9417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Ti meliness - This criterion refers to the amount of time required for acquiring and restoring sufficient amounts of quality habitat to support and sustain endangered fish recovery. Declines in endangered fish populations are expected to continue until the ecosystem has been repaired to the degree necessary to turn things around, so time is of the essence. If ecosystem repair takes too long, the species may become extinct. 5. Permanent Rights - Habitat of sufficient quality and quantity will be necessary to support and sustain recovery in perpetuity. Temporary agreements or short-term leases may assist in achieving recovery but, if the habitat is subsequently removed from the system after the lease expires, then recovery may no longer be sustainable. Therefore, permanent rights are needed to maintain and protect habitats over the long term. C. Alternatives Considered To provide and protect floodplain habitat to assist in recovery of the endangered fishes, three alternatives were identified and considered by the interdisciplinary team charged with preparing this environmental assessment. A description of each of the three alternatives follows: 1. The No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is the foreseeable future without the project. This alternative suggests a continuation of the status quo. Habitat quality and quantity, which is already not sufficient to achieve or sustain recovery, can be expected to continue to degrade as water development and floodplain development continue. The ecosystem food supply will continue to diminish, affecting all species, including the endangered fishes. Razorback sucker recruitment can be expected to decrease, likely resulting in ultimate extinction for that II - 2 species, The bony tail may be declared unrecoverable if it is determined that the loss of food supplied by the floodplain is a major limiting factor. m g m a a I u g D II g U D I I I U g II 2. Induce Flooding To provide habitat for endangered fishes, floodplain areas could be inundated by acquiring and releasing large amounts of water from reseIVoirs during spring runoff. This alternative may restore enough habitat needed for recovery, even if nothing is done to reconnect the 70 miles of bottomland habitat that has been disconnected from the river via flood control levees within the high-priority geographic areas of the Upper Basin (Figures 1-3 and 1-5). However, induced flooding would inundate properties of private landowners without their permission, no doubt resulting in undue hardships. Also, the costs associated with acquiring the amount of water necessary to induce flooding, with litigation, and with paying for flood damages would be extraordinarily high. 3. Protect and Enhance Flooded Bottomlands to Take Advantage of Available Flows Alternative #3 would entail entering into agreements with and/or acquiring rights from willing landowners to protect and enhance floodplain habitat to benefit the endangered fishes. A variety of tools could be used to accomplish habitat protection, including the development of agreements, partnerships, acquisition of easements, donations, and exchanges. Floodability enhancements could be accomplished, where warranted, via excavation, which may include breaching dikes and levees. All acquisitions, agreements, and habitat enhancements would be done with willing sellers and willing participants. Under this alternative, there would be no condemnation, no acquisition of water rights, and no requests for flood flows.