Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />_~ Page 20, line 3 - The justification for propagation of the <br />bonytail chub and roundtal7 chub should be elaborated <br />on. Thefctfierhumtback chubXShould beuclarifiedhe re- <br />covery o P <br />_g Page 20 - Objective #3 and associated costs should probably be <br />contingent on the development of general holding and <br />propagation criteria for Endangered fish. These <br />criteria are programmed to be, accomplished by the <br />Division of Research in FY 79. <br />v-9' Page 32 - Subobjectives #514 and #52 are not assigned to an <br />agency for implementation. <br />Finally, we believe it is important that the estimated costs in the <br />proposed budget be as accurate as possible. The Service and other <br />r-1o agencies use these figures for planning purposes. Some of the cost <br />estimates seem to be too high. Perhaps some of these tasks can be <br />performed at the same to e.assurveysrforetherhumpback chub andcthe <br />~n the Colorado River, g . <br />Colorado River squawfish. <br />We hope these comments will contributeotcotiescofpthe~completed pluanback <br />Chub Recovery Plan. Please send us tw p <br />with cooperators' comments and a title page for the Director's signature. <br /> <br />65 <br />