DOCSLIB.ORG

Bayha Island Research Project BO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bayha Island Research Project BO Biological Opinion 01EIFW00-2016-F-0393 Bayha Island Research Project Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND AND INFORMAL CONSULTATION ........................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History .............................................................................................................. 1 2. BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Action Area ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.2.1 General Project Design ........................................................................................ 11 2.1.2.2 Proposed Conservation Measures ........................................................................ 16 2.1.2.3 Restoration of Temporary Construction Impacts ................................................. 20 2.2 Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Determinations ......... 21 2.2.1 Jeopardy Determination ................................................................................................. 21 2.3 Status of the Species ............................................................................................................ 22 2.3.1 Listing Status .................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.2 Species Description ........................................................................................................ 22 2.3.3 Life History .................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.4 Status and Distribution ................................................................................................... 26 2.3.5 Conservation Needs ....................................................................................................... 30 2.4 Environmental Baseline of the Action Area ........................................................................ 30 2.4.1 Status of the Species in the Action Area ........................................................................ 30 2.4.2 Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area .......................................................... 35 2.5 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 40 2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ....................................................... 41 2.5.2 Effects of Interrelated or Interdependent Actions .......................................................... 47 2.6 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 47 2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 47 2.8 Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................... 48 2.8.1 Form and Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated ......................................................... 48 2.8.2 Effect of the Take ........................................................................................................... 49 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ................................................................................. 49 i Biological Opinion 01EIFW00-2016-F-0393 Bayha Island Research Project 2.8.4 Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................... 50 2.8.5 Reporting and Monitoring Requirement ........................................................................ 50 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 51 2.10 Reinitiation Notice ............................................................................................................. 52 3. LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 53 3.1 Published Literature ............................................................................................................. 53 3.2 In Litteris References .......................................................................................................... 57 3.3 Personal Communications ................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 59 List of Tables Table 1. Heavy equipment expected to be used to construct the Bayha Island Research Project. ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2. Temperature ranges for onset of egg-laying of some Physa species in the United States and Europe (McMahon 1975). ...................................................................................................... 24 Table 3. Snake River physa collected by Idaho Power Company between 1998 and 2002. (Bean and Stephenson 2011). .................................................................................................................. 29 List of Figures Figure 1. Bayha Island Research Project vicinity map: action area and project site. .................... 8 Figure 2. Staging areas and roads. ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3. In-water work isolation areas. ...................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Excavation and fill areas. ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 5. Sampling locations and results of Idaho Power Company sampling for Snake River physa and substrates in the project area. ....................................................................................... 32 Figure 6. Estimated acres of Snake River physa habitat at four flows: ....................................... 34 Figure 7. Final sediment sampling locations and dredged material management units (DMMU). ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 8. Snake River physa habitat at 3,900 cfs, existing and proposed conditions. ................. 43 Figure 9. Snake River physa habitat at 7,942 cfs under existing and proposed conditions. ........ 44 Figure 10. Snake River physa habitat at 10,300 cfs under existing and proposed conditions. .... 45 Figure 11. Snake River physa habitat at 11,700 cfs under existing and proposed conditions. .... 46 ii Biological Opinion 01EIFW00-2016-F-0393 Bayha Island Research Project 1. BACKGROUND AND INFORMAL CONSULTATION 1.1 Introduction The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Biological Opinion (Opinion) of the effects of Idaho Power Company’s proposed Bayha Island Research Project (project) on the Snake River physa (Haitia (Physa) natricina). In a letter dated January 19, 2016, and received by the Service on January 19, 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requested formal consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for its proposal to authorize and administer the action. This action will require section 404 Clean Water Act and section 10 Rivers and Harbors permit authorization from the Corps for the placement of fill in Jurisdictional Waters and Navigable Waters of the U.S. This Opinion is based on the Biological Assessment (Meridian Environmental, Inc. et al. 2015, entire) submitted by the Corps, together with its request for formal consultation; a sediment suitability memorandum provided by the Joint Sedimentation Evaluation Team; visits to the project area by the Service, the Idaho Power Company (Company, or IPC), and its partners and contractors (The Freshwater Trust, River Design Group, Inc., Meridian Environmental, Inc.); data collected by the Company, River Design Group, Inc. and its contractors and Service biologists; meetings, bi-weekly telephone calls, and other communication between Service biologists, the Corps, the Company, The Freshwater Trust and its contractors; and other available scientific and pertinent information. The Corps determined that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect Snake River physa. As described in this Opinion, and based on the Biological Assessment (Assessment) submitted by the Corps and other pertinent information, the Service has concluded that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River physa. 