Librnry

l':n!!ona! Wetlands Research Center

U. Fish arid. \lI,'ildl!fe Service

7C:: Cajundoma Boulevard

L::.f"yetle. La. 70506

Biological Services Program

FWS/OBS-82/10.4

FEBRUARY 1982

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS:

CREEK CHUB

SK

36 1

. U5 4

n o. 82-

10. 4

and Wildlife Service

Department of the Interior
The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fis h

and Wild life Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on

key environmental issues that impact fish and wi ldli fe reso urces and their

supporting ecosystems. The mission of the program is as follows:

• To strengthen the Fish and Wi ldl i fe Service i n its role as

a primary source of information on national fish and wildlife resources, particularly in respect to environmental

impact assessment.

• To gather, analyze, and present info rmation that wi ll aid

decisionmakers in the identification and re sol'ution of

problems associated with major changes in land and water

use.

• To provide bet ter ecological informat ion and eval uat ion

for Department of the Interior development programs , such

as those relating to energy developme nt.

Informat i on developed by the Biol ogi cal Ser vices Program is i nt ended

for use in the planning and decisionma ki ng process to prevent or mi nimize

the impact of development on fi sh and wi ldli fe. Rese arch activ ities and

tec hnical assistance services are based on an analysis of t he issues , a

determina tion of t he decisionmake rs involved and the i r i nformati on needs,

and an evaluation of the state of t he art to iden ti fy i nformation Haps

and to determine priorit ies. This is a st ra t egy t hat wi l l ensure t hat

the products produced and disseminated are t ime ly and useful.

Proj ect s -have been initiated i n t he following areas: coal extract ion

and conversion ; power plants; geot hermal , mi neral and oil shal e developmen t; wat er reso urce analysis , i ncl udi ng stream alterations and west ern

water allocation ; coastal ecosystems and Outer Con tinent al Shelf devel opment ; and systems invento ry , inc l uding Na ti onal Wetl and Inventory,

habitat classi f i cation and analysis, and informat i on transfer .

The Biological Servi ces Program consists of the Office of Bi ol ogi cal

Ser vi ces in Washingt on. D.C ., wh i ch is res po nsi ble for overal l planning and

ma nagement; Nat.io.nal Teams, whi ch provide the Program's cent ral scien tifi c I

and tec hnical expertise and arrange for contract i ng bi ol o9ica l services

studies with states, universities, consulting firms , and othe rs; Regiona l

Staffs, who provide a link to problems at the operating leve l ; and staffs at

certain Fish and Wil dli fe Ser vice resear ch fa cili t i es , wh o conduct i n-house

research studi es.
HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS: CREEK CHUB

by

Thomas E. McMahon

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Drake Creekside Building One

2625 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, Colorado 80526

Western Energy and Land Use Team

Office of Biological Services

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of Interior

Washington, D.C. 20240

FWS/OBS-82/10.4

February 1982
This report should be cited as:

McMahon, T. E. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Creek chub. U.S.D.l.

Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.4 23 pp.

ii
PREFACE

The habitat use information and Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models

presented in this document are an aid for impact assessment and habitat management activities. Literature concerning a species' habitat requirements and

preferences is reviewed and then synthesized into HSI models, which are scaled

to produce an index between 0 (unsuitable habitat) and 1 (optimal habitat).

Assumptions used to transform habitat use information into these mathematical

models are noted, and guidelines for model application are described. Any

models found in the literature which-may also be used to calculate an HSI are

cited, and simplified HSI models, based on what the authors believe to be the

most important habitat characteristics for this species, are presented.

Use of the models presented in this publication for impact assessment

requires the setting of clear study objectives and may require modification of

the models to meet those objectives. Methods for reducing model complexity

and recommended measurement techniques for model variables are presented in

Appendix A.

The HSI models presented herein are complex hypotheses of species-habitat

relationships, not statements of proven cause and effect relationships.

Results of mode,-performance tests, when available, are referenced; however,

models that have demonstrated reliability in specific situations may prove

unreliable in others. For this reason, the FWS encourages model users to

convey comments and suggestions that may help us increase the utility and

effectiveness of this habitat-based approach to fish and wildlife planning.

Please send comments to:

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2625 Redwing Road

Ft. Collins, CO 80526

iii

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi

HABITAT USE INFORMATION 1

Genera 1 1

Age, Growth, and Food 1

Reproduct i on 1

Specific Habitat Requirements. 1

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODELS 3

Model Applicability............................................. 3

Mode 1 Descri ption 4

Suitability Index (SI) Graphs for

Model Variables............................................... 6

Riverine Model 14

Lacustrine Model 21

Interpreting Model Outputs...................................... 21

ADDITIONAL HABITAT MODELS 21

Mode 1 1 21

REFERENCES CITED 21

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the contributions of Jack Gee and Fred Copes who

provided many helpful comments and suggestions on earlier manuscripts. John

French provided a preliminary literature review. Word processing was provided

by Dora Ibarra and Carolyn Gulzow. The cover of this document was illustrated

by Jennifer Shoemaker.

vi
CREEK CHUB (Semotilus atromaculatus)

HABITAT USE INFORMATION

General

The creek chub is a widely-distributed cyprinid ranging from the Rocky

Mountains to the Atlantic Coast and from the Gulf of Mexico to southern

Manitoba and Quebec (Scott and Crossman 1973). Within its range, it is one of

the most characteristic and common fishes of small, clear streams (Trautman

1957).

