National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project

Great Basin National Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2008/055 
ON THE COVER 

Reintroduced Bonneville cutthroat trout in South Fork Big Wash 

Photo by Tod Williams
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project

Great Basin National Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2008/055 

Gretchen Baker, Neal Darby and Tod Williams 

Great Basin National Park 

100 Great Basin National Park 

Baker, NV 89311 

John Wullschleger 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 250 

Fort Collins, CO 80525

September 2008 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado
The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation 

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information 

is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, 

and designed and published in a professional manner. 

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current 

natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a 

general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues 

of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series 

include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of 

resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or 

divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and 

regularly-published newsletters. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are solely 

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, NPS. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

Printed copies of reports in this series may be produced in a limited quantity and are only 

available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Natural Resource 

Publications Management Web site (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM) on the 

internet or by sending a request to the address on the back cover. 

Please cite this publication as: 

Baker, G., N. Darby, T. Williams, and J. Wullschleger. 2008. Bonneville cutthroat trout 

restoration project—Great Basin National Park. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—

2008/055. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS D-102, September 2008 

ii 
Contents Page

Figures...................................................................................................... vii 

Tables....................................................................................................... ix 

Executive Summary....................................................................................... xi 

Acknowledgements....................................................................................... xii 

Introduction................................................................................................ 1 

 Habitat................................................................................................. 3 

 Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Life History......................................................... 3 

 Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Restoration........................................................... 4 

Objectives.................................................................................................. 7 

Study Area................................................................................................. 7 

 Mill Creek............................................................................................. 7 

 South Fork Big Wash................................................................................ 9 

 Strawberry Creek.................................................................................... 9 

 Upper Snake Creek.................................................................................. 9 

 South Fork of Baker Creek......................................................................... 10 

 Lehman Creek......................................................................................... 10 

 Johnson Lake.......................................................................................... 10 

Methods................................................................................................... 13

 Genetic Analysis - Mill Creek and Strawberry Creek.......................................... 13 

 Steps to Reintroduction............................................................................. 13 

 Planning and Pre-treatment Surveys............................................................... 14 

 Chemical or Physical Treatment................................................................... 16

iii 
Contents (continued) Page

 Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring............................................................... 20 

 Ecosystem Recovery Monitoring.................................................................. 20 

 Reintroduction of BCT.............................................................................. 20

 BCT Population Monitoring........................................................................ 21 

 Creel Survey.......................................................................................... 21 

Results...................................................................................................... 23 

 Genetic Analysis - Mill Creek and Strawberry Creek........................................... 23 

 Planning and Pre-treatment Surveys............................................................... 23 

 Chemical or Physical Treatment.................................................................... 25 

 Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring............................................................... 29 

 Ecosystem Recovery Monitoring................................................................... 29 

 Reintroduction of BCT.............................................................................. 33 

 BCT Population Monitoring......................................................................... 34 

 Creel Survey........................................................................................... 39 

 Comparison of Treatment Methods................................................................ 39 

Discussion.................................................................................................. 41 

 Planning and Pre-treatment Surveys............................................................... 41 

 Chemical or Physical Treatment................................................................... 42 

 Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring.............................................................. 42 

 Ecosystem Recovery Monitoring.................................................................. 42 

 Reintroduction of BCT............................................................................. 43 

 BCT Population Monitoring....................................................................... 43 

iv 
Contents (continued) Page

 Restoring Native Fish Communities.............................................................. 44 

Literature Cited.......................................................................................... 45 

Appendix: Flow Test and Toxicity Test Results..................................................... 51

v 
vi 
Figures Page 

Figure 1. Great Basin National Park in relation to the ancient Lake Bonneville.................. 1 

Figure 2. Bonneville cutthroat trout illustration....................................................... 3 

Figure 3. Project area for Bonneville cutthroat trout restoration in Great Basin National 

Park, Nevada............................................................................................... 8 

Figure 4. Electrofishing survey to check for fish in Strawberry Creek............................. 9 

Figure 5. Electrofishing the meadow area of South Fork of Baker Creek......................... 10 

Figure 6. Johnson Lake is a sub-alpine lake that contained introduced brook trout.............. 10 

Figure 7. Upper Snake Creek treatment area marked in 100m elevation intervals............... 17 

Figure 8. Toxicity test to determine amounts of antimycin and potassium permanganate 

needed for treatment....................................................................................... 18 

Figure 9. Antimycin dispenser in Snake Creek....................................................... 18 

Figure 10. Measuring out antimycin for the drip station............................................ 19 

Figure 11. Using a backpack sprayer to treat a seep.................................................. 19 

Figure 12. View of Zodiac spreading antimycin in Johnson Lake................................. 20 

Figure 13. Streamside incubator with intake pipe..................................................... 21 

Figure 14. Putting fertilized eggs into the Whitlock-Vibert box................................... 21 

Figure 15. Total and EPT group abundance in Strawberry Creek prior to rotenone 

treatment and up to three years post-treatment...................................................... 30 

Figure 16. Total and EPT group richness in Strawberry Creek prior to rotenone 

treatment with and up to three years post-treatment................................................. 30 

Figure 17. Total and EPT group abundance in Snake Creek prior to antimycin 

treatment and up to one year post-treatment.......................................................... 31 

Figure 18. Total and EPT group richness in Snake Creek prior to antimycin 

treatment and up to one year post-treatment.......................................................... 31 

vii 
Figures (continued) Page 

Figure 19. Volunteers help reintroduce Bonneville cutthroat trout into Upper Snake Creek... 33 

Figure 20. Silt accumulation in streamside incubator after one day encouraged fungus 

growth......................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 21. Spawning period and water temperatures in Mill Creek, 2002........................ 34 

Figure 22. Streams with reintroduced populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout, Great Basin 

National Park ............................................................................................. 35 

Figure 23. Mature Bonneville cutthroat trout in the South Fork of Big Wash................... 36 

Figure 24. BCT length/frequency in Mill Creek in August 1999.................................. 37 

Figure 25. BCT length/frequency histogram for Mill Creek in August 2005..................... 37 

Figure 26. Length/frequency histogram for BCT moved from Mill Creek to South Fork Big 

Wash in July 2000......................................................................................... 37 

Figure 27. BCT length/frequency histogram for South Fork Big Wash in 2002................. 37 

Figure 28. BCT length/frequency histogram for South Fork Big Wash in 2004................. 37 

Figure 29. BCT length/frequency histogram for South Fork Big Wash in 2006................. 37 

Figure 30. BCT length/frequency histogram for Strawberry Creek in 2003..................... 38 

Figure 31. BCT length/frequency histogram for Strawberry Creek in 2004..................... 38 

Figure 32. BCT length/frequency histogram for Strawberry Creek in 2006..................... 38 

Figure 33. BCT length/frequency histogram for Snake Creek at lower site in 2007............ 38 

Figure 34. BCT length/frequency histogram for Snake Creek at upper site in 2007............ 38 

Figure 35. BCT length/frequency histogram for South Fork Baker Creek in 2007.............. 38 

viii 
Tables Page

Table 1. Ten-year timeline for BCT reintroduction set forth in the Great Basin National Park 

Bonneville cutthroat trout reintroduction and recreational fisheries management plan.......... 2 

Table 2. Comparison of treatment methods and their advantages and disadvantages............ 5 

Table 3. Pre-treatment surveys at stations............................................................. 15 

Table 4. Upstream limit of nonnative fish distribution in restoration streams of Great 

Basin National Park....................................................................................... 23 

Table 5. Pre-reintroduction fish populations in selected streams................................... 24 

Table 6. Basic water quality parameters in selected streams—average June 

Measurements, 2001-2002............................................................................... 24 

Table 7. Macroinvertebrates collected prior to stream treatments.................................. 25 

Table 8. Antimycin dispensed during August 2002 Upper Snake Creek treatment.............. 27 

Table 9. KMnO4 amounts and concentrations dispensed August 5-10, 2002..................... 27 

Table 10. Weekly pH readings for Johnson Lake, autumn 2004................................... 28 

Table 11. Taxonomic groups and the percent increases or decreases of contribution to 

differences in pre- and post-treatment similarity indices by treatment type...................... 32 

Table 12. BCT reintroduction sites and number of fish reintroduced............................. 33 

Table 13. BCT population status in the streams in Great Basin National Park.................. 36 

Table 14. Comparison of fish removal treatment costs............................................. 40 

Table 15. Toxicity of antimycin in Snake Creek water............................................. 51 

Table 16. KMnO4 demand in Snake Creek water.................................................... 51 

Table 17. KMnO4 toxicity in Snake Creek. ........................................................... 52 

ix 
x 
Executive Summary

The Bonneville cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarki utah; BCT) is the only salmonid native to 

east-central Nevada and to Great Basin National Park (the Park). It is identified as a priority 

species in the Park’s 1991 General Management Plan. At the time of the Plan’s completion, BCT 

populations throughout the area had been reduced by nearly 95% due to the introduction of 

nonnative fishes and habitat alterations. Timely actions by the Park and cooperating agencies 

have reduced the threat of extinction by restoring the species to four of six historically occupied 

watersheds within the Park. 

BCT reintroductions have taken place in Strawberry Creek, South Fork Big Wash, Upper Snake 

Creek, and South Fork Baker Creek. In addition, a population initially identified as hybridized in 

Mill Creek was shown by geneticists to be pure Bonneville cutthroat trout. Populations in Pine 

and Ridge Creeks on the west side of the Park were also identified as pure BCT. Currently, there 

are seven populations of BCT in 25 km (15 mi) of streams in and near the Park. The Park has 

instituted a BCT monitoring program that is helping to track the speed with which reintroduced 

fish populations become viable. Within the next five years, reestablished BCT populations are 

expected to expand and occupy 31 km (19 mi), or 52%, of their historic stream habitat within the 

Park. 

The BCT reintroduction project has also enabled the Park to obtain data on how other 

components of the aquatic ecosystem respond to different restoration techniques. In particular, it 

has added to the body of evidence that the piscicide antimycin is less detrimental to aquatic 

insects than rotenone. These results may help others planning similar projects. 

The Park’s work in BCT reintroduction was a major factor in the US Fish & Wildlife Service’s 

decision not to list the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This was 

a significant, proactive move by the Service that has eased any ESA regulatory burden on private 

landowners within the range of BCT in Nevada. As a result of this reintroduction project, the 

Park has strengthened its relationship with interagency partners and has become a leader in 

reestablishing BCT in Nevada. 

Specific accomplishments included: 

• Four populations of Bonneville trout were reestablished in Park stream reaches with a total 

length of 13.1 km (8.1 miles); two additional populations present in streams in and adjacent 

to the Park at the time the project began were determined to be genetically pure. 

• Reintroductions appear to have been successful, with all reintroduced populations showing 

recruitment and expansion of territory. 

• All populations were verified as genetically pure BCT. 

• Three fish removal methods were compared, including cost, effectiveness and impacts. 

• Data on recovery of aquatic macroinvertebrates following treatment with two different 

piscicides was collected and analyzed; results suggest difference in recovery rates under ideal 

and less than ideal conditions. 

• A detailed inventory of the macroinvertebrates and mollusks in the project streams was 

completed. 

xi 
xii 

• Valuable water chemistry data for five streams and one lake were collected and entered into 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s STORET water quality database. 

• Together with other agencies, the Park produced the brochure, Snake Range Recreational 

Fisheries, which informs anglers about the BCT restorations, aquatic ecosystems, potential 

diseases, and fishing license information, along with a full-color map. 

Acknowledgements 

Initial funding, from Trout Unlimited Embrace-a-Stream grants in 1999 and 2000, helped the 

Park purchase two backpack electrofishing units, nets, a portable fish tank, and other supplies 

necessary to conduct fish surveys. In addition, these grants supported the first macroinvertebrate 

identifications for the Park done by the National Aquatic Monitoring Center. From 2001 to 2004, 

the BCT program was funded by the NPS Natural Resources Preservation Program. This money 

helped hire a crew to do field work, pay for treatments and training and complete more 

macroinvertebrate analyses. From 2004 to 2005, NPS Pacific West Regional Resource funding 

was used to complete the reintroductions and to conduct basic monitoring. 

Many people have assisted throughout this project. Special thanks go to Meg Horner and Ryan 

Thomas for their years of help with this project. In addition, we thank the following biological 

technicians and volunteers: Kelley Garrison, Becky Williams, Patrick O’Brien, Karla Jageman, 

Sarah Thomas (2007); Brittany Timm and RaeJean Layland (2006); Mark Wiley (2005); Tana 

Ellis, Maggie Allan, Eric Scott, and Cole Neill (2004); Rob Colvin, Matt Proett, Stephanie 

Leslie, Nancy Williams, Missy Brickl, Heather Vice, and Bryan Hamilton (2003); Fred Gender, 

Sabrina DeRusseau, Ray Hickey, Bryan Hamilton and Karinne Knutsen (2002); and Marilyn 

Keifenhiem (2001). We also thank the numerous volunteers who spent over 1,000 hours assisting 

on a variety of projects, particularly the Southern Nevada Chapter of Trout Unlimited (Kevin 

Fedrizzi, Larry McCormick, Jennifer Coons, Jack Coons, Jack Clifton, Roy Creech, Alan Burke, 

and many more). We would also like to thank the US Fish & Wildlife Service (Bruce Rosenlund 

and Mark Maley), Nevada Department of Wildlife (Chris Crookshanks, John Elliott, and Bob 

Layton), Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Steve Moore and Matt Kulp), Crater Lake 

National Park (Mark Buktenica), Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (Kathy Johnson and Jim 

Harvey), and Ely Office of Bureau of Land Management (Paul Podborny and Shane DeForest). 

Comments from Mark Grover and Laura Belica improved this document. 

All photos are by Gretchen Baker, NPS, unless otherwise noted. 
Introduction 

Bonneville cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarki utah; hereafter referred to as BCT) were 

abundant throughout glacio-pluvial Lake Bonneville, including the Snake Valley arm of the lake, 

which reached to the edge of present day Great Basin National Park (the Park) (Figure 1). The 

Snake Valley arm was connected to Lake Bonneville during maximum lake levels 12,000 to 

15,000 years ago, when streams on the east side of the southern Snake Range flowed into this 

arm. When Lake Bonneville’s water level dropped, the Snake Valley population of BCT became 

isolated from the rest of the Bonneville Basin (Behnke 1976). Such reproductive isolation 

allowed sufficient time for considerable genetic divergence, and biologists consider the Snake 

Valley fish to be a unique race or group (Behnke 1988, 1992; Shiozawa et al. 1993) called the 

Western BCT (USDA Forest Service 1996). 

Although BCT are known to have occurred in Park streams 

historically, they are thought to have been eliminated by 

competition from introduced brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and 

brown trout (Salmo trutta) as well as by hybridization with 

rainbow trout. Habitat degradation due to intensive 

livestock grazing and water diversions may have also 

played a role in BCT disappearance (Sigler and Sigler 

1987). 

