Difference between revisions of "Nonnative Invasive Aquatic Species"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
| (65 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Brown_Trout ''' | + | [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|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] ]] | |
| − | == | + | ==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] == |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
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)]. | 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 | + | 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 |
| − | River through Glen and Grand Canyons. A spring 2015 meeting of Grand | + | 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). |
| − | 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). | + | |
| − | + | ==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) == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 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 [https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/120059_LTEMP%20BiOp_11-25-16.pdf] (2016) == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Ongoing actions: | Ongoing actions: | ||
| Line 301: | Line 208: | ||
Goals (USFWS 2002b). | 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:''' === | === '''Tier 1 Trigger – Early Intervention Through Conservation Actions:''' === | ||
| Line 332: | Line 236: | ||
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). | 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). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <!-- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | --------------------------------ADDITIONAL-------------------------------> | ||
| + | |class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"| | ||
| + | {| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;" | ||
| + | ! <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;">Links and Information</h2> | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Media:2024_LTEMP_SEIS_Monitoring_Plan_for_Nonnative_Fish.docx| 2024 LTEMP SEIS Monitoring Plan for Nonnative Fish]] | ||
| + | *[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] | ||
| + | *[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 ] | ||
| + | *[[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] | ||
| + | *[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] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! <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;">Nonnative Invasive Aquatic Species Pages</h2> | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Entrainment]] Page | ||
| + | *[https://gcdamp.com/index.php/TCD_Learning_Page Temperature Control Page] | ||
| + | *[[The -12 Mile Slough]] | ||
| + | *[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=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] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! <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;">Projects</h2> | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Rainbow trout / humpback chub predation studies]] | ||
| + | *[[Trout Reduction Efforts]] | ||
| + | *[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;">Presentations and Papers </h2> | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2024''' | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2024-02-29-amwg-meeting/20240229-RapidResponseTechnicalTeamReport2023-508-UCRO.pdf Rapid Response Technical Team Report 2023 ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2023''' | ||
| + | *[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-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-GlenCanyonDamFishExclusionProjectOverview-508-UCRO.pdf Glen Canyon Dam Fish Exclusion: Project Overview] | ||
| + | *[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-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-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-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''' | ||
| + | *[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/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-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/2022-01-13-twg-meeting/20220113-AnnualReportingMeeting-UpdatesLCRChannelCatfishLaboratoryPredationStudies-508-UCRO.pdf Updates on LCR Channel Catfish and Laboratory Predation Studies ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2021''' | ||
| + | *[https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/fish/technical-reports/2021_lake_powell_fisheries.pdf Lake Powell Fisheries Investigations - Completion Report May 2015 – April 2020] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2021-10-14-twg-meeting/20211014-CurrentLevelsThreatsNon-NativeAquaticSpeciesGlenCanyonNationalRecreationAreaGrandCanyonNationalPark%E2%80%93Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Current Levels of Threats from Non-Native Aquatic Species in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park – An Update to Appendix F from the Expanded Non-Native Aquatic Species Management Plan Environmental Assessment] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2021-02-11-amwg-meeting/20210211-GCDAMPAnnualReportingMeetingUpdateFishes-508-UCRO.pdf GCDAMP Annual Reporting Meeting Update: Fishes ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2020''' | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2020-02-12-amwg-meeting/20200212-GCMRC2020AnnualReportingMeeting-PresentationPart1-508-UCRO.pdf GCMRC 2019 Annual Reporting Meeting Overview – Part 1 ] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2020-02-12-amwg-meeting/20200212-GCMRC2020AnnualReportingMeeting-PresentationPart2a-508-UCRO.pdf GCMRC 2019 Annual Reporting Meeting Overview – Part 2a ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2019''' | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2019-03-14-twg-meeting/20190314-Long-termMonitoring-Presentation-508-UCRO.pdf Long-term Monitoring] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2018''' | ||
| + | *[http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.1674/0003-0031-180.1.119 Stone et al., 2018, Abiotic Controls of Invasive Nonnative Fishes in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. The American Midland Naturalist] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-01-25-twg-meeting/AR15.pdf Invasives and other Non-Native aquatic species of the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River PPT] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2017''' | ||
| + | *[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.032 Bair et al., 2018, Identifying cost-effective invasive species control to enhance endangered species populations in the Grand Canyon, USA: Biological Conservation ] | ||
| + | *[[Media:USFWS 2017 Invasive Species Surveys Final Report.pdf| Aquatic Invasive Species Surveillance in the Little Colorado River Basin]] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2017-01-26-twg-meeting/AR21_Rogowski.pdf System Wide Monitoring ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2015''' | ||
