July 12, 1990 Meeting Location: Fish and Wildlife Service, Tribal Council Meeting Hall, Pinetop, AZ

Home , Esplanade Sandstone, Geostar

AQUATIC COORDINATION TEAM MEETING NOTES 07-12-90 Date: July 12, 1990 Meeting Location: Fish and Wildlife Service, Tribal Council Meeting Hall, Pinetop, AZ. Introduction: A coordinated effort is necessary by the state and Federal agencies, academic institutions, and individuals involved in the development of the proposed aquatic studies for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. The proposed studies will require an intensive review process of high scientific standards. The purpose of the meeting was to flesh-out the proposed studies for the Little Colorado River. This will be to avoid any overlap or work by the entities involved in this process. Contingency plans are necessary in the case the ACT group are unable to come up with an agreement on the development of the proposed research and who will take the lead responsibility in accomplishing the tasks. At present the individuals and agencies who have shown interest in conducting work in the LCR are Arizona Game and Fish, Dept., Pinetop Fish and Wildlife Service, and Navajo/Arizona State University. As it stands, the AGF is responsible for the yearly monitoring of the LCR, native fish work, humpback chub synthesis, and summary reports. The FWS has responded by submitting an earlier pre-draft proposal on how it wouldevaluate the habitat. The Navajo/ASU group has submitted a draft-proposal to look at the distribution, abundance, movement, reproduction, and biotic interactions of the humpback chub in the LCR. In turn, the GCES/BOR have a solicitation on the street for work on the humpback chub in the mainstem and the confluence area of the LCR. B. Williams - Since the last ACT meeting 1. Contract modification The contract work is to be specific to the mainstem and the modification to the contract has been sucessfully accomplished. The best and final offer will evaluated by the TPEC committee on 07-20-90. 2. Electrofishing - position paper. Questions have been submitted to CSU, larval fish laboratory. A proposal will be developed regarding the literature search and synthesis. Concerns or questions voiced by individuals of the group on electrofishing were to be submitted to Bob Williams. However, no additional questions were received other then those submitted by the GCES office. 3. Propagation of humpback chub. Holt Williamson was contacted regarding the propagation of humpback chub. He will attend the next ACT meeting to discuss the propagation protocol. Certain issues will need to be addressed regarding prior to the transport and relocation of the species for puposes of propigation. Some of the specific items that should be addressed are the place, use, commitment, and amount. Q: Michael Douglas - Has Buddy Jensen, Dexter, been contacted regarding the rearing of HBC's. A: Holt W. is in charge of the propagation effort, however, this can be followed up at a later date. A: Jim deVos - The fish will be contained at Bubbling Ponds which is the warm water portion of the Page Spring facility. Holt Williamson has inspected the facility and has given clearance. However, AGF will need to go through a formal review process of the legal aspects - NEPA compliance, to meet the FWS requirements before receiving a clearance. A formal letter will need to be developed for Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, that outlines the procedures for propagation at Bubbling Ponds. This should include the specifics listed below. 1. Number of individuals 2. Genetic mapping - heterozygosity 3. rationale - Conservation Measure 4. Ultimate fate of the fish Q: What will the time frame be before the facility will be ready for receipt of fish? A: It will require between 1.5 and 2 months before the facility will be ready. Q: What is the ball park figure for the start up cost of the storage and propagation facility. A: $10,000.00 4. The scheduling of a river trip for the ACT to discuss with the BOR/GCES contractor the specific components of the the research study. Aquatic Coordination Advisor's Position 1. The cooperative agreement established with ASU will allow for funding a position as the aquatic advisor. This will provide Duncan Patten with the ability to make a selection of an advisor without BOR being a directly involved in the decision making process. This position will provide additional expertise for Duncan Patten.

Proposal Development for the LCR The Little Colorado River research has been segmented into major components. These major parts are displayed in an outline that identifies the lead responsibility, areas of overlap, and concerns. A. Biology Lead 1. Distribution Navajo/ASU Overlap: AGF's prior work and possibly depending on the radiotelemetry work of the GCES contractor. Concerns: Questions regarding impacts of weirs on movement; AGF annual work and the confluence area. 2. Reproduction Navajo/ABU Overlap: There will be some overlap with what the FWS requires in the habitat evaluation. There will need to be a working relationship with the Navajo/ASU to acquire the needed information. Concern: Larval studies with AGF 3. Early Life Stages AGF Overlap: There is no apparent overlap Concerns: The FWS habitat studies and this may result in a spinoff of additional studies in a laboratory situation. 4. Biotic Interactions Navajo/ASU Overlap: No apparent overlap Concerns: FWS availability of data relative to densities and abundance 5. Age and Growth Relationships AGF Overlap: All incidental mortalities, there needs to be a preservation protocol established to insure that all ' necessary information will be attained. Concerns: There are problems associated with otolithic and opercular age growth research and the use of alcohol as a preservative agent. In some case it would be best to desiccate the fish to avoid ossification problems with the laminar ring destruction that occurs with the use of alcohol. Also, there will be no photodocumentation in the LCR research. 6. Food Dietary Habits AGF Overlap: Early Life history and Incidental mortalities Concerns: The language of the collecting permit should only mention incidental mortality. We expect no mortality and this will be described as fish handling procedures. All fish collected because of incidental mortalities should be carefully examined for dietary studies. B. Limnology 1. Physical/Chemistry AGF Overlap: USGS Concerns: The content of the springs associated with the LCR, prior data, longitudinal evaluation, and the water chemistry should be part of this study. The water chemistry should also include gaseous CO2, the use of a colorimeter for measuring sediment composition, and the use of a remote datasonde. What about the parameters that are being measured by the USGS? These will need to be looked at with greater thought. 2. Aquatic Productivity AGF Overlap: No apparent overlap Concerns: Standing crop of algal biomass/ per unit area, should this be done at distinct reaches or along certain habitat types. This should include some additional invertebrate work. The rationale for doing food habits are to answer the tasks outlined in the Conservation Measures which is to identify the ecology component. The value of studying food habits is to identify the abundance of food resources which might be limiting factors related to hydrological events. C. Physical Habitat FWS 1. Delineation of habitat types 2. Seasonal patterns 3. Age differences/ life history 4. Spawning reproduction 5. Hydrology Overlap: Navajo/ASU and AGF Concerns: There needs to be some interaction in the sampling program to avoid any potential problem or overlap. There will need to be seasonal aspects to the level of effort and relating it to the hydrograph. 20 to 30 sampling days, on a quarterly basis will be the minimum amount of time necessary to collect the habitat data needed for the evaluation process. Underwater observation is very important for habitat evaluation. D. Off-site Laboratory Experiments 1. Early Life History Navajo/ASU Overlap: ASU and NAU with the graduate students associated with the other Universities. Concerns: Availability of fish 2. Propagation AGF Overlap: No apparent overlap Concerns: To capture enough chub in spawnable condition prior to the pre-spawning period. There are temperature limitations which must be addressed prior to the transport and relocation of the fish to the Bubbling Springs facility. Fecundity is small in these fish. Also, the planned experiments might lead to additional studies beyond the original scope of research planned. The experimental needs will drive the propagation program. 3. Biotic Interaction Navajo/ASU Overlap: No apparent overlap Concerns: E. Population Modeling GCES Overlap: Concerns: The actual model should drive the sampling design. What level of detail should be included and the type of accuracy expected from this model. Should the approach for deciding the predictive model be mad using a workshop. This modeling approach will be needed as soon as possible. The predictive model should include certain elements such as; age- growth, fecundity, reproductive schedule, and the longevity of the animal. All of these elements or variables should be part of designing the demographic model. This should be conducted in a phased approach. Questions: 1. Delineate the variables 2. Collect the data on the variables Once these two aspects have been accomplished it will be a milestone and will be considered a mid-course point for evaluation. Additional background information will be needed on predictive population models. Some information has been done on certain T & E species such as Kiwi and the pilliated woodpecker. Closure: Technical aspects will need to be established for the development of the aquatic proposals. It will be imperative that the personnel conducting the research in the LCR have established effective radio contact. Additional radio repeater units may need to be established on the rim to facilitate communication for emergency purposes. Prior to this, it will be necessary to get radio frequency approval from the National Park Service. At the present this is being worked on by Jerry Mitchell, NPS. In regards to PIT tags, problems exist in establishing requisitions on certain types of equipment. It would be better if the individual agencies and/or contractor's be the responsible enity for ordering these items in the event of loss of this type of equipment. Products: I. Overview 1. Objectives of the LCR Program 2. Components 3. Approach 4. Timing and Milestones 5. Delineate 6. Map 7. ACT role II. Entities 1. AGF 2. Navajo/ASU 3. FWS 4. GCES III. Budget 1. Total 2. Fiscal Year IV. Deadline For Programs 1. July 30, 1990 V. ACT meeting date: 1. The next meeting for the ACT will be on 08-03-90, 10:00am, at the Security Pacific Bank Building, Flagstaff, AZ. Holt Williamson will attend the meeting to discuss the propagation work with Bubbling Springs. AQUATIC COORDINATION TEAM MEETING NOTES 08-03-90 Date: August 3, 1990 Meeting Location: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Office, Flagstaff, AZ. Introduction: D. Wegner, introduced the topics to be discussed as outlined in the agenda/letter sent out to the members of the ACT. H. Williamson discussed a brief draft protocol being developed for the propagation efforts in the Upper Colorado Region. The outline presented to this group will be sent out to the participants upon completion in a draft form. Holt W., would like to receive some constructive criticism on the structure, rationale, design and content.

Draft Handling Protocol as presented: 1. A rationale and justification for removal of the humpback chub must be identified. Any type of concern concerning the potential perturbation of the species from the area of its natural residence (purposes of refugium, breeding group experimental, etc..). Assumedly, any fish removed from such a situation clearly should be considered safe and secure over that of an individual in the dangerous situation. 2. Available facility for brood stock, ability to contain a quantity of fish. a. Hatchery personnel must be experienced with the handling of endangered species. b. Hatchery environment 1). Water quality must be appropriate for a warm water species and the standardization of those characteristics. 2). Disease history of facility (a) Inspection programs (b) Treatment and inoculation programs. (c) Quarantine procedures. 3). Security system. (a) Anti-predation (b) Theft 4). Permits 5). Anti-escapement system (a) Sand filtering drainage (b) Indoor/outdoor areas of containment (c) Incubation isolation 6. Avoidance of Reproduction (a) Separation of sexes 7. Planned breeding strategy (a) Brood stock (b) Experimental purpose (c) Back-up population refugia 8. Supporting technology (a) PIT tags, identification of individuals (b) Secondary marks (c) Sex determination (d) Promotion of pared matings (e) Maintenance of genetic characteristics of the sampled population (f) Central database (g) Spawning technologies 9. Planned parenthood (a) State specific purpose (b) Fish request, permits, misc. requirements (c) Responsible accounting for fish after experiments. How many fish are required for the refugia. Generally a program requires at least 100 males and females to insure paired matings and the maintenance of the genetic characteristics of that sample representative of the population, (n=200). P. Marsh - The concerns of this group are acquiring enough fish for the necessary experiments for thermal shock and biological interactions, not the development of a functional refugia. It may be necessary to perform electrophoretic work initially on the produced larval fish to statistically determine the variability of the population. Is it possible that we will be able to handle fish by January 1, 1991 at the Bubbling Ponds hatchery facility with the necessary quantity of fish for these experiments? Twenty fish would be sufficient for the experiments, however, it may take more than 20 to insure the proper sex ratio and survivability of captured and transported fish from the LCR. There are certain problems associated with the Bubbling Ponds hatchery they are: 1. Inability at this point in time to control effluent from entering into Oak Creek. There are no sediment gravel traps or sediment filters to drain water. 2. This facility lacks security to prevent theft, vandalism, and/or predation. 3. Inability to separate sexes indifferent areas of the facility. 4. Disease problems such as ICH would be unavoidable. 5. The setup cost of $10,000. would not be cover operational costs or redesign of the facility to meet the minimum requirements. The advantages for this facility are: 1. It is a warmwater facility ranging in temperature from 66 to 68 °F. 2. The close proximity to the area and teaching facility that the larval fish would be utilized. In order to use the facility it would require an additional cost besides the initial set up fee of $10,000. It would require a specific site that was secure and it would require a special incubation area to prevent expressible gametes or larval fish from escaping from the facility. Roger Sorenson, AGF, recommends that fish for these experimental purposes be kept at the Dexter Fish Hatchery rather than at the Bubbling Ponds. They have the facility, experience, and the necessary technology to accomplish the propagation tasks. However, at a point in time when the coordination team determines the need for maintaining a population in a refugia Bubbling Ponds would be very interested. The facility will be going through a renovation period and at that time would be able to address those concerns of this group. It would be very interested in maintaining a facility if the hatchery can get a commitment. Break: It was discussed that a possible alternative to the Dexter facility would be that ASU would be in charge of the holding and propagation work. This would avoid the problems encountered at the hatchery and the unneeded transport from this facility to AMU. However, the problems that need to be addressed are the permit requirements, holding permits, etc... Electrofishing - CSU is in the process of doing the literature review for the position paper and synthesis of research on the topic of injuries associated with electrofishing. * Jerry Michell, has talked to B. Williams regarding the letter from the superintendent of the GCNPS which specifically identifies certain questions regarding the use of electrofishing. It is the feeling of Jerry that it is important to have initial information on the capture and multiple capture of cyprinids exposed to an electromagnetic field. This will be accomplished through a phased approach. If the initial review of existing literature does not arrest the NPS concerns a second phase will be initiated to investigate the specific questions or concerns that still exist by conducting research studies. * Paul Marsh - Development of a proposal for the AMU facility in the holding of the humpback chub. Identify the permits and requirements necessary for the legal maintenance of these fish, identify the requirements identified in the earlier protocol, * Frank Baucom - Determine whether or not the Dexter facility would be the most appropriate place to maintain the fish. Stress management protocol 1. Transport of fish to reduce physiological stress 2. Capture techniques 3. Capture/time of year (seasonal component of stress primarily related to thermal shock and oxygen depletion 4. Retention of captured fish a. Live cars should avoid metal containers consisting of materials with corners. 5. Collecting permits 6. Transport time records a. Transit b. Immersion time In transport of fish the use of a salt solution, antiseptic through the use of TMS-222, and an antibiotic prophylactic has been shown to be very helpful in the reduction of handling stress. The salt treatment reduces an osmotic imbalance created by the salt differential through the excretion of salts. Secondly, a temperature differential created by the movement of a fish from its original water source to receiving waters can create physiological stress. The use of antiseptic solutions can be reduce density problems related to fish transport and the hauling exposure period. It is very important to maintain temperature and D.O. during transport to avoid problems. Capture and transport during the fall or winter seasons may reduce water quality problems that could result. It is imperative to use a helicopter to expedite evacuation of captured fish. Also, the use of a AGF transport tank would be ideal for fish transport to the AMU facility. Research timetable: Timetable of the research schedule to be conducted in the LCR and mainstem of the Colorado River. The purpose was to identify the amount of logistical overlap and duplication of effort. All of the research will depend upon the planned research effort by AGF with their limnological and native fish program which constrains the plans of all the other proposed research. * GCES - Primary lead to provide agencies with a flow diagram of the research effort * GCES - Organize the ACT coordination river trip. We will be responsible for organizing the appropriate schedule. Population model: Overview of population model. Concern was expressed regarding the type of modeling approach that was used or addressed in the modeling position paper. Was it a cytogenetic or a population dynamic approach? If nonlethal means of tissue removal are developed for fish a cytogenetic model would be preferable since it could measure the genetic variability of the population and determine the necessary variation required for a self-sustaining population. It is the feeling of the group that a population dynamic modeling approach would not be successful in measuring a population size. Furthermore, a workshop may be more difficult in resolving what type of modeling approach. The recommendation would be to identify a few experts and have them determine the proper modeling approach. Secondly, identify whether or not there is enough existing data to support the use of a predictive population model. * GCES - Will be responsible for taking the comments expressed by all of the participants of the ACT having opportunity to view the draft copy developed by the GCES office. These comments will be utilized in developing a proposal out of the first cut on this position paper.

* Identify leading experts to determine the most feasible approach to use in the population modeling. Aerial photo-interpreted maps of the LCR were distributed. These maps showed the changes that have been entered since the development of these maps in 1988.

* Longitudinal map of the LCR * Completion of the upper section of the LCR map, from 16.5 km to 21.5 km at Blue Springs. This would be sheet 5 of 5. The next ACT meeting will be determined once the AGF proposal has been received and reviewed. Problems with the use of a fish weir concerns the FWS/Phx (F. Baucom). He wanted to develop a phased approach for evaluating whether or not they were going to cause problems.

* AMU (Michael Douglas) - Fish handling protocol will be developed for the permitting process.

* GCES will determine the schedule for the downriver ACT coordination trip. The expected dates are a launch on August 26/Sept 3, 1990. All participants will be contacted to determine their attendance.

All research members were to determine if the timetable/ schedule was appropriate for the research needs and represented their logistical schedule.

KEY ACTION ITEMS AND DISCUSSION POINTS GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES - AQUATIC COORDINATION TEAM DECEMBER 4, 1990 - GCES FLAGSTAFF OFFICE

Attendance: Enclosure 1 Agenda: Enclosure 2 A. Status of the Technical Studies 1. All contracts moving forward however modification to each may be required as the studies progress and integration continues Action: GCES will mail out to all Principle Investigators specific comments that have been received on the proposals. Action: The Principles will need to meet to begin the process of integration of the study plans. The GCES and/or the Aquatic Advisor will take the lead on initiating this effort. B. Status of the Collection Permits 1. The Biowest permit has been approved however the Fish & Wildlife Service is still waiting for the completion of the Biological Opinion. 2. Biowest must complete the fish handling protocol and provide to the Service. Anticipated date is 12/15/90. Action: Frank Baucom will outline what specifically is needed from the other principles in terms of permit requirements Action: A determination will be made in early summer as to the need for expanding the Biowest permit to increase from 60 fish to 75. An adjustment to the permit will be made in July 1991 if an expansion of the number of fish is required. Action: Jane Bremner will check with the Hopi Tribe to determine if any specific permits will be required from them. Specific areas include the Hopi Salt Trail and the access to beaches below the confluence with the Little Colorado River. Action: Michael Yard will determine the amount of potential travel on the Hopi Salt Trail to aid the Hopi's in making that determination. C. Discussion on the Electrofishing Study 1. Daryl Snyder described the process to date and the level of review needed for Phase I of the effort. Action: Copies of the proposal need to be provided to each ACT member and comments solicited. (enclosure 3) (Completed 12/04/90) D. Discussion on the Population Modeling Effort 1. Dennis Kubly related the work to date. Discussed meetings and review he has done. (enclosure 4) 2. Rich Valdez discussed the role of Biowest and population modeling. Ron Riles will be taking the lead for Biowest. Action: Biowest should work with Dennis Kubly to ensure all of Dennis's concerns are integrated into the process. 3. Robert Williams discussed the Upper Basin role and the effort that the Fish & Wildlife Service wants to do. Pat Nelson is taking the lead on this. Action: The proposed scope of work should be provided to the ACT and comments solicited (enclosure 5) (Completed 12/04/90) Action: GCES entities will participate in the Service workshop E. Discussion on Lake Powell Studies 1. Wegner discussed the studies ongoing and potentially planned for Lake Powell as related to the water quality and ecology. Action: Each office will be invited to the meetings scheduled for Lake Powell. The tentative date is January 24, 1990 and is being coordinated by the USGS - Flagstaff for GCES. F. Scheduling and Permitting 1. Wegner discussed the permitting requirements for river trips, research, helicopters and access to the Grand Canyon. Action: Bottom line is that permits must be acquired prior to any trip. Everyone must fill in the requests and submit to GCES. (enclosure 6) 2. Rich Valdez discussed the Biowest efforts to date. Three questions were raised: a. The potential for doing food studies and the need to evaluate food utilization in the field. Action: Biowest will develop a proposal to evaluate, in the field, the pumping of stomachs of humpback chub. If sacrifices are required, a modification of the Service

permit will be required. Two fish will be identified in a Feasibility Level study for the food issue. b. Should catfish be sacrificed in the field to evaluate if they are consuming chub? Action: Yes, and in addition, Striped Bass should also be sacrificed and stomachs evaluated. AGF would also like an assessment of other species of fish that might be in the stomach. c. How should Razorback Suckers be treated in the field? Action: The Razorback should be treated exactly like the other endangered species. Additional photos and morphometric measurements will be taken to assess the hybrid issue. G. Discussion on radio accessibility 1. Michael Yard reviewed the information acquired. A rim repeater is required in order to gain radio contact outside the canyon. Considerable discussion centered on the concerns of the Hopi and the Navajo. Action: Michael Tremble and Jane Bremner will check on the potential for problems associated with a repeater on tribal lands. Action: GCES will move forward with development of equipment needs and the procurement of the equipment. We should look at obtaining hand-held, programmable radios to offer the most flexibility. H. Data Management and Data Availability 1. Wegner discussed the concerns from the user groups about gaining access to GCES data. 2. Wegner discussed the need for data coordination. Action: Wegner and GCES will develop a "Data Protocol" process that will serve as the prototype for the ACT. We will look at the potential of bringing in experts to help us design a program for all. Action: Data requests must be specific as to needs. Broad requests will not be honored. I. Fish Requirements Action: Paul Marsh will outline the specific fish numbers and life stages of fish required. Action: AGF will initiate the permit process with Service for fish. J. Next Meeting Action: January 25, 1991 - Tempe or Phoenix. GCES will coordinate r

United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION UPPER COLORADO REGION CRSP PO'A ER OPERATIONS OFFICE P.O. BOX 1477 GLEN CANYON PAGE. ARIZONA 86040 ENVIRONMENTAL STU DIE. REI'l REFER 1 0 P. 0. BOX 1811 FLAGSTAFF, AZ 86092 MEMORANDUM JAN 2 6 1991

To: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Aquatic Coordination Team From: Dave Wegner Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Subject: Follow-Up Items to the January 25, 1991 Aquatic Coordination Team Meeting Thank you for your participation in the January 25, 1991 meeting of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) Aquatic Coordination Team. I think that we had a good meeting and that a great deal of useful interchange occurred. As a result of the meeting there were several key issues and action items that were identified for the various entities. They follow. Please read through them, and respond appropriately. 1. Stomach Pump Study We discussed the initial efforts by BIO/WEST and Rich Valdez. The effort shows promise but concern was raised by Michael Douglas that we not do this as "post hoc hypotheses". The group concurred. Some discussion also took place on why are we doing the study and the necessity for carrying it any further. The group decided that additional study was needed. Action Item a. Rich Valdez and BIO/WEST will prepare a full proposal on the study. This proposal will be split into three phases: 1. Evaluation of the efficiency of the techniques and effects on fish. 2. Prepare a historical review of the food study efforts. 3. Identification of any specific follow-up studies required. 2. Photography and Meristic Study

1 The value of meristic work was discussed. It was determined that the photography of the captured humpback chubs should continue. It was further determined that meristics should continue to be collected on 1 out of every 10 fish. The effort should be carefully evaluated during the summer period and if stress on the fish is evident induced by temperature, then the meristic efforts should be revised. An evaluation will be made in the second year of the BIO/WEST effort to determine if additional meristics are necessary.

3. Radioimplanting Efforts

The mortality of the humpback chub during the last BIO/WEST trip was discussed. A good discussion ensued. The following action items were established:

a. BIO/WEST will evaluate the use of an antibiotic to coat the surgical area. The result of that effort will be reported to the ACT. b. An evaluation and recommendation will be made to the ACT on the correct procedure to clip the antenna from any defunct radio transmitters. This recommendation will' be sent to all field researchers.

4. Salt Trail Utilization

Wegner discussed the status of the negotiations with the Hopi and the Navajo Tribe. Case pends and Wegner will alert when action determined. Until then, reconnaissance efforts will be made via the river and by helicopter.

5. Little Colorado Reconnaissance Efforts

The Fish & Wildlife Service will make an assessment on the timing and extent of the Little Colorado River reconnaissance flights. Wegner will coordinate the helicopter requirements.

6. 1991 Spring Spawning Effort

AGF will again take the lead in the Little Colorado River humpback chub spawning study this spring. AGF will work with GCES to get the equipment to the study site ahead of the researchers. A small "advance team" of scientists will work to establish the timing of the actual spawning efforts. Baucom will work with the AGF and GCES to acquire the proper permits for the effort.

7. Removal of Humpback Chub for Propagation efforts

We discussed at great length the need for fish and the efforts that the AGF have been doing to get ready for the adult chub. Several specific questions remain prior to the acquisition and transport of the chub (see enclosed letter to FWS). Wegner will initiate the

2 discourse with the Service while Jim deVos and AGF will move forward with the completion of (1) the site plan; (2) timing of when the site will be available; and (3) development of a security plan to keep the chub from invading Oak Creek. AGF will have the site plan prepared by February 2, 1991. The process to follow is sketched out below:

Rev rEw) G Gc-C.5 2 ERIS RAS ECRISE,

, \-\ C E'sk'%■\

8. Work Efforts

The FWS and ASU will officially begin their efforts on June 1, 1991. Some prepatory work will be initiated before hand. Owen Gorman has been officially hired by the Service and will be moving to the GCES office in April.

9. Permits

Frank Baucom identified that all of the permits are in the proper order and ready to"go. A question arose over how large of chub can be taken before a "take" is classified. 20 mm seems to be the magic number but clarification is required.

10. Overlap of Larval Fish work

The BIO/WEST and AGF larval fish efforts appear to overlap in several areas. GCES, AGF and BIO/WEST will get together over the next month to resolve those differences.

11. Sampling at the Paria Mouth

Based on comments made by Chuck Minkley, a coordinated effort will be made to sample the mouth of the Paria River. BIO/WEST, AGF and others will help with this. Next year the FWS will be available to help out.

12. Razorback Suckers

A determination needs to be made on the types of samples to be drawn from the Razorback Suckers. GCES and FWS will pursue this matter (see enclosed).

13. Exotic Fish Study

Based on the FWS request, an effort will be made to initiate a study on the exotic fish in the Colorado River. It will proceed in two phases:

A. Phase I. Literature review by FWS

B. Phase II. Specific Studies (if required) GCES will work with the FWS and AGF to determine the level of effort required. GCES will redistribute the Striped Bass poster to all. 14. Population Modeling GCES will contact Pat Nelson and get at a minimum two GCES people invited to the population modeling meeting. Wendell Minkley may be going and could make recommendations for the ACT. At the least we should review the plans and determine their applicability to the Colorado River. 15. Illumination Proposal Michael Yard presented the illumination proposal. Copies were given to all entities. Comments due back by February 28, 1991. Please send them directly to Mike Yard. Please review the information present above and alert me if any errors have been made. We will be in ontact 4th,hose of you who had specific assignments. Thanks ag in for ar ic'pation: cc. Dr. Duncan Patten, Center for Environmental Studi,es, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ Dr. Wendell Minkley, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ Meeting attendees (enclosed) Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Aquatic Coordiation Team

GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

AQUATIC COORDINATION TEAM MEETING APRIL 19, 1991

Key Areas of Discussion

Agenda: Enclosure 1

Attendance: Enclosure 2

A. Meteorological, Hydrological and Water Quality Information

1. Bill Vernieu is the lead person on coordination with the USGS folks in regards to acquiring the user accounts. So far, Dennis Kubly and ASU have requested separate accounts. The USGS has requested that GCES serve as the coordinator of the GCES access needs.

2. Bill Vernieu has loaded the SAS software into the GCES computers and can do certain analyses. Researchers should coordinate their data request needs through Vernieu.

3. A need exists to get a useable flow routing model pulled together. Past efforts include Jerold Lazenby's model, Larry Steven's equation and Julia Graf's approach. GCES will provide a listing of these to all interested researchers.

4. Bill Vernieu will establish a monthly summary of flow events for the Cameron gage and for others as requested. He will establish a format and check with Owen and Chuck Minkley on whether it satisfies their needs.

5. The dBase IV data base will be utilized.

B. Reconnaissance Activities

1. Arizona State University

a. March 4-8, 1991 in Little Colorado River canyon. Tied into the Bio/West trip.

b. Established two research camp locations. Will be checked by Hopi Tribe.

1 c. March 28-April 1, 1991. Recon in the Powell Canyon area. Coordinated with the AGF effort. 2. Arizona Game & Fish Department a. Enclosure 3. Report on progress to date. Modified plan due to weather and logistical problems. b. Three levels of effort and intensity. c. 10 Adult Chub pulled out and approximately 200 eggs. 10 chubs doing OK but all eggs perished. d. May be a good idea to have Roger Hamann (sp?) go to Page Springs to provide guidance on the inducement for spawning of humpback chub. e. Backwater sampling areas selected based on: (1) are they workable; (2) does background data exist on them; and, (3) how many backwaters are in the reach. f. Some overlap in backwater with Bio/West may be occurring. (See note below) 3. Fish & Wildlife Service a. Planning on a May 20th recon with M. Douglas. Selection of 20 transects. b. This summer will focus on mapping of the Little Colorado River. c. May 13 & 14, 1991 training workshop in Pinetop. AGF and ASU invited the rest are OK as observers. 4. BIO/WEST a. Enclosure 4. Schedule of trips. b. Enclosure 5. Summary Report c. HBC are showing a high affinity for certain locations. Most success to date is with trammel nets. d. Coordination and overlap with AGF. (enclosure 5) (1) AGF = March tf,rough September in backwaters. One winter river trip. (2) Bio/West = monthly trips (3) Recommended: differentiate by sampling equipment and habitat sampled. AGF will take backwaters and BIO/WEST will focus on the near shore areas. 2 OFFICE Primary What When Where . Responsibility Sampled Sampled Sampled

Early life stages = 1st yr. food habits March-Sept 1200 m of LCR Reproduction activities Rearing habitats Trout all of LCR for Arizona Limnology/productivity 91 spawning period Game & Fish Mainstem & seasonal HBC mainstem year around mainstem and habitats. Survivorship and habitats tributary mouths BIO/WEST distribution

rizona State University Little Colorado River adults year around confluence to life history juveniles atomizer

Fish & Wildlife. Habitat of LCR and tribs. adults year around LCR-confluence to Service Habitat related juveniles Blue Springs Trib confluences

** Separate r sponsibilities by gear type = Backwater = AGF for MA h through September Shallow/ reline = Bio st year around backwater when not bei g done by AGF ** Separate so by gear size

S133HS IDOL VP 1 -LL S133HS 001. Zal:21.- . CL331-15 OS 11,1-T,E Valdez and Kubly will work out concerns. 5. Common Concerns a. Consistency on habitat terms. GCES will put together a glossary of terms and circulate for review. b. Consistency on locations (mileage) c. Consistency on benchmarks. d. Razorback sucker tissue information for genetics study e. Number of fish to PIT tag? How many is enough? f. Request a letter from ACT to FWS requesting a reduction in the minimum size of PIT tagging from 175 to 150 mm.

g A question was also raised on how many humpback chub should be PIT tagged. ASU indicated that all should be tagged. The discussion concluded with the decision that we would continue to maintain a check on the total numbers and would continue to evaluate the numbers and the impacts to the fish. h. Coordination and Overlap: Enclosure 6. This will continue to be important and will require additional communication to ensure all concerns are met. C. Gila Taxonomy 1. Dr. Douglas and B. Williams discussed the status of the Gila Taxonomy contract. 2. A non-lethal approach will be followed for the collection of fin clips and muscle plugs. 3. Wayne Starns is working on all of the permit requirements. 4. Kathy Karp, USFWS Vernal, is coordinating the purchase of all of the necessary sampling equipment. 5. MAY 1991 - may want to sample the LCR fish. A protocol is being developed to guide the field collection of samples. It will be provided to the ACT and distributed.

D. Stomach Pump and Food Habits Study 1. George Devine indicated concern over using the Fl fish from Dexter.

3 2. R. Valdez suggested two options: a. Use wild robusta from the Grand Junction area - take to Dexter ponds - do the work. b. Do the experiment in the field with pens. Problem is that it will not allow long term evaluation. 3. ACT agreed that the food habits study is important. Concern with only doing in the field. 4. Jim deVos will check to see if the Page Springs hatchery has three raceways available. R. Valdez will check to see if the State of Colorado has any space. 5. We will move forward with this study. R.Valdez will provide a study plan (already completed) and make an estimate of cost.

E. Population Modeling 1. D. Kubly was not able to attend Region 6 workshop. 2. Discussion on the Population Viability Analysis. J. deVos recently attended a workshop with Peter Broussard on PVA. Cost is approximately $3,000/three day session. 3. Concern still regarding why we are doing and what important variables are. 4. Recommendation: J. deVos will contact Peter Broussard (or delegate it done) and determine if he is interested in conducting a specific Grand Canyon session. We could consolidate with the endangered fish workshop. 5, F. Coordination and Logistics 1. Helicopters: Work through Sandra Eaton, GCES to schedule helicopter needs. AGF may look into using their own ship to satisfy Rob Clarkston's needs. 2. River Trips: Work through Karel Malloy, GCES to schedule all river trips. Lead time is essential. May 6 AGF trip will probably go but still need to find boatmen. 3. River Permits: The NPS is in charge of granting all river permits. GCES consolidates information, as per NPS request, and does the paperwork. 4. Correspondence with the GCES: All river trips and helicopter trips need to be backed up by an official request. Fax number 4 for GCES is 602-527-7368. 5. ASU complained about lack of response to written letters. GCES will do a better job of coordination with ASU and avoid discussions and decisions reached via telephone. 6. Helicopter Training: all personnel involved in the use of helicopters in the Grand Canyon and LCR must take helicopter training classes. Sling load foreman should be identified by each research group.

G. Equipment Needs 1. Identify all specific equipment needs for river trips to GCES. 2. A more definitive map of the LCR should be prepared. 3. GCES will send out a complete mileage chart. Waiting on getting information back from J. Graf and the USGS in Tucson. 4. Use of MIPS. Coordinate needs with GCES and Judy Brown. All videos of river available. 5. Communication: ASU and Navajo Nation will take the lead on the ability to get communication linkage between the research camps. GCES will work with GEOSTAR on getting a satellite linkage. Planned May 21, 1991 field trip.

H. Archeological Clearances 1. The Hopi Tribe and the GCES will be doing a field survey of the LCR on April 23, 1991. The two ASU sites will be surveyed as will the helicopter landing areas, the AGF proposed sites and the Blue Springs area. 2. The NPS will need to provide clearance on all sites planned on use in the GRCA. Location of boundary is in debate however when in question both the NPS and the Native American tribes will be consulted. 3. Michael Yaetes, Hopi Tribe, is to be the key contact within GCES to handle LCR concerns. Mike will work with the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation to ensure all clearances are addressed.

I. LCR Hydrology 1. Wegner discussed the role of the Hopi Tribe in providing the LCR hydrology studies. As soon as the Hopi Tribe completes 5 the study plan, it will be provided to the ACT for review.

2. Jane Bremner, Hopi Tribe - GCES, is the key contact on the LCR hydrology. Telephone number is same as GCES.

Meeting closed with a review of the ASU video tape, the MIPS capabilities, a further discussion on coordination requirements, and beverage requirements.

6 FINAL Meeting Summary Population Viability Analysis Workshop

A workshop was held on February 6 and 7, 1991, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office in Lakewood, Colorado, to: 1) determine if Population Viability Analysis (PVA) can be used to refine recovery goals for Colorado River fishes (Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker); and 2) determine if risk analysis can be used to evaluate proposed recovery activities and habitat threats. Larry Shanks opened the meeting with an introduction and explanation of the purpose of the workshop. For the benefit of participants unfamiliar with the Colorado River system, Harold Tyus provided an overview of the rare fishes and their environment, including status and trends.

Key Points:

1. In 1979, we knew little about the distribution or life history of the fishes.

2. Much of the habitat and many of the fish were lost before we knew much about the fishes.

3. Remnant stocks have been found in areas which have not been impacted.

4. Forty-two species of nonnative fishes have been ifltroduced into the system (10 are abundant).

5. Bonytail are virtually extirpated in the wild, except in Lake Mojave; bonytail in Lake Mojave are nearly 50 years old.

6. Although reproduction has been documented for razorback sucker, there has been no evidence to suggest successful recruitment. There are approximately 1,000 old razorbacks left in the Green River, and razorbacks left in Lake Mojave are nearly 50 years old.

7. The gene flow between humpback chubs residing in the Lower Colorado River Basin and those in the Upper Basin has been interrupted.

8. Many of the rare fishes are vanishing, and are in serious trouble; many populations are declining (not in a stable, steady state). Lynn Maguire (School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University) presented an overview of Decision Theory and Risk Analysis. The purpose was to demonstrate an approach which may be used to evaluate alternative recovery measures, proposed water resource development actions, and trade-offs among various scenarios. The process involves the following steps:

I. Establish objectives (e.g., maximize survival probability, maintain or maximize genetic diversity, maintain/expand range in wild, control costs).

2. Define measurement criteria for each objective (e.g., empirical, demographic/genetic model output, subjective, inbreeding coefficients, genetic variability, etc.).

3. Identify sources of uncertainty (e.g., weather, disease, demography, floods, war, etc.)

4. List decision alternatives (e.g., protection in wild vs. captive breeding).

5. Develop decision tree and describe expected outcomes resulting from alternative actions.

6. Assign values and/or probabilities to outcomes, to aid in making decisions.

7. Assess trade-offs, compare benefits with costs for each alternative.

8. Conduct sensitivity analyses and determine effects on results.

9. Determine if new information would affect decision.

Decision analysis shows promise as an efficient way to prioritize activities deemed necessary for recovery of the Colorado River fishes. The approach can be used separately or in conjunction with PVA for a variety of applications.

Peter Brussard (Chairman of Biology, University of Nevada) spent the rest of the day presenting an overview of PVA.

Key Points:

I. Extinction is a process by which a population, generally widespread and abundant, begins to decline as a result of systematic factors, such as habitat loss or overexploitation. As suitable habitat becomes fragmented, so does the population. A point is reached whereby random factors (demography, genetics, random environmental fluctuations, and catastrophic events) accelerate the decline until the population ceases to exist. Reversal could be regarded as the recovery process, which will require both crisis management and preventive measures.

2 2. Factors which contribute to the extinction process include:

a. Systematic factors (in deterministic processes).

(1) Spatial fragmentation of habitat

(2) Other human-induced impacts (e.g., environmental alterations, introduction of nonnatives)

b. Random factors (in stochastic processes).

(1) Demographic

(2) Environmental

(3) Catastrophic

(4) Genetic

c. Interaction (feedback) effects among factors and processes

3. Survival of a population over the short- to mid-term is a function of resilience and fitness.

4. Survival of a population over the long-term is a function of adaptability.

5. When a population becomes fragmented, even small amounts of inbreeding can reduce population fitness, viability, fecundity, and fertility. As the population declines, inbreeding increases, resulting in further decline.

6. Small populations are more susceptible to genetic drift, resulting in loss of genetic variation, fitness, and adaptability.

7. A population is relatively immune to extinction from demographic stochasticity except at very low numbers.

8. Populations are never immune to extinction from environmental and catastrophic stochasticity, regardless of numbers.

9. PVA addresses all factors believed to c6ntribute to the extinction process.

10. The procuct of PVA consists of a frequency distribution of times to extinction under existing circumstances or other defined scenarios.

11. A formal PVA is very difficult to do. Relevant data are rarely available, time and money are often too limited to acquire necessary data.

12. A qualitative PVA can be conducted using available information and professional judgment.

13. Use of a PVA assumes that target populations are stable (i.e., no net decline). For populations which are declining, the causes of deterministic mortality must be stopped, or the population will become extinct at a rate directly proportional to its decline and longevity.

Use of a formal (or qualitative) PVA, combined with risk analysis, would look something like this:

Rare Fish Data

Evaluation of Threats PVA Risk Models Analysis

Evaluation of Recovery Measures

Recovery Goals

Day 2 was spent going through a qualitative PVA exercise for Colorado squawfish. The exercise was useful for identifying existing knowledge, as well as information needs; but it remained unclear as to how the information would be integrated to determine relative probability of persistence for a specified time period.

I. Habitat and Population Distribution (Colorado squawfish)

A. Current Habitat Distribution (including spatial and temporal variability)

1. Currently-occupied habitat consists of approximately 1,200 km in the Yampa/Green subbasin, Upper Colorado River subbasin, and San Juan subbasin. Currently-unoccupied habitat consists of three 100 km stretches in the Salt, Verde, and Lower Colorado rivers.

2. Knowledge Needed:

a. maps of habitat (both occupied and unoccupied) for spawning, nursery, and adult life stages in the entire Colorado River Basin; b. determine if spawning adults demonstrate fidelity to specific spawning areas throughout the Basin; and

c. compile all historical data on past distribution of squawfish in the Lower Basin.

B. Current Population Distribution

1. Population estimates (based on professional judgement)

Yampa/Green Colorado San Juan LCRB Adults 3,000 500 50 ? Sub-Adults 7,000 700 ? + Age 0-1 50,000 2,000 100 1,600

2. Knowledge Needed:

a. determine status of squawfish in Lake Powell and the Dirty Devil River;

b. determine genetic stock structure for squawfish; map distribution of stocks (all life stages); and

c. determine proportion of squawfish which are migratory.

C. Population/Habitat Relationships (population = f (habitat quality/quantity))

1. Suitable habitat for squawfish

a. Stretches of river with historical flows and temperatures, which are greater than 100 km in length, and which include historical spawning areas.

b. non-spawning adults--wide, slow, meandering portions of river greater than 5km in length are considered better habitats for adult squawfish than are narrow canyons (based on catch rates of 10/km vs. 1/km)

c. spawning adults--more squawfish spawn in areas which are less altered and have higher spring flows than in other areas.

2 Knowledge Needed:

a. maps of habitat for adults, nursery, and spawning, over time and space, for both natives and nonnatives.

5 b. determination if squawfish demonstrate fidelity to spawning areas throughout the Basin.

D. Future Habitat Under Different Management Alternatives

1. Alternatives

a. remove obstructions to passage

b. modify flow regimes (acquire water rights, modify reservoir operations)

c. build new dams and diversions (threats)

2. Knowledge Needed:

a. Map adult, nursery, and spawning habitat under various combinations of restoration of passage, flow management, etc., for natives and nonnatives.

II. Single Population Dynamics (Colorado squawfish Yampa/Green stocks)

A. Systematic Factors that.Affect Abundance

1. Death Rates

a. human-induced mortality

(1) Fishing--mortality estimated to be approximately 5 percent per year for adult squawfish (range 5-20 percent), based on data suggesting approximately 10 percent angler harvest for both tagged adults and radiotagged adults.

(2) Flow regulations--includes effects on water temperature, stranding of larvae/YOY/juveniles, cold temperature shock on larvae, inundation of nursery habitat for l arvae/YOY, and barriers to migration.

(3) Research sampling--includes mortality resulting from electroshocking and radio tagging adults, and from collecting and pickling larvae each year.

(4) Water quality and contaminants--pesticides (e.g, spraying of Mormon crickets) and selenium may be problems. b. Natural mortality

(1) Predation

(a) by native roundtail on squawfish larvae/young

(b) by nonnatives on eggs/larvae/young. There may be 20 species which eat eggs, 10 that eat larvae, 5 that eat juveniles. Data on stomach contents of nonnatives are available.

(2) Choking on channel catfish

(3) Agonistic behavior/interactions

(4) Disease/parasites

(a) may be exacerbated by altered temperatures, etc.

(b) nonnatives can act as vectors (e.g., all fathead minnows are carriers of Ich; squawfish are very sensitive to Ich)

(5) Food Supply (starvation)

(a) affected by altered flow. regimes (e.g., no flooded bottomlands)

(b) reservoirs act as nutrient sinks

(d) colder water temperatures reduce productivity

2. Birth Rates (spawning, number of eggs produced)

a. Spawning migrations blocked by barriers

b. Loss of suitable spawning substrate (clean cobble)

c. Reduction in size or age of female squawfish

d. Frequency of spawning

e. Age of maturity = f (size)

7 3. Growth Rates

a. Food supply

(1) Abundance of nonnatives to eat

(2) Affected by altered flow regimes (no flooded bottomlands)

(3) Reservoirs are nutrient sinks

(4) Competition for food with nonnatives

(5) Colder water temperatures reduce productivity

b. Availability of backwaters (and quality based on flow stage, water temperatures, permanence, and interactions with nonnatives)

c. Crowding

4. Knowledge Needed;

a. determine proportion of squawfish mortality due to research sampling

br b. determine tolerance of squawfish to selenium

c. quantify impacts of predation on squawfish, by species/age class/size.

d. determine food preferences of squawfish; quantify proportion of diet which consists of nonnatives

e. determine effects that future habitat manipulation will have on squawfish birth, growth, and death rates

B. Stochastic Factors that Affect Abundance

1. Demographic Stochasticity

a. There are believed to be three stocks in the Yampa/Green

b. The sex ratio appears to be skewed on the spawning areas (approximately 15 males are captured for every female)

c. Populations are assumed to be large enough such that demographic stochasticity is not important

8 d. In general, there have been twice as many males as females caught in the wild

e. Ne/N ratio is approximately 0.1 because there is no reason to believe anything unusual is occurring with regard to spatial population structuring, age structure, sex ratio, variance in progeny survival, amount of inbreeding, or fluctuations in population size over time.

2. Genetic stochasticity

Ne/N is considered to be approximately equal to 0.1 based on sex ratio of breeders, variance in progeny numbers, and overlapping generations.

3. Environmental stochasticity

Runoff events (magnitude, timing, duration, frequency)

a. high spring flows are detrimental to nonnatives, prepare spawning substrate for squawfish, create/maintain habitat, prevent vegetative encroachment, flood bottomlands

b. low spring flows enhance nonnatives

c. high summer/fall flows wash larvae town stream

d. low summer/fall flows are detrimental to natives via disease, crowding, predation, high water temperature, reduced backwater availability, increased obstruction to passage.

4. Catastrophe

a. oil spills

b. forest fires

c. sustained drought

d. epidemic (via disease, parasite load)

e. pesticides/contaminants spills

f. extreme high flow events

5. Knowl2dge Needed:

a. determine if smaller subpopulations (stocks) are present

b. determine the number of females that are actually spawning (the sex ratio of the spawners) III. Interacting Population Systems (Colorado squawfish Yampa/Green stocks)

A. Spatial/Temporal Distribution of Habitats and Populations

1. Believed to be 3 subpopulations (stocks) in the Yampa/Green

2. Knowledge needed:

a. Need genetic survey of stocks over time/space, and migration rates

B. Genetic exchange among stocks via migration

1. Information to date suggests interchange is limited (based on radio-tagged fish fidelity to spawning area)

2. Knowledge needed:

a. Need to quantify genetic exchange among stocks.

C. Subpopulation extinction and colonization rates

1. Population extinction rate = f (subpopulation extinction, correlation of systematic and stochastic factors among subpopulations)

2. Evolutionary history of squawfish suggests low colonizition of new spawning areas.

3. Knowledge Needed:

a. Need to monitor spawning locations of previously-stocked, hatchery-reared squawfish

D. Systems dynamics models

The exercise was meant to provide an example of how a qualitative PVA might be performed. After refinement of estimates and gathering information necessary to fill gaps, the next step would be to determine how alternative management options would affect the factors outlined in steps I through III (i.e., repeat process). Management options (and threats) to evaluate might include building of captive stocks, reintroduction/augmentation, artificial migration, fishing regulations, stocking of nonnatives, contaminated run-off, rotenone, habitat/substrate manipulation, etc.

10 Summary:

I. Because populations of razorback sucker and bonytail chub are declining, a formal PVA cannot be conducted at this time. Efforts to reverse declines should be highest priority for these species.

2. For the Colorado squawfish and the Little Colorado River populations of humpback chub, populations are considered stable enough and data are sufficient to conduct a formal PVA, which would require development of stochastic and deterministic models by a knowledgeable PVA expert.

3. To refine recovery goals in the short-term, a qualitative PVA could be conducted for all four species. This would entail a meeting of species experts, led by one or more PVA experts.

4. Members of the group felt that risk analysis would be a useful approach for helping us focus on specific recovery activities.

Recommendations:

1. Identify and perform tasks to reverse deterministic mortality in razorback sucker and bonytail chub.

2. Conduct a qualitative PVA for all four species.

3. Contract a formal PVA for Colorado squawfish (proposal to be submitted).

4. Conduct risk analyses to rank relative importance of factors that put populations at risk, and to prioritize recovery activities.

5. Submit proposals for data needs identified in this workshop

a. develop maps which delineate spatial and temporal distribution of populations and habitats (both occupied and unoccupied) for all life history phases of both native and nonnative fishes, throughout the entire Colorado River Basin.

b. Determine if all four species, throughout their existing range, show fidelity to specific spawning sites; locate all sites.

c. Compile data on historical distribution of squawfish in the Lower Basin

d. Determine the status of squawfish in Lake Powell and the Dirty Devil River

e. Determine the genetic stock structure for squawfish; map stocks (all life stages) over time and space.

11 f. Quantify genetic exchange among squawfish stocks; determine migration rates (proportion of adults which are migratory). g. Determine the number of female squawfish which are actually spawning; determine sex ratio of spawners h. Identify spawning locations of previously-stocked, hatchery-reared fishes i. Determine the proportion of squawfish mortality caused by predation; identify predators j. Determine proportion of squawfish diet which consists of nonnative fish species k. Determine proportion of squawfish mortality caused by sampling

1. Determine squawfish tolerance to selenium m. Determine effects of proposed habitat modification/manipulation on birth, growth, and death rates of rare fishes

12 Glossary

Carrying capacity—average number (or biomass) of individuals a habitat can support

Catastrophic stochasticity—endpoint of the environmental stochasticity continuum; includes fires, floods, storms, earthquakes, epidemics, drought, etc.

Demographic stochasticity—uncertainty of death or reproduction at the level of the individual; includes random variations in sex ratio, age at first reproduction, number of offspring, age specific reproduction, and time of death.

Deterministic processes--predictable; operate in a systematic way

Effective population—ideal population with all individuals mating randomly equal numbers of sexes, no variation in number of young per family, no overlapping generations. Population which would lose genetic variation by drift at the same rate as does the total population.

Environmental stochasticity—uncertainty of death or reproduction at the level of the population; includes random variations in the physical, chemical, and biological environments.

Fitness--viability, vigor, fecundity, fertility, etc: = f (heterozygosity).

Founder effect--the larger the number of founders (reproducing individuals from source population which are unrelated and non-inbred), the smaller the effective population size necessary to maintain genetic diversity and the less likely extinction will occur due to demographic stochasticity.

Genetic drift—random, deleterious genetic change including loss of alleles (genetic variants). Usually occurs when a population becomes too small. Results in loss of genetic variation, fitness, and adaptability.

Heterozvgositv—genetic variation

Inbreeding depression—breeding of closely related individuals resulting in deleterious effects on fitness, survival, and reproduction; also affects growth rate, adult physical characteristics and behavior. Occurs when populations become too small.

Metapopulation—a population of subpopulations. Species range fragmented, composed of geographically isolated patches interconnected by gene flow and recolonization corridors.

Minimum viable population—the smallest isolated population having a 99 percent chance of remaining extant for 1,000 years despite the foreseeable effect of demographic, environmental, genetic stochasticity, and natural castrophes

13 (Shaffer 1981); population size below which a population is likely to be sucked into the extinction vortex (Lacy 1989); a population that maintains its vigor and its potential for evolutionary adaptation (Soule 1987). k--number of individuals actually contributing genes to the next generation.

Population adaptability--ability to evolve or adjust to environmental change through natural selection.

Population fitness--viability, vigor, fecundity, fertility, etc., determined by the existence of sufficient genetic variation (heterozygosity) to maintain population stability under current ecological circumstances.

Population resilience--ability of a population to persist in the face of normal birth and death events.

Population viability--likelihood of survival (continued existence) through sustained reproduction at or above a balance with deaths and emigration (Salwasser et al. 1984); the converse is the probability of extinction.

Recovery--the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed, and threats to it survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be ensured. The goal of this process is the maintenance of secure, self-sustaining wild populations of the species (USFWS 1990).

Risk analysis--predicting various possible outcomes (both desirable and undesirable) of a decision, and their probabilities of occurring.

Self-sustaining population--a group of interbreeding, genetically distinct individuals which maintain their numbers over the long-term via natural reproduction and recruitment.

Stochastic processes--unpredictable; operate in a random manner; events over which a manager has no control

Viability—likelihood of survival to successfully reproduce; the state of being capable of living, growing, and developing.

Viable population--capable of maintaining itself without significant manipulation.

14 MIKE YARD GCES

MN PEN United States Department of the Interior AMERICA

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION • Upper Colorado Region mg m Glen Canyon Environmental Studies IN REPLY REFER TtL P.O. Box 1811 Flagstaff, Arizona 86002-1811 July 20, 1991

MEMORANDUM

To: Aquatic Coordination Team Glen Canyon Environmental Studies From: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program Manager Subject: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies - Review of July 19, 1991 Meeting and Action Items On Friday, July 19, 1991, members of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) Aquatic Coordination Team (ACT) met in Flagstaff, AZ to discuss their activities. There are several critical items that you need to provide information to GCES on: 1. Provide a complete listing of all threatened and endangered species collected during your study and where the fish are now located. 2. A complete schedule of your long-term and short-term personnel requirements in the Little Colorado River. This should include both time frame and personnel numbers. 3. Any comments on the Exotic Fish proposal should be to GCES by August 5, 1991. 4. Prior to all helicopter landings in the LCR the "Landing Zone" should be wetted down with water to reduce the blowing sand problems. The following key items and action items were discussed and identified. Agenda: Enclosure 1 Attendance: Enclosure 2 Key Issues and Action Items A. Review of Activities 1. Arizona Game & Fish - Have discontinued the use of trammel nets in the Little Colorado River due to impacts on the Humpback chub - Allan Kinsolving and cfew are working on the mapping of backwaters and doing surveying of critical habitat areas in the mainstem - Ted Agrandi at Page is focusing on the nutrient and organic matter studies. Also working on desiccation studies of cladophora and diatoms - Ted has found measurable traces of chlorophyll in the sand - Data turnaround on a 6 week schedule 2. Fish & Wildlife Service (Pinetop) - Just finished first 2 week trip in Little Colorado River - Started mapping of habitat in LCR at 20 meter transects. Focusing around the Salt Trail camp area and lower end of LCR. - Will be mapping the mouth of the LCR - Working on a visual observation study 3. Arizona State University - Enclosure 3 (Wegner was called out of this segment) - Working as per contract requirements 4. Bio/West - Sampling going OK. Electrofishing getting better response in May and June. - Moved sampling effort further upstream to the Malagosa area. - 44 radio tags have been implemented to date. Recontact rate is at approximately 75 to 80%. - The duration of the tags is as per manufacturers specifications. The 9 grams are lasting 50 days and the 11 grams are lasting 93 days. - B/W will be doing an evaluation of internal tags in an effort to see if they will work and we can discontinue the external antenna. Dehissing of the external antenna sutures are a concern that is being watched. - There is a seasonal concentration of HBC around downstream tributary locations. • Shinamu = 7 fish captured • Havasu = a 900 gram female • B.Angel = an adult at mouth in May • Diamond = specific fidelity of one fish - Condition of HBC appears very good while the trout still are showing emaciation. - Conducted their workshop. Good discussion that has resulted in some field modifications of methods. - Would like to leave the radio antenna in the LCR area to continue to track the HBC movement. 5. Hopi Tribe - Hydrology 2

- Working on the literature data base for hydrology and water quality - Have acquired an EPA 106 grant to supplement their work in the LCR. Mostly focused on the LCR watershed - Completed a review of Blue Springs water source

6. ACT Group Action Items

* Need to count the number of backwaters at the constant flows from the video tape * Need to extend the Mike Yard/GCES maps to Blue Springs * Need to explore the possibility of getting blown up pictures of the LCR for mapping purposes * Need to complete map of all solar panels and get to Heliport and Chief Ranger at Grand Canyon * Invite Wayne Starns to the next ACT meeting to discuss the genetic studies and sampling protocol * Distribute the LCR information on Blue Springs (enclosure 4) * Continue with the distribution of the LCR hydrology (Vernieu)

B. Grand Canyon National Park Concerns.

George Neusaenger, Chief-Resource Management, discussed the NPS concerns as related to research trips in the Canyon and the impacts of the cumulative efforts on the fish and the other resources. Also discussed the problem of motors during the non-motor season.

C. Information Transfer

- AGF is developing the final repository for all native fish information. - The groups should work with each other to get the data transferred. - An annual transfer of information to AGF is desirable - Chuck Minkley's information will be made available to all ACT

Action Items

* All University of Arizona students working on the LCR project should have their study plans reviewed by the ACT.

D. Logistics

- Concern over the number of people using the Salt Trail camp. Need to establish schedules for the use in the LCR. - Concern over the number of helicopter flights into/out of LCR. - Need to be able to establish communication link for when flights are canceled. - Need to establish some operational protocols for the new researchers in the LCR and mainstem.

Action Items

• Each group should provide GCES with a short and long-term schedule of your activities in the LCR. This will be consolidated and provided to all groups. This will also be supplied to the NPS, Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. • A training program will be set up by GCES for the new researchers in the LCR and mainstem. Will handle through a workshop setting. • All LCR landing sites should be wetted down on the day of the helicopter pickup.

E. Passive Integrated Tag (PIT) Use

- All groups agreed that all native fish should be tagged. Dr. Minkley stated that we had to ensure that the data would be used. The 150 mm minimum size limit will be maintained. The number of PIT's required for the Grand Canyon efforts will double.

Action Item

• Tag all native fish in the Grand Canyon over 150 mm but only if it does not interfere with the handling of endangered and threatened fish. • The data will be used in the GCES technical reports for the EIS and for the monitoring programs

F. Fish Handling Protocol

Bio/West no longer videotaping the humpback chubs. Reduce handling time. - FWS will evaluate whether Dexter has established any specific handling precautions or protocol. AGF no longer using trammel nets - Report on recaptures in December. GCES will consolidate the data from the groups into a document for the ACT to review. Will look at the general condition of the fish and specifically focus on the tagged versus un-tagged relationships. Dr. Minkley suggested that in the report we should look at the K factor and the length/weight relationships.

Action Items

• Report on recaptures to be done in December by GCES for the ACT and then to be provided to the NPS for their information. • FWS (Frank and Jim Hansen) will check with Dexter to see if they have any specific information related to fish handling and impacts.