Great Basin National Park was established in 1986, 

transferring management of many of the streams in the 

southern Snake Range from the US Forest Service and 

Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) to the National 

Park Service (NPS). A General Management Plan, written 

for the Park in 1991, identified Bonneville cutthroat trout as 

a priority species because it is the only trout native to the 

Park and it was believed to have been extirpated. The Plan 

directed that park staff restore BCT to several park streams, 

consistent with NPS policies. 

Great 

Basin 

National 

Park

Figure 1. Great Basin National 

Park in relation to the ancient 

Lake Bonneville, shown as the 

light shaded area. 

In 1999, Park staff wrote a fisheries management plan 

(Williams et al. 1999) and accompanying environmental assessment for the Park, which 

identified two main objectives: reintroduce BCT to streams and monitor recreational fishing in 

streams not targeted for restoration. These documents, along with the Finding of No Significant 

Impact, were signed by the Regional Director on November 10, 1999. 

A ten-year timeline was developed (Table 1) to achieve the following goals: 1) obtain baseline 

conditions of terrestrial and aquatic organism presence, abundance and diversity; 2) determine if 

any species of concern were present; 3) determine which streams, if any, contained suitable 

habitat to support BCT; 4) implement an adaptive management strategy for reintroduction efforts 

and, 5) establish a baseline for restoration effectiveness monitoring after chemical renovation 

treatment and reintroduction. 

1 
Initial assessments indicated that removal of nonnative salmonids was necessary prior to 

reintroduction. Because this would likely require the use of piscicides, the effects on non-target 

organisms (e.g., macroinvertebrates, amphibians, etc.) were of concern. Unfortunately, 

quantitative information on the effects of piscicides on non-target organisms was limited and not 

directly applicable to Park streams. Thus, the restoration plan included acquisition of quantitative 

baseline and post-treatment data on target aquatic species to assess treatment impacts and 

recovery. An adaptive management approach was used wherein techniques were modified over 

the course of the project based on the monitoring results. 

Table 1. Ten-year timeline for BCT reintroduction set forth in the Great Basin National Park Bonneville 

cutthroat trout reintroduction and recreational fisheries management plan (Williams et al. 1999). 

Strawberry 

Creek 

Mill Creek South Fork 

Big Wash 

Snake Creek Lehman 

Creek 

South Fork 

Baker Creek 

1999 NNS, EPS 

CT 

TEM, EES 

NNS, EPS NNS, EPS 

2000 TEM, EES 

BCT 

NNS, EPS 

CT 

TEM, EES 

NNS, EPS 

BCT 

NNS, EPS 

2001 TEM, EES 

BPM 

TEM, EES 

BCT 

BPM 

BCT 

NNS, EPS 

CT 

TEM, EES 

NNS, EPS 

2002 TEM, EES 

ERM 

TEM, EES 

BPM 

BPM 

BCT 

TEM, EES 

BCT 

NNS, EPS 

CT 

TEM, EES 

NNS, EPS 

2003 BPM TEM, EES 

ERM 

BPM TEM, EES 

BPM 

TEM, EES 

BCT 

EFR 

TEM, EES 

2004 ERM BPM BPM TEM, EES 

ERM 

TEM, EES 

BPM 

TEM, EES 

BCT 

2005 ERM BPM 

ERM 

BPM TEM, EES 

ERM 

TEM, EES 

BPM 

2006 BPM ERM BPM TEM, EES 

ERM 

2007 ERM ERM BPM 

2008 ERM 

NNS = pre-treatment surveys of nonnative fish, EPS = pre-treatment surveys of invertebrates, 

amphibians and water chemistry, CT = chemical treatment, EFR = electrofishing removal, TEM = 

treatment effectiveness monitoring, EES = ecosystem effects surveys, BCT = BCT reintroduction, BPM 

= post-reintroduction monitoring of BCT populations, and ERM = ecosystem recovery monitoring. 

The Park also became a signatory to the Rangewide Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville 

cutthroat trout (Lentsch et al. 2000). As such, the Park committed to taking measures to restore 

and protect the species within Park waters. The Agreement, which was also signed by the states 

2 
of Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho, as well as the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management and US Fish and Wildlife Service, was a consideration in the decision not to list the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species Act. The species had been petitioned 

for listing in 1979 and again in 1998. 

Habitat 

In 1999, there were an estimated 40 km (24 mi) of stream habitat suitable for trout within the 

Park unoccupied by BCT. In addition, there were about 91 km (56.5 mi) of suitable stream 

habitat on the adjacent Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, some of which was occupied by 

BCT. Biologists estimate that approximately 94% of BCT populations in western Utah and 

eastern Nevada have been extirpated (USDA Forest Service 1996). As of 1999 the only streams 

known in Nevada to harbor BCT were Hendry’s Creek in the northern Snake Range, and 

Pine/Ridge Creek on the west side of the southern Snake Range, which is outside the historic 

range. 

Optimal cutthroat trout habitat in streams is characterized by clear, cool water, a silt-free rocky 

substrate in riffle-run areas, approximately a 1:1 pool-riffle ratio with areas of slow and deep 

water, well-vegetated stream banks, abundant instream cover, and relatively stable water flow, 

temperatures and stream banks. The average maximum summer temperature for BCT streams is 

less than 22oC (72oF) and the average summer temperature is about 13oC (55oF) with diel 

variations of about 4oC (9oF) (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Binns and Remmick 1994). 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Life History 

BCT generally range in length from 130-300 mm (5 to 12 in) in small streams like those in the 

Park and live 3 to 4 years, with a maximum estimated age of 8 years. They have a silvery gray or 

yellowish brown background with large roundish spots scattered across their bodies, more 

concentrated at the caudal end (Downs et al. 1997; Behnke 2002). A bright red stripe (or 

“cutthroat” mark) is present under each side of the lower jaw (Figure 2). The coloration of BCT 

is relatively subdued compared to other cutthroat trout, although some populations display bright 

reddish-orange spawning colors. 

BCT are typically sexually mature during the second year for males and the third year for 

females, although the age at maturity and the annual timing of spawning vary geographically 

Figure 2. Bonneville cutthroat trout. Illustration © Joseph Tomelleri 

3 
with elevation, temperature and life history strategy (May et al. 1978; Behnke 1992; Kershner 

1995). Length may be a better predictor for spawning than age (Downs et al. 1997). Annual 

spawning of BCT usually occurs during the spring and early summer at higher elevations 

(Behnke 1992) at temperatures ranging from 4-10oC (May et al. 1978). Little information exists 

regarding the fecundity of wild BCT (Lentsch et al. 1997), but in general, trout fecundity is 

between 1,800 to 2,000 eggs per kilogram of body weight (Behnke 1992). Incubation times for 

BCT are unknown but may be similar to the 30 day average reported for other species of wild 

trout. (Gresswell and Varley 1988). Reproductive rates of BCT depend greatly on stream 

productivity and habitat conditions (Lentsch et al. 1997). The main diet of BCT consists of 

aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. 

Some cutthroat trout tend to move long distances, with Hilderbrand and Kershner (2000a) 

finding that some move more than 500 m (547 yd) in the spring and 55 m (60 yd) in the summer. 

The cutthroat in their study showed a highly nonrandom dispersion pattern, with some cutthroat 

not moving at all while others moved long distances. In addition, they found that cutthroat often 

have diel movements, swimming to areas of higher velocity during the day to feed and returning 

to areas of slower velocity at night. Although Hilderbrand and Kershner (2000b) did not find any 

cutthroat movement during the winter, Jakober et al. (1998) found that some cutthroat moved 

500 - 1,000 m (547-1094 yd) during the autumn and winter. 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Restoration 

Because nonnative trout species out-compete or hybridize with native cutthroat, removal of these 

species was necessary for restoration. Two methods were investigated: electrofishing and 

piscicides. Electrofishing is appropriate for small streams with small fish populations. Many 

passes over different seasons to capture spawning fish and over several years to capture all age 

classes are needed to insure that all the nonnative fish are removed. Piscicides are used to 

remove fish from larger, more complex stream habitats with large fish populations. Two 

piscicides are registered for use in Nevada, rotenone and antimycin. The Park decided to treat 

one stream system with rotenone and another with antimycin. The chemical exhibiting the least 

impact to non-target organisms would be used for all subsequent stream treatments. The 

treatments are compared in Table 2. 

Small streams with very small fish populations and simple habitats are good candidates for 

electrofishing removal. 

Rotenone is the most extensively used piscicide in the United States (Cumming 1975; Finlayson 

et al. 2000). Rotenone is found in Australia, Oceania, southern Asia, and South America as a 

naturally occurring substance derived from the roots of tropical plants in the bean family 

(Leguminosae), including jewel vine (Derris spp.) and lacepod (Lonchocarpus spp.). Rotenone 

has been used for centuries to capture fish in areas where these plants naturally occur. Fisheries 

managers in North America began to use rotenone for fisheries management in the 1930s. The 

piscicide has been used for fish community sampling (Chance 1948; Swingle 1958; Hall 1974; 

Wegener et al. 1974; Miller et al. 1990) and for either complete or partial reclamation of ponds, 

lakes and streams (Finlayson et al. 2000). Rotenone does not suffocate fish or interfere with the 

uptake of oxygen in the blood as was long believed. Instead, it is a metabolic inhibitor, making it 

4 
impossible for fish to use the oxygen absorbed in the blood and needed in the release of energy 

during respiration (Finlayson et al. 2000). 

Table 2. Comparison of treatment methods and their advantages and disadvantages.

Description Advantages Disadvantages 

Electrofishing A backpack electrofisher is 

used to remove all fish from a 

section of stream by stunning 

fish with an electrical current. 

Fish are then removed from 

the stream with a net. 

-Selective for fish. 

-Fewer planning requirements 

and possibly less NEPA 

compliance. 

-Must be conducted multiple 

times over multiple years to 

remove all fish. 

-Does not work well for 

complex habitat or large 

populations. 

-Size selection bias for larger 

fish. 

Rotenone Natural compound derived 

from the roots of the bean 

family. Has been used by 

indigenous peoples for 

centuries to capture fish. Use 

in the US began in the 1930s. 

Works as a metabolic 

inhibitor. 

-Effectiveness evident 

quickly. 

-Treatment can be conducted 

in short amount of time. 

-Effective in large river and 

deep lake systems and 

complex stream habitats. 

-Effective over a wide range 

of pHs. 

-Can have large impact on 

other organisms. 

-Fish can detect it and avoid 

it. 

-Petroleum based emulsifier 

more dangerous for 

applicators. 

Antimycin Discovered in 1945 through 

isolation of culture of 

bacterium Streptomyces sp. Is 

sold as Fintrol. Used in 

fisheries work starting in the 

1960s. Works by preventing 

the use of oxygen in 

metabolic processes. 

-Selective, can be used to 

target specific fish species 

(Berger et al. 1969). 

-Lower lethality to 

macroinvertebrates. 

-Doesn’t affect adult 

amphibians. 

-Fish do not detect it so 

avoidance not an issue. 

-Degrades quickly so less 

harm to downstream users. 

-Extremely small quantities 

needed (usually 2-8 ppb), 

making it easier to transport. 

-More labor intensive than 

rotenone. 

-More expensive than 

rotenone. 

-Degrades quickly so has to 

be carefully monitored to 

ensure that enough is being 

applied. 

-Effectiveness rapidly 

decreases at pH > 8.0. 

Antimycin is an antibiotic produced by bacteria of the genus Streptomyces. Antimycin was 

isolated and discovered at the University of Wisconsin in 1945. In 1963, antimycin was 

discovered to be toxic to fish. Antimycin is commercially available and sold by a chemical 

manufacturer as Fintrol. Fintrol is EPA registered (39096-2) for use by state and federal fish and 

wildlife agencies in fish management projects. It is a liquid formulation consisting of two parts: 

an active ingredient, antimycin, and a diluent comprised of acetone and phthalate (Finlayson et 

al. 2002). 

 

Antimycin enters the bloodstream of fish via the gills and interferes with the ability of fish to 

utilize oxygen in metabolic processes. No short or long-term public health effects related to the 

use of antimycin have been documented. Furthermore, antimycin quickly breaks down into its 

5 
primary degradation products (carbon dioxide and water) due to hydrolysis, oxidation and other 

chemical reactions naturally present in the stream environment (Finlayson et al. 2002). 

6 
Objectives 

The objectives for this project were: 

1) Reintroduce Bonneville cutthroat trout to 15 km (8 mi) of southern Snake Range streams 

in five separate watersheds within Great Basin National Park. 

2) Evaluate the resilience of stream ecosystems to two different piscicides (rotenone and 

antimycin). 

3) Monitor the reintroduced populations and, if a population does not reach 500 BCT per 

mile within five years at the relocation site, transplant additional fish into the stream 

reach. 

4) Develop and maintain a database of information collected. 

5) Assist other agencies as needed to help protect BCT and avoid the conditions that might 

require listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

6) Accomplish the Park’s General Management Plan goal of having viable BCT populations 

in park streams. 

Study Area 

Great Basin National Park is located in east-central White Pine County, Nevada, near the Utah 

border (Figure 3). The Park encompasses 31,201 ha (77,100 acres) of the southern Snake Range 

and was established in 1986 from lands formerly managed separately as the Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest (30,492 ha; 76,460 acres) and Lehman Caves National Monument (259 ha; 640 

acres). Wheeler Peak, at 3,982 m (13,063 ft), is the centerpiece of the Park and overlooks two 

expansive basins (Spring Valley to the west and Snake Valley to the east), but Great Basin 

National Park includes only 32 ha (80 acres) of the basin environment as an administrative site. 

The Park was mostly surrounded by National Forest lands until 2006, when they were transferred 

to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Cattle grazing was discontinued from the Park in 

1999 but is still permitted on adjacent lands. Private lands are also adjacent to the Park boundary 

in some locations. 

Most streams in the study area are isolated, beginning in the mountains, flowing into the basin 

and then sinking into the soil, evaporating without connecting to another stream or waterbody, or 

being diverted for agricultural uses. Those streams that make it to the valley bottom are used for 

irrigation. Six perennial streams that flow eastward into the Snake Valley and the Bonneville 

Basin and one alpine lake, Johnson Lake, made up the project area. The streams were: Mill, 

Strawberry, Lehman, South Fork Baker, and Upper Snake creeks and South Fork Big Wash. 

These streams are first- and second-order streams, with widths varying from 0.3-3 m (1-9 ft), 

base water flows of 0.006-0.113 m3

/s (0.2-4 ft3/s) and elevations from 1,700-3,135 m (5,577-

10,285 ft). The locations of permanent sampling sites are listed in Table 3.

Mill Creek 

Mill Creek is a small stream, often less than 0.3 m (1 ft) wide, located in the northeast part of the 

Park. It begins at a spring at approximately 2,864 m (9,396 ft) elevation and runs for about 4.2 

km (2.6 mi), within the Park boundary. Two sampling locations were designated on Mill Creek, 

one just above the Park boundary at 2,304 m (7,600 ft) and one in the upper elevation of the 

stream at 2,518 m (8,260 ft). No fish stocking records exist for the creek. 

