Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Biological Assessment_Broodstock_210115_v1.pdf 146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Seattle Public Utilities July 30, 2020 This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Seattle Public Utilities 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4500 Seattle, WA 98124-5177 Attn: Michael Norton, Fernando Platin, Clayton Antieau Authored by: Confluence Environmental Company July 30, 2020 This report should be cited as: Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2020. Cedar River broodstock collection facility replacement biological assessment. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington, by Confluence, Seattle, Washington. This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Area and Location ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Consultation History ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Project Elements ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Concrete Sill.............................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.2 Picket Weir ................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1.3 Picket Lift System ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.4 Improved Trap Box Assembly ................................................................................................... 9 2.1.5 Civil Site Improvements .......................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Construction ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Construction Schedule and Phasing ....................................................................................... 13 Phase 1 Staging/Laydown Areas, Site Preparation, and Upland Development ...................... 13 Phase 2 Staging/Laydown Areas ............................................................................................ 14 2.2.2 In-Water Work ......................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Upland Work ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 20 2.5 Compensatory Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 21 2.5.1 On-Site Mitigation Concept ..................................................................................................... 21 2.5.2 In-Lieu Fee Credit Purchase ................................................................................................... 22 3.0 STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDY AREA .............. 26 4.1 Chinook Salmon—Puget Sound ESU ..................................................................................................... 27 4.1.1 Population Status .................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.2 Occurrence in the Study Area ................................................................................................. 28 4.1.3 Critical Habitat in the Study Area ............................................................................................ 29 4.2 Steelhead—Puget Sound DPS ............................................................................................................... 30 4.2.1 Population Status .................................................................................................................... 31 4.2.2 Occurrence in the Study Area ................................................................................................. 32 4.2.3 Critical Habitat in the Study Area ............................................................................................ 33 4.3 Bull Trout—Coastal-Puget Sound DPS .................................................................................................. 33 4.3.1 Occurrence in the Study Area ................................................................................................. 34 4.3.2 Critical Habitat in the Study Area ............................................................................................ 34 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .......................................................................................................................... 35 5.1 Terrestrial Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................................. 35 Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page ii 5.1.1 Land Use and Land Cover ...................................................................................................... 35 5.1.2 In-Air Noise and Disturbance .................................................................................................. 35 5.2 Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Conditions—Matrix of Pathways and Indicators ................................... 35 5.2.1 Water Quality Conditions ........................................................................................................ 36 Temperature ........................................................................................................................... 36 Sediment/Turbidity .................................................................................................................. 37 Chemical Contamination/Nutrients ......................................................................................... 38 5.2.2 Habitat Access ........................................................................................................................ 38 5.2.3 Habitat Elements ..................................................................................................................... 38 Substrate Conditions ............................................................................................................... 38 Large Woody Material ............................................................................................................. 39 Pool Frequency/Quality ........................................................................................................... 39 Off-Channel Habitat ................................................................................................................ 39 Refugia ................................................................................................................................... 39 5.2.4 Channel Conditions and Dynamics ......................................................................................... 40 Width/Depth Ratio ................................................................................................................... 40 Streambank Condition ............................................................................................................ 40 Floodplain Connectivity ........................................................................................................... 41 5.2.5 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Conditions ...................................................................................... 41 Change in Peak/Base Flows ................................................................................................... 41 Increase in Drainage Network ................................................................................................. 42 5.2.6 Watershed Conditions ............................................................................................................. 43 Road Density and Location ..................................................................................................... 43 Disturbance History ................................................................................................................. 43 Riparian Reserves .................................................................................................................. 43 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 44 6.1 Direct Construction Effects ..................................................................................................................... 44 6.1.1 Disturbance and Displacement ............................................................................................... 45 6.1.2 Fish Exclusion and Salvage .................................................................................................... 45 6.1.3 Underwater Noise ................................................................................................................... 46 6.1.4 Water Quality—Sediment/Turbidity ......................................................................................... 49 6.1.5 Water Quality—Chemical Contamination/Nutrients ................................................................ 51 6.1.1 Prey Resources ...................................................................................................................... 51 6.1.2 Riparian Clearing .................................................................................................................... 52 6.2 Long-Term and Operational Effects ........................................................................................................ 52 6.2.1 Substrate and Sediment Dynamics ......................................................................................... 52 6.2.2 Hydraulic Effects ..................................................................................................................... 53 6.2.3 Migration Delay ....................................................................................................................... 54 6.2.4 Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ................................................................. 54 6.3 Summary of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................. 54 Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page iii 7.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................................. 56 7.1 Federally Listed Species......................................................................................................................... 56 7.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species ........................................................................................... 57 8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 58 TABLES Table 1. Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat Known or Likely to Occur in the Study Area ........ 26 Table 2. Timing of Chinook Salmon Occurrence in the Study Area by Life Stage ....................................................... 29 Table 3. Timing of Steelhead Occurrence in the Study Area by Life Stage ................................................................. 33 Table 4. Summary of NMFS (1996) Matrix of Pathway and Indicator Conditions in the Study Area and Vicinity ........ 36 Table 5. Percent of Daily Temperature Exceedance by NMFS Functional Category, 1992-2019................................ 37 Table 6. Summary of Anticipated Project Effects on ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat .................................... 55 Table 7. Effects Determinations to ESA Listed Species ............................................................................................... 56 Table 8. Effects Determination of Effect to Critical Habitat .......................................................................................... 57 FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area and Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 3. Natural and Hatchery-Origin Cedar River Chinook Salmon Spawner Abundance, 1965-2018 ..................... 28 Figure 4. Natural-Origin Cedar River Winter Steelhead Spawner Abundance, 1984-2018 .......................................... 31 Figure 5. Extent of Project-Related Noise .................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 6. Extent of Temporary Disturbance and Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts ................................... 50 APPENDICES Appendix A—Assessment of Essential Fish Habitat Appendix B—BCF 60% Design Drawings Appendix C—Species Lists Appendix D—Species Life Histories Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AR at risk BA Biological Assessment BCF Broodstock Collection Facility BMP best management practices cfs cubic feet per second COAR Conceptual Options Analysis Report Confluence Confluence Environmental Company Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cy cubic yard dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibels dBpeak peak pressure level dBRMS root mean square pressure level DO dissolved oxygen DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FMO feeding, migration, and overwintering Hz Hertz I-405 Interstate 405 LMA Landsburg Mitigation Agreement LWM large woody material µPa microPascal mg/L milligrams per liter MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPF not properly functioning NTU nephelometric turbidity unit OHWM ordinary high water mark PCE primary constituent element PVC polyvinyl chloride Q2, Q10 2-year recurrence interval, 10-year recurrence interval R1 attenuation distance to ambient R2 reference distance from the source for the initial noise measurement RM river mile RMS root mean square SEL sound exposure level SEV severity of effect SPCC Spill Prevention and Control Plan SPL sound pressure level Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page v SPU Seattle Public Utilities TESC temporary erosion and sedimentation control TL transmission loss TSS total suspended solids USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WQI water quality index WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Seattle’s Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) is proposing a replacement of the existing Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery Program’s broodstock collection facility (BCF), located in the City of Renton in the lower Cedar River, a tributary to Lake Washington in Washington. The proposed SPU BCF Replacement Project (project) would construct a permanent foundation for the BCF in the active river channel, and would implement an improved removable weir and trap system to increase operational efficiency of the BCF. Construction requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for modification of the channel bed and placement of fill material in the lower Cedar River, which is a Water of the U.S. Issuance of a Corps authorization constitutes a federal nexus, which triggers consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC. § 1531 et seq.). In addition, the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 2007 (16 USC 1801-1884), requires federal agencies to consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (NMFS 1999, 2018). Confluence Environmental Company (Confluence) has prepared this Biological Assessment (BA) on behalf of SPU and the Corps to initiate ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This document includes an analysis of the effects of the proposed action on EFH to initiate MSA consultation with NMFS. The EFH assessment is presented in Appendix A. 1.1 Project Area and Location The existing BCF is on the lower Cedar River at river mile (RM) 1.7, approximately 66 feet upstream from the Interstate 405 (I-405) bridge crossing in Renton (Figure 1). The site is in Washington Township and Range T23N R5E S18 at latitude/longitude 47.480716° N, 122.199027° W (HUC 171100120106, Lower Cedar River). The proposed action would be constructed approximately 20 feet upstream of the existing facility. July 2020 Page 2 Figure 1. Project Area and Vicinity Map Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 3 1.2 Project Background As a condition of the Landsburg Mitigation Agreement (LMA) in 2000 (City of Seattle 2000a), the Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery Program (Program) was developed to mitigate habitat lost to spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) above the Landsburg Diversion Dam. The LMA describes mitigation and monitoring required in response to the diversion of SPU’s municipal water supply system at the Landsburg Diversion Dam in the Cedar River. The BCF is a critical component of the Program, which is described in the LMA. The BCF is a removable trap and weir system used to capture adult sockeye salmon for hatchery broodstock. The operational objective for the BCF is to supply sufficient broodstock to meet the annual hatchery production goal of 34 million sockeye fry. This equates to approximately 26,000 adult sockeye per year. The existing BCF is composed of a removable system of 13 weir panels, or pickets, attached to a metal rail permanently mounted on the channel bed by rebar stakes, and a removable trap and walkway. The rail terminates on the north bank at a tip gate mounted flush with the armored bank. The manually operated tip gate is used to provide volitional passage for Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) around the BCF when in operation. The tip gate is removable and is reinstalled each year during BCF operations. The weir pickets are manually attached to a cable laid within the rail and positioned to form a flow-permeable barrier across the river. The trap and an access walkway are lowered into place behind the weir by a crane. A modular vertical picket system is used to complete the barrier between the weir and the south bank. The BCF is owned by SPU, which contracts with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to install and operate the BCF. The BCF is typically installed after Labor Day and removed in late October or early November depending on flow conditions. Installation typically occurs when flows are between 100 and 500 cubic feet per second (cfs), measured at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage 12119000 (Cedar River at Renton). SPU and WDFW staff manage the existing BCF to the best of their ability but the facility must be improved to meet Program objectives. SPU is proposing to replace the existing BCF with an improved design that addresses safety and operational concerns, minimizes unintentional effects on target and nontarget species, and is capable of meeting broodstock collection objectives. Specific design and operational improvements that would occur with the replacement BCF are as follows:  Improve installation and removal;  Increase flexibility to remove facility at flows greater than 500 cfs;  Increase accessibility and operation at flows greater than 600 cfs, minimizing potential confinement of both target and nontarget fish for unacceptably long periods;  Improved ability to remove accumulated debris from pickets, minimizing weir failure;  Add ability to raise and lower pickets during operation to pass large debris; Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 4  Avoid and minimize unintended trapping of target and nontarget species (including Chinook salmon) in the pickets under low flow conditions, leading to incidental mortality; and  Improve attraction flows to effectively guide fish into the trap, minimizing risk of unintentional migration delay. SPU has developed a Conceptual Options Analysis Report (COAR, MJA 2020) to evaluate design options and select a preferred alternative. The proposed action is based on COAR Option 5, which is described in greater detail in a 60% Design Documentation Report (MJA 2020, Appendix B). 1.3 Consultation History The Corps completed informal ESA Section 7 consultation on the construction and operation of the existing BCF on September 26, 2008 (NMFS Tracking No: 2008/05503).1 That consultation addressed issuance of a Section 404 permit authorization for project construction, and annual operation, installation, and removal over a 4-year period. That action covered the installation of the guide rail and tip gate. The operational permit was renewed in 2012 and 2016. NMFS concluded in the 2008 consultation that construction and operation of the BCF would not adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss), or designated critical habitat for these species. This determination was contingent on implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs) and operational requirements for avoiding and minimizing operational effects on target and non-target species specified in the Corps permit. Annual installation and removal of the collection weir are conducted in accordance with the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS. Annual meetings of the Adaptive Management Working Group are held with NMFS and WDFW to address specific installation and operational criteria (personal communication, M. Koehler, SPU, with J. Nichol, December 9, 2015). In addition, specific “take” levels are identified in the Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan for the Cedar River Hatchery, yet to be approved by NMFS. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes the proposed project including project element details, construction methods and sequencing, and best management practices (BMPs). 1 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation for the Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery Fish Weir, King County Washington (NWS-2008-00841-WRD) (HUC 171100120106, Lower Cedar River). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 5 The proposed action would construct a new removable BCF with specific operational features that were not included in the original 2008 informal consultation on the BCF. The proposed action is composed of the following elements:  Replacement of the existing BCF rail system with a permanent channel-spanning concrete sill foundation approximately 20 feet upstream of the existing weir alignment, embedded in the channel of the Cedar River;  An improved weir system composed of 13 aluminum picket weir panels;  An integrated electric picket weir lift system operated from shore and capable of raising and lowering each zone of picket panels independently;  An improved in-stream trap chute and box system that would increase operational efficiency, improve worker safety, and provide access under a broader range of flow conditions; and  Civil site improvements for site access, grading, and erosion and sediment control.  Long-term operation of the BCF for fish collection. The shift in weir location is needed to accommodate the 2 construction seasons required to construct the replacement BCF. Building the weir upstream allows the existing BCF to be operated in its existing location between the 2 construction seasons, while avoiding interference with components of the replacement BCF. The replacement BCF would consist of aluminum panels mounted to an aluminum subframe that would be rotated off a concrete sill into a raised position by extending a linear actuator connected to the sill. In the raised position, the extended linear actuator would hold the downstream-end of the picket panels out of the water to establish the weir. When the linear actuator is retracted, the panels would rotate down to a resting position that follows the downstream slope of the sill to allow debris to wash off. The new facility would also include modifications to the existing trap box and perimeter access walkway. The upgraded trap box would feature a false floor (brail) that can be raised by a hand winch close to the perimeter access walkway. As the trap floor rises, fish crowd into an accessible trough in the floor allowing operators to net fish without entering the water or trap. The walkway would provide safe access to the trap box at high flows, keeping the facility fishable up to 1,000 cfs. The benefits of the proposed action over the existing system are as follows:  Ability to operate and safely access under a broader range of flow conditions;  Increased attraction flows, improving capture efficiency and reducing risk of migration delay;  Improved worker access and operational safety, reducing holding and handling time for target and nontarget species;  Improved weir panel designs to avoid impingement risk; Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 6  Electrically operated panel system that can be raised and lowered on demand for volitional passage and debris management; and  Robust design that can withstand high flow conditions and pass debris and bedload when lowered, increasing flexibility to respond to unanticipated events. The replacement BCF includes several improvements to increase fish collection capabilities. It has been designed to operate in higher-velocity river flows, which allows the BCF to function later into the year and provides a greater duration for fish collection and increased fish genetic diversity relative to the current BCF. The existing BCF also does not effectively guide fish into the trap, given that the trap box is not in the thalweg. This is inefficient for fish collection and may risk delay in upstream migration of all anadromous fish as they hold below the weir. The proposed BCF would focus stream flows that would be leveraged to direct fish into the trap. The replacement BCF would be operated by an electronic actuator lift system that can raise and lower the picket panels. Each zone of picket panels can be raised or lowered independently from the rest of the picket panels. This allows panels to be lowered for cleaning, which would keep the replacement BCF operational. The proposed BCF increases personnel safety by reducing the need for in-water access and maintenance. The picket panels can be remotely lowered/raised for cleaning from an upland area along the southern shoreline, reducing the need for in-water work by personnel to remove debris. The existing BCF often requires personnel to wade into the Cedar River to access the trap box and to conduct maintenance on the picket panels. The new trap box has a walkway and gangway system to facilitate access to the trap box for fish collection during flows up to 1,000 cfs. The proposed BCF also provides improved installation and removal processes. The replacement BCF includes a permanent concrete sill, to which the weir panels can easily attach/detach. At the end of the collection season, the picket panels and subframes would be lowered and left in the Cedar River. Annual removal of the picket panels would occur in early July, at lower river flows. Currently, the existing BCF is manually removed in flow conditions at or approaching 500 cfs. 2.1 Project Elements 2.1.1 Concrete Sill The existing steel rail fixed to the channel bed would be removed and replaced with a permanent concrete sill foundation that would be embedded in the riverbed. The concrete sill would provide the foundation for the picket panel weir. The sill would measure approximately 84 feet long by 21 feet wide by 5 feet deep, spanning the channel from the face of the existing right-bank retaining wall to the face of the new access ramp (Sheet CS101, Appendix B). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 7 The concrete sill would consist of a 21-foot-wide (measured along the flow direction) reinforced concrete slab tied to vertical cut-off walls at the upstream and downstream edges, which would protect the sill from potential undermining due to scour as well as provide anchorage and stability against sliding, uplift and overturning forces imposed on the weir. The upstream edge of the sill would have a 10-inch-wide by 14-inch-tall curb, which would protect the leading edge of the picket panel and subframe assemblies from debris and allow the assemblies to stand at least 8 inches clear of the sill to avoid injury to fish when lowering the panels (Sheet CS206, Appendix B). The exposed surface of the sill would be sloped from a high point behind the upstream curb to a low point at the downstream edge of the sill. The sill would slope in profile toward a flat 6-foot wide low segment aligned with the trap chute panel from high points at the right and left bank. This slightly concave design would create a thalweg toward the middle of the river, thereby promoting attraction flow through the trap facility and guiding the fish to the entrance of the trap box for collection (Sheet S-202, Appendix B). The curb on the upstream edge of the sill would be omitted for a 3-foot-wide opening aligned with the low segment to facilitate fish passage through the trap chute. Boulders would be placed directly upstream and downstream of this concrete sill to armor the edges and prevent scour (Sheet CS10s and CS206, Appendix B). An 18-inch-wide, 10-inch-deep utility trench with a removable cover would be provided across the entire length of the sill to accommodate electrical components and wiring for the linear actuators. The sill would contain miscellaneous embedded stainless steel elements to provide connection points for the linear actuators and the picket weir subframe assembly described below. An ultra-high-molecular-weight pad, or similar, would also be provided on the sill to ensure that the aluminum subframe members do not rest directly on concrete. The weight and foundation embedment of the concrete sill is proportioned to achieve safety factors recommended by the Corps for global stability against sliding, flotation (or uplift), and overturning load effects imposed on the weir under an operational failure condition where the panels become entirely clogged during the maximum operational flow. Vertical cutoff walls would be provided at all exposed edges of the sill to protect against scour with the added benefit of mobilizing passive resistance against global sliding forces. The concrete sill would also be capable of supporting the weir during operation, including resistance to point loads imposed by each linear actuator and the hinged panel subframe assemblies. While the concrete sill is sloped to promote debris removal and sediment transport across the facility, it is recognized that the river is aggrading, and substrate materials may consequently accumulate on the sill and prevent free rotation of the subframe and/or linear actuators during the operational period. