Relative Abundance and Distribution of Fishes and 

Crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Nye County, Nevada, 2010–11

Open-File Report 2012–1141

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Relative Abundance and Distribution of Fishes and 

Crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Nye County, Nevada, 2010–11

By G. Gary Scoppettone, Danielle M. Johnson, Mark E. Hereford, Peter Rissler, Mark Fabes, 

Antonio Salgado, and Sean Shea

Open-File Report 2012-1141

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Scoppettone, G.G., Johnson, D.M., Hereford, M.E., Rissler, Peter, Fabes, Mark, Salgado, Antonio, and 

Shea, Sean, 2012, Relative abundance and distribution of fishes and crayfish at Ash Meadows National 

Wildlife Refuge, Nye County, Nevada, 2010–11: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1141, 

44 p.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Materials and Methods .................................................................................................................................. 4

Results........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 20

Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 23

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 24

References Cited......................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A. ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Figures

Figure 1. Aerial photograph of Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge showing sampling stations in fall 

2010 (741), winter 2011 (156), and spring 2011 (744), Nye County, Nevada................................................5

Figure 2. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish throughout Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 ..................................................................................8

Figure 3. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish in Fairbanks, Soda, 

Rogers, and Longstreet Springs Ash Meadows, National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, winter 2011..................9

Figure 4. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish throughout Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, spring 2011 ........................................................................... 10

Figure 5. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows speckled dace throughout Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010................................................................................................. 11

Figure 6. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows speckled dace in Fairbanks, 

Soda, Rogers, and Longstreet Springs Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, winter 2011....... 12

Figure 7. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows speckled dace throughout 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, spring 2011 .................................................................... 13

Figure 8. Relative abundance and distribution of pupfish in North Scruggs, South Scruggs, Marsh, and 

School Springs, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011..................... 15
iv

Tables

Table 1. Seasonal catches of fishes, bullfrog, and crayfish at the Northern Springs of the 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011.................................................7

Table 2. Seasonal catches of fishes, bullfrogs, and crayfish in the Warm Springs Complex of the 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011............................................... 14

Table 3. Seasonal catches of fishes, bullfrogs, and crayfish at the Southern Springs of the 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011............................................... 17

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 70.07 acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.
1

Relative Abundance and Distribution of Fishes and 

Crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Nye County, Nevada, 2010–11

By G. Gary Scoppettone, Danielle M. Johnson, Mark E. Hereford, Peter Rissler, Mark Fabes, 

Antonio Salgado, and Sean Shea

Introduction

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) was established by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (with the assistance of The Nature Conservancy) in 1984 to protect one of the 

highest concentrations of endemic flora and fauna in North America (Pister, 1985; Sada, 1990).

Prior to federal acquisition, Ash Meadows had been anthropogenically altered, and non-native 

species had been introduced to the detriment of native species; reports and published literature 

document the negative effects to the Ash Meadows flora and fauna (Deacon and others, 1964; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971; Landye, 1973; Pister, 1974; Soltz and Naiman, 1978; 

Taylor, 1980; Williams and others, 1985; Williams and Sada, 1985; Baugh and others, 1986; 

Hershler and Sada, 1987; Knight and Clemmer, 1987; Sada, 1990; Deacon and Williams, 1991; 

Scoppettone and others, 2005; Kennedy and others, 2006). Such activities led to the extinction of 

the endemic Ash Meadows poolfish (Empetrichthyes merriami) (Miller, 1961; Soltz and 

Naiman, 1978), and subsequently the federal government listed three local endemic fish as 

endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989)—

Warm springs pupfish (Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis), Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish 

(Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes), and Ash Meadows speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus 

nevadensis).

Public ownership of a large portion of Ash Meadows provided the opportunity to restore 

the landscape to some semblance of its historical condition. Elimination of invasive aquatic 

species may be more difficult than landscape restoration, and their persistence can cause 

additional native fish decline or extirpation (Taylor and others, 1984; Moyle and others, 1986; 

Miller and others, 1989; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Olden and Poff, 2005). Chemical 

treatment to remove invasive fishes is often unsuccessful (Meffe, 1983; Rinne and Turner, 1991; 

Meronek and others, 1996). In Ash Meadows, there has been some success in chemical 

eradication of localized populations of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and black 

bullhead (Ameiurus melas) (St. George, 1998, 1999; Weissenfluh, 2008b), as well as convict 

cichlid (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus) and sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) (Weissenfluh,
2

2008a). However, there has been less success in removing western mosquitofish (Gambusia 

affinis) from Ash Meadows’s larger spring systems, and sailfin molly maintains strongholds in 

several spring systems (Scoppettone and others, 2011b). Perhaps the more destructive invasive 

species are two invertebrates: red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) and red-rim melania 

(Melanoides tuberculata). Following the appearance of red swamp crayfish within the Warm 

Springs Complex, Warm Springs pupfish was believed to be extirpated from one spring system 

(St. George, 2000) and near extirpation in two others (Darrick Weissenfluh, Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, oral commun., 2008, 2011). Crayfish also were demonstrated to 

greatly suppress the Bradford Springs population of Ash Meadows speckled dace population 

(McShane and others, 2004). Red-rim melania is known to displace native snail populations 

(Mitchell and others, 2007), and has been implicated as an agent of extinction of native Ash 

Meadows spring-snails (Donald Sada, Desert Research Institute, oral commun., 2011). Both 

invasive invertebrates are difficult to control or eradicate (Mitchell and others, 2007; Freeman 

and others, 2010). 

Habitat restoration that favors native species can help control non-native species 

(McShane and others, 2004; Scoppettone and others, 2005; Kennedy and others, 2006).

Restoration of Carson Slough and its tributaries present an opportunity to promote habitat types 

that favor native species over non-natives. Historically, the majority of Ash Meadows spring 

systems were tributaries to Carson Slough. In 2007 and 2008, a survey of Ash Meadows spring 

systems was conducted to generate baseline information on the distribution of fishes throughout 

AMNWR (Scoppettone and others, 2011b). In this study, we conducted a follow-up survey with

emphasis on upper Carson Slough. This permitted us to gauge the early effects of spring system 

restoration on fish populations and to generate further baseline data relevant to future restoration 

efforts.

Background

Dudley and Larson (1976) described the Ash Meadows spring systems as emerging in 

three groups: northern, central, and southern spring systems. Their grouping is based on spring 

connectivity: Fairbanks, Soda, Rogers, Longstreet, Five, and Cold Springs make up Northern 

Springs; School, North Indian, South Indian, Marsh, North Scruggs, South Scruggs, and Crystal 

Springs make up the Central Springs; and Kings Pool, Point of Rocks, Jack Rabbit, Big, Forest, 

Tubbs, and Bradford Springs make up the Southern Springs. Our grouping of spring systems is 

similar to that of Dudley and Larson (1976), but is taxonomically influenced—we include 

Crystal Spring with the Southern Springs, and we refer to the Central Springs as the Warm 

Springs Complex. Our grouping allows us to better distinguish Warm Springs and Ash Meadows 

pupfish habitats. 
3

Northern Springs

Historically, the Northern Springs flowed into a common channel (Carson Slough) as 

shown in the Mount Diablo Meridian (Department of Interior General Land office, February 16, 

1887). Prior to spring system restoration, the outflows of the Northern Springs were all earthen 

ditches conveying water for irrigation. Over time, water conveyance channels had become 

clogged with emergent vegetation causing channels to overflow, creating marsh lands within 

several hundred meters of spring discharge points. Restoration of the Northern Springs is 

targeted toward conveying spring discharge within a well-defined channel mimicking the 

historical course (Darrick Weissenfluh, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, oral commun., 

2011). Our 2011 survey was conducted during phase 2 of pre- and post-restoration of Fairbanks 

Spring system. In phase 1 completed in March 2010, a stream channel was constructed from 

Fairbanks spring-pool to 4 km downstream and its discharge formed a shallow marsh. In phase 2 

completed in November 2010, Fairbanks Spring was connected, with a well-defined channel, to 

Longstreet and Rogers Springs. To avoid confusion in comparing seasonal fish distribution 

created by changes to the Northern Spring systems, we named the reach of stream receiving 

water from Longstreet and Rogers Springs and southward to join Fairbanks Springs and 

extending to Peterson Reservoir as “Carson Slough.” In phase 1, this reach received water only 

from Longstreet and Rogers Springs, drained from a common marsh. In phase 2, Carson Slough 

also received water from Fairbanks Spring at about the slough’s midpoint. In addition to 

changing stream courses, the Fairbanks Spring system received 98 Ash Meadows speckled dace 

on April 14–15, 2010, and another 20 dace on August 19, 2010 (Cristi Baldino, Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, written commun., 2011).

Soda Spring also was restored following the 2007–08 survey. Prior to restoration, the 

outflow was marsh habitat discharging into Fairbanks Spring, and after restoration, a welldefined channel approximately 300 m in length discharged into a shallow marsh south of the 

Soda spring-pool. A total of 21 speckled dace were introduced between April 3 and 18, 2011 

(Cristi Baldino, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, written commun., 2011).

Restoration of Longstreet, Rogers, and Cold Springs is in the design stage. As part of 

restoration, sailfin mollies were eliminated from the Longstreet Spring system prior to the spring 

survey. This was part of a Nevada Department of Wildlife rotenone project conducted from 

February 15–16, 2011 (Kevin Guadalupe, Great Basin Institute, written commun., 2012). 