Age, Growth, and Food

Creek chubs mature at age II-Vat lengths of 10.0-20.0 cm (Hubbs and

Cooper 1936; Dinsmore 1962; Copes 1978); average life span is 5-7 years (Hubbs

and Cooper 1936; Copes 1978). Creek chubs exhibit wide variation in size and

growth over their range (Copes 1978).

Fry feed on terrestrial and aquatic insects (Barber and Minckley 1971;

Moshenko and Gee 1973; Copes 1978) and amphipods (Copes 1978). Creek chubs

consume larger food items as they grow (Scott and Crossman 1973). Juveniles

and adults feed on terrestrial and aquatic insects, molluscs, and fish (Barber

and Minckley 1971; Moshenko and Gee 1973; Copes 1978). Fish dominate the

summer diet of creek chubs> 8 cm (Barber and Minckley 1971; Moshenko and Gee

1973). The flexible food habits of creek chubs may account, in part, for

their wide geographical distribution (Scott and Crossman 1973).

Reproduction

Creek chubs spawn in spring (April-July) (Trautman 1957; Pflieger 1975;

Copes 1978) as water temperatures approach 14° C (Hubbs and Cooper 1936; Copes

1978). Spawning occurs in gravel nests constructed by the male in shallow

areas just above and below riffles (Miller 1964; Pflieger 1975; Copes 1978).

Successful reproduction in creek chubs is adversely affected by water

temperatures < 11° C (Miller 1964; Moshenko and Gee 1973; Copes 1978), high

turbidity and-Siltation (Miller 1964), and low flows (Paloumpis 1958).

Specific Habitat Requirements

Optimum habitat for creek chubs is small, clear, cool streams with

moderate to high gradients, gravel substrate, well-defined riffles, and pools

with abundant cover and abundant food (Trautman 1957; Moshenko and Gee 1973;

Hocutt and Stauffer 1975). Small populations occasionally occur in ponds and

lakes, but these are not preferred creek chub habitats (Eschmeyer and Clark

1939; Trautman 1957).

Creek chubs are found in streams with gradients of 3 to 23 m/km with their

greatest abundance in gradients of 7 to 13.4- m/km (Moshenko and Gee 1973;
Hocutt and Stauffer 1975). They are most abundant in small streams 0.5 to 7 m

in width (Hocutt and Stauffer 1975) and less than 1 m in average depth (Barber

and Minckley 1971; Hocutt and Stauffer 1975). Streams greater than 12 m in

width (Starrett 1950; Dinsmore 1962) and greater than 2 m in average depth

(Minckley 1963; Powles et al. 1977) are considered marginal habitats.

Creek chubs are most abundant in clear water (Barber and Minckley 1971;

Minckley 1963; Scott and Crossman 1973) but can tolerate higher turbidities if

areas of clean gravel substrate for spawning are present (Branson and Batch

1972, 1974; Pfl i eger 1975). Creek chubs are found in moderate abundance in

highly turbid streams in North Dakota (Copes and Tubbs 1966).

Creek chubs appear to be more tolerant of acidic conditions than many

other species (Smith 1964). F. A. Copes (pers. comm., Mus. of Nat. Hist.,

Univ. of Wisconsin, Stevens Point) has observed sustaining populations of

creek chubs in streams with a pH as low as 5.4. However, a pH range of 6.0 to

9.0 is probably optimum for survival and growth of creek chub populations

(McKee and Wolf 1963; Minckley 1963).

Creek chubs are most abundant in streams wi th alternati ng pools and

riffle-run areas (Trautman 1957; Minckley 1963; Moshenko and Gee 1973). We

assume that stream sections with 40-60% pools are optimum for providing riffle

areas for spawning habitat (Moshenko and Gee 1973) and pools for cover

(Moshenko and Gee 1973; Copes 1978). Rubble substrate in riffles, abundant

aquatic vegetation (Hynes 1970), and abundant streambank vegetation (Moshenko

and Gee 1973; Cummins 1974) are conditions associated with high production of

food types consumed by creek chubs. Streambank vegetation in creek chub

habitats is also considered important for stream shading (for water temperature

control) and bank stability (for erosion control) (Karr and Schlosser 1978).

Creek chubs are most numerous in deep pools and runs with abundant instream cover of cut-banks, roots, aquatic vegetation, brush, and large rocks

(Trautman 1957; Copes 1978). It is assumed that at 1east 40% pool and run

areas with suitable cover is optimum. Deep pools with abundant cover, free

access to larger, warmer streams within 5 km, or both, are important for

over-wintering habitat (Trautman 1957; Paloumpis 1958; Copes 1978). Creek

chubs are found over all types of substrate. Abundance appears to be correlated more with the amount of instream cover than with substrate type (Copes

and Tubb 1966; Copes 1970, 1978, pers. comm.).

Adult. The upper incipient lethal temperature for adult creek chubs is

near 32° C; the lower lethal level is near 1.7° C (Brett 1944; Hart 1947).

They can survive intermittent streamflow in isolated pools for short periods

in summer at temperatures of 28° C (Starrett 1950). Creek chubs grow in the

temperature range of 12-24° C, with the optimum temperature for growth near

21° C (Miller 1964; Moshenko and Gee 1973).

