DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................. 10 4.1.5 Underground Mining ....................................................................................................... 10 4.1.6 Surface Mining ................................................................................................................. 11 4.1.7 Mining Through Streams .................................................................................................. 12 4.1.8 Backfilling, Grading, Excess Spoil, and Coal Mine Waste .................................................. 12 4.1.9 Steep-Slope Approximate Original Contour Variances ..................................................... 13 4.1.10 Soils and Revegetation ..................................................................................................... 14 4.1.11 Coal Haulage .................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.12 Coal Processing ................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.13 Coal Combustion Residue Placement ............................................................................... 15 4.1.14 Bond Release ................................................................................................................... 16 Permitting ........................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 16 4.2.2 Permit Application Process and Service Coordination...................................................... 19 4.2.3 Permit Enforcement under State Regulatory Programs ................................................... 23 4.2.4 Monitoring During Mining and Reclamation .................................................................... 25 Action Area ......................................................................................................................... 25 5 Approach to the Assessment ........................................................................................... 26 Jeopardy Determination ............................................................................................................. 27 Adverse Modification Determination ......................................................................................... 28 6 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................................................................... 28 7 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 51 Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 51 Habitat Destruction and Modification ............................................................................... 53 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................. 55 Pollution .............................................................................................................................. 55 Harvest ................................................................................................................................ 56 Mining ................................................................................................................................. 56 8 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 60 Programmatic Approach .................................................................................................... 60 i Key Assumptions for the Effects Analysis.......................................................................... 60 Evaluation of the Programmatic Consultation Criteria .................................................... 62 8.3.1 Understanding the Scope ................................................................................................. 62 8.3.2 Stressors .......................................................................................................................... 63 8.3.3 Minimizing Adverse Effects .............................................................................................. 67 8.3.4 Identifying and Screening Applicants ............................................................................... 69 8.3.5 Monitoring Effects ........................................................................................................... 70 8.3.6 Monitoring and Enforcing Compliance ............................................................................. 72 8.3.7 Modify the Action ............................................................................................................ 74 Other Considerations.......................................................................................................... 75 8.4.1 Monitoring Requirements ................................................................................................ 75 8.4.2 Vegetative Buffers ........................................................................................................... 76 8.4.3 Fill Placement in Streams ................................................................................................. 76 8.4.4 Groundwater Quality ....................................................................................................... 77 8.4.5 Revegetation .................................................................................................................... 77 8.4.6 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 78 Exposure and Response Analyses ....................................................................................... 78 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 79 9 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 79 10 Incidental Take Statement .............................................................................................. 82 Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated .............................................................................. 82 Reasonable and Prudent Measures .................................................................................... 83 Terms and Conditions ........................................................................................................ 83 11 Reinitiation Notice ........................................................................................................... 85 12 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 86 ii SMCRA Biological Opinion - 10/16/2020 1 INTRODUCTION The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The ESA also requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining and reclamation operations1. SMCRA was also designed to: assure that surface coal mining operations are not conducted where reclamation as required is not
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proposed Rule
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/28/2020 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2020-01012, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2019–0098; 4500090023] RIN 1018-BE19 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus) and the Guyandotte River crayfish (C. veteranus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 582 stream kilometers (skm) (362 stream miles (smi)) in Martin and Pike Counties, Kentucky; Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia; and McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne Counties, West Virginia, are proposed as critical habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish. Approximately 135 skm (84 smi) in Logan and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia, are proposed as critical habitat for the Guyandotte River crayfish. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act’s protections to these species’ critical habitat. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for these species. DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule or draft economic analysis (DEA) that are received or postmarked on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 1 PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-21478, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of review. SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our 1 progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Review and Surveys for Frecklebelly Madtom, Noturus Munitus
    Noturus munitus, Buttahatchee R., Lowndes Co., AL Final Report: Status review and surveys for Frecklebelly Madtom, Noturus munitus. David A. Neely, Ph. D. Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute 175 Baylor School Rd Chattanooga, TN 37405 Background: The frecklebelly madtom, Noturus munitus, was described by Suttkus & Taylor (1965) based largely on specimens from the Pearl River in Louisiana and Mississippi. At that time, the only other known populations occupied the Cahaba and Upper Tombigbee rivers in Alabama and Mississippi. Populations were subsequently discovered in the Alabama, Etowah, and Conasauga rivers (Bryant et. al., 1979). The disjunct distribution displayed by the species prompted an examination of morphological and genetic differentiation between populations of frecklebelly madtom. Between 1997-2001 I gathered morphological, meristic, and mtDNA sequence data on frecklebelly madtoms from across their range. Preliminary morphological data suggested that while there was considerable morphological variation across the range, the populations in the Coosa River drainage above the Fall Line were the most distinctive population and were diagnosable as a distinct form. I presented a talk on this at the Association of Southeastern Biologists meeting in 1998, and despite the lack of a formal description, the published abstract referring to a "Coosa Madtom" made it into the public 1 eye (Neely et al 1998, Boschung and Mayden 2004). This has resulted in substantial confusion over conservation priorities and the status of this form. The subsequent (and also unpublished) mitochondrial DNA data set, however, suggested that populations were moderately differentiated, shared no haplotypes and were related to one another in the following pattern: Pearl[Tombigbee[Cahaba+Coosa]].
