9417

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9417
• Author: U.S. Department of the Interior.
• Title: Final Environmental Assessment
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Acquisition and Enhancement of Floodplain Habitats along the Upper Colorado, Green, and Gunnison Rivers as part of the Recovery Program for Endangered Colorado River Fishes.
• Copyright Material: NO

4

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

misleading to the reader. You state the purpose of restoring floodplain habitats is
to provide what native fish do not currently have. This statement reads as if there
are 60 miles that flood on an annual basis. The EA should explain the need for
acquisition of private lands if 60 miles of shoreline and 112 sites are presently
available for public management.

I - Related Projects - This information should be taken a step further to show
how floodplain restoration along with these other management actions will help
recover endangered fish. If many of these management activities do not occur
simultaneously (e.g., nonnative fish control), we have no evidence to suggest
floodplain restoration activities alone will help recover these fish.

8. Appendix E and F Scientific names should either be underlined or italicized.
Category PE should be listed in the footnote. To make the footnote of these two
appendixes easier to read they should coincide with the category listed in the
. table. For example: LE= listed endangered, LT= listed threatened, etc. and
eliminate L, E, T, and P categories in the footnote. Also, we see no benefit in
showing species with existing or historic ranges outside the project area (e.g.,
grizzly bear, June sucker, etc.) and suggest these be deleted.

9. Appendix G. Larval razorback suckers were reported to drift passively from
spawning sites in Lake Mohave (Marsh and Minckley 1989; Minckley et al.
1991)". This statement cannot be located or confinned in Minckley et al. 1991.

10. References. A number of references listed in the reference section are not listed
in the text and a few references cited in the text are not listed in the reference
section. This may be due to eliminating portions of the text and not eliminating
the associated references. In any case, this large number of missing references
should have been picked up through internal review of this document. This
clearly needs to be cleaned up before the next draft is distributed.

The following list of references are not included in the reference section of this
EA: Holden and Wick 1982, Nesler et al. 1988, Taba et al. 1965, Twedt and
Holden 1980, Tyus and Haines 1991, Tyus and Karp 1989, USFWS 1990 Report
to Congress, and Wydoski 1980.

The following list of references are not included in the ~ of this EA: Anderson
1997; Bestgen 1990; Bishop 1971; Brooks 1986a and 1986b; Burdick 1994;
Burdick et al. 1997; City of Delta 1996; CDOW, UDOW, WGFD, and USFWS
1996; Colorado Water Conservation Board 1995; Courtenay 1993; Cranney
1994b; Eisler 1985; Fradkin 1983; Grabowski and Hiebert 1989; Hackett and Post
1986; Hamilton and Waddell 1994; Hardin 1960; Hawkins and Nesler 1991; Hunt
and Huser 1988; Jacobi and Jocobi 1982; Jacobs 1989; Kaeding and Osmundson
1988; Kaeding et al. 1990; Kidd and Sutton 1982; Langhorst and Marsh 1986;
Lassuy 1995; Lemly 1993; Lemly and Smith 1987; Lentsch et al. 1995; Li and
Mathias 1982; Li and Moyle 1993; Maier and Knight 1994; Marsh and Langhorst