientednon-

governmentalagenciessuchas TNC in theUSA andprivateentitiesin Mexico.

1.2 Finalagreementsbetweenand amongUSA andMexicanagenciesshouldincludeprovisions

for managementofexisting and reestablishedpopulations. Such agreementsshouldbe negotiated

to havepositive or minimal negativeimpactson agenciesand their operations. As appropriate,

all projectsconsideredwhich potentially impactfishesof concernor their habitatsshouldcomply

with existinglawsandregulationsofthe countryin which they occur, with maximumcooperation

25


betweencountriesto benefitthe speciesof concern. Agreementsshouldprovidebasicprotection

for thefishes,accessto sites,managementrights to improve and enhancesites,andprovisions

for eradicationand exclusionof non-indigenousspecies.

2.0 Manage existing habitats and populations.

2.1 Delineatecatclunentarea,rechargeand flow rates,storagevolumesandotherattributesof

the undergroundaquifersfor San Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR throughcontractor other

agreementwith US GeologicalSurveyor otherappropriateagencyor organization,andexpand

or contractagreementsobtainedin 2.2 (below) to includethosespecificareas.

2.2 Seekbinding agreementsamongandbetweenpolitical units, agenciesandprivate landowners

(4.14.4,below) to protect the watershedand presumedcatchmentsfor undergroundaquifersfrom

detrimentalchangesin water qualityand quantity.

2.3 Determinequantitiesof waterrequiredto sustainpopulationsof listed speciesat levelsnow

being maintained at San Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR and develop storage or water-

acquisitionsystemsto assureperpetuationofthosequantitiesthrough droughtor otherwater-short

periods.

2.4 Reviseand continueimplementationof the San Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR Master

Plan, asappropriate. TheMasterPlanshouldbereviewedandrevisedto provideguidancefor

maintainingthehealthand geneticintegrity of all speciesof fishesandother imperiled biotic

elements.

2.4.1 Developwater-useplan basedon informationandagreementsunder2.1-2.3,aboveand

4.14.4,below to guide water useon the NWRthat maximizesmaintenanceof populations

of taxaof concern.

26


2.4.2 Developand implementgeneticsmonitoring plan. Assessgeneticchangesovertime

and prevent managementactivities which might result in loss of variability. Develop

geneticsmaintenanceprogramsfor imperiledbiotic elements.

2.4.3 Developmanagementplans which assureself-sustainingand geneticallyvariable

populationsof each speciesof concern,communitiesof aquaticorganismsoperatingin as

natural astateaspossibleso that functioningecosystemsof aquatic,semi-aquatic,riparian

and terrestrialcomponentsmay be efficiently maintained.

2.5 Develop,enhanceand monitor existinghabitats. Efforts shouldbe madeto improve and

perpetuateexistinghabitatsashigh-qualityenvironments.

2.6 Preventintroductionsof non-indigenousspecies. Successof recoveryefforts will require

restorationand repopulationof historic habitats. Becausenon-indigenousfishes and other

organismscompetewith, preyuponandsometimeshybridizewith indigenousspecies,invasions

by non-indigenousspeciesmustbe prevented,andthe lattermustbe removed where possible.

Barriers and other meansof excluding non-indigenousspeciesmust be utilized, as needed.

Renovationofhabitatscontainingnon-indigenousspeciesmustoccurprior to reestablishmentof

indigenoustaxa.

3.0 Determinebiological requirementsof speciesofconcern.

3.1 Examineand documentlife histories. Broad gapsexist in knowledgeof the biology of

imperiledorganismsof concern. Information shouldbe gathered,publishedandsynthesizedon

the ecological requirementsfor reproduction,survival, growth, parasites,behaviorand other

biological attributesof each.

3.2 Determineintra- and interspecific interactionsbetweenand among speciesin occupied

habitats. Data on interactionsalong with life-history information (3.1, above) will provide

insightson the dynamicsneededto managemulti-speciescommunities.

27


3.3 Determinehabitatrequirementsand definehabitatutilization. Information on quality and

quantityofhabitatneededto maintainorexpandpopulationsare largely intuitive. Recoverymay

requirereconstructionor modificationof habitats,and habitatresearchshould be conductedto

developinformationuponwhich to basefuturedecisions,especiallyasefforts expandto establish

andmaintainmulti-speciescommunities.

3.4 Ascertaingeneticprofiles for existing populations.Baselinegeneticinformation is required

to documentexisting differencesand similarities betweenisolated populationsand establish

geneticcriteria for future management.Plans for geneticmonitoring (2.4.2,above)should

commenceandbe integratedwith any geneticsresearch.

3.5 Monitor fish populationsandhabitats. A programof monitoringshouldbe developedwhich

incorporatesstandardsamplingprotocolsdesignedto assesspopulation sizesand speciesand

habitathealthandwell-being, while atthesametime forming thebasisfor samplingrelativeto

otherresearchtasks. Managersandresearchersshouldcloselyintegratetheirsamplingprotocols

to minimize needsfor speciestakeandhabitatdisruption.

4.0 Protect historic habitat of fishes of concern in the USA. The fishes of concern were

historically in the SanBernardinoandSulphur Springsvalleysin AZ andMimbresRiverwatershed

in NM. At present,theyareonly on the SanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR and in WestTurkey

Creekin AZ. Theirdistributionsin Mdxico vary from restrictedfor Yaqui chubto uncertainlybroad

for Yaqui andGuzznanbeautiful shiners,Yaqui catfishand Yaqui topminnow. A recoveryprogram

for thesefishesrequiresecosystem-levelprotectiondue to thenumberof listed speciesandregional

scarcity of water. Protectionof habitatsas ecosystemcomponentsis thus the most important

requirementfor recovery. Protectioncan be accomplishedby preventingactivities that disturb

watershedsand/ordirectly or indirectly influencesprings,artesianwells andtheir associatedmarsh-

lands andoufflows.