Longstreet Spring was the only site in the Northern Spring area known to harbor sailfin molly 

(Scoppettone and others, 2011b).

Warm Springs Complex

The Warm Springs Complex consists of several warm (30–33.5oC), low discharge 

springs (<0.028 m3

/s) sufficiently isolated to harbor one of the six subspecies of Amargosa 

pupfish, Warm Springs Amargosa pupfish (Miller, 1948). One small population in Mexican 

Spring was lost in 1973 when the spring dried (Yoakum and others, 1976). Because Warm 

Springs pupfish exist in such small and low-flow habitat, they are more susceptible to non-native 

invaders, such as crayfish and mosquitofish.

During the current study, the Indian Spring system was undergoing restoration and was 

not sampled. Other changes since the 2007–08 survey were refuge acquisition of a private land 

along North Scruggs Spring, allowing us to sample that entire system, and rehabilitation of 

School Spring, including elimination of mosquitofish and crayfish from that system 

(Weissenfluh, 2008c, 2010).
4

South ern Springs

Crystal Spring is Ash Meadows largest spring by discharge (0.18 m3/s). Much of the flow 

is conveyed in concrete channels constructed before federal acquisition. A diagram of the Crystal 

Spring channel system appears in Scoppettone and others (1995). The channels are in a state of 

decay, and water has broken through at several locations. During this study, water was being 

diverted to Crystal Reservoir, and Crystal Marsh and Horseshoe Marsh, also referred to as Lower 

Crystal Reservoir and Horseshoe Reservoir, respectively. 

No restoration was initiated in the Southern Springs area since the 2007–08 survey by 

Scoppettone and others (2011b). However, there was a substantial change in vegetation along the 

Jackrabbit Spring system with coyote willow (Salix exigua) proliferating along the stream reach 

restored in 2006, and common reed (Phragmites sp.) spreading several hundred meters 

downstream of the restoration site. 

Materials and Methods

We followed Scoppettone and others (2011b) and used Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) using the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) to trace stream channels and to 

determine locations of sampling stations. In this study, comprehensive surveys of Ash Meadows 

spring systems were conducted in the fall 2010 and spring 2011. We also surveyed the larger 

Northern Springs in the winter 2011. There were 741 and 744 established sampling stations for 

the fall and spring surveys, respectively, and 156 for the winter survey. (fig. 1). The lowermost 

reach of the Fairbanks Spring outflow was realigned to flow into Carson Slough between fall 

2010 and winter 2011 (fig. 1). Coordinates for each station were created using North American 

Datum (NAD) 83 decimal degrees longitude/latitude and downloaded into Garmin Global 

Positioning System (GPS) units. These units typically are accurate within a 2 m radius of a 

specific station. GIS also was used to illustrate seasonal distribution and relative abundance of 

fishes in each spring system. Data collected during each sampling period were used to develop 

species-specific GIS maps, which display range and densities. 

We used standard Gee (1/8-in. mesh) and modified minnow traps and followed the same 

sampling protocol described by Scoppettone and others (2011b). Most traps were set in the 

afternoon and checked the following morning. Shorter sets, placed in the morning and checked 3 

–h later, were used in areas with high fish densities, high crayfish densities, spring pools, and 

areas with water temperatures greater than 29o

C (to prevent fish mortality). Floats were used in 

spring-pools to set a trap at mid-water and a trap near the surface, as well as four benthic sets to 

sample the entire water column. Fish were identified to species and 10–20 individuals from each 

trap were measured to fork length (FL). Water temperature, using pocket thermometers, and 

depth measurements were taken at each station.

Relative abundance and distribution are illustrated using two methods: (1) total fish 

captured in each system and major habitat type (springhead, spring-pool, outflow, marsh, and 

reservoir) is shown by season in tabular form; and (2) trap-specific distribution and abundance 

using combined seasonal data are presented using GIS-generated maps. 
5

Figure 1. Aerial photograph of Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge showing sampling stations in fall

2010 (741), winter 2011 (156), and spring 2011 (744), Nye County, Nevada.
6

Results

Northern Springs

Pupfish were numerous and widespread in the restored habitats of Fairbanks and Soda 

Springs, and Carson Slough. In Fairbanks Spring system, pupfish were captured in greatest 

frequency and over a broader area in fall 2010 and spring 2011 than in winter 2011 (table 1, figs.

2 and 4). The greatest number of pupfish was captured from Carson Slough, close to Peterson 

Reservoir, in winter (fig. 3). The greatest number of speckled dace was captured in winter from 

Fairbanks outflow (n=236) and from Carson Slough (n=13) (table 1). Speckled dace distribution 

was broadest in spring 2011 (figs. 5–7), with two dace captured in Longstreet stream and another 

two in Peterson stream. Water velocity at four stations in Fairbanks stream and five stations in 

Carson Slough was too rapid to set minnow traps; we suspect that we would have captured dace 

at these stations as well. There were no consistent trends in pupfish length between spring-pools 

and stream outflows among seasons (table A1). Among the Northern Springs, pupfish in Five 

Springs generally were the smallest (17–51 mm). The larger crayfish generally occurred in the 

spring systems with greater discharge (Fairbanks, Rogers, and Longstreet Springs). American 

bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) also was captured in Fairbanks, Soda, Rogers and Longstreet Spring 

systems (table 1).

In the Northern Springs area, sailfin molly was only present in the Longstreet Spring 

system, with few captures in the spring-pool and outflow stream in fall 2010 and winter 2011 

(table 1, figs. A1–A2). Following the February 2011 chemical treatment aimed at eliminating 

sailfin molly from the Longstreet Spring system, no sailfin mollies were captured in spring 2011 

(fig. A3). Mosquitofish were more widespread than sailfin molly (figs. A4–A6), but captures 

generally were low for the Fairbanks and Longstreet Spring systems in winter and spring. Cold 

Spring was the only Northern Spring system in which no mosquitofish was captured. Captures 

for mosquitofish were highest in the Rogers Spring system, which also had the highest captures 

of crayfish for the three seasons sampled. 
7

Table 1. Seasonal catches of fishes, bullfrog, and crayfish at the Northern Springs of the Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011.

[Winter 2011—only Fairbanks, Soda, Rogers and Longstreet Springs were sampled. Spring locations are shown in

figure 1. Species: CYMI, Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish; CYPE, Warm Springs Amargosa pupfish; GAAF, 

Mosquitofish; LECY, Green Sunfish; MISA, Largemouth Bass; POLA, Sailfin Molly; PRCL, Red Swamp Crayfish;

RACA, Bullfrog; RHON, Ash Meadows speckled dace] 

System Season Species

CYMI CYPE RHON GAAF POLA LECY MISA RACA PRCL

Fairbanks springpool

Fall 2010 426 - - - - - - - 62

Winter 2011 272 - - - - - - - -

Spring 2011 417 - - - - - - - 31

Fairbanks stream

Fall 2010 1,264 - 120 149 - - - - 41

Winter 2011 880 - 236 3 - - - 1 72

Spring 2011 2,491 - 166 5 - - - 1 56

Soda spring-pool

Fall 2010 3 - - 10 - - - - 3

Winter 2011 - - - - - - - - 10

Spring 2011 12 - - 2 - - - - 24

Soda stream

Fall 2010 251 - - - - - - 2 41

Winter 2011 417 - - 5 - - - - 58

Spring 2011 363 - - 3 - - - - 58

Roger spring-pool

Fall 2010 125 - - 66 - - - 6 31

Winter 2011 213 - - 22 - - - 2 8

Spring 2011 227 - - 21 - - - 10 2

Roger stream

Fall 2010 14 - - 205 - - - - 150

Winter 2011 58 - - 190 - - - 1 195

Spring 2011 32 - - 97 - - - - 176

Longstreet 

spring-pool

Fall 2010 319 - - 5 5 - - - 16

Winter 2011 599 - - 16 13 - - 4 29

Spring 2011 79 - - 1 - - - - 24

Longstreet stream

Fall 2010 27 - - 30 1 - - - 51

Winter 2011 19 - - 20 4 - - - 22

Spring 2011 17 - 1 - - - - - 39

Carson Slough

Fall 2010 157 - - 115 - - - - 6

Winter 2011 1,449 - 13 2 - - - - 11

Spring 2011 312 - 3 4 - - - - 28

Five Springs 

spring-pool

Fall 2010 24 - - 4 - - - - 8

Spring 2011 12 - - - - - - - 3

Five Springs 

stream

Fall 2010 6 - - 43 - - - - 34

Spring 2011 10 - - 36 - - - - -

Peterson reservoir Fall 2010 29 - - 19 - - - - 1

Spring 2011 8 - - - - - - - -

Peterson stream

Fall 2010 No water due to low reservoir level

Spring 2011 124 - 2 1 - - - - 1

Cold spring Fall 2010 - - - - - - - - 21

Spring 2011 - - - - - - - - 26

Cold stream Fall 2010 1 - - - - - - - 51

Spring 2011 1 - - - - - - - 37

Cold pool Fall 2010 - - - - - - - - 5

Spring 2011 - - - - - - - - 18
8

Figure 2. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish throughout Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010.
9

Figure 3. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish in Fairbanks, Soda, 

Rogers, and Longstreet Springs Ash Meadows, National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, winter 2011.
10

Figure 4. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish throughout Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, spring 2011.
11

Figure 5. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows speckled dace throughout Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010.
12

Figure 6. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows speckled dace in Fairbanks, Soda, Rogers, 

and Longstreet Springs Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, winter 2011.
13

Figure 7. Relative abundance and distribution of Ash Meadows speckled dace throughout Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, spring 2011.
14

Warm Springs Complex

Pupfish captures for both North Scruggs and South Scruggs Springs were highest in the 

fall (95 and 120, respectively; table 2) when juvenile pupfish were abundant in their respective 

marshes at the downstream end of each of the two springs. In North Scruggs Spring, no pupfish 

were captured in the upper-most 50 m of stream in fall or spring; they were distributed over a 

wider area in the fall (fig. 8). South Scruggs Spring was the only spring-system in the Warm 

Springs Complex harboring mosquitofish and crayfish (table 2). Mosquitofish were captured 

within a 400 m stream reach in fall and 300 m stream reach in spring (fig. A10). Crayfish were 

more widespread than pupfish or mosquitofish (fig. A11), and in the fall, there were more 

crayfish captures than pupfish or mosquitofish captures (table 2). 

