ii

Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation,

Informal Concurrence and Formal Biological

Opinion and Conference

&

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

Oregon Department of Transportation’s

OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program, Oregon

Agency: Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Consultation

Conducted By: USFWS & NOAA Fisheries,

Northwest Region

Date Issued: June 28, 2004

Issued by: ________________ ________________

D. Robert Lohn Kemper M. McMaster

Regional Administrator State Supervisor

Refer to: NOAA Fisheries NWR 2004/00209

USFWS file #8330.02233 (04)
iii
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Consultation History and Background............................................................................ 1

1.2 Action Area..................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Statewide Action............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Specific Bridge Repair and Replacement Actions.......................................................... 7

2.2.1 Bridge Repair/Replacement Elements.................................................................... 8

2.2.1.1 Pre-Construction ................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1.2 Clearing............................................................................................................. 10

2.2.1.3 Equipment Control............................................................................................ 11

2.2.1.4 Construction Material Containment.................................................................. 11

2.2.1.5 Earthwork.......................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1.6 Foundations....................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1.7 In-water Work................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1.8 Roadwork.......................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1.9 Stormwater Management.................................................................................. 21

2.2.1.10 Illumination..................................................................................................... 22

2.2.1.11 Planting and Seeding....................................................................................... 22

2.2.1.12 Exclusionary Devices...................................................................................... 23

2.2.2 Bridge Repair/Replacement Activities ................................................................. 24

2.2.2.1 Design ............................................................................................................... 25

2.2.2.2 Pre-construction ................................................................................................ 26

2.2.2.3 Construction...................................................................................................... 26

2.2.2.4 Bridge Construction.......................................................................................... 27

2.2.2.5 Site Restoration................................................................................................. 30

2.2.2.6 Site Restoration Maintenance ........................................................................... 31

2.3 Conservation and Mitigation Program.......................................................................... 31

2.3.1 Application of Mitigation Actions to the Bridge Program ................................... 32

2.3.2 Application of the CMCS to the Bridge Program................................................. 34

2.3.3 Application of the CMCS to Other Programs and Projects.................................. 39

2.4 Program Administration (Compliance, Communication, Monitoring, and Reporting) 39

2.5 Bridge Repair/Replacement Environmental Performance Standards........................... 41

2.6 Interrelated & Interdependent Activities ...................................................................... 74

3.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONCURRENCE................................. 76

4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT FORMAL CONSULTATION.................................... 85

4.1 Biological Opinion........................................................................................................ 85

4.1.1 Biological Information and Critical Habitat (Status of the Species) .................... 85

4.1.2 Evaluating Proposed Actions.............................................................................. 145

4.1.3 Environmental Baseline ...................................................................................... 145

4.1.4 Analysis of Effects.............................................................................................. 146

4.1.4.1 Effects of the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 146

4.1.4.2 Effects on Critical Habitat .............................................................................. 181
v

4.1.4.4 Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................... 184

4.1.5 Integration and Synthesis of Effects................................................................... 185

4.1.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 186

4.1.7 Reinitiation of Consultation................................................................................ 190

4.2 Incidental Take Statement........................................................................................... 191

4.2.1 Amount and Extent of the Take .......................................................................... 191

4.2.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures...................................................................... 193

4.2.3 Terms and Conditions......................................................................................... 193

4.2.4 Conservation Recommendations ........................................................................ 199

5.0 MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT ..................................................................................... 200

5.1 Background................................................................................................................. 200

5.2 Identification of EFH .................................................................................................. 201

5.3 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................... 202

5.4 Effects of the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 203

5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 203

5.6 EFH Conservation Recommendations........................................................................ 203

5.7 Statutory Response Requirement................................................................................ 203

5.8 Supplemental Consultation ......................................................................................... 203

6.0 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT.................................................................. 204

6.1 Marine Mammal Distribution ..................................................................................... 204

6.2 Effects Pathways......................................................................................................... 206

6.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures ..................................................................... 207

6.4 Analysis of Effects...................................................................................................... 207

6.5 Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................. 208

7.0 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT............................................................................ 209

8.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT.......................................................... 210

9.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................... 211

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1. Major fish die-off events in Upper Klamath Lake from 1890 to 2001 (USFWS

2002) ............................................................................................................................. 103

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Species addressed in this Opinion, listing status, and effects determinations

(ODOT 2004a)........................................................................................................................ 4

Table 2-1. Matrix of Bridge Repair / Replacement Elements and Environmental Performance

Standards................................................................................................................................. 8

Table 2-2. Matrix of Bridge Repair / Replacement Activities and Elements......................... 25

Table 3-1. Program bridge locations with potential to affect Steller sea lions ...................... 79

Table 3-2. Program bridge locations with potential to affect SR sockeye salmon, UCR

steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon, and SR Fall-run Chinook salmon ................................... 82

Table 4-1. Bald eagle recovery population goals and habitat management goals from the

Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986; Isaacs and Anthony 2003).................... 91
vi

Table 4-2. Changes to NRF

1

habitat (acres) from activities subject to Section 7 consultations

and other causes; range-wide aggregate from 1994 to current range-wide update (April 16,

2003) ............................................................................................................................... 98

Table 4-3. Changes in NRF habitat (acres) documented via section 7 consultation for all

physiographic provinces throughout Northwest Forest Plan Lands; aggregate changes from

1994 to the current range-wide update (April 16, 2003)....................................................... 99

Table 4-4. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for selected sites within Oregon (ODOT

2002) ............................................................................................................................. 149

Table 4-5. Current USFWS guidance on auditory and visual harassment thresholds for

marbled murrelets (USFWS 2003d) ................................................................................... 149

Table 4-6. Current USFWS guidance on auditory harassment thresholds for northern spotted

owl (USFWS 2003d)........................................................................................................... 152

Table 4-7. Current USFWS guidance on auditory and visual harassment thresholds for the

bald eagle (USFWS 1986) .................................................................................................. 153

Table 4-9. Known Fender’s blue butterfly sites and habitat by host plant........................... 169

Table 4-10. Quantification and extent of incidental take for fish species under NOAA

Fisheries and USFWS jurisdiction...................................................................................... 192

Table 4-11. Quantification and extent of incidental take for terrestrial wildlife species under

USFWS jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 192

Table 5-1. Species with designated EFH in the waters of Oregon....................................... 201

Table 6-1. Program Bridges with potential to affect marine mammals ............................... 209

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Program bridge locations and associated information.

APPENDIX B Preferred in-water work periods.

APPENDIX C Environmental baseline supporting documentation.

APPENDIX D Program coordination and communication protocol flow chart.

HIERARKEY OF FORMATTING

First Order Headings Numeric Digit 1.0

Second Order Headings One Decimal Place 1.1

Third Order Headings Two Decimal Places 1.1.1

Fourth Order Headings Three Decimal Places 1.1.1.1

Fifth Order Headings Underlined Surveys

Sixth Order Headings Bold Nesting Habitat

Seventh Order Headings Italics South Santiam

Note: Italics are also used throughout the document text for scientific names, specific Latin

terminology, and when referring to specific program elements, activities, or environmental

performance standards as defined in the proposed action section.
vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

A-run Snake River steelhead of early run timing stock

AC Alvord Chub

ADT Average Daily Traffic

API Area of Potential Impact

B-run Snake River steelhead of late run timing stock

BA Biological Assessment

BCHUB Blue Chub

BEWTOW Bald Eagle Working Team for Oregon and Washington

BFW Bank Full Width

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BO Biological Opinion

BPM Bridge Program Management

BR Brown Trout

BT Brook Trout

BUT Bull Trout

Can Candidate Species

CFR Code of Federal Register

CH Critical Habitat

CHF Chinook Salmon, Fall

CHR Chinook Salmon, Summer

CHS Chinook Salmon, Spring

CMCS Comprehensive Mitigation/Conservation Strategy

CO Coho Salmon

Corps U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

CR Columbia River

CS Chum Salmon

CT Cutthroat Trout

CTC Catlow Tui Chub

CWA Clean Water Act

dB decibels

dBh decibels relative to human hearing

dbh diameter breast height

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DO Dissolved Oxygen

E Endangered

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPS Environmental Performance Standards

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FPW Flood Prone Width
viii

FR Federal Register

ft feet

FTP File Transfer Protocol

GCB Goose Lake Chub

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GLAM Goose Lake Lamprey

GSUC Goose Lake Sucker

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

in litt in litteris, In correspondence or communicated in writing but not in literature

IRMP Integrated Resource Management Program

JCRT Jenny Creek Red Band Trout

JCS Jenny Creek Sucker

JUV Juvenile Salmonids

K Kokanee

KLS Klamath Largescale Sucker

LAA Likely to Adversely Affect

lb pound

LCR Lower Columbia River

LCT Lahonton Cutthroat Trout

LOP Limited Operating Period

LRS Lost River Sucker

LSR Late Successional Reserve

MAR Various Marine Species of Fish

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MBTSG Montana Bull Trout Science Group

MCR Middle Columbia River

MD Millicoma Dace

mi mile

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Malheur Mottled Sculpin

MP Mile Point

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act

NAP Noise Attenuation Plan

NF National Forest

NLAA Not Likely to Adversely Affect

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRF Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat

NWFP North West Forest Plan

OC Oregon Coast

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

ODSL Oregon Department of State Lands

OHW Ordinary High Water

ONPBO Olympic National Park Biological Opinion

Opinion This Biological Opinion
ix

OR Oregon

OTIA Oregon Transportation Investment Act

PCA Pre-Construction Assessment

pH pondus hydrogenii a measure of potential of hydrogen ions or acidity

PRCH Pit Roach

Prop Proposed for Listing

Prop CH Proposed Critical Habitat

PSCL Pit Sculpin

RB Rainbow Trout

RGP Regional General Permit

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act

RT Red Band Trout

SHL Various Marine Shell Fish

SLOPES Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species

SNS Shortnose Sucker

SOER State of the Environment Report

SONC Southern Oregon/Northern California

SR Snake River

SRB Snake River Basin

SS Sockeye Salmon

STS Steelhead, Summer

STW Steelhead, Winter

T Threatened

UCR Upper Columbia River

UKL Upper Klamath Lake

UPRR Union Pacific Rail Road

US United States

USBR U. S. Bureau of Reclamation

USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture

USDC U. S. Department of Commerce

USDI U. S. Department of Interior

USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U. S. Geologic Service

UWR Upper Willamette River

WDF Washington Department of Forestry

WDFW Washington department of Fish and Wildlife

WW Various Warm Water Game Fish

 Lambda
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Consultation History and Background

In 2001, the Oregon State Legislature passed the Oregon Transportation Investment Act

(OTIA), which provided $500 million to improve pavement conditions, increase lane

capacity, and improve bridges throughout the State. Many of the projects funded by this

legislation are currently in progress. In 2003, the State Legislature passed the third

Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA III) as House Bill 2041, which provides

$1.3 billion for the repair and replacement of bridges on State highways. From this

legislation and Federal funding provided by the Federal Administration (FHWA), the

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has developed the OTIA III Statewide

Bridge Delivery Program (Bridge Program), an aggressive program of 430 bridge repair

and replacement projects throughout the State that will be completed over the next 8 to

10 years. This program also includes a comprehensive regional mitigation and

conservation strategy including the co-development and issuance of a Regional General

Permit (RGP) by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Thus, the Corps has participated

in the development of the later portions of the BA, specifically, the relationship between

the BA and RGP.

Many of the bridge repair or replacement projects funded by OTIA III were constructed

during the 1950s and 1960s building boom associated with the creation of I-5 and I-84.

Due to their age and the heavy traffic volumes they now carry, many of the more vital

bridges are nearing the end of their expected 50-year life span, and are in need of

replacement or extensive repair. To identify bridge replacement and repair needs for the

State, ODOT prepared an Economic and Bridge Options Report in August 2003 (ODOT

2003). This report summarized the condition of each bridge in the Bridge Program and

provided recommendations of either repair or replacement over the next 10 years. The

report also established a priority for projects along freight routes of statewide

significance.

In addition to the Economic and Bridge Options Report, ODOT conducted a Statewide

Bridge Assessment to begin the planning and design process for the Bridge Program.

The purpose of this study was to collect environmental and engineering baseline data at

each bridge, verify repair or replacement recommendations, refine cost estimates, and

develop regulatory compliance strategies for the Bridge Program. The environmental and

engineering baseline data and reports from the Statewide Bridge Assessment are

available on ODOT’s File Transfer Protocol or FTP site or from the newly formed Bridge

Delivery Unit at ODOT.

To meet the aggressive construction schedule of the Bridge Program, one of the principal

requirements identified by ODOT was the timely completion of environmental regulatory

permitting. To facilitate this, FHWA and ODOT began working with a number of

Federal and State regulatory and resource agencies in late 2002 to develop permitting
2

strategies that meet the dual goals of providing timely review of individual project permit

applications and protecting or enhancing the natural and built environments.

The Services consider certain criteria when evaluating the suitability of actions for

inclusion in programmatic Biological Opinions. The effects of proposed actions must be

uniform and predictable, be fully minimized and minor, and be no different than if they

had undergone individual review. The Services must be able to clearly define limits for

the included actions/activities and to develop conservation standards that narrow the

range of possible outcomes to those reasonably likely to occur without substantial

adverse effects.

Batched Biological Opinions are typically comprised of multiple actions of similar type

or location batched together under one document to capitalize on economies of scale.

Through negotiations with the Services, and ODFW, a batched biological assessment

with programmatic elements (batched-programmatic) was determined to be the most

appropriate and efficient ESA consultation process.

A key element of the Bridge Program is the adoption of a program management strategy

that emphasizes context sensitive designs (i.e., bridge designs that address key

environmental issues) with consideration of the landscape, and monitoring at all levels of

program administration, including design, construction, and restoration.

A private-sector program management firm (Bridge Program Management Firm [BPM

Firm]) will assist ODOT in the development and implementation of a Bridge Program

Management Strategy. This management strategy will include the implementation and

evaluation of Environmental Performance Standards (EPS) designed to avoid and

minimize adverse effects to natural resources, including Federally-listed species, Statelisted species, State sensitive species, and their habitats.

The EPS were cooperatively developed with the various Federal and State regulatory and

resource agencies in an effort to provide design and construction sideboards resulting in

context sensitive bridge repair and replacement projects. Thus, the EPS became the

framework of the consultation strategy to avoid long-term adverse effects, avoid and

minimize short-term adverse effects, and promote beneficial effects in a manner

meaningful to promote recovery of listed species and their habitats. The EPS also were

intended to benefit non-listed species across Oregon.

This consultation is in response to the March 1, 2004 FHWA/Corps request for

consultation and ODOT’s 2003 OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program BA. An

ambitious streamlined consultation process began in 2003 with the development of a

multi-team, three-tiered, approach, with managerial policy and dispute resolution

oversight. Level 1 team participation included personnel from the following: ODOT;

ODOT’s primary consultant leading their ESA consultation effort, Mason, Bruce and

Girard Inc. (MB&G); ODOT’s consultant leading the Clean Water Act permitting

process, Parametrix Inc.; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); NOAA

Fisheries; and USFWS. Towards the later portion of the pre-consultation process and
3

during the RGP development, a representative from the Corps participated at Level 1

team meetings. Representation from other State and Federal agencies and individuals

with needed expertise were consulted regarding specific issues. The Level 2 and 3

Teams were developed to assist with policy-level discussions and act as a dispute

resolution mechanism. The Corps agreed to apply the terms and conditions of this

Opinion to bridge repair/replacement projects permitted through the bridge program

RGP, an individual Section 404 of the CWA, or a Section 10 of the RHA permit and

therefore became a Federal partner with the FHWA for this consultation.

An accelerated consultation process to develop the draft BA began in June of 2003, with

early involvement from the Services. An iterative process of weekly Level 1 team

meetings occurred to discuss issues and process; followed by MB&G drafting sections of

the BA for ODOT, behalf of FHWA, for Corps and the Service’s review; and MB&G

edits addressing review comments and further discussions and/or development of a

section or moving on to a new issue/section was followed. A draft BA was provided by

MB&G to the Services and ODOT for review on January 30, 2004. Internal Service

meetings were held to discuss the proposed action in the draft BA. Informal comments

were provided via electronic mail and verbally to MB&G.

A formal request for initiation of consultation with an accompanying final BA was

submitted to the Services on March 1, 2004.

The FHWA/Corps requested concurrence with their determinations that the proposed

OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program “may affect, are not likely to adversely

affect” the Canada lynx, Columbian white-tailed deer, brown pelican, vernal pool fairy

shrimp, Willamette daisy, golden paintbrush, Gentner's fritillary, Water howellia, largeflowered meadowfoam, Bradshaw's lomatium, Cook's lomatium, Kincaid’s lupine, rough

popcornflower, Nelson's checker-mallow, Steller sea lion, Upper Columbia River

Steelhead, Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon, Snake River Fall-run Chinook

salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon and their designated critical habitats, otherwise

referred to as informal consultation.

The FHWA/Corps requested initiation of formal consultation with their determinations

that the proposed OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program “may affect, likely to

adversely affect” determinations for the marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, bald

eagle, Oregon chub, bull trout, Lost River sucker, short-nosed sucker, Fender’s blue

butterfly, Columbia River chum salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast

coho salmon, Oregon Coast coho salmon, Lower Columbia River coho salmon, Upper

Willamette River steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead, Lower Columbia River

steelhead, Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, and Lower Columbia River Chinook

salmon. The FHWA/Corps is requesting initiation of conferencing with their

determinations that the proposed OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program “may

affect, likely to adversely affect” bull trout proposed critical habitat, and Lower Columbia

River coho salmon. The FHWA/Corps made these requests in accordance with section 7

of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and as

detailed in Table 1-1.
4

Table 1-1. Species addressed in this Opinion, listing status, and effects

determinations (ODOT 2004a)

Species Scientific name Federal Status Determination

Mammals

Canada lynx Felis lynx canadensis T NLAA

Columbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus leucurus E NLAA

Stellar sea lion

(Eastern population)

Eumetopias jubatus T NLAA

Birds

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus T/CH LAA

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T LAA

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis E NLAA

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina T/CH LAA

Fish

Chum salmon

(Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus keta T LAA

Coho salmon

(Southern OR/Northern CA

Coast ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch T LAA

Coho salmon

(Oregon Coast ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch T LAA

Coho salmon

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Prop T LAA

Steelhead

(Upper Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss E NLAA

Steelhead

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss E LAA

Steelhead

(Middle Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss T LAA

Steelhead

(Snake River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss T LAA

Steelhead

(Upper Willamette River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss T LAA

Sockeye salmon

(Snake River ESU)

Oncorhynchus nerka E NLAA

Chinook salmon

(Snake River Spring/SummerRun ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha T LAA

Chinook salmon

(Snake River Fall-Run ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha T NLAA

Chinook salmon

(Upper Willamette River ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha T LAA

Chinook salmon

(Upper Columbia River SpringRun ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha E NLAA
5

Chinook salmon

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha T LAA

Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus E/Prop CH LAA

Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris E/Prop CH LAA

Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri E LAA

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus T/Prop CH LAA

Invertebrates

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi T NLAA

Fender's blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi E LAA

Plants

Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens var.

decumbens

E NLAA

Gentner's fritillary Fritillaria gentneri E NLAA

Water howellia Howellia aquatilis T NLAA

Large-flowered meadowfoam Limnanthes floccosa ssp.

grandiflora

E NLAA

Bradshaw's lomatium Lomatium bradshawii E NLAA

Cook's lomatium Lomatium cookii E NLAA

Kincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphureus var. kincaidii T NLAA

Rough Popcornflower Plagiobothrys hirtus E NLAA

Nelson's checker-mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana T NLAA

(E) – Endangered...(T) –Threatened (Can) – Candidate ( CH) - designated Critical Habitat (Prop) –

proposed for listing (Prop CH) – proposed Critical Habitat (NLAA) – May affect, not likely to adversely

affect (LAA) - May affect, likely to adversely affect

This biological opinion (Opinion) is based on information provided in the BA for the

OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program (ODOT 2004a) and supporting reference

information; regular meetings and discussions between the Federal agencies, the Level 1

team members, the Clean Water Act/River and Harbors Act permit team members,

experts in specific fields, and file information and reference material located at the

USFWS’ Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office and NOAA Fisheries’ Oregon State Habitat

Office. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon

Fish and Wildlife Office and Oregon State Habitat Office. This document also includes

relevant discussion and assessment under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act (MSA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

(F&WCA).
6

1.2 Action Area

The diverse actions involved with the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

required a series of definitions for the action area. The resulting definitions address the

overall program, the conservation and mitigation strategy, and the individual bridge

actions.

Larger bridges tend to require greater ground disturbance for activities such as equipment

staging and traffic control, and thus have greater potential for adverse effects such as

downstream effects from turbidity. To account for bridge size in the evaluation process,

the bridge length was rotated to form a circle; therefore, a short bridge would have a

smaller area representing the structure than a long bridge. The Area of Potential Impact

(API), which was defined by ODOT to provide survey boundaries to the crews collecting

data for the environmental baseline reports, was modified to represent the area of

potential project activities. A circular 2,000-foot buffer was placed around the bridge

circles. For the purposes of this Opinion, the action area for project impact analysis and

estimation of take is the immediate bridge site (rotated) and its associated 2-mile buffer.

The action area is defined as the 2-mile buffer around each rotated bridge site to

encompass any downstream effects or other staging or detour related effects that may

exceed the API as clarified below.

The action area for the Compensatory Mitigation/Conservation Strategy includes all areas

within 4

th

field Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) populated by program bridges in the

sense that specific conservation and mitigation site locations have not yet been

determined. The limited design detail (e.g., the unknown location of detour routes and

staging areas) resulted in the action area being defined as the area encompassed by a 2-

mile buffer around each bridge within this Program (Appendix A) of this Opinion. As a

result, the environmental baseline conditions are presented starting at the ecoregion scale

and increasing in detail as appropriate for analysis of effects and effects conclusion per

species or functional grouping of species analyzed (Section 4.1.4) of this Opinion.

The scale of the action area for the overall Statewide Bridge Delivery Program could

encompass the entire State highway system because of the short-term potential

interrelated effects of shifting importance and reliance of existing travel corridors as

alternate routes for freight and passenger vehicle traffic.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION

For the purposes of this Opinion, the Federal actions are the FHWA’s program funding

and the Corp’s issuance of an RGP, individual 404 permit under the CWA, or section 10

permit under the RHA. The OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program involves the

repair and replacement of 430 bridges throughout Oregon. Oregon bridges built between

1947 and 1961 using a concrete girder design were designed to last approximately 50

years, and cracking has been found on many of these older bridges. The Bridge Program

will utilize a “corridor-based” strategy throughout the State, as practicable.
7

2.1 Statewide Action

The Bridge Program bridges were examined and an initial designation recommendation

for either repair or replacement was made. Currently, 86 bridges have been designated for

repair and 344 bridges have been designated for replacement. These designations may

change upon closer examination of each bridge; it is assumed that it is more likely

bridges designated for repair may need to be replaced than bridges designated for

replacement to be repaired. The construction contracts will be released over eight to nine

construction seasons. As a result of the corridor-based strategy, the construction will

tend to occur in clusters. The specific bridges and bridge locations are identified in

Appendix A of this Opinion.

The Bridge Program is comprised of four categories of project specific components: (1)

Specific bridge repair and replacement actions, including specific project activities and

elements; (2) conservation and mitigation actions; (3) compliance, communication,

monitoring, and reporting procedures; and (4) performance and design standards related

to each of the above.

The success of this Bridge Program requires the mutual cooperation of each of the

Federal and State governmental agencies, each in its appropriate role, to fund, permit, and

administrate the statewide action. The FHWA is providing Federal funds and is the lead

action agency with the Corps acting as a co-applicant based on the need to consult on the

issuance of a Regional RGP under section 404 of the CWA and section 10 of the RHA.

ODOT led the effort to complete the BA and RGP on behalf of the FHWA and Corps for

the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program and will be the State agency

responsible for ensuring administration of design, implementation, monitoring and

reporting on the progress and compliance of the actual bridge repair and replacements.

2.2 Specific Bridge Repair and Replacement Actions

Specific bridge repair and replacement actions are comprised of different combinations of

bridge repair and replacement elements (Section 2.2.1) depending on the specific project

objective or site conditions. These elements are basic components of bridge related

transportation construction and are first described individually to document the various

mechanisms or pathways for potential affects to listed species or designated critical

habitat.

Because specific bridge repair and replacement elements are often mutually associated

with larger scale or specific bridge repair and replacement activities (Section 2.2.2), these

activities are also individually described as more complex components of bridge related

transportation construction. Depending on nature of these activities, they may also result

in the potential for additive effects to listed species or designated critical habitat.

Each section of specific bridge repair and replacement elements and activities includes a

paragraph titled potential effects. These effects discussions were provided in the BA to
8

familiarize the reader with typical bridge construction effects associated with the specific

elements and activities outside the context of both site-specific project information and

prior to avoidance and minimization measures in the EPS (Section 2.5). Only after

context sensitive consideration and the EPS are applied to design and construction, are

the realized or residual effects of projects and the program as a whole discussed and

analyzed in the Analysis of Effects (Section 4.1.4).

2.2.1 Bridge Repair/Replacement Elements

This section describes the constituents of Bridge Program construction activities. These

elements are referenced throughout the Bridge Repair/Replacement Activities section

(Section 2.2.2) to eliminate repetition of detailed descriptions of common construction

practices and methods. For the same reason, some elements are referenced within the

descriptions for other elements. References to the various construction elements are

printed in italics and include the appropriate section number as it appears in this Opinion

(e.g., pre-construction, Section 2.2.1.1) to direct the reader to the detailed descriptions of

the construction element being discussed.

Table 2-1 is a matrix showing which EPS are applicable to the various bridge elements

discussed in this section. This table provides the reader an “at-a-glance” indication of the

prevalence of various construction methods constraints (i.e., environmental performance

standards) relative to the list of bridge repair and replacement elements. The EPS are

referenced in this section to illustrate the “realized effect” of the various construction

elements.

Table 2-1. Matrix of Bridge Repair / Replacement Elements and Environmental

Performance Standards

2.2.1 Bridge Repair /

Replacement Elements:

2.2.1.1 Preconstruction

2.2.1.2 Clearing

2.2.1.3 E

q

uip

ment

Control2.2.1.4

Construction

Material Contain

ment

2.2.1.5 Earth

work

2.2.1.6 Fou

n

dations

2.2.1.7 In-water Work

2.2.1.8 Road

work

2.2.1.9 Storm

water

Management2.2.1.10 Illu

mination

2.2.1.11 Planting an

d

Seeding

2.2.1.12 E

xclusionary

Devices

2.5 Performance Standards:

Program Administration

1

Species Avoidance x x x x x x x x

Habitat Avoidance x x x x x x x

Water Quality x x x x x x x x x

Site Restoration x x

Compensatory Mitigation

2

Fluvial x x
9

1 The Program Administration environmental performance standard is primarily relevant at the program

scale.

2 The Compensatory Mitigation environmental performance standard is applied as necessary to off set

potential unavoidable long-term adverse effects and thus is primarily relevant at the project scale.

2.2.1.1 Pre-Construction

For the purposes of the proposed action, the pre-construction phase of the project is

defined as consisting of all surveying activities necessary to plan the work required to

construct the project to the lines and grades as shown, specified, or established as

described in ODOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction (ODOT 2002a). Preconstruction activities may involve environmental surveys, flagging, geotechnical

investigations, and hydraulic investigations. Geotechnical drilling and surveying

activities will follow the Terms and Conditions presented in the biological opinion issued

by NOAA Fisheries (2003c). Pre-construction activities will follow the EPS for Species

Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, and Water Quality (Section 2.5).

Surveys

Surveying involves demarcating and flagging boundaries within the project action area

that are important to construction. Some of these areas include environmentally sensitive

areas such as streams or other waterbodies, riparian and wetland areas, and species

habitat areas. Construction activities in these areas are limited in order to minimize and

avoid adverse effects, and are restricted to seasonal periods. Other environmentally

important areas that require surveying and flagging include but are not limited to the

limits of construction, “no-work zones”, clearing and grubbing limits (earthwork, Section

2.2.1.5), erosion control limits, environmental impact mitigation features, settling basins,

waters of the U.S., ordinary high water elevations, and other drainage and water quality

structures and facilities (in-water work, Section 2.2.1.7) (ODOT 2002a).

Geotechnical Investigations

Geotechnical investigations are necessary for any type of construction work that requires

a level of underground stability. For bridge work, geotechnical investigations are

normally needed to determine appropriate designs for bridge foundations. ODOT has

prepared a statewide programmatic biological assessment entitled Programmatic

Consultation for Statewide Drilling, Surveying, and Hydraulic Engineering Activities in

Oregon (ODOT 2002b). Minimization and avoidance of adverse effects from

geotechnical drilling will be accomplished through application of the Terms and

Conditions included in the programmatic Biological Opinion (NOAA Fisheries 2003b)

and EPS developed to minimize and avoid these effects.

Hydraulic Surveys

Hydraulic surveys are critical to a determination of the safety, stability, and long-term

function of any water crossing. Hydraulic measurements that require access to the wetted
10

channel will be completed outside of spawning seasons, or a fisheries biologist will

confirm that no spawning redds are present within the project area. If dye must be used,

surveyors will only use non-toxic vegetable dyes to determine flow patterns; short pieces

of plastic ribbon are prohibited (NOAA Fisheries 2003a).

Potential Effects

The nature and extent of the potential effects of pre-construction activities depend on the

type of activity being performed. Effects associated with ground survey work would

typically be limited to minor vegetation clearing. Geotechnical surveys (drilling) may

contribute sediment-laden fluids to receiving waters, if not properly contained. In-water

surveys, such as hydraulic surveys, could result in physical damage to salmonid redds

(i.e., incidental take) if they are within a project action area and adequate care is not taken

to avoid them or to prevent sedimentation. EPS were developed with the assistance of

the Services during the pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this

consultation to minimize and avoid these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context

sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program dministration,

Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, and

Compensatory Mitigation (Section 2.5).

2.2.1.2 Clearing

The purpose of clearing is to prepare the project action area for construction activities.

Clearing consists of cutting and removing above-ground vegetation such as weeds,

grasses, crops, brush, and trees; removing down timber and other vegetative debris;

preserving trees and other vegetation designated to remain in place; and salvaging

marketable timber (when required by the ODOT Standard Specifications and Special

Provisions) (ODOT 2002a). Clearing is often followed by grubbing (earthwork, Section

2.2.1.5) operations to remove any remaining surface vegetation and buried debris.

Clearing typically requires less ground disturbance than grubbing.

Clearing generally takes place within pre-marked areas in the project action area

necessary for construction purposes. Clearing activities typically take place during

construction staging (equipment control, Section 2.2.1.3), roadwork (Section 2.2.1.8),

and other bridge work. In sensitive areas, clearing would be conducted by hand rather

than with heavy equipment.

Clearing Operations

The contractor is required to cut trees and brush so that they fall into the areas intended to

be cleared (ODOT 2002a). Removal of all evidence of clearing matter and debris is the

responsibility of the contractor. This includes removal of:

• Sod, weeds, and dead vegetation;

• Downed timber, brush, and other vegetation;

• Sticks and branches with diameters greater than 1/2 inch;
11

• Dead trees, downed timber, stumps, and specified trimmings from areas where live

trees and other vegetation are designated to remain.

Potential Effects

The potential effects associated with clearing activities carried out during bridge

replacement and repair vary. Clearing activities are likely to result in some degree of

ground disturbance and compaction, generating the potential for soil erosion, and

consequently, temporary turbidity and sedimentation. Additionally, adverse effects may

result from the loss of large woody material (LWM) recruitment potential. LWM in

channels creates channel complexity and provides refuge habitat for fish, as well as

habitat for macroinvertebrates. Tree loss may allow increased penetration of solar

radiation into streams, potentially increasing water temperatures. Tree removal may also

decrease the amount of available nesting/denning, foraging, and roosting habitat available

to birds and mammals. EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during

the pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and

avoid these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and

constrain potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance,

Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, and Compensatory Mitigation

(Section 2.5).

2.2.1.3 Equipment Control

For the purposes of the proposed action, equipment control includes the proper

maintenance and control of construction equipment in order to minimize the potential for

pollutant leaks and spills. Additionally, equipment control involves the minimization and

avoidance of physical disturbance to the environment resulting from operation of

equipment in sensitive areas such as streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and steep slopes.

Potential Effects

The primary effect associated with the storage and maintenance of construction

equipment on construction sites is the potential for leaks and spills of fuel, hydraulic

fluids, lubricants, and other chemicals from equipment and storage containers.

Additional effects could include soil compaction, ground disturbance, and vegetation loss

in construction staging areas. Discharge of vehicle and equipment wash water, concrete

wash-out, etc. can also add pollutants to the soil that are then delivered to waterways.

EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during the pre-consultation and

technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and avoid these effects.

Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse

effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, and

Water Quality (Section 2.5).

2.2.1.4 Construction Material Containment
12

Construction activities such as bridge demolition, construction, sandblasting, and painting

will inadvertently cause falling debris (such as lead paint chips, sandblasting grit, treated

wood, structural debris, and concrete) that requires containment. The safe storage,

handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes will be conducted as required in ODOT’s

Standard Specifications for Construction (ODOT 2002a).

Debris Containment

Prior to bridge removal, bridge painting, or other activities with the potential for chemical

contamination, debris containment measures will be employed in accordance with the

EPS for Water Quality (Section 2.5). The purpose of debris containment is to prevent

falling material generated during these processes from entering sensitive environments.

Containment measures may include the use of a flexible or rigid material. When

stripping paint from an existing bridge the use of vacuum shrouded tools, in addition to

other containment systems, is normally required under ODOT Standard Specifications for

Construction (ODOT 2002a).

Lead Paint

If the existing paint coating contains a lead component (considered hazardous), the

contractor will take special precautions to contain, recover, and properly dispose of all

waste, including hazardous waste, generated during bridge removal (ODOT 2002a). No

spent abrasive will be allowed to contaminate the aquatic or terrestrial environment. The

contractor will contain and collect waste material in an approved area in the same manner

as if it were a hazardous material (ODOT 2002a). Simple debris containment, as

described above, may be adequate to prevent lead-based paint debris from entering the

aquatic or terrestrial environment. All onsite temporary storage, handling, and labeling

will be in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 262 and 265. The contractor will prevent the

escape of dust or paint, which may create a nuisance or hazard in the vicinity of the

structure. At no time will any debris be allowed to escape into the environment.

Potential Effects

Possible effects associated with contamination by construction materials and debris stem

primarily from the contamination of water and substrate by toxic materials or by debris

falling into water. Debris such as lead-based paint chips and treated wood poses the

threat of chemical contamination, and the improper disposal of waste material is a

potential vector of effects to listed species and habitat. The potential effects of

contamination increase if species occurrence is high. EPS were developed with the

assistance of the Services during the pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of

this consultation to minimize and avoid these effects. Specific EPS which will guide

context sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program

Administration, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, and Compensatory

Mitigation (Section 2.5).
13

2.2.1.5 Earthwork

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, earthwork is defined as work consisting of

excavation, ditching, backfilling, embankment construction, augering disking, ripping,

grading, leveling, borrow, and other earth-moving work required in the construction of

the project (ODOT 2002a). Blasting is also a form of earthwork and as such, it is

addressed in this section.

Earthwork may be conducted as part of the preparation of staging areas, bridge

approaches, alignments, embankments, fills, backfills, foundations, toe trenches, road

grades, utility relocation, falsework, stormwater treatment, ditch construction, bank

stabilization, landscaping, restoration, and mitigation. Earthwork normally requires the

use of mechanical equipment such as tracked excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, and

grading equipment.

Earthwork may also include grubbing, which is the removal of brush stems remaining

above the ground surface after the clearing work, tree stumps, roots, and other vegetation

found below ground surface, as well as partially buried natural objects (ODOT 2002a).

Clearing and grubbing are often required prior to earthwork in order to remove

vegetative and other debris from work areas so that design specifications (e.g., for

compaction) can be met. Within excavation and embankment limits, contractors will

remove tree stumps, roots, and other vegetation. The contractor will remove all

extraneous matter and will dispose of this matter and debris on- or off-site by chipping,

burying, or other methods of proper disposal, excluding burning (ODOT 2002a).

Potential Effects

The effects associated with earthwork activities vary. Turbidity and sedimentation may

result from ground disturbance and soil erosion. Hydraulic effects may result from

instream excavation and fill, potentially altering the hydraulic opening under bridges.

Chemical contamination may occur as a result of fluid spills from mechanized equipment

conducting earthwork activities near waterways and from the time lag between when a

stormwater treatment system is constructed and is operational. Riparian habitat may be

impacted during clearing and grubbing activities that remove vegetation. Although

unlikely, direct effects on listed species may occur as a result of excessive turbidity or

sedimentation during earthwork activities. Indirect effects are more likely to occur, due

to habitat loss. EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during the preconsultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and avoid

these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain

potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat

Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial

(Section 2.5).

Blasting
14

Blasting consists of excavating in rock to achieve smooth, unfractured backslopes and

produce a free surface in the rock along the specified excavation backslope; it can also

involve production blasting to facilitate excavation (ODOT 2002a). Blasting may be an

option during roadwork and bridgework activities. Roadwork may use blasting

techniques to clear obstructions and provide access for new roadways or road

realignments. Bridgework may require blasting during the construction or removal of

bridge abutments.

The effects of blasting include those described for earthwork. Additionally, high noise

levels may affect both terrestrial and aquatic species. Blasting noise may displace birds,

fish, mammals, and other biota. Sound pressure waves produced by blasting can damage

or even kill adult and juvenile fish and damage incubating eggs.

A blasting plan that details the drilling and blasting patterns, the controls the contractor

proposes to use, the timing, and the anticipated noise effects will be prepared. As

specified in ODOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction (2002a), blasting is

prohibited underwater.

The contractor will follow the Species Avoidance EPS (Section 2.5) to minimize or avoid

noise effects and disturbances to wildlife species during blasting. In addition, ground

vibrations will be controlled by using properly designed delay sequences and allowable

charge weights per delay (ODOT 2002a). Additional measures, as appropriate, will

include dampening measures such as blasting mats, or alternatives to blasting such as

expanding compounds. The contractor will monitor each blast with an approved

seismograph and airblast monitoring system according to ODOT Standard Specifications

for Construction (ODOT 2002a).

2.2.1.6 Foundations

Foundations are required elements of every bridge construction and replacement project.

Bridge foundations consist of three general types: 1) Drilled shafts; 2) columns on spread

footings; and 3) driven piles and pile-supported caps or walls. Driven piles by

themselves are normally used to support temporary structures such as detour bridges and

work bridges. However, driven piles are also often used to provide additional support to

spread footings.

Drilled Shafts

Drilled shafts are used where the underlying substrate will provide the necessary endbearing or friction-bearing capacity. Drilled shaft columns are constructed on land or in

water. Shaft drilling is accomplished by placing drilling equipment adjacent to the

column location and drilling through underlying substrates. This may require the

construction of a drill pad using fill materials (placed on the ground) or a work platform

(constructed above ground or over water). Impacts associated with drill pad construction

are described under in-water work (2.2.1.7). Shaft drilling generates a slurry mixture of

water and substrate that can create turbid stream conditions if released to flowing waters.
15

Containment of drilling spoils will utilize a variety of methods (e.g., multiple drill

casings) to meet the environmental performance standard for Water Quality (Section 2.5).

Following shaft drilling, concrete is poured to form the column. Containment of concrete

methods would meet or exceed measures described under equipment control (Section

2.2.1.3) and construction material containment (Section 2.2.1.4) and the Water Quality

EPS (Section 2.5).

Columns on Spread Footings

Spread footings are constructed where substrates are not firm enough to support a bridge

column. Spread footing construction requires excavation (earthwork, Section 2.2.1.5) of

the footing location. If this occurs below the ordinary high water mark (OHW) where

fish are present, then work area isolation, dewatering, and fish capture and release are

required (in-water work, Section 2.2.1.7). Driven piles are often used to provide

additional support for spread footings. Normally, these are driven within an isolation or

containment area, following excavation for the footing. Concrete forms are constructed

and concrete is poured. Containment of green concrete is accomplished according to

equipment control (Section 2.2.1.3) and construction material containment (Section

2.2.1.4) and the Water Quality EPS (Section 2.5)

Driven Piles and Pile Supported Structures

Pile driving is accomplished using one of two methods: impact hammer or vibratory

hammer (NOAA Fisheries 2003a). Typically, harder substrates require the use of impact

hammers, and bearing capacity can only be determined with impact hammers. Pile

driving requires the application of EPS for Species Avoidance (Section 2.5) which

include noise dampening measures and/or timing restrictions (for wildlife avoidance).

Pile-supported caps or retaining walls can be incorporated into bridge design as

abutments (end bents) or as interior bents. These structures will not be constructed

within aquatic habitats where floodplain and fluvial functions would be inhibited as a

result (Fluvial EPS [Section 2.5]). Bent construction of this nature would require pile

driving and concrete work. For some program bridges, blasting may also be required

where foundations must rest on bedrock. Bank stabilization measures such as riprap may

be employed in bridge repair projects conducted as part of the proposed action. Pile

driving and the construction of pile-supported structures will incorporate construction

methods and standards for earthwork (Section 2.2.1.5), equipment control (Section

2.2.1.3), and construction material containment (Section 2.2.1.4).

Potential Effects

The effects associated with bridge foundations can be either temporary (when effects

stemming from the construction process) or permanent (when effects stem from hydraulic

effects and the loss of stream, floodplain, and wetland habitat).
16

Temporary effects are those associated with in-water work (Section 2.2.1.7) activities

necessary to demolish existing structures and construct new ones. These effects are

primarily related to the displacement of streambed materials, which generates turbidity

and sedimentation. Chemical contamination may result from concrete pouring in or near

streams. Noise effects to fish and wildlife species may occur due to pile driving.

Long-term effects may result when there is direct habitat loss due to the footprint of

foundation structures; e.g., if the footprint of the new bridge is larger than that of the one

that it is replacing. Hydraulic effects result when foundation structures alter the flow

dynamics of streams and/or floodplains. EPS were developed with the assistance of the

Services during the pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation

to minimize and avoid these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive

methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species

Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, Compensatory

Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

2.2.1.7 In-water Work

In-water work may take place during many activities associated with bridge replacement

and repair projects. In-water work refers to any project-related action occurring within

aquatic habitat—i.e., below the OHW elevation

1

. The OHW elevation for any bridge

project is demarcated by one of several reference points or areas, but typically refers to

the annually inundated portions of streams, lakes, or wetlands. OHW elevation

boundaries may be defined by channel morphology (e.g., break in slope or bankfull

width), which is readily detectable in the field. This boundary is defined specifically for

each bridge project.

Typical in-water work activities include but are not limited to the following:

• work area isolation;

• flow diversion and rewatering;

• concrete/spread footing removal;

• fish rescue and salvage;

• streambank protection;

• excavation of streambed materials;

• pile driving and removal;

• shaft drilling;

• habitat restoration/creation (streambed construction);

• geotechnical exploration (drilling);

• water pumping and discharge.

The timing of all work within the aquatic habitat will generally correspond with the

preferred in-water work timing guidelines established for specific watersheds incurring

Bridge Program activities. ODOT construction activities will follow timing guidelines

1 OHW elevation is synonamous with the high, high tide elevation in tidally influences systems.
17

established in this consultation to help minimize potential effects to fish, wildlife, and

habitat resources. The preferred in-water work periods are established to avoid the

vulnerable life stages (spawning, rearing, and migration) of fish and other aquatic

species. Specific preferred in-water work periods are listed by drainage in Appendix B.

Alterations of these preferred in-water work periods require written approval by the

Services, because activities conducted outside of these periods may result in changes of

the magnitude or scope of effects that exceed the effects allowed within this Opinion.

Written requests for alteration of specific preferred in-water work periods must

demonstrate through the variance process (Section 2.5) that project specific effects of inwater work outside the preferred in-water work period are within the magnitude and

scope of those analyzed in this Opinion (Section 4.1.4). Any written requests that cannot

demonstrate project specific consistency with the effects analyzed in this Opinion will

require separate individual consultation.

Under the Bridge Program consultation, the following activities are prohibited, unless

approved in writing by the Services:

• Underwater blastin;

• Water jetting;

• Releasing petroleum products or toxic chemicals in the water;

• Disturbing spawning beds;

• Obstructing stream channels;

• Blocking adult and juvenile fish passage.

In-Water Work Area Isolation

The contractor will isolate in-water bridge structures (e.g., bents and abutments) from the

waterbody prior to removal and reconstruction. Work area isolation is normally

accomplished by surrounding in-water work zones with materials that will prevent the

entry of water and that are sturdy enough to withstand the flows likely to be encountered.

Typical materials include sandbags, straw bales, concrete barriers, heavy tarp, sheet

piling, and specially constructed devices such as water-filled bladders, solid barriers or

other coffer dam structures.

Flow Diversion

Streamflow may be diverted in situations where complete isolation is not necessary to

achieve effective isolation from flowing water. This diversion may be accomplished by

placing barrier materials in the channel, encompassing two or more sides of an in-water

work activity. If water is shallow and flows can be sufficiently deflected from the work

area, it can be effectively dewatered without the need for complete isolation, pumping,

and fish capture and release. Sediment control measures must be implemented to prevent

a release of turbid water into downstream areas which would exceed regulated

allowances.
18

Fish Capture and Release

Before (and sometimes during) the dewatering of an isolated in-water work area, an

attempt will be made to capture and release fish from the isolated area using trapping,

seining, electrofishing, or other methods that minimize the risk of injury to fish. A

fisheries biologist experienced with work area isolation and competent to ensure the safe

handling of all ESA-listed fish will conduct or supervise the fish capture and release

operation. If electrofishing equipment is used to capture fish, the capture team will

comply with the most recent NOAA Fisheries-approved electrofishing guidelines

(NOAA Fisheries 2000a), and will handle ESA-listed fish with extreme care, keeping fish

in oxygenated water to the maximum extent possible during seining and transfer

procedures to prevent the added stress of out-of-water handling. Captured fish will be

released in a location that will promote their safe recovery. ESA-listed fish will not be

transferred to anyone except NOAA Fisheries or USFWS personnel, unless otherwise

approved in writing by the Services. Site specific post-capture and release report forms

will be completed and submitted as necessary to the Services and/or appropriate

authority.

Streambank Protection

Riprap is often used for streambank and stormwater treatment outfall protection where

water velocities or safety considerations prevent the use of natural vegetation or seeding.

Riprap may be used as ballast to anchor or stabilize large woody material (LWM), to

construct flow-redirection structures to fill scour holes, and to protect existing structures

that will be repaired. Riprap provides an erosion-resistant cover for protecting slopes and

basins. ODOT Standard Specifications for Construction (2002a) detail techniques for the

preparation of slopes prior to placing riprap. Retaining walls provide another form of

streambank protection. These are typically concrete and/or mechanically stabilized earth.

Permanent replacement structures will not incorporate riprap or retaining walls. Riprap,

as a method of streambank protection, will only be allowed to replace existing armored

banks (as outlined in the Habitat Avoidance, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial EPS

[Section 2.5]) and with repair of existing bridges under this consultation. Retaining

walls, as a method of streambank protection, will only be allowed above the ordinary

high water elevation with repair of existing bridges.

Streambank protection may also be achieved by bioengineering techniques that utilize

live vegetative material to provide stability. Additionally, habitat elements such as root

wads and logs may be incorporated into streambank protection designs. The Habitat

Avoidance EPS (Section 2.5) will be applied to minimize and avoid adverse effects

associated with riprap.

Streambed Excavation

Heavy equipment may be used to excavate and remove streambed material (e.g., for the

placement of spread footings or the addition of riprap). Work area isolation will be
19

implemented prior to any streambed excavation unless it can be demonstrated that work

area isolation will cause more resource harm that the excavation activity.

Pile Driving and Removal

See Foundations (Section 2.2.1.6).

Shaft Drilling

See Foundations (Section 2.2.1.6).

Geotechnical Drilling

The methods, minimization and avoidance measures, and effects associated with

geotechnical drilling are incorporated by reference to the Programmatic Biological

Opinion entitled Federal Highway Administrations’ Programmatic Consultation for

Statewide Drilling, Surveying, and Hydraulic Engineering Activities in Oregon (NOAA

Fisheries 2003b).

Pumping and Discharge

The pumping and discharge of sediment-laden water or fluids is often required during inwater work area isolation and earthwork where groundwater may be encountered.

Sediment-laden water must be allowed to clear before it can re-enter any waters of the

U.S. Normally, turbid water is pumped to upland settling ponds where it may infiltrate

through the soil prior to reentry to waterways. Alternatively, sediment-laden water may

be allowed to sheet flow over vegetated ground, or may be pumped into tanks and hauled

off-site for proper disposal.

Pumps may be required to dewater the work isolation area. When the pumps are

required, the intake(s) will be screened, operated, and installed following NOAA

Fisheries screening criteria. The pump system will be monitored during periods of

operation and an operational backup pump will be available on site for rapid deployment.

Potential Effects

By its nature, in-water work can have a wide variety of effects. Ground-disturbing work

below the ordinary high water level (and outside the wetted channel) may still contribute

to turbidity and sedimentation, chemical contamination, vegetation loss, and soil

compaction. Project activities requiring equipment operating in or near the water may

increase the potential for fluid leaks and spills, potentially contaminating soils and water.

Work within the wetted channel often requires work area isolation and containment, fish

capture and release, the pumping and discharge of sediment-laden water, and the return

of pumped water.
20

Streambank protection hardens and simplifies stream channels, sometimes creating

conditions more conducive to non-native piscivorous fish than to native species. It also

can result in a long-term loss of riparian vegetation and habitat development. EPS were

developed with the assistance of the Services during the pre-consultation and technical

assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and avoid these effects. Specific EPS

which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects

include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality,

Site Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

2.2.1.8 Roadwork

Roadwork may include temporary access or maintenance roads, detour routes, roadway

removal and construction for bridge approaches, and the replacement or installation of

guardrails and barriers. Elements such as clearing (Section 2.2.1.2), earthwork (Section

2.2.1.5), and wearing surfaces would be incorporated into roadwork. Blasting may be

required at certain bridge sites.

Temporary Access Roads

Temporary access roads within riparian areas are constructed by clearing (Section

2.2.1.2) vegetation, grading as described under earthwork (Section 2.2.1.5), and placing

aggregate rock as specified in ODOT’s Standard Specifications and Special Provisions

(ODOT 2002a).

Roadway Removal

Culverts, sewers, siphons, and other conduits will be removed according to ODOT’s

Standard Specifications and Special Provisions (ODOT 2002a). Roadway excavations

include, but are not limited to bridge approaches. Roadway removal also follows similar

practices as earthwork.

Roadway Alterations

Within the roadbed cross section, the contractor will trim, shape, and finish the subgrade, ditches, slopes, and other graded surface areas to the lines, grades, cross sections,

and condition specified. Outside the new roadbed cross section, the contractor will

obliterate existing roadway surfaces by removing existing paved surfaces, and then will

loosen, break up, and spread the existing bases and blend them into the adjacent terrain

(ODOT 2002a).

Wearing Surfaces

Different wearing surfaces may be laid as the last step to finalizing roadway surfaces.

Depending on the function or purpose of the roadway, wearing surfaces such as gravel

may be used for temporary roads (e.g., detour and access routes), whereas an asphalt

surface will be laid for permanent roadways and bridge approaches.
21

Guardrail Installation

Guardrail construction may require augering (earthwork [Section 2.2.1.5]), hydraulic

punching, or impact/vibratory hammers for installation of posts. This activity will occur

outside flood-prone areas, but may occur at the top of embankments adjacent to

waterways and wetlands.

Potential Effects

The effects of roadwork vary. Roadway removal and roadbed preparation generally

require ground disturbance, which can cause erosion, turbidity, and sedimentation in

receiving streams. If the project includes new road construction or roadway widening,

vegetation removal (clearing) may be required. New and wider roads also generate new

impervious surfaces, which increase stormwater runoff, which subsequently affects the

hydrologic regimes and water quality in receiving waterways. Wider roadways located

near waterways may require additional bank armoring or scour protection, which can lead

to channel simplification and loss of habitat. Paving can introduce toxic substances to

waterways. Construction of temporary access roads can result in soil compaction and

reduced permeability. EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during the

pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and

avoid these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and

constrain potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance,

Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and

Fluvial (Section 2.5).

2.2.1.9 Stormwater Management

All program bridges will require stormwater management. Existing bridges are often

equipped with deck drains to convey stormwater from the structures; deck drains (i.e.,

scuppers) usually allow stormwater runoff to fall directly onto streambanks and

waterways. Replacement bridge designs will eliminate the use of deck drains, in favor of

systems that promote some level of stormwater treatment prior to discharge to

waterways. Favored systems will be those that require minimal maintenance, such as

bioswales and wide-bottomed ditches. These systems tend to promote infiltration of pretreated stormwater, which allows pollutant treatment via biological activity and runoff

retention. Other possible systems include engineered facilities such as detention ponds

and water quality manholes. Engineered facilities will be designed to meet the Water

Quality EPS (Section 2.5).

Stormwater treatment systems will convey such large volumes of runoff that complete

infiltration may not be possible. In such cases, stormwater must be conveyed to ditches

or streams. Outfalls must be constructed so that they do not create erosion problems at

the point of discharge. Stormwater outfalls will be constructed above the OHW

elevation, but scour protection may be required below the OHW elevation, where
22

unavoidable. Construction methods presented under clearing (Section 2.2.1.2),

earthwork (Section 2.2.1.5), and sometimes in-water work (Section 2.2.1.7) may be

necessary to construct adequate drainage ways, ditches, and engineered facilities for

sufficient stormwater management.

Potential Effects

The effects of stormwater treatment are primarily beneficial, though there may be some

adverse short-term effects resulting from the necessary earthwork (Section 2.2.1.5) and

in-water-work (Section 2.2.1.7) activities. EPS were developed with the assistance of the

Services during the pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation

to minimize and avoid these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive

methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Habitat

Avoidance, Water Quality, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

The long-term objective of stormwater management is an improvement in water quality

and quantity, with possible reduction in peak flows (where detention is also a function of

the facility) and enhanced summer base flow (where infiltration is also a function of the

facility). This can aid in a return to more natural water quality conditions and channelforming processes in watersheds where the new facilities occur.

2.2.1.10 Illumination

The use of lighting to illuminate project work involves activities related to furnishing and

installing highway illumination and traffic signal projects. In the case of low light

situations, lighting may be required in order to conduct construction activities, especially

during the evening and nighttime hours.

Potential Effects

Lighting is typically staged on the roadway and/or at other staging areas. It may interfere

with the normal patterns of fish and wildlife species, especially during the nighttime

hours. EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during the preconsultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and avoid

these effects (e.g., limited operating periods). Specific EPS which will guide context

sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program

Administration and Species Avoidance (Section 2.5).

2.2.1.11 Planting and Seeding

Planting will include area preparation; the selection and application of topsoil, soil

conditioners, bio-amendments, and mulch; plant selection and placement; and watering.

Planting typically takes place to offset project effects, to stabilize slopes and control

erosion, and/or to provide aesthetics. Planting usually takes place at the project action

area—or in the case of certain projects, at a planned offsite location. After planting,

exclusionary devices (Section 2.2.1.12) such as browse protectors, tree stakes and ties, or
23

trunk wrap may be used to protect plants (ODOT 2002a). Planting occurs when the

following earthwork (Section 2.2.1.5) measures are complete:

• The tops of cutbanks are blended with the adjacent terrain.

• All roadbeds, ditches, waterway channels, and other excavations and embankments

are trimmed and finished to the lines, grades, and cross sections established.

• Debris and foreign matter of all kinds are cleaned up on the entire right-of-way area,

and disposed of as directed.

• Sub-grade is finished to a tolerance of plus or minus 3/4 inch and is free of ruts,

depressions, and irregularities.

• Rocks, boulders, and vegetative matter are removed as needed in planting and seeding

areas.

Seeding includes all associated tasks to develop plant growth for erosion control,

environmental mitigation, and roadside development. Affected areas can encompass the

area within construction limits, including the in-water work (Section 2.2.1.7) area (e.g.,

wetland and riparian areas) and staging areas.

Potential Effects

Planting activities require ground disturbance (earthwork [Section 2.2.1.5]). Ground

preparation for planting and seeding can affect water quality by generating turbidity and

sedimentation. The importation of soil and other material can introduce seeds of nonnative plant species that could compete with native plants. Fertilizers will not be applied

within 50 feet of any stream channel and herbicides will not be applied within 150 feet of

any stream channel. EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during the

pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and

avoid these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and

constrain potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Water Quality, Site

Restoration, and Compensatory Mitigation (Section 2.5).

2.2.1.12 Exclusionary Devices

Exclusionary devices are intended to prevent fish, wildlife, and domestic livestock from

entering active construction areas or restoration and mitigation areas. Such devices

include fences, netting, hazing devices (such as those designed to prevent bird nesting on

bridge structures), and management plans, such as the continuous removal of unfinished

nests. Exclusionary devices are normally used during the staging, restoration, or

maintenance phases of a construction project, but may also be used in the spring, prior to

any construction activity, to prevent migratory bird nesting or bat colonizing on bridges.

Hazing devices such as propane cannons may be used to prevent bird nesting where

netting is not feasible. During staging, fences may be erected to increase public safety on

site, as a means of erosion and sediment control, to exclude “no-work” areas, and/or to

protect vegetation. During the restoration or maintenance phases of construction, fences

may be constructed to protect seeding or planting areas in the early stages of plant

establishment.
24

Potential Effects

Fence installation requires minor ground disturbance, which may contribute loose soil to

waterways, thus generating temporary turbidity and possible sedimentation. Wildlife and

fish passage may be hindered if improperly installed fences or other exclusionary devices

block migratory corridors. The use of hazing devices could generate noise-related effects

to nesting birds. EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during the preconsultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and avoid

these effects. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain

potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat

Avoidance, and Water Quality (Section 2.5).

2.2.2 Bridge Repair/Replacement Activities

Bridge repair and replacement activities are grouped under four primary phases common

to most bridge repair and replacement projects: (1) Design; (2) pre-construction; (3)

construction; and (4) post-construction site restoration and maintenance

2

. Bridge repair

projects may not always include the fourth phase if the repair work involved no grounddisturbing activities. The design phase occurs prior to any on-the-ground preconstruction or construction activity. Decisions made in the design phase strongly

influence the long-term effects of a bridge replacement or repair project. The activities

that constitute the latter three (construction) phases primarily account for short-term or

acute effects of the bridge replacement and repair process. The construction phases are

made up of the various elements described in Section 2.2.1 which will be referenced (in

italics) in this discussion to provide the necessary detail regarding construction methods,

potential effects, and the applicable EPS presented in Section 2.5. Table 2-2 presents a

matrix showing which bridge repair/replacement elements are included in the various

bridge repair/replacement activities discussed in this section. This table is intended to

give the reader an “at-a-glance” indication of the prevalence of various construction

methods and procedures (i.e., elements) relative to the bridge repair/replacement

activities. The EPS (Section 2.5) are referenced in the Bridge Repair/Replacement

Elements (Section 2.2.1) to illustrate the “realized effect” of the various construction

elements.

There are typically a variety of methods and materials available for completing any given

project element. The following is an outline of the aforementioned phases and activities

of a bridge replacement project, along with a brief discussion of the biologically

significant elements (i.e., those with the potential to affect species or habitat in the shortor long-term) and/or available options. Bridge repair projects are not discussed

individually because nearly any repair activity, with some exceptions, could also be

carried out during a bridge replacement. Therefore, repair activities are primarily

addressed in the discussion of bridge replacement.

2 This does not include maintenance of the structure, rather of the vegetation plantings and other habitat

elements.
25

Table 2-2. Matrix of Bridge Repair / Replacement Activities and Elements

2.2.1 Bridge Repair / Replacement Elements:

2.2.2 Bridge Repair /

Replacement Activities:

2.2.2.1 Design

2.2.2.2 Preconstruction

2.2.2.3 Construction

Construction an

d

Traffic

StagingBridge Removal

2.2.2.4

Bridge Construction

2.2.2.5 Site Restoration

2.2.2.6 Maintenance

2.2.1.1 Preconstruction x

2.2.1.2 Clearing x x

X

2.2.1.3 Equipment Control x x x

X

2.2.1.4 Construction Material

Containment

x

X

2.2.1.5 Earthwork x x x

X x x

2.2.1.6 Foundations

X

2.2.1.7 In-water Work x x

X x

2.2.1.8 Roadwork x

X

2.2.1.9 Stormwater Management

X

2.2.1.10 Illumination

X

2.2.1.11 Planting and Seeding x x

2.2.1.12 Exclusionary Devices x x

There are some activities that will occur during bridge repair that will not be allowed as

part of any bridge replacement project. Therefore, some bridge repair activities will have

greater potential adverse effects on habitat than would be allowed for a bridge

replacement. Such an activity may include scour protection in the form of riprap placed

in proximity to an existing bridge structure. This may require in-water work and

placement of temporary structures in aquatic habitat. Most the time, bridge repair

activities will consist of repairs to parts of the structure that will not require access via

sensitive habitat areas, and thus the potential for temporary effects is low with most

repair activities. Long-term effects may be realized from repair activities because the

overall configuration of repaired bridges will not change. For instance, the number of

bents located in flowing water will not be reduced as part of a bridge repair project, as it

may be for a replacement project. Therefore, the long-term effect of bridge repair may be

the maintenance of the status quo, which may prolong or intensify a habitat-limiting

condition until replacement is necessary.

2.2.2.1 Design

The design phase determines the overall configuration (i.e., number of spans, alignment,

hydraulic opening, etc.) of a bridge and thus has the greatest implications regarding its

long-term effects. The EPS will act as guiding principles in the design phase of the

Bridge Program in order to avoid adverse effects, where possible, to listed species and
26

their habitat. Where complete avoidance of adverse effects is not possible, the standards

will be applied in such a way as to minimize potential adverse effects, with the goal of

avoiding or offsetting any remaining long-term adverse effects to listed species and their

habitat. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain potential

adverse effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance,

Water Quality, Site Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

2.2.2.2 Pre-construction

The on-site pre-construction phase of a project consists of two primary activities: project

development surveys and geotechnical investigations. Project development surveys may

include hydraulic investigations, environmental surveys (e.g., wetland delineations), and

boundary and topographic surveys. These activities are necessary for project design,

right-of-way acquisition, and permitting, and therefore must be completed in advance of

any construction activity. Elements of pre-construction that may influence the type and

degree of the project’s effects on listed species and habitat include earthwork, in-water

work, and equipment control. Some bridge replacement projects may also require that

exclusionary devices be employed to prevent nesting on bridges by migratory birds. Preconstruction activities will be conducted in accordance with the EPS which have been

developed with the assistance of the Services during the pre-consultation and technical

assistance phases of this consultation. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive

methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species

Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, and Compensatory

Mitigation (Section 2.5).

2.2.2.3 Construction

The construction phase of a project typically involves four major activities: 1)

Construction and traffic staging; 2) bridge removal; 3) bridge construction; and 4) site

restoration. Each activity contains essential elements specific to each project. Under

each activity, various available options may be implemented as directed by project plans

and specifications.

Construction and Traffic Staging. Construction staging consists of site preparation in

advance of primary construction activities. This includes the movement of materials and

equipment to the project site and the establishment of areas to be used for construction

management, equipment and material storage, and maintenance and refueling. Staging

activities also include the preparation and installation of environmental controls (e.g.,

erosion control measures), access road construction, and utility relocation. In addition,

detour routes and/or structures will be constructed during the staging phase. Staging

areas will be located so as to minimize effects to, and prevent delivery of sediment and

other pollutants to, sensitive resources (e.g., water, wetlands, and riparian areas).

Detour routes, where necessary, will consist of either temporary bridges and roads or the

use of existing roadway. Temporary bridges are normally constructed alongside existing

structures to minimize the amount of new roadway that must be constructed. Temporary
27

bridges are usually constructed of timber or steel pile substructures and timber decks or

concrete beams overlaid with asphalt. Temporary roadway realignment is necessary to

route traffic from existing roadway to the detour bridge and will typically require

clearing, earthwork, and roadwork. Use of existing roadways as detours will sometimes

require upgrades such as widening and/or resurfacing.

These activities will occur before initiation of primary construction activities. The

elements of construction staging that influence the type and degree of the project’s effects

on listed species and habitat include clearing, earthwork, roadwork, and equipment

control. Construction and traffic staging activities will be conducted in accordance with

the EPS (Section 2.5) which have been developed with the assistance of the Services

during the pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation. Specific

EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects

include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality,

Site Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

Bridge Removal. Bridge removal (demolition) occurs prior to construction on most

bridge replacement projects; it involves removal and disposal of the existing

superstructure and substructure (foundations and supports). Elements of bridge removal

that influence the type and degree of the project’s effects on listed species and habitat

include in-water work, construction material containment, earthwork, and equipment

control.

In-water work (Section 2.2.1.7) is one of the main activities during bridge removal that

requires conservation measures to limit adverse effects. Various types of in-water work

include flow diversion, work area isolation, fish capture and handling, pile driving, pile

removal, shaft drilling, excavation, and backfill. Downstream fish passage will always be

maintained during in-water work activities. Construction material containment is a

critical precursor to bridge removal, particularly if the debris will potentially include

treated wood or lead-based paint, both of which must be handled in accordance with the

Water Quality EPS (Section 2.5). Equipment control is essential during bridge removal

due to the frequent need to operate heavy equipment near or in a waterbody while

excavating substructure components or demolishing the superstructure. Earthwork is

required during excavation of bridge approaches, abutments, and piers where their

location might conflict with the new structure or with normative fluvial processes. All

bridge removal activities described above will be conducted in accordance with the EPS

which have been developed with the assistance of the Services during the preconsultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation. Specific EPS which

will guide context sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects include

Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site

Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

2.2.2.4 Bridge Construction

Bridges constructed under the proposed action will be built using a wide variety of

configurations, methods, and standards. For the purposes of this consultation, the bridge
28

construction process is divided into four major categories. These include: 1)

Substructure construction; 2) superstructure construction; 3) approach construction

(roadwork); and 4) and site restoration.

Elements common to all aspects of bridge construction include clearing, earthwork,

roadwork, foundation, in-water work, equipment control, and construction material

containment. Clearing, earthwork, and roadwork may be required to create work space

and to construct access roads as well as for bridge and roadway widening for safety

upgrades. Earthwork is also normally required in order to excavate abutment and footing

locations. Blasting, a component of earthwork, may be required for substructure and

roadway construction in bedrock substrates. No underwater blasting will occur as part of

the proposed action. Falsework or temporary work bridges may be required during

substructure and superstructure construction. In-water work will be required for nearly

all multi-span bridges over water and for single-span bridges with substructures located

within the aquatic environment. In-water work activities include flow diversion, work

area isolation, water pumping, fish rescue/salvage, shaft drilling, pile driving, bank

stabilization (e.g., riprap placement). A method of handling and treating waste water

generated during construction (e.g., during pile driving, shaft drilling, and work area

isolation and dewatering) will be necessary and is outlined under in-water work. In the

case of low-light situations, the project will require illumination in order to facilitate

construction activities, especially during the evening and nighttime hours.

Substructure. Bridge substructure configurations are among the most variable

components of the overall project. The number of spans and support structures a bridge

will have largely determines its potential for effects on aquatic species and their habitat.

An objective of the bridge program is to reduce the influence of the structure on

normative fluvial processes, which is commonly achieved via a reduction in the number

of spans on a given bridge, thereby reducing the number of in-water support structures.

The type of support structures designed for a bridge is also a major factor in the level of

short-term effects as well as in the long-term influence the structure will exert on fluvial

dynamics. For example, drilled shaft columns are preferred to spread footings because

they require a smaller overall footprint. However, bridges included in the proposed

action will be designed using various combinations of the configurations described

below, so long as they are in compliance with the goals and objectives outlined in the

EPS. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain potential

adverse effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance,

Water Quality, Site Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

Bridge foundations are of four general types: drilled shafts, spread footings, driven piles,

and pile-supported caps or walls. Driven piles by themselves are typically used to

support temporary structures such as detour bridges, work bridges, and falsework.

However, in some systems, driven piles are used to support spread footings, and are

always tied together with a pile cap or beam. Permanent bridges will most often employ

either spread footings or drilled shafts as their means of support. Construction of the

various substructure types involves a variety of elements including in-water work,

foundations, equipment control (particularly noise attenuation for protection of fish and
29

wildlife), earthwork, and construction material containment. All bridge substructure

construction activities will be conducted in accordance with the EPS (Section 2.5) which

have been developed with the assistance of the Services during the pre-consultation and

technical assistance phases of this consultation. Specific EPS which will guide context

sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program

Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration,

Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

Superstructure. The bridge superstructure consists primarily of the horizontal structural

members and deck. Additionally, the superstructure will include the wearing surface

(including striping), guardrails, illumination (deck lighting), and a drainage system.

Bridge superstructures are typically one of two possible designs: box beam or solid beam

girders. Both systems are often pre-cast or steel, thus, avoiding the need to pour large

quantities of concrete on site. With each of these systems, the structural members often

constitute the deck. However, in some cases, long beams and bridge decks are cast-inplace, requiring that green concrete be hauled to the site, then poured and cured in place,

often over water, but always with containment systems. Therefore, construction material

containment, and equipment control are key elements of superstructure construction.

Construction of bridge superstructures often requires the use of temporary work bridges

and falsework. Temporary work bridges are needed to support construction equipment,

while falsework provides direct support to the structure while under construction. Both

systems require construction prior to superstructure construction, and are often

constructed during staging. Typical elements of this work are in-water work, pile

driving, equipment control, and construction material containment.

Bridge plans require an approved method of stormwater management. Stormwater

treatment systems often must be able to convey such large volumes of runoff that

complete infiltration is not possible. In such cases, stormwater must be conveyed to

ditches or streams. Outfalls must be constructed so that they do not create erosion

problems at the point of discharge. Stormwater outfalls are usually constructed above the

OHW, but scour protection may be required below the OHW. Construction processes

presented under clearing, earthwork, streambank protection, and sometimes in-water

work will be necessary to construct adequate drainage ways, ditches, and engineered

facilities for sufficient stormwater treatment.

The final element of superstructure construction is normally signing, striping, guardrail,

and pedestrian walkway construction. Striping requires the application of paint to bridge

and roadway surfaces. Construction material containment measures are commonly

required to prevent delivery of hazardous materials to waterways. Guardrails are

typically constructed of steel which is bolted onto the structure, or concrete which may

consist of pre-fabricated barriers set in place or cast-in-place barriers. Attachment of

steel rails or construction of cast-in-place concrete rails may generate dust and/or green

concrete which must be contained as described under construction material containment.
30

Guardrails constructed along bridge approaches often consist of driven guardrail posts

which may require noise control measures described under equipment control.

All superstructure construction activities will be conducted in accordance with the EPS

which have been developed with the assistance of the Services during the preconsultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation. Specific EPS which

will guide context sensitive methods and constrain potential adverse effects include

Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site

Restoration, Compensatory Mitigation, and Fluvial (Section 2.5).

2.2.2.5 Site Restoration

A site restoration plan will be developed and implemented as necessary to ensure that all

streambanks, soils, and vegetation disturbed by project activities are cleaned up and

restored in accordance with the EPS for Site Restoration (Section 2.5). The goal of the

restoration plan is to renew habitat and to enhance water quality and the production of

habitat elements, including ecosystem processes that form and maintain productive

ecosystems. Activities in the plan may include streambank shaping (earthwork),

revegetation (seeding and planting), and fencing (exclusionary devices). As with other

aspects of bridge construction projects, equipment control will be important to prevent

contamination of sensitive resources (e.g., water, wetlands, and riparian areas) by

construction equipment.

The prepared plan will designate the managing party, and will contain baseline

information (e.g., watershed analysis, land-use planning), goals and objectives,

performance standards, work plan, and a five-year monitoring and maintenance plan.

EPS will require the establishment of vigorous native plant growth (capable of competing

with non-native species), plant community diversity, minimal bare soil, and soil

stabilization. In addition to the 5-year monitoring plan, annual monitoring will take place

until the Agency has certified that EPS have been achieved. All planting plans prepared

for construction activities conducted under this consultation will be approved by a

Landscape Architect registered in the State of Oregon.

Disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched with a permanent erosion control mix.

Disturbed riparian areas will be replanted with a diverse assemblage of native shrubs and

trees, as appropriate to the site conditions. No herbicide application will be allowed

within 150 feet of waters of the U.S. and no surface applied fertilizer (i.e., fertilizer

tablets may be approved) will be applied within 50-feet of streams.

Site restoration activities will be conducted in accordance with the EPS which have been

developed with the assistance of the Services during the pre-consultation and technical

assistance phases of this consultation. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive

methods and constrain potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species

Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, and Site Restoration (Section 2.5).
31

2.2.2.6 Site Restoration Maintenance

During the life of a construction contract, which normally includes a period of time

following the completion of primary construction activities, contractors will be

responsible for the maintenance of project features and site restoration measures.

Contractors will replace failed plantings in site restoration areas, and may be required to

modify the grading of the mitigation area to ensure that a properly functioning condition

is achieved. Erosion problems will also be corrected where necessary. Any damage to

facilities due to construction-related actions or natural events such as flooding will also

be corrected by construction contractors. Maintenance of project areas will normally

require earthwork and planting and seeding to regrade and stabilize areas of localized

erosion. In-water work may also be required if structures become susceptible to scour

3

.

The ongoing maintenance activities of the structures are not addressed in this

consultation.

All maintenance activities addressed under the Bridge Program consultation will be

conducted in accordance with the EPS which have been developed with the assistance of

the Services during the pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this

consultation. Specific EPS which will guide context sensitive methods and constrain

potential adverse effects include Program Administration, Species Avoidance, Habitat

Avoidance, Water Quality, and Site Restoration (Section 2.5).

2.3 Conservation and Mitigation Program

The Bridge Program will include mitigation and conservation plans and actions to

identify and implement habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement as appropriate.

These actions are intended not only to compensate for unavoidable impacts of bridge

projects to species, habitats, and resource sites, but to achieve a “net conservation

benefit” consistent with ODOT’s stewardship principles. As such, the mitigation and

conservation actions allow the Bridge Program to support both 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) ESA

objectives for listed species, and to achieve compliance related to broader habitat and

resource concerns under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, section 404 of the Clean

Water Act, and the Oregon Removal/Fill law. Conservation priorities will be developed,

the most effective actions will be identified and targeted, and integrated consideration of

issues related to all applicable resources and regulations will occur. Methodologies for

measuring, tracking, and accounting for implementation and performance of mitigation

and conservation actions will also be developed.

For the purposes of the ESA, the Services consider all compensatory mitigation efforts to

conserve threatened and endangered species as a major component of the proposed action

that will improve the environmental baseline and offset unavoidable incidental take of

species covered in this Opinion. The USFWS guidance for establishment, use, and

operation of conservation banks acknowledges this incentive-based approach to

endangered species conservation (68 FR 24753).

3 This refers predominately to repaired facilities because the fluvial performance standards allow no

supplemental scour protection for new or replaced structures.
32

Conservation priorities will be developed based on this premise and the most effective

actions will be identified, targeted, and integrated consistent with all applicable resources

and regulations, including but not limited to the ESA, FWCA, CWA, RHA, Oregon

Removal/Fill law, the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21), the CETAS Charter

Agreement (CETAS 2001), and appropriate USFWS mitigation policies and guidelines.

Those laws and policies that do not directly apply to threatened and endangered species,

for the purpose of this Opinion, are considered to help define the proposed action in a

way as to benefit listed and non-listed species and their habitats.

The Bridge Program facilitated development of a Comprehensive Mitigation and

Conservation Strategy (CMCS) to achieve these goals. The CMCS is also expected to

help identify impacts and potential avoidance or compensation measures for other

projects undertaken by ODOT in the future. While the specific habitat actions associated

with future projects are not part of the Bridge Program or this Opinion, the CMCS

framework for those projects, including the guidelines, objectives, and principles that will

shape them, are being developed concurrent with the Bridge Program. Therefore, the

broad, long-term conservation benefits that are expected to accrue from the CMCS are at

least partially attributable to the Bridge Program and are given consideration in this

Opinion. These long-term benefits will supplement and complement the habitat

protection and enhancement actions directly associated with the Bridge Program, thereby

increasing benefits to a number of key species and habitats in Oregon. Any specific

CMCS actions only associated with future projects beyond the Bridge Program will be

evaluated separately from this Opinion with regard to potential effects on listed species or

their habitats.

Ongoing development and long-term implementation of the CMCS will be subject to

collaboration between ODOT, the Services, FHWA, ODFW, the Corps, and other

agencies. The remainder of section 2.3 will describe some expectations and guidelines

for application of mitigation and conservation actions and the CMCS to the Bridge

Program. Additional information and conditions are contained in the Draft CMCS

Program Manual (ODOT 2004b) and Section 2.5 (Environmental Performance

Standards) of this Opinion.

2.3.1 Application of Mitigation Actions to the Bridge Program

ODOT will mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and water resources as required

under the CWA and the Oregon Removal/Fill laws and will implement additional actions

to address impacts to listed species. The types and scope of compensatory mitigation

provided will be based on a functional assessment of adverse effects and replacement of

equivalent functional value. It will also be based on the use of “correction” factors to

accommodate the risk of failure associated with some habitat projects and in recognition

of the long periods of time sometimes necessary for successful habitat projects to provide

desired function and conditions.
33

The Compensatory Mitigation (Section 2.5) of the Bridge Repair and Replacement

Environmental Performance Standards describes how project specific mitigation actions

will be planned and conducted for most species and resources. With respect to Bull trout,

short-nose and Lost River suckers, Oregon chub, marbled murrelet, bald eagle, northern

spotted owl, and Fender’s blue butterfly, the mitigation planning and actions described in

section 2.5 will be implemented at the program level, with the habitat quantities listed in

amount and extent of take subsection of the incidental take statement (Section 4.2.1)

serving as pre-identified targets for function-based habitat protection, restoration, or

enhancement actions. While it is likely that these loss projections are an overestimate for

some species, ODOT will retain these projections as targets for its habitat actions as a

means of providing a benefit above and beyond that necessary to simply offset actual

adverse impacts. In accordance with section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA, ODOT will

develop program level conservation targets to provide habitat based on one of three

methods, whichever results in greater function and conservation value for a given species.

Greater function and conservation value does not necessarily mean greater quantity of

habitat but considers additional factors such as quality, location, distribution, and extent

of long-term management protection and management. The three methods for

determining program level conservation targets are listed below in order of preference.

a. Estimates of permanent and temporary loss totals listed in the amount and

extent of take subsection of this Opinion, regardless of actual loss; or

b. An interagency collaborative approach developed through the CMCS that

properly addresses issues associated with uncertainty of success, timelags, and achievement of net conservation benefit.

c. Actual permanent and temporary loss totals as determined during

implementation, and modified as follows:

• 1.5:1 mitigation to impact ratio to accommodate risk—for impacts to

marginal or low quality habitat;

• 2:1 mitigation to impact ratio to accommodate risk—for impacts to

higher quality habitat;

• Additional time-dependency ratio based on time required to achieve

desired future condition through mitigation, regardless of

condition/quality of impacted habitat (1.5:1 for 5-10 yrs, 2:1 for 10-20

yrs, 2.5:1 for 20-30 yrs, 3:1 for 30-40 yrs, 4:1 for 40-50 yrs, and 5;1

for > 50yrs).

Exceptions to the above standards will apply for marbled murrelet and

northern spotted owl. For these species, the habitat targets provided will

be based on the actual permanent and temporary loss totals determined

during implementation, the above risk correction ratios, and the timedependency ratios not to exceed 2.5:1.
34

Determinations about which of these options to use will occur collaboratively between

ODOT, the Services, and other entities, and will be subject to concurrence from the

Services. Decisions must ensure the program meets the goal of net conservation benefit

by providing on-ground benefits to these species and their habitats that are greater than

necessary to simply compensate for cumulative project-level impacts. The increment of

“surplus” benefit is anticipated to be sufficient to advance recovery and conservation

goals by providing a meaningful improvement in the size, distribution, and productivity

of species populations, or in amount, distribution, and quality of habitats relative to that

which existed prior to implementation of the Bridge Program.

All mitigation actions associated with the Bridge Program will comply with the USFWS’

Conservation Banking for Threatened and Endangered Species (68 FR 24753), and the

Corps’ Regulatory Guidance Letter on Compensatory Mitigation (USACE 2002) for

compliance with the CWA, as appropriate.

2.3.2 Application of the CMCS to the Bridge Program

Specific methodologies for developing conservation priorities, refining estimates of

impacts, and identifying and targeting appropriate mitigation actions are under

development. The CMCS may assist in these efforts. It could also help identify

opportunities to achieve higher-priority conservation objectives through trade-offs

between various mitigation and conservation actions. Such issues will be addressed

through the CMCS process, consultation with the Services and other CMCS stakeholders,

consideration of conservation objectives contained in recovery plans and other formal

conservation strategies, and in accordance with applicable policies and regulations. In

general, the greatest benefits will be realized by species/resources most impacted by

projects (in terms of amount and/or significance of impact) and by those most “at-risk”

within the subject ecoregion

Development and application of the CMCS has not yet resulted in identification of

specific priorities or projects for meeting the habitat targets in the amount and extent of

take subsection of this Opinion. However, ongoing discussions between ODOT, the

USFWS, and other species experts have provided a reasonable expectation of priorities

for some species and regions, especially in the Willamette Valley Ecoprovince. To date,

ODOT anticipates that the following specific projects will be subject to additional

feasibility studies:

• Camas Swale (ODOT) – Approximately 25 acres in Lane County. This site is

contiguous with an existing ODOT mitigation project and has wetland and riparian

habitat resources, including Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU species use.

• Santiam Chub Mitigation Property (ODOT) – Approximately 200 acres in Marion

and Linn counties. This site has wetland and riparian habitat resources, including

Oregon chub species use.
35

• East Fork Minnow Creek (ODOT) – Approximately 10 acres of beaver pond and

forested wetland complex located in Lane County (Middle Fork Willamette River).

This site has wetland and riparian habitat resources, including Oregon chub species

use.

• Snagboat Bend Property (Private) – Approximately 60 acres in Linn County. This

site is privately owned, but has options for acquisition or permanent easement. This

site is adjacent to Finley Wildlife Refuge, near confluence of Willamette River and

Lake Creek and has wetland, riparian, and terrestrial resources, including Upper

Willamette River ESU listed salmonid use, a large population of pond turtles, a

gallery riparian cottonwood forest habitat, and stream course restoration potential.

• MDAC Farms Property (Private) – Approximately 600 acres in Linn County. This

site is privately owned, but the seller is willing to consider easement or other options.

This site has been used for mechanized agriculture and is currently planted in rye

grass and has wetland, wet prairie, and riparian habitat resources.

• Skiles Property (Private) – Approximately 120 acres in Linn County. This site is

adjacent to the Calapooia River and is privately owned, but the seller is willing to

consider easement or other options. This site has wetland, wet prairie, and riparian

habitat resources.

• Green Island Complex (McKenzie River Trust) – 1,000+ acres located in Lane

County. This site is privately owned by the McKenzie River Trust, which is seeking

funding and partnering opportunities for a variety of site restoration/enhancement

projects. This site has wetland, wet prairie, gallery riparian forest, Westside oak

forest, painted turtles, and Oregon chub habitat resources.

Other projects in the Willamette Valley Ecoprovince may also be considered. Timing for

development of priorities for other ecoprovinces will generally correspond to the staged

release of Bridge Program contracts.

Application of the CMCS process to the Bridge Program is expected to result in the

following general outcomes:

• Allow planners to identify potential minimization/avoidance measures and

incorporate these measures into project design;

• Serve as a methodology for tracking and monitoring impacts (and progress/success of

associated mitigation and conservation actions) as projects are implemented; and

• Allow ODOT to establish and maintain habitat management areas to compensate for

impacts of ODOT actions and achieve a net benefit with respect to the impacted

resources/species or overall conservation objectives.
36

The Draft CMCS Program Manual discusses each of the above in more detail. This

section of the Opinion will focus on summarizing some of the expectations and principles

that will guide achievement of the last bullet, which is the component of the CMCS most

likely to directly supplement actions undertaken through the Bridge Program and which

will result in the most visible, predictable on-ground conservation benefits. Any project

specific CMCS actions associated with future projects beyond the Bridge Program will

need to be evaluated separately from this Opinion with regard to potential effects on

listed species or their habitats.

Overall Vision and Principles

ODOT will establish a network of habitat management areas distributed across various

ecoregions in the state. The network will be used to help fulfill ODOT’s obligation to

mitigate for unavoidable impacts of various projects and to provide additional

stewardship and conservation benefits. While the exact nature of these areas— their size,

location, management focus, and timing of establishment— is not yet known, a number

of principles and concepts will guide their development:

• Habitat banking concepts will be used. Many areas will be established before impacts

occur, or before specific transportation projects are even planned, to serve as an

advance source of mitigation credits against which future impacts will be charged.

As impacts occur, their “costs” will be deducted from the “value” of the mitigation

bank. Through banking, procedural difficulties associated with planning for,

identifying, and implementing mitigation actions on a project-by-project basis are

reduced. Resource value is increased because habitat mitigation will be concentrated

rather than occurring in small, isolated on-site areas, and actions necessary to attain

desired habitat function will have already been implemented before impacts occur,

thereby reducing or eliminating potential lag times between impact and benefit.

• Habitat management areas and actions will be designed to provide meaningful

benefits to species and resources affected by projects:

o Landscape-level analyses will be used to identify locations (both at the site scale

and watershed scale) where greatest benefits would be realized, to concentrate

establishment of habitat management areas and actions in those locations, and to

set action priorities.

o Benefits will be commensurate with the impacts from included projects and focus

on “in-kind” compensation. However, there will be some accommodation of

tradeoffs in light of opportunities to achieve higher-priority conservation

objectives. These tradeoffs and opportunities will be identified through use of the

CMCS methodology, consultation with the Services and other CMCS

stakeholders, consideration of conservation objectives contained in recovery plans

and other formal conservation strategies, and in accordance with applicable

policies and regulations. In general, the greatest benefits will be realized by
37

species/resources most impacted by projects (in terms of amount and/or

significance of impact) and by those most “at-risk” within the subject ecoregion.

o To accommodate risk of failure associated with some habitat projects and in

recognition of the long periods of time sometimes necessary for successful habitat

projects to provide desired function or conditions, ODOT may also apply

correction factors or ratios to the compensation targets for included projects, as

necessary

o For conservation, ODOT will focus on selecting larger, contiguous blocks of

habitat, and habitat that is already highly functional or with the greatest potential

to be quickly and successfully restored or enhanced. Selected areas will be

located and buffered such that desired functions and values are not likely to be

significantly reduced by the direct or indirect impacts of management on the

adjacent/proximal landscape. Adjacent/proximal land use and land management

will be accounted for in the assessment of functional site value.

o Habitat management areas will be secured and protected on a permanent basis,

using the legal and procedural tools best suited to doing so. State or Federal

ownership of title, and permanent easements and title restrictions will be

preferred. Strategies and assurances related to the funding and feasibility of longterm management and maintenance will also be provided.

• Habitat management areas and actions will be designed to achieve a meaningful net

conservation benefit:

o Actions should be designed and the overall CMCS program should be

implemented so that on-ground benefits to species/resources at the program scale

will always be greater than necessary to simply compensate for cumulative

project-level impacts. There should always be a surplus of benefits in support of

species recovery and conservation goals.

o While all habitat areas or actions developed through the CMCS should result in

some amount of surplus benefit, the amount and focus of this surplus is not

expected to be equally distributed. Some locations and species/resources will

benefit more than others. As described above, the greatest benefits should be

realized by species/resources most impacted by projects and by those most at-risk

within the subject ecoregion.

o For these high-priority species or resources, the increment of surplus benefit

should be sufficient to advance recovery and conservation goals by providing a

meaningful improvement in the size, distribution, and productivity of species

populations, or in amount, distribution, and quality of habitats relative to that

which existed prior to implementation of included ODOT projects.
38

Implementation Schedule.

The following schedule for development of the CMCS process and activities extends

through fall, 2005:

May – June 2004

• Conduct inventory work for key mitigation/conservation sites identified in April for

Stage 2 incorporating Ecoprovince Priorities for habitats and species.

• Identify short-list of mitigation sites for further analysis – for Stages 3 and up.

• Refine the CMCS Program Manual based on Agency feedback.

• Finish Ecoprovince Priorities.

June – Sept. 2004

• Finalize Comprehensive Mitigation/Conservation Strategy (CMCS) Program Manual

(Draft Mitigation Concept due to Army Corps of Engineers by end of June). CMCS

Program Manual defines program infrastructure (Ecoprovince priorities; accounting

mechanism, etc.).

• Determine if Stage 2 mitigation sites (focused on wetlands) can address

species/habitat issues. If additional sites are needed, identify sites.

• Perform fieldwork for remaining potential mitigation sites – continue through

summer.

• Develop conceptual mitigation plans using Ecoprovince Priorities, available impact

information, and mitigation site inventory work.

October 2004

• Submit conceptual mitigation plans to CMCS Team and Mitigation Bank Review

Team (MBRT) for Stage 2 (and outline for future Stages or Stage concepts/draft plans

as available).

• Submit CMCS Program Manual to CMCS Team and MBRT (with any revisions) for

approval. The CMCS Program Manual will become part of the Statewide Mitigation

Banking Instrument under development by ODOT.

Winter 2004

• Incorporate CMCS Team and MBRT revisions into mitigation/conservation bank

designs.
39

• Finalize mitigation/conservation bank design drawings

Spring/Summer 2005

• Continue planning for mitigation sites for Stage 3 and beyond.

• Begin construction of Stage 2 mitigation/conservation bank sites.

2.3.3 Application of the CMCS to Other Programs and Projects

ODOT also intends for the CMCS to apply to projects other than the Bridge Program, and

for that broader application to provide supplementary and complementary affects that

benefit a number of key species, habitats, and resources. Future benefits include those

listed above in Section 2.3.2 and better, more reliable information for impact

assessments, thereby streamlining the development of Biological Opinions and

Assessments for future projects;.

2.4 Program Administration (Compliance, Communication, Monitoring, and

Reporting)

The FHWA, Corps, and ODOT are ultimately responsible for environmental compliance

of the Bridge Program. OTIA III specifies that ODOT use consultants for delivery of the

Bridge Program including a Bridge Program Management Firm (BPM Firm) to operate

the program. The BPM Firm will serve as an extension of ODOT staff and will have all

the technical abilities that ODOT uses during the standard project delivery process. The

BPM Firm will act under close supervision of ODOT’s Bridge Delivery Unit, and will be

responsible for managing the Bridge Program. The contract requirements of the BPM

Firm will include ensuring environmental compliance. ODOT will retain a third-party

audit firm to ensure compliance by the BPM Firm with all terms of the contract including

meeting environmental requirements.

The BPM Firm will be responsible for developing a Program Management Plan (PMP)

during the summer of 2004 and implementing that plan throughout the life of the Bridge

Program. PMP will, to ensure environmental compliance of the Bridge Program, include

pre-design education of designers and construction contractors regarding implementation

of the Bridge Program and EPS, specify clear roles and responsibilities for internal and

external staff regarding environmental compliance, and include an environmental

compliance monitoring and reporting program to ensure and confirm that the program is

meeting the objectives of minimizing and avoiding take. The compliance monitoring

program will consist of five elements: (1) Pre-construction analysis; (2) construction

monitoring; (3) post-construction monitoring; (4) annual reporting; and (5) annual

coordination between ODOT, the FHWA, the Corps, and the Services. Every bridge

project will be reviewed for environmental compliance. Reinitiation of consultaion will

be triggered unless a final draft of the relevant portions of the PMP relative to this

Opinion is approved in writing by the Services prior to start of any project construction or
40

reintiation of consultation of this Opinion will be triggered. This conceptual or active

PMP may be amended periodically during the life of the program to address needed

changes and maintain the spirit of adaptive management with written approval by the

Services. A summary of each of these program elements is provided below.

The PMP includes a Program Execution Plan (PEP) for all aspects of the Environmental

Management Program. The PMP will outline the strategy for contractor selection,

training, and supervision. It will include the process of evaluating contractors for

selection of future work, accounting for previous performance. The Services and other

resource and regulatory agencies will participate in the development of the PMP and

those potions of the PMP that relate to this Opinion will be provided to the Services for

approval prior to initiation of project activities.

FHWA understands the need to ensure the contracting community understands the intent

of the Environmental Performance Standards (Section 2.5). Each contractor will be

required to undergo training which will outline the environmental performance standards

and the overall permitting program. An online training program and User Manual will be

available to all stakeholders. The contractor will need to certify that they have viewed

the training program and understand the permit requirements.

Each contractor will be held accountable for following the EPS. The BPM Firm will

oversee a pre-construction meeting focused on environmental accountability and

concerns. The meeting will include the construction inspector, project manager, and

natural resource specialists. The participants will review the appropriate environmental

project specifications and address site-specific environmental concerns. The BPM Firm

will maintain a general quality assurance email address to address individual contractor

questions, and share the findings with the contracting community.

Pre-construction monitoring will include development of a Pre-Construction Assessment

(PCA) for each bridge project that will identify which EPS are applicable and

demonstrate how the project meets the applicable EPS. The PCA will include relevant

plans (e.g., pollution control plan, fish capture and release plan, site restoration plan, and

fluvial analysis). The PCA will also identify any variances from the EPS. The

construction element will consist of monitoring and documenting compliance with EPS

during construction and identification of significant breaches of EPS. Post-construction

monitoring will document the progress of site restoration activities for each bridge

project.

ODOT, on behalf of the FHWA and Corps, will ensure annual monitoring reports are

compiled for each bridge project undergoing construction or post-construction

monitoring, as appropriate. Annual reporting will also include summary reporting of the

actions of the Bridge Program and overall compliance with EPS during the previous year.

Annual reporting will support annual coordination efforts in which ODOT and the

services will conduct annual meetings to evaluate the adequacy of the program and the

monitoring efforts and make changes to the program as necessary. Pre-Construction
41

notifications, construction, and post-construction monitoring documentation will be

available for review and audit by the Services on a project web page.

2.5 Bridge Repair/Replacement Environmental Performance Standards

The specific design and construction details and techniques for each bridge replacement

or repair project will not be known until after consultation for ODOT’s OTIA III

Statewide Bridge Delivery Program is complete. Therefore, the EPS were developed in

cooperation with the Services to guide specific project design and construction. The EPS

were developed to avoid potential long-term adverse effects, avoid and minimize shortterm adverse effects, and offset any residual unavoidable long-term adverse effects.

Unavoidable adverse effects will be minimized and/or constrained to only those likely to

be minor, repetitive, and predictable in nature. The EPS require unavoidable long-term

adverse effects be offset with restorative or mitigative actions that result in no net longterm adverse effect to listed species and their habitats. In addition, the EPS were

developed to maximize the potential for short and long-term beneficial effects to listed

species, non-listed species, and their habitats. If any bridge project cannot meet these

constraints, it will not be covered by this Opinion and must be the subject of an

individual consultation.

Variances. The Services recognize the need for flexibility in implementation of this

program. The OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program is a long-term endeavor that

encompasses numerous projects in a variety of regions in Oregon. This flexibility will

help to minimize the need for reinitiation of formal consultation for certain bridge design

or construction elements and activities for which the Services have recognized the

potential for alternate methodologies which may comply with the intent of a specific EPS

but not the description in this Opinion. The Services, working with FHWA and the

Corps, have identified these opportunities for variance requests when and where

appropriate as describe below in the specific EPS.

The intent is for the BPM Firm to fully screen variance requests for accuracy,

completeness, and appropriateness relative to the intent of the EPS to limit the magnitude

and range of potential adverse effects to those analyzed in this Opinion and to ensure

incidental take estimates are not exceeded. Only after project specific variance requests

have been screened, will they be sent on to the Services for evaluation as part of a PreConstruction Assessment (PCA) notification or other correspondence. The following

scenarios are anticipated prior to or during implementation of specific projects:

1) Those bridge repair or replacement project elements or activities that have

negligible or discountable potential to affect a listed species or designated critical

habitat. The location of these projects relative to species ranges and habitats

afford limited opportunities for effects.

2) Those bridge repair or replacement project elements or activities that have the

potential to affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, but which comply
42

with the EPS. These projects would be covered by this Opinion and will be noted

as such in the PCA notice.

3) Those bridge repair or replacement project elements or activities that have the

potential to affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, but which

demonstrate through an appropriate variance to the EPS, the effects are within the

magnitude and range of those analyzed in this Opinion, and for which take

estimates will not be exceeded. This category of variance was identified at

specific locations through out the EPS where the opportunity for variances was

anticipated in the development of the BA.

4) Those bridge repair or replacement project elements or activities that have the

potential to affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, but which

demonstrate compliance with the intent of EPS, the effects are within the

magnitude and range as those analyzed in this Opinion, and for which take

estimates will not be exceeded. These opportunities are not necessarily EPS

specific but are located throughout the EPS and identified by the phrase, “unless

authorized in writing by the Services and appropriate regulatory agencies”. This

category of variance is general in nature and was not fully anticipatable in the

development of the BA without project specific information.

5) Those bridge repair or replacement project elements or activities that have greater

potential to affect listed species or designated critical habitat, but which through

additional conservation activities proposed in an appropriate variance to the EPS,

the effects are adequately offset, resulting in only those within the magnitude and

range as those analyzed in this Opinion, and for which incidental take estimates

will not be exceeded.

Other Project Changes. The Services have also recognized the potential for other project

changes such as changes in design or construction methodologies which will result in no

potential to affect listed species or designated critical habitat and for which no variance

request will be submitted to the Services. Any project change other than those discussed

above as variances with the potential to affect listed species or designated critical habitat

that exceed the magnitude or scope of those analyzed in this Opinion or that are likely to

exceed the estimated take, will not be covered by this Opinion and must be the subject of

an individual consultation.

The following EPS have been incorporated into the proposed action by the FHWA,

Corps, and ODOT:

Program Administration

1. Ensure compliance with all performance standards developed for this program.

a. Monitoring & Reporting. Develop and carry out a monitoring and

reporting program to confirm that the performance standards are being

properly followed and that the performance standards are achieving the
43

goals of habitat improvement and avoidance or minimization of adverse

effects to the ecosystem.

i. Program Elements:

(1) Program Management Plan (PMP). Develop and maintain

a PMP which includes a Program Execution Plan (PEP)

and Program Procedures Plan (PPP) for all aspects of the

Environmental Management Program. The PMP will

outline the strategy for contractor selection, training, and

supervision. Include the process of evaluating contractors

for selection of future work, accounting for previous

performance. Provide the relevant portions of the PMP to

the Services prior to initiation of project activities.

(2) Pre-Construction Assessment (PCA). Review each

individual bridge project to ensure that all effects are within

the range considered in the biological opinion, quantify

project level take estimates or extent of take per established

metrics, verify program level exempted take is not likely to

be exceeded, and that all appropriate environmental

performance standards are being properly followed.

Submit the PCA to the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities at least 30 days prior to starting

construction activities.

(3) Construction Monitoring. Monitor active projects during

environmentally sensitive work activities and at a

frequency adequate to detect compliance with the

appropriate environmental performance standards. Provide

environmental monitor with appropriate authority and

professional experience to ensure compliance with relevant

environmental performance standards and other applicable

environmental rules and regulations.

(4) Post-Construction Monitoring. Monitor relevant project

features to ensure compliance with long-term beneficial

effects goals outlined in the biological assessment. Report

on success, failures, and remedial actions for site

restoration and compensatory mitigation sites. Evaluate

achievement of each relevant conservation measure

outlined in the environmental performance standards.

(5) Annual Program Reporting. Submit an annual monitoring

report by February 28 of each year that describes the efforts

and actions of the preceding year and the anticipated efforts

and actions of the following year. Summarize relevant

project reports, such as pre-construction assessment reports,

construction and post-construction monitoring reports, fish

capture and release effort reports. Include summaries of
44

observed and estimated take and established effects metrics

accumulated over the year, including area of riparian

disturbance, length of linear streambank disturbance, net

fill volumes in jurisdictional wetlands, net fill removed

from the functional floodplain, and net area of impervious

surfaces treated for detention and contamination.

(6) Annual Program Coordination. Discuss the annual

monitoring report with the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities by March 31 of each year. Pursue

means of refining and improving program clarity and

effectiveness.

ii. Report Contents. Include relevant project information in all

reports prepared for this program.

(1) General Report Contents. Include the following, and other

data as appropriate:

(a) Bridge identification (e.g., number, highway,

crossing);

(b) Bridge location (e.g., county, legal description,

ecoregion, species range, drainage);

(c) Project schedule (e.g., construction start and end

dates, timing of environmentally sensitive work

activities);

(d) Project team contact information (e.g., ODOT,

BPM Firm, and contractor contacts);

(e) Photo documentation of habitat conditions within

the project area. Label each photo with date, time,

project name, photographer’s name, and subject

comment.

(2) PCA Report Contents. Include the following, and other

data as appropriate:

(a) List of project actions.

(b) List of applicable environmental performance

standards and how they will be followed.

(c) List of plans prepared.

(d) List of variances requested with supporting

documentation.

(e) Date, time, and location of pre-construction

meeting.

(f) Estimate of exempted take and established effects

metrics required for the project
45

(3) Monitoring Report Contents. Monitoring reports shall be

available within 30 days of the monitoring visit and shall

include the following, and other data as appropriate:

(a) Site conditions at time of monitoring visit.

(b) Evaluation of compliance for each relevant

environmental performance standard.

(c) Remedial actions suggested and required.

(4) Annual Program Monitoring Report Contents. Include the

following, and other data as appropriate:

(a) Summary of work completed.

(b) Summary of variances requested, denied, and

approved.

(c) Summary of monitoring dates and efforts.

(d) Summary of relevant reports.

(e) Comparison of annual observed take and effects

metrics to remaining exempted take and effects

metrics.

(f) Summary of fills/removals within waters of the

U.S..

(g) Number and location of program bridges in design,

construction, or restoration stage.

(h) Summary of mitigation/conservation credits/debits

created and used that year.

(i) Summary of non-compliance situations and actions

taken to remediate.

(j) Identification of anticipated variances for following

year.

(k) Recommendations for program improvements.

iii. Program Oversight. Retain a third party oversight firm to ensure

the Bridge Program Management firm is maintaining compliance

with all terms of the contract, including meeting environmental

requirements.

b. Variance Protocol.

i. Request a variance for actions not clearly addressed in the

environmental performance standards. Requests may be included

in the PCA report or other appropriate means and should include

the following:

(1) Justification for the proposed variance.
46

(2) Description of additional actions necessary to offset

potential effects, as appropriate.

(3) Demonstration of how the resulting effects are within the

range considered in the biological opinion.

(4) Reevaluation of take and established effects metrics if

different than identified in the PCA.

ii. Services will respond with an approval, approval with additional

conservation measures, or disapproval within 30 calendar days of

receipt of the variance request.

iii. Variances of the environmental performance standards that result

in greater effects or greater take than provided in the biological

opinion will not be granted and will require separate consultation.

c. Communication Protocol.

i. Communication Plan. Develop and carry out a communication

plan to ensure appropriate, efficient, and timely coordination

between Action Agency, the Services, the appropriate Regulatory

Authorities, and other parties. The communication plan will define

lines of communication to address concerns that arise during

project design and construction.

ii. Electronic Format. Store all reports in an electronic format easily

accessible by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory

Authorities.

iii. Project Changes. Notify the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities of any project changes

4

as soon as possible.

d. Conservation and Mitigation for Species under USFWS Jurisdiction.

Ensure the proposed mitigation or conservation action meets the goal of

net conservation benefit by providing on-ground benefits to species and

habitats that are greater than necessary to simply compensate for

cumulative project-level impacts. The increment of “surplus” benefit, at

the program scale, is anticipated to be sufficient to advance recovery and

conservation goals by providing a meaningful improvement in the size,

distribution, and productivity of species populations, or in amount,

distribution, and quality of habitats relative to that which existed prior to

implementation of the Bridge Program.

i. Implement habitat protection, restoration, or enhancement actions

to address the permanent and temporary habitat losses listed in the

amount and extent of take subsection of this Opinion, as described

in section 2.3.1.

4

See discussion of variances and project changes above in Section 2.5 of this Opinion for clarification of

project changes and procedures.
47

ii. Ensure that all mitigation and conservation actions for these

species are consistent with all applicable standards contained in the

Compensatory Mitigation (Section 2.5).

Species Avoidance and Adverse Effect Minimization

1. Fish Avoidance. Minimize incidental take of listed fish and adverse effects to fish

species from in-water work activities.

a. Timing of In-water Work. Complete work below the Ordinary High

Water (OHW) elevation

5

during the preferred in-water work period

included in Appendix B of this Opinion, unless otherwise approved in

writing by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities

6

.

b. Cessation of Work. Cease project operations under high flow conditions

that may result in inundation of the project area, except for efforts to avoid

or minimize resource damage.

c. Fish Screens. Have a fish screen installed, operated, and maintained

according to NOAA Fisheries'fish screen criteria

7

on each water intake

used for project construction, including pumps used to isolate an in-water

work area. Screens for water diversions or intakes that will be used for

irrigation, municipal or industrial purposes, or any use besides project

construction are not authorized.

d. Fish Passage. Provide passage for any adult or juvenile fish species

present in the project area during and after construction and for the life of

the project, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities

8

.

2. Hydro-Acoustic. Prepare and implement a Noise Attenuation Plan (NAP) for

steel piles driven with an impact pile driving hammer through water when listed

fish may be present.

i. The NAP will illustrate how hydro-acoustic sound pressure levels

will be maintained below 150 decibels (dB) rms (re: 1 micro

Pascal) for a minimum of 50 percent of the impacts and peak

5

For the purposes of this project, “OHW elevation” means the bank height inundated by a 2.6 to 2-year

average recurrence interval and may be estimated by morphological features such as average bank height,

scour lines, and vegetation limits. Bankfull elevation may be interchanged with OHW elevation. OHW

elevation will be field surveyed and marked by a qualified professional.

6

For purposes of this Project, “Regulatory Authorities” include the ODEQ, ODSL, ODFW, Oregon

Department of Agriculture, Corps, and other agencies with project-specific or activity-specific jurisdiction.

7 National Marine Fisheries Service, Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria (revised February 16, 1995) and

Addendum: Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria for Pump Intakes (May 9, 1996) (guidelines and criteria for

migrant fish passage facilities, and new pump intakes and existing inadequate pump intake screens)

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 1hydrop/hydroweb/ ferc.htm).

8 Ensure compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 509.585 regarding fish passage.
48

sound pressure levels will be maintained below 180 dB (re: 1

micro Pascal) for all impacts in areas of potential fish presence.

ii. ODOT/FHWA will review and approve the NAP prior to steel pile

driving activities in the water column.

iii. During hydro-acoustic measurement monitoring, the

hydrophone(s) shall be positioned at mid-depths, 30-feet from the

pile being driven or following the most recent NOAA Fisheries

guidance, as directed by contract with ODOT.

iv. Acoustic measurements (monitoring) are not necessary assuming

at least one of the following conditions are met:

(1) The pile is driven with a vibratory pile driving hammer.

(2) The pile is acoustically isolated from the water using

measures including, but not limited to; dewatering, flow

diversion, confined bubble curtains

9

(unconfined bubble

curtains may be used if contractor demonstrates that

currents are less than 1.7 miles per hour), and other means,

as approved by ODOT/FHWA.

(3) The best available science shows that sound pressure levels

will not reach the impact thresholds identified above under

the stream conditions at the time of pile driving (e.g.,

channel substrate, water velocity and depth).

b. Isolation of In-water Work Area. If adult or juvenile fish are reasonably

certain to be present, or if the work area is within 300 feet upstream of

reasonably likely spawning habitats, completely isolate the work area from

the active flowing stream using inflatable bags, sandbags, sheet pilings, or

similar materials, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Services

and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities. Prepare a Work Area

Isolation Plan for all work below the bankfull elevation requiring flow

diversion or isolation. Include the sequencing and schedule of dewatering

and re-watering activities, plan view of all isolation elements, as well as a

list of materials to adequately provide appropriate redundancy of key plan

functions (e.g., an operational, properly sized backup generator). Pile

driving may occur without isolation during the in-water work period,

providing compliance has been achieved with all other relevant

performance standards.

c. Capture and Release. Before, intermittently during, and immediately after

isolation and dewatering to isolate an in-water work area, attempt to

capture and release fish from the isolated area using trapping, seining,

electrofishing, or other methods as are prudent to minimize risk of injury.

9

See, Longmuir C. and T. Lively. 2001. Bubble curtain systems for use during marine pile driving. Fraser

River Pile & Dredge Ltd., New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada. 9 pp.
49

i. The entire capture and release operation must be conducted or

supervised by a fishery biologist experienced with work area

isolation and competent to ensure the safe handling of all fish.

ii. Do not use electrofishing if water temperatures exceed 64

o

F, unless

no other fish capture method is feasible or successful.

iii. If electrofishing equipment is used to capture fish, comply with

NOAA Fisheries'electrofishing guidelines.

10

iv. Handle all fish with extreme care, keeping fish in water to the

maximum extent possible during seining and transfer procedures to

prevent the added stress of out-of-water handling.

v. Ensure water quality conditions, including dissolved oxygen

levels, within fish transport systems (e.g., buckets) are sufficient to

promote fish recovery. Brief holding times; clean, cold, and

circulated water; and aerators may be used to maintain water

quality conditions.

vi. Release fish into a safe release site as quickly as possible, and as

near as possible to capture sites.

vii. In the event of mortalities, do not transfer Federally listed fish to

anyone except the Services, unless otherwise approved in writing

by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

viii. Obtain all other Federal, State, and local permits necessary to

conduct the capture and release activity, such as an ODFW

Incidental Take Permits and/or a Scientific Taking Permits.

ix. Allow the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities to

accompany the capture team during the capture and release

activity, and to inspect the team's capture and release records and

facilities.

x. Report salvage effort results, as called for in relevant permits,

including the name and address of the supervisory fish biologist,

methods used to isolate the work area and minimize disturbances

to fish, stream conditions before and following placement and

removal of barriers, the means of fish removal, the number and

species of fish removed, the condition of all fish released, and any

incidence of observed injury or death.

3. Wildlife Avoidance/Harassment (High Noise). Minimize incidental take of listed

wildlife species and adverse effects to wildlife species from high-noise producing

activities

11

.

10 National Marine Fisheries Service, Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines (December 1998)

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/electrog.pdf).

11

For purposes of this project, “high noise” is defined as sound pressure levels greater than 10 dBA above

the ambient as measured by the LAFmax and LAFeq at sensitive receptors (e.g., nests, roosting, nesting,

foraging habitat).
50

a. Marbled Murrelet. For high-noise producing activities within one mile of

suitable nesting habitat and non-blasting high-noise producing activities

within 300-feet of suitable nesting habitat:

i. Inventory. Identify areas of suitable nesting habitat within one

mile of the construction site.

ii. Avoidance. All blasting activities within one mile of suitable

nesting habitat will be conducted from September 15 to March 30.

All non-blasting high-noise producing construction activities will

be conducted outside the critical nesting period of April 1 to

August 5. Non-blasting high noise producing construction

activities conducted from August 6 to September 15 shall

implement a daily limited operating period (LOP) of daytime work

being conducted from two hours after sunrise

12

to two hours before

sunset

4

. If night construction is needed, then activity will be

conducted one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise.

iii. Minimization. High-noise producing construction activities may

be conducted between April 1 and August 5, following the LOP

with a variance from the USFWS.

b. Bald Eagle. For blasting activities within one mile of known nest sites

13

or communal roosts

14

and non-blasting construction activities within 0.25

mile or 0.5 mile visually (i.e., line-of-site), of a known nest or communal

roost:

i. Inventory. Review the most recent Isaacs and Anthony bald eagle

nesting survey database for nest locations.

ii. Avoidance. High-noise producing activities, including blasting,

will be confined to between September 1 and October 30.

iii. Minimization. Construction activity, other than blasting, within

the harassment threshold distances (0.25 mile for noise, 0.5 mile

for visual, and 1 mile for blasting) or during October 31 to

December 31 shall follow the daily LOP and will require a

variance from the USFWS.

iv. Minimization. Staging areas and detour routes will be kept as far

from a nest as practicable. If closer than 0.5 mile, then a variance

from the USFWS is needed.

12 Official sunrise and sunset will be determined using the U.S. Naval Observatory which may be obtained

at the following website URL: http://aa.usno .navy. mil / data/ docs/RS_OneYear.html.

13 Nest sites identified by the most recent Bald Eagle Nest Locations and History of Use in Oregon and the

Washington Portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone database (Oregon Cooperative Fish and

Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon, Isaacs and Anthony) shall be assumed

active unless surveyed following approved protocol.

14 Communal roost sites are defined in the Biological Assessment.
51

c. Northern Spotted Owl. For blasting activities within one mile of suitable

nesting and roosting habitat and non-blasting construction activity within

195-feet of nesting and roosting habitat:

i. Inventory. Inventory the area of potential harassment for nesting

and roosting (NR) habitat

15

.

ii. Avoidance. If NR habitat is present, then prohibit blasting and

high-noise producing activities during the following critical

nesting periods:

(1) March 1 to July 7 for the North Coast Province.

16

(2) March 1 to June 30 for the Rogue/Siskiyou National Forest

(NF) and Medford District of U.S. Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) in the Southwest Province.

(3) March 1 to July 15 for the Umpqua NF in the Southwest

Province.

(4) March 1 to July 15 for the Willamette Province.

(5) March 1 to September 30 for the Deschutes NF, Fremont,

and Winema NF and unlisted areas.

iii. Minimization. High-noise producing activity within the provincial

critical nesting periods may be conducted with a variance from the

USFWS.

d. Peregrine Falcon. Obtain an Individual Take Permit from ODFW, as

appropriate, for projects that may affect peregrine falcons. Refer to the

Biological Assessment to identify those project areas that may affect

peregrine falcons.

4. Marine Mammals Avoidance. Avoid disturbance to marine mammals.

a. Noise Disturbance. Avoid disturbance to marine mammals from highnoise producing activities that are within 1,640-feet of areas capable of

15 Nesting and roosting habitat are defined in the Biological Assessment.

16

Province boundaries are shown on page E-19 of the 1994 Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest

Plan.
52

supporting marine mammals

17

or known seal or sea lion haulouts

18

or

rookeries

19,20

.

i. Air. Maintain sound pressure levels below 85 dB at occupied

marine mammal habitats. Monitoring of marine mammals is

required when sound pressure levels are expected to exceed 85 dB

at occupied marine mammal habitats.

ii. Water. Follow the hydro-acoustic environmental performance

standard for fish species avoidance for waters occupied by marine

mammals.

b. Visual Disturbance. Avoid visual disturbance to Steller sea lions from

construction activities that are within 3,000-feet of Steller sea lion

haulouts or rookeries.

i. Prevent aircraft or boats associated with the project from coming

into line-of-sight within 3,000-feet of an occupied Steller sea lion

haulout or rookery.

ii. If an aircraft or boat associated with the Bridge Program will be in

line-of-sight within 3,000-feet of Steller sea lion haulout, then

monitor, as directed, to ensure the haulout is not occupied.

iii. Aircraft or boats associated with the Bridge Program will not be

allowed to be in line-of-sight within 3,000-feet of a Steller sea lion

rookery during the breeding season.

c. Monitoring.

i. Conditions. Monitor during daylight hours

21

during weather

conditions that allow the observer a constant line-of-sight to

marine mammal habitats.

17 Marine Mammal habitat includes identified Coastal Dune and Beaches, Coastal Headlands and Islets,

Bays and Estuaries, Marine Nearshore, Marine Shelf, and Oceanic habitat types (Kiilsgaard and Charley

1999), heads of tide for coastal stream and rivers (ODSL 1989), and bridges within 1,640 feet of the

Columbia and Willamette Rivers in the Grays/Elokoman, Lower Columbia/Clatskanie, Lower Willamette,

and Lower Columbia/Sandy 4th field HUCs (REO 2003).

18 A haulout will be considered occupied if at least one individual is observed at the time of monitoring.

19

Seal and sea lion rookeries and haulouts are areas that are known to be regularly occupied by two or

more individuals for two consecutive days, identified as an existing haulout (ODFW 2003), or identified by

local biologists.

20

For purposes of this project, areas capable of supporting marine mammals, haulouts, and rookeries will

be defined as marine mammal habitat, unless stated otherwise.

21 Daylight hours will be 1 hour before official sunrise and 1 hour after official sunset. Official sunrise and

sunset time will be determined using U.S. Naval Observatory which may be obtained at the following

website URL: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.html
53

ii. Effort. The number of observers

22

required to monitor an area will

be sufficient to observe all marine mammal habitat within 1,640

feet of the construction activity and all haulouts and rookeries

within 3,000 feet line-of-site of the construction activity.

iii. Duration. Monitor at least 30 minutes prior to the disturbancecausing activity, during the activity, and least 15 minutes after the

completion of the activity.

iv. Haulouts. Monitor identified haulouts within 1,640 feet of a noise

disturbance activity or 3,000 feet line-of-site to a visual

disturbance for occupancy

23

. If the haulout is occupied, then the

disturbance causing activity will be suspended until no marine

mammals have been observed for at least 15 minutes at the haulout

site.

v. Species. Monitor for marine mammals within 1,640 feet of the

construction activity and within 3,000 feet line-of-site of the

construction activity. If a marine mammal is observed, then the

disturbing activity will be suspended until no marine mammals

have been observed for at least 15 minutes.

vi. Reporting. Each monitor will record:

(1) General Data. Date of monitoring, location, proximity to

activity, time of arrival and departure, weather

24

at time of

arrival and departure.

(2) Species Data. Species, age class, sex, numbers, behavior,

time of observation, location, proximity to activity, and

reaction to disturbance for each marine mammal

observation.

5. Wildlife Avoidance (Bridge Demolition). Minimize injury and death to wildlife

species from bridge demolition activities.

a. Migratory Birds. Avoid destruction of occupied nests (i.e., containing

eggs or young) an adult birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA).

i. Prevent nesting by native birds

25

on structures to be removed.

22 Observers will be biologists capable of identifying marine mammal species, size class, and sex; and be

able to interpret and describe marine mammal behavior and responses to disturbance activity.

23 A haulout will be considered occupied if at least one individual is observed at the time of monitoring.

24 Weather should include temperature, precipitation, wind, visibility, and cloud cover

25 Exotic migratory birds, such as European starling, rock pigeons, and house sparrows are not protected by

the MBTA.
54

(1) Inspect bridge for signs of nesting.

(2) Apply exclusionary methods prior to nest building

(approximately March 15). Exclusionary methods may

include noise cannons, power-washing (i.e., physical

removal), netting (ensure proper mesh size and maintain

the netting).

ii. Remove existing nests only if no eggs or young are found.

iii. If eggs have been laid and nest cannot be avoided, then consult

with USFWS for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

b. Bats. Avoid destruction of bat maternity colonies.

i. Inspect bridge for signs of a maternity colony.

ii. Apply exclusionary methods, prior to maternity roost activity, that

prohibit access to colony space.

c. Wildlife Passage and Migration. Maintain existing and re-establish

connectivity between aquatic habitats that were severed during the

previous or current placement of roadway prism fills.

i. For aquatic habitat (e.g., wetlands as defined by Cowardin 1979)

within the construction project footprint, install an adequately

sized crossing (36-inch pipe or larger) in the roadfill embedded 1/3

below the soil surface.

ii. Design bridges and approach fills to provide wildlife passage.

26

iii. Replace existing fencing with “wildlife friendly” livestock fencing

in areas where native ungulate crossing is likely.

27

iv. Refer to the “Critter Crossing” guidance provided by the Federal

Highway Administration to identify potential problem situations

and solutions.

28

6. Plant Avoidance. Avoid disturbance to State and Federally-listed plants and their

occupied habitat

29

.

a. Survey project areas during appropriate flowering period within the range

of listed plants. Refer to the BA and the relevant Environmental Baseline

26 Refer to ODFW-ODOT liaison biologists for appropriate passage designs.

27

Project design criteria are available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, 2600

SE 98

th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.

28

Federal Administration (FHWA). (2000). Critter Crossings: Linking Habitats and Reducing Roadkill.

Available URL: http://www.FHWA.dot.gov/environment/ wildlifecrossings.

29 Occupied habitat will be delineated by a qualified professional.
55

Reports for plant ranges. A survey is not required if the area has had a

documented survey

30

within the last 10 years.

b. Flag and map occupied habitat necessary to sustain the identified

population within the area of potential disturbance, prior to construction.

c. Ensure construction personnel, equipment, and associated pollutants (e.g.,

sediments, chemical contaminants, discharge water, non-native grass or

weed seed) do not enter the occupied habitat. Delineate as a no work zone

or fence the occupied habitat.

d. Maintain the hydrologic and microclimatic conditions necessary for the

continued existence of the identified population within the project area.

e. If plants are found, then a management buffer will be developed to protect

plants from indirect effects such as herbicide drift.

7. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (VPFS) Avoidance. Avoid areas the potentially

support vernal pool fairy shrimp.

a. For project within the range of VPFS, follow protocol surveys for

individuals or habitat, as appropriate. Refer to the BA and the relevant

Environmental Baseline Report to identify areas likely to support VPFS

habitat.

b. Flag and map occupied/or suitable habitat within the area of potential

disturbance, prior to construction.

c. Ensure construction personnel, equipment, and associated pollutants (e.g.,

sediments, chemical contaminants

31

, discharge water, non-native grass or

weed seed) do not enter the identified habitats. Delineate as a no work

zone or fence the occupied or critical habitat.

d. Maintain the hydrologic and microclimatic conditions necessary for the

continued existence of the identified habitats.

e. If occupied and/or suitable habitats are found, then a management buffer

will be developed to protect vernal pools from indirect effects such as

sedimentation or herbicide drift.

Habitat Avoidance and Removal Minimization

1. Streambank Protection. Avoid and minimize adverse effects to natural stream and

floodplain function by limiting streambank protection actions to those that are not

expected to have long-term adverse effects on aquatic habitats. Whether these

actions will also be adequate to meet other streambank protection objectives

30 Documented site evaluations by a qualified botanist may be considered a documented survey.

31

For purposes of this performance standard, chemical contaminants include, but are not limited to aerial

drift of abrasives, grindings, paint, and other similar materials.
56

depends on the mechanisms of streambank failure operating at site- and reachscale.

32

a. Choice of Techniques. The following bank protection techniques are

approved for use individually or in combination:

i. Woody plantings and variations (e.g., live stakes, brush layering,

facines, brush mattresses).

ii. Herbaceous cover, where analysis of available records (e.g.,

historical accounts and photographs) shows that trees or shrubs did

not exist on the site within historic times, primarily for use on

small streams or adjacent wetlands.

iii. Deformable soil reinforcement, consisting of soil layers or lifts

strengthened with fabric and vegetation that are mobile

(‘deformable’) at approximately two- to five-year recurrence

flows.

iv. Coir logs (long bundles of coconut fiber), straw bales, and straw

logs used individually or in stacks to trap sediment and provide

growth medium for riparian plants.

v. Bank reshaping and slope grading, when used to reduce a bank

slope angle without changing the location of its toe, increase

roughness and cross-section, and provide more favorable planting

surfaces.

vi. Floodplain roughness (e.g., floodplain tree and large woody debris

rows, live siltation fences, brush traverses, brush rows, and live

brush sills) used to reduce the likelihood of avulsion in areas where

natural floodplain roughness is poorly developed or has been

removed.

vii. Floodplain flow spreaders, consisting of one or more rows of trees

and accumulated debris used to spread flow across the floodplain.

viii. Flow-redirection structures known as barbs, vanes, or bendway

weirs, when designed as follows, and as otherwise approved in

writing by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

(1) No part of the flow-redirection structure may exceed bank

full elevation, including all rock buried in the bank key.

32

For guidance on how to evaluate streambank failure mechanisms, streambank protection measures

presented here, and use of an ecological approach to management of eroding streambanks, see, e.g.,

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Transportation, and Washington

Department of Ecology, Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines, various pagination (April 2003)

(http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/ispgdoc.htm), and Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working

Group, Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, various pagination (October,

1998) (http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/).
57

(2) Build the flow-redirection structure primarily of wood or

otherwise incorporate large wood at a suitable elevation in

an exposed portion of the structure or the bank key.

Placing the large woody debris near streambanks in the

depositional area between flow direction structures to

satisfy this requirement is not approved, unless those areas

are likely to be greater than 3 feet in depth, sufficient for

target-species rearing habitats.

(3) Fill the trench excavated for the bank key above bankfull

elevation with soil and topped with native vegetation.

(4) The maximum flow-redirection structure length will not

exceed 1/4 of the bankfull channel width.

(5) Place rock individually without end dumping, unless

approved in writing by the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities.

(6) If two or more flow-redirection structures are built in a

series, place the flow-redirection structure farthest

upstream within 150 feet or 2.5 bankfull channel widths,

from the flow-redirection structure farthest downstream.

(7) Include woody riparian planting as a project component.

b. Use of Large Wood and Rock. Use large wood as an integral component

of streambank protection treatments.

33 Avoid or minimize the use of rock,

stone, and similar materials.

i. Large wood will be intact, hard, and undecayed to partly decaying

with untrimmed root wads to provide functional refugia habitat for

fish. Use of decayed or fragmented wood found lying on the

ground or partially sunken in the ground is not acceptable.

ii. Rock may be used instead of wood for the following purposes and

structures. The rock may not impair natural stream flows into or

out of secondary channels or riparian wetlands. Whenever

feasible, place topsoil over the rock and plant with woody

vegetation.

(1) As ballast to anchor or stabilize large woody debris

components of an approved bank treatment.

33

See, e.g., Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Transportation, and

Washington Department of Ecology, Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines, Appendix I: Anchoring

and placement of large woody debris (April 2003) (http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/ispgdoc.htm);

Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, A Guide to Placing Large

Wood in Streams, May 1995 (http://www.odf.state.or.us/FP/RefLibrary/RefsList.htm). For the purposes of

this Opinion, Engineered Log Jams are considered to meet the definition of Large wood and rock
58

(2) To fill scour holes, as necessary to protect the integrity of

the project, if the rock is limited to the depth of the scour

hole and does not extend above the channel bed.

(3) To construct a footing, facing, head wall, or other

protection necessary to prevent scouring or downcutting of,

or fill slope erosion or failure at, an existing structure (e.g.,

culvert, utility line, or bridge support) to be repaired. New

and replacement structures shall comply with the Fluvial

Performance Standard.

(4) To construct a flow-redirection structure as described

above.

2. Habitat Removal. Avoid or minimize habitat modification that will impair the

ability of threatened, endangered, proposed, or selected sensitive species to

complete essential biological behaviors, such as breeding, spawning, rearing,

migrating, feeding, and sheltering.

a. Designated Critical Habitat. Maintain designated critical habitat within

the project footprint.

i. Review appropriate sources (e.g., BA, Federal Registers) to

determine if designated critical habitat is present or likely present

within the project area.

ii. Flag and survey the boundary of designated critical habitat, as

appropriate.

iii. Do not permanently degrade any primary constituent elements

within the boundary of designated critical habitat.

b. Listed Species Nest Trees. Do not remove documented nest trees for bald

eagle, marbled murrelet, or northern spotted owl.

c. Non-listed Species Nest Trees. Whenever feasible, do not remove

documented nest trees of great blue herons and other non-listed bird

species (see Migratory Bird subsection under Species Avoidance

Standard).

d. Breeding Habitat. Do not remove potential nesting, breeding, or alter

reasonably likely spawning habitat during the breeding season

34

of listed

species, unless protocol surveys show the area is not occupied.

e. Functional Habitat. Whenever possible, do not modify or degrade

functional

35

habitats for listed species in the project area. If functional

habitats for listed species cannot be avoided, then provide the

justification(s), such as:

34 Breeding season restrictions are identified in the Biological Assessment.

35

Functional habitat is synonymous with suitable habitat such that it is capable of supporting a protected

species either presently or within the future.
59

i. Social: public safety, right-of-way;

ii. Physical: geomorphologic, built environment;

iii. Ecological: conflicting resources;

(1) Conserve habitat with the highest value relative to the listed

species that will be affected, given the likelihood and

timing of mitigation success.

(2) Use ecological value (uniqueness, rarity, resource

utilization) and ease of replacement (probability of success,

recovery time lags) to evaluate and justify the decision.

f. Replacement. Mitigation must be functionally equivalent to the habitat

modified or degraded.

Water Quality

1. Pollution & Erosion Control. Prevent delivery of contaminants to soils and

waters of the U.S. caused by surveying and construction operations. Prepare and

carry out a Pollution and Erosion Control Plan that contains the elements outlined

in Sections 280.00 and 290.30 of ODOT’s Standard Specifications for

Construction (2002), meets requirements of all applicable laws and regulations,

and includes the following:

a. The name and address of the party(s) responsible for accomplishment of

the pollution and erosion control plan.

b. Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation associated with access

roads, stream crossings, drilling sites, construction sites, borrow pit

operations, haul roads, equipment and material storage sites, fueling

operations, staging areas, and roads being decommissioned.

c. Practices to confine, remove, and dispose of excess concrete, cement,

grout, and other mortars or bonding agents, including measures for

washout facilities.

d. A description of any regulated or hazardous products or materials that will

be used for the project, including procedures for inventory, storage,

handling, and monitoring.

e. A spill containment and control plan with notification procedures, specific

cleanup and disposal instructions for different products, quick response

containment and cleanup measures that will be available on the site,

proposed methods for disposal of spilled materials, and employee training

for spill containment.

f. Practices to prevent construction debris from dropping into any waters of

the U.S., and to remove any material that does drop with a minimum

disturbance to the aquatic habitat and water quality. Include complete and

detailed plans for removing any structure and constructing new structures.

Outline specific containment measures necessary to keep bridge removal

and construction debris out of waters of the U.S..
60

g. Inspection of erosion and sediment controls. During construction, monitor

in-stream turbidity and inspect all erosion controls daily during the rainy

season and weekly during the dry season, or more often as necessary, to

ensure the erosion controls are working adequately.

36

i. If monitoring or inspection shows that the erosion and sediment

controls are ineffective, mobilize work crews immediately to make

repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as

necessary.

ii. Remove sediment from erosion and sediment controls once it has

reached 1/3 of the exposed height of the control.

2. Staging Activities. Fuel, operate, maintain, and store vehicles and construction

materials in areas that minimize disturbance to habitat and prevent adverse effects

from potential fuel spills.

a. Limit staging areas to the minimum size necessary to complete the project.

To reduce the staging area and potential for contamination, ensure that

only enough supplies and equipment to complete a specific task will be

stored on-site.

b. Complete vehicle staging, cleaning, maintenance, refueling, and fuel

storage in a vehicle staging area placed 150 feet or more from any waters

of the U.S., unless this distance is not appropriate because of the following

site conditions:

i. Physical constraints that make this distance not feasible (e.g., steep

slopes, rock outcroppings).

ii. Natural resource features would be degraded as a result of this

setback.

iii. Equal or greater spill containment and effect avoidance if staging

area is less than 150 feet of any waters of the U.S..

c. If staging areas are within 150 feet of any waters of the U.S., full

containment of potential contaminants shall be provided to prevent soil

and water contamination, as appropriate.

d. Inspect all vehicles operated within 150 feet of any waters of the U.S.

daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Repair any

leaks detected in the vehicle staging area before the vehicle resumes

operation. Document inspections in a record that is available for review

on request by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

e. Before operations begin and as often as necessary during operation, steam

clean (or an approved equal) all equipment that will be used below

36

For purposes of this performance standard, “working adequately” means that project activities do not

increase ambient stream turbidity by more than 10 percent above background 100 feet below the discharge,

when measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity-causing activity.
61

bankfull elevation until all visible external oil, grease, mud, and other

visible contaminates are removed.

f. Diaper all stationary power equipment (e.g., generators, cranes, stationary

drilling equipment) operated within 150 feet of any waters of the U.S. to

prevent leaks, unless other suitable containment is provided to prevent

potential spills from entering any waters of the U.S..

3. Construction Discharge Water. Avoid adverse affects to water quality from

construction discharge water (e.g., concrete washout, hydromilling, pumping for

work area isolation, vehicle wash water, drilling fluids).

a. Discharge Containment. Design, build, and maintain facilities to collect

and treat all construction discharge water, including any contaminated

water produced by drilling, using the best available technology applicable

to site conditions. Provide treatment to remove debris, nutrients,

sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and other pollutants likely to

be present. An alternate to treatment is collection and proper disposal

offsite.

b. Discharge Velocity. If construction discharge water is released using an

outfall or diffuser port, velocities may not exceed 4 feet per second.

c. Pollutant Containment. Do not allow pollutants including petroleum

products, contaminated water, silt, welding slag, sandblasting abrasive,

green concrete, or grout cured less than 24 hours to contact any area

within 150 feet of waters of the U.S., unless approved by the Services and

the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

d. Drilling Discharge. All drilling equipment, drill recovery and recycling

pits, and any waste or spoil produced, will be completely isolated,

recovered, then recycled or disposed of to prevent entry into waters of the

U.S..

i. Drilling fluids will be recycled using a tank instead of drill

recovery/recycling pits, whenever feasible.

ii. When drilling is completed, attempts will be made to remove the

remaining drilling fluid from the sleeve (e.g., by pumping) to

reduce turbidity when the sleeve is removed.

iii. Follow the necessary terms and conditions of ODOT’s most recent

drilling programmatic biological opinion.

4. Piling Removal. Avoid adverse affects to aquatic habitats during removal of

temporary or permanent piling.

a. Immediately place removed piling onto the appropriate dry storage site.

b. Attempt to remove the entire temporary or permanent piling unless

otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities.
62

c. Ensure remaining treated wood piling is broken, cut, or pushed at least 3

feet below the sediment surface and covered with a cap of clean, native

substrates that match surrounding streambed materials.

d. Fill the holes left by each treated timber piling with clean, native

substrates that match surrounding streambed materials, whenever feasible.

5. Treated Wood. Avoid adverse affects to aquatic habitats during handling of

treated wood.

a. Ensure that no treated wood debris falls into waters of the U.S.. If treated

wood debris does fall into waters of the U.S., remove it immediately.

b. Dispose of all treated wood debris removed during a project, including

treated wood pilings, at an upland facility approved for hazardous

materials of this classification. Do not leave a treated wood piling in the

water or stacked on the streambank.

c. Projects using treated wood that may contact flowing water or that will be

placed over water where it will be exposed to mechanical abrasion are not

authorized, except for pilings installed following NOAA Fisheries’

guidelines

37

.

6. Site Stabilization. Stabilize all disturbed areas following any break in work

unless construction will resume within four days.

7. Stormwater Management. Avoid or minimize adverse effects resulting from

changes to the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff for the life of the project

by improving or maintaining natural runoff conditions within project watersheds.

a. Plan. Prepare and carry out a Stormwater Management Plan for any

project that will produce a new impervious surface or a land cover

conversion that slows the entry of water into the soil. Include the

following:

i. Logic and science (e.g., engineering equations and models or

scientific literature and findings) supporting the selected

stormwater management option. For projects that require

engineered facilities to meet stormwater requirements, use a

continuous rainfall/runoff model, if available for the project area,

to calculate stormwater facility water quality and flow control

rates.

ii. Schedule to inspect and clean each facility as necessary to ensure

that the design capacity is not exceeded and whether improvements

in operation and maintenance are needed. Make improvements as

needed.

37 Letter from Steve Morris, National Marine Fisheries Service, to W.B. Paynter, Portland District, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (December 9, 1998) (transmitting a document titled Position Document for the

Use of Treated Wood in Areas within Oregon Occupied by Endangered Species Act Proposed and Listed

Anadromous Fish Species, National Marine Fisheries Service, December, 1998).
63

b. Water Quality. Improve long-term water quality conditions associated

with pollutant loading from the road network within the project

watershed

38

.

i. Drains. Eliminate direct discharge from the bridge deck to waters

of the U.S.

39

.

ii. Treatment Level. Increase treatment of stormwater runoff

discharged to waters of the U.S.. Reduce the annual pollutant

loading

40

to waters of the U.S., relative to pre-project conditions by

providing treatment for the water quality event

41

.

iii. Groundwater. Protect groundwater from pollutant loading.

(1) Pretreat the water quality event stormwater runoff from

pollution generating surfaces before infiltration to

groundwater or discharge into waters of the U.S., as

necessary to minimize any pollutant load likely to be

present.

(2) Pretreatment may include, but is not limited to, biofiltration

(filtration, adsorption, and biological decomposition from

soils that have sufficient organic content and sorption

capacity to remove pollutants), filtration (engineered

filtration systems), settling/sediment ponds (engineered

stormwater facilities), or any combination treatment train

there of.

iv. Placement. Avoid sensitive natural resource areas (e.g. riparian

and wetland areas, unstable hill slopes, ESA-listed species habitat)

during placement of stormwater treatment facilities.

v. Erosion. Prevent erosion caused by the conveyance of stormwater

runoff. Consider the following:

38

For purposes of this project, “project watershed” refers to the 6

th

Field Hydrologic Unit Code.

39

For purposes of this project, “waters” includes any natural waterway, including all bays, intermittent

streams, constantly flowing streams, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water, any part of which are

located within the State of Oregon.

40

For purposes of this project, “pollutant loading” includes, but is not limited to debris, sediment, nutrients,

petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals.

41

For purposes of this project, “water quality event” refers to the volume of runoff predicted from a 6-

month, 24-hour storm, which may be assumed to be 72 percent of the 2-year, 24-hour amount (See,

Washington State Department of Ecology (2001), Appendix I-B-1), unless another storm size is more

appropriate for the local climate and hydrology and provides equivalent conservation benefit (less than or

equal adverse effects provided by the defined storm size) and is approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities.
64

(1) Maintain natural drainage patterns and, whenever possible,

ensure that discharges from the project site occur at the

natural location.

(2) Use a conveyance system comprised entirely of

manufactured elements (e.g., pipes, ditches, outfall

protection) that extends to the ordinary high water line of

the receiving water, where risk of erosion precludes

conveyance through sheet flow.

(3) Stabilize any erodible elements of the conveyance system

as necessary to prevent erosion.

(4) Do not divert surface water from, or increase discharge to,

an existing wetland if that will cause a significant adverse

effect to wetland hydrology, soils, or vegetation.

(5) The velocity of discharge water released from an outfall or

diffuser port may not exceed 4 feet per second (attraction

flow for fish).

c. Water Quantity. Increase the annual site infiltration potential of the

project watershed, with emphasis on the project area.

i. Urbanized. For urbanized watersheds

42

, reduce the post-project

frequency, magnitude, and duration of the flow from 1⁄2 of the 2-

year storm event up to the 50-year storm event as measured against

pre-project frequency, magnitude and duration of flow from the

same range of storm events.

ii. Wildland. For wildland (forest, rangeland) watersheds, reduce the

post-project or maintain the pre-project frequency, magnitude, and

duration of the flow from 1⁄2 of the 2-year storm event up to the 50-

year storm event as measured against pre-project frequency,

magnitude and duration of flow from the same range of storm

events.

iii. Infiltration. Provide infiltration opportunities for stormwater

runoff derived from the project area.

(1) Infiltration opportunities may include, but are not limited

to; adequate soils, non-concentrated overland flow,

vegetation management, land cover conversions, permeable

bedded detention basins, and infiltration swales.

42

For purposes of this project, “urbanized watersheds” are determined by a low percentage of natural

vegetation and a high percentage (equal to or greater than 10 percent total impervious area) of impervious

surface within the project watershed (6

th

Field HUC). Other methods may include Federal Emergency

Management Agency mapping, land management, land cover types, or land ownership. The hydrology of

these watersheds has been significantly altered by land development.
65

(2) Minimize, disperse, and infiltrate stormwater runoff onsite

using sheet flow across permeable vegetated areas to the

maximum extent possible without causing flooding, erosion

impacts, or long-term adverse effects to groundwater.

iv. Discharge. Ensure that the post-project discharge is less than the

pre-project discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year flow up to

the 50-year flow.

Site Restoration

1. Renew habitat access, water quality, production of habitat elements, channel

conditions, flows, watershed conditions, and other ecosystem processes that form

and maintain productive habitats. Prepare and carry out a site restoration plan as

necessary to ensure that all habitats and accesses (e.g., streambanks, soils, large

woody material, and vegetation) disturbed by the project are cleaned up and

restored as follows:

a. General Considerations:

i. Streambank shaping. Restore damaged streambanks to a natural

slope, pattern and profile suitable for establishment of permanent

woody vegetation, unless precluded by pre-project conditions (e.g.,

a natural rock wall).

ii. Revegetation. Replant or reseed each area requiring revegetation

before the end of the first planting season following construction.

Use a diverse assemblage of species native to the project area or

region, unless approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

iii. Pesticides. No pesticides, including herbicides, will be allowed

within 150 feet of waters of the U.S.. Mechanical, hand, or other

methods may be used to control weeds and unwanted vegetation.

iv. Fertilizer. Do not apply surface fertilizer within 50 feet of any

stream channel, unless approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

v. Fencing. Install wildlife-friendly fencing as necessary to prevent

access to revegetated sites by livestock or unauthorized persons.

vi. Source of Materials. Obtain boulders, rock, woody materials and

other natural construction materials used for the project outside the

OHW elevation and at least 150 feet from any waters of the U.S.,

except for native materials obtained from within the project

footprint to be stockpiled and reused on site.

(1) If possible, leave native materials where they are found.

(2) If native materials (e.g., downed wood) are damaged or

destroyed, replace them with a functional equivalent during

site restoration.
66

(3) Stockpile all large wood

43

, native vegetation, weed-free

topsoil, and native channel material displaced by

construction for use during site restoration in-channel, in

the riparian area, or in adjacent uplands, as appropriate.

b. Plan Contents. Include each of the following elements:

i. Responsible Party. The name and address of the party(s)

responsible for meeting each component of the site restoration

requirements, including providing and managing any financial

assurances and monitoring necessary to ensure restoration success.

ii. Baseline Information. Include the location and extent of resources

surrounding the restoration site (i.e., historic and existing

conditions). This information may be obtained from existing

sources (e.g., land use plans, watershed analyses, subbasin plans,

and ODOT’s Environmental Baseline Reports), where available.

iii. Goals and Objectives. Restoration goals and objectives that

describe the extent of site restoration necessary to restore lost

function, by resource type.

iv. Design Criteria. Use these criteria to help design the plan and to

assess whether the restoration goal is met. While no single

criterion is sufficient to measure success, the intent is that these

features should be present within reasonable limits of natural and

management variation:

(1) Bare soil spaces that approximate the size and dispersal

pattern of pre-existing conditions;

(2) Soil movement, such as active rills or gullies and soil

deposition around plants or in small basins, is absent or

slight and local;

(3) If areas with past erosion are present, they are completely

stabilized and healed;

(4) Plant litter is well distributed and effective in protecting the

soil with few or no litter dams present;

(5) Native woody and herbaceous vegetation, and germination

microsites, are present and well distributed across the site;

(6) Vegetation structure is resulting in rooting throughout the

pre-existing, available soil profile;

43

For purposes of this project, “large wood” means a tree, log, rootwad, or engineered logjam big enough

to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, capture bedload, stabilize streambanks, influence

channel characteristics, and otherwise support aquatic habitat function, given the slope and bankfull

channel width of the stream in or near which the wood occurs. See, Oregon Department of Forestry and

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, A Guide to Placing Large Wood in Streams, May 1995

(www.odf.state.or.us/FP/RefLibrary/LargeWoodPlacemntGuide5-95.doc).
67

(7) Plants have normal, vigorous growth form, and a high

probability of remaining vigorous, healthy and dominant

over undesired competing vegetation;

(8) High impact conditions are confined to small areas that are

necessary for access or other special management

situations;

(9) Streambanks have less than 5 percent exposed soils with

margins anchored by deeply rooted vegetation or coarsegrained alluvial debris.

v. Work Plan. Develop a work plan with sufficient detail to include a

description of the following elements, as applicable:

(1) Boundaries for the restoration area;

(2) Restoration methods, timing, and sequence;

(3) Irrigation plan, including water supply source, if necessary;

(4) Woody native vegetation appropriate to the restoration site.

This must be a diverse assemblage of species that are native

to the project area or region, including grasses;

(5) List forbs, shrubs and trees to be planted. This may include

allowances for natural regeneration from an existing seed

bank or planting;

(6) A plan to control exotic invasive vegetation;

(7) Elevation(s) and slope(s) of the restoration area to ensure

they conform with required elevation and hydrologic

requirements of target plant species;

(8) Geomorphology and habitat features of stream or other

open waters;

(9) Site management and maintenance requirements.

vi. Five-year monitoring and maintenance plan:

(1) A schedule to visit the restoration site annually for five

years or longer as necessary to confirm that the design

standards are achieved. Revise the restoration plan if

design standards are not achieved after initial 5-year period.

Continue annual monitoring until restoration performance

criteria are met;

(2) During each visit, inspect for and make plans to correct any

factors that may prevent attainment of design criteria (e.g.,

low plant survival, invasive species, wildlife damage, and

drought);

(3) Keep a written record to document the date of each visit,

site conditions and any corrective actions taken.
68

Compensatory Mitigation

1. Ensure the proposed action meets the goal of no net loss of habitat function by

offsetting unavoidable permanent and temporary adverse effects to habitats.

Offsetting actions will be such that they are commensurate with the amount,

type, timing, and significance of adverse effects to resources as much as

possible. Activities that reduce or remove habitat function or that delay or

prevent development of desired function or condition of habitat will require a

Compensatory Mitigation Plan that describes how this will be achieved.

General considerations for these plans include:

a. Make mitigation plans compatible with adjacent land uses or, if necessary,

use an appropriate buffer to separate mitigation areas from developed or

agricultural lands so that desired functions and value will not be

significantly reduced by the direct or indirect impacts of adjacent land

uses. Adjacemt/proximal land use and land management will be

accounted for in the assessment of the functional site value.

b. Base the level of required mitigation on a functional assessment of adverse

effects of the proposed project, and functional replacement (i.e., ‘no net

loss of function’), whenever feasible, or a minimum one-to-one linear foot

or acreage replacement ratio shall be applied. As necessary, the

replacement ratio shall be adjusted to accommodate the risk of failure

associated with some habitat projects and in recognition of the long

periods of time sometimes necessary for successful habitat projects to

provide desired function and conditions.

c. Acceptable mitigation must be consistent with all program-specific EPS

and may include:

i. Re-establishment or rehabilitation of natural or historic habitat

functions when self-sustaining, natural processes are used to

provide the functions.

ii. Participation in ODOT’s conservation banks, as approved in

writing by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

d. Actions that require construction of permanent structures, active

maintenance, creation of habitat functions where they did not historically

exist, or that simply preserve existing functions are not authorized, unless

otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities.

e. Whenever feasible, complete mitigation before, or concurrent with, project

construction to reduce temporal loss of ecosystem functions and simplify

compliance.

f. When project construction begins before mitigation is completed, show

the Services that a mitigation project site has been secured and appropriate

financial assurances are in place.
69

i. Complete all work necessary to carry out the mitigation plan no

later than the first full growing season following the start of project

construction, whenever feasible.

ii. If beginning the initial mitigation actions within that time is

infeasible, then include other measures that mitigate for the

consequences of temporal losses in the mitigation plan.

g. Include all pertinent elements of a site restoration plan, outlined above,

and the following elements.

i. Consideration of the following factors during mitigation site

selection and plan development.

(1) Watershed considerations related to specific resource needs

of the affected area.

(2) Existing technology and logistical concerns.

ii. A description of the legal means for protecting mitigation areas,

and a copy of any legal instrument relied on to secure that

protection. Mitigation areas will be secured and protected on a

permanent basis, utilizing the legal and procedural tools best suited

to doing so.

h. Information related to unavoidable impacts to bull trout, short-nose and

Lost River suckers, Oregon chub, marbled murrelet, bald eagle, northern

spotted owl, and Fender’s blue butterfly will be included so that ODOT

can implement appropriate program-level mitigation planning and actions

for these species.

i. All mitigation actions associated with the Bridge Program will comply

with the USFWS’ Conservation Banking for Threatened and Endangered

Species (68 FR 24753), and the Corps’ Regulatory Guidance Letter on

Compensatory Mitigation (USACE 2002), as appropriate.

Fluvial

2. Fluvial. Allow normative physical processes

44

within the stream-floodplain

corridor.

a. Channel Processes. Design water crossings other than overflow

crossings

45

that: (1) promote natural sediment transport patterns for the

reach, (2) provide unaltered fluvial debris movement, and (3) allow for

longitudinal continuity and connectivity of the stream-floodplain

system. If one of the three objectives cannot be restored at the project

44

If existing conditions, exclusive of highway structures (e.g., built environment, hydrologic control), will

likely preclude normative physical processes during the life of the proposed crossing (e.g., 100 years), then

design crossing to existing conditions.

45Overflow crossings will be designed to pass the 50-year flood event or ODOT’s most up-to-date design

standards.
70

site, then locate an alternate, non-Bridge Program project within the

same project watershed that will achieve an equal or greater function.

Temporary fill below the bankfull elevation that results in embedded

streambed material is not allowed, unless approved in writing by the

Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

i. Ensure the functional floodplain is absent of roadway,

embankment, or approach fills.

(1) For purposes of this project, the functional floodplain

will be determined using the following process, unless

another process (e.g., channel migration zone) is more

appropriate for site conditions and is approved in

writing by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory

Authorities :

(a) Step 1: Determine the bankfull width, depth,

and elevation.

(b) Step 2: Determine the floodprone elevation and

width.

46

(c) Step 3: Determine the Entrenchment Ratio (E).

47

(i) If E < 2.2, then the floodprone area is

considered the functional floodplain.

(ii) If E > 2.2, then 2.2 times the bankfull

width is considered the functional

floodplain.

(d) Process Considerations:

(i) The bankfull discharge level

(elevation)

48

can be located using field

indicators as defined by Dunne and

Leopold (1978). Bankfull indicators

include: (1) topographic break from

vertical bank to flat floodplain, (2)

topographic break from steep slope to

gentle slope, (3) change in vegetation

from bare to grass, moss to grass, grass

46

Floodprone Width (FPW) is defined as the width at the elevation of twice the maximum bankfull depth

or three times the average bankfull depth.

47 Entrenchment (E) is defined as the ratio between the floodprone width and bankfull width (E =

FPW/BFW). Values of less than 1.4 indicate a stream with a relatively small floodplain, while values over

2.2 indicate a system with high floodplain connectivity.

48 As general consideration, in western Oregon, bankfull discharge is approximately a 1.1 to 1.2-year flow

event, while in eastern Oregon it more closely corresponds to a 2.6-year event (Janine Castro, Pers. Comm.

2003).
71

to sage, grass to trees, or from no trees to

trees, (4) textural change of depositional

sediment, (5) elevation below which no

fine debris (needles, leaves, cones,

seeds) occurs, and (6) textural change of

matrix material between cobbles or

rocks (Dunne and Leopold 1978).

(ii) Surveys of the bankfull discharge

elevation should be conducted upstream

and/or downstream of the bridge, outside

of the area influenced by the bridge.

Five to seven channel widths (one

average meander wavelength; 10 widths

is preferred) is often used as a minimum

distance to survey upstream and

downstream, however, site conditions

will dictate the appropriate distance for

surveying.

(iii) Bankfull width (BFW) is the active

channel width at the bankfull discharge

elevation as defined above. Averaging

several width measurements (taken at

riffle sections, if available) are

preferable to a single measurement.

Comparing upstream and downstream

measurements is valuable for

determining various physical processes

in operation at specific sites. Avoid

measuring widths where bank

stabilization structures are located. Vast

disparities in upstream and downstream

bankfull widths may indicate stream

instability and should be further

investigated.

(iv) Average bankfull depth can be

determined by either averaging the

measured depths across the stream

channel at the bankfull width level, or by

dividing the cross-sectional area by the

bankfull width.

(v) The floodprone width (FPW) is

determined by finding the elevation at

twice the maximum bankfull depth at a

riffle or three times the average bankfull

depth. The width of the floodplain, or
72

floodprone area, is then measured at this

elevation. Using three times the average

depth is a more robust approach because

it is not as sensitive to the exact location

of the cross-section.

(2) As a means of evaluating bridge placement, appropriate

span length, and overall program goals, perform scour

analysis to:

(a) Evaluate the bridge length so that there is

equivalent contraction scour at the bridge

crossing as in the area upstream of the bridge

crossing or would be expected under natural

conditions up to the 10-year flood event.

(b) Ensure that the discharge at which incipient

motion

49

begins under the bridge is similar to

the discharge at which incipient motion begins

upstream of the bridge.

(c) Ensure scour through the bridge opening is

equivalent to reach conditions outside of the

influence of the bridge structure and road prism.

ii. Remove man-made constrictions within the functional

floodplain of the project area.

(1) Reduce existing fill volumes in the functional

floodplain: Possible measures to reduce fill volumes

could include removing existing approach fills,

installing relief conduits through existing fill, or

removing other floodplain fill volumes located within

the project area.

(2) Avoid increases and decrease, as feasible, net fill

volumes

50

within the floodprone area.

(3) Remove vacant

51

bridge support structures in the

functional floodplain: Possible measures may include

removing structures to below the modeled scour depth

52

49

Incipient motion is defined as the velocity at which bed material becomes mobile.

50

Fill volumes will be calculated from the existing soil surface to the floodprone elevation.

51

For purposes of this project, “vacant structures” include unused, unnecessary, or abandoned structures

that are no longer fulfilling their intended purpose, except for those structures that are potentially eligible

for, eligible for, or listed on the National Register of Historical Places.

52

For purposes of this performance standard, the scour analysis shall be performed according to

methodology developed by the Federal Administration: Hydraulic Circular No. 18, Evaluating Scour at

Bridges, Third Edition (FHWA-IP-90-017, November 1995) or equivalent. The focus of this fluvial scour
73

or removing structures located within debris

transportation corridors.

iii. Design and locate bridge support structures with the following

considerations:

(1) Avoid inducing localized scour of streambanks and

reasonably likely spawning areas.

(2) Bridge supports will avoid supplemental

53

scour

prevention (e.g., riprap) and incorporate scour

protection (e.g., drilled shafts, piles driven below

critical scour depth).

(3) Bridge supports will allow the fluvial transport of large

wood through the project area.

(a) Avoid the need for removal or modification

(e.g., cutting, limbing) of large wood resting

against bridge support structures.

(b) Design span length to facilitate potential large

wood movement through the project area with

the following considerations:

(i) The site-potential tree height

54

and the

large wood transport capacity

55

of the

project watershed upstream of the

bridge.

(ii) The orientation of the bridge crossing

and bent locations relative to stream

flow in order to capitalize on the

orientation of drift material relative to

the bridge structure.

b. Floodway Processes. Design crossings that allow lateral connectivity

between the stream and floodplain.

i. Bridge the functional floodplain.

review is to ensure that the new bridge will have a sufficient span over the waterway and functional

floodplain area to prevent scour from occurring differentially at the bridge site than would occur in natural

stream reference sections up to the 10-year flood event.

53

For purposes of this project, “supplemental scour protection” can also be referred to as “active scour

protection”

54

For purposes of this project, the site potential tree height can be obtained in the county-specific Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys.

55

For purposes of this project, the “large wood transport capacity” is the maximum capability of the stream

to move large wood under historic, current, and future land use activities and is a product of the channel

morphology, stream power, and site potential tree height.
74

ii. Accommodate potential flow pathways at multiple flood stages

by:

(1) Locating bridge opening to maximize floodplain

function;

(2) Providing flood-relief conduits (bottomless arch and

embedded culvert design only) within existing road fill

at potential flood flow pathways based on analysis of

flow patterns (or floodplain topography) at multiple

flood stages, as necessary;

(3) Locating bridge abutments with consideration of

channel migration patterns over the designed lifetime of

the bridge

2.6 Interrelated & Interdependent Activities

Interrelated actions are defined as actions that are part of a larger action and depend on

the larger action for justification (50 CFR section 402.2). Interdependent actions are

defined as actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed action (50 CFR

section 402.2). The bridge program described above does not represent a new level of

service, or require new roads. Actions that could be considered either interrelated or

interdependent to the proposed action include aggregate extraction and utility relocation.

Induced development is not anticipated to be an interrelated or interdependent action

resulting from the OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program because highways associated with

the bridges are not being expanded to accommodate additional traffic lanes.

ODOT has changed the manner in which it addresses aggregate sources for this program.

The exemption (Section 00160.60(c) of ODOT’s Standard Specifications (ODOT 2002a))

for commercial, continuously-operated sources is no longer available. This exemption

allowed commercial operators to obtain aggregate material from these sources. These

sources were not required to provide documentation that the collection of the aggregate

was legally permitted. Additionally, the batched nature of this program allows a greater

amount of recycling. All aggregate sources will now be required to show proof of

environmental compliance and all appropriate permits. Transportation of aggregate to

landfills will be minimized; thus decreasing inputs to landfills and reducing fossil fuel

use.

New aggregate sources may need to be identified as a result of the Bridge Program. In

addition, existing operations may need to be expanded to address the increased demand

for quality aggregate materials. ODOT, on behalf of FHWA/Corps has attempted to

minimize and avoid potential adverse effects as a result of this increased aggregate

extraction through three distinct approaches: 1) Minimizing the ultimate Program

aggregate demand; 2) evaluating quarry management practices at ODOT/FHWA/Corpscontrolled sources (an ongoing activity); and 3) expanding the ODOT Standard

Specifications language to require proof, in writing, of permits obtained or, if certain

permits have not been obtained, a written statement explaining why those permits are not
75

necessary for the operation of the source (Corps Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10

and/or Section 404 Clean Water Act, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral

Industries, and, Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL), local government

authorities) to all commercial sources. The first approach involves the development and

implementation of the following Recycling Goal Performance Standard which will help

avoid the interrelated and interdependent effects of material disposal:

For each bridge demolished, the Contractor must meet the following Minimum Recycling

Standards and should make every attempt to reach the Recycling Goals:

MATERIAL MINIMUM REYCLING STANDARD RECYCLING GOAL

Concrete 70% 95%

Asphalt 70% 95%

Treated Wood 10% 25%

Untreated Wood 70% 95%

Metal 50% 95%

Other 5% 10%

The second approach involves an internal agency review of existing practices and

consultation, if necessary, with the appropriate regulatory and resource agencies to ensure

that Agency actions do not adversely affect listed and proposed species. The final

approach involves adding a special provision, applicable to the Bridge Program, to

Section 00160.60(c) of ODOT’s Standard Specifications (ODOT 2002a). The special

provision will add Corps Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 and Section 404 Clean water

Act permits to the list of required permits and remove the statement “except for

continuously-operated commercial sources” from Section 00160.60(c) of ODOT’s

Standard Specifications (ODOT 2002a); thereby requiring proof of permits or that

permits are not required from all commercial sources.

Road and bridge work commonly require the temporary relocation of utilities located

with ODOT right-of-way. The elements of activities involved in utility relocation actions

are similar to those described above in Section 2.2.1of this Opinion. Utility relocation

requires right-of-entry permits from ODOT. These permits commonly carry terms and

conditions that limit the actions of the utility company. In addition to the regular

permitting process that these utility companies may need to follow, ODOT/FHWA/Corps

has the ability to apply the EPS presented in Section 2.5 of this Opinion to the right-ofentry permit.

Induced development is not an anticipated result of the Bridge Program because no new

bridges, travel lanes, interchanges, or off-ramps will be added; thus the capacity will not

increase as a result of the proposed action. The program bridges are repair and

replacement projects of existing structures. No new bridges will be built and no new

travel lanes will be added to the existing bridges. Some bridges will be expanded for

projected growth; however, these additional lanes will not be striped for expansion at this

time. Future expansion of travel lanes and additional structures will undergo a separate

ESA section 7 consultation and possibly a NEPA consultation.
76

3.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT INFORMAL CONCURRENCE

The Services concur with the FHWA/Corps’ determination of “may affect, not likely to

adversely affect” for the Columbian white-tailed deer, Canada lynx, Steller sea lion,

brown pelican, Snake River sockeye salmon, Upper Columbia River steelhead, Upper

Columbia River Chinook salmon, Snake River Fall-run Chinook salmon, vernal pool

fairy shrimp, Willamette daisy, Gentner's fritillary, water howellia, large-flowered

meadowfoam, Bradshaw's lomatium, Cook's lomatium, Kincaid’s lupine, rough

popcornflower, and Nelson’s checker-mallow (Table 1-2). The Services were able to

concur with “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for these species

based on the following summarized information available to the Services and presented

in the BA:

Columbian white-tailed deer

Initial Geographic Information System (GIS) screening for the proposed action identified

one proposed bridge (ODOT Bridge #07417) to be potentially within the range of the

Columbian white-tailed deer. In addition, a personal communication with Mr. Al Clark

(Wildlife Biologist, Julia Butler Hanson Columbian White-Tailed Deer Refuge, January

26, 2004) indicated that there had been no known records of Columbian white-tailed deer

within a few miles of the bridge site. The Site Restoration and Fluvial EPS were

developed, in part, to restore native riparian vegetation and improve floodplain

connectivity and wildlife passage at project sites.

The USFWS concurs with FHWA/Corps’ determination of “may affect, not likely to

adversely affect” based on the EPS’s long-term improvement of the site for wildlife

passage through greater floodplain connectivity and restoring habitat, and the

insignificant chance of occurrence of Columbian white-tailed deer within a distance

likely to result in harassment from construction activity. No critical habitat has been

designated for the Columbian white-tailed deer, therefore none will be affected.

Canada lynx

Screening for the proposed action identified 38 bridges within the USFWS’ area of

concern for Canada lynx in the Blue Mountain ecoregion of northeast Oregon. This

included 37 bridges outside of potential Canada lynx habitat (below 4,500-foot elevation)

but within areas containing riparian corridors important for connectivity between larger

blocks of National Forest Service lands. Canada lynx in the Pacific Northwest are

associated with high elevation boreal forests above 4,500 feet in elevation (Lee et al.

1998). Territories are typically made up of a mosaic of age classes with a majority of

younger age stands which support the lynx’s primary food source, snowshoe hare (Lepus

americanus). Territories also have a component of late seral stage forest with downed

log structure for denning, thermal and hiding cover. Canada lynx have been recorded

widely across Oregon with the majority of records from the northeastern portion of the
77

state. Currently, there is debate over the existence of a breeding population of lynx in

Oregon, however, the USFWS’ position is that breeding lynx may occur in low numbers

in northeastern Oregon and dispersing lynx from northern forests, particularly during

years of low snowshoe hare abundance, are likely to occur in northeastern Oregon.

Based on the likelihood of Canada lynx dispersing into or through northeastern Oregon,

and possibly occurring in low numbers, corridors of habitat linking areas of suitable

boreal forest habitat are important to the overall conservation of Canada lynx. Riparian

areas are known to act as wildlife corridors, particularly in arid environments, thus are

likely important to maintain habitat connectivity in this portion of the Canada lynx range.

The Site Restoration EPS was developed, in part, to replace native vegetation at bridge

sites after construction is complete. The Fluvial EPS is, in part, intended to provide

floodplain connectivity which will provide improved wildlife passage within stream

corridors. In addition, the Habitat Avoidance EPS directs contractors to minimize habitat

removal and to prioritize habitats so that younger more easily replaceable habitats are

removed rather than older vegetation.