Di sso 1ved oxygen data are not avail ab1e for adul ts. If oxygen requi rements are similar to those for other coolwater fishes, concentrations 5 mg/l

should be sufficient for long-term growth and survival (Davis 1975). Creek

chubs can survive for short periods in pools with 2.4 mg/l of dissolved oxygen

(Starrett 1950). The creek chub is generally not found in lakes, ponds, or

streams which experience partial summer- or winter-kills (long-term D.O.

deficiency) (Copes, pers. comm.). Adults generally occur in streams with an

2
average velocity of less than 60 cm/sec (Minckley 1963; Moshenko and Gee

1973). They are most abundant in stream sections of deep runs and pools with

surface velocities 30 cm/sec (Moshenko and Gee 1973).

Embryo. Eggs hatch in 10 days at 13° C (Washburn 1945). Embryos require

flowing water for adequate oxygen exchange. Embryo survival and production

are highest in gravel substrate in riffle-run areas with velocities of

20-64 cm/sec (Ross 1976; Copes 1978); production is negligible in sand or silt

(Washburn 1945; Trautman 1957). Washburn (1945) listed 0.04 m3/sec (1.25 cfs)

as the minimum discharge necessary for successful reproduction. High survival

and production of creek chub embryos are associ ated wi th temperatures of

15-20° C (Clark 1943; Moshenko and Gee 1973; Copes 1978) and dissolved oxygen

levels 5 mg/l (Davis 1975).

Fry. Fry emerge from nests 20-30 days after spawning (Washburn 1945;

Copes 1970; Moshenko and Gee 1973). After emergi ng from redds ,' fry are found

in shallow areas along the edges of pools with surface velocities < 10 cm/sec

(Clark 1943; Minckley 1963; Copes 1978).

The di sso 1ved oxygen and temperature sui tabi 1ity cri teri a for fry are

assumed to be similar to those for adults.

Juvenile. No specific information was found on habitat requirements of

juveniles. We assume habitat requirements are similar to those of adults.

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODELS

Model Applicability

Geographic area. The model provided is assumed to be applicable to any

riverine environment within the range of creek chubs. The standard of comparison for each individual variable suitability index is the optimum value of

the vari ab1e that occurs anywhere wi thi n thi s range. It shoul d be noted,

however, that specifying only one set of standards defining optimum habitat

for creek chubs is somewhat tenuous since it occurs in such a wide variety of

habitats throughout its extensive range (Copes, pers. comm.). Available

information on habitat requirements of creek chubs is, however, insufficient

at this time to specify more than one set of standards defining optimum conditions in various regions throughout its range.

Season. The model provides a rating for a riverine habitat based on its

abi 1i ty to support all 1i fe stages of creek chubs thro.ughout all seasons of

the year.

Cover types. This mode l is applicable in riverine environments, as

described by Cowardin et al. (1979).

Minimum habitat area. Mjnimum habitat area is defined as the minimum

area of contiguous suitable habitat that is required for a species to live and

reproduce. No attempt has been made to establish a minimum habitat size

necessary for long-term survi va1 of creek chubs.

3
Verifi cat ion 1eve1. The acceptable output of thi s mode 1 is an index

between 0 and 1 which the author believes has a positive relationship to

carrying capacity of a habitat for creek chub populations. In order to verify

that the model output was acceptable, sample data sets (described later) were

developed for calculating HSI's from the model. These sample data sets and

their relationship to model verification are discussed in greater detail

following the presentation of the model.

Model Description

The model consists of variables that have an impact on the growth,

survival, distribution, abundance, or other measure of well-being of creek

chubs, and hence can be expected to have an impact on the carrying capacity of

a habitat. Creek chub habitat quality is based primarily on their food,

cover, water quality, and reproduction requirements, and the model consists of

variables which are thought to be direct or indirect measures of the relative

ability of a habitat to meet these requirements (Fig. 1). Variables that

affect habitat quality for creek chubs, but which do not easily fit into these

four major components, are combi ned under the "other component" headi ng

(Fig. 1).

Food component. Percent streambank (riparian) vegetation (V g ) is included

in the food component since streamside vegetation is habitat for terrestrial

insects, an important food source for creek chubs. Substrate type (V lO ) is

included for rating the food component because production potential of aquatic

insects (another important constituent in the diet of creek chubs) in a stream

is related to amount and type of substrate.

Cover component. Percent pools (Vi) is included since pools are utilized

as cover by adults, juveniles, and fry. A pool class rating system (V 2 ) is

included because the depth of a pool affects its suitability for providing

cover for creek chubs. Percent cover (V 3 ) is included in this component to

provide a measure of the amount of cover available within a stream. A measure

of winter instream cover suitability (V 4 ) is included since creek chubs require

instream cover in pools or free access to larger, warmer streams to provide

shelter during winter. A measure of velocities suitable for adults and

juveniles (V 1 3 ) and fry (ViS) are included in this component because velocity

can affect the quality of a habitat as resting cover.

Water quality component. Turbidity (V,) is included because abundance of

creek chubs is related to turbidity level. Measures of pH (Vs ) , average water

temperature (Vii), and dissolved oxygen (V 1 2 ) are included in this component

since these water qual ity parameters have been shown to affect growth and

survival of creek chubs. Any of these latter three variables are assumed to

become overriding determinants of overall habitat suitability if the variables

approach lethal levels.

