Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t,\~"i'-, <br />~'..., " <br /> <br />effects would not appreciably lower the capacity of critical habitat to support the southwestern <br />willow flycatcher, and no adverse modification of critical habitat would result. <br /> <br />One focus of critical habitat is to preserve areas for the future conservation of the species. In <br />the proposal to list critical habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993), activities that may <br />adversely modify the southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat included water diversion, <br />or impoundment, or other activities that alter the quantity or quality of surface water flow that <br />may affect riparian vegetation or food availability. In the FEIS, and many articles and reports <br />on restoration of southwestern riparian habitat, the need for a more natural hydrograph, to <br />include flood flows has been emphasized. In this instance, not to conduct the test flow might <br />be considered adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. <br /> <br />CUMULATIVE EFFECTS <br /> <br />The project area occurs within the jurisdiction of the National Parlc Service. Therefore, it is not <br />lilcely that actions that might affect listed species within the project area would not be considered <br />a Federal action. <br /> <br />Actions by Indian Tribes whose land is adjacent to the Colorado River or its tributaries mayor: <br />may not be considered a Federal action. We are unaware of any proposed non-Federal action <br />these entities that affect habitats of species being considered in this consultation. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />After reviewing the current status of the humpback chub, Kanab ambersnail, and southwestern <br />willow flycatcher, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed <br />spring 1996 beach/habitat-building flow from Glen Canyon Dam (test flow), and the cumulative <br />effects, the Service's biological opinion is that the test flow, as proposed, is not likely to <br />jeopardize the continued existence of the humpbaclc chub, Kanab ambersnail, and southwestern <br />willow flycatcher, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habital <br /> <br />After reviewing the current status of the southwestern willow flycatcher, the environmental <br />baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed spring 1996 beach/habitat-building tlow <br />from Glen Canyon Dam (test flow), and the cumulative effects, the Service's conference opmll1n <br />is that the test flow, as proposed, is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critl<:al <br />habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Critical habitat for the Kanab ambersnall lu_ <br />been proposed only in Utah; however, this action does not affect that area and no destru<:lI"n <br />or adverse modification of that critical habitat is anticipated. <br /> <br />Biological aod Conference Opinions Glen Canyon BeachlHabitat-Building Flows 2116196 <br /> <br />:J <br />