7 
8 

 

Figure 3. Project area for Bonneville cutthroat trout restoration in Great Basin National 

Park, Nevada. Sampling sites for water quality, macroinvertebrates and fish populations 

are indicated by yellow circles.
South Fork Big Wash 

South Fork Big Wash (SFBW) is located on the southeast side of the Park. It starts at a large 

spring at 2,316 m (7,600 ft), continues intermittently for 5.0 km (3.2 miles) to the Park boundary, 

and then flows 1 km (0.6 mi) to join with the usually dry drainage of the North Fork Big Wash at 

2,035 m (6,675 ft), where the stream is called Big Wash Creek. These systems are only 

connected on years with high water levels during spring runoff. The total length (TL) of 

perennial, free-flowing stream in SFBW is approximately 3.2 km (2 mi). Sampling locations 

were designated at the lower perennial spring at 2,134 m (7,000 ft) and at the upper perennial 

spring at 2,256 m (7,400 ft). Brook trout were stocked historically but were reported to have 

been flushed out of the creek during a flood in the 1950s (Waite 1974). 

Strawberry Creek 

Strawberry Creek is a small stream located in the northeast part of the Park (Figure 4). The creek 

starts at a large spring at 2,591 m (8,500 ft). Blue Canyon Creek, which starts 1.6 km (1 mi) to 

the east at 2,804 m (9,200 ft), joins Strawberry Creek at 2,423 m (7,950 ft). The combined 

stream flows for 4.5 km (2.8 mi) within the 

Park boundary, then 3.8 km (2.4 miles) to US 

Highway 6 & 50, crossing BLM and private 

land. The water is diverted above the highway 

and used for irrigation. The upper 0.5 km (0.3 

mi) of Strawberry Creek and all of Blue 

Canyon Creek are too steep for fish, but the 

remainder of the creek is confirmed fish 

habitat. Seven sampling locations were 

designated along the length of the stream, 

including one on the Blue Canyon tributary. 

Although Strawberry Creek is not large, easy 

access via a road next to the stream has 

encouraged fishing over the years. Stocking 

records show that mainly brook trout were 

planted from 1919-1971 (Dankowski 1984). 

Figure 4. Electrofishing survey to check for fish 

in Strawberry Creek. Note the small size of 

creek and abundance of woody vegetation 

(2003). 

Upper Snake Creek 

Snake Creek has three headwater tributaries and is located in the east-central part of the Park. 

The North Fork of Snake Creek begins at 2,755 m (9,040 ft) and flows 0.8 km (0.5 miles) to 

connect with the Middle Fork at 2,627 m (8,620 ft). The Middle Fork begins at three perennial 

springs at 2,950 m (9,680 ft) and flows 2.1 km (1.3 mi) to the confluence with the North Fork. 

During snowmelt in high snow years, water from Johnson Lake, elevation 3,292 m (10,800 ft), 

spills over an earthen dam constructed by historic mining operations and flows into the Middle 

Fork of Snake Creek. The South Fork of Snake Creek begins at 3,135 m (10,285 ft) and flows 

4.0 km (2.5 mi) to connect with the combined North and Middle forks at 2,457 m (8,060 ft). The 

mainstem of Snake Creek then flows 2.3 km (1.4 mi) before entering a three-mile long diversion 

pipe installed in 1961 to bypass a losing section of the stream. Prior to the placement of the pipe, 

porous limestone bedrock absorbed creek water and diverted it to a different watershed (Elliot et 

al. 2006). The pipeline is a barrier to fish movement between the upstream and downstream 

segments. Snake Creek runs for an additional 12.4 km (7.7 mi) after leaving the pipeline, 

9 
including 3 km (2 mi) within the Park boundary. Eight sampling locations were designated, with 

one below the pipeline and seven above the pipeline, including at least one reach in each of the 

three tributaries. Records indicate that cutthroat, rainbow and brook trout were stocked between 

1925 and 1952 (Haskins 1990). No brown trout are noted in stocking records, although they are 

the predominant fish species in the lower section of the creek. 

South Fork of Baker Creek 

South Fork of Baker Creek is the largest 

tributary to Baker Creek, providing 

approximately one-quarter of its stream 

discharge. South Fork of Baker Creek 

starts at 3,050 m (10,006 ft) and flows for 

4.8 km (3.0 mi) before joining the main 

part of Baker Creek at 2,451 m (8,040 ft). 

The headwaters flow rather steeply until 

they reach a large open meadow (Figure 

5). Soon after reentering the forest, a 45% 

gradient for 1.5 km (1 mi) impedes fish 

passage upstream. One sampling location 

was designated below the meadow. 

Cutthroat and rainbow trout were stocked 

in South Fork Baker in the early 1950s 

(Frantz 1953). 

Figure 5. Electrofishing the meadow area of South 

Fork of Baker Creek (2002). 

Lehman Creek 

Lehman Creek is the second largest creek in the Park after Baker Creek. Although it was 

originally targeted for restoration, its use as a source of drinking water outside the Park 

precluded the chemical removal of nonnative fish. 

Johnson Lake 

Figure 6. Johnson Lake is a sub-alpine lake that 

contained introduced brook trout. 

Johnson Lake (Figure 6) is located at 

3,292 m (10,800 ft) and is accessible via a 

5.1 km (3.2 mile) trail beginning at the 

end of the Snake Creek road. The lake, 

thought to be originally fishless due to the 

steep terrain, is located between 

precipitous walls in a glacial cirque. The 

surface area is 1.0 ha (2.5 acres) with a 

maximum depth of 4.6 m (15 ft), a mean 

depth of 2.4 m (8 ft) and a volume of 

24,670 m3 (20 acre-feet). A spring 60 m 

(197 ft) to the south of the lake serves as 

the inlet. The outlet is at the east end at a 

breach in a man-made dam constructed 

around the turn of the twentieth century to 

10 
expand the lake’s water storage capacity for mining operations. Old mining equipment can be 

seen surrounding and at the bottom of the lake. During spring runoff, the outlet stream carries 

water from the lake to the Middle Fork of Snake Creek. From August to October, water leaving 

the lake only flows 300 m (327 yd) before it sinks into the substrate or evaporates. The lake has 

been stocked with brook, rainbow and Lahontan cutthroat trout, but only brook trout have been 

confirmed since 1974 (Haskins 1990). 

11 
12 
Methods 

In order to meet the objectives of the project, a suite of methods was employed. Only pure BCT 

would be allowed for reintroductions, so one of the first actions was to conduct genetic analyses 

on two populations of possibly pure BCT. Then a multi-step approach was used to evaluate 

streams, conduct treatments if necessary, monitor streams, reintroduce BCT, and monitor BCT 

and other aquatic organisms. 

Genetic Analysis - Mill Creek and Strawberry Creek 

Fish from Mill and Upper Strawberry Creeks exhibited BCT characteristics1

 and were collected 

to obtain samples for genetic analysis. In 1999, the Park sent 60 fin clips and 20 entire fish to the 

Department of Zoology genetics lab at Brigham Young University for analysis. The lab used 

restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to 

selectively amplify two mitochondrial DNA genes and the ITS region of the rRNA gene from 

nuclear DNA. In addition, in 2000 the Park collected 60 fin clips and sent them to the Wild Trout 

and Salmon Genetics Lab at the University of Montana for genetic analysis using the paired 

interspersed nuclear elements (PINE)-PCR technique. 

Steps to Reintroduction 

The Park used an adaptive management approach to restoring BCT to several watersheds. A 

basic nine-step approach was used as a guideline and comprised the following steps: 

1. Planning based on reports of fish surveys, water quality and habitat evaluations of 

watersheds. 

2. Pre-treatment surveys of nonnative fish populations. 

3. Pre-treatment surveys of other ecosystem components, including aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, mollusks, amphibians and water chemistry. 

4. Chemical or physical treatment of streams to remove nonnative fish. 

5. Treatment effectiveness monitoring to determine whether nonnative fish had been 

eradicated. 

6. Post-treatment surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians and water chemistry to 

document effects of treatment and establish a baseline for recovery monitoring. 

7. Reintroduction of BCT into the best habitat available in the stream using a genetically 

pure source. 

8. Ecosystem recovery monitoring to assess the recovery of the entire aquatic ecosystem, 

including both macroinvertebrates and fish. 

9. BCT population monitoring consisting primarily of fish population and distribution 

surveys to insure that the BCT were reproducing and growing. 

 

1 Fish specimens from Mill Creek analyzed in 1970 by Dr. Robert Behnke were considered to have 

characteristics similar to fish specimens from other creeks that had previously been identified as pure 

Bonneville cutthroat trout (Behnke 1970). However, these fish were later described as hybrids and 

rainbow trout by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (a visual observation and no genetic analyses). 

13 
Planning and Pre-treatment Surveys 

Nonnative Fish Distribution and Population Surveys 

Population surveys for nonnative fishes were conducted using a Smith-Root Model 12-B Battery 

Powered Backpack Electrofisher to perform 100 m (109 yd) three-pass depletion surveys with 

block nets at each end. One person operated the electrofisher, followed by two people with dip 

nets and one person with a bucket. After each pass, all fish were identified, measured (TL to 

nearest millimeter) and weighed (to the nearest gram). Fish capture data were analyzed by 

species and site to obtain abundance, average length and weight. Population size was estimated 

using Microfish 3.0 software (Van Deventer and Platts 1989). These surveys were conducted 

prior to treatment to determine the carrying capacity of the streams. 

In an effort to mitigate effects of piscicide treatments on non-target organisms, nonnative fish 

distribution was determined so as to minimize the piscicide treatment area. The upstream limit of 

nonnative fish distribution in each creek was found by using the backpack electrofishers to spot 

shock along the creek. Spot surveying continued for 1 km (0.6 mi) beyond the last fish captured 

to verify that it was indicative of the upstream limit of distribution. The locations of the upstream 

limit of distribution were confirmed over multiple years. 

Physical/Chemical Variables 

Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, and discharge were measured at each 

monitoring site. In addition, a water sample was collected and analyzed for turbidity, nitrates, 

phosphates, alkalinity, hardness, sulfates, and silica. Water quality instruments used were 

pHtestr2 and 3+ for pH; YSI85 for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, salinity, and temperature; 

Horiba U-10 Water Checker (2002 only) for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, salinity, pH, 

turbidity, and temperature. These instruments were calibrated according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions, which included daily pH calibration and monthly dissolved oxygen and conductivity 

calibration. A Global Flow Probe Model FP101 was used to measure water velocity. In the lab, a 

SmartColorimeter was used to analyze grab samples for turbidity, nitrates, phosphates, sulfates, 

and silica, and LaMotte test kits were used for alkalinity and hardness. Measurements were taken 

at each of the designated sampling points for each stream, following standard aquatic resource 

protocols for the Park (Schenk et al. 2003). Water quality samples were taken and characteristics 

measured during each fish and macroinvertebrate survey (Table 3). 

Macroinvertebrate and Mollusk Sampling 

Sample sites for macroinvertebrates were selected based on riparian vegetation types and the 

extent of fish distribution. Two sampling sites per stream were placed at least 100 meters above 

the last fish detected so that they would remain untreated. Sites were sampled one year prior to 

and one day prior to treatment on Strawberry Creek and two years prior to, one year prior to and 

one day prior to treatment on Snake Creek. Macroinvertebrate surveys followed the EPA’s rapid 

bioassessment protocols (Barbour et al. 1999; Hawkins et al. 2001) and included both riffle-only 

quantitative and multi-habitat-qualitative surveys. Surveys were conducted one to six times 

before treatment. Samples were taken at the designated sampling points for each stream, 

preserved in ethyl alcohol and sent to the National Aquatic Monitoring Center. Plecoptera, 

Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera (collectively referred to as EPT taxa) were assessed as a group 

due to their sensitivity to pollutants. As was done with all macroinvertebrates combined, the 

14 
Table 3. Pre-treatment surveys at stations. Physical/chemical variables were measured at each of the 

sampling dates listed below in addition to at least twice a year at each site. 

Station Eleva

-tion 

(m) 

Distance 

from Park 

Boundary 

(km) 

UTM 

Easting 

UTM 

Northing 

Date of 

Fish 

Surveys 

Date of Macroinvertebrate 

Samples 

Mill 1 2304 0 737758 4324735 8/24/99, 

6/25/02 

7/29/99, 7/30/99 

Mill 2 2518 1.5 736287 4324386 8/26/99 7/30/99 

Strawberry 1 2073 0 737384 4327541 8/16/99 9/11/00 

Strawberry 2 2231 2.1 735432 4326908 8/17/99 6/24/99, 7/27/99, 9/11/00 

Strawberry 3 2384 4 733588 4326651 8/19/99 6/24/99, 7/27/99, 9/11/00 

Strawberry 4 2545 5.8 732125 4325798 8/19/99 6/29/99, 7/27/99, 9/11/00 

Strawberry 5 2621 6.1 731996 4325506 1999* 6/25/99, 7/28/99, 9/11/00 

Strawberry 6 2533 5.1 733583 4325732 1999* 7/28/99, 9/11/00 

Strawberry 7 2606 6.2 731816 4325509 1999* 7/28/99 

Snake 1 2059 3.6 745244 4310876 8/22/00 8/16/00, 7/25/01, 5/7/02, 7/31/02, 

8/22/02 

Snake 2 2335 8.9 740382 4311728 8/28/00, 

8/2/02 

7/27/00, 7/25/01, 10/11/01, 

7/31/02, 8/22/02 

Snake 3 2359 9.3 740009 4311795 7/12/00 7/27/00, 7/25/01, 5/7/02 

Snake 4 2475 11.1 738382 4312078 8/17/00, 

8/1/02 

8/7/00, 8/16/00, 7/25/01 

Snake 5 2518 11.6 738063 4312514 8/21/00, 

8/1/02 

8/16/00, 7/24/01, 5/7/02, 7/31/02, 

8/19/02 

Snake 6 2524 11.6 737826 4312156 7/29/00 8/17/00, 7/24/01, 10/11/01, 

7/31/02, 8/19/02 

Snake 7 2536 11.7 737728 4312211 2000* 8/23/00, 7/24/01, 10/11/01, 

5/7/02, 7/31/02, 8/19/02 

Snake 8 2719 13.1 736843 4312607 2000* 8/23/00, 7/24/01, 7/31/02, 8/19/02 

SF Baker 2685 6.2 737263 4316901 2000* 8/29/05 

SF Big Wash 1 2256 3.4 740949 4306447 1999* 5/30/00, 7/17/00 

SF Big Wash 2 2134 0.8 743204 4307404 1999* 6/6/00, 7/18/00 

Johnson Lake 3292 16.1 734192 4313992 7/29/03, 

8/10/04 

7/24/00, 7/29/03, 8/10/04 

*Exact date not recorded 

EPT group was evaluated in terms of total abundance and the number of taxa represented. Taxa 

were identified to the lowest level possible; not all larval forms could be identified to the species 

level. Mollusk surveys were conducted separately from macroinvertebrate surveys in 2001, but 

combined thereafter since the National Aquatic Monitoring Center also identifies mollusks. 