4.1 Maintain quality and quantity of subsurfacewaters. Refugiaare I)eededto protect listed

fishesuntil recoverycanbegin in Mexico. This wasaccomplishedin part by establishingtheSan

28


Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR For refugiato succeed,however,both sub-surfaceand surface

watersmustbe protectedfrom contaminationand depletion. Sub-surfaceflow presumablyde-

rives from anow-undefinedrechargeareanorth of refuge lands. The recharge/aquiferareaand

sizeshould beinvestigatedassoonaspossible,andamasterplan incorporatingconservationprin-

ciplesto ensurewaterquality andquantityshouldbe developedandimplementedassoonasthe

recharge/aquiferareais delineated. In themeantime:

4.1.1 Properor enhancedland-usepracticesshouldbe appliedthroughoutthe

presumedrechargeareas,aswell asthroughoutthewatershed;

4.1.2 developmentsuchasmining or irrigated agriculturethatmight influencedepletionor

quality ofwatershould beavoided;and

4.1.3 agreementsamong Federal, State and private landowners should be forged to ensure

maintenanceof quality of infiltrated water during and following the recharge/aquifer

identification period.

4.2 Work with water-usersand appropriateagenciesto prevent overuseof water. The San

BernardinoNWR andMexicanagriculturistsarecurrently usingthesameaquifer,which feeds

theNWR systemof artesianwells. Effectsof high-volumepumpingin Mexico havealready

been detected(San Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR files). Negotiations should be started

immediatelyto preventor amelioratecompetitivewater-usesthat influencewaterflows on the

SanBernardinoNWR (see1.1 and4.1, above).

4.3 Acquisition of instream-flow water-rights should be pursued where possible to protect

existing streamflows from developmentor other competingactivities that influencewater flows

on theSanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR(see1.1 and4.1, above). Acquisitionof instream-

flow water-rightswould help to maintain historic dischargesand provideperennialfish habitats.

4.4 Protection and acquisition ofhabitats and waters are essentialfor long-term survival.

29


Ecosystemssupportingthe listed speciesin the USA are small and vulnerable to disruption,

especiallythroughwaterwithdrawalor introductionsof non-indigeneousspecies. Protectionand

expansionof their habitatsarethus imperative. Conservationagreements,habitatmanagement

plans and managementeasementsshould be pursuedand implemented, thereby creating

partnershipswith private landownersandotheragencies.Areasfor possibleacquisitionshould

be identifiedandpurchasedas they becomeavailablefrom willing sellers.

5.0 Aues~habitatsfor reintroductionand reestablishthespeciesof concernwithin appropriate

habitats in historic ranges.

5.1 Identif~’ areas for possiblereestablishmentof speciesof concern. Potential reintroduction

siteswithin the historic rangesshouldbe identified, andagreementsnegotiated(see4.3, above)

to implementreestablishmentof fishesof concern (Williams et al. 1988). For example,for

Guzmanbeautiful shinerand Yaqui catfish, parts of the MimbresRiver watershedshouldbe

considered,areachof which is alreadyownedby NMDGF. Otherpublic or private landswith

willing landownersshouldbe lookedat alongtheMimbres.Permanentcattle-wateringtanksand

other such habitats in the Mimbres River and Sulphur Springs watershedsshould also be

considered.

5.2 Developculture techniquesandeffect reintroductionsfor Yaqui catfish.

5.2.1 Develop breedingprotocol to ensure all available captive adults contribute to

productionof progenyto be usedfor restorationefforts. Producefish of sufficient size,

number,and geneticquality requiredfor recovery.

5.2.2 Determinefish size, time or year, stockingdensities,and otherfactors required to

enhancesurvival and improvechancesfor contributionof stockedfish to re-coveryof the

species.

5.2.3 Stockinto suitablehabitatsasneededandmonitor reintroductionefforts.

30

— Yaciul Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

5.3 Stockingof otherspeciesof concernshouldproceedas habitats,appropriatenumbers of

individuals and sufficient biological information becomeavailable,to maximizepopulationsizes

and dispersion into a number of separated stocks. Replicate stocks are necessary to buffer against

unforseen disasters; the limited habitat available for Yaqui fishes in the USAmakes suchan

event far more probable than with species managed over broader geographic areas. Routine

monitoring protocols should be developedand implementedin concertwith 5.2.3, above.

5.4 Work with public agencies and private landowners to manageexisting and reintroduced

populations of species of concern. Managementagreements(see4.3, above)shouldbe pursued

to allow reestablishmentof listed speciesinto historic habitatson private lands.Agreements

should provide basic protection for the fishes, access to sites and management rights to improve

or enhance sites, and eradicate and exclude non-native fishes. Such agreementsshould be

negotiated to have positive impacts on landowners and their operations. All projectsconsidered

by federal agencieswhich potentially impactfishesof concernor their habitatsshouldcomply

with existing lawsand regulations.

6.0 Develop information and educationprogramsfor all species,their habitatsand the

ecosystem(s)upon which they depend.

6.1 Developcomprehensiveprogramsof informationand education. Information and education

programsshouldhighlight theplight of listed fishes,their valueas partofthe heritageof natural

biodiversityof theUSA andMexico, and their role as indicatorsof environmentalquality and

indicesof ecosystemhealth.

6.2 Insurebroaddisseminationof information. Programinformation shouldbe designedto give

thepublic a betterunderstandingof the fishesof concernandwidely disseminatedat local, state,

national and international levels. Special provisions should be made for production and

disseminationin Mexico of Spanish-languageversionsof all appropriateprogrammaterials.

6.3 Archives of published and unpublished materials relevant to aquatic organismsand aquatic

31

Yaqui Fishes Recovery Plan December_1994

habitats of concern should be established and maintained at permanent depositoriesincluding San

Bernardino/LeslieCanyonNWR.

32


Literature Cited

Ardizone,A.J. 1980.Feasibility Study:SanBernardinoRanch. CochiseCo. ParksAdvis. Comm.,Bisbee,AZ.

AZGFD (Arizona Game& Fish Department). 1972. Environmental Impact Statementon ProposedLeslie Canyon Lake. AZGFD, Phoenix.

_____ 1992. Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona. AZGFD, Phoenix.

Bagley, B.F., etal. 1991. Status ofthe Sonoran topminnow (Poeciiopsisoccidentalis)and desertpnpfish (Cyprinodon macularius) in Arizona. Ann. Rept. USFWS, Off. Endang. Spec.,Albuquerque, NM, AZGFD, Phoenix.

