Current Distribution and Status of

Lepidomeda vittata (the Little Colorado spinedace) in

Submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Department

by C. 0. Minckley

Department of Biological Sciences

Northern Arizona University

P. 0. Box 5640, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

December 19814 Acknowledgements

This project was funded through the Office of Endangered Species, Region II, Albuquerque, with funds administered by the

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Both agencies are thanked for their continued support of native fish research. Several people were involved in the field work on this project, including Mike

Fabritz, who contributed several weekends to this endeavor, and Tod Allum, Mike Kiedrowski, Linn Montgomery, Tim Page, and Bob Parrish. The time and efforts they donated were appreciated.

W. L. Minckley is thanked for providing access to the Arizona

State University fish collection. Table of Contents

Introduction ...... page 1

Background Information ...... page 1

Materials and Methods ...... page 5 Results ...... page 6 Description of Localities and Collections ...... page 12 Current Distribution and Status ...... page 33

Possible Threats to Populations ...... page 38

Summary ...... page 40 Recommendations ...... page 42 Literature Cited ...... page 43 List of Tables

Table 1. Localities surveyed in the Little drainage during 1983 ...... page 7

Table 2. List of previously reported collecting localities ...... page 9

Table 3. Physical stream parameters measured at localities where the Little Colorado spinedace was collected in the drainage in 1983 ...... page 13

Table 4. Number of fish taken at the localities where the Little Colorado spinedace was collected in the Little Colorado Rivqr drainage in 1983. Expressed as fish/m' ...... page 15

Table 5. Physical stream parameters measured for seine hauls containing Little Colorado spinedace collected during 1983 in the Little Colorado River drainage ...... page 17

Table 6. Mean total lengths, ranges and number of Little Colorado spinedace collected from the Little Colorado River drainage during 1983 ...... page 21

Table 7. Relative abundance of fish collected at ten localities in 1983. Relative abundance expressed as percent of collection ...... page 22

Table 8. Total number of fish collected from the Little Colorado River drainage at localities where Little Colorado spinedace were taken. Includes fish captured and released ...... page 24 List of Figures

Figure 1. Little Colorado River drainage illustrating where the Little Colorado spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata, was collected during 1983 ...... page 11

Figure 2. Length-frequency diagram for Little Colorado spinedace collected from nine localities in the Little Colorado River Basin during 1983.. page 20 INTRODUCTION

The Little Colorado spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata, occurs only in Arizona. It was first described by Cope (1874). Since then, its populations have fluctuated sporadically but with a trend downward, prompting its proposed listing as a Federally

Threatened species. Because the current distribution of the spinedace was unknown, a survey was undertaken in 1983 to determine (1) the current distribution of L. vittata, (2) the status of any populations found, and (3) threats to those populations. This report summarizes published information on this fish and presents additional information on L. vittata collected during the 1983 field season.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Little Colorado spinedace was first collected from the

Little Colorado River by members of the Wheeler Survey (Wheeler 1889). It was described by E. D. Cope in 1874 from "The Little

Colorado River somewhere between the mouth of the and

Sierra Blanca (White Mountain)" (Miller and Hubbs 1960). It is a cyprinid belonging to the unique tribe Plagopterini (Miller and Hubbs 1960) and occurs only in the Little Colorado River and its northflowing tributaries, in Coconino, Navajo and Apache counties of eastern Arizona. Historically, it may have occurred south of

Gallup in the Zuni River watershed of western New Mexico, but there are no records from that region (Miller 1963). Prior to

1939, four collection records for this species were available, 2

although Miller (1963) states "...there is no reason to doubt that L. vittata was once abundant in the main part of the upp-er- Little Colorado River and,in its several cool tributaries (Silver

Creek, Showlow Creek, , and Clear Creek) from the northern slopes of the White Mountains and the ." Extensive collecting in 1960 indicated that the Little

Colorado spinedace had been exterminated throughout its known range (Miller 1963). A single specimen was taken from Clear

Creek, representing a new distributional record (Miller 1963). Later, in 1961, a sizeable population was found in East Clear

Creek, to which the spinedace was then thought to be restricted (Miller 1963). Because of this marked decline in abundance, it

was considered endangered at that time (Miller 1963, 1964; Miller

and Lowe 1964; Minckley 1965; Branson 1966; Anonymous 1966). Between 1963 and 1966, L. vittata apparently re-invaded most of its former range, occurring again in most north flowing tributaries of the Little Colorado River and its headwaters

(Minckley and Carufel 1967). Subsequent to that re-invasion

populations again declined and it was, considered endangered in 1973 (Minckley 1973). However, a new population was discovered in lower Chevelon Creek in 1977 (Blinn et al. 1977), illustrating

L. vittata did still persist in the Little Colorado River watershed. Even so, its status in most of that drainage was

still thought to be precarious.

Miller and Hubbs (1960) described the localities for L.

vittata in the Little Colorado River and Showlow Creek as follows "...water was .described as yellowish, brownish-white and murkey; 3

current slight to swift; bottom, thick mud, sand clay, gravel,

and rock; -depth of capture, 1 to 3 feet; and.vegetation, white water buttercup (rather thick in patches), Chara, some rushes arid algae."

In , Miller (1963) found the Little Colorado spinedace in the marginal habitat of stagnating pools and in permanent flowing sections of the stream. In flowing sections

the substrate consisted of sand, gravel, rocks, boulders, some

silt and bedrock. Stream width averaged 15 m while water depth ranged up to two meters. Spinedace were taken in water up to .2

m in depth. Water color varied from greenish brown to clear.

Minckley and Carufel (1967) found L. vittata in habitats _ similar to those described by Miller (1963): clear flowing pools

of medium depth, usually over fine gravel bottoms. It avoided the deepest heavily shaded pools and relatively shallow open

areas. Largest numbers of fish were in the midwater of open

pools with undercut banks or boulders for cover. During periods

of high discharge the fish became more widely distributed throughout East Clear Creek. Adults occurred at the upper ends of pools and the shallow lower ends of riffles. During spate conditions fish occurred lateral to the current. Observations of courtship behavior of L. vittata are limited

to Miller (1963), who reported fish presumed to be males following apparent females and nibbling them about the vent

region. No breeding behavior has been described. Miller (1963) stated that spawning occurred in May of 1961 and was also occurring at the time of collection (July 1961) of young-of-the- 4

year fish. Minckley and Carufel (1967) reported an initial

spawning surge occurs in June, with sporadic-spawning occurring in some populations during the summer and autumn. They also suggested females spawn more than once a year, based on the high

proportion of fish with mature ovaries in May and October.

Additionally, they reported three size classes of eggs found in females, with fecundity estimates ranging from 650-5600 eggs. In that study, the smallest ripe male encountered was 50 mm standard

length. Miller (1963) described larval L. vittata in detail. Life colors of L. vittata as described by Miller (1963) are

as follows: "The sides of the body below the .base of the fins,

nearly vertical dark lines (that extend dorsally from the _ midside) shine like polished silver and the venter is white. The upper side and the back is olivaceous, bluish or lead grey.

Except for pigmentation along the fin rays and on the interradial

membranes near the bases of the fins, both paired and unpaired fins are largely clear. Irregularly distributed, fine, black

puncticulations (giving a pepper-like effect) overlie the silvery sides from the bases of the dark vertical lines to about halfway

between the lateral line and the midline of the abdomen. When

the live fish are viewed from directly above, a conspicuous cream-colored spot is seen at both the origin of the dorsal fin

and near the bases of the terminal rays of the fin." Other fishes associated with- L. vittata in Clear Creek

included the roundtail chub, Gila robusta; speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus; flannelmouth sucker, Catostomus latipinnis;

bluehead sucker, Pantosteus discobolus; rainbow trout, Salmo 5 gairdneri and the brown trout, Salmo trutta (Miller 1963).

