natal origins of rainbow trout: glen canyon and marble canyon€¦ · summary of rbt catch and pit...

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Josh Korman, Ecometric Research, Vancouver, BC

Michael D. Yard, USGS GCMRC, Flagstaff, AZ

Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout: Glen Canyon and Marble Canyon Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Annual Reporting Meeting January 28, 2014

Conceptual Model

Lees Ferry

Mar

ble

Can

yon

LCR LCR Inflow Reach

Paria

Recruitment Survival Growth Emigration rate

Immigration/Emigration Survival Growth

Immigration/Emigration, Survival, Growth, Local Recruitment

Returning Spawners?

Local Recruitment

Natal Origin - Study Objectives 1. Quantify extent of rainbow trout movement from Lees Ferry into Marble

Canyon and LCR inflow

2. Determine factors that drive trout movement (density, food, growth, turbidity,

HFEs, etc.)

3. Quantify extent of local reproduction below Lees Ferry.

4. Estimate abundance of rainbow trout in LCR inflow reach for FWS

Biological Opinion and ‘Trigger’

5. Continue monitoring juvenile humpback chub abundance, growth, and

survival in the LCR inflow reach (BioOp/trigger)

6. Relate chub survival and growth to trout abundance and temperature

(critical uncertainty)

Overview of Presentation Design of sampling and mark-recapture study

RBT Abundance, capture probability, and survival

RBT Movement, tag recaptures, population trends,

length- and age-frequency trends

RBT Growth

RBT Local reproduction

Conclusions

Annual age-0 marking trips from dam to Lees Ferry o Length >75 mm o ~ 10,000 marked/yr o Nov. 2011, Oct & Dec 2012, 2013

Quarterly trips for marking and

tag recovery by Reach o Apr, Jul, Sep, Jan o LEES FERRY (I, -5.5 to -2.1 RM) o HOUSE ROCK (II, 17.2-20.6 RM) o BUCK FARM (III, 38.2 to 41.6 RM) o ABOVE LCR (IVa, 60.2 to 61.2 RM) o BELOW LCR (IVb, 63.4 to 64.9 RM)

Sampling Design

Sampling Design

Reaches I - IVa o 2 nights of effort per reach

o 32 250 m sites are sampled per night (4 km)

o 16 sites (2 km) are sampled on nights 1 and 2

(robust design section).

o Marks released in robust design section

o IVa consists only of robust design section

Reach IVb (below LCR) o 2.4 km long (heart isl. – carbon ck.)

o Robust design section only

o 5 passes of effort which includes fast (2) and

slow (3) passes of electrofishing, and 8

passes of hoop netting

n = 16

n = 16

n = 16

HOUSE ROCK (17.2-20.6 RM)

Summary of RBT Catch and PIT Releases

Total RBTName: Catch Lees Ferry Lees Ferry House Rock Buck Farm U/S LCR D/S LCRReach #: All Reaches All I II III IVa IVbRM: (-15.6 - 64.9) (-15.6 - 0) (-5.5 - -2.1) (17.2 - 20.6) (38.2 - 41.5) (60.2 - 61.1) (63.4 - 64.9)

Nov-11 16,559 11,485Apr-12 12,006 609 552 549 317 119Jul-12 11,855 768 795 848 339 197Sep-12 18,155 625 788 842 305 229Oct-12 22,950 5,088Dec-12 12,733 4,254Jan-13 12,338 728 776 987 347 336Apr-13 9,992 870 1,010 879 367 135Jul-13 8,625 815 828 882 428 279Sep-13 14,041 1,122 1,068 741 478 351Oct-13 13,283 5,838Dec-13 8,846 5,536Jan-14 9,192 949 1209 1198 555 388

Total 170,575 32,201 6,486 7,026 6,926 3,136 2,034 57,809

PIT Tag Releases

Preliminary Data, Do Not Cite

Summary of PIT Recaptures Name: Lees Ferry Lees Ferry House Rock Buck Farm U/S LCR D/S LCRReach #: All I II III IVa IVbRM: (-15.6 - 0) (-5.5 - -2.1) (17.2 - 20.6) (38.2 - 41.5) (60.2 - 61.1) (63.4 - 64.9)

Nov-11 250 253 0 0 0 0Apr-12 80 133 201 146 42Jul-12 101 201 296 128 60

Sep-12 65 160 198 118 58Oct-12 341 342 0 0 0 0Dec-12 163 164 0 0 0 0Jan-13 98 166 179 120 62Apr-13 85 188 199 118 39Jul-13 99 134 179 110 49

Sep-13 54 62 86 64 32Oct-13 362 385 0 0 0 0Dec-13 58 0 0 0 0Jan-14

Total 1,116 1,784 1,044 1,338 804 342 6,428


Abundance By Reach

Reach I (LF)

