Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr20191075

Examination of movements and survival of Pahranagat roundtail chub (Gila robusta jordani) in the Pahranagat River and adjacent waters, Nevada, 2014–18

Abstract

Executive Summary The Pahranagat roundtail chub ( Gila robusta jordani ; hereinafter “chub”) was federally listed as endangered in 1970 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1970). In the decades following the listing, the chub has declined to extremely low numbers (Tuttle and others, 1990; Guadalupe, 2014). Loss of available habitat appears to be one of the main reasons for the decline of this species. Historically, the chub are assumed to have had approximately 30 kilometers (km) of habitat available to them, whereas currently they appear to primarily occupy 3.5 km of the Pahranagat River, up to 2.5 km of the Pahranagat Ditch, and a small portion of the Pahranagat Drain. Each year in mid-March, a gate at the top of the fish passage structure is closed to divert water down the Pahranagat Ditch, almost completely eliminating any flow into the Pahranagat Drain. The gate is usually removed in mid-October, allowing for flow to reoccur in the Pahranagat Drain. Due to the intermittent nature of the Pahranagat Drain, it is considered a sink for the species, and yearly salvage operations are conducted to remove chub from the Pahranagat Drain. The lower portion of the Pahranagat Ditch is also thought to be a sink for the species, due to high flows and limited structure potentially pushing the chub out of the system. Movements of passive-integrated-transponder (PIT) tagged chub indicate that adults and larger juveniles are not likely to be swept downstream to the point of exiting the system; however, the smaller juveniles and larvae are likely to be entrained in the Pahranagat Drain and possibly the lower portion of the Pahranagat Ditch. Only 2 of 64 PIT-tagged chub (3 percent) were observed to exit the system through the Pahranagat Ditch as they were last recorded on the Lower Ditch antenna. No PIT-tagged chub was observed exiting the system through the Pahranagat Drain. Although capture location was a good predictor of where PIT tagged fish were primarily detected, fish were observed to meander throughout the available habitat. Chub captured and released in the Pahranagat River were detected more often in the upper portion of the Pahranagat River, whereas chub captured and released in the Pahranagat Ditch were more often detected in and near the Pahranagat Ditch. This suggests some degree of site fidelity. However, the two chub that were captured in the Pahranagat Drain and relocated into the middle portion of the Pahranagat River near the Between Bridges antenna were not able to get back to the closed off Pahranagat Drain (closed to fish passage from mid-March through mid-October), but were primarily detected in and near the Pahranagat Ditch. Movements from one end of the system to the other end of the system (3.5 km) could occur within a day and there were no observed seasonal location preferences for the chubs. However, there was more activity in the uppermost sites during fall and winter, presumedly associated with spawning. Furthermore, chub were found to be more active during the daylight hours in fall and winter verses spring and summer. During summer, chubs were the least active, especially during daylight hours. Most of the fish tagged were estimated to be adults based on size; 84 percent of fish tagged in this study were greater than 100 millimeters (mm) total length (TL). One chub monitored during this study (139 mm TL when tagged) was observed for a total of 714 days following capture, indicating that chub can survive at least 3 years. Furthermore, two fish greater than 200 mm TL when tagged were detected for another 7 months after tagging, which supports life history descriptions in the Recovery Plan that states Pahranagat roundtail chub can reach 250 mm TL (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). In addition to natural mortality events, fish may die from extreme temperatures or other environmental stressors. None of the fish tagged in 2014 or 2015 were detected past August 31, 2016, which suggests that there may have been some external influence causing mortality of the few remaining fish from May 1, 2016, to August 31, 2016. Although habitat for chub has been limited for decades to a very small section of the Pahranagat River and the Pahranagat Ditch (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998), this study suggests that recent declining numbers of chub are most likely due to mortality events and not due to the fish emigrating from the system through the Pahranagat Ditch or the Pahranagat Drain.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.002085° to 42.002207° latitude; -120.005746° to -114.039648° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Barbara A. Martin, Brian S. Hayes, Alta C. Harris. 2019-07-08. Examination of movements and survival of Pahranagat roundtail chub (Gila robusta jordani) in the Pahranagat River and adjacent waters, Nevada, 2014–18. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191075

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona