. 0
Recovery Plan For The
Humpback Chub
Gila cypha TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE Preface ...1
Acknowledgements ...... ii
PART I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Background ......
General Description ...... 2
Distribution and Abundance ...... 5
Historic ...... 5
Present ...... 7
Abundance ...... 9
Life History ...... 10
Habitat Preference ...... 10
Reproduction ...... el‘ tI
Food Habits ...... 12
Reasons for Decline ...... 13
PART II. RECOVERY ...... 19
Stepdown Outline ...... 19
Narrative ...... 25
References Cited ...... 41
PART III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ...... 50 PREFACE
The original recovery plan for the endangered humpback chub was first approved in 1978. This plan supersedes the original and incorporates new information gained by researchers since 1978.
The recovery plan includes information about the life history and habitat requirements of the humpback chub, a stepdown.outline and narrative of actions necessary to recover the species, and a proposed implementation schedule and budget.
This recovery plan was written by the Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team at the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This recovery Plan for the humpback chub was prepared by the Colorado River
Fishes Recovery Team, composed of the following individuals:
Jim St. Amant, Team Leader, 1982- , California Department of Fish and Game,
Team Member, 1975-1983
Steve Petersburg, Team Member, National Park Service, 1976.
Harold Tyus, Team Member, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979.
Jim Brooks, Team Member, Arizona Department of Game and Fish, 1980.
Reed Harris, Team Member, Bureau of Reclamation, 1980.
Bob Ruesink, Team Member, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1982.
Jim Bennett, Team Member, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1982.
Jerry Burton, Team Member, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982-
Randy Radant, Team Member, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1982.
Dave Buck, Team Member, Nevada Department of Fish and Game, 1984-
Additional persons aiding in the preparation of this plan include:
Jim Johnson, Team Member, Bureau of Land Management, 1975-1977.
Cal Allen, Team Member, Nevada Department of Fish and Game, 1975-1983.
Bill Silvey, Team Member, Arizona Department of Game and Fish, 1975-1980.
Bob Gervais, Team Member, Bureau of Land Management, 1976-1981.
Paul Holden, Consultant, Biowest, Inc., 1976.
Bob Williams, Consultant, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation,
1979.
Kent Miller, Team Leader, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1979-1982.
Tom Lytle, Team Member, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1980-1982.
Don Archer, Colorado Fishes Recovery Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service,
1982-. 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The humpback chub (Gila cypha) was described by Miller in 1946 based upon a fish collected in the Grand Canyon, and from another whole specimen and head from an unknown location. Miller (1955) also reported remains of this species from Indian ruins near the site of Hoover (Boulder) Dam. Suttkus and Clemmer
(1977) accorded the earliest written record of the humpback chub as I914--a fish originally identified as "bonytail" by Kolb and Kolb (1914). It is possible that this problem of mistaken identity has occurred many times in the past.
The greatest numbers of humpback chub have been found in relatively inaccessible canyon areas. For this reason, it is not surprising that the species was undiscovered until after World War II. After the war, collections of fish in the Colorado River were made in conjunction with the planning for large dams. Also, the availability of surplus military rafts made traveling whitewater sections of the Colorado River system considerably less dangerous and opened up these areas to visitors and scientists.
Rubber rafts have also allowed river travelers to carry more equipment and supplies including heavier, more sophisticated fish sampling equipment.
However, even with better transportation, the difficulty in sampling habitats 2
ze5 of the humpback chub emphasis the rugged environment it prefers. Minckley A (1973) cited difficulties encountered with collecting as the main reason why
so little is known about the biology of the humpback chub.
Ge.A‘e Description A
The humpback chub has been referred to as "remarkable," "bizzare," and "almost
grotesque." One thing is certain, the humpback chub is an unusual and
striking fish. It is a medium-sized (less than 500 mm TL), freshwater fish of
the minnow family (Cyprinidae), silvery on its sides with a brown or
olivaceous back. It has a narrow, flattened head which is concave on top, a
long, fleshy snout with an inferior-subterminal mouth and small eyes vt (Frontis). It has a pronounced dorsal hump that arises appdximately over
the location of the gills (opercula) and rounds to the origin of the dorsal
fin. The fish's body tapers abruptly to the tail which flares into a deeply
forked caudal fin.
It is generally believed that adaptations of the humpback chub aid the fish in
negotiating turbulent waters such as those encountered in whitewater canyons.
In this environment, the prominent hump would aid the fish in fast water,
since the fish would be pushed to the bottom where water is' quieter and less
energy would be required to hold its position. The ventral mouth would aid in
feeding without being distended or filling with rushing water, and the grooves
associated with its hump might cause water to irrigate the fish's compressed
gills (Minckley 1973). 3
Although some adaptations seen in the humpback chub appear related to survival in turbulent streams, the compressed body suggests other adaptations as well.
This morphology is indicative of fishes which "...vary considerably in their modes of life..." (Nikolsky 1978). Humpback chub are found in a variety of habitats. Their association with deep pool and boulder habitat [e.g., Black
Rocks Canyon on the Colorado River (Valdez 1981; Valdez and Clemmer 1982)], lends support to a more versatile life style. Unfortunately, the humpback's habitat requirements and functional ecological role are poorly known.
A detailed description of the humpback chub may be found in Miller (1946),
Holden and Stalnaker (1970), Minckley (1973), Suttkas and Clemmer (1977), and
Smith et al. (1979). General morphological characteristics which aid in
distinguishing adult humpback chub from adults of the related bonytail
(G. elegans) and roundtail chubs (G. robusta) include: (1) the prominent
anteredorsal nuchal hump with lateral grooves; (2) the flattened head with
ventral, almost horizontal mouth and small eyes; (3) dorsal rays 8-10
(typically 9) and anal rays 9-11 (typically 10) (Suttkus and Clemmer 1977);
(4) a caudal peduncle intermediate in depth between the bonytail (slender) and
the roundtail (deep); and (5) loss of squamation on the nuchal hump and
elsewhere.
The identification of larval Gila sp. and even larval Colorado squawfish
(Ptychocheilus lucius) is difficult, and researchers at Colorado Division of
Wildlife (COOW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are investigating methods to separate Gila species, as well as documenting their habitat requirements. 4
Specimens of Gila spp. including larvae, have been collected since the early
1950's that did not fit the description of either the bonytail, roundtail or humpback chubs (Holden and Stalnaker 1970; Wick et al. 1979, 1981). Most fish appeared intermediate in gross morphology making it difficult to distinguish between them. Recently a number of investigators have addressed this problem
(Valdez and Clemmer 1983):\
Suttkus and Clemmer (1977) studied the humpback chub in the lower Colorado
River. Their collections in the Grand Canyon were made from 1970-1976 and included specimens taken from other areas as well. These authors also reviewed collections from Lake Powell, including the "intermediate" forms.
Although these workers considered the existence of hybrids, they became convinced that the fish was "...a single, highly variable form." They noted a high degree of variation in nuchal hump development and an overlap in fin-ray counts among other characteristics. Differences were interpreted to be
"...within the variation of species." Kaeding and Zimmerman (1983) found that juvenile and adult humpback chub collected from the Grand Canyon did not differ from the descriptions published by Suttkus and Clemmer (1977).
