7155 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . -- - .. , 59 UTAH ACADEMY PROCEEDINGS, VOL. 51, PART 2,1974 the Virgin River chub. A Wound fin Recovery Team has been established to monitor woundfm abundance and expand reintroduction activities. The Bureau of Land Management is aJIIIducting aquatic habitat surveys to detennine woundfin habitat status. Recommendations It is recommended that studies of the range, abundance, and habitat for these fishes be continued on the Virgin River system to guard against further reductions. Reasons for the Rcent decline in Virgin River chub need to be determined. The spread of introduced species in the Virgin River should be halted. The feasibilily of rehabilitation programs to free . the streams of introduced species md placement of a suitable barrier should be considered. Utah wound5Dpopulations have shown no appre- ciable decrease in historical times. T1De major reason for this has been little alteration of the harsh Virgin River environment, favorable only to the highly specialized native fishes. Any 3iteration of the near natural stream system could be very detrimental to tltese fish in Nevada and Arizona as well as Utah. Proposals for dam comtroction and blockage of the highly saline La Verkin Spring are presently being considered. Either could be extremely dangerous to the remainilll native fish populations. Any altera- tion of the small, and hence easily .1lJlIOdified, Virgin River and tributaries should be discouraged. Reintroductm of all species into other suitable habitat, once such habitat is determined, remains a prime consideration. Bonneville ~ Fishes [otichthys phlegethontis-Least Chub Status: Endangered species Description: The least chub is a small cyprinid seldom exceeding 2 * inches in length (Figure 5). Lateral line scalm are 34-38, pharyngeal teeth 2, 54 2, dorsal fin rays 8 or 9, and anal filll JaYS 8. Males are olive green dorsally and steel blue laterally, with a golden band on the lower sides. The fins are often a lemon-amber. Females and Ylllll1g have dull green backs and silvery sides (Sigler and Miller, 1963). Leam chubs superficially resemble small Utah chubs but can be distinguished by a lower lateral line scale number (45-65 in Utah chub) and a dorsal 01iiJin behind the insertion of the pelvic fins (Utah chub dorsal origin directly over insertion ofpelvics) (Sigler and Miller, 1963). ....,... ---. -,"~-,-".~~_..'- . -I- , ~