August 30, 1989 Mr. Galen L. Buterbaugh, Director Region 6 U.S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
— DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES • 1---"N, 7-• ()1 August 30, 1989 I SEP 2 I ; 1989 I 4s, y mi.;.7.„7... 774- f Mr. Galen L. Buterbaugh, Director Region 6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Denver Federal Center P. 0. Box 25207 Denver, CO 80225-0207 Dear Galen: Please find enclosed five copies of a proposal prepared by our Lake Powell staff for the introduction of rainbow smelt into Lake Powell. This proposal has been prepared as the most feasible approach to solve the critical forage shortage in Lake Powell and improving the once popular striped bass sport fishery. I would appreciate your distribution of this proposal to the appropriate members of your staff, particularly the Squawfish Recovery Team, so that we can get a thorough and substantive review of its merits. As you may be aware, this proposal has been under development for a number of years. Major problems have been evident with the shad forage base in Lake Powell, and a number of alternative approaches have been examined. The smelt option as been under development for the last three years. The proposal, in earlier drafts, was presented to the Colorado River Wildlife Council as the first step in assessing both the potential benefits and any likely impacts which could be expected. The Council, which is made up of the seven state wildlife management agencies in the Colorado Basin, was selected as the logical first step to review the proposal, since the agencies have staff devoted to all aspects of the Colorado River fisheries, from both sport fish and native fish aspects. This past spring the Technical Committee of the CRFWC recommended acceptance of the proposal. In July the Council reviewed the proposal and directed us to take the next step and contact other involved agencies. With this final version of the proposal we are now prepared to take that next step. In addition to sending you the proposal, we have also scheduled a meeting for September 29th, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in our office in Salt Lake City, where we will present the background and rationale supporting the proposal. I would like to invite you and your staff to listen to the proposal and also have your comments. We will not be looking for any final decision at this meeting, since we recognize that detailed technical review of the proposal will likely take longer. We would, however, like to gain some insight into the technical areas of the proposal which cause concern and also explore any other possibilities for solutions to improving the fishery at Lake Powell. Galen Buterbaugh August 30, 1989 Page 2 I invite your careful scrutiny of this draft and would be particularly interested in knowing any specific technical information which indicates the smAlt poses a likely threat to the endangered fishes in the system. We also need to know if the plan is likely to meet its objectives of improving forage for the striped bass population. With visitor use at Lake Powell exceeding that at Yellowstone Park, and a significant portion of that use being directed at fishing, the sport fishery is clearly too important to ignore. We also recognize the extreme value in preserving the native fishes in the Colorado System and, therefore, intend to work closely with you to make sure this, or any otner proposal, will not likely cause any decline in those species. I look forward to meeting with you and your staff on the 29th and working together to solve this problem. Please let me know how many people to expect. I would also be pleased to provide any additional copies of the proposal which you may need. Sincerely, Bruce R. Schmidt Chief of Fisheries BRS:bbb Attachment cc: Michael J. Spear, Regional Director Region 2 John Lancaster, Superintendent Glen Canyon National Park Tim Proven Draft Proposal INTRODUCTION OF RAINBOW SMELT (OSMERUS MORDAX) INTO LAKE POWELL, UTAH-ARIZONA By A. Wayne Gustaveson and Bruce Bonebrake Lake Powell Fisheries Project Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Timothy H. Provan, Director August 1989 6 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables List of Figures ............................................ Introduction .............................................. Need for the Introduction .................................. Expected Benefits .......................................... Life History and Ecology of Smelt ....... 2 Description 2 Distribution ....... 3 Habitat 3 Spawning ....... 4 Food Habits ....... 5 Smelt as Forage ....... 6 Possible Negative Impacts of Smelt ...... 6 Potential Displacement of Indigenous Species ...... 7 Humpback Chub ...... 7 Bonytail Chub ...... 9 Razorback Sucker ...... 