However, they found eight combinations of dorsal/anal fin-ray counts and different combination frequencies of these counts between humpback chub collected in the mainstem Colorado and Little Colorado River. Kaeding and
Zimmerman speculated that some interbreeding between humpback and bonytail chubs had occurred, and that this interbreeding was manifest in the difference in ray-count frequencies. S
Smith et al. (1979) addressed the taxonomic problem of Gila species in the mainstem rivers of the upper Colorado River basin. They suggested that the humpback and bonytail evolved from the roundtail and found a high degree of morphological variation inherent in the genus Gila. These authors classified most specimens into distinct species and found very few intermediates.
The existence of fish (Gila sp.) which appear intermediate in morphology between the humpback chub and others could cause some identification problems
(Valdez and Clemmer 1983). Rather than using earlier keys based on general body shape, more sophisticated techniques should be used to identify humpback
A chub (Suttkus and Clemmer 1977; Smith et al. 1979; Miller et al. 1982c). \ : 11/4
Distribution and Abundance
Historic
The historic distribution of the humpback chub included large, whitewater canyons of the Colorado River system, including the mainstem Colorado River and four of its tributaries: the Green, Yampa and Little Colorado - Rivers (Fig. 1). NO+ 0A.
The humpback chub is endemic to the Colorado River basin and part of a native fish fauna traced to the mid-Pliocene age in the fossil record (Miller 1959).
The earliest record of the species from the Grand Canyon has been placed at
4000 B.C. (Euler 1978). Considerable manmade alterations had occurred in the WYOMING Legend Present Range Mg 'LAMING GORGE 1 RESER R YAMPA CANYON Historical Range ki:a a•Mill• • 1111■1•
g River
.s;
kilometers COLORADO SLACK ROCKS 100 200
UTAH CATARACT CANYON WESrWArift CAN roN
NEVADA P
• •■•••■•• 411■1=1, ••■■■■• al. do. 0011•10.
NAVAJO RESER i.Vf R LAKE MEAO ARIZONA I NEW MEXICO
LANE HAVASU CALIF.
IMPERIAL DAM
,.■•■ 411.. OM... I
I UL r OF IMI• Orb •I• CALIF. MEXICO
of the humpback chub Fig. 1. Distribution 6
Colorado River before the 1940's, especially in the lower basin (Miller 1961).
There is some evidence to suggest that the humpback chub was lost from certain suitable areas before their existence was known. For example, Miller (1955) reported on remains of this species from Indian ruins near the site of Hoover
Dam. The humpback chub probably existed in this area but it was eliminated when Hoover Dam was built in the 1930's. Losses of this nature were probably restricted to the lower Colorado River basin, since the upper basin was altered little until the 1960's.
Interest in Colorado River endemic fishes increased in the 1960's, primarily because of the rapid disappearance of these fishes in the lower basin and the threat posed by the Colorado River Storage Project dams in the upper basin.
Unit the 1950's, the humpback chub was known only from the Grand Canyon
(Miller 1946). A number of surveys were made in the upper basin in the 1950's and 1960's, primarily as pre-impoundment and post-impoundment studies.
Humpback chub were found in relatively large numbers in the upper Green River
(Smith 1960; Vanicek et al. 1970) and in the Colorado River above and below
Glen Canyon Dam (Holden and Stalnaker 1970, 1975; Minckley 1973). Specimens were taken from Desolation Canyon of the Green River in 1967 (Holden and
Stalnaker 1970) and from the lower Yampa River in 1969 (Holden and Stalnaker
1975). One individual was reported from the White River of Utah and another in the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, in the 1950's (Sigler and Miller 1963). ` S.1.3:11-4
.9 a • (L.A • Present
The present distribution of humpback chub, as indicated b recent collections
(Tyus et al. 1982a; Valdez and Clemmer 1982) includes (Fig. 1):
1. the Green River Desolation, Gray, and abyrinth 'Canyons (Holden and
Stalnaker 1975; Holden 1978; Tyus et al. lgRZUTC--
2. the Green River in Dinosaur National Monumen DNM) (Miller 1964; Holden
and Stalnaker 1975; Holden and Crist 1980; Miller et al. 1982b);
3. the Yampa River in ONM (Miller 1964; Holden and Stalnaker 1975; Seethaler
et al. 1979; Miller et al. 1982b);
4. the Colorado River in Black Rocks and Debeque Canyons, Colorado (Kidd
1977; Valdez and Clemmer 1982; Valdez et al. ffe iler et al. 1982c); ,'
Not 4?-
1. 5. the Colorado River in Westwater Canyon near Moab, Utah (Valdez 1981; \,
Valdez and Clemmer 1982; Miller et al. 1982c);
6. the Colorado River in Marble and rand Canyons from km 25.8 to km 312.8
(Suttkus et al. 1976; Suttkus and Clemmer 1977; Minckley et al. 1981),
and the Little Colorado River from its mouth to a point 13 km upstream
(Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983). 8
Distribution in all the areas listed is sporadic, with concentrations in very small parts of the canyon areas (Holden 1978; Minckley et al. 1981; Valdez
1981; Valdez and Clemmer 1982; Miller et al. 1982b).
In addition to the repetitive collections indicated, humpback chub have been captured in other locations. A single humpback was collected by the CDOW in
1980 at Cross Mountain Canyon of the Yampa River (U.S. FWS 1980; Wick et al.
1981), and one specimen was collected in 1980 by FWS personnel in Cataract
Canyon of the Colorado River (Valdez 1981). The FWS stocked 7,600, Age Class
I, marked humpback chub in Cataract Canyon in December 1981. All fish were marked so that they can be identified from wild fish in the future.
Available data indicate several major changes have occurred in humpback chub populations. The species was eliminated from the Green River above the mouth of the Yampa River in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming when Flaming Gorge Dam became operational in 1962 (Vanicek et al. 1970). The humpback chub was reported by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in fishery samples from Lake Powell soon after closure of the dam ill the 1960's, but it has not been collected recently. The cold tailwaters of Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell) have apparently caused major reductions in both distribution and abundance of humpback chub in Marble and Grand Canyons (Minckley 1973; Holden and Stalnaker
1975; Suttkus et al. 1976). The humpback chub may have persisted in these locations, by spawning in the Little Colorado River (Kaeding and Zimmerman
1983). Abundance
It is difficult to obtain information about the abundance of humpback chub
prior to 1950. However, the fish apparently was never reported as common.
This is, no doubt, because their preferred habitat is relatively inaccessible
and difficult to sample. Although occurrence of bones in archaeological sites
(Miller 1955) gives evidence the fish was present, no conclusion was drawn
concerning abundance.
The upper mainstem Colorado River may contain the highest concentration of
humpback chub in existence. Recent work by the FWS (Valdez 1981) and CDOW
(Wick et al. 1981) indicated that the Black Rocks-Westwater areas of the
Colorado River supported a large stock of humpback chub.
The Little Colorado River contains humpback chub and may be the major area of
humpback reproduction near the Grand Canyon (Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983).
Habitat conditions of the Colorado River in that area are less than desirable
due to unnaturally cold water and altered flow regimes.
