U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

David Ward and Charles B. Yackuli

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Cente

Southwest Biological Science Center

Review of Fisheries Prog

TWG Summary - 2016 Protoco

Evaluation Panel Findings
Outline

 Why we do PEP panels Brief history of Protocol Evaluation Pa 2016 PEP panel - What was asked of th

panel?

 Findings of 2016 panel
F
Recent Timeline

 2000 – Standardization of Long Term Fish 

Monitoring Programs

 Anders, P., M. Bradford, P. Higgins, K.H. Nislow, C. Rabeni, and 

2001. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center protocoevaluation program: final report of the aquatic Protocol evaluation Flagstaff, Arizona.

 Bradford, M., M. Bevelhimer, M. Hansen, G. Mueller, D. Osmund

and D. Winkelman. 2009. Report of the 2009 Protocol Evalua

for Fish Monitoring Programs of the Grand Canyon Monitoring anCenter
Participants – Aug 1‐5, 2016

Jim Peterson - USGS, Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife ResearcKeith Gido - Kansas State UniversityDon Jackson - University of Toronto, Department of Ecology and EvoFrank Rahel - University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and PhAndy Casper - University of Illinois, Illinois River Biological StationDavid Braun - Science Advisor (Sound-Science.org)
Formal Prospectus

• Asked 5 Key questions

How could the program better balance priorities and trad

focused on research and monitoring of –

1. Rainbow trout in Glen and Marble Canyons?

2. Humpback chub around the LCR confluence, and at other loca

may harbor secondary populations?

3. Effectiveness of translocation efforts for of humpback chub?

4. Native and Nonnative fish status and trends outside of fixed s

locations?

5. Better accommodating concerns for protecting the value of a

in culturally sensitive areas while maintaining the quality scie

Also tasked with making recommendations regarding the scopelevel of effort/study designs/ and relevance of program compone
What is appropriate role for a bu

scientists?

Rate of learning • Identify poten

of different levinvestment • Identify most use of a fixed investment • Tell managers stakeholders to invest withoarticulated go

Mark-recap Lots of CPE Some CPE
1a. Rainbow trout Monitoring

 “The quality of catch effort data...is likely reduced du

inability to account for incomplete capture.”

 “To maintain a quality fishery it is necessary to under

factors affecting vital rates, currently these estimates provided through the intensive research sampling eff

 CPE monitoring is “providing a robust view of status a

trends of exotic species” over large areas, and intensmethods have limited spatial extent.
1a. Rainbow trout Monitoring

 Maintain the integrity of the Long –Term CPUE 

monitoring data 

 Build on this long-term monitoring effort to estima

annual response of RBT to conditions.

 Try fitting open models to RBT tagged during CP

monitoring.

 Evaluate tradeoffs of different monitoring schemes via simulation.
1b. Understanding driver

 “Incorporate all levels of ecosystem (e

nutrients, benthic invertebrates, tempeLake Powell)” to better understand facaffecting RBT population dynamics.

 Develop RBT conceptual model to faci

communication within and outside the program.
2. Humpback chub

 Quantify impacts of RBT on HBC. Focus on drivers of vital rates more, abundan Improve efficiency of HBC monitoring and res

through coordination and power analysis.

 Consider more research into a potential seco

population.
3. 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- Genetic considerations
4. Evaluating tradeoffs in monitoring e

 Power analyses / simulations

 Can some projects be downsized? Should some projects be discontinued / 

redesigned?

• Some power analysis in draft FY18-20 TW• PA’s have been done in the past – NO & J• Changes to consider:

1) RBT effort in Lees Ferry.2) One fall LCR trip?3) 4 to 3 JCM trips...2?4) 2 or 1 SWEF?

• Need clear articulation of goal / 

management need to do a useful PA
5. Monitoring Broad-Scale Fish Comm

Status and Trends

 “Spatially expansive, long-term sampling utilizing stan

techniques is critical for tracking changes in fish popuSuch monitoring can detect relatively large changes in abundance...”

 Current sampling likely effective for trout, carp, walley

smallmouth bass. Ineffective for catfish, striped bass.

 Stratified random design may be poor design for detec

invasions if likely entry points are not sampled yearly. 
5. Monitoring Broad-Scale Fish Comm

Status and Trends

 Suggest pit tagging and open models. Also suggest incorporating PIT-tag antennae 

design.

 “PEP recommends that a separate invasive d

program be considered. This separate prograwould use a variety of sampling gears deployfixed sites where nonnative are known to exiswhere introduction is most likely to occur.”
5. Monitoring Broad-Scale Fish Comm

Status and Trends

 “Identify nonnative fish population or distribu

indices or rules sets that would trigger nonnacontrol options to be employed”

 “Develop ways to routinely solicit information 

fishing guides and anglers regarding composthe recreational fishery.”
6. Minimizing negative effects of pr

activities on fish

 Clearly demonstrate need for particular levels 

sampling 

 Engage tribes in monitoring and Research pr
7. Program communication and Ou

 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.
8. Adaptive Management

 PEP recommended we focus on models 

throughout the adaptive management p(Information-theoretic approach). 

 Modify RBT and HBC models to incorporat

alternative hypotheses of the factors affectdemography. 

 Integrate two population models.
8. Adaptive Management

 Recommendations that the translocatio

more hypothesis driven with hypotheselinked to specific management actions criteria for success clearly defined.
 Need to more formally integrate reservo

downstream ecosystem monitoring.

 Effects of warmer water and lower nutrients 

associated with lowered lake levels and potedecreased inflows identified as key uncertai

 Reconsider risk associated with Quagga effe

the reservoir on reservoir outflows (increasetemperature, altered nutrients). 

Emerging Issues
 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.

Emerging Issues
 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.

Emerging Issues
Questions ?