Gila+River+Group+Project

**The Upper Gila**

**Introduction** The Gila River originates high within the Gila Wilderness in southwestern New Mexico. It stands as the last main stem free flowing river in the state, and one of the last in the western United States. Aldo Leopold recognized the beauty of this land during his work with the Forest Service, and led a movement which eventually resulted in the designation, on June 3, 1924, of 574,000 acres within the Gila National Forest as the Gila Wilderness, the first such area on earth (Culhane, 2008). The river originates as springs high in the Mogollon and Black Range mountains at elevations around 10,000 feet. The highest among these, Bead Springs, has been honored through unknown generations with beads and other sacrificial offerings by native cultures (Calvin, 1946). These springs mix with mountain snowmelt before coalescing at a lower elevation around 6000 to 7000 feet to form what is known as the three forks of the Gila: East, West, and Middle Forks (USGS, 1923). The three forks of the Gila then meet up to form the main stem near the border of Grant and Catron Counties as shown below in figure 1. The 150 miles of the upper Gila River that flow in New Mexico drain approximately 2832 square miles, before leaving the state at 4,000 feet near Moore Canyon (Upper Gila Watershed Alliance). The Gila River is considered a 5th order stream (Blinn and Poff, 2005), with an average gradient along the entire 150 mile river corridor of ∼40 ft/mile. No river in America has an equally swift transition from snow and spruce to sand and saguaro (Calvin, 1946). To analyze the stream health and ultimately define the restoration needs of any stream system a thorough analysis of its watershed is necessary. Although the Upper Gila Watershed spans from the Gila National Forest and Wilderness in Southwestern New Mexico to the San Carlos Reservoir in Southeastern Arizona, the focus of this paper is restricted to the upper stream and watershed reaches confined within New Mexico. Concentrating on the past, current and future land use changes and mitigation strategies.

**History** Although the upper Gila is undammed, it has been faced with multiple anthropogenic disturbances. According to geologist Dr. James G. Bennett based on artifacts he found near the town of Willcox, AZ, humans have lived near the Gila for over 10,000 years and possibly up to 15,000 years; which implies that man has inhabited this area longer than most places on earth (Corle, 1951). The Gila watershed was occupied by the three major groups known to exist in the Southwest: 1) Hohokum (middle reach), and 2) Mogollon (upper reach). Western disturbances began with the arrival of the Spanish captain-general, Francisco Vasquez de Coronado, in the spring of 1540. His cavalcade marched northward from Mexico in search of the fabulous turquoise crowned cities of gold, where they came upon what their chronicles describe as “a deep and reedy stream” (Calvin, 1946). Until this time, the only domesticated animals in the Gila were dogs and turkeys, but with the Coronado expedition came horses, pigs, sheep, oxen and most importantly cattle (cow, bull and steer) (Corle, 1951). For over a millennia the Anasazi, Hohokum and Mogollon cultures (~300 B.C.E..- 1450 C.E..), who are thought to have replaced the primitive peoples in the area, lived in harmony with the Gila River system from its headwaters in New Mexico to its point of confluence with the Colorado River in Southwestern Arizona. A complex system of canals were built, primarily in the middle Gila reach located below Safford, AZ, to aid in the development of an irrigation network that allowed the cultures to subsist in the otherwise arid landscape. Corn, cotton, pumpkin, squash and beans were cultivated by these cultures (Corle, 1951).

The Pima, Yuma, and Apache cultures succeeded the Hohokum and Mogollon cultures upon their disappearance, and lived freely on the land until the late 19th century when they were placed on reservations by Americans. During this time the Pima and Yuma cultures survived through an agriculturally based society that utilized the Gila River through a similar irrigation network to that of the Hohokum peoples; whereas the Apache, who dominated the Upper Gila River survived through a culture based on war and raids. The lifestyle of the Apache people played a significant role on the delayed development of the upper Gila River.

Interestingly, the “Gila, while recent to Americans, is old to Europeans; it was viewed by them, although lying on the remote side of the continent, before they saw the Hudson or the Delaware” (Calvin, 1946). The period of transition over a span of 4 centuries (1540-1940), saw the valley occupancy evolve from Native, to Spanish, to American and has been the scene of more high adventure, more prolonged, and perhaps ferocious fighting than any other region in America (Calvin, 1946). During this period Apache raids on settlers received national attention due to the frequency and style of the assaults. Apaches were known for their shear brutality and comfort with war. No settlements lasted more than a few years without a military presence, and even then, settlers did not wander astray. The famed Santa Rita Mine, which supplied the Spanish royal mint with copper for coinage, began development in 1803 and produced 6,000,000 lbs of copper/year (Calvin, 1946). However due to Apache raids, the mine functioned on and off as new investors were willing to take on the risk of running a mining operation in Apache country.