Curr6ntIy r'oundtail chubs are extirpated or wery rare in that system.

Species associated with spinedace in lower Chevelon Creek included carp, Cyprinus carpio; fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas; golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucus; bluegill,

Lepomis macrochirus; green sunfish, Chaenobryttus cyanellus; flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis, Rio Grande killifish,

Fundulus zebrinus and channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Blinn et al. 1977).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fish were collected with 1.8 in x 1.8 m x 3.2 mm. or 0.9 in x

0.9 m x 3.2 mm mesh seines. Ten seine hauls were made at each site. A representative sample of fish was preserved in 40% formalin and later transferred to 50% methanol. When Little

Colorado spinedace were encountered, a series was preserved, the sample was anesthetized with MS-222 and total lengths were taken. Later, total lengths of preserved fish were determined and combined with total lengths from the anesthetized fish to develop a length frequency diagram for spinedace.

When collecting, each seine haul was characterized as to substrate type, depth, and area seined and typed of habitat, e.g. pool, run, riffle. Current was visually estimated and characterized as slow, moderate or fast. All fish taken were identified, counted and expressed as the number of fish per meter squared (f/m2).. 6

Each population of L. vittata was characterized as to its

-. status. A "poor" sta=tus indicated less than - 10 fish were taken. The status "fair"twas used when 10-20 were taken relatively easily. The most favorable population status of

"good" was assigned when several year classes were collected and more than 20 were taken. Evidence of reproduction was also considered to represent a population in "good" condition.

RESULTS

During this project 54 localities were surveyed for the

Little Colorado spinedace (Table 1). The areas surveyed (Table

2) included published localities and those listed in the Arizona _ State University collection of fishes. These areas were either

resurveyed or an area in the immediate vicinity was collected. Additionally, other localities in the Little Colorado watershed

were examined to determine the status of this species in those

areas. As a result, L. vittata was found to persist at 11 localities, 9 of which have been previously reported and 2 of which have not (Fig. 1). Previously reported localities included

the Little Colorado River near St. Johns (2 sites) and

Springerville (2 sites), East Clear Creek (2 sites), Leonard Canyon (Dines Tank) and lower Chevelon Creek (2 sites).

Previously unreported localities were in Nutrioso Creek (2 sites) near the town of Nutrioso,.Apache County. 7

Table 1. Localities surveyed in the Little Colorado River

drainage during 1983.

Apache County, Arizona

1. Rosey Creek, Sec. 35, T3S, R27E. 2. Benny Creek, Sec. 35, T3S, R27E. 3. Hall Creek, Sec. 26, T3S, R27E. 4. Fish Creek, Sec. 22, T2S, R26E. *5. Nutrioso Creek at the Hunter Ranch, Sec. 9, T3S, R29E. *6. Nutrioso Creek, estimated 3.2 km south of Nutrioso Reservoir, Highway 568, Sec. 20, T2S, R29E. 7. Nutrioso Creek, estimated 3.2 km south of Nutrioso, Highway 568, Sec. 16, T4S, R29E. 8. East Fork Little Colorado River, Sec. 24, T4S, R27E. 9. Little Colorado River at highway bridge, Road 273, near South Fork, Sec. 12, T2S, R28E. 10. Little Colorado River, 3.2 km east of Road 273, near South Fork, Sec. 11, T2S, R28E. 11. Little Colorado River adjacent to Forest Service Road 575 at Greer, Sec. 14, T33, R27E. *12. Little Colorado River across from KOA near Becker Lake at Springerville, Sec. 29, T2S, R29E. *13. Little Colorado River, Highway Bridge 666 in Springerville, Sec. 29, T2S, R28E. 14. Little Colorado River, road to Springerville generating station, between Springerville and St. Johns, Sec. 30, T1S, R28E. *15. Little Colorado River, an estimated 8.0 km south of St. Johns, Sec. 3, T12N, R28E. *16. Little Colorado River, an estimated 3.2 km south of St. Johns, Sec. 34, T13N, R28E. 17. Little Colorado River, .6 km north of St. Johns on landfill road near abandoned bridge, Sec. 9, T13N, R28E. 18. Little Colorado River, near Hunt, at junction of Highway 180 and 180A, T14N, R25E. Coconino County, Arizona

19. Chevelon Creek, at Chevelon Lake, below spillway, Sec. 13, T13N, R14E. 20. Chevelon Creek, at Chevelon Crossing, Sec. 19, T14N, R14E. 21. Barbershop Canyon, at junction of Forest Service Roads 95 and 96, Sec. 35, T13N, R11E. *22. East Clear Creek, at junction of Forest Service Roads 95 and 96, Sec. 2, T13N, R11E. *23. East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing, T13N, R10E. 8

24. East Clear Creek, at Kinder Crossing, Sec. 25, T14N, R11- 1/4E. - 25; East Clear Cre6k., at Soldiers Trail, Sec. 1, T14N, R12E. 26. East Clear Creek, below Blue Ridge Reservoir, Sec. 34, T14N, R11E. 27. Bear Canyon at F.S. Road 719 crossing, Sec. 17, T13N, R11E. 28. Bear Canyon above Blue Ridge Reservoir, Sec. 8, T13N, R11E. 29. Bear Canyon Lake below spillway, Sec. 20, T12N, R12E. 30. Leonard Canyon below spillway at Knolls Lake, Sec. 16, T12N, R11-1/2E. *31. Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank, Sec. 28, T13N, R11E. 32. Leonard Canyon at Victorine Crossing, Sec. 27, T14N, R11E. 33. Buck Spring, Sec. 12, T12N, R11E. 34. Willow Creek at Wiggins Crossing, Sec. 17, T13N, R12E. 35. Willow Creek at Mule Crossing, Sec. 5, T12N, R12E. 36. Willow Creek at Pius Spring, Sec. 20, T13N, R12E. 37. Potato Lake, Sec. 36, T13N, R10E. 38. Cienega Creek, Sec. 1, T12N, R10E. 39. Gentry Canyon, Sec. 12, T12N, R12E. 40. Turkey Creek at McGuire Crossing, Sec. 6, T12N, R12E. 41. Hart Canyon, Sec. 33, T13N, R13E. 42. Kehl Canyon, Sec. 8, T12N, R10E. Navajo County, Arizona

43. Little Colorado River, bridge crossing .3 km south of Joseph City, Sec. 22, T18N, R19E. 44. Little Colorado River, Highway 40 bridge crossing east of Winslow, Sec. 33, T19N, R15E. 45. Little Colorado River, Highway 40 bridge crossing east of Holbrook, Sec. 10, T17N, R21E. 46. Little Colorado River, bridge at Woodruff, Sec. 17, T16N, R22E. 47. Clear Creek, below dam at Mchood State Park near Winslow, Sec. 10, T18N, R16E. *48. Chevelon Creek, near Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area, Sec. 23, T18N, R17E. *49. Chevelon Creek, at the "steps", Sec. 11, T17N, R17E. 50. Showlow Creek, at Showlow, Sec. 3, T9N, R21E. 51. , at Shumway, Sec. 30, T11N, R21E. 52. Silver Creek, at road crossing near Silver Springs Fish Hatchery, Sec. 20, T1ON, R22E. 52. Silver Creek, 3.5 km south of Woodruff, at old damsite, Sec. 32, T16N, R22E.

*Collecting locality for Little Colorado spinedace. Table 2. List of previously reported collecting localities.

