DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior Ed Miltner, Bridge and Operations Engineer 01EIFW00-2014-F-0397 Federal Highway Administration, Idaho Division Grandview Bridge Rehabilitation Project Clean Water Act Requirement Language: This Opinion is also intended to address section 7 consultation requirements for the issuance of any project-related permits required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Use of this letter to document that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has fulfilled its responsibilities under section 7 of the Act is contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The action considered by the Corps in their 404 permitting process must be consistent with the proposed project as described in the Assessment such that no detectable difference in the effects of the action on listed species will occur. 2. Any terms applied to the 404 permit must also be consistent with conservation measures and terms and conditions as described in the Assessment and addressed in this letter and Opinion. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (Treaty Act), provides protections to any migratory bird as identified within the Treaty Act. Section 703 of the Treaty Act prohibits the taking of any migratory bird at any time, by any means, or in any manner, and does not provide provisions for take that is incidental to an otherwise legal action. The lack of an incidental take provision requires action agencies to implement avoidance measures that will eliminate and/or minimize adverse effects to migratory birds. The Treaty Act further protects the occupied nests of migratory birds, protecting migratory birds occupying such nests as well as their eggs. The following provides a summary of the migratory birds which will likely seasonally utilize the Grandview Bridge, as well as recommended measures by which the Administration and its contractors can avoid adverse effects that would be in violation of the Treaty Act. Photograph numbers 4-5 in the Assessment display cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) nests beneath the perimeter of the bridge deck and individuals in flight near the bridge, respectively. Service observations of other bridges over the Snake River suggest that the presence of barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) nests are also likely between the girders beneath the bridge (USFWS 2013). Both species are protected under the Treaty Act. The number of nests likely varies by year and by location. Service observations of the I-84 Twin Bridges near Declo, Idaho, in July, 2013 (USFWS 2013) indicated as many as 2,100 pairs of cliff swallows and 165 pairs of barn swallows beneath the two bridges, each nest of which could be expected to produce as many as 4 to 7 eggs, respectively. Cliff swallows typically arrive in Idaho by mid-April and have been recorded to have laid eggs by May 7; they typically produce one brood of young and have finished using nests by mid-July. Barn swallows arrive by April and may produce 2 clutches of eggs with as many as 7 per clutch, and utilize nests until as late as mid- August. Both species will utilize old, existing nests, but can complete construction of a new nest within 6-7 days. The Treaty Act provides protection to both migratory birds as well as their occupied nests and as such, bridge repair work needs to take into account the arrival and breeding season of both cliff and barn swallows. Any form of nests destruction/removal should occur prior to the arrival of 2 Ed Miltner, Bridge and Operations Engineer 01EIFW00-2014-F-0397 Federal Highway Administration, Idaho Division Grandview Bridge Rehabilitation Project Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND AND INFORMAL CONSULTATION ........................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History .............................................................................................................. 1 2. BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Action Area ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Determinations ......... 18 2.2.1 Jeopardy Determination ................................................................................................. 18 2.3 Status of the Species ............................................................................................................ 19 2.3.1 Listing Status .................................................................................................................. 19 2.3.2 Species Description ........................................................................................................ 19 2.3.3 Life History .................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.4 Status and Distribution ................................................................................................... 24 2.3.5 Conservation Needs ....................................................................................................... 25 2.4 Environmental Baseline of the Action Area ........................................................................ 26 2.4.1 Status of the Species in the Action Area ........................................................................ 26 2.4.2 Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area .......................................................... 28 2.5 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 29 2.5.1 Direct Effects of the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 31 2.5.2 Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ......................................................................... 32 2.5.3 Effects of Interrelated or Interdependent Actions .......................................................... 33 2.6 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 34 2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 35 2.8 Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................... 36 2.8.1 Form and Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated ......................................................... 36 2.8.1.1 Effect of the Take ................................................................................................. 37 2.8.1.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ....................................................................... 37 2.8.1.3 Terms and Conditions .......................................................................................... 37 2.8.1.4 Reporting and Monitoring Requirement .............................................................. 37 i Ed Miltner, Bridge and Operations Engineer 01EIFW00-2014-F-0397 Federal Highway Administration, Idaho Division Grandview Bridge Rehabilitation Project 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 38 2.10 Reinitiation Notice ............................................................................................................. 38 3. LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 40 3.1 Published Literature ............................................................................................................. 40 3.2 In Litteris References .......................................................................................................... 