Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT-45/10/85 <br />.~ <br />~~. <br />~:. <br />t <br />t <br />b, ~' ~' <br />i 1 ~~- ~ 4, <br />~~'~~; <br />E <br />~~ ~: <br />2.3 DEFINITION OF SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTABLE, TECHNICALLY <br />FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR RECOVERY <br />Up to this point, there have.•been few actual recovery <br />measures implemented in~the Upper Colorado River Basin. An <br />array of alternatives should be implemented to guarantee the <br />conservation of, and to support the recovery of, the <br />endangered species. These should include hatchery and <br />stocking programs. Conservation of endangered species will <br />require implementation of management measures more in line <br />with those that are used to manage other fishery resources. <br />Certain alternatives may be found not to be environmentally <br />acceptable. For example, alternatives which eliminate game <br />fish habitat in favor of endangered species habitat should <br />be carefully considered, and input from a variety of <br />interests should be solicited before the environmental and <br />social acceptability of these alternatives-can be <br />determined. <br />The technical feasibility of certain alternatives is in need <br />of assessment, including predator control, fish ladders at <br />various locations, modification of flow regimes or <br />temperatures downstream of major Federal hydroelectric <br />projects, and installation of afterbays below major Federal <br />hydroelectric projects. Alternatives-which appear to be <br />technically and financially feasible will need continued <br />study by USBR and FWS. Specific information from ongoing <br />research and monitoring programs can be factored into the <br />feasibility assessments. <br />7 <br />