15 
Amphibian Surveys 

Surveys were conducted for adults, tadpoles and egg masses using Great Basin National Park 

Aquatic Resources Protocols (Schenk et al. 2003) and concentrated in May and June. In addition, 

every site visit to the sampling stations for fish, macroinvertebrates, or water quality sampling 

also checked for amphibians. 

Chemical or Physical Treatment

The removal of nonnative fish was accomplished using chemical (piscicide) or physical 

(electrofishing) treatment. Electrofishing removal was conducted on South Fork of Baker Creek. 

Rotenone was used to treat Strawberry Creek, while antimycin was used to treat Upper Snake 

Creek and Johnson Lake. No chemical treatment was necessary for South Fork Big Wash where 

the nonnative fish were eliminated by a flash flood in the 1950s (Waite 1974). 

Electrofishing Removal – South Fork of Baker Creek 

A backpack electrofisher was used to remove fish from the targeted section of South Fork of 

Baker Creek. A minimum crew size of three electrofished the stream at least twice a year from 

2002 to 2005. We began at the bottom of a waterfall at 2,650 m (8,700 ft) elevation and 

continued through a steep plunge pool section, across a meadow and upstream for 0.5 km (0.3 

mi) to 2,700 m (8,900 ft). 

Rotenone – Strawberry Creek 

Rotenone was used to treat the entire length of Strawberry Creek, beginning above the upstream 

limit of fish distribution at 2,580 m (8,460 ft) to the point of diversion for irrigation, a small pond 

leading into a pipeline at 1,880 m (6,160 ft). The rotenone treatment was coordinated with 

NDOW, since construction of a barrier at the Park boundary was not feasible, and NDOW was 

agreeable to extending the treatment beyond the Park onto Humboldt National Forest, private 

and BLM lands, where NDOW has jurisdiction over fish populations. Treating the stream 

outside the Park boundary also required state approval from the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP). 

Prior to the treatment, NPS and NDOW personnel spent time walking the length of the stream 

identifying springs, seeps and areas that might provide refuge to fish during a treatment. In 

addition, dye studies were conducted to determine flow patterns. 

Two forms of rotenone were used to treat Strawberry Creek. The first was Prentox PrenFish 

Toxicant manufactured by Prentiss, Incorporated. This is a liquid emulsifiable mixture consisting 

of 5 percent rotenone, 6 percent emulsifiers, 80 percent associated aromatic petroleum solvent, 

7.5 percent acetone, and 1.5 percent unspecified (MSDS). The second product used was 

Rotenone Fish Toxicant Powder. This dry powder was mixed to achieve the same concentrations 

found in the liquid emulsifiable product above. The concentration targeted for Strawberry Creek 

was 7 ppm for the first two hours and 2 ppm for the remainder of the treatment. 

16 
On September 12, 2000, Strawberry Creek was treated with rotenone dispensed using drip 

stations. Each drip station consisted of a 18.9 L (5 gal) bucket with a 1.6 mm (1/16 in) diameter 

hole at its base that allowed the bucket to drain in one hour. Based on the breakdown of rotenone 

at an average 7.4 percent gradient (rendering it nontoxic to fish), drip stations were set up every 

800 m (0.5 mi) for a total of 15 drip stations. Handfuls of rotenone mixed with sand and 

unflavored gelatin were deposited in rivulets that fed the main channel from seeps and springs. 

Larger rivulets, where sand eroded away quickly, were treated with backpack sprayers 

containing 39 ml (1.3 oz) of liquid toxicant per liter of water. These rivulets were treated again 

on the following day. 

Antimycin – Upper Snake Creek 

In 2001, in preparation for the antimycin treatment of Snake Creek, data on stream flow and 

toxicity were collected and evaluated. During the pre-treatment phase, a flow study was 

conducted to determine the travel time between stations. This information was used to determine 

the proper spacing and timing of treatment stations. Before conducting the study, the stream was 

marked and elevation was determined at 100 m (109 yd) intervals (Figure 7). Ten ml (0.3 oz) of 

fluorescent dye was added to the stream at the upstream limit of distribution and then 

periodically every 2-4 km (1.2-2.4 mi) downstream, when the dye became too diluted to detect. 

The time the dye reached each 100 m mark was recorded, and the cumulative time was computed 

to help determine when the detoxification station would be needed. Antimycin was detoxified 

Figure 7. Upper Snake Creek treatment area marked in 100 m elevation intervals. 

17 
with potassium permanganate (KMnO4). Based on previous treatments, it was thought that the 

antimycin would retain toxicity for about 66 m (200 ft) in elevation change (Tiffan and 

Bergersen 1996). 

Toxicity Test: To determine the amount of antimycin (Fintrol) and of detoxification chemical 

(potassium permanganate, KMnO4) needed to conduct a successful chemical renovation of the 

upper reaches of Snake Creek, toxicity tests (Figure 8) were performed on October 11-13, 2001. 

Three tests were conducted: one to test 

the toxicity of antimycin, one to test 

the toxicity of KMnO4 and one to 

determine the demand of KMnO4. One 

set of buckets with 0, 2, 4, and 8 ppb 

antimycin, another set with 0, 1, 2, 3, 

and 4 ppm KMnO4 and a third set with 

8 ppb antimycin and 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 

ppm KMnO4 were prepared. 

Brook trout (mean length = 148.8 mm) 

were collected from Snake Creek 

Figure 8. Toxicity test to determine amounts of 

antimycin and potassium permanganate needed for the 

treatment (2001). 

20-42 hours before the start of the 

toxicity tests, and 10 were placed in 

each test solution. Dilution water from 

Snake Creek ranged in pH from 7.8-

7.9. Additions of antimycin and 

KMnO4 did not change the pH. 

Temperatures ranged from 3.9-5.5° C 

and were maintained by placing the 

buckets in Snake Creek. Dissolved 

oxygen saturation in the creek water 

was 77%. A large oxygen tank with four airstones was used to aerate the water for 15 minutes of 

every hour. Following the eight-hour exposure, fish were moved into holding cages in the creek 

so that they could be examined 24 and 48 hours post-exposure. 

Equipment Construction: Equipment was constructed to dispense 

antimycin and KMnO4 into the stream at desired rates. This equipment 

consisted of antimycin stations using five gallon buckets with an outlet 

controlled by an on/off valve. A hose ran from the outlet to a dogwatering device (Figure 9) suspended over the stream. The dog-waterer 

had a float that controlled the flow of antimycin into a dish. A 1.6 mm 

(1/16 in) hole was drilled in the bottom of the dish to allow antimycin 

to drain into the stream. The flow was monitored and maintained at 1 

gallon per hour for 8 hours with a concentration of 8 parts per billion 

(ppb). 

Figure 9. Antimycin 

dispenser in Snake 

Creek (2002).

A detoxification station to dispense KMnO4 was set up at the pipe 

outlet. Original plans were to set the detox station at the pipe inlet, but 

after discussions concerning the 50 year old galvanized pipe and the 

18 
fact that KMnO4 is a very strong oxidizer, concerns over damaging the pipe led to the decision to 

place the detox station at the pipe outlet. The detox station was made with two 35 gallon drums 

connected by hoses to “float-boxes” suspended over the stream, which dispensed the KMnO4 in 

an even flow to maintain the appropriate concentrations. 

Antimycin Application: Starting August 4, 2002, streamflow was recorded once daily and used 

to determine the amount of antimycin to dispense at each station on the following day. For the 

first day of treatment, antimycin stations 

(Figure 10) were placed approximately 100 m 

(109 yd) above the last known fish locations 

on the Middle and North forks of Snake Creek. 

A detoxification station was set up below the 

pipe outlet. 

Fish cages with live fish were placed at 

approximately 100 m (109 yd) intervals on the 

stream to monitor how far the antimycin 

carried in the stream. The cages were 

monitored each morning to determine where to 

place that day’s antimycin stations. For 

example, if mortality was complete in three 

cages (300 m; 327 yd) below a station but not 

complete at the fourth cage after 24 hours, the 

next station would be set up just above the 

third cage on the following day. Due to its lower elevation, the South Fork of Snake Creek was 

treated beginning on day three. 

Figure 10. Measuring out antimycin for the drip 

station (2002). 

A backpack sprayer was used to treat back eddies of the 

streams and adjacent springs and seeps with potential to 

provide refuge areas for fish (Figure 11). 

Figure 11. Using a backpack 

sprayer to treat a seep (2002). 

Potassium permanganate can also be toxic to fish at 

concentrations exceeding 4 ppm. Cages with fish were 

placed below the detoxification station at 150 m (164 

yd), 1.4 km (0.9 mi), 3.7 km (2.3 mi) (the Park 

Boundary) and at 5.8 km (3.6 mi) (the Nevada Division 

of Wildlife Spring Creek Rearing Station) to ensure 

detoxification was effective and had no unintended 

effects. 

Antimycin - Johnson Lake 

Johnson Lake was treated with antimycin in August and 

September of 2004. Treatment was conducted using a 

Zodiac inflatable raft with a wooden floor and 4.5 hp 

outboard motor. Antimycin was injected into the 

outwash of the outboard motor and pumped into the 

19 
deeper waters of the Lake via tubing. Antimycin stations, as described in the previous section, 

were used to treat the outlet stream, and a backpack sprayer was used to treat the inlet and edges 

of the Lake. Gillnets were used to obtain fish from the lake for live-cars and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the treatment. All equipment was transported to the Lake by mule team. 

During treatment, the raft traveled back and forth across the Lake (Figure 12), applying 

antimycin to achieve a concentration of 8 ppb based on estimated lake volume. Four live-cars 

with fish were placed around the perimeter of the Lake and one was placed downstream of the 

Lake outlet. The drip station at the lake outlet was filled with 10 ml (0.3 oz) antimycin in 18.9 L 

(5 gallons) of water. Following application of antimycin from the boat, a sprayer filled with 3785 

ml (3 gallons) of water and 50 ml (1.7 oz) antimycin was used to treat shallow water at the east 

end of the Lake. 

Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring 

Following the stream treatments, the entire 

treatment area was electrofished with a Smith 

Root backpack Model 12-B electrofisher two 

times during the year following the treatment 

to ensure that no non-native fish remained in 

the system. A gill net was used one year 

following treatment on Johnson Lake to 

determine effectiveness. 

Ecosystem Recovery Monitoring 

Ecosystem recovery monitoring was conducted 

on all four streams to which BCT were 

reintroduced, although sampling frequency was greater on the two streams that were chemically 

treated. Water chemistry, macroinvertebrates, and mollusks were sampled using the protocols 

previously described. Macroinvertebrate, mollusk and water chemistry surveys were conducted 

at one month, nine months, one year and two years after treatment, and will continue to be 

conducted in the future as funding permits. 

Figure 12. View of Zodiac spreading 

antimycin in Johnson Lake (2004). 

Reintroduction of BCT 

Following verification that no non-native fish remained in the treatment area and that 

macroinvertebrate composition and abundance had returned to at least 75% of pre-treatment 

levels, BCT were reintroduced to the stream. This typically occurred within one to three years 

after treatment. Both hard-plant and streamside incubator methods were attempted. In either 

case, a genetically pure population of BCT was used as the source. 

Hard plants involved collecting all size classes of BCT from a donor stream using electrofishing 

equipment, transporting them in aerated tanks to the recipient stream and releasing two to three 

fish per pool in the best available habitat. All age classes were taken, and fish were measured and 

weighed before transport. 

Streamside incubators were used to take advantage of the fact that one BCT can produce over a 

thousand eggs. Park staff monitored streams known to have populations of pure BCT for signs of 

20 
spawning every few days beginning in mid-April. Signs of spawning included fish pairing, redd 

building, strong color changes and, if caught, a fish that easily extruded milt or eggs by gently 

running fingers along its belly. In addition, water temperature was measured on each spawning 

survey, and a HOBO datalogger recorded temperature hourly. 

Streamside incubators made of converted Coleman coolers were prepared, using instructions 

from Trout Unlimited (Duff unpublished). Water was filtered and then flowed into a baffled 

chamber in the cooler, providing oxygenated water for the fertilized eggs while minimizing the 

amount of sediment. 

We set up incubators on Strawberry Creek in May to test them and work out problems (Figure 

13). The largest problem was the deposition of fine sediment in the incubator. To combat this 

problem, sediment traps were constructed and installed upstream of the incubator. These sediment 

traps reduced the amount of sediment entering the 

incubator, but also restricted water flow. Daily 

maintenance was required to clean out the sediment traps 

and incubator. 

In late June 2002, ripe male and female BCT were 

collected and artificially spawned to obtain milt and 

eggs, which were combined. The milt was left with the 

eggs for about a minute to fertilize them and then 

drained out. Water was added to harden the eggs for 

transport. After 45 minutes of water hardening, the 

fertilized eggs were placed in cheesecloth, packed on ice 

and taken to the previously installed streamside 

incubator at Strawberry Creek (Figure 14). 

Fertilized eggs were put into a Whitlock-Vibert box (W-V Box), designed to keep the eggs off 

the bottom of the incubator, on June 27, 2002. Each day the eggs were checked, taking 

precautions to ensure they did not receive any direct sunlight. Any eggs infected with fungus 

were removed with an eyedropper. 

BCT Population Monitoring 

Monitoring for BCT began one to two years after 

reintroduction using standard three-pass depletion 

population surveys and spot-shocking distribution 

surveys with a Smith Root backpack electrofisher. Fish 

were weighed using an Ohaus electronic scale and 

measured to TL. BCT population surveys were 

conducted a minimum of once every two years. 

Creel Survey 

No special fishing regulations were instituted for the 

reintroduced populations, so anglers were allowed to 

catch up to 10 BCT per day. To determine angling pressure in the Park, a stratified random creel 

survey was conducted from June to August 2005. This survey was designed to gather angler use, 

Figure 13. Streamside incubator 

with intake pipe (2002).

Figure 14. Putting fertilized eggs 

into the Whitlock-Vibert box 

(2002). 

21 
catch, harvest and economic value information using an Office of Management and Budget 

approved survey form. Surveys were completed along four streams and one lake two to three 

times each month (Wiley and Baker 2005).

22 
Results 

Genetic Analyses - Mill Creek and Strawberry Creek 

When this project was initiated, it was believed that BCT had been extirpated from Park streams. 

However, genetic testing by labs at Brigham Young University and the University of Montana 

identified fish from Mill Creek as pure Bonneville cutthroat trout with no sign of introgression 

(Shiozawa and Evans 2000; Cremins and Spruell 2003). This allowed Mill Creek to be used as a 

donor population of BCT to other park streams. Analysis of fin clip samples collected from fish 

in upper reaches of Strawberry Creek and sent to the genetics lab at the University of Montana 

revealed that they were Bonneville cutthroat/rainbow hybrids (Cremins and Spruell 2003). 

