Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 1

APPLICATION FOR OPEN LANDS RIVERS & TRAILS (OLRT FUND) SPRING 2020

Funding may only be requested for projects that fit within the scope of the OLRT funding resolution, ballot language, and OLRT funding criteria.

Please email completed application in PDF format by 5pm on March 13th, 2020 to Open Lands, Rivers and Trails Advisory Committee, Grand County, at: [email protected]

Further information may be requested. If funds are awarded, you will be required to sign a MOU with Grand County and a final grant report will be required to be submitted within 12- months of the grant application due date.

A. General Information

1. Name/Title of Proposed Project: Renegade Ranch Property Acquisition Please check type of project: Open Land River Trail 2. Applicant: (Who will receive the grant funds) Colorado Parks and Wildlife

In the case of a multi-jurisdictional/agency application, please provide the names of all the participating agencies and/or individuals.

3. Name of Principal (Lead jurisdiction/agency):

Name: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Title: Mailing Address: PO Box 216 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 Telephone Number: 970-725-6200

4. Who will hold the property interest? State of Colorado

5. Designated Contact Person for the Application:

Name: Jon Ewert Title: Aquatic Biologist Mailing Address: PO Box 216 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 Telephone Number: 970-509-9150

6. Total Project Cost $1.0-1.5 million (do not include in- kind amounts in 6, 6a, or 6b):

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 2

a) Amount of OLRT funds requested: $500,000

b) Percentage of OLRT funds request to total cost: 33% c) Date request for funds to be available to applicant: Anticipated closing date in early 2021

7. Brief Description of Proposed Project (Please limit to 100 words.)

Renegade Ranch is a 20-acre parcel which borders on the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area (SWA) at the confluence of the Williams Fork and Colorado Rivers. For a distance of approximately 2,900 feet in this area, half of the Colorado River (river left) is on Sate Wildlife Area and the other half is owned by Renegade Ranch. This project would incorporate Renegade Ranch into the State Wildlife Area, thus giving the public full access to the river, as well as a new access point from the Town of Parshall.

8. Why is the project needed? What are the specific goals of the project? How will project success be measured? (Please limit to 100 words.)

The project is needed because it will enhance the conservation values of the State Wildlife Area at the same time that it increases public fishing access and provide economic benefit. The area of the Williams Fork confluence is highly ecologically valuable, with mature riparian cottonwood galleries providing habitat for elk, deer, river otter, eagles, herons, and countless other terrestrial species as well as being home to a highly productive Gold Medal trout fishery. Acquisition of this parcel will enable this section of the Colorado River to be included in the Kemp-Breeze Habitat Improvement Project (conceptual design document available upon request.).

9. What is the expected duration of the project?

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 3

9. What is the expected duration of the project? Please attach a project timeline that includes the start and completion dates for the project.

It is difficult to determine precise dates for a land acquisition project. The estimated closing date is June 2021. If OLRT funding is committed, CPW staff will work with the landowner to apply for the remainder of the funding through the Colorado Wildlife Habitat Protection Program (CWHP), which will have a deadline in May 2020. Final project approval by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission would occur in November 2020. CPW staff will begin the final acquisition process immediately following. CPW is open to alternative OLRT funding timing based on this anticipated timeline. However, an OLRT funding commitment is necessary at the outset of CPW’s internal application process.

10. If funded, how will you acknowledge receiving funds from Grand County’s Open Lands, Rivers, and Trails Fund (i.e. signage, newspaper article, social media, etc.)?

Major public outreach effort including statewide press releases, social media, signage, possible ribbon cutting/grand opening event.

B. Budget & Other Financial Information

1. Summary of Project Budget and Funding Sources (Cash amounts only, no in-kind):

Project Activity Requested Requested Committed Funds- Total funds Funds-OLRT Funds-other other sources, please needed for sources include your project organization’s activity committed funds Purchase of $500,000 $1,000,000 0 $1,500,000 property Due Diligence $25,000 Estimate

Totals: $500,000 $1,025,000 0 $1,525,000

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 4

2. How were the financial needs estimated?

The application uses the property listing price. As with any real estate transaction, we anticipate negotiation based on appraisal, state tax credit benefits to the seller, and other factors. Thus, the final purchase budget is not known at this time. Due diligence estimate is based on prior CPW projects.

3. Describe the project’s in-kind support including estimated value.

This project is proposed as a funding partnership between Grand County OLRT and CPW. If OLRT funding is granted, CPW staff will pursue funding the remainder of the cost of the acquisition through our internal Colorado Wildlife Habitat Program property acquisition RFP process. CPW will invest further funds through staff time to secure the property including local staff, Real Estate, Regional office, Water Specialists, and Attorney General’s Office staff.