Locality Source

Colorado Chiquito River, Arizona. Cope, 1874 ,Little Colorado River, Apache County, 7000 ft., Miller and Hubbs, 1960 T12N, R28E, 1 July 1938, UMMZ 124754. Little Colorado River, Apache County, 5 to 6 miles Miller and Hubbs, 1960 S. of St. Johns, 16 July 1939, UMMZ 137082 Showlow Creek, Navajo County, below dam at Miller and Hubbs, 1960 Lakeside, T22E, R9N, 13 June 1939, UMMZ 131099 Clear Creek, Coconino County, T15N, R13E, Miller, 1963 25 August 1960. "96" Crossing, Coconino County, T13N, R10E, Miller, 1963 July - August 1960 - 1962. East Clear Creek, Coconino County, 5.5 miles Miller, 1963 below Jones Crossing, T13N, R10E, July - August 1960 - 1962. Little Colorado River, Navajo County, downstream Minckley and Carufel, 1967 . from Woodruff, Spring 1965, ASU 01771. Little Colorado River, Apache County, at Minckley and Carufel, 1967 Springerville, 1966.

East Clear Creek, Coconino County, at Jones Arizona State University Collection Crossing, T13N, R10E, 28 July 1971, Arizona Game and Fish Collection, ASU 8169.

East Clear Creek, Coconino County, at "95" Arizona State University Collection crossing, T14N, R11E, 8 October 1963, ASU 00477. Table 2 (Continued)

Locality Source

East Clear Creek, Coconino County, above Blue Arizona State University Collection Ridge Reservoir, 22 October 1964.

Barbershop Creek, Coconino County, from mouth to Arizona State University Collection 1/2 mile upstream, 11 June 1966, ASU 02471. Cienega Canyon, Coconino County, 1 mile below Arizona State University Collection Potato Lake, 10 August 1966, ASU 02431.

Bear Canyon Lake, Coconino County, T12N, R13E, Arizona State University Collection Sec. 28, Autumn 1964, ASU 02432.

Willow Creek, Coconino County, in Bear Canyon Arizona State University Collection T12N, R13E, Sec. 19, 19 July 1966, ASU 02468.

Leonard Canyon (Dines Tank), Coconino County, end Arizona State University Collection of Forest Road 298, 27 September 1969, ASU 4450.

* Cottonwood Wash, Navajo County, S.C.C. Lake site, Arizona State University Collection T13N, R21E, Spring 1974 (?), ASU 6342. Silver Creek, Navajo County, Flakes Trail 10 Arizona State University Collection miles S. of Woodruff, 30 April 1965.

* Indicates more than one collection cataloged at Arizona State University. 11

Figure 1. Little Colorado River drainage illustrating where the Little Colorado spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata, was collected during 1983.

(1). Arizona, Apache County, Nutrioso Creek at the Hunter Ranch, Sec. 9, T3S,'R29E.

(2). Arizona, Apache County, Nutrioso Creek, first bridge crossing below Nelson Reservoir, Highway 568, Sec. 20, T2S, R29E.

(3). Arizona, Apache County, Little Colorado River across from KOA near Becker Lake at Springerville, Sec. 29, T2S, R29E.

(4). Arizona, Apache County, Little Colorado River, an estimated 8.0 km south of St. Johns, Sec. 3, T12N, R28E.

(5) Arizona, Apache County, Little Colorado River, an estimated 3.2 km south of St. Johns, Sec. 34, T13N, R28E.

(6). Arizona, Coconino County, East Clear Creek, at junction of Forest Service Roads 95 and 96, Sec. 2, T13N, R11E.

(7). Arizona, Coconino County, East Clear Creek, at Jones Crossing, T13N, R10E.

(8). Arizona, Coconino County, Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank, Sec. 28, T13N, R11E.

(9). Arizona, Navajo County, Chevelon Creek, near Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area, Sec. 23, T18N, R17E. (10.) Arizona, Navajo County, Chevelon Creek, at the "steps", Sec. 11, T17N, R17E. Colorado River

Little

River

9 10 Silver East Clear Creek Nutrioso Creek Little Creek Chevelon Colorado Creek River 10 0 10 20 miles 12

DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITIES AND COLLECTIONS

Site: Arizona, Apache County, Little Colorado River an estimated 8.0 km south of St. Johns. Sec. 3, T12N, R28E.

The Little Colorado River at this site is 10-12 m wide and is impounded by an old diversion dam. Water depth above the dam was 1.5 m over a deep silt bottom. Below the dam, a variety of substrates were present, including bedrock, gravel, sand and mud, or a combination of gravel and sand. The predominant substrate was bedrock and sand in the area collected (Table 3). The average depth of the area seined was .41 m, although it was actually much shallower below the dam, as the average depth reflects the deeper water above the dam. The main type of habitat present was the pool, followed by riffles and runs (Table 3). At the time of collection on 9 July 1983, water was slightly turbid and 20°C.

Based on the total collection, .52 f/m2 were taken throughout the area. Little Colorado spinedace represented .17 2 f/m of that total (Table 4). Spinedace were taken in six seine hauls and occurred in water averaging .16 m in depth. They were taken most commonly over bedrock followed by sand and gravel substrates and occurred equally in pools and riffles in slow to moderate current (Table 5). Table 3. Physical stream parameters measured at localities where the Little Colorado spinedace was 'collected in the Little Colorado River drainage in 1983.

Area Mean Locality Seined Depth Boulders Cobble Gravel Sand Mud Bedrock Comb. (M) Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch (10) 14.0 .25 100 Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir (10) 18.8 .85 100 Little Colorado River at Springerville, U.S. 60 (10) 26.9 .35 20* 20* Little Colorado River 8 km S. of St. Johns (12) 12.0 .41 16.6* 25.0* 16.6* 25.0 16.6 Little Colorado River 3.2 km S. of St. Johns (16) 10.9 .16 6.0* 94.0 12.0 East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 (12) 111,8 .17 34.0 - 66.0 _ _ _ _ East Clear Creek at Jones. Crossing (18) 54.8 .26 * * 44.4* - - 55.5 Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank (10) 200.9 .76 - - - 100 - - - Chevelon Creek at the "steps" (16) 25.1 .35 - - 20.0* * 20.0 - 60.0 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area (6) 199.3 .24 100 Number of seine hauls in parenthesis. *Indicates substrates which made up combination. Table 3 (Continued)

Locality Pool* Riffle Run Slow Moderate Fast

Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch (10) 10.0 90.0 80.0 20.0 Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir (9) 70.0 30.0 100.0 -1

Little Colorado River at Springerville, U.S. 60 (10) 60.0 40.0 70.0 30.0 Little Colorado River 8 km S. of St. Johns (12) 66.5 25.0 8.5 50.0 50.0 Little Colorado River 3.2 km S. of St. Johns (16) 12.5 87.5 37.0 63.0 East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 (12) 66.0 - 34.0 100.0 East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing (18) 100.0 _ 100.0 Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank (10) 100.0 _ - 100.0 Chevelon Creek at the "steps" (12) 31.0 38.0 31.0 100.0 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area (6) 83.0 17.0 100.0

*All values expressed as percent of various habitats or current types. Table Number of fish taken at the localities where the Little Colorado spinedace wap 4. - collected in the Little Colorado River drainage in 1983. Expressed as fish/W.