Humpbacks are rare in the Green and Yampa Rivers of ONM (Holden and Stalnaker
1975; Seethaler et al. 1979; Miller et al. 1982a). The previous edition of
this recovery plan (1979) indicted that the humpback chub was "relatively
common" in the Desolation-Gray canyons of the Green River. Collections by FWS
C-Nus et al. 1982C) in 1979-81 indicated a possible decline in abundance of NVV humpback chub in the Desolation-Gray canyon areas of the Green River. v Although sampling effort was extensive during those years, few adult.humpback
chub were collected. 10
Life History
Habitat Preference
The humpback chub has generally been found associated with fast current and/or
deep channels (Holden and Stalnaker 1975; Kidd 1977; Seethaler et al. 1979).
General microhabitat information suggests that shallow, slower flowing areas
within canyons may also be used.
Humpback chub in the upper Colorado River (Valdez 1981; Valdez and Clemmer,
1982) occupy deep, swift riverine areas. The CDOW and the FWS (Valdez et al.
1982trfound humpback chub in.Black Rocks and Westwater canyons in water
averaging 15.2 m in depth with maximum depth of 28 m. In these localities the
humpback chub were associated with large boulders and steep cliffs.
Information on specific depth, velocity, and substrate preferences is being recorded by the FWS and CDOW. Valdez et al. (1982P) provided probability-of-
use criteria for adult, juvenile and young-of-the-year humpback chub from the
upper Colorado River. Adult humpback chub (over 260 mm) were generally
captured in water less than 9.1 m deep, over silt, sand, boulder, and bedrock,
with water velocities usually less than 30 cm/sec. Five humpback chub (age 2-
3 years) were captured in water 6.1 m to 9 m deep. An additional 1-year-old
humpback chub was caught in water less than 3 m deep. All young-of-the-year
humpback chub were captured in water less than 3 m deep, with less than 30 cm/sec velocity and in association with a silt bottom. 11
Information provided by Minckley (1973) indicated the same general habitat preferences in the lower Colorado River basin for whitewater habitat as given by others in the upper Colorado River basin. Minckley et al. (1981) reported that humpback chub in the lower Colorado River have been collected in eddies adjacent to fast currents and in backwaters. These fish were taken over sand substrate in water depths ranging from 2-5 m. However, Minckley et al. (1981) found a different pattern in the Little Colorado River, where adult humpback chub were taken in a variety of habitats including pools adjacent to eddies, large pools with little or no current and areas below travertine (CaCO ) dams. 3 Kaeding and Zimmerman (1983) provided a range of physiochemical conditions for their study sites where humpback chub were collected in the lower Colorado and
Little Colorado Rivers. Highest catch rates were obtained near the confluence of these rivers, they also indicated the presence of travertine dams.
Reproduction
Suttkus and Clemmer (1977) stated that spawning of humpback chub probably occurs in June and July in the .Grand Canyon and that the lower Little Colorado
River is the major spawning place for the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon.
Minckley (1977, 1978, 1980) collected reproductive adults from the Little
Colorado River in March and April 1977 (at a water temperature of 16-20 C) and young-of-the-year fish in July,r 1978. His information also indicated that the LI Little Colorado River was the main site for spawning of humpback chub in the 12
Grand Canyon; however, three ripe humpback chubs were also taken (MinckleY, personal communication) in the mainstem Colorado River in April 1979. Ripe humpback chub were collected by the FWS and CDOW in the Black Rocks area of the Colorado River in June of 1980 (Valdez et al. 198262i. In 1980, three females were stripped of about 18,000 eggs. The eggs were fertilized and transported to the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery for culture (Valdez-
Gonzales 1980). Kaeding and Zimmerman (1983) indicated that humpback chub reach sexual maturity in the Grand Canyon at lengths of about 250-300 mm.
They used a gonadosomic index to evaluate gonad development during the year.
These authors suggest that the humpback chub does not successfully reproduce in the mainstem Colorado, but that the population in the Grand Canyon is maintained by recruitment from the Little Colorado River.
Food Habits
An analysis of a limited number of young-of-the-year humpback chub stomachs collected in the Little Colorado River indicated that these fish were bottom feeders (Minckley 1980; Jordan 1981; Minckley et al. 1981).
Miller (1946) suggested a bottom feeding mode because of the chub's subterminal mouth, but no proof was obtained until recently. This feeding habit has also been documented by visual observations of adults and young in the Little Colorado River (Minckley 1979, 1980; Minckley et al. 1981). C.O.
Minckley (personal communication) provided the following written comments for the Little Colorado system, 13
"In that system, adult fish were observed to forage
within an area, inspecting and taking material from
Cladophora glomerata. They also readily took food
dropped into the Little Colorado River by commercial
companies. Young-of-the-year chubs were observed to
forage much like adults, actively inspecting and taking
material from the bottom, mid-water and surface. Because
of their small size.(50 mm), it is assumed that they were
foraging on epipelagic and epilithic diatoms, as well as
on small invertebrates present in those areas. This
behavior was observed from less than 1 meter."
Minckley (1973) noted that humpback chub captured below Glen Canyon Dam had
fed primarily on planktonic crustaceans .which apparently originated in Lake
Powell. Stomach contents of humpback chub taken bkKaeding and Zimmerman -...\ ----- i' N 4 AOA ( (1980 were dominated by immature Chironomidae and Simuliidae, but other organisms were also taken. Although the Gammarus sp. was abundant in the C., Colorado River it was uncommon in stomachs of humpback chub.
Reasons for Decline
The apparent decline of the humpback chub may be due to a combination of
factors. Seethaler et al. (1979) provided an outline which is helpful in
enumerating probable causes for decline of endangered Colorado River fishes.
Major features included: stream alteration (dams, irrigation, dewatering and 14
channelization); competition with and predation by introduced fish species; pollution and eutrophication, and other factors (parasitism, changes in food base, and fishing pressure).
Molles (1980) compared the native fish fauna of the Colorado River system with insular (ecologically isolated) island fauna. He suggested the high level of endemism found in the native fish fauna was evidence of a long period of isolation. During this period of isolation the native fishes would have lost the ability to compete effectively with outside invasion, especially with the highly competitive fish species that were introduced. The fragmentation of the Colorado River system by dams would also isolate subpopulations and restrict gene flow, reducing the ability of subpopulations to adapt to changing conditions. Using theories developed from island biogeography
( MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Simberloff 1974), Molles (1980) indicated that endemic species such as the humpback chub would have difficulties persisting under the combined stress of habitat alteration, and competition with or predation by introduced fish species.
Humpback chub habitat has been lost due to the operation of Flaming Gorge,
Glen Canyon, and perhaps Hoover dams. Impoundments and cold tailwaters created by these dams have been cited as eliminating significant portions of prior habitat (Vanicek et al. 1970; Holden and Stalnaker 1975; Suttkus and
Clemmer 1977; Seethaler et al. 1979; Smith et al. 1979). Reduced flows below cold, tailwaters of dams may adversely affect humpback chub and other rare fishes (Joseph et al. 1977:2 Behnke and Benson 1980). Reductions in flows may
1\1,4 e}ajk 15
have altered river hydraulics to the extent that humpback chub habitat has been reduced or altered significantly. According to Suttkus and Clemmer
(1977), the future of the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon is "questionable" due to man-dominated flows, which are colder and fluctuate more than historic conditions.
