|
|
Line 126: |
Line 126: |
| *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/17jan26/AR12_Young.pdf Humpback Chub Aggregations Updated (6.1)] | | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/17jan26/AR12_Young.pdf Humpback Chub Aggregations Updated (6.1)] |
| *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/17jan26/AR13_VanHaverbeke.pdf Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado River and Translocations ] | | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/17jan26/AR13_VanHaverbeke.pdf Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado River and Translocations ] |
− | *[https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161177 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.] | + | *[https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161177 Persons et al. 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''' | | '''2016''' |
Line 144: |
Line 144: |
| | | |
| '''2015''' | | '''2015''' |
− | *[[Media:Finch et al 2015 FSSchubGrowth.pdf| 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.]] | + | *[[Media:Finch et al 2015 FSSchubGrowth.pdf| Finch et al. 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.]] |
| *[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGdXc2WHJOWkdBX3M/view Havasu Creek Translocation Update] | | *[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGdXc2WHJOWkdBX3M/view Havasu Creek Translocation Update] |
| *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15feb25/Attach_05b.pdf Native-nonnative Interactions; Factors Influencing Predation and Competition] | | *[http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/15feb25/Attach_05b.pdf Native-nonnative Interactions; Factors Influencing Predation and Competition] |
Line 172: |
Line 172: |
| *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/13aug08/Attach_07d.pdf Fact Sheet: Native and Nonnative Fish Populations of the Colorado River are Food Limited--Evidence from New Food Web Analyses] | | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/13aug08/Attach_07d.pdf Fact Sheet: Native and Nonnative Fish Populations of the Colorado River are Food Limited--Evidence from New Food Web Analyses] |
| *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/13jun26/Attach_07b.pdf GCMRC Science Update on Sediment and Fisheries] | | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/13jun26/Attach_07b.pdf GCMRC Science Update on Sediment and Fisheries] |
− | *[[Near Shore Ecology (NSE) Study]] of the fall steady flow test | + | *[[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. | + | *Dodrill et al. 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. |
− | *[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Finch%20RRA%20HBC%20Growth%20NSE.pdf 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] | + | *[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Finch%20RRA%20HBC%20Growth%20NSE.pdf Finch et al. 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] |
− | *[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Gerig_et_al_2013_Accepted.pdf 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] | + | *[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Gerig_et_al_2013_Accepted.pdf Gerig et al. 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] |
− | *[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084235 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] | + | *[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084235 Limburg et al. 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] |
− | *[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Hayden%20et%20al.%202012.pdf 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] | + | *[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Hayden%20et%20al.%202012.pdf Hayden et al. 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''' | | '''2011''' |
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
|
|
Projects
|
Little Colorado River (LCR) Project
Aggregations Project
Translocation Project
Bioenergentics Project
|
Presentations and Papers
|
2017
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
2014
2013
2011
|
Humpback Chub Documents
|
|
|
Ongoing actions:
Reclamation would continue to support the NPS, FWS, GCMRC, and GCDAMP in
funding and implementing translocations of humpback chub into tributaries of the
Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons, and in monitoring the results of these
translocations, consistent with agencies’ plans and guidance (e.g., NPS Comprehensive
Fisheries Management Plan [CFMP], FWS Humpback Chub Genetics Management Plan
and Translocation Framework, and GCMRC Triennial Work Plan). Translocations allow
for opportunities to expand the area occupied by humpback chub and improve the overall
status of the species. Specifically, the following would occur:
- Humpback chub would be translocated from the lower reaches of the Little Colorado River to areas above Chute Falls in an effort to increase growth rates and survivorship.
- Monitoring would be conducted annually, or as needed, depending on the data required, to determine survivability, population status, or genetic integrity of the Havasu Creek humpback chub population. Intermittent translocations of additional humpback chub in Havasu Creek would be conducted if the FWS and NPS determine it is necessary to maintain genetic integrity of the population.
