Technical/Agency Review Draft WHITE RIVER SPINEDACE

Technical/Agency Review Draft

WHITE RIVER SPINEDACE

Leoidomeda albivallis

RECOVERY PLAN

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 Portland, Oregon

October 5, 1992 This is a Technical/Agency review draft of the White River Spinedace Recovery Plan. It is not an official Government document. It has not been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any other agency. It does not necessarily represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any other agency, or the views of all individuals involved in formulation of this draft plan. It has been prepared by Donna Withers, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Reno Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to delineate reasonable actions required to recover and/or protect this species. This draft recovery plan is subject to modification following review of comments received from cooperating agencies and other informed and interested parties. Goals and objectives will be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, nor approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and completion of recovery tasks.

Literature Citation should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. White River Spinedace, Lepidomeda albivallis, Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 34 pp.

Additional copies may be obtained from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5340 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

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

The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.

ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE WHITE RIVER SPINEDACE RECOVERY PLAN

Current Status: The endangered White River spinedace is extant in only one of seven historically occupied habitats in northern White River Valley of Nye and White Pine Counties, Nevada. The Flag Springs population was estimated at under 50 individuals in June 1991 and is extremely vulnerable to adverse habitat modification and predation by nonnative fishes.

Habitat Reguirements and Limiting Factors: White River spinedace life history and habitat requirements are unknown. Loss of suitable habitat and introductions of nonnative fish species have contributed to the extirpation of six populations.

Recovery Obiective: Delist

Recovery Criteria: White River spinedace may be delisted when five self-sustaining populations exist for 5 consecutive years in historic habitats secured from all threats. White River spimedace may be downlisted to threatened when three self-sustaining populations exist in historic habitats for at least 3 consecutive years.

Actions Needed: 1. Maintain and enhance extant population. 2. Identify ecological parameters. 3. Reestablish populations in historic habitats. 4. Monitor all populations and habitats. 5. Establish and maintain public information program.

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery ($1,000's1: Year Need 1 Need 2 Need 3 Need 4 Need 5 Total 1993 10 8 1 2 21 1994 9 16 1 2 28 1995 3 16 1 0.5 20.5 1996 1 31 1 0.5 33.5 1997 1 5 1 0.5 7.5 1998 1 7 1 0.5 9.5 1999 1 7 1 0.5 9.5 2000 1 4 2 0.5 7.5 2001 1 3 2 0.5 6.5 2002 1 3 2 0.5 6.5 2003 1 3 3 0.5 7.5 2004 1 1 3 0.5 5.5 2005 1 1 3 0.5 5.5 2006 1 1 3 0.5 5.5 2007 1 1 3 0.5 5.5 2008 1 1 3 0.5 5.5 Total: 35 71 37 31 11 185

Date of Recovery: Delisting of the White River spinedace should be initiated in 2008, if recovery criteria are met.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pacre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Brief Overview 1

B. Species Description 2

C. Distribution and Population Status 5

D. Critical and Essential Habitats 12

E. Life History and Habitat Requirements 13

F. Reasons for Decline and Current Threats 15

G. Conservation Efforts 17

II. RECOVERY

A. Objective 19

B. Narrative 20

C. Literature Cited 26

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 30

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1: Members of the Plagopterini tribe of cyprinid fishes, as described by Hubbs and Miller (1960), with their status and historic distribution. 3

Table 2: Water temperature and discharge rates from waters historically occupied by White River spinedace. 14

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: White River spinedace historic distribution - a) White River near its confluence with Ellison Creek; b) Preston Spring, Cold Spring, Nicholas Spring, Arnoldson Spring (Figure la.); c) Lund Spring (Figure la.); and d) Flag Spring (Figure lb.). 6

Figure la.: White River spinedace historic habitats in the vicinity of Preston and Lund, Nevada. 7

Figure lb.: White River spinedace historic habitat at Flag Spring. 8 White River Spinedace Lepidomeda albivallis Recovery Plan

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Brief Overview

White River spinedace (Lepidomeda albivallis) is one of four native fishes known to have historically occupied the stream and spring habitats of northern White River Valley in Nye and White Pine Counties, Nevada. Habitat manipulation and introduction of nonnative fish species have altered the historic distribution of the native fishes. White River spinedace have been extirpated from six of seven known historic habitats (Deacon, et al. 1980; Courtenay, et al. 1985; Scoppettone, et al. in prep.). The species only persists in very low numbers in the northern spring of the Flag Springs complex on the Nevada Department of Wildlife's Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area at Sunnyside, Nye County, Nevada. The continued existence and future expansion of the Flag Springs population depends on maintenance and improvement of existing habitat. Recovery of the species will require reestablishment of White River spinedace into historic habitats following rehabilitation of these habitats.

This recovery plan specifically addresses the White River spinedace, a federally endangered species (50 Federal Reaister 37194). However, White River desert sucker (Catostomus clarki intermedius), White River speckled dace (Rhinichthvs osculus ssp.), and Preston White River springfish (Crenichthvs bailevi albivallis) historically or currently occupy the same habitats as White River spinedace and are all category 2 candidates for possible future Federal listing as threatened or endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has

1 information indicating that proposing to list these fishes is possibly appropriate, but substantial data on biological vulnerability and threat(s) are not currently available to support preparation of a proposed rule. The coexistence of these species suggests that recovery of the White River spinedace should be designed to enhance the aquatic ecosystems and not be detrimental to any candidate species. This recovery plan, therefore, is oriented toward recovery of the aquatic ecosystems of northern White River Valley.