School and Marsh Springs are truncated systems with more constant water temperatures

and pupfish captures were highest in the spring (329 and 123, respectively; table 2). Pupfish was 

the only species captured from both Marsh and School Springs. The majority of pupfish captures 

were from the spring outflows (rather than spring-pools) for both systems (table 2). School 

Spring has undergone extensive restoration since our 2007–08 surveys (Weissenfluh, 2010), and 

fish were captured throughout the system and not just limited to the spring-pool (fig. 8).

Table 2. Seasonal catches of fishes, bullfrogs, and crayfish in the Warm Springs Complex of the Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011.

[Spring locations are shown in figure 1. Species: CYMI, Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish; CYPE, Warm Springs 

Amargosa pupfish; GAAF, Mosquitofish; LECY, Green Sunfish; MISA, Largemouth Bass; POLA, Sailfin Molly; 

PRCL, Red Swamp Crayfish; RACA, Bullfrog; RHON, Ash Meadows speckled dace] 

System Season Species

CYMI CYPE RHON GAAF POLA LECY MISA RACA PRCL

North Scruggs 

spring-pool

Fall 2010 - - - - - - - - -

Spring 2011 - - - - - - - - -

North Scruggs 

stream

Fall 2010 - 95 - - - - - - -

Spring 2011 - 58 - - - - - - -

South Scruggs 

spring-pool

Fall 2010 - 1 - - - - - - 2

Spring 2011 - - - - - - - - 2

South Scruggs 

stream

Fall 2010 - 120 - 13 - - - - 131

Spring 2011 - 93 - 19 - - - - 69

Marsh springpool

Fall 2010 - - - - - - - - -

Spring 2011 - - - - - - - - -

Marsh Stream Fall 2010 - 64 - - - - - - -

Spring 2011 - 123 - - - - - - -

North and South 

Indian springpools and 

streams

Not surveyed due to ongoing restoration

School springpool

Fall 2010 - 13 - - - - - - -

Spring 2011 - 2 - - - - - - -

School stream Fall 2010 - 252 - - - - - - -

Spring 2011 - 329 - - - - - - -
15

Figure 8. Relative abundance and distribution of pupfish in North Scruggs, South Scruggs, Marsh, and 

School Springs, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011.
16

Southern Springs

Distribution of pupfish was broader in the Crystal Spring system in spring 2011 than in 

fall 2010; however, captures in the spring-pool were much greater in the fall than in the spring 

(table 3, fig. 2). Mosquitofish (figs. A4 and A6) and crayfish (figs. A7 and A9) also were 

captured in greater numbers and over a broader area in spring 2011. Sailfin molly (figs. A1 and

A3) were captured less frequently and at substantially fewer stations than other species, but had 

slightly greater capture and broader distribution in spring 2011. 

Pupfish captures from the spring-pool in Kings Pool Spring were similar in fall 2010 

(n=647) and spring 2011 (n=635) (table 3). Captures in the outflow stream were substantially 

less than the spring-pool, and there was a greater disparity in captures between fall 2010 (n=137) 

and spring 2011 (n=78). Most stream captures were upstream of Forest Spring (fig. 2). The mean 

size of pupfish captured in the stream (34 mm) was greater than pupfish captured from the 

spring-pool (32 mm) (table A3).

The greatest capture of pupfish in the Point of Rocks Springs system was in spring 2011 

with the greatest density in the upper and lower end of the system. Only three speckled dace 

were captured and this was during the fall sampling period. Few mollies were captured and these 

were relegated to the upper reaches (figs. A1 and A3). Mosquitofish were abundant with the 

highest captures and greatest distribution in fall 2010 (table 3; figs. A4 and A6). Crayfish also 

were abundant and widespread in the fall 2010 and spring 2011, but crayfish had a wider 

distribution in spring 2011 (figs. A7 and A9). Crayfish captures tended to be highest in the upper 

springbrook but below the spring-pool in an area where pupfish captures tended to be less (figs. 

2–3; figs. A7 and A9). 

The only fishes captured from Bradford 1 Spring were speckled dace and mosquitofish. 

Bradford 1 Spring supported a substantial number of speckled dace for its limited habitat, but 

many were juveniles (<50 mm FL; table A3). Four aquatic species were captured in Bradford 2 

Spring (pupfish, speckled dace, mosquitofish, and crayfish), but only mosquitofish were captured 

with great frequency (table 3). More mosquitofish were captured than crayfish, but crayfish were 

captured at more sampling sites, occurring throughout the springbrook downstream of the source 

pools (figs. A4, A6, A7, and A9). Mosquitofish also was the predominant species captured in 

Forest Spring, followed by crayfish. One speckled dace in fall 2010 was the only fish captured in 

Tubbs Spring, which is heavily infested with crayfish. Only crayfish were captured from Davis 

Spring. 

The greatest number of pupfish captured in Big Spring was in spring 2011 for the springpool and outflow stream (table 3, fig. 2). Mosquitofish was the most frequently captured nonnative fish, and capture success and distribution was greatest in fall 2010. Mollies were sparse in 

both fall 2010 and spring 2011 (fig. A3). The greatest number of crayfish was captured in the 

spring-pool and stream in spring 2011, but broadest distribution was in fall 2010 (fig. A11). 

The greatest capture of pupfish in the Jackrabbit Spring system was in the spring-pool, 

and the greatest capture for speckled dace was in the stream. Pupfish and speckled dace captures 

were highest in fall 2010 (table 3, fig. 2). Both species had their broadest distribution in fall 

2010. Along with their greater number in the stream, speckled dace had broader distribution than 

pupfish, and in fall 2010, speckled dace was captured in all but two sample locations. 

Mosquitofish and crayfish were abundant and widespread throughout the system, with the 

greatest capture and distribution in fall 2010. Mollies were limited in both distribution and 

number with the greatest number captured in spring 2011 in the spring-pool. 
17

Table 3. Seasonal catches of fishes, bullfrogs, and crayfish at the Southern Springs of the Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011.

[No sampling of these springs in winter 2011. Spring locations are shown in figure 1. Species: CYMI, Ash Meadows 

Amargosa pupfish; CYPE, Warm Springs Amargosa pupfish; GAAF, Mosquitofish; LECY, Green Sunfish; MISA, 

Largemouth Bass; POLA, Sailfin Molly; PRCL, Red Swamp Crayfish; RACA, Bullfrog; RHON, Ash Meadows 

speckled dace] 

System Season Species

CYMI CYPE RHON GAAF POLA LECY MISA RACA PRCL

Crystal spring-pool Fall 2010 455 - - 217 - - - - 29

Spring 2011 78 - - 16 - - - - -

Crystal stream Fall 2010 619 - - 364 68 - - - 561

Spring 2011 1,499 - - 404 100 - - - 273

Crystal reservoir Fall 2010 - - - - - 37 - - -

Spring 2011 - - - - - 1 3 - -

Crystal marsh Fall 2010 13 - - 1 - 52 - - -

Spring 2011 1 - - 22 - 39 - - -

Horseshoe marsh Fall 2010 11 - - 35 14 1 1 - 86

Spring 2011 9 - - 83 - 1 - - 100

Kings Pool springpool

Fall 2010 647 - - 6 10 - - - -

Spring 2011 635 - - 21 - - - - -

Kings Pool stream Fall 2010 137 - - 123 19 - - - 59

Spring 2011 78 - - 33 20 - - - 60

Point of Rocks stream Fall 2010 252 - 3 85 9 - - - 113

Spring 2011 368 - - 62 11 - - - 123

Bradford 1 springpool

Fall 2010 - - 145 9 - - - - 58

Spring 2011 - - 161 16 - - - - 32

Bradford 1 stream There is no longer an outflow channel due to restoration

Bradford 2 springpool

Fall 2010 - - - 466 - - - 1 20

Spring 2011 - - 5 294 - - - - 54

Bradford 2 stream Fall 2010 12 - 16 174 15 - - - 131

Spring 2011 34 - 13 177 10 - - - 89

Forest spring-pool Fall 2010 9 - - 235 7 - - - 75

Spring 2011 3 - - 53 - - - - 40

Tubbs spring-pool Fall 2010 - - 1 - - - - - 67

Spring 2011 - - - - - - - - 28

Davis spring-pool Fall 2010 - - - - - - - - 11

Spring 2011 - - - - - - - - -

Jackrabbit springpool

Fall 2010 474 - 3 42 3 - - - 14

Spring 2011 468 - 10 22 54 - - - 11

Jackrabbit stream Fall 2010 118 - 623 224 4 - - - 261

Spring 2011 68 - 538 28 6 - - - 123

Big Spring springpool

Fall 2010 221 - - 106 21 - - - 23

Spring 2011 310 - - 26 13 - - - 35

Big Spring stream Fall 2010 54 - - 195 18 - - 1 94

Spring 2011 201 - - 85 11 - - 1 131
18

Discussion

Results of this study illustrate the status of native fish species better than the status of

non-native fish species. Mosquitofish are surface dwellers (Scoppettone, 1993), and presumably 

do not typically encounter minnow traps lying on the stream bottom. Pupfish and speckled dace 

are more benthically oriented (Scoppettone and others, 2005) and consequently are more like to 

encounter traps. Sailfin molly demonstrate greater trap avoidance than mosquitofish, pupfish, or 

speckled dace, and thus our trapping data likely underestimated the abundance of sailfin molly, 

although its distribution is accurately portrayed.