Stream shade (V 1 9 ) is included in this component since the magnitude of

daily and seasonal temperature extremes that occur in a small stream are

inversely related to the amount of stream shaded from the sun.

4
Habitat Variables Life Requisites

% streambank vegetation (V g ) Food (C F)

% substrate type (V 10)------------

Stream gradient (V s ) --

Average stream width (V,) Other (COT)

Average stream depth (V20)~

Wa te r qua1ity (CWQ) ------oJ HS I

% poo 1s (V 1) --------______

Pool class rating system (V2)

% cover (V 3 ) -------------=::::~~

Winter instream cover suitability (V 4 )

Average current velocity (adult, juvenile)

Average current velocity (fry) (Vla)-----------~

Average water temperat~

Dissolved oxygen (ViS) Reproduction (CR)

Average current velocity (Vi')

% substrate type (V 17)

Turbi dity (V 7)

pH (Va)

Average water temperature (Vii)

Dissolved oxygen (V 12)

% stream shade (V 19)

Figure 1. Tree diagram illustrating relationship of habitat variables

and life requisites in the creek chub model.

5
Reproduction component. Average water temperature (V 1 4 ) and dissolved

oxygen (VIS) are included since they affect survival and production of creek

chub embryos. A measure of velocity in riffle-run sections during spawning

(VIi) is included because current velocity affects the water exchange rate in

creek chub redds. Substrate type (VI') in the same areas is included in this

component since reproductive success of creek chubs varies with type of spawning substrate available.

Other component. Stream gradient (Vs ) , average stream width (Vi), and

average stream depth (V2 0 ) are included in this component since the abundance

of creek chubs has been observed to vary with these three parameters.

Suitability Index (SI) Graphs for Model Variables

This section contains suitability index graphs for the 20 variables

described above, and equations for combining the suitability index (S1) of

each variable into a species HSI using the component approach. All variables

pertain to a riverine (R) habitat.

Habitat

R

Variable

Percent pools during

average summer flow.

1.0

x

Q)

"'0 0.8 c

......

e-, 0.6

'r-

'r-

..c 0.4

n:l

'rV) 0.2

0.0

a

Suitability Graph

50 100

-

-

-

R (V2 ) Dominant (> 50%) pool

class rating during

average summer flow. 1.0

x

Q) 0.8

"'0

C

......

0.6

'r-

'r-

..a 0.4

n:l

'rV) 0.2

0.0

6

A

%

B

Class

C
A) First-class pools (large and deep): Pool depth and size is sufficient

to provide a low velocity resting area for numerous creek chubs. More

than 30% of the pool bottom is obscured due to surface turbul ence,

depth, or the presence of structures, e.g., logs, debris piles,

boulders, or overhanging banks and vegetation.

B) Second-class pool (moderate size and depth): Pool depth and size are s~fficient to provide a low velocity resting area for some creek chubs.

From 5 to 30% of the bottom is obscured due to surface turbul ence,

depth, or the presence of structures. Typical second-class pools are

large eddies behind boulders and low velocity, moderately deep areas

beneath overhanging banks and vegetation.

C) Third-class pool (small or shallow or both): Pool depth and size

provide a low velocity resting area for only a very few creek chubs.

Cover, if present, is in the form of shade, surface turbulence, or very

limited structure. Typical third-class pools are wide, shallow pools

or small eddies behind boulders. Virtually the entire bottom of the

pool is discernible.

R

R

(V 3 ) Percent cover during 1.0

summer within pools

and runs. x

QJ 0.8

"'C

.....

>, 0.6

.j-J

'rr-

'r-

..Cl 0.4

Itl

-4-l

'r-

:::I

V') 0.2

0.0

a 25 50

(V.. ) Winter instream cover % suitability.

A) If access to larger,

warmer streams is

> 5 km from study

area, then

B) If access is within 5 km,

then

1/3 V.. = (VI X V% x V3 ) + 0.2,

or 1.0, whichever is

smaller

7
R (Vs ) Stream gradient within 1.0

sampling reach.

x

Q)

"'0 0.8 s::::::

.....

0.6 .....

.....

..Q

ItS 0.4

+..l

.....

:::l

V) 0.2

0.0

a 10 20

mjkm

R (V,) Average: stream width 1.0

during average summer

flow. x

Q)

"'0 0.8 s::::::

.....

>, 0.6

+..l

.....

..Q 0.4

ItS

-+..l

.....

:::l

V) 0.2

0.0

0 10 20

m

R (V,) Maximum monthly average

turbidity during summer. 1.0

x 0.8

QJ

"'0

s::::::

..... 0.6

..... 0.4 .....

..Q

ItS

-+..l

..... 0.2 :::l

V)

0.0

a 50 100 150

JTU

8
.

.

-

-

R (VI) pH range during the 1.0

year. x

Q)

"'C 0.8

A) Stable in 6.0 to ..... 9.0 range;

B) Never 0.6 falls below .,...

5.0 or goes above .....

.,...

