Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'I <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />Young backwaters tend to be less productive than older <br />backwaters. Maintence floods are not needed every year to <br />maintain appropriate backwaters. <br /> <br />Fish also use eddy return channels. Do not need annual maintence <br />floods to maintain eddy return channels. <br /> <br />Flow Recommendations of the Draft Bioloqical Opinion and Modified <br />Low Fluctuatinq Flow Alternatives <br /> <br />1. There is agreement on how fish respond to the variables <br />discussed. There is a wealth of knowledge on basic life history, <br />although greater emphasis to date in terms of research has been <br />put on adults. <br /> <br />2. Both scenarios are within the global tolerance of the <br />Humpback Chub. <br /> <br />3. Neither flow scenario will remove jeopardy. Note: The <br />reasonable and prudent alternative of the draft biological <br />opinion contains additional elements. It is the intent of the <br />Service that all elements be implemented, in an attempt to remove <br />jeopardy. Time did not allow for a discussion of the other <br />element of the opinion. <br /> <br />4. Do to the dynamic nature of the system, collection of <br />sufficient data to produce a statistical comparisons between the <br />two flow scenarios is probably not feasible due to time <br />constraints. Because of this, and the fact that we do not now, <br />and probably never will, fully understand the system, best <br />professional judgement must be used in determination of the <br />actions which will have the greatest probability of increasing <br />native fish populations. <br /> <br />5. Overall, more of the researchers believed the reasonable and <br />prudent alternative as having a higher probability of improving <br />populations of humpback chub/native fish. The others did not <br />make a commitment. Some researchers recommended additional data <br />on interim flows be collected for comparison purposes. <br /> <br />4 <br />