Laserfiche WebLink
4.3.3 Humpback chub and bonytail <br /> Critical habitat for the humpback chub and bonytail along the Yampa River is identical and no <br /> critical habitat has been designated for either of these species along the White River. Their <br /> critical habitats would be affected in a similar way by the project that Colorado pikeminnow <br /> critical habitat would be, as described above, but we expect the impacts to be of a lesser <br /> magnitude. Humpback chub and bonytail critical habitat does not extend as far up the Yampa <br /> River as Colorado pikeminnow or razorback sucker critical habitats and is, therefore, further <br /> from the point source of the Craig Generating Station. Humpback chub and bonytail critical <br /> habitat is located downstream from, but not within,the mercury deposition airshed analyzed for <br /> this consultation. This increases our confidence that the project would not diminish water <br /> quality to a point where these critical habitats can no longer provide the PCEs essential for the <br /> conservation of these two species. <br /> 4.4 Cumulative Effects <br /> The implementing regulations for section 7 define cumulative effects as "...those effects offuture <br /> State, or private activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur <br /> within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation." 50 CFR § 402.02 <br /> Within the action area,two coal fired power plants exist,the Craig Generating Station and the <br /> Hayden Station. According to a recent OSMRE biological assessment(OSMRE 2015), in 2013, <br /> the last year data is available, the Craig and Hayden Generating Stations emitted 19.2 and 7.5 kg <br /> of mercury, respectively for a total of total of 26.7 kg. The Craig Station emits more than twice <br /> the amount of mercury than the Hayden Generating Station, and is 21 miles closer to habitats <br /> occupied by endangered fish in the Yampa River; both generating stations are within the airshed <br /> analyzed for effects in this consultation, and therefore are in the action area. The effects from all <br /> non-federal coal combusted at both of these two power plants,which is expected to continue <br /> (i.e.,reasonably certain to occur), are considered to be cumulative effects. <br /> As explained above, according to the EPRI (2014) modelling effort, the majority of mercury <br /> depositions (95 percent)within the greater area surrounding a power plant are from regional and <br /> global sources. Mercury deposition from non-federal actions generated outside of the action area <br /> are considered part of the cumulative effects. Thus,the bulk of the mercury that will be <br /> deposited in the action area in the future will come from regional and global non-federal actions <br /> (e.g., coal-fired power plants in Asia). These regional and global mercury sources have been <br /> depositing and will continue to deposit mercury within the action area. We assume that these <br /> inputs will continue at roughly the same deposition rate the action area has experienced in the <br /> past. We have no information about any increase or decrease of coal-fired power plants globally, <br /> or of the increasing use of pollution control measures that would work to reduce mercury <br /> emissions. <br /> Therefore,we assume mercury inputs into the action area will be consistent with those of the last <br /> many years. These inputs have contributed to the current state of the action area regarding <br /> mercury. We assume these inputs will continue and current mercury levels will be maintained <br /> within the action area through future emissions, as described in the Baseline section above. The <br /> 58 <br />