G. Exotic Fish Proposal (enclosure 5) - Frank reiterated that this needs to be done for the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act. - FWS will do specific evaluation to powerplant operations and relations to predation. - Wendell Minkley stated that the FWS had most of this information already consolidated. Action Items • Any specific comments on the exotic fish proposal should be to GCES by August 5, 1991. GCES will take the lead on pulling together the literature review. • Frank Baucom will provide to GCES the reports done under a previous Reclamation contract. H. Data Storage and Management (AGF) - Terry Carston is developing the AGF data base. Can handle any format. - Everyone should be responsible for their own QA/QC Action Item • Acquire the FWS Upper Basin QA/QC protocol and distribute to the ACT. I. Integration with the EIS Team Activities - Reservoir Meeting. Set for August 13 & 14, 1991 in Flagstaff. Letters sent out to all already. (Enclosure 6). - Baucom: No decision yet on the extent of the Biological Assessment. Thom Slater has requestld that the Consultation Team be pulled back together. - Endangered Species Meeting. Early November 7 & 8 with focus on the science and consolidated information that will be provided to the EIS team. No further information on the Razorback listing J. Interim Flow Discussion - Appears that Department is looking at establishing an "interim" interim flow that would look a great deal like the Reclamation prDposal that was presented at the Cooperators meeting. Exception criteria being established. - Monitcring and research will need to be done. NPS may have a problem with allocating river permits for research and monitoring. K. Communication in the LCR 5

Navajo Nation and ASU still working on getting a system that will work. Will try an FM directional antenna on the next trip into the Canyon.

L. Additional Items

Need to get a definitive count on how many fish have been taken and where they are not located

The meeting closed without any further incident and no dead bodies. Conclusion: The meeting was a success. enclosures (as noted above) cc. Dr. Duncan Patten, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

PROPOSED AGENDA GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AQUATIC COORDINATION TEAM JULY 19, 1991

I. Introduction II. Summary Presentation A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1. Habitat Workshop 2. Summary - Initiation of Field Work B. Arizona Game and Fish 1. Summary - LCR Study 2. Summary - Mainstem/backwater Analysis C. Bio/West 1. Summary - Mainstem Investigation D. Arizona State University 1. Summary - Field Work C, *t‘ III. Coordination Aspects - Discussion) A. Research - Information Transfer (Bi-directional) 1. Capture/Recapture Information 2. Radiolljzsmitter Extinction I for tion ora.- B. Logistics and Support (Improvements) 1. River Trips 1,/3N- N iL)a 2. Helicopter Transport c;.■- )u, ■■ 3. IMI C. Problem Id ication & Solutions 1. So Sensitivity - Recreational Awareness a. Trailing Impacts b. Public Relations c. etc... (dead fish don't swim) PIT-Tag Protocol (Standardization) Fish Handling Protocol - ,J C) --T77--144„:4 ta S orage/Manageme t . Quaty4rports hm o 03 IV. Interim Flow Scenario A. Concerns/Improvements B. Research Flow Requests C. Research Focus p. j„ong Term Monitoring VI. Additional Agenda Items A. Communication Needs (Radio communication) B. Equipment Needs C. Razorback Suckers - How to Handle!!! IV. Closure GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIE: P. 0. BOX 1811 FF700, ST*FR )tk. 86802 Loughlin, William D. 1983. The Hydrogeologic Controls on Water Quality, Ground water Circulation, and Collapse Breccia Pipe Formation in the Western Part of the Black Mesa Hydrologic Basin, Coconino County, Arizona Unpublished MS thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 117 pages, including six plates and six appendices

This paper looks closely at the occurrence of groundwater as springs in the Little Colorado River (LCR) Canyon from Cameron to the confluence with the mainstem of the Colorado River.

The study addresses: - controls on location permeable zones low topographic elevation of the LCR canyon floor structural geology - water quality of springs spring water source is: 75 % from the San Francisco volcanic field, 25 % from Black Mesa basin - groundwater circulation patterns - history of groundwater circulation in the Black Mesa basin - San Francisco Peaks area.

Streamflow measurements in the LCR

Loughlin gaged streamf low in the LCR at 9 locations. Loughlin's figure 11 shows locations and his Appendix D presents measured streamflows for June 30 through July 6, 1980. According to Peter Huntoon (personal communication, March '91), stream flow measurements were taken utilizing hand built dams, garbage bags, and flume boxes. Springs in the Little Colorado Gorge

Loughlin describes fifty six discrete springs occuring between mile 3.7 and 20.9. Springs are numbered consecutively moving downstream from Cameron toward the confluence of the LCR with the mainstem of the Colorado River. However mileage is measured upstream from the confluence. Therefore as spring numbers increase, mileage decreases. Loughlin's figure 10 shows locations of springs and his Appendix C presents:

river mile above confluence side of LCR spring is located on (right or left) elevation water producing unit geologic control discharge (gpm) water temperature (summer and or winter) and whether water quality analysis was performed

Discharge from springs ranges from less than 1 gpm to 43,500 gpm. Total discharge from springs is 211 cfs. Some spring flow must enter the LCR below river level, based on comparison of spring flow measurements with stream flow measurements. Following is a summary of the ranges in discharges as one moves upstream from the confluence, including discharges for single well known springs (Sipapu and Blue Springs):

from mile 4 to 7 max Q = 450 gpm (Sipapu, mi. 5.0 = 5 gpm) from mile 7 to 10.5 Q = 0 gpm from mile 10.5 to 13 max Q = 43,500 gpm (Blue Springs, mi. 13.1 Q = 43,500 gpm) 6 springs have Q = 1,000 gpm 4 springs have Q = 6,000 gpm 3 springs have Q = 10,000 gpm from mile 13 to 21 max Q = 225 gpm

Throughout the year, temperatures of spring water stayed between 66 and 77 degrees fahrenheit, with the exception of the Sipapu, which was 80 degrees fahrenheit. Temperatures for 13 the 56 springs were measured in both summer and winter. Of these 13, 5 showed no seasonal change in temperature. Of these 13, 8 changed in temperature as follows: 2 showed a decrease from winter to summer of 1 and 1.5 degrees respectively 3 showed an increase from winter to summer of 1 degrees 1 showed an increase from winter to summer of 2.5 degrees 2 showed an increase from winter to summer of 8 and 9 degrees respectively (these latter two both issued from alluvium rather than bedrock)

Water Quality Data for Springs in the Little Colorado Gorge

Water quality samples were collected on the following dates: 1980 1981 June 12,13,21,22,27,29,30 March (day of the month not reported) July 24 November 26 August 5 Spring water was sampled and analyzed for major cation and anion trends. Existing well water quality records were also analyzed for major cation and anion trends.

Loughlin summarizes structural control on regional groundwater flow as follows:

1. groundwater flow in the Paleozoic aquifers of Black Mesa basin converges on Blue Springs 2. fractures associated with fault zones exert a strong local and regional control on ground water flow paths Groundwater -loves from areas of high hydraulic head to areas of low hydraulic head. The highest head is located in the San Francisco volcanic field. Recharge in the volcanic field is mostly via fractures. The San Francisco volcanic field is an area of recharge because of the abundant annual precipitation in combination with the permeability imparted to the rocks by faults and fractures assoced with the emplacement of the volcanics. Water moves from the Coconino (sandstone) aquifer, via fractures, through the confining beds of the Hermit Shale and the lower part of the Supai Group, into solution cavities developed in the Mississippian and older carbonates of the Redwall aquifer.

Where Coconino is intensely fractured in association with major faults in the Lake Mary area, transmissivities are 10 to 50 times greater than where the Coconino is not fractured.

Loughlin summarizes geologic controls on the locations of Blue Springs as follows:

1. springs occur in the Esplanade sandstone, the Redwall limestone, the undifferentiated Cambrian units, and the Muav limestone 2. 4/5ths of the total LCR spring discharge is from the Redwall limestone 3. springs occur where permeable zones intersect the canyon, 4. permeability types consist primarily of solution widened joints, fractures associated with fault zones, partings between bedding planes, and caves

At mile 20.9 spring 1 contributes the first groundwater seen below Cameron. It issues from the Esplanade and is located 200 feet down canyon from the intersection of Blue Springs monocline, Blue Springs fault and the LCR canyon floor. Water follows fractures associated with the monocline.

Down canyon from spring 1 the Redwall Limestone crops out. Eighty-one % of total discharge in the LCR issues from the Redwall. Redwall springs are localized by solution widened joints and fractures.

Between springs 56 and 39 or from 3.7 to 7.0 miles above the confluence, the LCR canyon trends generally east. Between spring 38 and 39 or from 7.0 to 10.5 miles above the confluence, the LCR canyon trends north, parallel to the strike of high-angle normal faults; therefore in this reach of the canyon no faults intersect canyon floor. Between springs 38 and 1 or from 10.5 to 20.9 miles above the confluence, the LCR canyon winds generally southeast.

In the two reaches, from mile 3.7 to 7.0, and mile 10.5 to 20.9, the canyon floor intersects structural features and springs are abundant. In reach 7.0 to 10.5, where the canyon parallels the structural features, no springs are found. This difference illustrates the structural control on the occurrence of springs.

The Sipapu has six times the TDS and is three degrees fahrenheit warmer than other springs in the area. The structures that (may) control the location of this spring are covered. However the chemistry and temperature indicate this spring issues from the Tapeats aquifer, under artesian (confined) pressure, unlike other springs in the area which drain under water table conditions.

Loughlin summarizes regional water quality as follows:

1. the water quality of Blue springs results from the mixing of different water types in the Coconino aquifer 2. mixing in the northern part of the area takes place primarily in fault zones where there is a convergence of ground water flow paths 3. 3/4 of the water bein discharged from the Blue Springs originates in the San Francisco Peaks volcanic field

Although the San Francisco volcanic field represents only 5% of the surface area of the Black Mesa hydrologic basin, it contributes the bulk of the volume because: 1. of structural complexity (recharge rates are greatly enhanced) 2. annual rainfall exceeds other portions of the basin (30" vs. 8")

The Paleozoic aquifers in the Black Mesa hydrologic basin have drained to springs in the vicinity of the Little Colorado Gorge at least since erosion exposed the Paleozoic section beginning in middle Miocene time. The Black Mesa hydrologic basin still drains to Blue Springs because the Little Colorado Gorge contains the lowest topographic exposures of the Coconino, Esplanade, and Redwall aquifers. Within the canyon, spring flow occurs where permeable zones, such as solution widened joints, fractures associated with faults, partings between bedding planes, and caves intersect the canyon floor.

Blue Springs fault exerts a strong local control on both the chemical quality and temperature of water discharging from individual springs.

west of fault: east of fault:

TDS: 2,270 mg/1 4,100 mg/1 temp: 69 degrees F 72 degrees F

both and Na+ Cl- type waters, however, west of the fault concentrations of Ca++ and HCO3- are much larger, and concentrations of Na+ and Cl- are much smaller.

Groundwater that originates in the eastern Mogollon Highlands moves northward toward Winslow and Holbrook and then northwestward, parallel to the LCR toward Cameron and the Blue Springs monocline. This water drains the thick evaporite section in the Schnebly Hill Formation near Holbrook, and contains large concentrations of Na+, Mg++, Cl-, SO4--, and total dissolved solids of 809 to 7,750 mg/l. Groundwater that originates in the San Francisco volcanic field contains large concentrations of Ca++, HCO3-, and Si02, small concentrations of Na+, Cl-, SO4--, and total dissolved solids of 103 to 998 mg/l. This water moves northeastward to the up-dip side of the East Kaibab monocline, and then north toward Blue Springs monocline.

These two waters converge on, and mix in the fracture system associated with the Blue Springs monocline and the numerous high angle normal faults located on the down-dip side of the East Kaibab monocline. The regional dip is to the east and the hydrologic gradient is to the west, hence ground water moves, via fractures, from the Coconino aquifer through the Hermit Shale and the lower part ofthe Supai Group, into solution cavities developed in the Mississippian and older carbonates of the Redwall aquifer.

In summary, the water being discharged from Blue Springs is a mixture of 75 % water from the San Francisco volcanic field, and 25 % from the Black Mesa hydrologic basin. Although the San Francisco volcanic field represents only 5 % of the surface area of the Black Mesa hydrologic basin, it contributes 3/48 of the groundwater discharged from the Blue Springs system, because recharge rates in the San Francisco volcanic field are many times greater than in other parts of the Black Mesa hydrologic basin.

CH I. Purpose, Methodology, and Regional Setting p 1 - 10 CH II. Geologic Structure p 11 - 24 CH III. Structural Control on Regional Ground Water Flow p 25 - 30 CH IV. History of Cenozoic Tectonism, Erosion, and Ground Water Circulation p 31-42 CH V. Blue Springs ( incl geologic controls on locations, temp, WQ, mixing, sipapu -spring 53) p 43 - 66 CH VI. Regional Water Quality p 67 - 82 CH VII. Summary and Conclusions p 83 - 86 V Appendices:

A. Inventory of wells which yielded potentiometric, water quality, and/or stratigraphic tops data for the Coconino aquifer in the western part of the Black Mesa hydrologic basin B. USGS well numbering system C. Inventory of springs in the LCR D. Stream flow data for the perennial part of the LCR E. Water quality data for springs in the LCR gorge F. Water quality data for wells developed in the western part of the Black Mesa hydrologic basin APPENDIX D

STREAM FLOW DATA FOR THE PERENNIAL PART

OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER,

COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA

Flow Date Stationa River Mileb Ft 3/sec

6-30-80 A 14.6 >1 6-30-80 B 13.2 2 6-30-80 C 13.1 99 6-30-80 D 12.6 155 6-30-80 E 11.7 164 7-1-80 F 11.0 168 7-6-80 G 7.1 171 7-6-80 H 6.4 192 7-6-80 I 5.4 211 a.Station letters refer to letter locations shown on Figure 11. b. Distance measured upstream from confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers.

° . I tii 40 46

. • • • • . . • ".. • •

New.-

1(211) Gavot 511.

A000hon of ocuotng site; (211), foupect Pon letter and numoer correspond to - toter and numaer hsted Oft Appendix 0.

. 34 03'- 0, Increase, in muffed flop —secs' berm" consecutive gouge • • • • • - • • • • 3 A.+.-- • Wes in 11 /s. • aTtin.oxi• c

PIN of evolve

111'.41ft Figure 11. Locations of gauging sites showing gauged flow and increases in gauged flow for the perennial part of the Little Colorado River, Coconino County, Arizona. 45 et°45'

. 34410' — 36 10'

EXPLANATION . 34.05 — • • . . . —36•06 Spring • 111■. fl_ • nombor corrospowls t000mber ?Irfr • • • -N on AgOloeffig "MO •

Rio of Csayoo •

;few

Figure 10. Locations of springs in the Little Colorado Gorge, Coco- nino County, Arizona. APPENDIX C (Continued)

Side of Spring Approximate Little Prodncing Ceoloic Discharge' Temperature Water ( No.A River Mile* Colored!, Rivers Elevstiond Unit' Control (gal/min) Simmer Winter Anslysiei Remerksc

43 6.7 left 2950 Cu J 1 09E 71 72 Yes Rise is in Q41. 44 6.4 left 2980 Cu r 10E Yes Rise in in (pd. 45 6.4 rieht 2950 Cu r 450t 73 71 Yes Rise is in gal. 46 6.4 l eft 3000 Cm .1 1 00E 75 Yes Rise in in Qml. 47 6.3 left 1005 Cm I 100E 71 72 Yes Discharer is from a eerie. of small rises in Os. 48 6.2 right 1010 Cm J 505 75 66 Yes Rise is in gm. 44 6.1 l eft 3015 Cm .1 1508 75 74 Yes Rise is in gat from underneath a l arge boulder. SO 6.11 left 3020 Cm J 1 00E 75 74 Yes Rise is in travertine cemented Qal.

51 5.3 left 3040 Cn J I E 73 Yes Rise is in Qs' at the base of Qls. 52 5.1 right 3060 Om J 110E 76 76 Yen Rise is l ocated at the base of large mound of Qty. 53 5.0 right 2852 Cba J 56 80 80 Sipaso Spring, dishearge is fro. that, however water is derived from t he Ct. Qs!. 54 5.0 right 3070 Cm J 900E 77 77 Yes Rise is in 55 3.8 right 3100 Ow 3 SOE 76 Yes Rise is in Qai. 56 3.7 right 31 0W Cie t 501 76 Yes Rise is in Oril.

a. Spring numbers refer to the numbered locations shown on Figure 10.

b. Distance in miles, measured upstream from the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado ...

C. Left or right refers to the side of the canyon where spring is located when oh...... is facing down river.

4. Elevation is in feet above sea level.

41. Pe-Explende Sandstone, Men Mooney Falls Member, Redwall Limestone; Mrt Thunder Springs Member, Redwall Limestone; Cu Cambrian Undifferentiated, Ct Uncoils Sandstone.

f. partings between bedding planes, C • cave; F fault; J joint

4. estimated discharge.

I. Water analyses are listed on Appendix E.

j. Qal ' Alluvium deposits; gig landslide deposits. 6

THICKNESS AGE UNIT SELECTED LITHOLOGY (feet) MEMBERS REFERENCES (00 Crm,m Shine c.,,D•r, (1875) F04'1,46(1130 rupe e Gregory (19171_ Q.) Maumee', 11010cooli Wore ( ( 1101) 350-400 Moovi 1954) Formoben Vimeorei McKee

Dorton KaiMee Merrmoure (19101 McKee ( ( 350-400 Formation Fossil Mtn. 939) Seurat (1962)

(( Tort:mime McKee 4381 t,on Sourai fi962) Fenno Re.sen a Turner

Coconino Dorton (1910) 600 Sonastons McK.8 i 933) PERM/AN t1 ti it FA., Noble /922) 150 Sham McKee ( eepee)

White (1929) 300-400 McKmp (1975/ McKee (uemob.)

100 , wescoyam• tk.: Dorton (1910) MOW* ( 1 915)_ 100 -. trornmr.:::.:ici.:+:11 Dar tort 119(Q) 2-4 - L McKee 19'S )— ILf m; Itetenornmei • i p_or tee 192) 100 --• Forreenan , ?Aoki* 1 99) Mereesnee Caber, 501 Mesa (1875) McKee and 1 t.'") Redemil 140111 2501 Limestone 1 Thuneer•Y sameirling CHOSenite ( (949) 400-500 (42 c , 1/4 W1,0 110.111 701 4 Zel Moan co! sWeroolcontoi. ,( (18,983.3))

) $101%1 or"."end tikflerenfterle04 Dorton (1910 undiffeyen- 164elneem Canyel1 McKee and 1,41 I Messer ( 14azazi.c c Konoo Canyon ( 945) Bright Dorton (1910) 260 Kneel isa McKee end Shale 0 Reese , (1945) Darien (19(0) 300 McKee and /lessee (1945)

Uftdmoded === RR.:71,- Crosswise** &reel* ,Chort laM S"4 Li Sonovono =Sono Llmoslette, Sawa". Co/conana Oman t=== Ocaonvity /Sono Comet, 4 SomisMft, foe/wry - - W* 75; fyfite , Drees /NO Conaway'''. Semftrone Mtn

Figure 2. Generalized lithology, thickness, and age of Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks exposed in the vicinity of the Little Colorado Gorge, Coconino County, Arizona. The first name in the reference column is the worker who first named and defined the unit, the names which follow are workers who named and defined the selected members, and whose lithologic descriptions were used. Table I. Summary of the strattgraphic occurrence, discharge, temperature, and water quality of spring flow in the Little Colorado Gorge, Coconino County, Arizona.

Total Dissolved Total Number Aquifere Lithologic Solidsc Temperatured of Total Discharge Unit" (mg/1) (oF) Observed Springse (Ft 3/s)f

Esplande Aquifer Esplanade Sandstone 3,400 to 3,500 68° - 69° 3 (1

Redwall Limestone 2,300 to 4,100 69° - 73° 35 173

Redwall Temple Butte Limestone 0 0 Aquifer Undifferentiated 4,000 to 4,100 64° - 73° 7 19 cambrtan

Muav Limestone 4,000 to 4,100 66° - 77° 10 19 Tapeats Aquifer Tapeats Sandstone 24,000 80° 1 (1

a Aquifer properties summarized on Figure 5. Lithology summarized on Figure 2. Water analyses summarized on Appendix E. Temperatures listed on Appendix C. Individual spring listed on Appendix C. Gauging data listed on Appendix D, individual spring discharge data listed on Appendix C.

- Î. Eh iri L.1, 1E;Ii- ; 7-31a:P

KIMISSMALL

November 4, 1991

TO: Dr. W.L. Minckley, Arizona State University

FROM: Michael Yard, Glen Canyon Environmental Studiee

SUBJECT: INFORMATION REQUEST !OR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SPECIFIC TO the ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH PROGRAM

THIS MEMO IS IN REGERDE TO OUR CONVERSATION THIS MORNING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ENDANGERED APECIES REEEERCH PROGREM. I WAS ABLE TO LOCATE A percentage of the items you requested, however, some are either missing (at large), or have not been received as of to date. Additional correspondence and INFORMATION have been enclosed (3) on conservation measure #2. This information is primarily background information on the propagation effort.

LISTED BELOW ARE tho: SPECIFIC ITEMS REQUESTED:

1). SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 - SUMMARY review of meeting concerning issues of overlap on AG?, PETS, MU research.

2). AT Report - (Angradi, Kubly, Kinsolving, and Morgenson)

3). AG? - Native Fish Studies - Trip Report March 26 - April 14, 1991

4). June 28, 1991 - * (Miseinq - to my knowledge no meetitg occurred at this point in time. The next scheduled ACT MEETING wae for July 19, 1991.)

5). TWS Third Revised study Plan - (most current)

6). ?WS - Letter on issues REGARDING ACQUISITION OF collecting permit

7). Bio/Weat - Proposed 1991 Study Plan

*8). Propagation Effort

a. 'WS Propagation/Genstics Management FLAN UPDATE b. MU - Laboratory Studies

C. Propagation request for humpback chub, Grand Canyon

hope this information will assist you and your colleagues during THE review procues of the Glen Canyon ENVIRONMENTTL STUDIES ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH PROGRAM. 0 - ç = •

• 1 • 1.0•1....

United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAkATION Upper Coionele likedice Glen Canyort Envirmaspeetk Swdist DW NFU 1111111111 10. P.O. Box 1811 September 3, 1991 Flaptaff, Arisonst &2.1Š11

To: Principle Investigatore Little Colorado River Endangered Fish Studies Glen Canyon tnvironmental Studies

From: David L. Wegner Glen Canyon Environmental Studies

Subjetct: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Review of the September 3, 1991 Meeting Agreeeents

Thank you for participating in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) Little Colorado River endangered fish Principle Investigators meeting on September 3, 1991. I think that we got a lot of issues out on the table and ware able to identify a process whereby we can resolve many of the issues of concern.

As a result of our lactating there were aeveral agreements that were made.

1. The Fish & Wildlife Service (MS) will focus their microhabitet studies in two 500 meter sections in the Little Colorado River (LCR). The two sites are at the Salt Trail Calera and at the Powell Canyon Camp.

2. The ?WS will provide the Principle Investigators with a written protocol of the specific items and sampling procedures that they need to accomplish their work objectives. From that written protocol a determination will be med. as to whether additional staffing i$ needed. And how we will accomplish the work requirements.

3. Wa will check the hoop nets every 12 hours as stated on the FWS permits. An assessment will be made by Arizona State University (ASU) as ta'whether a longer period is justified based on data collected to date. That information will be prenented to the rws in the permit revise process.

4. A procedure will be established to evaluate the impact of the fish sampling program.. on the health end well being of the endangered and native fish. GCS will take the lead on the development of the DRAFT document that will be distributed to the Principle Investigators for review and comment. The final document will be provided to the National Park Service and all other interested COOPERATORS.

5. THE ARISONE Clam* k Fish and the MS will work together to &STAMINA here tha sampliag of the roams life hitteey STAGES OF THA FISH IN THA LITTLE COLORADO AIVEZ IS to OCCUR. A WRITTEN DESCRIPTIVE WILL RESULT.

6. MAGNBALTALOOILLOSATILABETABALSBASUREZATTITEA =1HOEV NET SITES THOUGH THE FREQUEACY MAY BE REDUCED.

7. BEFORE ANY CHANGES ARE MALLE IN WYECIFIC SAMPLING PROTOCOL A LOGIC DOCUMENT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED FOR ' THE ADMINISTRATIVE FILES. This document should include a RAVISH' OF THE D&TA AND INFORMATION THAT HAS LED TO A CHANGE IN PLAN.

8. UNLESS THERE it A SPECIFIC AND DEFINED SCIENTIFIC STUDY PLAN, ALL EXOTICS ARE TO BE RETURNED to the RIVER IN A complett and healthy fors. If & scientific NEED EXISTS THE EXOTIC FISH MAY HE S&CRIFICED BUT WE ARE NOT TO DEVELOP AND ERADICATION MENTALITY.

9. HOOP NETS ARE NOT TO BE BAITED IN THE TWO 500 METER INTENSIVE MICROHABITET ARAAA. HAFTING OUTSIDE OF THOSE AREA, IS NOT TO BO OKNEOURCQVD U10..SISS IT IS THE ONLY MEANS OF ACQUIRING THE FISH SAMPLES.

I EXPECT ALL OF US TO FOLLOW THE ABOVE DECISIONS. AGAIN, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT IF WE CHANGE OUR PROTOCOL THAT WS DOCUMENT WHY. THIS IS ESSENTIAL IF/WHAN WE GST REVIEWED. PLEASE CALL IF YOU HAVE any questions. Regards. enclosures

, SENT E'f-: GLEN CN OH El STuL, IE: 11— : 6c)=.5=7 77, — SIES 20 ii;

United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF r_EaAmATIoN LIPPP.P. COLORADO PLEGIONAL OPPICE P.O. BOX 11568 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S4147 mem.tv ernmne UC -771 JUL 12 1990

Memorandum

To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Attention: Recovery Implementation Program, Propagation Coordinator, PO Box 25486, Denver CO 80225

From:4%yRegional Director 0 Bureau of Reclamation

Subject: Request for Propagation of Humpback Chub from the Grand Canyon for Priority Reaearch Work in Arizona and the Grand Canyon (Endangered Species)

In our continued efforts to satisfy research under the Conservation Measures for the Draft Biological Opinion for the Operation of Glen Canyon Deets we would like to pursue the possible collection and proagstion of humpback chub from the Little Colorado River (LCR). We are about to initiate a 4-year, two-phased research effort on the ecology of the humpback Chub in the La. and Grand Canyon. Both phases of the research effort will include determining effects of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the survival and recruitment of various life history stages of humpback chub in the Grand Canyon.

Dui to the difficulty of conducting various types of field research, and the need for laboratory control type experimentation * we would like to meet and discuss the possibility of capturing and propagating humpback chub from the LCR for laboratory use. We recognize that before Colorado River endangered fish are removed from the wild, a propagation plan and protocol must be developed through the Recovery Implementation Program, Propagation Coordinator. It is our understanding the plan should discuss items including: the maximum number to be removed from the LCR, size, purpose, holding facility, number and size of fish for use in studies, and a long-term commitment for maintaining the fieh. We have discussed these requirements with the Grand Canyon Aquatic Coordination Team (ACT) who have asked us to pursue thie request with your office.

Tentatively, we have received A commitment from Arizona Game and Fish to work with us in atetitg the requirements that would enable them to hold and propagate humpback chub at their Page Spring Hatchery. We understand that Mr. Holt Williamson of your staff has vielited the Page Spring facility and has discussed the poseiblity of developing the Page Spring Hatchery into a holding refugia and research facility for the Grand Canyon population.

SENT a.:3LEN C40:11i Eft) STuLIE:1i- ;

Since our research effort will begin this sumetr atd we need laboratory specimens beginning next spring, we would like to proceed with developing a propagation plan for the LCR population with the assistance of Mr. Williamson. The ACT, who serves as the review team for the Grind Canyon research effort, would like to meet with Mr. Williamson and initiate the actions necessary for preparation of the plan. A6 etated in earlier correspondence between our offices, funding for the propagation of Grand Canyon fish would he assumed by the ongoing Glen Canyon Environmental Studies.

The next meeting of the ACT will be in early August 1990. With your approval, we would like to have Mr. Williamson attend the meeting and discuss those items that would need to be included in it propagation plan.

Please respond as soon as possible since the Page Spring facility needs to be prepared to hold and propagate fish next spritg. If you have any questions regarding our request, contact Eob Villiams of our Biological Support Branch at FTS 588-6087.

Arlo Allen

cc: Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, PO Box 1306, Albuquerque NM 67103

Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616 West Thomas Road, Suite 6, Phoenix AZ 85019

bc: .2C=119

Attectiment 4

Propagation/Genetics Management Plan Update

J. Holt Williamson

Propagation Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

August 17, 1989

A second draft of the Propagation/Cenetics Management Plan (Flan) is under review by the Management and Technical Groups of the Recovery Implementation

Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (RIP).

The Plan will also be reviewed by Service personnel in Regieffs 2 and'O; the ad hoc Propagation Work Group (PWC), the ad hoc hatchery advisory team, and specialists and researchers engaged in various recovery efforts. Although Plan development and implementation is an identified recovery element of the RIP requiring input at many levels from many sources, the responsibility is that of the Propagation Coordinator and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Plan provides more detailed description of obJectives and specific tasks required for its development and implementation, recommends a conceptual and operational context within which the Plan can be Integrated into the overall

EH:a_EH EW

recovery effort, describes an overall strate;7i based on an ecosystem approach,

principles of genetic conservation, fish needs, research/development, artificial

propagation, evaluation and monitoring of recovery activities, and relative

priorities and tentative time frames for task development and completion. The

Plan identifies studtefTScopes of Work) required to provide the information and

technology necessary for implementation. The Propagation Coordinator relies

heavily on guidance and support form the Tech Group and advice from the PWG and

the ad hoc hatchery advisory groups. Service field stations in Grand Junction,

Colorado and Vernal, Utah, are vital for expeditious and successful

implementation of the Plan throughout its duration.

The goals of the Plan are consistent with and complementary to those expressed

in the Service reco\‹—plans foe the endangered fishes and the RIP:

maintenance and development of self-sustaining natural rare fish populations in

their current and historical habitats. Specifically, the Plan identifies the

need and methods to promote, enhance, and create opportunities for natural

reproduction through habitat protection and modification and artificial

propagation based on genetics conservation principles in order to prevent loss

of unique genetic resources and disruption of natural patterns of genetic

diversity. This is the most efficient approach to ensuring the continued

evolutionary potential and survival of species.

Propagation or reproduction is central to achieving recovery goals. Artificial

propagation is a recovery activity--a tool to use in initiating and sustaining

propagation In the wild and maintaining rare gene pools in captivity.

I Pr" 3

Artificial propagation is an interactive subset of the overall recovery effort. Fish stocking is, in turn, a subset of artificial propagation. The Plan provides a mechanism of systemaoc identification of specific artificial propagation activities to address corresponding rare fish problems as identified by fisheries biologists and support field staff.

Seven major objectives subdivided into tasks are the focus of the Plan. All objectives are in various stages of development and implementation. The status

of which is described in the second draft of the Plan currently under review:

I. Assembling an 4d I* c'Propagation Work nooup of technically experienced

and profession c-2-slrii-C1-n Plan development and

implementation.

2. Identify short term fish needs for FY 1990, I. e.

- Kenney Resevoir

- Marking/tagging studies

- G1l 122 and razorba rsucker genetics studies

- Perugia and broodstock development for spefic Colorado

squawfish and razorback populations

- Contaminants studies for razorback sucker

3. Identify long term fish needs for 15 years in 5-year increments. A ;

4 4. Identify facilities (new and current) required to meet fish needs in the short and long term. Develop site evaluation and design criteria

required. Evaluate sites. If necessary, design and construct facilities.

S. Develop a Genetics Manag ment Plan for rare fishes of the upper basin

and identify and initiate appropriate studies.

6. Develop rare fish rerugiL Ls gene banks.

7. Develop an integrated recovery management framework within which the

Propagation/Genetics Management Plan can be implemented. Such a plan

conceptually and operationally links recovery goals, identified fish

needs and problems with the current "status" of discrete identifiable

fish populations. Once a fish population has received a "status" designation, then an array of recovery or action options are identified as appropriate based on specificity, priority, and feasibility. One such option, considering the status of the fish population in question,

Is altir ligigl oacilti2n. The major capability areas of artificial propagation are: refugia, research and development, production for

stocking (experimental, augmentation, reintroduction).

All the objectives can and are being developed and implemented concurrently.

Artificial propagation activities are part of the proposed FY MO Work Plan include:

; ra.C:J2 .E.ELT

5 L/- I. Genetics studies with lila soo. and razorback sucker.

2. Development of Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker broodstock and

refugia populations.

3. Development of prototype facility design and construction criteria for

refugia, broodstock development, R(D, and production. Site visits and

evaluations. The Colorado Water Conservation Board is assisting in aspects of this activity.

4. Larval feeding trails for Colorado squawfish (CDOW, Ft. Collins, CO) and

razorback sucker at the Ouray facility (USFWS, Ouray NWR, UT).

5. Marking and tagging studies for broodstock development and evaluation of fish stocking programs (USFWS, Dexter NFH, NH and Grand Junction, CO

CRFP).

6. Development of alternate production technologies.

In conclusion, all Plan objectives can and are being developed and implemented

with specific task emphasis defined by priorities inherent within the integrated

recovery management plan.

L041,11) srpass DEPARTMENT OF 1145 IN/lEF11014 FISH ANO SERVICE Pinstop Fishery Assistance Office c T • ,. , CA!' rCA P 0 . Box 39 Arizona 85935 (602) 338-5246 OCT 199/ 01 Pinetop FAO Satellite 835 E. David Dr. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 602/774-9439 FLAGrAFF, Az September 26, 1991 David L. Wegner Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Environmental Studies P.O. Box 1811 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001-1E11

Dear Dave: Thee letter is to provide an explanation for the acquisition of a USFWS endangered species subpermettee collection permit ( n7-676811) by USFWS-Pinstop FAO and affiliates at U. Arizona Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for Humpback chub and Razorback sucker in tne Little Colorado River and other tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon for the remainder of 1991. This USFWs permit was necessary as a precondition to receiving a U.S. Park Service permit to collect fishes in the Colorado River tributariee of the Grand Canyon National Park. This USNPS permit has recently been issued. Our contractual research with GCES requires that we measure habitat and collect fishes in the following tributaries: Feria, Bright Angel, Shintme, Tapeate, Deer, Kanab, Havasu, and Little Colorado River. This USMS permit is necessary as A precondition to application for a acientific rabearch and collecting permit from the Navajo Fish and Wildlife Department for GCS funded research in the Little Colorado River outside the Grand Canyon National Park. At the present time, we are not subparmittees on any other permit & that are held by other GCES contractors ( AZGF or ASU). We are, however, in possession of a AZGF collection permit ($600-7-91-0000227) for listed species in the Grand Canyon and Little Colorado River. It should be noted that these items were discussed and the news; of our receiving these permits were announced at the 3 September ad hoc ACT meeting at the AGF offices in Phoenix. Although there has been verbal agreements that ASU and AZGF might previde fish collecting services for USFWS in the Little Colorado River, this has not been a satisfactory arrangement thus far. It has been impossible for USFWS- Pinetop FAO personnel to be accompanied by ASU personnel to conduct fish sampling required for USFWS to meet their aCtS Contract research. Possession of all required collection permits by USTWS-Pinetop FAO personnel will allow pursuit of sampling needs of USFWS without inconvenience to ASU personnel and thie arrangement also assures that USTWS sampling neede are always met. Possession of a USIPWS collection permit by USFWS-Finotop FAO does!: not imply that there will not be collaboration of fish collection or research by U MS, ASU, or AZGF. On the contrary, we argue that possession of permits by all parties provides for more efficient allocation of personnel resources by GCES contractors, allows greater flexibility of execution of field sampling and coordination among research groups, and does not inconvenience anyone. :t should also be noted that it is the intention of UsFWS-Finetop FAO to increase the degree of integration of their research with that of ASU and AZGF.

Thank you. sincerely, .‘J — // .A owen T. Gorman, - Ph.D. — Fishery Management Biologist

Revised USPWS-Pinetop FAO General Study Plan: Microhebitat uAA by fishes; of the Little Colorado River (LCR) with special emphasis on the Humpback chub, Gila cepha

Third revision, October 1, 1991 Owen T. Gorman, Project Coordinator

confluence area (0-1 km): USFWe peraonnel: S. Leon', D. Parker, John Seale, Alex Laweka Oblectives measure seaeonal change); in microhabitat and determine the impact of Glen Canyon Dam releases on physicochemical ccnditions and microhabitat in the confluence area. Secondarily, we will attempt to determine mecrohabitat use by humpback chub and other fesh species in the confluence area in conjunction with AG?, ASU, and BioWeat fish aempling activities. AG? and ASU will deploy trammel neta from which point-of-capture habitat data will be collected. Eioweet personnel will track radio-tagged chub into the confluence area; USMS will provide guidance on how to obtain habitat from such efforts (we are preesntly working thee protocols). Methea; The confluence area will be mapped by the transeet method (1 or 2m x 20m grid) seaaonally for low and high Glenn Canyon Dam discharge regimes. Mapping during high flow periods will take place at night (when high flow* occur) and USE OF a motorized craft will be Imperative for safe and successful completion of mapping. Additially, we will map habitat at time of maximum LCR discharge which occurs during spring anow melt. At SET CROSS-ATREAM INTERVALE ( 1 TO 2 M) ALONG PERMANENTLY MARKED AND MAPPED TRANSECT locations, hydrogeophyical measeures and habitat variable); will be measured. When possible, trammel nets will be set within griddad study area and values for habitat variables will be recorded for each point of fish capture. 5Chechael. Habitat measurements will MEASURED ALONG PERMANENT TRANSECTS on a quarterly basis ( WINTER, spring, summer, fall) by Leon, Parker, ot al. in the confluence zone and additional measurements will be taken during unuaual events, e.g., spring snow melt, or WHEN RELEASED FLOWS FROM GLEN CANYON DAM are changed. Aseessment of habitat use by fishes!) will be conducted at least monthly (usually by the Lower Base Camp crew) and will be Coordinated with sampling activities of ACF, ASU, and BioWeat pertonnal. At present, the ,PERMANENT TRANSACTS have been located and mapped, and habitat measurements; have been TAKEN at summer low flow conditions (4000 cfs, Colorado Rivers 200 cfs base flow for LCR). Data on fiah habitat else; has been collected for trammel nets SET during the period 21 3uly-24 August, 1991.

LEELE_GEE_2EMPT_(LBC; Powell Canyon Camp) area (km 2.5-3.5): USFWS personnels Brent Bristow., Alex Laveka, and John Seals Obi.aeIj,ve: Measure seasonal changes in microhabitat and microhabitat use by LCR fishes. Method; Two 500 ail reaches with 100 m buffer zone are located in the vicinity of the LBC provide exclusive study areas' for micronabitat use assessment of LCR fishea. At present, thee* study areas are located within river kilometers 2.0-4.0. These 500 m sections will include at least two pools, racewaya-tailwaters, riffles, and travertine reefs/dams. At preaent, the river reach containing these study section have been mapped on a 1 x 20 m grid of tranaects. Typically, one 500 m rtedly area will be sampled per month, between the two study areas between months. so that sampling is alternated - Within thee* study areas 15 mini-hompnets will be deplcy d in a moving sampling grid on a monthly basis (explained in a sampling methods and protocols section that follows). In addition, 30 minnow traps set in grids will be used to sample shallow edge habitats and will complement the hoopnet sampling. Nets and traps will be run every 12 hours end moved to new grids every 24 hours in an upstream direction until the entire 500 m study area is sampled. Seine sampling will be conducted eeasonally (at least quarterly) in homogenous patches of stream habitat to provide an inventory of species

utilizing shallow seinable habitats. When conditions permit, cbaervational surveys (in situ or above water) will be conducted through the 500 m study areas. Seining and obeervational surveye will provide comparative data sets for the relative abundance of LCR fishes and gross habitat use patterns. §Chedele: Microhabitat use by LCR fiches will be aeseseed on a monthly basis. We anticipate that sampling will take lee& than one week. Seining eurveys will be conducted quarterly and will require one week/quarter.

Ulmer Base_Camp ( MC; Salt Trail Canyon camp) area (km 10-12)1 USFWS personnel: Owen Gorman , John Anderson, Bill Mattes, U. of A. techician. methOd, 0.Q.11/...ti12.1. same ae LBC. The two 500 m study ereae will be located between river km 10 and 12.

Atomiter Fang Rulja ( km 14-15.5): Bill Mattes, U. of A. technician, and John Anderson. obleetive: measure eeasenal changes in phyvicochemical condationS, microhabitat, end microhabitat use by LCR fish ee below and above the Atomizer falls reach. These falls are viewed as the terminue of Humpback Chub distribution in the LCR. l Milba.d.1 S lar to LBC, but cnly one 500 m study area will be eetabliehed and 8 minihoopnets and 5, minnow traps will be deployed. aveilable stream habitat in the study area will be aesessed by habitat meaeurement on A I x 20 m grid. Uhedule: one week per quarter (spring, summer, fall, winter). An additional sampling period will be scheduled during the peak of chub spring migration and spawning.

Blue Springs Reach (20-21 km): Sill Mattes, U.cf A. technician, and John Anderson. ObiectJae: measure seasonal chengse in physicochemical conditions, MICROHABITAT, and microhabitit use by LCR fiehes in the vicinity of Blue Springs. Metlaod: Onel 500 ml study area will be established In the Oleo Springs reach. Methods are similar to those for LEc but only 4 hoopnets and 8 minnow traps will be deployed. Available stream habitat in the study Area will be assessed BY HABITAT measurement on a 1 x 20 m grid. ct.gsdulet cns week per quarter (spring, summer, fall, winter).

Other sampling By the end of August 1991, hebitat in the lower 4 km and km 9.75-12.00 has been mapped on a 1 x 20 m grid. Also, stream habitat throughout the LCR between the confluence and Blue Springs ( km 0-21) has been mapped on a 1 x 100m grid. Where time permits, additional sampling by hoopneto and minnow traps may be conducted outside the propoeed study areas. These additional USFWS sampling efforts will be coordinated with those of AU and ACF research teams.

• USFWS supervisory personnel; will rotate among base camps/study areas.

the exiCt locations and sizes of these study areas will be determined following discussion with ASU and Acir personnel.

2 -exclusive" means that the study area is not sampled by other research teams In the same month when sampled by USFWS. During those months that a 500 in study area (with 200 m buffer) is not sampled by USFWS, ASU or AM' may sample these areas but must abide to low-ampect sampling methodologies.

2 eemeling meehode and eretocelge Justification and theoretical diacuesion of the following sampling method are preaented in the attached eupporting materials "ueing hoopnata and other sampling methode to &Geese mirrohatitat use by fishes in the Little Colorado River", and "Propceed low-impact fish sempling protocols for Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GcEe) Phaas II research in the Little Colorado River." The principle USFWS nempling device will be a 20" x 4' mini-hoopnet with 1/4" mesh. These email nets are designed to sample a wide array of atream habitat° and capture the range of species and size claeaes of fishes present in the LcR. Gee's etandard 1/4" mesh minnow traps will complement minihoopnets sampling in shallow edge habitats. ell note/traps will be sat (soaked) and run (emptied) of fish every 12 hours. Nets will not be run at the sane location for more than one day per month. Habitat meaeerements AROUND EACH NET WILL reflect pre-net-set conditiona. Habitat within study AREAS WILL BE MEEEURED PRIOR TO fish sampling cm a 1 x 20 m grid to determine HABITAT AVAILABILITY. HABITAT DATE FROM NET/TRAP SAMPLING DEVICES WILL BE compared to available habitat to determine the proportion and kinds of habitat sampled for fish. Habitat use by individual epecaes can be determined from patterns of capture among the net/trap rets. Within predeeignated exclueive SOO m study a:ease (with 100 m buffer zones above and below), 1$ hoonets will be deployed in a regular grid with a spacing OF 10-20 M BETWEEN HOOPNETS. "EXCLUEIVE MEANS THAT THESE STUDY AREAS will be sampled a maximum of one week/month by USFWS. In menthe that these AREAS ARE NOT AAMPLED BY USFWS, THEY MAY BE SAMPLED BY ASU OR AGF, BUT THEY must abide to low-impact sampling protocols. Nets will be set in the morning (within 3 hours following Sunrise) AND run before DUSK (within 3 hours before sunset) AND RUN the following morning. Then the NETS WILL BE PULLED AND SAT IN A NEW grid moving upstream through the study area reach. The border of the new grid must be SO m above THAT OF THE previous grid. The locations of hoopnat centers will MARKED WITH BUOYS and habitat will be measured in a small grid around each buoy following removal of the hoopnet. Alternatively, habitat may be measured immediately following net deployment. Minnow traps will be run in grids of at least 8 traps with a trap spacing of 1 to 2 meters. The location of the MINNOW traps will be marked by flag. OR BUOYS AND HABITAT WILL BE MEASURED FALLOWING REMOVAL OF TRAPS o a I* "e-T-cFll owe tee • m nnow trap grid will be contained in the hoopnet grids will be run simultaneously. In deeper waters, minnow traps and hoopnets can be set in the water column off the bottom to sample pelagic fishes. Hoopnet and minnow trap sampling will be complemented by seining, trammel netting, and direct observation of habitat use by fishes.

Considerations; The study areas for USFWS research should be exclusive, i.e., no other research groups should be sampling fish in THESE AREAS DURING THE SAME MONTH. This will aesure that the fish in these areas are not excessively impacted by frequent sampling. Hark/recapture data obtained by USFlaS from the exclusive study areas will be shared with other research teams. Other research teems (ASU and AG?) may assist and coordinate with USFWS in fish sampling in these DESIGNATED STUDY areas. The proposed sampling protocol it designed to have minimal impact on THE fish population fish are retained in nets for short periods of time AND FISH are sampled relatl.ely infrequently and et low intensity. Overall, the proposed sampling protocol will expose only a small fraction of the fish population to capture and handling. The reason for thia approach is to avoid causing changes in fish behavior and ecology as a result of the sampling protocol. The goal is to study the natural ecology of the fishtail and reduce all potential sources of sampling bias. In order to meet objectives of habitat use aesessment of LC' fishes, usFWS will have to acquire appropriate permits and collect fishes i-

3 coordination with ASU and AG? personnel. Past experience has shown that ASU does not have enough personnel to assist USFWS in all collection efforts. Possession of collecting permits by all parties provides for more EFFICIENT allocation of personnel resources AND ALLOWS GREATER FLEXIBILITY OF execution of field sampling and coordination among research greupe.

JNTE RIM ANDEIGADLTIAENAL HOOENETamasatnej Until the adoption of the sampling grid/study area approach to aseesaing habitat use by LCR fishes, USFWS will continue to semple habitat around ASU hoopnet sets with these conditions: 1. Hoopnets should be 1/4" mesh (a mSx of 1/4" and 1/2" mesh may be acceptable but see cendition 3) 2. Nets are to be soaked and emptied every 12 hours for the FIRST 24 hours. 3. Note are set IN pairs within 100 m of each other and should be sat to sample visually different habitat type;. Nets of the same mesh size must be paired. 4. The same locations should not be sampled more often than 1 week par month.

Habitat sampling of ASU hoopnet Bete may continue after the adoption of the grid/study area approach. Habitat measurement of ASU nets will be conducted on a seasonal basis and take place outside of USFWS study areas. This sampling will provide additional habitat use DATA FOR LCR fishes but will not have habitat availability data to determine habitat selection/preference patterns.

ZILASZ STMELINC sMEE4PDS Alternatives to hoepnets and minnow traps for sampling fishes in the LOR include trammel nets and seining. Slectroshocking is an ineffective sampling method in the LCR because of the high conductivity of the water. We propose to use trammel netting and seining as supplementary sampling methods to determine the composition and relative abundances of LCR fishes. These data will provide useful chocks on HOOPNET sampling data. Furthermore, some ADDITIONAL HABITAT use data can be OBTAINED FROM TRAMMEL netting and GAINING. Trannel nets are in some ways ideal for larger flah BECAUSE they provide point-of-capture habitat data. But trammel nets have many problems. Trammel nets are very size selective AND do not catch smaller fish. They CAN not be placed in the array of habitats that hoopnets can be deployed. Trammel nets must run frequently (at least every 6 hours) and their capture by entanglement results in increased physical demags and trauma to the fishes. If large numbers of fishes are captured, handling time and work loads by RESEARCHERS increases greatly. Finally, tremmel nets occasionally kill humpback chubs which are endangered species with strict incidental mortality limits. An alternative approach to using trammel nets is to drift them through pools. At the end of the pool the net is stopped and checked for fiehes. The net can provide information on lateral position, vertical position, and direction of movement into the net. The net should not be dragged to shore like a aeine or all capture locations of fishes IN the net will become hopelessly confused. For stationary trammel net sets, habitat La measured at every float along the net. Habitat use data can be determined by tieing a flag with species and net position data for each capture to the float line of the net. For drift sampling, the habitat in the pool must be measured prior to sampling. The point of capture for each fish can be grouped with lengitudinal sets of hatitat sample points. Seines are relatively safe sampling devices but are very limited in the range of habitats that can be sampled in the LCR. The presence of travertine and abundant boulders makes seining ineffective in most LCR habitats. Thus seining can only be done in a narrow array of edge and shallow habitats in the LCR. seining is most effective in sampling small and young-of-year fishes in these habitats. Habitat is measured in the area sampled after seining. Ideally, homogeneous areas should be sampled.

Interim USFWS habitat sampling protocols October 15-22 field trip

Habitat will be measured at ASU honpnet sets throughout the LOR. To make this data useful for habitat use assessment the following protocols should be followed:

A balance of "begati and "positive" net sets should • be maintained: Nets should be set(tn—i3aire: (or greater multiples) that are within 100 m of each otheL. OrptIMally, each net should be set to sample different types of habitats in a localized reach or "neighborhood". This can be "positive" and "negative" net sets; the idea is to set nets inafffezent)types of habitats.

Ideally, about two-thirds of the nets should be deployed in pairs or some multiple to sample neighborhoods. Half of those nets should be of the "negative" net set category. The remainder 1/3 of the nets may be solitary sets. Every attempt should be made to use the same mesh sizes for pairs.

The above protocols were followed in the late August trip. In the upcoming trip we would like to record fish captures on an diel cycle for the first 24 hours only. Additional protocols: Nets should be initially be set in the morning hours prior to 10 AM. Between 5:00-6:30 PM these nets should be checked and any fish removed and recorded. The following morning (between 6:00-10:00 AM) the nets should be checked again and any fish removed and recorded. Actual times of net sets and checks should be carefully recorded. After the first 24 hrs ASU sampling protocols may be followed. USFWS would like to obtain data on approximately 50 net sets. We plan to go in on 15 October and pull cut on 22 October. Alex Laweka and John Seals will be in the Powell Camp and Owen Gorman and John Anderson will be at the Salt Camp. Perhaps we can divide labor on the first day so that some people can go immediately and Set some nets and others set up camp. Questions? call Owen at (602) 556-7051 (GOES offices) See you on 15 October in the AM.

Using hoopnets and other sampling methods to assess microhabitat use by fishes in the Little Colorado River

Owen T. Gorman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pinetop Fishery Assistance Office Flagstaff Satellite 835 E. David Drive Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Second Draft, September 24, 1991

#.194Pneta as biasied sampling devices Hoopnets and fykenets are widely used in fishery research to assess relative abundance, distribution and movement of fishes in lakes, reservoirs and larger streams and rivers. The biases of hoopnet/fykenet sampling are well known (for a review see Hamley and Howley, 1985) and adjustments to sampling protocols are made in each research setting. capture frequencies can vary widely with season (Kelley, 1953; Ryan, 1984; Hamley and Howley, 1985) and net location (Schumacher and Eschmeyer, 1943; Van Oosten et al., 1946; Hamley and Howley, 1985). There are strong species-specific and size-specific differences in capture rates in hoopnets (Van Oosten et al., 1946; Grinstead and Gomez, 1972; Meyer and Merriner, 1976; Craig, 1980; Hamley and Howley, 1985). The tendancy for some species to be easily captured in hoopnets has been used to focus sampling efforts on specific species in fishery research. Thie species-specific bias in hoopnet sampling efficiency can be modified by changing mesh size and trap design, baiting or adding wings to the nets. Various types of baits or attractants can be used to enhance efficiency of some species but not others. The array of protocols in using hoopnets to assess various fish populations varies regionally, seasonally, and by habitat and are usually arrived at empirically.

Snatial ecoloov of stream fish assemblaoes: using hoonnets to assess habitat use natterns Data from hoopnet sampling can provide reasonable estimators of population parameters (Hamley and Howley, 1985), however, location biases and species- and size-specific biases in hoopnet sampling efficiencies makes hoopnets less than ideal for studying habitat use patterns in assemblages of stream fishes. In order for these devices to provide reasonably accurate data for ecological studies, the relative catchabilty of each species In the assemblage must be evaluated in a pilot study. Obviously, the more diverse the assemblage the more unsuitable hoopnets will be in fish sampling. Hoopnets may be appropriate sampling devices for simple fish assemblages where the individual species are all captured with relative efficiency (e.g., Little Colorado River assemblage). The relative efficiency and biases of hoopnet sampling should be checked by comparing results with other methodologies, e.g., trammel nets, seines, electroshocking. Hoopnet sampling does hot provide the ideal individual point data on microhabitat use by fishes as provided by observational studies (e.g., Gorman 1987; 1988a; 1988b); hoopnets provide data on use of habitat patches. Thus, hoopnet data indirectly assesses microhabitat use by fishes. Before hoopnet data can be of any use in assessing of habitat use, the array of habitats being sampled by the hoopnets must first be quantified/estimated. This will provide a baseline to determine habitat/habitat patch selection by the fishes and provide a baseline to determine what types or proportions of the available habitat is being sampled by the hoopnets. Design and implementation of a successful habitat study of stream fishes by hoopnet sampling requires consideration of the mechanisms by which hoopnets work to capture fish. Clearly, hoopnets present a new structural modification to the local microhabitat which may be very attractive to some fishes and can be made attractive to other fishes by baiting or other modifications. Assuming that they are unbaited, hoopnets attract and trap

1 fish by their structural modification of the local habitat. In order to be attracted and trapped in hoopnets, fish must first discover or encounter the net. The first captures will be recruited from the local neighborhood of the net. The longer a net is left in place, more fishes will be recruited from greater distances. Thus, the area sampled by a hoop net is very time- dependent. The first fishes to be captured will have their home range centers closest to the net (this is where these fish spend most of their time). After these fish are captured, fishes with more distant home range centers will eventually discover the hoopnet and be trapped. This pattern reflects typical home range behavior of fishes and other vertebrates. The time-dependent concentration of fishes in the hoopnet may provide an additional attractant to distant fishes. If the investigator le attempting to correlate the characteristics of the habitat in the immediate vicinity of the hoopnet with the relative abundance of species caught in the net, the bias introduced by the time dependency of the area sampled by nocpnets must be considered. An additional problem with running nets for long periods of time (soak time) is that the escape rate of fishes from the hoopnets increases with time and can vary with species (Patriarcne, 1968; Grinstead, 1970). Patriarche (1988) experimentally determined that all individuals of some species escaped from nets within 3 days and this has a profound effect on species composition in the nets at day 3 (Grinstead, 1970). If the time-dependent bias is not considered and nets are left in place for several days, there may ne little or no relationship between species composition and abundances and habitat represented by net sets. Iz is reasonable to assume from these studies that nets should have soak times of no more than I day. In order to use hoopnets to assess habitat use patterns in stream fishes they must ideally provide "snapshots" of habitat use in time and space. The time-dependent bias of recruitment of more distant fishes into the patch being sampled by the hoopnet can be reduced by running nets for short periods of time that reflect diel activity patterns. If fishes are nocturnally or diurnally active and use different .habitats in day and night periods, hoopnets should be run during appropriate periods to reflect this behavior, otherwise, none or meaningless correlations between habitat and fish abundance in hoopnets may be found. Assuming that hoopnets are sampling habitat use by fishes in an area encompassing the net but before the net was placed, habitat measurements should reflect pre-net-set conditions. Ideally, the hoopnet should be set in relatively homogeneous habitat patches and measurement of habitat in hoopnet locations should be standardized. The center for these grids should not be mouth of the net but the physical center of the net. This is because the fish in the local area of the net are first attracted to the overall structural novelty that the net represents. It is the structural novelty of the net and the time-dependent nature of net discovery that generates biases in hoopnet data when attempting to assess habitat use or spatial distribution patterns. Obviously, the larger the hoopnet the more impact it has on local habitat structure, and it will attract fishes from a greater distance; thus, it samples a larger habitat patch, and larger patches tend to be less homogeneous. Also, larger hoopnets represent a larger target which is more readily discovered by fishes with distant home range centers. If the hoopnet is large relative to the scale or size of the habitat patch been sampled, the hoopnet represents a massive purturbation of the local microhabitat. If the researcher ignores the relationship between hccpnet size and area sampled and its effect on fish capture, the data are likely to be totally meaningless. Obviously, the ideal hoopnet should be as small as possible and just large enough to catch the fishes of interest. It should be remembered that smaller nets can also sample more habitats than larger ones. Additional biases in hoopnet sampling can be further reduced by sampling design. If hocpnets are set in grids so that fishes over a broad area are being sampled, the time-dependency bias can be reduced. This is because whole areas are being sampled simultaneously and fishes are likely to encounter nets closest to their home range centers (mean distance to capture is reduced). Also, all areas are similarly affected by the presence of hocpnets, so any

bias due to areas with and without tne treatment effect of hoopnet presence is reduced. This means that fishes will make cncices between areas not on the basis of hoopnet presence or absence but on differences in habitat characteristics. A possible result of this approach is species that might avoid a solitary hoopnet are more likely to be captured in a net if set as part of a grid. If the size of the hocpnets are minimized and the spacing of hoopnets on a grid is great relative to the scale of the habitat and size of the hoopnets, the data may more accurately reflect habitat preferences of the resident fishes.

Recommended protocols The use of hoopnets to assess habitat use patterns in fish assemblages may be possible if hoopnet design and sampling protocol are appropriate, and all members of the assemblage can be sampled with hcopnets. The following aspects of hoopnet sampling must be considered before implementing a study . program:

1. Suitability of hoopnets to studying habitat use. The efficacy of hoopnets in sampling all members of the assemblage meet be evaluated. Other methods of sampling (seining, trammel nets, electroshocking) should be conducted to provide comparative data on relative abundances of fishes in stream habitats.

