Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />velocity factors to enable construction of curves which could <br /> <br /> <br />be used with at least a reconnaissance level of confidence. In <br /> <br />.-'" <br />-.J <br />~ <br />r\,) <br /> <br />an attachment to the January 18 1 etter, the status of <br /> <br /> <br />response-curve avai 1 abil ity for UCRB species was presented. <br /> <br /> <br />Biologists were invited to suggest other fishes they might <br /> <br /> <br />prefer as target species, provided they could furnish CIFSG <br /> <br /> <br />with sufficient data to construct reliable curves. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In his memorandums dated January 11 and February 1, 1978 <br /> <br /> <br />(attachments A-I and -2), the Study Manager brought the matter <br /> <br /> <br />of target species to the attention of the members and partici- <br /> <br /> <br />pants involved in the Steering Committee and assessment. <br /> <br /> <br />Target species (and recreational activities) were noted on the <br /> <br /> <br />attachment which listed the "representative stream reaches." <br /> <br /> <br />Thus, attachment 0-2 of this appendix, a memorandum to the <br /> <br /> <br />Study Manager dated February 9, 1978, addresses primarily the <br /> <br /> <br />matter of target species and the inability of the CIFSG to use <br /> <br /> <br />certai nones ( specifi ca lly, the humpback chub and round tail <br /> <br /> <br />chub) because response curves were not available. In the case <br /> <br /> <br />of certain species (e.g. mountain whitefish, channel catfish, <br /> <br /> <br />and kokanee salmon) data were not at hand to complete curves <br /> <br /> <br />for the egg stage. For the Colorado squawfi sh, data were at <br /> <br />hand but curves had not been drafted as of January 18. <br /> <br />The target species selected in connection with the reaches used <br /> <br /> <br />to obtain initial data for stream simulation were: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />30 <br />