Grand Can

Native Fis

Update

AMP Technical Workgroup meeti

25 May 2006

USGS Southwest Biological Science C

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Researc

M.E. Andersen
Questions partially addressed 

this presentation What is the status of native fishes th

(2006)?

 How could humpback chub sampling 

improved?

 Where are Grand Canyon humpbac

concentrated?

 Are our humpback chub population 

methods robust?

 How are humpback chub population 

being used?
Resources for this present

 New Peer-reviewed Literature Preliminary 2006 native fish upd

(FWS, AGF)

 Recovery Goals legal case Santa Barbara panel/Kitchell et  AMWG guidance
Resources for this presentati

Peer-reviewed publications Paukert et al. 2005. Effects of repeated hoo

handling on bonytail.

 Stone. 2005. Effect of baiting on hoop net c

of...humpback chub.

 Stone and Gorman. 2006. Ontogenesis of... 

chub in the LCR.

 Coggins et al. 2006a. Age-structured mark

analysis...

 Coggins et al. 2006b. Abundance trends an

LCR...humpback chub.

 Paukert et al. 2006. Distribution and movem

humpback chub...
 What is the status of native fish

(2006)?
Provisional USFWS 

2006 observations Blue water in LCR this spring HBC clustered at Salt Camp, ad

throughout system

 High numbers of one year old H

this year

 High numbers of bluehead suck
Provisional AZGFD 

2006 observations HBC catch rate, lower 1200 m L

CPUE of HBC >= 150 mm TL in LCR

Year

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Catch per hour and 95% CI

0.000.050.100.150.20
Provisional AZGFD 

2006 observations Native fish catch rates, lower 12

CPUE of FMS >= 150 mm TL in LCR

Year

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Catch per hour and 95% CI

0.000.020.040.060.080.10

CPUE of BH

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Catch per hour and 95% CI

0.000.020.040.06
 How could humpback chub sam

protocols be improved?
Stone 2005
Paukert et al. 2005
 Where are Grand Canyon hum

concentrated?

 Microhabitat use in the Little Color Grand Canyon
Stone and Gorman 2006
Paukert et al. 2006
 Are our population estimation m

robust?
AMWG recommendation on 

concurrent estimate (2004) Motion: approve the TWG-approve

distributed to the AMWG, with the fchanges:

 reprogram the budget amount in Line 9

concurrent multi-pass mainstream and mainstem and LCR population estimate

 direct GCMRC to do as much simulatio

possible [vis-à-vis the two fish-counting report to AMWG at its Fall 2004 meetin

 Voting Results: Yes = 22 No = 0 Abstai
AMWG recommendations to 

Secretary of the Interior ...Rather than the field data col

the concurrent estimates occurat a cost of $400K-$500K, mucexpensive simulation modeling conducted to evaluate the accuprecision of closed and open pomark-recapture estimators...
Santa Barbara panel

Kitchell et al. 2003 Conclusions/Recommendations

 Upper Basin methods appropriate, 

improved with more data

 Maintain sampling timing in both b Age-structured mark-recapture mo

appropriate for Grand Canyon popcan be improved

 Workshop needed assembling Upp

GCMRC participants
Coggins et al. 2006a

 Age-Structured Mark-Recapture 

an appropriate open model for ecapture probabilities, survival, aand recruitment of fishes

 Method is well suited to sparse

mark recapture data
Coggins et al. 2006b

 The Grand Canyon humpback c

population has declined
Coggins et al. 2006b

 Data through different years yie

results
ASMR Models of GC Adult 

HBC Population through 200

Year

Adult Abundance (Age 4+)

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

0 5000 10000 15000 
 How are our population estimat

used?
USFWS 2002 Recovery Goa

for Grand Canyon HBC (I) Established REQUIREMENTS 

DOWNLISTING:

 Core population over 5 years st

first estimate acceptable to USFmodel)

 Adult trend does not decline Recruitment > Mortality Each core pop. est. > 2,100 adu
USFWS 2002 Recovery Goa

for Grand Canyon HBC (II) Adequate habitat and range pro Protection from overutilization Adequate protection from disea

predation

 Adequate regulatory mechanism Protection from other natural or 

factors
Earthjustice suit

 Plaintiffs: Grand Canyon Trust,  Defendants: Gale Norton, USFW Filed: 31 March 2004 in U.S. D

for Arizona
Earthjustice suit (cont’d)

 First Claim:

 Recovery goals violate ESA Don’t provide for HBC recovery No objective, measurable criteria f No estimates of time and cost No population goal
Earthjustice suit (cont’d)

 Second Claim

 Recovery Goals violate APA becau

 FWS ignored relevant facts Did not employ best available scie Failed to support conclusions
Order 04-CV-636-PHX-F

18 January 2006 First claim proceeds Second claim dismissed Granted: summary judgment for pl

 Defendants violated non-discretionary du

time and cost estimates

 Denied: remainder of plaintiffs’ mo

summary judgment

 Defendants ordered to withdraw 20

Goals
Summary

 What is the status of native fish

(2006)?

 Provisional data suggest that na

populations in the Little Coloradstable this year
Summary

 How could humpback chub sam

protocols be improved?

 Baiting hoop nets increases cap

and retention

 Reduced number of handling oc

likely to increase growth rates acaptured fish
Summary

 Where are Grand Canyon hum

concentrated?

 Young HBC emphasize near sh

habitats by day

 Adult HBC emphasize deeper m

LCR habitats by day

 These distributions are reverse
Summary

 Where are Grand Canyon hum

concentrated?

 The majority of the Grand Cany

population is found in close asswith the LCR

 HBC have strong site fidelity, w

their site of first capture
Summary

 Are our population estimation m

robust?

 The ASMR model is receiving s

support

 Using HBC data through 2005 i

that the population is stabilizing
Summary

 How are our population estimat

used?

 The ASMR model is helping us 

treatments

 The 2002 Recovery Goals have 

aside