Laserfiche WebLink
cannot be made that certain types of projects would or would not result in <br />adverse modification. <br />It was agreed that the Federal action agency should determine if a "may <br />affect" situation exists for projects occurring within the 100 year <br />floodplain. The. Federal agency should also determine the boundary of the 100 <br />year floodplain to determine if a project falls within this boundary. <br />April 21 <br />Individual Projects vs Cumulative Impacts <br />This discussion centered around the potential for additional major spills of <br />hazardous materials to occur as a result of accidents on rail lines and <br />highways along various river reaches (i.e, the recent oil spill on the <br />Gunnison River). There is a need to open up communication lines with the <br />Federal Railroad Administration, railroad companies, etc. to work with them on <br />contingency plans to avoid or minimize such accidents. There was discussion <br />that these incidents could be potential "takings" cases. <br />Biological Opinion /Small Depletion Exemption <br />Jim Lutey discussed the status and content of a draft Intra- Service opinion <br />which would allow up to 1000 AF of depletions and exempt the depletion charge <br />for new depletions. Some suggestions were made to improve the opinion. <br />Preliminary feedback from Margot Zallen indicated no major problems with the <br />opinion. The opinion should be able to be finalized within two weeks. <br />Adverse Modification <br />Additional discussions occurred regarding making section 7 calls on adverse <br />modification of critical habitat. It was agreed that any Federal action, <br />regardless of magnitude, in critical habitat (or outside critical habitat that <br />may affect critical habitat) is a "may affect" situation and should trigger <br />- section 7 consultation. The Service would then review each Federal action on <br />a case -by -case basis to determine if adverse modification is likely to result. <br />If adverse modification is likely, reasonable and prudent alternatives would <br />be developed, if possible. <br />It was agreed that any Corps general permits or nationwide permits in critical <br />habitat should require reinitiation of section 7 consultation. It may well be <br />that these types of permits should be eliminated and projects should be dealt <br />with on an individual permit basis. This should be pointed out to the Corps <br />when we provide them a list of projects consulted on in the past. <br />It is desirable to work with the Corps, communities, landowners, and others, <br />if possible, on a programmatic basis to avoid or minimize impacts of <br />individual projects (i.e., riprap and jetties) that are having a cumulative <br />impact in some important reaches of river (15 -mile reach). <br />The attendees developed the attached fact sheet that can be used for internal <br />guidance as well as general guidance for Federal agencies in applying the <br />final critical habitat rule. <br />—2 — <br />