7330 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, , fro~ these additional collections. We have done this extra study and will continue to do 80 whenever feasible because we are intensely interested in the welfare of the native fishes and other vertebrates and the endemic plants. As per your letter of July 27, 1976 we did make a special effort to obtain all the information we could with regards to the biology of the humpback chub. We did not have the degree of flexi- bility in our trip that we had hoped for because of all the extra people who were along on the trip that were not contributing toward our efforts. However, we did obtain young chub and ate'll juveniles of the humpback chub at the mouth of the Little Colorado and from the main Colorado River at the mouth of the Little Colorado River. None was obtained more than a few yards upstream in the Little Colorado. We also obtained young chub from two places in the main Colorado between the Little Colorado and Shinumo Creek. Also we obta1nedone young chub froM the mouth of Shinumo Creek. We therefore support our previous statement~ about the Little Colorado River and the main Colorado from the Little Colorado River down to Shinumo Creek as critical habitat. Furthermore we believe that the humpback chub is the important species.in this prescribed area and that if the bony tail chub, Gila elegans, does exist thereat all it does so in such few numbers that there is little or no reproduction. Our recommendation that the ~bove area be closed to angling is herein repeated. We also would like to repeat and emphasize two other recommendations. A monitoring study should be continued for at least the next two years and be secondly a habitat restoration plan should^~eveloped and that the restoration plan is prerequisite to all other activities except for the monitoring. We do not recommen~ remov~l of ~ny stock - -1)-