2 Little Locality Rainbow Brook Fathead Colorado Speckled Bluehead • Fish/M ** Trout Trout Minnow spinedace Dace Sucker Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch .20 .14 .06 Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir .76 .01 .59 .13 .03 Little Colorado River at Springerville .56 .01 .41

Little Colorado River 8 km S. of St. Johns .52 .17 .04

Little Colorado River 3.2 km S. of St. Johns .29 .02 .17

East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 .18 .08 t .08 .02 East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing .14 .01 .02 Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank .15 .09 .02 Chevelon Creek at the "steps" 1.31 1.10 .19 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area 1.02 .70 .19 t Indicates trace (>0.1 f/m ) ** Does not include fish present in trace amounts. Table 4. (Continued)

Rio Locality Flannelmouth Bluegill Green Grande Fry Carp Sucker Sunfish Sunfish Killifish Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch Nutr-ioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir

Little Colorado River at Springerville .03 Little Colorado River 8 km S. of St. Johns .30 t .01 .04 Little Colorado River 3.2 km S. of St. Johns .09 .01 East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. •Rd. 95 and 96 East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing .10 -- Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank .01 1 .03 Chevelon Creek at the "steps" .02 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area .07 .06 t Indicates trace ().01 f/m ) Table 5. Physical stream parameters measured for seine hauls containing Little Colorado spinedace collected during 1983 in the Little Colorado River drainage.

Mean Locality Depth Boulders Cobble Gravel Sand Mud Bedrock Comb. (m) Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch (10) 1.5 100

Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir (9) .88 ------

Little Colorado River at Springerville (10) .38 - - 12.5* - 25.0* - 62.5

Little Colorado River 8 km S. of St. Johns (6) .16 16.6 33.3 50%0

Little Colorado River 3.2 km S. of St. Johns (8) .2 87.5 12.5

East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 (10). .3 _ _ 100.0 _ _ _ _

East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing (4) 3. - - 100.0 - - - - Leonard -Ganyon at Dines Tank (8) .76 - - - 100.0 - - -

Chevelon Creek at the "steps" (12) .35 - _ _ 16.6* _ 75.0 8.3 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area (6) .25 100.0

Number of seine hauls in parenthesis. *Indicates substrates which made up combinations. Table 5. (Continued)

Locality Pool* Riffle Run Slow Moderate Fast

Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch (10) 100.0 100.0 Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir 9) 100.0 100.0 Little Colorado River at Springerville (10) 62.5 37.5 40.0 40.0 Little Colorado River .." 8 km S. of St. Johns (6) 66.6 25.0 8.4 50.0 50.0 Little Colorado River 3.2 km S. of St. Johns (8) 100.0 37.5 62.5 East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 (10) 100.0 100.0 East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing 100.0 Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank (8) 100.0 100.0 Chevelon Creek at the "steps" (12) 25.0 41.6 33.3 100.0 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area (6) 83.4 16.6 100.0

* All values expressed as percent of various habitats or current types. 1 9

At this location, mean total length of spinedace was 74 mm, - ranging from 64-88 mm (Table 6). Length frequency suggests reproduction was not occurring at the time of collection, as no

fry or smaller fish were taken (Fig. 2). The most common fish in

the area was the flannelmouth sucker, followed by the Little Colorado spinedace (Table 7). Other species collected included

the Rio Grande killifish, green sunfish, carp and bluegill (Tables 7, 8). Vegetation at this locality consisted of Tamarix, Scirpus,

and Juncus. Chara was also present below the dam. Site: Arizona, Apache County, Little Colorado River an estimated 3.2 km south of St. Johns. Sec. 34, T13N, R28E.

The Little Colorado River at this locality was 2-3 m wide,

meandered slightly, and averaged up to .16 m in depth over a mud or mud-sand substrate. The main lotic habitat present was the

run, followed by pools (Table 3). At the time of collection (9

July 1983), the water temperature was 18°C and the water was

slightly turbid. An average of .29 f/m2 were taken at this site. Spinedace represented .17 f/m2 of that average (Table 4). Little Colorado spinedace were taken in eight seine hauls at this site and were collected in water averaging .2 m in depth, in

slow to moderate current over a mud substrate. Although the run

habitat predominated in the area, the fish were only taken from pools (Table 5). At this locality the average total length of

fish was 53 mm and ranged from 22-94 mm (Table 6). Smaller sized individuals representing 1983 spawn indicated reproduction had occurred at this locality. Although few were present, their

presence is reflected in the length frequency diagram (Fig. 2). 20

Figure 2. Length-Frequency Diagram for Little Colorado spinedace collected from nine localities in the Little Colorado River Basin during 1983.

.( 1). Chevelon Creek, at the "steps". Sec. 11, T17N, R17E. (2). Chevelon Creek, near Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area. Sec. 23, T18N, R17E.

(3). East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing, T13N, R10E.

(4). Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank, Sec. 28, T13N, R11E.

(5). Little Colorado River across from KOA near Becker Lake at Springerville, Sec. 29, T2S, R29E.

(6). Nutrioso Creek, first bridge crossing below Nelson Reservoir, Highway 568, Sec. 20, T2S, R29E.

(7). Nutrioso Creek, at Hunter Ranch, Sec. 9, T3S, R29E.

(8). Little Colorado River, an estimated 3.2 km south of St. Johns. Sec. 34, T13N, R28E.

(9). Little Colorado River, an estimated 8.0 km south of St. Johns, Sec. 3, T12N, R28E. N= 76 (I) 7 AUG 1983 25 -

_BUY N=224 25- 7 AUG 83

.1111111111• N=24 25- 18JUTY 83

50- N=117 6 AUG 83 25-

25- N=111 9JULY 83

N=110 (6) - ADELlot 83 PERCENT OF COLLECTION 50- (7) N=20 15 OCT 83 25-

25- (8) N=39 9JULY 83

(9) N=31 25- 9 JULY 83

0 50 100

TOTAL LENGTHS (mm) 21

Table 6. Mean Total lengths, ranges and number of Little Colorado spinedace collected from the Little Colorado River drainage during 1983.

Locality X T.L. Range Number

Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch 36 mm. 25 - 43 mm. 20

Nutrioso Creek, below Nelson Reservoir 82 mm. 50 - 123 mm. 110

Little Colorado River at Springerville 66 mm. 55 - 96 mm. 111 Little Colorado River 8 km south of St. Johns 74 mm. 64 - 88 mm. 31 Little Colorado River 3.2 km south of St. Johns 53 mm. 22 - 94 mm. 39 East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Roads 95 and 96 67 mm. 67 mm. 1

East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing 39 mm. 21 - 52 mm. 24 Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank 23 mm. 12 - 88 mm. 117

Chevelon Creek at the "steps" 48 mm. 18 - 85 mm. 76 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area 29 mm. 16 - 89 mm. 224

* Includes fish measured and released. 22

Table 7. Relative abundance of fish collected at ten localities in 1983. Relative abundance expressed as percent of collection. -

Locality Relative Abundance

Little Colorado River, Apache Flannelmouth Sucker 58.2 County, an estimated 8 km S. Little Colorado Spinedace 28.4 of St. Johns, Sec. 3, Rio Grande Killifish 8.1 T12N, R28E Green Sunfish 2.7 Carp 1.3 Bluegill 1.3

Little Colorado River, Apache Little Colorado Spinedace 57.7 County, an estimated 3.2 km Flannelmouth Sucker 32.7 S. of St. Johns, Sec. 34, Fathead Minnow 5.8 T13N, R28E Rio Grande Killifish 3.8

Little Colorado River, Apache Little Colorado Spinedace 89.6 County, at Springerville, Flannelmouth Sucker 6.4 across from KOA near Becker Fathead Minnow 2.4 Lake, Sec. 29, T2S, R29E Bluehead Sucker 1.6

Nutrioso Creek, Apache County Little Colorado Spinedace 69 .0 at Hunter Ranch, Sec. 9, Speckled Dace 31.0 T3W, R29E