1.2 Consultation History The Service has maintained open communication with the Corps and the Company and its partners and contractors regarding the project since March 12, 2014. During that time,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water-Quality Assessment of the Upper Snake River Basin, Idaho and Western Wyoming Summary of Aquatic Biological Data for Surface Water Through 1992
    WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO AND WESTERN WYOMING SUMMARY OF AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL DATA FOR SURFACE WATER THROUGH 1992 By TERRY R.MARET U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4006 Boise, Idaho 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center 230 Collins Road Open-File Reports Section Boise, ID 83702-4520 Box 25286, MS 517 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over time. (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the Improve understanding of the primary natural and earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ human factors that affect water-quality conditions. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- This information will help support the develop­ ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound ment and evaluation of management, regulatory, and decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and monitoring decisions by other Federal, State, and local trends is an important part of this overall mission. agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. One of the greatest challenges faced by water- The goals of the NAWQA Program are being resources scientists is acquiring reliable information achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations that will guide the use and protection of the Nation's of 60 of the Nation's most important river basins and water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for the Idaho Water Quality Standards for Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 911NE11 th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 In Reply Refer To: FWS/Rl/AES Dan Opalski, Director JUN 2 5 2015 Office of Water and Watersheds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth A venue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Opalski: Enclosed are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and concurrence determinations on the Idaho Water Quality Standards for Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants (proposed action). The Opinion addresses the effects of the proposed action on the following listed species and critical habitats: the endangered Snake River physa snail (Physa natricina), threatened Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola), endangered Banbury Springs lanx (Laroe sp.; undescribed), the endangered Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis), the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluenlus) and its critical habitat, and the endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and its critical habitat. The concurrence determinations address the following listed species: the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), endangered Southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), threatened northern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus), threatened MacFarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei), threatened water howellia (Howellia aquatilis), threatened Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis),
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Subbasin Biological Resources
    Upper Snake Provincial Assessment May 2004 2 Subbasin Biological • Comparatively high fish and/or wildlife Resources density • Comparatively high fish and/or wildlife This section of the assessment describes the species diversity environmental conditions and fish and • Important fish and/or wildlife breeding wildlife populations in the Upper Snake habitat province. A key element is information on the • Important fish and/or wildlife seasonal current and potential conditions within each ranges of the 22 watersheds. • Important fish and/or wildlife population or habitat linkage areas This assessment reflects the complex of • Rareness environmental linkages and does not focus on • High vulnerability to habitat alteration a single species. The challenge is to consider • Unique or dependent species the numerous roles of each species in the environment and the consequences of the elimination of or decrease in one habitat and/or species on other habitats and species. This assessment adopts an approach developed by the Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS 2003) for evaluating the ecological functions of species. This assessment focuses on nine habitats and their associated focal species (Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1). Although the discussions are separate, we recognize the hierarchical relationships between focal habitats, focal vegetation species, and focal wildlife species that depend, either directly or indirectly, on the focal vegetation species. Both the aquatic and terrestrial resources sections describe the physical and biological features of a focal habitat. Focal habitats describe a combination of unique vegetative characteristics, dominant plant species, or successional stages with important ecological ties to fish and wildlife (e.g., old growth). Focal habitats may also be composed of specific environmental elements integral to the viability of fish and wildlife populations (e.g., snags, caves).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Friday J uary 6, 1989 MEN Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Notice of Review • 554 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1989 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Regional Director (FWE/SE), U.S. Fish least at times, to merit conSideration for and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, addition to the List of Endangered and Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (505/ Threatened Wildlife. The accompanying 766-2321 or FTS 474-2321). table identifies many of these taxa 50 CFR Part 17 Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, (including, by definition, biological Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, subspecies and certain populations of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wisconsin. vertebrate animals) and assigns each to and Plants; Animal Notice of Review Regional Director (AE/SE), U.S. Fish one of the three categories described AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, below. Unless it is the subject of a Interior. Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota current published proposed or final rule 55111 (612/725-3276 or FTS 725-3276). determining endangered or threatened Notice of review. ACTION: Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, status, none of these taxa receives Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, SUMMARY: The Service issues a revised substantive or procedural protection notice identifying vertebrate and Mississippi, North Carolina, South pursuant to the Act (those species that invertebrate animal taxa, native to the Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and are the subject of a proposed or final the Virgin Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Risk Assessment for the Middle Snake River, Idaho
    United States Office of Research and EPA/600/R-01/017 Environmental Protection Development February 2002 Agency Washington, DC 20460 Ecological Risk Assessment for the Middle Snake River, Idaho National Center for Environmental Assessment—Washington Office Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC EPA/600/R-01/017 February 2002 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER, IDAHO U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment-Washington Office Office of Research and Development Washington, DC Office of Environmental Assessment Region 10 Seattle, Washington DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ABSTRACT An ecological risk assessment was completed for the Middle Snake River, Idaho. In this assessment, mathematical simulations and field observations were used to analyze exposure and ecological effects and to estimate risk. The Middle Snake River which refers to a 100 km stretch (Milner Dam to King Hill) of the 1,667 km long Snake River lies in the Snake River Plain of southern Idaho. The contributing watershed includes 22,326 square km of land below the Milner Dam and adjacent to the study reach. The demands on the water resources have transformed this once free-flowing river segment to one with multiple impoundments, flow diversions, significant alterations
    [Show full text]
  • Swan Falls Hydro 2012
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IDAHO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368 Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 378-5243 https://www.fws.gov/idaho Kimberly D. Bose FEB 0 1 2012 Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 Subject: Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project-Ada and Owyhee Counties, Idaho-Biological Opinion In Reply Refer To: 14420-2011-F-0318 For Internal Use: CONS-lOOb FERCNo. 503 Dear Ms. Bose: Enclosed are the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and concurrence with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) determinations of effect on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for the proposed Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project in Ada and Owyhee Counties, Idaho. In a letter dated August 21, 2011, and received by the Service on September 1, 2011, the Commission requested formal consultation on the determination under section 7 of the Act that the proposed project is likely to adversely affect the Snake River physa (Haitia (Physa) natricina). The Service acknowledges this determination. The enclosed Opinion and concurrence are based on our review of the proposed action, as described in your August 21,2011 amended Biological Assessment (Assessment), an updated analysis of Snake River physa substrate preferences, and the anticipated effects of the action on listed species, and were prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Act. Our Opinion concludes that the proposed project will not jeopardize the survival and recovery of Snake River physa.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan
    SNAKE RIVER AQUATIC SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN DECEMBER 1995 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Homedale 0 Boise C.J. Strike Reservoir American Falls Recovery Area - Shaded Reservoir SNAKE RIVER AQUATIC SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN December 1995 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Snake River Basin Office, Ecological Services Boise, Idaho Approved: Regional irec r . Fish and Wildlife Service Date: /1/zA/f= DISCLAIMER PAGE RecovexY plans delineate actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any neceSs~~y funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints effecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not nece55~y represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ~niyafter they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. JRAfl1E~EC1IAflQ~i: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan. Snake River Basin Office, Ecological Services, Boise, Idaho. 92 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethedsa, Maryland 20814 301/492-3421 or 1-800-582-3421 .
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office 1387 S
    U. S. FlSH 8: WILDLIFE SERVICE United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office 1387 S. Vinncll Way, Room 368 Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 378-5243 http://ldahoEwasgov AUG 1 it 2007 Chris Mebanc Project Chief U .8. Geological Survey Idaho Water Science Center 203 Collins Road Boise. Idaho 83702 Subject: Nutrient Enrichment Effects Program, Upper Snake Basina Elmore, Gooding and Twin Falls Counties, IdahoaBiological Opinion File #10310100 2007-F-0598 Dear Mr. Mebane: This letter transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) on the effects of the Nutrient Enrichment Effects Program in Upper Snake Basin, Idaho, to species listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. In a letter dated June 14, 2007 and received by the Service on June 18, 2007, the U .8. Geological Survey (Geological Survey) requested formal consultation on the determination under section 7 of the Act that the proposed action would not affect the Snake River physa snail (Physa natricina) or Utah valvata snail (VaZvata utahem‘z's) and are likely to adversely effect the Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticolct) and the Banbury Springs limpet (Lame sp). The enclosed Opinion is based primarily on our review of the proposed action as described in your June 2007 Biological Evaluation (Evaluation) regarding the effects of the proposed action on listed species and was prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Act- We conclude that your action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) or the Banbury Springs limpet (Lam: sp.).
