san juan river arm of lake powell razorback sucker ... · tables table 1. 2011 and 2012 native fish...

San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Survey: 2012

Interim Progress Report (Final)

5th April, 2017

Submitted by:

Travis A. Francis Darek S. Elverud

Benjamin J. Schleicher Dale W. Ryden

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado River Fishery Project

445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 140 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501

-and-

Brandon Gerig

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1165 S. Hwy 191 Suite 4

Moab, UT 84532

Funded by the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program

and U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Salt Lake City Projects Office

Agreement #(s) R11 PG 40 0009, R11 AP 40 004

i

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 4

Relationship to the Recovery Program ....................................................................................... 4

Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 4

Data Integration .......................................................................................................................... 6

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 6

Predicting Spawning Season ....................................................................................................... 7

Timing and Location of Field Sampling ..................................................................................... 7

Sonic Telemetry .......................................................................................................................... 8

Trammel Netting ......................................................................................................................... 8

Boat Electrofishing ..................................................................................................................... 8

Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 9

Larval Sampling .......................................................................................................................... 9

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 9

Abundance Estimates ................................................................................................................ 10

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Razorback sucker ...................................................................................................................... 13

Colorado pikeminnow ............................................................................................................... 26

Flannelmouth sucker ................................................................................................................. 29

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 32

Movement ................................................................................................................................. 32

Trans-basin Exchange ............................................................................................................... 32

Sonic Telemetry ........................................................................................................................ 33

Adult and Larval Sampling ....................................................................................................... 33

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 36

Affiliation of Individuals Cited as Personal Communication ....................................................... 39

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 40

ii

Tables

TABLE 1. 2011 AND 2012 NATIVE FISH CATCH (TRAMMEL NET AND ELECTROFISHING COMBINED) ON THE SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL. ............................................................................................................................................................... 11

TABLE 2. SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES, STATUS, AND DATABASE CODES FOR FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM THE SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL DURING 2011 AND 2012 SAMPLING EFFORT. ....................................................................................... 12

TABLE 3. NUMBER OF RAZORBACK SUCKER STOCKED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER BY YEAR AND NUMBER OF THOSE FISH CAPTURED IN LAKE POWELL DURING 2011 AND 2012. ............................................................................................................................ 15

TABLE 4. RAZORBACK SUCKERS CAPTURED DURING THE LAKE POWELL PROJECT IN 2011AND RECAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER UPSTREAM OF THE WATERFALL. .................................................................................................................................. 16

TABLE 5. RAZORBACK SUCKERS CAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER ABOVE THE WATERFALL IN THE FALL OF 2011 OR SPRING 2012 AND RECAPTURED IN LAKE POWELL IN 2012. ...................................................................................................................... 16

TABLE 6. PROGRAM MARK OUTPUT FOR BEST FIT MODEL SELECTION TO CALCULATE PROBABILITIES OF CAPTURE AND ABUNDANCE OF RAZORBACK SUCKER IN THE SAN JUAN ARM OF LAKE POWELL, 2012. ............................................................................... 17

TABLE 7. 2012 SAN JUAN ARM OF LAKE POWELL RAZORBACK SUCKER PROBABILITY OF CAPTURE ESTIMATED BY TOP MODEL SELECTED IN PROGRAM MARK. ................................................................................................................................................... 17

TABLE 8. SAN JUAN ARM OF LAKE POWELL, RAZORBACK SUCKER PECTORAL FIN AGEING RESULTS FOR 2011 AND 2012. ....................... 19

Figures

FIGURE 1. GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF THE CONFLUENCE OF THE COLORADO AND SAN JUAN RIVERS IN LAKE POWELL, UT REFERENCING THE LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA. .................................................................................................................................... 5

FIGURE 2. SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL TRAMMEL NET PERCENT OF TOTAL CATCH, 2011(BLUE BAR) AND 2012(RED BAR), NATIVE SPECIES ARE IN RED TEXT ON THE Y AXIS. ............................................................................................................ 13

FIGURE 3. LENGTH-FREQUENCY HISTOGRAM OF RAZORBACK SUCKER IN 2011 AND 2012. ............................................................ 14 FIGURE 4. MEAN RELATIVE BODY CONDITION (KN) OF RAZORBACK SUCKER CAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN, APRIL – JUNE

2011(LEFT GRAPH) AND 2012 (RIGHT GRAPH). ............................................................................................................ 18 FIGURE 5. GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF MOST UPSTREAM CAPTURES OF RAZORBACK SUCKER ............................................................. 20 FIGURE 6. GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF ZAHN BAY AND SPENCER'S CAMP RAZORBACK SUCKER CAPTURES ............................................ 21 FIGURE 7. GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF NESKAHI AND PIUTE CANYON RAZORBACK SUCKER CAPTURES ................................................. 22 FIGURE 8. 2011 RAZORBACK SUCKER LN TRANSFORMED TRAMMEL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT COMPARING SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND

TRIPS. ................................................................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 9. 2012 RAZORBACK SUCKER LN TRANSFORMED TRAMMEL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT COMPARING SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND

TRIPS. ................................................................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 10. 2011 AND 2012 RAZORBACK SUCKER LN TRANSFORMED ELECTROFISHING MEAN CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT COMPARING

SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND YEARS.. ............................................................................................................................. 25 FIGURE 11. SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL LARVAL SAMPLING PERCENT OF TOTAL CATCH, 2011 AND 2012. ........................ 26 FIGURE 12. SIZE STRUCTURE OF COLORADO PIKEMINNOW CAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL IN 2011 AND 2012.

........................................................................................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 13. MEAN RELATIVE BODY CONDITION (KN) OF COLORADO PIKEMINNOW CAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN, APRIL – JUNE

2011 ILLUSTRATING (KN) BY CAPTURE LOCATION AND SIZE CLASS.. ................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 14. MEAN RELATIVE BODY CONDITION (KN) OF COLORADO PIKEMINNOW CAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN, APRIL – JUNE

2011 ILLUSTRATING (KN) BY CAPTURE LOCATION. ......................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 15. 2011 AND 2012 COLORADO PIKEMINNOW LN TRANSFORMED TRAMMEL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT COMPARING

SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND TRIPS................................................................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 16. LENGTH FREQUENCY HISTOGRAM FOR FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER CAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL,

2011 AND 2012. ................................................................................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 17. 2011 AND 2012 FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER LN TRANSFORMED TRAMMEL NET MEAN CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT COMPARING

SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND YEARS. .............................................................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 18. 2011 AND 2012 FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER LN TRANSFORMED ELECTROFISHING MEAN CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT COMPARING

SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND YEARS. .............................................................................................................................. 31

iii

Appendices

APPENDIX 1. 2011 AND 2012 SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL RAZORBACK SUCKER AND HYBRID STOCK AND CAPTURE HISTORIES. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX 2. 2011 SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL COLORADO PIKEMINNOW STOCK AND CAPTURE HISTORIES. ...................... 50 APPENDIX 3. SAN JUAN RIVER NEGATIVE RIVER MILES (RM) CONVERTED TO THE SAN JUAN RIVER ARM OF LAKE POWELL’S LAKE MILES

(LM). ................................................................................................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX 4. PERCENTAGE OF STOCKED RAZORBACK SUCKER CAPTURED IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER AND THE SAN JUAN ARM OF LAKE POWELL

IN 2011 AND 2012. ............................................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX 5. HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS OF RAZORBACK SUCKER IN LAKE POWELL, OUTSIDE OF THE LAKE POWELL RAZORBACK SUCKER

SURVEY OF 2011, 2012, AND 2014 .......................................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 6. 2012 SAN JUAN ARM OF LAKE POWELL RAZORBACK SUCKER AND COLORADO PIKEMINNOW TISSUE SAMPLE RESULTS FOR

SELENIUM AND MERCURY. ......................................................................................................................................... 67

Acknowledgements

Numerous individuals contributed to field work or logistical support of the this study: Mark McKinstry (Bureau of Reclamation); Albert Lapahie, James Morel, and Shamarie Nez (Navajo Nation Fish and Game); Katie Frye, Gram Wohlust (Southern Ute Indian Tribe); Tom Barnes, Creed Clayton, Brendan Crowley, Brian Levine, Morgan MacGregor, Mike Partlow, David Ryan, Rusty Stark, Ann Sugiura, and Haden VanWinkle (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6); Scott Durst (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2); Paul Badame, Kenny Breidenger, Chris Butler, Nicole Cappucio, Eric Chabot, Katherine Creighton, Jonathon Dutrow, Amber King, Zack Lowe, Amber Masters, Joel Ophoff, Jessica Pierson, and Mark Rineer (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab). Invaluable logistical support, lab work and fish culture was provided by: W. Howard Brandenburg, Michael A. Farrington, and Steven P. Platania (American Southwest Ichthyological Researcher’s L.L.C.); Brandon Albrecht (Bio-West); Erin Janicki (National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area); Matt Fry and Dave Schnoor (U.S. Fish and Widlife Service, Ouray National Fish Hatchery); Karin Eldridge, and Grant Webber (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Uvalde National Fish Hatchery); George Blommer, Wayne Gustaveson, and Sean Spencer (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wahweap). Editorial review by Scott Durst, Wayne Hubert, and Steve Ross improved earlier versions of this report. This study was approved by the Biology and Coordination committees of the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. It was funded under agreement #’s R11 PG 40 0009 and R11 AP 40 004, administered by Mark McKinstry of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Salt Lake City Projects Office. Fish collections were authorized under collecting permits issued by the National Park Service – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the authors, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, or the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program.

iv

Executive Summary

Two years of Razorback Sucker surveys in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell provided important insights on Razorback Sucker habitat use, spawning behavior, movement, and native and nonnative fish composition. Sonic telemetry, trammel netting, electrofishing, and larval sampling provided information on the importance of the 33 Lake Miles (LM) below the waterfall, and in particular the importance of Spencer’s Camp and Neskahi Canyon areas to spawning fish. Thirty-six percent of the Razorback Sucker total catch were without a PIT tag suggesting potential natural recruitment. Fin ray aging data on 13 of these fish provided insight on potential successful years (1992-2005) for wild recruitment. Incidental to the original objectives of the study was the catch of Colorado Pikeminnow, Flannelmouth Sucker, and Bluehead Sucker. Although native fishes represent a very small proportion of the trammel net total catch (2.1%), there is a detectable native fish community present in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell. The following is a breakdown of fishes collected.

Trammel Net Sampling

1. In 2011, 315 net sets (3,199 net hours) produced 5,041 fish 2. In 2012, 487 net sets (4,917 net hours) produced 5,536 fish.

A. 2.3% of 2011 and 2012 total catch was made up of four native species a. Flannelmouth Sucker (111) b. Razorback Sucker (100) c. Colorado Pikeminnow (9) d. Razorback X Flannelmouth Sucker hybrids (3) e. Bluehead Sucker (2)

B. 97.7% of 2011 and 2012 total catch was made up of nonnative species (listed in decreasing order of abundance)

a. Gizzard Shad b. Bluegill c. Common Carp d. Channel Catfish e. Green Sunfish f. Smallmouth Bass g. Largemouth Bass h. Striped Bass i. Yellow Bullhead j. Black Bullhead k. Black Crappie l. Threadfin Shad m. Walleye

Electrofishing Sampling

1. Only native species were collected during electrofishing; observed nonnative fishes were not netted

2. Observed species composition was similar to that observed in the trammel net catch 3. In 2011, > 41.2 hours of electrofishing effort expended 4. In 2012, 87.4 hours of electrofishing effort expended

A. Native species collected in 2011 and 2012 included: n. Flannelmouth Sucker (n=62)

v

o. Razorback Sucker (n=55) p. Colorado Pikeminnow (n=16)

Larval Fish Sampling

1. In 2011, 28 larval samples collected (7 total hours sampling) 2. In 2012, 41 larval samples collected (10.25 total hours sampling)

A. Total native fish catch consisted of one fish 1) Razorback Sucker metalarvae (20.7 mm TL), collected in 2011

B. Nonnative catch included (listed in decreasing order of abundance) – Shad species (Gizzard and Threadfin), Black Crappie, Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, Red Shiner, Green Sunfish, Fathead Minnow, and Common Carp

Razorback Sucker

1. 147 individual Razorback Sucker (all adults) were collected with both electrofishing and trammel netting A. Mean TL = 504 mm (range = 429-619 mm TL) B. 2012 Razorback Sucker abundance in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell (from the upper

terminus of Zahn Bay to Piute Canyon) was estimated at 527 (Upper Confidence Interval {UCI}=1312, Lower Confidence Interval {LCI}=239)

C. Mean relative body condition of Razorback Sucker collected in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell remained statistically similar (among years) and suggests Razorback Sucker collected in 2011 and 2012 were in good condition

D. 212 total capture events with these 147 fish 1) In 2011, only 1 recapture occurred between trips

a. In 2012, 4 were recaptured between trips 2) 20 were captured within a few miles of the waterfall 3) 73 were captured near Spencer’s Camp 4) 68 were captured around Piute and Neskahi Canyons

E. 94 Razorback Sucker had PIT tags when captured, 53 did not have PIT tags 1. Original tagging data found for 91 of the 94 Razorback Sucker with PIT tags

a. 81 were stocked into the San Juan River with a PIT tag b. 4 were tagged in the lake in 2011 and were recaptured in 2012 c. 1 was a recaptured sonic tagged fish stocked in the lake for this study d. 4 were tagged after being captured in the San Juan River without a PIT tag e. 1 was stocked in Lake Powell at Piute Farms in 1995 f. 3 PIT tags were not found in the SJRIP or UCRRP PIT tag databases

2. 41 Razorback Sucker without PIT tags (i.e., unknown year-class) had fin clips collected for aging (2011 results were adjusted for 2012 ages)

a. Mean age = 9.4 years (range = 7-17 years) F. In 2011, 40 individuals had sexually dimorphic traits

1. 18 were female (identified 26 April through 14 June) 2. 22 were male (identified 11 May through 15 June)

G. In 2012, 45 individuals had sexually dimorphic traits 3. 15 were female (identified 26 April through 9 June) 4. 30 were male (identified 26 May through 9 June)

Colorado Pikeminnow

1. In 2011, 24 individual Colorado Pikeminnow collected 2. In 2012, 1 individual Colorado Pikeminnow collected

vi

A. Mean TL = 327 mm (range = 228-519 mm TL) B. Mean relative condition was 92 (range = 85-100) C. 24 total capture events

1) 13 were captured within four miles of the waterfall 2) 3 were captured between Noki and Copper Canyons 3) 8 were captured near Spencer’s Camp 4) 1 was captured in Zahn Bay

D. 13 Colorado Pikeminnow had PIT tags when captured, 12 did not 1. 6 were stocked into the San Juan River with PIT tags

a. 1 in 2006 b. 3 in 2007 c. 2 in 2009 d. 1 in 2010

2. 6 were tagged after being captured in the San Juan River without a PIT tag

Flannelmouth Sucker

1. In 2011, 103 Flannelmouth Sucker were collected 2. In 2012, 70 Flannelmouth Sucker were collected

A. Mean TL = 340 mm (range = 220-510 mm TL) B. Of 173 capture events

1) 43 were captured within four miles of the waterfall 2) 3 were captured between Noki and Copper Canyons 3) 18 were captured in Zahn Bay 4) 78 were captured near Spencer’s Camp 5) 31 were captured around Piute and Neskahi Canyons

Other Native Fish

1. 3 Razorback X Flannelmouth Sucker hybrids were collected 2. 2 Bluehead Sucker were collected

1

Introduction Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) is one of three San Juan River native fish species (the Colorado Pikeminnow, Ptychocheilus lucius, and the Roundtail Chub, Gila robusta being the other two) that have become greatly reduced in numbers and range since the mid 1900's (Minckley 1973, Bestgen 1990). Physical alterations of riverine habitats, water impoundment in the form of Navajo Reservoir and Lake Powell and their associated effects on flow and thermal regimes, introduction of nonnative fish species, and contaminants have probably all contributed to the decline of these native species (Platania 1990, Brooks et al. 1993, Ryden and Pfeifer 1994a). Extremely small numbers of wild Razorback Sucker and the long-term lack of recruitment led to this species being listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act on 22 November 1991 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS} 1991). The Razorback Sucker is also currently protected by state laws in Arizona (AZ), California (CA), Colorado (CO), Nevada (NV), New Mexico (NM), Utah (UT), and by the Navajo Nation. Critical Habitat in the San Juan River has been designated from the Hogback irrigation diversion in New Mexico downstream to Neskahi Canyon (UT) in Lake Powell (Maddux et al. 1993, USFWS 1994). Populations of Razorback Sucker occupied several large reservoirs in the Lower Colorado River Basin (LCRB) after their construction, including Lake Havasu, Lake Mojave and Lake Mead. These populations were originally composed of adult fish that were thought to have recruited within the first few years of reservoir formation (Albrecht et al. 2008b). These populations of long-lived adult fish began disappearing 40-50 years after the creation of these reservoirs (Minckley 1983). In the most dramatic case, the Lake Mojave Razorback Sucker population (estimated at 75,000 individuals in the 1980s) had dropped to just 218 individuals by March 2007 (Albrecht et al. 2008b). It has long been known that Razorback Sucker successfully spawn in large reservoirs. In fact, the main management strategy for the LCRB to augment their populations of Razorback Sucker is to collect wild-produced larval Razorback Sucker being produced in these reservoirs, rear them in predator-free environments, and then stock these fish back into the reservoirs and rivers once they have reached sub-adult or adult size (Albrecht et al. 2008b). This management approach was adopted because natural recruitment in most LCRB reservoirs was either very rare or non-existent and it is thought that stocking Razorback Sucker of larger size (minimum of 216 millimeters{mm}) gives them a higher likelihood of avoiding predation, thus increasing their chances of recruiting (Albrecht et al. 2008b). In contrast, the Lake Mead population of Razorback Sucker has recently been documented to be comparatively young, is naturally reproducing, and has increased over time (Albrecht et al. 2008b). Wild Razorback Sucker occupied the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell, roughly 25 years after its construction. The Lake Powell Razorback Sucker population has been undergoing regular, if unintentional, augmentation since 1994, when Razorback Sucker stocked into the San Juan River first began moving downstream into Lake Powell. Razorback Sucker occupying the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell are considered by the USFWS to be part of the San Juan River Razorback Sucker population and contribute towards the demographic recovery criteria for recovery. One of the goals of the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP) is to recover endangered fishes in the San Juan River Basin with the ultimate goal of establishing self-sustaining populations of Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow (SJRIP 2011). Due to the paucity of historic and recent collections of Razorback Sucker, including the failure to collect any wild Razorback Sucker during three years (1991-1993) of intensive studies on all life stages of the San Juan River fish