Nutrioso Creek, Apache County Little Colorado Spinedace 77.0 first bridge crossing below Speckled Dace 15.4 Nelson Reservoir, Sec. 20, Bluehead Sucker 3.8 T2S, R29E Rainbow Trout 2.4 Brook Trout 1.4 east Clear Creek, Coconino Speckled Dace 43.4 County, at junction of Fathead Minnow 41.4 Forest Service roads 95 and Bluehead Sucker 14.8 96, Sec. 35, T14N, R11E Little Colorado Spinedace .4

East Clear Creek, Coconino Flannelmouth Sucker 70.3 County, at Jones Crossing, Little Colorado Spinedace 17.9 T13N, R10E. Fathead Minnow 7.5 Speckled Dace 4.3

Leonard Canyon (Dines Tank), Speckled Dace 14.8 Coconino County, Sec. 28, Little Colorado Spinedace 50.7 T13N, R11E Flannelmouth Sucker 8.3 Bluehead Sucker 1.8 Fathead Minnow 4.6 Fry 19.8 23

Table 7. (Continued) -

Locality Relative Abundance

Chevelon Creek, Navajo County, Fathead Minnow 90.3 at the "steps", Sec. 11, Little Colorado Spinedace 8.9 T17N, R17E Speckled Dace .6 Green Sunfish .2 Chevelon Creek, Navajo County, Fathead Minnow 64.9 near Hugo Meadow Wildlife Little Colorado Spinedace 12.0 Area, Sec. 23, T18N, R17E Rio Grande Killifish 10.4 Bluegill 6.5 Green Sunfish Carp .3 Channel Catfish .2 Fry 5.4 214

Table 8. Total number of fish collected from the Little Colorado River drainage at localities where Little Colorado spinedace were taken. Includes fish captured and released.

Rainbow Brook Speckled Fathead Locality Trout Trout Carp Dace Minnows

Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch 9

Nutrioso Creek, below Nelson Reservoir 2 1 24

Little Colorado River at Springerville 3

Little Colorado River 8 km south of St. Johns 1

Little Colorado River 3.2 km south of St. Johns 3

East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 - - - 108 103 East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing - - - 6 11

Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank - - - 50 . 15

Chevelon Creek at the "steps" - - - 3 443

Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area 4 832 25

Table 8. (Continued) _

Little Flannel- Rio Locality Colorado mouth Bluehead Grande Spinedace Sucker Sucker Killifish

Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch 20 - Y.. _

Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir 110 - 6 _

Little Colorado River at Springerville 111 8 1 _

Little Colorado River 8 km south of St. Johns 24 43 - 6

Little Colorado River 3.2 km south of St. Johns 30 17 - 2

East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 1 - 37 _ East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing 24 102 _ _

Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank 171 28 6 _

Chevelon Creek at the "steps" 76 - _ -

Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area 154 - _ 13/4 26

Table 8. (Continued)

Green Bluegill Channel Locality Sunfish Sunfish - Catfish Fry

Nutrioso Creek at Hunter Ranch

Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir

Little Colorado River at Springerville 30 Little Colorado River 8 km south of St. Johns 2 1 Little Colorado River 3.2 km south of St. Johns

East Clear Creek at junction of F.S. Rd. 95 and 96 East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing

Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank 67 Chevelon Creek at the "steps" 7 Chevelon Creek at Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area 5 83 3 68 27

L. vittata was the most common fish taken here, followed by

flannelmouth suckers,-fathead minnows and Rio Grande 'killifish (Table 7).

Vegetation at this site included Tamarix, Populus, Scirpus,

Typha, Phrao.mites, and small patches of poolmat Zannichellia ,palustris.

Site: Arizona, Apache County, Little Colorado River across from KOA near Becker Lake at Springerville. Sec. 29, T2S, R29E.

The Little Colorado River ranged up to four in in width at

this locality and averaged .35 in in depth in the area collected. Substrate type was heterogeneous, with gravel and mud being present. Pool type habitat was the most common, followed

by runs (Table 3). Current was slow to moderate. When collected

on 9 July 1983, the water was quite clear and 18°C.

An average of .56 f/m2 were taken at this site, with L. vittata representing .41 f/m2 of that average (Table 4). In the seine hauls where spinedace were taken, water depth averaged .38 m with heterogeneous substrate types predominating. The majority

of spinedace were collected from pools followed by runs at this locality (Table 5). The average total length of spinedace was 66 mm and ranged from 55-96 mm (Table 6). No fry or juveniles were taken, suggesting spawning had not occurred in this area (Fig. 2). At Springerville, the Little Colorado spinedace was the most

common fish taken, with flannelmouth suckers being the next most common, followed by fathead minnows and bluehead suckers (Table

7 ) • 28

Riparian vegetation was essentially nonexistent at this locality. .due overgrazing. .Macrophytes observed were .Juncus

and Scirpus. A second area surveyed at Springerville at the Highway 60

crossing has been collected previously (Table 2). Since the first area collected in 1983 was within .1 km, this area was

surveyed only to determine if L. vittata was present. Collections made in September 1983 confirmed the presence of

adult spinedace in small numbers.

Site: Arizona, Apache County, Nutrioso Creek at the Hunter Ranch. Sec. 9, T3S, R29E.

Nutrioso Creek at the Hunter Ranch near the town of Nutrioso was less than 2 m in width and incised 2-3 meters in a meandering

channel. In the area collected the average water depth was .25

m, over a mud substrate. The main habitat represented was the

run, with very little pool habitat being present. This area was

collected after the late summer floods of 1983 and had been heavily scoured. When collected on 15 October 1983 the creek was

clear and 12°C. Fish were present at .20 f/m2 with spinedace representing most of this total (Table 4). At this site,

spinedace were taken only from pools over a mud substrate and averaged 36 mm in total length (range 26-43 mm) (Table 6). The only other species taken at this site was the speckled dace,

although the landowner did say he caught "small suckers" for cat

food during normal flows. 29

No riparian vegetation was present at this site due to the

rPc.eTl.t, ScOvx..

Site: Arizona, Apache County, Nutrioso Creek, first bridge crossing below Nelson Reservoir. Sec. 20, T2S, R29E. Nutrioso Creek was 2-3 m in width at this locality and averaged .85 m in depth. Substrate was mud with pools estimated

to make up 70% of the area collected. The remaining area was run type habitat (Table 3). Current was slow in all areas when collected. The water was turbid and 17°C. The average number of fish taken at thislocality was .76 f/m2 with L. vittata representing .59 f/m2 of that average (Table 4). In the seine hauls where spinedace were collected, water depth averaged .88 m. All spinedace were taken from pools over a

mud substrate. Total lengths averaged 82 mm and ranged from 50- 123 mm (Table 6). No fry or juveniles were taken. Length frequency analysis (Fig. 2) illustrates that older year classes dominated the collection. Reproduction cannot be documented due to the time of year collected (October).

Little Colorado spinedace was the most common fish taken

here followed by speckled dace and bluehead suckers (Table 7). Rainbow trout and brook trout were represented in this collection in small numbers (Table 8). Vegetation consisted of Scirpus, Tamarix and salix.

Site: Arizona, Coconino County, East Clear Creek at junction of Forest Service Roads 95 and 96, Coconino National Forest. Sec. 32, T13N, R11E. 30

East Clear Creek was 10-12 in in width at this locality and averaged .17 in in depth. Bottom substrates were gravel and \ bouldsr. Pool habitat predominated followed by runs (Table 3). WheL collected on 19 July 1983, the water was clear and 18.5°C.

