title
June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) monitoring and transfer activities in the northern region, 2001
author
Array ( [0] => Thompson, Paul )
abstract
UDWR Publication Number 01-24
date
2001-01-01
organization
Utah. Division of Wildlife Resources
species
Array ( [0] => Not Specified )
file_path
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/june-sucker-chasmistes-liorus-monitoring-and-transfer-activities-in-the-northern-region-2001.pdf
thumb
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/june-sucker-chasmistes-liorus-monitoring-and-transfer-activities-in-the-northern-region-2001-pdf-1-760x1024.jpg
content
N 4620.S9.7: Jun/Nor/001 State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Wildlife Resources June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) Monitoring and Transfer Activities in the Northern Region, 2001 Publication Number 01-24 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah John F. Kimball, Director June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) Monitoring and Transfer Activities in the Northern Region, 2001 by Paul Thompson Native Aquatics Biologist Annual Report November 2001 Publication Number 01-24 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 An Equal Opportunity Employer John F. Kimball, Director TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROlJND............................................................................................................ 1 Camp Creek Reservoir..................................................................................... ... 1 Ogden Nature Center............... ..... .......... ........... .. ....................... ..................... ... 1 MONITORING............................................. .... .............................................................. 2 Introduction........... .. ..... ... ... ... .... ......... ............ .......... .............. ............. ................ 2 Methods.................................... ........................... ................. ... ... ... ...................... 2 Camp Creek Reservoir............. ...................... ... ................................... ... 2 Ogden Nature Center...... .... ........................ ............................ ................. 3 Results.............................................................................................. ..... .......... .... 4 Camp Creek Reservoir............................................................................ 4 Ogden Nature Center..... ..... ........ .... ..... .. ............. ............... .. ............. ....... 4 Discussion... ... ...... .. .. ..... ... ............ ............. ........ .. ............ .. ..... ............................ . 5 Camp Creek Reservoir........... .. ............................. ......................... ......... 5 Ogden Nature Center............................... ................................................ 6 Recommendations............................................................................................... 7 Camp Creek Reservoir. ........................................................................... 7 Ogden Nature Center .............................. ........ ........ :....... ......................... 7 TRANSFER TO UT AH LAKE... .. ............................................................. .................. ... 8 Introduction............... ................................................................. .. ........................ 8 Methods............. ....... ........................................................................................... 8 Results and Discussion...... .. ...................... .......................................................... 8 REFERENCES......................................... ................. .... .. ............................. ....... ............ 9 11 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. June sucker monitoring efforts, Camp Creek Reservoir 1988-1996 ..... .. . 10 Table 2. June sucker stocked into Ogden Nature Center ponds ........ .. .... .. .......... .. . 11 Table 3. June sucker monitoring efforts, Ogden Nature Center 1995-1996 .. ..... .. . 12 Table 4. Standardized Monitoring of Camp Creek Reservoir, 1997-2001.. ......... . 13 Table 5. Standardized Monitoring of Arrowhead Pond (Ogden Nature Center), 1997-2001 ................... ........................................... .... .... ... ........... .......... . 