Biological Assessment

ODOT OTIA III

Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

March 1, 2004

Prepared by:
i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................ES-1

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

1.1 Background......................................................................................................................1-6

1.2 Location ...........................................................................................................................1-7

1.3 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................1-7

2.0 EVALUATION METHODS ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Communication................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Consultation Approach ............................................................................................ 2-2

2.1.2 Action Area.............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.1.3 Species Range .......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.4 Effects Metrics ......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.5 Environmental Performance Standards.................................................................... 2-3

2.1.6 Program Administration........................................................................................... 2-3

2.2 Background Review......................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 GIS Analysis ....................................................................................................................2-4

2.3.1 Transforming the Data ............................................................................................. 2-5

2.3.2 Screening the Effects ............................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.3 Describing the Effects.............................................................................................. 2-6

2.3.4 Estimating the Effects .............................................................................................. 2-6

3.0 PROPOSED ACTION..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Statewide Action..............................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Compliance and Reporting ..............................................................................................3-4

3.3 Environmental Performance Standards............................................................................3-6

3.4 Bridge Repair/Replacement Elements ...........................................................................3-38

3.4.1 Pre-Construction .................................................................................................... 3-38

3.4.2 Clearing.................................................................................................................. 3-39

3.4.3 Equipment Control................................................................................................. 3-40

3.4.4 Construction Material Containment....................................................................... 3-40

3.4.5 Earthwork............................................................................................................... 3-41

3.4.6 Foundations............................................................................................................ 3-43

3.4.7 In-water Work........................................................................................................ 3-44
ii

3.4.8 Roadwork............................................................................................................... 3-48

3.4.9 Stormwater Management ....................................................................................... 3-49

3.4.10 Illumination............................................................................................................ 3-50

3.4.11 Planting and Seeding.............................................................................................. 3-50

3.4.12 Exclusionary Devices............................................................................................. 3-51

3.5 Bridge Repair/Replacement Activities ..........................................................................3-51

3.5.1 Design .................................................................................................................... 3-53

3.5.2 Pre-construction ..................................................................................................... 3-53

3.5.3 Construction........................................................................................................... 3-53

3.5.4 Site Restoration...................................................................................................... 3-57

3.6 Conservation and Mitigation Actions ............................................................................3-58

3.6.1 Integrated Resource Management Program Summary .......................................... 3-58

3.6.2 Section 7(a)(1) Actions .......................................................................................... 3-59

3.7 Interrelated & Interdependent Activities ....................................................................... 3-61

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM CONDITION.......................................................... 4-1

4.1 Ecoregions .......................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Basin & Range ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Blue Mountains........................................................................................................ 4-6

4.1.3 Coast Range ............................................................................................................. 4-7

4.1.4 Columbia Basin........................................................................................................ 4-8

4.1.5 East Cascades Slope and Foothills Ecoregion ......................................................... 4-9

4.1.6 Klamath Mountains................................................................................................ 4-10

4.1.7 High Lava Plains.................................................................................................... 4-10

4.1.8 Owyhee Uplands.................................................................................................... 4-11

4.1.9 West Cascade Mountains Ecoregion ..................................................................... 4-12

4.1.10 Willamette Valley .................................................................................................. 4-13

4.2 Johnson and O’Neil Habitat Type Descriptions ............................................................4-13

4.2.1 Urban and Mixed Environments............................................................................ 4-15

4.2.2 Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environment ...................................................... 4-15

4.2.3 Eastside (Interior) Grasslands ................................................................................ 4-16

4.2.4 Herbaceous Wetlands............................................................................................. 4-17

4.2.5 Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands (includes Eastside Oak)........................... 4-17

4.2.6 Shrub-Steppe.......................................................................................................... 4-18
iii

4.2.7 Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands......................................... 4-18

4.2.8 Bays and Estuaries ................................................................................................. 4-19

4.2.9 Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest...................................................... 4-20

4.2.10 Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands ................................................................. 4-20

4.2.11 Montane Coniferous Wetlands .............................................................................. 4-21

4.2.12 Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs.................................................................... 4-22

4.2.13 Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest ............................................ 4-22

4.2.14 Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands................................... 4-23

4.2.15 Westside Riparian-Wetlands.................................................................................. 4-24

5.0 TAXONOMICAL GROUP AND SPECIES EVALUATION........................................ 5-1

5.1 Summary of Evaluation Methods ....................................................................................5-1