The average number of fish taken at this site was .19 f/m2. However, spinedace represented only a trace of that total, with one fish being taken (Table 4). That fish was taken from a pool .3 in deep over a gravel substrate. No reproduction was evident at this locality. The most common fish in this area was the speckled dace, followed by the fathead minnow and bluehead sucker (Table 7). Vegetation was Salix, Scirpus, Juncus and Typha.

Site: Arizona, Coconino County, East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing. T13N, R10E.

East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing as 1-2 in in width when collected and averaged .26 m in depth. A variety of substrates occurred at this site, including boulders, cobble and gravel or a combination of these (Table 3). At the time of collection the only habitat present was the pool habitat. When collected on 18

July 1983 the water was clear and 28°C. The average number of fish taken at Jones Crossing was .14 2 2 f/m 1 with spinedace representing .02 f/m of that average (Table 4). The collections which contained L. vittata averaged .3 m in depth and were all taken over gravel and in pools (Table 5). The average total length of spinedace was 39 mm (range 21-52 mm) at 31

this site. Based on these lengths, it is apparent that reproduction had occurred at this site (Fig..2). The most common fish „taken at Jones Crossing was flannelmouth sucker, followed by L. vittata. Fathead minnows and speckled dace were also present (Table 7). Vegetation consisted of Scirpus, Tamarix and Salix.

Site: Arizona, Coconino County, Leonard Canyon at Dines Tank. Sec. 28, T13N, R11E.

Dines Tank is located on the Coconino National Forest at the end of Forest Service Road 298. It is a depression in Leonard

Canyon where water remains during the drier part of the year. When collected on 6 August 1983 the pool was an estimated 200 m in length and 25 m in width. The bottom was homogeneous, being sand, and water depth averaged .76 m (Table 3). At the time of collection the water was clear and 22°C.

The average number of fish taken was .14 f/m2 with spinedace representing .09 fim2 of that average. The collections in which spinedace were taken averaged .76 m in depth over sand, in the only habitat present, a pool. There was no current. Spinedace ranged from 12-88 mm (x = 23 mm) in total length (Table 6). Speckled dace were the most common fish taken from this site, .followed by Little Colorado spinedace, flannelmouth suckers, fathead minnows and bluehead suckers (Table 7).

Vegetation at Dines Tank consisted of Salix and Carex. 32

Site: Arizona, Navajo County. Chevelon Creek at the "steps". 'Sec. 11, T17N, R17E. '

Lower Chevelon Creek "at this locality is 1-2- m in width with a mean depth of .35 m. Substrate was primarily bedrock although sand was present, as was a combination of these substrates.

Riffles were the main habitat type present, followed by runs and pools. An average of 1.31 f/m2 were taken at this locality with L. vittata representing .19 f/m2 of this average (Table 4). In the seine hauls in which spinedace were taken, water depth averaged .35 m in depth over a bedrock substrate. Sand was present, as was a combination of these substrates (Table 5).

This species was collected slightly more often in riffles than in pools and runs. Average total length of L. vittata at this site was 48 mm and ranged from 18-85 mm (Table 6). Small numbers of young-of-the-year fish were taken here, as reflected in the length frequency diagram (Fig. 2). The population was dominated by older fish. Fathead minnows were the most common fish taken here, followed by spinedace, speckled dace and green sunfish (Table 7).

Site: Arizona, Navajo County. Chevelon Creek near Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area. Sec. 23, T18N, R17E. The second locality collected on lower Chevelon Creek is on the Hugo Meadow Wildlife Area and is located below a diversion dam ca .1 km from the Little Colorado River. The mean depth of the area sampledwas .25 m, over a combination of substrates including sand and bedrock. The habitat was dominated by pools, 33 although riffles were present (Table 3). At this locality

- Chevelon Creek was up to 10 m in width. - The -water was slightly turbid and was 29°C when collected. The average number of fish taken here was 1.02 f/m2 with L. vittata representing .19 f/m2 of that average. In the collections where L. vittata was taken mean water depth was .25 m over a heterogeneous substrate of sand and bedrock (Table 5). The mean total length of L. vittata was 29 mm and ranged from 16-89 mm (Table 6). Young-of-the-year fish dominated the collection, although some older individuals were present (Fig. 2). Fathead minnows were the most common fish taken, followed by L. vittata, Rio Grande killifish, bluegill, green sunfish, carp and channel catfish (Table 7). Vegetation at this site consisted of Scirpus, Tamarix and Salix.

CURRENT DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS

Based on these collections, it is apparent that the Little Colorado spinedace occurs in disjunct populations in the Little

Colorado River drainage. It is not known whether this observed distribution reflects population expansion into former range, as suggested by Minckley (1973) and Minckley and Carufel (1967) or simply includes localities overlooked by previous investigators. Little Colorado River

Localities surveyed in this investigation included previous collecting localities of the Little Colorado spinedace (Table •

2). This species was still present in the Little Colorado River at Springerville and St. Johns but was not collected near Woodruff. At Si3ringerville the population's status was 1 3 4

considered to be "good". No reproduction was evident but the

-.general condition of the fish, the large numi;er of fish taken and the fact that at least two- year classes were present warrants this status. This population has been documented to fluctuate

markedly, disappearing within a week (Minckley and Carufel 1967).

Based on these collections and the discovery of L. vittata

in Nutrioso Creek in large numbers, I would suggest that Nutrioso Creek is a major source of the Little Colorado spinedace in the Little Colorado River at Springerville. The site collected was within .1 km of the confluence of Nutrioso Creek and the Little Colorado River, giving the fish access to that system. Additionally, the Little Colorado River was collected at several

localities above Springerville and at one locality between

Springerville and Lyman Reservoir and no L. vittata were taken. The St. Johns collections are considered one population as the collections were made only a few km apart (Fig. 1, Table 1). The status of this population is also considered "good".

Large numbers were taken, the fish appeared to be in good

condition and several age classes were present, including young of the year. Habitat for this population is maintained in part

by a diversion dam located at the most upstream collecting locality (Table 1). This structure maintains water in the Little Colorado River via release, allowing the species to persist in

1 times of drought. An inscription on the dam of 4 July 1920,

suggests it has been in place for a considerable time, and has

probably benefited L. vittata during drier years. 35

As the total flow of the Little Colorado River is diverted .into irrigation ditches during parts -of the ear (Anon a981) drying the river at St. Johns, that reach from St. Johns upstreain to the diversion dam is critical to the survival of L. vittata in this area. No collections were made between the diversion dam and Lyman Reservoir, a few miles upstream. As a result, it is not known if L. vittata occurs there to provide a source for the downstream reach if that population were extirpated.

Additionally, pools formed from the overflow of irrigation ditches could contain L. vittata which could repopulate the Little Colorado River if that population were destroyed.

Overflow areas contained Rio Grande killifish and green sunfish (based on 1983 collections). Tributaries

The Little Colorado spinedace has been reported previously from Showlow, Clear, East Clear, Silver, Chevelon and Leonard

Canyon creeks (Table 2). Collections made in 1983 documented this species in East Clear, Chevelon, Leonard Canyon and Nutrioso creeks (Table 1).

The population of spinedace in East Clear Creek at the junction of Forest Service Roads 95 and 96 (Table 1) was virtually nonexistent during 1983. One specimen of L. vittata

was taken when the site was surveyed initially in July, and a later collection in September took six. As a result, this

population is considered to have a "poor" status. In July, many of the other species taken (Table 8) were infested with the

protozoan parasite Ichthyopthirius sp., and several flannelmouth 36

suckers were observed dead on the stream bottom. It is not known how this parasite impacts spinedace or if this was the reason for the few spinedace present *in collections. This site has been collected several times (Miller 1963, Minckley and Carufel 1967, Minckley 1973) and the population is known to fluctuate sporadically. It is apparent that during 1983 this population was again at a low point.