It was not until the Mormon Battalion carved a road through the wilderness in 1846 that Americans came through in numbers. Led by Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cook, with guidance by Kit Carson, the Mormon Battalion reached the Gila on October 20, 1846. Upon reaching the river, “Captain A. R. Johnston records in his journal that in the mud beside the water, he observed tracks of bear, beaver, and Indian ponies. It was a wild country! And an unknown country. No roads crossed it, no towns lay within it” (Calvin, 1946). With the building of this road, and the rumor of valuable minerals in the area reaching east, American settlers were given the motivation of Gold deposits found near Pinos Altos in the 1850’s resulting in renewed interest in the region, which again was followed by Apache raids. These raids struck fear in easterners that prevented their attempt to settle in the Gila Valley. The first American plow broke ground along the Gila River in 1868, when a colony of a dozen Missouri farmers settled near the mouth of Duck Creek. By the time that the first emerald blades appeared in visible rows across the field, Apaches had run off every hoof of stock and left them hopeless and on the border of destitution (Calvin, 1946).

A few years later, Mormons built diversion ditches for agriculture; however clearing the land, building of diversion dams and irrigation ditches were painstaking tasks. A wondering Israelite, Mr. Isidor Solomon, came and set up a business to burn and sell charcoal to the new smelter (Calvin, 1946). American mining, smelting, and farming in the Southwest began together, and one helped the other through the purchase of firewood by the smelter a result of the land clearing process; which was expedited due to the shared profit. Comfort in the region was still not permanent for the White man. Upon the transfer of American soldiers back east during the civil war, over 1000 whites were killed over the next 4 years, and except for a few hundred in Tucson the rest were driven out of Gila country (Calvin, 1946). After the North became victorious, a reinvigorated United States paid its full attention to settling the Wild West. As a result military outposts shot up and armed soldiers advanced to defeat the warring Apache. Farming, mining, and ranching-all waited for the Apache to be tamed.

These anthropogenic influences had a profound impact on the Gila River watershed, that has been well documented by observers. The primary culprit was the ever growing cattle industry. In a matter of three years (1880-1883), the total number of cattle grazing in the area rose over 300% to 280,000 heads, and by 1890 the number had reached 1.5 million (Calvin, 1946). However, due to drought, the deteriorating productivity of the grasslands along with the invasive snakeweed, ranchers in the area reported that their herds had decreased by up to 75% (Calvin, 1946). This set the stage for devastating changes to the watershed that communities are still dealing with. Ross Calvin (1946) describes the impacts of this changing land use eloquently in his book __River of the Sun__: "None predicted that, as the watersheds were denuded, the rivers would lose their approximate regularity of flow and fluctuate suddenly between trickles and silt-filled torrents; none predicted the inevitable floods that would claw out whole acres at a time from the valuable irrigated farms and silt up their debris ditches and reservoirs; none could predict the excavation of thousands of arroyos which would lower the general water table and corrode the valley lands as a termite destroys a house." The flash floods that ensued defined the new era of the Gila River. The vegetation that used to aid in water storage were gone, and now rather than the waters collecting in thin sheets and spreading out over the landscape, the waters concentrated themselves into nozzles with incomparable erosive power (Calvin, 1946).

It was not until 1916 that the Department of the Interior took notice of the changing landscape of the Gila River Valley. An engineering study was completed by Frank Olmstead that discovered a channel that had increased in width tenfold compared to a survey completed in 1875, which resulted in a report including the following 5 solutions to the problem: 1) the maintenance of healthy forest to slow rainfall runoff; 2) the construction of check dams to retard the delivery of minor drainages to the main tributaries; 3) the construction of terraces to increase the capacity for bank storage; 4) the construction of a storage reservoir; and 5) construction of channel works (Calvin, 1946). It took nearly 20 years for any work to be completed on the upper Gila River, which by then meant the issues had intensified.

Levees and dikes were put in place in the 30’s and 40’s to protect private lands from being inundated by floodwaters along with the sediments they carried (Donegon, 1997). When major floods damaged cultivated lands in 1959, the Grant County Soil Conservation District provided funding assistance to build 12 sediment control dams which prevented sediment from reaching all of the major drainages in the farmed valleys except one (Soles, 2003). Erosion of the river banks once again became a problem after the creation of the levees and the control structures. The land was stripped bare of vegetation by bulldozers and thereby left extremely vulnerable to the erosive forces of flood waters (Soles, 2003)**.**