Bailey, R.M., etal. 1948. Common and Scientific Namesof Fishesfrom the United StatesandCanada,First Edition. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec.PubI. 1.

Brandt, H. 1951.Arizona and its Bird Life. Bird Res. Found., Cleveland, OH.

Brooks, J.E. 1985. Reintroductions of Sonoran topminnow (Poecilopsiso. occidentalis) inArizona. Ann. Rept. USFWS, Off. Endang.Spec.,Albuquerque,NM, AZGFD, Phoenix.

Brown, M. & F.J. Abarca. 1992. An updatestatusreporton theSonorantopminnow,Poeciliopsisoccidentalis,and desert pupfish, Cyprinodonmacularius, in Arizona. Ann. Rept. USFWS, Off.Endang.Spec.,AZGFD, Phoenix.

Burr, B.M. 1976. A review of the Mexican stoneroller, Campostomaornatum Girard (Pisces:Cyprinidae). Trans. San Diego Soc.Nat. Hist. 18:127-144.

Campoy-Favela, J., A. Varela-Romero & L. Ju&irez-Romero. 1989. ObservacionessobreIa ictiofaunanative de Ia cuenca del Rio Yaqui, Sonora,Mexico. Ecologica1:1-13.

Chamberlain, F.W. 1904. Unpublished field notes on fish collections in Arizona. On file,Smithsonian Institution, Wash., DC.

Chernoff, B. & R. R. Miller. 1982. Notropis bocagrande,a new cyprinid fish from ChihuahuaMexico, with comments on Notropis formosus.Copeia 1982:514-533.

Contreras-Balderas, 5. 1975. Zoogeography and evolution of Notropis lutrensisand “Notropis”ornatus in the Rio Grande basin and range, Mexico and United States (Pisces:Cyprinidae).Ph.D. Dissertat., Tulane Univ., NewOrleans, LA.

Cooke, R. U. & R W. Reeves. 1976. Arroyos and Environmental Change in the American South-west.Oxford Univ. Press,London.

33


Cooper, J.R 1959. Reconnaissance Geologic Mapof Southeastern CochiseCounty,Arizona. USGS(US Geological Survey) Mm. Invest. Field Stud. Map MF-213. USGS, Tucson,AZ.

Constantz,G.D. 1976. Life history strategy of the Gila topminnow, Poeciiopsisoccidentalis:Afield evaluation of theory on the evolution of life histories. Ph.D. Dissertat., AZSU, Tempe.

DeMarais, B. D. 1991. Gila eremica,a new cyprinid fish from northwestern Sonora, Mexico. Copeia199 1:178-189.

_____ & W.L. Minckley. 1991. Genetics and morphology of Yaqui chub, an endangeredcyprinid fish subject to recovery efforts. Final Rep.USEWS, Albuquerque,NM, AZSU, Tempe.

_____ & _____. 1993. Geneticsand morphologyof Yaqui chub, Gila purpurea, an endangeredcyprinid fish subject to recoveryefforts. Biol. Conserv.66:195-206.

Earth Technology Corporation. 1984. Feasibility study of Leslie Canyon Damsite,CochiseCounty,Arizona. Rept. (Proj. 84-246) AZDWR(Arizona Department of Water Resources), Phoenix. EarthTech. Corp., Phoenix.

Ervin, A. 1965. The Southwest of John Horton Slaughter. AZ list. Soc. Libr., Tucson.

Evermann,B.W. & E.L. Goldsborough.1902. A reporton fishescollectedin Mexico and CentralAmerica, with notes and descriptions of five new species. Bull. USFish Comm. 21:137-159.

Galat, D.L. & D. Gerhardt. 1987. Preliminary Evaluation of Gila purpurea food habits at SanBernardino National Wildlife Refuge,CochiseCounty, Arizona. Rept. USEWS, Albuquerque,NM, AZSU, Tempe.

_____ & B. Robertson. 1988. Interactions between Poecilwpsisoccidentalissonoriensis andGambusiaaffinis (Pisces: Poeciliidae) in the Rio Yaqui drainage, Arizona. Rept USEWS,Albuquerque,NM, AZSU, Tempe,& USEWS,SanBernardinoNWR.

_____ & _____. 1992. Response of endangered Poeciliopsisoccidentalissononensisin the RioYaquidrainage,Arizona, to introduced Gambusiaaffinis. Environ. Biol. Fishes 33:249-264.

Gehlbach,F.R 1981. MountainIslandsandDesertSeas:A NaturalHistory of the U.S.-MexicanBorderlands.TX A & M Univ. Press,CollegeStation.

Gerking,S.D. & D.V. Plantz,Jr. 1980. Size-biasedpredationby the Gila topminnow,Poeciliopsisoccidentalis(Baird & Girard). Hydrobiologia72:179-191.

Gilbert, C.R. 1978. Type catalogueof the North Americancyprinid fish genusNotropis.Bull. FLSt.Mus. Biol. Sci. 23:1-104.

34


Girard, C. 1857. Researches upon thecyprinoid fishesinhabitingthe freshwatersof theUnited Statesof America,westof theMississippiValley, from specimensin themuseumof theSmithsonianInstitution. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 8 (1856):165-213.

_____ 1859. Ichthyology of the boundary. In, Report of the United States and MexicanBoundary Survey, made under thedirection ofthe Secretary of the Interior, by W. H. Emory,Major First Calvary and United StatesCommissioner3:1-85.

Hastings,J.R. 1959.Vegetationchangeand arroyocutting in southeasternArizona. J. AZ Acad. Sci.1:60-67.

_____ & R.M. Turner. 1965. The Changing Mile: An Ecological Study of Vegetation Changewith Time in the Lower Mile of an Arid and Semiarid Region. Univ. AZ Press, Tucson.

Hendrickson, D.A. 1984. Distribution recordsof native and exotic fishesin Pacific drainagesofnorthernMexico. J. AZ-NV Acad. Sd. 18:33-38.

_____ 1987. GeographicVariation in Morphology of Agosiachrysogaster,a Sonoran DesertCyprinid Fish.Ph.D. Dissertat.,AZSU, Tempe.

