Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />, <br />I <br /> <br /><::> <br />in <br />, : ~'" <br />Q:l <br />..~ <br />.iW <br /> <br />captions. RESPONSE: We have added additional sentences to clarify how habitat complexity was <br />determined. <br /> <br />4-44--4-48. While the results of the squawfish radiotagging arc provocati ve thc samplc sizc (9 wild <br />fish total) is quite small compared with 56 stocked razorback suckers. I suggest a caveat be inserted <br />acknowledging the small sample size, but that the fish were wild and they are rare. RESPONSE: <br />While sample size is acknowledged on p. 4-42, since the results fit so well with habitat use in other <br />areas we see little reason to suggest it may not be accurate due to small sample size. <br /> <br />4-51. Low winter flows presumably were the "natural" condition, so it is not surprising that they <br />had, "no observable detrimenlal effect" on razorback suckers. Perhaps a more relevant question is <br />do post-dam higher winter flows show a "detrimental" effect or not? RESPONSE: We agree but <br />the test was of a low winter flow that was proposed primarily to conserve water rather than provide <br />something for the native fish. The effect of high winter flows may become more obvious if future <br />flow management includes extended low winter flow periods. <br /> <br />4-53-.4-72. Other native Fish (should be Fishes). This section could benefit from some serious <br />editing. There is a lot of data, but its unclear what the objectives were. This yields. a rambling <br />section where lots of information is related with little attention directed to causal factors. Showing <br />a negative relation between CPUE and discharge could just as easily tell us that you are less effective <br />at catching fish at high flows (I know we are) orthat they move to different habitats, rather lhan,high <br />flows somehow reduce fish numbers. Relating condition to river flow is also a suspect analysis. A <br />fishes condition at any instant is the integration of numerous factors that occurred prior to the instant <br />and should be minimally affected by flow on the date you caught it. For example, typically condition <br />increases from fall to spring if females developing gonads are included in the analysis. There are <br />many such instances of over-generalization and speculation (e.g., relating high discharge to reduced <br />productivity and decreased flannel mouth condition as well as the converse) without any direct <br />causal evidence. I suggest shortening this section by looking at the main conclusions for each and <br />revising the preceding material to delete that which does not directly relate to these points. For <br />example, report the pertinent info showing the decline in YOY flannelmouth suckers catch rates over <br />the study. However, to do this you need to have replicate samples from similar habitats, collected <br />using the same gears and effort, at the same season over multiple years. This information needs to <br />then be tested for a significant decline with time, etc. Additionally, if population size were <br />decreasing over seven years this might be reflected in a shift in size classes (Fig 4.17), i.e., lack of <br />recruitment. Does Fig 4.17 suggest such a trend? RESPONSE: We agree that these sections may <br />be long, but that is one result of multiple authors of a document such as this. . We have left the <br />information intact since it was important to show that these types of tests were made. The <br />conclusions drawn were generally not clear. Since these fish were not the focus of the 7-year <br />research effort, sampling was not designed to clearly show what was happening to rheir populations. <br />Although not afoeus offuture monitoring, the Long-term Monitoring Plan is addressing sampling <br />of other native fishes in the main channel. <br /> <br />Comments and Responses <br /> <br />Flow Recommendations Draft Report <br /> <br />Galat - 7 <br />