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Mississippi Bird EA
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage and Threats of Damage Caused by Birds in the State of Mississippi Prepared by United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services In Cooperation with: The Tennessee Valley Authority January 2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlife is an important public resource that can provide economic, recreational, emotional, and esthetic benefits to many people. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and threaten human safety. When people experience damage caused by wildlife or when wildlife threatens to cause damage, people may seek assistance from other entities. The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) program is the lead federal agency responsible for managing conflicts between people and wildlife. Therefore, people experiencing damage or threats of damage associated with wildlife could seek assistance from WS. In Mississippi, WS has and continues to receive requests for assistance to reduce and prevent damage associated with several bird species. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental planning into federal agency actions and decision-making processes. Therefore, if WS provided assistance by conducting activities to manage damage caused by bird species, those activities would be a federal action requiring compliance with the NEPA. The NEPA requires federal agencies to have available
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams
    Amencan F~sheriesSociety Symposium 37:179-193, 2003 Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Department ofFisheries and Wildlife Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 1000 Front Street, Oxford, Massachusetts 38655, USA Abstracf.-Many ecological processes are associated with large wood in streams, such as forming habitat critical for fish and a host of other organisms. Wood loading in streams varies with age and species of riparian vegetation, stream size, time since last disturbance, and history of land use. Changes in the landscape resulting from homesteading, agriculture, and logging have altered forest environments, which, in turn, changed the physical and biological characteristics of many streams worldwide. Wood is also important in creating refugia for fish and other aquatic species. Removing wood from streams typically results in loss of pool habitat and overall complexity as well as fewer and smaller individuals of both coldwater and warmwater fish species. The life histories of more than 85 species of fish have some association with large wood for cover, spawning (egg attachment, nest materials), and feeding. Many other aquatic organisms, such as crayfish, certain species of freshwater mus- sels, and turtles, also depend on large wood during at least part of their life cycles. Introduction Because decay rate and probability of displace- ment are a function of size, large pieces have a Large wood can profoundly influence the struc- greater influence on habitat and physical processes ture and function of aquatic habitats from head- than small pieces. In general, rootwads, branches, waters to estuaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of the Gasification Performance of Lignite Feedstock and the Injection Design of an E-Gas Like Gasifier
    Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, October 15 - 18, 2012 Investigation of the Gasification Performance of Lignite Feedstock and the Injection Design of an E-Gas like Gasifier Yan-Tsan Luan and Yau-Pin Chyou* Ting Wang Chemistry Division Energy Conversion & Conservation Center Institute of Nuclear Energy Research University of New Orleans Atomic Energy Council New Orleans, Louisiana 70148, USA Longtan, Taoyuan, Taiwan (R.O.C.) ABSTRACT CO2 capture among the four reference power plants: coal In the last three years, the Institute of Nuclear Energy combustion, integrated gasification combine cycle (IGCC), Research (INER) has been developing the E-GAS gasification oxy-combustion, and natural-gas combustion. In the second numerical model and analyzing the gasification performance column, coal pre-combustion carbon capture has the lowest by conducting several parametric studies. A preliminary cost of CO2 avoided, which makes it more competitive and a numerical model considering coal particles tracking, two-step welcoming choice when it comes to low-carbon electricity volatiles thermal cracking, and nine chemical reactions has generation. With its inherence of low emissions and cost been established. In last year’s results, the single lateral including CCS, IGCC has the potential to replace traditional injector design in the 2nd stage of E-GAS gasifier is found PC plants. Therefore, conducting research in coal gasification non-ideal for the gasificaiton process. Therefore, one of the and CO2 capture technology to improve its availability, objectives in this study is to modify the 2nd stage injection increase its efficiency, and reduce the cost is essential for and investigate its effect on gasification performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions for Energy Crisis in Pakistan I
