Feasibility of developing and maintaining a sport fishery in the Salt River Project canals, Phoenix, Arizona

              RESEARCH BRANCH
TECHNICAL REPORTII18
FEASIBILITY OF
DEVELOPING AND
MAINTAINING A SPORT
FISHERY IN THE SALT
RIVER PROJECT CANALS,
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
A Fm.2! Repo17.
BRIAN R. WRIGHT
JEFF A. SORENSEN
September 1995
DISCLAIMER
The findings, opinions, and recommendations in this report are those of the investigators
who have received partial or full funding from the Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund. The findings, opinions, and recommendations do not necessarily reflect
those of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission or the Department, or necessarily
represent official Department policy or management practice. For further information,
please contact the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Arizona Gzme.nd Fish Dep.rtment Misritm
To conserve, enhance, and reJtDre A mona '$ di'l/mt wddlifo resources and habitats through
aggrcmve protectIOn and m:nugement programs, and to provule wildlife resources and safe
".JlaUT(Tajt and olfhiglr",'ay '{.,tTJlci[' T['(Tutlon fOT the enjuyment, appreciatIOn, and use by
present and future gener.:ttiom_
Arizona Game and Fish Depanment
Research Branch
Technical Report No. 18
Feasibility of Developing and Maintaining a Sport
Fishery in the Salt River Project Canals,
Phoenix, Arizona
A Final Report
Brian R. Wright
and
Jeff A. Sorensen
September 1995
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration
Project F-l4-R
and
U cban Heritage Fund
Fl ASIBl1rn pr Dryu nPING ......... [' MMN'll\lNlNG A SPORT Fl"'HF.RY N 11 !I S"I.T RIVER Pi(C')1- .T CA~ \1.'
Suggested Ciution:
GAME AND FISH COMMISSION
Arthur R. Porter, Phoenix
Nonie Johnson, Snowflake
Michael M. Golightly, Flagstaff
Herbert R. Guenther, Tacna
Fred Belman, Tucson
Director
Duane L. Shroufe
Deputy Director
Thomas W. Spalding
Assistant Directors
Larry Voyles
Field Operations
Bruce D. Taubert
Wildlife Management
Lee E. Perr\"
Special Sen-ices
David D. Daughtry
Information & Education
Wright, B. R., ornd J. A. Sorensen. 1995. Feasibilit:-· of developing and mainu:ning a sport fisher;.· 1D
the Salt River Project Canals. Phoenix, Arizona. A~lz. Game and Fish Dep. Tech. Rep. 18, Phoenix.
101 pp.
155~ 1052-7621
15B:--: 0-917563-24-7
II .-IRIZO.'&! GA.1fL & FIY-I DuwmaxT, TeCH. REP. 18 B. R. tP';CffTA.\Dj A. SOl'.L.'iSC." .. /99j
F£ASnm.rn· OF D£VllOI'ING AND MAINTAINING A SI'ORT FlSHF.RY IN THE SA.lT RIvER. Plr.OJF.CT CANALS
CONTENTS
Abstract ...
Introduction ..................................................... 1
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. - . . . . .
Methods
Results
Flsh Surveys . . . . . . . . . . ....... .
Granite Reef Ele<:trical Barrier Monitoring. . . . . . ........... .
Expenmental Fish Stockings ............................. .
Potential Fish Tissue Contaminants ........ _ .... .
Abiotic F.il.ctors ..................
Biotic Factors ........ .
Public Opinion Surveys
~·.udy Area Mapping ....
Fish Collection Site Habitats .
Fish Surveys
. . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. . .. .. ..... . . . . ........ .
Granite Reef Electrical Barrier Monitoring.
Experimental Fish Stockings
Potential Fish Tissue Contaminants ...
Aquatic and Terrestrial VegetatIon Control ....... .
Abiotic Factors ............ _.
BiotiC Factors ..... .
Public Opmion Survey
Discussion ......................... .
Fish Surveys ........... . ........... .
Granite Reef Electril;al Barner Monitoring ... _ .... .
Experimental Fish Stockings .. . ........... .
Potential Fish Tissue Contaminants .... .
Abiotic Factors
Biotic Factors ........ . ........... .
Public Opinion Survey .. . ...... .
Enluation of Fishing Access SitL', ................... .
Management Options. . . . . . ..... .
Program Administration and License Funding &e .
Physical and Biological Enhancements ....
Fish Stocking ........ .
Periodic Monitoring Activities ..
Public Safety and Liability ........... .
Future Rese.arch .......................... .
4
11
11
12
12
14
15
. . . . . . . .. 15
16
16
19
. . . . .. 19
19
32
. . . . . .. 32
. ....... )6
36
38
38
38
49
49
51
51
53
54
54
%
56
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
Literature Cited ............................ _ .... . . ................... 64
Appendices ........................ . . ....... 69
B. R. WRiGHT A .... D! A. SoRLN5EN 1'J'Jj ARiZONA GA.1lE & FISH DEPARTMEXT, TECH. REP. 18 111
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As with any :-esearch project, many individuals contributed in bringing this project to completion. We
would like to tba::k the' entire Research Branch of the Arizona Game and Fish Depanment for providing
ideas, direction, 5'~?port, and, most importantly, contributions of theIr time. Sue M~nsen developed the
original study pb.:J. and, along with Richard Dreyer, conducted the initial field work. This project was
administered by J:m C. deVos, Jr., Dennis D. Hayv.'ood, and Raymond E. Schweinsoog, and their guidance,
suggestions, and >"..l?port wen' greatly appreciated.
Many lfldi\':':'~Jls provided iield support and asSISted lfl dau collection: Amber ~xander, George
Andrejko, Kirb:-- Bristow, ~eYille ColgJte. Marc Dahlberg, Terry Gamble, Debbie G.ron, Phil Hamson,
Dennis Haywood. Ruth Ann Lefebvre, Petra Lowe, Jerry Maninez, Mike Mus)"J, Jodi Niccum, Gene
Obmoto, Diana Parmley, Petgy Pattenon, Rick Peebles, Kathy Sergent, Diann Smidr. Eric Swanson, Steve
Tighe, Brian Vlach, Jody Walten, Bill \X'an, Dave Weedman, Beth Worsnup, and Jeff Young. Student
interns also pro\'ided field suppon, and entered and verified data: Clint Adams, Heidi Blasius, David
Bolebruch, Vicki Bradshaw, Kelly Downing, Ryan Gordon, Josh Hurst, James Laird, lindsay Q'Callaghan,
and Jimmy Simmons. Kirby Bristow and Phil Harrison contributed suDst<J.ntial amollSts of time processing
chlorophyll a and benthic samples.
Sincere apprecmion goes to Be:h 'XX'orsnup and Vicki Webb for clerical suppon. Vicki Webb entered
and verified data. prepared tables, and the layout of this manuscript. Sue Boe, Jennif!! A. Wennerlund, and
Scott G. Woods produced the GIS maps. Robert Forrest, Carl R. Gustavson, DennisD. Haywood, Richard
A. Ockenfels, Bmn F. Wakeling. and Jody P. Walters provided statistical suppOrt.
Jim C. deVos, Jr., Dennis D. Haywood, Brad Jacobson, Joe Janisch, Carole McJvur, Gordon Mueller,
Tom G. Sands, Raymond E. Schweinsburg, Eric Swanson, Brian F. '.X-'akeling, Jody p. Walters, Jim
Warnecke, and Cidy D. Zisner reviewed various drafts of this manuscript. The rep~ was significantly
Improved because of their eEoru. The authors take full responsibility for any concllBions reached and errors
contained in this repon.
We thank t~e Salt River Project (SRP) for thm suppOrt during this study, and g:ti-'nt!ng us unlimIted
access to the canal system. Special acknowledgments go to Dave Maldonado, Joe O'}i1ver, Tom G. Sands,
and Earl Tankers:ey for their 10gJSticai suppon. Additionally, Gregg Elliott, Bob Gooch, and Brian
Moorhead provided informatiOn on water quality, canal hydrology, and white amurs.
Pnvate comra(tors were used for specialized laboratory services. Aquatic Consulring and Testing, Inc.
(f empe, Arizona) identified and enumerated aquatic invertebrates in benthic and plankon samples. Hazelton
Environmental Sen'ices, Inc. (Madison, Wisconsin) and PACE Environmental·LaboratJries, Inc. (Camarillo,
Callforn!a) anal;.-zd fish tissues for 129 pnority pollutants. BehavlOral Research Cenftr, Inc. (phoeniX,
Arizonal conducted public opinion surve:.s on urban fishing.
ThiS project l\'JS funded III p.ut by the Federal ;\id Jfl Spon Fish Restoration F·1.JR of the Arizona
GJme and Fish Department. This Act is commonly kno-~:n as the Dingell·Johnson An/\X'al1op-Breaux
Amendment after its CongressIOnal sponsors. This Act provides for .1 manufacturers' JaX on rods, reels,
tackle, motorboa:s, Jnd motorboat fuel. The collected monies are apportioned to thettates and territone, on
a formula basis b~' the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the conservation and managClnent of span fish.
Thus, anglers, cor.tribute to a program that benefits everyone.
This project v.-a~ also funded by a gram from the Urban Wildlife Program of the !nzona Game and Fish
Departmem Heritage Fund. The Urban Wildlife Program was deSigned to conserve, mhance, and esublisl-:
wildlife habitats and populations in urban environments, and to increase public awar~ss of urban wildlife
resources.
B R. WRiCHT A.VD 1- A. SOM..'>I5E.X 1"$
Full bleed
,
Feasibility of Developing and Maintaining a Sport Fishery in the Salt
River Project Comls, Phoenix, Arizona
Brian R. Wright and Jeff A. Sorensen
Abstract: In the last decade, the :::tcre"sior; popularity of urban fishing has stimulated interest
in using the Salt River Project (SRP) cJ.naU as a sport fishery. Currently, fishing occurs in these
canals but is not encouragrd b,' SRP due primarily to liability concerns. This project was
init1.lted to study the biologlcall::3 environmental potential of SRP canals to suppOrt increasrd
angling opportunities. We In\"e~:.gated the X1uatic resources oj the 61.4 km Arizona Canal. a
part of the SRP canal system, i.r. :he Phorna metropolitan area fn'm February 1992 through
July 1994. Monthly electrofishiq surveys showed a di'"erse assemblage of native and introduced
fish species (species richness - :. and 17, mpectively). Relative abundance of fish among
collection sites was highly variab:e and increased moving downstream (35% of all fish sampled
were found at Site 3, while only 9.5% WrTe U Site 7). Native suckers and forage fish sample
numbers were high (n >1,5OC e.1ch), whilt game fish were less abundant (n <200 each).
Observed water quality values we:-e adeqtateior sustaining warm-water fish species year-round.
Pnmary production levels ""ere r::oderate (X thlorophyll a:pheophytin a ratios ranged between
1.4 and 1.1). Benthic macromve~ebrate and zooplankton taxa were numerous (n .. 18 and n
_ 38, respectively), but their standing stocks were low (X <201m2 and x <5/20 L,
respectively). Recapture freq1.:o~:-,cies of e.perimentally stocked channel catfish (/etAlurns
puncwtus) and rainbow trout «(>.;:orhyncb,n mykm) were highest within the first 6 weeks after
stocking. After 5 to 12 months 1::: the AraOBa Canal. these fish showed no substantial growth
or improvement in physiologic...? condition. Most of the stocked fish (99.4% of the channel
catfish and 95.5% of the rainbow trout) did not migrate from the area they were stocked. Based
on limited samples, potential fish tissue cOlltamination was low (priority compounds were
below FDA Action Levels for s;';e human consumption). Our study revealed that a put·and­take
fishery could be esublis::ed in the" Arizona Canal to provide increased angling
OpponuOitles. Channel catfish .:ould be stocked m the summer and rainbow trout in the
winter. A public opinion telep::one survey showed a high leYeI of interest and support for
creating additional fishing oppo:-:unities in lhe SRP canals (68% of the respondents were in
favor). A canal fishery progra::: IS estlmaud to add 750,000 angler-use days annually, and
generate a potential $1.55 millic::J in reVe:DUU from the sale of 129,500 new fishing licenseS.
Various managemc:-nt options arc:- presented roncerning program administration and licensing,
phYSICal and biological en~ance:::ents, stoclung strategies, monitonng activities, public safety
and liability, and future rese.lfcl',.
Key Words: Arizona, canals. Catostomlt'S clarh, Catosromus mSlgms, channel catfish,
Ctenopharyngodon idella, desert s:..:ker, lroJu~s punC/.2lus, Oncorhynchu5 myklSS, rainbo ....... trout.
recreational fishing, Sonora sucke:. urban fishing, white arour.
INTRODUCTION
Since 1900, Luge.scale surface '''',Jter
developments have been constructed in t::e
western United States to store water for :!"rigation
and to provide flood control (Ciilif. Dep. of Water
Resour. 1957). Marsh and FIsher (1987) estimated
that there are> 11,000 !un of canals in t::'e desert
southwest. These canals represent a con,:derable
recreational resource for anglers. Interes: in
developing recreational fishing in canals of the
western United States has grown in the ;ast 30
yean. By 1990, several western can.1.l sy-s:rms had
B. R. IfIRlCHT AND J A. S(")R£M£N 1995
publi-;: :ishene, (U.s. Bur. of ReclJ.m. 1990), such
as Callfomla's Central Valley Project (CVP) and
California State \};'ater Project (CSWP).
Th~ CVP had 328 km of canals with existing
fishenes, '9,:ith most angling occurring along rural
sections of the Delta·Mendota and San Luis canals
(C.s. Bur. of Reclam. 1990). An additional 256
krn of the CVP offered fishing opportunities;
specifically. portions of the Folsom South.
Corning, and Tehama-Colusa canals (U.S. Bur. of
Reclam. 1990). Both the Folsom South and
Corning c.inals were limited to a put·and-t.ike
fishery due to the lack of year-round flows (U.s.
AJUZQ.ou GMll & FISH DEPARnccm; nOi. R£f. II 1
Bur. of Recbm. 1990}. Currently, public fishing
is allowed in the CVP canals but is not actively
promoted. Most fishing occurs at major TOad
crossings and established fishing access sites, while
some sections of the CVP are fenced and posted
"No Trespassing" (R. Edwards, U.S. Bur. of
Reclam., pers. commun.).
The California Aqueduct, part of the CS~'P,
had 552 km of open canals for pubb.: iishing and
18 designated fishing access sites (C.llif. Dep. of
Fish and Game 1984). Construction costs for
fishing access sites were approximately $25,000
each and included parking areas, sanitary facilities,
trash containers, and fishing platforms (Calif. Dep.
of Fish and Game 1984). In 1982, the California
Department of Water Resources (CDWR)
estimated that 99,000 anglers fished the California
Aqueduct; 28,000 fished at designated access sites
and 71,000 fished along other sections of the
aqueduct (Calif. Dep. of Fish and Game 1984).
For 1991 and 1992, the CD'X'R. estl:nated that
61,000 and 53,000 anglers, respecti"ely, fished
along the aqueduct (Calif. Dep. of Water
Resources 1992, 1994). It is unclear why the
number of anglers fishing along the California
Aqueduct declined between 1991 and 1991.
Other canal systems in California (e_g., All­American
Canal, Coachella Canal. and Los
Angeles Aqueduct) have potential fisheries, but are
currently posted "No Trespassing~ due to liability
concerns. However, from November 1, 1985 to
Octoher 30, 1989, the Imperial Irrigation District
estimated that 75,427 anglers fished a 38.6-km
section of the All·AmeriCJn Cmal and its 3
supply canals (Stocker et al. 199Cl. :\"umerous
studies on the Coachel:a Canal han renaled a
large, diverse fishery and considerable aquatic
resourceS (Minckley 1980, Marsh 1981, McCarthy
and Marsh 1982, Marsh and Stinemetz 1983,
Minckley et;l: 1983. Mueller et al. 1989, Mueller
and Liston 1991). The U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) reported that all canals within
the lower Colorado Region supported some
degree of public angling, whether access v.-.lS legal
or not (U.S. Bur. of Redam. 199:)).
In 1989, the BaR and Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AGFD) proposed a pilot project
to examine the feasibility of establishing and
maintaining a public fishing access facility on the
Central Arizona Project (CAP; Mueller and Riley
1989). Investigations of the CAP (Mueller 1990,
Mueller and liston 1991) have documented the
biological resources of this canal, but currently,
2 AIUZO!V1 GA'fl6- Fl5H Dll'AR1ltL ... 7, TlCH. Rll'. 18
no lega! or authorized fishing is allowed within
the CAP (1... Riley, Ariz. Game and Fish Oep.,
pen. commun.).
Although some canals described above are
closed to fishing at this time due to safety and
liability issues, canals can .md do provide
substantial recreational fishing opportunities. Due
to an increased demand for urban fishing,
numerous proposals have been m.lde to utilIze the
Phoenix metropolitan Salt Iliver Project (SRP)
canals as an urban fishery (Fig. 1). This demand is
illustrated by growth in urban fishing license sales
from 2,500 sold in 1983 to 25,679 sold in 1994 (E.
Swanson, Ariz. Game and Fish Dep., pefS.
commun.). Another indic_or of the popuJarity
of the Urban Fishing Prognm is based on the
increased number of angler-days spent fishing.
From 1987 to 1988, an est.imated 250,000 angler­days
were spent at the 8 mban Jakes in the
Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, metropolitan areas
(Watt and Perwns 1990). By 1994, the number of
angler-days increased to approximately 400,000,
with most of this growth attributed IO the
addition of 4 new urban lues to the Urban
Fishing PrOgram (E. Swanson, Ariz. Game and
Fish Dep., pers. commun.)_
The SRP canals could provide additional
urban fishing opportunities. but more information
was needed on the biology of this system.
