Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Proposed Water Year 2005-2006 Experimental Actions <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />under the Proposed Action, The earlier timing of the high flow under the Proposed <br />Action also may reduce the effects of turbidity on foraging that might be encountered as <br />discussed under the January high flow scenario, <br /> <br />Non-native Fish Suppression Flows <br /> <br />These flows are intended to reduce the populations of non-native fish, primarily <br />salmonids, that prey upon or compete with native fish, particularly the endangered <br />HBC. Korman and others (2004) have shown that they are successful in increasing <br />incubation mortality of trout, therefore they may have a negative impact on the food <br />base for bald eagles in Glen and Grand canyons, If native fish numbers are improved as <br />a result of non-native suppression, however, and replace non-native fish in bald eagle <br />diets, there is likely to be no measurable effect Because most eagles have migrated <br />northward by March, the extension of these flows by a week into April under the <br />Proposed Action is unlikely to increase or decrease their affect on bald eagles, The <br />reworked sediments may increase pool habitats that bald eagles forage in and may <br />provide stranded fish for these birds as a food source, <br /> <br />Mechanical Removal of Non-native Fish <br /> <br />Mechanical removal of non-native fish in the mainstream above and below the mouth of <br />the Little Colorado River is expected to negatively affect populations of non-native fish <br />that serve as food for bald eagles, but this action also has a high potential for resulting in <br />increased populations of native fish that also provide food for the eagles, <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />We conclude that the Proposed Action would have less effect on bald eagles than the No <br />Action alternative, Therefore, we conclude that the Proposed Action may affect, but is <br />not likely to adversely affect, the bald eagle in Grand Canyon, <br /> <br />California Condor <br /> <br />No measurable effects are anticipated from either the No Action or Proposed Action <br />alternative on the experimental population of California condors, We conclude that the <br />Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, California condors, <br /> <br />Recreational Activity: Angling <br /> <br />Alternating Low Steady and Low Fluctuating Flows <br /> <br />There would be little difference between the No Action and Proposed Action <br />alternatives in terms of angler access to the fishery, Periods of steady flows, which <br />