Competition and predation related to introduced species, as-previously indicated, may be an important factor in the decline of the humpback chub, since the number of fish species in the Colorado River basin has tripled 0, E R 10 (Holden and Stalnaker 1975; Tyus et al. 1982). Although interspecific A interactions are rarely documented, several nonnative species are known to occur with the humpback chub and may have contributed to its decline (Miller
1961; Holden et al. 1974). Kaeding and Zimmerman (1983) reported some predation by channel catfish on humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. Species introduced into the Colorado River are "...good invaders and competitors...(having)...high productivity, generalized life cycles, and wide physiological tolerance" (Molles 1980).
The potential role of pesticides and other pollutants, as a Gila population - depressant has been discussed by Haynes and Muth (1982) Over 16 percent of the Gila robusta YOY they collected from the YEEFW7g Colorado Rivers in 1981 showed spinal deformities (lordosis) (Haynes and Muth 1981).
Parasitism is another factor that may contribute to the decline of the humpback chub. Infestation of the introduced parasitic crustacean Lernaea has V been reported in 50 percent the humpback chubs taken in the Little Colorado 1 16
River (Carothers et al. 1981; Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983). Lernaea
infestation in chubs has also been noted throughout the upper Colorado basin,
and this problem should be further investigated.
Deacon and Bradley (1972) reported increased parasitism in the roundtail chub
after several fish species were introduced into the Moapa River in Nevada.
These authors suggested parasitism as a factor in the decline of the
roundtail. According to Wydoski (1980), "No data are available to evaluate
parasitism as a cause for the decline of native species in the upper basin,
but this possibility cannot be discounted."
Although the presence of hybrids has been suggested for some locations (Holden
and Stalnaker 1970; Minckley 1973; Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983), the extent of
hybridization is unknown, and the high degree of morphologic variation among
specimens makes the identification of some suspected hybrids difficult (Miller
, et al. 1982c; Valdez and Clemmer 1982; Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983).
Hybridization between fish species does not signify imminent loss of a \ species--a point made by Schwartz (1972) who listed 1,945 known fish hybrids,
many of which are naturally occurring hybrids between other "good" fish
species. Many of the hybrids reported by Schwartz (1972) can be traced to
fish existing under disturbed conditions which tend to favor hybridization but
are not reported for the same fish under more favorable natural conditions.
The significance of hybridization awaits future study. Smith et al. (1979) in
their investigation of species relationships in the genus Gila concluded, 17
"Our analysis indicated that Gila robusta, cypha, and
elegans coexist as three separate, reproductively
isolated species in the main channels of the Colorado and
Green Rivers. This conclusion cannot be confidently
applied to certain populations that we have available but
have not fully studied from Lake Powell, however.
Furthermore, populations of Gila robusta from certain
tributaries where elegans and cypha are absent parallel
these species in many characteristics. We choose a
taxonomic treatment of this situation that emphasizes the
specific distinction of the three populations in the big-
river habitat, but admit the possibility that the
species' isolating mechanisms may break down under
disturbed (reservoir) conditions and that the populations
in tributary streams may not be completely independent or
isolated from the three central forms."
As indicated by Smith et al. (1979) hybridization of otherwise "good" species is usually traced to disturbed, stressful or otherwise unnatural conditions, which have been reported for locations where suspected hybrids are found
(Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983). Such changed conditions could force two or more species to ecologically coexist, creating competition and reducing population isolating mechanisms (Behnke 1980). In this context, hybridization between the humpback chub and its relatives could be regarded as a warning that its preferred habitat is being changed. 18
In summary, the humpback chub has suffered a decline both in numbers and range. Although the humpback chub population appears to be relatively stable in the Black Rocks area of the Colorado River and in the Little Colorado
River, population trends have not been established and there is no evidence to suggest these populations will not suffer the same decline as in other locations. 19
HUMPBACK CHUB RECOVERY PLAN
II. RECOVERY
OP;S.
Objective - To restore and maintain the humpback chub in a non-endangered status. Downlisting will—oecw when i minimum of five self-sustaining humpback chub populations are located and two refugia are established. This would include but not be limited to populations in:
(1) Black Rocks and Westwater Canyons of the Colorado River;
(2) the Little Colorado River;
(3) the Green River in Gray Canyon;
(4) the Green and Yampa Rivers in Dinosaur National Monument.
Delisting may be considered when five self-sustaining populations and two refugia are maintained and their habitats ( flow characteristics, water quality, parameters, etc.) are legally protected.
STEPDOWN OUTLINE
1. Gather field data on life history and status of all existing populations
of humpback chub.
4Ack (0,;(,0c( 4-0 11. Expand on life history of humpback chub. TTIA Q.A-1/4...c.L.
Pr. i - 214 20
111. Describe spawning requirements,
112. Describe feeding behavior, age and growth rates.
113. Study population dynamics,
114. Compile historical population data
12. Identify and monitor humpback chub population- data,
121. Identify existing populations,
1211. Develop improved techniques for identifying humpback
chub,
1212. Conduct further field investigations to search for
remnant humpback chub populations,'
122. Develop and refine monitoring procedures ,
123. Designate monitoring agencies,
124. Implement monitoring procedures ,
W...R ., ActJ a. t cc
T4 21
2. Develop and implement a habitat management plan for the entire Colorado
River System
21. Determine essential habitat,
211. Conduct intensive field investigations to locate humpback chub
spawning and rearing areas etc.
212. Determine biological, chemical and physical requirements ,
213. Determine criteria to identify suitable habitat,
214. Identify essential habitat ,
22. Determine threats to the humpback chub and protect these populations
and their habitat,
221. Monitor and assess impact of development projects .
222. Enforce laws and regulations affecting the humpback chub .
2221. Inform necessary agencies of their enforcement
responsibilities
2222. Assure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA by all Federal agencies , 22
223. Determine threats to the population and its habitat .
2231. Assess effectiveness of current regulations/management
and draft additional regulations or increase
enforcement/protection as needed.
2232. Identify and assess impacts of introduced nonnative
species which compete with or prey on humpback chub ,
2233. Study the nature and extent of parasitism in the
humpback chub ,
2234. Determine the significance of Gila spp. hybridization
problems,
224. Analyze current management practices and modify as needed.
3. Maintain or establish humpback chub populations in five stable habitats
and introduce into two refugia ,
31. Establish and maintain hatchery facilities and produce humpback chub
for stocking for a minimum of 5 years,
311. Develop propagation and holding techniques to maximize
production of young and maintain healthy brood stock . 23
312. Select and/or construct facilities to produce fish.
32. Obtain brood stocks.
33. Explore use of experimental population designation or downlisting.
34. Conduct reintroduction program,
341. Inventory and select areas for reintroduction,
342. Restore or prepare stocking sites as needed,
343. Develop and implement a plan for stocking and monitoring
humpback chub,
4. Maintain an intensive information and education program
41. Conduct local I & E program,
42. Conduct national I & E program
S. Determine when non-endangered status is achieved
51. Define a viable, self-sustaining population relative to humpback
chub, 24
52. Establish quantifiable goal s for downl i sting to threatened and
del isting 25
PROCEDURES FOR RECOVERY - HUMPBACK CHUB
RECOVERY PLAN NARRATIVE
Objective - To restore and maintain the humpback chub in a non-endangered status. Downlisting 'When a minimum of five self-sustaining humpback chub populations are located and two refugia are established. This would include but not be limited to populations in:
(1) Black Rocks and Westwater Canyons of Colorado River;
(2) the Little Colorado River;
.(3) the Green River in Gray Canyon;
(4) the Green and Yampa Rivers in Dinosaur National Monument.
