Parker Fisheries Resource Office

Little Colorado River Recovery Plan Little Colorado River Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan

prepared by: C. 0. Minckley

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344

October 1997

for

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Approved: ~~~ector Regi Date: r~IAN 09 1998 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed necessary 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 stakeholders involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals ofany individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe 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 the completion ofrecovery tasks. Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan LITERATURE CITATION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepido-meda vittata Recovery Plan. Albuquerque NM. 51 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 800/582-3421

Fees charged for Recovery Plans vary depending on the number of Plans requested.

Cover illustration was adapted from the Native Fishes ofArizona poster. Permission for its use was graciously permitted by the artist, Mrs. Mary Hirsch, Carefree, Arizona.

1] Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation ofthe Little Colorado River spinedace Recovery Plan benefitted substan- tially from input provided from past and present members ofthe Apache Trout/Little Colorado spinedace recovery team and from members ofthe Desert Fishes Recovery team. Contributions include the following individuals:

Dean Blinn, Northern Arizona University

Tom Cain, U.S. Forest Service

George Divine, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lesley Fitzpatrick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Jim Hanson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Paul Marsh, Arizona State University

W.L. Minckley, Arizona State University

Stuart Leon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Jim Novy, Arizona Game and Fish Department

John Rinne, U.S. Forest Service

Scott Reger~ Arizona Game and Fish Department

Kirk Young, Arizona Game and Fish Department

iii Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Species Status: Listed as threatened throughout its range. Restricted to north- flowing tributaries of the Little Colorado River in Apache, Navajo and Coconino coun- ties, Anzona.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: Springs, streams and rivers with perennial flow. Tends to prefer pools, but occurs sporadically throughout the habitat. Has a toler- ance for wide temperature fluctuations and habitat types. Species survival threatened by habitat loss, habitat modification, competition and predation from non-native fish and introduced parasites.

Recovery Objectives: Delist species.

Recovery Criteria: Secure and maintain all extant populations. Establish reftigia in the most natural, identifiable habitats within the probable historic range. Reintroduced populations will not be considered established until they have persisted for a minimum of five years.

Actions Needed: 1. Secure natural populations and their habitats. 2. Reestablish populations 3. Monitor all populations. 4. Define habitat requirements ofthe species. 5. Develop genetic information and pedigree 6. Inform the public.

Costs - (Dollars X 1000):

Year Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Tasks Tasks Tasks Total

1998 126.0 271.0 12.0 409.0 1999 131.0 368.0 12.0 511.0 2000 123.0 373.5 12.0 508.5 2001 18.5 394.5 12.0 425.0 2002 19.0 284.5 12.0 315.5 2003 1.0 41.0 12.0 54.0 2004 1.0 43.0 12.0 56.0 2005 1.0 28.0 12.0 41.0 2006 1.0 28.0 12.0 41.0 2007 1.0 31.5 12.0 44.5 Total 422.5 1,863.0 120.0 2,405.0

Date of Delisting: Expected to occur in 2007 if delisting criteria are met ($2,405.00).

iv Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.Introduction 1 Description 1 Distribution 2 Historical 2 Present 3 Habitat 3 Life History 3 Reproduction 3 Growth/Survival 4 Genetics 4 Food Habits Co-occurring Fishes 5 Reasons for Decline 5 II. Recovery 8 Step Down Outline 8 Narrative 10 III. Literature Cited 19 IV. Implementation Schedule 22

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map with tributaries of the Little Colorado River drainage inArizona where Lepidomeda vittata have been collected. Map from Blinn et al. (1996) 1

v Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Part I

INTRODUCTION

The Little Colorado River spinedace (spinedace), Lepidomeda vittata, is currently restricted to north flowing 0 tributaries ofthe Little Colorado River in Apache, Coconino and Navajo counties of eastern Arizona (Figure 1). The species z was described by Cope (1874) from speci- mens collected during 1871-1874 by the Wheeler expedition (Wheeler 1889). The spinedace is a member of the tribe Plagopterini and is represented by three other species (one extinct) as well as by two monotypic genera (Meda and Plagopterus). All members ofthe Figure 1. Map with tributaries ofthe Little Plagopterini are already listed as either Colorado River drainage in Arizonawhere threatened or endangered or are in the Lepidomeda vittata have been collected. process ofbeing listed. The other species Map adapted from Blinn et aL (1996). of spinedace occur in extreme northwest Arizona (L. mollispinis) and in Nevada ened in 1987 (USFWS 1987). Areas desig- and Utah (L. albivallis and L. altivelis, nated as Critical Habitat includes 31 miles Miller and Hubbs 1960; Minckley 1973; ofEast Clear Creek, Coconino County, LaRivers 1962). from its confluence with Leonard Canyon The spinedace was included in the U.S. upstream to Blue Ridge Reservoir and Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) from the upper end of Blue Ridge Reser- “Review ofVertebrate Wildlife for Listing voir to Potato Lake; eight miles of as Endangered or Threatened Species” Chevelon Creek, Navajo County, from the (USFWS 1982). At that time, the species confluence with the Little Colorado River was considered a category one species, upstream to the confluence of Bell Cow indicating that the USFWS had substan- Canyon; and five miles of Nutrioso Creek, tial information on hand to support a Apache County, from the Apache- proposal to list the species as endangered Sitgreaves National Forests boundary or threatened. On 12 April 1983, the US- upstream to Nelson Reservoir Dam (US- FWS was petitioned by the Desert Fishes FWS 1987). Council to list the spinedace. This petition was found to contain substantial scientific DESCRIPTION or commercial information and a notice of the finding was published on 14 June 1983 The following description ofthe spinedace (USFWS 1983). After review and evalua- was summarized from Cope (1874), Miller tion of the petition’s merits, the USEWS and Hubbs (1960) and Minckley (1973). found the petitioned action warranted. A Mouth moderately oblique; second “spine” notice of finding was published on 13 July ofdorsal fin strong; Dorsal fin moderately 1984 and the species was proposed for high, and acute, its depressed length 2.0 to listing on 22 May 1985 (USFWS 1984, 2.3 in predorsal length; anal fin-rays eight 1985). The spinedace was listed as threat- (rarely nine); scales in lateral line usually

Part 1 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan more than 90, generally embedded and DISTRIBUTION difficult to count; pharyngeal teeth in two rows, 1 or 2, 4-4, 1 or 2. Vertebrae number Historical. 41 to 43. The species is generally less than 100 mm in total length (Miller 1963). The original collections ofspinedace were Sexual dimorphism is minimal, with from “The Little Colorado River some- males and females reaching generally the where between the mouth ofthe Zuni same length. Pectoral fin ofmales consis- River and Sierra Blanca (White Moun- tently extends beyond insertion ofthe tain).” (Miller and Hubbs 1960). The spe- pelvic fin; in females pectoral fin is shorter; cies may have also occurred in New Mexico generally not reaching the insertion point. in the Zuni watershed south of Gallup but There are a few differences in breeding there are no records to that effect (Miller colors between sexes. The bases ofpaired 1961, Minckley and Carufel 1967, Sublette fins in males have been described as turn- et al 1990). Prior to 1939, four collection ing an intense reddish-orange (Miller 1963) records for this species were available, or a wash of weak yellow or orange although Miller (1961) stated “. . . there is (Minckley and Carufel 1967). Females also no reason to doubt that L. vittata was once reported to develop a watery yellowish or abundant in the main stem part of the reddish-orange at the bases ofthe paired upper Little Colorado River and in its fins (Miller 1963). Thbercles on the bodies several cool tributaries (Silver Creek, of males have been reported (Minckley and Show Low Creek, Chevelon Creek, and Carufel 1967). Clear Creek) that rise on the northern Life colors described by Miller (1963) slopes ofthe White Mountains and the were as follows: “. . . nearly vertical dark Mogollon Rim.” lines (that extends dorsally from the Extensive collecting in 1960 suggested midside) shine like polished silver and the the spinedace had been extirpated venter is white. The upper sides are throughout its known range, but a single olivaceous, and the back is olivaceous, specimen was taken from Clear Creek bluish or lead grey. Except for pigmenta- (Miller 1961,1963). Surveys conducted in tion along the fin rays and on the interra- 1961 found a large population in East Clear dial membranes near the bases of the fins, Creek to which the species was thought to both paired and unpaired fins are largely be restricted (Miller 1963). Because ofthe clear. Irregularly distributed, fine, black apparent decline in abundance and distri- puncticulations (givinga pepper-like effect) bution, the species was described as endan- overlie the silvery sides from the bases of gered in 1961 (Anonymous 1966, Bransen the dark vertical lines to about halfway 1966; Miller 1963,1964; Miller and Lowe between the lateral line and the midline of 1964; Minckley 1965). Between 1963 and the abdomen... When the live fish are 1966, however; the spinedace appeared in viewed from directly above, a conspicuous, most north flowing tributaries ofthe Little cream-colored spot is seen at both the Colorado River and its headwaters origin of the dorsal fin and near the bases (Minckley and Carufel 1967). Populations ofthe terminal rays ofthis fin.” Parts of then again declined, until it was again the belly are watery-yellow; fins otherwise considered endangered (Minckley 1973). A clear. Scales show light bluish to greenish- new population discovered in lower brass reflections. Chevelon Creek demonstrated that the fish still persisted in the watershed in 1977 but its status remained precarious (Blinn et al 1977).

