1

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) 

Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan (HBCCP) Ad Hoc Group 

Progress Report to the Technical Work Group (TWG) 

Sequencing and Prioritization of HBCCP Projects 

January 25, 2006 

In March 2005 the Adaptive Management Work Group passed the following motion: 

Motion: The AMWG directs the TWG to further develop the humpback chub 

comprehensive plan, as follows: 

1. Describe linkages, sequences, and feedback loops among projects 

2. Identify priorities and a timeline for completion of each action within the 

comprehensive plan. 

3. Spell out specific steps and criteria for any actions that would be needed if a 

crisis occurs (e.g., severe population decline). 

4. Continue to include active participation by GCMRC staff and any additional 

expertise. 

5. Incorporate comments from the Science Advisors. The TWG will include a 

response to comments document in their final draft. 

This motion resulted in creation of the HBCCP Ad Hoc, tasked with completing this 

work. In an effort to help prioritize the HBCCP projects, the HBCCP Ad Hoc performed 

a ranking exercise on the projects. The current suite of HBCCP Projects are listed below, 

followed by information about the ranking process used to prioritize projects, and two 

figures (Figure and Figure 2) to illustrate prioritization, sequencing, and timeframe 

information. Note that these brief project descriptions and figures provided below are all 

draft items at this time. 

Projects to Facilitate Conservation of the Federally Endangered Humpback 

Chub (Gila cypha) in the Lower Colorado River Basin (January 23, 2006)

1. Genetic Study – TO BE COMPLETED in 2006 

Determine genetic relationships within and among populations of the endangered 

humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Colorado River Basin. 

The Conservation Genetics and Larval Fish laboratories at Colorado State University, Fort 

Collins (CO) are collaborating with researchers at other academic institutions and federal 

and state agencies to evaluate interrelationships among populations of the endangered Gila 

cypha within Grand Canyon (GC). Five populations from the Upper Colorado River basin 

also will be included in the study to gain perspective on basin-wide intraspecific 

relationships. Life history of G. cypha in GC is mostly enigmatic and interrelationships 

among subpopulations are virtually unknown. The most pressing questions pertain to 

genetic distinctiveness of aggregations in the mainstem Colorado River, the 

interrelationships among these and tributary populations, and how the sum can be adaptively 

managed in a dam-perturbed environment. Objectives of the proposed study are therefore to 
2

infer interrelationships among populations of G. cypha and to identify (if possible) 

genetically distinct units. 

2. Willow Beach Genetics – TO BE COMPLETED in 2006 

Assess genetics of humpback chub being held at Willow Beach National Fish 

Hatchery for their potential as a refugium stock and as brood stock for captive 

propagation. 

In 1999 the Service removed approximately 200 juvenile HBC from the Little Colorado 

River and transferred them to the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery below Hoover 

Dam. The genetic makeup of these fish relative to the genetics of the species and the 

LCR population needs to be determined before a decision is made regarding their future 

use. This project, in conjunction with the basin-wide genetics assessment (project 1), will 

be used to determine if HBC currently on station at Willow Beach NFH would be 

suitable as brood stock and as part of a refugium population, or if they should be used for 

research. Activities include collecting tissues from fish at Willow Beach NFH and any 

other available archived tissues (approximately 120 from Willow Beach NFH, plus 40-50 

reference samples), performing microsatellite DNA analysis using existing loci, and 

conducting statistical analysis on the data to determine the relatedness of this group of 

HBC to the LCR population. 

3. Genetics Management Plan 

Develop and implement a genetics management plan for humpback chub in Grand 

Canyon. 

Propagation and genetics management is one of the seven elements of the Upper 

Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Guidance for controlled propagation of 

federally listed species has been promulgated by the Service. Genetic considerations for 

recovery of HBC are provided in the Humpback Chub Recovery Goals. A genetics 

management plan is a necessary precursor to stocking from captive breeding stocks. 

Such a plan has been developed for populations of HBC and the other three big river 

endangered fish for use in the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program. A 

draft genetics management plan for HBC has recently been developed. The genetics 

management plan for HBC needs to be finalized to guide planning removal of HBC for 

translocation of individuals to other tributaries in Grand Canyon, for development of a 

refugium population, and for captive rearing and captive propagation of individuals as a 

source for restocking. 

4. Feasibility Assessment of Augmentation – COMPLETED in 2004 

Determine feasibility of developing a program to augment the population of 

humpback chub (Gila cypha) in Grand Canyon. 

There has been concern among biologists and managers regarding the continued 

downward trend in HBC populations within Grand Canyon. This project will provide a 
3

comprehensive overview of the literature and background associated with three potential 

methods of augmenting HBC populations: (1) captive propagation of wild caught 

individuals removed from the LCR to a hatchery facility to produce progeny for 

restocking (2) removing wild caught young-of-year HBC from the LCR to a grow-out 

facility, rearing them to a large size in captivity and then restocking them and (3) 

translocation of wild caught HBC upstream to unoccupied habitat in the LCR and from 

the LCR to other tributaries. 

5. Humpback Chub Hatchery Evaluation – COMPLETED in 2005 

Humpback Chub Hatchery Evaluation and Evaluation of Prospective Refuge 

Facilities. 