B. Species Description

The Plagopterini tribe of cyprinid fishes includes the monotgpic genera Meda (spikedace) and Pla000terus (woundfin), and the polytypic genus Lepidomeda (spinedace). Members of this tribe (Table 1) are distinguished from other cyprinids by: 1) The spinelike character of the pelvic and pectoral fin rays, and the two anterior dorsal fin rays; 2) a membranous connection between the inner most ray of the pelvic fins and the belly; 3) bright silver coloration; and 4) the absence or diminutive development of body scales (Miller and Hubbs 1960). Plagopterin fishes are among the few North American cyprinids that are not known to hybridize with other genera (Hubbs 1955).

Spinedace are the most generalized and diverse of the plagopterin genera. Spikedace and woundfin presumably arose from spinedace within the Colorado River system (Miller and Hubbs 1960). This relationship is supported by chromosome morphology (Uyeno and Miller 1975). Spinedace morphology more closely resembles that of the fishes in the genus Gila or some other similar genus outside the Plagopterini tribe. Spinedace have weakly developed dorsal and pectoral fin spines, as compared to the strongly developed spines of spikedace and woundf in. Spinedace also possess diminutive scales, whereas spikedace and woundfin are scaleless (Miller and Hubbs 1960).

2 Table 1: Members of the Plagopterini tribe of cyprinid fishes, as described by Hubbs and Miller (1960), including current status and historic distribution.

Common Name, Scientific Name Status* Distribution

Spikedace, Meda fuloida Threatened -Gila River system; Arizona, New Mexico

Woundf in, Plagopterus arcentissimus Endangered -Virgin River system; Utah, Arizona, Nevada -lower Gila River system, Arizona (extirpated)

Little Colorado spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata Ar • Threatened -headwaters Little Colorado River system, Arizona

Pahranagat spinedace, Lepidomeda altivelis Extinct -Ash Spring outflow and Upper Pahranagat Lake, Lincoln County, Nevada (extirpated)

White River spinedace, Lepidomeda albivallis Endangered -Flag Springs, Nye County, Nevada -Preston Big Spring, Nicholas Spring, Arnoldson Spring, Cold Spring, Lund Spring, and the White River; White Pine County, Nevada (extirpated)

Virgin River spinedace, Lepidomeda m. mollispinis Candidate -Virgin River system; Utah, Arizona, Nevada

Big Spring spinedace, Lepidomeda m. pratensis Threatened -Meadow Valley Wash (Condor Canyon section), Lincoln County, Nevada -Big Spring outflow, Lincoln County, Nevada (extirpated)

*as listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (50 CFR S 17.11)

3 White River spinedace were described by Miller and Hubbs (1960) following a review of the existing classification of the various spinedace populations. Two other new species of spinedace, one with two subspecies, were also identified, and the two previously recognized spinedace species were synonymized into one. White River spinedace differ from other spinedace by: 1) A pharyngeal tooth formula of 5-4 in the main row; 2) typically less than 90 scales in the lateral line; 3) a moderately oblique mouth; 4) a moderately high dorsal fin; and 5) melanophores extending well below the lateral line (Miller and Hubbs 1960). White River spinedace are also the largest of the spinedace, commonly attaining a total length over 4 inches (Miller and Hubbs 1960).

AV • None of the members of the spinedace genus have overlapping distributions, and can be identified in the field based on location.

White River spinedace are the most brightly colored of the four species of Lepidomeda. Miller and Hubbs (1960) reported that postnuptial males collected in 1934, were ". . . bright brassy green to olive above, brassy over bright silvery on sides, and silvery white below, splashed with sooty on the sides. Dorsal and caudal fins pale olive-brown to pinkish brown, with the rays often deep-olive and with the rather clear interradial membranes faintly flushed with rosy color; pectorals yellowish with orange-red axils; anal and pelvic fins bright orange-red . . . Lower edge of caudal peduncle with a speckled diffusion of orange-red in adults. Some coppery-red to red on side of face, at upper end of gill opening, on preorbital just behind mouth, and along upper arm of preopercle. Cheeks and opercles with rather strong gilt reflections; the gular membranes watery yellow. Lateral line more strongly gilt than adjacent parts of body. In females the coloration is similar but less intense."

4 C. Distribution and Population Status

Members of the Plagopterini tribe are restricted to the Colorado River drainage system of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah (Miller and Hubbs 1960). These fishes were widespread until manipulation of habitats and introduction of nonnative fish species caused severe population declines (Miller 1961). Within this tribe, one species is extinct (Miller and Hubbs 1960) and all but one of the remaining six taxa are federally listed as threatened or endangered species (50 CFR 17.11) (Table 1).

The highly localized distribution of the various spinedace species and subspecies indicates limited ecological tolerance within the genus Lepidomeda and that its previous distribution was more extensive (Miller and Hubbs 1960). During late Pleistocene pluvial stages, the White River flowed south approximately 200 miles from northern White River Valley through Pahranagat Valley and Moapa Valley, was joined by the pluvial Carpenter River (now called Meadow Valley Wash), and emptied into the Virgin River above its confluence with the Colorado River (Hubbs and Miller 1948). As the pluvial White River system dried, native fishes were isolated in springs and their outflows, and disjunct river sections. White River spinedace became restricted to habitats in northern White River Valley, while the now extinct Pahranagat spinedace (Lepidomeda altivelis) became restricted to stream habitats approximately 100 miles south in Pahranagat Valley.