The USFWS concurs with the FHWA/Corps’ determination of “may affect, not likely to

adversely affect” the Canada lynx based on the likelihood that harassment to a denning

lynx at the one bridge site (ODOT bridge #03596) within potential habitat is discountable

due to their scarcity in Oregon, the high baseline levels of noise occurring at existing

bridges, and wildlife passage and habitat connectivity will be maintained or improved at

the 37 bridges not in suitable habitat over the long-term based on the EPS in the proposed

action. No critical habitat has been designated for the Canada lynx, therefore none will be

affected.

Steller sea lion

On December 4, 1990, the Steller sea lion was designated as threatened throughout its

range under the Federal ESA (55 FR 49204). Primary threats to the Steller sea lion

include disease, incidental take in fishing gear, shooting, and natural or anthropogenic

changes in the abundance and species composition of its prey (58 FR 45269). The Steller

sea lion population was determined to have two genetically and reproductively isolated

populations. As a result, in 1997 NOAA Fisheries re-classified the Steller sea lion as two

Distinct Population Segments (DPS) (62 FR 24345). The western DPS, which consists of

breeding colonies located west of 144° West Longitude (line near Cape Suckling, Alaska)

is listed as endangered, and the eastern DPS east of 114° West Longitude is listed as

threatened.

The eastern DPS of the Steller sea lion ranges from southeast Alaska south to central

California. Oregon is near the southern extent of their eastern range, where species

abundance and distribution are reduced (55 FR 49204). However, numbers in the eastern

DPS and specifically at rookery sites in Oregon are increasing. Between 1975 and 1990,

non-pup (adults and juveniles) aerial counts at the Rogue Reef have increased 53 percent

(from 802 to 1,229 non-pups), and counts at the Orford Reef rookery have increased

seven percent (from 716 to 766 non-pups) (NMFS 1992).
78

Steller sea lions spend most of their time at sea feeding on a variety of fish species. The

Steller sea lion is not known to migrate, but they disperse widely outside the breeding

season (NMFS 1992). Primary terrestrial habitats include remote islands, rocks, reefs,

and beaches, often in areas exposed to wind and waves, where access by terrestrial

predators is limited (NMFS 1992). Females appear to select birthing areas (known as

rookeries) that are gently sloping and protected from waves; they will frequently return to

the same pupping site in successive years. In Oregon, pupping generally occurs from late

April to early July

56

. Pups normally stay on land for about two weeks (NOAA Fisheries

1992), then spend an increasing amount of time in waters adjacent to rookeries, as will

post-parturient females whose foraging range (usually in shallow waters within 20

nautical miles of the rookery) is restricted by the need to return to the rookery to nurse

pups (58 FR 45269).

In addition to rookeries, haulouts are essential habitat for Steller sea lions. In Oregon,

Steller sea lions may be found hauled out at Astoria East Mooring Basin and at the end of

the South Jetty of the Columbia River, and also at Tillamook Rock, Three Arch Rocks,

Cascade Head, Seal Rock, Sea Lion Caves, Cape Arago, Rogue Reef, Blacklock Point,

Blanco Reef, Orford Reef, and Mack Reef

57

. These haulouts can be used any time of the

year. In addition, Steller sea lions have been observed foraging up to 8 miles upriver on

the Rogue River during the spring and fall Chinook salmon runs. Small numbers of

Steller sea lions may be found in the lower Rogue River at any time of the year since the

largest rookery in the State is located just two miles northwest of the river mouth. Steller

sea lions have also been observed foraging up the Columbia River as far as Longview,

Washington, primarily during fall and spring salmon migration periods and during the

winter smelt run

58

. In Oregon, Steller sea lions may be found at any of the above-listed

rookeries, haulout areas, or river mouths at any time of year; however, most occurrences

in Oregon are during June and July, which corresponds with the Steller sea lion’s

reproduction period.

Critical habitat for the Steller sea lion was designated on September 27, 1993 and

includes (in Oregon) an air and aquatic zone that extends 3,000 feet from any historically

occupied sea lion rookery (58 FR 45269). In Oregon, the major rookeries designated as

critical habitat are the Rogue Reef Pyramid Rock Site, the Orford Reef Long Brown

Rock Site, and the Seal Rock Site (58 FR 45269). Not all known Steller sea lion

locations in Oregon have been designated as critical habitat. The Three Arch National

Wildlife Refuge in Tillamook County has a smaller, less successful rookery and is not

designated, but is protected by a 500-foot buffer enforced by the Oregon Marine Board.

Haulouts in Oregon are not included in critical habitat designation (58 FR 45269). For

regulatory purposes, rookeries and haulout boundaries are defined as the mean lowerwater mark (58 FR 45269).

56 November 11, 2003, telephone conversation from Robin Brown at Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife to Kendal Emmerson at Mason Bruce and Girard Inc... Conversation discussing Oregon specific

Steller sea lion information. (From BA page 5-111 through 5-113)

57

ibid

58

ibid
79

During the pre-consultation technical assistance phase of this consultation, the

FHWA/Corps and the Services cooperatively developed a GIS effects screening layer

overlaying known or likely Oregon Steller sea lion range with that of the proposed action.

The GIS effects screening resulted in the seven bridge locations with a project API (2-

mile radius) within or adjacent to the Oregon Steller sea lion range (Table 3-1).

In addition, the Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, and Water Quality EPS were

cooperatively developed, in part, to avoid potential adverse effects to Steller sea lions and

their designated critical habitats. The FHWA/Corps has proposed to implement these

EPS at these seven bridge locations in order to avoid the potential for bridge

repair/replacement elements or activities to adversely affect Steller sea lions or their

designated critical habitats. Project-level elements and activities including any

temporary traffic detour routes or structures will be adequately designed, constructed and

administered to avoid any disturbance to Steller sea lions or their designated critical

habitats capable of reaching the threshold of harassment or other forms of take.

NOAA Fisheries concurs with FHWA/Corps’ determination of “may affect, not likely to

adversely affect” for Steller sea lions and their designated critical habitat based on the

scarcity of program bridges within 2-miles of the species range and the implementation

of pertinent EPS to avoid adverse effects to the species and designated critical habitat.

Therefore, the proposed action has less than a negligible likelihood of causing incidental

take of or causing adverse effects to Steller sea lions or their designated critical habitats.

Table 3-1. Program bridge locations with potential to affect Steller sea lions

Bridge

Number

1

Highway

Type

2 MP

3 County4 Crossing5

09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis and Clark Bridge

08281 OR042 0.07 Coos US 101

01950 US101 234.76 Coos Central Oregon Railroad (North Bend)

00922A US101 114.88 Lincoln Devils Lake Outlet (D River)

00925A US101 119.27 Lincoln Drift Creek

13491 OR018 0.04 Lincoln US 101

00924A US101 118.17 Lincoln Schooner Creek

1 ODOT bridge identification number

2 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)

3 Milepost where bridge is located

4 County where bridge is located

5 Description of feature that the bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation

Brown pelican

Brown pelicans are not known to breed in Oregon even though numbers have increased

dramatically in recent years during the summer. Brown pelicans found along the Oregon

coast are primarily post breeding or non-breeding birds which are following abundant

forage species north. There are no known colonial roosts on proposed bridges, and
80

pelicans roosting on, or foraging adjacent to, project bridges would be doing so despite

high levels of vehicle traffic and often, bicycle and pedestrian activity. Because detour

routes are likely to be adjacent to existing bridges or along existing routes, high levels of

auditory and visual disturbance will continue at these sites. Under baseline conditions,

brown pelicans that might roost on a bridge are likely flushed to a new location, if they

are intolerant of disturbance, within a relatively short time due to high activity levels.

The USFWS concurs with the FHWA/Corps’ determination of “may affect, not likely to

adversely affect” for the brown pelican because it is unlikely that the activities under the

proposed action will significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns including breeding,

feeding or sheltering. No critical habitat has been designated for the brown pelican,

therefore none will be affected.

Marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl designated critical habitat

In the BA, the FHWA/Corps also made a determination of “may affect, not likely to

adversely affect” designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet (61 FR 26256) and

northern spotted owl (57 FR 1796).

Within Oregon, 1,515,300 acres were designated as critical habitat for murrelets (61 FR

26256). The vast majority (88%) is on Federal lands managed by the National Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management with the remaining 12 percent primarily on

State lands. Primary constituent elements of murrelet habitat include: (1) individual trees

with potential nesting platforms, and (2) forested areas within 0.5 miles of individual

trees with potential nesting platforms, and with a canopy height of at least one-half the

site-potential tree height.

Approximately 3,257,000 acres were designated as northern spotted owl critical habitat

within Oregon (61 FR 26256). All of this is on Federal lands managed by the National

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The USFWS did not define the

primary constituent elements as precisely as that for marbled murrelet but stated that they

consisted of four components: (1) nesting, (2) roosting, (3) foraging, and (4) dispersal

habitat. Of primary importance to nesting, roosting and foraging is old growth/mature

forest stand structure. The USFWS treats actions such as the removal of mature trees,

diverse canopy layers, and large woody debris to constitute actions that may adversely

affect the constituent elements of critical habitat.

The Habitat Avoidance EPS in the BA states that FHWA/Corps will not permanently

degrade the constituent elements of designated critical habitat for the murrelet and the

owl. This was based on initial GIS screening indicating that relatively few of the bridges

are within designated critical habitat units, the likelihood of suitable nesting, roosting

habitat (i.e. mature large trees) being near the bridges being low and the position that

with so few bridges having a potential to adversely affect designated critical habitat, they

could find ways to avoid it or address it through an individual consultation, thus

providing contractors with an additional incentive to avoid suitable mature forest habitat.
81

Therefore, based on the proposed action, as specifically identified in the Designated

Critical Habitat subsection of the Habitat Avoidance EPS, the Service concurs with the

determination that the Bridge Program “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect”

designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet or northern spotted owl. Potential

effects to marbled murrelet or northern spotted owl designated critical habitat will not be

discussed further in this Opinion.

Anadromous Salmonids

As a functional group, the anadromous fish species addressed in this Opinion include

Chinook, coho, sockeye, and chum salmon, as well as steelhead and coastal cutthroat

trout. These species have similar life histories and habitat requirements, and all depend

on the same basic habitat elements necessary to carry out the various life history stages

(spawning, rearing, and migration). Anadromous species are unique in that they migrate

to sea to feed and mature after an early freshwater cycle. Upon maturation, they

generally return to natal streams to spawn. It is during the early freshwater phase

(including incubation and rearing) and the spawning phase that they are most dependent

on habitat features that are subject to degradation by human activities. Anadromous

salmonid habitat features include substrate composition; water quality; water quantity,

depth, and velocity; water temperature; channel gradient and stability; food availability;

cover and habitat complexity; habitat area, access, and passage; and floodplain and

habitat connectivity (Roni et al. 1999). Degradation of any of these elements will reduce

the viability of anadromous fish populations and species.

During the pre-consultation technical assistance phase of this consultation, the

FHWA/Corps and the Services cooperatively developed GIS effects screening layers

overlaying known SR sockeye, UCR steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon, and SR Fall-run

Chinook salmon range with that of the proposed action. The GIS effects screening

resulted in the 43 bridge locations with a project API (2-mile radius) within or adjacent to

the Columbia River migration corridor.

SR sockeye salmon. No OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program bridges are

within the SR sockeye salmon ESU boundary. SR sockeye salmon use the Columbia

River primarily as a migration corridor to reach their natal waters in eastern Idaho.

Therefore, SR sockeye salmon may be present near Columbia or Snake River tributary

program bridges. There are 43 bridges located on Columbia or Snake River tributaries

within two miles of the Columbia or Snake Rivers, and their repair or replacement could

affect migrating Snake River sockeye salmon (Table 3-2). Of these, six bridges occur in

the Coast Range ecoregion, 10 occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, 13 occur in the

West Cascades ecoregion, eight occur in the East Cascades ecoregion, and six occur in

the Columbia Basin ecoregion.

Bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect migrating SR sockeye salmon

occur in 14 5th Field HUCs. The greatest concentration of these bridges occurs in the

Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek watershed, which accounts for 15 percent the total API

outside the ESU and along the migratory corridor.
82

Table 3-2. Program bridge locations with potential to affect SR sockeye salmon,

UCR steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon, and SR Fall-run Chinook salmon

Bridge

Number

1

Highway

Type

2 MP

3 County4 Crossing5

07417 US030 82.52 Clatsop Big Creek

00921 ÚS030 77.25 Clatsop Gnat Creek

07519 IS084 61.21 Columbia Clatskanie River

07715 IS084 60.82 Columbia Swedetown County Road

09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis and Clark Bridge (Columbia River)

07722 IS084 55.29 Columbia Lost Creek

00338A IS084 36.47 Columbia Tide Creek

07403A IS084 46.10 Hood River Herman Creek

08605 IS084 45.05 Hood River Historic Highway 30

07496A IS084 63.02 Hood River Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr)

08610 IS084 43.93 Hood River Moody St (Cascade Locks)

08662 IS084 63.41 Hood River OWR & NRR

07458 IS084 63.98 Hood River Frontage Rd (2nd St) and OWR & NRR (UPRR)

08604 IS084 50.99 Hood River Connector (Wyeth Interchange)

07398 IS084 64.44 Hood River Connector 2

08534 IS084 56.04 Hood River Connector Viento Interchange

08623 IS084 47.31 Hood River Herman Creek Connector

08605W IS084 45.05 Hood River Connector to Historic Highway 30

08610W IS084 43.93 Hood River Moody St (Cascade Locks)

08931E IS084 167.95 Morrow Irrigon Junction Interchange Connector

07333 IS005 308.38 Multnomah Columbia River and North Hayden Island Drive

04516A IS005 307.70 Multnomah Jantzen Pedestrian Tunnel

06945 IS084 17.82 Multnomah Connector #2 to (Jordan Rd)

02176A IS084 35.12 Multnomah Historic Highway 30 & Union Pacific Railroad

08588B IS084 0.52 Multnomah Connector to I-5 (Banfield Interchange)

06945A IS084 17.82 Multnomah Connector #2 (Jordan Rd)

02194B IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffet Creek

02194A IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffet Creek

13514E IS084 7.65 Multnomah

North East 102nd Avenue and Highway 64

Connectors

02163A IS084 6.73 Multnomah North East 102nd Ave Overpass

06875 IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River

06875A IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River

02062B IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek

02062A IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek

08893 US097 2.37 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek

08894 US097 2.48 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek

00308A IS084 88.04 Wasco Fifteen Mile Creek

08276 IS084 82.62 Wasco Hostetler Way Connector

07771 IS084 88.83 Wasco The Dalles Dam Access Connector

07397 IS084 69.85 Wasco Mosier Connector over Union Pacific Railroad

07393 IS084 70.10 Wasco Mosier Creek

07626A IS084 69.65 Wasco Mosier Connector Overpass
83

07392 IS084 69.62 Wasco Rock Creek

1 ODOT bridge identification number

2 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)

3 Milepost where bridge is located

4 County where bridge is located

5 Description of feature that the bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation

UCR steelhead. No OTIA III Statewide Bridge Deliver Program bridges are within the

UCR steelhead ESU boundary. UCR steelhead use Oregon waters (the Columbia River)

primarily as a migration corridor to reach their natal waters in eastern Washington.

Therefore, steelhead of the UCR ESU may be present near Columbia or Snake River

tributary program bridges. There are 43 bridges located on Columbia River tributaries

within two miles of the Columbia River and their replacement could affect migrating

UCR steelhead (Table 3-2). Of these, six bridges occur in the Coast Range ecoregion, 10

occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, 13 occur in the West Cascades ecoregion, eight

occur in the East Cascades ecoregion, and six occur in the Columbia Basin ecoregion.

Bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect migrating UCR Steelhead

occur in 14 5th Field HUCs. The greatest concentration of these bridges occurs in the

Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek watershed, which accounts for 15 percent of the total API

outside the ESU and along the migratory corridor.

UCR Chinook salmon. No OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program bridges are

located within the UCR Chinook salmon ESU boundary. UCR Chinook salmon use

Oregon waters (the Columbia River) primarily as a migration corridor to reach their natal

waters in eastern Washington. There are 43 bridges located on Columbia River

tributaries within two miles of the Columbia River, and their replacement could affect

UCR Chinook salmon (Table 3-2). Of these, six bridges occur in the Coast Range

ecoregion, 10 occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, 13 occur in the West Cascades

ecoregion, eight occur in the East Cascades ecoregion, and six occur in the Columbia

Basin ecoregion.

Bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the UCR Chinook Salmon

ESU occur in 14 5th Field HUCs. The greatest concentration of these bridges occur in the

Columbia Slough/Willamette River, Columbia Gorge Tributaries, Middle

Columbia/Eagle Creek, Mosier Creek, Lower Sandy River, and Middle Columbia/Grays

Creek watersheds; these account for 80 percent the total API outside the ESU and along

the migratory corridor.

SR Fall-run Chinook salmon. No OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program bridges

occur within the SR Fall-run Chinook salmon ESU boundary were SR Fall. Specifically,

there are no bridges located within the ESU and no bridges are within 2 miles of the ESU

boundary (and drain to the ESU). However, SR Fall-run Chinook salmon use the

Columbia River as a migratory corridor to reach their natal waters in northeast Oregon,

Washington, and Idaho. Migrating SR Fall-run Chinook salmon could be affected by the

repair or replacement of 43 Columbia River tributary bridges occurring within two miles

of the Columbia River (Table 3-2). Of the bridges where the proposed action may affect
84

migrating SR Fall-run ESU Chinook salmon, six occur in the Coast Range ecoregion, 10

occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, 13 occur in the West Cascades ecoregion, eight

occur in the East Cascades ecoregion, and six occur in the Columbia Basin ecoregion.

Of the bridges located along the migration corridor of the SR Fall-run Chinook salmon,

the greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River,

Columbia Gorge Tributaries, Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek, Mosier Creek, Lower Sandy

River, and Middle Columbia/Grays Creek watersheds; these account for 79 percent of the

total API outside the ESU and along the migratory corridor.

In addition to the GIS effects screening for potential to affect SR sockeye salmon, UCR

steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon, and SR Fall-run Chinook salmon discussed above

(relative to bridge repair/replacement project locations), the Program Administration,

Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, Water Quality, Site Restoration, Compensatory

Mitigation, and Fluvial EPS (Section 2.5) were cooperatively developed, in part, to

avoid potential adverse effects to anadromous salmonids and their designated critical

habitats. The FHWA/Corps has proposed to implement these EPS at these 43 bridge

locations in order to avoid the potential for bridge repair/replacement elements or

activities to adversely affect SR sockeye salmon, UCR steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon,

SR Fall-run Chinook salmon, or their designated critical habitats. Project-level elements

and activities including any temporary traffic detour routes or structures will be

adequately designed, constructed and administered to avoid any disturbance to these four

ESUs of listed salmonids or their designated critical habitats capable of reaching the

threshold of harassment or other forms of take.

NOAA Fisheries concurs with FHWA/Corps’ determination of “may affect, not likely to

adversely affect” for SR sockeye salmon, UCR steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon, SR

Fall-run Chinook salmon, or their designated critical habitat based on the lack of program

bridges in, or within 2-miles of, the ESU boundaries, the discountable likelihood of take

from a program bridge adjacent to the Columbia River migratory corridor, and the

implementation of pertinent EPS at those bridges to avoid adverse effects to the species

and designated critical habitat. Therefore, the proposed action has less than a negligible

likelihood of causing incidental take of, or causing adverse effects to, SR sockeye

salmon, UCR steelhead, UCR Chinook salmon, SR Fall-run Chinook salmon or their

designated critical habitats.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp and the nine plant species

The USFWS worked with FHWA/Corps representatives on a Species Avoidance EPS

with sections that address listed plants and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Following these

EPS, a bridge site is first evaluated for the potential occurrence of a species based on the

presence of suitable habitat or soil types which are known to support listed plants. All

bridge locations were screened using known habitat or soil types and using the USFWS’

XID plant database to determine whether a listed plant or vernal pool habitat was possible

at a bridge site. If suitable habitat or soil types are indicated to be present, the EPS

requires surveys be conducted during the appropriate time of year to locate the vernal
85

pools, habitat, or plants. If individual plants or vernal pool habitat are present they will

be flagged to delineate the site and will be avoided during pre-construction and

construction activity. Pre-construction and construction activities will be monitored to

ensure personnel do not alter the hydrology of the site. If vernal pool habitat or plants

can not be avoided, FHWA/Corps will conduct an individual site specific formal

consultation for that particular bridge.

Based on the Plant and Vernal Pool fairy Shrimp Avoidance EPS in the proposed action,

the USFWS concurs with the FHWA/Corps determination that the OTIA III Statewide

Bridge Delivery Program “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” the vernal pool

fairy shrimp, Willamette daisy, Gentner's fritillary, water howellia, large-flowered

meadowfoam, Bradshaw's lomatium, Cook's lomatium, Kincaid’s lupine, rough

popcornflower, and Nelson’s checker-mallow. All bridges were outside of habitat

designated as vernal pool fairy shrimp critical habitat, therefore no critical habitat will be

affected. In addition, critical habitat has not been designated for the plants listed above;

therefore no critical habitat will be affected.

4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT FORMAL CONSULTATION

4.1 Biological Opinion

4.1.1 Biological Information and Critical Habitat (Status of the Species)

Marbled Murrelet (Brachramphus marmoratus)

Background. An account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of

the murrelet is found in the 1988 Status Review (Marshall 1988), the final rule

designating the species as threatened (57 FR 45328), the final rule designating critical

habitat for the species (61 FR 26256), the Service's Biological Opinion for Alternative 9

(USFWS 1994a) of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species

Within the Range of the Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994a), the Ecology and

Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet (Ralph et al. 1995), and the Recovery Plan for the

Threatened Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997) and are incorporated by reference.

Habitat Relationships

Nest Tree Characteristics. Lank et al. 2003 states that marbled murrelets “occur during

the breeding season in near-shore waters along the north Pacific coastline from Bristol

Bay in Alaska to central California,” using single platform trees generally within 20 miles

and older forest stands generally within 50 miles of the coast for nesting. Unlike most

auks, marbled murrelets nest solitarily on mossy platforms of large branches in old-forest

trees (Lank et al. 2003). Suitable habitat for murrelets may include contiguous forested

areas with conditions that contain potential nesting structure. These forests are generally

characterized by large trees greater than 18 inches dbh, multistoried canopies with

moderate closure, sufficient limb size and substrate (moss, duff, etc.) to support nest
86

cups, flight accessibility, and protective cover from ambient conditions and potential

avian predators (Manley 1999, Burger 2002 and Nelson and Wilson 2002). Over 95

percent of measured nest limbs were 15 cm diameter, with limb diameter ranges from 7-

74 cm diameter (Burger 2002).

Nelson and Wilson (2002) found that all 37 nest cups identified were in trees containing

at least seven platforms. All trees were climbed, however, and ground-based estimates of

platforms per tree in the study were not analyzed. Lank et al. (2003) emphasizes that

marbled murrelets do not select tree species for nesting, but select individual trees

containing suitable nest platforms. Nest cups have been found in deciduous trees, albeit

rarely. Nest trees may be scattered or clumped throughout a forest stand.

Adjacent forest can contribute to the conservation of the murrelet by reducing potential

for wind throw during storms by providing area buffers and creating a landscape with a

higher probability of occupancy by murrelets (Burger 2001, Meyer et al. 2002, Raphael

et al. 2002, and Zharikov et al. submitted). Trees surrounding and within the vicinity of

the potential nest tree(s) may provide protection to the nest platform and potentially

reduce gradations in microclimate (Chen et al. 1993).

Nest Stand Characteristics. Nest stands are typically composed of low elevation conifer

species. In California, nest sites have been located in stands containing old-growth

redwood and Douglas-fir, while nests in Oregon and Washington have been located in

stands dominated by Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and Sitka spruce. Murrelets appear

to select forest stands greater than 50 ha (Burger 2002), but are found nesting in stands as

small as one acre (Nelson and Wilson 2002). In surveys of mature or younger secondgrowth forests in California, murrelets were only found in these forests when there was

nearby old-growth stands or where residual older trees remained (USFWS 1992, and

Singer et al. 1995).

At the stand level, vertical complexity was correlated with nest sites (Meekins and Hamer

1998, Manley 1999, Waterhouse et al. 2002, and Nelson and Wilson 2002), and flight

accessibility has been postulated as a necessary component for suitable habitat (Burger

2002). Some studies have shown higher murrelet activity near stands of old-forest blocks

over fragmented or unsuitable forest areas (Paton et al. 1992, Rodway et al. 1993, Burger

1995, Deschesne and Smith 1997, and Rodway and Regehr 2002), but this correlation

may be confounded by ocean conditions, distance inland, elevation, survey bias and

disproportionate available habitat. Nelson and Wilson (2002) found that potential nest

platforms per acre was a strong correlate for nest stand selection by marbled murrelets in

Oregon.

Landscape Characteristics. Zharikov et al. (submitted) documents that murrelet nests

were more often found within 98-feet of stand edges (hard and soft), closer to streams

and farther from glaciers than would be expected if nests were placed randomly across

the landscape. Murrelets preferred lower elevation habitat (below 1,969-2,297-foot

elevation) than was available in the study areas (Huettmann et al. manuscript, and

Zharikov et al. submitted). Lank et al. (2003) states, “Huettmann et al. (manuscript)
87

found no relationship between breeding success and large-scale landscape features...”.

“In contrast, for Desolation Sound, Zharikov et al. (submitted) reported that, compared to

failed nests, nests successful to the mid-chick stage were initiated earlier in the season,

were located closer to the edge of an area of subalpine vegetation, in a location with

higher hard-edge clear-cut density, and at a higher elevation.” It is hypothesized that

murrelets selected edges for flight access, that higher nest success was from lower corvid

densities at higher elevations (away from supplemental feeding by human development

and agriculture), that subalpine sites were on north-facing aspects which contain better

moss production on limbs, and that earlier nesting murrelets were older and more

seasoned breeders able to take advantage of these factors from learned experience, rather

than some genetic-induced fixed action pattern.

Although large blocks of nesting habitat may attract increased murrelet activity due to the

inherent increase in carrying capacity of nest platforms, fragmentation and patch size per

se are very poor covariates when attempting to correlate habitat quality with landscape

characteristics. Based on a sample of 16 nests, Nelson and Hamer (1995) found that

nesting success of murrelets was lower if within 164-feet of a stand edge. Huettmann et

al. (manuscript) found a bimodal distribution where murrelets preferentially selected for

landscape patches that were <10 ha and >200 ha in size with no differences in nest

success. Also, Zharikov et al. (submitted) found higher nest success closer (<30 m) to

edges. Combined, all Canadian nest sample sizes were n = 200. Artificial nest

depredation rates were found to be highest in western conifer forests where stand edges

were close to human development (De Santo and Willson 2001 and Luginbuhl et al.

2001), and Bradley (2002) found increased corvid densities within 3 miles of urban

interface due to supplemental feeding opportunities from anthropogenic activities.

Artificially high corvid densities from adjacent urbanization and park campgrounds

appear to be a direct cause of the high nesting failure rates for murrelets in the redwoods

parks.

These relationships measured with murrelets are consistent with studies of nest success of

hundreds of other passerines. If the surrounding landscape has been permanently

modified to change the predators’ densities or carrying capacities (i.e. agriculture,

urbanization or recreation), and the predators affected impact the species under study, the

reproductive success of the prey species being studied is reduced. Because corvids

account for the majority of depredations on murrelet nests and corvid density increases

with human development, landscape effects of potential corvid predation on murrelet

habitat is a primary impact consideration.

Threats. The Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USFWS 1997) identified the primary

threats to the species: (1) predation; (2) loss of nesting habitat; (3) by-catch in gill-nets,

and; (4) oil pollution both chronic and from major spills. Predation and the amount and

distribution of nest habitat are considered to be the most important determinants for

species recovery.

Population Dynamics. The present population estimate for the murrelet in Oregon is

9,500 (± 3,000) and approximately 23,000 (± 9,000) within the conterminous United
88

States (Strong 2003). Spiech and Wahl (1995) concluded that murrelet populations in

Puget Sound are lower now than they were at the beginning of this century, and total

estimates for Washington are still about 5,500 murrelets (Strong 2003). Ralph and Miller

(1995) estimated the California population to be approximately 6,500 birds, and this

estimate remains within the statistical confidence interval (Strong 2003).

Beissinger (1995) constructed a demographic model of the murrelet and concluded that

the population may be declining at rates of 4-6 percent per year, but this estimate is

hampered by the possibility that the age-ratio data used in the model are reflective of a

relatively temporary decline due to unusual ocean conditions (Ralph et al. 1995).

Boulanger et al. (1996) found that change in adult survivorship is the single most

important factor when projecting demographic trends for murrelets. Similarly, Strong

and Carten (2000) suggest that there may have been a 50 percent decline from 1992 to

1996 in the Oregon population, but appears to have stabilized since (Strong 2003). Ralph

et al. (1995) summarized some of the reasons for variability in population estimates

among researchers, including differences in methodology, assumptions, spatial coverage,

and survey and model errors. Lank et al. (2003) states, “Regardless of the approaches

taken to estimate [(sic) vital rate] parameter values, the output from the Leslie matrix

models representing survivorship and fecundity values for all populations in Washington,

Oregon and California (Beissinger and Nur 1997) suggest negative population growth

rates.” Present at-sea surveys for effectiveness monitoring have a 95 percent chance of

detecting annual population changes of ±20 percent or greater.

Available Nesting Habitat. The precise number of acres of suitable habitat in WA, OR

and CA is unknown. However, suitable habitat for the murrelet on Federal lands is

estimated at 2,492,000 acres of which 153,000 acres (6%) is classified as remnant habitat

within the listed range of this species (USFWS 2003a). Occupied murrelet habitat is

protected on Federal land under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) in several ways. All

occupied murrelet stands automatically become Late-Successional Reserve (LSR),

regardless of the original designated land allocation. In addition, all “contiguous existing

and recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets...within a 0.5-mile radius” becomes LSR

(USDA and USDI 1994ab; C-10). Timber harvest within LSRs is designed to benefit the

development of late-successional conditions, which should improve future conditions of

murrelet nesting habitat. Designated LSRs not only protect habitat currently suitable to

murrelets (whether occupied or not), but will also develop future suitable habitat in large

blocks.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Background. A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive

characteristics of the bald eagle is found in the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan

(USFWS 1986), the final rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened

in all of the lower 48 states (60 FR 36000), the proposed rule to remove the bald eagle

from the Endangered Species List in the lower 48 states (64 FR 36454), and Stalmaster

(1987).
89

Habitat Relationships

Nesting Tree Characteristics. In the Pacific Northwest, bald eagles typically nest in

multi-layered, uneven-aged, coniferous stands with old-growth trees that are located

within one mile of large bodies of water (Anthony et al. 1982). Suitable habitat for bald

eagles is characterized by the presence of large, mature trees, generally greater than 32

inches dbh. Live, mature trees with deformed tops or large limbs and an open structure

are required for eagle access and nest support. Tree species is variable; however, on the

Deschutes National Forest, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees with large open limb

structures are preferred for nesting. Factors such as tree height, diameter, tree species,

position on the landscape, distance from water, availability of prey and distance from

disturbance also appear to influence nest selection. Nest trees usually provide an

unobstructed view of the associated water body. Availability of suitable trees for nesting

and perching is critical for maintaining bald eagle populations. Bald eagles often

construct several nests within a territory and alternate between them from year to year.

Snags, trees with exposed lateral branches, or trees with dead tops are often present in

nesting territories and are used for perching or as points of access to and from the nest.

Such trees also provide vantage points from which territories can be defended.

Roosting Habitat. Communal roosts (night roosts occupied by three or more bald eagles)

tend to be located near a rich food resource (i.e. runs of anadromous fish, high

concentrations of waterfowl) and in forest stands that are uneven-aged and have at least a

remnant of the old-growth forest component (USFWS 1986). Roosts tend to have more

favorable microclimates and protection from inclement weather than surrounding areas

and thereby facilitate energy conservation. Isolation is also an important feature of bald

eagle wintering habitat (USFWS 1986).

Bald eagles are territorial when breeding but gregarious when not (Stalmaster 1987). In

Oregon, the bald eagle breeding season extends from January 1 through August 31

(Isaacs and Anthony 1983). Courtship may begin as early as January. Nest building and

repair occurs any time of year, but is most often observed February to June (Isaacs and

Anthony unpubl. data). Egg laying takes place mid-February to late April with

incubation lasting approximately 35 days. Hatching may occur from late March to late

May. Chicks are not able to thermoregulate for at least two weeks after hatching

(Stahlmaster 1987). Fledging occurs in late June to mid-August. Fledging typically

occurs 11 to 13 weeks after eggs are laid.

The roosting period of the northern bald eagle typically extends from November 15 to

March 15. However, depending upon weather conditions, the roosting period in Oregon

may extend from October 31 to April 30.

Threats. Bald eagle numbers have been influenced by several well documented threats.

The primary threat leading to the listing of the bald eagle was chemical contamination

due to persistent pesticides which resulted in thin eggshells and nest failure. Despite the

banning of DDT in 1972, its break down products such as DDE still persist in areas.

Other threats include shooting, poisoning, electrocution, vehicle collisions, and habitat

loss (USFWS 1986).
90

Trends. The bald eagle was listed on February 14, 1978, as a threatened species in

Oregon and Washington under the Act. A Recovery Plan for the bald eagle in the Pacific

states was issued in 1986 in accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the ESA. The Pacific

States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan established recovery population goals, habitat

management goals, and management zones (e.g. Recovery Zones) for a seven-state

Pacific Recovery Region (Recovery Region). It outlined the following criteria for

delisting the bald eagle in the Recovery Region (USFWS 1986):

• There should be a minimum of 800 pairs nesting in the Recovery Region.

• These pairs should be producing an annual average of at least 1.0 fledged young per

pair, with an average success rate per occupied territory of not less than 65 percent

over a five-year period.

• To ensure an acceptable distribution of nesting pairs, population recovery goals must

be met in at least 80 of the management zones (e.g., 38 out of 47 Recovery Zones)

identified in the Recovery Plan.

• Wintering populations should be stable or increasing.

Currently available information indicates increasing bald eagle populations range-wide.

In the Pacific States Recovery Region, the number of occupied territories has consistently

increased since 1986 to 1482 pairs in 1998, thereby exceeding the 800 pair goal for 5

years beginning in 1990 when 861 territories were reported. The species’ status

recovered sufficiently to warrant reclassification to threatened throughout the lower 48

states on July 12, 1995 (60 FR 36000). However, this action did not change the status of

the species for Oregon and Washington. Distribution goals and nesting targets in several

Recovery Zones have not been met. Productivity objectives have been met and have

averaged about 1.03 young per occupied territory since 1990. Currently, a proposal to

delist the species in the lower 48 states has been under consideration by the Service since

July 6, 1999 (64 FR 36454)

In Oregon, 444 breeding territories were occupied in 2003. Productivity in 2003 resulted

in a 5-year average of 1.03 young per occupied territory. Several Recovery Zones have

productivity averages below 1.00 young per occupied territory indicating localized

regions of poorer reproduction still persist within Oregon. Nesting success resulted in a

5-year average of 64 percent (Isaacs and Anthony 2003)

Conservation Needs. The listed status of the bald eagle is a result of past and present

destruction of habitat, harassment, disturbance, shooting, electrocution, poisoning, a

declining food base, and environmental contaminants. Currently, the primary threats to

bald eagles are habitat degradation and, in some areas, environmental contaminants.

It is well established that many human activities negatively affect raptors, such as bald

eagles. Studies show that noises associated with human activities can affect bird

behavior in a number of ways, including nest abandonment, increased nest predation, or

avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. Bald eagles may be particularly sensitive to

disturbances close to active nest sites during the January 1 through August 31 breeding
91

period. Disturbances during the early courtship, nest building and incubation phases of

their breeding cycle can be particularly critical due to the higher risk for nest

abandonment and loss of eggs or chicks. Disturbance at active bald eagle nest sites may

be avoided with the use of seasonal restrictions or increased buffer distances. In Oregon,

disturbances at communal roost sites should also be avoided during the period of eagle

use, or between October 31 and April 30 if the period of winter use is unknown.

The Recovery Plan/Team and Bald Eagle Working Team for Oregon and Washington

(BEWTOW) recommend site-specific planning for managing bald eagle habitat (USFWS

1986; BEWTOW 1990). Site planning requires that each eagle nesting or roosting site be

studied and managed according to the unique set of circumstances (e.g., landform land

use, landowner, eagle use) at that site. Most site plans assist the recovery process by

maintaining habitat conditions to

Table 4-1. Bald eagle recovery population goals and habitat management goals

from the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986; Isaacs and Anthony

2003)

Recovery

Zone

Zone Name Habitat

Management

Goal

Recovery

Population Goal

2003

Recovery

Population

9 Blue Mountains 12 7 8

10 Columbia River (Oregon only) 29 19 54

10 Columbia River (Oregon and

Washington)

47 31 96

11 High Cascades 47 33 61

12 Willamette Basin 35 21 59

13 Oregon Coast 68 45 80

14 Snake River Canyon 5 2 1

21 Harney Basin/Warner

Mountains

2 1 2

22 Klamath Basin 89 66 128

23 California/Oregon Coast 15 8 22

37 Great Basin 7 4 Not Available

Oregon Total (Oregon only) 309 206 416

Oregon and Columbia River

Total

327 218 458

Recovery Population Goals and Habitat Management Goals may be found in Isaacs and Anthony ‘s Bald

Eagle Productivity Surveys conducted in 1999 and prior years. Recovery Population Goals and Habitat

Management Goals are not available in Productivity Survey reports produced subsequent to 1999, so they

are noted here for your convenience. The last column notes the current population figures taken from the

latest Isaacs and Anthony, Bald Eagle Productivity Survey.
92

support nesting, roosting, and foraging, and implementing conservation measures

designed to alleviate ongoing threats and to avoid conflicts with identified use activities

which are identified to occur within the foreseeable future. Some site plans assist

recovery by also incorporating habitat enhancement or habitat management measures to

maintain or increase bald eagle use and the long-term availability and viability of suitable

nest and roosting habitat.

Northern Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Background. Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive

characteristics of the spotted owl are found in the 1987 and 1990 USFWS Status Reviews

(USFWS 1987, USFWS 1990a), the 1989 Status Review Supplement (USFWS 1989), the

Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et al. 1990), the Forest

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) Report (Thomas and Raphael

1993), and the final rule designating the spotted owl as a threatened species (55 FR

26114) and final rule designating critical habitat (57 FR 1796). The spotted owl is one of

three subspecies of spotted owls currently recognized by the American Ornithologists’

Union is typically associated with old-growth forested habitats throughout the Pacific

Northwest. The taxonomic separation of these three subspecies is supported by genetic

(Barrowclough and Gutierrez 1990), morphological (Gutierrez et al. 1995) and

biogeographic information (Barrowclough and Gutierrez 1990).

Current and Historical Range. The current range and distribution of the spotted owls

extends from southern British Columbia through western Washington, Oregon, and

California, as far south as Marin County (USFWS 1990a). The southeastern boundary of

its range is the Pit River area of Shasta County, California. The range of the spotted owl

is partitioned into 12 physiographic provinces (provinces), based upon recognized

landscape subdivisions exhibiting different physical and environmental features (Thomas

et al. 1993). These provinces are distributed across the range as follows: 4 provinces in

Washington (Washington Cascades East, Olympic Peninsula, Washington Cascades

West, Western Lowlands), 5 provinces in Oregon (Oregon Coast Range, Willamette

Valley, Oregon Cascades West, Oregon Cascades East, Klamath Mountains), and 3

provinces in California (California Coast, California Klamath, California Cascades).

Although the current range of the spotted owl is similar to its historical range where

forested habitat still exists (the distribution is relatively contiguous, but influenced by the

natural insularity of habitat patches within geographic province, and by natural and mancaused fragmentation of vegetation), the owl is extirpated or uncommon in certain areas

(e.g., southwestern Washington).

Habitat Relationships

Home Range. Spotted owl home range size varies by province. Home range generally

increases from south to north, which is likely in response to decreasing habitat quality

(USFWS 1990a). Home range size was linked to type, availability, and abundance of

prey (Zabel et al. 1995).
93

Based on available radio-telemetry data (Thomas et al. 1990), the Service estimated

median annual home range size for the spotted owl by province throughout the range of

the owl. Because the actual configuration of the home range is rarely known, the

estimated home range of an owl pair is represented by a circle centered upon an owl

activity center, with an area approximating the provincial median annual home range.

For example, estimated home range area varies from 3,340 acres (i.e., 1.3-mile radius

area) in California to 9,731 acres (i.e., 2.2-mile radius circle) in Washington. The Service

uses a 0.7 mile radius circle (i.e., 984 acres) to delineate the area most heavily used (i.e.,

core area) by spotted owls during the nesting season. Spotted owls in northern California

focused their activities in core areas that ranged from about 167 to 454 acres, with a mean

of about 409 acres; approximately half the area of the 0.7-mile radius circle (Bingham

and Noon 1997). Spotted owls maintain smaller home ranges during the breeding season

and often dramatically increase their home range size during fall and winter (Forsman et

al. 1984).

Although differences exist in natural stand characteristics that influence provincial home

range size, habitat loss and forest fragmentation caused by timber harvest effectively

reduce habitat quality in the home range. A reduction in the amount of suitable habitat

reduces spotted owl abundance and nesting success (Bart and Forsman 1992, Bart 1995).

Habitat Use. Forsman et al. (1984) report that spotted owls have been observed in the

following forest types (Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga

heterophylla), grand fir (Abies grandis), white fir (A. concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus

ponderosa), Shasta red fir (A. magnifica shastensis), mixed evergreen, mixed conifer

hardwood (Klamath montane) and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Use by these types

coincide with appropriate forest structure (see below). In parts of the Oregon Coast

Range, owls have been recorded in pure hardwood stands. In California spotted owls are

found from near sea level in coastal forests to approximately 2130 m in the Cascades

(Gutierrez et al.1995). The upper elevational limits at which spotted owls occur decrease

gradually with increasing latitude in Oregon and Washington. In all areas, the upper

elevation limit at which owls occur correspond to the transition to subalpine forest, which

is characterized by relatively simple structure and sever winter weather (Gutierrez et

al.1995).

Roost sites selected by spotted owls have more complex vegetation structure than forest

generally available to them (Barrows and Barrows 1978, Forsman et al. 1984, Solis and

Gutierrez 1990). These habitats are usually multi-layered forests having high canopy

closure and large diameter trees in the overstory.

Spotted owls nest almost exclusively in trees. Like roosts, nest sites are found in forests

having complex structure dominated by large diameter trees (Forsman et al. 1984,

Hershey1995). Even in forests that have been previously logged, owls select forests

having a structure (i.e., larger trees, greater canopy closure) different than forests

generally available to them (Folliard 1993, Buchanan et al. 1995, Hershey. 1995).
94

Foraging habitat is the most variable of all habitats used by territorial owls (Thomas et al.

1990). Descriptions of foraging habitat have ranged from complex structure (Solis and

Gutierrez 1990) to owls that will forage in forests with lower canopy closure and smaller

trees than forests containing nests or roosts (Gutierrez 1996).

Habitat Selection. Spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitats because they

contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and

dispersal. These characteristics of older forests include the following: a multi-layered,

multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy

closure; a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other types of deformities;

numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and open space

within and below the upper canopy for owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990, USFWS 1990a).

Forested stands with high canopy closure also provide thermal cover (Weathers et al.

2001), as well as protection from predation. Recent landscape-level analyses suggest that

a mosaic of late-successional habitat interspersed with other vegetation types may benefit

spotted owls more than large, homogeneous expanses of older forests (Franklin et al.

2000, Meyer et al. 1998). In redwood forests along the coast range of California, spotted

owls may be found in younger forest stands with structural characteristics of older forests

(Thomas et al. 1990). However, spotted owls do not generally appear to select for stands

of intermediate or younger ages (Solis and Gutierrez 1990).

Ward (1990) found the spotted owls foraged in areas that had lower variance in prey

densities (prey were more predictable in occurrence) within older forest and near

ecotones of old forest and younger in brush seral stages. Presumably owls foraging in

edge areas might encounter prey that ventured into the older forest. Zabel et al. (1995)

showed that spotted owl home ranges are larger where flying squirrels are the

predominant prey and, conversely, are smaller where woodrats are the predominant prey.

Population Dynamics. The spotted owl is a relatively long-lived bird, produces fewer

and larger young, invests significantly in parental care, experiences later or delayed

maturity, and exhibits high adult survivorship. The spotted owl’s long reproductive life

span allows for some eventual recruitment of offspring, even if recruitment does not

occur each year (Franklin et al. 2000).

Annual variation in population parameters for spotted owls has been linked to

environmental influences at various life history stages (Franklin et al. 2000). In

coniferous forests, mean fledgling production of the California spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis occidentalis), another closely related subspecies, was higher when minimum

spring temperatures were higher (North et al. 1999), a relationship that may be a function

of increased prey availability. Across their range, spotted owls show a pattern of

alternating years of high and low reproduction, with highest reproduction occurring

during even-numbered years (e.g., Franklin et al. 1999). Annual variation in breeding

may be related to weather conditions and fluctuation in prey abundance (Zabel et al.

1995).
95

A variety of factors may regulate spotted owl population levels. These factors may be

density-dependent (e.g., habitat quality, habitat abundance) or density-independent (e.g.,

climate). Interactions may occur among factors. For example, as habitat quality

decreases, density-independent factors may have more influence on variation in rate of

population growth, which tends to increase variation in the rate of growth (Franklin et al.

2000). A consequence of this pattern is that at some point, lower habitat quality may

cause the population to be unregulated and decline to extinction (Franklin et al. 2000).

Lambda () describes the rate of population growth in spotted owl populations. A rate of

1.0 indicates a stable population, neither increasing or decreasing; a rate less than 1.0

indicates a decrease in population growth; and a rate greater than 1.0 indicates a growing

population. On a range-wide basis, the rate of growth for individual spotted owl

populations vary within consistent bounds around a mean value of  = 1 (Franklin et al.

2000).

Threats. The spotted owl was listed as threatened throughout its range “due to loss and

adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated

by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms” (USFWS 1990a).

More specifically, significant threats to the spotted owl included the following: low

populations; declining populations; limited habitat; declining habitat; distribution of

habitat or populations; isolation of provinces; predation and competition; lack of

coordinated conservation measures; and vulnerability to natural disturbance (USFWS

1992b). These threats were characterized for each province as severe, moderate, low, or

unknown. Declining habitat was recognized as a severe or moderate threat to the spotted

owl in all 12 provinces, isolation of provinces within 11 provinces, and declining

populations in 10 provinces. Consequently, these three factors represented the greatest

concern range-wide to conservation of the spotted owl. Limited habitat was considered a

severe or moderate threat in nine provinces, and low populations a severe or moderate

concern in eight provinces, suggesting that these factors are a concern throughout the

majority of the range.

Vulnerability to natural disturbances was rated as low in five provinces, indicating that

habitat loss due to fire, wind throw, insects, or diseases was less of a concern from a

range-wide perspective. However, the occurrence of recent, relatively large fires

suggests that habitat loss due to natural disturbance may pose a more significant threat

than previously thought. Past fire suppression efforts and other land management actions

have resulted in vast forested areas that are susceptible to large-scale, stand-replacing

fires. These events could reduce and possibly eliminate owl habitat from extensive areas.

The degree to which predation and competition might pose a threat the spotted owl was

unknown in more provinces than any of the other threats, indicating a need for additional

information. Since listing of the spotted owl, changing conditions and new information

suggest that competition may now be a greater threat than previously anticipated. The

recent range expansion of barred owls into the Pacific Northwest (Taylor and Forsman

1976, Dunbar et al. 1991, Dark et al. 1998) may compete with spotted owls through a

variety of mechanisms: prey overlap (Hamer et al. 2001); habitat use (Hamer et al 1989,
96

Dunbar et al 1991, Herter and Hicks 2000, Pearson and Livezey, in press); and/or

agonistic encounters (Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998, Kelly et al 2003). Kelly et al. (2003)

found that spotted owls were displaced from their territories by barred owls.

Few empirical studies exist to confirm that habitat fragmentation contributes to increased

levels of predation on spotted owls. However, great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), an

effective predator on spotted owls, are closely associated with fragmented forest,

openings, and clearcuts (Craighead and Craighead 1956, Johnson 1992, Laidig and

Dobkin 1995). As mature forests are harvested, great horned owls may colonize

fragmented forests, thereby increasing spotted owl vulnerability to predation.

Conservation Needs. The conservation needs of the spotted owl address three primary

threats: declining populations; declining habitat; and isolation of provinces. These needs

are centered on the following biological principles: 1) presence of large blocks of habitat

to support clusters or local population centers of owls (e.g., 15 to 20 breeding pairs); 2)

habitat conditions and spacing between local populations of owls to facilitate survival and

movement; and 3) managing habitat across a variety of ecological conditions within the

owl’s range to reduce risk of local or widespread extirpation (USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service 1992b).

Conservation Strategy. Since 1990, various efforts have addressed the conservation

needs of the spotted owl and attempted to formulate conservation strategies based upon

these needs. These efforts began with the ISC’s Conservation Strategy (Thomas et al.

1990); they continued with the designation of Critical Habitat (57 FR 1796), the Draft

Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992b), and the Scientific Analysis Team report (Thomas et al.

1993), report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (Thomas and

Raphael 1993); and they culminated with the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994a). Each

conservation strategy was based upon the reserve design principles first articulated in the

ISC’s report, which are summarized as follows.

• Species that are well distributed across their range are less prone to extinction than

species confined to small portions of their range.

• Large blocks of habitat, containing multiple pairs of the species, are superior to small

blocks of habitat with only one to a few pairs.

• Blocks of habitat that are close together are better than blocks far apart.

• Habitat that occurs in contiguous blocks is better than habitat that is more fragmented.

• Habitat between blocks is more effective as dispersal habitat if it resembles suitable

habitat.

Federal Contribution to Recovery

The NWFP is the current conservation strategy for the spotted owl on Federal lands. It is

designed around the conservation needs of the owl and based upon the designation of a
97

variety of land-use allocations whose objectives are either to provide for population

clusters (i.e., demographic support) or to maintain connectivity between population

clusters. Several land-use allocations are intended to contribute primarily to supporting

population clusters: LSRs; Managed Late Successional Areas (MSLAs); Congressionally

Reserved Areas; and Managed Pair Areas and Reserve Pair Areas. The remaining landuse allocations [Matrix, Adaptive Management Areas, Riparian Reserves, Connectivity

Blocks, and Administratively Withdrawn Areas (AWAs)] provide connectivity between

habitat blocks intended for demographic support.

The range-wide system of LSRs set up under the NWFP captures the variety of

ecological conditions within the 12 different provinces to which spotted owls are adapted.

This design reduces the potential for extinction due to large catastrophic events in a

single province. Multiple, large LSRs in each province reduce the potential that spotted

owls will be extirpated in any individual province and reduce the potential that large

wildfires or other events will eliminate all habitat within a LSR. In addition, LSRs are

generally arranged and spaced so that spotted owls may disperse to two or more adjacent

LSRs. This network of reserves reduces the likelihood that catastrophic events will

impact habitat connectivity and population dynamics within and between provinces.

Although FEMAT scientists predicted that spotted owl populations would decline in the

Matrix over time, populations were expected to stabilize and eventually increase within

LSRs, as habitat conditions improved over the next 50 to 100 years (Thomas and Raphael

1993, USDA and USDI 1994a and 1994b). The NWFP included standards and

guidelines for managing all agency actions, and it provided for

Conservation Efforts on Non-Federal Lands. FEMAT noted that limited Federal

ownership in some areas constrained the ability to form an extensive reserve network to

meet conservation needs of the spotted owl. Thus, non-Federal lands were an important

contribution to the range-wide goal of achieving conservation and recovery of the spotted

owl. The Service proposed a special rule for non-Federal lands in 1995, it was never

finalized. The Service’s primary expectation for private lands are for their contributions

to demographic support (pair or cluster protection) to and/or connectivity with NWFP

lands. In addition, timber harvest within each state is governed by rules that may provide

protection of spotted owls and/or their habitat to varying degrees.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act provides for protection of 70-acre core areas around

known spotted owl nest sites, but it does not provide for protection of owl habitat beyond

these areas (ODF 2000). In general, no large-scale spotted owl habitat protection strategy

or mechanism currently exists for non-Federal lands in Oregon. The four owl-related

habitat conservation plans currently in effect address relatively few acres of land;

however, they will provide some nesting habitat and connectivity over the next few

decades.

Habitat Trends. The current condition of the species incorporates the effects of all past

human and natural activities or events that have led to the present-day status of the

species (USFWS and NMFS 1998). Baseline conditions for the owl were evaluated to
98

some degree during formulation of the NWFP through qualitative and quantitative

analyses of measures such as habitat availability, distribution, and condition. The

following section reports on changes in those baseline conditions since 1994, relying

particularly on information in documents the Service produced pursuant to section 7

(e.g., consultation, technical assistance) of the ESA.

Since 1994, the Service has consulted on many actions associated with implementation of

the NWFP and other Federal and non-Federal activities that may affect the spotted owl or

its Critical Habitat. The geographic scale of these consultations varied from individual

actions (e.g., timber sales or habitat conservation plans) on one administrative unit to

multiple actions covering multiple administrative units. In general, the analytical

framework of these consultations was assessed in light of the reserve or connectivity

goals established by the NWFP land-use allocations (USDA and USDI 1994a), and

expressed in terms of changes in suitable spotted owl habitat within those land-use

allocations.

The Service updated the environmental baseline for spotted owl habitat on several

occasions since the owl was listed in 1990. Based on these assessments, habitat

continues to decline on a range-wide basis. For example and perspective, about

7,397,098 acres of suitable habitat were estimated to exist on Federal lands in 1994

(Table 4-2). As of April 16, 2003, the Service has consulted on the removal of 594,914

acres of spotted owl habitat of which 189,604 occurred on Federal lands managed under

the NWFP (Table 4-3). This habitat loss was distributed throughout most provinces in

the NWFP area, except the Western Lowland and Willamette Valley provinces.

Table 4-2. Changes to NRF

1

habitat (acres) from activities subject to Section 7

consultations and other causes; range-wide aggregate from 1994 to current rangewide update (April 16, 2003)

Ownership

1

Consulted-on Habitat Changes

2 Other Habitat Changes3

Removed/

Downgraded

Degraded Removed/

Downgraded

Degraded

Federal - NWFP Bureau of Land

Management

70,653 7,318 0 0

Forest Service 96,888 418,846 0 3,642

National Park Service 908 2,861 0 0

Multi-agency 15,151 23,337 0 0

NWFP Subtotal 183,600 453,362 0 3,642

Other Management

and Conservation

Plans (OMCP)

Bureau of Indian Affairs 97,200 20,850 0 0

Habitat Conservation

Plans

295,889 14,430 0 0

OMCP Subtotal 393,089 35,280 0 0
99

Other Federal Agencies and Lands4 154 1 0 0

Other Public and Private Lands5 10,315 878 5,480 0

Totals 587,158 488,521 5,480 3,642

1 Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. Note that in California, suitable habitat is divided into two

components; nesting – roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely

resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington,. Effects to NRF habitat compiled in this and all

subsequent tables include effects that occurred primarily to NR habitat in California.

2 Includes both effects reported in USFWS 2001 and subsequent effects compiled in the Spotted owl

Consultation Effects Tracker (web application and database).

3Includes effects to NRF habitat (as documented through technical assistance) resulting from wildfires (not

from suppression efforts), insect and disease outbreaks, and other natural causes, private timber harvest,

and land exchanges not associated with consultation.

4Includes lands that are owned or managed by other federal agencies not included in the NWFP.

5Includes lands not covered by Habitat Conservation Plans that are owned or managed by states, counties,

municipalities, and private entities. Effects that occurred on private lands from right-of-way permits across

Forest Service and BLM lands are included here.

Table 4-3. Changes in NRF habitat (acres) documented via section 7 consultation

for all physiographic provinces throughout Northwest Forest Plan Lands; aggregate

changes from 1994 to the current range-wide update (April 16, 2003)

Physiographic

Provinces

Habitat

removed/

downgraded

4

Evaluation

Baseline

3

% of Provincial Baseline

Affected

Reserves

1 NonReserves

2

Total

WA Olympic

Peninsula

55 24 79 560,217 0.0 0.0

Western

Lowlands

0 0 0 0 0 0

W. Cascades 246 10,862 11,108 1,112,480 1.0 6.1

E. Cascades 1,525 3,340 4,865 706,849 0.7 2.6

OR Coast Range 279 3,954 4,233 516,577 0.8 2.3

Willamette

Valley

0 0 0 5,658 0 0

Cascades W. 2,807 49,628 52,435 2,045,763 2.6 28.6

Cascades E. 1,462 10,758 12,220 443,659 2.8 6.7

Klamath

Mountains

1,358 66,605 67,962 786,298 8.6 37.0

CA Coast 181 64 245 51,494 0.5 0.1

Klamath 1,470 23,775 25,245 1,079,866 2.3 13.8

Cascades 0 5,200 5,200 88,237 5.9 2.8

TOTAL 9,390 174,210 183,600 7,397,108

1 Land-use allocations intended to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs.
100

2 Land-use allocations intended to provide habitat to support movement of spotted owls among reserves.

3 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA and USDI 1994b).

4 Includes both effects reported in USFWS 2001 and subsequent effects compiled in the Spotted owl

Consultation Effects Tracker (web application and database

The loss of suitable habitat since 1994 did not exceed 4 percent in most provinces (Table

2). However, habitat loss within the Oregon Klamath Mountain province was relatively

high (about 8.5%), compared to other provinces, making up 37 percent of habitat loss

range-wide. Most (98%) of this habitat loss was concentrated outside of reserves (i.e.,

LSRs, managed late successional reserves, and Congressionally Reserved Areas).

Consequently, the Service concludes the following: loss of suitable habitat within LSRs

was not significant; and loss of suitable habitat outside of LSRs did not preclude

connectivity between LSRs, nor adjacent provinces (USFWS 2001a). Reasons for the

comparatively large number of acres of habitat consulted-on for removal in the Oregon

Klamath Mountain province include a higher percentage of Matrix acres and a shift to

density management harvest, which can impact up to three times as many acres as a

regeneration harvest for an equal amount of timber volume removed.

In 2002, the Biscuit Fire in southwest Oregon (Rogue River basin) and northern

California burned over 500,000 acres, primarily on the Siskiyou National Forest. The fire

and the associated fire suppression efforts resulted in a loss of approximately 112,000

acres of spotted owl habitat, including habitat within five LSRs. In the Service’s 2003

programmatic BO (USFWS 2003b), the Service analyzed the amount and distribution of

spotted owl dispersal habitat (based on agency habitat data) in the Rogue basin and found

they were adequate in most areas, except in the location of this fire. This analysis also

highlighted that the smaller LSRs in this area contained very little suitable or dispersal

habitat and were unlikely to support large clusters of reproducing spotted owls. Although

the Biscuit fire heavily affected one large LSR (Fishook), the distribution of areas

affected by loss of suitable habitat would not likely preclude movement of spotted owls

between the Coast and Cascade provinces.

Range-wide, consulted-on effects of timber harvest on NWFP lands from 1994 to March

12, 2004 are consistent with timber harvest rates assumptions for the first decade of the

NWFP as discussed in the Service’s 1994 BO (USFWS 1994). The amount of suitable

habitat removed due to timber harvest in the first decade did not exceed the level

(196,000 acres) expected under the NWFP. April 14, 2004, will mark the beginning of

the second decade under the NWFP and will reset the calculation of expected habitat loss

to timber harvest. Most harvest was concentrated outside Reserves intended to provide

for population clusters of owls.

Population Dynamics. Spotted owls were located at approximately 4,600 sites (Federal

and non-Federal lands) between 1987-1991. The status of these sites included 3,602

confirmed pairs and 957 territorial single spotted owls. Although a majority of owl sites

occurred on Federal lands, a significant number also occurred on non-Federal lands,

particularly in northwestern California. The actual population of owls across the range is

undoubtedly larger than the number of individuals confirmed at that time because a
101

significant portion of the range of the spotted owl remains unsurveyed (USFWS 1992,

Thomas et al. 1993).

In California, surveys conducted through 1992, detected 1,039 confirmed pairs, 347

resident singles, and 242 sites with owls of unconfirmed status; about 40 percent of these

sites were on non-Federal lands (USFWS 1992). A March 2003 query of the 2002

California Department of Fish and Game’s spotted owl database shows 2,145 activity

centers (pairs and territorial singles) occur in California. This estimate is rough and

likely represents an over-estimate of currently active activity centers because surveys are

not completed to determine if owls are still resident at many of these sites. Nevertheless,

the number of known activity centers has increased since 1992, most likely due to

increased survey effort.

To date, survey coverage of all suitable habitat is incomplete. Survey effort has been

sporadic, not systematic. Survey coverage and effort are insufficient to produce reliable

population estimates. Consequently, the Service now uses other indices, such as

demographic data, to evaluate the current condition of the spotted owl population.

Analysis of demographic data can provide an estimate of the rate and direction of

population growth [i.e., lambda ( )]

Demographic data from 1985 through 1998 from 16 independent study areas located

throughout the owl’s range (4 in Washington, 9 in Oregon, and 3 in California) were

recently analyzed. Study areas encompassed 20,500 square miles, representing about 23

percent of the owl’s range. They consisted primarily of Federal lands, but included some

private, Tribal, and Oregon State lands. Overall, results indicated the owl population is

still declining, but at a slower rate than previously reported (Franklin et al. 1999).

Thomas and Raphael (1993) predicted a population decline, but did not present a specific

rate of decline. Therefore, conformance of observed declines with those they anticipated

cannot be determined.

On a range-wide basis, lambda (), adjusted for juvenile emigration, for territorial

females is 0.961, indicating the population of territorial females declined 3.9 percent

annually from 1985 to 1998 (Franklin et al. 1999). Although less than the 4.5 percent

rate of decline estimated for the years from 1986 through 1993 (Burnham et al. 1996), the

rate of decline is still significantly different from a stable population (Franklin et al.

1999). After accounting for juvenile emigration, 4 of 16 individual owl populations

appear stable ( =1.0), at least 8 have evidence to support a decline (<1.0), and the

remainder are either stable or declining (Franklin et al. 1999).

Mean estimates of apparent survival across all study areas increased with age of

individuals. Survival rates of adult females across all study areas varied among years, but

no longer exhibited the negative range-wide trend apparent in the 1993 analysis (Forsman

and Anthony 1999). However, survival rates of female spotted owls in the three

California studies continue to show a downward trend. Fecundity varied by year and

province. Across its range, the spotted owl continues to show alternating good and bad
102

reproductive years. Owls found east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains exhibited

higher fecundity and lower survival rates, compared to those found west of the crest.

Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris)

Background. Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, life history and behavior of the Lost

River and shortnose suckers can be found in the final rule designating the species as

endangered (53 FR 61744), and the proposed

Threats. At the time of listing, perceived threats to the species included: 1) loss of

historical populations and range; 2) habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation; 3)

drastically reduced adult populations; 4) overharvesting by sport and commercial fishing;

5) large summer fish die-offs caused by declines in water quality; 6) lack of significant

recruitment; 7) hybridization with the other two sucker species native to the Klamath

Basin; 8) potential competition with introduced exotic fishes; and 9) the inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms to provide for the conservation of these species (53 FR

61744).

Current and Historic Range. Currently, there are three major populations of shortnose

sucker (SNS) in the Upper Klamath Basin found in Upper Klamath Lake (UKL), Clear

Lake, and Gerber. There are two major populations of Lost River sucker (LRS) in the

Upper Klamath Basin found in UKL and Clear Lake, along with a very small population

in Tule Lake. Upper Klamath Lake contains the largest populations of SNS and LRS and

these populations are crucial for the long-term survival of both species.

Population Status and Trends

Upper Klamath Lake. Accurate population estimates of the adult sucker populations in

UKL do not exist. Early estimates of relative declines in abundance prior to listing came

primarily from the sport fishery catch records (Andreasen 1975, Bienz and Ziller 1987,

Markle and Cooperman 2002, Eugene Register-Guard 1967, Golden 1969, USFWS

1988). Subsequent estimates have been based primarily on tagging efforts in the

Williamson River and recovery of tagged fish that died during catastrophic fish die-offs

in 1995-1997 (Bienz and Ziller 1987, Perkins 1996, Perkins 1997, Shively 2002). The

highly complex ecological and physical variability of the UKL system, the large size of

the lake, sampling constraints, and substantive unmet statistical assumptions in the

calculation of tag/recapture results make absolute population estimates unavailable from

current information at this time and quantitative interannual comparisons of estimates

inappropriate (Shively 2002).

Prior to listing, several spawning populations of suckers were apparently lost from Upper

Klamath Lake, as evidenced by the absence of suckers at many historical spawning areas

in the lake (Andreasen 1975, Markle and Cooperman 2002). In the late 1980's and early

1990's, at least six additional spawning areas, including the Wood River, have either

ceased to show evidence of use or shown severe declines in use (Markle and Cooperman

2002, Markle and Simon 1993).
103

Given the above difficulties in estimating sucker population sizes, the available

information suggests that LRS and SNS population numbers have fluctuated somewhere

between a few thousand to a few hundred thousand adults of each species in UKL within

the period since 1988 (Markle and Cooperman 2002). While these estimates are very

broad, it is important to consider that recovery of the suckers depends not on absolute

numbers, but rather, on the viability of the populations and their ability to sustain

themselves into the future. This aspect of viability is dependent on the ability of the

species to balance adult mortality with successful recruitment of new individuals into the

adult spawning population.

In UKL, the major source of adult mortality is periodic catastrophic fish die-offs. Adult

mortality must be compensated by the production of successful juvenile year classes

(cohorts) and then by the survival and recruitment of those cohorts into the spawning

population at a rate in excess of adult mortality.

Upper Klamath Lake - Fish Die-offs. Water quality in UKL consistently reaches levels

known to be stressful to suckers and periodically reaches lethal levels in August -

September, resulting in catastrophic die-off events (Bienz and Ziller 1987, Buettner 1997,

Foott 1997, Gilbert 1898, Holt 1997, Loftus 2001, Perkins et al. 2000b, Scoppettone

1986, Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, USBR 1996). Major fish die-offs have been

recorded since the late 1800's but have increased in frequency in the last few decades

(Figure 4-1). Small, localized fish die-offs have been observed annually on UKL since

1992, when extensive research and monitoring activities began.

The magnitude of fish kills in the 1990's have been estimated by scientific observers to be

approximately tens of thousands of suckers for each event (Bienz and Ziller 1987;

Buettner 1997; Gilbert 1898; Perkins et al. 2000b; Scoppettone 1986; Scoppettone and

Vinyard 1991).

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Major Fish Die-off Events 1890-2001

Figure 4-1. Major fish die-off events in Upper Klamath Lake from 1890 to 2001

(USFWS 2002)

Accurate estimates are not possible due to the difficulty of counting dead, floating fish in

a lake
104

the size of UKL and due to the undeterminable numbers of dead suckers that are out of

sight on the bottom. Also, numerous fish-eating birds inhabit the lake, likely eat many of

the smaller fish, since large numbers of birds are frequently noted as the first sign that

fish are stressed or dying. A general estimate of the magnitude of the 1996 die-off, based

on estimates of population numbers before the 1996 die-off and the 1997 estimate,

suggests that the 1996 die-off killed about 50 percent of the adult populations. Although

there are no absolute figures for the magnitude of the die-offs, it is clear that three major

die-offs in 1995-1997 reduced the pre-1995 population by a substantial amount. This is

further supported by substantial declines in the abundance index values of adults

spawning in the Williamson River during the years following the die-offs (Cunningham

et al. 2002).

Upper Klamath Lake - Production of Larvae and Juveniles. Oregon State University

scientists (Markle et al. 2000, Simon 2002, Simon et al. 2000a, 2000b, Simon and Markle

2001) have monitored the relative abundance of larval suckers in UKL consistently since

1995. Larval catch rates were similar in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999, but were

significantly lower in 1998 and 2000; data are not yet available for 2001 (Simon and

Markle 2001). Juvenile abundance was low in 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2001, but relatively

high in 1996, 1999 and 2000 (Simon 2002).

There was little correlation between adult spawning run indices and larval or juvenile

indices from 1995-1999 (Cunningham et al. 2002, Markle et al. 2000b, Simon et al.

2000a). However, there was a relatively good correlation between larval and juvenile

beach seine indices (Simon et al. 2000b, Simon and Markle 2001). This suggests that

successful spawning and production of a strong juvenile year class may be more

dependent on environmental conditions and larval/juvenile mortality than on adult

spawning effort. In most years there is almost an order of magnitude decline in age 0

sucker abundance from late July to October. The exact cause of this decline is unknown

but increased mortality, habitat shifts, dispersal, adverse water quality, and entrainment

losses are potential factors (Gutermuth et al. 2000a, 2000b; Simon 2002, Simon and

Markle 2001).

Spring catch rates of older juveniles in UKL are consistently low (Simon et al.

2000a,2000b; Simon and Markle 2001). This trend is disturbing and may suggest that

late fall/winter juvenile mortality is high, resulting in little or no survival into the second

year, even though larval and juvenile numbers appear substantial in summer and fall

samples (Simon and Markle 2001). However, the absence of larger juveniles in catches

may be caused by sampling difficulties. Therefore, survival and recruitment of juveniles

into the spawning population is better assessed by examination of adult spawning

populations.

Upper Klamath Lake - Recruitment to the Adult Spawning Population. Some

information on relative abundance changes in the adult spawning population can be

obtained from variation in the number of suckers migrating up the Williamson River each

spring to spawn, which shows the drastic decline during the three fish die-offs (1995-97)

and the hiatus in 1998-1999 before the population began to increase in 2000
105

(Cunningham et al. 2002). The increase in 2000-2001 spawning index probably

represents the recruitment of a single dominant year class over a period of two years,

rather than recruitment of two distinct year classes. For LRS that would be the 1991 year

class, and for SNS it would probably be the 1993 year class that indicate the arrival of a

new cohort of young adults in a given year, although assessment of the relative strength

of the cohort is confounded by declines in the absolute numbers of older adults caused by

mortality events, such as the 1995-97 fish kills. Records of annual adult length

distributions are available from the Williamson River spawning run and from UKL eastside, shoreline springs (e.g., Sucker, Silver Building and Ouxy springs). The spawning

run up the Williamson River represents the vast majority of tributary spawning suckers

and a large percentage of the adult spawning population in Upper Klamath Lake (Bienz

and Ziller 1987, Buettner and Scoppettone 1990, Cunningham et al. 2002, Perkins 1996,

Perkins et al. 2000, Scoppetone and Vinyard 1991). Records are available for 1984-85,

1987-1991 and 1994-2001. The available data show evidence for relatively substantial

recruitment of smaller fish into the Williamson spawning populations for LRS and SNS

in only a few of the last eighteen years. Records of the lake-spawning populations at

eastside springs are available for LRS in 1987-1990, 1993 and 1996-2001 (Hayes and

Shively 2002, Perkins et al. 2000). SNS are rarely caught at the springs and records are

too limited to draw conclusions on recruitment. Data again show that there is substantial

recruitment into the shoreline spawning populations of LRS for only a few of the last

fifteen years.

Age distribution data are available based on suckers recovered fish die-off events during

1995 (USBR 1996), 1996 (Perkins 1996) and 1997 (Shively 2002). These data showed

that in 1995 95 percent of the suckers were age 7 years or younger, with most age 4

(1991 year-class) and 5 (1990 year-class). Examination of about 860 suckers from the

1996 fish kill documented LRS and SNS that were mostly 2-8 years old (USGS, unpub.

data). Eighteen year-classes of LRS and 11 year-classes of SNS were identified. The

most abundant year-class of both species was 1991; the 1988-1993 year classes were also

fairly well represented. In 1997 die-off, older LRS and SNS were more prevalent than in

other years. Preliminary data from adult suckers collected during 2001 indicated that the

current total population of LRS in Upper Klamath Lake is dominated by fish 45-65 cm in

length, which represent the 1988-1994 year classes exclusively (USGS 2002, unpub.

data). The current population of SNS contains fish 36-55 cm, which represents the 1989-

1996 year classes. The dominant year class for LRS is 1991, while the dominant class for

SNS is now 1993.

Clear Lake. Sucker populations in Clear Lake exhibit a broad range of sizes, indicative

of a relatively diverse age structure. However, LRS in particular are generally dominated

by younger individuals, suggesting some recruitment but relatively low adult

survivorship (CDFG 1993). Drought conditions severely reduced sucker habitat in the

Clear Lake watershed in the early 1990s. The reservoir reached its lowest level since

1935 and only 5 percent of the water remained, and many tributaries went dry (USFWS

1994b). Populations of suckers in small reservoirs above Clear Lake were apparently

eliminated, but may have reestablished themselves. Within Clear Lake itself, the sucker

population showed signs of stress and reduced condition during the drought, due to
106

adverse temperatures, turbidity and dissolved Oxygen (DO) conditions at low water

levels, but had apparently recovered by the next year. Clear Lake contains large

populations of introduced warm-water predatory fishes; their specific impacts on the

sucker population are not known. No population estimates are available for the Clear

Lake LRS and SNS populations.

The Clear Lake sucker populations are currently isolated from suckers in the rest of the

Klamath Basin by Clear Lake Dam, which provides no fish passage. This isolation

prevents genetic exchange with other populations and provides no opportunity for natural

recolonization of the sub-basin in the event of local extirpation. While suckers are

entrained at the dam, this will be reduced by screening in place by May 2002. Generally

the populations of SNS and LRS in the Clear Lake sub-basin appear to be relatively

stable, and the primary threat to their persistence would be prolonged drought conditions

and perhaps adverse water quality during prolonged ice-cover. The relatively low

percentage of older adults in the Clear Lake populations, the cause of which has not been

resolved is a concern.

Gerber Reservoir. Monitoring since 1992 within the Gerber watershed has documented a

SNS population exhibiting a wide range of size classes (USBR unpub. data). Suckers

ranged from 2-14 years old, indicating a young population in the reservoir. The presence

of smaller suckers indicates the population in Gerber Reservoir has successfully recruited

recently. In dry years, tributaries dry up and fish in Gerber Reservoir are subjected to

extremely low water levels, high turbidity, and low DO which may contribute to poor

sucker condition in these years. Gerber Reservoir contains large populations of

introduced warmwater predatory fishes; their specific impacts on the SNS population are

unknown. No population estimates are available for the Gerber SNS population.

The Gerber SNS population is currently isolated from the rest of the Klamath Basin by

Gerber Dam, which provides no fish passage. This isolation prevents genetic exchange

with other populations and provides no opportunity for natural recolonization of the subbasin in the event of local extirpation. While some suckers are entrained at the dam, this

has been largely eliminated through placement of net screens at the outlet. Generally the

population of SNS in Gerber Reservoir appears to be relatively healthy, and the primary

threat to its persistence would be prolonged drought conditions and associated adverse

water quality.

Lost River. The Lost River currently supports an apparently small population of SNS and

LRS. Suckers, primarily SNS and Klamath largescale sucker (KLS, Catostomus snyderi)

have been reported from throughout the drainage (Koch and Contreras 1973, Buettner

and Scoppettone 1991). However, the majority of both adults and juveniles are caught in

a very restricted reach of the river, above Harpold Dam and to a lesser extent from

Wilson Reservoir (Shively et al. 2002). Movement of suckers within the river are

severely restricted due to diversion dams, and available habitat is limited by adverse

water quality in the impoundments and channelized sections of the river. The Lost River

contains large populations of introduced warm-water predatory fishes and has become

dominated by introduced fathead minnows; their specific impacts on the sucker
107

population are not known. No population estimates are available for sucker populations

in the Lost River.

Sucker spawning habitat in the Lost River is very limited. Sucker spawning has been

documented below Anderson-Rose Dam, in Big Springs, and at the terminal end of the

West Canal as it spills into the Lost River. According to residents, sucker spawning at

Big Springs is now rare, but historically it was an important spawning site and was used

by Native Americans as a major fishing site during the spawning migration (Klamath

Echos). Suspected spawning areas that have suitable habitat (rocky riffle areas) include

the spillway area below Malone Reservoir, just upstream of Keller Bridge, just below Big

Springs, just below Harpold Dam, and adjacent to Station 48. Spawning has also been

documented in Miller Creek, and is suspected in Buck Creek and Rocky Canyon Creeks

(Shively et al. 2002). Based on length frequency distributions it appears that several year

classes of SNS are represented within the Lost River.

Populations of both LRS and SNS in historical Tule Lake migrated up the Lost River to

spawn at Big Springs (River Mile 42), near Bonanza, Oregon and probably at other

shallow riffle areas with appropriate spawning substrate (Coots 1965). The construction

of Lost River Diversion Dam in 1912 by Reclamation restricted sucker migrations out of

Tule Lake to the lower 23 miles of the Lost River. In 1921, construction of the

Anderson-Rose Diversion Dam further restricted migrations to the lower 7 miles of the

river. Reclamation has monitored endangered sucker spawning runs from Tule Lake into

the Lost River regularly since 1991 (USBR 1998). Although dozens of suckers were

observed spawning during May, and some eggs were found, substantial numbers of larval

suckers were only observed in 1995. In 1999, Reclamation changed operations in the

Lost River below Anderson Rose Dam, and suckers began migrating to the dam as early

as two days after releases were started.

Tule Lake. Historically Tule Lake had enormous sucker populations of both LRS and

SNS which made significant spawning runs up the Lost River (Cope 1879; Coots 1965;

Howe 1968). Sucker runs up the Lost River were once so large that several canneries

were set up to can and process suckers into dried fish, oil, and other products (Howe

1968, Andreasen 1975). Perhaps the largest recorded osprey colony, which numbered

about 500 nests, was located near Merrill, Oregon, and was probably dependent on

suckers and other fishes from Tule Lake (Henny 1988). The vast sucker populations that

migrated out of Tule Lake are severely reduced today. The lake was sampled for suckers

in 1973, but none were collected (Koch and Contreras 1973). However, in 1991 both

species were observed spawning below Anderson-Rose Dam, and in 1992-93 about 20

specimens of each species were captured in Tule Lake (USFWS 1993). Further sampling

has confirmed a small population of both species in the Tule Lake sumps (Scoppettone et

al. 1995). The negative surveys of Koch and Contreras are likely explained by limited

collecting effort in areas where suckers aggregate and low sucker population levels. It

seems unlikely that suckers have only recently re-invaded the sumps via entrainment of

fish into irrigation canals. Suckers inhabiting Tule Lake, while low in number, were

found to have a high condition factor (ratio of weight to length) relative to that of other

Klamath Basin sucker populations.
108

Population estimates, based on limited capture and recapture data, estimate 159 adult

SNS (95% CI: 48-289) and 105 LRS (95% CI: 25-175) in the Tule Lake populations,

which contain few size classes (Scoppettone et al. 1995). Most SNS are about 46 cm fork

length, and most LRS are 46-60 cm fork length. While an accurate estimate of the

population size is not possible, the available information suggests that sucker population

sizes in what remains of the lowest reach of the Lost River and Tule Lake are currently

limited to a few hundred individuals of each species.

Sucker habitat in Tule Lake sumps for juveniles and adults is extremely limited due to

shallow depths, and the sumps continue to fill with sediment. Approximately 8,000 and

5,000 acre-feet (ft) of storage were lost from sumps 1A and 1B, respectively, between

1958 and 1986 (USBR unpub. data). Wind- and water-borne silt is coming primarily

from agriculture in the Lost River watershed. Since the Tule Lake sumps are shallow,

with an average depth of less than 4 ft, this loss of habitat is significant. Reduction of

water depth in Tule Lake is a threat to the suckers because it increases the risk of a winter

freeze, reduces the amount of deepwater habitat for adult suckers, increases avian

predation, and may contribute to poor water quality by allowing the water to heat more

rapidly and allowing sediments and nutrients to be more readily mixed by wind shear.

The Refuges are developing a plan of sump rotation that may help alleviate the problem

of siltation in Tule Lake, however, sediment transported by the Lost River will continue

to be a problem until erosion in the Lost River watershed is reduced.

Rearing habitat in the Lost River downstream of Anderson-Rose Dam is limited both by

water quality and structural features of the channelized river. The lower Lost River is, at

high lake levels, made up almost entirely of backed-up sump water, and water quality

conditions reflect those in the sump. A few small irrigation return drains empty into the

river in this reach and may contribute to water quality degradation.

The small sucker populations residing in what remains of Tule Lake are likely limited by

a lack of recruitment, inadequate water depth, and seasonally poor water quality. Other

than Clear Lake and UKL, Tule Lake (including a portion of the Lost River) contains the

only additional population of LRS within its historical range. The small Tule Lake

populations of both species appear to be healthy, relatively free of parasites and skin

infections, and to have a higher condition factor than suckers found elsewhere in the

Basin. However, present rates of sedimentation threaten the persistence of their

remaining habitat.

Lower Klamath Lake. Prior to 1917, Lower Klamath Lake was seasonally connected to

the Klamath River either when it flooded in spring or later in the summer when the river

level was down and water flowed from the lake to the Klamath River (Weddell 2000).

Steamboats were even able to navigate the Klamath Straits, a slough that connected the

lake and river. The railroad completely severed that connection by 1917, and by 1924,

the majority of the Lower Klamath wetlands had been drained (Weddell et al. 1998;

Weddell 2000). Connectivity between Lower Klamath Lake and the rest of the Klamath

Basin is now limited to water pumped through Sheepy Ridge from Tule Lake and various
109

irrigation channels that connect into the Keno impoundment, primarily the Klamath

Straits Drain and Ady Canal.

Prior to about 1924, suckers migrated up Sheepy Creek (a spring-fed tributary to Lower

Klamath Lake) in sufficient numbers that they were taken for food or to feed hogs (Coots

1965). In 1960, small numbers of adult suckers were observed moving up Sheepy Creek

in the springtime (Coots 1965). Since 1960, available survey information, though

limited, indicates no suckers remain in Lower Klamath Lake sub-basin (Buettner and

Scoppettone 1991, Koch and Contreras 1973). Occasional suckers may disperse into the

Lower Klamath Lake sub-basin through irrigation canals, but there is apparently no

suitable habitat for long-term survival, and at present there are no known resident

populations in the Lower Klamath Lake sub-basin.