Limited studies have been conducted on fish
speCIeS diversity and distribution in the canal
system (Marsh and Minckley 1982). Primary
productivity m the Arizona Can.ll and benthic
fauna in a lateral canal weTC also studied (M.lrsh
1983, Marsh and Fisher 1987). These studies
demonstrated that the SRP canals are an
important aquatic resource, but little information
exists from a sport fishery perspective.
Presently, the poor q!Wi:ty of the sport
fishery and the public's lack of knowledge of the
anilable angling opportuniDrs limit the number
of angler-days spent on the SRP canals.
Maintenance operations by SIlP also affect the
quality of the fiShery because' many canal reaches
are dewatered annually to nmove vegetation,
sediment, debris, and alum sludge, as well u for
other maintenance purposes. Regardless, the SRP
canal system, with 217 km CJf major canals,
attracts substJnlial recreatiOflal interest from a
population of over 2 milliOll people within the
Phoenix metropolitan area.
In 1964, an agreement between SRP and the
BOR allowed public access for recreational
11. R. WRlCHT AND! A. SoRv.>m 199'
thi, re,earch project were to determine jf the SRP
canals can support a harveslable sport ft';hery, and
to determine if there is public demand for this
fishery.
Initially, we needed to investigate the current
fish communities Withm the canals to ooermine
which fish species live m the canals and how
abundant they are. Then, we needed to find out
if the SIZe and number of resident gamt fish
would satlSfy angler demands. Sto..:kiDJ; catchable.
sized game fish is expensive, so ideally resource
managers would hope a canal fishery could be self.
sustaining through immigration and natural
reproduction. If fish stocking is necemry, we
wanted to know if fish wowd survive and grow in
the canals. This question is impon,lDt in
determining stocking strategies - a pUI.;md-take
fishery versus a put-grow·take fishery. If
conditions in the canal allow fish to survive year­round,
is there potential for managing a self.
sustJming sport fish popwation?
Resource managers believe that stocked fish
may leave the main canals through irription
lateral delivenes, thus lowering the number of
sport fish available for anglers (Sorensen 1990). In
addition, heavy loss of fish to the lateral canals
would not make a regular stocking program cost
effective. If fish do remam in the main canals, do
they continually move throughout the system or
congregate m specific locations?
We were also concerned that stocked fish may
accumulate pollutants in their tissues O\'N time
which may pose a public health ri5k.
ContJmmant analyses are necessary to establish a
canal span fishery with fish th.1t are sail' lor
human consumption.
Another Important consideration ~ to
determine whether the canals had environmental
conditions that would limit f15h survival. For
example, we suspected that summer ·.. ... att'r
temperatures and dissolved oxygen concrntrations
probably approach lethal levels for cold--water
specie~, such as trout. Also, we wanted to
ascertain what food items were availablt in the
canals for fish.
If a canal sport fishery was establisbrd, who
would take advantage of this n~ resource?
Would the canals attnct anglers from tbe genenl
publH.:~ What is the estimated use and potential
revenue from creating new fIshing opportunities
In the canals? In addition, managers want 10
know what types of game flSb :wglers woWd
prefer haVing stocked.
4 ARiZQ ....... GAM[ (, FI5H DuA/t.7JIDo7, TECH..ILP. 18
The 1.1.51 step in planninc a can~ fishery IS
deciding whf:rf: public flShine could occur along
Ihe canak Established fishiDt sites .,jth parking
lots, restrooms, trash recq,.acles, 5.Y railings,
and good public access would attract anglers.
These areas ",'ould be more convenitJIt and safer
for the public, especially children ani the
physically chJ.llenged, and would east liability
concerns. UW enforcemem and nul surve~'
personnel would benefit by h.aving lrss total J.rea
to cover.
The obj«tives of this study wert to:
• Determine the assembl~ of fish in the c.anals
- specific.1lly species divmity, ahmdance,
condition factors, and le:ngth frelFencies.
• Esti~ate game fish abUDdance in the canJ.ls
and determine if they l.R sufficient to meet
angler df:mand.
• Investigate which fish species cunently
immigrate into the canals.
• Determme if 2 species of stocked game fish
would survive and grm\' in the anal
environment, .1.5 well is estimate [row long
stocked fIsh remain in tht canals..
• Document stocked fIsh movemea is well as
possible escape into later.U canals.
• Analyze stocked fish for potential pollutants
thJ.t ma~' have accumulatro, in thrir tissues
after several months in the canaL
• In"estigale water quality parametrrs which
. may .limit the potential for a span fishery in
the canal system.
• Identify what food items are avawble to fj~h
In the canals.
• Survey licensed anglers and the general public
to ascerta.m who would take advmtage of a
canal fisherv.
• Estimate the potential increase in ,lOgler.use
days and revenue from fishing liernses if a
canal spo!"': fishery were developed.
• Identify "'::-lCh fish Species anglenwant to
catch in the canals.
• Identify md evaluate ar~ that oIer the besl
potential for proyiding public fisbing access.
STUDY AREA
The SRP canal system extend, through 10
cities and the 5.Ut River Indian Resemtion within
the Phoenix metropolitan area. It CDEists of 217
km of main canals and 1,487 k.m of smaller, lateral
canals and ditches, which deh.,er wattl' for
B. R. WRJGm Ah'D J A- SoIl.ESIES ! 995
FtAsmn.m ll)' DEHLlWNG AND ).l....-rAlNING A Sr\~RT FISIIERY !N THf S."'LT RJ\ TIl I'h lJ! ,"'I C"'NAL~
migation and municipal use (Salt River Prof. 1993,
1994a). The SRP canJ.I system begins belo.
Granite Reef Diversion Dam and has 8 major
canals; Arizona, Consolid.ued, Eastern, Grad,
South, Tempe, Western, and Cross·Cut. Granite
Reef Dam (Fig. 2) divertS wall'r into the SRP
canals, and is located about 65 km downstJtam of
the confluence of the Salt and Verde rivers. The
wJ.tersheds of the Salt and Verde rivers drain
approximately )3,680 km' to the east and DOrth,
respectively, of the Phoenix metropolitan iRa.
Four reselVoirs (Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and
Roosevelt) are located within the Salt River
watershed and 2 (Bartlett and Horseshoe) within
the Verde River watershed. Annually, thest
watersheds receive an average of 53.3 em of
precipitation (Salt River Pro). 1990}.
A raised, trapezoidal, concrete fish banirr is
loclted immediately below Granite Reef Dam on
the Arizona Canal (Fig. 3; Appendix A, Mlp 1).
This barrier has a series of electrical fidds .ross
the canal, steep slopes, and high water velexities
that permit downstream movement of fish. The
prillary purpose of this bUrler is to prevent fish
fra. moving from the Arizona Canal and the
CAP into the Salt River through the Granite Reef
he3lft;ates (E. Swanson, Ariz. Game and Fish Dep.,
pen;; commun.). Another electrical fish barrier
was constructed on the South Canal for similar
re:llOns (Appendix A, M~ I).
The Amona Canal (F~- 4) was selected for
JOtmsive study because it is the longest
COlllinuous canal (61.4 km) in the SRP system and
traQlrses an extensive residrntial area. From its
s01ll\:e at Granite Reef Dam, this canal flows west
through the Salt River Indi.l.n Reservation and the
citirs of ScottSdale, Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria,
wMe it drains into Skunk Creek.
We established 5 fish collection sites and 3
alternate collection sites along the Arizona Canal
(f"1e 1). Sites were established at locations
wbtre SRP maintenance (concrete) ramps had
bem constructed. Physical barriers (i.e., bridges
and water control struct~; Fig. Sa, b) formed
the boundaries of each colkction site. Alternate
sitt! were established specifically to monitor
Figure]. The origin of tht Arizona Dna! at Geanite Red Divers.ioa Dam. The electric fub barner is mown in tht
fortground.
B. R. WRlGffT AND f. A. SOR£\'SDo' "9' ARlZO,\:A GA.",l & FiSH DuAI11NDrr, TECH. REP. 18 5
FfASLBILm· OF DEVEl.lll'IN<.; "-'In M.\D'-TAlNINC A SPURT FNrr.R\ t'I; ·nn: SALT Rrn·.R PR('JE'~l c""... .. AL~
Table 1. Regular and airrrnJ.te fish collection sius on thr Arizona Canal.
Regular sites
7
5
J
2
Strert/Physical Location
Pima Road foorbridge to Hayden Road vehi.:le bridge. ScomiJ.1e.
68th Street footbridge to the" Arizona Falls~ w~r control stnicture,
above 56th Street. Phc'<:'nix.
19th Avenue vehicle bridge to 25th Avenue vehicle bridge. Fti.oenix.
43rd Avenue/ Peoria A\·enue vehicle bridge to 47th Avenue IDetbridge.
Glendale.
Water control stl1lClUre at 67th Avenue to the w.ter control trrucrure at
Skunk Creek Dnin. Peoria.
Ahernate sites for repeated-effon dectrofishing.
Alt Site 3
Alt. Site 2
Alt. Site 1
Downstream of the Interstate 17 frontage road to the water cmtrol
structure adjacent to the Phoenix (Deer Valley) .. ·ater treatm~ facility.
Phoenix.
35th Avenue vehicle bridge downstream to the ~ter controllfructure at
the intersection 0143d Avenue and Peoria Avenue. Glendal~
59th Avenue vehicle bndge to Thunderbird Road vehicle bridce.
Glendale.
Figur~~.:L to .. · bridges were physical ban-icn for our dectrofishing boat aDd limited the.~a we could sample.
AIt!l(l.'olot GAME {, hH DEPARTMENT, TECH. REI'. 18 7
----~-.
Figure jb. A water cODtrol RJ'UC!JU' OIt SUllon ACfl, that uses a series of ncLal g;l.tes to rc-gulatc thc'l.liumc of waur flowmg
downstre.un.
8 ARIZONA GANE & FISH DEPADlLw. 7f:CH. REl'.18 B. R. WRiGfriA"D}. A. SORL\v..v 1995
- - - FEASIBIlJT)' OF DEvlloPING AND MAlNT.u+ING A SPORT FISHDt.y IN 1HE SALT RlVD. PRo]a"TCANw ----
Site 3 was a shallow site (1 m depth) with
f.lSt-moving water. It measured 1.1 km in length
,-ith an average width of 17 m. A water control
structure was located at tbt upstream end of this
site (19th Avenue; Appenda: A, Map 5).
Approximately 8.5 km upstream of Site 3, the
Squaw Peak Water Treatment Plant dischuged
alum sludge into the Arizona Canal (Appendix A,
Map 4). This discharge affe1:ted turbidity
measurements at Site 3, as well as Sites 1 and 2.
The lower sampling boundary for Site 3 was tm
25th A venue bridge.
Alternate Site 3 was located below Site 3
within the same canal seg~nt (i.e., between 2
water control structures). This site ~ 0.6 km in
length. averaged 17 m across, and was
approximately I-m deep. The upstream boundary
was the frontage road immediately downstream of
Interstate 17 (Black CanyoD Highway; AppendiJ.
A, Map 5). The lower boundary was the water
control structure adjacent to the Phoenix (Deer
Valley) Water Treatment Plant. A vehicle brid;e
(29th A venue) and a demossing bridge were
located between Interstate 17 and the water
control structure near the Phoenix (Deer Valley)
Water Treatment Plant. Concrete-lined banks
were found at the 29th Avenue bridge, the
demossing bridge, and at the water control
structure. The remaining canal segments within
this site had earthen banks md an eanhen
bottom. Overhanging vegeution grew along the
eanhen banks. The Phoenix (Deer Valley) Watt!"
Treatment Plant regularly discharged alum sJudp:
into the canal below the wner control structure
that formed the lower boundary of Alternate Sile
3.
Alternate Sites 2 and 1 were established
specifically to collect Stocked fish for contaminmt
analysis; however, these sites were sampled
sporadically. Therefore, these alternate sites wiD
not be discussed funher.
Site 2 was about 1.5 m deep and bad slower­moving
water than Site 3. This site measured 21
!un in length and had an avera&e width of 15 m_
This site was divided into 2 segments (i.e., upper
and lower). The upper segment was between the
water control structure just upstream of the 43rd
Avenue and Peoria Avenut intersection to the
47th A venue footbridge just upstream of the
Gleruble (ChoUa) Water Treatment Plant
(Appendix A, Map 6). Approximately Vi. of the
nonhero side of the upper segment canal bank
was eanhen with overhan£in& vegetation, while
8. R. WRiCHTAMJj A. SOR£Nsf:NJ'm
the remaming banks of the upper segment was
concrete-lined. The C2JU.I bono. of the upper
segment of Site 2 was earthen. scept near the
intersection of 43rd Avenue _Peoria Avenue
and 47th Avenue footbridge. ne lower segment
of Site 2 was between the 47tk Avenue footbridge
and the water control structWl aear the
intersection of 51st A venue ami Cactus Road.
Downstream of the footbridge. me banks and
bottom were concrete-lined. Tbr: Glenda1e
(Cholla) Water Treatment PI_ regularly
discharges alum sludge into tt. canal. Sludge
accumulates upstream of the waer control
structure near the intersection. 51st Avenue and
Cactus Road. Alum sludge CD lie as deep as 2 m
in the lower segment of this sa. We abandoned
fish collections below the 47tll Awnue footbridge
because of the alum sludge.
Site 1 was located at the sd of the Arizona
Canal and was predominantly _k water. This
site was 1.6 km long and ave. 10 m in width.
A water control structure was louted at the top
of the site below the 67th A VSIr bridge
(Appendix A, Map 6). The ICMr boundary of
this site was the Skunk Creek Drain Gate. The
upper boundary of this site ha an average water
depth of l-m while the lower b.ndary was
approximately 2-m deep. Site 1 hd concrete-lined
banks and bottom.
Physical structures (i.e., bridt;,es.and water
control structures), latenl canJI~ water treatment
plants, and potential access si1l5 ~.e., city streets,
selected city parks, and concrtU maintenance
ramps) along the Arizona Canal an~ mapped in
Appendix A. Habitat features ~., din-lined and
concrete-lined banks}, water comrol structures,
and qualitative flow regimes (lL, pools, runs, and
riffles) in the Arizona Canal an mapped in
Appendix B.
Locations for the water qm1it:y, chlorophyll a,
benthos, and plankton sampl~ stations on the
Arizona Canal are identified u. Appendix C.
Typically. these stations were band at bridges or
water control structures.
AmONA GAME & FISH WAJl1IlEXT, TE:0l. REP. 18 9
Full
.. ' .
•
I 1.
10 ARlZO_'iA GAJIl & f/SHD£p~7JIC.VT, TECH. REf. 18
•
. . • ~4;- .
~,
•
;..~­.~.'~
_, .. ~J
B. R. WRIGHT AND j. A. SORESSES 1995
. FWlBnm OF DEVFl.OPING AND MAINTAINING A SPORTFJSHE),y IN TIiE SAlT RIVER Pt..OJECT CANAlS _. _ METHODS
Fish Surveys
We used electroflShing to determine the
number of resident fuh species (species richness)
in the canal. Resident fish were defined as those
fish found in the canal either from natural
reproduction or immigration. We used catch-per­unit-
effon (CPUE; fish/hr) as an index of relative
species abundance.
We electrofished the Arizona Canal monthly
from October 1992 through July 1994 using a 4.3-
m Alumacraft John·boat. This electrofishing
platform was equipped with a Honda EMS-4000
generator, a variable vohage pulsator (VVP-15),
and a spherical electrode. Typically, the
electrofishing crew consisted of a netter and a
boatlVVP-15 operator. Electrofishing was
conducted at night using floodlights for bener
visibility and to attract some fish species
(Minckley 1973). Typically, the range of VVP-15
settings used were: 100-150 V, 10-15 A, 30-40%
DC pulse width, and 60-80 Hz frequency. The
netter used an activating footpad to control
electrical output. Effort was recorded in set:onds
using a chronometer activated by the footpad.
The electrofishiog boat was driven downstream
within each site, covenag both sides and the
middle of the canal. Stunned fISh were netted and
placed in 121-L containen with fresh canal water.
No anesthetics were used to sedate the fish.
We categorized fish into 4 general groups:
natives, game fish, fo~e fish, and others. Native
fish were: Sonora suckers (CarO!tomuJ mSlgnis),
desen suckers (C C14T1eI), and roundtail chubs
(Gila robus(4). Game fish were defined as:
largemouth bass (MimJpteru5 salmoides), yellow
bass (MOTOnt' mmwippinuis), channel catfISh, and
rainbow trout. ThreadflD shad (DorosOmtl
ptrenense) and red shiners (Cyprine/L: /urrensu)
were designated as forage fish or prey. We
defined "other" species to be: white amurs, yellow
bullheads (Amtiu7U! 1I4l4iis), bluegill (Lepomis
maC""f"O<hmu), green sunftsh (L cyanel/us),
smallmouth bass (MlCTOptmlS Jolomieu), common
carp (Cyprinu5 C4rpW), goldfish (CaTass;us aUTatus),
flathead catfish (PyIodictu oJiwris), oscar
(AstronotuJ OCf'ILttus), and walleye (Stlzoste:iwn
vitreum). Species, toullength (fL in mm),
weight (g), and disposition (J.e., released alive.
dead, preserved) were recorded. Each fish was
examined for fID dips, tag scan, deformities,
external pansites. and spinal injunes. White
B. R. 'iYRlGHT ANlJ J. A. SOHxslN 1m
.1ffiUrs and game fish with a n ~ 250 mm were
tagged with a Flor- tag near the terminus of the
dorsal fin. Flor- tags were used to identify
individual fISh, with known length, weight, and
rotiOIl, in subsequent sampling efforts. All fish
"lIere released back into the canal after processing,
f!I((ept selected individuals for contaminant
ma1ysis or reference collections.
Catch-per·unit-effort indices were also used to
indicate changes in fish abundance across sites and
over time. To determine differences in CPUE by
site over time, each electrofishing effon was
assigned to a specific season for each year. Each
IUSOn covered a period of 3 months: September
through November (Fall), December through
February (Winter), March through May (Spring),
md June through August (Summer). Two
f!l(ceptions were Fall 1992 when sampling 5taned
ill October, and Summer 1994 when sampling
concluded in Ju1y.