During the 1930's, White River spinedace were collected from the White River and four disjunct spring systems in White Pine County, and one spring complex in Nye County (Miller and Hubbs 1960) (Figures 1, la., and lb.). In 1934, White River spinedace were first collected from the White River, just below the mouth of Ellison Creek. Four years later, White River spinedace were collected from Preston Big Spring and Nicholas Spring (also referred to as Preston Town Spring), Preston, Nevada; Lund Spring,

5 Figure 1. White River spinedace historic distribution - a) White River near its confluence with Ellison Creek; b) Preston Big Spring, Cold Spring, Nicholas Spring and Arnoldson Spring (Figure 1a.); c) Lund Spring (Figure 1a.); and d) Flag Springs(Figure lb.). (modified from Scoppettone, et al. in prep.) 6 0 Upper Preston Reservoir

Blackja Reservoir

0 5

Lower Preston Reservoir •Irin Can Spring Kilometers

Preston' pig Spring

Indian .g.pring!Ilb on Cold Springs Presto Ag Pond .41‘ a Water Canyon Reservoir

Pre wn Pond

5" 1

UI Lund White Knoll Reservoir

Lund Impoundment Lund Spring

I Lane Ponds III 18

Figure 1a.White River spinedace historic habitats (bgld) in the vicinity of Preston and Lund, Nevada (modified trom ScoppettOne, et al. in prep.) 7 Butterfield Springs

Johnson Sprin

AV •

Flag Springs

kilometer

Figure lb. White River spinedace historic habitat at Flag Springs. (modified from Scoppettone, et al. in prep.)

8 Lund, Nevada; and unnamed springs (now referred to as Flag Springs) on the Hendrix Ranch, Sunnyside, Nevada. In 1941, White River spinedace were collected from an additional unnamed spring (now referred to as Arnoldson Spring) near Preston, Nevada (Miller and Hubbs 1960). The number of fish collected indicate that White River spinedace were common to abundant within these habitats.

During 1951, White River spinedace were reportedly used as bait fish in the lower Colorado River (Miller 1952). In 1957, Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) personnel collected White River spinedace from the White River below the Adams-McGill reservoir and released them into waters in Railroad Valley (La Rivers 1962). There is no evidence that either of these releases resulted in'the establishment of White River spinedace populations.

Williams and Wilde (1981) reported the presence of White River spinedace in seven spring systems in White Pine County, but provided no collection documentation. Springs listed included Preston Big Spring, Preston Town Spring, Preston Spring #3, Arnoldson Spring, Cold Spring, Indian Spring, and Lund Spring. NDOW records document the presence of White River spinedace in Indian Spring in March 1975 (NDOW 1975).

The final rule listing the White River spinedace as an endangered species (50 Federal Register 37194) identifies the following waters as historic habitats of this species: Preston Big Spring, Nicholas Spring, Arnoldson Spring, Cold Spring, Lund Spring, Flag Springs, and the White River near its confluence with Ellison Creek. These seven sites are considered White River spinedace historic habitats for the purposes of this recovery plan. Flag Springs is a complex of three springs, oriented north to south, whose outflows combine to form Sunnyside Creek (Figure lc.).

Complete White River spinedace historical distribution and population status information is unavailable. The aquatic

9 habitats of northern White River Valley were not thoroughly surveyed prior to their modification, which may have resulted in declines in native fish populations. It is impossible to determine when White River spinedace populations began to decline or were eliminated. Prior to 1980, reviews on the status of southwestern aquatic species voiced little concern for the White River spinedace (Miller 1960; Deacon, et al. 1979). Shortly thereafter, however, Deacon and Williams (1985) noted that the White River spinedace were very rare.

The population in the headwaters of the White River was probably the first to disappear. In 1934, Miller and Hubbs (1960) collected 429 White River spinedace from the White River, jut' below the mouth of Ellison Creek, north of Nevada State Highway 6. NDOW personnel collected only one White River spinedace from the White River above Nevada State Highway 6 during a 1956 stream survey (Frantz 1956). White River spinedace have not been encountered in the river during surveys conducted since (Courtenay, et al. 1985; NDOW 1984; Scoppettone, et al. in prep.).

Surveys conducted during 1977 and 1980 identified that the White River spinedace population in Preston Big Spring, which had been extant in the 1960's, had been extirpated (Selby 1977; Deacon, et al. 1980). Species composition and relative abundance data collected during 1983 and 1984 were compared to similar information collected during the 1960's from Preston Big Spring, Preston Town Spring (now called Nicholas Spring), Lund Spring, and Flag Springs (Courtenay, et al. 1985). The analysis confirmed that White River spinedace had been extirpated from Preston Big Spring and Nicholas Spring, and that the Lund and Flag Springs populations were depleted and restricted to small remnants of historic habitats. The demise of the White River spinedace populations at Arnoldson and Cold Springs is not documented. Selby (1977) collected White River spinedace from Preston Spring #3 (Arnoldson Spring) in November 1977.

10 Limited numbers of White River spinedace were collected from Lund Spring and its outflow between 1938 and 1986 (Miller and Hubbs 1960; Selby 1977; Courtenay, et al. 1985; Allan 1985, NDOW 1986). However, no spinedace were contacted during a limited survey of Lund Spring in 1987 (Withers 1987). Scoppettone, et al. (in prep.) confirmed the extirpation of the Lund Spring population following a thorough survey during the summer of 1991.

Limited numbers of White River spinedace have been collected at Flag Springs since 1938 (Miller and Hubbs 1960; Courtenay, et al. 1985; Allan 1985; Withers 1985, 1986, 1987). In May 1982, Burrell (1982) collected 20 White River spinedace from the main spring pool of the northern Flag Spring and 15 from a small section'-of outflow below the spring pool, and indicated that this sample did not represent the entire population. In 1991, the Flag Springs complex was thoroughly inventoried for White River spinedace. Only 37 individuals were observed and these were all found in the spring pool of the northern Flag Spring. The one remaining population of this endangered fish was estimated at less than 50 individuals (Scoppettone, et al. in prep.).

