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