Part 1 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Present. Minckley and Carufel 1967). The species avoided the deepest heavily shaded pools Distributional surveys madein 1983 and relatively shallow open areas; spine- throughout the species known historic dace were predominately in open pools range confirmed that five populations were with undercut banks and/or boulders for still present (Minckley 1984). Spinedace cover. During periods ofhigh discharge the were taken at 11 localities, nine previously species became more widely distributed reported and two which had not. Previ- throughout East Clear Creek with adults ously reported localities were in the Little occurring at the upper ends of pools and Colorado River mainstem, East Clear; and the shallow lower ends ofriffles. During Chevelon creeks. Two new localities were spate conditions, spinedace occurred in in Nutrioso Creek, Apache County. Collec- eddies lateral to the current (Minckley and tions in the 1990s continued to find spine- Carufel 1967). Minckley (1984) found dace in the Little Colorado River, East spinedace in pools with slow to moderate Clear and Chevelon creeks, two more new current adjacent to riffles. Water depths localities in Nutrioso Creek, Apache varied from 16-88 cm over a variety of County, and a new population in Rudd substrates including bedrock, sand, gravel, Creek, a tributary of Nutrioso Creek cobble and mud. More recent studies have (AGFD 1988, Blinn and Runck 1990; reported similar patterns of habitat prefer- Marsh and Young 1989). Population levels ences and furthermore documented a wide of spinedace in East Clear Creek has tolerance ofthe species for a variety of continued to decline markedly since the physico-chemical factors (Blinn and Runck 1983 collections; spinedace are again con- 1990, Denova and Abarca 1992, Nisselson sidered rare in that system (Denova and and Blinn 1991). Abarca 1992).

