WSP06185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Pg. 106, C. 1, P. 1. Why is the discrepancy not resolved between study test results concluding a 50% removal of algae and macroinvertebrates during daily fluctuations and actual, observed field conditions wherein algae and macroinvertebrates exist in the fluctuating zone? Explain the difference in expected total biomass for a reach with reliable inundation and lower maximum flows vs. the same reach with fluctuating flows and higher maximum flows, recognizing that some accumulation of algae occurs above the reliable inundation level. " ~. Pg. 106, C. 2, P. 1. This section suggests we may produce more algae biomass upstream (above the LCR) when such a production is not shown to be needed or necessary. What is the reason for increasing' algal production in this reach? Pg. 106" C. 2, P. 2. Regarding razorback suckers, you should comment on the relationship between historic estimates and the supposed decline. Have they declined or have they always been uncommon in this area? You should resolve this obvious question in this section. ~ ,,,":. Pg. 106, C. 2, P. 3. Most native fish were essentially gone from the river before the dam was built, according to Carothers and Brown (1990), and 80% of the fish consisted of nonnative carp and catfish. This issue remains absent from the EIS thereby leaving the mistaken impression dam construction or operations were the sole or principal cause(s) of extirpation. This should be corrected in the Final EIS. Pg. 107, C. 1, P. 2. The diversity of species since dam closure has increased dramatically with the advent of more habitat diversity. If diversity were so great for native fishes, your statement would imply their numbers also should have increased. It may have been the lack of habitat diversity which allowed them to survive without much competition. ',. . '~. The historic diversity of the canyon was limited and is much greater now. Seeking to maintain natural diversity when river conditions have changed so dramatically would be impossible. You should discuss this conflict. .~. :.,?~ ;,;-. Pg. 107, C. 1, P. 3. You imply that rearing of larval native fish without warm backwaters is impossible yet chub have developed a self-sustaining population in a warm tributary. You should describe the variety of features needed by larval native fish (e.g., temperature, zooplankton, etc.) which may be present in a number of locations, including tributaries or backwaters. Adult natives are able to thrive under present cold water conditions and seem in generally better health than introduced trout. By maintaining the cold water and introducing juvenile natives (e.g., from natural spawn in tributaries or other rearing 23