Annual Reporting Meeting – Day 2 (January 19, 2011)

List of Presentations

No. Title of Presentation Author / Presenter

1 GCMRC Logistics and Permitting Program 2010 GCMRC

2 NSE Project Update January 2011, Year 2 of 4, Trips 8 of 12 Colton Finch, Mike Dodrill, and

Brandon Gerig

3 Tailing the chub: combining natural tags and growth to assess

the impacts of steady flows

Todd A. Hayden, Karin E.

Limburg, and William E. Pine

4 An Overview of Humpback Chub Translocating and Chute Falls

Monitoring During 2010

Arizona Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Office

5 Humpback Chub Translocation Efforts in GRCA: 2010 Update Brian Healy, Emily Omana, and

Melissa Trammell

6 Will Translocations Augment Colorado River HBC

Aggregations?

7 Bright Angel Creek Trout Reduction Project Brian Healy, Emily Omana, and

Melissa Trammell

8 An Overview of Humpback Mark‐Recapture Trips in the Little

Colorado River During 2010

Arizona Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Office

9 Little Colorado river Lower 1200 m Monitoring 1987‐2010 Brian C. Clark

10 BIO 4.M2.  Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes Luke Avery

11 Grand Canyon Fish Community Monitoring Aaron J. Bunch

12 Progress on Processing 2009 High‐Resolution Airborne Imagery Philip A. Davis and Laura E.

Cagney

13 Data Acquisition and Management Systems (DAMS) Glenn Bennett

14 GIS Support for Integrated Analysis and Projects USGS

15 A Prospectus to Evaluate Tradeoff and Decision Support

Methods for GCDAMP

AMP Science Advisors
1/19/2011

1

GCMRC 

Logistics Logistics and Permitting and Permitting 

Program

2010

 Safety 

 Cost effectiveness

 EfficiencyEfficiency

What We Do

Rain (snow) Rain (snow) or shine the show must go on...... or shine the show must go on......

 PlanningPlanning

 Permitting

 Scheduling

 21 River Trips in 2010 River Trips in 2010

 Lees Ferry Trout Research

 Diamond Creek & LF AQFB 

samplingsampling

 Rim Support

 LCR Helicopter LCR Helicopter Support Support

 Food packing

 Shuttle Drives/Vehicles

 Fix broken equipment and 

fix it again....................

River Trip Cost

How do we spend logistics funding? 2010 Project Support

 Aquatic Aquatic Foodbase Foodbase

 Nearshore Nearshore Ecology Ecology

 Monitoring Lees Ferry Fish

 Mainstem Mainstem Fishes

 Integrated Quality of Water Monitoring

 Little Colorado river Humpback Chub Monitoring and 

Translocation

 Cultural Research and Development of Core Monitoring

 Survey Control Network

 Kanab Ambersnail Ambersnail Monitoring Monitoring

 Campsite/Sandbar Area Monitoring

 Nonnative Fish Monitoring Nonnative Fish Monitoring-Multigear Multigear Sampling Pilot Sampling Pilot

 Tribal River Trip Support

Our Partners

 USGS/GCMRC Scientists and staff

 Grand Canyon National Park

 AMP Tribal Participants

 Federal and State Cooperators

 University Cooperators

 HSS: Boat Operators

 Volunteers

 VIP’s

 GCY: Youth Volunteers

“Partners in Science”

An innovative partnership linking GCMRC and 

Grand Canyon Youth Inc.

The objective of the “Partners in Science” program is to provide 

the opportunity for youth to experience the educational power of 

participating in hands participating in hands-on science, completing service projects in on science, completing service projects in 

support of the GCMRC science mission and participating on a river 

trip to travel not as tourists, but as working partners in the 

mission of providing scientific understanding of the cultural, 

physical and biological resources of the Grand Canyon.

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 1
1/19/2011

2

Backwater Habitat Measurements

Since 2004 GCY has been an informal cooperative partner with the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center. Through this partnership, youth have a 

successful history of working collaboratively with GCMRC scientists to collect field 

data for multiple projects included in the GCDAMP annual work plan, some 

examples include:

Hoopnet Sampling Weather Station Maintenance

Kanab Ambersnail 

monitoring 

at Vaseys Paradise

Pit tagging native fish

Backwater Seining

Thanks

and what's next in 2011?

HFE?

NN Removal Project?

....there’s always more to learn

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 2
1/19/2011

1

NSE Project Update

January 2011

Year 2 of 4Year 2 of 4

Trips 8 of 12

Colton Finch, Mike Dodrill, and Brandon Gerig

Matt Lauretta and Todd Hayden

(Students and post (Students and post-doc needing work) doc needing work)

Nearshore ecology project (NSE)

 We designed the NSE 

project to assess fish 

population responses 

to fall steady flow 

 Fill key data gaps in 

native fish ecology

 Timing of immigration 

from LCR to mainstem

experimentexperiment

 Direct response 

metrics: fish growth, 

survival, abundance

 Indirect responses: 

habitat use , 

movement, selection

 Residency in LCR & 

mainstemmainstem

Nearshore Ecology Study

•Habitat use and selection of fish

•Capture probability by habitat type

•Abundance of all fish species

•Predation rates (habitat and flow)

•Survival

•GROWTH

September and October

Mark-Recapture Sampling Recapture Sampling 

Framework (four Framework (four trips annually) trips annually)

NSE HBC size structure

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 3
1/19/2011

2

Key NSE Finding 1

 NSE project catches small native fish

 Smaller fish collected via EF than hoopnets 

(key size difference fish < 50 (key size difference fish < 50-mm TL)

 NSE electrofishing is much slower (8 sec/m) NSE electrofishing electrofishing is much slower (8 sec/m)

than other electrofishing efforts (1.2 sec/m)

 Targets shoreline habitats

 Larger fish may avoid NSE electrofishing 

NSE HBC preliminary 

abundance estimates

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 4
1/19/2011

3

Key NSE Finding 2

 NSE project can estimate abundance of 

small fishsmall fish

 Across both years we have been able to 

estimate estimate abundance of small HBC estimate abundance abundance of small HBC

 40-100 mm TL fish from VIE marks 100 mm TL fish from VIE marks

 100+mm TL fish from PIT tags

 Smaller size/younger age than ASMR

 No obvious chances in abundance 

occurring during flow experiment

NSE HBC preliminary 

survival estimates

July_09 Aug_09 Sept_09 Oct_09 July_10 Aug_10 Sept_10 Oct_10

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

MR R R R R R R R

278 27 48 49 21 35 26 33 42

Tagged cohorts persist through time

278 27 48 49 21 35 26 33 42

307 36 55 24 30 27 29 55

329 47 19 25 43 42 59

132 7 13 10 13 18

203 25 32 34 45

279 47 84 53

517 90 95

434 100

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 5
1/19/2011

4

NSE HBC preliminary 

growth estimates

Study Site Water Temperatures

15

20

25

es C

LCR

Lee's Ferry

NSE

0

5

10

1/1/10

1/15/10

1/29/10

2/12/10

2/26/10

3/12/10

3/26/10

4/9/10

4/23/10

5/7/10

5/21/10

6/4/10

6/18/10

7/2/10

7/16/10

7/30/10

8/13/10

8/27/10

9/10/10

9/24/10

10/8/10

10/22/10

11/5/10

11/19/10

12/3/10

12/17/10

12/31/10

Date

Degree

Counterintuitive Result

 Fish growth rate actually declineddeclined during fall 

(steady flows) from summer (fluctuating flow)

 Colorado River Colorado River, dL/dt 0.13 0.08 mm/d 0.08 mm/d

 Littl C l d Ri Little Colorado River, 0 21 . 0 02 /d 0.02 mm/d

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 6
1/19/2011

5

More clues on growth and 

movement from otoliths....

D T dd H d SUNY Dr. Todd Hayden, SUNY-ESF

What’s going on?

What’s going on?

 Steady flows not so steady

Steady flow not so steady...

 Steady flows not so steady

What NSE does really well...

 Direct estimates of juvenile native fish 

abundance, growth, and survival

 At earlier age than ASMR estimates

• Improved age Improved age-at-first-capture estimates via otoliths + ASMR capture estimates via otoliths + ASMR

 Could become part of core monitoring program to assess Could become part of core monitoring monitoring program program to assess

juvenile fish population responses to experiments

 Habitat use information

 Limited to our small study reach

 Working to link with physical science program

 Surprises from Todd and Karin

 Growth, movement patterns, timing of outmigration from LCR

Is there a native fish response 

to current flow experiment?

 Not likely at the current flow contrast level

 Bigger hammer Bigger hammer – increase the magnitude of change increase the magnitude of change

 Switching Switching time periods of flow time periods of flow experiment? experiment?

 Maximized Maximized insolation rates would occur in insolation rates would occur in June/July June/July

 Fewer tributary inputs?

 What next?

 Steady flows planned in 2011 and 2012

 NSE project field work planned in 2011 only

 Is the flow experiment still the primary question of interest?

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 7
1/19/2011

6

Thank you

Why can’t I 

retire like 

John Hamill? John Hamill?

NSE Research Questions 

 “The primary goal of this project is to understand how river flow, 

through its interaction with physical habitat structure, influences the 

survival rates of juvenile native and non survival rates of juvenile native and non-native fishes in the native fishes in the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Nine research questions related to Nine research questions related to 

this goal have been identified in the RFP (RFP pages 27 this goal have been identified in the RFP (RFP pages 27-28). (Pine 

et al. 2008)”

Two fundamental research questions

 (RQ1) Do steadier flows during summer and/or fall increase survival 

rates of juvenile native and non rates of juvenile native and non-native fish? native fish?

 (RQ2) To what extent does physical habitat structure (e.g., sand 

bars and backwaters), in conjunction with flows during these 

periods, influence survival rate?