4. What future work will need to be completed for this project and what will the associated cost be?

CPW staff will work with the landowner to apply for CWHP funds to cover remainder of acquisition costs in May 2020. The RFP process is highly competitive with statewide applications for land protection, which annually exceed the program’s budget. Local CPW staff previously supported the nomination of this parcel in 2011 for purchase through CWHP but it was denied. It is imperative that partner funds such as OLRT are secured to increase the attractiveness of the project during the CPW ranking process. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission makes the final project funding decisions typically in November.

Acquisition of this property will create a new access point to the State Wildlife Area off County Road 3 in the Town of Parshall. Associated infrastructure (signage, restrooms, parking, etc.) and access development work is anticipated and will be completed through CPW’s property management budget. Estimated cost is unknown at this time.

What ongoing operational obligations will be required for this project?

The property will be incorporated into CPW’s normal property management activities and budget for the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area.

How does the applicant plan to address these additional costs?

CPW manages over 15,000 acres in Grand County for public access and conservation values. We employee Property Technicians that are responsible for the property management and develop annual budgets to maintain the public and conservation values.

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 5

5. Please describe in detail exactly what OLRT funds will be used for.

OLRT funds will be used as a match to finance fee-simple acquisition of this parcel.

6. What percentage of the funds requested are for direct project management and what is being funded in regards to direct project management?

The OLRT funds requested would be strictly dedicated to property acquisition. All project management will be conducted in-house by CPW personnel.

7. Please attach to this grant application your organization’s profit and loss statement and balance sheet. Please limit this to one page for each document.

C. Other information

1. Describe local support for the project not included with in-kind information above.

See attached letters of support.

2. How does this project meet the OLRT fund criteria?

The project as proposed fulfills OLRT funding criteria to the greatest possible extent. Not only will the project provide a new public access point that has the potential to greatly benefit the Town of Parshall economically, but it also permanently protects a parcel with major ecological and wildlife values that is in imminent danger of being privately developed in a way that may negatively impact the State Wildlife Area. Public river fishing access is extremely limited in Grand County. Although the public has access to the middle of the river from the SWA side this acquisition would provide an additional half-mile of fishing access. In 2019 the existing river reach on SWA received 347 angler-days of guided use by permitted fishing guides. Based on a 1997 survey to determine recreational angling use, the Kemp-Breeze SWA hosted an estimated 7,682 angler trips totaling 36,878 hours of angling effort. CPW does not currently track the number of public anglers accessing the area for fishing but the 1997 numbers should be considered a minimum estimate and reasonable to assume the number of angler hours has substantially increased over the last 20 years. This is one of the most heavily fished river sections in the County and is easily accessible off of Hwy 40. The property will also provide additional wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities.

CPW is aware of constantly increasing demand for river access in Grand County and throughout Colorado. One concerning trend is the increasing cost of private river access, which can have the effect of pricing new anglers out of the market. In 2007, BBC Research and Consulting found that recreational angling has an annual economic impact of more than $34 million in Grand County, supporting hundreds of jobs. A new access point in Parshall will have the potential to create new

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 6

business opportunities and enhanced economic benefit for the immediate area. Grand County’s partnership in the acquisition of the Renegade Ranch parcel will help to ensure the protection of this precious resource and the economic benefits it produces in perpetuity.

The approximately 2,900-foot reach of the Colorado River that would be secured in this acquisition is not currently included in the Kemp-Breeze Habitat Improvement Project conceptual design due to mixed ownership. Acquisition of the property will enable CPW to add this reach as a second phase of the habitat project. This will address high temperatures and habitat limitations in one of the most environmentally stressed sections of the Colorado River in Grand County.

3. Provide a map showing the project area and surrounding location.

Attached

4. Describe the monitoring plan.

The Renegade Ranch parcel will be incorporated into the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area, thus included in all future monitoring projects. Extensive fish population monitoring occurs on the SWA currently (See attached report), and will continue into the future indefinitely. CPW has a dedicated Property Technician and staff to oversee the long-term management and monitoring of the property.

5. Are there any current issues with noxious weeds on the property and what is the revegetation and noxious weed management plan for the project, if needed?

Unknown at this time. However, the SWA currently has an extensive noxious weed management program, and the Renegade Ranch parcel will be included.

For River/Water Requests, please answer the following:

1. What portion(s) of the project will acquire water rights and/or water storage rights, increase Grand County storage/river flows, conserve and protect water for agriculture, ranching, and outdoor recreation, or provide public access?

The project will secure half of the Colorado River for a linear distance of approximately 2,900 feet for public river access, which is highly limited in Grand County. There are no water rights associated with the property. In addition, the side channels that were recently constructed across the property may injure the Colorado Water Conservation Board in-stream minimum flow right of 90 CFS upstream of the Williams Fork confluence. If this is the case, these constructed side channels may be abandoned or modified.

