Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />In order to assess the feasibility of the nine management alternatives, evaluation criteria had to <br />be developed. As a first step in this process, the Feasibility Committee, working with SWCA, <br />Inc., agreed that a management alternative should: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />accommodate current operations and optimize future operational flexibility, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />attain a level of certainty regarding ESA compliance to provide stable assumptions for <br /> <br />future planning, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />minimize impacts of jeopardy and/or adverse effect findings by the Service on Lower <br /> <br />Colorado River projects and/or operations, and <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />implement a cost-effective program. <br /> <br />The criteria that were developed from these goals address the issues of predictability; cost; <br />degree of confidence in the process; operational flexibility; and the presence of a comprehensive, <br />coordinated conservation strategy. The specific criteria are listed below and explained in detail <br />in Chapter IV of the Feasibility Assessment. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Degree of long-term planning certainty provided. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ability to develop the alternative. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ability to achieve prelisting agreements. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Effectiveness in avoiding or resolving findings of adverse modification of critical habitat <br />and/or jeopardy opinions. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ability to obtain incidental take authorization. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ability to coordinate actions or reduce the need for actions by other parties that are <br /> <br />detrimental to Participants' projects. <br /> <br />FINAL REPORT <br /> <br />December 20, 1994 <br />Page 7 <br />