2

community (Buntjer et al. 1993, 1994; Lashmett 1993, 1994; Ryden and Pfeifer 1993, 1994b; Gido and Propst 1994) the SJRIP initiated a stocking program for Razorback Sucker in the San Juan River (Ryden and Pfeifer 1994a). The numbers of Razorback Sucker stocked annually between 1994 and 2013 have varied greatly (from 16 fish in 1995 to >28,000 fish in 2010). However, with the exception of 1999, some level of stocking has occurred in every year since 1994 (e.g., Furr 2011, 2014). Post-stocking monitoring of these fish has occurred annually each fall since 1994. The number of sub-adult and adult Razorback Sucker collected during any given fall monitoring trip fluctuates in direct relation to the number of fish that were recently stocked into the river (Ryden 2009). In other words, the more fish stocked in the recent past, the greater the number of Razorback Sucker collected during fall sampling. Thus, most of the fish being collected during fall monitoring efforts have been in the river less than one overwinter period post-stocking and are not a good indicator of the whether the riverine population is increasing or decreasing in number. Based on the large number of Razorback Sucker stocked over the last 16 years and the documented persistence of a few individual Razorback Sucker from 6 to 18 overwinter periods post-stocking (e.g., Ryden 2011, Schleicher 2014), one would expect that this population was increasing over time. Comparisons of capture data for Razorback Sucker that were in the river for 1+ overwinter periods showed that the number of older fish being collected during Adult Monitoring trips has increased markedly over the last 11-year period from 2003-2013 (from 17 fish in 2003 to 175 fish in 2013; Schleicher 2014). In addition, between-year comparisons of scaled CPE (catch-per-unit-effort) for all Razorback Sucker that were in the river 1+ overwinter periods showed a significant increase from 2003-2013 (Schleicher 2014). Analysis of Razorback Sucker stocking data in the San Juan River from 1994 to 2007 by Bestgen et al. (2009) indicated 1st interval apparent survival of < 2% in most years. Apparent survival cannot distinguish between mortality and departure from the study area. So fish moving any place out of the study area decrease the estimated apparent survival of this population. Therefore, some unknown rates of loss of stocked Razorback Sucker over the waterfall and into Lake Powell decrease apparent survival estimation in these models. Captures of PIT-tagged Razorback Sucker in Lake Powell or below the waterfall confirm some level of loss of stocked fish over the waterfall and into Lake Powell. By increasing the study area to Lake Powell, future attempts at this analysis will result in a better informed model. The numbers of Colorado Pikeminnow stocked annually between 1996 and 2013 have fluctuated widely (from 148 adults in 2001 to 500,000 age-0 “larvae” in 1999) as have the ranges of sizes and year-classes. Over 3.5 million age-0 and over 37,000 age-1+ (range 1+ to 16 year old) Colorado Pikeminnow have been stocked (Furr 2011, 2014). Post-stocking monitoring of these fish has occurred annually each fall since 1996. Although hundreds of Colorado Pikeminnow recaptures have occurred, recruitment of stocked fish into the adult population has been a slow process. Colorado Pikeminnow loss over the waterfall and into Lake Powell versus mortality is unknown. Captures of Colorado Pikeminnow in Lake Powell should help provide some information on loss of stocked fish from the river. The area now inundated by the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell is extremely isolated and remote. This area has received the least survey and research effort among the UCRB sub-basins, and the historic status of rare fish species, including the Razorback Sucker, is largely unknown (Bestgen 1990). Despite limited sampling, Razorback Sucker are known to have inhabited the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell since at least 1982 (Appendix 5). In 1987 and 1988, 16 different wild adult Razorback Sucker were collected from the south shore of Lake Powell near the concrete boat ramp at Piute Farms Marina (Platania 1990, Appendix 5). These fish were collected in March each year and the presence of a large number of ripe males as well as gravid females indicated a possible spawning aggregation. In addition,

3

gill net surveys performed by crews from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources at Wahweap (UDWR-Wahweap) collected six wild Razorback Sucker in Piute Farms Wash in April 1982 and another three wild Razorback Sucker from Neskahi Wash, one each in November 1983, 1984, and 1989 (UDWR unpublished data, Appendix 5). In April 1990, a multi-agency effort to collect and remove wild adult Razorback Sucker for use as future broodstock collected a total of 14 adult fish (557-682 mm TL) between Mike’s Canyon and Copper Canyon (McKay 1990, Appendix 5). Eleven of these fish were removed and transported to Ouray NFH for use as broodstock (two were mortalities and one escaped back into the lake). Four of these fish (including one of the mortalities) were recaptures from the 1987-1988 collections. Three adult Razorback Sucker (641-650 mm TL) were collected in nets at or near Nokai Canyon in March 1991 (Appendix 5). While he did not collect any Razorback Sucker during his 1991-1992 collections in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell, Lashmett (1993) mentions that “Within the same study area, three adult Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) were sampled from Lake Powell in April 1992 during a separate study in the extreme upper San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell.” However, the data for the fish to which this reference pertains are unknown. In the spring of 1993 (i.e., one year prior to the initiation of stocking Razorback Sucker into the riverine portion of the San Juan River), three weeks of sampling between the waterfall and Zahn Bay failed to locate any wild adult Razorback Sucker in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. In August 1995, UDWR-Wahweap stocked 130 Razorback Sucker (mean TL = 407 mm) into the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell at Piute Farms (Ryden 2000). Only one of these fish had been recaptured (prior to our recent sampling in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell) and that was in the San Juan River upstream of Mexican Hat, UT (at RM 58.0 on 21 May 1996). From 2006 to 2009, UDWR-Wahweap annual game fish monitoring near Neskahi Wash showed a catch rate of Razorback Sucker from 0.05 to 0.2 fish per net night. While these catch rates are low, they are similar to the lower end of catch rates for razorback sucker observed in Lake Mead from studies specifically targeting Razorback Sucker (Albrecht et al. 2008a). Once stocking of Razorback Sucker into the riverine portion of the San Juan River began (March 1994), Razorback Sucker were once again collected in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. Between March 1995 and November 2012, a total of 57 Razorback Sucker collections occurred in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell by various agencies and researchers (Appendix 5). While the origin of many of these fish could not be determined, at least 28 of them were known to have been stocked upstream in the San Juan River. Collections of Razorback Sucker ranged from just downstream of Clay Hills take-out (in the mainstem San Juan River) downstream to Neskahi Canyon (in Lake Powell). Lengths of these fish ranged from larvae to 575 mm TL (Appendix 5). However most were large, adult fish capable of spawning. At present, a large waterfall precludes the movement of these fish back upstream into the mainstem San Juan River. In the first year of this project (2011), 75 adult Razorback Sucker were collected from the waterfall downlake to Piute Canyon, an area consisting of both riverine and lacustrine habitats. This included the capture of Razorback Sucker below the end terminus of critical habitat. These fish were found actively spawning and a Razorback Sucker meta-larvae was collected well into the lacustrine portion of the lake providing evidence of successful hatch. Thirty seven percent of the adults were found to have no PIT tag providing additional evidence towards potential successful wild recruitment to the adult stage within the lake (Francis et al, 2013). The SJRIP has instituted many management actions to recover the listed fish species. While a fish community monitoring program has been instituted since 1999 in the mainstem river, “peripheral” habitats haven’t been subject to the same level of monitoring effort. Considering that all Razorback Sucker occupying the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell downstream as far as Neskahi Canyon would contribute to meeting target numbers set forth in the Recovery Goals (USFWS 1994, 2002), the SJRIP initiated a full scale monitoring effort in this section of Lake Powell in 2011 (Francis et al, 2013). This study is the joint responsibility of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Colorado River Fishery

4

Project (CRFP) office in Grand Junction, CO and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) office in Moab, UT. However, numerous other partners supplied personnel, equipment, laboratory and logistical support.

Objectives (1) Sample and document the overall make-up of the fish community in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell, with emphasis on collecting the following types of data on endangered Razorback Sucker: (a) presence/absence. (b) distribution and abundance. (c) population size structure. (d) point of origin (based on PIT tag data). (2) Attempt to identify possible spawning aggregations of Razorback Sucker in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. (3) Collect larval fish samples near locations of suspected spawning aggregations of Razorback Sucker to determine if Razorback Sucker are spawning successfully (4) Collect fin clips from Razorback Sucker that do not contain a PIT tag when captured. These data will help determine if recruitment may be occurring in Lake Powell. (5) Sample the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell and document the following types of data for endangered Colorado Pikeminnow.

(a) presence/absence. (b) distribution and abundance. (c) point of origin (based on PIT tag data).

Relationship to the Recovery Program While the Razorback Sucker survey in Lake Powell took place outside of the riverine portion of the San Juan River, it is still directly applicable to tasks 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 of the SJRIP Long Range Plan (dated March 2009). It also has the potential to yield data that, when combined with information from other studies and monitoring efforts, is applicable to the following tasks in the Long Range Plan: 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.4.2, 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.2, 4.1.1.1, 5.1.1.1, 5.1.1.2, 5.1.2.3, 5.1.3.3, and 5.1.4.1.

Study Area

This study was conducted on the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell, in Utah (Figure 1). In 2011, sampling occurred from the waterfall (RM -1.1) and extended downstream to approximately Piute Canyon (Lake Mile {LM} 22, River Mile {RM} -33.1) (Figure 1). In 2012, sampling primarily occurred from Zahn Bay (~ LM 42, RM -13.1) downlake to the Piute Canyon area (~ LM 22, RM -33.1). A minimal amount of trammel netting was also conducted in the Cha Canyon area (~ LM 12, RM -45.1) after a sonic tagged Razorback Sucker was located in the vicinity in 2012. Due to the low flows within the San Juan River, crews were unable to sample the riverine portion of Lake Powell between Zahn Bay and the waterfall near Piute Farms in 2012. See Appendix 3 for river mile (RM) to lake mile (LM) conversions.

5

Figure 1. Google earth image of the confluence of the Colorado and San Juan Rivers in Lake Powell, UT referencing the

location of the study area.

6

Data Integration

Work performed in the early 1990’s through 2009 conducted by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and U.S. Geological Survey provided information on historical captures of Razorback Sucker in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell and provided the impetus for this project. PIT tag data collected in the lake from the onset of the SJRIP propagation program in 1994 confirmed that Razorback Sucker stocked in the river were emigrating to Lake Powell (Appendix 5). Preliminary planning for this project required consulting LCRB Razorback Sucker work in Lake Mead. Predicting spawning dates was made possible by the work completed by the SJRIP larval fish surveys. Larval fish identification for this project was provided by the SJRIP larval fish crew (Brandenburg and Farrington, 2008-2010). Pectoral fin ray aging for this project was provided by the LCRB Lake Mead crew (Albrecht et al, 2008b). PIT tag histories for the endangered fishes handled during this project was made available by all of the SJRIP large-bodied fish sampling in the San Juan River (including nonnative fish removal and large-bodied fish community monitoring) and the SJRIP propagation work. Length and weight data were utilized to run relative condition indices for Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow in the San Juan River for this project. We anticipate that the number and origin of Razorback Sucker (and Colorado Pikeminnow) being collected in Lake Powell will help shed light on a number of questions that are either directly or peripherally related to our stated study objectives. Some of these include: Are all of the Razorback Sucker in Lake Powell originating from riverine stockings of this species? Can the loss of stocked fish from the San Juan River into Lake Powell be quantified? If the waterfall were inundated, would endangered fishes residing in Lake Powell move into the river, or would they continue to be geographically isolated populations? Are Razorback Sucker successfully spawning in Lake Powell? If so, are they recruiting in the face of a plethora of nonnative fishes? Is there any interchange of Razorback Sucker between the San Juan River and the Colorado River through Lake Powell? The answers to these questions could help the SJRIP refine future endangered fish augmentation strategies and get a better idea of how endangered fishes in habitats adjacent to the mainstem San Juan River are contributing (or not) to the overall recovery efforts for these species. Ultimately, the Razorback Sucker residing in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell could help the SJRIP meet the demographic downlist and delist criteria specified for this species in the Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002).

Methods

The USFWS’s Colorado River Fishery Project (USFWS-CRFP) office from Grand Junction, CO and the UDWR Moab Field Station (UDWR-Moab) had joint responsibility for all field aspects of this study. Sampling crews consisted of six to eight people to run trammel nets, do sonic telemetry work, collect larvae, and perform electrofishing. All boats and sampling equipment used on this project were decontaminated (following National Park Service protocols) prior to launching and after take-out to insure that no invasive aquatic nuisance species are being transported either to or from Lake Powell.

7

Predicting Spawning Season Sampling in Lake Mead from 1996 to 2007 determined that spawning season is the most efficient time to successfully sample Razorback Sucker due to the movement and location of fish associated with spawning activity (Albrecht et al. 2008b). Thus sampling for Razorback Sucker in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell took place during the predicted spawning period. Studies in Lake Mead also determined that the return rate of Razorback Sucker captured during spawning was similar to that of fish captured during the remainder of the year; thus sampling during spawning season did not appear to have an adverse effect on adult survival (Albrecht et al. 2008b). Larval Razorback Sucker collections in Lake Mead increase when surface temperatures reach approximately 55˚F (12.8˚C) and peak at surface temperatures in the high 50’s to middle 60’s (Albrecht et al. 2006). Historical data from Lake Powell indicate surface water temperatures typically reach 55˚F (12.8˚C) during early to late April. In addition, data obtained from collections of larval Razorback Sucker in the mainstem San Juan River indicated that over a five-year period (2005-2009) first hatching dates for larval Razorback Sucker began between 26 March and 30 April (at water temperatures ranging from 12.9-15.3˚C) and last hatching dates ended between 24 May and 2 July (at water temperatures ranging 14.4-21.8˚C; Brandenburg and Farrington 2009, 2010). Examination of water temperatures (from the Bluff USGS gage) in the 15-day window prior to first and last hatching dates, compared to known Razorback Sucker egg incubation times (Bozek et al. 1984, Snyder and Muth 1990, USFWS 2002) indicated that, over this same five-year period, dates of spawning likely began between 11 March and 14 April (at water temperatures from 10.1-12.5˚C) and spawning likely ended between 18 May and 26 June (at temperatures from 15.0-21.5˚C). Using the two most extreme values to bracket the entire spawning season window, this yields a period of 107 days (roughly 15 weeks), from 11 March to 26 June, with three of five years having spawning beginning in late March. Brandenburg and Farrington (2008) stated that the mean temperature during hatching was usually just over 15˚C. In addition, the distribution of Razorback Sucker protolarvae in the San Juan River was significantly higher in May than in any other month (Brandenburg and Farrington 2010). It was anticipated that spawning season of Razorback Sucker in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell should not vary greatly from those of fish in the mainstem river. Thus, the timing and duration of Razorback Sucker spawning in the mainstem San Juan River can likely be used as a reasonable surrogate to predict when spawning of this species is likely to occur in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell.

Timing and Location of Field Sampling Given the predicted 15-week spawning window, field sampling in 2012 was spread out to cover as much of the predicted spawning season as possible. The relative isolation of the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell, difficulty in accessing this portion of the lake, and the need to stay in contact with sonic-telemetered fish required keeping sampling trips relatively close together. Thus, 2012 field sampling occurred on the following dates: 6-10 April and 26 April - 10 June 2012. This 51-day sampling effort covered approximately 50% of the predicted spawning season. In Lake Mead, placement of trammel nets is determined by a combination of factors. Nets are set in locations where adult Razorback Sucker have been successfully captured in the past, in close proximity to locations where sonic-tagged individuals were found, and near confirmed or suspected spawning areas (Albrecht et al. 2008b). We followed these guidelines, but also had many exploratory (blind) net sets in promising habitats.

8

Sonic Telemetry Work done in Lake Mead from 1996 to 2007 indicated that one the most efficient ways to locate a natural population of Razorback Sucker in a reservoir was through the use of sonic telemetry (Albrecht et al. 2008b). They found that artificially-reared Razorback Sucker that were implanted with sonic tags and stocked into a reservoir would quickly integrate with the reservoir population of razorback sucker (Albrecht et al. 2008). In February 2012, four sub-adult and adult Razorback Sucker (> 400 mm TL) from Ouray National Fish Hatchery (NFH) were surgically implanted with Sonotronics Model CHP-87-L sonic tags with an 18-month battery life (following Albrecht et al. 2008). The four fish were held at the Ouray NFH while they recovered and healed. In all instances of tag insertion, the transmitter did not exceed 2% of the fish’s body weight. While at Ouray NFH, these fish were fed and monitored daily by USFWS fish culturists. On 8 March 2012, the sonic tagged Razorback Sucker were transported, tempered, and stocked in Lake Powell (following appropriate USFWS protocols) at Piute Canyon. Stocking efforts were coordinated with the Utah Department of Natural Resources. All appropriate importation permits and health certifications were acquired prior to stocking. It was anticipated that stocking in this time frame should have preceded any potential spawning by several weeks to a month, thus allowing newly stocked fish several weeks to acclimate to reservoir conditions and locate resident fish before field sampling commenced (B. Albrecht, pers. comm.). In 2011, seven hatchery-reared Razorback Sucker were stocked just below the waterfall on the San Juan River following a similar procedure. During periods when field sampling was occurring (6 - 10 April and 26 April – 10 June) sonic tracking occurred on a daily basis. An additional six lake-caught Razorback Sucker were surgically implanted with sonic tags and released in 2012, and eight lake-caught Razorback Sucker were surgically implanted with tags and released in 2011. The sonic tagged fish and intensive sonic telemetering helped guide researchers to areas in which to set trammel nets. Data collected for each sonic telemetry contact included date, time, temperature (water and ambient), Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, and water depth. Two submersible ultrasonic receivers (SURS) were deployed to passively collect data on movement of tagged fish within the study area.