14 Table 6. Population estimates for wild June sucker in Camp Creek Reservoir and stocked June sucker in Arrowhead Pond .... ............... .... .... ....... .. .... . 15 Figure l. Length-frequency distribution for June sucker caught in Camp Creek Reservoir in 1997-2001 ......... .. .... ................ ... ............... ....................... . . 16 Figure 2. Length-frequency distribution for June sucker moved from Camp Creek Reservoir to Utah Lake ... ... ... .... ... ................ ...... .. .. ...... ... .. .. ........ . 18 Appendix A. PIT-tag recaptures at Camp Creek Reservoir and Ogden Nature Center... ................................... .. ... .... .. ... ... .................. ................ ........ .. . 19 lll The Utah Department of Natural Resources receives federal aid and prohibits discrimination on the basis ofrace, color, sex, age, national origin or handicap. For information or complaints regarding discrimination, contact Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources, 1636 West North Temple #316, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-3193 or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1801 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C. lV BACKGROUND The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has noted a decline in the numbers of June sucker, Chasmistes liorus, in Utah Lake since the 1950s (UDWR 1984). Few captures ofJune sucker during 1978-79 (Radant and Sakaguchi 1981) helped prompt the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list June sucker as an endangered species with full production under the Endangered Species Act in 1986 (USFWS 1986). Because of the tenuous state of June sucker in Utah Lake, establishing refuge populations of June sucker outside Utah Lake became a high priority for UDWR (UDWR 1984). These populations would provide a safeguard against extinction of the species and provide fish for management programs (e.g., stocking efforts) and research. To date, two refuge populations, Ogden Nature Center and Camp Creek Reservoir, have been established in the Northern Region. Camp Creek Reservoir Camp Creek Reservoir is located in West Box Elder County, near the town of Etna, Utah. The reservoir is located on Camp Creek, which originates in Nevada and flows primarily from West to East into Utah. Camp Creek Reservoir has a maximum depth of 16 feet (5 acres) and is used for irrigation by the landowner, Boyd Warr. June sucker fry captured in the Provo River in 1985 were introduced into Camp Creek Reservoir. In 1986, however, these sucker fry were discovered to be mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhychus). In 1987, another attempt was made at establishing a June sucker population in Camp Creek Reservoir with the introduction of204 juvenile June sucker. These fish were progeny of June sucker caught in the Provo River during 1985 and spawned at the Springville Hatchery. Due to early unknown spawning practices and the unknown genetic integrity of these fish, their primary use was deemed for research until such time that their genetic integrity becomes known (USFWS 1999). An additional 770 PIT tagged June sucker and approximately 1,000-1,200 non-PIT tagged June sucker (year class/lot - 990531SKJNFE01, approximate length - 30-50 mm TL) were transported from the Millville Ponds near Logan, Utah and released into Camp Creek Reservoir on June 27, 2000. Of the PIT tagged June sucker, most were from the 1994 year class and some were from the 1991, 1995, and 1996 year classes. Approximately 200 June sucker appeared to be wild fish produced in the Millville ponds. Camp Creek Reservoir has been monitored annually since 1988, however, methods and effort have varied between years (Table 1) until a standardized sampling regime was initiated in 1997 (Table 4). Ogden Nature Center Ogden Nature Center is located at 966 West 1200 South in Ogden, Utah. Two ponds were chosen for June sucker introduction, Arrowhead Pond and Teal Pond. Both ponds have a maximum depth of5-6 feet (0.5 acres) and are filled year round by ground water, preventing complete winter freezing. Arrowhead Pond was stocked first (May 20, 1993) with 13 PIT-tagged June sucker from the Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah (Table 2). Arrowhead Pond again was stocked on March 28, 1994 with 120 June sucker from the Prison (Table 2). On April 26, 1994, both ponds at the Ogden Nature Center