Planning and Pre-treatment Surveys 

Nonnative Fish Distribution and Population Surveys 

The upstream limit of nonnative fish distribution ranged from 2,530 m (8,300 ft) to 2,713 m 

(8,900 ft) (Table 4). The uppermost fish in Strawberry Creek were cutthroat/rainbow hybrids. It 

is possible that cutthroat persisted in the watershed since Lake Bonneville days, or more likely 

(due to the small size of the stream) entered the creek via the Osceola Ditch about 1900. South 

Fork Baker Creek had the distinction of having rainbow trout as the species found farthest 

upstream. Stocking records show that this is likely due to the thousands of rainbow trout that 

were introduced into the upper section of South Fork Baker Creek until Great Basin National 

Park was established in 1986 (Haskins 1990). No fish were found in South Fork Big Wash, 

where a flash flood in the 1950s removed all fish (Waite 1974). 

Table 4. Upstream limit of nonnative fish distribution in restoration streams of Great Basin National Park. 

Stream Elevation (m) of upstream 

distribution 

Species 

Mill 2,560 Bonneville cutthroat trout 

South Fork Big Wash n/a No fish found in stream 

Strawberry 2,597 Hybridized Bonneville cutthroat/rainbow 

trout 

Snake Creek-North Fork 2,652 Brook trout 

Snake Creek-Middle Fork 2,713 Brook trout 

Snake Creek-South Fork 2,530 Brook trout 

South Fork of Baker Creek 2,697 Rainbow trout 

Estimated densities for nonnative trout in the streams that were targeted for treatment ranged 

from 12 per mile to over 2,000 per mile (Table 5). Only brook trout were found in Upper Snake 

Creek, while the percentage of brook trout in Strawberry Creek increased with elevation. The 

Mill Creek fish population was estimated at 100 to 600 BCT per mile, while South Fork of Baker 

Creek had an estimate of 12 rainbow trout per mile. 

23 
Table 5. Pre-reintroduction fish populations in selected streams.

Stream Site Year Estimated Number of Fish 

Species (fish/mile) 

Mill BCT1 1999 612 BCT 

Mill BCT2 1999 113 BCT 

South Fork Big Wash n/a 1999 0 fish 

Strawberry Near park boundary 1999 1125 rainbow 

98 brook 

Strawberry 2 km above park boundary 1999 889 rainbow 

399 brook 

Strawberry 5 km above park boundary 1999 97 rainbow 

869 brook 

Snake Creek-North Fork Shoshone campground 2000 2,270 brook 

Snake Creek-Middle Fork Main stream 2000 2,447 brook 

Snake Creek-South Fork 200 m above confluence 2000 708 brook 

South Fork Baker Creek Near meadow area 2002 12 rainbow 

Chemical/Physical Parameters 

Water quality measurements fell within the normal range for Great Basin mountain streams 

(Table 6). South Fork Big Wash had the highest specific conductance, consistent with the fact 

that the stream repeatedly goes underground in a limestone area. The other streams in the project 

area are primarily underlain by metamorphic rock. The pH of all the streams was 8.0 or less, 

which was important since the piscicide antimycin works best at pH values of less than 8.0. 

Table 6. Basic water quality parameters in selected streams-average June measurements, 2001-2002. 

Stream Temp. 

(Co

) pH 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/L) 

Specific 

Conductance 

(μS/cm @ 25o

C) 

Water Flow 

(high flow) 

(cfs) 

Mill Creek 7.5 7.6 8.0 66 0.6 

South Fork Big 

Wash 8.6 7.5 9.0 309 0.8 

Strawberry Creek 9.4 8.0 8.4 75 3.2 

Upper Snake Creek 9.5 8.0 9.5 76 15.5 

Johnson Lake 9.5 7.2 n/a 24 (20 acre-ft) 

South Fork Baker 

Creek 8.1 6.9 8.5 35 approx. 2 

24 
Macroinvertebrate Surveys 

A total of 136 distinct macroinvertebrate taxa were found in project streams, and 8 different taxa 

were found in Johnson Lake during pre-treatment surveys (Table 7). Strawberry Creek had the 

largest number of EPT taxa and total taxa of macroinvertebrates, followed by Upper Snake 

Creek. South Fork Baker Creek had the least number of total and EPT taxa for unknown reasons. 

All sites had assemblages indicative of good water quality. No endemic or sensitive species were 

found. 

Table 7. Macroinvertebrates collected prior to stream treatments.

Stream # Sites # EPT Total taxa # Sampling Trips 

Mill Creek 3 37 63 1

South Fork 

Big Wash 2 29 62 1

Strawberry 

Creek 6 59 112 2 

Upper 

Snake 

Creek 

8 46 93 3 

South Fork 

Baker 

Creek 

1 12 15 1

Johnson 

Lake 1 0 8 2

Amphibian Surveys 

No amphibians were found in any park watersheds, despite in-depth searches. 

Chemical or Physical Treatment 

South Fork of Baker Creek Electrofishing Removal 

Electrofishing removals of fish from South Fork of Baker Creek began in 2002, with each 1 km 

(0.6 mile) section of stream being fished repeatedly. Twelve rainbow trout were found and 

removed. Large fish had their adipose fin clipped and were transported downstream of a natural 

fish barrier. Small fish were discarded in the upland area. Fish removal continued in 2003, with 

several rainbow trout removed. In 2004, only one small trout was found in six electrofishing 

passes. In addition, the stream was spot-surveyed 3 km (1.8 mi) above the upstream limit of 

distribution to the location where trout had been released in the 1980s. No fish were encountered 

in this section despite the presence of suitable trout habitat. In 2005, no fish were found in three 

electrofishing passes. 

Strawberry Creek Rotenone Treatment 

 A total of 125 L (33 gallons) of 5% liquid rotenone and 10.9 kg (24 lbs) of 8.5% rotenone dry 

powdered toxicant was used on 11.9 km (7.4 mi) of Strawberry Creek on September 12 and 13, 

2000. The application rate over the two days was 766.2 ml/hour of liquid toxicant for the first 

25 
hour and 295 ml/hour for seven hours each day. This maintained rotenone concentrations at five 

ppm and two ppm, respectively. 

No detoxification of rotenone was necessary. Strawberry Creek empties into a large meadow and 

then drops into Weaver Creek approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) from the last drip station. No fish 

habitat existed in the meadow. Observations of live fish after the treatment in Weaver Creek 

below the meadow indicated that rotenone detoxified prior to reaching it. 

Upper Snake Creek Antimycin Treatment 

The flow test and toxicity test conducted during the pre-treatment preparation period showed that 

the stream was suitable for using antimycin (Appendix A). 

Antimycin Application: From August 5-10, 2002, a total of 4,005 ml (135 oz) of antimycin was 

dispensed into Snake Creek from antimycin stations (Table 8). An additional 250 ml (8.5 oz) of 

antimycin was sprayed into springs, seeps and tributaries over the five day period. Areas sprayed 

corresponded to the treated reach for that day. 

Although antimycin in some streams retains toxicity within an elevation drop of 60-75 m (197-

246 ft) with a low pH (< 7.0) and a warm water temperature (> 10° C) (Tiffan and Bergersen 

1996), in Upper Snake Creek the antimycin completely broke down and became non-toxic at 

approximately every 18 m (60 ft) drop in elevation. Water temperature was fairly warm, ranging 

from 7.9-10.8° C with a mean of 9.6° C, and the pH ranged from 7.3 to 7.9 with a mean of 7.7. 

Apparently, these small differences from what is considered to be ideal had a large impact on 

antimycin effectiveness. Stations had to be added to maintain an antimycin concentration of 8 

ppb and moved closer together to accomplish effective treatment, requiring the use of up to eight 

stations a day to finish the project in the planned timeframe. Since we had anticipated using no 

more than three antimycin stations a day, this resulted in an increase in the amount of antimycin 

used, from a planned 1,700 ml (57 oz) to 4,005 ml (135 oz). 

Detoxification: A total of 32,538 grams (71.7 lb) of KMnO4 was dispensed during the treatment 

(Table 9). This was far below that anticipated in the permit application (82,000+ g or 180 lb), 

due to the rapid degradation of the antimycin. Antimycin only reached the detox station August 9

and 10. On these dates, the nearest antimycin station was at 500 m (547 yd) above the pipe inlet, 

5.3 km (3.3 mi) from the detox station. Despite the rapid breakdown of antimycin in Snake 

Creek, the pipe apparently allowed antimycin to remain intact over 305 m (1,000 ft) loss in 

elevation. 

No fish mortality occurred at any detox station live car on any day except August 9, when fish 

mortality occurred at the cage 150 m (164 yd) below the detox station. On that day, the detox 

station was running at a concentration of 4 ppm. These fish exhibited no signs of antimycin 

toxicity. Cages 1.4 km (0.9 mi) downstream of the detox station, at the Park boundary (5 km 

downstream of detox station) and at the rearing station (8 km downstream of detox station) 

experienced no mortality throughout the treatment. Clearly fish were affected (moving 

lethargically) by the KMnO4 up to 150 m (164 yd) below the detox station. However, the 

KMnO4 visibly broke apart before reaching the 1.4 km (0.9 mi) cage and had completely 

dissipated by the time it reached the Park boundary. 

26 
Table 8. Antimycin dispensed during August 2002 Upper Snake Creek treatment.

Date 

Location (m 

above pipeline 

inlet) 

Flow (ft3

/s) 

measured 

near that 

section 

ml of 

antimycin 

dispensed 

at each drip 

station 

Antimycin 

concentration 

at station 

(ppb) 

Antimcyin 

dispensed in 

backpack 

sprayers (ml) 

Aug. 5, 2002 

470-north fork 0.3 33 13.4 

460-tributary 0.3 33 13.4 32 

480-middle fork 0.8 130 20.3 

Aug. 6, 2002 

420-north fork 0.12 33 33.8 

35 

400-north fork 0.12 33 33.8 

480-middle fork 0.7 65 11.4 

460- middle fork 0.7 65 11.4 

420- middle fork 0.7 65 11.4 

400- middle fork 0.09 13 17.8 

Aug. 7, 2002 

410- middle fork 0.12 33 33.8 

36 

450- middle fork 0.7 96 16.8 

440- middle fork 0.7 80 14.0 

400-middle fork 1.3 96 9.1 

360-middle fork 1.3 96 9.1 

330-middle fork 1.3 96 9.1 

400-tributary 0.09 30 40.1 

395-tributary 0.09 36 49.2 

Aug. 8, 2002 

300-middle fork 1.3 98 9.26 

69 

280-middle fork 1.0 85 10.5 

360-south fork 2.3 176 9.4 

340-south fork 2.3 176 9.4 

320-south fork 2.7 176 8.0 

290-south fork 2.7 176 8.0 

270-south fork 2.7 215 9.8 

250-main stem 3.0 215 8.8 

Aug. 9, 2002 

220-main stem 3.0 195 8.0 

78 

190-main stem 3.0 195 8.0 

170-main stem 3.0 195 8.0 

120-main stem 3.0 195 8.0 

90-main stem 3.0 195 8.0 

50-main stem 3.0 195 8.0 

Aug. 10, 2002 

340-middle fork 3.0 113 7.4 

330-south fork 2.7 176 8.0 0 

140-main stem 3.0 196 8.1 

Total 4,005 250 

Table 9. KMnO4 amounts and concentrations dispensed August 5-10, 2002. 

Date Flow 

(cfs) 

KmnO4 

used 

(grams) 

Concentration 

at dispensing 

station (ppm) 

Aug. 5, 2002 3.5 2244 1.5 

Aug. 6, 2002 2.8 1224 1 

Aug. 7, 2002 2.9 1224 1 

Aug. 8, 2002 3.0 8262 3 

Aug. 9, 2002 2.9 12240 4 

Aug. 10, 2002 2.9 7344 3 

Total 32,538 

27 
Johnson Lake Antimycin Treatment

First Treatment: Water temperature on the first day of treatment, August 10, 2004, was 

approximately 9° C, and pH was 7.8-8.1. This caused concern because the previous pH levels 

had been lower, and antimycin quickly becomes less effective as pH rises (Marking 1975). 

About 3.5 units (480 ml/unit) of antimycin were spread throughout the lake from 1238 to 1438 

hours, with the antimycin being pumped into the boat prop wash. About one-half unit of this 

antimycin was released at 3 m (10 ft) depth through extended tubing. All antimycin solutions had 

Nonoxonyl-9, a detergent, added at 20 ml (0.7 oz) per unit to help spread antimycin throughout 

the water column. Concurrently, 10 ml (0.3 oz) of antimycin diluted in 18.9 L (5 gal) of water 

was expended into the outlet stream over the course of 5 hours. The drip station was recharged 

with 10 ml (0.3 oz) of antimycin and 5 gallons of water at 1745 hours. Following the application 

via the Zodiac, the backpack sprayer spent approximately 1 hour in the shallows at the east end 

of the lake to use all the piscicide, and then the backpack sprayer was refilled and sprayed at the 

north end. At 1700 hours, the backpack sprayer was filled for the third time and antimycin 

applied at the east end of the lake again. The amount of antimycin applied to the lake was 

estimated to result in a concentration of 7.5 ppb. 

On the day following the initial treatment, live fish of a range of size classes were observed in 

the lake. The pH was 8.5, the upper limit for using antimycin effectively. Due to the high pH, 

which results in rapid breakdown of antimycin, and the apparent vigor of the fish, the treatment 

was determined to have been unsuccessful. The pH continued to rise over the course of the day, 

reaching a value of 9.5 by 1630 hours, and although sufficient antimycin was applied to achieve 

concentrations of 8 ppb, live fish were captured in the gill nets shortly after the treatment was 

completed. The capture of additional live fish one week later confirmed that the treatment had 

not been successful. 

Second Treatment: The pH at Johnson Lake was monitored throughout the remainder of August 

and September 2004 (Table 10). When it dropped to 8.35 on September 27, it was decided to 

conduct a second two-day treatment. Treatment began early on September 28 to take advantage 

of the low morning pH values. Application by boat began at 0700 hours and was completed by 

0930 hours. Methods were identical to those used during the first treatment. Three units of 

antimycin were dispensed throughout the lake via the Zodiac, with an additional 7/8 of a unit 

dispensed into deep water using extra tubing. Eighty ml (2.7 oz) of antimycin was distributed 

with the backpack sprayer. 

Table 10. Weekly pH readings for Johnson Lake, autumn 2004. 