All habitats historically occupied by White River spinedace also historically supported White River desert sucker, White River speckled dace, and Preston White River springfish, in various combinations. The relative composition of native fishes within these habitats has shifted over time as one or more species has been extirpated from individual habitats (Courtenay, et al. 1985; NDOW field trip reports; Scoppettone, et al. in prep.). At Preston Big Spring, White River speckled dace and Preston White River springfish populations have expanded to fill the vacated niches previously occupied by White River spinedace and White River desert suckers. White River spinedace and Preston White River springfish have been extirpated from Lund Spring, while White River desert sucker and speckled dace persist. Arnoldson Spring contains White River speckled dace and Preston White River

11 springfish, while Nicholas Spring supports Preston White River springfish. All native fishes have been extirpated from Cold Spring. This recovery plan, while primarily directed at the needs of White River spinedace, will guide the reestablishment of the historic fish communities in the upper White River Valley.

D. Critical and Essential Habitats

Critical habitat, as defined by section 3 of the Act of 1973, as amended, includes: 1) The specific areas, within the geographical area occupied by a species at the time of its listing under the Act, which contain those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require speafal management considerations or protection; and 2) specific areas, outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, which are determined to be essential for the conservation of the species.

White River spinedace critical habitat, designated under the same rule listing the fish as an endangered species (50 Federal Register 37194), encompasses the following springs and their associated outflows plus surrounding land areas for a distance of 50 feet from these springs and outflows: 1) Preston Big Spring and associated outflow (approximately 4.0 acres) within T. 12 N., R. 61 E., NEh sec. 2, White Pine County, Nevada; 2) Lund Spring and associated outflow (approximately 1.3 acres) within T. 11 N., R. 62 E., NEh NEh sec. 4 and T. 12 N., R. 62 E., Sh SEh sec. 33, White Pine County, Nevada; and 3) Flag Springs and associated outflows (approximately 3.0 acres) within T. 7 N., R. 62 E., Eh NEh sec. 32, SWh NWh sec. 33, Nye County, Nevada. Preston Big Spring and Lund Spring and their associated outflows are on private property. Flag Springs and their associated outflows are owned by the State of Nevada. Known constituent elements for all areas of critical habitat include consistently high quality and quantity of cool (55°-70° Fahrenheit) springs and their outflows,

12 and surrounding land areas that provide vegetation for cover and habitat for insects and other invertebrates on which the species feeds.

For the purposes of this recovery plan, essential habitat for the recovery of the White River spinedace includes seven spring systems (Preston Big Spring, Indian Spring, Lund Spring, Flag Springs, Nicholas Spring, Arnoldson Spring, Cold Spring) and their associated outflows, perennial portions of the White River, and Ellison Creek. Identification of essential habitats in excess of those designated as critical habitat or necessary for recovery of White River spinedace allows for the selection of the most suitable habitats for concentrated recovery efforts. The extent of each habitat needed to support a viable population of White River spinedace will be identified during research specified in this recovery plan.

E. Life History and Habitat Requirements

White River spinedace life history and habitat requirements are poorly known. Field investigations conducted on White River spinedace populations focused on status and distribution, with little or no attention given to the species' life history and habitat requirements. White River spinedace morphology, and similarities between other better-studied spinedace, suggest that White River spinedace life history strategies and habitat requirements are similar to other members of the genus. Caution must be exercised, however, in making direct comparisons. Spring habitats occupied by White River spinedace may be sufficiently distinct from the riverine habitats occupied by other spinedace that White River spinedace requirements may be substantially different. White River spinedace life history and habitat requirement information must be acquired to guide recovery activities.

13 White River spinedace collected during the 1930's occupied cool (65° - 71° Fahrenheit), clear, spring habitats. Source pools varied in size from 15 by 25 feet to 60 by 80 feet, with bottoms comprised of mostly gravel and sand, but with some mud. Emergent aquatic vegetation was common and often dense. The current in the spring outflows and the White River was swift to moderate (Miller and Hubbs 1960).

Available data on water temperatures, discharge rates, and dissolved oxygen levels of certain springs historically occupied by White River spinedace indicate relatively similar temperatures among springs, but disparate discharge and dissolved oxygen values (Table 2). Williams and Williams (1982) reported that PrestOn'Big Spring supports a diverse algal flora and invertebrate fauna; 74 species of algae and over 40 taxa of crustaceans and insects were identified in 1980.

Table 2: Water temperature and discharge rates from waters historically occupied by White River spinedace (Garside and Schilling 1979; Scoppettone, et al. in prep).

Temp Discharge Dissolved Spring Date (°F1 (gpml Oxygen (mg/11

Preston Big 130ct66 70 3900 Preston Big 72 5700 Preston Big 27Jun91 70 3.8

Cold 13Nov66 70 780 Cold ------630 Cold 4May92 73 10.8

Nicholas 13Nov66 71 1125 Nicholas ------1200 Nicholas 27Jun91 72 ---- 3.2

Arnoldson 13Nov66 72 1380 Arnoldson 27Jun91 72 3.1

Lund 27Jun91 66 5.9

North Flag 19Jun91 61 9.1

14 White River spinedace spawning has never been observed, and spawning habitat requirements are unknown. Remnants of spawning tubercles were present on postnuptial males collected in August 1938 (Miller and Hubbs 1960). Virgin River spinedace, Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis spawning has been observed in the Santa Clara River of Utah in May and June (Rinne 1971). Apparent courtship activity of Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata, was observed in July 1961. Earlier spawn was possible due to the presence of juvenile fish (Miller 1963). Spawning tubercles have been observed on Big Spring spinedace, Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis, from May through August (Langhorst 1991).