Trammel Netting The main sampling technique was trammel-netting, which has been identified as the most effective method for collecting Razorback Sucker in Lake Powell (Mueller et al. 2000) and Lake Mead (Albrecht et al. 2006). Trammel nets were 45.75 meters (150 feet) long by 1.83 meters (6 feet) deep. Inner mesh sizes of the trammel nets were 2.54 cm (1 inch) and the outer panels were 30.5 cm (12 inches). Nets were set perpendicularly to shorelines in the late afternoon/evening before sunset and pulled the following morning shortly after sunrise (following Albrecht et al. 2008b). In 2011, nets were set at 2-4 hour intervals in the upstream sample site (around Spencer’s Camp below Zahn Bay to the waterfall) after we experienced a Colorado Pikeminnow mortality. The total number of nets set each day as well as the total number of hours each net was set were recorded to allow CPE comparisons to be made between sites and sampling efforts. GPS coordinates, substrate type, and any additional pertinent habitat information (e.g., the presence/absence of emergent or submerged cover, water turbidity) was recorded for each net set.

Boat Electrofishing A 16 foot aluminum jon boat outfitted with a Smithroot GPP was used to conduct pulsed direct current electrofishing sampling in both 2011 and 2012. This electrofisher had two 228.6 mm stainless steel anodic hemispheres and a cathodic hull and cathodic 122 centimeter stainless steel dropper cables. Electrofishing sampling was completed in both years near Neskahi Canyon and the San Juan River inflow

9

area. In 2011, the San Juan River between the waterfall and Lake Powell was electrofished twice during one trip. Due to the lower river flows and lake level in 2012, sampling was not conducted in the riverine portion of Lake Powell between Zahn Bay and the waterfall. The electrofishing crew consisted of two netters and one boat operator. Mueller et al. (2000) stated that electrofishing was the best viable option for sampling flooded tamarisk habitats at the inflow areas of Lake Powell. Electrofishing crews sampled along shorelines, in coves and embayments, in and around sunken obstacles, and in flooded tamarisk, emergent vegetation and in other areas that are generally hard to sample with trammel nets. Data for native fish species encountered during electrofishing operations were collected in the same manner as for trammel-netting. Sampling effort (seconds) data were collected for CPE comparisons among sites and sampling efforts.

Data Collection All endangered fishes were weighed (g) using Pesola brand spring scales, measured (mm TL and SL), and checked for presence of a PIT tag. Fish lacking a PIT tag or having a 400 kHz PIT tag were implanted with a 134 kHz PIT tag prior to release. Somatic and sexually dimorphic condition was recorded for all endangered species, when evident. Razorback Sucker (including both fish with and without a PIT tags) had a 6.4 millimeter (a quarter inch squared) fin ray section removed from the left pelvic fin for aging (following Albrecht 2008b). Muscle plugs (5 mm biopsy punch) were collected from Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow above their lateral line and below their spinal column (for concurrent contaminants research; Appendix 6). All nonnative fishes collected were recorded by species and life stage (i.e. larval stage, age-0, juvenile, adult). A representative sub-sample of each nonnative fish species encountered were weighed and measured.

Larval Sampling When adult Razorback Sucker were captured in ripe condition, larval samples were collected during the night near the adult fish capture sites. A sample consisted of suspending an Optronics Fish-N-Lite ® over the gunwale of a boat, submerging the light and collecting larval fish with aquaria dip-nets for fifteen minutes. GPS coordinates were recorded, as was effort to determine CPE. Larvae were preserved in 100% ethanol and sent to American Southwest Ichthyological Researcher’s L.L.C. (ASIR) for identification.

Data Analysis Mean log-transformed (LN, natural log; data were not normally distributed) catch per unit effort for trammel netting (CPE, fish per net-hour) was calculated for Razorback Sucker, Colorado Pikeminnow and Flannelmouth Sucker for each trip and location. Mean CPE was compared among trips and locations using Analysis of Variance; pairwise comparisons were made using Tukey's Honestly-Significant-Difference (HSD) Test (P<0.1; SYSTAT13). Mean log-transformed (LN, natural log) CPE for electrofishing (CPE, fish per hour) was calculated for Razorback Sucker, Colorado Pikeminnow and Flannelmouth Sucker for each trip and location. Mean CPE was compared among trips and locations using Analysis of Variance; pairwise comparisons were made using Tukey's HSD Test (P<0.1; SYSTAT13). All log-transformed CPE data is also presented in the text as back calculated figures. These figures are a mean of many samples mean CPE. Overall CPE values (total number of fish/total hours) are not presented in this report because these figures cannot be tested for significance.

10

Length frequency distributions were calculated for Razorback Sucker, Colorado Pikeminnow and Flannelmouth Sucker. Consistent with methods used to track body condition of Colorado Pikeminnow and Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) in the upper Colorado River, relative condition was calculated for Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow caught in the San Juan Basin (Osmundson and White 2009, Francis and McAda 2011). Relative condition accounts for allometric growth and makes the measurement comparable between species and between different units of measure (Le Cren 1951). The standard average body condition is represented by 100 (x 100). Relative body condition (Kn) is the observed mass (Mo) of a given fish divided by the expected mass for a fish of its length:

Kn = (Mo÷Me) × 100 The expected mass or standard weight (Me) is calculated using constants derived from mass-length regressions:

log 10Me = ((log 10length) slope) + y intercept The constants for these time-of-year-specific mass-length regressions were derived from Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow captured from the San Juan River (including Lake Powell) from 1995 through 2012. Wege and Anderson (1978) suggest using samples from the mid-to-late growing season when tissue accumulation is neither high nor low (pre-or-post spawning). However, timing for this project did not allow for this suggestion and tissue accumulation (regardless of being high or low) should be fairly similar throughout the entire San Juan during the possible spawning period when normalized by robust data sets through a period of 16 years. Relative condition of each animal was calculated using the constant specific to animals captured from the first week of April through the last week of June. Mean Kn was compared among passes using Analysis of Variance; pairwise comparisons were made using Tukey's HSD Test (P<0.1; SYSTAT13).

Abundance Estimates Capture-recapture data for all captured Razorback Sucker were placed into a matrix with a row for each individual fish and columns organized by year and trip. The matrix indicated whether an individual was captured or not during each trip. Within trip recaptures were not included in the matrix for parameter estimation. Program MARK (White and Burnham 1999) was used to calculate annual abundance estimates for Razorback Sucker in the sample area. MARK allows a variety of different models to be run and provides a model selection algorithm to suggest the best model for the data set used. Estimates were generated with the Huggins (1989, 1991) estimator, where the initial capture probability (p) was assumed equal to the recapture probability (c), the parameters in this model are of unique capture probabilities for individual trips (trip). The capture probabilities are trip specific (the primary sessions occur across trips). Within primary trips, the capture probabilities across secondary trips are trip-specific. So each occasion (trip) during the entire study had its own capture probability estimated (G.White, Colorado State University, personal communication). The closed capture model with the highest AIC (Akaike) weight was selected and assumes the following about a population: all members of the population are equally at risk of capture, the population is closed, PIT tags are not lost during the project, and each animal has a constant and equal probability of capture on each trapping occasion (White and Burnham, 1999). Coefficients of variation were calculated (CV; standard error divided by the abundance estimate) providing a measurement for the precision of the estimate. CV values less than 0.20 are generally considered necessary for a robust estimate.

11

In order to calculate abundance estimates, primary sessions needed to be determined to create the capture matrix. We determined the best fit division, for primary sessions, would be to treat each five day trip as a pass (primary session).

Results In 2012, the pool elevation of Lake Powell remained relatively constant throughout the sampling period, ranging from 3635.6 feet (1108.1 meters) above sea level when sampling began on 6 April to 3636.6 feet (1108.4 meters) above sea level when sampling was completed on 11 June 2012. In 2011, the pool elevation changed drastically with the water level rising 24.77 feet (7.55 meters) during the sampling period. Due to the low flows occurring in the San Juan River in 2012, sampling of the riverine portion of Lake Powell from Zahn Bay upstream to the waterfall was not possible. In 2011, crews were able to sample the riverine portion of Lake Powell upstream to the waterfall. The 2012 catch included four native species and one native hybrid (Table 1). Fourteen nonnative species were also captured (Table 2). In descending order of abundance the native fish catch included Razorback Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Bluehead Sucker, Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback X Flannelmouth Sucker hybrids. Trammel net catch for the 13 nonnative species in descending order of abundance were Gizzard Shad, Bluegill, Common Carp, Channel Catfish, Green Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, Striped Bass, Yellow Bullhead, Black Bullhead, Black Crappie, Threadfin Shad, and Walleye (Figure 2). Only 2.3% (128 fish) of the total trammel net catch (5,536 fish) was composed of native species and the top three nonnative species (Gizzard Shad, Bluegill, and Common Carp) composed of 63% of the total catch (Figure 2).

Table 1. 2011 and 2012 native fish catch (trammel net and electrofishing combined) on the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell.

Species Bluehead

Sucker Colorado

Pikeminnow Flannelmouth

Sucker Razorback

Sucker Razorback/

Flannelmouth Hybrid 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Spencer’s Camp

0 1 24* 1 87* 55 36* 53 0 0

Neskahi Canyon Site

0 1 0 0 16 15 35 23 2 1

Total

0

2

24*

1

103*

70

76*(1)

76 (4)

2

1

* Includes 16 Colorado Pikeminnow, 43 Flannelmouth Sucker, and 20 Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River between Lake Powell and the waterfall. Numbers in parentheses are the number of fish captured on multiple sampling passes.

12

Table 2. Scientific and common names, status, and database codes for fish species collected from the San Juan River Arm

of Lake Powell during 2011 and 2012 sampling effort.

Scientific Name Common Name Status Database Code

Family Catostomidae – suckers Catostomus discobolus Bluehead Sucker Native Catdis Catostomus latipinnis Flannelmouth Sucker Native Catlat Xyrauchen texanus Razorback Sucker Native Xyrtex X.texanus X C.latipinnis hybrid Native texXlat

Family Cyprinidae – carps and minnows Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Introduced Cypcar Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Introduced Pimpro Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado Pikeminnow Native Ptyluc

Family Centrarchidae – sunfishes Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Introduced Lepcya Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Introduced Lepmac Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Introduced Micdol Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Introduced Micsal Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Introduced Pomnig

Family Clupeidae – shad Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Introduced Dorcep Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Introduced Dorpet

Family Ictaluridae – bullhead catfishes Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Introduced Amemel Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Introduced Amenat Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Introduced Ictpun

Family Percidae – perches Sander vitreus Walleye Introduced Stivit

Family Moronidae – temperate basses Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Introduced Morsax

13

Figure 2. San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell trammel net percent of total catch, 2011(blue bar) and 2012(red bar),

native species are in red text on the Y axis.

Razorback Sucker In 2012, 72 individual Razorback Sucker were captured in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. Four of the 72 Razorback Sucker were captured during multiple sampling passes. All Razorback Sucker captured in 2012 were large and ranged from 455 to 605 mm total length (TL) (Figure 3). In 2011, 75 individual Razorback Sucker were captured in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell and ranged in size from 429 to 619 mm TL.

14

Figure 3. Length-Frequency histogram of Razorback Sucker in 2011 and 2012.

In 2012, 25 (35%) of the 72 individual Razorback Sucker captured did not have a PIT tag when captured. Twenty eight (37%) of the 75 Razorback Sucker captured in 2011 did not have a PIT tag when captured. For comparison, in 2012, approximately 14.5% of the Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River upstream of the waterfall did not have a PIT tag when captured (Durst, 2012). Of the 47 Razorback Sucker captured in 2012 with a PIT tag, most (41) were from the San Juan River upstream of Lake Powell (Table 3, Appendix 1). Of the remaining six fish, four were initially tagged in Lake Powell in 2011, and one was a sonic-tagged hatchery fish released in 2012. The remaining PIT tag number could not be found in the San Juan River database. Of the 47 Razorback Suckers captured with a PIT tag in 2011, 41 were tagged and then stocked in the San Juan River (Table 3, Appendix 1), three were fish captured and tagged in the San Juan River in 2007 and 2008, one was stocked in Lake Powell at Paiute Farms, and two tags were not found in the PIT tag database. Nine of the 75 individual Razorback Sucker captured in 2011 were recaptured in Lake Powell in 2012. One of the two Razorback Sucker X Flannelmouth Sucker hybrids captured in 2011 was also captured in 2012 in the same location.

15

Table 3. Number of Razorback Sucker stocked in the San Juan River by year and number of those fish captured in Lake Powell during 2011 and 2012.

Year Number Stocked in San Juan River (Sizes of Fish Stocked)

2011 Lake Powell

Captures

2012 Lake Powell

Captures

1994 687 (Mean TL = 251 mm; Range = 100-446 mm TL) 1 0



1997 2,883 (Mean TL = 192 mm; Range = 104-412 mm TL) 0 0


1999 0 0 0









2008 4,424 (Mean TL = 297 mm; Range = 225–390 mm TL) 1 1


2010 28,419 (Mean TL = 391 mm; Range = 222-575mm TL) 0 2

2011 18,830 (Mean TL = 363; Range = 208-540 mm TL) - 0

16

Movement of Razorback Sucker from Lake Powell to the San Juan River above the Waterfall Due to the above average snow pack that occurred in 2011, the pool elevation of Lake Powell increased 50 feet (15.24 meters) from April to August. The increase in pool elevation, submerged the waterfall on the San Juan River near Piute Farms allowing upstream passage of fishes for approximately 2 months in the summer of 2011. Of the 75 individual Razorback Sucker captured during the Lake Powell project in 2011, six of these fish would eventually be captured in the San Juan River upstream of the waterfall (SJRIP data queried through 2014; Table 4). Four of these fish were captured in the San Juan River in 2011 and the other two were captured in the San Juan River in 2012. Two of these fish were collected in the San Juan River in multiple years (2011, 2012, 2013) suggesting these fish are staying in the river. As the pool elevation of Lake Powell then decreased to an elevation that was no longer sufficient for fish to pass upstream of the waterfall, these fish must have moved upstream of the waterfall during that two month time period in 2011.

Table 4. Razorback Sucker captured during the Lake Powell Project in 2011and recaptured in the San Juan River upstream of the waterfall.

Razorback PIT Tag # Capture Location in Lake Powell (Date)

First Capture Location in San Juan

River (Date)

Second Capture Location in San

Juan River (Date) 3D91BF18E66D0 -30.9 (6/13/2011) 30.0 (8/17/2011) 83.0 (9/6/2011) 3D91C2D58BFBD -4.6 (6/8/2011) 42.5 (8/4/2011) - 3D91C2D59D24D -29.4 (6/13/2011) 166.6* (4/11/2012) - 3D91C2D998377 -14.3 (5/18/2011) 130.0 (9/2/2011) 155.0 (3/21/2012) 3D9257C69D05E -14.3 (5/19/2011) 166.6* (9/21/2011) - 3D9257C6B1552 -4.6 (6/8/2011) 166.6* (5/10/2012) 159.4 (7/16/2013)

* PNM Weir Movement of Razorback Sucker from the San Juan River to Lake Powell. Five Razorback Sucker captured during fall monitoring on the San Juan River in 2011 were captured in Lake Powell in 2012 (Table 5). One Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River in late March 2012 near Ross Rapid (RM 28.6) was captured in early May 2012 in Lake Powell.

Table 5. Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River above the waterfall in the Fall of 2011 or Spring 2012 and recaptured in Lake Powell in 2012.

Razorback PIT Tag # Capture Location in San Juan River (Date)

Capture Location in Lake Powell in 2012 (Date) First Encounter

3D91BF1D8AD98 107.0 (9/24/2011) -16.5 (5/19/2012) Stocked 6/26/2006 3D91C2D153BC4* 121.0 (9/23/2011) -30.9 (5/15/2012) Stocked 7/14/2004 3D91C2D9A99AB 98.0 (9/25/2011) -30.5 (6/6/2012) Stocked 4/15/2004 3D9257C6B8009 125.0 (9/22/2011) -17.0 (5/20/2012) Stocked 8/28/2006

3D91C2D9AE4AC 97.0 (9/25/2011) -13.8 (5/10/2012) Tagged 9/25/2011 @ RM 97.0

450451773F 28.6 (3/28/2012) -17.3 (5/8/2012) Stocked 7/14/2004 * Also captured in San Juan River at stocking location 2 months after stocking.

17

Population Estimate Table 6 provides data for the three models generated using program Mark. The top model estimated unique capture probabilities for each trip. Recapture probability was equal to capture probability. This model is the most supported given the data. The second model estimated a unique capture probability and recapture probability for the year, which considers trap response/behavior. This model is not supported given the data. The third model estimated a single capture/recapture probability. This model also is not supported by the data.

Table 6. Program Mark output for best fit model selection to calculate probabilities of capture and abundance of Razorback Sucker in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell, 2012.