Date Time pH 

8/17/04 1600 9.1 

8/18/04 1010 8.9 

9/9/04 1100 8.7 

9/16/04 1100 8.0 

9/23/04 1430 8.6 

9/27/04 1400 8.3 

Because live fish were observed along the shoreline at the end of the day, treatment was repeated 

on September 29 with approximately 2 units of antimycin dispensed from the boat and 40 ml 

28 
(1.6 oz) applied with a backpack sprayer along the shoreline. During treatment, all of the fish 

that were observed were dead. By the time treatment was completed on the second day, the pH 

had risen to 8.5. However, it is believed that intermittent storm activity on September 28 may 

have prevented pH from rising to a level that would have prevented the antimycin from being 

effective. The estimated concentrations of antimycin in the lake were 7.8 ppb the first day and 

3.9 ppb the second day. 

Fourteen units (6.72 L) of Fintrol (Antimycin-A) were applied for this project. The amount used 

was approximately three times the quantity expected due to the high pH levels in the lake. 

Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring

No fish were encountered in Strawberry Creek following treatment during two electroshocking 

trips down the entire creek. No brook trout were found in Snake Creek following the treatment, but 

one brown trout was encountered near Shoshone Campground. Due to the fact that brown trout had 

never been found in that section of the creek, it is likely that an angler transplanted this fish. No 

additional brown trout were found in subsequent surveys. No non-native fish were seen in South 

Fork Baker Creek in 2005. Two years of gillnetting in Johnson Lake found no brook trout. Water 

chemistry following the treatments was within the natural range of variation for the waterbodies. 

Macroinvertebrates were sampled and are discussed below. 

Ecosystem Recovery Monitoring 

Although ecosystem recovery monitoring was conducted at some level in all four streams to which 

BCT were reintroduced, results presented here are limited to Strawberry and Snake creeks, the two 

streams that were treated with piscicides. Neither stream exhibited measureable differences in 

water quality following treatment. However, chemical treatment had substantial, but different, 

effects on the aquatic invertebrate communities of the two streams. The results suggest that 

macroinvertebrate communities respond differently to rotenone and antimycin (Figures 15-18). 

Macroinvertebrate Recovery Comparison 

Pre-treatment: Prior to the treatments, Strawberry Creek had higher macroinvertebrate abundance 

and richness than Snake Creek. Strawberry Creek macroinvertebrate total abundance averaged 1,762 

specimens/m2

 and EPT abundance averaged 833 specimens/m2. Average number of taxa (richness) 

for all Strawberry Creek sites was 47 total taxa and 26 EPT taxa. Snake Creek macroinvertebrate 

total abundance averaged 1,642 specimens/m2, and EPT abundance averaged 766 specimens/m2. 

Average number of taxa (richness) for all Snake Creek sites was 38 total taxa and 22 EPT taxa. 

Short-term Response: At one-month post treatment, it was obvious that rotenone had severely 

impacted the macroinvertebrate communities in Strawberry Creek, while antimycin had moderately 

impacted macroinvertebrate communities in Snake Creek. Strawberry Creek macroinvertebrate total 

abundance had declined by 85%, and EPT abundance had declined by 99%. The taxa that were most 

resistant to rotenone were in the orders Coleoptera, Diptera and Amphipoda (Table 11). Specimens 

from these orders were collected during all three sampling events: one-day, one-week and onemonth post-treatment. Snake Creek macroinvertebrate total abundance had declined by 61%, and 

EPT abundance had declined by 54%. Macroinvertebrate richness in Strawberry Creek for overall 

taxa had declined 68%, and EPT taxa had declined 86%. Macroinvertebrate richness in Snake Creek 

for overall taxa had declined 29%, and EPT taxa had declined 26%. 

29 
30 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Pre-Treatment 1-Month 9-Months 1-Year 2-Years 3-Years

#/m2

Rotenone Total Abundance Rotenone EPT Abundance

Figure 15. Total and EPT group abundance in Strawberry Creek prior to rotenone treatment and 

up to three years post-treatment. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pre-Treatment 1-Day 1-Week 1-Month 9-Months 1-Year 2-Years 3-Years

#/m2

Rotenone OTU Numbers Rotenone EPT Taxa

Figure 16. Total and EPT group richness in Strawberry Creek prior to rotenone treatment and up 

to three years post-treatment. 
31 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Pre-Treatment 1-Month 9-Months 1-Year

#/m2

Antimycin Total Abundance Antimycin EPT Abundance

Figure 17. Total and EPT group abundance in Snake Creek prior to antimycin treatment and up 

to one year post-treatment. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pre-Treatment 1-Day 1-Week 1-Month 9-Months 1-Year

#/m2

Antimycin OTU Numbers Antimycin EPT Taxa

Figure 18. Total and EPT group richness in Snake Creek prior to antimycin treatment and up to 

one year post-treatment. 
Table 11. Taxonomic groups and the percent increases or decreases of contribution to differences in preand post-treatment similarity indices by treatment type (from Hamilton et al. 2007).

Taxonomic Group Rotenone Antimycin 

% Contribution % Contribution 

Trichoptera -14.22 7.48 

Ephemeroptera -13.10 -19.14 

Plecoptera -7.27 -9.65 

Platyhelminthes -3.45 3.44 

Amphipoda -1.95 

Trombidiformes -0.77 1.88 

Diptera 12.83 5.79 

Coleoptera 3.92 3.40 

Annelida 0.78 2.53 

Long-term Response: By nine-months post treatment, macroinvertebrate communities in both 

creeks were increasing in number and diversity. Strawberry Creek macroinvertebrate total 

abundance was 46% of pre-treatment numbers, but EPT abundance was just 6%. Strawberry 

Creek richness for overall taxa was 44% of pre-treatment numbers and 24% for EPT taxa. Snake 

Creek showed an increase, with macroinvertebrate total abundance of 479% of pre-treatment 

numbers and EPT abundance of 442%. Richness was also high, with overall taxa at 95% and 

EPT taxa at 97% of pre-treatment numbers. 

At one-year post treatment, Strawberry Creek showed increased macroinvertebrate abundance, 

particularly for EPT taxa, which in three months had gone from 6% to 43% of pre-treatment 

numbers. Overall taxa abundance was up to 61%, while richness of overall taxa and EPT taxa 

rose to 80% and 70%, respectively, of pre-treatment levels. Five taxa that were found pretreatment were missing one-year post-treatment: Plecoptera (Nemouridae), Trichoptera 

(Glossomomatidae, Philopotamidae Dolophilodes), Diptera (Tipulidae Antocha) and 

Ephemeroptera (Baetidae Baetis bicaudata). The last two taxa were still absent after three years. 

At two-years post treatment, Strawberry Creek had a total abundance of 66% of pre-treatment 

average and EPT 43% of pre-treatment average. After three years, total abundance exceeded pretreatment levels at one sample site, while EPT abundance remained below pre-treatment levels at 

all sites. A steep decline in total and EPT group abundance occurred at three-years posttreatment. The likely cause was a worsening drought that significantly reduced water flows. 

Total number of taxa remained unchanged three-years post-treatment. Overall taxa numbers 

recovered to an average of 42 taxa (91% of pre-treatment average) by the second year, while 

EPT group taxa numbers recovered to an average of 20 taxa (77% of pre-treatment average). 

Taxa numbers had not returned to pre-treatment levels after three years. 

At one-year post treatment, Snake Creek still had lower macroinvertebrate abundance but 

exhibited richness similar to pretreatment levels. Snake Creek macroinvertebrate overall 

abundance was 62% of pre-treatment numbers and EPT abundance was 71%. Richness of overall 

taxa was 92%, and richness of EPT taxa was 97%. One taxon, Trichoptera (Philopotamidae), was 

still missing one-year post treatment. 

32 
For Johnson Lake, the number and diversity of macroinvertebrates increased following the 

treatment and removal of fish. Three kick-net samples in the littoral zone were taken prior to the 

treatment, in July 1998, July 2000 and August 2004, with an average of 7 taxa and 23 

individuals. Two samples were taken post-treatment, in August 2005 and July 2007, with an 

average of 9 taxa and 181 individuals. New taxa that were found in the lake post-treatment 

included Coleoptera (Dysticidae Agabus and Rhantus), Heteroptera (Corixidae Cenocorixa and 

Notonectidae Notonecta) and Trichoptera (Limnephilidae Hesperophylax and an unidentified 

genus). 

Reintroduction of BCT 

Over the course of five years, more than 350 BCT were released in four different streams within 

the Park (Table 12). The first reintroduction took place in South Fork Big Wash in 2000, using 

Mill Creek as the donor source. Two years following the rotenone treatment, 34 BCT from Mill 

Creek were released in Strawberry Creek at a mid- elevation site. In 2005, an additional 30 BCT 

from Mill Creek were released in Strawberry Creek, upstream of a fish barrier (culvert). BCT 

from Mill Creek were also released in 2005 in South Fork of Baker Creek above 2,682 m (8,800 

ft) elevation. Upper Snake Creek had 104 BCT stocked in 2005 (Figure 19) and 100 in 2008 

using Hendry’s Creek (outside the Park in the northern Snake Range) as the donor source. 

Table 12. BCT reintroduction sites and number of fish reintroduced.

Reintroduction Stream Site Date # of 

BCT 

Donor Source 

South Fork Big Wash Below perennial spring 2000 56 Mill Creek 

Strawberry Creek About one mile into Park; Below 

and above second culvert near 

corral area 

2003, 2005 34, 30 Mill Creek 

Upper Snake Creek Along main stem, South Fork, 

Shoshone Camground; along 

main stem 

2005, 2008 104, 100 Hendry’s Creek 

South Fork Baker Below and above meadow 2005 45 Mill Creek 

Use of the streamside incubators did not contribute to BCT reintroductions, due to problems with 

fungus growing on and destroying the eggs (Figure 20). Despite treatment with formaldehyde to 

Figure 19. Volunteers help reintroduce Bonneville cutthroat trout 

into Upper Snake Creek (2005). 

Figure 20. Silt accumulation in 

streamside incubator after one 

day encouraged fungus growth 

(2002). 

33 
disinfect the eggs, all succumbed to fungus. Low streamflow, which resulted in low flow through 

the incubators, may have facilitated the fungal growth. Nevertheless, the attempt to use 

streamside incubators did provide important information about spawning requirements of BCT in 

the southern Snake Range. Definitive signs of spawning in Mill Creek were seen June 26 through 

July 3, 2002, when the daily mean water temperature reached 12° C (Figure 21) following peak 

discharge. 

BCT Population Monitoring 

As a result of reintroductions conducted during this project and natural expansion of these newly 

established populations, BCT now occupy 13.1 km (8.1 mi) of streams (Figure 22, Table 13) 

within Great Basin National Park. BCT populations on the southern Snake Range on adjacent 

BLM and private land in Pine and Ridge Creeks and Big Wash include an additional 5 km (3 mi) 

of occupied habitat. 

Reintroduced populations were monitored with electrofishing, beginning two years following the 

stocking, and in all cases showed good recruitment. The number of mature adults (Figure 23) 

increased in both South Fork Big Wash and Strawberry Creeks from two to four years postreintroduction. Fish total abundance, density, biomass, condition, and mean TL increased in 

Strawberry Creek, but fluctuated in South Fork Big Wash, possibly due to a large wildfire and 

0

2

4

6

5/5-

5/11

5/12-

5/18

5/19-

5/25

5/26-

6/1

6/2-6/8 6/9-

6/15

6/16-

6/22

6/23-

6/29

6/30-

7/6

7/7-

7/13

Week

8

10

12

14

16

18

Temperature (C)

Max

Min

Spaw ning Ave

Period

Figure 21. Spawning period and water temperatures in Mill Creek, 2002.

34 
Figure 22. Streams with reintroduced populations of Bonneville cutthroat, Great Basin 

National Park and vicinity. 

subsequent flash flood that added extra sediment to the stream system and reduced spawning 

habitat. Because the reintroductions in Snake and South Fork Baker creeks were relatively 

recent, data are based on only one year of one survey each. These surveys found a small number 

of mature adults in both creeks, but good recruitment, especially in Snake Creek. 

35 
Table 13. BCT population status in streams in Great Basin National Park. 

Creek 

Name 

Year 

Stocked 

Date of 

Survey Site 

Adult 

fish / 

100 m

 Fish /

100 m

Fish / 

100 m2

Biomass 

(kg/ha) 

Condition 

(K) 

Mean 

TL 

(mm) 

Occupied 

Stream 

Km (mi)

BCT/

mile 

Mill 

NA 

8/24/1999 BCT1 12 38 24.0 71.6 1.23 121.4 

1.7 (1.1) 480 Mill 8/26/1999 BCT2 0 7 4.4 8.5 1.4 110.4 

Mill 8/29/2005 BCT1 4 24 15.1 38.1 1.09 119.8 

Mill 8/29/2005 BCT2 12 36 22.7 68.1 1.05 134.5 

SFBW 8/22/2002 BCT2 2 31 16.3 77.3 1.11 132.5 

SFBW 2000 9/10/2004 BCT2 7 65 40.8 73.5 1.28 93.5 2.6 (1.6) 700 

SFBW 8/29/2006 BCT2 18 43 18.3 72.0 1.07 125.5 

Strawberry 2002 9/08/2004 BCT2 3 28 17.3 27.6 1.06 93.6 4.8 (3.0) 850 Strawberry 2005 8/31/2006 BCT2 15 53 27.9 79.5 1.17 110.5 

Snake 2005 8/29/2007 1st campsite 0 18 7.6 7.5 1.78 83.8 

3.0 (1.9) 1040

Snake 2008 8/29/2007 

below 

confluence 4 112 36.9 36.1 1.26 73.7 

SF Baker 2005 9/13/2007 

below 

meadow 4 23 9.5 26.2 1.03 89.1 1.0 (0.6) 368 

Figure 23. Mature Bonneville cutthroat trout in 

the South Fork of Big Wash (2002). 

Population estimates are based on the 

number of fish captured in 100 m 

extrapolated to one mile for compatibility 

with NDOW reporting practices. The 

population estimates for Strawberry and 

Upper Snake Creeks are high (850 and 1040 

BCT/mile, respectively) compared to 

population estimates for other similar-sized 

streams in Nevada within five years of 

reintroductions. But, at this time, the 

majority of these fish are less than 150 mm 

TL and, thus, not of reproductive age (Table 

13). In fact, although 112 fish were 

captured at the second site on Snake Creek, 

only four were of mature adult size 

(≥150mm). Length/frequency histograms on 

each of the creeks indicate that it may take several years for fish populations to develop into 

strong multiple age classes (Figures 24-35). 

Biomass is a measure of fish population status that incorporates both individual and population 

growth. Before Mill Creek was used as a source of fish for other streams, standing crop biomass 

for the BCT population was 71.6 kg/ha. The standing crop biomass of the SBFW population 

exceeded this within two years after reintroduction and remained over 70 kg/ha during the next 

36 
 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

3050

70

90

110

130

150170

190

210

230

250270

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

Figure 26. Length/frequency histogram for BCT 

moved from Mill Creek to South Fork Big Wash in 

July 2000. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

30507090

110130150170190210230250270

Total Length (mm)

Number of fish 

Figure 28. BCT length/frequency histogram for South 

Fork Big Wash in 2004. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

30507090

110130150170

190210230

250

270

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

Figure 29. BCT length/frequency histogram for South 

Fork Big Wash in 2006. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

30507090

110130150170190210230250270

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

Figure 27. BCT length/frequency histogram for South 

Fork Big Wash in 2002. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

Figure 25. BCT length/frequency histogram for Mill 

Creek in August 2005. Data for two sampling sites are 

pooled. 