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 8 2.1.2 Picket Weir The improved picket weir system would consist of removable picket panels mounted to an aluminum tube subframe (Sheets S-101, S-104 ad S-105, Appendix B). The aluminum subframe would anchor to a gusset plate on the curb on the upstream edge of the concrete sill. These aluminum picket panels are designed to meet NMFS standards for fish passage barrier systems (NMFS 2011). The picket panels would be approximately 3 feet wide by 20 feet long and composed of 1-inch outside-diameter aluminum tubing at 1-inch clear spacing. Adjacent pickets would be connected in panels by horizontal stringers at intermittent spacing not exceeding 5 feet along the length of each panel. The panel width ensures that clear spacing between pairs of picket panels would not exceed 1 inch. Each panel subframe would be connected to a linear actuator so panels can be raised or lowered in zones to allow Chinook salmon passage or cleaning of individual sections of the weir. Picket weir assemblies would be raised and lowered by the linear actuator system, as described in Section 2.1.2. In the raised position, the pickets would be oriented approximately 7 degrees above horizontal to achieve the 1-foot-per-second NMFS criterion for maximum flow velocity across the wetted area of the weir. This configuration closely matches the orientation of the pickets during operating conditions of the existing facility. In the lowered position, the pickets would be oriented approximately 4 degrees below horizontal before the subframe contacts the concrete sill. A standalone, non-operable trap chute panel assembly would exist on the flat 6-foot portion of the concrete sill to allow upstream fish passage through the weir and into the trap box (Sheet S- 208, Appendix B). This trap chute panel assembly would have a tube frame and supports that would seat into blockouts in the concrete sill. Along the entire length of the trap chute, the inside width would be 36 inches clear and the inside height would be 36 inches clear. To maintain the 36-inch clear height inside the trap chute, the top of the trap chute would slope upstream similarly to the concrete sill. The pickets downstream of the trap chute, as well as the pickets adjacent to the trap chute, would be the same length and orientation as the pickets on a typical picket panel to ensure alignment with adjacent picket weir assemblies. The overall width of the trap chute panel assembly would be 71 inches to ensure that clear spacing between panels would not exceed 1 inch. 2.1.3 Picket Lift System The picket weir system would be raised and lowered during operation by an electric lift system consisting of electric cylinders, communication and power cabling, a water-tight controls enclosure called a pressure vessel, and a controls enclosure on the left-bank (Sheet E-101, Appendix B). The electric actuators would be mounted to the top of the concrete sill and the upper cross bar of the picket subframe assembly. When actuated, a single electric actuator would raise or lower a single subframe assembly and associated picket panels (Sheet S-203, Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 9 Appendix B). Communication and power supply for each actuator would be provided by flexible cabling that routes from each actuator through a cabling trench in the top of the concrete sill. The cabling trench would house rigid conduit with cabling splits for the flexible branch line connections to the actuators. The system would be designed to operate independent subsections or “zones” of the weir at a given time. When debris accumulates against the pickets, only the section(s) of the weir needing to be cleaned would be lowered, instead of dropping the entire barrier. This also allows the power supply to the actuators to be smaller, because it would be required to operate fewer actuators at a time. 2.1.4 Improved Trap Box Assembly The existing BCF trap box and perimeter access walkway would be replaced to provide increased worker safety and operational efficiency over a broader range of flow conditions. A new shore-to-trap aluminum gangway would provide safe access to the trap up to 1,000 cfs flow levels. The installed trap box would measure 15 feet long by 6 feet wide (10 feet wide if including the removable walkway) by 7.5 feet tall, and it would consist of an aluminum square tube frame with integral vertical pickets and porosity plates. Except for the upstream side, the trap box would have a grated, aluminum, removable access walkway for operations personnel around the remaining perimeter. The top surface of the walkway would stand at 4 feet from the riverbed, with the walkway approximately 3 to 4 inches above the maximum operational water surface elevation to enable collection activities during high flows. This perimeter walkway would be accessed from the river bank by an approximately 30-foot-long by 2-foot-wide prefabricated, removable aluminum gangway that spans from the boat ramp to the trap. This gangway would be supported by T-bars. The walkway access would be gated and signed to prevent public usage (Sheets S-106 and S-201, Appendix B). The trap box would feature a central brail floor which would be raised and lowered by a hand- operated winch to facilitate fish retrieval without entering the river or the trap (Sheets M-207 and M-208, Appendix B). As the floor is lifted, fish in the trap would be centralized within a neoprene trough for collection. To accommodate fish collection, hinged panels on the trap sides would swing down when the trap is being emptied so operators would not have to reach over the full height of the sides. The downstream end of the trap box would be a diversion area that leads from the trap chute to the larger trap box area (Sheet S-208, Appendix B). The diversion area would be a picketed, rectangular aluminum frame structure 5 feet long and 3 feet wide (inside) to match the trap chute, and 4 feet high to match the trap box walkway. The upstream end of the diversion area would contain a PVC picket assembly similar to what is used by WDFW in the existing facility. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 10 This assembly, referred to as the “chime gate,” would be formed with an aluminum beam spanning the diversion area supporting a curtain of PVC pickets or “chimes.” This would be similar to the existing BCF assembly. The chimes gate is pinned at the top to the support beam and would hang at a slight angle across the diversion box, resting against a bottom cross-frame tube of the trap box. This configuration allows migrating fish to push the pickets open as they swim upstream and then close once the fish have entered the trap box. On one side (e.g., left bank) of the diversion area would be a hand-operated, lifting trap bypass gate that can be raised to allow non-targeted fish, such as Chinook salmon, to bypass the trap box and continue swimming upstream. This gate would be paired with a second removable gate of similar configuration just downstream of the chime gate to ensure that non-targeted fish exit through the trap bypass gate. During normal operation, the trap bypass gate would be closed and the chime gate would be removed. A third gate that separates the trap area from the diversion area, called the trap entrance gate, would be open during normal operation. The brail floor of the trap box would have rectangular aluminum tubing for a frame and aluminum circular tubing pickets would run across the floor at a 2-inch spacing except for the downstream end, which would house a neoprene sheet that would fold up flat when the floor is lowered but would create a trough when the floor is raised (Sheet S-212, Appendix B). The rest of the brail floor would slope slightly down towards this trough, with the upstream end of the floor 6 inches higher than the downstream end. As the floor is lifted, fish would slip down the slope into the trough so operators can net them from the downstream side of the box. The floor would be stable and sturdy enough to support one operator entering the trap box and standing on it in the raised position if necessary. Operator entry into the trap box is facilitated by a 2-foot wide opening and hinged access gate on the right bank side of the upstream end of the trap box. To provide cover for fish in the trap and accommodate fish collection, the trap box would have perforated aluminum lid sections that either fold, accordion, or slide. The lid would be 3.5 feet above the surface of the walkway. When open, the lid would rest on the upstream end of the trap box to allow full operator access to the neoprene trough where the fish would be crowded. Depending on the final lid option selected, up to 90% of the lid area would be open. If needed, the portion that would not be open would be easily accessible through the south access opening. As stream flows decrease and the water level drops, the number of fish the trap box can support decreases due to the reduced volume. Holding criteria for an “in-stream” holding box is not specifically identified in the NMFS criteria. The flows considered for this design range from a depth of 1.25 feet, which provides minimal depth at the trap entrance, to a depth of 3.75 feet corresponding to 1,000 cfs of flow. A curve has been developed that illustrates water depth vs. number of fish held based on NMFS criteria (Appendix B). This would provide operator Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 11 guidance for when the trap box is considered “full” and the fish should be transported to the hatchery. Two debris deflector panels with vertical picket bars would be placed upstream of the trap box to protect the trap box and trap chute from debris impact. Debris that encounters the deflector panels would be redirected away from the trap box toward the downstream picket panels. These panels would be 7.5-feet long by 6-feet tall and would be similar to the panels at the existing facility. The picket size and spacing of these panels would match the trap box. The height of these panels exceeds the maximum operation flow level. The design, installation, and removal of the proposed debris deflector panel is consistent with the debris deflector panels used to protect the existing BCF. Like the current BCF design, the trap box would be installed and removed using a crane operating from the paved shoreline access point. The trap would be placed behind the trap chute and connected to the entry. The access gangway would allow BCF crew to access the trap walkway from shore. Attraction flow created by the new trap facility would also be improved. The goal of these improvements is to reduce the flow inside the trap while also increasing the flow through the trap chute to attract fish to the trap. This flow-shift prevents fish from being delayed by the weir without entering the trap and reduces the strain on fish while in the trap. The upstream face of the trap box would feature a perforated plate with 20% open area to reduce the amount of flow directly through the box providing a quiescent zone in the box (Sheet S-215, Appendix B). Water would seep through these panels before entering the trap. Because the front face of these panels would not form a tight seal with the streambed, some water would pass below them and up through the pickets along the bottom of the box. This would create enough flow to concentrate fish at the upstream end without tiring them out. The sides of the trap box would also be perforated plate with 20% open area for the first 6 feet upstream. This results in reduced velocities in most of the trap. There would be pickets along the remaining 6 feet on the downstream end of the sides to allow water in. When the perforated plates become covered in smaller debris, operators would clean the plates from the walkway. 2.1.5 Civil Site Improvements Civil site improvements include access improvements to the south side of the collection facility. These upland components of the project proposal are limited to features needed to facilitate installation and removal of the BCF each year and to operate the BCF when it is in the river. The access road to the boat ramp would be widened by 3 feet to the north to accommodate a larger crane truck needed for installation of the new BCF. A portion of the existing boat ramp would be demolished and the new boat ramp would be relocated approximately 20 feet upstream of its current location to be in line with the new concrete sill. This would require approximately 1,148 square feet of new concrete on the boat ramp’s eastern edge, 170 square feet of which would be Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 12 below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). A pad composed of permeable void structure, grass-filled concrete pavers would be established adjacent to the east side of the boat ramp to provide a level pad for the new trap walkway and to anchor and to support crane outriggers; the permeable paver pad would be 86 square feet in size, 35 square feet of which would be located below the OHWM. The hammer head section of the boat ramp would also be extended upstream with permeable pavers to improve the turning radius. The area where the boat ramp is removed would be restored with native vegetation (Sheet CS101 in Appendix B). Scour protection would be included on the upstream and downstream sides of the new concrete sill. Riprap with a D50 of 8.3 inches would be placed to a depth of 4 feet (Sheet CS 206, Appendix B) and would extend 8 feet in the upstream and downstream directions from the sill margins (Sheet CS106, Appendix B). A concrete retaining wall along the waterward edge of the boat ramp would extend upstream to protect the new boat ramp and the permeable pavers from scour. The retaining wall would begin approximately 3 to 4 feet below the riverbed (varies along the length of the concrete sill) and transition in height to be flush with the boat ramp elevation (Sheet CS203, Appendix B). The retaining wall would transition into a wing wall that would extend approximately 9 feet upstream of the boat ramp sill. This would provide additional scour protection for the boat ramp and would offer support for the permeable paver pad immediately upland, as well as providing a supporting structure for the gangway that allows operator access to the trap box. Other upland improvements include the installation of a new light pole, which would be located directly east of the new boat ramp. The light would only be used during emergencies or to improve safety during operations at dark. A control panel for the electronic actuators and picket gate lift system, as described in Section 2.1.3, would be affixed to this light pole. 2.2 Construction The construction activities associated with the proposed action include:  Cofferdam installation and removal;  Foundation and sill installation;  Electronic actuator conduit installation;  Electronic actuator control system construction;  Boat ramp widening construction; and  Boat ramp key wall installation. The weir panels and trap improvements would be fabricated off-site by a commercial vendor and transported to the site by truck. These features would be installed and tested during project construction for troubleshooting. Once construction is complete, the annual installation and removal of the weir and trap system is considered part of normal BCF operations, which were consulted on previously. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 13 2.2.1 Construction Schedule and Phasing The current schedule anticipates final project design in August 2021 and construction commencing in 2022. Project construction would occur in 2 phases, with Phase 1 in 2022, and Phase 2 in 2023. In-water work would occur primarily during the agency-approved work window each year, which extends from July 1 to August 31 (Corps 2010). However, a 1-month extension to the work window would be requested, with work beginning June 1. Upland work would not be confined to the work window but is generally expected to coincide with in-water activities or be phased just before and after. Phase 1 consists of all work on the south side of the Cedar River, which includes all upland work and construction of approximately half of the concrete sill, extending from the south bank to just past mid-channel. Phase 2 includes in-water construction of the north half of the concrete sill, facilitated from Cedar River Park on the north bank. The in-water construction methods as described in Section 2.2.2 would be used for both phases of work. The 2 construction phases are necessary because the replacement facility cannot be constructed in a single in-water work season. SPU would attempt to incentivize the contractor to complete construction in 1 year to minimize overall project impacts. For the purposes of this report, a 2- year construction schedule is assumed. Phase 1 Staging/Laydown Areas, Site Preparation, and Upland Development Phase 1 staging, laydown, and upland development would occur in 2022. Project construction would begin with the establishment of staging areas and overall site preparation. The primary staging/laydown area would be established in the existing Cedar River Trailhead parking lot, approximately 100 feet from the OHWM. A majority of staging/laydown, including a concrete washout area, would occur in this delineated area. When construction shifts from the south bank to the north bank in 2023, a second staging/laydown area would be established on the north bank. For Phase 1, once the contractor staging/laydown area is established, focused site clearing would begin along the shoreline. During this stage of construction, the project’s temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan measures would be installed (Sheet C-101, Appendix B). Clearing would be limited to the minimum necessary to support construction. Approximately 3,950 square feet of riparian area would be cleared to accommodate the upland civil improvements. Site clearing and preparation work would be completed using a combination of heavy equipment (e.g., excavators, loaders) and hand-operated power tools. During this phase of work, the existing access road would be widened by 3 feet. The existing boat ramp would be partially demolished and the new portion of the ramp would be constructed to align with the new concrete sill (Sheet CD-101, Appendix B). Permeable pavers would be installed to construct the hammerhead at the top of the boat ramp, and the permeable Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 14 paver pad would be constructed at the shoreline to support fish trap access and crane outriggers. Permeable pavers are proposed in these areas to minimize impervious surface, while still achieving design goals for project facilities that support the replacement BCF. Overall, the proposed new hardscaping would encompass approximately 1,564 square feet of access road and boat ramp and 414 square feet of permeable pavers, approximately 45 square feet of which is below the delineated OHWM. A total of 654 square feet of the existing boat ramp would be removed (539 square feet below OHWM), for a net increase of approximately 1,324 square feet of hardscaping. During Phase 1, approximately 1,316 square feet of additional riparian area would be temporarily disturbed. In total, approximately 150 cubic yards (cy) of excavation and 190 cy of fill would be required to complete this upland work. Other ancillary upland improvements include installation of one light pole and trenching for placement of electrical conduit. Phase 2 Staging/Laydown Areas Phase 2 staging and laydown work would occur in 2023 and would be limited to the north bank and accessed from Cedar River Park. Staging would be established along the north bank beneath the I-405 bridge, pending approval from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and coordination with the City of Renton. Staging/laydown areas would be fenced to demarcate the area, and traffic controls and other signage would be installed. No vegetation clearing is necessary for Phase 2 staging and laydown work. A smaller work area would be established immediately upland of the Phase 2 cofferdam to facilitate construction. The existing informational kiosk would be temporarily relocated, and the area would be demarcated from public access with fencing. Steel plates would be laid in the work area to protect existing turf. The work area would allow a mobile crane and other equipment to access the interior of the cofferdam from the Park; the rock retaining wall adjacent to the Cedar River would be protected. Once construction of Phase 2 is complete, the site would be restored to preconstruction conditions. 2.2.2 In-Water Work In-water work for both phases would use the same sequence and construction elements. Prior to in-water work, a dewatering system would be installed to isolate the work zone such that all work below the OHWMs of the Cedar River is conducted in a work zone free from water. Final dewatering methods would depend on the system selected by the contractor. Prior to the start of any in-water operations, the contractor would be required to submit for SPU approval a dewatering plan that includes cofferdam and dewatering design and equipment, safety procedures, sequence of construction, and re-watering procedures. A cofferdam is a temporary, Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 15 watertight structure erected around a construction site designed to keep water from inundating the site during construction. The contractor would be required to furnish, install, maintain, and operate all necessary pumping and other equipment necessary to remove all storm, subsurface, and cofferdam leakage waters that may accumulate in the cofferdam interior. All dewatering equipment would be required to be maintained and operated at the efficiency and capacity necessary for maintaining the cofferdam interior free from standing water or wet conditions that prevent proper construction. The contractor would be required to provide dewatering facilities with stand-by pumps having 100% standby capacity. All dewatering pumps and their prime movers would be fitted with mufflers, noise-control enclosures, or other noise-control methods, measures, and features such that steady noise emanating from this equipment does not exceed the permissible sound levels defined in the local noise ordinance. Dewatering of all excavation areas and disposal of all water handled would be in compliance with all applicable local and state government rules and regulations. The contractor would be required to remove the dewatering system in a manner that allows allow groundwater elevations to slowly return to natural elevations and to slowly flood the dewatered area to establish water surface elevations upstream of the work zone and equal to tailwater downstream of the work zone prior to removal of the temporary cofferdam(s). The temporary cofferdam is expected to be a PortaDam, AquaBarrier, Bulk-Bag, ecoblock/sandbag, or sheetpile system, or other similar cofferdam system. The cofferdam system would be installed (and removed) in 2 phases, with Phase 1 occurring on the south bank of the Cedar River during the 2022 in-water work window and Phase 2 occurring on the north bank of the Cedar River during the 2023 in-water work window. The cofferdam would extend to just beyond the middle of the river; this allows river flow and unimpeded fish passage during construction. It would take approximately 1 to 1.5 weeks to install the cofferdam, per phase. Construction equipment required for cofferdam installation is anticipated to include a hydraulic excavator, a loader/forklift, and a mobile crane. If sheetpile is used, and vibratory pile driver rather than an impact driver would be required for pile installation. After the cofferdam is complete and the river diversion is stabilized, the area behind the cofferdam would be completely dewatered. Pumps with intake hoses fitted with fish-compliant screening would be installed into the low points of remaining inundated areas. Outlet hoses would be routed to a point downstream of work activities back into the Cedar River. The pools would then be dewatered at a maximum rate of 2 inches per hour, allowing aquatic life to migrate with the receding water level, thereby preventing stranding. Capture and release of any fish, or other remaining aquatic life, back into the natural flow of the Cedar River would be Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 16 completed by qualified personnel pursuant to WSDOT’s Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards (WSDOT 2016a). Using pumps, continuous dewatering via pumps would be required during construction to keep the work area dry. Turbid water would not be discharged to the Cedar River. Instead, it would be contained, settled, and discharged to a suitable upland location allowing infiltration. A visual monitoring program would be established and approved prior to construction to protect water quality and to ensure approval of an appropriate discharge method. Any water that has come into contact with cementitious material would be considered process water and would be either treated before discharge or disposed of off-site. However, the dewatering system would be designed to minimize comingling of water and cementitious material, through a sump located within the cofferdam to divert water, or other similar methods. The work within the cofferdams is anticipated to take approximately 2 to 3 months per phase. Following isolation of the work zone and initial dewatering, work on the permanent concrete sill would begin. Excavation for the concrete sill would be completed using a hydraulic excavator. The area would be excavated to a desired subgrade depth, with 1 foot of over- excavation. Some excavated material would be retained for backfill, but approximately 100 cy of material would be permanently removed from the river channel and taken off-site for disposal. Once excavation is complete, compacting equipment (e.g., a small roller) would be used to compact the riverbed. Geotextile and road-base aggregate would then be placed in the footprint of the excavation. After placement of the road-base aggregate, concrete would be poured directly on grade to create the permanent sill, with forms constructed along the sidewalls. The concrete sill would be constructed in 2 phases, consistent with the phased construction approach. Once the concrete sill has cured to appropriate strength, boulders would be placed directly upstream and downstream of the sill to prevent scour. Electrical systems for the new weir would be installed and affixed to the sill and the trench after approximately 1 week of curing. Installation of the electrical system would also be subject to the phased construction approach. This work requires use of a forklift, mobile crane, small diesel generators, air compressor, and hand tools. A cast-in-place concrete retaining wall would be constructed along the base of the boat ramp during the Phase 1 construction. The wall would extend approximately 3 to 4 feet below the grade of the existing riverbed, functioning as a key wall to prevent scour. As the wall extends farther upstream, it would transition to a height flush with the boat ramp. This section of the wall would provide further scour protection for the boat ramp and support for the Grasscrete- style pad immediately upland. Boulders would be placed upstream and downstream of the concrete retaining wall for further scour protection. Total grading quantities for in-water work include excavation of approximately 760 cy of native sediment and approximately 775 cy of fill (e.g., concrete, aggregates, boulders). Once in-water Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 17 work is complete, the cofferdam would be slowly re-flooded to prevent scour. Pumps would then be removed from the work area to allow water to fill the cofferdam cell. Lastly, the cofferdam would then be removed from the river and uninterrupted river flow would resume. 2.2.3 Upland Work Upland construction activities include continuation of the electrical conduit to connect the electronic actuators to a control panel, demolition and reconstruction of the boat ramp, and widening of the access road. This would require removal of existing concrete surfaces, trenching and excavation, and concrete pouring. Work would include removal of 654 square feet of existing ramp area, with 539 square feet of that existing ramp occurring below OHWM. The area of new proposed boat ramp would include 1,145 square feet of concrete, 191 square feet of which would extend below the OHWM. Additionally, the access road widening would include the addition of 419 square feet of concrete in the upland area. Two areas of permeable pavers would be installed to the east of the new boat ramp over 414 square feet, with approximately 45 square feet of the permeable pavers and a stabilization wing wall occurring below OHWM. Two black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees would be removed to accommodate the boat launch construction. All excavation would be backfilled with native material, and any remaining overburden would be removed from the site for disposal at a permitted commercial facility. Disturbed surfaces would be restored and/or repaved to the existing condition. 2.3 Best Management Practices BMPs would be implemented throughout construction to minimize potential temporary impacts. Though specific implementation means and methods would be determined by construction contractors, the following BMPs are proposed for the project’s construction contract documents: BMPs for general impact avoidance and minimization:  Construction impacts would be confined to the minimum area necessary to complete the project.  Boundaries of clearing limits would be clearly flagged to prevent disturbance outside of the limits.  Removal of riparian vegetation would be minimized, and riparian vegetation would be replanted where possible.  Vegetation would be grubbed only from areas undergoing permanent alteration. No grubbing would occur in areas slated for temporary impacts.  All construction activities would comply with water quality standards set forth in the State of Washington Surface Water Quality Standards (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-201A). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 18  All construction activities would comply with conditions of applicable Department of the Army (Corps) permit, Washington State Department of corps Ecology) Water Quality Certification, and WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval. BMPs to reduce the risk of delivering sediment to waterbodies:  A TESC plan would be developed and implemented for all project elements that entail clearing, vegetation removal, grading, ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation. The BMPs in the plan would be used to control sediment from all vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities. Examples of applicable BMPs include silt fences, wattle, compost socks, ditch check dams, seeding and mulching, stabilized construction entrances, and street cleaning.  The contractor would designate at least one employee as the erosion and spill control lead. This person would be responsible for installing and monitoring erosion control measures and maintaining spill containment and control equipment. The erosion and spill control lead would also be responsible for ensuring compliance with all local, state, and federal erosion and sediment control requirements, including discharge monitoring reporting for Ecology.  Erosion and sedimentation control devices would be installed, as needed, to protect surface waters and other sensitive areas. Actual locations would be specified in the field based upon site conditions.  Project staging and material storage areas would be located a minimum of 150 feet from surface waters or in currently developed areas such as parking lots or previously developed sites.  Erodible material that may be temporarily stored for use in project activities would be covered with plastic or other impervious material during rain events to prevent sediments from being washed from the storage area to surface waters.  Erosion and sedimentation control BMPs would be inspected after each rainfall and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. Sediment would be removed as it collects behind sedimentation control BMPs and prior to their final removal.  All exposed soils would be stabilized during the first available opportunity, and no soils shall remain exposed for more than 7 days from May 1 to September 30.  All silt fencing and staking would be removed upon soil surface stabilization and project completion.  Exposed soils would be seeded and covered with straw mulch or an equally effective BMP after construction is complete.  The project would remove any temporary fills and till-compacted soils, and restore woody and herbaceous vegetation according to an Engineer-approved restoration or planting plan.  A minimum 1-year plant establishment plan would be implemented to ensure survival, or replacement, of vegetation by stem count at the end of 1 year. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 19 BMPs to reduce the risk of introducing pollutants to waterbodies:  The contractor would prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) plan prior to beginning any construction activities. The SPCC plan would identify the appropriate spill containment materials (which would be available at the project site at all times), as well as specify what to do and whom to contact when spills occur. The approved SPCC plan would provide site- and project-specific details identifying potential sources of pollutants, exposure pathways, spill response protocols, protocols for routine inspection fueling and maintenance of equipment, preventative and protective equipment and materials, reporting protocols, and other information according to contract specifications.  All equipment to be used for construction activities would be cleaned and inspected prior to arriving at the project site to ensure no potentially hazardous materials are exposed, no leaks are present, and the equipment is functioning properly. Should a leak be detected on heavy equipment used for the project, the equipment would be immediately removed from areas within or immediately adjacent to the OHWM of waterbodies.  For construction access, a stabilized construction entrance, temporary access roads pads, and street cleaning would be provided.  