5.2 Fish (Anadromous) Species .............................................................................................5-2

5.2.1 Life History and Status ............................................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Analysis of Effects on Fish (Anadromous)..............................................................5-3

5.2.3 Determination of Effects Methodology .................................................................5-16

5.2.4 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU......................................................5-20

5.2.5 Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU ......................................................5-26

5.2.6 Snake River Spring/Summer Run Chinook Salmon ESU .....................................5-32

5.2.7 Snake River Fall Run Chinook Salmon ESU.........................................................5-39

5.2.8 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU ....................................................5-45

5.2.9 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU ..........................................................................5-59

5.2.10 Northern California/Southern Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU..........................5-69

5.2.11 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon....................................................................5-74

5.2.12 Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU .....................................................................5-80

5.2.13 Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU........................................................................5-85

5.2.14 Lower Columbia River Steelhead Trout ESU .......................................................5-90

5.2.15 Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU ................................................................5-96

5.2.16 Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU................................................................5-104

5.2.17 Snake River Basin Steelhead ESU.......................................................................5-110

5.2.18 Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU..............................................................5-118

5.2.19 Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Coastal Cutthroat Trout DPS .........5-128

5.3 Fish (Resident) Species................................................................................................5-135

5.3.1 Life History and Status ........................................................................................5-135
iv

5.3.2 Analysis of Effects............................................................................................... 5-145

5.3.3 Determination of Effects Methodology ...............................................................5-151

5.3.4 Bull Trout.............................................................................................................5-156

5.3.5 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ....................................................................................5-181

5.3.6 Shortnose Sucker ................................................................................................. 5-183

5.3.7 Lost River Sucker ................................................................................................ 5-187

5.3.8 Warner Sucker .....................................................................................................5-191

5.3.9 Oregon Chub........................................................................................................ 5-193

5.3.10 Borax Lake Chub ................................................................................................. 5-200

5.3.11 Hutton Tui Chub .................................................................................................. 5-202

5.3.12 Foskett Speckled Dace.........................................................................................5-204

5.3.13 Lamprey ............................................................................................................... 5-206

5.3.14 Modoc Sucker ......................................................................................................5-206

5.4 Wildlife Species...........................................................................................................5-207

5.4.1 Effects Pathways.................................................................................................. 5-207

5.4.2 Minimization and Avoidance Measures ..............................................................5-211

5.4.3 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) .................................................................. 5-211

5.4.4 Columbian White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) ......................5-218

5.4.5 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis).......................................................................... 5-224

5.4.6 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) ............................................... 5-231

5.4.7 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ............................................................... 5-242

5.4.8 Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) ......................................... 5-250

5.4.9 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) .......................................................... 5-256

5.4.10 Western Snowy Plover (Coastal Population), (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus) ................................................................................................................ 5-269

5.4.11 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) ...................................................... 5-272

5.4.12 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) ................................................ 5-279

5.4.13 Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi).......................................... 5-286

5.4.14 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta).................................... 5-293

5.4.15 Other Wildlife species..........................................................................................5-296

5.5 Plant Species ................................................................................................................5-304

5.5.1. Evaluation Methods and Results..........................................................................5-304

5.5.2 Effects Pathways.................................................................................................. 5-311
v

5.5.3 Minimization and Avoidance...............................................................................5-314

5.5.4 Applegate’s Milk-vetch (Astragalus applegatei)................................................. 5-315

5.5.5 Bradshaw’s Lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii).................................................. 5-316

5.5.6 Cook’s Lomatium (Lomatium cookii).................................................................. 5-323

5.5.7 Gentner’s Fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri) ............................................................ 5-329

5.5.8 Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta).............................................................. 5-335

5.5.9 Howell’s Spectacular Thelypody (Thelypodium howellii spectabilis) ................5-340

5.5.10 Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii) ........................................ 5-342

5.5.11 Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora)....5-348

5.5.12 MacFarlane’s Four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei)........................................... 5-354

5.5.13 Malheur Wire-lettuce (Stephanomeria malheurensis)......................................... 5-355

5.5.14 Marsh Sandwort (Arenaria paludicola)............................................................... 5-355

5.5.15 McDonald’s Rock-Cress (Arabis mcdonaldiana)................................................ 5-356

5.5.16 Nelson’s Checker-Mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) ............................................... 5-357

5.5.17 Rough Popcornflower (Plagiobothrys hirtus) ..................................................... 5-364

5.5.18 Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene Spaldingii)............................................................... 5-370