For Land/Conservation Easement Requests, please answer the following:

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 7

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 9

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 1 0

Updated by OLRTAC January 16, 2020 1 1

L E A R N I N G B Y D O I N G

March 13, 2020

Advisory Committee Open Lands, Rivers, and Trails Fund P.O. Box 264 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451

Dear Open Lands, Rivers, and Trails Advisory Committee,

On behalf of the Learning By Doing Management Committee, I would like to express our strong support of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s application to secure partial funding for the 20-acre parcel known as Renegade Ranch located in Grand County. This is a critical parcel along the north bank of the Colorado River across from the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area (SWA). The SWA straddles the confluence of the Colorado and Williams Fork rivers and is exceedingly valuable ecologically, while jointly providing fishing, hunting and recreation opportunities to the public.

The Learning By Doing cooperative effort is committed to maintaining and, where reasonably possible, restoring and enhancing the condition of the aquatic environment in Grand County. Learning By Doing and Colorado Parks and Wildlife have identified this section of the Colorado River as a high priority for restoration as its overwide channel and periods of low flow result in exceedances to chronic temperature standards for aquatic life. Plans to improve this section of river at Renegade Ranch, however, have been hindered because of the private ownership of the ranch along the north bank.

With OLRT’s funding, Colorado Parks and Wildlife would be well positioned to supply the remaining funds needed to acquire Renegade Ranch and extend the SWA boundary for increased public fishing access, for expanded wildlife protection, and for river habitat improvement that will greatly enhance the aquatic environment. Once this parcel is obtained by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, both sides of the Colorado River through this section will be managed as the Kemp-Breeze SWA, which will enable the current plans for river restoration to be realized.

- more -

A new approach to managing aquatic resources www.grandcountylearningbydoing.org

L E A R N I N G B Y D O I N G

Thank you for your consideration of helping to fund the acquisition of Renegade Ranch as part of the Kemp-Breeze SWA.

Sincerely,

Kiki Sayre LBD Project Coordinator

Learning By Doing Management Committee members: Lori Martin, Senior Aquatic Biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Jason Turner, legal counsel, Colorado River Water Conservation District Jessica Alexander, Environmental Scientist, Denver Water Ed Moyer, Assistant Manager, Grand County Jeff Drager, Director of Engineering, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Kent Whitmer, legal counsel, Middle Park Water Conservancy District Mely Whiting, legal counsel, Trout Unlimited

A new approach to managing aquatic resources www.grandcountylearningbydoing.org

With ongoing development and population growth across Colorado, the West, and the world, truly wild places are not only valuable but necessary. The proposed addition of Renegade Ranch to our State Park system is a necessary step in safeguarding our wild lands for residents and visitors to enjoy for years to come, and to protect precious habitat for wild fish, elk, deer, moose, otters, eagles, and a multitude of other wild species.

The economic impact our public lands provide to our state is immense. Without a robust State Park system, we wouldn’t enjoy the demand for tourism and outdoor recreation we have today. Outfitters, resorts, gas stations, hotels, shops, and whole local economies benefit from the recreational activities that our state lands ensure. Tourism is the life’s blood of Colorado, so its vastly important to preserve and add new public spaces for outdoor recreation.

The acquisition of Renegade Ranch will ensure anglers, tourists, and outdoor enthusiasts have the opportunity to escape the housing and urban grid to re-connect with the wild for many more generations. The conservation of places like Renegade Rach are much needed, now and in the future.

Let’s preserve Renegade Ranch by its addition to our Colorado Parks System, so generations of Coloradans can experience a true slice of the Colorado wilderness.

Jay Baichi Owner 5280 Angler

6841 Simms Court, Arvada, CO 80004 PASSIONATE ABOUT SERVICE/WILD ABOUT FISH 720-450-7291/[email protected] Colorado Outfitter #2828 www.5280angler.com

Email received by CPW on 3/10/20

"Grand County Open Lands, Rivers, and Trails Advisory Committee."