Absorbent materials would be placed under all vehicles and equipment on construction access or demolition laydown pads, or other over-water structures. Absorbent materials would be applied immediately on small spills and promptly removed and disposed of properly. An adequate supply of spill cleanup materials, such as absorbent materials, would be maintained and available on-site.  A concrete truck chute cleanout area or equally effective BMP would be established to properly contain wet concrete.  Uncured concrete and/or concrete byproducts would be prevented from coming in contact with streams or water conveyed directly to streams during construction in accordance with WAC 220-110-270(3).  Excavated material would be removed to a location that would prevent its re-entry into waters of the state.  As practicable, the contractor would fuel and maintain all equipment more than 200 feet from the nearest wetland, drainage ditch, or surface waterbody, or in currently developed areas such as parking lots or managed areas. Commercial facilities that provide such services, for example gas stations, are excluded.  Materials disposal would occur at contractor-provided disposal sites and in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and ordinances. Additionally, the contract may contain special conditions and requirements that pertain to the demolition and disposal of specific structures or to working in specific areas. BMPs for in-channel construction: Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 20  All work below the OHWM would be completed during the approved in-water work window, and would fully comply with all environmental permits and other authorizations.  The work would follow WDFW’s Level 1 Decontamination Protocols for invasive species management (WDFW 2012).  To minimize fish handling, fish would be herded out of and excluded from re-entering the cofferdam area before its completion.  Before, during, and immediately after isolation and dewatering of the in-water work area, fish from the isolated area would be captured and released using methods that minimize the risk of fish injury, in accordance with the WSDOT protocols for such activities (WSDOT 2016a).  Cedar River flows would be monitored throughout construction using the USGS gage 12119000 (Cedar River at Renton) upstream of the project site. During flow events approaching the 2-year discharge, equipment and materials would be moved off the access pads until waters subside. 2.4 Operations and Maintenance Excluding the permanent concrete sill, all operable components of the replacement BCF would be installed/removed annually. Installation of all the BCF components would occur in early September and removal would occur in December, except for the picket panels, which would be left in a lowered position against the concrete sill for removal before early July. Between December and July, maintenance may occur on an up-to-weekly basis to remove bedload that would accumulate on the picket panels and concrete sill. This would require raising the picket panels a few inches off the lowered position to dislodge accumulated sediment and debris. Recurring maintenance at this frequency would substantially reduce the amount of clearing required before the pickets are removed each summer and before their installation each September. Cleaning twice yearly, before picket removal in July and prior to installation in September, would be the minimum necessary maintenance of accumulated bedload. In these events, the bedload could be cleared manually with a shovel or similar tool, with an airburst- type system, and/or with a combination of raising and lowering the pickets. Once the sill is cleared of sediment, the picket panels would be mounted to the upstream face of a subframe connected to the concrete sill. This process includes installation of a central trap chute. Once the picket panel weir assembly is in place, pneumatically driven T-bars would be installed in the streambed to support the chute and trap box assembly. The trap box debris deflector panels would be installed by crane. The temporary detachable gangway would be installed to provide access to the trap box. Annual installation/removal of the BCF, including equipment staging, would be conducted from the boat ramp on the south bank. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 21 During operation, the electronic actuator lift system would lift or lower the picket panel weir from an upland control area on the south bank. When the weir is raised in an operating ‘up’ position,, fish would be collected in the trap box until the fish capacity for the measured water depth is reached or when maximum holding times are reached, and fish must be removed. Refer to Section 2.1.4 and Appendix B for more detail on holding times and NMFS-provided criteria. Fish handling, including removal or release from the trap box, and transport to the hatchery would meet NMFS-provided criteria and would not change from existing operations. The weir may be lowered to allow Chinook salmon passage or for cleaning. 2.5 Compensatory Mitigation SPU proposes compensatory mitigation to offset the loss of ecological functions from the proposed action pursuant to local, state, and federal regulations. Compensatory mitigation to offset the loss of ecological functions from the projects consists of the following objectives:  Optimize gain of ecological function for the most sensitive resource (i.e., aquatic habitat for Chinook salmon).  Use best available science and a watershed approach to site selection.  Provide a mitigation strategy that simultaneously satisfies local, state, and federal requirements.  Select a site that is appropriately sized for the mitigation need. 33 CFR Section 332.3(b) titled Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources specifies that the Corps district engineer should consider successful options for providing required compensatory mitigation for federal permits, according to the identified preferential order of the following subsections. Generally, the Federal Rule gives preference to using credits from approved mitigation banks first, then in lieu fee (ILF), and permittee-responsible mitigation options last. Renton’s critical area regulations generally prioritizes on-site mitigation (RMC 4-3-050.L.1.d) for critical area impacts, and the City has indicated that they would not support alternative mitigation strategies outside of city limits. As such, SPU is proposing a combination of on-site permittee-responsible mitigation and the purchase of mitigation credits through King County’s ILF program to satisfy both regulatory authorities. 2.5.1 On-Site Mitigation Concept SPU proposes to conduct riparian and channel margin enhancement on a total of 10,900 square feet of the low flood terrace and gravel bar at the project site. Due to recent flooding in winter 2020, existing understory vegetation and large woody material (LWM) on the flood terrace was largely washed away. Invasive species such as Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) persist and are recolonizing denuded soils. To provide an aquatic component to the mitigation design, an LWM complex is proposed along the left bank to the Cedar River approximately 130 feet upstream of the proposed BCF. This Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 22 complex would be partially buried and anchored into the substrate with root wads oriented toward the river to provide habitat complexity, cover, and woody substrate for algae and macroinvertebrates. The final LWM complex would be designed to meet the following objectives:  Withstand 100-year flood event, plus safety factor.  Surround root wads by a suitable range of flows at the channel margin during juvenile salmon outmigration periods.  Promote scour pool formation.  Provide floodplain roughness element. The LWM complex would involve a small area of construction below ordinary high water and would likely require precluding fish from the work zone and a small cofferdam (e.g., sandbags). Proposed riparian improvements include restoration of the 3,733 square feet of temporary clearing limits, re-establishment of riparian vegetation in 489 square feet of the existing boat ramp removal, and enhancement of 6,680 square feet of degraded riparian buffer. Vegetation management would include removal of invasive species and installation of native trees and shrubs suitable to the site conditions. The planted area would be treated with an erosion control fabric (e.g., jute or coir) and mulching as appropriate to promote plant establishment, erosion control, and weed prevention. Prior to planting, weeds would be controlled and the soil prepared as necessary (e.g., tilling, organic mulch amendments). Planting would most likely occur in the fall (2019) following completion of earthwork, to maximize successful plant establishment. Weed control would be conducted using principles of an integrated pest management plan and may be controlled by mowing, pulling, and/or targeted herbicide application as needed. Adequate ground cover would be incorporated to inhibit weed colonization of exposed soils. Installed woody plants would be surrounded with bark mulch at a 3-inch depth to establish plants and inhibit weed growth. The planting plan has been developed to establish a forested wetland and buffer community. Plant selection guidance came from existing forested site vegetation, and from species considered to be robust performers in restoration plantings. The proposed mitigation work would adhere to the BMPs described in Section 2.3. 2.5.2 In-Lieu Fee Credit Purchase The King County ILF Mitigation Program operates under a joint agency (Corps, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecology, and King County) approved instrument for issuing mitigation credits to compensate for applicable project impacts off-site. SPU proposes to Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 23 purchase credits from the King County ILF program to adequately cover project impacts to the on-site aquatic resource pursuant to 33 CFR Section 332.3(b). The funds contributed by this Project to the King County ILF program would support off-site aquatic restoration at the Rainbow Bend roster site within the lower Cedar River that would serve to provide a wider range of aquatic habitat functions as compared to existing functions at the project site. The Rainbow Bend Site is between RM 10.7 and RM 11.5 on the right bank of the Cedar River. The site would expand upon the Rainbow Bend project (Project C235/236 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan) completed in 2013. This project was a multi- objective effort to reduce flood hazards and improve salmon habitat. Floodplain connectivity is a primary recovery strategy identified in the WRIA 8 Chinook Recovery Plan (WRIA 8 2017), which can provide valuable off-channel rearing and refuge habitat for juvenile salmon, which is a limiting factor. Chinook parr survival is thought to be density dependent on suitable edge habitat and the Rainbow Bend project would support this valuable habitat-forming process. Projects of this nature also promote the restoration of other watershed processes that create or maintain habitat characteristics favorable to salmon and are critical to the long-term success of recovery planning. Increasing floodplain connectivity also serves to reduce flows on downstream reaches, which may indirectly benefit the project site that is within a confined reach. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 24 3.0 STUDY AREA The study area for ESA analysis is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and not merely the immediate area directly adjacent to the action” (50 CFR 402.02). The study area includes the project site and all surrounding areas affected by measurable direct and indirect effects of the action, as well as effects of any interrelated or interdependent actions. The study area consists of distinct project components and the maximum extent of potential effects associated with each component. The components analyzed to determine the extent of the study area include the following:  Mobilization, use, and demobilization of construction equipment;  Direct site disturbance;  Turbidity;  Airborne and underwater noise (assuming most impactful construction methods); and  Water quality during operations. Based on the analysis, the overall study area is driven by both the airborne and underwater propagation of construction noise from potential vibratory pile driving (the most impactful noise-generating construction method that may be used during project construction). In contrast to sound propagation, direct site disturbance and water quality effects are more localized. The extent of underwater noise from the source is estimated to be the greater of 328 feet to the nearest land mass. The extent of airborne noise from the source is estimated to be 561 feet from the source of incident pile driving. Therefore, the study area for the project is defined as the area of the airborne sound propagation and is shown on Figure 2. The detailed analysis of the project effects and spatial extents is included in Section 6. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 25 Figure 2. Project Study Area Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 26 4.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT OCCURRENCE IN THE STUDY AREA Confluence consulted threatened and endangered species lists for the study area and vicinity maintained by NMFS (2016) and USFWS (2019). ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat known or likely to occur in the study area are provided in Table 1. The species lists used to develop this consultation are provided in Appendix C, Table C-1. Table 1. Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat Known or Likely to Occur in the Study Area Evolutionarily Significant Unit or Distinct Population Segment Listing Status Critical Habitat Status Critical Habitat in Study Area? Chinook salmon – Puget Sound ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened, 06/28/2005 70 FR 37160 Designated 09/02/2005 70 FR 52685 Yes Steelhead – Puget Sound ESU (O. mykiss) Threatened, 05/11/2006 72 FR 26722 Designated 02/24/2016 81 FR 9252 Yes Bull Trout – Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened, 11/01/1999 64 FR 58910 Designated 10/18/2010 75 FR 63898 No Marbled Murrelet – WA, OR, and CA (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Threatened, 10/01/1992 57 FR 45328 Designated 08/04/2016 81 FR 51348 No DPS – Distinct Population Segment; E – Endangered; ESU – Evolutionarily Significant Unit The USFWS species list in Appendix C, Table C-2 identifies several additional ESA-listed species as potentially occurring in the general project vicinity, but the study area does not provide suitable habitat for these species and they are not addressed further in this consultation. The gray wolf (Canis lupis), wolverine (Gulo gulo luscas), and streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) are unlikely to occur because the study area is in a densely urbanized environment that does not provide suitable habitat for these species. Suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), in the form of mature riparian vegetation, is present in the study area. However, the species is unlikely to occur because available evidence indicates this species has been functionally extirpated from western Washington (Wiles and Kalasz 2017). While cuckoos may persist in small numbers in more remote areas of the state, the likelihood of occurrence in a fragmented and urbanized riparian corridor is remote at best. Therefore, this species is unlikely to occur. Marbled murrelet may fly over the study area in transit between marine foraging and upland nesting habitats in the Cascade foothills. The study area does not lie within designated critical habitat nor does it provide suitable habitat conditions for this species. The construction and operational effects of the proposed action would not measurably alter environmental baseline conditions in the aerial migratory corridor and there is effectively no potential for exposure to direct or indirect project effects. Therefore, the proposed action would have no effect on marbled murrelet and this species is not addressed further in this BA. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 27 The following sections summarize information about ESA-listed species occurrence in and use of the study area relevant to this consultation, and the presence of critical habitat features. Table 2 provides an overview of the timing of occurrence and habitat use in the study area by life stage. General information about listed species status, life history, habitat requirements, and threats to conservation and recovery is provided in Appendix D. 4.1 Chinook Salmon—Puget Sound ESU The Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Chinook salmon was listed as threatened under the ESA on June 5, 2005 (70 FR 37160). NMFS identifies 3 component populations of the Puget Sound ESU from the Lake Washington Watershed, North Lake Washington, Cedar, and Issaquah. The North Lake Washington population spawns in small tributaries to Lake Washington and the Sammamish River. The Issaquah population is a nonnative, hatchery-origin population, maintained by the Issaquah Hatchery since the 1930s. The Cedar River stock spawns and rears in the Cedar River watershed and is the only population likely to occur in the study area on a regular basis. Individuals from the North Lake Washington and Issaquah stocks may occur in the study area periodically as adult strays. 4.1.1 Population Status Lake Washington Chinook salmon populations have demonstrated some of the steepest declines of the 22 extant populations of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU and remain under threat despite recent gains in habitat productivity and survival. At the time of listing in 2005, the population and the Cedar River stock had shown a persistent, increasingly negative abundance trend relative to peak levels observed in the mid-1980s (Myers et al. 1998, Weitkamp and Ruggerone 2000). WDFW began hatchery supplementation of the population in 2004 to stem this decline. The population has shown a modestly positive trend since 2004 but year-to-year escapement remains highly variable (Figure 3). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 28 Ruckelshaus et al. (2006) concluded that the wild Cedar River Chinook population has largely been extirpated and that the Cedar River and North Lake Washington populations have largely been reestablished from hatchery strays and strays originating from other populations outside of the Lake Washington basin. The 2 remaining Lake Washington populations carry little if any of the genetic diversity of the original wild populations and their contribution to the diversity of the ESU is likely minimal (NMFS 2008). Source: WDFW (2019) Figure 3. Natural and Hatchery-Origin Cedar River Chinook Salmon Spawner Abundance, 1965-2018 4.1.2 Occurrence in the Study Area Cedar River Chinook use the study area and surroundings as an adult and juvenile migratory corridor, transient juvenile rearing habitat, and as spawning habitat. The return of adult Chinook salmon to Lake Washington can begin as early as the first week of July and can extend through early October, but the typical peak of the run occurs throughout August and September (Berge et al. 2006). Once passing the Ballard Locks, adult migrants typically move rapidly to their natal rivers, with the majority spending an only a few days in the lake (City of Seattle and Corps 2008, Fresh et al. 2009). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 29 Adult Chinook salmon typically begin appearing on Cedar River spawning grounds in mid- August and active spawning can extend into late November. Peak spawner abundance extends from early September through late October (Berge et al. 2006, Burton et al. 2000). Annual redd counts conducted by SPU, King County, and WDFW indicate that the majority of spawning occurs between RM 6 and Landsburg Dam at RM 23, but redds have been observed from approximately RM 1.2 to as far upstream as RM 34 (Burton et al. 2000, 2013). Chinook salmon fry emergence begins in January and extends into March. Cedar Chinook display 2 juvenile life history forms prevalent across the Puget Sound ESU. The majority of juveniles emigrate as fry immediately after emergence, but a proportion of the population rear in the river environment for several weeks to months before emigrating as parr. In recent years, fry migrants, defined as juveniles emigrating from January through April 8, have constituted 80% to 97% of the run (Kiyohara 2015, 2017; Lisi 2018; Seiler et al. 2004). The remainder are parr migrants, defined as larger juveniles that emigrate from April 9 through early July. The proportional distribution of fry versus parr migrants is strongly influenced by flow conditions. Parr migrants can be far more prevalent in years with low peak flows in winter and spring. For example, parr migrants constituted 65% of the run in 2001, a year with unusually low flows in winter and spring and low juvenile production overall (Seiler et al. 2004). Collectively, this information indicates Cedar River Chinook salmon are present in the study area and are most likely to occur as adult and juvenile migrants. However, Chinook spawning could potentially occur within or in close proximity to the study area, meaning that spawners, incubating eggs, and post-emergent juveniles could also be present during specific times of the year. The timing of potential Chinook salmon occurrence in the action is summarized by life stage in Table 2. Table 2. Timing of Chinook Salmon Occurrence in the Study Area by Life Stage Life Stage Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Prespawn migrant Spawning Incubation Rearing/emigration Cell highlighting denotes relative abundance, darker colors indicate peak occurrence periods. Sources: Berge et al. (2006), Burton et al. (2000, 2013), Kiyohara (2015, 2017), Lisi (2018), Seiler et al. (2004). 4.1.3 Critical Habitat in the Study Area Critical habitat was designated for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52685). The designation includes the segment of the lower Cedar River within the study Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 30 area. The critical habitat primary constituent elements (PCEs) present in the study area are as follows: PCE #1: Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development; PCE #2: Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. PCE #3: Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. 4.2 Steelhead—Puget Sound DPS The Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead trout was listed as threatened under the ESA on May 11, 2006. NMFS identified 2 demographically independent populations of winter steelhead in a 2015 analysis of historical population structure (Myers et al. 2015), Cedar River Winter Run and North Lake Washington and Sammamish Winter Run. The Cedar population includes steelhead returning to the Cedar River and other significant tributaries to the southern portion of Lake Washington, primarily Kelsey Creek, May Creek, and Coal Creek. The North Lake Washington and Sammamish population includes steelhead returning to tributary streams north of the ship canal, the Sammamish River, and Lake Sammamish. Both Lake Washington steelhead populations are closely related genetically to steelhead from the Green River drainage. This relationship reflects the historical connection of the Lake Washington watershed to the Green River via the Black River. This connection has been permanently severed by the development of a new watershed outlet via the Lake Washington Ship Canal and the subsequent hydromodification of the Cedar River to provide adequate inflow to the lake to operate the Ballard Locks. Neither population is currently supported by hatchery production, but both have likely been influenced by numerous historical attempts by state and local governments to establish steelhead runs in creeks draining to Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish (Myers et al. 2015). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 31 4.2.1 Population Status NMFS estimated a historical adult abundance range from 6,000 to 12,000 for the Cedar River Winter Run population, distributed between the Cedar River and associated Lake Washington tributaries (Myers et al. 2015). Both the Cedar River and North Lake Washington steelhead populations have experienced a substantial decline in abundance since record-keeping began in the mid-1980s. As shown in Figure 4, the Cedar River population has declined precipitously since the year 2000 despite the restoration of access to high-quality habitat upstream of Landsburg Dam in 2003. This decline reflects a number of factors, notably the complex relationship between steelhead and rainbow trout. Marshall et al. (2006) studied the genetics of Cedar River O. mykiss and determined the steelhead are closely related to rainbow trout and are increasing in abundance. They theorized that this trend may reflect a shift in life history expression from anadromy to fluvial and adfluvial forms more capable of exploiting current habitat conditions. This close relationship underscores the need to protect resident rainbow trout in order to maintain the genetic resources for steelhead recovery. Figure 4. Natural-Origin Cedar River Winter Steelhead Spawner Abundance, 1984-2018 Sources: WDFW (2019) and SPU (2014) Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 32 4.2.2 Occurrence in the Study Area Because of the recent negative trend in abundance, the likelihood and timing of steelhead occurrence in the study area must be inferred from historical records, general life history patterns displayed by Puget Sound winter run steelhead, and available information about closely related Cedar River rainbow trout. In general, adult winter run steelhead return to natal tributaries from December through April in nearly mature form prior to spawning. Spawning occurs from January to mid-June, with peak spawning occurring from mid-April through May (Myers et al. 2015). Like all salmonids, the incubation period for steelhead eggs is closely tied to water temperature (Quinn 2005). Eggs deposited in January and February develop in colder temperatures and require a longer incubation period, while eggs deposited in April and May incubate more rapidly. The typical development time at ambient temperatures ranges from 4 to 7 weeks. Steelhead fry emerge from the gravel from April through June, peaking in late May. The majority of naturally produced steelhead juveniles reside in freshwater for 2 years prior to emigrating to marine habitats, with limited numbers emigrating as 1-year-old or 3-year-old smolts, and smaller numbers still rearing for longer periods before emigrating (Myers et al. 2015). Steelhead smolts typically emigrate from late March through June, peaking in May (Chapman 1958, Shapalov and Taft 1954). Kiyohara (2015, 2017) and Lisi (2018) have observed steelhead smolts and migrant adfluvial rainbow trout during Chinook salmon and sockeye smolt abundance monitoring. The timing of those observations is consistent with typical emigration timing for steelhead smolts in Puget Sound. The available information indicates that Cedar River steelhead could occur in the study area, although the likelihood of occurrence during project construction is low based on recent abundance trends. However, because the rainbow trout population produces anadromous smolts, the pre-migrant juveniles are considered to be steelhead for the purpose of this consultation. Juvenile rainbow trout and steelhead could be present in the study area during any month of the year. No information about steelhead and rainbow trout spawning distribution was identified for the purpose of this report but the potential use of the lower Cedar River for spawning cannot be discounted. The study area is therefore considered potential spawning habitat for the purpose of this consultation. The timing of potential steelhead occurrence in the action is summarized by life stage in Table 3. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 33 Table 3. Timing of Steelhead Occurrence in the Study Area by Life Stage Life Stage Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Prespawn migrant Spawning Incubation Emergence Rearing Emigration Cell highlighting denotes relative abundance, darker colors indicate periods of peak occurrence. Sources: Chapman (1958), Myers et al. (2015), Quinn (2005), Shapovalov and Taft (1954). 4.2.3 Critical Habitat in the Study Area Critical habitat was designated for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS on February 24, 2016 (81 FR 9252). The designation includes the segment of the lower Cedar River within the study area. Critical habitat PCEs present in the study area include: PCE #1: Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development; PCE #2: Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. PCE #3: Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. 4.3 Bull Trout—Coastal-Puget Sound DPS The Coastal-Puget Sound DPS of bull trout was listed as threatened under the ESA on October 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). The DPS includes all populations of resident and amphidromous bull trout residing in or originating from watersheds in the Puget Sound Basin, the Chilliwack River (a transboundary tributary to the Fraser River), and the Olympic Peninsula. The DPS has been Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 34 divided into 2 management units, Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula. The former includes the Cedar River resident bull trout population that resides in the headwaters of the watershed and in feeding, migration, and overwintering (FMO) habitats in Lake Washington; the marine nearshore environment of Puget Sound; and large tributary rivers draining to the basin (USFWS 2015). 4.3.1 Occurrence in the Study Area The Cedar River headwaters above Chester Morse Lake support resident bull trout, the only self-sustaining population of bull trout in the Lake Washington watershed. Individuals from this population may occasionally be entrained through the SPU Masonry Dam spillways into the lower Cedar River upstream of Landsburg, but the species has not been documented in this section of the river and no evidence of successful reproduction exists (USFWS 2004). Cedar River resident bull trout are therefore unlikely to be present in the study area. Bull trout from other Puget Sound populations may use the Lake Washington watershed as FMO habitat. The USFWS considers Lake Washington and the lower Cedar River below Landsburg to be FMO for recovery planning purposes (USFWS 2004). The study area is therefore assumed to provide potential FMO habitat for amphidromous bull trout from the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. The likelihood of occurrence is low because bull trout observations in Lake Washington are rare at best. Species occurrence would be limited strictly to adults and subadults engaged in transient foraging during winter and early spring (December-April) (USFWS 2009). Bull trout are unlikely to be present in the study area during the in-water work window. Selong et al. (2001) determined that bull trout are likely to avoid habitats with temperatures above 16°C the upper limit of optimal growth. The 7-day average daily maximum temperature in the lower Cedar River exceeds 17°C (see Section 5.2.1), indicating an unsuitable thermal environment for bull trout during the summer. 4.3.2 Critical Habitat in the Study Area Critical habitat was designated for the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63898). The designation includes Lake Washington FMO habitat and the headwaters tributaries of the Cedar River draining to Chester Morse Lake but specifically excludes the lower Cedar River. There is no critical habitat present in the study area. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 35 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE This section summarizes the current conditions of the ecosystem and ESA-listed species habitat in the study area resulting from the past and present effects of all federal, state, or private actions and other human activities; the anticipated effects of all proposed federal projects in the study area that have already undergone ESA consultation; and the effects of state or private actions that are concurrent with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). Environmental baseline parameters considered for the purpose of this consultation include the terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions in the study area and surroundings. 5.1 Terrestrial Habitat Conditions 5.1.1 Land Use and Land Cover The project area and study area are located in a community park on the edge of the developed urban core of Renton. The study area and surroundings are bisected by 2 regional transportation corridors, I-405 and State Route 169, as well as local roads, a rail line, and a regional bike trail. The park lands on the north (right) bank consist of manicured lawns and paved walkways. The parklands on the south (left) bank include a narrow vegetated riparian zone, paved access to the river for the existing BCF, a regional bike trail, and open fields. 5.1.2 In-Air Noise and Disturbance In-air noise in the project area and vicinity is dominated by the I-405 corridor, which crosses over the lower portion of the study area downstream of the project footprint. Daily traffic volume at this site exceeds 6,000 vehicles per hour at speeds of 50 to 65 miles per hour (WSDOT 2016b). This equates to an ambient noise level of approximately 80 A-weighted decibels (dBA) in the proposed project footprint, based on reference values for freeway traffic (WSDOT 2019). As stated in the previous section, the project area, study area, and immediate surroundings are located in a densified urban and suburban parkland setting adjacent to regional transportation corridors. Natural habitats in the study area and vicinity are routinely subjected to disturbance by vehicle traffic, recreational activity, and related uses. 5.2 Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Conditions—Matrix of Pathways and Indicators Watershed and aquatic habitat conditions in the study area are characterized using the NMFS (1996) matrix of pathways and indicators for ESA-listed salmonids and their habitats. USFWS (1998) has developed a similar matrix to support Section 7 consultations for bull trout. However, this matrix is designed primarily for core habitats used by defined populations and does not provide specific indicators for FMO habitat function. The NMFS (1996) habitat pathways and indicators are applicable for that purpose and are therefore used here for evaluating the effects of the proposed action on bull trout FMO. The condition of NMFS habitat Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 36 pathways and indicators in the study area is summarized in Table 4 and described in detail in the following sections. Table 4. Summary of NMFS (1996) Matrix of Pathway and Indicator Conditions in the Study Area and Vicinity Pathway Indicator Condition Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Quality Temperature X (Jun-Oct) X (Jul-Aug) Sediment/Turbidity X Chemical Contamination/ Nutrients X Habitat Access Physical Barriers X Habitat Elements Substrate Conditions X Large Woody Material X Pool Frequency X Pool Quality X Off-Channel Habitat X Refugia X Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio X Streambank Condition X Floodplain Connectivity X Hydrologic and Hydraulic Conditions Change in Peak/Base Flows X Increase in Drainage Network X Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location X Disturbance History X Riparian Reserves X 5.2.1 Water Quality Conditions The NMFS (1996) water quality pathway includes 3 indicators: temperature, sediment/turbidity, and chemical contamination/nutrients. Temperature The USGS has collected daily water temperature data for the lower Cedar River at gage 12119000 (Cedar River at Renton, WA) since 1992. The gage is located approximately 1,300 feet downstream of the project and the associated temperature record is considered representative of conditions in the study area for the purpose of this consultation. The 2000 to 2019 temperature record is summarized by month in Table 5 relative to the NMFS (1996) MPI temperature criteria. The table displays the percentage of daily temperature records exceeding the lower bound criterion for each MPI functional category. As shown, water temperatures during the July 1 to August 31 in-water work window fall into either the at risk (AR) or not properly functioning (NPF) categories, and commonly exceed the NPF criterion for all salmonid uses (i.e., migration and rearing). Moreover, temperatures in the AR to NPF range occur Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 37 routinely during peak spawning months for Chinook salmon and steelhead, indicating that the study area provides marginal thermal habitat conditions for this life stage. The lower Cedar River including the study area is on Ecology’s 303d list for water temperature (Ecology 2019). Table 5. Percent of Daily Temperature Exceedance by NMFS Functional Category, 1992-2019 Temperature Indicator Category Threshold (°C) Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Properly Functioning <13.9 100% 100% 94% 69% 24% 3% 0% 0% 0% 19% 88% 100% At Risk 13.9-15.6 0% 0% 6% 30% 66% 61% 23% 14% 57% 79% 12% 0% NPF—Spawning >15.6 0% 0% 0% 1% 7% 20% 28% 31% 31% 2% 0% 0% NPF—Migration & Rearing >17.8 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 16% 49% 55% 12% 0% 0% 0% Source: Daily minimum, maximum, and average temperatures from USGS gage 12119000 (Cedar River at Renton, WA), 2000-2019. Values are percent of monthly records exceeding NMFS threshold criteria for the indicated functional category. NPF = Not properly functioning Sediment/Turbidity The condition of the sediment/turbidity indicator is rated based on observed turbidity or total suspended solids (TSS) levels in the water column and percent substrate fines (NMFS 1996). King County monitors routine water quality parameters in the lower Cedar River at water quality index (WQI) station X438, located immediately downstream of the study area at RM 1.4 (King County 2017). Typical TSS levels measured at this station average between 2.6 and 14.1 milligrams per liter (mg/L) during nonstorm conditions. TSS levels during the June to August in-water work window average 2.7 to 3.0 mg/L. TSS and turbidity are well-correlated, allowing for reasonable prediction of TSS concentrations from NTU using the following formula: Equation 1 TSS (mg/L) = (NTU + 0.4056)/0.5204 The County uses an index scoring system developed by Ecology (Hallock 2002) to rate the condition of monitored WQI parameters. The turbidity and TSS parameters both score in the good range, indicating this component of the sediment/turbidity indicator is properly functioning (PF). Available information indicates that substrate fines levels within and in proximity to the study area likely range from AR to NPF. Substrate composition in the lower Cedar River between RM 0 and 1.2 was characterized in the 1990s to support maintenance dredging (Corps 1996). The percentage of substrate fines less than 0.85 mm at RM 1.2 was reported as an average of 18% over the study period, exceeding the NPF criterion. The study area is located 0.5 mile upstream at a higher-gradient location, which likely has less potential for fine sediment accumulation. However, the potential for fine sediment accumulation in the study area at levels exceeding 12% is likely based on channel gradient, prevalence of gravel substrate, and the conditions observed Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 38 downstream. Based on the potential for elevated substrate fines in the study area the sediment/turbidity indicator for overall habitat quality is rated as AR. Chemical Contamination/Nutrients The Cedar River generally maintains good water quality because the headwaters of the watershed are managed for regional water supply. King County monitoring at WQI station X438 includes total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrates, nitrites, total phosphorus and ortho-phosphate, as well as pH and dissolved oxygen (King County 2017). These WQI parameters are useful indicators of nutrient contamination. All parameters score in the “good” range for WQI station X438. There are no 303d listings in the watershed for chemical contaminants, but selected mainstem reaches are flagged at Category 1 to Category 5 for various parameters including low benthic index of biotic integrity scores, pH, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform. Based on this information the chemical contamination/nutrients indicator is rated as PF in the study area. 5.2.2 Habitat Access There are no natural or manmade barriers to fish passage in the lower Cedar River downstream of the study area. The existing BCF is managed to avoid and minimize adverse effects on ESA- listed species but due to design deficiencies it periodically causes unintentional migration delays for Chinook salmon. Based on this unintended effect, the physical barriers indicator is rated as AR for the purpose of this consultation. 5.2.3 Habitat Elements The habitat elements pathway includes 5 independent indicators: substrate conditions, LWM, pool frequency and quality, off-channel habitat, and refugia. The baseline condition of these indicators within the study area is described below. Substrate Conditions NMFS (1996) criteria for the substrate conditions indicator are based on substrate composition and embeddedness. Substrate composition in the study area is dominated by fine to medium gravel based on physical observations and prior sediment grain size analyses. The Corps (1996) quantified sediment composition at RM 1.2, approximately 0.4 mile downstream of the study area. Substrates were composed of small gravels, sand, and fines, with approximately 89% of materials finer than 37.5 mm. No embeddedness data were collected. The substrate indicator is rated as NPF on the basis that substrate composition in the study area and vicinity is consistent with the “sand, silt or small gravel dominant” criterion in NMFS (1996) guidance. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 39 Large Woody Material Limited information on LWM density in the lower Cedar River was identified for the purpose of this analysis. Herrera (2015) generally characterized channel complexity and LWM density as “low” downstream of RM 4.6, which is consistent with observable features in available aerial imagery and other photographic sources. The study area has effectively no functional LWM present. Riparian conditions in and upstream of the study area are degraded and do not currently support consistent LWM recruitment. Based on these conditions the LWM indicator is rated as NPF. Pool Frequency/Quality The study area and vicinity are generally characterized by simplified, uniform glide habitat. Pools are infrequent, and where present are formed by scour around artificial structures, including bridge abutments and bank armoring. Gendaszek et al. (2012) characterized geomorphic habitat conditions in the Cedar River from RM 0 to RM 22 in 2010 and 2011. They recorded a pool frequency of less than 2/RM with an average residual depth of zero from RM 0 to RM 1.9. The PF pool frequency criterion for streams between 75 and 100 feet bankfull width is 23 pools/RM. The pool quality criterion requires that a high percentage of these pools be greater than 3 feet in depth (NMFS 1996). Streams not meeting this threshold are classified as AR if they have adequate pool-forming LWM present and NPF if they do not. Based on the existing lack of pools and functional LWM in the lower Cedar River, the study area is classified as NPF for pool frequency and pool quality. Off-Channel Habitat The study area and vicinity lack suitable off-channel habitat. The channel in the study area is uniform, with an armored revetment on the right bank and a simplified vegetated bank on the left. An artificial backwater area is present on the right bank immediately upstream of the study area. This area is routinely used for public water access and does not provide high-quality refuge. The channel downstream of the study area is straightened and contained within levees, providing little or no high-flow refuge. No off-channel ponds are present. Based on the lack of suitable off-channel habitat in the study area and vicinity, this indicator is rated NPF (NMFS 1996). Refugia The study area and vicinity are characterized by simplified, relatively uniform channel conditions with fragmented riparian vegetation. Adequate habitat refugia do not exist in the study area and vicinity. This indicator is therefore rated NPF (NMFS 1996). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 40 5.2.4 Channel Conditions and Dynamics The channel conditions and dynamics pathway criteria include 3 indicators: width/depth ratio, streambank condition, and floodplain connectivity. The condition of these indicators was derived from a recent review of the geomorphic history of the lower Cedar River, focusing on habitat changes resulting from historical channel modifications and flow control (Gendaszek et al. 2012). The Cedar River was dammed in 1914 and subsequently hydromodified along a significant percentage of its length, including the vicinity of the project area. These factors have significantly impacted channel conditions and dynamics in the system. Width/Depth Ratio The MPI criteria for channel width/depth ratio are based on generalized best professional judgment for the region and not necessarily applicable to all systems. In general, the criteria tend to reflect the view that stream systems with destabilized banks and altered peak flow hydrology tend to widen and aggrade, leading to larger width/depth ratios during the early phases of evolution following disturbance. However, this pattern does not necessarily hold in rivers that are both flow-controlled and extensively channelized (Booth and Bledsoe 2009). In the case of the Cedar River, historical channel modifications and flow control artificially narrowed the channel. The historically wide, anastomosing channel shifted to a single threaded form, and channel width narrowed by over 50% between 1936 and 1989, with the average bankfull width decreasing from 154 feet to 75 feet (Gendaszek et al. 2012). Localized bank restoration projects coupled with large storm events resulted in an increase in mean channel width to about 110 feet by 2011. In effect, lower width/depth ratios in the Cedar River are more strongly correlated with confined reaches that display simplified channel form and poor habitat quality for salmonids. On this basis, the MPI criteria for this indicator are not useful for characterizing conditions in the study area. For the purpose of this consultation, the study area is considered NPF for width/depth ratio based on presence of channelization, current bankfull width related to historical conditions, (approximately 69 feet versus an historical average of 154 feet), and simplified channel form. Streambank Condition The lower Cedar River has been extensively modified from its historical condition. Gendaszek et al. (2012) classified the river as entirely contained by revetments or other bank-stabilizing structures from the mouth to approximately RM 1.9. However, the hard bank stabilization on the south bank of the river appears to end at I-405, meaning that the portion of the study area in the project footprint is partially unconfined and stabilized by native vegetation. The north bank is stabilized by a concrete wall along the shore of Cedar River Park and riprap revetment underneath the highway. There are no actively eroding streambanks present. Per the MPI Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 41 criteria, streambank conditions in the study area are PF because less than 10% of bank length is actively eroding. Floodplain Connectivity The study area and vicinity are largely disconnected from the adjacent floodplain and associated habitat by hydromodifications and development in the riparian zone. The right bank floodplain in the study area is completely disconnected by armored revetments and retaining walls. The left bank floodplain remains connected to the channel. The floodplain maintains partially functional riparian vegetation but it is narrow in comparison to the channel, approximately 50 feet in width. Similar floodplain connectivity conditions extend approximately 1 mile upstream of the study area. The right bank is largely disconnected from the floodplain by armored revetments; the left bank retains partial connectivity to a relatively narrow vegetated floodplain. The remainder of the Cedar River beginning at I-405 downstream to the mouth of Lake Washington is contained within armored levees and the floodplain is entirely developed. Based on the conditions present in the study area and immediate vicinity, the floodplain connectivity indicator is rated as NPF. 5.2.5 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Conditions The hydrologic and hydraulic conditions pathway is composed of 2 indicators: change in peak/base flows and increases in the length of the drainage network associated with human activities. The condition of these indicators in the study area and vicinity is described below. Change in Peak/Base Flows The Cedar River watershed was developed for water supply and hydropower generation in the early 20th century. Flow regulation began in 1914 with the completion of the Masonry Dam. The SPU Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Seattle 2000b) obligates the City of Seattle to provide a guaranteed flow regime designed to optimize benefits for salmon and steelhead. The managed flow regime is designed around a normative flow concept with a minimum baseflow requirement. The MPI criteria for the peak/base flow indicator are vague but emphasize change in peak and base flow volume and timing relative to historical conditions. Current flow conditions managed pursuant to the Habitat Conservation Plan are considered to be PF for the purpose of this consultation, with the understanding that flow management has substantially altered the timing and magnitude of peak flows producing a range of associated habitat effects. An analysis of the change in peak and base flows relative to historical conditions is provided for comparison purposes. The USGS maintains flow records from gage 12117500 (Cedar River Near Landsburg, WA) dating back to 1895, allowing for comparison of pre-dam and current flow conditions. Changes Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 42 in peak and base flows were evaluated by comparing historical daily flows from August 1895 through December 1913 to current conditions flow record from January 1998 through March 2019. Flow control has substantially altered peak flow conditions in the watershed. The 2-year recurrence interval (Q2) peak flow has decreased by 46% relative to pre-dam conditions, from 3,560 cfs to 2,070 cfs. Lower-frequency events have also decreased in magnitude. For example, the 10-year recurrence interval (Q10) peak flow has decreased by 62% from 11,840 cfs to 4,402 cfs. The timing of annual peak flow events has also shifted relative to pre-dam conditions. The Q2 flow historically occurred most frequently from November through January, with a smaller snowmelt peak in spring. This pattern reflects the natural rain-on-snow dominated hydrology of the watershed. Under current conditions Q2 flows still occur predominantly between November and January, but spring flow peaks are more pronounced in general and the probability of Q2 events occurring in late winter and spring has increased. This shift is predominantly due to changing watershed conditions and management of peak flows for consumptive use, flood control, and base-flow management purposes. SPU manages the Cedar River municipal reservoir system to maintain minimum flows above 200 cfs at all times and suitable conditions for salmonid migration and spawning. Analysis of the 1895 to 1913 data record for USGS gage 12117500 indicates pre-dam base flows fell below 200 cfs on approximately 7.6% of days, all from July through November. There were no days below the 200 cfs threshold in the 1998 to 2019 data record. The current 45-day average low flow has increased by approximately 32% relative to pre-dam conditions, from an average of 227 to 300 cfs. Increase in Drainage Network The headwaters of the Cedar River are managed for municipal water supply and have minimal development. The watershed downstream of the Landsburg Diversion Dam (Landsburg) has been extensively developed for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, substantially increasing the drainage network density below the dam. The watershed is bisected by 2 major regional transportation corridors and has an extensive road network. Development-related effects on the drainage network are expected to increase on a downstream gradient with increasing impervious surface and road density. For example, in the late 1990s, impervious surface area in tributary subwatersheds ranged from 11% in Rock Creek, the first major tributary downstream of Landsburg, to 74% in Ginger Creek (Wissmar et al. 2004). This increase in impervious surfaces represents a substantial increase in the drainage network density relative to historical conditions. This indicator is therefore classified as NPF for the purpose of this consultation. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 43 5.2.6 Watershed Conditions The watershed conditions pathway is composed of 3 indicators: road density and location, disturbance history, and riparian reserves. The condition of these indicators in the study area and vicinity are described below. Road Density and Location Road density in the headwaters of the Cedar River watershed upstream of Landsburg vary depending on location. The lowermost drainages around Landsburg have road densities exceeding 4 miles/square mile. Road densities decrease on an upstream gradient, ranging from less than 2 to 3 miles/square mile depending on location. The existing road network above Landsburg, supported historical timber harvest activities, but road decommissioning actively takes place as part of the Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Seattle 2000b). Since the implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan, approximately 80 miles of roads have been decommissioned as of 2016, with an emphasis on removing barriers to fish passage and reducing sources of fine sediment delivery to streams (City of Seattle 2016). Road densities in the developed portions of the watershed downstream of Landsburg uniformly exceed 4 miles/square mile, with density increasing on a downstream gradient. Valley-bottom roads are prevalent along the mainstem and in most tributary drainages. Indicator condition in this portion of the watershed is rated as NPF. Disturbance History The Cedar River watershed has a substantial disturbance history, beginning with intensive commercial timber harvest throughout the watershed beginning over 130 years ago. The majority of old-growth forest was removed from the watershed. Only about 15% remains, concentrated in the upper portions of the City of Seattle’s protected municipal watershed. All remaining forest cover is second or third growth in various stages of maturity. Timber harvest activities have ceased in the upper watershed and these forests are on a trajectory towards recovery (City of Seattle 2000b). The lower watershed has undergone successive phases of resource exploitation and substantial urban and suburban development and, despite ongoing habitat restoration efforts, remains on a long-term urban development trajectory. This indicator is rated as NPF in the study area for the purpose of this consultation based on current conditions in the lower watershed and the future development trajectory. Riparian Reserves Like the other watershed pathway indicators for the Cedar River, riparian reserve conditions generally decline on a downstream gradient. The riparian reserve system in the upper watershed above Landsburg is largely intact, providing adequate LWM recruitment, shade, Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 44 habitat complexity, and connectivity in all habitats accessible to ESA-listed species. Downstream of Landsburg, riparian reserve conditions decline on a downstream gradient, transitioning from relatively intact between Landsburg and Maple Valley (>RM 14), to increasingly fragmented between Maple Valley and Renton (RM 14-1), to virtually nonexistent downstream of I-405 (<RM 1) (City of Seattle 2000b). Riparian conditions at the watershed scale are rated as AR for the purpose of this consultation based on conditions in the lower watershed. 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS This section evaluates the effects of the proposed action on ESA-listed species occurring in the study area and their habitats. The potential for bull trout to be present in the study area and exposed to effects of the action is so unlikely to occur it is considered discountable. Potential direct and indirect effects of the action include:  Fish disturbance and displacement from cofferdam installation  Capture and handling stress associated with work area dewatering and fish removal  Exposure to elevated TSS resulting from in-water construction activities  Water column pH effects (concrete curing)  Potential exposure to elevated underwater sound levels  Disturbance of prey resources  Altered substrate and sediment dynamics  Migratory delay and operational handling  Potential mitigation measures Project construction would also produce minor upland disturbance associated with equipment use, vehicle access and materials staging, and in-air noise. Effects of these potential stressors on ESA-listed species and their habitats are considered insignificant and not addressed further in this consultation because:  All transportation and construction vehicle access would take place from existing paved or developed surfaces. Noise levels produced by vehicle traffic, cranes and/or concrete pump trucks, flatbed trucks, and other anticipated construction equipment are comparable to the existing baseline of 80 dBA. 6.1 Direct Construction Effects Construction activities would require temporarily installing sequential cofferdams, first on the south bank and then the north bank. This would divert the Cedar River and the dammed portion would be dewatered to allow sill construction. Though isolating the in-channel construction is a conservation measure intended to minimize the overall adverse effects (i.e., resulting in take) to salmon and their habitat, ESA-listed species in the study area at the time of Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 45 construction activities would likely be temporarily disturbed and displaced while the cofferdam remains in place, and possibly adversely affected during fish capture and handling. 6.1.1 Disturbance and Displacement Chinook occurring in the study area during the time of construction (June through August) are most likely emigrating parr or adults on their spawning migration (Section 4.1.2). Juvenile rainbow trout and steelhead could be present in the study area during any month of the year. The temporary placement of the cofferdam is not likely to adversely affect adult upstream salmonid migration because the cofferdam would obstruct approximately half the river, allowing fish passage through the opposite half. The majority of emigrating juveniles would occur before project activities begin; however, a small portion juvenile Chinook emigrate from April through early July and are likely to be encountered during project activities. Additionally, Chinook salmon and steelhead may spawn near the study area. Placement of the cofferdam may temporarily reduce available substrate and other suitable habitat and construction activities may disturb and displace fish, causing them to move to other parts of the river. However, given the low abundance of steelhead in recent years, and given most Chinook redds are observed between RM 6 and RM 23, project activities would likely disturb or displace very few spawning Chinook salmon and steelhead. 6.1.2 Fish Exclusion and Salvage Dewatering of the Cedar River inside the cofferdam would have a lethal effect on any fish confined inside the cofferdam; therefore, any fish inside the cofferdam would be captured, handled, and relocated by a qualified biologist. Fish exclusion and salvage efforts are expected to be effective due to the general uniformity of the channel bed and the relatively small substrate that would limit interstitial spaces for fish to hide. Given the timing of the cofferdam installation during the agency-approved in-water construction period, it is likely that only juvenile fish would be exposed to exclusion and salvage. During installation of the cofferdam, fish would be hazed out of the proposed dewatered sections by walking seines downstream from an upstream direction to the end of the work site to herd fish out of the worksite prior to enclosing the cofferdam. A downstream block net would then be installed to complete the cofferdam installation. Before or while the cofferdam is being dewatered, residual fish would be captured inside the cofferdam first using gear such as dip nets, minnow traps, and seines; electrofishing gear should be used last to clear the work area. Electrofishing would be used only where other means of fish capture are not feasible. Juvenile fish would be released downstream to aid in emigration out of the Cedar River, while any adult fish encountered (e.g., steelhead and rainbow trout) would be released upstream to aid in migration to spawning habitat. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 46 Although this effort would reduce the overall impact on ESA-listed fish species, fish exclusion and handling may harm some juvenile salmonids, disrupt their normal behavior, and cause short-term stress and fatigue, with the potential for injury and mortality. Electrofishing can result in fish mortality or injury including spinal hemorrhages, internal hemorrhages, fractured vertebra, spinal misalignment, and separated spinal columns. Electrofishing would only be used as the final method to capture fish from the dewatered project site. Trained personnel would follow SPU-approved backpack electrofishing guidelines, which would include adjusting the voltage, pulse shape, and frequency appropriately for the site conditions to minimize impacts to fish. If fish are observed spawning during the in-water work period, electrofishing would not contact spawning adult fish or active redds. 6.1.3 Underwater Noise The proposed action includes installation of cofferdams that may be constructed with steel sheetpiling using a vibratory pile driver. This pile driving method can produce elevated levels of underwater noise potentially disruptive to ESA listed species. Sound measurements in water are reported as decibels (dB) readings, relative to a reference value of 1 microPascal (µPa), which is a measure of absolute pressure. Decibels have a logarithmic relationship to µPa. Sound energy is commonly reported as sound pressure levels (SPL), which is the average sound intensity for a single sound-producing event. SPLs can be expressed as peak (dBpeak) and/or root mean square (dBRMS) pressure level, and the sound exposure level (SEL). Vibratory pile driving is considered to only produce broadband sound levels of biological significance expressed as the RMS SPL. The RMS SPL is the square root of the energy divided by the impulse duration normalized to one second (i.e., the mean square pressure level of the pulse per second). Underwater noise effects on ESA-listed species are determined by calculating the area exposed to project-related noise exceeding ambient conditions, and the area exposed to underwater noise in excess of established biological effects thresholds. The former represents the extent of audible noise effects; the latter represents the extent of noise effects that could cause take of listed species. Potential for take is then based on the likelihood of individual organisms or their prey species occurring in the affected area when noise impacts take place. NMFS and USFWS have developed guidance, formulae, and calculation tools to assist consultation biologists with this type of analysis. These include:  The practical spreading loss, or 15 Log model, described by WSDOT (2019).  