9.5; ..c

co 0.4

C) pH generally in 5.0 .,...

to 9.5 range, but ::::s

VI 0.2 occasionally < 5.0

or >9.5;

D) pH frequently 0.0

< 5 or > 9.5. A B C

Class

D

R (V 9 ) Vegetation index. 1.0

[2 (% shrubs) + x 0.8 1.5 (% grasses) + Q)

"'C

(% trees) + 0 ..... (% bare ground)]. a 0.6 .,...

.....

.,...

..c 0.4

co

.,...

::::s

VI 0.2

0.0

0 50 100

%

9
I

•

"'"

· f- ··

R (V 10

) Food production potential

in stream by substrate

type present during

average summer flow.

A) Rubble dominant in

riffles with some

gravel and/or

boulders present;

fines (silt, sand) 1.0 not common;

aquatic vegetation

x 0.8 abundant (~ 30%) <lJ

"0

in pool areas. c:

...... B) Rubble, gravel, >, 0.6

boulders, and fines +.J

'roccur in nearly r-

'r- 0.4 equal amounts in ..a

Itl

riff1e are as; +.J

'raquatic vegetation ;:,

(,/) 0.2

is 10-30% in pool

areas. 0.0

C) Some rubble and

grave

1 present, but

fines or boulders

are dominant;

aquatic vegetation

is scarce« 10%)

in pool areas.

D) Fines or bedrock

are the dominant

bottom material.

Little or no

rubble or aquatic

vegetation present.

AB

C

Class

D

x

<lJ 0.8

"0

c:

...... 0.6

'rr-

'r- 0.4

..a

Itl

+.J

'r-

;:, 0.2

(,/)

0.0

0 20 40

°C

Note: If temperatures

are ever 32° C, Vll = 0.0.

Average water tempera-

(~~~~t~US~~~n~~:,s~~~e~ry). 1.0 ~--~~..~~~~..--~

R

10
11
R (V 1 S ) Minimum dissolved 1.0

oxygen levels >< during spring Q)

(Embryo) . -gl.8

.....

~.6

'r-

~.4 +.)

'rVU.2

0.0

a 4 8

mg/1

R (V 16) Average current 1.0

velocity (at 0.6

depth) in riffle/ ><

run areas during ~.8 s:: April-June (Embryo). .....

~.6 -e--

-e--

~0.4 +.)

'r-

(/")0.2

0.0

a 40 80

em/sec

R (V 1 7 ) Percent substrate type

in riffle/run areas 1.1

during spawning (Embryo). ><

Substrate index = ~0.8 s::

2(% gravel) + (% cobble=-'

boulders) + 0 [% fines ~.6

(sand, silt), detritus,;:

or bedrock]. :00.4

+.)

Spawning substrate is 'runsuitable if it is ~0.2

highly embedded or 0.0 compacted or if the

substrate is anoxic

( i .e. , H2S present). a 50 100

%

12
R (V 18) Velocity along edges 1.0

of stream during average x

summer flow (Fry). Q)

"'0

c 0.8 ......

>,

+J 0.6 'rr--

'r-

..c

ttl 0.4 +J

'r-

:::::l

Vl 0.2

0.0

a 30 60

em/sec

R (V 19 ) Average percent of 1.0

stream shaded between

1000 and 1500 hours x

Q)

during midsummer. "'0 0.8 c

......

>, 0.6 +J

'rr-e-

'r-

..c 0.4

ttl

+J

'r-

:::::l

Vl 0.2

0.0

a 50 100

%

R (V 2 0 ) Average of maximum 1.0 stream depths during

average summer flow. x

Q)

"'0 0.8 c

......

>,

+J 0.6 'rr-e-

'r-

..c

ttl 0.4 +J

:::::l

Vl 0.2

0.0

a 2

m

13
Riverine Model

This model utilizes the life requisite approach and consists of five

components: Food, Cover, Water Quality, Reproduction, and Other.

C = ---=--- F 2

Water Qual i ty (CWQ)

C

WQ = (V 7 x VB XVII X Vl 2 x VI9) 1/ 5

If VB' VII' or Vl 2 is 0.4, then C

WQ equals the lowest of the following:

VB' VII' V1 2 , or the above equation.

Reproduction (CR)

C

R

= (V 1 4 x VIS X Vl 6 x VI72 )1/ 5

If Vl 4 or VIS is 0.4, then CR equals the lowest of the following: V1 4 ,

VIS' or the above equation.

14
HSI determination

HSI = (CF x Cc x C

WQ x CR x C

OT) 1/ 5

If CC' C

WQ' or CR is S 0.4, then the HSI equals the lowest of the

following: CC' C

WQ' CR' or the above equation.

Sources of data and assumptions made in developing the suitability indices

are presented in Table 1.

Sample data sets used in calculating HSI's from the above model are given

in Table 2. The data sets are not actual field measurements, but the different

variable values used in calculating the HSI's are thought to represent realistic conditions that could occur in creek chub riverine habitats. The HSI's

calculated from the data seem to reflect what carrying capacity trends would

be in riverine habitats with the listed characteristics. Thus, the model

meets the acceptance goal of produci ng an index between 0 and 1 whi ch is

thought to have a positive relationship to carrying capacity of a habitat for

creek chubs.