To assess the canal's ability to sustain fish
ltea1tb and nutritional needs, estimates of fish
physiological conditions were calcu1ated from
length-weight relationships. We calculated
condition factors (K) using Fu1ton's equation
(Anderson and Gutreuter 1983) for each species
by site. Comparisons of K. between different
species cannot be calculated because of differences
between body shapes and sizes; i.e., the size and
mape characteristics of trout are different than
tbose of sunfish. Additionally, K values tend to
increase as fish length increases (Anderson and
Gutreuter 1983). Our comparisons were limited
to individuals of the same ~e group. Mean K
bctors were not calculated for fish weighing < 10
,. The precision of our field scale (log units) was
lOt effective in providing reliable weight
measurements of fish < 10 g. We considered K
ruues of ~1.00 to represent fish that were in
cood physiological condition, with the
... derstandiog that the range of optimum K varies
with diHerent species and age groups (Anderson
md Gutreuter 1983). Our estimates of K were
mt.ended to provide a rough estimate of fish well­bring
in the Arizorul Canal.
Seasonal length frequency distributions for the
'most abundant species were plotted to estimate
"e classes and growth" over time. Across-season
Imgth frequmcies were plotted for yellow bass
md roundtail chub. Age classes, or cohorts, were
dttennined using the Peterson method Oearld
1983), which identifies distinct peaks and ranges of
lrngth into sqw-ate ~e groups.
I-I ,\'WII1!1" 01 Dr \1.1 0PING AND MAINTAfl';lNC; A SPllRl FNIFRY IN 'Illl' S~[-J RI\TR rl\( 'II ('-1 C",,",'\I'
Granite Reef Electrical Barrier Monitoring
To determine the degree of fish immigration
into the Arizona Canal, we looked at data from
annual fish collections Oakle and Riley, unpubl.
data) at the head of the canal, between Granite
Reef DJm and the elwflc fish barrier. Species
richness and rebulle .lbundance of all fish
collected v,ere ..:ompded for 5-::rs (1991 to 19951.
These dJU represented In mstlntJneous estlmJ.te
of fish that were immigrJ!lng into the caml
because collections occurred on .i. single winter
day each yrar when the canal was dewatered,
Reduced waur levels, multiple seine hauk and
backpack electrofishing were very effective in
collecting most fish above the barrier. Surveys
were a cooperative effon among BOR, SRP,
AGFD, Jnd u.s. Fish and 'V;'jldlife SerYh'e .
Experimental Fish Stockings
CatchJble channel catfish and rJmbow trout
were expenmentally stocked to: (1) estimate
growth; (2) determme survJ'lIal; (3) assess tissue
contlminatlon levels in fish; (-4) monitor
movements; and (5) assess losses to lateral canals.
All fish were stocked at Site 3. On June 21, 199),
we stocked 1.500 channel catfish (X - 37S-mm
TL) marked with a nght pectoral spine clip. On
Julv 9, 1993, we stocked soc additlOnal chJ.nnei
catfish marked with numbered Floy~ ugs; we
hoped to eS!lmate growth and sUl"\-wal from
recaptured fish. On November 3, 1993,2,200
Floy~-[Jgged rJ1J;:'ow trout were slOcked {x _
2SD-mm TU
Before the June Jnd !'-<ovemher slOcklOgs, floh
traps were placed 1O the fmt 5 lateral cafllls
located downstrea:'l at Slle 3 (Fig. 6). No traps
were placed UPSlrL_.:n of Site 3 because prt'violl'
research mdicatea th.lt fish did not move upstream
through watrr control strunures (Soremen 199C~
Each trap wa~ CO:-)<;[ructed of 2-cm wide, sh:c'l
diamond-me~h, and fit the mside dimensIOns of
the lateral canal control structures (Fig. 7). These
traps were deSigned to collect fish emlgrJling from
the Anzona Canal. Based on pre\'ious studies
(Sorensen 1990, Watt and Pmons 1990),
moniton:1.g for a. mlfllmum of 40 days is suffiCIent
to recowr most stocked fish leaving the ma.1n
onal. Trap~ ""ere checked daily for a m'nimum
of 40 da~'s followmg initial stockings, to estimate
the number of stocked fish lost to the lateral
canals. We also checked the demossing structure
(Fig. 8) at Skunk Creek Ouin (Site 1) for stocked
fish monahlles_ The demossing structure at the
12 ARIZO,,,:" GA_IIE & f/SJi DEPARTl/E.'fl, TECH. REP, 18
Flgtlre 6. Phcing a fish trap toto a bter.J can,u neaf SIte
3. pnnr 10 stocking g,une flsh_
canal's terminus collected most floating debm Jnd
organic material and deposited thiS refu~e in J
dump trader. Fish tra.ps were removed ae the end
of each monitoflng penod.
B R. WRIGHT A/I,"Dj. A. JOPE\SE,\" 1995
Figure 8. Skunk Creek Drain demossmg structure and debris collectIOn dump at Station ACD on the ;\raona Canal.
Dunng daily trap inspections, we conducted
Informal (reel interVIews with numerous anglers
fishing along tht canal banks. Originally, creel
survey, were nO{ part of the study plan;
neverthdess, we took advantage of the
opportunity to inten-!t'w anglers These creel
inten'Jews provided Jnother source of information
on the status of our stocked fish. \\:·'e noted: creel
date, location, spt'cies collected. TL, weight. Floy~
Lag number, and presence of fin dips.
In addition to our monthly elecrrofishing, we
sampled 3 alrer!lJte sites (Table 1) to mo:-:1tor
stocked fish mQl-ement and later to collect
specimens for tissue contlminant analyses. We
used repeated-effon electrofishing, gill netting, and
angling in these areas to Increase the chUlce of
recovenng stocktd fish. Prior to some of these
electrofishing effons, a 3D-m experimental gill net
was set anoss tbe canal and attached to a nearby
bridge. The net was in plJce while the
electfofishlOg boat herded the fish downstreJm.
We combintd all sampling methods to
determine the ret:apture frequency of stocked fish
across weeks, utch-per-unit-effon was calculated
B. R. WRIGfrT AND J A. SoRE-Ssm 1995
from rep'eated-effort electrofishing surveys, gill
netting, and AGFD angling. Stocked fish
movements and losses to the lateral canals were
also recorded.
POlemiJ.1 gro ..... th of stocked ram bow troUI
and channel catfish ..... as determmed by subtradmg
the recaptured mean TL and ..... elghts from the'
Initial stocking measurements Of the 1,500
(hannel catfish stocked in June, a subsJ.rnple of
300 were weighed and measured for baselme size
data_ June-stocked c.atfish with nght pectoral fin
c1ir~ were Floy~ tagged when recaptured (Fig- 9).
All July-srocked catfish and stocked rainbow trout
were meolSured for n and weight prior to release.
Estimates of physiological condition for both
species were calculated using K and Wege­Anderson
relative weight (Wr). Relative weight IS
another method of comparing physiological
condition which is species-specific because of
diverse body shapes and sizes (Anderson and
Gutreuter 1983). A Wr value of 100 may be
considered ideal for all species even of different
age groups. However, Wr values are less reliable
as fish reach full maturity and Wr values fall
Amo.'<A GAME (., fiSH DfJ>AR7ME.\T, TEOI. REP. 18 13
FrASIJI1Lm" Of DEYfl< 'I'I:-<C .\~!l MAINTAINING II SPORT FI~![Hn' IN 1l1~ SAIl Rln.1t P'II,'JH"T CIIN.~L'
figllre 9. A recaptured. JunMlocked channel catfish belIlg measured, t>,·eighed, and FloyS tagrtd.
below toe (Anderson and Gutreuter 1983). Both
K and ~:r were presented 1D our results to
evaluate the well-being of stocked and recaptured
fish. Unfonunately, Wr!s a new method, and
speCIes-specific standard w~ghl (\\'5) eqUJtlOns are
only JVJ.dJble for common game fish and a few
nongame species. The moo current standard
weight (\\.,) values for raltlMw trout and channel
catfish were used to ca\cul..ne \X"r (E. Murphy,
Texas A and M., PeTS. commun_, [J. \('ilhs, South
Dako!J State Univ., pers. commun.) Both
stocking groups of channd catfish wcre combined
to provde reliable compansons of rr.ean TL,
weIght, K, and Wr between the time they were
stocked and recaptured.
Potential Fish Tissue Contaminants
Stocked and recaptured channel catfi5h and
ralObow trout ,pecimens ycre submnted to
private laboratones for aralYSls of 119 priority
pollutants lined bv the U5. EnVironmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to assess public health
risks. Fish from the origiml stocking groups were
analyzed to determine basdine levels prior to
stocking. Aher 5 months. .-ruptured channel
14 A.IUlO.",," GAME & FIlJ-I r.PAR7l(£VT. TECH. REP. 18
CJtfish and rJinbow trout were also anJl~"zed for
contaminant JcCUmuhtloT;. ~'hole fish wae
wrapped in alumInum fo1;. sealed m plastic bags,
labelled, and frozen (0 C) .mil laboratory testing
(Envlfon. Prot Agen.::y 1979, 199.'). E.h:h
compo~ite (I to 3 fIsh) w;r; homogeOlze':: :md then
analyzed usi:Jg esubbhedEPA method~ (EnVIron.
Pro!. AgeoC': 1979. 1993). Tht conlJmmJnts
tested for mcluded: pestio;les, f"'leuis and
lnorganics, polychlonoate.d biphenyls (PCB) and
rdated compounds. ethers. phenoh and cresols,
phthalate esters, halogenated alipr.Jtic~, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosammes, and olher
nitrogen-containing compounds. Practical
quantification limit (PQL) was used as the \e\'el of
contaminant detection. This degree of detection
provides a reliable reprocbction of results by
different laboratories USln; the same EP A analYSIS
methods (Standard Methods 1989).
We obtained from SRP a list of herbiCIdes and
biocides used in and aloIlJ the canals to control
vegetation from January 1992 through July 1994.
In addition, SRP provided application schedules,
descriptions of chemlcal lK, a map of locations
where chemicals were applied, and white amur
B. R. WuGlfT AND j. A.. SOR£NSW /995
.- FEASIBILITY OF DlVELOPING AND MAINTAINING A Sl'I.... ...T FISHB\Y IN THE SALT RrvE:R PROJECT CANALS - .. ---
control sections. We obtained this information to
supplement our contaminant analysis and to
evaluate potentially adverw conditions to fish
survival in the SRP canal system.
Abiotic Factor.
Temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) are
water quality parameters that can affect fish
sUfVlval (piper et aI. 1983). Levels of pH also
influence fish survival when extremely acidic or
basic water conditions penist for long periods
(piper et al. 1983). Specific conductivity is the
ability of an aqueous solution to carry ill
electrical current (Standard Methods 1989) and
directly affects electroru~ efficiency. Highly
conductive water provides a greater area of effect
for the shocking bmt's electrOde, thus affecting
more fish and increasing s;unple sizes. Heavy
turbidity in water is caused by fine, suspended
sediment and organic matttr. Turbidity impairs
the visual-hunting ability of certain predatory fuh
as well as decreasing the I~ls of photosynthetic
primary production of algae and phytoplankton
(piper et al. 1983, O'Brien 1990).
From February 1992 to July 199i, we
collected monthly water quality measurements at
9 stations on the Arizona Canal (Appendix C) to
study environmental conditions that might affect a
spon fishery. Quarterly water quality
measurements were also collected from 19 stations
on the other SRP canals from March 1992 to July
1994 (Appendix C). Water quality stations were
established at the beginnifl&> middle, and end of
each canal except for the Cro~-Cut Canal, which
had only 1 station. Water quality measurements
were recorded during daylitht hours. A Horiba
U-I0 Water Quality Checkr was used to record
water temperature (C), dissolved oxygen (mgIL),
pH, specific conductivity (IDS/em), and turbidity.
Turbidity values were re~nted by
nephelometric rurbidity units (NTU), tbe standard
measurement of the intensily of light scattering by
suspended panicles in aqumus solution (Standard
Methods 1989). Readings were taken at the
surface and at depths of 05 m and 1.0 m. Secchi
disk measurements of .... ater transparency were
also recorded.
Water quality values "Were compared between
stations on the ArizonOl Canal to evaluate any
spatial differences tlw micht influence fIsh
distribution. Monthly vuiations in mean
temperature and DO acJ"Olli5 :ill sutions were
plotted to show seasonal. Olremes. Mean values
B. R. WRiGHT AND J. A. SClmom/l'm
of temperaturt, DO, pH, conductivity, turbidity,
and Secchi depth measurements from the Arizona
Canal (across aU stations and months) were
compared to the mean water quality aspects of the
other 7 SRP canals. We averaged the 3 depth
measurements for analysis.
Biotic FllctoR
Chlorophyll a. The mio of chlorophyll •
(Cffi.A) to pheophytin a (PHEA) can indicau the
amount of primary production (t.e., the lowest
trophic level of the food base) in an OlquatiC
system because it is a measure of the
photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton. A
ClllA:PHEA ratio of ~ 1.7 indicates high 0fi.A
values and excdlent physiological condition 01
phytoplankton. A ratio of 1.0 indicates pure
PHEA, the degradation product of acidified
CrnA, and rdleas a poor condition. From
January 1993 to Ju1y 199i, we collected and
analyzed water samples [0 estimate concentmions
of CHLA omd PHEA in the 8 SRP canals. Nine
stations were sampled monthly on the Arizooa
Canal, omd 13 stations were sampled quarterly on
the other SRP canals (Appendix C). All sampling
occurred during daylight houn concurrent with
other WOlter quality sampling. Water samples
.... ere collected at 0.5 m belo .... the surface using a
1-1., horizontal, van Dorn·type water bottle. We
collected a 3 L composite sample of water frun
each station. Samples were stored in amber,
polyethylene honles and kept on ice in the fidd.
Water sampJes were then refrigerated in the
lOlboratory at i C until analysis.
We used analytical procedures outlined in
Standard Methods (1989) for Cffi..A analyses.
Samples were filtered through separate glass fiber
filters (Whatman type 934-AHO, is-~m porosity,
i7·mrn diameter). Sample volumes ranged £rom
400 to 3,000 m1 of water depending on the
amount of suspended sediment and organic
matter. Filten were macerated and CHLA was
extracted usin; 90% aqueous acetone for 241m.
Spectrophotometric analysis was conducted using
a Perkin-Elmer Lambda·2 UVNisible
spectrophotometer. A test blank of 90% aqueous
acetone was nm prior to each sample series.
Known ca1ibnlion standards (1.7 ratio of
ClllA:PHEA) were tested for quality control
pwposes.
Benthos. Benthic samples were collected from
• stations on the Arizona Canal (Appendix q to
determine macroinvertebrate stomding stocks and
.-- FEASIIIllTY Of DEvnoPING AND M.\rI,'TAINING A SPORT Ftsli£p.y IN lHE SALT Rmlt I'WJECT CANAlS
relative abuncbnce. Benthic macroinvertebr.ttes
are animals that live in the bottom substrate., as
well as on the substrate surface and on aqw.tic
vegetation (Thorp and Covich 1991). Bimonthly
samples were collected from Seoptember 199) to
July 1994, using a O.04-ml (300-in~ Petite Ponn
Dredge. Dredge samples were collected from both
sides and the middle of the canal at both thC'
upper and lower ends of C'ach station, for a total
of 6 samples. If, mer .3 attempts, no $ubstntC' or
organisms were obtained in a dredge sample, no
additional sampling wu conducted at that station.
A 5OQ..~m sieve bucket was used to remove
sediment fines (i.e., silt) from each sample. Each
sample was preserved with 10% formalin or 70%
ethanol.
We used Rose Brngalil powder to stain each
sample. Then, each sample was rinsed with water
using a 25{).pm sieve and placed in a shallow
specimen tray. Individuals from each taxon were
identified, counted, and stored in vials with 70%
ethanol. Taxonomic classifications were based on
Barnes (196S) and Arnett (1985). Aquatic
Consulting and Testing, Inc. processed 1h of our
samples for quality control purposes.
Zooplanltton. For tbe purposes of our study,
zooplankton were deftned as invertebrates found
in the water column that float, drift, or weakly
swim (fhorp and Covlch 1991). Invertebrates
found in the water column included true
zooplankton, aquatic and terrestrial insects.. and
non-insect species. Quarterly zooplankton
samples were collected from 8 stations on the
Arizona Canal (Appendix C) between Deumher
1992 and July 1994 to estimate seasonal
zooplankton abundance and percent species
composition. Using a portable water pump or a
bucket, ] samples were collected from each nation
from a depth of about O.S m. Twenty liters of
water were filtered through an SO-I'm, Wisconsin­type
plankton net using a portable water pump or
a bucket. Samples were rinsed with deionized
water. stored in clC'af polyethylene bottles. and
preserved in 70% ethanol. ~ples were snit to
Aquatic Consulting and Testing, Inc. for
identification and enumemion using taxonomy
based on Barnes (1968). To maintain decimal
precision from low total counts, mean densities
were re1;orded as numbers of organisms per 20 L,
nther than numbers per liter.
Public Opinion Survey.
In May 1994, Behavioral Research Center,
Inc. conducted 2 separate telephone surveys
(Appendix 0) to detrrmint Maricopa County
residents' attitudes toward the use of the SRP
canals as an urban fishery. The first survey
interviewed 300 licensed anPers. while the second
survey targeted 600 individuals of the general
public. Licensed anglers were chosen randomly
from a list of current state or urban fishing license
holders. The general public respondents from
both urban and rural regions of Maricopa County
were selected at random from a list of phone
numbers by Behavior Research Center. Inc.·$
automated system.
The surveys examined the fol1owing aspects:
regional representation. cuneot angling
puticipation, respondent interest in an Urban
Canal Fishing Program (UCFP). demographic
status, fish species preference, willingness to ~y,
and level of use. Projected angler-use days,
potential new anglers, and revenues were
calculated.