HABITAT LIFE HISTORY

Miller and Hubbs (1960) described Reproduction. localities where spinedace were taken as [wateri yellowish,brownish-white, Early observations ofspinedace spawning and murky; current slight to swift; bottom, activities are limited. However, C. Hubbs thick mud, sand, clay, gravel, and rock; (Miller 1963) observed fish he presumed to depth of capture, 1 to 3 feet; and vegeta- be males following apparent females and tion, white water buttercups (rather thick nibbling them about the vent. Eggs are in patches), Chara, some rushes and al- presumably randomly deposited over the gae.” In East Clear Creek they generally stream bottom or on aquatic vegetation or found the fish in permanent flowing stream other debris (Minckley 1973). Minckley sections and occasionally in stagnating (1973) and Minckley and Carufel (1967) pools. Miller (1963) reported the fish oc- suggested spinedace spawn from early curred in flowing stream sections where summer to early autumn. Miller (1961) substrates consisted ofsand, gravel, rocks, suggested that spawning occurred in both boulders, some silt and bedrock. Water May and July of 1961 based on the collec- color varied from greenish brown to clear. tion ofyoung-of-the-year fish. Based on Stream width averaged 15 meters (in) with length-frequency distributions, spinedace fish being taken in water up to two m deep spawned in June-July in 1983 (Minckley (Miller 1963). 1984). Blinn and Runck (1990) presumed Spinedace occupies mid water portions that spawning occurred during late spring ofclear flowing poois ofmedium depth, or early summer as females with mature with fine gravel bottoms (Miller 1963, eggs were collected during May only. Fish Part 1 3 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan taken in June and July lacked eggs. Blinn GENETICS. (1993) reported spinedace averaging 87 Patterns ofgenetic variation within and mm total length present in the Arboretum amongremaining populations ofspinedace refugia were in reproductive condition on were recently described by Tibbets, et al. 10 May 1993. By 24 May, several hundred (1994). Results from mitochondrial DNA juvenile fish were observed. and allozyme surveys indicate considerable More recent observations at The Arbo- population structure, with most variation retum illustrated that spinedace spawned found amongsamples. Distributions of in slow current over cobbles with several variation suggest that there are three (4-8) males attending each female. Spawn- distinct populations within the Little ing activity was observed throughout May Colorado River drainage. All of these of 1994 (D. W. Blinn pers. obs.). populations should be maintained to con- High proportions offemales with ma- serve genetic variation in this species ture ovaries were found in both May and (Tibbets et al. 1994). October; suggesting that females may spawn more than once a year (Minckley FOOD HABITS. and Carufel 1967). The same study re- ported three size classes ofeggs, with Stomach analysis offish collected from fecundity estimates ranging from 650-1000 Nutrioso and Chevelon creeks indicated total eggs per female. Blinn and Runck spinedace are predacious. In May, aquatic (1990) determined that spinedace egg insects, primarily chironomid larvae and diameter ranged from 20-50 microns at the ephemeropteran nymphs, were the most first discernable egg stage to 1.0-1.28 mm common foods in stomachs. In July, for mature eggs. Fish <50 mm total length stomach contents commonly included lacked mature eggs, which generally were cladocerans and detritus; Heteroptera, found in fish >64 mm total length. The Coleoptera and filamentous green algae percentage of mature eggs continued to were abundant and terrestrial inverte- increase with size offish but varied with brates, (Formicidae, Diptera, Thysanop- season and location. When gonadalsomatic tera and Crustacea) were present. values approached 20%, >90% ofthe eggs Studies ofspinedace collected from Cheve- were mature, while <60% of the eggs were lon Creek revealed similar information. mature in fish with a gonadalsomatic Stomachs contents from fish collected in indices of<10%. Detailed descriptions of June contained chironomids and ephemer- larval spinedace are presented in Miller opterans, filamentous green algae and (1963). vascular aquatic plants fragments were more common, than in July and terrestrial GROWTH AND SURVIVAL. insects and filamentous green algae were also present. Smaller fish contained a Preliminary data indicates that spine-dace higher percentage ofsmall aquatic insects, are 6-8 mm in total length when they hatch ephemopterans and chironomids (Blinn and reach 25 mm in one month. After 10 and Runck 1990). weeks fish are 50-60 mm, reaching 75-80 Stomachs from spinedace collected in mm by the end of the first year. Collection October contained terrestrial insects, chironomid larvae, corixidae and elmidae. ofthe original transplants placed in the Adult dipterans were major components of Arboretum pond indicates they live at least stomach contents ofspinedace collected in three years (Dean Blinn, pers. comm.). January; chironomid larvae, plecopteran nymphs and corixidae were common (Blinn and Runck 1992). No terrestrial insects were identified in January (Blinn and Runck 1992). Part 1 4 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan CO-OCCURRING FISHES such as drought or increased rainfall. Population variations over shorter dura- Native fishes associated with spinedace tions remain unexplained and are one of include speckled dace (Rhinichthys the unique characteristics of this species. osculus); bluehead sucker, (Pantosteus This characteristic may have been histori- discobolus); Little Colorado river sucker cally beneficial in allowing spinedace to (Catostomus sp.). Roundtail chub (Gila exploit or evacuate habitats quickly, but robusta), (now rare in the Little Colorado the human-related changes to habitat River basin) and Apache Trout conditions may have interfered with the (Onchorhynchus apache). Historically, fishe’s effectiveness in utilizing habitats on prior to the introduction ofnonnative a short-term basis. species and habitat modification, it is Although generally undocumented, presumed an equilibrium existed among spinedace populations are believed to be native fishes thereby permitting the native impacted by: 1) reduction in stream dis- fauna to coexist through time. charge because of dam construction on the Introduced species which now occur Little Colorado River; 2) alteration in with spinedace include carp (Cyprinus patterns offlow, and 3) changes in sedi- carpio), fathead , (Pimephales mentation, movement and deposition. promelas), , (Cyprinella Dams have been constructed on Chevelon, lutrensis), golden shiner; (Notemigonus Willow, East Clear and Silver creeks, and crysoleucus), bluegill, (Lepomis numerous lakes and diversions have been macrochirus), green sunflsh,(L. cyanellus), constructed throughout the watershed largemouth bass, (Micropterus salmoides), (Anon. 1981). The most obvious impact of cutthroat trout, (Onchorhynchus clarki), these structures is reduction of stream rainbow trout, (0. mykiss), brown trout; flows and direct loss ofhabitat. (Salmo t’rutta), brook trout, (Salvelinus Increased deposition ofsediment in fontinalis), channel catfish (Ictalurus spinedace habitat is believed detrimental punctatus) and plains killifish, (Fundulus to long term spinedace survival. Although zebrinus). All are potential predators on current logging operations are designed to spinedace, eggs, larvae and adults. prevent such deposition prior practices may have caused extensive habitat loss REASONS FOR DECLINE and/or degradation. Logging procedures, road building, and overgrazing by ungu- Threats to the survival ofspinedace lates on the watershed all tend to increase include changes in stream flow patterns, deposition ofsediments. Increased sedi- decline in water quality and quantity, mentation rates, modifications ofexisting modifications ofwatersheds (logging, dams, channels, and habitat loss resulting from road construction), manipulation offish increased runoff caused by such practices populations (use of chemicals and others) have adverse impacts on spinedace. and interactions with introduced fishes. Because this fish historically occupied Documenting spinedace decline is permanent flowing streams that contained complicated by their distributional pat- diverse substrates (Miller 1963) increased terns. Populations fluctuate dramatically, sedimentation rates may have reduced being very abundant at times and essen- substrate diversity believed necessary for tially absent or difficult to find at other spinedace survival. times. Such fluctuations have been ob- The use ofpiscides in the Little Colo- served between years, months, and, in rado River basin during the mid 1900’s some cases days, (Miller 1963, Minckley may have adversely impacted spinedace and Carufel 1967). Changes between years populations (Hemphill 1954; Minckley and may be attributed to climatic conditions Carufel 1967). However, manipulation of Part 1 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan fish populations by chemical means is no basin and resultant habitat modifications, longer widely practiced. native fish populations were impacted The impact of introduced fishes on adversely. In concert with these habitat native fish can be subtle (e.g., displacement modifications, non-indigenous salmonids from preferred habitats) indirect (e.g., were introduced and maintained to sustain competition) or direct (e.g., predation). To a recreational fishery. Predation on date, little information is available to quan- spinedace and competition for food and tify the exact impacts of most introduced habitat is believed to have contributed to fishes on native forms; however; both the decline ofspinedace within the Little competition and predation are strongly Colorado River system. suspected as reasons for the decline or Minckley and Deacon (1991), Meffe disappearance of numerous native fish (1983,1985) and Rinne and Minckley (1991) populations. This is the case with the red have proposed that predation plays a shiner, which has been implicated in the major role in the overall decline ofnative decline oftwo other Plagopterines, the southwestern fishes. This hypothesis was woundfin (Flagopterus argentissimus) and recently examined in a study which investi- (Medafulgida). Recently, Dou- gated the significance ofrainbow trout glas et al. (1994) and USFWS (1991) pre- predation on distribution and behavior of sented various theories to explain the spinedace (Blinn and Runck 1992, Blinn et relationship between red shiners and al. 1993). Laboratory and in situ experi- spikedace to include invasions of: 1) previ- ments illustrated high predation rates on ously unoccupied niches; 2) vacant niches spinedace even in the presence of natural left by other native extirpated cover and abundant macroinvertebrate because ofhabitat alteration; and, 3) areas prey. Spinedace showed little predator occupied by spikedace and the consequent avoidance in the presence ofrainbow trout, displacement ofspikedace through compe- suggesting limited interaction with large tition and/or predation. These theories are nonnative piscivores during the evolution- shared by Minckley (1973), Minckley and ary history ofthe species. These results Carufel (1967), Minckley and Deacon suggest that rainbow trout may have a (1968), Propst et al. (1985, 1986), Bestgen significant influence on the distribution and and Propst (1986), Marsh et al (1989). In behavior ofspinedace, and may contribute the Gila River the invasion ofunoccupied to the disjunct distribution of this native niches by red shiner was thought to species. Habitats with high turbidity present the most likely reason forthe loss appear to be among the few places where of spikedace (Probst et al. 1986, Bestgen this fish can co-occur with rainbow trout in and Propst 1986). A recent laboratory southwestern lotic ecosystems. However; study and in situ found shifts in habitat preliminary case experiments in lower use by spikedace in the presence ofred Nutrioso Creek suggest that even in shiners (Marsh et al. 1989). Spinedace may presence ofelevated turbidity the impact be impacted in much the same way as the oftrout predation appears significant (J.N. spikedace. Rinne, pers. comm.). The influence of Historically, native fish populations in introduced salmonids is further exacer- the Little Colorado River consisted of two bated by brown trout and brook trout now cyprinids and two catostomids and Apache found in drainages historically occupied by trout which maintained equilibrium popula- spinedace. tions. Under historic conditions, fish popu- Green sunfish also impact spinedace, lations undoubtedly varied with changes in but presumably to a lesser degree (Blinn climatic conditions but an ample habitat and Runck 1990). Although some centra- was available to maintain populations chid species do occur sympatrically with a through time. With development ofthe few spinedace populations their impact is

Part 1 6 Litt]e Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan generally believed to limit rather than introduced with nonnative fish. The exotic increase spinedace abundance. Centra- Asiantapeworm is established in Virgin chids and have been strongly implicated in River fishes and no effective barrier exists the failure ofrazorback sucker recruitment to prevent its invasion of the upper Little in Lake Mohave (Minckley et al. 1991). Colorado river and its tributaries. The Crayfish can also have detrimental impacts impact ofthe Asian tapeworm on spinedace on spinedace (White 1995). In additional to is unknown but presumed to be negative predation, suspected impacts from intro- since it impacts other native fish popula- ducedfishes include competition for food tions negatively (Heckinan et al 1986). and stress or disease caused by parasites

