Escalante River 2016 Flannelmouth Sucker ( Catostomus latipinnis ) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

escalante river 2016 flannelmouth sucker
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Escalante River 2016 Flannelmouth Sucker ( Catostomus latipinnis ) - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Escalante River 2016 Flannelmouth Sucker ( Catostomus latipinnis ) Large-bodied Protected under interstate Up to 30 inches conservation agreement Long lived Conservation actions Breed at 6 years of age Non-native


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Escalante River 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Flannelmouth Sucker

(Catostomus latipinnis)

  • Large-bodied

 Up to 30 inches

  • Long lived

 Breed at 6 years of age

  • Widely distributed

 Colorado River and

tributaries

 Recent population

declines

  • Threats

− Non-native fishes − Water development − Habitat fragmentation

  • Protected under interstate

conservation agreement

  • Conservation actions

− Non-native eradication − Allowing passage at diversions

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Bluehead Sucker

(Catostomus discobulus)

Medium sized

  • Grows to 14 inches

Widespread

  • Occupy higher

elevations than Flannelmouth Sucker

  • Also found in Snake

River and Bear River basins

Protected under

interstate conservation agreement

Conservation actions

  • Increasing passage at diversions
  • Non-native eradication
  • Threats
  • Water development
  • Hybridization with

non-native suckers

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Roundtail Chub

(Gila robusta)

 Large Minnow

  • Grows to 17 inches

 Widespread though rare

  • Inhabits Colorado River

main-stem and most large tributaries

  • Population declining
  • Lower Colorado River

population is a candidate for federal listing

 Threats

  • Habitat loss from water

development and river morphology changes (i.e. loss of sediment and temperature changes)

  • Non-native fishes

 Protected under interstate

conservation agreement

 Conservation actions

  • Non-native eradication
  • Habitat restoration including

flow regime alteration and non- native vegetation removal

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Sampling Reaches

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Sampling Methodology

 Sample 20 sites within each station

 Sites are contiguous areas of similar habitat (run, riffle,

pool, backwater);

 Select individual sites in proportion to the availability of

habitats

 Conduct three-pass depletion seining

 Attempt to seine ~ 5 x 10 m area (not always possible);  Seine by moving downstream;  Place fish from first two passes in separate buckets;

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Sampling Methodology

 Categorize site according to:

 Habitat type;  Dominant substrate type

 Habitat measurements…

 Measure width and length of area seined, using meter

tape;

 Estimate depth of area seined by averaging depths

experienced on each end of seine;

 Measure width and length of overall habitat sampled

(note >25 m for such areas).

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Results

 High abundance of Flannelmouth Sucker in Reach U2-

U1

 Abundance of Bluehead Sucker relatively low  No Roundtail Chub observed

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 U2 U1 L1 L2 L3 Number of fish per m³ Station

FMSU BHSU RTCH

2.27

SE 1.08

1.15

SE 0.46

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Results

 High numbers of Flannelmouth Sucker fry in reaches

U2-U1 (n=494; 88% of total FM captured in all reaches; 298 of total FM were not measured)

 Large adult FM congregated in Reaches L2-L3

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0-10 31-40 61-70 91-100 121-130 151-160 181-190 211-220 241-250 271-280 301-310 331-340 361-370 391-400 421-430 451-460 481-490 511-530

Number of Flannelmouth Sucker

Total length (mm)

186

N=262

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Results

 Very few Bluehead Suckers captured (n=7)  408 unidentifiable Sucker fry 11-30 mm captured; 91%

  • f those captured in Reaches U2-U1

 215 unidentifiable fry captured; 96% of those captured

in Reaches U2-U1

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 11-20 31-40 51-60 71-80 91-100 111-120 131-140 151-160 171-180 191-200 211-220 231-240 251-260 271-280 291-300 311-320 331-340 351-360 371-380 391-400

Number of Bluehead Sucker

Total length (mm)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Results

 42 Speckled Dace

captured

 76 % captured in

Reaches U2-U1

 Multiple ages classes;

reproduction confirmed

5 10 15 20 25 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130

Number of Speckled Dace

Total length (mm)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Non native fish captures

