HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx 5_Biological Assessment.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