Part 1 7 Little Colorado RiverSpinedace Recovery Plan Part II

RECOVERY 1.2.6 Establish and maintain refugia at the Wenima Wildlife Area. The goals ofthis recovery plan are to 1.3 Acquire and protect lands and identify steps and mechanisms considered water rights where required to necessary to: 1) protect existing spinedace conserve spinedace. populations, 2) restore depleted and extir- 1.4 Enforce existing laws and pated spinedace populations, 3) protect regulations affecting spinedace. and enhance existing habitats, and 4) 1.4.1 Inform appropriate agencies/ ensure that spinedace continues to exist in individuals of applicable manage the future. When these goals are achieved, ment/enforcement responsibili- it will be possible to delist this species. ties and opportunities. This plan may require revision of objec- 1.4.2 Insure compliance with Section 7 tives and tasks when new data becomes and Section 9, of the Endangered available; delisting criteria will be modi- Species Act. fied as appropriate. Both the combined 1.5 Discontinue introduction of non- and separate impacts of habitat modifica- native fishes into areas deemed tion, dewatering and interactions with necessary for spinedace recovery. non-native fishes are considered major 1.5.1 Ensure fish stocking plans are reasons for the decline and threatened consistent with the goals and extirpation ofspinedace. Recovery cannot objectives of this recovery plan. be achieved until these factors are success- fully alleviated. 2.0 Improve or restore habitats occupied by spinedace Step Down Outline populations. 2.1 Identify habitats for restoration! maintenance. 1.0 Protect existing populations 2.2 Determine steps necessary for of spinedace. restoration and implementation. 1.1 Prioritize existing and new 2.2.1 Remove introduced fishes in populations as to need for areas where their presence protection. threatens continued spinedace 1.2 Develop secure refugia for the four extant populations of existence. 2.2.2 Install barriers or other struc spinedace within their historic tures to prevent reestablishment drainages. 1.2.1 Establish/maintain refugia in the ofnon-native fish. East Clear Creek drainage. 2.3 Manage the ecosystem for native organisms to maintain, enhance or 1.2.1.1 Above Blue Ridge reservoir. 1.2.1.2 Below Blue Ridge reservoir. redevelop the native biodiversity 1.2.2 Establish/maintain refugia in the which was present historically. Silver Creek drainage. 3.0 Reintroduce spinedace to 1.2.3 Establish/maintain refugia in the selected habitats within historic Rudd-Nutrioso Creek drainage. range. 1.2.4 Establish/maintain refugia in 3.1 Identify areas for reintroduction upper and lower Chevelon Creek. 3.1.1 Enhance habitat as necessary 1.2.5 Maintain refugia at The Arboretum in Flagstaff.

Part II 8 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan 3.1.2 Remove nonnative fish and cray 5.1.2 Examine indirect interactions fish from habitats essential for experimentally under laboratory spinedace recovery. and field conditions with: 3.1.3 Prevent introduced fish from Apache, rainbow, brown and brook trouts, red speckled dace, re-invading renovated habitat. crayfish, salamanders, other 3.1.4 Reintroduce spinedace into species of fish and invertebrates, available habitats. as appropriate. 3.1.5 Monitor reintroduction(s) 3.1.6 Determine success/failure of 6.0 Determine quantitative criteria reintroductions for describing a self-sustaining 3.2 Determine genetic composition of population. extant populations. 6.1 Determine levels of natural 3.2.1 Use such information to deter- variation. mine stocks for introductions. 6.1.1 Absolute numbers. 3.2.1.1 Develop a genetic pedigree for 6.1.2 Population structure. spinedace. 6.1.3 Reproduction. 3.2.1.2 Maintain maximum genetic 6.1.3.1 Describe spawning heterozygosity in existing and characteristics reintroduced populations. 6.1.3.1.1 Describe substrates, water velocity, and temperature. 6.1.4 Recruitment. 4.0 Monitor status of existing 6.1.5 Minimum population size. populations. 6.1.6 Environmental characteristics. 4.1 Establish and implement stan- 6.1.6.1 Physical characteristics. dard monitoring locations 6.1.6.2 Chemical characteristics. for extant populations. 6.1.6.3 Biological characteristics of 4.2 Establish and implement stan- community. dard sampling procedures and techniques. 7.0 Develop captive breeding 4.3 Establish and maintain adatabase program. for monitoring and reintroduction 7.1 Develop procedures for propagat information. ing, holding and maintaining 4.4 Determine variation in spinedace spinedace. abundance population structure, 7.2 Supply fish for reintroduction, and movement. education and research. 4.4.1 Develop standard methods for quantifying abundance. 8.0 Information and education. 8.1 Public I/E 8.1.1 State outreach efforts 5.0 Identify type and importance of 8.1.2 National exposure. interactions with both native and 8.1.3 Local media and specific nonnative fish. campaigns. 3.1 Direct and Indirect interaction. 8.1.4 Develop communication between 5.1.1 Examine direct interactions State, Federal agencies and local experimentally under laboratory residents. and field conditions with: Apache, 8.2 Professional information. rainbow, brown and brook trouts, 8.2.1 Publication in peer-reviewed, red shiners, fathead minnows, open literature. green sunfish, speckled dace, 8.2.2 Information exchange at crayfish, salamanders, other meetings. species of fish and invertebrates 8.2.3 Presentations at professional, scientific meetings. as appropriate.

Part II Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan NARRATIVE

1.0 Protect existing populations of tal or private agencies will be considered spinedace. in less danger than those occupying habi- tats which are heavily modified, contain Spinedace populations are known to non-native fish or are not protected. By remain in the Little Colorado River, Rudd, ranking the various populations, according Nutrioso, Chevelon, Silver and East Clear to their importance to achieving recovery creeks as well as other possible locations focused actions can be taken to enhance threatened by ongoing habitat modifica- recovery. Populations which appear in tion or destruction. Stream alteration, imminent danger should be given highest watershed modification and introduction priority to ensure their continued survival of and dispersal of non-native fishes into and movement toward recovery of the the Little Colorado River drainage poses species. Tentatively, known populations an increasing threat to remaining would be ranked as the Silver Creek spinedace populations. Loss ofany ofthese population in most imminent danger populations significantly increases risk of (possibly extinct); followed by East Clear, extinction by decreasing the likelihood of Chevelon, Rudd and Nutrioso Creeks and species survival. Loss ofone or more of the Little Colorado river. these populations may be grounds to consider reclassifying spinedace as endan- 1.2 Develop secure refugia for four extant gered rather than threatened. It is im- populations of spinedace within their perative that existing populations and historic drainages. their habitats be protected to ensure survival of and effect recovery ofthis Refugia within the drainages of extant species. populations should be developed to pro- vide a source offish to expand populations 1.1 Prioritize existing and new populations within the respective drainages. The as to need for protection. refugia may be represented by stream systems containing natural or man-made Within the possible range of the spinedace, barriers or isolated springs. every effort should be made to determine status of known populations and locate 1.2.1 Establish/maintain refugia in the additional populations, by surveying areas East Clear Creek drainage. throughout their historic range. All popu- lations should be identified so that range 1.2.1.1 Above Blue Ridge and distribution ofthis species is known. Reservoir. Potato Lake Areas where surveys are lacking include downstream is one parts of the Chevelon and East Clear possibility and is within Creek drainages on the Apache- current Critical Habitat. Sitgreaves and Coconino National Forests. These streams should also be surveyed 1.2.1.2 Below Blue Ridge north of the forest boundary. New popula- Reservoir. tions should be characterized according to protection currently provided. All popula- 1.2.2 Establish/maintain refugia in the tions should be ranked according to impor- Silver Creek drainage. tance in conserving the species. Spinedace The main spring at Silver Creek which occupies relatively undisturbed State Fish Hatchery could habitat and are protected by governinen- Narrative 10 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan provide a refugia for spinedace. 1.2.6 Establish and maintain refugia Access is controlled by the State at the Wenima Wildlife area. of Arizona and the spring/spring This area, located on the Little run could be renovated. The Colorado River is owned and spring is ca 2 in deep and 30 in managed by Arizona Game and in diameter, thus providing Fish Department and is a adequate habitat for spinedace candidate for a refugium. and is a likely candidate for a wild refugia. 1.3 Acquire and protect lands and water rights where required to conserve 1.2.3 Establish/maintain refugia in spinedace. the Rudd-Nutrioso Creek drainage. Much of the habitat occupied by spinedace Both systems are currently occurs within the Apache-Sitgreaves or being considered for refugia, Coconino National Forests. These areas particularly Rudd Creekwhere are protected by the Forest Service and property and water rights have specific stream reaches are designated recently been acquired by the Critical Habitat. Property and water Arizona Game and Fish rights have recently been acquired on the Department. Little Colorado River (Wenima and Slade properties) and on Rudd Creek by the 1.2.4 Establish/maintain refugia in State of Arizona. Additional landsand upper and lower Chevelon water rights should be acquired as they Creek. become available to maintain perennial The lower reach is within flow that mimics the natural hydrograph. designated Critical Habitat but Obtaining such lands and water rights will is on State and private land. help insure that existing spinedace Spinedace existence currently populations and habitats are secure. depends on the lack ofdevelop- ment in the area and the 1.4 Enforce existing laws and regulations protection of Indian pictographs affecting spinedace. by a private landowner. Areas above Chevelon Lake should be Failure by individuals or organizations to examined for possible refugia recognize and follow laws and regulations sites also. that protect spinedace and their habitat may further imperil the species and result 1.2.5 Maintain refugia at The in population declines that compromise Arboretum in Flagstaff. survival and impedespecies recovery. Potential sites include the Arboretum in Flagstaff as well as 1.4.1 Inform appropriate agencies/ the Pinetop Hatchery pond. The individuals of applicable manage- Arboretum is a private organiza- ment/enforcement responsibilitie tion which is dedicated to main- and opportunities. All agencies taining endangered species and and personnel should be made has developed a strong informa- aware oftheir responsibilities tion and education program for under the existing laws to protect listed species. listed species and their habitats, and actions each agency should take to effectively ensure spinedace protection.