**Overview of the physical, socio-economic, and ecological characteristics** The Gila River is a tributary system that connects to the Colorado River flowing through Southwest New Mexico and Southern Arizona. The Gila spans approximately 650 miles and is broken up into an upper and lower basin. Aqua Fria, San Pedro, and San Francisco rivers are all tributaries leading into the Gila River. The river originates as springs high in the Mogollon and Black Range mountains at elevations around 10,000 feet. The highest among these, Bead Springs, has been honored through unknown generations with beads and other sacrificial offerings by native cultures (Calvin, 1946). These springs mix with mountain snowmelt before coalescing at a lower elevation around 6000 to 7000 feet to form what is known as the three forks of the Gila: East, West, and Middle Forks (USGS, 1923). The three forks of the Gila then meet up to form the main stem near the border of Grant and Catron Counties as shown below in figure 1. The 150 miles of the upper Gila River that flow in New Mexico drain approximately 2832 square miles, before leaving the state at 4,000 feet near Moore Canyon (Upper Gila Watershed Alliance). The Gila River is considered a 5th order stream (Blinn and Poff, 2005), with an average gradient along the entire 150 mile river corridor of ∼40 ft/mile.



The Gila River Basin contains a diverse amount of vegetation. Vegetation varies among climate and elevation. Quaking aspens and spruce trees generally reside in the area of the Gila River at elevations greater than 7800 ft above sea level (Benke et al, 2005). At a lower elevation between 6500 ft and 3900 ft ponderosa pine, scrub oak, and desert saltbush are present (Benue et al, 2005). Desert vegetation of ragweed and Cactaceae dominate the lower elevation along the Gila at an elevation of less than 3200 ft above sea level (Benke et al, 2005).

 Climate in the Gila River Basin varies greatly due to the large change in elevation throughout the system. Average rainfall in the headwaters is 21.5 in/yr whereas in the rest of the basin average rainfall typically averages 17 in/yr (Benke et al, 2005). The Upper Gila transitions from a mountainous climate into a semi-arid climate with rainfall ranging between 8 - 12.5 in when approaching Arizona. The Upper Gila is considered a spring-fed system and precipitation is generated via convective storms over the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of California in addition to cyclonic storms that originate over the Pacific Ocean. The majority of the precipitation throughout the basin occurs in the late summer with an average of 1.75 in occurring in July (Benke et al, 2005). Annual temperatures in the Upper basin range from 55˚F to 69˚F in the lower elevations and 32˚F to 45˚F in the higher elevations. The USGS maintains a streamflow gage on the Gila that has recorded continuous data since 1928 (USGS 09430500 Gila River near Gila, NM). A hydrograph of the daily flows for this gage since 1928 are shown below in figure 2.



