6/27/zOOe

2009 Fish PEP Panel

Mike Bradford (CDFO, Chair)

Gordon Mueller (retired)

Dana Winkelman (USGS)

Jim Rice (NCSU)

Doug Osmundson (FWS)

Mark Bevelhimer (Oak Ridge)

and

Mike (why om I here?l

Hansen (UWSP)

Specialthanks to allthat ass¡sted with the

PEP's activities

Review components

. Lee's ferry reach

. LCR chub program

. Mainstem fish

. General issues
6/2u2OO9 w

Review outline

. 2000 Lee's Ferry PEP . Progress since PEP

'2001AquaticPEP reviews

- Water qual¡ty . Recommendations

- Foodbase . Responsesto1WG

- Native fish questions

- Non-nativefìsh

This is a high-quality science program

Programs are rigorous

and scientifically sound

Dedicated and

experienced staff

Extensive program

review and publicat¡on

record

Lee's Ferry

. 2000 PEP . 2001-2009

recommendation:

- Move to a more

statistically robust

random sampling design

* Combined fìxed and

random sampling that

show parallel trends

- H¡gh precision est¡metes

of angler and survey

catch per effort

- Early l¡fe history studies

(Korman)
Lee's Ferry Observations

. Consistent, intens¡ve

sampling

. Good correlation

between fixed and

random sites

. Random sites may be

useful for invasive

surveil la nce

. Cohort reconstruction

possible for dam effects

and downstream impacts.

Lee's Ferry Recommendations

1. Recast the management objectives as sports

fishery metrics (catch rate, fish size).

2. Retain the creel survey

3. Abandon fixed sites and use a fully random

design- increase # of random sites

4. Consider reducing trips from 3-4 to 1-2. CV

can increase fo 15-20%

5. Make fuller use of age information

Little Colorado Region HBC

2001 PEP Since 2001

. Continuedevelopmentof . ASMRdevelopedand

age-structured model reviewed

. Continuelowerl200m . l200mCpUEseries sempl¡ngtomaintaintime cont¡nued series

. Directedstudiestoestablish . Mark-recaptureofLCRadult

succeslul life history population restarted in

streteg¡es 2001 and continued

. Developan¡ntegrated . Periodicsampl¡ngofHBCin mon¡tor¡ngprogram mainstem near LCR

. Be mindful of handling . pt1tag antenna

issues
6/2u20Os

PEP Observations

. ls the 1200m sampling

redundantwith FWS

sampling?

. Are 2 sets of markrecapture estimates

annually needed for the

LCR?

. Canhandlingbe

reduced?

LCR HBC Uncertainties

. Howdependentisthe

population on ma¡nstem

conditions?

- NSE project, l¡fe h¡story

stud¡es

. ls there a carry¡ng

capac¡ty for HBC in the

LCR?

- Analysis of existing data

. What are the dynamics of

spawners in the LCR?

- PIT tag arrays

LCR HBC Recommendations

. 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 markrecapture estimate:

- Can juvenile abundance be indexed by the spring ser¡es?

- How many (or few) PIT tags are needed to me¡ntain ASM R?

. Cont¡nue development ofthe PlTtag antennae

- Full channel width

- 2 arrays to evaluate movement

- On-s¡te continuous maintenance needed?

4
6/21/200e

LCR HBC Recommendations Con't

. Develop stock assessment framework for LCR

humpback chub

- lntegrate ¡nformation from all programs into agreedupon format for annual reporting

. ASMR runs at 3-5 year interval

- Can ASMR detect variation in recru¡tment?

. "Minimum handling" as a management objective

- PIT tag loss and tagging and tag-related mortality

- Unknown sub-lethal effects

Mainstem Colorado River

. 200L PEP

- lmpressive and detailed

electrofishing surveys for

trout (and other species)

- No plan for native fish

- Nosystematicplanfor

"warmwater" nonnatives

. Recommend ã r¡sk

assessmentfor those

spec¡es.

PEP Observations

. Goodcoverageoftrout . Recentstudiesindicate

and common non- trammel nets may be

native species with acceptable for

randomized AZGF mainstem HBC sampling

surveys . Thereisaneedfora

. Currently no mon¡toring new non-native and

program for other non- mainstem native fish

native species nor sampling program

mainstem natives
LCR HBC Recommendations Con't

. Develop stock assessment framework for LCR

humpback chub

- lntegrate information from all programs into agreedupon format for annual reporting

. ASMR runs at 3-5 year interval

- Can ASMR detect variat¡on in recruitment?

. "Minimum handling" as a management objective

- PlTtag loss and tagging and tag-related mortality

- Unknown sub-lethal effects

Mainstem Colorado River

. 2001- PEP

- lmpressive and detailed

electrofìshing surveys for

trout (and other species)

- No plan for native fish

- Nosystemat¡cplanfor

"warmwater" nonnat¡ves

. Recommend a risk

. 

âssessmentfor those

species.

PEP Observations

. Goodcoverageoftrout . Recentstudiesindicate

and common non- trammel nets may be

native species with acceptable for

randomized AZGF mainstem HBC sampling

surveys . There is a need for a

. Currently no monitoring new non-native and

program for other non- ma¡nstem native fish

native species nor sampling program

mainstem natives
6/21./2009 !

PEP recommendations for the Mainstem

1. Consider reducing the mainstem

electrofishing survey to an annual trip rather

Than2x/yr.

- Current estimates of trout CPUE are precise

- Analysis to determine what loss of informat¡on

would result

Mainstem con't

2. Evaluate undesired non-native species for:

- Risk to native fish (potential for establ¡shment and

impact)

- Points of entry

gear types

cenucks-an

inEs¡ve

species?

Mainstem con't

3. 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

- Opportunistlc su rvei llance

- Non-random "informed" samPling

6
6/21/z}oe

Mainstem con't

4. 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?

lnstitutional 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?

¡dealstrudure Adualstrudure

Other lnstitutional lssues

. Organize reporting around objectives rather

than agency/trip reports

- E.9., integrate non-nat¡ve catch information across

all sampling programs

. The Adaptive Management question

- Are the flow experiments and the monitoring

program operat¡ng at the same scale?