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Distribution and Habitat Use of the Bliss Rapids Snail
    SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT USE OF THE BLISS RAPIDS SNAIL by Barry M. Bean A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology Boise State University December 2011 © 2011 Barry M. Bean ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS of the thesis submitted by Barry M. Bean Thesis Title: Spatial Distribution and Habitat Use of the Bliss Rapids Snail Date of Final Oral Examination: 05 October 2011 The following individuals read and discussed the thesis submitted by student Barry M. Bean, and they evaluated his presentation and response to questions during the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral examination. Matthew R. Dare, Ph.D. Co-Chair, Supervisory Committee Ian C. Robertson, Ph.D. Co-Chair, Supervisory Committee Peter Koetsier, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee The final reading approval of the thesis was granted by Matthew R. Dare, Ph.D., Co- Chair of the Supervisory Committee. The thesis was approved for the Graduate College by John R. Pelton, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate College. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My committee (Dr. Matthew Dare, Dr. Ian Robertson, and Dr. Peter Koetsier) have been very helpful and supportive throughout this thesis. I would like to thank my supervisor, Ralph Myers (Idaho Power Company), for making this project happen. Michael Stephenson, Dain Bates, Angela Meyer, Dee Aulbach, Chuck Hoovestol, William H. Clark, Andy Knight, Mike Radko, Josie McDonald, and Patty Auch (all of Idaho Power Company) assisted with field data collection. Webb Van Winkle (Van Winkle Consulting) and David Hopper (U.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment for Bureau of Reclamation Operations And
    Biological Assessment for Bureau of Reclamation Operations and Maintenance in the Snake River Basin above Brownlee Reservoir on Snake River Physa Snail (Haitia [Physa] natricina) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho September 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Biological Assessment for Bureau of Reclamation Operations and Maintenance in the Snake River Basin above Brownlee Reservoir on Snake River physa snail (Haitia [Physa] natricina) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho September 2014 Acronyms and Abbreviations ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profile BA Biological Assessment BCSD Bias Correction Spatial Disaggregation BID Burley Irrigation District BiOp Biological Opinion BPA Bonneville Power Administration CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EFH essential fish habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
    548 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1989 / Rules and Regulations developed in any such formal hearing permitted to examine the materials or any term, condition or restriction of will be part of the basis of the relevant to such proposals. Interested the license; and Administrator’s decisions on an persons will have at least 60 days after * * * * * application. publication of such notice to submit (b) Any action taken by the * * ■ * * * written comments to the Administrator, Administrator in accordance with 4. In § 970.302, paragraph (j) is (b) * * * paragraph (a)(1) will proceed pursuant amended by revising paragraph (j)(l)(i) (2) If the Administrator determines introductory text, and paragraph there exists one or more specific and to the procedures in 15 CFR 971.1003. (j)(l)(i)(A) to read as follows: material factual issues which require Any action taken in accordance with resolution by formal processes, at least paragraph (a)(2) will proceed pursuant § 970.302 Procedures and criteria for one formal hearing will be held in the to paragraphs (c) through (i) of this resolving conflicts. District of Columbia metropolitan area section, other than paragraph (h)(2). ***** in accordance with the provisions of * * * * * (j) Unresolved domestic conflict (1) Subpart I of 15 CFR Part 971. The record (e) If a timely request for P rocedure, (i) In the case of an original developed in any such formal hearing administrative review of the proposed domestic conflict or a new domestic will be part of the basis for the action is made by the licensee under conflict, the applicants will be allowed Administrator’s decisions on issuance or until April 15,1983, to resolve the transfer of, and of terms, conditions and paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the conflict or agree in writing to submit the restrictions for the license.
    [Show full text]
  • Hells Canyon and Salmon River Steelhead and Spring/Summer
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368 Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 378-5243 http://www.fws.gov/idaho Allyson Purcell, Acting Chief National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97232 Subject: National Marine Fisheries Service Authorization of the Continued Operation of the Hells Canyon and Salmon River Steelhead and Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Programs—Idaho (Adams, Custer, Clearwater, Gooding, Idaho, Lemhi, Valley, and Valley Counties) and Oregon (Baker County)—Biological Opinion In Reply Refer to: 01EIFW00-2017-F-1079 Dear Ms. Purcell: Enclosed is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and concurrence on the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS), the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA), the Service’s, the Service’s Lower Snake River Compensation Plan’s (LSRCP), and the Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps), collectively the federal action agencies (action agencies), determinations of effect on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for the authorization and funding of the continued operation of the Hells Canyon and Salmon River Steelhead and Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Programs (Programs), encompassing facilities and operations in Idaho and Oregon. This consultation addresses all aspects of the Programs as outlined in the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs), and is intended to document compliance with the Act for all associated partners who authorize, fund, or carry out various components of the Programs. In addition to the federal action agencies, partners include Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT), and Idaho Power Company (IPC) as Program operators.
    [Show full text]