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 8
1/19/2011

1

Tailing the chub: combining natural 

tags and growth to assess the impacts 

of steady flows

Todd A. Hayden1, Karin E. Limburg1, William E. Pine, III2

1State University of New York College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry 2Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation , Program in 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida

•CaCO3, protein

•No reabsorption

•Sequential growth- Otolith core = larval lifestage

•Trace elements incorporate into otolith from watertime, location specific marker (Sr:Ca, Se:Ca, δ13C )

Otolith Chemistry

Photo by K. Limburg

Core

Quantifying Fish growth

Daily increments: Annual increments:

(ADGF 3 degrees, 24 hrs)

(Photo by Steven Campana)

Project objectives

• Identify natural markers- HBC migration, 

movements (LCR, COR)-

• Ot lith b d Otolith based- age/ th f HBC /growth of HBC-

• Link natural markers and growth- impacts 

of Glen Canyon steady flow on HBCProject objectives

• Identify natural markers- HBC migration, 

movements (LCR, COR)-

• Ot lith b d Otolith based- age/ th f HBC /growth of HBC-

• Link natural markers and growth- impacts 

of Glen Canyon steady flow on HBCMin, Max) 15

20

0.5

88.3 61.3

157.2

226.0

30.0

Water chemistry-2009

~4 campaigns (July-Oct)

-all major tribs and U/S, 

D/S of confluence

0

0.5

1 29.9

30 30.1

53 60.8 61.3 63.9

88 88.5

89

109 109.5

110 126.7

135

136 135.5 155.9

156 156.1

226

9.0* 8.8* 6.5* 5.6* 1.0*

Sr:Ca x 1000 (± M

0

5

10

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 9
1/19/2011

2

Min, Max) 60

80

0.5

61.3

88.3

157.2

226.0

30.0

Water chemistry-2009

~4 campaigns (July-Oct)

-all major tribs and U/S, 

D/S of confluence

0

0.5

1 29.9

30 30.1

53 60.8 61.3 63.9

88 88.5

89

109 109.5

110 126.7

135

136 135.5 155.9

156 156.1

226

9.0* 8.8* 6.5* 5.6* 1.0*

Se:Ca x 1000 (± M

0

20

40

October Carbon stable isotopic ratios in DOC and DIC

1.0

88.3 61.3

157.2

30.0

226.0

δ13C water

LCR

Havasu 30-Mile

MS below Diamond

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

-30.0 -25.0 -20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0

delta 13C in DOC (Dissolved Organic C)

delta 13C in DIC (Diss. Inorg. C)

δ13 C(otolith) (±1 SE)

3C otolith -8

-6

-4

-2

0

δ13

HBC, 33mm TL, collected

August 17, 2009 in Mainstem

Edge Core BHS 14mm TL, collected

August 26, 2009 in

LCR @ Boulder Camp

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

“Resident” Little Colorado River fish 

27 mm TL 28 mm TL 25 mm TL

Sr:Ca

Se:Ca

HBC, 33mm TL, collected August 17, 2009 in Colorado

River

MS

LCR

Sr:Ca

Sr:Ca Se:Ca

Se:Ca

HBC scale Sr:Ca- scale

255mm TL- collected ~ 9 km (October 2009, age ~5-6) upstream- LCR

Sr:Ca Se:Ca

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 10
1/19/2011

3

Project objectives

• Identify natural markers- HBC migration, 

movements (LCR, COR)- Sr:Ca, Se:Ca

high in MS, δ13C low in MS, scales- not 

helpful

• Otolith based- age/growth of HBC

• Link natural markers and growth- impacts 

of Glen Canyon steady flow on HBC.

Project objectives

• Identify natural markers- HBC migration, 

movements (LCR, COR)- Sr:Ca, Se:Ca 

high in MS, δ13C low in MS

• Otolith based Otolith based- age/growth of HBC age/growth of HBC

• Link natural markers and growth- impacts 

of Glen Canyon steady flow on HBC.

20100713FWS01 (HBC, 55mm TL, LCR-Rkm 2.0, collected 7-13-2010, 63 days old) 081709COR (HBC, 33mm TL, collected August 17, 2009 in Colorado River (SIMS fish)

Daily increments for Otolith 08-17-09COR

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Increment number 

Increment width, microns

HBC 51- collected 7-20-2009, 97mm in LCR (lower 3km) HBC_51- collected 7-20-2009, 

97mm in LCR (lower 3km)

crons 6

8

increment number

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

increment width, mic 0

2

4

6

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 11
1/19/2011

4

HBC_51- collected 7-20-2009, 

97mm in LCR (lower 3km)

Sr:Ca (~1 mmole:mole)

LCR (fast growth)

Se:Ca (~3 μmole:mole)

HBC 51- collected 7-20-2009, 

97mm in LCR (lower 3km)

crons 6

8

increment number

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

increment width, mic 0

2

4

6

HBC_51- collected 7-20-2009, 

97mm in LCR (lower 3km)

Sr:Ca (~2mmole:mole)

COR (slow 

growth)

Se:Ca (~4μmole:mole)

HBC_51- collected 7-20-2009, 

97mm in LCR (lower 3km)

crons 6

8

increment number

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

increment width, mic 0

2

4

6

HBC_51- collected 7-20-2009, 

97mm in LCR (lower 3km)

Sr:Ca (~1mmole:mole)

LCR (fast 

growth)

Se:Ca (~3μmole:mole)

HBC 51- collected 7-20-2009, 97mm in LCR (lower 3km)

~April 28, 2009 to ~July 20, 2009 in LCR

~May 1, 2008 to ~June 6, 2008 in LCR

June 7, 2008 to April 27, 2009 in COR

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 12
1/19/2011

5

Project objectives

• Identify natural markers- HBC migration, 

movements (LCR, COR)- Sr:Ca, Se:Ca 

high in MS, δ13C low in MS

• Otolith based- ag g e/ rowth of HBC- difficult 

to find daily “COR” growth increments, 

LCR clear increments (at least to 

~100mmTL) 

• Link natural markers and growth- impacts 

of Glen Canyon steady flow on HBC.

Project objectives

• Identify natural markers- HBC migration, 

movements (LCR, COR)- Sr:Ca, Se:Ca 

high in MS, δ13C low in MS

• Otolith based- ag g e/ rowth of HBC- difficult 

to find daily “COR” growth increments, 

LCR clear increments (at least to 

~100mmTL) 

• Link natural markers and growth- impacts 

of Glen Canyon steady flow on HBC.

HBC 104, 63mm, collected 10-24-2009 in COR (steady flow)

HBC 104, 63mm, collected 10-24-2009 in COR

Sr:Ca

HBC 104, 63mm, collected 10-24-2009 in COR

Core- (LCR- low Sr:Ca)

margin (COR-high Sr:Ca)

Se:Ca

margin (COR-high Se:Ca)

Core- (LCR- low Se:Ca)

20101026EF04- 130mm 

1st capture- Sept. 2009 LCR (<100mm)

2nd capture- Oct. 2009 LCR (<100mm)

3rd capture- Oct. 26, 2010- COR

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 13
1/19/2011

6

Colton's fish, EF-04 with 3-pt smooth

6

8

10

12

crement width, 

microns

20101026EF04- collected COR-10-26-2010 (steady flow)

0

2

4

0 50 100 150

Increment number

Daily inc

m

Project objectives

• Identify natural markers- HBC migration, 

movements (LCR, COR)- Sr:Ca, Se:Ca high in 

MS, δ13C low in MS

• Otolith based- age/growth of HBC- difficult to 

find daily find daily “COR” growth increments LCR clear growth increments, LCR clear

increments (at least to ~100mmTL) 

• Link natural markers and growth- impacts of 

Glen Canyon steady flow on HBC.- No drastic 

change in growth during steady flow. (NEED TO 

LOOK AT MORE FISH TO CONFIRM!)

Acknowledgements:

Individuals:

Colton Finch

Brandon Gerig

Michael Dodrill

Mike Yard 

Darren Dale

Agencies:

USGS- GCMRC

USFWS

NPS

BOR

a e ae AZGF

Analytical:

CHESS

WHOI-NENIMF

Cs+

Secondary ions

SIMS (secondary ion mass spectroscopy)

Sample

Synchroton X‐ray fluorescence

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 14
1/19/2011

1

An Overview of Humpback Chub 

Translocations and Chute Falls 

Monitoring During 2010 

By 

Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

Flagstaff, AZ

Objectives

 Collect humpback chub for translocation to 

Chute Falls, Dexter, Chute Falls, Dexter, Shinumo Shinumo, and Havasu , and Havasu 

creeks.

 BIO 2 M3 11 BIO 2.M3.11-12 M it d bt i l d k 12 Monitor and obtain closed markrecapture population estimates of humpback 

chub in the upper Little Colorado River (13.6 to 

~18 km).~18 km).

 Estimate what percentage of wild humpback 

chub are being cropped for translocation 

purposes.purposes.

Humpback Chub Collections 

and Dispersal 

Chute Falls DNFHTC Shinumo Havasu Total

2003 283 283

2004 300 300

2005 567 567

2008 299 300 200 799

2009 194 200 300 694

2010 109 185 300 300 894

Totals 1,752 685 800 300 3,537

Dexter since 2008

~685 age~685 age-0 fish 

Shinumo Shinumo Creek since 2008 Creek since 2008 

~800 age~800 age-0 fish Havasu Creek Havasu Creek – 2011 (300 fish) 2011 (300 fish)

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 15
1/19/2011

2

Chute Falls since 2003 

~1,752 mixed age ~1,752 mixed age-0 / age 0 / age-1 fish 1 fish 

Humpback Chub Cropped in 

2010 for Translocations

5 000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

of Fish

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Age-0 (~10%) Age-1 (~14%)

Number o

Age Class Cropped

Monitoring the Chute Falls 

Reaches

Little Colorado River

Chute Falls

14.1 km Lower Reach

Upper Reach

Abundances of Humpback Chub 

≥ 200 mm above and below 

Chute Falls

Spring 2010 Hydrograph for 

Little Colorado River 

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 16
1/19/2011

3

Displacement of Humpback Chub 

Downriver between Monitoring in 

2009 and 2010 

200

250

300

sh

0

50

100

150

11.3 11.5 11.7 11.9 12.1 12.3 12.5 12.7 12.9 13.1 13.3 13.5

Number of Fis

River Kilometer

2010 2009

Chute Falls Findings

 Growth of HBC Growth of HBC translocated translocated to above Chute has been to above Chute has been 

very high. very high. 

