Big Spring Spinedace and Associated Fish Populations and 

Habitat Conditions in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, 

Nevada

Open-File Report 2011–1072

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Big Spring Spinedace and Associated Fish 

Populations and Habitat Conditions in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada

By Ian G. Jezorek, Patrick J. Connolly, Carrie S. Munz, and Chris Dixon

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Open-File Report 2011–1072

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: 2011

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:

Jezorek, I.G., Connolly, P.J., Munz, C.S., and Dixon, C., 2011, Big Spring spinedace and associated 

fish populations and habitat conditions in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1072, 116 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

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Description of Study Site ............................................................................................................................... 3

Methods......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Habitat Sampling........................................................................................................................................ 4

Temperature........................................................................................................................................... 4

Streamflow ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Turbidity ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Reach Survey......................................................................................................................................... 5

Habitat-Unit Survey ................................................................................................................................ 5

Habitat at Fish-Sampling Sites ............................................................................................................... 6

Fish Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Populations ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Genetics ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Passive Integrated Transponder Tagging............................................................................................... 7

Passive Integrated Transponder Tag Interrogation System ................................................................... 7

Results........................................................................................................................................................... 8

Habitat ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

Temperature........................................................................................................................................... 8

Streamflow ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Turbidity ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Reach Survey......................................................................................................................................... 9

Habitat Unit Survey .............................................................................................................................. 10

Habitat at Fish-Sampling Sites ............................................................................................................. 10

Life-History Aspects of Big Spring Spinedace.......................................................................................... 11

Distribution ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Populations .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Age and Growth ................................................................................................................................... 11

Spawning ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Movement ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Life History Aspects of Other Fish Species in Meadow Valley Wash....................................................... 13

Distribution ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Populations .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Age and Growth ................................................................................................................................... 13

Spawning ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Movement ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 14
iv

Contents—Continued

Management Implications............................................................................................................................ 18

What is Good Big Spring Spinedace Habitat?.......................................................................................... 18

Addressing Existing and Future Threats .................................................................................................. 18

Recommendations for Future Monitoring and Research.......................................................................... 19

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 20

References Cited......................................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix A. Additional habitat and fish-sample-site data ............................................................................ 78

Appendix B. Genetic samples and additional fish-population data .............................................................. 88

Figures

Figure 1. Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada ......................................................................... 23

Figure 2. Reach-break locations upstream of Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, 

Nevada ........................................................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 3. Reach-break locations downstream of Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, 

Nevada ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 4. Thermologger locations in reaches upstream of Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada ............................................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 5. Thermologger locations in reaches downstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada .................................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 6. Flow site and water-level logger locations in reaches upstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 8. Fish-population-sampling locations in reaches upstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 9. Fish-population-sampling locations in reaches downstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 10. Passive-Integrated-Transponder tag-interrogation system locations in reaches upstream of 

Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada .................................................................. 32

Figure 11. Passive-Integrated-Transponder tag-interrogation system locations in reaches downstream of 

Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada .................................................................. 33

Figure 12. Maximum, mean, and minimum water temperature during the hottest and coldest month 

for nine sites in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor Canyon, Lincoln County, Nevada ...................................... 34

Figure 13. Maximum, mean, and minimum water temperature during the hottest and 

coldest month for nine sites in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor Canyon, Lincoln County, Nevada ............... 35

Figure 14. Flow at four sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, from July 2008 through 

October 2009............................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 15. Daily mean water level for three sites in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor Canyon, Nevada, from 

September 2008 through February 2010..................................................................................................... 37

Figure 16. Turbidity at the four flow sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during fall 

2008 and spring 2009..................................................................................................................................... i

Figure 17. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older Big Spring spinedace above and below 

Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008................................................ 39
v 

Figure 18. Population estimates of age-1 or age-2 or older Big Spring spinedace above and below Delmue 

Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009 ........................................................ 40

Figure 19. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older Big Spring spinedace above and below 

Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009................................................ 41

Figure 20. Population estimates of all age classes of Big Spring spinedace at Nevada Department of 

Wildlife (NDOW) sites above and below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, 

fall 2009....................................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 21. Growth (weight in grams) of recaptured, Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged Big Spring 

spinedace in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during 2008 and 2009 ............................... 43

Figure 22. Timing of first detection (by week) of three species during winter and spring 2009 

at the Passive-Integrated-Transponder tag interrogator in Kill Wash, a tributary of Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada ............................................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 23. Timing of first detection (by week) of Big Spring spinedace at Passive-Integrated-Transponder 

tag interrogators A1 (in Reach 1) and AT (in Kill Wash) in Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during winter and 

spring 2009.................................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 24. Detections of Passive-Integrated-Transponder (PIT)-tagged Big Spring spinedace at PIT tag 

interrogators above Delmue Falls................................................................................................................ 46

Figure 25. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older speckled dace above and below 

Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008................................................ 47

Figure 26. Population estimates of age-1 or age-2 or older speckled dace above and below 

Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009.............................................. i

Figure 27. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older speckled dace above and 

below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009...................................... 49

Figure 28. Population estimates of all age classes of speckled dace at Nevada Department of 

Wildlife (NDOW) sites above and below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, 

Nevada, fall 2009......................................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 29. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older desert sucker above and below 

Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008................................................ 51

Figure 30. Population estimates of age-1 or age-2 or older desert sucker above and below 

Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009........................................... 52

Figure 31. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older desert sucker above and below 

Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009................................................ 53

Figure 32. Population estimates of all age classes of desert sucker at Nevada Department 

of Wildlife (NDOW) sites above and below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada, fall 2009.............................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 33. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older rainbow trout below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008 ......................................................................... 55

Figure 34. Population estimates of age-2 or older rainbow trout below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009 ............................................................................................... 56

Figure 35. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older rainbow trout below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009 ......................................................................... 57

Figure 36. Growth of desert sucker in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, 

during 2008 and 2009.................................................................................................................................. 58
vi

Tables

Table 1. Mean water temperature recorded at sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, 

during July, August, and September 2008, December 2008, and January and February 2009................... 59

Table 2. Mean water temperature recorded at sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, 

during July, August, and September 2009, December 2009, and January 2010......................................... 60

Table 3. Number of days when recorded water temperature equaled or exceeded 18°C, 20°C, 

and 22°C and days when recorded water temperature equaled or was less than 6°C, 4°C, and 

2°C at sites in the Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada............................................................ 61

Table 4. Habitat features of 13 reaches in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor Canyon, Nevada, 

summer 2008............................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 5. Percent substrate type, wetted width, and width-to-depth ratios in 13 reaches in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, which were surveyed in summer 2008 ........................... 63

Table 6. Dominant and subdominant aquatic vegetation and mean percent bank coverage by 

watercress in 13 reaches in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, summer 2008..................... 64

Table 7. Dominant and subdominant riparian vegetation and mean overstory cover in 13 reaches 

in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, summer 2008 ............................................................. 65

Table 8. Assemblages of fish species observed in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, by 

electrofishing in fall 2008, spring 2009, and fall 2009 .................................................................................. 66

Table 9. Population estimates, with (±95 percent confidence limit in parenthesis), of Big Spring 

spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), desert sucker 

(Catostomus clarki), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008 and fall 2009 ............................................................................................. 67

Table 10. Population estimates, with (±95 percent confidence limit in parenthesis), of Big Spring 

spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), desert sucker 

(Catostomus clarki), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada, spring 2009 ........................................................................................................................ 68

Table 11. Fork-length (mm) ranges, by age class, of four fish species at 22 sites in Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008 .................................................................................................... 69

Table 12. Fork length (mm) ranges, by age class, of four fish species at 22 sites in Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009 ............................................................................................... 70

Table 13. Fork length (mm) ranges, by age class, of four fish species at 22 sites in Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009 .................................................................................................... 71

Table 14. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged Big Spring spinedace at sites above 

Delmue Falls and the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, from 2008 to 2009 ................................................................................................... 72

Table 15. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged Big Spring spinedace below 

Delmue Falls and the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, from 2008 to 2009 ................................................................................................... 73

Table 16. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged desert sucker above Delmue 

Falls and the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada, from 2008 to 2009 .............................................................................................................. 74

Table 17. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged desert sucker below Delmue 

Falls and the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada, from 2008 to 2009 .............................................................................................................. 75
vii

Table 18. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged speckled dace above Delmue 

Falls and the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada, from 2008 to 2009 .............................................................................................................. 76

Table 19. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged speckled dace below Delmue Falls and 

the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, 

from 2008 to 2009 ....................................................................................................................................... 77
viii

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 264.2 gallon (gal) 

cubic meter (m3) 0.0002642 million gallons (Mgal) 

cubic meter (m3) 1.308 cubic yard (yd3) 

Flow rate

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

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 22.83 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the insert datum name (and abbreviation) here, for instance, “North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)”

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the insert datum name (and abbreviation) here, for instance, 

“North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)”

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
1 

Big Spring Spinedace and Associated Fish 

Populations and Habitat Conditions in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada

By Ian G. Jezorek, Patrick J. Connolly, Carrie S. Munz, and Chris Dixon

Executive Summary 

This project was designed to document habitat conditions and populations of native and nonnative fish within the 8-kilometer Condor Canyon section of Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, with an 

emphasis on Big Spring spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis). Other native fish present were 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and desert sucker (Catostomus clarki). Big Spring spinedace were 

known to exist only within this drainage and were known to have been extirpated from a portion of their 

former habitat located downstream of Condor Canyon. Because of this extirpation and the limited 

distribution of Big Spring spinedace, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed this species as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act in 1985. Prior to our effort, little was known about Big Spring 

spinedace populations or life histories and habitat associations. 

In 2008, personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Columbia River Research Laboratory 

began surveys of Meadow Valley Wash in Condor Canyon. Habitat surveys characterized numerous 

variables within 13 reaches, thermologgers were deployed at 9 locations to record water temperatures, 

and fish populations were surveyed at 22 individual sites. Additionally, fish were tagged with Passive 

Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags, which allowed movement and growth information to be collected on 

individual fish. The movements of tagged fish were monitored with a combination of recapture events 

and stationary in-stream antennas, which detected tagged fish. 

Meadow Valley Wash within Condor Canyon was divided by a 12-meter (m) waterfall known as 

Delmue Falls. About 6,100 m of stream were surveyed downstream of the falls and about 2,200 m of 

stream were surveyed upstream of the falls. Although about three-quarters of the surveyed stream length 

was downstream of Delmue Falls, the highest densities and abundance of native fish were upstream of 

the falls. Big Spring spinedace and desert sucker populations were highest near the upper end of Condor 

Canyon, where a tributary known as Kill Wash, and several springs, contribute flow and moderate high 

and low water temperature. Kill Wash and the area around its confluence with Meadow Valley Wash 

appeared important for spawning of all three native species. Detections of PIT-tagged fish indicated that 

there were substantial movements to this area during the spring. 

Our surveys included about 700 m of Meadow Valley Wash upstream of Kill Wash. A small 

falls about 2 m high was about 560 m upstream of Kill Wash. This falls is likely a barrier to upstream 

fish movement at most flows. Populations of all three native species were found upstream of this small 

falls. Age-0 fish of all three species were present, indicating successful spawning. The maximum 

upstream extent of native fish within Meadow Valley Wash was not determined. 
2 

There was a limited population of Big Spring spinedace downstream of Delmue Falls, primarily 

concentrated in the first 2,000 m downstream. No Big Spring spinedace and very few speckled dace or 

desert sucker were found within the lower 3,200 m of Condor Canyon. 

A population of non-native rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was found within the 2,000 m 

of stream immediately downstream of Delmue Falls. Non-native crayfish were very common both 

upstream and downstream of Delmue Falls. We were not able to quantify crayfish populations, but they 

compose a significant portion of the biomass of aquatic species in Condor Canyon. 

There were some distinctive habitat features that may have favored native fish upstream of 

Delmue Falls. Upstream of the falls, water temperatures were moderated by inputs from springs, 

turbidity was lower, pool habitat was more prevalent, substrate heterogeneity was higher, and there was 

less fine sediment than downstream of Delmue Falls. Additionally, watercress (Nasturtium spp.) was 

more common and bulrush (Scirpus spp.) and cattail (Typha spp.) were less common upstream of than 

downstream of Delmue Falls. Differences in these habitat variables likely make Meadow Valley Wash 

upstream of Delmue Falls more favorable to native fish than downstream of the falls. 

Managers may wish to take steps to protect and preserve the areas currently providing habitat for 

robust populations of native fish at the upstream end of Condor Canyon, including Kill Wash and the 

section of Meadow Valley Wash upstream of its confluence with Kill Wash. Restoration actions may be 

warranted in areas downstream of Delmue Falls to attempt to improve habitat conditions there. 

Additional investigations into the role and effects of non-native rainbow trout and crayfish would be 

helpful, and control measures to reduce their populations may be desirable. 

Introduction

Big Spring spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis) is a species whose entire known range 

lies within an 8-kilometer (km) section of Meadow Valley Wash (MVW), mostly within the confines of 

Condor Canyon, near the town of Panaca, Nevada. Big Spring spinedace were first documented in 1938 

in the outflow stream of Big Spring (also referred to as Panaca Spring), which flows into MVW just 

downstream of the downstream end of Condor Canyon (Miller and Hubbs, 1960). At the time, only 

seven individuals were found. Surveys of Big Spring and MVW in 1959 failed to find any Big Spring 

spinedace, and they were believed extinct (Miller and Hubbs, 1960), although Condor Canyon was not 

surveyed. In 1977, a population was found in MVW just downstream of a large waterfall (Delmue Falls) 

in Condor Canyon (Allan, 1983). Some larval Big Spring spinedace were transplanted to sites about 1.5 

km upstream of the falls in 1980 (R.C. Allen, Nevada Department of Wildlife, unpub. data, 1985). In 

1981, adult Big Spring spinedace were found upstream of the waterfall (R.C. Allen, Nevada Department 

of Wildlife, unpub. data). There is some evidence in the literature that spinedace may be able to mature 

in 1 year (Scoppettone and others, 2004); thus, it is not known if Big Spring spinedace were present 

upstream of the falls prior to 1980. Big Spring spinedace were listed as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act in 1985 (Federal Register, 1985). This listing also identified “critical habitat” for the Big 

Spring spinedace as MVW within Condor Canyon. The listed critical habitat does not extend upstream 

of the Canyon. 
3 

The Ely District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required to design and implement 

studies to characterize and identify essential habitat of juvenile and adult Big Spring spinedace and to 

describe their reproductive habits and population dynamics. Some initial planning documents and 

assessments have been produced [Condor Canyon Habitat Management Plan (Bureau of Land 

Management, 1990); Big Spring Spinedace Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993)] 

agency. In 2004, the BLM Ely District submitted the “Meadow Valley Wash T&E Habitat 

Restoration/Noxious Weed Control” project proposal with objectives to implement some portions of the 

Condor Canyon Habitat Management Plan and the Big Spring Spinedace Recovery Plan. The proposal 

was funded as a Round 6, Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act Conservation Initiative. The 

current Ely District requirement is related to implementation of this Conservation Initiative.

In 2008, BLM contracted the U.S. Geological Survey’s Columbia River Research Laboratory 

(USGS-CRRL) to conduct an assessment of fish populations and habitat in MVW with an emphasis on 

Big Spring spinedace. Other native fish species present were speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and 

desert sucker (Catostomus clarki). Although it is the last known location of a population of Big Spring 

spinedace, Meadow Valley Wash had experienced a number of disturbances prior to our study. 

Beginning in the late 1800s, railroad activity had confined much of the channel in Condor Canyon. In 

places, the channel was diked and straightened to protect the railroad. A wildfire in 1999 burned much 

of Condor Canyon, and many trees and shrubs in the riparian corridor were lost. In 2008, we found that 

cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.) (both native species) had become extremely dense in 

portions of the channel, forming mats of live and dead material. Crayfish were introduced to MVW 

(date of introduction unknown) and were extremely common in Condor Canyon and the 700-m portion 

of MVW upstream of the canyon during our study. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) had also been 

introduced to MVW and were found in portions of MVW downstream of Delmue Falls in our study. 

Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and white crappie (Poxomis annularis) had been reported in 

Condor Canyon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993). Tamarisk (Tamarix rammosissima), an 

introduced tree species, was common in the riparian area despite ongoing efforts to control it. Cattle and 

sheep grazing had occurred in the study area (due to available access to unfenced stream and riparian 

areas) and continued during our work. 

The objectives of the contracted study were to: (1) assess the stream-habitat conditions of MVW 

within Condor Canyon; (2) determine abundance and distribution of native and non-native fish within

Condor Canyon, with emphasis on Big Spring spinedace; (3) assess age structure, growth rate, and 

movement of native and non-native fishes within Condor Canyon, with emphasis on Big Spring 

spinedace; and (4) summarize findings to assist managers with options for restoration efforts and 

management actions that are most likely to increase the probability of persistence of the native fish 

species of MVW in Condor Canyon. This summary report details field work completed from June 2008 

through January 2010. We provide descriptive data and baseline information that should elucidate 

further management options. This work also provides a foundation for further analysis and research. 

Description of Study Site 

The 8-km section of MVW in and above Condor Canyon is a scenic, rugged, steep-walled 

canyon located northeast of the town of Panaca, Lincoln County, Nevada, in sagebrush steppe. The 

canyon’s elevation at stream level ranges from 1,400 to 1,600 m and air temperatures typically vary 

from -18°C in winter to 38°C in summer. Our study section began at the downstream end of the canyon 

[for purpose of this study we reference it as river kilometer (rkm) 0.0] and ended at Delmue Ranch Road 

(rkm 8.2; fig. 1). An abandoned railroad grade followed MVW for the length of our study section and in 

many places confined the stream channel. Within our study section, MVW was often deeply entrenched. 
4 

A 12-m-high falls was located at rkm 6.1 (hereafter referred to as “Delmue Falls”). Delmue Falls was a 

barrier to upstream fish movement. At rkm 7.2, a spring at the base of a cliff to the west (hereafter 

referred to as “Box Spring” because of the constructed wooden trough present there) created a small 

marsh. This marsh was disconnected from MVW by the railroad grade but likely contributed 

subterranean flow. Kill Wash, a small tributary, entered MVW from the east at rkm 7.4, and several 

springs entered from the pasture to the west. Upstream of rkm 7.4, Meadow Valley Wash was no longer 

within Condor Canyon but flowed through a landscape of pasture on the west side and rolling hills to 

the east. A second falls was located at rkm 7.9. It was about 2 m high with several distinct ledges. This 

falls is most likely a barrier to upstream movement of native fish at most flows.

Methods

Habitat Sampling 

To assess habitat occupied by Big Spring spinedace, we surveyed MVW within the fish’s known 

range (approximately 8 km) from June through September 2008 (figs. 2 and 3; appendix A). We divided 

the study area into 12 different reaches and included Kill Wash as a separate reach (“Trib” in fig. 2). We 

measured temperature and flow and conducted reach-scale and habitat-unit-scale habitat surveys. 

Additional habitat measures were taken at fish-sampling sites. 

Temperature

We installed and maintained nine temperature-data loggers (Onset Hobo Water Temp Pro v2; 

hereafter “thermologgers”) throughout MVW. Deployment locations were selected to determine the 

influence of major spring inputs throughout Condor Canyon and to assess temperature differences 

within the study area (figs. 4 and 5; appendix A). Thermologgers were placed at the lower end of the 

sampled area (TR09), downstream of Delmue Falls (TR05), in the mainstem just downstream of Kill 

Wash (TR01), in Kill Wash (TTR1), in the mainstem upstream of Kill Wash (TRBL), and at the upper 

end of the sampled area (TR0A). Additionally, two thermographs were placed downstream of the input 

of two spring systems (TRBU and TR02) and in the box spring (TBOX). Seven units were installed in 

June 2008 and two units were installed in August 2008 (appendix A). Water temperature was recorded 

once per hour. Data were downloaded in October 2008, March 2009, October 2009, and February 2010. 

Streamflow

Streamflow sites were located in the upper (FSU), middle (FSM), and lower (FSB) portions of 

the canyon (figs. 6 and 7; appendix A). An additional streamflow site was located in Kill Wash (FST). 

We measured streamflow on a weekly basis at these four sites from July 8 through November 18, 2008. 

During 2009, we measured streamflow in March and October, when we were present for fish surveys. 

Flow measurement followed the protocol of Gallagher and Stevenson (1999). We measured water depth 

with a top-setting wading rod and water velocity with a Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate flow meter. Because 

water depths were always less than 0.75 m, water velocities were measured at 60 percent of the depth 

from the surface at each interval. 
5 

To provide a more continuous measure of flow and capture timing of high and low flow, three 

water-level loggers (Onset HOBO Water Level Logger) were deployed on September 8, 2008 (figs. 6 

and 7; appendix A). One was placed near the upstream end of the canyon (WLRB), one in the 

downstream end of the canyon (WLR9), and one in Kill Wash (TRIB). The water-level loggers recorded 

water-level data every 15 minutes. A fourth logger (also a HOBO Water Level Logger) recorded data 

for barometric pressure compensation. All units were protected with a PVC stilling well, which 

provided a protective sleeve, and were mounted on fence posts driven into the streambed. 

Turbidity 

We periodically measured turbidity in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU; Earhart, 1984) at 

the four flow sites (figs. 6 and 7; appendix A). Turbidity was measured concurrently with flow during 

autumn 2008 on about a 2-week interval. Turbidity also was measured three times during March 2009. 

We used a Hach 2100P Turbidimeter to read turbidity in cleaned vials filled with stream water at each 

site.

