Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lN~7T <br /> <br />Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program <br />Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan Ad Hoc Group <br /> <br />Comments on the Genetics Management Plan for Humpback Chub (Gila cyplta) <br />Draft 1 (dated April 22, 2005, Prepared by Thomas E. Czapla, Upper Colorado <br />River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, D.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, <br />Colorado) for distribution 10 the Technical Work Group, June 22, 2005 <br /> <br />In general, the ad hoc agrees with the intent of the document, to provide direction should <br />humpback chub be brought into captivity, and to maintain genetic viability of the species. <br />We also agree that the primary focus for conservation of humpback chub should be on <br />reducing or removing the threats to the species to improve the status of wild populations. <br />However, we request that this document be revised to have broader applicability and <br />better address current management questions, such as translocations and genetic <br />ramifications of small founder populations that may establish in tributary streams. We <br />feel that this document should serve as the primary resource to consult prior to any <br />translocation or removal of humpback chub to a refuge. We also offer the following <br />comments: <br /> <br />I. The document should be more explicit that the recommendations that begin on <br />page 5 are placed in a hierarchical order, based on the level ofthreat or crisis <br />to the species or population, such that those actions which are relatively low <br />risk would be carried out first, and at lower crises levels for humpback chub, <br />and those requiring greater effort, cost, and risk (such as captive propagation) <br />would be carried out later and ranked lower down the list (a higher number). <br /> <br />2. Recommendations (alternatives) 4-6 should have criteria, or triggers, that are <br />numerical metrics (e.g. population estimates of humpback chub, or estimates <br />of specific age classes of humpback chub) that would need to be met for the <br />recommendation to be carried out. If data is unavailable to provide these <br />metrics in the Genetics Management Plan (GMP), the document should state <br />what data are lacking, and what the process is for updating the GMP once the <br />necessary data is in place (e.g. "this portion of the plan will be updated once <br />studies x, y and z are completed"). <br /> <br />3. The document should clearly state whether all humpback chub populations are <br />interchangeable as is implied in the second sentence of the first <br />recommendation on page 5 "With 2-3 wild core populations available for <br />redundancy as insurance in case of a catastrophic event, emphasis and <br />resources should be placed on removing or minimizing threats to the species." <br />The document should also cite the most current literature that supports this, or <br />at least acknowledge that ongoing research may lead to a reevaluation of this <br />assumption (that humpback chub populations are genetically homogenous <br />enough to be interchangeable). The document should also address the fact <br />