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

410

15

20

Reach II (HR)

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

4

4

6

8

10

12

Reach III (BF)

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

42.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Reach IVa (US LCR

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

4

0.40.60.81.01.21.4

Reach IVb (DS LCR

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

40.20.30.40.50.6

Trip

Abu

ndan

ce ('

000s

per

km

)


System-Wide Abundance

Apr12 Jul12 Sep12 Jan13 Apr13 Jul13 Sep13 Jan14

GCD-LFLF-HRHR-BFBF-LCRLCR-Carbon

Trip

Abu

ndan

ce (m

illio

ns)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2


0 5 10 15

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Within Trips

Cap

ture

Pro

babi

lity

IIIIIIIVaIVb

0 5 10 15

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Across Trips

Abundance ('000s per km)

Capture Probability

Sep 13 Sep 12


90 D

ay S

urvi

v

I II III IVa IVb

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Reach

Turn

over

Rat

e

I II III IVa IVb

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Survival and Turnover


Tag-Based Movement All Recaptures (n=4495)

Distance between release and reca

-10 -5 0 5 10

Lower 2.5% = -2.4 km

Upper 97.5% = 3.6 km


Movement: 2012-2013 vs. 2003-2006 Natal Origins (n= 2044)

-10 -5 0 5 10

Lower 2.5% = -1.7 kmUpper 97.5% = 3.9 km

Mechanical Removal (n= 1564)

Distance between release and recapture loc

-10 -5 0 5 10

Lower 2.5% = -6.4 kmUpper 97.5% = 21.6 km


Large Movements (> 20 km or <-20 km) KM From LF From MC

TAG Release Recapture Release Recapture Moved Release Recapture to MC to LF384.36F2B29B09 Sep2012 Jul2013 63.73 -5.05 -110.7 269 299 1384.36F2B295C9 Sep2012 Dec2013 40.34 -0.16 -65.2 241 282 1384.36F2B29CF7 Sep2012 Oct2013 19.4 -12.0 -50.6 360 365 1384.1B796FB0AA Jul2012 Dec2013 19.27 -10.8 -48.4 340 341 1384.36F2B2979B Sep2012 Dec2013 18.4 -11.2 -47.6 178 199 1384.36F2B2A465 Sep2012 Oct2013 18.8 -9.7 -45.9 204 275 1384.36F2B28F27 Jan2013 Oct2013 18.7 -8.3 -43.4 205 238 1384.1B796B8E57 Jul2012 Jul2013 63.8 41.2 -36.4 250 271384.36F2B2970E Sep2012 Sep2013 18.9 -2.5 -34.3 237 296 1384.36F2B2BAC5 Jan2013 Oct2013 19.3 -2.0 -34.2 227 259 1384.36F2B2A9E9 Jan2013 Apr2013 39.46 18.54 -33.7 278 281384.1B796F9F26 Apr2012 Sep2013 39.5 18.8 -33.2 158 271384.36F2B2A4DE Sep2012 Sep2013 39.9 19.9 -32.3 254 274384.36F2B2990E Sep2012 Jan2014 60.9 41.47 -31.3 273 311384.36F2B29CF6 Apr2013 Jan2014 38.2 19.12 -30.7 236 249384.1B796C9E18 Nov2011 Jul2012 -13.27 -0.798 20.1 91 113384.1B796AA011 Nov2011 Jan2013 4.12 19.42 24.6 94 223384.1B796B788B Nov2011 Jul2013 -2.0 17.4 31.1 97 254 1

3DD.003BA0A245 Sep2013 Jan2014 18.54 38.48 32.1 257 260384.36F2B2A4D7 Sep2012 Jan2013 40.2 60.2 32.3 209 2163DD.003B9C285D Jul2013 Sep2013 39.89 60.73 33.5 314 3023DD.003BA03777 Jul2013 Jan2014 18.54 39.45 33.7 265 2633DD.003BA05BA6 Apr2013 Jul2013 18.39 39.45 33.9 212 2483DD.003BA03097 Jan2013 Jan2014 40.04 61.19 34 207 244384.36F2B2939B Sep2012 Sep2013 39.46 61.19 35 205 253384.1B796B6F61 Nov2011 Apr2012 -4.9 18.7 37.9 90 125 1384.1B796BB5D5 Apr2012 Apr2013 40.04 64.13 38.8 140 214384.36F2B253FB Jul2012 Jan2013 39.3 63.72 39.3 289 284384.36F2B2B750 Jan2013 Apr2013 39.5 64.8 40.8 215 222384.1B796BBD34 Nov2011 Sep2013 -11.91 18.54 49 142 259 1384.1B796BB627 Nov2011 Apr2012 -11.55 19.12 49.4 93 107 1384.1B796C994B Nov2011 Sep2012 -12.4 19.1 50.8 120 240 1384.36F2B25213 Sep2012 Sep2013 18.82 60.34 66.8 204 272