2. Net design: the net should be physically as small as possible and the mesh size should allow capture of all members of the assemblage. Smaller nets have the added advantage of being able to sample more habitats than larger ones.

3. Nets should never be baited as this may grossly increase the bias of fish capture. Furthermore, unbaitee small nets represent a minor structural modification of local habitat and habitat use is what is being measured. The use of food items as an attractant will only compound problems in sorting out trophic vs. spatial patterns of utilization. Furthermore, baiting nets may condition the fish to associate hoopnets with a food reward and further bias catch data.

4. Nets should be run to sample diurnal and nocturnal periods of habitat use (12 hour day and night soak times). In order to reduce time-dependent bias, nets should not be left in place more than one 24 hour period.

5. Habitat availability needs to be determined in areas sampled by hoopnets. Hoopnets should be set to sample habitats in proportion to habitat availability.

6. Nets should be run in grids to further reduce sampling biases related to presence/absence of hoopnets.

7. Habitat measurement around hoopnets should reflect pre-net-set conditions.

8. Nets should not be set to sample study areas more than once a month. This should reduce learned avoidance behaviors and the biases introduced by frequent sampling.

9. Smaller hoops can be rigidized and suspended in the water column so that different strata can be sampled i.e., bottom, mid-water, and upper.

Use of minnow traps to complement hoopnet sameline Standard minnow traps operate like miniature hoopnete or barrel nets to capture small fishes in shallow edge habitats. Ideally, the size of the hoopnets and the minnow traps should allow some overlap in habitats sampled so that no gaps occur in the range of habitats sampled. As such, minnow traps can complement sampling by hoopnets in deeper habitats. Like hoopnete, minnow traps can be made smaller to reduce the size effect biases of a large trap in a small scale habitat. Protocols and recommendations for hoopnets apply as

3 well for minnow traps. Minnow traps can be stacked on rods to sample different strata in the water column.

An example USFWS hoopnet sampling design in the Little Colorado River The Little Colorado River (LCR) of the Grand Canyon is a turbid stream that contains a relatively depauperate fish fauna dominated by endemic native fishes. The assemblage is dominated by one species, the humpback chub. Relatively common subdominate species include the speckled dace, flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker. Other less common species include the common carp and channel catfish. Of these species only adult common carp appear to avoid hoopnets. Thus, hoopnets might provide a reasonably accurate picture of habitat use by the LCR fishe assemblage. Sampling protocol will closely follow the recommended protocols above. Small 20" x 4' "mini-hoopnets" will be the standard sampling device and will be complemented by Gee's standard minnow traps in shallow edge habitats. Some overlap in the range of habitat sampled by hoopheta and traps will eliminate sampling gaps. Both devices will be constructed of 1/4" mesh material so they both will be able to catch the same size range of small fishes. However, the minnow traps cannot capture the larger fish that hoopnets can. Within predesignated 500-750 m study areas, 15 hoonets will be deployed in a regular grid with a spacing of 10-20 m between hoopnets. Nets will be set in the morning (within 3 hours following sunrise) and run before dusk (within 3 hours before sunset) and run the following morning. Then the nets will be pulled and set in a new grid moving upstream through the study area reach. The border of the new grid must be 50 m above that of the previous grid. The locations of hoopnet centers will marked with buoys and habitat will be measured in a small grid around each buoy following removal of the hoopnet. Alternatively, habitat may be measured immediately following net deployment. Minnow traps will be run in grids of at least 8 traps with a trap spacing of 1 to 2 meters. The location of the minnow traps will be marked by flags or buoys and habitat will be measured following removal of traps to a new grid. Alternatively, habitat may be measured immediately following trap placement. The minnow trap grid will be contained in the hoopnet grids and will be run simultaneously. In deeper waters, minnow traps and hoopnets can be set in the water column off the bottom to sample pelagic fishes. The study area will be sampled for one week per month and some portions may be sampled once every other month. HOOpnet and minnow trap sampling will be complemented by seining, trammel netting, and direct observation of habitat use by fishes.

Considerations: The proposed sampling protocol is designed to have minimal impact on the fish population: fish are retained in nets for short periods of time and fish are sampled relatively infrequently and at low intensity. Overall, the proposed sampling protocol will expose only a small fraction of the fish population to capture and handling. The reason for this approach is to avoid causing changes in fish behavior and ecology as a result of the sampling protocol. The goal is to study the natural ecology of the fishes and reduce all sources of sampling bias. Unfortunately other research teams are present in the LCR sampling the same populations. All research teams should adopt a low impact sampling protocol in order to avoid negatively affecting each other's research. Ideally, the designated research areas for USFWS-Pinetop FAO habitat studies should not be sampled by other teams.

Other samol,i.no methods Alternatives to hoopnets and minnow traps for sampling fishes in the LCA include trammel nets and seining. Slectroshccking is an ineffective sampling method in the LCR because cf the high conductivity of the water. Trammel nets are in some ways ideal for larger fish because they provide point-of-capture habitat data. But trammel nets have many problems. Trammel nets are very size selective and do not catch smaller fish. They can not be placed in the

array of habitats that hoopnets can be deployed. Trammel nets must run frequently (at least every 6 hours) and their capture by entanglement results in increased physical damage and trauma to the fishes. If large numbers of fishes are captured, handling time and work loads by researchers increases greatly. Finally, trammel nets occasionally kill humpback chubs which are endangered species with strict incidental mortality limits. An alternative approach to using trammel nets is to drift them through pools. At the end of the pool the net is stopped and checked for fishes. The net can provide information on lateral position, vertical position, and direction of movement into the net. The net should not be dragged to shore like a seine or all capture locations of fishes in the net will become hopelessly confused. Seines are relatively safe sampling devices but are very limited in the range of habitats that can be sampled in the LCR. The presence of travertine and abundant boulders makes seining ineffectiee. in most LCR habitats. Thus seining can only be done in a narrow array of edge and shallow habitats in the LCR. Seining is most effective in sampling small and young-of-year fishes in these habitats.

Use of telemetry methodologies to determine habitat use in Humpback chub Radio telemetry or ultrasonic telemetry promise to provide much useful data on habitat use by chubs in the LCR. At present no protocols have been developed but some are outlined here. R. Valdez has discovered that radio tagged chubs in high conductivity LCR waters can be tracked at short distances at streamside. Unfortuately, radictelemetry may not be a dependable tracking method in the LCR because of high signal extinction rates in the high conductivity waters (Richard Heumpfer, Advanced Telemetry Systems, personal communication). As an alternative, ultrasonic telemetry methods may be more suitable in the LCR; ultrasonic tags have a range of 1 km and have been successfully used in Arizona Project canals for fish tracking where high conductivity waters have rendered radio tags useless (Don Brumgaugh, Sonotronics, personal communication). Perhaps ultrasonic tags can be inserted in some chubs that have entered the LCR. During spring 1992 it is hoped that chubs radiotagged in the Colorado River by BioWest will migrate into the LCR and move upstream to spawn. During their presence in the LCR habitat data can be recorded while fish are being tracked. We propose to have USFWS-Pinetop FAO personnel to assist BioWest personnel in tracking these fish (and perhaps some ultrasonic tagged fish) and recording habitat data. We propose to mark locations of fishes with numbered marker buoys at regular intervals during tracking sessions so that habitat use data from individual fish and are time weighted. Habitat will be measured at marker buoys after the end of a tracking session. Tracking sessions will be done during each 6 hour quarter of a 24 hour period. Techniques to determine relative position of fish in the water column need to be worked out (e.g., signal triangulation, signal extinction curves, etc.). 1991 summer sampling efforts in the LCR have revealed the presence of a large resident population of chubs. Some of these chubs should be tagged with ultrasonic emitters in 1992 and tracked for habitat use and movement data. Habitat use data from remote tracking of fish is potentially as good as data from direct in situ observation of fish. As such, habitat use data from radio or ultrasonic tracking methods should provide a greater understanding of habitat use patterns from the hoopnet sampling (which is highly inferential). We hope to demonstrate that telemetry is a useful tool for studying habitat use in stream fishes. Our example will provide a model approach for understanding habitat use patterns in other important native fishes, e.g., sqawfish, bcnytails, razorbacks, etc.

Experimental basis of habitat use in the Humpback chub. One major drawback to field studies of habitat use in stream fishes is that it is highly inferential. Ideally we would like to sample habitat use by direct observation of fishes but if the stream is turbid or the fish are nocturnally active, this become an impossible alternative (but see radio/ultrasonic telemetry methods above). Even under ideal field conditions

we cannot determine how much of the observed patterns of habitat use are caused by innate preference or by interspecific interactions. Other sources of variance in observed patterns of habitat use might be variations in age and size of fishes, predation threat, cover, turbidity, temperature, and intraspecific interactions. In order to tease apart the relative contribution of all these factors that sum up the habitat use pattern of a particular species, experimental approaches are required. Experimental streams provide control over most variables that determine habitat preferences and habitat use by stream fishes. USFWS-Pinetop FAO proposes to develop an experimental research program to determine the habitat preferences of various age classes of humpback chub and how habitat preferences are modified by various factors. Specifically, we wish to determine how habitat use is modified by depth, .current, substrate, cover, turbidity, time of day, intraspecifics, interspecifics, predation threat, temperature, and season. These experimental approaches also have the advantage of generating data that can be analyzed rigorously by statistical methods. The benefit of this experimental work is that it promises to shed much light on field patterns of habitat use among LCR fishes and thus will strongly complement field studies. It will be important to have a full understanding of the underlying basis of habitat use in Humpback chub in order to provide accurate information and projections for introduction of chubs into other stream systems. This information should be vital to the success of the Humpback chub recovery plan. We propose to construct a portable streamside experimental stream similar to that used by Fraser in his work with New York stream fish assemblages. The presence cf numerous travertine dams along the LCR makes it very easy to set up and divert water from dam through 4" PVC siphon pipe to the experimental stream. An ideal location for such a experimental stream would be at the dam just below Big Canyon (just above the Salt Trail Canyon camp). The experimental stream will be assembled on site at the beginning of each trip and diassembled and stored on the site at the end of each trip. Fish to be used for the experiments can be easily obtained by seining or from hoopnets and minnow traps. Following the experiments, fishes will be released into the stream. This research should pose no significant threat to fish health or well-being. It is the intention of the USFWS-Pinetop FAO to have this research developed and executed by a PhD student under the direction of Drs. 0. Eugene Maughan (ACFWRU) and Owen T. Gorman (USFWS). Presently a suitable candidate is being sought.

LITERATURE CITED Craig, J.F. 1980. Sampling with traps. In T. Backiel and R.L. Welcome, eds. Guidelines for sampling fish in inland waters. Eur. Inland Fish. Advis. Comm (EIFAC) Tech. Pap. 33:55-70.

Gorman, O. T. 1988. The dynamics of habitat use in a guild of Ozark minnows. Ecol. Monogr. 58:1-18.

Gorman, 0. T. 1988. An experimental study of habitat use in an assemblage of Ozark minnows. Ecology 69:1239-1250,

Gorman, O. T. 1987. Habitat segregation in an assemblage of minnows in an Ozark stream. Pages 33-41 in W. J. Matthews and D. Heins, editors. Evolutionary and Community Ecology of North American Stream Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Grinstead, B.G. 1970. Relationship cf interval between lifts and the catch of ten-foot Wisconsin-type trap nets. Proc. 24th Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm.: 532-545.

Grinstead, B.G., and R. Gomez. 1972. Catch of commercial and game fish with four-foot trap nets of varicus mesh sizes. Proc. 26th Annu. Conf.

6 Southeast Assoc. Came Fish Comm. :622.-627.

Hamley, J.M., and T.P. Howley. 1985. Factors affecting variability of trapnet catches. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1079-1087.

Kelly, D.W. 1953. Fluctuation in trap net catches in the Upper Mississippi River. U.S.F.W.S. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 101:38p.

Meyer, H.L., and J.V. Merriner. 1976. Retention and escapement characteristics of pound nets as a function of pound-head mesh size. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105:370-379.

Patriarche, M.H. 1968. Rate of escape of fiah from trap nets. Trans. A. Fish. Soc. 97:59-61.

Ryan, P.M. 1984. Fyke net catches as indeces cf the abundance of brook trout, Salvelinus fcntinalis and Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Can. 3. Fish. Aguat. Sci. 41:377-380.

Schumacher, F.X., and R.W. Eschmeyer. 1943. The estimate of fish populations in lakes or ponds. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 18:228-249.

Van Oosten, J., R. Mile, and F.W. Jones. 1946. 'He whitefish fishery of Lakes Huron and Michigan with special reference to the deep-trap-net fishery. Fish. Bull. 50:297-394.

Proposed low-impact protocols for fish sampling in GCES funded research

Owen T. Gorman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pinetop Fishery Assistance Office

Proposed low-impact hocenet/trap sampling protocols for LCR fish studies:

Nets/traps are to be set (soaked) and run (emptied of fish) every 12 hours. Nets/traps are not to be set and run in the same locations for more than three consecutive days. Nets/traps should not be run in the same locations mere often than every four weeks. Hoopnets/trap grids set within 100 meters of one another are considered to be set in the same location.

Justificetion for proposed low-intact samplinc crotocols: Proposed protocols are designed to protect resident chubs from excessive capture and handling and associated stress. Running nets every 12 hours will reduce predation by catfish and decrease stress on captive chubs. Pulling nets/traps from sampling locations after three days assures that fish will not be recaptured and handled excessively. Hoopnets/trap grids set within 100 m of each other are Sampling the same neighborhood population.

The humpback chub is a Federally listed endangered species. Although the LCR humpback chub population may appear to relatively large (number in the thousands of fish) and therefore not in any eminent danger of local extinction, this population is still very vunerable. The resident population has a limited distribution over approximately 14 km and is subjected to relatively intense, year-round sampling by GCES researchers. As yet the size of the mainstream population is not known, but adults of this population migrate to and ascend the LCR to spawn in the spring months of the year. Thus intensive sampling of chubs can potentially impact both resident LCR fish and mainstream fishes. The intent of these proposed protocols is limit the frequency of capture/recapture of chubs and thereby reduce impact on the population. Implicit in the proposed protocols is integrated and coordinated research by GCES researchers to eliminate duplicate sampling and unnecessary trauma to chubs. Running nets every 12 hours assures that fish sampling associated with USFwS habitat measurements will detect diel patterns of habitat use. Prolonged sets of nets in the same locations more often than every four weeks may adversely affect the normal behavior, health, and ecology of resident chubs. Furthermore, excessive negative capture experiences for fish may result in a learned avoidance of hoopnete and thereby negatively affect recapture rates and bias USFWS sampling efforts to determine normal patterns of habitat use in Humpback Chub. The proposed protocols will assure that fish are not held captive more than three days every four weeks

Exceptions to Pronosed low-impact sampling protocols: At all times of the year when nets are set and USFeS personnel are not present to provide input on net location or to measure habitat, such nets can be allowed to soak for 24 hours between runs ;emptied of flee). During spring months (march, April, May June) when large numbers of miorating chubs are expected to move into the LCR and spawn, hocpnetting protocols may be further relaxed as follows: Nets may be set every 3 weeks at the same location (instead of every 4 weeks). Nets may be left set at the same locations for a maximum of 4 days. To offset the possible overall lower catch rates, researchers may cecese to set more nets at the same location (within 100 m).

Revised USFWS-Pinetop FAO General Study Plan October 1, 1991 Owen T. Gorman, Project Coordinator

Microhabitat use by fishes of the Little Colorado River (LCR) with special emphasis on the Humpback chub, Gila cveha

Confluence are (0-1 km):, USFWS personnel: S. Leon , D. Parker, John Seale, Alex Laweka Objective: measure seasonal changes in microhabitat and determine the impact of Glen Canyon Dam releases on physicochemical conditions and microhabitat in the confluence area. Secondarily, we will attempt to determine microhabitat use by humpback chub and other fish species in the confluence area in conjunction with AGF, ASU, and BioWest fish sampling activities. AGF and ASU will deploy trammel nets from which point-of-capture habitat data will be collected. Biowest personnel will track radio-tagged chub into theconfluence area; USFws will provide guidance on how to obtain habitat from such efforts we are presently working these protocols). Method: The confluence area will be mapped by the transect method (1 or 2m x 20m grid) seasonally for :L ew and high Glenn Canyon Dam discharge regimes. Mapping during high flow periods will take place at night (when high flows occur) and use of a motorized craft will be imperative for safe and successful completion of mapping. Additially, we will map habitat at time of maximum LCR discharge which occurs during spring snow melt, At set cross-stream intervals (1 to 2 m) along permanently marked and mapped transect locations, hydrogeophyical measures and habitat variables will be measured. When possible, trammel nets will be set within gridded study areas and values for habitat variables will be recorded for each point of fish capture. Schedule: Habitat measurements will measured along permanent transects on a quarterly basis (winter, spring, summer, fall) by Leon, Parker, et al. in the confluence zone and additional measurements will be taken during unusual events, e.g., spring snow melt, or when released flows from Glen Canyon Dam are changed. Assessment of habitat use by fishes will be conducted at least monthly ( usually by the Lower Base Camp crew) and will be coordinated with sampling activities of AGF, A5U, and BioWest personnel. At present, the permanent transects have been located and mapped, and habitat measurements have been taken at summer low flow conditions (4000 cfs, Colorado River; 200 cfs base flow for LCR). Data on fish habitat use has been collected for trammel nets set during the period 21 July-24 August, 1991.

Lgwer 5a8e Camp ( LBC; Powell Canyon Camp) area (km 2.5-3.5): USFWS personnel: Brent Bristow*, Alex Laweka, and John Seals Obiective: measure seasonal changea In microhabitat and microhabitat use by LCR fishes. pSethod:, Two 500 m l reaches with 100 m buffer zonvi are located in the vicinity of the LBC provide exclusive study areas for microhabitat use assessment of LCR fishes. At present, these study areas are located within river kilometers 2.0-4.0. These 500 in sections will include at least two pools, raceways-tailwaters, riffles, and travertine reefs/dams. At present, the river reach containing these study section have been mapped on a 1 x 20 m grid of transects. Typically, one 500 m study area will be sampled per month, so that sampling is alternated between the two study areas between months. Within these study areas 15 mini-hoopnets will be deployed in a moving sampling grid on a monthly basis (explained in a sampling methods and protocols section that followe). In addition, 30 minnow traps set in grids will be used to sample shallow edge habitats and will complement the hoopnet sampling. Nets and traps will be run every 12 hours and moved to new grids every 24 hours in an upstream direction until the entire 500 m study area is sampled. seine sampling will be conducted seasonally (at least quarterly) in homogenous patches of stream haoitat to provide an inventory of species utilizing shallow seinable habitats. When conditions permit, observational

1 surveys (in situ or above water) will be conducted through the 500 m study areas. Seining and observational surveys will provide comparative data sets for the relative abundance of LCR fisnes and gross habitat use patterns. Sctledule; Microhabitat use by LCR fishes will be assessed on a monthly basis. We anticipate that sampling will take less than one week. Seining surveys will be conducted quarterly and will require one week/quarter.

Upper Base Camp (UBC; Salt Trail Canyon camp) area (km 10-12): USFWS personnel: Owen Gorman*, John Anderscn, Bill Mattes, U. of A. techician. Oteiective, method, schedule: same as LBc. The two 500 m study areas will be located between river km 10 and 12.

Atemizer Falle Reach (km 14-15.5): Bill Mattes, U. of A. technician, and John Anderson. Obeeceive: measure seasonal changes in physicochemical conditions, microhabitat, and microhabitat use by LCR fishes below and above the Atomizer falls reach. These falls are viewed as the terminus of Humpback Chub distribution in the LCR. Method: Similar to LBC, but only one 500 m l study area will be established and 8 minihoopnets and 8 minnow traps will be deployed. Available stream habitat in the study area will be assessed by habitat measuremene on a 1 x 20 m grid. Schedule: one week per quarter (spring, summer, fall, winter). An additional sampling period will be scheduled during the peak of chub spring migration and spawning.

Blue Sprines Reach (20-21 km): Bill Mattes, U.of A. technician, and John Anderson. Oblective: measure seasonal changes in physicochemical conditions, microhabitat, and microhabitat use by LCR fishes in the vicinity of Blue Springs. Method: One 500 m l study area will be established in the Blue Springs reach. Methods are similar to those for LBC but only 4 hoopnets and 8 minnow traps will be deployed. Available stream habitat in the study area will be assessed by habitat measurement on a 1 x 20 m grid. Schedule: one week per quarter (spring, summer, fall, winter).

Other samelinq By the end of August 1991, habitat in the lower 4 km and km 9.75-12.00 has been mapped on a 1 x 20 m grid. Also, stream habitat throughout the LCR between the confluence and Blue Springs (km 0-21) has been mapped on a 1 x 100m grid. Where time permits, additional sampling by hoopnets and minnow traps may be conducted outside the proposed study areas. These additional USFWS sampling efforts will be coordinated with those of ASU and AGF research teams.

USFWS supervisory personnel; will rotate among base camps/study areas.

1 the exact locations and sizes of these study areas will be determined following discussion with ASU and AGF personnel.

2 exclusive" means that the study area is not sampled by other research teams in the same month when sampled by USFWS. During those months that a 500 m study area (with 200 m buffer) is not sampled by uSFwS, AeU or AGF may sample these areas but must abide to low-impact sampling methodologies.

Sampling methods and protocols. - Justification and theoretical discussion of the following sampling methods are presented in the attached supporting materials "Using hoopnets and other sampling methods to assess microhabitat use by fishes in the Little Colorado River", and "Proposed low-impact protocols for fish sampling in GCES funded research." The principle USFWS sampling device will be a 20" x 4' mini-hoopnet with 1/4" mesh. These small nets are designed to sample a wide array of stream habitats and capture the range of species and size classes of fishes present in the LCR. Gee's standard 1/4" mesh minnow traps will complement minihoopnets sampling in shallow edge habitats. All nets/traps will be set (soaked) and run (emptied) of fish every 12 hours. Nets will not be run at the same location for more than one day per month. Habitat measurements around each net will reflect pre-net-set conditions. Habitat within study areas will be measured prior to fish sampling on a 1 x 20 m grid to determine habitat availability., Habitat data from net/trap sampling devices will be compared to available habitat to determine the proportion and kinds of habitat sampled for fish. Habitat use by individual species can be determined from patterns of capture among the net/trap sets. Within predesignated exclusive 500 m study areas (with 100 m buffer zones above and telcw), 15 hoonets will be deployed in a regular grid with a spacing of 10-20 m between hoopnets. "Exclusive" means that these study areas will be sampled a maximum ef one week/month by USFWS. In months that these areas are not sampled by USFWS, they may be sampled by ASU or AGF, but they must abide to low-impact sampling protocols. Nets will be set in the morning (within 3 hours following sunrise) and run before dusk (within 3 hours before sunset) and run the following morning. Then the nets will be pulled and set in a new grid moving upstream through the study area reach. The border of the new grid must be 50 m above that of the previous grid. The locations of hoopnet centers will marked with buoys and habitat will be measured in a small grid around each buoy following removal of the hoopnet. Alternatively, habitat may be measured immediately following net deployment. Minnow traps will be run in grids of at least 8 traps with a trap spacing of 1 to 2 meters. The location of the minnow traps will be marked by flags or buoys and habitat will be measured following removal of traps to a new grid. Alternatively, habitat may be measured immediately following trap placement. The minnow trap grid will be contained in the hoopnet grids and will be run simultaneously. In deeper waters, minnow traps and hoopnets can be set in the water column off the bottom to sample pelagic fishes. Hoopnet and minnow trap sampling will be complemented by seining, trammel netting, and direct observation of habitat use by fishes.

Considerations: The study areas for USFWS research should be exclusive, i.e., no other research groups should be sampling fish in these areas during the same month. This will assure that the fish in these areas are not excessively impacted by frequent sampling. Mark/recapture data obtained by USFWS from the exclusive study areas will be shared with other research teams. Other research teams (ASU and AGF) may assist and coordinate with USFWS in fish sampling in these designated study areas. The proposed sampling protocol is designed to have minimal impact on the fish population: fish are retained in nets fcr short periods of time and fish are sampled relatively infrequently and at low intensity. Overall, the proposed sampling protocol will expose only a small fraction of the fish population to capture and handling. The reason for this approach is to avoid causing changes in fish behavior and ecology as a result of the sampling protocol. The goal is to study the natural ecology of the fishes and reduce all potential sources of sampling bias. In order to meet objectives of habitat use assessment of LCR fishes, USFWS will have to acquire appropriate permits and collect fishes in coordination with ASU and AGF personnel. Past experience has shown that ASU does not have enough personnel to assist USFWS in all collection efforts.

Possession of collecting permits by all parties provides for more efficient allocation of personnel resources and allows greater flexibility of execution of field sampling and coordination among research groups.

Interim and additional hoopnet sampling: Until the adoption of the sampling grid/study area approach to assessing habitat use by LCR fishes, USFWS will continue to sample habitat around AsU hoopnet sets with these conditions: 1. Hoopnets should be 1/4" mesh (a mix of 1/4" and 1/2" mesh may be acceptable but see condition 3) 2. Nets are to be soaked and emptied every 12 hours for the first 24 hours. 3. Nets are set in pairs within 100 m of each other and should be set to sample visually different habitat types. Nets of the same mesh size must be paired. 4. The same locations should not be sampled more often than 1 week per month.

Habitat sampling of ASU hoopnet sets may continue after the adoption of the grid/study area approach. Habitat measurement of ASU nets will be conducted on a seasonal basis and take lace outside of USFWS study areas. This sampling will provide additional habitat use data fcr LcR fishes but will not have habitat availability data to determine habitat selectien/preference patterns.

Other semolina methods Alternatives to hoopnets and minnow traps for sampling fishes in the LCR include trammel nets and seining. Electroshocking is an ineffective sampling method in the LCR because of the high conductivity of the water. We propose to use trammel netting and seining as supplementary sampling methods to determine the composition and relative abundances of LCR fishes. These data will provide useful checks on hocpnet sampling data. Furthermore, some additional habitat use data can be obtained from trammel netting and seining. Trammel nets are in some ways ideal for larger fish because they provide point-of-capture habitat data. But trammel nets have many problems. Trammel nets are very size selective and do not catch smaller fish. They can not be placed in the array of habitats that hoopnets can be deployed. Trammel nets must run frequently (at least every 6 hours) and their capture by entanglement results in increased physical damage and trauma to the fishes. If large numbers of fishes are captured, handling time and work loads by researchers increases greatly. Finally, trammel nets occasionally kill humpback chubs which are endangered species with strict incidental mortality limits. An alternative approach to using trammel nets is to drift them through pools. At the end of the pool the net is stopped and checked for fishes. The net can provide information on lateral position, vertical position, and direction of movement into the net. The net should not be dragged to shore like a seine or all capture locations of fishes in the net will become hopelessly confused. For stationary trammel net sets, habitat is measured at every floe:: along the net. Habitat use data can be determined by tieing a flag with species and net position data for each capture to the float line of the net. For drift sampling, the habitat in the pool must be measured prior to sampling. The point of capture for each fish can be grouped with longitudinal sets of hatitat sample points. Seines are relatively safe sampling devices but are very limited in the range of habitats that can be sampled in the LCR. The presence of travertine and abundant boulders makes seining ineffective in most LCR habitats. Thus seining can only be done in a narrow array of edge and shallow habitats in the LCR. Seining is most effective in sampling small and young-of-year fishes in these habitats. Habitat is measured in the area sampled after seining. Ideally, homogeneous areas should be sampled.

Request for a scientific research and collection permit from the Navajo Fish and Wildlife Pate: 1 October 1991

APPLICANTS;

Dr. Owen T. Gorman Fishery Management Biologist

Dr. Stuart C. Leon Fishery Management Biologist

Agency aflillation; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pinetop Fishery Assistance Office P.O. Box 39 ?inetop, Arizona 85935 Tel. 602/367-1953, 602/357-1955 Leader: James N. Hanson Assistant Leader: Dr. Stuart C. Leon GCES project coordinator: Dr. Owen T. Gorman

Adiunct agency affiliation: Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 210 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Tel. 602/621-1193 Leader: Dr. O. Eugene Maughan

Localities of scientific collection:

Little Colorado River (LCR) TA8LE 1. Species anticivated in scientific collecting: Fishes CYFRINIDAE (Minnows) Carassius auratus Goldfish introduced exotic Cyprinus carpio Carp introduced exotic Gila cyPha Humpback Chub native SE, LE Gila elebans* Bonytail Chub native SE, LE Gila robusta* Roundtail Chub native ST Lebidomeda vittata* Little Colorado Spinedace native ST, LT Notemidonus chrysoleucas Golden Shiner introduced exotic j'imephales bromelas Fathead Minnow introduced exotic Ptychocheilus lucius* Colorado Squawfieh native SE, LE 7thincnthys osculus Speckled pace native CATOSTOMIDAE (Suckers) Catostomus discobolus Bluehead Sucker native SC Catostomus latirinnis Flannelmouth Sucker native Xyrauchen texanus* Razorback Sucker native SE ICTALURIDAE (Catfishes) Is lurus melas Black Bullhead introduced exotic Ictalurus ounctatus Channel Catfish introduced exotic

CYPRINCDONTIDAE (Killifish) Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish introduced exotic POECILIIDRE (Livebearers) Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish introduced exotic PERCICHTHYIDAE (White Bass) Korone saxatilis* Striped Bass introduced exotic CENTRARCHIDAE (Sunfishes) Lepomis cyanellus* Green Sunfish introduced exotic LePOMi5 macrochirus* Bluegill introduced exotic Mibropterus salmoides* Largemouth Bass introduced exotic Pomoxis annularis- White Crappie introduced exotic Pom9xis nigromaculatus* Black Crappie introduced exotic PERCIDAE (Perches and Darters) Stizostediqn vitreum* Walleye introduced exotic

* Extirpated or not present in the lower Little Colorado River (although recorded from mainstream Colorado River or upstream reaches of Little Colorado River). SE- state endangered, ST- state threatened, SC state special concern LE- Federal listed endangered, LT- Federal listed threatened.

Authorized persons to conduct field research collect under supervision Of erinciple eermitteee:

Principal permitteee: Owen T. Gorman, USFWS Stuart C. Leon, USFWS James N. Hanson, USFWS

Subpermittees: Brent Bristow, USFWS John Seals, USFWS John Anderson, USFWS Alex Laweka, USFWS Daniel Parker, USFWS 0. Eugene Maughan, U. Arizona Coop. FWRU Bill Mattes, U. Arizona Coop. FWRU Vincente Lopes, U. Arizona School of Renewable Resources (river mapping, discharge analysis, and river simulations)

collection of animals end limits: Our intention is to collect animals alive and to release them alive as quickly as possible at the capture location. We request permission to capture, handle, and release unlimited numbers of all fish species listed in Table 1. we will rely on photography and video for obtaining the bulk of Our voucher information. We anticipate that the need for vouchers and reference material will be met by incidental mortalities. Maximum limits due to incidental mortality of YOY native species listed in Table 1 (Humpback chub, Bluehead sucker, Flannelmouth sucker, Razorback sucker) would apply as follows: 25 young-of-year individuals up to 100 ram TL per species (as stated in our USFWS permit) Proposed limit on Speckled dace (all size classes) would be 100 individuals. Proposed limits on introduced exotic species are 100 per species (includes all size classes) We do not anticipate collection of the following extirpated or rare native species (denoted by 0, in Table 1): Bonytail chub, Roundtail chub, Colorado squawfish, Colorado spinedace. However, we would like to have permission to handle these species if they are captured.

Incidental mortality of adult native fishes: We anticipate few mortalities of adult native fishes. However, we request permission to allow for up to 10 incidental mortalities of adult fishes (› 100 mm TL) for the following native species: Humpback chub, Bluehead sucker, Flannelmouth sucker, Razorback sucker. Vouchers will ultimately be deposited in the vertebrate collection at Arizona State University (these limits coincide with our USFWS and AGF permits).

Hethods of collection: Fishes will be collected by seine, trammel net, hoop net, dip net, and minnow trap. We will employ low-impact sampling methodologies that ensure low stress and mortality of fishes (see supporting material, "Proposed low-impact protocols for fish sampling in GCES funded research", e.g., captured fish will be retained in buckets, holding tanks or wading pools before release; aeration and mild anesthesia will be used as needed to ensure that fish are not stressed while being held. Fishes in an area will be sampled no more than one per month. we will tally, weigh and measure most individuals. PIT tags will be implanted in selected individuals of sufficient size by trained USFWS personnel. Antibiotics will be used as necessary to ensure the health and survival of fishes. sample data will be shared with ASU and AGF research teams.

Other cooperating agencies in research effort: Personnel from Arizona State University (ASU), Navajo Fish & Wildlife, and Arizona Game and Fish (AGF) will be collaborating with us in our research on Humpback Chub in the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon. Persons from these agencies will be in possession of USFWS, U.S. Park Service, AGF, and Navajo Fish & Wildlife scientific collection permits. ASU personnel: Michael Douglas, Paul Marsh, C.O. Minckley AGF personnel: Dennis Kubley, Rob Clarkson Navajo Fish and wildlife personnel: Pat Ryan (adjunct to ASU team)

Other oermits: we will be in possession of required permits from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, and Arizona Game & Fish.

STUDY PROPOSAL

Habitat use by humpback chub, Gila cvpha, in the Little Colorado River

Research Program:

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Phase II Department ofthe Interior, bureau of Reclamation

Agenov/Principal investioator:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pinetop Fishery Assistance Office P.O. Box 39 Pinetop, Arizona 85935 Tel. 602/367-1953 Leader: James N. Hanson Assistant Leader: Dr. Stuart C. Leon GCES Project Coordinator: Dr. Owen T. Gorman

Adlunct investigation aoency:

Arizona Cooperative Fish and wildlife Research Unit 210 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Tel. 602/621-1193 Leader: Dr. O. Eugene Maughan River mapping, discharge analysis, and river simulation: Dr. Vincente Lopes, School of Renewable Resources.

Research Oblectives: The purpose of the contracted research is to quantify habitat use by juvenile and adult humpback chub in the lower 21 km of the Little Colorado River (LCR) and in other tributaries of the Colorado River within the Grand Canyon, evaluate the potential for establishing new spawning aggregations of humpback chub, and to evaluate the impact of Glen Canyon Dam operations on humpback chub populations in Colorado River tributary creeks and in the vicinity of the Little Colorado River. In addition, we are to evaluate the habitat use by other native and introduced fish species in the LCR and Colorado River tributary creeks. Together, these species and the humpback chub form a species assemblage that shares a common pool of habitats and resources. Information on upecies interactions and associations with the

4 humpback chub may be critical to long term management and repopulation of this species in other suitable Southwestern streams. In addition to direct ecological studies of fishes Dr. Vincente Lopes will develop discharge-frequency and flow duration curves for the LCR to understand how various flow regimes affect stream habitat. Dr. Lopes' analysis will be invaluable in understanding the seasonal patterns of habitat volumes and flow regimes and habitat use by humpback chub. Of critical interest is prediciting habitat characteristics during seasonal high flow periods in the spring when chubs are ascending the LCR and spawning, during summer and infrequent flood events, and also during low base flows in the summer and fall when young of year chub are present in the LCR.

Period of Research: 1 July 1991- 31 Decemper 1994

Schedule of Research: Sampling will be conducted for one week periods on a monthly basis. We anticipate that our schedule will coincide closely with those of AGF and ASU. Our study areas will he samplec a maximum of once per month.

Methodoloev: Stream habitat in the lower 21 kilometers of the Little Colorado River (LCR) and in the smaller tributaries of the Colorado River (Paria, Bright Angel, See.numo, Tapeats, Deer, Kanab, and Havasu Creeks) will be measured and mapped on a seasonal basis. Habitat use by humpback chub and other fish species will be determined by vareous fish sampling methods (seining, trammel netting, hoopnetting, trapping, and direct observation) in conjunction with seasonal habitat measurement. Fishes captured are to be identified and returned. Every effort will be taken to minimize hand:.ing of fishes, thus we expect few incidental mortalities. we will rely on photography and video for obtaining most of our voucher information. We propose to establish five study areas in the LCR: the Confluence, Powell Canyon Area, Salt Trail Canyon Area, Atomizer Falls, and Blue Springs. In each of these areas sections of stream will be mapped in detail and habitat variables measured in conjunction with seasonal fish sampling (spring, summer, fall, winter). In the Confluence area we will coordinate our detailed mapping and habitat measurements with fish sampling by AGF and ASU. At the other study areas we will measure habetat and sample fishes in deaignated 500 m research reaches. we will sample fish primarily by hocpnet and minnow trap. This sampling will be supplemented by seasonal seining surveys. In other portions of the LCR watershed we will coordinate with ASU and AGF researchers and obtain seasonal habitat use data. Discharge frequency and flow duration curves will be generated by Dr. Vincente Lopes from stream gaging station records (U.S. Geologic Survey) for Winslow, Cameron, and the mouth of the LCR. Additionally, rainfall data for the LCR watershed may be used to refine flow/discharge record data. Stream cross-sectional data from habitat measurement transects and flow data will be used to develop river surface profiles with the HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles Program (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1922). For the purposes of this analysis the LCR will be mapped by USFWS personnel to provide river channel profile data. The LCR will be mapped along habitat measurement transects at intervals of 100 m from the confluence to the Blue Springs (river km 21). computer-generated river simulations will predict river profiles, habitat types, and habitat volumes at various discharges and provide estimates of flow duration for typical discharge events for the LCR. In combination with habitat use studies, the river simulation analysis will allow predicttcn of the impact of various discharges and their duration on adult and juvenile humpback chub and allow characterization of the LCR in comparison to other stream systems to determine their suitability as candidates for humpback chub introductions.

For further details on methodologies, justifications, and theoretical background, consult the following supporting documents: - Revised USFWS-Pinetop FAO General' Study Plan: Microhabitat use by fishes of the Little Colorado River (LCR) with special emphasis on the Humpback Chub, Gila cypha" "using hoopnets and other sampling methods to assess microhabitat use by fishes in the Little Colorado River" "Proposed low-impact protocols for fish sampling in GCES funded research"

Anticipated results and research benefits: Our research efforts will provide data on the following items:

1. Habitat associations of various age classes of humpback chub and other fishes of the LCR and other Colorado River tributaries. 2. Seasonal patterns of habitat use by the humpback chub and other fishes of the LCR and other Colorado River tributaries. 3. Multispecies associations in the LCR and other Colorado River tributaries. This will provide information on the potential impact of other species on the ecology of humpback chub. 4. Location and quantification of spawning and nursery habitats of the humpback chub in the LCR and other Colorado River tributaries. These habitats will be evaluated for suitability to recovery efforts. 5. Discharge-frequency and flow duration curves in areas cf the LCR deemed critical to the humpback chub. Tneae data will be used to predict the effect of flood and drought stages on humpback chub habitat in the LCR.

Following analysis of these data, we will be able to identify future research that will provide further Information for enhancement of environmental conditions pertinent to the humpback chub and to provide information valuable to managers to protect and promote wildlife populations both inside and outside the LCR. We anticipate that this research will provide information to successfully establish new breeding populations of humpback chubs and thereby remove the species from its endangered status. publications: We anticipate the production of a number of publications from this research effort, specifically in Transactions of the American Fisheries societv, copelq, and Southwestern Naturalist. We expect that some of these publications will nave joint authorship from USFWS, AGF, and ASU personnel. In addition, the USFWS portion of this research is sponsoring thesis research for one PhD and three MS students from the university of Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

Cooperative actencies: This research is to be closely coordinated and integrated with that of Arizona Game and Fish and Arizona State University-Navajo Fish and Wildlife so that there is no duplication of fish sampling. When and where possible our habitat studies are coordinated with these groups so that fish are sampled once and the fish population is not unduly impacted by unnecessary sampling efforts. For example, our habitat studies will be coordinated with fish sampling by AGF in the lower portion of the LCR and with ASU in the upper portion of the LCR. When possible, fish will be collected under permits issued to Arizona Game and Fish and Arizona State University-Navajo Fish and Wildlife. However, there are insufficient personnel by these agencies to meet the sampling needs of the USFWS research. Possession of collecting permits by all agencies provides for more efficient allocation of peronnel resources by GCES researchers and allows greater flexibility of execution of field sampling and coordination among research groups. DsFws is proposing that all cooperative agencies adopt low-impact sampling methodologies outlined in the supporting document "Proposed low-impact protocols for fish sampling in GCES funded research."

Coordinated research under Glen Canyon Environmenral Studies, Phase :I:

- Native Fish Studies" Arizona Game and Fish Department Dennis Kubley and Rob Clarkson, research coordinators

"Ecology and conservation biology of the Humpback Chub, Gila eyeha, in the Little Colorado River, Arizona" Arizona state University Drs. Michael Douglas and Paul marsh, research coordinators

"Habitat use by Humpback Chub, Gila cynha, in the Little Colorado River and other tributaries of the Colorado River" U.S. Fist and Wildlife Service, Pinetop FAO Drs. Owen Gorman and Stuart Leon, research coordinators

Oualificatione of apelicants, Owen T. Gorman and Stuart C. Leon: Owen T. Gorman holda a Ph.D. from the University of Kansae (1964) and has more than 16 years experience in stream fisheries research. He has published 20 original research articles (13 first author) and 16 technical reports. Gorman's doctoral research wee funded by the National Science Foundation. He is an active reveewer of manuscripts from major journals (American Midland Naturalist, Copeia, Trans. American Fisheries Society, Ecology) and reuiews grant propoeals for NSF and the Hudson River Foundation. Gorman received professional certification as an ecolccist by the Ecclogizal Society of America Board of Professional Certification in 1988. Presently, Gorman is a Fishery Management Biclogeet in the J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Stuart C. Leon holds a Ph. 0. from Oklahoma State University (1991) and has 14 years experience in stream and lake fisheries research. He has published a number of articles in refereed journals. Dr. Leon has conducted a number of research projects on Scuthwestern fishes, including Apache Trout, Lcach Minnow, and Sonoran Topminnow. Dr. Leon has been instrumental in developing the Global Waemeng Research Program within USFWS and has also been instrumental in guiding the development and cocrdination of GCES funded research on Humpback Chub in the Grand Canyon. Dr. Leon has been employed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more than four years.

4/TO ;IT AZ#44.0,4;TR ‘, Z (/ 4 OT PAGES • / Q 7 Post-It' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 M =-" FROM D.4,.1 ( A4 ARS K K'A-+AI 'TIC COY - C!ASC/— OFR 6 0(451V .S-PID, CC`-'• /5,3 A codcP(,: fp PHONE _ ...,./ .602_ &/ 6 I./. . Fax ''' BC 2 CI;„ S — S'087 1`"" 6 07— 8/71 - 7 0 Z1.‘ 0 3

GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PHASE II

NATIVE FISH STUDIES

TRIP REPORT-MAINSTREAM AND LCR March 26-April 14, 1991 Preliminary

GLEN \ grz!".7;t'..!MENTAL

APR 19 1991

Prepared For: RhCEIVED FLAGSTAFF, AZ Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared By:

Robert W. Clarkson, Principle Investigator Dennis M. Kubly, GCES Coordinator

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023

April 18, 1991 INTRODUCTION

During the period March 26-April 14, 1991, the Arizona Game and Fish Department conducted our first downstream Colorado River and Little Colorado River research activities for the year. These studies are being conducted as part of Phase II of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies under a Cooperative Agreement between the Department and the Bureau of Reclamation. Research activities directed at native fishes are designed to fulfill objectives outlined in Conservation Measure 5 as formulated under the ongoing Section 7 Consultation on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Other participants in native fish research include Arizona State University and the Navajo Natural Heritage Program, BIO/VVEST, Inc., and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

MAINSTREAM

Objectives

Mainstream activities were directed at accomplishing four major objectives:

(1) Collect algae, invertebrates, sediment, and fishes in backwater, side channel, shallow shoreline, tributary mouth, and other native fish rearing habitats;

(2) Measure physicochemical variables in these same habitats;

(3) Perform topographic surveys of selected rearing habits;

,(4) Collect rainbow trout for the genetics portion of the strain evaluation study.

There were three different levels of data collection used to accomplish these objectives in mainstream and confluence rearing habitats:

(1) Narrow spectrum fish collections using seines accompanied with limited water quality measurements and habitat mapping. Typical duration of sampling was one hour or less;

(2) Broad spectrum surveys of fishes, plankton, benthos, and water quality with more intensive habitat mapping. Typical duration of sampling was two hours or greater;

(3) Intensive, longer duration (24-48 hours) measures of variables in (2) with periodicity of measurement tied to changes in river stage. Fishes were collected with a combination of larval drift nets, seines, hoop nets, and minnow traps. Topographic surveys were made from temporary bench marks by a contract surveyor using professional surveying instruments. Draft AGFD Trip Report -2- April 18, 1991

Methods

Our mainstream studies follow and expand upon protocols developed during the last four years of annual native fish rearing habitat monitoring. In order to facilitate making collections as efficiently as possible, we divide into sampling teams, with each team having specific tasks to accomplish. Team responsibilities were as follows: mapping and photography, physicochemical variables, plankton, benthos and sediment, and fishes.

As we proceeded downriver, stops were made to examine backwaters, tributary confluences, and other potential rearing habitats for native fishes. The native fish study team leader examined these habitats, made a decision whether to sample them and, if so, at what level of survey effort. This decision could not be made a priori because normal operations were in effect.

If the habitat was suitable for sampling, a decision was made whether to restrict the sampling to fishes and a limited set of environmental measurements (habitat morphology and water temperature) or to sample the broad spectrum of fishes, fish food resources, and environmental variables. Time available for sampling and previous efforts in the reach largely dictated this decision.

If the decision was made to concentrate on sampling fishes (Level I), activities occurred in the following order:

(1) Fish group used fine-meshed seine(s) to prevent escape of fishes from portion(s) of the habitat which could be blocked off. In some instances, particularly in longer backwaters, habitats were subdivided for sampling.

(2) Water quality group made air and water temperature measurements.

(3) Mapping group sketched the habitat and took basic habitat measurements. A photograph or photographs were taken, and the site(s) from which the photo(s) were taken was documented.

v- (4) Fish group seined the backwater. This activity was completed while the mapping group was working, but seining was not accomplished until water temperatures were taken.

The following additions or modifications were made in the order provided for Level II sampling:

(1) Water quality team took full suite of hydrolab, turbidity, and current velocity measurements from rearing habitat and associated inainchannel habitat. Draft AGFD Trip Report -3- April 18, 1991

(2) Mapping/photography team made more extensive habitat morphology measurements using compass angles and hip-chain or measuring tape distances from temporary "benchmarks" which typically were photo sites.

(3) Plankton team took samples from rearing habitat and associated mainchannel habitat.

(4) Benthos/sediment team took samples from rearing habitat and associated mainchannel habitat.

Level III sampling was accomplished over the course of at least one 24 hour flow cycle with additional sampling occurring during periods of low, high, and intermediate flows. Additions or modifications were as follows:

(1) Datasondes were deployed in the rearing habitat to measure changes in water quality variables including water level. Standard water quality measurements also were taken with a Hydrolab Surveyor, Marsh McBirney current meter, and Bausch and Lomb neplislometer over the course of the flow cycle at all fish sampling sites.

(2) Topographic surveys were completed by a professional surveyor from temporary bench marks. The contour of the wetted perimeter was measured and tied to the datasonde measurement for construction of maps detailing changes in water depth and habitat areas over the flow cycle. All sampling locations were also surveyed to x,y,z coordinates.

(3) Weighted minnow traps lined with fine-mesh fiberglass screen were placed in rearing habitats and associated mainchannel habitats. Minnow traps were divided at the middle by a fine mesh screen, marked, and oriented to capture fishes moving into and out of rearing habitats. Each minnow trap was connected by a light cord to a bobber to mark its location at nigher flows. The minnow traps were serviced at least three times during the flow cycle to evaluate catch rates and movements. Retrieval was accomplished with extendable poles having hooks at one end in order to minimize incursion into the habitat at sampling. At the conclusion of the sampling period, the habitats were sampled in the conventional manner for plankton, benthos, and fishes not collected with the minnow traps.

LITTLE COLORADO RIVER

Objectives

There were four main objectives for the LCR:

(1) Collect algae, invertebrates, and fishes in the lower 22 km perennial reach; Draft AGFD Trip Report -4- April 18, 1991

(2) Measure longitudinal changes in physicochemical variables in this reach;

(3) Induce humpback chub to release gametes and fertilize the eggs for propagation purposes. Remove fertilized eggs and 10 adult humpback chub by helicopter to the Department's hatchery at Page Springs, Arizona.

(4) Determine reproductive activities of native fishes through examination of reproductive condition in adults and presence of larval fishes.

The original intent of the trip was a six day longitudinal limnological and biological survey of the river from Blue Springs to the mouth, with the lowermost reach sampling directed at acquiring adult humpback chub (Gila cypIta) for egg collection and hatchery propagation. Inclement weather conditions delayed the scheduled departure date two days. This precluded the majority of the longitudinal sampling effort, since a rendezvous with the AGFD mainstream Colorado River trip was scheduled for March 29-30. Effort was v- therefore concentrated on adult humpback chub acquisition for propagation purposes.

Itinerary

Scheduled departure date of March 26 delayed until 1000 hrs March 28 by winter storm which grounded USBR Arizona Projects Office (APO) helicopter in Phoenix. AGFD crew of Rob Clarkson, Mark Seversen, Mike Childs and Larry Duhamell arrived at head of Salt Trail Canyon at 1215 hrs to rendezvous with helicopter. APO pilot unable to locate trail head area initially, flew to Grand Canyon Airport to pick up Dr. Michael Douglas and C.O. Minckley for another scheduled LCR flight. Douglas and Minckley guided pilot to trail head location, then to suitable landing area for AGFD crew at Salt Trail Canyon mouth (10.5 km above mouth of LCR). Douglas and Minckley disembarked 2.5 km above mouth of LCR. Helicopter returned to trail head after 1600 hrs. AGFD crew and equipment transported to 12.5 km above LCR mouth (below Triple Drop; not site shown by Douglas and Minckley) in four loads by approximately 1730 hrs. No downstream travel attempted that day.

AGFD crew and equipment embarked downstream in two inflatible rafts (12 ft and 14 ft) 1000 hrs March 29. Met up with Douglas and Minckley at 2.5 km camp ca. 1700 hrs. AGFD crew continued downstream to 1.8 km and made camp at approximately 1800 hrs. Contact made with mainstream AGFD crew March 30. Most aquatic sampling effort by LCR crew performed at 1.8 km vicinity. Additional LCR sampling below 0.6 km undertaken by mainstream crew. LCR sampling ceased AM April 1. Childs, Seversen, and Duhamell joined up with continuation of mainstream trip, Clarkson flew out.

Methods

In situ measurements of dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity were taken with a Series 2000 Hydrolab. Water temperatures were recorded with both a Hydrolab and hand-held Draft AGFD Trip Report -5- April 18, 1991

thermometer. Alkalinity and carbon dioxide were determined with a Hach Field Titration Kit. Alkalinity was titrated to an end point of pH 4.5, monitored with a VWR Mini pH Meter.

Fishes were collected with 3 ft diameter hoop nets, 1.5 in mesh trammel nets, and various meshed seines. Larval drift nets had 0.5 m square openings, 3 m long, with 750 pm mesh.

Data Collected

Limnology—Discharge records at the USGS Cameron gauging station were constant at 228 cfs from March 25 through 2200 hrs on March 28, probably indicating that the gauge was silted in. Flows rose to 274 cfs at 2300 hrs on March 28, and peaked at 474 cfs between 1000 and 1500 hrs on March 29. From that point, discharge steadily decreased to the 228 cfs mark at 0500 hrs on March 31, after which it rose slightly and remained steady near 260 cfs through April 1.

Based on stage reference points, flows were increasing at the 2.5 km camp during the afternoon of March 29 (M.E. Douglas, pers. comm.), indicating that flows there may be -'perhaps 12 hours or so behind records from the Cameron gauge. By adding the base flow from Blue Springs of 210-230 cfs, discharges in the lower LCR probably ranged in the vicinity of 450-700 cfs during the period March 28-April 1.

Conductivity at 12.5 km at 0745 hrs on March 29 was 3630 pS/cm, and had decreased to 2180 pS/cm at 1.8 km at 1110 hrs on March 30. Conductivity began a slow rise after 1400 hrs on March 30 to a high of 2640 pS/cm by 1740 hrs on March 31, the last reading of the trip. These increases corresponded to decreasing flows at the Cameron gauging station, allowing for a temporal shift. Assuming a constant input from Blue Springs, it may be possible to construct a conductivity-discharge curve which could estimate LCR flows at any given time based on conductivity readings. Conductivities at base flows in the lower LCR in previous years have averaged near 5000 pS/cm.

Overall stream water temperatures were probably highest during the early low flow period as evidenced by the first reading on March 29 at 0745 hrs at the 12.5 km camp (15.3 C). Temperatures at the 1.8 km camp ranged from 12.1-13.8 C on March 30, and from 12.4-15.9 C on March 31. Air temperatures ranged between 6.0-22.7 C during these periods.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were unremarkable, ranging from 8.5-9.1 mg/I during the course of sampling. pH varied between 7.7-8.0.

Although high turbidity levels at the time of sampling may have limited the reliability of field titrations, alkalinity at 12.5 km was 484 mg/I (as calcium carbonate) at 0745 hrs on March 29. Alkalinity at 1.8 km at 1110 hrs on March 30 was 256 mg/l. Carbon dioxide levels were Draft AGFD Trip Report -6- April 18, 1991

210 and 256 mg/I at these times and locations, respectively. Alkalinity and CO2 also appear related to dilution of Blue Springs base flow.

Fish Sampling—Approximately fifty humpback chub were collected, 14 of which were recaptures, and 10 of which were flown out to Page Springs Hatchery for propagation. All were taken at or below the 1.8 km camp; two hoop nets and a trammel set the night of March 28 below Triple Drop were fishless.

Total lengths of captured chub ranged from 69-446 mm, and weights from <10-1037 g. Table 1 provides PIT tag new mark and recapture numbers, and old Floy or Carlin tag numbers. Not all fish released were PIT tagged. Note in Table 1 that old tags were not removed after new PIT tag numbers were assigned to recaptures. One chub was injected with a PIT tag within the 7F7D series at the LCR mouth, but escaped before the number could be read. No other data were collected from this fish.

Two radio-tagged chub were caught in a trammel in the mainstream just above the mouth (Table 1). Other transmitting chub in the vicinity of the LCR mouth included two at 40.670 (one at 40 pulses/min, the other undeterminable), one at 40.680 (72/min), and one at 40.730 (80/min). Limited radiotelemetry attempts within the LCR proper were negative. It is possible that many chub which may have been in the LCR upon our arrival moved back to the mouth when water temperatures dropped on March 30, as suggested by a sharp depression of catch rates at the 1.8 km camp after that date. Nearly all large chub caught after March 30 were at the mouth.

The 5 male chub taken to Page Springs Hatchery were between 255-358 mm TL, and the 5 females 328-437 mm IL. One of these females was a recapture taken at the mouth on March 30, and had a blue Carlin tag number 257. This fish measured 374 mm TL and weighed 521 g at capture. A subsequent measurement of this fish at the hatchery on April 15 showed a weight decrease to 486 g.

Eggs were extrudable in the field from only a single female caught at the 1.8 km camp, and only a small proportion of collected males were ripe. Larval drift samples have not yet been analyzed, but no larval fishes were observed from cursory macroscopic examination. Larvae were not collected in larval seines.

Other fishes collected jn the LCR or at the mouth included sp ied dace (Rhinichthys osculus), blue head moUntain sucker (Pantosteusdiscobolus), flanneGouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), a single trp (Cyprinus carpio; 650 mm TL), and raibow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Draft AGFD Trip Report -7- April 18, 1991

Date TL(mm) WT(g) PIT Tag Number Recap Old Tag Location 032991 218 101 7F7D16444B No 1.8 032991 236 120 7F7D16604B No 1.8 040191 336 291 Yes YC-018 0.6 040191 359 424 7F7D154A62 Yes YC-1091 1.8 033191 356 516 7F7F451924 Yes 1.8 033191 354 372 7F7F447A7E Yes 1.8 040191 224 91 7F7D152C26 No 1.8 040191 321 285 7F7D154102 No 1.8 040191 297 226 7F7D15296A No 1.8 040191 258 184 7F7D176763 Yes YC-2021 1.8 040191 406 798 7F7D175878 Yes RC-8871 1.8 040191 240 94 7F7D175C35 No 1.8 040191 220 89 7F7D152B3E No 1.8 040191 374 492 7F7F041F6A Yes Mouth 040191 386 584 7F7D164549 No Mouth 040191 380 544 7F7D153B49 Yes C-Unid.1 040191 282 276 Yes YC-016 Mouth 033191 374 521 Yes BC-2572 Mouth 040191 401 565 7F7F3C303B Yes Mouth 040191 393 5% Yes GF-025383 Mouth 040191 255 190 Yes RC-202 Mouth 040191 434 1037 Yes GC-L0384 Mouth 033191 413 672 7F7F3F4D54 No3 Mouth 040191 342 366 7F7F450D11 No Mouth 040191 305 304 7F7F3E3B7A No Mouth 040191 306 7F7D1A2C4C No Mouth 040191 267 7F7D222F2C No Mouth

/ Old tags not removed 2Removed to Page Springs Hatchery 3Radio-tagged GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PHASE II

NATIVE FISH STUDIES

TRIP REPORT-MAINSTREAM AND LCR March 26-April 14, 1991 Preliminary

Prepared For:

Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared By:

Robert W. Clarkson, Principle Investigator Dennis M. Kuhly, GCES Coordinator

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023

April 18, 1991 SE! J 3_E, e..e.eee

INTRODUCTION

During the period March 26-April 14, 1991, the Arizona Game and Fish Department conducted our first downstream Colorado River and Little Colorado River research activities for the year. These studies are being conducted as part of Phase II of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies under a Cooperative Agreement between the Department and the Bureau of Reclamation. Research activities directed at native fishes are designed to fulfill objectives outlined in Conservation Measure $ as formulated under the ongoing Section 7 Consultation on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Other participants in native fish research include Arizona State University and the Navajo Natural Heritage Program, BIOTWEST, Inc., and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

MA! N STREW

Objectives

Mainstream activities were directed at accomplishing four major objectives:

(1) Collect algae, invertebrates, sediment, and fishes in backwater, side channel, shallow shoreline, tributary mouth, and other native fish rearing habitats;

(2) Measure physicochemical variables in these same habitats;

(3) Perform topographic surveys of selected rearing habits;

(4) Collect rainbow trout for the genetics portion of the strain evaluation study.

