9417

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9417
• Author: U.S. Department of the Interior.
• Title: Final Environmental Assessment
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Acquisition and Enhancement of Floodplain Habitats along the Upper Colorado, Green, and Gunnison Rivers as part of the Recovery Program for Endangered Colorado River Fishes.
• Copyright Material: NO

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

II. ALTERNATIVES

A. Process Used to Develop Alternatives

Potential alternative cburses of action for the
program were developbd and considered by the
interdisciplinary team established for the purpose of
preparing this NEP A c~mpliance document. The
range of alternatives I was limited to those
determined by the teaffi to meet the purpose and
need for this program.

Once a range of alternatives was developed, all
were evaluated to detennine how well they met the
goals of the program. These goals are outlined in
the criteria used to evaluate the alternatives. Table
2-1 is a graphical representation of this evaluation.
Each criterion is defined and each alternative
described in this chapter. The reasons an
alternative was eliminated from further
consideration is also discussed.

Table 2-1.

Criteriafor Evaluating Alternatives for Providing and
Enhancing Floodplain Habitat

I
Alternatives Protect and
No Action Induce Enhance
Criteria Flooded
Alternative Flooding Bottomlands
\, Sufficient Quantity No Maybe Yes
2, Adequate Quality No Maybe Yes
3, Best Availablel Habitat No No Yes
I
4, Timeliness No No Yes
5, Penn anent Ri~hts No No Yes

B. Criteria Used to Evaluate Alternatives

1. Sufficient Quantity ,- Sufficient amounts of
floodplain habitat will be needed to achieve and
sustain recovery of existing and reestablished
populations of endanger6d fishes. The habitat is
needed to both feed tHe ecosystem, including
endangered fishes, as -J.rell as provide nursery
I
areas for young razorbacks.
I

I
2. Adequate Quality l Quality is defined here
to include floodplain habitat that is clean (i.e.,
chemical constituents db not exceed levels that
I
would adversely affect the endangered fish);

floodable (floods during spring runoff in most
years, or can be made to flood with a minimal
amount of excavation or levee breaching); and
vegetated (e.g., grasses or willows) to provide
cover from predation for young fishes, and to
contribute allocthonous materials to the food
base.

3. Best Available Habitat - This criterion
refers to the ability to focus on floodplain habitat
areas that best meet the quantity and quality
criteria. Agents acquiring lands for endangered
fish habitat need the flexibility to be able to pick
and choose the best available lands.

II - 1