Native Fish Habitat Restoration In Selected Tributaries of the Grand Canyon. 

Questions/Comments: 

Matt: In tapeats creek, is it possible to go in a different time of year when the flows are a little 

lower and you can actually maneuver around in there a little bit or is it a time of year thing that 

you need. 

Bill L: It’s possible. We weren’t in there during runoff. This was in February and we hadn’t had 

much precipitation so I think we’ve got a pretty good base flow in tapeats creek that it may get 

lower if you went during a drier period but I don’t think it’s going to get a whole lot lower. The 

idea of the feasibility project was to look at what may really give us the most bang for the buck. 

There are no natives in tapeats creek. 

Matt: In terms of repatriation, a place like tapeats would seem to me to be a much better 

candidate for that than a kanab creek or something like that because you have that flow. 

Bill L: That creates other problems with habitat for native fish as well. You don’t have as many 

good pools of holding areas. Our biggest concern was just the ability to get in there and try to 

remove those fish which was part of the feasibility study. 

Matt: Any thought of putting weirs in? 

Bill L: Weirs is a possibility to look at. You could put a weir in looking at fish moving in from the 

river. It doesn’t address the resident populations up higher in the system but it’s definitely a 

possibility. 

Bill P: There was a study done several years ago looking at the feasibility of establishing 

second population of HBC that looked at those tributaries. I think they rejected tapeats creek 

largely because it was too cold. It seems like it also rejected kanab creek because of habitat 

conditions. Did you consult that at all at part of this project? 

Bill L: It will be looked at when we get to the reporting part of it. We have two more trips next 

year and then this action plan will look at all those. 

Bill P: Because I think they already did a bit of a feasibility analysis. 

Bill L: Yeah, that was just a paper case. No field work involved in that at all. 

Bill P: That would be the place to start 

Bill L: Obviously we’ll look at those. 

Bill P: How about handling the native fish? What kind of pit tag protocols are you using? 

Bill L: We’ll use the same protocols as for Grand Canyon. 

Bill P: So you’ll be working with GCMRC to make sure you’re doing the same. 

Bill L: Yes. 
Randy S: All this work is being funded by the Park Service through appropriations. 

Bill L: Not through appropriations. It’s fee demonstration money for the Bright Angel Creek 

weir and then it’s CCI (Conservation initiative by the secretary) for the feasibility study. Two 

separate funding sources. 

Dennis: The Havasupai obviously have habitat that are interesting (?) – was it ever taken off 

the list? 

Bill L: It was initially and we had it in there and we decided to keep it as a contingency at some 

point if we could work with the Havasupais a little bit closer. The politics there were a little tough 

to start with the feasibility study. It may be at the end of this that the Park may want to work with 

the tribe and see what we can do. 

Dennis: It’s a stream that has very large waterfalls, native fish in the lower reach and there are 

no chances of making it upstream. 

Bill L: I would like to consider it personally. I think it would be a good choice. The politics might 

be tough. 

Amy: Do you know what kind of consultation took place for these three tributaries with the tribes 

regarding this activity? 

Bill L: For the feasibility study? I don’t recall if anything happened with the tribes. The Bright 

Angel Creek, yes. The BA Creek management action, NEPA process, all went through 

consultation with the tribes. They were notified before the public scoping letters went out and 

they will be part of the NEPA compliance on that. As a feasibility study, there is CADX for 

research on that the Park is doing but we’re not in a NEPA process with the tributary work 

because it’s feasibility at this point and we don’t know where it’s going to end up. If it goes to a 

management action, it will go through the full compliance process. 

Amy: The Park Service should still consider their role and responsibilities under Executive 

Orders and Secretarial Orders for consultation with tribes even if it is a feasibility study. That is 

something you need to put on their plate and look at for their consultation and government to 

government. It’s an action they’re taking and should consider their role in consultation. 

Bill L: Okay 

Bill P: Has there been any discussion about building barriers on some of these things? I think 

anywhere else where we try to repatriate fish into a stream, where there are exotic fish 

downstream, unless we can put a barrier in to keep the exotics from moving back up, generally 

think it’s a waste of time. We have been successful in putting barriers in. Has there been any 

discussion of that. I’m thinking maybe of Bright Angel. Shinimu has a barrier. 

Bill L: At Bright Angel, the only thing we’ve discussed at this point is possibly continuing to run 

the weir in the fall as part of the monitoring and keeping those fish from moving back in once 

they’ve been reduced. But as far as a permanent structure, I don’t think the Park has really 

gotten to that point yet to have something built and constructing a structure that would withstand 

floods and those kinds of things. It’s not out of the question but at this point, we would want to 

consider that. 
Bill P: In the long term it’s probably more cost effective than trying to man the weir. 

Bill : Oh Yeah 

Bill P: You’re going to have situations now where you can’t run the weir because the flows are 

too high. I think we all know what’s happening. The fish are moving upstream. 

Larry: This is more common to the group than specifically to you. We certainly appreciate your 

presentation here. It seems like really productive work. The question for the group is: Within 

the strategic plan development that GCMRC is about to do, one of my concerns is the USGS 

has not been engaged or been a strong advocate for restoration in this process. Most of our 

restoration efforts seem to come from the outside. It might be fruitful in the strategic plan 

development to consider GCPA requirements and directions for doing this enhancement or 

restoration. Granted not all the actions may be addressed by this group but having a strategic 

plan and some framework for bringing back native fish dominance in streams. These kind of 

topics might be 

Jeff: That would be an advocacy position and one that I would be uncomfortable insofar as it is 

related to research questions that the agencies require under statutory regulations perceived in 

that direction. 