The purpose of this project is to evaluate hatcheries, aquariums, and established refuge 

facilities within the United States as potential refuge locations for humpback chub (Gila 

cypha) from Grand Canyon. This is not to be considered an evaluation of potential 

broodstock facilities, and any recommendation contained within this report for use of a 

given facility as a refuge for humpback chub should not be considered as an endorsement 

for developing a broodstock program, or for reintroduction of incidental progeny into the 

wild. This project was completed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 2005. 

6. Dam Ops - ONGOING 

Use dam operations, or mitigate the effects of dam operations, to benefit humpback 

chub. 

As identified in the 1996 Glen Canyon Dam FEIS and the 1995 FWS Biological Opinion, 

the operation of Glen Canyon Dam directly and indirectly affects the endangered HBC. 

There are linkages between such variables as temperature, flow, food base, native/nonnative interactions, and water quality. Since1996, the GCDAMP has conducted 

numerous ecosystem experiments designed to test specific physical and biological 

hypotheses (1996 Beach/Habitat Building Flow, 1997 and 1999 Habitat Maintenance 

Flows, 2000 Low Steady Summer Flow, Spring LCR Ponding Flow and Habitat 

Maintenance Flow, 2003-2005 non-native suppression flows, the 2004 Experimental 

High Flow, and 2005-2006 Fall Steady Flows). These experiments not only investigated 

the ecosystem reaction to flow perturbations, but also attempted to determine what 

habitat conditions are necessary to sustain a recovered population of HBC. The 1994 

Biological Opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam contains an element of the 

reasonable and prudent alternative that addresses dam releases. 

7. TCD 

Complete feasibility study of selective withdrawal on Glen Canyon Dam and, if 

feasible, finish compliance, construct, and test the device. 

Cold-water releases from Glen Canyon Dam have not been optimal for the existing trout 

fishery and below those temperatures needed to allow the HBC to thrive in the mainstem 
4

of the Colorado River. Cold-water releases make it easy for trout to prey on young, 

native, warm-water fish. Thermal shock from cold mainstem temperatures has been 

recognized as a likely cause of mortality for young endangered fish leaving seasonally 

warmed tributaries and growth of HBC is markedly decreased in cold mainstream waters. 

Increasing the temperature of dam releases could be an effective tool to reduce thermal 

shock and improve growth, survival, and recruitment of HBC that descend to the 

mainstem. 

Warming the Colorado River could have unintended negative consequences by 

improving conditions for warmwater non-native fish, increasing diseases and parasites, 

and affecting the cold-adapted foodbase of algae and aquatic invertebrates. The present 

persistent drought has resulted in the decline of Lake Powell elevation to a level resulting 

in the warmest documented dam release temperatures since Lake Powell filled in late 

1970s. If the reservoir continues to remain low, warmer water will continue to be released 

with or without a selective withdrawal structure. Recent increases in HBC may be due in 

part to this warming. A selective withdraw structure could provide the AMP with the 

ability to control this important physical parameter. 

8. Sediment Augmentation – TO BE COMPLETED in 2006 

Consider sediment augmentation to benefit native fish (e.g. sediment pipeline from 

San Juan River), both long-term feasibility and short term experiment. 

This project has two components: (1) evaluate the effects of increased turbidity or an 

extension of the period of turbidity on interactions between native and non-native fish, 

particularly near the confluence of the Colorado River and LCR (2) evaluate the potential 

for delivering sufficient amounts of fine sediment to reverse the present decline in Marble 

Canyon. An experimental test of increased turbidity is proposed to determine the 

ecological impacts of such augmentation, with particular regard to effects on sightfeeding predators of HBC and effects on fish food resources. Increased turbidity will be 

facilitated either through use of load-following fluctuations to increase the duration of 

turbidity, or through additions of fine sediments in the reach below the Paria River. The 

latter would require a significant compliance effort. A feasibility analysis will be 

performed to investigate the potential for large-scale sediment augmentation. 

9. Improve Rearing Habitats 

Improve rearing habitat for early life stage HBC in the LCR to improve growth and 

survival, particularly of those individuals who would disperse to the mainstream. 

Two methods have been suggested that could provide for creation of tributary habitats 

that more closely resemble those experienced by young native fish prior to emplacement 

of Glen Canyon Dam. Both methods should be subjected to feasibility assessments prior 

to implementation. The first is to create ponded habitats in terraces above the LCR by 

excavation and lining. LCR water would be pumped to the ponds to keep them 

inundanted. Young HBC would be seined from the LCR, transported to the ponds, and 

fed either naturally occurring foods or commercial fish food. A second method that 
5

could improve survival of young HBC in the LCR would be to create ponded habitat in 

the lower reach similar to that in predam days by emplacing an inflatable dam in the 

stream. This habitat could be created by releasing high steady flows from Glen Canyon 

Dam for the same period, probably late April to early July, but such releases would 

conflict with water delivery to the Lower Colorado River Basin and with the production 

of load-following hydroelectric power during this period. Inflatable rubber dams are 

being used for several purposes on streams of varying size to create ponded habitats. 

They have been found to be easy to operate and very resistant to wear and breakage. 