5.5.19 Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis)................................................................... 5-371

5.5.20 Western Lily (Lilium occidentale) ....................................................................... 5-376

5.5.21 Willamette Daisy (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens)...................................5-378

6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 State Actions ....................................................................................................................6-4

6.2 Local Actions...................................................................................................................6-5

6.3 Tribal Actions ..................................................................................................................6-5

6.4 Private Actions.................................................................................................................6-6

7.0 MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT....................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Essential Fish Habitat Applicability ................................................................................7-2

7.2 Description of the Project/Proposed Action ....................................................................7-3

7.3 Description of Species with EFH Potentially Affected by the Proposed Program..........7-3
vi

7.3.1 Groundfish ............................................................................................................... 7-3

7.3.2 Description of Essential Fish Habitat for Pacific Salmon.................................... 7-106

7.3.3 Salmon Life History Information......................................................................... 7-113

7.4 Analysis of Effects on Groundfish and Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat ..........7-130

7.4.1 Screening Criteria ................................................................................................ 7-130

7.4.2 Potential Adverse Effects on Groundfish EFH and Associated

Mitigation/Avoidance Measures.......................................................................... 7-130

7.4.3 Determination of Effects on Groundfish EFH ..................................................... 7-136

7.4.4 Potential Adverse Effects on Pacific Salmon EFH and Associated

Mitigation/Avoidance Measures.......................................................................... 7-136

8.0 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Distribution ......................................................................................................................8-1

8.2 Effects Pathways..............................................................................................................8-3

8.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures ..........................................................................8-4

8.4 Analysis of Effects...........................................................................................................8-4

9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9-1
vii

List of Figures

Section 1

Figure 1.2-1 Oregon base map with bridge locations. .................................................... 1-8

Section 2

Figure 2.3-1 Illustratration of gross and net area estimates within bridge API’s. .......... 2-7

Section 4

Figure 4.0-1 Ecoregions Overview ................................................................................. 4-2

Figure 4.2-1 Johnson and O'Neil Habitat types in Oregon ........................................... 4-14

Section 5-Fish

Figure 5.2.4–1 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon .......................................... 5-22

Figure 5.2.5-1 Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon ........................................... 5-28

Figure 5.2.6-1 Snake River Spring/Summer Run Chinook Salmon .......................... 5-34

Figure 5.2.7-1 Snake River Fall Run Chinook Salmon ............................................. 5-41

Figure 5.2.8-1 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon.......................................... 5-47

Figure 5.2.9–1 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ............................................................... 5-61

Figure 5.2.10–1 Northern California/Southern Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ............... 5-71

Figure 5.2.11–1 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ................................................ 5-76

Figure 5.2.12–1 Columbia River Chum Salmon .......................................................... 5-82

Figure 5.2.13–1 Snake River Sockeye Salmon ............................................................ 5-87

Figure 5.2.14-1 Lower Columbia River Steelhead ...................................................... 5-92

Figure 5.2.15–1 Middle Columbia River Steelhead ..................................................... 5-98

Figure 5.2.16–1 Upper Columbia River Steelhead .................................................... 5-106

Figure 5.2.17–1 Snake River Basin Steelhead ........................................................... 5-112

Figure 5.2.18–1 Upper Willamette River Steelhead .................................................. 5-120

Figure 5.2.19–1 Cutthroat Trout ................................................................................ 5-130

Figure 5.3.4–1 Bull Trout.......................................................................................... 5-157
viii

Figure 5.3.5–1 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ................................................................ 5-182

Figure 5.3.6–1 Shortnose Sucker .............................................................................. 5-184

Figure 5.3.7–1 Lost River Sucker ............................................................................. 5-189

Figure 5.3.8–1 Warner Sucker ................................................................................. 5-192

Figure 5.3.9–1 Oregon Chub..................................................................................... 5-194

Figure 5.3.10–1 Borax Lake Chub .............................................................................. 5-201

Figure 5.3.11–1 Hutton Tui Chub ............................................................................... 5-203

Figure 5.3.12–1 Foskett Speckled Dace...................................................................... 5-205

Section 5-Wildlife

Figure 5.4.3–1 Steller Sea Lion ................................................................................ 5-214

Figure 5.4.4–1 Columbian White-Tailed Deer ......................................................... 5-219