9 Disease Potential 10 Hybridization ......11 Pygmy Smelt as an Alternative ......11 Post Introduction Evaluation ......11 Expected Behavior of Rainbow Smelt in Lake Powell ......11 Summary and Conclusions ......12 Literature Reviewed ......15 Appendix I Assessment of the Need for Forage Enhancement for the Benefit of Lake Powell Fishes ..... 25 Appendix II Answers to Commonly Asked Questions About Rainbow Smelt 47 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Stocking history of Lake Powell, Utah 1963-88 . 26 • 2. Comparison of zooplankton densities (#/m3) in Great Lakes and four reservoirs. Taken from Paulson, 1989 . 44 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Creel rates (fish/angler hour) for largemouth bass, black crappie and all species, Lake Powell, April- June, 1965-85 .................................... 30 2. Indicies of total recreational boat use and angling pressure, Lake Powell, 1965-88 .................. 31 3. Mean number of threadfin shad collected per trawl tow, July-September, Lake Powell, 1978-88 ...... 33 4. Catch rates (fish/net day) for walleye and largemouth bass annual netting, Lake Powell, 1971-88 .......... 35 5. Average condition factor (Kfl) of adult and juvenile striped bass at Lake Powell, 1975-88 ............. 37 PROPOSAL INTRODUCTION OF RAINBOW SMELT (OSMERUS MORDAX) INTO LAKE POWELL, UTAH INTRODUCTION This proposal is submitted to the Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council (CRFWC) for consideration during the 1989 Technical Committee and full council meetings which will be held in February and July, respectively. The format and timing are taken directly from the "procedures for introduction of aquatic organisms into the Colorado River basin" which was adopted in 1987. Background information on Lake Powell fisheries is presented in a report entitled 'Assessment of the Need for Forage Enhancement For The Benefit of Lake Powell Fishes" which is a supporting document (Appendix I). The ideas contained in this document will be presented to the Utah Wildlife Board, Arizona Game and Fish. the Striped Bass Committee of the CRFWC, the Technical Committee CRFWC, and other interested groups as appropriate. Following Council action the refined proposal will be presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, upper and lower basin recovery teams, and the National Park Service. NEED FOR THE INTRODUCTION It is proposed that rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax Mitchill) be introduced into Lake Powell to provide additional forage for all game fish. Threadfin shad (Dorosoma pentenense) are cu--ently the only pelagic forage fish present in Lake Powell. The shad population has been impacted by predation to the point that it no longer provides adequate forage for pelagic or deep water predators. The striped bass (Morone saxatilis) population has become stunted with few fish attaining a length in excess of 20 inches. Both walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) and striped bass populations suffer recurring periodic declines in physical condition which is attributable to the lack of sufficient shad forage. Juvenile and some adult striped bass are maintaining body condition by foraging directly on large zooplankton indicating a missing link in the food chain. Primary productivity of the reservoir is under-utilized by the predator impacted shad population. Further discussion of the need is contained in Appendix I. EXPECTED BENEFITS The establishment of rainbow smelt would increase forage species diversity and abundance. Since smelt would be thermally partitioned from shad in the stratified reservoir the two species would occupy different niches, thereby more effectively channeling primary productivity to all fish eating predators. Smelt would provide food for deep water predators which are thermally restricted to the cool water of the stratified reservoir. Striped bass and walleye would consume smelt during all seasons. Shorebound centrarchids would primarily consume shad, other centrarchids and crayfish (Orconectes virilis) during the summer and utilize smelt after fall turnover. More forage would be available to all game fish. Since walleye and striped bass preferentially eat fish when available, more crayfish would be left for centrarchids. Adding another forage species would increase the chances of maintaining ,a more stable supply of forage. When one species was at a population low point it is likely that the other species would increase in numbers in response to an I increase in plankton abundance. Smelt grow larger than threadfin shad. Larger and more abundant forage would allow striped bass to attain larger size than at present. The establishment of smelt would lead to an immediate dramatic increase in the ■./ average size of striped bass. Mature striped bass require cooler water temperatures than juveniles. Providing forage to adult striped bass residing in the hypolimnion could shift striped bass biomass from the epilimnion to the depths of Lake Powell. A healthy adult