were stocked with approximately 500 June sucker (250 1 fish from both the 1989 and 1991 year classes (D. Routledge 1997, UDWR, personal communication; Table 2). All June sucker stocked in April were marked with a right-pelvic clip. Arrowhead pond has been monitored yearly since 1995, but Teal Pond has not been sampled since 1995 (Table 3). When June sucker were not caught in Teal Pond during 1995 sampling efforts, dissolved oxygen (DO) readings were taken to determine if adequate levels existed. On June 21, 1995, 0615 hours, the following low oxygen levels were recorded in Teal Pond: Depth (m) 0.3 1.0 2.0 DO (ppm) 4.7 2.3 0.6 Temperature (°C) 18.5 19 14 Because of low summer oxygen levels and likely low winter levels, Northern Region biologists felt that Teal Pond no longer held June sucker and therefore it was not sampled in 1996. In addition, Northern Region biologists completed a boat electrofishing demonstration on Teal Pond on July 18, 1997 and no June sucker were encountered (Table 3). MONITORING Introduction The Northern Region Office's (NRO) primary objective in past years has been to sample Arrowhead Pond and Camp Creek Reservoir yearly to determine if June sucker still persist. The goal of sampling efforts beginning in 1997 was expanded in order to obtain more information on these two June sucker populations. Objectives since 1997 have included: 1) a standardized sampling protocol (e.g., time of year sampled, gear types, and location of net sets) so that future trend data on the populations will be available, and 2) PIT-tagging June sucker to obtain population estimates and growth statistics through time. The months of October/November were chosen to sample both populations because water/air temperatures are cooler, thereby reducing stress to the fish . Trammel nets were chosen as the primary sampling gear to reduce injury to June sucker. Methods Camp Creek Reservoir Only 22 June sucker were caught in three sampling trips during 1995 and 1996 (Table 1 ), so two 100' experimental gill nets, in conjunction with one trammel net (l" inner mesh), were set in order to encounter more fish beginning in 1997. Both gill nets have been old nets and therefore June sucker were cut out of the nets when needed. A 75' trammel net was used during 1997 sampling, however, a 100' trammel net was used in 1998-2001 and will be used in future years. 2 Camp Creek Reservoir was sampled earlier in 2001 in order to obtain fish to sacrifice for disease certification. Camp Creek Reservoir was sampled on 13 August 2001. One gill net was set for 1 hour and 35 minutes and the other gill net for 1 hour and 40 minutes. The trammel net was set for 2 hours. All nets were bottom sets. The trammel net was set from the dam (East shore) to the South shore. Gill net #1 was set from the dam to the North shore and gill net #2 was set from the North shore across the inflow to Camp Creek Reservoir to the South shore. Sixty June sucker were sacrificed for disease certification at the Fisheries Experiment Station (FES) in Logan, UT, five were released without being PIT-tagged and the remaining June sucker were PIT-tagged and released. All fish caught were measured to the nearest millimeter (mm) TL and weighed to the nearest gram (g). Population estimates were calculated using a multiple census (running Schnabel) population estimate (see Krebs 1989; Schnabel 1938). The Schnabel population estimation formula is: If the total number of recaptures I,r1 is >50, then 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated at: V(l/N) = l,r/(C1MJ2 95%CI for (l/N) = (1/N) ± 1.96(V(l/N)f' the inverse of these limits will provide the 95% confidence intervals. If the total number ofrecaptures I,r1 is <50, then the I,r1 is treated as a Poisson variable and Appendix II of Ricker (1975) is used to obtain 95% CI. The 95% CI are calculated as follows: the estimate ofN ± I,r/the value provided in Appendix II for the I,rt. For all formulas, Ogden Nature Center captures at time t, total marks at time t, and total recaptures at time t. Only Arrowhead Pond was sampled in 1997-2001 . Sampling in Teal Pond has proven sufficient to determine that June sucker no longer persist in this pond (Table 3). A 75' trammel net was used during 1997 sampling, however, a 100' trammel net (1" inner mesh) was used in 1998-2001 and will be used during the following years. Arrowhead Pond was sampled on 22 October 2001 with a 2 hour net set from the West shore to the East shore. All fish caught were PIT tagged, measured to the nearest mm TL, and weighed to the nearest g. Surface water temperature was recorded. Population estimates were calculated as described above. 