Figure 5.4.5–1 Canada Lynx .................................................................................... 5-225

Figure 5.4.6–1 Marbled Murrelet.............................................................................. 5-233

Figure 5.4.7–1 Bald Eagle......................................................................................... 5-244

Figure 5.4.8–1 Brown Pelican................................................................................... 5-252

Figure 5.4.9–1 Northern Spotted Owl....................................................................... 5-258

Figure 5.4.10–1 Western Snowy Plover (Coastal Population).................................... 5-271

Figure 5.4.12–1 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ................................................................. 5-281

Figure 5.4.13–1 Fender’s Blue Butterfly..................................................................... 5-287

Figure 5.4.14–1 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly.............................................................. 5-295

Section 5-Plants

Figure 5.5.1-1 ODOT Rare Plant Survey Screening Methodology.......................... 5-305

Figure 5.5.1-2 USFWS Rare Plant Survey Screening Methodology........................ 5-307

Figure 5.5.1-3 Summary of Plant Screening Results................................................ 5-309

Figure 5.5.5–1 Bradshaw’s Lomatium...................................................................... 5-321

Figure 5.5.6–1 Cook’s Lomatium ............................................................................. 5-328

Figure 5.5.7–1 Gentner’s Fritillary ........................................................................... 5-334

Figure 5.5.8–1 Golden Paintbrush............................................................................. 5-339

Figure 5.5.9–1 Howell’s Spectacular Thelypody...................................................... 5-341

Figure 5.5.10–1 Kincaid’s Lupine............................................................................... 5-347
ix

Figure 5.5.11–1 Large-flowered Wooly Meadowfoam............................................... 5-353

Figure 5.5.16–1 Nelson’s Checker-mallow................................................................. 5-362

Figure 5.5.17–1 Rough Popcornflower ....................................................................... 5-368

Figure 5.5.19–1 Water Howellia ................................................................................. 5-375

Figure 5.5.20–1 Western Lily ..................................................................................... 5-377

Figure 5.5.21–1 Willamette Daisy .............................................................................. 5-385

Section 7

Figure 7.2-1 Groundfish EFH ......................................................................................... 7-4

Figure 7.2-2 Salmon EFH ............................................................................................... 7-5

Section 8

Figure 8.4-1 OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program Marine Mammals....... 8-6

List of Tables

Table 1.0-1. List of TEPS species included in this consultation............................... 1-1

Table 3.1-1. Number of OTIA III bridges along highways in Oregon. .................... 3-2

Table 3.1-2. Number of OTIA III bridges within each ecoregion and 3rd field

HUC. ..................................................................................................... 3-3

Table 3.3-1. Matrix of environmental performance standards and bridge repair

/ replacement elements.......................................................................... 3-6

Table 3.5-1. Matrix of Bridge Repair / Replacement Activities and Elements....... 3-52

Table 4.0-1. Total acreage of Johnson and O’Neil habitat type within each

ecoregion............................................................................................... 4-3

Table 5.2.1-1. Oregon Pacific salmon and steelhead life history, status, and

Federal listing information. .................................................................. 5-3

Table 5.2.3-1. Summary results of Federally listed anadromous fish species in

Oregon................................................................................................. 5-17

Table 5.2.4-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Lower Columbia River

Chinook Salmon.................................................................................. 5-23

Table 5.2.5-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Columbia River

Chinook Salmon.................................................................................. 5-29
x

Table 5.2.6-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River

Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon. ...................................................... 5-35

Table 5.2.7-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River Fall

Chinook Salmon.................................................................................. 5-42

Table 5.2.8-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Willamette River

Chinook Salmon.................................................................................. 5-48

Table 5.2.9-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Oregon Coast Coho

Salmon. ............................................................................................... 5-62

Table 5.2.10-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect N. California/Southern

Oregon/ Coastal Coho Salmon............................................................ 5-72

Table 5.2.11-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Lower Columbia River

Coho Salmon....................................................................................... 5-77

Table 5.2.12-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Columbia River Chum

Salmon. ............................................................................................... 5-83

Table 5.2.13-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River Sockeye

Salmon. ............................................................................................... 5-88

Table 5.2.14-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Lower Columbia River

Steelhead Trout. .................................................................................. 5-93

Table 5.2.15-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Middle Columbia River

Steelhead Trout. .................................................................................. 5-99

Table 5.2.16-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Columbia River

Steelhead Trout. ................................................................................ 5-107