There was no consistent seasonal trend in capture success among species—several factors 

likely contributed to this condition. Population numbers in Crystal and Big Springs were 

probably influenced by invasive predators (largemouth bass in Big Spring and green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus) and perhaps largemouth bass in Crystal Spring). These predators probably 

impacted both spring systems during or between surveys. AMNWR staff removed 46 green 

sunfish from these systems since October 5, 2010, with none having been caught after 2 were 

removed on June 21, 2011 (Darrick Weissenfluh, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, oral 

commun., 2011). Fish population numbers at the Jackrabbit Spring system are being influenced 

by the spread of coyote willow. Predictably, the effect on pupfish is negative because pupfish 

feed on algae, which in turn requires sunlight (Kennedy and others, 2006). The effect on 

speckled dace needs further evaluation. Restoration efforts at Fairbanks and Soda Springs 

occurred during the survey, and profoundly influenced numbers and distribution of fishes and 

crayfish. Restoration of Fairbanks’ and Soda springs’ channels altered their previous 

connectivity relationships with the Longstreet, Rogers, and Cold Springs systems, thus 

influencing abundance and distribution of fishes in those systems as well.

Northern Springs 

The abundance and widespread distribution of Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish in the 

newly restored Fairbanks and Soda Springs demonstrate that open-water habitat is conducive to 

this species (Kennedy and others, 2006; Scoppettone and others, 2011a). The future relative 

abundance and distribution of pupfish probably will be influenced by how open the channel 

remains to sunlight. Thus where pupfish are concerned, it is important to encourage open-water 

habitats whenever possible, which is important for restoration considerations, including revegetation options.

The shift in the Soda Spring fish community is particularly noteworthy. Only 

mosquitofish were captured in the 2007–08 survey, with no pupfish recorded. During this survey,

hundreds of pupfish were captured and 21 speckled dace from Jackrabbit Spring were introduced 

into the system in March 2011. Although none were captured during the spring 2011 sampling 

period, AMNWR personnel captured nine in July 2011 (Darrick Weissenfluh, Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, oral commun., 2011). Speckled dace occupy a wide range of habitat 

types (Moyle, 2002), including low-discharge spring systems, such as Soda Spring. However, 

there are frequent impacts from invasive crayfish and mosquitofish in shallow low-discharge 

systems. Soda Spring presents an opportunity to test whether speckled dace can persist in a low 

volume spring system in the presence of these invasive species. 
19

Repatriation of speckled dace to the Fairbanks Spring system appears to have succeeded.

More dace were captured in the minnow traps during each of the three seasons sampled than the 

118 dace introduced to the system. Reintroduction of speckled dace occurred within several 

months of phase 1 post-restoration, when mosquitofish and crayfish numbers were low. A 

relatively low number of these predatory invasive species probably enhanced survival of 

speckled dace eggs and larvae (Leavy and others, 2004). Restoration of Longstreet and Rogers 

Springs is anticipated to allow speckled dace expansion in the Northern Springs area. 

No sailfin molly was captured from the Longstreet Spring system during the spring 2011 

sampling, suggesting that the February 2011 treatment was successful. The species appears to no 

longer be a threat to spread in the Northern Springs area. 

Warm Springs Complex

Warm Springs pupfish have endured substantial habitat alteration and past invasion by 

non-native species (Miller and Deacon, 1973). When Scruggs Springs was discovered to harbor 

pupfish in 1967, both springs were already highly altered and non-native mosquitofish had 

invaded as well. Miller and Deacon (1973) showed Indian Spring as just one spring discharging 

into a reservoir; it too harbored pupfish and mosquitofish. When Scoppettone and others (1995) 

sampled the Warm Springs Complex, only Indian Spring was inhabited by mosquitofish and

crayfish. By 2001, mosquitofish and crayfish also were reported from South Scruggs and School 

Springs, and the number of Warm Spring pupfish appeared to be decreasing (St. George, 2001). 

There was a marked difference between the number of pupfish captured in North Scruggs 

by Scoppettone and others (2011b) in spring 2008 (n=81) and in this study (n=58), even though 

more stations were sampled in this study due to acquisition of a private land. Reasons for the 

substantial difference are unknown; however, the property acquisition presents an opportunity to 

improve habitat with the intent of expanding the range and number of pupfish. South Scruggs

Spring harbored both mosquitofish and crayfish during both surveys; there was a greater number 

of pupfish captured in South Scruggs Spring than in North Scruggs Spring in fall 2010. Most of 

these were juveniles captured in shallow marsh habitat near the outflow terminus. South Scruggs 

Spring also had substantially greater flow than North Scruggs Spring. Once non-native 

mosquitofish and crayfish are eradicated from the South Scruggs Spring system, the Warm 

Springs pupfish population is expected to increase even more. 

The outflow of Marsh Spring had changed between this survey and the 2007–08 survey.

The terminal marsh was more thickly vegetated resulting in less open water. Total number of 

pupfish captured was only 64 in fall 2010 and 123 in spring 2011. The greatest pupfish capture 

success was in School Spring with 252 in fall 2010 and 329 in spring 2011. Capture success was 

highest in spring 2011 for both Marsh and School Springs, but was highest in fall 2010 for North 

and South Scruggs Springs. We attribute this difference to the annual proliferation of pupfish 

that occurs in the shallow marshes of the North and South Scruggs Spring system. Populations in 

marshes begin to proliferate in spring and reach their maximum number by fall. Many of the 

pupfish captured from the shallow marsh are juveniles (table A2) that apparently do not survive 

the winter. Presumably because of their more stable temperature, School and Marsh Springs do 

not support the relatively “boom and bust” populations seen at the North and South Scruggs

Spring system.
20

Southern Springs

Since AMNWR was established, the Southern Springs have been plagued with 

largemouth bass and green sunfish invasions at various times (Threloff, 1990b; St. George, 1995, 

1998, 1999, 2001; Ambruzs and others, 2006). Crystal Reservoir harbored largemouth bass when 

AMNWR was acquired and they have intermittently invaded Crystal spring-pool and the outflow 

stream; these invasions are followed by decreases in the pupfish population. Since the 2007–08 

survey, green sunfish also invaded Crystal Spring outflow and were present in the system during 

our fall 2010 and spring 2011 sampling period (Darrick Weissenfluh, Ash Meadows National 

Wildlife Refuge, oral commun., 2011). Amargosa pupfish typically are in greatest numbers in 

open-water habitat with ample algae production, and in fewer numbers in heavily shaded habitat 

(Kennedy and others, 2006; Scoppettone and others, 2011a). The canopy over Kings Pool stream 

has increased since the outflow was restored in 1997 and we suspect pupfish numbers have 

declined, but we have no direct comparisons. The number of pupfish captured in fall 2010 and 

spring 2011 were somewhat less than the number captured in the 2007–08 survey, but so were 

invasive mosquitofish and crayfish—species reported to increase with canopy cover. Pupfish 

captures in Jackrabbit stream also were less than the 2007–08 survey and this may be due to 

increased riparian growth and resulting cover, although again the captures of invasive 

mosquitofish and crayfish also were less.

AMNWR staff captured two speckled dace at Tubbs Spring in October 2006 and another 

in July 2007 (Darrick Weissenfluh, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, oral commun., 

2011). One speckled dace was captured in Tubbs Spring in fall 2010. These captures are the first 

dace captures at this spring since 1996 (St. George, 1997). The spring was chemically treated in 

1998 (Jon Sjöberg, Nevada Department of Wildlife, written commun., 2011) resulting in the 

eradication of mosquitofish and sailfin molly. No fish were captured from Tubbs Spring in the 

2007–08 survey. A pipe runs from Tubbs Spring to the Kings Pool outflow (Threloff, 1990a), 

and we suspect that the dace accessed Tubbs Spring through the pipe. Speckled dace was reintroduced into Forest Spring and Point of Rocks Spring in 2003. We suspect that crayfish, 

mosquitofish, and sailfin molly have prevented the introduced fish from establishing strong 

reproductive populations. Only three dace were captured in Point of Rocks Spring in fall 2010 

and none in spring 2011. There were no speckled dace captures from Forest Spring although 

AMNWR staff did capture one in October 2006 and two in August 2007 (Darrick Weissenfluh, 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, oral commun., 2011). When crayfish and mosquitofish 

were aggressively and systematically removed from Bradford 1 and 2 Springs, the speckled dace 

population responded with a substantial increase. Bradford 1 Spring supported a fairly robust 

population of speckled dace for its restricted area, but most captured dace were juveniles and few 

reached adulthood (>50 mm FL) (G.G. Scoppettone, U.S. Geological Survey, personal 

observation, 2011 ). This suggests that Bradford 1 habitat is capable of supporting relatively few 

adult dace. The stronghold for speckled dace in the Southern Springs area is the Jackrabbit 

Spring system, although Bradford 1 and 2 Springs support reproductive populations as well. 
21

Conclusions

1. Restoration of Fairbanks Spring has led to an increase in the Ash Meadows pupfish 

population, and speckled dace were successfully repatriated into the Northern Springs. 