Reach Survey 

Before surveying the canyon, we delineated 13 reaches that were based on geomorphic features. 

Ten of these reaches were described in PBS&J (2007). Our study area contained two additional reaches 

in mainstem MVW from the north end of Condor Canyon to the Delmue Ranch Road culvert (rkm 8.2). 

Additionally, we added one reach in Kill Wash, which entered MVW from the east at the northern end 

of Condor Canyon (rkm 7.4). Reach surveys were conducted from mid-June through mid-August 2008. 

Reach-survey data were divided into two measurement categories: transect and interval. Starting 

at the downstream end of each reach, we took transect measurements every 20 m along the thalweg and 

interval measurements over the 20 m of stream between transects. At each transect, we measured wetted 

width, then measured distance from wetted to bankfull, from bankfull to confinement, and from bankfull 

to hillslope on each bank. The type of confinement agent was recorded (terrace, hillslope, etc). We 

calculated the confinement ratio at each transect as confinement width divided by bankfull width 

(Arend, 1999). A confinement ratio less than 2 was considered confined, 2 to 4 moderately confined, 

and greater than 4 unconfined. Due to the length of Reaches 9 and 10, we increased distance between 

confinement measures to 100 m. We measured depth and substrate-type (mud/clay/silt, sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder, and other) at three points across the wetted width of the stream (0.25x, 0.50x, 0.75x, x 

= wetted width). At the transect midpoint, we used a densitometer to record percent coverage of three 

canopy types: conifer, hardwood, and shrub. In the 20-m intervals between transects, we measured 

thalweg gradient, counted large woody debris (LWD: classified as diameter greater than 25 cm and 

length at least 1 m), and counted boulders (diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 m). Dominant and 

subdominant aquatic and riparian vegetation were identified to genus. Percent stream cover of 

watercress was estimated and recorded. We noted any springs or tributaries and measured the length of 

any side channels. 

Habitat-Unit Survey

A habitat unit survey was conducted from late August 2008 through mid-September 2008. 

Beginning at the lower end of the canyon and working upstream, we identified habitat units by type 

(pool, glide, riffle, and step), recorded habitat unit dimensions (length, width, and maximum depth), and 

estimated cover (in-stream and overhead) for each unit. Pools were defined as units with low water 

velocity, smooth surface, and a depth such that the unit would hold water even if flow ceased 
6 

(Kaufmann and others, 1999). Glides were defined as having laminar flow, medium velocity, and would 

not hold water if flow ceased. Riffles were defined as shallow and turbulent with higher gradient. A step 

was defined as a short unit, generally less than 0.5 m long, with a vertical or near vertical drop (for 

example, a small falls over a downed log).

Habitat at Fish-Sampling Sites 

During autumn 2008, spring 2009, and autumn 2009, we took habitat measurements 

concurrently with fish population sampling at 22 sites (figs. 8 and 9; appendix A). We measured site 

length, width, depth, and substrate types at each site. During autumn 2008, we took these data at five 

transects within the site (0.0x, 0.25x, 0.50x, 0.75x, and 1.0x the length of site). Wetted width was 

recorded. Depth and substrate type (mud/clay/silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and other) were 

recorded at three points (0.25x, 0.50x, 0.75x wetted width). During spring and autumn 2009, we 

increased the number of transects to seven per sampling site (0.0x, 0.17x, 0.33x, 0.50x, 0.67x, 0.83x, 

and 1.0x the length of site). These population site habitat data are presented in appendix A. 

Fish Sampling

Populations

We established 22 fish population sampling sites (figs. 8 and 9; appendix A) in autumn 2008. 

Each site was about 25 m long. We included 7 existing Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) sites 

in our sampling design and established 15 additional sites so that each geomorphic reach would contain 

at least 1 fish sampling site. Eleven sites were located upstream of Delmue Falls and 11 sites were

downstream of the falls. To choose new fish sampling sites, we selected habitat that generally was 

representative of the reaches where they would be located, which was dependent on professional 

opinion. We repeated population sampling in spring 2009 using the same sites as used in 2008. We 

added a site in Reach 6 because BLM personnel were contemplating using it as a template for 

restoration of other areas of MVW and because we wanted to insure that Reach 6 was well represented. 

Population sampling was repeated for a third time in autumn 2009. We did not repeat sampling in Reach 

7 during either spring 2009 or autumn 2009 because the site was incorrectly measured in 2008 and 

contained a side channel that could not be sampled due to thick vegetation, but that likely contained 

fish. 

Population sampling sites were blocknetted during each population-sampling effort to prevent 

immigration or emigration. A backpack electrofisher was used to conduct three to five passes under the 

removal-depletion methodology (Zippin, 1956; Bohlin, 1982; and White and others, 1982). 

Electrofishing settings were 160 Volts (V), 30–60 Hertz (Hz). The NDOW sites were sampled with 

NDOW personnel according to their protocols, which called for three passes at each site. At USGS sites, 

we based the number of passes on the pattern of reduction. We calculated length frequencies by species 

to determine age class (age-0, age-1 or older) and then used the field guides of Connolly (1996) to 

ensure a controlled level of precision in the population estimate was achieved (CV less than 25 percent 

for the youngest age class; CV less than 12.5 percent for older fish). This approach served to lessen the 

chance that individual fish will be exposed to potentially harmful effects of electrofishing while 

ensuring a high degree of precision in our site estimates. 

We estimated populations for two age classes because determining age breaks other than for the 

youngest year class is nearly impossible in the field and frequently there are not enough fish in older 

year classes to generate a valid estimate for each year class. After each pass, all fish captured were 

identified, measured for fork length to the nearest millimeter, and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. Fish that 
7 

were large enough (≥ 70 mm) were scanned for PIT tags and potentially tagged if they were not already. 

All fish were allowed to recover in ambient temperature stream water until sampling was concluded, 

when they were released at the sample site. During autumn 2009, lengths and weights were not taken at 

the NDOW sites with the exception of recaptured PIT-tagged fish. Because fish at the NDOW sites 

could not be categorized by age, the results from these sites are presented separately in the results 

section.

Genetics

We collected caudal fin clips from a sample of Big Spring spinedace to allow future assessment 

of their population genetic population. Using sterilized scissors, we removed a small portion of the 

caudal fin (1 by 3 mm) and preserved the fin clips in 100 percent ethanol. We collected samples from 

upstream of and downstream of Delmue Falls, from Kill Wash, and from Reach A (appendix B). The 

samples were transported to USGS-CRRL. Date, site, length, weight, unique genetics code, and PIT tag 

code data for individual fish are presented in appendix B. 

Passive Integrated Transponder Tagging

We PIT-tagged fish to assess growth rate and movement within MVW. Use of PIT tags offers a 

definitive way to assess the growth rate and track movement of individual fish (Ombredane and others, 

1998; Connolly and others, 2008). Fish can be rapidly tagged, and the small size of the tags (as little as 

8.5 mm length) allows relatively small fish to be tagged (Carlson and Letcher, 2003), including cyprinid 

species (Skov and others, 2005; Ward and others, 2008). We PIT tagged spinedace (100 per year) that 

were 70 mm or greater in fork length with 8.5-mm PIT tags [134.2 kilohertz (kHz), full duplex]. For 

other species (sucker, dace, and trout), we used 12-mm and 8.5-mm PIT tags (134.2 kHz, full duplex) 

depending on fish size and condition. We used a surgical scalpel to create small incisions and prevent 

tissue damage (Gries and Letcher, 2002). For larger suckers and trout, we occasionally used needles to 

insert tags. After insertion, we treated the incision with Stress CoatTM. The instruments and tags were 

sterilized in alcohol, following protocols established by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 

(1999). 

Passive Integrated Transponder Tag Interrogation System

Five single-antenna PIT tag interrogation systems (PTISs) were installed on October 18–19, 

2008. Stationary PTISs offer the potential for full-year, 24-hour (hr) monitoring of fish movement in 

and out of a stream system (Armstrong and others, 1996; Nunnallee and others, 1998; Zydlewski and 

others, 2001; Connolly and others, 2008). Each PTIS in MVW consisted of a Destron-Fearing 2001F 

ISO transceiver, powered by a 12-V battery charged with a solar panel, and an antenna placed in-stream. 

The antennas were housed in 3-in. diameter PVC pipe (3-inch diameter, sch. 80) rectangles, which were 

0.6 m high and from 1.0 to 1.8 m long. The antennas spanned the stream width and were oriented 

upright as a “window” for fish to pass through. We installed three PTISs upstream of Delmue Falls (fig. 

10), one each in Reach B (AB), Reach 1 (A1), and in Kill Wash (AT). The PTISs upstream of Delmue 

Falls were arranged so that we could determine if fish were moving from upstream or downstream areas 

to access Kill Wash. We installed two PTISs downstream of Delmue Falls (fig. 11), one in Reach 5 (A5) 

and one in Reach 9 (A9). The site in Reach 5 was monitored to determine if any fish were passing 

downstream over the falls. The site in Reach 9 was placed to determine if any fish were moving 

downstream of the primary areas known to harbor the most fish. The sites were checked and site data 

were downloaded weekly; batteries were replaced as needed.
8 

Results

Habitat

Temperature

Although we began collecting water temperature data in June 2008, September 2008 was the 

first full month with all thermologgers (n = 9) deployed. Water temperature throughout our study 

section ranged from -0.9°C in Reach 9 (TR09; rkm 3.1) to 28.4°C in lower Reach B (TRBL; rkm 7.5) 

during the period covered by this report. Maximum, mean, and minimum water temperatures recorded 

at each site during July, August, and September and during December, January, and February are shown 

in tables 1 and 2. 

During summer, water tended to warm in Reach B and was then cooled by the influence of Kill 

Wash and Box Spring (figs. 12 and 13). Temperatures were very stable through the study period in both 

Kill Wash (TTRI; range 13.3°C to 18.5°C) and Box Spring (TBOX; range 12.5°C to 15.9°C). The water 

warmed between Reach 1 (TR01; rkm 7.4) and Reach 2 (TR02; rkm 6.7), though the warming was very 

slight in 2008. Between Reach 2 and Reach 5 (TR05; rkm 5.9), mean summer temperatures increased 

slightly, but maximum temperatures were lower in Reach 5. Between Reach 5 and Reach 9 (TR09; rkm 

3.6), there was little change in summer water temperatures. The temperature range was less at Reach 9, 

with maximum temperatures often being slightly lower than at Reach 5 (tables 1 and 2). 

During winter, water cooled through Reach B and was warmed by the input from Kill Wash and 

the Box Spring. Below those inputs, the water continued to cool to TR09, where water temperatures as 

much as 9.9°C colder than at TR01 were recorded. Winter mean water temperature at TR05 averaged 

2.6°C less that at TR02. Winter mean temperatures at TR09 averaged at least 5.6°C below mean at any 

monitored site above Delmue Falls. 

The warmest site in our study area was in lower Reach B (TRBL), which had 157 days when 

temperature equaled or exceeded 22°C (table 3). Water temperature upstream of this site rarely 

exceeded 22°C. Water temperatures in Kill Wash only exceeded 18°C on 24 days of the study period 

and never equaled or exceeded 20°C. Water temperature in Box Spring never exceeded 18°C. Water 

temperatures at the thermologger in Reach 9 (TR09) only equaled or exceeded 22°C on nine days 

during our study period. Water temperatures at TR09 were frequently colder than any other site (134 

days less than or equal to 2°C; table 3). The only other sites where water temperatures were less than or 

equal to 2°C were in Reach 5 (TR05), with 17 days, and lower Reach B (TRBL), with 8 days. 

The greatest annual range in water temperature occurred in Reach B at TRBL (rkm 7.5) just 

above the confluence of MVW and Kill Wash (Figures 12 and 13). During September 2008, the first 

month we had full coverage by all thermologgers, water temperature range at TRBL was 13.2°C (table 

1). At all other sites in MVW during September 2008, water temperature range was less than or equal to 

11°C. Cool flow from Kill Wash, Box Spring, and other springs helped reduce temperature range 

downstream of TRBL. During September 2008, water temperature range in Kill Wash was 2.5°C and in 

the Box Spring was 2.1°C. 
9 

Streamflow

Our flow measures in MVW and Kill Wash represent the general pattern of flow at mid-range 

levels, but they do not represent the entire range of flows that occurred. To gage the range of flow and 

timing of high and low flow events through the year, we relied upon water level loggers. The actual 

flow measures that we took (fig. 14) fell within the mid-range of depths recorded by the water level 

loggers. Thus, there was more variation in flow than indicated by our flow measurements. 

Streamflow measurements did indicate an interesting pattern of discharge (fig. 14). Our 

uppermost flow site was in Reach B (FSU; rkm 7.5), where flow measurements ranged from 0.0213 

m3

/s to 0.0392 m3/s. Downstream of FSU, the Kill Wash tributary and several springs contributed water 

to MVW. These contributions increased the measured flow at our middle site in Reach 2 (FSM; rkm 

6.9) where they ranged from 0.0296 m3

/s to 0.0648 m3/s. Measured flow at our middle site in Reach 2 

was always greater than at FSU (mean 58 percent greater; standard deviation (SD) 30). Flow decreased 

between the flow site in Reach 2 and the most down-stream flow site in Reach 9 (FSB; rkm 3.2). 

Measured flow at FSB ranged from 0.0118 m3/s to 0.0485 m3/s. At all times that we measured flow at 

FSB and FSM, flow was greater at FSM (mean 39 percent greater; SD 12). Measured flow in Kill Wash 

ranged from 0.0023 m3/s to 0.0061 m3/s.

The water level loggers captured the variability of depth at each site. Because we did not capture 

discharge measures at the full range of depths recorded, we were unable to produce a meaningful flowdepth relationship. The depth measures do provide a record of daily and seasonal fluctuations (fig. 15). 

Numerous flow spikes were recorded at the water level site in Reach B (WLRB; rkm 7.5) during the 

spring and summer of 2009. Though many of these spikes were apparent at the water level site in Reach 

9 (WLR9; rkm 3.2), the magnitude was dampened. There were two flow spikes apparent at WLR9 

during mid-winter of both years that are not reflected at WLRB (fig. 15). These may be the result of 

water input from flooded fields, which enters MVW below the WLRB site.

Turbidity

Turbidity was generally low at the three sites above Delmue Falls. The lowest measures were 

obtained in Kill Wash (FST; fig. 16), where our measures never exceeded 4.8 NTU. Turbidity was 

similar in the two mainstem sites (FSU and FSM; fig. 16), where our measures ranged from 7.2 to 23.1 

NTU. Turbidity range at the mainstem site in Reach 9 (FSB) was 14.2 to 67.5 NTU, which was much 

higher than the sites above Delmue Falls (fig. 16). For all times that we had measures from both sites, 

turbidity at FSB was at least 60 percent higher than at FSM and was often much higher (mean 248 

percent higher; SD 201). 

Reach Survey

We surveyed six mainstem reaches below Delmue Falls and six mainstem reaches above 

Delmue Falls. Stream length was greater below Delmue Falls (6,089 m) than above (2,071 m; table 4). 

Wetted and bankfull widths were greater in the reaches below Delmue Falls. Both above and below 

Delmue Falls, most of the stream was incised and disconnected from the floodplain. Eleven of the 

mainstem reaches were measured as confined or moderately confined at 78 percent or more transects. 

Reach 8 was the exception with 69 percent of transects measured as unconfined. Though the mainstem 

of MVW was very confined both above and below Delmue Falls, gradient was higher in the section 

below. Four mainstem reaches above Delmue Falls had gradient less than or equal to 0.25 percent. All 

six reaches below Delmue Falls had gradients from 0.28 percent to as high as 1.00 percent (table 4). 
10

Throughout the system, LWD was relatively rare. Reach 9 was an exception with 43.2 pieces per 

100 m (table 4). Much of Condor Canyon and the riparian area within it had burned in a 1999 wildfire 

and large trees were relatively rare, but Reach 9 had an extensive gallery of riparian black willow, 

which contributed LWD to the system. 

There were some differences in substrate composition between the reaches above Delmue Falls 

and those below. Overall, the reaches above Delmue had a higher percent of gravel substrate compared 

to those reaches below (means, weighted by reach length, 24.1 percent above, 11.8 percent below; table 

5). Gravel was very scarce in Reach 9 (found in 8 percent of measures) and in Reach 10 (found in 5 

percent of measures). The highest percentage of gravel substrate found in any reach was in the TRIB 

Reach with 83 percent. The mean percent of substrate consisting of gravel, cobble, and boulder 

(weighted by reach) was 31.8 percent above Delmue Falls and 17.3 percent below. Reaches 8, 9, and 10 

had total percentages of gravel, cobble, and boulder of 12 percent or less. Fine substrates, consisting of 

mud and sand, were more common in the reaches below Delmue Falls (means, weighted by reach 

length, 66 percent above, 75 percent below). 

The most common forms of aquatic vegetation found within Condor Canyon were cattail and 

bulrush, with watercress a distant third (table 6). In the reaches above Delmue Falls, cattail or bulrush 

were rated the dominant aquatic species in 70 percent of measures. Below Delmue Falls, cattail or 

bulrush were dominant in 88 percent of measures. Watercress was the dominant aquatic vegetation in 21 

percent of the measures above Delmue Falls but was dominant less than 2 percent of the time below the 

falls. Percent bank coverage by watercress was higher in the reaches above Delmue Falls than below 

(percent, weighted by reach length; 16 percent above, 6 percent below). Reaches 9 and 10, at the lower 

end of the canyon, had almost no watercress (table 6). 

Riparian vegetation within Condor Canyon was varied. Grasses, coyote willow (Salix exigua

Nutt.), tamarisk and black willow (Salix nigra) were the most common species (table 7). Non-native 

tamarisk was particularly common in Reach 2 and Reach 3. Black willow was common in Reaches 8, 9, 

and 10. In Reach 9, black willow was rated as the dominant riparian vegetation species 98 percent of the 

time. Black willow was very rare upstream of Delmue Falls. Due in part to the differences in prevalence 

of black willow, percent overstory cover of the stream was less in the reaches above Delmue Falls than 

below (mean, weighted by reach length; 5 percent above, 33 percent below). 

Habitat Unit Survey

Pool frequency was generally low in MVW. The greatest number of pools per 100 m was 3.1 in 

Reach 9. All other reaches had less than 2.7 pools per 100 m, with as few as 0.3 in Reach 10 (table 4). 

The mean number of pools per 100 m was less above Delmue Falls than below (means, weighted by 

reach length, 1.3 above, 1.6 below). However, pools made up a greater percentage of stream length 

above Delmue Falls where the ratio of pool to non-pool length was 1.7:1. Below Delmue Falls the ratio 

was 1:3 (table 4). Reach complexity (defined as number of habitat units per 100 m) was 4.7 above 

Delmue Falls and 7.4 below the falls.

Habitat at Fish-Sampling Sites 

Our fish-sampling sites were about 25 m long and varied in width and depth (appendix A). 

Specific measures of length, width, and depth allowed us to calculate area and volume, which permitted 

us to calculate densities of fish. Area of our sample sites ranged from 22.0 m2 to 81.6 m2 and volume 

ranged from 0.7 m3

 to 17.2 m3 (appendix A) 
11

Life-History Aspects of Big Spring Spinedace

Distribution

Big Spring spinedace were found in all reaches except Reaches 9 and 10 (table 8). Spinedace 

were much more common above Delmue Falls than below. Spinedace were found in Reach A, above a 

small falls, which is likely a barrier to upstream passage. 

Populations

Variability of Big Spring spinedace populations was high at sample sites within reaches and 

between reaches (figs. 17–20; appendix B). This high variability resulted in broad estimates of total 

populations, despite precise estimates at individual sites (tables 9 and 10). Big Spring spinedace were 

much more common above Delmue Falls than below. Throughout the length of our study section, Big 

Spring spinedace were less common than speckled dace but were more common than desert sucker or 

rainbow trout. 

The greatest number of spinedace at any individual sample site was 14.6 fish/m at RB_ND1 

during fall 2009. Because we lacked length data from these fish, we did not know the proportions of 

age-0 or age-1 fish, though during fall 2008, 48 percent of the spinedace at RB_ND1 were age-0. For 

sites where we had length data and thus an age break, age-0 spinedace populations were as high as 3.0 

fish/m (site R1_US1; fall 2009) and age-1 or older spinedace populations were as high as 2.6 fish/m 

(site RB_ND1; fall 2008). 

Above Delmue Falls, Big Spring spinedace were particularly common at the sites close to the 

confluence of MVW and Kill Wash and they were also frequent at the site just below the small falls at 

the boundary of Reaches A and B. Spinedace below Delmue Falls were most common in Reach 6 (age-0 

population range in R6 sites during fall = 0.1–2.9 fish/m; age-1 or older population range in R6 sites 

during fall = 0.1–1.3 fish/m). Spinedace were present in Reaches 5, 7, and 8, though much less common 

than in Reach 6 (age-0 population range in R5 and R8 sites during fall = 0–0.04 fish/m; age-1 or older 

population range in R5 and R8 sites during fall = 0–0.3 fish/m). 

Age and Growth

The fork length (FL) of Big Spring spinedace found within our study area ranged from 15–115 

mm (tables 11–13). During June 2009, age-0 Big Spring spinedace fork-length range was from 15–37 

mm. By late September and early October of 2009, age-0 Big Spring spinedace fork length range had 

increased to 38–67 mm. 