I received information that it may be possible for Grand County to purchase the Renegade Ranch near Parshall. I understand that this property may be added to the Kemp /Breeze SWA area- and therefore increase the access for the public to fish this area. Wow- what a great thing for the anglers of this area. I have been in the Fly fishing Business in Colorado since 1977. This is great news if it can come to fruition. With more and more folks/anglers arriving in Colorado there is a great need for the public to access our rivers and streams. I urge you to make this happen for all Coloradans. This is a great section of trout stream on the Colorado River and I hope you will continue to look for these opportunities to improve our public fishing opportunities. sincerely,

Jackson Streit/owner

The Mountain Angler LTD. Post Office Box 467 311 South Main Street Breckenridge, Colorado, 80424 USA

Telephone-970-453-4665 Fax-970-453-4226 Toll-Free-800-453-4669 www.MountainAngler.com

"PUTTING PEOPLE AND TROUT TOGETHER SINCE 1985 "

------Forwarded message ------From: Marco DeAndrea Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 1:07 PM Subject: Re: Grant process for property acquisition on the Kemp-Breeze To: Behncke - DNR, Jeff

Hello Jeff, I am in full support of the Department of Parks and Wildlife acquiring the Renegade Ranch. My name is Marco DeAndrea, and I am the proprietor of the Parshall Inn. My contact info is [email protected] or 970-531-6330, I also live in Parshall, 350 Main Street. The Parshall Inn has been here for over 80 years and has relied heavily on the local fishing for trade. We are located just a few blocks from where I presume the access will be, and I feel increased usage of the area cannot help but benefit our business. On a personal note, I believe the residents of Parshall will also benefit greatly by having access to the river here in town. So, as a business owner, and resident in Parshall, I believe that this is an excellent idea that will greatly benefit our community. Thank you for your time.

Marco DeAndrea Parshall Inn Email received by CPW on 3/10/20

To Whom it May Concern,

As a 25-year veteran fly fishing guide, the Kemp-Breeze Unit is no doubt one of my favorite places to fish and take clients from time to time. I would be a huge fan of incorporating the Renegade Ranch into the existing Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area. This would give anglers full access to the river around the confluence, as well as, providing another key access point in the town of Parshall. I think this would be extremely helpful for anglers with bad knees, hips, and other physical limitations to see this part of the river, or even the lower stretches of the Williams Fork. Currently, this is not an option for a lot of folks, so this would be a breath of fresh air for the angling community.

As an added bonus, this section of the river could benefit from the Kemp-Breeze Habitat Improvement Project. Several sections of the current river channel are featureless, lacking key- habitat for thriving populations of trout, not to mention, warm water temperatures are a huge concern during certain times of the year.

Including the Renegade Ranch within the Kemp-Breeze Unit would be a win-win for everyone. It would increase public access, improve habitat, help mitigate high water temperatures, and provide a boost to the local economy. If I can be of any assistance whatsoever, please feel to contact me at your earliest convenience.

Thanks for your consideration,

Pat Dorsey Blue Quill Angler, Inc. Cell: 720-331-6246 Fly Shop: 303-674-4700 www.bluequillangler.com www.patdorseyflyfishing.com Email received by CPW on 3/13/2020

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to you to support the support of the Hot Sulphur Springs purchase and use of the Grand County OLRT fund to purchase the Renegade Ranch Parcel.

This would be very important purchase for the State as this is prima habitat, water and land that could better public use, fishing habitat and wildlife habitat. This will give immense opportunities for so many on many different levels.

I hope this can be something that comes to fruition.

Sincerely,

Captain Zeke Hersh Regional General Manager - Frisco | Trouts Fly Fishing P: (877) 464-0034 M: (970) 470-1359 E: [email protected] W: www.troutsflyfishing.com Denver: 1303 E 6th Avenue Denver, CO 80218 | (303) 733- 1434 Frisco: 309 B. Main Street Frisco, CO 80443 | (970) 668-2583

Colorado River at Parshall Fishery management report Jon Ewert, Aquatic Biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife March 2019

Introduction 300 Located approximately 10 miles east of Kremmling, Rainbow trout CO on US highway 40, this section of the Colorado River 250 offers approximately 4 miles of public access on the Brown trout Kemp-Breeze, Lone Buck, and Paul Gilbert State Wildlife 200 Areas (SWA), managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife 3 11 15 150 12 (CPW), and the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 4 9 10 264 5 Sunset property unit. This is one of the most well-known 1 6 100 and heavily fished trout rivers in the state. Despite heavy 187 158 154 angling pressure, trout populations here are generally ex- 131 126 122 134 134 111 108 117 cellent and this is a designated Gold Medal fishery. Pounds per surfaceacre 50

