WSP12621 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0026 5 BHBF would proceed. . Sediment effects should include the variable high sediment storage in the channel vs. low sediment storage in the channel. . Sediment storage should be divided into the sections of major sediment input (i.e., the Paria River to the LCR and LCR and below). This division covers the Marble Canyon reach which is considered a sediment starved or reduced sediment input reach compared to reaches below the LCR. In this iteration, the Glen Canyon reach was not separated. . Biological resources should be evaluated on the biologyllife history of an organism without Endangered Species considerations over-riding scale factors. . The scale for the biological resources were defined in terms of recovery, because a flood is a disturbance and the effect of the disturbance is evaluated in the response/recovery and long-term benefits to a resource in some cases in addition to the immediate impact to the resource. The scale for biological resources were 0 - no effect, -1 the resource would be affected but recover within the a year at the most; -2 the resource might be affected and recovery would take longer than a year; -3 the resource would be affected and recovery would be unlikely. Additions to the Resource Matrix The biological researchers felt that the matrix was too general to explain the values assigned to particular resources and suggested that a narrative be developed to accompany the matrix for the biological resources. The intent of the narrative was to describe life history patterns associated with identified resources and to point out months that coincide with developmental stages or potentially critical times associated with an organism's reproductive effort. A narrative was written based on material generated from OCES phase I and II and was distributed to the researchers for comments, corrections and additions. The researchers were also asked to re- evaluate their previous values. The narrative and matrix were sent out February 20, 1997 and responses were requested by March 12, 1998. A presentation of this last iteration was made on March 18, 1997 by Barbara Ralston at the TWO meeting. During this presentation, questions concerning the process used to develop the matrix were brought up, who was contacted and how the values for the numbers that were associated with the matrix were derived. A lack of time provided to the TWO members to review the document was noted. The TWO members were given a week to review the document and submit comments concerning either the matrix or the narrative for incorporation into the document. Comments from Debra Bills and Norm Henderson has since been received and will be incorporated into the comments portion of the document. Accompanying their comments will be an explanation of why some of their concerns might not be able to be addressed via the matrix. Attachment A Researchers receiving matrix and providing comments Name I" mailing (11/13/98) 2nd mailing (12115/98) meeting/email