DOCSLIB.ORG

Modified Idaho Roadless Rule USDA Forest Service Regions 1 and 4

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion for the Modified Idaho Roadless Rule USDA Forest Service Regions 1 and 4 14420-2008-F-0586 September 2008 - Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office - Boise, Idaho TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 12 A. Background 12 B. Previous Consultations Involving Idaho Roadless Areas 12 C. Consultation History 14 D. Purpose and Organization of this Biological Opinion 21 CHAPTER II: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 24 A. Action Area 24 B. Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action 25 C. Proposed Action 25 D. Time Frames, Scope and Applicability for the Proposed Action 37 E. Administrative Corrections 38 F. Modifications 38 G. Applicability of Previous Consultations to Proposed Action 39 H. Relationship of Existing Forest Plans to Proposed Action 39 I. Assumptions Pertaining to the Proposed Action 41 CHAPTER III. BULL TROUT 46 A. Status of the Species 46 1. Listing History 46 2. Description of the Species 47 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 47 4. Population Dynamics 48 5. Distribution 50 6. Previously Consulted-on Effects 53 7. Conservation Needs 54 8. Critical Habitat 54 B. Environmental Baseline: 55 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 55 2. Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area 56 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 59 D. Cumulative Effects 68 E. Conclusion 69 F. Incidental Take Statement 70 1. Amount or Extent of the Take 70 2. Effect of the Take 70 3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 70 G. Conservation Recommendations 70 CHAPTER IV: SELKIRK MOUNTAINS WOODLAND CARIBOU 72 A. Status of the Species 72 1. Listing History 72 2. Description of the Species 72 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 73 ii 4. Status and Distribution 75 5. Factors Influencing the Current Condition of Caribou 78 6. Previously Consulted-on Effects to the Caribou within the Action Area 82 7. Conservation Needs 84 8. Recovery Plan 84 9. Critical Habitat 84 B. Environmental Baseline: 84 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 84 2. Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area 91 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 93 1. General Discussion of Effects 94 2. Applicable IPNF LRMP Components for Caribou 97 3. Implications of the MIRR Themes on Caribou 100 4. Species Response to the Proposed Action 107 D. Cumulative Effects 109 E. Conclusion 109 F. Incidental Take Statement 110 G. Conservation Recommendations 110 CHAPTER V: GRIZZLY BEAR 112 A. Status of the Species 112 1. Listing History 112 2. Description of the Species 112 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 113 4. Historic and Current Distribution 115 5. Critical Habitat 140 B. Environmental Baseline: 140 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 140 2. Factors Affecting the Species Environment in the Action Area 142 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 143 D. Cumulative Effects 150 E. Conclusion 150 F. Incidental Take Statement 151 G. Conservation Recommendations 151 CHAPTER VI: GRAY WOLF 152 A. Status of the Species 153 1. Listing History 153 2. Description of the Species 154 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 155 4. Population Dynamics 155 5. Historic and Current Distribution 156 6. Previously Consulted-on Effects 159 7. Conservation Needs 160 8. Critical Habitat 160 B. Environmental Baseline: 161 iii 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 161 2. Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area 164 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 166 D. Cumulative Effects 169 E. Conclusion 170 F. Incidental Take Statement 171 1. Amount or Extent of the Take 171 2. Effect of the Take 171 3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 171 G. Conservation Recommendations 172 CHAPTER VII: CANADA LYNX 173 A. Status of the Species 173 1. Listing History 173 2. Description of the Species 173 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 173 4. Population Dynamics 174 5. Historic and Current Distribution 175 6. Previously Consulted-on Effects 176 7. Conservation Needs 178 8. Critical Habitat 178 B. Environmental Baseline: 179 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 179 2. Factors affecting the Species in the Action Area 179 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 184 D. Cumulative Effects 188 E. Conclusion 189 F. Incidental Take Statement 191 1. Amount or Extent of the Take 191 2. Effect of the Take 192 3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 192 G. Conservation Recommendations 193 CHAPTER VIII: PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR CANADA LYNX 193 (Conference Opinion) A. History of Proposed Revised Designated Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx 193 B. Description of the Proposed Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx 193 C. Environmental Baseline: 194 1. Primary Constituent Elements for Proposed Critical Habitat 194 2. Factors Affecting Proposed Critical Habitat in