<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">This dry land climate is characteristic of large floods and high unpredictable flows that have a tendency to change the geomorphology of the system (Mussetter, 2006). These floods play a critical role in preserving the rivers unique ecological system. Levees have subsequently been put in place and limit flooding of the river. A flood frequency analysis was completed during a study of the Gila’s geomorphology by Mussetter Engineering and they determined the 2, 10, and 100-year floods to be 1,930, 10,100 and 40,800 cfs respectively.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;"> The river exudes the geomorphology and hydrology of a common southwest river system. The Gila River contains an average gradient of ~17 ft/mile while the New Mexico portion stands steeper at ~40 ft/mile (Blinn et al., 2005). The bed floors are made up of mostly fine sediments and hard substrates (Benke et al, 2005). The width of the basin varies greatly from the upper basin to lower basin. Runoff throughout the Gila River is low due to high evapotranspiration and low precipitation. Sediment transport is typically low due to low flows (Mussetter, 2006). The upper portion of the Gila is undammed but still has suffered from multiple anthropogenic alterations. These alterations include two agricultural diversions, one mining diversion, levees, and other control structures (Soles, 2003). The river has also been victim to uncontrolled livestock grazing that has reduced the amount of vegetation along the system.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;"> The upper Gila contains a diverse ecosystem. Studies have recently shown that there are 106 native species of mammals in the upper Gila area. This accounts for 66% of all the mammals in New Mexico (Frey, 2008). The system is rich with multiple algae species, riparian vegetation, insects, and fish. The upper Gila contains 14 species of amphibians, 59 species of reptiles and 40 species of birds present during the winter months (Jennings et al., 2006). The upper Gila is also home to a number of species included in the Endangered Species Act including the spikedace, loach minnow, Gila chub, Chiricahua leopard frog, the Western frog and the southwestern willow fly catcher (USFWS, 2006). The riparian vegetation includes; bebb willow, cottonwood, thin-leaf alder, sycamore, box elder, and tamarisk. The tamarisk is a species of particular concern due to the fact that they are non-native and have a tendency to use a large amount of water and crowd out native species (Kindscher, 2008). Numerous fish also reside in the Gila system including; chub, dace, sucker, trout, catfish, carp, tofish, and bass. The upper Gila is also the only watershed in New Mexico containing all its native fish (Rice et al., 2005). The upper Gila also consists of a number of invertebrates including mayflies, caddisflies, true flies, stoneflies, and beetles (Earl et al.,2003).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;"> The flow regime of the upper Gila is one of few that is unregulated. As a result the majority of the watershed and the riparian zone is still inhabited by native vegetation and native fish. A recent study indicated that there are currently seven native fish species along with fourteen non-native fish in the upper Gila (Propst et al., 2008).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">**Gila Watershed Impacts**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">The Gila River is celebrated for being one of the most pristine, unaltered rivers in the southwest as it is one of the region's last remaining free-flowing rivers with limited surface water removal efforts. The pure state of the Upper Gila stream reaches are no doubt attributable to its sparsely populated watershed. Yet despite the protection of the River's free-flows, the Gila has undergone significant adjustments along its upper reaches since 1846 when the river was described as being a single deep channel, with densely vegetated streambanks (Mussetter, 2006). Today the Gila River braids through a wide and shallow, cobble ridden corridor with barren streambanks. These changes may indicate stream degradation or destabilization caused by anthropogenic influences or they may simply be the result of natural fluvial geomorphic processes.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Description of Gila Watershed **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">A fluvial system is sensitive to of variety influences that occur on an extended spatial scale. Stream degradation or destabilization can be triggered by natural or anthropogenic factors that occur within the actual riparian zone or within the extended watershed. Standard anthropogenic threats include: 1) loss of land cover vegetation due to livestock overgrazing within the watershed; 2) modification of the natural flow regime by dam construction and operation; 3) introduction of exotic riparian species, particularly tamarisk; 4) high rates of groundwater withdrawal that deplete the groundwater levels; 5) surface water diversions, generally used for agricultural irrigation; and 6) structures and control devices (e.g., levees) that may inhibit the natural interaction between a river and its floodplain. Of these listed influential factors, the Upper Gila has been subject to the consequences of overgrazing, invasive species, agriculture diversions, and levees which will be discussed in this section.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">The anthropogenic impacts on the Upper Gila are dependent on the interests of the stakeholders within the watershed. The Upper Gila New Mexico Watershed is distributed amongst various stakeholders, with 81% under public ownership and the remaining 19% being privately owned (Upper Gila Watershed Alliance). Within the Upper Gila Watershed The Gila National Forest and Wilderness oversee the majority of the publicly owned lands. Nature Conservancy also oversees a portion of the Gila’s upper watershed that lies within the Gila Valley. Most of the privately owned lands fall within the Gila Valley, and is distributed amongst a mixture of titleholders. Freeport McMoRan, formerly known as Phelps Dodge Corporation, owns a large portion of the Gila Valley along with significant Gila River water rights. Freeport McMoRan shares the Gila Valley with a handful of Gila Valley residents. Silver City is the largest township within the vicinity of the Gila River, however it doesn’t actually fall within the watershed boundaries. The townships that do fall in the watershed include Cliff, Reserve and Gila. Cliff is the largest of these towns with a population of approximately 400 residents.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">The Gila River headwaters collect within the mountainous regions of the federally recognized Gila National Forest. The Gila National Forest is the largest National forest in the contiguous United States, sprawling over an area of approximately 3.3 millions acres (Gila National Forest website). Within this massive span, lies the Gila Wilderness, which was the first designated National Wilderness in the United States. The Gila Wilderness is also recognized for being the largest federally protected wilderness in the Southwest. These established and protected lands inarguably guard the Gila from anthropogenic influences within these areas, contributing significantly to the pristine state of the Upper Gila stream reaches. Within these regions the Gila River seems to be healthy with lush vegetation and clear waters.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Gila National Forest and Wilderness **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">The Gila National Forest Plan defines "the specific management goals of each resource and the activities necessary to accomplish these goals" for the lands that fall within the Gila National Forest boundaries (Gila National Forest Plan). The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service developed and oversees the Gila National Forest Plan. Gila National Forest plans acts in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and is meant to be compatible with the policies and objectives of other concerning local, state and federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land management, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the State of New Mexico Economic Development, to name a few. The Gila National Forest Plan has undergone several amendments since it first went into effect in 1986. The recognized resources that are managed and protected by the Gila National Forest plan include: range, recreation, wilderness, timber, and riparian lands. The official Gila National Forest Plan document is posted at [].

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">According the Forest Service, fire danger is only a moderate threat in the Gila National Forest however, as for most arid southwest forests, fire management is still a key concern. Gila National Forest managers aim to "use naturally occurring fires as a tool to help restore the forest landscape" (Gila National Forest). The most recent fire management strategies are posted for public viewing on the Gila National Forest's home page: [].