3 Results Camp Creek Reservoir The one trammel net and two gill net sets resulted in the capture of 135 June sucker (Table 4) and no rainbow trout. The landowner, Boyd Warr, stocked approximately 95 rainbow trout in the spring of 1998; 10 were caught in 1998, none were caught in 1999, and one was caught in 2000. Three distinctive size groups of June sucker were caught (Figure 1 ). Gill net #1 caught 64 June sucker ( 40.4/net hour) of all three size groups. Gill net #2 caught 31 June sucker ( 18.6/net hour) of all three size groups. The trammel net caught 40 June sucker (20/net hour) of the largest size group. Sixty June sucker were sacrificed for disease certification at the Fisheries Experiment Station in Logan, UT; five were released without being PIT-tagged; one June sucker escaped before it was weighed, measured, or PIT-tagged; and the remaining 69 June sucker were released with a PIT-tag. Eight of the 134 June sucker caught were recaptures with four recaptures being hatchery fish from the 2000 stocking and four being wild fish (Appendix A). Of the four wild fish recaptures, two were initially tagged in 2000, one was initially tagged in 1999, and one was initially tagged in 1998 (Appendix A). Because Camp Creek Reservoir has a naturally reproducing population of June sucker, a population estimate is difficult to obtain with one sampling event per year. Population estimates were attempted in the past by obtaining an estimate for certain size groups of June sucker. The following population estimate only includes the number of June sucker caught and marked in 2000 and the recaptures of these marked fish in 2001. The main population estimate assumptions likely violated were: 1) no mortalities during the sampling period and 2) no immigration or recruitment during the sampling period. The smallest size group caught in 2001 may not have been of a sufficient size to have been effectively sampled in 2000. The running Schnabel population estimate and 95% Cls for wild June sucker in Camp Creek Reservoir during 2001was1679<6045<60450 individuals (Table 6). Water temperature was 22 °C at 1250 hours. Ogden Na tu re Center In 2001, eight June sucker (4.0/net hour) were caught in the two hour trammel net set (Table 5). Six of these fish were determined to be a result of natural reproduction in Arrowhead Pond. Naturally reproduced fish are evident because they do not have missing fins, scoliosis, fin clip(s), etc. of which is evident in all stocked fish. The naturally reproduced June sucker averaged 393 mm TL (3 70mm-4 l 5mm), whereas the mean length of the two stocked June sucker was 448 mm TL (417mm-478mm) (Table 3). Both of the stocked June sucker were recaptures. One fish was originally caught and tagged in 1998 and the other fish was originally caught and tagged in 1997 and again caught in 1999 (Appendix A). The naturally produced June sucker caught in 1999-200 l were not included in the population estimate for stocked June sucker. The running Schnabel population estimate and 95% Cls for stocked June sucker in Arrowhead Pond was 95<155<269 individuals (Table 6). This population estimate assumes no mortality of stocked fish since 1997, consequently, the estimate may be high. Water temperature was 14 °C at 1315 hours. 4 Discussion Camp Creek Reservoir The population of June sucker in Camp Creek Reservoir appears to be healthy based on the number of captures in 1997 (n=l20), 1998 (n=54), 1999 (n=l34), 2000 (n=97 wild fish), and 2001 (n=l31 wild fish) and evidence of natural recruitment. All of the June sucker caught in 1997-2001 (excluding the six hatchery fish caught during 2000 and 2001 monitoring efforts) appear to be the result from natural recruitment, since adult fish captures were all >387 mm TL in 1995 and >474 mm TL in 1996. Natural reproduction has been documented since 1991 with juvenile June sucker captures in 1991, 1994, and 1996-2001(Tables1and4). Although gear types and sampling methods have varied through the sampling history of Camp Creek Reservoir, more June sucker were captured with similar to less effort in 1997-2001 than years previous (see Table 1 ). Trammel net catch between 1997 (11.5/net hour), 1998 (11.2/net hour), and 1999 (11.7/net hour) was similar. More June sucker were caught