Such a dam on the LCR could be inflated with the onset of larval native fish drift and 

deflated when the fish had reached desirable size, but before the onset of summer 

monsoonal floods. 

10. Tributary Nonnative Removal - ONGOING 

Evaluate and, if feasible, remove and suppress nonnative fish in selected tributaries 

of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park and tribal lands. 

This project is to explore the feasibility of removing non-native fishes from tributaries of 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon that may include the LCR, Bright Angel Creek, 

Tapeats Creek, Havasu Creek, Shinumo Creek and Kanab Creek. Reduction of nonnatives is a necessary precursor for translocation of HBC and for supporting other native 

fishes in these streams. Non-natives that will be targeted include salmonids, carp, channel 

catfish, and yellow and black bullhead, but may include other non-natives as well. The 

level of control necessary to reduce non-natives, including most efficient removal 

methods, including reduction of by-catch and how long suppression lasts will be 

investigated. Removal methods will include trammel nets, fyke nets, hoop nets, angling 

and weirs at the mouth of tributaries. Feasibility of electroshocking using canoes, rafts 

and backpack units will also be explored as it relates to species-specific capture 

frequencies and minimization of incidental bycatch. Sample size will be related to initial 

capture densities and be modified based on success or failure of a particular method. 

11. Mainstem Nonnative Removal - ONGOING 

Mechanical removal of non-native fishes from the Colorado River near the 

confluence of the Little Colorado River. 

A hypothesized factor in the decline in HBC recruitment in recent years is negative 

interactions (predation and competition) with non-native fish. Interaction with nonnative fish is implicated in the decline and extinction of native fishes throughout the 

Colorado River Basin. Increased recruitment of rainbow (RBT) and brown trout (BNT) 

occurred during operation of Glen Canyon Dam under Modified Low Fluctuating Flows, 

the preferred alternative of the Glen Canyon Dam EIS, and populations in the Colorado 

River increased dramatically. This project is the continuation of a multi-objective study 

to evaluate the potential effect of RBT and BNT predation on HBC recruitment and the 

efficacy of mechanical removal of RBT and BNT from the LCR Inflow reach. Nonnative fishes are being removed from a 17-mile stretch of river using boat-mounted 

electrofishing units. Reduction efforts are scheduled to continue for up to four years and 
6

potentially be repeated as necessary if successful. Results from 3 years indicate that 

removal is highly effective at removing nonnative fishes, especially RBT, and increases 

in HBC may be due in part to this removal. 

12. Warm Water Nonnative Removal 

Removal of Warm Water Nonnative Fishes from Grand Canyon. 

Native fishes of the Colorado River Ecosystem appear to have been negatively impacted 

by flows, cold water nonnative fishes, and perhaps other factors in the Colorado River 

main stem in the Grand Canyon. Recent natural warming of the CRE as a result of 

drought conditions appears to have allowed for expansion of the distribution of 

humpback chub and other native fishes, but the presence of warm water nonnative 

species, including fishes, crayfish, and parasites, is of concern to native fish managers. If 

natural warming should continue, or if a Selective Withdrawal Device is added to the 

Glen Canyon Dam, or both, then warm water nonnative species threats to natives will 

need to be aggressively addressed if they are to be controlled at levels that allow for the 

persistence, conservation, and recovery of native fishes. The GCMRC has drafted a 

warm water nonnative species management plan, with assistance from AMP and other 

cooperators and advisors, for review by the TWG. This project will include aquatic 

habitat management elements that need to be addressed, including risk analysis, water 

quality monitoring, fisheries monitoring, and nonnative control. A preliminary work plan 

and budget for implementing the warm water nonnative species management plan will be 

available for implementation in 2006. 

13. Effects of Science and Recreation – PARTIALLY COMPLETED 

Understand the effect and identify the threats of scientific work and recreational 

activities on humpback chub populations in the Grand Canyon area (review Upper 

Basin Recovery Program, etc.). 

This project will assess the impacts of repetitive habitat disturbance, recapture, and 

handling on Grand Canyon HBC populations and develop modified protocols and 

management policies to maximize recreation opportunity and scientific information 

collection while minimizing the impacts of these activities on HBC individuals and 

populations. HBC in Grand Canyon, particularly the Little Colorado River population, 

have endured significant environmental manipulation and individual physical handling 

for the last 20 years. PIT tagging efforts alone have resulted in a majority of adult HBC 

being recognized (handled) individually from multiple recaptures (repeatedly) over time. 

Other research efforts may also affect HBC indirectly as an unintended consequence. 

Likewise, the seasonal disturbance associated with recreational activities (boating, 

swimming, fishing, etc.) in the CRE and especially in the lower portions of the LCR may 

have similar effects. Repetitive disturbance, recapture, and handling are continual 

sources of stress, health risk, and potential injury for individuals and the population as a 

whole. Some research has already completed examining the effects of PIT tagging and 

hoop net use. Additional efforts are needed to examine the effect of other gear types, as 

well as the effects of disturbance from recreational and science activities. A study 
7

examining the effects of hoop netting and PIT tagging, using bonytail (Gila elegans) as a 

surrogate, has been completed. 