White River spinedace food preferences and feeding habits are ' unknown. Virgin River spinedace feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae, but consume algae and other plant material when insects are not available (Rinne 1971, Minckley 1973). Allan (1985) suggested that vegetation, especially watercress, is important in providing habitat for insect and invertebrate foods for Big Spring spinedace.

No information is available regarding life history and habitat requirements of the other native fish species which occupy historic White River spinedace habitats, or how these species interact with White River spinedace. This information is necessary prior to reintroduction of White River spinedace into any unoccupied essential habitat to determine how the resident native fishes will be affected by the reintroduction of White River spinedace and what influence the existing community structure may have on the success of the reintroduction.

F. Reasons for Decline and Current Threats

White River Valley native fish populations began declining as surface waters were manipulated by settlers in the early 1800's (Miller 1961). Early historical accounts refer to the importance

15 of streams and springs for the economic viability of ranching in the White River Valley during the mid- and late-1800's (Georgetta 1972). These accounts suggest that White River spinedace habitats have been altered since the first settlers entered eastern Nevada. Settlers diverted and impounded streams and spring outflows, and removed riparian vegetation. Impacts intensified as nonnative fishes were introduced (Minckley and Deacon 1968; Courtenay, et al. 1985). A combination of these factors caused the extirpation or decline of White River spinedace populations. In 1985, the Service determined the White River spinedace to be an endangered species and designated its critical habitat (50 Federal Register 37194) because five populations of this species had been eliminated and the remaining two populations (Lund Spring ana Flag Springs) had declined due to habitat destruction from channelization of spring habitats and diversion of water, and due to the introduction of nonnative fishes which compete with and/or prey on White River spinedace.

Native fish populations at Preston Big Spring became more susceptible to other perturbating events following the installation of a pipeline in the outflow which left only 1.6 kilometers of habitat relatively undisturbed. The eventual extirpation of White River spinedace and White River desert sucker may have been caused by loss of habitat, combined with frequent use of heavy equipment and copper sulfate to remove and control aquatic vegetation at Preston Big Spring (Deacon, et al. 1980; Courtenay, et al. 1985).

Since the listing of White River spinedace as an endangered species, the Lund Spring population has been extirpated (Scoppettone, et al. in prep). A small population of White River spinedace persisted at Lund Spring because enough water leaked through the irrigation diversion structure to maintain downstream habitat. Improvements to the structure, however, eliminated the

16 leakage, resulting in periodic desiccation of outflow ditches and the extirpation of White River spinedace at Lund Spring.

Flag Springs and their outflows have been modified over time for various purposes. The pool at the northern Flag Spring, which currently supports the remaining White River spinedace, is becoming overgrown with emergent aquatic vegetation and may succeed out of existence. The pool is created by a concrete weir which also serves as a barrier to upstream migration of nonnative fish species. NDOW has released rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mvkiss) into the Flag Springs outflows, although none remain. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) have gained access to the outflows from downstream reservoirs, and currently persist irr ' lower gradient areas. White River spinedace do not currently occupy the Flag Springs outflows. Research will be necessary to determine if the outflow habitat, predation by largemouth bass, or some combination of the two is limiting the distribution of White River spinedace.

White River spinedace populations have been and continue to be impacted by the introduction of nonnative fishes into many springs, streams, and impoundments. Nonnative species have been implicated in the decline of White River spinedace due to predation and/or competition for available resources (Williams and Wilde 1981; Courtenay, et al. 1985).

G. Conservation Efforts

The White River spinedace was listed as an endangered species with critical habitat in 1985 (50 Federal Register 37194). The Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners recognizes the White River spinedace as a protected species (Nevada Revised Statutes 503.065). Nevada State laws and regulations prohibit taking of protected species without a valid State collecting permit. The American Fisheries Society listed this spinedace as threatened in

17 1979 (Deacon, et al. 1979), but reclassified it as endangered in 1987 (Johnson 1987). Williams, et al. (1985) also recognized the White River spinedace as endangered.

Actions have been undertaken to enhance the status of the White River spinedace population and its habitat at the north Flag Spring. The entire Flag Springs complex and appurtenant water rights are owned by the State of Nevada. NDOW installed a fish barrier in the combined outflow from Flag Springs in 1985, to prevent nonnative game fishes from moving out of the downstream reservoirs into White River spinedace habitat. Unfortunately, largemouth bass are present above the barrier. Monies allocated in 1991 and 1992 under section 6 of the Act have been expended for 1) a complete status survey of the aquatic habitats of northern White River Valley, 2) initial investigations of the ecological characteristics and habitat requirements of White River spinedace, and 3) an evaluation of potential habitats for reintroduction. Results of the status survey (Scoppettone, et al. in prep) have been incorporated into this document. During the spring of 1992, NDOW installed small structures in the Flag Springs outflow to improve the suitability of the habitat for spinedace by creating more pools and areas of relatively slower water. Excess watercress was also removed from the north Flag Spring pool. II. RECOVERY

A. Objective

The objective of the White River Spinedace Recovery Plan is to improve the species' status so that it may be removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. The Service has assigned the White River spinedace a recovery priority of 2C, which means that this species has a high degree of threat and existing conflicts to recovery, but a high recovery potential. White River spinedace may be considered for delisting when five self-sustaining populations within essential habitats are secure from all threats and maintained for at least 5 consecutive years. As an interim objective, White River spinedace may be considered for downlisting to threatened status when three self-sustaining populations within essential habitats are secured from all threats and maintained for at least 3 consecutive years. The characteristics of such populations and the extent of habitat needed to support each will be determined by research during the course of this recovery effort. These objectives will be accomplished with full consideration given to the needs of the White River desert sucker, White River speckled dace, and Preston White River springfish, such that no activity taken to improve the status of White River spinedace will be detrimental to the long- term-status of these candidate species.