_____ & W.L. Minckley. 1985. Cienegas:Vanishingclimax communitiesofthe American South-west.DesertPlants6(1984):131-175.

etal. 1981. Fishes oftheRio Yaqui, Mexico andUnited States.J. AZ-NV Acad. Sci. 15(3;1980):65-106.

Hershler, R 1994. A review of the North Americanfreshwatersnail genusPyrgulopsis(Hydrobiidae).Smithsonian Contr. Zool. 554:1-115.

Humphrey, R.R. 1986. Ninety years and 535 Miles: Vegetation ChangesAlong the MexicanBorder. Univ. NM Press,Albuquerque.

Jensen,B.L. 1992. Annual Report, Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center,

Dexter New Mexico. USFWS,Albuquerque,NM.

_____ 1993. Ibid.

Johnson,J.E. & B.L. Jensen.1991. Hatcheriesfor endangeredfreshwaterfishes. Pp. 199-217,In,Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the American West. Eds.,W.L. Minckley& J.E. Deacon,Univ. AZ Press,Tucson.

Jordan,D.S. & B.W. Evermann. 1896. The fishesof North and Middle America. Bull. US NatI.Mus. 47(4 parts,1896-1900):i-lx,1-3313.

35


Ju~rez-Romero, L., A. Varela-Romero,& J.Campoy-Favela.1991.Ecological observationsof nativefishesfrom thelower Rio Yaqui, Sonora,Mexico (Observacionesecologicasde los pecesnativosdelBajoRio Yaqui, Sonora,Mexico). Proc.Des.Fish.Counc.20(1988):79-80(abstr.)

Kelsch, S.W. & M.J. Baca. 1991. Biochemicalanalysisof gene products in Yaqui catfish,

Ictaluruspricci.Final Contr. Rept.,Dexter NFH, Dexter,NM, E. NM Univ., Portales.

Koster,W.J. 1957.Guideto theFishesof New Mexico. Univ. NM Press,Albuquerque.

Lanning,D.V. 1981. Vertebratesof San BernardinoRanch,CochiseCounty, Arizona. Rept.USFWS,Off. Endang.Spec.,AZ NatI. HeritageProg.,Tucson.

Marrs-Smith,G. 1983. Vegetationand flora of the San BernardinoRanch,CochiseCounty,Arizona.M.Sci. Thesis,AZSU, Tempe.

Matthews,W.J. 1980. Notropisformosus(Girard), Beautiful Shiner. P. 264, In, Atlas of NorthAmericanFreshwaterFishes.Eds., D. S. Lee, etal., NC StateMus.Nat. Hist., Raleigh.

_____ 1987. Geographicvariation in Cyprinella lutrensis(Pisces:Cyprinidae) in theUnited States,with noteson Cyprinella lepida. Copeia1987:616-637.

Mayden,R.L. 1985. PhylogeneticstudiesoftheNorth Americanminnows,with emphasison thegenusCyprinella (Teleostei:Cypriniformes).Ph.D. Dissertat.,Univ. KS, Lawrence.

_____ 1989. Phylogeneticstudiesof theNorth American minnows, with emphasison the genusCypnnella(Teleostei:Cypriniformes.Misc. PubI.Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. KS 80:1-189.

McNatt, RM. 1974. Re-evaluationofthe nativefishesofthe Rio Yaqui in theUnited States. Proc.Ann. Conf. West.Assoc.StateGame Fish Comm. 54:273-279.

Meek, S.E. 1904. The freshwaterfishesof Mexico north oftheIsthmusof Tehuantepec.PubL FieldColumb. Mus. 93, Zool. Ser. 5:i-lxiii, 1-252.

Meffe, G.K. 1983. Ecology of Species Replacement in the Sonoran Topminnow (Poeciiopsisoccidentalis)and the mosquitofish (Gambusiaaffinis) in Arizona. Ph.D. Dissertat., AZSU, Tempe.

_____ 1985.Predationandspeciesreplacementin AmericanSouthwesternfishes:A casestudy.SWNat. 30:173-187.

_____ et al. 1983.Factorsresulting in the declineof theendangeredSonorantopminnow(Ath-eriniformes:Poeciliidae)in the United States.Biol. Conserv.25:135-159.

Meinzer, O.E. & F.C. Kelton. 1913. Geologyand waterresourcesof the Sulfur SpringsValley,Arizona. US Geol. Surv. Water-Suppl. Pap. 320:1-231.

36


Menges,C.M. & L.D. McFadden.1981. Evidencefor a latestMioceneto PliocenetransitionfromBasin Rangetectonicto post-tectoniclandscapeevolution in southeasternArizona. AZ Geol. Soc.Dig. 13:151-160.

Miller, R.G. 1940. Original field noteson a collection of fishesfrom Rio SanMiguel, Sonora,Mhico (Rio Sonoradrainage),includingYaqui catfish. On file, Univ. Mich. Mus. Zool., AnnArbor, Mich., & AZSU Dept. Zool., Tempe,AZ.

Miller, R.R. 1945. A new cyprinid fish from southernArizona and Sonora,Mexico, with thede-scription of a newsubgenusof Gila and areviewof relatedspecies. Copeia1945: 104-110.

_____ 1976. An evaluationof S.E. Meek’scontributionsto Mexicanichthyology. FieldianaZool.69(l):1-31.

_____ 1978. Compositionandderivationofthenativefish faunaofthe ChihuahuanDesertregion,U.S. andMexico. Pp.365-382,In, Transactionsof the Symposiumon theBiological ResourcesoftheChihuahuanDesertRegion,UnitedStatesandMexico. Eds,R.H. Wauer& D.H. Riskind,USNatl. ParkServ.,Trans.-Proc.Ser. 3.

_____ 1989. Letter to B.L. Jensen,USFWS DexterNFHTC relativeto hybridity of someRioYaqui catfishes.Univ. Mich. Mus. Zoo., Ann Arbor, MI.

_____ & C. H. Lowe. 1964. Annotatedchecklistof the fishesof Arizona. Pp. 133-151, in TheVertebratesof Arizona, Ed., C. H. Lowe. Univ. AZ Press,Tucson.