There were three different levels of data collection used to accomplish these objectives in mainstream and confluence rearing habitats:

(1) Narrow spectrum fish collections using seines accompanied with limited water quality measurements and habitat mapping. Typical duration of sampling was one hour or less;

(2) Broad spectrum surveys of fishes, plankton, benthos, and water quality with more intensive habitat mapping. Typical duration of sampling was two hours or greater;

... : 4 1..4 4 LIT

Draft AGFD Trip Report April 18, 1991

Methods

If the decision was made to concentrate on sampling fishes (Level I), activities occurred in the following order:

(2) Water quality group made air and water temperature measurements,

(3) Mapping rtoup sketched the habitat and took basic habitat measurements. A photograph or photographs were taken, and the site(s) from which the photo(s) were taken was documented.

(4) Fish group seined the backwater. This activity was completed while the mapping group was working, but seining was not accomplished until water temperatures were taken.

The following additions or modifications were made in the order provided for Level II sampling:

(1) Water quality team took full suite of hytholab, turbidity, and current velocity measurements from rearing habitat and associated mainchannel habitat. a, ::1 4 ; :LI, 1.:3:_ a■ ;

Draft AGFD Trip Report -3- April 18, 1991

(2) Mapping/photography team made more extensive habitat morphology measurements using compass angles and hip-chain or measuring tape distances from temporary 'benchmarks" which typically were photo sites.

(3) Plankton team took samples from rearing habitat and associated mainchannel habitat.

(4) Benthos/sediment team took samples from rearing habitat and associated mainchannel habitat.

Level III sampling was accomplished over the course of at least one 24 hour flow cycle with additional sampling occurring during periods allow, high, and intermediate flows. Additions or modifications were as follows:

(1) Datasoncies were deployed in the rearing habitat to measure changes in water quality variables including water level. Standard water quality measurements also were taken with a Hydrolab Surveyor, Marsh McBirney current meter, and Bausch and Lomb nephelometer over the course of the flow cycle at all fish sampling sites.

(2) Topographic surveys were completed by a professional surveyor from temporary bench marks. The contour of the wetted perimeter was measured and tied to the datasonde measarement for construction of maps detailing changes in water depth and habitat areas over the flow cycle. All sampling locations were also surveyed to x,y,z coordinates.

(3) Weighted minnow traps lined with fine-mesh fiberglass screen were placed in rearing habitats and associated mainchannel habitats. Minnow traps were divided at the middle by a fine mesh screen, marked, and oriented to capture fishes moving into and out of rearing habitats. Each minnow trap was connected by a light cord to a bobber to mark its location at higher flows. The minnow traps were serviced at least three times during the flow cycle to evaluate catch rates and movements. Retrieval was accomplished with extendable poles having hooks at one end in order to minimize incursion into the habitat at sampling. At the conclusion of the sampling period, the habitats were sampled in the conventional manner for plankton, benthos, and fishes not collected with the minnow traps.

LIÏTLE COLORADQRWER

Objectives

There were four main objectives for the LCR:

(1) Collect algae, invertebrates, and fishes in the lower 22 km perennial reach; 1 ; ;";

Draft AGFD Trip Report -4- April 18, 1991

(2) Measure longitudinal changes in physicochemical variables in this reach;

(4) Determine reproductive activities of native fishes through examination of reproductive condition in adults and presence of larval fishes.

The original intent of the trip was a six day longitudinal limnological and biological survey of the river from Blue Springs to the mouth, with the lowermost reach sampling directed at acquiring adult humpback chub (Gila cypha) for egg collection and hatchery propagation. Inclement weather conditions delayed the scheduled departure date two days. This precluded the majority of the longitudinal sampling effort, since a rendezvous with the AGFD mainstream Colorado River trip was scheduled for March 29-30. Effort was therefore concentrated on adult humpback chub acquisition for propagation purposes.

Itinerary

AGFD crew and equipment embarked downstream in two irtflatible rafts (12 ft and 14 ft) 1000 hrs March 29. Met up with Douglas and Minckley at 2.5 km camp ca. 1700 hrs. AGFD crew continued downstream to 1.8 km and made camp at approximately 1800 hrs. Contact made with mainstream AGFD crew March 30. Most aquatic sampling effort by LCR crew performed at 1.8 km vicinity. Additional LCR sampling below 0.6 Icrn undertaken by mainstream crew. LCR sampling ceased AM April 1. Childs, Seversen, and Duhamell joined up with continuation of mainstream trip, Clarkson flew out.

Methods

In situ measurements A dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity were taken with a Series 2000 Hydrolab. Water temperatures were recorded with both a Hydrolab and hand-held

11 C.■ :i . Er i'■ Ei :

Draft AGFD Trip Report April 18, 1991

thermometer. Alkalinity and carbon dioxide were determined with a Hach Field Titration Kit. Alkalinity was titrated to an end paint of pH 4.5, monitored with a VWR Mini pH Meter.

Fishes were collected with 3 ft diameter hoop nets, 1,5 in mesh trammel nets, and various meshed seines. Larval drift nets had 0.5 m square openings, 3 m long, with 750 km mesh.

Data Collected

Limno/ogy--Discharge records at the USGS Cameron gauging station were constant at 228 cfs from March 25 through 2200 hrs on March 28, probably indicating that the gauge was silted in. Flows rose to 274 cis at 2300 hrs on March 28, and peaked at 474 cfs between 1000 and 1500 hrs on March 29. From that point; discharge steadily decreased to the 228 cfs mark at 0500 hrs on March 31, after which it rose slightly and remained steady near 260 cis through April 1.

Based on stage reference points, flows were increasing at the 2.5 km camp during the afternoon of March 29 (M.E. Douglas, pers. comm.), indicating that flows there may be perhaps 12 hours or so behind records from the Cameron gauge. By adding the base flow from Blue Springs of 210-230 cfs, discharges in the lower LCR probably ranged in the vicinity of 450-700 cfs during the period March 28-April 1.

Conductivity at 12.5 km at 0745 hrs on March 29 was 3630 pSlcm, and had decreased to 2180 ./S/cm at 1.8 km at 1110 his on March 30. Conductivity began a. slow rise after 1400 hrs on March 30 to a high of 2640 J.IS/cm by 1740 hrs on March 31, the last reading of the trip. These increases corresponded to decreasing flows at the Cameron gauging station, allowing for a temporal shift. Assuming a constant input from Blue Springs, it may be possible to construct a conductivity-discharge curve which could estimate LCR flows at any given time based on conductivity readings. Conductivities at base flows in the lower LCR in previous years have averaged near 5000 pS/cm.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were unremarkable, ranging from 8.5-9.1 mgal during the course of sampling. pH varied between 7.7-8.0.

Although high turbidity levels at the time of sampling may have limited the reliability of field titrations, alkalinity at 12.5 km was 484 mg1 (as calcium carbonate) at 0745 hrs on March 29. Alkalinity at 1.8 km at 1110 hrs on March 30 was 256 mgl. Carbon dioxide levels were I Draft AGFD Trip Report -6- April 18, 1991

210 and 256 mgi at these times and locations, respectively. Alkalinity and CO2 also appear related to dilution of Blue Springs base flow.

Total lengths of captured chub ranged from 69-446 mm, and weights from <10-1037 g. Table 1 provides NT tag new mark and recapture numbers, and old Ploy or Carlin tag numbers. Not all fish released were PIT tagged. Note in Table 1 that old tags were not removed after new PIT tag numbers were assigned to recaptures. One chub was injected with a PIT tag within the 7F7D series at the LCR mouth, but escaped before the number could be read. No other data were collected from this fish.

Two radio-tagged chub were caught in a trammel in the mainstream just above the mouth (Table 1). Other transmitting chub in the vicinity of the LCR mouth ineluded tavo at 40.670 (one at 40 pulses/min, the other undeterminable), one at 40.680 (72/min), and one at 40.730 (80/min). Limited radiotelemetry attempts within the LCR proper were negative. It is possible that many chub which may have been in the LCR upon our arrival moved back to the mouth when water temperatures dropped on March 30, as suggested by a sharp depression of catch rates at the 1.8 km camp after that date. Nearly all large chub caught after March 30 were at the mouth.

The 5 male chub taken to Page Springs Hatchery were between 255-358 mm TI, and the 5 females 328-437 mm TL. One of these females was a recapture taken at the mouth on March 30, and had a blue Carlin tag number 257. This fish measured 374 mm TL and weighed 521 g at capture. A subsequent measurement of this fish at the hatchery on April 15 showed a weight decrease to 486 g.

Other fishes collected in the LCR or at the mouth included speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), blue head mountain sucker (Pantosteus d.;scobolus), flannelmouth sucker (Catostorrius laripinnis), a single carp (Cyprinus carpio; 650 ram TL), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). r Draft AGFD Trip Report -7- April 18, 1991

TABLE 1. Mark/recapture data for humpback chub collected March 29-April 1, 1991, in the Little Colorado River and confluence area with the Colorado River. Old tag abbreviations are as follows: Y=yellow; R=red; B =blue; G=green; C=Carlin "disc" tag; F=Floy "spaghetti" tag. ..—. Max TL(mmt) WTig) prr Tat Nuttsbor Ree2p Old Tat_ Location 032991 2.18 101 7F7D16444B No 1.8 032991 256 120 7F7D16004B No 1,8 040191 336 291 Y YC-018 0.6 040191 159 424 7F7D154A62 Yes YC•1091 1.8 033191 356 516 7F7F451924 Yes 1.8 033191 354 372 7F7F447A7E. Yes 1.8 040191 224 91 7F7D152C26 No 1.8 040191 321 285 7F1D154102 No 1.8 040191 297 226 7F7D15296A No 1.8 040191 258 184 71. /0176763 Yes YC-2021 1.8 040191 406 it' IL)175878 Yes RC-8871 1.8 040191 240 7F7D175C35 No 1.8 040191 220 89 /1. /0152B3E No 1.8 040191 374 492 ./.1-. P041F5A Yes Mouth 040191 386 584 7F7D164549 No Mouth 040191 380 7F7D153B49 Yes C-Unicl.' 040191 282 276 Yes YC-016 Mouth 033191 374 521 Yes BC-2572 Mouth 040191 401 565 7 1-71:3C3.03B Y Mouth 040191 393 5% Yes GF-025383 Mouth 040191 255 190 Yes RC-202 Mouth 040191 434 1037 Yes GC-1.0384 Mouth 033191 413 672 7F7F3F4054 No3 Mouth 040191 342 366 7F7F450D11 No Mouth 040191 305 304 71- ii-3E3B7A No Mouth 040191 306 /1- iD1A2C4C No Mouth 1 040191 267 I= 7F7D222F2C No Mouth

10W tags not removed 2 Rernoved to Page Spnnita Hatchery 3Radto-tasseci . E.EIJ

GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

PHASE II

ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT

Submitted By

T. Angradi, R. Clarkson, A. Kinselving, D. Kubly, and S. Morgensen Research Branch Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 W. Graenway Road Phoenix, Arizona

Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Environmental Studies P.O. Box 1811 Flagstaff, Arizona

June 28, 1991

-, t41.4 601S277:68 õ57-M1.-.L; sENT crC" Er 12:1)1E:11- 4-;i ;

(

INTRODUCTION

This report covers cngoing research conducted in Phase II of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies ( GOES) and funded under Modification 002 of Cooperative Agreement 9-FC-40-07940 between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The purpose of the report is to provide Reclamation with an annual summary of progress on Department research efforts directed at determining the effects of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam on aquatic resources of the Colorado River in Glen and Grand canyons.

Department research responsibilities under the Cooperative Agreement lie in th'ree major areas of study: (1) ecosystem processes and lower trophic levels; (2) trout, and; (3) native fishes. Although major study areas are treated independently in this report, the Department is committed to integration of findings from these studies and those conducted by other research entities funded under the GOES.

The format for this report follows that of the Cooperative Agreement, i.e. by work items. For each work item, background information is provided to explain its importance in the context of the overall study. Scientific methods being used and progress in using those methods are then detailed. Finally, problems associated with fulfilling objectives of the work items are provided and, where applicable, suggested solutions to these problems are given,

The Department's research program is not at a stage where results from data compilation and analysis are appropriate. Therefore, this level of reporting is reserved for the EIS Draft and Final Technical Reports dies October 30 and December 31, 1991, respectfvely.

ECOSYSTEM LEVEL PROCESSES AND LOWER TROPHIC LEVELS

Work Item 1.1 - Determine the effects of different flow regimes on primary production and organic matter and nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, and silica) loading rates and budgets for the Glen Canyon Dam tallwater to Lee's Ferry.

Background—Previous studies on the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on aquatic resources have not addressed ecosystem level processes such as primary production, nutrient cycling or organic matter processing. These processes are important determinants of fish production in the Lee's Ferry tailwater, and they may have important Implications for the entire Grand Canyon ecosystem if downstream communities rely largely on nutrients and organic matter exported from the upstream reach.

Methods and Progress--Eleven input-output sampling efforts have been made to date. Duririg each effort, water and organic matter are collected at Glen Canyon Dam and Lee's Ferry, Lake Powell is sampled quarterly. Sample components Include biomass, R !:132S.17716&-. •T Er 4':

AGFO Annual Summary Report -2- June 28,

chlorophya, and nutrient content of fine and coarse particulate organic matter, nutner7 and organic matter concentration of the dissolved fraction, and taxonorric composition and density of zooplankton. Biomass, chlorophyll, and taxononie determinations are made by Department personnel, Dissolved components are analyzed by the USGS laboratory ill Arvata, Colorado. Particulate organic matter is being held frozen until a contract can be obtained with a laboratory having a C'- analyzer.

Problems—The only major problem with the Organic matter/nutrient budget has beer cur inability to have the nutrient content of particulate organic matter analyzed :1 3 timely manner. It has proven impossible for the USGS laboratory to analyze constituents at a suitable minimum level of detection. We are in the process af negotiating a contract with a laboratory having the appropriate instrumentation tr these analyses.

Only very limited primary productivity measarements have been made to date. L recently we lacked the appropriate instrumentation and sufficient manpowe ,

conduct these measurements, A goal of this portion of the ecosystem procaaar: .3 subproject is to develop a model of light limitation on primary productivity in Colorado River as related to darn operations. In order to achieve this goal, we f. to have meteorological inputs and turbidity measured in the Lee's Ferry reach. r !ae measurements also would provide valuable data for a model predicting the degr:= warming possible from the multiple inlet structure proposed as a structural eler ai in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact alternatives. Requests meteorological stations have been proffered to the GCES office, but as of this no decision has been made.

Work Item 1.2 - Determine the life history, secondary production, and cause ,i mortality for the amphipod, Gammatus lact:strls, in the Glen Canyon taliweter to a Ferry.

Background—The amphipod, Gammarus lacustris, is an important component Ir diet of rainbow trout in the tailwater. Effects of dam operations on Gammarus availability of the amphipod to trout are not well known. Potential effects of operations are increased mortality due to stranding, drift and subsequent consum by trout, transport out of favorable habitats, and limitations on the productivi..,, food resources important to the amphipod.

Methods and Progress—Several series of benthic samples have been coliected unir :- a mini-Ponar dredge to determine substrate-specific distribution of Gammarus. 24-hour trout diet sampling efforts have been completed to determine rel ,'.1 mortality of the amphipod through the diel discharge cycle. Trout were collecte2 4-hour intervals over the diet period, and simultaneous drift samples were cont. .

, • 1 I ' ;

AGFD Annual Summary Report -3- June 28, 1991

using high-speed Miller tubes. Additional 24-hour studies are planned to investigate other sources csf mortality.

Probiems--Estimating reach-wide secondary production of Gammerus in the tailwater may be quite difficult due to the large area involved and major sampling problems associated with deep mainchannel habitats. Ponar sampling is not equally effective in ail habitat and substrate types; thus, this gear is not suitable for making quantitative density estimates. Realistic estimates of secondary production can be made only if appropriate habitats can be sampled reliably. If Givrmarus is widely (and deeply) distributed in the reach across a variety of substrates requiring the use of several sampling gears, reliable estimates of secondary production may not be obtainable. A problem with all aspects of the Gararnarus studies under present flow regimes is that there are essentially no permanent hebitats or algal food resources for the animals above the 5,000 cfs level.

Work Item 1.3 - Determine the effects of fluctuating flows on algal and invertebrate colonization rates, standing crops, and community composition.

Bockgrouno'—Effects of fluctuating flows on colonization rates of plants and animals in the tailwater are not well documented. Previous work has suggested that there are thresholds of tolerance to desiccation for certain taxa. We seek to expand our knowledge of this process, since it is important to understand ecosystem resistance to hydrologically mediated disturbance and rates of recovery from disturbance. Biotic communities (seral and equilibrium) that result from different levels of disturbance may •not affect fishery and other downstream aquatic resources equally.

Methods and Progress—One colonization experiment has been completed utilizing sandstone substrates on two transects. An initial finding of interest Is that there is more algal biomass associated with send accumulating on the substrates than was previously suspected. Further studies will need to consider this substrate type, because it is so extensive in the tailwater and because Cladophora on coarser substrates is so susceptible to desiccation at low flows. Sand substrates may be a source of primary productivity (and dissolved organic carbon and nutrients) that is relatively less affected by dam operations than coarser substrates.

Problems—Lack of Gammarus habitat and algal food resources above 5,000 cfs also creates a problem for colonization studies. Natural cobble substrates above 5,000 cfs have not recolonized with algae since the beginning of the research flows. A technical problem with the use of sandstone substrates for colonization is that this substrate does not adequately sample some invertebrates, particularly Gammerus. Furthermore, in the zone of fluctuation, the amphipod probably will not colonize bare substrates. Thus, separate studies for invertebrate and algal coionizaticn will be needed.

AGM Annual Summary Report -4- June 28, 1991

Work Item 1.4 - Determine the effects of different eaposure and desiccation on the nutritive quality of exposed algae.

Background-The effects of fluctuating flows on algal quality and quantity are important for two reasons. First, it has been hypothesized that trout and other fishes derive a significant amount of energy by ingesting Cladophora that may or may not have associated epiphytic diatoms and bacteria. Desiccation of algae may cause partial processing which could increase nutritive quality of this resource. Secondly, dewatering and desiccation may increase the amount and quality of algae that enters the drift when algal-bearing substrates are reinundated and transported downstream.

Methods and Progress-Several small experiments have been completed in the siuicaways at Glen Canyon Dam to evaluate the effect of desiccation on algal appearance, biomass, and chlorophyll content, Cobbles were removed from the river and placed in the sluiceways. After an acclimation period, sigai samples were taken. A subset of the cobbles was removed from the sluiceways, allowed to desiccate for different periods, and then sampled. Additional experiments of this type are planned.

Problems-We presently do not have the capability to assay algal samples for nutritive quality, and we are seeking the services of a contract laboratory to conduct these analyses. Manpower shortages also have precluded the initiation of larger scale desiccation experiments.

TROUT

Work item 2.1 - Determine the potential loss of trout spawning, defined as areal loss of spawning bars and exposure of redds, at various flows in the reach of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lee's Ferry.

Background-GtES Phase I studies indicated that 27% of the adult rainbow trout collected in the Lee's Ferry reach during 1984-1986 were naturally produced within the system. Trout reproductive success can be affected by dam operations at egg to adult stages through daily water level fluctuations which cause stranding and desiccation or displacement out of preferred spawning and rearing habitats. Sustained releases of clear, nearly sediment-free reservoir water can also affect spawning through long-term armoring of spawning bars, This study will identify the extent of suitable spawning gravels in the Lee's Ferry reach at various water levels and the relative use of these substrates by spawning trout during different flow regimes.

Methods and Progress--Spawning bars at River Mlle 4.0, 8.1, 8.9 and 14.0 were surveyed during 5,000 cfs discharges In October 1969, June 1990, and June 1991 for sediment particle size and degree of arnbeddednesa. On each bar, three equidistant transepts were run perpendicular to the river bank. Samples for evaluation I ; _ ' EiT :I34-.Et

AGFO Annual Summary Report -5- June 28, 1991

of spawning gravel size were taken from alcng each transect. Measurements of the wetted perimeter of each spawning bar at 3,000, 5,000, 8,000 and 11,000 cfs were made from stakes placed along the high water mark. Stakes and a subset of wetted perimeter locations were surveyed by the USGS and tied to known bench marks. These measurements are being used to draw contour maps of the bars and wetted perimeters at different flows.

Beginning in November 1990, the four spawning bars were checked weekly for redd development. Redd building activity did not begin until late December 1990. Spawning bars were surveyed at leaat once during each study flow to locate, mark, and map active redds. To date, 420 reeds nave been located at 4.0 mile bar aria 178 at 8.9 mile bar. The study has concentrated on th e two pawning bars, as there was very little observed spawning activity on 6.1 mile tar and none on 14.0 mile bar.

Problems—Other commitments by USGS has delayed generation of some discharge contour maps, thereby delaying our analyses of spawning gravel size, embedded ness and redd placement. In order to have the rna;.ss available in time for inclusion in EIS Technical Reports, we propose to have Department personnel generate these maps using computer hardware and software available in the GOES office in Flagstaff.

Compass coordinates are not accurate enough to uniquely identify redds in close proximity to each other. This problem could be alleviated by purchasing Lietz or Nikon surveying equipment and having a qualified surveyor available to pinpoint exact coordinates of the redds. Depressed levels and the delayed onset of trout spawning activities in 1991 will require continuation of research in this area into future years.

A possible future problem concerns getting low enough flows during daylight hours to count and map redds. Flows below 8000 cfs, and preferably below 5000 Os are needed to accurately find and map redds. Typical winter operation of the dam brings the flow up before daylight. One day of low controlled flows every two weeks during the spawning season is necessary in order TO complete this research.

Work item 2.2 - Determine the rate of etlInding and mortality of naturally reproduced and stocked trout under different flow regimes in the Glen Canyon tallwater downstream of Lee's Ferry.

Background—It was observed during Phase I studies that some trout became stranded in backwaters and pools that had become Isolated as water levels declined In the Lee's Ferry reach. Little was known about the degree of stranding and the rate of mortality for these fish, This study is intended to identify major stranding areas in the Lee's Ferry reach and determine mortality of adult fish relative to season end flow level.

- Dr.1 L Lr Etq = ree1P;11- : F f

•

AGFD Annual Summary Report -6- June 28, 1991

Methods and Progress—aoth daytime and night-erne stranding pool surveys were conducted between Glen Canyon Dam and Lee's Ferry several times at low flows to identify stranding sites and at what discharge levels these stranding pools became isolated. Ten major stranding areas at river miles -0.5R, 4.0R, 8.2L, 8.9R, 9.7R, 11.0R, 11.7R, 11.9L, 13.0R and 1 4.8R were identified. These areas were surveyed four times a month from March-August 1990 and at lent twice during each study flow, or twice a month during periods of "normal flow" from September 1990- February 1991.

During each survey, pool dimensions, number of fish stranded, deed and alive, were recorded in addition to water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity. Dead fish were collected, weighed and measured, and examinee for fluorescent dye pigments. Viscera were collected for later aneiysis of stomach content arid gonadal development. Heads were taken and frozen for later examination of vertebrae for presence or absence of tetracycline dye rings used to differentiate hatchery produced trout from those naturally reproduced in the Lee's Ferry reach.

Mortality surveys determined that only during summer research flows did changes in water quality parameters prove lethal to trout. Three times during the 1990 summer 5000 cfs flows trout were killed probably due to an increase in water temperature. Other water quality parameters ostensibly remained within acceptable limits. The only known causes of death during the spawning season were dewetering of the stranding pool and predation. Comparisons of food habits and gonadal development will be made between trout remaining in the main channel and those that get stranded.

Problems-- The level of detection of tetracycline dye marks in vertebrae has been too low to successfully discriminate between hatchery reared and naturally reproduced trout. This problem, which was previously undetected, has arisen as a result of changes In antibiotic levels administered to trout fingerlings prior to their stocking. However, total numbers stranded and mortality rates of those stranded can be calculated regardless of the origin of the fish. Most stranding occurred during the spawning season and thus very few data are available for stranding during the study flows, and thus comparisons can't be made among different flow regimes.

Addendum to Work Item 2.2. - Conduct a literature review of tout strains. This should Include an assessment of the relationship between trout strains and their interaction with flows, growth, survivorship and movement.

Background—Over the years, several strains of rainbow trout were stocked at Lee's - Ferry, but until recently poor records were kept on which strains were stocked. Trout which are capable of reproducing in the Lee's Ferry reach have come from an e'eeeeeeunknown genetic source. There is some speculation that another strain of trout might

•Ptist+;0. do better under the conditions encountered at Lee's Ferry. Of particular interest is

1 • • .■;-; - -eeet.e'..e-e• • •

- O w, J r

•SENT a.•:13LEN ; ;tE 2fli 2;

AGFD Annual Summary Report -7- June 28, 1991

finding a strain which will reproduce during a narrower period of time, end therefore require controlled flows for a shorter period. Two studies were added to the Department's obligation to provide this Information, First, a literature review of available trout strains and their characteristics is being undertaken. Second, trout which presently occur In the Colorado River and its tributaries, as well as hatchery stocks, are being analyzed by gel electrophoresis to determine their genetic composition and degree of relatedness. Both these studies are being conducted under subcontracts.

Methods and Progress--A request for proposal was developed for literature review of trout strains and proposals were accepted and reviewed, William Davis and Dr. George Ruffner were selected to conduct this review. The scope of the work will include compiling information on the performance characteristics of commercially available strains, Identification of tailwaters which are similar to Lee's Ferry and their associated trout strains, and evaluation of available strains against conditions resulting from current operating regimes. This subcontract was let on April 30, 1991. A report Is due on October 30, 1991, therefore it may not be available for the Draft EIS Technical Report Results will be included in the Final EIS Technical Report.

Descriptive genetic studies were also undertaken in April 1991, Samples of adult and young-of-the-year trout were collected from 10 tributaries within the Grand Canyon and 9 mainstream sites (Including 3 sites In the Lee's Ferry reach). Eyes, livers and muscle tissue were collected from adult trout and frozen in liquid nitrogen. Young-of- year fish were frozen whole. Samples were also collected from both groups of fish stocked at Lee's Ferry this year. These samples were sent to Dr. David Phillip and Ms. Julie Claussen at the Illinois Natural History Survey for analysis using gal electrophoresis and histochemical staining. Phiilip and Claussen conducted a similar study during Phase I and have already identified enzymes and major loci which exhibit the greatest genetic differences. Samples will be analyzed at Illinois Natural History Survey starting in July. A draft report is due September 30, 1991 and a final report November 30, 1991. Therefore, results will be available for inclusion in the Final EIS Technical Report.

Work item 2.3 - Determine the effects of fluctuating flows on age and growth relationship of stocked trout in the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater downstream of Lee's Ferry.

Background—Past evaluation of age/growth relationships of trout stocked in the Lee's Ferry reach has been restricted largely to use of periodic length frequency distributions. Conventional methods for aging fish, such as scales and otoliths, are precluded because annuli are not laid down In me perennially cold tailwater. Since .1989, stocked trout have been marked with an external fluorescent pigment. This . - marker is considered adequate to Identify cohorts for periods of 2-3 years, but there

. . . . •

• • . •••• .,,,,,,,rnfirte-;:.■•••

SER1T BY: GLEN C C'H EN STUE. 4-91 i R; Ii- 12: 4E.FRI ; FI.02E2777E,:=-;— 2:Q2C,'. 2; T,•2I

AGFD Annual Summary Report -8- June 28, 1991

remains a need to institute a method of marking whicn will suffice to follow trout until they reach trophy size. Interpretations of how growth has changed over time at the Ferry can be made, however, estabiishing tne influence of fluctuating flows on trout growth is more difficult.

Methods and Progress--Trout were collected quarterly using an electrofishing boat with a Coffeit VVP delivering a modified pulse system developed to minimize damage to trout. Each time fish were collected from 4-8 randomly selected sites throughout Me 16 mile reach from the Darn to Lee's Ferry. Fish collected were weighed, measured and examined for fluorescent pigments or other external markers. Representative samples were sacrificed for compariscn of food habits, fecundity, and origin with stranded trout. Additional trout were collected from backwaters, side channels, and mainstreem areas using seines and trammel nets. An fish collected were weighed, measured and tagged with numbered floe, tags. Growth rates were calculated from data obtained from the recapture of tagged fish,

A parallel "laboratory" experiment to evaluate growth of fingerling trout under fluctuating and constant flows is to be conducted in the siuiceway below Glen Canyon Dam. Efforts to Institute this study have been stymied until a way can be found to eliminate or dampen the surge which results from pumping seepage water from the dam.

Pigment retention characterietics were analyzed by holding a number of rainbow trout from the 1989 and 1990 stockings in the siuiceway below the dam. As of December 1990, 77% of the 1989 fish and 58% of the 1990 fish still carried the fluorescent mark. In the future, fluorescent pigment marks will be supplemented with a second, more permanent, marking technique. Different tagging techniques currently are being explored arid, of those Investigated, binary coded wire tags appear most promising. A satisfactory method will be chosen and implemented for the 1992 stocking.

Problems--A high priority for next year will be finding a reliable way to mark all hatchery trout sc that they will be Identifiable for a long period of time. This Is important since many study questions are based on being able to differentiate naturally produced trout from hatchery stocks.

Several impediments plague attempts to design an experiment to mimic operational cycles in the sluiceway. These include a periodic surge in the waste water coming from the dam which either needs to be modified or dampened, and determining a means to control the amounts of food supplies which are present or delivered to each side. A possible future problem for studying age and growth relationships concerns interim flows and how they will Impact the mark/recapture program. The 5000 cfs . constant flow weekends were used extensively to net, mark; and release trout for the —

••• " WeiS *SAL; ..-e 7 :4. ' S ' •VI • ••,.;•.• • •

4. "

, E ; 1 1 - -; ;2..1

AGFD Annual Summary Report -9- June 28, 1991 ,

growth Studies. Higher water ;eves vvii! make the task more difficult. and it is uncertain to what degree this may impact the study.

Work item 2.4 - Determine the behavioral responses of trout in the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater to different steady and fluctuating flow regimes.

Background—Changes in river stage, current velocity, and wetted area that accompany fluctuating flows have the pctential to affect the behavior patterns of adult trout during reproductive and feeding activieies. This rnay result in additional stress and energy expenditure in the trout.

Methods and Progress—Radhotalerrittry vvas used to evaluate the behavioral responses of adult trout to constant and fluctuating flow regimes. Ten adult trout (4.0-50 cm TI-.) collected and released around 13.5 mile bar aria 6.1 mile bar were implanted with radio transmitters in November-December 1990. After implantation was complete, trout were given a numbered floy tag on the right side to differentiate them from other tagged trout.

Trout were located using a Model 2000 ATS programmable receiver with a mast antenna mounted on a boat, and portable ;cop antennas were used for directional triangulation. Triangulation was accomplished from stakes that had been surveyed to bench marks to facilitate mapping of locations. Triangulations on all tagged trout were completed before habitat measurements were taken. Measurements of depth, substrate size, cover, velocity, and distance to snore were made for each site.

Triangulations and habitat measurements were made on all located trout three times per day for two days during each study flow. Sample days during constant and fluctuating flow periods were sequential to avoid seasonal variation. Observations were timed to catch the low, peak, and declining stages during fluctuating flows. The same time periods were used during constant flows.

Individual fish also were followed for 24 hour periods during normal winter and spring flows, and during the 5,000 and 15,000 cfs steady flows. Hourly triangulations were made, but habitat measurements were not taken during this part of the study.

Problems—Areas where fish locations are being measured have been surveyed by the USGS, and these maps are needed before radlotelemetry data can be completely analyzed. There also is a limitation in accurately pinpointing trout locatiens using loop antennas and magnetic compasses. Thus, small-scale movements, on the order of several meters, and microhabitet use may not be measurable by this method. Augmentation of the existing methods with observations made by divers, as has been done in the past at Lee's Ferry, may alleviate this problem. Use of divers would require that certain areas of the tailvvater be cordoned off from access by fishermen F SENT EI*: E: ' ; 7 -- TSC 5 - 777.=-8- 9-35 14=T

AGFD Annual Summary Report -10- June 28, 1291

and boats. This restriction would have to be imposed by the National Park Service at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

NATIVE FISHES

Several of the work Items in this portion of cur research effort are being conducted by project biologists responsible for studies in either the Little Colorado River or the Colorado River and other tributaries. Where appropriate, methods, progress, and problems with the research are divided according to these responsibilities.

Work Item 3.1. Continue the AGF monitoring and research program for native fishes of the Colorado River and its tributaries in Grend Canyon.

Background—The Department's native fish monitoring program was initiated in 1987 following the cessation of Phase I field studies. The project has been an annual effort timed to coincide with the reproductive period of humpback chub in the LCP. and with the presence of early life stages of other native fishes in tributary and mainstream rearing habitats. Research personnel historically entered the LCR via Salt Trail Canyon and occupied the tributary for approximately one month a year, typically May, since 1987. This effort was augmented through additional personnel who traveled down the mainstream by river boat and entered the LCR near the middle of the sampling period. Other collections and meesurements included plankton, benthos, hydrolab variables, and general habitat morphology. Coordination of this effort with other research entities is occurring thrcugh the Aquatic Ccordination Team.

Methods and Progress (1..CR)--USER helicopters were utilized for shuttles of equipment and personnel due to the closure of the Salt Trail to GCES researchers. Standardized gear sets and marking procedures were continued. Thirteen hoop nets have been run nearly continuously in the lower 1200 m of the LCR since early May, and six additional sites between River Kilometers (RK) 9,1 and 11.8 since mid-May. Trammel nets were run sporadically during this period from both camps, but were discontinued due to mortalities of humpback chub. Considerable seining effort was expended in various habitats in the vicinity of both camps, and larval drift nets were run every other day from both camps during these periods. Extensive measurements of sampled habitats, including current velocities, substrates, depths, and cover features were also undertaken. Water temperatures and other physical-chemical variables (conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen) were monitored from the lower camp.

(Mainstream and Other Tributaries)--Mainstream activities associated with our annual monitoring largely will be subsumed under Work items 3.4 and 3.9. There will not be 4 will simply be one of several conducted - - a monitoring river trip per se, rather this trip • R

-.;

• • S.t •

SENT Ey':GLEN C1:4NvON EN') STULIE;11- ;

AGFO Annual Summary Report -11- June 28, 1591

Problems (LCR).-The decision to run hoop nats twice daily precluded setting nets at previously established locations at longer distances from the camps. Mortalities of adult humpback chub which occurred in as little as two hours in trammel net sets restricted our ability to maintain continuous SPTS of these gears. Certain net sets may not have been as exactly located as in earlier years since we did not have personnel experienced with those sites. An attempt to get C.O. Minckley for this purpose was unsuccessful due to a breakdown of helicopter support. This may restrict our ability to compare individual net sets with previous years, but should not impair temporal catch rate comparisons.

Work Item 3.2--Identify the temporal and spetiai dietribution patterns and movements of early life stages of fishes in the Little Colorado River end, if necessary, other tributaries.

Background– As indicated, the major emphasis for this work item is on the LCR. However, sampling of fishes in and sbove the confluence zone of other tributaries is being accomplished with a combination of larval drift nets and hoop nets. Using these gears, we hope to obtain measures of the amount of transport and active movement of fishes from tributary to mainstream habitats. These data will help us to further pursue an objective of GCES Phase I which vvas to determine the relative contributions of mainstream and tributary reproduction to fish populations in Grand Canyon. Native larval fishes collected with drift nets will have their months analyzed for daily growth rings for comparison with individuals collected from mainstream rearing habitats (Work Items 3.4 and 3.7). Invertebrates and coarse particulate matter collected in these samples will also be analyzed to determine contributions of these materials from tributaries to the mainstream.

Methods and Progress (LCR)--Present investigations will substantially increase research activities directed at young-of-the-year fishes In the LCR. Information to determine the timing and duration of reproductive activity for different fish species will be provided by analysis of otoliths and length frequency distributions of early life stages. Measurement of contemporaneous environmental conditions to delineate cues that potentially serve to initiate spawning will be available from U.S. Geological Survey stations on the LCR at Cameron and above the mouth. Movements are to be evaluated through marking procedures and analyses of drift.. Other behaviors of early life stage fishes will be evaluated both visually and with video, and may include laboratory experiments which have yet to be formalized.

Larval drift nets in the LCR thus far heve been emplaced at two permanent locations-- at the mouth of Salt Trail Canyon and RK 1.8 near our lower campsite. AM nets had current velocities taken at their mouths to quantify the volume of water filtered. Since early May, between 1 end 3 nets at each site were run during crepuscular,

— – , . .. o. • , .1.,"•••••••" *la," • at, ‘-•:- - • .0041.• ••■• ••••te.t.- g•- • • • • • • • t •

SENT E :3_Ec L Oti Er ; 60252777

AGFD Annual Summary Report -12- June 28, 1991

daylight and carkness hours every other day for periods that varied according to the amount of drift in the water column. Post-larval investigations have included sampling with fine-meshed seines and minnow traps, along with contemporaneous habitat measurements.

(Mainstream and Other Tributaries)--Larval drift samples in the mainstream and selected tributary mouths were taken during the March-April and May river trips. Larval and young-of-year fish collections were also made with seines and dip nets in Kanab Creek and mainstream backwaters. Preliminary sorting of all larval fish samples collected to date has been completed.

Problems (LCR)--The major Impediment to further progress this reporting period was due to a delay in funding to Arizona State University. Department personnel fulfilled a commitment to conduct sampling In the upper reaches of the !OR study area that otherwise would have been done by University personnel. Sufficient manpower was not available for Initiation of many Intended activities regarding larval and post-larval fish investigations, including behavioral quantification and movements and marking. Other areas of investigation such as relating environmental cues to reproductive events, species segregation, temporal drift pataerns, and food habits, are dependent on subsequent laboratory and statistical analyses.

Work Item 3.3—Provide for the propagation of native fishes of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon for use In laboratory or hatchery based studies necessary to satisfy the needs of the Section 7 Conservation Measures.

Background--This work Item is directed at providing early life stages of native fishes for laboratory or hatchery-based studies on thermal shock, temperature dependent growth, reproductive behavior, and other areas of investigation. The Department's hatchery at Page Springs has been selected as the site for propagation. This facility presently is used for hatching and rearing of Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker destined for reintroduction in Arizona waters.

Methods and Progress—In late March of this year, adult humpback chub from the lower LCR and confluence area were collected by hoop and trammel nets and held in live cars. One ripe female was stripped of eggs and fertilized with sperm from several ripe males. These eggs, along with 10 adult humpback chub were transported by helicopter from the lower LCR to the head of the Salt Trail on Aprfl 1. From there they were transferred to a hatchery truck and taken to Bubbling Ponds Hatchery. An additional transfer of adult humpback chub Is scheduled for this autumn.

Problems—The approximately 300 presumably fertilized eggs died shortly after arriving at the hatchery. Daily injections of carp pituitary extract into reproductive age females in the field faillad to Induce maturation and expression of eggs following -

• _I 4 _I-1 4 ;_,1 4 al 4'.' - "

AGM Annual Summary Report -13- June 28, 1991 •

periods of up to 72 hours (3 injections maximum). Four adult chub at Bubbling Ponds died when they jumped out of a circular heeling raceway.

Work Item 3.4—Determins changes in environmental conditions In mainstream and tributary confluence tent native fish rearing habitats under different flow regimee.

Background—Exact environmental conditions for successful rearing of native fishes in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon are enknown, but larval to young-of-the-year distributions suggest preferences for nearshore, low velocity habitats. The LCR provides important breeding and rearing habitats for humpback chub and other native fishes, although use by adults may be largely seasonal. Impoundment of tributary flows by high mainstream stages has been oeserved by Department researchers, who proposed that these Impounded confluence regions might serve as important staging sites for adult native fishes and rearing sites for young-of-the-year. Under fluctuating flow regimes, however, confluence zone water temperature and current velocity vary through the course of each dial cycle in conjunction with changes in mainstream stage. Mainstream backwaters also are known to serve as mportent rearing habitats for native fishes. Fluctuating flows also affect these habitats. In cases of extreme fluctuations, backwaters may be converted to large eddies at high flows and subsequently be dewatered at low flows.

Methods and Progress (L CR)--Water depth, water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance will be measured by automated continuous or manual recording instruments in the LCR mouth and adjacent meinchannel sites under a variety of flow conditions. Supplementary interval measurements also will be made of air temperature, solar radiation, turbidity or light extinction at depth, and current velocity. All measurements will be made for a minimum of two flow cycles at consistent locations within each habitat. We anticipate that our measurements will be augmented by those made by the U.S. Geological Survey and by the Fish and Wildlife Service sampling program for habitat evaluation. Mapping will be tied to the Geographical Information System database wherever possible.

(Mainstream and Other Tributaries)--Sampling of rearing habitats has been divided into three levels of intensity. Level I involved sampling fishes, taking water temperatures, and making rudimentary measurements of habitat morphology. Level It added plankton, benthos, sediment characteristics, other hydrolab variables, current velocity, turbidity, and more refined measurements of habitat morphology. Level III measurements include all those of Level IL but involve taking them at six hour .• Intervals to analyze changes associated with the 24 hour hydrogreph. Hydrolab measurements, including change In water level, are also made at close intervals In time with automated Datasondes. Formal topcgraphic surveys are made and fishes are sampled at fixed sites with minnow traps in orcer to equate their distributions with changes in local habitat conditions. tee:Le:ate! .•

• - ••• 2 Al.- • ••,

•-•

• L."1.- _

AGRI) Annual Summary Report -14- June 28, 1991

Some field methods described above have proven difficult to accomplish during extreme fluctuations and some sampling gears have not been productive. Therefore, these methods are being refined. Topographic surveys using professional Leila equipment and an electronic datalogger have been completed on 12 backwater sites and data currently are being analyzed In order to create detailed site maps. Computer generated maps will be produced in the Flagstaff GUS office using available hardware and software. Beginning in July, topographic surveys will be supplemented by extensive plane table mapping. Although the new technique will produce lower precision maps, it will allow us to map an additional 20 sites per river trip. Mapping data will be linked with data concerning fish densities, algal and invertebrate standing crops, and physicochemical characteristics of the habitats in order to fully characterize patterns of habitat use for smaller fishes. Ultimately, many of these maps will be tied into the GIS being produced by Reclamation in Denver. We hope to be able to able to overlay habitat conditions and fish distributions onto the landforms generated from topographic surveys. With a refined flow-routing model from USGS, we should be able to make some credible predictions for habitat use by early life stages of native fishes during specific flow regimes.

Problems (LCR)--Deiays in the purchase of autorneted recording equipment and additional commitments for ASU research have set back environmental measurements in the mouth of the LCR. Efforts on this work item will increase as ASU begins their research in July.

Problems (Mainstream and Other Tributa-les)—This aspect of the study is well underway and sampling problems are being resolved. One eventual problem Involves the complexit‘i' of proposed analyses. The envisioned spatial analysis and coupling with the GIS undoubtedly will require expertise presently not available within the Department. However, a new GIS Coordinator and Specialist have recently been hired, and they will be available for consuttaticn on analyses of GCES data.

Work item 3.5—Determine algal and invertebrate standing crops and their relative contributions to diets of young native fishes in tributary, backwater, and mainchannel habitats under different flow regimes.

Background—Very little information is available on the diets of early life stages of fishes in Grand Canyon, although some studies have been conducted on the Green and Colorado rivers in the Upper Basin. Densities of eooplankton necessary to maintain razorback sucker larvae have been suggested from laboratory studies, but other native fishes have not been investigated. Previous monitoring has shown that backwaters generally contain higher standing crops than mainchannel habitats and that tributary mouths are similarly lirnited when compared to reaches above the confluence zone.

AGED Annual Summary Report -15- June 28, 1991

Methods and Progress IL CP)--Perpendicular-to-flowTransecgs will be established every 5 km starting from the mouth upstream to just below Blue Spring. These will be quantitatively sampled for water quality, algee And invertebrates on a quarterly basis using inflate:ea kayaks transported to Blue Spring by USER helicopters. Samples of larval to juvenile native and Introduced fishes will also be collected for analysis of digestive tract contents. The analysis will compare digestive tract contents with available food resources in these respective habitats for evidence of selectivity and as corollary information for determination of movements among habitats.

A full longitudinal collecting trip was undertaken between May 14-18 of this year. Water quality samples, including measurements of carbon dioxide and alkalinity, and algae and invertebrates were collected from transects at 20, 15, 10, 5, and 0.07 km above the mouth. Algal and invertebrate relative abundance and diversity appeared to decrease downstream, coincident with decreasing light penetration.

(Mainstream and Other TrIbutarlesi—Nurnerous coincident collections of early life stages of fishes and invertebrates have been made from backwaters and associated mainchannel habitats. Some invertebrate collections have been identified and enumerated, but the only analyses of early life stage stomach contents were completed under a subcontract in Phase I. eginning in August, water samples will be analyzed for chlorophyll a and studies will be initiated to examine rates of zooplankton and particulate organic matter exchange between backwaters and the mainchannel. It is questionable whether this task or the one dealing with changes in zooplankton communities In backwaters during controlled flows will be completed in ti me for the EIS report deadline.

Problems (LCR)-- An earlier trip scheduled in late March was cancelled due to inclement weather.

(Mainstream and Other Tributaries)--Sorne analyses requiring taxonomic identifications require expertise that is lacking in our mainstream crew. identification of algae is particularly problematic. There is an Individual on the LCR crew who has the necessary expertise and may be interested in working on these analyses. It's quite possible, however, that at least some of the taxonomy may have to be done through a subcontract.

Work item 3.6—Determlne behavioral responses of Ian* to Juvenile native fishes to changing environmental conditions in rearing habitats during controlled flows.

Background—During October of 1986, Reciamation provided back-to-back periods of steady and fluctuating flows. Department research biologists conducted a mark- : recapture experiment on juvenile fishes in backwaters during that time in order to compare changes in catch rates end body sizes and to track movements. Results

AGFD Annual Summary Report June 28, 1991

were not very definitive, but one conclusion drawn was that juvenile native fishes were seldom stranded on dowetered sediments by felling flows. Where then did they go? Were they able to find refuge in nearby eddies or were they displaced into the mainchannel and carried downstream? At what stage in the flow cycle did they vacate backwaters being devvatered? The native fish study plan proposes to answer these questions through a combination of direct observations (in sufficiently clear waters), recapture of marked fishes, and evaluation of stomach contents of fishes in backwaters and associated mairchannei habitats.

Methods and Progress (LCR)--Larval drift nets are being used to measure drift of early life stages and their potential passage into the mainstream. All native fishes of sufficient size captured in the confluence zone will rec-efve a fin-clip unique to their original capture location. We also are investigating the use of immersion dyes as an alternative to fin-clip markings. Recaptured individuals will be preserved for analysis of otoliths and stomach contents. Otolith analyses, at described below, will be used to compare early life stages from tributary and backwater habitats in an attempt to determine the origins of these fishes (cold mainstem versus warmer tributaries), time of passage if spawned in tributaries arid drifted into the mainstream, and their growth rates in these respective habitats,

Little progress has been made evaluating drift and behavior of early life stages in the confluence zone because of this year's additional monitoring responsibilities. Rather, most drift is being measured at the permanent camps approximately 1.8 km and 10.5 km above the mouth. More emphasis will be placed on the confluence zone when ASU enters the LCR in early July.

(Mainstream and Other Tributeries)—No larval and few juvenile fishes were present in rearing habitats during the March-April river trip. The same condition persisted during the May river trip until below Kanab Creek. at which time flows changed from 5,000 cfs constant to 15,000 cfs constant. Although relatively few larval fish have been encountered to date, a total of 27 humpback chub and approximately 2300 fish of other species have been collected and either released or preserved for further study. Techniques for marking smaller ( <60 mm) fishes are being investigated and the implementation of small, binary coded wire tags appears promising. This summer's field activities will include refining the methods necessary to answer questions on movements and behavioral responses of larval to juvenile fishes. Thus, there will probably be limited information related to this work Item for the EIS report.

Problems—A major problem for this work item facing both LCR and mainstream . - .. investigators Is the development of a marking technique for larval fishes that will not - ae, i • -.,.....e... induce high mortality or affect their behavior, This problem should be addressed using ..a.e_- - , i I. •V'••4•1 1 .experimental animals from our propagation efforts. -. ..-, e-re - - .a: --ee.-e------a- • '0, , ..... ,,. . _ .__...... e, . e _ . _...... ,....ars. 1.a.,. aaa i e -. r- - • -_ ...... ,. aa.a. ee,...... -eee-f . , • .....;,,- %..- r.i...... +, .., I.

SENT af': GLEN Ci.nsul EN. a- , Juz 1 E; 11- ; 201:1; g20

AGFD Annual Summary Report -17- . June 28, 1991

Work Item 3.7—Determine age structure and growth rates of native fishes of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Relate these rife history features to hydrologic and thermal conditions experienced by fishes during their growth to present size.

Background—Knowledge of age structure, growth rates, and survivorship to a given age is fundamental to our understanding of the life history of native fishes in Grand Canyon, Present emphasis on determination of the relationship between age and size is being placed on otoliths, because scale annuli have proven unreliable for humpback chub that have spent portions of their Nee in the Lines Colorado and Colorado rivers. Preliminary work on young-of-year humpback chub suggests that des/ growth rings can be determined. Since growth rate is temperature dependent In fishes, we hope to be able to differentiate the histories of young humpback chub in relatively warm tributary waters from those that entered Vie cold mainstream at some point in their lives. If we can determine the date of their entry into the mainstream, then we can relate these movements to tributary and mainstream hydroiogies.

Methods and Progress--Specimens of humpback chute for these determinations have been sent to Dr. Dean Hendrickson at the University of Texas at Austin. We anticipate that a series of 50 or more otoliths will be examined in time for Incorporation into the Final EIS Technical Report. Hendrickson will be responsible for only daily age determinations on young-of-year humpback chub and annual determinations on older individuals; other native fisnes will have to be done under separate contract, probably with Dr. Ed Brothers of Cornell University, who will do verifications on Hendrickson's initial analyses. Results from other native fishes likely will not be available for the report. Also, the otcilitri analyses will require verification of ages from experimental animals grown under differing thermal regimes, and it Is very doubtful that these confirmatory analyses will be completed by that time, A surrogate species. bonytail chub, is presently being grown at three water temperatures at Dexter National Fish Hatchery to provide otoiiths for the confirmatory analyses. Following successful propagation of humpback chub at the Department's Page Springs hatchery, these tests will be repeated on that species.

Problems—Initial humpback chub otolith analyses done on asterlsci have proven to be unreliable for aging. Consultation with Dr. Brothers has confirmed that the lapillus is clearly the stone to use, since It displays clear daily increments in young fish and far less ambiguity in annual zones for older individuals. Field experiments described in this work item in which young humpback chub are heid alternately In the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers have not been completed because of added monitoring rite responsibilities, Provided that permits for sacrifice of sufficient numbers of young humpback chub are authorized for 1991, we will rtempt these experiments during

ON!! ••• summer months. ;te:,-1 k-re.77, — • ••• • ".t• • . • ' ' ' • - : j ••• • !.rip • • _ r 7: •-• • ,•,t •. ■••• • :Ý1;

• /41, ;4. " r • ••• e. '6 • t•-••■•■ • •`-.. N ,6••••-•.- ." • ' '•

4; C•:-aA,OH Er. ) STUIE:1- ; r=„CiEJ77 - _

AGED Annual Summary Report June 28, 1991

Work Item 3.8—Compare otolith edge chemistry of native fishes collected in tributary and mainstem habitats for use in growth and movement analysis.

Background--The major purpose of these etudies Is to determine the stream of residence for native fishes throughout their life until collection and to relate environmental conditions ;n the stream to rates of growth. Integration of this method with ageing techniques using otoliths provides a great potential for deciphering the relationships among age, growth, and environmental conditions in the streams of residence, The method involves microscele evaluation of elements or isotopes across the face of otoliths using a mass spectrometer or electron microprobe. it assumes a relationship between ion or isotope ratios and the chemistry of the aquatic milieu in which the fish was growing at the time otolith material was laid down. If this relationship exists, then native fishes should have different elemental ratios in their otoliths during periods of life spent in the Little Colorado and Colorado rivers.

Methods and Progress--Field collecticns for these analyses will be made by Department research personnel. Ottefith analyses will be conducted by Drs. Hendrickson and Brothers, Chemical composition of otoliths from humpback chub of uncertain history caught in the Colorado and Lithe Colorado rivers and specimens of certain history held for known periods in each stream will be sampled along transacts originating at the focus and extending to the edge. Sampling interval will be approximately 10 pm. Potential chemical aampilng Instruments include inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry, electron microprobe, laser ablation iCP , mass spectrometry, or tunable laser dye mass spectrometry.

Progress on this work item largely has been restricted to design of field experiments and investigation of appropriate techniques for conducting the analyses. A single analysis was conducted at the University of California Davis on an asterlcus used for aging. Considerable variation occurred across the transect in Sr/Ca ratios used for evaluations in other published studies, but it appears that the lapillus should also be used in these analyses.

Problems—Analysis of otolith chemistry is expensive and requires the use of sophisticated laboratory equipment. Relating the stream of residence at a given time to elemental or isotopic composition requires as a precursor a definitive relationship between age and position on the ctolith. Additional data on the comparative chemistries of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers are also necessary to ascertain which elemental ratios can be expected to differ in otoliths based on the residence of fish In the respective streams. Fulfilling these requirements will be time consuming, and it is doubtful that these analyses will be available In time for EIS reports generated In 1991. _ .

, -o-iRiLJ ENV i7LIE:11- 2.012; q' to-

AGFO Annual Summary Report -19- June 28, 1991

Work item 3.9—Determine the extent to which limnological factors, with emphasis on water chemistry and aquatic productivity, potentially limit the distribution and abundance of native fishes in the Little Colorado River and other tributaries which might serve as streams for augmentation of humpback chub in Grand Canyon.

Background—Impetus for this work item arises from the observation that speckled dace is the only native species that exists in the upper 6 km of the perenniat reach of the Little Colorado River and that, of all tributaries in Grand Canyon, humpback chub reproduce in only the LCR. The ostensible absence of humpback chub from the upper perennial reach of the LCR may be due to restrictions from large travertine dams and falls or from high leveis of free carbon dioxide in spring inflows to that reach. The extent to which various structural, hydrological, and limnological attributes are important in determining relatively acceptability of other tributaries to humpback chub and other native fish species also is largely unknown.

Methods and Progress—Emphasis for this work item initially is on the LCR. Sampling of water chemistry, algae, and invertebrates in that tributary are being accomplished quarterly. The first successful sampling, conducted in June of 1991, was used to collect algae and invertebrates and to assess carbon dioxide, alkalinity, pH, water temperature, and dissolved solids at 5 km intervals from near Blue Springs to the mouth. In the future, quarterly assessments vvill be augmented by substrate colonization experiments similar to those being conducted In the Lee's Ferry reach of the Colorado River, As the Fish and Wildlife Service expands their habitat analysis to other tributaries next year, we should have the opportunity to work with them and augment their studies to include lirnnological aspects if deemed desirable. Methods to be applied will be the same as those being used In the LCII.

Preliminary evaluation of relative changes in CO 2 and alkalinity along the river continuum suggest that these factors do not solely account for the ostensible nonuse of the reach above Atomizer Falls (15 km above mouth) by humpback chub. Speckled dace, and apparently larvae of this species, were collected from this reach.

Problems—Some electronic water quality analysis gear did not function on this trip.

, NOV 01 '91 15:23 ARIZONA G;mE & FISH F.2

•

‘• FIN Sy-1,0404A THE STATE • • ,•P OF ARIZONA • CoAuu.r.ru.A.".• phillip W Aoscr6h, LIST, Cbsinnar. GORDON rolua.,fte. aa kc LAS) ay:sx , Yuma Zaabgr.h 'I' Wovhius.Tumon GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT Porva, trove 2221 Wut Grsenway Rodd, PhocniA, Arierna RS023-412 (602.) 942.3M • ALA* L. Spsr.ato Ofpl# thmoor •■••■••••••••...11.111111111ftwa nitrousW. 3 psi

November 1, 1991

Dave Wegner Glen Canyon Environmental Studios P.O. Box 22459 Flagstaff, Arizona 66002-2459

Dear Dave:

Enclosed please find a synopsis of the Nopertmentis research program on the Little Colorado River portion of Glen Canyon Environmental Studies that you requested in your memorandum of October 3. I apologize for the slight tardiness of my response.

If you or Dr. Minckley require additional information, please call 111 mQ at the above number, extension 376. See you in Death Valley.

Sincerely,

akit Rob Clarkson Native Fiehes Research Biologist

cc! Dennis Kubly Jim deVos

enclosure

SENT BY: GLEN eizINYON STUDIE:11- 7 4-91 8:4811 ; 60 - 777SS, SEE 2012:g 3 NOV 01 c:11 1F:40 API:70NA GAME & FISH

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT NATIVE FISHES STUDIES LITTLE COLORADO RIVER

Robert W. Clarkson - Principle Investigator

Objectives—The components of AGF's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies proposal dealing with the Little Colorado River (LCR) are directed primarily at acquiring behavioral and ecological information on early life history stages of the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and other native fishes that utilize the river for spawning and rearing. Additional data obtained from the Department's long-term monitoring program of adult chub populations, movements, and reproductive status, and a description of the LCR's other biological Attributes and physlco-chemical characteristics are meant to contribute to an understanding of the uniqueness of the LCR system, and how that uniqueness relates to the status of chub and other species in the Glen/Grand Canyon area.

Specifically, these studies address four major araae: 1) Annual monitoring of catch rates, movements, spawning activities, and physical conditions experienced by adult and sub-adult native fishes in the LCR during the reproductive season; 2) Temporal, spatial, and ontogenetic movements, distributions, behaviors, end habitat uses of young-of-the-year fishes in the LCR; 3) Longitudinal biological and physical-chemical zonation in the LCR, with consideration of conditions in the confluence zone under fluctuating Colorado River flow regimes, and; 4) Age structure, growth rates, and spawning initiation of native fishes In the LCR In relation to the history of hydrologic, thermal, and chemical conditions they have experienced. Findings are to be integrated and compared to resifts obtained from Arizona State University, the Navajo Nation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an other aspects of native fish biology in Colorado River tributaries, and with data acquired from mainstern Colorado River studies by Bio/VVest, Inc., National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and ACFD. These studies should substantially increase Our understanding of the life history requirements of southwestern native fishes in general, end provide Information regarding the short- and long-term prospectuses of humpback chub and other native fishes in the Glen/Grand Canyon areas under existing and proposed Glen Canyon Dam operations.