Because we tagged fish with PIT tags, we were able to recapture, identify, and measure growth 

of individual fish. Mean change in length of spinedace PIT tagged above Delmue Falls from fall 2008 to 

fall 2009 was +0.020 mm/day (n = 8, SD = 0.006). Mean change in weight for the same time period was 

+0.004 g/day (n = 8, SD = 0.003). Big Spring spinedace tagged above Delmue Falls in October 2008 

and recaptured in March 2009 experienced a higher growth rate of +0.024 mm/day (n = 21, SD = 0.017) 

and +0.021 grams per day (g/day) (n = 21, SD = 0.012). Growth slowed for Big Spring spinedace over 

the summer. Fish captured in June 2009 and again in October 2009 grew at a rate of +0.016 mm/day (n

= 6; SD = 0.030) and +0.008 g/day (n = 6; SD 0.025). There were Big Spring spinedace both above and 

below Delmue Falls that lost weight over the course of spring and summer (fig. 21). Between March 

and June 2009, 10 of the 16 Big Spring spinedace that we recaptured had lost weight (mean = 12 

percent), and between June and October 2009, 4 of 6 Big Spring spinedace that we recaptured had lost 

weight (mean = 5 percent).
12

Spawning

During fall of 2008 and fall 2009, age-0 Big Spring spinedace were distributed throughout the 

area occupied by age-1 and older Big Spring spinedace, indicating likely spawning at multiple locations. 

Age-0 spinedace were much less common below Delmue Falls than above the falls. During fall 2008, 

we found very few age-0 spinedace below Delmue Falls (total of six fish), but during fall 2009, we 

found many in Reach 6 (total of 85 fish). Age-0 Big Spring spinedace were present in Reach A, which is 

upstream of the small falls, indicating that Big Spring spinedace spawned above the small falls. They

were more abundant at RA_US1, which was immediately above the falls, than at RA_US2, which was 

near the Delmue Road crossing (fig. 8). 

Tagged Big Spring spinedace moved into Kill Wash (PTIS site AT) during spring 2009, 

presumably for spawning (fig. 22). Big Spring spinedace were first detected moving in during early 

March and were detected into May. Peak detections were in mid-April.

Spinedace detected at the three PTISs around the confluence with Kill Wash indicate movements 

from March through May that may be spawning related. Exact timing of spawning is not known, though 

a ripe female spinedace (71 mm FL) was found in Reach 3 on June 22, 2009. 

Movement

Big Spring spinedace tagged with PIT tags were detected making substantial movements. 

Movement of spinedace to the area around the confluence of MVW with Kill Wash and into Kill Wash 

was common (tables 14 and 15); some fish moved over 1,000 m. Spinedace moved into Kill Wash from 

all reaches above Delmue Falls except Reach A, which is above the small falls. Though Big Spring 

spinedace from Reach B were detected in Kill Wash, none were detected moving downstream of Kill 

Wash. Many Big Spring spinedace that were PIT tagged in Reaches 2 through 4 were detected at the 

PTIS in Reach 1 (A1) and the PTIS in Kill Wash (AT; fig. 23). These fish were detected from early 

March through late May 2009. Detections at A1 peaked in early April, followed by a peak in Kill Wash 

in mid-April. A second pulse of detections at A1 in May could have been fish returning downstream. 

Spinedace may have been moving to spawning areas, but other factors could also cause these 

movements. During spring, both speckled dace and desert sucker were seen spawning in Reach B and in 

the area around the Kill Wash’s confluence with MVW. Spinedace may have been moving into these 

areas to consume eggs released by spawning females. 

Only one Big Spring spinedace was PIT tagged in Kill Wash, and it was later detected 

downstream in Reach 1. Only 2 of the 95 spinedace PIT-tagged downstream of Kill Wash were detected 

by the reader upstream in Reach B, but 40 were detected by the reader downstream in Reach 1, and 18 

were detected by the PTIS in Kill Wash (fig. 24). One spinedace tagged in Reach 3 was detected by the 

reader in Reach 5, below Delmue Falls. Because we only had one tag-detection event at the Reach 5 

reader from fish tagged above Delmue Falls, we cannot rule out the possibility predation by a bird or 

mammal or the possibility of a dead fish washing downstream. Only one spinedace was tagged in Reach 

5, and we detected it on the reader in Reach 5. Two of 23 spinedace tagged in Reach 6, and 1 of 8 

tagged in Reach 7, were detected by the reader in Reach 5.
13

Life History Aspects of Other Fish Species in Meadow Valley Wash

Distribution

Speckled dace were found in all reaches (table 8). Desert sucker were found in all reaches except 

Reach 7, but they were found upstream and downstream of this reach. Our sampling effort was limited 

in Reach 7, so it is likely desert sucker were present. Speckled dace and desert sucker were all found in 

Reach A, above a small falls, which is likely a barrier to upstream passage. Rainbow trout were found 

only in Reaches 5 and 6, never upstream of Delmue Falls (table 8). 

Populations

The variability of all fish populations was high at sample sites within reaches and between 

reaches (figs. 25–35; appendix B). This high variability resulted in broad estimates of total populations, 

despite precise estimates at individual sites. Speckled dace and desert sucker were more common above 

Delmue Falls than below. Rainbow trout were found only below Delmue Falls in Reaches 5 and 6. 

Speckled dace were the most common fish in MVW (tables 9 and 10). 

Age-0 speckled dace populations were as high as 15.2 fish/m (site RA_US1; fall 2009) and age1 or older speckled dace populations were as high as 5.2 fish/m (site R2_US1; fall 2008). Age-0 desert 

sucker populations were as high as 11.0 fish/m (site RB_ND1; fall 2008) and age-1 or older desert 

sucker populations were as high as 4.6 fish/m (site RB_ND1, fall 2008). Speckled dace were relatively 

uniformly distributed above Delmue Falls; however, age-0 populations were largest at the sites just 

above (RA_US1) and below (RB_ND1) the small falls. Desert suckers were also very common in 

RB_ND1, immediately below the small falls, and at RA_US1, just above the small falls (fig. 8). 

Desert sucker were rare below Delmue Falls, where their distribution was very patchy. Speckled 

dace were also less common below Delmue Falls but were distributed fairly uniformly among sites.

Age and Growth

Fork length of speckled dace ranged from 25- 91 mm (tables 11–13). Age-0 speckled dace fork

length range was 20–39 mm during June 2009 and increased to 25–61 mm by late September and early 

October. Fork length of desert sucker ranged from 33-203 mm (tables 11–13). During June 2009, age-0 

desert sucker had fork lengths from 31-37 mm. By September and October, the fork lengths were from 

37-75 mm. Fork length of rainbow trout that we encountered ranged from 78-450 mm (tables 11–13). 

We believe that rainbow trout found in fall 2008 and 2009 with fork-length range from 78-111 mm were 

age-0 fish. 

Because we tagged fish with PIT tags, we were able to recapture, identify, and measure the 

growth of individual fish. We had few PIT-tagged and recaptured speckled dace (n = 10 recaptures). 

Two that were captured in March 2009 and again in June had both had lost weight (18 percent and 15 

percent). The mean change in fork length of desert suckers above Delmue Falls from October 2008 to 

October 2009 was +0.080 mm/day (n = 9; SD = 0.035). The mean change in weight for the same period 

was +0.051 g/day (n = 9; SD = 0.021). Growth of desert sucker through the year appeared to be steadier 

than that of spinedace, and loss of weight between our recapture events was rare (fig. 36).

Several rainbow trout that were PIT tagged and recaptured exhibited rapid growth. One trout 

was tagged on October 10, 2008 at 93 mm and recaptured on March 14, 2009 at 162 mm, for a change 

in length of +0.445 mm/day. It gained 41.3 g over the same period, for a change in weight of +0.266 

g/day (2.46 percent weight increase/day). Another was tagged on June 23, 2009 at 85 mm and 
14

recaptured on October 3, 2009 at 103 mm, for a change in length of +0.176 mm/day. It gained 6.5 g 

over that period, for change in weight of +0.064 g/day (0.82 percent weight increase/day). One trout 

was captured, tagged, and recaptured twice (tagged on October 9, 2008, recaptured on June 23, 2009 

and on October 3, 2009). This trout was consistently 450 mm, but no weight measurement was taken. 

Two trout that we recaptured did not increase in length, and one lost weight. The trout that lost weight 

was tagged on June 23, 2009 at 114.1 g and recaptured on October 3, 2009 at 105.5 g. 

Spawning

During the fall of 2008 and 2009, age-0 speckled dace were distributed throughout the area 

occupied by age-1 and older speckled dace, but were much less common below Delmue Falls. Age-0 

speckled dace were found in Kill Wash. Age-0 desert sucker were most common at RB_ND1 and 

RA_US1. No age-0 desert sucker were found downstream of Reach 8, and they were rare or absent at 

sites below Delmue Falls. Desert sucker were observed spawning just inside Kill Wash. This spawning 

took place below our population sample site (TR_US1), and we did not find any age-0 desert sucker at 

TR_US1. Speckled dace and desert sucker were seen spawning in mainstem MVW at RB_ND1 and 

near the confluence with Kill Wash. Age-0 speckled dace and desert sucker were both present in Reach 

A, which is upstream of the small falls, indicating spawning in Reach A. Both species were more 

abundant at RA_US1 (which was immediately above the falls) than at RA_US2 (which was near the 

road crossing). 

During spring 2009, three large trout were observed together just below Delmue Falls in Reach 

5, presumably in a spawning aggregation. Age-0 rainbow trout were found in Reach 5 in fall 2008. 

During fall 2009, age-0 trout were found in Reaches 5 and 6. 

Movement

Desert suckers showed considerable movement (tables 16 and 17). Of 14 tagged in Reach 1, 

three were detected in Kill Wash and six were detected in Reach B. Of 15 tagged in Reach 2, one was 

detected on all three upstream readers. Of 33 tagged in Reach 3, 10 were detected in Reach 1, and four 

each on the readers in Kill Wash and Reach B. Of 12 tagged in Reach 4, four were detected in Reach 1, 

two in Kill Wash, and one in Reach B.

Tagged desert sucker and speckled dace were detected moving into Kill Wash (PTIS site AT; 

tables 16 and 18) during spring 2009, presumably for spawning (fig. 36). Desert sucker moved in as 

early as mid-February and were detected into early April. Detections peaked in mid-March. Though 

only three PIT-tagged speckled dace were detected in Kill Wash, these data suggest that they have a 

spawning-related movement around late March and remain present into May. None of the PIT-tagged 

speckled dace below Delmue Falls were ever detected outside of the Reach. None of the PIT-tagged 

desert sucker below Delmue Falls were detected on either of the two PITSs there (tables 17 and 19). 

Discussion

Our estimates for Big Spring spinedace populations and other fish species had high precision at 

individual sites, but the high variability between sites resulted in total-population estimates with low 

precision. The Big Spring spinedace population below Delmue Falls appears to be extremely limited, 

but we found a concentration of fish in Reach 6. Stream sites below the falls supported low populations 

of speckled dace. Desert sucker were less prevalent below the falls, and some sample sites often yielded 

no suckers. Though the confidence intervals for the estimate of total population were wide, the 

differences in population abundance were great enough to indicate that Big Spring spinedace, desert 
15

sucker, and speckled dace populations and densities were much higher upstream of than downstream of 

Delmue Falls. This is particularly significant because the stream length above Delmue Falls accounted 

for only about 25 percent of the stream length in the study area.

Site-population estimates and movement patterns suggest that the areas around Kill Wash are 

important for Big Spring spinedace spawning. Spawning by desert suckers and speckled dace was 

observed in Kill Wash, in MVW immediately below Kill Wash, and in RB_ND1. Reaches B, 1, and Kill 

Wash appear to be highly favorable and likely critical for the persistence of native fish populations in 

Meadow Valley Wash. These reaches had inflow from springs, which provided clear water and 

moderate water temperatures throughout the year. All three native fish species spawned above the small 

falls in Reach A. These fish may contribute to downstream populations, but are likely inaccessible to 

fish downstream of the falls. 

All three native species were detected making substantial movements. Spinedace and desert 

sucker were recorded moving over 1 km from Reach 4 to Kill Wash. Speckled dace moved up to 0.5 km 

from Reach 2 to Kill Wash. Big Spring spinedace below Delmue Falls also made significant movements 

from Reaches 6 and 7 to just below Delmue Falls. Movements of all three species occurred during late 

winter and spring and are most likely associated with fish seeking suitable habitat for spawning. Fish 

may be seeking favorable temperatures, substrates, or other fish actively spawning. Scoppettone and 

others (2004) found two size classes of ova in White River spinedace, which suggests prolonged 

spawning, and found adult fish from 60 to 165 mm. Blinn and others (1998) estimated that Little 

Colorado spinedace had up to three spawns per year. If Big Spring spinedace share similar life-history 

traits, it would not be surprising to find fish maturing at differing times and potentially traveling to find 

mates or more suitable conditions. Movement data demonstrate that all three native species are capable 

of lengthy movements in a small-stream environment. 

Growth of Big Spring spinedace was most rapid between fall and spring. Spring temperatures 

are likely in the preferred range for spinedace and the food resources they consume. From spring to 

early summer, many spinedace lost weight, presumably as a result of spawning. Growth through 

summer into fall was at a slower rate. The increased water temperatures that occurred in summer may 

not be optimal for spinedace or the food resources they rely on. Desert sucker showed a similar growth 

pattern, with the highest rates of change over the winter and spring. We did not document as many 

instances of weight loss in desert suckers, though this could be because they spawn earlier than 

spinedace and had time to recover weight before our June 2009 sampling. 

The upstream extent of our study area was the Delmue Road crossing of MVW (fig. 1) 

Distribution of Big Spring spinedace and other fish species above this bridge is unknown, but the area 

could reasonably support interacting factions of these populations. Any future assessment of the 

vulnerability of the native fish species of MVW to disturbance or habitat change, or response to 

restoration efforts, should include sampling of the stream above the Delmue Bridge.

Non-native rainbow trout and crayfish were present in the study area. Rainbow trout were found 

only in Reaches 5 and 6 and never above Delmue Falls. Length data and the observation of a probable 

spawning aggregation in spring 2009 suggest that wild reproduction occurred. It is not know if 

conditions above Delmue Falls preclude survival of rainbow trout there, or if they simply were never 

present there. The origin of rainbow trout in Condor Canyon is not known. They could be the result of 

upstream or downstream introductions, or possibly of a release near where we found them. 

Crayfish were abundant throughout the study area. We did not attempt to quantify the population 

or density of these non-native crayfish, but they were present both at sample sites with high numbers of 

spinedace and at sites with no spinedace. Although interaction with non-native rainbow trout and 

crayfish may be influencing both populations, with our existing data we could not identify any specific 
16

relationships to explain differences in populations among study sites. Crayfish may affect Big Spring 

spinedace, and other native fish in MVW, by direct predation on fish or eggs (Dorn and Wojdak, 2004), 

competition for invertebrate resources, reduction of the richness of invertebrate resources (Stenroth and 

Nyström, 2003), or by contributing to increased turbidity (Dorn and Wojdak, 2004). 

Reach 6 supported the most robust spinedace populations that we observed below Delmue Falls, 

but it also had the most rainbow trout. Potential negative consequences of their interaction were not 

apparent. In a study of Little Colorado spinedace, Bryan and others (2004) found no predation on 

spinedace by rainbow trout. However, they also observed that spinedace, in the presence of trout, 

reduced movement, and in the presence of rainbow trout and crayfish, reduced overall activity including 

movements in and out of refuge areas. A separate study of predation by rainbow trout on Little Colorado 

spinedace (Blinn and others, 1993) found that predation rates by rainbow trout on spinedace were fairly 

high. At the end of a 10-day experiment with both species in stream enclosures, the average number of 

spinedace in rainbow trout stomachs was 0.7 spinedace per trout. One trout consumed 4 spinedace in a 

16-hr span. They found that the length of spinedace (mean: 53.2 mm) consumed by rainbow trout was 

less than those spinedace that were not consumed (mean: 63.7 mm). 

Rainbow trout below Delmue Falls may be altering the behavior of or consuming Big Spring 

spinedace, and control measures may be warranted. Conversely, rainbow trout may be consuming 

crayfish, which could confer some benefit to spinedace if crayfish negatively affect spinedace 

populations. A detailed food-web study and analysis is needed to understand what positive and negative 

loops might exist and what the overall consequences are to Big Spring spinedace and other native fish of 

MVW.

Lower population densities below Delmue Falls for the three native fish species could be related 

to differences in a number of habitat variables such as vegetation, turbidity, substrate, and temperature. 

The high prevalence of cattail and bulrush below Delmue Falls may have contributed to both lower 

populations of fish there. Cattail and bulrush species can exploit altered aquatic ecosystems. They can 

form dense monotypic stands that reduce biodiversity and density of organisms (Farrer and Goldberg, 

2009; Kostecke and others, 2005). These stands can choke channels with live and dead material, 

potentially form migration blocks, alter substrates by trapping sediment, and provide potential habitat 

for crayfish. Dense aquatic vegetation was identified as a possible cause of the decline of a population 

of White River spinedace (L. albivallis) in Flag Springs, Nev. (Scoppettone and others, 2004). This fish 

population was found to be declining, with potentially no reproduction occurring. The researchers 

speculated that a dam had made conditions unsuitable for spawning—potentially by altering substrates. 

The resulting increase in deposition of fine substrates may have favored dense aquatic vegetation, with 

both factors contributing to recruitment failure.

Watercress was more common above than below Delmue Falls. This plant, which is generally 

thought to be beneficial to some stream-dwelling fish (Boussu, 1954; Labbe and Fausch, 2000), may 

provide numerous benefits to the MVW ecosystem. We commonly found watercress patches to be 

occupied by many amphipods (“scuds”). These likely provide a high-quality food resource for 

spinedace. Runck and Blinn (1993) found that cladocerans were an important food source for Little 

Colorado spinedace (L. vittata) during summer. Watercress also may provide cover to larval and 

juvenile fish. Larval Little Colorado spinedace were found to move into slow water and remain along 

the shore near aquatic vegetation (Blinn and others, 1998). Watercress growth may buffer stream banks 

from erosion and limit sediment input. The Condor Canyon Habitat Management Plan (Bureau of Land 

Management, 1990) lists increased watercress bank coverage as a desired condition. 
17

Higher turbidity below Delmue Falls could limit the ability of fish to feed. Spinedace species are 

likely sight feeders. Runck and Blinn (1993) found that diet of Little Colorado spinedace was composed 

mostly of terrestrial and aquatic insects, which they captured at the surface or midwater, and 

Scoppettone and others (2004) observed White River spinedace feeding on drift. Increased turbidity can 

also reduce primary productivity. Lloyd and others (1987) showed that in a clear, shallow stream, an 

increase of 25 NTU could decrease primary production by 13–50 percent. 

In addition to turbidity effects, fine particulates can have a number of other negative effects on 

stream communities. Clay particles can be somewhat adhesive and destructive to biota (Waters, 1995). 

Portions of Condor Canyon do contain clay soils (Bureau of Land Management, 1990). Fine substrate is 

known to have a deleterious effect on stream benthos, particularly on those drift organisms most likely 

to be consumed by sight feeders (Lemly, 1982; Mackay and Waters, 1986; McClelland and Brusven, 

1980). Fine substrate can also smother fish eggs or spawning substrates. Minshall (1988) described a 

heterogeneous substrate composed of gravel, pebble, and cobbles as most favorable to benthos 

abundance. Substrate heterogeneity was higher above Delmue Falls than below. Blinn and others (1998) 

reported that Little Colorado spinedace spawned in moving water with gravel from 2 mm to 16 mm in 

diameter. The high prevalence of fine substrate material in the reaches below Delmue Falls is likely a 

factor contributing to the lower densities of fish compared to above the falls. 

Pools made up a much lower proportion of stream length below Delmue Falls than above. Both 

Little Colorado spinedace and Virgin spinedace (L. m. mollispinis) have been found to prefer pool 

habitat during some portions of the year (Angrandi and others, 1991; Runck and Blinn, 1993, Blinn and 

others, 1998). Pools may be a critical habitat of Big Spring spinedace, at least for some phases of their 

life history.

Water temperatures in MVW below Delmue Falls reached lower minimums than in the section 

above the falls, which may have contributed to a lower population of spinedace below the falls. 

However, the thermal limits of Big Spring spinedace are not known. Blinn and others (1998) noted that 

spawn timing of Little Colorado spinedace is temperature dependent and those that spawned as little as 

two weeks later than other spinedace produced young-of-year fish that were as much as 14 mm smaller 

at the onset of winter than the spawn of adult fish that spawned earlier. The lower minimum 

temperatures in MVW in lower Condor Canyon alone may not be enough to exclude Big Spring 

spinedace, but combined with other habitat conditions, they may make lower MVW relatively 

inhospitable to native fish compared to areas upstream of Delmue Falls. 

We found no Big Spring spinedace in Reaches 9 and 10, coincident with where relatively low 

numbers of desert sucker and speckled dace were found. Reaches 9 and 10 had the most bulrush and 

cattail, the least watercress, the least gravel and coarse sediment, and the highest incidence of fine 

substrate within the study area. Many of these habitat conditions may represent disturbances of the 

natural state of MVW and contribute to conditions favorable to crayfish populations. Though crayfish 

were ubiquitous throughout the study area, the habitat below Delmue Falls may have been most 

favorable for them. An abundance of fine substrate types or vegetation litter, both common in the lower 

reaches of MVW, is favorable to some species of crayfish (Charlebois and Lamerti, 1996; Demers and 

others, 2003). 

Reach 6 has better native fish habitat than of any reach in Condor Canyon below Delmue Falls. 