_____ & _____. 1967. Fishesof Arizona. Ibid.

_____ & J.R. Simon. 1943. Norropismearnsifrom Arizona, an addition to the knownfish fauna

of the United States.Copeia1943(4):253.

Minckley, W.L. 1969. NativeArizona fishes,part 1--Livebearers. WildI. Views (AZGFD, Phoenix)

16: 6-8.

1973. Fishesof Arizona.AZGFD, Phoenix.

____ 1980. Gilapwpurea(Girard), Yaqui Chub. p. 171, In, Atlas of North AmericanFreshwaterFishes.Eds.,D. S. Lee, etal., NC StateMus. Nat. list., Raleigh.

_____ 1985. Nativefishesandnaturalaquatichabitatsof US Fishand Wildlife ServiceRegionII, westoftheContinentalDivide. Final Rept.,USFWS-AZSUInteragencyPers.Act Agr., AZSU,Tempe.

—-. & D.E. Brown. 1983. Part 6. Wetlands. Pp. 222-287,333-351,+ Literature cited, inDavid E. Brown, editor, Biotic Communitiesof theAmericanSouthwest. Desert Plants (BoyceThompson Arboretum, Superior, AZ) 4(1-4; 1982).

37

YacTui Fishes Recovery Plan December 1994

1991. NativeFishesofthe GrandCanyonRegion:An Obituary? Pp. 124-177,In, ColoradoRiver EcologyandDam Management. Proceedingsof a Symposium,May24-25, 1990,SantaFe New Mexico. Natl. Acad. Press,Wash.,DC.

_____ & J. E. Brooks. 1985. Transplantationsof nativeArizona fishes:Recordsthrough1980. J.AZ-NV Acad. Sci. 20:73-89.

_____ & J.E. Deacon(eds.).1991. Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in theAmerican West.Univ. AZ Press,Tucson.

D.A. Hendrickson,& C.E. Bond. 1986. Geographyof westernNorth Americanfreshwaterfishes:Descriptionandrelationshipsto intracontinentaltectonism. Pp.519-614,In, Zoogeographyof North AmericanFreshwaterFishes. Eds.,C.H. Hocutt& E.O.Wiley. JohnWiley & Sons,New York.

J.N. Rinne& J.E. Johnson.1977. StatusoftheGila topmmnnowandits co-occurrencewithmosquitofish.US For.Serv.Res.Pap. RM-198:1-8.

G.K. Meffe & D.L. Soltz. 1991. Conservationandmanagementof short-livedfishes:Thecyprinodonts. Pp. 147-282. In, Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in theAmericanWest.Ed., W.L. Minckley & J.E. Deacon,Univ. AZ Press,Tucson.

Neily, RB. & R.A. Beckwith. 1985. A cultural resourceinventoryoftheSanBernardino.Cult. Res.Manag. Sec., AZ. St. Mus., UAZ, Tucson.

NewMexico StateGameCommission.1974. NewMexico Wildlife ConservationAct. New MexicoStateLegislature,SantaFe

Propst,D.L. & J. Stefferud.1994. Distribution andstatusofChihuahuachub(Teleostei,Cyprinidae:Gila nigrescens),with noteson its ecologyand associatedspecies. SW Nat. 39:224-235.

Regan,C.T. 196-08. Pisces. In, Biologia Centrali-AmericanaVIII.

Robins, C.R., eta). 1991. Common and scientific namesof fishesfrom the United StatesandCanada,Fifth Edition, 1991. Spec.Publ. 20, Amer. Fish. Soc.,Bethesda,MD.

Rogers,B.D. 1975.Fishdistributionin theMimbresRiver, New Mexico. Rept.NMDGF, SantaFe.

Rosen,P. & C. Schwalbe. in press. Bullfrogs: Introducedpredatorsin southwesternwetlands.Our Living Resources1994. National Biological Survey.Washington,DC. ED., G.S.Farris.

Rutter, C. 1896.Noteson the fresh waterfishesof thePacific slope ofNorth America. Proc.CAAcad. Sci. 6:245-267.

38


Schoenherr,A.A. 1973. Life history ofthe topminnow Poeciiopsisoccidentalis(Baird & Girard)in Arizona and an analysisofits interaction with the mosquitofish Gambusiaaffinis (Baird &Girard). Ph.D. Dissertat., AZSU, Tempe.

_____ 1977. Density dependentand density independentregulationof reproductionin the Gilatopininnow,Poeciliopsisoccidentalis(Baird & Girard). Ecology58:438-444.

SEDESOL(Secretariade Desarrollo Social). 1994.NORMA Oficial MexicanaNOM-059-ECOL-1994,quedeterminalas especiesy subespeciesde flora y faunasylvestresterrestresy acuaticasenpeligro de extinction, amenazadas,raras y las sujetasa proteccion especial, y que estableceespecificacionespamsu proteccion. Diaro Oficial, Lunes16 de Mayo de 1994,CDXXXVIII(10):2-60.

Silvey, W. 1975. Fishesof Leslie Creek,CochiseCounty, Arizona. Statewide Fish. Invest.:StatewideSurv.Aquat. Res.,JobProg.Rept.,Fed.Aid Fish Restor.Act Proj. F-7-R-17,JobVI, Seg.2, continuing.AZ GameFishDept.,Phoenix.

Sims, J.K. & K.M. Simms.1992. Whatconstitutesquality habitatfor Gila topminnow(Poeciliopsisoccidentalis)?An overviewof habitatparameterssupportinga robustpopulationatCienegaCreek,PimaCo., Arizona. Proc.Des. Fish.Counc.22(1991):82(abstr.).

Smith,M.L. & R.R. Miller. 1986. The evolutionof theRio Grandebasinas inferred from its fishfauna. Pp.457-486,In, Zoogeographyof North AmericanFreshwaterFishes,eds.,C.H. Hocutt& E.O. Wiley. Wiley & Sons,New York.

Snyder,J.O. 1915. Noteson acollectionoffishesmadeby Dr. EdgarA. Mearnsfrom rivers tributaryto theGulf of California. Proc.US Nat. Mus.9:573-586.

Sublette,J.E., M.D. Hatch, & M. Sublette.1990. TheFishesof New Mexico. Univ. NM Press,Albuquerque.

