Laserfiche WebLink
- FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING A SPORT FISHERY IN THE SALT RIVER PROJECT CANALS <br />relative abundance. Benthic macroinvertebrates <br />are animals that live in the bottom substrate, as <br />well as on the substrate surface and on aquatic <br />vegetation (Thorp and Covich 1991). Bimonthly <br />samples were collected from September 1993 to <br />July 1994, using a 0.04-m3 (300-in3) Petite Ponar <br />Dredge. Dredge samples were collected from both <br />sides and the middle of the canal at both the <br />upper and lower ends of each station, for a total <br />of 6 samples. If, after 3 attempts, no substrate or <br />organisms were obtained in a dredge sample, no <br />additional sampling was conducted at that station. <br />A 500-µm sieve bucket was used to remove <br />sediment fines (i.e., silt) from each sample. Each <br />sample was preserved with 10% formalin or 70% <br />ethanol. <br />We used Rose Bengal® powder to stain each <br />sample. Then, each sample was rinsed with water <br />using a 250-µm sieve and placed in a shallow <br />specimen tray. Individuals from each taxon were <br />identified, counted, and stored in vials with 70% <br />ethanol. Taxonomic classifications were based on <br />Barnes (1968) and Arnett (1985). Aquatic <br />Consulting and Testing, Inc. processed 1/3 of our <br />samples for quality control purposes. <br />Zooplankton. For the purposes of our study, <br />zooplankton were defined as invertebrates found <br />in the water column that float, drift, or weakly <br />swim (Thorp and Covich 1991). Invertebrates <br />found in the water column included true <br />zooplankton, aquatic and terrestrial insects, and <br />non-insect species. Quarterly zooplankton <br />samples were collected from 8 stations on the <br />Arizona Canal (Appendix C) between December <br />1992 and July 1994 to estimate seasonal <br />zooplankton abundance and percent species <br />composition. Using a portable water pump or a <br />bucket, 3 samples were collected from each station <br />from a depth of about 0.5 m. Twenty liters of <br />water were filtered through an 80-µm, Wisconsin- <br />type plankton net using a portable water pump or <br />a bucket. Samples were rinsed with deionized <br />water, stored in clear polyethylene bottles, and <br />preserved in 70% ethanol. Samples were sent to <br />Aquatic Consulting and Testing, Inc. for <br />identification and enumeration using taxonomy <br />based on Barnes (1968). To maintain decimal <br />precision from low total counts, mean densities <br />were recorded as numbers of organisms per 20 L, <br />rather than numbers per liter. <br />Public Opinion Surveys <br />In May 1994, Behavioral Research Center, <br />Inc. conducted 2 separate telephone surveys <br />(Appendix D) to determine Maricopa County <br />residents' attitudes toward the use of the SRP <br />canals as an urban fishery. The first survey <br />interviewed 300 licensed anglers, while the second <br />survey targeted 600 individuals of the general <br />public. Licensed anglers were chosen randomly <br />from a list of current state or urban fishing license <br />holders. The general public respondents from <br />both urban and rural regions of Maricopa County <br />were selected at random from a list of phone <br />numbers by Behavior Research Center, Inc.'s <br />automated system. <br />The surveys examined the following aspects: <br />regional representation, current angling <br />participation, respondent interest in an Urban <br />Canal Fishing Program (UCFP), demographic <br />status, fish species preference, willingness to pay, <br />and level of use. Projected angler-use days, <br />potential new anglers, and revenues were <br />calculated. <br />Study Area Mapping <br />The study area was mapped using an <br />ARC/INFO Geographic Information System <br />(GIS), ground-truthed observations, Phoenix area <br />maps, and Salt River Valley Water Users' <br />Association's maps (1993a, b). A map of physical <br />structures and potential public access sites along <br />the Arizona Canal was created (Appendix A). <br />Habitat features and qualitative flow regimes were <br />also mapped (Appendix B). Velocity <br />measurements were not available for our sampling <br />sites on the Arizona Canal. Instead, we used <br />terms from Orth (1983) to define flow regimes <br />within the Arizona Canal: (1) riffles are high <br />velocity, turbulent water; (2) runs or glides are <br />steady, laminar flows; and (3) pools are low <br />velocity or still water. <br />16 ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT, TECH. REP. 18 B. R. WRIGHT AND J. A. SORENSEN 1995