A previous assessment (PBS&J, 2007) found that Reach 6 had stable geometry and good in-stream 

habitat. Our surveys found Reach 6 to have the most gravel substrate (23 percent) and the greatest bank 

coverage by watercress (21 percent) of any reach below Delmue Falls. 
18

Management Implications

What is Good Big Spring Spinedace Habitat?

Big Spring spinedace are currently limited in (at least) their downstream distribution; they have 

much lower population abundance and density downstream of Delmue Falls than above. Explicit 

reasons for this are not known, but we found substantial longitudinal change in habitat conditions. 

Possible negative factors that change from upstream to downstream include higher density of cattail and 

bulrush, decreased coverage by watercress, higher turbidity, higher amount of fine sediment, lower ratio 

of pool to non-pool habitat, increasing stream temperatures in summer, and decreasing stream 

temperatures in winter. We found the best spinedace populations in upstream areas that had clear water, 

watercress present or close by, spawning substrate available, cover present (but not dense stands of 

cattail or bulrush), and moderate stream temperatures (including low diel variation). 

Kill Wash and the numerous other springs that contribute water to MVW within the upper 

portion of Condor Canyon likely serve a critical role in maintaining water quality and quantity. These 

spring inputs contribute clear water that may moderate mainstem turbidity, allowing effective site 

feeding by spinedace. The spring inputs also serve to moderate both high and low temperatures. During 

winter, the sections of MVW at the downstream end of Condor Canyon become very cold, possibly 

inhibiting spinedace from persisting there. 

Addressing Existing and Future Threats

Because MVW is the only know habitat of Big Spring spinedace, the population is greatly at 

risk. The population of Big Spring spinedace in the Condor Canyon section of MVW is potentially 

susceptible to a number of direct or indirect threats including dewatering, non-native species (those 

present and others that could be introduced), catastrophic flooding, drought, contamination, or other 

disturbances that could impact MVW. Flooding is perhaps more of a threat than ever before, because of: 

(1) the loss of much of the stream’s prior course through meadows above the canyon reaches, and (2) 

the confinement of the stream, which has become straightened and entrenched in an eroded streambed.

The current designated critical habitat for spinedace extends to the upstream end of Condor 

Canyon (Federal Register, 1985), but does not include Kill Wash or MVW from the Kill Wash 

confluence upstream to the Delmue Road Bridge. We found a large proportion of the spinedace 

population (possibly up to 40 percent of the total population), and other native fish, in MVW from the 

Kill Wash confluence to the Delmue Road Bridge. All three native species spawned in the area of MVW 

near the Kill Wash confluence and in Kill Wash itself. Managers may wish to consider expansion of the 

designated critical habitat upstream to incorporate what appears to be a large and important part of the 

known population of Big Spring spinedace. 

The highest flow we recorded in Condor Canyon was 0.06 m3

/s, though we did not take flow 

measures during high-flow events, which certainly would have exceeded our observed flows. The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) has a water right to 0.08 m3

/s in a portion of Condor Canyon, which 

exceeds flow during much of the year. Flow decreased from the upper end of Condor Canyon to the 

lower end, likely lost to groundwater or evaporation. Restoration of stream function and stream shade in 

lower Condor Canyon may help to enhance surface flows. 

The dense stands of cattail and bulrush in MVW are likely detrimental to native fish populations. 

Sample sites that were choked with cattail and bulrush often had very few fish of any species present. It 

is not currently known if cattail and bulrush are expanding their coverage in our study area. Managers 

may wish to track coverage of cattail and bulrush and take control measures if coverage is expanding. 
19

The restoration of hydrologic function and the enhancement of riparian vegetation may be the primary 

long-term solution to prevent spread and decrease coverage of the extremely dense stands of cattail and 

bulrush currently found. 

Managers should consider enhancing access and flow of spring tributaries to increase availability 

of refugia areas of native fish from high and turbid flows and extreme temperature events. Kill Wash 

and its watershed are a primary opportunity for protection, given its obvious importance to native fish 

(as habitat and as a contributor of clear, thermally stable water) and because much of the stream length 

and its watershed is in public ownership. 

Regarding restoration of mainstem areas, it appears prudent to start below Delmue Falls and 

below Reach 6. Because Reach 6 appears capable of holding and sustaining a population of spinedace, it 

could serve as a template for restoration goals of downstream reaches. Physical restoration such as 

improved floodplain condition and connection with the mainstem channel, improved riparian condition 

and vegetation, combined with improved watershed function throughout the MVW drainage in reaches 

downstream of Reach 6 may also improve water quality in downstream areas of MVW. 

Translocation of some Big Spring spinedace to establish one or more new populations to 

diminish risk to this isolated population from catastrophic events has been considered by managers. 

Though specific limiting factors (including thermal limits, dissolved-oxygen requirements, food needs 

and preferences, spawning requirements) remain largely unknown, this document provides a good 

oversight of habitat in areas of MVW where spinedace populations are healthy at the local scale. Any 

translocation site should meet some minimum criteria derived from sites in MVW above Delmue Falls, 

where Big Spring spinedace showed successful reproduction and high population densities. 

Recommendations for Future Monitoring and Research

Our sampling did not extend upstream of the Delmue Road Bridge, but it is possible that 

important habitat and interacting native fish populations (including Big Spring spinedace) exist above 

this bridge. Managers should consider additional assessment of MVW upstream of the Delmue Road 

crossing to determine the extent and robustness of a potential Big Spring spinedace population and other 

fish populations above this bridge. 

To generate future total-population estimates, an improved approach would be to sample more 

stream length, which could be done at a less intensive level then our effort. A mark-recapture 

methodology would allow coverage of more stream area per reach and could result in a more precise 

estimate of the total population. There is certainly merit in continuing the annual monitoring at 

NDOW’s established 25-m sites. We do recommend that NDOW use the methodology of Connolly 

(1996) and, as described in this report, that NDOW determine if and when more than three removal 

passes are needed to obtain a valid estimate with a desired precision. We hope that, by increasing the 

number and spread of 25-m sites sampled, our intensive study gives the NDOW sites context.

Managers of MVW may wish to consider assessing nonnative crayfish populations and the 

relationship between crayfish and Big Spring spinedace. Extremely high densities of crayfish were 

observed throughout the study area. Control measures may be warranted. If control efforts are 

implemented, monitoring crayfish may also be appropriate to assess the effect of these control efforts on 

crayfish and native fish populations. Managers should consider gathering data on the diet of rainbow 

trout and Big Spring spinedace, along with other foodweb data, to assess predation, competition, and 

other complex interactions. For example, it may be that the relatively small population of nonnative 

rainbow trout has minimal impact on Big Spring spinedace if rainbow trout consume primarily 

crayfish—this may benefit native fish by reducing crayfish effects. However, were rainbow trout 

populations to increase, they could be detrimental to Big Spring spinedace. A foodweb analysis would 
20

help managers explore these kinds of interactions and potential responses to habitat changes, such as 

those that might occur with restoration actions or predicted climate change.

In general, we submit that the information in this report represents an improved understanding of 

the habitat, basic-population, and life-history information for Big Spring spinedace in MVW. To that 

end, managers may wish to update existing documents such as the Condor Canyon Habitat Management 

Plan (Bureau of Land Management, 1990) and the Big Spring Spinedace, Lepidomeda mollispinis 

pratensis, Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993). 

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed their efforts to make this work possible. Karen Prentice (BLM) was 

our funding officer. Fellow USGS employees who spent many hours in the field and office were: Brady 

Allen, Jodi Charrier, Katlyn Cox, Jessica Fischer, Teresa Fish, Bethany Grey, Anita Lahey, Kyle 

Martens, and Brien Rose. We received frequent field help from Sunny Sawyer, an associate of the 

Chicago Botanical Gardens stationed with BLM. Mark Beckstrand and Brian Hobbs of NDOW 

provided field help. Phil Cunningham, Shawn Goodchild, and Lee Simons from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service helped in the field and with permitting. Steve Juhnke, of USGS, and Lee Simons 

provided very helpful reviews that improved this document. We would also like to thank the Delmue 

family for property access, without which this study would have been impossible. 

References Cited

Allan, R.C., 1983, Protected species range extension, in Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council, 

Death Valley, Calif., November 17–19, 1983, Proceedings: Bishop, Calif., Desert Fishes Council, p. 

319–321. 

Angrandi, T.R., Spaulding, J.S., and Kock, E.D., 1991, Diel food utilization by the Virgin River 

spinedace, Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis, and speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus, in Beaver 

Dam Wash, Utah: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 36, no. 2, p. 158–170. 

Arend, K.K., 1999, Classification of streams and reaches, in Bain, M.B and Stevenson, N.J., eds., 

Aquatic habitat assessment—Common methods: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, p. 57–

74. 

Armstrong, J.D., Braithwaite, V.A., and Rycroft, P., 1996, A flat-bed passive integrated transponder 

antenna array for monitoring behavior of Atlantic salmon parr and other fish: Journal of Fish Biology, 

v. 48, p. 539–541. 

Blinn, D.W., Runck, C., and Clark, D.A., 1993, Effects of rainbow trout predation on Little Colorado 

spinedace: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 122, p. 139–143. 

Blinn, D.W., White, J., Pradetto, T., and O’Brien, J., 1998, Reproductive ecology and growth of a 

captive population of Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata—Cyprinidae): Copeia, no. 4, p. 

1010–1015. 

Bohlin, T., 1982, The validity of the removal method for small populations—Consequences for 

electrofishing practice: Drottningholm, Sweden, Institute of Freshwater Research, Report 60, p. 15–

18. 

Boussu, M.F., 1954, Relationship between trout populations and cover on a small stream: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v.18, p. 229–239. 

Bryan S.D., Robinson, A.T., and Sweetser, M.G., 2004, Behavioral responses of a small native fish to 

multiple introduced predators: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 63, no. 1, p. 46–56. 
21

Bureau of Land Management, 1990, Condor Canyon habitat management plan: Las Vegas, Nev., 

Caliente Resource Area, Las Vegas District, N5-WHA-T27, 72 p. 

Carlson, S.M., and Letcher, B.H., 2003, Variation in brook and brown trout survival within and among 

seasons, species, and age classes: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 63, p. 780–794. 

Charlebois, P.M. and Lamberti, G.A., 1996, Invading crayfish in a Michigan stream—Direct and 

indirect effects on periphyton and macroinvertebrates: Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society, v. 15, p. 551–563. 

Connolly, P.J., 1996, Resident cutthroat trout in the central Coast Range of Oregon—Logging effects, 

habitat associations, and sampling protocols: Corvallis, Oregon State University, Ph.D. dissertation. 

Connolly, P.J., Jezorek, I.G., Martens, K., and Prentice, E.F., 2008, Measuring performance of two 

stationary interrogation systems for detecting downstream and upstream movement of PIT-tagged 

salmonids: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 28, p. 402–417. 

Demers, A., Reynolds, J.D., and Cioni, A., 2003, Habitat preference of different size classes of 

Austropotamobius pallipes in an Irish river: Bull. Fr. Pēche Piscic, no. 370–371, p. 127–137. 

Dorn, N. J. and Wojdak, J.M., 2004, The role of omnivorous crayfish in littoral communities: 

Oecologia, v. 140, p. 150–159. 

Earhart, H.G., 1984, Monitoring total suspended solids by using nephelometry: Environmental 

Management, v. 8, p. 81–86. 

Farrer, E.C. and Goldberg, D.E., 2009, Litter drives ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail 

invasion: Ecological Applications, v. 19, p. 398–412. 

Federal Register, 1985, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants—Determination of threatened 

status and critical habitat for Big Spring spinedace: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, v. 50, no. 60, p. 

12298–12302. 

Gallagher, A.S. and Stevenson, N.J., 1999, Streamflow, in Bain, M.B and Stevenson, N.J., eds., Aquatic 

habitat assessment—Common methods: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, p. 149–155. 

Gries, G., and Letcher, B.H., 2002, Tag retention and survival of age-0 Atlantic Salmon following 

surgical implantation with passive integrated transponder tags: North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, v. 22, p. 219–222. 

Kaufmann, P.R., Levine, P., Robison, E.G., Seeliger, C., and Peck, D.V., 1999, Quantifying physical 

habitat in wadeable streams: U.S. Environmental Agency, EPA/620/R-99/003. 149 p. 

Kostecke, R.M., Smith L.M., and Hands, H.M., 2005, Macroinvertebrate response to cattail 

management at Cheyenne Bottoms, Kansas, USA: Wetlands, v. 25, p. 758–763. 

Labbe, T.R. and Fausch, K.D., 2000, Dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate persistence of a 

threatened fish at multiple scales: Ecological Interactions, v. 10, p. 1774–1791. 

Lemly, A.D., 1982, Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams—Combined effects 

of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment: Hydrobiologia, v. 87, p. 229–245. 

Lloyd, D.S., Koenings, J.P., and LaPerriere, J.D., 1987, Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of Alaska: 

North American Journal of Fishery Management, v. 7, p. 18–33. 

Mackay, R. J. and Waters, T.F., 1986, Effects of small impoundments on hydropsychid caddisfly 

production in Valley Creek, Minnesota: Ecology, v. 67, p. 1680–1686. 

McClelland, W.T. and Brusven, M.A., 1980, Effects of sedimentation on the behavior and distribution 

of riffle insects in a laboratory stream: Aquatic Insects, v. 44, p. 658–673. 

Miller, R.R. and Hubbs, C.L., 1960, The spiny-rayed fishes (Plagopterini) of the Colorado River 

system: Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, 

no. 115, p. 1–39. 
22

Minshall, G.W., 1988, Stream ecosystem theory—A global perspective: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 7, p. 263–288. 

Nunnallee, E.P., Prentice, E.F., Jonasson, B.F., and Patten, W., 1998, Evaluation of a flat-plate PIT tag 

interrogation system at Bonneville Dam: Aquacultural Engineering, v. 17, p. 261–272. 

Ombredane, D., Baglinière, J., and Marchand, F., 1998, The effects of Passive Integrated Transponder 

tags on survival and growth of juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) and their use for studying 

movement in a small river: Hydrobiologia, v. 371/372, p. 99–106. 

PBS&J, 2007, Geomorphic assessment of Condor Canyon: BLM Ely Field Office, Ely Nev. PBS&J, 39 

p. [Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management, Ely Field Office, Ely, Nev.] 

PIT Tag Steering Committee, 1999, PIT Tag marking procedures manual: Portland, Oreg., Columbia 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, 22 p. 

Runck, C. and Blinn, D.W., 1993, Seasonal diet of Lepidomeda vittata, a threatened cyprinid fish in 

Arizona: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 38, no. 2, p. 157–159. 

Scoppettone, G.C., Harvey, J.E., and Heinrich, J., 2004, Conservation, status, and life history of the 

endangered White River spinedace Lepidomeda albivallis (cyprinidae): Western North American 

Naturalist, v. 64, no. 1, p. 38–44. 

Skov, C., Brodersen, J., Brönmark, C., Hansson, L.–A., Hertonsson, P., and Nilsson, P.A., 2005, 

Evaluation of PIT-tagging in cyprinids: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 67, p. 1195–1201. 

Stenroth, P. and Nyström, P., 2003, Exotic crayfish in a brown water stream—Effects on juvenile trout, 

invertebrates and algae: Freshwater Biology, v. 48, p. 446–475. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993, Big Spring spinedace, Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis, recovery 

plan: Portland, Oregon. 42 p. 

Ward, D.L., Childs, M.R., and Persons, W.R., 2008, PIT tag retention and tag induced mortality in 

juvenile bonytail and Gila chub: Fisheries Management and Ecology, v. 15, p. 159–161. 

Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in streams—Sources, biological effects, and control: Bethesda, Md., 

American Fisheries Society, Monograph 7, 251 p. 

White, G.C., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., and Otis, D.L., 1982, Capture-recapture and removal 

methods for sampling closed populations: Los Alamos, N. Mex., Los Alamos National Laboratory, 

no. LA-8787-NERP, UC-11, 253 p. 

Zippin, C., 1956, An evaluation of the removal method of estimating animal populations: Biometrics, v. 

12, p. 163–189. 

Zydlewski, G.B., Haro, A., Whalen, K.G., and McCormick, S.D., 2001, Performance of stationary and 

portable passive transponder detections systems for monitoring of fish movements: Journal of Fish 

Biology, v. 58, p. 1471–1475. 
23

Figure 1. Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada. 

Delmue Falls

rkm 6.1

rkm 8.2

rkm 0
24

Figure 2. Reach-break locations upstream of Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.

Breaks are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report. 

Reach A

Reach B

Reach 1

Reach 2

Reach 3

Reach 4

Trib

Kill Wash

Delmue Falls
25

Reach 5

Reach 6

Reach 7

Reach 8

Reach 9

Reach 10

Reach 5

Reach 6

Reach 7

Reach 8

Reach 9

Reach 10

Figure 3. Reach-break locations downstream of Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada. 

Breaks are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report. 
26

Figure 4. Thermologger locations in reaches upstream of Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, 

Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report. 

TR0A

TRBU

TRBL

TTRI

TR01

TBOX

TR02
27

Figure 5. Thermologger locations in reaches downstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, 

Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in table 2 of this report. 

TR05

TR09
28

Figure 6. Flow site and water-level logger locations in reaches upstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report.

WLRB

TRIB

FST

FSU

FSM

Flow site

Water-level logger

=

= 
29

Figure 7. Flow site and water-level logger locations in reaches downstream of Delmue Falls, Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report.

FSB

WLR9

Flow site

Water-level logger

=

= 
30

Figure 8. Fish-population-sampling locations in reaches upstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report. 

RA_US2

RA_US1

RB_ND1

RB_US1

TRIB_US1 R1_US1

R1_ND1

R2_US1

R3_ND1

R3_US1

R4_US1

Nevada Dept. of Wildlife sites = 

U.S. Geological Survey sites = 
31

R5_ND1

R5_US1

R6_ND1

R6_US1

R7_US1

R8_US1

R8_ND1

R9_ND1

R9_US1

R10_US1

R10_US2

R6_USA

Nevada Dept. of Wildlife sites = 

U.S. Geological Survey sites = 

Figure 9. Fish-population-sampling locations in reaches downstream of Delmue Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report. 
32

Figure 10. Passive-Integrated-Transponder tag-interrogation system locations in reaches upstream of Delmue 

Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report.
33

Figure 11. Passive-Integrated-Transponder tag-interrogation system locations in reaches downstream of Delmue 

Falls, Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada. Sites are geo-referenced in appendix A of this report.

A5

A9
34

Figure 12. Maximum, mean, and minimum water temperature during the hottest and coldest month for nine sites in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor 

Canyon, Lincoln County, Nevada. For location of temperature loggers, see appendix A of this report. 

2008

TR0A TRBU TRBL TTRI TBOX TR01 TR02 TR05 TR09

Temperature (C)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

December minimum

December mean

December maximum

July minimum

July mean

July maximum

EXPLANATION
35

Figure 13. Maximum, mean, and minimum water temperature during the hottest and coldest month for nine sites in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor 

Canyon, Lincoln County, Nevada. For location of temperature loggers, see appendix A of this report. 

2009

TR0A TRBU TRBL TTRI TBOX TR01 TR02 TR05 TR09

Temperature (C)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

December minimum

December mean

December maximum

July minimum

July mean

July maximum

EXPLANATION
36

Figure 14. Flow at four sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, from July 2008 through October 

2009. [FSU, flow site upper (taken at the upper end of the canyon in Reach B); FST, flow site tributary; FSM, flow 

site middle (taken in the middle of the canyon in Reach 2); and FSB, flow site bottom (taken at the lower end of the 

canyon in Reach 9)].

Meadow Valley Wash

7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09 9/1/09

Flow (cms)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08 FSU

FST

FSM

FSB

Explanation
37

 

Figure 15. Daily mean water level for three sites in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor Canyon, Nevada, from September 2008 through February 2010. 

WLR9 is at the upper end of Reach 9, WLRT is in Kill Wash, and WLRB is in Reach B just upstream of the Kill Wash confluence.

8/1/2008 11/1/2008 2/1/2009 5/1/2009 8/1/2009 11/1/2009 2/1/2010

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

WLR9

WLTR

WLRB

Explanation
38

Figure 16. Turbidity at the four flow sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during fall 2008 and 

spring 2009. FSU is upstream of the Kill Wash confluence, FST is in Kill Wash, FSM is in Reach 2, and FSB is in 

Reach 9.

0

20

40

60

80

9/26 10/7 10/15 10/29 11/6 11/18 3/9 3/19 3/27

Turbidity (NTU)

Date

FSU

FST

FSM

FSB

Explanation
39

Figure 17. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older Big Spring spinedace above and below Delmue Falls 

in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. [NE, no estimate; NS, not sampled]
40

Figure 18. Population estimates of age-1 or age-2 or older Big Spring spinedace above and below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. [NE, no estimate; NS, not sampled]
41

Figure 19. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older Big Spring spinedace above and below Delmue Falls 

in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. Estimates of Big Spring spinedace populations at Nevada Department of Wildlife sites are shown in 

Figure 20.
42

Figure 20. Population estimates of all age classes of Big Spring spinedace at Nevada Department of Wildlife 

(NDOW) sites above and below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. From 

left to right, sites are listed from upstream to downstream. [NE, no estimate] 

Spinedace NDOW Sites, Fall 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

RB_ND1 R1_ND1 R3_ND1 R5_ND1 R6_ND1 R8_ND1 R9_ND1

Sites

Fish/m

NE (0) (0)

Delmue Falls
43

Figure 21. Growth (weight in grams) of recaptured, Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged Big Spring spinedace in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, during 2008 and 2009. 