The best fit model was one with a time dependent (covariate) capture probability: Real Function Parameters of {N(2012),c=p(trip)} Table 7 provides the output from the selected model. A Razorback Sucker’s probability of capture was estimated to be anywhere from 0.379% to 5.312% dependent on the trip (or pass). The accompanying abundance estimate was calculated to be 527 animals with a range (95% confidence intervals) of 248 to 1,311 individuals. The abundance estimate coefficient of variation was 0.472, when achieving a CV of less than 0.2 is described as ideal for precision in an estimate. Table 7. 2012 San Juan Arm of Lake Powell Razorback Sucker probability of capture estimated by top model selected in

program Mark.

Spawning Condition Forty-five of the Razorback Sucker captured had sexually dimorphic traits (tubercles, leathery caudal peduncles, gravidity) 15 were female and 30 were male. Female traits were identified from 26 April through 9 June and two fish, both captured near Spencer’s camp, were ripe and expressing eggs. Male traits were identified from 26 May through 9 June and six of the males were ripe and expressing milt; four were captured near Spencer’s camp (May 8, 20, 21, and 22), and two were captured near Neskahi Canyon (May 4 and 5).

Model Description AICc ∆ AICc AICc Wt Model Like K Deviance{N(2012),c=p(trip)} Time Dependant P-hat -148.4199 0 1 1 10 14.7122{N(2012),c(2012),p(2012)} Unique capture/recapture prob -105.9378 42.4821 0 0 3 73.5258{N(2012),c=p(2012)} Single capture/recapture prob -105.2636 43.1563 0 0 2 74.1999

Sample Location Dates Parameter P-hat Estimate (%) SE (%) Lower (%) Upper (%)Spencers Camp April 6-10 Trip 1 P 0.37944 0.32219 0.0716 1.98442Spencers Camp April 26-29 Trip 2 P 0.56916 0.42377 0.13175 2.42358Neskahi April 30-May 5 Trip 3 P 0.56916 0.42377 0.13175 2.42358Spencers Camp May 6-11 Trip 4 P 5.31213 2.69161 1.92762 13.80283Neskahi May 12-17 Trip 5 P 0.94859 0.61551 0.26452 3.34247Spencers Camp May 18-23 Trip 6 P 2.65607 1.43636 0.9100 7.49836Neskahi May 24-30 Trip 7 P 0.37944 0.32219 0.0716 1.98442Spencers Camp May 30-June 3 Trip 8 P 1.13831 0.70877 0.33394 3.80619Neskahi June 4-10 Trip 9 P 2.27663 1.25598 0.76457 6.58071

18

Condition The Me (mass-length regression) equation derived from Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River Basin from April through June in the years 1995 through 2012 (n = 2,487) is

log 10Me = ((log 10length) 3.0697) + (-5.1721) Mean Kn (relative body condition) for Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell from April to June 2011 and 2012 is similar to Razorback Sucker captured river wide during the same time period (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Mean relative body condition (Kn) of Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River basin, April – June 2011(left graph) and 2012 (right graph). Upper and lower bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Numbers above bars

are for sample size.

Age Pectoral fin ray clips were collected in 2011 and 2012 to determine age of Razorback Sucker within the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell. Ages of fish captured in 2011 were converted to their age in the year 2012. No 1995 year class Razorback Sucker have been stocked in the San Juan River. Only ten 1998 year class Razorbacks were stocked (Table 8). Ages based on fin-ray samples generally agreed with known ages. Seventy-two fin ray samples were collected from Razorback Sucker in 2012 and 41 of those fish were without a PIT tag and had an intact sample that could be read (Table 8). Twenty-nine of the Razorback Sucker samples were from SJRIP propagation activities and were PIT tag recaptures; these fish had a known age and were a control group. The remaining 43 Razorback Sucker had no PIT tags and were of an unknown year class. Fin rays from five Razorback Sucker were unreadable, and two of these samples were from fish without PIT tags. Of the 41 readable Razorback Sucker samples of an unknown

19

year class, ages ranged from 7 to 17 years (mean = 9.4 years). Of the 25 Razorback Sucker samples of a known year class, actual ages ranged from 4 to 12 (mean = 9.6).

Table 8. San Juan Arm of Lake Powell, Razorback Sucker pectoral fin ageing results for 2011 and 2012.

Age of Razorback Sucker without a PIT Tag When Captured from Pectoral Fin Rays Year Class

Age in 2012

Number Captured in 2011

Number Captured in 2012

Total

1995 17 1 1 2 1998 14 1 0 1 2001 11 2 7 9 2002 10 3 (1) 12 15 2003 9 2 10 12 2004 8 3 5 8 2005 7 1 6 7

Number in parenthesis is an additional Razorback Sucker/Flannelmouth Sucker hybrid aged by the same method. Table 8 does not contain data from stocked Razorback Sucker.

Active Sampling Capture Effort and Locations Razorback Sucker were captured in trammel nets at both primary sampling locations around: Piute and Neskahi Canyons, and Spencer’s camp. Total trammel net effort expended included 487 sets for 4,917 net hours in 2012, and 315 sets for 3,199 net hours in 2011 (Figures 5-7). Razorback Sucker were also captured by boat mounted electrofishing during both years. In 2012, total electrofishing effort expended was 87.4 hours, and in 2011 total electrofishing effort expended was 41.2+ hours (one collection of two Razorback Sucker did not have effort recorded). For 2011, in total, there were 80 captures of 75 individual Razorback Sucker. Five individuals were recaptured, four were handled within the same trip and one was first captured during the second trip and was recaptured during the third trip. Of the 80 captures, 38 (47.5%) were the result of trammel netting; 31 were captured near Piute and Neskahi Canyons and seven were captured near Spencer’s Camp. Electrofishing accounted for 42 (52.5%) of the 80 captures; 13 were captured near Piute and Neskahi Canyons, nine were captured near Spencer’s Camp, and 20 were captured during the fourth trip near the waterfall (Figures 5-7). For 2012, in total, there were 79 captures of 72 individual Razorback Sucker. Four individuals were recaptured, and three were handled within the same trip. Of the 79 captures, 66 (83.5%) were the result of trammel netting; 21 were captured near Piute and Neskahi Canyons and 45 were captured near Spencer’s Camp. Electrofishing accounted for 13 (16.5%) of the 79 captures; two were captured near Piute & Neskahi Canyons, and 14 were captured near Spencer’s Camp (Figures 5-7).

20

Figure 5. Google earth image of most upstream captures of Razorback Sucker (total number captured at a given location

denoted next to rz abbreviation) in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell (2011 depicted by red balloons, 2012 depicted by yellow balloons).

21

Figure 6. Google earth image of Zahn Bay and Spencer's Camp Razorback Sucker captures (total number captured at a given location denoted next to rz abbreviation) in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell (2011 depicted by red balloons, 2012

depicted by yellow balloons). The red oval depicts a spawning aggregation.

22

Figure 7. Google earth image of Neskahi and Piute Canyon Razorback Sucker captures (total number captured at a given

location denoted next to rz abbreviation) in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell (2011 depicted by red balloons, 2012 depicted by yellow balloons). The red oval depicts a spawning aggregation.

Active and Passive Sampling Sonic Tag Detections Razorback Sucker that were sonic tagged, in 2012, included four fish from Ouray NFH Randlett Unit stocked at RM -32.5 at Piute Canyon, and six fish tagged from the lake (two from near Spencer's camp, and four from near Neskahi Canyon). The last contact for one of the hatchery fish was near Piute Canyon; fish #94 29 May 2012 and the last contact with another hatchery fish (# 92) was 10 June 2012 by a SUR located across the lake from Neskahi Canyon. This fish was also detected 17 miles below critical habitat by a SUR deployed in Cha Canyon in late April 2012. The last contact with another 2012 hatchery fish (#97) was 28 April 2012 in a bay northwest of Spencer’s Camp and the last contact with the final 2012 hatchery fish (#96) was 5 April 2013 at a SUR that was located 2 miles downstream of the confluence of the San Juan in the Colorado River Arm of Lake Powell. The last contact with two of the lake fish implanted with sonic tags was within two to three miles of their capture and tagging sites in Neskahi Canyon fish # 95 on 6 May 2012, fish # 108 on 26 July 2012. One fish (#93) tagged near

23

Neskahi Canyon was last contacted in southeastern Zahn Bay on 1 June 2012. Fish # 98 was tagged near Neskahi Canyon and was last detected near Spencer’s Camp on 19 May 2012. Fish # 99 was tagged near Spencer’s Camp and was last detected on 10 May 2012 in Zahn Bay. Fish #107 was tagged at Spencer’s Camp and was last detected in 2012 in Zahn Bay and then made a large movement detected by a SUR on 18 June 2013 in Rincon Bay on the Colorado Arm of Lake Powell 19 lake miles above the San Juan Arm confluence. In addition to sonic tags deployed in 2012, six tags were detected from 2011 deployments. Seven tags were deployed in fish captured in Lake Powell and seven deployed in fish acquired from Uvalde NFH in 2011. The six fish detected in 2012 were all fish that were tagged in the lake. Fish # 49 was a fish tagged near Spencer’s Camp that was detected by a SUR deployed across from Neskahi Canyon on 26 July 2012. Fish # 54 was a fish tagged near Neskahi Canyon that was last detected on 29 May 2012 near its tagging location. Three fish (#64 6/3/2012, #66 5/31/2012, and # 68 6/2/2012) were all detected in 2012 near their tagging location in close proximity of Spencer’s Camp. The final 2011 tagged fish detected in 2012 was fish #67 that was tagged near Spencer’s Camp and was detected in Zahn Bay on 27 April 2012. Catch Per Unit Effort The CPE for Razorback Sucker in trammel nets did not differ among locations and trips in 2011 (P > 0.1, LN transformed data; Figure 8). Averaged back-transformed CPE for the entire study (regardless of trip or location) was .014 fish per net hour. In 2012, for Razorback Sucker, there were a few instances of significant difference (P < 0.1) for LN transformed trammel net CPE among locations and trips; however, considering the small sample size and movement of fish (both spatially and temporally) the most noteworthy difference is between Spencer’s trip 4 and 8 (P = 0.052) most likely marking the end of spawning at that location (Figure 9). There was not a significant difference between years (2011 and 2012), and averaged back-transformed CPE for the entire study was also .014 fish per net hour in 2012. The CPE of Razorback Sucker collected by electrofishing did not vary among locations or years (P > 0.1, LN transformed data; Figure 10). Two Razorback Sucker were captured near Neskahi Canyon during the fourth trip of 2011 and the crew neglected to record effort. Averaged back-transformed CPE for the entire study (regardless of trip or location) for lake caught fish was 0.390 fish per hour in 2011 and 0.315 fish per hour in 2012.

24

Figure 8. 2011 Razorback Sucker LN transformed trammel net catch per unit effort (number of fish per net hour,

bounded by 95% confidence intervals) comparing sampling locations and trips.

Figure 9. 2012 Razorback Sucker LN transformed trammel net catch per unit effort (number of fish per net hour,

bounded by 95% confidence intervals) comparing sampling locations and trips.

25

Figure 10. 2011 and 2012 Razorback Sucker LN transformed electrofishing mean catch per unit effort (number of fish per electrofishing hour, bounded by 95% confidence intervals) comparing sampling locations and years. .* 2 Razorback

Sucker were collected and effort was not recorded.

Larval Sampling No native fish specimens were collected in the 41 larval fish samples (10.25 sampling hours) in 2012 (Figure 11). In 2011, 28 larval (7 sampling hours) resulted in one Razorback Sucker metalarvae (TL 20.7mm) collected on 9 June 2011 near Spencer’s camp at RM -17.1. Larval sampling CPE was 0.143 razorback suckers per hour in 2011. Using Bestgen et al. (2002) formula for back-calculating Razorback Sucker hatch dates, the metalarvae was hatched approximately 42.3 days prior to capture on the 27 April.

26

Figure 11. San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell larval sampling percent of total catch, 2011 and 2012.

Colorado Pikeminnow Due to the low number (1 fish) of Colorado Pikeminnow captures in 2012, analyses are not warranted. This fish was a sub-adult (TL 355mm, 200g) captured in a trammel net, in Zahn Bay, during trip 4. In 2011, 24 individual Colorado Pikeminnow were captured in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. Eight were collected near Spencer’s camp, three were captured between Noki and Copper Canyons, and 13 were captured one to three miles below the waterfall. No Colorado Pikeminnow were captured downstream near Neskahi and Piute Canyons (Appendix 2). Colorado Pikeminnow captured in 2011 had total lengths ranging from 228-519 mm with a mean of 327 mm (Figure 12). Four (17%) of the Colorado Pikeminnow captured were adults, the remaining 20 (83%) were juveniles. Twelve (48%) of the 25 Colorado Pikeminnow captured in 2011 and 2012 lacked PIT tags when captured (Appendix 2). Of the 13 Colorado Pikeminnow captured with a PIT tag, seven were stocked in the San Juan River with PIT tags and four were tagged after being captured in the river in 2010. The seven that were stocked with PIT tags included one from 2006; three from 2007; two from 2009, and one from 2010 stocked at RM 1.0 of the Animas River. Two recaptured PIT tags were not found in the SJRIP database; however, (determined by TL) these fish were most likely from the 2009 year class. Of the twelve captured without a PIT tag, it is a reasonable assumption that these fish are the result of the SJRIP propagation program. Determined by total length, seven are most likely from the 2009 year class and five from the 2008 year class. One fish captured without a PIT tag was large enough (TL 458 mm) to confound ageing by TL.

27

Figure 12. Size structure of Colorado Pikeminnow captured in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell in 2011 and 2012.

Condition The Me (mass-length regression) equation derived from Colorado Pikeminnow captured in the San Juan River Basin from April through June in the years 1998 through 2011 (n = 2,518) is

log 10Me = ((log 10length) 3.0444) + (-5.2744) Mean Kn (relative body condition) for Colorado Pikeminnow captured in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell from April to June 2011 is similar to Colorado Pikeminnow captured river wide during the same time period (Figure 13). As you move upstream through the SJRIP’s defined geomorphic reaches, mean Kn is significantly higher in geomorphic reaches four and six when compared to geomorphic reaches two and three (Figure 14). Both juvenile and adult Colorado Pikeminnow were captured; thus, mean Kn was compared among location and size class and there were no significant differences (Figure 13).

28

Figure 13. Mean relative body condition (Kn) of Colorado Pikeminnow captured in the San Juan River basin, April –

June 2011 illustrating (Kn) by capture location and size class. Upper and lower bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 14. Mean relative body condition (Kn) of Colorado Pikeminnow captured in the San Juan River basin, April –

June 2011 illustrating (Kn) by capture location. Upper and lower bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Catch Per Unit Effort All Colorado Pikeminnow were captured around and upstream of Spencer’s camp; therefore, LN transformed trammel net CPE comparisons among locations (Piute and Neskahi vs. Spencers) were unnecessary. For Colorado Pikeminnow captured in 2011, there were no significant differences (P > 0.1) for LN transformed trammel net CPE between trips (Figure 15). However, there was a significant difference between years (P = 0.062). The mean back-transformed CPE for the entire study from

lake: TL 100-199

riverwide: TL 100-199

lake: TL 200-299


lake: TL 300-399


lake: TL 400-520


LOCATION

60

80

100

120

140

REL

ATI

VE C

ON

DIT

ION

log 10Me = ((log 10length) 3.0444) + (-5.2744)N=2,518

132 9 195 954

4

10

29

Spencer’s Camp upstream through Zahn Bay was only was 0.010 fish per net hour in 2011 and 0.002 in 2012. All Colorado Pikeminnow captured with electrofishing were caught near the waterfall during the fourth trip of 2011. The mean back-transformed CPE for the entire study period from near Spencer’s camp and upstream to the waterfall (in the flowing water above the lake) was 1.246 Colorado Pikeminnow per hour in 2011.

Figure 15. 2011 and 2012 Colorado Pikeminnow LN transformed trammel net catch per unit effort (number of fish per

net hour, bounded by 95% confidence intervals) comparing sampling locations and trips.

Flannelmouth Sucker In 2012, there were 70 captures of Flannelmouth Sucker in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell. Fifteen were captured near Piute and Neskahi Canyons, 37 were collected in close proximity of Spencer’s Camp, and 18 were collected in Zahn Bay. In 2011, there were 103 captures of Flannelmouth Sucker in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. Sixteen were captured near Piute and Neskahi Canyons, 41 were captured near Spencer’s camp, three were captured in between Noki and Copper Canyons, and 43 were captured one to four miles below the waterfall. Flannelmouth Sucker collected in 2012 ranged from 260-473 mm TL (mean = 354 mm TL) and those captured in 2011 ranged from 220-510 mm TL (mean = 330 mm TL; Figure 16). In 2012, 10 (14%) of the Flannelmouth Sucker captured were adults and the remaining 60 (86%) were juveniles; in 2011, 6 (6%) were adults and the remaining 97 (94%) were juveniles.

30

Figure 16. Length frequency histogram for Flannelmouth Sucker captured in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell,

2011 and 2012.

Catch Per Unit Effort In both 2011 and 2012, there were significant differences (P < 0.1) in LN transformed Flannelmouth Sucker trammel net CPE among sampling locations, with the exception of 2011 Spencers and 2011 Zahn. The further up lake and river we sampled the higher our trammel net catch rates (Figure 17). There was also a significant difference in LN transformed Flannelmouth Sucker trammel net CPE between years (P = 0.088). In 2011, mean back-transformed CPE was 0.034 fish per hour and in 2012 mean back-transformed CPE was 0.020 fish per hour. Comparisons of electrofishing LN transformed CPE for Flannelmouth Sucker among locations and trips provided no significant differences (P > 0.1), with the exception of a significant increase (P < 0.1) in LN transformed electrofishing CPE of Flannelmouth Sucker captured in the river near the waterfall when compared to all other trips and locations (Figure 18). There was also a significant difference (P = 0) in LN transformed electrofishing CPE between years. Mean back-transformed CPE for the entire study (regardless of trip or location) was 0.507 fish per hour in 2011 and 0.048 fish per hour in 2012.