Link River. Prior to construction of the Link River Dam, there were apparently large

spawning runs of suckers migrating up the Link River in March, which were described in

the Klamath Republican in 1901 as “immense congregations” of fish weighing two to six

pounds. The origin of these runs is not recorded; presumably, they came up out of Lower

Klamath Lake or the Lake Ewauna/Keno reach, as no suitable lake habitat was available

below Keno prior to construction of J.C. Boyle Dam. Suckers apparently occupied the

Link River even in summer, as evidenced by accounts of stranded “mullet,” when flow to

the Link River was cutoff by southerly winds producing a seiche (a wind-drive oscillation

of the water surface) in UKL that lowered the level at the outlet to below the sill and the

river temporarily stopped flowing (Spindor 1996).

There has been no concerted effort to survey the Link River itself for fish distribution and

seasonal use patterns. However, the limited information available demonstrates that adult

suckers still make an attempt to migrate upstream in the Link River during the spring, and

at least juveniles apparently reside in the river below the dam throughout most of the

year. Primarily juvenile suckers are consistently caught during salvage operations

conducted at the base of the Link River Dam during maintenance operations and spill

termination, which occurs in most seasons except the January-March period (USBR

2000). Small numbers of adult suckers have also been found attempting to utilize the

poorly designed fish ladder at the Link River Dam (Hemmingsen et al. 1992, PacificCorp

1997).

While suckers appear to still occupy habitat throughout the Link River in low numbers,

the lower Link River is probably crucial to suckers and other fish, since it may be the best

habitat now available in the reach upstream of Keno. The lower Link River can serve as

a critical refuge for fish during periods of low DO. Water quality in Lake Ewauna is

frequently very poor and the higher water quality in the Link River may allow fish from

the lake to survive. Link River, because of its high gradient and numerous cascades, has

a significant potential for oxygenation of water prior to entry into Lake Ewauna where

there is a high biochemical oxygen demand. Furthermore, a number of small springs

along and in the channel add fresh, high-quality water to the river. In summer, when

most of the flow is diverted into the hydroproject, water quality in the Link River itself
110

and the reach’s potential to oxygenate water entering Lake Ewauna is greatly

compromised by the reduced flow caused by the diversions.

At this time, suckers attempting to move up into UKL, including those that have been

entrained from UKL and delivered downstream by diversion channels, are effectively

prevented by the Link River Dam. Mature suckers trapped below the Link River Dam

are prevented from reaching spawning grounds in UKL or its tributaries and are lost to

the population.

Keno Impoundment (Lake Ewauna to Keno Dam). Historically, Lake Ewauna and the

upper Klamath River were connected to both the Lost River, at least in years of high

water, and to Lower Klamath Lake. In 1890, the paddle-wheeler “Mayflower” was able

to navigate up the Lost River Slough and moved down the Lost River to near Merrill.

The Lake Ewauna/ upper Klamath River reach may have formed a critical connectivity

corridor for suckers moving between the Upper and Lower Klamath lakes and the Lost

River. Currently, Lake Ewauna and the upper reach of the Klamath River above the

Keno Dam form an impoundment 20 miles-long by 300 to 2600 ft-wide, with depths of 9

to 20 ft (the Keno Impoundment, see Environmental Baseline). Water quality in this

reach of the Klamath River is seasonally poor and it is 303(d)-listed by Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality for DO, pH, Chl-a, and ammonia (CH2M Hill

1995, ODEQ 1998).

Very little is known about the present use of the Keno to Link River reach by suckers or

other fishes, and no systematic sampling has been done. There is evidence that some

suckers still migrate upstream past the Keno Dam (Hemmingsen et al. 1992, PacifiCorp

1997). Their destination and success at reaching it are unknown. The occasional capture

of adult suckers in the Keno Impoundment, the presence of suckers both in the Link

River itself and at both the Link River and Keno fish ladders, and the apparent outmigration of tens of thousands of juveniles from UKL in the late summer and fall

demonstrate that suckers utilize this reach and suggests that improvement of habitat

quality, coupled with adequate fish passage at the Link River and Keno Dams, would be

a key component to restoring exchange between UKL and downstream populations, as

well as allowing the survival and return of the large number of suckers swept downstream

of the Link River Dam from UKL.

Klamath River Reservoirs. Downstream of Keno Dam the Klamath River consists of

three primary reservoirs (J.C. Boyle, Copco and Iron Gate) interconnected by three

riverine reaches (Desjardins and Markle 2000, Fishpro 2000). Four species of suckers

are known from the Klamath River and its reservoirs: LRS, SNS, KLS, and the Klamath

smallscale sucker (KSS, Catostomus rimiculus). The KSS is principally a river- and

stream-dwelling species which is rare in the upper Basin. Due to the high-energy

character of the river reaches, the primarily lake-dwelling LRS and SNS are not expected

to occupy them, except potentially for spawning and as migration corridors. Of the five

dams below UKL, only Keno and J.C. Boyle have fish passage facilities (Hemmingsen et

al. 1992, Ott Engineers 1990, PacificCorps 1997). While the Keno and J.C. Boyle
111

ladders are apparently passable by suckers to some degree, neither is designed for

optimum sucker passage.

The SNS is the only lake sucker that occurs in abundance in the Klamath drainage below

Keno, and adult SNS have been consistently collected in all three reservoirs (J.C. Boyle,

Copco, and Iron Gate). Copco Reservoir apparently contains the largest population of

larger adults. However, the two lower reservoirs, Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs

contain few sub-adults, which are generally present only in J.C. Boyle Reservoir.

Although larval suckers have been caught in all three reservoirs, their identity is

uncertain. SNS spawning behavior has been recorded from Copco, but there is no

evidence that SNS consistently survive past their first year in the reservoir (Beak

Consultants Inc. 1987, Buettner and Scoppettone 1991, Desjardins and Markle 2000).

LRS are apparently rare in the two upper reservoirs and have not been recorded from Iron

Gate. In 1956, Coots did catch three LRS in Copco, however it is unclear whether they

were abundant at the time (Coots 1965); more recent surveys have caught only a few

individuals (Desjardins and Markle 2000). ODFW and PacifiCorp caught only eight LRS

passing the Keno Dam from 1988-1991 (PacifiCorp 1997).

Desjardins and Markle (2000) considered J.C. Boyle to be a possible sink for UKL larvae

and juvenile suckers entrained into the Klamath River from UKL. J.C. Boyle was the

only reservoir where juveniles were plentiful. No SNS or LRS have been recorded

spawning in J.C. Boyle.

Threats and Conservation Needs. The threats to the LRS and SNS are discussed below

along with the conservation needs that address each threat and the general status of the

species relative to that threat. The specific status of each LRS/SNS population was

discussed above by area (e.g., Status: Upper Klamath Lake). The term “conservation

needs” is defined as those actions or conditions necessary to bring an endangered or

threatened species to the point at which protection under the ESA is no longer necessary.

In other words, those actions or conditions that adequately provide for the survival and

recovery of the listed species. The discussion below addresses the primary threats

recognized at the time of listing and two additional threats recognized since listing, lack

of passage and entrainment.

Establish a sufficient number of viable, self-sustaining populations of the LRS and SNS

in as much of their historical range as possible. Multiple populations provide resiliency

in response to localized extirpations caused by adverse conditions such as prolonged

drought, contaminant spills, disease and catastrophic water quality declines. Multiple

populations also help ensure the genetic diversity of the species and improve its ability to

adapt to changing environmental conditions.

The historical range of LRS and SNS has been severely reduced by drainage and

management of Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes. Lower Klamath Lake no longer

supports suckers, and the populations in Tule Lake are reduced to a few hundred adults.

Both species were once very abundant and were critical food resources for Native
112

Americans and white settlers in the upper Klamath River Basin (Cope 1879, Gilbert

1898, Howe 1968). It was estimated that the aboriginal harvest at one site on the Lost

River may have been 50 tons annually (Stern 1966). Settlers built a cannery on the Lost

River and suckers were also processed into oil and salted for shipment. In 1900, the

Klamath Republican newspaper reported that “mullet,” as suckers were referred to, were

so thick in the Lost River that a man with a pitch fork could throw out a wagon load in an

hour. In 1959, suckers were made a game species under Oregon State law, and snagging

suckers in the Williamson and Sprague River was popular with locals and out-of-town

sportsmen. By 1985, Bienz and Ziller (1987) estimated the harvest had dropped by about

95 percent. Based on this information, the game fishery was terminated in 1987, just prior

to federal listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act.

Historically, both LRS and SNS occurred throughout the Upper Klamath Basin, with the

exception of the higher, cooler tributaries dominated by resident trout and the upper

Williamson, which is isolated by the Williamson Canyon. At the time of listing, LRS and

SNS were reported from UKL, its tributaries, Lost River, Clear Lake Reservoir, the

Klamath River, and the three larger Klamath River reservoirs (Copco, Iron Gate, and J.C.

Boyle). The general range of LRS and SNS had been substantially reduced from its

historic extent by the total loss of major populations in Lower Klamath Lake, including

Sheepy Lake, and Tule Lake (53 FR 61744). The Klamath River reservoir populations

receive individuals carried downstream from upper reaches of the river, but they are

isolated from the Upper Klamath Basin by dams and show no evidence of self-sustaining

reproduction (Desjardins and Markle 2000). The current geographic ranges of LRS and

SNS have not changed substantially since they were listed and only two additional SNS

and one LRS populations have been recognized since 1988. They all occur in isolated

sections of the Lost River drainage, within the historical ranges of the species, and

include an isolated population of SNS in Gerber Reservoir and a small population

(limited to several hundred adults) of each species in Tule Lake.

Currently, there are three major populations of SNS in the Upper Klamath Basin found in

UKL, Clear Lake, and Gerber Reservoir. There are two major populations of LRS in the

Upper Klamath Basin found in UKL and Clear Lake, along with a very small population

in Tule Lake. UKL contains the largest populations of SNS and LRS and these

populations are crucial for the long-term survival of both species. However, multiple

populations provide resiliency in response to localized extirpations caused by adverse

conditions such as prolonged drought, contaminant spills, disease and catastrophic water

quality declines. Multiple populations also help ensure the genetic diversity of the species

and improve its ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Therefore, in

addition to sucker populations in UKL, the populations of LRS and SNS in Clear Lake,

Gerber, and Tule Lake are essential to ensure the long-term survival of the species.

Habitat Loss, Degradation, and Fragmentation. Provide adequate quantity and quality of

habitat to meet the needs of all life-history stages of the LRS and SNS. Adequate habitat

is crucial to ensure recruitment and support viable populations.
113

Aquatic habitat has been substantially altered or destroyed in the Klamath Basin. Many

previously occupied areas no longer support suckers, and crucial habitat for larvae and

juveniles is often unavailable due to water management in critical rearing areas such as

UKL. The Klamath Basin has lost extensive areas of emergent marshes and open lake

environments that were previously used by the LRS and SNS. Lower Klamath Lake no

longer supports suckers, and available habitat in Tule Lake is now limited to a few

hundred acres or less. Conditions in the Lost River have limited suckers to a few primary

reaches of the river. In UKL emergent vegetation that provides habitat to larval and

juvenile suckers, is greatly reduced in extent and often fragmented into isolated patches

along the shoreline or left dry as lake levels drop. Current habitat availability and

conditions in the Klamath Basin are greatly dependent on water management. In UKL

availability of larval and juvenile sucker habitat is constrained by lake level, with much

of the available habitat lost by mid to late summer as water levels decline. Adult sucker

habitat is also limited by low summer/fall lake levels.

Small or Isolated Adult Populations [Reproduction]. Increase and maintain population

sizes of the LRS and SNS. Populations must be maintained at levels that ensure genetic

viability and provide sufficient genetic variability to allow the species to respond to

environmental and ecological variability.

Important portions of the suckers’ historical range, including the Lost River, Tule Lake,

Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoir, contain populations which are either relatively small or

are isolated by dams. LRS and SNS populations in Tule Lake and the Lost River (LRS in

particular) appear to have declined substantially below historic levels. The primary threat

to these populations is limited habitat due to adverse water quality, sedimentation,

impoundment, isolation from spawning areas and lack of significant recruitment. The

Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoir populations of the LRS and SNS are isolated by dams

from the rest of the Klamath Basin. Although these populations appear to be maintaining

themselves, each is at risk by habitat reduction during prolonged drought with no ability

to replenish the gene pool through immigration of individuals from neighboring areas.

Isolation of Existing Populations by Dams [Passage]. Provide for adequate passage for

all life-stages of suckers past dams. Both sucker species are dependent on free-passage

along river corridors to ensure genetic exchange between populations, to gain access to

spawning areas, and to allow young fish entrained downstream to return to their parent

populations.

There are nine primary dams within the natural range of the LRS and SNS, none of these

dams provide suitable passage for suckers. The dams physically isolate sucker

populations, prevent genetic exchange, block access to essential habitat, cut off escape

from adverse conditions downstream, and prevent the return of entrained suckers to

upstream habitat and spawning areas. The proposed fish ladder at the Link River Dam is

intended to allow spawning adults to pass the dam, but the smaller juvenile and sub-adult

suckers will remain isolated downstream. Completion of the Link River fish ladder is not

expected until at least January 2006.
114

Poor Water Quality Leading to Large Fish Die-Offs and Reduced Fitness. Improve

water quality to a level where adverse effects are not sufficient to threaten the continued

persistence of the LRS and SNS. Lethal water quality conditions in UKL are the primary

cause of mortality in adult suckers.

Water quality in UKL consistently reaches levels known to be stressful to suckers and

periodically reaches lethal levels in August and September, resulting in catastrophic dieoffs. Major fish die-offs have been recorded at UKL since the late 1800's but have

increased in frequency in the last few decades. Small, localized fish die-offs have been

observed annually on UKL since 1992 when extensive research and monitoring activities

began. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 a series of major fish kills in UKL reduced adult sucker

populations of LRS and SNS in UKL by an estimated 80-90 percent.

Adverse water quality conditions in Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoirs is primarily

determined by shallow reservoir depths, which reduce available habitat and cause

declines in DO, resulting in stress to the suckers and reducing their overall fitness.

Available habitat in Tule Lake is severely limited by shallow depths and further limited

by seasonal declines in water quality. All three water bodies are subject to potential

winter fish-kills when poor water quality, especially low DO, is associated with

prolonged ice-cover and shallow depths.

Lack of Sufficient Recruitment. Increase the frequency and magnitude of recruitment into

the spawning populations of both LRS and SNS. For a population to survive, survival

and recruitment of young fish into the spawning population must be sufficient to offset

adult mortality and allow populations to increase to sustainable levels that provide

adequate resiliency against fish kills, disease, infrequent recruitment, and other factors.

Since listing in 1988, the UKL sucker populations have not maintained recruitment levels

sufficient to offset adult mortality caused by catastrophic fish die-offs. Successful

recruitment of substantial new cohorts of the LRS and SNS into the UKL spawning

populations has only occurred 2-3 times in the last seventeen years (1984-2001). During

this time there have been four catastrophic, and many minor fish die-offs, caused by

adverse water quality (see discussion below under the status of suckers in UKL). Size

frequency of suckers in Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoirs indicates that these

populations have had recent recruitment; however, the overall status of the populations is

uncertain. There is no evidence of successful sucker recruitment in the small Tule Lake

population or in the Klamath River reservoirs.

Entrainment into Irrigation and Hydropower Diversion Canal. Substantially reduce

entrainment of larval, juvenile and adult LRS and SNS. Entrainment represents a major

cause of mortality in young suckers and adults within the Upper Klamath Basin. For

recovery of LRS and SNS it is crucial to increase survival of young life-stages so that

they can recruit into the adult spawning population, and reduce mortality of adults; both

are necessary for the establishment of viable, self-sustaining, natural populations.
115

Entrainment of suckers into Klamath Basin irrigation and hydro-power diversions is

documented to account for the loss of millions of larvae, tens of thousands of juveniles,

and hundreds to thousands of adult suckers each year (Gutermuth et al. 1997, 1998, 1999,

2000a, 2000; Harris and Markle 1991, Markle and Simon 1993, Simon and Markle 2001,

USBR 2002). There are currently no fish screens at principal diversions that meet State

or Federal screening criteria. Reclamation is currently in the final design phase for

construction of a fish screen at the A-Canal, which is scheduled to be operational by July

22, 2003. However, the proposed facility will not prevent entrainment of larval fish

under about 30 mm, and so larval entrainment of suckers will continue. Suckers

prevented from entering A-Canal will still have to contend with entrainment just

downstream at the Link River Dam and diversions. The fact that adequate screening has

not been provided anywhere within the Project after nearly a century of operation is

considered by the Service to be a major factor imperiling and retarding the recovery of

the two endangered suckers.

Hybridization with Other Native Klamath Sucker Species. Maintain rates of

hybridization appropriate to the evolutionary framework in which the suckers are

evolving. Excessive hybridization can result in the loss of genetic diversity, fitness, and

need to explain effect to lineage, evolutionarily unique lineages.

Hybridization was believed to be widely occurring in Klamath Basin suckers and was

considered a threat by the Service at time the LRS and SNS were listed. From 1997-2001

several different laboratories (Oregon State University; University of California, Davis;

and Arizona State University) have used independent strategies to identify morphological

and genetic characters to address questions regarding reproductive isolation,

classification, systematic relationships, and the extent of hybridization among Klamath

Basin suckers. The preliminary evidence suggests that some hybridization may be

natural within the Klamath Basin sucker fauna, and hybridization may not represent as

great a threat as was thought at the time the LRS and SNS were listed. However, the

biological and conservation implications of hybridization, as well as the degree to which

recent man-made changes to the Klamath Basin have altered the natural rate of

hybridization, are still not completely understood.

Potential Competition with and Predation by Non-Native Fishes. Ensure that LRS and

SNS populations can withstand the adverse effects of competition and predation from

introduced fishes.

At least eighteen species of non-native fishes have been introduced and have established

populations in the Upper Klamath Basin. Little is known about the ecological and

competitive interactions of the introduced fishes with the native suckers, and this limits

our ability to assess their impact. Many of the introduced fishes, including the fathead

minnow, yellow perch and brown bullheads, have successfully established themselves in

the Upper Klamath basin and are predators that could prey on larval and juvenile suckers.

One species of particular concern is the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. The

fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas is a small minnow which first appeared in UKL in

1974, and has increased in abundance to an extent where it is frequently the most
116

abundant fish captured there and in the Lost River. Fathead minnows and juvenile

yellow perch generally occupy the same near-shore habitat as larval and juvenile suckers

and may be significant predators on the larvae. It is not practical to remove non-native

fishes once they have become established. However, habitat management to the benefit

of native suckers, especially larvae and juveniles, and recovery of the adult population to

a point where reproduction offsets the adverse effects of competition will allow the

suckers to sustain viable populations in the face of increased competition and predation.

Overharvesting by Sport and Commercial Fishing. Reduce harvest to levels that allow

for viable natural populations to maintain themselves.

LRS and SNS were once very abundant and were critical seasonal foods of Native

Americans and white settlers in the upper Klamath River basin. In 1959, suckers were

made a game species under Oregon State law, and snagging suckers was extremely

popular with both locals and out-of-town sportsmen. By 1985, the estimated harvest had

dropped by about 95 percent. Based on this information, the fishery was terminated in

1987, just prior to Federal listing. As a result of the regulatory termination of sport and

commercial fishing, overharvest is no longer considered a threat to the species.

Status Summary. Currently, there are three major populations of SNS in the Upper

Klamath Basin found in UKL, Clear Lake, and Gerber. There are two major populations

of LRS in the Upper Klamath Basin found in UKL and Clear Lake, along with a very

small population in Tule Lake. Upper Klamath Lake contains the largest populations of

SNS and LRS and these populations are crucial for the long-term survival of both

species. However, multiple populations provide resiliency in response to localized

extirpations caused by adverse conditions such as prolonged drought, contaminant spills,

disease and catastrophic water quality declines. Multiple populations also help ensure the

genetic diversity of the species and improve its ability to adapt to changing

environmental conditions. Therefore, in addition to sucker populations in UKL, the

populations of LRS and SNS in Clear Lake, Gerber, and Tule Lake are essential to ensure

the long-term survival of the species.

Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri)

Background. Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, and life history of the Oregon

chub can be found in the final rule designating the species as endangered (58 FR 53800),

the annual progress reports for Oregon chub investigations (Scheere et al. 2000, 2002,

2003) and the Recovery Plan for the Oregon Chub (USFWS 1998).

Oregon chub are found in slack water off-channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows,

side channels, backwater sloughs, low gradient tributaries, and flooded marshes. These

habitats usually have little or no water flow, silty and organic substrate, and considerable

aquatic vegetation as cover for hiding and spawning (Pearsons 1989, Markle et al. 1991,

Scheerer and McDonald 2000). The average depth of Oregon chub habitats is typically

less than 6 feet and the summer temperatures typically exceed 16oC (61oF). Adult

Oregon chub seek dense vegetation for cover and frequently travel in the mid-water
117

column in beaver channels or along the margins of aquatic plant beds. Larval chub

congregate in near shore areas in the upper layers of the water column in shallow areas

(Pearsons 1989). Juvenile Oregon chub venture farther from shore into deeper areas of

the water column (Pearsons 1989). In the winter months, Oregon chub can be found

buried in the detritus or concealed in aquatic vegetation (Pearsons 1989). Fish of similar

size classes school and feed together. In the early spring, Oregon chub are most active in

the warmer, shallow areas of the ponds.

Current and Historical Range. The Oregon chub is a small minnow (Family:

Cyprinidae) endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western Oregon (Markle et al.

1991). This species was formerly distributed throughout the Willamette River Valley in

off-channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows, side channels, backwater sloughs,

low gradient tributaries, and flooded marshes (Snyder 1908). Historical records show

Oregon chub were found as far downstream as Oregon City and as far upstream as

Oakridge. Records of Oregon chub collections exist for the Clackamas River, Molalla

River, Mill Creek, South Santiam River, North Santiam River, Luckiamute River, Long

Tom River, McKenzie River, Calapooia River, Muddy Creek, Mary’s River, Coast Fork

Willamette River, Middle Fork Willamette River, and the mainstem Willamette River

(Markle et al. 1991, Scheerer and McDonald 2000).

Based on a 1987 survey (Markle et al. 1989) and compilation of all known historical

records, at the time of the petition for listing in 1991, viable populations of the Oregon

chub occurred in the following locations: Dexter Reservoir, Shady Dell Pond, Buckhead

Creek near Lookout Point Reservoir, Elijah Bristow State Park, William L. Finley

National Wildlife Refuge, Greens Bridge, and East Fork Minnow Pond. These locations

represented a small fraction - estimated as two percent based on stream miles - of the

species’ formerly extensive distribution within the Willamette River drainage.

Population Status and Trends. At present, Oregon chub occur at approximately 27

locations in the North and South Santiam River, McKenzie River, Middle Fork

Willamette River, Coast Fork, and several tributaries to the mainstem Willamette River

downstream of the Coast Fork Willamette/Middle Fork Willamette confluence (Scheerer

et al. 2003). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has reintroduced Oregon chub

at a number of sites within the Willamette Basin; seven currently sustain a population. In

2002, only nine populations of Oregon chub were larger than 1,000 fish, and eight

populations numbered fewer than 100 individuals (Scheerer et al. 2003). Oregon chub

appear to have been extirpated from at least nine locations at which they were detected in

the 1990s (Scheerer et al. 2003).

Of the known Oregon chub populations, the sites with the highest diversity of native fish,

amphibian, and reptile species have the largest populations of Oregon chub (Scheerer and

McDonald 2000). Beavers (Castor canadensis) appear to be especially important in

creating and maintaining habitats that support these diverse native species assemblages

(Scheerer and Apke 1998).
118

McKenzie Subbasin. Historical records show that Oregon chub were collected in the

McKenzie River subbasin, but until recently, no extant populations were known from the

basin. In October 2001, Oregon chub were introduced into Russell Pond in the Mohawk

drainage on private land under the terms of a Safe Harbor Agreement among the

landowner, the Service and ODFW (Scheerer et al. 2002). The current estimated

population in Russell Pond is 470 chub (Scheerer et al. 2003). A population of Oregon

chub was discovered in April 2002 in Shetzline Pond, a small man-made pond near

Marcola in the Mohawk drainage. The population estimate was 120 (Scheerer et al.

2003). ODFW is seeking funds to expand the wetland to create more habitat for the

chub. Neither of these two populations in the Mohawk drainage is affected by flows in

the mainstem McKenzie.

In 2002, a population of Oregon chub was found in side channels of the McKenzie River

just east of Springfield in an area called Big Island, upstream of the confluence with

Cedar Creek (Scheerer et al. 2003). The population was estimated at 940 chub. This site

is connected to the mainstem McKenzie.

North Santiam Subbasin. Oregon chub are currently known to persist at about five sites

in the North Santiam River subbasin: Geren Island, Santiam Conservation Easement,

Green’s Bridge Backwater, Pioneer Park Backwater, and at I-5 Backwater, which is

downstream of the confluence of the North and South Santiam Rivers (Scheerer et al.

2003). Oregon chub populations in the North Santiam have been declining in recent

years; no chub were detected at two sites (Stayton Public Works Pond and Gray Slough)

in 2002, which had small populations of the fish in 2000 and 2001 (Scheerer et al. 2003).

Only two populations in this subbasin have more than 100 fish (Geren Island and I-5

Backwater). Many of the sites in the North Santiam subbasin (e.g., Geren Island,

Santiam Conservation Easement sloughs) have seen chub populations decline as nonnative fishes invaded the habitats (Scheerer et al. 1998).

The largest Oregon chub population in the subbasin is at Geren Island, in the ponds and

channels of the City of Salem’s municipal water treatment facility. Oregon chub were

first detected there in 1996. At the time, the population was the largest known, with over

8,000 Oregon chub. Since 1996, the population has declined precipitously to fewer than

800 chub in 2002; the cause of the decline is unknown, but may be associated with the

proliferation of non-native fishes, which appear to have entered the ponds in the 1996

floods. The water treatment ponds at Geren Island are connected to the North Santiam by

means of intake structures; the North Pond, which supports most of the Oregon chub at

Geren Island, appears to have a hydrological connection to the North Santiam. River

level is closely correlated to the water level in the North Pond; as river levels drop, pond

level drops and the temperature rises (Scheerer and McDonald 2000). When releases

from Big Cliff Dam fall below 2,000 cfs, water levels in the North Pond drop below

optimum levels (Scheerer and McDonald 2000). The City of Salem is preparing a

Habitat Conservation Plan for Oregon chub at the facility. A number of conservation

measures to protect the chub are already in place, including screening and monitoring for

chub in the sand filters.
119

All of the other known Oregon chub populations in this subbasin are in backwater

sloughs connected to the river, and are potentially affected by changes in flow levels in

the river. Non-native fish appear to have invaded the Santiam Conservation Easement

sloughs and Green’s Bridge Backwater in the 1996 floods (Scheerer and McDonald

2000).

South Santiam Subbasin. There are two introduced populations of Oregon chub in the

South Santiam subbasin. In 1999, ODFW introduced Oregon chub into Foster Pullout

Pond, on the north shore of Foster Reservoir. The spring-fed pond is perched above the

full-pool reservoir level; it is free of any other fish species, and contains a diverse

assemblage of native amphibians, western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata

marmorata), and bull frogs (Rana catesbiana) (Scheerer and McDonald 2000). The

population was estimated at 320 fish in 2002 (Scheerer et al. 2003).

Fifteen Oregon chub were introduced into Menear’s Bend Pond in 2000. The site is a

small series of beaver ponds on Corps land upstream of Foster Reservoir on a small

unnamed tributary to the South Santiam River; 29 chub were captured at the site in 2002

(Scheerer et al. 2003). Water levels were very low at this pond in 2001, which may have

contributed to the low numbers.

Middle Fork Willamette Subbasin. The Middle Fork Willamette River Subbasin supports

the largest number of Oregon chub populations, as well as the most abundant

populations. Oregon chub are currently known to persist at 13 locations in the subbasin:

Fall Creek Spillway Pond, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Elijah Bristow State Park (two

sites), Hospital Pond, Buckhead Creek Enhancement Ponds, Shady Dell Pond, Dexter

Reservoir Alcoves (two sites), Oakridge Slough, Wicopee Pond, Rattlesnake Creek, and

Barnhard Slough. Reintroductions have been conducted at four sites (i.e., Fall Creek

Spillway, Wicopee, East Ferrin and West Ferrin). Surveys by ODFW between 1992 and

2002 have found Oregon chub populations in the Middle Fork Willamette River to be

generally stable or increasing in abundance (Scheerer et al. 2002).

The Buckhead Creek Enhancement Ponds consist of three shallow, off-channel ponds

with surface areas of 300-500 m2 each. The ponds were created by the WNF in 1998 to

increase the amount of off-channel habitat available to Oregon chub in the Middle Fork

Willamette drainage. The ponds are connected to Buckhead Creek in high flow events,

but are not affected by flows in the Middle Fork. In 2001, surveys detected 1,230 chub in

the middle pond, 200 chub in the lower pond, and no chub in the upper pond (Scheerer et

al. 2002).

Shady Dell Pond is on a small tributary to the Middle Fork between Hills Creek and

Lookout Point. The population in 2002 was estimated at 2,420 Oregon chub (Scheerer et

al. 2003). There is not likely to be any effect of flow regime in the Middle Fork on chub

habitat in Shady Dell Pond.

The Oregon chub habitat at Oakridge Slough has connections to the Middle Fork

Willamette River at both upstream and downstream ends. There may also be a
120

subsurface connection to the river. Surveys in 2002 found just 9 Oregon chub at the site

(Scheerer et al. 2003).

Barnhard Slough is downstream of Oakridge on the Middle Fork, between Hills Creek

and Lookout Point Reservoirs. Only two chub were found at the site in 2002 (Scheerer et

al. 2003). The slough is a backwater area with upstream and downstream connections to

the Middle Fork, and may also be affected by the flow regime in the Middle Fork via

subsurface connections.

Hospital Pond is a 1-acre pond created when Lookout Point reservoir fills and backs

water into a depression above Forest Road 5821 (County Road 360) through a culvert.

The pond elevation is maintained at the existing reservoir elevation. The pond also

receives water from a spring that appears to be associated with nearby Hospital Creek;

the inflow is reported to be perennial and was estimated to be a few cubic feet per second

in March 2001. When full, the pond is approximately 16 ft deep, with shallower areas

around the margins and a large bench at elevation 922 ft. Typically, the reservoir and

pond fill in late May and water elevations begin to drop in early to mid-July, depending

on downstream water needs and inflow.

In the winter, when Lookout Point is lowered to provide flood storage, the water in

Hospital Pond is maintained at the top of the culvert (elevation 917 ft) by a small check

dam below the culvert outflow. Surface acreage is much reduced, but the pond depth is

maintained at approximately eight feet at it deepest point throughout the winter.

Since 2001, Corps has been attempting to protect the Oregon chub spawning habitat in

Hospital Pond by decoupling the water level in Hospital Pond from the level in Lookout

Point Reservoir. The goal is to allow Lookout Point to be drafted to meet downstream

flow objectives without regard to chub spawning needs in the pond. So far, several

projects have had some beneficial effect on the pond, but have not completely succeeded

in making Hospital Pond’s hydrology independent of the reservoir.

Since 1993, ODFW has conducted surveys for Oregon chub at Hospital Pond. The

population has ranged from a low of 690 individuals in 1993 to a high of 3,160

individuals in 1996, and is thought to be stable at around 3,000 fish (Scheerer et al.

2002). The population was estimated at 2,130 individuals in the 2002 survey (Scheerer et

al. 2003). Data from ODFW have shown that in years when the reservoir does not fill,

Oregon chub reproduction in Hospital Pond fails because the benches which provide

spawning habitat are not submerged. The reservoir did not fill in 1992 and 1994, which

resulted in year class failures (Scheerer and McDonald 2000). A diversity of other native

fishes have been collected in Hospital Pond [sculpins (Cottus sp.), dace (Rhinichthys sp.),

redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), Northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus

oregonensis) and largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus)], but no non-native

species have been found in the pond.

The Oregon chub at Hospital Pond are consistently larger in size than other populations

in the vicinity, despite lower than average water temperatures (Scheerer and McDonald
121

2000), suggesting that this population may be genetically unique, or that the pond is

unusually productive. Preservation of this population is a high priority for the resource

agencies involved in chub recovery.

Oregon chub have been found in alcoves and ponds on the south side of Dexter

Reservoir. These sites are connected to the reservoir by culverts; water levels in the

coves fluctuate with the height of the reservoir, and may vary by as much as five feet in

elevation in a day. As the reservoir is drawn down for flood control in winter, or only

partially filled in the spring and summer, these coves become inhospitable to chub. The

survival of chub in the main body of the reservoir is probably very low since food,

vegetative cover and other refugia are practically non-existent. Introduced predators, and

lack of cover and breeding habitat combine to create a hostile environment for chub in

the reservoir.

The Oregon chub population in East Fork Minnow Creek Pond numbered 3,270 in 2002

(Scheerer et al. 2003). The site is a beaver pond near Lookout Point Reservoir; it is not

affected by changing reservoir levels, as the pond is perched above the level of the full

pool, and the culvert that connects Minnow Creek with the reservoir is impassable to the

upstream movement of fish from the reservoir (Scheerer and McDonald 2000).

There is a very small population of Oregon chub in Rattlesnake Creek (only two chub

were found in 2002)(Scheerer et al. 2003). Rattlesnake Creek is a tributary that enters the

Middle Fork below Dexter Dam; flow regime in the Middle Fork has no effect on chub

habitat in this population.

Oregon chub have been found in several ponds at Elijah Bristow State Park on the

Middle Fork Willamette River below Dexter Dam. The populations in Berry Slough and

the Northeast Backwater do not appear to be directly affected by flows in the Middle

Fork, although there may be a subsurface connection. These populations have been

stable or increasing; surveys in 2002 estimated 4,910 chub in Berry Slough, and 940 chub

in the Northeast Backwater (Scheerer et al. 2003). A small number of chub were found

in the gravel pits at the park about five years ago; these ponds appear to be very sensitive

to the flow levels in the Middle Fork Willamette River. In 2001, releases from Dexter

fell below 1100 cfs, which resulted in the water level in one of the chub ponds falling to

less than 0.25 m. The Corps worked closely with ODFW and the Service to monitor the

water levels in the chub ponds as flows from Dexter dropped, but these populations

appear to have been extirpated (Scheerer et al. 2002).

Recent surveys of the introduced populations in the Middle Fork Subbasin found robust

populations in Fall Creek Spillway Pond (6,370 chub) and Wicopee Pond (2,410

chub)(Scheerer et al. 2003). The Fall Creek Spillway Pond was formed by a beaver dam

that blocks the spillway overflow channel, and has been in existence for over 10 years.

The pond has high quality habitat (Scheerer and McDonald 2000).

Wicopee Pond was the site of a 1988 introduction of 50 Oregon chub. The pond is a

former borrow pit adjacent to Salt Creek in the Middle Fork Willamette drainage. Few
122

chub were found between 1992 and 1999, but in 2000, the population increased

dramatically to over 4,000 individual (Scheerer et al. 2003).

Not all introductions have fared as well as Fall Creek Spillway Pond and Wicopee Pond.

East Ferrin Pond and West Ferrin Ponds were treated with Rotenone to remove nonnative fishes in 1993. In 1994, Oregon chub were introduced to the ponds. West Ferrin

Pond did not succeed as a reintroduction site, and no chub have been found in the pond.

East Ferrin Pond had a population of approximately 7,200 Oregon chub in 1997; surveys

in 2000 and 2001 found no chub in the pond, and the population is presumed to be

extirpated (Scheerer et al. 2002). The decline of chub in East Ferrin Pond occurred in

concert with the increase of largemouth bass, a non-native predatory fish at the site,

which illustrates the threat of non-native fishes to Oregon chub (Scheerer and McDonald

2000).

Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin. Oregon chub are known from two sites in the Coast

Fork subbasin. Surveys in 1992 and 1993 found very low numbers of chub in poor

quality habitat in Camas Swale; subsequent surveys have failed to detect any chub at all

(Scheerer and McDonald 2000). In April 2002, surveys by the Oregon Department of

Transportation and ODFW found a few Oregon chub in side channels of the mainstem

Coast Fork at RM 16, upstream of Camas Swale. The habitat at the site is influenced by

releases out of both Dorena and Cottage Grove Reservoirs. The site has abundant nonnative fishes.

Upper Mainstem Willamette River Subbasin. Oregon chub occur at three sites in the

Upper Mainstem Willamette subbasin: Gray Swamp and Display Pond in the Muddy

Creek drainage at William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Dunn Wetland

Ponds in the Beaver Creek drainage. The population at Gray Creek Swamp has been

declining for the last three years; in 2002, the population was estimated at 290 (Scheerer

et al. 2003). The Display Pond population is the result of an introduction in 1998;

numbers of chub there have decreased from 1,750 fish in 2000 to 500 in 2002 (Scheerer

et al. 2003). In 1997, Oregon chub were introduced into the Dunn Wetland Ponds in the

Beaver Creek drainage, with the permission of the private landowner (Scheerer et al.

1998). The project included a large wetland restorations and construction of a spring-fed

pond (Scheerer et al. 2003). In 2002, this was the most abundant population in the

Willamette Valley; the estimated number of Oregon chub in the wetlands was 19,270

(Scheerer et al. 2003).

Threats. A variety of factors are likely responsible for the decline of the Oregon chub.

These include habitat loss and alteration; the proliferation of non-native fish and

amphibians; accidental chemical spills; runoff from herbicide or pesticide application on

farms and timberlands or along roadways, railways, and power line rights-of way; the

application of rotenone to manage sport fisheries; desiccation of habitats; unauthorized

water withdrawals, diversions, or fill and removal activities; sedimentation resulting from

timber harvest in the watershed, and possibly the demographic risks that result from a

fragmented distribution of small, isolated populations (USFWS 1998).
123

The decline of Oregon chub has been correlated with the construction of dams. Based on

the date of last capture at a site, Pearsons (1989) estimated that the most severe decline

occurred during the 1950s and 1960s. Ten of the 13 dams that make up the Willamette

Valley flood control system were completed between 1953 and 1969 (USACE 2000).

Other structural changes along the Willamette River corridor such as revetment and

channelization, diking and drainage, and the removal of floodplain vegetation have

eliminated or altered the slack water habitats of the Oregon chub (Willamette Basin Task

Force 1969, Hjort et al. 1984, Sedell and Froggatt 1984, Li et al. 1987). Channel

confinement, isolation of the Willamette River from the majority of its floodplain, and

elimination or degradation of both seasonal and permanent wetland habitats within the

floodplain began as early as 1872 and, for example, has reduced the 25 kilometer (15.5

mile) reach between Harrisburg and the McKenzie River confluence from over 250

kilometers (155 miles) of shoreline in 1854 to less than 64 kilometers (40 miles) currently

(Sedell and Froggatt 1984, Sedell et al. 1990).

The establishment and expansion of non-native species in Oregon have contributed to the

decline of the Oregon chub and limits the species’ ability to expand beyond its current

range. Many species of non-native fish have been introduced to, and are common

throughout, the Willamette Valley, including largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), crappie (Pomoxis sp.), bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus), and western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). The bullfrog (Rana

catesbiana), a non-native amphibian, also occurs in the valley and breeds in habitats

preferred by the Oregon chub (Willamette Basin Task Force 1969, Hjort et al. 1984, Li et

al. 1984, Scheerer et al. 1992). The period of severe decline of the Oregon chub does not

coincide well with the initial dates of introduction of nonindigenous species. However,

many sites formerly inhabited by the Oregon chub are now occupied by non-native

species (Markle et al. 1991). Currently, 25 sites are known to contain Oregon chub; over

half of these sites are also inhabited by non-native fishes or amphibians (Scheerer and

McDonald 2000). Since 1995, non-native fish have been discovered for the first time in

six locations containing Oregon chub; the Oregon chub populations have subsequently

declined or remained in low abundance in all of these sites. The 1996 flooding in the

Santiam River was probably responsible for three of these movements of non-native fish.

The other three sites, located in the Middle Fork Willamette River drainage, were likely

the result of unauthorized introductions or spread of non-native fish from reservoirs

(Scheerer and Jones 1997). Because all remaining population sites are easily accessible,

there also continues to be a potential for unauthorized introductions of non-native

species, particularly mosquitofish and game fishes such as bass and walleye (Stizostedion

vitreum).

Many of the known extant populations of Oregon chub occur near rail, highway, and

power transmission corridors and within public park and campground facilities. These

populations are threatened by chemical spills from overturned truck or rail tankers; runoff

or accidental spills of vegetation control chemicals; overflow from chemical toilets in

campgrounds; sedimentation of shallow habitats from construction activities; and

changes in water level or flow conditions from construction, diversions, or natural

desiccation (USFWS 1998). In the early 1990s, a train derailment on the railroad line
124

that parallels the Middle Fork Willamette River spilled methanol near the Minnow Pond

population of Oregon chub; the methanol burned and did not contaminate the chub’s

habitat, yet this incident illustrates the risk to Oregon chub populations along

transportation corridors (USFWS 2003c). Oregon chub populations near agricultural

areas are subject to poor water quality as a result of runoff laden with sediment,

pesticides, and nutrients. Logging in the watershed can result in increased sedimentation

and herbicide runoff.

Population dynamics. The current pattern of distribution and abundance of Oregon

chub populations reflects the fundamental alteration in the natural processes under which

the species evolved. Sites with Oregon chub can be categorized as having high or low

connectivity to the Willamette and its tributaries; those sites with low connectivity tend to

have large populations of chub and fewer species of non-native fish (Scheerer et al.

2002). Thus, Oregon chub now thrive only in habitats that are isolated and bear little

resemblance to the species’ dynamic natural environment. Efforts to restore floodplain

function and connectivity may facilitate the introduction of non-native fishes into isolated

habitats, which could have devastating effects to populations of Oregon chub (Scheerer

2002).

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

Background. Detail accounts of life history, taxonomy and behavior can be found in the

final rule listing the Columbia River and Klamath River populations of bull trout as

threatened (63 FR 31647), the proposal to designate critical habitat for the bull trout (67

FR 71235), and the Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout; Distribution, Life History, Limiting

Factors, management Considerations, and Status (Buchanan et al. 1997).

Historic Range. The historical range of the 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 (Cavender 1978,

Bond 1992). To the west, the bull trout’s range includes Puget Sound, various coastal

rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992). 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, (Cavender 1978, Brewin et al.

1997).

Distinct Population Segments (DPS) and Population Units. Population units of bull

trout exist in which all fish share an evolutionary legacy and which are significant from

an evolutionary perspective (Spruell et al. 1999). These population units can range from

a local population to multiple populations, and theoretically should represent a DPS.

Although such population units are difficult to characterize, genetic data have provided

useful information on bull trout population structure. For example, genetic differences
125

between the Klamath River and Columbia River populations of bull trout were revealed

in 1993 (Leary et al. 1993). The boundaries of the five listed DPSs of bull trout are based

largely on this 1993 information.

Since the bull trout was listed, additional genetic analyses have suggested that its

populations may be organized on a finer scale than previously thought. Data have

revealed genetic differences between coastal populations of bull trout, which includes the

lower Columbia River and Fraser River, and inland populations in the upper Columbia

River and Fraser River drainages (Williams et al. 1997, Taylor et al. 1999). There is also

an apparent genetic differentiation between inland populations within the Columbia River

basin. This differentiation occurs between the (a) mid-Columbia River (John Day,

Umatilla) and lower Snake River (Walla Walla, Clearwater, Grande Ronde, Imnaha

rivers, etc.) populations and the (b) upper Columbia River (Methow, Clark Fork, Flathead

River, etc.) and upper Snake River (Boise River, Malheur River, Jarbidge River, etc.)

populations (Spruell et al. 2003). Genetic data indicate that bull trout inhabiting the

Deschutes River drainage of Oregon are derived from coastal populations and not from

inland populations in the Columbia River basin (Leary et al. 1993, Williams et al. 1997,

Spruell and Allendorf 1997, Taylor et al. 1999, Spruell et al. 2003). In general, evidence

since the time of listing suggests a need to further evaluate the distinct population

segment structure of bull trout DPSs.

Habitat Relationships. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most

other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat components that influence the

species’ distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and

stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrate, and availability of migratory

corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and

Everest 1991; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995;

Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997). Watson and Hillman (1997) concluded that

watersheds must have specific physical characteristics to provide the habitat requirements

necessary for bull trout to successfully spawn and rear and that these specific

characteristics are not necessarily present throughout these watersheds. Because bull

trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993),

individuals of this species should not be expected to simultaneously occupy all available

habitats (Rieman et al.1997).

Bull trout are found primarily in cold streams, although individual fish are found in

larger, warmer river systems throughout the Columbia River basin (Fraley and Shepard

1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory 1997; Rieman et al.

1997). Water temperature above 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) is believed

to limit bull trout distribution, a limitation that may partially explain the patchy

distribution within a watershed (Fraley and Shepard 1989, Rieman and McIntyre 1995).

Spawning areas are often associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration,

and the streams with the coldest summer water temperatures in a given watershed (Pratt

1992, Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Rieman et al. 1997, Baxter et al. 1999). Water

temperatures during spawning generally range from 5 to 9 degrees Celsius (41 to 48
126

degrees Fahrenheit) (Goetz 1989). The requirement for cold water during egg incubation

has generally limited the spawning distribution of bull trout to high elevations in areas

where the summer climate is warm. Rieman and McIntyre (1995) found in the Boise

River Basin that no juvenile bull trout were present in streams below 1613 m (5000 feet).

Similarly, in the Sprague River basin of south-central Oregon, Ziller (1992) found in four

streams with bull trout that “numbers of bull trout increased and numbers of other trout

species decreased as elevation increased. In those streams, bull trout were only found at

elevations above 1774 m [5500 feet].”

Goetz (1989) suggested optimum water temperatures for rearing bull trout of about 7 to 8

degrees Celsius (44 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit) and for egg incubation of 2 to 4 degrees

Celsius (35 to 39 degrees Fahrenheit). For Granite Creek, Idaho, Bonneau and

Scarnecchia (1996) observed that juvenile bull trout selected the coldest water [8 to 9

degrees Celsius (46 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit), within a temperature gradient of 8 to 15

degrees Celsius (46 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit)] available in a plunge pool.

In Nevada, adult bull trout have been collected at sites with a water temperature of 17.2

degrees Celsius (63 degrees Fahrenheit) in the West Fork of the Jarbidge River (S.

Werdon, pers. comm., 1998) and have been observed in Dave Creek where maximum

daily water temperatures were 17.1 to 17.5 degrees Celsius (62.8 to 63.6 degrees

Fahrenheit) (Werdon, in litt. 2001). In the Little Lost River, Idaho, bull trout have been

collected in water having temperatures up to 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit);

however, these fish made up less than 50percent of all salmonids when maximum

summer water temperature exceeded 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) and less

than 10 percent of all salmonids when temperature exceeded 17 degrees Celsius (63

degrees Fahrenheit)(Gamett 1999).

All life-history stages of bull trout are associated with complex forms of cover, including

large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989,

Goetz 1989, Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989, Sedell and Everest 1991, Pratt 1992, Thomas

1992, Rich 1996, Sexauer and James 1997, Watson and Hillman 1997). Jakober (1995)

observed bull trout overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools containing large woody

debris in the Bitterroot River drainage, Montana, and suggested that, because of the need

to avoid anchor ice in order to survive, suitable winter habitat may be more restricted

than summer habitat. Maintaining bull trout habitat requires stability of stream channels

and of flow (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit

side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997).

These areas are sensitive to activities that directly or indirectly affect stream channel

stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, altered stream flow in the fall may

disrupt bull trout during the spawning period, and channel instability may decrease

survival of eggs and young juveniles in the gravel from winter through spring (Fraley and

Shepard 1989, Pratt 1992, Pratt and Huston 1993).

Preferred bull trout spawning habitat consists of low-gradient stream reaches with loose,

clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989). In the Swan River, Montana, abundance of bull

trout redds was positively correlated with the extent of bounded alluvial valley reaches,
127

which are likely areas of groundwater to surface water exchange (Baxter et al. 1999).

Survival of bull trout embryos planted in stream areas of groundwater upwelling used by

bull trout for spawning were significantly higher than embryos planted in areas of

surface-water recharge not used by bull trout for spawning (Baxter and McPhail 1999).

Pratt (1992) indicated that increases in fine sediment reduce egg survival and emergence.

Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life-history forms. For

example, in Montana, migratory bull trout make extensive migrations in the Flathead

River system (Fraley and Shepard 1989), and resident bull trout in tributaries of the

Bitterroot River move downstream to overwinter in tributary pools (Jakober 1995). The

ability to migrate is important to the persistence of bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre

1993, M. Gilpin, in litt. 1997, Rieman et al. 1997). Migrations facilitate gene flow

among local populations when individuals from different local populations interbreed, or

stray, to non-natal streams. Local bull trout populations that are extirpated by

catastrophic events may also become re-established by migrants.

Threats. Bull trout distribution, abundance, and habitat quality have declined rangewide

(Bond 1992, Schill 1992, Thomas 1992, Ziller 1992, Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Newton

and Pribyl 1994, Idaho Department of Fish and Game in litt. 1995, McPhail and Baxter

1996). These declines result from the combined effects of habitat degradation and

fragmentation, the blockage of migratory corridors; poor water quality, angler harvest

and poaching, entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms are pulled through a

diversion or other device) into diversion channels and dams, and introduced nonnative

species. Specific land and water management activities that depress bull trout

populations and degrade habitat include dams and other diversion structures, forest

management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, agricultural diversions, road

construction and maintenance, mining, and urban and rural development (Beschta et al.

1987, Chamberlain et al. 1991, Furniss et al. 1991, Meehan 1991, Nehlsen et al. 1991,

Sedell and Everest 1991, Craig and Wissmar 1993, Henjum et al. 1994, McIntosh et al.

1994, Wissmar et al. 1994, MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-f; Light et al. 1996, USDA and

USDI 1995, 1996, 1997; Frissell 1997)

Population Dynamics. Although bull trout are widely distributed over a large

geographic area, they exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993). Increased habitat fragmentation reduces the amount of available habitat

and increases isolation from other populations of the same species (Saunders et al. 1991).

Burkey (1989) concluded that when species are isolated by fragmented habitats, low rates

of population growth are typical in local populations and their probability of extinction is

directly related to the degree of isolation and fragmentation. Without sufficient

immigration, growth for local populations may be low and probability of extinction high

(Burkey 1989, 1995).

Metapopulation concepts of conservation biology theory have been suggested relative to

the distribution and characteristics of bull trout, although empirical evidence is relatively

scant (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Dunham and Rieman 1999, Rieman and Dunham

2000). A metapopulation is an interacting network of local populations with varying
128

frequencies of migration and gene flow among them (Meffe and Carroll 1994). For

inland bull trout, metapopulation theory is likely most applicable at the watershed scale

where habitat consists of discrete patches or collections of habitat capable of supporting

local populations; local populations are for the most part independent and represent

discrete reproductive units; and long-term, low-rate dispersal patterns among component

populations influences the persistence of at least some of the local populations (Rieman

and Dunham 2000). Ideally, multiple local populations distributed throughout a

watershed provide a mechanism for spreading risk because the simultaneous loss of all

local populations is unlikely. However, habitat alteration, primarily through the

construction of impoundments, dams, and water diversions has fragmented habitats,

eliminated migratory corridors, and in many cases isolated bull trout in the headwaters of

tributaries (Rieman et al. 1997, Dunham and Rieman 1999, Spruell et al. 1999, Rieman

and Dunham 2000). Accordingly, human-induced factors as well as natural factors

affecting bull trout distribution have likely limited the expression of the metapopulation

concept for bull trout to patches of habitat within the overall distribution of the species

(Dunham and Rieman 1999). However, despite the theoretical fit, the relatively recent

and brief time period during which bull trout investigations have taken place does not

provide certainty as to whether a metapopulation dynamic is occurring (e.g., a balance

between local extirpations and recolonizations) across the range of bull trout or whether

the persistence of bull trout in large or closely interconnected habitat patches (Dunham

and Rieman 1999) is simply reflective of a general deterministic trend towards extinction

of the species where the larger or interconnected patches are relics of historically wider

distribution (Rieman and Dunham 2000). Recent research (Whiteley et al. 2003) does,

however, provide stronger genetic evidence for the presence of a metapopulation process

for bull trout, at least in the Boise River basin of Idaho.

Ongoing Conservation Actions

Federal Conservation Actions. Federal conservation actions include: (1) the

development of a draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan; (2) ongoing implementation of the

Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH; USDA and

USDI 1995) and the Interim Strategy for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada

(INFISH; USDA 1995); (3) ongoing implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan; (4)

ongoing implementation of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and

Wildlife Program targeting subbasin planning; (5) ongoing implementation of the Federal

Caucus Fish and Wildlife Plan; and, (6) ongoing implementation of Department of

Agriculture Conservation Reserve Programs.

State Conservation Actions. Since 1990, the State of Oregon has taken several actions to

address the conservation of bull trout, including: (1) Establishing bull trout working

groups in the Klamath, Deschutes, Hood, Willamette, Odell Lake, Umatilla and Walla

Walla, John Day, Malheur, and Pine Creek river basins for the purpose of developing bull

trout conservation strategies; (2) establishment of more restrictive harvest regulations in

1990; (3) reduced stocking of hatchery-reared rainbow trout and brook trout into areas

where bull trout occur; (4) angler outreach and education efforts are also being
129

implemented in river basins occupied by bull trout; (5) research to further examine life

history, genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors of bull trout in Oregon; (6)

reintroduction of bull trout fry from the McKenzie River watershed to the adjacent

Middle Fork of the Willamette River, which is historical unoccupied, isolated habitat; (7)

the ODEQ established a water temperature standard such that surface water temperatures

may not exceed 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in waters that support or are

necessary to maintain the viability of bull trout in the State (Oregon 1996); and, (8)

expansion of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon 1997) to include all

at-risk wild salmonids throughout the State.

Conservation Needs. Conservation needs reflect those biological and physical

requirements of a species for its long-term survival and recovery. Based on the best

available scientific information (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, MBTSG 1998, Hard 1995,

Healey and Prince 1995, Rieman and Allendorf 2001), the conservation needs of the bull

trout are to: (1) Maintain and restore multiple, interconnected populations in diverse

habitats across the range of each DPS; (2) Preserve the diversity of life-history strategies

(e.g., resident and migratory forms, emigration age, spawning frequency, local habitat

adaptations); (3) Maintain genetic and phenotypic diversity across the range of each DPS;

and, (4) Protect populations from catastrophic fires across the range of each DPS. Each

of these needs is described below in more detail.

Maintain and Restore Multiple, Interconnected Populations in Diverse Habitats Across

the Range of Each DPS. Multiple local populations distributed and interconnected

throughout a watershed provide a mechanism for spreading risk from stochastic events

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Hard 1995, Healey and Prince 1995, Spruell et al. 1999,

Rieman and Allendorf 2001). Current patterns in bull trout distribution and other

empirical evidence, when interpreted in view of emerging conservation theory, indicate

that further declines and local extinctions are likely (Rieman et al. 1997, Dunham and

Rieman 1999, Rieman and Allendorf 2001, Spruell et al. 2003). Based in part on

guidance from Rieman and McIntyre (1993), bull trout core areas with fewer than five

local populations are at increased risk of extirpation; core areas with between 5 to 10

local populations are at intermediate risk of extirpation; and core areas which have more

than 10 interconnected local populations are at diminished risk of extirpation.

Maintaining and restoring connectivity between existing populations of bull trout is

important for the persistence of the species (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Migration and

occasional spawning between populations increases genetic variability and strengthens

population variability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Migratory corridors allow

individuals access to unoccupied but suitable habitats, foraging areas, and refuges from

disturbances (Saunders et al. 1991).

Because bull trout in the coterminous United States are distributed over a wide

geographic area consisting of various environmental conditions, and because they exhibit

considerable genetic differentiation among populations, the occurrence of local

adaptation is expected to be extensive. Some readily observable examples of

differentiation between populations include external morphology and behavior (e.g., size
130

and coloration of individuals; timing of spawning and migratory forays). Conserving

many populations across the range of the species is crucial to adequately protect genetic

and phenotypic diversity of bull trout (Leary et al. 1993, Rieman and McIntyre 1993,

Hard 1995, Healey and Prince 1995, Spruell et al. 1999, Taylor et al.1999, Rieman and

Allendorf 2001). Changes in habitats and prevailing environmental conditions are

increasingly likely to result in extinction of bull trout if genetic and phenotypic diversity

is lost.

Preserve the Diversity of Life-history Strategies. The bull trout has multiple life history

strategies, including migratory forms, throughout its range (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Migratory forms appear to develop when habitat conditions allow movement between

spawning and rearing streams and larger rivers or lakes where foraging opportunities may

be enhanced (Frissell 1997). For example, multiple life history forms (e.g., resident and

fluvial) and multiple migration patterns have been noted in the Grande Ronde River

(Baxter 2002). Parts of this river system have retained habitat conditions that allow free

movement between spawning and rearing areas and the mainstem of the Snake River.

Such multiple life history strategies help to maintain the stability and persistence of bull

trout populations to environmental changes. Benefits to migratory bull trout include

greater growth in the more productive waters of larger streams and lakes, greater

fecundity resulting in increased reproductive potential, and dispersing the population

across space and time so that spawning streams may be recolonized should local

populations suffer a catastrophic loss (Frissell 1997, Rieman and McIntyre 1993,

MBTSG 1998).

Maintain the Genetic Diversity and Evolutionary Potential of Bull Trout Populations.

When the long-term persistence of a species, taxon, or phylogenetic lineage is

considered, it is necessary to consider the amount of genetic variation necessary to

uphold evolutionary potential which is needed for that taxon to adapt to a changing

environment. Effective population size provides a standardized measure of the amount of

genetic variation that is likely to be transmitted between generations within a population.

Effective population size is a theoretical concept that allows one to predict potential

future losses of genetic variation within a population due to small population size and

genetic drift. Individuals within populations with very small effective population sizes

are also subject to inbreeding depression because most individuals within small

populations share one or more immediate ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.) after

only a few generations and will be closely related.

The effective population size parameter (Ne) incorporates relevant demographic

information that determines the evolutionary consequences of members in a population

contributing to future generations (Wright 1931). When prioritizing populations for

conservation, Ne is an important parameter because it is inversely related to the rate of

loss of genetic diversity and the rate of increase in inbreeding in a population that is

finite, but otherwise randomly mating (Waples 2002). Within a population, the census

number of sexually mature adults per generation (N) and Ne are the same when the

following conditions are met: constant and large population size, variance in reproductive

success is binomial (number of progeny per parent follows a Poisson distribution), and
131

sex ratio is equal. Because most populations do not conform to these conditions, the Ne

to N ratio is usually below 1.0 (Frankham 1995), and the Ne to N ratio is thought to be

between 0.15 and 0.27 in bull trout populations based on computer modeling (Rieman

and Allendorf 2001).

A Ne of 50 or more is recommended to avoid the immediate effects of inbreeding and

should be considered a minimum requirement for the short-term conservation of

populations (Franklin 1980, Soulé 1987). Increased homozygosity of deleterious

recessive alleles is thought to be the main mechanism by which inbreeding depression

decreases the fitness of individuals within local populations (Allendorf and Ryman 2002).

Deleterious recessive alleles are introduced into the genome via random mutations, and

natural selection is slow to purge them because they are usually found in the

heterozygous form where they are not detrimental. When populations become small,

heterozygosity decreases at the rate of 1/(2 Ne) per generation which in turn causes an

increase in the frequency of homozygosity of the deleterious recessive alleles. Hedrick

and Kalinowski (2000) provide a review of studies demonstrating inbreeding depression

in wild populations.

Effective population sizes of 500 to 5000 have been recommended for the retention of

evolutionary potential (Franklin and Frankham 1998, Lynch and Lande 1998).

Populations of this size are able to retain additive genetic variation for fitness related

traits gained via mutation (Franklin 1980).

Bull trout specific benchmarks have been developed concerning the minimum Ne

necessary to maintain genetic variation important for short-term fitness and long-term

evolutionary potential. These benchmarks are based on the results of a generalized, agestructured, simulation model, VORTEX (Miller and Lacy 1999), used to relate effective

population size to the number of adult bull trout spawning annually under a range of life

histories and environmental conditions (Rieman and Allendorf 2001). In this study, the

authors estimated Ne for bull trout to be between 0.5 and 1.0 times the mean number of

adults spawning annually. Rieman and Allendorf (2001) concluded that an average of

100 (i.e., 100 x 0.5 = 50) adults spawning each year would be required to minimize risks

of inbreeding in a population and 1000 adults (i.e., 1000 x 0.5 = 500) is necessary to

maintain genetic variation important for long-term evolutionary potential. This latter

value of 1000 spawners may also be reached with a collection of local populations among

which gene flow occurs.

The combination of resident forms completing their entire life cycle within a stream and

the homing behavior of the migratory forms returning to the streams where they hatched

to spawn promotes reproductive isolation among local bull trout populations. This

reproductive isolation creates the opportunity for genetic differentiation and local

adaptations to occur. Nevertheless, within a core area local populations are usually

connected through low rates of migration. This connection of local populations, linked

by migration, is termed a metapopulation (Hanski and Gilpin 1997). Within a

metapopulation, evolution primarily occurs at the local population level (i.e., it is the

main demographic and genetic unit of concern). However, when longer time frames are
132

considered (e.g., 10 plus generations), metapopulations become important. For example,

metapopulations allow for the reintroduction of lost alleles and recolonization of extinct

local breeding populations. Migration and gene flow among local populations ensures

that the alleles within a metapopulation will be present in most local breeding populations

and can be acted upon by natural selection (Allendorf 1983).

Maintain Phenotypic Diversity. Healy and Prince (1995) reported that, because

phenotypic diversity is a consequence of the genotype interacting with the habitat, the

conservation of phenotypic diversity is achieved through conservation of the subpopulation within its habitat. They further note that adaptive variation among salmonids

has been observed to occur under relatively short time frames (e.g., changes in genetic

composition of salmonids raised in hatcheries; rapid emergence of divergent phenotypes

for salmonids introduced to new environments). Healy and Prince (1995) conclude that

while the loss of a few sub-populations within an ecosystem might have only a small

effect on overall genetic diversity, the effect on phenotypic diversity and, potentially,

overall population viability could be substantial. This concept of preserving variation in

phenotypic traits that is determined by both genetic and environmental (i.e., local habitat)

factors has also been identified by Hard (1995) as an important component in maintaining

intraspecific adaptability (i.e., phenotypic plasticity) and ecological diversity within a

genotype. He argues that adaptive processes are not entirely encompassed by the

interpretation of molecular genetic data; in other words, phenotypic and genetic variation

in adaptive traits may exist without detectable variation at the molecular genetic level,

particularly for neutral genetic markers. Therefore, the effective conservation of genetic

diversity necessarily involves consideration of the conservation of biological units

smaller than taxonomic species (or DPSs). Reflecting this theme, the maintenance of

local sub-populations has been specifically emphasized as a mechanism for the

conservation of bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Taylor et al 1999).

Proposed critical habitat. The USFWS proposed critical habitat for the bull trout (67

FR 71235) and anticipates completing this process by end of September 2004. The

primary constituent elements of proposed bull trout critical habitat include:

1) Permanent water having low levels of contaminants such that normal

reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited.

2) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15C (36 to 59F), with adequate thermal

refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range.

3) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels,

pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in stream

structures.

4) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg

and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and

juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.63 cm (0.25 in)
133

in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these

conditions.

5) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic

ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull

trout populations.

6) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to

contribute to water quality and quantity.

7) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers

between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including

intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows.

8) Abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic

macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.

9) Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive nonnative species present.

Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi)

Background. A detailed account of the taxonomy, life history and ecology of the

Fender’s blue butterfly can be found in the final rule listing the species as endangered

(65 FR 3875).

Current and Historical Range. Fender’s blue butterfly is a Willamette Valley endemic

subspecies that was considered to be extinct until rediscovered by Dr. Paul Hammond in

1989 in McDonald Forest, Benton County, Oregon. The historical distribution of

Fender’s blue butterfly is not precisely known, due to the limited information collected

on this species prior to its description in 1931. Recent surveys have determined that

Fender’s blue butterfly is confined to 33 habitat patches in Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and

Lane counties, Oregon. One population at Willow Creek Nature Conservancy preserve in

Eugene, Lane County, Oregon is found in wet Deschampsia-type prairie, while the

remaining sites are generally found on drier upland prairies characterized by fescue

species. The Willow Creek aggregate of populations is the largest of the south valley

sites.

Habitat Relationships. Fender’s blue butterfly is known to use Kincaid’s lupine as its

primary larval food plant but is also known to use spur lupine (Lupinus laxiflorus = L.

arbustus) and sickle-keeled lupine (L. albicaulis) as secondary host plants. Female

Fender’s blue butterfly lay their eggs on lupine foliage in late May or early June; and

larvae emerge to feed on foliage during late June. In July, larvae crawl to the base of the

plant and enter diapause. From this point until the larvae emerge and begin feeding on

foliage again the following April, the larvae remain at the base of the senescent plant, or

in the litter immediately adjacent to the lupine stem. Fender’s density has been positively

correlated with the number of Kincaid’s lupine flowering racemes, and more recently, to
134

nectar production in native flowering species used as nectar sources by Fender’s.

Survivorship of larvae to adult butterflies has been estimated at 0.025-0.060 percent

(Schultz and Crone 1998).

Recent research (Schultz and Dlugosh in litt. 1999) indicates that native wildflowers in

the Willamette Valley prairies provide more nectar than nonnative flowers for adult

butterflies, and that Fender's blue butterfly population density is positively correlated

with the density of native wildflowers. In Lane County, key native flowers include: wild

onion, (Allium amplectans), cat’s ear mariposa lily (Calachortus tolmiei), common camas

(Camassia quamash), Oregon sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum), and rose checkermallow

(Sidalcea virgata) (Schultz and Dlugosh in litt. 1999). Tall oatgrass (Arrenatherum

elatius) and other non-native grasses can out-compete these native forb species

(Hammond 1996). The abundance of exotic grasses can effectively preclude butterflies

from using a Kincaid’s lupine patch (Hammond 1996).

Habitat Connectivity. Anecdotal evidence indicates that under ideal conditions adult

Fender's blue butterflies may disperse as far as 5-6 km (3.1 to 3.7 mi) from their natal

lupine patches (Hammond and Wilson 1992; and Schultz 1994). According to Schultz

(1997), adult dispersal of this magnitude is not likely anymore. Schultz (1997) found that

the butterflies are generally found within 10 m (32.8 ft) of lupine patches, although they

might disperse more than 2 km (1.2 mi) between lupine patches. Hammond (1998)

reports recolonization of a site by Fender’s blue butterfly from a distance of

approximately 3 km (1.9 mi). Schultz (1997) further theorizes that Fender’s blue

originally would have had a high probability of dispersing between patches, which were

historically located an average of 0.5 km (0.3 mi) apart. Current distribution of lupine

patches range well beyond this distance, and barriers to migration between close sites

may be present.

Today, remnant upland prairie acreage is extremely fragmented and remaining Fender’s

blue butterfly populations so small that migration processes are not expected to maintain

the population over time. Extirpation of remaining small populations is expected from

localized events and low genetic diversity of very small populations. The low availability

of host lupine patches and fragmentation of habitat are seen today as the major ecological

factors limiting reproduction, dispersal, and subsequent colonization of new habitat

(Hammond 1994, Hammond and Wilson 1993 &1992, Schultz 1997, Schultz and

Dugosch 1999),

Kincaid’s lupine. Kincaid’s lupine is a perennial forb generally associated with native

fescue upland prairies that are characterized by heavier soils, with mesic to slightly xeric

soil moisture levels. At the southern limit of its range, the subspecies occurs on

well-developed soils adjacent to serpentine outcrops where the plant is often found under

scattered oaks (Kuykendall and Kaye 1993). Kincaid’s lupine is thought to have

historically colonized areas along the edge of oak woodlands in upland prairies. Schultz

(1997) theorizes that lupine patches were historically distributed no greater than 0.5 km

(0.3 mi) apart, allowing dispersal of Fender’s blue butterfly between lupine patches.
135

Within the Willamette Valley, Kincaid’s lupine occupies 86 habitat patches averaging

1.395 km2 (0.539 mi2) in size. In the Umpqua Valley, Douglas County, Oregon,

Kincaid’s lupine occupies eight small patches, averaging 0.057 km2 (0.022 mi2) in size,

and in Lewis County, Washington, three tiny patches, averaging 0.002 km2 ( 0.0008 mi2)

in size.

Population Dynamics. Censuses of Fender’s blue butterfly were started in 1991; most

of the 22 census units have been surveyed every year since 1993 (Fitzpatrick and Schultz

2001, Hammond 2001, 1998, 1996 and 1994, Hammond and Wilson 1993, Schultz 1994-

1998).

Total range-wide population numbers (once most sites were monitored) of Fender’s blues

have ranged from a low of 1,384 in 1998 to a high in 2000 of 3,492. Although

population size appears to have increased between 1998 and 2000, this could be a result

of poor weather conditions in 1998, and thus poor flight conditions, and it could also be

an artifact of increasing survey effort at these sites. However, some of this increase may

be attributed to habitat enhancement activities such as tree and shrub removal from lupine

sites.

The USFWS is currently developing a recovery plan for the suite of listed species

associated with Willamette Valley prairie habitat, including Fender’s blue butterfly.

Anadromous Salmonids

Snake River (SR) Spring/Summer Chinook salmon. It is estimated that at least 1.5

million spring/summer Chinook salmon returned to the SR in the late 1800s,

approximately 39 to 44 percent of all spring/summer Chinook in the Columbia River

basin. Historically, Shoshone Falls (RM 615) was the uppermost limit to

spring/summerChinook migration, and spawning occurred in virtually all suitable and

accessible habitat in the SR basin (Fulton 1968 and Matthews and Waples 1991). The

development of mainstem irrigation and hydroelectric projects in the mainstem SR basin

have significantly reduced the amount of habitat available for spring/summerChinook

such that between 1950 and 1960, an average of 125,000 adults returned to the SR, only 8

percent of the historic estimate. An estimated average of 100,000 wild adults would have

returned from 1964 to 1968 each year after adjusting for fish harvested in the river

fisheries below McNary Dam. However, actual counts of wild adults at Ice Harbor Dam

annually averaged only 59,000 each year from 1962 to 1970. The estimated number of

wild adult Chinook salmon passing Lower Granite Dam between 1980 and 1990 was

9,674 fish (Matthews and Waples 1991). A recent 5-year geometric mean (1992-1996)

was only 3,820 naturally-produced spawners (Myers et al. 1998). This is less than 0.3

percent of the estimated historical abundance of wild SR spring/summerChinook.

SR spring/summerChinook migrate through the Columbia River from March through

July, and spawn in smaller, higher elevation streams than do fall Chinook. Fry generally

emerge from the gravel between February and June. SR spring/summerChinook exhibit a

“stream” type juvenile life history pattern, rearing for one, or sometimes even two years
136

in freshwater before migrating to the ocean from April through June. These smolts are

often referred to “yearling” Chinook. Adults typically remain in the ocean for two or

three years before returning to spawn (Matthews and Waples 1991).

Snake River Basin (SRB) steelhead. Historically, SRB steelhead spawned in virtually

all accessible habitat in the SR up to Shoshone Falls (RM 615). The development of

irrigation and hydropower projects on the mainstem SR have significantly reduced the

amount of available habitat for this species (see discussion for spring/summerChinook,

above). No valid historical estimates of adult steelhead returning to the SR basin before

the completion of Ice Harbor Dam in 1962 are available. However, SRB steelhead

sportfishing catches ranged from 20,000 to 55,000 fish during the 1960s (Fulton 1970).

The run of steelhead was likely several times as large as the sportfish take. Between

1949 and 1971, adult steelhead counts at Lewiston Dam (on the Clearwater River)

averaged about 40,000 per year. The count at Ice Harbor Dam in 1962 was 108,000 and

averaged approximately 70,000 per year between 1963 and 1970.

A recent 5-year geometric mean (1990-1994) for escapement above Lower Granite Dam

was approximately 71,000. However, the wild component of this run was only 9,400

adults; 7,000 early run timing stock (A-run) and 2,400 late run timing stock (B-run). In

recent years average densities of wild juvenile steelhead have decreased significantly for

both A-run and B-run steelhead. Many basins within the SR are significantly underseeded relative to the carrying capacity of streams (Busby et al. 1996).

Steelhead populations exhibit both anadromous (steelhead) and freshwater resident

(rainbow or red-band trout) forms. Unlike other Pacific salmon species, steelhead are

capable of spawning on more than one occasion, returning to the ocean to feed between

spawning events. SRB steelhead rarely return to spawn a second time. Steelhead can be

classified into two reproductive types: Stream-maturing steelhead, which enter fresh

water in a sexually immature condition and wait several months before spawning; and

ocean-maturing steelhead, which return to freshwater with fully developed gonads and

spawn shortly thereafter. In the Pacific Northwest, stream-maturing steelhead enter fresh

water between May and October and are referred to as “summer” steelhead. In

comparison, ocean-maturing steelhead return between November and April and are

considered “winter” steelhead. Inland steelhead populations in the Columbia River basin

are almost exclusively of the summer variety (Busby et al. 1996).

SRB steelhead can be further divided into two groupings: A-run steelhead and B-run

steelhead. This dichotomy reflects the bimodal migration of adult steelhead observed at

Bonneville Dam. A-run steelhead generally return to fresh water between June and

August after spending 1 year in the ocean. These fish are typically less than 77.5 cm in

length. B-run steelhead usually return to fresh water from late August to October after

spending 2 years in the ocean and are generally greater than 77.5 cm in length.

Both A-run and B-run spawn the following spring from March to May in small to midsized streams. The fry emerge in 7 to 10 weeks, depending on temperature, and usually

spend 2 or 3 years in fresh water before migrating to the ocean from April to mid-June.
137

These estimates are based on population averages and steelhead are capable of

remarkable plasticity with in their life cycles.

Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon. The LCR Chinook salmon ESU

includes all native populations from the mouth of the Columbia River to the crest of the

Cascade Range, excluding populations above Willamette Falls. The former location of

Cello Falls (inundated by The Dalles reservoir in 1960) is the eastern boundary for this

ESU. Stream-type, Spring-run Chinook salmon found in the Klickitat River, or the

introduced Carson spring-run Chinook salmon strain, are not included in this ESU.

Spring-run Chinook salmon in the Sandy River have been influenced by spring-run

Chinook salmon introduced from the Willamette River ESU. However, analyses suggest

that considerable genetic resources still reside in the existing population (Myers et al.

1998). Recent escapements above Marmot Dam on the Sandy River average 2,800 and

have been increasing (ODFW 1998a).

Historical records of Chinook salmon abundance are sparse, but cannery records suggest

a peak run of 4.6 million fish in 1883. Although fall-run Chinook salmon are still present

throughout much of their historical range, most of the fish spawning today are firstgeneration hatchery strays. Furthermore, spring-run populations have been severely

depleted throughout the ESU and extirpated from several rivers.

Apart from the relatively large and apparently healthy fall-run population in the Lewis

River, production in this ESU appears to be predominantly hatchery-driven with few

identifiable naturally-spawned populations. All basins are affected (to varying degrees)

by habitat degradation. Hatchery programs have had a negative effect on the native ESU.

Efforts to enhance Chinook salmon fisheries abundance in the lower Columbia River

began in the 1870s. Available evidence indicates a pervasive influence of hatchery fish

on natural populations throughout this ESU, including both spring- and fall-run

populations. The large number of hatchery fish in this ESU make it difficult to determine

the proportion of naturally-produced fish. The loss of fitness and diversity within the

ESU is an important concern. The median population growth rate over a base period

from 1980 through 1998 ranged from 0.98 to 0.88, decreasing as the effectiveness of

hatchery fish spawning in the wild increases compared with that of fish of wild origin

(McClure et al. 2000).

Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook salmon. The UWR Chinook salmon ESU

includes native spring-run populations above Willamette Falls and in the Clackamas

River. In the past, it included sizable numbers of spawning salmon in the Santiam River,

the middle fork of the Willamette River, and the McKenzie River, as well as smaller

numbers in the Molalla River, Calapooia River, and Albiqua Creek. Although the total

number of fish returning to the Willamette has been relatively high (24,000), about 4,000

fish now spawn naturally in the ESU, two-thirds of which originate in hatcheries. The

McKenzie River supports the only remaining naturally-reproducing population in the

ESU (ODFW 1998a).
138

There are no direct estimates of the size of the Chinook salmon runs in the Willamette

basin before the 1940s. The Native American fishery at the Willamette Falls may have

yielded 908,000 kilograms of salmon (454,000 fish, each weighing 9.08 kg) (McKernan

and Mattson 1950). Egg collections at salmon hatcheries indicate that the spring Chinook

salmon run in the 1920s may have been five times the run size of 55,000 fish in 1947, or

275,000 fish (Mattson 1948). Much of the early information on salmon runs in the upper

Willamette River basin comes from operation reports of state and Federal hatcheries.

Fish in this ESU are distinct from those of adjacent ESUs in life history and marine

distribution. The life history of Chinook salmon in the UWR ESU includes traits from

both ocean- and stream-type development strategies. Tag recoveries indicate that the fish

travel to the marine waters off British Columbia and Alaska. More Willamette fish are,

however, recovered in Alaskan waters than fish from the LCR ESU. UWR Chinook

salmon mature in their fourth or fifth years. Historically, 5-year-old fish dominated the

spawning migration runs, however, recently most fish have matured at age 4. The timing

of the spawning migration is limited by Willamette Falls. High flows in the spring allow

access to the upper Willamette basin, whereas low flows in the summer and autumn

prevent later-migrating fish from ascending the falls. The low flows may serve as an

isolating mechanism, separating this ESU from others nearby.

While the abundance of UWR spring Chinook salmon has been relatively stable over the

long term and there is evidence of some natural production, at present natural production

and harvest levels the natural population is not replacing itself. With natural production

accounting for only one-third of the natural spawning escapement, natural spawners may

not be capable of replacing themselves even in the absence of fisheries. The introduction

of fall-run Chinook into the basin and the laddering of Willamette Falls have increased

the potential for genetic introgression between wild spring- and hatchery fall-run

Chinook. Habitat blockage and degradation are significant problems in this ESU.

The median population growth rate over a base period from 1980 through 1998 ranges

from 1.01 to 0.63, decreasing as the effectiveness of hatchery fish spawning in the wild

increases compared with that of fish of wild origin (McClure et al. 2000).

Columbia River (CR) chum salmon. Chum salmon of the CR ESU spawn in tributaries

and in mainstem areas below Bonneville Dam. Most fish spawn on the Washington side

of the Columbia River (Johnson et al. 1997). Previously, chum salmon were reported in

almost every river in the lower Columbia River Basin, but most runs disappeared by the

1950s (Rich 1942, Marr 1943, Fulton 1970). Currently, the Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) regularly monitors only a few natural populations in the

basin, one in Grays River, two in small streams near Bonneville Dam, and the mainstem

area next to one of the latter two streams. Recently, spawning has occurred in the

mainstem Columbia River at two spots near Vancouver, Washington, and in Duncan

Creek below the Bonneville Dam.

Historically, the CR chum salmon ESU supported a large commercial fishery in the first

half of this century, landing more than 500,000 fish per year as recently as 1942.
139

Commercial catches declined beginning in the mid-1950s and in later years rarely

exceeded 2,000 per year. There are now no recreational or directed commercial fisheries

for chum salmon in the Columbia River, although chum salmon are taken incidentally in

the gill-net fisheries for coho and Chinook salmon, and some tributaries have a minor

recreational harvest (WDF et al. 1993). Observations of chum salmon still occur in most

of the 13 basins/areas that were identified in 1951 as hosting chum salmon; however,

fewer than 10 fish are usually observed in these areas. In 1999, the WDFW located

another Columbia River mainstem spawning area for chum salmon near the I-205 bridge

(WDFW 2000).

Chum salmon enter the Columbia River from mid-October through early December and

spawn from early November to late December. Recent genetic analysis of fish from

Hardy and Hamilton Creeks and from the Grays River indicate that these fish are

genetically distinct from other chum salmon populations in Washington. Genetic

variability within and between populations in several geographic areas is similar, and

populations in Washington show levels of genetic subdivision typical of those seen

between summer- and fall-run populations in other areas, and are typical of populations

within run types (Salo 1991, WDF et al. 1993, Phelps et al. 1994, Johnson et al. 1997).

The median population growth rate is 1.04 over a base period from 1980 through 1998

for the ESU as a whole (McClure et al. 2000). Because census data are peak counts (and

because the precision of those counts decreases markedly during the spawning season as

water levels and turbidity rise), NOAA Fisheries is unable to estimate the risk of absolute

extinction for this ESU.

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONC) coho salmon. This ESU

includes all naturally-spawned populations of coho salmon in coastal streams between

Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. In the 1940s, estimated abundance

of coho salmon in this ESU ranged from 150,000 to 400,000 naturally-spawning fish.

Today, coho populations in this ESU are very depressed, currently numbering

approximately 10,000 naturally-produced adults. Although the Oregon portion of the

coho salmon SONC ESU has declined drastically, the Rogue River Basin’s portion

increased substantially from 1974 to 1997. The bulk of current coho salmon production

in this ESU consists of stocks from the Rogue River, Klamath River, Trinity River, and

Eel River in Oregon.