2. Post-restoration of Fairbanks Spring, mosquitofish and crayfish were relatively few in 

number and limited in distribution. 

3. Capture of Ash Meadows pupfish in Soda Spring changed from no captures in the 2007–

08 survey (pre-restoration) to hundreds in this study (post-restoration), with most fish 

occupying the shallow open marsh near the spring discharge terminus.

4. Sailfin molly appeared to have been successfully eradicated from the Longstreet Spring 

system—none were captured during our spring 2011 sampling soon after the spring 

system was chemically treated. Mosquitofish were not eradicated from the system.

5. Although connected by marsh habitat with Longstreet Spring, Rogers Spring did not 

harbor sailfin molly. 

6. Cold Spring was the only Northern Spring system without mosquitofish captures. Ash 

Meadows pupfish were rare but invasive crayfish were common at this site.

7. Eradication of mosquitofish and red swamp crayfish from South Scruggs Spring, the only 

spring in the Warm Springs Complex harboring them, would lead to an increase in 

pupfish and decrease in the risk of spread of these invasive species. This would be a 

valuable management prescription for this site.

8. Restoration of North Scruggs and Marsh Springs may lead to increase in resident pupfish 

populations.

9. Pupfish were found concentrated in North and South Scruggs spring systems in the upper 

reaches where water temperatures remain constantly warm, and near downstream most 

perennial water where the water is shallow and subject to ample sunlight. 

10. Marsh and School Springs had relatively short outflow stream prior to discharging into a 

marsh, and most pupfish in these systems appear to be subject to fairly constant thermal 

environs. 

11. Invasive centrarchids in Crystal and Big Springs were suspected to have a negative 

influence on pupfish numbers during this study, making comparisons of Ash Meadows 

pupfish population among seasons and years difficult.

12. Bradford 1 Spring supported a fairly sizable speckled dace population, but only few are 

expected to reach adulthood. Bradford 2 Spring continues to support a reproductive 

population of speckled dace, although the population does not appear to be robust. 

13. One speckled dace was captured from Tubbs Spring. This fish was suspected to have 

entered Tubbs Spring through a pipe that extends to Kings Pool outflow.

14. Davis Spring remained fishless, but crayfish are still present.

15. Native fish populations are down in Jackrabbit Spring, and expansion of coyote willow 

along the banks of this spring is the suspected cause. Jackrabbit Spring remains the 

stronghold for Ash Meadows speckled dace.
22

17. The Point of Rock spring system is another low water volume spring system with pupfish 

concentrated near the thermal discharge, and near the stream terminus where the water 

was shallow and subject to ample sunlight. Water temperature fluctuates dramatically 

throughout the year. As with the North and South Scruggs Spring systems, the middle 

reaches are heavily vegetated and receive little sunlight.

18. Speckled dace introduced into Point of Rocks and Forest Springs did not appear to be 

successful. None were captured from Forest Spring and only three from Point of Rocks 

Spring during the fall 2010 survey.

19. The pupfish population in Kings Pool Spring spring-pool remains fairly robust, but 

numbers in the stream outflow are down substantially from the 2007–08 survey, 

presumably due to greater shading of the stream channel.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge for funding the project and assisting 

with lodging. Thanks also to Kevin Guadalupe and Jeff Goldstein (Great Basin Institute) for field 

assistance.

References Cited

Ambruzs, S., Salgado, J.A., Scoppettone, G.G., and Goodchild, S., 2006, Survey of Ash 

Meadows speckled dace and pupfish in Jackrabbit Spring: U.S. Geological Survey Biological 

Resources Discipline, Reno Field Station and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern Nevada 

Field Office, 8 p.

Baugh, T., Williams, J.E., Buck, D.A., and Deacon, J.E., 1986, New distributional records for 

Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes, an endangered pupfish from Ash Meadows, Nevada: The 

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 31, p. 544-546.

Deacon, J.E., Hubbs, C., and Zahuranec, B.J., 1964, Some effects of introduced fishes on the 

native fish fauna of southern Nevada: Copeia, p. 384-388.

Deacon, J.E., and Williams, C.D., 1991, Ash Meadows and the legacy of the Devils Hole 

pupfish, in Minckley, W.L., and Deacon, J.E. (eds.), Battle against extinction—Native fish 

management in the American West: Tucson, The University of Arizona Press, p. 69-87. 

Dudley, W.W., Jr., and Larson, J.D., 1976, Effect of irrigation pumping on desert pupfish 

habitats in Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

927, 153 p. 

Freeman, M.A., Turnbull, J.F., Yeomans, W.E., and Bean, C.W., 2010, Prospects for 

management strategies of invasive crayfish populations with an emphasis on biological 

control: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, v. 20, p. 211-233.

Hershler, R., and Sada, D.W., 1987, Springsnails (Gastropoda:Hydrobiidae) of Ash Meadows, 

Amargosa Basin, California-Nevada: Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, v. 

100, p. 776-843.

Kennedy, T.A., Finlay, J.C., and Hobbie, S.E., 2006, Eradication of invasive Tamarix 

ramosissima along a desert stream increase native fish density: Ecological Applications, v. 15, 

p. 2072-2083.
23

Knight, T.A., and Clemmer, G.H., 1987, Status of populations of the endemic plants of Ash 

Meadows, Nye County, Nevada: a report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Basin 

Complex, Reno Nevada, Project Agreement No. 86-2-1., Nevada Division of Forestry 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Nevada Natural Heritage Program, 

Carson City, Nev.

Landye, J.J., 1973, Status of the inland aquatic and semi-aquatic mollusks of the American 

Southwest: Lower Colorado River Basin Research Laboratory, 60 p. 

Leavy, T.R., McShane, R.R., Swaim, K.M., and Scoppettone G.G., 2004, (Part II) Status of Ash 

Meadows speckled dace in Bradford Springs, in Information on native fishes and invasive 

fishes and crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, Western Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field Station, p. 1-

11.

McShane, R.R., Swaim, K.M., and Scoppettone, G.G., 2004, (Part I) Implication of habitat 

restoration for managing exotic crayfish at Ash Meadows, in Information on native fishes and 

invasive fishes and crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Division, Western Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field 

Station, p. 1-26.

Meffe, G.K., 1983, Attempted chemical renovation of an Arizona spring-brook for management 

of the endangered Sonoran topminnow: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 

3, p. 315-321.

Meronek, T.G., Bouchard, P.M., Buckner, E.R., Burri, T.M., Demmerly, K.K., Hatheli, D.C., 

Klumb, R.A., Schmidt, S.H., and Coble, D.W., 1996, A review of fish control projects: North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 16, p. 63-74. 

Miller, R.R., 1948, The cyprinodont fishes of the Death Valley System of eastern California and 

Southwestern Nevada: Miscellaneous Publications Museum of Zoology, University of 

Michigan, v. 68, 155 p.

Miller, R.R., 1961, Man and the changing fauna of the American Southwest: Papers of the 

Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, v. 46, p. 365-404.

Miller, R.R. and Deacon, J.E., 1973, New localities of the rare Warm Spring pupfish, 

Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis, from Ash Meadows: Copeia, p. 137-140.

Miller, R.R., Williams, J.D., and Williams, J.E., 1989, Extinction of North American fishes 

during the past century, Fisheries (Bethesda), v. 14, p. 22-38. 

Minckley, W.L., and Deacon, J.E., 1991, Battle against extinction: native fish management in the 

American West: Tucson, The University of Arizona Press. 

Mitchell, A.J., Hobbs, M.S., and Brandt, T.M., 2007, The effect of chemical treatment on redrim melania Melanoides tuberculata, and exotic aquatic snail that serves as a vector of 

trematodes to fish and other species in the USA: North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, v. 27, p. 1287-1293. 

Moyle, P.B., 2002, Inland fishes of California: Berkeley, University of California Press. 

Moyle, P.B., Li, H.W., and Barton, B.A., 1986, The Frankenstein effect: impact of introduced 

fishes on native fishes in North America, in Stround, R.H. (ed.), Fish culture in fisheries 

management: American Fisheries Society, Fish Culture Section and Fisheries Management 

Section, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 415-426.

Olden, J.D., and Poff, N.L., 2005, Long-term trends of native and non-native fish faunas in the 

American Southwest: Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 28, p. 75-89. 
24

Pister, E.P., 1974, Desert fishes and their habitats: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 103, p. 531-540.

Pister, E.P., 1985, Desert pupfishes: reflections on reality, desirability, and conscience: Fisheries, 

v. 10, p. 10-15. 

