title
Leatherside chub (Gila copei) distributional surveys in northern Utah, 2002
author
Array ( [0] => Nadolski, Benjamin [1] => Thompson, Paul )
abstract
UDWR Publication Number 03-04
date
2003-01-01
organization
Utah. Division of Wildlife Resources
species
Array ( [0] => Not Specified )
file_path
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/leatherside-chub-gila-copei-distributional-surveys-in-northern-utah-2002.pdf
thumb
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/leatherside-chub-gila-copei-distributional-surveys-in-northern-utah-2002-pdf-1-734x1024.jpg
content
N 4620.CS.7: C hu/002 ~ State of Utah « .... ,\ D~P~~NT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~~ D1V1S1on of Wildlife Resources Leatherside Chub (Gila copei) Distributional Surveys in Northern Utah, 2002 Publication Number 03-04 Utah Di vision of Wildlife Resources 1594 W. North Temple Salt Lake City , Utah Kevin K. Conway, Direc tor Leatherside Chub (Gila copei) Distributional Surveys in Northern Utah, 2002 Prepared by Benjamin Nadolski Aquatics Technician Utah Division of Wildlife Resources And Paul Thompson Aquatics Biologist Utah Division of Wildlife Resources January 2003 Publication Number 03-04 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 W. North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah Ao Equal Opportunity Employer Kevin K. Conway, Director Table of Contents Page Introduction .. . ... .... .. .. ... .... . ......... .. ... . ... . .... . ......... . . . ... . .... .. .. . . . ... .. .. . .... . .. . . ....... .. .... . Objective ............................................................. . ........................... . .. . .. . .......... . Location ........... . ..... ........ ..... . . . ......... . ...... . .. ... . ........ . ... .. ..... ........ . ......... .. . . .. . ....... . Methods ....... ... . ..... .................. . .. . .................. ....... . . ....... . .. . .. .. ........ . ..... ........... .. . Results. ... .... ... . .. .. . . . .... ... ... .. . . .... .. . ... .......... . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .... . ..... . ........ . .... ... ............... 2 Discussion. ....... ........ . .. .... ... ........... .. ... .. .. ..... ..... ... ... ... .. ... ........ ..... .. ...... .. ............ 3 Literature Cited........................................................................... .. . . .................... 8 List of Tables Page Table I. Table 2. Table 3. List of Figures Figure I. Figure 2. Figure 3. Leatherside chub stream surveys, 2002 .......... ................................ .. .... .. Lower Bear River drainage population estimates for all species encountered .... .. Upper Bear River drainage population estimates for all species encountered ..... . Historic leatherside chub localities in the Northern Region of the VDWR ...... .. Leatherside chub localities in the Bear River drainage, 2002 ...................... .. Size distribution ofleatherside chub sampled in Yellow Creek sections 01-02 3 4 4 Page S 6 (Low - High), 2002.... ................ ............... ...... .............. . .. .. ....... ..... 7 Introduction The leatherside chub (Gila copei) is a small cyprinid native to Utah and parts ofldaho and Wyoming (Hubbs and Miller 1948; Sigler and Miller 1963; Baxter and Simon 1970; Simpson and Wallace 1982). The State of Utah considers the leatherside chub a "species of special concern" due to decreases in population levels (UDWR 1998). Historically, leatherside chub in the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Northern Region were distributed throughout parts of the Bear and Provo River drainages and likely Goose Creek, a tributary to the Snake River (Figure I). Leatherside chub have experienced declines due to habitat degradation through current water management practices and predation from nonnative fish species. Many areas of northern Utah needed to be surveyed to gain a more accurate description of the leatherside chub's current distribution. Objective The objective of the 2002 surveys was to begin detennining the current distribution of leatherside chub in northern Utah. Population estimates were completed at aU locations where leatherside chub were encountered. Location Electrofishing surveys were completed at fourteen stream locations in the Bear and Great Salt Lake drainages (Table I). Population estimates were completed at nine stream locations on the Bear River drainage (Table 2). Methods Electrofishing survey sites were measured with a 100 meter (m) tape. A block net was placed at the lower and upper ends of the survey site. Universe Transverse Mercator (UTMs) coordinates were recorded for each stream survey location with