Difference between revisions of "Nonnative Invasive Aquatic Species"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
(34 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 45: Line 45:
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Brown_Trout '''Brown trout'''] and [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Green_Sunfish_Page '''green sunfish'''] have recently established themselves in Glen Canyon raising concerns for management of endangered fish like [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Humpback_Chub_Page '''humpback chub'''] further downstream.  <br>
+
[https://gcdamp.com/index.php/Smallmouth_Bass_Page '''Smallmouth bass'''], [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Brown_Trout '''brown trout'''], and [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Green_Sunfish_Page '''green sunfish'''] have recently established themselves in Glen Canyon raising concerns for management of endangered fish like [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Humpback_Chub_Page '''humpback chub'''] further downstream.  <br>
−
[[File:BrownTrouSizetLeesFerry_USGS2016.jpg|thumb|center|650px| [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_07a.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_07a.pdf] ]]
+
−
[[file:Slough.jpg|center|px500]] <br>
+
  
−
=[http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/6-4/fishes.htm '''Non-Native Fishes of Grand Canyon - a selection of nine exotic species (Grand Canyon River Guides)''']=
+
[[File:BrownTrouSizetLeesFerry_USGS2016.jpg|thumb|center|450px| [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_07a.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_07a.pdf] ]]
  
−
==RAINBOW TROUT (Oncorhynchus mykiss)==
+
[[file:Slough.jpg|thumb|center|450px|]] <br>
  
−
Abundant in upper Grand Canyon. A silvery, soft-rayed trout with small, irregular black spots evenly distributed over the body, head, and fins, and a light orange-pink lateral band. Cutthroat trout, (Oncorhynchus clarki) are golden-bronze with regular round spots, greatest in number toward the tail, and a reddish-orange throat slash. Rainbow trout are managed as a blue ribbon tailrace fishery between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry, with hatchery fish released periodically to augment natural reproduction. Spawning in Grand Canyon occurs Octoberber to March, with large females depositing up to 3,000 eggs. Hatching occurs in 60 days at temperatures of 45oF. Maximum size is in excess of 10 pounds in Grand Canyon. Diet generally consists of insects and freshwater amphipod (Gammarus lacustris), although fish in Grand Canyon also absorb fats from millions of microscopic diatoms attached to green algae (Cladophora glomerata). Rainbow trout are found throughout Grand Canyon, but numbers are greatly reduced below turbid inflows such as the Paria River and Little Colorado River. They spawn in tributaries throughout the canyon in winter, such as Bright Angel, Shinumo, Deer Creek, Tapeats, and Nankoweap, where they provide an important food source for bald eagles. Rainbow trout probably prey on young native fishes, and compete for the same food, but the degree of competition is unknown.
+
==LTEMP Experimental Action: Aquatic Resource-Related Experimental Treatments (BA, pages 30-41) [https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/120059_LTEMP%20BiOp_11-25-16.pdf] ==
  
−
==BROWN TROUT (Salmo trutta)==
+
Nonnative fish control actions would be implemented if the Little Colorado River humpback chub population declined and proactive conservation actions failed to reverse declining populations [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP)].
  
−
Locally common in middle Grand Canyon. A silver to greenish-brown soft-rayed trout with a yellowish belly, and small red spots surrounded by bluish halos. Most common in and near Bright Angel Creek, where the species spawns from October through March. Large females deposit 3,000 to 6,000 eggs, that incubate in 50 days at 50oF. Maximum size in excess of 15 pounds in Grand Canyon; world record 50 pounds. More tolerant to warm water and turbidity than rainbow trout. Also, tend to be more predaceous at a smaller size. Diet consists of insects, freshwater amphipods, and small fish. Uncommon in tailrace between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry. Brown trout prey on small and young native fish, but the degree of predation is unknown.
+
Mechanical removal of nonnative species is a controversial issue in the Colorado River through Glen and Grand Canyons. A spring 2015 meeting of Grand Canyon biologists (NPS, FWS, AGFD, GCMRC) to assess current trout removal triggers resulted in a concept of early conservation measure intervention to maximize conservation benefit to humpback chub and minimize the likelihood of mechanical predator removal. Under the preferred alternative, mechanical removal of nonnative rainbow and brown trout (and other nonnative predators) would be implemented through a triggered, tiered approach (see [http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/4/4a/Appendix_D_Final_Chub_Triggers_2017.pdf Appendix D in BA]) near the confluence of the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River if conservation actions designed to reverse declines in the Little Colorado River
 +
humpback chub aggregation were ineffective. Two different tiers of population metrics would be used to trigger responses such as actions to increase growth and survival of humpback chub (Conservation Actions, Tier 1), or mechanical nonnative fish control (Tier 2), which would only be implemented when Tier 1 conservation actions (actions would focus on increasing growth, survival and distribution of chub in the Little Colorado River and LCR mainstem aggregation area) fail to slow or reverse the decline in the humpback chub population (see [http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/4/4a/Appendix_D_Final_Chub_Triggers_2017.pdf Appendix D in BA], Young et al. 2015). In addition, if humpback chub decline and the identified actions are not working, the FWS, in coordination with action agencies and traditionally associated Tribes, will identify future appropriate actions (among other caveats specified in Young et al. 2015).
  
−
==COMMON CARP (Cyprinus carpio)==
+
==LTEMP BiOp Conservation Measures to Control Nonnative Fishes [https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/120059_LTEMP%20BiOp_11-25-16.pdf] (2016) ==
  
−
Common in Grand Canyon and abundant in upper Lake Mead. A robust fish with large scales, dark golden body, more than 12 dorsal rays, toothless jaws, and a barbel at each corner of the upper jaw. The first ray of the dorsal and anal fins is spinous and strongly serrated. May attain a weight of 80 pounds. “Mirror carp” and “Jerusalem carp” have few very large scales. Spawning occurs in small aggregations with females releasing thousands of eggs, and young hatching in 4 to 6 days at 60oF. Carp feed on the bottom, vacuuming insects, algae, and organic matter. Carp are the most widespread and abundant non-native fish in North America, first introduced in 1872, from Germany. Carp were imported into the U.S. by the U.S. Fish Commission under President Ulysses S. Grant, as a valued food fish, and quickly raised and distributed to many states from 1879 to 1896. This wide distribution enabled the species to take hold in most drainages of North America, where it is commercially harvested in some regions, but considered a pest in most parts of the country. Carp are locally abundant in sheltered habitats of the Colorado River Basin, particularly in off-river impoundments, backwaters, and sand-silt tamarisk-lined banks that now dominate the Colorado and Green rivers. In Grand Canyon, carp probably constitute the greatest biomass of any species. Another large Asian cyprinid, the grass carp or white amur (Ctenopharyngodon idella) attains 100 pounds in weight, and is reported from the lower basin.
+
Ongoing actions:
  
