Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. Carol DeAngelis <br />February .19,2004 <br />Page :3 <br /> <br />Draft Opinion recognizes. the San Juan River constitutes only a small portion of the range of <br />the southwestern willow flycatcher. <br /> <br />Nevertheless, the Draft Opinion at page 72 states that the Service believes that it is both <br />necessary and appropriate for the purpose of reducing incidental take of southwestern willow <br />flycatcher to require Reclamation to expand the mission or goals of the Program to include <br />recovery of southwestern willow flycatcher. It is not clear how operating Navajo Dam to mimic <br />a natural hydrograph may cause incidental take of flycatcher, as opposed to maintaining the <br />historic 1963-1990 dam operations. Also, Reclamation has no authority to unilaterally expand <br />the scope of the Program under the Cooperative Agreement establishing the Program or <br />Public Law 106-392 that authorized the Program in federa/law, and Reclamation cannot use <br />the funds that are provided by Congress. power users or the Upper Basin states for purposes <br />of recovering Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker to fund projects to recover <br />southwestern willow flycatcher or other species. <br /> <br />Non-Native Veaetation alona San Juan River <br /> <br />The Draft Opinion at several places attributes the spread or establishment of salt cedar and <br />Russian olive along the San Juan River valley to reductions in flooding that resulted from <br />construction and operation of Navajo Dam, and further insinuates that this is the cause of river <br />channel narrowing and reduction of low-velocity habitat. It is not proven that operation of <br />Navajo Dam is the cause of the invasion of non-native vegetation along the San Juan River in <br />New Mexico and Utah that occurred during the 20th century. <br /> <br />To the extent that the area of salt cedar and Russian olive in the San Juan River valley <br />increased since closure of Navajo Dam in 1962, the area of the two vegetative species in the <br />vaHey would have incr~a:;ed even if the d:;:lm had not been constructed. For example, <br />overbank flooding results in germination and vigorous spread of salt cedar. In the Pecos River <br />valley near Artesia, New Mexico, tens of thousands of acres of salt cedar became established <br />during the 20 years prior to construction of a dam upstream on the Pecos River in the mid <br />1930s. Salt cedar also established itself along the Gila River in the Safford Valley in Arizona <br />even though there is no major dam on the Gila River stream system above the Safford Valley. <br />In the San Juan River Basin, salt cedar and Russian olive have grown in floodplains of <br />tributary streams that are not dammed. Perhaps by reducing flooding, Navajo Dam may have <br />actually slowed the expansion of salt cedar acreage along the San Juan River. <br /> <br />The Service shOUld not insinuate a need to use the Navajo Reservoir water supply to attempt <br />to control non-native vegetation for channel maintenance purposes or for flycatcher habitat. <br />Such use of water would be inappropriate, ineffective and a waste of water. Physical habitat <br />improvements, not. excessive flood flows. should.be considered for improving southwestern <br />willow flycatcher habitat. <br /> <br />OUIJ64 <br /> <br />B8H BIO/IIOd 895-1 <br /> <br />I090BfZOlS NOI1~Nnr aNV~D J,O V3~V OJ N~31S3M ~08.-WOJ, welZ:BO ~nD7-~n_Je. <br />