Most SONC coho salmon enter rivers between September and February and spawn from

November to January (occasionally into early spring). For many small streams in

California that have sand bars at their mouths for much of the year except in winter,

immigration is influenced by river flow (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon eggs

incubate for 35 to 50 days between November and March, and start emerging from the

gravel 2 to 3 weeks after hatching (Hassler 1987). Following emergence, fry move into

shallow areas near the streambanks. As the fry grow larger, they disperse up- and

downstream to establish and defend a territory (Hassler 1987). During the summer, fry

prefer pools and riffles with adequate cover. Juveniles overwinter in large mainstem

pools, backwater areas, and secondary pools with large woody debris and undercut banks.
140

Juveniles primarily eat aquatic and terrestrial insects. After rearing in freshwater for up

to 15 months, smolts enter the ocean between March and June (Weitkamp et al. 1995).

Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon. This ESU is found in coastal streams draining the

coast Range Mountains between Cape Blanco and the Columbia River. Estimated

escapement of coho salmon in coastal Oregon was about 1.4 million fish in the early

1900s, with harvests of nearly 400,000 fish. Abundance of wild OC coho salmon

declined during the period from about 1965 to 1975, and has fluctuated at a low level

since that time (Nickelson et al. 1992). Production potential (based on stock-recruit

models) shows a reduction of nearly 50 percent in habitat capacity. Spawner abundance

estimates for naturally-produced OC coho for the past 13 years ranged from a low of

16,510 in 1990, to a high of nearly 239,000 in 2002 (ODFW 2003b).

Most OC coho salmon enter rivers from late September to mid-October after the onset of

autumn freshets. Thus, a delay in fall rains will retard river entry and perhaps spawn

timing. Peak spawning occurs from mid-November to early February. Depending on

water temperature, eggs incubate for 35 to 50 days and start emerging from the gravel 2

to 3 weeks after hatching (Nickelson et al. 1992).

After they emerge, fry move into shallow areas near the streambanks. Juvenile rearing

usually occurs in low gradient tributary streams, although they may move up to streams

of 4 or 5 percent gradient. Juveniles have been found in streams as small as 1- to 2-m

wide. When the fry are approximately 4 cm in length, they migrate upstream

considerable distances to reach lakes or other rearing areas. Coho salmon fry prefer

backwater pools during spring. In the summer, juveniles are more abundant in pools than

in glides or riffles. During winter, the fishes predominate in off-channel pools of any

type. Rearing in freshwater, which may take up to 15 months, is followed by migration

to the sea as smolts between February and June (Weitkamp et al. 1995).

Recent Status Information. In September 2001, in the case Alsea Valley Alliance v.

Evans, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan struck down the 1998 ESA listing of

Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon and remanded the listing decision to NOAA Fisheries

for further consideration. In November 2001, the Oregon Natural Resources Council

appealed the District Court's ruling. Pending resolution of the appeal, in December 2001,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's order that voided the OC

coho listing. While the stay was in place, the OC coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit

(ESU) was again afforded the protections of the ESA.

On February 24, 2004, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in Alsea. On June 15,

2004, the Ninth Circuit returned the case to Judge Hogan and ended its stay. Judge

Hogan's order invalidating the OC coho listing is back in force. Accordingly, OC coho

are now not listed, and ESA provisions for listed species, such as the consultation

requirement and take prohibitions, do not apply to OC coho.

In response to the Alsea ruling, NOAA Fisheries released its revised policy for

considering hatchery stocks when making listing decisions on June 3, 2004 (69 FR
141

31354). NOAA Fisheries completed a new review of the biological status of OC coho

salmon, and applying the new hatchery listing policy, proposed to list OC coho salmon

as a threatened species on June 14, 2004 (69 FR 33102). NOAA Fisheries must make a

final decision on the proposed OC coho salmon listing by June 14, 2005.

Lower Columbia River (LCR) coho salmon. The LCR coho salmon ESU includes all

naturally-spawned populations of coho salmon from the Columbia River tributaries

below the Klickitat River on the Washington side and below the Deschutes River on the

Oregon side (including the Willamette River as far upriver as Willamette Falls), as well

as coastal drainages in southwest Washington between the Columbia River and Point

Grenville. Major river basins containing spawning and rearing habitat for this ESU

comprise approximately 10,418 square miles in Oregon and Washington. The following

counties lie partially or wholly within these basins: Oregon - Clackamas, Clatsop,

Columbia, Hood River, Marion, Multnomah, Wasco, and Washington; Washington -

Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Klickitat, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Skamania,

Thurston, and Wahkiakum.

Most LCR coho salmon enter rivers from September to November after the. Thus, a

delay in fall rains will retard river entry and perhaps spawn timing. Peak spawning

occurs from mid-November to early January. Depending on water temperature, coho

eggs incubate for 35 to 50 days and start emerging from the gravel 2 to 3 weeks after

hatching (Nickelson et al. 1992).

After they emerge, fry move into shallow areas near the streambanks. Juvenile rearing

usually occurs in low gradient tributary streams, although they may move up to streams

of 4 or 5 percent gradient. Juveniles have been found in streams as small as 1- to 2-m

wide. When the fry are approximately 4 cm in length, they migrate upstream

considerable distances to reach lakes or other rearing areas. Coho salmon fry prefer

backwater pools during spring. In the summer, juveniles are more abundant in pools than

in glides or riffles. During winter, the fishes predominate in off-channel pools of any

type. Rearing in freshwater, which may take up to 15 months, is followed by migration

to the sea as smolts between February and June (Weitkamp et al. 1995).

One population that warrants specific discussion because of its complex history is laterun Clackamas River coho salmon. The Clackamas River, a tributary of the Willamette

River, was excluded from the petition for lower Columbia River coho salmon considered

by NMFS in 1991 (Johnson et al. 1991), but it is within the area under consideration for

the current stock status review.

The Clackamas River historically had runs of coho salmon and other anadromous

species. However, the river also has a long history of obstructions to fish passage by

dams. Cazadero Dam (1905, River Kilometer (RKm) 47) and River Mill Dam (1911,

RKm 38) were the first large dams to completely block river flow. Both dams were

equipped with fish passage facilities, which were often blocked for egg taking. In 1917,

the fish ladder at Cazadero Dam washed out, and for 22 years, until the fish ladder was

finally restored in 1939, coho salmon were unable to access the upper Clackamas River.
142

Subsequently, the upper river was repopulated by natural immigration and, possibly,

unrecorded releases. Because of the relatively low success of hatcheries at producing

adult coho salmon at that time, the immigrants were most likely natural coho salmon

from either the Clackamas River below RKm 47, the Willamette River, or elsewhere in

the lower Columbia River. In 1958, North Fork Dam was built at RKm 50. This dam was

built with an extensive fish passage facility that has allowed enumeration of salmon

entering and leaving the upper Clackamas River.

Since the late 1990s both the upper Sandy River basin above Marmot Dam and the upper

Clackamas River basin above North Fork Dam on the Clackamas River have been

managed as native fish reserves. Returning adult fish are trapped and sorted at these

facilities allowing only migration of native adults upstream of the sorting facilities.

Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead. The MCR ESU occupies the Columbia

River Basin from above the Wind River in Washington and the Hood River in Oregon

and continues upstream to include the Yakima River, Washington. The region includes

some of the driest areas of the Pacific Northwest, generally receiving less than 40 cm of

precipitation annually (Jackson 1993). Summer steelhead are widespread throughout the

ESU; winter steelhead occur in Mosier, Chenowith, Mill, and Fifteenmile Creeks,

Oregon, and in the Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers, Washington. The John Day River

probably represents the largest native, natural spawning stock of steelhead in the

region.

Estimates of historical (pre-1960s) abundance specific to this ESU are available for the

Yakima River, which has an estimated run size of 100,000 (WDF et al. 1993). Assuming

comparable run sizes for other drainage areas in this ESU, the total historical run size

may have exceeded 300,000 steelhead (NOAA Fisheries 2000).

Life history information for this ESU has been summarized by NOAA Fisheries (2000).

Most fish in this ESU smolt at two years and spend 1 to 2 years in salt water before

reentering freshwater, where they may remain up to a year before spawning (Howell et

al. 1985). All steelhead upstream of The Dalles Dam are summer-run (Schreck et al.

1986, Chapman et al. 1994, Busby et al. 1996). The Klickitat River, however, produces

both summer and winter steelhead, and age-2-ocean steelhead dominate the summer

steelhead, whereas most other rivers in the region produce about equal numbers of both

age 1- and 2-ocean fish. A non-anadromous form co-occurs with the anadromous form in

this ESU; information suggests that the two forms may not be isolated reproductively,

except where barriers are involved.

Current population sizes are substantially lower than historic levels, especially in the

rivers with the largest steelhead runs in the ESU, the John Day, Deschutes, and Yakima

Rivers. At least two extinctions of native steelhead runs in the ESU have occurred (the

Crooked and Metolius Rivers, both in the Deschutes River Basin). For the MCR

steelhead ESU as a whole, NOAA Fisheries (2000) estimates that the median population

growth rate over the base period (1990-1998) ranges from 0.88 to 0.75, decreasing as the
143

effectiveness of hatchery fish spawning in the wild increases compared with that of fish

of wild origin (McClure et al. 2000). In 2002, the count of Bonneville Dam steelhead

totaled 481,036 and exceeded all counts recorded at Bonneville Dam since 1938, except

the 2001 total, which was 633,464. Of the total return in 2002, 143,032 were considered

wild steelhead (Fish Passage Center 2003a).

Lower Columbia River (LCR) steelhead. The LCR ESU encompasses all steelhead

runs in tributaries between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers on the Washington side of the

Columbia, and the Willamette and Hood Rivers on the Oregon side. The populations of

steelhead that make up the LCR steelhead ESU are distinguished from adjacent

populations by genetic and habitat characteristics. The ESU consists of summer and

winter coastal steelhead runs in the tributaries of the Columbia River as it cuts through

the Cascades. These populations are genetically distinct from inland populations (east of

the Cascades), as well as from steelhead populations in the upper Willamette Basin and

coastal runs north and south of the Columbia River mouth. Not included in the ESU are

runs in the Willamette River above Willamette Falls (Upper Willamette River ESU), runs

in the Little and Big White Salmon Rivers (Middle Columbia River ESU), and runs based

on four imported hatchery stocks: early-spawning winter Chambers Creek/lower

Columbia River mix, summer Skamania Hatchery stock, winter Eagle Creek NFH stock,

and winter Clackamas River ODFW stock (63 FR 13351 and 13352). This area has at

least 36 distinct runs (Busby et al. 1996), 20 of which were identified in the initial listing

petition. In addition, numerous small tributaries have historical reports of fish, but no

current abundance data. The major runs in the ESU, for which there are estimates of run

size, are the Cowlitz River winter runs, Toutle River winter runs, Kalama River winter

and summer runs, Lewis River winter and summer runs, Washougal River winter and

summer runs, Wind River summer runs, Clackamas River winter and summer runs,

Sandy River winter and summer runs, and Hood River winter and summer runs (NOAA

Fisheries 2000).

All runs in the LCR steelhead ESU have declined from 1980 to 2000, with sharp declines

beginning in 1995 (NOAA Fisheries 2000). Historic counts in some of the larger

tributaries (Cowlitz, Kalama, and Sandy Rivers) probably exceeded 20,000 fish; more

recent counts have been in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 fish (NOAA Fisheries 2000).

Habitat loss, hatchery steelhead introgression, and harvest are the major contributors to

the decline of steelhead in this ESU. For the LCR steelhead ESU, NOAA Fisheries

(2000) estimates that the median population growth rate over the base period (1990-1998)

ranges from 0.98 to 0.78, decreasing as the effectiveness of hatchery fish spawning in the

wild increases compared with that of fish of wild origin (McClure et al. 2000).

Upper Willamette River (UWR) steelhead. The UWR steelhead ESU occupies the

Willamette River and tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls, extending to and including

the Calapooia River. These major river basins containing spawning and rearing habitat

comprise more than 12,000 km

2

in Oregon. Rivers that contain naturally-spawning

winter-run steelhead include the Tualatin, Molalla, Santiam, Calapooia, Yamhill,

Rickreall, Luckiamute, and Mary’s, although the origin and distribution of steelhead in a

number of these basins is being debated. Early migrating winter and summer steelhead
144

have been introduced into the upper Willamette basin, but those components are not part

of the ESU. Native winter steelhead within this ESU have been declining since 1971,

and have exhibited large fluctuations in abundance.

Over the past several decades, total abundance of natural late-migrating winter steelhead

ascending the Willamette Falls fish ladder has fluctuated several times over a range of

approximately 5,000 to 20,000 spawners. However, the last peak occurred in 1988, and

this peak has been followed by a steep and continuing decline. Abundance in each of

year from 1993 to 1998, was below 4,300 fish, and the run in 1995 was the lowest in 30

years.

In general, native steelhead of the UWR are late-migrating winter steelhead, entering

freshwater primarily in March and April. This atypical run timing appears to be an

adaptation for ascending Willamette Falls, which functions as an isolating mechanism for

UWR steelhead. Reproductive isolation resulting from the falls may explain the genetic

distinction between steelhead from the upper Willamette River Basin and those in the

lower river. UWR late-migrating steelhead are ocean-maturing fish. Most return at age

4, with a small proportion returning as 5-year-olds (Busby et al. 1996). Willamette Falls

(Rkm 77) is a known migration barrier (NOAA Fisheries 2000). Winter steelhead and

spring Chinook salmon historically occurred above the falls, whereas summer steelhead,

fall Chinook, and coho salmon did not. Detroit and Big Cliff Dams cut off access to 540

km of spawning and rearing habitat in the North Santiam River. In general, habitat in this

ESU has become substantially simplified since the 1800s by removal of large woody

debris to increase the river’s navigability.

Habitat loss, hatchery steelhead introgression, and harvest are the major contributors to

the decline of steelhead in this ESU. For the UWR steelhead ESU, the estimated median

population growth rate for 1990-1998 ranged from 0.94 to 0.87, decreasing as the

effectiveness of hatchery fish spawning in the wild increased compared with that of fish

of wild origin (McClure et al. 2000).

Critical Habitat. NOAA Fisheries designates critical habitat based on physical and

biological features that are essential to the listed species. NOAA Fisheries has designated

critical habitat for SR spring/summer Chinook salmon and SONC coho salmon.

Designated critical habitat for SR spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU includes areas in

the Snake River basin and a 300-foot riparian buffer along the Columbia River migration

corridor as detailed in 58 FR 68543. Designated critical habitat for SONC coho salmon

includes coastal river basins south of Cape Blanco in southern Oregon south to Punta

Gorda in northern California as detailed in 64 FR 24049. The essential features of

designated critical habitat within the action area that support successful spawning,

incubation, fry emergence, migration, holding, rearing, and smoltification for ESA-listed

salmonid fishes include: (1) Substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4) water

temperature, (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food (primarily juvenile), (8)

riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions.
145

4.1.2 Evaluating Proposed Actions

The standards for determining jeopardy are set forth in section 7(a)(2) of the ESA as

defined by 50 CFR 402.02 (the consultation regulations). The Services must determine

whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the listed species or is likely to destroy

or adversely modify critical habitat. This analysis involves initial steps of: (1) defining

the biological requirements and current status of the listed species; and (2) evaluate the

relevance of the environmental baseline to the species’ current habitat. This part of the

analysis focuses on the action area and defines the proposed action’s effects in terms of

the species’ biological requirements in that area (i.e., effects on essential habitat features).

Subsequently, the Services evaluate whether the action is likely to jeopardize the listed

species by determining whether the action, taken together with any cumulative effects

and added to the environmental baseline, can be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce

appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the listed species or to

destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. This part of the analysis

focuses on the species itself. It describes the action’s effect on individual fish, wildlife,

or plant–or populations, or both–and places these effects in the context of the species’

numbers, distribution, and reproduction within ESU or DPS as a whole. Ultimately, the

analysis seeks to answer the question of whether the proposed action is likely to

jeopardize a listed species’ continued existence or adversely modify critical habitat. If

so, the Services may identify reasonable and prudent alternatives for the action that avoid

jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat and meet other regulatory

requirements.

4.1.3 Environmental Baseline

Regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402.02) define the

environmental baseline as the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or private

actions and other human activities in the action area. The environmental baseline also

includes the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that

have undergone section 7 consultation, and the impacts of state and private actions that

are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress. In addition to the statewide, and

often rangewide, status of each species within section 4.1.1, an extensive write up of the

ecoregional context, habitat types and land management practices supporting the

summary of the Environmental Baseline section can be found in Appendix C.

Summary of Environmental Baseline

Based on the summarization and consideration of information in Appendix C of this

Opinion, not all of the biological requirements of the species and their habitats are being

met under the environmental baseline in many of the forests, uplands, riparian areas,

streams corridors, and watersheds occupied by listed species in Oregon. Improvements

in the environmental conditions they currently experience may be necessary to meet the

biological requirements for survival and recovery of many species. Further degradation
146

of these conditions could appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of

many species.

4.1.4 Analysis of Effects

The ESA Section 7 implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.02) define “effects of the

action” as:

The direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat

together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent

with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. The

environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state,

or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated

impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already

undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or

private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process.

Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in

time, but still are reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02).

The Services consider the EPS (Section 2.5) an integral part of the proposed action. By

strict adherence and administration of these EPS, potential long-term adverse effects

other than those from fish handling and limited aspects of bridge repair to listed species

will be avoided, adequately minimized, and offset. Those that cannot be completely

avoided, will be minimized to the greatest extent possible and offset by compensatory

mitigation actions for NOAA species and through conservation actions for USFWS

species. The EPS will also serve to avoid and minimize potential short-term adverse

effects to listed species and maximize potential beneficial effects to listed species. The

FHWA has proposed to implement all the EPS at program bridge repair/replacement

project sites regardless of species range. Therefore, for the purposes of this effects

analysis, the Services will assume all pertinent EPS will be fully implemented throughout

project administration, design, construction, monitoring and reporting from project

inception to completion of monitoring and reporting.

4.1.4.1 Effects of the Proposed Action

The effects analysis for individual species in the BA was done by evaluating the effects

pathways based on the media through which effects are delivered to the species.

Essentially, all effects on listed species are delivered through the displacement,

disruption, degradation, removal, or addition of air, soil, chemicals, plants, and direct

effects on individuals of a species. Also in the BA, and incorporated into the proposed

action section of this Opinion, FHWA described the effects from very specific project

elements/activities that may occur under the Bridge Program. The EPS were designed to

avoid or minimize those specific effects. The Services agree with the descriptions in

those specific potential effects sections, however, for the purposes of the effects analysis

here, we will further examine and analyze potential effects from specific bridge
147

construction activities analyzed in the BA and that are likely to adversely effect the listed

species.

Auditory (Noise) and Visual Harassment

For the purposes of this effect pathway analysis we will be evaluating the effects of

auditory and visual stimuli to three threatened avian species; the marbled murrelet, bald

eagle, and northern spotted owl. The USFWS will discuss the general conditions

affecting all species then distinguish between the research and anticipated effects, in the

context of the proposed action, to each species individually. In addition to the

information provided in the BA, this analysis uses information provided in the USFWS’s

programmatic Olympic National Forest BO (USFWS 2003d), the USFWS’ updated

regional guidance on harassment thresholds, and professional interpretation of these

information sources. The Olympic National Forest Programmatic BO (ONFBO)

provided a detailed review and summarization of the literature regarding marbled

murrelet and northern spotted owl disturbance/harassment (USFWS 2003d). We will not

repeat this effort but will draw upon some of the same research and findings.

The USFWS recognizes that bird species and individuals respond to auditory and visual

stimuli differently based on life history, behavior, and existing level of exposure, and that

there is a gradient of potential outcomes from a stimuli, ranging from not being detected

to harassment (i.e., injury) (USFWS 2003d). The USFWS is using two basic effects

definitions for this analysis which are important for quantifying adverse effects to a

species: (1) a disturbance is any potential auditory or visual stimuli or deviation from

ambient (baseline) conditions an individual bird, at a given site, is likely to detect and

possibly react to; and (2) harassment, which is defined [50 CFR §§ 17.3] as “an

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury by

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.” The USFWS interprets a

disturbance response to be something equivalent to showing apparent recognition or

avoidance of the sight or sound by hiding, defending itself, moving its wings or body, or

postponing a feeding so that the adult still feeds its young the same prey item. In this

Opinion we are broadening our definition of disturbance somewhat by including what the

ONFBO (USFWS 2003d) termed the “alert threshold.” This includes the recognition of a

stimulus by showing apparent interest in the sight or sound by the bird turning its head

toward the stimuli. The USFWS has interpreted the harassment threshold to be exceeded

if an adult is flushed from a nest or aborts a feeding visit such that the young does not

receive the prey item or is kept from, or repeatedly flushed from, a winter roost or

important foraging area. Ultimately, harassment may lead to reduced productivity or

survival due to lower fledging weight, physical injury or death of adult, hatchling or egg,

from reduced feeding visits, nest inattentiveness, flushes, and high energy expenditure

(USFWS 2003d). Therefore, harassment primarily pertains to the critical nesting period

for these three species and for communal winter bald eagles roosts.

Following these definitions, a disturbance for a wildlife species may rise, at some point,

to the level of harassment (i.e., likely to result in injury equating to incidental take).
148

Therefore, this analysis is addressing the likelihood that potential disturbance associated

with the bridge program will rise to the level of harassment based on the USFWS’ current

harassment thresholds for each species and the ambient (baseline) conditions existing

along these highways.

Ambient (Background) Conditions. A disturbance can be measured in many ways,

including, but not limited to: proximity, frequency, duration, and intensity. Noise and

visual stimuli may also be attenuated by topography, vegetation, humidity, and

construction methods (i.e., the use of sound dampening or visual screening devices).

However, because noise attenuation factors vary greatly (e.g., humidity, topography, and

vegetation) and do not work as well for birds nesting high in the canopy, they will not be

addressed in detail here. For birds occurring at a specific site, disturbance factors need to

be viewed in the context of the existing ambient conditions. The ONFBO (USFWS

2003d) defined ambient as naturally generated, and background as human generated

stimuli, however, we are using ambient to describe all existing background stimuli,

natural and man made. An individual nesting near a roadway has likely become

habituated to a predictable sight and sound stimulus pattern which includes roadway

generated, in addition to natural stimuli. It is likely that because they are predictable, and

no harm (i.e., predation) has come from them in the past, they are not perceived as a

threat. An individual nesting in the interior of a forest is often only accustomed to

naturally generated stimuli. The introduction of a foreign sight or sound stimulus may

elicit a disturbance or harassment response from an individual in this situation because

the stimulus was not predictable and thus potentially perceived as a threat. The USFWS

also believes that a stimulus, at a site with human activity, which exceeds the ambient

proximity, frequency, duration or intensity conditions, may also result in a disturbance or

harassment response.

The exception to this general pattern may be for northern spotted owls. Spotted owls are

cryptic in appearance and behavior which helps them avoid detection and predation and

often display behavior that appears to be naïve to human activity. This is the foundation

for much of the research and monitoring used for spotted owls where close approaches by

researchers are used to determine nesting and to capture them for banding (Forsman et al.

1984). In fact, often individual spotted owls become more agitated by the visual

proximity of researchers after they have been captured and handled (David Leal,

USFWS, pers. obs.) The USFWS has not determined whether a visual harassment

threshold for spotted owls is justified.

There have been many observations of habituated individuals of all three species nesting

in high activity/traffic areas. As expected, all of the proposed action bridges are

primarily associated with highways and higher use roadways. These highways currently

experience a wide range of vehicle and non-vehicle traffic levels. Individual birds

nesting proximal to these roadways are doing so in the presence of high ambient noise

levels in the 60 decibels relative to human hearing (dBh) to 70 dBh range from vehicles

and likely experience other regular noises such as chain saws and guns of up to

approximately 80 dBh. In the BA, high noise is defined as being 10 dBA above ambient
149

noise conditions. Thus, high noise in the BA is roughly equivalent to the USFWS’

definition of the 92 dBh harassment, or injury, threshold.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for four selected highways which have bridge

projects along them are presented in table 4-4. Of primary interest are the ADTs for

these highways during the spring and summer periods which generally coincide with the

critical nesting periods.

Table 4-4. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for selected sites within Oregon

(ODOT 2002)

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Section Spring

(Mar-May)

Summer

(Jun-Aug)

Fall

(Sep-Oct)

Winter

(Nov-Feb)

I-5, Oak Grove

rest area

32000-34183 37597-40788 37692-33434 26500-33957

I-5, Baldock rest

area

73779-76236 79000-86486 74193-81749 61078-73852

Hwy 58,

Oakridge

2585-2977 3592-3999 3116-3640 2200-2337

Hwy 20, to

Newport

4401-4509 4891-5863 4289-5200 3215-3867

I-84, near North

Powder

7000-8680 9774-10715 8643-9410 5598-7678

I-84, Sandy R

bridge

24232-28217 32015-35669 26831-30891 19086-24095

Average daily traffic volumes for the selected roadways ranged from approximately

2,500 vehicles per day to 86,500 vehicles per day. The number of vehicles obviously

increased with proximity to major metropolitan areas, however, we tried not to include

roadways in table 4-4 that were directly in the cities since most of these birds (with the

exception of a few bald eagle pairs) nest in mature forest areas which are primarily

outside of cities. In addition to vehicle traffic, birds nesting in proximity to these

roadways may also encounter pedestrians, bicyclists, and maintenance workers on an

irregular basis.

Marbled murrelet harassment. Based on the recent analyses of available disturbance

and harassment data for the marbled murrelet in the ONFBO (USFWS 2003d) and

internal discussion, the USFWS has adjusted its position regarding at what distance noise

disturbance is likely to rise to the level of harassment (USFWS 2003d). Table 4-5 gives

the distances for more common types of noise generating activities where the USFWS

believes harassment to nesting murrelets may be likely.

Table 4-5. Current USFWS guidance on auditory and visual harassment

thresholds for marbled murrelets (USFWS 2003d)

Activity Harassment Threshold Distance

Blasting (greater than 2 lb charge) 1.0 mi (1.6 km)
150

Blasting (less than a 2 lb charge) 360 ft (110 m)

Effect pile driving, jackhammer, or rock drill 180 ft (55 m)

Helicopter or single-engine Aircraft 360 ft (110 m)

Chainsaws 135 ft (40 m)

Heavy equipment 105 ft (32 m)

Visual activity 300 ft (90 m)

The FHWA/Corps have proposed to fully implement the following marbled murrelet

portion of the Species Avoidance EPS to avoid or minimize adverse effects to marbled

murrelets.

From Species Avoidance and Adverse Effects Minimization EPS:

Marbled Murrelet. For high-noise producing activities within one mile of suitable

nesting habitat and non-blasting high-noise producing activities within 300 feet of

suitable nesting habitat:

i. Inventory. Identify areas of suitable nesting habitat within one

mile of the construction site.

ii. Avoidance. All blasting activities within one mile of suitable

nesting habitat will be conducted from September 15 to March 30.

All non-blasting high-noise producing construction activities will

be conducted outside the critical nesting period of April 1 to

August 5. Non-blasting high noise producing construction

activities conducted from August 6 to September 15 shall

implement a daily limited operating period (LOP) of daytime work

being conducted from two hours after sunrise to two hours before

sunset. If night construction is needed, then activity will be

conducted from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise.

iii. Minimization. High-noise producing construction activities may

be conducted between April 1 and August 5, following the LOP

with a variance from the USFWS.

In the BA the FHWA/Corps began to quantify the area where, according to current

harassment thresholds, injury may occur. The distance of 1 mile was used for blasting,

however, since blasting will be conducted outside the breeding season, no harassment is

anticipated from that activity. For the purposes of this analysis the visual harassment

threshold of 300 feet was used for both visual and auditory harassment for non-blasting

activities. The visual harassment threshold was used due to the difficulty determining

when you may only have auditory disturbance at less than 300 feet without visually

seeing the source. Several assumptions were made for this analysis. First, the analysis

uses the Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Westside lowland conifer-hardwood, southwest
151

Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood forest habitat types as the basis for screening murrelet

habitat. While this is a valid starting point to screen for potential habitat there is no age

classification involved. Marbled murrelets are known to primarily use mature or old

growth trees for their nesting platforms, and optimally for their nesting stands. Due to

past forest management practices old growth habitat has been greatly reduced in

abundance across the range of the murrelet (USDA and USDI 1994b).

Therefore, the habitat screening in the BA likely excessively overestimates suitable

marbled murrelet nesting habitat. In the absence of readily available forest age

classification data throughout the murrelet range, the FHWA/Corps determined that 61 of

the proposed action bridges, within the range of marbled murrelet in Oregon, had suitable

habitat within a 300-foot radius around the API. This came out to be approximately

19,127 acres of functional (i.e., suitable) marbled murrelet habitat may be exposed to

noise and/or visual harassment from construction activity. As stated earlier, the USFWS

believes this to be a large overestimate and not a realistic estimate of harassment, because

only a portion of that acreage will actually be suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat.

A conservative yet more realistic harassment estimate may be achieved by looking at the

habitat removal analysis which was conducted in the Evaluation of Effects Memorandum

(BA Appendix 2B). The analysis for effects to habitat used a 500-foot radius around the

center point of the bridge. This 500-foot radius was used as an estimate for habitat

removal activities because in most all cases staging and detour routes would be as close

to the bridge as possible to minimize travel distances and construction costs. Because

most all pre-construction and construction activity would be conducted within this area it

works as a more realistic estimate for visual disturbance/harassment than using the entire

API. When this radius is applied to the 87 bridges potentially occurring in marbled

murrelet habitat the result is 1,566 acres of potential visual harassment. The 500-foot

buffer would in most cases encompass the 300-foot harassment threshold beyond a

staging area or detour route. The USFWS believes this is still a conservative estimate but

a more realistic estimate of suitable habitat for marbled murrelets where visual

harassment due construction activity may occur.

Taking into account the ambient conditions marbled murrelets are likely to be exposed to,

the noise generated by construction equipment (excluding blasting), the LOP being

applied to avoid peak murrelet activity periods, and the harassment thresholds presented

in table 4-5, the USFWS does not believe marbled murrelets will be harassed due to noise

primarily because construction noise is not anticipated to be greater than 10 dBA above

ambient conditions at the harassment thresholds in table 4-5. The USFWS does believe

there is potential for visual harassment to marbled murrelets nesting within 500 feet of

the center point of a bridge (totaling approximately 1,566 acres) because visual human

activity will be outside the current ambient conditions experienced at those sites. While

this distance is greater than the current 300-foot radius, it is a conservative estimate used

to encompass all visual activity such as for staging areas and detour routes. This potential

harassment will occur at 87 bridge sites across the range of the marbled murrelet in

Oregon and over a 10 year period.
152

Northern spotted owl harassment. Based on the recent analyses of available

disturbance and harassment data for the northern spotted owl in the ONFBO (USFWS

2003d) and internal discussion, the USFWS has adjusted its position regarding at what

distance noise disturbance is likely to rise to the level of harassment (USFWS 2003d).

Table 4-6 gives the distance for more common types of noise generating activities where

the USFWS believes harassment to nesting spotted owls may be likely.

Table 4-6. Current USFWS guidance on auditory harassment thresholds for

northern spotted owl (USFWS 2003d)

Activity Harassment Threshold Distance

Blasting (greater than 2 lb charge) 1.0 mi (1.6 km)

Blasting (less than a 2 lb charge) 360 ft (110 m)

Effect pile driving, jackhammer, or rock drill 180 ft (55 m)

Helicopter or single-engine Aircraft 360 ft (110 m)

Chainsaws 195 ft (60 m)

Heavy equipment 105 ft (32 m)

The FHWA/Corps have proposed to fully implement the following northern spotted owl

portion of the Species Avoidance EPS to avoid or minimize adverse effects to nesting

spotted owls.

From Species Avoidance and Adverse Effects Minimization EPS:

Northern Spotted Owl. For blasting activities within one mile of suitable nesting and

roosting habitat and non-blasting construction activity within 195 feet of nesting and

roosting habitat:

iv. Inventory. Inventory the area of potential harassment for nesting

and roosting (NR) habitat.

v. Avoidance. If NR habitat is present, then prohibit blasting and

high-noise producing activities during the following critical

nesting periods:

(1) March 1 to July 7 for the North Coast Province.

(2) March 1 to June 30 for the Rogue/Siskiyou NF and

Medford District of BLM in the Southwest Province.

(3) March 1 to July 15 for the Umpqua NF in the Southwest

Province.

(4) March 1 to July 15 for the Willamette Province.

(5) March 1 to September 30 for the Deschutes, Fremont, and

Winema NF, and unlisted areas.

vi. Minimization. High-noise producing activity within the provincial

critical nesting periods may be conducted with a variance from the

USFWS.

As with the marbled murrelet, the FHWA/Corps attempted to quantify harassment based

on the USFWS’ harassment thresholds given in table 4-6. The FHWA/Corps initially
153

screened for northern spotted owl functional (i.e., suitable) habitat using Johnson and

O’Neil (2001) habitat types known to be spotted owl habitat. As with the murrelet

analysis these habitat types did not have age classification data associated with them.

The analysis used a 300-foot radius (a conservative analysis area to encompass all nonblasting noise harassment thresholds) around the center point of a bridge at 141 bridges

identified to be within spotted owl habitat types. The analysis resulted in a total area of

915 acres where spotted owls may be likely to be adversely affected by noise harassment.

Based on (1) the ambient conditions northern spotted owls are likely to be exposed to, (2)

the noise generated by construction equipment, (3) the EPS for northern spotted owls, (4)

the behavior of spotted owls, and (5) the harassment thresholds presented in table 4-6, the

USFWS does not believe northern spotted owls will be harassed due to noise. This is

primarily because construction noise is not anticipated to be significantly greater than the

ambient conditions, spotted owl behavior such as their nocturnal activity period, and the

USFWS can deny or modify a request for a variance to the avoidance EPS where local

conditions may call for a more conservative approach.

Bald eagle harassment. Bald eagle harassment thresholds were identified in the Pacific

Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986). These distances were established based on

research on bald eagles throughout the country and have been adopted by the USFWS

and used in consultation. Table 4-7 gives the visual and noise harassment thresholds for

nesting bald eagles (USFWS 1986).

Table 4-7. Current USFWS guidance on auditory and visual harassment

thresholds for the bald eagle (USFWS 1986)

Activity Harassment Threshold Distance

Noise 0.25 mi (400 m)

Visual activity 0.5 mi (800 m)

The FHWA/Corps have proposed to fully implement the following bald eagle portion of

the Species Avoidance EPS to avoid or minimize adverse effects to nesting bald eagles

and for communal winter roosts.

From Species Avoidance and Adverse Effects Minimization EPS:

Bald Eagle. For blasting activities within one mile of known nest sites or communal

roosts and non-blasting construction activities within 0.25 mile or 0.5 mile visually (i.e.,

line-of-site), of a known nest or communal roost:

vii. Inventory. Review the most recent Isaacs and Anthony bald eagle

nesting survey database for nest locations.

viii. Avoidance. High-noise producing activities, including blasting,

will be confined to between September 1 and October 30.

ix. Minimization. Construction activity, other than blasting, within

the harassment threshold distances (0.25 mile for noise and 0.5
154

mile for visual) or during October 31 to December 31 shall follow

the daily LOP and will require a variance from the USFWS.

x. Minimization. Staging areas and detour routes will be kept as far

from a nest as practicable. If closer than 0.5 mile, then a variance

from the USFWS is needed.

Within the BA, the FHWA/Corps analyzed the potential auditory and visual effects to

bald eagles by first reviewing the current Isaacs and Anthony (2003) bald eagle nest

survey database. They then screened to determine how many known bald eagle nests or

communal winter roosts are within the 0.5 mile and 0.25 mile radii of the bridges. Based

on this analysis the FHWA/Corps found that 12 bridges had bald eagle nests within 0.5

miles and 2 bridges had bald eagle nests within 0.25 miles of them. Because the visual

harassment threshold encompasses the auditory threshold, essentially there are 12 known

bald eagle nests which may likely experience visual harassment from pre-construction

and construction activity. The USFWS considers this a conservative estimate because we

are assuming all 12 nests within 0.5 miles have an open line-of-site to construction

activity. It is probable that fewer than 12 nests will actually have a clear line-of-sight to

visual activity.

Taking into account (1) the ambient conditions bald eagles are likely to be exposed to in

proximity to the project bridges, (2) the noise generated by construction equipment

(excluding blasting), (3) the LOP being applied to avoid peak bald eagle activity periods,

and the harassment thresholds presented in table 4-7, the USFWS agrees that the

individuals, eggs or young associated with up to 12 known bald eagle nests may likely

experience visual harassment due to pre-construction and construction activity. This

potential harassment will occur across the range of the bald eagle in Oregon and over a

10 year period.

Hydro-acoustic

Hydro-acoustic effects are generally created during activities that generate excessive

noise in the form of intense sound pressure waves within the water column, typically

pile-driving (NOAA Fisheries 2003a). Pile-driving for in-water structures can cause

intense temporary underwater sounds that may affect the behavior of salmon up to

approximately 2,000 feet away (NOAA Fisheries 2003c). These hydro-acoustic effects

can kill salmonids (e.g., by ruptured swim bladders and causing lethal injury to other

various organs), or can be sub-lethal (e.g., injury or harassment and displacement from

productive feeding habitats). Sound pressure waves in excess of 190dB may be fatal to

fish, however 155dB may be sufficient to stun, injure or harass small fish (Hastings 1995,

2003).

While there are approximately 430 individual bridge sites either being repaired or

replaced under this proposed action, this will be conducted over a 10 year period across

Oregon, thus spreading the potential for hydro-acoustic adverse effects over that time

frame and across watersheds. However, the potential for hydro-acoustic effects at an

individual bridge is not expected to be a major effect but smaller batches of bridges will
155

likely be constructed at the same time to maximize efficiencies in construction. Based on

this, the potential additive adverse effects from hydro-acoustic elements/activities, on

local fish and wildlife populations at the project site, within a given system or 6

th

field

HUC, and at the DPS or ESU scale may be more significant.

The FHWA/Corps has proposed to fully implement the following hydro-acoustic section

of the Species Avoidance environmental performance standard (Section 2.5) to avoid

potential adverse effects to listed species in the form of potential severe sound pressure

waves resulting from underwater noise producing activities:

From Hydro-acoustic Effects Minimization EPS:

Hydro-Acoustic. Prepare and implement a Noise Attenuation Plan (NAP) for steel piles

driven with an impact pile driving hammer through water when listed fish may be

present.

xi. The NAP will illustrate how hydro-acoustic sound pressure levels

will be maintained below 150 dB rms (re: 1 micro Pascal) for a

minimum of 50 percent of the impacts and peak sound pressure

levels will be maintained below 180 dB (re: 1 micro Pascal) for all

impacts in areas of potential fish presence.

xii. ODOT/FHWA will review and approve the NAP prior to steel pile

driving activities in the water column.

xiii. During hydro-acoustic measurement monitoring, the

hydrophone(s) shall be positioned at mid-depths, 30 feet from the

pile being driven or following the most recent NOAA Fisheries

guidance, as directed by contract with ODOT.

xiv. Acoustic measurements (monitoring) are not necessary assuming

at least one of the following conditions are met:

(1) The pile is driven with a vibratory pile driving hammer.

(2) The pile is acoustically isolated from the water using

measures including, but not limited to; dewatering, flow

diversion, confined bubble curtains (unconfined bubble

curtains may be used if contractor demonstrates that

currents are less than 1.7 miles per hour), and other means,

as approved by ODOT/FHWA.

(3) The best available science shows that sound pressure levels

will not reach the impact thresholds identified above under

the stream conditions at the time of pile driving (e.g.,

channel substrate, water velocity and depth).

Through the development and implementation of a hydro-acoustic isolation strategy or

other approved NAP specific to each bridge repair/replacement activity and element

capable of producing high underwater noise, the resulting potential for adverse hydroacoustic effects to listed aquatic species, as functional group, will be adequately
156

constrained to avoid lethal take. For the purposes of this consultation, listed aquatic

species applies to all of the listed fish species, resident and anadromous, for which the

Services have jurisdiction under the ESA unless otherwise specified.

Therefore, the Services do not expect any lethal effects to listed aquatic species from

hydro-acoustic activities and any adverse effects will be avoided or constrained to only

those likely to be discountable or insignificant in nature. In addition, the Services expect

any realized hydro-acoustic sub-lethal effect (disturbance) to listed species will be

avoided or constrained to only those likely to be minor and temporary in nature.

Increased Erosion, Turbidity, Sediment Transport, and Chemical Exposure

The likelihood of increased erosion, turbidity, sediment transport, and chemical exposure

to aquatic or terrestrial environments are increased with the use; staging; and

maintenance of construction machinery, equipment, and materials within and adjacent to

listed species habitats.

The displacement and transport of soil can result in turbidity and sedimentation within

aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The effects of suspended sediments (turbidity) may be

sub-lethal or lethal, direct effects on their habitat, and are generally correlated to the

concentration of sediment within the water column. Fish death can be a result of a

combination of factors, and thus is difficult to attribute to suspended sediment alone

(Waters 1995). The sub-lethal effects of turbidity generally include avoidance and

distribution, reduced feeding and growth, respiratory impairment, reduced tolerance to

disease and toxicants, and physiological stress (Lloyd 1987 in Waters 1995).

Reproductive failure can be attributed to both deposited and suspended sediment.

Deposited sediments can smother salmon redds by filling interstitial spaces or by

entrapping emerging fry under a layer of consolidated sediments. Excessive turbidity can

smother embryos and sac fry, and clog gills. Physical habitat is generally most affected

by deposited sediments; naturally loose substrates such as cobble and gravel can become

embedded with fine sediment, thus limiting available spawning habitat and diminishing

the amount of available cover for overwintering juveniles and fry. Additionally, the

infilling of pools reduces overhead cover for juveniles and adults (Waters 1995).

Substrate embeddedness has also been shown to affect aquatic macroinvertebrate

abundance and species composition, thus altering the availability and suitability of a

critical food source. Lastly, soils can act as a delivery mechanism for transferring

chemical pollutants from upland sources.

Chemical exposure can alter fecundity, increase disease, shift biotic communities, and

reduce the overall health of listed species. If contamination levels are high enough, direct

lethal effects are possible through the disruption of biological processes. The

introduction of chemicals can be acute, occurring as a result of an accidental spill or

equipment leaks during construction activities, or chronic, resulting from increased

stormwater runoff to waterways. The potential for adverse effects of chemical exposure

may be sub-lethal or lethal, and are generally correlated to the concentration of chemical

contaminants within the species aquatic or terrestrial environment.
157

While there are approximately 430 individual bridge sites either being repaired or

replaced under this proposed action, this will be conducted over a 10 year period across

Oregon, thus spreading the potential for increased risk of erosion, turbidity, sediment

transport, and chemical exposure resulting from bridge repair/replacement activities and

elements over that time frame and across watersheds. The potential for increased risk of

erosion, turbidity, sediment transport, and chemical exposure resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements at an individual bridge is not expected to be a

major effect. Smaller batches of bridges will likely be constructed at the same time to

maximize efficiencies in construction. Based on this, the potential for increased risk of

erosion, turbidity, sediment transport, and chemical exposure resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements, on local fish and wildlife populations, within

a given system or 6

th

field HUC, and at the DPS or ESU scale may be greater in

magnitude than those at individual bridge sites.

The FHWA/Corps has proposed to fully implement the following sections of the Water

Quality EPS (Section 2.5) to avoid potential adverse effects to listed species. The Water

Quality EPS also dictates methods to ensure the potential for increased risk of erosion,

turbidity, sediment transport, and chemical exposure resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements are below thresholds associated with long-term

adverse effects to listed species and their habitat, when they cannot be completely

avoided.

From Water Quality EPS:

Pollution & Erosion Control. Prevent delivery of contaminants to soils and waters of the

State caused by surveying and construction operations. Prepare and carry out a Pollution

and Erosion Control Plan that contains the elements outlined in Sections 280.00 and

290.30 of ODOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction (2002), meets requirements

of all applicable laws and regulations, and includes the following:

d. The name and address of the party(s) responsible for accomplishment of

the pollution and erosion control plan.

e. Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation associated with access

roads, stream crossings, drilling sites, construction sites, borrow pit

operations, haul roads, equipment and material storage sites, fueling

operations, staging areas, and roads being decommissioned.

f. Practices to confine, remove, and dispose of excess concrete, cement,

grout, and other mortars or bonding agents, including measures for

washout facilities.

g. A description of any regulated or hazardous products or materials that will

be used for the project, including procedures for inventory, storage,

handling, and monitoring.

h. A spill containment and control plan with notification procedures, specific

cleanup and disposal instructions for different products, quick response

containment and cleanup measures that will be available on the site,
158

proposed methods for disposal of spilled materials, and employee training

for spill containment.

i. Practices to prevent construction debris from dropping into any waters of

the U.S., and to remove any material that does drop with a minimum

disturbance to the aquatic habitat and water quality. Include complete and

detailed plans for removing any structure and constructing new structures.

Outline specific containment measures necessary to keep bridge removal

and construction debris out of waters of the U.S..

j. Inspection of erosion and sediment controls. During construction, monitor

in-stream turbidity and inspect all erosion controls daily during the rainy

season and weekly during the dry season, or more often as necessary, to

ensure the erosion controls are working adequately.

i. If monitoring or inspection shows that the erosion and sediment

controls are ineffective, mobilize work crews immediately to make

repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as

necessary.

ii. Remove sediment from erosion and sediment controls once it has

reached 1/3 of the exposed height of the control.

8. Staging Activities. Fuel, operate, maintain, and store vehicles and construction

materials in areas that minimize disturbance to habitat and prevent adverse effects

from potential fuel spills.

a. Limit staging areas to the minimum size necessary to complete the project.

To reduce the staging area and potential for contamination, ensure that

only enough supplies and equipment to complete a specific task will be

stored on-site.

b. Complete vehicle staging, cleaning, maintenance, refueling, and fuel

storage in a vehicle staging area placed 150 feet or more from any waters

of the U.S. unless this distance is not appropriate because of the following

site conditions:

i. Physical constraints that make this distance not feasible (e.g., steep

slopes, rock outcroppings).

ii. Natural resource features would be degraded as a result of this

setback.

iii. Equal or greater spill containment and effect avoidance if staging

area is less than 150 feet of any waters of the U.S..

c. If staging areas are within 150 feet of any waters of the U.S., full

containment of potential contaminants shall be provided to prevent soil

and water contamination, as appropriate.

d. Inspect all vehicles operated within 150 feet of any waters of the U.S.

daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Repair any

leaks detected in the vehicle staging area before the vehicle resumes
159

operation. Document inspections in a record that is available for review

on request by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

e. Before operations begin and as often as necessary during operation, steam

clean (or an approved equal) all equipment that will be used below

bankfull elevation until all visible external oil, grease, mud, and other

visible contaminates are removed.

f. Diaper all stationary power equipment (e.g., generators, cranes, stationary

drilling equipment) operated within 150 feet of any waters of the U.S. to

prevent leaks, unless other suitable containment is provided to prevent

potential spills from entering any waters of the U.S..

9. Construction Discharge Water. Avoid adverse affects to water quality from

construction discharge water (e.g., concrete washout, hydromilling, pumping for

work area isolation, vehicle wash water, drilling fluids).

a. Discharge Containment. Design, build, and maintain facilities to collect

and treat all construction discharge water, including any contaminated

water produced by drilling, using the best available technology applicable

to site conditions. Provide treatment to remove debris, nutrients,

sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and other pollutants likely to

be present. An alternate to treatment is collection and proper disposal

offsite.

b. Discharge Velocity. If construction discharge water is released using an

outfall or diffuser port, velocities may not exceed 4 feet per second.

c. Pollutant Containment. Do not allow pollutants including petroleum

products, contaminated water, silt, welding slag, sandblasting abrasive,

green concrete, or grout cured less than 24 hours to contact any area

within 150 feet of waters of the U.S., unless approved by the Services and

the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

d. Drilling Discharge. All drilling equipment, drill recovery and recycling

pits, and any waste or spoil produced, will be completely isolated,

recovered, then recycled or disposed of to prevent entry into waters of the

U.S..

i. Drilling fluids will be recycled using a tank instead of drill

recovery/recycling pits, whenever feasible.

ii. When drilling is completed, attempts will be made to remove the

remaining drilling fluid from the sleeve (e.g., by pumping) to

reduce turbidity when the sleeve is removed.

iii. Follow the necessary terms and conditions of ODOT’s most recent

drilling programmatic biological opinion.

10. Piling Removal. Avoid adverse affects to aquatic habitats during removal of

temporary or permanent piling.

a. Immediately place removed piling onto the appropriate dry storage site.
160

b. Attempt to remove the entire temporary or permanent piling unless

otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities.

c. Ensure remaining treated wood piling is broken, cut, or pushed at least 3

feet below the sediment surface and covered with a cap of clean, native

substrates that match surrounding streambed materials.

d. Fill the holes left by each treated timber piling with clean, native

substrates that match surrounding streambed materials, whenever feasible.

11. Treated Wood. Avoid adverse affects to aquatic habitats during handling of

treated wood.

a. Ensure that no treated wood debris falls into waters of the U.S.. If treated

wood debris does fall into waters of the U.S., remove it immediately.

b. Dispose of all treated wood debris removed during a project, including

treated wood pilings, at an upland facility approved for hazardous

materials of this classification. Do not leave a treated wood piling in the

water or stacked on the streambank.

c. Projects using treated wood that may contact flowing water or that will be

placed over water where it will be exposed to mechanical abrasion are not

authorized, except for pilings installed following NOAA Fisheries’

guidelines.

12. Site Stabilization. Stabilize all disturbed areas following any break in work

unless construction will resume within four days.

13. Stormwater Management. Avoid or minimize adverse effects resulting from

changes to the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff for the life of the project

by improving or maintaining natural runoff conditions within project watersheds.

a. Plan. Prepare and carry out a Stormwater Management Plan for any

project that will produce a new impervious surface or a land cover

conversion that slows the entry of water into the soil. Include the

following:

i. Logic and science (e.g., engineering equations and models or

scientific literature and findings) supporting the selected

stormwater management option. For projects that require

engineered facilities to meet stormwater requirements, use a

continuous rainfall/runoff model, if available for the project area,

to calculate stormwater facility water quality and flow control

rates.

ii. Schedule to inspect and clean each facility as necessary to ensure

that the design capacity is not exceeded and whether improvements

in operation and maintenance are needed. Make improvements as

needed.
161

b. Water Quality. Improve long-term water quality conditions associated

with pollutant loading from the road network within the project watershed.

i. Drains. Eliminate direct discharge from the bridge deck to waters

of the U.S..

ii. Treatment Level. Increase treatment of stormwater runoff

discharged to waters of the U.S.. Reduce the annual pollutant

loading

59

to waters of the U.S., relative to pre-project conditions by

providing treatment for the water quality event.

iii. Groundwater. Protect groundwater from pollutant loading.

(1) Pretreat the water quality event stormwater runoff from

pollution generating surfaces before infiltration to

groundwater or discharge into waters of the U.S., as

necessary to minimize any pollutant load likely to be

present.

(2) Pretreatment may include, but is not limited to, biofiltration

(filtration, adsorption, and biological decomposition from

soils that have sufficient organic content and sorption

capacity to remove pollutants), filtration (engineered

filtration systems), settling/sediment ponds (engineered

stormwater facilities), or any combination treatment train

thereof.

iv. Placement. Avoid sensitive natural resource areas (e.g. riparian

and wetland areas, unstable hill slopes, ESA-listed species habitat)

during placement of stormwater treatment facilities.

v. Erosion. Prevent erosion caused by the conveyance of stormwater

runoff. Consider the following:

(1) Maintain natural drainage patterns and, whenever possible,

ensure that discharges from the project site occur at the

natural location.

(2) Use a conveyance system comprised entirely of

manufactured elements (e.g., pipes, ditches, outfall

protection) that extends to the ordinary high water line of

the receiving water, where risk of erosion precludes

conveyance through sheet flow.

(3) Stabilize any erodible elements of the conveyance system

as necessary to prevent erosion.

(4) Do not divert surface water from, or increase discharge to,

an existing wetland if that will cause a significant adverse

effect to wetland hydrology, soils, or vegetation.
162

(5) The velocity of discharge water released from an outfall or

diffuser port may not exceed 4 feet per second (attraction

flow for fish).

Through the development and implementation of the aquatic and terrestrial erosion,

turbidity, sediment transport, and chemical exposure avoidance measures and plans

(listed above) specific to each bridge repair/replacement activity and element capable of

resulting in adverse effects to listed species, potential adverse affects will be adequately

constrained to avoid lethal take of listed species.

Therefore, the Services do not expect any lethal effects from increased erosion, turbidity,

sediment transport, and chemical exposure to listed aquatic species and adverse effects

will be avoided or constrained to only those likely to be discountable or insignificant in

nature. In addition, the Services expect any realized sub-lethal effect from increased

erosion, turbidity, sediment transport, and chemical exposure to listed species will be

avoided or constrained to only those likely to be minor and temporary in nature and longterm beneficial effects to water quality may occur at some or all of bridge

repair/replacement projects from comprehensive stormwater management strategies and

facilities. Any unavoidable short-term adverse effects will be distributed across Oregon

and over a 10-year period.

Hydrologic Alteration

Changes in hydrology may occur as a result of increases in road density (e.g., impervious

surfaces) or by stormwater conveyance within a watershed, particularly when these

changes occur near streams. Hydrologic alterations may be manifested as increases in the

frequency and magnitude of peak flows and as reductions in base flow levels, all of

which can have sub-lethal and lethal effects on listed species. Increasing the magnitude

of peak flows will often have an indirect effect on listed salmonids by promoting channel

scour and degradation, the loss of floodplain connectivity, and overall habitat

simplification. Decreasing base flows can allow water temperatures to increase beyond

tolerable levels and can even dewater sections of rivers and backwater areas, cutting off

important habitat for spawning and rearing listed salmonids. Decreased base flows can

have sub-lethal or lethal effects on listed salmonids.

While there are approximately 430 individual bridge sites either being repaired or

replaced under this proposed action, this will be conducted over a 10-year period across

Oregon, thus spreading the potential for hydrologic alteration resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements over that time frame and across watersheds.

However, the potential for hydrologic alteration resulting from bridge repair/replacement

activities and elements at an individual bridge is not expected to be a major effect but

smaller batches of bridges will likely be constructed at the same time to maximize

efficiencies in construction. Based on this, the potential for hydrologic alteration

resulting from bridge repair/replacement activities and elements, on local fish and

wildlife populations at the project site, within a given system or 6

th

field HUC, and at the

DPS or ESU scale may be more significant.
163

The FHWA/Corps has proposed to fully implement the following section of the Water

Quality EPS (Section 2.5) to avoid potential long-term adverse effects to listed species

and to ensure the potential for hydrologic alteration resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements:

From Water Quantity EPS:

Water Quantity. Increase the annual site infiltration potential of the project watershed,

with emphasis on the project area.

vi. Urbanized. For urbanized watersheds, reduce the post-project

frequency, magnitude, and duration of the flow from 1⁄2 of the 2-

year storm event up to the 50-year storm event as measured against

pre-project frequency, magnitude and duration of flow from the

same range of storm events.

vii. Wildland. For wildland (forest, rangeland) watersheds, reduce the

post-project or maintain the pre-project frequency, magnitude, and

duration of the flow from 1⁄2 of the 2-year storm event up to the 50-

year storm event as measured against pre-project frequency,

magnitude and duration of flow from the same range of storm

events.

viii. Infiltration. Provide infiltration opportunities for stormwater

runoff derived from the project area.

(1) Infiltration opportunities may include, but are not limited

to; adequate soils, non-concentrated overland flow,

vegetation management, land cover conversions, permeable

bedded detention basins, and infiltration swales.

(2) Minimize, disperse, and infiltrate stormwater runoff onsite

using sheet flow across permeable vegetated areas to the

maximum extent possible without causing flooding, erosion

impacts, or long-term adverse effects to groundwater.

ix. Discharge. Ensure that the post-project discharge is less than the

pre-project discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year flow up to

the 50-year flow.

Through the development and implementation of the hydrologic alteration avoidance

measures and plans (listed above) specific to each bridge repair/replacement activity and

element capable of resulting in adverse effects to listed species, potential adverse affects

will be adequately constrained to avoid lethal take of listed species.

Therefore, the Services do not expect any lethal effects from hydrologic alteration to

listed aquatic species and adverse effects will be avoided or constrained to only those

likely to be discountable or insignificant in nature. In addition, the Services expect any

realized sub-lethal effect from hydrologic alteration to listed aquatic species will be
164

avoided or constrained to only those likely to be minor and temporary in nature and longterm beneficial effects to water quantity may occur at some or all of bridge

repair/replacement projects from comprehensive stormwater management strategies and

facilities. Any realized adverse effects will be distributed across Oregon and over a 10

year period.

Vegetation Removal

As described in the proposed action, clearing generally takes place within pre-marked

areas in the specific bridge action area and often address staging areas, bridge

construction, roadwork, and detour routes (FHWA/Corps 2004). For the purposes of this

analysis we are focusing on the effects of vegetation clearing, including grubbing

activities, of both riparian and adjacent upland vegetation.

The effects from vegetation removal carried out during the site specific bridge projects

are variable. However, vegetation removal is likely to result in some degree of ground

disturbance and compaction, generating the potential for soil erosion, and consequently

resulting in temporary turbidity and sedimentation. Anadromous salmonid and resident

fish species habitat features include substrate composition; water quality; water quantity,

depth, and velocity; water temperature; channel gradient and stability; food availability;

cover and habitat complexity; habitat area, access, and passage; and floodplain and

habitat connectivity (Buchanan et al. 1997, USFWS 1998, Roni et al. 1999). Adverse

effects may result from the loss of large woody debris (LWD) recruitment potential.

Large woody debris in channels creates complexity and provides refuge habitat for fish,

as well as habitat for macroinvertebrates. Tree loss would also likely increase penetration

of sunlight into streams, potentially increasing water temperatures.

For terrestrial wildlife species, tree removal may also decrease the amount of available

nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat available and may alter the thermoregulatory

buffer to adjacent nest trees. Removal of mature trees over 100 years old may remove

potential nest trees for marbled murrelet, bald eagle, or northern spotted owls.

EPS were developed with the assistance of the Services during the early involvement and

technical assistance phases of this consultation to identify ways to minimize and avoid

these adverse effects or to identify when compensatory mitigation will be required for

unavoidable effects.

The FHWA/Corps have proposed to fully implement the following Habitat Avoidance

EPS (section 2.5) to avoid or minimize the potential adverse effects to listed species and

to ensure the potential for terrestrial and hydrologic alteration resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements are below thresholds equated with jeopardy of

listed species.

From Habitat Avoidance EPS:

Streambank Protection. Avoid and minimize adverse effects to natural stream and

floodplain function by limiting streambank protection actions to those that are not
165

expected to have long-term adverse effects on aquatic habitats. Whether these actions

will also be adequate to meet other streambank protection objectives depends on the

mechanisms of streambank failure operating at site- and reach-scale.

a. Choice of Techniques. The following bank protection techniques are

approved for use individually or in combination:

i. Woody plantings and variations (e.g., live stakes, brush layering,

facines, brush mattresses).

ii. Herbaceous cover, where analysis of available records (e.g.,

historical accounts and photographs) shows that trees or shrubs did

not exist on the site within historic times, primarily for use on

small streams or adjacent wetlands.

iii. Deformable soil reinforcement, consisting of soil layers or lifts

strengthened with fabric and vegetation that are mobile

(‘deformable’) at approximately two- to five-year recurrence

flows.

iv. Coir logs (long bundles of coconut fiber), straw bales, and straw

logs used individually or in stacks to trap sediment and provide

growth medium for riparian plants.

v. Bank reshaping and slope grading, when used to reduce a bank

slope angle without changing the location of its toe, increase

roughness and cross-section, and provide more favorable planting

surfaces.

vi. Floodplain roughness (e.g., floodplain tree and large woody debris

rows, live siltation fences, brush traverses, brush rows, and live

brush sills) used to reduce the likelihood of avulsion in areas where

natural floodplain roughness is poorly developed or has been

removed.

vii. Floodplain flow spreaders, consisting of one or more rows of trees

and accumulated debris used to spread flow across the floodplain.

viii. Flow-redirection structures known as barbs, vanes, or bendway

weirs, when designed as follows, and as otherwise approved in

writing by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

(1) No part of the flow-redirection structure may exceed bank

full elevation, including all rock buried in the bank key.

(2) Build the flow-redirection structure primarily of wood or

otherwise incorporate large wood at a suitable elevation in

an exposed portion of the structure or the bank key.

Placing the large woody debris near streambanks in the

depositional area between flow direction structures to

satisfy this requirement is not approved, unless those areas

are likely to be greater than 3 feet in depth, sufficient for

target-species rearing habitats.
166

(3) Fill the trench excavated for the bank key above bankfull

elevation with soil and topped with native vegetation.

(4) The maximum flow-redirection structure length will not

exceed 1/4 of the bankfull channel width.

(5) Place rock individually without end dumping, unless

approved in writing by the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities.

(6) If two or more flow-redirection structures are built in a

series, place the flow-redirection structure farthest

upstream within 150 feet or 2.5 bankfull channel widths,

from the flow-redirection structure farthest downstream.

(7) Include woody riparian planting as a project component.

b. Use of Large Wood and Rock. Whenever possible, use large wood as an

integral component of streambank protection treatments. Avoid or

minimize the use of rock, stone, and similar materials.

i. Large wood will be intact, hard, and undecayed to partly decaying

with untrimmed root wads to provide functional refugia habitat for

fish. Use of decayed or fragmented wood found lying on the

ground or partially sunken in the ground is not acceptable.

ii. Rock may be used instead of wood for the following purposes and

structures. The rock may not impair natural stream flows into or

out of secondary channels or riparian wetlands. Whenever

feasible, place topsoil over the rock and plant with woody

vegetation.

(1) As ballast to anchor or stabilize large woody debris

components of an approved bank treatment.

(2) To fill scour holes, as necessary to protect the integrity of

the project, if the rock is limited to the depth of the scour

hole and does not extend above the channel bed.

(3) To construct a footing, facing, head wall, or other

protection necessary to prevent scouring or downcutting of,

or fill slope erosion or failure at, an existing structure (e.g.,

culvert, utility line, or bridge support) to be repaired. New

and replacement structures shall comply with the Fluvial

Performance Standard.

(4) To construct a flow-redirection structure as described

above.

3. Habitat Removal. Avoid or minimize habitat modification that will impair the

ability of threatened, endangered, proposed, or selected sensitive species to

complete essential biological behaviors, such as breeding, spawning, rearing,

migrating, feeding, and sheltering.
167

g. Designated Critical Habitat. Maintain designated critical habitat within

the project footprint.

i. Review appropriate sources (e.g., Biological Assessment, Federal

Register Notices) to determine if designated critical habitat is

present or likely present within the project area.

ii. Flag and survey the boundary of designated critical habitat, as

appropriate.

iii. Do not permanently degrade any primary constituent elements

within the boundary of designated critical habitat.

h. Listed Species Nest Trees. Do not remove documented nest trees for bald

eagle, marbled murrelet, or northern spotted owl.

i. Non-listed Species Nest Trees. Whenever feasible, do not remove

documented nest trees of great blue herons and other non-listed bird

species.

j. Breeding Habitat. Do not remove potential nesting, breeding, or alter

reasonably likely spawning habitat during the breeding season of listed

species, unless protocol surveys show the area is not occupied.

k. Functional Habitat. Whenever possible, do not modify or degrade

functional habitats for listed species in the project area. If functional

habitats for listed species cannot be avoided, then provide the

justification(s), such as:

i. Social: public safety, right-of-way

ii. Physical: geomorphologic, built environment

iii. Ecological: conflicting resources

(1) Conserve habitat with the highest value relative to the listed

species that will be affected, given the likelihood and

timing of mitigation success.

(2) Use ecological value (uniqueness, rarity, resource

utilization) and ease of replacement (probability of success,

recovery time lags) to evaluate and justify the decision.

l. Replacement. Mitigation must be functionally equivalent to the habitat

modified or degraded.

The temporal and spatial scales of vegetation removal under this proposed action are

important factors in evaluating the effects of the action. The temporal nature of

vegetation removal is typically related to the age of the vegetation being removed and the

time required to re-grow/replace it. Older trees take longer to be replaced and upland

vegetation often takes longer to grow than riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation such

as red alder, cottonwood and willows grow rapidly but have comparatively shorter life

expectancy compared to Douglas-fir and other regional conifer forest species. Large
168

mature trees growing along roadways or stream corridors often have more developed

(larger) limb structure due to the trees getting more sunlight as opposed to trees in dense

stands. Not only are large mature trees important for LWD recruitment in streams to

provide fish habitat but also nesting habitat for the listed birds as well as osprey nests and

great blue heron nesting colonies. Therefore while the removal of younger riparian

vegetation is considered a relatively temporary effect, the loss of mature trees can

functionally be considered a long-term effect.

While there are approximately 430 individual sites with bridges either being repaired or

replaced under this proposed action, this will be conducted over a 10-year period across

Oregon, thus spreading the adverse effects of vegetation removal over that time frame

and across watersheds. On an individual bridge scale, vegetation removal is not expected

to be a major effect. However, smaller batches of bridges, typically in proximity to each

other, will likely be constructed at the same time to maximize efficiencies in

construction. Based on this, the potential additive adverse effects due to vegetation

removal, on local fish and wildlife populations, within a given system or 6

th

field HUC,

and at the DPS or ESU scale may be greater in magnitude than those at individual bridge

sites.

Marbled murrelet, bald eagle, and northern spotted owl habitat removal. In the BA

the FHWA/Corps estimated the acres of habitat that may be lost do to removal for the

marbled murrelet, bald eagle and northern spotted owl using essentially the same

analysis. The analysis used a 500-foot radius around the center point of a bridge to

distinguish the area where vegetation removal may occur for construction, staging, or

detour route purposes and estimated, based on previous projects, that on average two

acres of vegetation may be removed. The USFWS believes these acreages are a

conservative estimate across the range of each species within Oregon. The FHWA/Corps

estimated that for marbled murrelet 100 acres of suitable nesting habitat may be removed;

for bald eagle four acres of potential nesting/roosting habitat may be removed; and for

northern spotted owl a total of 282 acres of suitable nesting and roosting habitat may be

removed. Because spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat is similar at this analysis

scale, the 100 acres of murrelet habitat is also counted as spotted owl habitat. Therefore,

100 acres of the spotted owl habitat is within the coast range (within 40 miles of the

coast) with the remaining 182 acres east of that.

Fender’s blue butterfly. In the BA, FHWA/Corps estimated an average of two acres of

potential habitat at 74 bridges within the range of the butterfly in the Willamette valley

could be removed or altered by construction activities totaling approximately 148 acres.

The habitat to potentially be removed or altered would not have Kincaid’s lupine, a

Federally list plant, as a component due to the Plant Avoidance EPS and thus would be

composed of the butterflies secondary host forage plants, sickle-keeled or spurred lupine.

From the Plant Avoidance EPS:

Plant Avoidance. Avoid disturbance to State and Federally-listed plants and their

occupied habitat.
169

f. Survey project areas during appropriate flowering period within the range

of listed plants. Refer to the BA and the relevant Environmental Baseline

Reports for plant ranges. A survey is not required if the area has had a

documented survey

60

within the last 10 years.

g. Flag and map occupied habitat necessary to sustain the identified

population within the area of potential disturbance, prior to construction.

h. Ensure construction personnel, equipment, and associated pollutants (e.g.,

sediments, chemical contaminants, discharge water, non-native grass or

weed seed) do not enter the occupied habitat. Delineate as a no work zone

or fence the occupied habitat.

i. Maintain the hydrologic and microclimatic conditions necessary for the

continued existence of the identified population within the project area.

j. If plants are found, then a management buffer will be developed to protect

plants from indirect effects such as herbicide drift.

There are 38 known sites for Fender’s blue butterfly across its range in the Willamette

Valley totaling approximately 463 acres (table 4-9). Of this total area, approximately 25

sites (66 percent) and 242 acres (52 percent of the total area) have Kincaid’s lupine is at

least a co-dominant host plant, and thus would be avoided as directed under the Plant

Avoidance EPS. The remaining 13 sites (34 percent) comprise approximately 221 acres

Table 4-9. Known Fender’s blue butterfly sites and habitat by host plant.

Host Plant(s) Sites Acres Percent of Area

Kincaid’s lupine 25 121 26%

Kincaid’s lupine + Spurred lupine 1 121 26%

Sickle-keeled lupine 4 21 4.5%

Spurred lupine 7 198 43%

Unknown sp. (Cardwell Hill site) 1 2 0.4%

Total 38 463 99.9%

(48 percent of the total area). None of the known sites will be removed due to the

proposed action based on site maps and bridge location proximity. As stated in the

murrelet and spotted owl effects analyses, the two acre per bridge figure was likely an

overestimate of the amount of habitat to be removed, but in the absence of actual bridge

design information the USFWS believes this more conservative analysis was appropriate.

In addition this assumes the entire two acres is composed of spurred or sickle-keeled

lupine which is very unlikely. Therefore, based on (1) the amount of known occupied

habitat, (2) the knowledge that no known Fender’s blue sites will be removed, and (3) the

recognized overestimation that all habitat being removed per bridge (two acres) is

occupied secondary forage habitat (spurred or sickle-keeled lupine), the USFWS believes

the 148 acres of potential, unsurveyed habitat is an overestimate of the likely potential

habitat that will be removed. The USFWS believes that based on the assumptions listed

above, 75 acres may be a more realistic, yet still conservative, assumption of the amount

of potential secondary forage habitat to be removed or altered.
170

Fluvial Alteration

Alterations to fluvial processes can have sub-lethal and lethal effects on listed species as

well as direct effects on habitat. Alterations in channel hydraulics are triggered by the

direct removal of habitat elements, which contribute to channel complexity, or by altering

the flow regime of rivers and streams. These alterations can indirectly affect aquatic and

semi-aquatic species by altering distribution and by degrading habitat. The addition of

hardened structures (i.e., bridge bents) within a fluvial channel can alter the hydrology of

the system by increasing flow velocities, encouraging scour, and limiting the natural

movement of bedload materials,thus causing habitat loss and sub-lethal effects on aquatic

and semi-aquatic species. Changes to the hydrologic regimes of streams and rivers are a

possible pathway for these types of effects.

While there are approximately 430 individual bridge sites either being repaired or

replaced under this proposed action, this will be conducted over a 10-year period across

Oregon, thus spreading the potential for fluvial alteration resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements over that time frame and across watersheds.

However, the potential for fluvial alteration resulting from bridge repair/replacement

activities and elements at an individual bridge is not expected to be a major effect but

smaller batches of bridges will likely be constructed at the same time to maximize

efficiencies in construction. Based on this, the potential for fluvial alteration resulting

from bridge repair/replacement activities and elements, on local fish and wildlife

populations, within a given system or 6

th

field HUC, and at the DPS or ESU scale may be

greater in magnitude than those at an individual site.

The FHWA/Corps has proposed to fully implement the following sections of the Fluvial

environmental performance standard (Section 2.5) to avoid potential adverse effects to

listed species and to ensure the potential for fluvial alteration resulting from bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements are below thresholds equated with incidental

take of listed species. The FHWA/Corps has also proposed to fully implement the

Compensatory Mitigation environmental performance standard (Section 2.5) for bridge

repair/replacement activities and elements such as bridge repair using riprap for scour

protection at existing bridges to ensure any unavoidable long-term adverse effect is

functionally offset within the same 6

th

field hydrologic unit:

From Fluvial EPS:

Fluvial. Allow normative physical processes within the stream-floodplain corridor.

a. Channel Processes. Design water crossings other than overflow

crossings that (1) promote natural sediment transport patterns for the

reach, (2) provide unaltered fluvial debris movement, and (3) allow for

longitudinal continuity and connectivity of the stream-floodplain

system. If one of the three objectives cannot be restored at the project

site, then locate an alternate, non-Bridge Program project within the

same project watershed that will achieve an equal or greater function.

Temporary fill below the bankfull elevation that results in embedded
171

streambed material is not allowed, unless approved in writing by the

Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

i. Ensure the functional floodplain is absent of roadway,

embankment, or approach fills.

(1) For purposes of this project, the functional floodplain

will be determined using the following process, unless

another process (e.g., channel migration zone) is more

appropriate for site conditions and is approved in

writing by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory

Authorities :

(a) Step 1: Determine the bankfull width, depth,

and elevation.

(b) Step 2: Determine the floodprone elevation and

width.

(c) Step 3: Determine the Entrenchment Ratio (E).

(i) If E < 2.2, then the floodprone area is

considered the functional floodplain.

(ii) If E > 2.2, then 2.2 times the bankfull

width is considered the functional

floodplain.

(d) Process Considerations:

(i) The bankfull discharge level (elevation) can

be located using field indicators as defined

by Dunne and Leopold (1978). Bankfull

indicators include: (1) topographic break

from vertical bank to flat floodplain, (2)

topographic break from steep slope to gentle

slope, (3) change in vegetation from bare to

grass, moss to grass, grass to sage, grass to

trees, or from no trees to trees, (4) textural

change of depositional sediment, (5)

elevation below which no fine debris

(needles, leaves, cones, seeds) occurs, and

(6) textural change of matrix material

between cobbles or rocks (Dunne and

Leopold 1978).

(ii) Surveys of the bankfull discharge elevation

should be conducted upstream and/or

downstream of the bridge, outside of the

area influenced by the bridge. Five to seven

channel widths (one average meander

wavelength; 10 widths is preferred) is often
172

used as a minimum distance to survey

upstream and downstream, however, site

conditions will dictate the appropriate

distance for surveying.

(iii) Bankfull width (BFW) is the active channel

width at the bankfull discharge elevation as

defined above. Averaging several width

measurements (taken at riffle sections, if

available) are preferable to a single

measurement. Comparing upstream and

downstream measurements is valuable for

determining various physical processes in

operation at specific sites. Avoid measuring

widths where bank stabilization structures

are located. Vast disparities in upstream and

downstream bankfull widths may indicate

stream instability and should be further

investigated.

(iv) Average bankfull depth can be determined

by either averaging the measured depths

across the stream channel at the bankfull

width level, or by dividing the crosssectional area by the bankfull width.

(v) The floodprone width (FPW) is determined

by finding the elevation at twice the

maximum bankfull depth at a riffle or three

times the average bankfull depth. The width

of the floodplain, or floodprone area, is then

measured at this elevation. Using three

times the average depth is a more robust

approach because it is not as sensitive to the

exact location of the cross-section.

(2) As a means of evaluating bridge placement, appropriate

span length, and overall program goals, perform scour

analysis to:

(a) Evaluate the bridge length so that there is equivalent

contraction scour at the bridge crossing as in the

area upstream of the bridge crossing or would be

expected under natural conditions up to the 10-year

flood event.

(b) Ensure that the discharge at which incipient motion

begins under the bridge is similar to the discharge at

which incipient motion begins upstream of the

bridge.
173

(c) Ensure scour through the bridge opening is

equivalent to reach conditions outside of the

influence of the bridge structure and road prism.

ii. Remove man-made constrictions within the functional floodplain

of the project area.

(1) Reduce existing fill volumes in the functional floodplain:

Possible measures to reduce fill volumes could include

removing existing approach fills, installing relief conduits

through existing fill, or removing other floodplain fill

volumes located within the project area.

(2) Avoid increases and decrease, as feasible, net fill volumes

within the floodprone area.

(3) Remove vacant bridge support structures in the functional

floodplain. Possible measures may include removing

structures to below the modeled scour depth or removing

structures located within debris transportation corridors.

iii. Design and locate bridge support structures with the following

considerations:

(1) Avoid inducing localized scour of streambanks and

reasonably likely spawning areas.

(2) Bridge supports will avoid supplemental scour prevention

(e.g., riprap) and incorporate scour protection (e.g., drilled

shafts, piles driven below critical scour depth).

(3) Bridge supports will allow the fluvial transport of large

wood through the project area.

(a) Avoid the need for removal or modification (e.g.,

cutting, limbing) of large wood resting against

bridge support structures.

(b) Design span length to facilitate potential large wood

movement through the project area with the

following considerations:

(i) The site-potential tree height and the large

wood transport capacity of the project

watershed upstream of the bridge.

(ii) The orientation of the bridge crossing and

bent locations relative to stream flow in

order to capitalize on the orientation of drift

material relative to the bridge structure.

b. Floodway Processes. Design crossings that allow lateral connectivity

between the stream and floodplain.
174

i. Bridge the functional floodplain.

ii. Accommodate potential flow pathways at multiple flood stages by:

(1) Locating bridge opening to maximize floodplain function;

(2) Providing flood-relief conduits (bottomless arch and

embedded culvert design only) within existing road fill at

potential flood flow pathways based on analysis of flow

patterns (or floodplain topography) at multiple flood stages,

as necessary;

(3) Locating bridge abutments with consideration of channel

migration patterns over the designed lifetime of the bridge.

From Compensatory Mitigation EPS:

Ensure the proposed action meets the goal of no net loss of habitat function by offsetting

unavoidable permanent and temporary adverse effects to habitats. Offsetting actions will

be such that they are commensurate with the amount, type, timing, and significance of

adverse effects to resources as much as possible. Activities that reduce or remove habitat

function or that delay or prevent development of desired function or condition of habitat

will require a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that describes how this will be achieved.

General considerations for these plans include:

j. Make mitigation plans compatible with adjacent land uses or, if necessary,

use an appropriate buffer to separate mitigation areas from developed or

agricultural lands so that desired functions and value will not be

significantly reduced by the direct or indirect impacts of adjacent land

uses. Adjacemt/proximal land use and land management will be

accounted for in the assessment of the functional site value.

k. Base the level of required mitigation on a functional assessment of adverse

effects of the proposed project, and functional replacement (i.e., ‘no net

loss of function’), whenever feasible, or a minimum one-to-one linear foot

or acreage replacement ratio shall be applied. As necessary, the

replacement ratio shall be adjusted to accommodate the risk of failure

associated with some habitat projects and in recognition of the long

periods of time sometimes necessary for successful habitat projects to

provide desired function and conditions.

l. Acceptable mitigation must be consistent with all program-specific EPS

and may include:

i. Re-establishment or rehabilitation of natural or historic habitat

functions when self-sustaining, natural processes are used to

provide the functions.

ii. Participation in ODOT’s conservation banks, as approved in

writing by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

m. Actions that require construction of permanent structures, active

maintenance, creation of habitat functions where they did not historically
175

exist, or that simply preserve existing functions are not authorized, unless

otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities.

n. Whenever feasible, complete mitigation before, or concurrent with, project

construction to reduce temporal loss of ecosystem functions and simplify

compliance.

o. When project construction begins before mitigation is completed, show

the Services that a mitigation project site has been secured and appropriate

financial assurances are in place.

iii. Complete all work necessary to carry out the mitigation plan no

later than the first full growing season following the start of project

construction, whenever feasible.

iv. If beginning the initial mitigation actions within that time is

infeasible, then include other measures that mitigate for the

consequences of temporal losses in the mitigation plan.

p. Include all pertinent elements of a site restoration plan, outlined above,

and the following elements.

i. Consideration of the following factors during mitigation site

selection and plan development.

(1) Watershed considerations related to specific resource needs

of the affected area.

(2) Existing technology and logistical concerns.

ii. A description of the legal means for protecting mitigation areas,

and a copy of any legal instrument relied on to secure that

protection. Mitigation areas will be secured and protected on a

permanent basis, utilizing the legal and procedural tools best suited

to doing so.

q. Information related to unavoidable impacts to bull trout, short-nose and

Lost River suckers, Oregon chub, marbled murrelet, bald eagle, northern

spotted owl, and Fender’s blue butterfly will be included so that ODOT

can implement appropriate program-level mitigation planning and actions

for these species.

r. All mitigation actions associated with the Bridge Program will comply

with the USFWS’ Conservation Banking for Threatened and Endangered

Species (68 FR 24753), and the Corps’ Regulatory Guidance Letter on

Compensatory Mitigation (USACE 2002), as appropriate.

Through implementation of the Fluvial environmental performance standard and

compensatory mitigation for any unavoidable long term adverse effect of any bridge

repair/replacement activity, the Services believe that long-term adverse effects to listed

species will be adequately constrained
176

Therefore, the Services do not expect any lethal effects from fluvial alteration to listed

aquatic species and adverse effects will be avoided or constrained to only those likely to

be discountable or insignificant in nature, or for NOAA Fisheries species, be offset by a

compensatory mitigation action within the same 6

th

field hydrologic unit. In addition, the

Services expect any realized non-lethal effect from hydrologic alteration to listed aquatic

species will be avoided or constrained to only those likely to be minor and temporary in

nature and long-term beneficial effects to fluvial processes may occur at some or all of

bridge repair/replacement projects from implementation of the fluvial environmental

performance standard.

In-water Work and Fish Capture and Release

Timing and Construction Procedures can influence potential adverse effects to listed

species from in-water work. Lethal, and sub-lethal effects are often unavoidable where

in-water work cannot be conducted at a time or in such a manner that listed species are

not present during construction or within isolated work areas. During periods of in-water

work and through in-water work isolation, downstream or upstream passage may be

partially of fully blocked. A given project can only block downstream passage with

specific written permission from the Services.

While there are approximately 430 individual bridge sites either being repaired or

replaced under this proposed action, this will be conducted over a 10 year period across

Oregon, thus spreading the potential for in-water work and fish capture and release

resulting from bridge repair/replacement activities and elements over that time frame and

across watersheds. However, the potential for in-water work and fish capture and release

resulting from bridge repair/replacement activities and elements at an individual bridge is

not expected to be a major effect but smaller batches of bridges will likely be constructed

at the same time to maximize efficiencies in construction. Based on this, the potential for

in-water work and fish capture and release resulting from bridge repair/replacement

activities and elements, on local fish and wildlife populations, within a given system or

6

th

field HUC, and at the DPS or ESU scale may be greater in magnitude than those at an

individual site.

Fish capture and relocation is considered a minimization measure in and of itself.

