2006 Grand Canyon Long-term Fish Monitoring

Colorado River, Diamond Creek to Lake Mead

2006 Trip Report

May 23–May 29, 2006
Trip ID: GC20060523

Prepared for:

U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
2255 N. Gemini Drive
Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Prepared by:

Michael W. Ackerman1,
David Ward2,
Teresa Hunt2,
Scott Rogers2,
David R. Van Haverbeke3,
and
Annette Morgan4

July 2006
1
SWCA Environmental Consultants, 114 North San Francisco Street, Suite 100, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

2
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, 506 North Grant Street, Suite L, Flagstaff, AZ
86004
3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fishery Resource Office – Flagstaff, 323 North Leroux Street,
Suite 401, Flagstaff, AZ 86001
4
Hualapai Tribe, Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 179, Peach Springs, AZ, 86434
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 2006 Trip Report for Trip ID:GC20060523 provides a summary of methods and preliminary
observations from the 2006 Diamond down monitoring. This report will be followed by an
annual report prepared for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center that will provide
further analysis of fish monitoring in the Colorado River downstream of Diamond Creek.

May 2006 was the third long-term monitoring trip for fish downriver of Diamond Creek since
1996. These trips are part of an ongoing, long-term monitoring program designed to determine
trends in relative density and distribution of fish within the Colorado River between Lake Powell
and Lake Mead. Monitoring below Diamond Creek was initiated in 2004 as an extension to the
current monitoring program for Grand Canyon fishes. With recent higher river temperatures in
the Colorado River, it has become increasingly important to understand the distribution and
potential sources of warm-water non-native fish species within the Colorado River Ecosystem
including the area from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead.

2.0 METHODS
Personnel

Fish biologists from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), SWCA Environmental
Consultants (SWCA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), conducted the third
Diamond Down monitoring trip during May 23 through May 29, 2006, and were assisted by the
Hualapai Department of Natural Resources (HDNR) and volunteers. Logistical support and
equipment were provided by GCMRC, and Humphrey Summit and Support, Inc. (HSS) provided
boat operators for the trip. Crewmembers, sampling duties, and associated agencies, are listed in
Table 1.

Electrofishing Effort

Electrofishing surveys were conducted May 23 through May 29, 2006, between RM 226 and
276.5 in the mainstem Colorado River. All surveys were conducted soon after nightfall
(~2000 hours) and typically continued for about 4 hours each night. Two 16’ Achilles inflatable
sport boats each outfitted for electrofishing were utilized. Two netters and one boat operator
occupied each boat during sampling. Each of the two boats were outfitted with a Coeffelt CPS
output regulator that applied an average of 350 volts and 15 amps to a spherical steel anode.

Each sample collected during surveys consisted of a single electrofishing pass approximately
300 seconds in duration along the shoreline. The sample universe (RM 226–276.5) was divided
into fishable reaches with randomly selected river miles on the right and left side. Fishable
reaches were defined by campsite availability and location of impassable navigational hazards
such as rapids. With few exceptions, shoreline transects were contiguous. Transect start and stop
coordinates were recorded with a Garmin III GPS and river miles were estimated using a Stevens
Colorado River Guide.

1
Angling Effort

AGFD personnel employed a series of experimental angling surveys to test the efficacy of
angling for use in monitoring fish species less susceptible to conventional electrofishing or
netting gears (i.e. channel catfish, striped bass, etc.). Terminal tackle (size 6 Mustad worm
hook), line weight (8 lb), bait type (earthworm), set up (1/2 oz. egg sinker with swivel set up as a
Carolina rig), and angler effort were all standardized to minimize bias. Randomly selected eddies
and/or pools as well as campsites were fished each day, with the number of sites fished per day
depending on the distance needed to be traveled to the next camp location. Four anglers sampled
most sites for 20 minutes per site. On one occasion, the same site was fished for 3 consecutive
20-minute periods to calculate a depletion estimate. At each site, species, total length, and angler
effort were recorded, and GPS waypoints were taken.

Netting Effort

SWCA and USFWS biologists sampled with trammel and hoop nets in a stratified random
distribution, between river miles 230 and 271, using two aluminum-hulled Osprey boats. During
netting procedures, one boat operator and two net and fish handlers occupied each boat.

