The Chief wrote:He also shared to not be surprised to see a Federal Injunction very soon, pulling the permit and requesting a more in depth EIS to be completed regarding the chemical and it's long term effects on ALL eco-systems within the watershed.

Not surprising given that lawsuit.

Hopefully option 3 is reconsidered and mandated if the Fed Injunction actually happens.

I thought you opposed killing the fish/organisms? Alternative 3 is NOT a no-kill plan. Read the EIS.

"Under Alternative 3, all fish in the treatment area would be removed through electrofishing and buried."

It is also expected that electrofishing will result in mortality to amphibians and benthic macroinvertebrates.

Till then, nothing dies.

There will be additional fish mortality since the bag limit was raised last year to help remove fish from the treatment area. This was one of the issues raised in the recent lawsuit, that increased fish kills through angling were authorized prior to completion of the EIS.

...TAKE HEED TO THE MANNER THAT THESE FOLKS ARE AND HAVE BEEN DOING THEIR WORK AND NOT KILL OTHER SPECIES OF ANIMALS IN THEIR QUEST TO ASSIST THESE CUT'S IN RETURNING THEM TO THEIR INDIGENOUS HABITAT.

Chief, those guys did kill fish with rotenone as you now know. But if fish death is an overriding issue for you the only EIS option you're left with is Alternative 1, "No Action". The other alternatives include significant fish mortality.

You could always hope for yet another solution to be proposed but the Paiute cutthroat could be gone by the time that happens.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- it's not such a terrible thing to kill thousands of human-introduced, ubiquitous, non-native trout in order to preserve a species. We kill fish all the time and in much greater numbers for recreation.