 1- year survivorship of HBC from the 2008 Chute Falls year survivorship survivorship of HBC from the 2008 Chute Falls

translocation was very high (~89%).

 1- year survivorship of the 2009 cohort was likely year survivorship of the 2009 cohort was likely 

considerably lower (possibly ~29% based on 11 recaps 

of 194 fish and p of 0.195). of 0.195). 

 Chute Falls has much potential as a wild grow out 

facility.facility.

Big Habitat Successful Humpback Chub 

Survival, Growth and Recruitment 

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 17
1/19/2011

1

Humpback Chub Translocation 

Efforts in GRCA: 2010 Update

B i D H l E il C O M li T ll

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Grand Canyon National Park

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Brian D. Healy, Emily C. Omana, Melissa Trammell

National Park Service

Jonathan Spurgeon, Craig Paukert, Joanna Whittier

University of Missouri, USGS Cooperative

David Speas

Bureau of Reclamation

Pamela J. Sponholtz

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Cooperators

•Funded by Reclamation and NPS

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

•Volunteers

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

George Andjreko, AZ Game & Fish

Translocation Goals

Ultimate Goals:

Restore Native Fish Populations, including humpback chub, to 

the Extent Feasible

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Tributary Translocation may contribute towards:

 Establish 2Establish 2nd Spawning Population in Grand Canyon

 Provide “Population Redundancy”

 Rearing/Grow Rearing/Grow-out habitat Juvenile Humpback Chub out habitat Juvenile Humpback Chub

 Increased Growth (escape predation)

 Augment Colorado River Aggregations

Success of Tributary Translocations?

 Evaluation In progress:

 Factors influencing survival

Today:

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Will Humpback Chub remain in Shinumo Creek?

 Assess/Investigate Factors influencing emigration

 Population Estimates

Growth of translocated HBC compared to the Little 

Colorado River

Little Colorado River 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 18
1/19/2011

2

Hatchery Treatments

 Parasite/disease 

TreatmentTreatment

 Flow Training

 Pit Tagging

W i ht/l th

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Weight/length

Non-native fish control native fish control  Improve Survival of Translocated Humpback Chub

 Electrofishing and Angling

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

PIT Tag Antenna System

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Shinumo Translocation

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 302 in June 2009

 300 in June 2010

Melissa Trammell/NPS

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 19
1/19/2011

3

Results Results – Will HBC Remain in Will HBC Remain in 

Shinumo?Shinumo?

Humpback Chub Outmigration and Pop. Estimates

June 15, 2009 - June 23, 2010

12

14

16

18

ected

151 left after 1 year

2009 TranslocationJune 15

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

6/15/097/15/098/15/099/15/09

10/15/0911/15/0912/15/09

1/15/102/15/103/15/104/15/105/15/106/15/10

Date

No. of Fish Dete

151 left after 1 year

(50%)

Results Results – Will HBC Remain in Will HBC Remain in 

Shinumo?Shinumo?

June 23, 2010 - September 11, 2010

12

14

16

18

etected

2009 HBC

2010 HBC

2010 Translocation 

June 23

Total Outmigration:

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

2

4

6

8

10

6/23/106/30/10

7/7/10

7/14/107/21/107/28/10

8/4/10

8/11/108/18/108/25/10

9/1/109/8/10

No. of Fish De

2009 HBC: 157 (52%)

2010 HBC: 95 (32%)

PIT Tag Antenna Results PIT Tag Antenna Results - Emigration Emigration 

A

Count

30

40

50

Remained

 (Mean = 120mm n= 355)

Left 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Length Class(mm TL)

80 100 120 140 160 180

HBC 

C

0

10

20 (Mean = 130mm n= 252)

PIT Tag Antenna Results PIT Tag Antenna Results - Emigration Emigration

B

C Count 20

30

40

50

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Time

12 am

1 am2 am3 am4 am5 am6 am7 am8 am

11 am

12 pm 2 pm 3 pm 4 pm 6 pm 7 pm 8 pm 9 pm 10 pm 11 pm

HB

C

0

10

20

PIT Tag Antenna Results PIT Tag Antenna Results - Summary Summary

 About 250 of 602 (42%) have left (Nov. 2010)

 Largest pulses of outmigration occurred: 

 1st 10 days after release

 Prior to spring runoff (prior to 2010 translocation)

M t d i il t i ht

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Movements occurre s occurred primarily at night

 Emigration was Emigration was not correlatedcorrelated

with:

 Temperature (p=0.56)

 Stream flow (stage) (p=0.57)

 Larger Fish = more likely

Mark-recapture Population Estimates recapture Population Estimates

 June and September, 2010

 2-pass Markpass Mark-recapture (all natives) recapture (all natives)

Stream Reach

Sampling Day Sampling Day 1 2 3 4

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Day 1 (PASS 1) Day 1 (PASS 1) Set Nets Set Nets Set NetsSet Nets

Day 2 (PASS 1) Day 2 (PASS 1) Mark Mark Set NetsSet Nets Set NetsSet Nets

Day 3 (PASS 1) Mark Mark

Day 4 (PASS 2) Day 4 (PASS 2) Set Nets Set Nets Set NetsSet Nets

Day 5 (PASS 2) Day 5 (PASS 2) Mark/ 

recap

Mark/ recap Mark/ recap Set Nets Set Nets Set NetsSet Nets

Day 6 (PASS 2) Mark/ 

recap

Mark/ 

recap

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 20
1/19/2011

4

Results: 2010 Post Results: 2010 Post-Translocation Translocation 

Monitoring

 June and September

 Unique Re Unique Re-captures captures

 49 of 2009 class

 68 of 2010 class

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Shinumo - 2010 Population Estimates -

Humpback chub

300

350

400

450

500

mate

350

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

June Sept

Pop. estim

151

Translocated HBC (Age‐1+) vs. Little Colorado

160

180

200

th (mm)

Growth

LCR Growth Curve: Robinson and Childs 2001 E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

80

100

120

140

April

MayJune

July

August

Sept.

October

Nov.

Dec.

January

February

March

April

MayJune

July

August

Sept.

October

Nov.

Dec.

Total Lengt

LCR

2009 Age1+

2010 Age1+

Water Temperature Water Temperature – 1 year

15

20

25

30

ees C

Sampling Trips

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

5

10

15

6/15/097/15/098/15/099/15/09

10/15/0911/15/0912/15/09

1/15/102/15/103/15/104/15/105/15/106/15/10

Degre

Sampling Trips

Translocated HBC (Age‐1+) vs. Little Colorado

160

180

200

th (mm)

Growth

LCR Growth Curve: Robinson and Childs 2001 E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

80

100

120

140

April

MayJune

July

August

Sept.

October

Nov.

Dec.

January

February

March

April

MayJune

July

August

Sept.

October

Nov.

Dec.

Total Lengt

LCR

2009 Age1+

2010 Age1+

Growth

Translocated HBC (Age‐2+) vs. Little Colorado

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

ngth (mm)

LCR Growth Curve: Robinson and Childs 2001 E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

80

90

100

110

120

130

April

MayJune

July

August

Sept.

October

Nov.

Dec.

January

February

March

April

MayJune

July

August

Sept.

October

Nov.

Dec.

Total Len

LCR

2009 Age2+

2010 Age2+

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 21
1/19/2011

5

Will Translocations Augment Colorado River 

Humpback Chub Aggregations?

 GCMRC: September 2010 Aggregation Trip:

 70% of HBC captures in the Shinumo Inflow Aggregation 

(RM 108)(RM 108)

 25 unique fish

1 at Randy’s Rock (RM 128)

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 1 at Randy’s Randy’s Rock (RM 128)

Recaptured fish grew up to 101 mm since release in 2009

Data Provided by USGS/GCMRC/USFWS Data Provided by USGS/GCMRC/USFWS-Thanks to Bill P. and Randy V. Thanks to Bill P. and Randy V.

Next Steps Next Steps – Shinumo Creek Shinumo Creek

 Collected 600 HBC Collected 600 HBC-LCR 

Nov. 2010Nov. 2010

 Bubbling Ponds Native Fish 

Facility Facility – Rearing HBC Rearing HBC

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Shinumo Creek 

Translocation III

 June 2011 (300 fish)

 Continue NNF Fish Control

Next Steps Next Steps – Shinumo Creek Shinumo Creek

 Population Monitoring: 

 June and September, 

2011

 Survival Estimate Survival Estimate:

 Cormack Jolly Cormack Jolly-Seber 

Model

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Encounter History

 Food Web and Native/NNF

 Overlap in resource use

 Piscivory Piscivory 

 (Stomachs and Stable 

Isotope analysis)

Havasu Creek 2011

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Most likely to support a 2nd populationpopulation

 Possibly fewer nonnative predators

Havasu Creek Baseline Survey Havasu Creek Baseline Survey –

February 2010

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Next Steps Next Steps – Havasu Creek Havasu Creek

 Havasu Creek

 Develop Translocation Plan 

- Late winter/Spring Late winter/Spring

 Baseline Sampling II Baseline Sampling II –May 

2011

B l B F ll

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Below Beaver Falls

 Baseline Fish Survey

 Water quality

 Non-native fishnative fish

 Food baseFood base

 Translocation 2011 at end 

of Baseline Trip

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 22
1/19/2011

1

Bright Angel Creek Trout Reduction 

Project

Grand Canyon National Park

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Grand Canyon National Park

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Brian D. Healy, Emily C. Omana, Melissa Trammell

National Park Service

David Speas

Bureau of Reclamation

Pamela J. Sponholtz

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Cooperators

•Funded by Reclamation and NPS

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

•Volunteers

Project Background

 Bright Angel Creek: 

Major source of

Brown Trout Brown Trout to 

Grand Canyon

Speas 2003

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Rainbow trout introduced 1920’s and 1930’s

 NPS Exotic Species Management :

“..remove, when possible, or otherwise contain individuals or 

populations of these species that have already become 

established in parks.” NPS Management Policies 2006

Bright Angel Creek Trout Reduction 

Project

 Purposes:Purposes:

1. Benefit endangered humpback chub/other native Benefit endangered humpback chub/other native 

fishes in the Colorado River.