Narrative 11 Little Colorado RiverSpinedace Recovery Plan 1.4.2 Ensure compliance with Section 7 Review stocking plans to and Section 9 of the Endangered prevent the introduction of Species Act. non-native fish into spinedace All Federal agencies share habitats where such introduc- responsibility for the conserva- tions would pose a threat to tion of federally listed species. spinedace recovery. Private and public organizations are subject to Section 9 2.0 Improve or restore habitats occupied prohibitions and implementing by spinedace populations. regulations regarding take of Federally listed endangered Occupied and recovery habitats should or threatened species. be improved or restored where possible to enhance spinedace populations. Develop- 1.5 Discontinue introduction of non-native ment of management plans that eliminate fishes into areas deemed necessary for negative impacts of non-native fish spinedace recovery. introductions should be pursued.

Recovery habitat is defined as stream 2.1 Identify habitats for restoration! or stream reaches essential and dedicated maintenance. to spinedace recovery. Production and introductions of non-nativefishes by Unoccupied habitats within the historical Federal hatcheries and federally funded range of spinedace should be examined as management actions within watersheds possible reintroduction sites. Areas which containing spinedace should be evaluated now contain spinedace and exhibit through the Section 7 consultation marginal habitat conditions should process. Future construction of Federal be enhanced. and federally funded hatcheries should be determined on the presence or absence of 2.2 Determine steps necessary for listed species in the watershed to which restoration and implementation. they drain and the likelihood of an escape- ment ofreared fish not native to the Procedures for restoration of declining or watershed. Construction of such facilities extirpated spinedace populations should should not occur until the probability of an be adopted. In many cases such action will escapement of fish into a spinedace habitat require the removal of the conditions is nil. which resulted in habitat degradation. Non-federally funded state activities and Overgrazing the watershed, destruction privately owned hatcheries should be of the riparian corridor and removal of made aware of the presence oflisted non-native fishes are examples of actions species and of possible threats presented needing alteration(s). Additionally, by their activities such as: inadvertent further changes in forest or land manage- introductions of fish or disease organisms ment practices should be actively pursued into the watershed. Every attempt should to benefit the spinedace and the ecosystem be made to cooperatively prevent any upon which they depend. adverse action(s) to spinedace before they occur and to prevent Section 9 violations. 2.2.1 Remove introduced fishes in areas where their presence 1.5.1 Ensure fish stocking plans are threatens continued spinedace consistent with the goals and existence. objectives ofthis recovery plan. Ifit is determined that non- native fishes are negatively

Narrative 12 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan impacting spinedace recovery impacts are occurring. Reduction they should be removed as or cessatation of cattle grazing effectively as possible. and removal of non-native fish, Additionally, in conjunction with are among options that should be renovation, every effort should considered. be made to prevent reestablish- ment of non-native fish 3.1.2 Remove non-native fish and populations. crayfish from habitats essential for spinedace recovery. 2.2.2 Install barriers or other The impact of various non-native structures to prevent reestablish- fish species and crayfish upon ment of non-native fish. spinedace populations is strongly Permanent structures should suspected (White 1995) and be put in place to prevent recently documented for rainbow re-invasion of non-native fish. trout (Blinn and Runck 1992). Such structures would vary for Spinedace populations must be the different streams and could provided every opportunity to involve both up and down stream increase their population size and structures above the barrier as status. Providing habitat devoid well as cessation of stocking in of non-native fishes may be the watershed upstream ofthe critical to the spinedace recovery. barrier where downstream move ment of stocked fish would pose 3.1.3 Prevent introduced fish from a treat to spinedace recovery. re-invading renovated habitat. Watersheds designated as 2.3 Manage the ecosystem for native possible reintroduction sites must organisms to maintain, enhance or be isolated as much as possible redevelop the native biodiversity from the threat of non-native which was present historically. fishes. Construction ofbarrier dams or other applicable struc- System management of the ecosystem in tures to insure downstream which the spinedace evolved is imperative. populations of non-native fishes In using this multi-species approach to do not access the areas above recovery, natural biodiversity can be the barrier will reduce the maintained to benefit all native organisms. threat greatly.

3.0 Reintroduce spinedace to selected 3.1.4 Reintroduce spinedace into streams within historic range. available habitats. The reintroduction of spine- A major step toward recovery will be the dace into a habitat properly reintroduction of spinedace back into documented as a suitable for historic habitats. Habitats should be reintroduction is essential for examined and modified as appropriate and the recovery of this fish. Once a realistic prior to spinedace reintroduction. habitat is certified as suitable, fish should be introduced as 3.1 Identify areas for reintroduction. multiple stockings over the course of one or more years 3.1.1 Enhance habitat as necessary. following the initial There are many ways to enhance reintroduction. habitat depending on what

Narrative 13 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan 3.1.5 Monitor reintroduction(s). 3.2.1.2 Maintain maximum All reintroduced populations genetic heterozygoxity should be monitored annually in existing and to determine their success. reintroduced populations. The highest genetic 3.1.6 Determine success/failure of diversity available must reintroductions. be maintained in existing The success/failure of reintroduc- brood and reintroduced tions should be tracked through populations. time and documented. Where failures occur; efforts should be 4.0 Monitor status ofexisting populations. made to correct the cause before additional fish are stocked. Data All populations must be monitored pertaining to successes and annually to determine their status. Such failures should be incorporated action will enhance identification of long into future reintroduction term trends and aid in management of all attempts to increase later spinedace populations. stocking success. 4.1 Establish and implement standard 3.2 Determine genetic composition of monitoring locations for extant extant populations. populations.

The genetic composition ofcurrent popula- Standard monitoring locations to be tions should be determined by chemical determined by historical and recent analysis of mTDna and allozymes prior to collections. Monitoring should be done any reintroduction. subsequent to anticipated spawning peri- ods and for current year to determine the 3.2.1 Use such information to spawning success oflast year’s population. determine stocks for introduc tions. Information developed by 4.2 Establish and implement standard chemical analysis of extant sampling procedures and techniques. populations has determined significant differences occur Standard procedures and techniques between extant populations. should be used when sampling for Currently, stocking should spinedace. These procedures and tech- be limited to the sub-basin niques should be used by all entities containing the parent stock. collecting spinedace and be consistent through time and among investigators. 3.2.1.1 Develop a genetic Every attempt should be made to ensure pedigree for spindace. that all data collected by researchers are A genetic pedigree should comparable. Once established, procedures be developed for the and techniques should not change unless spinedace. The resulting better methods, agreed upon by the pedigree would be affected parties, become available. Change implemented based on should be evaluated carefully prior to recommendations ofthe their implementation. recovery team to prevent lessening ofthe genetic 4.3 Establish and maintain a database for variability of various monitoring and reintroduction populations. information.