Table 5.2.17-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River Basin

Steelhead Trout. ................................................................................ 5-113

Table 5.2.18-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Willamette River

Steelhead Trout. ................................................................................ 5-121

Table 5.2.19-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Southwestern

Washington/Columbia River Coastal Cutthroat Trout. .................... 5-131

Table 5.3.4-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Bull Trout. ....................... 5-158

Table 5.3.4-2. Summary of program bridges in the bull trout Columbia River

DPS and Klamath River DPS by ecoregion...................................... 5-178

Table 5.3.6-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect the Shortnose Sucker

DPS. .................................................................................................. 5-185

Table 5.3.6-2. Shortnose and Lost River sucker screening summary table. ............ 5-186

Table 5.3.7-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect the Lost River Sucker

DPS. .................................................................................................. 5-190

Table 5.3.9-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Oregon Chub DPS. .......... 5-195

Table 5.3.9-2. Summary of survey results to date.................................................... 5-198
xi

Table 5.3.9-3. Summary of screening results by ecoregion for bridges with the

potential to affect Oregon chub. These include nine of the

surveyed sites and the 31 remaining unsurveyed sites...................... 5-199

Table 5.3.9-4. Summary of screening results by 4th field HUC for bridges with

the potential to affect Oregon chub. These include nine of the

surveyed sites and the 31 remaining unsurveyed sites...................... 5-199

Table 5.4.3-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Steller Sea Lion. .............. 5-216

Table 5.4.4-1. Lands classified by the USFWS as essential to the survival and

recovery of Columbian white-tailed deer (USFWS 1976). .............. 5-220

Table 5.4.5-1. Program Bridge Projects That May Affect Canada Lynx................. 5-228

Table 5.4.6-1. Noise disturbance thresholds for marbled murrelets. ....................... 5-235

Table 5.4.6-2. Program Bridge projects that may affect Marbled Murrelet............. 5-237

Table 5.4.7-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Bald Eagle........................ 5-247

Table 5.4.8-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Brown Pelican.................. 5-254

Table 5.4.9-1. Noise disturbance thresholds for northern spotted owls................... 5-260

Table 5.4.9-2. Program Bridge projects that may affect Northern Spotted Owl...... 5-262

Table 5.4.11-1. General nest chronology for peregrine falcons in Oregon................ 5-274

Table 5.4.11-2. Bridges within each management zone of a peregrine falcon nest

site..................................................................................................... 5-277

Table 5.4.12-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Vernal Pool Fairy

Shrimp............................................................................................... 5-284

Table 5.4.13-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Fender’s Blue Butterfly. .. 5-289

Table 5.5.1-1. Summary of results of the bridge API screening process by

species............................................................................................... 5-310

Table 5.5.5-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect Bradshaw’s Lomatium............................................................ 5-320

Table 5.5.6-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect Cook’s Lomatium. .................................................................. 5-327

Table 5.5.7-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect Gentner’s fritillary. ................................................................. 5-333

Table 5.5.8-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect golden paintbrush.................................................................... 5-338

 Table 5.5.10-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect Kincaid’s lupine...................................................................... 5-346

Table 5.5.11-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect large-flowered wooly meadowfoam. ...................................... 5-352
xii

Table 5.5.16-2. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect Nelson’s checker-mallow. ...................................................... 5-361

Table 5.5.17-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect rough popcornflower............................................................... 5-367

Table 5.5.19-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect water howellia......................................................................... 5-374

Table 5.5.21-1. Summary of current rangewide knowledge for Willamette daisy

sites. .................................................................................................. 5-379

Table 5.5.21-2. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may

affect Willamette daisy. .................................................................... 5-384

Table 6.0-1. Percent change in population in the State of Oregon by county........... 6-3

Table 7.3.1-1. Estuarine Groundfish. ........................................................................... 7-7

Table 7.3.1-2. Non-rocky shelf groundfish ................................................................ 7-11

Table 7.3.1-3. Rocky shelf groundfish....................................................................... 7-14

Table 7.3.1-4. Intertidal groundfish. .......................................................................... 7-17

Table 7.3.2-1. Pacific salmon freshwater EFH identified by USGS hydrologic

unit number. ...................................................................................... 7-106

