Laserfiche WebLink
4.6 Destruction and Adverse Modification Discussion and Conclusion <br /> After reviewing the current status of the critical habitats for the Colorado pikeminnow,razorback <br /> sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail, the environmental baseline for critical habitats within the <br /> action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's <br /> biological opinion that the project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any of the critical <br /> habitats designated for the four endangered fish. We have reached this conclusion based on the <br /> following reasons regarding water quality: <br /> • Despite a few elevated mercury concentrations in the water,most reported values in both <br /> the White and Yampa Rivers,which includes all critical habitats in the action area,have <br /> been below the detection limit. Neither the Yampa River nor the White River is on the <br /> 303(d) list of impaired waters for mercury. If the project is approved, current project <br /> activities would continue. Given this,we do not expect mercury water concentrations to <br /> increase from project activities if approved. <br /> • Water selenium concentrations in the Yampa and White Rivers,which includes all <br /> critical habitats in the action area, have not exceeded the chronic aquatic life standard in <br /> the past, according to the best available data. Neither the Yampa River nor the White <br /> River is on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for selenium. If the project is approved, <br /> current project activities would continue. We do not expect water selenium <br /> concentrations to increase from project activities if approved. <br /> 5.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT <br /> Section 9 of the Act, as amended, and federal regulations prohibit the take of endangered and <br /> threatened species, without a special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,harm, pursue, <br /> hunt, shoot,wound, kill,trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm <br /> is further defined by the Service as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may <br /> include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife <br /> by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or <br /> sheltering. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) of the Act,taking that is <br /> incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be a prohibited <br /> taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of <br /> this Incidental Take Statement. <br /> As the Service explained in the effects section, there were many challenges to describing specific <br /> effects to individuals of the four endangered fish. Anticipation and exemption of incidental take <br /> is at the scale of the individual of a species and must be reasonably certain to occur(CFR 50 <br /> 402.14(g)(7)). This requires that the Service build a reasonable basis to conclude that individuals <br /> of the four endangered fish will be subjected to adverse effects that in turn are reasonably certain <br /> to result in actual injury or death. In this biological opinion we are unable, based on the best <br /> available information, to find circumstances that support such a conclusion. Without, specific <br /> information on the potential range of effects to individuals,we are also unable to develop a <br /> surrogate for the potential take of the four endangered fish. Therefore, no take is anticipated or <br /> exempted by this incidental take statement. <br /> 60 <br />