31

Figure 17. 2011 and 2012 Flannelmouth Sucker LN transformed trammel net mean catch per unit effort (number of fish

per net hour, bounded by 95% confidence intervals) comparing sampling locations and years.

Figure 18. 2011 and 2012 Flannelmouth Sucker LN transformed electrofishing mean catch per unit effort (number of fish

per electrofishing hour, bounded by 95% confidence intervals) comparing sampling locations and years.

32

Discussion Two years of Razorback Sucker surveys in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell have provided important insights on Razorback Sucker habitat use, spawning behavior, movement, and native and nonnative fish composition. Sonic telemetry, trammel netting, electrofishing, and larval sampling provided information on the importance of the 33 LM below the waterfall, and in particular the importance of Spencer’s Camp and Neskahi Canyon areas to spawning fish. Thirty six percent of the Razorback Sucker total catch were without a PIT tag suggesting potential recruitment. Fin ray aging data on 13 of these fish provided insight on potential successful years (1992-2005) for wild recruitment. Incidental to the original objectives of the study was the catch of Colorado Pikeminnow, Flannelmouth Sucker, and Bluehead Sucker. Although native fishes represent a very small proportion of the trammel net total catch (2.1%), there is a detectable native fish community present in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell.

Movement Along with documenting movement of Razorback Sucker within Lake Powell (in 2011 and 2012), in both years we also documented movement of Razorback Sucker (collected in 2011) between Lake Powell and the San Juan River above the waterfall. Eight percent (6) of the Razorback Sucker captured in Lake Powell in 2011 were subsequently captured in the San Juan River. Three of these six fish moved from Lake Powell all the way upstream to the PNM diversion at RM 166.6. Only one of these six fish was captured in 2013, so it is unknown if Razorback Sucker that moved from the lake into the San Juan River remain there long-term or if they return to the lake. None the six fish documented moving upstream into the river were captured in the lake in 2012. As the waterfall on the San Juan River was only passible to fish moving upstream for a short period of time (approximately 2 months) in 2011, Razorback Sucker captured in Lake Powell in 2012 could not move upstream into the river above the waterfall. Additionally, the waterfall was a barrier to upstream fish movement from Lake Powell into the San Juan River from 2003 until summer 2011. In addition to documenting movement of Razorback Sucker from Lake Powell into the San Juan River, movement from the San Juan River downstream into Lake Powell was also documented in 2012. Six Razorback Sucker captured in the mainstem San Juan River from September 2011 to March 2012 were captured in Lake Powell in 2012. These six fish represent 8% of the 72 individual Razorback Sucker captured in Lake Powell in 2012. Five of these fish were the result of stocking efforts within the San Juan River and one fish was tagged in the San Juan River in the fall of 2011. Three of the five stocked Razorbacks were stocked in 2004 and two were stocked in 2006, all at RM 158.6. Only one fish was captured in the river between its stocking date and 2011 and it was captured near the river stocking location two months post-stocking. A total of 827 Razorback Sucker were captured in the San Juan River from September 2010 to March 2011, but none were captured in the San Juan River later in 2011. Seven Razorback Sucker captured in the river from 1995 to 2009 were later captured in Lake Powell. From September 2011 to March 2012, a total of 659 Razorback Sucker were captured in the San Juan River, with six of these fish being later captured in Lake Powell. The large number of Razorbacks captured in the river from September 2011 to March 2012 and later captured in Lake Powell in 2012 may indicate that some of the six fish that had moved upstream when the waterfall was inundated in summer 2011 later returned to the lake.

Trans-basin Exchange Popular management opinion considered Lake Powell to be a barrier to Razorback Sucker movement between the San Juan River and the Green and Colorado rivers, because we never previously investigated this possibility of trans-basin interchange. This task was further complicated because the SJRIP and

33

Upper Colorado River Recovery Program (UCRRP) kept separate databases for Razorback Sucker stocking and capture records. However, given the movements from the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell to the mainstem San Juan River covering 180 river miles (30 miles through lacustrine habitat), the potential for movement through Lake Powell seemed plausible. Scott Durst (SJRIP database manager) and Travis Francis (UCRRP database manager) cross-referenced the SJRIP and UCRRP databases and found four Razorback Sucker stocked into the mainstem San Juan River that were subsequently recaptured in the mainstem Colorado or Green rivers. These fish negotiated at least 130 miles of lacustrine habitat in Lake Powell to move from the San Juan River to the Colorado River. Three were stocked near the Hogback Diversion on the San Juan River in 2004 or 2006 and one was stocked at the town of Shiprock, NM in 2010. These fish were recaptured in either 2008 or 2011 during Colorado pikeminnow population estimate work in the Colorado or Green rivers. It is important to note that both 2008 and 2011were high run-off years (during a very long period of drought) for Upper Colorado rivers. So, it is possible that the riverine influences were more detectable for fish further downlake, making trans-basin interchange more likely during these hydrologic years. The time from stocking in the San Juan River to recapture in the Colorado River was 171-1519 days and the distance between stocking and recapture location was 352.9-452.2 miles (Durst and Francis, 2016).

Sonic Telemetry Sonic telemetered Razorback Sucker provided important insights on movement within the 33 lake miles sampled during the 2011 and 2012 study periods. In 2011, sonic tagged individuals directed our sampling towards aggregations of other adults, and we had one sonic-tagged fish actively moving between the two sampling locations, Neskahi/Piute and Spencer’s Camp, throughout the predicted spawning season. In 2012, the deployment of an additional 10 tags (four in hatchery fish and six in fish collected in the lake) in addition to tags that were still active from 2011 provided even more information on the wide range of lake these fish occupy. Fish were detected from Nokai Canyon (Lake Mile 44) all the way down to Cha Canyon (Lake Mile 12) in the San Juan Arm and many of these fish were moving between aggregations of fish at locations between these terminus locations during the sampling/spawning season in 2012. These larger movements during the sampling season guided our decision to deploy SURS further outside of the sampling area. In 2013 two fish were detected in the Colorado River Arm of Lake Powell. One fish was detected moving downstream, two miles below the confluence of the San Juan and Colorado River arms. The other moved upstream, 19 miles above the confluence of the San Juan and Colorado River arms. These data suggest that there is active mixing of adult Razorback Sucker throughout the lake and there may be more spawning aggregations of fish throughout the lake. Considering the highly variable pool elevations and sedimentation, we anticipate that spawning locations may vary in future years, adding impetus to the use of sonic telemetry in future Lake Powell Razorback Sucker work.

Adult and Larval Sampling Many assumptions were made to schedule work in accordance to the suspected Razorback Sucker spawning window. As may be expected, there is a big difference in spring water temperatures between the San Juan River inflow (Spencer’s camp in 2011, Zahn Bay in 2012), which was warmer earlier in the year, and the lacustrine sampling site near the end of critical habitat (Neskahi and Piute Canyons), which remained cooler until later in the year. Therefore, spawning times between the two sites were nearly a month apart (as determined by the handling ripe fish). Our sampling period was ideal for handling adults in both areas. However, the earliest trips were less productive as fish were probably in deeper water beyond the reach of our sampling techniques and possibly less active. In 2011, a large aggregation of spawning fish was handled later in the sampling season near Neskahi Canyon, and fish expressing sexually dimorphic traits near Spencer’s camp were captured in smaller numbers earlier in the season and over a larger geographic area. In 2012, the exact opposite occurred, a large aggregation of spawning fish were handled in a smaller geographic area near Spencer’s camp early in the season, and a smaller group

34

of spawning fish were handled near Neskahi Canyon over a larger geographic area. However, the fish showing sexually dimorphic traits near Neskahi Canyon were primarily collected in late May and early June 2012 and our sampling period may have missed peak spawning time at this location. Due to the low capture probability observed each year in Lake Powell, precise population estimates may be difficult to obtain on a yearly basis. Nine of the 75 individual Razorback Sucker captured in 2011 were recaptured in Lake Powell in 2012. In addition, sampling in the San Juan River in 2011 and 2012 resulted in the capture of six individual Razorback Sucker captured in 2011 in Lake Powell. These data indicate that when the waterfall is inundated, a relatively large portion of the Razorback Sucker in Lake Powell are moving into the San Juan River above the waterfall. None of the Razorback Sucker found moving upstream of the waterfall in 2011 were recaptured in Lake Powell in 2012. One of these fish was captured in 2013, indicating this fish stayed in the river for almost two years. The locations of the other individuals are unknown. They may remain in the river or they may have moved back downstream into Lake Powell. Abundance estimates were calculated for Razorback Sucker occupying the study area in 2012 (N=527, UCI=1,312, LCI=239), although this study was not specifically designed to calculate estimates of abundance. Unfortunately, for abundance estimation, we conducted our work in the portion of the San Juan River Arm where we believed the highest likelihood of razorback sucker catch would be achieved. Thus, the entire sample area was not sampled during each primary session. However, the data suggest that all primary sampling locations had fish exchange (documented by both sonic tag data and recaptures) such that all fish should have had an opportunity at capture during the nine primary sessions. We believe a more robust study design that samples the entire reach, multiple times (passes within year; or between years where each year is treated as a pass) at set intervals between passes (for adequate mixing), would provide better estimates. However, the model that best fit the data contained a time dependent probability of capture which makes us confident enough to say that, at the very least, the lower confidence interval of our estimate (n = 239 fish) accurately describes the minimum number of Razorback Sucker occupying the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. It is important to emphasize that we have documented fish leaving the study area to the San Juan River in 2011 and this violates the models assumption of closure where the model estimates parameters such as probability of capture and abundance assuming that all fish have an equal possibility of capture throughout the study. However, the waterfall was not inundated in 2012 and our sample area was limited to Zahn Bay downstream to Cha Bay leaving only ten river miles upstream of Zahn Bay to the waterfall available to fish leaving the study area. Considering that 6 (8%) of the 2011 Razorback Sucker captured in Lake Powell moved upstream of the waterfall and were later captured in the river, it is intriguing that our catch rates between 2011 and 2012 were very similar (identical between years for trammel netting). The trammel netting CPE in 2011 and 2012 was 0.014 fish/hr. The electrofishing CPE was 0.390 fish/hr in 2011 (if you were to exclude those fish that were captured in the river below the waterfall in 2011) and 0.315 fish/hr in 2012. These data suggests significant numbers of Razorback Sucker were occupying the study area in both years. Thus, either more fish moved downstream out of the river or fish moved upstream from other locations throughout the lake to replace those that moved back upstream over the waterfall in 2011. Fossil record and carbon dating suggest that these endemic native fishes of the Colorado River have been around for three to five million years (Miller 1958; Minckley et al. 1986). During the Cenozoic Era Pleistocene epoch, the Colorado River basin was volcanically active and large natural reservoirs were created by lava flow dams (Dalrymple and Hamblin 1998). Razorback sucker had to adapt and evolve to both riverine and lacustrine habitats. Kaemingk et al (2007) report that inflow areas into lakes and reservoirs are some of the most productive areas within that body of water. Relative condition of San Juan Arm of Lake Powell Razorback Sucker when compared to individuals captured in the San Juan River in 2011 and 2012, during the same time period, suggest that the fish found in the lake are in good

35

condition. Considering that inflow habitat on a reservoir is very productive and these fish are in good condition and completing much of their life-cycle within these habitats it is important for managers to consider that Lake Powell is not a sink for Razorback Sucker from the rivers. Alternatively, inflow areas are an extension of productively occupied habitat. Although we are unable to conclusively say that some of the Razorback Sucker captured without PIT tags were wild recruits, there is evidence to suggest the possibility that some were wild. According to fin aging results, two fish were from the 1995 year class and no fish were stocked in the San Juan River from that year class. Another fish we determined to be from the 1998 year class and only 10 fish from that year class were stocked into the river; thus, the chances that we handled one of those 10 fish and that it had lost its PIT tag seems unlikely. Also, the higher percent of untagged fish in the lake compared to the river (36% versus 14%) suggests that some might have been wild recruits. Promising results from a trial experiment being conducted on the middle San Juan River to identify natal origins of Razorback Sucker with isotopic signatures collected from Razorback Sucker scales prompted our collection of scales from fish in the lake which were provided to American Southwest Ichthyological Researcher’s (ASIR) L.L.C. Analysis of these scales should provide more information regarding wild recruitment among Razorback Sucker collected in 2012 (Steve Platania, pers. comm.). Eighty-one of the Razorback Sucker we captured were the result of the SJRIP propagation activities. When comparing the percentage of stocked fish found in the lake’s catch to that of the river’s catch, a relatively equal representation of each stocking was found in each location through the 2007 stocking event (Appendix 4). The 2008 through 2010 stockings may not be available for capture in the lake, yet. This provides strong evidence that fish stocked in the river are not disproportionately being swept downstream to the lake, making them unavailable to contribute to the riverine population. While the predicted spawning season and associated field season was ideal for catching adults, it may have ended too early for us to effectively document the presence of wild-produced Razorback Sucker larvae. One confirmed Razorback Sucker larva captured near Spencer’s camp in 2011 provides evidence of successful spawning in the lake. Because of the one month separation in spawning times observed between the Spencer’s (earlier) and Neskahi (later) sampling locations, any Razorback Sucker larvae potentially produced at Neskahi may not have been available to catch during our sampling season. Conclusions and Recommendations A recent finding of Razorback Sucker recruitment in wetlands on the Green River (Bestgen and Webber, 2011) and the continued findings of natural recruitment and a self-sustaining population of Razorback Sucker on Lake Mead (Albrecht et al. 2008b) both indicate that non-moving (slack) water habitats may be very important for the species to successfully recruit. Considering limited slackwater or backwater habitats on the San Juan River, Lake Powell may be essential to recruitment and potential recovery of the species in this river basin. Our sampling answered some critical questions for the Recovery Program in regards to presence of the species in the lake, its distribution, if these fish are spawning, the ages and size structure of the fish available to our sampling techniques, will the fish return to the river if given the opportunity, and the composition of the overall fish community. However, many more questions need to be answered including:

1. Are Razorback Sucker in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell recruiting to the adult life-stage?

2. What is the extent of Razorback Sucker distribution outside of Critical Habitat? 3. How do we best go about obtaining a precise abundance estimate? 4. To what extent do Razorback Sucker from the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell mix with fish

from the Colorado and Green river basins?

36

In 2014, sampling occurred on the Colorado River Arm of Lake Powell and will be repeated in that location again in 2015. In 2016, sampling is planned to occur in areas of Lake Powell downstream from the San Juan and Colorado River arms of the lake. This sampling should help determine the extent of Razorback Sucker distribution within the lake. A Colorado Arm of Lake Powell report is in progress.

Literature Cited Albrecht, B., P.B. Holden, and M. Golden. 2006. Lake Mead razorback sucker monitoring

recommendations. Prepared for the Department of Resources, Southern Nevada Water Authority, by BIO-WEST, Inc., Logan, UT. PR-977-2.

Albrecht, B., R. Kegerries, R. Rodgers, and P. Holden. 2008a. Razorback sucker studies on Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona 2007-2008 Annual Report. Prepared for the Department of Resources, Southern Nevada Water Authority, by BIO-WEST, Inc., Logan, UT. PR 1161-1.

Albrecht, B., T. Sanderson, and P.B. Holden. 2008b. Razorback sucker studies in Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona: 1996-2007 Comprehensive Report. Submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation and Southern Nevada Water Authority, by BIO-WEST, Inc., Logan, UT. PR 1093-2.

Bestgen, K.R. 1990. Status review of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus. Contribution No. 44, Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory, Fort Collins. Submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Bestgen, K.R., G. B. Haines, R. Brunson, T. Chart, M. Trammell, R. T. Muth, G. Birchell, K. Chrisopherson, and J. M. Bundy. 2002. Status of wild razorback sucker in the Green River Basin, Utah and Colorado, determined from basinwide monitoring and other sampling programs. Contribution No. 126. Submitted to the Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program Project Number 22D. Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO.

Bestgen, K.R., K.A. Zelasko and G.C. White. 2009. Survival of hatchery-reared razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus in the San Juan River Basin, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. Report submitted to the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fishes in the San Juan River Basin. Contribution 160 of the Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University.

Bestgen, K.R. and A. Webber. 2011. Interagency standardized monitoring program (ISMP) assessment of endangered fish reproduction in relation to flaming gorge operations in the middle Green and lower Yampa Rivers. Project 22f. Annual Report to the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado.

Bozek M.A., L.J. Paulson, and J.E. Deacon. 1984. Factors affecting reproductive success of bonytail chubs and razorback sucker in Lake Mohave. Technical Report No. 12. Lake Mead Limnological Research Center, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Brandenburg, W.H., and M.A. Farrington. 2008. Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker larval fish survey in the San Juan river during 2007. American Southwest Ichthyological Researchers, L.L.C. Albuquerque, NM.



Brooks, J.E., L. Crist, L.A. Ahlm, R. Bliesner, M.J. Buntjer, W.P. Goettlicher, K. Lashmett, W.J. Miller, D.L. Propst, and D.W. Ryden. 1993. San Juan River Seven Year Research Program: Summary Report 1992. San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program, Dexter, NM.

37

Buntjer, M.J., T. Chart, and L. Lentsch. 1993. Early life history investigations. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.

Buntjer, M.J., T. Chart, and L. Lentsch. 1994. Early life history fishery survey of the San Juan River, New Mexico and Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.

Dalrymple, G.B. and W.K. Hamblin. 1998. K-Ar of Pleistocene lava dams in the Grand Canyon in Arizona. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. Vol. 95, pp. 9744-9749, August 1998, Geology.

Durst, S. 2012. 2012 Integrated PIT tag database summary of Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker in the San Juan River. Final Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Durst, S.L., and T.A. Francis. 2016. Razorback Sucker Transbasin Movement through Lake Powell, Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist 61(1): 60-63.

