Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,I <br /> <br />.;'1 <br /> <br />be the wrong approach to improving the numbers of native fish, at <br />least in the canyon. <br /> <br />Data should be given and the mechanism described to support the <br />conclusion regarding fluctuating flows, not cold water, reducing <br />numbers and species of non-native species. <br /> <br />0, <br /> <br />Pg. 205, C. 2, P. 5. This paragraph should discuss competition <br />between young trout in tributaries and larval native fish as' <br />mentioned earlier. Also, no mention is made of any studies of <br />trout food sources below the LCR or in other tributaries. <br />Cladonhora is generally replaced as the dominant algae by <br />Oscillatoria in lower reaches of the canyon. Your statement <br />regarding Cladophora being the index for the rainbow trout growth <br />and condition should be explained in this context. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Pg. 206, C. 1, P. 1. The death of spawning trout seems to be an <br />issue important only as it relates to the recreation activity since <br />stocking is adequate to sustain the population. As a result, the <br />paragraph is somewhat misleading. The consequences of the losses <br />to the population described is probably negligible. Some comments <br />on this issue are needed in this paragraph. <br /> <br />~ <br />. <br />~". <br /> <br />,., <br /> <br />We can understand ,access problems if the tributary is dry at the <br />mouth or there is a waterfall but how river flows affect access is <br />not described. Also, we are not aware of any studies documenting <br />the access problem for different species so how can you reach this <br />conclusion? <br /> <br />...;. <br /> <br />Page 70 of Chapter III does not disouss what may be affecting <br />access or why it would change with different flows. We suggest <br />some improvements in your explanation of the access issue. <br /> <br />Pg. 206, C. 1, P. 2. The losses described under 1 and 2 due to <br />angling was 25X the losses due to stranding in 1988. Why not <br />suggest controlling angling during the spawning season if 1 and 2 <br />are important? Do the mortality assessments include the estimated <br />mortality from hooking and releasing which is probably higher now <br />as bag limits have been reduced? Also, actual losses by angling <br />and stranding imply that stranding increased by 5X in three years. <br />Is this true? Also, the ability of anglers to distinguish between <br />hatchery-reared fish planted as fingerlings and caught at 18 inches <br />versus river-spawned is questionable. This section could discuss <br />this issue in terms of the consequences of using planted versus <br />river-spawned fish to sustain the fishery. <br /> <br />.1 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />.-.." <br />~i <br />;~:~: ' <br /> <br />Pg. 207, C. 2, P. 2. The percent of redds suggested as unaffected <br />by flows is a meaningless figure unless you relate it to the affect <br />on the population. Sustaining the population without stocking may <br />require only 5% successful redds if management continues to require <br />catch-and-release or minimal bag limits. <br /> <br />33 <br />