3DD.003BA03F58 Jul2013 Jan2014 18.66 60.36 67.1 273 268384.1B796FAB90 Jul2012 Sep2012 19 61.01 67.6 292 2973DD.003B9C2F6C Jul2013 Jan2014 19.42 63.96 71.7 256 2523DD.003BA028C5 Jan2013 Sep2013 18.54 64.1 73.3 115 270384.36F2B28F69 Jan2013 Jan2014 18.24 65.12 75.4 250 273

Location Fork Length (mm)Trip


Within-Reach Movement (summary)

-2 -1 0 1 2

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0

I

-2 -1 0 1 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

II

-2 -1 0 1 2

0.00.51.01.52.02.5

III

-2 -1 0 1 2

0.00.5

1.01.52.0

IVa

-2 -1 0 1 2

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4

IVb

Apr12-Jul12Jul12-Sep12Sep12-Jan13Jan13-Apr13Apr13-Jul13Jul13-Sep13Sep13-Jan14

Distance between Release and Re

Den

sity


Overview of Presentation Design of sampling and mark-recapture study

RBT Abundance, capture probability, and survival

RBT Growth

RBT Local reproduction

Conclusions

RBT Movement, tags, population trends, length- and

age-frequency trends

Reach I (LF)

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

410

15

20

Reach II (HR)

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

44

6

8

10

12

Reach III (BF)

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

42.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Reach IVa (US LCR

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

4

0.40.60.81.01.21.4

Reach IVb (DS LCR

Apr

12

Jul1

2

Sep

12

Jan1

3

Apr

13

Jul1

3

Sep

13

Jan1

40.20.30.40.50.6

Trip

Abu

ndan

ce ('

000s

per

km

)

Evidence for Downstream Dispersal: Population Trends

Lees Ferry

House Rock

Buckfarm

Above LCR

Below LCR FWS BO Criterion


Reach I. Sample Size 3233

0 100 200 300 400

Reach II. Sample Size 2055

0 100 200 300 400

Reach III. Sample Size 1937

0 100 200 300 400

Reach IVa. Sample Size 372

0 100 200 300 400

Reach IVb. Sample Size 145

0 100 200 300 400

April 2012

Fork Length (mm)

Evidence for Downstream Dispersal: Downstream Increase in Size of Smallest Fish

Large 2011 cohort

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Above LCR

Below LCR


Fitting RBT Growth in Length

100 200 300 400 500

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jul12-Sep12

100 200 300 400 500

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sep12-Jan13

100 200 300 400 500

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jan13-Apr13

Obs

Gro

w

100 200 300 400 500

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Apr13-Jul13

Obs

Gro

w

Size-at-Release (mm)

Obs

erve

d an

d Pr

edic

ted

Mon

thly

Gro

wth

Buckfarm

5 mm/Mo

2.5 mm/Mo

4 mm/Mo

10 mm/Mo


0 100 200 300 400 500

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Jul12-Sep12

Obs

Go

0 100 200 300 400 500

-15

-10

-5

0

Sep12-Jan13

Obs

Go

0 100 200 300 400 500

-10

0

10

20

Jan13-Apr13

Obs

Go

0 100 200 300 400 500

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Apr13-Jul13

Obs

Go

Size-at-Release (g)

Obs

erve

d an

d Pr

edic

ted

Mon

thly

Gro

wth

Fitting Growth in Weight Buckfarm

-4.0 g/Mo

-5.0 g/Mo

10 g/Mo

16 g/Mo


Trends in Growth (@ 200 mm) Apr12-Jul12

-10

0

10

20

30

Length Weight

Jul12-Sep12

-10

0

10

20

30

Sep12-Jan13

-10

0

10

20

30

I II III IVa IVb

Jan13-Apr13

-10

0

10

20

30

Apr13-Jul13

-10

0

10

20

30

Jul13-Sep13

-10

0

10

20

30

I II III IVa IVb

Reach

Mon

thly

Gro

wth

(mm

or

g) fo

r 20

0 m

m F

i

Lees

Fer

ry

Hou

sero

ck

Buc

kfar

m

Abo

ve L

CR

Bel

ow L

CR

Lees

Fer

ry

Hou

sero

ck

Buc

kfar

m

Abo

ve L

CR

Bel

ow L

CR


Reach I

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Reach II

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Reach III

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Apr

2012

Jul2

012

Sep

2012

Jan2

013

Apr

2013

Jul2

013

Sep

2013

Reach IVa

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Reach IVb

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Apr

2012

Jul2

012

Sep

2012

Jan2

013

Apr

2013

Jul2

013

Sep

2013

Rel

ativ

e C

ondi

tion

Fact

or

Trends in Condition Factor Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Above LCR