Francis, T.A., and C.W. McAda. 2011. Population size and structure of humpback chub, Gila cypha and roundtail chub, G. robusta, in Black Rocks, Colorado River, Colorado, 2007–2008. Final Report of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado.

Francis, T.A., D.W. Ryden, B.J. Schleicher¹. D.S. Elverud². 2013. San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) survey: 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado River Fishery Project, Grand Junction, Colorado¹. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab, Utah².

Furr, D.W. and J.E. Davis. 2009. Augmentation of the San Juan River razorback sucker population: 2008. Final Interim Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Furr, D.W. 2011. San Juan River Razorback Sucker Population Augmentation: 2010. Draft Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Furr, D.W. 2011. Augmentation of Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) in the San Juan River: 2010. Final Interim Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Furr, D. W. 2014. San Juan River razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus & Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius population augmentation: 2013. Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Gido, K.B., and D.L. Propst. 1994. San Juan River secondary channel community studies permanent study sites: 1993 Annual Report (Final). New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.

Lashmett, K. 1993. Fishery survey of the lower San Juan River and the upper Arm of Lake Powell (RM 4.0-[-]11.0) 1991/1992. Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, CO.

Lashmett, K. 1994. Fishery survey of the lower San Juan River and the upper Arm of Lake Powell (RM 4.0-[-]0.8) 1993. Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, CO.

Le Cren, E.D. 1951. The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition of the perch (Perca fluviatilis). Journal of Animal Ecology 20:201-219.

Maddux, R.H., L.A. Fitzpatrick, and W.A. Noonan. 1993. Colorado River endangered fishes Critical Habitat: Draft Biological Support Document and appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT.

McKay, T.S. 1990. Razorback sucker capture and transport in Lake Powell, April 1990. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.

Miller, R.R. 1958. Origins and affinities of the freshwater fish fauna of western North America. Pages 187-222 in: Hubbs, C.L. (editor). Zoogeography. Publication 51, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. 509 PP.

Minckley, W.L., D.A. Hendrickson, and C.E. Bond. 1986. Geography of western North American freshwater fishes: Description and relationships to intracontinental tectonism. Pages 519-614 in: C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley (editors). The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 866 pp.

Minckley, W.L. 1983. Status of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus (Abbott), in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Southwestern Naturalist 28:165-187.

http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/documents-publications/technical-reports/rsch/BlackRocks.pdf




38

Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Mueller, G., M. Horn, Q. Bradwisch, and L. Boobar. 2000. Examination of native fish recruitment and

description of the fish communities found in the San Juan and Colorado River interface zones of Lake Powell, Utah. U.S.D.I., U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 01-159.

Osmundson, D. B., and G. C. White. 2009. Population status and trends of Colorado pikeminnow of the Upper Colorado River, 1991–2005. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Platania, S.P. 1990. Biological summary of the 1987-1989 New Mexico-Utah ichthyofaunal study of the San Juan River. Report to the New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Ryden, D.W. 2000. Monitoring of experimentally stocked razorback sucker in the san Juan River: March 1994 through October 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO.

Ryden, D.W. 2009. Long term monitoring of sub-adult and adult large-bodied fishes in the San Juan River: 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO.

Ryden, D.W. 2011. Long term monitoring of sub-adult and adult large-bodied fishes in the San Juan River: 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO.

Ryden, D.W, and F.K. Pfeifer. 1993. Adult fish collections on the San Juan River (1991-1992): Annual Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO.

Ryden, D.W., and F.K. Pfeifer. 1994a. An experimental stocking plan for razorback sucker in the San Juan River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO.

Ryden, D.W., and F.K. Pfeifer. 1994b. Adult fish community monitoring on the San Juan River: 1993 Annual Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO.

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. 2011. Long-Range Plan. San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Schleicher, B. J. 2014. Long term monitoring of sub-adult and adult large-bodied fishes in the San Juan River: 2013. Interim Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO.

Snyder, D.E., and R.T. Muth. 1990. Descriptions and identification of razorback, flannelmouth, white, Utah, bluehead, and mountain sucker larvae and early juveniles. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Technical Publication No. 38.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) determined to be an endangered species. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register, 23 October 1991, 56:54957-54967.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Determination of critical habitat for the Colorado River

endangered fishes; razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register, 21 March 1994, 59:13374-13400.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO. 78 pp. + appendices.

Wege, G.J., and R.O. Anderson. 1978. Relative weight (Wr): a new index of condition for largemouth bass. Pages 79-91 in G.D. Novinger and J.G. Dillard, editors. New approaches to the management of small impoundments. American Fisheries Society, North Central Division, Special Publication 5, Betheda, Maryland.

White, G.C. and K. P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 Supplement, 120-138.

39

Affiliation of Individuals Cited as Personal Communication

Scott Durst. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Steve Platania. American Southwest Ichthyological Researcher’s L.L.C. Gary White. Colorado State University, Larval Fish Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO.

40

Appendices

Appendix 1. 2011 and 2012 San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell Razorback Sucker and hybrid stock and capture histories.

Capture Date

Capture Location

Lake Mile / (River Mile)

TL WT 400 kHz PIT Tag Number

134 kHz PIT Tag Number

134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking

Location Lake Mile / (River

Mile)

TL

4/13/2011 38.4(-17.1) 521 3D9257C69BF6Bc YES STOCK 7/27/2007 (158.6) 273

4/14/2011 39.7(-15.8) 449 1090 3D91C2D572324c NO

4/14/2011 39.4(-16.1) 485 1015 3D91C2D995B32c NO

4/19/2011 23.0(-32.5) 490 1042 4365351723 3D91C2C2D7689c NO STOCK 8/23/2004 (158.6) 296

3D91C2C2D7689c CAPTURE 5/22/2011 24.5 (-31.0) 490

4/19/2011 23.0(-32.5) 491 1590 3D9257C6BA6E3c YES STOCK 8/1/2007 (158.6) 276

4/20/2011 23.0(-32.5) 485 1490 3D91C2D996516 NO

4/20/2011 22.9(-32.6) 481 1240 3D9257C6BAC7Ec YES STOCK 4/23/2007 (158.6) 430

4/21/2011 23.0(-32.5) 577 2200 3D91C2D99C889 NO

4/26/2011 39.7(-15.8) 619 2300 3D91C2D19DC21c NO

4/27/2011 38.4(-17.1) 478 1320 3D91C2D585250c NO

4/27/2011 39.4(-16.1) 525 1400 426A362A77 3D91C2D999F38 NO STOCK 4/15/2004 (158.6) 346

5/11/2011 24.5(-31.0) 510 1540 3D91BF1A0265B YES STOCK 5/19/2005 (158.6) 316

5/11/2011 24.5(-31.0) 510 1250 3D9257C6B9D41a YES STOCK 6/28/2007 (158.6) 462

5/12/2011 24.5(-31.0) 536 1750 5324573949 3D91C2D999B26 NO STOCK 4/18/2007 (158.6) 389

41

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

5/15/2011 24.5(-31.0) 557 1760 3D91C2D584B00d NO CAPTURE 5/8/2012 38.0 (-17.5) 562

3D91C2D584B00d CAPTURE 6/7/2012 24.6 (-30.9) 553

5/18/2011 41.2(-14.3) 458 1030 441B03143B

* 3D91C2D998377 NO CAPTURE 9/2/2011 (130.0) 461

3D91C2D998377 CAPTURE 3/21/2012 (155.0) 455

5/19/2011 38.7(-16.8) 451 900 3D9257C691E99 YES STOCK 6/6/2007 (158.6) 270

5/19/2011 41.2(-14.3) 466 970 3D9257C69D05E YES STOCK 6/5/2007 (158.6) 256

3D9257C69D05E CAPTURE 9/21/2011 (166.6) 466

5/22/2011 24.5(-31.0) 495 1250 3D91BF1D86C72d YES STOCK 5/18/2005 (158.6) 358

3D91BF1D86C72d CAPTURE 5/27/2012 21.8 (-33.7) 496

5/22/2011 24.5(-31.0) 560 4504356E5E 3D91C2D99B8FC NO STOCK 7/13/2004 (158.6) 386

5/22/2011 24.5(-31.0) 512 1900 53256E4B25 3D91C2D99C89C NO STOCK 4/18/2007 (158.6) 389

5/22/2011 24.7(-30.8) 532 1600 3D9257C69C541d* YES CAPTURE 5/29/2012 22.0 (-33.5) 490

5/22/2011 24.5(-31.0) 487 1700 3D9257C6B7A54 YES STOCK 8/20/2007 (158.6) 246

5/23/2011 26.1(-29.4) 524 1800 3D91C2D997683d NO CAPTURE 5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 535

5/23/2011 26.1(-29.4) 492 1250 4269785742

3D91C2D99A8B7d &

3D91C2DF6BC17d NO STOCK 4/14/2004 (158.6) 332

4269785742

3D91C2D99A8B7d &

3D91C2DF6BC17d CAPTURE 5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 495

5/23/2011 24.5(-31.0) 503 1350 3D91C2D99CB24 NO

42

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

5/23/2011 24.5(-31.0) 530 1850 3D9257C69BA9A YES STOCK 8/14/2007 (158.6) 265

5/23/2011 26.1(-29.4) 517 1550 3D9257C6ACC3E YES STOCK 6/13/2007 (158.6) 455

5/24/2011 26.0(-29.5) 530 1450 4364441B15 3D91C2D584900 NO STOCK 8/24/2004 (158.6) 330

5/24/2011 26.1(-29.4) 495 1495 426A2B4939 3D91C2D592A16 NO STOCK 4/13/2004 (158.6) 345

5/25/2011 26.0(-29.5) 511 1400 3D91C2D580F53d NO CAPTURE 5/7/2012 38.2 (-17.3) 515

3D91C2D580F53d CAPTURE 5/14/2012 25.1 (-30.4)

6/7/2011 41.7(-13.8) 516 1310 4240070F2C 3D91C2D588E38 NO STOCK 10/30/200

1 (158.6) 375

6/7/2011 39.0(-16.5) 464 1090 3D9257C6BB8B3 YES STOCK 6/5/2007 (158.6) 243

6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) 451 750 3D91C2D56FF7D NO

6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) 498 1340 522A1A3277 3D91C2D5728CF NO STOCK 4/22/2002 (158.6) 285

6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) 524 1320 3D91C2D58BFBD NO CAPTURE 8/4/2011 (42.5) 520

6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) 536 1700 425C1E1A34 3D91C2D58C54C NO STOCK 4/14/2004 (158.6) 315

6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) 444 900 3D91C2D58F36B NO

6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) 477 890 3D9257C6B1552 YES STOCK 6/11/2007 (158.6) 221

3D9257C6B1552 CAPTURE 5/10/2012 (166.6) 484

3D9257C6B1552 CAPTURE 7/16/2013 (159.4) 495

6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) 440 840 3D9257C6B25F1 YES STOCK 5/22/2007 (158.6) 191

6/9/2011 38.2(-17.3) 541 1800 447B28395E 3D91C2D591DFF NO STOCK 7/13/2004 (158.6) 395

43

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

6/10/2011 38.2(-17.3) 448 1080 3D91C2D58EC8B NO

6/10/2011 38.2(-17.3) 472 990 426A406E65 3D91C2D592613d NO STOCK 4/13/2004 (158.6) 343

3D91C2D592613d CAPTURE 5/13/2012 25.0 (-30.5) 484

6/10/2011 38.2(-17.3) 449 890 3D9257C6B2CB5 YES STOCK 11/13/200

8 (166.6) 300

6/10/2011 38.1(-17.4) 481 1080 3D9257C6B81FF YES TAG 4/9/2008 (148.0) 430

6/12/2011 53.0(-2.5) 473 1100 3D91BF1CD4AD8d YES STOCK 8/30/2005 (158.6) 292

3D91BF1CD4AD8d CAPTURE 5/8/2012 38.7 (-16.8) 470

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 469 1000 3D91C2D580B13 NO

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 462 800 3D91C2D588325 NO

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 491 1200 3D91C2D58C081 NO

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 485 1100 3D91C2D58EA62 NO

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 490 1100 3D91C2D58FACE NO

6/12/2011 53.0(-2.5) 522 1400 3D91C2D5934F0 NO

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 473 900 3D9257C690DF8 YES TAG 6/27/2007 (38.9) 200

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 489 1100 3D9257C69CE1F YES STOCK 8/14/2006 (158.6) 253

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 462 1000 3D9257C6ACB06 YES STOCK 5/16/2007 (158.6) 305

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 429 1000 3D9257C6B2A17 YES STOCK 5/15/2007 (158.6) 239

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 460 1300 3D9257C6BA814 YES STOCK 8/15/2006 (158.6) 243

44

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

6/12/2011 51.5(-4.0) 452 1050 3D9257C6BC90E YES TAG 10/3/2007 (101.0) 290

6/13/2011 24.6(-30.9) 498 1520 3D91BF18E66D0 YES STOCK 6/27/2006 (158.6) 420

3D91BF18E66D0 CAPTURE 8/17/2011 (30.0) 503

3D91BF18E66D0 CAPTURE 9/6/2011 (83.0) 505

6/13/2011 24.4(-31.1) 510 1750 4269033A79 3D91C2D571C3F NO STOCK 4/14/2004 (158.6) 300

6/13/2011 24.6(-30.9) 510 1410 3D91C2D599BC1a NO

6/13/2011 24.6(-30.9) 530 1590 3D91C2D59C551 NO

6/13/2011 26.1(-29.4) 486 1400 3D91C2D59D24D NO CAPTURE 4/11/2012 (166.6) 475

6/13/2011 24.6(-30.9) 519 1320 44737D6100 3D91C2D5A6618 NO STOCK 7/13/2004 (158.6) 340

6/13/2011 26.1(-29.4) 546 2140 1F435D1C25 3D91C2D5A66CE NO STOCK 11/18/199

4 (117.5) 422

3D91C2D5A66CE CAPTURE 5/14/1995 (82.0) 422

3D91C2D5A66CE CAPTURE 4/16/1999 (100.2) 509

6/13/2011 26.1(-29.4) 525 1840 1F40171674 3D91C2D5A6DD6 NO STOCK 8/15/1995 0.0 389

6/13/2011 26.1(-29.4) 597 2460 3D91C2D5AA0AB NO

6/13/2011 24.6(-30.9) 465 1000 425C524158 3D91C2D5AC99F NO STOCK 4/13/2004 (158.6) 325

6/13/2011 26.1(-29.4) 517 1645 3D9257C69B689a YES STOCK 7/27/2006 (158.6) 432

6/14/2011 25.4(-30.1) 605 2100 3D91C2D58BC8E NO

6/14/2011 24.6(-30.9) 557 1860 42692B492A 3D91C2D59C43B NO STOCK 4/13/2004 (158.6) 332

45

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

6/14/2011 24.5(-31.0) 536 1690 447D763F6A 3D91C2D5A0492d NO STOCK 7/13/2004 (158.6) 385

3D91C2D5A0492d CAPTURE 6/8/2012 24.6 (-30.9) 553

6/14/2011 24.6(-30.9) 605 2080 3D91C2D5A059D NO

4/8/2012 38.2 (-17.3) 3D91C2D99B3ECc YES STOCK 2/3/2012 23.0 (-32.5) 406

4/9/2012 24 (-31.5) 462 910 3D9257C6AC9F1c YES STOCK 6/13/2007 (158.6) 400

4/26/2012 38.8 (-16.7) 485 975 3D91C2DF7BE95 NO

4/26/2012 38.8 (-16.7) 529 1650 3D91C2DF7C138c NO

4/27/2012 40 (-15.5) 525 1500 3D91BF1CD2470c YES STOCK 5/18/2005 (158.6) 315

5/3/2012 25 (-30.5) 510 1550 447D791C56 3D91C2DF799A1c NO STOCK 7/14/2004 (158.6) 383

5/4/2012 26.1 (-29.4) 520 1350 423F0E440E 3D91C2DF773F7c NO STOCK 10/30/200

1 (158.6) 375

5/5/2012 26.2 (-29.3) 482 1050 447B573413 3D91C2DF7CF52c NO STOCK 7/13/2004 (158.6) 355

5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 549 1700 3D91BF18E23BB YES STOCK 6/26/2006 (158.6) 385

5/7/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 522 1600 423F6E097E 3D91C2DF5A718 NO STOCK 10/31/200

1 (158.6) 375

5/7/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 507 1200 3D91C2DF5CCD2a NO

5/7/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 474 1200 3D91C2DF5DCB4a NO

5/7/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 605 3100 3D91C2DF65BF8 NO

5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 500 1150 3D91C2DF667AC NO

5/7/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 529 1200 3D91C2DF69376 NO

46

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 462 1240 3D9257C699123 YES STOCK 8/29/2006 (158.6) 247

5/7/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 477 1100 3D9257C6B9AD6 YES STOCK 8/31/2006 (158.6) 300

5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 555 2100 425B763D54 NO STOCK 4/13/2004 (158.6) 335

5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 495 1450 4269530D04 NO STOCK 4/14/2004 (158.6) 336

5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 492 1500 44787D6119 NO STOCK 7/13/2004 (158.6) 355

5/7/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 520 1490 447E144D58 NO STOCK 7/13/2004 (158.6) 335

425B763D54 CAPTURE

11/15/2004 20.5 (-35.0) 411

5/8/2012 38.2 (-17.3) 455 1100 3D91C2D5A770C YES STOCK 11/3/2010 166.6 370

5/8/2012 38.2 (-17.3) 505 1200 450451773F

3D91C2D5B1DBE &

3D91C2DF5CAE4 NO STOCK 7/14/2004 (158.6) 396

450451773F

3D91C2D5B1DBE &

3D91C2DF5CAE4 CAPTURE 3/28/2012 (28.6) 500

5/8/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 486 1350 3D91C2DF5BEAA NO CAPTURE 5/20/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 490