−
==CHANNEL CATFISH (Ictalurus punctatus)==
+
Reclamation, in collaboration with the NPS and FWS, and in consultation with the
 +
AZGFD, would investigate the possibility of '''renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide''', or other tools, as appropriate. Additional planning and
 +
compliance, and tribal consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required.
 +
This feasibility study is outlined in the NPS CFMP (2013; see “Feasibility Study for Use
 +
of Chemical Fish Control Methods”). The action benefits humpback chub and other
 +
native fish by removing nonnative fish that can predate upon and compete with
 +
humpback chub. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action
 +
identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback
 +
Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
  
−
Locally common in Grand Canyon. Channel catfish were first introduced into the Colorado River near Moab, Utah in 1919 by active sportsman and public figure, Horace Stone Rutledge. The fingerlings were received from a hatchery in Kansas, with approval from the Bureau of Fisheries in Washington, D.C. They are common in some tributaries and tributary inflows of Grand Canyon, such as the Little Colorado River. Channel catfish are abundant in the middle reaches of the upper basin, particularly in canyons such as Desolation Canyon on the Green River and Ruby Canyon on the Colorado River. Their abundance declines progressively downstream to the confluence of these two rivers, but increases significantly in Cataract Canyon, indicating an association with rock substrate and swift canyon areas. The young are very numerous along shallow shorelines and backwaters, while juveniles and adults are abundant in eddies, often in sympatry with chubs. Their impact on the native fishes is unknown, but their abundance and omnivorous diet suggests competition and possibly predation. Although channel catfish are reported to reach nearly 50 pounds in weight, the largest specimens from the Colorado River are less than 10 pounds, although individuals of up to 20 pounds are reported from Lake Powell and Lake Mead. A close relative of the channel catfish-blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus)-are reported, but unconfirmed, from the Colorado River basin. Blue catfish lack the dark spots of the channel catfish, and have 30-35 anal fin rays, compared to 24 to 29 rays in (Pylodictus olivaris), and are common below Lake Mead.
+
Reclamation would continue to fund efforts of the GCMRC and NPS to '''remove brown trout (and other nonnative species)''' from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek
 +
Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded
 +
spawning populations develop, consistent with the NPS CFMP. After 5 years of removal
 +
efforts are completed (in 2017), an analysis of success would be conducted. Piscicides
 +
may be considered for removal of nonnative species if determined to be appropriate and
 +
following completion of the necessary planning and compliance actions. The regulation
 +
and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS
 +
2002b).
  
−
==RED SHINER (Cyprinella lutrensis)==
+
New actions:
  
−
Rare in upper Grand Canyon, common below Separation Canyon. Adult red shiners are usually deep bodied and laterally compressed, steel blue above and silvery below with orange fins. Breeding males are metallic blue with bright red fins and tubercles on the head and body. Spawning may occur twice in one year as water temperatures approach 65oF. Maximum size about 4 inches. Red shiners typically have eight or nine anal rays, whereas sand shiners typically have only seven. Red shiners were probably introduced into the Colorado River in the early 1900’s incidental with bass and sunfish from the Illinois River bottoms, or in bait buckets. Red shiners are the most common fish species in the upper basin, found primarily in backwaters and shallow sheltered habitats. They are tolerant of high turbidity and siltation, and avoid waters that are continuously clear or cool. The species is implicated in predation and competition with the native fishes because of its great abundance in the Colorado River Basin.
+
Reclamation would explore the efficacy of a '''temperature control device''' at the dam to
 +
respond to potential extremes in hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that
 +
could result in nonnative fish establishment. Evaluations would be ongoing for all
 +
current and evolving technological advances that could provide for warming and cooling
 +
the river in both high- and low-flow discharge scenarios, and high and low reservoir
 +
levels. These studies should include evaluating and pursuing new technologies, an
 +
analysis of the feasibility, and a risk assessment and cost analysis for any potential
 +
solutions. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified
 +
in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
  
−
==FATHEAD MINNOW (Pimephales promelas)==
+
Reclamation would pursue means of '''preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam'''. Because Glen Canyon Dam release
 +
temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur
 +
through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes
 +
into Glen and Grand Canyons would be evaluated. Potential options to minimize or
 +
eliminate passage through the turbine or bypass intakes, or minimize survival of
 +
nonnative fish that pass through the dam would be assessed (flows, provide cold water,
 +
other). While feasible options may not currently exist, technology may be developed
 +
during the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal. The regulation and control
 +
of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery
 +
Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
  
−
Locally common in Grand Canyon. A small robust minnow with a maximum size of about 4 inches, and characterized by brassy color. Males are robust with a black band around the body, and prominent pimple-like “tubercles” on a large head. Females are smaller and less robust. Fathead minnows are widely distributed in the warmer middle and lower regions of the Colorado River Basin. Their mode of access was probably via bait buckets, since the species is so popular as a bait fish for crappie and largemouth bass. The species may have gained access into the drainage as early as the late 1800’s incidental in seine hauls of bass and sunfish brought to the west from midwestern drainages. Fathead minnows can be very abundant locally in small pools and quiet areas. They thrive in warm, turbid waters, and can survive high temperatures and low oxygen levels better than any other species in the Colorado River, except perhaps black bullheads. The impact of the fathead minnow on native species is unknown, but like the other small cyprinids, it is implicated as a potential competitor and predator.
+
Reclamation would, in consultation with the FWS and AGFD, fund the NPS and
 +
GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to '''alter the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12''' (commonly referred to as “Upper Slough”), making it unsuitable or
 +
inaccessible to warmwater nonnative species that can compete with and predate upon
 +
native fish, including humpback chub. Depending on the outcome of NPS planning and
 +
compliance, Reclamation would implement the plan in coordination with the FWS,
 +
AGFD, NPS and GCMRC. Additional coordination would be conducted to determine
 +
and access any habitats that may support warmwater nonnatives. The regulation and
 +
control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS
 +
2002b).
  
−
==MOSQUITOFISH (Gambusia affinis)==
+
Reclamation would support the GCMRC and NPS in consultation with the FWS and
 +
AGFD on the completion of planning and compliance of a '''plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species''' within and contiguous to the action area. Control efforts may include chemical,
 +
mechanical, or physical methods. While feasible options may not currently exist, new
 +
technology or innovative methods may be developed in the LTEMP period that could
 +
help achieve this goal. Rapid response to new warmwater fish invasions may become a
 +
more frequent need in the future with lower reservoir elevations and warmer dam
 +
releases. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified
 +
in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
  
−
Locally common in tributaries of the lower Colorado River in Grand Canyon. A small, delicate greenish fish with a robust belly, upward mouth, and square tail. Maximum size about 2 inches. Mosquitofish belong to the family of livebearers or viviparous fish. The males are distinguished by an elongated anal fin which is a highly-specialized rod-like organ, or gonopodium, used to internally fertilize the female. Up to 300 embryos develop internally within the female and the young are born live. All other species of fish in Grand Canyon are oviparous-producing eggs that are fertilized after leaving the body of the female. Mosquitofish were first introduced into the Colorado River in the 1930’s. It is native to the central United States from southern Illinois and Indiana to Alabama, and the lower Rio Grande in Texas. It has been distributed extensively since the 1950’s by mosquito abatement districts to control mosquitoes, and has received world-wide attention in helping to combat the malaria-carrying forms. It does not tolerate prolonged cold conditions (less than 40F) and does not occur extensively in northern regions, although it is tolerant to warm temperatures and low oxygen conditions. The low numbers and insectivorous diet of this species probably do not pose a major threat to native fishes.
+
Reclamation, will consider, in consultation with the GCDAMP, the '''experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon''', or other
 +
mainstem locations. Inhibiting brown trout spawning and recruitment will benefit chub
 +
by reducing the potential for brown trout to predate upon humpback chub. The
 +
regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the
 +
Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery
 +
Goals (USFWS 2002b).
  