Reclamation would continue to fund a spring and fall population estimate annually, or at
a different frequency as deemed appropriate in consultation with FWS, using a mark
recapture based model for the Little Colorado River or the most appropriate model
developed for the current collecting techniques and data. Monitoring the chub population
allows us to determine its status (whether it is stable, increasing, or decreasing).
Reclamation would continue to fund control or removal of nonnative fish in tributaries
prior to chub translocations depending on the existing fish community in each tributary.
Reclamation, NPS, and FWS would lead any investigation into the possibility of using a
chemical piscicide, or other tools, as appropriate. Tributaries and the appropriate control
methods would be identified by the FWS, NPS, Reclamation, and GCMRC, in
consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). Depending on the
removal methods identified, additional planning and compliance may be necessary.
Removal of nonnative fishes improves the status of chub and other native fishes by
reducing competition and predation. 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 the FWS in maintenance of a humpback chub refuge
population at a federal hatchery (Reclamation has assisted the FWS in creating a
humpback chub refuge at the Southwestern Native Aquatic Resources and Recovery
Center [SNARRC]) or other appropriate facility by providing funding to assist in annual
maintenance (including the collection of additional humpback chub from the Little
Colorado River for this purpose). In the unlikely event of a catastrophic loss of the
Grand Canyon population of humpback chub, the refuge would provide a permanent
source of sufficient numbers of genetically representative stock for repatriating the
species.
Reclamation would continue to assist the FWS, NPS and the GCDAMP to ensure that a
stable or upward trend of humpback chub mainstem aggregations can be achieved by:
- Continuing to conduct annual monitoring of the Little Colorado River humpback chub aggregation (e.g., juvenile chub monitoring parameters). Periodically, an open or multistate model should be run to estimate abundance of the entire Little Colorado River aggregation inclusive of mainstem fish.
- Supporting annual monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River to determine status and trends of humpback chub and continuing to investigate sampling and analytical methods to estimate abundance of chub in the mainstem.
- Conducting periodic surveys to identify additional aggregations and individual humpback chub.
- Evaluating existing aggregations and determining drivers of these aggregations, for example, recruitment, natal origins, spawning locations, and spawning habitat (e.g., consider new and innovative methods such as telemetry or the Judas-fish approach) (Kegerries et al. 2015).
- Exploring means of expanding humpback chub populations outside of the Little Colorado River Inflow aggregation. Evaluate the feasibility of mainstem augmentation of humpback chub that would include larval collection, rearing, and release into the mainstem at suitable areas outside of or within existing aggregations.
Reclamation would, through the GCDAMP, conduct disease and parasite monitoring in
humpback chub and other fishes in the mainstem Colorado. The GCMRC is currently
conducting parasite monitoring in the Little Colorado River. However, in order to better
understand how/if disease and parasites (primarily Asian tapeworm) are affecting chub
and how temperature differences may affect parasite occurrence, this work would be
expanded to include investigations of parasites in humpback chub (and surrogate fish if
necessary) in the mainstem. Ensuring adequate protection from diseases and parasites is
an identified management action needed in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals
(USFWS 2002a) and Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b).
New actions:
Reclamation would collaborate with the FWS, GCMRC, NPS, and the Havasupai Tribe
to conduct preliminary surveys and a feasibility study for translocation of humpback chub into Upper Havasu Creek (above Beaver Falls). The implementation of surveys and
translocations, following the feasibility study, would be dependent on interagency
discussions, planning and compliance, and resulting outcomes of tribal consultation. As
stated above, translocations of chub into currently unoccupied habitat aid in expanding
the area occupied by the species. In addition, using a tributary to the Colorado River,
such as Upper Havasu Creek, protects translocated fish from the effects of dam
operations in the mainstem, but still allow for chub in Havasu Creek to contribute to the
mainstem population.
Reclamation would, in cooperation with the FWS, NPS, GCMRC, and AGFD, explore
and 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
|
|