0 Regulations 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 This section is under special regulations, restricted to Figure 1. Brown and rainbow trout biomass estimates, Parshall- fishing with flies and lures only, and all trout must be re- Sunset, 2007-2018. turned to the water immediately. 8000 35 Stocking 7000 Rainbow trout Whirling disease-resistant strains of rainbow trout 6000 were stocked at various sizes through 2015 with the goal Brown trout 5000 65 of reestablishing a wild, self-sustaining rainbow trout pop- 306 205 114 153 127 ulation. Results of these efforts are discussed in more de- 4000 39 152 7708 31 71 tail on pages 5-6. 103 3000 # fish >6" per mile 4691 2000 3833 3936 3973 3976 4093 3917 Fishery surveys 3410 3557 3561 2908 The information in this report reflects trout population 1000 data collected on the two-mile reach of river beginning 0 just upstream of the “Parshall Hole” and extending down- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 stream through the Kemp-Breeze SWA to the irrigation Figure 2. Estimates of brown and rainbow trout fish per mile diversion on the BLM Sunset property. This survey is larger than 6”, Parshall-Sunset, 2007-2018. conducted in the third or fourth week of September annu- 60 ally. Population estimates are obtained by raft electrofish- 2 Rainbow trout ing using standard mark-recapture methodology . Brown trout Figure 1 displays estimates for trout biomass in pounds 1 3 5 per surface acre over the 2-mile reach. From 2007-2011, 40 4 this estimate declined annually, and from 2011-2018 the 6 estimate has steadily increased. In all years this estimate 1 has generously exceeded the minimum Gold Medal crite- 52 44 3 3 20 ria of at least 60 lbs./acre. During this period brown trout 4 39 33 31 have contributed an average of 95% of this estimate while 28 24 26 rainbows have contributed 5%. # fish > 14"per surface acre 19 17 15 Figure 2 displays trout population estimates in fish per 13 0 mile 6” or larger. The high brown trout estimate in 2007 is 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 the result of multiple large year classes of young brown Figure 3. Density estimates of quality-sized (>14”) brown and trout recruiting during the relatively low-water years lead- rainbow trout per surface acre, Parshall-Sunset, 2007-2018. ing up to that year (see Figure 5). It is common to see high recruitment of juvenile brown trout during drought peri- Figure 3 displays density estimates of trout greater than ods, simultaneous with declining numbers of large fish. 14” per surface acre, which is the second biological crite- The increase in rainbow trout estimates beginning in 2012 ria for Gold Medal designation, requiring a minimum of reflects the introduction of Whirling Disease resistant 12 trout per acre 14” or larger. In years such as 2013 and rainbows to this section of river (see discussion on page 5- 2017, these estimates have come close to slipping below 6). During this time, brown trout have contributed an aver- that standard. age of 97% of these estimates and rainbows have contrib- Historic density estimates of quality trout from the uted 3%. years 1981-2004, collected by Colorado Division of Wild- 1

120 160 10 2007 Rainbow trout 7 100 Brown trout 120 10 7 80 10 80 20 9 60 5 3 70 75 62 107 3 100 40 40 81 85 47 45 26 66 Number of fish captured 35 56 60 58 55 48 20 32 0 21 21 20 160 # fish > 35 cm #fish > 35 cm per surfaceacre 15 10 14 13 2008 0 4 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 120 Figure 4. Density estimates of brown and rainbow trout >35 CM per surface acre, Parshall-Sunset, 1981-2004. 80 life research biologist Barry Nehring and colleagues, are 40 displayed in Figure 4. The parasite which causes whirling disease was first introduced to the Colorado River during 0 this time, and its effects are evident in the decline of the 160 rainbow fishery and subsequent expansion of brown trout 2009 densities. Regardless, in 15 of the 18 sampling occasions 120 during this period, quality trout estimates exceeded 50 fish per acre, while this has occurred only once in the most recent decade (Figure 3). This information suggests that 80 this fishery has undergone a long-term decline. All the reasons for this are not known, but two of the most likely 40 culprits are a long-term degradation in the quality of in- Number of fish captured vertebrate forage, long-term degradation in the quality of 0 physical habitat (particularly overwinter habitat), some 160 Age-1 2010 Adult population combination of those two factors, or an issue not yet (born 2009) Age-2 (born 2007 and before) known. 120 Figures 5 and 6 (following page) display the size distri- (born 2008) Age-0 butions for all brown trout captured in the Parshall-Sunset 80 reach in September from 2007-2018. The vertical axis on (born 2010) all graphs is the same, enabling comparisons among years. 40 The vertical bars represent the number of fish that were captured in each size class by centimeter (15 cm = 6”). 0 Viewing the data in this way reveals a wealth of useful 160 information including rough estimates of annual growth 2011 and survival rates. Fish less than 15 cm are not effectively captured during these surveys, so it is difficult to assess 120 the abundance of the age-0 year class (fish that were born the year of the survey) from this data. However, the age-1 80 year class (born the year prior to the sample), in the 12-20 cm range, is represented more accurately. 40 When studying this survey data, a question sometimes arises regarding movement of trout. The question is 0 160 whether or not the data represents the “true” resident pop- 2012 ulation of fish, or whether the fish move so much that it is more of a single snapshot in time of the trout that happen 120 to be occupying the reach on that day. There are a few aspects of this data which at least partially answer that 80 question. First, the survey is conducted as close to the same date as possible every year. If the results are heavily 40 influenced by fish movements, those movements should at least be similar among years as long as the dates of the Number of fish captured 0 survey are consistent. Anecdotally, many fish are collect- 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 ed each year that have small scars in the tail where they Length of fish in cm were marked in previous years’ surveys, proving that Figure 5. Brown trout size distribution, 2007-2012. those fish occupy the same reach across multiple years.

