Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f l '.' <br /> <br />26 Chapter 2.0 Description of Alternatives <br /> <br />releases would produce the desired effect. The down ramp rate of the Proposed <br />Action was also selected to provide empirical validation of the model used in the <br />FEIS to estimate effects of downramp rates on beach stability. <br /> <br />Steady 8,000 cfs releases were considered for the autumn sediment input scenario <br />but were rejected in favor of alternating 6,500-9,000 cfs and steady 8,000 cfs releases. <br />Sediment researchers identified that the experiment could determine whether there are <br />significant differences in the ability of these flows to conserve fine sediments. Therefore, <br />the choice was made to develop the experiment so that this comparison could be made. <br /> <br />Grinding the carcasses of trout was considered for the disposal of fish mechanically <br />removed from the Colorado River but was rejected for the following reasons: <br /> <br />. The Hopi, Hualapai, and Paiute tribes have expressed concern over the wasting <br />of life, including the taking of non-native trout. While they have concern over the <br />status of the endangered humpback chub, they respect trout as a living <br />component of the ecosystem. They view all life as important. Life should not be <br />wasted and find grinding very distasteful. The Proposed Action now proposes <br />removal of the non-native fish from the Grand Canyon. A beneficial use for the <br />fish thus removed would be sought. <br /> <br />. Some have raised water quality concerns about discharging ground trout into the <br />mainstream Colorado River. While it is unlikely that such discharge would have <br />significant ecological impacts (biological oxygen demand, nutrient loading, or <br />non-native fish food source), the threat of such impacts was removed by the <br />proposal to transport the fish out of the canyon. <br />