6013

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 6013
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, C. R. F. R. T.
• Title: Humpback Chup Recovery Plan.
• USFW Year: 1979.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

~ M
* -~ ~='' United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
~. CENTRAL UTAN PROJECTS OFFICE
P.O. SOX !3!d
PROYO, UTAH 8160!
aaFCaL'rne CUPO-150 C
565.
Memorandum ~~~ ~ 1 918
To: Regional Director, II.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Deaver, CO
From: Pzoject Manager, Provo, Utah
Subject: FA/SE/ Colorado River Fishes Recovery Plan (Your Letter of
July 26, 1978}
Mr. Chuck Lane of ouz staff sad a member of the recovery team has reviews
the draft, Sumpback Chub Recovery Plan, is his capacity as as individual
team member and his comments are presented below.
Comments representing the official•view of the Bureau of Reclamation are
being prepared by Mr. Harold Sersland, Regional Environmental Specialist,,
UC Region, Salt Lake Gity, Utah. These comments will be submitted at
a later date.
1. General. The draft appears to ,be very well written and accurately
presents material reviewed and developed at the March 21 and 22,
1978 team meeting.
2. Page 10. The statement of the plan's goal appears somewhat
inconsistent with the objectives presented to accomplish it.
Currently there exist several self-sustaining populations of
C-1 chubs. It seems as though first priority and emphasis should be
as maintaining and improving existing populations and habitat.
Establishing new populations may not be required. The present
wording implies that establishing new populations is most. important.
Suggest rewarding.
3. Page 13. The inconsistency mentioned in Comment 2 is demonstrated
here. The goal emphasizes establishing populations whereas the
C-2 most vital effort is stated to be protection and maiatenance•of
existing populations and habitat.
4. Page 21, Item 32. Question whether the Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service and Forest Service should be exempted from .
~3 contributing to the funding of artificial propagation facilities
since some of the habitat problems result from activities under
the jurisdiction of these agencies.
36