The estimated date of recovery completion is 2008. These recovery criteria are preliminary and may be revised on the basis of new information, including that obtained from research specified as recovery tasks in this plan. The recommended chronology for each of the recovery tasks identified in the Narrative is found in the Implementation Schedule.

19 B. Narrative

1. Maintain and enhance extant population The immediate survival of White River spinedace depends on minimizing loss of individuals at the northern Flag Spring and providing adequate habitat to allow the population to expand. Ideally, enhancement of the Flag Springs system would be guided by information collected during research efforts. Unfortunately, the extremely low numbers of White River spinedace remaining demand immediate action.

11. Enhance habitat at Flag Springs • The northern Flag Spring and its outflow should be enhanced to encourage expansion of the White River spinedace population. Natural vegetative succession is modifying the pool at the northern Flag Spring. The preservation of the integrity of this spring pool is of immediate importance because it supports the remaining White River spinedace population. Removal of emergent vegetation from areas of the pool may be a short-term solution. Presently neither White River spinedace nor largemouth bass occupy the high gradient section of stream immediately downstream from the pool at the northern Flag Spring. This habitat may be marginal for White River spinedace due to water velocity, but may be improved by creating small pools. Research described under task 2 below may identify additional measures needed for the long-term maintenance of suitable habitat at Flag Springs.

12. Install and maintain fish barriers One fish barrier exists on the combined outflow from Flag Springs. The effectiveness of this barrier must be determined. Additional barriers may be needed to ensure that nonnative fishes from downstream reservoirs do not

20 enter White River spinedace critical habitat and adversely affect the remnant population.

13. Remove nonnative species from Flag Springs outflows Expansion of White River spinedace and all other native fish populations at Flag Springs may depend in part on the removal of largemouth bass from these waters. Eradication methods selected must fully consider direct and indirect effects on the entire aquatic ecosystem.

14. Develop and implement habitat management plan NDOW's management plans (fisheries and game) for the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area should be amended to m' address the needs of White River spinedace at Flag Springs. The plans should be based on the most recent data available on White River spinedace, be flexible enough to be modified as new data are acquired, and consider the effects of management activities on all native species.

15. Establish a captive breeding program Captive breeding programs are often utilized to augment natural reproduction. The need for such a program in the recovery of White River spinedace must be carefully evaluated and will depend on the success of efforts to expand the Flag Springs population. Due to the present small size of the Flag Spring White River spinedace population, the effect of removing fish to establish a captive brood stock must be evaluated. The genetic status of fish produced in captivity should be monitored and compared with that of wild fish.

2. Identify ecoloaical parameters Knowledge of the ecological parameters of the White River spinedace population at Flag Springs is necessary to 1) identify existing limiting factors at Flag Springs, 2) guide management

21 activities, 3) determine how to rehabilitate historic habitats for the enhancement and reestablishment of populations, and 4) assess the potential impacts of future proposed actions on the species.

21. Determine life history and habitat requirements Research conducted on other spinedace taxa has revealed differences in the habitats utilized by juvenile and adult fish, and that drift feeding on aquatic invertebrates is common. Data specific to White River spinedace habitat and feeding requirements, reproductive behavior, and demographic parameters, such as reproductive rates, age structure, and population growth rates, need to be acquired.

22. Determine species interactions Caution must be exercised to avoid implementing management actions which benefit White River spinedace at the expense of any other cohabiting native species. Determination of life history and habitat requirements of White River desert sucker, White River speckled dace, and Preston White River springfish may be necessary to identify possible conflicts. Behavioral observations may be necessary to determine the influence of interspecific interactions on community structure and its implications to the reestablishment of White River spinedace populations. Removal and/or control of nonnative species, without detrimental effects to native fish populations, will be facilitated by an understanding of the life history and habitat requirements of the nonnative species, and interactions between native and nonnative species.

23. Conduct population viability analysis A population viability analysis should be conducted to determine 1) the size of habitat necessary to maintain a self-sustaining population of White River spinedace, 2) the number of White River spinedace needed to establish a new

22 population, 3) the number of White River spinedace that can be removed from the parent population at any one time without risking extirpation, and 4) the parameters of a self-sustaining White River spinedace populations.

3. Reestablish populations in historic habitats Recovery objectives require the reestablishment of additional self-sustaining populations of White River spinedace within historic habitats. Initial efforts should revolve around restoration of populations at Preston Big Spring and Lund Spring, both designated critical habitats and most recently occupied.

31. Select suitable habitats Information collected during life history and habitat requirements research will be utilized to evaluate essential habitats for recovery potential. Selection of suitable habitats will consider existing habitat conditions, aquatic species composition, land and water uses, landownership, and other potential conflicts. Suitable habitats will be of sufficient size to support a self-sustaining population of White River spinedace, and conflicts must be resolvable. Receiving habitat must be free of or possess only those fish diseases, parasites, or other pathogens that are common to other waters of northern White River Valley, and are not detrimental to native fishes. Measures must be implemented to prevent the spread of diseases and parasites.