−
==STRIPED BASS (Morone saxatilis)==
+
== LTEMP BiOp Conservation Measures to Control Nonnative Fishes [https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/120059_LTEMP%20BiOp_11-25-16.pdf] (2016) ==
  
−
Occur in June, July, and August in small numbers in Grand Canyon, during spawning migrations from Lake Mead. Have been caught as far upstream as the Little Colorado River. A spiny-rayed fish with green back, white belly, silvery sides, and 6 to 8 black, lateral, horizontal stripes. Maximum size about 50 pounds in reservoirs, 100 pounds as sea-run form. Females generally ascend turbid rivers to spawn in spring, depositing thousands of tiny eggs that incubate and hatch as they drift back to the lake. Striped bass were first introduced into Lake Mead in the early 1970’s and into Lake Powell in 1974 to alleviate a decline in spawning and nursery habitat of largemouth bass and black crappie. Threadfin shad, a consistent and dependent forage for stripers, were also introduced. Striped bass have been a very successful sport fish, and are highly sought by trophy fishermen. A decline in threadfin shad sometimes sends striped bass populations into decline in numbers and condition of individuals, as seen in Lake Powell in 1982-83 and 1985-88. Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) have been proposed as an alternate forage for stripers in Lake Powell. The impact of striped bass on the native fishes of the Colorado River has not been determined. Predation of native fish could be occurring during spawning ascents, or when native fishes enter the lake inflows inhabited by the species.
+
Ongoing actions:
  
−
==PLAINS KILLIFISH (Fundulus zebrinus)==
+
Reclamation, in collaboration with the NPS and FWS, and in consultation with the
 +
AZGFD, would investigate the possibility of '''renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide''', or other tools, as appropriate. Additional planning and
 +
compliance, and tribal consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required.
 +
This feasibility study is outlined in the NPS CFMP (2013; see “Feasibility Study for Use
 +
of Chemical Fish Control Methods”). The action benefits humpback chub and other
 +
native fish by removing nonnative fish that can predate upon and compete with
 +
humpback chub. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action
 +
identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback
 +
Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
  
−
Found primarily in tributaries of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. A small cylindrical, minnow-like fish with black vertical bars. Maximum size about 5 inches. Killifish are known as “topminnows” because of their habit of skimming along just beneath the surface of the water feeding on insects and other small invertebrates. The top of the head and forward part of the back are broad and flat and the mouth is tilted upward so that it opens at the upper surface of the head to facilitate surface feeding. The species is easily distinguished by the presence of a seemingly massive protruding lower jaw with many teeth, thus the name “cyprinodont” which means “toothed carp”. Plains killifish, (Fundulus zebrinus) and plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) are reported as incidental in the Colorado, Green, and White Rivers of the upper basin, and rare in the San Juan River. The plains killifish has a dorsal fin base situated above or forward of the anal fin base; usually 13 to 16 dorsal fin rays; 40 or more lateral line scales; and 12 to 13 dark vertical bars on the sides of the body. The plains topminnow has a dorsal fin base situated above the anal fin base; usually 6 to 11 dorsal fin rays; 38 or fewer lateral line scales; and without vertical bars or horizontal streaks. Plains killifish may compete with small native fishes for food.
+
Reclamation would continue to fund efforts of the GCMRC and NPS to '''remove brown trout (and other nonnative species)''' from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek
 +
Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded
 +
spawning populations develop, consistent with the NPS CFMP. After 5 years of removal
 +
efforts are completed (in 2017), an analysis of success would be conducted. Piscicides
 +
may be considered for removal of nonnative species if determined to be appropriate and
 +
following completion of the necessary planning and compliance actions. The regulation
 +
and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS
 +
2002b).
 +
 
 +
New actions:
 +
 
 +
Reclamation would explore the efficacy of a '''temperature control device''' at the dam to
 +
respond to potential extremes in hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that
 +
could result in nonnative fish establishment. Evaluations would be ongoing for all
 +
current and evolving technological advances that could provide for warming and cooling
 +
the river in both high- and low-flow discharge scenarios, and high and low reservoir
 +
levels. These studies should include evaluating and pursuing new technologies, an
 +
analysis of the feasibility, and a risk assessment and cost analysis for any potential
 +
solutions. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified
 +
in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 +
 
 +
Reclamation would pursue means of '''preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam'''. Because Glen Canyon Dam release
 +
temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur
 +
through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes
 +
into Glen and Grand Canyons would be evaluated. Potential options to minimize or
 +
eliminate passage through the turbine or bypass intakes, or minimize survival of
 +
nonnative fish that pass through the dam would be assessed (flows, provide cold water,
 +
other). While feasible options may not currently exist, technology may be developed
 +
during the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal. The regulation and control
 +
of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery
 +
Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 +
 
 +
Reclamation would, in consultation with the FWS and AGFD, fund the NPS and
 +
GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to '''alter the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12''' (commonly referred to as “Upper Slough”), making it unsuitable or
 +
inaccessible to warmwater nonnative species that can compete with and predate upon
 +
native fish, including humpback chub. Depending on the outcome of NPS planning and
 +
compliance, Reclamation would implement the plan in coordination with the FWS,
 +
AGFD, NPS and GCMRC. Additional coordination would be conducted to determine
 +
and access any habitats that may support warmwater nonnatives. The regulation and
 +
control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS
 +
2002b).
 +
 
 +
Reclamation would support the GCMRC and NPS in consultation with the FWS and
 +
AGFD on the completion of planning and compliance of a '''plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species''' within and contiguous to the action area. Control efforts may include chemical,
 +
mechanical, or physical methods. While feasible options may not currently exist, new
 +
technology or innovative methods may be developed in the LTEMP period that could
 +
help achieve this goal. Rapid response to new warmwater fish invasions may become a
 +
more frequent need in the future with lower reservoir elevations and warmer dam
 +
releases. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified
 +
in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker
 +
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 +
 
 +
Reclamation, will consider, in consultation with the GCDAMP, the '''experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon''', or other
 +
mainstem locations. Inhibiting brown trout spawning and recruitment will benefit chub
 +
by reducing the potential for brown trout to predate upon humpback chub. The
 +
regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the
 +
Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery
 +
Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 +
 
