Difference between revisions of "GCDAMP TAHG Page"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
Additionally, several of the comments received from TAHG members identified information needs and could be considered during the next triannual work planning process. Those questions include: | Additionally, several of the comments received from TAHG members identified information needs and could be considered during the next triannual work planning process. Those questions include: | ||
− | #It would be helpful for GCMRC to present a comparison of the current macroinvertebrate assemblage with the historical assemblage using EPT and other metrics of biological condition. | + | #It would be helpful for GCMRC to present a comparison of the [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FOOD_BASE current macroinvertebrate assemblage] with the historical assemblage using EPT and other metrics of biological condition. |
− | #Is there data which indicates that the Lees Ferry reach invertebrate community is nutrient-limited and could be improved by stream fertilization? | + | #Is there data which indicates that the Lees Ferry reach invertebrate community is nutrient-limited and could be improved by [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Nutrients stream fertilization]? |
− | #Is there data on the benefits or impacts of using spring HFEs to boost trout populations rather than allowing for an unmanaged trout response? | + | #Is there data on the benefits or impacts of using [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=The_HFE_Page spring HFEs] to boost trout populations rather than allowing for an unmanaged trout response? |
− | #Is there evidence available on whether TMFs are expected to have “collateral damage” (Fishery recommendation 5, paragraph 1) on the aquatic food | + | #Is there evidence available on whether [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Trout_Management_Flows TMFs] are expected to have “collateral damage” (Fishery recommendation 5, paragraph 1) on the [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FOOD_BASE aquatic food bas]e or [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=FISH native fish]? |
#The recommended action cites two unintended consequences from TMF’s including damage to the aquatic food base and native fish. It would be helpful for GCMRC to provide review of these two concerns. | #The recommended action cites two unintended consequences from TMF’s including damage to the aquatic food base and native fish. It would be helpful for GCMRC to provide review of these two concerns. | ||
#What volume of woody material would be needed to create a detectable or significant effect on trout populations or the aquatic foodbase? | #What volume of woody material would be needed to create a detectable or significant effect on trout populations or the aquatic foodbase? | ||
− | #How far downstream of the dam does the DO zone typically extend? Do low DO releases threaten the majority of the trout population, or just the upper reaches of it? | + | #How far downstream of the dam does the [http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=WATER_QUALITY DO zone] typically extend? Do low DO releases threaten the majority of the trout population, or just the upper reaches of it? |
|} | |} |
Revision as of 15:18, 4 April 2017
|
Trout Ad Hoc Group (TAHG)At the August 2015 Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) meeting the recreational fishing representatives from the International Federation of FlyFishers, Trout Unlimited, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership presented the Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery Management Recommendations (Recommendations). Their report provided 15 recommendations for stakeholders to consider. During the meeting, AMWG passed a motion by consensus requesting: The Secretary’s Designee direct Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to conduct a technical review of the Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery Management Recommendation and report its findings to the TWG, and directs the Technical Work Group (TWG) to evaluate the GCMRC review at their October 2015 meeting, and report its findings to AMWG at its February 2016 meeting. GCMRC provided an initial technical review on six of the Recommendations which were presented to TWG during the October 20-21, 2015 meeting. During the TWG meeting stakeholders asked GCMRC to provide points of clarification on their review of the Recommendations and to provide additional feedback on the remaining nine recommendations. Additionally TWG developed a Trout Ad Hoc Grout (TAHG) to evaluate the GCMRC technical review and provide recommendations to the TWG. Latest ChargeThe TAHG will evaluate the GCMRC technical review of the Lees Ferry Recreational Trout Fishery Management Recommendations per the AMWG motion on 8/27/2015, and make a recommendation to the TWG at our January 2016 meeting. The TWG will consider the recommendation and make findings to the AMWG at its February 2016 meeting. Latest MotionThe TWG has reviewed the Dec. 9, 2015, GCMRC Technical Memo (Memo) of the Lees Ferry Trout Fishery Recommendations (Recommendations) and finds it to be comprehensive. The TWG recommends that the AMWG accept the Memo subject to the following:
In addition, the TWG requests that the AMWG direct the TWG to consider these recommendations and the Memo as future work plans are developed. |
TWG Motions | TWG Charges |
Background Information< |
---|
|
|