15
Table 1. Data sources and assumptions for creek chub suitability indices.

Variable and source

Trautman 1957

Minckley 1963

Moshenko and Gee 1973

Moshenko and Gee 1973

Copes 1978

Trautman 1957

Copes 1978

Trautman 1957

Paloumpis 1958

Copes 1978

Trautman 1957

Moshenko and Gee 1973

Hocutt and Stauffer 1975

Starrett 1950

Dinsmore 1962

Hocutt and Stauffer 1975

Minckley 1963

Barber and Minckley 1971

Branson and Batch 1972

Scott and Crossman 1973

Pfl i eger 1975

McKee and Wolf 1963

Minckley 1963

Smith 1964

Assumption

Streams with approximately equal

amounts of pools and riffles will

provide optimum conditions for

meeting the needs of creek chubs

for covert spawning habitat t and

food (aquatic insects).

Large and deep pools are most suitable

as cover for creek chubs; shallow

and or small pools are suboptimum.

The high abundance of creek chubs in

areas with instream cover indicates

that optimum conditions will occur

in areas with high amounts of instream

cover.

Optimum conditions for winter cover

are large t deep pools with abundant

instream cover or free access to

larger streams within 5 km.

Streams with gradients corresponding

to those with high abundance of creek

chubs are optimum.

Streams with widths corresponding to

those with high abundance of creek

chubs are optimum.

Turbidity levels associated with high

abundance of creek chubs are optimum.

The pH range that is associated with

high abundance of creek chubs and that

is most suitable for survival and

growth of freshwater fishes is optimum.

16
Table 1. (continued)

Variable and source Assumption

Vg Moshenko and Gee 1973

Cummins 1974

Hynes 1970

The amount and type of streambank

vegetation associated with high

allochthonous input (terrestrial

insects) of food for creek chubs is

optimum. In terms of production

of terrestrial insects, shrubs>

grasses-forbs > trees> bare ground.

The amount and type of substrate or

the amount of aquatic vegetation

associated with high production of

aquatic insects (used as food by creek

chubs) is optimum.

Vll Brett 1944

Hart 1947

Starrett 1950

Miller 1964

Moshenko and Gee 1973

V12 Davis 1975

Minckley 1963

Moshenko and Gee 1973

Clark 1943

Moshenko and Gee 1973

Copes 1978

Davis 1975

Moshenko and Gee 1973

Temperature levels associated with

highest growth are optimum. Levels

associated with reduced survival and

growth are suboptimum.

Levels associated with high survival

and growth of freshwater fish in general

are considered optimum for creek chubs.

Levels where survival is poor are

unsuitable.

Velocities where creek chub adults and

juveniles are most abundant are optimum.

Velocities where creek chub adults and

juveniles are less abundant are

suboptimum.

Temperature levels associated with

high survival and production are

optimum.

Levels associated with high survival

of embryos of coolwater fishes are

considered to be optimum for creek

chubs.

Velocities where survival and production of creek chub embryos are highest

are optimum.

17
Table 1. (concluded)

Variable and source Assumption

V1 7 Washburn 1945

Trautman 1957

Miller 1964

Copes 1978

V1 9 Karr and Schlosser 1978

Minckley 1963

Miller 1964

Barber and Minckley 1971

Hocutt and Stauffer 1975

Powles et al. 1977

The amount and type of substrate

associated with high survival and

production of creek chub embryos is

optimum. Substrate types associated

with lower survival rates of embryos

are suboptimum.

Velocities where fry are most abundant

are optimum.

The amount of stream shaded from the sun

controls the magnitude of daily and

seasonal temperature extremes of small

streams. Hence, high percentages of

stream shading must be present for

optimum temperature conditions for

creek chubs to occur. Low percentages

of stream shade often result in high

summer temperatures and widelyfluctuating daily temperatures and are

thus considered suboptimum.

Streams with depths corresponding to

those with high abundance of creek

chubs are optimum.

18
Table 2. Sample data sets using riverine HS1 model.

Data set 1 Data set 2 Data set 3

Variable Data S1 Data S1 Data S1

% pools V1 60 1.0 75 0.5 90 0.1

Pool class V2 A 1.0 B 0.6 e 0.3

% cover V3 30 0.9 15 0.5 75 1.0

Winter cover V4 0.76 0.53 0.5

Gradient (m/km) V5 14.5 0.9 16.5 0.6 2 0.3

Width (m) V6 3 1.0 10 0.5 1.5 0.9

Turbidity (JTU) V7 25 1.0 90 0.5 105 0.3

pH Va 7.5 1.0 5.5 0.8 9.5 0.8

Streambank vegetatation index Vs 75 1.0 30 0.4 10 0.1

Substrate

(for food prod.) VlO A 1.0 e 0.5 0 0.2

Temperature (Oe) - Vll 19 1.0 25 0.5 25 0.5

A, J, F

D.O. (mg/l) - A,J,F V12 6 1.0 4 0.9 3 0.5

Velocity (em/sec) - A,J V13 20 1.0 10 1.0 2 0.5

Temperature (Oe) - E V14 15 1.0 20 1.0 23 0.5

D.O. (mg/l) - E V15 6 0.9 5 0.75 4 0.5

Velocity (em/sec) - V16 30 1.0 17 0.8 5 0.2

E

Substrate index -

spawning V17 55 0.8 45 0.6 35 0.4

Velocity (em/sec) - V18 5 1.0 2 1.0 < 1 1.0

F

19
Table 2. (concluded)

Data set 1 Data set 2 Data set 3

Variable Data SI Data SI Data SI

% shade Vl9 80 1.0 45 0.7 15 0.3

Stream depth (m) V2 0 1.5 1.0 2.0 0.2 1.8 0.3

Component SI

CF = 1.00 0.45 0.15

Cc = 0.94 0.66 0.44

C

WQ = 1. 00 0.66 0.45

CR = 0.90 0.74 0.38

COT = 0.97 0.43 0.50

HS1 = 0.96 0.57 0.38 1

lNote: HS1 equals CR' since CR 0.4.