Delisting may be considered when five self-sustaining populations and two refugia are maintained and their habitat are legally protected.
Annual meetings should be conducted to review the overall status of recovery efforts. Each State agency should prepare a report of their recovery efforts for the annual meeting. Additional information is needed before specific quantifiable recovery goals can be established. Thus, interim objectives would include obtaining and analyzing population data in order to define what constitutes a viable, self-sustaining population and to establish specific quantifiable goals for downlisting to threatened and delisting. If and when these goals are met, the humpback chub will be considered for downlisting delisting.tt—t—nuTmendangere4—status, 26
1. Gather field data on life history and status of all existing populations
of humpback chub.
As many existing populations must be located as possible so efforts can be
made to maintain and enhance their survival. Efforts must be made to
identify and monitor reproductive success, population dynamics, feeding
behavior and other life history data.
11. Expand on life history of the humpback chub
All aspects of the life history of the humpback chub will be
described. Some studies have been conducted. However, more
investigations will be needed to answer all life history questions. e_s If during the studies fish -rner-t-a-l-i-ti-es occur, efforts should be
made to maximize the scientific use of the specimens.
111. Describe spawning requirements ,
Little is known about reproduction of humpback chub in the
wild. Understanding the spawning requirements is vital to
achieving the recovery of this species. This would include
intensive field investigations to locate and describe
spawning habitat and collect data on habitat components,
hydraulic characteristics, and water temperature regimens.
A a a l • 27
112. Describe feeding behavior, age and growth rates .
Some information has been collected, but further
investigations on feeding behavior are necessary to evaluate
this life history requirement.
Continuous length and weight data should be kept by
monitoring agencies. An aging technique should be developed
for humpback chub to obtain better age and growth data.
113. Study population
Additional information is needed on productivity,
recruitment, longevity, and mortalilty rates. Information
on species competition and related biological and ecological
interactions which affect the population must be obtained.
Existing populations should be studied using a standardized
quantitative sampling program to provide an index of annual
recruitment and population fluctuations.
114. Compile historical population data .
Historical information on population abundances,
distribution, life history, and other general biological
information should be compiled. This should be compared
with similar current data that has recently been or will be
collected. 28
12. Identify and monitor humpback chub populations
The reproductive success and relative abundance of humpback chub will
be monitored annually as needed. Periodic monitoring will continue
after delisting until it is certain the population will remain stable.
(See 133.)
121. Identify existing populations
Identification of humpback chub with a high degree of certainty
has been a continuing problem. Hybridization with other species
of chubs, in addition to the humpback being a highly variable
form, has complicated the problem of identifying "pure" humpback
populations.
1211. Develop improved techniques for identifying humpback chub
The use of electrophoresis, cytogenetics, and other
laboratory techniques should be further refined and
applied to aid in the development of field identification
techniques. 29
1212. Conduct further field investigations to search for
remnant humpback chub populations.
An effort should be made to locate humpback chub
populations by using effective field collection
techniques in suitable habitats. Special emphasis should
be placed in areas where they were captured before.
122. Develop and refine monitoring procedures •
Adequate procedures for monitoring humpback chub population
trends, abundance, etc. must be developed.
123. Designate monitoring agencies .
Each State in the Colorado River drainage in which humpback
chubs occur may take responsibility for or supervise population
monitoring. A cooperative, well-coordinated effort is
essential.
124. Implement monitoring procedures .
Agency monitoring plans will be implemented and conducted on an
annual basis until the species is delisted. Periodic monitoring
will continue after delisting until it is certain that the
population is stable. 30
2. Develop and implement a habitat management plan for the entire Colorado
River System.
21. Determine essential habitat
Using the criteria developed under tasks 212 and 213, identify all
essential humpback chub habitat as well as potential habitat.
211. Conduct intensive field investigations to locate humpback chub
spawning and rearing areas and other essential habitat.
Intensive field investigations should be implemented to locate
and describe spawning and rearing areas and other essential
habitat and to determine essential habitat components.
212. Determine biological, chemical and physical requirements ,
Conduct studies to determine the various requirements for the
different life stages of the humpback chub. This would include
data on specific substrate components, hydraulic
characteristics, water temperatures, isolating factors,
salinity and environmental contaminant levels, and any other
essential components of the habitat. 31
213. Determine criteria to identify suitable habitat o
Using the information gained in task 212, develop a set of
criteria to use in identifying suitable potential habitat.
214. Identify essential habitat ,
Inventory prospective areas using criteria established in task
213 to identify all essential habitat areas as well as
potential habitat/reintroduction sites.
22. Determine threats to the humpback chub and protect these populations and
their habitat.
The efforts of all appropriate Federal and State agencies must be
coordinated to provide the protection necessary to assure the survival of
the humpback chub.
221. Monitor and assess impacts of development projects •
Monitor all ongoing or proposed development projects to
determine if they will adversely affect the humpback chub or
its habitat. 32
222. Enforce laws and regulations affecting the humpback chub
The objective of this activity is to prevent any additional
destruction of humpback chub stocks or essential habitat.
2221. Inform necessary agencies of their enforcement
responsibilities 0
All agencies should be made aware of their
responsibilities regarding the laws protecting listed
species and their habitats (Endangered Species Act, Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, Lacey Act). Agencies
should keep current on all laws and regulations or
revisions in the laws that would change agency
responsibility.
2222. Assure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA by Federal
Agencies.
Federal agencies should comply with Section 7 of the ESA
and should consult with FWS on any project involving
Federal permits, monies, etc. Water quality and flow
criteria can then be applied through consultation etc. 33
223. Determine threats to the population and its habitat ,
Habitat alteration, competition, parasitism, and hybridization
pose threats to the humpback chub and its habitat which must be
addressed
2231. Assess effectiveness of current regulations/management
and draft additional regulations or increase
enforcement/protection as needed ,
Current management practices, habitat requirement
criteria, and protection or enforcement activities should
be monitored to determine their effectiveness in
conserving the species.
2232. Identify and assess impacts of introduced nonnative
species which compete with or prey upon humpback chub ,
One of the suspected causes in the decline_of humpback
chub populations is the proliferation of nonnative
species of fish in the Colorado River system. These
species need to be identified and their impact on the
humpback assessed. 34
2233. Study the nature and extent of parasitism in the humpback
chub
Determine whether parasitism is playing a role in the
decline of humpback populations. The parasite anchorworm
(Learnea sp.) has been identified in humpback chubs.
More needs to be learned about the role of parasites and
how this problem inteftelates with the introduction -of
nonnative -species and stress caused from competition and
habitat changes.