The second locality in the East Clear Creek drainage was at Jones Crossing above Blue Crossing above Blue Ridge Reservoir

(Table 1). At that site, the population, was considered to have a "fair" status although only 1983 spawn were taken. Spinedace were present in fair numbers and were the second most common fish taken (Tables 7, 8). As both of these localities are located on the Coconino

National Forest above and below Blue Ridge Reservoir, they would probably be suitable for Critical Habitat designations. The site above Blue Ridge Reservoir would avoid the adverse impacts of that reservoir and the site below would provide L. vittata access to the lower East Clear Creek drainage.

The Leonard Canyon, Dines Tank population (Table 1) was in good condition with many 1983 spawn being taken, as well as several larger fish of older size classes. Because of this it was considered to have a "good" status. The population when collected on 6 August 1983, was in a large pool present in Leonard Canyon and probably acts as a source for recolonization when flow resumes. This population has been Collected several times previously and probably persists at several localities throughout that canyon. 37

The lower Chevelon Creek population of L. vittata still has a "good" status, similar to when found in 1977 (Blinn et al.

1977). In the upper location, "the steps", (Table 1, Fig. 1), several age classes were taken and reproduction had occurred.

Downstream, on the Hugo Meadows Wildlife Area, L. vittata was very abundant. One seine haul took several thousand young-of- the-year fish. Older fish were also present and were thought to represent at least two year classes. The lower reach of Chevelon Creek is currently owned and managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The remaining stream is under private ownership. It would be beneficial to the species if the entire reach of

Chevelon Creek from "the steps" to the confluence with the Little Colorado River could be protected. Such a purchase would not only be beneficial to the Little Colorado spinedace but also beneficial in other ways, as such a purchase would protect Indian ruins in the area, numerous pictographs, the old Hash Knife outfit headquarters, as well as a very unique canyon containing other unique aquatic organisms (Blinn et al. 1977).

Nutrioso Creek populations were undoubtedly continuous prior to the construction of Nelson Reservoir. The population discovered above Nelson Reservoir consisted only of smaller individuals with a mean total length of 36 mm. Because of this and the small number of fish taken, this population was considered to have a "fair" status.

L. vittata collected below Nelson Reservoir occur on the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest and exhibit"ed a good status, with many fish of several age classes being collected. No 38

reproduction was evident in this population but, as the "collection was made later in the year (October), it maybe that the fish spawned in 1983 had reached a size making them

indistinguishable from the rest of the population. As mentioned, I believe that Nutrioso Creek may well represented the refugium or source of fish occurring downstream in the Little Colorado River at Springerville. Additionally, this stream reach would be

well considered for Critical Habitat designation based on the

excellent status of the population.

POSSIBLE THREATS TO POPULATIONS

Threats to the survival of L. vittata are several and were summarized by Minckley and Carufel (1967). This included "...declines attributable to decreasing volumes of stream flow, modifications of the creeks for man's uses (e.g. damming),

manipulations of fish populations by chemical means, and perhaps to interactions with other, introduced kinds of minnows."

Although not documented, populations of L. vittata have undoubtedly been impacted by declines in stream flow because of the construction of dams on Chevelon Creek (Chevelon Canyon

Lake), Willow Creek (Bear Canyon Lake), East Clear Creek (Blue

Ridge Reservoir), Silver Creek (Woodruff Reservoir), and the

Little Colorado River (Lyman Lake) as well as numerous lakes and diversions throughout that watershed (Anon 1981). The most

obvious impact of these structures is the cessation of flow and the resultant drying and loss of habitat. For instance, no water was below Blue Ridge or Bear Canyon dams during the summer of 39

1983, although springs and surface flow did maintain sections of

East Clear Creek. Willow Creek however, was dry, at least in the areas surveyed, and the populations of spinedace reported there by Minckley and Carufel (1967) may have been extirpated.

Conversely, populations of L. vittata are probably maintained, to some degree, by the dams on Nutrioso Creek (Nelson Reservoir) and the Little Colorado River (Lyman Reservoir) although the species may have ranged throughout the Little Colorado drainage prior to dam construction. One increasingly important human impact on the upper Little Colorado watershed is the effect of logging practices. An increase in sedimentation or modification of existing channels and habitat by increased runoff caused by logging practices, such as improper road construction, could well extirpate this species in that area. Of particular importance is the population in upper Nutrioso Creek which could possibly be impacted by logging. Lower Nutrioso Creek would be unaffected, due to Nelson Reservoir. The manipulation of fish Populations by chemical means is not widely practiced as the importance of native fishes has become more apparent. If used at all it is generally under very restricted conditions and for specific objectives. The interaction of various exotic species and L. vittata has yet to be investigated to determine what impact(s) - adverse or beneficial - such interactions have. Little Colorado spinedace currently persist with several exotics, including rainbow and brook trout, fathead minnows, carp, golden shiners, green 40

sunfish, bluegill, channel catfish and Rio Grande killifish.

' This is dramatically apparent- 'in—iower CheVelon Creek- Where literally hundreds of fathead minnows were taken with spinedace

(Table 8). Based on observations of the impact of exotic fishes on other native ichthyofauna (Minckley 1973) one would expect adverse impacts but, to date, none have been observed.

SUMMARY

During 1983, 54 localities in the Little Colorado River

drainage were surveyed for Lepidomeda vittata. Eleven localities were found where this unique cyprinid exists, including the Little Colorado River near St. Johns (2) and Springerville (2),

East Clear Creek (2), Leonard Canyon (1), Chevelon Creek (2) and Nutrioso Creek (2). Of these populations, only the Nutrioso

Creek population had not been collected previously. The status

of these various populations was considered to be "good" in the

Little Colorado River at Springerville and St. .Johns, Leonard Canyon, lower Chevelon Creek and Nutrioso Creek, below Nelson Reservoir. Populations in East Clear Creek at Jones Crossing and in Nutrioso Creek at the Hunter Ranch were considered to exhibit

a "fair" status. The population in East Clear Creek at the junction of Forest Service Roads 95 and 96 was considered to have "poor" status, based on 1983 collections. The type of substrate that L. vittata occurred over varied

considerably, ranging from mud to gravel, sand, bedrock, or a combination of these substrates. This specie S was taken more commonly from pools than from other habitats and generally was

present in slow to moderate current. r 4 J 41

Reproduction was documented in all populations except in the

• - Little Colorado River at Springerville, and 8.0 km south of St;

Johns, and in Nutrioso Cre-ek. Reproduction may have occurred in'

those populations but was not verified by collection of young-of-

the-year fish.

Possible threats to this fish include further modifications

of their habitat by man (e.g. dams, irrigation withdrawal),

improper logging practices, indiscriminate use of fish toxicants,

and possibly negative interactions with exotic species. r 42

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) That Lebidomeda.vittata be Federally listed as

Threatened and Critical Habitat be declared for Chevelon, East Clear, Nutrioso and Leonard Canyon

Creeks and the Little Colorado River near St. Johns and

at Springerville.

(2) That a monitoring program be established and conducted on an annual basis, with each population surveyed in 1983 being examined on an annual basis to determine 2 f/m , document reproduction, general population structure, associated species, and any shift in the

status of the population.

(3) That the Little Colorado Basin be resurveyed at five or ten year intervals to determine the status of this fish at that time using the methodology developed for the

annual surveys. 243

LITERATURE CITED

Anonymous. 1966. Rare and endangered fish and wildlife of the United States. Bur. Sport Fish and Wildl., Res, Publ. 34, 1.8;? pp.

