1. Use of submersible PIT antennas to augment endangered fish active-capture surveys (with background on use of PIT technology to monitor endangered fish in the Upper Colorado/San Juan rivers) Dave Speas, USBR Peter MacKinnon, Utah State University Julie Howard and Katie Creighton, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources PIT Tag Workshop, Stevenson, WA Jan 27-29, 2015

2. Razorback Sucker Colorado Pikeminnow Humpback ChubBonytail RZB, CPM, BTL HBC only RZB, CPM only

3. “Traditional” usage (199? – present): Capturing/marking, recapture/scanning of individual fish (pop. est., movement, growth, etc)

4. +-+- +-+- +-+- +-+- 4 X 6v batteries 7F723A4188 Multiplexer Data logger Design guidelines: Prentice et al. (NOAA, NMFS)

5. Cumulative number of PIAs in the Upper Basin/San Juan regions (approx.)

7. White R (use of tributaries) Price R (use of tributaries) Dolores R (UT; use of tributaries) Dolores R (CO; use of tributaries) San Rafael R (use of tributaries) McElmo/Yellowjacket Cr. (UT/CO; use of tributaries) Maybell Canal (entrainment evaluation) Green River Canal (entrainment evaluation) Hogback Diversion (entrainment evaluation) Tusher Wash (pending; use of fish passage structures) Price-Stubb Diversion (use of fish passage structures) PNM weir/passage (use of fish passage structures) Stewart Lake (use of restored wetlands) San Juan River (use of restored habitats) Stirrup wetland (use of restored wetlands) Middle Green R (spawning evaluation)

8. 2008: First PIAs in the upper basin Stirrup Wetland near Ouray, UT: Use of restored wetlands by endangered fish San Rafael R., UT: Use of tributaries by T/E fish

9. Use of PIA to monitor fish passages (Price Stubb Diversion nr Palisade, CO)

10. Use of a PIA to monitor fish entrainment (Maybell Ditch, CO)

11. Use of PIA to monitor spawning razorback sucker (Green River nr Jensen, UT)

12. Other Applications: Floating Surveys (San Juan River, Green River, Yampa River)

13. Most recently: Use of submersible PIT antennas to augment endangered fish active- capture surveys Humpback Chub Gila cypha Desolation and Gray Canyons, UT

14. Methods Three mark/recapture trips conducted per year Two years of M/R then two years without Antenna trials conducted Sept 16-23, 2014 during routine M/R sampling trip 5 submersible antennas deployed for ~24 h sets within vicinity of conventional sampling gear (trammel nets, hoop nets, electrofishing) 6 sites sampled per trip (4 fixed, 2 random) Sampling concerns: Low recapture rates result in low capture probability, precision of estimate Impacts of trammel net capture on humpback chub

16. ← ← ← ← ← ←

17. Trammel/hoop net Submersible PIA

19. Preliminary Results Unique fish captured/detected by gear type GearRZBHBCCPMBTLAll species Trammel Net10312148 Hoop Net05005 Electrofishing01001 Antenna only1561022 Total25433172 % resightings from antenna only 60%14%33%0%31% 83% of all antenna deployments detected at least one fish 67% of detections occurred between 7 PM and 7 AM 78% of fish detected by antennas were not captured by other gear types (trammel/hoop nets, electrofishing)

20. Preliminary Conclusions Additional resight capabilities afforded by PIAs warrants more use in M/R investigations Additional resight data tends to increase probability of capture and precision of M/R estimate (K. Bestgen, Colorado State University, pers. comm.) Detections of non-target endangered fish species useful in other investigations (esp. razorback sucker). Extra boat/personnel required (1 boat, 1 motor, 2 people)

21. Next Steps “Leap Frog” design Week 1: Mark humpback chub, deploy submersibles in sample areas or in unsampled areas Week 2: off river; antennas operating until batteries die Week 3: M/R humback chub, retrieve submersibles and switch batteries ; move submersibles or reset in place Week 4: off Week 5: Final M/R run; retrieve submersibles

22. Acknowledgements Mark McKinstry, USBR Travis Francis, USFWS Kevin Bestgen, Colorado State University