Study Area Mapping
The study area was mapped using an
ARC/INFO Geographic Information System
(GIS), ground-truthed observations, Phoenix area
maps, and Salt River Valley Water User:s'
Association's maps (1993a, b). A map of physical
structures and potential public attess sites.. along
the Arizona Canal was created (Appendix A).
Habitat features and qualiutive flow regimes were
also mapped (AppendU B). Velocity
measurements were not available for our sampling
sites on the Arizona Canal. Instead, we used
terms from Orth (1983) to define flow regimes
within the Arizona Canal: (1) rifJks are high
velocity, turbulent water, (2.) tuns or glides are
nC'ady, laminar flows; and (3) pooh arC' low
velocity or still water.
Ff.A5IBllJTY OF DEVElOPING AND "t.~AINlNG '" SPORT FISHERY IN TI-IE SALT RlVER ho.n:cr CANAL~
Fil1 .. ~ P},n.n .... r . ,
\'
\
\
•.• •
, ..
.~ .' ~
:""1
\ .,
.t 1·- .. ' • .. >~,.,
.<. .. V • '\ . I. "til ~ \'.'
.' .... - • 11 • ' .•
..' ,'t ' ~V \,. ,
" .<l . • '" ':: "
AR/ZQlIG.I GAME &- FIsH DUARTMDiT, TEal. R£1'. 18 17
Full -- -
18 AIUZCWA GAME. fs FeOU.«nt£.\T, TECH. REP. 18 /J. R. WU;Hr"ANDf. A. SOIl[NS!S 1995
--- ---. - FEASIBILITY Of DEvELOPINC AND MAINTAINING "SPoRT FISHEl\.Y IN THt SAlT RrvD. hOIECf CANALS __ _
RESULTS
Fish Collection Sita Habitats
At each fISh collection site. we assiped
qualitative flow regimes to indiClte genstl aquatic
habitats. We estimated that the Arizona Canal
had approximately 44 km (70.4%) of rum, 13 km
(20.6%) of pooh, ",d 5.5 !un (9.0%) of riff],
habitat. Site 7 was .1 deep-water, run hat.itn.
Approximately 1.9 km of Site 5 was also deep­water,
run habitat, while the remaining section of
this site was pool habitat. Site 3 was a shallow
segment of canal with approximately Y.!i riffle and
% run habiut. Riffle habitat in Site 3 was: located
immediately downstream of the water cootrol
structure at 19th Avenue. We classified Alternau
Site 3 to be "AI run and % pool habitat. In
addition, Alternate Site 3 had mostly earthen
bottom and banks with overhanging vegrtation.
Both Site 3 and Alternate Site 3 werc~ within the
same reach between 2 water control struoures.
We classified Site 2 as pool habitat with some
riffles occurring immediately below the water
control structure upstream of the -43rd Avenue
and Peoria Avenue intersection. Riffle habitat
was found at the top of Site 1 immediately below
the water control structure at 67th A veDR;
however, most of Site 1 was pool habitat.
Fish Surveys
Species Dl'I.Jersiry QnJ AbNndance. We collected
13,355 fish from our electroflShing surveys,
representing 20 species and 10 families (Table 2).
The most abundant species were: Sonora sucker,
desen sucker, threadfin shad, red shiner, "hite
amur, and lugemouth bass, respectively (fable 3).
Collectively, these 6 species accounted for about
98% of the total sample. To identify the resident
assemblage of fish in the Arizona Canal, we
excluded stocked channel catfish (n - 24) and
stocked trout (n - 122) from the total
electrofishing count. In addition, 38 larv.al fish
were not identified and were excluded fCOllD our
total. The 14 remaining species had relative
abundances that were < 1%. Four species were
caught only once during our study: smallmouth
bass, walleye. flathead catf15b, and an oscar.
Species richness remained relatively constant
throughout this study (Table 4). The biglaest
number of species (n - 18) was collected a.t the
downstream end of the can.a.l (Skunk era
Drain), and declined to 12 toward the bead of the
canal (Granite Reef Dam). The year-to-yrar
difference in mean species richness was s-.aU (n _
4).
B. R. WiUGHT AND j. A. ~ 1"1
Table 2. Common names, scientific names, and
species reponing codes of fISh collected from 5
sites along the Arizona Canal, October 1992
through July 199-4.
hm.ily/Specie~
UtO$lomidae
De~n rucker, G.tOSlQmM.l cUrki
Sonora rucker, G.toslomIu imignis
Ceutrarchidae
BIU<gill, L<pomU ~
Green runfish, f..lptmru ~NS
Largemouth bass, Mit:-roptnrG
saJrrn:J/Jn
Smallmouth bass, MicrOJlf"WS
do/~
Gchlidae
Oscar, ASIT/motNS oalLaw
Oupeidae
Threadfin shad, Dorrwmw ptkrlmst
Cyprinidae
Common carp, CyprmNS urpic
Goldftsh, G.r4SsiNS IIM7'4UlS
Red shiner, Cypri.~1L. u.m..sis
Rounduil chub, Gw robust.
Whiu amur, Ckrl~godim ;dtu.,
Ictaluridae
Channel ~tfish, /~ f'IlJ'Ictatus
flathead c.atfish, PyWdiCtl! oliwris
Yellow bullhead, AmtiJmts ... talis
Pacichthyidae
y elb~· h.a.ss, MOT(J1U mwissippimsis
Pacidae
W illeye, StizosttdUm fIil'mmI
Poeciliidae
Western mo.squitofuh, wmAw,i4
tiffmis
Salmonidae
Rainbow trout, ~ mykis5
Source: Am. Fish. Soc. 1991.
CAct
CAIN
LEMA
lECY
MlSA
Moe
DOPE
CYCA
CAAU
CYLU
GIRO =
ICPU
PYQL
AMNA
MOM!
STVl
GAAF
ONMY
AlUZONA G..tME &- fIsH DoARDIENT, T£CH. Ro. 18 19
~
I
.~.
~
~
§
~
~
::
.~.
~
,~..
~
r
~
Table 3. Total number (n) and relative abundance (%) of fishes collected from eJearofJshing sites along the Arizona Canal, October
1992 through July 199-4. See Table 2 for ftsh species codes.
......
CAIN
CACL
DOPE
CYLU
CJ1D
MISA
MOM]
ICPU
GIRO
"" ...
GAM'
CYCA
LEM.
ONMY
CAAU
LECY
Mtt>O
A.<OC
STVI
PYOL
T~"
.s~r.l · ..
307 9.10
S4 1.62
2,310 69.24
)6J 10.88
110 5.40
42 1.26
)1 0.93
3 0.09
] 0.09
•
o
•
" ,
,
•
IU'
o
0.12
0.51
0.21
0."
0.0]
0.0'
0.03
0.0)
o
),336 100'!I0
Site 2
n ..
35) 22.24
1« 9,07
196 12.35
764 48.14
16 1.01
21 1.32
24 UI
-46 2.90
) 0.19 ..
°
2
°
,°
o
•
o
°
1,5'7
CI.II
° a.n
°
0.06
° 0.19
•
o
o
°
100"'
Site 3 . ..
t,8.7 39.11
2,018 0.23
41) '.76
221 4.71
21 0.59
12 1.74
28 0.59
10 0.21
27 0.57
,•
,
o
,°
2
o
o
o
° 4,714
.."
0.06
0.15
°
° 0.06
0."
•
o
o
°
IC""
Site 5 · ..
1.219 .9.67
lSI 34.96
100 4.01
201 1.19
21 0.16
)0 1..22
,. O.ze
J 0.12
, .20
,•
•
° 2
° o
•
o
°
~".
o
0.11
0.16
o
0.01
° o
•
•
o
0."
IC""'
.. Unidentified larval fi.h and rtocked game filh (lCPU and ONMY) are Dot included.
... , · ..
7SO ».))
171 US)
47 3.72
137 11.75
6 0.47
0.01
.. 0.)2
26 2.06
5 0.40
• •
14 1.11
2 0,16
o 0
0.01
° ° o 0
• •
• 0 ° 0
o •
1,264 100'II.
T mal (II) o.enU ...
All Sites AbuDdaa.::e
4,476 )).52
],2&5 24.45
3,066 22.96
1,7'7 lUI
251 1.18
176 1J2
9. 0.70
II 0.66
4) 0.32
" 20
19
19
11
•
•
ll,3SS
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.01
0."
0."
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
100"
I ~
f
~
f >
~
~ 2
~
~
f
f
f
FEASIlIIUTI' Of DEVFl.QPING MT M."J:'.'TAINING A SPORT fISHERY IN THE SIn RJvn PkOJECT CANALS ----
Table ... Number of fish specits col1e..."t~ (species richness) by year, from S dectrtilShing sites ~ong the
Arizona CanOlI, October 1992 through July 1994.
y= " Site I Site 2
'992 J 11 11
1993 12 17 12
'99' 7 15 10
Overall Tow 18 1l
-x J.4J 11.0
sixty percent of the fish sampled during our
monthly electrofishing surveys were taen from
Sites 1 and 3; 25% (n ... 3,336) from Site 1 and
35% (n .. 4,714) from Site 3. We collected the
fewest fish (n _ 1,2&4, or 9.5% of the Iotal count)
from Site 7. Electrofishing catch-per-un..it-effon
(CPUE) was summarized by site (fable 5) and by
season (fable 6) for 8 species: Sonon. and desert
suckers, red shiners, threadfin shad, white amurs,
largemouth bass, channel catfish, and ninbow
trout.
Sonora and desert suckers were the moST:
abundant fish collected during our elecuofishing
surveys. These fish were found at all sltes, but
were most abundant at Site 3 based on total
number caught and CPUE. Native fish. including
roundtail chubs, accounted for about 58~ (1'1 -
7,784) of all fish collected. We collected a total 43
roundt.a.i! chubs, or 0.3% of the total sample.
Forage fish (threadfm shad and red shiners)
were taken from all our collection sites and
comprised approximately 36% (1'1 - 4,853) of our
total electrofishing sample. The total number
caught and CPUE for threadfin shad increased
moving downstream (Site 7 to Site 1). Red
shiners were also sampled at all sites. but CPUE
was highest at Site 2. Collectively, forage fish
were the second most abundant group of flSh
collected during our study.
White amurs were found at each site, bw
these ftsh were most abundant at the do ... ·nstream
end of the Arizona Canal. White amW'S
accounted for about 2% (1'1 _ 251) of the total
electroflShing sample. Since wrute amW'S ha,'e a
tendency of moving downstream towards the
Skunk Creek Drain (Site 1), SRP periodically
y=
Site 3 SittS ""7 Toul -x
12 • , 11 10.0
15 1l 11 17 l3.6
12 6 • 15 9.'
15 1l 12
13.0 9.0 7J
moves many of"iese fish 10 upstream canal
sections. Salt RiIrr Projea relocation efforts
influence the ab.dance rl white amurs across
sites.
Game fish tl-lemotah bass, resident channel
catfish, yellow -. and ftSident rainbow trout)
represented 3% .. - 369) of the total
elecuofishing smple. ~emouth bass, resident
channel catfuh,.d yellOW" bass were collected
from all 5 fish ailection ntes along the Arizona
Canal. Residenuainbow trout were collected
from all sites ampt Site 1 ·Largemouth bass and
channel catfISh bat the hi&hest CPUE at Site 3.
Overall, game fill numbm were very low when
compared to the utive SIders and forage ftsh.
CondItion Fern.. Most resident fISh in the
Arizona Canal WIre in good pbysiologic.a.J
condition based. overaD mean condition faaors
{mean K; TabJe ~ All species sampled had mean
K values > 1.00, a:cept threadfin shad, roundtail
chub, channel alish, and rainbow trout, which
had mean K valle> 0.81l Due to missing n
and weight data,me nuniler of ftsh used to
calculate mean K iaaon tiffered. from the total
number of ftsb -.pled (Jable 3). Most threadflO
shad (79.5%), redminen fI9.~), and all western
mosquitofish (c-l:wsW- "'mis) "'ere below our
weight criteria (Le.. < 10 c) for c.a.Jculating K
factors.
Size iJnd Agdtr.wcturt. Mean lengths were
calculated for alltpecies callected (Table 8).
Seasonal length lirquency distributions were
created for I~e.mh _. thre2dfin shad, red
shiners, Sonora ..un, ~n rockers. and white
amutS. AdditiomDy, ovenJllength frequency
ARlZO'Vt GAMElflSH DfhA1JtE\7, TEO/. REP. 18 21
----- FEA51B1l.JTY OF DEVElOPING AND t.t.oJNTAl!IIING A SPORT FISHERY IN n-n=: SALT RIVD ~ CAN.us ____~
Table 5. Mean catch-per-unit-effon (CPUE; fish/hr) by site for selected resident fishtpecies
electrofished from the Arizona Canal, October 1992 through July 1994. See Table 2"r fish species
codes.
Species
CAIN
CACl
CYLU
DOPE
Site
1
)
5
7
2
3
5
7
1
2
3
5
7
I
2
)
5
7
M~
CPUE
13.56
20.13
101.64
53.06
40.07
LIO ." 111.27
38.1-4
11.69
14.82
42.16
'.46
H.62
15.63
76.81
7.47
21.56
4.45
2.26
so n"
8.76 13
16.+4 21
97.21 19
36.54 21
+4.23 18
2.61 23
7.07 21
I+U8 }O
28.19 21
20.61 18
20.88 23
<46.3-4 21
21.91 30
21.25 21
27.39 18
91.26 23
13.97 21
76.26 30
6.96 21
3.% 18
• Number (0) 01 wnple (6Y$ Jor eaa; me aunn, lhlS prOject
distributions were generated for roundtai.1 chubs
and yellow bass.
Throughout our study,loUKemouth bass total
lengths were highly variable (Fig. 10). In Summer
1993 and Fall 1993, we identified 2 largemouth
bass cohorts. During Spring 1994 and Summer
1994, we identified a single cohort; however,
during these 2 seasons our sample size of
largemouth bass with n ~240 mm '-as
primarily the result of biased sampling due to
repeated-effort electroftshing.
No gaps were found in the length frequcocy
distribution to sepante threadfin shad into
separate cohorts (Fig. 11). Threadfm sh.ad
exhibited some degree of growth over time
because n measurements shifted upward. In
Winter 1993-1994, threadfin shad (rL s90 mm)
were absent from our collMions. This teend
continued in Spring 1994 (IT. S:100 mm) ~d
Summer 1994 (fL s: 110 mm).
The number of red shiners declined
dramatica.lly during the last 3 ~ns (i.e-. W~r
22 ARIZONA G...ua" ~ FISH Du.u.TJIDfT, TLot Rll. I'
Species
CTID
MlSA
ICPU
ONMY
Sire
2
3
5
7
1
2
3
5
7
2
3
5
7
2
3
5
7
6.28 4.71 23
1.24 2.48 21
1.10 1.57 30
0.74 0.66 21
0.32 o.n 18
1.55 1.67 23
133 2.03 21
2.83 4.61 29
131
0.06
0.50
1.60
L ..
0.11
1.24
0.10
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.08
1.91 21
0.26 I!
0.!9 23
2.41 21
4,35 29
0.30 21
1.99 18
1.42 23
0.10 21
0.00 29
0.25 21
0.34 18
1993-1994, Spring 1994, and Summer 1994) of this
study. We found no distina breaks in the length
frequency distribution to separate red shiners into
specific cohom (Fig. 12).
Sonora suckers exhibiud a bimodal length
frequency distribution durilc most of our study
(Fig. 13). To a lesser deg:rer. a third cobort of
young fish (IT. S 120 mm) appeared in Summer
1993 through Winter 1993--1994, and again in
Summer 1994. However, br Summer 1994 a
bimodal length distribution iad returned.
Desert suckers exhibited a bimodal length
frequency distribution t.Ju-o.chout most of our
study, except in Summer 1m when a third
cohort appeared (Fig. 14). The length ranges
Within the 2 cohorts remaiaed stable during the
first 3 seasons. The same 2 [aborts a1so remained
stable during Fall 1993 thro.gb Spring 1994. By
Summer 1994. the bimodallfi:stribution shifted
downward towards smaller ish.
B. R.. IVJoorT AND J. A. Soit£NSEN 1m
- FEA5!l11l.ITY OF DEVELCft'lG AND MAlNTAl1OOG" SPORT FlSHER,Y IN TI-IE SAlT RIvER PROJECT CANALS ___ _
Table 6. Mean catch-per-unit-dfon (CPUE; fishlhr) by season for selected n-sident fish species
e1wrofished from the Arizona Canal, October 1992 through July 1994. See Table 2 for fish species
codes.
Species Season
CAIN Fall 1':192
Winter 1992·9)
Spring 1993
Summer 1993
Fall 1993
Winter 1993·94
Spring 1994
Summer 1994
CACl Fill 1992
Winter 1992-93
Spring 1993
Summer 199)
Fall 1993
Winter 1993·94
Spring 1994
SUIIllIU'T 1994
eYlU Fall 1992
Winter 1992-93
Spnng 199)
Summer 1993
Fall 1993
Winter 199}"94
Spring 1994
Summer 1994
404 46.80 7 CTID
7).81 62.57 11
36.35 42.42 16
38.61 32..... 17
6Hl 81.49 H
62.83 86.]9 12
48.03 86.30 21
35.91 -46.28 14
11.68 24.27 7 MISA
39.67 50.09 11
26.86 30.81 16
25.33 31.73 18
57.48 123.36 14
63.15 121.20 12
53.52 136.17 21
28.55 52.29 14
10.40 14.72 7 ICPU
25.77
23.53
ll.H
33.72
18.76
4.76
3.77
49.20 11
23.83 16
35.30 18
42.27 14
31.27 12
9.S4 21
4.74 14
Stason
Fall 1992
Winter 1992-93
Spring 1993
Summer 1993
Fall 1993
Winter 1993-94
Spring 1m
Summer 1994
Fall 1992
Winter 1992-93
Spring 1993
Summer 1993
Fall 1993
Winter 1993-94
Spring 1994
Summer 1994
Fill 1992
Wintt)" 1992·93
Spring 1993
Summu 1993
Fall 1993
Winter 1993-94
Spring 1994
Summer 1994
M=
CPUE SO
3.21 4-".