Rinne, J.N., and Turner, P.R., 1991, Reclamation and alteration as management techniques, and 

a review of methodology in stream renovation, in Minckley, W.L., and Deacon, J. E. (eds.), 

Battle against extinction: native fish management in the American West: Tucson, University of 

Arizona Press. 

Sada, D.W., 1990, Recovery plan for the endangered and threatened species of Ash Meadows, 

Nevada: Reno, Nev., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Scoppettone, G.G., 1993, Interactions between native nonnative fishes of the upper Muddy 

River, Nevada: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 122, p. 599-608. 

Scoppettone, G.G., Rissler, P.H., Byers, S., Shea, S., Nielsen, B., and Sjöberg, J., 1995, 

Information on the status and ecology of Ash Meadows Fishes and Ambrysus: National 

Biological Service, Reno Field Station, 111 p.

Scoppettone, G.G., Hereford, M.E., Rissler, P.H., Johnson, D.M., and Salgado, J.A., 2011a, 

Relative abundance and distribution of fishes within an established Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern of the Amargosa River Canyon and Willow Creek, Inyo and San 

Bernardino Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1161, 32 p.

Scoppettone, G.G., Rissler, P., Johnson, D., and Hereford, M., 2011b, Relative abundance and 

distribution of fishes and crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nye County, 

Nevada, 2007-08: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1017, 56 p.

Scoppettone, G.G., Rissler, P., Gourley, C., and Martinez, C., 2005, Habitat restoration as a 

means of controlling non-native fish in a Mojave Desert Oasis: Restoration Ecology, v. 13, p. 

247-256.

Soltz, K.L., and Naiman, R.J., 1978, The natural history of native fishes in the Death Valley 

system: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California, Science Series, v. 30, 

76 p.

St. George, D., 1995, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge annual endangered fish survey 

Fall 1994: Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, 6 p. 

St. George, D., 1998, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 1997 native fish survey: Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, 8 p. 

St. George, D., 1999, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge nonnative fishes eradication 

report 1998: Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, 4 p. 

St. George, D., 2000, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 1999 native fish survey: Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 10 p. 

St. George, D., 2001, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 2001 native fish survey: Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 8 p. 

Taylor, D., 1980, Endangered and threatened freshwater mollusks of Amargosa drainage, 

California—Nevada: Proposal to Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service—Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University. 

Taylor, J.N., Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and McCann, J.A., 1984, Known impacts of exotic fishes in 

the continental United States, in Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and Stauffer, J.R., Jr., (eds.),

Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes: Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins 

University Press. 
25

Threloff, D., 1990a, The distribution and abundance of the fishes of Ash Meadows: a preliminary 

inventory: Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 23 p.

Threloff, D., 1990b, Ash Meadows Biannual Fish Count Summary: Ash Meadow National 

Wildlife Refuge, 11 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971, Status of desert pupfish, A progress report on the status of 

the desert pupfish, 14 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989, 50 CFR part 17, Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants: animal notice of review. Federal Register 54, 554-579.

Weissenfluh, D., 2008a, Ash Meadows NWR aquatic exotic control activities summary 

accomplish report (FY2008), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 9 p.

Weissenfluh, D., 2008b, Davis Spring Aquatic Nuisance Species Eradication Accomplishment 

Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5 p.

Weissenfluh, D., 2008c, School Springs Refugium Restoration Accomplishment Report, U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 9 p.

Weissenfluh, D., 2010, Conservation of Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis and three endemic 

aquatic invertebrates in an artificial desert spring refuge located in Ash Meadows National 

Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech 

University, Lubbock, Tex.

Williams, J.E., Bowman, D.B., Brooks, J.E., Echelle, A.A., Edwards, R.J., Hendrickson, D.A., 

and Landye, J.J., 1985, Endangered aquatic ecosystems in North American deserts with a list 

of vanishing fishes of the region: Journal of Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, v. 20, 

60 p. 

Williams, J.E., and Sada, D.W., 1985, Status of two endangered fishes, Cyrpinodon nevadensis 

mionectes and Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis, from two springs in Ash Meadows, Nevada: 

The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 30, p. 475-484. 

Yoakum, J.D., Lockard, D., Osborn, C., Deacon, J., Allan, C., and Kobetich, G., 1976, Warm 

Springs pupfish recovery plan: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
26

This page left intentionally blank
27

Appendix A.

Figure A1. Relative abundance and distribution of sailfin molly throughout Ash Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010.
28

Figure A2. Relative abundance and distribution of sailfin molly in Fairbanks, Soda, Rogers, and Longstreet 

springs Ash Meadows, National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, winter 2011.
29

Figure A3. Relative abundance and distribution of sailfin molly throughout Ash Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada, spring 2011.
30

Figure A4. Relative abundance and distribution of mosquitofish throughout Ash Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010.
31

Figure A5. Relative abundance and distribution of mosquitofish in Fairbanks, Soda, Rogers, and 

Longstreet Springs, Ash Meadows, National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, winter 2011.
32

Figure A6. Relative abundance and distribution of mosquitofish throughout Ash Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada, spring 2011.
33

Figure A7. Relative abundance and distribution of crayfish throughout Ash Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010.
34

Figure A8. Relative abundance and distribution of crayfish in Fairbanks, Soda, Rogers, and Longstreet 

Springs, Ash Meadows, National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, winter 2011.
35

Figure A9. Relative abundance and distribution of crayfish throughout Ash Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada, spring 2011.
36

Figure A10. Relative abundance and distribution of mosquitofish in North Scruggs, South Scruggs, Marsh,

and School Springs, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011.
37

Figure A11. Relative abundance and distribution of crayfish in North Scruggs, South Scruggs, Marsh, and 

School Springs, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, fall 2010 and spring 2011.
38

Table A1. Number and size of individuals of species captured seasonally at the Northern Springs of Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.

[Spring locations are shown in figure 1. FL, fork length. Species: CYMI - Ash Meadows pupfish, CYPE - Warm 

Springs pupfish, GAAF - Mosquitofish, LECY - Green Sunfish, MISA - Largemouth Bass, POLA - Sailfin Molly, 

PRCL - Red Swamp Crayfish, RACA – Bullfrog, RHON - Ash Meadows speckled dace]

Fall 2010

System Species Total Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average± Standard 

Deviation

Fairbanks spring-pool CYMI 426 71 83 16 - 45 31 ± 6

PRCL 62 10.3 60 18 - 68 53 ± 10

Fairbanks stream

CYMI 1264 28.1 261 18 - 50 33 ± 6

RHON 120 2.7 68 24 - 83 58 ± 12

GAAF 149 3.3 65 23 - 48 33 ± 5

RACA 1 - - - -

PRCL 41 0.9 37 28 - 75 53 ± 14

Soda spring-pool

CYMI 3 3 3 29 - 32 30 ± 2

GAAF 10 10 9 20 - 35 28 ± 5

PRCL 3 3 3 35 - 50 43 ± 8

Soda stream

CYMI 251 27.9 66 15 - 47 28 ± 7

GAAF 0 - - - -

RACA 2 0.2 2 80 - 95 88 ± 11

PRCL 41 4.6 37 19 - 76 43 ± 16

Roger spring-pool

CYMI 125 20.8 78 16 - 78 30 ± 9

GAAF 66 11 47 20 - 41 27 ± 5

RACA 6 1 6 72 - 95 83 ± 8

PRCL 31 5.2 31 30 - 66 48 ± 10

Roger stream

CYMI 14 0.5 14 26 - 55 37 ± 7

GAAF 205 6.8 94 15 - 50 32 ± 6

PRCL 150 5 122 20 - 72 49 ± 10

Longstreet spring-pool

CYMI 319 53.2 20 18 - 50 33 ± 9

GAAF 5 0.8 5 25 - 44 35 ± 9

POLA 5 0.8 2 26 - 33 30 ± 5

PRCL 16 2.7 16 32 - 73 55 ± 12

Longstreet stream

CYMI 27 1.4 27 15 - 45 31 ± 8

RHON 0 - - - -

GAAF 30 1.5 30 25 - 53 37 ± 7

POLA 1 0.1 1 21 - 21 21 ± 0

PRCL 51 2.6 41 28 - 70 50 ± 10

Carson Slough

CYMI 157 6 67 17 - 41 25 ± 6

RHON 0 - - - -

GAAF 115 4.4 56 22 - 48 29 ± 4

PRCL 6 0.2 6 40 - 68 54 ± 9

Five Springs spring-pool

CYMI 24 4.8 21 22 - 34 27 ± 3

GAAF 4 0.8 4 17 - 22 20 ± 2

PRCL 8 1.6 8 17 - 47 37 ± 10

Five Springs stream

CYMI 6 0.4 5 24 - 33 28 ± 3

GAAF 43 3.1 20 17 - 51 30 ± 8

PRCL 34 2.4 20 18 - 67 45 ± 16

Peterson reservoir

CYMI 29 2.9 29 20 - 35 26 ± 3

GAAF 19 1.9 18 24 - 34 28 ± 3

PRCL 1 0.1 1 70 - 70 70 ± 0

Peterson stream

CYMI

No water due to low reservoir level RHON

GAAF

PRCL

Cold spring-pool PRCL 21 21 21 30 - 85 53 ± 12

Cold stream CYMI 1 0.1 1 39 - 39 39 ± 0

PRCL 51 6.4 47 30 - 68 50 ± 10

Cold pool PRCL 5 - - - -
39

Table A1. Number and size of individuals of species captured seasonally at the Northern Springs of Ash Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.—Continued