Sampling History—Phase 11 sampling activities on the LCR by AGFD were initiated in late March 1991 with the capture and transfer of 1 0 adult humpback chub from the LCR mouth to Bubbling Ponds Hatchery In Page Springs, AZ, for use in future culturing and experimental efforts, Annual monitoring activities of the adult chub population was begun May 1 in the vicinity of the LCR mouth (lower 1200 m) and continued through July 1. Monitoring actiVitiee near Salt Trail Canyon, approximately 10.5 km upstream, started in mid-May. These camps were occupied continuously by rotating crews during these periods. Sampling of larvae and post-larvae was also accomplished during these periods.

, ,11 11 16.. HT F

- AGFD LC11 Native Fi4hes SumMary -2- November 1, iŠš1

Following July 1, our activities were redirected toward major emphasis on research and monitoring of the progeny from the 1991 spawning efforts. The river in the vicinity of the Sett Trail and lower camps wore sampled during the better part of July, and beginning in August, for a 3-4 day period each month thereafter, Two infletible kayak/canoe longitudinal surveys of the LCR from Blue Springs to the mouth were accomplished, one in June and the other In October.

1 Data Collected—The spring monitoring period produced 1 /2-2 months of continuous data from 6 and 13 hoop net locations from the Salt Trail and lower 1200 m LCR study areas, respectively. These data will be analyzed for diel, seasonal, annual, and spatial patterns of catch rates and species composition, species size-frequency distributions, and humpback chub movements (from PIT tag recaptures). Chub growth rates (also from PIT tag recaptures) and condition will be evaluated and compared seasonally and annually, and a population estimate will be derived. Sampled habitats were quantified for variation In depth, substrate, and current velocity.

Habitat use of youne-of-the-year native fishes were quantified in the above manner using dip nets, seines, minnow traps, and hoop nets. Larval and post-larval fish behaviors were evaluated using the time-bound focal animal method, and these studies have yielded size- and species-specific time budgets of foraging, swimming, schooling, agonistic, end spatial habitat use patterns. Larval and post-larval samples of native fishes were collected on at least a monthly basis for analyses of diet and otolith ageing studies. Larval drift net series were run typically every other day from both camps during our Aampling periods, and encompassed representative phases of the die? cycle. These data are being analyzed for die', seasonal, and longitudinal patterns of allochthonous vs, autochthonous material contributions, invertebrate, fish egg and larval contributions and identification& and organic matter loadings.

Physical-chemical and nutrient zonation along the course of the LCR from Blue Springs to the mouth are being monitored on a quarterly basis and include measurements at 5 km intervals of temperature, conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide, alkalinity, nitrates, and phosphates. Qualitative zonation of algal and invertebrate communities and drift are also being measured on the quarterly longitudinal trips.

Location of Data—All field collected and laboratory analyzed data are stored in the AGFD Native Fishes Database, and are available for review by other researchers. This facility will also serve as the official repository for nil data collected from GCES studies under the perusal of the Aquatic Coordination Team. Other data to be utilized by AGFD will be obtained from GCS-related and non-GCES research Institutions.

Initial Rndlngs—The bulk of the data collected thus far Is still in the process of being analyzed, and thus I hesitate to provide only but preliminary results subject to later

g ial,T 4 L-41 . 4 EJ E. _ - NOV 01 '91 15:4: API2ONA C;ArIE F:SH P,5

AGM LCR Native Fishes SurnmalY -3- November 1, 191

revision. The period of humpback chub spawning seems TO have occurred later that usual, but appeared suCCOssful in terms of the production of young up to this point. In October we collected larval and post-larval flannelrnouth sucker(?) ( Catostomus latipinnis), likely indicating a second reproductive effort following summer floods. Other native species (speckled dace (Rhinichthys csculus), bluehead mountain sucker [Pantosteus diseohulusj) appeared Successful in their 1991 spawning efforts, but we observed no suspected razorback sucker ( Xyrauchan texanus) thus far during our sampling activities. Plains killifish (Fundulus kansae) are now appearing in samples following their Initial absence in collections from earlier In the year. A larval channel catfish (Ictalurus punotatus) was collected from the lower reach of the LCR. Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelzs), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and channel catfish remain very rare in hoop net, trammel net, and seine temples, although carp were observed spawning near our lower LCR camp. Channel catfish remain susceptible to capture from our sporadic angling activities in the LCR,

Preliminary analyses of our behavioral data documented differences between post- larval humpback chub and sucker spp. in terms of positions within the water column used for feeding, and percent time occupied by swimming, agonistic, and "other' behaviors. Some of these differences aiso were evident between size classes within the same species. The somewhat predictable daylight habitat use patterns of post- larval humpback chub (typically deeper areas associated with cover attributes) broke down during hours of darkness and high turbidity, when they occupied a broader spectrum Of available habitats.

The zonation of LCR 'water chemistry does not appear polarized enough to alone prevent use by humpback chub of the reach above Atomixer Falls. Another minnow, speckled dace, is common above that point. Algae and invertebrates are ostensibly In greater abundance above the Atomizer landmark, which is likely a reflection of lower turbidity in that reach or perhaps reduced grazing. Our limited analyses of drift samples has demonstrated the method's utility for the coilection of fish eggs, and thus far has indicated a low frequency of occurrence of larval fishes.

Concerns and Recommendations—Because we had expected Arizona State University personnel to take over our spring monitoring activities at the Salt Trail camp area, some labor Intensive stud:es of young-of-the-year netive fishes were not initiated until after July 1 Now that ASU has been fully funded, we do not expect this problem In future years. We will -e additional personnel In the spring to facilitate the simultaneous handling of bath types of studies at the lower camp.

Most unexpected, but in hindsight predictable, snafus and start-up problems which were expressed in 1991 have been solved, and I expect a much smoother progression of data acquisition in 1992. On a personal note, a good deal of my other Departmental time obligat:ons have now been lessened, and I expect a greater committment to the project from myself In the future.

BENT C HIDr EN. ±J-uDIE:11- ;

ARIZONA STATE UNIVER(gITY Center for Environmental Studies ti". Tempe, Arizona 85287-1201 67 Al (602) 965-2977 Z./bl eAI 10 eSo;. 04041 DrA A , Nk I S December 1990 t45

Mr. David Wegner, Program Manager Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 4.44C47,41r*b P.O. box 1811 Flagstaff, AZ 86002

Dear Dave:

Tnis l etter provides requested feedback as regards Arizona State University's (ASU) request for larval humpback chub (Qila cypha) for l aboratory studies in ben;lf of "Ecology anC congervatiOn bicicnY of numbback cnuo in the Litt e Ccloraco River." E4e:ause of belavS ih authorization to expend funds, our field studies will, at best, be initiated in June 199! (assuming the con tract proceeda forward without additional hang-up), Both of us will be committed to that preliminary work; and will be in no position to tiogin experiment"; studia%s until at least eutumn, .1991, Chubs typically reproduce in spring-summer, and we auazast hatchery propagation follow an approximately normal scheme. Thus, our experimental studies would require swim-up l arvae taporoximately 10 days post-hatch and 8.! mm total l ength at 20C), to Cre evailabl. in 'print, 1992, qf We have not y et determined the absolute numb arvae required for 9— in 5 (P r these experiments, but anticipate at leas able individuals ) springtime for each of two years (1992 and i FOCUndity of nine .5 ° (9), wild Little Colorado F:iver adults 3,55-409 mm TL and 350-730 gm) 6151) spawned by Hamman at willow Beach in 1981 ranged from zero (0) tn / and produce 0,200 tptal eggs. Percentage fertilization of these ova ranged form zero (0) to 92% and resulteC in a t:tal hatcn.of 12,400 l arvae. Froduction potential in other facilities likelv differs, and hatchery staff must be prepared to meet the anticipated temand through acequate anticipation and preparation.

Our recommendation is that a minimum of fifteen (15) adult humpback chub (10 females plus 5 males) be brought from the Little Colorac River into captivity at the earliest possible convenience (ore+erably this wirtW. This timeframe would give fish an opportunity to acclimate to hatchery conditions, and give culturists in opportunity to refine propagation techniques in spring 19s 1 , in anticipation of fulfilling research needs in spring 1992. These fish should be earmarked specifically for production of eNpe-imentel material, and not be confused or equated with tnose necessary for sstablishment and maintenance of refugium stock;. Perhaps the former could be added to a refugium stock in the future.

Wegner,

Fie reminded that substantial concern exists relative to Page Springs State Hat:hery as the appropriate place for holding and propagating this species. Thus, arrangements should bp carefully coordinated with the Fish and wildlife Service Office of Endangered Species in Albuquerque tc determine the appropriate station to receive fish and do the propagation. Despite apparent willingness and desire of ANFD to husband these fish, such activity must remain within an overall contet of wise and prudent management of the species.

As regards other native fisnes (i.e., specied dace, bluehead and flannelmouth suckers for possible inclusion in our predation stucies, wE anticipate ASU personnel will acquire, no;, and propagate tnese speCles. However, this wor!., will necessarily te secondary to tnat on humpback chub.

Please contact us if You nave any queStlons or' riaquI^e irliQrmõt on. Si ncerel y ,

Paul C. Marsh Michael E. Douglas Associate Professor, Research Iurator of Museums

cc: "liearge Divine, US1:WS Albuqueroue Frank isucom, USFWS Phoenig I. DeVos, ANFD

: E. ±T_ 1 E; ; Li r, ir Ni ur wuLuisi ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY Tempo $52117-1501 (802)-06.5-3571

Mr. David Wegner, Project Coordinator 28 September 1991 Glen Canyon Environmental Studies P.O. Box 1811 Flagstaff, AZ 86002

Dear Mr. Wegner:

This letter is in response to your 5 September memorandum, which requested by 30 September 1991 a compilation of data collected by the ASU/NNHP research team on Gila cvg.ha in the Little Colorado River during the period 1 July - 23 August 1991. During this period, we participated in three data collecting trips (1 . 1-14 July; 2 - 21 July-3 August; 3 . 10-23 August), and worked out of three different sites (C - confluence; P • Powell; S Salt). These abbreviations are utilized in the data summation below.

I. TOTAL NUMBERS OF CHUB CAPTURED BY SIZE CLASS:

a). chub 4 150 mm ti: 2195 b). chub >. 150 mm ti: 2598 c) , total number of captured chub: 4793

II. TOTAL NUMBERS OF CHUB ( <150: >-150: TOTAL) CAPTURED BY REACH AND TRIP:

a). Confluence 2: 397 : 205 : 602 GLEN CA N`fON ENVIRONMENTAL b). Confluence 3: 53 : 120 : 173 STUDIES (71,FFICE c). Powell 1: 284 : 186 : 470 d). Powell 2: 480 : 327 : 807 OCT 0 1 1991 e). Powell 3: 444 : 290 : 734 f). Salt 1: 27 : 385 : 412 g). Salt 2: : 940 RECEIVEC) 379 : 561 FLAGSTAFF, h). Salt 3: 131 : 524 : 655 Al

III. TOTAL NUMBERS OF CHUB BY GEAR TYPE:

a). Hoop net: 4606 b). Trammel: 175 c). Angling: 6 d). Seine: 6

IV. TAG/RECAP BY REACH AND TRIP (NEW PITS OUT: PITS CAUGHT: TAGS CAUGHT):

a). Confluence 2: 127 : 60 : 15 b). Confluence 3: 67 : 50 : 1 c). Powell 1: 132 : 48 : 6 d). Powell 2: 212 : 106 : 6 e). Powell 3: 124 : 162 : 5 f). Salt 1: 279 : 83 : 5 g). Salt 2: 410 : 143 : 3 h). Salt 3: 318 : 205 : 1

5 arEHT E,:a—E 4 -4 _ ;

' page 2

V. TAG/RECAP TOTALS

a). Total number of new PIT tags used: 1669 b). Total number of recaptures: 899 c). Total number of new PIT tags recaptured: 523 d). Total number of old PIT tags recaptured: 335 e). Total number of Carlin/Floy tags recaptured: 42 f). Total percent recapture 34.6% g). Percent recapture of new PIT tags: 20.1% h). Percent recapture of old tags: 14.%1

VI. MORTALITIES

a). Four total mortalities, due to the use of 1-inch trammel net at the beginning of the study. We have since switched over to 1.5-inch trammel and have had no additional mortalities.

We are not sure just how this information will assist you in the determination of potential stress on iilA cvpha in the Little Colorado Canyon, but we nevertheless provide it to you as per your instructions. If we can be of further assistance to you in this matter, please feel free to get in touch. However, I will be out of town from 30 September thru 8 October, and from 14 October through 24 October. Dr. Marsh will likewise be out of town from 27 September through 5 October, and from 9 October through 25 October.

Sincerely,

7 6- S Michael E. Douglas, MIA. Paul C. Marsh, Ph.D.

Co-principal Investigators

01-12 July 1991

***************************************************************** *****************************************************************

Personnel Salt Camp Powell Camp Total

ASU/NNHP 4 2 6 USFWS 4 4 8

Nets Deployed Salt Camp Powell Camp Total

Trammels 2 2 4 Hoops 12 12 24

Fish Species Salt Camp Powell Camp Total

Humpback Chub 410 (79%) 466 (58%) 876 (66%) Flannelmouth Sucker 32 (06%) 13 (02%) 45 (03%) Bluehead Sucker 3 3 6 Channel Catfish 0 2 2 Speckled Dace 73 (14%) 318 (40%) 391 (30%) Razorback Sucker 0 1 1 518 (39%) 803 (61%) 1321

Humpback Chubs Salt Camp Powell Camp Total

Total Tagged 284 (32%) 148 (17%) 432 (49%) Total ReCaptures 82 (09%) 55 (06%) 137 (15%)

ReCaptures Salt Camp Powell Camp Total

PIT ReCaps (new) 43 45 87 (64%) PIT ReCaps (old) 34 3 37 (27%) Yellow Floy 2 1 3 Yellow Carlin 0 1 1 Red Carlin 2 4 6 Orange Carlin 1 0 1 Uncertain 0 1 1 82 55 137

Trammel Captures Salt Camp Powell Camp Total

Total 18 (4.5%) 5 (1.0%) 23 (2.6%)

Mortalities: (a) two unmarked HBC found dead in river during first two days of the research period.

(b) one mortality in trammel net.

*****************************************************************

Fre, cy of YRCLASS grouped by SITE

/ --7 NN nn nn nn n n - nn / nn / /--71 / / / / / nn / I N' 1 / / / / 2p / mg / INC I / /--71 / / /--71 / /--71 -- / __FIN! / MAI/ / I NN1/ / / 7 / INNI/ / INNI/ / / 7 / / / / / / / / 282 / 90 / 36 / 14 / 25 / 18 / 1 / SITE / ------/ ------/ - - - / - - - / - - - / ------/ ------/ / / / /--71 / /--71 / /--71 / / / / / /--71 / INNI I / INNI I / INN! I / /--71 / / Is / /--71 / ligni 1 / Inn' 1 / I RRI 1 / Inn' 1 / INN' 1 / / / INNI/ / IRAI/__ / IRRI/__ / IRRI/__ / I RRI/__ / 1 __nn1/ / /__7 / / / / / 26 / 63 / 78 / 88 / 91 / 59 / 5 / / / / ------/ ------/ ------/ ------/ ------/ 1 2 3 43 5 6 7 2S16- 0 - ISIS - 26(‘-/AX 3so-qtm 0 ISO 24'4 YRCLASS 104-3511 >449

Percentage of YRCLASS grouped by SITE

'-7 NN nn nn nn NM - nn / nn / /--71 / / / / / NN / I NNI 1 / / / / 2p / RR / I RRI I / / --71 / / /--71 / /--71 / / __Rs / / I m11/__ / INNI/__ / / 7 / INNI/ / INNI/ / /--7 / / / / / / / / / / 60.52 / 19.31 / 7.73 / 3.00 / 5.36 / 3.86 / 0.21 / SITE / - - - /- - - - / - - - /-/- 1 - - - /-/--71 - - - / - - - / - - - / -- -- 7 / / / 71 / / 71 / 1 ni 1 I / INN1 I / / / / / INNI I / INNI I / I RRI I / IRRI 1 / /--71 / / 15 / /--71 / INAI I / INN' I / MI I / IRRI I / INNI I / / / I NNI/ / INNI/__ / INC/ / INNI/ / INNI/ / IRRI/ / / 7 / / -- / / / / / / / / 6.34 / 15.37 / 19.02 / 21.46 / 22.20 / 14.39 / 1.22 / / / / ------/ ------/ ------/ ------/ - - - / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 is-e-3,10 6-67 1613-260 lief- 260 - YRCLASS 36s-3,i0 3s or Yord , 400

REPORT NO. PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF THE HUMPBACK CHUB IN THE GRAND CANYON

TRIP REPORT #2 - 1990 November 14 - December 3, 1990

Prepared For:

Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared By:

Richard A. Valdez, Principle Investigator William J. Masslich, Project Leader Larry Crist, Project Leader

. BIO/WEST INC. 1063 West 1400 North Logan, UT. 84321

December 17, 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL ...... 1

DATA COLLEC 1 hD ...... 1 Humpback Chubs Captured ...... 1 Radiotelemetry ...... 1 Bench Marks ...... 1

OBSERVATIONS ...... 2

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS ...... 3

RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4

PR 250-02 BIONEST, Inc. i LIST OF TABLES

TABLE la. CAMP LOCATIONS AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, TRIP #2, 1990, TEAM #1. TABLE lb. CAMP LOCATIONS AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, TRIP #2,1990, TEAM #2. TABLE 2. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING IN TRIP #2, 1990. TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF FISH COLLECTED AND EFFORT BY GEAR TYPE TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF HUMPBACK CHUB HANDLED DURING TRIP #2, 1990. TABLE 5a. SUMMARY OF RADIO-TRANSMTTTER IMPLANTS IN HUMPBACK CHUB DURING TRIP #1, 1990. TABLE 5b. SUMMARY OF RADIO-TRANSMITTER IMPLANTS IN HUMPBACK CHUB DURING TRIP #2, 1990. TABLE 6. A LIST OF RADIO FREQUENCIES CONTACrED ON TRIP #2, 1990, AND LOCATIONS RELATIVE TO CAPTURE AND RELEASE SITES.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. INTRODUCTION

This report presents pertinent details associated with Trip #2, 1990. Included in the report are a summary of trip logistics, research schedule, personnel, data collected, observations, problems encountered and recommendations. Most information is presented in tabular format to provide a quick synopsis of pertinent trip details and results.

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL

Table 1 presents a summary of camp locations and research activities for Trip #2, 1990. Table 2 is a list of personnel on the trip as well as their affiliation.

DATA COLLECTED

Table 3 presents a summary of fish species captured by gear type and reach for Trip #2, 1990. Table 4 is a summary of all humpback chubs handled during the trip. Table 5a presents information on all humpback chubs radiotagged during Trip #1, 1990, while Table 5b presents information on all radiotagged chubs for Trip #2, 1990.

Humpback Chubs Captured

A total of 49 humpback chub were handled during Trip #2, 1990. Ten of the 49 humpback chubs processed were recaptures; 5 had either red, yellow or orange Carlin tags. Recapture information, including tag type, color and number is presented in Table 4. All Carlin dangler tags were removed from recaptured fish and the fish were equipped with a PIT tag for future identification. Tags removed by BIO/WEST will be returned to Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) with associated information for each fish. One radiotagged chub (TL=407 mm, WT=825 g) was inadvertently released without a PIT tag.

Radiotelemetry

Seven humpback chubs were implanted with radio transmitters during Trip #2, 1990. All tags were implanted without complications and the fish were vigorous and in good condition at the time of release. All seven fish were relocated and observed at least once following release, and showed no signs of aberrant behavior. All fish were actively moving both vertically and longitudinally and were judged to be showing no ill effects from implantation.

Bench Marks

Three temporary bench marks were established in the Little Colorado River (LCR) area (Reach 1) for the purpose of measuring river stage change and relating it to movement of radiotagged fish. Each bench mark will eventually be correlated to one of the 50 permanent known elevation marks for determining absolute stage and flow changes.

Each bench mark is a 1 cm diameter dot of latex paint placed on a permanent rock above the high water mark. A given bench mark will be used to monitor stage change between hydraulic controls, e.g., between riffles or rapids.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 1 The three bench marks are:

1. RMI 60.4, river left on a large rock near the upper end of the eddy; see map on back of radiotelemetry sample sheet #023.

2. RMI 60.8, river right on tapeats ledges at upper end of sand bar near deep backwater; see map on back of radiotelemetry sample sheet #023.

3. RMI 63.9, river left on large rock in rock group near upper end of eddy at base of salt cliffs; see map on back of radiotelemetry sample sheet #031.

OBSERVATIONS

1. All chubs handled appeared robust, vigorous and in good condition.

2. A large number of rainbow trout handled were emaciated to varying degrees and generally appeared in poor to fair condition, although the proportion of these fish was down from that observed on Trip #1, 1990.

3. Under fluctuating flows (.5,000 - 2,000 cfs) in November, netting with gill and trammel nets proved an effective means for collecting adult and large juvenile humpback chubs in the mainstem Colorado River.

4. Under clear water conditions, most humpback chubs were captured during the crepuscular and nocturnal period. This trend was consistent for electrofishing and netting during Trips #1 and #2.

5. Humpback chubs were captured during the diurnal period only in the presence of high turbidity.

6. Contacts with previously radiotagged fish suggested that the fish move to deeper places in the river channel during the daylight period in clear water. Radiotelemetry information also indicated that the fish moved higher in the water column in the nocturnal period and during higher turbidity.

7. Juvenile humpback chubs were captured only below the confluence of the Little Colorado River during Trip #1. However, juveniles were captured above the LCR on Trip #2.

8. All radiotagged fish were located following release and appeared active within the proximity of release point.

9. Radiotagged humpback chub monitored over 24-hour periods occupied and returned to site- specific locations for extended periods.

PR 250-02 BIONEST, Inc. 2 10. Three humpback chub were captured in downstream reaches; two at Pumpkin Springs (RM 213.6) and one at Shinumu Creek (RM 108.3)

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS

1. Meristic data were collected from every tenth chub to alleviate excessive stress to the fish from handling.

2. Errant radio transmissions within the vicinity of the confluence of the Little Colorado River were attributed to the USGS gaging station and to the internal circuitry in the station hydrolab. These signals have intermittently jammed frequencies within the working range of radio transmitters used in this study. Frequencies affected include: 40.690; 40.700 - 40.740.

3. Damage to outboard motors occurred during navigation of whitewater sections within the study area. All three sustained damage to drive shafts and splines, but remained functional.

4. Extensive night work associated with the nocturnal activity of the humpback chubs during Trips #1 and #2 will require scheduled shift work by teams.

5. The volume of equipment carried on the 20-day trips strained the capacity of the two 33-foot and two 23-foot rafts. We are able to load only one of the five sportboats. Streamlining the equipment load will enable us to load more of the research boats on the support rafts and minimize risk to people and equipment.

6. Coordination with AGF for sampling of backwaters should alleviate the adverse effects on overlap in research programs from similar sampling modes.

7. Collection of general water quality parameters will be conducted at camp locations using recording DataSondes.

8. Specific location (nearest 0.1 river mile) is confusing because of slight discrepancies in Belknap's and Steven's River Guides and caused by different interpretations of tenth mile locations. As a solution, river guides with delineated 0.1 mile will be used together with the GCES MIPS system.

9. Temporary bench marks will be established between hydraulic controls (riffles, rapids) to relate fish movement to absolute stage change.

10. The reach of the mainstem near the LCR should be surveyed at different times of the day and night and under different turbidity conditions to evaluate occurrence of radiotagged chubs near the surface.

11. River miles will be delineated to the nearest 0.1 mile according to the scale presented by Larry Stevens. These river miles may be marked on the Belknap guide to take advantage of the contour lines and details presented.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continue to photograph (still and video) each humpback chub captured and measure meristic on every tenth fish.

2. Release all humpback chub (radiotagged and PIT tagged) at their point of capture. On Trips #1 and 2, only radiotagged fish were returned to capture sites, while PIT tagged fish were released at camp sites. High fidelity for specific locations by these fish dictates that all chubs should be released at capture locations.

3. Electrofishing timing and procedure need to be refined to make it an effective tool for capturing chubs.

4. The Inner Gorge reach will be divided into strata to allow for randomized sampling.

5. BIO/WEST will need to better organize and reduce the volume of research equipment on trips.

6. On-going water quality parameters will be measured with DataSondes temporarily located at camp sites. More extensive characterization of water quality will come from the USGS gages.

7. A relationship will be developed for measuring turbidity, using a limnophotometer and a Sechi disk, so the Sechi disk can be used for field measurements.

8. A proposal for a pilot study to evaluate use of a nonlethal stomach pump has been submitted to FWS and AGF. The study involves sacrificing two adult humpback chub to evaluate effects on the pharyngeals and efficiency of stomach evacuation.

9. Length categories for life stage designations (i.e., larvae, YOY, juvenile, adult) will need to be developed to facilitate field determinations.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 4 TABLES

TRIP #2, 1990

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 5

Table la. Camp Locations and Research Activities for Trip #2, 1990, Team #1 RESEARCH ACI1VITIES DATE RM LOCATION 0' T&R FS TE HQ 11/14 12.5 BELOW SALT WATER WASH X 11/15 61.2 LCR X X 11/16 61.2 LCR X X 11/17 61.2 LCR X X X 11/18 61.2 LCR X X X 1 11/19 61.2 LCR X X X 11/20 61.2 LCR X 11/21 65.4 LAVA CANYON X X X 11/22 65.4 LAVA CANYON X X 11/23 65.4 LAVA CANYON 11/24 65.4 LAVA CANYON X 4- 11/25 73.7 BELOW R , X 11/26 73.7 BELOW UNI9e X 11/27 119.5 BELOW 119-MILE CANYON X 11/28 168.1 FERN GLEN CANYON , X X 11/29 168.1 FERN GLEN CANYON X 11/30 198.5 PARASH#T WASH X X 12/1 198.5 PARASHC/IM' WASH _ X 12/2 220.1 220-MILE CANYON X 12/3 225.7 DIAMOND CREEK X

1- 0 = Orientation and Instruction T&R = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling TE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. Table lb. Camp Locations and Research Activities for Trip #2, 1990, Team #2.

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

DATE RM LOCATION OL T&R FS TE HQ 11/14 12.5 BELOW SALT WATER WASH X 11/15 61.2 LCR X X 11/16 61.2 LCR X X 11/17 61.2 LCR X X X 11/18 61.2 LCR X X X 11/19 61.2 LCR X X X 11120 61.2 LCR X 11/21 87.2 CREMATION X X 11/22 87.2 CREMATION X X 11/23 - 108.2 SHINUMU CREEK X X 11/24 108.2 SILINUMU CREEK X X 11/25 143.4 KANAB CREEK X X 11/26 143.4 KANAB CREEK X 11/27 155.6 LAST CHANCE X X 11/28 155.6 LAST CHANCE X 11/29 168.1 FERN GLENN X X 11/30 212.9 PUMPKIN SPRINGS X X 12/1 212.9 PUMPKIN SPRINGS X X 12/2 220.1 220-MILE CANYON X 12/3 225.7 DIAMOND CREEK X

1- 0 = Orientation and Instruction T&R = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling TE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. Table / Personnel Participating in Trip #2, 1990.

PERSONNEL J AFFILIATION DATES COMMENTS

TEAM #1 R. Valdez B/W 11/14-11/25 OUT TANNER TRAM B. Leibfried B/W 11/14-12/3 H. Yard B/W 11/14-12/3 G. Doster B/W 11/14-12/3 B. Elwinger B/W 11/14-12/3 M. Yard GCES 11/14-12/3 C. Geanious OARS 11/14-12/3 Pete Weiss OARS 11/14-12/3 Kelly Burke OARS 11/14-12/3 TEAM #2 L Crist B/W 11/14-12/3 R. VanHaverbeke B/W 11/14-12/3 E. Prats B/W 11/14-12/3 G. Williams B/W 11/14-12/3 C. Hansen B/W 11/14-12/3 Alan Hayden GCES 11/14-12/3 Brian Mitchell OARS 11/14-12/3 Butch Hutton OARS 11/14-12/3 Jan Kempster OARS 11/14-12/3 Mille Birdwell OARS 11/14-12/3

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY Page 1 I 1113' FM 1311 RB BR CC CP SD BK RK FV I 2 Reach 1 A 3 0 0 93 5 0 11 0 0 1 0 EL 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=9 J 0 3.26 hr Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 0 1 0 110 22 0 16 1 0 0 0 EL 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=11 J 0 0 2.45 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 1 0 31 2 0 55 0 1 0 0 EL 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N=9 J 0 1 3.28 hr Y 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 1 A 11 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=17 J 0 0 38.67 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 0 5 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=49 J 0 0 116.37 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rcach 3 A 2 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=13 J 0 0 33.12 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. T rTab; 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY Page 2 I 1 2 - JIB' FM 1 BI1 RB BR CC CP SD BK RK I FV Reach 1 A 12 4 1 17 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 TIC N=24 J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.82 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 1 5 1 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 TIC N=28 J 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.64 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 TIC N=34 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88.29 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • ! . Reach 1 A 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM N=5 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.36 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 GM N=34 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.87 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM N=19 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.80 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ .

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY Page 3 I IIB FM Bit RB BR CC CP SD BK RK I FV I 2 Reach 1 A 17 2 0 22 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 GP N=29 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71.78 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 0 1 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 GP 0 0 0 N=14 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.86 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. Reach 3 A 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GP J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=16 0 0 0 43.50 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! Reach 1 A 1 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 GX 0 0 0 0 N=9 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.72 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GX N=1 J 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.13 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GX N=1 J 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.56 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PR 250-02 BIO/VVEST, Inc. TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF FISH COLLECTED AND EFFORT BY GEAR TYPE. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY Page 4 1 I 2 11B' FM BH RB BR CC CP SD BK RK FY

Reach 2 A 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 HL 0 N=4 J 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O 87.31 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O O HL N=6 J O 0 O O O O O O O O O 43.1 hr Y 0 O O O O O O O O O O

Reach 2 A 0 O O 13 2 O O O O O O HS N=4 J 0 0 O 1 O O O O O O O 61.73 Y 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O

A 48 33 4 342 37 7 83 1 2 1 1

J 0 5 0 15 1 0 1 O O O O

Y 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0

1 - Gear Types - A = Adult - HB = humpback chub BK = brook trout EL = Electrofishing J = Juvenile FM = flannelmouth sucker RK = Rio Grande killifish TL = 75'x6'x11/2"x12" trammel net Y = Young of year BH = bluehead sucker FV = flannelmouth variant TK = 75'x5'xl"x12" trammel net RB = rainbow trout GM = 10'x6'x2" gill net BR = brown trout GP = 100'x6'x11/2" gill net CC = channel catfish GX = 100', R to Y2" @ 1/2 increment, experiment gill net CP = carp HL = Large hoop net (4'diameter) SD = speckled dace HS = Small hoop net (2' diameter)

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. [Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #2, 1990. Page 1.

# DATE GEAR TYPE PIT TAG RECAI' OLD TAG I TL (mm) VVT (g) RM (capture) RM (release) 1 901116 GP 7F7F3F470E N - 343 385 60.1 61.2 2 901116 GP 7F7F3C30313" Y 5781 396 665 60.1 60.2 3 901116 GP 7F7F3F4B54 N - 377 314 60.3 61.2 4 901116 GP 7F7F3F4C44 N - 282 270 60.3 61.2 5 901116 GP 7F7F3F3B6A N - 331 340 60.3 61.2 6 901116 GP 7F7F3E2F26 N - 370 565 60.1 61.2 7 901116 GP 7F7F3E2F28 N - 352 410 60.1 61.2 8 901116 GP 7F7F3F4630 N - 349 250 60.3 61.2 9 901116 GP 7F7F3E2720 N - 355 465 60.3 61.2 10 901116 TL 7F7F3E2D41 Y 6032 294 270 60.4 61.2 11 901116 TI, 7F7F3C6C11 Y - 335 292 60.4 61.2 12 901116 TL 7F7F456643 Y - 330 336 60.4 61.2 13 901116 TL 7F7F3E4105 N - 361 392 60.4 61.2 14 901116 TL 7F7F3E4044 N - 334 392 60.4 61.2 15 901116 TL 7F7F3C4452A N - 404 672 60.4 60.4 16 901117 GP 7F7F3F4E77" N - 407 675 61.0 61.0 17 901117 GP 7F7F451C79 Y 936' 311 270 61.0 61.2 18 901117 GP 7F7F3C4538 N 373 475 61.0 61.2

PR 250-02 BIONEST, Inc. [ruble 41. Summary of Humpback (Alt& handled during Trip in, 1950. Page 2. DATE GEAR TYPE' PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WT (g) RM (capture) RM (release) 19 901117 GP 7F7F3E2E73 N - 390 520 61.0 61.2 20 901117 TK 7F7F3E3310 N - 367 420 61.0 61.0 21 901117 TK 7F7F3E232E N - 360 289 61.1 61.1 22 901118 GP 7F7F3F4E02 N - 382 502 61.0 61.2 23 901118 TK 7F7F3E2B6B Y 3162 393 585 61.1 61.2 24 901118 TIC 7F7F3C277A N - 294 252 61.1 61.2 25 901118 TL 7F7F3E3C5CA N - 422 798 61.1 61.1 26 901119 EL - N - 143 25 62.0 62.0 27 901119 GP NO PITTAGA N 407 825 62.0 62.0 - , 28 901119 GP 7F7F3C2F4B N - 359 330 62.0 62.0 29 901119 TIC 7F7F3E2739 N - 365 450 62.0 62.0 30 901119 TIC 7F7F3E4105 Y - 999B 9999B 61.5 61.5 31 901119 TK 7F7F43407F N - 405 645 61.5 61.5 32 901121 GX 7F7F3C4477 N - 380 519 64.2 64.2 33 901121 TIC 7F7F3F4802 Y 1132 368 604 64.3 65.5 34 901121 TK 7F7F3E2D14 N - 390 537 64.3 65.5 35 901121 TK 7F7F450E4C N - 363 488 64.3 65.5 36 901121 TIC 7F7F3C2919" N - 394 635 64.1 64.1

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. /Fable 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #2,1990. Page 3.

# DATE GEAR TYPE'. PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WIF (g) RM (capture) RM (release) 37 901122 EL N - 96 7 64.8 65.5 38 901122 EL 7F7F3C4455 N - 263 221 64.8 65.5 39 901122 EL 7F7F3E317C N - 303 257 64.8 64.8 40 901122 TK 7F7F3E290D N - 335 274 64.4 65.5 41 901122 TL 7F7F3C3F17 N - 338 367 64.6 65.5 42 901123 GP 7F7F45574B N - 363 562 64.9 64.9 43 901123 TK 7F7F451644 N - 225 125 108.3 108.4 44 901123 TL 7F7F3C264C N 352 520 64.4 65.5 45 901123 TL 7F7F3C4162" N 402 732 64.4 64.4 46 901124 TL 7F7F3C4477 Y - 380 497 65.4 65.5 47 901130 TL 7F7F3E3212 N - 318 280 213.6 213.6 48 901201 TK 7F7F3E3212 Y - 318 257 212.5 212.5 49 901201 TL 7F7F3F4B6C N - 330 280 213.6 212.8

EL = Electrofishing 1=Small red carlin tag TL = 75'x6'xl1/2"x12" trammel net 2=Small yellow carlin tag TK = 75'x5'xl"x12" trammel net 3=Small orange carlin tag GM = 10'x6'x2" gill net A=Fish implanted with radio transmitter GP = 100'x6'xl1/2" gill net B=No measurements taken (recapture) GX = 100', 2" to 1/2" @ 1/2 increment, experiment gill net C=Gear Types

PR 250-02 BIONEST, Inc. Table 5a. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #1, 1990.

TL wr I'ULSE RATE RADIOTAG LIFE EXPEC- DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE' # DATE PITIAG (mm) (g) FREQ (pulses/min) SIZE (g) TANCY (days) EXTINCTION (RM) (RM)

1 10/17/90 7F7F3F5050 428 840 40.670 60 11 100 910125 60.2 60.2

2 10/17/90 7F7F3E2D2D 439 865 40.640 59 11 100 910125 60.4 60.4

3 10/17/90 7F7F3F3626 432 780 40.620 78 11 75 901231 60.4 60.4

4 10/17/90 7F7F3E2253 382 535 40.650 81 11 75 901231 60.2 60.2

5 10/18/90 7F7F3F4054 415 720 40.630 39 9 50 901207 60.4 60.4

6 10/18/90 7F7F3F5044 388 580 40.680 77 11 75 910101 60.6 60.6

7 10/19/90 7F7F3F4E11 376 465 40.690 40 9 50 901208 64.6 64.6

8 10/20/90 7F7F3E2F3A 367 500 40.660 39 9 50 901209 64.6 65.6

9 10/20/90 7F7F456B2C 390 605 40.610 58 11 100 910128 64.6 65.6

10 10/20/90 7F7F3C311C 395 525 40.600 40 9 50 901210 64.6 65.6

- Release locations were the same as capture locations; adjustments were made to this table from Tip Report #1.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. Table 5b. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #2, 1990. ESTIMATED TI, WI' PULSE RATE RADIOTAG LIFE EXPEC- DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITTAG (mm) (g) FREQ (pulses/min) SIZE (g) TANCY (days) EXTINCTION (RM) (RM) 1 11/16/90 7F7F3C4452 404 670 40.600 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.4 60.4 2 11/16/90 7F7F3C303B 396 665 40.700 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.1 60.1 3 11/17/90 7F7F3F4E77 407 675 40.710 79 11 75 01/30/91 61.0 61.0 4 11/18/90 7F7F3E3C5C 422 798 40.730 61 11 75 01/31/91 61.1 61.1 5 11/19/90 NO PITTAG 407 825 40.740 79 11 75 02/01/91 62.0 62.0 6 11/21/90 7F7F3C2919 394 635 40.640 78 11 75 02/03/91 64.1 64.1 7 11/23/90 7F7F3C4162 402 732 40.630 62 11 100 02/29/91 64.4 64.4

PR 250-02 B10/WEST, Inc.

Thble 6. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #2, 1990, and locations relative to capture and release sites. Page 1 ------River Mile- FREQJP E TAG SIZE DATE (time) CAPTURE RELEASE LOCATE (2) 40.600/40 9 10a0v90 64.6 64.6 11/17/90 (0910) 64.6 11/17/90 (1421) 64.6 11/17/90 (2131) 64.6 11/21/90 (1516) 63.9 11/23/90 (1130) 64.8 _ 40.610/58 11 10/20/90 64.6 64.6 11/16/90 (0805) 64.7 11/17/90 (0900) 64.6 11/17/90 (1415) . 64.4 11/17/90 (2131) 64.6

40.660/39 9 10/20/90 64.6 64.6 11/16/90 (0815) 64.8 11/17/90 (1426) 64.5 11/17/90 (2131) 64.6 11/21/90 (1232) 64.8 11t21/90 (1712) 64.8 11/22/90 (1640) 64.8 , - 40.680/77 11 10/18/90 60.6 60.5 11/24/90 (2230) 60.6

40.670/60 11 10/17/90 60.2 60.4 11/17/90 (0800) 60.4 11/17/90 (1339) 60.4 11/17/90 (1358) 60.6 11/17/90 (1432) 60.5 11/17/90 (2029) 60.6 11/18/90 (1420) 60.5 11/21/90 (1051) 60.5 11/24/90 (1630) 60.3 11/24/90 (2228) 60.3

40.690/40 9 10/19/90 64.6 64.9 11/16/90 (0817) 64.9 11/17/90 (1428) 64.7 11/17/90 (2131) 64.6 TABLE 6. A LIST OF RADIO FREQUENCIES CONTACTED ON 'I'M #2 1990, AND LOCATIONS RELATIVE TO CAPTURE AND RELEASE SITES. PAGE 2

RIVER MILE-- -

FREQ/PULSE TAG SIZE DATE (TIME) CAPTURE RELEASE LOCATE I (G) 40.620/78 11 10/17/90 60.4 60.4 11/17/90 (2027) 60.4 11/17/90 (2035) 60.7 11/18/90 (1557) 60.8 11/18/90 (1706) 60.8 11/19/90 (2350) 60.8 11/20/90 (0700) 60.4 40.640/59 11 10/17/90 60.4 60.4 11/17/90 (2029) 60.6 1124/90 (2225) , 60.6 40.700/62 11 11/16/90 (2200) 60.1 60.1 11/17/90 (0800) 60.4 11/17/90 (1330) 60.4 40.710/78 11 11/17/90 (2200) 61.0 61.0 11/18/90 (1430) 61.0 11/24/90 (1648) 60.8 1124/90 (2208) 60.8 40.730/61- 11 11/18/90(2200) 61.1 61.1 11/21/90 (1113) 61.0 11/24/90 (2200) 60.8 40.740/78 11 11/19/90 (2115) 62.0 62.0 1121/90 (1128) 62.0 1121/90 (1030) 62.0 40.600/62 11 11/16/90 (2200) 60.4 60.4 11/17/90 (0800) 60.4 11/17/90 (1339) 60.4 11/17/90 (1435) 60.4 11/17/90 (2029) 60.6 40.640/78 11 1121/90 (2130) 64.1 64.1 11/24/90 (2130) 64.1 11,22/90(1600) 64.0 40.630/62 11 11/23/90 (2130) 64.4 64.4 11/24/90 (2120) 64.3 REPORT NO. PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DIE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF THE HUMPBACK CHUB IN THE GRAND CANYON

TRIP REPORT #3 - 1990 December 12 - December 20, 1990

Prepared For:

Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared By:

Richard A. Valdez, Principle Investigator William J. Masslich, Project Leader Larry Crist, Project Leader

BIO/WEST INC. 1063 West 1400 North Logan, UT. 84321

December 17, 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL ...... 1

DATA COLLECTED ...... 1 Radiotelemetry ...... 1 Bench Marks ...... 2

OBSERVATIONS ...... 2

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS ...... 3

RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 3

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. i LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. CAMP LOCATIONS AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, TRIP #3, 1990.

TABLE 2. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING IN TRIP #2, 1990.

TABLE 3a. SUMMARY OF RADIO-TRANSMTITER IMPLANTS IN HUMPBACK CHUB DURING TRIP #1, 1990.

TABLE 3b. SUMMARY OF RADIO-TRANSMITTER IMPLANTS IN HUMPBACK CHUB DURING TRIP #2, 1990.

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RADIOTELEMETRY INFORMATION COLLECTED DURING PREVIOUS TRIPS, 1990 AND CURRENT STATUS OF RADIOTAGGED HUMPBACK CHUBS.

APPENDIX A - DATA SHEETS FOR TRIP #2, 1990

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. ii INTRODUCTION

This report presents pertinent details associated with Trip #3, 1990. Included in the report are a summary of trip logistics, research schedule, personnel, data collected, observations, problems encountered and recommendations. Most information is presented in tabular format to provide a quick synopsis of pertinent trip details and results. Trip #3 was an abbreviated 10 day research trip. The primary purpose of the trip was to locate and monitor radio-implanted humpback chubs in Reach 1 (LCR) of the study area.

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL

Table 1 presents a summary of camp locations and research activities for Trip #3, 1990. Table 2 is a list of personnel on the trip as well as their affiliation.

DATA COLLECTED

Data was only collected using radiotelemetry during Trip #3, 1990. No fish sampling was conducted. Collection of radiotelemetry data was done using three primary methods including 24-hour monitoring of radio-tagged chubs, 2-hour monitoring of radio-tagged chubs and telemetry surveillance. An aerial telemetry survey was also conducted one day prior to the launch date (12/11/90). Table 3a presents information on all humpback chubs radiotagged during Trip #1, 1990, while Table 3b presents information on all humpback chubs radiotagged during Trip #2, 1990.

Radiotelemetry

A summary of radiotelemetry data collected during Trip #3, 1990 is presented in Table 4. Of the 17 fish implanted by BIO/WEST on the previous two trips, 11 fish were contacted. Three additional fish may have been contacted (two from air and one from boat), but the contacts only occurred once and consisted of only one pulse. Neither the identity or specific location of these two fish could be verified, so the contacts were categorized as a "possible". Three of the 17 fish were not contacted.

An aerial telemetry survey of Reach 1, by helicopter, was conducted one day prior to the launch of Trip #3. Based on earlier behavior patterns observed for radio-tagged humpback chubs, an early morning flight was chosen to survey fish as near as possible to day break. Contacts were made on six frequencies during the aerial survey. All contacts consisted of intermittent hits at one to several locations. No contacts could be verified by pulse counts. Only one contact made during the aerial survey corresponded with a subsequent on the ground location.

Twenty-four hour monitoring was conducted on 3 fish, 1 during fluctuating flows and 2 during stable 5000 cfs flows. Two-hour monitoring was conducted on 3 fish. Movements and surface habitat features were mapped for all two-hour and 24-hour monitoring efforts.

The objective of telemetry surveillance during Trip #3, 1990 was to assess diel behavior patterns of radio-tagged humpback chubs. Surveillance runs were conducted during daylight, night, dawn and dusk periods. Two surveillance runs were conducted during each the daylight and night periods during random time blocks. One surveillance run was conducted during each the dawn and dusk period.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 1 Possible sites remote telemetry stations were investigated. Two sites were tentatively selected based on their proximity to a relatively shallow river reach. One site is located immediately above the LCR on river left and one approximately 0.2 miles below the LCR on river right. No other suitable sites were identified.

Bench Marks

Four temporary bench marks were established in the Little Colorado River (LCR) area (Reach 1) for the purpose of measuring river stage change and relating it to movement of racliotagged fish. Each bench mark will eventually be correlated to one of the 50 permanent known elevation marks for determining absolute stage and flow changes.

The three bench marks are:

1. RM 60.0, river left on a underside of a tapeats boulder next to the eddy below 60 mile rapid. large rock near the upper end of the eddy.

2. RM 60.1, river right on tapeats boulder in boulder outwash below 60 mile rapid.

3. RM 60.9, river left.

4. RM 64.5, river right at the bottom of the pool at the bottom of the salt mine riffle.

OBSERVATIONS

1. Diel behavior patterns were not as apparent during Trip #3, 1990 as during the previous two trips.

2. Certain fish were found utilizing relatively shallow areas for periods of 2 to 3 days, and were consistently available for telemetry observations.

3. Radio-tagged chubs monitored over 24-hour periods during stable flows exhibited only localized movements within a specific locale.

4. All radio-tagged humpback chubs monitored for 2 or 24 hour periods appeared active and did not exhibit aberrant behavior.

PR 250-02 BIOAVEST, Inc. 2 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS

1. Aerial telemetry efforts were generally ineffective at identifying or locating radio-tagged chubs. Most radio contacts consisted of single pulse hits, that could not be recontacted during a second pass. These contacts were thought to be associated with radio-tagged fish, signal bounce, narrow band interference (errant signals) and antenna inefficiency. Antenna mounts will be redesigned for the next flight and different flight altitude and speed will be used and evaluated.

2. All research boats were piggy-backed on support boats to and from the LCR research area, resulting in minimal damage to research equipment.

3. Aerial photography (1:2,400) was used as a base map to delineate fish movements and locations in the river channel was beneficial. Larger scale photography (1:1,200) will be required for habitat mapping.

4. Limited sites are available for remote telemetry stations.

5. Narrow and broad band interference were encountered during both aerial and ground telemetry monitoring. The two frequencies seem to be affected most are 40.640 and 40.690.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continue to use aerial photography base maps for telemetry monitoring. 1:2,400 scale photos should be used only to map radio-tagged fishes locations. 1:1,200 photography should be used as a base map for mapping radio-tagged fish movements and habitat utilization during 2-hour and 24-hour monitoring.

2. Evaluate feasibility and utility of aerial radio telemetry for at least one more trip.

3. Remote telemetry stations and tentative site locations should be evaluated further prior to establishing stations.

4. Continued effort should be made to resolve inconsistencies in river mile designations for purposes of accurate radiotelemetry monitoring.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 3

TABLES TRIP #3, 1990

PR 250-02

BIOAVEST, Inc. 4

Table 1. Logistic; and Research Schedule for Trip #3, 1990

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

DATE RM LOCATION T&R` FS TE HQ 12/12 33.8 Little Redwall X 12/13 61.2 LCR X X 12/14 61.2 LCR X X 12/15 61.2 LCR X X 12/16 61.2 LCR , X X 12/17 76.0 Above Hance X _ X X 12/18 119 Below 119-Mile Canyon X 12/19 168 Fern Glen Canyon X 12/20 225.5 Diamond Creek , X

1' T&R = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling TIE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification Table 2. Personnel Participating in Trip #3 1990.

PERSONNEL AFFILIATION DATES COMMENTS

B. Masslich B/W 12/12-12/18 Out Bright A el , B. Leibfried B/W 12/12-12/18 Out Bright Angel

IL Yard B/W 12/12-12/18 Out Bright Angel

E. Prats B/W 12/12-12/18 Out Bright Angel

R. VanHaverbeke B/W 12/12-12/20

G. Williams B/W 12/12-12/20

Alan Haden GCES 12/12-12/18 Out Bright Angel

Bill Davis CREDA 12/12-12/18 Out Bright Angel

Mike Walker OARS 12/12-12/20

O'Conner Dale OARS 12/12-12/20

Anna Stanfield OARS _ 12/12-12/20 _ llible 3a. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during 'flip #1 1990.

TL WT PULSE RATE RAD1OTAG LIFE EXPEC- DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITTAG (mm) (g) FREQ (pulses/min) SIZE (g) TANCY (days) EXTINCTION (RM) ( M)

1 10/17/90 7F7F3F5050 428 840 40.670 60 11 100 910125 60.2 60.4

2 10/17/90 7F7F3E2D2D 439 865 40.640 59 11 100 910125 60.4 60.4

3 10/17/90 7F7F3F3626 432 780 40.620 78 11 75 901231 60.4 60.4

4 10/17/90 7F7F3E2253 382 535 40.650 81 11 75 901231 60.2 60.4

5 10/18/90 7F7F3F4054 415 720 40.630 39 9 50 901207 60.4 60.5

6 10/18/90 7F7F3F5044 388 580 40.680 77 11 75 910101 60.6 60.5

7 10/19/90 7F7F3F4E11 376 465 40.690 40 9 50 901208 64.6 64.9

8 10/20/90 7F7F3E2F3A 367 500 40.660 39 9 50 901209 64.6 64.7

9 10/20/90 7F7F456B2C 390 605 40.610 58 11 100 910128 64.6 64.7

10 10/20/90 7F7F3C311C 395 525 40.600 40 9 50 901210 64.6 64.7

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. Table 3b. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #2, 1990.

ESTIMATED TL VVT PULSE RATE RADIOTAG LIFE EXPEC- DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITTAG (mm) (g) FREQ (pulses/min) SIZE (g) TANCY (days) EXTINCTION (RM) ( 1141)

1 11/16/90 7F7F3 C4452 404 670 40.600 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.4 60.4 2 11/16/90 7F7F3C303B 396 665 40.700 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.1 60.1 3 11/17/90 7F7F3F4E77 407 675 40.710 79 11 75 01/30/91 61.0 61.0 4 11/18/90 7F7F3E3C5C 422 798 40.730 61 11 75 01/31/91 61.1 61.1 5 11/19/90 NO P1TTAG 407 825 40.740 79 11 75 02/01/91 62.0 62.0 6 11/21/90 7F7F3C2919 394 635 40.640 78 11 75 02/03/91 64.1 64.1 7 11/23/90 7F7F3C4 162 402 732 40.630 62 11 100 02/29/91 64.4 64.4

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. Table 4. Summary of radiotelemetry information collected during previous trips, 1990, and current status of radiotagged humpback chubs.

. DATE OF LAsT CURRENT PREVIOUS 1 3 3 7 7 LOCATION FREQ. PULSE: PULSE RM" CONTACTED LOCATED' 2LIR 24HR

1 901214 40.670 64 60 603 Y Y Y 40.640 54 59 603 Y Y 2 901215 .- 3 901214 40.620 68 78 60.8 Y Y Y 4 901017 40.650 NC 81 (60.4) P N 5 901214 40.630 39 39 60.6 Y Y 6 901124 40.680 - 77 (60.6) N N 7 901117 40.690 - ao (64.6) N N 8 901215 40.660 39 39 64.7 Y Y 9 901117 40.610 NC 59 (64.6) P N 10 901217 40.600 38 40 64.8 Y Y Y 11 901215 40.600 64 62 59.9 Y Y Y 12 901117 40.700 NC 62 60.9 Y N 13 901217 40.710 82 79 60.8 Y Y Y 14 901216 40.730 60 61 60.8 Y Y 15 901121 40.744 NC 79 (62.0) N N 16 901122 40.640 - 78 (64.0) P N 17 _ 901216 40.630 65 62 643 Y Y Y

1- Date of most recent location, from current trip or previous trips. 2" Pulse counts from current trips, NC=not counted. 3- Pulse counts from most recent contact prior to current trip. 4* River mile of last location from current trip or previous trip. 5-' Indicates if fish was contacted on current trip, Y=Yes, P=Possible, N=No. 6- Indicates if specific location of fish was determined during current trip. 7- Indicates whether 2-hour or 24-hour monitoring was conducted.

Report No. TR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF THE HUMPBACK CHUB IN THE GRAND CANYON ANNUAL REPORT - 1990 (CONTRACT NO. 0-CS-40-09110)

Submitted To

Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado River Region Salt Lake City, Utah 84147

Submitted By

BIO/WEST, Inc. 1063 West 1400 North Logan, Utah 84321

Richard A. Valdez, Ph.D. Principal Investigator

March 1991

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Investigations of the endangered humpback chub were initiated in the mainstem

Colorado River of the Grand Canyon on September 1, 1990 by BIO/WEST, Inc, of Logan, Utah.

The first month of the project was dedicated to training personnel, assimilating field equipment, defining standard sampling methods, and developing standardized data collection procedures and forms. Five Achilles sportboats were outfitted as research boats including two for electrofishing and three for netting and radiotracking. Equipment for fish sampling, radiotelemetry, water quality, and habitat mapping was also assembled. A Data Collection Plan was developed together with a Fish

Sampling Protocol, Fish Handling Protocol, and Database Management Protocol. These documents detail the methodologies to be employed by BIO/WEST in this investigation and were made available to agencies and individuals involved in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES).

The study area was defined as 170 miles of river from Kwagunt Rapid (RM 56) to

Diamond Creek (RM 226). The region was divided into three sample reaches designated as the

Little Colorado River (LCR) Reach, Granite Gorge Reach, and the Havasu Creek Reach. Sampling was conducted monthly in October, November and December with field trips of 10, 20, and 10-days duration, respectively. The 10-day field trips were designed for one team of 6 people to sample the

LCR Reach only, while the 20-day trips were designed for two similar teams to sample with approximately equal effort in all three sample reaches.

1 Six gear types were used to sample humpback chub in 1990, including 1 and 1/2" mesh trammel nets, 11/2" and 2" gill nets, experimental gill nets, and electrofishing. The 1" and 11/2" mesh trammel nets and the 11/2" gill nets produced the greatest numbers of chubs (26, 30, and 28, respectively) with approximately equal catch rates of 1.49, 1.57, and 1.45 fish/100 feet/10 hours, respectively. Electrofishing yielded 6 fish with a catch rate of 4.03 fish/10 hours. Gear efficiency will continue to be evaluated in 1991.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 1 Ten species of fish representing five families were captured during the three field trips in 1990. The most abundant species were rainbow trout and carp. A total of 94 humpback chub were captured and released alive; 83 were PIT (passive internal transponder). tagged and 17 were radiotagged (16 with PIT tags). Of the 94 fish captured, 10 had been previously tagged with Floy or

Carlin tags by other investigators, 2 were previously PIT tagged by other investigators, and 3 were fish previously PIT tagged during this investigation. Morphometric measurements and meristics were recorded on 46 humpback chub.

BIO/WEST initiated a radiotelemetry study to evaluate its use in the Grand Canyon for assessing habitat use and movement of humpback chub. Preliminary results show that radiotelemetry will be a useful tool in monitoring movement and habitat use of fish in the Grand Canyon and for evaluating the impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations. Use of radiotelemetry will be further evaluated in 1991. Radiotransmitters were surgically implanted in 17 adult humpback chub which were released in a 5-mile section of the LCR Reach; 10 fish were radiotagged in October and 7 in

November. In November, 8 of the 10 October fish were recontacted, and in December 11 of the 17 fish were recontacted for a recontact rate of 80% and 65%, respectively. The position of each fish was determined several times daily to monitor both horizontal and vertical movement (radiosignals are extinguished at about 4 m depth). Radiotagged fish were monitored for 24-hour periods and for

2-hour periods. Movement and habitat use was recorded on standard data sheets and maps, and relative changes in river stage were recorded during these monitoring modes. Eight temporary bench marks were established in the LCR Reach that will eventually be surveyed to permanent U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) bench marks so that all relative stage readings can be tied to absolute stage changes and to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam.

Movement and change in macrohabitat use were noted for radiotagged fish relative to changes in flow, turbidity, and time of day. These variables will continue to be measured and closely

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. ii monitored during this investigation in order to describe their relationships to fish movement and habitat use. Macrohabitat mapping of areas occupied by humpback chub as well as areas not used by the fish will also continue in order to evaluate the availability of habitat and changes in flow.

A food habits pilot study using nonlethal stomach pumping will be initiated in January

1991 to evaluate the diet of the humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River. Drift samples will be collected and data gathered from other investigators on benthic invertebrate communities in order to assess the availability of food resources.