2.52 Ut
1.95 2.05
1.95 3.4'1
2.70 3 ....
0.63 1.95
2.01 3.26
1.47 293
0.68 0.54
1.02 1.59
0.36 1.02
1.60 2.15
2.38 2.02
0.71 1.08
3.02 5.25
1.47 2.39
2.37 3.64
0.93 1.27
0.72 1.03
2.42 H2
2.45 3.96
1.16 l.45
0.22 0.59
0.67 2.41
n'
7
II
" 18
" 12
21
"
7
II
16
17
" 12
21
"
7
II
16
17
I"l
21
"
DOPE Fall 1992 32.71 40.56 7 O!'.'"M'! Fall 1992
Winu)" 1992-93
Sp)"ing 1993
Summer 1993
Fall 1993
Winter 1993-94
Spring 1994
Summer 1994
0.00
0.10
0.09
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.36
1.65
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
7
II
16
17
15
U
21
Winttr 1992-'13 19.27 135.24 11
Spring 1993 41.69 100.39 16
Sumttler 1'193 7.25 13.74 IS
Fall 19'13 22.91 29.01 14
WinIe)" 1993-94 6.31 11.35 12
Spring 1994 9.15 21.7'1 21
Summer 1994 7.66 1'1.47 14 + Numbe)" (n) of dirs sampled WDIiiIi rub le2S0n dUrilig ihii nudy. "
White amur n measuremcas were highly
variable over time but were all 2:360 mm n
(Fig. 15). To comply witb AGFD white amur
stocking permit conditions, SRP must stock sterile
white amun with a minimum had width of 57.2
mm. Due to low sample sizes mel the wide range
in n, distinct cohons were not apfW"ent except
for 1 in Spring 1994 (I1. <He to 560 mm). Over
time, we found white amun ShowN some degree
of growth due to the upward shih of n.
B. R. WRlcHi AND t A. SOIIDlso.' 199'
Due to low sample sizes. the yeUow bm and
rounduil chub length frequency distributions
were plotted across seasons. We found 2 ClIhons
of yellow bass (Fig. 16) with peaks at 90 I1IIrI. and
230 m.m n. We identified 2 separate coborts of
roundtail chubs with peaks at 170 mm and 250
mm n \.Fig. 17).
~ Table 7. Mean condition hlttOR (It) aDd sta.Ddard deviatioos (SD) for selected £ish species collected from the Arizona euw. Oaobe, 1992 through July .99.,. See Table
I • 2 for fiSh species codes.
f Sit!; , Sill< ~ SitE J Site ~ Si!;!; 7 Ove!3!J. I
~
~ Species~ • i It (SD) • i K (SO) • i It (SD) n i It (SO) • i K (SO) • i K (SO) ~ CAIN 26. 1.09 (0.12) "0 1.00 (0.11) 1,233 1.04 (0.13) 99' 1.11 (0.26) '2' 1.02 (0.09) l,SSI' 1.06 (0.21) ~
~ CACL .. 1.12 (0.10) .2. 1.05 (0.10) 1,188 1.1) (0.20) .11 1.20 (0.19) 130 1.26 (0.12) 2,10) 1.15 (0.19) ~ I DOPE '0' 0.96 (0.15) 81 0.97 (0.16) " .. 0.94 (0.17) " 1.004 (0.13) II 0.9] (C. to} 629 0.96 (0.15) ~ CYLU -(-) 2.11 (OJ)o) -H 2 1.22 (0.04) -H , 1.52 (0.51) • 0
~ CTID 12. 1.08 (0.13) II 1.21 (0.19) 21 1.27 (0.17) 19 1.34 (0.20) • 1.20 (0.17) 187 1.14 (0.18) ~
~
M1SA '0 1.52 (0.21) •• 1.53 (0.26) ., 1.57 (0.27) " 1.5-4 (0.25) 1.51 (0.00) ." 1.55 (0.25) MOM! 18 1.25 (0.11) .2 1.17 (0.22) II 1.14 (0.15) • 1.37 (O.2") i , 1.4" (0.22) .. -- 1.23 (0.21) ICPU , I.'" (0,'8) • 0.81 (0.08) -H • 1.28 (0.00) 20 0.89 (0.13) 2'! 0.89 (0.13)
0
GIRO 2 0.90 (0.01) , 0.89 (0.06) 2' 0.97 (0.09) , 1.01 (0.08) • 0.96 (0.'0) " 0.96 (0.09) >
AMNA 2 1.10 (0.21) ~ " 1.19 (0.15) , VIS (0.04) -H -H " '.22 (0,'7)
~ CYCA • 1.56 (0.07) 1.46 (0.00) • 1.66 (0.40) , 1.2. (0 ... ) 2 I." (0.22) " I.SO (0.31)
m
LEMA II 1.97 (0.34) -(-) -H -H -H II 1.97 (0.34) ,
• oNMY , 0.') (0.06) - (-) -H -(-) -(-) , •. t) (0.06) ~
1.76 (0.23) -H 2.86 (1.53) -(-) -H • 2.20 (0.99) ~ eMU , 2 .. ~ LECY 1.69 (0.00) , 1.46 (0.09) 2 2.03 (0.21) -(-) -H , 1.69 (0.30) ,. ~
r ASOC 2.11 (0.00) -H -H -(-) -H 2.1. (0.00) ;S
PYOL -(-) -H -H • ... " (O.oo) -(-) 1.40 (0.00) ~ ,.~., • Unidentified rub and stocked game rub (ICPU and ONMY) UC' Dot iDdudcd. "
;.. ~
-f ~
FEASIBIUTY OF DEVEWPING A.'ID MAiNTAINING A SPORT Fl~HER\" IN TIiE SAlT RrvD. P1t~cr CANALS
T.able 8. Mean total length (fL), sund.ud deviation (SD), range, and number of resident fish (n)
electrofished from the Arizona Can,u, Octoher 1992 through July 1994. See Table 2 for fish species
codes.
Species" n" i TL (mm) SD Range (mm)
CAIN 3,977 234.46 90.05 36-490
CACL 2,542 200.68 77.48 37-<63
DOPE 1,301 106.32 13.64 61-147
CYLU 1,275 54.00 12.62 18-1U
CTID 251 586.14 84.50 375-m
MISA 161 267.05 105.37 61 .... 85
MOM! 94 138.12 62.10 42-286
!CPU 88 233.48 116.00 40-550
GIRO 41 219.68 87]3 106-00
AMNA 23 159.43 52.32 55-276
GAAF 20 39.85 8.88 26--55
CYCA 18 466.33 108.18 26+671
LEMA 19 166.32 26.68 99-215
ONMY 11 300.55 44.54 217·361
CMU 5 225.60 78.03 140-2%
LECY 6 106.33 9.27 94-119
MlDO 225.00
ASOC 248.00
STY! 341.00
PYOL 475.00
.. Unidentified larval fish and stocked game fish (ICPU and ONMY) are not inclu~ .
.... Sample numbers may differ from n]ues on Table 3 due to missmg 11. data of sampled fish.
B. R. WRlGHr AND J. A. SOR£NSD/ I!m
AJUZONA GAME 6 FISH DOAK1JtEXr, TIOI. Ru. 18 25
------ Fl:.A\IB!LITY OF DEVElOPING AND MAINTAINING A SPORl FLS~f}.RY [l\I nn: SALT RIVER PROJECT CANALS --__ ,I .
I
,I
I
I. i·
.'..,1 "1 1
_,tII;I-13
•• II
~_120_
~ •• ~~ •• __ M ____________ _
! • I
-.... ­.......
c-.._
I i
,I
I
,I
I
! • I
•-•• ~
-..•-
-... ­Fiprt
10. Seasonallc:ngth·ftequency distributions of largemouth bass in the Arizona Caml
26 AJUZCWA GAME & FISH DUAR1MENT, TEO/. RE1'. 18 Jl R. WRIGHT AND J. A. SoR£NSEN 199j
----- FEAStBllJTY OF DEVELOPING AND MAINTAlXING A 51',)Rl FtlHt.Ry t<I THE SALT RIVER PROJECT CANAL~ ___ _
,I
I
I • I
,I
I
".,~ .. ,.
-­••
:1<1
... - •••
-­••••
'.
••
__ fOI_
,I
I
,I
I
,I
I
,!
I
-
~­..~
• • •
-­on
.~~~~~~--------, -
Figurt 11. Seuonallmgth-frequency cktribuuons of tbreadfin shad in th~ Arirona CanaL
B. R. WiuGHT AND]. A. SOMMES 1995 A!IJZCNA GA.4IE & FISH DEI'ARTME.NT, TECH. RD. 18 27
---- FEA.'iIBIUTI' OF DEVElOrlNG AND MAll'.'TAL'<1NG A SPORT FISHERY IN 11iF SALT RIVER PROJECT CANALS ____ _
, • I
I i
,
• I
,
• I
.... 112 •••
1.. ---
--"'-
, • I
'.
I • I
I •
I
• ,
... '­~.
"t
•-• (07~
.-.•, -
.-.•, -
FiguTt 12. Seasonallmr;th-frequency dinributions of ad shiner Ul the Arizona Can.al.
28 ARIZONA GAME & FISH D£PA.Rna..~7, TEal. R£1'. 18
... ,,. , . ....... ~("-
... ' .. '.
' ....... _(.0_ .
B. R. WlUGHT AND J. A. SORENSEN 1995
,
• I
! • I
! • I
'.-- '", .
, ,
I
,!
I
! I
! ,
I
' .. ' .. • ·W
._..... ­.....
- •• 412
Figun 13. Seasonal length-frequency distributions of Sonora sucker in the Arizona Canal.
8. R. WJuGIfT AND}. A. SOMNsF.N 19!n ARIZONA CAM! & FfiH DEbtR1MENT, TEOt. RIP. 18 29
----- FI'.ASIJI.ffi' 0] Dnt] <)l'lNG AI\iT\ ~L\.lXl 'IN~G A SrORl FlSl!ERY IN nlE $.'lT RIVER f'RO][CT C ........ ALS --__ _
I
i
!
i
I • I
I • I
.~., "­.
-.,.­......
__ Clt_
! • I
! • I
,,",
I • I
! i
.'.."'""
.... , ..• .
-, . •• ,n
Flglm 14. Seasonallmgth.fT~CY dinributions of dcsen rucker in the Arizona Canal
30 8. R. WIIJGHT AND j. A. SORENSlN 1m
•
HA.IWIllTI' Of DE'>Ul1POC A."lD MAINTAINING A SPORT FISIIERY IN TIn: SALT RIVER PlIl'JK"T CANAl.S ___ I • I
! i
! • I
"~-.---------,
" ,' . '. ..
.,,~~~-!,,-!,,-------I-I1-I-I----_... ..........
_.­,
..
-... ­~-
11111-
I • I
! • I
! • I
I • I
'.­..
D
,.. ,.. .- - ..
~ _________________ "'N~"
._.. .•
-­.'
"
....--.-
~_CIII_
-_._---_.-=---'----'----
Figure 15. Seasonal length·frequency Astributions of whitt amur in the ArizotU Cmal.
B. R. Wf{JGIfT A,!'ID J. A. SQRD.rsa>199S AiUZONA GAMI & FISH DCPAR1MENT, TEOI. REP. 18 31
FE.\smUJlY OF DEVELOI'tN'G MLJ MADrrAlNlNG II SPORT FISHERY IN ntE SA.l.T RIVER PROJECT CANALS ______ "-.-.-. ----------------
•
,.
Figur~ 16. Ovenlliength-frequency distributions of
yellow bass m the Arizona Canal (October 1992jlly
1994).
:I· .. ~II,
I ... ... i:
I,
Figure 17. Ovenlliength-frequcncy distributions ,""cross
~;uons) of roundtail chub in the Arizona Canal
(October 1992-July 1994).
Granite Reef Bectrical Barrier MonitoriRJ
To estimate fish immIgration into the
Arizona Canal, we looked at fish collection data
from surveys Gille and Riley, unpubl. data}taken
between Gnnite Reef Dam and the electric ish
barrier. From 1991 to 1995, 17 fISh species were
collected above the barrier (Table 9). Specie
richness remained relatively stable, with a lOW" of
9 species collected in 1991 and a high of 13 tpecies
in 1992 and 1995. Percent species composition
varied across years. The most abundant species (n
~ 700) collected above the barrier for the S-rr
period were: desen sucker (29.7%), tilapia (rupia
spp.; 16.5%). Sonora sucker (14.1%), channel
catfish (13.0%), and common carp (12.4%). The
least abundant species (n < SO) were: rounc:bai.l
chub, walleye, tbteadfin shad, bluegill, yelta.'
bullhead, white amur, and bigmouth buffalo
(lctiobus cyprindll4s).
32 ARJZ~ G..ot£ & FISH DEPARTMD.7, TeO! RELla
Percent species composition of tilapia and
common carp were highly variable betwetn years .
In 1991, tilapia was the most common species
collected (n .. 748) but they were a.bsent from tbe
1995 survey. However, tilapia still ranked second
in overall relative abundance during this S-yr
period. Common carp above the barrier were
rare to nonexistent between 1991 and 1993, but
their numbers increased in 1994 (n .. 526) ranking
them highest in abundance. In the 1995 survey,
carp numbers again declined, but they still ranked
fifth in total abundance for the S-yn. The
abundance of both species above the barrier was
unusual when compared to our electroflSbing
sampling downstream where carp were rare (n ..
19) and tilapia were abst:nt.
Experimental Fish Stockings
Channel Catfish (Ju~-Stocking). Most June­stocked
catfish sampled were recovered within the
first 5 weeks after stocking (Fig.18). We sampled
161 (10.7%) fish from June 1993 through July
1994. Monthly and repeated-dfon electrofishing
surveys captured 44 June-stocked channel catfish.
Twenty of these fish were collected during our
repeated-effon sampling (CPUE .. 1.7 fish/hr).
We sampled 69 June-stocked channel catfish by
mgling (CPUE ... 1.1 fISh/hr) and 1 fish by gill
net (CPUE .. 0.1 fish/btl. We documented an
additional 41 fish harvested by public anglers, but
were unable to estimate the catch nte due to
',.~~--, ..
'l"'"~_---:I
'.,~. 'c
WHkl After Slodling 0 •• $I !If
Figun 18. Recapture frequency of June--stocked ch.annd
catfiw across weeks after Slocking for all sampling
methods Oune 199) - July 1994}.
.. ;.
r
~ ~
~ I
~
i .g.
i'
.1
~
~
~
Table t. Summary of arunaal fUh coIleebom bft_ Gnnile k«f Darn and IhI= electric fish barrier 011 tbe ArUona CaoaIlor 1991·lm. NUlDber of fish colIeeted ( .. ). ~lUm
Ipecies <:ompositioa ~). ovenlllMaft (i), and nandan! deviation (SO) pven. See Table 2 for fish lpec:ieI coda.
.......
CACL 51
TiI.,ia' "41
CAIN 11
ICPU 6fo
CYCA
ONMY
MlSA
MOM!
PYOL
CYLU
GIRO
,TV!
DOPE
U<MA
CT1D
AMNA
ICCV'
T ....
2
2
o
Il
•
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
POI
.".
('10) •
S.6Z 459
82.1' 61
2.11 16)
7.26 196
0.22 17
0.11 III
0.22 3Z
o 0
1.41
0.44
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ICIC.'
II
II
7
"
•
o
o ,
1.114
.992
(%)
41.20
6.10
14.0
17.59
1.5)
10.14
2.17
o
0.99
2."
0.63
0.90
0."
0.)6
o
o
o
,00..
•
" to,
m
."
o
21
21
•
2 ,
21
o
,
a
o
199)
I")
\5.18
11.06
34.12
20.117
o
ll'
'.29
1.41
0.31
0.71
'29
o
0.16 ,
o
0.16
o
639 100%
I Tillpia .. iDcktermiD.e speciet (T.L.pi. •• ,.,., T. rrnm"mblc.., T. ziJJ.)
I ICCY • IttiDb.u qprinrlltu, 8ipnoutb buffalo
• .,.
,
".5.
52,
.OJ
42
" 12
o
•
o ,
2
o
o
1,310
'99'
('10)
34.06
0.)6
7.61
418
38.12
7.46 , ...
2.13
0.87
o
0.07
0.65
o ,
0.14 ,
o
''''''
•
60.
o
281
'"
'55 ."
" J7
21
Il
o
17 ,
o
o
1,611
Lm. __
('!OJ
37.11
o
17.1'
17.01
9.62
IOJ1
1.16
."
1.43
0.93
0.0.
o
I."
~" •
o
0.116
."'"
•
1,671
."
",
736
700
.os
.27
85
61
"
" 19
19
,•
5,652
~nlI
('10)
29.69
16.45
14.07
1J.02
12.38
7.17
2.25
1.50
1.01
1.01
O.5J
OJ4
0.34
0.11
0."
0.0.
0.02 .,...
•
355-60
116.00
15'-'10
147.20
140.00
IU)()
25.40
17.00
12.20
11.40
'.00
'.10
3.10
"0
0.40
0.'"
0.20
.Qv---.mll __
so
2.5.79
117.,u
102.59
811.19
225.27
61."
15.06
19.53
7.46
13.21
Ul
5.21
7.40
I."
0.'"