the Action Area 195 D. Effects of the Proposed Action 197 E. Cumulative Effects 199 F. Conclusion 199 G. Conservation Recommendations 200 H. Closing Statement 200 iv CHAPTER IX: NORTHERN IDAHO GROUND SQUIRREL 202 A. Status of the Species 202 1. Listing History 202 2. Description of the Species 202 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 202 4. Population Dynamics 203 5. Historic and Current Distribution 204 6. Previously Consulted-on Effects 207 7. Conservation Needs 207 8. Critical Habitat 208 B. Environmental Baseline: 208 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 208 2. Factors affecting the Species in the Action Area 209 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 214 D. Cumulative Effects 218 E. Conclusion 219 F. Incidental Take Statement 219 1. Amount or Extent of the Take 220 2. Effect of the Take 220 3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 220 G. Conservation Recommendations 220 CHAPTER X: MACFARLANE’S FOUR-O’-CLOCK 222 A. Status of the Species 222 1. Listing History 222 2. Description of the Species 222 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 222 4. Population Dynamics 223 5. Historic and Current Distribution 224 6. Conservation Needs 227 7. Critical Habitat 228 B. Environmental Baseline: 228 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 228 2. Factors affecting the Species in the Action Area 228 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 230 D. Cumulative Effects 231 E. Conclusion 231 F. Incidental Take Statement 231 1. Amount or Extent of the Take 231 2. Effect of the Take 232 3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 232 G. Conservation Recommendations 232 CHAPTER XI: UTE LADIES’ TRESSES 234 A. Status of the Species 234 1. Listing History 234 v 2. Description of the Species 234 3. Life History and Habitat Requirements 234 4. Population Dynamics 236 5. Historic and Current Distribution 237 6. Critical Habitat 237 B. Environmental Baseline: 238 1. Status of the Species in the Action Area 238 2. Factors affecting the Species in the Action Area 238 C. Effects of the Proposed Action 239 D. Cumulative Effects 240 E. Conclusion 240 F. Incidental Take Statement 241 1. Amount or Extent of the Take 241 2. Effect of the Take 241 3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 241 G. Conservation Recommendations 241 CHAPTER XII: REINITIATION-CLOSING STATEMENT 243 LITERATURE CITED 244 APPENDIX A. Biological Opinion for INFISH and PACFISH (excerpt) 283 APPENDIX B. Letter from Idaho Panhandle Forest regarding Woodland Caribou 307 APPENDIX C. Letter from Idaho Panhandle Forest regarding Grizzly Bear 309 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Idaho Roadless Areas 26 Figure 2. Overlap of Idaho Roadless Areas with Community Protection Zones 29 Figure 3. Overlap of Idaho Roadless Areas with Community Water Supply 30 Systems, Ground and Surface Waters Figure 4. GFRG where road construction/reconstruction is allowed to access 35 unleased phosphate deposits Figure 5. Historic and current range of mountain caribou in British Columbia 76 and the U.S. Figure 6. Overlap between the caribou recovery area and Idaho roadless areas 77 Figure 7. Primary and secondary caribou movement corridors in northern 90 Idaho Figure 8. Present grizzly bear ecosystems in the conterminous 48 States, 1990 116 Figure 9. Grizzly bear analysis areas outside the CYRZ 121 Figure 10. Grizzly bear core habitat, bear management units (BMUs), and 141 Idaho Roadless Areas in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems Figure 11. Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf recovery areas depicting 154 endangered and experimental, non-essential status of gray wolves Figure 12. Distribution of documented and suspected wolf packs, other 157 documented groups, and public wolf reports in Idaho, 2007 vi Figure 13. Northern Rocky Mountain population trends by State, 2007- 2008 159 Figure 14. Wolf pack activity and observations in the Panhandle Region, 2007 162 Figure 15. Proposed designated critical habitat for lynx in the Northern Rocky 195 Mountain Unit Figure 16. Proposed designated critical habitat for lynx in the Northern Rocky 196 Mountain Unit in Idaho Roadless Areas Figure 17. Current Distribution of NIDGS 205 Figure 18. Probable Historic Distribution of NIDGS 206 Figure 19. Overlap of MIRR Themes with NIDGS Probable Historic 210 Distribution and Known Populations Figure 20. Distribution of MIMA in portions of the Snake, Salmon, and Imnaha 225 river canyons in Wallowa County in northeastern Oregon, and adjacent Idaho County in Idaho LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (TEPC) Species and Proposed Critical Habitat Considered in this Biological Opinion; including their Listing Status, Critical Habitat Status, and Effects Determination. 13 Table 2. Acres of Roadless Area by Forest. 24 Table 3. Projected Timber Cutting – MIRR. 42 Table 4. Projected Road Construction/Reconstruction – MIRR. 43 Table 5. Miles of Road Within Idaho Roadless Areas by National Forest. 44 Table 6. Bull Trout Baseline Information (Modified Table IV-16 form BA).
Recommended publications
  • Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015

    Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015

    Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015 ‘Our daughter Helen is a statistic in these pages. Understanding why, has saved others.’ David White Ngā mate aituā o tātou Ka tangihia e tātou i tēnei wā Haere, haere, haere. The dead, the afflicted, both yours and ours We lament for them at this time Farewell, farewell, farewell. Citation: Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2017. Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015. Wellington: Family Violence Death Review Committee. Published in June 2017 by the Health Quality & Safety Commission, PO Box 25496, Wellington 6146, New Zealand ISBN 978-0-908345-60-1 (Print) ISBN 978-0-908345-61-8 (Online) This document is available on the Health Quality & Safety Commission’s website: www.hqsc.govt.nz For information on this report, please contact [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Family Violence Death Review Committee is grateful to: • the Mortality Review Committee Secretariat based at the Health Quality & Safety Commission, particularly: – Rachel Smith, Specialist, Family Violence Death Review Committee – Joanna Minster, Senior Policy Analyst, Family Violence Death Review Committee – Kiri Rikihana, Acting Group Manager Mortality Review Committee Secretariat and Kaiwhakahaere Te Whai Oranga – Nikolai Minko, Principal Data Scientist, Health Quality Evaluation • Pauline Gulliver, Research Fellow, School of Population Health, University of Auckland • Dr John Little, Consultant Psychiatrist, Capital & Coast District Health Board • the advisors to the Family Violence Death Review Committee. The Family Violence Death Review Committee also thanks the people who have reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this report. FAMILY VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEE FIFTH REPORT DATA: JANUARY 2009 TO DECEMBER 2015 1 FOREWORD The Health Quality & Safety Commission (the Commission) welcomes the Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015 from the Family Violence Death Review Committee (the Committee).
  • Selkirk Mountains Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2015 Research and Monitoring Progress Report

    Selkirk Mountains Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2015 Research and Monitoring Progress Report

    SELKIRK MOUNTAINS GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY AREA 2015 RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT PREPARED BY WAYNE F. KASWORM, ALEX WELANDER, THOMAS G. RADANDT, JUSTIN E. TEISBERG, WAYNE L. WAKKINEN, MICHAEL PROCTOR, AND CHRISTOPHER SERVHEEN 2016 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MAIN HALL ROOM 309 MISSOULA, MONTANA 59812 (406) 243-4903 1 Abstract: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) captured and monitored a radio collared sample of grizzly bears in the SMGBRZ from 1983 until 2002 to determine distribution, home ranges, cause specific mortality, reproductive rates, and population trend. This effort was suspended in 2003 due to funding constraints and management decisions. In cooperation with IDFG and the Panhandle National Forest (USFS) this effort was reinitiated during 2012 with personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). During 2013 the program was expanded with funding from IDFG, USFS, several sources in British Columbia (BC), and USFWS. This cooperative research and monitoring effort was expanded to involve Idaho Department of Lands, the Kalispel Tribe, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2014 Numbers of females with cubs in the Selkirk Mountains grizzly bear recovery zone (SMGBRZ) varied from 0–4 per year and averaged 1.5 per year from 2010–15. Human caused mortality averaged 1.7 bears per year and 0.7 females per year. Ten human caused mortalities during 2010-15 include 4 females (all BC) and 6 males (one US and five BC). Human caused mortalities during 2010-15 were four adult females (one vehicle collision and three under investigation), one adult male (management), and four subadult males (two management, one mistaken identity, and one self-defense).
  • Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report

    Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report

    Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report The Trust for Public Land March Printed on 100% recycled paper. © 2016 The Trust for Public Land. The Trust for Public Land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. tpl.org Table of contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 2. Study area ....................................................................................................................... 9 3. Community engagement ........................................................................................... 12 4. Mapping conservation values .................................................................................... 15 5. Greater Sandpoint Greenprint action plan .............................................................. 26 6. Profiles in conservation ............................................................................................... 28 7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Participants Lists .............................................................................................
  • Environmental Health Biomed Central

    Environmental Health Biomed Central

    Environmental Health BioMed Central Review Open Access Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation Michelle L Bell*1, Devra L Davis2, Luis A Cifuentes3, Alan J Krupnick4, Richard D Morgenstern4 and George D Thurston5 Address: 1School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA, 2Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, CNPAV 435, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA, 3Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, P. Catholic University of Chile, Engineering School, Santiago, Chile, 4Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 20036, USA and 5School of Medicine, New York University, Tuxedo, NY 10987, USA Email: Michelle L Bell* - [email protected]; Devra L Davis - [email protected]; Luis A Cifuentes - [email protected]; Alan J Krupnick - [email protected]; Richard D Morgenstern - [email protected]; George D Thurston - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 31 July 2008 Received: 4 April 2008 Accepted: 31 July 2008 Environmental Health 2008, 7:41 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-41 This article is available from: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/41 © 2008 Bell et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies can provide ancillary benefits in terms of short-term improvements in air quality and associated health benefits. Several studies have analyzed the ancillary impacts of GHG policies for a variety of locations, pollutants, and policies.
  • SECTION 16 – Table of Contents

    SECTION 16 – Table of Contents

    SECTION 16 – Table of Contents 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial ............................................ 2 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition ........................... 2 16.2 Wildlife of the Pend Oreille Subbasin ............................................................................ 12 16.3 Summary of Terrestrial Resource Limiting Factors ....................................................... 21 16.4 Interpretation and Synthesis............................................................................................ 24 16-1 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition Vegetation in the Pend Oreille Subbasin is dominated by interior mixed conifer forest, with montane mixed conifer and lodgepole forests in the high elevations and small areas of montane coniferous wetlands and alpine habitats. Timber management is the primary land use in the Subbasin on National Forest System, BLM, Idaho Department of Lands, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tribal, and private timberlands. Agriculture, grazing, and urban and rural residential development are other land uses. The largest urban areas within the Subbasin include Newport, Cusick, and Metaline, Washington, and Sandpoint, Priest River, and Clark Fork, Idaho. Figure 13.2 (Section 13) shows the current distribution of wildlife-habitat types in the Pend Oreille Subbasin based on IBIS (2003). Table 16.1 presents the acres of habitats by
  • Assessing the Influence of Weather in 5 U.S. Cities During Wintertime High Mortality Days

    Assessing the Influence of Weather in 5 U.S. Cities During Wintertime High Mortality Days

    ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF WEATHER IN 5 U.S. CITIES DURING WINTERTIME HIGH MORTALITY DAYS A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Michael James Allen December, 2010 Thesis written by Michael James Allen B.S., California University of Pennsylvania, 2008 M.A., Kent State University, 2010 Approved by ______________________, Dr. Scott Sheridan, Advisor ______________________, Dr. Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Chair, Department of Geography ______________________, Dr. Timothy Moerland, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ vii LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Weather Mortality..................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Biological Causes................................................................................ 5 2.1.2 Socio-Economic, Demographic, and Behavioral Factors.................... 7 2.1.3 The Lag Effect and Mortality
  • Determining Fine-Scale Use and Movement Patterns of Diving Bird Species in Federal Waters of the Mid-Atlantic United States Using Satellite Telemetry