2234. Determine the significance of Gila spp. hybridization
problems
Valdez and Clemmer (1982) hypothesized that changes in
the water regimes (reduced follows and increased
temperatures) of the humpback's habitat have resulted in
overlapping in the spawning periods of the humpback chub
and roundtail chub and thus have altered those mechanisms
which maintain the species' genetic isolation. The
degree of impact on the species as a result of
hybridization needs to be assessed. If necessary,
habitat management techniques and criteria should be
developed which would increase their genetic isolation. 35
224. Analyze current management practices and modify as needed .
As additional information becomes available on the essential
habitat components, threats, etc., management practices and
protection policies should be evaluated and refined as
necessary.
3. Maintain or establish humpback chub populations in five stable habitats
and introduce into two refugia
To meet the goal of this recovery plan, five self-sustaining humpback chub
populations must be established. - To accomplish this, it will be necessary
to protect existing populations in the Little Colorado River, Black Rocks
and Westwater Canyon areas. It may also be necessary to reintroduce
hatchery-raised humpbacks into suitable stable habitats. Criteria for
defining what constitutes a self-sustaining population could be obtained
from population studies on existing populations. Once it is determined
that these populations are not undergoing significant change over time,
their specific population parameters can be used to establish criteria for
reintroduced populations. 36
31. Establish hatchery facilities and produce humpbacks for stocking for
a minimum of 5 years ,
Based on criteria determined in Task 51, necessary numbers and rates
of stocking will be determined. To assure against loss of all
broodstock resulting from a disaster, two refui4ae of brood fish will
be needed. Feasibility studies will be conducted for a new hatchery
designed specifically for the propagation of humpback chub and other
Colorado River endangered fish species. Dexter National Fish
Hatchery plus an existing Arizona Game and Fish Department holding
facility at Page Springs Hatchery would serve as the two required
refugia. If a new hatchery is constructed it could serve this
purpose.
311. Develop propagation and holding techniques to maximize
production of young and maintain healthy broodstock
Additional information on propagation and holding techniques
must be developed to maximize production of young and maintain
healthy broodstock. This includes all necessary methodologies,
including loading capacities, needed to raise the required
number of young humpback chub. 37
312. Select or construct facilities to produce fish ,
See narrative under section 31. Obtaining additional
facilities would involve either developing a minimal 5-year
agreement with the lead agency to provide facilities and
necessary personnel or actually planning and constructing a
warm water hatchery.
32. Obtain broodstock *
This will include collecting and identification to insure pure
humpback chub are used.
33. Explore use of experimental population designation or downlisting *
Reclassification of reintroduced populations of humpback chubs to
threatened status would be helpful in increasing State support and
approval for reintroduction/stocking programs. Designation as an
experimental population should be explored as an alternative if
coordination/cooperation problems arise.
34. Conduct reintroduction program t
A program must be developed to inventory and select areas for
introductions, prepare or restore stocking sites and develop and
implement a stocking plan. 38
341. Inventory and select areas for reintroduction ,
An evaluation of the characteristics of each potential stocking
site will be conducted and its suitability will be based on
information gathered from habitat requirement studies under
Tasks 111, 212, and 213.
342. Restore or prepare stocking sites as needed s
Habitat enhancement features will be considered. :These
improvements could include physical modification of the habitat
or biological modifications designed to give the humpback chub a
better chance to reestablish itself according to habitat
requirements outlined under tasks 111, 212, and 213. Land and
water resource agencies who have management responsibilities in
the areas to be restored should provide funds and manpower.
343. Develop and implement a plan for stocking and monitoring
humpback chub s
Follow-up stocking of a reintroduction area should be based on
monitoring results to determine carrying capacity and the
success of the initial stocking. 39
4. Maintain an intensive information and education (I & E) program •
Provide workshops for public agencies to inform them of their
responsibilities for endangered species and to involve them in I & E
programs. Develop leaflet describing the humpback chub, its habitat
needs, limiting factors and recovery efforts.
41. Conduct local I & E programs t.
Inform local chapters of environmental groups, newspapers, and media
stations of efforts being made to recover the species and solicit
their assistance in informing the general public.
42. Conduct national I & E programs
Restoration efforts should be published in the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Endangered Species Bulletin. Also, national environmental
groups and newspapers could be contacted and asked to write articles
on the reintroduction and recovery efforts.
5. Determine when non-endangered status is achieved
Review the recovery effort annually. Make the appropriate recommendation
to downlist the humpback chub when monitoring shows that the established
goals have been met. 40
51. Define a viable, self-sustaining population relative to humpback chub ,
Criteria for defining what constitutes a self-sustaining population
could be obtained from population studies on existing populations.
Once it is determined that these populations are not undergoing
significant change over time, their specific population parameters
can be used to establish criteria for reintroduced populations.
52. Establishing quantifiable goals for downlisting to threatened and
delisting
Completion of task 51 should provide sufficient information with
which to determine specific goals for downlisting and recovery. Once
these goals have been reached, delisting procedures can begin. 41
REFERENCES
Behnke, R. J. 1980. The impacts of habitat alterations on the endangered and V threatened fishes of the upper Colorado River basin, p. 204-216. In W.O.
Spofford, Jr., A. L. Parker and A. V. Kneese, (ed.) Energy development in
the southwest. Volume II. Resources for the future. Research Paper R-
18. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
/ Behnke, R. J. and D. E. Benson. 1980. Endangered and threatened fishes of
the upper Colorado River basin. Cooperative Extension Service. Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Bulletin 503A.
// Carothers, S. W., C. O. Minckley, and H. D. Usher. 1981. Infestation of the
copepod parasite Lernaea cyprinaceae in the native fishes of the Grand
Canyon. National Park Service. Transactions Proc. Ser. Washington, D. C.
Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team. 1979. Humpback Chub Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City Area Office, Salt Lake
City, Utah.
Deacon, J. E. and W. G Bradley. 1972. Ecological distribution of fishes of
Moapa (Muddy) River in Clark County, Nevada. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society. 101(3):408-491. 42
i Euler, F. C. 1978. Archaeological and paleobiological studies at Stanton's Cave, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Progress Report National
Geographic Society. 1969. Research Reports.
Hamman, R. L. 1980. Unpublished letter to Regional Director, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 15 September. 1980.
/Haynes, C.M. and R.T. Muth. 1981. Lordosis in Gila sp., Yampa River,
Colorado. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council. Vol. 13. IN PRESS.
I Holden, P. B. 1978. A study of the habitat use and movement of the rare fishes in the Green River, Utah. Transactions of the Bonneville Chapter
of the American Fisheries Society. Volume. 1978:64-89.
4 Holden, P. B. and C. B. Stalnaker. 1970. Systematic studies of the cyprinid genus Gila in the upper Colorado River Basin. Copeia (3):409-420.
Holden, P. B. and C. B. Stalnaker. 1975. Distribution and abundance of
mainstream fishes of the middle and upper Colorado River basin, 1967-1973.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 104(2):217-231.
4 Holden, P. B. and L. W. Crist. 1980. Documentation of changes in the
macroinvertebrate and fish populations in the Green River system.
Bio/West, Inc., Logan, Utah. PR 31-1. 43
Holden, P. B., W. White, G. Somerville, D. Duff, R. Vervais, S. Gloss. 1974.
