razorback sucker research and monitoring in the colorado river … · 2018. 1. 25. · razorback...

Prepared by:Ron Kegerries 1, Brandon Albrecht 1, Ron Rogers1, W. Howard Brandenburg 2, Adam L. Barkalow 2, Harrison Mohn1, Mark McKinstry3, Brian Healy 4, James Stolberg 5, Emily Omana Smith 4

1 BIO-WEST, Inc.;2 American Southwest Ichthyological Researchers, LLC;3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region;

4 U.S. National Park Service;5 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program – March 2018

2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Research and Monitoring in the Colorado River Inflow Area of Lake Mead and the Lower Grand Canyon,Arizona and Nevada

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Good afternoon, introduction, and with this presentation I am going to shift the topic of conversation to Razorback Sucker and the studies that are focused on this species in Lake Mead and Grand Canyon.

Objectives

• Monitoring the Colorado River Inflow (CRI) – Same methods since 2010

• Determine Razorback Sucker presence and habitat use in Grand Canyon (GC)– Larval and small-bodied fish

community sampling within the GC• Assess reproduction and distribution

– GC telemetry• Explore linkages between Lake

Mead and GCRazorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Research and Monitoring in the Colorado River Inflow Area of Lake Mead and the Lower Grand Canyon, Arizona and Nevada

Presenter

Presentation Notes

This is a large scale project spanning western Grand Canyon, the Colorado Inflow into Lake Mead, and tying into the monitoring that Bio-West is conducting in Lake Mead. It is a project that is a collaboration of MSCP, the Adaptive Management Program, and the Upper Basin, one of the few projects that bring together these three partners. The objectives touch upon all life stages of Razorback Sucker.

Colorado River Inflow (CRI)

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Research and Monitoring in the Colorado River Inflow Area of Lake Mead and the Lower Grand Canyon, Arizona and Nevada

Photo credit: USBR

2017 Adult Catch (CRI)


0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Mea

n R

azor

back

Suc

ker C

aptu

res

(Ln[

#fis

h/ho

ur+1

])

Year

Virgin River/Muddy River Inflow AreaEcho BayLas Vegas BayColorado River Inflow

• 12 Razorback Suckers– 5 new, wild (1 was juvenile)– 2 recaps from Overton Arm– 1 sonic-tagged LGC recap

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Moving right into results in the CRI the 2017 survey efforts in the CRI produced….This juvenile fish is very significant this life stage is the holy grail for Razorback Sucker and it is not uncommon to be captured in Lake Mead. Comparisons of catch rates of CRI to other portions of Lake Mead.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Mea

n La

rval

Raz

orba

ck S

ucke

r Ca

ptur

es (L

n[#l

arva

e/lig

ht-

min

ute+

1])

Year

Virgin River/Muddy River inflow areaEcho BayLas Vegas BayColorado River inflow area

2017 Larval Catch (CRI)


• Active and passive sampling:‒ 6 RBS larvae

‒ 3 FMS larvae

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Larval XYRTEX were documented in low abundance within the CRI. from 2010 to 2017 with 2014 having significantly higher catch than other years. Catch of larvae is lower in the CRI compared to other areas within Lake Mead.

9.05 (5.76-13.9)

8.1 (3.78-16.54)

Echo Bay

Virgin River/Muddy River inflow

Las Vegas Bay

Colorado Inflow

Movement of RBS in Lake Mead


Overton Arm

Mohn et al. (2016)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Tracking of RBS using sonic tags has been an invaluable component to the Lake Mead monitoring program. It has lead researchers to spawning aggregations and illustrated that the population in Lake Mead is not isolated and these fish traverse this vast reservoir. Tracking the movement of these animals was what lead Bio-west to the CRI and then into western Grand Canyon….. Using data from 2005-2016 (12 capture events, n=712 RZ) in a multi-state recapture model.

Small-bodied and Larval Fish Surveys


a~f.1,'l!.1'11E.NT OfJl'll:/N7f/t.

~ ......... ~ --~-

Presenter

Presentation Notes

…and that developed into the ichthyofaunal monitoring within western Grand Canyon

GC Survey Summary (2014–2017)Year Study area Study Period GRTS

SitesImplantedRazorback

Sucker

Larval Razorback

Sucker

2014 100 river milesLava Falls–

Pearce Ferry

Apr–Sep n=40 n=9above Lava Falls

Rapid

n=459

2015 100 river milesLava Falls–

Pearce Ferry

Mar–Sep n=40 n=81

2016 191 river milesBright Angel

Creek–Pearce Ferry

Mar–Sep n=56 n=10Diamond Creek

n=46

2017 191 river milesBright Angel

Creek–Pearce Ferry

Mar–Sep n=56 n=27


Presenter

Presentation Notes

There have been changes over the four years of this study as a direct result of the data that has been gathered.

Sampling Localities in Grand Canyon

= GRTS site

River Mile

UT


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Sampling sites have been selected for this study using a Generalized Tessellated Stratified sampling design meaning while the sites are randomly selected they are spatially balanced throughout the study area. Once these sites are generated they become fixed sampling localities.

Methods


Larval Fish Sampling• Small fine mesh seine• low velocity habitats• four hauls per site

Small-bodied Fish Sampling• 10’ and 15’ seine• diverse habitats• ~10 hauls per site

Telemetry• Active• Passive (n=20 SURs,

every 10 miles)

Age-0 Monthly Captures

Flannelmouth Sucker (CATLAT)

Bluehead Sucker (CATDIS)

Razorback Sucker (XYRTEX)

Humpback Chub (GILCYP)

Speckled Dace (RHIOSC)


Presenter

Presentation Notes

While they slides show the adundance and distribution of larval fish captures for all the native species I will be focusing specifically on the catostomids (suckers).

2017 Age-0 Fish Captures – March

9–17 March 2017 GRTS segments: 54 Effort: 1,993.4 m2


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Our first survey in 2017 occurred in March. The upstream 80 miles of the study area was devoid of larval fish. Initial captures of catostomids were documented at RM 167.7. Interestingly this is the same pattern that was observed in 2016. RM 167 is the first sampling site downstream of Havasu Creek (approximately 9 miles upstream). From similar larval surveys conducted in the Upper basin we have demonstrated the importance of tributaries in initial catostomid spawning activities.

2017 Age-0 Fish Captures – April

8–13 April 2017 GRTS segments: 56 Effort: 2,011.6 m2


Presenter

Presentation Notes

A similar distribution of larvae was observed in April, particularly for Razorback Sucker and Bluehead Sucker. There was an increased upstream distribution of larval Flannelmouth Sucker which we also observed in 2016. During this period spawning of catostomids is in full swing as is evident in May…..

2017 Age-0 Fish Captures – May

19–24 May 2017 GRTS segments: 56 Effort: 2,017.7 m2


Presenter

Presentation Notes

…In which the common suckers are distributed throughout the study area. Razorback Sucker were documented in low abundance from RM 178 downstream. Native cyprinid larvae are first documented during the May survey again from RM 167 downstream. These patterns of larval distribution are nearly identical to 2016 results.

2017 Age-0 Fish Captures – June

14–19 Jun 2017 GRTS segments: 56 Effort: 1,976.5 m2


2017 Age-0 Fish Captures – July

11–17 Jul 2017 GRTS segments: 56 Effort: 1,978.3 m2


2017 Age-0 Fish Captures – August

16–23 Aug 2017 GRTS segments: 56 Effort: 1,990.6 m2


Back-calculated Hatching DatesHatch Dates: 23 February–18 May 2017


Presenter

Presentation Notes

using a length based calculation and growth rate (green river) we can approximate hatching date. In 2017 hatching occurred sporadically over a 12 week period. When we overlay these hatch dates with temperature…

Back-calculated Hatching DatesHatch Dates: 23 February–18 May 2017

Mea

n da

ily w

ater

tem

pera

ture

(o C)


Presenter

Presentation Notes

…it supports for the hypothesis that Havasu Creek may be important for Razorback Sucker reproduction.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

March April May June July August September

Mea

n C

PUE

(Ln[

#/m

2 +1]

Trip Month

Native Nonnative

0.000

0.125

0.250

0.375

0.500

0.625

0.750

0.875

1.000

1.125

88.6

98.7

103.

510

4.8

110.

611

2.8

115.

412

2.2

123.

612

5.1

127.

313

1.0

132.

813

4.8

137.

113

9.6

144.

814

8.9

153.

816

5.0

167.

716

8.6

172.

617

4.8

176.

917

7.3

177.

717

8.5

180.

518

2.0

183.

318

4.5

186.

619

2.5

194.

619

7.0

200.

120

5.0

206.

420

8.8

216.

622

0.1

221.

022

7.1

230.

723

6.7

238.

724

1.9

243.

024

8.7

252.

725

5.2

263.

626

9.0

269.

927

7.4

279.

0

Mea

n C

PUE

(Ln[

#/m

2 +1]

River Mile

Native Nonnnative

2017 Small-bodied Sampling (GC)


Hava

su C

reek

Diam

ond

Cree

k

Shin

umo

Cree

k

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Shifting gears now to discuss the results of the small-bodied sampling. Over 95% native fish documented in 2017. June and July had significantly higher catch rate. The were significantly higher catch rates below Havasu Creek.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

March April May June July August September

Mea

n C

PUE

(Ln[

#/m

2+1]

Trip Month

Native

Humpback Chub

Bluehead Sucker

Flannelmouth Sucker

Speckled Dace

YOY Sucker

2017 Small-bodied Sampling (GC)


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Catch rates are driven by the common suckers.

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.1688

.610

3.5

109.

211

2.8

122.

212

5.1

131.

013

2.8

134.

413

7.1

144.

014

8.9

165.

016

8.6

174.

817

7.3

178.

217

9.5

182.

018

4.5

192.

519

7.0

205.

020

8.8

220.

122

7.1

236.

724

1.9

248.

725

2.7

263.

626

9.9

279.

0

Mea

n C

PUE

(Ln[

#/m

2+1]

River Mile

Small-Bodied HBC Captures 2017 (all trips combined)

n=93019–282 mm TL


Presenter

Presentation Notes

The combined 2017 small-bodied captures show peaks of higher catch rates These correspond to similar patterns observed in USFWS data. Peaks in CPUE may relate to the presence of favorable habitats for these life stages of fish. Habitats that are favorable are vital for growth survival and persistence of this species in western GC.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Above DC Below DC Above DC Below DC Above DC Below DC1992-1995 2004-2006 2014-2016

Perc

ent o

f Cap

ture

Sampling Period and River Segment

Native Nonnative

• Valdez et al. (1995), Ackerman et al. (2005), Kegerries et al. (2014–2017)

Small-bodied Sampling (GC)


Presenter

Presentation Notes

looking at the more historic data 2000 lake level was at 240, currently at 300.

• Critical to monitor movement and improve sampling efficiency• Since 2013 n=46 sonic tagged fish released

Telemetry-Tagged Fish


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Telemetry is critical to monitor movement and improve sampling efficiency. since 2013 46 sonic tagged fish have been released in CRI and western GC.

2010–2016 Movement Patterns

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Num

ber o

f Day

s C

onta

cted

Month

CRI

Grand Canyon

• Four types of movement• 70% remain within stocking

habitat

• Most movement occurs during the spring and summer



South Cove Lake Mead

Pearce Ferry Rapid Bright Angel Creek

Spencer Creek

Lava Falls

2014-2017Diamond Creek

UpstreamDownstreamUp- and Downstream

Movement Patterns

Presenter

Presentation Notes

establishing connections between these two habitats

2017 Science Panel Report• Do not force augmentation (i.e.,

stocking) of Razorback Sucker.

• Continue ongoing work with Razorback Sucker at the Colorado River Inflow Area and western Grand Canyon.

• Expand fish surveys for Razorback Sucker, in the lower Grand Canyon and investigate larval fish to get evidence of spawning and use of river.

• Integrate all habitat, fish, and food base studies in the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River Inflow Area of Lake Mead.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

reconvening the science panel in 2017 to assess the information

Razorback Sucker Conclusions


• All life stages present at the CRI (8th year).• Larvae documented in Grand Canyon downstream of

Havasu Creek.• Native fishes dominate the fish community of the GC.• Movement of Razorback Sucker occurs between Grand

Canyon, CRI, and Lake Mead.• Hypothesize that lentic and lotic habitats cumulatively

facilitate Razorback Sucker recruitment.

---- -·- - -.,

BUREAU OF ~RECLA~~'l\0~

J\T ust>un, _ ol Southwestern --Biology

Amelican Southwest Jchthyologicat Rosoarchcrs, L.L. c.

razorback sucker research and monitoring in the colorado river … · 2018. 1. 25. · razorback...

Documents