14. Diseases and Parasites - ONGOING 

Monitor and investigate control of fish diseases and parasites, Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon region. 

At least four exotic parasites are known to infect fishes of the LCR. Two of these 

parasites, Asian fish tapeworm Bothriocephalus acheilognathi (Cestoda) and anchor 

worm Lernaea cyprinacea (Copepoda) infect HBC at a higher rate than any other species 

in the system. Both B. acheilognathi and L. cyprinacea have been reported as pathogenic 

and potentially fatal (directly or indirectly) to fish of various age classes. 

Bothriocephalus acheilognathi has caused high mortality in native fishes that it has 

infected outside of its native range. These parasites cannot complete their life cycles in 

the mainstem Colorado River under present, cold water conditions. However, low Lake 

Powell reservoir levels are resulting in warmer mainstem temperatures that could result in 

hospitable conditions for these parasites. The project will include two phases: (1) 

development and implementation of a monitoring plan for fish diseases and parasites in 

the Colorado River and its tributaries, with emphasis on those infecting HBC and (2) 

investigation of mechanisms for control and suppression of important diseases and 

parasites. 

15. Translocations to Other Tributaries 

The translocation of native fishes to tributaries of the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon National Park, and tribal lands. 

The goal of this project is to expand the demographic range of HBC and reduce the risk 

of catastrophic events in the LCR by using other tributaries as growout areas for small 

HBC. The objective is to transplant young-of-year LCR HBC that likely would be 

transported to the Colorado River and otherwise not survive to appropriate tributaries 

within Grand Canyon National Park and adjoining tribal lands to improve their survival. 

Young HBC translocated to tributaries with suitable juvenile habitat and reduced predator 

numbers that grow to a size large enough to survive in the mainstream have an 

opportunity to join existing mainstream aggregations. There they may serve to augment 

founder populations if mainstream conditions improve sufficiently to allow reproduction 

and recruitment, e.g. if water temperatures increase from use of a temperature control 

device. Non-native suppression likely is a necessary prerequisite for translocation of 

HBC into tributaries having suitable physical habitat for this purpose, thus this project 

will be implemented in conjunction with Project 10, Removal of Nonnative Fishes from 

Tributaries in Grand Canyon 

16. Translocations above Chute Falls - ONGOING 

Translocation of Humpback Chub from the confluence of the Little and Colorado 

Rivers to the Little Colorado River Above Chute Falls. 
8

Many young HBC that prematurely migrate into the anthropogenically disturbed 

Colorado River from the LCR are presumed to perish due to cold water temperatures, diel 

discharge fluctuations, and multitudes of nonindigenous piscine predators. Most HBC 

that recruit to adulthood are believed to be individuals that remain in the warmer LCR for 

longer periods of time to grow and become less susceptible to the inhospitable conditions 

in the mainstem. Endemic speckled dace and a few, primarily small-bodied, 

nonindigenous fishes have consistently been the only species detected above Chute Falls 

during ichthyofauna surveys over the last two decades. Translocation of juvenile HBC 

from near the confluence upstream above Chute Falls might increase the numbers of 

younger HBC that recruit to adulthood by allowing them an opportunity to exploit the 

greater food abundance, warmer water temperatures, and reduced competition and 

predation by fewer large-bodied fishes that are exist in this area. If this experiment is 

successful, it will supply a viable action to expand suitable HBC rearing habitats within 

the LCR and may bide additional time until other successful recovery actions can be 

implemented in the CR or one of its tributaries. Translocation began as a conservation 

measure in the December 6, 2002 Biological Opinion. Small humpback chub (Gila 

cypha, HBC , 50-100 mm TL) from the lower Little Colorado River have been moved to 

above Chute Falls (>14 rkm) in an attempt to improve survival of young of year 

humpback chub in 2003, 2004, and 2005. To date, approximately 1,200 HBC have been 

moved. Monitoring has indicated this project is a success. Translocated HBC have 

persisted above Chute Falls, shown impressive growth rates, and appear to have spawned 

in 2005. No HBC will translocated in 2006; instead, a population estimate and other 

research will be conducted to determine if additional translocations are recommended. 

17. Monitoring above Chute Falls - ONGOING 

Monitoring Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado River Above Chute Falls. 

In July of 2003 and 2004, small HBC (HBC, 50-100 mm TL) were captured near the 

Little Colorado River confluence and translocated to the river corridor above Chute Falls, 

near river kilometer 16.2. As a result of these translocations, a total of approximately 

1,200 HBC have been moved above Chute Falls. It was hoped that these translocations 

would increase HBC recruitment to adulthood by allowing them an opportunity to exploit 

the abundant food resources, warm water temperatures, and reduced competition and 

predation by fewer large-bodied fishes associated with this area. During subsequent 

monitoring of these translocated HBC, many of the translocated individuals were found 

to have persisted and grown to adult size. Given this, the need to conduct a stock 

assessment of the Chute Falls segment of the population became apparent. A stock 

assessment of the HBC above Chute Falls will result in valuable baseline data of this 

population for long term monitoring purposes. In addition, the resulting population 

estimates can be incorporated into ongoing stock assessments occurring below Chute 

Falls to provide a overall stock assessment of the entire Grand Canyon population as 

required by the recovery goals. 

