Difference between revisions of "2009 Fish Monitoring Program PEP"

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?

• 2016 Fish PEP
• PEP Reviews page

• 2010-11 AMP Fish Monitoring: Incorporating Fish PEP Recommendations
• 2009 Fish PEP Final Report (9/09)
• 2009 Fish PEP Presentation (6/21/09)
• Summary of Recommendations
• Draft Summary of Recommendations - Fish Monitoring (6/09)
• Draft Summary of Recommendations (5/09)
• Review of the Responses to Monitoring Questions
• Responses to Monitoring Questions (5/09)
• Responses to Monitoring Questions
• Fish PEP briefing document

• Report of the 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for Fish Monitoring Programs of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
• Implementation of the 2009 Fish Protocol Evaluation Panel's Recommendations
• 2009 Fish PEP Implementation
• AIF: 1) GCMRC Updates; The 2009 Fishery PEP Review - Next Steps in Development of Core Monitoring Plan below Glen Canyon Dam
• Fiscal Year 2010-11 AMP Fish Monitoring: Incorporating Protocol Review PPT
• Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Updates
• GCMRC Fish Monitoring Program - Protocol Evaluation Panel, Responses to Monitoring Questions for the PEP
• GCMRC Fish Monitoring Program - Protocol Evaluation Panel, Responses to Monitoring Questions for the PEP
• 2009 Fish PEP Panel PPT
• 2010-11 AMP Fish Monitoring: Incorporating Protocol Review PPT