Behavioral and injury-level effect area calculation tool for salmon, rockfish, and forage fish prey species (FHWG 2008)  USFWS (2015) behavioral and injury-level effect area calculation tool for bull trout The practical spreading loss model is shown in Equation 2. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 47 Equation 2 R1 (in meters) = R2 (in meters)*10(TL/15) R1 = 10*10((TL)/15) Where: R1 = attenuation distance to ambient; R2 = reference distance from the source for the initial noise measurement (i.e., 10 meters); and TL = transmission loss (source noise level minus ambient noise level). This equation is used to estimate the distance required to attenuate underwater noise to ambient or biological threshold levels in the project vicinity. This formula requires a known source noise level and a broadband ambient noise level to determine the TL. Source noise levels for vibratory driving of sheetpile proposed for this project were obtained from WSDOT (2019). Based on an assumed SPL of 165 dB RMS (measured at 10 meters from the source), propagation of underwater noise to the behavioral effect threshold of 150 dB RMS (FHWG 2008) would extend to the greater of 328 feet (100 meters) from the source or to the nearest land mass (Figure 5).5 Fish behavioral responses to elevated noise are not well understood. Responses may include avoidance of the area, a startle response, or delayed foraging. Mueller et al. (1998) and Knudsen et al. (1992, 1994) found that juvenile salmonids (40 to 60 millimeters fork length) exhibit a startle response followed by a habituation to low frequency noise in the 7-Hertz (Hz) to 14-Hz range. Mueller et al. (1998) and Knudsen et al. (1992, 1994) also indicate that noise intensity level must be 70 dB to 80 dB above the hearing threshold at 150 Hz to illicit a behavior response. According to Feist et al. (1992) broad-band pulsed noise (e.g., impact pile-driving noise) rather than continuous, pure tone noises are more effective at altering fish behavior. In order to produce a behavioral response in herring, ambient sound has to be at least 24 dB less than the minimum audible field of the fish and the pile driving noise levels has to be 20 dB to 30 dB higher than ambient sound levels (Olsen 1969). Evidence that increases in underwater noise from the vibratory pile driving would result in adverse behavioral shifts to adult ESA-listed fish is lacking. However, it is possible that juvenile salmonids exposed to elevated underwater noise levels could exhibit an avoidance response or temporary displacement from foraging activities, resulting in reduced foraging success or undue energy expenditure. These potentially adverse effects would be intermittent and short- term, occurring only during pile driving activity. July 2020 Page 48 Figure 5. Extent of Project-Related Noise Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 49 6.1.4 Water Quality—Sediment/Turbidity Project construction would disturb the channel bed and riparian zone and may release pulses of fine sediment into the water column, resulting in minor temporary increases in TSS levels. Elevated TSS is most likely to occur during initial cofferdam placement and subsequent rewatering of the paired in-water work areas. Pulses may also occur during pumping of the work area. Elevated TSS levels would be expected to last from less than 1 hour to potentially 3 hours depending on the activity. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the project would require monitoring of TSS levels during construction. Based on stream size, the construction contractor would be required to maintain TSS concentrations within 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) of ambient conditions at a point-of-compliance approximately 300 feet downstream from the disturbance (Figure 6). As discussed in Section 5.2.1, typical TSS levels in the study area range from 2.7 mg/L to 3.0 mg/L during the summer in-water work window. Applying Equation 1, the allowable construction-related turbidity limit of 5 NTU above baseline at the point of compliance translates to approximately 13 mg/L TSS. The permitting point-of-compliance for TSS is considered to be the downstream limit of the measurable effects of the study area for the purpose of defining the study area. TSS levels within the study area would be higher than measured at the point-of-compliance. For the purpose of this consultation, TSS levels in the study area are estimated to range as high as 28 mg/L. This value is equivalent to the 75th percentile of TSS levels observed at WQI station X438 during winter storm conditions. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) developed severity of effect (SEV) scoring matrices for evaluating effects of TSS exposure on juvenile and adult salmonids. These matrices correlate varying degrees of behavioral, sublethal, and potentially lethal effects across increasing TSS concentrations and durations of exposure. Exposure to TSS levels on the order of 28 mg/L over a 1-hour to 3-hour period equates to SEV scores of 3 and 4 for juvenile and adult salmonids, respectively. A juvenile SEV score of 3 indicates potential behavioral effects, including alteration of habitat use and feeding behavior. An adult SEV score of 4 indicates potential sublethal effects, including increased respiration, stress, and avoidance. These effects would likely be exacerbated by elevated temperature conditions during July and August. Based on the timing of species occurrence by life stage, adult and juvenile Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead are the only ESA-listed salmonids likely to be exposed to construction-related turbidity. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 50 Figure 6. Extent of Temporary Disturbance and Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 51 6.1.5 Water Quality—Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Oxygen demand may increase with suspended sediment in the water column, leading to reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) levels (Hicks et al. 1991). If severe or sustained, low DO in the proposed study area could affect fish respiration, if fish are present. Decreases in DO levels additionally may affect swimming performance levels in salmonids (Bjorn and Reiser 1991), reducing their ability to feed or to escape potential predation. However, the proposed work is not expected to create a large oxygen demand because river substrate and sediment disturbance would occur behind the cofferdam and in the dry. Oxygen demand may increase for short durations in association with high turbidity. As discussed in Section 2.3, the level of turbidity and DO would be monitored and operational changes and enhanced BMPs would be implemented as necessary to comply with water quality criteria. Based on this information, DO is not expected to drop to a level that would impact listed fish that may occur in the area and is considered insignificant for all listed fish species. Short-term localized increases in pH may occur as the concrete sill foundation cures after installation, and the project area is inundated. Curing concrete has been demonstrated to cause a peak in pH approximately 1 day after inundation. As leachate diffuses and hydroxide ions interact with chemicals in the water, the pH gradually decreases over the course of 35 days (Setunge et al. 2009, Law and Evans 2013). When fresh water becomes alkaline, it can become toxic to fish, interfering with oxygen uptake. State of Washington surface water quality standards for freshwater pH set an upper and lower bound of 6.5 and 8.5 (WAC 173-201A-200 (1) (g)). Accordingly, the proposed action would require concrete to cure in the dry for a minimum of 7 days before inundation as well as implementation of appropriate BMPs during construction, including a concrete containment plan, continuous dewatering, and water quality monitoring. Additionally, river flows in the study area would accelerate in any leachate diffusion, further mitigating potential increases in pH. Unintentional releases of hydraulic fluid from excavators or other heavy equipment may occur during construction. The project would use fluids classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “environmentally acceptable,” meaning readily biodegradable with low toxicity to aquatic life and no potential for bioaccumulation (USEPA 2011). Based on the nature of the material and the limited amounts involved relative to the size of the waterbody, effects of these releases on ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat are expected to be insignificant. 6.1.1 Prey Resources Cofferdam installation, dewatering, and streambed excavation would result in removing and/or smothering some benthic invertebrates that provide food for salmonids. This impact would be limited to 6,228 square feet from the Phase 1 cofferdam and 3,495 square feet from the Phase 2 cofferdam. Benthic species occupying areas surrounding the study area would remain Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 52 undisturbed, however, and some species would likely recolonize disturbed streambed surrounding the sill in the months after project completion (Baumgartner and Robinson 2016, Mackay 1992). Effects to aquatic macroinvertebrates from smothering would be temporary, and the river would return to natural contours following the completion of construction. Macroinvertebrates are expected to rapidly recolonize disturbed areas (within approximately 2 weeks to 2 months) (Merz and Chan 2005, Baumgartner and Robinson 2016, Mackay 1992). The temporary disturbance and small reduction in benthic prey species is unlikely to result in harm to salmonids and is considered an insignificant effect. 6.1.2 Riparian Clearing The project would result in approximately 3,733 square feet of temporary clearing and a net increase of 1,627 square feet of hardscaping in the riparian zone to complete the civil site improvements. Indirect effects associated with removal of riparian vegetation can include increased water temperatures and decreased water quality, attributable to a loss of shade and cover adjacent to the active channel. Vegetation removal would consist primarily of 1 mature black cottonwood tree, some scattered shrubs, and Himalayan blackberry. Native vegetation would be replanted throughout the disturbed riparian area to minimize impacts from project construction. Proposed riparian improvements include restoration of the 3,733 square feet of temporary clearing limits, re- establishment of riparian vegetation in 489 square feet of the existing boat ramp removal, and enhancement of 6,680 square feet of degraded riparian buffer. Maturation of the proposed restoration plantings is expected to return the area to function similar to the baseline within several growing seasons. The loss of a large tree and a limited amount of shrub vegetation is unlikely to have any measurable effects on water temperatures, shade, or woody material within the river, though detrital input of insects which serve as forage may be slightly diminished. Detrital prey reduction for the first several years is not expected to significantly increase competition for food because prey is not limited in the study area. The maturing riparian improvements would improve detrital prey and organic litter production over time. 6.2 Long-Term and Operational Effects 6.2.1 Substrate and Sediment Dynamics The project would directly affect the Cedar River bed through the installation of the sill and, to a lesser degree, the associated access structures. The presence of the sill and access structures would permanently impact approximately 2,000 square feet of benthic habitat. However, the project would also remove 539 square feet of the existing boat ramp below ordinary high water, for a net increase in effect on benthic habitat of 1,461 square feet. The presence of a fixed Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 53 structure in the channel has to potential to affect sediment dynamics, reduce benthic habitat productivity, and alter habitat formation/availability. The water surface and velocity profiles of the proposed weir have been determined using a HEC-RAS 1-dimensional model. Alteration of sediment dynamics in this reach would largely be a function of changes in water velocities and resulting sheer stresses on the materials, which would cause either scour or deposition. The HEC-RAS model indicates the channel and weir velocities are within acceptable range to minimize effects of scour or deposition. The change in water surface elevations based on the estimated weir discharge coefficient has little effect on the upstream water surface elevations. This reach of the Cedar River flows in a single channel through low-amplitude meanders and a gradient of less than 0.3%, resulting in a depositional reach. The presence of the weir is not expected to measurably affect the episodic deposition and mobilization of the predominantly medium to fine gravel substrate through this reach. Periodic maintenance of sediment deposition on the sill would occur between December and July. Frequently recurring maintenance is intended to minimize the significance of the bedload redistribution so that it emulates normal sediment dynamics. During these maintenance events, there would likely be short-term increases in suspended sediment and alteration of the downstream bedform until sediment mobilizes again. The presence of the weir would reduce the long-term production of benthic and epibenthic macroinvertebrates on which juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead feed within the project site. Given the relatively small size of the weir, the benthic macroinvertebrate production in the project area overall is not expected to be discernible and benthic productivity is not considered to be limiting for juvenile salmonid production. The amount of forage material available for juvenile salmonids is, therefore, expected to remain similar to pre-project conditions and should not result in a significant effect to ESA-listed fish. The presence of the weir would also reduce the long-term availability of suitable spawning substrate. As discussed in Section 4, the majority of Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning is thought to occur upstream of this reach of the Cedar River. Spawning habitat is also not considered to be limiting on salmonid production. Nevertheless, up to 2,000 square feet of the stream bed would be precluded from spawning potential. 6.2.2 Hydraulic Effects As stated above, the water surface and velocity profiles of the proposed weir have been determined using a HEC-RAS 1-dimensional model. Additionally, a hydraulic analysis was conducted to ensure that placement of the BCF weir would not cause any increase in flood levels within the Cedar River floodplain during the occurrence of the base (100-year) flood discharge. This analysis concluded that the BCF would have a no-rise effect on the 1% annual chance flood or base flood elevation (BFE) as designed. The floodway widths are not affected for the 1% annual chance flood water surface elevations. Similarly, the presence of the weir is Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 54 not anticipated to have an effect on hyporheic flow, as the overall discharge would flow beneath, around, and over the structure. The overall effects on Cedar River hydraulics are therefore considered insignificant. 6.2.3 Migration Delay Operation of the weir would begin in early September and has the potential to impede the spawning migration of adult Chinook salmon. Although protocols to minimize the impacts on Chinook salmon have been established through the original Section 7 consultation and are reviewed yearly through the Adaptive Management Working Group, individual fish may exhibit a behavioral holding response upon encountering the weir or they may become delayed in the trap. As described in Section 2.1.4, open weir protocols and Chinook salmon release measures would be employed to allow free passage of Chinook salmon or release entrapped Chinook salmon from the box as quickly as possible. The proposed diversion area with a bypass gate would reduce risk that the Chinook salmon would be trapped. As described in Section 6.1.2 fish handling may generally disrupt their normal behavior, and could cause short-term stress and fatigue, and could potentially result in injury and mortality with improper or careless handling. Because release of Chinook salmon captured from the trap can be immediate, handling stress is expected to minimal. Overall, weir operation has the potential to significantly disrupt behavior or harm individuals that are delayed or captured but operational protocols are and would continue to be evaluated on an annual basis and adjusted as needed to minimize these effects. 6.2.4 Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions An interrelated activity is an action that is part of a larger action and depends on the larger action for its justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Activities associated with mitigation for project- related impacts can be considered interrelated and interdependent actions for this project. As described in Section 2.5, SPU proposes on-site permittee-responsible mitigation and the purchase of mitigation credits through King County’s ILF Mitigation Program. Overall, mitigation activities would likely result in beneficial effects to ESA-listed fish. Construction- related effects of the on-site mitigation activities would be similar to, but less significant than, the BCF construction. Construction-related effects of the ILF project, if applicable, would be authorized through the appropriate permits, including Section 7 consultation, as needed. 6.3 Summary of Potential Effects The anticipated short-term and long-term effects of the proposed action are summarized in Table 6. Project construction would result in limited, short-term adverse effects on the aquatic environment and ESA-listed salmonids occurring in the study area during construction Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 55 activities. The most geographically extensive effect is potential underwater noise from vibratory pile driving (if method selected) during cofferdam installation, which would produce behavioral-level effects extending up to 328 feet from the source. Elevated suspended sediment producing behavioral level effects could extend up to 300 feet downstream of in water construction activities. The potential for handling ESA-listed fish may result in behavioral level effects or harm individuals. Migration delay upon encountering the weir may also produce behavioral level effects to ESA-listed fish. Table 6. Summary of Anticipated Project Effects on ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat Effect Category Effect on Species Effect on Critical Habitat Displacement I (t) I (t) Fish Exclusion and Salvage A (t) N Underwater Noise A (t) N Water Quality—Sediment A (t) I (t) Water Quality—Chemical Contamination I (t) I (t) Prey Resources I (t) I (t) Substrate and Sediment Dynamics I (p) A (p) Hydraulics I (p) I (p) Migration Delay A (p) A (p) Interrelated and Interdependent Activities A (t)/B (p) A (t)/B (p) Notes: I (t) = insignificant and/or discountable, temporary; A (t) = adverse, temporary; B (p) = beneficial, permanent; N = no effect. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 56 7.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION The following is a determination of effect for each species presented in Table 1. The determination is based on the information presented in the effects analysis. These determinations are also summarized in Table 7. 7.1 Federally Listed Species The proposed action would not affect the viability, persistence, or distribution of ESA-listed species potentially present in the project or study areas. The effects of the proposed action have the potential to injure, kill, or significantly disrupt the behavior of individual listed species. Therefore, the proposed action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead exposed to the project effects. The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout because their presence in the study area is considered discountable. Table 7. Effects Determinations to ESA Listed Species Species Determination of Effect Basis of Determination Fish Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout May affect, not likely to adversely affect  The project is proposed within the historical range of bull trout.  Bull trout are considered effectively extirpated from the lower Cedar River and the thermal regime during construction and operation are considered unsuitable for bull trout habitation.  The potential for bull trout exposure to project effects is considered discountable. Chinook Salmon May affect, likely to adversely affect  Juvenile and adult Chinook salmon are likely to be exposed to project effects.  Fish handling may harm or harass individuals.  Elevated suspended sediment may elicit a significant behavioral response.  Elevated Underwater noise may elicit a significant behavioral response.  The operating BCF may cause migration delay. Puget Sound Steelhead May affect, likely to adversely affect  Steelhead are likely to be exposed to project effects.  Fish handling may harm or harass individuals.  Elevated suspended sediment may elicit a significant behavioral response.  Elevated Underwater noise may elicit a significant behavioral response. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 57 7.2 Critical Habitat for Federally Listed Species This section provides a determination of effect for critical habitat presented in Table 8, below, if applicable. The determination is based on the information presented in the effects analysis. The study area includes designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead. There is no designated critical habitat in the study area for coastal-Puget Sound bull trout. Table 8 summarizes the determination of effect on the PCEs associated with the proposed project for critical habitat in the study area. Table 8. Effects Determination of Effect to Critical Habitat Species PCE Determination of Effect Basis of Determination Chinook salmon and steelhead* Freshwater Spawning Sites May affect, is likely to adversely affect  The project is proposed in a documented spawning area.  There would be a loss of available spawning substrate from the proposed sill.  No changes to salinity would occur.  Only short-term changes in water quality would occur. Freshwater Migration Corridor May affect, is likely to adversely affect  The project is proposed in a documented migration corridor.  The operating BCF may pose an impediment to upstream spawning migration. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 58 8.0 REFERENCES Baumgartner, S.D., and C.T. Robinson. 2016. Short-term colonization dynamics of macroinvertebrates in restored channelized streams. Hydrobiologia 784(1):321-335. Berge, H.B., M.L. Hammer, and S.R. Foley. 2006. Timing, abundance, and population characteristics of spawning Chinook salmon in the Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 30 p. Bjorn T.C., and D.W. Reiser, 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. Booth, D.B. and B.P. Bledsoe. 2009. Streams and Urbanization. Chapter 6 in L.A. Baker (ed.) The Water Environment of Cities. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, New York. Burton, K., S.R. Foley, and B. Mavros. 2000. Cedar River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Redd Survey Report, 2000: Spawning Habitat Characteristics, Spatial and Temporal Redd Distributions, and the Incidence of Spawning Sockeye in the Vicinity of Incubating Chinook. Seattle Public Utilities. 43 p. Burton, K., S. Foley; and B. Mavros. 2000. Cedar River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd survey report, 2000: spawning habitat characteristics, spatial and temporal redd distributions, and the incidence of spawning sockeye in the vicinity of incubating Chinook. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington. Burton, K.D., L.G. Lowe , H.B. Berge , H.K. Barnett, and P.L. Faulds. 2013. Comparative Dispersal Patterns for Recolonizing Cedar River Chinook Salmon above Landsburg Dam, Washington, and the Source Population below the Dam. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142(3): 703-716 Chapman, D.W. 1958. Studies on the life history of Alsea River steelhead. The Journal of Wildlife Management 22(2):123-134. City of Seattle. 2000a. Landsburg mitigation agreement for the fish migration barrier at the Landsburg Diversion Dam [online document]. Agreement between City of Seattle, the Governor of the State of Washington, WDFW, NMFS, and USFWS. Available at: https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SPU/EnvironmentConservation/Landsbu rgMitigationAgreementAgreement.pdf (accessed March 11, 2020). City of Seattle. 2000b. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Cconservation Plan for the issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of threatened and endangered species [online document]. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 59 Available at: https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/environment-and-conservation/our- watersheds/habitat-conservation-plan/ (accessed November 18, 2019). City of Seattle. 2016. Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan Metrics - Status and trends for road improvements and decommissioning. Available at: https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/environment-and-conservation/our-watersheds/habitat- conservation-plan/managing-the-watershed/road-improvements-and- decommissioning/metrics (accessed November 18, 2019). City of Seattle and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Synthesis of salmon research and monitoring [online document]. Participants include Corps, SPU, USFWS, King County, WDFW, NMFS, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, University of Washington, R2 Resource Consultants, Mevatec/BAE Systems, Parametrix, Waterways Experiment Station, Northwest National Laboratory, Biomark, and Precision Acoustic Systems. Available at: https://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/pdf/LWGI_SalmonSyn123108.pdf (accessed March 11, 2020). Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1996. Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Feasibility Study. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Technical Appendices. Seattle District, Seattle Washington. 249 p. Corps. 2010. Approved work windows for fish protection for all freshwaters excluding waters within national park boundaries, Columbia River, Snake River, and Lakes by county and specific watercourse [online document]. Available at: https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/regulatory/ESA%20forms%20and%20tem plates/work_windows%20all_freshwaters_except.pdf (accessed February 18, 2020). Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2019. Washington State water quality atlas. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/map.aspx (accessed December 2019). Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson, and R. Myaamoto. 1992. Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink (Oncorhynchus borbuscha) and Chum (O. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution. FRI-UW-9603. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute. FHWG (Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group). 2008. Agreement in principle for interim criteria for injury to fish from pile driving activities memorandum [online document]. Agreement between NMFS, USWFS, WSDOT, ODOT, CalTrans, and FHWA. Available at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2018/01/17/ENV-FW- BA_InterimCriteriaAgree.pdf (accessed March 11, 2020). Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 60 Fresh, K.L., W. Graeber, K.K. Bartz, J.R. Davies, M.D. Scheuerell, A.D. Haas, M.H. Ruckelshaus, and B. Sanderson. 2009. Incorporating spatial structure and diversity into recovery planning for anadromous pacific salmonids. In E. E. Knudsen and J. Hal Michael, Jr. (eds.), Pacific salmon environmental and life history models: Advancing science for sustainable salmon in the future, p. 403–428. Symposium 71. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Gendaszek, A.S., C.S. Magirl, and C.R. Czuba. 2012. Geomorphic response to flow regulation and channel and floodplain alteration in the gravel-bedded Cedar River, Washington, USA. Geomorphology 179(15): 258-268. Hallock, David. 2002. A Water Quality Index for Ecology’s Stream Monitoring Program. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No 02-03-052. Olympia, Washington. 23 p. Herrera (Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.). 2015. Lower Cedar River Chinook salmon habitat restoration assessment study: habitat restoration site potential and feasibility analysis report. Prepared for City of Renton, Public Works Department. Renton, Washington. Hicks B.J., J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat changes. Pages 483-518 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. King County. 2017. Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water Quality Index. WQI report for station 438, Water year 2017. Available at: https://green2.kingcounty.gov/streamsdata/WQIReport.aspx?Locator=0438 (accessed March 11, 2020). Kiyohara, K. 2015. Evaluation of juvenile salmon production in 2014 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Fish Science Division. FPA 15-03. Olympia, Washington. Kiyohara, K. 2017. Evaluation of juvenile salmon production in 2016 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Fish Science Division. FPA 17-01. Olympia, Washington. Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1992. Awareness reactions and avoidance responses to sound in juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Biology 40:523-534. Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance responses to low frequency sound in downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. Journal of Fish Biology 45:227- 233. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 61 Law, D.W., and J. Evans. 2013. Effect of leaching on pH of surrounding water. Magazine of Concrete Research 110(3):291-296. Lisi, P. 2018. Evaluation of juvenile salmon production in 2017 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Fish Science Division. FPA 18-01. Olympia, Washington. Mackay, R.J. 1992. Colonization by lotic macroinvertebrates: a review of processes and patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(3):617-628. Marshall, A.R., M. Small, and S. Foley. 2006. Genetic relationships among anadromous and non- anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in Cedar River and Lake Washington - implications for steelhead recovery planning. Final Report. Prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Cedar River Anadromous Fish Committee and Seattle Public Utilities. Contract DA2003-02. 54 p. Merz, J.E., and L.K. Ochikubo Chan. 2005. Effects of gravel augmentation on macroinvertebrate assemblages in a regulated California river. River Research and Applications 21:61-74. MJA (McMillen, Jacobs, and Associates). 2020. SPU broodstock collection facility replacement 60% basis of design drawings. Sheets 1 through 57. Mueller, R.P., D.A. Neitzel, W.V. Mavros, and T. J. Carlson. 1998. Evaluation of low and high frequency sound for enhancing fish screening facilities to protect outmigrating salmonids. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Portland, Oregon. Project number 86-118. Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D.J. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS- NWFSC-35. Myers, J.M., J.J. Hard, E.J. Connor, R.A. Hayman, R.G. Kope, G. Lucchetti, A.R. Marshall, G.R. Pess, and B.E. Thompson. 2015. Identifying historical populations of steelhead within the Puget Sound distinct population segment. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC- 128. 155 p. Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:693–727. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Making ESA determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale [online document]. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. Available at: Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 62 https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/GeoEnvironmental/Documents/Biology_NMFS_Endangere d-Species-Determination.pdf (accessed March 11, 2020). NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK NMFS. 2011. Anadromous salmonid passage facility design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 138 p. NMFS. 2018. Proposed recovery plan for the Puget Sound steelhead Distinct Population Segment (Oncorhynchus mykiss). National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, Washington. Olsen, K. 1969. A comparison of acoustic threshold in cod with recordings of ship noise. FAO Fish. Rep. 62(2):431438. Quinn, T.P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 381pp. Ruckelshaus, M.H., K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N.J. Sands, and J.B. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-NWFSC-78. Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Fleischer. 2004. Juvenile Chinook Migration and Survival in the Cedar River and Bear Creek. 2004 Greater Lake Washington Chinook Workshop. February 2, 2004. Shoreline, Washington. Available at: https://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/reports/2004.aspx#juv (accessed May 10, 2019). Selong, J.H., T.E. McMahon, A.V. Zale, and F.T. Barrows. 2001. Effect of Temperature on Growth and Survival of Bull Trout, with Application of an Improved Method for Determining Thermal Tolerance in Fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 1026–1037 Setunge, S., N. Nguyen, B.L. Alexander, and L. Dutton. 2009. Leaching of Alkali from Concrete in Contact with Waterways. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus (2009) 9: 381-391. Shapovalov, L. and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin 98: 1–373. SPU (Seattle Public Utilities). 2014. 2013-2014 Cedar River sockeye hatchery annual report [online document]. Prepared by Eric Shoblom, WDFW, Olympia, Washington for SPU, Seattle, Washington. Available at: Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 63 https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SPU/EnvironmentConservation/20132014 CedarRiverHatcheryAnnualReport.pdf (accessed March 11, 2020). USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants. EPA 800-R-11-002. Office of Wastewater Management. Washington DC. 24 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. 46 p. USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Volume I (of II) Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 p. USFWS. 2009. Bull Trout Proposed Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy. Portland, Oregon. 36 p. + appendices. USFWS. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pages. USFWS. 2019. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). USFWS, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html (accessed on April 16, 2019). WDFW. 2012. Invasive Species Management Protocols. Version 2: November 2012. Produced by WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01490/wdfw01490.pdf (accessed July 27, 2020). WDFW. 2019. Salmon Conservation and Reporting Engine (SCoRE). Cedar/Sammamish – WRIA 8 population status. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/maps/map_details.jsp?geocode=wria&geoarea=WRI A08_Cedar_Sammamish (accessed June 6, 2019). Weitkamp, D., and G.T. Ruggerone. 2000. Factors influencing Chinook salmon populations in proximity to the City of Seattle. Prepared by Parametrix, Natural Resources Consultants, and Cedar River Associates for the City of Seattle, Washington. Wiles, G.J. and K.S. Kalasz. 2017. Status report for the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 32+ iv pp. Wissmar, R.C., R.K. Timm, and M.G. Logson. 2004. Effects of Changing Forest and Impervious Land Covers on Discharge Characteristics of Watersheds. Environmental Management 34(1): 91–98. Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Biological Assessment July 2020 Page 64 WRIA (Water Resource Inventory Area) 8. 2017. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan 10-year Update. Available at: https://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/reports/pdf/wria-8-ten-year-salmon-conservation- plan-combined-10-25-2017.pdf (accessed May 10, 2019). WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2016a. WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards. Available at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/10/26/Env-FW-FishMovingProtocols.pdf (accessed May 13, 2019). WSDOT. 2016b. 2016 Annual Traffic Report. Olympia, Washington. 239 p. WSDOT. 2019. Biological Assessment Preparation Manual, 2019 Update. Prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. Available at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/fish-wildlife/policies-and- procedures/esa-ba/preparation-manual (accessed June 27, 2019). Appendix A Essential Fish Habitat This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing APPENDIX A: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT May 2019 Page A-1 CEDAR RIVER BROODSTOCK COLLECTION FACILITY REPLACEMENT APPENDIX A—Essential Fish Habitat The Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility (BCF) Replacement Project (the project) will replace the existing BCF with a new facility immediately upstream in order to allow for safe access and operation of the BCF under a broader range of flow conditions, increase attraction flows and capture efficiency, reduce confinement and handling of fish, and reduce impingement risk. The project limits containing all proposed project actions occur on the lower Cedar River at river mile 1.7, approximately 66 feet upstream from the interstate 405 bridge crossing and south of the Cedar River Park in Renton, Washington. The project limits are located upstream of the southern-most extent of Lake Washington. The following is an essential fish habitat (EFH) analysis for the project. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Public Law 104-267, the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to establish new requirements for EFH descriptions in federal fishery management plans and to require federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect EFH (PFMC 1999). Adverse effects include impacts that reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH, which can include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, reduction in species’ fecundity), site-specific, or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. Cumulative impacts are incremental impacts occurring within a watershed or ecosystem context that may result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that adversely affect the quantity and ecological structure or function of EFH. The assessment should specifically consider the habitat variables that control or limit a managed species’ use of a habitat. EFH has been defined for the purposes of the MSA as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (PFMC 1999). The MSA requires consultation for all actions that may adversely affect EFH, and it does not distinguish between actions in EFH and actions outside of EFH. Any reasonable attempt to encourage the conservation of EFH must take into account actions that occur outside of EFH, such as upstream and upslope activities that may have an adverse effect on EFH. Therefore, EFH consultation with NMFS is required by federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of its location. Wherever possible, NMFS utilizes existing interagency coordination processes to fulfill EFH consultations with federal agencies. For the proposed action, this goal is being met by incorporating an EFH consultation with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation, as represented by the associated biological assessment (BA). APPENDIX A: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT May 2019 Page A-2 2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for Pacific salmon, Pacific Coast groundfish, and coastal pelagic fish species. The proposed action area is described in Section 2.0 of the BA. Within the lower Cedar River, underwater noise from vibratory pile driving is anticipated to extent 328 feet (100 meters) upstream and downstream of the cofferdam locations. Suspended sediment and associated turbidity from project actions will only extend 300 feet (91.4 meters) downstream from the project limits, and therefore the extent of underwater impact (i.e., the action area) is defined by the underwater noise. EFH for Pacific Coast groundfish and coastal pelagic species includes all waters from the mean high-water line along the coast of Washington, upstream to the extent of saltwater intrusion and seaward to the boundary of the United States EEZ 200 miles (370 kilometers). As the project limits occur in a freshwater riverine system upstream of Lake Washington, the project does not occur within waters associated with Pacific Coast groundfish or coastal pelagic species. Therefore, these species are not discussed further. The action area does potentially include areas designated as EFH for various life-history stages of 2 Pacific Coast salmon species (PFMC 1999). A summary of potential EFH species that may occur in the action area is presented in Table A-1. Table A-1. Pacific Coast EFH Species Potentially Present in the Action Area Groundfish Species Coastal Pelagic Species Pacific Salmon Species None None Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho salmon O. kisutch The Pacific salmon freshwater EFH includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other waterbodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, except those above the impassable barriers identified by PFMC. Salmon EFH also excludes areas upstream of longstanding naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years). Pacific Coast Salmon Pacific salmon EFH is established for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (O. kisutch). Pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) do not have identified EFH in water resource inventory area (WRIA) 8, and they are not known to occur in the Cedar River watershed (WDFW 2019). Salmonids may migrate through the action area, using the action area for foraging and potentially for spawning (WDFW 2019). Juvenile salmonids may then out-migrate through the same area. Juveniles of these species may also spend time rearing within the action area (WDFW 2019). APPENDIX A: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT May 2019 Page A-3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES Project activities that may affect EFH are summarized in Table A-2, and a detailed description of the proposed activities is provided in Section 2.0 of the associated BA. Section 4.0 of the BA includes use of the action area by Chinook salmon. Finally, Section 6.0 of the BA provides an effects analysis of potential changes to the surrounding habitat from the proposed project. This analysis and the proposed measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for project impacts are summarized below. Table A2. Summary of Project Actions that May Temporarily Affect EFH Project Activities Analysis Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Increase in impervious surface area (access road widening and boat ramp) and semi- impervious surface area (grasscrete pads)  Disruption to riparian vegetation and potential disruption to emergent shoreline vegetation  Increased stormwater runoff  Long-term stability at boat ramp and crane pad  Water quality BMPs and monitoring  Erosion control  In-water work windows for portions of boat ramp/retaining wall below OHWM  Off-site mitigation to offset increases in impervious surface Vibratory pile driving within the Cedar River  Increased in-water noise  Increased in-water turbidity  Other water quality effects (decreased dissolved oxygen, increased temperature, potential for spills and leaks)  Water quality BMPs and monitoring  All construction vehicle access will occur from existing paved surfaces  Turbidity control devices  In-water work windows Cofferdam de- watering, fish removal, and re- watering  Fish disturbance, displacement, and/or capture and handling stress  Disruption to benthic habitats  Increased in-water turbidity  Reduced fish habitat area and food sources  Water quality BMPs and monitoring  Turbidity control  Following in-water work windows  Blocking only half the river per phase to allow for total fish passage at all times  On-site biologist to perform fish exclusion protocol Benthic fill within the Cedar River (concrete sill, boat ramp, retaining wall)  Increased in-water noise  Increased in-water turbidity  Decreased pH during concrete curing  Other water quality effects (decreased dissolved oxygen, increased temperature, potential for spills and leaks)  Disruption to benthic habitat  Reduced habitat area and food sources  Water quality BMPs and monitoring  Turbidity control  In-water work windows and working in-the-dry  Off-site mitigation to offset increases in benthic fill Vegetation Clearing  Increased in-water turbidity through erosion  Decreased area of riparian habitat  Water quality BMPs and monitoring  Erosion and sedimentation control Removal of old boat ramp and vegetation planting  Increased in-water turbidity through erosion  Increased area of riparian habitat and complexity  Water quality BMPs and monitoring  Erosion and sedimentation control  Habitat enhancement/mitigation with improvements in complexity, quality, and riparian vegetation APPENDIX A: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT May 2019 Page A-4 4.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ON EFH Based on information provided in the BA, as summarized in Table A-2, the proposed actions have the potential to affect EFH of Pacific salmon. Potential impacts to Pacific salmon EFH associated with the project include temporary in-water work, such as the installation of cofferdams and temporary excavation. Other construction activities within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River will occur within those cofferdams in-the-dry. These project elements that will occur below OHWM include the construction of the concrete sill across the channel’s benthic habitat, and portions of the concrete boat ramp, the Grasscrete crane outrigger pad, the retaining wall, and the removal of the old boat ramp. These project actions will have impacts to EFH as described in detail in section 4.1. The areas temporarily cleared of native vegetation during construction and the area where the old boat ramp was removed will be planted with native riparian vegetation. Through the proposed mitigation actions as described in the Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement In-Lieu Fee Use Plan (Confluence 2020), salmonid habitat would be created or restored along the lower Cedar River. The Cedar Grove Natural Area/Rainbow Bend Roster Site is located on the Cedar River, approximately 11 miles upstream of the project site, with mitigation credits becoming available in 2020. It has been identified as a high priority site for floodplain connectivity and off-channel habitat for Chinook salmon by the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The proposed compensatory mitigation would provide a long-term net benefit to salmonid EFH in the lower Cedar River. Overall, the project will affect EFH with increases of in-water turbidity, water quality effects, disruption to benthic habitat, and noise. However, these effects will be mitigated through the use of avoidance and minimization measures, best management practices (BMPs), and habitat mitigation within the lower Cedar River. 4.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Potential effects of construction activities on ESA-listed fish species and critical habitat are discussed in Section 6.0, Effect Analysis, of the associated BA. These potential effects will also generally apply to Pacific salmon EFH in these areas. Effects to EFH within the action area include:  Temporary reduction in habitat area from cofferdam installation;  Temporary elevation of TSS resulting from in-water construction activities;  Temporary water column pH effects (concrete curing);  Disturbance of prey resources;  Altered substrate and sediment dynamics; APPENDIX A: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT May 2019 Page A-5  Migratory delay due to weir and trap dynamics over baseline; and  Potential mitigation measures. Pacific salmonid EFH will be temporarily reduced within the action area during construction due to the installation of cofferdams. The placement of the cofferdams may temporarily reduce available substrate for forage and spawning by 6,228 square feet in Year 1 and 3,495 square feet in Year 2. Construction activities may disturb and displace fish, causing them to move to other parts of the river. For example, temporarily elevated levels of TSS and underwater noise due to project actions may temporarily reduce the quality of EHF within the action area for Pacific salmonids. Chemical impacts from construction, including a lowering of the water column pH from the construction of the concrete sill, are another potential impact to EFH that would decrease habitat quality temporarily. Prey resources within the EFH will be temporarily decreased by the installation of cofferdams and permanently decreased by the addition of the concrete sill, which will fill in approximately 2,000 square feet of invertebrate habitat. Note that 539 square feet of existing concrete associated with the boat ramp will be removed and the area restored during project construction, for a net benthic impact of 1,461 from project actions. Similarly, the permanent concrete sill will also reduce the area of suitable spawning substrate by a net amount of 1,461 square feet. The permanent concrete sill and weir are not expected to have a measurable effect on sediment dynamics, including episodic deposition and mobilization, within the Cedar River, as described in Section 6.2.1 of the BA. Construction below the OHWM has been phased to allow for complete fish passage in approximately half of the channel at any given time. However, as the project will replace a BCF fish trap structure, the project will affect the migratory corridor by design. The weir passability for non-target salmonids (i.e., both Chinook salmon and coho salmon) and other fish will be improved overall with new bypass gate assemblies, as described in the BA Section 2.1.4, and therefore EFH connectivity will not be significantly disrupted by project construction or operation. The project will therefore result in temporary and permanent adverse effects, temporary discountable or insignificant effects, and beneficial long-term effects to the biological, physical, and chemical aspects of EFH. 4.2 Conservation and Mitigation Measures Conservation measures designed to protect ESA-listed species will also help avoid and minimize impacts of project activities on EFH. Adherence to BMPs discussed in Section 2.3 of the BA will minimize the temporary adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat during project construction. In addition, the proposed mitigation actions will result in long-term improvements in salmonid habitat within the Cedar River basin. The habitat improvements will APPENDIX A: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT May 2019 Page A-6 occur at a minimum of a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio and are likely to include increased native riparian vegetation, increased large woody debris, and increased off-channel habitat for rearing and high flow refuge. The proposed conservation measures and project BMPs will further limit the scope and scale of potential effects on EFH. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS EFH for Pacific salmon is present in the action area. The project will have temporary and permanent adverse effects, temporarily discountable or insignificant effects, and permanent beneficial effects on EFH during construction activities. Please see Section 6.0, Effects Analysis, of the BA for a detailed description of potential direct and indirect effects of the project. Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures proposed for the project are consistent with the BMPs described in Section 2.3 of the BA and mitigation measures described in Section 4.2 above. The benefits of off-channel habitat, which is a limiting factor to salmon production, is anticipated to more than offset the minor loss of spawning habitat (not a limiting factor) from the sill construction. Overall, the long-term benefits to EFH from the planned mitigation actions associated with the proposed project would outweigh the adverse impacts to EFH. Determination Based on the EFH requirements of Pacific Coast salmon species, BMPs, and proposed conservation and mitigation measures, the determination is that the project will adversely affect Pacific salmon freshwater EFH in the Cedar River at the project site, with long-term net benefits to EFH through proposed mitigation actions upstream in the Cedar River basin. Considering the net ecological gain to support salmon production in the Cedar River from the proposed mitigation and conservation measures, the project will not adversely affect EFH for Pacific salmon. 6.0 REFERENCES Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2020. Cedar River broodstock collection facility replacement in-lieu fee use plan. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities Seattle, Washington, by Confluence, Seattle, Washington. PFMC. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999). Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. APPENDIX A: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT May 2019 Page A-7 WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2020. SalmonScape [online database]. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html (accessed on February 26, 2020). Appendix B BCF 60% Design Drawings This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) G-001 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) G-002 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) G-003 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN ℄ ⅊ 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) G-101 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) G-102 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) G-103 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN W W W W SFSF SF S F SFSF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSF60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) C-101 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) C-201 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) C-202 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CD101 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CD203 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS101 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN · · 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS102 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS103 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS104 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS105 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS106 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS203 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS204 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) CS206 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-101 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 8 19 7 6 2 31 18 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-102 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 4 5 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-103 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-104 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-105 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-106 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-201 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-202 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-203 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-204 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-206 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-207 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-208 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-212 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-213 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-215 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-216 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-217 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-220 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) S-221 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) M-101 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) M-102 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) M-201 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) M-202 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) M-207 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) M-208 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-001 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-002 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-003 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-101 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-201 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-202 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-301 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-302 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-303 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-304 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN 60% (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) E-305 ASSOCIATES JACOBS McMILLEN This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Appendix C Species Lists This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing March 06, 2020 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405 http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/ In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2020-SLI-0702 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01415 Project Name: Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Project Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/ mapping/phs/ or at our office website: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 03/06/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01415   2    ▪ A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether or not the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit our website at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ eagle/for information on disturbance or take of the species and information on how to get a permit and what current guidelines and regulations are. Some projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan: (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More information can be found on the MMPA website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Related website: National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/ species_lists.html Attachment(s): Official Species List 03/06/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01415   1    Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 03/06/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01415   2    Project Summary Consultation Code:01EWFW00-2020-SLI-0702 Event Code:01EWFW00-2020-E-01415 Project Name:Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility Replacement Project Project Type:** OTHER ** Project Description:The City of Seattle Public Utilities Department (SPU) is proposing improvements to the existing Cedar River Hatchery program sockeye broodstock collection facility (BCF), located in the City of Renton in the lower Cedar River, a tributary to Lake Washington in Washington State. The proposed SPU BCF Replacement Project (project) involves the construction of a permanent foundation for the BCF in the active river channel, and improvements to the removable weir and trap system to increase the operational efficiency of the BCF. SPU operates the hatchery and supporting broodstock collection facility under the terms of the Landsburg mitigation Agreement. The project would construct a permanent concrete foundation (approximately 60'x20') in the river for mounting an improved removable weir and trap structure. The foundation would be mounted at the bed level approximately 60 feet upstream of the I-405 bridge over the Cedar River and immediately upstream the existing broodstock collection facility location. The existing BCF is located on the lower Cedar River at river mile (RM) 1.7, approximately 66 feet upstream from the Interstate 405 (I-405) bridge crossing in Renton, Washington. The site is in Washington Township and Range T23N R5E S18 at latitude/longitude 47.480716° N, 122.199027° W (HUC 171100120106, Lower Cedar River). The proposed action will be constructed at the same location within the approximate footprint of the existing facility. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/47.480686668271765N122.19911898687951W 03/06/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01415   3    Counties:King, WA 03/06/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01415   4    1. Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME STATUS Gray Wolf Canis lupus Population: Western Distinct Population Segment No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Proposed Endangered North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123 Proposed Threatened 1 03/06/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01415   5    Birds NAME STATUS Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 Threatened Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7268 Threatened Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened Fishes NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212 Threatened Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^ ! ^ C o lum biaColumbiaSna k e Pocatello Spokane Wenatchee Walla Walla Yakima Boise Bend Medford Eugene Salem Astoria Olympia Bellingham Redding Sacramento San Francisco Santa Cruz Fresno Santa Barbara San Diego Los Angeles Seattle Portland Salmon CoosBay Eureka DeschutesWillametteRog ue Umpqu a K l a m athTrinity Ee l Rus si a n S a c r a mentoSan J o a quin Salin as SantaAnaSa l m on Snake United StatesUnited States CanadaCanada United StatesUnited States MexicoMexico 0 200Miles O R E G O N W A S H I N G T O N I D A H O C A L I F O R N I A Status of ESA Listings & Critical Habitat Designationsfor West Coast Salmon & Steelhead Updated July 2016 Recovery Domain Puget Sound Interior Columbia Oregon Coast North-Central California Coast Central Valley North-Central California Coast and Central Valley Overlap So. OR / No. CA Coast and North-Central CA Coast Overlap Southern OR / Northern CA Coast Willamette / Lower Columbia and Interior Columbia Overlap Willamette / Lower Columbia South-Central / Southern CA Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit / Distinct Population Segment ESA Status Date of ESA Listing Date of CH Designation Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Puget Sound Steelhead T 5/11/2007 2/24/2016 Middle Columbia River Steelhead T 3/25/19991/5/2006 9/2/2005 Snake River Fall-run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 12/28/1993 Snake River Spring / Summer-run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 10/25/1999 Snake River Sockeye Salmon E 11/20/1991 12/28/1993 Snake River Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon E 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Upper Columbia River Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Columbia River Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon T 6/28/2005 2/24/2016 Lower Columbia River Steelhead T 3/19/19981/5/2006 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Steelhead T 3/25/19991/5/2006 9/2/2005 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon T 2/11/2008 2/11/2008 Southern OR / Northern CA Coasts Coho Salmon T 5/6/1997 5/5/1999 California Coastal Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 Central California Coast Coho Salmon E 10/31/1996 (T) 6/28/2005 (E)4/2/2012 (RE)5/5/1999 Central California Coast Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Northern California Steelhead T 6/7/20001/5/2006 9/2/2005 California Central Valley Steelhead T 3/19/19981/5/2006 9/2/2005 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon E 11/5/1990 (T) 1/4/1994 (E)6/16/1993 South-Central California Coast Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Southern California Steelhead E 8/18/19975/1/2002 (RE)1/5/2006 9/2/2005 ESA = Endangered Species Act, CH = Critical Habitat, RE = Range ExtensionE = Endangered, T = Threatened, Willamette / Lower Columbia Recovery Domain Interior Columbia Recovery Domain Puget Sound Recovery Domain Oregon Coast Recovery Domain North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain Central Valley Recovery Domain South-Central / Southern California Coast Recovery Domain Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Recovery Domain Critical Habitat Rules Cited • 2/24/2016 (81 FR 9252) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Puget Sound Steelhead and Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52630) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 12 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in WA, OR, and ID • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52488) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 7 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in CA • 10/25/1999 (64 FR 57399) Revised Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon • 5/5/1999 (64 FR 24049) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Central CA Coast and Southern OR/Northern CA Coast Coho Salmon • 12/28/1993 (58 FR 68543) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Chinook and Sockeye Salmon • 6/16/1993 (58 FR 33212) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing Rules Cited • 4/2/2012 (77 FR 19552) Final Range Extension for Endangered Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final ESA Listing for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 5/11/2007 (72 FR 26722) Final ESA Listing for Puget Sound Steelhead • 1/5/2006 (71 FR 5248) Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead • 6/28/2005 (70 FR 37160) Final ESA Listing for 16 ESU's of West Coast Salmon • 5/1/2002 (67 FR 21586) Range Extension for Endangered Steelhead in Southern California • 6/7/2000 (65 FR 36074) Final ESA Listing for Northern California Steelhead • 9/16/1999 (64 FR 50394) Final ESA Listing for Two Chinook Salmon ESUs in California • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14508) Final ESA Listing for Hood River Canal Summer-run and Columbia River Chum Salmon • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14517) Final ESA Listing for Middle Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14528) Final ESA Listing for Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon • 3/24/1999 (64 FR 14308) Final ESA Listing for 4 ESU's of Chinook Salmon • 3/19/1998 (63 FR 13347) Final ESA Listing for Lower Columbia River and Central Valley Steelhead • 8/18/1997 (62 FR 43937) Final ESA Listing for 5 ESU's of Steelhead • 5/6/1997 (62 FR 24588) Final ESA Listing for Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Coho Salmon • 10/31/1996 (61 FR 56138) Final ESA Listing for Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 1/4/1994 (59 FR 222) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon • 4/22/1992 (57 FR 14653) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Spring/summer-run and Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon • 11/20/1991 (56 FR 58619) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Sockeye Salmon • 11/5/1990 (55 FR 46515) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Appendix D Species Life Histories This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Review of the Status of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Prepared by the West Coast Chinook Salmon Biological Review Team 17 Dec 1997 The Biological Review Team (BRT) for chinook salmon included, from NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center: Peggy Busby, Dr. Stewart Grant, Dr. Robert Iwamoto, Dr. Robert Kope, Dr. Conrad Mahnken, Gene Matthews, Dr. James Myers, Philip Roni, Dr. Michael Schiewe, David Teel, Dr. Thomas Wainwright, F. William Waknitz, Dr. Robin Waples, and Dr. John Williams; NMFS Southwest Region: Gregory Bryant and Craig Wingert; NMFS Southwest Region (Tiburon Laboratory): Dr. Steve Lindley, and Dr. Peter Adams; NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (Auke Bay Laboratory): Alex Wertheimer; and from the USGS National Biological Service: Dr. Reginald Reisenbichler. iii CONTENTS List of Figures ...................................................................ix List of Tables ..................................................................xiii Executive Summary ...............................................................xv Acknowledgments ..............................................................xxvii Introduction ......................................................................1 The "Species" Question .......................................................3 Background of Chinook Salmon under the ESA .....................................4 Summary of Information Presented by the Petitioners .................................5 Distinct Population Segments ............................................5 Population Abundance .................................................6 Causes of Decline for Chinook Salmon .....................................7 Information Relating to the Species Question .............................................9 General Biology of Chinook Salmon .............................................9 Ecological Features .........................................................12 Geological Events ....................................................12 Ecoregions .........................................................13 Coastal Range (#1).............................................13 Puget Lowland (#2)............................................18 Willamette Valley (#3)..........................................18 Cascades (#4).................................................22 Sierra Nevada (#5).............................................22 Southern and Central California Plains and Hills (#6)...................23 Central California Valley (#7)....................................23 Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (#9)..........................23 Columbia Basin (#10)..........................................24 Blue Mountains (#11)...........................................24 Snake River Basin/High Desert (#12)...............................25 Northern Rockies (#15).........................................25 Marine Habitat ......................................................26 Chinook Salmon Life History and Ecology ........................................27 Juvenile Life History ..................................................27 Ocean Distribution ...................................................30 Size and Age at Maturation .............................................32 Run Timing ........................................................34 Straying ...........................................................35 Fecundity and Egg Size ................................................37 Other Life-History Traits ..............................................39 Regional Variation in Life-History Traits ..................................39 iv Puget Sound to the Strait of Juan de Fuca ............................40 Washington and Oregon coasts (Hoko River to Cape Blanco).............55 California and southern Oregon coast (south of Cape Blanco).............56 California Central Valley ........................................58 Columbia River ocean type .......................................63 Lower Columbia River (to the Cascade Crest)..................63 Upper Willamette River ...................................66 Columbia River (east of the Cascade Crest)....................69 Columbia River Stream Type ...............................74 Genetic Information .........................................................78 Background ........................................................78 Statistical Methods ...................................................78 Previous Genetic Studies ...............................................80 Alaska ......................................................80 Pacific Northwest overview ......................................81 Yukon and British Columbia .....................................83 Washington ..................................................85 Columbia River Basin ..........................................86 California and Oregon ..........................................89 Levels of Genetic Differentiation among Populations ..........................92 New Studies ........................................................94 Regional patterns of genetic variability ..............................94 British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California .................103 Columbia and Snake Rivers .....................................107 Summary .........................................................109 Discussion and Conclusions on ESU Determinations ...............................111 Evolutionary Significance of Life-History Forms ............................111 Major Chinook Salmon Groups .........................................113 California Central Valley .......................................113 Coastal basins and Puget Sound ..................................113 Columbia River ..............................................114 ESU Descriptions ...................................................115 1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU ............................115 2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESU ...............................118 3) Central Valley Fall-Run ESU .................................119 4) Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU .....................119 5) Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU .........................120 6) Oregon Coast ESU .........................................121 7) Washington Coast ESU .....................................121 8) Puget Sound ESU ..........................................122 9) Lower Columbia River ESU ..................................122 10) Upper Willamette River ESU .................................123 11) Mid-Columbia River Spring-Run ESU ..........................124 12) Upper-Columbia River Summer- and Fall-Run ESU ................124 13) Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU .........................125 27 reported in Washington and Oregon wetlands: a 70% loss in the Puget Sound, 50% in Willapa Bay, and 85% in Coos Bay (Refalt 1985). The ocean migrations of chinook salmon extend well into the North Pacific Ocean. The productivity of various ocean regions has been correlated with the degree of wind-driven upwelling (Bakun 1973, 1975). Under normal conditions this upwelling decreases along the coast from California to Washington and British Columbia (Bakun 1973). Changes in wind directions related to sea level pressure (SLP) systems, most notably the Aleutian low pressure (ALP) or Central North Pacific (CNP) pressure indices, can greatly alter upwelling patterns (Ware and Thompson 1991, Beamish and Bouillon 1993). Upwelling brings cold, nutrient-rich waters to the surface, resulting in an increase in plankton and ultimately salmon production (Beamish and Bouillon 1993). Strong ALP measurements (high pressure readings) tend to result in minimal upwelling in the North Pacific. Similarly, atmospheric pressure systems in the Central Pacific can alter trade wind patterns to bring warmer water up along the California coast; this occurrence is better known as an El Niño. El Niño events suppress coastal upwelling off the Washington, Oregon, and California coasts and tend to bring warmer water and warm-water species northward (McLain 1984). One difference between El Niño events and ALP events is that the northerly flow of warm waters associated with El Niño events may stimulate ocean productivity off Alaska (McLain 1984). Ocean migratory pattern differences between and within ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon stocks may be responsible for fluctuations in abundance. Moreover, the evolution of life-history strategies has, in part, been a response to long-term geographic and seasonal differences in marine productivity and estuary availability. Chinook Salmon Life History and Ecology Juvenile Life History The most significant process in the juvenile life history of chinook salmon is smoltification, the physiological and morphological transition from a freshwater to marine existence. The emigration from river to ocean is thought to have evolved as a consequence of differences in food resources and survival probabilities in the two environments (Gross 1987). Salmon juvenile life- history patterns are usually deduced by examining the developmental pattern of circuli on juvenile and adult fish scales (Gilbert 1912, Rich 1920a, Koo and Isarnkura 1967). Within the ocean-type (subyearling) and stream-type (yearling) migrant designations, several subtypes have been described (Gilbert 1912, Reimers 1973, Schluchter and Lichatowich 1977, Fraser et al. 1982). Ocean-type juveniles enter saltwater during one of three distinct phases. “Immediate” fry migrate to the ocean soon after yolk resorption at 30-45 mm in length (Lister et al. 1971, Healey 1991). In most river systems, however, fry migrants, which migrate at 60-150 days post-hatching, and fingerling migrants, which migrate in the late summer or autumn of their first year, represent the majority of ocean-type emigrants. When environmental conditions are not conducive to 28 subyearling emigration, ocean-type chinook salmon may remain in freshwater for their entire first year. Stream-type chinook salmon migrate during their second or, more rarely, their third spring. Under natural conditions stream-type chinook salmon appear to be unable to smolt as subyearlings. The underlying biological bases for differences in juvenile life history appear to be both environmental and genetic (Randall et al. 1987). Distance of migration to the marine environment, stream stability, stream flow and temperature regimes, stream and estuary productivity, and general weather regimes have been implicated in the evolution and expression of specific emigration timing. The success of different juvenile life-history strategies is linked to the coordinated expression of other traits. Gilbert (1912) noted that ocean-type fish exhibited a faster growth rate relative to stream-type fish. The growth difference between ocean- and stream-type juveniles has also been observed by other researchers (Carl and Healey 1984, Cheng et al. 1987, Taylor 1990a). Some of this difference may be related to differences in rearing environment, although under standardized conditions there was still a significant growth difference between ocean- and stream- type juveniles (Taylor 1990b). Clarke et al. (1992) demonstrated that the growth of stream-type juveniles was strongly associated with photoperiod, while ocean-type juvenile growth appeared to be independent of photoperiod. Juvenile life history appears to be a heritable trait. Hybridization experiments indicated that the stream-type smoltification and growth pattern are recessive relative to the ocean-type pattern (Clarke et al. 1992). Juvenile stream-type chinook salmon have also been shown to be more aggressive than ocean types. This may be a territorial defense mechanism for resource limited freshwater systems (Taylor and Larkin 1986, Taylor 1988, Taylor 1990b). Morphometric differences, such as larger and more colorful fins, observed in some stream-type populations may be related to social displays that maintain territories (Carl and Healey 1984, Taylor and Larkin 1986). Thus, the timing of parr-smolt transition appears to be associated with the expression of a number of other traits in order to maximize individual survival. Juvenile stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon have adapted to different ecological niches. Ocean-type chinook salmon tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. In general, the younger (smaller) juveniles are at the time of emigrating to the estuary, the longer they reside there (Kjelson et al. 1982, Levy and Northcote 1982, Healey 1991). There is also an apparent positive relationship between rivers with large estuary systems and the number of fry migrants (Fraser et al. 1982). Brackish water areas in estuaries also moderate physiological stress during parr-smolt transition. The development of the ocean-type life-history strategy may have been a response to the limited carrying capacity of smaller stream systems and glacially scoured, unproductive watersheds, or a means of avoiding the impact of seasonal floods in the lower portion of many watersheds (Miller and Brannon 1982). In the Sacramento River and coastal California rivers, subyearling emigration is related to the avoidance of high summer water temperatures (Calkins et al. 1940, Gard 1995). Ocean-type chinook salmon may also use seasonal flood cycles as a cue to volitionally begin downstream emigration (Healey 1991). Migratory behavior in ocean-type chinook salmon juveniles is also positively correlated with water flow (Taylor 1990a). 29 Stream-type juveniles are much more dependent on freshwater stream ecosystems because of their extended residence in these areas. A stream-type life history may be adapted to those watersheds, or parts of watersheds, that are more consistently productive and less susceptible to dramatic changes in water flow, or which have environmental conditions that would severely limit the success of subyearling smolts (Miller and Brannon 1982, Healey 1991). Stream-type chinook salmon juveniles exhibit downstream dispersal and utilize a variety of habitats during their freshwater residence. This dispersal appears to be related to resource allocation and migration to overwintering habitat and is not associated with saltwater osmoregulatory competence (Hillman et al. 1987, Levings and Lauzier 1989, Taylor 1990a, Healey 1991). For example, the migration of subyearling juvenile spring-run chinook salmon in the Wenatchee River (a stream-type population) may be due to competition with hatchery releases or the interspecific interaction between steelhead and chinook salmon juveniles (Hillman and Chapman 1989). There was a tendency for juveniles to move into deeper water, farther from the bank shelter, as they grew older. If suitable overwintering habitat, such as large cobble, is not available then the fish will tend to migrate downstream (Bjornn 1971, Bustard and Narver 1975, Hillman et al. 1987). At the time of saltwater entry, stream-type (yearling) smolts are much larger, averaging 73-134 mm depending on the river system, than their ocean-type (subyearling) counterparts and are therefore able to move offshore relatively quickly (Healey 1991). The variability in the time of emigration to the marine environment among stocks of chinook salmon, combined with geographic and yearly differences in freshwater productivity, make comparisons of the sizes of smolts among different stocks difficult. Size data may be confounded by the presence within a watershed of multiple native stocks that exhibit different life- history strategies. The possible inclusion of hatchery-reared fish in smolt samples is a further confounding factor. Smolt size, therefore, was not emphasized among the life-history traits used to determine ESU boundaries. Ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon populations exhibit a geographical distribution that further underscores the ecological adaptation of these two races. Chinook salmon stocks in Asia, Alaska, and Canada north of the 55th parallel, and in the headwaters (upper elevations) of the Fraser River and the Columbia River Basins, exhibit a stream-type life history: emigrating to sea in their second or third spring and generally entering freshwater several months prior to spawning (Healey 1991). A notable exception to this trend includes populations in the Situk River and several Yakutat foreland River Basins in Alaska, which emigrate primarily as subyearlings (Johnson et al 1992a, ADFG 1997). Ocean-type chinook salmon are predominant in coastal regions south of 55EN, in Puget Sound, in the lower reaches of the Fraser and Columbia Rivers, and in California’s Central Valley (Gilbert 1912, Rich 1920a, Healey 1983, Taylor 1990b). One analysis of principal components influencing life-history type (distance to the sea, daylight hours during the growing season and air temperature) accounted for 96% of the total observed variation in age at smoltification (Taylor 1990a). However, the abrupt change between stream- and ocean-type life histories at 55EN occurs in the absence of a similarly abrupt change in environmental conditions (Healey 1983) and may be related to patterns of colonization following deglaciation (Taylor 1990b). 30 Stream-type life histories are most commonly associated with early timed runs of fish (Rich 1920a, Healey 1983). This is partially because the headwater regions south of 55EN are only accessible during peak spring stream flows, additionally, temperatures in more northerly streams and headwater areas are much colder than in other areas and require early deposition of eggs to allow for proper developmental timing. Overall, juvenile smoltification strategies are one expression of a more complicated, genetically based life-history adaptation to ecological conditions (Taylor 1990a, Clarke et al. 1992). Differences in juvenile life-history strategies among chinook salmon stocks were a useful component in helping to determine boundaries between ESUs. Ocean Distribution Coastwide, chinook salmon remain at sea from 1 to 6 years (more commonly 2 to 4 years), with the exception of a small proportion of yearling males which mature in freshwater or return after 2 or 3 months in salt water (Rutter 1904, Gilbert 1912, Rich 1920a, Mullan et al. 1992). Differences in the ocean distribution of specific stocks may be indicative of resource partitioning and may be important to the success of the species as a whole. Current migratory patterns may have evolved as a balance between the relative benefits of accessing specific feeding grounds and the energy expenditure necessary to reach them. If the migratory pattern for each population is, in part, genetically based, then the efficiency with which subsequent generations reach and return from their traditional feeding grounds will be increased. The vast majority of CWT-marked chinook salmon come from hatchery populations; therefore, the migratory routes of many wild fish stocks must be inferred from their corresponding hatchery populations. Furthermore, CWT ocean recoveries are obtained through commercial and sport fishery samples; therefore, the relative intensity of each fishery can bias the interpretation of the oceanic distribution of each stock. Comparisons of oceanic distributions across years can also be influenced by changes in fishing regulations and ocean conditions (such as during an El Niño). Confounding effects were considered in the interpretation of CWT recoveries, and small differences in CWT ocean recoveries between stocks were not considered as a distinguishing factor. The genetic basis for ocean distribution has been supported by a number of different studies involving the monitoring of CWT-marked fish caught in the ocean fisheries. The relative influence of genetic vs. environmental factors on migratory pattern can be deduced from transplantation studies. Transplanted Elwha River chinook salmon continued to follow their traditional migratory pattern after being reared and released at a site 150 km to the east, except that the actual route had also been shifted 150 km eastward (Brannon and Hershberger 1984). Additionally, hybrids between the Elwha River and Green River (University of Washington) stocks exhibited an intermediate ocean migration pattern. Transplantation studies with coastal stocks in Oregon have yielded similar results (Nicholas and Hankin 1988). Chinook salmon 31 whose natal stream lies south of Cape Blanco tend to migrate to the south, while those to the north of Cape Blanco tend to migrate in a northerly direction. Transplants of south migrating stocks to release sites north of Cape Blanco do not alter the basic southerly direction of ocean migration (Nicholas and Hankin 1988). Recoveries of CWT-marked fish from ocean fisheries indicate that fish stocks follow predicable ocean migration patterns, and that these are based on “ancestral” feeding routes (Brannon and Setter 1987). Ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon are recovered differentially in coastal and mid- ocean fisheries, indicating divergent migratory routes (Healey 1983, 1991). Ocean-type chinook salmon tend to migrate along the coast, while stream-type chinook salmon are found far from the coast in the central North Pacific (Healey 1983, 1991; Myers et al. 1984). Studies of CWT- marked prerecruit (<71 cm) fish in the marine fisheries off of Southeastern Alaska indicated that differences in migration speed, timing, and growth were related to the life history, age, and general geographic origin of the stocks (Orsi and Jaenicke 1996). The causal basis for this difference in migration pattern is unknown, but may be related to poor coastal feeding conditions during past glacial events for the more northerly (stream-type) populations. The freshwater component of the adult returning migratory process is also under a significant genetic influence. In one experiment, “upriver bright” chinook salmon were captured, spawned, and the subsequent progeny reared and released from a downriver site (McIsaac and Quinn 1988). A significant fraction of the returning adults from the “upriver bright” progeny group bypassed their rearing site and returned to their “traditional” spawning ground 370 km further upriver. The high degree of fidelity with which chinook salmon return to their natal stream has been shown in a number of studies (Rich and Holmes 1928, Quinn and Fresh 1984, McIsaac and Quinn 1988). Returning to the “home stream” provides a mechanism for local adaptation and reproductive isolation. Ocean migration patterns represent an important form of resource partitioning and are important to the evolutionary success of the species; therefore, differences in ocean migratory pattern were an important consideration in the determination of ESU boundaries. Size and Age at Maturation The age at which chinook salmon begin sexual maturation and undertake their homeward migration is dependent on a number of different factors. Age, body size and composition, and fecundity traits in salmonids have all been shown to be partially under genetic control (Ricker 1972) and genetically and phenotypically correlated (Gall 1975). Because of genetic correlations between these traits, natural selection on one or more of these traits may affect the expression of other traits. The confounding effects of correlated traits make it difficult to identify specific selective (ecologically important) criteria that influence size and age at maturity. 