Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic

Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

U.S.

G

Glen Canyo

Expanded Non‐Aquatic Species

Management Pl

Glen Canyon DaGlen Canyon DamTechnical Workgroup Meet

January 25, 2018NPS Project TeamIMR: Rob Billerbeck, MelissJenny Rebenack

GLCA: Erin Janicki, Ken Hyd

GRCA: Jan Balsom, Brian H
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Background

• Threats posed by aquatic non‐natives were identified in:

– Comprehensive Fisheries Management Plan (2013 CFMP)

– Long‐Term Experimental and Management Plan (2016 LTEMP)

• Increases in potentially harmful non‐native species (such as Green

Sunfish and Brown Trout) have been documented since 2013.

– Rapid Response options of existing compliance

– Short term CE’s.

• Non‐native aquatic species control is needed to provide for long‐

term management of the native aquatic system
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Purpose of and Need for Action• Purpose: The purpose of this action is to provide additional tools

beyond what is available under the CFMP and the LTEMP, to allow the

NPS to prevent, control, minimize, or eradicate potentially harmful

non‐native aquatic species, or the risk associated with their presence

or expansion, in the action area

• Need: The need for this action is due to the increase of green sunfish

and brown trout, and the potential expansion or invasion of other

harmful non‐native aquatic species that threaten downstream nativeaquatic species including listed species or the Lees Ferry recreationalrainbow trout fishery. These non‐native species have become an

increasing threat due to changing conditions since the completion ofthe 2013 CFMP and the 2016 LTEMP.

Existing measures may be inadequate to address

potentially harmful non‐natives.
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Cooperating Agencies• Arizona Game and Fish Department• Bureau of Reclamation

• Colorado River Board of California

• Colorado River Commission of Nevada

• Pueblo of Zuni

• Southern Nevada Water Authority

• Upper Colorado River Commission• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service• Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems

• Western Area Power AdministrationMonthly coordination calls with cooperating agencies and additional meeti

expertise and jurisdiction related to particular issues

Regular updates to Glen Canyon Dam FACA ‐ Technical Working Group (TWG

Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG)
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

What Are Potentially Harmful Non‐Native Aquat

• Fish, aquatic plants, or aquatic invertebrate species

that are not native to the action area that may pose

a threat to native species (including federally or

state‐listed species) or may pose a threat to theLees Ferry recreational rainbow trout fishery

What non‐natives are not consideredpotentially harmful for this project?• Common carp would not be targeted, but may be

removed incidentally as part of other removal ormonitoring efforts

• Rainbow trout management would be consistent

with that described in the CFMP and LTEMP

• New actions would be designed to minimize

negative effects to the recreational fishery andcontinue to be consistent with the LTEMP goal to

maintain “a healthy high‐quality recreational

rainbow trout fishery in GCNRA and reduce or

eliminate downstream trout migration consistentwith NPS fish management and ESA compliance.”

Fish Invertebrat

Brown trout Asian clam Catfish species Quagga mussel 

Black bass andsunfish species

Rusty crayfish 

Striped bass New Zealand

Mudsnail

CichlidsYellow perch andwalleyeNorthern pikeNew carp species

Species considered for control unde

include, but are not limited to:
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Potential Non‐Native Aquatic Species Control Cate

• Mechanical controls: physical removal of non‐native

aquatic species from habitats.

– Long‐term, intensive, repeated electrofishing and trapping

– Mechanical disruption of spawning habitats

– Concussive devices in small backwaters

– Dredging or harvesting of non‐native plants

• Physical controls: prevention of habitat use by non‐native

aquatic species

– Long‐term fish barriers such as weirs, exclusion screens, and

nets that inhibit passage into small backwaters and limited

tributary areas

– Pumps and above‐ground piping to deliver cooler water to keep

backwater areas below warmwater fish spawning temperatures

– Covering small areas to increase temperature, lower dissolved

oxygen, or reduce sunlight

– Modifications of RM ‐12 sloughs
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

RM ‐12 Sloughs in Glen Canyon

Aerial Photo of Upper and lower slough at RM –12 in Glen Canyon

where green sunfish were found to reproduce in recent years

Upperslough

Lower slough

Colorado River main channel

B

Small Upper Slough
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Potential Non‐Native Aquatic Species Control Actions (C

• Biological controls: introduction of organisms to

control populations of non‐native aquatic species

– Introduce YY male brown trout or other non‐native species to

reduce breeding success over time by creating a skewed sex ratio

– Introduce humpback chub or Colorado pikeminnow to the upper

slough at RM ‐12 to prey on and compete with non‐natives

– Move local non‐native common carp to the upper slough to

overwhelm non‐natives

• Fishing or take changes: changing harvest rates to

increase removal of non‐native aquatic species

– Bounty system, tournaments, or other incentives for anglers to

catch specific non‐natives.