Plans were developed for the 1991 investigation including establishing remote radiotelemetry stations to monitor fish movement into the LCR, establishing temporary bench marks to monitor river stage change during radiotelemetry observations, identifying relationships for measuring river turbidity, procuring appropriate maps for macrohabitat mapping, interfacing macrohabitat mapping with development of depth and velocity isopleths to stage relationship being developed by other investigators, and coordinating efforts near tributary inflows and in backwaters with other investigators.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 111 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose ...... 1 Objectives ...... 2

STUDY AREA ...... 3 The Upper Reach (LCR Reach) ...... 5 The Middle Reach (Granite Gorge Reach) ...... 5 The Lower Reach (Havasu Creek Reach) ...... 6

METHODS ...... 9 Sample Schedule ...... 11 Twenty Day Trips ...... 11 Ten Day Trips ...... 14 Sampling Fish ...... 16 Electrofishing 16 Nets ...... 17 Fish Traps ...... 19 Angling ...... 20 Handling Fish ...... 21 Radio telemetry ...... 22 Fish Transport and Holding ...... 22 Radiotag Implanting ...... 22 Tracking ...... 24 Habitat Assessment ...... 28 Microhabitat Measurements ...... 28 Flow/Stage Monitoring ...... 29 Habitat Mapping ...... 30 Habitat Type ...... 30 Water Quality ...... 32

RESULTS ...... 32 Sample Effort ...... 32 Gear Effectiveness ...... 34 Species Composition and Distribution ...... 36 Summary of Humpback Chub Captured ...... 36 Radiotelemetry 47 Number radiotagged 47 Habitat use ...... 47 . Movement ...... 51

TR2543-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. iv Evaluation of radiotelemetry ...... 52 Transmitters ...... 53 Receivers ...... 53 Antennae ...... 54 Surgical Procedures ...... 55 Habitat Assessment ...... 55 Habitat Use ...... 55 Habitat Availability 55 River Stage Changes ...... 56

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 58 Objective 1: Determine the ecological and limiting factors ...... 58 Determine resource availability and resource use ...... 59 Determine the reproductive capacity and success ...... 62 Determine the survivorship of early stages ...... 64 Determine the distribution, abundance and movement ...... 65 Determine important biotic interactions ...... 68 Objective 2: Determine the life history schedule ...... 69 Develop or modify an existing population model ...... 69

RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 70

LITERATURE CITED ...... 73

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. V LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Characteristics of the geomorphic strata within the Grand Canyon study area ...... 7 Table 2. Sampling stratification design, Grand Canyon Study...... 8 Table 3. Tentative Trip Schedule; Grand Canyon Study ...... 10 Table 4. Substrate categories and descriptions ...... 29 Table 5. Sampling effort hours by trip for each of the three sampling reaches, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990 ...... 33 Table 6. Numbers of humpback chub captured by gear type, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990 ...... 35 Table 7. Fish species composition by trip for each of the three sample reaches, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990 ...... 37 Table 8. Percentage of species by trip for each of the three sample reaches, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990 ...... 38 Table 9. Summary of humpback chub captured in 1990, Grand Canyon Studies ...... 39 Table 10. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during 1990 ...... 40 Table 11. Movements of humpback chub evaluated by recapture location, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990 ...... 4.6 Table 12. Summary of current radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during 1990 ...... 48 Table 13. Summary of radiotelemetry information collected during previous trips, 1990, and current status of radiotagged humpback chubs ...... 49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. General study area for humpback chub study in the Grand Canyon, showing the three study reaches ...... 4 Figure 2. BIO/WEST's travel and sample schedule for 20-day trips...... 12 Figure 3. BIO/WEST's travel and sample schedule for 10-day trips ...... 15 Figure 4. Weight-frequency distribution of 94 humpback chub captured in 1990, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990 ...... 50

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. vi

INTRODUCTION

This Annual Report is submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in partial

fulfillment of Reclamation Contract No. 0-CS-40-09110, entitled Characterization of the Life History and Ecology of the Humpback Chub in the Grand Canyon. This Annual Report summarizes the

results of these investigations for the calendar year 1990. It integrates the results of three field trips

conducted in October, November, and December, 1990. Trip Reports that detail all activities were submitted following each trip.

This investigation was initiated by BIO/WEST, Inc. (B/W) on September 1, 1990, and

is scheduled for completion on October 15, 1994. A review will be conducted of the study at the end

of calendar year 1991 by the Aquatic Coordination Team (ACT).

Purpose

The purpose of this investigation is:

To conduct in cooperation with the Service and AGF ecological studies to determine the relationship between operations of Glen Canyon Dam and the ecology and life history requirements of the endangered humpback chub population in Grand Canyon.

This 4-year investigation will focus on the collection and analysis of biological

information to test hypotheses about the ecology and life history of the humpback chub in

conjunction with the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) and conservation measures

developed to recover the species. This research is designed to collect information for the Glen

Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and to satisfy portions of two of seven conservation

measures arising from a biological opinion on Glen Canyon Dam in 1978. This includes Conservation

Measure 5, "Conduct Research to Identify Impacts of Glen Canyon Dam Operations on the

Humpback Chub in the Mainstem and Tributaries" and Conservation Measure 7, "Establish a Second

Spawning Population of Humpback Chub in the Grand Canyon".

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 1 These ecological studies will be conducted to determine the relationship between the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the endangered humpback chub population in the Grand

Canyon. The purpose is to obtain sufficient information on the Grand Canyon population of humpback chub to aid the federal and state agencies in their mandated responsibilities to protect and, where possible, promote the continued existence and recovery of the species.

Objectives

This mainstem investigation will be conducted by B/W concurrently with tributary studies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Arizona Department of Game and Fish (AGF), and

Arizona State University (ASU) all in cooperation with the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.

These agencies together with the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) comprise the ACT. The objectives of the combined humpback chub investigations are as follows:

Objective 1: To determine the ecological and limiting factors of all life stages of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon, and the effects of the of the Glen Canyon Dam operations on the humpback chub.

1A: Determine resource availability and resource use (habitat, water quality, food, etc.) of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River.

1B: Determine the reproductive capacity and success of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River.

1C: Determine the survivorship of early -stages of the humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River.

1D: Determine the distribution, abundance and movement of the humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, and effects of dam operations on the movement and distribution of humpback chub.

1E: Determine important biotic interactions with other species for all life stages of humpback chub.

Objective 2: Determine the life history schedule for the Grand Canyon humpback chub population.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 2 2A: Develop or modify an existing population model from empirical data collected during the study for use in analyses of reproductive success, recruitment and survivorship.

B/W's field research is partitioned into two efforts. The first focuses on the collection of life history information and habitat use of humpback chub within two intensive mainstem sampling

reaches: the Little Colorado River (LCR) Reach and the Havasu Creek Reach. The second effort is a distributional survey and habitat data collection in the intervening reach of the mainstem

Colorado River referred to as the Granite Gorge Reach. Data collection will take full advantage of scheduled research flows (predetermined releases from Glen Canyon Dam) to determine the impacts of dam operations on habitat conditions and fish populations in the Grand Canyon. Radiotelemetry is being used in the LCR Reach to determine habitat use and movement of humpback chub. Use of radiotelemetry in areas other than the LCR Reach will be curtailed until the presence of

humpback chub is established and the effectiveness of radiotelemetry is fully evaluated.

STUDY AREA

This investigation was conducted in a 170-mile region of the Colorado River in the

Grand Canyon from Kwagunt Rapid (RM 56) to Diamond Creek (RM 226) (Figure 1). This region was divided into three reaches including: (1) The Upper Reach from Kwagunt Rapid (RM 56) to

Red Canyon (RM 76.5) also known as the LCR Reach, (2) The Middle Reach from Red Canyon

(RM 76.5) to Havasu Creek (RM 156) also known as the Granite Gorge Reach, and (3) The Lower

Reach from Havasu Creek (RM 156) to Diamond Creek (RM 226) also known as the Havasu Creek

Reach. Sampling was concentrated in the confluence area of major tributaries where humpback chub

have previously been collected.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 3 ST. GEORGE UTAH 41,1111M ■■ limm ■■ M■411 ■■ ■■■■411 MMID e ram■M■ 410 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■•■.1 1.0...rOmm iw omm■ ■■•■■■■• ARIZONA Glen Canyon NEVADA Dam Lee's Ferry 15 4 (launth) MIDDLE REACH (GRANITE GORGE) LOWER REACH (HAVASU CREEK) TapLat i`.. /,. rta. *4. 89 oe). ------

' "itin1L7q0 I Ct -040 Bright t A ngc; UPPER REACH C n; (LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AREA)

Littic

Diamond Creek (take out)

0 30 miles

FLAGSTAFF

Figure 1. General study area for humpback chub study in the Grand Canyon, showing the three study reaches. The Ulmer Reach (LCR Reach)

Fish populations in this 20.5-mile (33 km) reach were sampled intensively with electrofishing gear, gill nets, experimental gill nets, trammel nets, and hoop nets. All available habitats were sampled including runs, eddies, pools, backwaters, side channels, and slackwaters.

General habitat parameters were documented to characterize fish capture locations including river mile, surrounding geology, and macrohabitat type. Radiotelemetry was used to document macro and microhabitat used by humpback chub as well as their movements relative to river stage. Riverine habitat was mapped in detail starting in 1991 to characterize occupied, as well as unoccupied habitats.

Chemical parameters were measured to further characterize the habitat used by humpback chub and the impacts of Glen Canyon Dam operations on water quality. Since the LCR empties into the upper 5 miles of this reach (RM 61), a concerted effort will be made starting in 1991 to coordinate with AGF and the Service to assess movement of fish between the LCR and mainstem Colorado

River.

Previous investigations (Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983, Maddux et al. 1987) have shown that humpback chub seasonally enter the LCR in the spring during spawning activity. It is suspected that many of these fish reside in the mainstem Colorado River within this reach for the remainder of the year. Determining the extent of use of this river reach by humpback chub and the impacts of dam operations on their habitat are the primary objectives of this investigation.

The Middle Reach (Granite Gor2e Reach)

This 79.5-mile (129 km) reach contains steep, rocky shoreline habitats typical of areas occupied by humpback chub in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Valdez and Clemmer 1982). The

primary purpose for sampling this reach is to refine information on the distribution of the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon, its abundance by age group, habitat use, and habitat availability. The

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 5 Granite Gorge Reach was quantitatively sampled with gill and trammel nets, and electrofishing.

Radiotelemetry is not planned for this sample reach.

A detailed sampling program was developed for this reach to insure that the reach is sampled as thoroughly as possible. This is important when defining the distribution of humpback chub because their high fidelity to specific river sites (Valdez and Clemmer 1982, ICaeding et al. 1990) dictates the need for thorough sampling.

The Granite Gorge Reach was divided into four longitudinal strata, each characterized by major geomorphologic types that influence fish habitat structure and possibly fish distribution.

These longitudinal strata were based on the initial categorization of the geomorphology of the Grand

Canyon by Howard and Dolan (1981) which was further differentiated by Schmidt and Graf (1988) into 11 morphologically distinct areas. These geomorphologic classifications are the basis for general fish sample stratification throughout the study area (Table 1). Numerous large rapids in the Granite

Gorge Reach may influence specific sample site selection.

Geomorphic strata and sample substrata for the three sample reaches described in this section are shown in Table 2. The four strata in the Granite Gorge Reach were further divided into substrata which were randomly selected for sampling on each 20-day trip. The tributary inflow areas were treated as individual substrata to be sampled at least seasonally since these are areas in which humpback chub were captured in the past. Tributaries inflow areas identified for sampling in the

Granite Gorge Reach include: (1) Bright Angel Creek, (2) Shinumu Creek, (3) Tapeats Creek, (4)

Kanab Creek, and (5) Havasu Creek.

The Lower Reach (Havasu Creek Reach)

Sampling in this 69-mile (112 km) reach was conducted in the same manner as in the

LCR Reach, with the primary objectives of identifying habitats used by humpback chub and other native fish species, and to assess the impacts of dam operations on these important habitats.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 6 I Table 1. Characteristics of the geomorphic strata within the Grand Canyon study area. Reach name and number Extent of Average ratio Average Width Channel slope Average unit of Percentage of Reach of top width to channel width character stream power bed composed (river miles) mean depth (feet) (pounds per of bedrock and • foot) boulders

Lower Marble Canyon (4) 35.9-61.5 19.1 350 Wide .0010 4.3 36

Furnace Flats (5) 61.5-77.4 26.6 390 Wide .0021 8.0 30

Upper Granite Gorge (6) 77.4-117.8 7 190 Narrow .0023 17.6 62

Aisles (7) 117.8-125.5 11 230 Narrow .0017 10.9 48

Middle Granite Gorge (8) 125.6-139.9 8.2 210 Narrow .0020 14.2 68

Muav Gorge (9) 140-159.9 7.9 180 Narrow .0012 9.9 78

Lower Canyon (10) 160-213.8 16.1 310 Wide .0013 6.2 32

Lower Granite Gorge (11) 213.9-225 8.1 240 Narrow .0016 10.2 58

Table taken from Schmidt and Graf (1988).

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 7 Table 2. Sampling stratification design, Grand Canyon Study.

Sample Geomorphic Strata Sample Substrata River Miles Length Reach (miles)

#1 Lower Marble Can- a. Kwagunt - LCR - RM 56 56.0-61.5 5.5 yon Furnace Flats b. LCR - Chuar Rapid 61.6-65.5 3.9 c. Chuar Rapid - Unkar Rapid 60.6-72.5 6.9 d. Unkar Rapid - RM 77.4 72.5-77.4 4.9 #2 Upper Granite Gorge a. Hance Rapid - Cremation 77.0-86.5 9.5 Canyon *b. Bright Angel Creek 86.5-89.0 2.5* c. Pipe Creek - Crystal Rapid 89.0-96.0 9.0 d. Crystal Rapid - Bass Rapid 96-107.8 9.8 *e. Shinumo Creek 108-109.8 1.8* L 110-mile Rapid - RM 117.8 110-117.8 7.8 Aisles g. Aisles 117.8-125.5 7.7 Middle Granite h. RM 125.6 - Dubendorf SSR 125.6-131.7 6.1 Gorge 5i. Tapeats Creek 131.9-134.5 2.6* j. 134 Mile Rapid - RM 139.8 134.5-139.8 5.3

Muav Gorge 51c. Kanab Creek 139.9-143.6 3.7* 1. Kanab Rapid - Sinyala Rapid 143.7-153.5 9.8 5m. Havasu Creek 153.6-159.9 6.3* #3 Lower Canyon a. RM 160 - RM 169.9 160.0-169.9 9.9 b. RM 169.9 - Lava Falls 169.9-179.4 9.5 c. Lava Falls - RM 189 179.4-189 9.6 d. RM 189.1 - RM 200 189.1-200 10.9 e. RM 200 - 109-Mile Rapid 200-208.9 8.9 f. 209-Mile Rapid - 217 Mile 108.9-217.3 8.4 Rapid Lower Granite Gorge g. 217-Mile Rapid - Diamond 217.8-225.7 7.9 Creek

* - Tributary substrata

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 8 Radiotelemetry will be used in this reach only if sufficient numbers of adult humpback chub are captured and B/W and the ACT decide jointly to extend the use of this monitoring tool. Sampling in this reach was conducted primarily to collect information on distribution of humpback chub, abundance by age group, habitat use, and changes in habitat availability with changes in flow or discharge.

The Havasu Creek Reach has been identified as an important nursery and rearing area for native fishes (Maddux et al. 1987). Although young-of-year (YOY) and juvenile humpback chub were captured, spawning sites and larvae have not been found to confirm spawning in this reach.

METHODS

The following description of methods applies to the year-round sampling planned for this investigation. A detailed description of methodologies including a Fish Sampling Protocol, Fish

Handling Protocol, and Database Management Protocol are presented in the DATA COLLECTION

PLAN issued by B/W Janaury 1, 1991. Since field sampling was not initiated until October of 1990, methodologies and schedules were not fully implemented. Winter weather and shortened day lengths hampered sample routines.

Life history data for humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River will be collected seasonally. This information is critical for determining habitat use at different times of the year, its availability as affected by seasonal operational patterns of the dam, and possible seasonal preference by the species. Field trips will be conducted monthly including six 20-day trips and six 10-day trips per year (Table 3). The trips will alternate between 20-days and 10-days in duration. A total of 39 trips (nineteen 20-day trips and twenty 10-day trips) will be conducted between October 1, 1990 and

December 31, 1993. In 1990, 10-day trips were conducted in October and December and a 20-day trip was conducted in November. If it is determined that a particular season or area is more critical and may require more or less sample effort, changes may be made to this sample schedule in a

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 9 Table 3. Tentative Trip Schedule; Grand Canyon Study.

1990 1991 1992 1993 Month 10-D 20-D 10-D 20-D 10-D 20-D 10-D 20-D

January X X X February X X X March X X X April X X X May X X X June X X X

July X X _ X August X X X September X X X October X X X X November X X X X December X X X X I I Total 2 1 6 6 6 6 6 6

B/W People per Trip 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10

Total Per- son Trips 12 10 36 60 36 60 36 60

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 10 bilateral agreement between B/W and the ACT. The following is a brief description of each type of field trip and an outline of daily activities.

Sample Schedule

Twenty y Trips.

The only 20-day trip in 1990 was conducted November 14 to December 3. Of the major purposes of the trip, radiotelemetry was continued with tracking of fish implanted in October and implanting of additional fish. Also, distributional sampling was conducted with electrofishing and gill and trammel nets. Habitat in association with the radiotagged fish and net sets was measured and mapped. General habitat mapping was not conducted because appropriate aerial photographs were not available.Food availability and use by humpback chub was not assessed and is pending studies to evaluate use of nonlethal stomach pumping techniques. Information on biotic interactions was collected by sampling different habitats to evaluate species sympatry.

The following description of the 20-day trips is provided as background information that summarizes the purpose and sample schedule to be used throughout this project. This schedule was not fully implemented during the startup phase in 1990. The purpose of the 20-day trips is to capture humpback chub for implanting radiotags, monitor habitat use and changes with flow, assess limiting factors, and determine important biotic interactions with other fish species. A maximum of ten fish will be implanted with radiotags during each of the 20-day trips for a total of about 60 implants per

year. The 20-day trips involve two independent field teams (Figure 2) each with a designated Project

Leader with extensive river fisheries experience. Team 1 has 6 B/W and 1 ACT biologists and will

work in the LCR Reach while Team 2 with 4 B/W and 1 ACT biologists works concurrently in the

Granite Gorge Reach.

TR250-02 3/91

BIO/WEST, 11

TWENTY—DAY TRIPS Personnel: 1 0 B/W + 2 ACT P Boats: 2 Electrofishing + 3 Netting/Tracking Sportboats; 2 37—foot S—rigs + 2 23—foot Snouts.

DAY TEAM 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Base Crew Rig Boats; 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Logan Crew Travel welol 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I tes - -- -- i- 4 -F- - - I — F ± -i - T --r -I-1- --I -I- + --I- r- -r -1 - Launch — Travel Lees Ferry to LCR __1_1_1_1_20 Sample and Radiotrack Upper Reach I I i_ I 1 1 1 4_ . _i_ 1. _i_ ___ 1,Itesl_ _1_ _I_ L I _i_ I _ I I I I I 1 -1- 1 1 1 1in 1 1 I I I I Travel to Lower Reach — Havasu m•pml Sample Lower Reach Take out at Diamond Creek ts.) A LA.___L_I_L+LLII_L_i_l_41_,L_Lin___ Logan Crew Travel I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i : 1 1 11=w ------I- T 1 - I- t I t t I- -I —I- - TEAM 2 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I Base Crew Rig Boats; ...1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I I I Logan Crew Travel -I I-- t Launch 6 w — Travel Lees Ferry to L,:,1,H°is 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l Granite Corp _I 11_1_80,01 l_l_l_l______Li_l___ Sample Granite Gorge F 1 1 j_ _ 1 -- I i i -1-- --I I 1 _ .1 t I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 123mi. - j - - Sample Lower Reach r 1 1 1 I --I L -I - - 4- -4 -I- --1----I - 1- -I- -I- -I- --I- -1-- -1- -- - I-- -I-47 - mites- 4- - Take out at Diamond Creek I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — . - — -- — — - - — Logan Crew Travel 1 " — — T 7 — E 1 1 — 1 1 I T 1 T 1 VI; I i t 1 1 1 I I I I I I , I I I I 1 i I

Figure 2. BIO/WEST's travel and sample schedule for 20-day trips. Team 1 will use three 16-foot research sportboats (one for electrofishing and two for netting and radiotracicing), and Team 2 will use two 16-foot research sportboats (one electrofishing and one netting/tracking). Of the five research boats, B/W will provide one electrofishing and three netting/tracking boats and Reclamation will provide one electrofishing boat. The research boats will be rolled and loaded on the support S-rigs (33 or 37-footer) whenever possible to minimize human risk, reduce loss of research equipment, and to minimize researcher visibility in the Grand Canyon to recreationists. One S-rig (33 or 37-footer) and one J-rig (23-foot snout boat) will accompany each of the two teams. These support rafts are provided by OARS, a commercial river concessionaire from

Flagstaff, Arizona, contracted by GCES to provide logistical support for research efforts in the Grand

Canyon.

The sampling schedule is designed to allocate an approximately equal amount of field sample time to each of the three sample reaches. In November 1990, Team 1 sampled the LCR Reach for about 10 days while Team 2 sampled the Granite Gorge Reach. The two teams jointly sampled the

Havasu Creek Reach during the last 5 days of the trip. Thus, each of the three reaches was sampled for approximately 10 days. This sampling schedule will be implemented on all 20-day trips in 1991.

The following chart outlines the sample schedule for each team on the 20-day trips. A more complete schedule that includes travel is presented graphically in Figure 2.

TEAM 1 TEAM 2

ACTIVITY DAYS ACTIVITY DAYS

Travel to LCR Reach 2 Travel to Granite Reach 3

Sample LCR Reach 10 Sample Granite Reach 10

Travel to Havasu Reach 2 Sample Havasu Reach 5

Sample Havasu Reach 5 Travel to takeout 2

Travel to takeout 1

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 13 Ten Day Trips

Two 10-day trips were conducted in 1990, one each in October and December. These trips were designed to concentrate sample effort in the LCR Reach with the purpose of recontacting previously radiotagged fish and monitoring their movement and habitat use. Since the October trip was the first of this investigation, the primary objective of this trip was to implant ten adult humpback chub with radiotags. Fish were also implanted in November. The December trip was conducted primarily to monitor fish that were radiotagged in October and November. Throughout these trips, and until June 1991, research activities are designed to monitor fish activity and habitat changes in response to scheduled research flows from Glen Canyon Dam.

The following is a description of the sample schedule for the 10-day trips. Sampling rountines were only partially implemented during startup in 1991, with an emphasis on radiotelemetry. The 10- day trips will involve one field team with 6 B/W and 1 ACT biologists (Figure 3). Following sampling,

3 or 4 B/W people will hike out at Phantom Ranch while the remaining 2 or 3 proceed to the

Diamond Creek takeout with the OARS crew to disassemble gear and return to Flagstaff.

The team will use three 16-foot research sportboats (one electrofishing and two net-

ting/tracking) and one 33-foot support boat. The three research boats were motored through the

canyon in October and in December, two of the research boats were rolled and loaded on one 33-

foot S-rig and one 23-foot J-rig which remained with the team during the entire trip. The third

research boat was motored through the canyon. The following outlines the sample schedule for the

team on the 10-day trips.

ACTIVITY DAYS

Travel to LCR Reach 2

Sample LCR Reach 6

Travel to takeout 4

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 14 TEN—DAY TRIPS Personnel: 6 B/W + 2 ACT. Boats: 1 Electrofishing + 2 Netting/Tracking Sportboats, 1 37—foot S—rig + 1 23—foot Snout.

DAY TEAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Base Crew Rig Boats; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Logan Crew Travels -1-- -I- --1- 1- -1 -1- -1 Launch — Travel Lees Ferry to LCR - - - - - Sample and Radiotrack Upper Reach I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 4 — 5 Hike out at Phantom -1- -I- -1- Logan Crew Travel -1- 4 - 4- -1 - -1- ----1 - -I- - _1 L _L L _ _L _L Base Crew Travels to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 Diamond Creek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Take out at Diamond Creek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 3. BIO/VVEST's travel and sample schedule for 10-day trips. Sampling Fish

Electrofishing

Two electrofishing boats were available for sampling starting in October 1990. The electrofishing apparatus were assembled by B/W and Reclamation biologists so that the two systems are similar with interchangeable components. The two systems were tested in the area of Lee's Ferry with the assistance of Mr. Norm Sharber of Coffelt Manufacturing. Electrofishing was not used as extensively as anticipated because of the time required to check and clean gill and trammmel nets.

Increased efficiency with setting and cleaning nets and additional personnel should allow for greater use of electrofishing as a tool in this investigation.

Electrofishing will be used in this investigation to sample fish of all sizes in shallow shoreline habitats of all three sample reaches. Electrofishing will be used as a primary sample method to characterize fish assemblages for comparisons between sample areas and for the same area over time.

Electrofishing will also be used to capture humpback chub for implanting radiotags. Where possible, results of electrofishing efforts will be separated by major geomorphological shoreline type (e.g. sheer wall, talus, sand beach) by conducting discrete runs within each habitat type. The number of fish captured by species in a discrete effort will be recorded and related to time for calculation of catch- per-unit effort (CPU) expressed as number of fish per 10 hours of effort.

Electrofishing will be conducted from SU-16 Achilles Sportboats with the capability to up-run and navigate small and medium-sized rapids for increased access to sample areas. Each is designed to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety requirements with specialized equipment such as safety switches, insulated railing, separate line-channeling for circuits, rubber gloves, boots, lights, etc. Each system is powered by a 5000-watt Yamaha industrial grade generator

Model YG-500-D. Power from the generator is routed through a Mark XX Complex Pulse System

(CPS) developed by Coffelt Manufacturing where the current is transformed from a 220 volt AC to

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 16 pulsed DC current. The pulsed DC current is then supplied to the water through to one anode ( +) mounted on a boom projecting from the front of the boat and a cathode (-) suspended from the stern. Stainless steel spheres manufactured by Coffelt Manufacturing are used as electrodes. Output settings on the CPS are expected to range from 15 to 20 amperes and 300 to 350 volts as recommended by Coffelt Manufacturing for electrofishing in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon

Dam (Personal Communication with Norm Scharber, October 9, 1990). The anode and cathode are interchanged every 45 to 60 minutes of electrofishing to allow for cleaning of the cathode surface by reversing the electroplating process.

All fish captured during electrofishing are processed immediately upon completion of a run within a specific habitat type. Each fish is visually examined for evidence of injury associated with electrofishing. Any fish showing signs of injury (e.g. burn marks, spinal deformity, failure to recover) is noted. Nontarget fish are released immediately after processing generally within 0.1 to 0.2 mile of the point of capture. Humpback chub are transported to a central processing station near camp but released at their capture location.

Greater electrofishing effort is planned on the 20-day trips in 1991 than was conducted in

November. More efficient scheduling of field crews will allow regular monitoring of gill and trammel nets and free personnel to conduct electrofishing.

Nets

Gill Nets. Gill nets were used extensively in 1990 and will continue to be used as a primary sample gear to characterize fish assemblages of shallow to deep shoreline habitats. This gear type will be used to compare fish distribution and abundance by area and for the same area over time, as well as to categorize general fish habitat use. A variety of mesh sizes will be used to capture all adult and most juvenile fish. The number of fish captured by species from a net set will be recorded for calculation of catch-per-unit effort expressed as the number of fish per 100 feet of net per 10 hours.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 17 1 Three types of gill nets will be used including 1) standard 1/2" gill net; 2) standard 1" gill net; and 3) experimental gill nets consisting of four mesh sizes, 2",11/2",1",1/2", graduated from large to small mesh at 25 foot intervals. All nets are 100 feet in length and 6 feet deep, and constructed of double knotted #139 nylon multifilament twine. Float and lead line consist of 1/2" diameter braided poly foamcore float line and 5/16" braided leadcore leadline, respectively. White mooring boat bumpers will be used as net floats and markers for high visibility. These will be labeled to alert other boaters of their purpose. Polypropylene mesh bags filled with rocks serve as net weights. Nets will be checked at least every 2 hours to minimize stress and reduce mortality of entangled fish. Nets clogged with Cladophora glomerata or debris will be replaced.

Trammel Nets. Trammel nets were also used extensively in 1990 and will be used with gill nets to characterize fish assemblages and to document changes in fish distribution and abundance over time and area. Trammel nets will also be used as an active gear by floating nets through areas of fish concentrations, such as during spawning time. This technique may be used occasionally in areas of low current and smooth sand bottom.

Trammel nets consist of three panels of netting, two outer walls of large mesh and one inner panel of a small mesh. The outer walls on all trammel nets will consist of #139 multifilament twine netting with a 12" mesh. The inner panel will consist of one of two different mesh sizes, either 1" or 11/2"; these mesh sizes have been found most effective for capturing humpback chub with a minimum of damage. All inner panels will be constructed of double knotted #139 nylon multifilament twine.

Seines. Seines were not used extensively in 1990. Their use will increase in 1991 to sample various shoreline habitats including runs, riffles, pools and backwaters. This gear will be used primarily to characterize small fish assemblages in shallow habitats. For each seine haul, the length and width of the habitat sampled will be measured as well as maximum water depth. The length and

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 18 width of the haul will also be measured and three water depths recorded, one at the deepest point of the haul, and one each midway from the deepest point to the nearest shore. These measurements will allow researchers to express the number of fish captured in terms of surface area (number of fish per 10 square meters). Each backwater seined will be checked for longitudinal thermal gradients prior to seining. If significant temperature differences occur, extreme care will be taken to not subject the fish to thermal shock during seining, holding, and release.

Fish captured in a seine will be kept in the water while all endangered and native fishes are removed and placed in live wells (bail buckets). The seine is then beached and a second intensive search is made. After all endangered and native fish have been removed the remainder of the fish are placed in a live well. Fish captured with seines will be identified in the field and released live at capture locations. Specimens that cannot be identified afield will be preserved in 3 to 5% formalin and placed in an appropriately-labeled sample jar. Incidental mortalities will also be preserved. All preserved fish will be returned to the BIO/WEST laboratories for further identification and processing. Specimens will be transferred annually to the Service or AGF as required by scientific collecting permits.

Three sizes of seines will be used for this study including 30'x6'x1/4", 15'x6'x1/4" and 10'x4'x1/8"

(length x height x mesh size). The top or float line is constructed of 5/16-inch braided polypropylene with hard foam floats placed at 18-inch intervals. The bottom line consists of braided polypropylene line with lead sinkers placed at 6-inch intervals.

Fish Trays

Minnow Traps. Unbaited minnow traps will be used in 1991 to sample small fish in a variety of habitats including backwaters, small embayments, rocky shorelines, and pools. Minnow traps used for the study will be standard Gee Minnow Traps, 171/2 inches long, 9 inches in diameter, constructed of galvanized wire and steel. Openings are located on both ends of the trap.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 19 Traps will be placed on the bottom or suspended in the water column depending on conditions. Each trap will be tethered to a secure anchor point and flagged for easy location. Traps will be checked at least every 8 hours to minimize stress and mortality. Fish captured in traps will be transferred to live wells for immediate processing.

Hoop Nets and Frame Nets. Hoop nets were used in 1990 and will be used in 1991 in various low velocity habitats such as slow runs, pools, backwaters shoreline indentations and side channels.

Two sizes of hoop nets will be used including 2'x 10'x 1/2" and 4'x 16'x 1" (diameter x length x mesh size). Two wings made of 1" #15 nylon will be attached to the opening of the hoop nets. Each wing is 25 feet in length.

Hoop nets will be set by anchoring the rear of the net to the substrate with a length of rebar or fence post and the mouth oriented in a downstream direction to capture upstream moving fish.

Nets will be checked at least every 8 hours to minimize stress or mortality.

Frame nets (similar to hoop nets except for differences in the shape of the net frame and

configuration of the lead or wing) will be set and used in the same manner as hoop nets. Fish

captured in the hoop and frame nets will be placed in live wells for processing and released

immediately near the point of capture.

Anding

Angling has been used as an effective method for capturing humpback chub in the upper

Colorado River Basin, including Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon (Valdez et al. 1982) and Yampa

Canyon (Tyus and Karp 1989). The most effective baits included native grasshoppers, cheese balls,

salmon eggs, artificial flies, and Mormon crickets. No live baits (e.g. Mormon crickets or

grasshoppers) will be used on this project to avoid introduction of exotic insect species into the Grand

Canyon ecosystem.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 20 Angling will be used to capture humpback chub in deep pools that are otherwise inaccessible to other sample gears. Angling for this species is also successful along vertical shoreline cliffs. This gear may also prove effective for capturing fish determining feeding periodicity through stomach analysis. Fish captured by angling will be processed immediately and released. Angling effort will be recorded as time spent with line in the water.

Handling Fish

A Fish Handling Protocol was developed by BIO/WEST that details the methods to be used in this investigation for handling fish. The elements of this protocol were implemented during the three 1990 field trips. Every effort was made to minimize stress to the fish. Gill and trammel nets were checked at least every 2 hours and all fish captured were placed immediately in live wells with fresh water. Electrofishing was monitored closely and all fish were checked for evidence of injury.

Non-target species (flannelmouth suckers, bluehead suckers, rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, carp, channel catfish, speckled dace, and Plains killifish) were measured, weighed and released immediately at the point of capture--either immediately after each electrofishing run or each net check. Each humpback chub was placed in a live well and returned to a central processing station located at camp. Each chub was measured as total ( m), standard (SL), and forked length (FL); weighed in grams; PIT tagged if over 175 mm TL; and photographed on a centimeter grid board with still and video cameras. One of every ten chubs over 200 mm U was measured for meristics including depth of nuchal hump, head length, distance between the insertion of the pelvic and pectoral fins, maximum body depth, maximum caudal peduncle depth, minimum caudal peduncle depth, length of anal fin base, length of dorsal fin base, and dorsal and anal ray counts. Humpback chub large enough to radiotag (550 gm for 11-gm tags and 450 gm for 9-gm tags) were isolated in a live well and taken to the surgery tent (See Surgical Implant Section of Radiotelemetry).

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WF-ST, Inc. 21 Radiotelemetry

Fish Transport and Holding

A total of 17 adult humpback chub were equipped with radiotransmitters in 1990. Each fish was handled with particular care and attention to minimize stress. This included holding the fish in a separate live well for transportation to a surgery station and constant monitoring to insure that no signs of stress were exhibited.

The surgery station included a surgical tent and a fish processing area that were set up and maintained for the duration of each trip. As the fish were brought to the station in live wells, they were measured, weighed and PIT tagged in the fish processing area. Then, each humpback chub was photographed on a white grid board, and fish designated for radio-implant were transferred to the surgical tent. The fish were kept in live wells with fresh river water at all times.

Radiotag Implanting

Telemetry Check All radiotags were checked for frequency and pulse when received from the factory. Frequency and pulse rate were rechecked prior to implantation and immediately following release to insure that the transmitter was functional and that frequency and pulse rate were accurately recorded.

Surgical Procedures. A thorough review of the literature on surgical procedures for radioimplant was conducted for this investigation. The surgical procedures used are modified from

Bidgood (1980) and Tyus (1982, 1988) and were outlined in Yard et al. (1990). Only individuals thoroughly trained in the appropriate surgical procedures were allowed to implant radiotags.

All surgeries were performed inside a tent to minimize exposure to blowing sand and reduce

the risk of infection. All instruments were cold sterilized in 90% isopropyl alcohol and allowed to

air dry on a disposable sterile cloth. Gortex CV3 suture on a PH 26 curved needle was used instead

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, 22 of 3-0 Ethilon because Gortex is easier to handle, has greater tensile strength, and integrates into tissue to promote faster healing and less tissue damage.

The radiotags were cold sterilized to reduce the possibility of peritoneal infection. Other researchers (Tyus 1982, 1988) have coated the transmitters with beeswax to provide an inert surface and reduce peritonitis and tag expulsion. The manufacturers of the radiotags contend that the epoxy resin that encases the electronic components of the transmitter is less irritating and can be more effectively sterilized than beeswax (Personal communication with Michael Shuster, ATS; Lee

Carstonsen, Smith-Root, Inc.). Beeswax also adds undesired weight and bulk to the transmitter.

Care was taken to select fish that were healthy and showed no signs of stress. Fish were selected for radio-implant on the basis of body weight and robust appearance. The criterion was established that the air weight of the tag did not exceed 2% of the body weight of the fish. Thus 11- gm tags were implanted in fish that weighed more than 550 gm, and 9-gm tags were implanted in fish weighing more than 450 gm.

Fish were anesthetized with tricaine methanosulfate (TMS or MS-222) mixed in a live well.

Surgery was performed on a special cradle with the fish out of water. Respiration and general condition of the fish were monitored throughout the surgery. Fresh water and anesthesia were

alternately administered to the gill area of the fish from large bail buckets via 3/4-inch diameter 5-foot

long surgical hoses. Flow through the hoses was controlled with pinch clamps.

Surgery began immediately and was usually completed in less than 6 minutes. An incision

approximately 3 cm long was made along the abdominal midline of the fish ending about 2 cm

anterior to the pelvic girdle. Other investigators conducting radiotelemetry studies of humpback chub

(Valdez and Clemmer 1982, Valdez and Nilson 1982, ICaeding et al. 1990), bonytail (Chart and Lucas

1990), Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker (Tyus 1982, 1988; Valdez and Masslich 1989) placed

the abdominal incision laterally along the base of the rib bones. The midline incision technique was

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 23 used in this study because it was determined that the linea alba (midline) is a facial plane that is stronger than muscle fibers and heals quicker. It also has little vascularity and few nerves so there is less damage from the incision. This promotes rapid resumption of normal behavior.

The distal tip of the transmitter antenna was grasped with a pair of curved mosquito forceps used to guide the antenna into the incision and posterior along the inner abdominal wall to an area about 1 cm posterior to the pelvic girdle at which point a small 5 mm nick was made for exit of the antenna. The transmitter was then guided into the abdomen to rest on the pelvic girdle while pulling the antenna to full length. The larger abdominal incision was then closed with 3 or 4 sutures and the smaller nick was closed with one anterior and one posterior suture. This procedure for locating the external antenna is also a deviation from standard techniques which employ a large hollow needle instead of the mosquito forceps. The above described procedure is favored because there is less risk of internal damage from the smooth tipped forceps.

Tracking

Aerial Radiotracking. Aerial tracking was conducted once in 1990 prior to the December trip.

Aerial tracking will be conducted prior to each field trip to provide field crews with approximate locations of radiotagged fish. Aerial tracking will be conducted from a helicopter, flying at an altitude of 500 to 1000 feet and speeds of up to 80 mph.

Two types of radio receivers will be used for aerial tracking, one Model 2000 ATS programmable receiver (programmed with specific radio frequencies) and one Smith-Root SR-40 simultaneous scanning receiver (programmed with frequency bands). Each will be attached to one of two Larsen-Kulrod omni-directional whip antennae mounted to the skids of the helicopter. The antenna on the pilot's side will be connected to the Model 2000 ATS receiver and the antenna on the passenger's side will be connected to the SR-40 receiver. Output signals from both receivers will be routed through a switch box to two sets of headphones, one for the tracker and one for the pilot.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 24 This enables the tracker to quickly identify signal frequency and pulse rate by switching between the scanning and programmed receivers.

All active transmitter frequencies will be programmed into the Model 2000 ATS programmable receiver prior to each aerial tracking effort. A list of all frequencies and pulse rates for active transmitters and the last known location of the transmitter will be available to the tracker.

Surveillance flights will proceed in a downstream direction for the entire length of the study area.

Since the SR-40 has the capability of simultaneously scanning all frequencies, the chance of missing signals is minimized and tracking speeds is not as restricted as with cycling search receivers.

The resolution of fish locations is expected to be within 0.1 to 0.2 miles. When frequency is confirmed, fish location is plotted on a map for latter transfer to a field crew. Aerial tracking continues until all of the transmitters have been located or a reasonable search has been conducted.

Ground Radiotracking. Radiotracking is conducted from the research and logistic boats during all downstream travel, beginning at Lee's Ferry and continuing to the take out point for each trip. Radio receivers are stowed in water-proof boxes in whitewater sections, but remained accessible so that tracking efforts can continue once rapids have been negotiated. Tracking my be conducted from more than one boat at a time to simultaneously monitor both sides of the channel, although this tracking mode may not be necessary since signal strength is usually sufficient to be received by a boat at midchannel.

Radiotracking is done with either the Smith-Root SR-40 scanner or the ATS Model 2000 programmable receiver using Larsen-Kulrod omni-directional whip antennas mounted on large metallic base plates such as cargo boxes.

Multiple surveillance runs are made daily through the reach of river occupied by radiotagged fish. The purpose for these surveillances is to determine diel use of near-surface habitats and regions deeper than about 4 m.

TR250-02 3/91

BIO/WEST, Inc. 25 Individual radiotagged fish will be monitored for either 2 hours or 24 hours to characterize local movement and habitat use. Fish chosen for monitoring in 1990 were not randomly selected because each was not consistently contacted in water shallower than about 4 m. Thus, fish were monitored when their radio signal was audible. When a fish was contacted, an attempt was made to determine its general location from the boat using an ATS Model 2000 receiver and a directional loop antenna. When the general location was established, the tracking boat was taken to the shore nearest the fish taking care to not disturb the fish. An ATS Model 2000 programmable receiver and directional loop antenna were used from shore to triangulate the position of the fish in the channel.

Fish monitored for 2 hours are first observed for 30 minutes to determine if their position is static or dynamic. If the fish is stationary, its location is triangulated and marked. The fish is then

1 monitored for an additional 1 /2 hours to determine habitat use. Triangulation sightings are marked

1/2 for all locations where a fish remains stationary for 30 minutes or more during the 1 hour monitoring period.

If the fish is moving, its movements are monitored for an undetermined amount of time to ascertain its behavior and or movement patterns in relation to various factors including: 1) stage changes; 2) local macrohabitats and/or; 3) other radiotagged fish in the area. If the fish becomes stationary, it is monitored as described above for a stationary fish.

Fish monitored for 24 hours in 1990 were carefully observed for habitat use and movements particularly during changes in flow stage. In future trips, each movement by a fish and each area occupied for longer than 30 minutes will be mapped on a mylar overlay over a 1:2400 scale photograph of the area. River stage, recorded on temporary bench marks, is recorded for each observation for the fish. Generally, fish monitored for 24 hours are checked every 1 to 2 hours or more frequently if river stage changes rapidly.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 26 A detailed hand drawn map or a detailed map using mylar overlay of an aerial photo

(depending on photo availability) will be prepared for each fish that is monitored. Distance and direction of all movements are recorded on the map and in the telemetry log relative to time and stage of the river.

At the conclusion of monitoring, habitat measurements are taken at all locations where the fish was stationary for at least 30 minutes. Habitat measurements taken at each point include depth, velocity, substrate, temperature, overhead cover, and lateral structure. Procedures for measuring each of these microhabitat parameters are presented in the Microhabitat Measurements Section below.

Remote Telemetry. Two remote telemetry stations will be located near the mouth of the LCR early in 1991 to monitor radiotagged fish moving into that tributary from both upstream and downstream directions. The upstream station will be located on river left just above the LCR and the downstream station will be located about 1 km downstream from the LCR on river right. These sites were selected because of their proximity to the LCR confluence and because of the relatively shallow channel that will insure receiving radio signals from moving fish.

Programmable ATS Model 2100 receivers will be used at each station with compatible analog

ATS dataloggers. These receivers will be housed in small boxes to protect instrumentation from the elements and to minimize vandalism. The housing units will be painted a neutral color and discretely located to reduce visibility from the river. Yagi antennas will be used to detect a radiotagged fish passing through the area. The dataloggers will record individual frequencies and time of day on a continuous scanning mode.

Information will be downloaded from the dataloggers on every trip (approximately 2-3 week intervals) onto 5 1/4 inch diskettes using a laptop computer. Backup copies of diskettes will be made before the memory on the dataloggers is erased.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 27 Habitat Assessment

M icrohabi tat Measurements

Microhabitat will be measured in conjunction with radiotelemetry monitoring to characterize habitat used by adult humpback chub. Depth, velocity, substrate, overhead cover, and lateral structure will be recorded at each location occupied by a radiotagged fish for 30 minutes or more.

Measurements of physical habitat will be taken either from a boat or by wading to the point located by triangulation. Depth will be measured to the nearest tenth of a meter using either a telescoping meter rod or a wading rod. In areas where the total depth exceeds the length of the metered rod, depth will be taken using a fathometer. Water velocity will be measured with a Swoffer current meter to the nearest tenth of a meter per second at the same location as the depth measurement. Velocity of the water column will be measured at 3 cm off the river bottom, and at two-tenths, six-tenths and eight-tenths of the water depth. In extremely deep water, an effort will be made to collect as many of the column velocities as possible. Selection of the depths of water velocity measurements will be made using a top setting wading rod to facilitate correct depth selections. Measurements taken in eddies or reverse river currents greater than 90 degrees from the main directional flow of the river will be recorded as negative velocities.

Substrate will be categorized as silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder or bedrock by visual observation, probing with depth rod, or physical examination. Substrate categories are described in

Table 4. The two most common substrates will be recorded and classified as either dominant or subdominant. The substrate which accounts for the greatest surface area will be considered dominant.

The second most commonly occurring substrate will be considered subdominant.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 28 Table 4. Substrate categories and descriptions.

Substrate Description

Silt fine material <.062 mm in diameter

Sand coarse fines .062 - 2 mm in diameter

Gravel particles 2 to 75 mm in diameter

Cobble particles 75 to 300 mm in diameter

Boulder particles >300 mm in diameter

Bedrock substrate a solid rock shelf

Cover at the fish location will be characterized in terms of lateral, overhead and instream cover based on observations at the microhabitat sampling location. Overhead cover is characterized as overhanging banks such as rock ledges or streamside vegetation. Lateral cover includes vertical rock walls and boulders. Instream covers types include boulder, log or debris jam, sand shoal, or rock jetty.

Flow/Stage Monitoring

Eight temporary bench marks (TBM) were established in 1990 in a 5-mile area of the LCR reach. Variation in river stage will be monitored with temporary staff gages surveyed to these TBMs.

These TBMs will be established at strategic locations in order to relate fish movement and habitat use to river stage. Each TBM will be surveyed into one of the 50 permanent USGS bench marks at a later date so that relative stage changes can be related to absolute changes and thus to specific flow releases from the dam. Temporary staff gages will be employed during field trips for radiotelemetry monitoring and habitat mapping and will be placed close to radiotagged fish or within an area to be mapped for simultaneous readings.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 29 Habitat Mapping

Areas commonly occupied by humpback chub will be intensively mapped to document changes in macrohabitat and use of those habitats by the fish under different river flows. Areas selected for mapping will be determined from repeated captures of fish and routine use by radiotagged fish.

Areas not occupied by humpback chub will also be mapped to contrast with habitats that are used.

Base maps will be constructed from aerial photographs using overlays of acetate sheets to hand-sketch habitat features visible to the investigator at different river stages. A different overlay will be developed for a different flow stage so that the change in area by habitat type can be assessed.

As part of the mapping effort cross-sectional profiles of the river section being mapped will be constructed using boat mounted fathometers. Bathymetric contours will be determined at known flow stages. The number of cross-sectional profiles used to characterize the a river section will depend on the variability of the channel morphology. A minimum of three cross-sectional profiles will be used in each mapping section. More refined bathymetric profiles of depth and velocity are being developed by L. Stevens which will be used in combination with our habitat mapping efforts to characterize fish habitat in three-dimension.

The mapping effort will be supplemented with photography. Photographs will be taken from established photo points for each area mapped using the same film size and lenses with similar focal lengths to facilitate comparisons over time. The following is a list of macrohabitats as these are defined for the purposes of mapping:

Habitat Type Definition

Backwater A sheltered body of water bound by land on three sides and with one opening (BA)

to the river. Backwaters have no measurable velocity and are created by a drop in

water level which eliminates flow through a secondary channel or a sand depression.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 30 Backwaters are also created at high water by flooding mouths of washes or other low-

lying areas.

Eddy A portion of the river, usually deeper than the adjacent channel, with a distinct (ED)

whirlpool or counter-current. An eddy is usually created by obstructions in the

channel or projections of land or rock from the shore. Lateral and upstream

boundaries are denoted by an eddy line, shear zone, or a land mass; downstream

boundary is denoted by the release of flow from the region of counter-current.

Pool A stretch of the river that is deep and quiet. A pool generally has lower surface

(PO) velocity than the adjacent channel, and is often characterized by small surface

boils and upwellings; the boundaries of a pool are marked by dramatic increases in

velocity and depth.

Run A stretch of relatively deep, fast laminar flow. A run has no large surface boils (RU)

or upwellings, and it may be deep or shallow. Slow runs and fast runs are segregated

by average water column velocities of less than or greater than 2.0 fps.

Slackwater A habitat similar to a slow run, but with very low velocity created by instream (SW)

structure such as a sand shoal, emergent island, or an eddy. Unlike pools, slacicwaters

have no surface boils or upwellings, and they may not be deeper than adjacent areas;

unlike runs, slackwaters have much lower velocity.

Riffle A shallow area with distintly broken surface.

Rapid A relatively deep area with large standing waves.

Run/Rapid A relatively deep area with small standing waves.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 31 Water Quality

Collection of water quality data was initiated in 1990 with an assessment of important water quality parameters and sample locations. This program will be further developed in 1991 with the assistance of Mr. Bill Vernieu, water quality specialists for GCES. This program will also be coordinated in 1991 with a study to monitor ambient and in situ light intensity in the Grand Canyon.

Basic water quality data will be collected to supplement physical habitat measurements.

Parameters to be recorded include dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, salinity, redox potential, and turbidity. All parameters except turbidity will be collected with a Hydrolab Surveyor water quality monitor. Water quality data will be collected at various locations within the study at various times of the day and night. A water quality log will be maintained for each trip.

RESULTS

Sample Effort

Fish were sampled in 1990 during trips 1 and 2 (October and November), primarily with electrofishing gear and nets (Table 5). Fish were not sampled during trip 3 (December) to allow more time for radiotracking. Reach 1 (LCR) was sampled during trips 1 and 2, while Reaches 2 and

3 were sampled only during trip 2, which is consistent with sample schedules for 10 and 20-day trips.

Six different gear types were used in 1990 (Table 5). The effort with each gear type was not necessarily equal between trips or reaches because the crews were in the process of establishing sample routines, testing relative gear efficiencies, and determining most effective gear types and set locations.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 32 Table S. Sampling effort hours by trip for each of the three sampling reaches, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990'.

Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3

Gear' Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Total

EL 5.00 3.20 8.20 - 4.00 4.00 - 2.70 2.70 14.9 TL 62.86 38.95 _ 101.81 - 64.12 64.12 - 89.61 89.61 255.54 TK 30.70 54.57 85.27 - 58.92 58.92 - 90.09 90.09 234.28 GM 40.43 10.36 50.79 - 71.38 71.38 - 51.82 51.82 173.99 GP 53.93 66.74 120.67 - 28.85 28.85 - 48.69 48.69 198.21 GX 15.68 19.72 35.40 - 7.18 7.18 - 14.85 14.85 57.43 HL - - - - 87.31 87.31 - 43.10 43.10 130.41 HS - - - - 61.73 61.73 - - - 61.73

1- Fish were not sampled during Trip 3. 2- See Table 6 for definitions.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 33 Gear Effectiveness

The majority of humpback chubs (56) were captured with trammel nets (Table 6). The

1 1 /2" (n) and 1" (TK) mesh nets captured approximately equal numbers of chubs (30 and 26, respectively). The three types of gill nets jointly yielded 32 chubs. The 11/2"-mesh captured 28 while the 2" mesh and the experimental gill nets captured 3 and 1 chub, respectively. Only six chubs were captured by electrofishing. No YOY chubs were collected by netting but several chubs from 96 to

143 mm TL were captured by electrofishing.

Gross catch-per-effort (CPE) for the six gear types (Table 6) indicate approximately equal catch rates for the 11/2" (TL, 1.57 fish/100710 hours) and 1" (TIC, 1.49) mesh trammel nets as well as the 11/2" (GP, 1.45) gill nets. Catch rates for the 2" (GM, 0.17) and experimental gill nets (GX, 0.17) were substantially lower. However, electrofishing produced the highest catch rate for humpback chub in 1990 with over 4 fish/10 hours. A conclusive evaluation of gear types can not be made because of small sample sizes, particularly for electrofishing. However, the 1990 data indicate that 1" and 11/2" mesh trammel nets and 11/2" gill nets are effective for capturing adult chubs in the mainstem Colorado

River in Grand Canyon. Electrofishing may provide an even more effective means for capturing chubs, particularly the younger fish that are not caught in nets. A complete evaluation of gear types will not be available until the end of the 1991 sample year.

Trammel and gill nets were set for maximum periods of 2 hours to minimize stress to the fish. All humpback chub captured with these gears were in good condition with a mimimal of abrasions and no mortalities. Accumulations of Cladophora glomerata necessitated replacing nets after 2 to 6 hours of fishing to minimize avoidance by the fish. The nets were spread on sand beaches, allowed to dry, and the debris brushed away. Dry and cleaning nets required a substantial amount of time by personnel, but the number of humpback chub captured with no mortalities supported the effort.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 34 Table 6. Numbers of humpback chub captured by gear type, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990.

GEAR TYPE Number of Gross CPE Chubs (no/hrs)t Electrofishing EL - 220-V DC 6 4.03 Trammel Nets TL - 75' x 6' x 11/2" x 12" Trammel net 30 1.57 TK - 75' x 6' x 1" x 12" Trammel net 26 1.49 Gill Nets GM - 100' x 6' x 2" Gill net 3 0.17 GP - 100' x 6' x 11/2" Gill net 28 1.45 GX - Experimental Gill net 1 0.17 Hoop Nets HL - Large hoop net (4' diam.) 0 - HS - Small hoop net (2' diam.) 0 -

TOTAL 94 94

' Gross catch-per-effort (CPE computed from total hours; trammel nets adjusted to 100 feet.)

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 35 Species Composition and Distribution

Summaries of all fish species captured in 1990 by study reach and trip are presented in

Tables 7 and 8. Reach 1 was dominated by rainbow trout (64.78%) with humpback chubs comprising nearly 20% of all fish captured. Rainbow trout also dominated the catch in Reach 2 (62.46%), and carp were second in abundance with 16.61%. Humpback chubs comprised only a small fraction of fish collected in Reach 2 (0.33%). Reach 3 was dominated by common carp (48.48%) with rainbow trout second in abundance (31.82%), while humpback chubs increased to 4.55% of all ash captured.

Flannelmouth suckers and channel catfish comprised 6.06 and 7.58% of the catch, respectively in

Reach 3.

Summarym_a of Humpback Chub Captured

A total of 94 humpback chub were captured in 1990 (Table 9). Of these, 83 were PIT tagged and 17 were radiotagged. All fish were photographed with still and video cameras, and meristics were measured on 46 fish.

All but three of these fish were collected in Reach 1. One chub was collected in Reach

2 near Shinumo Creek (river mile 108.3) and two were collected in Reach 3 near Pumpkin Spring

(river mile 213.6).

A total of 83 humpback chubs were PIT tagged by B/W during 1990. Forty-two chubs were

PIT tagged in October and 41 in November. All radiotagged fish were also PIT tagged, except for

one that was inadvertently omitted. Three B/W PIT tagged chubs were recaptured during November

1990. These chubs were recaptured only days after their original tagging and one fish had moved

about 1 mile.

Twelve chubs were recaptured from previous AGF tagging efforts (Tables 10 and 11). In

October 2 Carlin and 3 Foy-tagged chubs were recaptured. Five Carlin and 2 AGF PIT tagged chubs

were recaptured in November. All 12 of these recaptured chubs were originally tagged in the Little

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 36 Table 7. Fish species composition by trip for each of the three sample reaches, Grand Canyon Studies, 19901.

Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3

Species' Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Total

HB 45 45 90 - 1 1 - 3 3 94 FM 11 12 23 - 24 24 - 4 4 51 FV 0 1 1 - 0 0 - 0 0 1 BH 0 1 1 - 5 5 - 0 0 5 RB 122 176 298 - 188 188 - 21 21 507 BR 8 11 19 - 28 28 - 1 1 48 BK 0 1 1 - 2 2 - 0 0 3 . CC 1 0 1 - 2 2 - 5 5 8 CP 13 12 25 - 50 50 - 32 32 107 SD 0 0 0 - 1 1 - 0 0 1 PK 0 1 1 - 0 0 - 0 0 1

SUM 200 260 460 0 301 301 0 66 66 826 • Electrofishing (hrs) 5.00 3.20 8.20 4.00 4.00 .70 2.70 14.90 Netting (hrs) 203.60 190.34 393.94 - 379.49 379.49 338.16 338.16 1111.59

1- Fish were not sampled during Trip 3. Species: HB = humpback chub FM = flannelmouth sucker FV = flannelmouth sucker variant BH = bluehead sucker RB = rainbow trout BR = brown trout BK = brook trout CC = channel catfish CP = carp SD = speckled dace PK = plains killifish

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 37 \ Table 8. Percentage of species by trip for each of the three sample reaches, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990E.

Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Species Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Trip 1 Trip 2 Total Total

HB 22.50 17.31 19.57 - 0.33 0.33 - 4.55 4.55 11.38 FM 5.50 4.62 5.00 - 7.97 7.97 - 6.06 6.06 6.17 FV 0 0.38 0.22 - 0 0 - 0 0 0.12 BH 0 0.38 0.22 - 1.66 1.66 - 0 0 0.61 RB 61.00 67.69 64.78 - 62.46 62.46 - 31.82 31.82 61.38 BR 4.00 4.23 4.13 - 9.30 9.30 - 1.52 1.52 5.81 BK 0 0.38 0.22 - 0.66 0.66 - 0 0 0.36 CC 0.50 0 0.22 - 0.66 0.66 - 7.58 7.58 0.97 CP 6.50 4.62 5.43 - 16.61 16.61 - 48.48 4.8.48 12.95 SD . 0 0 0 - 0.33 0.33 - 0 0 0.12 PK 0 0.38 0.22 - 0 0 - 0 0 0.12

1- Fish were not sampled during Trip 3.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 38 Table 9. Summary of humpback chub captured in 1990, Grand

Canyon Studies.

Total Caught Pit Tagged Radio Tagged Recaptured Meristics

94 83 17 15 46

TR250-02 3/91

BIO/WEST, INC. 39 Table 10. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during 1990.