42 3.3 Personal Communications ................................................................................................... 43 List of Tables Table 1. Construction Timing ...................................................................................................... 12 Table 2. Temperature ranges for onset of egg-laying of some Physa species in the United States and Europe (McMahon 1975). ...................................................................................................... 21 Table 3. Project effect determinations for all species. Programmatic Biological Assessment: Statewide Federal Aid, State, and Maintenance Actions. Idaho Transportation Department, March 2010. .................................................................................................................................. 31 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map of Grandview Bridge project area. ........................................................... 4 ii Ed Miltner, Bridge and Operations Engineer 01EIFW00-2014-F-0397 Federal Highway Administration, Idaho Division Grandview Bridge Rehabilitation 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 the Grandview Bridge Rehabilitation Project on the Snake River
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior ,C£$ PftRKSERVIC National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Pla Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not ap property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcatei instructins. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name: American Falls Reservoir Flooded Townsite other name/site number: 2. Location street & number American Falls Reservoir [ ] not for publication city or town American Falls ______ [ X ] vicinity state: Idaho code: ID county: Power code: 077 zip code: 83211 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this [X] nomination [ ] request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Minidoka Dam Spillway
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minidoka Dam Spillway Replacement Minidoka Project, Idaho U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho December 2009 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. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minidoka Dam Spillway Replacement Minidoka Project, Idaho U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho December 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minidoka Dam Spillway Replacement Minidoka County, Idaho Lead Agency: For further information contact: U.S. Department of the Interior Allyn Meuleman Bureau of Reclamation Snake River Area Office Pacific Northwest Region 230 Collins Road Boise, ID 83702-4520 (208) 383-2258 Cooperating Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) examines alternatives to correcting structural problems at the Minidoka Dam Spillway and associated facilities on Lake Walcott, Idaho. Alternatives considered in the Draft EIS are the No Action, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act; total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures; and replacement of just the spillway.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the 1984 Swan Falls Settlement
    UNDERSTANDING THE 1984 SWAN FALLS SETTLEMENT CLIVE J. STRONG & MICHAEL C. ORR FULL CITATION: Clive J. Strong & Michael C. Orr, Understanding the 1984 Swan Falls Settlement, 52 IDAHO L. REV. 223 (2016). This article Copyright © 2016 Idaho Law Review. Except as otherwise expressly provided, permission is hereby granted to photocopy this article for classroom use, provided that: (1) Copies are distributed at or below cost; (2) The author of the article and the Idaho Law Review are properly identified; (3) Proper notice of the copyright is affixed to each copy; and (4) Notice of the use is given to the Idaho Law Review. UNDERSTANDING THE 1984 SWAN FALLS SETTLEMENT CLIVE J. STRONG & MICHAEL C. ORR TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 224 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 226 III. THE SWAN FALLS CONTROVERSY AND SETTLEMENT ....................... 230 A. The Lawsuits ............................................................................................ 231 B. The Legislative Subordination Battle ....................................................... 234 C. The Negotiations ...................................................................................... 235 D. The Settlement “Framework” ................................................................... 237 E. The “Trust” Concept ................................................................................. 239
    [Show full text]
  • How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
    NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation 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 tribes. The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference ofState Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Date of publication: 1990; revised 1991, 1995, 1997. Revised for Internet 1995. Cover (Top Left) Criterion B - Frederick Douglass Home, Washington, D.C. From 1877- 1899, this was the home of Frederick Douglass, the former slave who rose to become a prominent author, abolitionist, editor, orator, and diplomat. (Walter Smalling, Jr.) (Top Right) Criterion D - Francis Canyon Ruin, Blanco vicinity, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. A fortified village site composed of 40 masonry-walled rooms arranged in a cluster of four house blocks. Constructed ca. 1716-17 42 for protection against raiding Utes and Comanches, the site has information potential related to Na­ vajo, Pueblo, and Spanish cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Fall Chinook a Primer: 1900-1975
    Snake River Fall Chinook A Primer: 1900-1975 Mark Schuck – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Acknowledgements and note to the reader. The majority of the structure of the presentation was developed by Dr. Billy Connor (USFWS) and through extensive history research by Jim Chandler (Idaho Power Company). Additional insights and historical perspective were provided by several persons from numerous agencies involved with fall Chinook management {Stuart Rosenberger, IPC - GIS Division, Jay Hesse (NPT), Pete Hassemer (IDFG), and several other biologist and researchers that indirectly provided data for slides}. It was my privilege to assemble that information into this presentation. While some of the content from slides in the original presentation provided to the ISRP and attendees on August 6, 2013 will be included in this narrative and slide references are provided in the text that follows, I suggest the best approach to reviewing the history is to read this in concert with the slide presentation, available on the LSRCP website at: http://www.fws.gov/lsnakecomplan/ The purposes of this overview are: • Provide a history of the near demise of Snake Fall Chinook • Review the actions that resulted in the need for, and authorization of, the LSRCP in 1975 • Put everyone on the same plane so that they better understand fall Chinook history • Provide context to better evaluate the success or failure of the LSRCP fall Chinook program, because: We can’t know where we are going if we don’t know where we’ve been. Introduction Chinook are a cultural icon of the Pacific Northwest. King, Tyee or Chinook, the terms convey the aura of big hard fighting fish of the most splendid flavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Swan Falls Project Consultation Appendix