Trammel netting was conducted in suitable habitats with 75'× 6'× 1" × 12" (length × width ×
mesh × panel) trammel nets. Netting boats set 5 trammel nets on opposite river sides for a total
of 10 samples per night. Each trammel net was set at approximately 1700 to 1800 hours, and
fished for three ~2-hour sets for a total of ~6 hours. Trammel nets were typically set at current
separation points where an eddy current and a main current diverge, also known as eddy fences.
On the occasion that a trammel net became entangled in debris or swept against/towards the
shoreline, the netters moved or discontinued the trammel net set at their discretion.

Hoop nets were set in the afternoon (~1500 to 1630 hours), with the exception of May 27, when
hoop nets were set mid-morning (~1000 hours) due to logistics. Nets were set in suitable
locations with low velocity along the shoreline. Nets were set at depths of 3 meters or less, but
deep enough to ensure that nets would not be exposed during fluctuating flows. Each of the two
netting boats set 18 hoop nets apiece per day for a total of 36 samples (18 on each river side) per
night. Hoop nets were set overnight and placed in pods of three in suitable locations.

Seining efforts were focused on nearshore areas, backwaters, and suitable tributary habitats.
In 2006, seining was conducted in lower Spencer (RM 246) and Surprise (RM 248.7) Creeks, at
the mouth of Quartermaster Creek (RM 260.3), and in a large plunge pool below Emory Falls in
Emory Creek (RM 274.9). Seining was conducted with a 15'× 6'× 1/8" (width × depth × mesh)
seine. Seine haul length, width, and depth were recorded to approximate volume seined. In large
backwaters and tributary pools, the length, width, and depth of the habitat were recorded to
approximate total habitat area.

Backpack Electrofishing Effort

Seven backpack electrofishing surveys were conducted in Spencer Creek (RM 246) on May 25,
using a Smith-Root LR-24 Backpack Electrofisher. AGFD, SWCA, USFWS personnel and

2
volunteers hiked approximately 2.5 miles up Spencer Creek to a point where plunge pool was the
predominant hydraulic unit. Surveys of ~200 to 300 seconds of effort were then conducted at
~500 meter intervals working back downstream towards the mouth of Spencer Creek.
The automatic setup function was used on the electrofishing unit, and surveys were conducted at
~190 to 200 volts and ~0.7 to 0.9 amps.

Fish Handling

The standard fish handling protocol outlined jointly between GCMRC and the cooperating
agencies (Ward 2002) was followed with the exception of carp. Carp captured during boat
electrofishing surveys were tagged laterally to the dorsal fin with Floy tags instead of Passive
Integrated Tranponder (PIT) tags. Carp captured in trammel nets were released with no mark or
tag.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In 2006, catch by trammel netting and electrofishing saw an observed increase in comparison to
2005 (Van Haverbeke et al. 2005). In 2006, 433 fish were caught by electrofishing and trammel
netting caught 98 fish. In 2005, 258 fish were caught by electrofishing and trammel netting
caught 65 fish. This occurred in lieu of roughly equal effort by both sampling types.
Electrofishing effort was 55,158 seconds total in 2005 and 55,928 seconds total in 2006.
Similarly, trammel netting effort was 55 net sets in 2005 and 55 net sets in 2006. However, not
all net sets for both years were for the standard 6-hour sampling period. From 2005 to 2006,
there was an apparent increase in the catch of non-native striped bass and channel catfish for
both sampling types as well as an increase in native flannelmouth sucker. A more detailed
analysis of these increases in catch rate as well as an evaluation of size distributions will be
included in the annual report.

Twenty-two percent of fish captured by electroshocking were flannelmouth suckers, followed by

striped bass (21%), carp (21%), channel catfish (18%), red shiners (16%), and speckled dace
(1.4%). One smallmouth bass (<1%), one bluegill sunfish (<1%), and one green sunfish (<1%)
were also captured during electroshocking surveys. Eighty percent of fish captured during
angling were channel catfish, with an observed peak in catch per hour occurring near river mile
240. Striped bass (18%) and one carp (2%) were also captured by angling downstream of
Diamond Creek. Forty-four percent of fish captured by trammel netting were channel catfish,
followed by flannelmouth sucker (22%), carp (18%), striped bass (11%), and bluehead sucker
(3%). One adult smallmouth bass (386mm) was also captured during trammel netting in 2006 at
river mile 259.85. Red shiners comprised 47% of fish captured during hoop netting, followed by
speckled dace (34%), flannelmouth sucker (11%), channel catfish (5%), and bluehead sucker
(3%). Fifty-four percent of fish captured during backpack electrofishing in Spencer Creek were
speckled dace, followed by red shiner (33%), carp (11%), channel catfish (<1%), flannelmouth
sucker (<1%), and fathead minnow (<1%). Seventy-seven percent of fish captured during seining
efforts were red shiner, followed by mosquitofish (16%), flannelmouth sucker (2%), carp (2%),
speckled dace (1%), fathead minnow (<1%), plains killifish (<1%), and bluehead sucker (<1%).
Table 2 lists number of each species captured by gear type.