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Just downstream of the Gila National Forest and Wilderness lies the fertile Gila Valley. The Gila Valley is an alluvial, relatively small basin, spanning less than 2-miles across at the valley’s widest section, with a 14-mile reach (E. Soles). The Gila Valley is an important area of interest because it is the most populated region within the Upper Gila Watershed and unlike the upstream neighboring headwater regions, the Gila Valley has experienced significant anthropogenic influences. The valley supports a small number of residents, who primarily depend on livestock and agriculture for their economics means. Since the late 1800's grazing has been the dominant industry within the entire Upper Gila Watershed, but particularly in the valley. In 1954 the Soils Conservancy Service (SCS) assessed the soils and hydrologic conditions of the watershed. The SCS concluded that 73% of the total watershed was effected by moderate to severe erosion, ultimately caused by the loss of grass cover in the lower regions of the valley that “protected the soils and created optimum infiltration conditions” (E. Soles). At this time the valley was also supporting 4300 acres of irrigated lands consisting of alfalfa and pasture lands as well as grains. Irrigation networks were first implemented along the Gila in the Valley in the late 1880's and are still in existence today to support its agricutural industry. Channelization was first implemented along the Gila in the 1950, in the form of levees to protect agriculture and grazing lands from flooding and erosion. Large scale floods that occurred in the late 1980's and early 1990's blew out the earth levees, but the remnants of the structures are still observable along the Valley's river. Today, there is a dispute between river conservationists and environmentalists and the valley's ranchers; Gila Valley ranchers who would like to see the levees redeveloped, conservationist oppose this.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Gila Valley **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Mining is a well established industry within the southwest region of New Mexico, and although Freeport McMoRan owns a large portion of the Gila Valley region, no mining has actually taken place within the bounds of the Upper Gila basin. Freeport McMoRan once utilized their water rights to divert stream flow from the upper Gila to a reservoir located outside of the basin. The water was diverted and stored for mining needs. Freeport McMoRan no long utilizes their water rights for their own mining needs; instead they lease these water right to Valley ranchers and farmers. These water rights may have an even more significant future impact on the Gila riparian system. Recently Silver City has been looking to purchase the company’s water rights to provide water security for the town.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">The Gila Riparian Preserve protects 1,200 acres of riparian and woodland habitats within the Gila Valley. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) oversees the GIla Riparian Preserve, with the goal of allowing the river to "rediscover its natural floodplain and enable new cottonwoods and willows to spring up, providing habitat for neotropical migratory songbirds, especially the southwest willow flycatcher" (The Nature Conservancy website). TNC is not alone in their efforts to protect and restore the Gila River through land management practices; The Gila Conservation Coalition (GCC) is a partnership of local conservation and environmental groups and concerned individuals that aim to protect and promote the conservancy of the Upper Gila River and its basin. The active partners of the GCC include the Gila Resources Information Act, Upper Gila Watershed Alliance, and the Center for Biological Diversity. GCC has been very successful in protecting the celebrated free-flows of the Upper Gila reaches. The GCC was instrumental in prohibiting the approval of the proposed Hooker and Conner Dams along the Upper Gila in the 1980's (Gila Conservation Coalition). The GCC is now focusing their protective efforts towards future developments proposed under the Arizona Water Settlement Act (AWSA).

=<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">**Current, Planned and Ongoing Restoration Projects** = <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Restoration projects in the Gila River Watershed have been spurred by participation between agency and non-governmental organizations. The upper Gila River flows through both public and private land, and has a diverse share of stakeholders. Participants in restoration activities include the United States Forest Service (USFS), New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (NFWS), the Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Gila Conservation Coalition, the Upper Gila Watershed Alliance(UGWA) and the Gila Resources Information Project. Restoration efforts have focused on improving riparian health, establishment of wetlands, conservation of aquatic species, and thinning of forests within the Gila River catchment on USFS land.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Conservation, recovery, and reintroduction of threatened and endangered species (TES) and extirpated species within the upper Gila River has been a focal point of many restoration efforts. Aquatic TES and extirpated species in the region include the Northern River Otter (// Lontra canadensis // ), Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (//Empidonax traillii extimus//), Gila Trout (//Oncorynchus gilae gilae//), spikedace (//Meda fulgida//), and loach minnow (//Tiaroga cobitis//). Completed projects involving these species include restoration of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat on USFS land, multiple projects involving Gila Trout recovery including removal of non-native aquatic species, designation of critical habitat for the loach minnow and spikedace, and work to reintroduce the Northern River Otter.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is an endangered avian species that roosts in and amongst the branches of willows found in the riparian zone. Restoration of flycatcher habitat is important in the upper Gila River. This area supports the largest known breeding population of Southwestern Willow Flycatchers with 243 breeding pairs documented in 1999 (Stoleson and Finch 2003). Interviews with the Gila National Forest Watershed Coordinator revealed that successful projects including the building of cattle exclosures and a restoration of a reach of riparian zone including the planting of willows occurred on USFS land during the 1990’s. Cattle exclosures are built to keep cattle away from the riparian zone. The presence of cattle in this area results in a decrease of riparian vegetation, which adversely affects flycatcher habitat, in addition to increased bank erosion and increased sediment input affecting water quality.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">The Gila trout is one of two native trout species located in the state of New Mexico. The species has suffered from a loss of habitat and competition from non-native salmonids. The introduction of brown trout (//Salmo trutta//) and rainbow trout (//Oncorynchus mykiss//) have produced a negative effect on the population of Gila trout. In 1967 the trout was listed as an endangered species (USFWS). This listing was downgraded to threatened in 2006. Restoration of the species has involved the replication of all four core pure-strain population and introductions into new streams (USFWS, 2005). The fish is now present in reaches of the West Fork Gila river, the East Fork Gila River and the main stem Gila River (USFWS, 2006). Additionally, non-native salmonids have been chemically removed using antimycin and rotenone from areas prior to reintroduction of Gila trout (NMDGF 2008). Lastly, a fishery was established to breed Gila trout in captivity, with fish being released into the wild (NMDGF, 2008).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Two other fish species of concern in the Gila River are the loach minnow and the spikedace, both of which have recently been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (USFWS, 2012). The spikedace and loach minnow have been impacted by competition from non-native fishes and loss of habitat. Restoration efforts have included reintroduction of both species into the West Fork Gila River at the Heart Bar Wildlife Area ([|http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us]) and the designation of 750 miles of critical habitat throughout the Gila River Basin as shown in figure 3 (NMDGF, 2009).