Meadow Valley Wash , Big Spring spinedace PIT-tag Recaptures

2008-2009

Date

Aug-08 Dec-08 Apr-09 Aug-09 Dec-09 

Weight (g)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Above Delmue Falls

Below Delmue Falls
44

Figure 22. Timing of first detection (by week) of three species during winter and spring 2009 at the Passive-Integrated-Transponder tag interrogator 

in Kill Wash, a tributary of Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada. 

First Detection in Tributary 

Date in Tributary

Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

Number of Fish

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Desert sucker

Big Spring spinedace

Speckled dace
45

Figure 23. Timing of first detection (by week) of Big Spring spinedace at Passive-Integrated-Transponder tag interrogators A1 (in Reach 1) and AT 

(in Kill Wash) in Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during winter and spring 2009. Fish were tagged in Reach 2 or below.

Date of first detection

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Number of fish

0

2

4

6

8

10

Detection at A1

Detection at AT

Big Spring spinedace

EXPLANATION
46

Figure 24. Detections of Passive-Integrated-Transponder (PIT)-tagged Big Spring spinedace at PIT tag interrogators above Delmue Falls. Solid 

arrows depict fish movement from reaches 2, 3, and 4 to Reach 1 (interrogator A1). The numbers adjacent to the arrows are the number of fish 

detected at A1 and, in parenthesis, the numbers of fish subsequently detected in Kill Wash (interrogator AT). The open arrows and adjacent 

numbers depict movement from reaches 1 and B into Kill Wash. One fish each from reaches 2 and 3 were detected in Reach B (interrogator AB). No 

Big Spring spinedace from Reach A were detected downstream of that reach.

Delmue Falls, rkm 6.1 

Kill Wash, rkm 7.4

Rkm 8.2

2

6
47

Figure 25. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older speckled dace above and below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008. For site locations see figures 8 and 9. [NE, no estimate; 

NS, not sampled]
48

Figure 26. Population estimates of age-1 or age-2 or older speckled dace above and below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. [NE, no estimate; NS, not sampled] 
49

Figure 27. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older speckled dace above and below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. Estimates of speckled dace populations at Nevada Department of Wildlife sites are shown in figure 

24.
50

Figure 28. Population estimates of all age classes of speckled dace at Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) 

sites above and below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. From left to right, 

sites are listed from upstream to downstream. [NE, no estimate] 

Speckled dace NDOW sites, Fall 2009

0

3

6

9

12

15

RB_ND1 R1_ND1 R3_ND1 R5_ND1 R6_ND1 R8_ND1 R9_ND1

Sites

Fish/m

NE NE NE

Delmue Falls
51

Figure 29. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older desert sucker above and below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. [NS, not sampled.] 
52

Figure 30. Population estimates of age-1 or age-2 or older desert sucker above and below Delmue Falls in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. [NE, no estimate; NS, not sampled.]
53

Figure 31. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older desert sucker above and below Delmue Falls in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to 

downstream. Estimates of desert-sucker populations at Nevada Department of Wildlife sites are shown in figure 32.
54

Figure 32. Population estimates of all age classes of desert sucker at Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) sites 

above and below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. From left to right, sites 

are listed from upstream to downstream. [NE, no estimate.] 

Desert sucker NDOW sites, Fall 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

RB_ND1 R1_ND1 R3_ND1 R5_ND1 R6_ND1 R8_ND1 R9_ND1

Sites

Fish/m

NE NE (0) NE

Delmue Falls
55

Figure 33. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older rainbow trout below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to downstream. [NS, not 

sampled.]
56

Figure 34. Population estimates of age-2 or older rainbow trout below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to downstream. [NS, not 

sampled] 
57

Figure 35. Population estimates of age-0 and age-1 or older rainbow trout below Delmue Falls in Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. From left to right, sites are listed from upstream to downstream. [NE, no 

estimate] 
58

Figure 36. Growth of desert sucker in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during 2008 and 2009. [PIT, Passive Integrated 

Transponder.] 

Meadow Valley Wash , Desert Sucker PIT-tag Recaptures

2008-2009

Date

Aug-08 Dec-08 Apr-09 Aug-09 Dec-09 

Weight (g)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
59

Table 1. Mean water temperature recorded at sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during July, August, and September 2008, 

December 2008, and January and February 2009. 

[Water temperature ranges are shown in parenthesis. Data are from Onset Corporation’s HOBO thermologgers, which recorded water 

temperature every hour. Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. See appendix A for coordinates of thermologgers. - = no 

monitoring] 

Month

Site Reach July Aug. Sept. Dec. Jan. Feb.

TR0A A - - 16.8

(13.6 – 21.5)

9.4

(5.6–13.0)

9.7

(5.6–13.0)

11.5

(8.5–14.1)

TRBU B - - 16.3

(12.4–21.7)

8.8

(5.9–12.8)

9.3

(5.0–13.2)

10.9

(7.7–14.1)

TRBL B 19.3

(12.9–28.4)

18.5

(13.0–25.3)

16.1

(9.9–23.1)

7.4

(3.4–12.8)

8.0

(3.1–13.2)

9.7

(5.8–15.4)

TTRI TR - 16.8

(15.7–18.5)

16.4

(15.4–17.9)

14.4

(13.3–15.5)

14.3

(13.4–15.2)

14.5

(13.7–15.7)

TBOX 1 14.7

(13.8–15.9)

14.9

(13.9–15.9)

14.3

(13.5–15.6)

13.1

(12.4–13.9)

13.1

(12.6–13.7)

13.2

(12.7–13.8)

TR01 1 18.7

(13.6–27.5)

18.1

(13.6–24.0)

16.2

(12.2–21.7)

9.2

(6.0–13.7)

9.6

(5.6–13.9)

10.9

(7.7–15.8)

TR02 2 18.7

(13.6–27.1)

18.2

(13.4–24.2)

16.2

(11.9–22.2)

9.0

(5.6–13.4)

9.4

(5.4–13.8)

10.7

(7.4–16.2)

TR05 5 - 18.3

(12.0–23.8)

15.5

(9.7–20.7)

6.0

(0.6–10.9)

6.8

(0.9–12.5)

8.4

(3.4–14.3)

TR09 9 19.4

(15.2–22.8)

18.6 

(14.3–21.5)

14.6

(10.2–18.9)

1.4

(-0.6–6.4)

2.3

(-0.9–8.6)

4.3

(-0.9–9.9)
60

Table 2. Mean water temperature recorded at sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada,

during July, August, and September 2009, December 2009, and January 2010. 

[Water temperature ranges are shown in parenthesis. Data are from Onset Corporation’s HOBO thermologgers, 

which recorded water temperature every hour. Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. See appendix A for 

coordinates of thermologgers]

Month

Site Reach July Aug. Sept. Dec. Jan.

TR0A A 18.6

(15.5–22.6)

16.9

(14.9–19.9)

15.9

(13.4–18.5)

8.9

(6.6–10.8)

10.8

(8.3–13.1)

TRBU B 18.0

(14.2–22.7)

16.0

(13.5–19.3)

15.4

(12.8–18.1)

10.1

(5.9–13.4)

9.8

(6.8–12.9)

TRBL B 19.0

(12.9–26.4)

16.9

(10.6–25.5)

15.2

(9.9–21.4)

4.9

(0.3–8.4)

8.4

(4.7–11.8)

TTRI TR 16.7

(15.9–17.3)

16.7

(16.0–17.3)

16.5

(15.7–17.3)

13.9

(13.0–14.7)

14.0

(13.1–14.7)

TBOX 1 14.2

(14.0–14.4)

14.2

(14.0–14.4)

14.2

(13.9–14.4)

12.6

(12.2–12.9)

12.5

(12.2–12.9)

TR01 1 17.4

(15.3–20.2)

16.7

(15.4–18.6)

16.4

(13.4–18.6)

10.1

(8.7–11.9)

10.8

(9.9–13.1)

TR02 2 18.1

(14.0–23.1)

17.1

(13.2–22.2)

16.3

(13.2–19.7)

7.2

(5.1–10.2)

9.0

(5.9–12.2)

TR05 5 18.5

(13.1–22.5)

17.0

(12.1–21.3)

15.6

(9.7–20.1)

4.3

(-0.1–8.3)

6.6

(1.9–9.5)

TR09 9 19.7

(14.3–22.8)

17.2

(13.2–21.0)

15.4

(10.1–19.4)

0.2

(-0.1–2.1)

2.1

(0.0–4.6)
61

Table 3. Number of days when recorded water temperature equaled or exceeded 18°C, 20°C, and 22°C 

and days when recorded water temperature equaled or was less than 6°C, 4°C, and 2°C at sites in the 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.

[Data are from September 2008 through January 2010. Data are from Onset Corporation’s StowAway thermographs, 

which recorded temperature every 2 hours. Sites are listed from upstream to downstream] 

Warm days Cold days

Site > 18°C > 20°C > 22°C < 6°C < 4°C < 2°C

TR0A 145 46 6 3 0 0

TRBU 138 53 4 6 0 0

TRBL 259 220 157 97 25 8

TTRI 24 0 0 0 0 0

TBOX 0 0 0 0 0 0

TR01 205 95 58 2 0 0

TR02 246 188 96 17 0 0

TR05 194 114 28 157 60 17

TR09 151 78 9 251 190 134
62

Table 4. Habitat features of 13 reaches in Meadow Valley Wash, Condor Canyon, Nevada, summer 2008. 

[m, meters; C, confinement width/bankfull width less than 2 m; M, confinement width/bankfull width 2 to 4 m; U, confinement 

width/bankfull width greater than 4 m; LWD, large woody debris; PL:NPL, ratio of length of pool-habitat to non-pool habitat (riffles 

and glides); HUs, habitat units; –, no data available] 

Reach

Length 

(m)

Stream

gradient (%)

Average 

wetted 

width (m)

Average 

bankfull

width (m)

% Confinement LWD

(#/100 m)

Pools

(#/100 m) PL:NPL

Reach complexity 

C/M/U (#HUs/100 m)

A 178 0.38 2.3 4.9 60/40/0 0.0 1.1 1:24 6.2

B 567 0.25 2.8 5.7 40/33/27 1.6 1.1 3:1 3.2

TRIB 94 0.17 1.3 - - 0.0 2.1 1:21 4.3

1 335 0.12 2.6 5.2 22/61/17 3.3 1.8 1:2 9.0

2 231 0.00 2.3 5.9 83/17/0 13.0 2.6 1:1 7.8

3 480 0.13 2.5 6.8 56/40/4 9.4 0.6 1:1 2.7

4 280 0.46 3.7 6.7 64/29/7 0.7 1.1 3:1 2.5

5 1,369 0.55 3.1 16.4 71/29/0 3.9 1.2 1:3 5.0

6 800 0.28 2.5 11.4 59/34/7 9.3 0.9 1:9 5.9

7 400 0.54 3.6 8.3 52/29/19 5.3 0.8 1:27 5.3

8 260 1.00 3.4 10.0 8/23/69 3.1 1.2 1:8 9.2

9 2,020 0.75 3.0 11.0 22/56/22 43.2 3.1 1:2 10.1

10 1240 0.91 2.8 8.2 50/50/0 4.0 0.3 1:6 7.0
63

Table 5. Percent substrate type, wetted width, and width-to-depth ratios in 13 reaches in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, which 

were surveyed in summer 2008. 

[Measurements were taken at cross channel transects every 20 meters. Substrate types are: M, mud/clay; S, sand/silt; G, gravel; C, 

cobble; B, boulder; O, other; BR, bedrock; W, wood. SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation (SD/Mean×100); m, meters; 

w/d, width/depth] 

Substrate type Mean

width (m)

Mean

Reach M S G C B O w/d SD CV

A 20 33 27 10 10 0 2.3 15.8 5 32

B 54 19 18 0 4 4 2.8 35.1 45 128

TRIB 6 11 83 0 0 0 1.3 100.3 120 120

1 22 17 35 20 6 0 2.6 34.3 51 149

2 8 44 46 3 0 0 2.3 19.1 13 69

3 1 75 24 0 0 0 2.5 23.0 15 67

4 11 73 4 0 2 9 3.7 39.1 29 73

5 27 48 16 5 1 4 3.1 25.4 17 68

6 15 46 23 9 1 6 2.5 29.9 34 113

7 14 48 17 5 2 15 3.6 34.1 28 82

8 21 67 10 2 0 0 3.4 37.1 25 68

9 32 42 8 2 1 15 3.0 28.2 25 90

10 1 86 5 0 6 2 2.8 44.1 47 107
64

Table 6. Dominant and subdominant aquatic vegetation and mean percent bank coverage by watercress in 13 reaches in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, summer 2008. 

[Vegetation was categorized by dominant and subdominant every 20 meters throughout a reach. The percent of reach intervals where 

species were dominant or subdominant is shown. If only one vegetation type was found in an interval, it was categorized as both 

dominant and subdominant. Vegetation types are: CT, cattail; BR, bulrush; WC, watercress; NR, needlerush; WP, water parsnip; SG, 

sedges and grasses; OT, other. SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation (SD/Mean×100) 

Reach

Aquatic vegetation

Dominant Subdominant Percent WC

CT BR WC NR WP SG OT CT BR WC NR WP SG OT Mean SD CV

A 11 22 44 0 11 11 0 0 11 22 0 11 56 0 14 18 126

B 17 59 10 0 0 14 0 10 31 38 0 7 14 0 15 20 132

TRIB 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 5 3 48

1 35 18 47 0 0 0 0 18 0 76 0 0 6 0 12 13 111

2 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 17 0 83 0 0 0 0 7 9 139

3 54 29 0 0 0 13 4 29 8 58 4 0 0 0 13 13 99

4 57 36 7 0 0 0 0 07 7 64 0 7 7 7 33 25 77

5 44 49 4 0 0 1 1 37 21 40 0 0 3 0 10 16 151

6 45 50 3 3 0 0 0 23 8 65 3 0 3 0 21 20 98

7 50 39 0 0 0 6 6 61 28 11 0 0 0 0 4 7 197

8 54 46 0 0 0 0 0 38 23 15 0 0 8 15 13 20 158

9 72 4 1 1 2 19 1 47 8 2 2 16 24 1 < 1 3 595

10 79 13 0 0 0 3 5 42 26 0 19 0 2 11 0 - - 
65

Table 7. Dominant and subdominant riparian vegetation and mean overstory cover in 13 reaches in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, 

summer 2008.

[Vegetation was categorized by dominant and subdominant every 20 m throughout a reach. Shown is the percent of reach length 

where species were dominant or subdominant. If only one vegetation type was found in an interval, it was categorized as both 

dominant and subdominant. All overstory cover was hardwood. Vegetation types are: BW, black willow; GR, grass; CW, coyote 

willow; TG, tarragon; NT, stinging nettle; TX, tamarisk; BE, box elder; OT, other. SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of 

variation (SD/Mean×100)] 

Reach

Riparian vegetation

Dominant Subdominant Overstory cover

BW GR CW TG NT TX BE OT BW GR CW TG NT TX BE OT Mean SD CV

A 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 

B 0 38 17 0 10 0 0 34 0 34 0 3 14 0 0 48 3 15 548 

TRIB 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 20 20 0 0 20 29 46 157 

1 0 0 71 29 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 35 0 18 0 24 11 26 233 

2 0 8 0 8 0 75 8 0 0 8 0 8 25 33 0 25 1 3 361 

3 0 0 8 13 17 17 0 46 0 13 8 21 21 21 0 17 1 4 490 

4 0 7 21 0 64 0 0 7 7 36 0 29 14 0 0 14 16 31 201 

5 7 0 58 28 0 0 4 3 3 3 17 51 10 7 3 6 7 21 284 

6 15 0 38 40 0 3 0 5 13 10 20 35 13 3 0 8 15 29 188 

7 5 15 15 15 40 0 5 5 30 20 15 10 10 0 5 10 10 22 226 

8 38 8 0 0 0 0 0 54 23 8 0 0 15 0 0 54 31 41 133 

9 98 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 62 9 0 20 1 0 7 63 33 53 

10 21 5 10 0 0 5 44 16 6 29 11 0 0 10 11 32 30 40 133 
66

Table 8. Assemblages of fish species observed in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, by 

electrofishing in fall 2008, spring 2009, and fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed upstream to downstream. P, present; A, absent] 

Big Spring Speckled Desert Rainbow 

Reach Site spinedace dace sucker trout1

Reach A RA_US2 P P P A

RA_US1 P P P A

Reach B RB_ND1 P P P A

RB_US1 P P P A

Reach TRIB TR_US1 P P P A

Reach 1 R1_ND1 P P P A

R1_US1 P P P A

Reach 2 R2_US1 P P P A

Reach 3 R3_ND1 P P P A

R3_US1 P P P A

Reach 4 R4_US1 P P P A

Reach 5 R5_ND1 P P A P

R5_US1 P P P P

Reach 6 R6_ND1 P P P A

R6_US1 P P P P

R6_USA P P A A

Reach 7 R7_US1 P P A A

Reach 8 R8_ND1 P P A A

R8_US1 P P P A

Reach 9 R9_ND1 A P P A

R9_US1 A P P A

Reach 10 R10_US1 A P A A

R10_US2 A P P A

 1 Rainbow trout are not native to Meadow Valley Wash.

 
67

Table 9. Population estimates, with (±95 percent confidence limit in parenthesis), of Big Spring spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis), 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), desert sucker (Catostomus clarki), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008 and fall 2009. 

[Because fish lengths were not measured at NDOW sites in fall 2009, the proportion of age-0 and age-1 or older fish of each species collected at each NDOW 

site in fall 2008 were applied to the fish collected at those sites in fall 2009. This assumption applies for estimates for spinedace, speckled dace, and desert 

sucker]

Big Spring spinedace Speckled dace Desert sucker Rainbow trout

Age-0 

Age-1 or older

Age-0 

Age-1 or

older Age-0 

Age-1 or

older Age-0 

Age-1 or

older

Fall 2008

Above 2,568 (1,166) 2,078 (1,054) 4,800 (2,179) 7,274 (1,892) 3,221 (5,528) 2,683 (2,275) 0 0 

Below 90 (85) 964 (1,380) 2,729 (2,776) 3,783 (4,347) 75 (207) 200 (248) 57 (77) 38 (90)

Total 2,658 (1,170) 3,042 (1,736) 7,529 (3,539) 11,057 (4,740) 3,296 (5,537) 2,883 (2,290) 57 (77) 38 (90)

Fall 2009 

 Above 4,035 (3,734) 3,433 (3,792) 10,322 (5,241) 3,465 (1,381) 2,840 (2,520) 715 (716) 0 0 

 Below 1,484 (866) 312 (212) 4,251 (6,372) 3,458 (2,664) 98 (129) 145 (111) 826 (514) 66 (125)

 Total 5,539 (3,842) 3,745 (3,807) 14,573 (6135) 6,923 (3,000) 2,938 (2,530) 860 (725) 826 (514) 66 (125)
68

Table 10. Population estimates, with (±95 percent confidence limit in parenthesis), of Big Spring spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis), 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), desert sucker (Catostomus clarki), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009. 

Big Spring spinedace Speckled dace Desert sucker Rainbow trout

Age-1

Age-2 or

older Age-1

Age-2 or

older Age-1

Age-2 or

older Age-1

Age-2 or

older

Spring 2009 

Above 950 (558) 1,460 (867) 2,727 (1,315) 5,892 (1,754) 121 (99) 717 (469) 0 0 

Below 161 (239) 807 (481) 339 (283) 491 (501) 81 (40) 65 (64) 0 81 (121)

Total 1,111 (608) 2,267 (992) 3,067 (1,347) 6,383 (1,826) 202 (249) 782 (474) 0 81 (121)
69

Table 11. Fork-length (mm) ranges, by age class, of four fish species at 22 sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2008. 

[Sites are ordered from upstream to downstream. For site location, see appendix A and figs. 8 and 9. NS, not sampled; -, no data available] 

Big Spring spinedace Speckled dace Desert sucker Rainbow trout

Site Date Age-0 

Age-1 or

older Age-0 

Age-1 or 

older Age-0 

Age-1 or 

older Age-0 

Age-1 or

older

RA_US2 10/22/08 53–64 - 42–55 57–80 62 64–106 - - 

RA_US1 10/22/08 47–72 77–112 36–52 53–80 47–76 80–185 - -

RB_ND1 10/02/08 26–48 53–88 25–39 40–76 33–61 63–123 - -

RB_US1 10/20/08 - - 38–47 48–75 48 73–135 - -

TR_US1 10/20/08 39–56 60–70 35–46 48–66 - - - -

R1_ND1 10/01/08 38–50 51–95 32–44 46–75 45–60 74–146 - -

R1_US1 10/20/08 35–49 52–81 35–47 48–71 43–52 56–100 - - 

R2_US1 10/21/08 41–54 64–85 36–46 47–65 65 150 - - 

R3_ND1 10/01/08 44–55 65–95 36–43 46–69 - 95–171 - - 

R3_US1 10/21/08 41–55 59–103 37–46 48–73 - 80–144 - - 

R4_US1 10/19/08 48–60 68–95 37–47 48–80 73–175 - - 

R5_ND1 10/01/08 53–56 74 40–45 58–82 - - 105 - 

R5_US1 10/10/08 50 - 42–46 51–76 - - 93–98 - 

R6_ND1 10/01/08 - 95–105 48 70–85 - - - - 

R6_US1 10/09/08 48–61 77–115 45 55–90 58–67 89 - 179–450

R6_USA NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

R7_US1 10/09/08 44–55 75–85 43–51 72 - - - - 

R8_US1 10/08/08 - 58–64 38–47 48–76 56–61 65–167 - - 

R8_ND1 10/01/08 55 - 38–49 72–77 - - - - 

R9_ND1 09/30/08 - - 38–47 48–76 - 86–190 - - 

R9_US1 10/08/08 - - 36–45 49–90 - - - -

R10_US1 10/07/08 - - 40–44 55–79 - - - -

R10_US2 10/07/08 - - 32–47 64–91 - 136 - -
70

Table 12. Fork length (mm) ranges, by age class, of four fish species at 22 sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, spring 2009. 