Threatened fishes of Utah. Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Science,
Arts, Letters. 51(2):46-65.
i Jordan, J. W. 1981. Fish diets. In S.W. Carothers, and R. A. Johnson, (ed.)
A survey of the fishes, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants of the
Colorado River and selected tributaries from Lees Ferry to Separation
Rapids. Report to Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada.
Kaeding, L.R. and M.A. Zimmerman. 1983. Life history and ecology of the
humpback chub in the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers of the Grand
Canyon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 112:577-594.
Kidd, G. 1977. An investigation of endangered and threatened fish species in
the upper Colorado River as related to Bureau of Reclamation projects,
Final Report. Bureau of Reclamation. Grand Junction, Colorado.
Kolb, E. and E. Kolb. 1914. Experience in the Grand Canyon. The National
Geographic Magazine. 26(2):99-184.
I/MacArthur, R. H. and E. 0. Wilson. 1967. Theory of island biogeography.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 44
Miller, R. R. 1946. Gila cypha, a remarkable new species of cyprinid fish
from the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Journal of the
Washington Academy of Science. 36(12):409-415.
,/Miller, R. R. 1955. Fish remains from archaeological sites in the lower
Colorado River basin, Arizona. Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, Letters
Papers. 40:125-136.
4 Miller R. R. 1959. Origin and affinities of the freshwater fish fauna of
Western North America. In C. L. Hubbs (ed.) Zoogeography, American
Association of Science. Washington, D.C. Volume 41.
4 Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American
southwest. Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, Letters, Papers. 46:365-
404.
Miller, R. R. 1964. Fishes of Dinosaur. Naturalist 15(2):24-29.
/Miller, W. H., D. L. Archer, H. M. Tyus and K. C. Harper. 1982a. White River
fishes study, final 'Report: Colorado River Fishery Project. U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Miller, W. H., D. L. Archer, H. M. Tyus and R. M. McNatt. 1982b. Yampa River
fishes study, final report. Colorado River Fishery Project. U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Salt Lake City, Utah. 45
Minckley, C. O. 1977. A preliminary survey of the fish of the Little Colorado
River from Blue Sprint to the vicinity of Big Canyon, Coconino County,
Arizona. Report to the Office of Endangered Species, Region II, U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
V Minckley, C. O. 1978. Monitor the population trends of the genus Gila in
selected localities. In S.W. Carothers (ed.) River resource monitoring
project, Grand Canyon National Park. Report to National Park Service,
Grand Canyon, Arizona.
//Minckley, C. O. 1979. Additional studies on the Little Colorado River
population of the humpback chub. Report to the Office of Endangered
Species, Region II, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
4 Minckley, C. O. 1980. River resource monitoring project - Gila spp. studies.
Grand Canyon National Park. In S.W. Carothers, (ed.) River resource
monitoring project, Grand Canyon National Park. Report to National Park
Service, Grand Canyon, Ariiona. Final Report.
Minckley, C. O., S. W., Carothers, J. W. Jordan, J. D. Usher. 1981.
Observations on the humpback chub, Gila cypha, within the Colorado and
Little Colorado rivers, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. National
Park Service Trans. Proc. Ser. Washington, DC. 46
Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department,
Phoenix, Arizona.
1/ Molles, M. 1980. The impacts of habitat alterations and introduced species on
the native fishes of the upper Colorado River basin, p. 163-181 In W.D.
Sofford, Jr., A. L. Parker, and A. V. Kneese, (ed.) Energy development in
the Southwest. Volume II. Resources for the future Research Paper R-18.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Nikolsky, G. V. 1978. The ecology of fishes. T. F. H. Publication, Inc.,
Neptune City, New Jersey. (Translated from Russian).
V/ Schwartz, F. J. 1972. World literature to fish hybrids with an analysis by
family species, and hybrid. Gulf Coast Research Lab, Publication Number
3, Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
iSeethaler, K. H., C. W. McAda, and R. S. Wydoski. 1979. Endangered and
threatened fish in the Yampa and Green rivers of Dinosaur National
Monument, p.605-612 In R.M. Linn, (ed.) Proceedings of the First
Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks. U. S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, Transactions of Proceedings
Series.
I Sigler, W. F. and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Department of Fish
and Game, Salt Lake City, Utah. • 47
Simberloff, D. S. 1974. Equilibrium theory of island biogeography and
ecology. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 5:162-182.
4 Smith, G. R. 1960. Annotated list of fish of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir
Basin, 1959, p.163-268. In R. M. Woodbury, (ed.) Ecological studies of
the flora and fauna of Flaming Gorge Reservoir Basin, Utah and Wyoming.
Anthropological Paper Number 48, Series Number 3, Department of
Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
q Smith, G. R., R. R. Miller, and W. D. Sable. 1979. Species relationships
among fishes of the genus Gila in the upper Colorado River drainage.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
4 Suttkus, R. D., G. H. Clemmer, C. Jones, and C. R. Shoop. 1976. Surve)% of
fishes, mammals and herpetofauna of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon.
Colorado River Research Series Contribution Number 34. Grand Canyon
National Park, Arizona.
Suttkus, R. D. and G. H. Clemmer. 1977. The humpback chub, Gila cypha, in
the Grand Canyon area of the Colorado River. Occasional Papers of the
Tulane University Museum of Natural History. 1:1-30.
\Tyus, H. M., B. D. Burdick, R. A. Valdez, C. M. Haynes, T. A. Lytle and C. R.
Berry. 1982a. Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin: Distribution,
Abundance, and Status, p.12-70. In: Miller, W. H., H. M. Tyus, and C. A.
Carlson (ed,) Fishes of the Upper Colorado River System: Present and
Future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 131 pp. 48
Tyus, H. M., C. W. McAda, and B. D. Burdick. 1982. Green River Fishery /1 Investigations, p.1-99. In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of
Reclamation. Colorado River Fishery Project, Part 2.
N(U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Endangered Species Technical
Bulletin. 5(10):3. i Valdes-Gonzales, A. 1980. Induced spawn of the humpback chub, Gila cypha. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council Volume XII.
./Valdez, R. A. 1981. Status of the distribution and taxonomy of Gila cypha in
the upper Colorado River. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council Volume
XII: 53-68.
Valdez, R. A. and G. H. Clemmer. 19821 Life History and prospects for
recovery of the humpback and bonytail chub, p. 109-119. In W.M. Miller,
H. M. Tyus and C. A. Carlson (ed). Fishes of the Upper Colorado River
system: Present and Future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.
J Valdez, R., P. Mangan, R. Smith and B. Nilson. 1982 Upper Colorado River V
Investigation, p.100-279. In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of
Reclamation. Colorado River Fishery Project. Part 2. 49
,iVanicek, C. D., R. H. Kramer, and D. R. Franklin. 1970. Distribution of
Green River fishes in Utah and Colorado following closure of Flaming Gorge
Dam. Southwestern Naturalist. 14(3):297-315.
J Wick, E. J., D. E. Snyder, D. Langlois, and T. Lytle. 1979. Federal Aid to
endangered wildlife job progress report. Colorado squawfish and humpback
chub population and habitat monitoring. SE-3-2. Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Denver, Colorado.
