Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />G <br />~ <br />Q, <br />(7. <br />t~ <br /> <br />might also be a contributing factor to low larval survival.. The 30 mm razorback suckers reported <br />by Minckley from a predator free environment also were in a food rich environment where growth <br />was very rapid. Obviously, a food rich environment where growth is fast reduces the window where <br />larval fishes are sllsceptible to intense predation. Like spawning cues, its likely a combination of <br />factors such as food availability, habitat and introduced predators that result in low larval survival <br />and this should be acknowledged. <br />RESPONSE: We agree and have added a sentence on page 3-17 to make this point clearer. <br /> <br />Chapter 4 <br />4-5, p3. Avoid using terms like "is obvious". If it's so obvious, why was it necessary to measure? <br />More importantly the scour/fill pattern associated with runoff/non-runoff periods is not obvious to <br />me since there is no indication on the Figure which dates are runoff and which are non-runoff. I can <br />approximate by referring back to annual hydrographs, but should not have to do this. Summarize <br />what the figure represents, beyond the details: High flows deepen the channel and expose large bed <br />materials while during low flows the channel fills with finer sediments? You do this in the next <br />paragraph for Fig 4.2. Summarize the overall pattern for both. RESPONSE: Language has been <br />edited. Runoff periods have been noted on Figures 4.2 and 4.3. <br /> <br />4-18--4-20. Is all this gory detail really needed? I believe the objective is to define what the timing, <br />duration, frequency and magnitude of discharges are needed to construct and maintain cobble bars. <br />I know this is a complex subject and the recommendations are preliminary because of only a few <br />years of data. However, 1 suggesljust referencing the approach used, provide the methodological <br />details elsewhere, and focus on the relevant results given on pgs 4-21--4-22. The reader was spared <br />the details of how squawfish spawning dates were estimated on Fig 3.1, a similar level of abstraction <br />should hold for the hydrologic and geomorphic sections. RESPONSE: Much of this detail was <br />added in response to earlier comments relating to the foundation for thejlow recommendation. The <br />imbalance that resulted between the level of detail in geomorphology and biology sections is <br />justified by the heavy weight of the hydrology/geomorphology relationships in the development of <br />the jlow recommendation. <br /> <br />4-34--4-37. These figures present a good evaluation of how flow events affect backwater <br />"productivity". In order to examine the relati ve importance of resources in backwater habitats to age <br />o fishes it would have been valuable to contrast them with other potential nursery habitats. Without <br />information on relative differences in periphyton, detritus and invertebrates between backwaters and <br />other locations how do I know whether the amounts of these indicators you report in Figs 4.11-4.13 <br />are high or low? RESPONSE: We agree that additional habitat quality data would have been nice <br />to have, but this area of study was not a major emphasis during the 7-year research period. <br /> <br />4-44. How habitat complexity was determined is vague. Either provide a reference or define the <br />size of "contact area" so the reader can better understand what habitat complexity is. Better yet, <br />show on Fig 4.15 an example of how habitat complexity is determined by drawing circles of contact <br />areas. See remarks on Table 4.15 and Figure 4.15. These need additional clarification in their <br /> <br />Comments and Responses <br /> <br />Flow Recommendations Draft Report <br /> <br />Galat-6 <br />