Figure 24. BCT length/frequency histogram for Mill 

Creek in August 1999. Data for two sampling sites are 

pooled. 

37 
38 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

30507090

110130150170190210230250

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

Figure 33. BCT length/frequency histogram for Snake 

Creek at lower site in 2007. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

30507090

110

130150

170190210230250

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

Figure 34. BCT length/frequency histogram for Snake 

Creek at upper site in 2007. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

30507090

110

130150

170190210230250

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

Figure 35. BCT length/frequency histogram for South 

Fork Baker Creek in 2007. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

30507090

110130150170190210230250

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

30507090

110130150170190210230250

Total Length (mm)

Number of fish 

Figure 30. BCT length/frequency histogram for 

Strawberry Creek in 2003. 

Figure 31. BCT length/frequency histogram for 

Strawberry Creek in 2004. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

30507090

110130150170190210230250

Total Length (mm)

Number of Fish

Figure 32. BCT length/frequency histogram for 

Strawberry Creek in 2006. 
two surveys. Standing crop biomass was higher in Strawberry Creek than in Mill Creek four 

years after reintroduction. It should be noted that the sampling locations in SFBW and 

Strawberry Creeks were the same locations that the fish were originally stocked. Further 

upstream or downstream, these high numbers are not likely to exist for many years until fish 

distribution expands. 

Fulton Condition Factor (K) is an index of fish health based on the weight/length relationship. 

The condition of BCT in all streams appears to be similar to brown, brook and rainbow trout in 

Baker, Lehman and Snake Creeks. 

Fish distribution surveys found that BCT expanded their distribution 2 km (1.6 mi) downstream 

in South Fork Big Wash and 1.9 km (1.2 mi) upstream in Strawberry Creek from the 

reintroduction sites within three years. 

Johnson Lake was historically fishless, so following NPS Management Policies (2001), no BCT 

were introduced into the lake. Effectiveness monitoring on Johnson Lake included gill netting 

and angling during the 2005 summer. No fish were caught by either method. 

Creel Survey 

A stratified random creel survey was conducted for a total of 42 half-days in 2005. Eleven 

anglers were encountered, for an estimated 56 + 11 anglers for the four creeks surveyed from 

June to August. Despite this low angling pressure, a large amount of money was spent in order to 

go fishing. For the 11 anglers surveyed, a combined amount of $50 was spent in the Park and 

$981 within 160 km (100 miles) of the Park on fishing related items, with gas, food and fishing 

licenses as the top three expenses. The average trip expenditure totaled $94 per angler. Most 

anglers experienced good catch rates (mean=0.7 fish/hr) and were satisfied with their angling 

experience (Wiley and Baker 2005). 

Comparison of Treatment Methods 

The Park had the opportunity to use and compare three different treatment techniques to remove 

nonnative fish: electrofishing removal, rotenone and antimycin (Table 14). These costs are solely 

for the treatment and do not include planning, travel for experts or monitoring before or after the 

treatment. 

The cost of the antimycin treatment and electrofishing removal per kilometer differ greatly from 

results in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Moore et al. 2005). We were able to achieve a 

much lower cost for electrofishing ($3,036/km versus $12,416-$15,089/km) due to the low 

number of fish inhabiting the targeted stream reach, smaller stream size and less complex habitat. 

The cost of antimycin for this project was higher than anticipated ($6,597/km versus $3,939/km), 

due to the increased pH and steeper stream gradient which required additional antimycin and 

time for treatment. 

In view of the fact that the cost does not reflect the benefits of preserving ecosystem components 

(such as the macroinvertebrate community), it should not be the only factor that is considered in 

deciding which method is best suited to a particular project. When community or ecosystem 

restoration is the goal, other factors may be more important than the monetary cost. 

39 
Table 14. Comparison of fish removal treatment costs. 

Treatment Length 

Treated 

(km) 

Hours Hours/Km Total 

Cost 

Cost/Km Notes 

Electrofishing 

Removal (South 

Fork Baker) 

1.0 288 288 $3,036 $3,036 Conducted from 2003-2005; 

3 electrofishing trips/year *4 people * 8 

hours*$16/hr2

 

Electrofishing gear = $1,500 

Rotenone 

(Strawberry 

Creek) 

11.9 320 27 $10,950 $920 2 days of treatment * 20 people * 8 

hours * $20/hr 

Rotenone = $3550 for powder and 33 

gallons 

Backpack sprayers and other equipment 

= $1,000 

Antimycin 

(Snake Creek) 

3.4 864 254 $21,430 $6,303 6 days of treatment * 18 people * 8 

hours * $20/hr 

Antimycin = $3,150 for 9 units 

Potassium permanganate = $500 for 15 

kg 

Backpack sprayers and other equipment 

= $1,000 

 

2

 The rate of $16/hr was used for electrofishing removal since the crew consists of one biologist and three 

biological technicians. The rate of $20/hr was used for the piscicide treatments since over half of the crew 

consisted of biologists and supervisory biologists. 

40 
Discussion 

Planning and Pre-treatment Surveys 

We learned quickly during the initiation of the planning and pre-treatment surveys that adaptive 

management would be necessary to make this project work. A project this large is bound to 

present unanticipated difficulties. Lessons learned in overcoming these difficulties have guided 

other restoration projects within the Park. One important lesson is that native fish restoration is 

controversial. Views on which waters are appropriate for reintroduction and how restoration 

should proceed vary among agencies, organizations and various segments of the public. We 

found that frequent face-to-face meetings with cooperating agencies and other interested parties 

contributed to developing consensus and maintaining progress toward achieving restoration 

objectives. In addition, the reliance on NPS management policies, such as using the closest 

genetic match for reintroductions and, when that is not possible, the closest geographic 

population, provided a basis for making decisions with potential ecological consequences. 

Adaptive management was extremely important to the success of this project. For example, when 

it was determined that the fish in Mill Creek were genetically pure Bonneville cutthroat trout, it 

became necessary to preserve the population. In addition to its status as the last relict BCT 

population within the Park, the Mill Creek population provides the closest and, thus, the best 

source of BCT for introduction to other Park streams. The ability to use this population as a 

source enabled Park staff to accelerate the schedule for restoration in other streams. Another 

example of adaptive management occurred when the Park learned that Johnson Lake, which was 

not believed to have a surface outlet, spilled over into Snake Creek during runoff in high snow 

years. Because the lake supported nonnative fish, project staff made the decision to treat the 

Lake to protect the reestablished BCT population in Snake Creek. Furthermore, the small 

number of fish in South Fork Baker Creek allowed the creek to be treated with electrofishing 

rather than a piscicide. The low numbers of rainbow trout may be because conditions at this high 

elevation are near the limits of the species’ life history requirements. 

From the beginning of the project, it was recognized that limitations on funding would preclude 

following the standard timetable used by NDOW for fisheries restoration projects. This timetable 

requires waiting 3-5 years after treatment to reintroduce BCT. Therefore, park staff decided to 

monitor the macroinvertebrate population intensively to assess how soon after treatment BCT 

could be stocked into the stream and have a sufficient invertebrate food base. Data collected over 

the course of this project suggest that BCT can be stocked to a stream sooner, and, as a result, 

NDOW has changed their timetable and stocked BCT into Big Wash Creek only two years after 

treating it with rotenone. 

The ten-year timeline the Park initially set out to follow was extremely ambitious. Fortunately, 

despite some changes in timing due to various unforeseen circumstances, the Park was able to 

reintroduce BCT into four of the six streams originally targeted for BCT restoration. A fifth 

stream, Mill Creek, was found to already support a BCT population. No plans have been made 

for the sixth stream, Lehman Creek, due to the continuation of its use as a drinking water source 

for residents just outside the Park boundary. Having a timeline greatly helped in planning, but it 

was important to recognize that the timeline was a guide, and that changes in it were inevitable 

and acceptable. 

41 
Chemical or Physical Treatment 

While the rotenone and electrofishing treatments went as planned, the Park had to adapt the 

antimycin treatment to make it successful. The Snake Creek treatment used nearly three times 

the anticipated amount of antimycin due to its quick degradation in the steep stream habitat and 

relatively high pH (~8.0). While it appears that the Park could do nothing to change this, other 

agencies contemplating antimycin projects in similar habitats with comparable water quality 

parameters (mean water temperature of 9.7° C and mean pH of 7.7) should plan their project 

accordingly. 

The Johnson Lake treatment was hampered by insufficient data on pH. Past data suggested that 

the lake pH would not be high, but upon closer examination, it was found that most of this data 

represented instantaneous measurements. Without continuous measurements, there was not a 

clear understanding of the seasonal water chemistry dynamics and the effects of annual algal 

blooms. Macroinvertebrate monitoring on Johnson Lake will continue to quantify the diversity 

and estimate the population abundance. 

Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring 

The discovery of a brown trout in an area that had been treated the previous year to remove 

brook trout reminds us that all of these systems will need to be monitored periodically to ensure 

that the reintroduction efforts are not undermined by unauthorized fish relocations. In addition, a 

strong education component, consisting of articles in the Park newspaper and park resource 

management newsletter, along with fishing brochures and training of park interpretive staff, will 

help to inform the public of the importance of native fish and the need to protect them. 

Ecosystem Recovery Monitoring 

The comparison of macroinvertebrate recovery provided useful information about the effects of 

two piscicides. Other monitoring efforts have noted the rapid eradication of many, if not all, 

macroinvertebrate taxa as a result of stream rotenone treatments (Binns 1967; Cook and Moore 

1969; Engstrom-Heg et al. 1978; Mangum and Madrigal 1999; Whelan 2002). Minckley and 

Mihalick (1981) noted the “decimation” of macroinvertebrates from an antimycin treatment in 

Arizona, and Walker (2003) measured macroinvertebrate abundance declines of up to 64% from 

an antimycin treatment on Sam’s Creek, Tennessee. Conversely, Jacobi and Degan (1977) found 

a high retention of taxa diversity from an antimycin treatment in Wisconsin. 

The ability to retain high abundance and diversity after a piscicide treatment may improve 

recovery rates of aquatic invertebrates. The ability of taxa to recolonize treated areas is likely a 

function of overall population size, distribution within the basin, upstream and local habitat 

conditions, and the dispersal abilities of various taxa. With greatly reduced abundance and/or the 

complete elimination of some taxa from certain reaches, recovery would depend primarily on the 

dispersal capabilities of the affected taxa from unaffected habitat. Under these conditions, 

recovery would be expected to be slower and more likely to result in altered community 

composition (Mangum and Madrigal 1999). Where a treatment retains the majority of pretreatment taxa, reproduction within the treated reach can contribute to recovery. In addition, 

recovery should be facilitated in habitats where predation pressure has been reduced due to the 

eradication of fish. 

42 
Non-treated refuges appeared to contribute to recovery of most, but not all, macroinvertebrates to 

treated areas. In project streams, five taxa were still missing after one-year and two taxa were 

absent from the Strawberry Creek three-years after rotenone treatment. Though 48 springs and 

seeps located throughout the watershed were not treated, these habitats are unique and may not 

support all of the taxa that are found in streams. The majority of the non-treated stream areas on 

Strawberry Creek were located in the headwaters, which greatly increases dispersal distances 

between non-treated and downstream treated areas. Also, some taxa show an elevation restriction 

(Darby et al. 2004). Lack of untreated low-elevation stream reaches may be hampering the 

recovery of Antocha spp., which, prior to treatment, was collected only at lower elevation sites. 

Baetis bicaudata was collected at untreated sites following the Strawberry Creek rotenone 

treatment but never exceeded four individuals per sample per square meter, so numbers were 

low. The single taxon from the Trichoptera family Philopotamidae, missing after the Snake 

Creek antimycin treatment, has also been collected in non-treated area samples but has never 

exceeded three individuals per sample per square meter. Low abundance of Baetis bicaudata and 

Philopotamidae at non-treated sites may reduce the rate at which these taxa recolonize treated 

sites. 

An extended drought is another factor that could be affecting recovery. Stream flows have 

declined after numerous years of below-average precipitation, desiccating headwater reaches and 

reducing the area of habitat available, especially in Strawberry Creek, where mean summer flows 

decreased from 0.04 m3

/s (1.5 ft3/s) in 2000 to 0.02 m3/s (0.6 ft3/s) in 2003. 

Our results indicate that leaving some areas untreated and using antimycin rather than rotenone 

for the removal of nonnative fish reduces the impact to the invertebrate community and 

facilitates rapid recovery to pre-treatment conditions. Another advantage of antimycin relative to 

rotenone is that the more rapid recovery of aquatic invertebrates (Hamilton et al. 2007) will 

reduce the time between removal and reintroduction. We hope the information provided here will 

allow fisheries and land managers to make more informed decisions related to piscicide 

treatments. 

Reintroduction of BCT 

Hard plants of BCT worked well for reintroducing BCT to target streams. Streamside incubators, 

which were used in an attempt to help hasten the reestablishment of BCT populations, were not a 

successful method for reintroduction in this project. Trout Unlimited provided the first 

incubators and the expertise how to use them (Duff undated). Although eggs held in incubators 

failed to survive due to a combination of low stream flows and high sediment levels that 

accelerated fungus growth, egg collection provided important information about BCT spawning 

in Mill Creek.

BCT Population Monitoring 

Two of the BCT populations, Strawberry Creek and upper Snake Creek, occupy habitat sizes 

larger than 2 ha (5 acres), which is what Harig et al. (2000) recommended for sustainable 

greenback cutthroat trout populations. Over the next few years, BCT have the potential to expand 

4.5 km within the park (1.0 km in Strawberry, 2.1 km in South Fork Baker, and 1.4 km in Snake 

Creek) without additional renovation treatments. BCT in streams smaller than 2 ha (5 acres) will 

need more monitoring and possible augmentations in the future. In addition, since all the 

reintroductions consisted of less than the 250 adults recommended (Hilderbrand 2002), it is 

43 
likely that future translocations will be conducted to improve genetic diversity. Hilderbrand 

noted that even very small populations persist when stocked with 10 adults every 10-20 years. It 

appears that cutthroat populations fluctuate greatly from year to year even with constant habitat 

conditions (House 1995), so the Park must take these natural population fluctuations into 

consideration. The small park populations are extremely vulnerable to habitat and environmental 

variations that could affect survival and reproductive success over near-term and, therefore, 

ultimate success of reintroductions. Reestablished populations are currently vulnerable given the 

small number of sexually mature fish. It will be some time before sexually mature fish recruit 

into the population. It should be noted that electrofishing has an inherent bias towards larger fish 

so it will underestimate recruitment. 