5/8/2012 38.2 (-17.3) 502 950 3D91C2DF636D7 NO

5/9/2012 41.7 (-13.8) 483 1250 3D91C2DF5D938 NO CAPTURE 6/9/2012 25.1 (-30.4) 480

5/9/2012 42 (-13.5) 480 950 3D91C2DF70A78 NO

5/9/2012 42 (-13.5) 556 1750 3D9257C6B8586 YES STOCK 8/21/2008 (147.9) 280

5/10/2012 41.7 (-13.8) 515 1450 3D91C2D9AE4AC YES TAG 9/25/2011 (97.0) 525

5/10/2012 42.1 (-13.4) 545 1900 44742C177C 3D91C2DF6FD14 NO STOCK 7/14/2004 (158.6) 395

47

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

5/10/2012 41.7 (-13.8) 473 1150 3D9257C69B976 YES STOCK 7/26/2006 (158.6) 417

3D9257C69B976 CAPTURE 5/18/2007 (17.0) 412

3D9257C69B976 CAPTURE 6/10/2008 (-6.5) 405

5/15/2012 25.2 (-30.3) 490 1200 4268523E1E NO STOCK 4/13/2004 (158.6) 352

5/15/2012 25.1 (-30.4) 510 1400 4366066D4E NO STOCK 8/23/2004 (158.6) 329

5/15/2012 24.6 (-30.9) 485 1200 4507112273 3D91C2D153BC4 YES STOCK 7/14/2004 (158.6) 330

3D91C2D153BC4 CAPTURE 9/15/2004 (158.6) 335

3D91C2D153BC4 CAPTURE 9/23/2011 (121.0) 488

5/19/2012 39(-16.5) 492 1200 3D91BF1D8AD98 YES STOCK 6/26/2006 (158.6) 254

3D91BF1D8AD98 CAPTURE 9/24/2011 (107.0) 487

5/19/2012 39.3 (-16.2) 519 1410 3D9257C69A299 YES STOCK 6/28/2006 (158.6) 337

5/20/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 503 1110 3D91C2DF5DBBC NO

5/20/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 502 1300 3D91C2DF77624 NO

5/20/2012 38 (-17.5) 506 1300 3D9257C6A01A2 YES STOCK 8/17/2007 (158.6) 252

5/20/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 487 890 3D9257C6B3920 YES STOCK 4/23/2007 (158.6) 422

5/20/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 540 1340 3D9257C6B8009 YES STOCK 8/28/2006 (158.6) 290

3D9257C6B8009 CAPTURE 9/22/2011 (125.0) 545

5/21/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 476 1200 3D91BF1A096B5 YES STOCK 5/18/2005 (158.6) 342

48

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

5/21/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 492 1250 3D91C2DF78992 NO

5/21/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 480 1000 3D9257C69B650 YES STOCK 7/24/2006 (158.6) 286

5/22/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 532 1550 3D91C2DF65C4Ca NO

5/23/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 560 1700 3D91C2DF61578 NO

5/23/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 486 1100 3D9257C66E085 YES STOCK 6/7/2007 (158.6) 242

6/1/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 507 1105 3D91C2D9964F1 NO

6/1/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 515 1500 3D91C2DF77D08 NO

6/2/2012 38.4 (-17.1) 495 1300 3D91BF1CD3E4E YES STOCK 3/30/2005 (158.6) 368

6/3/2012 38.6 (-16.9) 496 1150 3D91C2D9958A8 NO

6/3/2012 38.3 (-17.2) 472 1120 3D91C2D999B74 NO

6/4/2012 38.5 (-17.0) 511 1420 3D91C2D996761 NO

6/6/2012 24.7 (-30.8) 461 1050 3D91C2D5A0498 YES STOCK 11/3/2010 (166.6) 355

6/6/2012 24.6 (-30.9) 463 1200 3D91C2D5A6B2F YES STOCK 11/5/2010 (166.6) 403

3D91C2D5A6B2F CAPTURE 4/30/2011 (116.0) 393

6/6/2012 24.3 (-31.2) 535 1500 3D91C2D994326 NO

6/7/2012 25 (-30.5) 498 1090 426A1C5860 3D91C2D9A99AB YES STOCK 4/15/2004 (158.6) 340

3D91C2D9A99AB CAPTURE 9/25/2011 (98.0) 500

6/7/2012 25.6 (-29.9) 490 1400 3D91C2DF633DE NO

49

Capture Date

Capture Location




134 kHz PIT Tag

Recapture Contact

Type Date

Capture or Stocking


Mile)

TL

6/8/2012 25.1 (-30.4) 503 1080 3D9257C6B15F6 YES STOCK 6/12/2007 (158.6) 300

6/9/2012 26.1 (-29.4) 485 1000 426A08103F* 3D91C2DF5B436* NO

6/9/2012 26.1 (-29.4) 510 1200 3D91C2DF6352C NO

6/9/2012 26.1 (-29.4) 462 900 3D9257C6AE8E0 YES STOCK 6/13/2007 (158.6) 190

Razorback Sucker / Flannelmouth Sucker Hybrids

6/13/2011 24.6(-30.9) 511 1300 3D91C2D58F764a YES

6/14/2011 24.6(-30.9) 516 1400 3D91C2D5A687C NO CAPTURE 5/16/2012 24.6(-30.9) 526

a Fish captured twice during a single sampling trip in Lake Powell c Fish sonic tagged

d Fish Captured in Lake Powell in 2011 and 2012

* Fish captured with a PIT tag, but no record of the fish being tagged was found in the database.

d Fish Captured in Lake Powell in 2011 and 2012

50

Appendix 2. 2011 San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell Colorado Pikeminnow stock and capture histories.

2011 CAPTURE DATA FROM LAKE POWELL PROJECT STOCKING AND CAPTURE DATA FROM SAN JUAN RIVER Capture

Date Lake Mile /

(River Mile) of Capture

Gear TL SL WT 134 Khz PIT# Contact Type Stock/Tag Date

Stock/Tag RM

Stock / Tag TL

Year Class

4/15/2011 38.1(-17.4) TN 484 409 985 3D9257C698466 STOCK 7/20/2006 180.2 NA 2004 4/15/2011 39.4(-16.1) TN 470 395 710 3D9257C69EBD5 STOCK 4/18/2007 134.9 NA 2006 4/15/2011 39.8(-15.7) TN 276 235 170 3D91C2D1651A2* 4/15/2011 39.8(-15.7) TN 386 315 315 3D91C2D996879 4/25/2011 39.4(-16.1) TN 391 320 400 3D91C2C43ABF6 STOCK 3/17/2009 133.7 NA 2006 4/26/2011 37.3(-18.2) TN 308 250 190 5/18/2011 38.4(-17.1) TN 366 310 365 3D91C2C40AFC7 STOCK 3/17/2009 133.7 NA 2006 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 272 224 150 3D91C2C2D895A* 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 365 310 345 3D91C2D5480AE 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 458 390 535 3D91C2D58187B 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 323 270 190 3D91C2D581915 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 285 238 138 3D91C2D58C79C 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 298 250 153 3D91C2D58E907 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 228 190 80 3D91C2D591DE3 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 285 237 139 3D91C2D59C590 TAG 9/9/2010 124 258 2008 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 261 217 118 3D91C2D59D1D8 TAG 9/10/2010 121.0 230 2009 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 309 254 155 3D91C2D59D2CD TAG 9/9/2010 128.0 288 2008 6/8/2011 50.9(-4.6) EL 332 280 251 3D9257C697AA8 TAG 3/14/2010 33.7 199 2008 6/9/2011 41.8(-13.7) TN 423 349 3D9257C6B9732 STOCK 10/3/2007 134.9 NA 2006 6/9/2011 46.3(-9.2) EL 389 327 390 3D91C2D43B16C 6/9/2011 46.3(-9.2) EL 349 285 275 3D91C2D5A69E4 6/9/2011 46.3(-9.2) EL 519 440 940 3D9257C69DD39 STOCK 4/18/2007 134.9 NA 2006

6/12/2011 53.0(-2.5) EL 265 210 100 3D91C2D571A41 6/12/2011 53.0(-2.5) EL 285 235 70 3D91C2D58F6CE 5/10/2012 41.3(-14.2) TN 355 257 200 3D91C2D9999DC STOCK 5/18/2011 1.0 ** 258 2009

* Fish captured with a PIT tag, but no record of the fish being tagged was found in the database. ** Fish stocked in Animas River

51

Appendix 3. San Juan River negative river miles (RM) converted to the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell’s lake miles (LM).

River Mile (RM) Lake Mile (LM) River Mile (RM) Lake Mile (LM) -1.1 54 -18.1 37 -2.1 53 -19.1 36

-3.1 52 -20.1 35 -4.1 51 -21.1 34

-5.1 50 -22.1 33 -6.1 49 -23.1 32

-7.1 48 -24.1 31 -8.1 47 -25.1 30 -9.1 46 -26.1 29

-10.1 45 -27.1 28 -11.1 44 -28.1 27

-12.1 43 -29.1 26 -13.1 42 -30.1 25 -14.1 41 -31.1 24

-15.1 40 -32.1 23 -16.1 39 -33.1 22

-17.1 38

52

Appendix 4. Percentage of stocked Razorback Sucker captured in the San Juan River and the San Juan Arm of

Lake Powell in 2011 and 2012.

53

Appendix 5. Historical Collections of Razorback Sucker in Lake Powell, Outside of the Lake Powell Razorback Sucker

Survey of 2011, 2012, and 2014

Final Report 25 September 2014

Funded by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Salt Lake City Projects Office

Interagency Acquisition # R11PG40009

Submitted by:

Dale W. Ryden

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado River Fishery Project

445 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 140 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501

INTRODUCTION This document has been prepared as an appendix for the 2012 annual report on Razorback Sucker collections in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell (Francis et al. 2015). The primary purpose of this literature search was to quantify numbers of Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) historically-collected in Lake Powell and to help inform decisions guiding future research, specifically where to look in Lake Powell in

54

order to study additional aggregations of this species. The tables contained in this appendix represent all of the known captures of endangered Razorback Sucker within the boundaries of Lake Powell from studies other than the Lake Powell Razorback Sucker Survey of 2011, 2012, and 2014 conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Data collected during the 2011 and 2012 survey of the San Juan River Arm and the 2014 survey of the Colorado River Arm of Lake Powell (Francis et al. 2013, Francis et al. 2015) aren’t included in these tables. Data in these tables comes from a wide variety of source materials, including agency reports, journal articles, emails, FAXes, and various databases. The primary source information is often vague and confusing. Additionally, several different sources may cite the same fish collections with varying degrees of information being presented in each separate source. In areas where this happened, an effort was made to list all of the known data presented in multiple sources (e.g., date of capture, length, weight, collection site, etc.), as well as to list all appropriate data sources from which that information was taken. An effort was made to complete the historical capture tables as thoroughly as possible. However, in many cases at least some data was missing, even if a fish was referred to by multiple sources. Fish with colored text for their PIT tag numbers indicate fish that were captured in multiple years, with the same text color relating to the same individual across years. One thing that became clear during this literature search was that Razorback Sucker have been collected in Lake Powell over a large span of years, from 1982-2012 in the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell and from 1972 to 2014 in the Colorado River Arm and in the main body of the lake. As can be seen from the tables in this appendix, the large majority of the Razorback Sucker collections occurred in the two river arms of the lake. This seems to be directly related to the fact that the large majority of investigative fisheries work has taken place in these locations. In the few instances when data for fisheries investigations in the main lake could be found, Razorback Sucker were present at those locations also.

55

Table 1. All other known collections of Razorback Sucker from the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell. This table includes TL and location first-time captures of individual fish. Subsequent recaptures and growth information are not included in this table.

Collection

Date

Collection Site Number Of Fish

Gear

Agency/Collector (Data Source)

Pit Tag Number (Sex)

TL in mm (WT in g)

Stocking Date & (RM Stocked At)

Year-Class

4/20/1982

“Piute Farms”

6

Gill Net

UDWR – Wahweap (UDWR database)

Wild Fish

11/14/1983

“Neskahi”

1

Gill Net


550

Wild Fish

11/14/1984

“Neskahi”

1

Gill Net


545

Wild Fish

3/20/1987 to

3/30/1987

RM 0.0 Near the concrete boat ramp at Piute

Farms Marina

12

Gill Net/ Trammel Net

University of New Mexico – Museum of

Southwestern Biology

(Platania 1990, Platania et al. 1991)

(M) 7F7F366926 (M)

(M) (F) (F)

7F7F366B02 (M) (F)

7F7F365964 (M) (M) (M) (M)

1990 Mortality (M)

546 (2060) 572 (2500) 572 (2350) 635 (3300) 675 (3500) 554 (2320) 625 (2900) 572 (2390) 605 (2800) 589 (2810) 581 (2650) 561 (2370)

Wild Fish

3/28/1988

to 3/30/1988

RM 0.0

Near the concrete boat ramp at Piute

Farms Marina

4 “new” (+ 6

recaps from 1987)

Trammel Net

UNM – Museum of Southwestern

Biology (Platania 1990,

Platania et al. 1991)

646 (3400) 595 (2550) 570 (2300) 675 (3600)

Wild Fish

11/14/1989

“Neskahi”

1

Gill Net

UDWR – Wahweap database

601 (2550)

Wild Fish

56

Table 1. Continued. Collection

Date


Gear



TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

4/3/1990

Between Mike’s Canyon and

Copper Canyon on the San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell

14

(4 were recaps from

1987 – see

colors)

Trammell Net

UDWR – Wahweap (UDWR database;

McKay 1990)

7F7F366926 (M) 7F7F365964 (M)

Mortality (M) 7F7F366B02 (M) 7F7F365C29 (M)

Mortality (M) 7F7F366F77 (M) 7F7F36591E (M) 7F7F18780C (F) 7F7F36607A (F) 7F7F36275F (F) 7F7E605000 (M) 7F7F36634D (F)

Escaped (F)

585 (2400) 583 (2400) 559 (2250) 568 (2060) 590 (2680) 595 (2270) 557 (2100) 578 (2700) 682 (3540) 580 (2720) 653 (3200) 575 (2000) 676 (3880)

637

Wild Fish

4/4/1991

At or near Nokai

Canyon

1

Trammel Net

FAX with header: Dec-5-91 Thursday 9:12 Vernal CRFP

7F7F187C5A (F)

641 (2720)

Wild Fish

4/5/1991

At or near Nokai

Canyon

2

Trammel Net

FAX with header: Dec-5-91 Thursday 9:12 Vernal CRFP

7F7F19036C (F?)

7F7F187B63 (M)

650 (2910)

644 (2590)

Wild Fish

4/17/1992 To

4/18/1992

“… extreme upper San Juan River Arm of Lake

Powell” “… in a cove off the south side of Lake Powell near

RM -10.0”

3

Trammel Net

UDWR (Lashmett 1993)

Wild Fish

3/16/1995

RM -8.5

1

Trammel Net

National Park Service (San Juan River

Basin RIP database)

1F43686353

427

10/27/1994 (79.6)

1992

7/13/1999

RM 2.0 “Piute Farms”

1

Trammel Net

USGS – Denver (Mueller et al. 2000)

5220551C28

489 (1495)

Unknown – thought to be a stocked fish

?

57


Date


Gear



TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

08/17/1999


1

Trammel Net


7F7B1B5402

467 (1075)

04/22/1998 (158.6)

1993

10/5/1999

RM 1.1 & RM 0.7

“Piute Farms”

2

Trammel Net

USGS – Denver

(Mueller et al. 2000)

1F75115803 7F7B18014B

532 (1590) 490 (1320)

08/15/1995 (0.0)

05/28/1998 (158.6)

1992 1993

10/7/1999


1

Trammel Net


7F7B12155F

459 (1048)

05/28/1998 (158.6)

1993

5/2/2000

“… just downstream of Piute Farms”

2

Larval

Light Traps

USGS – Denver


Larvae

2000

6/06/2000

RM 0.0

“Piute Farms”

3

Trammel Net

USGS – Denver


1F41482038 1F6B2B7356 7F7B11352B

492 (1294) 472 (1202) 485 (982)

11/18/1994 (158.6) 08/15/1995 (0.0)

04/22/1998 (158.6)

1992 1992 1993

6/07/2000

RM -4.0 “Mike’s Canyon”

1

Trammel Net


1F732D724F

505 (1392)

11/18/1994 (136.6)

1992

6/27/2000


1

Electrofishing


1F412A2D49

505 (1466)

11/18/1994 (117.5)

1992

6/28/2000


1

Trammel Net


1F4E594773

495 (1390)

Unknown – thought to be a stocked fish

7/18/2000

RM -2.4 “Piute Farms”

1

Electrofishing


1F43686353

522 (1540)

10/27/1994 (79.6)

1992

6/03/2003

San Juan River Arm of Lake

Powell

2

Gill Net

USGS Coop. Unit at Utah State Univ. (Email from Gary

Thiede dated 6/16/2004; USGS

database)

Unknown

~ 530 (21”) ~ 530 (21”)

Unknown (no PIT tag reader)

? ?

7/30/2003


Powell

1

Gill Net



database)

Unknown

495 (1386)


?

58


Date


Gear



TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

2003

exact dates unknown

“One point upstream of

Neskahi Wash” UTM =

530072E 4116747N

1

Gill Net

UDWR - Wahweap (Email from Quent

Bradwisch dated 08/28/2003)

1F5B36222E

500 (1421)

08/08/1995 (0.0)

1992

2003

exact dates unknown

“… in the area of Neskahi Wash”

3

Gill Net

UDWR - Wahweap (Email from Quent

Bradwisch dated 08/28/2003)

? ? ?

? ? ?

3 Unknown

(no PIT tag reader)

? ? ?

May 2004


Powell

1

Unknown


Thiede dated 6/16/2004)

?

?


?