<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">River otters have historically been found in the Gila River, with the last specimen being taken in 1953 (NMDGF, 2006). Reintroduction of the river otter into the Gila River was approved by NMDGF in 2006 (Palskus, 2012). However, due to concerns about the impacts of river otters on native threatened fish populations NMDGF halted support for the reintroduction in 2012 (Palskus, 2012).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Riparian improvements and re-establishment of wetlands has been a focal point of many restoration projects, and have involved both public and private cooperation. The most notable recent project has been the establishment of the Gila River Farm by the Nature Conservancy in 2000 (UGWA). The Gila River Farm has used a combination of passive restoration techniques along the river corridor and active restoration techniques including the establishment of four acres of wetlands (UGWA). The Gila River Farm has also had cooperation from the adjacent privately owned Agnew Farm, which fenced off its riparian area to prevent cattle intrusions (Smith, 2004). Other private riparian restorations projects along the Gila River included the excavations of a pond to simulate wetlands on Gail Stamler’s property, fencing off of the riparian area along John Fridinger’s property and the planting of willows along Henry Cole’s property to prevent erosion (Smith, 2004).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">In addition, to attempts to conserve species biodiversity and improve riparian health, there have been efforts exerted by the USFS to return the region to a natural fire regime. This has involved numerous thinning and prescribed fire treatments to reduce fuel in the Gila River Watershed. One such project is the Aldo Leopold Collaborative Restoration Project. The project is located within the Black Ranger District of the Gila National Forest and within the East Fork Gila River Catchment. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Returning fire to the system mitigates long term ecological damage from by high intensity burns, which cause larger than normal amounts of ash laden run-off to enter streams and scour channels. Thereby, altering habitat and reducing water quality.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Table 1 lists the restoration projects beginning in the 1980s.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">Year || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">Restoration Project || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">Collaborators || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">Status ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">1990's || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Cattle Exclosures on USFS land || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">USFS || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">1990's || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Riparian improvements for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat on USFS land || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">USFS || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">1988 || __<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">[|Long-term monitoring of fish assemblages in the Gila River Drainage] __ || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">NMDGF || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2000 || __<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">[|Gila River Farm Riparian Reserve] __ || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Upper Gila Watershed Alliance, TNC || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">On-going ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2006 || __<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">[|River otter reintroduction] __ || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">NMDGF || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Suspended ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2006 || __<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">[|Non-native Fish Removal in the Lower West Fork Gila River - Heart Bar Ranch] __ || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">NMDGF, USFS, Kansas State University || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2008 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Gila River floodplain restoration || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">TNC || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">On-going ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2008 || __<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">[|Gila River Iron Bridge Conservation Area] __ || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">TNC, NMGDF, NMED, NM Watershed Watch || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2011 || __<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">[|Black Canyon Creek River habitat restoration] __ || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Grant Soil & Water Conservation District, Gila Watershed Partnership || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2011 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Repatriation of nongame native fishes to New Mexico Gila trout streams || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">USFWS || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">On-going ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center;">2012 || __<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">[|Willow Planting Heart Bar Ranch] __ || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, NMED || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Spikdace and Loach Minnow released into the San Francisco River || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">USFWS, NMDGF || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">Completed ||
 * 2007 || Aldo Leopold Collaborative Forest Restoration Project || USFS || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">On-going ||