However, effects (sub-lethal and lethal) on listed fish species can occur during any

activity that requires handling or that would otherwise displace listed fish species, (e.g.,

by blocking passage or access to habitats and displace fish from cover.) Handling and

lethal take, including delayed mortality from stress and injury, from fish capture and

release was estimated by FHWA/Corps in the BA using the following set of assumptions

(ODOT 2004a):

1. All water-spanning bridges within an ESU will require in-water work area

isolation and fish capture and release.

2. Each project requiring in-water work area isolation is likely to capture and release

up to 100 salmonids per in-water work season (NOAA Fisheries 2003a).
177

3. Species composition of captured and handled salmonids is assumed to: 1) be

evenly distributed among ESUs intersected by a given bridge project, and 2)

involve a maximum of 100 handled fish per bridge. Thus, the number of handled

fish for a particular ESU was assumed to be 100 if the bridge affected only that

ESU. If a given bridge project affected multiple ESUs, then the maximum 100

fish handled per bridge was divided by the number of ESUs affected by that

bridge.

4. Captured salmonids are assumed to belong to the ESU in which a given bridge

site is located. For example, all steelhead trout captured downstream of

Willamette Falls would be assumed to be part of the Lower Columbia River ESU.

5. Take of adult anadromous salmonids due to harassment or capture and release

activities is expected to be non-lethal take. Adult fish can be harassed out of the

area prior to and during work area isolation, reducing the need to capture and

release them.

6. For ESA-listed salmonids to be captured and handled, 98 percent or more are

expected to survive with no long-term effects, and less than two percent are

expected to be injured or killed (including those that die later as a result of injury).

However, a higher estimate for lethal take of six percent of handled fish has been

used to allow for variations in experience and work conditions, to provide

coverage for unforeseen takings from bridge construction with no in-water work,

to provide coverage for bridge repair and replacement operations that occur over

more than one work season (i.e., requiring multiple fish capture and release

operations), and to account for those bridges which may require minor in-water

work extensions.

7. For bull trout, it is assumed that lethal take may occur—of six percent or less of

the number of fish handled, at each project requiring in-water work area isolation

within a bull trout core area. Up to 20 bull trout adults and juveniles (in

aggregate) at each bridge are expected to be handled. The number of bull trout

encountered relative to other salmonids is lower due to their more restricted

distribution within the Columbia River and Klamath DPS, their preference for

colder waters than are expected to occur at most bridge locations during in-water

work periods, and the lack of hatchery contribution to bull trout numbers.

8. Juvenile Lost-river and Short-nose suckers are assumed to be handled at a lower

rate than ESA salmonids under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction. A maximum of 20

juvenile suckers (of each species are expected to be handled at each bridge within

the range of either species; six percent of which may be killed by handling stress

or injury.

9. Assumed lethal take for Oregon chub is two percent or less of the anticipated 100

Oregon chub at each bridge within the range of the chub, due to handling stress or
178

injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. A lower

percentage of take is assumed for Oregon chub than for other species based on

discussion with Paul Sheerer (ODFW) regarding salvage experience and mortality

associated with Oregon chub.

Although fish capture and relocation will likely result in take, it is assumed that take

would be minimized from that which would occur without fish capture and release from

Bridge program elements occurring within the isolated work area.

Anadromous salmonid outmigrants, particularly during downstream passage through the

mainstem Columbia River, are less likely to be affected than juvenile salmonids rearing

at or near the bridge site during capture and handling efforts associated with the Bridge

Program. Data cited in Floyd (2003) indicate that juvenile outmigrants within the

Columbia River are primarily in a migration phase and tend to pass quickly through the

system. Additionally, steelhead, Chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon tend to stay out in

the river rather than orienting to the shoreline. Chinook salmon will seek resting and

feeding areas, particularly during periods of low flow. Individuals of those ESUs that

would be present in the Columbia River only as migrants and would not otherwise be

present in proximity to Bridge Program activities (i.e., Upper Columbia River Chinook

and steelhead, Snake River Fall-run Chinook and Snake River sockeye) are unlikely to be

encountered during capture and handling efforts. Snake River Fall Run Chinook salmon

do occupy shallows of the Columbia River estuary, although no program bridges occur in

these areas. All other listed salmonids as well as listed resident fish are likely to be

captured and released at various locations, depending on species distribution with it’s

range, during temporary water management and work area isolation bridge

repair/replacement activities.

In addition to direct effects to listed fish from in-water work, indirect effects are also

anticipated from vegetation removal and associated effects as discussed above. In-water

work will alter linear bank line habitat and acres of riparian habitat. Indirect effects to

listed fish from habitat alteration were estimated by FHWA/Corps in the BA using the

following set of assumptions (ODOT 2004a):

1. Temporary vegetation impacts assume an impacted area of 150 linear of feet

of stream by 150 feet deep on both sides of a bridge (combined area of 45,000

sq. ft.). Permanent impacts assume 20 linear feet by 150 feet deep, or 6,000

sq. ft. per bridge. For bull trout, vegetation impacts will occur where bridge

projects are within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat, including bridges

outside core areas. For Oregon chub, vegetation impacts (both length of

streambank and riparian area) are assumed to be twice that of other species

due to the complex nature of chub habitat which typically encompasses

sloughs, ponds, and other off-channel habitat areas.

The FHWA/Corps has proposed to fully implement the following sections of the Species

Avoidance environmental performance standard (Section 2.5) to avoid and minimize
179

potential adverse effects to listed species and to ensure the potential for in-water work

resulting from bridge repair/replacement activities and elements are conducted during

least sensitive life stages or migration times and that fish capture and release activities

minimize otherwise lethal and sub-lethal take of individuals during in-water work:

From Species Avoidance EPS:

Fish Avoidance. Minimize incidental take of listed fish and adverse effects to fish

species from in-water work activities.

k. Timing of In-water Work. Complete work below the bankfull elevation

during the preferred in-water work period included in Appendix B of this

Opinion, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

l. Cessation of Work. Cease project operations under high flow conditions

that may result in inundation of the project area, except for efforts to avoid

or minimize resource damage.

m. Fish Screens. Have a fish screen installed, operated, and maintained

according to NOAA Fisheries'fish screen criteria on each water intake

used for project construction, including pumps used to isolate an in-water

work area. Screens for water diversions or intakes that will be used for

irrigation, municipal or industrial purposes, or any use besides project

construction are not authorized.

n. Fish Passage. Provide passage for any adult or juvenile fish species

present in the project area during and after construction and for the life of

the project, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities

61

.

o. Isolation of In-water Work Area. If adult or juvenile fish are reasonably

certain to be present, or if the work area is within 300 feet upstream of

reasonably likely spawning habitats, completely isolate the work area from

the active flowing stream using inflatable bags, sandbags, sheet pilings, or

similar materials, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Services

and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities. Prepare a Work Area

Isolation Plan for all work below the bankfull elevation requiring flow

diversion or isolation. Include the sequencing and schedule of dewatering

and re-watering activities, plan view of all isolation elements, as well as a

list of materials to adequately provide appropriate redundancy of key plan

functions (e.g., an operational, properly sized backup generator). Pile

driving may occur without isolation during the in-water work period,

providing compliance has been achieved with all other relevant

performance standards.

p. Capture and Release. Before, intermittently during, and immediately after

isolation and dewatering to isolate an in-water work area, attempt to

61 Ensure compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 509.585 regarding fish passage.
180

capture and release fish from the isolated area using trapping, seining,

electrofishing, or other methods as are prudent to minimize risk of injury.

i. The entire capture and release operation must be conducted or

supervised by a fishery biologist experienced with work area

isolation and competent to ensure the safe handling of all fish.

ii. Do not use electrofishing if water temperatures exceed 64

o

F, unless

no other fish capture method is feasible or successful.

iii. If electrofishing equipment is used to capture fish, comply with

NOAA Fisheries'electrofishing guidelines.

iv. Handle all fish with extreme care, keeping fish in water to the

maximum extent possible during seining and transfer procedures to

prevent the added stress of out-of-water handling.

v. Ensure water quality conditions, including dissolved oxygen

levels, within fish transport systems (e.g., buckets) are sufficient to

promote fish recovery. Brief holding times; clean, cold, and

circulated water; and aerators may be used to maintain water

quality conditions.

vi. Release fish into a safe release site as quickly as possible, and as

near as possible to capture sites.

vii. In the event of mortalities, do not transfer Federally-listed fish to

anyone except the Services, unless otherwise approved in writing

by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities.

viii. Obtain all other Federal, State, and local permits necessary to

conduct the capture and release activity, such as an ODFW

Incidental Take Permits and/or a Scientific Taking Permits.

ix. Allow the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities to

accompany the capture team during the capture and release

activity, and to inspect the team's capture and release records and

facilities.

x. Report salvage effort results, as called for in relevant permits,

including the name and address of the supervisory fish biologist,

methods used to isolate the work area and minimize disturbances

to fish, stream conditions before and following placement and

removal of barriers, the means of fish removal, the number and

species of fish removed, the condition of all fish released, and any

incidence of observed injury or death.

Through the development and implementation of in-water work avoidance and

minimization strategies and plans (listed above) specific to each bridge

repair/replacement activity and element capable of requiring in-water work, the resulting

potential for adverse effects to listed aquatic species will be constrained and minimized,

including lethal take of listed aquatic species, to the maximum extent possible.
181

Therefore, the Services expect any realized lethal effect from in-water work and fish

capture and release to listed aquatic species will be limited to only those individuals for

which lethal mortality is unavoidable during fish capture and removal efforts and for

which severe or lethal adverse effects would be otherwise imminent from in-water work.

In addition, the Services expect any realized sub-lethal effects, direct or indirect, from inwater work, fish capture and release, and habitat alteration to listed species will be

limited to only those individuals for which mortality is unavoidable. The Services have

adopted numerical estimates for lethal and sub-lethal take of listed fish species from inwater work and fish capture and release efforts, linear bank line, and acreages of riparian

habitat alterations from the BA and are incorporated into Section 4.2.1 Amount and

Extent of the Take of this Opinion.

4.1.4.2 Effects on Critical Habitat

Anadromous Salmonids

The Services designate critical habitat based on physical and biological features that are

essential to the listed species. Essential features of designated critical habitat include

substrate, water quality, water quantity, water temperature, food, riparian vegetation,

access, water velocity, space and safe passage. Effects to designated critical habitat from

these categories would be similar to the effects to listed species described above in

section 4.1.4.1.

Bull trout Proposed Critical Habitat

The nine Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) of bull trout critical habitat identified in

the proposed critical habitat rule can be negatively affected in a number of ways.

Individual bridge projects may result in removal of riparian vegetation that provides

shade, and water-edge habitat. This may result in increased stream temperatures, and

reduced hiding cover and refugia for bull trout. Increased sedimentation resulting from

project activities can reduce overall water quality, and depreciate the value of spawning

gravels within, and adjacent to project areas. Projects that change stream flow

characteristics may alter habitat parameters both above and below them for a

considerable distance. The changes may occur through changing natural stream meander,

changing the ratio of pools to riffles, changing the ratio, and lengths of slack versus fast

water areas. Fish passage projects may allow undesirable non-native species, which

compete with bull trout, access to bull trout habitat, thus reducing the habitat quality for

foraging.

The discussion that follows lists each PCE and describes how actions authorized under

the Bridge Delivery Program may affect those elements.

PCE 1) Permanent water having low levels of contaminants such that normal

reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited.
182

All individual bridge repair or replacements have the potential to negatively affect this

element. The possibility that chemical contamination will occur from a variety of sources

exists. The use of mechanized equipment will expose the habitat to petroleum products,

some of the construction activities may expose the habitat to green concrete, or PAH.

Many construction activities have the potential to cause some degree of increased

sedimentation. Increases in sedimentation on stream substrate will reduce the suitability

of that substrate to support bull trout breeding and juvenile rearing.

PCE 2) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15C (36 to 59F), with adequate thermal

refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range.

Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history

stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that

provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence.

Most individual bridge replacement projects will remove, or alter some riparian

vegetation. Often removal of such vegetation will also reduce stream shade, which

allows longer exposure of the stream surface to direct sunlight. This can lead to

increased water temperatures, with resulting lower dissolved oxygen levels. The warmer

water temperatures and decreased oxygen levels reduce the habitats holding capacity, and

desirability. They also can lead to habitat conversion, where differing species more

adapted to these conditions (e.g., brook trout), can push the bull trout out of the habitat.

PCE 3) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels,

pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in stream

structures.

Most individual bridge repair actions and a portion of the bridge replacements will

continue to affect this element. Projects that change stream dynamics, even slightly, or

short term can have profound effects on habitat quality, and composition. Placing

structures that change stream flow velocities, or directions can change pool to riffle

ratios, or slack versus fast water ratios for some distance away from the project site.

These changes can cause shifts in the aquatic community, removing prey base, spawning

sites and hiding cover for bull trout. The removal, or relocation of large wood can also

change site dynamics, and stream complexity. Such changes can cause shifts that allow

undesirable (non-native) species to enter the habitat and compete with bull trout.

PCE 4) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg

and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile

survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.63 cm (0.25 in) in diameter and

minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions.

Any construction activity that produces sediment will affect this element. Increases in

sediment will increase the degree of embeddedness, and decrease the availability of

suitable spawning gravel, and substrate for juvenile rearing. Because of the high degree

of sensitivity displayed by bull trout in all life stages (including adults), any increase in

sedimentation can have a negative affect on habitat quality.
183

PCE 5) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic

ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout

populations.

Construction activities that may change flows (both instream, and inflows from upland

areas) have the capacity to negatively affect this element. Wherever impermeable

surfaces are created, overland flows from stormwater will be increased. This can lead to

faster input of waters into the stream system than would naturally occur. These types of

flow changes can cause increased sedimentation, streambank instability, and erosion.

Changes in peak flows can cause changes to the riparian plant community, which in turn,

can cause changes to the aquatic community, reducing the desirability of the affected

habitat to bull trout.

PCE 6) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to

contribute to water quality and quantity.

Changes within the riparian area resulting from individual bridge repair or replacement

projects will occur. These changes may include the interception of groundwater that

contributed to habitat quality for bull trout. Mechanical changes to the streambed, and

streambanks could alter the function of groundwater within bull trout habitat. These

changes, although often subtle, may have long lasting effects on habitat quality.

PCE 7) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers

between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent

or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows.

Because individual projects have the potential to cause temporary flow changes, and

increased water temperature, it is likely that this element will be adversely affected.

Thermal barriers to bull trout migration are already a significant threat to bull trout within

many areas of the State. Increasing temperature on more sections of stream may make

connectivity even more difficult for bull trout. Projects that reduce flows make this

problem worse, as water in streams with low flows is more easily heated than that in

streams with larger, deeper flow volumes. No individual bridge projects should result in

a permanent barrier to bull trout passage. However, some projects may act as temporary

physical barrier to bull trout, making habitat inaccessible during portions of the year.

PCE 8) Abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic

macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.

Construction activities associated with both bridge repair and replacement projects may

affect this element. Changes in stream flow, temperature, sedimentation, cobble

embeddedness, riparian vegetation, and altered access can result in changes within the

aquatic and riparian systems. These changes can result in a reduction in prey base, as the

system shifts away from the parameters preferred by bull trout.

PCE 9) Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive nonnative species present.

Construction activities associated with both bridge repair and replacement projects may

affect this element. Changes in stream flow, temperature, sedimentation, cobble

embeddedness, riparian vegetation, and altered access can result in changes within the

aquatic and riparian systems. These changes can make bull trout habitat suitable for
184

other non-native predatory fish that compete with bull trout. Such changes can ultimately

make bull trout unsuitable. If the incursion of non-native fish includes brook trout, the

genetic integrity of the bull trout population is placed at risk. Bull trout x brook trout

hybrids are known to occur in several streams in eastern Oregon. These hybrids present a

continued risk to the usefulness of the habitat as they are not sterile, and will re-cross

themselves freely with either bull trout, or brook trout.

Even though the implementation of the Bridge Program will have some adverse effects

on the PCEs of the proposed critical habitat for bull trout, those effects are expected to be

minor overall.

Within the BA, 84 bridges in the Columbia River bull trout DPS were identified as being

within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat and no bridges were within 2 miles of

proposed critical habitat within the Klamath River DPS. Of the 84 bridges within 2 miles

of proposed critical habitat, 23 bridges are not within 2 miles of a core area. A

conservative 2 mile radius was used in the effects analysis to capture potential down

stream effects, therefore a portion of these bridges are not in proposed critical habitat but

are upstream or downstream. Further, as described in the species effects analysis, the

EPS have been designed to substantially minimize the amount and severity of the

potential effects to the physical and biological habitat components represented by the

PCEs. In particular, the Fluvial EPS was designed to improve fluvial processes by

designing bridges that span more of the flood plain and use techniques that do not

promote large inchannel piers/bents to accommodate natural channel processes to a

greater extent. The Water Quality EPS is designed to minimize entry into streams of

sediments and contaminants. The Site Restoration EPS is intended to restore proper

functioning conditions for riparian vegetation in areas where construction activity

removed it. In many cases this may be an improvement by replacing exotic species (e.g.,

Himalayan blackberry) with native species. As a result, while potential short-term effects

are likely, the USFWS anticipates that no PCE will be eliminated or significantly reduced

within any proposed critical habitat unit through implementation of the Bridge Program.

4.1.4.4 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as “those effects of future State or

private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur

within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation.” The Services are not

aware of any specific future non-federal activities within the action area that would cause

greater effects to listed species than presently occurs. The action area includes significant

tracts of private and state lands. Land use on these non-federal lands includes rural

development, agricultural, and commercial forestry. Chemical fertilizers or pesticides are

used on many of these lands, but no specific information is available regarding their use.

The Services generally do not consider existing rules governing timber harvests,

agricultural practices, and rural development on non-federal lands within Oregon to be

sufficiently protective of watershed, riparian, and stream habitat functions to support the

survival and recovery of listed species. Therefore, habitat functions for listed salmon and
185

steelhead may be at risk as a result of future activities on some non-federal lands within

the state.

Non-federal activities within the action area are expected to increase due to a projected

34 percent increase in human population by the year 2024 in Oregon (ODAS 1999).

Thus, The Services assume that future private and state actions will continue within the

action area, increasing as population density rises.

4.1.5 Integration and Synthesis of Effects

In the fourth step of its effects analysis, The Services determine whether the proposed

action, in light of the above factors, is likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the

species’ survival and recovery in the wild or lead to the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat. The Services use the consultation regulations to

determine whether actions would further degrade the environmental baseline at a spatial

scale relevant to the listed species.

Full implementation of EPS during all aspects of implementation and permitting of the

proposed action is vital to avoidance and minimization of adverse effects to listed

species. The Services participated in the development of FHWA/Corps’ OTIA III

Statewide Bridge Delivery Program and worked closely with ODOT in the development

of the Program’s BA, to ensure that the EPS constrain potential adverse effects and

maximize potential beneficial effects adequately to meet the biological requirements of

the 10 ESUs covered by this consultation. Nevertheless, some adverse effects may occur

from permitting and funding of the proposed action.

Effects of Corps’ permitting and of FHWA’s funding of the proposed action may include:

1) Noise/Visual Harassment;

2) Hydro-acoustic;

3) Increased Erosion, Turbidity, Sediment Transport, and Chemical Exposure;

4) Hydrologic Alteration;

5) Vegetation Removal;

6) Fluvial Alteration; and

7) In-water Work and Fish Capture and Release

The above effects are expected to be localized and constrained by the EPS, avoid

potential long-term adverse effects and greatly minimize short-term adverse effects when

and where they cannot be completely avoided. Any unavoidable short-term adverse

effect is minimized and is constrained to only those likely to be minor, repetitive, and

predictable in nature and any remaining long-term adverse effect requires compensatory

mitigation action adequate to functionally off-set the adverse effect. Some of the above

effects are likely to be beneficial in nature to listed species and persist over the short- and

long-term. Based on these factors, The Services have determined that any adverse effects

from FHWA/Corps’ funding and permitting of the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery
186

Program are unlikely to be of a magnitude, duration or extent that would reduce the longterm survival of the listed species.

4.1.6 Conclusion

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available

regarding the current status of the three ESA listed resident riverine fish species and 10

anadromous salmonid ESUs discussed in this Opinion (Table 1-1), the environmental

baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, the

Services conclude that the FHWA/Corps’ proposed action of funding and permitting the

OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of shortnose and Lost River suckers, bull trout, Snake River Spring/summerrun Chinook salmon, Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River

Chinook salmon, Oregon Coast coho salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California coho

salmon, Lower Columbia River coho salmon, Columbia River chum salmon, Upper

Willamette River steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead, and Lower Columbia

River steelhead, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated or proposed

critical habitat.

Our conclusion is based on the following considerations: (1) The OTIA III Statewide

Bridge Delivery Program requires individual review of each bridge repair or replacement

project to ensure and demonstrate to the Services how the proposed action will be in

compliance with this Opinion, and that each applicable Environmental Performance

Standard (Section 2.5 as described in the proposed action and referred to in the

reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of this Opinion) is fully

implemented during project administration, design, construction, monitoring, and

reporting; (2) taken together, the Environmental Performance Standards applied to each

project will ensure any short-term effects to water quality, habitat access, habitat

elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows and watershed conditions will be brief,

minor, and scheduled to occur at times that are least sensitive for the aquatic species’ lifecycles; (3) the underlying requirement of an ecological design approach that protects and

stimulates natural habitat forming processes is expected to result in reduction of ongoing

adverse impacts associated with existing bridges, and, in many cases, will result in longterm beneficial effects as these bridges are repaired or replaced; (4) the functional

objectives, prioritization, and landscape context of the conservation and mitigation

actions, as identified in the CMCS are expected to result in significant contribution to

species and habitat conservation and ecosystem recovery; and (5) the individual and

combined effects of all the actions proposed in this way are not expected to impair the

currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already

impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward proper

functioning condition essential to the long-term survival and recovery at the watershed

(6

th

Field HUC), population, DPS or ESU scale.

In addition to the general considerations listed above the following specific factor applies

to the bull trout:
187

Bull trout

1. The proposed action will permanently remove up to 7 acres and temporarily

remove up to 51 acres of bull trout habitat within the Columbia River DPS in

Oregon and permanently remove 0.1 acre and temporarily remove up to 1

acrea of bull trout habitat within the Klamath Falls DPS in Oregon. The

amount of habitat being permanently removed was based on the estimates of

the new bridges being wider thus shading out some riparian vegetation growth

permanently. Temporary habitat removal is based on riparian habitat removal

during construction but restored on site following construction. This amount

of habitat represents a minor portion of the existing habitat within the range of

the species and is expected to be distributed spacially and temporally such that

no individual population center will be subject to losses that alter site-specific

productivity or viability. Habitat restoration and enhancement actions

implemented by ODOT will result in development of other habitats that are

the functional equivalent of those adversely affected by the project, and the

species will be prioritized for additional habitat projects that result in a net

conservation benefit to the species

After reviewing the current status of the remaining USFWS listed terrestrial wildlife and

off-channel fish species, the marbled murrelet, bald eagle, northern spotted owl, Oregon

chub, and Fender’s blue butterfly, the environmental baseline for the action area, the

effects of the proposed action and cumulative effects, the USFWS has determined that the

proposed OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of these species. The USFWS also concurred with a “may affect not

likely to adversely affect” determination for designated marbled murrelet and northern

spotted owl critical habitat in Section 3.0 of this document. These conclusions were

reached for the following general reasons:

(1) The OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program requires individual review of each

bridge repair or replacement project to ensure and demonstrate to the USFWS how the

proposed action will be in compliance with this Opinion, and that each applicable

Environmental Performance Standard (Section 2.5 as described in the proposed action

and referred to in the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of this

Opinion) is fully implemented during project administration, design, construction,

monitoring, and reporting; (2) taken together, the Environmental Performance Standards

applied to each project will ensure any short-term adverse effects are substantially

avoided or minimized; and (3) the functional objectives, prioritization, and landscape

context of the conservation and mitigation actions, as identified in the CMCS are

expected to offset adverse impacts to species and result in net benefits that support

overall conservation and recovery.

In addition, several specific factors applied to individual species as described below.
188

Marbled Murrelet

1. The proposed action will adversely affect the species by removing up to 100

acres of potentially suitable marbled murrelet habitat dispersed across the

species’ range in Oregon. The amount of habitat removed (staging area,

detour bridge and detour route) per bridge was extrapolated from past bridge

projects and was conservatively estimated to be up to 2 acres per bridge. This

will represent a very small amount of habitat, both on an individual site basis

and cumulatively, and will be widely distributed. This amount and

distribution of habitat loss, if it actually occurs, would effect only a minor

portion of the existing habitat within each province and across the landscape

overall.

2. All of the habitat being removed is near or within major highway corridors.

The utilization and value of this habitat is probably already somewhat

degraded due to associated human use and management activities. As a result,

it is not very likely that habitat supporting high amounts of nesting or

occupancy will be impacted

3. Adverse effects to marbled murrelet due to harassment (up to 1,566 acres of

potentially suitable habitat) associated with demolition and construction

activities will be spread across the range of the murrelet in Oregon, last up to

two seasons per bridge, and in total will occur over a 10 year period. As

described for habitat removal above, little of the habitat which will be

impacted due to disturbance is expected to support high-levels of nesting or

occupancy, and it will be distributed broadly across the species range in

Oregon. Moreover, the intensity of disturbance-related impacts is not likely to

be significant enough to lead to mortality of murrelets

In summary: habitat removal impacts will be small at the site-specific level and will

represent only a small fraction of habitat available in any given ecoprovince; most habitat

removal and disturbance impacts will be concentrated in areas not expected to support

significant levels of nesting or occupancy; and, disturbance impacts will be distributed

over a ten-year period and will not be of an intensity likely to cause mortality at any

given location. For these reasons, the proposed action is not likely to reduce the size,

distribution, or productivity of populations at the local, regional, or rangewide scales.

Bald eagle

1. The proposed action will adversely affect the species by removing up to 4 acres of

potentially suitable bald eagle habitat within 0.25 miles of two nest sites in Oregon.

This will represent a very small amount of habitat available within the local vicinity

of each nest and within the ecoprovinces in which the nests occur.

2. Adverse effects to bald eagles due to harassment associated with demolition and

construction activities will occur within 0.5 miles of 12 nest sites spread across the
189

range of the eagle in Oregon. These effects will last up to two seasons within the

vicinity of each individual nest, and in total will be spread over a 10 year period

across the state. The duration and intensity of disturbance-related impacts to each nest

is not likely to be significant enough to lead to mortality of associated bald eagles.

However, activity could result in one year (two years maximum) abandonment of a

speciecif nest sites or use of an alternate nest site.

In summary: habitat removal and disturbance impacts will be limited a very small

percentage of nest sites in Oregon; habitat removal impacts will occur to a very small

amount of habitat available within the local vicinity of each affected nest and within the

ecoprovinces in which the nests occur; and disturbance impacts will be distributed over a

ten-year period and will not be of an intensity likely to cause mortality at any given

location. For these reasons, the proposed action is not likely to reduce the size,

distribution, or productivity of populations at the local, regional, or rangewide scales.

Northern spotted owl

1. The proposed action will affect up to 282 acres of potentially suitable northern

spotted owl habitat dispersed across the range of the owl in Oregon. Because

these impacts will be widely distributed, it is not likely that they will substantially

alter the amount of habitat available within any given occupied owl site.

Cumulatively, this amount and distribution represents a minor portion of the

existing habitat within each province and across the landscape overall, making it

unlikely that landscape level habitat availability or connectivity will be altered.

2. All of the habitat being removed is near or within major highway corridors. The

utilization and value of this habitat is probably already somewhat degraded due to

associated human use and management activities. It is not very likely that

substantial levels of roosting, foraging, occupancy, nesting, or productivity are

currently supported by this habitat.

In summary: habitat removal impacts will be small at the site-specific level and will

represent only a small fraction of habitat available in any given ecoprovince; and, most

impacts will be concentrated in areas not expected to support significant levels of

roosting, foraging, nesting, or occupancy. For these reasons, the proposed action is not

likely to reduce the size, distribution, or productivity of populations at the local, regional,

or rangewide scales.

Oregon chub

1. The proposed action will permanently remove up to 3.9 acres and temporarily

remove up to 29 acres of Oregon chub habitat. This habitat will be dispersed

across the range of the chub in Willamette Valley of Oregon. The amount of off

channel aquatic habitat removed was estimated from chub surveys at bridge sites

and expert knowledge at other potential sites. This amount of habitat represents a

minor portion of the existing habitat within the range of the species and is
190

expected to be distributed such that no individual population center will be subject

to losses that alter site-specific productivity or viability. Habitat restoration and

enhancement actions implemented by ODOT will result in development of other

habitats that are the functional equivalent of those adversely affected by the

project, and the species will be prioritized for additional habitat projects that

result in a net conservation benefit to the species.

Fender’s blue butterfly

1. The proposed action will affect up to 75 acres of potential Fender’s blue butterfly

habitat dispersed across the range of the butterfly in Oregon. All of this habitat is

expected to be comprised of secondary forage plants rather than the primary

forage plant sources associated with regular, high-levels of use by the species.

Moreover, it is expected to occur in small patches distributed across the range of

the species and occur near or within major highway corridors, meaning that it is

most likely already subject to some level of degradation, and further limiting

potential utilization by the species. The size and viability of known critical

population centers, the size and quality of large, contiguous habitat patches, and

overall connectivity between these populations and habitat areas will not be

significantly reduced by the proposed action.

2. Habitat restoration and enhancement actions implemented by ODOT will result in

development of other habitats that are the functional equivalent of those adversely

affected by the project, and the species will be prioritized for additional habitat

projects that result in a net conservation benefit to the species.

4.1.7 Reinitiation of Consultation

To the extent FHWA/Corps retains discretionary involvement or control over this action

as described in 50 CFR 402.16, the FHWA/Corps must reinitiate consultation if: 1) The

action is modified in a way that causes an effect on the listed species that was not

previously considered in this Opinion; 2) new information or project monitoring reveals

effects of the action that may affect the listed species in a way not previously considered;

3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the

action; or 4) if the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded (50 CFR 402.16).

If ODOT’s, or any agent’s there of, exercise of program or project discretion is likely to

result in or has resulted in effects on listed species and critical habitat that are not

consistent with those described in this Opinion, if FHWA/Corps does not ensure the

proposed action (Section 2.0) is administered as proposed, or if FHWA/Corps does not

provide the information described in the Incidental Take Statement (Section 4.2) by the

dates specified in the proposed EPS and terms and conditions of this Opinion, the

Services may consider any of those circumstances to be a modification of the action that

causes an effect on listed species not previously considered, potentially resulting in the

need to reinitiate consultation.
191

4.2 Incidental Take Statement

The ESA at section 9 [16 USC 1538] prohibits take of endangered species. The

prohibition of take is extended to threatened anadromous salmonids by section 4(d) rule

[50 CFR 223.203]. Take is defined by the statute as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

[16 USC 1532(19)] Harm is further defined by regulation as “an act which actually kills

or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or

degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing

essential behavior patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or

sheltering.” [50 CFR 222.102] Harass is defined as “an intentional or negligent act or

omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an

extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not

limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” [50 CFR 17.3] Incidental take is defined as

“takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful

activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant.” [50 CFR 402.02] The ESA at

Section 7(o)(2) removes the prohibition from any incidental taking that is in compliance

with the terms and conditions specified in a Section 7(b)(4) incidental take statement [16

USC 1536].

4.2.1 Amount and Extent of the Take

The Services anticipate that activities associated with the OTIA III Statewide Bridge

Delivery Program detailed in the proposed action (Section 2) are reasonably certain to

result in incidental take of ESA-listed species because of potential adverse effects from

noise/visual harassment; hydro-acoustic; increased erosion, turbidity, sediment transport,

and chemical exposure; hydrologic alteration; vegetation removal; fluvial alteration; and

in-water work, fish capture, and release.

The marbled murrelet, bald eagle, northern spotted owl, shortnose and Lost River

suckers, Oregon chub, bull trout, Snake River Spring/summer-run Chinook salmon,

Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon,

Southern Oregon/Northern California coastal coho salmon, Columbia River chum

salmon, Upper Willamette River steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead, and Lower

Columbia River steelhead and Fender’s blue butterfly may be adversely affected during

bridge repair and replacement activities as detailed in Section 1.0 of this Opinion. The

proposed EPS, as detailed in Section 2.5 of this Opinion, will reduce or eliminate

potential project adverse effects, and any remaining adverse effects of construction will

be minimized or offset by project site restoration and/or compensatory mitigation actions.

These EPS will be followed on all bridge repair and replacement activities administered

under the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program and subject to this Opinion, and

will be provided to all contractors who are responsible for project delivery. The Services

regard these EPS as integral components of this take statement and consider them to be

part of the action.
192

The Services expect incidental take to occur from harassment, harm, and lethal mortality

as specified in tables 4-10 and 4-11 due to the action covered by this Opinion. In the

accompanying Opinion, the Services determined that this level of anticipated take is not

likely to result in jeopardy to the species or adverse modification of designated and

proposed critical habitat. The extent of the take is limited to marbled murrelet, bald

eagle, northern spotted owl, shortnose and Lost River suckers, Oregon chub, bull trout,

Snake River Spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, Upper Willamette River Chinook

salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California

coastal coho salmon, Columbia River chum salmon, Upper Willamette River steelhead,

Middle Columbia River steelhead, Lower Columbia River steelhead and Fender’s blue

butterfly within the action area and to the associated upland, riparian and aquatic habitats

in the action area as defined in Section 1.2 of this Opinion. Downstream effects are not

expected to result in any quantifiable take, other than that identified in Table 4-1.

Table 4-10. Quantification and extent of incidental take for fish species under

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS jurisdiction

Riparian Vegetation Disturbance

ESU Handling Lethal Permanent Temporary

Area

(acres)

Length

(feet)

Area

(acres)

Length (feet)

Chinook

Lower Columbia River 405 24 2.5 720 18.6 5,400

Snake River, Spring & Summer 550 33 1.5 440 11.4 3,300

Upper Willamette River 6,000 360 11.3 3,280 84.7 24,600

Coho

Oregon Coast 6,150 369 8.5 2,480 64 18,600

Lower Columbia River 455 27 2.8 800 20.7 6,000

N. Cal./S. Ore. Coast 1,500 90 2.1 600 15.5 4,500

Chum

Columbia River 355 21 2.2 640 16.5 4,800

Steelhead

Lower Columbia River 280 17 1.8 520 13.4 3,900

Middle Columbia River 2,800 168 4.1 1,200 31.0 9,000

Snake River 550 33 1.5 440 11.4 3,300

Upper Willamette River 2,250 135 6.2 1,800 46.5 13,500

Cutthroat trout

S.W. WA/Columbia River 505 30 2.9 840 21.7 6,300

Bull Trout

Columbia River DPS 980 59 7 1,960 51 14,700

Klamath Falls DPS 20 1 0.1 40 1.0 300

Sucker

Shortnose 120 7 0.8 240 6.2 1,800

Lost River 120 7 0.8 240 6.2 1,800

Chub

Oregon chub 1,400 28 3.9 1,120 29 8,400

Table 4-11. Quantification and extent of incidental take for terrestrial wildlife

species under USFWS jurisdiction

Species Habitat Removal Harassment
193

Acres Acres Known nests

Marbled murrelet 100 1,566 N/A

Bald eagle 4 N/A 12*

Northern spotted owl 282 0 0

Fender’ blue butterfly 75 N/A N/A

* indicates the individuals, eggs or young associated with 12 nest sites.

The incidental take statement included in this Opinion, does not become effective for

Oregon Coast coho salmon, Lower Columbia River coho salmon, and bull trout proposed

critical habitat until the Services adopt the conference opinion as a biological opinion,

after the listings are final. Until the time that the species are listed or critcal habitat is

designated, the prohibitions of the ESA do not apply.

The USFWS will not refer the incidental take of any bald eagle for prosecution under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), or the Bald and

Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C §§ 668-668d), if such take

is in compliance with the terms and conditions (including amount and/or number)

specified herein.

4.2.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures

The Services believe that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary

and appropriate to avoid or minimize take of listed species resulting from the action

covered by this Opinion. In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Federal

agency or any applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the

species to the Services as specified in the incidental take statement. The reporting

requirements are established in accordance with 50 CFR 13.45 and 18.27 for USFWS and

50 CFR 220.45 and 228.5 for NOAA Fisheries. The FHWA/Corps shall include

measures that will:

1 Avoid or minimize the likelihood of incidental take from program implementation

by ensuring adequate program administration. Ensure compliance with the

environmental performance standard for program administration including

detailed monitoring, reporting, and communication at the both the program and

project scale.

2 Avoid or minimize the likelihood of incidental take from projects, project

elements and project activities associated with listed species at the project scale

by ensuring compliance with all the proposed EPS in listed Section 1.2.1 this

Opinion.

4.2.3 Terms and Conditions

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the FHWA/Corps and/or

their contractors must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement

the reasonable and prudent measures described above. These terms and conditions are

non-discretionary.
194

1 To implement reasonable and prudent measure #1 (Program Administration;

Monitoring, Reporting and Communication), the FHWA shall ensure compliance

with all performance standards developed for this program:

a. Monitoring & Reporting. Develop and carry out a monitoring and

reporting program to confirm that the performance standards are being

properly followed and that the performance standards are achieving the

goals of habitat improvement and avoidance or minimization of adverse

effects to the ecosystem.

i. Program Elements:

(1) Program Management Plan (PMP). Develop and maintain

a PMP which includes a Program Execution Plan (PEP)

and Program Procedures Plan (PPP) for all aspects of the

Environmental Management Program. The PMP will

outline the strategy for contractor selection, training, and

supervision. Include the process of evaluating contractors

for selection of future work, accounting for previous

performance. Provide the relevant portions of the PMP to

the Services prior to initiation of project activities.

(2) Pre-Construction Assessment (PCA). Review each

individual bridge project to ensure that all effects are within

the range considered in the biological opinion, quantify

project level take estimates or extent of take per established

metrics, verify program level exempted take is not likely to

be exceeded, and that all appropriate environmental

performance standards are being properly followed.

Submit the PCA to the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities at least 30 days prior to starting

construction activities.

(3) Construction Monitoring. Monitor active projects during

environmentally sensitive work activities and at a

frequency adequate to detect compliance with the

appropriate environmental performance standards. Provide

environmental monitor with appropriate authority and

professional experience to ensure compliance with relevant

environmental performance standards and other applicable

environmental rules and regulations.

(4) Post-Construction Monitoring. Monitor relevant project

features to ensure compliance with long-term beneficial

effects goals outlined in the biological assessment. Report

on success, failures, and remedial actions for site

restoration and compensatory mitigation sites. Evaluate

achievement of each relevant conservation measure

outlined in the environmental performance standards.
195

(5) Annual Program Reporting. Submit an annual monitoring

report by February 28 of each year that describes the efforts

and actions of the preceding year and the anticipated efforts

and actions of the following year. Summarize relevant

project reports, such as pre-construction assessment reports,

construction and post-construction monitoring reports, fish

capture and release effort reports. Include summaries of

observed and estimated take and established effects metrics

accumulated over the year, including area of riparian

disturbance, length of linear streambank disturbance, net

fill volumes in jurisdictional wetlands, net fill removed

from the functional floodplain, and net area of impervious

surfaces treated for detention and contamination.

(6) Annual Program Coordination. Discuss the annual

monitoring report with the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities by March 31 of each year. Pursue

means of refining and improving program clarity and

effectiveness.

ii. Report Contents. Include relevant project information in all

reports prepared for this program.

(1) General Report Contents. Include the following, and other

data as appropriate:

(a) Bridge identification (e.g., number, highway,

crossing);

(b) Bridge location (e.g., county, legal description,

ecoregion, species range, drainage);

(c) Project schedule (e.g., construction start and end

dates, timing of environmentally sensitive work

activities);

(d) Project team contact information (e.g., ODOT,

BPM Firm, and contractor contacts);

(e) Photo documentation of habitat conditions within

the project area. Label each photo with date, time,

project name, photographer’s name, and subject

comment.

(2) PCA Report Contents. Include the following, and other

data as appropriate:

(a) List of project actions.

(b) List of applicable environmental performance

standards and how they will be followed.

(c) List of plans prepared.
196

(d) List of variances requested with supporting

documentation.

(e) Date, time, and location of pre-construction

meeting.

(f) Estimate of exempted take and established effects

metrics required for the project

(3) Monitoring Report Contents. Monitoring reports shall be

available within 30 days of the monitoring visit and shall

include the following, and other data as appropriate:

(a) Site conditions at time of monitoring visit.

(b) Evaluation of compliance for each relevant

environmental performance standard.

(c) Remedial actions suggested and required.

(4) Annual Program Monitoring Report Contents. Include the

following, and other data as appropriate:

(a) Summary of work completed.

(b) Summary of variances requested, denied, and

approved.

(c) Summary of monitoring dates and efforts.

(d) Summary of relevant reports.

(e) Comparison of annual observed take and effects

metrics to remaining exempted take and effects

metrics.

(f) Summary of fills/removals within waters of the

U.S..

(g) Number and location of program bridges in design,

construction, or restoration stage.

(h) Summary of mitigation/conservation credits/debits

created and used that year.

(i) Summary of non-compliance situations and actions

taken to remediate.

(j) Identification of anticipated variances for following

year.

(k) Recommendations for program improvements.

iii. Program Oversight. Retain a third party oversight firm to ensure

the Bridge Program Management firm is maintaining compliance

with all terms of the contract, including meeting environmental

requirements.
197

b. Variance Protocol.

i. Request a variance for actions not clearly addressed in the

environmental performance standards. Requests may be included

in the PCA report or other appropriate means and should include

the following:

(1) Justification for the proposed variance.

(2) Description of additional actions necessary to offset

potential effects, as appropriate.

(3) Demonstration of how the resulting effects are within the

range considered in the biological opinion.

(4) Reevaluation of take and established effects metrics if

different than identified in the PCA.

ii. Services will respond with an approval, approval with additional

conservation measures, or disapproval within 30 calendar days of

receipt of the variance request.

iii. Variances of the environmental performance standards that result

in greater effects or greater take than provided in the biological

opinion will not be granted and will require separate consultation.

c. Communication Protocol.

i. Communication Plan. Develop and carry out a communication

plan to ensure appropriate, efficient, and timely coordination

between Action Agency, the Services, the appropriate Regulatory

Authorities, and other parties. The communication plan will define

lines of communication to address concerns that arise during

project design and construction (Appendix D).

ii. Electronic Format. Store all reports in an electronic format easily

accessible by the Services and the appropriate Regulatory

Authorities.

iii. Project Changes. Notify the Services and the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities of any project changes

62

as soon as

possible.

d. Conservation and Mitigation for Species under USFWS Jurisdiction.

Ensure the proposed mitigation or conservation action meets the goal of

net conservation benefit by providing on-ground benefits to species and

habitats that are greater than necessary to simply compensate for

cumulative project-level impacts. The increment of “surplus” benefit, at

the program scale, is anticipated to be sufficient to advance recovery and

conservation goals by providing a meaningful improvement in the size,

62

See discussion of variances and project changes above in Section 2.5 of this Opinion for clarification of

project changes and procedures.
198

distribution, and productivity of species populations, or in amount,

distribution, and quality of habitats relative to that which existed prior to

implementation of the Bridge Program.

i. Implement habitat protection, restoration, or enhancement actions

to address the permanent and temporary habitat losses listed in

Tables 4-10 and 4-11, as described in section 2.3.1.

ii. Ensure that all mitigation and conservation actions for these

species are consistent with all applicable standards contained in the

Compensatory Mitigation EPS (Section 2.5).

e. Reporting Address. Submit a copy of all program or project reports to the

following addresses:

Director, Oregon State Habitat Office

Habitat Conservation Division

NOAA Fisheries

Attn: 2004/00209

525 NE Oregon Street

Portland, OR 97232

State Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office

2600 S.E. 98

th Ave. Suite 100

Portland, OR 97211

i. Salvage notice. If a dead, injured, or sick endangered or threatened

species specimen is found, initial notification must be made to the

NOAA Fisheries Law Enforcement Office, Vancouver Field

Office, 600 Maritime, Suite 130, Vancouver, Washington 98661;

phone: 360.418.4246, or 800.853.1964; or the USFWS Office of

Law Enforcement, 9025 S.W Hillman Ct., Suite 3134, Wilsonville,

Oregon 97070; phone 503.682.6131. Care will be taken in

handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment

and care or the handling of dead specimens to preserve biological

material in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of

death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered

and threatened species or preservation of biological materials from

a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to carry out

instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence

intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.

2 To implement reasonable and prudent measure #2 (Projects, Project Elements and

Project Activities), the FHWA/Corps shall ensure compliance with all

performance standards developed for this program at the project scale:
199

a. Ensure full compliance and implementation the following proposed

environmental performance standards during the design and throughout

project construction as detailed in Section 2.0 of this Opinion:

i. Species Avoidance.

ii. Habitat Avoidance.

iii. Water Quality.

iv. Site Restoration.

v. Compensatory Mitigation.

vi. Fluvial.

4.2.4 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further

the purpose of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of

endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary

agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed

species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

1) The Services recommend that the action agencies or their representatives

involved in the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program pursue survey

and research opportunities regarding occurrence, life history and genetics of

lamprey species in Oregon stream systems. During the early involvement of

this consultation it became apparent that little is known of the effects of

construction activity, such as pile driving, on lamprey amocetes present in the

vicinity.

2) The USFWS and ODOT are currently collaborating on development of an

Oregon chub conservation bank that will be used for bridge program

mitigation as well as for other ODOT transportation programs. The USFWS

believes the protection in perpetuity of these banks will benefit ODOT as well

as conserve chub. The USFWS recommends ODOT complete this positive

conservation program.

3) The Services recommend that FHWA/ODOT pursue developing conservation

banks in perpetuity for other listed species which may be encountered during

highway projects. Such species include the Willamette Valley plants and

Fender’s blue butterfly, rough popcorn flower, Gentner’s fritillary, Klamath

basin suckers, and the vernal pool dependent species. The Services recognize

the ongoing conservation work ODOT has started and encourages this

process.

4) The Services recommend that ODOT pursue additional proactive measures to

conserve bat species in Oregon through its bridge replacement program.
200

Primarily, the USFWS encourages ODOT to explore ways in which bridge

design will facilitate nocturnal and maternity roosts without conflict with

bridge maintenance or engineering issues.

5) The Services recommend that FHWA/ODOT pursue a literature search to

provide current information to help guide the development of a stream and

river crossing design policy that identifies fluvial features such as the channel

migration zone and incorporates protection and renewal of fluvial habitat

forming processes. The Services recognize the ongoing conservation work

ODOT has started and encourages continuation and possible expansion of this

process.

In order for the Services to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding

adverse effects or benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Services request

notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

5.0 MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT

5.1 Background

The MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267),

established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish habitat

(EFH) for those species regulated under a Federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant

to the MSA:

• Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions, or proposed

actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely

affect EFH (§305(b)(2)).

• NOAA Fisheries must provide conservation recommendations for any Federal or

State action that would adversely affect EFH (§305(b)(4)(A)).

• Federal agencies must provide a detailed response in writing to NOAA Fisheries

within 30 days after receiving EFH conservation recommendations. The response

must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding,

mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a

response that is inconsistent with NOAA Fisheries’ EFH conservation

recommendations, the Federal agency(ies) must explain its reasons for not

following the recommendations (§305(b)(4)(B)).

The EFH means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,

feeding, or growth to maturity (MSA §3). For the purpose of interpreting this definition

of EFH: “waters” include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and

biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used

by fish where appropriate; “substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures

underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; “necessary” means the
201

habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to

a healthy ecosystem; “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a

species’ full cycle (50 CFR 600.10). “Adverse effect” means any impact which reduces

quality and/or quantity of EFH and may include direct (e.g. contamination or physical

disruption), indirect (e.g. loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or

habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of

actions (50 CFR 600.810).

The EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required regarding any Federal agency

action that may adversely affect EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as

certain upstream and upslope activities.

The objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed action

would adversely affected designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to

avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to EFH.

5.2 Identification of EFH

Pursuant to the MSA the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated

EFH for federally-managed fisheries within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and

California. Designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all

waters from the mean high water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river

mouths along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, seaward to the boundary

of the United States exclusive economic zone (PFMC 1998a, 1998b). Freshwater EFH

for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other

waterbodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,

and California, except areas upstream of certain impassable artificial barriers (as

identified by PFMC 1999), and longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e. natural

waterfalls in existence for several hundred years) (PFMC 1999). In estuarine and marine

areas, designated salmon EFH extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged

environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive

economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point

Conception to the United States-Canadian border (PFMC 1999).

Detailed description and identifications of EFH are contained in the fishery management

plans for groundfish (PFMC 1999), coastal pelagic species (PFMC 1998b), and Pacific

salmon (PFMC 1999). Casillas et al. (1998) provides additional detail on the groundfish

EFH habitat complexes. Assessment of the potential adverse effects to these species’

EFH from the proposed action is based, in part, on these descriptions and on information

provided by the FHWA, Corps, and ODOT Biological Assessment. Table 5-1 contains a

list of species with designated EFH potentially affected by this proposed action.

Table 5-1. Species with designated EFH in the waters of Oregon.

Groundfish Species

Leopard shark

(Trakis semifasciata)

Black-and-Yellow Rockfish

(S. chryosomelas)

Redstripe rockfish

(S. proriger)

Shortspine thornyhead

(S. alascanus)

Soupfin shark Blue rockfish Rosethorn rockfish Arrowtooth flounder
202

(Galeorhinus galeus) (S. mystinusi) (S. helvomaculatus) (Antheresthes stomias)

Spiny dogfish

(Squalus acanthias)

Bocaccio

(S. paucispinis)

Rosy rockfish

(S. rosaceus)

Butter sole

(Isopsetta isolepis)

Big skate

(Raja binoculata)

Brown rockfish

(S. auriculatus)

Rougheye rockfish

(S. aleutianus)

Curlfin sole

(Pleuronichthys

decurrens)

California skate

(R. inornata)

Canary rockfish

(S. pinniger)

Sharpchin rockfish

(S. zacentrus)

Dover sole

(Microstomus

pacificus)

Longnose skate

(R. rhina)

Chilipepper

(S. goodei)

Shortbelly rockfish

(S. jordani)

English sole

(Parophrys vetulus)

Spotted ratfish

(Hydrolagus colliei)

China rockfish

(S. nebulosus)

Shortraker rockfish

(S. borealis)

Flathead sole

(Hippoglossoides

elassodon)

Finescale codling

(Antimora microlepis)

Copper rockfish

(S. caurinus)

Silverygray rockfish

(S. brevispinis)

Pacific sanddab

(Citharichthys

sordidus)

Pacific rattail

(Coryphaenoides acrolepis)

Darkblotched rockfish

(S. crameri)

Speckled rockfish

(S. ovalis)

Petrale sole

(Eopsetta jordani)

Lingcod

(Ophiodon elongatus)

Flag rockfish

(S. rubrivinetus)

Splitnose rockfish

(S. diploproa)

Rex sole

(Glyptocephalus

zachirus)

Cabezon

(Scorpaenichthys marmoratus)

Gopher rockfish

(S. carnatus)

Squarespot rockfish

(S. hopkins)

Rock sole

(Lepidopsetta bilineata)

Kelp greenling

(Hexagrammos decagrammus)

Grass rockfish

(S. rosenblatti)

Stripetail rockfish

(S. saxicola)

Sand sole

(Psettichthys

melanostictus)

Pacific cod

(Gadus macrocephalus)

Greenspotted rockfish

(S. chlorostictus)

Tiger rockfish

(S. nigrocinctus)

Starry flounder

(Platichthys stellatus)

Pacific whiting (hake)

(Merluccius productus)

Greenstriped rockfish

(S. elongatus)

Vermillion rockfish

(S. miniatus)

Sablefish

(Anoplopoma fimbria)

Harlequin rockfish

(S. variegatus)

Widow rockfish

(S. entomelas)

Pacific Salmon

Species

Aurora rockfish

(Sebastes aurorai)

Pacific ocean perch

(S. alutus)

Yelloweye rockfish

(S. ruberrimus)

Chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha)

Bank rockfish

(S. rufus)

Pink rockfish

(S. eos)

Yellowmouth rockfish

(S. reedi)

Coho salmon

(O. kisutch)

Black rockfish

(S. melanops)

Quillback rockfish

(S. maliger)

Yellowtail rockfish

(S. flavidus)

Blackgill rockfish

(S. melanostomus)

Redbanded rockfish

(S. babcocki)

Longspine thornyhead

(Sebastolobus altivelis)

5.3 Proposed Action

The proposed actions and action areas are described in Section 2.0 and Section 1.2,

respectively, of this Opinion. The action area includes habitats that have been designated

as EFH for various life-history stages of groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific

salmon (Table 5-1).
203

5.4 Effects of the Proposed Action

Assessment of the potential adverse effects of the managed species’ EFH from the

proposed actions is based, in part, on the habitat descriptions in Section 2.0 and 4.0 of

this Opinion and on information provided in the FHWA, Corps, and ODOT biological

assessment. As described in detail in Section 4.1.4 of this Opinion, the proposed action

may result in short and long-term adverse effects to a variety of habitat parameters. These

adverse effects are:

1) Hydro-acoustic;

2) Increased Erosion, Turbidity, Sediment Transport, and Chemical Exposure;

3) Hydrologic Alteration;

4) Vegetation Removal; and

5) Fluvial Alteration

5.5 Conclusion

NOAA Fisheries concludes that the proposed action may adversely affect the EFH for the

groundfish, coastal pelagic, and Pacific salmon species listed in Table 5-1.

5.6 EFH Conservation Recommendations

Pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA, NOAA Fisheries is required to provide

EFH conservation recommendations to Federal agencies regarding actions which may

adversely affect EFH. The Terms and Conditions outlined in Section 4.2.3 of this

Opinion are generally applicable to designated EFH for the species in Table 5-1, and

address these adverse effects. Consequently, NOAA Fisheries requests that they be

implemented as EFH conservation recommendations.

5.7 Statutory Response Requirement

Pursuant to the MSA (§305(b)(4)(B) and 50 CFR600.920(j), Federal agencies are

required to provide a detailed written response to NOAA Fisheries’ EFH conservation

recommendations within 30 days of receipt of these recommendations. The response

must include a description of measures proposed to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse

impacts of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the

EFH conservation recommendations, the response must explain the reasons for not

following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any

disagreements over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures

needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects.

5.8 Supplemental Consultation

The FHWA/Corps must reinitiate consultation with NOAA Fisheries if the proposed

action is substantially revised in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new
204

information becomes available that affects the basis for NOAA Fisheries’ EFH

conservation recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(k)).

6.0 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) established a moratorium, with

certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals in waters of the United States. The

term “marine mammal” is defined as any mammal which is morphologically adapted to

the marine environment, including sea otters and members of the orders Sirenia,

Pinnipedia, and Cetacea. The term “take” is statutorily defined to mean “to harass, hunt,

capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal”. Harass

has been defined by Congress to mean “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance”.

Harassment for the purposes of the MMPA is divided into two categories:

• Level A Harassment – has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine

mammal stock in the wild; or

• Level B Harassment – has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine

mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns including, but

not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

All marine mammals that appear in the coastal waters of Oregon are protected under the

MMPA. In addition, the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), sperm whale (Physeter

macrocephalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae), northern right whale

(Eubalaena glacialis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), finback whale

(Balaenoptera physalus), and sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) are also protected under

the ESA and the Steller sea lion is addressed in the ESA informal consultation (section

3.0) of this Opinion. The FHWA/Corps determined the proposed action had no potential

to affect the additional marine mammal species listed above.

6.1 Marine Mammal Distribution

Marine mammals primarily live in ocean waters, bays, and estuaries, but some species

will forage inland in coastal streams and rivers. Whales are found almost exclusively in

open sea aquatic habitats, whereas pinnipeds (such as seals and sea lions) require both

aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Pinniped species regularly use land for haulouts, and

breed in remote rookery areas along the coast. Pinnipeds congregate during the pupping

and breeding season in rookeries that are protected from disturbance and predators, such

as isolated beaches, reefs, and rock islands (NOAA Fisheries 2003d). Pinnipeds also use

haulout areas to congregate and throughout the year. These may include rocks, reefs,

beaches, jetties, breakwaters, navigational aids, or floating docks. Several pinniped

species are known to forage inland as they follow salmon runs and other prey species’

migrations up river. Because of the geographic distribution of cetaceans and pinnipeds in

the ocean and coastal areas, Bridge Program construction activities are unlikely to affect

cetaceans, though they may affect pinniped species.
205

To determine which bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect

marine mammals, GIS effects screening analysis was used to screen all program bridges.

The screening process incorporated the known habitat types occupied by marine

mammals and the known range of various marine mammals, notably inland pinniped

distribution.

The following assumptions were used in the marine mammal screening process:

• Marine mammal range extends as far inland as the head of tides for Coastal streams

and rivers (ODSL 1989) including the Columbia River as far inland as Bonneville

Dam and Willamette Falls on the Willamette River in Oregon City (REO 2002), and

the lower reaches of the Chetco River, Rogue River, Umpqua River, Siuslaw River,

Alsea River, Siletz River, Nestucca River, and Nehalem River (NOAA Fisheries

2004).

• Marine mammals may be present at identified haulouts and rookeries (ODFW 2003c).

• Coastal Dune and Beaches, Coastal Headlands and Islets, Bays and Estuaries, Marine

Nearshore, Marine Shelf, and Oceanic are the only Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat

types capable of providing marine mammal habitat.

• Construction activity (i.e., noise and disturbance) will have no effect on marine

mammals beyond 1,640 feet (except near seal and sea lion rookeries, where this

distance is considered to be 3,000 feet). This distance is based upon mitigation

measures used for similar construction projects ([February 6, 2003, 68 FR 6116] [July

23, 2001, 66 FR 38258] [October 29, 1998, 63 FR 58012], Caltrans 2001). Steller sea

lion rookeries are designated critical habitat in Oregon and are protected by a 3,000-

foot buffer surrounding the critical habitat designated in the Federal Register (August

27, 1993 58 FR 45269) and the Three Arch National Wildlife Refuge rookery.

• Bridges meeting all of the following criteria will be documented as having no

potential to affect marine mammals:

o Bridge APIs that are greater than 1,640 feet from a Johnson and O’Neil (2001)

habitat type identified as potentially supporting marine mammals (Kiilsgaard and

Charley 1999).

o Bridges APIs greater than 1,640 feet from an identified head of tide for coastal

rivers and streams (except the Columbia River as far inland as Bonneville Dam

and Willamette Falls on the Willamette River in Oregon City, and the lower

reaches of the Chetco River, Rogue River, Umpqua River, Siuslaw River, Alsea

River, Siletz River, Nestucca River, and Nehalem River) (ODSL 1989).

o Bridges with APIs that are in the Grays/Elokoman, Lower Columbia/Clatskanie,

Lower Willamette, Lower Columbia/Sandy 4th field HUC and are greater than

1,640 feet from the Columbia and Willamette River (REO 2002).
206

o Bridges with APIs greater than 3,000 feet from an identified marine mammal

rookery or haulout (ODFW 2003c).

Based on these screening criteria, there are 14 bridges where repair or replacement

activities have the potential to affect marine mammals. One bridge (00924A, Schooner

Creek Bridge) is located within 3,000 feet of a documented harbor seal haulout.

6.2 Effects Pathways

This biological assessment provides an analysis of the potential effects of the proposed

action on the habitat elements that are critical for sustained, viable populations of marine

mammals. Actions can affect the viability of marine mammals by altering one or more

physical, chemical, or biological parameters. Effects to marine mammals are delivered

via the displacement, disruption, removal, or other alteration of effects pathways

including air, chemicals, or incidental take of the species (e.g., via direct physical injury).

Further discussion of each of these effects pathways follows.

Air

Noise Disturbance. Adverse effects to marine mammals from noise disturbance

may lead to flushing from haulout sites, an increase in energy expenditure, or an

overall avoidance or abandonment of functional habitat. Construction activities

have the potential to affect marine mammals both in the water and at haulout sites

along the Oregon Coast. Close approach by humans may cause resting pinnipeds

such as sea lions to go into the water, and disturbances that cause stampedes on

rookeries may cause trampling or abandonment of pups (NMFS 1992). Areas

exposed to repeated disturbance may be permanently abandoned or exhibit

reduced use, which could adversely affect the condition and survival of young

through the interruption of normal nursing cycles (NMFS 1992). Occasional

disturbance at low levels may have little long-term effect (NMFS 1992).

There is no documented threshold for noise disturbance for marine mammals.

However, NOAA Fisheries has considered the effects of construction noise, such

as pile driving and blasting, on marine mammals within a 1,640-foot radius of the

activities (Caltrans 2001). For the purposes of this analysis, noise disturbance

effects on marine mammals are considered possible within a distance of 1,640

feet from the bridge APIs.

Visual Disturbance. Visual disturbance due to human activity can adversely

affect marine mammals; however, there is no documented visual disturbance

threshold for marine mammals. Critical habitat for Steller sea lions in Oregon

includes an air zone that extends 3,000 feet vertically and an aquatic zone that

extends 3,000 feet seaward (horizontally) from historically occupied sea lion

rookeries (58 FR 45269). For the purposes of this analysis, effects are considered

possible within a distance of 3,000 feet from known marine mammal haulout or
207

rookery sites. This is likely an over-estimate considering marine mammals are

not always present at these locations.

Chemicals. Because marine mammals inhabit the marine environment and

occasionally the lower reaches of larger river systems, there is little potential for a

construction-related spill to affect them.

Species Habitat. Marine mammal haulout and rookery sites include remote

islands, rocks, reefs, and beaches, often in areas exposed to wind and waves

where access by terrestrial predators is limited (NMFS 1992). In addition, marine

mammals are known to utilize manmade structures such as breakwaters,

navigational aids, and floating docks for haulout sites (58 FR 45269). The Bridge

Program has the potential to remove or adversely modify man-made structures

that support hauled out marine mammals.

6.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

The effects of actions proposed under this consultation may be delivered by one or

multiple pathways. These effects can vary in magnitude and severity between the

individual organism, population, and community scales. The degree to which the

proposed action affects viable marine mammal populations is dependent on the intensity,

magnitude, duration, timing, and repetition of the action causing the effect. Minimization

and avoidance measures for the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program consist of

specific EPS that provide for habitat and species conservation during bridge repair and

replacement. Section 2.3 provides detailed information regarding these EPS and

conservation measures.

6.4 Analysis of Effects

No activity associated with the Bridge Program would cause Level A Harassment as

defined by the MMPA, and those activities that could cause Level B Harassment will be

avoided by the implementation of the EPS.

Air

Noise Disturbance. Construction noise occurring within 1,640 feet of marine

mammal habitat has the potential to affect marine mammals that are either hauled

out (resting), breeding, feeding, or simply swimming by. To avoid adverse effects

from Bridge Program activities, construction will be carried out in conformance

with EPS, including the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard, which will minimize noise levels and restrict loud noises to certain

times of the year (see section 3.3). The Wildlife Avoidance Environmental

Performance Standard will further require monitors to be on site during certain

construction activities to ensure that construction noise does not harm or disrupt

any marine mammals within or entering into the 1,640-foot noise disturbance

threshold.
208

Visual Disturbance. For purposes of the Bridge Program, visual disturbance

occurring within 3,000 feet of marine mammal habitat may affect marine

mammals. To avoid adverse effects on marine mammals from visual disturbance,

the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will be

implemented, and will require monitors to be on site during construction activities

to prevent construction activities from harming or disrupting any marine

mammals at rookeries or haulouts within the 3,000-foot visual disturbance

threshold.

Chemicals. Because marine mammals inhabit the marine environment and

occasionally the lower reaches of larger river systems, there is little potential for a

construction-related spill (which are usually a few gallons at most) to affect them.

Any spills that reach water in areas where marine mammals are likely to be

present are likely to be quickly diluted to undetectable levels. Implementation of

the Pollution and Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard (Section

2.3) will ensure that chemical spills at construction sites are either avoided, or

contained and cleaned up before they reach a marine environment; thus, there

should be no adverse effects on marine mammals through the chemical effects

pathway.

Species Habitat. Direct removal or modification of haulouts or rookery sites

may affect marine mammals. Indirect effects may also occur through effects on

prey species. However, implementation of the EPS outlined in Section 2.3,

including the Wildlife Avoidance EPS and the Water Quality EPS (which includes

bridge demolition conservation measures), should ensure that direct and indirect

effects on marine mammals are avoided.

Evaluation of Potential Effects

There are a total of 14 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect

marine mammals (Table 6-1). These bridges are generally not located in

preferred marine mammal habitat; therefore, there is a low probability that marine

mammals will be present during construction activities. As a result of this and of

the application of the EPS (Section 2.5), (particularly the Wildlife Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard) at these bridges, the Bridge Program will

result in negligible Level B Harassment, and negligible incidental take of marine

mammals.

6.5 Conclusion and Recommendations

From the material presented by the FHWA/COE in the BA, it is NOAA Fisheries

understanding that the majority of the proposed action (bridge repair/replacement

projects) are unlikely to result in incidental harassment (taking), of non-listed

marine mammals (pinnipeds), by construction noise. For those individual

projects identified in Table 6-1, where the proximity of construction to an
209

established pinniped haul out site is likely to result in disturbance of animals on

the haul out, we recommend that FHWA/Corps obtain an Incidental Harassment

Authorization (IHA) pursuant to the Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act. For IHA application information, please contact Brent Norberg or

Lynne Barre in the Protected Resources Division, Marine Mammal Section at

206-526-6733

Table 6-1. Program Bridges with potential to affect marine mammals

Bridge

Number

1

Highway

Type

2 MP

3 County4 Crossing5

09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis and Clark Bridge (Columbia River)

04516A IS005 307.70 Multnomah Jansen Pedestrian Tunnel

01950 US101 234.76 Coos Central Oregon Railroad (North Bend)

08281 OR042 0.07 Coos US 101

06875 IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River

06945 IS084 17.82 Multnomah Connector 2 to Jordan Road

06875A IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River

06945A IS084 17.82 Multnomah Connector 2 to Jordan Rd

00925A US101 119.27 Lincoln Drift Creek

00924A US101 118.17 Lincoln Schooner Creek

03173A OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek

07333 IS005 308.38 Multnomah Columbia River and North Hayden Island Drive

00922A US101 114.88 Lincoln Devils Lake Outlet (D River)

013491 OR018 0.04 Lincoln US 101

1 ODOT bridge identification number

2 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)

3 Milepost where bridge is located

4 County where bridge is located

5 Description of feature that the bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation

7.0 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703 – 712) of 1918, as amended,

implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan,

Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the

MBTA, taking, killing or possessing migratory birds is unlawful.

Unless permitted by regulations, the MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt,

take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; offer to or sell, barter, purchase,

deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received and

migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product.

The following section of the Wildlife Avoidance EPS was developed to outline a process

to work toward avoiding migratory birds nesting on bridges and identify when, after these

efforts have been attempted, take may be needed and therefore a permit attained. For

permit information please contact our Migratory Bird Division at 503-231-6164.
210

8. Wildlife Avoidance (Bridge Demolition). Minimize injury and death to wildlife

species from bridge demolition activities.

a. Migratory Birds. Avoid destruction of occupied nests (i.e., containing eggs

or young) and adult birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA).

i. Prevent nesting by native birds

63

on structures to be removed.

(1) Inspect bridge for signs of nesting.

(2) Apply exclusionary methods prior to nest building

(approximately March 15). Exclusionary methods may

include noise cannons, power-washing (i.e., physical

removal), netting (ensure proper mesh size and maintain

the netting).

ii. Remove existing nests only if no eggs or young are found.

iii. If eggs have been laid and nest cannot be avoided, then seek

guidance from USFWS for compliance with the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act.

8.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) of March 10,

1934, authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce to provide assistance to

and cooperate with Federal and State agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the

supply of game and fur-bearing animals, as well as to study the effects of domestic

sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife.

The FWCA amendments enacted in 1946 require consultation with the USFWS and the

fish and wildlife agencies of States where the "waters of any stream or other body of

water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or

otherwise controlled or modified" by any agency under a Federal permit or license.

Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of "preventing loss of and damage to

wildlife resources."

The 1958 amendments added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife

resources to the Nation and to require equal consideration and coordination of wildlife

conservation with other water resources development programs, and authorized the

Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of lands and

funds.

63 Exotic birds, such as European starling, rock pigeons, and house sparrows are not protected by the

MBTA.
211

The amendments also titled the law as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)

and expanded the instances in which diversions or modifications to water bodies would

require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The action agencies are addressing FWCA issues by implementing the EPS throughout

the state and not just limiting them to stream sections where listed species occur. This

will help conserve candidate and species of concern that would be affected by the same

factors as the listed species. Aquatic species of concern to the USFWS include but are

not limited to the coastal cutthroat trout and native lamprey species. In addition, the

CMCS level I team, through the RGP process, is developing a mitigation strategy that

will address ecoprovince habitat priorities and a quantitative, repeatable assessment

process that is intended to result in larger more valuable mitigation sites across the region

that may be used for ODOT mitigation beyond the Bridge Program.

9.0 LITERATURE CITED

Allendorf, F.W. 1983. Isolation, gene flow, and genetic differentiation among

populations. Pages 51-65 in C. Schonewald-Cox, S. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and

L. Thomas, editors. Genetics and Conservation. Benjamin and Cummings, Menlo

Park, CA.

Allendorf, F.W. and N. Ryman. 2002. The role of genetics in population viability

analysis. Pages 50-85 in S.R. Beissinger and D.R. McCullough, editors.

Population Viability Analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Andreasen, J.K. 1975. Systematics and status of the Family Catostomidae in southern

Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982.

Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans.

N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342.

Bald Eagle Working Team for Oregon and Washington. 1990. Working implementation

plan for bald eagle recovery in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department

of Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.

Barrowclough, G.F. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1990. Genetic variation and differentiation in the

spotted owl. Auk 107:737-744

Barrows, C. and K. Barrows. 1978. Roost characteristics and behavioral

thermoregulation in the spotted owl. West. Birds 9:1-8.

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls.

Conservation Biology 9: 943-946.

Bart, J., and E. D. Forsman. 1992. Dependence of northern spotted owls Strix

occidentalis caurina on old-growth forests in the western USA. Biological

Conservation 62: 95-100.
212

Baxter, C.V. 2002. Fish Movement and Assemblage Dynamics in a Pacific Northwest

Riverscape. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Baxter, C.V., C.A. Frissell, and F.R. Hauer. 1999. Geomorphology, Logging Roads, and

the Distribution of Bull Trout Spawning in a Forested River Basin: Implications

for Management and Conservation. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 128:854-867.

Baxter, J.S., and J.D. McPhail. 1999. The influence of redd site selection, groundwater

upwelling, and over-winter incubation temperature on survival of bull trout

(Salvelinus confluentus) from egg to alevin. Canadian Journal of Zoology/Revue

Canadien de Zoologie 77:1233-1239.

Beak Consultants Incorporated. 1987. Shortnose and Lost River sucker studies: Copco

Reservoir and the Klamath River. Report prepared for the city of Klamath Falls,

Oregon. June 30, 1987.

Beissinger, S.R. 1995. Population trends of marbled murrelet projected from

demographic analyses. In Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, Tech.

Editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 420 p.

Beissinger, S.R., and N. Nur. 1997. Population trends of the marbled murrelet projected

from demographic analysis. Appendix B in Recovery plan for the threatened

marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon and

California. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Pages 191-

232 in E.D. Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside Management Forestry and

Fisheries Interactions. Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington,

Seattle, Washington, Contribution No. 57.

Bienz, C.S. and J.S. Ziller. 1987. Status of three lacustrine sucker species

(Catostomidae). Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento,

California..

Bingham, B.B., and B.R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat “take”: Application to

habitat conservation planning. Conservation Biology 11: 127-138.

Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of the bull trout and the

effects of human activity on the species. Pages 1-4 in P.J. Howell, and D.V.

Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop,

Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Bonneau, J.L., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 1996. Distribution of juvenile bull trout in a

thermal gradient of a plunge pool in Granite Creek, Idaho. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 125: 628-630.

Botkin, D., K. Cummins, T. Dunne, H. Regier, M. Sobel, and L. Talt. 1995. Status and

future of salmon of western Oregon and northern California: Findings and
213

options. Report #8. The Center for the Study of the Environment, Santa Barbara,

California. http://www.naturestudy.org/services/publica.htm.

Boulanger, J.G., K. M.G. Kaiser, and A.E. Derocher. 1996. Evaluating uncertainty in

estimating population trends of marbled murrelets. Pages 53-63 in A. W.

Diamond and A. W. Nettleship, editors: Biology and conservation of forest birds.

Society of Canadian Ornithologists, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Bradley, R.W. 2002. Breeding ecology of radio-marked marbled murrelets

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Desolation Sound, British Columbia. M.S.

Thesis, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia. 86 pages.

Brewin, P.A., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita. 1997. Distribution maps for bull trout in

Alberta. Pages 206-216 in W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, editors.

Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force

(Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Bryce, S. and A. Woods. 2000. Draft level III and IV ecoregion descriptions for Oregon.

Available: http://www.sscgis.state.or.us/data/metadata/k250/ecoregion.pdf.

Buchanan, D.M., and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards

to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon.

Pages 1-8 in W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the

Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force(Alberta), c/o Trout

Unlimited Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Buchanan, D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon's bull trout,

distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status.

Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Contract No. 1994BI34342, Project

No. 199505400 (BPA Report DOE/BP-34342-5). Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Buchanan, J.B. L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutchen. 1995. Within-stand nest site selection

by spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. J. Wildl. Manage. 59:301-

310.

Buettner, M. 1997. Upper Klamath Lake fish die-off, 3rd consecutive year - 1997.

Report to Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 29 September 1997.

Buettner, M. and C. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history and status of Catostomids in Upper

Klamath Lake, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries

Research Center, Reno Field Station, Nevada. Completion report.

Buettner, M. and C. Scoppettone. 1991. Distribution and information on the taxonomic

status of the Shortnose sucker, Chasmistes brevirostris, and Lost River sucker,

Deltistes luxatus, in the Klamath River Basin, California. Completion report.

California Department of Fish and Game Contract FC-8304. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Seattle National Fishery Research Center, Reno Substation,

Nevada.

Burger, A.E. 1995. Inland habitat associations of marbled murrelets in British Columbia.

In Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, Tech. Editors. 1995. Ecology
214

and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152.

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture; 420 p.

Burger, A.E. 2001. Using radar to estimate populations and assess habitat associations of

marbled murrelets. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:696-715.

Burger, A.E. 2002. Conservation assessment of marbled murrelets in British Columbia, a

review of biology, populations, habitat associations and conservation. Pacific and

Yukon Region, Canadian Wildlife Service. 168 pages.

Burkey, T.V. 1989. Extinction in nature reserves: the effect of fragmentation and the

importance of migration between reserve fragments. Oikos 55:75-81.

Burkey, T.V. 1995. Extinction rates in archipelagoes: Implications for populations in

fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology 9: 527-541.

Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, and G.C. White. 1996. Meta-analysis of vital rates of

the northern spotted owl. Pages 92-101 in Forsman et al, editors. Demography of

the northern spotted owl. Studies in avian biology no.17, Cooper Ornithological

Society. Fort Collins, CO.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Leirheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz,

and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 281 p.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2001. Marine mammal impact

assessment: Pipe instillation demonstration project San Francisco-Oakland Bay

bridge east span seismic safety project. Unpublished report of the California

Department of Transportation. Sacramento, California.

Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus

confluentus (Suckley), from the American northwest. California Fish and Game

64:139-174.

CETAS (Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining).

2001. A vision for joint environmental and transportation agreement for

streamlining. February 2001 Oregon Department of Transportation unpublished

agreement, Salem Oregon.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1993. Lost River and shortnose sucker

life history and population dynamics in Clear and Tule Lakes, California.

Progress Rept. 1. Contract Number FG1610.

CH2M Hill. 1995. Water Quality Model of the Klamath River. Report for USBR. Dec.

1995.

Chamberlain, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture

and watershed processes. Pages 181-205 in W. R. Meehan, editors. Influences of

forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats.

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.
215

Chen, J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1993. Contrasting microclimates among clearcut,

edge and interior of old-growth forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

63:219-237.

Coots, M. 1965. Occurrences of the Lost River sucker, Deltistes luxatus (Cope), and

Shortnose sucker, Chasmistes brevirostris (Cope), in Northern California.

California Department of Fish and Game 51:68-73.

Cope, E.D. 1879. The fishes-of Klamath Lake, Oregon. Amer. Nat. 13:784-785.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands

and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

FWS/OBS-79.31.

Craig, S.D., and R.C. Wissmar. 1993. Habitat conditions influencing a remnant bull

trout spawning population, Gold Creek, Washington (draft report). Fisheries

Research Institute, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.

Craighead, J.J., and F.C. Craighead. 1956. Hawks, owls and wildlife. Stackpole,

Harrisburg, PA U.S.A.

Cunningham, M.E., R. Shively and E. Janney. 2002. Monitoring of Lost River and

shortnose suckers in the lower Williamson River, Oregon: Annual report 2001. In

Monitoring of adult Lost River and shortnose suckers in the Upper Klamath

Basin, 2001. Draft annual report (February 2002) of research to the U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Klamath Area Office. 134 pgs. Contract

#00AA200049.

Dark, S.J., R.J. Gutiérrez, and G. I. Gould. 1998. The barred owl (Strix varia) invasion

in California. Auk 115:50-56.

De Santo, T.L., and M.F. Willson. 2001. Predator abundance and predation of artificial

nests in natural and anthropogenic coniferous forest edges in southeast Alaska.

Journal of Field Ornithology 72(1):136-149.

Dechesne, S.B.C., and J.L. Smith. 1997. Wildlife inventory Queen Charlotte

Islands/Haida Gwaii 1994-1996. Husby Group of Companies. 49 pages.

Desjardins, M. and D.F. Markle. 2000. Distribution and biology of suckers in Lower

Klamath Reservoirs. 1999 Final report submitted to PacifiCorp, Portland,

Oregon.

Dunbar, D.L., B.P. Booth, E.D. Forsman, A. E. Hetherington, and D. J. Wilson. 1991.

Status of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, and barred owl, Strix varia, in

southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 105:464-468.

Dunham, J.B., and B.E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout:

Influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics.

Ecological Applications 9:642-655.

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem

management; and ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing
216

Office 1993-793- 071. U.S. Government Printing Office for the U.S.D.A. Forest

Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land

Management, and National Park Service; U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries

Service; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

FHWA (Federal Administration) 1995. Hydraulic Circular NO. 18, Evaluating Scour at

Bridges, Third Edition (FHWA-IP-90-017, November 1995) or equivalent.

FHWA (Federal Administration) 2000. Critter Crossings: Linking Habitats and

Reducing Roadkill. (http://www.FHWA.dot.gov/environment/wildlifecrossing).

Fishpro. 2000. Fish passage conditions on the Klamath River. Submitted to The Karuk

Tribe and PacifiCorp.

Fish Passage Center. 2003. Adult Fish Passage at Columbia River dams.

http://www.fpc.org/adultqueries/Adult_Table_Species_allCurrent.asp

Fitzpatrick, G.S. and C.B. Schultz. 2001. 2000 status of the Fender’s blue butterfly

(Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in Lane County, Oregon: Population estimates and

site evaluations. An unpublished report to Oregon Natural Heritage Program and

US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Floyd R. 2003. Biological Assessment: ODOT State-wide Maintenance Activities

Requiring a Section 404 fill permit or section 10 permit Effects on Endangered,

Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species in Oregon. Unpublished report

Oregon Department of Transportation. Salem, Oregon.

Folliard, L. 1993. Nest site characteristics of northern spotted owls in managed forest of

northwest California. M.S. thesis. Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the

spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87: 1-64.

Forsman, E.D, and R. G. Anthony. 1999. Analysis of demographic rates of northern

spotted owls. Executive Summary. April 19, 1999.

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of

migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus ) in the Flathead Lake and river

system, Montana. Northwest Science 63:133-143.

Frankham, R. 1995. Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a

review. Genetical Research 66:95-107.

Franklin, A.B., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, R.J. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, C. Sanchez,

J.D. Nicols, and J. Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern spotted

owl populations. Colorado Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Fort Collins,

Colorado and Oregon Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Corvallis, OR.

Unpublished report.

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutiérrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate,

habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern

California. Ecological Monographs 70: 539-590.
217

Franklin, A. B., K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, R. G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, C. Schwarz,

J. D. Nichols, and J. Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern

spotted owl populations. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Colorado State

University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, and Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division,

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 71

pp.

Franklin, I.A. 1980. Evolutionary changes in small populations. Pages 135-150 in: Soulé

M. and B.A. Wilcox (eds). Conservation Biology: an evolutionary-ecological

perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Franklin, I.R. and R. Frankham. 1998. How large must populations be to retain

evolutionary potential? Animal Conservation 1:69-70.

Frissell, C.A. 1997. A spatial approach to species viability: Conservation of fishes in the

Columbia River Basin. Biological Station Open File Report Number 101-97.

Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, MT.

Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha, in the Columbia River basin–past and present. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, Fisheries 571:26.

Fulton, L.A. 1970. Spawning areas and abundance of steelhead trout and coho, sockeye,

and chum salmon in the Columbia River basin–past and present. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, Fisheries 618.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance.

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-323.

Gamett, B. 1999. The history and status of fishes in the Little Lost River drainage,

Idaho. Salmon-Challis National Forest, Idaho Department of Fish and Game,

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Sagewillow, Inc. May 1999 draft.

Gilbert, C.H. 1898. The fishes of the Klamath Basin. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm.

17(1897):I-13.

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, literature review. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Willamette National Forest,

Eugene, Oregon.