32. Secure selected habitats Cooperation of private landowners and Federal land management agencies within the area must be secured to ensure continuous and consistent protection of the habitat. Conservation agreements may be negotiated with landowners to ensure habitat protection and access for management activities. Private land parcels may also be acquired in fee title from willing sellers. Land management agencies

23 1

should pursue acquisition of nonconsumptive instream flow water rights to ensure sufficient water remains in each essential habitat to meet the needs of White River spinedace. The ground water aquifer(s) which supports the aquatic ecosystems must also be protected. Steps must be taken to prevent invasion of nonnative aquatic species.

33. Prepare and implement habitat management plans If selected habitats include lands administered by a Federal agency, habitat management plans should be prepared to provide protection and management guidelines. The plans should be based on the most recent data available on White River spinedace, flexible enough to be modified as new-data are acquired, and consider the effects of management activities on all native species.

34. Rehabilitate habitat Essential habitats selected for reestablishment of White River spinedace may require rehabilitation prior to release of fish. Information on life history and habitat requirements of White River spinedace and other species will guide these efforts.

35. Establish populations The population of White River spinedace selected to provide transplant stocks must be free of parasites and diseases. Mortality of transplanted fishes has been attributed to the activation of latent infections or parasite infestations due to handling and other stress-related factors. Selection of fish to release and timing of the release should take into consideration reproduction potential and natural mortality factors. Several releases may be necessary to establish each population. Positive evidence of population establishment may not be realized for several years.

24 .1 I

4. Monitor all populations and habitats The stability and health of White River spinedace populations can only be assessed by regular monitoring to determine population size, age-class structure, and distribution. monitoring will be necessary to determine the success of efforts to reestablish White River spinedace populations. Monitoring should be scheduled during the spring and fall to evaluate over-winter survival and recruitment. Habitat quality and quantity must also be evaluated regularly. Regular monitoring will also provide information relative to occurrence and abundance of coexisting native and nonnative species. Information collected will be utilized to identify potential problems in a timely manner, guide management activities, and permit an analysis of the effectiveness of - recovery programs. Ultimately, this information will be utilized to determine whether or not recovery has been accomplished.

5. Establish and maintain a public information prooram A public information program must be developed to inform local residents and other interested parties of the protected status of White River spinedace and the ongoing recovery effort and its importance. The White Pine and Nye County Board of Commissioners, Nevada State Office of the Bureau, Humboldt National Forest, and NDOW, as well as appropriate local area offices, will be continually involved in and updated on all aspects of this recovery effort. Appropriate information relative to the status of White River spinedace and the ongoing recovery effort should be provided for release via newspapers, television, radio, etc. C. Literature Cited

Allan, R. C. 1985. A field survey of the endemic fishes of the pluvial White River and Carpenter River systems. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno.

Burrell, M. 1982. Field Report on White River spinedace on the Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area. May 8, 1982. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., J. E. Deacon, D. W. Sada, R. C. Allan, and G. L. Vinyard. 1985. Comparative status of fishes along m • the course of the pluvial White River, Nevada. Southwestern Naturalist 30(4): 503-524.

Deacon, J. E., G. Kobetich, J. D. Williams, and S. Contreras. 1979. Fishes of North America - Endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1979. Fisheries 4(2): 29-44.

Deacon, J. E., T.B. Hardy, J. Pollard, W. Taylor, J. Landye, J. Williams, C. Williams, P. Greger, and M. Conrad. 1980. Environmental analysis of four aquatic habitats in east- central Nevada: June-September, 1980. Interim Final Summary Report to HDR Sciences.

Frantz, T. 1956. White River stream survey report. Nevada Fish and Game Commission, Reno. Unpublished report.

Georgetta, C. 1972. Golden fleece in Nevada. Venture Publishing Company. Reno, Nevada.

Hubbs, C. L. 1955. Hybridization between fish species in nature. Systematic Zoology 4(1): 1-20.

26 •

Hubbs, C. L. and R. R. Miller. 1948. Correlation between fish distribution and hydrographic history in the desert basins of western United States. In: The Great Basin with emphasis on glacial and postglacial times. Bulletin of the University of Utah 38(20): 17-188.

Johnson, J.E. 1987. Protected fishes of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.

La Rivers, I. 1962. Fishes and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada Fish and Game Commission. Carson City, Nevada.

Langhorst, D. 1991. Status report on Big Spring spinedace contract. Department of Biological Sciences. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Report to Nevada Department of Wildlife, Las Vegas.

Miller, R. R. 1952. Bait fishes of the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead, Nevada, to Yuma, Arizona, with a key for their identification. California Fish and Game 38(1): 7-42.

Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American southwest. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 46: 365-404.

Miller, R. R. 1963. Distribution, variation, and ecology of Levidomeda vittata, a rare cyprinid fish endemic to eastern Arizona. Copeia 1: 1-5.

Miller, R. R. and C. L. Hubbs. 1960. The spiny-rayed cyprinid fishes (Plagopterini) of the Colorado River system. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology 115: 1-39. University of Michigan.

27 Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Phoenix, Arizona.

Minckley, W. L. and J. E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of "endangered species." Science 159: 1424-1432.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 1975. Memorandum to files on Indian Spring, Preston, Nevada. March 13, 1975. Reno, Nevada.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 1984. White River stream survey report. July 7, 1984. Reno, Nevada.

•

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 1986. Field trip report on White River spinedace at Lund Spring. Reno, Nevada.