 +
==[[Media:Appendix D Final Chub Triggers 2017.pdf| LTEMP BiOp Triggers for Nonnative Removals (LTEMP BA Appendix D)]] ==
 +
 
 +
=== '''Tier 1 Trigger – Early Intervention Through Conservation Actions:''' ===
 +
 
 +
*1a. If the combined point estimate for adult HBC (adults defined ≥200 mm) in the Colorado River mainstem LCR aggregation; RM 57-65.9) and Little Colorado River (LCR) falls below 9,000 as estimated by the currently accepted HBC population model (e.g., ASMR, multi-state).
 +
 
 +
-OR-
 +
 
 +
*1b. If recruitment of sub-adult HBC (150-199mm) does not equal or exceed estimated adult mortality such that:
 +
 
 +
# Sub-adult abundance falls below a three-year running average of 1,250 fish in the spring LCR population estimates, or
 +
# Sub-adult abundance falls below a three-year running average of 810 fish in the mainstem Juvenile Chub Monitoring reach (JCM annual fall population estimate; RM 63.45-65.2).
 +
 
 +
Tier 1 Trigger Response:
 +
*Tier 1 conservation actions listed below will be immediately implemented either in the LCR or in the adjacent mainstem. Conservation actions will focus on increasing growth, survival and distribution of HBC in the LCR & LCR mainstem aggregation area.
 +
 
 +
=== '''Tier 2 Trigger - Reduce threat using mechanical removal if conservation actions in Tier 1 are insufficient to arrest a population decline:''' ===
 +
Mechanical removal of nonnative aquatic predator will ensue:
 +
*If the point abundance estimate of adult HBC decline to <7,000, as estimated by the currently accepted HBC population model.
 +
 
 +
Mechanical removal will terminate if:
 +
*Predator index (described below) is depleted to less than 60 RBT/km for at least two years in the JCM reach and immigration rate is low (the long term feasibility of using immigration rates as a metric still needs to be assessed),
 +
-OR-
 +
*Adult HBC population estimates exceed 7,500 and recruitment of sub-adult chub exceed adult mortality for at least two years.
 +
 
 +
[[File:PredatorIndexTable.jpg|center|500px]]
 +
 
 +
If immigration rate of predators into JCM reach is high, mechanical removal may need to continue. These triggers are intended to be adaptive based on ongoing and future research (e.g., Lees Ferry recruitment and emigration dynamics, effects of trout suppression flows, effects of Paria River turbidity inputs on predator survival and immigration rates, interactions between humpback chub and rainbow trout, other predation studies).
  
−
[http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/6-4/fishes.htm © 1993 Written by Richard A. Valdez, Ph.D. BIO/WEST Illustrated by M. C. Filbert Produced by Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc. Additional copies available for $3 each or 2 for $5, postpaid, from: GCRG, P.O. Box 1934, Flagstaff, AZ 86002. (602) 773-1075]
 
  
 
<!--
 
<!--
Line 99: Line 250:
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
  
−
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=TEMPERATURE Water Temperature page]
+
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-02-16-amwg-meeting/20230216-InvasiveFishSpeciesBelowGlenCanyonDam-508-UCRO.pdf 2023 Invasive Fish Species Below Glen Canyon Dam: A Strategic Plan to Prevent, Detect and Respond]
−
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Portal:GCDAMP_Knowlege_Assessments GCMRC Annual Reports page]
+
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-10-13-twg-meeting/20221013-GlenCanyonDamFishEscapementOptions-508-UCRO.pdf 2022 Glen Canyon Dam Fish Escapement Options Report ]
−
*[[GCDAMP 2016 Fish PEP| 2016 Fish Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP)]]
+
 
*[[National Park Service Expanded Non-native Aquatic Species Management Plan and EA| 2018 National Park Service Expanded Non-native Aquatic Species Management Plan and EA]]
 
*[[National Park Service Expanded Non-native Aquatic Species Management Plan and EA| 2018 National Park Service Expanded Non-native Aquatic Species Management Plan and EA]]
 +
*[[Media:2017 LTEMP Final PA.pdf| 2017 LTEMP Programmatic Agreement (PA)]]
 +
*[https://fishaz.azgfd.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Copy-of-Lees-ferry-Fisheries-Managment-plan-final.pdf 2015 State of Arizona Lees Ferry Fish Management Plan]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=2013_National_Park_Service_Comprehensive_Fisheries_Management_Plan 2013 National Park Service Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=2013_National_Park_Service_Comprehensive_Fisheries_Management_Plan 2013 National Park Service Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan]
−
*[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGWVJmckxIUXdhMU0/view State of Arizona Lees Ferry Fish Management Plan]
+
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/ 2011 Non-Native Fish Control EA]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/PropExpReleasesEA-09-2002.pdf 2002 Environmental Assessment for Proposed Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam and Removal of Non-Native Fish ]
 +
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Portal:GCDAMP_Knowlege_Assessments GCMRC Annual Reports page]
 +
*[[GCDAMP 2016 Fish PEP| 2016 Fish Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP)]]
 
*[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGUmxPbko2dm9URms/view Lees Ferry Anglers Trout Fishery Recommendations]
 
*[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGUmxPbko2dm9URms/view Lees Ferry Anglers Trout Fishery Recommendations]
  
Line 113: Line 268:
  
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Smallmouth_Bass_Page Smallmouth Bass Page]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Smallmouth_Bass_Page Smallmouth Bass Page]
 +
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Brown_Trout Brown Trout Page]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Green_Sunfish_Page Green Sunfish Page]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Green_Sunfish_Page Green Sunfish Page]
−
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Brown_Trout Brown Trout Page]
+
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FISHERY Rainbow Trout Page]
 +
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Striped_Bass_Page Striped Bass Page]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Quagga Quagga Mussel Page]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Quagga Quagga Mussel Page]
−
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FISHERY Rainbow Trout Page]
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 126: Line 282:
 
*[[Trout Reduction Efforts]]
 
*[[Trout Reduction Efforts]]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Trout_Management_Flows Trout Management Flows Page]
 
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Trout_Management_Flows Trout Management Flows Page]
−
 
−
|-
 
−
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/12feb22/FINAL%20NNFC%20EA%20with%20Appendices/NNFC_EA_12-30-11.pdf 2011 Non-Native Fish Control EA] </h2>
 
−
|-
 
−
|style="color:#000;"|
 
−
 
−
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/FINAL%20NNFC%20EA%20with%20Appendices/Appendix_A_SDM%20Report.pdf Appendix A: Non-native Fish Control SDM Report]
 
−
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/FINAL%20NNFC%20EA%20with%20Appendices/Appendix_B_SciencePlan.pdf Appendix B: Non-native Fish Control Science Plan]
 
−
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/FINAL%20NNFC%20EA%20with%20Appendices/Appendix_C_BA.pdf Appendix C: Non-native Fish Control BA]
 
−
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/FINAL%20NNFC%20EA%20with%20Appendices/Appendix_D_Supp.pdf Appendix D: Non-native Fish Control BA Supplement]
 
−
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/FINAL%20NNFC%20EA%20with%20Appendices/Appendix_E_BO.pdf Appendix E: Biological Opinion]
 
−
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/FINAL%20NNFC%20EA%20with%20Appendices/NNFC_EA_12-30-11.pdf Appendix F: SHPO Letter]
 
−
 
−
|-
 
−
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LTEMP Experimental Action: Aquatic Resource-Related Experimental Treatments (BA, pages 30-41) [https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/120059_LTEMP%20BiOp_11-25-16.pdf] </h2>
 
−
|-
 
−
|style="color:#000;"|
 
−
 
−
Nonnative fish control actions would be implemented if the Little Colorado River humpback chub population declined and proactive conservation actions failed to reverse declining populations [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP)].
 