Winter 2011

System Species Total Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average± 

Standard 

Deviation

Fairbanks spring-pool CYMI 272 45.3 101 21 - 42 31 ± 5

PRCL 0 - - - -

Fairbanks stream

CYMI 880 19.6 181 25 - 51 38 ± 6

RHON 236 5.2 174 31 - 83 60 ± 8

GAAF 3 0.1 3 25 - 45 37 ± 10

PRCL 72 1.6 37 38 - 75 54 ± 8

Soda spring-pool

CYMI 0 - - - -

GAAF 0 - - - -

PRCL 10 10 10 25 - 68 45 ± 14

Soda stream

CYMI 417 46.3 76 20 - 44 31 ± 5

GAAF 5 0.6 5 27 - 41 33 ± 6

PRCL 58 6.4 24 24 - 60 48 ± 9

Roger spring-pool

CYMI 213 35.5 114 18 - 41 28 ± 5

GAAF 22 3.7 22 20 - 40 28 ± 5

RACA 2 0.3 2 65 - 85 75 ± 14

PRCL 8 1.3 8 31 - 60 46 ± 10

Roger stream

CYMI 58 1.8 39 28 - 51 35 ± 4

GAAF 190 5.9 113 20 - 50 32 ± 7

RACA 1 0 1 52 52

PRCL 195 6.1 155 20 - 78 51 ± 11

Longstreet spring-pool

CYMI 599 99.8 100 21 - 50 35 ± 6

GAAF 16 2.7 16 23 - 43 33 ± 6

POLA 13 2.2 13 27 - 40 34 ± 4

RACA 4 0.7 - - -

PRCL 29 4.8 29 27 - 68 52 ± 11

Longstreet stream

CYMI 19 1 19 23 - 45 35 ± 7

RHON 0 - - - -

GAAF 20 1 20 22 - 44 32 ± 7

POLA 4 0.2 4 27 - 44 34 ± 8

PRCL 22 1.1 22 27 - 69 54 ± 11

Carson Slough

CYMI 1449 58 53 21 - 46 29 ± 5

RHON 13 0.5 13 48 - 70 60 ± 7

GAAF 2 0.1 2 32 - 39 36 ± 5

PRCL 11 0.4 11 35 - 77 55 ± 14

Five Springs spring-pool

CYMI

Not sampled in Winter 2011

GAAF

PRCL

Five Springs stream

CYMI

GAAF

PRCL

Peterson Reservoir

CYMI

GAAF

PRCL

Peterson Stream

CYMI

RHON

GAAF

PRCL

Cold spring-pool PRCL

Cold stream CYMI

PRCL

Cold pool PRCL
40

Table A1. Number and size of individuals of species captured seasonally at the Northern Springs of Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.—Continued

Spring 2011

System Species Total Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average ± 

Standard Deviation

Fairbanks spring-pool CYMI 417 69.5 114 21 - 50 33 ± 5

PRCL 31 5.2 29 22 - 62 46 ± 8

Fairbanks stream

CYMI 2491 55.4 288 21 - 58 35 ± 6

RHON 166 3.7 146 24 - 77 51 ± 14

GAAF 5 0.1 5 27 - 40 31 ± 5

RACA 1 - - - -

PRCL 56 1.2 39 30 - 84 56 ± 12

Soda spring-pool

CYMI 12 12 10 21 - 34 26 ± 5

GAAF 2 2 2 23 - 26 25 ± 2

PRCL 24 24 10 50 - 62 56 ± 4

Soda stream

CYMI 363 40.3 79 22 - 47 31 ± 4

GAAF 3 0.3 2 40 - 42 41 ± 1

PRCL 58 6.4 36 32 - 68 50 ± 8

Roger spring-pool

CYMI 227 37.8 80 18 - 40 29 ± 5

GAAF 21 3.5 21 19 - 32 23 ± 3

RACA 10 1.7 0 - -

PRCL 2 0.3 2 42 - 50 46 ± 6

Roger spring

CYMI 32 1.1 32 23 - 52 36 ± 5

GAAF 97 3.2 77 21 - 53 32 ± 6

PRCL 176 5.9 139 21 - 79 56 ± 11

Longstreet spring-pool

CYMI 79 13.2 79 19 - 47 32 ± 7

GAAF 1 0.2 1 47 - 47 47 ± 0

POLA 0 - - - -

PRCL 24 4 24 29 - 75 45 ± 14

Longstreet stream

CYMI 17 0.9 17 23 - 42 34 ± 6

RHON 1 0.1 1 53 - 53 53 ± 0

GAAF 0 - - - -

POLA 0 - - - -

PRCL 39 2 39 24 - 72 51 ± 12

Carson Slough

CYMI 312 12 111 20 - 51 34 ± 7

RHON 3 0.1 3 57 - 73 67 ± 9

GAAF 4 0.2 2 28 - 30 29 ± 1

PRCL 28 1.1 28 31 - 81 51 ± 11

Five Springs springpool

CYMI 12 3 11 20 - 38 27 ± 5

GAAF 0 - - - -

PRCL 3 0.8 3 34 - 45 41 ± 6

Five Springs stream

CYMI 10 0.8 10 23 - 34 27 ± 4

GAAF 36 3 10 22 - 50 35 ± 10

PRCL 0 0 - - -

Peterson Reservoir

CYMI 8 0.7 8 21 - 38 28 ± 5

GAAF 0 - - - -

PRCL 0 - - - -

Peterson stream

CYMI 124 6.2 83 20 - 41 29 ± 5

RHON 2 0.1 2 55 - 70 63 ± 11

GAAF 1 0.1 1 31 - 31 31 ± 0

PRCL 1 0.1 1 81 - 81 81 ± 0

Cold springs PRCL 26 26 10 42 - 67 51 ± 8

Cold stream CYMI 1 0.1 1 47 - 47 47 ± 0

PRCL 37 4.6 37 32 - 63 46 ± 8

Cold pool PRCL 18 18 10 42 - 62 52 ± 7
41

Table A2. Number and size of individuals of species captured seasonally at the Warm Springs Complex of 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.

[Spring locations are shown in figure 1. FL, fork length. Species: CYMI - Ash Meadows pupfish, CYPE - Warm 

Springs pupfish, GAAF - Mosquitofish, LECY - Green Sunfish, MISA - Largemouth Bass, POLA - Sailfin Molly, 

PRCL - Red Swamp Crayfish, RACA – Bullfrog, RHON - Ash Meadows speckled dace]

Fall 2010

System Species Total 

Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average± Standard 

Deviation

North Scruggs springpool CYPE 0 - - - -

North Scruggs stream CYPE 95 2.2 85 19 - 41 30 ± 5

South Scruggs springpool

CYPE 1 1 1 24 - 24 24 ± 0

PRCL 2 2 2 49 - 50 50 ± 1

South Scruggs stream

CYPE 120 2.3 74 18 - 42 31 ± 5

GAAF 13 0.2 13 21 - 43 31 ± 7

PRCL 131 2.5 112 21 - 79 49 ± 14

Marsh spring-pool CYPE 0 - - - -

Marsh stream CYPE 64 5.3 35 17 - 37 28 ± 6

North and South Indian 

spring-pools and streams Not surveyed due to ongoing restoration

School spring-pool CYPE 13 13 10 23 - 30 26 ± 3

School Stream CYPE 252 25.2 64 17 - 40 27 ± 4

Spring 2011

System Species Total 

Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average ± 

Standard 

Deviation

North Scruggs spring-pool CYPE 0 - - - -

North Scruggs Stream CYPE 58 1.8 58 21 - 46 33 ± 6

South Scruggs spring-pool CYPE 0 - - - -

PRCL 2 2 2 37 - 61 49 ± 17

South Scruggs stream

CYPE 93 1.8 69 19 - 42 30 ± 6

GAAF 19 0.4 19 20 - 42 29 ± 5

PRCL 69 1.3 66 18 - 64 45 ± 11

Marsh spring-pool CYPE 0 - - - -

Marsh stream CYPE 123 11.2 55 20 - 43 29 ± 5

North and South Indian 

spring-pools and streams Not surveyed due to ongoing restoration

School spring-pool CYPE 2 2 2 25 - 27 26 ± 1

School stream CYPE 329 29.9 75 19 - 36 27 ± 3
42

Table A3. Number and size of individuals of species captured seasonally at the Southern Springs of Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.