160 Also, the analysis below demonstrates that year class 2013 strength is a strong predictor of the future adult popula- 120 tion. If the population was heavily influenced by emigra- tion or immigration, this would not necessarily be the 80 case. There are examples of other reaches of the Colorado (such as the Radium survey reach) where the number of

40 juvenile fish has never explained the high density of adult fish present, meaning that the reach “gains” fish from Number Number of fish captured elsewhere. 0 The strength of the age-1 year class in any given year 160 2014 is of great interest because of its ability to predict trends in the adult population in future years. Due to high mortality 120 rates in small fish, strong age-1 year classes are necessary in order to maintain the adult population. We have seen an 80 oscillation in the abundance of age-1 fish that appears to occur over 2– or 3-year cycles (Figure 7). 40 The result of weak age-1 recruitment in 2008 and 2009 can be seen in the weakening adult population in 2011 and 0 2012. That weakening of the adult population is evident 160 on page 2 in the biomass and quality trout estimates for 2015 those years. 120 In 2012 the age-2 fish were poised to bolster the adult population, which took place in 2013 and 2014. This also

80 appears in Figure 1 in the improving biomass estimates in those years and the increase in quality trout in 2014. 2013 revealed another strong age-2 year class; how- 40 ever the age-1 group was weak in both 2013 and 2014. Number Number of fish captured The adult population in 2014 reflects the benefit of the 0 strong age-1 groups of 2011 and 2012. This is also evident 160 2016 in the increased number of quality trout that we observed in 2014. However, the weak recruitment years of 2013 120 and 2014 resulted in moderate decreases in the adult population in 2015 and 2016, which was ultimately manifested 80 in the lower quality fish estimate in 2016. Age-1 recruitment in 2015 and 2016 returned to strong levels, which 40 again bolstered the adult population in 2017 and 2018. Age-0 capture in 2016 was low, resembling that of 2012 0 and 2013, which predicted a weak Age-1 year class in 160 2017. 2017 Quality trout density estimates in 2017 were among the

120 lowest ever (Figure 3). However, the 2017 sample revealed a large, overlapping group of Age-2 and 3 fish (peaking at 28 cm) resulting from the strong age-1 groups 80 in 2015 and 2016. These fish advanced in size in 2018, which resulted in an improved quality trout estimate in 40 2018 and we anticipate this to continue with another increase in 2019. 2018 saw another weak age-1 group, and 0 Age-0 capture in 2018 was exceptionally weak. If this 160 2018 manifests as a weak Age-1 group in 2019, this will be the first time since 2007 that we have observed three consecu- 120 tive weak Age-1 groups, which predicts poor estimates of quality fish (>14”) in 2020, 2021, and 2022. 80 We have observed an oscillation in both the strength of Age-1 year classes and density of quality trout (Figure 40 7). We do not have a strong understanding of factors that produce strong or weak year classes in any given year on Number Number of fish captured

0 this reach of the Colorado. In some rivers, above-average 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 runoff results in high mortality of brown trout, thus form- Length of fish in cm ing poor year classes, while drought years see high surviv- Figure 6. Brown trout size distribution, 2013-2018. al of age-0 fish due to the lack of intense flows. However, we have seen counterexamples of that dynamic in the Col-

orado River in recent years. 2011 produced a peak runoff period that was far above average, yet a strong year class survived. Conversely, 2012 was a drought year that produced a weak age-1 group the following year. Intensity of runoff probably plays a role in some years, but does not appear to be the chief factor determining year class strength on this reach. Spawning habitat quality could act as a limiting factor in the formation of year classes. However, if there was a general lack of spawning habitat, there would be no reason for the variability in year class strength that we have observed. All year classes would be equally poor. In some winters, anchor ice, frazil ice, and various for- mations of ice damming are common on this reach of the Colorado. It is possible that harsh winter conditions exac- erbated by low flows lead to high mortality rates of brown Figure 8. The largest brown captured in 2014. 21”, 4.6 lbs. trout eggs that are incubating in the gravel, which would result in poor year class formation. We do not currently have a way to quantify those conditions, and the degree to which they vary among winters. However, in-channel habitat improvements would address this issue by enhancing the quality of spawning riffles as well as overwintering habitat, making these areas less vulnerable to the harsh winter conditions that can take place during periods of cold weather and low flows. It is difficult to determine exactly how the two patterns of oscillation in Figure 7 are related. Under a recruitment- driven hypothesis, strong juvenile year classes would predict peaks in large fish density by approximately two years, as described above. However, a predation-driven dynamic could also be at play, in which a higher density of large fish actually limits the strength of juvenile year- classes through predation pressure. The true determination of these trajectories is most likely driven my a more com- plex interaction among these two factors as well as others, such as water year type.