[Sites are ordered from upstream to downstream. For site location, see appendix A and figs. 8 and 9. NS, not sampled; -, no data available] 

Big Spring spinedace Speckled dace Desert sucker Rainbow trout

Site Date Age-1 

Age-2 or

older Age-1 

Age-2 or

older Age-1 

Age-2 or

older Age-1 

Age-2 or

older

RA_US2 3/16/09 - - 42–59 61–84 - - - - 

RA_US1 3/13/09 53 64–115 35–58 61–80 58–60 88–172 - - 

RB_ND1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

RB_US1 3/14/09 48–50 62–70 38–46 48–68 49–67 72–150 - - 

TR_US1 3/14/09 - - 40–50 51–70 - - - - 

R1_ND1 3/13/09 38–61 64–85 39–46 48–69 53–66 95–173 - - 

R1_US1 3/14/09 41–57 64–80 43–44 48–63 68 - - - 

R2_US1 3/15/09 48–59 63–90 34–50 52–74 59–72 92–121 - - 

R3_ND1 3/12/09 45–60 69–93 36–49 50–75 50–70 96–182 - - 

R3_US1 3/15/09 48–64 70–88 39–48 50–74 - - - - 

R4_US1 3/12/09 54–61 70–86 35–47 49–68 - 162 - - 

R5_ND1 3/15/09 - - - 71 - - - - 

R5_US1 3/14/09 - - - 61–84 - - - 162

R6_ND1 3/17/09 - 79–114 48–49 68 - 128–160 - - 

R6_US1 3/17/09 - 78–112 48–50 53–88 - 190–203 - 163–365

R6_USA 3/18/09 49–67 75–100 44–47 53–81

R7_US1 3/18/09 - 77–101 44–47 52–82 - - - - 

R8_US1 3/16/09 57–60 - 38–50 80–83 - - - - 

R8_ND1 3/17/09 - - 45 53–72 - - - - 

R9_ND1 3/18/09 - - - - 41 - - - 

R9_US1 3/18/09 - - 39–40 67 - - - - 

R10_US1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

R10_US2 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
71

Table 13. Fork length (mm) ranges, by age class, of four fish species at 22 sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are ordered from upstream to downstream. For site location, see appendix A and figs. 8 and 9. NS, not sampled; -, no data available]

 

Big Spring spinedace Speckled dace Desert sucker Rainbow trout

Site Date Age-0 

Age-1 or

older Age-0 

Age-1 or

older Age-0 

Age-1 or

older Age-0 

Age-1 or

older

RA_US2 10/6/09 - - 33–47 53–78 37–59 - - - 

RA_US1 10/7/09 35–60 65–105 28–49 50–78 35–65 71–178 - -

RB_ND1 - - - - - - - - -

RB_US1 10/6/09 - - 40 - 75 184 - -

TR_US1 10/6/09 32–42 72 27–50 54–57 - - - -

R1_ND1 - - - - - - - - -

R1_US1 10/5/09 25–46 55–73 25–45 50–60 43–60 - - - 

R2_US1 10/5/09 35–52 61–84 28–49 52–75 43–56 125 - - 

R3_ND1 - - - - - - - - - 

R3_US1 10/4/09 40–57 67–83 30–44 50–79 48–64 138 - - 

R4_US1 10/4/09 43–59 69–76 28–52 53–76 46–68 80–108 - - 

R5_ND1 - - - - - - - - - 

R5_US1 10/4/09 55 - 39–48 52–80 49–59 - 78–111 - 

R6_ND1 - - - - - - - - - 

R6_US1 10/3/09 40–59 80–115 41–55 75–91 58 115–150 103–108 190–450

R6_USA 10/3/09 48–58 68–80 48 64–82 - - - - 

R7_US1 - - - - - - - - - 

R8_US1 - - - - - - - - - 

R8_ND1 10/3/09 - - 33–50 55–81 - 118 - - 

R9_ND1 - - - - - - - - - 

R9_US1 10/3/09 - - 35–45 50–90 - 140 - -

R10_US1 10/7/09 - - 46–61 72–74 - - - -

R10_US2 10/7/09 - - 44 64 - - - -

 
72

Table 14. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged Big Spring spinedace at sites above Delmue 

Falls and the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada,

from 2008 to 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream: AB, Reach B just upstream of Kill Wash; AT, Kill Wash; A1, Reach 1 just 

downstream of Kill Wash; A5, Reach 5 just downstream of Delmue Falls; A9, Reach 9. PIT, Passive Integrated 

Transponder; NS, not sampled; -, no data available]

Tagging

 date

PIT tags 

deployed

Number 

detected

 Interrogation site

Tag site AB AT A1 A5 A9

RA_US2 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

RA_US1 Oct. 08 22 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

RB_ND1 Oct. 08 9 1 0 1 0 0 0

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

RB_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 2 1 0 1 0 0 0

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

TR_US1 Oct. 08 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R1_ND1 Oct. 08 5 3 0 2 3 0 0

Mar. 09 9 6 0 2 6 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R1_US1 Oct. 08 6 2 0 1 2 0 0

Mar. 09 3 3 0 1 3 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R2_US1 Oct. 08 6 3 1 1 2 0 0

Mar. 09 15 3 0 0 3 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R3_ND1 Oct. 08 10 3 0 0 3 0 0

Mar. 09 12 6 0 2 5 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R3_US1 Oct. 08 19 7 1 7 7 0 0

Mar. 09 6 2 0 0 1 1 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R4_US1 Oct. 08 8 3 0 2 3 0 0

Mar. 09 7 3 0 2 2 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

Total 149 47 2 22 41 1 0 
73

Table 15. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged Big Spring spinedace below Delmue Falls and 

the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, from 

2008 to 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream: AB, Reach B just upstream of Kill Wash; AT, Kill Wash; A1, Reach 1 just 

downstream of Kill Wash; A5, Reach 5 just downstream of Delmue Falls; A9, Reach 9. PIT, Passive Integrated 

Transponder; NS, not sampled; -, no data available]

Tagging

 date

 PIT tags 

deployed

Number 

detected

 Interrogation site

Tag site AB AT A1 A5 A9

R5_ND1 Oct. 08 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R5_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_ND1 Oct. 08 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 20 2 0 0 0 2 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_US1 Oct. 08 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 12 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_USA Oct. 08 NS - - - - - -

Mar. 09 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R7_US1 Oct. 08 4 1 0 0 0 1 0

Mar. 09 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 NS - - - - - -

R8_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R8_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R9_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R9_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R10_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R10_US2 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

Total 50 4 0 0 0 4 0
74

Table 16. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged desert sucker above Delmue Falls and the 

number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, from 2008 to 

2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream: AB, Reach B just upstream of Kill Wash; AT, Kill Wash; A1, Reach 1 just 

downstream of Kill Wash; A5, Reach 5 just downstream of Delmue Falls; A9, Reach 9. PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder; 

NS, not sampled; -, no data available] 

Tagging 

 date

 PIT tags 

deployed

Number 

detected

Interrogation site

Tag site AB AT A1 A5 A9

RA_US2 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

RA_US1 Oct. 08 42 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oct. 09 20 0 0 0 0 0 0

RB_ND1 Oct. 08 15 2 2 0 1 0 0

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

RB_US1 Oct. 08 20 3 2 1 2 0 0

Mar. 09 12 4 1 0 3 0 0

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 2 1 0 0 1 0 0

TR_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R1_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 9 9 3 3 9 0 0

June 09 2 2 0 0 2 0 0

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R1_US1 Oct. 08 4 3 3 0 2 0 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R2_US1 Oct. 08 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

Mar. 09 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R3_ND1 Oct. 08 8 5 3 1 5 0 0

Mar. 09 10 4 1 3 4 0 0

June 09 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R3_US1 Oct. 08 7 1 0 0 1 0 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oct. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

R4_US1 Oct. 08 7 3 1 2 3 0 0

Mar. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oct. 09 3 1 0 0 1 0 0

Total 203 39 17 11 35 0 0
75

Table 17. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged desert sucker below Delmue Falls and the 

number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, from 2008 to 

2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream: AB, Reach B just upstream of Kill Wash; AT, Kill Wash; A1, Reach 1 just 

downstream of Kill Wash; A5, Reach 5 just downstream of Delmue Falls; A9, Reach 9. PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder; 

NS, not sampled; -, no data available] 

Tagging 

 date

 PIT tags 

deployed

Number 

detected

 Interrogation site

Tag site AB AT A1 A5 A9

R5_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS NS - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R5_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

R6_USA Oct. 08 NS - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R7_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R8_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R8_US1 Oct. 08 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

R9_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R9_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R10_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R10_US2 Oct. 08 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

Total 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
76

Table 18. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged speckled dace above Delmue Falls and 

the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada,

from 2008 to 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream: AB, Reach B just upstream of Kill Wash; AT, Kill Wash; A1, Reach 

1 just downstream of Kill Wash; A5, Reach 5 just downstream of Delmue Falls; A9, Reach 9. PIT, Passive 

Integrated Transponder; NS, not sampled; -, no data available] 

Tagging 

 date

 PIT tags 

deployed

 Number 

detected

Interrogation site

Tag site AB AT A1 A5 A9

RA_US2 Oct. 08 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

RA_US1 Oct. 08 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

RB_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Sep. 09 0 - - - - - -

RB_US1 Oct. 08 3 2 1 2 1 0 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS NS

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

TR_US1 Oct. 08 5 5 3 5 3 0 0

Mar. 09 10 8 2 8 4 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R1_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Sep. 09 0 - - - - - -

R1_US1 Oct. 08 3 3 2 1 3 0 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R2_US1 Oct. 08 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 6 2 0 2 2 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R3_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Sep. 09 0 - - - - - -

R3_US1 Oct. 08 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

R4_US1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 70 20 8 18 13 0 0
77

Table 19. Total number of Passive-Integrated-Transponder-tagged speckled dace below Delmue Falls and 

the number of tag detections at each interrogation site in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada,

from 2008 to 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream: AB, Reach B just upstream of Kill Wash; AT, Kill Wash; A1, Reach

1 just downstream of Kill Wash; A5, Reach 5 just downstream of Delmue Falls; A9, Reach 9. PIT, Passive 

Integrated Transponder; NS, not sampled; -, no data available] 

Tagging 

 date

 PIT tags 

deployed

 Number 

detected

 Interrogation site

Tag site AB AT A1 A5 A9

R5_ND1 Oct. 08 6 4 0 0 0 4 0

Mar. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R5_US1 Oct. 08 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_ND1 Oct. 08 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_US1 Oct. 08 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R6_USA Oct. 08 NS - - - - - -

Mar. 09 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R7_US1 Oct. 08 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 0 - - - - - -

Oct. 09 NS - - - - - -

R8_ND1 Oct. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R8_US1 Oct. 08 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS NS - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R9_ND1 Sep. 08 0 - - - - - -

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS NS - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R9_US1 Oct. 08 14 7 - - - 0 7

Mar. 09 0 - - - - - -

June 09 NS NS - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R10_US1 Oct. 08 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

R10_US2 Oct. 08 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mar. 09 NS - - - - - -

June 09 NS - - - - - -

Oct. 09 0 - - - - - -

Total 61 12 0 0 0 5 7
78

Appendix A. Additional habitat and fish-sample-site data

Table A1. Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates of 13 geomorphic reaches in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Nevada, where habitat and fish sampling was conducted in summer 2008 through fall 2009. 

[Reaches 1 through 10 correspond to those described in PBS&J (2007) and are within Condor Canyon. Reaches A and B are 

immediately upstream of Condor Canyon. Reach TR is a tributary that enters Meadow Valley Wash from the east at the 

upstream end of Condor Canyon. Coordinates were obtained from a hand-held Global Positioning System using North 

American Datum 1983] 

UTM coordinates

Downstream end Upstream end

Reach Northing Easting Northing Easting

A 4194183 735755 4194352 735840

B 4193673 735480 4194183 735755

TR 4193673 735480 4193656 735692

1 4193466 735264 4193673 735480

2 4193367 735068 4193466 735264

3 4193276 734651 4193367 735068

4 4193032 734631 4193276 734651

5 4191902 734278 4193032 734631

6 4191603 733654 4191902 734278

7 4191489 733314 4191603 733654

8 4191321 733141 4191489 733314

9 4190380 731873 4191321 733141

10 4190273 730725 4190380 731873
79

Table A2. Locations of temperature loggers, water-level loggers, barometer, and flow sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley 

Wash, Nevada, which were maintained from summer 2008 through winter 2010. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream within Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nev. Universal 

Transverse Mercator coordinates were obtained from a hand-held Global Positioning System using North American 

Datum 1983]

UTM Coordinates Date

start

(mm/yy)

Date

end

Recording unit Reach Northing Easting (mm/yy)

Thermologgers

TR0A A 4194352 735840 8/08 01/10

TRBU B 4194141 735733 6/08 01/10

TRBL B 4193756 735508 6/08 01/10

TTR1 TRIB 4193661 735510 6/08 01/10

TBOX1 1 4193577 735356 6/08 01/10

TR01 1 4193622 735458 6/08 01/10

TR02 2 4193424 735198 6/08 01/10

TR05 5 4192819 734539 8/08 01/10

TR09 9 4190434 731968 6/08 01/10

Water level loggers

WLRB B 4193756 735508 9/08 01/10

WLTR TRIB 4193687 735553 9/08 01/10

WLR9 9 4190431 731945 9/08 01/10

Barometer

WLTRB TRIB 4193687 735551 9/08 01/10

Flow sites

FSU B 4193752 735504 7/08 10/09

FST TRIB 4193658 735513 7/08 10/09

FSM 2 4193474 735281 7/08 10/09

FSB 9 4190446 732005 7/08 10/09

 1 TBOX is in a spring, which is providing groundwater to MVW, but from which the railroad grade has blocked 

 surface flow.
80

Table A3. Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates of sites electrofished for fish-population estimates in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, during fall 2008, spring 2009, and fall 2009. 

[Coordinates were obtained from a hand-held Global Positioning System using North American Datum 1983] 

Reach Site name

UTM coordinates

Northing Easting

A RA_US2 4194245 735788

RA_US1 4194184 735754

B RB_ND1 4194136 735727

 RB_US1 4193952 735613

TRIB TR_US1 4193679 735563

1 R1_ND1 4193625 735459

 R1_US1 4193592 735407

2 R2_US1 4193409 735166

3 R3_ND1 4193317 734838

R3_US1 4193305 734731

4 R4_US1 4193165 734629

5 R5_ND1 4192865 734539

 R5_US1 4192746 734548

6 R6_ND1 4191813 734144

R6_US1 4191766 733987

R6_USA

7 R7_US1 4191582 733539

8 R8_US1 4191440 733255

 R8_ND1 4191270 733105

9 R9_ND1 4190528 732442

R9_US1 4190392 732235

10 R10_US2 4190239 731055

R10_US1 4190235 731006
81

Table A4. Locations and dates of operation of Passive Integrated Transponder tag interrogation systems deployed 

in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates were obtained from a hand-held 

Global Positioning System using North American Datum 1983] 

UTM Coordinates

PTIS Reach Northing Easting

Start date

(mm/yy)

End date

(mm/yy)

AB B 4193705 735492 10/08 present

A1 1 4193679 735498 10/08 present

AT TRIB 4193667 735496 10/08 present

A5 5 4192917 734588 10/08 present

A9 9 4190350 732191 10/08 present
82

Table A5. Fish population sample sites above Delmue Falls, in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada,

with dates sampled and site characteristics. 

[m, meters; m2

, square meters; m3, cubic meters; NS, not sampled]

Site

Date

sampled

Length 

(m)

Average Width 

(m)

Area 

(m2) 

Volume 

(m3) 

RA_US2 Fall 2008 25 1.2 29.0 2.7

Spring 2009 25 1.5 37.9 3.6

Fall 2009 26 1.0 25.1 1.0

RA_US1 Fall 2008 25 2.2 55.5 16.8

Spring 2009 25 2.2 56.1 14.7

Fall 2009 28 2.2 61.3 13.2

RB_ND1 Fall 2008 25 2.2 54.5 10.3

Spring 2009 NS NS NS NS

Fall 2009 34 2.4 81.6 11.3

RB_US1 Fall 2008 25 2.3 58.0 4.2

Spring 2009 25 2.3 57.9 5.0

Fall 2009 24 1.7 40.6 2.0

TR_US1 Fall 2008 25 0.9 22.0 0.7

Spring 2009 25 1.3 32.9 0.8

Fall 2009 27 1.4 38.2 1.3

R1_ND1 Fall 2008 30 2.4 71.4 5.0

Spring 2009 30 2.2 66.0 6.6

Fall 2009 30 2.2 65.1 4.3

R1_US1 Fall 2008 25 1.8 45.0 3.2

Spring 2009 25 2.2 54.3 2.6

Fall 2009 27 2.0 54.7 4.3

R2_US1 Fall 2008 25 2.5 62.5 6.6

Spring 2009 26 2.6 67.4 0.0

Fall 2009 26 2.3 60.9 4.8

R3_ND1 Fall 2008 25 1.9 47.0 7.4

Spring 2009 25 3.0 73.9 11.0

Fall 2009 24 2.5 60.3 6.5

R3_US1 Fall 2008 25 1.2 31.0 4.8

Spring 2009 28 1.8 48.5 8.0

Fall 2009 27 1.6 44.9 5.1

R4_US1 Fall 2008 25 2.3 57.5 6.6

Spring 2009 25 2.4 61.1 8.4

Fall 2009 25 2.3 58.4 6.7
83

Table A6. Fish population sample sites below Delmue Falls, in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada,

with dates sampled and site characteristics. 

[-, no habitat data taken; NS, not sampled] 

Site

Length 

(m)

Average Width 

(m)

Area 

(m2)

Volume 

(m3)

R5_ND1 Fall 2008 25 2.1 53.5 4.2

Spring 2009 24 2.3 55.9 5.7

Fall 2009 - - - -

R5_US1 Fall 2008 25 1.3 33.5 4.4

Spring 2009 25 1.4 35.6 4.5

Fall 2009 25 1.3 33.2 3.4

R6_ND1 Fall 2008 25 2.4 59.0 14.0

Spring 2009 25 2.0 49.3 9.8

Fall 2009 27 2.0 54.4 7.2

R6_US1 Fall 2008 25 1.5 37.0 9.1

Spring 2009 25 1.9 47.1 13.2

Fall 2009 25 1.8 44.3 6.2

R6_USA Fall 2008 NS NS NS NS

Spring 2009 25 2.3 57.1 7.2

Fall 2009 21 2.0 43.3 4.0

R8_US1 Fall 2008 25 2.1 52.5 5.2

Spring 2009 25 2.2 55.7 5.9

Fall 2009 25 1.8 44.5 3.2

R8_ND1 Fall 2008 25 2.3 57.0 7.2

Spring 2009 25 2.7 66.4 11.2

Fall 2009 25 - - -

R9_ND1 Fall 2008 25 2.2 54.5 13.3

Spring 2009 20 3.1 61.3 17.2

Fall 2009 25 2.0 50.0 5.6

R9_US1 Fall 2008 25 3.0 75.5 12.6

Spring 2009 25 2.7 67.1 9.2

Fall 2009 27 2.0 53.2 5.8

R10_US2 Fall 2008 25 2.0 49.0 4.5

Spring 2009 NS NS NS NS

Fall 2009 23 1.6 37.8 1.8

R10_US1 Fall 2008 25 1.7 43.0 4.1

Spring 2009 NS NS NS NS

Fall 2009 24 1.7 39.8 2.6
84

Table A7. Percent substrate type (rounded to whole numbers) and width-to-depth ratios taken from cross-channel transects at each of the 22 

population-electrofishing sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.