Narrative 14 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan A central database should be developed 5.1.2 Examine indirect inter- for all information collected on spinedace. actions experimentally It should be at an accessible location and under laboratory and field available to all stakeholders and inter- conditions with: Apache, ested persons. rainbow, brown and brook trouts; red shiners, fat- 4.4 Determine variation in spinedace head minnows, speckled abundance, population structure, dace, green sunfish, cray- and movement. fish, salamanders, other species of fish andinverte- Variation in abundance, population brates as appropriate. structure and movements through time is necessary to maintain and manage spine- 6.0 Determine quantitative criteria for dace populations. Currently, this species describing a self-sustaining population. is characterized by wide population fluctuations which remain unexplained. Quantitative data describing parameters Long-term data sets should help deter- believed necessary to assist in maintaining mine the cause offluctuations and aid in a self-sustaining population should be spinedace management. established. This data can be provided by determining the relationships between 4.4.1 Develop standard methods various types of habitat modifications and for quantifying abundance. spinedace biology. Such data should be Techniques such as spray made available to all stakeholders and marking, mark and recapture members of the scientific community and depletion sampling are responsible for effecting recovery of the available to determine spindace species. abundance. Thesemethods may need modification for spinedace. 6.1 Determine levels of natural variation. If necessary other methods may need to be developed, if Spinedace populations fluctuate tremen- appropriate. Techniques used dously among years, months and days. should be based on good judge- The causes ofthese fluctuations must ment, and used consistently. be understood to effectively manage 5.0 Identify type and importance of the species. interactions with both native and non-native fish. 6.1.1 Absolute numbers. Population estimates can be 5.1 Direct and indirect interactions. determined by a variety of mark and recapture techniques. Once 5.1.1 Examine direct interaction the preferred method has been experimentally under determined for spinedace, it laboratory and field condi- should be refined and standard- tions with: Apache, rain- ized so that data collected bow, brown, and brook between populations can be trouts; red shiners, fat- compared. As a long-term data head minnows, green sun- set develops, acceptable varia- fish, speckled dace, cray- tion in population size, numbers fish, salamanders, other in size classes and perhaps species offish and inverte- recruitment to the adult popula- brates as appropriate. tion will be better understood.

N arrative 15 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan 6.1.2 Population structure. 6.1.4 Recruitment. Spinedace cannot be effectively The level of recruitment in the managed until information is various spinedace populations available on the structure of needs to be determined. Infor- extant populations. Such data can mation, used in concert with be gathered by taking measure- other biological information and ments of individuals sampled habitat measurements can be during population estimates. used to determine what are Normal distribution of various optimal, good and poor habitats. age classes would be expected in Habitats can then be managed a healthy population. Conversely, more effectively. the lack of a year class could indicate less than suitable 6.1.5 Minimum population size. conditions for that population and There is a minimum size for each might call for remedial action(s). spinedace population; below this level, the population will not 6.1.3 Reproduction. sustain itself through time. Reproduction in the various Species experts should attempt spinedace populations is to define minimum stock popula- presumed to be occurring tion size for the various spinedace annually, but recruitment varies populations. When a population considerably. In order to better falls near or below that minimum manage this species several it should be taken as an indication aspects of reproduction must be that environmental factor(s) are understood. negatively impacting the popula- tion. Investigation to determine 6.1.3.1 Describe spawning and rectify the cause of this characteristics. depletion would then be More detailed information necessary. Populations which on spawning in spinedace are self-sustaining should not is required to effectively be permitted to fall below the manage the species. minimum population level.

6.1.3.1.1 Describe 6.1.6 Environmental characteristics. substrate, water 6.1.6.1 Physical characteristics. velocities and Physical characteristics temperature. ofthe habitat need to The type of be determined. Such substrate, parameters include water temperature, current velocities and velocity, substrate; still temperatures others have yet to be used during determined. Knowledge spawning by of these parameters is spinedace must necessary to better be better identify optimal or sub- characterized optimal habitats for the to manage spinedace management. this fish.

Narrative 16 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan 6.1.6.2 Chemical characteristics. 7.2 Supply fish for reintroduction, The chemical characteris- education, and research. tics of streams include dissolved oxygen and Once the technology exists to reliably carbon dioxide content, produce spinedace in quantity (7.1), stocks alkalinity, pH, etc. Know- can be made available for reintroduction. ledge of these parameters is necessary to better 8.0 Information and education. identify optimal or sub- 8.1 Public information and education. optimal habitats for spinedace management. Exchange of information and ideas between individuals representing scien- 6.1.6.3 Biological characteristics tific, managerial, and private citizens or of the community. groups are essential for a successful recov- In order to maintain and ery program. All aspects of this recovery perpetuate spinedace plan should be made available to any populations, the natural interested party. The public particularly biodiversity of the should be informed of recovery actions community must be that will be implemented to recovery maintained. Fish depend spinedace. on many aspects ofthe aquatic and surrounding 8.1.1 State outreach efforts. community, from the Media with statewide distribu- oxygen content ofwater, tion should be targeted to types of predators, and provide information pertaining prey items to places of to recovery of this fish. Such refuge. Each community exposure could be done periodi- should be characterized to cally to ensure continued public better effectively manage interest/awareness, thus aiding spinedace. spinedace recovery.

7.0 Develop captive breeding program. 8.1.2 National exposure. The development ofa captive rearing Federally listed plants and wild- program will insure survival of this life are of interest to all residents species. When developed properly captive of the United States. When pos- production and subsequent reintroduction sible information should be made will maintain the natural heterozygosity of available to the general public. wild populations. 8.1.3 Local media and specific 7.1 Develop procedures for propagating, campaigns. holding and maintaining spinedace. It is important to keep local media, and residents that could Technology exists for development of be affected, apprised of decisions these procedures at Dexter National Fish being made that directly, and Hatchery and Technology Center. Such perhaps immediately impact procedures should be developed now, them. Specific programs should rather then waiting until population be identified to better inform numbers are so low that the development specific groups/communities of such a program might jeopardize the as appropriate. species’ continued existence. Narrative 17 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan 8.1.4 Develop communications other professionals enhancing between State, Federal the quality of the research and agencies and local residents. credibility of the researcher. Such Dialogue between State, Federal publications also have had benefit and private organizations must of critical review and thus meet be maintained to keep all entities the standards of excellence to informed. which professionals strive.

8.2 Professional information. 8.2.2 Information exchange at meetings. All scientific information, trip reports, Periodic meeting with species published reports, raw data, results of experts and the public would field and laboratory research must be provide a source of comm- available to all professionals working on unication to deal with special spinedace. Free exchange ofinformation circumstances. Such action and ideas is essential to their recovery. All allows discussion of ideas and information should be placed at a recog- resolve difficulties. nized institution which has the capability to provide information to agencies and 8.2.3 Presentations at professional persons interested in spinedace. scientific meetings. Research results should be 8.2.1 Publication in peer-reviewed, presented at local, regional and open literature. national scientific-gatherings to Persons studying the Spinedace allow professionals the opportuni- should be encouraged to publish ties to comment on and enhance their findings as soon as it is the spinedace recovery. appropriate. Scientific publica- tions undergo peer review by