3
It is important that flow and season remain similar among sampling periods as these factors are
known to influence catch rates and catchability and can have significant effects on catch rates
used for index monitoring. The ability to compare data between 2005 and 2006 due to similar
sampling conditions seems to be an important tool that will be useful during long-term
monitoring. It is also apparent that turbidity has a large impact on electroshocking catch rates in
the Colorado River, and it is possible that a similar impact is experienced in netting efforts.
Although, turbidity levels were not measured during the 2006 trip, it was generally considered
low, and 2006 catch rates remained high compared to the fall 2004 trip, in which turbidity levels
were high. The seasonal timing of sampling should remain similar from year to year but needs
some flexibility to sample during periods of reduced turbidity in order to minimize bias in catch
rates.

Logistical support for this trip was excellent. We thank all of the people at GCMRC, Humphrey
Summit, and Hualapai DNR for their hard work and dedication that make these trips run as
smoothly as possible. The 2004, 2005, and 2006 sampling trips have combined netting efforts by
SWCA and USFWS and electroshocking efforts by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Upriver, these combined trips are logistically unfeasible, but have worked quite well on the
Diamond Down trips. Again, we appreciate the hard work and patience of all involved that make
the labor intensive days quite enjoyable.

4
4.0 LITERATURE CITED

Van Haverbeke D.R., R.S. Rogers, K. Christensen, and M.V. Lauretta. 2005. 2005 Grand
Canyon Long-term Fish Monitoring, Colorado River, Diamond Creek to Lake Mead.
Annual Report to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Ward, D. L. 2002. Standardized methods for handling fish in Grand Canyon research. Draft
Report to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center and Cooperators, Flagstaff,
AZ. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

All analyses in this report are considered provisional pending data cleaning and further analysis.

5
TABLES
Table 1. Personnel for the GC20060523 Trip
Crew Member Sampling Duties Agency
David Ward Electrofishing biologist Arizona Game and Fish Department/Research
Teresa Hunt Electrofishing technician Arizona Game and Fish Department/Research
Steve Jones Electrofishing boat operator Humphrey Summit Support
Brett Stark Electrofishing boat operator Humphrey Summit Support
Michael Ackerman Netting biologist SWCA Environmental Consultants
Randy Van Haverbeke Netting biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Joe Keys Netting boat operator Humphrey Summit Support
Lou Steiger Netting boat operator Humphrey Summit Support
Annette Morgan Netting/electrofishing assistant Hualapai Dept. of Natural Resources
Carrie Cannon Netting/electrofishing assistant Hualapai Dept. of Natural Resources
Brian Smith Gear boat operator Humphrey Summit Support
Angela Abel Gear technician GCMRC
Dale Peters Netting/electrofishing assistant SWCA volunteer
Mickey Porter Netting/electrofishing assistant SWCA volunteer

Table 2. Species Captured by Gear Type in the Main Stem and Selected Tributaries during
Sampling from Diamond Creek to the National Park Boundary in 2006

Gear Type BHS BGS CCF CRP FHM FMS GSF MOS PKF RSH SMB SPD STB TOTAL
Electroshocking 0 1 77 91 0 95 1 0 0 68 1 6 93 433
Angling 0 0 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 56
Trammel Netting 3 0 43 18 0 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 98
Hoop Netting 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 18 0 13 0 38
Seining 1 0 0 25 12 31 0 221 7 1,066 0 20 0 1,383
Backpack Electrofishing 0 0 2 33 1 2 0 0 0 95 0 157 0 290
Total 5 1 169 168 13 154 1 221 7 1,247 2 196 114 2,298
BHS = bluehead sucker, BGS = bluegill sunfish, CCF = channel catfish, CRP = common carp, FHM = fathead minnow, GSF = green sunfish,
MOS = mosquitofish, PKF = plains killifish, RSH = red shiner, SMB = smallmouth bass, SPD = speckled dace, STB = striped bass