Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'" <br /> <br />'f' <br />, <br /> <br />sites), the native fish population may be enhanced whereas the <br />exotics would be held in check. Native fish presently extirpated <br />could be brought back and existing species enhanced with this <br />method, possibly helping them to be downlisted or delisted. Why <br />shouldn't a non-operational enhancement of native fish be used? <br />Why is the DEIS lacking a discussion of alternatives to main stem <br />spawning? <br /> <br />Pg. 109, C. 2, P. 4. You do not mention that Carothers and Brown <br />(1990) cited evidence that 80% of the biomass consisted of carp and <br />catfish at the time of dam closure. This should be mentioned here. <br />The fact non-natives are impacted by cold water should be explored <br />as an alternative way to both enhance native fish and also depress <br />non-natives. A viable alternative may be to keep cold water and <br />augment (naturally or artificially) native fish with large numbers <br />of a life staae which are capable of surviving cold water. If we <br />attempt to return to habitats more conducive to warmwater fish, <br />non-natives would probably dominate natives again. <br /> <br />'~ <br />,;; <br /> <br />',I <br /> <br />~~' <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Pg. 110, C. 1, P. 1. Striped bass were caught below the dam during <br />the high flows of 1983-84 indicating passage from Lake Powell. <br />Which non-natives use the Little Colorado River and which ones <br />exist in the river and are precluded from the LCR? What conditions <br />exist in LCR which preclude use by some non-natives? Why hasn't <br />the DEIS explored alterative ways to control nonnative <br />interactions? <br /> <br />(': <br />~. <br />~.}" <br />":-.A <br /> <br />:,-.,;, <br />,', <br />';' <br /> <br />Pg. 111, C. 1, P. 1. This paragraph fails to explore the Lake <br />Mohave situation. Carp predation of razorback eggs and larvae has <br />been reasonably well documented and this impact should be discussed <br />as it relates to historic predation in the canyon. The DEIS should <br />speculate on the possible need to restrict trout impacts on native <br />fish by reducing stocking. You could discuss the possible direct <br />and indirect competition between a 4-month old fingerling trout <br />spawned in February with a newly-hatched larval native fish. Is it <br />possible these young trout are foraging on the newly-hatched native <br />fish or at least consuming their food or using their space? <br /> <br />Pg. 111, C. 2, P. 3. What information exists on non-native fish <br />diets in mainstem and tributaries ? <br /> <br />~: . <br />'... <br />" <br />r.\ <br />r.: <br />C <br />r <br /> <br />t:~". <br />~.;' <br />, ' <br />I:: <br />t':: <br />," <br /> <br />0,' <br />v.: <br />~. ; <br />f.~ <br />(. <br />~, <br />r....; <br /> <br />~ .", \ <br />i-'i: <br /> <br />Pg. 112, C. 1, P. 2. You should give a brief status report on the <br />last five years of stocking so the reader knows the magnitude and <br />can judge its importance to recruitment and population maintenance. <br /> <br />Pg. 112, C. 1, P. 3. There is no comment on the variety of trout <br />strains put in the river or any speculation on what these different <br />strains may have contributed to successes or failures of the <br />fishery. The Davis trout strain study for the Arizona Department <br />of Game and Fish was not mentioned yet it discussed these <br />possibilities. <br /> <br />~~i... <br />~! <br />,;" <br />d <br />;.~ <br />;~:. <br />:.~ <br /> <br />,.' <br />,. <br /> <br />24 <br />