18. Little Colorado River Monitoring – ONGOING 
9

Maintain a core monitoring effort for the Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado 

River. 

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) has identified that a 

rigorous stock assessment program for the Little Colorado River (LCR) population of 

humpback chub (HBC) is a priority component, as well as long-term fish monitoring in 

Grand Canyon. Four monitoring trips will be conducted into the Little Colorado River 

each year as a continuation of the Little Colorado River HBC stock assessment program 

initiated in the fall of 2000. These trips will occur in March, April, September, and 

October. This effort will provide spring and fall abundance estimates of HBC in the 

Little Colorado River. In concert with the fall 2001-3 LCR HBC abundance estimates, 

the spring and fall 2004 effort will also provide estimates of: (1) over-winter 

survival/retention for juvenile HBC in the LCR, (2) year 2004 HBC spawning abundance, 

(3) post-monsoon survival/retention of juvenile fish in the LCR, and (4) an index of 

recruitment strength for the year 2001-2003 cohorts. In addition, GCMRC has identified 

that a continuation of standardized mini-hoopnet efforts in the mainstem (i.e. Hopi-Salt 

site) will be useful for gauging the survival of young-of-the-year and juvenile HBC. This 

effort provides information about mainstem over-winter survivorship curves, and is also 

used to address additional questions about survivorship during studies involving sitespecific predator removal and steady flow experiments. 

19. LCR Water Quality 

Monitoring Hydrology and Water Quality in the Little Colorado River. 

While anthropogenic changes in the mainstem Colorado River are often cited as 

contributing to the decline of HBC, little is known about historical, or even recent, 

changes in physical and chemical characteristics of the Little Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon, and how these may have affected the humpback chub. The LCR stream gage 

was reestablished in 2003, using newer and more effective technologies for measuring 

river stage (acoustics). Operation of the gage record by the Integrated Downstream 

Quality of Water Program (DIQWP) is aimed at establishing a continuous stage and 

discharge record to support ongoing fisheries monitoring and research in the lower 13 km 

of the Little Colorado River. The gage will also support future monitoring efforts for 

targeted QW parameters associated with flows in the LCR related to Blue Spring and 

other sources upstream. Also needed is a monitoring program for basic water quality 

parameters, contaminants, and review of existing historical hydrological and water 

quality data. This project will allow for continued operation of the gage and development 

of a monitoring program for other water quality data in the Lower LCR. 

20. Downstream Fish Monitoring – ONGOING 

Monitoring the Status and Trends of the Downstream Fish Community in Grand 

Canyon. 

The downstream fish community is an assemblage of native and non-native fish that 

occur in the Colorado River ecosystem. This assemblage is exclusive of the trout fishery 
10

that is managed in Glen Canyon by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The 

constituents include four native fish and introduced competitors/predators like rainbow 

trout, brown trout, channel catfish, carp, and other non-native forms. The status and 

trends of the fishery are regulated by biotic and abiotic mechanisms that may in turn be 

affected by the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Monitoring basic population statistics 

including recruitment, abundance, and distribution of native and non-native fishes 

provide the fundamental information necessary to assess the status of these resources and 

the attainment of program goals and objectives. 

Since 2000, GCMRC and cooperators have been developing a long-term monitoring 

program for fishes in the CRE. To date, significant progress has been made toward this 

end such that it is now appropriate for GCMRC to formalize a long-term monitoring 

program for key non-native fishes (i.e. rainbow trout, brown trout, and common carp). 

For the immediate future, the project will maintain downstream monitoring in the Little 

Colorado River and in the mainstem for salmonids, and continue development and 

implementation of the long-term monitoring program as described in the core monitoring 

plan. 

21. Diamond Down Monitoring - ONGOING 

Develop a fish monitoring program for the Colorado River downstream of Diamond 

Creek to detect changes in habitat and fish communities and complement the 

monitoring program upstream of Diamond Creek. 

Lake Mead’s full pool elevation is at 1229 feet. At this elevation, the inflow area of 

Colorado River is influenced by the reservoir as far upstream as Separation Rapids (River 

Mile [RM] 239.5 [distance below Lee’s Ferry]). This location is about 37 miles upstream 

of Grand Wash Cliffs (RM 276.5), the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park 

and the eastern boundary of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The 1992 Grand 

Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) uses Grand Wash Cliffs as the western boundary of the 

Adaptive Management Program. Under the Act, an Adaptive Management Program 

(AMP) was set up to provide recommendations to the Bureau of Reclamation on Glen 

Canyon Dam operations to “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to and improve” 

downstream National Park Service resources without interfering with the “Law of the 

River.” The Grand Canyon National Park western boundary at Grand Wash Cliffs 

defines the extent of responsibility for the AMP under the GCPA. Currently there is no 

monitoring of fishes or fish habitat below the confluence of Diamond Creek with the 

mainstem Colorado River (RM 226). The area between Separation Rapid and Grand 

Wash Cliffs overlaps with the area for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP), so this reach is of interest to both programs. This project 

would develop a monitoring program for the river downstream of Diamond Creek to 

detect changes in habitat and fish communities resulting from dam operations or other 

causes. Monitoring of non-native and native fish in this reach may become increasingly 

important to both the GCDAMP and MSCP, particularly if there is upstream movement 

of non-native fish out of Lake Mead into Grand Canyon. 