by trammel net in 2000 (35.0/net hour) and 2001 (20.0/net hour), however, water levels were significantly lower during these years due to drought conditions and the larger June sucker were likely congregated. Gill net catch was lower in 1998 (4.8/net hour) and 2000 (7.3/net hour) as compared to 1997 (22.2/net hour), 1999 (21.8/net hour) and 2001 (29.5/net hour), but this was likely a function of the missing smaller age groups in 1998 and 2000 (Figure 1). The smaller age group that was missing in 1998 was present in 1999 (Figure 1) and the smaller age group present in 2000 had recruited into the larger age group in 2001 (Figure 1). No June sucker from the original 1987 stocking were encountered during monitoring efforts in 1997-2001. Several hypotheses alone or in combination may explain the lack of captures. One hypothesis is the location of the net sets; larger June sucker may be in the deepest part of the reservoir and therefore were not susceptible to the sampling gear. A second hypothesis is that the original population is in low numbers, which prevented any captures. In the early 1990s, Camp Creek Reservoir was drained almost entirely (B. Nielson 1997, UDWR, personal communication), which may have reduced the number of June sucker present from the original plant. Boyd Warr, the present landowner of Camp Creek, informed the UDWR that he currently maintains a conservation pool in Camp Creek Reservoir for June sucker. Thirty-five of the 120 June sucker caught in 1997 were PIT-tagged. Because catch in 1997 was larger than in previous years (Table 1), enough PIT-tags were not available to tag each individual June sucker. In 1998, 51 of the 54 June sucker caught were PIT-tagged. One June sucker (87 mm TL) was too small to tag and two June sucker were recaptures. In 1999, 129 of the 134 June sucker caught were PIT-tagged. Four fish were recaptures and one fish escaped before being tagged. Three of the recaptures had been originally tagged in 1997 (Appendix A). In 2000, 92 of the 100 June sucker caught were PIT-tagged. Seven fish were recaptures and one fish escaped before being tagged. Three of the June sucker were recaptures from the stocking of hatchery fish in June 2000. Two of the recaptured wild June sucker in 2000 had been originally tagged in 1998 and the other two recaptured June sucker had been originally tagged in 1999 (Appendix A). In 2001, 62of135 June sucker caught were PIT-tagged. Sixty June sucker were sacrificed for disease certification at the Fisheries Experiment Station. Seven June sucker were recaptures with 4 being wild fish and 3 recaptures of hatchery fish from the stocking in June 2000. Five June 5 sucker were released after being weighed and measured and one fish escaped before a PIT tag could be administered. All of the wild June sucker recaptures through time have been older, larger fish (Appendix A), consequently, growth was minimal through time. The June sucker recaptures in 2001 had lost weight (Appendix A), which may indicate that the drought has lowered the condition of the fish in Camp Creek Reservoir. A Schnabel (1938) population estimate was obtained in 2001 for wild June sucker (1679<6045<60450). Because Camp Creek Reservoir has a naturally reproducing population of June sucker, the assumption of no immigration or recruitment into a population creates a problem when calculating a population estimate. The population estimate for 2001 only included the number of June sucker caught and marked in 2000 and the number of recaptured June sucker in 2001. Because only two wild June sucker were recaptures from the tagging in 2000, the population estimate may not be close to the true population. Evidence of this is the broad 95% confidence intervals (Table 6). Sampling in subsequent years will continue to follow the protocol used in 1997-2001. Gill nets were not an original component in the sampling design, however, the differences in age class catch between the two gear types (trammel versus experimental gill nets), in conjunction with zero sampling mortality from 1997-2000, warrants continued use of gill nets. A few June sucker mortalities were experienced in gill nets during 2001, however, these fish were included as part of the 60 fish needed for disease certification. These mortalities were likely a function of the warmer water/air temperatures experienced with the earlier sampling period of August. The gill nets tend to catch smaller age classes than the trammel