U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Modeling humpback chub, 

adaptive management and LTEMP 

experiments

Lucas S. Bair, U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center

Charles B. Yackulic, U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center

Michael R. Springborn, University of California at Davis

Matthew N. Reimer, University of Alaska at Anchorage

Pierce Donovan, University of California at Davis

Craig A. Bond, Rand Corporation

Lewis G. Coggins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GCDAMP Annual Reporting Meeting 2018, Flagstaff, Arizona

U. S. Department of Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
• Develop a bioeconomic model to identify the 

cost-effective management strategy for 

rainbow trout that achieves humpback chub 

population goals.

Applied Decision and Scenario Analysis

2

http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/general-information/the-fish/humpback-chub.html
Cost-effectiveness Analysis

• Comparing the costs of alternative means to 

achieve goals set through a political or public 

process (Sagoff 2009)

• Example: Determine an operation at GCD that 

limits impact to [or improves] hydropower while 

meeting recovery and long-term sustainability 

of downstream resources (Reclamation, 1996).

3

Sagoff, M. 2009. Regulatory review and cost-benefit analysis. Philosophy & Public Policy 

Quarterly. 29(3/4):21-26.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Record of Decision. Upper 

Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah.
4

J.12°0'W u 1°3o·w 

37°0' 

36°30' 

36°0' 

10 20 Kilometers 

I 

,1 I 

0 5 10 15 Miles 

Explanation 

• Kilometers from Confluence 

o Kilometers from Glen Canyon Dam ;-Glen 

,_:: Grand Canyon National Parle ~ 0 an yon <::) Dam 

~ 

~~1 5 ~ \.) ~10 

Le~ my G~~s. 

20 0 2 4 Kilometers 

Rainbow Trout 

Removal Reach 

135 

I I I I I 

0 2 3 Miles 

Juvehile 

Hum1iback Chub 

Monitoring Reach 
Bioeconomic Model

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

5

Lucas S. Bair, Charles B. Yackulic, Michael R. Springborn, Matthew N. Reimer, Craig A. Bond, Lewis G. Coggins. 2018. 

Identifying cost-effective invasive species control to enhance endangered species populations in the Grand Canyon, USA, 

Biological Conservation, 220, 12-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.032
Humpback Chub (Gila cypha)

Adapted from: Yackulic, C. B., M.D., Yard, J. Korman, and D.R. Van Haverbeke. 2014. A quantitative life history of endangered humpback 

chub that spawn in the Little Colorado River: variation in movement, growth, and survival. Ecology and Evolution 4(7): 1006-1018.

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

6
Bioeconomic Model

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

7

Rainbow Trout Removal

Lucas S. Bair, Charles B. Yackulic, Michael R. Springborn, Matthew N. Reimer, Craig A. Bond, Lewis G. Coggins. 2018. 

Identifying cost-effective invasive species control to enhance endangered species populations in the Grand Canyon, USA, 

Biological Conservation, 220, 12-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.032
Management Component

• Mechanical removal

– Remove rainbow trout in the vicinity of JCM reach

– Limit of one trip per month and six trips per year

• Minimize costs 

– Number of trips

– Period of analysis 

8

Lucas S. Bair, Charles B. Yackulic, Michael R. Springborn, Matthew N. Reimer, Craig A. Bond, Lewis G. Coggins. 2018. 

Identifying cost-effective invasive species control to enhance endangered species populations in the Grand Canyon, USA, 

Biological Conservation, 220, 12-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.032
9

Expected Annual Trout in Juvenile Chub Monitoring Reach

Lucas S. Bair, Charles B. Yackulic, Michael R. Springborn, Matthew N. Reimer, Craig A. Bond, Lewis G. Coggins. 2018. 

Identifying cost-effective invasive species control to enhance endangered species populations in the Grand Canyon, USA, 

Biological Conservation, 220, 12-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.032

Bioeconomic Model Results

Annual removals at the LCR to

meet chub survival targets
LTEMP EIS Objectives

10

• ‘Determine the appropriate experimental 

framework that allows for a range of 

programs and actions...keeping with the 

adaptive management process’
LTEMP EIS Objectives

11

• ‘Minimize emissions and costs to the greatest 

extent possible, consistent with improvement 

and long-term stability of downstream 

resources.’
GCMRC Research

• Trout management flows

– Incorporate additional management options and 

associated costs, such as trout management flows 

at GCD, into the bioeconomic model

• Humpback chub population parameter 

uncertainty

– Identify the importance of parameter uncertainty 

in the prioritization of monitoring and research

12
Trout Management Flows

Adapted from: Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/draft-eis/vol1/Chapter_2-Alternatives.pdf

Example implementation of a two-cycle TMF in June and July with resumption of 

normal fluctuations between cycles and afterward

13
Bioeconomic Model

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

14

Rainbow Trout Removal

Preliminary data, do not cite

Trout Management Flows
Optimal Management Strategy

15

Preliminary data, do not cite

0 930 1700 2469

0 2 4 6

1,329,083

1,270,977

1,212,871

1,154,765

1,096,659

1,038,553

980,447

922,341

864,235

806,129

TMF rainbow trout 

recruitment trigger

Very 

Effective 

TMFs

Expected Annual Trout in Juvenile Chub Monitoring Reach

Annual removals at the LCR to

meet chub survival targets
Optimal Economic Strategy

16

Preliminary data, do not cite

Frequency of TMFs

Annual Rainbow Trout Removals

Costs of combined 

management actions that 

achieve long-run juvenile 

humpback chub survival targets

Costs with increased 

effectiveness of TMFs
Adaptive Management

• Reducing parameter uncertainty may improve 

long-run management (i.e., reduce costs) but 

it incurs short-run costs 

• Incorporate active or passive learning into the 

model as a state variable 

• Dynamic programming is a frequent solution 

but requires that we further simplify the 

population model 

17
Bioeconomic Model

18

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

Juvenile Humpback Chub 

Annual Survival (40-100 mm)

Rainbow Trout 

Population Dynamics

Equivalent Adult Humpback 

Chub (100 mm+)

Preliminary data, do not cite
Dynamic Programming Model

19

Preliminary data, do not cite
Dynamic Programming Model

20

Preliminary data, do not cite

Decreasing Probability Increasing 

Humpback Chub and Rainbow Trout Ending State 
21

Juvenile Chub 

Monitoring Reach

Juvenile Humpback Chub 

Annual Survival (40-100 mm)

Rainbow Trout 

Population Dynamics

Equivalent Adult Humpback 

Chub (100 mm+)

Preliminary data, do not cite

Adaptive Management
• Questions?

• lbair@usgs.gov

928-556-7362