    Idaho Power Company Consultation Technical Appendix CONSULTATION SUMMARY, RELATED CHARTS, AND CORRESPONDENCE APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE SWAN FALLS PROJECT FERC NO. 503 Narrative Summary of Idaho Power Company’s Consultation Efforts New License Application for the Swan Falls Hydroelectric Project Consultation Appendix Swan Falls Project June 2008 FERC No. 503 © 2008 Idaho Power Idaho Power Company Consultation Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Consultation Overview ....................................................................................................................1 Informal Consultation ......................................................................................................................2 First Stage Formal Consultation Pursuant to 18 CFR § 16.8...........................................................5 Formal Consultation Package, Including Study Recommendations—March 2005 ..................5 Aquatic Resources ...............................................................................................................5 Wildlife Resources...............................................................................................................6 Botanical Resources.............................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Assessment of Fisheries Losses in the Upper Snake River Basin in Idaho Attributable to Construction and Operation of Dams with Federal Hydropower Facilities
    ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES Idaho Department of Fish and Game IDFG Report Number 07-52 August 2007 ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES Prepared by: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 IDFG Report Number 07-52 August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES LOSSES IN THE UPPER SNAKE RIVER BASIN IN IDAHO ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DAMS WITH FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FACILITIES................................................................................ 1 ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS.......................................................... 2 Anderson Ranch Dam and Reservoir ........................................................................................ 2 Black Canyon Dam and Reservoir............................................................................................. 3 Deadwood Dam and Reservoir.................................................................................................. 4 Boise River Diversion
    [Show full text]
  • Minidoka Project Reservoirs Store Flow of the Snake Snake the of Flow Store Reservoirs Project Minidoka Many Benefits Benefits Many
    September 2010 2010 September 0461 0461 - 678 (208) Office Field Snake Upper www.usbr.gov/pn the American public. public. American the economically sound manner in the interest of of interest the in manner sound economically related resources in an environmentally and and environmentally an in resources related develop, and protect water and and water protect and develop, clamation is to manage, manage, to is clamation Re of The mission of the Bureau Bureau the of mission The Recreation: over 674,000 visits - $25 million million $25 - visits 674,000 over Recreation: Flood damage prevented: $8.8 million million $8.8 prevented: damage Flood Power generated: $5.6 million million $5.6 generated: Power Livestock industry: $342 million million $342 industry: Livestock IDAHO–WYOMING IDAHO–WYOMING Irrigated crops: $622 million million $622 crops: Irrigated What’s the Yearly Value? Value? Yearly the What’s Project Project the West. West. the Minidoka Minidoka some of the best outdoor recreation opportunities in in opportunities recreation outdoor best the of some also provides fish and wildlife enhancement and and enhancement wildlife and fish provides also The Story of the the of Story The production, and to reduce flood damage. The project project The damage. flood reduce to and production, River system for later irrigation use, electricity electricity use, irrigation later for system River Minidoka Project reservoirs store flow of the Snake Snake the of flow store reservoirs Project Minidoka Many Benefits Benefits Many Congress passed the Reclamation Act in 1902 to storing project water. The 1911 permanent dam was Railroad Draws Settlers bring water to the arid West.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Seepage and Discharge Uncertainty in the Middle Snake River, Southwestern Idaho
    Prepared in cooperation with the State of Idaho, Idaho Power Company, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources Evaluation of Seepage and Discharge Uncertainty in the Middle Snake River, Southwestern Idaho Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5091 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Streamgage operated by Idaho Power Company on the Snake River below Swan Falls Dam near Murphy, Idaho (13172500), looking downstream. Photograph taken by Molly Wood, U.S. Geological Survey, March 15, 2010. Evaluation of Seepage and Discharge Uncertainty in the Middle Snake River, Southwestern Idaho By Molly S. Wood, Marshall L. Williams, David M. Evetts, and Peter J. Vidmar Prepared in cooperation with the State of Idaho, Idaho Power Company, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources Scientific-Investigations Report 2014–5091 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • (E.1-2) Geomorphology of the Hells Canyon Reach of the Snake River
    Geomorphology of the Hells Canyon Reach of the Snake River Steve Miller, CH2M HILL Dick Glanzman, CH2M HILL Sherrill Doran, CH2M HILL Shaun Parkinson, Idaho Power Company John Buffington, University of Idaho and Jim Milligan, University of Idaho (Ret.) Technical Report Appendix E.1-2 May 2002 Revised July 2003 Hells Canyon Complex FERC No. 1971 Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Geomorphology of the Snake River Basin and Hells Canyon CONTENTS Chapter Page Definitions...................................................................................................................................... xi Acronyms.................................................................................................................................... xvii Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................C-1 Preface..........................................................................................................................................C-5 1. Introduction and Geologic and Geomorphic History............................................................... 1-1 1.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2. Current Physiographic Description .................................................................................. 1-3 1.3. Pre-Quaternary Geologic History....................................................................................
    [Show full text]