Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Ie <br /> <br />!e <br /> <br />0052G <br /> <br />56 <br /> <br />issue ofadding these fish to the monitoring efforts and how much this additional effort will <br />affect monitoring budgets and overall program budgets. The second phase addresses identifying <br />other tributaries where translocation of humpback chub and other native fishes would be <br />appropriate. The identification of other tributaries, development of an appropriate translocation <br />plan, monitoring and funding source for this effort would be included in this phase. This effort <br />would be coordinated with the National Park Service. <br /> <br />Summary Project Description: Phase I initiated in 2003 by USFWS with translocation of <br />juvenile humpback chub to the upper reaches of the perennial flowing LCR with follow-up <br />monitoring. Funds for this work include continued data collection at the translocation site in the <br />LCR and time for additional translocation events, if appropriate. Ifphase 2 of this project is to <br />proceed, we recommend preparing an RFP for initiation in 2007. Award of project funding will <br />be contingent on rigorous scientific review of project proposal. <br /> <br />MO's and RIN's ADDRESSED: MO 2.1 and 2.6 <br /> <br />Status/Schedule: This project will be completed in December 2005 with the delivery of a final <br />report. <br /> <br />Implications of Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Budget: Outside Science/labor: <br />Allocation is increased to cover monitoring and translocation. Logistics:unchanged. <br />Training/travel related costs: zero. Supplies/operations: zero. GCMRC salaries: zero. <br /> <br />Expected ProductslDeliverables: <br />. Annual and final reports. <br /> <br />GCMRC FY2006 Annual Work Plan (Draft, June 10,2005) <br />