GEAR OLD VVT RM RM # DATE TYPE P11"fAG RECAP TAG TL (mm) (gm) (capture) (release) 1 10/17/90 GP 7F7F3E3454 Y 0315176 355 430 60.4 60.4 2 10/17/90 GP 7F7F3F36266 Y 0683 432 780 60.4 60.4 3 10/17/90 GP 7F7F3F441C N - 353 370 60.4 60.4 4 10/17/90 GP 7F7F3E3370 N - 329 515 60.4 60.4 5 10/17/90 GP 7F7F3E2D2D6 N - 439 865 60.4 60.4 6 10/17/90 TL 7F7F3F50506 N - 428 840 60.2 60.4 7 10/17/90 TL 7F7F3E2253‘ N - 382 535 60.2 60.4 8 10/17/90 TL 7F7F3E4067 N - • 365 530 60.2 60.4 9 10/18/90 GP 7F7F3F40546 Y 305673s 415 720 60.4 60.5 10 10/18/90 GP 7F7F3 E2A49 N - 332 405 60.4 61.2 11 10/18/90 GP 7F7F3F452E N - 382 510 60.4 61.2 12 10/18/90 GP 7F7F3F396A N - 374 690 60.4 61.2 13 10/18/90 rt. 7F7F3F50446 N - 388 580 60.6 60.5 14 10/18/90 TL 7F7F450272 N - 451 790 60.2 61.2 15 10/18/90 TL 7F7F3F4577 N - 367 495 60.2 61.2 16 10/18/90 TL 7F7F3C4554 N 413 800 60.2 61.2 17 10/19/90 GM 7F7F451157 N - 392 540 65.4 65.5 18 _ 10/19/90 GM - ESCAPED - - - 65.4

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 40 Table 10 (continued) # DATE GEAR PIT TAG RECAP OLD TL (mm) WT (gm) RM RM TYPE TAG (capture) (release)

19 10/19/90 GP - ESCAPED - - - 64.6 - 20 10/19/90 TK 7F7F3F4F47 N - 240 160 65.2 65.5 21 10/19/90 TK 7F7F3C3F16 N - 260 160 65.2 65.5 22 10/19/90 TK 7F7F3E271F N - 340 400 65.2 65.5 23 10/19/90 Tic 7F7F3F4F30 N - 287 215 65.2 65.5 24 10/19/90 TK 7F7F3C2925 N - 223 94 65.2 65.5 25 10/19/90 TL 7F7F3F4747 N - 344 350 64.6 65.5 26 10/19/90 TL 7F7F3E2B52 N - 332 370 64.6 65.5 27 10/19/90 TL 7F7F3F4E11' N - 376 465 64.6 65.5 3602 28 10/19/90 TL 7F7F3C2419 Y 355 440 64.6 65.5 29 10/20/90 GM 7F7F3C2B55 N 405 745 65.4 65.5 30 10/20/90 GP 7F7F3E3E51 N 325 320 64.6 65.5 31 10/20/90 TK 7F7F3C2B56 N - 342 455 65.0 65.5 32 10/20/90 TK 7F7F3E2F3V Y 03140214 367 500 65.0 65.5 33 10/20/90 TL 7F7F3E2E29 N - • 404 550 64.6 65.5 34 10/20/90 TL 7F7F3C311C' N - 395 525 64.6 65.5 35 10/20/90 TL 7F7F456B20 N - 390 605 64.6 65.5 36 10/20/90 TL 7F7F3F5043 N - 334 405 64.6 65.5 37 10/21/90 EL 7F7F3C3Al2 N 372 410 65.0 65.5

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/VVEST, Inc. 41 Table 10 (continued) # DATE GEAR PIT TAG RECAP OLD -rt, (mm) VVT (gm) RM RM TYPE TAG (capture) (release)

38 10/21/90 EL N - 100 8 65.0 65.0 39 10/21/90 TK 7F7F3F4C73 N - 297 312 65.0 65.5 40 10/21/90 TK 7F7F3F480D N - 398 638 65.0 65.5 B 41 10/21/90 TK 7F7F3F4E06 N - 341 140 65.0 65.5 42 10/21/90 TK 7F7F3E3804 N - 290 - 270 65.0 65.5 43 10/21/90 TK 7F7F3C3956 N - 221 116 65.0 65.5 44 10/21/90 TL 7F7F3C3000 N - 203 58 65.0 65.5 45 10/21/90 U. 7F7F3F4B71 N - 334 345 65.0 65.5 46 901116 GP 7F7F3F470E N - 343 385 60.1 61.2 47 901116 GP 7F7F3C303Ir Y 5781 396 665 60.1 60.2 48 901116 GP 7F7F3F4B54 N - 377 314 60.3 61.2 49 901116 GP 7F7F3F4C44 N - 282 270 60.3 61.2 50 901116 GP 7F7F3F3B6A N - 331 340 60.3 61.2 51 901116 GP 7F7F3E2F26 N - 370 565 60.1 61.2 52 901116 GP 7F7F3E2F28 N - 352 410 60.1 61.2 53 901116 GP 7F7F3F4630 N - 349 250 60.3 61.2 54 901116 GP 7F7F3E2720 N - 355 465 60.3 61.2 55 901116 TL 7F7F3E2D41 Y 6032 294 270 60.4 61.2 56 901116 TL 7F7F3C6C11 Y - 335 292 60.4 61.2

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/VVEST, Inc. 42 Table 10 (continued) # DATE GEAR PIT TAG RECAP OLD TL (mm) WT (gm) RM RM TYPE TAG (capture) (release)

57 901116 TL 7F7F456643 Y - 330 336 60.4 61.2 58 901116 TL 7F7F3E4105 N 361 392 60.4 61.2 59 901116 TL 7F7F3E4044 N - 334 392 60.4 61.2 60 901116 TL 7F7F3C44526 N 404 672 60.4 60.4 61 901117 GP 7F7F3F4E776 N - 407 675 61.0 61.0 62 901117 GP 7F7F451C79 Y 930 311 270 61.0 61.2 63 901117 GP 7F7F3C4538 N - 373 475 61.0 61.2 64 901117 GP 7F7F3E2E73 N - 390 520 61.0 61.2 65 901117 TK 7F7F3E3310 N - 367 420 61.0 61.0 66 901117 TK 7F7F3E232E N - 360 289 61.1 61.1 67 901118 GP 7F7F3F4E02 N 382 502 61.0 61.2 68 901118 TK 7F7F3E2B6B Y 3162 393 585 61.1 61.2 69 901118 TK 7F7F3C277A N 294 252 61.1 61.2 70 901118 TL 7F7F3E3C5C N - 422 798 61.1 61.1 71 901119 EL N 143 25 62.0 62.0 72 901119 GP NO PITTAG6 N - 407 825 62.0 62.0 73 901119 GP 7F7F3C2F4B N 359 330 62.0 62.0 74 901119 TK 7F7F3E2739 N - 365 450 62.0 62.0 75 901119 TK 7F7F3E4105 Y - - 61.5 61.5

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 43 Table 10 (continued) # DATE GEAR PIT TAG RECAP OLD TL (mm) WT (gm) RM RM TYPE TAG (capture) (release)

76 901119 TK 7F7F43407F N - 405 645 61.5 61.5 77 901121 GX 7F7F3C4477 N - 380 519 64.2 64.2 78 901121 TK 7F7F3F4802 Y 1132 368 604 64.3 65.5 79 901121 TK , 7F7F3E2D14 N - 390 537 64.3 65.5 80 901121 TK 7F7F450E4C N - 363 488 64.3 65.5 81 901121 TK 7F7F3C29196 N - 394 635 64.1 64.1 82 901122 EL - N - 96 7 64.8 65.5 83 901122 EL 7F7F3C4455 N - 263 221 64.8 65.5 84 901122 EL 7F7F3E317C N - 303 257 64.8 64.8 85 901122 TK 7F7F3E290D N - 335 274 64.4 65.5 86 901122 TL 7F7F3C3F17 N - 338 367 64.6 65.5 87 901123 GP 7F7F45574B N - 363 562 64.9 64.9 88 901123 TK 7F7F451644 N - 225 125 108.3 108.4 89 901123 TL 7F7F3C264C N - 352 520 64.4 65.5 90 901123 TL 7F7F3C41626 N - 402 732 64.4 64.4 91 901124 TL 7F7F3C4477 Y - 380 497 65.4 65.5 92 901130 TL 7F7F3E3212 N - 318 280 213.6 213.6 93 901201 TK 7F7F3E3212 Y - 318 257 212.5 212.5 94 901201 TL 7F7F3F4B6C N - 330 280 213.6 212.8

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 44 Table 10 (continued)

" Small red carlin tag ' Small yellow carlin tag ' Small orange carlin tag ' Yellow floy tag - AGFD ' Orange floy tag - AGFD ' Fish implanted with radio transmitter

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 45 Table 11. Movements of humpback chub evaluated by recapture location, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990.

Tag Type Tag Number Original Original Capture Location Recapture Date Recapture Capture Date Location

Yellow floy tag - AGFD 0315176 5/1/86 Mouth of LCR, RM 61.5 10/17/90 60.4 Small orange carlin tag 068 5/11/89 300 meters up LCR 10/17/90 60.4

Orange floy tag - AGFD 305673 5/25/85 LCR RM 61.5 10/18/90 60.4

Small yellow carlin tag 360 - No aata 10/19/90 64.6

Yellow floy tag - AGFD 0314021 6/3/86 Mouth of LCR RM 61.5 10/20/90 65.0

Small reJ carlin tag 578 5/3/87 Mouth of LCR 61.5 11/16/90 60.1 Small yellow carlin tag 603 5/23/88 LCR SD Hoop 11/16/90 60.4

Pit 7F7F3C6C11 4/23/90 LCR SS D Hoop 11/16/90 60.4

Pit 7F7F456643 5/2/90 Mouth of LCR 61.5 11/16/90 60.4 Small orange carlin tag 936 5/25/90 LCR notch 11/17/90 61.0 Small yellow carlin tag 316 5/21/88 LCR confluence 61.5 11/18/90 61.1 Small yellow carlin tag 113 5/18/88 LCR NR RR Tie 11/21/90 64.3

Pit 7F7F3E4105 11/16/90 61.2 11/19/90 61.5

Pit 7F7F3C4477 11/21/90 64.2 11/24/90 65.4

Pit - 11/30/90 212.5 12/01/90 213.6 / \

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 46 Colorado River or at its confluence with the mainstem Colorado. Several chubs exhibited movements up to 5 miles from their original point of capture.

Radiotelemetry

Number radiotagged

A total of 17 humpback chub were implanted with radio transmitters in 1990 (Tables 12 and

Table 13). Two sizes of transmitters with external antennas were used: 11 gms (Model 2 w/ 10-35 battery) and 9 gms (Model 2 w/ 10-18 battery). Thirteen and four transmitters of the respective sizes were used. An analysis of weight-frequency for the 94 humpback chub captured in 1990 shows that

19 fish (20% of total) weighed 450 to 549 gins, while 24 fish (26%) weighed 550 gins or more

(Figure 4). Thus, in 1990, 46% of the humpback chub captured were large enough to receive a radiotag.

It is possible to use transmitters as small as 9 and 11gm because the external antenna allows for greater signal strength. Internal-antenna transmitters of comparable strength would have to weigh

16 gins. In order to maintain the criterion that tag weight cannot exceed 2% of fish weight, only fish weighing 800 gms or more could be implanted. In 1990, only 4 fish (4%) satisfied this criterion, and all were females. Thus, continued use of external-antenna transmitters is recommended unless the

2% criterion is modified.

Habitat use

Habitat use was evaluated during 24-hour and 2-hour monitoring periods. Six fish were

monitored for 24 hours and five fish were monitored for 2 hours. Habitat maps were either hand-

drawn on data sheets or on mylar overlays of 1:2400 aerial photos.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 47 Table 12. Summary of current radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during 1990. ! TL WT PULSE RATE RADIOTAG LIFE EXPEC- DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITIAG (mm) (g) FREQ (pulses/min) SIZE (g) TANCY (days) EXTINCTION (RM) (RM)

1 10/17/90 7F7F3F5050 428 '840 40.670 60 11 100 910125 60.2 60.4

2 10/17/90 7F7F3E2D2D 439 865 40.640 59 11 100 910125 60.4 60.4

3 10/17/90 7F7F3F3626 432 780 40.620 78 11 75 901231 60.4 60.4

4 10/17/90 7F7F3E2253 382 535 40.650 81 11 75 901231 60.2 60.4

5 10/18/90 7F7F3F4054 415 720 40.630 39 9 50 901207 60.4 60.5

6 10/18/90 7F7F3F5044 388 580 40.680 77 11 75 910101 60.6 60.5

7 10/19/90 7F7F3F4E11 376 465 40.690 40 9 50 901208 64.6 64.9

8 10/20/90 7F7F3E2F3A 367 500 40.660 39 9 50 901209 64.6 64.7

9 10/20/90 /F7F456B2C 390 605 40.610 , 58 11 109 910128 64.6 64.7

10 10/20/90 7F7F3C311C 395 525 40.600 40 9 50 901210 64.6 64.7

11 11/16/90 7F7F3C4452 404 670 40.600 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.4 60.4

12 11/16/90 7F7F3C303B 396 665 40.700 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.1 60.1

13 11/17/90 7F7F3F4E77 407 675 40.710 79 11 75 01/30/91 61.0 61.0

14 11/18/90 7F7F3E3C5C 422 798 40.730 61 11 75 01/31/91 61.1 61.1

15 11/19/90 r NO PITTAG 407 825 40.740 79 11 75 02A)1/91 62.0 62.0

16 11/21/90 7F7F3C2919 394 635 40.640 78 11 75 02/03/91 64.1 64.1

17 11/23/90 7F7F3C4162 402 732 40.630 62 11 100 02/29/91 64.4 64.4 / \

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 48 • Table 13. Summary of radiotelemetry information collected during previous trips, 1990, and current status of radiotagged humpback chubs.

# DATE OF FREQ CURRENT PREVIOUS LAST PULSE' PULSE' R.1144 CONTACTED' LOCATED` 2HR7 24HR7 LOCATI- ON'

1 901214 40.670 64 60 60.3 Y Y Y

2 901215 40.640 54 59 60.3 Y Y

3 901214 40.620 68 78 60.8 Y Y Y

4 901017 40.650 NC 81 (60.4) P N

5 901214 40.630 39 39 60.6 Y Y N N 6 901124 40.680 - 77 (60.6) _ 7 901117 40.690 - 40 (64.6) N N

8 901215 40.660 39 39 64.7 Y Y

9 901117 40.610 NC 59 (64.6) P N

10 901217 40.600 38 40 64.8 Y Y Y

11 901215 40.600 64 62 59.9 Y Y Y

12 901117 40.700 NC 62 60.9 Y N

13 901217 40.710 82 79 60.8 Y Y Y

14 901216 40.730 60 61 60.8 Y Y

15 901121 40.740 NC 79 (62.0) N N

16 901122 40.640 - 78 (64.0) P N

17 901216 40.630 65 62 64.5 Y Y Y

1- Date of most recent location, from current trip or previous trips. 2- Pulse counts from current trips, NC=not counted. /* Pulse counts from most recent contact prior to current trip. 4- River mile of last location from current trip or previous trip. 5- Indicates if fish was contacted on current trip, Y=Yes, P=Possible, N=No. 6- Indicates if specific location of fish was determined during current trip. 7- Indicates whether 2-hour or 24-hour monitoring was conducted.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 49 Number of Fish 6 P

5 Fish Eligible for Radio-Implant 9 gram Tags. n-19

3 11 gram Tag. n-24

1.- 2

II Hui 1 milli pi 1 i mp 11111111 1 11111 11 111 II 1 111111111 1 11111 1111111111111111111111111111011111111111111 0 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 Weight in grams (5g increments)

Figure 4. Weight-frequency distribution of 94 humpback chub captured in 1990, Grand Canyon Studies, 1990. All fish monitored (2-hr and 24-hr) were using either run or eddy habitats. Specific areas used by fish were often associated with some type of instream cover, i.e. boulder fields, large solitary boulders, tapeats ledges.

Movement

Two types of movements were observed in 1990, long-range movement and local movement.

Long-range movement was associated with fish that moved a significant distance. It was considered transitory because it occurred between habitats located some distance apart. Long-range movement generally occurred between trips although this type of movement was also observed during the course of a single trip (4 to 8 days). This type of movement was generally evaluated through multiple discontinuous contacts, although direct observations were made during 24-hour monitoring efforts.

Long-range movement of humpback chub in Reach 1 was generally less than 0.5 miles. Fish were observed moving up to 0.3 miles and then returning to an original location, suggesting an affinity for specific locations. Limited observations suggest that flow changes may have caused these movements.

Local movement describes the activity of a fish within a localized area, with no significant change in position. This mode often involves movement within a single macrohabitat, i.e. eddy, pool, run. Local movement of humpback chub was evaluated during 2-hour and 24-hour monitoring periods. Some fish moved very little within a very specific area (100 square meters), while others were more active and moved in a larger area (0.1 square miles) occupying one or more habitats.

Movement between habitats was often associated with changes in flow stage.

Vertical movement of humpback chub was also observed, as was indicated by loss of radio signal at about 4 m depth (Yard et al. 1990). It was assumed that fish were within 4 m of the water's surface when a radio signal was audible and below that level when the signal was not audible.

Constant monitoring of individual fish suggests that both horizontal and vertical movement was affected by at least three variables, (1) time of day, indicating diel fish activity, (2) turbidity level,

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 51 and/or (3) river stage. Diel activity is common in many fish species, and was evident with humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. Highest activity levels, as indicated by radiotelemetry and net and electrofishing catches, were occured during crepuscular periods with lowest levels in mid-day and at night. Turbidity also appeared to affect activity. Highest activity occurred in moderate to high turbidity, and could be seen as increased local movement of radiotagged fish and net catches. It was possible to isolate the variable of turbidity by examining fish activity above and below the LCR.

When the LCR was turbid, fish activity in the mainstem Colorado River was generally greater below the confluence of the LCR. The third variable that was identified as having an impact on fish movement was river stage. Fish movement generally increased with increased stage change.

Statistical analyses were not performed on movement because of the small amount of data collected in 1990. Additional data will be collected in 1991 to further assess the impact of all variables that affect the behavior and ecology of the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon.

Evaluation of radiotelemetrv

Radiotelemetry proved to be a very valuable technique for observing movement, habitat use,

and behavior of humpback chubs in the LCR Reach. Radiotelemetry observations in association with capture techniques (netting and electrofishing) were particularly valuable in identifying variables that

affect activity patterns and ecological requirements of humpback chubs.

Transmitter signal extinction associated with depth and high conductivities was a factor in

telemetry efforts in 1990. Although depth extinction prevented monitoring fish in water deeper than

4 m, it did not preclude the collection of valuable information and in some respects, became

advantageous. According to Yard et al. (1990) loss of signal occurred between 13 to 15 feet deep

in the mainstem Colorado River. Due to this depth extinction phenomena, periodic loss of contact

with fish was expected and did occur in 1990. The primary disadvantage associated with loss of

contact was the lost opportunity to monitor fish in a randomized manner or for extended time periods

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 52 at all water depths. However, depth extinction of signals has a practical application for assessing some aspects of behavior and use of the vertical water column by humpback chub. Observations during 1990 of temporal patterns of depth extinction for groups of fish suggest specific use of the water column above 4 m and below 4 m at certain times and under certain conditions. As discussed above, the variables that determine this use include time of day, turbidity and river stage.

Transmitters

Nine and 11-gm transmitters were used during 1990. The purpose for using the two sizes was to allow for a greater size range of fish to be implanted. The transmitters performed adequately for purposes of the study, although pulse rate changed more than expected (up to 10 pulses per minute). Signal frequency did not change appreciably. With a pulse separation of 20 pulses per minute for transmitters with the same frequency, drifting pulse rates could complicate identifying individual fish, although this was not a problem in 1990. Also, increased pulse rate can result in reduced transmitter life, conversely slower pulse rates can extend tranmitter life. All 9-gm transmitters (4) used in 1990 exceeded their life expectancy of 60 days.

Receivers

Both the ATS Model 2000 and Smith-Root SR-40 receivers performed adequately for purposes of the study. The advantages and disadvantages associated with the two receivers are as follows:

ATS Model 2000

Advantages:

1) High sensitivity due to tunable capability.

2) Light weight and easy to transport and use.

3) Programmable frequencies allow for versatility when searching for specific

fish.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 53 Disadvantages:

1) Monitors only one frequency at a time and the time required to scan and

monitor up to 15 frequencies limits the receiver's value as a search receiver

from a helicopter and during downstream travel

2) Internal batteries cannot be replaced in the field resulting in down-time

during recharging.

3) Lack of a noise reduction system limits its use around motors (i.e. outboard

motors, helicopters), consequently reducing its facility as a search receiver.

Smith-Root SR-40

Advantages:

1) Simultaneous scanning of 15 frequencies is desireable as a search receiver.

2) External batteries can be replaced easily resulting in no down-time.

3) Noise reduction system allows use around running motors, greatly

facilitating the receivers use for searching.

Disadvantages:

1) Receiver is large and relatively heavy.

2) Lacks sensitivity of tunable receiver.

Antennae

Two antennae designs were used in 1990 including a Smith-Root bi-directional loop antenna and a Larson-Kulrod Omni-directional whip antenna. The loop antenna was used as a locator antenna in lieu of a Yagi- design since the former is more compact and easier to transport and use.

Whip antennas performed well as search antennas. They attached easily with the magnetic base and are easily transported and stored. Yagi antennas are planned for use with the remote telemetry stations proposed for the LCR Reach.

TR250-02 3/91 BIOAVEST, Inc. 54 S U MICA! PROCEDures

Surgical procedures for implanting radiotransmitters in humpback chub resulted in 100% recovery from surgery. All implanted chubs recovered quickly and appeared healthy, exhibiting normal behavior when released. A more complete evaluation of the surgical procedures will be possible when radiotagged fish are recaptured and incisions and fish condition are examined.

Six of the 17 radiotagged fish were not contacted one month after release. There are several possible explanations for this lack of contact, including radiotag failure, emigration from the study reach, fish occupying deep water habitats, or fish mortality.

Habitat Assessment

Habitat Use

Radiotagged adult humpback chub that were monitored in 1990 provided limited information on their habitat use in the mainstem Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Habitats utilized was primarily angular boulder piles adjacent to deep areas and steep ledges with lateral cover. The majority of humpback chub were found in either run or eddy habitats. The chubs captured in nets

and with electrofishing were in similar habitats. Most chubs were collected in nets set near boulder

habitats with adjacent steep ledges and deep water areas. No chubs were collected from sand or silt

habitats.

Habitat Availability

Available habitats for humpback chub vary between study reaches. Reach 1 is dominated by

Tapeats and Shinumo Quartzite ledges with many boulder rockfalls that provide shoreline lateral and

overhead cover. The lower areas of Reach 1 below Lava/Chuar rapid (RM 65.5) are broad and

shallow. The last several miles of Reach 1 contain ledge habitat with few boulder outfalls.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 55 The Granite Gorge reach, (Reach 2), exhibits a variety of habitat. Steep schist ledges dominate the upper sections to about RM 136 where tapeats ledges dominate the middle sections

with Muav limestone cliffs dominating the lower regions around Havasu Creek.

Reach 3 is characterized by a wide canyon and broad channel with little cliff or ledge habitat.

Many large eddys lined with riparian vegetation dominate this reach. Tapeats ledges occur

sporadically near RM 213 and small pockets of schist are found from RM 217 to Diamond Creek.

River Stage Changes

Eight temporary benchmarks were used to assess river stage changes during radiotelemetry

monitoring (Table 14). Each benchmark was used in monitor stage change between hydraulic

controls.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 56 Table 14. A list of temporary benchmark locations established in 1990.

RIVER MILE SHORE ID NUMBER DATE SURVEYED 60.0 LEFT 1.0600 12-17-90 60.1 RIGHT 2.0601 12-14-90 60.3 LEFT 1.0603 11-17-90 60.8 RIGHT 2.0608 11-18-90 60.9 LEFT 1.0609 12-15-90 63.9 LEFT 1.0639 11-21-90 64.5 RIGHT 2.0645 12-16-90 64.8 LEFT 1.0648 11-23-90

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 57 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This report reflects the results of only three field trips conducted in 1990. Data collected during these trips are too limited for analyses to address the objectives and associated hypotheses of the investigation. Therefore, the following is a summary of findings during the first four months of the project relative to each hypothesis, as well as the proposed approach and any adjustments to that approach as a result of the investigation to date.

Objective 1: To determine the ecological and limiting factors of all life stages of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon, and the effects of the Glen Canyon Dam operations on the humpback chub.

A literature review is being conducted to determine the known ecological requirements of the humpback chub. A comprehensive library of information on the humpback chub is currently being assimilated by C.O. Minckley as part of a separate project. BIO/WEST has contributed to this library and will use it as the basis for determining known ecological requirements of the species. The

BIO/WEST literature review will focus on known habitat use, water quality conditions, and biological needs of the species in the lower and upper Colorado River basins. A list of known ecological requirements or criteria will be developed to compare with existing conditions of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. This background information will provide a perspective on the life history requirements of the species in order to determine if specific ecological factors are lacking or limiting in the Grand Canyon, and how these factors are impacted by Glen Canyon Dam operations. This literature review and list of criteria will be assimilated early in 1991.

Field investigations are currently focused on filling data gaps and informational needs on the critical life history requirements of the humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River. Intensive sampling is being conducted in the mainstem to determine seasonal distribution, abundance, movement patterns, resource use and availability, and survivorship of the various life stages. Changes

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 58 in habitat parameters are being monitored during scheduled research flows to determine if the operation of Glen Canyon Dam limits or enhances these basic ecological needs of the species. Each of the following sub-objectives or tasks will be addressed by testing one or more hypotheses (Ho):

Task 1A: Determine resource availability and resource use (habitat, water quality, food, etc.) of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River.

Ho 1A-1: Habitat is limiting under certain flow conditions to humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon.

Too few measurements of micro and macrohabitat were taken in this investigation in 1990 to characterize habitat use and availability. Observations of radiotagged adult humpback chub showed that most fish remained in very specific locations (microhabitats) for extended periods of time from

October through December. Movement from these locations and from macrohabitats was seen at different times of the day and night, with different flow levels and changes, and under different turbidity levels. These variables together with geomorphic channel type have been identified as being the primary variables that affect habitat selection. A sampling program is being designed around radiotelemetry monitoring to measure these variables in order to understand the relationships that affect the fish.

This hypothesis will be tested by identifying the habitat parameters most used by humpback chub and observing the changes to and availability of these parameters at different flow levels and stage changes (ramping rates). This task identifies habitat availability and use in order to determine if habitat is limiting.

Macrohabitat availability will be determined for each of the three study reaches with the aid of selected aerial photographs available from Reclamation, and through still and video photography from permanent riverside stations. Aerial photographs were not available in time to begin this mapping process in 1990, but are being made available for start of this task early in 1991. The area

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 59 of each macrohabitat type (backwaters, eddies, pools, runs, riffles, rapids, slackwaters, etc.) will be

mapped on mylar overlays at different water levels using existing aerial photographs and direct observations similar to the technique employed by Valdez and Masslich (1990) in the Green River,

Utah. Changes in surface area of macrohabitats will be interpreted between mylar overlays with the

aid of an AutoCad Computer System. This analysis will establish relationships between area of

specific macrohabitat types and flow levels and provide a quantification of macrohabitats in each of

the three regions by river flow.

Micro and macrohabitat used by adults are being determined from radiotagged fish during an

established radiotelemetry monitoring program. Radiotelemetry has been used to describe habitat

and local movement of humpback chub in the Upper Basin (Valdez and Nilson 1982, Valdez and

Clemmer 1982, Kaeding et al. 1990) and was the preferred tool for developing habitat suitability index

curves for the species (Valdez et al. 1990). Microhabitat is described in terms of depth, velocity,

substrate, overhead cover, and lateral structure in association with radiotagged fish. Associated

macrohabitat will be mapped on aerial photographs and changes documented during monitoring.

Changes in river stage are being monitored with temporary bench marks.

Habitat of YOY and juveniles is being determined from capture information with the use of

seines, minnow traps, and experimental gill nets in shallow shoreline habitat and backwaters. This

sampling is being done concurrently with the AGF backwater program which has been ongoing for

several years.

Ho 1A-2: Water quality is limiting under certain flow conditions to humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon.

Regularly scheduled water quality sampling has not been implemented in this investigation.

Existing USGS water quality gages will be used to monitor ongoing water quality parameters of the

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 60 Colorado River. Hydrolabs are being used to describe water quality parameters associated with specific areas (e.g. tributary inflows) and events (e.g. floods).

Sudden and dramatic movements of fish will be closely monitored to determined if these are caused by changes in water quality or other factors. Concentrations of fish particularly around tributaries or springs will be documented and water quality parameters measured to identify relationships. Also, a thorough literature review will be conducted to identify limiting ranges of water quality parameters for humpback chub. This information will be related to existing conditions of the

Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and to the present status of the species in the study area.

Turbidity is considered an important variable that may affect the behavior and distribution of humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. Since the species evolved in a highly turbid river system and has been shown to be negatively phototrophic (Bulkley et al. 1982), removal of silts and sands through settlement in Lake Powell may be affecting its life history and behavior. Behavior relative to turbidity will be monitored for radiotagged fish using their occurrence in the uppermost 4 m of water as an index of near-surface use. Since radiosignal extinction occurs at about 4 m (Yard et al.

1990), the occurrence of radiotagged fish near the surface can be separated from use of deep water during different levels of water clarity. Telemetry surveillances will be conducted during the four light periods (dawn, day, dusk, night) to determine if near-surface habitat use is related to light penetration and therefore water quality. Also, stomach contents of the fish will be examined to determine if feeding periodicity is affected by turbidity (See hypothesis Ho 1A-3).

Turbidity in the study area is affected by tributary inflow, local rainfall, debris flows, and the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. This parameter will be measured on a diel basis during each sample trip. An index of light penetration will also be taken with a Sechi disk during radiotelemetry monitoring and surveillance. A relationship will be established between readings from a limnophotometer and a Sechi disk.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 61 Ho 1A-3: Food is limiting under certain flow conditions to humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon.

A food habits study of humpback chub in the Grand Canyon will be initiated in 1991. A feasibility study has been developed to evaluate use of nonlethal stomach pumping methods by using surrogate species such as roundtail chub and bonytail chub. Stomach content analysis is critical in characterizing the life history and ecology of the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. Food habits, combined with food availability information from drift and benthic samples, will be assessed to determine if dam operations are affecting the availability of food resources as well as the timing of availability. Stomach contents of humpback chub will be sampled during various flow scenarios to determine if changes in behavior (i.e. additional movement) are induced by greater food availability or changes in habitat.

Leibfried (1988) found that rainbow trout below Glen Canyon Dam ingest large quantities of Cladophora, deriving nutritional benefit through digestion of lipid-rich diatoms epiphytic on the algae. It is important to know if humpback chub exhibit similar feeding strategies since Cladophora production is closely linked to stream flow and hence dam operation. This relates to flow as well as temperature regimes. Certain flow scenarios may affect production of Cladophora and temperature changes are likely to affect epiphytic diatom communities (Blinn et al. 1989).

Food habits of humpback chub will be examined by a nonlethal method using the principle of a stomach pump. Fish will be mildly anesthetized with MS-222 before inserting the inlet tube into the esophagus. The stomach will be mildly irrigated with water to flush material into a collecting funnel and container. Material pumped from each fish will be stored separately and examined in the laboratory to determine composition and volume.

Task 1B: Determine the reproductive capacity and success of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 62 Ho 1B-1: Humpback chub do not actively spawn in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon.

Main channel reproduction by humpback chub in the Grand Canyon is at best extremely limited, or more likely nonexistent as a result of cold water temperatures (Maddux et al. 1987).

Attempts will be made to determine if spawning occurs in the mainstem in 1991 by observing the nuptial condition of captured fish and by following closely the movements of radiotagged fish suspected of being in spawning condition. Sudden movements and aggregations of radiotagged fish may lead to specific spawning locations that can be confirmed by intensively sampling the area with various gears for gravid females and ripe males. Discovery of such an area will invoke intensive sampling for eggs and larvae.

It is also possible that radiotagged fish will ascend to spawn in one of several tributaries in the Grand Canyon (Little Colorado River, Shinumo Creek, Havasu Creek, ICanab Creek, Bright

Angel Creek, Tapeats Creek). A concerted effort will be made to radiotag at least 15 adults during the March 1991 trip in order to provide sufficient numbers of radiotagged fish for tracking during the spawning period of late April and May. A concerted effort will be made during these two months to track these fish. Also, two remote telemetry stations will be established on the mainstem at the mouth of the LCR, one to monitor fish moving from upstream and one to monitor fish moving from downstream. Radiotagged fish that ascend these tributaries will be followed and data collections will be coordinated with the Service and AGF. The lower reach (1-2 km) of these tributaries will also be routinely ground searched for radiotagged fish when crews are in the vicinity. Tributary inflow

areas will also be sampled intensively during suspected spawning periods to determine if spawning is occurring in tributary deltas warmed by the inflow.

Spawning locations, concentration areas, and staging areas identified in the mainstem will be

mapped in detail at various flow stages. Cross sectional profiles will be taken with stadia rods and

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 63 sonar units, substrate will be assessed, and velocities will be measured where possible. Shoreline habitats near and below suspected spawning areas will be sampled intensively to confirm the presence of YOY chubs and to assess their relative densities as well as habitat use.

Task 1C: Determine the survivorship of early stages of the humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River.

Ho 1C-1: Survival of early life stages of humpback chub is low in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon.

Relatively few young humpback chub were captured in 1990. This may reflect the gear types and efforts expended or low densities of the young fish in the mainstem. Efforts will be made in 1991

to employ more gear types (i.e. minnow traps, seines, small-mesh hoop nets, electrofishing and experimental gill nets) to capture the young fish.

Survival of early life stages of humpback chub will initially be assessed primarily on age-0 fish entering the mainstem from the LCR. Intensive sampling will be conducted at the mouth of the LCR

in late May and early June to capture large numbers of age-0 humpback chub for mark and release.

These fish will be marked by clipping a small portion of the caudal fin. A mark of longer duration

is urgently needed in order to follow the survival of these fish over several years, but none has been

developed to date. Ideally, the age-0 fish from the LCR should be permanently marked within the

system by investigators from ASU and AGF so that these marked fish can be followed into the

mainstem and the proportion of escapement and residence determined for the LCR as well as survival

rates in the two systems.

Survival of age-1 and age-2 fish will also be difficult to assess without the aid of a permanent

mark. These fish are still too small to PIT tag and fin clips retain their identity for only short time

periods. Fish that are age-3 and older should be large enough to PIT tag (>175 mm n...) and

assessing survival of age-3 and age-4 fish is possible. However, distinguishing age-5 fish and older is

difficult because of variable and inconsistent growth rates for individual fish. Information currently

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 64 being assimilated by other investigators (AGF, ASU, D. Hendrickson, C.O. Minckley) on age-length and age-growth relationships for humpback chub will aid in differentiating age groups of particularly the younger fish. Length-frequency analyses will be made for fish captured in this investigation and others in the Grand Canyon to relate survival of known length fish to age group survival. It is anticipated that age-0 through age-4 fish will be distinguishable from length-frequency analysis, but older fish may not be distinguishable because of the affect of maturation and spawning on growth.

Thus, survival rates of humpback chub will be determined separately for age-0, age-1, age-2, age-3, and age-4 fish while survival of all adults is treated as a group.

If spawning is found in the mainstem, attempts will be made to gather information on spawner numbers, fecundity, and escapement as input into population modeling efforts.

Task 1D: Determine the distribution, abundance and movement of the humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, and effects of dam operations on the movement and distribution of humpback chub.

Ho 1D-1: The distribution and abundance of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon, is affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations.

The above hypothesis will be tested by assessing the potential effects of dam operation on the distribution and abundance of the species. First, the distinction must be made between the effect of the presence of the dam and its operation. Most investigators (Carothers et al. 1981, Maddux et al. 1987) believe that cold water releases, irrespective of fluctuating flows, have reduced the pre-dam distribution and abundance of the species.

The pre-dam and current post-dam distribution and abundance of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon, are not accurately known. Pre-dam data from the mainstem are nonexistent except for some sampling at the LCR and its influence area (Kolb and

Kolb 1914, Miller 1946, Wallis 1951). Post-dam information is primarily from the LCR Reach but scant from the other sample reaches. This study will attempt to refine known seasonal distribution

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 65 and abundance information on humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon, by using sample methods previously described in this document. These sample efforts are expected to confirm recent collection locations of the species and possibly identify additional locations.

The affect of the present operation of the dam on the distribution and abundance of the species will focus on habitat dynamics and tributary access. Habitat availability will be determined as described under hypothesis Ho 1A-1. This analysis will determine the distribution and availability of habitat at various flows. Also, access by fish into six key tributary streams (LCR, Bright Angel,

Tapeats, Shinumo, Kanab, Havasu) will be evaluated by measuring water depth and velocity at the mouth for fish passage at various flow stages. Passable depth and velocity measurements will be related to mainstem flows in order to identify water conditions that could allow access by adults into these tributaries for spawning. Acceptance of this hypothesis is based on the assumption that increased access into these tributaries would enhance reproduction by humpback chub and thus distribution and abundance.

Ho 1D-2: Cold water releases from Glen Canyon Dam affect the distribution and abundance of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon, independent of dam operations.

The influence of cold water releases (40° F) on the distribution and abundance of humpback chub in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, independent of fluctuating flows, will be evaluated in order to determine if the presence of Glen Canyon Dam alone determines distribution and abundance or if these factors are determined by fluctuating flows as a result of dam operations.

This hypothesis will be tested by examining the temperature requirements of each life stage of the species, and comparing with existing temperature regimes in the Grand Canyon. Consideration will also be given to balancing detrimental affects of cold temperature on the species with the beneficial affect of excluding predators and competitors.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 66 Another aspect of temperature that will be examined is as it affects epiphytic diatom communities. Leibfried (1988) determined that rainbow trout in the Grand Canyon utilize diatoms epiphytic on Cladophora as a primary source of lipids. Blinn et al. (1989) observed significant changes in these epiphytic diatom communities when water temperature was increased from 12°C to

18°C, but no change was observed between 18°C and 21°C, suggesting a temperature threshold between 12°C and 18°C for diatom flora below Glen Canyon Dam. Increased water temperature could significantly affect food resources of the fish species in the Grand Canyon that exhibit the same feeding strategy as humpback chub.

Ho 1D-3: Movement of humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon, is greater during fluctuating flows than during stable flows.

The affect of fluctuating flows will be assessed on two modes of movement by humpback chub, long-term and short-term movement. Long-term movement is defined as total movement by a fish over an extended period of time, observed between seasons or years. It is often related to spawning but may be related to temperature preference, or food or habitat availability. Long-term movement is determined primarily from recaptured PIT-tagged or fin-clipped fish.

Short-term movement is observed movement by a radiotagged fish during 2-hour or 24-hour monitoring. These movements are often part of diel movement patterns, or are in response to feeding behavior, habitat changes, or sudden and dramatic changes in water quality (e.g. large sediment load from debris flow). Long-term movement may occur during short-term observations as in spawning movements.

Short-term movement in response to fluctuating or stable flows will be assessed by observing individual radiotagged adults for periods of 2 to 24 hours. Movement of each fish will be determined in distance and time between locations occupied for 30 minutes or more. Each location will be

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 67 pinpointed by triangulation from the nearest shore and indicated on a 1:2400 scale map for accurate measurements of movement.

A concerted effort will be made to sample near designated tributaries and coordinate efforts with the ongoing AGF and Service programs in these tributaries since the greatest impact of fluctuating flows may be in staging areas at tributary mouths. Telemetry surveillance will be conducted in the lower 3 km of the LCR during each of our tracking trips to determine if radiotagged humpback chub are occupying the lower reach of this tributary. Tracking will be conducted by helicopter and by at least two people on foot following each of the banks of the stream with radio- receivers. Specific movements and habitat use of individual radiotagged fish will be monitored during scheduled flow releases in order to ascertain the reaction of the fish and their habitat to flow changes.

Fish movement will be mapped on mylar overlays using aerial photographs of the study areas to indicate changes in habitat during the GCES research flows. Our findings to date indicate that the research flows are not amenable to fisheries investigations. Since it is necessary for us to establish

'control' conditions for movement and habitat use of adult humpback chub, stable flows are needed at 5,000; 10,000; 15,000; and 20,000 cfs. These flows would have to be of a 5-day duration in order to allow the fish to adjust to conditions. Our observations during short-term (72-hour recalibration) flows in 1990 suggest a lag period of readjustment.

Task 1E: Determine important biotic interactions with other species for all life stages of humpback chub.

Ho 1E-1: Introduced non-native fish species have a negative effect on humpback chub in the mainstem Colorado River, Grand Canyon.

Various aspects of the life history of the humpback chub may be affected by certain biotic interactions with other species of fish such as channel catfish, carp, rainbow trout, brown trout, and striped bass. The possible influence of competition and predation by these exotic species will be identified and separated from the effects of dam operations. Stomachs will be examined from

TFt250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 68 sacrificed channel catfish, striped bass, and brown trout year-around to determine the degree of predation on the various life stages of humpback chub. Where possible, predators will be captured with hook and line to avoid possible biases imposed by conventional sample gears (regurgitation, consuming other species while holding in hoop nets). Carp will also be sacrificed and examined during and shortly after spawning to determine if this species preys on eggs and young.

Other interspecific interactions such as overlap in habitat use and food resources will be evaluated by keeping records of all fish captured during sampling. These interactions will be described by reach, habitat type, tributary influence, and size of fish.

Objective 2: Determine the life history schedule for the Grand Canyon humpback chub population.

The life history of the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon will be described with the aid of existing literature and data gathered from this field investigation, designed to fill the data gaps and informational needs. Population characteristics will be described including, but not limited to, distribution, abundance, density, growth, and survivorship. Individual statistics will be also be assimilated including, but not limited to, fecundity, growth, survival, and movement. Also, spawning time and conditions, appearance of larvae, habitat use by age group, and movement of fish between the mainstem and tributaries will be described as well as length-weight, length-frequency, catch-per- effort, sex ratios, and age structure statistics. Information on the life history of the humpback chub in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, will be integrated with information collected on the species in tributaries to gain a better understanding of this endangered species in this region.

Task 2A. Develop or modify an existing population model from empirical data collected during the study for use in analyses of reproductive success, recruitment and survivorship.

Information and data assimilated from literature as well as collected from year-around sampling will be used to describe the life history of the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. The

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 69 empirical data collected on the various life history aspects of the species will be integrated with other investigations into an existing population model being developed under the guidance of GCES. This model will be used as a tool to identify relationships and functions of components.

B/W currently has a statistician/population modeler on this project to advise data collection and analyses, as well as input to demographic modeling. All collections are being made, to the extent possible, to provide as much information as possible to this modeling effort.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continue fish sampling with same gear types including electrofishing, gill nets, trammel nets,

hoop nets, and seines. Expand effort at sampling habitats used by younger fish with small-

mesh hoop nets and minnow traps. Also increase sample effort with electrofishing.

2. Implement geomorphic strata as sample strata for sample design in Reach 2. Implement

concept for data analysis for entire study area.

3. Modify contract in 1991 to sample confluence of Paria River.

4. Further evaluate aerial telemetry.

5. Explore possibility of remote telemetry to assess other aspects of humpback chub behavior

such as vertical movement (above 4 m depth)

6. Activate a volunteer program to satisfy manpower needs during both 20-day trips (to clean

nets) and 10-day trips (to help sample fish and radiotrack).

7. Track and monitor radiotagged fish in the LCR and provide locational information to AGF,

ASU, the Service.

8. April and May 1991 trips will be scheduled to optimize assessing spawning of humpback chub.

9. Lengthen April 1991, trip by 2 days to maximize opportunity to observe spawning, and

decrease fall or winter trip.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 70 LITERATURE CITED

Bidgood, B. F. 1980. Field surgical procedure for implantation of radio tags in fish. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta. Fisheries Research Report 20. 9 pp.

Blinn, D.W., R. Truitt, and A. Pickart. 1989. Response of epiphytic diatom communities from the tailwaters of Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, to elevated water temperature. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 4:91-96.

Bulkley, R.V., C.R. Berry, R. Pimental, and T. Black. 1982. Tolerance preferences of Colorado River endangered fishes to selected habitat parameters. Pages 185-242 in W. Miller, D. Archer, and J. Valentine (eds.). Colorado River Fishery Project, Final Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. 324 pp.

Carothers, S.W., N.H. Goldberg, G.G. Hardwick, R. Harrison, G.W. Hofknecht, J.W. Jordan, C.O. Minckley, and H.D. Usher. 1981. A survey of the fishes, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants of the Colorado River and selected tributaries from Lee's Ferry to Separation Rapids. Final Report to Water and Power Resources Service, Contract No. 7-07-30-X0026. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Chart, T., and L. Lucas. 1990. Feasibility study for release of bonytail chub in the Green River, Utah. Utah Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Howard, A. and R. Dolan. 1981. Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. The Journal of Geology 89:269-298.

Kaeding, L.R., and M.A. Zimmerman. 1983. Life history and ecology of the humpback chub in the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:577-594.

ICaeding, L.R., B.D. Burdick, P.A. Schrader, and C.W. McAda. 1990. Temporal and spatial relations between the spawning of humpback chub and roundtail chub in the Upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 119:135-144.

Kolb E., and E. Kolb. 1914. Experiences in the Grand Canyon. The National Geographic Magazine XXVI(2):99-184.

Leibfried, W.C. 1988. The utilization of Cladophera glomerata and epiphytic diatoms as a food resource by rainbow trout in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. M.S. Thesis, Northern Arizona University, flagstaff, Arizona.

Maddux, H.R., D.M. Kubly, J.C. DeVos, W.R. Persons, R. Stedicke, and R.L. Wright. 1987. Effects of varied flow regimes on aquatic resources of Glen and Grand Canyons. Final Report. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 291 pp.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 73 Miller, R.R. 1946. Gila cypita, a remarkable new species of cyprinid fish from the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Journal Washington Academy of Sciences 36:409- 415.

Schmidt, J.C., and J.B. Graf. 1988. Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits 1965 to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona-Executive Summary. U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 87-561. 15 pp.

Tyus, H.M. 1982. Fish radiotelemetry: Theory and application for high conductivity rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Report FWS/OBS-82/38, (National Technical Information Service PB83-166058), Fort Collins, Colorado.

Tyus, H.M. 1988. Long-term retention of implanted transmitters in Colorado squawfish and razorback suckers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:264267.

Tyus, H.M., and C. A. Karp. 1989. Habitat use, spawning, and species associations of humpback chub, Gila cypha, in the Yampa and Green Rivers, Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado and Utah. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vernal, Utah. 26 pp.

Valdez, R.A., and G. Clemmer. 1982. Life history and prospects for recovery of the humpback and bonytail chub. Pages 109-119 in W. Miller, H. Tyus, and C. Carlson (eds.). Fishes of the Upper Colorado River System: Present and future. Western Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 131 pp.

Valdez, R.A., P. Mangan. R. Smith, and B. Nilson. 1982. Upper Colorado River investigations. Pages 101-280 in W. Miller, D. Archer, and J. Valentine (eds.). Colorado River Fishery Project, Final Report, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Valdez, R.A., and B. C. Nilson. 1982. Radiotelemetry as a means of assessing movement and habitat selection of humpback chub. Transactions Bonneville Chapter, American Fisheries Society 1982:29-39.

Valdez, R. A., and W.J. Masslich. 1989. Winter habitat study of endangered fish - Green River. Wintertime movement and habitat of adult Colorado squawfish and razorback suckers. Prepared for the United States Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Contract No. 6-CS-40-04490. BIO/WEST Report No. 136-2. 184 pp.

Wallis, O.L. 1951. The status of the fish fauna of the Lake Mead National Recreational Area, Arizona-Nevada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1951:84-92.

Yard, M.D., R. D. Williams, and D.L. Wegner. 1990. Pilot investigation to determine the feasibility of employing radiotelemetry in the Grand Canyon on the endangered species humpback chub. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Flagstaff, Arizona. 49 pp.

TR250-02 3/91 BIO/WEST, Inc. 74 REPORT NO. PR 250-04 BIO/WEST, Inc.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF THE HUMPBACK CHUB IN THE GRAND CANYON

TRIP REPORT #1- 1991 January 5 - January 25, 1991

Prepared For:

Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared By:

Richard A. Valdez, Principle Investigator William J. Masslich, Project Leader Larry Crist, Project Leader

BIO/VVEST INC. 1063 West 1400 North Logan, UT. 84321

February 5, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paee

INTRODUCTION 1

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL 1

DATA COLLECTED 1 Humpback Chubs Captured 1 Radiotelemetry 1 Bench Marks 2

OBSERVATIONS 2

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS 3

RECOMMENDATIONS 3

LIST OF TABLES r_m

Table 1. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #1, 1991. Team 1 (LCR) 4 Table la. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #1, 1991, Team 2. Table 2. Personnel Participating in Trip #1, 1991 6 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type 7 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #1, 1991 11 Table 5. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #1, 1991. . . . 17 Table 6. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #1, 1991, and locations relative to capture and release sites 18

APPENDIX A

PR 250-02 RIO/WEST, Inc. ji

INTRODUCTION

This report presents pertinent details associated with Trip #1, 1991. Included in the report are a summary of trip logistics, research schedule, personnel, data collected, observations, problems encountered and recommendations. Most information is presented in tabular format to provide a quick synopsis of pertinent trip details and results.

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL

Tables 1 and la present a summary of all camp locations and research activities for Trip #1, 1991. Table 2 is a list of personnel on the trip as well as their affiliation.

DATA COLLECTED

Table 3 presents a summary of fish species captured by gear type and reach for Trip #1, 1991. Table 4 is a summarizes basic information on all humpback chubs handled during the trip. Table 5 gives pertinent information on all humpback chubs radiotagged during Trip #1, 1991.

Humpback Chubs Captured

A total of 83 humpback chub were handled during Trip #1, 1991. Eleven of the 83 humpback chubs processed were recaptures, possessing either Carlin, Floy or PIT tags. Recapture information, including tag type, color and number is presented in Table 4. All Carlin and Floy dangler tags were removed from recaptured fish and the fish were equipped with a PIT tag for future identification. Tags removed by BIO/WEST will be returned to Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) with associated information for each fish. The majority of humpback chubs were captured in Reach 1 in the vicinity of the LCR. Three humpback chub, however, were collected from downstream locations. Two were collected immediately upstream of Shinumo Creek and one near 220 Mile Canyon (Table 4).

Three radio-tagged fish were recaptured during Trip #1, 1991. Two of these fish appeared in good condition and appeared to be recovering normally from surgical implant procedures. These fish were processed, photographed and released. The third recaptured radiotagged fish, implanted 87 days prior to recapture, (PIT tag #7F7F3F3626) showed signs of stress related to implant procedures and was held for observation. The fish was held for observation and subsequently died. The carcass was transported out of the canyon immediately and taken to Northern Arizona University for further inspection. Special reports will be submitted to AGF and USFWS regarding this fish.

Radiotelemetry

Seven humpback chubs were implanted with radio transmitters during Trip #1, 1991. All tags were implanted without complications and the fish were vigorous and in good condition at the time of release. Three of the seven fish were relocated and observed at least once following release, and showed no signs of aberrant behavior. All fish were actively moving both vertically and longitudinally and were judged to be showing no ill effects from implantation.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 1

Bench Marks

The three bench marks are:

1. RMI 61.2, river right on a large supai boulder on the point below the primary camp at the Little Colorado River.

2. RMI 62.2, river right on tapeats boulder sitting on a Tapeats ledge at the top of the eddy above "Crash Canyon" rapid.

3. RM1 65.3, river right upstream of mine at the Lava Chuar camp on bedrock on upstream side of small gully.

OBSERVATIONS

1. All chubs handled appeared robust, vigorous and in good condition.

2. ,,,,,c,c) Under fluctuating flows (=5,000 - 18,000 cfs) in January, netting with gill and trammel nets / proved an effective means for collecting adult and large juvenile humpback chubs in the IR ,E mainstem Colorado River.

Y , i Under clear water conditions, most humpback chubs were captured during the crepuscular \\‘' :iP , ,- and nocturnal period. Under turbid conditions humpback chubs were captured during the .,1 ' 1 diurnal period, but catch rates still appeared higher during the crepuscular and nocturnal . ,. , periods. All chubs collected in Reaches 2 and 3 were collected during the crepuscular and early nocturnal periods.

4. Contacts with previously radiotagged fish suggested that the fish move to deeper places in the river channel during he daylight period in clear water. Radiotelemetry information also indicated that the fish moved higher in the water column in the nocturnal period and during higher turbidity.

5. Ten days of surveillance of radiotagged fish suggests very little long range movement occurred during Trip #1, 1991.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 2 6. Successful deliberate attempts to recapture radiotagged fish on two occasions with intensive netting, future recapture attempts (if deemed necessary) are feasible.

7. High numbers of humpback chubs captured near Awatubi Canyon (RM 58.3), which represents the furthest upstream where intensive sampling has been conducted, suggests that densities of humpback chubs continue to be high to this point upstream.

8. Low numbers of chubs were captured in Reaches 2 and 3. However, the capture of two humpback chub near Shinumo Creek during Trip 1, 1991 and one humpback chub during Trip 2, 1990 suggests that a population of undetermined size and reproductive status could be present at that location.

9. Egg masses were observed in all female humpback chubs implanted during Trip #1, 1991. Eggs were well developed, with individual eggs being discernable.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS

1. Recapture and inspection of three radiotagged Fish during Trip #1, 1991, suggest that external antennae may be irritating tissue in the vicinity of the antenna exit point. For subsequent radio transmitter implant procedures will be slightly modified, specifically so that external antennae will be trimmed to a length so that the antenna will not protrude beyond the hyperal plate, thus reducing mechanical disturbance of the antenna by the caudal fin. Additional techniques to minimize mechanical injury will also be investigated.

2. Resolution of both Steven's and Belnap's river guide continues to be problematic in terms of locating and monitoring movements of radiotagged humpback chubs. Aerial photography will be used for delineating fish locations and movements beginning on Trip #2, 1991.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Radio transmitters should only be implanted in large male humpback chubs during Trip #3, 1991 (March). Observations of egg maturation during Trip #1, 1991, indicate that by March egg masses may be too large enough to risk implanting females without fear of injury.

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 3 Table 1. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #1, 1991. Team 1 (LCR)

RESEARCH ACTIWTIES

DATE RM LOCATION MR' FS TE HQ

1/6/91 28.2 Shinumo Wash X 58.2 Awatubi 1/7/91 Canyon X _ X X X 1/8/91 58.2 Awatubi Canyon X X X 1/9/91 58.2 Awatubi Canyon X X X 1/10/91 613 LCR X X X X V11/91 61.3 LCR X X X 1/12/91 613 LCR X X X 1/13/91 65.4 Lava Chuar X X X X 65.4 ' Lava Chuar 1/14/91 , X X X 1/15/91 65.4 Lava Chuar X X X 1116/91 65.4 Lava Chuar X X X 1/17/91 65.4 Lava Chuar X X X 1/18/91 91.0 Below Horn Creek X X 1119/91 131.8 Stone Creek X 1/20/91 178.0 , Vulcans Anvil X X 1/21/91 178.0 Vulcans Anvil X 1122/91 202.0 202-Mile Canyon X X 1/23/91 202.0 202,-Mile Canyon X X 1/24/91 225.0 Diamond Creek X X 1/25/91 225.8 Diamond Creek Take out ' T&R = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling TE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 4 Table la. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #1, 1991, Team 2.

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

DATE RM LOCATION T&R.1 FS TE HQ

1/6/91 29.3 , Shinumo Wash X 1/7/91 81.1 Grapevine X X 1/8/91 81.1 Grapevine X X 1/9/91 81.1 Grapevine X X 1/10/91 98.0 Crystal Creek X X 1/11/91 98.0 Crystal Creek X X 1112/91 108.3 Lower Bass X X 1/13/91 108.3 Lower Bass X X 1114/91 120.0 Blacktail Canyon X X 1115/91 120.0 Blacktail Canyon X X 1/16/91 131.8 Stone Creek X X 1/17/91 131.8 Stone Creek X X 1118/91 164.9 Tuckup Canyon X X 1119/91 164.9 Tuckup Canyon X X , 1/20/91 177.7 Vulcan's Anvil X X 1/21/91 177.7 Vulcan's Anvil X X 1122/91 219.8 220-Mile Canyon X X 1/23/91 219.8 220-Mile Canyon X X 1/24/91 225.8 Diamond Creek X X 1/25/91 225.8 Diamond Creek Take out --. ' T&R = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling TE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification

PR 250-02 810/WEST, Inc. 5 Table 2. Personnel Participating in Trip #1, 1991.