20
Lacustrine Model

Specific lacustrine suitability indices for creek chub were not developed

due to a lack of information on habitat requirements and limited use of lacustrine habitats by creek chubs. Small populations might occur if suitable

spawning habitat near shoreline is present, i.e., gravel substrates with some

current (Scott and Crossman 1973).

Interpreting Model Outputs

The HSI for creek chubs as determined by one of the above models may not

necessarily represent the exact population level of creek chubs in the study

area. This may be due to the fact that these models rely on habitat-based

factors, and other factors may be operating that more significantly affect the

population level of creek chubs present in an area. If the HSI's calculated

from the models are a good representation of creek chub habitat quality, then

in riverine environments where creek chub population levels are due primarily

to habitat-based factors, the HSI should be positively correlated to the

long-term average population levels. However, this has not been tested. The

proper interpretation of the HSI is one of comparison. If two study areas

have different HSI's, the one with the higher HSI should have the potential to

support more creek chubs than the one with the lower HSI, given that the model

assumptions have not been violated.

ADDITIONAL HABITAT MODELS

Model 1

Optimum riverine habitat for creek chubs is characterized by the following

conditions, assuming water quality is adequate: small (~7 m wide); cool

(summer temperatures 19-23° C)~ at least 40% gravel substrate; approximately

50% pools:SO% riffles-runs; abundant (~ 40%) instream cover.

HSI = number of above criteria present

5

REFERENCES CITED

Barber, W. E., and W. L. Minckley. 1971. Summer foods of the cyprinid fish

Semotilus atromaculatus. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100(2):283-289.

Baxter, G. T., and J. R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Wyoming Game Fish

Dept. Bull. 4. 168 pp.

Branson, B. A., and D. L. Batch. 1972. Effects of strip rm rn nq on smallstream fishes in east-central Kentucky. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.

84(59):507-517.

21
Branson, B. A., and D. L. Batch. 1974. Additional observations on the effects

of strip mining on small-stream fishes in east-central Kentucky. Trans.

Ky. Acad. Sci. 35(3-4):81-83.

Brett, J. R.

fishes.

49 pp.

1944. Some lethal temperature relations of Algonquin Park

Univ. Toronto Stud., Bio1. Ser. 52. Pub1. Onto Fish. Res. Lab.

Clark, C. F. 1943. Creek chub minnow propagation. Ohio Conserv. Bull.

7(6):12-13.

Copes, F. A. 1970. Ecology of the native fishes of Sand Creek, Albany County,

Wyoming. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Wyoming, Laramie. 281 pp.

Copes, F. A. 1978. Ecology of the creek chub. Univ. Wisc., Stevens Point,

Mus. Nat. Hist., Rept. on Fauna and Flora of Wisc. No. 12. 21 pp.

Copes, F. A., and R. A. Tubbs. 1966. Fishes of the Red River Tributaries in

North Dakota. Inst. for Eco1. Stud., Univ. N. Dakota No. 1. 25 pp.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Go1et, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish

Wild1. Serv., FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.

Cummins, K. W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience

24:631-641.

Davis, J. C. 1975. Minimal dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life

with emphasis on Canadian species: a review. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.

32:2295-2332.

Dinsmore, J. J. 1962. Life history of the creek chub, with emphasis on

growth. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 69:296-301.

Eschmeyer, R. W., and D. H. Clark. 1939. Analysis of the populations of fish

in the waters of the Mason Game Farm, Mason, Michigan. Ecology

20(2):272-286.

Hart, J. S. 1947. Lethal temperature relations of certain fish of the Toronto

region. Trans. Royal Soc. Can. (Third Ser., Sec. V) 41 :57-71.

Hocutt, C. H., and J. R. Stauffer. 1975. Influence of gradient on the distribution of fishes in Conowingo Creek, Maryland and Pennsylvania.

Chesapeake Sci. 16(1):143-147.

Hubbs, C. L., and G. P. Cooper. 1936. Minnows of Michigan. Cranbrook Inst.

Sci. Bull. 8. 95 pp.

Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press,

Can. 555 pp.

Karr, J. R., and 1. J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water

interface. Science 201:229-234.

22
McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf. 1963. Water quality criteria. State Water

Quality Control Board. Sacramento, Calif. Publ. 3A. 548 pp.

Miller, R. J. 1964. Behavior and ecology of some North American cyprinid

fishes. Am. Midl. Nat. 72(2):313-357.

Minckley, W. E. 1963. The ecology of a spring stream, Doe Run, Meade County,

Kentucky. Wil d1. Monogr. 11: 124 pp.

Moshenko, R. W., and J. H. Gee. 1973. Diet, time and place of spawning, and

environments occupied by creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) in the Mink

River, Manitoba. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 30(3):357-362.