Table 7.3.2-2. Tentative list of man-made barriers under consideration for

exclusion of EFH above such barriers. The salmon fishery EFH

will exclude historic habitat above barriers that are considered to

not be technologically and economically feasible for salmonid

passage and/or re-establishment of self-sustaining runs above

such barriers...................................................................................... 7-109

Table 7.3.3-1. Chinook salmon habitat use by life history stage. (Please see

notes on next page). .......................................................................... 7-119

Table 7.3.3-2. Coho salmon habitat use by life history stage. (See notes on

following page.) ................................................................................ 7-127

Table 8.4-1. Program Bridges That May Affect Marine Mammals. .............................. 8-7

Appendices

Appendix 1-A .................................................................................. Program Bridge Data

Appendix 2-A ..........................................Effects Screening Layer (ESL) Memorandums

Appendix 2-B ..............................................Evaluation of Effects (EOE) Memorandums

Appendix 2-C ...............................................................ESA Working Group Participants

Appendix 3-A ............................................ Other Environmental Performance Standards

Appendix 3-B ............................................................... Preferred In-Water Work Periods
xiii

Glossary

Action area – All areas affected directly or indirectly by the Federal agency action and

not merely the immediate area involved in the action. [50 CFR §402.02]

Anadromous fish – Fish such as lamprey, sturgeon, shad, Pacific salmon, steelhead, and

striped bass that spawn in freshwater streams and migrate to marine environments for

adult growth.

Affected habitat – Areas of land or water temporarily or permanently altered as a result

of construction activities.

Alevin – In fisheries terminology, a larval salmonid that has hatched but has not fully

absorbed its yolk sac, and generally has not yet emerged from the spawning gravel.

Absorption of the yolk sac, the alevin's initial energy source, occurs as the larva develops

its mouth, digestive tract, and excretory organs and otherwise prepares to feed on natural

prey.

Alkaline meadows – Alkaline meadows generally occur in arid and semi-arid regions

where rainfall is inadequate to leach naturally occurring salts from valley basin soils,

allowing them to accumulate.

Anthropogenic factors – Relating to, or resulting from the influence of, human activity.

Area of Potential Impact (API) – The area within a 2,000-foot buffer around the bridge.

Bankfull elevation – The bank height inundated by a 1.5 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 Ordinary

High Water (OHW).

Basal attachment scar – The mark on the stem of a plant that remains after a leaf has

dropped from the plant.

Baseline condition – The past and present effects of all Federal, State, or private actions

and other human activities in an action area; the anticipated effect of all proposed Federal

projects in an action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7

consultation; and the effect of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the

consultation process.

Batched consultation – A section 7 streamlining process. Under this approach, the

action agencies group, or batch, a series of similar proposed projects, and the Services

produce a single review document that is appended to the programmatic consultation.

The design of each proposed project is to be sufficiently developed to accurately assess

its potential effects and anticipated take, if any. Such analyses often will be completed by

the action agency as part of the environmental review processes that it completes for all
xiv

projects. Thus, effects of each proposed treatment project will be evaluated both

individually and collectively within one document.

Bioswale – Shallow, open channels typically planted with grasses, which function to

reduce discharge water velocity, trap sediments, and uptake nutrients.

Conference determinations – A determination regarding the likely effect of a Federal

agency action on proposed species, candidate species, or proposed critical habitat.

Conservation – The terms “conserve,” “conserving” and “conservation” mean to use,

and the use of, all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or

threatened species to the point at which measures provided pursuant to the ESA are no

longer necessary.

Conservation easements – A restriction placed on a parcel of property to protect

resources associated with the parcel. The easement is either voluntarily sold or donated

by the landowner, and constitutes a legally binding agreement prohibiting certain types of

development (residential or commercial) from taking place on the land.

Conservation measures – Actions to benefit or promote the recovery of listed species,

included as an integral part of the proposed action. Conservation measures are

implemented to minimize, or compensate for, project effects on the species. These may

include actions taken prior to the initiation of consultation, or actions the Federal agency

has committed to complete in a biological assessment or similar document.

Contiguous populations – Groups of a species for which habitat is broadly distributed

over the species’ range, with opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous occupation

by the species; little limitation on population interaction occurs.

Contraction scour pools – Pools caused by a bridge structure that may locally reduce the

frequency and/or quality of current pool habitat.

Corvids – Members of the Corvidae family of birds distributed worldwide, including

crows, jays, and magpies.