2 R t d h t th t t f ibl ti

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

2. Restore and enhance, to the extent feasible, native 

fishes that once flourished in Bright Angel Creek.

 Actions: Remove Brown and Rainbow Trout

1. Install and operate a weir (fish trap) Install and operate a weir (fish trap)

2. Electro-fishing for monitoring and removal fishing for monitoring and removal

Project Background

 2003 – Feasibility Study Feasibility Study

 2006 – EA Completed EA Completed

 2006-2007:

 Weir Installed

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Weir Installed

 Fall and Spring electro Fall and Spring electrofishing

 Only Brown Trout 

Removed

 2010 – Continued Tribal Continued Tribal 

Consultation Consultation – Nonnative Nonnative 

Control

Winter 2010 Winter 2010-2011 Activities 2011 Activities

 Electro Electro-fishing/Mechanical fishing/Mechanical 

Removal Removal – October (3 days) October (3 days)

 Weir installation Weir installation – October October 

26 (Planned removal 

February 4)

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Electro Electro-fishing planned fishing planned 

January 24 January 24 – February 4 February 4

 Outreach:Outreach:

 Recording all visitor 

interactions

 Outreach materials

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 23
1/19/2011

2

Weir Design

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Methods

 Checked Morning and Evening

 Water temperatures

 Fish:

 Length

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Weight

 Spawning Condition

 # eggs

 Tags

 Stomach Contents

Beneficial Use

 Weir: 194 Trout 

ConsumedConsumed

 Electro Electro-fishing: 103 Trout fishing: 103 Trout 

consumedconsumed

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Weir Results Weir Results – through January 10 through January 10

 Captured/removed:

 104 Brown Trout (70% ripe, 62% female)

 90 Rainbow Trout (72% ripe, 37% female)

Male/Female Weir Captures

90

100

110

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Eggs: Brown trout= 66,300, Rainbow trout = 38,800

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Brown Trout Rainbow Trout

Species

No. Fish

Male

Female

Brown Trout 2010

Brown Trout Length Frequency

6

8

10

sh

N = 104

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

2

4

6

200240280320360400440480520560600640

Total Length (mm)

No. Fis Joe Tomelleri Fish Art

N = 104

Average size = 382

Length = 605 mm

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 24
1/19/2011

3

Rainbow Trout 2010

Rainbow Trout Length Frequency

6

8

10

ish

N = 90

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

2

4

6

200240280320360400440480520560600640

Total Length (mm)

No. F

N = 90

Average size = 362

Joe Tomelleri Fish Art

Length = 605 mm

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Length: 529

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Results Results – Weir Captures (BNT) Weir Captures (BNT)

BAC Brown Trout Capture 10/27-1/10

8

10

12

14

Fish

8

10

12

14

 Water 

ture (C)

BNT n=104

H2O temp C

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

2

4

6

10/27/201010/30/2010

11/2/201011/5/201011/8/2010

11/11/201011/14/201011/17/201011/20/201011/23/201011/26/201011/29/2010

12/2/201012/5/201012/8/2010

12/11/201012/14/201012/17/201012/20/201012/23/201012/26/201012/29/2010

1/1/20111/4/20111/7/2011

1/10/2011

Date

No. F

0

2

4

6

Morning

Temperat

Results Results – Weir Captures (RBT) Weir Captures (RBT)

BAC Rainbow Trout Capture 10/27-1/7

8

10

12

14

Fish

8

10

12

14

g Water 

ture (C)

RBT n=90

H2O temp C

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

0

2

4

6

10/27/201010/30/2010

11/2/201011/5/201011/8/2010

11/11/201011/14/201011/17/201011/20/201011/23/201011/26/201011/29/2010

12/2/201012/5/201012/8/2010

12/11/201012/14/201012/17/201012/20/201012/23/201012/26/201012/29/2010

1/1/20111/4/20111/7/2011

1/10/2011

Date

No. F

0

2

4

6

Morning

Temperat

Trout Re Trout Re-captures captures

Species

Length 

(mm) Tag Number

Date 

Tagged

Days at 

Large

Location 

Tagged 

(RM)

Initial 

Length

Brown Trout 390 3D9.1C2D17D301 4/1/2009 582 86.4 367

Brown Trout 330 3D9.1C2D2132F3 4/2/2009 582 88.5 263

Rainbow Trout* USGS20916 ? ? ? ?

Rainbow Trout 450 USGS13283 3/30/2009 590 60.2 402

Rainbow Trout 479 USGS20911 ? ? ? ?

Brown Trout 551 3D9.1BF1CD4EDE 5/21/2005 2018 87.4 230

Tag found in 

332mm BNT 

digestive tract 3D9 1C2D8F0483 ? ? ? ?

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

digestive tract 3D9.1C2D8F0483 ? ? ? ?

Brown Trout 297 3D9.1BF255F9ED 9/20/2007 1178 82.5 229

Brown Trout 296 3D9.1BF1D12101 ? ? ? ?

Brown Trout 480 3D9.1C2D3D9D7D ? ? ? ?

Rainbow Trout 295 USGS12706 ? ? ? ?

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 25
1/19/2011

4

Electro-fishing fishing - October

 Sampled ≈ 600 meters over 3 days

 Removed (nonnative fish):

 104 Rainbow trout (93% removal efficiency)

 125 Brown trout (96% removal efficiency)

S l d ( ti fi h)

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Sampled (native fish):

 4 bluehead suckers (<1% of catch)

 1046 speckled dace

DRAFT

Present

Management

Action

Potential Fish Community Interactions

Continue Trout

Removal

Increase Trout

Future

Management

Actions

No change in

RBT

abundance

Increased

No change in

RBT Size

Structure

Decrease in

RBT

Present

Management

Action

Potential Fish Community Interactions

Continue Trout

Removal

Increase Trout

Future

Management

Actions

No change in

RBT

abundance

Increased

No change in

RBT Size

Structure

Decrease in

RBT

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Trout

Removal

Action Increase Trout

Removal

Discontinue Trout

Removal

competitio

n

RBT Size

structure

shift

Impact on native fish

abundance,size

structure, and trophic

position

Increase in

RBT

abundance

RBT

abundance

Increased

Predation

Trout

Removal

Action Increase Trout

Removal

Discontinue Trout

Removal

competitio

n

RBT Size

structure

shift

Impact on native fish

abundance,size

structure, and trophic

position

Increase in

RBT

abundance

RBT

abundance

Increased

Predation

 Electro Electro-fishing sampling/removal January 24 fishing sampling/removal January 24 –

February 4February 4th

 Remove weir February 4th

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Phantom Ranch Boat Beach, circa 1911 

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 26
1/19/2011

1

An Overview of Humpback Mark back MarkRecapture Trips in the Little 

Colorado River During 2010

By 

Arizona Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

Flagstaff, AZ

Objectives

 BIO 2.R1.10 and BIO 2.R1.10 and BIO 2.M1.11,12 Obtain BIO 2.M1.11,12 Obtain spring 

and fall closed mark and fall closed mark-recapture population recapture population 

estimates of humpback chub ≥100 mm in the 

LCR (0 to 13.6 km).

 Obtain fall population estimate of HBC <100 mm 

through use of VIE tagging.

 SSQ 1-1 and 1 1 and 1-2

Methods: Closed Mark Methods: Closed MarkRecapture Using Recapture Using Hoopnets Hoopnets Spring HBC ≥ 100 mm 

 N SE 95% CIs 

 2009 12,007 947 10,151 13,864

 2010 8,908 534 7,862 9,953 

Spring HBC 100 Spring HBC 100 – 149 mm 

 N SE 95% CIs 

 2009 4,328 729 2,899 5,757

 2010 762 127 514 1,011 

Spring Abundance of Humpback 

Chub ≥ 150 mm and ≥ 200 mm

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 27
1/19/2011

2

Spring Abundance of Humpback 

Chub from 150 to 199 mm from 

2001 to 2010

Fall HBC ≥ 100 mm 

 N SE 95% CIs 

 2009 5,470 581 4,332 6,608

 2010 3,887 258 3,371 4,383 

Fall HBC 100 Fall HBC 100 – 149 mm 

 N SE 95% CIs 

 2009 1,511 167 1,185 1,838

 2010 384 76 230 528 

Fall Abundance of Humpback Chub 

≥ 150 mm and ≥ 200 mm

Comparison of spring and fall 

adult HBC ≥ 200 mm

Fall Visible Implant Mark Fall Visible Implant MarkRecapture Efforts

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 28
1/19/2011

3

Fall HBC 42 Fall HBC 42-99 mm (VIE Studies) 99 mm (VIE Studies) 

 N SE 95% CIs 

 2010 6,882 926 5,067 8,698

 Marked 380

 Examined 812

 Recaps 44 

HBC Conclusions

Spring and Fall Mark Spring and Fall Mark-Recapture Recapture

 Spring LCR abundances of HBC ≥150 mm and ≥200 have continued 

to steadily increase since 2006.

 Fall LCR abundances of HBC ≥150 mm beginning to decline since 

2008, but HBC ≥200 mm appear to be holding steady.

 A relatively small cohort of age A relatively small cohort of age-0 HBC in fall 2009 resulted in low 0 HBC in fall 2009 resulted in low 

abundances of age abundances of age-1 HBC (100 1 HBC (100-149 mm) in spring and fall 2010. 149 mm) in spring and fall 2010.

 By comparing spring to fall adult abundances, there appears to be a 

significant increase in the migratory portion of the adult population 

since 2008.

 First successful river First successful river-wide abundance estimate of age wide abundance estimate of age-0 humpback 0 humpback 

chub was obtained. Useful for translocations and HFE.

Thank-You

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 29
1/19/2011

1

Little Colorado River Lower 1200 m 

Monitoring 1987 Monitoring 1987-2010 

Brian C. Clark

Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

Research Branch

Colorado River

Little Colorado River

 Annual standardized AGFD Little Colorado River (LCR) Lower 

1200m spring (April/May) hoop net monitoring began in 1987. 

