Bright Angel Brown Trout Remo

and Humpback Chub Translocati

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon National Park 

Joe Tomelleri Illustrations 

Brian Healy, Emily Omana Smith, Clay Nelson, Rebecca Koll

Robert Schelly, Melissa Trammell, Marianne Crawford, and oth
Previou

•Funded by Reclamation and NPS •Volunteers 
Goals and Objectives 

 1996 ROD/1994 Bi-Op: “Establish a 2nd spawn

aggregation...downstream of Glen Canyon Da

 Valdez et al. (2000) plan: Recommended tributa

(Havasu, Shinumo), but recognized carrying caplow in tributaries. 

 Tributary and Mainstem Option: Bright Angel wo

only tributary that would allow access to and fromainstem, but not considered due to “...large populations of non-native fish predators.....” 

 HBC Translocations/NNF Control: Glen Canyo

Conservation Measures, USFWS Biological Op2008, 2011, 2016 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R 
Goals and Objectives 

 NPS Comprehensive Fisheries Management P

(2013): 

 Bright Angel Ck - Nonnative Trout Control Objec

 Reduce non-native trout by 80% or more. 

 Humpback Chub Translocations Objective: 

 Applies to Shinumo, Havasu, and Bright Angel cr Establish a spawning aggregation of humpback c

while maintaining genetic integrity. 

 For Bright Angel: after trout control objective is me

 Overall Objective: 

 Maintain stable or increasing populations of other 

species (native suckers and speckled dace). 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R 
Control Methods 

Bright Angel Creek: 5th-year of Adaptive 

Management Strategy: 

 Fall 2012- Spring 2017  Weir operation 

 October - February 

 Boat-electrofishing 

 Up to 5 miles of Colorado 

River 

 Backpack electrofishing 

 12-13 miles of stream 

 Beneficial Use-fish removed 
Bright Angel Creek Annua

Electrofishing Effort

 Electrofishing conducted over 

≈ 12 miles of cre

 Excluding Ribbon Falls Creek confluence 

 2012-2017 (2016-17 in progress)  Multiple monitoring metrics: Abundance, surviv

recruitment 
Electrofishing- Results: Brown Tro

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R 

0 

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 

10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 

Estimated Abundance 

Year 

Brown Trout - All Reaches 

80% reduction 

• 62% Overall reduction through the beginning o• Based on trend, objective could be met in 2016 

progress) 
5000 

25000 

Electrofishing- Results: Native Fish 

• Objective: Maintain stable/increasing population• Metrics: Abundance, Survival, and Recruitment • Abundance: Meeting Objective (Speckled Dace) 

Speckled Dace - All Reaches 1600 Bluehead Sucker - 

1400

Estimated Abundance20000 15000 10000 1200 1000 800 600 400

200

0 0

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2012-13 2013-14 2

Year Year 

Estimated Abundance 
Bright Angel Creek –E-fishing Res

2015-2016, N = 16 
Electrofishing- Results: Native Fish 

• Objective: Maintain stable/increasing population• Metrics: Abundance, Survival, and Recruitment • Survival: 
Electrofishing- Results: Native Fish 

• Objective: Maintain stable/increasing population• Metrics: Abundance, Survival, and Recruitment • Survival: No significant difference to reference st
2012-13 

0 5 

10 

0 5 

10 

0 5 

10 

0 5 

10 

1

14

27

40

53

66

79

92

105

118

131

144

157

170

183

196

209

222

235

248

261

274

287

300

313

326

339

352

365

378

391 

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 

Total Length (mm) 

Frequency 

Total # of Uniq

Metric: Bluehead Sucker Recruitm
Trout Control: Key Findings

 Brown trout reductions are on track to meet 80

reduction objectives if trend continues (2016-17 progress). 

 Speckled dace and flannelmouth sucker have 

increased in abundance as trout abundance de

 Bluehead sucker abundance trend (uncertain), 

survival remained stable- recent recruitment ap

 Supports assumption that nonnative trout remo

may benefit native species 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R 
Bright Angel Creek – Next Step

 Currently in 5th year of 5-year Strategy  Adaptive Management Strategy, in 2017: 

 Review of 5-years of data, decision on future operatio Future options for consideration may include the follo

 Translocate juvenile Humpback Chub  Mechanical Removal of trout at current effort  Reduced or increased effort in an experimental c

(reduce effort review results in 5 years) 

 Use of chemical piscicides (e.g., rotenone) to rem

100% of trout 

 Additional compliance may be necessary for some o

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R 
Humpback Chub Translocations 

Havasu Creek, 

Grand Canyon National Park 
Havasu Creek Translocation

Hatchery 

Tagging 

Date 

Average 

Length (mm) 

Average 

Weight (g) Release 

May 5, 2011 86.1 4.8 June 28

May 10, 

2012 124.7 16.7 May 13

May 14, 

2013 123.1 14.9 May 9, 

May 9, 2014 123 16.4 May 14May 9, 2014 124 16.4 June 5, 

May 13, 

2015 131 20.3 May 20, 

May 10, 

2016 130 18.5 May 18

Total= 1955 translocated Hump
Possible Translocation Outco

NPS Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan 2013, Trammell e

HBC 1 Establishment of a second spawning and recruiting population 

mainstem or tributary (population goal > 200) 

HBC 2 Sufficient survival and growth to provide a rearing (“grow-out”) 

opportunity to augment the local mainstem aggregation 

HBC 3 Failure of at least 20% of HBC to survive in the creek or adjacen

mainstem aggregation for at least one year 
Results 

Metrics:  Abundance of humpback chub- estimated once p

year (May) 

 Monthly apparent survival – mark-recapture anal Recruitment to maturity – translocated fish and 

“offspring” 
Abundance of Humpback Chub 

• Fisheries Management Plan Goal = Maintain a minimu

200 HBC 

 Retention over the first year 
Survival relative to Little Colorado 

 Most years: Similar survival relative to Little Colorado Rive

(Yackulic et al. 2014) 

 Survival can be variable year to year 

0.91, LCR estimate from Yackulic et al. 2014 Red line = average monthly survival of all translocated cohorts 
Evidence of Reproduction 

& Recruitment 

Maturity 

√ Reproduction and recruitment • Young-of-year captured 

since 2013 
Evidence of Reproduction 

& Recruitment 

Maturity 

√ Reproduction and recruitment • Young-of-year captured 

since 2013 

• “Mature” size = 200 mm • Size range of all 

spawning fish: 155-318 mm 
Translocations: Key Findings 

 Havasu Creek humpback chub translocations m

objectives for: 

 Abundance (>200 fish)  Reproduction: Consistent evidence of spawning 

2012 

 Recruitment: fish produced in Havasu recruited 

“mature size” and in spawning condition 
Translocations– Next Steps 

 No translocations planned to Havasu in 2017 

 However, collections of larvae may occur for 2018 transloc

(Havasu, Shinumo, Bright Angel?) 

 Monitoring of both Havasu and Shinumo creeks will cont

 To maintain genetic integrity, minimum population goals  Shinumo Creek habitat recovering from fire/flooding 

 Analysis of native fish abundance, survival, recruitment 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R