U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Implementation of the 2009 

Fish Protocol Evaluation 

Panel’s Recommendations

Scott VanderKooi

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for 

Fish Monitoring Programs 

 Convened in May 2009

 Included formal 

presentations, discussion, 

and site visits

 Preliminary findings and 

recommendations 

presented to TWG in June 

2009

 Report finalized in October 

2009 Mike Bradford (Chair), Mark Bevelhimer, 

Michael Hansen, Gordon Mueller, Doug 

Osmundson, Jim Rice, Dana Winkelman

Institutional

 ...develop a standardized framework for archiving 

data and reporting of monitoring results for key 

program elements. 

Response: 

 Impediments to data sharing have been removed

 Use of Standardized Methods for Grand Canyon Fisheries Research

 Shared data entry template 

 Central database maintained by GCMRC

 Annual cooperators meeting to share data and results and 

coordinate protocols and activities for coming year 

 Some reporting has been standardized (trip reports), some 

has not (annual reports) 
Institutional

 ...AMWG and GCMRC should convene a group of experts to advise 

them on likely future trends in conditions that will affect the 

Colorado River system (e.g., changes in temperature and 

precipitation, water withdrawals and diversions, reservoir levels, 

etc.) and use that information to identify probable bounds on 

management options for the future. 

Response:

 2010 and 2011 ecological modeling workshops 

 Objective: assess monitoring and research data

 Participants: primarily researchers familiar with the system

 Modeling: Ecopath and EcoSim platforms, included physical and biological 

data to explain and predict future trends for specific resources 

 Outcome: Korman et al. In review. Estimating Recruitment Dynamics and 

Movement of Rainbow Trout in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using 

an Integrated Assessment Model. Can. J. of Fish. and Aq. Sci.
Institutional

 ...AMWG members participate in a Bayesian Belief 

Network exercise, or similar effort, to solidify their 

goals and reach consensus on how best to achieve 

them, in a way that takes into account their disparate 

individual needs, concerns and responsibilities.

Response: 

 To my knowledge, the AMWG has not participated in this 

kind of exercise
Glen Canyon (Lees Ferry) Monitoring

 Recast management objectives as angling catch rate, 

rather than absolute abundance, to frame the 

management program more directly in relation to the 

current catch-and-release angling fishery. 

Response: 

 To my knowledge, managers 

have not attempted to recast 

objectives as suggested 

 Recommendation does not 

appear to consider issues related 

to the ecology and population 

dynamics of the Glen Canyon 

trout population or negative 

interactions between native fish 

and nonnative trout further 

downstream
Glen Canyon (Lees Ferry) Monitoring

 Retain the creel survey to monitor annual fishery 

performance and angler satisfaction in relation to 

revised management objectives. 

Response: 

 AGF funded from 1963 to early 1970s and late 1970s through 2011

 GCMRC provided a small amount of funding in 2011 

 Efforts curtailed April 2012 due to lack of funding

 AGF has requested GCDAMP funds for the FY13-14 biennium
Glen Canyon (Lees Ferry) Monitoring

 Evaluate the effect of reducing electrofishing effort 

from 3–4 trips per year to 1–2 trips per year and 

eliminating fixed sites from the survey design to 

provide an index of trout population density based on 

random sites only. 

Response: 

 Effort maintained at three 

trips per year (spring, 

summer, and fall) to retain 

seasonal component in 

monitoring 

 Design revised in 2010, 

random-stratified procedure 

to select all sample sites
Glen Canyon (Lees Ferry) Monitoring

 Monitoring age-0 trout habitat use and movement is not routinely 

needed because the electrofishing survey provides a direct index 

of pre-recruit trout density. Similarly, redd counts are not needed 

because the electrofishing survey provides a direct index of adult 

trout density. This program’s strength is in evaluating the 

impacts of flow manipulations on early life history, and it should 

be part of the evaluation of future flow tests.

Response: 

 Provided information on effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled 

flood on incubation success, survival rates, and growth of age-0 

rainbow trout (see Korman et al. 2011. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 

140:487-505) also early indications on effects of 2011 equalization 

flows

 Useful to evaluate effects of future HFEs or flow-related actions to 

manage Glen Canyon trout population

 Continued at minimum funding level through 2012, proposed to 

continue in FY13-14
Native Fish Monitoring

 Sufficient information and experience with the LCR 

HBC population presently exists to develop an 

assessment framework. This framework would 

identify information needs and analysis required for 

managers to assess population status relative to 

management objectives. 

Response: 

 Formal assessment framework in development, draft report 

expected late 2012

 To date, information needs identified through more informal 

interactions among researchers and managers as well as 

events like Knowledge Assessment Workshops
Native Fish Monitoring

 In the context of the assessment framework, evaluate 

spring and fall hoop netting programs to assess the 

necessity of conducting both surveys.