Narrative 18 Little Colorado RiverSpinedace Recovery Plan LITERATURE CITED

Anonymous, 1966. Rare and endangered Blinn, D.W., D.B. Czarnecki, G. Griffith, T. fish and wildlife of the United States. McCall and C.O. Minckley. 1977. An Bur. Sport Fish. and Wild., Res. Publ. aquatic survey of Chevelon Creek, 34. 182 pp. Arizona. First Progress Report to Arizona Public Service. Anonymous, 1981. Little Colorado River Basin cooperative Study, U.S. Dept. Bransen, B.E., 1966. Some rare and Agri., Soil Cons. Serv., Economic vanishing fishes. BioSci., 16:611-613. Research Serv., Forest Serv., four appendices and summary report. Cope, E.D. 1874. On the Plagopterinae and the Ichthyology of Utah. Proc. Amer. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Philos. Soc., 14: 129-140. Threatened native wildlife in Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona. 32 pp. Denova, B.P. and F.J. Abarca. 1992. Distribution, abundance and habitat for Bestgen, K.R. and D.L. Propst. 1986. Red the Little Colorado spinedace shiner vs. native fishes: replacement or (Lepidomeda vittata) in the Coconino displacement? Proceedings of the and Apache-Sitgreaves National Desert Fishes Council 18(1986):209. Forests along East Clear Creek and its tributaries. Final Report, Nongame and Blinn, D.W. 1993. Preliminary research Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona report on Little Colorado spinedace at Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. the Flagstaff Arboretum pond, 71 pp. Flagstaff, Arizona. Report to Parker Fishery Resource Office. 2 pp. Douglas, M.E., P.C. Marsh, and W.L. Minckley. 1994. Indigenous Fishes of Blinn, D.W. and C. Runck. 1990. Western North America and the Importance of predation, diet, and Hypothesis of Competitive Displace- habitat on the distribution of ment: Medafulgida () as a Lepidomeda vittata: a federally listed case study. Copeia (1):9-19. species of fish. Final report submitted to Coconino National Forest. 47 pp Heckman, R., J.E. Deacon, and P.D. Greger. 1987. Parasites of the woundfin Blinn, D.W. and C. Runck. 1992. Effects of minnow, Plagopterus argentissimus, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and other endemic fishes from the predation on Little Colorado Virgin River, Utah. Great Basin spinedace (Lepidorneda vittata). Naturalist 46, 662-676. Final report submitted to Coconino National Forest. 24 pp. Hemphill, J.E. 1954. Toxaphine as a fish toxin. Prog. Fish-Cult. 16:41-42. Blinn, D.W., C. Runck, A. Clark, and J.N. Rinne. 1993. Effects of rainbow trout La Rivers, I. 1962. Fish and fisheries of predation on Little Colorado spinedace. Nevada, Carson City: Nevada Game and Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 122(1):139-143. Fish Commission.

Literature Cited 19 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Marsh, P.C. and K.L. Young. 1988. Fish ed. By C.H. Lowe. Univ. Arizona survey of Nutrioso Creek, Apache Press, Thcson, Arizona. Pp. 133-151. County, Arizona, 12-18 June 1988. Report submitted to Dames & Moore. Minckley, C.O. 1984. Current distribution 14 pp. and status ofLepidomeda vittata (Little Colorado spinedace) in Arizona. Marsh, P.C., F.J. Abarca, M.E. Douglas, Report to Arizona Game and Fish and W.L. Minckley. 1989. Spikedace Department, Phoenix. 48 pp. (Meda fulgida) and bach minnow (Tiaroga cobitus) relative to introduced Minckley, W.L. 1965. Native fishes as red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis). Final natural resources. Pp. 48-60, In: report to Arizona Game and Fish Gardner; J.L., Native plants and Department, Phoenix, Arizona. as Resources in Arid Lands of 116 pages. the Southwestern United states. Contr. 8, Comm. Desert and Arid Zones Res., Meffe, G.K. 1983. Ecology of species A.A.A.S. replacement in the Sonoran topminnow (Poecioliopsis occidentalis) and the Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Sims publishing., 273 pp. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. 143 pp. Minckley, W.L. and L.H. Carufel. 1967. The Little Colorado River spinedace, Meffe, G.K. 1985. Predation and species Lepidomeda vittata, in Arizona. The replacement in American Southwestern Southwestern Naturalist. 12(3):291-302. fishes: a case study. Southwestern Naturalist 30(2):173-187. Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of Miller, R.R. 1961. Man and the changing “endangered species.” Science 159: fish fauna of the American Southwest. 1424-1433. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sc., Arts, and Letters 46(1960):365-404. Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon. 1991. Western Fishes and the Real World: Miller, R.R. 1963. Distribution, variation, The Enigma of “Endangered Species” and ecology of Lepidomeda vittata, a Revisited. In: Battle Against Extinc- rare cyprinid fish endemic to eastern tion Native Fish Management in the Arizona. Copeia 1963:1-5. American West. W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon Eds., University of Miller, R.R. 1964. Extinct, rare and Arizona Press, Tuscon. endangered American freshwater fishes. Proc. XVI Cong. Zool. 8:4-16. Nisselson, C.L. and D.W. Blinn. 1991. Aquatic habitat assessment for Miller, R.R. and C.L. Hubbs. 1960. The Lepidomeda vittata in East Clear spiny-rayed cyprinid fishes Creek, Arizona. Final report submitted (Plagopterini) of the Colorado River to Coconino National Forest. 43 pp. system. Misc. Publ. Univ. Michigan, Mus. Zool. 115:1-39, 3 pls. Propst, D.L., K.R. Bestgen, and C.W. Painter. 1986. Distribution, status, and Miller, R.R. and C.H. Lowe. 1964. Part 2. biology ofthe spikedace (Medafulgida) An annotated check-list ofthe fishes of in New Mexico. Endangered Species Arizona. In: The Vertebrates of Arizona, Report Number 15, U.S. Fish and

Literature Cited 20 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1985. Endangered Mexico. 93 pp. and threatened wildlife and plants; proposal to determine Lepidomeda Propst, D.L., PC. Marsh, and W.L. vittata (Little Colorado spinedace) to Minckley. 1985. Arizona survey for be a threatened species with critical spikedace (Meda fulgida) and bach habitat. Federal Register 59(99):21095- minnow (Tiaroga cobitis): Fort Apache 21101. and San Carlos Apache Indian Reserva- tions and Eagle Creek, 1985. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1987. Endangered U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and threatened wildlife and plants; final Albuquerque, New Mexico. 8 pp. rule to determine Lepidomeda vittata to be a threatened species with critical Rinne, J.N. and W.L. Minckley. 1991. habitat. Federal Register 52(179): Native fishes ofarid lands: A dwindling 35034-35041. 16 September 1987. resource of the desert southwest. USDA Forest Service, General Tech. Report U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1991. Spikedace RM-206. Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 38 pp. Sublette J.E., M.D. Hatch and M. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1994. Notice of Mexico. University of New Mexico availability ofa draft recovery plan for Press. Albuquerque. 393 pp. the Little Colorado spinedace for review and comment. Federal Register 59(184): Tibbets, C.A., A.C. Weibel, and T.E. 48899-48890. 23 September 1994. Dowling. 1994. Genetic variation within and among populations of the Little Wheeler, G.M. 1889. Report upon United Colorado spinedace. Abst. American States geographical surveys west of the Fisheries Society Western Division One Hundredth Meridian. Vol. I Meeting, May 1994. Geographical Rep., Washington: 780 pp., 38 pls. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1982. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; White, J.N. 1995. Indirect effect of review ofvertebrate wildlife for listing predation by crayfish on Little Colorado as endangered or threatened species. spinedace. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Federal Register 47(251):58454-58460. Dept. Biol. Northern Arizona 30 December 1982. University. 46 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1983. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; findings on certain petitions. Federal Register 48(115):27273-27274.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1984. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; notice of finding on 6 petitions. Federal Register 51(136):28583-28585.

Literature Cited 21 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

DEFINITION OF PRIORITIES:

Priority 1 - Those actions that are absolutely essential to prevent the extinction of the species in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2 - Those actions necessary to maintain the species~ current populations status.