a hand held Global Positioning System. Electrofishing was completed using battery powered backpack electro fishing units manufactured by Smith-Root Inc. Electrofishing settings varied depending upon levels of conductivity within the stream. In general, the pulse was set at J (70 Hz), the frequency was set at 4 (4 ms), and the voltage was set at 300 V. Electrofishing commenced with a crew ranging from 2-6 people. Two electro fishing passes were completed and all fish encountered were removed and placed into live cages. Fish collected in the first pass were kept separate from the fish coUected in the second pass. All fish were identified to species, weighed to the nearest gram (g), and measured to the nearest millimeter (mm) total length and released into the stream alive. - I - A modified Zippin multiple pass depletion estimate electrofishing fonnula (Zippin 1958) was used to calculate the population estimates and ninety-five percent confidence intervals for each site surveyed. Population estimates were not completed for mottled sculpin (Cottus baird!), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Criteria of abundance for these species was estimated as follows: 0-10 individuals / 100 m = sparse, 10-50 individuals / 100 m = common, and >50 individuals / 100 m = abundant. The formulas used to calculate the population estimates were: N=C,' /C,-C, Where N = estimated fish population, C, = the number of fish captured from the first pass, and C, = the number of fish captured on the second pass SE = [C, • C, / (C, - C,) ' ) • (C, + C,) "' 95% C.I. = 2 • SE Results Leatherside chub were observed at five of the fourteen localities that were surveyed, including four localities on Yellow Creek and one locality on Thief Creek (Table 1; Figure 2). Population estimates were completed at all four localities on Yellow Creek (Table 2) and all age classes ofleatherside chub were observed at most localities (Figure 3). Although low densities ofleatherside chub were encountered in Thief Creek, population estimates were not completed due to low water conditions. Leatherside chub were not observed in Bull Creek, Spring Creek, Willow Creek, Deep Creek (High and Low), Rock Creek, Left Hand Fork of Blacksmith Fork (High and Low), and the South Fork of Little Bear (High and Low). Fish species encountered during the 2002 stream surveys included: leatherside chub (LSC), mottled sculpin (MSC), speckeled dace (SPD), longnose dace (LND), Bonneville cuthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah; BCT), brown trout (Salmo trulta; BNT), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni; MWF), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis ; BKT), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus; MTS), Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens; UTS), and redside shiner (Richardson ius balteatus hydroflox; RSS). - 2 - Discussion Based on electrofishing surveys in 2002, leatherside chub occupied approximately 5.5 stream miles in Yellow Creek within Utah state boundaries. The lower reaches of Yellow Creek section Olin Utah were intermittent, with most water being diverted by late summer. There were considerable differences in babitat conditions between the upper and lower reaches of Yellow Creek. Yellow Creek sections 01 and 02 (Low) experienced heavy cattle grazing wbich had resulted in eroding banks with minimal vegetation. Substrate materials consisted primarily of mud and silt in the grazed reaches of Yellow Creek. The headwater reacbes of Yellow Creek section 02 were not as beavily grazed and the riparian community consisted of willows, grasses, and aspens. Tbe stream substrate of Yellow Creek section 02 (Med and High) was comprised primarily of boulders, cobble, and gravel. Leatberside chub populations were strong throughout the Utah portion of Yellow Creek with the smallest population estimate being in the headwaters of section 02 (Table 3). This portion of the population was comprised primatily of adult fish (Figure 3), which indicated that this reach of Yellow Creek was likely an important spawning area with recruitroent occurring in the lower reacbes. Colder temperatures and a larger population of Bonneville cutthroat trout in the beadwaters of Yellow Creek also may limit leatherside chub in this reach. Recommendations Continue stream surveys in northern Utah to determine the current distribution of leathers ide chub. Table 1. Leatherside chub stream surveys, 2002. Stream Date H,O ID # 1 Section # UTM's Sampled Yellow Creek section 01 07/11102 IV AQ220 / 01 0496180E, 4557902N Yellow Creek section 06/27/02 IV AQ 220 102 0503056E,4538302N 02 (Low) Yellow Creek section 06/27/02 IV AQ 220 / 02 0504460E, 4534688N 02 (Med) Yellow Creek section 06/28/02 IV AQ 220 1 02 0504943E,4532745N 02JHigh) Thief Creek 0711 1102 IVA 2200 / 02 0495685E, 4546857N Bull Creek. 