 The LCR is the primary spawning site for the endangered 

humpback chub (HBC). Other native species spawn in the LCR 

such as flannelmouth sucker (FMS), bluehead sucker (BHS) and 

speckled dace. Nonnative species such as black bullhead (BBH), 

channel catfish (CCF), common carp and fathead minnow also 

Introduction/Background

( ), p

spawn in the LCR.

 Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) indices are useful as independent 

validation for Age Structured Mark-Recapture (ASMR) population 

models of HBC. 

 This project is one of the most consistent, standardized long-term 

monitoring projects in Grand Canyon, with the exception of 2000-

2001.

BIO 2.R2. Little Colorado River Humpback Chub Monitoring in the 

Lower 1,200m:

SA 1. What are the most limiting factors to successful HBC adult 

recruitment in the mainstem: spawning success, predation on YoY and 

juveniles, habitat (water, temperature), pathogens, adult maturation, food 

availability, competition?

OBJECTIVES

 Asses population status and trends (CMIN 2.1.2.)

 Determine catch-per-unit-effort [fish/hour] (CMIN 2.1.2.)

 Determine species composition of catch

 Determine size and length frequency distributions (CMIN 2.1.2.)

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

of catch

Species Composition Nonnative

Native

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998200220032004200520062007200820092010

% o

Year

2010 Species Count

% of Total

Catch

Bluehead sucker (BHS) 83 3.96

Flannelmouth sucker (FMS) 671 31.98

Humpback chub (HBC) 315 15.01

Speckled dace (SPD) 997 47.52

Total Native 2066 98.5

Black bullhead (BBH) 0 0.00

Channel catfish (CCF) 12 0.57

Common carp (CRP) 1 0.05

Fathead minnow (FHM) 13 0.62

Plains killifish (PKF) 5 0.24

Rainbow trout (RBT) 1 0.05

Red shiner (RSH) 0 0.00

Total Non‐native 32 1.5

Total 2098 100.0

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 30
1/19/2011

2

Catch/Hour of HBC <150 mm TL in LCR

our and 95% CI

0 10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.22

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per ho

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

Catch/Hour of HBC >= 200 mm TL in LCR

our and 95% CI

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per ho -0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

 2010 HBC 

Count20

25

30

35

Total Length (mm)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

C

0

5

10

15

HBC 200-300 mm TL

HBC Catch 

20

30

40

29

20

26

32 34

Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% of Total 

0

10

3

9

5

20

Catch/Hour of FMS >= 150 mm TL in LCR

hour and 95% CI

0.06

0.08

0.10

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per h

0.00

0.02

0.04

Catch/Hour of BHS >= 150 mm TL in LCR

hour and 95% CI

0.04

0.06

0.08

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per h

0.00

0.02

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 31
1/19/2011

3

Catch/Hour of SPD in LCR

our and 95% CI

0 2

0.3

0.4

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per ho 0.0

0.1

0.2

Catch/Hour of black bullhead catfish

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per hour and 95% CI 0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

Catch/Hour of channel catfish

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per hour and 95% CI -0.001

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

0.009

0.010

0.011

0.012

2003: N= 3

2004: N= 5

2005: N= 4

2006: N= 12

2007: N= 9

2008: N= 19

2009: N= 7

2010: N= 0

Year Year

Catch/Hour of common carp

Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Catch per hour and 95% CI -0.001

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

0.009

Number of Lernaea

Count 30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

C -5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Conclusions

•Catch/Hour of HBC ≥ 200 mm was similar to early 1990’s catch 

rates [CMIN2.1.2.].

•Relative abundance of Flannelmouth sucker continues to remain 

above historic observations. 

•Total catch of nonnative species remains low (< 5%). 

•Relative abundance of commonly captured nonnative species 

te ds to a y a ua y nds to vary annually.

•Trends in LCR lower 1200 m adult HBC (≥ 200 mm) are similar to 

trends in Age Structured Mark Recapture abundance estimates 

for adult HBC. 

Acknowledgements

Luke Avery, Luke Avery, Aaron Bunch, Aaron Bunch, Triska 

Hoover, Andy Makinster, William 

Persons

GCRMC log pp istical support

USFWS personnel

Mark Santee (BOR pilot)

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 32
1/19/2011

1

BIO 4.M2. Monitoring Lees Ferry Fishes

Luke Avery

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Research Branch

SSQ 3-6

• What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow What GCD operations (ramping rates, daily flow 

range, etc.) maximize trout fishing opportunities 

and catchability catchability?

• Lees Ferry angler based model

• Since 1991

– High mean low fluctuating flows (MLFF)

• Recent flow events

– March 2008 high flow event (HFE)

– Fall steady flows

• Sept.-Oct. 2008-2012

CMINs

• 4.1.1

– Determine annual population estimates for rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.2

– Determine annual proportional stock density of Determine annual proportional stock density of

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.4

– Determine annual growth rate, relative condition (Kn), 

and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach.

SamplingSampling

• Since June 2002, 27 random and 9 fixed sites 

sampled 3 times/year (spring, summer, fall)

– PIT tagging in fixed sites

– Floy tagging in random sites (2007)

• 2010, Fully random design, 36 sites, only 2 trips

– PIT tagging in 9 sites that were near old fixed sites

– Floy tagging elsewhere

– Summer trip replaced by warm-water nonnative trip

CMINs

• 4.1.1

– Determine annual population estimates for rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.2

– Determine annual proportional stock density of Determine annual proportional stock density of

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.4

– Determine annual growth rate, relative condition (Kn), 

and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach.

tive abundance

er minute) 4

5

6

7

Relative abundance

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT rela

(catch pe 0

1

2

3

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 33
1/19/2011

2

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

a

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

tive abundance

er minute)

0

1

2

3

4

5

RBT < 152 mm TL

A

RBT 152-305 mm TL

B

Relative abundance/Size structure

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT rela

(catch pe

RBT 305-405 mm TL

C

RBT > 405 mm TL

D

ler CPUE

er hour)

1.0

1.5

2.0

Angler creel survey

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean ang

(catch p 0.0

0.5

Mean an

(catch

1.5

2.0

e abundance

minute)

4

5

6

7

Angler creel survey

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

ngler CPUE

h per hour)

0.0

0.5

1.0

Mean RBT relative

(catch per m 0

1

2

3

CMINs

• 4.1.1

– Determine annual population estimates for rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.2

– Determine annual proportional stock density of Determine annual proportional stock density of

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.4

– Determine annual growth rate, relative condition (Kn), 

and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach.

Proportional Stock Density (PSD)

305 (12 i h ) M t ki i

100*

305

406



















  RBTRBT

PSD

305 mm (12 inches) = Mean stocking size

406 mm (16 inches) = Preferred catch size

D 40

50

60

70

Size structure

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT PSD

0

10

20

30

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 34
1/19/2011

3

Size structure

• Is PSD still relevant?

100*

305

406



















  RBT

RBT

PSD

– If RBT ≥ 406 increase in abundance, PSD 

goes up

– OR, if RBT 305 - 405 decrease in abundance, 

PSD goes up, but it doesn’t mean the fish are 

getting any larger

• Currently an irrelevant metric?

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

a

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

tive abundance

er minute)

0

1

2

3

4

5

RBT < 152 mm TL

A

RBT 152-305 mm TL

B

Relative abundance/Size structure

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT rela

(catch pe

RBT 305-405 mm TL

C

RBT > 405 mm TL

D

PSD Alternatives

• Change standard length cutoffs

100*

254

356



















  RBT

RBT

PSD

• New regulation: ≥ 356 mm (14 inches) must be 

released (quality)

• 254 mm (10 inches) catchable (stock)

PSD Alternatives

n RBT PSD 60

80

100

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean 0

20

40

PSD Alternatives

RBT PSD 60

80

100

Mean RBT relat

(catch per 4

5

6

7

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean R 0

20

40

tive abundance

r minute) 0

1

2

3

PSD Alternatives

RBT PSD 60

80

100

Mean RBT (> 253 mm TL

(catch pe

2.0 r

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Mean R 0

20

40

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

L) relative abundance

r minute)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 35
1/19/2011

4

CMINs

• 4.1.1

– Determine annual population estimates for rainbow 

trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.2

– Determine annual proportional stock density of Determine annual proportional stock density of

rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry reach.

• 4.1.4

– Determine annual growth rate, relative condition (Kn), 

and relative weight of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry 

reach.

Growth rate

350

400

450

500

m)

von-Bertalanffy estimated length at age

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total length (mm

Age (years)

1990-1999 Wang Floy tag 

(K=0.46, Linf=446)

2000-2006 Wang pittag 

(K=0.57, Linf=355)

Relative condition

W i ht

100* '















  W

W

Kn

W = weight

W' = e[(-4.6 + 2.856) * lnTL]

Relative condition

ve condition

80

82

84

86

88

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT relativ

72

74

76

78

relative abundance

h per minute)

3

4

5

6

7

Mean RBT relative

80

82

84

86

88

Relative condition

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT r

(catch

0

1

2

3

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

e condition

72

74

76

78

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

condition

RBT 152-304 mm TL

B

RBT < 152 mm TL

A

Relative condition

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

50

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

50

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT relative 

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

50

60

70

80

90

100

110 RBT > 405 mm TL

D

RBT 305-405 mm TL

C

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 36
1/19/2011

5

Mean RBT Relative Condition 74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

Mean RBT Catch Rate

(catch per minute) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Mean RBT Relative Condition 76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

Mean RBT Catch Rate

(catch per minute)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Relative condition

Year

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Mean RBT Relative Condition 65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mean RBT Catch Rate (catch per minute)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Year

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Mean RBT Relative Condition 60

70

80

90

100

110

Mean RBT Catch Rate

(catch per minute)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

• Lees Ferry fishery monitoring

– Last year it was concluded that fall steady flows aided in YOY 

and juvenile survival. It now looks as though the spring HFE 

and it’s impact on the foodbase had more to do with that and 

the effects are deminishing.