2 Age-1 fish 1.8 Quality trout 1.6 1.4 2010 2012 1.2 2016 2018 2011 2015 1 2007 0.8 2014 2017 0.6 2008 2009 Departure from Departure from average 0.4 2013 0.2 0 Figure 7. Oscillation in quality trout estimates (dashed line) and number of juvenile (12-23 cm) brown trout handled annually. Values for both parameters were standardized to the average for the period, represented by the flat line.

Figure 9. This 15” brown trout had recently eaten a rodent.

Status of wild rainbow trout The Colorado River in Grand County historically supported one of the most productive wild rainbow trout fish- eries in the world. In 1981, there were estimated to be 75 rainbow trout per acre over 14” (Figure 4). These fish were all the product of wild reproduction and unsupported by stocking. Brown trout comprised 25% of the trout population in the river that year. Whirling disease appeared in the river in 1987 and the proliferation of this parasite end- ed virtually all successful reproduction of rainbow trout. In the following years, the brown trout population explod- ed to fill the habitat that was vacated due to lack of reproduction in the rainbow population. It has always been the goal of CPW to restore some level of a wild rainbow trout fishery to this reach of the Colorado. Beginning in 1994, CPW began stocking fingerling rainbow trout to attempt to compensate for the lost natural reproduction. Research has shown that rainbow trout mortality from whirling disease drops dramatically when the fish have reached a length of 5”. Based on this information, that is the size of fish that was stocked throughout the 2000’s. Due to the timing of rainbow spawn in CPW hatcheries, fish of that size were not available until the fall, usually October. 40,000 5” fish per year were stocked annually in October in this reach of river. Figure 10 demonstrates the failure of the stocking strategy described above. Even though 5” fish should be able to survive in the presence of whirling disease, recruitment rates from stocking these fingerlings was abysmal, and rainbow trout continued to constitute a tiny fraction of the total trout population of this reach. In more recent years, CPW has developed strains of rainbow trout that are highly resistant to whirling disease. We first stocked this fish in this reach in 2008. In 2008 and 2009, the fish were stocked at 5” in October. We did not observe any evidence that this strain was successful at recruiting into the population when stocked at that size. In 2010, we adopted a different stocking strategy based on the hypothesis that the limitation on recruitment in the Figure 11. This Parshall Hole rainbow had recently eaten a 10” 5” plants was timing rather than WD infection. If this was brown trout. not the case we should have seen a positive response with the introduction of the WD-resistant strain in 2008. We stocked a larger number (60,000) of smaller (1.6 inches average) fish during the third week of July. We stocked these small fish out of a raft, only in the most ideal fry habitat. At this small size the fish are not habituated to

306 300

250 205 200

152 153 150 127 114 103 100 Fish Fish >6" mile per 65 71

50 35 31 39

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Figure 10. Estimates of rainbow trout >6” per mile, Parshall- Figure 12. The largest rainbow we captured in 2018, measuring Sunset 2007-2018. 22”. 5

30 being fed yet, and hopefully develop wild behaviors that 2013 are likely already lost in fish that have been raised to 5” in a hatchery environment. After encouraging results in 2010, in 2011 and 2012 we continued this stocking strate- 20 gy and increased the number of fry stocked to 100,000.

Our 2012 survey detected the recruitment of these fish 10 into the adult rainbow population for the first time (Figure

10). Subsequent surveys have not yielded estimates as Number of fish captured high as 2012, but they have remained above pre-2012 lev- 0 els. We have documented successful natural reproduction 30 but it remains to be seen if it will be enough for the per- 2014 centage of rainbows in the trout population to increase. Figure 14 displays the size distribution of all the rain- 20 bow trout captured over the past six years in this reach. In 2010 we captured rainbow trout smaller than 6” for the first time. These were the 2” fry that had been stocked two 10 months previously. By 2013 we observed the development of a more robust adult population in the 12-16” range as a result of the fry stocking. 0 30 In 2014 we found the most fully developed adult rain- 2015 bow population to date. The density estimate for rainbows larger than 14” was 5 fish per acre, which was the highest estimate in the post-WD era, until 2016 yielded an esti- 20 mate of 6 per acre. We also did not detect an age-1 year class in 2014 for the first time since fry stocking began, for unknown reasons. However, we did collect some age-0 10 (fry stocked in 2014) fish. 2015 and 2016 saw the return of moderate age-1 groups. Number of fish captured Due to a disease issue in our hatchery system, 2015 0 30 was the last year that we stocked rainbow trout fry. This 2016 was also an opportune time to cease stocking and evaluate whether or not natural reproduction would sustain and/or 20 increase rainbow numbers. The 8” age-1 year class seen in 2016, the 12” Age-2 group in 2017, and the 13”-17” adult group in 2018 represent the last stocked rainbow fry. The 10 7-9” group in 2017 and 2018 are wild fish, and through fry monitoring we have observed some successful natural reproduction. We are hopeful that this trend will continue, 0 although the numbers of juvenile fish we have observed in 30 the past two years do not appear to be adequate to sustain 2017 the rainbow fishery. We will consider stocking rainbow fry again, possibly beginning in 2020. 20