0.45
0.45
:::: Source: Jakie and Riley, uopubL data.
f
~ i o
~
f -> ~
i <
2
-~ ~
i
i
~
H \'II',llm' ('I DI\[I''I'I:>, \,: 'j\I:\I.~r:\I:--;',,,\ SI"'!'; f"HII;"\ 1:\ iill S\11 RI\IR Pkl']Ld C"'N.\L'
missing d,lta. SIX Junc·sttKkcd ch,mn,': ':.l\fi~h
were collected from lateral trJps dunnj:: the 42-d:t>,
monitoring period. LatefJI trap cpeE could not
be estimJted due to uregular SRP l\"Jt~r delivery
schedules.
Channel Catfish Oilly Stockmg). The highest
number of July·stocked ch,mnel catfish sJmpled
were CJught within the first 3 week> after stocking
(Fig. 19) A lOul of 26 Jul~'-stochd :ls~ (5.2°/0)
were collected bet""een July 1993 :tn.) July 1994.
After the second channel cltfish slock::lg. we
sampled both stocking groups concurrently.
Public anglers reponed harvesting 2C July-stocked
fish, but we were unable to calculate crUE.
Four fish were sampled by our angling cffom
(CPUE - 0.1 fish/hr). One July-stocked channel
catfish was collected from monthl" electrofishing
surveys, and another was intercepted by .he lateral
traps. Repeated-~ffon electrnfishing .md gill
netting yielded no July-stocked channel catfish.
Rainbow TrOIlt. Recapture frequency of
stocked rainbow trout was highes1 within the first
6 weeks after stocking (Fig. 20). Between
~ovember 1993 and July 1994, 347 (lS.8~)
stocked rainbow trout were caughl. A total of
212 rainbow trout were sampled by e!e-.:trofishing;
9C fish from repeated-effon collections (CPUE -
12.1 fish,'hr) PubllC angle~s reponed harvesting
132 rambo'tl.; trout Dunng the 44..J.a:-· monitoring
period we collected 3 fish from the hural tLl,pS.
No stocked rainbow trout were colleC'.:ed uSing
gill nets or during our angling effom
SIO,k<:a fish Gro:.;::), ~nd Cona::w,:. Stocked
channel catfrsh Jnd rainbow trout hJd no
sut-sunllal growth or Improvemen:. il". ,,,:ell·belng
(K and Wr) fTOIT'. the day of stock:c:g through July
1994 Re.:apturt:d channel catfish .it'~re.ased In
mean TL and welght, as well as pl-:~:slOlogical
condition (fahle 10). However, mean 11. lnd
welght of recap:ured r,llnbow trout in.:reased
slightly, bdt K and \,)/r declined bet,':ee:-:
November 199) and JUM 1994 (Table 11).
Stocked Fish Mo,,~mmL Most stocked fish
remained within the same area they wefe stocked
(channel catfish combi:.ed ~ 99.4% a.nd rainbow
trout - 95.5%). Stock~d fish were ne .... er obsern'd
to move upstream, but J number of them
gradually moved downstream o\'er time. We
recaptured 100 rain how trout (4.5%) J.:1d 13
channel catfish (0.6%) downstream of the Site 3
stocking location. Movement occurred more
slowly as the distance and number of physical
barrien (water control structures) incrnsed.
ARiZONA GA/oiE & fISH DEfARTME.\', TI.':H REI'. 18
Flgllr( 19. Recaprure frequency of July·stocked channel
calfllll across weeks after stock for all sampling methods
Oul)" 199.; - July 1994}.
....... -
: ~ , , ,
Flgllre 2:. R~caprure frequency oi :-':o\"emher-\\f.:ked
rambo'l>" trout across 'i!.'teks after slOckmg for ..J1
s"mpllI1~ methods (November 1993· July 1994).
Within the first 2 weeks after stocking, 85 of
those rainbow trout had mond 2.4 km
downstream to the first water control structure;
the lower boundary of Alternate Site 3. Aher 4
weeks, 8 channel catfish were found at the same
loo.:atlOn. Stocked rainbow trout were first
collected 5.6 km downstream at Site 2, after 7
weeks, Channel catfish were found at Site 2 after
12 weeks. Both species were collected from Site 1,
14.5 km downstream, after 17 weeks. No stocked
B. R. WluCHT ASD J A. SORE.XSEN 1995
·- Ff.A.'iIBnm- OF DEVELOI'ING AND MAINTAINING" SPoRT FISHERY IN TIiE SAlT RJVEA"'~ CANAtS ---
Tlblt \C. S,U lnd phYS10log,,;:.>! condition dau for stocked MId rrc"f'l"urrd chan~1 catfisb Gum and July-ttodt combined) in
lilt Anz.ona Canal. June 1993 10 July 1994.
Sundard Som~.
Stocked FIsh M.~ ~vlalion Minimum MaximQCI Nwnbu·
WeIght (g) 485.85 217.28 120.00 J,I99.:C '"
T oul Length (mm) 3n56 47.84 232.00 >47.X ".
K FKlor 0.87 0.26 0.20 l.ot '"
R.elauve Wt;g.t 96.34 30.81 19.69 493.55 '"
SuruWd Sompl.
R=ptured F...b M= DevIation Minimum Maximum NUIJlbe~
Weight (g) 445.69 271.62 117.00 1,6H.X III
Toul ungth {mm} 374.13 SUI 251.00 5220: 124
K FKtor 0.77 0.13 0.52 U. III
Relative Wt~ SUI 13.16 56.61 131.lio lZI
Table 11 Size and physiologiQ/ conditinn .!au for stocked and reo.prurrd r-aiobow trOut m the Arizona Cma), November
1993 to July 1994.
S=d.nI 5.unple
Stocked Fish M.= Deviruoa Minimum Mmm= Number·
W·iVn W 19J.9S 43.05 82.:X:: 465.00 W,
Toul ungth (mm) 251.20 16.81 14C.:C 373.Xl 1,191
K F:lCtor 1.21 OJ) 0'· .~ '" 2,182
Relative Wtlpn 109.84 12.21 4HS 19193 2,182
S,~ Sample
Rtcaptuff'i Fish M.= DeviltiOli Minimw:::::t M~= Number"
Wo,m (oj 194..36 44.4' 132.0:: 3'17.00 SO
Tou! ungth (mm) 267.70 20.5' 227.0:: :K.oo "
II: FaciO. 1.01 0.11 0." U6 SO
ReI"'-ive W eitln 91.79 10.09 69.'1 llJ57 SO
• Sample numben for nu and pbysiolopc2l d3u are different from dIIr lOt'>! number of fish szrnpled d\le to n:Wsin& n.u:ad
we,gIn <:bu.
rainbow trout or (hannel catfish wert' Clrtured
upstream of Site 3.
fish Loss to uUTa! Cana/s. A total of 122 fish
representing 6 species wrrr co!lcctrd from the 5
fish traps during the- 86 days of monitoring.
Three rambow trout (0.1% of total sl()(ked) and 8
channr! cltfish (0.4% of total slocked) • ..-cre lost [Q
lateral (JnJls (Fig. 21). Stocked fish made up 9.1%
of the tolll percent speclt's composition found 10
the traps. The remainder were yellow bullheads,
bluegill, and green sunfish (collrctively ~5.4%) and
native suckers (60.6%). Fish that could not be
identified comprised 4.9% of the total. More fish
were collected by the traps during the 'ummer (n
- 106) than during the winter (n - 16j. No
stocked fish were found in the Skunk Creek
demossing dump.
Potential Fish Tissue Contaminants
Composite" of control and recarlured fish
tissurs hau low or no concentratiof.- tJt the 129
EPA pnority pollutants (Appendix E). Phenols
and cresols, ethers, phthalate esters, pol;.-cyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, and nitrosa;nmes were
not detected m the fish. Pesticides such as aldrin,
chlordane, DDT, dieldnn, endnn, heptachlor, and
heptachlor epoxide were found m mmor
quantities, but well below Food and Drug
Admmistration (FDA) Action Level, (peterson
1987). Mercury and PCB concentr,uior,$ were
also well below FDA Action Levels. Dioxin
(reDD) was not detectrd in any ram bow trout
samples. Jnd ani;: at trJCe levels m the .:hannel
catfish samples. A few a.~bestos fIbers were
detectd m the June samples of recaptured
rainbow trout and chmnel catfish.
Con.:emrations of metals ~nd inorganic> "'-ere also
low In fish s.lmples. Except for methylene
chloride and chloroform, no halogenated aliphatics
were deteded.
5Jmple numbers of fish for contaml:-unt
analYSIS were very low. One channel cat/-ish
composite and 2 rainbow trout composite, (3 fish
each) were an.llyzed from the June and November
stocking groups for baseline contammant levels.
The;e fish were taken directly from the hatchery
and preserved immediately. Recaptured channel
catfish with exposure intervals of 9, 12, and 13
months after stocking (1 fish each) were tested.
All recaptured channel catfish for contaminant
analy~is were from the original June stock.
Rainbow trout samples had exposure periods of 5
months (2 fish composite) :md 7 months (1 fish)
J6 ARiZONA GAME & FISH DEPARTMEi'.7, nCH. REP. 18
FIgure 21. Lateral canal Siphon used to transfer c.anal
"'·ater for Irngatlon and mUfllClpal use.
aher stocking. Low recapture success over time
prrvented the submission of more fish m each
composite. Sarnplr numbers were aho bmilc.:! by
the h:<-h costs of laboratory analvsl>. ~ . .
Aquatic and Terrestrial Vegetation Control
S;<:1 Rlyer Proiect uses a combination of
blO\opcal. chemIcal, and mechafll(;<\ methods to
control aquatic and terrestri~l vegetatIOn in and
lIang. the (anals (G. Elliott, Salt Riwr Proj., pen.
comIT.un.). LocatIOns of herbicide USt .1Oci white
amur stocking were identifIed in the SRP canal
system (Fig. 22).
Since 1989, SRP hJ5 stocked sterile white
amurs (Fig. 23) into the Anzona, Cross·Cut,
South, Tempe, Consolidated, and Eastern canals
to biologically control aquatic vegetal iOn. The~e
fish ru:ve been highly effective and have reduced
or eliminated the need for chemical appliclt;ons in
stocked reaches. During annual dewaterings, SRP
has committed substantial resources towa.rds the
sllvage and upstream relocation of white amurs.
B. R. ~'RIGIfT AND]. A. SOJlI. ... "S£s /995
Rr\ 1.1\ PI" 'jl ,'1 L \~'.\L'
",w .n '" • n ... It.H , .. , , •
I i
! ! ! , • ! ! ! •, I
Illl 00
UN
NOO'THI .......
,.-. T2N
"""""""" IO;l
nN
..sI"'" ""
ns I
"oos "" I
SU .lrQUlJI( 'I.N\IT CONTIOI. I
US I
I - • ---,-- <:.. , --.-- ~I , .
~ _~_ ... ____ .. c-
~-~-... --,-- i:i::l ......... - __
Figure 22. Locations of herbicide use and white amur stock.wg by SRP ill the canal sptern (1993) .
•
Figure lJ. A whit( amur stocked by SRP to biologically cOllU"ol ~quatic vegetation in the canal~.
E R. ~GHTAND! A. $ORE~I~ AmON.'! GA!.IE & FI5/-{ DEPARDfE.\7, nCH REP. 18 ]7
FEA$lNUTY OF DEVELOPING ........." 1) MAlNTAINING A SPORT FISHERY IN 11IE SALT RJvn PROJECT CANAlS ____
Managrment of white amur populations includes
reducing the number of dewatered crnal sections
each year to increase carry-over of fISh.
Chemical control of aquatic v~tion was
accomplished using several herbicides: Hyclrothol.
191a (endothall), Magnacide H· (acrolein), copper
sulfate, and Rodeo- Wyphosate). Endothall md
acrolein are lethal to fish even in lovo
concentrations, md these herbicides are not used
in canal sections where white amun are stocked
(G. Elliott, Salt River Proj., pen. commun.).
On the Consolidated Canal, endothall was
used from Baseline Road to Pecos Road, while
acrolein was applied downstream of the Chandler
Water Treatment Plmt. Endothall was also used
on the lower portion of the Eastern Canal
(downstream of Basdine Road). On the Grand
and Western canals, acrolein was applied to canal
segments below water treatment plants. Both
acrolein and endothall were applied biweekly,
beginning in February and ending in November.
Deviations from these tstablisbed application
schedules varied when seasonal grom panerns of
vegetation warranted applications. On rare
occasions, copper sulfate was used on tbe
Consolidated Canal to control algal blooms that
created taste and odor problems in drinking water.
For the Arizona Canal, acrolein was applied only
in a lateral canal near 73rd Avenue.
Canal bank vegetation was controlled using
ROOeoa. Canal banks were treated in the spring,
midsummer, and fall. Spraying was terminated
just upstream of water treatment plants to
minimiZe water contammation.
Mechanical methods for controlling aquatic
vegetation involved the use of large, beavy-gauge
steel grates anchored to demossing bridges that
span the canals. Demossing bridges snag
vegetation being transported downstRam. These
bridges were present along each of the major
canals except the Cross-Cut Canal.
Abiotic Factors
Water quality of the Arirona Canal was
investigated to d~ermine if any pbysica1 or
chemical pan.metm exceeded tolerance levels for
fish survival. Mean ~ues and standard deviations
of water quality m~ents by site are
compiled in Table 12. Water temperatures peaked
in August, and declined rapidly in October (Fig.
24). Seasonally, dissolved oxygen (IX) levels
were highest in February through August, and
then dropped during September throuch
38 ARJZ0N.4 GAIIIf~ hRDo.dTMENT, TUX RD. JI
November (Fig. 24). During this study, the
lowest recorded DO level was recorded in January
from a portion of the Arizona Canal that was nOl
fully dewatered.
The other 7 SRP canals had basic water
quality and water tnnsparency values comparable
to the Arizona Canal. Mean values and standard
deviations for these measurements are listed in
Appendix F.
Biotic Factors
Chlorophyll;L The Arizona Canal had low-to­moderate
concentrations of Clfl.A, indicating a
fair amount of primary production by
phytoplankton was occurring (Table 13). Primary
production in the other SRP canals was similar to
the Arizona Canal (Appendix: F).
Benthos. Eighteen macroinvenebrate taxa
were collected from the Arizona Canal (Table 14).
The dominant tuonomic group was
Pleuroceridae, followed by Oligochaeta, and
CorblCl4ia spp. Chironomids were the most
abundant insects. Crayfish (Proatmbarus turk,)
were not found in any of our benthic samples but
were observed when electrofishing.
Stations ACID and ACD had the greatest
abundance of benthic organisms (Table 15). By
contrast, Station ACFJ and ACG3 had lower
standing Slocks of invertebrates.
Zoopl.mkum. Eighteen taxa of true
zooplankton were ooIlected from the Arizona
Canal (Table 16) and collectively were the most
abundant (59.5%) group found in the water
column. True zooplankton taxa included
nematodes, rotifers, and microcrustaceans (e.g.,
copepods, cyclopods, amphipods, c1adocerans, and
ostracods). As a group, aquatic and terrestrial
insects were second most abundant (38%) followed
by non-insects (2.5%). No organisms from the
phylum Annelida were collected from the water
column. Zooplankton densities in the Arizona
Canal were highest at stations ACCJ, ACEJ, and
ACB3 (r.bl, 17).
Public Opinion Survey
A random cross-section of licensed anglers and
the general public was contacted from all regions
of Maricopa County (fable 18). The estimated
sampling error was ±5.8% for the Licensed
Angler Survey and ±".1% for the General Public
Survey (P - 0.05).
Survey results indicated a bigh level of intertst
in a proposed canal fishery prop-am. Sixty-eigbt
6.. R. IVRlGHT AND ! A. SOMMEN J 991
T'LASIIIlI nT' or Dnn ,'1'1:'<1; A~D ~IM:-<TAlNlN(; ~ Si'\.lR'1 FN [!!; 1 1:--; llll <;~I"J Rl\l)<. b;,'lh 1 C\:--;;\L'
T~bl~ 12. Mnn v;aJucs (X) and ~undJrd deviations (SD) for w~ttr temrerJlure (C), pH, dissolved oxygen (mg/L), ~peciflc
conducti"ity (mS/cm), turbidity (:'JTU), and Secchi depth (m) me3mr~n1enl,; for e~(h sution on lh~ Amon., Can;aJ (11 _
636), February 1992 to July 1994.
W~ler Disso!v~d SpeCIfic Secclu
Tcmpcr~ture pH Oxy~n C~nduct'nl\' Turbtdll\ D~pth
StlUOn SD , SO , SO SO , SO , SO
ACA1 171 (0) 8.1~ (0.29) 9.52 (1,61) 39,.=3 (1: 1.7:) " (15 3) G,,) (0,3)
ACB) 18.5 (4.2) 8.27 (0.39) 10.90 (2.63) S2U9 {I92.85} 20 (38 4) 11 (0.1)
ACe] 18.4 (4.2) 8,12 (0,)9) 9.79 (1.97] 507.13 (186.77) " (132) 0.0 (O.)
ACD) 19.4 (4.7) 8.19 (0.42) 10.90 (2.901 490 II (2IHO) J8 (56.8) 07 (0.3)
ACE) 19,6 (4.9) 8.09 (G.)5) 10,04 (1.81) 502 .: (:: 3.51) 27 (491) 0.7 (0.3)
ACF3 20,; (5.1) 8,17 (0.69) 9.64 (2.00) 516,~ (2:5.30) 21 (n9) 08 (0.41
ACGJ 19.B (5,~) 8 ::, (0.62) 959 (!.80) Seb 9:- (212.42) 18 (lC.O) 09 (05)
ACl-iJ 1" {S.6} 7,97 (OA9) 9,34 (1.94) :.61 )' (2~2.56) 21 (38 5) 11 (0.4)
ACD 2e.0 (55) 7.99 (0,34) 8,96 (UJ) 521.~' (21:-.M) 15 PO,S) 1.2 (O.~)
~r--------------------------------------------,~
25
5
13.2
6 .• ••
D
77.3
204,9 '8
25
20.7
" 12.44
1053 10,90 ... ··a ..
