Difference between revisions of "GCDAMP 2016 Fish PEP"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"| | |class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"| | ||
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;" | {|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;" | ||
− | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> | + | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Questions </h2> |
|- | |- | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
− | + | How could the program better balance priorities and trade‐offs focused on research and monitoring of – | |
+ | #Rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons? | ||
+ | #Humpback chub around the LCR confluence, and at other locations that may harbor secondary populations? | ||
+ | #Effectiveness of translocation efforts for of humpback chub? | ||
+ | #Native and Nonnative fish status and trends outside of fixed study locations? | ||
+ | #Better accommodating concerns for protecting the value of all life forms in culturally sensitive areas while maintaining the quality science? | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Findings </h2> | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Rainbow trout monitoring=== | ||
+ | *“The quality of catch effort data…is likely reduced due to the inability to account for incomplete capture.” | ||
+ | *“To maintain a quality fishery it is necessary to understand the factors affecting vital rates, currently these estimates are only provided through the intensive research sampling efforts.” | ||
+ | *CPE monitoring is “providing a robust view of status and trends of exotic species” over large areas, and intensive methods have limited spatial extent. | ||
+ | *Maintain the integrity of the long–term CPUE monitoring data | ||
+ | *Build on this long-term monitoring effort to estimate the annual response of RBT to conditions. | ||
+ | *Try fitting open models to RBT tagged during CPUE monitoring. | ||
+ | *Evaluate tradeoffs of different monitoring schemes via simulation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Understanding drivers=== | ||
+ | *“Incorporate all levels of ecosystem (e.g., nutrients, benthic invertebrates, temperature, Lake Powell)” to better understand factors affecting RBT population dynamics. | ||
+ | *Develop RBT conceptual model to facilitate communication within and outside the program. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Humpback chub=== | ||
+ | *Quantify impacts of RBT on HBC. | ||
+ | *Focus on drivers of vital rates more, abundance less. | ||
+ | *Improve efficiency of HBC monitoring and research through coordination and power analysis. | ||
+ | *Consider more research into a potential second population. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Translocations=== | ||
+ | Need to clearly define goals | ||
+ | *Providing nursery areas for grow-out? | ||
+ | *Establishing new populations? | ||
+ | *Needs clear set of hypotheses. | ||
+ | *Different stocking methods? | ||
+ | Need for quantitative analysis <br> | ||
+ | Genetic considerations | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Evaluating tradeoffs in monitoring efforts=== | ||
+ | *Power analyses / simulations | ||
+ | *Can some projects be downsized? | ||
+ | *Should some projects be discontinued / redesigned? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Monitoring Broad-Scale Fish Community Status and Trends=== | ||
+ | *Current sampling likely effective for trout, carp, walleye and smallmouth bass. Ineffective for catfish, striped bass. | ||
+ | *Stratified random design may be poor design for detecting invasions if likely entry points are not sampled yearly. | ||
+ | *Suggest pit tagging and open models. | ||
+ | *Also suggest incorporating PIT-tag antennae into design. | ||
+ | *“PEP recommends that a separate invasive detection program be considered. This separate program would use a variety of sampling gears deployed at fixed sites where nonnative are known to exist or where introduction is most likely to occur.” | ||
+ | *“Identify nonnative fish population or distribution indices or rules sets that would trigger nonnative fish control options to be employed” | ||
+ | *“Develop ways to routinely solicit information from fishing guides and anglers regarding composition of the recreational fishery.” | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Minimizing negative effects of program activities on fish=== | ||
+ | *Clearly demonstrate need for particular levels of sampling | ||
+ | *Engage tribes in monitoring and research programs | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Program communication and Outreach=== | ||
+ | *Need to develop population metrics for characterizing RBT population in Lees Ferry that are understood by and acceptable to angler stakeholders. | ||
+ | *Develop an integrated conceptual model. | ||
+ | *Consider increased citizen science. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Adaptive Management=== | ||
+ | PEP recommended we focus on models throughout the adaptive management process (Information-theoretic approach). | ||
+ | *Modify RBT and HBC models to incorporate alternative hypotheses of the factors affecting demography. | ||
+ | *Integrate two population models. | ||
+ | *Recommendations that the translocations be more hypothesis driven with hypotheses linked to specific management actions and criteria for success clearly defined. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Emerging Issues=== | ||
+ | Need to more formally integrate reservoir and downstream ecosystem monitoring. | ||
+ | *Effects of warmer water and lower nutrients levels associated with lowered lake levels and potentially decreased inflows identified as key uncertainty. | ||
+ | *Reconsider risk associated with Quagga effects in the reservoir on reservoir outflows (increased water temperature, altered nutrients). | ||
+ | *Invasive species: “focus on prevention” | ||
+ | Shifts in benthic macrophyte community: consider research / modelling on nutrient assimilation and stoichiometry dynamics and differences in secondary production on different vegetation. | ||
+ | *Climate Change – need ecosystem and/or bioenergetics modelling. | ||
+ | *Program should consider TCD as a management option for warming waters – what would effects be on nutrients / temperature and effects for rainbow trout and native species. | ||
+ | |||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 15:25, 10 July 2018
|
Fish projects in the FY15-17 TWP:
|
-- | -- |
-- |
---|
|
|