My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9385
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9385
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:46:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9385
Author
Hawkins, J.
Title
Responses by Flaming Gorge Technical Integration Team to April 4, 2000, Minority Report from John Hawkins
USFW Year
2000.
USFW - Doc Type
Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Endangered Fishes in the Green River Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam (hereafter the Flow Report.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
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 />I' / ("(' <br />- Ii i <br />(1,1 /J <br />. <br /> <br />Ift?\ W If!. veS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Q-??C- <br />/()v,) <br /> <br />Responses by Flaming Gorge Technical Integration Team to April 4, 2000, <br />Minority Report from John Hawkins <br /> <br />Note: Text of minority report is in italics, response in normal text <br /> <br />To: Management Committee, Biology Committee <br />From: John Hawkins <br />Date: Apri/4, 2000 <br /> <br />Subject: Minority Report Regarding: "Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Endangered <br />Fishes in the Green River Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam (hereafter the Flow Report). <br /> <br />Comment: <br />Our biggest concerns with the Flow Report are the numeric ranges of mean base flow magnitude <br />from summer through winter in Reach 2. Our concerns are the numeric range of 900 to 3,000 <br />cft and the apportionment of this range into increments that match the width of each hydrologic- <br />condition exceedance interval as presented in Table 5.5 of the Flow Report. We are not, <br />however, concerned with the qualitative recommendations presented in Chapter 5 that describe <br />the importance of the base flow period. We agree with the benefits of adequate base flow <br />recommendations as described in the Flow Report: <br /> <br />Page 5-15, Section 5.2.2, first paragraph: <br /> <br />"Recommended low base flows in summer should produce suitable conditions in backwaters for <br />growth of Colorado pikeminnow larvae ". <br /> <br />Pages 5-19 & 5-20, Table 5.5, Anticipated Effects: <br /> <br />"Base flows in summer and autumn scaled to the hydrologic condition favor the formation of <br />backwaters and other low-velocity shoreline habitats". <br /> <br />"Higher water temperatures at lower base flows will enhance growth and survival of young <br />endangered fish, especially Colorado pikeminnow. " <br /> <br />"Limiting differences in water temperature between the Green and Yampa rivers at their <br />confluence in Echo Park will prevent cold-shock to Colorado pikeminnow larvae drifting out of <br />the Yampa and into the Green River. Warmer temperatures also will promote better growth of <br />endangered fishes in the upper portion of Reach 2. " <br /> <br />Response: Weare concerned that the authors of the minority report did not comment on the <br />adequacy of the base flow recommendations in our May 1999 report. The recommended base <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.