22. Concurrent Estimates 
11

Conduct concurrent estimates of HBC in LCR and mainstem to develop/confirm 

population estimates. Evaluate the age group survivability for all age classes, 

including recruitment. 

Currently population estimates for HBC are conducted in the LCR in the fall of each year 

to estimate abundance of smaller chub and to get a ‘first’ signal about the survival and 

potential recruitment of a given year class. Sampling is also conducted in the spring 

primarily aimed at marking as large a number of chub as feasible to provide information 

through capture and subsequent recapture for stock assessment models. Depending on the 

quality of data with respect to meeting assumptions of mark-recapture population 

estimation models, these spring data may also be used to generate a point estimate of the 

population size. There has and continues to be uncertainty regarding how well point 

estimates derived solely from LCR sampling represent the status and trends of the ‘LCR 

population’, which contains individuals that are known move back and forth between the 

LCR and mainstream, particularly during the spawning period. There is also concern 

about adopting consistent population estimation procedures for populations of HBC in 

the Upper and Lower Basin to satisfy criteria identified in the Recovery Goals. 

The project would produce estimates of abundance for HBC in the LCR and LCR 

confluence area of the mainstem in spring. These estimates could be used to compare 

with estimates obtained using only LCR sampling and using various stock synthesis 

models. Simulation modeling of population estimates by Dr. Dave Otis at Iowa State 

University is ongoing, and when completed, will help identify the need to conduct 

concurrent estimates. 

23. LCR Watershed Management Plan 

Develop a watershed management plan for the Little Colorado River. 

This project focuses on the improvement and protection of the LCR watershed to ensure 

appropriate habitat conditions downstream on the LCR in the area occupied by the HBC. 

Potential issues to be addressed include surface and groundwater quantity and quality, 

pesticides and other hazardous substances, and non-native fish stocking. Several of these 

issues are addressed in separate projects listed below which should become components 

the broad LCR watershed management plan. 

The LCR watershed is a large area with many political jurisdictions and authorities. For 

this effort to be successful, these parties must work cooperatively together as they bring 

their various ideas and responsibilities. The Little Colorado River Watershed 

Coordination Committee (LCRWCC) group has been organized to facilitate discussions 

among these various interests. Reclamation, AGFD, and FWS have been involved in 

recent discussions of the group. This project will review the status of the LCRWCC and 

its development of a watershed management plan, and then assist in the development and 

implementation of such a plan. This project will assist in meeting the Recovery Goal of 

assuring continued protection of conditions needed for HBC recovery. A cooperatively 

developed watershed-based management plan will provide a strategy for protecting the 
12

endangered HBC and other federally listed species while at the same time continuing 

with necessary water and resource development, prioritize necessary actions to achieve 

these goals, identify funding sources, construct management objectives and targets for 

measuring success, develop the framework for cooperative agreements, and identify a 

timeline for completion of tasks and measurement of successes. 

24. LCR Emergency Hasmat Plan 

Develop an emergency response/contingency plan for protection of downstream 

species from spills into the Little Colorado River at Cameron or other potential 

sites. 

The recently adopted Recovery Goals amend the Humpback chub Recovery Plan and 

establish “Site-Specific Management Actions to Achieve Recovery.” For Grand Canyon, 

it states the need to: Review and modify, if necessary, state and federal hazardous spills 

emergency response plans to insure adequate protection from spills, including prevention 

and quick response to spills; develop and implement a hazardous spills protocol for the 

Cameron Bridge. This project therefore should undertake to develop a well-designed 

contingency plan providing details about each step involved in preparing for, and 

responding to, spills of materials into the Little Colorado River channel at Cameron 

Bridge on Highway 89 or other potential sites for the express purpose of protecting fish 

species in the Little Colorado River. 

25. LCR Pollution Control Plan 

Develop a pollution control plan for Little Colorado River Basin. 

The plan would provide a comprehensive evaluation of threats to the HBC and its critical 

habitat that may arise from pollution generating activities in the LCR basin and suggest 

potential actions to ameliorate these threats. This would include: 1) a comprehensive 

review of existing plans and projects of federal, state, tribal, local and private entities as 

well as adopted and planned water quality standards and objectives for the watershed 

related specifically to aquatic life; 2) identification of various pollution scenarios related 

to both point and non-point sources of pollutants; and 3) a list of appropriate response 

actions that could be employed to deal with the identified pollution scenarios. The 

project should be implemented in such a manner as to complement and be consistent with 

the broader LCR Watershed Management Plan. It should provide appropriate background 

information on watershed activities representing potential pollution threats with particular 

emphasis on HBC, identify all relevant institutional responsibilities and contact 

information, and available response capabilities including equipment. The project should 

also identify existing best management practices, treatment and control practices, likely 

sources of unintended pollution scenarios, and recommendations regarding response 

scenarios and responsibilities. 

