Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />c:--:) <br />10... <br />("~1 <br />c:o. <br />.~ <br /> <br />Non-native Species <br />4-82. It's stated that "Presumably,..." temperatures increased earlier and remained optimal longer <br />in 1996. Why is this a presumption when you have temperature data for multiple years? Examine <br />temperatureltlow trends among years and detennine if this supposition is valid before making <br />conclusions about how spawning patterns were affected. RESPONSE: We agree and have <br />.corrected this sentence. <br /> <br />4-85. Negative correlations between red shiner density and flow could be causal as suggested or <br />partially a consequence of decreased sampling efficiency as indicated on pg 4-47 for other non- <br />natives. This should be acknowledged. RESPONSE: As noted on p. 4-82, this analysis does not <br />include all data but only that collected by NMGF in secondary channels, which were more consistent <br />between years. But flow level may have been a factor in the correlations. <br /> <br />What impact would an August low temperature spike of >3000 cfs have on native fishes? Is such <br />a spike part of the "natural hydrograph" that is considered so important. It's somewhat <br />contradictory, and perhaps self-defeating, to stress a natural hydrograph as the critical management <br />tool for restoring native fishes and then suggest modified flow/temperature pulses to control non- <br />natives without first rigorously evaluating their effects on YOY razorbacks and squawfish. <br />Fortunately, on pg 6-6 the potential impacts of artificial flow pulses on natives fishes are <br />acknowledged. RESPONSE: Many members of the Biology Committee agree with your overall <br />comment. A detailed study of the effect of natural flow spikes on red shiner numbers is presently <br />being conducted to help clarify this situation and the monitoring program should allow an <br />evaluation of the effect of flow spikes on young endangeredfishes, once they become common in the <br />system. <br /> <br />Chapter 8 <br />8-1. Somewhere in this document I think it would be valuable to give the reader a brief summary <br />of the adaptive management program presented in Section 5.7 of the LRP. It is one of the keystones <br />of your Program and not everyone (like me) will be familiar with it. RESPONSE: Adaptive <br />management is discussed more on p. 1-5, but it has not been developed in detail yet by the Program. <br />A more detailed explanation will be developedfor the Synthesis Report where other milestones, such <br />as adaptive management, will be discussed in detail. <br /> <br />8-6. Explain the differences between "minimum releases" and "primary releases" before detailing <br />on page 8-7. Also, it would be helpful to remind the reader of the tenns used in Chap 8 Figures and <br />Tables. For example is "baseline" flow explained? What is "Curren I" and how does it differ from <br />Study Period"? These should be generic definitions and referenced to Table 7.3. To those who are <br />steeped in the Project these terms are probably obvious, but many of your readers might be more like <br />me and need some repetition. This is the critical Chapter of the Report,; it must be explicit even if <br />a bit redundant. RESPONSE: We have added a paragraph to help clarify the various types of peak <br />flow. The term "baseline" has been replaced by "depletion base" and it, as well as "current", are <br />well defined in Chapter 7. <br /> <br />Comments and Responses <br /> <br />Flow Recommendations Draft Report <br /> <br />Galat - 8 <br />