Laserfiche WebLink
~¢~COVQ1710/ <br />w~c• ~~ <br />• <br />~MM[IfOM1'J: <br />eH~L~ F. rows, o.D., ~.., <br />rRAP~C f~, .~-. Y~ <br />MFL10N G. EVAAlS, FisgstalF <br />G. fiENE 70LLE, Ma~niR <br />WN.UAM H. r~RS. -+waAf <br />ROtiERT ~. JAM2EDi ~/~ ~.Y~~., , . <br /> <br />;,: <br />A,n. Dinaor, o~.p*, ~ .~>> .22.22 Ll/.~t ~+..,,.~ (~L i <br />~HiL M. COSPER ~` <br />Aut. Dirclo., S.rw:c•, 2 3 <br />ROGER J. GRUEt~EWAID <br />W. 0. Nelson, Regional Director <br />Fish €r Wildlife Service <br />P. 0. Box 130fi <br />Albuquerque, NM 87103 , <br />Dear Bill: <br />Sorry about <br />siaply don't have <br />t iarely canner . lie <br />they are subaitted <br />L- I <br />:ii _ ,. <br />-- , - <br />~EE <br />d <br />~~ ~ <br />~d5 94.2 -3G~ <br />- - --=`~S"`f-"`--- <br />F~i.~: _.~_..__-------- <br />February 1978V~ ~ °- ~~ <br />~RD <br />~, r, ~.~ <br />~_.__...I,~: _ . <br />__~._ ~-i,CTIO <br />...___...i,ii~i+~ <br />the delay in reviewing the woundfin recovery plan. We <br />the staff to attend to endangered species issues in a <br />hope our coaasiants can still be considered even though <br />late. <br />The recovery plan in general is well done and obviously represents a <br />lot of thought and work on the part of teaseanembers. 1-e do, however, have <br />several critical coawments to offer, mostly having to do with the transplant <br />recommendation. <br />One fact which the team has apparently not considered in determining <br />the feasibility of a transplant is that if the waundfin vanished from <br />historic habitat it probably did so because of habitat degradation. If <br />A j habitat changes of a a~gnitude severe to cause extirpation of a species <br />occurred sons time in the past, wh$t evideaace is there that the habitat has <br />now improved to the point where it~can again supp©rt the woundfin?, We find <br />it extremely difficult to believe any such improve~rent is likely to have taken <br />place. The recovery plan atowhere addresses this question which we think is <br />extremely basic to any reintroductiart attempt. 'ire fact that unsuccessful <br />attests have already beers>fade tca reintroduce this species in several waters <br />suggests that the species sap well r•®quire habitat coaseiitions not easily met. <br />The teaas's recognitica that we prssiatly lack knowledge about habitat <br />preferences and reeds would also seasi to suggest the desirability of making <br />haste slowly with reintrod~tion attea~ts. The reca~very plan poiats up the <br />A Z need for xesearch to provide aawJre data on such elesents as feeding habits, <br />winter ha~aitat rega~airtts, spawning nreds, end hydrolo;ic corKiitions <br />necessary for viable habitat. Ssrc~ rese~h iaa fact fa giveJn top priority <br />ranking. Yet despite the recognized deficiency in the data base, reintro- <br />ductions are being proposed to either precede or coincide with the studies <br />that will, it is hoped, fill in the blanks. We are inclined to think the <br />studies should come first. <br />On page 29 it is ;recommended that habitat aranagement plans for the <br />A 3 Virgin River should be developed by the BLM. It wears doubtful that the BLM <br />could accomplish this without the close attention of the Recovi -. Thgc'~ <br />r^.., <br />R .., r, ~. <br />