D. .·..0........ 10.12 922 936 •• D. '.
." ...... 0··· .... -0"""'0' ...... .0-.••..
oL-----------------__________________________ ~o
Jan Feb ~r May June July AlJg Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figurt 24. Se.uonal ml'an wall'r tl'mpl'raturl' and dinolved oxygen (lcross stations) for the Arizona Canal (199).1994).
B. R. WRlGIn A."'D J. A. SO!tENJL ... 199~ ARlZO,'L-l G.·H/,£ 6- FISH D£PARTM£.\T, TECH. REJ>. 18 39
FI AqllllITf ,'I 01 \! 1 c \l'l~C \",n ~l.~TSl ,~IN[>.;(, ,~ SI'('RT Fr~1 T[R Y r-.; nil 5 \1 T RI\ lJ r'F., ')I',T CAS ~I.'
Tab!., 13. Mcan c~n,:\ \"Jlut'~ (rng/m'), CHLA:PIIEA r.lIIO valuc~, s!.mJJrJ dL'VIJ:'(JnS, :III.:! ~Jmrk
number for each st~lion on the ArizonJ Canal, January 199) to July 1994.
Standard Standard
HabitJt Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Sample
Station Type CHLA CHLA RallO Ratio Number
ACA2 Ruo 1.24 8.97 1.:- 0.15 16
ACB3 Ruo 1.17 0.91 1.2 0.14 16
ACe] Ruo 1.82 1.20 1.) 0.15 15
ACD3 Ruo 1.43 1.26 1.) 0.15 13
ACE) Run 1.38 1.50 1.) 0.18 16
ACF3 Run 0.65 0.42 l.l 0.24 ,
ACG) Pool 1.16 1.25 1.) 0.18 18
ACHJ Pool 1.23 2.34 I., 0.2:) 12
ACB Pool 0.48 8.86 l.l 0.15 •
Processing chlorophyD .. samples using a spectrophotometer.
·0 ARaONA C.uu: (, fl'SH DYARTMENT, TECH. REP. 18 B. R. IrR.IGHT AJfDl- A. SORll.'SE. ..... 1995
FWlBlllTY Of DEVElOPING A.. ...n \to..n-rr AINING A S1>oRT FISHERY IN 11i! S,uT RlVER PID]Ect CANAlS __ _
Table H. Benthic macroinvenebrale mea.n standing stock (X), standard deviation (SO), total COUIIl,
and relative abundance from the Arizona Canal, all stations combined {n .. 190}, September 1993 to
July 199 •.
Standing stock
(no/mo)
Taxonomic Group x SD Total COUnt Percent T otaI
Insecta
Diptera (undetermined) 2.82 7.46 263 5.3
Chironomidae 5.46 17.49 510 10.2
Hemiptera 0.01 0.07 1 <0.1
T richoptera 0.64 1.95 60 1.2
Ephemeroptera 1.38 8.08 129 2.6
Lepidoptera 0.03 0.12 3 0.1
Coleoptera (Carabidae) 0.01 0.07 1 <0.1
Non-Insecta
Bivalvia (undetermined) 0.01 0.07 I <0.1
Corbicula spp. 6.98 14.08 652 13.1
Gastropoda (undetermined) 3.24 12.81 303 6.1
Pleuroceridae 16.4 30.61 1,532 30.7
Planorbidae 1.00 3.28 93 1.9
Physidae 0.50 1.21 47 0.9
Lymnaeidae 0.13 0.34 12 0.2
Hirudinea 0.02 0.10 2 <0.1
Oligochaeta 14.2 30.54 1,328 26.6
Nematoda om 0.07 1 <0.1
Ostracoda 0.50 3.19 47 0.9
Hydracarina 0.02 0.10 2 <0.1
Unidentified Organisms 0.08 0.31 7 0.1
Overall Count 4,994 100%
• Incomplete or deteriorated samples wen: identified to lowest possible taxonomic level and dassified as
·'undetermined ~
B. R. WRIGHT AND J. A 50JlFMxN 1m
Table 15. Bemhj(· m.lcromvenebratc mean standing stock (X), ,unci.lId ,irnatlOn (SD), and reblJ\'e
ahundancc for each station on the Anzona Canal (n ~ 19C), Septcmher 19'13 to July 1994.
HahitJt Standing stock (no/m1
Station Type , SD " Abund.mce (%)
ACE3 Ruo 39.17 41.72 39 8.:)
ACC) Ruo 59.74 70.80 30 1~.2
ACD3 Ruo 47.13 4.97 13 9]
ACE) Ruo 36.3C 9.46 26 7.4
ACF3 Ruo 6.75 U8 22 I.
ACG3 Pool 25.16 4.66 19 5.2
ACH3 Pool 117.74 8.45 17 24.1
AClJ Pool 155.76 4.14 14 31.9
Standard deviations are those of the mean density before conversion to numbers of organisms per
square meter.
The Arizolla Cm.al. Ilear Smion ACD3 ~d Phoenix'~ Squaw Peak Water Tr~atm~ Plant.
ARlZo.~ GAME & FISH DEi'ARTltL\T, TECH REP. 18
8. R. if/RiGHT AX1) j A. SORESSEN 1995
FEAStBllJn" Of D~VElOPING ANDJ.iAJNTAINlNG" SPOIt.T FI.'iHIlW IN 1liE SAlT RIvER PJ..OfEcrCANALS
TJble 16. Mean density of zooplankton (i) per 20 L, st.tndard deviation (SO), total count, and
relative abundance from the Arizona Canal, all stations combined {n _ 178}, December 1992 to lu1y
1994.
Number per 20 L
T OIJtonomic Group , SD Total Count Pncent T 0UiI
T rue Zooplankton
Nematoda 0.02 0.13 3 0.2
Rotifera A5pJ.tncJma, Enkropka, and 0.~7 5.4{) 8J 5.1 ElKhlanis
Crurucea
Cop<pO<h (~""'rnUn.d) 0.Q2 0.13 3 0.2 Cwoida Uprodi.ptqrrnu 0.15 0.88 2. sici/iodes I..
Cyclopoida N_pliUj, lMcydaps 2.03 4.42 362 22.2
th011l4SI, and PiSTM.""jdqps
Amp,,""'" 0.09 0.66 I. 1.0
Anostraca O.QI 0.07 1 0.1
Concbostraca 0.06 0.57 10 0.' Cladocen Chydorlll, Dem"lina 2.08 5.69 372 22.8
cortgoni. DiApImasom4, D.tphni.
galullt mmdOiJU, and cmoJ..pIm.,.
OnracoW 0.52 2.0< " 5.6
Aquatic and Terresuial Inseas
Diptera (Chironomidae and T ripulidae) 2.20 ~.50 J92 24.0 Coleopten 0.11 0.38 Ephemeroptera 0.29 1.50 " 1.2 " 3.1
Odonata (Anisoptera and Zygoptera) 0.~2 1.31 74 4.5 Plecoptera 0.21 0.72 J8 2.3
Tricboptera 0.02 0.13 3 0.2 Collembob 0.19 0.63 J< 2.1
HeInJPler~ (Corwdae and Belostomatidac) 0.05 0.21 9 05 Megaloptera iCorydilidae) O.QI 0.11 2 0.1
Non-Insects
Tardigrada 0.05
Mollusa
0.29 9 0.5
G.mropoda c.mpeloma and Llm1llU'a 0.01
Bivalviol Pelecypoda
0.11 2 0.1
Miscellaneous 0.01 0.:l7 0.1
Arachnida
Hydracarina 0.Q3 021 • 0.' Hydn 0.12 0.58 22 1.l
O.QI 0.07 1 01
Total Count 1,631 100%
.. Incomplete or deterionted samples were identified to lowest possible tuonomic levd and classified as
-undetermined. ~
B. R. WRlGIfT AND J A. SoilEMEN 19"
AAlZONA GAME 6- FISH DEPMnIDIT, TECH, REI.!' 43
-- FEASIBn.m· Of DEVFl.OPING A.. ..n MAINTAlNlNG A SPORT FISHERY IN TIlE SALT RIvER PROJECT CANAL<; ____
Table 17. Mean zoopL~nkton density (X), standard deviation (SO), sample number, and relative
abundance for each station on the Arizona Canal (n - 178). December 1993 to July 1994.
Number per 20 L
Station - x SD n Abundance (%)
ACBl 10.22 13.43 2l 15.4
ACC3 15.78 17.13 27 23.8
ACDl 8.75 17.51 2, 13.2
ACEl 10.67 13.71 30 16.1
ACFl 2.<0 1.78 10 l.6
ACGl 7.0; 6.76 25 10.6
ACID 4.38 3.71 13 6.6
ACI3 7.0; 8.06 26 10.6
Table 18. Regional representation of survey respondents in Maricopa County, May 1994.
Region Surveyed General Public Survey (%) Licensed Angler Survey (%)
Phoenix '2 .7
Southeast Valley (rempe, Mesa,
ChandJer, etc.)
lO 23
West Valley (Glendale, Peoria, !7 I' Goodyear, etc.)
Nonheast Valley (Scottsdale,
Carefree, etc.)
II II
Percent Total 100 100
44 ARIZONA GAIt! fs FISH DEPAR1JlINT, TECH. REP, 18 B. R. WRJGHr AND j. A. 5oR£Ns£N I'J9J
- - FEASlBD.I!)" OF DEVElOPING AND MAINTAlN1NG A SPORT FISHERY ... ntE SAlT RlvD. PROf[CT CANAlS
percent of the licensed anglers and 51% of the
non-angling public indicated that they lI'ouJd be
somewhat or very likely to utilize the emus if a
fishery program were developed (fable 19)_
Demographically, the highest interest '01.45 among
males and younger residents (fable 20). A
conservative estimate of 750,000 annual angler-use
days was calcuL~ted (Appendix D). This number
was calculated from the numba of licensed
anglers and non-anglers, percent of intecested
respondents, and average number of days ·very
likely· users would fl$h the canals. Percentages
and number of angler-use days were adjusted
downward (based on interest level) to attain
conservative estinutes.
In 1993, the estimated number of licensed
anglers in Maricopa County was 178,000. Based
on conservative estimates, 45,(XX) licensed anglers
(25.3%) would fISh the canals - the number of
'very likely' respondents was adjusted downward
50% and 'somewhat likdy' respondents adjusted
downward 75%. The estimated number of non­anglers,
over age 1<4, in Maricopa County was
1,617,200 in 1993 (Dep. Economic Security 1993).
·Very likely· (adjusted downward 75%) and
'somewhat likely· (adjusted downward 90%)
respondents made up 8.0% of the total, or
potentially 129,500 nN ~nglen, showed an
interest in fishing [he SRP camls (Appendix 0).
Additionally, 80% of both interested anglers
and non-anglers indicated they would ~ willing
to purchase a special license to support an urban
canal fishery (Table 21). Median angler-use days
for a canal fishery were estimattd to be > 11 days
annually based on licensed anglers and general
public responses (Table 22).
Respondents were asked what fish (species
unspecified) they would prefer, if the program
were developed (multiple cboices were given _
percentages are not cumulative). Bass was the top
choice among licensed. anglers (15%), followed by
catfish (39%) and trout (28'l.)_ General public
anglers showed similar preferences in species: bass
(62%), catfISh (39%), and trout ~9%). The
interested non-angling public fDored catfish
(45%), bass (36%), and trout (20%). Other ftsh
species, such as crappie and bluqill/sunftsb were
listed but less often.
Respondents t~t showed DO interest in a
proposed ana] fisbtry were asked to SUle their
main reasons for no interest. Of the licensed
anglers, 52% preferred to fish in rural ~. while
20% said they coold DOt use their boat in the
8. R. WRlCKT AN/) J A. bIMCN 1m
cJna! synem. Fihy-eight percent of the combined
general public indicated they didn't like to fish.
Eleven percent said they preferred to fish in rural
areas, and 10% indicated they were 100 old or ill
to utilize the canals for span fishi11&.
Most non-interested respondents reponed
they still would suppon the development of a
proposed canal fishery program (Angler Survey
66% and General Public Survey 57%). Eighteen
percent of the licensed anglers and 21% of the
general public ~ opposed to the program.
Respondents that were -not sure- were closely
matched to those opposed; i.e., Angler Survey
16% and General Public Survey 22%.
AmCWA GAME" FISH DDAR1JIDI7; TEOI. RH. 18 45
FEASJBIUTI' OF DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING A SPOIlT FISHERY IN TIlE SALT RIvER PROJECT CANA15
Table 19_ Interest of survey respondents in proposed SRP Cmal Fishery Program, May 1994.
General Public Survey (%) Licensed Angler
Level of Interest Survey ~)
Angler Non-angler Combined
Very likely 49 20 26 33
Somewhat likely 31 31 31 J5
Not very likely 9 16 14 11
Not at all likely 11 32 28 I'
Not sure 0 I 2
Percent Total 100 100 100 100
Table 20. Demographical detail of interested (% very/somewhat likely) survey respondents, May
1994.
General Public Survey (%) Licensed Angler
AngI" Non-angler Combined
5",,",y ('0)
Percent total 80 51 57 68
Gender
M,j, 78 56 62 70
Female 82 46 52 57
Ag'
Under 35 years 79 61 66 72
)5 to 54 years 82 56 63 70
55 years & over 75 32 37 65
-46 ARIZONA GAM!" & FISH D£l'AR7NDn, Tim lUP. 18
FFASIBl1fl)' OF DEVEL,WING AND M.-\lNTAWING A SPORT FISHERY IN THE SALT RIvER PROJECT CANAL,
Table 21. Responses to 'willing to pay" for an annual special license fee to fish in the SRP canals,
May 1994.
General Public Survey (%) Licensed Angler
Proposed Fee Cost
Angler Non-angler Combined
Survey (%)
Nothing 13 4 7 17
Under $5.00 14 10 11 17
$5.00 to 59.99 22 23 23 24
$10.00 to $14.99 31 28 29 31
$15.00 or over 14 22 20 8
Not sure 6 13 10 3
Percent total 100 100 100 100
Median Cost for those willing
to pay special fee to fish in the $10.71 $11.55 $11.25 $9.90
SRP canals.
Table 22. Frequency of canal fishery program use by survey respondents, May 1994.
General Public Survey (%) Licensed Angler
Days per year use
Angler Non-angler Combined
Survey (%)
1 to 5 26 26 26 22
6 to 10 9 22 18 24
11 to 20 21 15 17 26
21 or over 37 31 33 23
Not sure 7 6 6 5
Percent Total 100 100 100 100
Median Number of Days 16.5 10.8 12.7 11.7
B. R. WRIGHT AND J. A. SORENSEN 1995 ARlZONA GAME & FiSH DEl'AR1MENT, TECH. REl'. 18 47
FI·,~'I~lI.m· [11' DI \1:LPfING A."iIl MAINTAININC 1\ 51'< lRl j-I'IILK i IS TI II 5,\1 'I RlnJ\ PK(1)r(1 CAr-; ~L'
full Bkcd
48 AIUZO'oA GAME lr Ff5H /kPMfDIENT. TECH. REP. 18 B. R. WRIGHT A!'D j. A. SOR£,'iSE.'" 1995
Fus1BlUTY OF DEVELOPING AND MMNTAlNING " SPl..1RT FISHERY IN THE SALT RlVD. PRO]£CT CANhU
DISCUSSION
Fish Surveys
Large canal systems ;tre difficult to sanple due
to high W;l.ler velocities, steep banks, poor access,
;l.nd deep Water (Mueller 1990). We beliew that
Sites 5 and 7 were too deep to effectively !>lIl1ple
bottom-dwelling fish using elecrrofishing
techniques. As a result, the number of fish
collected ;l.t these sites may be underestimaad. In
addition, some species (e.g., Sonora and desrn
suckers, largemouth b:ass, and rainbow trma) were
more effectively sampled using electrofishinc than
other species (e.g., channel catfish). Electniishing
is also biased towards larger fish; therefore, forage
fish and young-of-year fish may be
underestimated. More effective sampling mrthods,
such as block netting and dewatering the emal,
were not options available to us.
Species Diversity and Abunddnce. We faand
that species richness in the Arizona Canal (10
species of fish. 17 introduced and 3 native) was
comparable to a previous study of fish in tlw SRP
canals. Marsh and Minckley (1982) surveyed most
of the SRP canal system in 1981 and found 13
species of fish (19 introduced and 4 native). These
researchers found the greatest numbers and
diversity of fish within the first few kilomet!rs
downstream of the Granite Reef Dam.
Funhermore, beyond 25 !un downstream only a
few red shiners and western mosquitofish wae
found, but most collecting sites yielded no mh at
all (M:arsh and Minckley 1982). M.mh and
Minckley (1982) also noted that the fish fau~ in
the canals were unstable and undergoing
numerous changes in species composition and
diversity. In COntrast, we found species rickess
;u}d relative abundance on the Arizona Can;tl were
higher at our lower sitts compared to our uwer
sites. We attribute these differences to: (1) the
area of the canal system sampled; (2) samplinc
gear; (3) duration of sampling; (4) seasons; a.ntf (5)
changes in canal management where only ponioru
of the canals have been dewatered since the we
19805.
We expected that CPUE of native suckers at
Site 7 would have been higher than our
downstream sites due to its disunce downstrtam
of Granite Reef Dam, habiut, and lack of 'Q,·ater
control structures. Site 7 was the closest fish
collection site to the Gra.nite Reef Dam and
closely resembled habitat found in the Salt RNer.
While we found th.lt Site 7 had a hiptcr numLer
8. R. WRJGHTANDj. A. ~ J"'
of native suckers th;tn our farthest downstream
sites (Sites 1 .lnd 2), our dua showed that n.ltives
were most abundant at Site 3. We believe this
finding was due to the combination of fast-moving
water and shallow depth. Also in rKent years,
reduced dewatering in this canal segment for
white arnur management may explain a higher
abundance of fish due to carryover from year to
year.