– Recruitment of 2008 cohort into young adult population. Not

Conclusions

Recruitment of 2008 cohort into young adult population. Not

so much with the 2009 cohort.

– Numbers of small fish remain high while numbers of large fish 

continue to decline.

• Whirling disease

– First detected in June 2007

– No detections since

2009 PEP recommendations

1. Reduce effort to sample adult RBT population in 

Lees Ferry to 1-2 trips/year and get rid of fixed 

sites

2. Redirect efforts for more non Redirect efforts for more non-native sampling native sampling

3. Incorporate Rainbow Trout Early Larval Lifehistory Study (RTELLS) work 

Recommendation 1

CV RBT in fixed and random sites combined

0 25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of samples

Recommendation 1

% yearly detectable change in fixed and random sites combined

100

120

140

160

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of samples

Recommendation 1

• Sampling trips to occur in spring and fall

– Spring serves as decent indicator of adult population

– Fall is best opportunity to detect WD and cohort strength

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 37
1/19/2011

6

2001-2009

of Fish Caught

600

800

1000

Spring

Summer

Fall

Total Length

(10 mm Increments)

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Number o

0

200

400

Size structure

All 2010

Total Length

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of Fish Caught

0

50

100

150

200

250 n = 2253

April 2010

Total Length

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of Fish Caught

0

50

100

150

200

250 n = 849 October 2010

Total Length

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of Fish Caught

0

50

100

150

200

250 n = 1404

g

tive abundance

er minute) 4

5

6

7

Relative abundance

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT rela

(catch pe 0

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

abundance

ute)

1

2

3

4

5

RBT < 152 mm TL

A

RBT 152-305 mm TL

B

Relative abundance/Size structure

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

1

2

3

4

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT relative a

(catch per minu

0

RBT 305-405 mm TL

C

RBT > 405 mm TL

D

RBT Catch Rate

(Fish per Minute) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Summer Removed

Summer Included

Do we need the summer trip?

Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0

2001-2009

Season

Spring Summer Fall

RBT Catch Rate

(Fish per Minute) 2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

Recommendation 2

• Summer sampling trip geared towards non-native 

fish

• Areas of interest

– Carpp g ond/Slough

– Springs

– Base of the GCD

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 38
1/19/2011

7

July 21 July 21-23, 201023, 2010

Colorado River mile 

-12.10 → -12.33

Objectives

• Detect non-native species in slough area

• Determine best technique to capture non-native 

species

• PIT tag common carp (CRP) to track future 

growth and movement

• Obtain population estimate of CRP in slough 

area

Methods

• Back-pack electrofishing

• Boat electrofishing

• Trammel nets

• 20 hoop nets

– Stink cheese (10 catfish nets)

– Aquamax (10 standard hoops)

• 20 minnow traps

– Canned cat food bait

• Block net set at mouth of slough

Results Table 1. Number of each species captured per sampling method near RM -12.0 

during July 2010 sampling. Species are coded as followed: common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio; CRP); flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis; FMS); 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; RBT), and green sunfish (Lepomis 

cyanellus; GSF). 

Date Method

 

CRP FMS RBT GSF

7/21/2010 Back-pack electrofishing pack electrofishing 7 - - -

7/21/2010 Boat electrofishing 13 - 3 - 

7/22/2010 Boat electrofishing 114 3 19 2 

7/22/2010 Trammel netting 3 7 - - 

7/23/2010 Boat electrofishing 70 2 6 - 

7/23/2010 Trammel netting 2 4 - 1 

Total 209 16 28 3 

% Composition 81.6 6.3 10.9 1.2

Results Table 2. Growth and movement information resulting from recaptures of PIT-tagged common carp (Cyprinus carpio; CRP) and flannelmouth 

sucker (Catostomus latipinnis; FMS) captured during July 2010 sampling near RM -12.0. Mark location LCR indicates species was tagged in 

the Little Colorado River and is calculated into distance moved by adding the value to Mark location, where 61.70 represents the RM at the 

confluence. Negative values for distance moved indicates movement upstream. 

Method Species Tag number Date Mark Mark Date Recap Days Mark Recap Distance Instant

marked location location recaptured location out length length moved growth

(RM) LCR (RM) (mm) (mm) (miles) (mm/day)

(RM)

Boat electro Boat electro- CRP 3D9 1BF198D35C 3D9.1BF198D35C 11/3/2003 11/3/2003 -12 00 . - 7/22/2010 7/22/2010 -12 28 . 2 453 , 399 504 -0 28 . 0 0428 .

fishing CRP 3D9.1BF198D3F4 11/3/2003 -12.00 - 7/23/2010 -12.28 2,454 451 519 -0.28 0.0277

CRP 3D9.1BF198DAFA 11/3/2003 -11.80 - 7/22/2010 -12.33 2,453 403 513 -0.53 0.0448

CRP 3D9.1BF1CD38D4 7/12/2004 -0.20 - 7/22/2010 -12.28 2,201 286 502 -12.08 0.0981

FMS 3D9.1BF22A9837 1/12/2006 45.10 - 7/22/2010 -12.33 1,652 449 527 -57.43 0.0472

Trammel FMS 5116164E1E 5/17/1999 61.70 0.04 7/22/2010 -12.31 4,084 396 507 -74.05 0.0272

netting FMS 3D9.1BF256209C 4/7/2006 61.70 0.07 7/22/2010 -12.19 1,567 265 504 -73.96 0.1525

FMS 3D9.1BF1CD2BF6 4/8/2006 132.50 - 7/22/2010 -12.31 1,566 186 406 -144.81 0.1405

FMS 3D9.1BF1CD322B 4/8/2006 73.70 - 7/23/2010 -12.31 1,567 195 438 -86.01 0.1551

FMS 3D9.1C2D8AF6F6 6/30/2010 -12.25 - 7/22/2010 -12.31 22 504 521 -0.06 0.7727

Results

CRP Length Frequency

All Gear Types

Caught

15

20

25

Total Length-10 mm Increments

100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850

Number of Fish 

0

5

10

15

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 39
1/19/2011

8

Results Population Estimate

Abundance

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0

Capture Probability

Capture probability 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Multinomial

MLE

Conclusions

• Slough is dominated by common carp

• Large population of carp in 0.23 mile span may suggest sampling 

occurred during spawning aggregation; 71 ripe males out of 180 that 

did not include recaps= 39.4% of population

• 26 total CRP recaptures from boat electrofishing; 165 new PIT tags 

(boat electrofishing) reflects a low recapture rate/ lots of carp

• No CRP or FMS ≤ 100 mm TL were captured during this sampling; 

adult population

• No fish species captured in hoop nets or minnow traps throughout 

sampling

• Slough most likely serves as a thermal refuge for CRP and FMS

• Future monitoring of the slough may be incorporated into Lees Ferry 

monitoring trips

Recommendation 3

• Coordination with Korman and Foster

• Continue sampling larval fish to determine effects of 

experimental actions

• Continue fall-winter redd counts

RTELLS

Josh Korman, 2010 preliminary data

600

800

1000

housands)

2004

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

RTELLS

0

200

400

600

Date

Age-0 abundance (th

Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Josh Korman, 2010 preliminary data

FoodbaseFoodbase

• Results available through Ted Kennedy

– Started in 2003

• Very informative and, along with RTELLS, helps explain 

recent trends

• Provides better picture of Lees Ferry ecology and Provides better picture of Lees Ferry ecology and

rainbow trout population responses to various flow 

regimes

• We would like to see this work continue and possibly 

expand

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 40
1/19/2011

9

• New regulation as of October

– Release fish ≥14” (356 mm TL)

• Old regulation; release ≥12” (305 mm TL)

– <152 mm 152 - 254 mm 255 – 355 (10” –

Relative abundance/Size structure

– <152 mm, 152 - 254 mm, 255 – 355 (10 –

14”; stock size), ≥356 mm (quality size)

PSD Alternatives

n RBT PSD 60

80

100

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean 0

20

40

PSD Alternatives

RBT 152 - 253 mm TL

b

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

RBT < 152 mm TL

a

ndance

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0.0

0.5

RBT > 355 mm TL

d

Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean RBT relative abun

(catch per minute) 0.0

0.5

RBT 254 - 355 mm TL

c

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 41
1

Grand Canyon Fish Community 

Monitoring

Annual Reporting Meeting

2010 Update

Aaron J. Bunch 

Colorado River Research Office

• SSQ 1-1. To what extent are adult populations of native 

fish controlled by production of young fish from 

tributaries, spawning and incubation in the mainstem, 

survival of young-of-year and juvenile stages in the 

mainstem, or by changes in growth and maturation in the 

adult population as influenced by mainstem conditions? 

SSQ

Non-native salmonids (i.e., native salmonids (i.e., rainbow and brown trout) 

have increased in abundance since early 1990’s 

Salmonids may limit recruitment of native fishes 

(Minckley 1991; Marsh and Douglas 1997; U.S. Department of Interior 2002)

Background

GCMRC Protocol Evaluation Program advocated 

long-term monitoring of non term monitoring of non-native fish species native fish species 

Photo: Rogers 2005

Mainstem fish 

community monitoring

 Describe trends in nonnative salmonid and carp, and 

native catastomid catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; fish/hr) 

and distribution from 2000 – 2010. 

 Measure changes in fish CPUE near the confluence of 

the Little Colorado River. 

2010 Objectives Objectives

 Evaluate the ability to monitor movement and growth of 

rainbow trout by Floy tagging.

River stratified into 13 geomorphic sub River stratified into 13 geomorphic subreaches between Lake Powell and Lake Mead

• Two trips conducted in Spring (April Two trips conducted in Spring (April– May) 

• Randomized site selection within study reaches

• Single-pass shoreline electrofishing at night (2 boats) pass shoreline electrofishing at night (2 boats)

• ~900 transects (1 transect = ~300 sec. shock time) 

• Data attained: Species ID, TL (all species) & FL (natives only; 

mm), Wt (g), and tag returns (i.e., Floy, PIT, and/or fin (i.e., Floy, PIT, and/or fin-clips) 

Methods: Electrofishing

Non-native monitoring targets native monitoring targets:

Native monitoring targets:

Also, rare and elusive species (e.g., centrarchids)

Goal: Gather information on any fish 

we can get our hands on!