32 5 J.D. Hubble, Biologist, Yakama Tribal Fisheries, P.O. Box 151, Toppenish, WA 98948. Pers. Commun., April 1996. Adult body size in chinook salmon does not appear to be strongly correlated to latitude; however, there appears to be a slight negative correlation between adult body size and length of migration (Roni and Quinn 1995). The relationship between size and length of migration may also reflect the earlier timing of river entry and the cessation of feeding for chinook salmon stocks that migrate to the upper reaches of river systems. Juvenile life history has an apparent influence on the size of returning spawners. Ocean-type fish that have been at sea from 1 to 2 years are generally larger than their respective stream-type counterparts (Roni and Quinn 1995). This may reflect the more productive feeding conditions that exist in the marine environment and/or the additional 3 to 5 months that ocean-type fish remain in the marine environment before beginning their spawning migration. Body size, which is correlated with age, may be an important factor in migration and redd construction success. Beacham and Murray (1987) reported a correlation between body size and large (< 100 km2 watershed area) and small river size in chum salmon (O. keta). Roni and Quinn (1995) reported that under high density conditions on the spawning ground, natural selection may produce stocks with exceptionally large-sized returning adults. Spawning aggregations may select for large body size in males due to competition between males for females and the “attractiveness” of large males to females (Foote 1990). Large body size may be advantageous for females because of the success of larger fish in establishing, digging, and protecting their redds (Healey and Heard 1984). Competition for redd sites, stream flow, and gravel conditions are also thought to influence adult size in coho salmon (Holtby and Healey 1986). An alternative strategy for chinook salmon is for males to mature at an early age. “Mini- jack” or “jack” chinook salmon males mature in their first or second ocean years, respectively. Early maturation among male chinook salmon was first described by Rutter (1904). Early maturation offers a reduced risk of mortality, but younger (smaller) males may be at a competitive disadvantage in securing a mate (Gross 1987). The incidence of jack males has underlying genetic determinants and appears to be, in part, a response to favorable growing conditions. A variant of this life-history strategy is maturation without emigrating to the ocean. Rich (1920a) estimated that 10-12% of the juvenile males on the McCloud River were maturing without leaving the river. Mullan et al. (1992) found that early maturing resident males were common in both hatchery and wild populations in the Wenatchee River. Non-migrating mature males have also been observed in the Snake River Basin (Gebhards 1960, Burck 1967, Sankovich and Keefe 1996), Methow and Yakima Rivers (Hubble5), and the Deschutes River. Resident males have been observed among some stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon stocks in the Fraser River above Hell’s Gate, which would have historically been a potential barrier to small migrating early maturing males, but not among lower river or coastal populations (Taylor 1989, Foote et al. 1991). The location and physical characteristics of each river may determine the expression of this life-history trait. It is 33 unlikely that small jack males would be physically able to undertake the arduous return migration to many upriver areas (Mullan et al. 1992) or that sufficient time exists for the completion of the smolt emigration and return migration. Nonmigrating early maturing males may have a good chance of mating success, especially during poor return years when there may be a shortage of large males on the spawning grounds. The modification of smoltification, a major physiological process, to produce early maturing males in a population is indicative of the importance of this life-history trait to the reproductive success of specific populations. The heritability of body size and age has been more extensively studied in chinook salmon than have other traits. Crosses between different aged parents have demonstrated that the ages of maturity for parents and progeny were strongly correlated (Ellis and Noble 1961, Donaldson and Bonham 1970, Hershberger and Iwamoto 1984, Withler et al. 1987, Hankin et al. 1993). The expression of early maturation in chinook salmon was found to have a significant genetic component; moreover, different stocks exhibited different levels of early maturation in response to environmental changes (Heath et al. 1994). The positive response of chinook salmon to selective breeding experiments is indicative of a significant genetic component to body size (Donaldson and Menasveta 1961). Chinook salmon stocks exhibit considerable variability in size and age of maturation, and at least some portion of this variation is genetically determined. From an evolutionary standpoint, the potential increases in size, fecundity, and egg size gained from remaining on the marine feeding grounds an additional year must be weighed against the chances of mortality during that year (Healey and Heard 1984, Healey 1986). The specific conditions that exist in each river must also influence, in part, the expression of these characteristics. The size and age of spawning chinook salmon in any given population may have a significant impact on their survival, and trends in size and age were utilized in determining ESU boundaries. However, the large environmental influence (on a regional and annual basis) on chinook salmon size and age, as well as possible biases resulting from different fishery harvest techniques and the inclusion of hatchery reared fish, would suggest that available size and age data be used with caution. Run Timing Early researchers recorded the existence of different temporal “runs” or modes in the migration of chinook salmon from the ocean to freshwater. Two major influxes of chinook salmon were observed returning to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system, although “...there is no definite distinction between spring and fall runs; there is no time during the summer when there are no salmon running” (Rutter 1904, p. 122). It was also reported that spring-run fish tended to migrate to the upriver portions of the Sacramento River and spawn earlier than the fall run, which spawned in the lower regions of tributaries and in mainstem river areas. A similar distinction was made between spring, summer, and fall or “snow” salmon runs in the Klamath River (Snyder 1931). The underlying genetic influence on run timing was initially demonstrated 34 by Rich and Holmes (1928), when spring-run chinook salmon from the MacKenzie River were reared, marked, and released from a predominantly fall-run watershed. The transplanted chinook salmon displayed no apparent alteration in their normal time of return or spawning, although there was an increase in straying. Subsequent stock transplantations have further substantiated the heritable nature of run timing. Heritability estimates for return timing among early- and late- returning pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) runs in Alaska were 0.4 and 0.2 for females and males, respectively (Gharrett and Smoker 1993). Freshwater entry and spawning timing are generally thought to be related to local temperature and water flow regimes (Miller and Brannon 1982). Temperature has a direct effect on the development rate of salmonids (Alderdice and Velsen 1978). Only one run timing for chinook salmon is found in most rivers in Alaska and northern British Columbia, where summers are short and water temperatures cold (Burger et al. 1985). The Kenai River in Alaska is an exception to this trend, having mid-June and mid-July runs that ultimately spawn in areas with distinct thermal regimes (Burger et al. 1985). Asian rivers are thought to contain only one run of chinook salmon, with the possible exception of the Kamchatka and Bol’shaya Rivers (Vronskiy 1972, Smirnov 1975). Among stream-type stocks, the King Salmon River in Alaska differs from the general trend in that adults return in a relatively mature condition and spawn in the lower river, extending down to the intertidal area (Kissner 1985, ADFG 1997). The majority of multiple run rivers are found south from the Bella Coola and Fraser Rivers. Runs are designated on the basis of adult migration timing; however, distinct runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the time of river entry, thermal regime and flow characteristics of their spawning site, and actual time of spawning. Early, spring-run chinook salmon tend to enter freshwater as immature or “bright” fish, migrate far upriver, and finally spawn in the late summer and early autumn. Late, fall-run chinook salmon enter freshwater at an advanced stage of maturity, move rapidly to their spawning areas on the mainstem or lower tributaries of the rivers, and spawn within a few days or weeks of freshwater entry (Fulton 1968, Healey 1991). Summer-run fish show intermediate characteristics of spring and fall runs, spawning in large and medium-sized tributaries, and not showing the extensive delay in maturation exhibited by spring-run chinook salmon (Fulton 1968). Winter-run chinook salmon (which presently exist only in the Sacramento River) begin their freshwater migration at an immature stage and travel to the upper portions of the watershed to spawn in the spring. All stocks, and especially those that migrate into freshwater well in advance of spawning, utilize resting pools. These pools provide an energetic refuge from river currents, a thermal refuge from high summer and autumn temperatures, and a refuge from potential predators (Berman and Quinn 1991, Hockersmith et al. 1994). Furthermore, the utilization of resting pools may maximize the success of the spawning migration through decreases in metabolic rate and the potential reduction in susceptibility to pathogens (Bouck et al. 1975, Berman and Quinn 1991). In the Stilliguamish River, there was a high correlation between the location of pools and redds, suggesting that the pool abundance may limit the amount of spawning habitat available (PSSSRG 1997). 35 Run timing is also, in part, a response to streamflow characteristics. Rivers such as the Klickitat or Willamette Rivers historically had waterfalls which blocked upstream migration except during high spring flows (WDF et al. 1993). Low river flows on the south Oregon coast during the summer result in barrier sandbars which block migration (Kostow 1995). The timing of migration and, ultimately, spawning must also be cued to the local thermal regime. Egg deposition must be timed to ensure that fry emerge during the following spring at a time when the river or estuary productivity is sufficient for juvenile survival and growth. The strong association between run timing and ecological conditions made this trait useful in considering potential ESU boundaries. Straying The high degree of fidelity with which chinook salmon return to their natal stream has been shown in a number of studies (Rich and Holmes 1928, Quinn and Fresh 1984, McIsaac and Quinn 1988). Returning to one’s natal stream may have evolved as a method of ensuring an adequate incubation and rearing habitat. It also provides a mechanism for reproductive isolation and local adaptation. Conversely, returning to a stream other than that of one’s origin is important in colonizing new areas and responding to unfavorable or perturbed conditions at the natal stream (Quinn 1993). High rates of straying by returning Umatilla River fall chinook salmon (an introduced upriver bright stock) into the Snake River in 1987-89 were apparently related to poor acclimation, high water temperatures, and lack of water in the Umatilla River (Waples et al. 1991b). Straying coho salmon (O. kisutch) and sockeye salmon have rapidly colonized newly deglaciated habitat (Milner and Bailey 1989), and summer-run chinook salmon may have recolonized the Okanogan River following the cessation of trapping operations at Rock Island Dam, which blocked entry from 1939-43 (Waknitz et al. 1995). The degree of straying in wild populations determines the extent of reproductive isolation and the potential for the formation of ESUs. Available information on straying rates primarily involves hatchery-reared, transplanted, or transported fish. Rich and Holmes (1928), in one of the earliest studies of homing, released marked chinook salmon juveniles from a number of hatcheries along the lower Columbia River. Of the 104 chinook salmon that were recovered in spawning areas or at hatchery racks, only 5 (4.8 %) had strayed to areas other than their release sites (Rich and Holmes 1928). Quinn and Fresh (1984) reported that only 1.4% of the returning spring-run chinook salmon from the Cowlitz River Hatchery were recovered outside of their natal watershed, and it was suggested that straying was more frequent in older fish and in years when the run-size was low. Olfactory cues provided by conspecifics on spawning grounds, especially large aggregations, may be a powerful attractant to returning salmon (Duker 1981). If these spawning aggregations are an attractant, it may explain the negative correlation between run-size and straying as well as explaining the observed straying of naturally-produced salmon into hatcheries. Chapman et al. (1991, 1994) suggested that straying is more common among fall-run fish than among spring-run 36 fish. Quinn et al. (1991) found that straying rates differed considerably (10-27.5%) between hatcheries releasing fall chinook salmon on the lower Columbia River. The adult returning migratory process has been shown to be under a significant genetic influence. In one experiment, “upriver bright” chinook salmon were captured, spawned, and the subsequent progeny reared and released from a downriver site (McIsaac and Quinn 1988). A significant fraction of the returning adults from the upriver bright progeny group bypassed their rearing site and returned to their “traditional” spawning ground 370 km further upriver. Hatchery rearing and release procedures may increase the rate of straying. Wild chinook salmon had significantly lower straying rates than did hatchery-reared fish from the Lewis River (McIsaac 1990). Releasing fish even a short distance from the hatchery can dramatically increase the straying rate (Quinn 1993, Heard 1996). Straying rates as high as 86% resulted from the long-distance transportation and release of fall chinook salmon in the Sacramento River (Cramer 1989). Unfavorable conditions (high water temperature and low flow) at hatchery return facilities may further increase straying rates (Quinn 1993). The use of hatchery stocks founded from a composite of wild stocks (e.g., upriver bright fall chinook salmon) may increase straying if the genetic component to homing is more important than the olfactory (learned) component. Chapman et al. (1994) indicated that Columbia River fall chinook salmon upriver bright hatchery stocks did have a relatively high straying rate. However, Pascual and Quinn (1994) found similar homing success rates for local and introduced stocks of chinook salmon released in the Columbia River. Any interpretation of straying rates should consider the way in which strays were enumerated. Chapman et al. (1991) made a distinction between “legitimate” strays and “wanderers,” those fish that enter non-native streams as a part of their homing search or as a temporary refuge from unfavorable river conditions. Wanderers will normally retreat from these non-native streams and continue their return migration; however, where weirs or hatchery traps are present, wanderers will be unable to return and are often considered strays. Additionally, straying rates can be influenced by the effort placed on surveying sites other than the release site. The use of cut-off dates by hatcheries to separate run-times can result in “temporal” straying. Cope and Slater (1957) found that 16% of the fish returning as “spring-run” adults to Coleman NFH were produced from fall-run parents, and 19% of the returning “fall-run” adults came from spring-run parents. The use of fixed return or spawning dates to distinguish runs at adult collection facilities may have resulted in the introgression of previously distinct stocks (Mullan 1987, WDF et al. 1993, Waknitz et al. 1995). Straying by hatchery fish, especially those from non-native hatchery stocks, increases the potential for interbreeding and genetic homogenization. This may result in the loss of regionally distinct life-history characteristics. 37 Fecundity and Egg Size Fecundity and egg size differences between stocks of salmon occur on a geographic basis. In salmon, fecundity tends to increase while egg size decreases with latitude (Healey and Heard 1984, Kaev and Kaeva 1987, Fleming and Gross 1990). Variation between and within regions can be considerable. The anadromous life history of salmon is thought to be a response to the relatively poor productivity of glacially influenced or unstable freshwater environments relative to the nearby marine habitat (Neave 1958, Miller and Brannon 1982). In order to maximize the success of their emigration to saltwater, salmon juveniles must obtain a relatively large size in productivity-limited freshwater environments. One strategy for accomplishing this is through the production of large eggs and thereby large embryos (Taylor 1991, Kreeger 1995). Larger eggs produce larger fry (Fowler 1972), which may be more successful at migrating to saltwater than smaller fry (Kreeger 1995). Ocean-type chinook salmon stocks in British Columbia were reported to have larger eggs than stream-type stocks (Lister 1990). Rich (1920b) found that some chinook salmon returning to coastal streams in Oregon and Washington had larger eggs than fish returning to the Columbia River. In general, Smironov (1975) suggested that latitudinal differences existed in egg size, with southern stocks having larger eggs. Furthermore, he speculated that this was because embryonic development at higher temperatures is less efficient; southern stocks need more energy stores (larger eggs) to complete development. Alternatively, this trend may be related to the need for more southerly, predominantly ocean-type, chinook salmon to produce larger-sized fry for migration to estuary areas. In general, stream-type stocks of chinook salmon have smaller eggs than ocean-type stocks. However, there is no apparent latitudinal cline in egg size among stream- type nor ocean-type stocks (Appendix C). Older (larger) year classes of salmon tend to produce larger sized eggs but not proportionately larger numbers of eggs than their younger (smaller) counterparts; this may be a life-history strategy to improve the survival of individual progeny rather than producing more of them (Gray 1965, Iwamoto 1982, Beacham and Murray 1985, Healey 1986, Nicholas and Hankin 1988). Factors affecting egg size in chinook salmon appear to be operating on a between- and within-population basis. Variability in egg size within populations appears to be most directly related to fish size and, to a lesser extent, age (Healey and Heard 1984, Hankin and McKelvey 1985), whereas between-population differences may represent an adaptation to regional environmental and geographic conditions. Physiological and ecological factors have been identified that may limit the potential minimum and maximum egg sizes, 0.12 and 0.47 g, respectively (Quinn and Bloomberg 1992). The physical limitations of large eggs in absorbing oxygen due to a reduced surface area-to- volume ratio and the generally high physiological oxygen demands of salmonids may limit the maximum size of chinook salmon eggs. Stream flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing chinook salmon eggs. Therefore, behavioral traits such as 38 spawning site selection would need to be correlated with physical fecundity traits. Healey (1991) showed that suboptimum habitat conditions delay or discourage spawning at a specific site. Variation in fecundity and egg size among different stocks of chinook salmon appears to be related to geography and life-history strategy. Chinook salmon females sampled from the Sacramento River had 68% more eggs than females from the Klamath River, after adjusting for differences in body size (Snyder 1931, Healey and Heard 1984). Fecundity is related to body size, although this relationship is also dependent on a number of other factors—age, migration distance, latitude—and varies between stocks (Healey and Heard 1984, Kaev and Kaeva 1987, Fleming and Gross 1990). Galbreath and Ridenhour (1964) found that linear length-fecundity regressions for the Columbia River chinook salmon stocks were not significantly different when compared on a seasonal (monthly) run timing, total age, or smolt age basis; however, differences in body size and a small sample size may have obscured racial differences in fecundity. A further complication in the analysis of fecundity traits is the difference in body weight devoted to gonadal tissue in coastal and inland populations. Populations which undertake extended migrations may not be able to devote the same percentage of body weight toward gonad (especially ovary) development (Lister 1990). Linley (1993) found a significant negative correlation for adult sockeye salmon between the percentage of body weight devoted to gonads and the length and duration of the freshwater migration. Ivankov (1983) determined that differences in the fecundity of masu salmon (O. masu) females within and among rivers were correlated with juvenile growth rate and the rate of gonadal development prior to saltwater emigration, although he did not specifically evaluate the relative contributions of genetic and environmental effects. Correlations between fecundity and body size and age, in addition to environmental fluctuations over several years, complicate the interpretation of fecundity differences. Furthermore, the majority of fecundity information comes from hatchery populations. Differences in selection on fecundity and egg size traits under hatchery conditions relative to the natural environment may limit the representative value of hatchery populations for their wild counterparts (Fleming and Gross 1990). Other Life-History Traits Information concerning the variability, adaptiveness, and heritability of other life-history traits in salmon is extremely limited. Genetically based differences in the rate of Pacific salmon embryonic and alevin development between run times in the same river (Tallman 1986), and between rivers (Iwamoto 1982, Beacham and Murray 1987, 1989) represent important adaptations to ensure emergence occurs at a time for optimal survival. The heritability estimates for embryonic development to hatch in chinook salmon range from 0.25 to 0.40 (Hickey 1983). Smirnov (1975) suggested significant differences in the embryonic development exist between Asian and North American stocks of chinook salmon. 39 Pathogen resistance is another locally adapted trait. Chinook salmon from the Columbia River drainage exhibited reduced susceptibility to Ceratomyxa shasta, an endemic pathogen, relative to stocks from coastal rivers where the disease is not known to occur (Zinn et al. 1977). Differences in susceptibility to the infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) were detected between Alaskan and Columbia River stocks of chinook salmon (Wertheimer and Winton 1982). Variability in temperature tolerance between populations is also probably due to adaptation to local conditions; however, information on the genetic basis of this trait is lacking (Levings 1993). Regional Variation in Life-History Traits Comparisons of life-history traits among chinook salmon populations revealed regional differences in many traits. The definition of geographic regions which contained populations with similar life-history attributes was an important step in the establishment of tentative ESU boundaries. The following discussion includes information on anthropogenic changes in habitat quality, stock transfers, and artificial propagation efforts. The impacts of these activities on genetic integrity, abundance, and other potential risks to chinook salmon populations are discussed in later sections in more detail and are included here only to the extent that these activities may have altered the expression of life-history traits in presumptive native populations. Puget Sound to the Strait of Juan de Fuca Chinook salmon are found in most of the rivers in this region. WDF et al. (1993) recognizes 27 distinct stocks of chinook salmon: 8 spring-run, 4 summer-, and 15 summer/fall- and fall-run stocks. The existence of an additional five spring-run stocks has been disputed among different management agencies (WDF et al. 1993). The Skagit River and its tributaries—the Baker, Sauk, Suiattle, and Cascade Rivers—constitute what was historically the predominant system in Puget Sound containing naturally spawning populations (WDF et al. 1993). Spring-run chinook salmon are present in the North and South Fork Nooksack Rivers, the Skagit River Basin, the White, and the Dungeness Rivers (WDF et al. 1993). Spring-run populations in the Stillaguamish, Skokomish, Dosewallips, and Elwha Rivers are thought to be extinct (Nehlsen et al. 1991). Summer-run chinook salmon are present in the Upper Skagit and Lower Sauk Rivers in addition to the Stilliguamish and Snohomish Rivers (WDF et al. 1993). Fall-run stocks (also identified by management agencies as summer/fall runs in Puget Sound) are found throughout the region in all major river systems. The artificial propagation of fall-run stocks is widespread throughout this region. Summer/fall chinook salmon transfers between watersheds within and outside the region have been commonplace throughout this century; thus, the purity of naturally spawning stocks varies from river to river. Captive broodstock/recovery programs for spring-run chinook salmon have been undertaken on the White River (Appleby and Keown 1994), and the Dungeness River (Smith and Sele 1995b). Supplementation programs currently exist for spring-run chinook salmon on North Fork Nooksack River and summer-run 40 chinook salmon on the Stillaguamish and Skagit Rivers (Marshall et al. 1995, Fuss and Ashbrook 1995). Hatchery programs also release Suiattle River spring-run chinook salmon and Snohomish River (Wallace River) summer-run chinook salmon (Marshall et al. 1995, Fuss and Ashbrook 1995). The potential impacts of artificial propagation and rearing programs (especially delayed- release programs) on the expression of life-history traits were taken into account when comparing the characteristics of each stock. Adult spring-run chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in April and May (Table 1) and spawn in August and September (Fig. 10) (Orrell 1976, WDF et al. 1993). Adults migrate to the upper portions of their respective river systems and hold in pools until they mature. In contrast, summer-run fish begin their freshwater migration in June and July and spawn in September, while summer/fall-run chinook salmon begin to return in August and spawn from late September through January (WDF et al. 1993). Studies with radio-tagged fish in the Skagit River indicated that river-entry time was not an accurate predictor of spawning time or location (SCC 1995). In rivers with an overlap in spawning time, temporal runs on the same river system maintain a certain amount of reproductive isolation through geographic separation. For example, an 18-km river section (at river kilometer (RKm) 35-53) of poor spawning habitat separates the spawning areas for summer and spring runs on the Sauk River (Williams et al. 1975). Species Fact Sheet Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Photo credit: R. Tabor, FWS Washington Conterminous United States STATUS: THREATENED CRITICAL HABITAT: DESIGNATED Bull trout potentially occur in these Washington counties: Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania, Clallam, Jefferson, Mason, Grays Harbor, Pacific, Wahkiakum, San Juan, Island, Kitsap, Okanogan, Chelan, Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Benton, Grant, Douglas, Walla Walla, Franklin, Lincoln, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin (Maps may reflect historical as well as recent sightings) In 1999, the populations of bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, within the conterminous United States were federally listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The most recent critical habitat designation was completed in 2010. Current and Historical Status Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus, family Salmonidae) are char native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. The historical range of bull trout includes major river basins in the Pacific Northwest at about 41 to 60 degrees North latitude, from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in the Northwest Territories, Canada. To the west, the bull trout’s current range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska. Bull trout occur in portions of the Columbia River and tributaries within the basin, including its headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta and Montana and in the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada. Bull trout are believed to have declined throughout 50% of their range. There are nine major watersheds where bull trout have likely been extirpated: the Okanogan River, Lake Chelan, Satsop River, Lower Nisqually River, and White Salmon River in Washington; the Clackamas River (recently reintroduced here), Santiam River, and Upper Deschutes River in Oregon; and the McCloud River in northern California. Description and Life History Bull trout are a cold-water fish of relatively pristine stream and lake habitats in western North America. They are grouped with the char, within the salmonid family of fishes. Bull trout coloration ranges from green to greyish-blue (sometimes displaying silvery sides when in lakes and marine waters), and are spotted with pale yellowish to orange spots. The absence of black spots on the dorsal fin distinguishes bull trout from most other species of char and trout that are native to the Pacific Northwest. Bull trout should not be confused with Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Although they look very alike based on external similarity of appearance, morphological (form and structure) and genetic analyses have confirmed the distinctiveness of the two species in their different, but overlapping, geographic distributions. Both species occur together in western Washington, for example, with little or no interbreeding. Lastly, bull trout and Dolly Varden each appear to be more closely related genetically to other species of Salvelinus than they are to each other. The bull trout is most closely related to the Japanese white-spotted char (S. leucomaenis) whereas the Dolly Varden is most closely related to the Arctic char (S. alpinus). The size and age of bull trout at maturity depends upon life history strategy. Resident fish tend to be smaller than migratory fish at maturity, and produce fewer eggs. Bull trout normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and may live longer than 12 years. The life history of bull trout may be one of the most complex of any Pacific salmonid. Four general life-history forms of bull trout have been recognized: • Nonmigratory or resident bull trout. This life history form includes fish generally found in small streams and headwater tributaries. These non-migratory bull trout, in general, appear to grow more slowly than other life-history forms, are smaller at maturity, and generally do not live as long as migratory forms. • Riverine or fluvial bull trout. This freshwater life history form includes fish that migrate entirely within fresh water streams. This includes fish that overwinter and mature in large rivers or streams and then migrate to small tributaries to spawn. • Lacustrine or adfluvial bull trout. This freshwater life history form includes fish that overwinter and mature in large lakes or reservoirs and then migrate to small tributaries to spawn. These are typically the largest forms of bull trout, reaching sizes up to 30 lbs. • Marine or amphidromous/anadromous bull trout. This is the rarest life history form, and only occurs in western Washington within the coterminous United States. This includes fish that migrate out to marine nearshore waters and sometimes into other stream systems to overwinter and mature, returning to small tributaries in their natal watershed to spawn. Bull trout typically spawn from late July to December, with peak spawning in September for most interior populations and late October for most coastal populations. The period of egg incubation to emergence of fry from their spawning gravels may take up to 210 days (7 months). Juvenile migratory bull trout rear one to four years in their natal stream before migrating either to a river, lake/reservoir, or nearshore marine area to mature. Resident and migratory forms or mixed migratory forms may all be found together, and either form may give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behaviors. Habitat • Bull trout have some of the most specific habitat requirements of any salmonid, and these are often described as the "Four C's": Cold, Clean, Complex and Connected habitat. • Bull trout require colder water temperature than most salmonids. Water temperature above 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) is believed to limit bull trout distribution. They typically spawn in water temperatures below 9 degrees Celsius (48 degrees Fahrenheit). • They require the cleanest stream substrates for spawning and rearing. Juvenile bull trout frequently use the spaces between cobble and boulders to shelter. • They need complex habitats, including streams with riffles and deep pools, side channels, undercut banks, and lots of large instream wood/logs for shelter and foraging. • They also rely on river, lake and ocean habitats that connect to headwater streams for annual spawning and feeding migrations. These annual migrations are necessary to complete their life history. Reasons for Decline The following activities or types of land use have contributed to the bull trout’s decline: dams, forest management practices, livestock grazing, agricultural practices, transportation networks, mining, residential development and urbanization, fisheries management activities, and any of a host of general practices as well as some natural events (e.g., fire or flood under certain circumstances) that may contribute to historical and current isolation and habitat fragmentation. Nonnative species, forest management practices, and fish passage issues are the top factors limiting bull trout populations at the range-wide level, both currently and historically. Conservation Efforts Areas of critical habitat have been designated within their range in the coterminous United States to protect habitat and promote the recovery of the species. Three separate draft bull trout recovery plans were completed between 2002 and 2004, first for the Columbia and Klamath region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) and then subsequently for the Coastal- Puget Sound region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a) and Jarbidge River region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004b). None have been finalized. In 2008, a 5-year status review conducted by the Service concluded bull trout status was stable (status remained unchanged) range-wide, including some populations that were increasing and others that were decreasing in various parts of the range. Numerous conservation efforts (e.g., culvert replacements, fish passage improvements at dams, instream and riparian habitat restoration, nonnative fish suppression, improved forest management and livestock grazing practices) have occurred across their range since the time of listing which have resulted in significant improvements to bull trout habitat. Beginning in 2010, the Service began to revise its recovery strategy for bull trout across the coterminous United States and anticipates issuing an updated draft recovery plan in 2012. References and Links Final Rule to List Bull Trout (November 1999) Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout (October 2010) Bull Trout Critical Habitat Map for Washington State Final Critical Habitat Designation - Unit Maps 5-Year Status Review for Bull Trout (April 2008) Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plans (2002 and 2004) This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing