Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ x <br />;Fyi, <br />~` <br />. ~, <br />~i <br />e <br />r ~~ <br />~~`` ' <br />DRAFT-05/10/85 <br />3. Construction of a water project results in <br />blockage of a stream's channel such that the range <br />of the endangered fish is reduced.significantl~ in <br />an area which~is known to be essential for the <br />continued survival of the species. <br />Therefore, mitigation'"Erequirements would be limited to <br />projects having direct physical_im~act on important areas <br />for endangered species, and. reasonable alternatives must be <br />developed which are related to the direct impacts. Under an <br />effective recovery plan, depletion of water under State <br />water rights administration systems would not adversely <br />affect the species. <br />5.3 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES <br />Tn specifying reasonable and prudent alternatives for <br />projects directly impacting endangered fish species, the <br />Fish and Wildlife Service, i.e, the Secretary. should <br />consider project impacts on a case by case basis. <br />Alternatives should be defined to directly mitigate impacts <br />_.... <br />.,~.. <br />of projects or to provide indirect mitigation so as not to <br />jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered <br />species. The type of alternative recommended should depend <br />upon the degree of impact of the specific project. The <br />kinds of alternatives which should be considered include: <br />Alteration of project facilities to mitigate <br />significant temperature impacts. <br />21 <br />