7281 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7281
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Environmental Assessment, November 1987.
• USFW Year: 1987.
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver, Colorado.
• Copyright Material: NO

1
CHAPTER II ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
(4) Research and recovery actions common to both alternatives
' will most likely proceed at a slower pace under the "No
Action" alternative due to lower funding levels and lesser
cooperation Potential funding levels were used to estimate
relative rates of implementation for the two alternatives
over the next 15 years (See Appendix B). If the public
sector were the sole funding source, research and recovery
actions common to both alternatives would proceed 53 percent
more quickly under the Proposed Action. However, private
sector contributions will supplement public funds under both
alternatives. Making certain assumptions on the rate of
' water project construction and depletion over the next
15 years, the amount of private contributions used to fund
flow vs. nonflow measures under the Proposed Action, and the
' amount of money contributed by small-volume depleters allowed
to offset depletion impacts with monetary contributions for
conservation measures under the "No Action" alternative, the
research and recovery measures common to both alternatives
are estimated to be implemented anywhere from 37 to
103 percent more quickly under the Proposed Action than under
the "No Action" alternative.
The above estimate is based on relative funding levels for
actions common to both alternatives. It is expected that
enhanced cooperation between involved parties will result in
an even faster pace for the Proposed Action.
The Recovery Implementation Program improves the degree of cooperation, level
of funding, the array of recovery actions available, and the timeliness of
their implementation. The most critical improvement is the opportunity to
obtain and protect instream flows under the States' water rights systems. A
high proportion of the funding recommended for the Proposed Action will be
used to acquire water rights for instream flows.
Table II-2 summarizes the impacts expected from implementing these
alternatives.
E. Alternatives Considered, But Not Evaluated in Depth
' The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from further
consideration because they were infeasible or did not accomplish the stated
' goal, i.e., to recover the three endangered fishes and manage the rare fish so
that it does not require the protection of the Endangered Species Act,
consistent with future water development, State water rights systems,
interstate compacts, and court decrees that allocate rights to use Colorado
River water among the States.
1. Infeasible Alternatives:
a. No Action (at alli. The Endangered Species Act is not permissive
legislation. At a minimum, Federal agencies must comply with
Section 7 of the Act, which requires each Federal agency to insure
1
II-11