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Restoration Opportunities and Constraints
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">With the passing of the Arizona Water Settlement Act (AWSA) in 2004 New Mexico users along the Gila are allowed to keep an additional 140,000 acre-feet of water from the Gila River as well as $66 million over a ten year period. How the water is going to be used and the money spent is the topic of multiple conversations and meetings in the basin, surrounding counties, and within the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC). According to the USFWS as well as the Department of the Interior, “ The Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) funds may be used to cover costs of an actual water supply project, planning, environmental mitigation, or restoration activities associated with or necessary for the project, and may be used on one or more of 21 alternative projects ranging from Gila National Forest San Francisco River Diversion/Ditch improvements to a regional water supply project (the Deming Diversion Project)” (2012). The level of uncertainty associated with the settlement act brings multiple restoration constraints to the system mainly those that could potentially divert large amounts of water from the river channel to surrounding towns, decreasing the amount of available water not only for the system to function through sediment deposition but also for the surrounding ecosystem and species within the river through direct and indirect changes. On the other hand the opportunities for restoration and preservation could be realized through the decision making process.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Constraints
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">In sections of the river particularly in Cliff, New Mexico, there is still a considerable amount of livestock grazing which contributes to a decrease in the vegetation surrounding the banks thus decreasing bank stabilization while also increasing the sediment load in the river. There is also irrigated acreage throughout the valley where an increase in settlement has occurred increasing urban runoff and erosion and decreasing the amount of available land that can be disturbed by high flows without considerable consequences to the surrounding population (USFWS, 2012). The land use practices on a larger scale create multiple constraints on the system. The largest, making it difficult to implement land use practice changes on a large scale without affecting the livelihood of the farmers and ranchers. A balance needs to be found between the land users and the increase in bank instability, erosion and loss of land without completely altering the natural system. Previous attempts to alter the system and decrease damaging floods have failed. With the installation of sediment control dams and levees the once depositional river, which deposited nutrient rich sediment to the floodplains turned into an erosive system. Flooding in 1978 and 1984 with flows up to 35,000 cfs destroyed the levees beyond repair (Soles, 2003). The river continues to erode and take with it agricultural lands.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Another constraint that plays a large role in the amount of water that goes through the system is climate. With current predictions estimating a decrease in the amount of precipitation in the Southwestern U.S. the magnitude of flows seen in the near future can change rapidly and alter the system further.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Potential Opportunities
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">Keeping in mind that the Upper Gila River basin is an undammed system and has very few engineered structures that restrict the flows there are still multiple opportunities to keep the river alive as it supports one of the most diverse ecosystems in the region. Since decisions still have not been made on the Gila from the ISC in the short-term the river will remain relatively unrestricted.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">In order to keep ensuring the survival of the spikedace and the loach minnow the USFWS changed the status of the fish species from threatened to endangered. Effective March 26, 2012 the endangered status is to be enforced as well as the revisions to the critical habitat were established. The change in status can be viewed as an opportunity for restoration within and along the river. The designation of new habitat, as established under the ESA, could potentially drive multiple projects to ensure the appropriate amount of flows is kept with in the river. 630 miles of habitat for the spikedace and 610 miles for the loach minnow throughout New Mexico in Grant, Catron and Hidalgo counties as well as counties throughout Arizona were established. The spikedace requires a natural flow regime, consistent recurring floods and areas of slower flows that boarder rapid flows. The loach minnow requires rapid flows and shallow riffles and uses the cobble substrate spaces to spawn. In a system where fine sediment fills the spaces between the cobbles, the loach is typically not found due to a lack of habitat. Both species require the river to remain wet and flowing for their survival (USFWS, 2012). Acknowledging the habitat requirements for these fish species could alter future proposed changes to the system that could be detrimental for the fish and beneficial to the surrounding communities. From a regulation standpoint under the ESA, certain amounts of water will be required to remain in the river which can be seen as an opportunity to keep the river with a relatively natural flow regime with variations in magnitudes when water is available.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">**Conclusion** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px;">The rich history of the Gila River was traditionally occupied by native and indigenous cultures over millenia, until recently has seen the introduction of western influences. Over the past 200 years changes in land use have severely impacted the watershed through land degradation and erosion. The upper Gila River is known to support a wide variety of endemic and native species which draws the attention of nature enthusiasts from all over the world. The landscape of the watershed is composed of merging biomes that result in a unique and diverse ecological system. Recent land use management practices has impacted the health of the river through over-grazing and fire management policies. Completed and proposed restoration activities have aimed to mitigate these effects but there are still more threatening and over-looming decisions to be made. Ultimately, the end result of the AWSA will determine the fate of the Gila River either the river will flourish or face an untimely death. The river is dynamic and constantly changing, it is difficult to predict exactly what the system will do under multiple conditions of climate change and land use practices.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">References **

