My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11633
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11633
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:18:15 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:05:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.09
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
3/1/1994
Title
Comments regarding the Draft Biological Opinion on Operations of Glen Canyon Dam
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Biological Opinion
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.. <br /> <br />a. stabilized physical habitat = 1st indication of results <br />b. Modified biological response = will take several <br />generations of time to see <br />c. Distribution densities would be measured <br />d. Age and size class structure (demographics) would be <br />assessed of the HBC populations <br />e. Food resources would be assessed through drift studies <br />f. Non-native fish population changes <br />g. Production elsewhere in the mainstem <br /> <br />10. How do the research flows of the RPA fit into the adaptive <br />management program? <br /> <br />a. Research flows will be designed within scientific format <br />and integrated into the adaptive management program <br />b. Both research and monitoring will be completed <br /> <br />11. What is going to be taken to the Cooperators? <br /> <br /> a. <br /> b. <br /> c. <br />12. Is <br /> a. <br /> b. <br /> <br />March 2, 1994 meeting notes <br />March 14, 1994 meeting notes <br />White paper prepared by fish researchers <br /> <br />there any differences between the RPA and the White Paper? <br /> <br />RPA goes further to get to native fish needs <br />White paper recommends flexibility in flows, sediment and <br />temperature management <br /> <br />13. Is there a way to assess impacts of eXperiments to determine <br />if conditions have been improved after 5 to 10 years? <br /> <br />a. Physical habitat changes <br />b. Life history of fish <br /> <br />14. How much of the mainstem has historically been used? Will we <br />get "happy" HBC if we provide them the habitat? <br /> <br />a. No quantitative information on pre-dam distributions <br />b. Young fish disburse much more than adults or juveniles <br />c. Little exchange between fish aggregations. Due to <br />thermal, genetics and energetics? <br /> <br />15. What about the food requirements for the HBC? <br /> <br />a. Physiology of the HBC different than other fish <br />b. Adults opportunistic feeders <br />c. Adults need good food 2 to 3 months prior to spawning <br /> <br />16. What will we gain with RPA if LCR at carrying Capacity? <br /> <br />a. LCR is not at carrying capacity <br />b. The minimization of fluctuating flow will help but not <br />relieve jeopardy without the MLIS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.