Paloumpis, A. A. 1958. Responses of some minnows to flood and drought conditions in an intermittent stream. Iowa State Coll. J. Sci. 32(4):547-561.

Pfl i eger, W. L. 1975. The fi shes of Mi ssouri. Mi ssouri Dept. of Con serv.

343 pp.

Powles, P. M., D. Parkes, and R. Reid. 1977. Growth, maturation, and apparent

and absolute fecundity of creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill),

in the Kawartha Lakes region, Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 55(5):843-846.

Ross, M. R. 1976. Nest-entry behavior of female creek chubs (Semotilus

atromaculatus) in different habitats. Copeia 1976(2):378-380.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fi shes of Canada. Bull.

Fish. Res. Board Can. 184. 966 pp.

Smith, M. A. 1964. Fish population. Pages B80-B83 in C. R. Colier, G. W.

Whetstone, and J. J. Musser (eds.). Influences Of strip minning on the

hydrologic environment of parts of Beaver Creek Basin, Kentucky,

1955-1959. U.S. Geol. Sur. Prof. Pap. 427-B. 85 pp.

Starrett, W. C. 1950. Distribution of the fishes of Boone County, Iowa, with

special reference to the minnows and darters. Am. Midl. Nat.

43( 1) : 112-127.

Trautman, M. B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio. bhio State Univ. Press, Columbus.

683 pp.

Washburn, G. N. 1945. Propagation of the creek chub in ponds with artificial

raceways. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 75:336-350.

23
50272 "01

REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO.

1

2

•

3. Rec:lplenrs Acc.._ No.

PAGE FWS/ORS-R?/lO.4

4. TItle and Subtitle 5. Repart Oate

Habitat Suitability Index Models: Creek chub Februarv 1982

I.

7. Authorisl I. Performln, O,..ntzatlon Rept. No.

Thomas E. McMahon

9. Performln, ·O,..nlzation Name and Addr... Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group 10. PnJject/Ta.Il/Wor!o: Unit No.

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 11. Contrsct(C) or Grant(GI No.

Drake Creekside Building One (C)

2625 Redwing Road (Gl Fort Co 11 ins, Colorado 80526

12. Spansorin, O..anlzstlon Neme and Addres. Western Energy and Land Use Team 13. TYIM of Report & Period Covered

Office of Biological Services

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of Interior 14.

Washinqton. D.C. 20240

15. Supplementary Note.

11. Abstract (Limit: 200 _rd.)

Literature describing the habitat preferences of the creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus )

is reviewed, and the relationships of habitat variables and life requisites in the

creek chub are illustrated.

This is one in a series of publications developed to provide informati.on on the

habitat requirements of selected fish and wildlife species. Numerous literature

sources have been consulted in an effort to consolidate scientific data on species- habitat relationships. These data have subsequently been synthesized into explicit Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models. The models are based on suitability indices

indicating habitat preferences. Indices have been formulated for variables found to

affect the life cycle and survival of each species. Habitat Suitability (HSI) models

are designed to provide information for use in impact assessment and habitat management activities. The HSI technique is a corollary to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's

Habitat Evaluation Procedures.

17. Oocument Analysi. a. Oescriptors

Habitabil ity

Fishes

b. Identlfiers/OPen·Ended Term.

Creek chub

Semitilus atromaculatus

Habitat Suitability Index

c. COSATI Fleld/G"",p

11. A"allability Statement 19. Security Clas. (Thi. ReC!Ortl 21.1'40. of Pales

Unlimited Unclassifiprl ?1

20. Security Cia•• (Thi. Pa..l 22. Price

IInrL"lc:c:if"iarl I

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1982 - 578-126/188 Reg. 8

(S.. ANSI-z39.181 s•• 'nstruetions on Reve,.,. O"'ONAL FORM 272 (4-77)

(Formerly NTI5-35)

Oepartment of Commerce
•

••• ..__ .... J~.

' . '· 0 ,,-

Hawaiian Islands (>

-(:( Headq uarters . Division of Biological

Services, Wasnington, DC

x Eastern Energy anO Land Use Team

Leetown , WV

* Nationa l Coastal Ecosystems Team

Slidell, LA

• Western Energy and Land Use Team

Ft. Coll ins . CO

• Locat ions of Regional Off ices

REGION 1

Regional Director

U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lloyd Five Hundred Building, Suite 1692

500 N.E. Multnomah Street

Portland , Oregon 97232

REGION 4

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Richard B. Russell Building

75 Spring Street , S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

I

J- - - - ---6 1

r-- - L, J

I : --

I I

1- - -'

I I

l,_ I 2 ,, -~-

-_.J

REGION 2

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 103

REGION 5

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Cente r

Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158

REGION 7

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

lOll E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

- ..~,.

REGION 3

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and WildlifeService

Federal Building, Fort Snelling

Twin Cities, Minnesota 551 JI

REGION 6

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 25486

Denver Federal Center

Denver, Colorado 8022 5
u.s. FISH ..WILDLIFE f>ERVICE

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hi?]

u.s.FISH ANDWILDLIFESERVICE "'-r rw T " "

As the Nation's pri ncipal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our ,nationally owned public lands and natural resources . This includes

fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife,

preserving th & environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places,

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that t heir development is in

the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major respons ibility for

American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under

U.S. adm inist ration.