Forage fish numbers and CPUE were highest
at our 3 lowest sites. The distribution of
threadfrn shad at our lower sites m.ly resuh from
high W.lter velocities flushing fish downstream,
especially during summer when water demands
OUld flow volumes an high. Overhanging
vegetation on the earthen banks at Alternate Site
3 and Site 2 may have provided protection for
shad from large predaton and high water
velocities. Metal grates used to prevent amurs
from escaping Skunk Creek Drain and other
laterals (Fig. 25), m.ly also offer protection for
forage fish. We believe that the increase in CPUE
for threadfin shad during Fall 1993 w:as the result
of natural reproduction in the canal, since shad
spawn during the spring and early summer
(Minckler 1973). Red shiners were most
;l.hundant at Site 2. We believe the ~uatic habitat
at this site was stressed from alum sludge
discharges and storm runoff along dirt banks. Red
shiners tend to thrive in nressed or degra.ded
habitat (Minckley 1973).
Fipn 2'. Mrul gutes at the end of the Arizona CuW,
Skunk Crerk Drain.
- FEASIBILm Of DEVllOPU>lG AND M:\1NTAlNING A SPORT FL"HERY IN THE SAlT RIvER h[!iCT CANALS
White amurs were collected from all fish
collection sites along the Arizona Canal; however,
the highest number were sampled at the fmhest
downstream site {Site I}. A decline in CPUE in
Spring and Summer 1993 may be attributed to a
large fish kill in the lower half of the Aruona
Canal. Over 400 amurs were found dead
following a suspected chlorine discharge on May
15, 1993 by a wattr treatment plant. It is also
possible that our electrofIshing effons may have
contributed to some spinal injury or monality.
Resident game fish were collected from all
sites along the Arizona Can.aI, with the exception
of rainbow trout at Site 3. Game fish populations
tended to be highly variable depending on the site.
Largemouth bass CPUE was highest at Site 3,
probably due to abundant prey and quality
ha.bitat at the end of the reach, Alternate Sile 3.
There were no physical barriers to limit fish
movement between these 2 sites. Preferred
habitat for largemouth bass includes eanhen banks
and overhanging vegtUtive cover (Minckley 1973);
conditions that were found at Alternate Site 3.
Excluding our experimentally stocked fish, the
number of rainbow trout collected during this
study was small (n _ 11). Funher, few resident
rainbow trout (n - J) were collected from our
fanhest upstream sites (5 and 7) over the course of
this study. TherefoJ't based on our data, we could
conclude that few rainbow trout are emigrating
from the Salt River into the Arizona Canal.
However, the results from 5-yrs of fish barrier
sur .... eys Oakle and Riley, unpubl. data) found that
ram bow trout comprised over 7% of total number
of fish sampled. Over that same period, AGFD
has stocked the lower Salt River on a frequent
year·round basis with catchable rainbow trout (E.
Swanson, Ariz Game- and Fish Dep., pers.
commun.). FunhermoJ't, rainbow trout are
stocked in winter months on the lower Verde
River by the Fan McDowell Indian Tribe (E.
Swanson, Ariz Game and Fish Dep., pers.
commun.). Therefore, it is apparent that
moderate numbers of these river·stocked rainbow
trout were emigrating: to the Arizona Canal (E.
Swanson, Ariz Game and Fish Dep., pers.
commun.). Therefore. the statUS of resident
rainbow trout in the Arizona Canal is unclear.
Size and Age 5trMctMTt. We believe that
natural reproduction of largemouth bass occurs in
the Arizona Canal. Seasooa.llength freq~[JCY
graphs showu! 16 ftsla wjth 11. s 120 mm, which
may have represented young-of-year fish.
50 ARlZOJoLt C..ua fs 1tsH DuAX1Jl£NT, Tr.cx RD. 18
LJrgemouth bass spawn fro:::: April through June
(t-.1mckley 1973). Also, yo~ bass can grow to
around 125 mm n by the md of their first
summer (Minckley 1973). I..eucth measurements
of largemouth bass were high1y variable and
indicated several age classes tm'e present
throughout our study. We observed pairs of
mature fish guarding nests as .. ell as numerous
juvenile fish that were not collected during
repeated-effon electrofisbing in the last 2 sampling
seasons. It is uncenain to That extent bass
reproduction in the canal contributes to a
ca.tchable-size largemouth bass fishery.
The threadfin shad populaion in tbe Arizona
Canal was most likely ma.itnained by natural
reproduction, but this was DOt apparent in
seasonal length frequency gnpbs. Age classes of
young and mature fish may hne overlapped in
these graphs due to fast growth rates. Threadfin
shad mature within a few ~ and may begin
spawning in their first year (Kimsey 1958,
Minckley 1973). Electrofishinc bias towards larger
fish may have been another 1U50n why young
shad were not encountered
Red shiners appeared to have a single cohan
during each season in the Arizona Canal, but they
may have an overlap of age clzsses similar to
threadfin shad. Red shiners spawn from March
through June (Minckley 1973). Natural
propagation of shiners was observed in the canal,
but very young fish were DOl collected because
they escaped through the mesb of our dipnet. On
many occasions we observed nnous sizes of fry
and juveniles together, chen hiding in the shelter
of steps or other microhabj~ts along the canal
bank waterline.
Seasonal length frequen;:y Uaphs of Sonora
suckers revealed a small cohon of juvenile fish
(TL S; 120 mm) that indicated a reproducing
resident population. Sonon SUl:kers generally
spawn between January and early July (Minckley
1973). A distinct caban of rnaure fish was also
present in the canal. During onr fish sampling,
..... ·e noticed many sucken were tuberculate (e.g.,
small bumps along the anal ~d ta.ilfins) and had
deformed anal fins which may be the result of
building redds.
Desen suckers appeared to have reproduced
successfully in the canal. 'i'e observed similar
tubercles and deformed fins on this sucker species
as well. According to Mindley (1973), desen
suckers spawn in late winur aDd early spring.
length frequency graphs show distinct coharn of
B. R. WlJGHT AND j. A. 5oR£NID,' 1m
FEASlBnITY OF DEVFl.OPING AND MAlNTAlNlNG A SPORT FISHERY IN lHE SALT Rrvnt Pl.0f.ECT CANALS -- -- ._-
juveniles in both summer seasons. An overlap of
age classes may have occurred in the first J
seasons as TL ranges reached a minimum of 40
mm in the first groups.
We did not find any evidence of ~roduction
by white amurs in the Arizona Canal, which SRP
introduced as a sterile population. No juvenile
amurs were collected, but growth of mature
individuals appears to have occurred based on our
seasonal length frequency graphs. The largest
amurs collected during this study had TL > 700
mm and weighed over 4 kg. In October 1994, a
Glendale angler caught a state record white amur
with a n of 838 m.m. and a weight of 7.2 kg from
Alternate Site 3 on the AriZona Canal (E.
Swanson, Ariz. Game and Fish Dep., pen.
commun.). A distinct cohon in Spring 1994 was
probably a result of annual SRP amur stockings.
All the amurs appeared to meet the minimum
head width requirement of the AGFD $locking
permit.
Yellow bass in the Arizona Canal may be
reproducing based on several juveniles with
lengths S 80 mm that were collected during our
study. Roundtail chubs, however, were all ~ 100
mm TL. and therefore, probablY did DOt result
from reproduction in the canal. Sample numben
for both species were too low for reliable
evaluations. Other resident fish, including
channel catfish and ninbow trout, had insufficient
sample sizes to be evaluated.
Granite Reef Electrical Barrier Monitoring
Fish species from the Salt River w:uershed
immigrate into the canal system according to
surveys GakIe and Riley, uopubl. data) below
Granite Reef Dam. Desen and Sonora suckers
were well represented in these surveys and their
relative abundance was similar to that in the canal
below the fish barrier. Forage fish Wert poorly
represented in the barrier surveys, while large
numbers of these fISh were found at downstream
sites. Only 19 threadfin shad were sampled above
the barrier, indicating either that few shad were
immigrating into the canals or they suffered heavy
predation by game fISh above the barrier during
the dewatering period. Regardless, based on our
electrofisb.ing data we believe threadfin shad were
successfully reproducing at our downstream sites.
Common carp and tilapia were abundant
above the barrier during cenain years, but: they
were rare or nonexistent, respectively, in our
electroflShing samplinc downstream. h has been
8. It 'ifI1UGHT AND J. A. JaItLMzH I'"
speculated that these 2 5pecles are highly sensitive
to elettrical fields and avoid moving downstream
past the barrier (E. Swanson, Ariz. Game and Fish
Dep., pers. commun.). Tllapia absence in the
Arizona Canal may also be a result of winter kills
when water temperatures drop to 10 C (M. JakIe,
u.s. Bur. of Retlam., pen. commun.).
While the electric fish barrier was designed to
prevent fish from moving upstream, 2 SRP­stocked
white .unun, nevenheless. were captured
above the barrier io 1994. An investigaion
revealed that the Arizona CanaJ. barrier lost power
due to a brief power outage on December 23,
199) (Salt River Proj. 1994b). Based on our
observations, white amun are strong swimmers
and capable of jumping severa] feet out of the
water. Evidently, these 2lish were able to get
past the steep indine and ~h Wolter vdoc.ity of
the barrier while the power was out. Fortunately,
most amun tend to migrne downstream, based on
the numbers of fish that SRP regularly rollects
and relocates from the end of the Arizoua Canal
(8. Moorhead, Salt River Proj. pers. commun.).
&nier fish data represented only 1 sampling
day per year, wb.ich may account for tM high
variability in species composition and abundance.
Yet, previous studies have shown a simibr
disparity in types and numben of ftsh pn:sent in
the canal system (Marsh and MincIcley 1'82).
In January 1994 and 1995, the annual SRP
drawdown allowed AGFD an opportunity to
relocate largemouth bass. channel catfish, and
rainbow trout from the Arizona Canal intO 2
Urban Fishing Program lakes. In the future, both
game and nongame spe<ies captured above the
electric fish barrier and from dewatered areas
could also be relocated to partially dewatered
canal segments, or at designated fishing ~ along
the Ariz.ona Canal. Ma.nagi.ng cana.I fish
populations through salvage and relocation should
improve angler success in these fIShing aRaS_
Experimental FIsh Stockings
Stocked Fish SurviflaJ. Stocked game fish
remai.ned within canal reaches for long t'IIough
periods to suppon a put-and-take spon fishery.
Most stocked game fISh "Wert not present for more
than 2 months; bow ever, lOme rainbow trout
penisted for at 1e2St 7 months and charmel catfish
for as 100g as 13 months. h is unknown whether
these fish were hatvested by anglen (unreponed),
suffered other forms of monality, or immivated
out 01 the synem. If a $locking program is
._.- ------ FEASIMUTY OF DnTI.OPING AND MAINTAINING A $PORTFlSHERY IN" l1iF. SALT RrvER Pl!.O]ECT CANALS .----
established, we anticipate that the best catch rates
would occur in the fint 6 weeks .after stocking.
This trend is consistent with previous studies
(Edwards and Okamoto 1911C, Landyr and Wau
1985) where stocked game fish in urban lakes had
the highest harvest within tbe first 10 days after
release.
While unannounced, news of each
expenmemal stocking spread quickly and
numerous anglers were observed during our daily
activities. Not all the anglers observed were
interviewed. Some anglen may have been flshq
illegally and immediately departed the area when
we stopped to interview others. We beli~e actual
public baIVest of stocked flSh was higher than
reported. Angling effon was not estimated.
Several anglen left phone masages, providing tag
numbers of fish caught, but little else. Most
anglers reponed good catches and were highly
supportive of the fish stockings.
We compared our results to a pr~ious
AGFD experimental stocking on the Arizona
Canal (Sorensen 1990) that also ~ea1ed a large
percentage of unaccounted fish. During Winter
1989-1990, 1,200 albino r2inb0w trout were
stocked at Site 2 near Glendale (Cholla) Water
Treatment Plant, 2 weeks prior to the annual
canal drawdown. The objectives of this test
stocking were to monitor fISh movement and
survival. At the end of the study, only 51 albino
rainbow trout were recaptumi. The remaining
95% of the stocked fish wert not present wh~n
that section of the canal w~ df'.·<ltered, nor were
any observed above the Slocking site (Sorensen
1990). Only 1 public angler witb a Single
recapture was reported. Salt River Project.
workers did not report ~ any trout in the
lateral canals. Six fISh. Wert found in the
precipitation basin of the Glendale (Cholla) Wale!"
Treatment Plant (Sorensen 1990). What happened
to most of the stocked albino ra..i.nbow trout is
unknown.
No rainbow trout wert found in the Arizona
Canal after July because watt!" t~mperatures
increased beyond tolerance limits. As ... cold-water
species, they experience physiological stress at
sustain~d tenlperatures abovr 20 C (piper et al.
1983, Armour 1991).
Szocktd Fish Gto1IIth.,J Omdition. Presently,
the biotic conditions and relatively uniform
habitat of the Arizona CanallD20y restrict channel
catfish growth and preYeDt a successful put-grow·
take Slockinc prop;un for this species. The lack
of growth and decreased physiological condition
of channel catfish may have resu1ted from a
limited food base and lack of suitable shelttr.
Catfish shelter was scarce in the canal due 10
annual dredging and removal of debris by SRP.
Other contributing factors for poor catfish growth
could result from intraspecific or interspecific
competition for food, disease, internal paT25ites, or
unreponed angler take of larger fish from catch·
and·release practices. Few external parasiteS were
observed on recaptured channel catfish. Water
quality does not appear to be a limiting factor in
channel catfish survival because we recaptured
channel catfish a year after stocking, and
numerous juvenile channel catfish were observed
as well. It should be noted that most of the
length and weight data on recaptured channel
catfish was obtained within the first few weeks
after stocking. This aspect coupled with low
sample numbers of older stocked fish may impan
a sampling bias to growth data.
Our estimated K and Wr values on recaptured
channel catfish from the Arizona Canal wen
comparable to the results of other studies of
southwest fisheries. McCarthy and Manh (1982)
reported mean K values of 0.72 from channel
catfish in the Coachella Canal, while Lake
Pleasant, Arizona, had mean K values of 0.11 in
1988 and 0.82 in 1989 (Morgensen 1990). Relative
weight of Lake Pleasant channel catfish was
estimated at 94. A Wr value of 100 is considered
ideal, but as a fish reaches full maturity Wr v:alues
tend to decrease (Anderson and Gutreuter 1983).
A put·grow-take stocking program for
rainbow trout would not be feasible. High water
temperatures during the late spring months would
likely prevent growth, and reach lethal limits
during the summer (piper et al. 1983, Armour
1991). While rainbow trout growth was fair
during the winter season, average well-being did
not improve in the Arizona Canal. The same
conditions that limit growth in stocked channel
catfish probably apply to rainbow trout.
Stocked FiW Movnnent. Fish movemem
downstream should not be a problem in
designating public fishing areas along the Arizona
Canal. Within l-yr, most Slocked game flSb
(channel catfish - 99% and rainbow trout _ 95%)
remained within the same re:lch (between upper
and lower water control structures) in which they
were stocked. The flsh that did migrate
downstream moved approximately 0.8 to 4.0 k..m
per week poststock. Fish movement is a
B. R. WRlGHT AND J A. SOREMEN 199}
- ----- F£A5IBIUIY Of DEVElOPING AND U4JNTAlNING A5pORT FISHERY IN THE SALT RIVER PJ.~CTCANA1.5 -----
relatively unimportant factor in companson to
angler harvest; most of the stocked fish ':ert
caught within the lint 6 weeks. Aher this period,
catch rates (all methods) for stocked fish dropped
greatly. Stocked fish that moved through water
control structures were never recaptured above
those barriers. Likewise, no stocked fish '·ere
coUected above the Site 3 stocking location. We
believe that the design of these radial gates
preVents fish from traveling upstream due to high
velocity, bottom·released water.
Fish movemenu were similar to a p~;ous
test stocking between 1989·1990 at Site 2
(Sorensen 199O). Within 2 weeks poststock,
several rainbow trout had travelled downstream
8.0 km to Site 1, Skunk Creek Drain. No stocked
fish had been sampled upstream of the water
control structure at Station ACF3 - the upper
end of Site 2 (Sorensen 1990).
Fish Lon to Later"] Canals. Fish loss to the
lateral canals should not be a major concern for a
proposed sport fish stocking program. For up to
6 weeks poststock, low numbers of fish .... ere lost
to the lateral canals around the stocking area.
Three rainbow trout and 8 channel catfISh were
collected from the fish traps. No stocked fish
were found at the demooing dump at Site I.
Most of the stocked fish sampled remained in the
main canal.
Venical steel grates that cover openings to all
lateral canals and siphons were designed to
prevent stocked white amurs from escaping. The
space between grates was typically 50.8 rom wide.
In addition,.ul stocked amurs have head diameters
>57.2 mm wide (B. Moorhead, Salt Ri .... er Proj.,
pers. commun.). These grates may also preclude
larger game fish from leaving the main CULai and
provide habitat and pn:uction for small fish as
well as forage flSh. Some species may ~lect. these
openings as preferred habitat. Based on our fish
trap data, narrow~ fish moved frtdy
between the grates, and we observed numerous
bluegill and green sunfish within and around these
lateral canal openings.
Seasonal flows, flooding effects, and beavy
water siphoning may influence the number of fish
leaving the main canal through the latenls. High
main canal velocities during summer flo..-s may
force some lentic-adapted species to seek t.he
shelter of lateral canal openings. Opened 'iiphons
can have water velocities su0D«: enough to draw
small fash out of the system. larger fISh. such as
B. R. WRJcIrT AND]..A. 50JENsEN I99J
stocked rainbow trout :lad ch.tnnel catfish, would
be able to overcome strong currents.
Potential Fish TIssue Contaminants
We were unable to conclude if consumption
of stocked fish from the Arizona Canal would
pose a serious public health risk. Recapt~d fish
composites from the Arizona Canal were found to
contain little or no amounts of the 129 priority
polluta