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. GENERAL CATEGORIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES

Acquisition - A Information Gathering - I or R

1. Population status 1. Lease 2. Habitat status 2. Easement 3. Habitat requirements 3. Management agreement 4. Management techniques 4. Exchange 5. Taxonomic studies 5. Withdrawal 6. Demographic studies 6. Fee title 7. Propagation 7. Other 8. Migration 9. Predation Management - M 10. Competition 11. Disease 1. Propagation 12. Environmental contaminant 2. Reintroduction 13. Reintroduction 3. Habitat maintenance and 14. Other information manipulation 4. Predator and competitor control

Other - 0 5. Depredation control 1. Information and education 6. Disease control 2. Law enforcement 7. Other Management 3. Regulations 4. Administration

Abbreviations used:

AGFD- Arizona Game and Fish Department

ES - Ecological Services FWS- USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service

FR - Fisheries Resources

FS - USDA Forest Service

LE - Law Enforcement

Implementation Schedule 22 Part III - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE GENERAL I~LAN TASK TASK PRIORITY TASK EESPONSIBI.E AGENCY FISCAL YEAR COMMENTS CATEGORY NO NUMBER DURATION COSTS (ESTIMATE) FWS PROGRAM OTHER FYl FY2 FY3 REGION I-I Prioritize populations 1.1 1 1 year 2 ES/FR AZGF for protection needed FS 1,000 M-3 Develop refugium above 1.2.1.1 2 2 years 2 ES/FR AZGF 50,000 50,000 Blue Ridge Reservoir FS M-3 Develop refugium below 1.2.2 2 2 years 2 ES/FR AZGF Blue Ridge Reservoir FS 50,000 50,000 M-3 Develop refugium in 1.2.2 2 2 years ES/FR AZGF 50,000 50,000 Silver Creek Drainage M-3 Develop refugium in Rudd 1.2.3 2 2 years AZGF AZGF 50,000 FY4 50,000 -Nutrioso Creek (Irainage FS M-3 Develop refugia in 1.2.4 2 2 years AZGF AZGF FY4 75,000 Chevelon Creek FS FY5 75,000 PRIVATE M-3 Maintain refugium at 1.2.5 2 10 years 2 FR 10,000 10,000 10,000 FY4-10 70,000 Flagstaff Arboretum M-3 Develop refugium in 1.2.6 2 2 years 2 ES/FR AZGF FY4 50,000 Little Colorado River FS FY5 50,000 A-3 Acquire and protect land 1.3 1 ongoing AZGF 10,000 10,000 10,000 In addition to funds and water rights required under task 1.2 0-1 Inform agencies/individuals of 1.4.1 1 ongoing 2 LE/ES/FR AZGF Ongoing and within responsibilities/opportunities FS budget 0-2 Ensure compliance with 1.4.2 1 ongoing 2 LE/ES/FR AZGF Section 7 & 9 ofthe Endangered Species Act Ongoing and within FS budget 0-3 Ensure fish stocking plans are 1.5.1 1 ongoing 2 ES/FR AZGF Ongoing and within consistent with recovery plan goals and objectives FS budget 1-3 Identify habitats 2.1 2 3 years 2 FR AZGF 5,000 5,000 5,000 FS MA Remove non-native fish in 2.2.1 1 5 years 2 FR FS 2,000 2,000 2,000 FY4 2,500 areas where continued spinedace survival is threatened AZGF FYS 3,000 MA Install barriers to prevent 2.2.2 1 5 years 2 FR/ES FS 5,000 10,000 10,000 FY4-5 30,000 introduction of non-native species AZGF M-3 Manage ecosystems to enhance 2.3 2 10 years 2 FR/ES AZGF 10,000 10,000 10,000 FY4-10 52,500 biodiversity of native species FS M-3 Identify areas for 3.1.1 2 3 years 2 FR AZOF 1,000 1,000 1,000 reintroduction FS MA Remove non-native 3.1.2 2 5 years 2 FR AZUF 2,000 2,000 2,000 FY4 2,000 competitors/predators FS FYS 2,500 M-4 I’revent reentry of non-native 3.1.3 2 8 years 2 FR AZGF 2,500 FY4-10 17,500 competitors/predators FS M-2 Reintroduce Spinedace 3.1.4 2 5 years 2 FR AZGF 3,000 FY4-7 12,000 FS M-7 Monitor success of 3.1.5 2 7 years 2 FR AZGF FY4-7 14,000 reintroduction FS M-7 Determine status of 3.1.6 2 3 years 2 FR AZGF FY4 15,000 reintroduction FS FY7 2,000 FY10 2,500 I-S I)evelop genetic pe(ligree 3.2.1.1 1 2years 2 FR 7,000 8,000 Part III - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE VNEIIA I. I’I.AN TASK [ASK l’Rlt)RITY TASK RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FISCAl. YEAR COMM EN’I’S (A’Fl~GORY NO NUMBER DURATION COSTS (ESTIMATE) FWS 1~ROGRAM OTHER FYI FY2 FY3 REGION

1-5 Maintain maximum genetic 3.2.1.2 1 10 years 2 FR AZGF 1(100 1,000 1,000 FY4-10 7,000 variability FS I—I Establish and implement 4.1 2 3 years 2 FR AZGF 1,000 FY4 1,000 monitoring for extant location FS FY10 1,000 1—1 Establish and implement 4.2 2 10 years 2 FR AZGF 5,000 4,000 4,000 FY4-I0 35,000 stan(lard sam~)ling procedures and techniques FS 1-4 l)evelop methods to quantify 4.4.1 2 1 year 2 FR 1,000 abundance R-9. 10 Examine direct interactions 5.1.1 1 3 years 2 FR AZGF 50,000 50,000 50,000 with other species ES R-9.l0 Examine indirect interaction 5.1.2 1 3 years 2 FR AZGF 50,000 50,000 50,000 with other species FS R-l Determine self-sustaining 6.1.1 2 5 years 2 FR AZGF 25,000 25,000 25,000 FY4-5 50,000 population numbers FS R-1 Determine self-sustaining 6.1.2 2 5 years 2 FR AZGF 25,000 25,000 25,000 FY4-5 50,000 pol)ulation structure ES R-3 Determine physical 6.1.3.1.1 2 4 years 2 FR AZGF 20,000 20,000 20,000 FY4-5 20,000 characteristics for spawning FS RI Determine recruitment 6.1.4 2 5 years 2 FR AZGF 20,000 20,000 20,000 FY4-5 40,000 numbers required for self-sustaining populations FS R-1 Determine minimum 6.1.5 2 5 years 2 FR AZGF 20,000 20,000 20,000 FY4 -5 40,000 population size required to maintain self-sustaining populations FS R-3 Determine physical 6.1.6.1 2 4 years 2 FR AZGF 20,000 20,000 20,000 FY4 20,000 characteristics required to maintaining self-sustaining populations FS R-12 Determine chemical 6.1.6.2 2 4 years 2 FR AZGF 20,000 20,000 20,000 FY4 20,000 characteristics required to maintain self-sustaining populations FS R-l Determine biological 6.1.6.3 2 5 years 2 FR AZGF 25,000 25,000 25,000 FY4-5 50,000 characteristics required to maintain self-sustaining populations FS M-1 Rear and supply fish for 7.2 2 7 years 2 FR FY4-10 70,000 recovery purposes 0-1 Outreach efforts with Arizona 8.1.1 3 10 years 2 FR AZGF 5,000 5,000 5,000 FY4-10 35,000 FS 0-1 Outreach efforts nationally 8.1.2 3 10 years 2 FR/PA FS 1,000 1,000 1,000 FY4-10 7,000 0-4 Outreach efforts in local 8.1.3 3 10 years 2 FR/PA AZGF 1,000 1,000 1,000 FY4-10 7,000 communities where spinedace occurs FS 0-4 Coordinate communications 8.1.4 3 10 years 2 FR/PA AZGF 1,000 1,000 1,000 FY4-10 7,000 among federal, state, and local community efforts FS 0-1 Inform scientific community 8.2.1 3 10 years 2 FR/PA AZGF 1,000 1,000 1,000 FY4-10 7,000 through outreach efforts FS 0-1 Inform professional 8.2.2 3 10 years 2 FR/ES AZGF 1,000 1,000 1,000 FY4-10 7,000 community at meetings FS 0—1 Inform by giving 8.2.3 3 10 years 2 FR/ES AZGF 1,000 1,000 1,000 FY4 -10 7,000 l)resentations at meetings FS 04 Publish research findings 8.2.4 3 10 years 2 FR/ES AZGF 1,000 1,000 1,000 FY4-10 7,000 in professional journals FS Arizona Fishery Resources Office-Parker 60911 Highway 95 Parker, Arizona 85344 520/667-4785 e-mail: r2ffaprkr U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services P0. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 505/248-6920 http://sturgeon.irm1.r2.fws.gov

December/1997

U