7281 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table II-1-B (Continued) Comparison of Recovery Actions That Will be Undertaken Under Each Alternative Action will be implemented under n Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Recovery Action Proposed Action No Action b. Nondepletion impacts: If the Service finds that a project's nondepletion impacts are likely to jeopardize endangered fishes, it will suggest reasonable and prudent alterna- tives to offset these impacts. Yes Yes B. Habitat development and maintenance 1. Create backwaters (to enhance young-of-the-year production) by manipulating river flow or physi- cally constructing backwaters. Yes Yes, but at a slower pace 2. Increase spawning habitat by improving access to existing unused areas, reintroducing eggs/larvae into suitable unoccupied habitat, modifying in- stream characteristics to create new spawning M habitat, or constructing spawning habitat within z the natural stream channel or in modified side channels. Yes Yes, but at a slower pace C 3. Create wintering habitat by building jetties. Yes Yes, but at a slaver pace N 4. Build fish passage facilities to reestablish z Colorado squawfish in parts of their historic range, e.g., above Redlands Diversion Dam, Taylor o Draw Dam, or Palisades. Yes Yes5/ z C. Stocking of rare fish species = 1. Use hatcheries as refugia. Yes Yes 2. Raise fish in hatcheries and/or grow-out ponds ° and use them for basic research studies. Yes Yes, but at a slower pace ° M 0 3. ImTediately introduce bonytail chub. Yes Yes, but at a slower pace6/ n c-) 4. Augment existing populations of Colorado squawfish, z humpback chub, and razorback sucker through stock- ing only after artificial propagation techniques have been thoroughly investigated. Yes Yes, but at a slower paces/ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M