Critical habitat – Critical habitat for listed species consists of: (1) the specific areas

within the geographical area occupied by the species (at the time it is listed in accordance

with the provisions of section 4 of the ESA) on which are found those physical or

biological features (PCE) (a) that are essential to the conservation of the species and (b)

that may require special management consideration or protection; and (2) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied by the species (at the time it is listed in

accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the ESA) upon a determination by the

Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Designated critical habitat – Applies to threatened or endangered species and means:

(1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time
xv

that it is listed (in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Endangered Species

Act), on which are found those physical or biological features (a) that are essential to the

conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations

or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species

at the time it is listed (in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the ESA), upon a

determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the

species. Critical habitat may be established for those species now listed as threatened or

endangered for which no critical habitat has heretofore been established. Except in those

circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire

geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species.

Design-build contractor – A contractor responsible for both the design and construction

of a project.

Determination of Effect –- The conclusions of total effect on a Federally listed animal

or plant species, from the sum of all activities associated with a proposed action (e.g.,

“may affect”, “not likely to adversely affect”).

Diameter at breast height (dbh) –The width of a plant stem (e.g., tree bole) as measured

at 4.5 feet above the ground surface. DBH is measured from the uphill side of the plant.

Dispersers – Individual animals that have left an originally occupied area.

Distinct Population Segment – “Population,” or “distinct population segment,” are

terms used for listing, de-listing, and reclassification purposes to describe a discrete stock

that may be added or deleted from the list of endangered and threatened species. The use

of the term “distinct population segment” will be consistent with the Services’ population

policy.

Disturbance – Any activity with the potential to adversely affect the behavior or survival

of a Federally listed plant or animal species.

Ecoregion – Relatively uniform geographic areas that respond in a similar manner to

physical events and activities (i.e., rainfall, fire, land use, etc.). Ecoregions are based on

similarity of important environmental variables such as climate, geology, physiography,

vegetation, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology.

Edaphic features – Pertaining to soil or to the physical, chemical, and biological

properties of the soil or substratum, such as pH and organic matter content, which

influence associated biota.

Effects Pathways – The media through which species may be affected (e.g., air, soil,

water).

Effects Screening Layer – Initial GIS screening process applied to all species addressed

in this BA.
xvi

Endangered – Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.

Endemic – Native or confined to a specific region or location.

Entrenchment (E) – 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.

Environmental Performance Standards – Conservation and mitigation measures

designed to be implemented in parallel with the construction activities of the Bridge

Program in order to minimize its adverse effects on listed species—and, where possible,

to cause the program to have beneficial effects on listed species.

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) – For a species, a population or set of

populations that are morphologically and genetically distinct from other populations, or a

population or set of populations with a distinct evolutionary history.

Exotic – A plant or animal that has been introduced into an ecosystem from a foreign

ecosystem.

Falsework – The support system for a temporary work bridge.

Fish passage barriers – Any naturally occurring or human-made object or feature that

restricts the natural movement of fish through their environment.

Floodplain connectivity – The hydrologic linkage between a fluvial channel and its

associated floodplain.

Floodprone width (FPW) – The width at the elevation of twice the maximum bankfull

depth or three times the average bankfull depth.

Fluvial – Pertaining to streams or rivers, or produced by stream action; also, migrating

between main rivers and tributaries.

Fluvial processes – Produced by the action of a river or stream.

Fry – Life stage of salmonids between full absorption of the yolk-sac and the fingerling

or parr stage, which generally is reached by the end of the first summer.

Functional group – The division into which species have been separated (i.e., fish,

wildlife, and plants) for discussion of project-related effects.

Functional habitat – Functional habitat is synonymous with suitable habitat such that it

is capable of supporting a protected species either presently or within the future.
xvii

Geographic Information System (GIS) – A database for capturing, storing, checking,

integrating, manipulating, analyzing and displaying data related to positions on the

Earth's surface. GIS may be used for producing maps to identify and show spatial

relationships between resources and features (e.g., roads). Resources or features might be

represented as layers built one upon the other, with each layer containing information

about the feature or resource.

Glabrous – (of a plant) Having smooth, hairless leaves.

Glaucous – (of a plant) Covered with a waxy grayish-blue powder.

Gross habitat acres – The number of acres of habitat for a Federally listed species (fish,

wildlife, or plant) that has the potential to be affected by the Bridge Program. This

number includes bridges with overlapping APIs.

Habitat – The type of environment in which an organism or group of organisms

normally lives or occurs.