Golden, M.P. 1969. The Lost River sucker. Oregon Game Comm. Admin.Report No. 1-

69.

Gutermuth, B., C. Watson, and J. Kelly. 2000b. Link River hydroelectric project

(Eastside and westside powerhouses) Final entrainment study report. Cell Tech,

Klamath Falls, Oregon and PacifiCorp Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon.

Gutermuth, B., C. Watson, and R. Weider. 1999. Link River hydroelectric project -

Eastside and westside powerhouses annual entrainment study report (March 1997

- July 1998). New Earth Corp., Klamath Falls, Oregon.
218

Gutermuth, B., D. Beckstrand, and C. Watson. 1998. New Earth harvest site monitoring,

1996-1997. Final report. New Earth/Cell Tech, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Gutermuth, B., D. Breckstrand, and S. Peck. 1997. New Earth harvest site monitoring

project - annual study report, 1996. Unpublished report. New Earth/Cell Tech,

Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Gutermuth, B., E. Pinkston, and D. Vogel. 2000a. A-canal fish entrainment during 1997

and 1998 with emphasis on endangered suckers. Completion report. New

Earth/Cell Tech, Klamath Falls, Oregon and Natural Resource Scientists, Inc.,

Red Bluff, California.

Gutierrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis). in: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, No.

179. The Academy of Natural Sciences and The American Ornithologists'Union,

Washington, D.C.

Hamer, T. E., D. L. Hays, C. M. Senger and E. D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern

barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor

Research 35(3):221-227.

Hammond, P.C. 1994. 1993 Study of the Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides

fenderi). Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hammond, P.C. 1996. 1995 Study of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides

fenderi) in Benton, Polk, and Yamhill counties. Unpublished report to the Oregon

Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hammond, P.C. 1998. 1997 Study of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides

fenderi) in Benton, Polk, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon. Unpubl. Rept. to

Oregon Natural Heritage Program and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hammond, P.C. 2001. 2000 Study of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides

fenderi) in Benton, Polk, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon. Unpubl. Rept. to

Oregon Natural Heritage Program and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hammond, P.C. and M.V. Wilson. 1992. Fender's blue butterfly populations: habitat

descriptions and threats to survival. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural

Heritage Program, Portland, OR.

Hammond, P.C. and M.V. Wilson. 1993. Status of the Fender's blue butterfly.

Unpublished report on file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office.

Hanski, I. and M.E. Gilpin. 1997. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and

Evolution. Academic Press, London, UK.

Hard, J. 1995. A quantitative genetic perspective on the conservation of intraspecific

diversity. American fisheries Society Symposium 17:304-326.

Harris, P.M. and D. Markle. 1991. Biochemistry and morphology of Upper Klamath

Lake suckers. Final report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon

State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
219

Hassler, T.J. 1987. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of

coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)--coho salmon. U.S. Fish and

Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.70). 19 pages.

Hastings, M.C. 1995. Physical effects of noise on fishes. In Proceedings of INTERNOISE 95, The 1995 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering –

Volume II. pp. 979–984. Newport Beach, California, July 10-12, 1995.

Hastings, M.C. 2002. Clarification of the meaning of sound pressure levels and the

known effects of sound on fish. August 26, 2002; revised August 27, 2002. pp 8.

Hayes, B.S. and R. Shively. 2002. Monitoring of Lost River and shortnose suckers at

shoreline spawning areas in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: Anuual report 2001.

In Monitoring of adult Lost River and shortnose suckers in the Upper Klamath

Basin, 2001. Draft annual report (February 2002) of research to the U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Klamath Area Office. 134 pgs. Contract

#00AA200049.

Healy, M.C. and A. Prince. 1995. Scales of variation in life history tactics of Pacific

salmon and the conservation of phenotype and genotype. American Fisheries

Society Symposium 17:176-184.

Hedrick, P.W. and S. T. Kalinowski. 2000. Inbreeding depression in conservation

biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:139-162.

Hemmingsen, A.R., R.A. French, D.V. Buchanan, D.L. Bottom, and K.P. Currens. 1992.

Native Trout project. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research

Project F-136-R, Annual progress report. Portland, Oregon.

Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A.

Beckwitt, and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests,

fisheries, and watersheds. National forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon, and

Washington. A report to the Congress and President of the United States Eastside

Forests Scientific Society Panel. American Fisheries Society, American

Ornithologists Union Incorporated, The Ecological Society of America, Society

for Conservation Biology, The Wildlife Society. The Wildlife Society Technical

Review 94-2.

www.wildlife.org/publications/index.cfm?tname=pubs&pubid=pub05.

Henny, C.J. 1988. Large osprey colony discovered in Oregon in 1899. The Murrelet 69:

33-36.

Hershey, K.T. 1995. Characteristics of forests at spotted owl nest sites in the Pacific

Northwest. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Herter, D.R., and L.L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat

in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34:

279-286.

Hjort, R., P. Hulett, L. LaBolle, and H. Li. 1984. Fish and invertebrates of revetments

and other habitats in the Willamette River, Oregon. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways

Exp. Sta. EWQOS Tech. Rep. E-84-9.
220

Hoelscher, B., and T.C. Bjornn. 1989. Habitat, density and potential production of trout

and char in Pend Oreille Lake tributaries. Project F-71-R-10, Subproject III, Job

No. 8. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Holt, R. 1997. Upper Klamath Lake fish disease exam report. Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.

Howe, C.B. 1968. Ancient tribes of the Klamath country. Binfords and Mort, Portland,

Oregon.

Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Knedra, and D. Orrmann. 1985.

Stock assessment of Columbia River anadromous salmonids, 2 volumes. Final

Report to nneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon (Project 83-335).

Howell, P.J., and D.V. Buchanan. 1992. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull

Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis,

Oregon.

Huettman, F., E. Cam, D. B. Lank, R. Bradley, L. Lougheed, L. McFarlane Tranquilla, C.

Lougheed, Y. Zharikov, P. P.-W. Yen, N. Parker, and F. Cooke. Manuscript.

Breeding habitat selectivity for large-scale habitat features by marbled murrelets

in fragmented and virgin old-growth forest landscapes. Wildlife Monographs.

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony, and R. J. Anderson. 1983. Distribution and productivity

of nesting bald eagles in Oregon. 1978-1982. The Murrelet 64:33-38

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in

Oregon and the Washington portion of the Columbia River recover zone, 1971

through 2003. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Isaacs, F.B., and R.G. Anthony. 1987. Abundance, foraging, and roosting of Bald Eagles

wintering in the Harney Basin, Oregon. Northwest Sci. 61:114-121.

Jackson, P.L. 1993. Climate. P. 48-57 in: Jackson, P.L and A. J. Kimerling (eds.). Atlas

of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Jakober, M. 1995. Autumn and winter movement and habitat use of resident bull trout

and west slope cutthroat trout in Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State

University, Bozeman, Montana.

Jefferson, C.A. 1975. Plant communities and succession in Oregon coastal salt marshes.

PhD. Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Johnson, D. H. 1992. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the

central Oregon Cascades. M. S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.

Johnson D.H. and T.A.O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Washington and

Oregon. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Cope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples.

1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California.

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32. 280 p.
221

Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls replacing spotted

owls? Condor 105:45-53.

Killsgaard, C. and B.A. Charley. 1999. GIS database of Oregon current wildlife-habitat

types (orcurhab.zip). Northwest Habitat Institute. Database was developed using

Johnson, D.H. and O'Neil, T.A. 2001 wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and

Washington. Oregon State University Press. Available: (http://www.nwhi.org).

Koch, D.L. and G.P. Contreras 1973. Preliminary survey of the fishes of the Lost River

system including Lower Klamath Lake and Klamath Strait drain with special

reference to the Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River suckers

(Catostomus luxatus). Center for Water Resources Research, Desert Research

Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.

Kuykendall, K. and T.N. Kaye. 1993. Status Report for Lupinus sulphureus ssp.

kincaidii. Draft report to Oregon Department of Agriculture, Corvallis, OR.

Laidig, K.J., and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Spatial overlap and habitat association of Barred

Owls and Great Horned Owls in southern New Jersey. Journal of Raptor

Research 29:151–157.

Lank, D.B., N. Parker, E.A. Krebs, and L.M. Tranquilla. 2003. Geographic distribution,

habitat selection, and population dynamics with respect to nesting habitat

characteristics, of marbled murrelets. Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Simon Fraser

University, Burnaby, Canada. 66 pages.

Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and S.H. Forbes. 1993. Conservation genetics of Bull trout

in the Columbia and Klamath River drainages. Conservation Biology 7:856-865.

Lee, D.C., JR. Sedell, B.E. Reiman, R.F. Thurow, J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale

assessment of aquatic species and habitats. P. 1058-1496 in: T.M. Quigley and

S.J. Arbelbide, eds. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. U.S. Forest

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR.

http://www.icbemp.gov/science/scipubs.shtml.

Lee, C., E, Rybak, J. Weaver, K. Aubry, R. Naney, G. Gunderson, J. Lehmuhl, W.

Zielinski, G. Koehler, P. Murphy, C. Lorimor and V. Agnew. 1998. Survey

protocol for the lynx (lynx canadensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Forest Service, Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington Dept. of Fish and

Wildlife, Wenatchee National Forest.

Leskiw, T., and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a Spotted Owl by a Barred

Owl. Western Birds 29:225–226.

Li, H., C. Schreck, C. Bond, E. Rexstad. 1987. Factors influencing changes in fish

assemblages of Pacific Northwest streams. Pages 193-202 in W.J. Mathews and

D.C. Heinz, editors. Community and evolutionary ecology of North American

stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
222

Light, J., L. Herger, and M. Robinson. 1996. Upper Klamath basin bull trout

conservation strategy, a conceptual framework for recovery. Part one. The

Klamath Basin Bull Trout Working Group.

Loftus, M.E. 2001. Assessment of potential water quality stress to fish. Supplement to

effects of water quality and lake level on the biology and habitat of selected fish

species in Upper Klamath Lake. Prepared for Bureau of Indian Affairs by R2

Resource Consultants.

Luginbuhl, J.M., J.M. Marzluff, J.E. Bradley, M.G. Raphael, and D.E. Varland. 2001.

Corvid survey techniques and the relationship between corvid relative abundance

and nest predation. Journal of Field Ornithology 72(4):556-572.

Manley, I.A. 1999. Behavior and habitat selection of marbled murrelets nesting on the

Sunshine Coast. Masters of Science Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences,

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. 163 pages.

Markle, D., T. Pearsons, and C. Bills. 1989. Taxonomic status and distributional survey

of the Oregon chub. Final report, OSU # 30-262-9714. Oregon State University,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Markle, D., T. Pearsons and D. Bills. 1991. Natural history of Oregonichthys (Pisces:

Cyprinidae), with a description of a new species from the Umpqua River of

Oregon. Copeia 1991 (2):277-293.

Markle, D.F. and D.C. Simon. 1993. Preliminary studies of systematics and juvenile

ecology of Upper Klamath Lake suckers. Annual report. Oregon State

University. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.

Markle, D.F. and M. Cooperman. 2002. Relationship between Lost River and shortnose

sucker biology and management of Upper Klamath Lake. In: Water Allocation in

the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource,

Economic, Social and Institutional Issues in the Upper Klamath Basin. W.S.

Braunworth, Jr., T. Welch and R. Hathaway (eds.). Oregon Sate University

Extension Service, Corvallis, Oregon. in review

Markle, D.F., M. Cunningham, and D.C. Simon. 2000. Ecology of Upper Klamath Lake

Shortnose and Lost River suckers—1. Adult and larval sampling in the Lower

Williamson River, April-August 1999. Annual report: 1999. Oregon State

University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.

Marr, J.C. 1943. Age, length, and weight studies of three species of Columbia River

salmon (Oncorhynchus keta, O. gorbuscha and O. kisutch). Stanford

Ichthyological Bulletin 2:157-197.

Marshall, D.B. 1988. Status of the marbled murrelet in North America: with special

emphasis on populations in California, Oregon and Washington. Audubon

Society of Portland. 42 pages.

Matthews, G.M., and R.S. Waples. 1991. Status review for Snake River spring and

summerChinook salmon. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS

F/NWC-200. 75 p.
223

Mattson, C.R. 1948. Spawning ground studies of Willamette River spring Chinook

salmon. Fish Commission of Oregon Research Briefs 1(2):21-32.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1995a. Upper Clark Fork River

drainage bull trout status report (including Rock Creek). Prepared for Montana

Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1995b. Bitterroot River drainage bull

trout status report. Prepared for Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena,

Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1995c. Blackfoot River drainage bull

trout status report. Prepared for Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena,

Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1995d. Flathead River drainage bull

trout status report (including Flathead Lake, the North and Middle forks of the

Flathead River and the Stillwater and Whitefish River). Prepared for Montana

Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1995e. South Fork Flathead River

drainage bull trout status report (upstream of Hungry Horse Dam). Prepared for

Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996a. Swan River drainage bull trout

status report (including Swan Lake). Prepared for Montana Bull Trout

Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996b. Lower Clark Fork River

drainage bull trout status report (Cabinet Gorge Dam to Thompson Falls).

Prepared for Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996c. Middle Clark Fork River

drainage bull trout status report (from Thompson Falls to Milltown, including the

lower Flathead River to Kerr Dam). Prepared for Montana Bull Trout Restoration

Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996d. Lower Kootenai River drainage

bull trout status report (below Kootenai Falls). Prepared for Montana Bull Trout

Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996e. Middle Kootenai River

drainage bull trout status report (between Kootenai Falls and Libby Dam).

Prepared for Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996f. Upper Kootenai River drainage

bull trout status report (including Lake Koocanusa, upstream of Libby Dam).

Prepared for Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1998. The relationship between land

management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Prepared for

Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana.

McClure, M., B. Sanderson, E. Holmes, C. Jordan, P. Kareiva, and P. Levin. 2000.
224

Revised Appendix B of standardized quantitative analysis of the risks faced by

salmonids in the Columbia River basin. National Marine Fisheries Service,

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington.

McIntosh, B.A., J.R. Sedell, J.E. Smith, R.C. Wissmar, S.E. Clarke, G.H. Reeves, and

L.A. Brown. 1994. Management history of eastside ecosystems: Changes in fish

habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, General Technical Report. PNW-GTR 321.

McKernan, D.L., and C.R. Mattson. 1950. Observations on pulp and paper effluents and

the probable effects of this pollutant on the fisheries resources of the Willamette

River in Oregon. Fish Commission of Oregon, Fish Commission Research Briefs

3(1):14-21.

McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement

opportunities. Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia. Fisheries

Management Report No. 104. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid

Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Meekins, D.J., and T.E. Hamer. 1998. Use of radar to monitor marbled murrelets at

inland sites in the North Cascades of Washington: Preliminary Report. USDA

Forest Service. 16 pages.

Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer

Associate, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Meyer, C. B., S. L. Miller, and C. J. Ralph. 2002. Multi-scale landscape and seascape

patterns associated with marbled murrelet nesting areas on the U.S. west coast.

Landscape Ecology 17:95-115.

Meyer, J.S., L.L. Irwin, and M.S. Boyce. 1998. Influence of habitat abundance and

fragmentation on northern spotted owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs

139:1-51.

Miller, P.S. and R.C. Lacy. 1999. VORTEX: a stochastic simulation of the extinction

process. Version 8 user’s manual. Conservation breeding specialists group

(SSC/IUCN), Apple Valley, MN.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S.

Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status

review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California.

NMFS-NWFSC-35. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Technical Memorandum. 443

p.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream–Salmon and Society in the Pacific

Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Nehlsen, W., J. Williams, and J. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads:

stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries

16(02):4-21.
225

Nelson, S.K. and T.E. Hamer. 1995. Nest success and the effects of predation on

marbled murrelet. In Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, Tech.

Editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 420 p.

Nelson, S.K. and A.K. Wilson. 2002. Marbled murrelet habitat characteristics on state

lands in western Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit, OSU, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. 151 pages.

Newton, J.A., and S. Pribyl. 1994. Bull trout population summary: Lower Deschutes

River subbasin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Dalles, Oregon.

Oregon administrative rules, proposed amendments to OAR 340-41-685 and OAR

340-41-026. January 11, 1996.

North, M., G. Steger, R. Denton, G. Eberlein, T. Munton, and K. Johnson. 2000.

Association of weather and nest-site structure with reproductive success in

California spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):797-807.

Nickelson, T.E., J.D. Rodgers, S.L. Johnson, and M.F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal changes

in habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal

streams. Canadian J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:783-789.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1992. Final recovery plan for steller sea lions

(Eumetopias jubatus). NOAA, Recovery Plan.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. And Addendum: Juvenile Fish

Screening Criteria for Pump Intakes (May 9, 1996) (guidelines and criteria for

migrant fish passage facilities, and new pump intakes and existing inadequate

pump intake screens) (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1hydrop/hydroweb/ferc.html).

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Letter from Steve Morris, National

Marine Fisheries Service, to W.B. Paynter, Portland District, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (December 9, 1998) (transmitting a document titled Position Document

for the Treated Wood in Areas within Oregon Occupied by Endangered Species

Act Proposed and Listed Anadromous Fish Species, National Marine Fisheries

Service, December, 1998).

NOAA Fisheries (NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. Proposed recovery

plan for Snake River salmon. Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Biological Opinion on

Reinitiation of Consultation on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power

System, Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of

Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin. NMFS, Hydro Division, Portland,

Oregon.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000a. Guidelines for

electrofishing waters containing salmonids listed under the Endangered Species

Act. Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon.

NOAA Fisheries (NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000b. Biological

Opinion. Reinitiation of Consultation on Operation of the Federal Columbia River
226

Power System, Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program, and 19

Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin. National Marine

Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, WA.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003a. Endangered Species Act

Section 7 consultation programmatic biological opinion and Magnuson-Stevens

fishery management and conservation act essential fish habitat consultation for

statewide drilling, surveying and hydraulic engineering activities. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fishery Service.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003b. Endangered Species Act

Section 7 formal consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery conservation and

management act essential fish habitat consultation for the Hood Canal bridge

retrofit and east half replacement project.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003c. Endangered Species Act

section 7 programmatic formal consultation and Magnuson-Stevens fishery

conservation and managment act essential fish habitat consultation for the oil spill

response activities conducted under the Northwest Area Contingency Plan

(NWACP). National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Northwest region seal and

sea lion (Pinniped) managment map of seal and sea lion trouble spots. National

Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

North, M. P., J. F. Franklin, A. B. Carey, E. D. Forsman, and T. Hamer. 1999. Forest

stand structure of the northern spotted owl’s foraging habitat. Forest Science 45:

520-527.

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United

States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. U.W. National

Biological Service, Biological Report 28.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995. A Guide to placing Large

Wood in Streams. (http://www.odf.state.or.us/FP/RefLibrary/RefsList.htm).

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998a. Briefing paper–Lower

Columbia RiverChinook ESU. ODFW, Portland. October 13.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002a. Standard specifications for

highway construction. ODOT, Salem, Oregon.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002b. Programmatic Biological

Assessment (PBA) Statewide Drilling, Survey, and Stormwater and Engineering

Programs: Effects on Federally Listed Fish Species in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003a. Coastal salmonid inventory

project: coho abundance–stratified random sampling estimates for coastal river

basins 1990-2002. (http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/coho.htm).

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003b. Oregon pinniped haul-out

location by lat/lon for the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), northern sea lion

(Zalophus californianus), stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern elephant
227

seal (Mirounga angustirostris). Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003c. OTIA III economic and bridge

options report, Oregon Department of Transportation. Available:

http://www.odot.state.or.us/comm/bridge_options/index.htm. (Accessed 2003).

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2004a. Programmatic Biological

Assessment (PBA) ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2004b. Comprehensive

Mitigation/conservation Strategy (CMCS) Draft Program Manual.

ODSL (Oregon Division of State Lands). 1989. Heads of tide for coastal streams in

Oregon.Unpublished report. Oregon Division of State Lands, Engineering

Section, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. 1997. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon.

March 10.

Oregon Department of Administrative Services. 1999. Oregon Economic and Revenue

Forecast.Vol. XIX. No. 2. Office of Economic Analysis, Salem.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Oregon’s final water quality

limited streams - 303(d) list. Oregon Depart of Environmental Quality, Portland.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2000. Forest Practices Administrative Rules and

Forest Practices Act. Salem, OR.

Oregon. 1996. Oregon administrative rules, proposed amendments to OAR 340-41-685

and OAR 340-41-026. January 11, 1996.

Oregon. 1997. Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. The Oregon Plan. State of Oregon.

Ott Engineering. 1990. Link River dam fishway conceptual design study. Prepared for

PacifiCorp. Portland, Oregon.

OWEB (Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual). 2001. Watershed Professionals

Network 2001. Appendix A in Oregon watershed assessment manual, May, 2001.

Govenor's Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon. Available:

http:/www.oweb/state.or.us/publications/wa_manual99.shtml.

PacifiCorp. 1997. Final report of fish trapping activities at the Klamath hydroelectric

project. Prepared by PacifiCorp Environmental Services. June 1997.

Paton, P.W.C., C.J. Ralph, and R.A. Erickson. 1992. Use of an inland site in northwestern

California by marbled murrelets. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of

Vertebrate Zoology 5:109-116.

Pearson, R.R., and K.B. Livezey. In Press. Distribution, numbers, and site

characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of

Washington. Draft manuscript on file at the Western Washington Fish and

Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA.
228

Pearsons, T.N. 1989. Ecology and decline of a rare western minnow: the Oregon chub

(Oregonichthys crameri). Masterof Science Thesis. Oregon State University,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Perkins, D.L. 1996. Lost River and Shortnose suckers of Upper Klamath Lake. Report

96-1. California Science Center, Reno Field Station.

Perkins, D.L. 1997. Spawning migration and status of adult Lost River and shortnose

suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, February-May 1997. National Biological

Service, Reno Field Station, Study Bulletin 97-1.

Perkins, D.L., J. Kann, and G.G. Scoppettone. 2000. The role of poor water quality and

fish kills in the decline of endangered Lost River and Shortnose suckers in Upper

Klamath Lake. Final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources

Division, Western Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field Station, Reno, Nevada.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/

Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Management Plan. October 1998.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species

Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8. Portland, Oregon.

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. Portland, Oregon.

Phelps, S.R., L.L. LeClair, S. Young, and H.L. Blankenship. 1994. Genetic diversity

patterns of chum salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

51 (Suppl. 1):65-83. population. Animal Conservation 1:70-72.

Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in P.J. Howell, and D.V.

Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop.

Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Pratt, K.L., and J.E. Huston. 1993. Status of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Lake

Pend Oreille and the lower Clark Fork River. Draft report. Prepared for the

Washington Water Power Company, Spokane, Washington.

Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem

components in the interior Columbian basin and portions of the Klamath and

Great Basins. Volume 2. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNWGTR-405.

Ralph, C.J. and S.L. Miller. 1995. Offshore population estimates of marbled murrelets at

sea in Oregon during the summers of 1992 and 1993. In Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt,

M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, Tech. Editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the

marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture;

420 p.

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, Tech. Editors. 1995. Ecology and

conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany,
229

CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture; 420 p.

Raphael, M.G., D. Evans-Mack, and B.A. Cooper. 2002. Landscape-scale relationships

between abundance of marbled murrelets and distribution of nesting habitat.

Condor 104(2):331-342.

REO (Regional Ecosystem Office). 2003. REO Geographic Information Systems Range

of the Northern Spotted Owl and Northwest Forest Plan Boundary, (FEMAT

1993).(http://www.reo.gov/gis/data/gisdata/index.htm).

Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough, and F.A. Espinosa, Jr. 1994. A coarse screening process

for potential application in ESA consultations. Columbia River Intertribal Fish

Commission. Prepared under NMFS/BIA Inter-Agency Agreement 40ABNF3.

December. http://www.critfc.org/tech/94-4report.htmL.

Rich, C.F., Jr. 1996. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on occurrence of resident

bull trout in fragmented habitats, western Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State

University, Bozeman, Montana.

Rich, W.H. 1942. The salmon runs of the Columbia River in 1938. Fisheries Bulletin

50:103-147.

Rieman, B.E., and F.W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic

conservation criteria for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 21:756-764.

Rieman, B.E., and J.B. Dunham. 2000. Metapopulations and salmonids: a synthesis of

life history patterns and empirical observations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9:1-

2.

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for

conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented

habitat patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

124(3):285-296.

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future

trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17:1111-1125.

Risser, P.G. 2000. Oregon State of the Environment Report. Oregon Progress Board.

Rodway M.S., and H.M. Regehr. 2002. Inland activity and forest structural characteristics

as indicators of marbled murrelet nesting habitat in Clayoquot Sound. Pages 57-

87 in A. E. Burger and T. A. Chatwin, editors. Multi-scale studies of populations,

distribution and habitat associations of marbled murrelets in Clayoquot Sound,

British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, British

Columbia, Canada.
230

Rodway, M.S., H.M. Regehr, and J.P.L. Savard. 1993. Activity patterns of marbled

murrelets in old-growth forest in the Queen-Charlotte-Islands, British Columbia.

Condor 95:831-848.

Roni, P., L.A. Weitkamp and J. Scordino. 1999. Identification of essential fish habitat for

salmon in the Pacific Northwest: initial efforts, information needs, and future

direction. Pages 39-107 in Bemala. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 22,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Salo, E.O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta. P. 231-309 in: C.

Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British

Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C.

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of

ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.

Scheerer, P.D and P.J. McDonald. 2000. Oregon Chub Research: Middle Fork

Willamette and Santiam River Drainages. Contract #W66QKZ93345985. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, Oregon.

Scheerer, P., and G.D. Apke. 1998. Oregon Chub Research. Middle Fork Willamette

and Santiam River Drainages. Annual Progress Report. E96970022.

Scheerer, P., and K. Jones. 1997. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual

Progress Report on Oregon chub. EF-96 VII-1.

Scheerer, P., C. Shafer, K. Jones. 1992. Oregon Chub Investigations. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project EF-91 VII-1.

Scheerer, P., P.S. Kavanagh, and K. Jones. 2003. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife Annual Progress Report on Oregon chub. Project Number E-2-33.

Scheerer, P., T.J. Cornwell, and K. Jones. 1998. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Annual Progress Report on Oregon chub. Project Number E-2.

Scheerer, P.D., P.S. Kavanagh, K.K. Jones. 2002. Oregon chub investigations. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project E-2-32. Annual Progress

Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.

Schill, D.J. 1992. River and stream investigations. Job Performance Report, Project F73-R-13. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Schreck, C.B., H.W. Li, R.C. Jhort, and C.S. Sharpe. 1986. Stock identification of

Columbia RiverChinook salmon and steelhead trout. Final report to Bonneville

Power Administration, Portland, Oregon (Project 83-451).

Schultz, C.B. 1994. Status of the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in

Eugene, Oregon: A species at risk. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural

Heritage Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Schultz, C.B. and K. Dlugosch. 1999. Effects of Declining food resources on

populations of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi). Submitted

to Journal of Biological Conservation.
231

Scoppettone, G. 1986. Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, catostomid research. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service Report, Reno, Nevada.

Scoppettone, G.C., and C.L. Vinyard 1991. Life history and management of four

lacustrine suckers. Pages 369-387 in Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon. Battle

against extinction - native fish management in the American west. The

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Sedell, J. R. and J. L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of streamside forests to large rivers:

The isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A., from its floodplain by

snagging and streamside forest removal. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol.

22:1828-1834.

Sedell, J., F. Reeves, F. Hauer, J. Stanford, and C. Hawkins. 1990. Role of refugia in

recovery from disturbances: Modern fragmented and disconnected river systems.

Environ. Mgmt. 14(5)711-724.

Sedell, J.R., and F.H. Everest. 1991. Historic changes in pool habitat for Columbia

River Basin salmon under study for TES listing. Draft U.S. Department of

Agriculture Report, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon.

Sexauer, H.M., and P.W. James. 1997. Microhabitat use by juvenile trout in four

streams located in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 361-370 in W.C.

Mackay, M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the Bull Trout

Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited

Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Shively, R.S. 2002. Size distribution of suckers collected in Clear Lake and Gerber

Reservoir, in 2000. U.S. Geological Survey. Unpublished data.

Shultz, C.B. 1997. Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare

Oregon butterfly. Conservation Biology. 12:284-292.

Shultz, C.B. and E.E.Crone. 1998. Burning prairie to restore butterfly habitat: modeling

approach to management tradeoffs for the Fender’s blue butterfly. Restoration

Ecology. 6(3):244-252.

Simenstad, C.A. 1983. The ecology of estuarine channels of the Pacific Northwest coast:

a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. FWS/OBS-83/05.

Simon, D.C. 2002. Preliminary data analysis: Annual survey of abundance and

distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake.

Annual report: 2002. Oregon Cooperative Research Unit, Department of Fisheries

and Wildlife, Corvallis.

Simon, D.C. and D.F. Markle. 2001. Ecology of Upper Klamath Lake shortnose and

Lost River suckers. Annual survey of abundance and distribution of age 0

shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake. Annual report: 2000.

Oregon Cooperative Research Unit. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Corvallis.

Simon, D.C., M. Terwilliger, and D.F. Markle. 2000b. Ecology of Upper Klamath Lake

shortnose and Lost River suckers—3. Annual survey of abundance and
232

distribution of age 0 shortnose and Lost River suckers in Upper Klamath Lake.

Annual report: 1999. Oregon Cooperative Research Unit, Department of Fisheries

and Wildlife, Corvallis.

Simon, D.C., M.R. Terwilliger, P. Murtaugh, and D.F. Markle. 2000a. Larval and

juvenile ecology of Upper Klamath Lake suckers: 1995-1998. Final report.

Oregon State University. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis.

Singer, S.W., D.L. Suddjian, and S.A. Singer. 1995. Fledging behavior, flight patterns,

and forest characteristics at marbled murrelet tree nests in California.

Northwestern Naturalist 76:54-62.

Snyder, J. 1908. The fishes of the coastal streams of Oregon and northern California.

Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 27:153-189.

SOER (Science Panel). 2000. Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000, SOER,

Report, Salem, Oregon.

Solis, D.M. And R.J. Gutierrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls

in northwestern California. The Condor 92:739-748.

Soulé, M.E. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem

approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental

Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR.

Spiech, S.M. and T.R. Wahl. 1995. Marbled murrelet populations of Washington –

Marine habitat preferences and variability of occurrence. In Ralph, C.J., G.L.

Hunt, M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, Tech. Editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation of

the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture;

420 p.

Spindor, J. 1996. Yulalona. Unpublished report.

Spruell, P., and F. Allendorf. 1997. Nuclear DNA analysis of Oregon bull trout. Final

report to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Division of Biological

Sciences, University of Montana.

Spruell, P., B.E. Rieman, K.L. Knudsen, F.M. Utter, and F.W. Allendorf. 1999. Genetic

population structure within streams: microsatellite analysis of bull trout

populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8:114-121.

Spruell, P., A.R. Hemmingsen, P.J. Howell, N. Kanda, and F.W. Allendorf. 2003.

Conservation genetics of bull trout: Geographic distribution of variation at

microsatellite loci. Conservation Genetics 4:17-29.

Stalmaster, M.B. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books. New York, New York.

Stern, T. 1966. The Klamath Tribe. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
233

Strong, C.S. 2003. Marbled murrelet abundance and reproductive indices in Oregon

during 2002. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Diversity

Program. 14 pages.

Strong, C.S., and T.M. Carten. 2000. Marbled murrelets at sea in Oregon: Status of

abundance and reproduction during 1999 – Final Report. Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 17 pages.

Taylor, A.L., and E.D. Forsman. 1976. Recent range extension of the barred owl in

western North America, including the first records for Oregon. Condor

78:560-561.

Taylor, B.E., S. Pollard, and D. Louie. 1999. Mitochondrial DNA variation in bull trout

(Salvelinus confluentus) from northwestern North America: implications for

zoogeography and conservation. Molecular Ecology 8:1155-1170.

Thomas, G. 1992. Status of bull trout in Montana. Report prepared for Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana.

Thomas, J.W. and M.G. Raphael (eds.) 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An

Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). July 1993. Portland, OR: USDA

Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990.

A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. Report of the Interagency

Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl.

Unpublished interagency document.

Thomas, J.W., M. G. Raphael, R. G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, A. G. Gunderson, R. S.

Holthausen, B. G. Marcot, G. H. Reeves, J. R. Sedell, and D. M. Solis. 1993.

Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with

late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific northwest. USDA Forest

Service, Portland, Oregon.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Biological Assessment of the effects of

the Willamette River Basin flood control project on species listed under the

Endangered Species Act. Final; April 2000. USACE Portland District. 800 p.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Mitigation Regulatory Guidance Letter

(RGL) 02-2.

USBR. 1996. Klamath Project sucker salvage report – 1995. Unpublished report. U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

USBR. 1998. Lost River and shortnose sucker spawning in lower Lost River, Oregon.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Klamath Basin Area Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

USBR. 2000. Klamath Irrigation project sucker salvage and Langell Valley fish survey

report – 1999. Unpublished report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin

Area Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
234

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), and USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior).

1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record Finding of No Significant Impact,

Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous

Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon, and Washington, Idaho, and

portions of California (PACFISH).

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), and USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior).

1996. Status of the Interior Columbia Basin, Summary of Scientific Findings.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), and USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior).

1997. Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Upper

Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Vol I., Vol II, Vol

III.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy

Environmental Assessment. Forest Service; Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific

Northwest Regions.

USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Record of

decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and

guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final

supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for

late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon. 2 vols. and appendices.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald

Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).

1998. Final Consultation Handbook--Procedures for Conducting Consultation

and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1987. The northern spotted owl status review.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1989. The northern spotted owl; a status

review supplement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. 1990 status review: northern spotted

owl: Strix occidentalis caurina. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Draft final recovery plan for the

northern spotted owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlfie Service. 2 Volumes. Portland, OR.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. Lost River and Shortnose Sucker

Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.
235

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Biological Opinion for the Preferred

Alternative (9) of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on

Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old-Growth Forest Within the

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994b. Biological opinion on effects of LongTerm Operation of the Klamath Project, with special emphasis on Clear Lake

Operations. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened

marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and

California. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri)

Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Oregon water quality standards ESA

consultation. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. July 1, 1999.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Biological opinion on the 10-year

Operation Plan for the Klamath Project. Klamath Falls, OR.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003a. Five year review for the marbled

murrelet. Unpublished Report.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Formal and informal consultation on activities

that may affect listed species in the Rogue River Basin for fiscal year 2004

through fiscal year (FY) 2008 (log # 1-15-03-F-511), USFWS Roseburg, Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003c. Biological opinion on the effects to

Oregon chub from ongoing activities in the Willamette Basin. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003d. Biological opinion and letter of

concurrence for effects to bald eagles, marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls,

bull trout, and designated critical for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls

from Olympic National Forest program of activities for August 5, 2003, to

December 31, 2008.

Waples, R.S. 2002. Definition and estimation of effective population size in the

conservation of endangered species. Pages 147-168 in S.R. Beissinger and D.R.

McCullough, editors. Population Viability Analysis. The University of Chicago

Press, Chicago, IL.

Ward, J. W. Jr. 1990. Spotted owl reproduction, diet and prey abundance in northwest

California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State Univ., Arcata.

Waterhouse, F.L., R. Bradley, J. Markila, F. Cooke, and L. Lougheed. 2002. Use of

airphotos to identify, describe, and manage forest structure of marbled murrelet

nesting habitat at a coastal British Columbia site. British Columbia Forest

Service, Nanaimo, Canada. 19 pages.
236

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams; sources, biological effects, and control.

American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

Watershed Professionals Network. 2001. Appendix A in Oregon watershed assessment

manual, May, 2001. Govenor's Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon.

Available: http:/www.oweb/state.or.us/publications/wa_manual99.shtml.

Watson, G., and T.W. Hillman. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance

of bull trout: An investigation at hierarchical scales. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 17:237-252.

WDE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for

Western Washington, Appendix I-B-1 (August 2001).

WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries), WDW (Washington Department of

Wildlife), and WWTIT (Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1993.

Washington state salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI), 1992. WDF,

WDW, and WWTIT, Olympia.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2000. Chum salmon: Columbia

River chum salmon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,

WA. Available online at: (http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/chum/chum-7.htm).

WDFW, WDOT, and WDE (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington

Department of Transportation, and Washington Department of Ecology). 2003.

Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines, various pagination

(http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/ispgdoc.html).

Weathers, W.W., P.J. Hodum, and J.A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and

ecological energetics of California spotted owls. Condor 103:678-690.

Weddell, B.J., K.L. Gray and J.D. Foster. 1998. History and ecology of Lower Klamath,

Tule Lake, Upper Klamath, and Klamath Forest National Wildlife Refuges,

Oregon and California. Draft report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Weddell, B.J. 2000. Relationship between flows in the Klamath River and Lower

Klamath Lake prior to 1910. Report for: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin Refuges.

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and

R.S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon,

and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. National

Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and

Estuarine Studies Division, Seattle, WA.

Wissmar, R.C., J.E. Smith, B.A. McIntosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reeves, and J.R. Sedell. 1994.

Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and

Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-326. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 65 p.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/popularpubs.shtml
237

Whiteley, A.R., P. Spruell, and F.W. Allendorf. 2003. Population genetics of Boise

Basin bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Final report to Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Contract:RMRS # 00-JV-1122014-561.

Willamette Basin Task Force. 1969. Willamette Basin comprehensive study: Water and

related land resources: Appendix D fish and wildlife. Pacific Northwest River

Basins Commission, Vancouver, Washington.

Williams, R. N., R. P. Evans, and D. J. Shiozawa. 1997. Mitochondrial DNA diversity

in bull trout from the Columbia River basin. Pages 283-297 in W.C. Mackay,

M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference

Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary,

Alberta, Canada.

Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves, and J. R. Sedell.

1994. A history of resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern

Oregon and Washington (early 1800s-1990s). Northwest Science 68:1-35.

Wright, S. 1931. Evolution of Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97-159.

Zabel, C.J., K.M. McKelvey, and J.P. Ward, Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on

home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix

occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:433-439.

Zharikov, Y., D.B. Lank, F. Huettmann, R.W. Bradley, N.R. Parker, P.P.W. Yen, L.M.

Tranquilla, and F. Cooke. Submitted. Nest site selection and breeding success in

marbled murrelets in relation to distances to edges and forest patch size, at

Desolation Sound and Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada. Auk.

Ziller, J.S. 1992. Distribution and relative abundance of bull trout in the Sprague River

subbasin, Oregon. Pages 18-29 in P.J. Howell, and D.V. Buchanan, editors.

Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of

the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Zobel, D.B., L.F. Roth and G.M. Hawk. 1985. Ecology, pathology and management of

Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). U.S. Forest Service General

Technical Report PNW-184.

In litt. References

Gilpin, M., University of California. 1997. Bull trout connectivity on the Clark Fork

River, letter to Shelly Spalding, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,

Helena, Montana. 5 pp.

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 1995. List of streams compiled by IDFG

where bull trout have been extirpated, fax from Bill Horton, IDFG.

Werdon, S. USFWS. 2001. Email message concerning bull trout observed in Dave Creek,

jarbidge River basin, during temperature monitoring survey conducted in 1999.
238

Personal Communications

Clark, A., 2004. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Julia Butler Hansen

Columbia White-tailed Deer Refuge.

Castro J. 2003. Fluvial Geomorphologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish

and Wildlife Office,

Werdon, S. 1998. Personal communication on August 5, 1998, between Selena Werdon,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada, and Sam Lohr, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho, concerning bull trout observed by survey teams

during the Salvelinus confluentus Curiosity Society meeting august 4-6.
1

APPENDIX A Program bridge locations and associated information.

Record

1

No.

Bridge

2

No.

Highway

3 MP4 HUC5 Feature Crossed6

1 09184 IS005 10.34 171003080104 NEIL CREEK ROAD

2 08743 IS005 14.77 171003080105 EAST MAIN STREET OVERPASS

3 08742N IS005 14.96 171003080105 BEAR CREEK

4 08742S IS005 14.96 171003080105 BEAR CREEK

5 08738N IS005 17.29 171003080105 EAGLE MILL ROAD

6 08738S IS005 17.29 171003080105 EAGLE MILL ROAD

7 08693 IS005 19.17 171003080107 VALLEY VIEW ROAD

CONNECTOR #1 OVER

INTERSTATE 5

8 08681 IS005 21.21 171003080107 VALLEY VIEW ROAD

CONNECTOR #2 OVER

INTERSTATE 5

9 08682 IS005 24.40 171003080109 FERN VALLEY ROAD

CONNECTOR #2 OVER

INTERSTATE 5

10 08543 IS005 31.30 171003080110 BEAR CREEK AND TABLE ROCK

ROAD

11 08542 IS005 32.75 171003080110 CENTRAL POINT ROAD

CONNECTOR #2 (EAST PINE

STREET)

12 08540A IS005 33.85 171003080110 UPTON ROAD OVERPASS

13 07777 IS005 36.09 171003080112 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

(SEVEN OAKS)

14 07777B IS005 36.09 171003080112 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

(SEVEN OAKS)

15 07773A IS005 38.73 171003080204 FOLEY LANE FRONTAGE ROAD

16 08383N IS005 45.47 171003080205 OREGON STATE ROUTE 99

17 08383S IS005 45.47 171003080205 OREGON STATE ROUTE 99

18 08381N IS005 45.61 171003080205 ROGUE RIVER (HOMESTEAD)

19 08381S IS005 45.61 171003080205 ROGUE RIVER (HOMESTEAD)

20 08375 IS005 49.46 171003080401 CREED AND COUNTY ROADS

AND CENTRAL OREGON &

PACIFIC RAILROAD

21 08335N IS005 54.10 171003080401 FOOTHILL BLVD

22 08335S IS005 54.10 171003080401 FOOTHILL BLVD

23 08333 IS005 55.40 171003080401 FOOTHILL BLVD

24 08341 IS005 55.78 171003080402 US ROUTE 199

25 08339 IS005 57.06 171003080402 BEACON DR

26 08501 IS005 58.06 171003080402 US ROUTE 199 AND OREGON

STATE ROUTE 99

27 08500 IS005 58.18 171003080402 SCOVILLE ROAD

28 08018N IS005 61.45 171003100203 LOUSE CREEK AND FRONTAGE

ROAD

29 08018S IS005 61.45 171003100203 LOUSE CREEK AND FRONTAGE

ROAD

30 08094N IS005 65.74 171003100202 JUMPOFF JOE CREEK

31 08094S IS005 65.74 171003100202 JUMPOFF JOE CREEK
2

32 09439 IS005 71.39 171003100303 SUNNY VALLEY ROAD

33 09439A IS005 71.39 171003100303 SUNNY VALLEY ROAD

34 06493A IS005 71.72 171003100303 GRAVE CREEK

35 09440 IS005 71.93 171003100303 LELAND ROAD

36 09440A IS005 71.93 171003100303 LELAND ROAD

37 09339 IS005 76.03 171003100304 SOUTH WOLF CREEK

CONNECTOR

38 09352A IS005 80.80 171003020703 GLENDALE INTERCHANGE

39 07364A IS005 98.28 171003020507 5TH ST (CANYONVILLE)

40 08028N IS005 99.53 171003020508 IRWIN ACCESS

41 08028S IS005 99.53 171003020508 IRWIN ACCESS

42 08024 IS005 104.05 171003021001 RIDDLE ROAD (PRUNER ROAD)

OVERPASS

43 07931N IS005 105.41 171003021001 SOUTH UMPQUA RIVER

(MISOURI BOTTOM)

44 07931S IS005 105.41 171003021001 SOUTH UMPQUA RIVER

(MISOURI BOTTOM)

45 07952A IS005 107.52 171003021001 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

(WEAVER)

46 18613 IS005 107.52 171003021001 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

(WEAVER)

47 07950 IS005 108.31 171003021002 MYRTLE CREEK INTERCHANGE

48 07900A IS005 110.35 171003021002 BOOMER HILL ROAD

49 07839 IS005 113.44 171003021002 CLARKS BRANCH ROAD

50 07835 IS005 117.74 171003021303 ROBERTS CREEK ROAD

51 07835A IS005 117.74 171003021303 ROBERTS CREEK ROAD

52 07804N IS005 120.03 171003021303 SPEEDWAY ROAD

53 07713A IS005 120.57 171003021305 SOUTH UMPQUA RIVER (SHADY

BRIDGE) AND CENTRAL OREGON

& PACIFIC RAILROAD

54 07711A IS005 121.69 171003021305 MCLAIN RD (GARBAGE DUMP

ROAD)

55 07670A IS005 123.01 171003021305 PORTLAND AVE (FAIRGROUND

INTERCHANGE)

56 07404 IS005 124.54 171003021305 SOUTH UMPQUA RIVER (VETS

BRIDGE)

57 07667 IS005 125.08 171003021305 GARDEN VALLEY ROAD

OVERPASS

58 07663C IS005 128.92 171003011205 NORTH UMPQUA RIVER,

SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD,

UNNAMED CREEK, AND COUNTY

ROAD (WINCHESTER)

59 07663A IS005 128.92 171003011205 NORTH UMPQUA RIVER, SPRR,

UNNAMED CREEK, AND COUNTY

ROAD (WINCHESTER)

60 07632 IS005 129.22 171003011205 DEL RIO ROAD OVERPASS

(WINCHESTER)

61 07631 IS005 130.46 171003011205 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

AND COUNTY ROAD

62 07631A IS005 130.46 171003011205 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

AND COUNTY ROAD

63 07627B IS005 133.25 171003011204 ROGERS ROAD CONNECTOR

64 07627A IS005 133.25 171003011204 ROGERS ROAD CONNECTOR
3

65 07563A IS005 138.71 171003030205 CALAPOOYA CREEK

66 07644A IS005 148.21 171003030303 RICE HILL FRONTAGE ROAD

67 07642 IS005 150.36 171003030303 YONCALLA JUNCTION

68 07640 IS005 150.76 171003030303 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

69 07640A IS005 150.79 171003030303 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

70 07636A IS005 154.54 171003030302 ELKHEAD ROAD

71 07567B IS005 156.03 171003030302 ELK CREEK

72 07572A IS005 156.49 171003030302 CURTIS CREEK

73 07569A IS005 162.06 171003030304 BUCK CREEK ROAD

74 07469B IS005 163.43 171003030304 BEAR CREEK

75 07584A IS005 164.45 171003030304 COMSTOCK CEMETERY ROAD

76 07861B IS005 169.58 170900020305 MARTIN CREEK

77 07810A IS005 171.56 170900020305 LATHAM ROAD

78 07810B IS005 171.56 170900020305 LATHAM ROAD

79 07809A IS005 171.62 170900020305 COAST FORK WILLAMETTE

RIVER

80 07809B IS005 171.62 170900020305 COAST FORK WILLAMETTE

RIVER

81 07860 IS005 172.24 170900020306 LONDON ROAD OVERPASS

82 07865A IS005 173.40 170900020306 TAYLOR AVENUE

83 07864A IS005 173.84 170900020306 16TH STREET (LANDESS ROAD)

84 07863 IS005 174.24 170900020306 ROW RIVER ROAD

85 07863A IS005 174.24 170900020306 ROW RIVER ROAD

86 07830 IS005 174.41 170900020105 ABANDONED RAILROAD

87 07833A IS005 174.74 170900020105 ROW RIVER ROAD

88 07833B IS005 174.74 170900020105 ROW RIVER ROAD

89 07832 IS005 174.75 170900020105 CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC

RAILROAD

90 07829A IS005 175.40 170900020105 ROW RIVER

91 07871A IS005 175.60 170900020105 ROW RIVER OVERFLOW

92 07871B IS005 175.60 170900020105 ROW RIVER OVERFLOW

93 07828B IS005 175.84 170900020105 UNAMED CREEK

94 07825 IS005 176.76 170900020501 SIGINAW ROAD OVERPASS

95 07793A IS005 177.89 170900020501 BROWN CREEK

96 07793B IS005 177.89 170900020501 BROWN CREEK

97 07757A IS005 178.40 170900020501 GETTINGS CREEK

98 07757B IS005 178.40 170900020501 GETTINGS CREEK

99 07756A IS005 179.64 170900020504 COAST FORK RELIEF OPENING

100 07745A IS005 179.99 170900020504 COAST FK WILLAMETTE RIVER

101 07743A IS005 180.49 170900020504 TUNNEL MILL RACE

102 07740A IS005 182.63 170900020504 HILL CREEK

103 07740C IS005 182.63 170900020504 HILL CREEK

104 07739A IS005 182.83 170900020504 INTERSTATE 5 OVERPASS

(CRESWELL)

105 07736A IS005 185.46 170900020503 CAMAS SWALE

106 07736C IS005 185.46 170900020503 CAMAS SWALE

107 07732B IS005 188.34 170900020505 OREGON STATE ROUTE 58

(GOSHEN GRADE)

108 07732A IS005 188.34 170900020505 OREGON STATE ROUTE 58

109 06836A IS005 188.91 170900020505 FRANKLIN BOULEVARD AND

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
4

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

110 08445 IS005 190.50 170900030201 OREGON STATE ROUTE 58

OVERPASS

111 08870 IS005 190.76 170900030201 MCVAY ACCESS

112 08329 IS005 192.75 170900030201 WILLAMETTE RIVER, HWY015,

SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

113 08182N IS005 195.78 170900030201 GAME FARM ROAD

114 08182S IS005 195.80 170900030201 GAME FARM ROAD

115 08180N IS005 196.19 170900030201 MCKENZIE OVERFLOW

116 08180S IS005 196.19 170900030201 MCKENZIE OVERFLOW

117 08178N IS005 196.69 170900040706 MCKENZIE OVERFLOW

118 08178S IS005 196.69 170900040706 MCKENZIE OVERFLOW

119 08175N IS005 197.38 170900040706 MCKENZIE RIVER AND

FRONTAGE ROAD

120 08175S IS005 197.38 170900040706 MCKENZIE RIVER & FRONTAGE

ROAD

121 08171N IS005 200.50 170900030206 MUDDY CREEK OVERFLOW

122 08171S IS005 200.50 170900030206 MUDDY CREEK

123 08241N IS005 216.97 170900030307 COURTNEY CREEK

124 08241S IS005 216.97 170900030307 COURTNEY CREEK

125 08239N IS005 217.39 170900030307 SODOM DITCH OVERFLOW

126 08239S IS005 217.39 170900030307 SODOM DITCH OVERFLOW

127 08236N IS005 218.79 170900030307 CALAPOOIA RIVER

128 08236S IS005 218.79 170900030307 CALAPOOIA RIVER

129 08235N IS005 220.04 170900030305 CALAPOOIA CREEK

130 08235S IS005 220.06 170900030305 CALAPOOIA CREEK

131 08233N IS005 221.13 170900030305 SODOM SLOUGH

132 08233S IS005 221.13 170900030305 SODOM SLOUGH

133 08232N IS005 222.42 170900030306 BUTTE CREEK

134 08232S IS005 222.42 170900030306 BUTTE CREEK

135 08227N IS005 230.45 170900030402 OAK CREEK

136 08227S IS005 230.48 170900030402 OAK CREEK

137 08226N IS005 230.83 170900030402 AREC RAILROAD (TALLMAN

BRANCH)

138 08226S IS005 230.86 170900030402 AREC RAILROAD (TALLMAN

BRANCH)

139 08222N IS005 233.65 170900030404 COX CREEK

140 08222S IS005 233.65 170900030404 COX CREEK

141 08221B IS005 234.16 170900030404 OREGON STATE ROUTE 99E

(NORTH ALBANY

INTERCHANGE)

142 08221D IS005 234.16 170900030404 OREGON STATE ROUTE 99E

(NORTH ALBANY

INTERCHANGE)

143 08221A IS005 234.23 170900030404 KNOX BUTTE ROAD (NORTH

ALBANY INTERCHANGE)

144 08221C IS005 234.23 170900030404 KNOX BUTTE ROAD (NORTH

ALBANY INTERCHANGE)

145 08218A IS005 235.67 170900030404 MURDER CREEK ROAD

146 08218B IS005 235.67 170900030404 MURDER CREEK ROAD

147 08217 IS005 235.71 170900030404 MURDER CREEK

148 08124 IS005 240.42 170900050604 SANTIAM RIVER OVERFLOW NO

4
5

4

149 08122 IS005 241.12 170900050604 SANTIAM RIVER OVERFLOW NO

3

150 08121 IS005 241.35 170900050604 SANTIAM RIVER OVERFLOW NO

2

151 07524B IS005 249.38 170900070103 SOUTH EAST COMMERCIAL

STREET

152 07538A IS005 251.34 170900070301 SOUTH EAST BOONE ROAD

153 07441A IS005 251.79 170900070301 MARIETTA STREET

154 07440A IS005 252.13 170900070301 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

155 07522A IS005 252.22 170900070301 SOUTH EAST TURNER ROAD

156 07439 IS005 252.54 170900070104 MILL CREEK

157 07439A IS005 252.57 170900070104 MILL CREEK

158 07855E IS005 259.49 170900070302 SALEM PARKWAY AND NORTH

EAST CHEMAWA ROAD

CONNECTOR

159 07794A IS005 282.25 170900070402 OREGON STATE ROUTE 51

160 07794B IS005 282.28 170900070402 OREGON STATE ROUTE 51

161 09870 IS005 282.43 170900070402 OREGON STATE ROUTE 51

162 08203B IS005 296.04 170900120104 SOUTH WEST 26TH AVE

163 08197 IS005 298.24 170900120302 SOUTH WEST IOWA STREET

VIADUCT

164 08195 IS005 299.23 170900120302 OREGON STATE ROUTE 43

(SOUTH WEST HOOD AVENUE)

165 04516A IS005 307.70 170900120301 JANTZEN PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL

166 07333 IS005 308.38 170800010901 CLOUMBIA RIVER AND NORTH

HAYDEN ISLAND DRIVE

167 08588B IS084 0.52 170900120302 THE BANFIELD INTERCHANGE

168 02163A IS084 6.73 170900120301 NORTH EAST 102ND AVENUE

169 13514E IS084 7.65 170900120301 FRONTAGE ROAD CONNECTORS

AND NORTH EAST 102ND

AVENUE

170 06875 IS084 17.68 170800010803 SANDY RIVER

171 06875A IS084 17.68 170800010803 SANDY RIVER

172 06945 IS084 17.82 170800010803 CONNECTOR 2 JORDAN ROAD

173 06945A IS084 17.82 170800010803 CONNECTOR 2 JORDAN ROAD

174 02176A IS084 35.12 170800010702 HISTORIC US ROUTE 30 AND

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

175 00338A IS084 36.47 170800030202 TIDE CREEK

176 02194A IS084 38.98 170800010701 MOFFETT CREEK

177 02194B IS084 38.98 170800010701 MOFFETT CREEK

178 02062A IS084 40.14 170800010701 TANNER CREEK

179 02062B IS084 40.14 170800010701 TANNER CREEK

180 08610 IS084 43.93 170701051304 MOODY STREET (CASCADE

LOCKS)

181 08610

W

IS084 43.93 170701051304 MOODY STREET (CASCADE

LOCKS)

182 08605 IS084 45.05 170701051304 HISTORIC US ROUTE 30

183 08605

W

IS084 45.05 170701051304 HISTORIC US ROUTE 30

184 07403A IS084 46.10 170701051301 HERMAN CREEK

185 08623 IS084 47.31 170701051304 CONN HERMAN CREEK
6

186 09591 IS084 48.36 170800030204 FRONTAGE ROAD (LEWIS AND

CLARK BRIDGE CONNECTOR)

187 08604 IS084 50.99 170701051203 WYETH INTERCHANGE

CONNECTOR

188 07722 IS084 55.29 170800030206 LOST CREEK

189 08534 IS084 56.04 170701051203 VIENTO INTERCHANGE

CONNECTOR

190 07715 IS084 60.82 170800030305 SWEDETOWN COUNTY ROAD

191 07519 IS084 61.21 170800030305 CLATSKANIE RIVER

192 07496A IS084 63.02 170701051203 JAYMAR ROAD

193 08662 IS084 63.41 170701050803 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

194 07458 IS084 63.98 170701050803 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

195 07398 IS084 64.44 170701051202 FRONTAGE ROAD OVERPASS

CONNECTOR

196 07392 IS084 69.62 170701050502 ROCK CREEK

197 07626A IS084 69.65 170701050503 MOSIER WEST BOUND

CONNECTOR

198 07397 IS084 69.85 170701050502 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

199 07393 IS084 70.10 170701050503 MOSIER CREEK

200 08276 IS084 82.62 170701050406 HOSTELLER WAY

201 00308A IS084 88.04 170701050206 FIFTEEN MILE CREEK

202 07771 IS084 88.83 170701050404 THE DALLES DAM ACCESS

203 08931E IS084 167.95 170701010604 IRRIGON JUNCTION

INTERCHANGE

204 16453 IS084 179.43 170701031306 INTERSTATE 82 OVERPASS

205 16454 IS084 179.45 170701031306 INTERSTATE 82 OVERPASS

206 08498E IS084 237.95 170701030201 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD &

MEACHAM CREEK

207 08498

W

IS084 237.95 170701030201 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD &

MEACHAM CREEK

208 00449A IS084 248.55 170601040401 EMIGRANT HILL, UNION PACIFIC

RAILROAD & FRONTAGE ROAD

(GLOVER)

209 07292B IS084 285.84 170502030505 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

(NORTH POWDER

210 08302E IS084 313.65 170502030204 ENCINA INTERCHANGE

211 08302

W

IS084 313.65 170502030204 ENCINA INTERCHANGE

212 08423E IS084 315.29 170502020701 ALDER CREEK ROAD

213 08423

W

IS084 315.29 170502020701 ALDER CREEK ROAD

214 07987 IS084 325.31 170502020705 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD AND

PRITCHARD CREEK

215 07987A IS084 325.34 170502020705 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD AND

PRITCHARD CREEK

216 01786A IS084 340.58 170502020808 BURNT RIVER (DIXIE CREEK)

217 09354 IS084 342.91 170502020808 LIME INTERCHANGE

218 07970 IS084 371.45 170501150201 STAYTON BOULEVARD

OVERPASS

219 07971 IS084 372.18 170501150201 DOMAN ROAD

220 08397E IS084 375.80 170501150104 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

221 08397

W

IS084 375.80 170501150104 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
7

222 08107E IS084 378.01 170501150104 SNAKE R (FREEWAY BRIDGE)

EAST

223 08107

W

IS084 378.01 170501150104 SNAKE R (FREEWAY BRIDGE)

WEST

224 01868 OR006 5.78 171002030508 WILSON RIVER (MILLS BRIDGE)

225 01869A OR006 11.80 171002030508 WILSON RIV

226 01872A OR006 18.04 171002030505 JORDON CREEK

227 02472 OR006 32.05 171002030501 DEVILS LAKE FORK OF THE

WILSON RIVER

228 07316 OR007 41.19 170502030202 POWDER RIVER (RANCHERIA)

229 07431 OR007 42.31 170502030202 POWDER RIVER (SALBURY)

230 13491 OR018 0.04 171002040803 US ROUTE 101

231 04192 OR018 6.23 171002040802 SALMON RIVER

232 04573 OR018 18.78 170900080103 ROGUE RIVER

233 01612A OR018 21.55 170900080105 SOUTH YAMHILL RIVER

234 00745 OR018 23.77 170900080106 SOUTH YAMHILL RIVER

235 02235 OR019 79.03 170702040201 MULE SHOE CREEK

236 02236A OR019 80.92 170702040201 ALDER CREEK

237 04979A OR019 81.85 170702040109 JUNIPER CREEK

238 04981A OR019 84.53 170702040109 MATHAS CREEK

239 02233A OR019 85.17 170702040109 HARPER CREEK

240 02655 OR019 119.56 170702011502 JOHN DAY R. (GOOSE ROCK)

241 02734A OR019 124.12 170702011403 ROCK CREEK. (PICTURE GORGE)

242 07696 OR019 155.75 170702011002 JOHN DAY RIVER (COLES

BRIDGE)

243 02463 OR019 170.49 170702010806 INDIAN CREEK

244 02466 OR019 174.96 170702010802 DIXIE CREEK-PRARIE CITY

245 02585A OR019 265.33 170501190602 KERN CREEK

246 02586A OR019 266.39 170501190602 LANCASTER CREEK

247 02081 OR022 0.03 170900080106 SOUTH YAMHILL RIVER

248 02015 OR022 3.97 170900080302 GOOSENECK CREEK

249 08071 OR022 4.03 170900090108 DEER PARK ROAD

250 01756A OR022 4.71 170900080302 MILL CREEK

251 08073 OR022 5.44 170900090108 SOUTH EAST JOSEPH STREET

252 02001 OR022 8.38 170900080501 SALT CREEK

253 08076 OR022 8.88 170900070102 BEAVER CREEK

254 08069 OR022 13.23 170900070101 CASCADE HIGHWAY SOUTH

EAST

255 08070 OR022 13.58 170900070101 MILL CREEK

256 07347 OR022 23.28 170900050506 LITTLE NORTH FORK SANTIAM

RIVER

257 08889 OR022 24.30 170900070301 OREGON STATE ROUTE 221

OVERPASS

258 07366 OR022 25.62 170900070301 OREGON STATE ROUTE 221

OVERPASS

259 07253R OR022 25.85 170900070301 WILLAMETTE RIVER

260 00123K OR022 25.88 170900070301 WILLAMETTE RIVER

261 07253B OR022 25.91 170900070301 WILLAMETTE RIVER

262 07964 OR022 40.33 170900050304 PARTIAL VIADUCT

263 07295 OR022 47.69 170900050303 TUMBLE CREEK

264 07017 OR022 49.84 170900050303 BREITENBUSH RIVER
8

265 05978 OR022 54.09 170900050107 BOULDER CREEK

266 06806 OR022 65.48 170900050104 MINTO CREEK

267 08281 OR042 0.07 171003040402 US 101

268 03172A OR042 4.14 171003040402 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

269 03173A OR042 5.37 171003050603 BEAVER CREEK

270 03173B OR042 5.37 171003050603 BEAVER CREEK

271 08842 OR042 23.37 171003050210 COQUILLE RIVER

272 08843 OR042 23.48 171003050210 HIGHWAY 242

273 08830 OR042 24.32 171003050210 COQUILLE RIVER

274 08875 OR042 25.52 171003050210 COQUILLE RIVER

275 08876 OR042 25.67 171003050210 COQUILLE RIVER

276 03212A OR042 26.72 171003050210 ENDICOT CREEK

277 08936 OR042 30.10 171003050210 COQUILLE RIVER

278 08935 OR042 30.59 171003050210 COQUILLE RIVER

279 00559B OR042 53.17 171003050201 MIDDLE FORK COQUILLE RIVER

280 00588C OR042 63.97 171003021204 TENMILE CREEK

281 00587C OR042 67.61 171003021206 OLALLA CREEK

282 00805C OR042 72.52 171003021206 LOWER LOOKING GLASS CREEK

283 01923 OR042 74.47 171003021305 SOUTH UMPQUA RIVER

(WINSTON)

284 07806 OR042 119.99 171003021303 INTERSTATE 5

285 05285A OR058 1.96 170900020505 WILLAMETTE RIVER RELIEF

OPENING

286 05286 OR058 2.46 170900020505 COAST FORK WILLAMETTE

RIVER

287 05287B OR058 2.71 170900020505 WILLAMETTE RIVER RELIEF

OPENING

288 07110 OR058 8.08 170900011002 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

289 06768 OR058 9.51 170900010702 LOST CREEK

290 07894 OR058 33.24 170900010505 WILLAMETTE RIVER

291 07171 OR058 37.09 170900010505 PRIVATE LOGGING ROAD

292 07188 OR058 55.98 170900010302 HALF VIADUCT

293 01826 OR058 67.95 170703010202 ODELL CREEK

294 01825 OR058 73.40 170703020206 CRESCENT CREEK

295 07984 OR058 86.30 170703020503 US 97

296 08745 OR066 14.17 171003080104 INTERSTATE 5

297 03522A OR078 0.69 171200020803 SILVIES SLOUGH (1ST BRIDGE)

298 04821A OR082 2.64 170601040405 GRANDE RONDE RIVER (LAND

COURT)

299 08780 OR082 17.88 170601040906 GRANDE RONDE RIVER AND

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

300 00800A OR082 19.20 170601040906 GRANDE RONDE RIVER (SOUTH

ELGIN)

301 01996 OR082 20.62 170601041103 GRANDE RONDE R(NORTH

EEAST ELGIN)

302 05192 OR082 31.15 170601050507 MINAM VIADUCT

303 01038A OR082 33.65 170601050507 WALLOWA RIVER-MINAM

BRIDGE

304 02184 OR082 45.83 170601050603 WALLOWA RIVER(BEAR CREEK

BRIDGE)

305 07573 OR082 54.11 170601050204 LOSTINE RIVER

306 08749 OR099 11.89 171003080104 SOUTH ASLAND INTERCHANGE
9

307 01697 OR099 28.28 171003030401 PARADISE CREEK

308 08539 OR099 35.62 171003080112 INTERSTATE 5 (SEVEN OAKS

INTERCHANGE)

309 01614 OR099 36.39 171003030310 ELK CREEK 1ST XING

310 01601 OR099 38.76 171003030310 ELK CREEK 2ND XING

311 01465 OR099 39.64 171003030310 ELK CREEK 3RD XING

312 01406 OR099 39.97 171003030310 ELK CREEK 4TH XING

313 07601B OR099 40.83 171003080204 INTERSTATE 5 (SOUTH GOLD

HILL)

314 08382 OR099 43.77 171003080205 INTERSTATE 5 (ROCKY POINT)

315 01424 OR099 47.50 171003030307 HARDSCRABBLE CREEK

316 08221E OR099E 234.23 170900030404 KNOX BUTTE ROAD (NORTH

ALBANY INTERCHANGE)

317 07941 OR099E 244.68 170900070205 INTERSTATE 5 OVERPASS

318 08205R OR099W 6.21 170900120104 SOUTH BOUND CONNECTOR

RAMP TO INTERSTATE 5

319 02262 OR126 0.60 170900030103 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

(OAK HILL)

320 08370 OR126 18.47 171002060802 KNOWLES CREEK

321 02201 OR126 19.40 170703050404 OCHOCO CREEK

322 08446 OR126 26.48 171002060108 SIUSLAW RIVER

323 08554 OR126 27.66 171002060302 WILDCAT CREEK

324 02553 OR126 34.10 170703050204 MARKS CREEK

325 07649 OR126 37.44 170703050204 MARKS CREEK

326 07372 OR126 62.54 170702040303 BRIDGE CREEK

327 07490 OR126 65.63 170702040303 BRIDGE CREEK

328 07491 OR126 65.85 170702040303 BRIDGE CREEK

329 09587 OR126 195.45 170900030201 OREGON STATE ROUTE 213

OVERCROSSING

330 01516 OR126B 13.06 170900040706 EUGENE WATER BOARD CANAL

(WALTERVILLE)

331 01324A OR126B 26.52 170900040701 GATE CREEK (VIDA)

332 01323A OR126B 40.70 170900040502 BLUE RIVER BRIDGE

333 02496 OR138 17.95 171003011202 NORTH UMPQUA RIVER (LONE

ROCK)

334 07904 OR138 22.30 171003011003 ROCK CREEK

335 16861 OR138 56.83 171003010305 ROUGH CREEK (PENSTOCK)

336 03913 OR140 102.40 171200060404 CATTLEPASS

337 03915 OR140 126.92 171200060301 CROOKED CREEK

338 08431 OR203 259.35 170601040404 GRANDE RONDE RIVER

339 08431A OR203 259.35 170601040404 GRANDE RONDE RIVER

340 07867 OR213 5.20 170900110607 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

341 01439A OR213 8.13 170900110607 ROCK CREEK

342 08252 OR228 216.57 170900030307 INTERSTATE 5

343 03461 OR230 5.16 171003070105 ROGUE RIVER

344 04841A OR244 46.75 170601040307 GRANDE RONDE RIVER

(HILGARD)

345 08502 OR244 253.0 170601040307 HILGARD INTERCHANGE

346 07530 US020 3.23 171002040302 BEAVER CREEK

347 07532 US020 4.19 171002040302 BEAVER CREEK

348 07533 US020 4.47 171002040302 BEAVER CREEK
10

349 07534 US020 5.36 171002040302 LITTLE BEAVER CREEK

350 12205B US020 5.51 170900030403 CALAPOOIA RIVER

351 09413 US020 5.85 170900030403 CALAPOOIA OVERFLOW

352 09414 US020 5.91 170900030403 CALAPOOIA OVERFLOW

353 00654 US020 21.01 171002040104 HAYES CREEK

354 00683 US020 23.38 171002040102 YAQUINA RIVER

355 00866B US020 39.34 170900030501 WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

AND MARYS RIVER

356 01205A US020 45.68 170900030503 WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

AND HARRI ROAD

357 01075A US020 48.88 170900030504 MARYS RIVER

358 01706 US020 52.44 170900060603 SODA FORK

359 08617 US020 55.73 170900030511 WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

360 08616 US020 55.86 170900030511 WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

361 03506A US020 105.62 171200040305 MILLER CREEK

362 01961A US020 167.64 170501160405 STINKINGWATER CREEK

363 01962A US020 174.57 170501160701 MIDDLE FORK MALHEUR RIVER

364 08223 US020 233.23 170900030404 INTERSTATE 5 AND

CONNECTORS

365 03091A US026 2.24 171002010103 VOLMER CREEK

366 03092A US026 3.26 171002010102 JOHNSON CREEK

367 02601 US026 4.40 171002010102 NECANICUM RIVER

368 01831 US026 16.28 171002020306 WEST HUMBUG CREEK

369 01832 US026 17.37 171002020306 EAST FORK HUMBUG CREEK

370 02165 US026 21.73 171002020305 NEHALEM RIVER AND OREGON

STATE ROUTE 47

371 02164 US026 24.23 171002020305 NORTH FORK QUARTZ CREEK

372 00665B US026 33.24 170800010402 ALDER CREEK

373 00689B US026 34.09 170800010401 WILDCAT CREEK

374 02027A US026 34.93 171002020102 NORTH FORK WOLF CREEK

375 02029 US026 37.38 171002020102 WOLF CREEK

376 02364A US026 37.88 171002020101 NEHALEM RIVER

377 02672 US026 45.31 170900100101 WEST FORK DAIRY CREEK

378 03026A US026 46.04 170800010202 ZIG ZAG RIVER

379 02673 US026 46.30 170900100101 WEST FORK DAIRY CREEK

380 02362A US026 50.22 170900100102 WEST FORK DAIRY CREEK

381 02366 US026 54.55 170900100105 EAST FORK DAIRY CREEK

382 02367 US026 55.73 170900100105 WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

(VIDA)

383 02365 US026 57.85 170900100107 MCKAY CREEK

384 02285 US026 70.83 170900100503 OREGON STATE ROUTE 47

(SOUTH WEST CANYON ROAD)

385 09254D US026 73.94 170900120302 CONECCTOR TO MARKET

STREET AND I-405

386 02269 US026 116.57 170703060205 OREGON TRUNK RAILROAD

387 00921 US030 77.25 170800060204 GNAT CREEK

388 07417 US030 82.52 170800060201 BIG CREEK

389 05225A US095 10.98 170501080602 COW CREEK

390 08893 US097 2.37 170701050101 SPANISH HOLLOW CREEK

391 08894 US097 2.48 170701050101 SPANISH HOLLOW CREEK

392 00815A US097 75.04 170703070502 TROUT CREEK
11

393 08600 US097 90.11 170703060205 IRRIGATION CANAL

394 00971A US097 92.11 170703060205 WILLOW CREEK

395 07768 US097 113.94 170703051101 OREGON TRUNK RAILROAD

(TERREBONE)

396 01675B US097 129.72 170703010702 PILOT BUTTE CANAL

397 08888 US097 136.46 170703010702 NORTH UNIT CANAL BRIDGE

AND SWALLEY CANAL

398 07454 US097 183.16 170703020106 GILCRIST TIMBER ROAD

399 07929 US097 202.09 170703020501 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

400 06884 US097 243.98 180102010502 SPRING CREEK

401 06886 US097 247.54 180102010504 OREGON STATE ROUTE 78

(CHILOQUIN)

402 07302 US097 263.11 180102030207 BARKLEY SPRINGS IRRIGATION

CANAL

403 07301 US097 265.65 180102030207 ALGOMA LOG POND

404 08352 US097 272.99 180102030207 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD AND

PELICAN CITY ROAD

405 08510 US097 273.68 180102030207 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CANAL AND NEVADA AVENUE

CONNECTOR

406 08345 US097 273.71 180102030207 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CANAL

407 08346 US097 274.73 180102041202 CALIFORNIA AVENUE

408 08347A US097 275.38 180102041202 LINK RIVER

409 09692 US097 275.75 180102041202 GREEN SPRINGS DRIVE OLD

ALIGNMENT AND BERLINGTON

NORTHERN RAILROAD

410 00922A US101 114.88 171002040804 DEVILS LAKE OUTLET (D RIVER)

411 00924A US101 118.17 171002040708 SCHOONER CREEK

412 00925A US101 119.27 171002040707 DRIFT CREEK

413 01950 US101 234.76 171003040405 CENTRAL OREGON RAILROAD

(NORTH BEND)

414 01108A US199 32.10 171003110405 WEST FORK ILLINOIS RIVER

415 01107A US199 34.28 171003110404 ROUGH & READY CREEK

416 01074A US199 40.24 171003110402 ELK CREEK

417 08050 US395 5.77 170701030508 MCKAY CREEK

418 03558A US395 7.25 170702010704 CANYON CREEK

419 02561 US395 15.27 170701030603 EEAST FORK BIRCH CREEK

(PILOT ROCK)

420 03596 US395 42.95 171200020308 TROUT CREEK OVERFLOW

421 04728 US395 60.93 170702020609 CAMAS CREEK

422 04729 US395 63.81 170702020703 NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER

(DALE)

423 06204 US395 98.31 170702020901 SMITH CREEK

424 06205 US395 99.13 170702020901 FOX CREEK

425 03553A US395 110.20 170702010903 BEECH CREEK (6TH XING)

426 09314 US395 188.84 170701030706 STANFIELD JUNCTION

INTERCHANGE

427 09636 US395 207.47 170701030307 US ROUTE 30 OVERPASS (WEST

PENDLETON INTERCHANGE)

428 04041 6.60 170900030109 BEAR CREEK

429 04056 29.78 170900030101 HAYES CREEK
12

430 04062 40.43 171002060101 SOUTH FORK SIUSLAW RIVER

1

Program bridge record number

2 ODOT bridge identification number

3

Interstate Route (Interstate), U.S. route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)

4 Milepost where bridge is located

5

Sixth-field Hydrologic Unit Code

5 Description of feature that the bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation
1

APPENDIX B Preferred in-water work periods.

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD

64

Northwest Region

North Coast Watershed

Pacific

Columbia

Columbia River Estuary (Mouth to Tongue Pt.) November 1 - February 28

(MAR,SHL,CHF,CHS,SS,CO,STW,STS

CT*)

Youngs River July 15 - September 30 (CO,STW *)

Young’s Bay Tributaries July 1 – September 15 (CO,CT,STW)

Wallooskee River June 1 - September 30 (CO,CT*)

Other Columbia R. Est. Tribs. (Mouth to Tongue Pt.) July 1 - September 15 (CHF,STW*)

Necanicum

Necanicum River & tributaries July 1 - September 15 (CO,CHF,STW*)

Necanicum and Neawanna Estuary November 1-February 15

(MAR,SHL,CO,CHF,STW)

Ecola Creek and Tributaries July 1-September 15 (CO,CT,STW)

Nehalem

Nehalem Bay November 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,CHS,CHF,CO,STW,*)

Lower Nehalem River (below Hwy 26) July 1 - September 15 (CHF*)

N. Fk. Nehalem River July 1 - September 15 (CHF,STW*)

Cook Creek July 1 - September 15 (CHF,STW*)

Salmonberry River August 15 - September 15 (CHS,STW*)

Other Lower Nehalem River Tributaries July 1 - September 15 (CHF,CO,STW*)

Upper Nehalem River (above Hwy 26) July 1 - August 31 (CHS,STW*)

Other North Coastal tributaries (Columbia R. to

Nehalem)

July 1 – September 15 (CO,CT*)

Coastal Lakes October 1-February 15 (CT)

Coastal Lake Tributaries July 1- September 15 (CT)

Pacific

Tillamook

Tillamook Bay November 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,CHF,CHS,STW,CO,CS*)

Miami,Kilchis,Wilson,Trask,Tillamook Rivers &

Tribs.

July 1 - September 15

(CHF,CHS,STW,CO,CS*)

Other Tillamook Bay Tributaries July 1 – September 15 (CO,CT)

Netarts Bay November 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,CHF,STW,CO,CS*)

64 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed

unless otherwise indicated.
2

Sand Lake November 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,CHF,STW,CO,CS*)

Nestucca

Nestucca Bay November 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,CHF,CHS,STW,CO,CS*)

Nestucca River & Tributaries July 1 - September 15

(CO,CHS,CHF,CS,STW*)

Little Nestucca River & Tributaries July 1 – September 15

(CO,CHS,CHF,CS,STW)

Neskowin Creek and Tributaries July 1 - September 15 (CO,CS,STW*)

Other North Coastal Tributaries (Nehalem to

Neskowin Cr.)

July 1 – September 15 (CO,CT)

Coastal Lakes October 1 – February 15 (CT)

Coastal Lake Tributaries July 1 – September 15 (CT)

Pacific

Salmon

Salmon River Estuary November 1 - February 15 (MAR,SHL*)

Salmon River July 1 - September 15

(CHF,CO,CS,STW,CT*)

Siletz

Siletz Bay November 1 - February 15 (MAR,SHL*)

Siletz River July 1 - August 31

(CHF,CHS,CO,CS,STW,STS,CT*)

Yaquina

Yaquina Bay November 1 - February 15 (MAR,SHL*)

Yaquina River July 1 - September 15

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Alsea

Alsea Bay November 1 - February 15 (MAR,SHL*)

Alsea River July 1 - August 31

(CHF,CHS,CO,STW,CT*)

Yachats River July 1 - September 15

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Siuslaw

Siuslaw Bay November 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Siuslaw River July 1 - September 15 (

CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Other Coastal Tributaries July 1 - September 15 (CO,STW,CT*)

Coastal Lakes October 1 – February 15 (STW,CO,CT)

Coastal Lake Tributaries July 1 – September 15 (STW,CO,CT)

North Willamette Watershed

Columbia

Columbia River ( Big Creek to Bonneville Dam) November 1 - February 28
3

(CHF,CHS,CHR,SS,CO,CS,STW,STS,

CTS*)

Columbia River (Within District above Bonneville

Dam)

November 15 - March 15

(CHF,CHS,CHR,SS,CO,CS,STW,STS,

CTS*)

Columbia R. Tribs. (Big Creek to St. Helens) July 1 - September 15 (CHF,STW*)

Clatskanie River July 15 - September 15 (CHF,STW*)

Willamette

Multnomah Channel (including Scappoose Bay) July 1 - October 31 & December 1 -

January 31

(CHF,CHS,CO,STW,STS,CT,WW *)

Milton Cr. & Scappoose Cr. July 15 - August 31 (CO,STW,JUV,WW*)

Willamette River (mouth to Willamette Falls) July 1 - October 31 & December 1 -

January 31

(CHF,CHS,CO,STW,STS,CT,WW *)

Columbia Slough June 15 - September 15 (JUV,WW)

Johnson

Johnson Creek (below Gresham) June 1 - August 31 (STW,CO,CT,CHF*)

Johnson Creek (above Gresham) July 15 - August 31 (STW,CO,CT,CHF*)

Johnson Cr. Tribs. July 15 - August 31 (CT,STW,CO*)

Kellogg Creek July 1 - September 30 (STW,CO,CT*)

Tryon Creek July 15 - September 30 (STW,CO,CT*)

Clackamas River July 15 - August 31

(CHF,CHS,STW,CO,STS,CT*)

Abernethy Creek July 15 - September 30 (CO,STW,CT*)

Other Willamette River tribs . July 1 – October 15 (CT*)

Willamette River (Will. Falls to Newberg ) June 1 - October 31 & December 1 -

January 31 (CHS,STW*)

Tualatin

Tualatin River (below Scoggins Cr.) June 1 - September 30

(CO,STW,CT,WW*)

Tualatin River (above Scoggins Cr.) July 1 - September 30

(CO,STW,CT,WW*)

Tributaries July 1 - September 30

(CO,STW,CT,WW*)

Beaver Creek July 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Molalla/Pudding River

Molalla River (below Molalla) June 1 – September 30 (STW,CT*)

Other Molalla R. Tribs (below

Molalla)

June 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Molalla River (above Molalla) July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

N. Fk & M. Fk Molalla July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Other Molalla R. Tribs (above

Molalla)

July 15 - September 30 (STW,CT*)

Pudding River June 1 - September 15 (CHS,STW,CT*)
4

Butte Creek July 15 - September 30 (STW,CT*)

Abiqua Creek July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Silver Creek July 15 - September 30 (STW,CT*)

Other Pudding River Tributaries June 1 - September 30 (STW,CT,RB*)

Other Willamette River tribs. July 1 – October 15 (CT*)

Willamette River (Newberg to Yamhill River) June 1 – September 30

(CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Chehalem Creek July 1 - October 15 (CT*)

Yamhill River July 1 - October 15 (STW,CT*)

Other Willamette River tribs. July 1 – October 15 (CT*)

Fairview Cr., Arata Cr., Salmon Cr. June 15 - September 15 (CT,WW*)

Sandy River July 15 - August 31

(CHS,CHF,CO,STW*)

Tanner Creek July 15 - August 15

(CHF,CHS,CO,STW*)

Columbia River Tributaries (St. Helens to Sandy

River)

July 15 - August 31 (CHF,CO,STW,CT *)

Columbia River Tributaries (Sandy River to

Herman Cr.)