Suckling,K. 1993. Petitionto list theHuachucawaterUmbell, Lilaeopsisschaffnerianasubspeciesrecurva,as a federallyendangeredspecies.GreaterGila Biodiver.Proj., End.Sp. Ser.4., SilverCity, NM.

Taylor, D.W. 1967. Freshwatermollusks collectedby the United Statesand MexicanBoundarySurveys.TheVeliger 10:152-158.

USBSFW. 1966. Rareandendangeredfish andwildlife oftheUnited States.US Bur. SportsFish.Res.PubI. 34:1-180.

USFWS. 1984a.Endangeredandthreatenedwildlife and plants;final rule to determinethe Yaquichub to be an endangeredspecieswith critical habitat, and to determinethe beautiful shinerandYaqui catfish to be threatenedspecieswith critical habitat.Fed.Reg. 49(171):34490-34497.

39


_____ 1984b. Recovery Plan for the Sonoran Topminnow (including Gila topminnow and Yaquitopminnow.USEWS, Albuquerque,NM.

_____ 1987. ManagementPlan for the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona.USFWS, Albuquerque,NM.

_____ 1990. Recoveryplan for the endangeredand threatenedspeciesof Ash Meadows,Nevada.USFWS,Portland,OR.

_____ 1994a. Endangeredand ThreatenedWildlife and Plants. USEWSInform. ResourceManag.Lib. Serv.,Washington,DC, Internet E-mail [email protected].

_____ 1994b.ComprehensiveManagementPlanfor theSanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNationalWildlife Refuge. USFWS,Albuquerque.

Varela-Romero,A., J. Campoy-Favela,& LourdesJuArez-Romero.1992.Fishesof therios Mayo andFuerteBasins,Sonoraand Sinaloa,Mexico (Los Pecesde las Cuencasde los rios Mayo y Fuerte,Sonoray Sinaloa,Mexico). Proc.Des.Fish.Counc.22(1990):70-71(abstr.).

Vrijenhoek,R.J.,M.E. Douglas,& G.K. Meffe. 1985.Conservationgeneticsof endangeredfishpopulationsin Arizona. Science229:400-402.

Wagoner,J.J. 1960. Overstockingthe rangesin southernArizona during the 1870’s and 1880’s.Arizoniana2:23-27.

Warren,P1.,eta!. 1991. Statusreport:Lilaeopsisschaifflerianasubspeciesrecuri’a. TNC (AZ)Final Rep.,USFWS,Phoenix.

Weigel,D.D & RJ. Olding. 1976. Environmentalassessment,proposedLeslieCanyonLake.Plan.Eval. Br., AZGFD, Phoenix.

Williams, J.E.,et a!. 1988. AmericanFisheriesSocietyguidelinesfor introductionsof threatenedandendangeredfishes.Fisheries(Bethesda,MD) 13:5-11.

Williams, J.E., eta!. 1985. Endangeredaquaticecosystemsin North Americandeserts,with a list ofvanishingfishesof theregion.J.AZ-NV. Acad. Sci. 20:1-62.

40

Yaaui FishesRecoveryPlan December1994

Ill - IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULE

The foilowmg implementationscheduleoutlines actionsandcosts for theYaqui fishes recoveiy

program. It is a guidefor meetingtheobjectivesdiscussedin PartII ofthePlan. Thescheduleindicatestask

priorities,tasknumbers,taskdescriptions,durationoftasks,responsibleagencies,andestimatedcosts. These

actions,whenaccomplished,shouldbring aboutthe recoveryof Yaqui fishesandprotecttheirhabitat. It

shouldbe notedthatestimatedmonetaryneedsfor all partiesinvolvedin recoveryareidentifiedfor thefirst

threeyearsonly, and thereforearenot reflectiveof total recoverycosts. Costsare estimatedto assistin

plaiinmg. This recoveryplandoesnotobligateanyinvolvedagencyto expendtheestimatedfunds. Though

workwith privatelandownersis calledfor in theplan, landownersarenotobligatedto expendanyflmds.

Definition of Priorities

Priority 1 - Thoseactionsthat are absolutelyessentialto preventtheextinction of the speciesin the

foreseeablefuture.

Priority2- Thoseactionsnecessaryto maintainthespecies’currentpopulationstatus.

Priority3- All otheractionsnecessaryto providefor full recoveryofthespecies.

AgencyAbbreviations

FWS = USD1 FishandWildlife ServiceES - EcologicalServicesFR-FisheryResourcesProgramRW- RefugesandWildlife Program

AZGFD = ArizonaGameandFishDepartmentCES = CentroEcologicode SonoraADWR = ArizonaDepartmentofWaterResourcesAZSLD = ArizonaStateLandDepartmentBLM BureauofLandManagementUSGS = UnitedStatesGeologicalSurveyNMDGF = NewMexicoDepartmentofGameandFish

41

parr iii - flWI~~ThTI00 E~Lu

GALcAriny

(13px,axu varr

(2)

U

USES

(3)

P

PRIORITYS(4)

T

TASK

(53

3E351315 ~TDIE

DIElOR P00ON(5) (Sa)

a

alUm(7)

VIBc~L YR O~fff3(TDU)

ms FY95 ,yg~(3)

~emfg(9)

Pursue agr.t3 and deve1~t ofmanaginnt plan. for imig-termmurwival of fiuhas of concern inNexico.

1.1 1 ~oing 2 — 15USD 5,000 5.006 5.000

Develop and inglmnt cooperativeuaqinnt_plans.

Determine aquifer recharge zowe,capacities and ccsufiguration. andcharacteriutic. of sub-murface flow.

1.2 2 Ongoing 2 33 hUED 5,000 5,000 5,000

2.1 3 3 yrs 2 — 11USD 50.000

Protect watershed and aquifer 2.2 1 Ongoing 2 33/35 lauDNW

u~own t~e unbsoun

Determine sltS of water required tointain listed species at San

Dernardino/Lealie CanyonNUn.

2.3 2 3 yr. 2 Ru 5.000 5.000 5,000

Deyiae and contimie isplinntation ofRefuge_Neater_Plan.