0 30 2018

10 Number Number of fish captured

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Length of fish in inches Figure 14. Size distribution of rainbow trout captured on the Figure 13. Rainbow trout fry on the raft ready to be stocked. Parshall-Sunset reach 2013-2018.

Mountain whitefish invasion In 2013, we collected four juvenile mountain whitefish 20 2014 on this reach for the first time. This species had never been N = 2 captured on this reach of river in a history of biological survey work that extends back to 1981. There are no known historical records of mountain whitefish occurring 10 anywhere in Middle Park upstream of Gore Canyon. This species is native to the White and Yampa river drainages but not to the Colorado. There is an established population in the Colorado downstream of Gore Canyon. 0 Figure 15 displays the size distribution of whitefish that we have captured since 2014. That year, we captured two juvenile whitefish. A year later we captured 22 whitefish 20 representing three age-classes, which corresponded to the 2015 juveniles we had caught the two previous years. In 2016 N = 22 our catch increased to 49 mountain whitefish representing four year-classes and ranging up to 19” in length. We cap- 10 tured fewer in 2017, but still found at least three year- classes. 2018 saw a large jump in the number that we captured, including the highest number of Age-0 (4-5”) fish yet found. 0 In other surveys, we have also captured whitefish as far upstream as Windy Gap dam. These findings suggest that we are witnessing the beginning of a significant invasion 20 of the species into the upper Colorado. The reasons that 2016 this is occurring now are unknown. 2011 saw the highest N = 49 flows on the Colorado River since the early 1980’s, and our current theory is that the prolonged high flows during 10 that summer allowed adult whitefish to find their way through Gore Canyon for the first time. Impacts of mountain whitefish on the trout fishery are

Number Number of fish captured unknown at this time. There are ways in which they might benefit the fishery (for example, providing an additional 0 prey source for large, predatory brown trout), but they may also present new competition with trout for food and 20 habitat. Catch-and-release regulations on this reach apply 2017 to trout only, so these fish are available for angler harvest. N = 33 We will closely monitor this invasion over the coming years and continually assess whether or not any management changes are warranted. 10

20 2018 N = 87

0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Length of fish in inches Figure 15. Size distribution of mountain whitefish captured in Parshall-Sunset reach, 2014-2018. Figure 16. Mountain whitefish captured in the Parshall Hole. 7

Spring 2013 & 2016 surveys of Paul Gilbert—Lone Buck reach

In spring of 2013 & 2016, we conducted a raft electrofishing Colorado River, Paul Gilbert—Lone Buck survey of the Colorado River beginning just downstream of the Byers Canyon bridge and extending to the downstream border of 2013 2016 the Lone Buck State Wildlife Area. This encompassed a river reach of approximately 7,000 feet in length. The main reason for this sur- Date of survey 5/6 & 8 4/19 & 21 vey was to determine the number of spawning rainbow trout in this Rainbows: #> 6”/mile 214 182 reach, which contains locations where rainbows regularly spawned historically. This was the first time since 2013 that we had surveyed #>14”/surface acre 5 6 this section. These are the only two occasions in recent history that the reach has been surveyed in the spring. Biomass (lbs./acre) 13 13 Results of the 2013 and 2016 surveys are contained in the table at right. Rainbow estimates remained essentially the same across Browns: #> 6”/mile 1,537 1,178 the two occasions, while the number of large brown trout increased dramatically. This resulted in a greatly increased estimate of brown #>14”/acre 11 28 trout biomass. The size distribution of both species is shown in the Biomass (lbs./acre) 74 132 graphs below. In the 2016 survey, we also captured one mountain whitefish measuring 16”. At that time this was the farthest- upstream location that we had captured a whitefish; however, the following month we captured two more whitefish upstream of the town of Hot Sulphur Springs, indicating that they are present in the river up to Windy Gap dam.

A Whirling Disease-resistant rainbow from the Lone Buck reach.