Project Details

June sucker (Chasmistes liorus), listed as S2 (imperiled) and N1 (critically imperiled) in Utah's 2015 Wildlife Action Plan, were recently downlisted from endangered to threatened (USFWS 2021), due largely to increased abundance of spawning adults, successful hatchery operations, and the completion of extensive habitat restoration efforts. However, despite the increased abundance of spawning adults, recruitment of wild individuals to the adult population remains exceedingly rare (Wolff et al. 2013; Clark Barkalow and Urioste 2022), as the recent increase in abundance is largely due to highly successful hatchery operations. Recent survival studies indicate extremely low survival of June sucker less than 200mm, with a rapid increase in survival as individuals grow from 200 to 300mm (Fonken et al. 2023), suggesting a predation bottleneck is limiting recruitment of wild individuals to the population.

Fishes can avoid predation either by occupying complex habitats in which their probability of being detected and captured by predators is reduced, or by altering their behavior in the presence of predators to avoid detection. Ongoing restoration projects in spawning tributaries (i.e., Hobble Creek and the Provo River Delta) have targeted the restoration of vegetated refugia to improve juvenile June sucker survival. Many fishes across a diversity of classes and families produce alarm substances that, when detected in the water column, cause conspecifics to demonstrate a fright response by either seeking refuge habitats or reducing movement to avoid detection (reviewed by Brown 2003). The presence of alarm substance producing cells have been found in the epidermis of several species of Catostomids and other members of the Cypriniformes order (Pfeiffer 1977). As such, it is likely that June sucker, as members of the Catostomidae family, also produce and react to alarm substances to reduce susceptibility to predation.

Copper pollution occurs widely across the globe, as copper is produced from many anthropogenic activities, including mining, brake pad wear, and different pesticides (Davis et al. 2001; McIntyre et al. 2012). While high concentrations of copper can be directly toxic to fishes and other taxa, even low concentrations of copper can have indirect toxic effects on fishes. Specifically, copper has been demonstrated to inhibit the ability of juvenile fish to detect the presence of their alarm substance in the water column, suggesting copper can increase the susceptibility of juvenile fishes to predation (McIntyre et al. 2012).

Copper pollution may be of particular importance to June sucker in Utah Lake and its tributaries for two reasons. First, the watershed surrounding Utah Lake has experienced rapid human population growth, providing the conditions for increased copper runoff from roads in the surrounding watershed (Davis et al. 2001). Second, copper-sulfate (CuSO4) based products have recently been deployed to combat harmful algal blooms in marinas around Utah Lake. If either or both of these sources have elevated copper concentrations in the lake sufficiently to inhibit June sucker's ability to detect their alarm substance, copper pollution could be driving artificially elevated predation mortality on wild-hatched June sucker, thereby limiting recovery.

References:

Brown, G.E., 2003. Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and local risk assessment in prey fishes. Fish and Fisheries, 4(3), pp.227-234.

Clark Barkalow, S.L. and Urioste, A.D., 2022. Investigating origins of unmarked June sucker using elemental microchemistry. Report the the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program. American Southwest Ichthyological Researchers, Albuquerque.

Davis, A.P., Shokouhian, M. and Ni, S., 2001. Loading estimates of lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc in urban runoff from specific sources. Chemosphere, 44(5), pp.997-1009.

Fonken, D.R., Conner, M.M., Walsworth, T.E. and Thompson, P.D., 2023. Benefits of stocking fewer but larger individuals with implications for native fish recovery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 80(3), pp.439-450.

McIntyre, J.K., Baldwin, D.H., Beauchamp, D.A. and Scholz, N.L., 2012. Low level copper exposures increase visibility and vulnerability of juvenile coho salmon to cutthroat trout predators. Ecological Applications, 22(5), pp.1460-1471.

Pfeiffer, W., 1977. The distribution of fright reaction and alarm substance cells in fishes. Copeia, pp.653-665.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2021. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened with a Section 4(d) Rule, 86 FR 192, 192-212.

Wolff, B.A., Johnson, B.M. and Landress, C.M., 2013. Classification of hatchery and wild fish using natural geochemical signatures in otoliths, fin rays, and scales of an endangered catostomid. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 70(12), pp.1775-1784.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

This project will take place at the Technical and Experimental Aquatics Laboratory (TEAL) located within the Millville Aquatic Research Facility (Utah State University, Millville Utah). The 60' x 30' facility features multiple recirculating, and flow through, aquaculture and treatment tanks. This is a dead-end facility; the effluent from treatment tanks undergoes mechanical filtration (<40 ÃÂÃÂµm) and UV sterilization before release into a settling pond. TEAL has well-water that is conducive for June Sucker husbandry. Additionally, TEAL is within 10 miles of UDWR's Logan Fish Hatchery, which produces June Sucker for Utah Lake restocking programs. The proximity to UDWR personnel will help facilitate collaboration between entities and will reduce logistical restraints regarding the transfer of June Sucker to the research facility.