[Substrate types are: M, mud/clay/silt; S, sand; G, gravel; C, cobble; B, boulder; O, other. SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation (SD/Mean×100); 

NS, not sampled; w/d, width/depth

Substrate type (%) Mean Mean

Site M S G C B O width (m) w/d SD CV

RA_US2 Fall 2008 0 0 0 80 20 0 1.2 12.7 2 18

Spring 2009 10 10 19 33 19 10 1.5 19.0 11 59

Fall 2009 5 52 10 10 24 0 1.0 41.1 38 93

RA_US1 Fall 2008 27 27 40 7 0 0 2.2 7.5 2 25

Spring 2009 14 14 0 14 43 14 2.2 10.9 7 68

Fall 2009 48 33 0 0 19 0 2.2 16.8 12 74

RB_ND1 Fall 2008 53 40 7 0 0 0 2.2 11.8 2 14

Spring 2009 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Fall 2009 24 57 19 0 0 0 2.4 18.3 6 32

RB_US1 Fall 2008 93 7 0 0 0 0 2.3 33.7 10 29

Spring 2009 62 5 14 0 0 19 2.3 29.0 8 29

Fall 2009 52 5 5 0 0 38 1.7 38.3 16 42

TR_US1 Fall 2008 0 60 40 0 0 0 0.9 33.7 16 48

Spring 2009 62 5 14 0 0 19 1.3 61.3 26 43

Fall 2009 0 67 33 0 0 0 1.4 52.0 31 59

R1_ND1 Fall 2008 0 7 53 40 0 0 2.4 35.8 13 37

Spring 2009 0 48 43 0 5 5 2.2 22.1 4 18

Fall 2009 19 43 29 10 0 0 2.2 37.2 15 42

R1_US1 Fall 2008 0 13 87 0 0 0 1.8 25.8 6 24

Spring 2009 10 19 71 0 0 0 2.2 48.0 16 33

Fall 2009 0 48 52 0 0 0 2.0 26.4 5 21
85

Table A7. Percent substrate type (rounded to whole numbers) and width-to-depth ratios taken from cross-channel transects at each of the 22 

population-electrofishing sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.—Continued 

[Substrate types are: M, mud/clay/silt; S, sand; G, gravel; C, cobble; B, boulder; O, other. SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of 

variation (SD/Mean×100); -, no habitat data taken; w/d, width/depth] 

Substrate type (%) Mean

width (m)

Mean

Reach M S G C B O w/d SD CV

R2_US1 Fall 2008 13 13 73 0 0 0 2.5 29.9 17 56

Spring 2009 14 24 48 5 0 10 2.6 28.9 21 72

Fall 2009 0 67 29 5 0 0 2.3 33.7 20 59

R3_ND1 Fall 2008 27 60 13 0 0 0 1.9 13.1 6 46

Spring 2009 67 14 0 0 0 19 3.0 20.6 7 35

Fall 2009 38 57 5 0 0 0 2.5 24.2 5 21

R3_US1 Fall 2008 33 60 7 0 0 0 1.2 8.5 3 31

Spring 2009 62 19 10 0 0 10 1.8 11.1 3 24

Fall 2009 10 90 0 0 0 0 1.6 14.5 3 19

R4_US1 Fall 2008 27 67 7 0 0 0 2.3 22.0 12 54

Spring 2009 81 10 5 0 0 5 2.4 19.5 9 47

Fall 2009 86 14 0 0 0 0 2.3 21.2 7 35

R5_ND1 Fall 2008 0 0 73 20 7 0 2.1 27.8 6 22

Spring 2009 19 0 57 10 5 10 1.4 12.3 5 39

Fall 2009 - - - - - - - - - -

R5_US1 Fall 2008 0 27 47 27 0 0 1.3 10.4 2 18

Spring 2009 17 17 50 11 6 0 2.3 27.5 16 57

Fall 2009 5 43 43 10 0 0 1.3 13.9 4 29

R6_ND1 Fall 2008 60 7 7 0 20 7 2.4 10.1 1 12

Spring 2009 76 10 0 0 14 0 2.0 10.2 2 21

Fall 2009 67 14 0 10 10 0 2.0 16.9 7 40

R6_US1 Fall 2008 0 40 40 20 0 0 1.5 6.6 4 65

Spring 2009 33 38 19 10 0 0 1.9 7.1 3 44

Fall 2009 48 10 10 33 0 0 1.8 12.9 4 34
86

Table A7. Percent substrate type (rounded to whole numbers) and width-to-depth ratios taken from cross-channel transects at each of the 22 

population-electrofishing sites in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada.—Continued 

[Substrate types are: M, mud/clay/silt; S, sand; G, gravel; C, cobble; B, boulder; O, other. SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of 

variation (SD/Mean×100); -, no habitat data taken; w/d, width/depth; NS, not sampled] 

Substrate type (%) Mean

width (m)

Mean

Reach M S G C B O w/d SD CV

R6_USA Fall 2008 NSa NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Spring 2009 19 38 19 14 0 10 2.3 19.4 7 39

Fall 2009 43 10 33 14 0 0 2.0 24.4 11 44

R8_US1 Fall 2008 20 0 13 40 20 7 2.1 29.1 19 66

Spring 2009 10 14 10 24 5 38 2.2 21.7 7 31

Fall 2009 24 24 24 29 0 0 1.8 25.1 7 26

R8_ND1 Fall 2008 13 60 0 0 0 27 2.3 20.5 11 53

Spring 2009 5 38 19 0 0 38 2.7 18.0 12 68

Fall 2009 - - - - - - - - - -

R9_ND1 Fall 2008 13 60 0 0 0 27 2.2 9.4 2 21

Spring 2009 6 39 17 0 0 39 3.1 15.9 18 113

Fall 2009 33 48 5 10 0 5 2.0 19.4 6 32

R9_US1 Fall 2008 40 0 7 0 0 53 3.0 22.6 15 65

Spring 2009 52 10 0 5 0 33 2.7 23.3 17 70

Fall 2009 76 19 5 0 0 0 2.0 21.7 13 58

R10_US2 Fall 2008 100 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 23.7 9 40

Spring 2009 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Fall 2009 0 67 29 0 5 0 1.6 38.7 13 33

R10_US1 Fall 2008 40 40 7 13 0 0 1.7 19.0 7 35

Spring 2009 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Fall 2009 0 76 19 5 0 0 1.7 28.3 13 45
87

Table 8A. Flow and depth measurements in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada, 2008 and 2009. 

[Sites, from left to right, are listed from upstream to downstream within Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash. Measured flow was 

taken with a Marsh McBirney flow meter. Depth was recorded by Onset Hobo Water Level Loggers. cms, cubic meters per second; -, 

no data available.] 

Measured flow (cms) Level logger depth (m)

Date FSU FST FSM FSB WLRB WLTR WLR9

7/8/2008 0.0298 0.0061 0.0432 0.0219 - - -

7/15/2008 0.0295 0.0046 0.0460 - - - -

7/22/2008 - - 0.0573 0.0485 - - -

7/30/2008 0.0371 0.0049 0.0433 0.0286 - - -

8/14/2008 0.0298 0.0055 0.0392 0.0293 - - -

8/22/2008 0.0333 0.0040 0.0371 0.0298 - - -

8/28/2008 0.0312 0.0037 0.0454 0.0309 - - -

9/5/2008 0.0213 0.0054 0.0457 0.0306 - - -

9/12/2008 0.0316 0.0050 0.0484 0.0270 0.245 0.214 0.269

9/19/2008 0.0400 0.0048 0.0577 0.0347 0.271 0.210 0.271

9/26/2008 0.0392 0.0058 0.0503 0.0353 0.271 0.211 0.272

10/7/2008 0.0219 0.0053 0.0390 0.0279 0.230 0.216 0.267

10/16/2008 0.0252 0.0081 0.0445 0.0257 0.234 0.211 0.274

10/31/2008 0.0382 0.0053 0.0648 0.0325 0.273 0.208 0.290

11/6/2008 0.0250 0.0023 0.0506 0.0204 0.228 0.210 0.286

11/18/2008 0.0255 0.0044 0.0373 0.0254 0.234 0.211 0.286

3/5/2009 0.0298 0.0048 0.0565 0.0298 0.257 0.222 0.282

3/9/2009 - - - 0.0303 - - 0.279

3/10/2009 - - 0.0557 - - - -

3/13/2009 - 0.0055 - - - 0.222 -

3/19/2009 0.0268 0.0055 0.0478 0.0273 0.223 0.215 0.272

3/27/2009 0.0271 - - 0.0267 0.248 - 0.272

10/4/2009 - 0.0050 0.0296 0.0118 0.224 0.255 -
88

Appendix B. Genetic samples and additional fish-population data

Table B1. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, and Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009. 

[Reach A is above the small falls, which is the break between Reach A and B. Reach B and 1–4 are above Delmue Falls and 

Reaches 5–8 are below Delmue Falls]

 Year

Sites 2008 2009

Reach A 48 0 

Reaches B and 1–4 186 0

Reaches 5–8 28 35
89

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009. 

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics # PIT tag code

10/22/2008 RA_US1 61 2.8 1025-066

10/22/2008 RA_US1 65 3.1 1025-095

10/22/2008 RA_US1 83 6.5 1032-093

10/22/2008 RA_US1 77 5.3 MVW08-B1a 3D9.1C2CFA96CD

10/22/2008 RA_US1 62 2.9 MVW08-B2a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 86 7.7 MVW08-B3a 3D9.1C2CFAC1D1

10/22/2008 RA_US1 80 5.2 MVW08-B4a 3D9.1C2CFA94CC

10/22/2008 RA_US1 86 7.0 MVW08-B5a 3D9.1C2CFA9262

10/22/2008 RA_US1 93 8.4 MVW08-B6a 3D9.1C2CFAA8E2

10/22/2008 RA_US1 94 9.7 MVW08-B7a 3D9.1C2CFA8DD4

10/22/2008 RA_US1 60 2.2 MVW08-B8a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 57 2.0 MVW08-C10A

10/22/2008 RA_US1 62 3.0 MVW08-C1a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 83 6.3 MVW08-C3a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 70 3.7 MVW08-C4a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 65 3.3 MVW08-C5a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 90 8.2 MVW08-D10a 3D9.1C2CFAA36B

10/22/2008 RA_US1 95 9.6 MVW08-D1a 3D9.1C2CCFA917E

10/22/2008 RA_US1 82 6.6 MVW08-D2a 3D9.1C2CFA9717

10/22/2008 RA_US1 69 3.8 MVW08-D3a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 96 10.2 MVW08-D4a 3D9.1C2CFABCA8

10/22/2008 RA_US1 82 6.4 MVW08-D6a 3D9.1C2CFAC2A2

10/22/2008 RA_US1 71 4.2 MVW08-D7a 3D9.1C2CFA9B37

10/22/2008 RA_US1 66 3.4 MVW08-D8a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 112 15.0 MVW08-D9a 3D9.1C2CFA83E7
90

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued 

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder.] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics # PIT tag code

10/22/2008 RA_US1 90 8.1 MVW08-E1a 3D9.1C2CFAB44C

10/22/2008 RA_US1 90 8.6 MVW08-E2a 3D9.1C2CFABBA8

10/22/2008 RA_US1 65 3.2 MVW08-E3a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 84 6.5 MVW08-E4a 3D9.1C2CFA9B68

10/22/2008 RA_US1 85 6.7 MVW08-E5a 3D9.1C2CFAA975

10/22/2008 RA_US1 92 8.1 MVW08-F10a 3D9.1C2CFAC5D4

10/22/2008 RA_US1 55 1.8 MVW08-F1a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 87 7.9 MVW08-F2a 3D9.1C2CFAB32

10/22/2008 RA_US1 69 3.7 MVW08-F3a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 80 6.0 MVW08-F4a 3D9.1C2CFA8DF1

10/22/2008 RA_US1 47 1.2 MVW08-F5a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 65 3.1 MVW08-F6a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 60 2.6 MVW08-F7a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 79 5.5 MVW08-F8a 3D9.1C2CFA85FB

10/22/2008 RA_US1 81 6.1 MVW08-F9a 3D9.1C2CFA986D

10/22/2008 RA_US1 94 10.1 MVW08-G1a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 72 4.3 MVW08-G2a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 69 3.8 MVW08-G3a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 82 6.4 MVW08-G4a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 85 7.3 MVW08-G5a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 93 9.8 MVW08-G6a

10/22/2008 RA_US1 65 3.3 MVW08-G7a

10/22/2008 RA_US2 64 2.5 MVW08-C2A

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 61 1.8 MVW 56

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 61 2.2 MVW 57

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 46 1.1 MVW 58

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 68 3.2 MVW 59

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 68 3.1 MVW 60
91

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued 

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 70 4.3 MVW 61 3D9.1C2CFAAB57

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 80 4.7 MVW 62 3D9.1C2CFAA5A6

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 63 2.6 MVW 64

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 68 3.3 MVW 65

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 63 2.9 MVW08-66

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 60 2.1 MVW08-67

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 61 2.8 MVW08-68

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 27 0.2 MVW08-69

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 80 5.8 MVW08-70 3D9.1C2CFA8D6C

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 62 2.9 MVW08-71

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 60 2.1 MVW08-72

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 37 0.5 MVW08-73

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 70 4.0 MVW08-74 3D9.1C2CFA9D99

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 78 5.2 MVW08-75 3D9.1C2CFAC1A3

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 66 3.2 MVW08-76

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 64 2.7 MVW08-77

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 76 5.5 MVW08-78 3D9.1C2CFA936F

10/2/2008 RB_ND1 88 6.8 MVW08-79 3D9.1C2CFAA76D

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 43 0.9 MVW08-E10

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 39 1.0 MVW08-E9

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 0.9 MVW08-F1

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 60 2.5 MVW08-F10

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 44 0.9 MVW08-F2

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 53 1.6 MVW08-F3

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 40 0.8 MVW08-F4

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 46 0.9 MVW08-F5

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 56 2.1 MVW08-F6

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 49 1.2 MVW08-F7

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 43 0.7 MVW08-F8
92

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued. 

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 40 0.8 MVW08-F9

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 52 1.8 MVW08-G1

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 42 0.8 MVW08-G10

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 48 1.3 MVW08-G2

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 70 3.9 MVW08-G3 3D9.1C2CFA99AC

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 1.1 MVW08-G4

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 1.1 MVW08-G5

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 48 1.2 MVW08-G6

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 1.0 MVW08-G7

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 42 0.8 MVW08-G8

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 44 0.8 MVW08-G9

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 40 0.7 MVW08-H1

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 42 0.6 MVW08-H10

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 50 1.5 MVW08-H2

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 60 2.2 MVW08-H3

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 46 1.0 MVW08-H4

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 67 3.2 MVW08-H5

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 1.2 MVW08-H6

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 49 1.1 MVW08-H7

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 53 2.0 MVW08-H8

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 46 1.1 MVW08-H9

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 44 1.1 MVW08-I1

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 46 1.0 MVW08-I10

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 0.9 MVW08-I2

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 47 1.0 MVW08-I3

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 40 1.0 MVW08-I4

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 1.0 MVW08-I5

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 51 1.3 MVW08-I6

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 51 1.4 MVW08-I7
93

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 55 1.7 MVW08-I8

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 39 0.7 MVW08-I9

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 69 3.5 MVW08-J1

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 50 1.3 MVW08-J2

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 45 0.9 MVW08-J3

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 47 1.2 MVW08-J4

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 41 0.9 MVW08-J5

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 44 0.9 MVW08-J6

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 34 0.5 MVW08-J7

10/20/2008 RTR1B_US1 50 1.2 MVW08-J8

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 48 1.16 MVW08-43

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 48 1.23 MVW08-44

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 43 0.80 MVW08-45

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 56 2.06 MVW08-46

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 64 2.68 MVW08-47

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 95 9.15 MVW08-48 3D9.1C2CFA90BD

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 65 3.31 MVW08-49

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 69 3.07 MVW08-50

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 61 2.32 MVW08-51

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 77 5.10 MVW08-52 3D9.1C2CFAC014

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 71 3.80 MVW08-53 3D9.1C2CFABF3B

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 80 5.58 MVW08-54 3D9.1C2CFAC266

10/1/2008 R1_ND1 76 4.49 MVW08-55 3D9.1C2CFA935D

10/20/2008 R1_US1 55 1.8 MVW08-C10

10/20/2008 R1_US1 40 0.7 MVW08-C9

10/20/2008 R1_US1 55 1.8 MVW08-D1

10/20/2008 R1_US1 65 2.7 MVW08-D10

10/20/2008 R1_US1 46 1.0 MVW08-D2

10/20/2008 R1_US1 45 0.9 MVW08-D3
94

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued 

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/20/2008 R1_US1 35 0.5 MVW08-D4

10/20/2008 R1_US1 45 1.2 MVW08-D5

10/20/2008 R1_US1 60 2.2 MVW08-D6

10/20/2008 R1_US1 56 2.2 MVW08-D7

10/20/2008 R1_US1 66 3.1 MVW08-D8

10/20/2008 R1_US1 72 4.0 MVW08-D9 3D9.1C2CFA9B26

10/20/2008 R1_US1 69 3.5 MVW08-E1

10/20/2008 R1_US1 81 5.2 MVW08-E2 3D9.1C2CFAC19F

10/20/2008 R1_US1 41 0.6 MVW08-E3

10/20/2008 R1_US1 36 0.7 MVW08-E4

10/20/2008 R1_US1 38 0.6 MVW08-E5

10/20/2008 R1_US1 75 3.6 MVW08-E6 3D9.1C2CFABA9A

10/20/2008 R1_US1 70 3.6 MVW08-E7 3D9.1C2CFA915C

10/20/2008 R1_US1 45 0.9 MVW08-E8

10/21/2008 R2_US1 85 6.6 MVW08-A2a 3D9.1C2CFA8856

10/21/2008 R2_US1 45 1.3 MVW08-B10a

10/21/2008 R2_US1 44 1.0 MVW08-B9a

10/21/2008 R2_US1 75 4.3 MVW08-C6a 3D9.1C2CFA9024

10/21/2008 R2_US1 54 1.7 MVW08-C7a

10/21/2008 R2_US1 70 4.3 MVW08-C8a

10/21/2008 R2_US1 80 6.8 MVW08-C9a 3D9.239F83A74C

10/21/2008 R2_US1 76 5.0 MVW08-E6a

10/21/2008 R2_US1 73 4.0 MVW08-E7a 3D9.1C2CFA83EA

10/21/2008 R2_US1 81 4.5 MVW08-E8a 3D9.1C2CFAAD1C

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 68 3.5 MVW08-10

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 46 1.0 MVW08-11

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 51 1.4 MVW08-12

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 95 9.4 MVW08-13 3D9.1C2CFA84E8

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 53 1.5 MVW08-14
95

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 49 1.3 MVW08-15

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 48 1.3 MVW08-16

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 65 3.0 MVW08-17

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 55 1.7 MVW08-18

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 54 1.7 MVW08-19

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 89 6.9 MVW08-20 3D9.1C2CFAB8FE

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 90 8.1 MVW08-21 3D9.1C2CFAAF4D

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 54 1.4 MVW08-22

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 80 5.4 MVW08-23 3D9.1C2CFABF8E

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 85 6.7 MVW08-24 3D9.1C2CFA9153

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 51 1.4 MVW08-25

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 82 5.3 MVW08-26 3D9.1C2CFABE40

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 86 6.2 MVW08-27 3D9.1C2CFA8236

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 49 1.2 MVW08-28

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 48 1.0 MVW08-29

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 46 1.0 MVW08-30

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 46 1.1 MVW08-32

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 46 1.0 MVW08-33

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 45 1.0 MVW08-34

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 44 1.0 MVW08-35

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 83 6.1 MVW08-36 3D9.1C2CFABF99

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 86 7.3 MVW08-37 3D9.1C2CFA81CD

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 55 1.7 MVW08-38

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 75 5.5 MVW08-39 3D9.1C2CFAB495

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 51 1.6 MVW08-40

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 54 1.7 MVW08-41

10/1/2008 R3_ND1 50 1.4 MVW08-42

10/21/2008 R3_US1 50 1.4 MVW08-A10a

10/21/2008 R3_US1 52 1.4 MVW08-A1a
96

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued 

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/21/2008 R3_US1 103 13.1 MVW08-A3a 3D9.1C2CFA84E2

10/21/2008 R3_US1 76 4.8 MVW08-A4a 3D9.1C2CFA8A13

10/21/2008 R3_US1 45 1.1 MVW08-A5a

10/21/2008 R3_US1 42 0.6 MVW08-A6a

10/21/2008 R3_US1 47 1.5 MVW08-A7a

10/21/2008 R3_US1 47 1.1 MVW08-A8a

10/21/2008 R3_US1 71 4.2 MVW08-A9a 3D9.1C2CFA96DD

10/21/2008 R3_US1 65 3.4 MVW08-E10a

10/21/2008 R3_US1 49 1.3 MVW08-E9a

10/19/2008 R4_US1 88 8.1 MVW08-A10 3D9.1C2CFABDFB

10/19/2008 R4_US1 75 3.9 MVW08-A2 3D9.239F83A768

10/19/2008 R4_US1 55 1.8 MVW08-A3

10/19/2008 R4_US1 69 3.6 MVW08-A4

10/19/2008 R4_US1 70 3.6 MVW08-A5 3D9.239F83A74D

10/19/2008 R4_US1 54 2.0 MVW08-A6

10/19/2008 R4_US1 55 1.8 MVW08-A7

10/19/2008 R4_US1 59 2.3 MVW08-A8

10/19/2008 R4_US1 59 2.4 MVW08-A9

10/19/2008 R4_US1 80 5.1 MVW08-B1 3D9.1C2CFA82AF

10/19/2008 R4_US1 50 1.4 MVW08-B10

10/19/2008 R4_US1 68 3.5 MVW08-B2

10/19/2008 R4_US1 55 1.7 MVW08-B3

10/19/2008 R4_US1 52 1.5 MVW08-B4

10/19/2008 R4_US1 91 8.9 MVW08-B5 3D9.239F83A735

10/19/2008 R4_US1 58 2.1 MVW08-B6

10/19/2008 R4_US1 83 6.5 MVW08-B7 3D9.239F83A756

10/19/2008 R4_US1 81 6.2 MVW08-B8 3D9.239F83A71D

10/19/2008 R4_US1 85 7.1 MVW08-B9 3D9.239F83A766

10/19/2008 R4_US1 95 10.4 MVW08-C1
97

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued 

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/19/2008 R4_US1 90 7.7 MVW08-C2