| + | *[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwY-Z2c3NTUGQS1DbWY4RWo2TWc/view GCMRC Science Updates - Fisheries] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2015-01-20-twg-meeting/Attach_10.pdf Native and Nonnative Interactions; Factors Influencing Predation and Competition] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2014''' | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-08-27-amwg-meeting/Attach_04b.pdf Status of Fish Resources ] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2014-02-19-amwg-meeting/Attach_13.pdf National Park Service Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan ] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2014-01-30-twg-meeting/AR_Healy_NNFC_GRCA.pdf Non-native Fish Control in Tributaries: Grand Canyon National Park (Healy) ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2013''' | ||
| + | *[[Media:GCD-Temp Mod-Valdez & Speas 9-17-2013.pdf| Valdez et al. 2013. Benefits and risks of temperature modification at Glen Canyon Dam to aquatic resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, UT.]] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2013-02-20-amwg-meeting/Attach_07b.pdf Humpback Chub and Non-native Fish Control Update ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''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] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2011''' | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2011-05-18-amwg-meeting/Attach_06.pdf Report on Two Experimental Flow EAs: High-Flow Experimental Releases EA and Non-native Fish Control EA and PPTs] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2011-03-08-twg-meeting/Attach_03.pdf Updates on USBR Environmental Documents PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2011-01-20-twg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf Bureau of Reclamation Updates PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2011-01-20-twg-meeting/Attach_04c.pdf Open File Report 2011-2012, "Non-Native Fish Control Below Glen Canyon Dam--Report from a Structured Decision-Making Project] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2010''' | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-08-24-amwg-meeting/Attach_13b.pdf Non-native Fish Control Environmental Assessment Update] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-02-03-amwg-meeting/Attach_09a.pdf Non-native Fish Control Planning with Nonnative Fish Control in Grand Canyon-Historical Perspectives and Recommendations for Monitoring, Control, and Research Report Dated November 17, 2009] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-02-03-amwg-meeting/Attach_09b.pdf Nonnative Fish in Grand Canyon--Summary of Nonnative Fish Control Options and Recommended Monitoring and Research Activities PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-02-03-amwg-meeting/Attach_09c.pdf Non-native Fish Control Planning, Management Agency Perspectives: Upcoming Challenges PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-02-03-amwg-meeting/Attach_09d.pdf Non-native Fish Control Planning, TWG Review and Comment PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2010-02-03-amwg-meeting/Attach_22.pdf AIF: 1) GCMRC Updates; 2) HBC Comprehensive Plan Implementation Ad Hoc Group Update] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-01-21-twg-meeting/Attach_04a.pdf AIF: Nonnative Fish Control in Grand Canyon - Historical Perspectives and Recommendations for Monitoring, Control, and Research] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-01-21-twg-meeting/Attach_04b.pdf Nonnative Fish in Grand Canyon - Summary of Nonnative Fish Control Options and Recommended Monitoring and Research Activitie] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-01-21-twg-meeting/Attach_04c.pdf GCMRC Response to TWG Comments] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2009''' | ||
| + | *[[Media:2009 BOR GCDforebayFish.pdf| Surveys of fish in the Glen Canyon Dam forebay]] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_20.pdf E-mail Message from Kurt Dongoske, Subj: GCMRC Presentation for TWG Conference Call January 5, 2010: Nonnative Fish Plan.] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_18.pdf Nonnative Fish Control Plan: Summary of Primary Revisions from TWG Review PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_12c.pdf Nonnative Fish Control Plan: Responses to Review PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_12b.pdf Memo from Matthew Andersen, Subj: Review of Nonnative Fish Control Plan and Non-native Fish Plan TWG Response Table] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_12a.pdf Review of the Grand Canyon Non-native Fish Control Plan: Short Term Monitoring and Research Actions] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-09-29-twg-meeting/Attach_10b.pdf A Review of the "Grand Canyon Non-Native Fish Control Plan I: Short Term Monitoring and Research Actions" Executive Summary and Recommendations] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2009-08-12-amwg-meeting/Attach_05d.pdf Nonnative Fish Management Plan PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2009-08-12-amwg-meeting/Attach_05e.pdf Nonnative Fish Management Plan, Summary of Plan tasks included in the GCMRC FY10-11 Work Plan] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2009-08-12-amwg-meeting/Attach_08d.pdf Minority Report Recommendation ... Specifically on the Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control Project (BIO 2.R.16) and "Trout or Humpback Chubs PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2009-08-12-amwg-meeting/Attach_08e.pdf 1) Dissenting report, 2) Letter from Governor Normal Cooeyate, Pueblo of Zuni; 3) Bureau of Reclamation Response Letter Dated August 4, 2009] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2009-08-12-amwg-meeting/Attach_11.pdf Funding for Non-native Fish Control and Other Future Funding Challenges and PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-06-22-twg-meeting/Attach_13.pdf Letter from Governor Norman J. Cooeyate (Pueblo of Zuni) to Larry Walkoviak, Regional Director, Dated June 30, 2009, Subject: Mainstem Nonnative Fish Control (BIO 2.R16.10) for FY 2010 & 2011] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/amwg/2009-04-29-amwg-meeting/Attach_05f.pdf Nonnative Fishes Control Plan PPT] | ||
| + | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2009-03-16-twg-meeting/Attach_17.pdf Transmittal of Report from AGFD to GCMRC, Subj: Distribution and Prevalence of Parasites of Fishes in the Colorado River and Selected Tributaries in Grand Canyon, Arizona Final Report 2008] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''1992''' | ||
| + | *[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] | ||
| + | |||
|- | |- | ||
Latest revision as of 15:02, 20 September 2024
|
|
Nonnative Invasive Aquatic SpeciesNon-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 SpeciesMinimize 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 |
|
|---|
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. 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:
-OR-
Tier 1 Trigger Response:
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:
Mechanical removal will terminate if:
-OR-
 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).
|
|