Additionally, we will collect water samples from multiple locations around Utah Lake, including the Provo River Delta, Hobble Creek, Utah Lake State Park Marina, and open water outside of the state park marina.

With the recent downlisting of June Sucker, responsible management agencies and stakeholders are working to identify the management actions necessary to achieve population status that would warrant delisting of the June sucker. As the recruitment bottleneck of young June suckers is a primary limitation on recovery, determining the role dissolved copper may be playing in predation mortality is critical.

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

Environmental Concentrations of Copper:

Three water samples will be collected three times from each of four sites around Utah Lake: Utah Lake State Park marina, Utah Lake (offshore from Skipper Bay), Provo River Delta, and Hobble Creek. We will collect samples at three time periods throughout the year to assess the temporal variation in Cu concentrations. Water samples will be analyzed by the University of Utah's ICP-MS Metals and Strontium Isotope Facility.

Fish Behavior Experiments:

Treatment Fish -

Sixty June Sucker <200mm TL (preferably age-0) from the Logan Fish Hatchery, will be transported to the hatchery at the Technical and Experimental Aquatics Laboratory (TEAL) located in Millville, UT. Fish will be acclimated to hatchery well-water and 30 fish will be stocked into each of two 300 gallon holding tanks. One holding tank will be randomly designated as the control group and the other as the copper treatment group.

Control Treatment -

One fish will be transferred from the 300 gallon holding tank to one of two 40 gallon aquaria supplied with aeration and pea gravel substrate. Fish will be allowed to acclimate to treatment aquariums for a minimum of 11 minutes before the start of treatment to reduce any fright-bias (Bain et al. 1985; Nemec et al. 2021). After 11 minutes, 0.5 ÃÂµg epidermal protein/L of aquarium water, acting as "alarm substance", will be introduced to each tank (Sandahl et al. 2007). A top-down positioned camera and a side-view camera will record fish behavior. We will measure the vertical and horizontal location of individuals in the tanks for the three minutes immediately before the addition of the alarm substance, for three minutes immediately following the addition of the alarm substance, and then for three minutes beginning ten minutes after the alarm substance is introduced. Frames taken every 3 seconds from the videos will be assessed for the fish's relative position within the tank as compared to the previous frame, allowing for the quantification of movement rates. After treatment, fish will be transferred to a separate, 300 gallon post-treatment holding tank. These methods will be repeated for the 29 remaining fish in the control group.

Cu Treatment -

Cu will be added to the two treatment tanks to create a concentration of 20 ÃÂµg Cu/L (McIntyre 2010). One fish will be transferred to one of two 40 gallon aquaria supplied with aeration and pea gravel substrate and will be left to acclimate for 11 minutes to reduce fright-bias and receive exposure of Cu for the 10 minutes necessary to fully induce alarm substance sensory inhibition (Baldwin et al. 2003). The same treatment protocol and data recording will be conducted as listed in the Control treatment.

Data Analysis:

The data collection protocol outlined above will result in 60 location observations per time frame (before, immediately after, and ten minutes after introduction of the alarm substance) per individual. From these data, we will calculate the vertical position for each image, and the rate of movement between sequential images. We will compare the vertical position and movement rates among time frames and treatments using linear mixed effects models. Additionally, we will examine step-change analyses to characterize the strength of the behavioral response of individuals with differential copper exposures when presented with the alarm substance.

References:

Bain, M.B., Finn, J.T., and Booke, H.E., 1985. A quantitative method for sampling riverine microhabitats by electrofishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 5(3b), pp. 489--493.

Baldwin, D. H., Sandahl, J. F., Labenia, J. S., and Scholz, N. L., 2003. Sublethal effects of copper on coho salmon: impacts on nonoverlapping receptor pathways in the peripheral olfactory nervous system. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal, 22(10), pp. 2266-2274.

McIntyre, J. K., 2010. Linking sublethal copper neurotoxicity to population survival in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Dissertation. University of Washington.

Nemec, Z.C., Lee, L.N., and Bonar, S.A., 2021. Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for native fishes in three Arizona streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 41(3), pp. 661--677.

Sandahl, J. F., Baldwin, D. H., Jenkins, J. J., and Scholz, N. L., 2007. A sensory system at the interface between urban stormwater runoff and salmon survival. Environmental science & technology, 41(8) pp: 2998-3004.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.