PERSONNEL AFFILIATION DATES COMMENTS — TEAM #1 Bill Masslich B/W 1/6-1/25 Project Leader - B/W Tony Wasowicz B/W 1/6-1/25 Helen Yard B/W 1/6-1/25 Randy VanHaverbeke B/W 1/6-1/25 B/W 1/6-1/25 Peter Weiss - Rich Valdez B/W 1/11-1/14 In/Out Tanner 1 Leibfried 1/11-1/14 Bill B/W - In/Out Tanner GCES 1/11-1/1 Mike Yard - In Tanner/Out BA GCES 1/6-1/25 Allen Hayden , John Toner OARS 1/6-1/25 Allister Bleifuss OARS 1/6-1/25 Ann Cassidy OARS 1/6-125 TEAM #2 Larry Crist B/W 1/6-125 Project Leader - B/W Glenn Doster B/W 1/6-1/25 Erika Prats B/W 1/6-1/25 Mondell Hebbert B/W 1/6-125 Stuart Reeder B/W 1/6-1/25 Bob Grusy OARS Trip Leader - OARS Alan Tinnes OARS Jan ICempster OARS John °twine GCES Volunteer -

PR 250-02 810/WEST, Inc. 6 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY

1 3 11B I FM Bill RB BR I CC CP SD BK 1 RK I FV , 1 2 I Reach 1 A 1 1 0 49 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 EL N=6 J 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.65 hr Y 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 0 0 0 299 20 0 60 0 0 0 0 EL N=38 J 0 0 0 27 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13.11 hr Y 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 0 0 . 6 1 0 46 0 1 0 0 EL N=14 J 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.13 hr Y 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 1 A 35 15 0 62 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 TL 0 0 ' N=64 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130.83 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 0 1 1 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 TL N=50 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101.60 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 3 A 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 TL 0 N=60 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132.76 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 7 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY 1 2 HIV I FM I BH I RB 1 BR I CC CP I SD I BK RK I FV ■ I A 17 13 2 . 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 1 TK J 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=41 94.53 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 1 0 0 25 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 TK N=50 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.47 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 3 A 1 1 1 6 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 TK N=62 J 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 123.43 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i Reach 1 A 7 4 0 ' 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM N=12 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.76 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM N=35 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70.60 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM N=34 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 70.19 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 8 able 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY 1 2 I F 3 I HB I FM I Bill RB I BR CC 1 CP SD BK I RK I FV Reach! A 12 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GP N=38 J 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81.64 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GP N=42 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 83.75 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 3 A 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GP N=41 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83.13 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 1 A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GX N4= J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.42 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 2 A 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GX J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N =2 2.74 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reach 3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GX N=18 J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.99 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 9 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY

I 1 HIV I FM 1 BH I RB [ BR I CC 1 CP I SD I BK I RK I FV I 2 Reach 2 A 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 HM N=3 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.67 hr y 0 o o o o o 0 0 o 0 0 Reach 2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HS N=1 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.00 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4- I Reach 1 A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TF N=1 J 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 77 42 5 534 25 5 114 0 1 0 0 I TOTAL J 6 1 0 37 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 1- Gear Types - A = Adult HB = humpback chub BK = brook trout EL = Electrofishing J = Juvenile FM = flannelmouth sucker RK = Rio Grande killifish T1, = 75'x6'x11/2"x12" trammel net Y = Young of year BH = bluehead sucker FV = flannelmouth variant TK = 75'x5'xl"x12" trammel net RB = rainbow trout GM = 10'x6'x2" gill net BR = brown trout GP = 100'x6'x1Y2" gill net CC = channel catfish GX = 100', 2" to Y2" @ Y2 increment, experiment gill net CP = carp HS = Small hoop net (2' diameter) SD = speckled dace HM = Medium hoop net (3' diameter) TF = Floated trammel

PR 250-02 BIO/VVEST, Inc. 10 [Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #1, 1991. DRAFT I # DATE GEAR' TYPE PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WT (g) RM (capture) RM (release) 1 910108 TK 7F7F3E3030A N - 480 868 58.3 58.3 , 2 910108 TK 7F7F3C3457 N - 352 456 58.3 58.3 3 910108 TL 7F7F3F442D N - 305 283 58.8 58.8 4 910108 TL 7F7F3C4208" N - 400 634 58.8 58.8 5 910108 GP 7F7F3E2640 N - 377 529 58.2 58.2 6 910108 TL 7F7F3C4341 N - 355 289 58.8 58.8 7 910108 TL 7F7F3F427E N - 386 505 58.8 58.8 8 910109 TL 7F7F3E3675 N - 315 282 58.9 58.9 9 910109 'FL 7F7F3E2712 N - 360 509 58.9 58.9 10 910109 TL 7F7F3F3D79 N - 313 315 58.9 58.9 11 910109 TL 7F7F3C3171" N - 395 564 59.0 59.0 12 910109 TL 7F7F3C3445 N - 406 696 58.9 58.9 13 910109 Ti., 7F7F3E3E15 N - 312 318 58.9 58.9 14 910109 n. 7F7F3F3A5C" Y 085' 385 594 58.3 58.3 15 910109 Ti., 7F7F043917 Y _5 397 624 58.3 58.3 16 910109 it 7F7F3E2E05 N - 333 337 58.3 58.3 17 910109 Ti. 7F7F3F4349 N - 308 290 58.9 58.9 18 910109 TK 7F7F3E387D N - 385 535 58.9 58.9

PR 250-02 1310/WEST, Inc. 11 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #1 1991. I DRAF T # DATE GEAR' TYPE PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG U. (nun) 'WT (g) ItM (capture) RM (release)

19 910109 TK 7F7F3E2B68 N - 386 539 58.9 58.9 20 910110 GM 71-71-3C2D06" Y - 405 669 60.5 60.5 21 910110 GM 7F7F3E3D23" N - 394 635 60.5 60.5 22 910110 GM 7F7P3E2A37 N - 400 515 60.5 60.5 23 910110 GM 7F7F3E2F33 N - 321 325 61.1 60.5 24 910110 GM 7F7F3E2727" N - 380 648 60.6 60.6 25 910110 GM 7F7F3F4E32 N - 403 670 60.5 60.6 26 910111 TL 7F7F3F4B64 N - 349 333 60.6 60.6 27 910111 TL 7F7F3F5216 N - 432 674 60.6 60.6 28 910111 IL 7F7F45094A N - 409 622 60.6 60.6 29 910111 TK 7F7F3C3B2D N - 268 142 61.1 61.1 6 30 910111 II 7F7F050F0A Y - 395 633 60.6 60.6 31 910111 II, - N - 334 60.6 60.6 32 910112 TK 7F7F3E3COE N - 456 780 60.4 60.4 33 910112 GP 7F7F3E2619 Y 0842 357 462 61.3 61.3 34 910112 GP 7F7F3E2630 N - 385 534 60.5 60.5 35 910112 GP 7F7F3F5144 N - 294 262 108.3 108.3

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 12 I Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #1, 1991. DRAFT # DATE GEARc TYPE PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG Ti., (mm) WI' (g) RM (capture) RM (release)

36 910112 EL 7F7F3F3626 Y _5 432 724 60.8 60.8 37 910112 TK 7F7F3C4111 N - 286 278 108.3 108.3 38 910112 GP 7F7F3C2E7A N - 353 344 60.5 60.5 39 910112 GP 7F7F3E3B03 Y 30L1824 434 933 60.5 60.5 40 910112 GP '7F7F3C2830 N - 190 67 61.3 61.3 41 910112 GP 7F7F3C2705 N - 395 633 60.5 60.5 42 910112 GP 7F7F3F4209 N 381 60.5 60.5 43 910112 GP 7F7F3D063C N - 438 829 60.5 60.5 44 910112 m 7F7F3E3326 N - 305 269 60.7 60.7 45 910113 'IT 7F7F3E4104 N - 217 104 64.6 64.6 46 910113 TF 7F7F3E3A77 N - 365 4.65 64.6 64.6 47 910113 TL 7F7F3E2429 N - 336 300 64.6 64.6 48 910113 TK 7F7F3F4676 N - 183 65 64.6 64.6 49 910113 TL 7F7F3F4352 Y _6 401 610 64.6 64.6 50 910113 Ti. 7F7F3F5100 N - 345 425 64.6 64.6 51 910114 rn, 7F7F3C3370 N - 340 498 64.7 64.7 52 910114 TK 7F7F3C4279 N - 390 712 64.6 64.6

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 13 _

I Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #1, 1991. , 1 %ILI IA LA DRAFT # DATE GEAR° TYPE PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WT (g) RM (capture) RM (release)

53 910114 TK 7F7F3F4B28 N - 342 414 64.6 64.6 54 910114 TL 7F7F3F5016 N - 341 354 64.7 64.7 _5 1 55 910114 TL 7F7F3C4162 Y 399 692 64.1 64.1 56 910115 GP 7F7F3E3D73 N - 335 389 64.7 64.7 57 910115 GP 7F7F3E4171 N - 365 419 64.7 64.7 58 910115 GP 7F7F3F3174 N - 326 334 64.7 64.7 59 910115 TL 7F7F3C4546 N - 346 396 64.4 64.4 60 910115 11( 7F7F3F4A6A N - 345 393 64.4 64.4

61 910115 TK 71-. /1-3E2865 N i - 279 215 64.4 64.4 62 910115 TK 7F7F451820 N - 219 97 64.4 64.4 63 910115 GM 7F7F3F3C2B N - 334 393 64.8 64.8 64 910115 TK 7F7F3E2C30 N - 220 96 64.5 64.5 65 910116 TK 7F7F3F4B3B N - 351 437 64.7 64.7 66 910116 TK 7F7F451924 N - 359 564 64.7 64.7 67 910116 TK 7F7F3F3146 N - 245 152 64.7 64.7 68 910116 GP 7F7F3C2E4C Y 8013 301 256 64.5 64.5 69 910116 GX 7F7F3F3425 N - _ 318 303 65.0 65.0

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 14 !Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #1, 1991. . DRAFT__ 4 1 # DATE GEAR TYPE PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (nun) 1VT (g) RM (capture) RM (release) 1

, 70 910116 TL 7F7F3F4146 N - 343 420 65.3 65.3 71 910116 TK 7F7F3F3C2F N - 210 82 64.7 64.7 72 910116 TK 7F7F3C7431 N - 305 266 64.9 64.9 73 910116 TK 7F7F3F3968 N - 329 316 64.9 64.9 5 74 910116 TL 7F7F456B2C Y 392 318 64.7 64.7 75 910117 TL 7F7F3E2A1D N - 332 370 64.4 64.4 76 910117 TL 7F71-3E3D73 N - 333 280 64.4 64.4 77 910117 TL 7F7F3E294D N - 373 558 64.4 64.4 78 910117 TL 7F7F3F4C38 Y 2812 392 517 64.4 64.4 79 910117 TL 7F7F3F4302 Y 7541 395 518 64.4 64.4 80 910117 TK 7F7F3E212B N 369 4% 64.5 64.5 81 910117 TL 7F7F3C330D N - 348 430 64.4 64.4 _s 82 910117 TK 7F7F3E2865 Y 274 243 64.5 64.5 83 910123 TK 7F7F3F4525 N - 245 133 219.7 219.7

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 15 DRAFT

2- Yellow Floy tag - AGFD 2- Small Yellow Carlin 2- Orange Roy - AGFD 4- Yellow Roy - AGFD s- PIT Tag ` Fin clip "`- Fish implanted with radio transmitter a- Probable misreading C- Gear Types EL = Electrofishing II, = 75'x6'x1Y2'4x12" trammel net TIC = 75'x5'x1"x12" trammel net GM = 10'x6'x2" gill net GP = 100'x6'xl1/2" gill net GX = 100', 2" to Y2" @ Y2 increment, experiment gill net

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 16 Table 5. Summary of radio.transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #1, 1991. Dll'AFT ESTIMATED PULSE RATE RADIOTAG LIFE EXPEC- DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITTAG TL wr FREQ (pulses/min) SIZE (gms) TANCY (days) EXTINCTION (nu) (rm)

1 910108 7F7F3C4208 400 634 40.660 64 11 100 910418 58.8 58.8 2 910109 71-7F3E3030 480 868 40.680 44 11 120 910429 58.3 58.3

3 910109 7F7F3C3171 395 564 40.730 86 11 75 910326 59.0 59.0

I 4 910109 7F7F3F3A5C 385 594 40.710 41 11 120 910429 58.3 58. , 5 910110 7F7F3C2D06 405 669 40.740 42 11 120 910430 60.5 60.5 6 910110 7F7F3E3D23 394 635 40.670 84 11 75 910327 60.5 6415 7 910110 71, /1-3E2727 380 648 40.720 66 11 100 910420 60.6 60.6

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 17 DRAFT Table 6. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #1, 1991, and locations relative to capture and release sites. page is

River Mile FREQ/PUISE TAG SIZE DATE (time) CAPTURE RELEASE LOCATE (g) 40.600/64 11 901116 60.4 60.4 910108(1631) 60.1 910109(1250) 60.1 910110(1130) 60.1 910110(1711) 60.1 910111(1222) 60.1 900115(1835) 60.1 40.670/48 11 901017 60.2 60.2 910108(1525) 60.5 910109(1255) 60.5 910110(1140) 60.5 910111(1214) 60.5 910115(1906) 60.5 40.620/74 11 901017 60.4 60.4 910109(1309) 60.9 910112(1655) -,- RECAP -TURED- 60.9 40.740/80 11 901119 62.0 62.0 910108(1424) 62.2 910109(1338) 62.2 910110(1425) 62.2 910111(1400) 62.2 910115(1953) 62.2 40.640/82 11 901121 64.1 64.1 910108(1400) 63.9 910109(1428) 63.9 910110(1452) 63.9 910111(1435) 63.9 910111(1253) 63.9 910115(0930) 64.2 910115(2018) 64.5 I 910116(1330) 64.5

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, 18 DPAFT

Table 6. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #1, 1991, and locations relative to capture and release sites. - Page 19 -River Mile--

FREQ/PULSE TAG SIZE DATE (time) CAPTURE RELEASE LOCATE (g) 40.630/64 11 901123 64.4 64.4 910108(1340) 64.1 910108(1430) 64.1 910110(1516) 64.1 910111(1440) 64.1 910112(1310) 64.1 64.1 910115(2009) . 40.610/56 11 901020 64.6 64.7 11 910108(1317) 64.8 910108(1440) 64.7 910110(1543) 64.7 910111(1448) • 64.7 910112(1420) 64.7 910115(2028) 64.7 910116(1350) 64.7 40.680/60 11 901018 60.6 60.5 910115 60.4 40.660/64' 11 910108 58.8 58.8 910109 58.8 , 40.710/43' 11 910109 58.3 583 910110(1115) 583 910111(1248) 583 40.720/67' 11 900110 60.6 60.6 900111(1200) 60.7

Implanted during current trip

PR 250-02 BIO/WEST, Inc. 19

REPORT NO. PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF THE HUMPBACK CHUB IN THE GRAND CANYON

TRIP REPORT #2- 1991 February 7 - February 19, 1991

Prepared For:

Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared By:

Richard A. Valdez, Principle Investigator VVilliam J. Masslich, Project Leader Larry Crist, Project Leader

BIO/WEST 1063 West 1400 North Logan, UT. 84321

February 27, 1991

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL ...... 1

DATA COLLECTED ...... 1 Humpback Chubs Captured ...... 1 Radiotelemetry ...... 1 Bench Marks ...... 2

OBSERVATIONS ...... 2

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS ...... 3

RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #2, 1991 ...... 5 Table 2. Personnel Participating in Trip #2, 1991...... 6 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type ...... 7 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #2, 1991...... 8 Table 5. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during previous trips. .... 9 Table 6. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #2, 1991, and locations relative to capture and release sites ...... 11 Table 7. Summary of radiotelemetry information collected during previous trips, 1990, and current status of radiotagged humpback chubs...... 14

APPENDIX A Data Sheets for Trip #2, 1991

PR 250-05 BIOAVEST, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

This report presents pertinent details associated with Trip #2, 1991. Included in the report are a summary of trip logistics, research schedule, personnel, data collected, observations, problems encountered and recommendations. Most information is presented in tabular format to provide a quick synopsis of pertinent trip details and results.

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL

Tables 1 present a summary of all camp locations and research activities for Trip #2, 1991. Table 2 is a list of personnel on the trip as well as their affiliation.

DATA COLLECTED

Table 3 presents a summary of fish species captured by gear type and reach for Trip #2, 1991. Table 4 is a summarizes basic information on all humpback chubs handled during the trip. Table 5 gives pertinent information on all humpback chubs radiotagged during Trip #2, 1991.

Humpback Chubs Captured

A total of 3 humpback chub were handled during Trip #2, 1991. Two of the 3 humpback chubs processed were recaptures, possessing PIT tags. Recapture information, including tag type, color and number is presented in Table 4. All of humpback chubs were captured at the LCR confluence area in two locations, including the "parallel" trammel set and the "plume" set. The netting effort was minimal since the main focus of the trip was radiotelemetry.

Radiotelemetry

A summary of radiotagged fish implanted prior to Trip #2, 1991 are presented in Table 5. A summary of radiotelemetry data collected during Trip #2, 1991 is presented in Tables 6 and 7.

Of the 24 fish implanted by BIO/WEST on 3 previous trips, 14 fish were contacted. One additional fish may have been contacted, but the contact occurred only once and consisted of 2 pulses. The fish could not be recontacted, so was categorized as a "possible" contact. The remaining eight fish were not contacted (the ninth fish and transmitter were removed from the river on the previous trip). All eight fish not contacted are equipped with transmitters that have exceeded their life expectancy and may no longer by functional.

An aerial telemetry survey of Reach 1, by helicopter, was conducted one day prior to launch. Based on earlier behavior patterns observed for radio-tagged fish, a late afternoon flight was chosen to survey the fish as near to dusk as possible. Additionally, the previous telemetry flight was conducted during the early morning, so results of the two telemetry flights could be compared to assess which time period is most effective for conducting aerial surveys. Contact was made on 3 frequencies during the aerial survey. One contact consisted of constant narrow band interference on 40.690. The other two contacts represented radio-tagged fish and were located to within 03 and 0.4 miles of subsequent on the ground locations.

PR 250-05 810/WEST, Inc. 1 Twenty-four hour monitoring was conducted on five fish, one during stable 5000 cfs flows, three during fluctuating flows in the main channel and one on a fish that had moved into the Little Colorado River on the 13th of February. Two-hour monitoring was conducted on four fish. Movements and surface habitat features were mapped for all two-hour and 24-hour monitoring efforts.

Eighteen telemetry surveillance runs were conducted within Reach 1 during Trip #2, 1991. Eight surveillance runs were completed during daytime and eight during nighttime. The primary purpose of the telemetry surveillance was to provide detailed location information for interpretation of gross movements of radio-tagged fish. Telemetry surveillance data will also be used to assess diel behavior patterns of radio-tagged fish.

One remote telemetry station was established just above the confluence of the LCR and was operational on February 13, 1991. The remote station effectively logged the presence of four radiotagged fish utilizing the LCR confluence in two observation periods during Trip #2, 1991. A test of the antenna's effective range was conducted during high flows on 910214.

Bench Marks

No new bench marks were established during Trip #2, 1991.

OBSERVATIONS

1. All chubs handled appeared robust, vigorous and in good condition.

2. Aggregations of up to three radio-tagged fish in eddies above the Little Colorado River (LCR) suggest that fish may be engaged in pre-spawning staging activities.

3. Direct observation of one radio-tagged fish moving into the LCR and the location of a second radio-tagged fish in the LCR suggest that fish may be engaged in staging activities or migration in the first 0.2 miles of the LCR. Upstream movement of both radio-tagged fish in the LCR only extended to the base of the first significant riffle/rapid at RM 0.2 during the observations made on Trip #2, 1991.

4. The recapture of a PIT tagged fish within the plume of the LCR in the main channel (RM 61.4), that was originally tagged in January 14, 1991 at RM 64.6 suggests that movements of humpback chubs into the LCR confluence area is occurring from distances greater than four miles.

5. Two radio-tagged fish were observed moving into then back out of the LCR confluence area, traversing distances of up to 0.5 miles, also suggesting possible staging or migratory activities.

6. Flows in the LCR were base flows from Blue Springs, water clarity was high and temperatures were ranging from a afternoon high of 17°C to a early morning low of 14°C.

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc. 2 7. Average numbers of fish contacted during day and night surveillance runs were 4.6 and 7.8, respectively, further suggesting a diel pattern of vertical migration by humpback chubs during clear water conditions.

8. The LCR remote telemetry station performed satisfactorily during tests conducted on Trip #2, 1991 and is currently in operation.

9. One fish was successfully radio tracked in the LCR for a period exceeding 24 hours, despite signal extinction problems. Although it appears that radio tracking may be feasible in the LCR, it would require more intensive effort due to periodic signal extinction.

10. Helicopter aerial telemetry techniques have been refined and appears to be adequate to locate radio-tagged fish that are above the extinction depth in the main channel Colorado River.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS

1. Use of 1:2400 aerial photography during Trip #2, 1991, significantly improved resolution of locating radiotagged fish and mapping movements during the trip, however, a standardized mileage must be transferred to the photographs to insure database accuracy and compatibility between researchers utilizing aerial telemetry for location data.

2. BIO/WFST has not received the computer hardware necessary to completely install the downstream remote telemetry station. Delivery of computer hardware is anticipated by the first week of April, 1991. In the interim, BIO/WEST will install the antenna apparatus (which is the most labor intensive aspect) during Trip #3, 1991, so that it will be readily operational when the necessary equipment is sent from the manufacturer. Since only one radio-tagged fish was located below the confluence area (and below the lower remote site), it is felt that minimal information will be lost due to the delay in installation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2. Environmental factors that may be dictating or cuing humpback chub spawning behavior must be monitored in greater detail. Interaction between BIO/WEST personnel and GCES water quality specialist during Trip #2, 1991 indicated that datasondes in addition to other remote water quality monitoring equipment may be available for use on the G.C. humpback chub studies. Collection of water quality data would be greatly enhance by use of continuous water quality recording devices. It was suggested that possibly two ciatasondes could be provided to each of the BIO/WEST crews for purposes of recording water quality data in both the main channel and pertinent tributaries.

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc. 3 3. Continuous and concurrent monitoring of ambient light, turbidity and fish behavior in the main channel could greatly aid in understanding the influence of ambient light conditions and turbidity on fish behavior. BIO/WEST recommends that GCES personnel continue to pursue the develop of continuous recording remote sensors to measure ambient light and turbidity. Contingent on NPS approval, BIO/WEST plans on relocating the remote telemetry stations following June, in order to monitor vertical movement of large numbers of radio-tagged humpback chub. The antenna configuration will be changed from directional to omni- directional and remote stations will be moved well above the river corridor to increase antenna range. Site evaluation will be initiated during Trip #3, 1991, to be followed by coordination with GCES and NPS personnel. Ideally, remote monitoring of ambient light and turbidity would also be able to be installed concurrently.

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc. 4 Table 1. Logistic* and Research Schedule for Trip #2, 1991 RESEARCH ACTIVITIES DATE RM LOCATION T&Rt _ FS TE HQ 2/8 31.7 South Canyon X 2/9 61.3 LCR X X X 2/10 61.3 LCR X X 2/11 61.3 LCR X X 2/12 613 LCR X X 2/13 61.3 LCR X X X 2/14 61.3 LCR X X X 2/15 87.5 Cremation X X X 2/16 137.0 Poncho's Kitchen X 2/17 188.5 Whitmore Wash X 2/18 225.0 Diamond Creek X 2/19 Take Out = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling TE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification

PR 250-05 BIOAVEST, Inc. 5 Table 2. Permuted Participating in Trip #2, 1991.

PERSONNEL AFFILIATION DATES COMMENTS

B. Masslich BIO/WEST 2/8-2/16 Out B.A. Trail B. Leibfried BIO/WEST 2/9-2/16 Out B.A. Trail T. Wasowicz _ BIO/WEST 2/8-2/16 Out BA Trail J. White BIO/WEST 2/8-2/16 Out BA Trail G. Doster BIO/WEST 2/8-2/19 G. Williams BIO/WEST 2/8-2/19 B. Vemieu GCES 2/8-2/19 B. Grussy OARS 2/8-2/19 A. Tines OARS 2/8-2/19 J. Kempster OARS 2/8-2/19

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc. 6 I Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type.

t 3 HE FM BH SD RB BR CC CP SB . == A

EL J N=0 0 hr Y A 1 5 4

TL J N=1 3.0 hr Y — A 2 9

TK J N=2 4.1 hr Y A

GM J N=0 0 hr Y A

GP J N=0 0 hr Y A

GX -I N=0 0 hr Y —.= A 3 14 4

TOTAL Y

- Gear Types 2 - A = Adult EL = Electrofishing J = Juvenile TL = 75'x6'x1Y2"x12" trammel net Y = Young of year Tic = 75'x5'xrx12" trammel net GM = 10'x6'x2" gill net GP = 100'x6'x11/2" gill net GX = 100', 2" to V2" @ 1/2 increment, experiment gill net

PR 250-05 BIOAVEST, Inc. 7 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #2,1991.

# DATE GEAR' TYPE PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WI' (g) RM (capture) RM (release) 1 A 1 910214 TL 7F7F3C4279 Y PIT 391 716 61.4 61.4 2 910214 TK 7F7F3F4D43 N -- 386 561 61.3 61.3 3 910214 TK 7F7F3C7C06 Y PIT 240 126 61.3 61.3 7F7F050D7A (Previous PIT tag, now double-tagged w/7F7F3C7C06) _____P -I

C- Gear Types 1- Yellow Roy tag - AGFD EL = Electrofishing 2- Small Yellow Carlin TL = 75'x6'xl1/2"x12" trammel net 5- Orange Roy - AGFD TK = 75'x5'xl"x12" trammel net 4- Yellow Roy - AGFD GM = 10'x6'x2" gill net 5- Small Orange Carlin Tag GP = 100'x6'xl1/2" gill net "- Fish implanted with radio transmitter OX = 100', 2" to YY' @ Y2 increment, experiment gill net B- Probable misreading

PR 250-05 "10/WEST, Inc. Table S. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during previous trips.

LIFE ESTIMATED PULSE RATE RADIOTAG EXPECTANCY DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITTAG TL WT FREQ (pulses/min) SIZE (gms) (days) EXTINCTION (rm) (rm) 1 10/17/90 7F7F3F5050 428 840 40.670 60 11 100 910125 60.2 60.4 2 10/17/90 7F7F3E2D2D 439 865 40.640 59 11 100 910125 60.4 60.4 3 10/17/90 7F7F3F3626 432 780 40.620 78 11 75 901231 60.4 60.4 4 10/17/90 7F7F3E2253 382 535 40.650 81 11 75 901231 60.2 60.4 5 10/18/90 7F7F3F4054 415 720 40.630 39 9 50 901207 60.4 60.5 6 10/18/90 7F7F3F5044 388 580 40.680 77 11 75 910101 60.6 60.5 7 10/19/90 7F7F3F4E11 376 465 40.690 40 9 50 901208 64.6 64.9 8 loom 7F7F3E2F3A 367 500 40.660 39 9 50 901209 64.6 64.7 9 10/20/90 7F7F456B2C 390 605 40.610 58 11 100 910128 64.6 64.7 10 10/20/90 7F7F3C311C 395 525 40.600 40 9 50 901210 64.6 64.7

1 11/16/90 7F7F3C4452 404 670 40.600 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.4 60.4 2 11/16/90 7F7F3C303B 3% 665 40.700 62 11 100 02/23/91 60.1 60.1 3 11/17/90 7F7F3F4E77 407 675 40.710 79 11 75 01/30/91 61.0 61.0 4 11/18/90 7F7F3E3C5C 422 798 40.730 61 11 75 01/31/91 61.1 61.1 5 11/19/90 NO PITTAG 407 825 40.740 79 11 75 02/01/91 62.0 62.0 6 11/21/90 7F7F3C2919 394 635 40.640 78 11 75 02/03/91 64.1 64.1 7 11/23/90 7F7F3C4162 402 732 40.630 62 11 100 02/29/91 64.4 64.4

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc. 9 LIFE ESTIMATED PULSE RATE RADIOTAG EXPECTANCY DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITTAG TL WT MR) (pulses/min) SIZE (gms) (days) EXTINCTION (rm) (rm)

1 910108 7F7F3C4208 400 634 40.660 64 11 100 910418 58.8 58.8 2 910109 7F7F3E3030 480 868 40.680 44 11 120 910429 58.3 58.3 3 910109 7F7F3C3171 395 564 40.730 86 11 75 910326 59.0 59.0 4 910109 7F7F3F3A5C 385 594 40.710 41 11 120 910429 58.3 58.3 5 910110 7F7F3C2D06 405 669 40.740 42 11 120 910430 60.5 60.5 6 910110 7F7F3E3D23 394 635 40.670 84 11 75 910327 60.5 60.5 7 910110 7F7F3E2727 380 648 40.720 66 11 100 910420 60.6 60.6

PR 2' -`5 RIO, ."1-, Inc. 1 Table 6. A Bat of radio frequencies contacted on Trip *2, 1991, and locations relative to CIVIC* and release sites. ------River Mile- - FREQ/PULSE TAG SIZE DATE (time) CAPTURE RELEASE LOCATE (g) 40.710/42 11 910109 58.3 58.3 910210(2250) 58.4 910211(2031) 58.4 910211(2237) 58.4 910212(1258) 58.4 910212(1312) 58.4 910212(2205) 58.4 910213(1158) 58.4 910213(2214) 58.4 910214(1408) 58.4 910214(2335) 58.4 40.600/63 11 901116 60.4 60.4 910212(1240) 60.1 910212(1333) 60.1 910212(2240) 60.0 910213(1227) 60.1 910213(2226) 60.1 910214(1430) 60.0 910214(2350) 60.0 40.730/87 11 910326 59.0 59.0 910212(1227) 60.4 910212(1335) 60.4 910212(2250) 60.4 910213(2205) 61.3 910215(0004) 60.6 40.680/68 11 901018 60.6 60.5 910212(1227) 60.4 910212(1335) 60.4 910212(2250) 60.4 910213(2240) 60.4

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, 11 Table 6. A list et radio frequencies contacted on Trip *2, 1991, and locations relative to capture and release sites. River Mile- -

FREQ/PULSE TAG SIZE rDATE (time) CAPTURE RELEASE LOCATE (G) 40.710/81 11 901117 61.0 61.0 Ch 4

910211(1126) 4 Ch

910211(1324) Ch 4

910211(2308) 4 CN

910212(1343) 00 4

910212(2252) 4 00

910213(1238) 4 00

910213(2247) 00 4

910215(0030) 40.700/60 11 901116 60.1 60.1 910211(2312) 61.1 910212(2252) 60.8 910213(2255) 60.8 910215(0115) 61.3 40.740/44 11 910110 60.5 60.5 910212(2252) 60.5 910213(2000) 0.11 910214(0220) 0.11 910214(0324) 0.21 910215(0824) 0.21 1-(LCR) 40.720/67 11 910110 60.6 60.6 910211(1132) 60.8 910211(1317) 60.8 910211(2010) 60.8 910211(2308) 60.9 910212(1222) 60.8 910212(1343) 60.8 910212(2309) 60.8 910213(1238) 60.8 910213(2247) 60.8 910215(0030) 60.8 40.680/46 11 910109 58.3 58_3 910212(2318) 61.3 910213(0915) 61.4 _

PR 250-05 BIOAVEST, Inc. 12 Table 6. A Mat of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #2, 1991, and locations relative to capture and release sites. ----River Mile- FREQ/PULSE TAG SIZE DATE (time) CAPTURE RELEASE LOCATE (g) _ 40.640/50 11 901017 60.4 60.4 910212(2319) 61.2 910213(2305) 61.3 910214(1450) 60.8 910215(0030) 60.8 40.630/62 11 901123 64.4 64.4 910210(1330) 64.1 910211(1410) 64.3 910212(1440) 64.3 910213(1356) 64.3 910214(1531) 64.3

40.670/84 11 900110 60.5 60.5 40.730/56 11 901118 61.1 61.1 910214(2200) 61.3 40.670/52 11 901017 60.2 60.4 1 910215(0712) 0.2 1-(LCR)

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc. 13 _ Table 1.. Stminsaty of radiotelemetzy information collected during previous trips, 1990, and current status of radiotagged humpback chubs.

* DATE OF LAST T FURRENT PREVIOUS LOCATIONI FREQ. PULSE'2 PULSE3 RNI" CONTACTED3 LOCATED' 2HR7 24HR7

1 910215 40.670 52 64 0.2LC Y Y

2 910215 40.640 50 54 60.3 Y Y 3 901214 40.620 - 68 (60.8) N N - 4 901017 40.650 - 81 . (60.4) N N

5 901214 40.630 - 39 1 (60.6) N N 6 910213 40.680 68 77 60.4 Y Y Y 7 901117 40.690 - 40 (64.6) N N . . , 8 901215 40.660 - 39 (64-7) N N 9 901117 , 40.610 - 59 _ (62.6) N N 10 901217 40.600 - 38 (64.8) N N 11 910214 40.600 63 64 60.0 Y Y Y 12 910215 40.700 60 62 613 Y Y -

13 910215 40.710 , 81 82 60.8 Y Y Y 14 910214 40.730 56 60 613 , Y Y 15 901121 40.740 - 79 (62.0) N N 16 901122 40.640 - 78 (64.0) N N 17 910214 40.630 62 65 643 Y Y Y 18 910212 40.660 NC 64 - P N 19 910213 40.680 46 44 61.4 Y Y , 20 910215 40.730 87 86 60.6 Y Y Y 21 910214 40.710 42 41 58.4 Y Y Y 22 910214 40.740 44 42 0/LC Y Y Y Y - 23 910211 40.670 80 84 (603) Y N 24 _ 910215 40.720 67 66 60 8 Y Y Y

I- Date of most recent location, from current trip or previous trips. 2- Pulse counts from current trips, NC=not counted. 3- Pulse counts from most recent contact prior to current trip. 4. River mile of last location from current trip or (previous trip). 5. Indicates if fish was contacted on current trip, Y=Yes, P=Possible, N=No. 'Indicates if specific location of fish was determined during current trip. 7- Indicates whether 2-hour or 24-hour monitoring was conducted.

PR 250-05 BIO/WEST, Inc. 14 APPENDIX A

DATA SHEETS FOR TRIP #2, 1991

REPORT NO. PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF THE HUMPBACK CHUB IN THE GRAND CANYON

TRIP REPORT #3- 1991 March 3 - March 22, 1991

Prepared For

Bureau of Reclamation

Prepared By:

Richard A. Valdez, Principle Investigator William J. Masslich, Project Leader Larry Crist, Project Leader

BIO/VVEST INC. 1063 West 1400 North Logan, UT. 84321

March 31, 1991

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pug

INTRODUCTION 1

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL 1

DATA COLLEC 1 hD 1 Humpback Chubs Captured 1 Radiotelemetry 1 Bench Marks 2

OBSERVATIONS 2

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS 3

RECOMMENDATIONS 3

LIST OF TABLES Paee

Table la. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #3, 1991. Team 1 (LCR) 4 Table lb. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #3, 1991. Team 2 5 Table 2. Personnel Participating in Trip #3 6 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. 7 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3. 12 Table 5. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #1, 1990 20 Table 5. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #2, 1990 21 Table 5. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #1, 1991 22 Table 5. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #3, 1991 23 Table 6a. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #3, and locations relative to capture and release sites 24 Table 6b. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #3, and locations relative to capture and release sites 25 Table 6c. A list of radio frequencies contacted on Trip #3, and locations relative to capture and release sites 26

APPENDIX A

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

This report presents pertinent details associated with Trip #3, 1991. Included in the report are a summary of trip logistics, research schedule, personnel, data collected, observations, problems encountered and recommendations. Most information is presented in tabular format to provide a quick synopsis of pertinent trip details and results.

LOGISTICS, RESEARCH SCHEDULE AND PERSONNEL

Tables la and lb present a summary of all camp locations and research activities for Trip #3, 1991. Table 2 is a list of personnel on the trip as well as their affiliation.

DATA COLLECTEDLD

Table 3 presents a summary of fish species captured by gear type and reach for Trip #3, 1991. Table 4 summarizes basic information on all humpback chubs handled during the trip. Table 5 gives pertinent information on all humpback chubs radiotagged during Trip #3, 1991.

Humpback Chubs Captured

Of the 130 humpback chub handled during Trip #3, 1991, 38 were recaptures (Table 4). Fish #122 and 123 (PIT tag #7F7F3F4F13) represent the same fish recaptured on the same day. Of the 38 fish recaptured, 19 had been PIT tagged, 8 had Floy tags, 9 had Carlin tags, and 2 had thread anchor material at the base of the dorsal fin indicating a lost Floy tag. Recapture information, including tag type, color and number is presented in Table 4. All Carlin and Floy dangler tags were removed from recaptured fish and the fish were equipped with a PIT tag for future identification. Tags removed by BIO/WEST will be returned to Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) with associated information for each fish. The majority of humpback chubs were captured in Reach 1 in the vicinity of the LCR. Four humpback chub, however, were collected from downstream locations. These fish included three recaptures of fish PIT tagged by BIO/WEST during previous trips. All three recaptures were netted in the same locations where they were originally captured. The fourth humpback chub collected in the lower reach was captured at RM 221.8 and represents the furthest downstream capture to date.

Radiotelemetrv

Seven humpback chubs were implanted with radio transmitters during Trip #3, 1991 (Table 5). All tags were implanted without complications and the fish were vigorous and in good condition at the time of release. Five of the seven fish were relocated and observed at least once following release, and showed no signs of aberrant behavior. All fish were actively moving both vertically and longitudinally and were judged to be showing no ill effects from implantation. A total of 31 humpback chub have been radiotagged since this investigation began in October 1990.

One radio-tagged fish was recaptured during Trip #3, 1991. The fish appeared vigorous and in good condition. The incision was healed and sutures were removed by BIO/WEST personnel. The antenna exit point showed some signs of irritation including minor redness and swelling.

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 1 An aerial telemetry surveillance was conducted from helicopter on March 7, concurrent with an on- ground telemetry surveillance. A total of 9 radio-tagged fish contacted on the ground were also contacted from the air. Two fish that were contacted on the ground were not contacted in the air, while two fish contacted in the air were not contacted from the ground. Differences between ground and air surveillance is probably due to fish movement above and below the extinction depth, at the times the boat or helicopter were in the area.

Bench Marks

No new bench marks were established during Trip #3, 1991.

OBSERVATIONS

1. All chubs handled appeared robust, vigorous and in good condition.

2. Under fluctuating flows (=3,000 - 18,000 cfs) in March, netting with gill and trammel nets proved an effective means for collecting adult and large juvenile humpback chubs in the mainstem Colorado River.

3. Did l behavior patterns observed during previous trips were not as apparent during Trip #3, 1991. It is assumed that differences in diel activity patterns may be related to reproductive behavior as humpback chubs begin to migrate and stage in the vicinity of the LCR.

4. Aggregations of up to nine radio-tagged fish at or immediately above the confluence of the LCR suggest that fish may be engaged in pre-spawning staging activities.

5. Observations of five radio-tagged fish moving into the LCR on March 14, suggest that fish may be engaged in staging activities or migration in first 100 meters of the LCR. The LCR was running turbid and high during the majority of Trip #3, 1991. For the period of March 4 - March 15, peak flows in the LCR were observed during March 5-10, then flows began to recede and temperatures gradually increased. LCR temperatures ranged from 9.8 - 11.3°C during high flows to 11.5 - 12.8°C as flows began to recede.

6. Catch rates of humpback chubs at areas such as Awatubi (RM 58.3) and Lava Chuar (RM 65.3) appeared to be much less that during previous effort at these locations, suggesting that densities of fish at locations removed from the LCR confluence area were down as compared to January. In contrast netting catch rates appeared to be substantially higher in the LCR confluence area further suggesting migration to, and staging in the area of the LCR confluence.

7. During Trip #3, 1991, five radio tagged fish were observed moving distances of 0.5 to 1.7 miles into the LCR confluence area.

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 2 8. A significant number of chubs captured were exhibiting external breeding characters including tuberculation, coloration and swelling in the area of the vent. Only one male chub captured was expressing gametes.

9. Only male humpback chubs were implanted with radio transmitters during Trip #3, 1991.

10. Four humpback chub were captured downstream of Reach 1 during March. Three of the four fish captured were recaptures from areas sampled during November 1990 and January 1991.

11. Chubs which were recaptured were collected from the same locations at which they were originally captured, indicating that these fish were not engaged in any prespawning movements.

12. No prespawning accumulations of humpback chub were noted in the vicinity of Bright Angel, Shinumo, Tapeats, Kanab or Havasu Creeks.

13. Evidence of spawning by rainbow trout was observed in Clear Creek, Bright Angel Creek, Pipe Creek, Shinumo Creek, Crystal Creek, Royal Arches Creek, Tapeats Creak, and Deer Creek.

14. Accumulations of flannelmouth and bluehead suckers exhibiting breeding characters were found at Kanab Creek; and ripe male and female flannelmouth and bluehead suckers were collected from Havasu Creek.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS

No significant problems were encountered on Trip #3, 1991.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Aerial telemetry techniques have been refined and appear to be adequate to contact and locate radio-tagged chubs in the main channel of the Colorado River that are occupying positions above the extinction depth for radio transmissions. However, due to the cost and logistical considerations of coordinating helicopter flights and that the study area is relatively small and workable by boats, it is recommended that aerial telemetry efforts be discontinued under the present circumstances. If at a future date, radio telemetry efforts are expanded to encompass a larger reach of the river, aerial telemetry may become practicaL

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 3 Table la. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #3 1991. Team 1 (LCR)

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

DATE RM LOCATION T&R1 FS IT HQ 3/3/91 24.0 24 Mile Rapid X 3/4/91 57.0 Above Malgosa Canyon X X X X 3/5/91 57.0 Above Malgosa Canyon X X X 3/6/91 58.3 Awatubi Canyon X X X X 3/7/91 58.3 Awatubi Canyon X X X 3/8/91 61.3 LCR X X X X 3/9/91 61.3 LCR X X X 3/10/91 61.3 LCR X X X 3/11/91 61.3 LCR X X X 3/12/91 65.3 Lava Chuar X X X X 3/13/91 65.3 Lava Chuar X X X 3/14/91 65.3 Lava Chuar X X X 3/15/91 91.0 91 Mile Creek X X X X 3/16/91 133.7 Tapeats Creek X . 3/17/91 182.0 Hell's Hollow X 3/18/91 208.9 Granite Park X X 3/19/91 208.9 Granite Park X 3/20/91 221.8 222 Mile Canyon X X 3121/91 221.8 222 Mile Canyon X 3/22/91 225.0 T/O @ Diamond Cr. ' T&R = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling TE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 4 Table lb. Logistics and Research Schedule for Trip #3, 1991. Team 2.

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

DATE RM LOCATION T&R` FS TE HQ 3/3/91 23.5 X 3/4/91 76.7 Hance X X 3/5/91 87.1 Cremation X 3/6/91 87.1 Cremation X 3/7/91 108.3 Lower Bass X X 3/8/91 108.3 Lower Bass X 3/9/91 133.5 Racetrack - Above Tapeats X X X 3/10/91 133.5 Racetrack - Above Tapeats X X 3/11/91 136.3 Across from Deer Creek X X X 3/12/91 136.3 Across from Deer Creek X X 3/13/91 143.2 Across from ICanab Creek X X X 3/14/91 143.2 Across from Kanab Creek X X 3/15/91 155.6 Last Chance-Above Havasu X X 3/16/91 155.6 Last Chance-Above Havasu X . 3/17/91 182.4 Hells Hollow X X 3/18/91 182.4 Hells Hollow X 3/19/91 214.1 214 Mile Canyon X X 3/20/91 214.1 214 Mile Canyon X 3/21/91 214.1 214 Mile Canyon X X 3/22/91 225.8 Take Out - Diamond ' T&R = Travel and Reconnaissance FS = Fish Sampling YE = Telemetry HQ = Habitat Quantification

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 5 Table 2. Personnel Participating in Trip #3.

PERSONNEL J AFFILIATION DATES COMMENTS

TEAM #1 B. Masslich B/W 3/3-3/22 B/W Project Leader B. Leibfried B/W 3/3-3/22 H. Yard B/W 3/3-3/22 R. VanHaverbeke B/W 3/4-3/22 Pick up @ Nankoweep B. Dierker B/W 313-3/22 J. White GCES-Vol. 3/3-3/22 M. Hylton GCES-Vol. 313-3/22 M. Yard GCES 3/3-3/22 M. Severson AGF 3/3-3/15 Out BA Trail R. Valdez B/W 3/12-3/14 In/Out Tanner Trail M. Pucherelli BOR 3/9-3/14 In/Out Tanner Trail D. Wegner GCES 3/9-3/11 In/Out Tanner Trail TEAM #2 L. Crist B/W 3/3-3/22 B/W Project Leader G. Doster B/W 3/3-3/22 E. Prats B/W 3/3-3/22 P. Weiss B/W 3/3-3/22 G. Williams B/W 3/3-3/22 R. Hedlund B/W 3/3-3/22 Volunteer A Hayden GCES 3/3-3/22 J. Korn GCES 3/3-3/22 Volunteer S. Bledsoe OARS 3/3-3/22 S. Reeder OARS 3/3-3/22 C. Krznarich OARS 3/3-3/22

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 6 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY i LIB FM KB BR CC SD IN 1 2 1111 CP IIK RK Reach 1 A 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 N=2 J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 0 0 0 250 118 2 104 1 0 0 0 EL 0 34 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 N=46 J 0 1 16 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 1 2 7 0 0 30 2 0 0 0 EL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N=16 J 0 1 3 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Reach 1 A 84 21 5 79 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=61 J 0 0 0 0 0 122 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 2 10 2 34 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 TL N=193 386 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 2 3 2 10 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=77 J 0 0 154 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PR 250-06 BIOAVEST, Inc. 7 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY I 1113 FM 1111 RB BR CC CP SI) 11K RK FY I 2 Reach 1 A 15 2 8 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TK N=48 J 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 0 19 10 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 TK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=97 J 1 0 1 194 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 1 19 5 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 TK N=73 J 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Reach 2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TF 0 0 0 0 N=1 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TF J 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=1 2 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 1 A 17 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=23 J 0 0 0 0 46 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 8 Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY

I Hai FM BII RB BR CC CCI' SD BK RK li'V I 2 Reach 2 A 0 4 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 GP N=76 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GP 0 0 0 0 0 N=24 J 0 1 0 0 0 0 48 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , Reach 2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GX N=11 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GX 0 0 0 N=8 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Reach! A 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 HL 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 N=2 J 0 0 0 0 0 30 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N=2 J 41 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 9

Table 3. Summary of Fish Collected and Effort by Gear Type. THESE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY

1 2 3 11B FM BII RB BR CC CP SD BK RK kV

Rcach 2 A 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JIM N=6 J 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 2 A 0 0 19 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HS N=12 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reach 3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HS N1= J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , Rcach 2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MT N=20 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 hr Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL Y

PR 250-06 RIO/WEST, Inc. 10 1 - Gear Types 2 - A = Adult HB = humpback chub BK = brook trout EL = Electrofishing J = Juvenile FM = flannelmouth sucker PK = plains killifish TL = 75'x6'xl1/2"x12" trammel net Y = Young of year BH = bluchead sucker FV = flannclmouth variant TK = 75'x5'xl"x12" trammel net RB = rainbow trout GM = 10'x6'x2" gill net BR = brown trout GP = 100'x6'xl1/2" gill net CC = channel catfish GX = 100', 2" to 1/2" @ 1/2 increment, experiment gill net CP = carp HL = Large hoop net (4' diameter) SD = speckled dace HM = Medium hoop net (3'diameter) HS = Small hoop net (2' diameter) TF= Floated trammel (TK) MT = Minnow trap

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 11 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3.

# I DATE GEAR' PIT 'FAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) vvT (g) RM (capture) RM (release) A 1 910307 TK 7F7F3F2661 N -- 399 511 58.8 58.8 2 910307 TK 7F7F3E2F7B N -- 329 336 58.8 58.8 3 910310 HL 7F7F3F501B N -- 286 218 100m up LCR 100m up LCR 4 910311 HL 7F7F3F3A55 Y 0314827' 344 383 100m up LCR 100m up LCR A 5 910304 TL 7F7F3E362E N -- 369 497 57.0 57.0 6 910305 TL 7F7F3C3230 N -- 359 550 57.0 57.0 7 910305 TL 7F7F3E2813 N -- 354 450 57.0 57.0 8 910306 GP 7F7F3E3E15 N -- 320 365 58.8 58.8 9 910306 GP 7F7F3F3226 Y PITTAG 346 495 58.8 58.8 - 10 910306 GP 7F7F3E3675 Y Pig1'AG 320 310 58.8 58.8 11 910307 TK 7F7F3F4B3A N -- 321 317 58.8 58.3 12 910308 GP 7F7F3E3B7A N -- 302 325 61.4 61.4 13 910308 GP 7F7F3F5108 N -- 311 318 61.4 61.4 14 910308 GP 7F7F3E2913 N , -- 308 343 61.4 61.4 15 910308 GP 7F7F3E212E N -- 342 394 61.4 61.4 16 910308 GP 7F7F3F4231 Y 0314506' 340 379 61.4 61.4 17 910308 GP 7F7F3E2625 N -- 281 239 61.4 61.4 18 910308 GP 7F7F3F4F70 N -- 316 320 61.4 61.4 19 910308 GP 7F7F3F452B N -- 304 264 61.4 61.4

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 12 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3.

# DATE GEAR' PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WI (g) RM (capture) RM (release)

20 910308 GP 71771;3174E3B N -- 392 451 61.4 61.4 21 910308 GP 7F7F317430E N -- 282 239 61.4 61.4 22 910308 TK 7F7F3F4D30 N -- 390 472 60.1 60.1 23 910308 GP 7F7F3E2907 N -- 332 308 61.4 61.4 24 910308 GP 7F7F3C4471 Y 6222 305 269 61.4 61.4 25 910308 GP 7F7F051102 N -- 376 538 61.4 61.4 26 910308 GP 7F7F3F5108 Y PITTAG 306 326 61.4 61.4 27 910308 TK 7F7F3E2B5C N -- 1% 82 60.1 60.1 28 910308 TL 7F7F450D11 N -- 340 361 60.1 60.1 29 910308 TK 7F7F3C4554 Y PITTAG 415 711 60.1 60.3 30 910308 TL 7F7F3E2E60 N -- 260 143 60.3 60.3 31 910309 TL 7F7F3C2E01 N -- 325 340 60.8 60.8 32 910309 TI, 7F7F3C4244 N -- 373 483 61.4 61.4 33 910309 TL 7F7F3F5152 N -- 336 398 61.4 61.4 34 910309 TL 7F7F3E3C40 N ' -- 317 289 60.8 60.8 35 910309 TL 7F7F3E2C21 N -- 375 479 60.8 60.8 36 910309 T1, 7F7F3F4AOF N -- 364 427 60.8 60.8 37 910309 TL 7F7F3C2D69 Y 463' 353 463 60.8 60.8 38 910309 TL 7F7F3F4575 Y LOST FLOY 380 476 60.8 60.8

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 13 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3.

# 1 DATE GEAR' PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WE (g) RM (capture) RM (release)

39 910309 TL 7F7F3F4453° Y 8902 399 577 60.8 60.8 40 910309 TL 7F7F45181E Y 0314155' 358 425 60.8 60.8 41 910309 TL 7F7F3E382D N -- 308 245 60.8 -- 42 910309 TL 7F7F3E384D N -- 384 514 60.8 60.8 43 910309 11_, 7F7F3F4D30 Y PITTAG 390 358 60.8 60.8 44 910309 TL 7F7F3F332D N -- 324 319 61.9 61.9 45 910309 TL 7F7F3F445B N -- 306 274 61.9 61.9 46 910309 TL 7F7F3E2913 Y PITTAG 312 329 61.9 61.9 47 910309 TL 7F7F3F5071 N -- 334 390 61.9 61.9 48 910309 TL 7F7F3E2B48 N -- 334 363 61.9 61.9 49 910309 TL 7F7F3F4D3B N -- 346 361 61.9 61.9 50 910309 TL 7F7F3F490D N 290 301 61.9 61.9 51 910309 TL 7F7F3F4B2F N -- 325 331 61.9 61.9 52 910309 TL 7F7F3F4F72 N -- 345 380 61.9 61.9 53 910309 TL 7F7F3F395A N . -- 284 171 61.4 61.4 54 910309 TL 7F7F050E06 N -- 325 308 61.2 60.8 55 910309 TL 7F7F3F4012 Y PITTAG 308 270 61.2 60.8 56 910310 TL 7F7F3F4F0A N -- 315 326 61.1 61.1 57 910310 TI, 7F7F3F4424" N -- 326 333 61.1 61.1

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 14 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3.

# I DATE GEAR' PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) _ wir (g) RM (capture) 12M (release)

58 . 910310 TK 7F7F3C324A N -- 283 200 61.4 61.4 59 910310 TK 7F7F3F4424" N -- 307 297 61.4 61.4 60 910310 TL 7F7F3E3D28 Y 0314377' 351 495 61.1 61.1 61 910310 TL 7F7F3F4E5C Y 966' 311 385 61.1 61.1

62 910310 TL 7F7F3E3863 N - 326 313 61.1 61.1 63 910310 TL 7F7F3C2546 Y 6314385' 420 991 61.1 61.1 64 910310 TL 7F7F447F69 N -- 333 321 61.0 61.0 65 910310 TL 7F7F3C3D40 N -- 449 815 61.0 61.0 66 910310 TK 7F7F3E325B N -- 277 189 61.4 61.4 67 910311 Ti. 7F7F3F4E77 Y PITTAG 409 660 61.2 61.2 68 910311 TL 7F7F3C366B N -- 407 770 61.2 61.2 69 910311 TL 7F7F3F4040 N -- 381 435 61.4 61.4 70 910311 TL 7F7F3C2E7A" Y PITTAG 356 355 61.2 61.2 71 910311 'FL 7F7F3C243E" N -- 382 580 61.2 61.2 72 910311 TL 7F7F3F520DA N -- 377 604 61.2 61.2 73 910311 TL 7F7F3F4F33 N -- 312 365 61.2 61.2 74 910311 TL 7F7F3F4942 N -- 325 350 61.4 61.4 75 910311 TL 7F7F3E2773 N -- 359 490 61.4 61.4 76 910311 'FL 7F7F441A38 N -- 321 334 61.4 61.8

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 15 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3.

# DATE GEAR' P1'1"l'AG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WT (g) It114 (capture) RM (release) 77 910311 TL 7F7F31-74D29 N -- 302 251 61.8 61.8 78 910311 TL 7F7F3E3867 N -- 364 435 61.8 61.8 79 910311 TL 7F7F3E3E12 N -- 384 629 61.8 61.8 80 910311 TL 7F7F3C3E75 N -- 252 162 61.8 61.8 81 910311 TL 7F7F3F345F N -- 368 443 61.8 61.8 82 910311 TL 7F7F3C345A Y 301656' 363 474 61.8 61.8 83 910311 TL 7F7F3C3F7E N -- 406 657 61.2 61.2 84 910311 TL 7F7F3E2B11 N -- 346 426 61.2 61.2 85 910311 TL 7F7F3 E3 BOO" Y 305657 410 688 61.2 61.2 86 910311 TL 7F7F3F3A28 N -- 318 328 61.2 61.3 87 910311 TL 7F7F3E2B64 N -- 310 290 61.2 61.2 88 910311 TL 7F7F3C2E7AE Y PITTAG 347 349 61.2 61.2 89 910311 TL 7F7F3E2460 Y 0152' 391 612 61.2 61.2 90 910311 TL 7F7F3F3F12 N -- 346 446 61.4 61.4 91 910311 TL 7F7F3 C3 E72 N . -- 320 318 61.4 61.4 92 910311 TL 7F7F3E2473 N -- 305 292 61.4 61.4 93 910311 TL 7F7F3C3174 Y 472' 267 194 61.8 61.8 94 910311 TL 7F7F3 C4543 N -- 347 362 61.8 61.8 95 910311 TL 7F7F3C3A67 N -- 347 479 61.8 _ 61.8

PR 250-06 1110/WEST, Inc. 16 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3.

GEAR I DATE ' PIT TAG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) WI' (g) RM (capture) RM (release) 96 910311 TL 7F7F3E2E20 N -- 314 343 61.4 61.4 97 910311 TL 7F7F3 F4942 Y P1TTAG 322 326 61.4 61.4 98 910311 TL 7F7F3E2B48 Y P1TTAG 334 354 61.4 61.4 99 910311 TL 7F7F3F3A28 Y P11TAG 315 340 61.4 61.4 100 910311 TL 7F7F3E372A" Y 8775 387 599 61.4 61.4 101 910311 TL 7F7F3F4D50 Y 1512 359 458 61.4 61.4 102 910311 TL 7F7F3C425C N -- 314 319 61.4 61.4 103 910311 TI, 7F7F3E2512 Y 0314595' 328 355 61.4 61.4 104 910311 TL 7F7F3F4A56 N -- 284 248 61.4 61.4 105 910311 TI, 7F7F3E2C41 N -- 272 220 61.4 61.4 106 910312 TK 7F7F3F467F N -- 265 148 64.5 64.5 107 910312 TL 7F7F431A46E N -- 235 184 64.5 64.5 108 910312 TL 7F7F431A46E Y PITTAG 235 184 64.5 64.5 109 910312 TL 7F7F3E3C5F N -- 360 562 64.8 64.8 110 910312 TL 7F7F3C3A75 N ' -- 275 240 64.8 64.8 111 910313 TK 7F7F3C3454 N -- 198 82 63.4 63.4 112 910313 TK 7F7E50233E N -- 242 105 63.4 . 63.4 113 910314 TL 7F7F3E3B32 N -- 383 413 62.7 62.7 114 910314 TL 7F7F3F4C39 N -- 298 300 62.7 62.4

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 17 Table 4. Summary of Humpback Chub handled during Trip #3.

# I DATE GEAR` Pfl"l'AG RECAP OLD TAG TL (mm) Wf (g) RM (capture) _ RM (release)

115 910314 TK 7F7F3F5217 Y 8886 263 200 62.5 62.5 116 910314 TK 7F7F451160 N -- 282 229 62.5 61.5 117 910314 TK 7F7E501A24 N -- 274 264 62.5 62.5 118 910314 TK 7F7F432C25 N -- 208 103 62.5 62.5 119 910314 TK 7F7F450F49 N -- 197 76 62.5 62.5 120 910314 TL 7F7F3F430F N -- 376 492 62.7 62.7' 121 910314 TK 7F7F3E2267 N -- 256 104 62.5 62.5 122 910314 T#D 7F7F3F4F13E N -- 278 218 62.5 62.5 123 910314 Tie 7F7F3F4F13E Y PITTAG 278 218 62.5 62.5 124 910320 TK 7F7F3F5130 N -- 275 1% 221.8 221.8 125 910320 TL 7F7F3F4B6C Y PITTAG 326 291 213.6 213.6 126 910320 TL 7F7F3E3212 Y PITTAG 315 306 213.6 213.6 127 910308 TL 7F7F3F3523 Y LOST FLOY 400 549 60.1 60.1 128 910310 TL 7F7F3F4F0A Y PITTAG 315 326 61.1 61.1 129 910309 TL ESCAPED ------61.9 61.9 130 910307 TL 7F7F3F5144 Y PITTAG 294 271 108.3 108.3 - Yet ow Hoy Tag - AGFD - KCU Larlin I ag 2- Small Yellow Carlin Tag 5- Orange Floy Tag - AGFD "- Fish implanted with radio transmitter 4- Blue Carlin Tag - AGFD B- Probable misreading 5- Small Orange Carlin Tag

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 18 C- Gear Types EL = ElectroFIshing TL = 75'x6'xl1/2"x12" trammel net TK = 75'x5'xl"x12" trammel net GM = 10'Wx2" gill net GP = 100'x6'xl1/2" gill net GX = 100', 2" to 1/2" @ 1/2 increment, experiment gill net HL = Large hoop net

D- Missing information E- Fish recaptured in same net location later the same day

PR 250-06 BIO/WEST, Inc. 19 Table 5. Summary of radio-transmitter implants in humpback chub during Trip #1, 1990.

RADIOTAG LIFE ESTIMATED PULSE RATE SIZE EXPECTANCY DATE OF CAPTURE RELEASE # DATE PITIAG TL WI' FREQ (pulses/min) (gms) (days) EXTINcnoN (rm) (rm)