10/19/2008 R4_US1 52 1.8 MVW08-C3

10/19/2008 R4_US1 87 7.8 MVW08-C4

10/19/2008 R4_US1 58 2.2 MVW08-C5

10/19/2008 R4_US1 53 1.7 MVW08-C6

10/19/2008 R4_US1 75 4.5 MVW08-C7

10/19/2008 R4_US1 79 5.6 MVW08-C8

10/1/2008 R5_ND1 53 1.85 MVW08-07

10/1/2008 R5_ND1 56 2.48 MVW08-08

10/1/2008 R5_ND1 74 4.84 MVW08-09 3D9.1C2CFA871E

10/10/2008 R5_US1 50 1.3 mvw08-02

10/1/2008 R6_ND1 105 12.54 MVW08-03 3D9.1C2CFAA6EF

10/1/2008 R6_ND1 95 8.86 MVW08-04 3D9.1C2CFA9C89

10/1/2008 R6_ND1 98 11.15 MVW08-05 3D9.1C2CFA86AC

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 104 15.1 MVW09B10 3D9.1C2D235D6F

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 84 9.2 MVW09B5 3D9.1C2D23A711

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 105 7.5 MVW09B6 3D9.1C2D23A759

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 110 17.9 MVW09B7 3D9.1C2D23670A

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 110 16.6 MVW09B8 3D9.1C2D23FB9D

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 90 9.7 MVW09B9 3D9.1C2D23C213

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 95 12.2 MVW09C1 3D9.1C2D235236

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 87 8.7 MVW09C10 3D9.1C2D23BF8C

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 97 12.4 MVW09C2 3D9.1C2D23A762

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 106 15.8 MVW09C3 3D9.1C2D23AEFB

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 103 15.8 MVW09C4 3D9.1C2D23A0E1

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 85 9.5 MVW09C5 3D9.1C2D23B3E9

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 95 12.4 MVW09C6 3D9.1C2D23A188

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 105 16.2 MVW09C7 3D9.1C2D2353DF

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 96 12.5 MVW09C8 3D9.1C2D239CC4
98

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 111 18.4 MVW09C9 3D9.1C2D23B3FD

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 114 16.0 MVW09D1

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 105 17.1 MVW09D2 3D9.1C2D23C212

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 109 17.0 MVW09D3 3D9.1C2D23A3FE

3/17/2009 R6_ND1 110 18.8 MVW09D4 3D9.1C2D23A0D0

10/9/2008 R6_US1 113 16.2 MVW08-100 3D9.239F83A755

10/9/2008 R6_US1 100 11.8 MVW08-95 3D9.1C2CFAC532

10/9/2008 R6_US1 115 17.3 MVW08-96 3D9.239F83A732

10/9/2008 R6_US1 105 13.1 MVW08-97 3D9.1C2CFAA378

10/9/2008 R6_US1 102 12.5 MVW08-98 3D9.239F83A75F

10/9/2008 R6_US1 85 7.1 MVW08-99 3D9.239F83A73F

3/17/2009 R6_US1 88 8.7 MVW09A10 3D9.1C2D239A5B

3/17/2009 R6_US1 82 9.1 MVW09A2 3D9.1C2D23B226

3/17/2009 R6_US1 100 13.8 MVW09A3 3D9.1C2D23AF8D

3/17/2009 R6_US1 112 10.0 MVW09A4 3D9.1C2D239ABA

3/17/2009 R6_US1 95 13.0 MVW09A5 3D9.1C2D23B557

3/17/2009 R6_US1 87 8.9 MVW09A6 3D9.1C2D237A8D

3/17/2009 R6_US1 81 6.7 MVW09A7 3D9.1C2D23FA33

3/17/2009 R6_US1 84 7.8 MVW09A8 3D9.1C2D23C263

3/17/2009 R6_US1 78 5.6 MVW09A9 3D9.1C2D23A127

3/17/2009 R6_US1 104 14.9 MVW09B1 3D9.1C2D236C76

3/17/2009 R6_US1 79 6.7 MVW09B2 3D9.1C2D23982B

3/17/2009 R6_US1 100 13.9 MVW09B3 3D9.1C2D23A9B4

10/9/2008 R7_US1 55 2.0 MVW08-88

10/9/2008 R7_US1 85 7.5 MVW08-89 3D9.239F83A72C

10/9/2008 R7_US1 81 6.0 MVW08-90 3D9.1C2CFAA721

10/9/2008 R7_US1 80 5.8 MVW08-91 3D9.239F83A750

10/9/2008 R7_US1 44 1.5 MVW08-92
99

Table B2. Genetic samples collected from Big Spring spinedace captured during electrofishing surveys in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, 2008 and 2009.—Continued

[FL, fork length; mm, millimeters; WT, weight; g, grams; PIT, Passive Integrated Transponder.] 

Date Site FL (mm) WT (g) Genetics code PIT tag code

10/9/2008 R7_US1 52 1.9 MVW08-93

10/9/2008 R7_US1 75 5.1 MVW08-94 3D9.239F83A765

3/18/2009 R7_US1 101 14.5 MVW09D5 3D9.1C2D239CD6

3/18/2009 R7_US1 92 11.2 MVW09D6 3D9.1C2D23A9DC

3/18/2009 R7_US1 77 5.6 MVW09D7 3D9.1C2D23A730

10/1/2008 R8_ND1 55 4.78 MVW08-01

10/8/2008 R8_US1 61 2.7 MVW08-80

10/8/2008 R8_US1 63 3.0 MVW08-81

10/8/2008 R8_US1 64 3.0 MVW08-82

10/8/2008 R8_US1 61 2.8 MVW08-83

10/8/2008 R8_US1 63 3.3 MVW08-84

10/8/2008 R8_US1 64 3.0 MVW08-85

10/8/2008 R8_US1 58 2.4 MVW08-87
100

Table B3. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of Big Spring spinedace in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2008.

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NE, no estimate.] 

Age-0 Age-1 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 2 27.8 0.080 0.069 0.741 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 32 0.5 1.280 0.577 1.905 32 0.2 1.280 0.577 1.905

RB_ND1 60 5.1 2.400 1.101 5.825 65 8.1 2.600 1.193 6.311

RB_US1 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

TR_US1 49 0.3 1.960 2.227 70.000 7 0.0 0.280 0.318 10.000

R1_ND1 76 4.6 2.533 1.064 15.200 59 4.4 1.967 0.826 11.800

R1_US1 29 8.4 1.160 0.644 9.063 22 0.0 0.880 0.489 6.875

R2_US1 19 0.2 0.760 0.304 2.879 17 0.0 0.680 0.272 2.576

R3_ND1 NE NE

R3_US1 35 0.1 1.400 1.129 7.292 22 0.0 0.880 0.710 4.583

R4_US1 14 6.2 0.560 0.243 2.121 17 9.2 0.680 0.296 2.576

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 NE NE

R5_US1 1 0.0 0.040 0.018 0.060 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_ND1 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 3 0.0 0.120 0.055 0.291

R6_US1 2 4.9 0.080 0.034 0.476 33 0.3 1.320 0.569 7.857

R6_USA NE NE

R8_US1 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 8 1.5 0.267 0.112 1.600

R8_ND1 1 0.0 0.040 0.022 0.313 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_ND1 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US2 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000
101

Table B4. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of speckled dace in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2008. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, meter; 

m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NS, not sampled; NE, no estimate]

 Age-0 Age-1 or older 

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 43 2.8 1.720 1.483 15.926 28 2.8 1.120 0.966 10.370

RA_US1 118 0.7 4.720 2.126 7.024 47 0.7 1.880 0.847 2.798

RB_ND1 169 40.0 6.760 3.101 16.408 104 40.0 4.160 1.908 10.097

RB_US1 17 2.7 0.680 0.290 4.040 115 3.3 4.600 1.983 27.381

TRIB_US1 25 0.0 1.000 1.136 35.714 49 0.0 1.960 2.227 70.000

R1_ND1 56 16.8 1.867 0.784 11.200 70 16.8 2.333 0.980 14.000

R1_US1 56 1.0 2.240 1.244 17.500 65 1.0 2.600 1.444 20.313

R2_US1 32 4.3 1.280 0.512 4.848 129 4.3 5.160 2.064 19.545

R3_ND1 NE 109 27.1 4.360 2.319 14.730

R3_US1 29 1.8 1.160 0.935 6.042 56 1.8 2.240 1.806 11.667

R4_US1 38 4.9 1.520 0.661 5.758 145 4.9 5.800 2.522 21.970

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 18 56.9 0.720 0.336 4.286 22 13.3 0.880 0.411 5.238

R5_US1 4 0.0 0.160 0.119 0.909 23 17.8 0.920 0.687 5.227

R6_ND1 1 0.0 0.040 0.017 0.071 6 1.3 0.240 0.102 0.429

R6_US1 1 0.0 0.040 0.027 0.110 12 3.8 0.480 0.324 1.319

R6_USA NS NS

R8_US1 27 0.9 1.080 0.514 5.192 21 3.5 0.840 0.400 4.038

R8_ND1 18 34.9 0.720 0.316 2.500 NE

R9_ND1 1 0.0 0.040 0.018 0.075 NE

R9_US1 23 1.8 0.920 0.305 1.825 22 3.9 0.880 0.291 1.746

R10_US1 NE NE

R10_US2 9 1.6 0.360 0.184 2.000 7 2.4 0.280 0.143 1.556

 
102

Table B5. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of desert sucker in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2008. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NS, not sampled; NE, no estimate]

 

 Age-0 Age-1 or older 

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 NE - - - - NE - - - -

RA_US1 26 8.8 1.040 0.468 1.548 73 1.2 2.920 1.315 4.345

RB_ND1 276 7.0 11.040 5.064 26.796 116 3.5 4.640 2.128 11.262

RB_US1 1 0.0 0.040 0.017 0.238 24 5.0 0.960 0.414 5.714

TR_US1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_ND1 6 0.0 0.200 0.084 1.200 37 8.6 1.233 0.518 7.400

R1_US1 17 0.0 0.680 0.378 5.313 4 0.0 0.160 0.089 1.250

R2_US1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.0 0.080 0.032 0.303

R3_ND1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 13 40.4 0.520 0.277 1.757

R3_US1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 7 0.0 0.280 0.226 1.458

R4_US1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 7 0.0 0.280 0.122 1.061

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000

R5_US1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_ND1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_US1 2 0.0 0.080 0.054 0.220 1 0.0 0.040 0.027 0.110

R6_USA NS --- --- --- NS --- --- ---

R8_US1 2 0.0 0.080 0.038 0.385 1 0.0 0.040 0.019 0.192

R8_ND1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_ND1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 4 0.0 0.160 0.073 0.301

R9_US1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US2 0 --- 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.0 0.040 0.020 0.222

 
103

Table B6. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of rainbow trout in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2008.

 [Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NS, not sampled]

 Age-0 Age-1 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls 

RA_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RB_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RB_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

TR_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R2_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R3_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R3_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R4_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 1 0.0 0.040 0.040 0.238 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R5_US1 2 0.0 0.080 0.080 0.455 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 

R6_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.0 0.080 0.054 0.220

R6_USA NS NS

R8_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

 
104

Table B7. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of Big Spring spinedace in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, spring 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NS, not sampled]

 

 Age-1 Age-2 or older 

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 0 0.000 0.018 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 1 0.0 0.040 0.018 0.068 40 0.0 1.600 0.713 2.721

RB_ND1 NS NS

RB_US1 3 0.0 0.120 0.052 0.600 4 0.0 0.160 0.069 0.800

TR_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_ND1 27 0.0 0.900 0.409 4.091 40 0.0 1.333 0.606 6.061

R1_US1 5 0.0 0.200 0.092 1.923 7 0.0 0.280 0.129 2.692

R2_US1 27 0.0 1.051 0.401 3.462 35 0.0 1.362 0.519 4.487

R3_ND1 41 0.7 1.640 0.555 3.727 27 0.3 1.080 0.365 2.455

R3_US1 8 0.0 0.291 0.165 1.000 8 0.0 0.291 0.165 1.000

R4_US1 3 0.0 0.120 0.049 0.357 9 0.4 0.360 0.147 1.071

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R5_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 26 1.040 0.527 2.653

R6_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 12 0.1 0.480 0.255 0.909

R6_USA 8 0.320 0.140 1.111 12 0.0 0.480 0.210 1.667

R8_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_ND1 2 0.080 0.030 0.179 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 NS NS

R10_US2 NS NS

 
105

Table B8. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of speckled dace in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, spring 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NS, not sampled; NE, no estimate] 

 

 Age-1 Age-2 or older 

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 37 1.1 1.480 0.976 10.278 25 3.7 1.000 0.660 6.944

RA_US1 79 3.6 3.160 1.408 5.374 30 2.4 1.200 0.535 2.040

RB_ND1 NS NS

RB_US1 13 0.0 0.520 0.225 2.600 80 0.7 3.200 1.382 16.000

TR_US1 18 0.0 0.720 0.547 22.500 106 1.6 4.240 3.222 132.500

R1_ND1 20 0.0 0.667 0.303 3.030 126 1.8 4.200 1.909 19.091

R1_US1 2 0.0 0.080 0.037 0.769 67 2.9 2.680 1.234 25.769

R2_US1 20 2.9 0.778 0.297 2.564 37 16.4 1.440 0.549 4.744

R3_ND1 64 14.3 2.560 0.866 5.818 137 1.8 5.480 1.854 12.455

R3_US1 24 1.7 0.873 0.495 3.000 59 3.1 2.145 1.216 7.375

R4_US1 34 6.0 1.360 0.556 4.048 79 6.8 3.160 1.293 9.405

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.0 0.042 0.018 0.175

R5_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 3 0.0 0.120 0.084 0.667

R6_ND1 2 0.0 0.080 0.041 0.204 3 0.0 0.120 0.061 0.306

R6_US1 4 0.0 0.160 0.085 0.303 NE

R6_USA 2 0.0 0.080 0.035 0.278 15 28.6 0.600 0.263 2.083

R8_US1 1 0.0 0.040 0.018 0.169 2 0.0 0.080 0.036 0.339

R8_ND1 9 5.9 0.360 0.136 0.804 2 0.0 0.080 0.030 0.179

R9_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 2 0.0 0.080 0.030 0.271 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 NS NS

R10_US2 NS NS

 
106

Table B9. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of desert sucker in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, spring 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NE, no estimate; NS, not sampled] 

 Age-1 Age-2 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls 

RA_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 2 0.0 0.080 0.036 0.136 22 12.8 0.880 0.392 1.497

RB_ND1 NS NS

RB_US1 2 0.0 0.080 0.035 0.400 22 0.0 0.880 0.380 4.400

TR_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_ND1 3 22.1 0.100 0.045 0.455 11 4.1 0.367 0.167 1.667

R1_US1 1 0.0 0.040 0.018 0.385 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R2_US1 6 0.0 0.233 0.089 8 2.9 0.311 0.119

R3_ND1 NE 14 3.5 0.560 0.189 1.273

R3_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R4_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.0 0.040 0.016 0.119

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R5_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.0 0.080 0.041 0.204

R6_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.0 0.080 0.042 0.152

R6_USA 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_ND1 1 0.0 0.050 0.016 0.058 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 NS NS

R10_US2 NS NS
107

Table B10. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of rainbow trout in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, spring 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NS, not sampled] 

 Age-1 Age-2 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls 

RA_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RB_ND1 NS NS

RB_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

TR_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R2_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000

R3_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R3_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R4_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

Below Delmue Falls

R5_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R5_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.0 0.040 0.028 0.222

R6_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 4 0.4 0.160 0.085 0.303

R6_USA 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 NS NS

R10_US2 NS NS

 
108

Table B11. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of Big Spring spinedace in 

Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N; population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter] 

 Age-0 Age-1 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 31 1.5 1.127 0.506 2.348 45 1.0 1.636 0.734 3.409

RB_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

TR_US1 11 0.2 0.415 0.288 8.462 1 0.0 0.038 0.026 0.769

R1_US1 80 0.0 2.985 1.463 18.605 24 0.0 0.896 0.439 5.581

R2_US1 20 0.0 0.769 0.328 4.167 12 0.0 0.462 0.197 2.500

R3_US1 14 0.0 0.513 0.312 2.745 10 0.0 0.366 0.223 1.961

R4_US1 5 0.0 0.199 0.086 0.746 4 86.6 0.159 0.068 0.597

Below Delmue Falls

R5_US1 1 0.0 0.040 0.030 0.294 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_US1 71 0.0 2.898 1.603 11.452 10 0.0 0.408 0.226 1.613

R6_USA 14 2.4 0.660 0.323 3.500 3 0.0 0.142 0.069 0.750

R8_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

 
109

Table 12B. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys of Big Spring spinedace in Condor Canyon, 

Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. Age was not estimated at these sites. N, population estimate; CV = percent

coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NE, no estimate] 

 

All spinedace

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

NDOW Sites

RB_ND1 496 3.7 14.588 6.123 43.894

R1_ND1 152 1.4 5.067 2.335 35.349

R3_ND1 NE

R5_ND1 0 

R6_ND1 6 0.1 0.222 0.110 0.833

R8_ND1 2 0.0 0.080 0.030 0.180

R9_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

 
110

Table 13B. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of speckled dace in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

 [Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter; NE, no estimate] 

 

 Age-0 Age-1 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 28 12.0 1.098 1.116 28.000 13 7.5 0.510 0.518 13.000

RA_US1 419 1.1 15.236 6.835 31.742 76 2.3 2.764 1.240 5.758

RB_US1 1 0.0 0.029 0.012 0.088 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

TR_US1 81 4.3 3.057 2.120 62.308 4 0.0 0.151 0.105 3.077

R1_US1 165 0.3 6.157 3.016 38.372 16 2.1 0.597 0.293 3.721

R2_US1 109 0.1 4.192 1.790 22.708 48 0.6 1.846 0.788 10.000

R3_US1 116 1.1 4.249 2.584 22.745 49 0.2 1.795 1.091 9.608

R4_US1 157 0.5 6.255 2.688 23.433 47 1.1 1.873 0.805 7.015

Below Delmue Falls

R5_US1 11 0.0 0.445 0.331 3.235 16 1.0 0.648 0.482 4.706

R6_US1 18 25.6 0.735 0.406 2.903 NE

R6_USA 1 0.0 0.047 0.023 0.250 4 0.0 0.189 0.092 1.000

R8_US1 143 0.3 5.652 3.213 44.688 31 3.8 1.225 0.697 9.688

R9_US1 6 0.1 0.224 0.113 1.034 41 2.1 1.530 0.771 7.069

R10_US1 1 0.0 0.042 0.025 0.385 7 8.9 0.292 0.176 2.692

R10_US2 1 0.0 0.043 0.026 0.556 1 0.0 0.043 0.026 0.556
111

Table B14. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys of speckled dace in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. Age was not estimated at these sites. N, population estimate; CV, percent

coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter] 

 

All speckled dace

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

NDOW Sites

RB_ND1 217 8.5 6.382 2.659 19.204

R1_ND1 122 2.2 4.067 1.874 28.372

R3_ND1 NE

R5_ND1 NE

R6_ND1 12 0.7 0.444 0.221 1.667

R8_ND1 NE

R9_ND1 12 2.2 0.480 0.240 2.143
112

Table B15. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of desert sucker in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter] 

Age-0 Age-1 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 6 0.0 0.235 0.239 6.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 202 4.7 7.345 3.295 15.303 39 9.5 1.418 0.636 2.955

RB_US1 1 0.0 0.029 0.012 0.088 1 0.0 0.029 0.012 0.088

TR_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_US1 6 2.8 0.224 0.110 1.395 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R2_US1 9 1.9 0.346 0.148 1.875 1 0.0 0.038 0.016 0.208

R3_US1 18 0.0 0.659 0.401 3.529 1 0.0 0.037 0.022 0.196

R4_US1 14 13.1 0.558 0.240 2.090 3 0.0 0.120 0.051 0.448

Below Delmue Falls

R5_US1 4 11.8 0.162 0.120 1.176 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_US1 1 0.0 0.041 0.023 0.161 5 0.0 0.204 0.113 0.806

R6_USA 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.0 0.040 0.022 0.313

R9_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.0 0.037 0.019 0.172

R10_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

 
113

Table B16. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys of desert sucker in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. Age was not estimated at these sites. N, population estimate; CV, percent

coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter] 

 

All desert sucker 

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

NDOW Sites

RB_ND1 162 2.9 4.765 1.985 14.336

R1_ND1 32 10.6 1.067 0.492 7.442

R3_ND1 NE

R5_ND1 0 

R6_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_ND1 2 0.0

R9_ND1 NE

 
114

Table B17. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys for two age classes of rainbow trout in Condor 

Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. N, population estimate; CV, percent coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, 

meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter] 

 

 Age-0 Age-1 or older

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3 N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

Above Delmue Falls

RA_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RA_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

RB_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

TR_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R2_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R3_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R4_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

Below Delmue Falls

R5_US1 11 1.1 0.445 0.331 3.235 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R6_US1 2 0.0 0.082 0.045 0.323 4 0.0 0.163 0.090 0.645

R6_USA 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R9_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R10_US2 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

 
115

Table B18. Estimates of populations from electrofishing surveys of rainbow trout in Condor Canyon, Meadow 

Valley Wash, Lincoln County, Nevada, fall 2009. 

[Sites are listed from upstream to downstream. Age was not estimated at these sites. N, population estimate; CV, percent

coefficient of variation (SE/N×100); m, meter; m2

, square meter; m3, cubic meter] 

 

All rainbow trout

Site N (est) CV no./m no./m2 no./m3

NDOW Sites

RB_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R1_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R3_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R5_ND1 38 15.6

R6_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000

R8_ND1 0 

R9_ND1 0 0.000 0.000 0.000
116

This page left intentionally blank 
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/
Jezorek and others— Big Spring Spinedace and Associated Fish Populations and Habitat Conditions in Condor Canyon, Meadow Valley Wash, Nevada—Open-File Report 2011–1072