My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00972
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP00972
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:28:39 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:04:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.10.C.4
Description
UCRBRIP Flooded Bottom Lands
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/1/1995
Author
UCRBRIP
Title
Levee Removal Strategic Plan - Final Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 />4. 1 have removed the wording that suggests that it is only 'wetlands' that are of interest. <br /> <br />While I have not added much in terms of data analysis, Hesse's comments are well taken in tenns <br />of non-independence. We have always planned on using time-series analyses (ANOV A's, etc.) to <br />deal with ontogenetic changes through time that cause problems with the variance-covariance <br />matrix. A standardized invertebrate monitoring plan is currently being designed based on our <br />data and methods from the spring of 1995. The Bureau ofR~clamation has kindly provided us <br />with funds to analyze the invertebrate data that we collected this p'ast spring. 1 am certain Hesse <br />has no knowledge of those data or those efforts. I will note that plates will not allow us a fine <br />enough time series to meet our objectives due to slow colonization dynamics (in my opinion). <br /> <br />Comments by Bayley: <br /> <br />1. I have added verbiage to clarify my position of native vs nonnative enhancement. <br /> <br />2. Whiie 1 agrce that the increase and/or stabilization of the native fish populations is the goal and <br />would represent success, independent ofnonnatives in the short-terrr~ I caution everyone to think <br />in terms of time-lagged predator/prey dynamics. I have added considerable verbiage to illustrate <br />this point throughout the document. <br /> <br />3. I have rewritten the hypotheses accordingly. <br /> <br />Again, I am aware of the potential pitfalls associated \vith our overall design, but simply stated, <br />can not think of a better alternative to the proposed design. <br /> <br />I did not address the fish sampling issues. <br /> <br />Comments by O'brien <br /> <br />L I have added verbiage to suggest that flow modeling, etc. should be used to help identify sites. <br /> <br />Comments by Modde: <br /> <br />In the live years since I obtained my Phd, I have never encountered a situation where a coauthor <br />of a proposal has submitted written criticisms of that proposal. Perhaps Tim was too busy <br />working on his portion of the budget to think about what we were doing during the 3-4 group <br />meetings we had. I might suggest that the word 'coauthor' is a verb, and that in the future, those <br />people involved in group efforts all actively contribute to the discussions and production of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.