 18 Brown Trout captured; 94% were captured in

Reaches L1-L2

 Calf Creek inflow at beginning of Reach L1 the likely

source

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0-10 31-40 61-70 91-100 121-130 151-160 181-190 211-220 241-250 271-280 301-310 331-340 361-370 391-400 421-430 451-460 481-490 511-530

Number of Brown Trout

Total length (mm)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Habitat

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

U2 U1 L1 L2 L3 Proportion of sites Station Run Riffle Pool

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 U2 U1 L1 L2 L3

Proportion of sites Station Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock

slide-14
SLIDE 14

2009-2016

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 U2 U1 L1 L2 L3

Flannelmouth Sucker per m3 Station 2009 2011 2013 2015 2016

2.27 SE 1.07 1.16 SE 0.46

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 U2 U1 L1 L2 L3

Bluehead Sucker per m3 Station 2009 2011 2013 2015 2016

slide-15
SLIDE 15

2009-2016

10 20 30 40 50 60 U2 U1 L1 L2 L3 Number Flannelmouth Sucker captured Station

2009 2011 2013 2015 2016

n=323 n=181

10 20 30 U2 U1 L1 L2 L3 Number Bluehead Sucker captured Station

2009 2011 2013 2015 2016

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Hoop Netting

 Goal; to collect

Roundtail Chub fin clips for genetic analysis prior to supplemental stocking.

 provide an additional

sampling effort for Three Species monitoring of the Escalante River

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Methods

 15 nets

 Set over a two day period  Set overnight  Set in locations where

RTCH were caught in previous sampling efforts (2015)

 Targeted RTCH habitat

(deep pools with low velocity, deep runs w/cover)

 Water depth, temperature,

set time, UTM at each site.

slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Methods

 Pull nets the next day  Fish collected in live

wells

 All fish measured  Non-natives removed  Natives released

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Results

 No Roundtail Chub captured

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 CPUE SPECIES

Flannelmouth Sucker Bluehead Sucker Specled Dace Brown Trout Flathead Catfish

Flannelmouth Sucker Bluehead Sucker Speckled Dace Brown Trout Flathead Catfish Total captures 80 19 34 6 3 Adult 0.293 0.070 0.125 0.022 0.011 Young 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0.293 0.070 0.125 0.022 0.011

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0-10 31-40 61-70 91-100 121-130 151-160 181-190 211-220 241-250 271-280 301-310 331-340 361-370 391-400 421-430 451-460

Number of Flannelmouth Sucker

Total length (mm)

N=80

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150 161-170 181-190 201-210 221-230 241-250 261-270 281-290

Number of Bluehead Sucker

Total length (mm)

N=19

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Spot seining

 Seined pools and runs

not ideal for hoop nets between sets

 All fish captured were

identified and measured

 Non-natives were

removed

 Natives released

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Results

1 CPE = catch per effort

Table 1. Total fish captured and catch per effort during spot seining of the Escalante River, June 26-27, 2016. Date Number of Seine Hauls Flannelmouth Sucker Bluehead Sucker Specled Dace Browm Trout Total CPE1 Total CPE1 Total CPE1 Total CPE1 6/27/2016 60 23 0.383 8 0.133 5 0.083 3 0.050 6/28/2016 43 38 0.884 11 0.256 2 0.047 1 0.023 Total 103 61 0.592 19 0.184 7 0.068 4 0.039

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0-10 31-40 61-70 91-100 121-130 151-160 181-190 211-220 241-250 271-280 301-310 331-340 361-370 391-400 420-430 451-460

Number of Flannelmouth Sucker

Total length (mm)

N=61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0-10 21-30 41-50 61-70 81-90 101-110 121-130 141-150 161-170 181-190 201-210 221-230 241-250 261-270 281-290 301-310

Number of Bluehead Sucker

Total length (mm)

N=19

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Conclusion

 Native sucker

reproduction confirmed

 Recruitment from 2015

year class was unconfirmed

 Large, older adult native

sucker population is robust

 No Roundtail Chub

present in sampling reaches