Larry: I’m not saying advocating for those. I’m saying laying out some of the options there in 

relation to the GCPA. So if riparian restoration, if fisheries, population structure, and things that 

are included in those guidelines that the strategic plan shouldn’t ignore the options for restoring, 

not that this group necessarily would be involved but partnering with the NPS and outside 

organizations to get the work done. 

Norm: Larry, maybe it would be more appropriate those kinds of things be not in the GCMRC 

strategic plan but in the AMP Strategic Plan. 

Larry: I think they are already in the AMP SP. 

Norm: And they’re identified in the overall budget for this program so in a sense it’s listed in 

there. It’s not fully fleshed out and discussed on what’s going to happen and maybe there 

needs to be a place for those programs to be brought into the yearly cycle, maybe not in the 

GCMRC budget. 

Jeff: Yeah, I’d be real uncomfortable putting in there but we’ll certainly be responsive to the 

needs that are articulated by this group through their strategic plan, through the meetings we 

have with the TWG, and as long as it’s based on research and our traditional role in the USGS, 

we’d be supportive. 

Larry: So we’ve got these pretty sexy projects that are going on. Certainly the mechanical 

removal of trout is a big deal, exploring the options of reducing non-native fish in the tributaries, 

tamarisk work that we’re doing. Those are pretty attractive programs that the public should be 

pretty proud of this Govt. for doing and this process, at least if not doing directly but at least 

collaborating with those elements. There is good PR to be had out of these projects and 

perhaps in the outreach realm these are things that could be 
Norm: I think also Larry there needs to be some kind of formal endorsement by this group. I 

know it’s included in the budget but somehow some kind of sense of the TWG or the AMWG 

that they like these projects in some way might highlight them a little bit and get the Secretary’s 

attention. 

Randy S: I guess I would take a little bit different approach to that. This is where we have a 

fundamental difference in where this program needs to go and I really think we’re constituted 

more to look at what kind of dam operations can be implemented to improve the environment. 

When we go up to the tributaries, there is no impact on that. It may be covered under the 

GCPA but I think at that point it is more appropriately included Norm in your plan for the Park 

than it is for the Strategic Plan for this group and certainly doesn’t belong in the GCMRC Plan in 

my opinion. 

Dennis: The project that Bill is discussing is in the HBC Comprehensive Plan and as Randy 

well knows we went through a lot of deliberation there about what was in and what was out but 

this is clearly an element of one of the three approaches to augmentation which includes 

translocation of HBC into other tributaries to satisfy in situ refugia needs as opposed to taking 

them out of Grand Canyon National Park and putting them in a holding facility. Just wanted to 

identify that is already acknowledged by the program in a sense. The AMWG hasn’t agreed to 

that Plan and the intent is to move it forward for FWS. 

Matt: This is a general comment that made transition us into our next agenda item. On projects 

such as yours Bill, and these NPS projects like the weir and everything, I think we should 

always ask ourselves how information from these kind of outside of the AMP, how that data and 

information is being integrated back into the databases and information library at GCMRC and 

how we can make sure all that stuff keeps integrating back into the greater good for this 

program. 

Bill L: I agree and I think Jeff Cross would agree that anything that we do. 

Matt: It’s a problem that we’ve had in the recreation research with the Park doing projects and 

this thing, and funding projects. There is not a lot of interaction between those where it’s 

obvious that it needs to be. 

John R: As the strategic plan is developed, that information responsibility at the Center, what 

does it house? That’s a good question that you raised. 

Jeff: I think that has already been articulated in previous documentation. We’re suppose to be 

the storehouse for all the information that is collected under the AMP for GCD. 

John R – He just raised the question for things that are outside the program and Randy’s 

question of it being in or out. 

Jeff: Once they’re determined to be inside, it’s a matter of record that GMCRC’s task is to be 

the repository for that information. 

Matt: I would argue that it’s also the repository for information particularly on some of these 

larger projects, like the weir project at Bright Angel that is directly affecting populations in the 

mainstem and those interactions. I just want to make sure we don’t lose that information 

because it’s some other agency’s responsibility. That it’s in a central place where you can get 

that information. You don’t have to shop around in various agencies. 
Bill D: All the things we’re doing for the HBC need to be considered by GCMRC in total. It may 

be done by the Park Service, AMP, Upper Basin. There are all kinds of things going on and if 

you don’t have a central place for all this information to go, you’re going to lose track of how 

they lead you. I agree with you totally. 

Dennis: Where does it stop as we go up into the LCR at some point in time. We live in a world 

of computers and database searches and agencies who are responsible for maintaining their 

information. When Mike Liszewski comes forward and asks for additional dollars for the web, 

we turn him down but here we’re saying that GCMRC should be responsible for everything. We 

need to put more funding in that effort. 

Mark – I disagree with Larry. I really don’t see the slaughtering of tens of thousands of trout as 

being sexy and I really don’t like the fact that visitors to the park are losing their recreational 

opportunity. We lost the opportunity to fish for warm water fish with GCD. If we’re going to 

replace that, that’s one thing but if all we’re doing is taking away the opportunity to fish for trout, 

it’s by no means a sexy thing. If we’re going to go about replacing a pipe, and the HBC as a 

fishing opportunity that’s something I would be willing to support. We have West clear creek 

where we have brown trout at the headwaters, rainbow trout down a little further and we have 

roundtail chub below. Roundtail chub are certainly a sport fish in the state of Arizona. There is 

no reason HBC could not be as well.