−
 
−
Mechanical removal of nonnative species is a controversial issue in the Colorado River through Glen and Grand Canyons. A spring 2015 meeting of Grand Canyon biologists (NPS, FWS, AGFD, GCMRC) to assess current trout removal triggers resulted in a concept of early conservation measure intervention to maximize conservation benefit to humpback chub and minimize the likelihood of mechanical predator removal. Under the preferred alternative, mechanical removal of nonnative rainbow and brown trout (and other nonnative predators) would be implemented through a triggered, tiered approach (see [http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/4/4a/Appendix_D_Final_Chub_Triggers_2017.pdf Appendix D in BA]) near the confluence of the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River if conservation actions designed to reverse declines in the Little Colorado River
 
−
humpback chub aggregation were ineffective. Two different tiers of population metrics would be used to trigger responses such as actions to increase growth and survival of humpback chub (Conservation Actions, Tier 1), or mechanical nonnative fish control (Tier 2), which would only be implemented when Tier 1 conservation actions (actions would focus on increasing growth, survival and distribution of chub in the Little Colorado River and LCR mainstem aggregation area) fail to slow or reverse the decline in the humpback chub population (see [http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/4/4a/Appendix_D_Final_Chub_Triggers_2017.pdf Appendix D in BA], Young et al. 2015). In addition, if humpback chub decline and the identified actions are not working, the FWS, in coordination with action agencies and traditionally associated Tribes, will identify future appropriate actions (among other caveats specified in Young et al. 2015).
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 153: Line 287:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 
|style="color:#000;"|
 +
 +
'''2023'''
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-GlenCanyonReach%E2%80%93GlenCanyonNRAUpdateSloughChemicalTreatment-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Reach – Glen Canyon NRA Update: Slough Chemical Treatment]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-GlenCanyonNRA-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon NRA]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-NonnativeFishDistributionLakePowellForebay-508-UCRO.pdf Characterizing the fish assemblage in the Lake Powell forebay and identifying the potential for nonnative fish escapement into the Lower Colorado River ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-HydroacousticFishDistribution-508-UCRO.pdf Hydroacoustic Fish Distribution]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-InvasiveFishSurveillanceGrandCanyonNationalPark-508-UCRO.pdf Invasive Fish Surveillance, Grand Canyon National Park]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-11-08-twg-meeting/20231108-GlenCanyonReach%E2%80%93GlenCanyonNRAUpdate-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Reach – Glen Canyon NRA Update]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-08-17-amwg-meeting/20230817-ProposedModificationsGlenCanyonSlough-508-UCRO.pdf Proposed Modifications for Glen Canyon Slough]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-08-17-amwg-meeting/20230817-GlenCanyonDamFishExclusionProjectOverview-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Fish Exclusion: Project Overview]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-08-17-amwg-meeting/20230817-GlenCanyonSloughProposedModifications-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Sloughs: Proposed Modifications ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-06-15-twg-meeting/20230615-GlenCanyonSloughProposedHabitatImprovements-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Slough Proposed Habitat Improvements]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-06-15-twg-meeting/20230615-GlenCanyonReachFishUpdate-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Reach – Glen Canyon NRA Update]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-04-13-twg-meeting/20230413-HydroacousticFishDistributionLakePowell-508-UCRO.pdf Hydroacoustic Fish Distribution]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-04-13-twg-meeting/20230413-GlenCanyonNationalRecreationArea2023MonitoringRapidResponsePlans-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 2023 Monitoring and Rapid Response Plans]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-04-13-twg-meeting/20230413-EarlyDetectionSamplingHigh-RiskInvasive%20FishesGrandCanyonNationalPark-508-UCRO.pdf Early Detection Sampling for High-Risk Invasive Fishes in Grand Canyon National Park]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-04-13-twg-meeting/20230413-CharacterizingFishAssemblageLakePowellForebay-508-UCRO.pdf Characterizing the fish assemblage in the Lake Powell forebay and identifying the potential for nonnative fish escapement into the Lower Colorado River]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-04-13-twg-meeting/20230413-ArizonaGameFishDepartment2022WarmwaterNonnativeFishSummary-508-UCRO.pdf Arizona Game and Fish Department 2022 Warmwater Nonnative Fish Summary]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-02-16-amwg-meeting/20230216-GlenCanyonDamFishExclusionProjectOverview-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Fish Exclusion: Project Overview]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2023-02-16-amwg-meeting/20230216-InvasiveFishSpeciesBelowGlenCanyonDam-508-UCRO.pdf Invasive Fish Species Below Glen Canyon Dam: A Strategic Plan to Prevent, Detect and Respond]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2023-01-26-twg-meeting/20230126-AnnualReportingMeeting-PredationRisksPosedIntroducedWarm-waterPredators-508-UCRO.pdf Predation Risks Posed by Introduced Warm-water Predators]
  
 
'''2022'''
 
