Laserfiche WebLink
<br />] <br /> <br />* The risks to nesting birds by annual inundation of <br />vegetation during Habitat Maintenance Flows or <br />Building Flows has not been assessed. <br /> <br />riparian <br />Habitat <br /> <br />* The risks to ground-dwelling, nesting or burrowing animals <br />which invade areas below elevations to be periodically flooded <br />has not been assessed. <br /> <br />How does the Bureau justify accepting the addition of such an <br />unknown commodity to the set of alternatives which represents <br />significant and unnecessary risk to the environment, significant <br />cost to users of power, and which violates existing law? If this <br />alternative is common to all alternative, it must be thoroughly <br />assessed and it has not. If it is intended to be an experiment, <br />then it should be deleted from the common alternatives. <br /> <br />New Population of Humpback Chub <br /> <br />Another element common to all alternatives is establishment of a <br />New PO~;lUlation of Humpback Chub. This element recognizes that <br />water temperatures "in the mainstem are not conducive'to humpback <br />spawning or survival of eggs and young." This approach would <br />include "making every effort to ensure that a new population of <br />humpback chub is established in one or more of the tributaries <br />within Grand Canyon. n This approach has merit and should' be <br />supported. Tributary use has several advantages over the mainstem: <br /> <br />* Controlling native/nonnative fish interactions would be <br />easier in tributaries than within the mainstem. <br /> <br />~i: <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />* A larger variety of temperature and chemical conditions are <br />available to try than in the mainstem. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />* If fidelity to a spawning ground holds true as expected for <br />chub, then success of experimental introductions could be more <br />easily measured. <br /> <br />* Expanded use of lower canyon mainstem habitats by chub <br />could be achieved by use of tributary spawning sites other <br />than the LCR. <br /> <br />". <br /> <br />':". <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br />..,: <br /> <br />* Inefficient use of water releases at the dam to achieve <br />some measure of habitat changes downstream would be avoided. <br /> <br />Endanoered Fish Research <br /> <br />The specific research proposal was added by the USBR in private <br />consul tation with the USFWS. This is the only element of the <br />alternatives which did not involve discussions by the Cooperating <br />Agencies. Although all the Cooperating Agencies, except the USFWS, <br /> <br />11 <br />