Below LCR


Apr12 Jul12 Sep12 Jan13 Apr13 Jul13 Sep13 Jan14

GCD-LFLF-HRHR-BFBF-LCRLCR-Carbon

Bio

mas

s (m

etric

tons

)

0

50

100

150

200

Rainbow Trout Biomass 165 metric tons biomass


Lees

Fer

ry

Hou

sero

ck

Buc

kfar

m

Abo

ve L

CR

Bel

ow L

CR

Invertebrate Drift Concentration (Gammarus lacustris)


Length-at-Age: Convert length-frequencies to Age- and Birth Date-Frequencies

Age (yrs)

Fork

leng

th (m

m)

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1234A4B

Decrease in maximum RBT size late 70’s – 80’s

?

Lees Ferry Houserock Buckfarm Above LCR Below LCR


Evidence for Downstream Dispersal: Age-Frequencies Confirm Few Young Fish Downstream

I

1 2 3 4 5 6II

1 2 3 4 5 6III

1 2 3 4 5 6

IVa

1 2 3 4 5 6IVb

1 2 3 4 5 6

Apr2012

Age (yrs)

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Above LCR

Below LCR


Cohort Origins based on Birth Date Frequencies

I

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014II

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014III

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

IVa

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014IVb

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Apr2012

Birth Date

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Above LCR

Below LCR


Jul12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

100 200 300 400

Obs.Pred.

0

50

100

150

200

100 200 300 400

0

50

100

150

100 200 300 400

Sep12

0

50

100

150

200

100 200 300 400

I

0

50100150

200250300350

100 200 300 400

II

0

100

200

300

400

100 200 300 400

III

Fork length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y

What Size/Age Group is Emigration from Lees Ferry? Predicted vs. Observed Length Frequencies

Where did these fish go?

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

?

? Preliminary Data, Do Not Cite

Same Pattern in 2013 Jul13

0

20

40

60

80

100

100 200 300 400

0

50

100

150

200

250

100 200 300 400

0

50

100

150

100 200 300 400

Sep13

0

50

100150

200

250

300

350

100 200 300 400

I

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

100 200 300 400

II

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

100 200 300 400

III

Fork length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y

Fork length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

?



0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400

July 2013

Fork Length (mm)

2012 recruits

2012 recruits

Not All Trout in Marble Canyon Originate from Lees Ferry: Evidence for Local Recruitment

2013

2012

2013

2011

2012

2013


0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400


0 100 200 300 400

July 2012

Fork Length (mm)

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Above LCR

Below LCR

Lees Ferry

Houserock

Buckfarm

Above LCR

Below LCR

?


RBT Effects on Juvenile HBC Mainstem Survival


Conclusions 1. RBT Demographics

a) High trout abundance,

b) Uneven spatial distribution,

c) Good growth rates

d) Moderately good survival upstream of the LCR.

2. Capture probabilities are influenced by trout density and turbidity.

a) Limits reliability of just using index sampling (CPUE) as the sole metric.

3. Limited downstream movement of tagged fish.

4. Other findings suggest that MC/LCR inflow are immigrants from Lees Ferry.

Conclusions 5. Movement Paradox is potentially explained by :

a) Episodic dispersal from Lees Ferry - slow dispersal rates between reaches

b) We are spatially biased due to methodology (Results in a higher probability of

recapturing fish displaying small and large movement, not intermediate)

6. Mechanisms regulating movement (density dependence, flows, food, or

tributary events, etc.) are uncertain.

7. Given 1 - 6, Paria-Badger removal (PBR) is not seem feasible for regulating

trout numbers.

Acknowledgements Administrative support: Scott VanderKooi, Ted Melis

GCMRC logistics: Carol Fritzinger, Seth Felder, and Dave Foster

Sampling design and modelling: Charles Yackulic and Carl Walters

Humphrey Summit Support: Brian Dierker, Brett Stark, Jason Moore, Scott

Perry, and others

Many paid and volunteer technicians, especially: Jake Hall, Colton

Finch, Mariah Giardini, Evan Anderson, Luke Avery, Margeaux Bestard, Chelsie

Arndt, Ellie Johnson, Tanner Carothers, Ben Vaage

natal origins of rainbow trout: glen canyon and marble canyon€¦ · summary of rbt catch and pit...

Documents