July 15 - August 31 (CO,STW,STS,CT *)

South Willamette Watershed

Willamette

Willamette River (Yamhill River to McKenzie

River)

June 1 – September 30

(CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Spring Valley Creek July 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Glenn Creek July 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Mill Creek June 1 – September 30 (STW,CT,RB*)

Rickreall Creek July 1 – September 30 (STW,CT*)

Luckiamute River July 1 - September 30 (STW,CT*)

Santiam

Santiam River June 1 – September 30 (STW,CT*)

North Santiam River (below Big Cliff Dam ) July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Stout Cr., Rock Cr., & Mad Cr. July 15 - September 30 (STW,CT,RB*)

Lt. N. Fk. Santiam River July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Sinker, Elkhorn Cedar Creeks &

tribs

July 15 - September 30 (STW,CT,RB*)

Other Tributaries June 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Other Santiam River Tribs (below Big

Cliff Dam)

June 1 - September 30 (CT*)

North Santiam River (above Detroit Dam) June 1 - September 30 (K,CT,RB*)

Breitenbush River June 1 - September 30 (K,CT,RB*)

South Santiam River (below Foster Dam) June 1 - August 31 (CHS,CT,RB*)

Crabtree Cr., & Thomas Cr. July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

McDowell Cr., Wiley Cr. July 15 - September 30 (STW,CT*)

Other South Santiam R Tribs (below

Foster Dam)

June 1 - September 30 ( CT*)
5

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD

65

South Santiam River (above Foster Dam) July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Middle Santiam River & Quartzville Creek June 1 - September 30 (K,CT,RB*)

Marys River July 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Long Tom River July 1 - September 30 ( CT*)

Other West Bnk Will. R Tribs (Will Falls to

McKenzie R)

July 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Calapooia

Calapooia River (below Holley) June 1 - September 30 (CHS,STW,CT*)

Calapooia River (above Holley) July 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Other East Bank Will. R. Tribs. (Will. Falls to

Harrisburg)

June 1 - September 30 (CT*)

Willamette

Willamette River (above McKenzie River) June 1 - October 31 (CHS,RB*)

McKenzie

McKenzie River (below Blue River) July 1 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Tribs. McKenzie River (below Blue

River)

July 1 - October 15 (CT,RB*)

McKenzie River (above Blue River) July 1 - August 15 (CHS,BUT,CT,RB*)

Middle Fork Willamette

Middle Fork Willamette River (to Rattlesnake

Cr)

July 1 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Middle Fork Willamette R. (Rattlesnake to Hills

Cr. Res.)

By specific arrangement

(CHS,STW,CT,RB,OC*)

Fall Creek July 1 - August 31 (CHS,STW,CT,RB*)

Middle Fork Willamette River tributaries July 1 - October 15 (CT,RB*)

Middle Fork Willamette River (above Hills Cr

Reservoir)

July 1 - August 15 (CHS,BUT,CT,RB*)

Coast Fork Willamette

Coast Fork Willamette River June 1 - October 31 (CHS,RB*)

Row River (below Dorena Res.) June 1 - October 31 (CHS,RB*)

Row River (above Dorena Res.) July 1 - October 15 (CT,RB*)

Southwest Region

Umpqua Watershed

Pacific

Umpqua River

Umpqua Bay & Smith Est. November 1 - January 31

(MAR,SHL,CHS,CHF,CO,STW,STS,C T*)

Umpqua River (Scottsburg and above) July 1 - August 31

(CHS,CHF,CO,STW,STS,CT*)

Umpqua River Tribs. July 1 - September 15

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

65 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed

unless otherwise indicated.
6

North Umpqua

North Umpqua River (below Soda Springs Dam) By specific arrangement

(CHF,CHS,CO,STW,STS,CT*)

Tribs. North Umpqua (below Soda Springs) July 1 - September 15

(CHS,CO,STW,STS,CT*)

North Umpqua River (above Soda Springs Dam) June 15 - October 15 (RB,BT,BR*)

South Umpqua

South Umpqua River July 1 - August

31(CHF,CHS,CO,STW,CT*)

South Umpqua Tribs. July 1 - September 15

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Pacific

Coos

Coos Bay and River (to Millicoma R./S. Coos R.

confluence)

October 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,JUV,CHF,CO,STW,CT *)

Millicoma River, S. Coos R. and tribs. July 1 – September 15

(CHF,CO,STW,CT,MD*)

Coquille

Coquille River Estuary (Mouth to Bear Creek) October 1 - February 15

(MAR,SHL,JUV,CHF,CO,STW,CT *)

Coquille River and tribs. (Bear Creek and above) July 1 - September 15

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Other Coastal Tributaries July 1 – September 15

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Coastal Lakes October 1 – February 15 (CO,STW,CT*)

Coastal Lake Tributaries July 1 - September 15 (CO,STW,CT*)

Rogue Watershed

Pacific

Sixes/Coastal Tributaries

Estuaries (Floras Cr., Sixes R., below 101 bridge) October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)

Floras Creek July 15 - September 30

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Sixes River July 15 - September 30

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Elk

Elk River Estuary (below 101 bridge) October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)

Elk River July 15 - September 30

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Euchre/Coastal Tributaries

Euchre Creek Estuary October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)

Euchre Creek July 15 - September 30

(CHF,CO,STW,CT*)

Hubbard Cr., Brush Cr., Mussel Cr. July 15 - October 31 (STW,CT*)

Rogue River

Rogue River Estuary October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)
7

Rogue River (below Marial) May 1 - September 30 (CHF*)

Rogue River Tributaries (below Marial) July 15 - September 30 (CHF,STW,CT*)

Hunter

Hunter Creek Estuary October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)

Hunter Creek July 15 - September 30 (CHF,STW,CT*)

Pistol/Coastal Tributaries

Pistol River Estuary October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)

Pistol River July 15 - September 30 (CHF,STW,CT*)

Chetco/Coastal Tributaries

Chetco River Estuary October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)

Chetco River July 15 - September 30(CHF,STW,CT*)

Meyers Cr., Thomas Cr., & Whalehead Cr. July 15 - October 31 (STW,CT*)

Winchuck

Winchuck River Estuary October 1 - May 31 (JUV CHF*)

Winchuck River July 15 - September 30 (CHF,STW,CT*)

Other Coastal Tributaries July 15 - October 31 (CT*)

Rogue

Rogue River (above Marial) June 15 - August 31 (CHS,STW*)

Illinois River June 15 - September 15 (CHF,STW*)

Applegate River July 1 - September 15 (CHF,STW*)

Other Rogue River Tributaries (above Marial). June 15 - September 15 (CHS,STW*)

Rogue River (above Lost Cr.) June 15 - September 15 (BT,CT*)

High Desert Region

Deschutes Watershed

Columbia

Columbia River (Within District Bonneville to John

Day Dam)

November 15 - March 15

(CHF,CHS,SS,CO,STW,STS*)

Columbia River Tributaries July 1 - September 30 (STW,CO,RB*)

Fifteenmile Creek July 1 - October 31 (STW,RB*)

Hood River

Hood River July 15 - August 31

(CHF,CHS,CO,STS,STW*)

East Fork Hood River & Tribs. July 15 – August 31 (CHF,CO,STS,STW*)

Middle Fork Hood River & Tribs. July 15 – August 15 (STW,CHS,BUT*)

West Fork Hood River & Tribs. July 15 – August 15 (CHS,STS,STW*)

Deschutes

Deschutes River (below Pelton Dam) February 1 - March 15 (CHF,STS,RB*)

White River July 1 - October 31 (RB*)

Buckhollow Cr. July 1 - October 31 (STS,RB*)

Bakeoven Cr. July 1 - October 31 (STS,RB*)

Trout Cr. July 1 - October 31 (STS,RB*)

Deschutes

Metolius

Metolius River by specific arrangement (K,RB,BR,BUT*)

Spring Creek July 1 - September 30 (K,RB*)
8

Lake Creek July 1 - September 30 (K,RB,BR*)

Deschutes River (Pelton Dam through Lake Billy

Chinook)

July 1 - September 30 ( RB,BR*)

Crooked River

Crooked River (below Prineville Dam) July 1 - October 31 (RT*)

Prineville Reservoir July 1 - October 31 (RT*)

Crooked River (above Prineville Dam) July 1 - October 31 (RT*)

N.Fk. Crooked River (above Big Summit

Prairie)

July 1 - September 30 (RT*)

Deschutes River (Lake Billy Chinook to Bend) July 1 - September 30 (RB,BR,BUT,K*)

Squaw Creek July 1 - October 15 (RB,BR,BUT*)

Tumalo July 1 - October 15 (RB,BR*)

Deschutes River (Bend-North Canal Dam to Benham

Falls)

July 1 - October 15 (RB,BR*)

Deschutes River (Benham Falls to Wickiup Dam) July 1 - October 15 ( RB,BR*)

Little Deschutes River July 1 - October 15 (RB,BR*)

Fall River July 1 - October 15 (RB,BR*)

Deschutes River (Wickiup Reservoir to Crane Prairie

Dam)

July 1 - August 31 (RB,BR,K *)

Deschutes River (Crane Prairie Reservoir to Little

Lava Lake)

July 1 - August 31 (RB,BT,K*)

Klamath Watershed

Klamath

Klamath River (below Keno) July 1 - March 31 ( RB*)

Cottonwood Creek June 15 – September 15 (STW*)

Jenny Creek July 1 – January 31 (SCRT,JCS*)

Klamath River (above Keno) July 1 – February 1 (SNS,BCHUB,RB*)

Lost River above Bonanza July 1 – February 1 (RT,SNS)

Lost River below Bonanza July 1 - March 31 (RT*)

Williamson River August 1 - September 30

(RB,BT,BR,RT,SNS,LRS,KLS*)

Sprague River August 1 - September 30

(BUT,LRS,SNS,RB,BT,BR *)

Sycan River August 1 - September 30

(RB,BT,BR,BUT,LRS,SNS*)

Wood River August 1 - September 30

(RB,BR,BUT,SNS*)

Sevenmile Creek August 1 - September 30 (RB,BR*)

Klamath Lake and Agency Lake July 1 - January 31

(RB,LRS,SNS,BCHUB*)

Silver Lake tributaries July 1 - September 15 (RT,BT*)

Summer Lake July 1 - September 15 ( *)

Chewaucan River July 1 - September 15 (RT*)

Goose Lake tributaries July 1 - September 15
9

(GRT,GLAM,GSUC,GCB,PRCH,PSCL*)

Warner Valley tributaries July 1 - September 15 (WSUC,FD*)

Malheur Watershed

Columbia

Snake

Snake River (Malhuer County) Open

Malheur

Malheur River (below Namorf Dam) Open

Willow Cr. (below Brogan Cyn.) Open

Willow Cr. (above Brogan Cyn) October 1 - March 31 (RB,RT*)

Cottonwood, Cr., Squaw Cr. October 1 - March 31 (RB,RT*)

Other Tributaries October 1 - March 31 (RB,RT*)

Malheur River (Namorf Dam to Dreswsey

Valley )

November 1 - March 31 (RT*)

North Fork Malheur (mouth to Beulah

Res.)

November 1 - March 31 (RT,RB*)

North Fork Malheur (above Beulah Res.) July 1 - August 31 (BUT,RT,BT*)

South Fork Malheur October 1 - March 31 (RT*)

Malheur River (above Drewsey Valley) July 1 - August 31 (BUT,RT,BT*)

Owyhee River

Owyhee River (below dam) November 1 - March 31 (RB,BT*)

Owyhee River (above dam) October 1 - March 31 (RB,RT*)

Succor Creek October 1 - March 31 (RT*)

Silvies River (above 5mi dam) October 1 - March 31 (RT,*)

Silver Creek (above Hwy 45) October 1 - March 31 (RT*)

Donner Blitzen River (Steen Mtns) October 1 - March 31 (RT*)

Alvord Basin October 1 - March 31 (LCT,AC*)

Catlow Valley tributaries October 1 - March 31 (LCT,CTC,RT*)

Trout Creek Mountains streams October 1 - March 31 (LCT,AC,RB,CT*)

Quinn River October 1 - March 31 (LCT,RB,CT*)

Northeast Region

John Day Watershed

Columbia River

Lower John Day

John Day River (below John Day) July 15 - August 31 (STS,RT*)

Rock Creek

Rock Creek (Gilliam Co.) July 15 - September 30 (STS,RT*)

North Fork John Day

North Fork John Day River (below U.S. 395) July 15 - August 31 (STS,RT*)

Middle Fork John Day

Middle Fork John Day River (below US

395)

July 15 - August 31 (STS,RT*)

Middle Fork John Day River (above US July 15 - August 15 (CHS,STS,RT,BUT*)
10

395)

North Fork John Day River (above U.S. 395) July 15 - August 15 (CHS,STS,BUT*)

Upper John Day

South Fork John Day River

South Fork John Day River July 15 - August 31 (STS,RT*)

John Day River (above John Day) July 15 - August 15

(CHS,STS,BUT,RT,CT*)

Canyon Creek July 15 - August 31 (STS,RB,CT*)

Columbia

Columbia River (John Day Dam upstream) December 1 - March 31

(CHF,CHS,SS,CO,STS*)

Willow Creek July 1 - December 31 (RT*)

Umatilla

Umatilla River (below Pendleton) July 15 - October 15

(CHF,CHS,CO,STS*)

Butter Creek July 1 - December 31 (RT*)

Umatilla River (above Pendleton) July 1 - August 15 (CHS,CHF,STS,RT*)

Birch Creek July 1 - October 31 (STS,RT*)

McKay Creek

McKay Creek (below reservoir) November 1 - March 31

(CHF,CHS,CO,STS*)

McKay Creek (above reservoir) July 1 - December 31 (RT*)

Wildhorse Creek July 1 - October 31

(CHF,CHS,CO,STS,RT*)

Meacham Creek July 1 - August 15 (CHS,STS,RT,BUT*)

Walla Walla

Walla Walla River (below Harris Park) July 1 - October 31 (STS,RT,BUT*)

Mill Creek July 1 - October 31 (STS,RT,BUT*)

Walla Walla River (above Harris Park) July 1 - August 15 (STS,RT,BUT*)

Grande Ronde Watershed

Columbia

Snake River (state line to Hells Canyon Dam) July 1 - October 15 (CHF,CHS,SS,STS*)

Grande Ronde

Grande Ronde River (below Wallowa River) July 1 - September 15 (CHF,STS*)

Wenaha River July 1 - August 15 (CHS,STS,BUT*)

Joseph Creek July 1 - March 31 (STS*)

Wallowa River July 15 - August 15

(CHS,STS,RB,BT,BUT *)

Imnaha River (above Big Sheep Creek) July 15 - August 15 (CHS,STS,BUT*)

Imnaha River (below Big Sheep Creek) July 1 – October 15 (CHF,STS*)

Columbia

Snake

Grande Ronde

Grande Ronde River (Wallowa River to Hwy

244 Br.)

July 1 - October 15 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)
11

Minam River July 1 – August 15 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)

Lookingglass Creek July 1 - August 15 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)

Catherine Creek

Catherine Cr. (to and including

Little Cr.)

July 1 - October 15 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)

Catherine Creek (above Little

Creek)

July 1 – August 15 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)

Grande Ronde River (above highway 244

bridge)

July 1 - July 31 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)

Snake River Reservoir July 1 - November 30 (WW*)

Snake River Reservoir Tributaries July 1 - October 31 (RB*)

Burnt River July 1 - October 31 (RB,BT*)

Pine Creek July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT *)

Powder River (mouth to Phillips

Reservoir)

July 1 - October 31 (RB*)

Anthony Creek July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

North Powder R. (above Dutch

Flat Cr.)

July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

Wolf Creek (above Wolf Creek

Res.)

July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

Big Muddy Creek (above Foothill

Rd.)

July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

Pine Creek (above North Fork

Pine Cr.)

July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

Salmon Creek (above Pocahontas

Road)

July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

Powder River (above Phillips Reservoir) July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

Deer Creek (above Phillips

Reservoir)

July 1 – August 31 (RB,BUT*)

*Coded fish species defined below provide the primary basis for timing guidelines. The species list

should be considered general information and is not necessarily comprehensive nor accurate.

AC - Alford chub K - kokanee

BCHUB – blue chub KLS – Klamath largescale sucker

BR - brown trout LCT - Lahontan cutthroat trout

BT - brook trout LRS – Lost River sucker

BUT - bull trout MAR - various marine species of fish

CR - Crappie MD – Millicoma Dace

CHF - chinook salmon, fall MMS - Malheur mottled sculpin

CHR - chinook salmon, summer PRCH - pit roach

CHS - chinook salmon, spring PSCL - pit sculpin

CO - coho salmon RB - rainbow trout
12

CS - chum salmon RT - red band trout

CT - cutthroat trout (includes sea run) SHL - various marine shell fish

CTC - Catlow tui chub SNS shortnose sucker

GCB - goose lake chub SS - sockeye salmon

GLAM - goose lake lamprey STS - steelhead summer

GSUC - goose lake sucker STW - steelhead winter

JCRT – Jenny Creek red band trout WW - various warm water game fish

JCS – Jenny Creek sucker

JUV - juvenile salmonids
1

APPENDIX C Environmental baseline supporting documentation.

Ecoregion Context

Oregon comprises ten ecoregions, each of which contains multiple habitat types. Ecoregions are

relatively uniform geographic areas that respond in a similar manner to physical activities (i.e.,

rainfall, fire, human land use activities, etc.) (SOER 2000). These ecoregions are based on

similarity of important environmental variables such as climate, geology, physiography,

vegetation, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The ecoregion descriptions provide an

overview to the current conditions of the regional environment.

The ecoregions used in this analysis were the EPA Level III ecoregion descriptions used by the

State of the Environment Report (SOER) Science Panel in the Oregon State of the Environment

Report (SOER 2000), the EPA Level IV ecoregion descriptions used in the Oregon Watershed

Enhancement Board’s Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (Watershed Professionals

Network 2001), and the ODFW and Oregon Natural Resources Heritage Program Level III

ecoregion characterizations of patterns within a watershed (Bryce and Woods 2000). Because

watersheds within an ecoregion have common attributes, the ecoregion descriptions assist with

the effects analysis. Table 1 provides the acreage of the various habitat types within each

ecoregion.

Basin & Range. The Basin and Range ecoregion includes a large portion of southeastern Oregon

and is the least populated area of the State (SOER 2000). This ecoregion is Oregon’s high

desert, and contains numerous flat basins separated by isolated, generally north-south mountain

ranges. Malheur Lake is the major drainage basin in this arid ecoregion (Watershed

Professionals Network 2001). Runoff from precipitation and mountain snowpacks and basins

often flows into flat, alkaline playas, where it forms seasonal shallow lakes and marshes (Bryce

and Woods 2000). In addition, the terrestrial landscape is open and treeless, plants are widely

spaced, and soils are exposed to the elements. The Basin and Range ecoregion contains many

diverse habitats.

The most significant are the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) steppe types, salt desert scrub (Bryce and

Woods 2000), and riparian and wetland types, as well as mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.)

and aspen (Populus spp.) woodlands (SOER 2000).

Many of the major wetland complexes within this arid ecoregion are managed for waterfowl

production by State, Federal, or private agencies, although most wetlands are privately owned

(SOER 2000). The large wildlife refuges here support some of the largest populations of

pronghorn antelope, white pelicans, and sage waterfowl, and are well known for their wildlife

diversity (Bryce and Woods 2000). Flooding and drying now occur sooner in the year than they

did historically. Historically, playa lakes were wet during winter and spring, and then dried as

summer approached. Some playa lakes have been altered for livestock watering, and in drier

years water is concentrated in deep pools, thus affecting a smaller area (SOER 2000).

Water is the limiting factor in this ecoregion. Declines in riparian condition and water quality

occurred during the heavy grazing early in the 20th century. Stream water quality here is the

lowest in the State, generally measured as poor or very poor. The trend in water quality shows
2

no improvement, although in some areas, primarily fenced enclosures, riparian conditions have

dramatically improved. Surface water is fully allocated. Much of the water is dammed, and

releases from dams keep instream flows close to the required minimums (SOER 2000).

Many of the region’s historical wetlands and riparian areas have been converted to agriculture or

have been degraded through water diversions and grazing. The region has been heavily affected

by grazing pressure, which affects different parts of the landscape in different ways. Improper

grazing is particularly destructive in wetland and riparian areas. More than 145 species depend

on tall sagebrush-bunchgrass communities. In other places, fire suppression has increased the

relative density of sagebrush while diminishing bunchgrasses, which has negatively affected

many native species. An additional threat to ecological integrity in upland areas as well as in

wetland and riparian areas is the encroachment of invasive plant species (SOER 2000).

Blue Mountains. The Blue Mountains ecoregion occupies most of northeastern Oregon and

encompasses three major ranges: the Ochoco, Blue, and Wallowa Mountains. Deep, rock-walled

canyons, glacially cut gorges, dissected plateaus, and broad alluvial river valleys characterize the

landscape. Extreme changes in elevation across the ecoregion result in a broad range of

temperature and precipitation, supporting habitat diversity second only to the Klamath

Mountains ecoregion (SOER 2000).

Vegetation in the lowland areas consists of bunchgrasses, sagebrush, and juniper (Juniperus

spp.) (Bryce and Woods 2000). Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and juniper woodlands are

characteristic of mid-elevation areas, with mixed coniferous forests dominating higher altitudes

and north- facing slopes at mid-elevations. Extensive grasslands occur in and north of the

Wallowa Mountains (SOER 2000).
3

Table 1. Total acreage of Johnson and O’Neil habitat type within each ecoregion.

Acreage of Habitat Type within Each Ecoregion

Habitat Type Basin and

Range

Blue

Mountains

Coast

Range

Columbia

Basin

East

Cascades

Slopes and

Foothills

Klamath

Mountains

High

Lava

Plains

Owyhee

Uplands

Agriculture, Pasture,

and Mixed

Environments

250,430 550,910 164,950 1,740,960 459,780 609,980 299,810 250,250 

Alpine Grasslands and

Shrublands

1,180 214,120 0 0 8,920 960 0 0 

Bays and Estuaries 0 0 22,450 0 0 0 0 0 Ceanothus-Manzanita

Shrublands

0 0 0 0 2,970 48,530 0 0 

Coastal Dunes &

Beaches

0 0 42,710 0 0 0 0 0 

Coastal Headlands &

Islets

0 0 8,460 0 0 0 0 0 

Desert Playa & Salt

Scrub

707,880 0 0 0 90 0 0 11,370 

Dwarf Shrub-steppe 408,120 110 0 0 61,090 0 21,700 22,760 Eastside (Interior)

Canyon Shrublands

0 0 0 239,970 0 0 7570 110,600 

Eastside (Interior)

Grasslands

0 1,366,980 12,180 497,510 45,090 0 5,530 0 
4

Table 1. (continued)

Acreage of Habitat Type within Each Ecoregion

Habitat Type Basin and

Range

Blue

Mountains

Coast

Range

Columbia

Basin

East

Cascades

Slopes and

Foothills

Klamath

Mountains

High

Lava

Plains

OwyheeUplands

Eastside (Interior)

Mixed Conifer Forest 3,630 3,038,490 0 4,990 905,830 0 42,280 0 

Eastside (Interior)

Riparian-Wetlands 21,280 560 0 4,410 200 0 870 3,550 

Herbaceous Wetlands 397,240 1,273,780 59,040 4,980 329,230 4,860 36,030 50,650 Lakes, Rivers, Ponds,

& Reservoirs 322,520 25,050 24,800 13,540 158,690 16,080 14,540 36,280 

Lodgepole Pine Forest

and Woodlands 20 2,260 0 0 507,590 0 0 0 

Marine Nearshore 0 0 3,610 0 0 0 0 0 Montane Coniferous

Wetlands 0 5,400 0 0 41,350 90 130 0 

Montane Mixed

Conifer Forest 280 485,720 0 0 190,740 39,710 0 0 

Ponderosa Pine and

Eastside White Oak

Forest and Woodlands

13,790 2,890,730 0 37,820 2,919,020 79,220 213,630 10 

Shrub-steppe 7,093,000 1,986,120 0 1,641,770 457,950 0 1,327,67 0 4,911,800 
5

Table 1. (continued)

Acreage of Habitat Type within Each Ecoregion

Habitat Type Basin and

Range

Blue

Mountains

Coast

Range

Columbia

Basin

East

Cascades

Slopes and

Foothills

Klamath

Mountains

High

Lava

Plains

OwyheeUplands

Southwest Oregon

Mixed ConiferHardwood Forest 0 0 369,470 0 3,580 2,649,320 0 0 

Subalpine Parklands 4600 0 0 0 7,380 5,650 0 0 Upland Aspen Forest 19,480 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 Urban and Mixed

Environments 3,190 16,270 57,810 29,340 22,570 42,170 20,560 6,030 

Western Juniper and

Mountain Mahogany

Woodlands

555,940 471,600 0 72,190 642,080 0 2,178,37 0 116,900 

Westside Lowland

Conifer-Hardwood

Forest

0 0 4,961,680 0 10,720 256,560 0 0 

Westside Oak and Dry

Douglas-fir Forest and

Woodlands

0 0 1,430 0 5,890 106,060 0 0 

Westside Riparian -

Wetlands 0 0 29,070 0 0 6,270 0 0 

Total Acreage in

Ecoregion 9,802,580 11,181,910 5,757,660 4,287,480 6,780,760 3,865,460 4,168,.69 0 5,520,200 
6

Riparian areas in valley bottoms are important for aquatic and terrestrial organisms in

arid landscapes where streamside vegetation provides shade and refuge. Riparian areas

are among the most diverse natural communities in the region, largely concentrated in

intermountain basins (SOER 2000). These seasonally flooded wet meadows provide

important habitat; the largest remaining blocks of these wetlands, almost all on private

lands, are found at Big Summit Prairie, along the upper Silvies River, and in Logan

Valley (Watershed Professionals Network 2001).

The diversity of the Blue Mountains landscape provides goods and services long valued

by the people of the region. Most of the uplands in the region are federally owned forest

and rangeland. Private land generally follows valleys and water courses, where most of

the region’s agriculture occurs; however, several parcels of privately-owned timber in

uplands are present (SOER 2000).

The large, central valleys of the Grande Ronde and Powder Rivers historically contained

native riparian forests, wetlands, and grasslands that have been primarily converted to

agriculture. Most stream reaches have been simplified by channelization and

straightening. Riparian conditions are degraded throughout the region, particularly in the

middle and lower reaches of large river valleys such as the Grande Ronde and Umatilla

(SOER 2000, OWEB 2001).

Four activities have had profound effects on the landscape of the region: timber harvest,

fire suppression, grazing, and agriculture. Fire suppression, in concert with timber

harvest, has changed the structure and function of the region’s forests; it has also allowed

a dense build-up of young trees, creating more biomass than can be supported through

times of drought. These dense, over-stocked forests are far more vulnerable to fire and

insects (SOER 2000).

Virtually all of the Grande Ronde Valley’s historical wetlands have been drained and

converted to agriculture. Many wetland sites have been affected, at least temporarily, by

water flow alterations as well as by increased sediment and nutrients from agricultural

and other activities (SOER 2000). Much of the ecoregion is within a complex of aquatic

diversity areas identified by the American Fisheries Society. Much of this complex lies

in Federal wilderness areas (SOER 2000, OWEB 2001).

In coordination with regional planning efforts, complex plans for total maximum daily

loads of non-point sources of pollution are being developed for stream segments with

limited water quality, as identified by the Clean Water Act 303(d) list. Many of the lowlying streams in this ecoregion are listed, primarily as a result of high stream

temperatures during the summer. Upland water is of relatively high quality and the

conditions of upstream fish habitats are improving (SOER 2000).

Coast Range. The Coast Range ecoregion extends the entire length of the Oregon

coastline as a narrow, jumbled mountain range from the edge of the Pacific Ocean to the

Willamette Valley and Klamath Mountains. Along the north coast, cliffs and grassy
7

headlands are separated by stretches of flat coastal plain and estuaries. A broad coastal

terrace characterizes much of the south coast, punctuated by steep headlands, inland

lakes, and rocky offshore islands (SOER 2000). The region’s marine climate causes the

wettest habitats in the State, including temperate rainforests, which are some of the most

productive forests in the world (SOER 2000).

Much of the commercial and residential development in the region is clustered along 101

and around the larger estuaries and streamside riparian areas. The coastal economies are

distinctly different from north to south. The northern counties are evolving from a

dependence on fishing and timber to a reliance on tourism and retirement. To the south,

the coastal economy has been more dependent on the forest products industry (SOER

2000).

Oregon’s 22 estuaries are ecological transition zones, integrating features of the

watersheds they drain with those of the marine environment. Although protection

currently exists, most Oregon estuaries are dramatically smaller than they were

historically—mostly, as a result of the conversion of tidal wetlands to diked and drained

pastures in the early 1900s, followed by the filling of bayfront lands for urban and port

development. In addition, the construction of jetties has disrupted the natural movement

of sand along the coast, burying some areas and eroding others. Further inland,

residential development has significantly reduced riparian vegetation along streams

(SOER 2000).

Streams in the Coast Range are relatively free-flowing, are heavily relied upon by the

fishing industry and summer tourism, and are important sources of drinking water.

Coastal streams have been disrupted by logging practices. The density of streams in the

Coast Range is among the highest in the State; therefore, a high percentage of the

landscape falls within riparian buffers. As a result, timber harvests throughout the region

have had adverse effects on aquatic organisms such as coho salmon. Removal of large

conifers and erosion from logging are the most significant past human effects on riparian

areas in the Coast Range (SOER 2000).

Past logging patterns led to dense forests with a high percentage of early successional

stages consisting of young trees (less than 40 years old). However, modern logging and

silvicultural practices (under the guidance and implementation of new Forest Practice

Rules) have greatly minimized effects from recent logging operations. Historically, large

fires left a complex matrix of large trees, snags, and downed wood, which provided a

diversity of habitats for fish and wildlife. Modern commercial forest management

encourages diversity, though not to the same extent as wildfires in unmanaged

landscapes.

Almost 40 percent of the ecoregion is publicly owned, primarily as State and Federal

forests. Much of the balance is private timberland, interspersed with the public forest.

Timber harvest in the late 1990s was about two-thirds of the levels of the late 1980s, due

to a major reduction of harvest on Federal lands. About half of Oregon’s future timber

harvest is projected to come from this ecoregion (SOER 2000).
8

The lowland rivers and wetlands have been altered by agriculture and development more

than the forested portions of the ecoregion have. Acquisition of coastal wetlands by

private land conservancies and State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies have

protected some high quality wetlands and restored many acres of degraded wetlands

(SOER 2000).

Columbia Basin. The Columbia Basin ecoregion is semi-arid, with cold winters and hot

summers. Farther from the Columbia River, annual precipitation decreases and soil

changes from sandy deposits to windblown silts. Most of the ecoregion receives less than

15 inches (38 centimeter) of precipitation per year, mostly in the form of snow.

Much of the ecoregion’s natural vegetation is native bunchgrass prairie. Sandy deposits

along the big bend of the Columbia River have created open dunes and areas of shrubsteppe and western juniper. The rivers were once lined with intermountain riparian

vegetation, such as black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), willows, chokecherry

(Prunus spp.), and aspen, and wetlands were located throughout the plateau. Fire was a

natural component of this ecoregion, though the fire recurrence interval is not as clear as

in other ecoregions.

The ecoregion has undergone extensive changes over the last 150 years; it is second only

to the Willamette Valley in the extent of landscape change. It consists largely of

privately-owned agricultural and range land, with over 85 percent of the former

sagebrush steppe, grassland, and riparian communities converted to dry land wheat or

irrigated agriculture. Only marginal lands that cannot be farmed, such as the steep

canyon grasslands and scablands, retain a semblance of native vegetation. Protected

areas and publicly owned lands are very limited in this region.

In the conversion to farmland, much of the natural function of the landscape has been

lost. Bottomland forests and wetlands have been replaced by irrigated agriculture and

rural residential development. Changes in the upland have occurred as sagebrush steppe

has been reduced by over 85 percent. Invasive plant species are a major threat to native

habitats as well as to the productivity of farmlands and pastures.

Dam construction and subsequent inundation has degraded riparian resource conditions

along the Columbia River and confluences. Lake habitats have largely replaced riparian

and floodplain wetlands. Large rivers such as the Umatilla River have decreased riparian

function and water quality.

East Cascades Slope and Foothills Ecoregion. The East Cascades ecoregion is

geologically young, with lava flows, volcanic vents, and a mantle of pumice soil.

Ponderosa pine forests predominate, with extensive stands of lodgepole pine (Pinus

contorta) on deep Mazama ash. The ecoregion is a transition zone that extends from

below the crest of the Cascade Range east to where the pine forests intersect with

sagebrush-juniper steppe. The northern two-thirds of the East Cascades ecoregion is

drained by the Deschutes River system, which includes a series of large lakes and
9

reservoirs near its headwaters high in the Cascade Mountains. The southern third is

drained by the Klamath River, which rises from a vast interior wetland before it flows

south and west into California. Forests, mostly federally owned, cover most of the

region’s uplands, with privately-owned agricultural land in the valleys.

The Deschutes River watershed spreads across several ecoregions, with headwaters to the

east in the Blue Mountains and to the west in the high Cascades. Several dams have been

constructed on the Deschutes River. This has affected flow and sediment, which have

influenced the establishment and natural succession of riparian vegetation throughout the

downstream river course. Riparian areas have been further altered by dredging, dikes,

and flood control activities. Today, all major river systems in the region are dammed,

and many of these dams provide no fish passage. Agricultural practices and related water

delivery systems remain a significant threat to the recovery of aquatic health in the

southern part of the region.

The contrasts of this ecoregion are reflected in its water quality. Clean, cold water flows

from perennial springs along the east slope into streams such as the Metolius River and

the Little Deschutes, which have some of the highest quality water in the State. The lowlying Klamath Basin, in contrast, has sites such as Klamath Strait and Lost River with

some of the poorest water quality in the State. Several of these streams have been placed

on the 303(d) list as a result of high temperatures in summer, total dissolved gas, habitat

modification, flow modification, pH, sedimentation, turbidity, bacteria, and dissolved

oxygen.

Enormous efforts were made in the 1900s to drain vast acreage of wetlands in the

Klamath Basin. As a result, the great shallow lake and marsh systems of the upper

Klamath Basin have been reduced by an estimated 75 percent. Reductions in riparian

vegetation and associated wetlands have contributed to nutrient loading in the rivers and

lakes of the region by decreasing the potential for nutrient filtration and uptake in

streamside areas. Similarly, riparian areas throughout the Klamath basin have been

highly altered and in many cases eliminated by agricultural activities.

Activities affecting key resource systems in this region include changes in the fire

regime, alterations of rivers, streams, and wetlands, and rapid urban development.

Klamath Mountains. Douglas-fir forests, oak woodlands, and ponderosa pine woodlands.

Many of these plant communities have changed significantly since fire suppression was

widely instituted in the early 20th century, although the plant communities of the

Klamath Mountains continue to be among the most diverse in the world. There are

pockets of plant communities that occur nowhere else, endemic to a particular condition

of the climate or soil type. Of the 4,000 kinds of native plants found in Oregon, about

half are found in this ecoregion, and about a quarter of these are found only here.

Nearly a century of fire suppression has dramatically altered the ecology of the forests,

savannas, and shrublands in this region. The steep terrain makes the Klamath Mountain

ecoregion particularly susceptible to landslides and debris flows, especially in extensively
10

logged basins. Relatively few large conifers remain in the active flood plain, although

historic evidence shows that conifers were once abundant in low gradient valley bottoms

and were selectively logged in the 1950s and 1960s.

Today the rate of population growth in this region is second only to the Willamette

Valley. Most of the population is concentrated in the valleys along Interstate 5, but rapid

population growth in the southern and eastern parts of the ecoregion has brought new

pressures to the landscape, particularly to the rural areas along rivers such as the Rogue,

Umpqua, and Applegate, which were already affected by past development activities.

Industrial and rural residential developments are the major threats to ecological health.

High Lava Plains. The High Lava Plains ecoregion is located in the dry foothills that

surround the western perimeter of the Blue Mountains, and separates the north-central

Blue Mountains from the southern Blue Mountains and Ochoco Mountains. The

drainage basins in this ecoregion are the John Day, the Goose and Summer Lakes, the

Malheur Lakes, and the Deschutes. The land use in this ecoregion is primarily irrigated

pasture, grazing, and recreation.

The geology here is ash beds and the eroded remnants of a mountain chain. The erosion

rate is high in ash-dominated areas; most erosion occurs during high intensity runoff

events during snow melt periods or during thunderstorms. This ecoregion consists of

highly dissected hills, palisades, and ash beds. The steep-sided canyons of the John Day

and Crooked Rivers cut deeply through the surrounding terrain. Streams have low to

moderate gradient, and the main rivers originate within surrounding ecoregions that have

more rain and snow.

This ecoregion has a continental climate with low precipitation (mean annual

precipitation is 10 to 20 in [25 to 50 cm]) and wide temperature extremes. This climate is

moderated by a marine influence spreading southward from the Columbia River Gorge

and eastward through the low passes of the Cascade Mountain range. The marine

influence brings more moisture into the region and causes less extreme temperature

fluctuations than in other parts of the Blue Mountains. Precipitation falls primarily as

rain during the spring and fall months and as light snow in the winter months; most

precipitation occurs in the winter months of November, December, and January. Shallow

snowpacks can accumulate at higher elevations.

The most frequent natural disturbance in this ecoregion is fire. Fire suppression and

grazing have caused an increase in juniper abundance and a decline in grass abundance.

The native upland vegetation includes juniper, bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegnria

spicata), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), and the native riparian vegetation

includes hardwoods (cottonwood and alder) and shrubs (willows, Douglas spirea [Spirea

douglasii] and common snowberry [Symphoricarpos albus]). Ponderosa pine and juniper

are found infrequently in the riparian areas.

Owyhee Uplands. The Owyhee Uplands ecoregion is located in the southeastern section

of Oregon. This ecoregion is similar to the adjacent Basin and Range ecoregion in
11

vegetation; however, it differs markedly in terrain, as the landscape is basically a broad,

undulating plateau cut by deep riverine canyons. The Owyhee River and the lower basin

of the Malheur River generally drain north through these canyons and to the Snake River

Basin located at the border of Oregon and Idaho (Bryce and Woods 2000).

An extreme climate characterizes the ecoregion. Moist springs and cold winters bring

precipitation primarily in the form of snow, while summers are hot and dry. Vegetative

types are consistent with the high deserts of the Intermountain west, with sagebrush

steppe communities being the most dominant. Within this ecoregion less extensive

vegetative communities include herbaceous wetland and riparian habitats, mountain

mahogany woodlands, and a few examples of salt desert scrub (Bryce and Woods 2000).

Like the adjacent Basin and Range ecoregion, presently, the population of the Owyhee

Uplands is sparse, with most of the population centered along the major drainages near

the towns of Vail and Ontario. These towns border the confluence of the Malheur and

Owyhee Rivers with the Snake River. Irrigated agriculture in these fertile lowlands is the

foundation of the local economy (Bryce and Woods 2000). In contrast, the remainder of

this ecoregion relies almost entirely on local ranching as their source economy (Bryce

and Woods 2000). Decades of livestock grazing has degraded the habitat.

West Cascade Mountains. The West Cascade Mountains ecoregion is a mountainous

spine of volcanic peaks and dense forests. Relatively few people live in the area, which is

geologically composed of two parts. The older western Cascade Mountains feature long

ridges with steep sides and wide, glaciated valleys—remnants of long-extinct volcanoes.

The younger high Cascades to the east include more than a dozen major peaks formed

from more recent volcanic activity. Most of the rivers draining the northern two-thirds of

the ecoregion flow into the Willamette Valley and then to the Columbia River system; the

southern third drains to the Pacific Ocean through the Umpqua and Rogue River systems.

The drier southern half has a fire regime similar to that of the Klamath Mountains, with

frequent, lightning-caused fires. In the northern half, the natural fire regime has

historically produced less frequent but more severe fires.

Higher elevations receive heavy winter snows. Dense forests cloak the entire ecoregion.

Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests dominate large areas up to elevations of about 3,300

feet. Pacific silver fir and mountain hemlock forests occur at higher elevations. Above

7,000 feet, the montane forests often open into alpine parklands with patches of forest

interspersed with a variety of habitats, ranging from dwarf shrubs to wetlands and barren

expanses of rock and ice.

The conifer forests of the Cascades have been the foundation of a timber-based economy

in the ecoregion and in neighboring communities to the east and west; most of the

population in the ecoregion is found in small towns where recreation use increasingly

supplements this traditional timber-based economy. A continuous ribbon of national

forests at middle and high elevations dominates this ecoregion, with private ownership

(especially forest industry) at lower elevations. The USFS manages approximately two-
12

thirds of the forest in this ecoregion. More than two-thirds of the Federal forest land in

this ecoregion is managed for biological diversity—as late successional reserves, riparian

reserves, and extensive wilderness areas.

The major factors that have influenced patterns of riparian condition in the western

Cascades are: 1) Fire; 2) floods; 3) timber harvest and log transport; 4) road construction

and residential development; and 5) flow regulation by dams (SOER 2000). In the

absence of human activities, moist riparian forests were not as susceptible as surrounding

uplands to disturbance by fire.

Cascade wetland types are highly variable and include snowmelt-fed slope wetland

meadows, high elevation lakes with broad fringing wetlands, bogs, and riparian wetlands

along streams. Although many of the high-elevation wetlands along the crest of the

Cascades are largely intact, some lower-elevation wetlands have been altered by road

construction, timber harvest, and the construction of reservoirs as well as by the offsite

changes that result from regulated flows. For the most part, these activities have altered,

rather than eliminated, the region’s wetlands.

The high proportion of streams with good to excellent water quality is a strong indicator

of the health of water resources in this region; this area consistently has the highest water

quality in the State. Extensive public ownership of the landscape has protected these

upstream reaches from some of the disruptions common farther downstream.

Willamette Valley. The Willamette Valley ecoregion is defined by the Willamette River

and Oregon’s largest river valley. The river’s upper reaches and much of its watershed

lie in the Cascade Mountains and Coast Range beyond the ecoregion borders. The

ecoregion itself is characterized by broad alluvial flats and low basalt hills, with soils of

deep alluvial silts from river deposits, and dense heavy clays from fluvial deposits in the

valley bottom’s numerous oxbow lakes and ponds. This ecoregion has 70 percent of the

State’s population, the majority of its industry, and almost half of its farmland. The

Willamette Valley ecoregion is largely in private ownership; agriculture, urban areas, and

forestland dominate the landscape.

Over the past 150 years, the prairies have been largely converted to farmland, as have

most of the riparian forests and wetlands. The rivers have been dammed and channelized

to reduce flooding. Open oak savannas and oak-conifer woodlands have been logged to

become closed-canopy forests. A growing urban population has replaced agriculture in

many areas, and rural residential development continues to encroach on remaining

woodlands. Due to the pattern of development, the Willamette Valley is the most altered

ecoregion in Oregon, with the most significant natural processes, fire and flooding,

almost entirely excluded.

Trends in riparian condition in the Willamette Valley have shown an 80 percent reduction

in total riparian area since the 1850s. An estimated 72 percent of the original riparian and

bottomland forest is gone, as well as an estimated 99 percent of wet prairies, 88 percent

of upland prairies, and 87 percent of upland forests at the margins of the valley (SOER
13

2000). Much of the valley’s agricultural development converted native wet prairie; less

than one percent of the original wet prairie remains today and several wet prairie plants

are rare or endangered.

Water development projects have reduced the frequency of extremely high and low

flows, and have moderated the once dynamic hydrologic pattern of floods and dry spells.

Flood control modifications have largely disconnected the Willamette River from its

braided channels, oxbows and sloughs—wetland types that characterized much of the

historical floodplain. This fundamental alteration to the valley’s hydrologic regime has

changed the character of the valley’s wetlands and greatly altered their functions. Today,

most of the mainstem Willamette River exceeds standards for bacteria, temperature, and

toxics such as mercury.

The encroachment of invasive species has greatly altered the composition of riparian

plant communities, with introduced plants increasing from 10 percent in the headwaters

to more than 50 percent of the number of species in the mainstem Willamette.

Johnson and O’Neil Habitat Type Context

The Johnson and O’Neil habitat types (Johnson and O’Neil 2001) discussed in the above

ecoregion sections are described below. Johnson and O’Neil (2001) provided the

following information on the habitat types.

Urban and Mixed Environments. Urban habitat occurs throughout Oregon. Most urban

development is located west of the Cascades, but urban growth is occurring in the

majority of smaller municipalities throughout the Pacific Northwest.

This habitat type creates a physical setting unique to itself: temperatures are elevated and

background lighting is increased; wind velocities are altered by the urban landscape,

often reduced except around the tallest structures downtown, where high-velocity winds

are funneled around the skyscrapers. Urban development often occurs in areas with little

or no slope and frequently includes wetland habitats. Many of these wetlands have been

filled and eliminated. Many artificial “wetland” impoundments are created for

stormwater management.

The original habitat is altered in urban environments and is replaced by buildings,

impermeable surfaces, bridges, dams, and non-native species, although remnant isolated

blocks of native vegetation may be present. Urban habitat often replaces habitats that are

valuable for wildlife. Often, urban areas are surrounded by agricultural and grazing

lands.

Ice, wind, and firestorms can occur. Floods are often more frequent and more violent.

Attempts to lessen flooding in urban areas often lead to the channelization, paving, or

diking of waterways. Urban growth is predicted to continue to accelerate, and loss of

native habitat can be anticipated, which will result in a loss of native habitat.
14

Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environment. Agricultural habitat occurs within a

matrix of other habitat types at low to middle elevations (less then 6,000 ft [1,830 m]),

including Eastside grasslands, Shrub-steppe, Westside Lowlands Conifer-Deciduous

Forest and other low- to mid-elevation forest and woodland habitats. This habitat often

dominates the landscape in flat or gently rolling terrain, on well-developed soils, in broad

river valleys, and in areas with access to abundant irrigation water. Unlike other habitat

types, agricultural habitat is often characterized by regular landscape patterns, straight

borders (because of ownership boundaries), and multiple crops within a region. Edges

can be abrupt along the borders between agricultural and adjacent habitats.

The dominant characteristic of agricultural habitat is a regular pattern of management and

vegetation disturbance. With the exception of the improved pasture-cover type, most

areas classified as agricultural habitat receive regular inputs of fertilizer and herbicides

and have some form of vegetation harvest and manipulation.

Natural fires are almost totally suppressed in this habitat, except in unimproved pastures

and modified grasslands, where fire-return intervals can resemble those of native

grassland habitats. Fires are generally less frequent today than in the past, primarily

because of fire suppression, the construction of roads, and the conversion of grass and

forests to cropland. Bottomland areas along streams and rivers are subject to periodic

floods, which may remove or deposit large amounts of soil.

In the absence of fires or mowing, eastside agricultural habitats may convert to other

habitats, primarily grassland and shrub from the surrounding native habitats. Abandoned

westside pastures have increasing amounts of hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), snowberry

(Symphoricarpos albus), rose (Rosa spp.), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor),

spirea, Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilabum).

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) or other trees can be primary invaders in some

environments.

Eastside (Interior) Grasslands. In Oregon, this habitat is found primarily in the Columbia

Basin at middle to low elevations, and on plateaus in the Blue Mountains, usually within

the ponderosa pine zone.

Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass vegetative habitats are common throughout the

Columbia Basin, both as modified native grasslands in deep canyons and the dry Palouse,

and as fire-induced representatives in the shrub-steppe. Similar grasslands appear on the

High Lava Plains ecoregion, where they occur in a matrix with big sagebrush (Artemisia

tridentata) or juniper woodlands. They are also found in burned shrub-steppe and

canyons in the Basin and Range and Owyhee Uplands. Sand dropseed (Sporobolus

cryptandrus) and three-awn (Aristida longiseta) grassland habitats are restricted to river

terraces in the Columbia Basin, Blue Mountains, and Owyhee Uplands of Oregon. The

primary location of this habitat extends along the Snake River from Lewiston south to the

Owyhee River.
15

This habitat develops in hot, dry climates in the Pacific Northwest where snow

accumulation is low. Soils are variable and vegetation consists of upland vegetation, but

may also include riparian bottomlands dominated by non-native grasses. This habitat is

found from 500-6,000 feet in elevation.

Eastside grassland habitats can overlap with the Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands or

Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands habitat types. Bluebunch

wheatgrass and Idaho fescue are the characteristic native bunchgrasses of this habitat and

either or both can be dominant.

Large expanses of grasslands are currently used for livestock ranching. Deep soil Palouse

sites are mostly converted to agriculture. Drier grasslands and canyon grasslands, as well

as those with shallower soils, steeper topography, or hotter, drier environments, were

more intensively grazed and for longer periods than were deep-soil grasslands.

Most of the Palouse prairie of Oregon has been converted to agriculture. Remnants still

exist in the foothills of the Blue Mountains and in isolated, moist Columbia Basin sites.

The Palouse is one of the most endangered ecosystems in the U.S. with only one percent

of the original habitat remaining; it is highly fragmented, with most sites being less than

10 acres (0.04 km2) (Noss et al. 1995).

Herbaceous Wetlands. Herbaceous wetlands are found throughout the world and are

represented in Oregon wherever local hydrologic conditions promote their development.

This habitat includes all wetlands except bogs and those within Subalpine Parkland and

Alpine habitats.

Freshwater aquatic bed habitats are found throughout the Pacific Northwest, usually in

isolated sites. They are more widespread in valley bottoms and high rainfall areas, but

are present in montane and arid climates as well. Habitats are permanently flooded, semipermanently flooded, or flooded seasonally, and may remain saturated through most of

the growing season. This habitat is referred to as palustrine emergent wetlands

(Cowardin et al. 1979) and occurs in both lotic and lentic systems. Elevation varies from

sea level to 10,000 feet, although it is infrequently found above 6,000 feet.

The herbaceous wetland habitat is generally a mix of emergent herbaceous plants with a

grass-like life form (graminoids). These meadows often occur with deep- or shallowwater habitats with floating or rooting aquatic forbs. Shrubs or trees are not a common

part of this herbaceous habitat, although willow or other woody plants occasionally occur

along margins, in patches, or along streams running through these meadows.

Nationally, herbaceous wetlands have declined; the Pacific Northwest is no exception.

Herbaceous wetlands have been filled, drained, grazed, and farmed extensively in the

lowlands of Oregon. Herbaceous wetlands have decreased as beavers’ influence has

diminished. Herbaceous wetlands are susceptible to exotic, noxious plant invasions

(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).
16

Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands (includes Eastside Oak). In Oregon, this habitat

occurs on the eastern slopes of the Cascades and in the Blue Mountains. This habitat

generally occurs on the driest sites supporting conifers and is widespread and variable

appearing on moderate to steep slopes in canyons, foothills, and on plateaus or plains

near mountains. In Oregon, this habitat can be maintained by the dry pumice soils.

Average annual precipitation ranges from approximately 14-30 inches in ponderosa pine

sites in Oregon and Washington, often as snow. This habitat can be found at elevations

of 100 feet in the Columbia River Gorge to dry, warm areas over 6,000 feet. Timber

harvest, livestock grazing, and pockets of urban development are major land uses.

Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir are the most common evergreen trees in this habitat type.

Other common trees in this habitat type include western larch (Larix occidentalis), grand

fir (Abies grandis), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryanna), mallowleaf ninebark

(Physocarpus malvaceus), common snowberry, and white-leaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos

patula). Undergrowth in this habitat is usually dominated by herbaceous species such as

pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), Greyer’s sedge (Carex geyeri), and blue wildrye

(Elymus glaucus).

Fire plays an important role in creating vegetation structure and composition in this

habitat. Most of the habitat has experienced frequent low-severity fires that maintained

woodland or savanna conditions. Soil drought plays a role in maintaining an open tree

canopy in part of this dry woodland habitat.

Shrub-Steppe. In Oregon, Shrub-steppe habitats are common across the Columbia

Plateau. They extend up into the cold, dry environments of surrounding mountains.

Generally, this habitat is associated with hot, dry environments in the Pacific Northwest,

although variants occur in cool, moist areas that have some snow accumulation in

climatically dry mountains. The elevation range of the shrub-steppe is from 300-9,000

feet. The most common elevations are from 2,000-6,000 feet. Habitat occurs on deep

alluvial, loess, silty or sandy-silty soils; and on stony flats, ridges, mountain slopes, and

the slopes of lake beds with ash or pumice soils.

Shrub-steppe habitat defines a biogeographic region and is the dominant vegetation type

in typical areas in the Columbia Plateau, usually below Ponderosa Pine Forest and

Woodland, and Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodland habitats.

Vegetation structure in this habitat is characteristically an open shrub layer over a

moderately open to closed bunchgrass layer. The more northern or productive sites

generally have a denser grass layer and sparser shrub layer than southern sites.

Predominant vegetation within the shrub-steppe habitat type includes basin sagebrush,

Wyoming sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate wyomingensis), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia

tridentata), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana), and three-tip sagebrush (Artemisia

tripartite). Many sandy areas are shrub-free or are open to patchy shrublands of

bitterbrush and/or rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.). Silver sagebrush is the dominant

and characteristic shrub along the edges of stream courses, moist meadows, and ponds.
17

Shrub-steppe habitat still dominates most of southeastern Oregon, although half of its

original area in the Columbia Basin has been converted to agriculture. The alteration of

fire regimes, habitat fragmentation, livestock grazing, and the addition of more than 800

invasive plant species have changed the character of shrub-steppe habitat.

Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands. In Oregon, this dry woodland

habitat appears primarily in the Owyhee Uplands, High Lava Plains, and northern Basin

and Range ecoregions. Secondarily, it develops in the foothills of the Blue Mountains

and East Cascades ecoregions, and seems to be expanding into the southern Columbia

Basin ecoregion, where it was naturally found in outlier stands. The primary land use in

this habitat type is livestock grazing.

This habitat is widespread and variable, occurring in basins and canyons and on slopes

and valley margins in the southern Columbia Plateau, as well as on fire-protected sites in

the northern Basin and Range province. It may be found on benches and foothills.

Western juniper and/or mountain mahogany woodlands are often found on shallow soils

on flats at middle to high elevations, usually on basalts. Other sites range from deep,

loess soils and sandy slopes to very stony canyon slopes. At lower elevations, or in areas

outside of shrub-steppe, this habitat occurs on slopes and in areas with shallow soils.

Mountain mahogany can occur on steep rimrock slopes, usually in areas of shallow soils

or protected slopes. Average annual precipitation ranges from approximately 10-13

inches, with most occurring as winter snow.

Western juniper and/or mountain mahogany dominate these woodlands, either with

bunchgrass or shrub-steppe undergrowth. Western juniper is the most common dominant

tree in these woodlands. Part of this habitat will have curl-leaf mountain mahogany

(Cercocarpus ledifolius) as the only dominant tall shrub or small tree; mahogany may be

co-dominant with western juniper. Ponderosa pine can grow in this habitat and in rare

instances may be an important part of the canopy. Part of this woodland habitat lacks a

shrub layer, as various native bunchgrasses dominate.

Over the past 150 years—with fire suppression, overgrazing, and changing climatic

factors—western juniper has increased its range into adjacent shrub-steppe, grasslands,

and savannas. The increased density of juniper and reduced fine fuels from an interaction

of grazing and shading result in high severity fires that eliminate woody plants and

promote herbaceous cover, primarily annual grasses.

This habitat is dominated by fire-sensitive species (e.g., mountain mahogany and western

juniper), and therefore, the range of western juniper and mountain mahogany has

expanded because of an interaction of livestock grazing and fire suppression. In the

inland Pacific Northwest, Juniper Woodlands and Mountain Mahogany cover types now

cover a significantly wider area than before 1900 (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

However, this habitat is generally degraded as a result of an increase in exotic plants and

a decrease in native bunchgrasses.
18

Bays and Estuaries. This diverse habitat consists of areas with significant mixing of salt

and freshwater, including the lower reaches of rivers, intertidal sand and mud flats,

saltwater and brackish marshes, and the open-water portions of associated bays. The

habitat is distributed along the marine coast and shoreline of Oregon and is strongly

influenced by the daily tides and currents.

Climate is moderated by the Pacific Ocean and is usually mild. Coastal zone topography

is characterized by long stretches of sandy beaches broken by steep rocky cliffs, rocky

headlands, and the mouths of bays and estuaries. Organics, silt, and sand are the primary

substrate components of this habitat, and vary in composition and distribution (Jefferson).

Some of the major uses of bays and estuaries are recreation, tourism, the shellfish

industry, and navigation. The terrestrial interface portions of this habitat have been

extensively converted to agricultural crop production, livestock grazing, and residential

and commercial development. Water channels of many areas have been dredged for ship

navigation.

Natural disturbance perpetuates the dynamic, transitional nature of this habitat. Tides,

seasonal riverine discharges, winds, storms, erosion, and accretion are the primary natural

processes that shape this habitat. Although natural erosion and accretion processes

continue, most habitat modification can be attributed to anthropogenic causes (Simenstad

1983). Because of historical diking for crop production and flood control, almost no

areas of natural high marsh remain in Oregon (Jefferson 1975). These dikes, and other

more recent barriers, prevent natural recovery and the re-establishment of this habitat.

Remaining examples of the bay and estuarine habitat exist in various conditions, from the

more natural areas and areas undergoing active restoration, to the more prevalent

polluted, degraded, or overused areas. With increasing population pressures in coastal

areas and the corresponding threats of habitat use and conversion, the future trend will

likely be a continued degradation and reduction of remaining bay and estuarine areas.

Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest. This habitat type occurs on the western

slopes of the Cascades, around the margins of the Willamette Valley, in the Coast Range,

and along the outer coast.

The climate is relatively mild and moist to wet; snowfall ranges from rare to regular, but

is transitory; summers are relatively dry, and summer fog is a major factor in the Sitka

spruce zone on the outer coast. Elevation ranges from sea level to 3,500 feet in central

Oregon (on the western slopes of the Cascades). Soils and geology are very diverse, and

topography ranges from relatively flat glacial till plains to steep mountainous terrain.

This is the most extensive lowland habitat on the west side of the Cascades (except in

southwestern Oregon), and forms the matrix within which other habitats occur as patches,

especially Westside Riparian-Wetlands and, less commonly, Herbaceous Wetlands or

Open Water. This habitat is forest, or, rarely, woodland, dominated by evergreen

conifers, deciduous broadleaf trees, or both. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and

Douglas-fir are the most characteristic species and one or both are typically present. Most
19

stands are dominated by one or more of the following: Douglas-fir, western hemlock,

western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), red alder (Alnus

rubra), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum).

The natural disturbances most common to the Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood

Forest habitat type include fire and wind damage, as well as disease. Fire is the major

natural disturbance in all but the wettest climatic area (the Sitka spruce zone), where

wind becomes the major source of natural disturbance. Bark beetles and fungi are

significant causes of mortality that typically operate on a small scale. Landslides are

another natural disturbance that occurs in some areas.

Large areas of this habitat remain, but remaining habitat has been degraded by industrial

forest practices at both the stand and landscape scale. Only a fraction of the original oldgrowth forest remains, mostly in national forests in the Cascade Mountains.

Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland. This habitat is found along the east side of the

Cascade Range and in the Blue Mountains. Subalpine lodgepole pine habitat occurs on

the broad plateau areas along the crest of the Cascade Range and the Blue Mountains.

On pumice soils, this habitat is confined to the eastern slope of the Cascade Range from

near Mt. Jefferson south to the vicinity of Crater Lake.

This habitat is located mostly at middle to higher elevations, where the environments can

be cold and relatively dry, usually with persistent winter snowpack. A few of these

forests occur in low-lying frost pockets, wet areas, or within specific soil types (usually

pumice), and are relatively long-lasting features of the landscape. The well-drained, deep

Mazama pumice in eastern Oregon encourages the dominance of lodgepole pine.

The lodgepole pine habitat is composed of open to closed evergreen conifer tree

canopies, and typically reflects early successional forest vegetation that originated with

fires. The tree layer of this habitat is dominated by lodgepole pine, but it is usually

associated with other montane conifers (grand fir, western larch, ponderosa pine,

Douglas-fir, white fir [Abies concolor], California red fir [A. magnifica var. shastensis],

incense cedar [Calocedrus decurrens], sugar pine [Pinus lambertiana], and western white

pine [P. monticola]). Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), mountain hemlock (Tsuga

mertensiana), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and whitebark pine (Pinus

albicaulis), indicators of subalpine environments, are present in colder or higher sites.

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) may occur in small numbers.

The area of the lodgepole pine cover type in Oregon is the same as prior to 1900 and in

some regions it may exceed its historical area (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), but at a

finer scale, these forests have been fragmented by roads and timber harvest, and

influenced by periodic livestock grazing and altered fire regimes.

Montane Coniferous Wetlands. This habitat occurs in mountains throughout Oregon,

except the Basin and Range of southeastern Oregon, the Klamath Mountains of
20

southwestern Oregon and the Coast Range of Oregon. This includes the Cascade Range,

and the Blue and Wallowa Mountains.

This habitat comprises forested wetlands or floodplains with a persistent winter

snowpack, ranging from moderately to very deep. Sites typical of the Montane

Coniferous Wetland habitat type are seasonally or temporarily flooded. The climate

varies from moderately cool and wet to moderately dry and very cold. The topography is

generally mountainous, but can also contain nearly flat valley bottoms. Gleyed or

mottled mineral soils, organic soils, or alluvial soils are typical. Subsurface water flow

within the rooting zone is common on slopes with impermeable soil layers. The flooding

regimes include saturated, seasonally flooded, and temporarily flooded. Seeps and

springs are common in this habitat.

The habitat is a forest or woodland (greater than 30 percent tree canopy cover) dominated

by evergreen conifer trees. Deciduous broadleaf trees are occasionally co-dominant. The

understory is dominated by shrubs (usually deciduous and relatively tall), forbs, or

graminoids. The forb layer is usually well developed, even where a shrub layer is

dominant. This habitat contains nearly all of the wettest forests within the Pacific silver

fir (Abies amabilis) and mountain hemlock zones of northwestern Oregon, and most of

the wet forests in the western hemlock and subalpine fir zones of eastern Oregon.

The primary land uses here are forestry and watershed protection. The major natural

disturbances include flooding, debris flow, fire, and wind. The habitat is naturally

limited in its extent and has probably declined little in area over time, though portions

have been degraded by the effects of logging, either directly on site or through

geohydrologic modifications. This habitat type is probably relatively stable in extent and

condition, although its condition may be locally declining because of logging and road

building.

Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs. Lakes in Oregon occur statewide and are found

from near sea level to about 10,200 feet above sea level. There are 6,000 lakes, ponds,

and reservoirs in Oregon, including almost 1,800 named lakes and over 3,800 named

reservoirs, all amounting to 270,641 acres (109,571 ha). Streams and rivers are

distributed state-wide, forming a continuous network that connects high mountain areas

to lowlands and the Pacific coast. There are 12,000 named rivers and streams in Oregon,

totaling 112,640 miles in length; they range from cold, fast moving high-elevation

streams to warmer lowland valley rivers. Streams are here defined as flowing water

greater than 6 feet wide; narrower water bodies are considered within their respective

habitats.

Rivers and streams in southwestern Oregon are fed by rain and are located in an area

composed of sheared bedrock, which is thus an unstable terrain. Streams in this area

have high suspended-sediment loads. Beds composed of gravel and sand are easily

shifted during floods. Floods occur every year from October through April; more than

half of all floods occur during December and January. Floods are initiated by

precipitation and snow melts, and thus are short-lived.
21

Sewage effluents have caused eutrophication. The removal of gravel results in a

reduction of spawning areas for anadromous fish. Overgrazing and a loss of vegetation

caused by logging increases water temperatures and siltation, harming the invertebrate

communities. Flood control measures have contributed to a loss of oxbows, river

meanders, and flood plains. Unauthorized or over-appropriated withdrawals of water

from the natural drainages have also caused a loss of open water habitat that has been

detrimental to fish and wildlife production, particularly in the summer. The construction

of dams is associated with changes in water quality, fish passage, competition between

species, loss of spawning areas, and declines in native fish populations.

Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest . This upland forest and woodland

habitat occurs in southwestern Oregon. In southern Oregon, this habitat type is found at

low and middle elevations in the Klamath Mountains, Cascades, Coast Range, and

Eastern Cascade Slopes and Foothills ecoregions. Portions of Curry, Josephine, Jackson,

Douglas, Lane, and Klamath counties are included in the range of this habitat. The

predominant land use is forestry. Grazing occurs in some areas, especially at lower

elevations.

The climate varies from relatively dry and very warm, to moderately moist and cool, to

slightly warm and very moist. Snow is uncommon except at the highest elevations,

where a winter snow pack occurs for a few months. Summers are hot and dry. Elevation

ranges from near sea level to 6,000 feet. The topography is mostly mountainous, but also

includes two fairly large valleys and a corresponding variety of terrains. Soils are

diverse, as is the bedrock geology. Serpentine soils are common in portions of the

Siskiyou Mountains, where they have a major effect on vegetation.

Conifer trees typically dominate this habitat. In some areas, a well developed subcanopy

layer of smaller evergreen broadleaf trees is present. Occasionally, deciduous broadleaf

trees are co-dominant. Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir, white fir, sugar pine,

ponderosa pine, and incense cedar.

Fire is the predominant natural disturbance, although fire regimes vary depending on

environmental conditions. This habitat covers most of southwestern Oregon and has

declined little in areal extent. Conditions of most communities and stands have been

degraded by forestry practices and by fire suppression. The low-elevation, driest

communities have been altered by grazing and invasion of exotic species; specifically,

Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) has declined dramatically (Zobel et al.

1985). Fire suppression and logging-related effects continue to be threats.

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands. This habitat is primarily

found in the Willamette Valley and Klamath Mountains ecoregions. In southwestern

Oregon, it is now restricted mainly to the valleys of the Rogue and Umpqua Rivers.

Minor occurrences can also be found in the western Cascades. Land use in this habitat

includes forestry (generally small scale), livestock grazing, and low-density rural

residential.
22

The habitat has several geographic variants: California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and

ponderosa pine are important only in southwestern Oregon and the southern Willamette

Valley. Dry Douglas-fir forests (without oak or madrone) are found, rarely, in the west

Cascades and Willamette Valley. Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) and Douglasfir/Pacific madrone stands without oak are limited to the southern Willamette Valley

foothills. Mixed oak-madrone stands occur most often, especially in southwestern

Oregon.

This habitat typically occupies dry sites west of the Cascades. Elevation ranges from sea

level to about 3,500 feet in the Olympic Mountains, but is mainly below 1,500 feet. The

topography ranges from nearly level to very steep slopes, where aspect tends to be

southern or western. Soils on dry sites are typically shallow over bedrock, very stony, or

very deep and excessively drained. Fire is the major natural disturbance in this habitat.

This habitat type is a forest or woodland dominated by evergreen conifers, deciduous

broadleaf trees, evergreen broadleaf trees, or a mixture of conifers and broadleaf trees.

Understories vary in structure: grasses, shrubs, ferns, or some combination thereof will

typically dominate; deciduous broadleaf shrubs are perhaps most typical

The canopy is typically dominated by one or more of the following species: Douglas-fir,

Oregon white oak, Pacific madrone, shore (lodgepole) pine, or California black oak.

Ponderosa pine is important in southwestern Oregon and the southern Willamette Valley,

as a subordinate or co-dominant with oak.

This habitat type is relatively limited in area and is declining in both extent and condition.

With the cessation of regular burning 100-130 years ago, many grasslands and savannas

were invaded by a greater density of trees and thus converted to a different habitat. In

addition, large areas of this habitat have been converted to Urban or Agriculture habitats.

Most of the remaining habitat has been considerably degraded by the invasion of exotic

species or by logging and its consequent loss of structural diversity. Ongoing threats

include residential development, the increase and spread of exotic species, and fire

suppression effects (the latter especially in oak-dominated stands).

Westside Riparian-Wetlands . In Oregon, this habitat is patchily distributed in the

lowlands throughout the area west of the Cascade Crest. It can occur less extensively at

middle to higher elevations in the Cascade Mountains, where it is limited to more specific

environments. The major land use in the forested portions of this habitat is timber

harvest. Livestock grazing occurs in some areas, and peat mining occurs in some bogs.

This habitat is characterized by wetland hydrology or soils, periodic riverine flooding, or

perennial flowing freshwater. The climate varies from very wet to moderately dry and

from mild to cold. This habitat is found at elevations primarily below 3,000 feet, but can

extend up to 6,500 feet. The topography is typically flat to gently sloping or undulating,

but can include moderate to steep slopes in the mountains. The geology is extremely
23

variable, and flooding regimes include permanently flooded (aquatic portions of small

streams), seasonally flooded, saturated, and temporarily flooded.

Most often this habitat is a tall deciduous broadleaf shrubland, woodland, or forest, or

some mosaic of these. Short to medium-tall evergreen shrubs or graminoids and mosses

dominate portions of bogs. The dominant trees are evergreen conifers or deciduous

broadleaf, or a mixture of both. Red alder is the most widespread tree species, but is

absent from sphagnum bogs. Water is sometimes present on the surface for a portion of

the year. Large woody material is abundant in late seral forests and adjacent stream

channels. Small stream channels and small backwater channels on larger streams are

included in this habitat. This habitat includes all palustrine, forested wetlands, and scrubshrub wetlands at lower elevations on the west side as well as a small subset of persistent

emergent wetlands, those within sphagnum bogs. They are associated with both lentic

and lotic systems.

The primary natural disturbance is flooding, although beavers act as important

disturbances by changing the hydrology of a stream system through dams. Grazing by

native ungulates (e.g., elk) can have a major effect on vegetation. Intense logging

disturbance in conifer or mixed riparian or wetland forests, except bogs, often results in

the establishment of red alder, and its ensuing long-term dominance. Salmonberry

responds similarly to this disturbance and tends to dominate the understory. Roads and

other water diversion/retention structures change watershed hydrology with wide-ranging

and diverse effects, including major vegetation changes (Furniss et al. 1991). Increases

in nutrients and pollutants are other common anthropogenic effects, the former with

particularly acute effects in bogs. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) is an

abundant non-native species in low-elevation, disturbed settings dominated by shrubs or

deciduous trees. Many other exotic species also occur.

This habitat occupies relatively small areas and has declined greatly in extent as a result

of its conversion to urban development and agriculture. The remaining habitat is mostly

in poor condition, having experienced anthropogenic effects that have degraded the

functionality of these ecosystems: channeling, diking, dams, logging, road-building, the

invasion of exotic species, changes in hydrology and nutrients, and livestock grazing.

Current threats include all of the above as well as development.

Landuse Context

Populations of resident fish, wildlife, and anadromous salmonids are at risk or already

extinct in many basins of Oregon, leading to the numerous ESA listings. These

populations have declined due to a variety of human activities and natural events

including hydropower development, overharvest, land management activities, artificial

propagation, water pollution, disease, predator control, competition, timber harvest,

predation from introduced species, and climatic variation leading to temporarily

unfavorable ocean conditions (FEMAT 1993, Henjum et al. 1994, NOAA Fisheries 1995,

National Research Council 1996, Spence et al. 1996, Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration

Initiative 1997, Lee et al. 1997).
24

Land Management

Land management activities that have degraded habitat of resident fish, wildlife, and

anadromous salmonids include water withdrawals, unscreened water diversions,

hydropower development, road construction, timber harvest, stream cleaning of large

wood, splash dams, mining, farming, livestock grazing, outdoor recreation, and

urbanization (FEMAT 1993, Botkin et al. 1995, National Research Council 1996,

Spence et al. 1996, Lee et al. 1997). In many Oregon basins, land management activities

have: (1) Reduced connectivity (i.e., the flow of energy, organisms, and materials)

between streams, riparian areas, floodplains, and uplands; (2) elevated fine sediment

yields, filling pools and reducing spawning and rearing habitat; (3) reduced instream and

riparian large woody debris that traps sediment, stabilizes streambanks, and helps form

pools and off channel habitat; (4) reduced or eliminated vegetative canopy that minimizes

temperature fluctuations; (5) caused streams to become straighter, wider, and shallower,

which has the tendency to reduce spawning and rearing habitat and increase temperature

fluctuations; (6) altered peak flow volume and timing, leading to channel changes and

potentially altering fish migration behavior; (7) altered floodplain function, water tables

and base flows, resulting in riparian wetland and stream dewatering; (8) degraded water

quality by adding heat, nutrients and toxicants; (9) and reduced the area of mature forest

habitat; and (10) converted native habitat types to agriculture or urban areas (FEMAT

1993, Henjum et al. 1994, McIntosh et al. 1994, Rhodes et al. 1994, Wissmar et al. 1994,

National Research Council 1996, Spence et al. 1996, Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration

Initiative 1997, Lee et al. 1997).

Beginning in the early 1800s, riparian areas in eastern and southern Oregon were

extensively changed by trapping beaver, logging, mining, livestock grazing, agricultural

activities, and associated water diversion projects. Very little of the once extensive

riparian vegetation remains to maintain water quality and provide habitats for listed

resident fish and anadromous salmonids. Dams have affected flow, sediment, and gravel

patterns, which in turn have diminished regeneration and natural succession of riparian

vegetation along downstream rivers. Introduced plant species pose a risk to some

riparian habitat by dominating local habitats and reducing the diversity of native plant

species. Improper grazing management in riparian areas is another significant threat

(USFWS 1998, Risser 2000). Past timber harvest practices and associated road building

have also degraded streams (FEMAT 1993).

In the Columbia River Basin, even before mainstem dams were built, habitat was lost or

severely damaged in small tributaries by construction and operation of irrigation dams

and diversions, inundation of spawning areas by impoundments, and siltation and

pollution from sewage, farming, logging, and mining (Fulton 1968).

Human activities have had vast effects on the native resident and anadromous salmonid

populations in the Willamette River basin. First, the Willamette River, once a highly

braided river system, has been dramatically simplified through channelization, dredging,

and other activities that have reduced rearing habitat (i.e., stream shoreline) by as much

as 75 percent. In addition, the construction of 37 dams in the basin has blocked access to

over 435 miles of stream and river spawning habitat. The dams also alter the temperature
25

regime of the Willamette and its tributaries, affecting the timing of development of

naturally-spawned eggs and fry. Dams regulate seasonal flows thus limiting off channel

habitat. Water quality is also affected by development and other economic activities.

Agricultural and urban land uses on the valley floor, as well as timber harvesting in the

Cascade and Coast ranges, contribute to increased erosion and sediment load in

Willamette River basin streams and rivers. Finally, since at least the 1920s, the lower

Willamette River has suffered municipal and industrial pollution (Risser 2000).

In the western Cascades, Willamette Valley, Coast Range, and Klamath Mountains,

riparian areas on privately-owned land are dominated by younger forests because of

timber harvest, whereas riparian areas on public lands have more mature conifers. Old

coniferous forests now comprise approximately 20 percent of the riparian forests in the

Cascades, but only 3 percent in the Coast Range. Older forests historically occurred

along most of the McKenzie River, but now account for less than 15 percent of its

riparian forests. Along the mainstem of the upper Willamette River, channel complexity

has been reduced by 80 percent and the total area of riparian forest has been reduced by

more than 80 percent since the 1850s. Downstream portions of the Willamette River

have experienced significant channel change, and more than 80 percent of the historical

riparian forest has been lost (Risser 2000).

Depending on the species, salmon spend from a few days to one or two years in an

estuary before migrating out to the ocean. However, alterations such as filling, dredging,

the introduction of nonnative species, and excessive waste disposal have changed

Oregon's estuaries, reducing their natural resiliency and functional capacity. The most

significant historical changes in Oregon's estuaries are the diking, draining and filling of

wetlands and the stabilization, dredging and maintenance of navigation channels.

Between 1870 and 1970, approximately 50,000 acres, or 68 percent of the original tidal

wetland areas in Oregon estuaries, were lost. Consumptive use of fresh water in the

upper watersheds has reduced freshwater inflow to estuaries by as much as 60 to 80

percent, thus reducing the natural dilution and flushing of pollutants. Non-native species

now comprise a significant portion of Oregon's estuarine flora and fauna. Some, such as

the European green crab, pose serious threats to the native estuarine communities.

Despite these significant historical wetland conversions and continuing degradation by

pollutants, nuisance species, and navigational improvement, much of the original habitat

that existed in the mid-1800s is still relatively intact. Hundreds of acres of former

estuarine marshes are now being restored (Risser 2000).

Oregon contains approximately 114,500 miles of rivers and streams. No statewide

measurements exist of the area of riparian vegetation, although some estimates have been

made for more localized regions. Using the conservative estimate of a 100-yard riparian

corridor on each side of the stream, the total area of riparian habitats for flowing water in

Oregon may be 22,900 square miles. That is equal to approximately 15 percent of the

total area of the state. With the exception of fall Chinook, which generally spawn and

rear in the mainstem, most salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat is found in

tributaries where riparian areas are a major habitat component. Healthy riparian areas

retain the structure and function of natural landscapes as they were before the intensive
26

land use and land conversion that has occurred over the last 150 to 200 years. However,

land use activities have reduced the numbers of large trees, the amount of closed-canopy

forests, and the proportion of older forests in riparian areas. In western Oregon, riparian

plan communities have been altered along almost all streams and rivers (Risser 2000).

Water Supply

Oregon’s currently available water supplies are fully or over allocated during low flow

months of summer and fall. In the Columbia Plateau ecoregion, less that 20 percent of

instream water rights can expect to receive their full allocation nine months of the year.

In the Willamette Valley and Cascades ecoregions, more than 80 percent of the instream

water rights can expect to receive their full allocation in the winter, but only about 25

percent in the early fall. Increased demand for water is linked to the projected 34 percent

increase in human population over the next 19 years in the state (ODAS 1999).

Depletion and storage of natural flows have altered natural hydrological cycles in basins

occupied by listed resident fish and salmonid ESUs. This may cause juvenile salmon

mortality through migration delay resulting from insufficient flows or habitat blockages,

loss of sufficient habitat due to dewatering and blockage, stranding of fish resulting from

rapid flow fluctuations, entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or unscreened

diversions, and increased juvenile mortality resulting from increased water temperatures

(Spence et al. 1996). Reduced flows also negatively affected fish habitats due to

increased deposition of fine sediments in spawning gravels, decreased recruitment of new

spawning gravels, encroachment of riparian and exotic vegetation into spawning and

rearing areas and loss of off channel habitat. Further, some climate models predict 10 to

25 percent reductions in late spring-summer-early fall runoff amounts in the coming

decades (Risser 2000, USFWS 1998).

Water Quality

The Oregon Water Quality Index is based on a combination of measurements of

temperature, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, ammonia and nitrate

nitrogen, total phosphorus, total solids and fecal coliform (Risser 2000). Generally, water

quality in Oregon, as shown by the Oregon Water Quality Index, is poor for salmon

during low flow periods, except in mountainous areas. Areas with excellent or good

water quality occur most often in forested uplands. Poor or very poor water quality

occurs most often in non-forested lowlands where land has been converted to agricultural

and urban uses. Most ecoregions include some rivers and streams with excellent water

quality and other with very poor water quality. Only the Cascades ecoregion has

excellent water quality overall. The Willamette Valley, Columbia Plateau, Northern

Basin and Range, and southern end of the Eastern Cascade Slope ecoregions have poor

water quality. The effects of pesticides and fertilizers, especially nitrates, on aquatic

habitats are a significant concern (Risser 2000).

Water quality in Upper Klamath Lake consistently reaches levels known to be stressful to

resident fish including listed suckers and periodically reaches lethal levels in August -

September, resulting in catastrophic die-off events (Bienz and Ziller 1987, Buettner 1997,

Foott 1997, Gilbert 1898, Holt 1997, Loftus 2001, Perkins et al. 2000, Scoppettone 1986,

Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, USBR 1996). Major fish die-offs have been recorded
27

since the late 1800's but have increased in frequency in the last few decades Small,

localized fish die-offs have been observed annually on Upper Klamath Lake since 1992.

Exotic Species

More than 32 species of freshwater fish have been introduced into Oregon, and are now

self-sustaining, making up approximately one-third of Oregon's freshwater fish fauna.

Introduced species are frequently predators on native species (USFWS 1998), compete

for food resources, alter freshwater habitats, and may hybridize with native salmonids

(Buchanan et al. 1997). In 1998, introduced species were found to comprise 5 percent of

the number of species found in the upper Willamette River, but accounted for 60 percent

of the observed species in the lower river near Portland (Risser 2000).
28

APPENDIX D Program coordination and communication protocol flow chart.

Variances. Variances will be requested for actions not clearly addressed in the

environmental performance standards. The Services will respond with an approval,

approval with additional conservation measures, or disapproval within 30 calendar days

of receipt of the variance request.

Variances of the environmental performance standards that result in greater effects or

greater take than provided in the biological opinion will not be granted and will require

separate consultation.

Pre-Construction Assessment (PCA). The Services will review each individual bridge

project to ensure that all effects are within the range considered in the biological opinion,

quantify project level take estimates or extent of take per established metrics, verify

program level exempted take is not likely to be exceeded, and that all appropriate

environmental performance standards are being properly followed. Submit the PCA to

the Services and the appropriate Regulatory Authorities at least 30 days prior to starting

construction activities.
29

Phase: Early Design

Action: ID Variances

Potential variances or nonprogrammatic permitting are

presented and discussed

Phase: Mid-Design

Action: EPS Compliance

Document

Variance approaches are

approved, modified, or denied

by the Services

Phase: Late-Design

Action: PCA with Specifications

PCA with Specifications are

provided to Services.

Services provide approval or

non-approval

Phase: Pre-Design

Action: ID Resources/Issues

Baseline information is

provided to Services

Phase: Pre-Construction

Action: Review Specifications

with Construction Contractor

Services participate in PreConstruction meeting to

review Environmental

Specifications with

Construction Contractor

Phase: Construction & PostConstruction

Action: Monitoring

Services participate in

monitoring activities and

receive project monitoring

reports

Annual coordination and

monitoring meeting with the

Services to review upcoming,

active, and completed project

activities & overall Program

Administration

Project Specific

Design/construction

Process

Project Specific

NOAA/USFWS

Coordination
30