26. Invasive Species Management Plan 

Develop an invasive species management plan for the Colorado River ecosystem. 
13

The continued introduction of aquatic invasive species in the Colorado River poses a 

serious threat to aquatic resources and an already imperiled fauna. These non-native 

plants and animals are transported into and throughout the Colorado River via 

recreational boating, fisherman, researchers, through the release of unwanted aquarium 

contents, or a variety of other transport vectors related to human activities. Because they 

have few natural controls in their new environments, these species have great potential 

for rapid colonization and are already having significant impacts on the biodiversity and 

integrity of aquatic habitats in the Lower Colorado River, e.g. Giant salvinia. Many of the 

tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon originate in Grand Canyon National 

Park, and therefore are under less threat to invasive species introductions. Other 

tributaries, including the Little Colorado River, traverse large distances before reaching 

the mainstream and pass through numerous jurisdictions where there is limited 

coordination in addressing invasive species. 

This project would develop a response plan to detect and quickly act should additional 

nonnative species become established in the CRE as well as develop additional measures 

as part of the LCR Watershed Management Plan to prevent further introductions. The 

focus should be to prevent further introductions, yet with potential temperature 

modification, a coordinated response that acts quickly to contain the nonnative 

introduction and prevent further spread is necessary. It should also include an evaluation 

of effective ways to detect new species within CRE, designate an interagency response 

team to respond to new introductions and develop a response plan that would go into 

effect if new introductions were detected, including necessary NEPA compliance 

 

27. Nonnative Stocking Procedures 

Develop non-native stocking procedures for the Lower Colorado River and 

tributaries from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead. 

Control of the release and escapement of nonnative fishes into the Colorado River in 

Grand Canyon and its tributaries is a necessary management action to limit the impact of 

currently present nonnative species, stop the introduction of new fish species into 

occupied habitats and to thwart periodic escapement of highly predaceous or competitive 

nonnatives from connected waters throughout the basin. Procedures for the stocking of 

nonnatives have been developed and associated implementing agreements have been 

signed among FWS and the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to review and 

regulate all stockings within the Upper Colorado River Basin in order to reduce the 

introduction and expansion of nonnative fishes. Similar procedures need to be developed 

and implemented to protect the Grand Canyon population of HBC, including all portions 

of the Lower Colorado River Basin between Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam, 

including the two mainstem reservoirs. 

28. AMP Outreach - COMPLETED 

Develop an Adaptive Management Work Group Outreach Program. 
14

The goal of this project is to develop a single, consistent, and coordinated outreach 

program. There is a clear need for the AMWG to develop a process by which it can 

agree on the intent and content of all press releases and other outreach mechanisms. 

AMWG has been established to develop consensus recommendations to the Secretary of 

the Interior on the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Direction for AMWG can be found 

in the Grand Canyon EIS and the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Without an active 

outreach plan and program AMWG has suffered from “Agency Writers Cramp”, with 

very little information getting to the public and what does reach the public is, normally, 

only from a single agency’s perspective and not AMWG. Because we do not have a 

coordinated outreach program, we were unable to relay a consistent message to the 

public. Along with the development of a comprehensive plan for humpback chub, a 

public outreach plan is necessary to inform the public of our goals and objectives, as well 

as to inform them of ongoing activities that may impact them. 

HBCCP Project Ranking Exercise 

In an effort to help meet the AMWG directive to prioritize the HBCCP projects, the 

HBCCP Ad Hoc conducted a ranking exercise on the projects. Five criteria were used to 

rank each of the projects. Two additional criteria were used to vote on each of the 

projects as to their appropriateness in the LTEP process, and for consideration as an 

“emergency action.” The criteria were defined as follows: 

Criteria Definition

Benefit Benefit to the species, 5 is greatest benefit 

Cost Economic cost, 5 is least expensive 

Confidence How likely the project will be effective, 5 is highest confidence 

Learning How likely a project is to answer science questions, 5 is high likelihood 

Timeframe How quickly will the species benefit, 5 is shortest timeframe 

LTEP LTEP suitability; 1=yes, 0=no; note that by definition, monitoring and planning projects are "0" 

Need How urgently a project is needed (i.e. chronic vs. acute management need), 0=chronic, 1=acute 

Five projects were not included in the ranking because they were considered completed 

(Genetics Study, Willow Beach Genetics, Feasibility Assessment of Augmentation, 

Sediment Augmentation Feasibility, and AMP Outreach). The 5 ranking criteria were 

totaled across projects and expressed as a percent of a perfect score of all 5’s. No 

weighting was given to any particular criteria; all were treated equally. Average and 

variance for each ranking were also calculated. The two voting criteria, “LTEP” and 