net. In 1997, the trammel net caught all but two of the larger June sucker age group, which was the largest age group caught that year. In 1998, the trammel net caught all of the larger age group of June sucker, which again was the largest age group caught that year. In 1999, the trammel net caught only the larger age group of June sucker, while the gill nets caught the smaller two age groups of June sucker. Again in 2000 and 2001, the trammel net caught most of the larger age group. Ogden Nature Center June sucker persist in Arrowhead Pond at the Ogden Nature Center. Although gear types have varied through the sampling history of Arrowhead Pond, more June sucker were caught in 1997 (n=16), 1998 (n=36), 1999 (n=33), 2000 (n=16), and 2001 (n=8) than in 1996 (n=4) and 1995 (n=6). Catch-per-effort data collected in 1997-2001 is difficult to compare to previous years data because of the difference in gear types used. Catch-per-effort between 1997-2000 was similar with estimates between 7.7/net hour and 18.0/net hour. Catch-per-effort was lower in 2001 (4.0/net hour) (Table 5). Arrowhead Pond is a small pond and the one trammel net extends almost entirely across the pond, making sampling of this pond extremely effective. Ninety-one June sucker have been PIT-tagged in Arrowhead Pond between 1997-2001. Seventy- three of these tagged fish were stocked June sucker, while 18 fish were naturally produced in the pond. Growth data obtained from PIT tagging has varied between individual fish (Appendix A). Assuming no mortality, a Schnabel (1938) population estimate was obtained in 2001 for stocked June sucker (95<155<269). Because sampling Arrowhead Pond with a trammel net is effective, 6 a population estimate with relatively tight 95% Cls is possible. Until 1999, no natural reproduction of June sucker was observed in Arrowhead Pond. Reproduction was not thought possible in Arrowhead Pond because the substrate is mud and there is no inflow or outflow (Thompson 1998). In addition, green sunfish are in high densities in Arrowhead Pond (1997 sampling produced 372/trap net hour; Table 3) and likely would consume any June sucker larvae if June sucker are reproducing. In spite of this, two naturally reproduced June sucker were caught in 1999, 11 in 2000, and five untagged fish in 2001. One wild June sucker caught in 2001 was a recapture from 2000. These fish were not included in the population estimate for stocked June sucker. These fish were determined to be naturally reproduced because they did not have missing fins, scoliosis, fin clip(s), etc. of which is evident in all stocked fish. Upon further investigation in 1999 and 2000, gravels are present in parts of Arrowhead Pond and ground water upwelling evidently keeps the gravels oxygenated and clear of silt, however marginal this may be. The potential exists that additional year classes of naturally produced June sucker occur in Arrowhead Pond. The sampling technique used (trammel net) targets larger fish, consequently, until smaller June sucker recruit into the gear type, they would not be sampled. Eleven of the 16 June sucker caught in 2000 and six of the eight caught in 2001 were naturally reproduced and the ratio of hatchery versus wild fish in the future will likely continue to favor the naturally reproduced fish. Sampling in subsequent years will follow the protocol established in 1997. If additional year classes of June sucker are present in Arrowhead Pond, they will eventually be caught by the trammel net. With a standardized sampling protocol, trend data will become available on the June sucker population in Arrowhead Pond. June sucker will continue to be PIT-tagged in subsequent years, allowing a more precise population estimate through the Schnabel (1938) multiple-census mark-recapture estimate. Recommendations Camp Creek Reservoir 1) PIT-tag all June sucker encountered during sampling in order to obtain a tighter population estimate for this reservoir. 2) If the genetic background of the Camp Creek Reservoir June sucker is not known, conduct genetic testing so that these fish could be used for broodstock, in accordance with the June Sucker Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999), if so desired. Eight fin clips collected in 1992 and nine clips in 1994 (Table 1) should provide background data. Additional tissue can be collected. Ogden Nature Center Arrowhead Pond 1) PIT-tag all June sucker encountered during sampling in order to obtain a tighter population estimate for this reservoir. 