Develop water-use plan for SanBernardino/Leslie_Canyon_535

2.4 3 1 yr 2 1,000

2.4.1 2 2

Develop innageinnt plan for eachspecies of Cowoern.

2.4.2. 3 Ongoing 2 Ru/in AmP—

5.000 5.000 5.000

Develop and iq,linnt geneticmitoring plans and schedule. for

each species.

2.4.3 2 Ongoing 2 33/1K hUED—

10.000 10.000 10.000 Gintic litoringschedule set upevery 5 yearsaftar baseline

Develop or enhancenew and existinghabitats, umdtor successof habitatmanagnt.

2.5 2 Ongoing 2 RU 12USD—

10.000 10.000 10.000

Eradicate and secure againstreinvasion of new introduction. ofnon-indigenous species.

2.5 1 Ongoing 2 nw/uS/In AmP—

10.000 10,000 10.000

Examine and doc~nt life histories. 3.1 2 5 yra 2 Ru/FR NEDNW

15,000 15.000 15.000

Determine iq,acts of intra- andInterspecific interactions in habitatsoccupied by c~inationa of species.

3.2 3 5 yra 2 RU/SR 11USDN~GF

3.000 0.000 5,000

Determine habitat requirinnts andhabitat utilization.

3.3 3 3 yrs 2 Ru/FR A1UPDNEGF

10.000 10.000 10,000

Determine • and delineate geneticcc~osition of existing populations.

3.4 1 3 yr. 2 33/1K 12USD—

(ED

6,000 3.000 5.000

ISmitor health of fish populations andoccupied habitats.

3.5 2 Ongoing 2 33/FR hUED 2.000 2,000 2,000

Naintain levels and quality ofsubsurface waters.

4.1 1 ~oing 2 Ru/SR AU2SDINScNW

5.000 5.000 5,000

Apply proper or enhanced land-rnpractice..

4.1.1 2 2

~1ude developsent such asmining orirrigated agriculture.

4.1.2 2 ~oing 2 nw/Ru

Forge agreinnts to assure aquiferwater quality.

4.1.3 1 Ongoing 2 Ru/us 1.000 1,000 1,000

~ith water uaera and appropriate

~s and individuals to prevent

of water f row essential

4.2 1 Ongoing 7

1

au/un IN~ 1.500 1.500 1,500

TASK PRIORITY TASK3 9 00R~IOR(3) (4) (5)

PART III - IM ~TIOMScHuD!JLu

2

2

2

ArnolD—

ANolD—

ArnolDtUniSDL.

NW

Ontain Inatrem flow water-rightsfor sufficient water to maintainsurface flows in watercourse.isportant to recovery.

4.3

4.4

5.1

3

3

3

Ongoing

2 yrs

33

Ru/FR

nsknoun

5.000

unbaown

5.000

unknown

5.000

Acquire and protect or protectthrough conservationagreeints andhabitat mnagnt plans theessential water. andhabitats neededfor long-term survival of fishes ofconcern.

Identify areas for possiblereintroductions.

Develop culture techniques for Yaqui

catfish.

5.2

5.2.1

5.2.2

5.2.3

3

3

3

3

Ongoing

~

3 yrs

Ongoing

2 FR/Ru AZolD

—

AIlEDNW

5.000

3,500

4.500

5.000

5.000

3,500

4,500

5.000

5.000

3.500

4,500

5.000

Develop breeding protocol. 2

2

2

FR/Ru

FR/Ru

Ru/SR

Determine fish size, time of yearand stocking densities required toensure survival.

Stock and initor success ofreintroductions.

Reintroduce, reestablish and enoitorpopulations of other species ofconcern.

5.3

5.4

6.1

6.2

6.3

3

3

3

3

3

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

1 yr

2

2

2

2

2

Ru/FR

33/FR/RU

A1USDN~F

AZGSDNW

5.000

3.000

5,000

3,000

3,500

1.000

5.000

3.000

3.500

1,000

Bork with public agencies andprivate landowners to manageexisting and reintroducedpopulations of fishes of concern.

Develop c~rehensive prugrem ofinformation and education.

Ru

Ru

AZOSDNW

AZOSDN300F

3,500

Insure broad disseuination ofinformation in both English andBpanish.

1.000

Ratablish end maintain archives ofpublished and unpublished materialsrelevant to aquatic organim andaquatic habitats of concern inpermanent depositories.

33 A1USDNOXOF

1,000

= = —-=

REx. ~f ma JinC!PIE

133100 P30005K(6) (Ga)

mm(7)

FY94(3)

GRUERALCa7330RY

(1)P01.11 TASK

(2)

FIR~AL TRUR OKIRI—)

FY95 Fr,’ -FR(9)


Appendix

Summaryof CommentsReceivedon theYaqui FishesRecoveryPlan

On June7, 1994, a FederalRegisternotice announcedthat the draft RecoveryPlan for the

EndangeredandThreatenedFishesof theRio Yaqui wasavailablefor public review. The U.S. Fishand

Wildlife Service(Service)acceptedcommentson thedraft planbetweenJune7, 1994, andAugust8, 1994.

The commentperiodwasthenextendedfor an additionalsixty daysandendedOctober7, 1994. A notice

wasalso enteredin theDouglasDispatch,adaily paperin Douglas,Arizona. The draft recoveryplanwas

distributed to 38 agencies and individuals. Comments were received from private landowners, Cochise

County, AZ and from several state and federal agencies.

All comments were considered when revising the draft plan. The Service appreciates the time

eachof thecommentorstook to review thedraft and to submittheir comments.

The commentsdiscussedbelow representacompositeofthosereceivedprior to thecloseofthe

public commentperiod. Commentsof a similar natureare groupedtogether. Substantivecommentsthat

questionapproach,methodology,or finacial needscalledfor in thedraft plan,or suggestchangesto the

plan are discussedhere. Commentsregarding simple editorial suggestions,suchas betterwording,

measuringunit equivalency,or spelling andpunctuationchanges,were incorporatedas appropriatewithout

discussionhere.

All commentsreceivedare retained as part of the Administrative Record of recoveryplan

developmentin theSanBernardino/LeslieCanyonNational Wildlife RefugeOffice, Douglas,Arizona.