11/04/2004

to 11/05/2004

Neskahi Wash (~RM -30.6)

3

Gill Net

UDWR - Wahweap (Email from Wayne Gustaveson dated 30

November 2004)

425B763D54 425C1F0E44 4268686119

411 (667)

448 (1070) 470 (1130)

04/13/2004 (158.6) 04/14/2004 (158.6) 04/13/2004 (158.6)

2001 2001 2001

07/28/2005

RM -1.1

1

Cast Net

UDWR – Moab (Email from Julie

Jackson dated 8/8/2005;

Jackson 2006)

(7F7B142B34 &

3D91BF18D6853)

~ 450

05/28/1998 (158.6)

1993

08/24/2005

RM -1.1

2

Cast Net

UDWR - Moab (Jackson 2006)

3D91BF1E9BE0B (4220700E12 &

3D91BF1D8B884)

482

458

Unknown

Unknown

? ?

8/14/2006

RM -1.1

1

Cast Net

UDWR – Moab (Elverud & Jackson

2007; San Juan River Basin RIP database)

(426B1D7261 &

3D91BF18BFEE3)

514

4/13/04 (158.6)

2001

59

Table 1. Continued.

Collection Date

Collection Site

Number Of Fish

Gear

Agency & (Collector)


TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

10/31/2006

to 11/1/2006


4

Gill Net


441E215133 423E581A63 425B083239 44742C1776

485 (1144) 535 (1678) 437 (999)

500 (1380)

Unknown 10/30/01 (158.6) 4/14/04 (158.6)

Unknown

? 1999 2001

?

7/12/2007

RM -1.1

1

Angling UDWR – Moab

(Elverud 2008; San Juan River Basin RIP

database)

3D91BF1E89192

460

5/17/05 (158.6)

2002

8/13/2007

RM -1.1

1

Cast Net

UDWR – Moab (Elverud 2008; San

Juan River Basin RIP database)

(426B370B27 &

3D9257C69341E)

424

4/13/2004

(158.6)

2001

11/06/2007 to

11/07/2007


2

Gill Net


508 (1351) 501 (1420)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader)

? ?

06/10/2008

RM -3.8 RM -5.5 RM -9.5

RM -11.5

RM -3.8 RM -6.5

RM -9.5

7

Electrofishing

UDWR - Moab (Elverud 2009; San

Juan River Basin RIP database)

3D9257C697544 3D9257C69C6D0 3D9257C6AE6A1 (425A3A4B20 &

3D9257C6B90ED) (5229117968 &

3D9257C6BA328) 3D9257C69B976 (52283D1348 &

3D9257C6BC079)

411 309 245

495

464 405

510

Unknown Unknown Unknown

4/14/04 (158.6)

4/26/04 (158.6)

7/26/2006 (158.6)

4/14/2003 (158.6)

? ? ?

2001

2002 2001

2001

7/22/2008

RM -1.1

3

Cast Net

UDWR - Moab

(Elverud 2009; San Juan River Basin RIP

database)

3D91BF1CD424C (43650A4B2B & 3D9257698598)

3D91BF1CD3F61

439

524 444

5/18/05 (158.6)

8/24/04 (158.6) 5/19/05 (158.6)

2002

2000 2002

60

Table 1. Continued.

Collection Date

Collection Site

Number Of Fish

Gear

Agency & (Collector)


TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

11/04/2008 To

11/12/2008


2

Gill Net


394

412 (709)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader)

? ?

11/04/2008 To

11/12/2008


2

Gill Net


394

412 (709)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader)

? ?

11/17/2009


2

Gill Net


513 (1636) 415 (850)


? ?

11/10/2010


1

Gill Net


526 (1700)


?

11/13/2012 to

11/14/2012


2

Gill Net

UDWR – Wahweap (email from George Blommer to Krissy

Wilson, dated 11/30/2012)

493 (1433) 575 (2000)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader)

? ?

61

Table 2. All other known collections of Razorback Sucker that occurred within the bounds of Lake Powell, but outside of the San Juan River Arm. This table includes TL and location first-time captures of individual fish. Subsequent recaptures and growth information are not included in this table. Collection

Date


Gear



TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

3/14/1972

CO River Arm – “Rincon Bay”

(downstream of Bullfrog Bay)

2

Gill Net


Wild Fish

3/16/1973

CO River Arm – “Red Canyon” (east of Good

Hope Bay)

1

Gill Net


Wild Fish

3/20/1975

CO River Arm – “Good Hope Bay”

1

Gill Net


616 (3025)

Wild Fish

4/16/1980 To

6/18/1980

CO River Arm – Gypsum Canyon

6

Gill Net

USGS Coop. Unit at Utah State Univ.

(Persons et al. 1981)

Wild Fish

5/16/1980

To 5/18/1980

CO River Arm –

at or near Gypsum Canyon

4

“Trammel

Nets, Gill Nets, Electrofishing”

USFWS – CRFP

Grand Junction, CO (Valdez et al. 1982)

526 (1530) 500 (1244) 458 (1620) 520 (1832)

Wild Fish

6/10/1980

CO River Arm – at or near Gypsum

Canyon

1

“Trammel Nets, Gill Nets, Electrofishing”

USFWS – CRFP Grand Junction, CO (Valdez et al. 1982)

557 (1990)

Wild Fish

4/8/1990 Or

4/11/1990

CO River Arm – “Dirty Devil

Arm” (along NW shore,

0.8 miles downstream of the

mouth of the Dirty Devil Arm)

4

Gill Net Electrofish

Gill Net Electrofish

UDWR – Wahweap (UDWR database;

McKay 1990)

7F7F366363 (M) 7F7F365329 (M) 7F7F36607B (M) 7F7F365275 (F)

571 (2260) 558 (1880) 609 (2300) 615 (2940)

Wild Fish

62


Date


Gear


Pit Tag Number

TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

5/24/1980 To

7/22/1980

CO River Arm – Gypsum Canyon

11

Gill Net


(Persons et al. 1981)

Wild Fish

4/16/1991

CO River Arm – “Hite area” near

Dirty Devil inflow

1

Trammel Net

(FAX with header: Dec-5-91 Thursday 9:12 Vernal CRFP)

7F7F190442 (F?)

661 (3000)

Wild Fish

4/25/1991


Dirty Devil inflow

1

Trammel Net


7F7F187873 (M)

558 (2500)

Wild Fish

4/26/1991


Dirty Devil inflow

2

Electrofish

Trammel Net


7F7F19081D (F?)

7F7F19082D (M)

632 (2800)

569 (2220)

Wild Fish

5/16/2000

CO River Arm – “Sheep Canyon”

1

Trammel Net


7F7D16594F Mort

459 (1032)

Vernal, UT (Green RM 319)

10/28/2003

CO River Arm –

“Trachyte Canyon”

1

Gill Net



database)

410


?

8/7/2005

CO River Arm –

“Trachyte”

1

Gill Net


(Budy et al. 2005; USGS database)

362 (454)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader

?

11/1/2005

CO River Arm –

“Bullfrog”

1

Gill Net



439 (850)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader

?

11/4/2005

CO River Arm –

“Trachyte”

1

Gill Net



453 (862)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader

?

63

Table 2. Continued.

Collection Date

Collection Site

Number Of Fish

Gear


Pit Tag Number

TL in mm (WT in g)


Year-Class

11/14/2006

Main lake – “Wahweap/Warm

Creek bays”

2

Gill Net


405 (791) 428 (811)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader)

? ?

11/4/2008


1

Gill Net


394


?

11/2/2010


1

Gill Net


489


?

11/15/2012

Main lake – “Wahweap”

1

Gill Net

UDWR – Wahweap (Email from George

Blommer dated 11/30/2012)

562 (2145)

Unknown

(no PIT tag reader)

?

64

LITERATURE CITED Agency Reports: Budy, P. Vatland, S. and G. P. Thiede. 2006. Lake Powell food web dynamics. Final

Report to the USGS Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 102 pp.

Elverud, D. S. 2008. Nonnative control in the lower San Juan River, 2007. Interim Progress Report for the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab, UT. 37 pp.

Elverud, D. S. 2009. Nonnative control in the lower San Juan River, 2008. Interim Progress Report for the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab, UT. 37 pp.

Elverud, D. S., and J. A. Jackson. 2007. Nonnative control in the lower San Juan River, 2006. Interim Progress Report for the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab, UT. 35 pp.

Francis, T. A., D. W. Ryden, B. J. Schleicher, and D. S. Elverud. 2013. San Juan River Arm of Lake Powell Razorback Sucker Survey: 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO. 44 pp.

Jackson, J. A. 2006. Nonnative control in the lower San Juan River, 2005. Interim Progress Report for the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab, UT. 32 pp.

Lashmett, K. 1993. Fishery survey of the lower San Juan River and the upper Arm of Lake Powell (RM 4.0-[-]11.0) 1991/1992. Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, CO. 57 pp.

McKay, T. S. 1990. Razorback sucker capture and transport in Lake Powell, April 1990. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 6 pp.

Mueller, G., M. Horn, Q. Bradwisch, and L. Boobar. 2000. Examination of native fish recruitment and description of the fish communities found in the San Juan and Colorado River interface zones of Lake Powell, Utah. U.S.D.I., U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 01-159. 43 pp.

Persons, W. R., R. V. Bulkley, and W. R. Noonan. 1981. Movements and feeding of adult striped bass, Colorado River inlet, Lake Powell, 1980-1981. Pages 254-274 in Part 3, Colorado River Fisheries Project, Final Report Contracted Studies, ed. W. H. Miller, J. J. Valentine, D. L. Archer, H. M. Tyus, R. A. Valdez, and L. R. Kaeding. Final report for the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 9-07-40-L-1016, Memorandum of understanding CO-910-MU9-933, U. S. Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT.

Platania, S. P. 1990. Biological summary of the 1987-1989 New Mexico-Utah ichthyofaunal study of the San Juan River. Report to the New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT. 143 pp.

65

Valdez, R., P. Mangan, R. Smith, and B. Nilson. 1982. Upper Colorado River investigation (Rifle, Colorado to Lake Powell, Utah). Pages 100-279 in Part 2, Colorado River Fisheries Project, Final Report Contracted Studies, ed. W. H. Miller, J. J. Valentine, D. L. Archer, H. M. Tyus, R. A. Valdez, and L. R. Kaeding. Final report for the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 9-07-40-L-1016, Memorandum of understanding CO-910-MU9-933, U. S. Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT.

Journal Articles: Platania, S. P., K. R Bestgen, M. A. Moretti, D. L. Propst, and J. E. Brooks. 1991. Status

of Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker in the San Juan River, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Southwestern Naturalist 36(1):147-150.

Emails: Blommer, George (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wahweap Warmwater

Hatchery, Big Water, UT) to Krissy Wilson (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT). Email dated 30 November 2012.

Bradwisch, Quent (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wahweap Warmwater Hatchery, Big Water, UT) to Dale Ryden (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado River Fishery Project, Grand Junction, CO). Email dated 28 August 2003.

Gustaveson, Wayne (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wahweap Warmwater Hatchery, Big Water, UT) to Quent Bradwisch (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wahweap Warmwater Hatchery, Big Water, UT). Email dated 30 November 2004.

Jackson, Julie (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab Field Station, Moab, UT) to Dale Ryden (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado River Fishery Project, Grand Junction, CO). Email dated 8 August 2005.

Thiede, Gary (USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan, UT) to Chuck McAda (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado River Fishery Project, Grand Junction, CO). Email dated 16 June 2004.

FAXes: Sender and receiver unknown. FAX with header: Dec-5-91 Thursday 9:12 Vernal CRFP. Databases: San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Albuquerque, NM. PIT tag database for endangered razorback sucker. Provided as an Excel spreadsheet via email attachment by Scott Durst, U. S. Fish and wildlife service, Albuquerque, NM.

66

U. S. Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT. Database for the Lake Powell Food Web Dynamics Project (2003-2005). Provided as an Excel spreadsheet via email attachment by Mark McKinstry, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wahweap Warmwater Hatchery, Big Water, UT. Database of native fishes collected in Lake Powell (1971-2011). Provided as an Excel spreadsheet via email attachment by Krissy Wilson, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.

67

Appendix 6. 2012 San Juan Arm of Lake Powell Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow tissue sample results for selenium and mercury.

Lab# PIT Tag Species Se (ppm dw)

MOIST (%)

Hg (ppm dw) SampleType Sub_Type

Lab Sample Weight Project#

Client Project#

T3035-001 3D91C2DF7BE95 XYRTEX 2.57 66.4 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.038 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-002 3D91C2DF7BE95 XYRTEX 3.6 72.4 Tissue Egg 0.8685 6060121 F13PD01106 T3035-003 3D91C2DF61578 XYRTEX 2.8 78.2 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.2265 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-004 3D91C2DF61578 XYRTEX 4.05 77.8 Tissue Egg 0.112 6060121 F13PD01106 T3035-005 3D91C2D5A687C XYRCAT 3.72 76.4 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1015 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-006 3D91C2D5A687C XYRCAT 4.55 70.7 Tissue Egg 0.1085 6060121 F13PD01106 T3035-007 3D91C2D997683 XYRTEX 2.71 102 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.119 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-008 3D91C2DF5A718 XYRTEX 2.45 76 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1446 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-009 3D91C2D584B00 XYRTEX 3.12 73 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0829 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-010 3D91BF1D86C72 XYRTEX 2.43 69.5 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.118 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-011 3D9257C69C541 XYRTEX 2.58 75.3 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.2038 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-012 3D91C2DF69376 XYRTEX 2.52 70.6 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0626 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-013 3D91C2D592613 XYRTEX 3.03 69.6 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0442 6060121 F13PD01106

68


MOIST (%)



Client Project#

T3035-014 3D91C2DF7C138 XYRTEX 2.56 75.2 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1465 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-015 3D91BF1CD2470 XYRTEX 2.74 75 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0905 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-016 3D91C2DF773F7 XYRTEX 2.36 69.5 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0501 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-017 3D91C2DF799A1 XYRTEX 2.19 67 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0734 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-018 3D91C2DF7CF52 XYRTEX 3.09 73 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0765 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-019 3D91C2D5A6B2F XYRTEX 1.35 62.2 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.09 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-020 3D91C2DF6BC17 XYRTEX 2.63 72.9 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0801 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-021 3D91C2DF70A78 XYRTEX 2.5 79.6 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1008 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-022 3D91C2DF5D938 XYRTEX 2.45 74 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0998 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-023 3D91C2DF5BEAA XYRTEX 2.56 74.6 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0942 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-024 3D91C2DF5DCB4 XYRTEX 2.74 77.9 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1827 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-025 3D91C2D9999DC PTYLUC 2.03 80.1 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1971 6060121 F13PD01106


Muscle Plug 0.2897 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-027 3D91C2DF6FD14 XYRTEX 2.74 72.1 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1171 6060121 F13PD01106

69


MOIST (%)



Client Project#

T3035-028 3D9257C6B9AD6 XYRTEX 1.91 71.6 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0726 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-029 3D91C2DF636D7 XYRTEX 2.95 76.8 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0531 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-030 3D91C2DF5CCD2 XYRTEX 3.16 77.5 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.149 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-031 3D91C2DF5CAE4 XYRTEX 1.97 74 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0518 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-032 3D91C2DF65BF8 XYRTEX 3.24 79.3 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0741 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-033 3D91BF18E23BB XYRTEX 2.9 78.3 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.2087 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-034 3D91C2D580F53 XYRTEX 2.13 72.3 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0567 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-035 3D9257C699123 XYRTEX 1.48 61.2 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0465 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-036 4268523E1E XYRTEX 2.06 72.5 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0578 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-037 3D91BF1CD4AD8 XYRTEX 2.7 74.4 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1074 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-038 4366066D4E XYRTEX 2.74 75.4 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0622 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-039 3D91C2D153BC4 XYRTEX 3.07 76.3 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.1025 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-040 3D91C2D5A770C XYRTEX 2.02 71.2 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0162 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-041 3D91C2D5A0498 XYRTEX 2.32 68.7 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0577 6060121 F13PD01106

70


MOIST (%)



Client Project#

T3035-042 3D9257C6B8586 XYRTEX 2.17 71.6 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0886 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-043 3D91C2DF667AC XYRTEX 2.48 72.4 Tissue

Muscle Plug 0.0535 6060121 F13PD01106


Muscle Plug 0.2372 6060121 F13PD01106


Muscle Plug 0.3457 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-046 LabQC2976a

Lab QC 2976 1.8 <0.01 Tissue 1 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-047 LabQC2976b

Lab QC 2976 1.78 <0.01 Tissue 1 6060121 F13PD01106

T3035-048 LabQC2976c

Lab QC 2976 1.79 <0.01 Tissue 1 6060121 F13PD01106

Selenium - ICP-Mass Spec Analysis Animal Tissue; Total Mercury (Inorg.) Contact: Barb Osmundson US Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 6 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand Junction, CO 81501-5720 970-628-7189 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

71

Proposed expansion of coal-fired power plants in the Four Corners area, and associated increased loads of selenium (Se) and mercury (Hg) from these plants present a situation where knowledge of current selenium and mercury loads in endangered fish represents a data gap that needed to be addressed. This study proposed the collection of nonlethal muscle tissue samples from 40 Razorback Sucker, and all Colorado Pikeminnow (with the exception of those implanted with transponders) captured in the San Juan Arm of Lake Powell. The Razorback Sucker muscle plugs were taken concurrently from the same fish that are fin-clipped for stable isotope analysis, to determine their natal site of origin. The Razorback Sucker muscle plugs were analyzed for selenium, and the Colorado Pikeminnow muscle plugs will be analyzed for mercury and selenium. The rationale for such coordination was that the origin of the fish from within Lake Powell or San Juan River will affect Se/Hg tissue concentrations. The fact that larval sampling will also be conducted in these same locations was an opportunity to determine if successful reproduction is occurring, and the associated selenium and mercury tissue loads of adult fish.

san juan river arm of lake powell razorback sucker ... · tables table 1. 2011 and 2012 native fish...

Documents