06/27/02 IVA 220G 101 0507878E, 4538399N Willow Creek 06/27/02 IVA 220J I 01 0510064E, 453652IN Spring Creek 08/01 /02 IV AQ220M / OI 0494720E, 4552637N Rock Creek 10/ 16/02 IV AQ 040A03B I 01 0455233E, 4609995N Left Hand Fork Blacksmith Fork (Higb) 07/02/02 IV AQ 040A03A I 02 0453616E, 4613594N Left Hand Fork Blacksmith Fork (Low) 07/02/02 IV AQ 040A03A I 01 0441156E, 4609876N South Fork Little Bear (Higb) 07/0 1102 IV AQ 040E I 01 0430597E, 4587873N South Fork Little Bear (Low) 07/01102 IV AQ 040E I 01 0432130E, 4595279N Deep Creek (High) 08/ 16/02 IV AR 105 / 01 0357380E, 4647300N Deep Creek (low) 08/ 16/02 IV AR 105 / 01 0355334E, 4545429N - 3- Table 2. Lower Bear River drainage population estimates for all species encountered. Stream I Section Species Population estimate (# individuals per mile) Left Hand Fork of the BCf 416 ± 69 Blacksmith Fork I 0 I BNT 787 ± I MWF 14±0 MSC abundant Left Hand Fork of the BCf 1I0±0 Blacksmith Fork I 02 BNT 1579 ± 29 BKT 370± 389 MSC abundant Rock Creek I 0 I BCf 121±17 BNT 829 ± 51 MSC abundant South Fork of the Little BCf 6 caught Bear (Low) 101 BNT 745 ± 696 MWF 101 ± 34 MTS 16± 0 MSC abundant South Fork of the Little BCf 258 ± 48 Bear (High) I 01 BNT 894 ± 32 MSC abundant Table 3. Upper Bear River drainage population estimates for all species encountered. Stream I Section Species Population estimates (# individuals per mile) Yellow Cn:ek I section 01 LSC 624 ± 219 MTS 1035 ± 284 UTS 676 ± 1420 SPD abundant LND common RSS 3676 ± 269 MSC abundant Yellow Creek Isection 02 LSC 1504± 135 (Low) MTS 331 ± 78 1 RSS 331 ± 781 MSC abundant SPD abundant Yellow Creek I section 02 BCf 84±0 (Med) LSC 486± 56 MTS sparse SPD sparse MSC common Yellow Creek I section 02 BCf 247 ± 33 (High) LSC 197 ± 131 MTS 247 ± 33 SPD Sparse MSC common Thief Creek LSC sparse SPD abundant - 4- • Goose Creek " Box Elder Creek • Historic LSC localities /\/streams N Logan Rivtr r W+E s Thief Creek F Bear Rive 60 0 60 120 Miles Figure 1. Historic leatherside chub localities in the Northern Region of the UDWR. - 5 - I section 01 6 0 6 Miles Thiefcree~ • LSC localities /\/ streams Yellow Creek N ~E S Wyoming section 02 low Figure 2. Leatherside chub localities in the Bear River drainage, 2002. Utah section 02 med section 02 high - 6 - Yellow Creek 01 351~ 30 Ii; 25 '" 20 E 15 i 10 -1-__ _ 5 o ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , v , w ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 35 30 Ii; 25 '" 20 E 15 i 10 ,-=> ,~ ,'V ,OJ Length mm Yellow Creek 02 Med 5 • o ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , W ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Length mm Yellow Creek 02 Low 35r------------=---------------, ~ ~~ ~ E 15 i 10 5 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , W ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Length mm Yellow Creek 02 High 35 30 - 25 2 20 E 15 ~ 10 5 0 = IIFI _________ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , W • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Length mm Figure 3. Size distribution of leatherside chub sampled in Yellow Creek sections 0 \-02 (Low-High), 2002. - 7 - Literature Cited Baxter, G. T., aDd J. R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming Fishes. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Hubbs, C.L., aDd R. R. Miller. 1948. Correlation between fish distribution and hydrographic history in the desert basins of western United States. University of Utah Biological Series 10 (7):17-16. Sigler, W. F. and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department ofFish aDd Game, Salt Lake City, Utah. Simpson, J. c., and R. L. Wallace. 1982. Fishes ofldaho. The University Press ofidabo, Moscow, Idaho. UOWR. 1998. Utah Sensitive Species List. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. ZippeD, C. 1958. The removal method of population estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management 22 : 82-90. - 8-
geography
Array ( [0] => Array ( [state] => Utah [province] => ) )
batch_date
Tue, 05 May 2020 19:04:31 +0000
original_file_path
https://digitallibrary.utah.gov/awweb/awarchive?type=download&item=64848
group__id
5eb1ba82752a32.92278525
document_format
1.1.7
disabled
-1
processing_date
1609350697
year
2003
hash
Array ( [document] => 7f0bea47abc2c8b2ed3f668485adc29098dfa575 [content] => 60d82a08d97d5b6456057f025985a565fbaec4b2 [dedupe] => 1a589a699661325d87c3c4442649f217043f0cfc )
id
doc-5eb1ba8282ecd30935025bab
__hash__
Content: 60d82a08d97d5b6456057f025985a565fbaec4b2 | Abstract: fad2ef36602e6de54d3353d1591efa818bd04887