[Spring locations are shown in figure 1. FL, fork length. Species: CYMI - Ash Meadows pupfish, CYPE - Warm 

Springs pupfish, GAAF - Mosquitofish, LECY - Green Sunfish, MISA - Largemouth Bass, POLA - Sailfin Molly, 

PRCL - Red Swamp Crayfish, RACA – Bullfrog, RHON - Ash Meadows speckled dace]

Fall 2010

System Species Total Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average± Standard 

Deviation

Crystal spring-pool

CYMI 455 75.8 129 17 - 60 30 ± 7

GAAF 217 36.2 77 18 - 39 27 ± 5

PRCL 29 4.8 29 46 - 70 58 ± 5

Crystal stream

CYMI 619 14.4 237 17 - 50 30 ± 6

GAAF 364 8.5 199 20 - 46 30 ± 6

POLA 68 1.6 40 21 - 65 39 ± 9

PRCL 561 13 206 27 - 70 54 ± 9

Crystal reservoir LECY 37 1.8 34 26 - 63 45 ± 9

MISA 0 - - - -

Crystal marsh

CYMI 13 1.1 13 23 - 25 24 ± 1

GAAF 1 0.1 1 25 - 25 25 ± 0

LECY 52 4.3 25 25 - 67 40 ± 12

Horseshoe marsh

CYMI 11 0.7 11 17 - 40 25 ± 6

GAAF 35 2.3 34 19 - 42 29 ± 5

POLA 14 0.9 14 17 - 51 28 ± 10

LECY 1 0.1 1 31 - 31 31 ± 0

MISA 1 0.1 1 54 - 54 54 ± 0

PRCL 86 5.7 67 15 - 70 51 ± 13

Kings Pool spring-pool

CYMI 647 107.8 125 17 - 49 32 ± 6

GAAF 6 1 6 23 - 44 29 ± 8

POLA 10 1.7 10 22 - 42 31 ± 8

Kings Pool stream

CYMI 137 4.9 81 20 - 48 34 ± 6

GAAF 123 4.4 99 21 - 48 30 ± 7

POLA 19 0.7 19 21 - 51 36 ± 7

PRCL 59 2.1 51 21 - 68 50 ± 10

Point of Rocks stream

CYMI 252 6 131 13 - 55 27 ± 7

RHON 3 0.1 3 38 - 52 43 ± 8

GAAF 85 2 57 21 - 46 30 ± 6

POLA 9 0.2 9 29 - 52 37 ± 7

PRCL 113 2.7 91 28 - 69 50 ± 9

Bradford 1 spring-pool

RHON 145 24.2 104 25 - 74 44 ± 8

GAAF 9 1.5 9 19 - 42 26 ± 7

PRCL 58 9.7 58 25 - 76 43 ± 9

Bradford 1 stream There is no longer an outflow channel

Bradford 2 spring-pool

RHON 0 - - - -

GAAF 466 77.7 130 16 - 39 27 ± 7

RACA 1 0.2 1 77 - 77 77 ± 0

PRCL 20 3.3 20 20 - 73 45 ± 15

Bradford 2 stream

CYMI 12 0.3 12 17 - 47 34 ± 10

RHON 16 0.4 16 31 - 72 59 ± 13

GAAF 174 4.7 88 20 - 51 37 ± 8

POLA 15 0.4 15 33 - 64 47 ± 10

PRCL 131 3.5 115 20 - 74 54 ± 13

Forest spring-pool

CYMI 9 1.5 8 25 - 46 37 ± 7

GAAF 235 39.2 112 14 - 44 26 ± 7

POLA 7 1.2 7 17 - 32 22 ± 5

PRCL 75 12.5 70 21 - 73 46 ± 10

Tubbs spring-pool RHON 1 0.2 1 58 - 58 58 ± 0

PRCL 67 11.2 66 25 - 79 55 ± 11

Davis spring-pool PRCL 11 1.8 11 16 - 74 53 ± 19
43

Table A3. Number and size of individuals of species captured seasonally at the Southern Springs of Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.—Continued.

Fall 2010

System Species Total Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average± Standard 

Deviation

Jackrabbit springpool

CYMI 474 79 125 18 - 52 34 ± 7

RHON 3 0.5 3 51 - 52 51 ± 1

GAAF 42 7 42 18 - 50 31 ± 8

POLA 3 0.5 3 21 - 47 31 ± 14

PRCL 14 2.3 14 32 - 55 43 ± 7

Jackrabbit stream

CYMI 118 2 106 19 - 52 35 ± 7

RHON 623 10.4 414 18 - 82 53 ± 13

GAAF 224 3.7 169 15 - 61 36 ± 8

POLA 4 0.1 4 21 - 51 34 ± 13

PRCL 261 4.4 220 21 - 71 50 ± 10

Big Spring spring-pool

CYMI 221 36.8 125 22 - 55 35 ± 6

GAAF 106 17.7 79 20 - 41 27 ± 4

POLA 21 3.5 21 26 - 54 37 ± 7

PRCL 23 3.8 23 28 - 64 49 ± 11

Big spring stream

CYMI 54 2.8 43 21 - 45 33 ± 7

GAAF 195 10.3 93 15 - 45 31 ± 6

POLA 18 0.9 18 18 - 51 33 ± 8

RACA 1 - - - -

PRCL 94 4.9 91 25 - 71 48 ± 10

Spring 2011

System Species Total Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average ± 

Standard Deviation

Crystal spring-pool

CYMI 78 13 45 14 - 33 23 ± 4

GAAF 16 2.7 16 21 - 33 25 ± 4

PRCL 0 - - - -

Crystal stream

CYMI 1499 28.3 328 18 - 54 33 ± 8

GAAF 404 7.6 244 8 - 49 31 ± 7

POLA 100 1.9 58 27 - 62 44 ± 10

PRCL 273 5.2 213 19 - 78 54 ± 12

Crystal reservoir LECY 1 - - 42 - 42 42 ± 0

MISA 3 0.1 3 340 - 370 350 ± 17

Crystal marsh

CYMI 1 0.1 1 28 - 28 28 ± 0

GAAF 22 1.7 10 25 - 40 31 ± 5

LECY 39 3 26 35 - 75 53 ± 11

Horseshoe marsh

CYMI 9 0.6 9 23 - 45 35 ± 7

GAAF 83 5.2 26 25 - 42 34 ± 5

POLA 0 - - - -

LECY 1 0.1 1 52 - 52 52 ± 0

MISA 0 - - - -

PRCL 100 6.3 61 24 - 72 49 ± 12

Kings Pool springpool

CYMI 635 105.8 117 19 - 49 32 ± 6

GAAF 21 3.5 21 23 - 42 32 ± 6

POLA 0 - - - -

Kings Pool stream

CYMI 78 2.8 52 23 - 46 37 ± 5

GAAF 33 1.2 32 22 - 47 33 ± 9

POLA 20 0.7 19 27 - 52 36 ± 6

PRCL 60 2.1 50 26 - 74 53 ± 11
44

Table A3. Number and size of individuals of species captured seasonally at the Southern Springs of Ash 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.—Continued.

Spring 2011

System Species Total Catch Average/trap n FL (minmax)

Average ± 

Standard Deviation

Point of Rocks 

stream

CYMI 368 9 124 18 - 52 29 ± 7

RHON 0 - - - -

GAAF 62 1.5 35 22 - 49 32 ± 7

POLA 11 0.3 11 27 - 43 35 ± 5

PRCL 123 3 121 22 - 73 52 ± 10

Bradford 1 springpool

RHON 161 26.8 106 21 - 85 44 ± 12

GAAF 16 2.7 16 21 - 37 29 ± 4

PRCL 32 5.3 32 30 - 65 42 ± 9

Bradford 1 stream There is no longer an outflow channel

Bradford 2 springpool

RHON 5 0.8 5 35 - 51 43 ± 6

GAAF 294 49 129 20 - 46 27 ± 5

PRCL 54 9 54 24 - 60 43 ± 9

Bradford 2 stream

CYMI 34 0.9 29 22 - 51 36 ± 9

RHON 13 0.3 13 28 - 65 48 ± 12

GAAF 177 4.7 83 20 - 51 33 ± 8

POLA 10 0.3 10 25 - 61 40 ± 12

PRCL 89 2.3 71 22 - 71 52 ± 11

Forest spring-pool

CYMI 3 0.5 3 32 - 44 39 ± 6

GAAF 53 8.8 53 12 - 41 27 ± 5

POLA 0 - - - -

PRCL 40 6.7 40 35 - 71 46 ± 9

Tubbs spring-pool RHON 0 0 - -

PRCL 28 4.7 28 40 - 72 57 ± 8

Davis spring-pool PRCL 0 - - - -

Jackrabbit springpool

CYMI 468 0 124 20 - 52 34 ± 8

RHON 10 0 10 44 - 62 53 ± 5

GAAF 22 0 22 22 - 46 31 ± 8

POLA 54 0 54 17 - 52 29 ± 7

PRCL 11 0 11 42 - 58 49 ± 6

Jackrabbit stream

CYMI 68 1.1 62 25 - 56 38 ± 7

RHON 538 9 386 22 - 83 52 ± 13

GAAF 28 0.5 28 21 - 55 35 ± 9

POLA 6 0.1 5 31 - 58 40 ± 10

PRCL 123 2.1 118 25 - 78 47 ± 11

Big Springs springpool

CYMI 310 25.8 88 16 - 54 34 ± 8

GAAF 26 2.2 25 20 - 41 26 ± 5

POLA 13 1.1 13 22 - 58 36 ± 10

PRCL 35 2.9 35 27 - 63 48 ± 9

Big stream

CYMI 201 9.6 74 17 - 46 35 ± 8

GAAF 85 4 62 21 - 51 34 ± 8

POLA 11 0.5 11 28 - 41 35 ± 4

RACA 1 0 - - -

PRCL 131 6.2 72 31 - 70 51 ± 10
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

 Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

 Director, Western Fisheries Research Center

 U.S. Geological Survey

 6505 NE 65th Street 

 Seattle, Washington 98115

 http://wfrc.usgs.gov/
Scoppettone and others—Relative Abundance and Distribution of Fishes and Crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nye County, Nevada, 2010–11—Open-File Report 2012–1141