7 TRANSFER TO UTAH LAKE Introduction The June sucker technical team approved a scope-of-work to capture and move between 500- 1,000 June sucker from Camp Creek Reservoir to Utah Lake during the calendar year 2001. Methods Camp Creek Reservoir was netted on October 9-10, 2001. Two gill nets and between 2-4 trammel nets (interior mesh size 1 inch and Y2 inch) were set and pulled hourly. The trammel nets with 1 inch interior mesh were 100 feet in length, the trammel nets with Y2 inch interior mesh were 200 feet in length, and the gill nets were 100 feet in length. Following Y2 day of netting, the smallest mesh size was removed from the gill nets. June sucker caught were placed in large garbage cans that were filled with water. The garbage cans were located within a boat from where the June sucker were transported to live cages or moved directly to a processing table following the pulling of each net. All June sucker(> 180 mm TL) were measured to the nearest millimeter (mm) TL, weighed to the nearest gram (g), and scanned to determine if they had been PIT-tagged previously. If no PIT-tag existed, the June sucker was PIT-tagged and placed into a hatchery truck. If the June sucker had been previously PIT-tagged, the PIT-tag number was used to determine if the June sucker was a wild fish previously tagged during monitoring efforts or if the June sucker was a hatchery reared fish. All hatchery reared June sucker were placed in a live cage located within Camp Creek Reservoir and released back into the reservoir following the netting. If the PIT- tagged June sucker were wild fish, they were placed in the hatchery truck for transport to Utah Lake. Any June sucker mortality was placed in a zip lock bag, placed on ice, and frozen at the earliest time possible. Results and Discussion Nine hundred and twenty-seven wild June sucker were processed and placed into the hatchery truck for transport to Utah Lake. Some June sucker between 160-179 mm TL were processed (Figure 2) because the net catch of June sucker on October l01h declined to the point where few fish were being caught/net. Two June sucker died before the transport to Utah Lake and the PIT- tags were removed from these fish. During the netting effort, 35 June sucker were recaptures with 12 fish being hatchery June sucker and 23 being wild June sucker (Appendix A). The twelve hatchery June sucker were released back into Camp Creek Reservoir. One hatchery June sucker had a PIT-tag number that indicated that it was a fish from the original June sucker plant in 1987 in Camp Creek Reservoir. Apparently, a few original June sucker remain in the reservoir. Of the 23 wild June sucker, 18 were moved to Utah Lake and five were released back into Camp Creek Reservoir (Appendix A). 8 An additional five June sucker died during netting efforts. These seven June sucker in addition to one young-of-year June sucker that was observed on the shoreline of Camp Creek Reservoir were frozen and will be transported to the BYU museum. Nine hundred twenty five June sucker were transported to Utah Lake where they were stocked during the evening of October 10, 2001. Following stocking, five June sucker were observed dead and collected. On October 11, 2001, an additional three June sucker were found dead and collected. These eight fish are currently being held at the BYU museum. A total of 917 live June sucker were released into Utah Lake. REFERENCES Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. University of British Columbia, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, New York. Nielson, B. 1997. Personal communication. Bear Lake Project Leader, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Garden City, Utah. Radant, R. L. and D. K. Sakaguchi. 1981. Utah Lake fisheries inventory. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 8-07-40-80634. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Routledge, D. 1997. Personal communication. Hatchery Supervisor, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Fisheries Experiment Station, Logan, Utah. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation ofbiological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 191:382 p. Schnabel, Z. E. 1938. The estimation of the total fish population of a lake. American Mathematical Monographs 45:348-368. Thompson, P. 1998. 1998 June sucker (Chasmistes /iorus) monitoring activities in the Northern Region. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ogden, Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 1984. June sucker management plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule determining the June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) to be an endangered species with critical habitat. Federal Register 51(61):10851-10857. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 61pp. 9 ------ - . .., - --- ------- --·- ----- ---"-M -------- , - ----"-·t' - ----- ------· -- - - - -- - ---- , .... ~ ... -- -- - --- - ----/· Date Sampling method Number Age- Avg. Length Catch-Per- Notes Caught class (range) mm TL Unit-Effort 05/ 18-19/88 trap nets 2 NR NR NR 04125190 exp. gill nets 5 adult 403 (3 84-421) NR 05101190 seme 8 adult 416 (382-436) NR 04/ 18/91 3, exp. gill nets 23 21 adult 413 (362-437) 7.5/net hr 2juv 182, 193 06/06-06/91 75' trammel nets 55 37 adult (367-457) 0.5/net hr 150' exp. gill nets 18juv (183-235) 04192 exp. gi II nets NR NR NR NR "Significant" #'s of June sucker caught while netting for cutthroat 08/31/92 2, 75' trammel nets 19 adult 400 (350-460) 6.3/net hr 8 fish were fin clipped for genetics, clips sent to BYU 06115 -1 6194 2, overnight exp. gill 25 14 adult 398 (359-427) NR 9 fish were fin clipped for genetics nets 11 juv 245 (226-258) 11 /03-04/94 1 trammel net 0 NA NA O/net hr 06121-22195 1 exp. gill net 12 adult 457 (387-478) 0.79/net hr 10/25-26/95 1 exp. gill net l adult 446 0 .07/net hr June sucker was fin clipped 09123-24196 exp. gill net(s) 9 2 adult 494,474 NR One adult June sucker mortality 5juv 226 (210-241 ) 2juv 104, 106 10 Table 2. June sucker stocked into Ogden Nature Center ponds. * Year Date Pond Lot Number Fish Number Total FES class stocked stocked /kg stocked Length tank # (mm) 1987 5120193 Arrowhead ???? 0.38 12 324 NIA 1989 5120193 Arrowhead ???? 0.25 1 302 NIA ???? 3128194 Arrowhead ???? ???? 120 ???? NIA 1989 4129194 Arrowhead 89SKJN-USU* 2.01 544 190 JS-7 & Teal 1989 4129194 Arrowhead 89SKJN-USU* 1.99 76 191 JS-5 & Teal 1991 4129194 Arrowhead 910523SKJNUL01** 4.27 707 147 JS-3 & Teal Eggs were collected from the Provo River during the 1989 spawning run from Utah Lake. The eggs were hatched at Utah State University and the fish were transferred to FES on August 6, 1991. The June sucker averaged 77 mm on the date of transfer. ** Eggs were collected from the Provo River during the 1991 spawning run from Utah Lake. The eggs were hatched at Utah State University and the fish were transferred to FES on June 8, 1992. 11 Table 3. June sucker monitoring efforts, Ogden Nature Center 1995-1996. Date Sampling method Number Age- Avg. Length Catch- Right Notes Caught class (range) mm Per-Unit- pelvic Effort fin clip Arrowhead Pond 06120195 1 exp. gill net 6 adult 357 (238-399) 4.81net hr 5 of6 09125196 1 exp. gill net 4 adult 368 (335-388) l .451net 4of4 l painted turtle and 17 green sunfish hr caught in the gill net. Mosquitofish observed. 07118197* 2 traplfyke nets 0 NIA NIA NIA NIA 2 painted turtles and 1117 green sunfish (4'x3' opening) were caught in 3 trap hours. Mosquitofish observed. Teal Pond 06120195 1 exp. gill net 0 NIA NIA NIA NIA 29 green sunfish were caught in the gill net. 07118197* boat 0 NIA NIA NIA NIA 40-50 green sunfish and bluegill were electro fishing caught in 1-112 hours of electrofishing. Mosquitofish observed. * Sampling was part of a demonstration for the Ogden Nature Center. 12 Table 4. Standardized Monitoring of Camp Creek Reservoir, 1997-2001. Date Sampling method Number Probable Avg. Length (range) Catch-Per- fin clips Notes Caught age-class mm Unit-Effort Camp Creek Reservoir Trammel Net 10/28/97 1 75' trammel net 31 ~ age-3+ 340 (309-362) 11.5/net hr* no clips 11 /04/98 I I 00' trammel net 33 ~ age-3+ 350 (290-406) 11.2/net hr no clips 10111199 1 I 00' trammel net 46 ~ age-3+ 354 (300-461) 11.7/net hr no clips 10/23/00 1 100' trammel net 74 ~ age-3+ 338 (280-420) 35.0/net hr no clips 08/13/01 I I 00' trammel net 40
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=77842
group__id
5eb1badcd420f9.05132717
document_format
1.1.7
disabled
-1
processing_date
1609350721
year
2001
hash
Array ( [document] => eca60c3f3cbfea671e8f3bf61dff5bc2db30f79f [content] => bdbe4db464873083559bd67eb1afb14d2c9b0b28 [dedupe] => 0af78d8ebef65cf0783158c3af582939fc76641c )
id
doc-5eb1badd82ecd30a2f025edb
__hash__
Content: bdbe4db464873083559bd67eb1afb14d2c9b0b28 | Abstract: 04bc7caff7084ca0a373f32904ba00347428a4ba