Difference between revisions of "2009 Fish Monitoring Program PEP"
From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | |style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | ||
| − | 2009 Fish PEP participants | + | ==2009 Fish PEP participants== |
| + | *Mike Bradford (Chair) | ||
| + | *Mark Bevelhimer | ||
| + | *Michael Hansen | ||
| + | *Gordon Mueller | ||
| + | *Doug Osmundason | ||
| + | *Jim Rice | ||
| + | *Dana Winkelman | ||
|}<!-- | |}<!-- | ||
| Line 38: | 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;"> Findings and Recommendations </h2> |
|- | |- | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
| + | ===Lee's Ferry Recommendations=== | ||
| + | *Recast the management objectives as sports fishery metrics (catch rate, fish size). | ||
| + | *Retain the creel survey | ||
| + | *Abandon fixed sites and use a fully random design- increase # of random sites | ||
| + | *Consider reducing trips from 3-4 to 1-2. CV can increase fo 15-20% | ||
| + | *Make fuller use of age information | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Little Colorado Region HBC=== | ||
| + | Compare lower LCR FWS catch data and AZGF lower 1200m sampling to determine if both programs are now needed. | ||
| + | Evaluate the benefits of the second (fall) FWS mark recapture estimate: | ||
| + | *Can juvenile abundance be indexed by the spring series? | ||
| + | *How many (or few) PIT tags are needed to maintain ASMR? | ||
| + | Continue development of the PIT tag antennae | ||
| + | *Full channel width | ||
| + | *2 arrays to evaluate movement | ||
| + | *On-site continuous maintenance needed? | ||
| + | Develop stock assessment framework for LCR humpback chub | ||
| + | *Integrate information from all programs into agreed upon format for annual reporting | ||
| + | ASMR runs at 3-5 year interval | ||
| + | *Can ASMR detect variation in recruitment? | ||
| + | "Minimum handling" as a management objective | ||
| + | *PIT tag loss and tagging and tag-related mortality | ||
| + | *Unknown sub-lethal effects | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Mainstem Recommendations=== | ||
| + | Consider reducing the mainstem electrofishing survey to an annual trip rather than 2x/yr. | ||
| + | *Current estimates of trout CPUE are precise | ||
| + | *Analysis to determine what loss of information would result | ||
| + | |||
| + | Evaluate undesired non-native species for: | ||
| + | *Risk to native fish (potential for establishment and impact) | ||
| + | *Points of entry | ||
| + | *Preferred habitats or likely sampling locations and gear types Based on #2, develop new sampling protocol for surveying for non-native fish that are not well sampled by the e/f program | ||
| + | *Fixed sites at hotspots | ||
| + | *Multiple gear types | ||
| + | *Opportunistic surveillance | ||
| + | *Non-random "informed" sampling | ||
| + | |||
| + | Clarify objectives and expectations for the mainstem HBC populations to provide direction. | ||
| + | *What frequency of survey is needed for the adult aggregations? | ||
| + | *How many aggregations need to be surveyed? | ||
| + | *What level of spatial and temporal effort is warranted for spawning and recruitment surveys? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Institutional Issues=== | ||
| + | *Most programs are beyond the experimental stage and the reporting and analysis of annual updates can be standardized. | ||
| + | *Are there sufficient resources for integration and analysis? | ||
| + | *Organize reporting around objectives rather than agency/trip reports - e.g., integrate non-native catch information across all sampling programs | ||
| + | *The Adaptive Management question: Are the flow experiments and the monitoring program operating at the same scale? | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 79: | Line 134: | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
| − | |||
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_06a.pdf Report of the 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for Fish Monitoring Programs of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center] | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_06a.pdf Report of the 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for Fish Monitoring Programs of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center] | ||
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_06b.pdf Implementation of the 2009 Fish Protocol Evaluation Panel's Recommendations] | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/12jun20/Attach_06b.pdf Implementation of the 2009 Fish Protocol Evaluation Panel's Recommendations] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:54, 20 November 2018
|
|
2009 Fish PEP participants
|
| -- |
-- |
-- |
|---|
|
|