    Determining Fine-Scale Use and Movement Patterns of Diving Bird Species in Federal Waters of the Mid-Atlantic United States Using Satellite Telemetry

    OCS Study BOEM 2017-069 Determining Fine-scale Use and Movement Patterns of Diving Bird Species in Federal Waters of the Mid-Atlantic United States Using Satellite Telemetry US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2017-069 Determining Fine-scale Use and Movement Patterns of Diving Bird Species in Federal Waters of the Mid-Atlantic United States Using Satellite Telemetry Authors Caleb S. Spiegel, USFWS Division of Migratory Birds (Project Manager, Editor) Alicia M. Berlin, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Andrew T. Gilbert, Biodiversity Research Institute Carrie O. Gray, Biodiversity Research Institute William A. Montevecchi, Memorial University of Newfoundland Iain J. Stenhouse, Biodiversity Research Institute Scott L. Ford, Avian Specialty Veterinary Services Glenn H. Olsen, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Jonathan L. Fiely, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Lucas Savoy, Biodiversity Research Institute M. Wing Goodale, Biodiversity Research Institute Chantelle M. Burke, Memorial University of Newfoundland Prepared under BOEM Intra-agency Agreement #M12PG00005 by U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Birds 300 Westgate Center Dr. Hadley, MA 01035 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs 2017-069 DISCLAIMER This study was funded by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, through Intra-agency Agreement Number M12PG00005 with the US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds, Hadley, MA. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for publication.
  • EXPERIENCES of a PACKER in WASHINGTON TERRITORY MINING CAMPS DURING the SIXTIES (Concluded from Vol

    EXPERIENCES of a PACKER in WASHINGTON TERRITORY MINING CAMPS DURING the SIXTIES (Concluded from Vol

    EXPERIENCES OF A PACKER IN WASHINGTON TERRITORY MINING CAMPS DURING THE SIXTIES (Concluded from Vol. XIX., page 293). Well, that morning when Patterson reached the barber shop he found Pinkham in the barber shop getting shaved; Patterson just walked over to the barber chair, drew out a big dragoon six shooter and placing it against Pinkhams ear shot him through the head. After he was shot Pinkham jumped up and ran to the front door, and fell there dead. I was right there at the time and saw him lying there in a pool of blood. Patterson "gave himself up," and his crowd being in control of things he was later acquitted by a packed or intimidated jury. Patterson was a bad man, he had killed a sea captain in Portland, and murdered a number of men in "self defense." When a bad man wanted to commit murder with impunity he picked a quarrel with his vic­ tim and killed "in self defense." In going from Walla Walla to the Kootenay mining district we traveled over the Mullan Road to the crossing of the Touchet River, the site of the present town of Prescott; thence to the Snake River, which we crossed sometimes at Silcott's or Lyons Ferry and sometimes at Texas Ferry. We struck the Mullan Road again at Rock Creek and followed it to the crossing of the Spokane River, or Herrin's Bridge, as the place was then called. This bridge was located near the Idaho line, about a half mile above the place where Col.
  • Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS ERRATA SHEET

    Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS ERRATA SHEET

    Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS ERRATA SHEET After completion of the RIA, EPA received revised production cost projections for the proposed rule IPM run, which reduced the projected cost of the proposed rule. This Errata presents these technical corrections. The first table presents the changes in the text and is followed by sets of tables each showing the current table and corrected table. Page numbers Current Value Corrected Value (Highlighted in yellow) ES-15 The estimated social costs to The estimated social costs to implement the proposal, as implement the proposal, as described in this document, described in this document, are approximately $21 are approximately $20 million in 2021 and $6 million in 2021 and $1 million in 2025 million in 2025 (2016$). (2016$). ES-16 The annual net benefits of the The annual net benefits of the proposal in 2021 (in 2016$) proposal in 2021 (in 2016$) are approximately -$21 are approximately -$20 million using a 3 percent million using a 3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate and a 7 percent real discount rate. The annual real discount rate. The annual net benefits of the proposal in net benefits of the proposal in 2025 are approximately $27 2025 are approximately $31 million using a 3 percent real million using a 3 percent real discount rate and discount rate and approximately -$0.9 million approximately $4 million using a 7 percent real using a 7 percent real discount rate. discount rate. ES-17 The present value The present value (PV) of the net benefits, in (PV) of the net benefits, in 2016$ and discounted to 2016$ and discounted to 2021, is -$68 million when 2021, is -$59 million when using a 7 percent using a 7 percent discount rate and $14 million discount rate and $23 million when using a 3 percent when using a 3 percent discount rate.
  • Overton Power District No. 5 Power Transmission Expansion Project Environmental Assessment