– Coordination between federal and state agencies to explore

education and/or catch‐and‐keep regulations for non‐natives.
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Potential Non‐Native Aquatic Species Control Actions (C

• Chemical controls: limited application to

control populations of non‐native aquatic

species

– Fish: rotenone, other registered piscicides, or

experimental chemicals allowed under federaland state regulations, such as ammonia, would

be used for a limited number of years

• For fishery renovation purposes prior to native

species translocations or introductions only in

tributary locations that have a natural barrier, such asBright Angel Creek above “Split Rock Falls” orShinumo Creek

• As a last resort method to address potentially harmful

non‐natives in backwaters, low velocity areas, orsloughs, and prevent their distribution downstreamafter other methods have failed

– Chemical treatments for plants or invertebrates– Ribbon Falls and Deer Creek would be excluded

from chemical treatment due to specific tribal

concerns in these areas.
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action and Alternative Concepts

Preliminary Alternative Concepts – update based upon scoping

• Four alternatives concepts have been identified for considera

– No‐action alternative (Alternative A)

• Continuation of existing actions and policies only

• Actions described in CFMP

• Actions described in LTEMP

– Most expanded control methods (Alternative B)

• Most complete combination of mechanical, physical, biological, chemical, 

actions

– Moderately expanded control methods (Alternative C)

• More limited combination of mechanical, physical, biological, chemical, an

actions relative to Alternative B

– Least expanded control methods (Alternative D)

• Mechanical actions limited to those under Alternative A only, limited set o

full set of fishing/take actions, no biological or chemical control actions
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives• Identify when and where different control actions could be taken

– Decision tree or matrix including condition trigger levels

– Preferred sequence of control actions: first resort, last resort

– More than one control action could be applied at the same time

• Identify resources of concern that would be considered prior to determin

• Monitoring and adaptive responses that would include:

– Off‐ramps that would be used to determine when control actions stop because of unaccep

effects on resources

– Mitigation actions that would be used to address adverse impacts on other resources

• All elements of the no‐action alternative
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Comparison of Alternatives

Control Action Alternative A (No‐Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

MechanicalControls

Allowed under CFMP

when used as a rapidresponse, or for brown

trout within GRCA, and

under the LTEMP as along‐term response for

trout control in the LCRreach

Potential use of allcontrol methods that

are being considered

More selective

mechanical removal

of brown trout in GlenCanyon Reach, doesnot include concussiveoptions

S

A

h

c

Physical Controls Operation of weir at

Bright Angel Creek

Same as above Similar to Alternative

B, but RM‐12 optionsdo not include

channelization,underground piping or

filling upper slough

S

BiologicalControls

None Same as above RM‐12 options do not

include using common

carp, or Coloradopikeminnowintroduction in upper

slough

N

Chemical Controls None Same as above Same as Alternative B N

Fishing/TakeChanges

None Same as above Same as Alternative B S
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Public Scoping

• Public Scoping for this project was open from November 15

to January 5, 2018.

• We held a public webinar on November 28, and 3 public m

in Page, Flagstaff and Phoenix, AZ on December 6, 7, and 1

respectively. Attendance was approximately 13, 10, 15 and 

members of the public, respectively.

• We received approximately 428 comments. The majority w

from angling groups or individual anglers. We also received

comments from several state and federal agencies and trib

are cooperating agencies.
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Public Scoping Comments – Preliminary Sum

• Angling groups and individual anglers and Arizona Game and Fish 

expressed concerns about intensive long term electrofishing in Le

brown trout. Those concerns related to potential impacts to rainb

recreational fishery, and use of the area if there is intensive large 

electrofishing. They also expressed concerns questioning the cost 

large scale electrofishing. Many comments asked that we conside

analysis of intensive electrofishing as a tool.

• Other commenters asked that we retain and evaluate a full range 

ensure we are making informed decisions.

• Concerns about the level of threat to downstream endangered sp

by brown trout (both that the threat level is overstated and under

• Some cooperators and other commenters expressed that NPS sho

EA with Reclamation so that flow‐based options can be considere

suggested that this EA should be based only on non‐flow options f

has jurisdiction.
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Public Scoping Comments – Preliminary Sum

• Several cooperators and other commenters expressed concerns about the prop

the endangered Colorado pikeminnow (considered extirpated) or endangered h

the Glen Canyon Reach as predators of non‐native fish in the RM‐12 slough. Th

based on uncertainty of impacts to humpback chub downstream or to the rainb

recreational fishery, potential efficacy of the predation on non‐natives, or the q

these introductions were beyond the scope of the purpose and need.

• The Pueblo of Zuni expressed that they do not support lethal fish management 

area of the Colorado River. We are working closely with Zuni as a cooperating a

consult with them on this process.

• Some commenters expressed concerns about the use of rotenone as a chemica

proposed action area, about concussive methods, or the use of common carp a

• Some commenters expressed support of YY males as a biocontrol.

• Reclamation and USFWS asked for clear definitions about roles and responsibilit

suggested adaptive approaches that can address unintended consequences and 

term protections for endangered fish.
Expanded Non‐Native Aquatic Species Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

EA Timeline

Date/

Timeframe

Activity or Event

Nov. 15, 2017‐

Jan. 5, 2018

Public scoping

Meetings: Nov 28 (webinar), Page, Dec. 6, Flagstaff, Dec. 7, Phoenix

Jan‐April 2018 • Review public comment/produce scoping report

• Collect contributing studies (Reclamation slough analysis, brow

etc.)

• Coordinate with cooperators on adaptive designs (suitability ma

triggers, mitigations/off‐ramps)

• Revise alternative options, dismisses options

• Analyze impacts and prepare a draft EA

• Coordinate with cooperating agencies on a draft prior to public 

May 2018 EA made available for 30‐day public review and comment public me

Summer 2018 NPS reviews and analyzes comments, prepares errata, conducts co

tribes and USFWS

Late Summer

/Early Fall2018

NPS issues decision document, as appropriate