'''2022'''
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-10-13-twg-meeting/20221013-HydroacousticFishDistribution-508-UCRO.pdf Hydroacoustic Fish Distribution ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-10-13-twg-meeting/20221013-RapidResponseConsiderations-508-UCRO.pdf Rapid Response Considerations ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-10-13-twg-meeting/20221013-CharacterizingFishAssemblageLakePowellForebay-508-UCRO.pdf Characterizing the fish assemblage of the Lake Powell forebay: identifying the potential for nonnative fish escapement through Glen Canyon Dam and into the lower Colorado River ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-10-13-twg-meeting/20221013-UpdateNon-nativeFishGlenCanyonReachBelowGlenCanyonDam-508-UCRO.pdf Update: Non-native Fish in the Glen Canyon Reach Below Glen Canyon Dam ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2022-08-18-amwg-meeting/20220818-Yackulic_Op_Alts_AMWG_508.pdf Operational alternatives to address warmwater invasives ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2022-08-18-amwg-meeting/20220818-CharacterizingFishAssemblageLakePowellForebay-508-UCRO.pdf Characterizing the fish assemblage of the Lake Powell forebay: identifying the potential for nonnative fish escapement through Glen Canyon Dam and into the lower Colorado River ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2022-08-18-amwg-meeting/20220818-InvasiveFishStrategicPlanOperationalAlternatives-508-UCRO.pdf Invasive Fish Strategic Plan and Operational Alternatives ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2022-08-18-amwg-meeting/20220818-GlenCanyonDamFishEscapementOptions-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Fish Escapement Options ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-10-13-twg-meeting/20221013-GlenCanyonDamFishEscapementOptions-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Fish Escapement Report]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-06-16-twg-meeting/20220616-CharacterizingFishAssemblageLakePowellForebay-508-UCRO.pdf Characterizing the fish assemblage of the Lake Powell forebay: identifying the potential for nonnative fish escapement through Glen Canyon Dam and into the lower Colorado River ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-06-16-twg-meeting/20220616-SummaryofFindingsTWGTabletopExercise-508-UCRO.pdf Summary of Findings: TWG Tabletop Exercise ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-06-16-twg-meeting/20220616-TWGNon-NativeFishTabletopExerciseSoundScienceReport-508-UCRO.pdf TWG Non-Native Fish Tabletop Exercise Sound Science Report ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2022-02-10-amwg-meeting/20220210-FisheriesReview-AnnualReportingFY2021-508-UCRO.pdf Fisheries review: Annual Reporting FY2021 ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-04-13-twg-meeting/20220413-HydroacousticFishDistributionLakePowell2022-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Hydroacoustic Fish Distribution - Lake Powell 2022 ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-04-13-twg-meeting/20220413-CharacterizinFishAssemblageLakePowellForebay-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Characterizing the fish assemblage of the Lake Powell forebay: identifying the potential for nonnative fish escapement through Glen Canyon Dam and into the lower Colorado River ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-04-13-twg-meeting/20220413-NPSRapidResponseCompliance-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf NPS Rapid Response Compliance High risk Invasive Fish Concerns at Glen Canyon Dam in 2022 ]
 +
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-04-13-twg-meeting/20220413-TWGMeeting-FinalMinutes-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Fish Escapement Options ]
 
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-01-13-twg-meeting/20220113-AnnualReportingMeeting-UpdatesLCRChannelCatfishLaboratoryPredationStudies-508-UCRO.pdf Updates on LCR Channel Catfish and Laboratory Predation Studies ]
 
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2022-01-13-twg-meeting/20220113-AnnualReportingMeeting-UpdatesLCRChannelCatfishLaboratoryPredationStudies-508-UCRO.pdf Updates on LCR Channel Catfish and Laboratory Predation Studies ]
  
Line 194: Line 366:
  
 
'''2012'''
 
'''2012'''
 +
*[[Media:2009 BOR GCDforebayFish.pdf| Hydroacoustic surveys of pelagic fishes in the Glen Canyon Dam forebay: 2007-2009]]
 
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/Attach_15.pdf Grand Canyon National Park Fishery Management Process and PPT]
 
*[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2012-02-22-amwg-meeting/Attach_15.pdf Grand Canyon National Park Fishery Management Process and PPT]
  
Line 233: Line 406:
 
*[http://www.nativefishlab.net/library/textpdf/20950.pdf| Nonnative fishes of the Grand Canyon; A review with regards to their effects on native fishes. Allen Haden, GCES]
 
*[http://www.nativefishlab.net/library/textpdf/20950.pdf| Nonnative fishes of the Grand Canyon; A review with regards to their effects on native fishes. Allen Haden, GCES]
  
−
|-
 
−
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> LTEMP BiOp Conservation Measures to Control Nonnative Fishes [https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/120059_LTEMP%20BiOp_11-25-16.pdf] (2016) </h2>
 
−
|-
 
−
|style="color:#000;"|
 
−
 
−
Ongoing actions:
 
−
 
−
Reclamation, in collaboration with the NPS and FWS, and in consultation with the
 
−
AZGFD, would investigate the possibility of '''renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide''', or other tools, as appropriate. Additional planning and
 
−
compliance, and tribal consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required.
 
−
This feasibility study is outlined in the NPS CFMP (2013; see “Feasibility Study for Use
 
−
of Chemical Fish Control Methods”). The action benefits humpback chub and other
 
−
native fish by removing nonnative fish that can predate upon and compete with
 
−
humpback chub. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action
 
−
identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback
 
−
Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 
−
 
−
Reclamation would continue to fund efforts of the GCMRC and NPS to '''remove brown trout (and other nonnative species)''' from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek
 
−
Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded
 
−
spawning populations develop, consistent with the NPS CFMP. After 5 years of removal
 
−
efforts are completed (in 2017), an analysis of success would be conducted. Piscicides
 
−
may be considered for removal of nonnative species if determined to be appropriate and
 
−
following completion of the necessary planning and compliance actions. The regulation
 
−
and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub
 
−
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS
 
−
2002b).
 
−
 
−
New actions:
 
−
 
−
Reclamation would explore the efficacy of a '''temperature control device''' at the dam to
 
−
respond to potential extremes in hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that
 
−
could result in nonnative fish establishment. Evaluations would be ongoing for all
 
−
current and evolving technological advances that could provide for warming and cooling
 
−
the river in both high- and low-flow discharge scenarios, and high and low reservoir
 
−
levels. These studies should include evaluating and pursuing new technologies, an
 
−
analysis of the feasibility, and a risk assessment and cost analysis for any potential
 
−
solutions. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified
 
−
in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker
 
−
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 
−
 
−
Reclamation would pursue means of '''preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam'''. Because Glen Canyon Dam release
 
−
temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur
 
−
through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes
 
−
into Glen and Grand Canyons would be evaluated. Potential options to minimize or
 
−
eliminate passage through the turbine or bypass intakes, or minimize survival of
 
−
nonnative fish that pass through the dam would be assessed (flows, provide cold water,
 
−
other). While feasible options may not currently exist, technology may be developed
 
−
during the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal. The regulation and control
 
−
of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery
 
−
Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 
−
 
−
Reclamation would, in consultation with the FWS and AGFD, fund the NPS and
 
−
GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to '''alter the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12''' (commonly referred to as “Upper Slough”), making it unsuitable or
 
−
inaccessible to warmwater nonnative species that can compete with and predate upon
 
−
native fish, including humpback chub. Depending on the outcome of NPS planning and
 
−
compliance, Reclamation would implement the plan in coordination with the FWS,
 
−
AGFD, NPS and GCMRC. Additional coordination would be conducted to determine
 
−
and access any habitats that may support warmwater nonnatives. The regulation and
 
−
control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub
 
−
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS
 
−
2002b).
 
−
 
−
Reclamation would support the GCMRC and NPS in consultation with the FWS and
 
−
AGFD on the completion of planning and compliance of a '''plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species''' within and contiguous to the action area. Control efforts may include chemical,
 
−
mechanical, or physical methods. While feasible options may not currently exist, new
 
−
technology or innovative methods may be developed in the LTEMP period that could
 
−
help achieve this goal. Rapid response to new warmwater fish invasions may become a
 
−
more frequent need in the future with lower reservoir elevations and warmer dam
 
−
releases. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified
 
−
in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker
 
−
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 
−
 
−
Reclamation, will consider, in consultation with the GCDAMP, the '''experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon''', or other
 
−
mainstem locations. Inhibiting brown trout spawning and recruitment will benefit chub
 
−
by reducing the potential for brown trout to predate upon humpback chub. The
 
−
regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the
 
−
Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery
 
−
Goals (USFWS 2002b).
 
−
 
−
|-
 
−
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> [[Media:Appendix D Final Chub Triggers 2017.pdf| LTEMP BiOp Triggers for Nonnative Removals (LTEMP BA Appendix D)]] </h2>
 
−
|-
 
−
|style="color:#000;"|
 
−
 
−
=== '''Tier 1 Trigger – Early Intervention Through Conservation Actions:''' ===
 
−
 
−
*1a. If the combined point estimate for adult HBC (adults defined ≥200 mm) in the Colorado River mainstem LCR aggregation; RM 57-65.9) and Little Colorado River (LCR) falls below 9,000 as estimated by the currently accepted HBC population model (e.g., ASMR, multi-state).
 
−
 
−
-OR-
 
−
 
−
*1b. If recruitment of sub-adult HBC (150-199mm) does not equal or exceed estimated adult mortality such that:
 
−
 
−
# Sub-adult abundance falls below a three-year running average of 1,250 fish in the spring LCR population estimates, or
 
−
# Sub-adult abundance falls below a three-year running average of 810 fish in the mainstem Juvenile Chub Monitoring reach (JCM annual fall population estimate; RM 63.45-65.2).
 
−
 
−
Tier 1 Trigger Response:
 
−
*Tier 1 conservation actions listed below will be immediately implemented either in the LCR or in the adjacent mainstem. Conservation actions will focus on increasing growth, survival and distribution of HBC in the LCR & LCR mainstem aggregation area.
 
−
 
−
=== '''Tier 2 Trigger - Reduce threat using mechanical removal if conservation actions in Tier 1 are insufficient to arrest a population decline:''' ===
 
−
Mechanical removal of nonnative aquatic predator will ensue:
 
−
*If the point abundance estimate of adult HBC decline to <7,000, as estimated by the currently accepted HBC population model.
 
−
 
−
Mechanical removal will terminate if:
 
−
*Predator index (described below) is depleted to less than 60 RBT/km for at least two years in the JCM reach and immigration rate is low (the long term feasibility of using immigration rates as a metric still needs to be assessed),
 
−
-OR-
 
−
*Adult HBC population estimates exceed 7,500 and recruitment of sub-adult chub exceed adult mortality for at least two years.
 
−
 
−
[[File:PredatorIndexTable.jpg|center|500px]]
 
−
 
−
If immigration rate of predators into JCM reach is high, mechanical removal may need to continue. These triggers are intended to be adaptive based on ongoing and future research (e.g., Lees Ferry recruitment and emigration dynamics, effects of trout suppression flows, effects of Paria River turbidity inputs on predator survival and immigration rates, interactions between humpback chub and rainbow trout, other predation studies).
 
  
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 15:39, 18 January 2024

400px‎

Nonnative Invasive Aquatic Species

Non-native fish species present in Grand Canyon were mostly established as a result of intentional stocking to develop sport fisheries in the Colorado River and its tributaries during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Impacts of these actions was not fully understood until later in the 20th Century when a shift to native species conservation management occurred in the NPS. Negative impacts of non-native fish and altered habitats on native fish species has been well-documented throughout the world. Over 20 non-native fish species have been documented in GCNP; However, the more common, large-bodied, species of management concern include rainbow and brown trout, common carp, channel catfish, and bullhead species, striped and smallmouth bass. These species are known predators on native fish or native fish eggs or compete with native fish species. (NPS CFMP-EA_Pg 62) (17 warmwater species, 2 coldwater species, and 1 coolwater species)--- At least 7 additional species occur in nearby or adjoining waters with potential access to the Glen Canyon Ecosystem.

LTEMP Resource Goal for Nonnative Invasive Species

Minimize or reduce the presence and expansion of aquatic nonnative invasive species.


Fish of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam - GCDAMP training prepared by AZFGD

Updates

Smallmouth bass, brown trout, and green sunfish have recently established themselves in Glen Canyon raising concerns for management of endangered fish like humpback chub further downstream.

https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2016-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_07a.pdf
Slough.jpg

LTEMP Experimental Action: Aquatic Resource-Related Experimental Treatments (BA, pages 30-41) [1]

Nonnative fish control actions would be implemented if the Little Colorado River humpback chub population declined and proactive conservation actions failed to reverse declining populations [2].

Mechanical removal of nonnative species is a controversial issue in the Colorado River through Glen and Grand Canyons. A spring 2015 meeting of Grand Canyon biologists (NPS, FWS, AGFD, GCMRC) to assess current trout removal triggers resulted in a concept of early conservation measure intervention to maximize conservation benefit to humpback chub and minimize the likelihood of mechanical predator removal. Under the preferred alternative, mechanical removal of nonnative rainbow and brown trout (and other nonnative predators) would be implemented through a triggered, tiered approach (see Appendix D in BA) near the confluence of the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River if conservation actions designed to reverse declines in the Little Colorado River humpback chub aggregation were ineffective. Two different tiers of population metrics would be used to trigger responses such as actions to increase growth and survival of humpback chub (Conservation Actions, Tier 1), or mechanical nonnative fish control (Tier 2), which would only be implemented when Tier 1 conservation actions (actions would focus on increasing growth, survival and distribution of chub in the Little Colorado River and LCR mainstem aggregation area) fail to slow or reverse the decline in the humpback chub population (see Appendix D in BA, Young et al. 2015). In addition, if humpback chub decline and the identified actions are not working, the FWS, in coordination with action agencies and traditionally associated Tribes, will identify future appropriate actions (among other caveats specified in Young et al. 2015).

LTEMP BiOp Conservation Measures to Control Nonnative Fishes [3] (2016)

Ongoing actions:

Reclamation, in collaboration with the NPS and FWS, and in consultation with the AZGFD, would investigate the possibility of renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide, or other tools, as appropriate. Additional planning and compliance, and tribal consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required. This feasibility study is outlined in the NPS CFMP (2013; see “Feasibility Study for Use of Chemical Fish Control Methods”). The action benefits humpback chub and other native fish by removing nonnative fish that can predate upon and compete with humpback chub. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would continue to fund efforts of the GCMRC and NPS to remove brown trout (and other nonnative species) from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded spawning populations develop, consistent with the NPS CFMP. After 5 years of removal efforts are completed (in 2017), an analysis of success would be conducted. Piscicides may be considered for removal of nonnative species if determined to be appropriate and following completion of the necessary planning and compliance actions. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

New actions:

Reclamation would explore the efficacy of a temperature control device at the dam to respond to potential extremes in hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that could result in nonnative fish establishment. Evaluations would be ongoing for all current and evolving technological advances that could provide for warming and cooling the river in both high- and low-flow discharge scenarios, and high and low reservoir levels. These studies should include evaluating and pursuing new technologies, an analysis of the feasibility, and a risk assessment and cost analysis for any potential solutions. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would pursue means of preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam. Because Glen Canyon Dam release temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes into Glen and Grand Canyons would be evaluated. Potential options to minimize or eliminate passage through the turbine or bypass intakes, or minimize survival of nonnative fish that pass through the dam would be assessed (flows, provide cold water, other). While feasible options may not currently exist, technology may be developed during the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would, in consultation with the FWS and AGFD, fund the NPS and GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to alter the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12 (commonly referred to as “Upper Slough”), making it unsuitable or inaccessible to warmwater nonnative species that can compete with and predate upon native fish, including humpback chub. Depending on the outcome of NPS planning and compliance, Reclamation would implement the plan in coordination with the FWS, AGFD, NPS and GCMRC. Additional coordination would be conducted to determine and access any habitats that may support warmwater nonnatives. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would support the GCMRC and NPS in consultation with the FWS and AGFD on the completion of planning and compliance of a plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species within and contiguous to the action area. Control efforts may include chemical, mechanical, or physical methods. While feasible options may not currently exist, new technology or innovative methods may be developed in the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal. Rapid response to new warmwater fish invasions may become a more frequent need in the future with lower reservoir elevations and warmer dam releases. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation, will consider, in consultation with the GCDAMP, the experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon, or other mainstem locations. Inhibiting brown trout spawning and recruitment will benefit chub by reducing the potential for brown trout to predate upon humpback chub. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

LTEMP BiOp Conservation Measures to Control Nonnative Fishes [4] (2016)

Ongoing actions:

Reclamation, in collaboration with the NPS and FWS, and in consultation with the AZGFD, would investigate the possibility of renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide, or other tools, as appropriate. Additional planning and compliance, and tribal consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required. This feasibility study is outlined in the NPS CFMP (2013; see “Feasibility Study for Use of Chemical Fish Control Methods”). The action benefits humpback chub and other native fish by removing nonnative fish that can predate upon and compete with humpback chub. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would continue to fund efforts of the GCMRC and NPS to remove brown trout (and other nonnative species) from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded spawning populations develop, consistent with the NPS CFMP. After 5 years of removal efforts are completed (in 2017), an analysis of success would be conducted. Piscicides may be considered for removal of nonnative species if determined to be appropriate and following completion of the necessary planning and compliance actions. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

New actions:

Reclamation would explore the efficacy of a temperature control device at the dam to respond to potential extremes in hydrological conditions due to climate conditions that could result in nonnative fish establishment. Evaluations would be ongoing for all current and evolving technological advances that could provide for warming and cooling the river in both high- and low-flow discharge scenarios, and high and low reservoir levels. These studies should include evaluating and pursuing new technologies, an analysis of the feasibility, and a risk assessment and cost analysis for any potential solutions. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would pursue means of preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam. Because Glen Canyon Dam release temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes into Glen and Grand Canyons would be evaluated. Potential options to minimize or eliminate passage through the turbine or bypass intakes, or minimize survival of nonnative fish that pass through the dam would be assessed (flows, provide cold water, other). While feasible options may not currently exist, technology may be developed during the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would, in consultation with the FWS and AGFD, fund the NPS and GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to alter the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12 (commonly referred to as “Upper Slough”), making it unsuitable or inaccessible to warmwater nonnative species that can compete with and predate upon native fish, including humpback chub. Depending on the outcome of NPS planning and compliance, Reclamation would implement the plan in coordination with the FWS, AGFD, NPS and GCMRC. Additional coordination would be conducted to determine and access any habitats that may support warmwater nonnatives. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation would support the GCMRC and NPS in consultation with the FWS and AGFD on the completion of planning and compliance of a plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species within and contiguous to the action area. Control efforts may include chemical, mechanical, or physical methods. While feasible options may not currently exist, new technology or innovative methods may be developed in the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal. Rapid response to new warmwater fish invasions may become a more frequent need in the future with lower reservoir elevations and warmer dam releases. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

Reclamation, will consider, in consultation with the GCDAMP, the experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon, or other mainstem locations. Inhibiting brown trout spawning and recruitment will benefit chub by reducing the potential for brown trout to predate upon humpback chub. The regulation and control of nonnative fish is a management action identified in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).

LTEMP BiOp Triggers for Nonnative Removals (LTEMP BA Appendix D)

Tier 1 Trigger – Early Intervention Through Conservation Actions:

  • 1a. If the combined point estimate for adult HBC (adults defined ≥200 mm) in the Colorado River mainstem LCR aggregation; RM 57-65.9) and Little Colorado River (LCR) falls below 9,000 as estimated by the currently accepted HBC population model (e.g., ASMR, multi-state).

-OR-

  • 1b. If recruitment of sub-adult HBC (150-199mm) does not equal or exceed estimated adult mortality such that:
  1. Sub-adult abundance falls below a three-year running average of 1,250 fish in the spring LCR population estimates, or
  2. Sub-adult abundance falls below a three-year running average of 810 fish in the mainstem Juvenile Chub Monitoring reach (JCM annual fall population estimate; RM 63.45-65.2).

Tier 1 Trigger Response:

  • Tier 1 conservation actions listed below will be immediately implemented either in the LCR or in the adjacent mainstem. Conservation actions will focus on increasing growth, survival and distribution of HBC in the LCR & LCR mainstem aggregation area.

Tier 2 Trigger - Reduce threat using mechanical removal if conservation actions in Tier 1 are insufficient to arrest a population decline:

Mechanical removal of nonnative aquatic predator will ensue:

  • If the point abundance estimate of adult HBC decline to <7,000, as estimated by the currently accepted HBC population model.

Mechanical removal will terminate if:

  • Predator index (described below) is depleted to less than 60 RBT/km for at least two years in the JCM reach and immigration rate is low (the long term feasibility of using immigration rates as a metric still needs to be assessed),

-OR-

  • Adult HBC population estimates exceed 7,500 and recruitment of sub-adult chub exceed adult mortality for at least two years.
PredatorIndexTable.jpg

If immigration rate of predators into JCM reach is high, mechanical removal may need to continue. These triggers are intended to be adaptive based on ongoing and future research (e.g., Lees Ferry recruitment and emigration dynamics, effects of trout suppression flows, effects of Paria River turbidity inputs on predator survival and immigration rates, interactions between humpback chub and rainbow trout, other predation studies).


Links and Information

Nonnative Invasive Aquatic Species Pages

Projects

Presentations and Papers

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

1992


Other Stuff
Retrieved from "http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Nonnative_Invasive_Aquatic_Species&oldid=10196"