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 42
2

Methods: Tagging

PIT TagsPIT Tags: • Brown trout > 149 mm TL 

• Most native species > 149 mm TL

• Humpback chub > 99 mm TL

Floy Tags: • Rainbow Rainbow trout > 199 mm TL Rainbow trout > 199 mm TL

• Common carp > 199 mm TL

Fin-clip: • Brown trout (adipose fin)

• Rainbow (left pelvic)

• Common carp (dorsal spine)

 Describe trends in nonnative salmonid and carp, and 

native catastomid catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; fish/hr) 

and distribution from 2000 – 2010. 

 Measure changes in fish CPUE near the confluence of 

the Little Colorado River. 

2010 Objectives Objectives

 Evaluate the ability to monitor movement and growth of 

rainbow trout by Floy tagging.

Rainbow Rainbow trout

UE (fish/hr)

40

60

80

2010

N = 2,808 

ount200

250

300

350

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean CP

0

20

40

Total length (mm)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Co

0

50

100

150

Rainbow Rainbow trout

2000-2010

(fish/hr)

300

400

500

2010

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

CPUE 

0

100

200

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Brown trout

UE (fish/hr)

10

12

14

16

18

2010

N = 223 

ount15

20

25

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean CP

0

2

4

6

8

Total length (mm)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Co

0

5

10

Brown trout

2000-2010

(fish/hr)80

100

120

140

160

2010

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

CPUE 

0

20

40

60

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 43
3

Common carp

UE (fish/hr)

4

5

6

7

2010

N = 109 

ount

6

8

10

12

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean CP

0

1

2

3

Total length (mm)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Co

0

2

4

6

Common carp

2000-2010

(fish/hr)40

60

80

2010

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

CPUE 

0

20

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Flannelmouth Flannelmouth sucker

UE (fish/hr)

15

20

25

2010

N = 910 

ount

30

40

50

60

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean CP

0

5

10

Total length (mm)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Co

0

10

20

30

Flannelmouth Flannelmouth sucker

2000-2010

(fish/hr)

100

120

140

160

180

2010

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

CPUE 

0

20

40

60

80

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Bluehead Bluehead sucker

UE (fish/hr)

3

4

5

2010

N = 165 

ount

8

10

12

14

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean CP

0

1

2

Total length (mm)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Co

0

2

4

6

Bluehead Bluehead sucker

2000-2010

(fish/hr)40

60

80

2010

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

CPUE 

0

20

River Mile 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 44
4

 Describe trends in nonnative salmonid and carp, and 

native catastomid catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; fish/hr) 

and distribution from 2000 – 2010. 

 Measure changes in fish CPUE near the confluence of 

the Little Colorado River. 

2010 Objectives Objectives

 Evaluate the ability to monitor movement and growth of 

rainbow trout by Floy tagging.

Results: Removal Reach

0

25

50

75

100

sh/hr)

0

1

2

3

4 Rainbow trout Brown trout

0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

CPUE (fis

0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

0

2

4

6

8

Common carp

Year

Year

Conclusions

 Since mid-2000’s - increasing trends in CPUE for all species 

both native and nonnative

 Fish distribution consistent with previous years

 Few humpback chub collected (N=15)

 Currently, best tool to assess when the 1,200 rainbow trout 

trigger is met for mechanical removal to occur

 Potential issues with1 trip vs. 2 trips

 Reduce the ability to collect rare nonnative fishes

 Turbidity drastically influences capture probability

Conclusions

80

 Higher CV’s and larger confidence intervals – adding 

more uncertainty (e.g., rainbow trout)

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean CPUE (fish/hr)

0

20

40

60

Conclusions

80

 Higher CV’s and larger confidence intervals – adding 

more uncertainty (e.g., rainbow trout)

Year

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Mean CPUE (fish/hr)

0

20

40

60

Questions?

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 45
Progress on Processing

2009 High-Resolution

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Airborne Imagery

Philip A. Davis and Laura E. Cagney

GCMRC

Primary Objectives

Provide consistent, calibrated, and undistorted multispectral image

database for the Colorado River corridor from Lake Powell to 

Pierce Ferry for late May, 2009 with 20-cm spatial resolution and 

30-cm positional accuracy.

Such a database, not p y reviously obtained, should provide more

capability, accuracy, and efficiency in image analyses

that produce specific monitoring databases.

Conclusion: Our analyses thus far have proven this to be true.

Environmental Issues During the 2009 Overflights

Normally, data collection would occur under clear sky conditions,

within a narrow daily time window, which would constrain

environmental parameters that affect airborne image data.

The weather during the 2009 collection was the worst ever,

producing variations in solar flux, atmospheric transmission and

scattering, and solar phase angle throughout the mission, all of

which had to be normalized for each flight line of image data.

Environmental Effects on Image Data

Eoλ

LT

λ solar flux

with incidence

total radiance

reaching sensor

Sun

Sensor

general 

radiometric

equation

oλ

Edλ

LA

λ

angle φz

atmospheric

scattering

(haze)

surface with

reflectance Rλ

and slope θs

Variation in cloud density

and atmospheric water vapor

can produce variations in

Incident solar flux (Eo), its 

downwelling scattering (Ed), 

and its atmospheric scattering 

directly back to the sensor (LA).

scattered

incident

radiation

Standard Collection Area

A “normal” 5-day collection turned

into 10 days due to weather; even so,

we could not eliminate all cloud shadows.

266-mile river corridor (500-m swath) and 7 tributaries

2009 Flight-line Collection Footprints

43 flight-line blocks, average 6 lines/block,

produced 266 flight lines or 762 flight-line

segments, each segment about 1 Gb.

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 46
2009 Flight-line “Blocks”

Overlapping flight lines provide multiple

stereo pairs for each image pixel (for a

DSM) and provide a higher likelihood for 

image defect removal.

Originally, I thought defect removal would require 2-3 

flight lines per image quad, during actual mosaicking 

I realized this required TWICE that number.

Band 4

y = 3582.1859x + 12.2268

R2

 = 0.9873

2000

3000

4000

Band Digital Number

Performance of the ADS40 SH52 Sensor

0

1000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Reflectance

2009 4-band image data have linear response to ground reflectance, 

a 12-bit dynamic range (except blue has a 10-bit range), and no

signal saturation, unlike our previous digital imagery.

60

65

70

75

80

Solar Elevation Angle (degrees)

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of Flightlines

Effects of Early Monsoons

Sun zenith angle

change with time of day

50

55

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Time of Day

0

2

10 AM 11 AM Noon ! PM 2 PM

Monsoon storms forming near noon forced data collections to cluster

in the morning and, as the storms persisted, forced collections

earlier than our prescribed 11 AM in order to cover the Canyon.

Inter-flight-line Calibration

y = 0.99571752x - 7.29456202 BAND 1

1000

1500

2000

2500

y = 0.97983806x - 33.12897420 BAND 3

1500

2000

2500

3000

Flight-line calibration used a “standard area” as reference. Band radiance

of all other flight lines were converted to that of the reference using 

a least squares analysis. Land was given priority over water due to

daily changes in sediment load; water was separately calibrated.

-500

0

500

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

WATER LAND Linear (LAND)

y = 0.97703264x - 15.27943215 BAND 2

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

WATER LAND Linear (LAND)

-500

0

500

1000

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

WATER LAND Linear (LAND)

BAND 4 y = 0.96055513x - 18.56908820

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

WATER LAND Linear (LAND)

Processing Flow for 2009 Image Mosaics

(Final data set delivered Dec, 2009)

Selection of best

Images to

preclude smearing

and shadows

Determine

calibration

equations for

each flightline

Convert raw 

images to

rectified images

Trim images to

remove edge

effects

Fill in in 

image voids

Calibrate

image

Put best image

into map quad

Replace

bad areas with

other flightline

QC the map

quad to

fl l

Subset the

image mosaic

t db d

Perform image

void check

d t

Store

map

d

required

2 months

required

5 months

sequence performed whenever additional images required 

other flightline into map quad

images and correct to quad borders ensure flawless

Map

gross

vegetation

quad

Map

standing

water

Map

fine

sediment

Mapping as each map quad completed

Map

coarse

sediment

Classify

vegetation

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 47
Image Mosaic Tile Scheme (USGS Map Quads) 1/3 corridor mosaicked in 3 months

narrow smear

on river right

Resulting image

mosaics are flawless,

except for issues

designated on the

right.

very

small

smear

water

color

change

Basal smearing

along river right

scarps

The most extensive

flaw within upper 1/3

of the canyon is a small

band of smearing 

along 2 scarps.

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 48
Red arrows point to

the small basal smears

River left – western flight line shows smearing along slopes, as well 

as distortion (smearing) of near-shore vegetation.

Adjacent Flight Lines South of LCR

River left – eastern flight line shows no smearing. Acquired a 

different day, hence change in water color.

Adjacent Flight Lines South of LCR

River right – eastern flight line shows smearing along slopes.

Adjacent Flight Lines South of LCR

River right – western flight line shows no smearing along slopes.

Adjacent Flight Lines South of LCR

Objective was to provide consistent, accurate reflectance

on land and in the water and to minimize image distortions.

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 49
East side of Lake Powell

2009 natural-color images

Glenn Canyon

Comparing image data:

2009 natural color

2005 natural color

2002 natural color

2002 4-band natural color

2009 natural color

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 50
Arizona “bridge to nowhere” 2005 natural color 2002 natural color

2009 natural color 2005 natural color

2002 natural color 2009 natural color

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 51
2009 natural color 2005 natural color

2002 natural color

2002 4-band

natural color

Lees Ferry

(up and downstream)

2009 natural-color images

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 52
Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 53
Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 54
30-45 Mile

Comparing image data:

2009 natural color

2005 natural color

2002 natural color

2002 4-band natural color

33.2 R M - 2009 natural color 2005 natural color

2002 natural color 2002 4-band natural color

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 55
40.2 R M - 2009 natural color 2005 natural color

2002 natural color 2002 4-band natural color

43 .7 R M - 2009 natural color 2005 natural color

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 56
2002 natural color 2002 4-band natural color

FY11 Plans

Complete 2009 4-band image quads for entire corridor.