Response: 

• Assessment conducted as 

part of ASMR analysis 

(Martell 2010 )

• Continuation of both 

programs important to 

maintain consistency with 

past data – findings 

presented to TWG in 

November 2010

• Both in FY13-14 workplan

(Coggins and Walters 2009; VanHaverbeke et al. unpubl.)
Native Fish Monitoring

 Compare the spring hoop net data from the markrecapture program to the fixed site 1200 meter hoop 

net data to determine if these programs are 

redundant.

Response: 

 Direct comparisons 

problematic due to gear 

differences 

 Makes it difficult to 

identify redundancies 

 Preliminary comparisons 

of trend data suggests 

poor correlation of catch 

trends between projects

 In FY13-14 workplan
Native Fish Monitoring

 Expand the fixed PIT tag antenna array to span the 

entire channel and consider deploying antennas at 

two locations

Response: 

 PIT tag antenna array 

expanded across LCR in 

2011 

 Second antenna array 

installed in May 2012

 Continued operation in 

FY13-14 workplan
Native Fish Monitoring

 Reduce the frequency of ASMR updates from annual 

to every 3–5 years, unless trends in field data warrant 

a formal reassessment.

Response: 

 ASMR updates 

currently scheduled 

every three years

(S. Martell, unpub. data)
Native Fish Monitoring

 ASMR estimates of recruitment do not match hoop net 

catch rates because of age estimation error in the ASMR. 

Body parts from the HBC being collected in the nearshore

ecology program or as part of disease sampling should be 

used (e.g. anal fin rays, scales, and otoliths) for age 

verification. Hopefully, verification would allow future 

non-lethal sampling for age estimation. Age estimates 

from fish tagged at small size (young “known” age) and 

recaptured over a wide range of years at liberty should be 

compared for age validation. Sensitivity of the ASMR 

recruitment index may be increased by using age 

information in combination with tagging of smaller fish.
Native Fish Monitoring

 ASMR estimates of recruitment do not match hoop net catch 

rates because of age estimation error in the ASMR...

Response: 

 Successful aging of HBC from NSE project using otoliths

 Otoliths also analyzed chemically to determine residence in 

particular waters (e.g., mainstem, LCR) – promising results

 Results from other hard structures (e.g., scales, fin rays) not 

promising, may try fin rays again as part of FY13-14 work

 Taking different approach to address ASMR issue – lengthbased model, avoids problems with age-estimation error
Native Fish Monitoring

 Management objectives for Chute Falls and other 

translocations should be specified in measurable 

terms to guide monitoring and reporting.

Response: 

 To my knowledge, 

management objectives for 

these efforts have not been 

revised. 

 Analysis of translocations 

within LCR currently 

underway

 Included in FY13-14 workplan
Mainstem Colorado River Monitoring

 The current stratified random electrofishing survey 

should be continued to provide information on trends 

and distribution of relatively abundant native and 

non-native species. However, effort could likely be 

reduced with little loss of information. This extensive 

approach needs to be complemented by a second 

strategy intended to detect rare species, such as 

more intensive sampling using a variety of passive 

and active gears at a smaller number of fixed 

surveillance locations where potentially detrimental 

non-native species are most likely to be found.
Mainstem Colorado River Monitoring

 The current stratified random electrofishing survey ...

Response: 

 Stratified random electrofishing survey continued, effort 

reduced to one trip per year

 Annual surveys for potentially detrimental nonnative species 

conducted each summer in Glen Canyon Dam spillway and 

in large backwater/slough at river mile -12.3 

 2009 oar-powered survey using a variety of gears 

(electrofisher, trammel nets, hoop nets, seines) – catches 

generally low, project discontinued 

 Additional sampling at fixed surveillance locations 

downstream not implemented as our focus has been on 

existing nonnatives, more frequent sampling of mainstem

proposed for FY13-14
Mainstem Colorado River Monitoring

 Evaluate impacts of reducing river-wide 

electrofishing from 2 trips to 1 trip per year.

 Response: 

 To date, reduction in effort has not adversely affected 

information quality

 High turbidity conditions could limit ability to detect trends
Mainstem Colorado River Monitoring

 Add a targeted sampling program at likely locations 

for non-native species colonization (e.g. above Lake 

Mead, below Lake Powell, and stream mouths, 

springs, below large rapids). 

Response: 

 Annual system-wide electrofishing survey includes nonnative fish monitoring – included in FY13-14 workplan

 Sites randomly selected, specific locations not targeted
Mainstem Colorado River Monitoring

 Design a monitoring program for non-LCR HBC 

based on refined management objectives and CMINs 

that clarify information needs.

Response: 

 Annual sampling of aggregations resumed in 2010

 One trip per year in September, catch per unit effort data 

from each aggregation

 Effort to develop more quantitative approach proposed for 

FY13-14 biennium
Mainstem Colorado River Monitoring

 Alternative means of sampling should continue to be 

pursued to identify the most efficient means to detect 

new species and changes to the distribution and 

abundance of existing species.

Response: 

 Continued to look for alternative sampling approaches to 

increase effectiveness and efficiency of all monitoring

 Proposals in FY13-14 workplan to experimentally evaluate 

alternative approaches – aggregation and natal origins 

projects
Questions?