    Overton Power District No. 5 Power Transmission Expansion Project Environmental Assessment

    DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2009-1020-EA Overton Power District No. 5 Power Transmission Expansion Project Environmental Assessment Clark County, Nevada March 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Las Vegas, NV 89130 Phone: 702-515-5000 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................... 8 1.3 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Plans or Other Environmental Analyses ............ 8 1.3.1 Conformance With Land Use Plan ........................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Local Land Use Plans ..................................................................................................... 8 1.3.3 Authorizing Actions ................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues ....................................................................... 8 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 10 2.1 Alternative I – No Action Alternative ............................................................................. 10 2.2 Alternative II – Proposed Action ..................................................................................
  • Mortality in Norway and Sweden Before and After the Covid-19 Outbreak: A

    Mortality in Norway and Sweden Before and After the Covid-19 Outbreak: A

    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708; this version posted November 13, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Mortality in Norway and Sweden before and after the Covid-19 outbreak: a cohort study Frederik E Juul, medical doctor1*; Henriette C Jodal, medical doctor1*; Ishita Barua, medical doctor1*; Erle Refsum, postdoctoral fellow1; Ørjan Olsvik, professor2; Lise M Helsingen, medical doctor1; Magnus Løberg, associate professor1; Michael Bretthauer, professor1#; Mette Kalager, professor1#; Louise Emilsson, associate professor1,3,4,5# *These authors have contributed equally #These authors have contributed equally 1Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 2Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway 3Department of General Practice, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 4Vårdcentralen Årjäng & Centre for Clinical Research, Värmland län, Sverige 5Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Corresponding author: Frederik E Juul, MD Clinical Effectiveness Research Group University of Oslo Box 1089 Blindern, 0317 Oslo E-mail: [email protected] PhoneNOTE: This: +47 preprint 975 reports 12 966 new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. 1 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708; this version posted November 13, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
  • The True Effect of MLDA Reform: an Analysis of the Mortality Displacement in Youth Traffic Accidents Caused by the Drinking Age Reform of the 1980S

    The True Effect of MLDA Reform: an Analysis of the Mortality Displacement in Youth Traffic Accidents Caused by the Drinking Age Reform of the 1980S

    The true effect of MLDA reform: An analysis of the mortality displacement in youth traffic accidents caused by the drinking age reform of the 1980s. By: Dan Dirscherl Abstract In this paper I will examine the effects on mortality due to motor vehicle accidents among those 18 to 24 years old caused by exposure to a Minimum Legal Drinking Age of less than 21. Previous research has established that an MLDA under 21 increases mortality among teens. However, there is a question whether the heightened mortality among teens represents mortality displaced from the early teens. If an MLDA of 21 delays entrance into drinking, mortality may simply be shifted from the teen years to the early 20s. In my analysis I use a fixed effect model to illustrate that between 1972 and 1994, exposure to a MLDA of 18 years led to an increase in mortality among teens but a 2.7% decrease in mortality amongst the those aged 18-24, a result suggesting significant mortality displacement. The results indicate that a lower MLDA reduces mortality among males but has no impact on female deaths. This evidence is consistent with the ‘experienced drinker hypothesis’. Page | 1 Introduction The Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) has long been a topic of heated debate. After the end of prohibition most states implemented a MLDA of 21; however 29 states lowered their MLDAs in the early 1970s. The effects on youth drinking and mortality caused by an MLDA of less than 21 have been widely studied. The two areas of focus surround increases in the amount of alcohol consumed by youths and the effects on youth mortality caused by a MLDA of less than 21.