WSP09753 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 4 2 - Protect humpback chub population and habitat in LCR by being instrumental in developing of a management plan. Your November 27 letter states that a draft document will be submitted to the Service for comments. It would seem that a judgment on the progress of this element would best be deferred until we received the document. 3 - Sponsor razorback sucker workshop The Service appreciates that the razorback workshop has been completed. One of the goals of the workshop was to develop a management plan for the species in Grand Canyon. Your November 27 letter states that the Service should now recommend a course of action and develop a Memorandum of Understanding. The Service questions if the recommendations that resulted from the workshop constitute a "management plan" which would facilitate the Service in developing a course of action. We would appreciate your interpretation of the whether the workshop results comprise a "management plan. " 4 - Establish a second spawning population of humpback chub Information collected on tributaries, backwater habitats, aquatic food base, and other aspects during Glen Canyon Studies and Interim Flow monitoring will be useful for this work item. Other than the collection of this baseline information, the Service does not believe significant progress has been made towards the implementation of this element of the Reasonable and Prudent alternative. Other work related to endangered species The biological assessment to evaluate the effects of the preferred alternative on the southwestern willow flycatcher was expected to be sent to the Service by the end of January. As of this date, we have not received that document. As a reminder, in the consultation between Reclamation and the Service on the beach/habitat building flows, the Service issued the following reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize take for the southwestern willow flycatcher. "Initiate formal consultation for the southwestern willow flycatcher on the preferred alternative to the FEIS before January 31, 1997, including in the biological assessment data from the test flow final reports due December 31. 1996." The November 1994 Biological Opinion required that the Kanab ambersnail population and habitat be quantified. The opinion also required that the habitat in Grand Canyon be surveyed before and after any flow greater than 25,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Service is appreciative of the population and habitat evaluations completed by the interagency effort of the Glen Canyon Enviromnental Studies Office, Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Service and others. Our two agencies do not have a process for implementing the necessary habitat evaluations during flows greater than 25,000 cfs. In the past we have successfully relied on the readiness and availability of the GCES staff. and the ongoing monitoring associated with the