|
ing recovery teams and developing recovery plans to reintr -
<br />ucing species and acquiring essential habitats There are presently
<br />abou approve recovery plans operating for the benefit ,f
<br />Southwestern fishes. We believe implementation of the Act
<br />through recovery actions .is the key to future conservation of
<br />native fishes in the American Southwest
<br />RECOVERY ACTION FOR DESERT
<br />FISI-IES
<br />Pre-Act efforts to help native fishes were mostly independent
<br />actions by state, federal, or private groups, usually with the
<br />objective of helping one habitat or population. Passage of the
<br />Act brought the need to expand these efforts to include recovery
<br />of entire species. Early recovery actions under the Act improved
<br />coordination between ongoing activities, and encouraged state
<br />-and federal management agencies to think about the protection
<br />and recovery of non-game. species (Pfister 1976) or "non-
<br />,resources" (Ehrenfeld 1976). Completed recovery plans began
<br />appearing in 1975 with the Devil's Hole Pupf'-sh Recovery Plan,
<br />followed by the Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Plan in 1977
<br />and the Colorado Squawfish and Cui-ui recovery plans in 1978.
<br />These and additional recovery plans are slowly being imple-
<br />mented. Only within the past two years has the Fish and !Rrildlife
<br />Service emphasis on endangered species shifted from listing to
<br />recovery.
<br />From the numerous state and federally listed fish species
<br />endemic to the Southwest, we have chosen to discuss specific
<br />COVER PICTURES-Data and Credits
<br />1. Colorado squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius, from Wil-
<br />lowBeach, National Fish Hatchery, Arizona, l/17/81; total
<br />length 450 mm, age VII. John N. Rinne.
<br />2. Gila trout, Salmo gilae, from Main Diamond Creek,
<br />New Mexico, 10/29/80; total length 187 mm. John N.
<br />Rinne.
<br />3. Gila topminnow, Poecilfopsis occidentalis, from Dexter
<br />National Fish Hatchery, New Mexico, 5/7/81; female (top),
<br />45 mm; male (bottom), 32 mm. James E. Johnson.
<br />4. Comanche Springs pupfish, Cyprinodon elegans, from
<br />Dexter National Fish Hatchery, New Mexico, 5/7/81; male,
<br />total length approximately 50 mm. James E. Johnson.
<br />5. Woundfin, Plagopterus argentissimus, from the Virgin
<br />River, Utah; approximate length 75 mm. John N. Rinne.
<br />6. Arizona trout, Salmo apache, from East Fork of White
<br />River, Arizona, 7/29/80; total length 170 mm. John N.
<br />Rinne.
<br />7. Razorback sucker,' Xyrauchen texanus, from Lake
<br />Mohave, Arizona, 1/20/81; male, total length 575 mm.
<br />John N. Rinne.
<br />8. Humpback chub, Gila cypha, from Willow Beach
<br />National Rsh Hatchery, Arizona, 1/17/81; female, total
<br />length 402 mm. John N. Rinne.
<br />recovery actions for only five. Three examples (Gila trout, Ari-
<br />zona trout, and woundfin) are typical of recovery actions under-
<br />~~~a~r tF,rQ!:gl'.^,;:t t~f Unit°_d C~~t=- :':1::~~ ti:~ C:I:Cr t:'.''v ~ :+1.Cr-
<br />- --- ~•
<br />back sucker and Gila topminnow)~ establish new policy trends
<br />that we believe will strongly influence future recovery efforts.
<br />Southwestern Trouts
<br />The Gila trout (Sa/mo gilae; Fig. Z) and Arizona trout (S.
<br />apache; Fig. 5) are currently listed as endangered and threat-
<br />ened, respectively. Fewer than 10,000 individuals of the former
<br />species persist in eight headwater streams in New Mexico and
<br />Arizona (USDI 1979a). The Arizona trout is more abundant, but
<br />presently occupies only about 5% of its former range (USDI
<br />1979b). Both are potential sport species (Rinne et al. 1980), are
<br />or have been reared in hatcheries, presently persist primarily in
<br />harsh, headwater environments (Rinne 19821, and readily hybri-
<br />dize with the widely introduced rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri).
<br />Genetic swamping, habitat modification; and competition with
<br />other nonnative salmonids have been the primary reasons for
<br />the demise of both native trouts, a widespread phenomenon
<br />throughout the West (Behnke 1979).
<br />Conservation efforts for Gila trout began as early as 1923
<br />when the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish reared
<br />the species in a hatchery for stocking to augment declining wild,
<br />overfished populations. In 1970, the first reintroduced popula-
<br />tion of Gila trout was established in McKnight Creek, New Mex-
<br />ico. In the 1940's, the White Mountain Apache Indian- Tribe
<br />recognized that Arizona trout were declining in numbers. By
<br />1955, pure populations of Arizona trout were so scarce that the
<br />Tribe closed to angling those streams containing this species.
<br />The Arizona Department of Game and Fish began rearing Phis
<br />rare trout in 1962 and initiated a reintroduction program in 1965.
<br />Recovery teams and recovery plans exist for both species
<br />(USDI 1979a,b). The primary components of these plans are
<br />similar: to define purity of populations, to conduct surveys and
<br />monitor existing populations, to evaluate habitat in existing and
<br />potential reintroduction streams, to reestablish native fish com-
<br />munities, and to examine the ecology and life history of both
<br />species. Both plans are currently being implemented. Non-native
<br />fish species have been eliminated from several streams (Conran
<br />1981; Rinne et al. 1981) and pure, native trout reintroduced.
<br />Recovery plan goals for the Arizona trout call for 30 self-sustain-
<br />ing populations prior to delisting. By comparison, replicating the
<br />five natural populations of the Gila trout is prerequisite to down-
<br />iisting the species to threatened status. It appears both of these
<br />goals are likely to be reached within this decade.
<br />Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) (Fig. 7)
<br />Ranges and populations of the four native, "large river" fish
<br />species of the Colorado river (razorback sucker, Colorado
<br />squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub [Gila elegans])
<br />have all declined precipitously over the past 50 years. Of these
<br />four species, the razorback sucker alone appears able to survive
<br />in abundance in reservoir environments, but only as adults.
<br />Reservoir populations of razorback suckers appear unable to
<br />replenish themselves, and most populations have disappeared
<br />within 30-40 years of dam closure (Minckley in press). The
<br />razorback sucker disappeared from riverine habitats in Arizona
<br />in the 1950's and recently appears to be failing throughout the
<br />entire Colorado River basin (Johnson in press).
<br />]n 1978 the razorback sucker was proposed as a threatened
<br />species under the Act, but the proposal had to be withdrawn in
<br />4 Fisheries, Vol. 7, No. 3
<br />
|