Complete most, if not all, derivative map products that

depict geomorphic-landscape (GLC) elements, similar

to derived from the 2002 and 2005 image data. These

databases can be produced much faster in the 2009 data databases can be produced much faster in the 2009 data

than its image mosaicking.

Start vegetation classification.

Publish the 2002 and 2005 GLC databases, as soon as

we verify and, if necessary, correct the 2005 vegetation data.

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 57
Data Acquisition and Management System

(DAMS)

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

2010 GCMRC Annual Report Meeting

January 19, 2011

Glenn Bennett

DAMS Shoebox to Web

The Data Acquisition and Management 

System (DAMS) is a suite of software 

applications that automates the process of 

database and web design for individual 

dt t

U.S. Department of the Interior 2 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

datasets.

After initial dataset definition, DAMS 

facilitates project scientists and data 

stewards to upload, manage, and publish 

tabular data.

DAMS Design Features

• Rapid creation of tabular databases

• Associates reports and metadata files with 

data sets

• Accepts data from users and automated 

data retrieval systems

U.S. Department of the Interior 3 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

data retrieval systems

• ‘Smart’ data synchronization 

• User controlled web publishing

• ‘Fine-grained’ publishing

• ‘Snapshot’ archiving system

DAMS Public Datasets

Dataset Records Period of Record

Acoustic - Silt Clay & Sand 1,184,288 8/11/2002 5/10/2010

Instantaneous Stage Discharge 2,191,042 11/15/1925 8/25/2010

GCMRC - Temp, Conductance 7,700,362 8/10/1988 9/28/2010

L k P ll Mj I 11 488 4/25/1964 11/3/2008

U.S. Department of the Interior 4 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Lake Powell - Major Ions 11,488 4/25/1964 11/3/2008

Lake Powell - Nutrients 3,150 7/12/1991 11/3/2008

Lake Powell - Profiles 68,380 4/25/1964 11/3/2008

Glen Canyon Dam (hourly) 15,936 10/10/2008 1/17/2011

USGS Stage Discharge (unit) 6,089,966 10/7/1980 1/18/2011

17,264,612

DAMS Internal Datasets

Dataset Records Period of Record

Foodbase Drift Data 2,97 10/15/2007 5/25/2009

Ambersnail 20 cm plots 812 4/2/2004 9/22/2008

Ambersnail Presence Absence 77 9/23/2006 9/22/2008

A b il R d Ti d 163 3/3/2004 9/24/2005

U.S. Department of the Interior 5 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Ambersnail Random Tiered 163 3/3/2004 9/24/2005

Weather Data (onset) 2,195,736 11/14/2003 1/29/2006

Weather Data (vaisala ) 2,130,801 2/23/2007 1/20/2009

USGS Stage Discharge (daily) 197,935 10/1/1921 7/16/2010

4,525,524

DAMS Online Demo

www.gcmrc.gov/dasa/tabdata/

U.S. Department of the Interior 6 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

g g

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 58
DAMS Future Plans

• Improve QA/QC and data validation

• Improve flexibility of web based queries

U.S. Department of the Interior 7 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

• Add Graphing Interface – Data Plotting

• Incorporate analysis tools and procedures 

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 8 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Select Tabular Data

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 9 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Select Dataset

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 10 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Select Table

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 11 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

View Metadata & Reports iew Metadata & Reports

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 12 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Select Station(s)

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 59
DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 13 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Get Date Range

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 14 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Select Columns 

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 15 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Get Record Count & Size

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 16 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

View Sample Data 

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 17 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Get Data File 

DAMS Screenshots

U.S. Department of the Interior 18 U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

View Data File 

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 60
GIS Support for Integrated 

Analysis 

and Projects

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

GCDAMP Annual Reporting Meeting

January 19, 2011

Phoenix AZ

Main components of GIS Support

 Maintain software and spatial data 

processing capabilities for Center

 Provide Spatial Analysis support to science 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

projects

 Create Mapping / Cartographic products 

ranging from field support to publications

 Develop internal and external access to 

Center’s spatial databases

2

GIS / RS Software

 ESRI ArcGIS suite (v9.3.1)

• Enterprise environment – available to most researchers

• Desktop and Server options for data processing

• Additional add-ons for improved functionality

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

p y

• Includes ArcGIS Server used for publishing maps on the 

Web.

 ENVI Image processing software

• Added 3 seats to support 2009 data

• Set up custom training for software

 ERDAS, XTools, etc.

3

Spatial Analysis Support

 Model builder to Python

• Python scripting environment is integrated within GIS 

processing framework

• Allows for more advanced analysis & batch processing

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

y pg

• Models/Scripts can be shared across network, allowing for 

greater collaboration on spatial analysis tasks.

4

Spatial Analysis Support

 Model builder to Python

• Workflow allows GIS users to build some processing 

components in Model builder,

• Export to Python Script, then edited by GIS programmer,

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

p y p, y p g ,

• Final scripts can then be run by all GIS users in group.

5

Spatial Analysis Support

 Python Script Library

• Approx. 50 scripting routines developed for GIS

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

6

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 61
Image Analysis Support

 Improved workflow within Image Analysis project

• Trained 3 new staff on using GIS/RS for project

• Share data between ArcMap & ENVI software platforms.

― Allows for overlay of 2009 image data during image 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

processing steps.

― Will increase ability to share new data faster.

7 ENVI ArcMap

GeoLink 2002

Image Analysis Support

 Improved workflow within Image Analysis project

• Trained 3 new staff on using GIS/RS for project

• Share data between ArcMap & ENVI software platforms.

― Allows for overlay of 2009 image data during image 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

8 ENVI ArcMap

GeoLink 2005

processing steps.

― Will increase ability to share new data faster.

Image Analysis Support

 Improved workflow within Image Analysis project

• Trained 3 new staff on using GIS/RS for project

• Share data between ArcMap & ENVI software platforms.

― Allows for overlay of 2009 image data during image 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

9 ENVI

GeoLink

Send to

ArcMap

ArcMap

2009

processing steps.

― Will increase ability to share new data faster.

Mapping and Cartographic Support

 Continued field support with customized river maps

• Utilizes an add-on to ArcGIS (MapBook).

• Thematic layers added for specific research purposes

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

 Numerous maps made for publications for GCMRC 

staff and cooperators

10

Mapping and Cartographic Support

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

11

Access to Spatial Data

 Migration from IMS to Arc Server

• Necessary to phase out Internet Map Server

― not supported by ESRI very well

― Built on older technology

Unstable web configuration

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

―

 Newer technology allows for much greater 

functionality

• Greater flexibility in how Map Services are consumed.

• Can incorporate data sets from other entities in-house.

12

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 62
Access to Spatial Data

 Arc Server System Configuration

• Spatial data stored in Oracle SDE

• Arc Server Manager and Web Servers in DMZ

• Services developed using various data sources

Requests go from “client” to Servers and back

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

•

13

GCMRC

Spatial

Database

GIS Server / 

Map Services

Web Server 

Applications

RequestsRequests

Actions

RequestsRequests

Actions

Web Map User

DMZ

Access to Spatial Data

 Arc Server Display

• Spatial data organized in services

• Services with large data sources are cached to improve 

performance

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

• Platform allows for creating tools to enhance experience

14

Imagery

•2002

•2005

•2009

Topo

•10m DEM

•2002 DSM

•2009 DSM

Maps

•Base 

Data

•Thematic 

layers

Access to Spatial Data

 Using Arc Server map services in ArcMap...

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

15

Access to Spatial Data

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

16

Access to Spatial Data

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

17

Access to Spatial Data

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

18

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 63
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

19

Access to Spatial Data

 Arc Server Benefits

• Services created in Arc Server can be consumed in more 

customizable services (i e MS Silverlight Adobe Flex 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

customizable services (i.e. MS Silverlight, Adobe Flex,

Google Maps,...) 

• Can change levels of detail to provide better user 

experience

• Allows for cached map services that greatly improve 

performance

20

Access to Spatial Data

 Arc Server Web components can work with other 

web-based mapping programs...

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

21

Access to Spatial Data

http://www.gcmrc.gov/gis/silvermap1.aspx

 Example of Arc Server using MS Silverlight

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

22

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 64
1/19/2011

1

AMP SCIENCE ADVISORS

JANUARY, 2011 TWG MEETING

 QUALITATIVE APPROACHES

 QUANTITATIVE METHODS

 SIMPLISTIC METHODS AND MODELS

 EASILY UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED

 LOW USER COST AND TIME INVESTMENT

 LIMITED USE OF COMPLEX ASSESSMENTS

 CONSTRAINED TO MORE COARSE 

ANALYSIS

 COMPLEX METHODS AND MODELS

 MORE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND 

SYSTEM DETAIL

 REQUIRES ANALYSTS TO OPERATE

 HIGH DEVELOPMENT COST

 SUMMARY OUTPUTS USEFUL IN MORE 

SIMPLISTIC MODELS

 USEFUL FOR COMPLEX ASSESSMENTS 

AND MICRO-ANALYSIS

 COST ASSESSMENTS

 BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS

 ASSESSMENT OF RISK

 EVALUATION OF UNCERTAINTY

 TRADEOFF ANALYSIS

 EASE OF USE AND UNDERSTANDING

 LITERATURE AND USER REVIEW

 CRITERIA FOR COARSE SCREENING, 

SELECT 4-8 METHODS IN CURRENT USE 

 REFINE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND 

SELECT 2-4 METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

 EVALUATE APPLICATION TO AMP 

 FINAL REPORT TO TWG : SUMMER 2011 

Draft data subject to revision. DAY 2 OF 2. 

TWG review document, DO NOT CITE, reproduce, or distribute.

Date:1/19 DRAFT DO NOT CITE. 65