J Wick, E. J., T. A. Lytle, and C. M. Haynes. 1981. Colorado squawfish and
humpback chub population and habitat monitoring, 1979-1980. Progress
Report, Endangered Wildlife Investigations. SE-3-3. Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Denver.
v( Wydoski, R. S. 1980. Potential impacts of alterations in the streamflow and
water quality on fish and macroinvertebrates in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. Pages 77-147 in Spofford, W. D., Jr., A. L. Parker, and A. V.
Kneese, editors,. Energy development in the southwest Volume II.
Resources for the future. Research Paper R-18. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore,-Maryland.. 50
PART III
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Definition of Priorities
Priority 1 - All actions that are absolutely essential to prevent the
extinction of the species.
Priority 2 - All actions necessary to maintain the species current
population status.
Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the
species.
Abbreviations Used in Implementation Schedule
AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department BR Bureau of Reclamation, USDI CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife FR Fishery Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LE Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NPS National Park Service, USDI SE Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources compl. Completed-at this'time, may be reinitiated contin. continuous-task/action will be required over a very long or undetermined period of time on going task which is now being implemented 51
GENERAL CATEGORIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES
Information Gathering - I or R (research)
1. Population status
2. Habitat status
3. Habitat requirements
4. Management techniques
5. Taxonomic studies
6. Demographic studies
7. Propagation
8. Migration
9. Predation
10. Competition
11. Disease
12. Environmental contaminant
13. Reintroduction
14. Other information
Management - M
1. Propagation
2. Reintroduction
3. Habitat maintenance and manipulation
4. Predator and competitor control 52
5. Depredation control
6. Disease control
7. Other management
Acquisition - A
I. Lease
2. Easement
3. Management agreement
4. Exchange
5. Withdrawal
6. Fee title
7. Other
Other - 0
1. Information and education
2. Law enforcement
3. Regulations
4. Administration 4 PRICRITY # TASK RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FISCAL YEAR COvI,ENTS/NOTES GENERAL PLAN TASK TASK COSTS----- (EST.) CATEGORY DURATION .FWS OTHER FY-01 FY-02 FT0T REGVN-WWW------(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Ea) (7) (3) (9)
1-3 Describe spawning 111 1 3 yrs 6 SE 28,000 29,000 requirements 1-3 Describe feeding 112 3 continuous 6 SE Undetennined Work will be carried behavior age & gnalpith rates ongoing UDWR out incidental to CDOW major care studies. BR 1-1 Study population 113 2 continuous SE, FR Work will be carried dynanics ongoing SE, FR out incidental to COOW Task 124. UDWR AGFO MPS BR I-1 Cimpile historical 114 3 ongoing 2 SE Acconplish by various population data 6 SE investigators. CDOW 5,000 5,000 UDWR ACID '7 1-5 Develop techniques for 1211 1 ,e, 2 SE, FR identifying hunpback ongoing 6 SE, FR 17,000 17,000 chub COW ' 10,000 5,000 UDWR I-1 Develop refine 122 2 continuous 2 SE, FR nunitoringprccedure 6 SE, FR 5,000 5,000 1-1 Designatempnitoring 123 2 2 SE, FR agencies 6 SE, FR
I 2_ 2.. Ad. CI CENERAL PLAN TASK TASK # PRIORITY # TASK - RESPONSIBLE AGENZY - FISCAL YEAR COSTS (EST.) CCMINTS/NOTES CATEGORY DURATICN NS antg--- Fizr----17.7152.----innT1- ----orar—pRam (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6a) (7) (8) (9)
I-1 Implement monitoring 124 1 continuous 6 SE, FR 53,000 32,000 34,000 ongoing 2 SE, FR 10,000 10,000 NPS CDCW 1,000 1,000 1,000 UDWR PFD
1-3 Locate spawning and 211 1 3 yrs. 6 SE P6,000 92,1100 101,000 Working now ongoing. rearing areas ongoing BR
1-3 Determine biological, 212 1 3 yrs. 6 SE 16,000 17,000 18,000 chonical, physical requirenents. ,r in 1-3 Determine criteria to 213 3 6 SE Acconplish incithntal I dentify suitable to Tasks 211 and 212. habitats
1-2 Locate potential 214 3 unknown 6 SE 33,000 habitat 2 MOW LDWR AGFD BR NPS
1-14 Assess impacts of 221 1 continuous 6 ------Costs ircludb development projects ongoing 2 CDOW salaries of LOWR people involved. AGFD NPS BR GENERAL PLAN TASK TASK # PRICRITY # TASK RESPONSIBLE - AGENCY------FISCAL YEAR COSTS (EST.) CC:RENTS/MIES CATEGORY DURATION FWS —MTV FY-ol FY-02 FY-03 REGICH PROGRM (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6a) (7) (8) ( 9)
0-1 Inform agencies of their 2221 2 continuous SE, LE unknown enforcement responsibil- ongoing SE, LE ities
0-3 Assure conpliance with 2222 I ongoing 6 SE ------costs include Section 7 of ESA 2 SE salaries 0-3 Assess effectiveness 2231 2 ongoing 6 SE of current regulations 2 SE CDOW UDWR AGED PS BR
LC) I-10 Assess impacts of 2232 1 5 yrs. SE 18,000 21,000 138,000 LC) introduced nonnative on going SE 4,003 4,000 species I-11 Study nature and 2233 2 completed 6 SE done adequately extent of parasitism unless additional problems arise. 3 I-5 Determine significance 2234 1 6 SE 16,000 16,000 of hybridization CON LOCO 1,000 1,000 problems 1-4 Analyze and modify 224 2 continuous SE, FR management practices SE, FR COW WWR ACFD 3 11-1 Develop propagation 311 2 2 FR, SE 15,000 15,000 15,000 work dane at Dexter and holding technique Airs FH 2 -1 4-- ,
, CENERAL PLAN TASK TASK # PRIORITY # TASK RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FISCAL YEAR COSTS (EST.) CC14ENTS/N3TES ------CAIF.GORY DURATION -RS --mu FY-01 iii412 17411 REGIN PlItTCMT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6a) (7) (8) (9)
/4-1 Select/construct hatchery 312 3 5 yrs. 6 SE, FR 200,00 200,000 200,00 ,1 tbt separate film CO. squawfi sh
1-2 Inventory/select areas 341 2 SE, FR 2,0(X) 2,0ffl See Task 214 / Yr. for reintroduction 6 SE, FR
M-3 Restore/prepare stocking 342 3 uncleter- 2 SE, FR undetermined sites mined 6 SE, FR CDOW UEUR AD BR 'PS
M-2 Cevel op/inpl ement stocking 343 3 undeter- 2 FR,SE plan mined 6 FR, SE MOW LOUR 1-0 AŒD BR 'PS
0-1 Conduct local I & E 41 3 as needed 2 SE, PAO program 6 SE, PAO CDCW UCIIR ACID BR NPS
0-1 Conduct national I & E 42 3 ongoing SE, PO prcgram T, PAO
M-7 Define vi le, self- 51 3 Recovery sustaining population Team
14-7 Establ i sh quanti f obi e 5? 3 6 goals for thwnlisting/ 2 P“ s 0V ,Wy