Rinne, W. E. 1971. The life history of Lepidomeda mollispinis (the Virgin River spinedace) a unique western cyprinid. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Department of Zoology. University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Scoppettone, G. G., J. Harvey, S. Shea, and J. Heinrich. In Prep. Relative abundance and distribution of fishes in the White River Valley, Nevada with special. emphasis on the White River spinedace (Lepidomeda albivallis). Report to Nevada Department of Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seattle National Fisheries Research Center, Reno, Nevada.

Selby, D. 1977. Survey of native fish habitats of the upper White River system. November 11, 1977. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Uyeno, T. and R. R. Miller. 1973. Chromosomes and the evolution of the plagopterin fishes (Cyprinidae) of the Colorado River system. Copeia 1973: 776-782.

28 I.

Williams, C. D. and J. E. Williams. 1982. Summer food habits of fishes from two springs in east-central Nevada. Southwestern Naturalist 27(4): 437-445.

Williams, J. E. and G. R. Wilde. 1981. Taxonomic status and morphology of isolated populations of White River springfish, Crenichthvs bailevi (Cyprinodontidae). Southwestern Naturalist 25(4): 485-503.

Williams, J. E., D. B. Bowman, J. E. Brooks, A. A. Echelle, R. J. Edwards, D. A. Hendrickson, and J. J. Landye. 1985. Endangered aquatic ecosystems in North American deserts with a list of vanishing fishes of the region. Journal of - Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 20: 1-62.

Withers, D. 1985. Field trip report: Native fish status on Kirch Wildlife Management Area and vicinity. June 6, 1985. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno.

Withers, D. 1986. Field trip report: Native fish status on Kirch Wildlife Management Area and vicinity. September 16, 1986. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno.

Withers, D. 1987. Field trip report: Native fish status on Kirch Wildlife Management Area and vicinity. August 6, 1987. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno. r

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

This implementation schedule outlines actions and estimated costs for the recovery of White River spinedace. It is a guide for meeting the objective discussed in Part II of this recovery plan. This schedule indicates task priorities, numbers, and descriptions; duration of each task; responsible agencies; and estimated costs. These actions, when accomplished, should bring about the recovery of White River spinedace and protect its habitat. Estimated monetary needs for all parties involved in recovery are identified and, therefore, this schedule reflects the total estimated financial requirements for the recovery of this species.

In the implementation schedule, tasks are arranged in priority order. The assigned priorities are defined as follows:

Priority 1 - An action that must be undertaken to prevent extinction or to prevent White River spinedace from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2 - An action that must be undertaken to prevent a significant decline in White River spinedace population distribution or size, or habitat quality, or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to meet the recovery objective.

The following abbreviations are utilized in the implementation schedule: Task Duration Cont. = The action will be Implemented continually once begun.

30 Ongoing = Currently being implemented and will continue until no longer necessary for recovery. Responsible Party * = Lead Agency FWS-APA = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Public Affairs Office, Region 1 FWS-EHC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation, Region 1

FWS-EN = U.S. FISH. ANCL WILDLIFE Service, Division of Engineering, Region 1 FWS-RES = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seattle National Fisheries Research Center, Reno, Nevada NDOW = Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno BLM = U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada FS = U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt National Forest, Elko, Nevada Total Cost = Projected cost of task from start to finish. TDB = To Be Determined at a later date Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for White River Spinedace

10R- TASK COST ESTIMATES ($1,000) FY TASK TASK DURA- RESPONSIBLE TOTAL FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 4 # DESCRIPTION TION PARTY COST 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (YRS)

1 11 Enhance Flag Springs 7 NDOW* 7 3 2 2 habitat FWS-EHC

1 12 Install fish barriers 2 NDOW* 6 3 3 at Flag Springs FWS-EHC

1 13 Remove non-native 2 NDOW* 4 2 2 species from Flag FWS-EHC Springs

, 14 Develop and implement Cont. NDOW* 18 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 management plan for FWS-EHC Flag Springs

15 Establish captive Cont. NDOW* TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD breeding program FWS-EHC

Cost need 1 35 10 9 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (Maintain and enhance extant population)

21 Determine habitat and 4 NDOW* 44 8 12 12 12 Life history requirements FWS-RES

22 Determine species 3 NDOW* 12 4 4 4 interactions FWS-RES

23 Conduct population 1 NDOW* 15 • 15 viability analysis FWS-RES Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for White River Spinedace

210R- TASK COST ESTIMATES ($1,000) ITY TASK TASK DURA- RESPONSIBLE TOTAL FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY # # DESCRIPTION TION PARTY COST 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (YRS)

Cost need 2 71 8 16 16 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Identify ecological parameters)

3 31 Select suitable 3 FWS-EHC* 15 5 5 5 habitats

3 32 Secure selected TBD FWS-RE* TBD TBD TBD TBD habitats BLM

3 33 Prepare and implement Cont. BLM* 14 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 habitat management plans FS FWS-EHC

3 34 Rehabilitate habitats TBD FWS-EHC* TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD BLM FS NDOW

3 35 Establish populations 4 NDOW* 8 2 2 2 2 FWS-EHC

Cost need 3 37 0 0 0 0 5 7 7 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 (Reestablish populations in historic habitats)

3 4 Monitor populations Cont. NDOW* 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 and habitats FWS-EHC Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for White River Spinedace

10R- TASK COST ESTIMATES ($1,000) TY TASK TASK DURA- RESPONSIBLE TOTAL FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY # # DESCRIPTION TION PARTY COST 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (YRS)

Cost need 4 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 (Monitor populations and habitats)

3 5 Establish and maintain Cont. FWS-APA* 11 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 a public information NDOW program

Cost need 5 11 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (Establish public information program)

1 a

Total Costs: 185 21 28 20.5 33.5 7.5 9.5 9.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5