“Need,” were totaled across projects and were considered “passed” if they received more 

than 50 percent of the vote. Ten ad hoc members contributed to the project ranking, 8 

contributed to the “LTEP” vote, and 7 contributed to the “Need” vote. Various ad hoc 

members interpreted the exercise instructions differently, and, as a result, some members 

did not provide rankings for all criteria and all projects. In cases were an entire criterion 

was ignored and scored incorrectly, the criteria was dropped from analysis for that 

member. In cases were a certain project was not ranked in a particular criteria, but other 

projects were, a “1” was assigned to preserve the other rankings. The results were as 

follows: 
15

Project Ranking 

Project Name Score Average Variance

Genetics management plan 86.5 4.2 1.2

Little Colorado River Monitoring 86.0 4.2 0.9

Downstream Fish Monitoring 80.9 3.9 0.9

Translocations above Chute Falls 80.9 3.9 1.1

Refugium and captive breeding 

plan 80.5 3.9 1.6

Monitoring above Chute Falls 80.0 3.9 1.0

Translocation plan 76.7 3.7 1.4

Warm water nonnative removal 75.3 3.7 1.1

LCR Water Quality 74.4 3.6 1.2

Mainstem nonnative removal 72.6 3.5 1.7

Diseases and parasites 72.6 3.6 1.2

Translocations to other tributaries 72.6 3.5 1.0

TCD 70.7 3.4 2.4

Dam ops 70.2 3.4 1.5

Effects of science and recreation 70.2 3.4 1.4

Tributary nonnative removal 68.4 3.3 1.4

Invasive species management 

plan 68.4 3.3 1.5

Diamond down monitoring 67.0 3.3 1.3

Improve rearing habitats 65.1 3.2 1.4

LCR emergency hasmat plan 64.7 3.1 1.3

Nonnative stocking procedures 64.2 3.1 1.4

LCR Pollution control plan 60.5 2.9 1.1

LCR Watershed management 

plan 60.0 2.9 1.5

Concurrent estimates 52.1 2.6 2.3

 

LTEP Projects (by vote) 

Dam ops 

TCD 

Tributary nonnative removal 

Mainstem nonnative removal 

Diseases and parasites 

Warm water nonnative removal 

 

Need (emergency actions, by vote) 

Genetics management plan 

TCD 

Mainstem nonnative removal 

Little Colorado River Monitoring 

Warm water nonnative removal 

Note that no criteria were weighted; some Ad Hoc members suggested that “Benefit” or 

“Need” should be weighted to more strongly contribute to the ranking. Several Ad Hoc 

members pointed out that some results seemed spurious. For example, most members 

agreed that the “LCR Hasmat Plan” should have ranked higher and been considered an 

“emergency action.” Others felt that “Diamond Down Monitoring” and “Concurrent 

Estimates” should have ranked higher, and that we should have ranked “Sediment 
16

Augmentation,” because a number of other projects are likewise only in the planning or 

feasibility stages and yet were still ranked (“Sediment Augmentation” was not ranked 

because it was considered a completed feasibility project). All members agreed that this 

effort should be treated as a “work in progress.” 
17

Strategic planning & administrative support:

HBC Comprehensive Plan, LCR Management Plan

(Projects 15, 17)

Adaptive, science-based in situ mainstream 

and tributary habitat and health mgt

Ex situ propagation

(Projects 3, 4, 5)

Genetics Management and 

emergency response

(Projects 1, 2, 3, 16)

Fig. 1: Linked elements of conservation planning for HBC in Grand Canyon.

Stocking / reintroductio

in situ HBC or (only 

necessary) ex situ HB

CHRONIC MGT. ISSUES ACUTE MG

In situ propagation, 

reintroduction, 

translocation 

(9, 24, 26)

Alleviate impacts, improve conditions:

* Daily and extreme mainstream and tributary

flow management

* WQ mgt (temperature, turbidity, nutrients, 

pollutants)

* Management of anthropogenic habitat changes* Non-native fish predator &competitor impacts * Non-native parasite management * Reduce handling and recreation impacts* Improve foodbase, if necessary

(Projects 6-12, 15-20, 27)

Monitoring

(Projects 12, 13, 14, 

22, 23, 25, 28) 
18

Figure 2. Gant chart of HBCCP project implementation. 

Number Project Name Type Category 2006 2007 2008 2009 

1 Genetic study E R 2 Willow Beach genetics E R 3 Genetics management plan E R 4 Feasibility assessment of augmentation E P 5 Humpback Chub hatchery evaluation E P 6 Dam ops I P 7 TCD I R 8 Sediment augmentation I R 9 Improve rearing habitats I P 

10 Tributary nonnative removal I R 11 Mainstem nonnative removal I R 12 Warm water nonnative removal I R 13 Effects of science and recreation I Ma/P 14 Diseases and parasites I R 15 Translocations to other tributaries I Ma 16 Translocations above Chute Falls I Mo 17 Monitoring above Chute Falls M R/Mo 18 Little Colorado River Monitoring M Mo 19 LCR Water Quality M Mo 
19

Number Project Name Type Category 2006 2007 2008 2009 

20 Downstream Fish Monitoring M Mo 21 Diamond down monitoring M R 22 Concurrent estimates M Mo 23 LCR Watershed management plan P R 24 LCR emergency hasmat plan P P 25 LCR Pollution control plan P P 26 Invasive species management plan P P 27 Nonnative stocking procedures P P 28 AMP Outreach P R 

Type: E=Ex Situ, I=In Situ, M=Monitoring, P=Planning Category: R=Research, Ma=Management, Mo=Monitoring, P=Planning  Funded, near completion.  Partially funded, endpoint not well defined.  Unfunded, possibly outside of AMP.  Unfunded, may be within AMP, urgent need.  Completed.