Comment1: ConcernedtheServiceworking throughprivateorganizations,individuals,andgovernment

agenciesto addresswater problemsin Mexico which effect the aquifer.

ServiceResponse1: The Serviceis readyto work with any individual or group, suchastheMalpai

BorderlandsGroup,TheNatureConservancy,or othersto try to find solutionsto waterproblems

44


on both sidesofthe border. In additionto working with federal, stateandMexicanagenciesand

groups,theServiceis willing to work with interestedpartiesin finding a solution to this and

otherproblemswhicheffect the resourcesof the refuges.

Comment2: Obtainingan instreamflow right for Black Draw is not practicalor needed.

ServiceResponse2: The Servicefeelsthat protectionof watersuppliesis critical to maintaining

thesefisheson the refuge. However,due to thenatureof Black Draw and the fact that thereis

surfaceflow in thecreekfor only 5-6 monthsof the year, instreamflow rights areprobablynot

practicalor obtainable. Instreamflow rights would not affect existing waterrights andwould

makeleavingthewater in thestreambed a legal use.

Comment3: Establishinghatcherystructureson the refuge for all listed fish.

Service ResDonse3: The Service feels that there is no need to establishhatchery structuresfor

thefish. DexterNationalFishHatcheryandTechnologycenteris currently involved with trying

to propagatetheYaqui catfish. The expertiseand facilities are alreadyin place in Dexterto do

the researchneededon thesefish. Naturally reproducingpopulationsunderwild conditionsare

preferableto hatcheryproducedfish. All the speciescurrentlyon the refugehavereproducing

populationsin numbersthat shouldpreventgeneticproblems. The aim of the recoveryplan is

to havenaturallyreproducingpopulationsandhatcheryrearingof anyof thesefish would be a

lastditch effort to preventextinction.

Comment4: Making agreements,and working with, private groupsand individuals to reintroduce

Yaqui fishesasopposedto acquiring land to accomplishthis.

Service Response4: The Service agrees that working with private groups and individuals will

be importantto the recoveryand survival of thesefishes. The Servicehasworkedwith, and

will continueto work closelywith individuals andgroupsfor the benefitof thesefishes. Groups

suchas the Malpai BorderlandsGroup andtheir commitmentto preservingopen spaceand

45

Yaaui Fishes RecoveryPlan December1994

improving thehabitatin the SanBernardinoValley will benefit the refugeandthe Yaqui fishes.

Land acquisitionfrom willing sellers is anothertool that can be usedto benefit thesespecies.

Acquisition of the San Bernardino/LeslieCanyon NWR’s has allowedthe endangeredfish

populationsto increasefrom nearextinction andmadepossiblethe reintroductionof the beautiful

shinerinto the fish faunaof Arizona.

Comment 5: How recovery actions impact on public accessto refuges and private lands which

containcritical habitatfor thesespecies.

Service Resnonse5: The only critical habitatdesignationis madeon aquatic habitatson the San

BernardinoNationalWildlife Refuge. No designatedcritical habitat is locatedon private land.

Publicaccessto private lands is determinedby the private land owner. Even if their property

containsYaqui fishesthe private landownerwill still determineaccessto their own land. There

is currently limited public accessto SanBernardinoNWR andrecoveryactionswill not restrict

it. UnderStep6 oftherecoveryplan, the refugewill play amajor role in educatingthepublic

aboutthe imperiledYaqui fishesand thiswill mostlybe carriedout on the SanBernardinoNWR.

Comment 6: Will Service maintain dialogue with local landownersand user groupswho may

be impactedby Recoveryactions?

Service Reponse6: Yes. The Servicecurrently works with landownersthat have Yaqui fishes

on theirpropertyandwill continueto work with landownerson Recoveryitems. Oneof thekeys

to recoveryof thesefishes is working with local landownersand agenciesin a cooperative

manner.

Comment7: What is the critical habitat for Yaqui chub, Yaqui catfish, beautiful shiner,and Yaqui

topminnow?

46


Service Res~nse7: For chub, shiner, and catfish, the listed critical habitat is all aquatichabitats

on the San BernardinoNational Wildlife Refuge. No listed critical habitat for the Yaqui

topminnow.

Comment8: Hasmining playeda role in the disappearanceof thesefish? Is mining aproblem?

ServiceResDonse8: Impactsfrom mining havehaddetrimentaleffectson the Yaqui fishes.

Groundwaterpumping for smelting operationshave resulted in reducedhabitat for these

fishes. In the USA portion of the range,mining currently hasminimal impacts. However,

the areain which thesefishesoccurhasa rich mineralhistory andmining is a potential threat

to thesesmall habitats.

Comment9: Thereis speculationthat theMimbresRiver cannotsupportGuzmanbeautifulshinerdue

to habitatalterationsover the last 100 yearsandtheestablishmentof longfin dacein the river.

ServiceResponse9: Populationsre-establishedon the San BernardinoNWRare in modified habitatsand

haveadaptedwell. The shiner shouldbe ableto establishdependingon whetheror not exotic

fishesandwhat kind of exotic fishesarepresent. It is not known what the interactionsof the

longfin daceandthe shinerwould be. In surveysdone in the fall of 1994 on the Rio Bavispein

Sonora,Arizona Game& Fish andFish& Wildlife Servicepersonnelfrequentlyfound longfin

daceandbeautiful shinerin thesameriver reaches.

Comment10: Are thereanystudiesthat canbeusedto direct habitatimprovements?

Service Resoonse10: The Service is currently funding a study on habitat utilization by Yaqui

fishes. This will help direct habitat improvementprojectsalthoughmoreresearchis neededon

all aspectsof thesefisheslife historiesandhabitatpreferences.

Comment II: Is thereany informationon the relationshipbetweenprecipitationand replenishmentof

the aquifer?

47

Yaqui FishesRecoveryPlan December 1994

ServiceResDonse11: No. The Serviceis funding astudyof the aquifer to gatherbasic informationas

to the extentandcapacitiesof the aquifer.

48

of the rio yaqui recovery p lan · this recovery plan deals with fourthreatened or endangered taxa,...

Documents