Hopefully, with the careful planning put into this project, the Park will experience greater than 

the 38% translocation success rate experiences for greenback cutthroat trout (Harig et al. 2000). 

The success criteria used in that study included amount of occupied habitat, number of adult fish 

and presence of at least two year-classes within five years and isolation from nonnative 

salmonids. It was noted that achieving short-term (5-25 yr) success did not necessarily equate to 

long-term success (Harig et al. 2000). However, the BCT population in Mill Creek has persisted 

for over 100 years in a habitat that is smaller than the 8 km (5 mi) recommended by Hilderbrand 

and Kershner (2000a). Also, having multiple populations in separate locations reduces the 

potential that a single catastrophic event such as a wild fire will affect all populations. 

Monitoring of BCT populations is ongoing in all five streams and will continue into the 

foreseeable future. 

Restoring Native Fish Communities 

With BCT populations restablished in four streams and verified in one stream, the Park is turning 

its attention to completing the aquatic assemblage in some of these streams by restoring other 

native species. Redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) and 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) once inhabited the streams of Great Basin National Park 

with BCT, and in 2005, the Park began its first restoration efforts on these species, moving 50 of 

each species into the South Fork Big Wash from Lake Creek, Utah, in adjacent Snake Valley. An 

additional 50 of each species were added the following year, with 150 of each species stocked 

into Strawberry Creek. Preliminary monitoring data show that all three species can survive the 

winter temperatures in Strawberry Creek with mottled sculpin showing recruitment. Monitoring 

will continue in conjunction with BCT surveys. 

44 
Literature Cited 

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates 

and fish, second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Water, Washington, D.C. 

Behnke, R. J. 1976. A summary of information on a unique form of cutthroat trout native to the 

Snake Valley section of the Bonneville Basin, Utah-Nevada. Report for the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Behnke, R. J. 1970. Analysis of fish in Mill Creek. White paper to Nevada Fish and Game 

Department. 

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society 

Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Behnke, R. J. 1988. Phylogeny and classification of cutthroat trout. In R. E. Gresswell, editor. 

Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 4:1-7. 

Behnke, R. J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press, New York. 

Berger, B. L., R. E. Lennon, and J. W. Hogan. 1969. Laboratory studies on antimycin A as a fish 

toxicant. Investigations in fish control, #26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

Binns, N. L. 1967. Effects of rotenone treatment on the fauna of the Green River, Wyoming. 

Fisheries Research Bulletin 1, Wyoming Fish and Game Commission. 

Binns, N. A., and R. Remmick. 1994. Response of Bonneville cutthroat trout and their habitat to 

drainage-wide habitat management at Huff Creek, Wyoming. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 14:669-680. 

Chance, C. J. 1948. How should population surveys be made. Proceedings of the Annual 

Conference of the Southeastern Association Game and Fish Commissioners. 11:84-89. 

Cook, S. F. Jr., and R. L. Moore. 1969. The effects of a rotenone treatment on the insect fauna of 

a California Stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 3:539-544. 

Cremins, D. M., and P. Spruell. 2003. Detection of hybridization between Bonneville cutthroat 

trout and two introduced trout. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab Report WTSGL03-

104. University of Montana, Missoula. 

45 
Cumming, K. B. 1975. History of fish toxicants in the United States. Pages 5-21 in P. H. 

Eschmeyer, editor. Rehabilitation of fish populations with toxicants: a symposium. Special 

Publication 4. American Fisheries Society, North Central Division, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Dankowski, Macaluso, and Williams. 1984. Field trip reports of trout population surveys in 

Strawberry Creek. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Ely. 

Darby, N. W., T. B. Williams, G. M. Baker, and M. R. Vinson. 2004. Minimizing effects of 

piscicides on macroinvertebrates. Pages 326-327 in S. Moore and C., editors. Wild Trout 

VIII Symposium Proceedings. Wild Trout Symposium, Inc., Bozeman, MT. 

Degan, D. J. 1973. Observations on aquatic macroinvertebrates in a trout stream before, during 

and after treatment with Antimycin. M.S. thesis. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. 

Downs, C. C., R. G. White, and B. B. Shepard. 1997. Age at sexual maturity, sex ratio, 

fecundity, and longevity of isolated headwater populations of westslope cutthroat trout. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:85-92. 

Duff, D. n.d. TU’s trout in a fridge. White paper. U.S. Forest Service TU National Partnership 

Liaison, Salt Lake City. 

Elliot, P. E., D. A. Beck, and D. E. Prudic. 2006. Characterization of surface-water resources in 

the Great Basin National Park area and their susceptibility to ground-water withdrawals in 

adjacent valleys, White Pine County, Nevada. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-

5009. 

Engstrom-Heg, R., R. Colesante, and E. Silco. 1978. Rotenone tolerances of stream bottom 

insects. New York Fish and Game Journal 25:31-41. 

Finlayson, B. J., R. A. Schnick, R. L. Cailteux, L. DeMong, W. D. Horton, W. McClay, C. W. 

Thompson, and G. J. Tichacek. 2000. Rotenone use in fisheries management: administrative 

and technical guidelines manual. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Finlayson, B. J., R. A. Schnick, R. L. Cailteux, L. DeMong, W. D. Horton, W. McClay, C. W. 

Thompson. 2002. Potential of antimycin A use in fisheries – assessment of reregistration. 

Fisheries 27:10-18. 

Frantz, T. C. 1953. Surveys of watersheds in the south Snake Range (1952-1953) with emphasis 

on fisheries. Nevada Fish and Game Commission. Carson City. 

Gresswell, R. E., and J. D. Varley. 1988. Effects of a century of human influence on the cutthroat 

trout of Yellowstone Lake. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:45-52. 

Hall, G. E. 1974. Sampling reservoir fish populations with rotenone. Pages 249-259 in R. 

Welcomme, editor. Symposium on the methodology for the survey, monitoring and 

appraisal of fishery resources in lakes and large rivers. Food and Agriculture Organization 

46 
of the United Nations, European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, Technical Paper 

No. 23. Rome, Italy. 

Hamilton, B. T., T. B. Williams, and N. Darby. 2007. Comparative effects of rotenone and 

antimycin on macroinvertebrate diversity. In Wild Trout IX Symposium Proceedings. Wild 

Trout Symposium, Inc., Bozeman, MT. 

Harig, A. L., K. D. Fausch, and M. K. Young. 2000. Factors influencing success of greenback 

cutthroat trout translocations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:994-

1004. 

Haskins, R. L. 1990. Field trip reports of trout population surveys in Lehman, Baker, and Snake 

Creeks. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Ely. 

Hawkins, C., J. Ostermiller, M. Vinson, and R. J. Stevenson. 2001. Stream algae, invertebrate 

and environmental sampling associated with biological water quality assessments: Field 

protocols. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan. 

Hickman, T., and R. F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Cutthroat trout. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.5. 

Hilderbrand. R. H. 2002. Simulating supplementation strategies for restoring and maintaining 

stream resident cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 22:879-887. 

Hilderbrand. R.H. and J.L. Kershner. 2000a. Conserving inland cutthroat trout in small streams: 

how much stream is enough? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:513-520. 

Hilderbrand. R. H. and J. L. Kershner. 2000b. Movement patterns of stream-resident cutthroat 

trout in Beaver Creek, Idaho-Utah. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

129:1160-1170. 

House, R. 1995. Temporal variation in abundance of an isolated population of cutthroat trout in 

Western Oregon, 1981-1991. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:33-41. 

Jakober, M. J., T. E. McMahon, R. F. Thurow, and C. G. Clancy. 1998. Rise of stream ice on fall 

and winter movements and habitat use by bull trout and cutthroat trout in Montana 

headwater streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:223-235. 

Kershner, J. 1995. Bonneville cutthroat trout. In M.K. Young, editor. Conservation assessment 

for inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-256. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 

Jacobi, G. Z. and D. J. Degan. 1977. Aquatic macroinvertebrates in a small Wisconsin stream 

before, during, and two years after treatment with the fish toxicant antimycin. Investigations 

in Fish Control No. 81. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

47 
Lentsch, L., Y. Converse, and J. Perkins. 1997. Conservation agreement and strategy for 

Bonneville cutthroat trout in the state of Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources. 

Publication Number 97-19. 

Lentsch, L. D., C. A. Toline, J. Kershner, J. M. Hudson and J. Mizzi. 2000. Range-wide 

Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarki 

utah). Publication No. 00-19, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Mangum, F. A., and J. L. Madrigal 1999. Rotenone effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates of the 

Strawberry River, Utah: a five year summary. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 14:125-135. 

Marking, L. L. 1975. Effects of pH on toxicity of antimycin to fish. Journal of Fisheries 

Resources Board Canada. 32:769-773. 

May B. E., and S. Albeke. 2005. Range-wide status of Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki utah): 2004. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication Number 05-02. Salt 

Lake City. 

May, B. E., J. D. Leppink, and R. S. Wydoski. 1978. Distribution, systematics, and biology of 

the Bonneville cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Ogden. Publication 78-15. 

Miller, S. J., J. G. Wullschleger, L. A. Bull, L. J. Davis, D. McCall, D. D. Fox, and D. W. 

Brown. 1990. Comparisons of Wegener Ring and 0.08-hectare block net samples of fishes in 

vegetated habitats. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 44:67-75. 

Minckley, W. L., and P. Mihalick. 1981. Effects of chemical treatment for fish eradication on 

stream-dwelling invertebrates. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 16:79-

82. 

Moore, S. E., M. A. Kulp, J. Hammonds, and B. Rosenlund. 2005. Restoration of Sams Creek 

and an assessment of brook trout restoration methods, Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park. National Park Service Water Resources Division Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/ 

NRTR-2005/342. Fort Collins, CO. 

Rosenlund, B. D., and D. R. Stevens. 1992. Application of antimycin (Fintrol) to alpine lakes 

and streams in Rocky Mountain National Park and the headwaters of Leadville National 

Fish Hatchery to establish populations of greenback and Colorado River cutthroat trout. US 

Fish and Wildlife Service Report. Colorado Field Office, Golden. 

Schenk, G., N. Darby, and B. Hamilton. 2003. Aquatic resources protocols manual. Great Basin 

National Park. Baker, Nevada. 

48 
Shiozawa, D. K., and R. P. Evans. 2000. The genetic status of cutthroat trout from Mill Creek, 

tributary to the Bonneville Basin in Great Basin National Park, Nevada. Department of 

Zoology. Brigham Young University, Provo. 

Shiozawa, D. K., and R. P. Evans. 2002. The genetic status of cutthroat trout from Pine and 

Ridge Creeks, Great Basin National Park, Nevada. Department of Zoology, Brigham Young 

University, Provo, Utah. 

Shiozawa, D. K., R. P. Evans, and R. N. Williams. 1993. Relationships between cutthroat 

populations from ten Utah Streams in the Colorado River and Bonneville drainages. Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Ogden. Interim report. Contract 92-2377. 

Sigler, W. F., and J. W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin. University of Nevada Press. 

Reno. 

Swingle, H. S. 1958. How fish population surveys should be reported. Proceedings of the Annual 

Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game Fish Commissioners. 11:103-104. 

Tiffan, K. F. and E. P. Bergersen. 1996. Performance of antimycin in high-gradient streams. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:465-468. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout: Distribution, 

status, and habitat management implications. USFS Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. 

Van Deventer, J. S., and W. S. Platts. 1989. Microcomputer Software System for Generating 

Population Statistics from Electrofishing Data – User’s Guide for MicroFish® 3.0. USFS 

Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-254. 

Waite, R. S. 1974. The proposed Great Basin National Park: a geographical interpretation of the 

southern Snake Range, Nevada. Ph.D thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. 

Walker, C. A. 2003. Effects of antimycin treatment on benthic macroinvertebrates in Sams Creek 

and Starkey Creek, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Blount/Sevier counties, 

Tennessee. M.S. thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 

Wegener, W. D., D. Holcomb, and V. Williams. 1974. Sampling shallow water fish populations 

using the Wegner Ring. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern 

Association of Game and fish Commissioners. 27:663-673. 

Whelan, J. E. 2002. Aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring results of the 1995 and 1996 rotenone 

treatments of Manning Creek, Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication 

Number 02-04. 

Wiley, M., and G. Baker. 2005. Creel survey final report. Great Basin National Park, Baker, NV. 

49 
Williams, T. B., A. H. Pfaff, K. Pfaff, J. Jasper, and W. Cole. 1999. Great Basin National Park 

Bonneville cutthroat trout reintroduction and recreational fisheries management plan. U.S. 

National Park Service. 

50 
Appendix: Flow Test and Toxicity Test Results 

Flow Test 

The flow test using fluorescein dye determined that the section of Upper Snake Creek to be 

treated had a total flow time of 430 minutes, or 7.17 hours. The average time for the water to 

flow 100 m (109 yd) was 6 minutes. This measurement determined how far apart antimycin 

stations would be placed.

Toxicity Tests 

A series of toxicity tests was performed July 22-25, 2002, prior to treatment, to refine the 

amounts of antimycin and KMnO4 needed in Snake Creek waters. The first test, measuring how 

much antimycin was needed for fish mortality, found that antimycin was effective at 2, 4 and 8 

ppb with an 8-hour exposure (Table 15). The second test involved 8 ppb antimycin in each 

bucket with varying concentrations of KMnO4 to determine how much KMnO4 was needed to 

detoxify stream water (Table 16). This test showed that fish exposed to a full dose of antimycin 

survived if 1 or 2 ppm KMnO4 was present in the water. When 3-4 ppm KMnO4 was present, 60-

70% of those fish survived. The third test used 0 to 4 ppm KMnO4 in the buckets to determine 

how toxic it was to fish and found that it induced 10-30% fish mortality (Table 17). Based on 

these tests, it was decided to use a concentration of 8 ppb antimycin and 0-4 ppm KMnO4 

depending on the distance of the antimycin stations from the detoxification station. 

Table 15. Toxicity of antimycin in Snake Creek water. 

% Mortality through time (hours) 

% 

mortality 

in livecars 

Antimycin 

Concentration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 24 48 

0 ppb (Control) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 ppb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 100 100 

4 ppb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 

8 ppb 0 0 0 10 10 10 80 100 100 100 

Table 16. KMnO4 demand in Snake Creek water. 

 % mortality through time (hours) 

% mortality 

in livecars 

Antimycin 

Concentration 

KMnO4 

Concentration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 24 48 

8 ppb 1 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 ppb 2 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 ppb 3 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 40 40 40 

8 ppb 4 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 

0 ppb (Control #1) 0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 

8 ppb (Control #2) 0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 100 100 

51 
52 

Table 17. KMnO4 toxicity in Snake Creek. 

 % Mortality through time (hours) 

% 

Mortality 

in livecars 

KMnO4 

Concentration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 24 48 

0 ppm (Control) 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 

1 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 

3 ppm 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 

4 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS D-102, September 2008
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM