|
|
Line 214: |
Line 214: |
| | | |
| |- | | |- |
− | ! <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;"> [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Long-term_Experimental_and_Management_Plan_(LTEMP) LTEMP BiOp Triggers for Humpback Chub (2016)] </h2> | + | ! <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 Humpback Chub (LTEMP BA Appendix D)]] </h2> |
| |- | | |- |
| |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | |
− | If the Tier 1 (point abundance estimate for adult chub in the Colorado River mainstem aggregation and Little Colorado River fall below 9,000 as estimated by the currently accepted population model OR if recruitment of sub-adult chub [150-199 mm] does not equal or exceed estimated adult mortality as described in document) and Tier 2 triggers (point abundance estimate of adult chub decline to <7,000 fish, as estimated by the currently accepted humpback chub population model) are met and the prescribed conservation measures and remedial actions under each trigger do not mitigate a decline in the humpback chub population, then incidental take will have been exceeded.
| + | === '''Tier 1 Trigger – Early Intervention Through Conservation Actions:''' === |
− |
| + | |
− | Tier 1 would emphasize conservation actions (i.e., expansion of translocation actions in the Little Colorado River, head-starting larval chub to later translocate) that would take place early during an adult or sub-adult humpback chub population decline (should that happen). Tier 2 would serve as a backstop prescribing mechanical nonnative predator removal (threat reduction) if conservation measures did not mitigate a decline in chub abundance.
| + | *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). |
| | | |
| |- | | |- |
Updates
[3]
Catches of humpback chub during 2016 system-wide monitoring [4]
The multistate population estimate for the Little Colorado River humpback chub aggregation.
Estimates of humpback chub coming into the LCR to spawn. The decline in 2015 and 2016 coincides with a decline in chub condition and a decline in the trout population (remember trout and chub eat the same things and are considered competitors). This may be an indication of skip-spawning in 2015 and remaining in the mainstem, not an actual decline in population.
Estimate of the proportion of mainstem humpback chub moving into Little Colorado River during the spring spawning season.
Body condition of humpback chub has been declining with the decline in macroinvertebrates in the drift. Note that most of the drift occurs in the summer when macroinvertebrate production is high. This decline in macroinvertebrate production coincides with the population expansion and subsequent decline in the rainbow trout population indicating competition between rainbow trout and humpback chub.
Spring LCR 150-199 mm Humpback Chub abundance estimates
Juvenile Humback Chub Survival Rates
ASMR estimates for humpback chub numbers at the LCR
|
|
Links and Information
|
|
Presentations and Papers
|
2017
- System Wide Monitoring
- Humpback Chub that Spawn in the LCR: Status and Drivers
- Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado River, Monitoring of Juveniles, Sub-Adults, and Adults and translocations
- Humpback Chub Aggregations Updated (6.1)
- Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado River and Translocations
- Persons, W.R., Van Haverbeke, D.R., and Dodrill, M.J., 2017, Colorado River fish monitoring in Grand Canyon, Arizona; 2002–14 humpback chub aggregations: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1177, 43 p.
2016
- Recovery: Humpback Chubs, New Values and New Hope for Endangered Native Fish
- Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Science Updates (BO Compliance, Trout Updates, Green Sunfish, Fisheries PEP, Partners in Science)
- Spring 2016 Chute Falls humpback chub sampling trip report
- Spring 2016 Lower LCR humpback chub sampling trip report
- Mark-Recapture and Fish Monitoring Activities in the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon Colorado River in Grand Canyon from 2000 to 2015
- Effects of Turbidity on Predation Vulnerability of Juvenile Humpback Chub to Rainbow and Brown Trout
- Recovery Plan update for Humpback Chub
- Humpback chub in the Little Colorado River, Monitoring of Juveniles, Sub-Adults, and Adults and Translocations
- Humpback Chub Translocations to Havasu and Shinumo Creeks, Grand Canyon National Park
- Humpback chub (Gila cypha) that Spawn in the Little Colorado River: Status and Potential Drivers
- Factors that Influence Juvenile Humpback Chub Survival
- Use of Ultrasonic Imaging to Evaluate Egg Maturation of Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) in Grand Canyon
- Monitoring Humpback Chub Aggregations in the Mainstem, 1991-2015
2015
- Finch, C., W.E. Pine III, C.B. Yackulic, M.J. Dodrill, M. Yard, B.S. Gerig, L.G. Coggins, Jr., and J. Korman, 2015, “Assessing Juvenile Native Fish Demographic Responses to a Steady Flow Experiment in a Large Regulated River,” River Research and Applications. doi:10.1002/rra.2893.
- Havasu Creek Translocation Update
- Native-nonnative Interactions; Factors Influencing Predation and Competition
- Humpback chub triggers for nonnative fish control in the 2011 Biological Opinion (2015 status update)
- Humpback chub triggers for nonnative fish control in the 2011 Biological Opinion
- Chute Falls Translocation Update
- Humpback Chub Translocations to Shinumo and Havasu Creeks, Grand Canyon National Park
- Humpback Chub in the Colorado river: Status and Trends of Aggregations, Changes in Range
- Early Life History of Humpback Chub: Patterns and Potential Drivers
- Biological Opinion Trigger Update: January 2015
2014
2013
- GCMRC Update - Status of Resources and Sediment Conditions
- Science Update: Fisheries
- Fact Sheet: Native and Nonnative Fish Populations of the Colorado River are Food Limited--Evidence from New Food Web Analyses
- GCMRC Science Update on Sediment and Fisheries
- Near Shore Ecology (NSE) Study of the fall steady flow test
- Dodrill, M. J. C. B. Yackulic, B. S. Gerig, W. E. Pine, III, J. Korman and C. Finch. 2014. Do management actions to restore rare habitat benefit native fish conservation? Distribution of juvenile native fish among shoreline habitats of the Colorado River. River Research and Applications. DOI 10.1002/rra/2842.
- Finch, C., W. E. Pine, III, K. E. Limburg. 2014. Do hydropeaking flows alter juvenile fish growth rates? A test with juvenile humpback chub in the Colorado River. River Research and Applications. DOI 10.1002/rra.2725
- Gerig, B. S., M. J. Dodrill, and W. E. Pine, III. In-Press. Habitat Selection and Movement of Adult Humpback Chub in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon during an Experimental Steady Flow Release. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
- K. E. Limburg, T. A Hayden, W. E. Pine, III, M. D. Yard, R. Kozdon, and J. W. Valley. 2013. Of Travertine and Time: Otolith chemistry and microstructure detect provenance and demography of endangered humpback chub in Grand Canyon USA. PLoS One 8(12), E84235
- Hayden, T. A., K. E. Limburg, and W. E. Pine, III. 2012. Using Otolith Chemistry Tags and Growth Patterns to Distinguish Movements and Provenance of Native Fish in Grand Canyon. River Research and Applications. DOI 10.1002/rra.2627
2011
|
Humpback Chub Documents
|
|
|
Ongoing actions:
- Translocations of humpback chub into tributaries of the Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons
- Spring and fall humpback chub population estimate
- Control or removal of nonnative fish in tributaries prior to chub translocations
- Humpback chub refuge population at a federal hatchery
- Ensure that a stable or upward trend of humpback chub mainstem aggregations can be achieved by:
- Annual monitoring of the Little Colorado River humpback chub aggregation (e.g., juvenile chub monitoring parameters).
- Annual monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River to determine status and trends of humpback chub.
- Periodic surveys to identify additional aggregations and individual humpback chub.
- Evaluate existing aggregations and determining drivers of these aggregations.
- Explore means of expanding humpback chub populations outside of the Little Colorado River Inflow aggregation.
- Disease and parasite monitoring
New actions:
- Feasibility study for translocation of humpback chub into Upper Havasu Creek (above Beaver Falls).
- Evaluate other tributaries for potential translocations.
|
|
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.
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).
|
Humpback Chub Genetics
|
|
Other Stuff
|
LCR remote PIT tag arrays
|
|