    Solutions for Energy Crisis in Pakistan i ii Solutions for Energy Crisis in Pakistan Solutions for Energy Crisis in Pakistan iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This volume is based on papers presented at the two-day national conference on the topical and vital theme of Solutions for Energy Crisis in Pakistan held on May 15-16, 2013 at Islamabad Hotel, Islamabad. The Conference was jointly organised by the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI) and the Hanns Seidel Foundation, (HSF) Islamabad. The organisers of the Conference are especially thankful to Mr. Kristof W. Duwaerts, Country Representative, HSF, Islamabad, for his co-operation and sharing the financial expense of the Conference. For the papers presented in this volume, we are grateful to all participants, as well as the chairpersons of the different sessions, who took time out from their busy schedules to preside over the proceedings. We are also thankful to the scholars, students and professionals who accepted our invitation to participate in the Conference. All members of IPRI staff — Amjad Saleem, Shazad Ahmad, Noreen Hameed, Shazia Khurshid, and Muhammad Iqbal — worked as a team to make this Conference a success. Saira Rehman, Assistant Editor, IPRI did well as stage secretary. All efforts were made to make the Conference as productive and result oriented as possible. However, if there were areas left wanting in some respect the Conference management owns responsibility for that. iv Solutions for Energy Crisis in Pakistan ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank Bcf Billion Cubic Feet BCMA
    [Show full text]
  • Voice 2012 01Febmar.Pdf
    AppalachianThe February / March 2012 VOICE Forty years ago, a wave of coal slurry swept away Then communities along Buffalo Creek, killing 125. Some problems from our past have improved — others & Now seem stuck in time. Have we learned our lesson? ALSO INSIDE: The Habits of Hibernating Bears • Georgia’s Historic Blood Mountain • Standing Up for Clean Water TheAppalachian VOICE Yesterday and Today: Defending the Clean Water Act A publication of A Note From Our Executive Director By Jamie Goodman AppalachianVoices TOP: Councilmen from Cleveland, Forty years ago, it took a Ohio, examine a white cloth that came 191 Howard Street • Boone, NC 28607 There’s a common saying in Appalachia: what we do to the land, 1-877-APP-VOICE flaming river to spur our nation up dripping with oil after being dipped we do to the people. www.AppalachianVoices.org to protect its waterways. in the Cuyahoga River in 1964. The [email protected] What the coal industry is doing to the citizens in our region is river notoriously caught fire in June The river that played a promi- unforgivable. In the last several years, 21 peer-reviewed studies have 1969, bringing it national attention nent role in the creation of the EDITOR ....................................................... Jamie Goodman confirmed the worst of our fears -- that mountaintop removal coal min- and leading to renewed efforts toward MANAGING EDITOR ........................................... Brian Sewell Clean Water Act and the Envi- ing is destroying not only the land, but also the people of Appalachia. improving water quality (Photo ASSOCIATE EDITOR ............................................Molly Moore ronmental Protection Agency is by Jerry Horton).
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2017
    Ellipsaria Vol. 19 - No. 4 December 2017 Newsletter of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Volume 19 – Number 4 December 2017 Cover Story . 1 Society News . 4 Announcements . 7 Regional Meetings . 8 March 12 – 15, 2018 Upcoming Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin Meetings . 9 How do you know if your mussels are healthy? Do your sickly snails have flukes or some other problem? Contributed Why did the mussels die in your local stream? The 2018 FMCS Workshop will focus on freshwater mollusk Articles . 10 health assessment, characterization of disease risk, and strategies for responding to mollusk die-off events. FMCS Officers . 19 It will present a basic understanding of aquatic disease organisms, health assessment and disease diagnostic tools, and pathways of disease transmission. Nearly 20 Committee Chairs individuals will be presenting talks and/or facilitating small group sessions during this Workshop. This and Co-chairs . 20 Workshop team includes freshwater malacologists and experts in animal health and disease from: the School Parting Shot . 21 of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota; School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin; School 1 Ellipsaria Vol. 19 - No. 4 December 2017 of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences, Auburn University; the US Geological Survey Wildlife Disease Center; and the US Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Health Center. The opening session of this three-day Workshop will include a review of freshwater mollusk declines, the current state of knowledge on freshwater mollusk health and disease, and a crash course in disease organisms. The afternoon session that day will include small panel presentations on health assessment tools, mollusk die-offs and kills, and risk characterization of disease organisms to freshwater mollusks.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist WATER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 0908 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 8 IBI sample collection ............................................. 8 Habitat measures............................................... 10 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 15 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 19 Designation of guilds....................................... 20 Results and discussion................................................ 22 Sampling sites and collection results . 22 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 41 1. Number of native species ................................
    [Show full text]