An 1981. Little . Colorado River Fasin Cooperative Study, U.S, Dept,. Agri. Soil Cons. Serv., Economic Research Serv., Forest. Serv., four appendices and summary report. Blinn, D.W., D.B. Czarnecki, G. Griffith, T. McCal, and C.O. Minckley. 1977. An aquatic survey of Chevelon Creek, Arizona. First Prog. Rept. submitted to Ariz. Publ. Ser. Dept. Biol. N. Ariz. Univer., mimeo. Blinn, D.W., M. Hurley, and L. Browkaw. 1981. The effect of saline seeps and restricted light upon the seasonal dynamics of phytoplankton communities within a southwestern (USA) desert canyon stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 92:287-305. Branson, B.A. 1966. Some rare and vanishing fishes. BioSci, 16:611-613. Cope, E.D. 1874. On the Plagopterinae and the Ichthyology of Utah. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., 14:129-140. Miller, R.R. 1963. Distribution, variation and ecology of Lepidomeda vittata, a rare cyprinid fish endemic to eastern Arizona. Copeia 1963: 1-5.

Miller, R.R. 1964,. Extinct, rare and endangered American freshwater fishes. Proc. XVI Cong. Zool. 8:4-16.

Miller, R.R. and C.L. Hubbs. 1960. The spiny-rayed cyprinid fishes (Plagopterini) of the Colorado River system. Misc. Publ. Univ. Michigan, Mus. Zoo. 115:1-39, 3 pls.

Miller, R.R. and C.H. Lowe, Jr. 1964. Part 2, an Annotated check list of the fishes of Arizona. Pp. 133-152, In, Arizona Press, Tucson. Minckley, W.L. 1965. Native fishes as natural resources. Pp. 48-60, In Gardner, J.L., Native Plants and Animals as Resources in Arid Lands of the Southwestern United States. Contr. 8, Comm. Desert and Arid Zones Res., A.A.A.S. Minckley, W.L. and L.H. Carufel. 1967. The Little Colorado . Spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata, in Arizona. SW Nat., 13:291- 302. Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Sims Printing Co., 293 PP. Wheeler, G.M. 1889. Report upon United States geographical surveys west of the One Hundredth Meridian. Vol. I -- Geographical rep., Washington: 780 pp, 38 pls. BRUC.2: BABBITT, Governor Corn.n.tis..torters: FRANCES W. WERNER, Tucson, Chairman CURTIS A. JENNINGS, Scottsdale W. LINN MONTGOMERY, Flagstaff FRED S. BAKER, Elgin LARRY 0. ADAMS, Bullhead City Director eals-row_ ARIZONA • G E & -FISH P A F2T E Assistant Director, Services ROGER J. GRUENEWALO - .2.222 MTTE (7X.„4, AZI,,I83A25 SW 300 Assistant Director, Operations DUANE L. SHROUFE

February 14, 1985

Michael Spear, Regional Director U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service P. O. Box 329 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Cr.D CLD Dear Mr. Spear: .myo

Enclosed you will find the final status report for the Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) prepared by C. O. Minckley. This report was completed under contract No. 14-16-0002-82-216.

Our initial response (July 1984) to the proposed listing was of 7- a supportive nature. The enclosed status report justifies listing "Th the spinedace as a threatened species with critical habitat. It appears that a combination of factors, including dam construction, diversions, groundwater pumping, exotic fish introductions and drought have resulted in a decline in range for spinedace.

Our specific recommendations for future management considera- tions for spinedace are:

1. List L. vittata as threatened and declare the previously recommended reaches of East Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek and R) Nutrioso Creek as critical habitat. , 2. Initiate annual monitoring of L. vittata in its critical habitat with funding provided by USFWS.

3- Conduct a basinwide survey every five years to determine distribution and relative abundance for L. vittata.

We trust this report will meet contract requirements and adequately support listing of L. vittata. If you require additional information, please contact Jim Brooks, Nongame Branch.

Sincerely,

Bud Bristow Director

BB:TBJ:rp

An Equal Opportunity Agency ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT INTER-OFFICE MEMO Fft[ Çfflj r-01)-7- To: Bruce Taubert /--•- THRU: Terry Johnson' FROM: Jim Brooks

SUBJECT: .Lapidom a vittata

DATE:. February 12, 1985

The current status of L. vittata appears to be of a threatened nature at this time. Recent (1983-84) collections by C.O. Minckley exhibit a much reduced range for this fish. As is shown on the attached drainage map, L. vittata range is significantly reduced in East Clear Creek, completely eliminated from Silver Creek, possibly declining in the upper Little Colorado River (LCR) and stable in lower Chevelon Creek.

Cause of reduction in range for L. vittata can be attributed to the following factors: . . 1. Construction of dams resulting in dewatering of down- stream habitats and destruction of habitat by lake for- mation.

. Water diversion for agricultural uses in the LCR down- stream of Springerville.

. Groundwater pumping for municipal uses by Springerville, , St. Johns, Show Low, Pinetop and Lakeside causing dewaterin • of stream channels.

4. Introduction of non-native fishes into streams and lakes after dam construction.

5. Renovation of upper Chevelon Creek and Woods Canyon Lake in 1965 and 1975 to remove Notemigonus crvsoleucus.

6. Renovation of Little (St. Johns) and Lyman reservoirs and ,the upper LCR, using Toxaphene, during the mid 1950's and in 1960 to remove "rough" fish.

These factors obviously would contribute to the reduction in range of almost any fish, let alone L. vittata. Compounding this issue is the fact that L. vittata appears to have repeatedly de- clined from and reinvaded it's native range" since its original discovery, in 1889 and subsequent collections up until the present. Minckley and Casufel (1967) reported upon population declines between 1938 and 1964 and subsequent.reinvasion of former habitat through 1966. However, Minckley (1973) then reported L. vittata as having gone through another decline in range, due primarily to prolonged drought.

Historically, dams were not present to prevent reinvasion of L. vittata into former habitat. This fact coupled with continued diversion for z icultJAral purposes and groundwater ti:/.mping for municipal supplies have created, several,barriers.to reinvasion. - This has resulted in disjunct populations in East Clear Creek, .. Chevelon Creek, Nutrioso Creek and the LCR. Additionally, Silver Creek populations have been eliminated by a myriad of dams, exotic fishes and drought.

For these reasons, I feel that L. vittata deserves listing . as a threatened species with critical habitat designated for upper East Clear Creek, lower Chevelon Creek and Nutrioso Creek.

OB:bb

..;

. . . _ . •

R 12 0 N1 A

0 10 20 53 AO 20 • SCALE IN MILES LEGEND ,i . _/..... -- 1- s-- .---.. PERMANENT STREA N - ....1 ' .fr LAKE " --. " ( • N.-- - - • ...... , N Et l• 4 PLAYA ''''..•-•"... TEMPORARY STREAM -- r. - ' .:=--. ‘-: _I . , (2) .---.4...... ''`'■.,:\ Ll. . ./ ‘I • .1 -- 59. , 4: , ..... DAM tp:0 RESERVOIR. -4 "1,- • ;I ,I 1LA,? . i•-• - . 0 —SP EC I MEN S EXAMINED -- - ,. .... ; t • A-- • \'' ji _i_ 0 LI TERATURE RECORD I 1 I we IQ- .,10 TI.C.NACKLEY '‘A-CO..VO-EK 016 '.) , TKI v•-c-- It y 0 1.?: 3) 4 ( - ., , -C.O. 11 ('vx TK. te Y (- K EL V1) .