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Blinn, D. W., Poff, N. L.,. "Colorado River Basin." Benke, A. C. and Cushing, C. E. Rivers of North America. Boston: Elsevier, 2005.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Calvin, R. (1946). //River of the Sun.// <span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Campbell, C. L. “Winter Birds of Nichols Canyon, New Mexico.” Proceedings of the Second Natural History of the Gila Symposium. Silver City: The New Mexico Botanist, 2008. 3-10.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Corle, E. (1951). //The Gila River of the Southwest.// <span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Culhane, Jolane. “Finding the Forest: A new View of the Land.” Proceedings of the Second Natural History of the Gila Symposium. Silver City: The New Mexico Botanist, 2008. 35-37.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Donego, D. Lessons Learned, Gila River, New Mexico Local Protection Projects. Albuquerque: Army Corp of Engineers, 1997.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Durkin, P, Bradley, M., Muldavin, E., and Mehlop, P. Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Communities of New Mexico: Gila, San Francisco, and Mimbres Watersheds. NMED Report. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1996.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Engineering, Mussetter. Geomorphology of the Upper Gila River Within the State of New Mexico. NMISC. Fort Collins, 2006.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Fisher, S. G., Gray, L. J., Grimm, N. B., and Busch, D. E. (1982). "Temporal Succession in a Desert Stream Ecosystem Following Flash Flooding." Ecological Monographs: 93-110.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Frey, J. “Mammals of the Upper Gila River Watershed, Arizona and New Mexico: Patterns of divecrsity and species of concern.” Proceedings of the Second Natural History of the Gila Symposium,. Silver City: The New Mexico Botanist, 2008. 67-87.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Geery, E. (2006). Using Instream Flows on the Gila River to Provide Benefits for the Environment and the Economy. Thesis completed at the University of New Mexico.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Gila Conservation Coalition. [|http://www.gilaconservation.org/aboutthegilariver.shtml#threats] <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">. Last accessed: 12/01/10.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Inc., Daniel B. Stephens and Associates. Southwest New Mexico Regional Water Plan. Regional Water Plan. Deming: NM State Office of the Engineer, 2005.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Jennings, R. D., Christman, B. L., Painter, C. W., and Frye, J. L. “Near-Stream Herpetofauna of the Upper Gila River of Southwestern New Mexico.” Proceedings of the Second Natural History of the Gila Symposium. Silver City: The New Mexico Botanist, 2008. 85-115.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Kindscher, K., Long, Q, and Loring, H. "Wetlands along the Gila River in Southwestern New Mexico." Proceedings of the Second Natural History of the Gila Symposium. Silver City: The New Mexico Botanist, 2008. 116-121.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. “What’s New with Gila Trout.” Presentation. 2008. [|Presentation]

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R., Prestegaard, K. L., Richter, B. D., Sparks, R. E. and Stromberg, J. C. (1997). "The Natural Flow Regime." Bioscience: 769-784.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Paskus, L. “Otter Flop: a 2006 promise to reintroduce otters remains unfulfilled.” Santa Fe Reporter. Accessed at [].

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Propst, D. L., Gido, K. B., and Stefferud, J. A. (2008). "Natural Flow Regimes, Nonnative Fishes, and Native Fish Persistence in Arid-Land River Systems." Ecological Applications: 1236-1252.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Rice, J., and Niemi, E. The Potential Costs of a Gila River Diversion. Report for Gila Conservation Coalition. Eugene: ECONorthwest, 2005.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife. “Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis).” Draft Recovery Plan. 2006.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Smith, D. “Gila Watershed a Focus Area for Funding Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration.” //River Rising// 9.1 (2005).

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Soles, E. S. (2003). Where the river meets the ditch: Human and natural impacts on the Gila River, New Mexico, 1880-2000. Thesis completed at Northern Arizona University.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Stoleson, S. and Finch, D. 2003 “Microhabitat Use by Breeding Southwestern Willow Flycatchers on the Gila River, New Mexico.” <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Studies in Avian Biology No. 26:91-95.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Sun, A., Tidwell, V., and Klse, G. "Gila-San Francisco Decision Support Tool." Proceedings of the Second Natural History of the Gila Symposium. Silver City: The New Mexico Botanist, 2008. 134-141.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Survey, US Geological. The Lower Gila Region, Arizona. Water-Supply Paper. Washington D.C. : US Government Printing Office, 1923.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Upper Gila Watershed Alliance. Our Watershed Maps & Data. [|http://www.ugwa.org]

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Upper Gila Watershed Alliance. Gila River Farm Riparian Preserve Brochure. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">[|http://www.ugwa.org]

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; reclassification of the Gila Trout (//Oncorhynchus// //gilae//) From Endangered to Threatened; Special Rule for Gila Trout in New Mexico and Arizona.” //Federal Register// 71. 137 (2006): 40657-40674.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species.” //Federal Register// 32. 48 (1967): 4001.