Habitat Conservation Areas – Designated areas that are essential for the conservation

of a particular species.

Habitat refugia – Important remnant habitat features (e.g., downed wood) essential for

sensitive aquatic species.

Harassment – Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild, or has the potential to disturb a

listed species in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not

limited to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Haulout – Land areas used by adult marine mammals outside the breeding season, and

by non-breeding adults and sub-adults throughout the year. Sites used as rookeries during

the breeding season may be used as haulouts during other times of the year. 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.

High noise – 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).

Historic range – A species’ maximum distribution from the 1800s to the 1870s.

HUC – See Hydrologic Unit Code, below.

Hybridization – The mating of individuals of different species or sub-species.
xviii

Hydroacoustic effects – The effects to aquatic species caused by noise generated from

driving steel piles through water.

Hypereutrophication – The condition of a water body that has excessive quantities of

minerals and organic nutrients that have caused increased aquatic growth, especially

algae. This increased aquatic growth reduces dissolved oxygen content to anoxic levels,

which often results in the death of aquatic organisms.

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – Divisions and subdivisions of the United States into

successively smaller hydrologic units, classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions,

accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are nested from the smallest

(cataloging units) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique

hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of

classification in the hydrologic unit system.

Incidental take – Take of listed fish and wildlife species resulting from, but not the

purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a Federal agency or applicant.

Incipient motion – The velocity at which bed material becomes mobile.

Independent utility – A project that can function as a stand-alone project without

forcing new actions that may have additional effects.

Indicator species – A species whose presence or state of health is used to identify a

specific type of biotic community, or is used as a measure of ecological conditions or

changes occurring in the environment.

Indirect effects – Those effects, reasonably certain to occur at a later time, caused by or

resulting from the proposed action.

Inflorescence – A flower cluster.

Interdependent actions – Actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed

action.

Interrelated actions – Actions that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger

action for justification.

Interstitial spaces – Small voids within a specific medium.

Invasive – Describes a species (often non-native) taking over a habitat where it was not

previously found, often to the detriment of species (frequently native) present prior to its

arrival.

Is likely to adversely affect – This phrase is the appropriate finding in a BA if any

adverse effect to listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed
xix

action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not: discountable,

insignificant, or beneficial (see definition “is not likely to adversely affect"). In the event

the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species, but is also

likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proposed action "is likely to adversely

affect" the listed species. If incidental take is anticipated to occur as a result of the

proposed action, an "is likely to adversely affect" determination should be made. An "is

likely to adversely affect" determination requires initiation of formal section 7

consultation.

Is not likely to adversely affect – This phrase is the appropriate conclusion when effects

on listed species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial.

Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to

the species. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the effect and should never reach

the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those effects that are extremely

unlikely to occur, and based on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to

meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable

effects to occur.

Johnson and O’Neil habitat types – Environments where an animal or plant normally

lives, often characterized by a dominant plant form or physical characteristic. These

habitat types are specifically designated areas within Oregon.

Large wood –- For purposes of this project, “large wood” means a tree, log, or rootwad

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.

Large wood transport capacity – 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.

Larval – The stage in an insect’s development from the time it hatches from the egg until

it pupates.

Lethal take – Effects that result in death of an individual.

Life history – The significant features of the life cycle through which an organism

passes, with particular reference to strategies influencing survival and reproduction.

Limiting factors – Habitat conditions limiting sustainable populations of a species.

Listed species – Any species of fish, wildlife or plant, which has been determined to be

endangered or threatened under section 4 of the ESA. [50 CFR §402.02]
xx

Loafing site – Areas where species such as turtles and waterfowl leave the water to rest,

preen, etc. (e.g., logs, stumps, muskrat houses, and tussocks).

Long-term beneficial effects – Effects on a listed species that are wholly positive. These

effects may not be immediately evident, but will accrue through time or manifest

themselves in the future.

Macroinvertebrate – An invertebrate that is large enough to be seen without

magnification.

Maintenance – For the purposes of this BA, maintenance specifically refers to plantings

and other habitat elements.

Marine mammal habitat – For purposes of this project, areas capable of supporting

marine mammals, haulouts, and rookeries will be defined as marine mammal habitat,

unless stated otherwise.

May affect – The appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effect on

listed species or designated critical habitat. When the Federal agency proposing the

action determines that a "may affect" situation exists, then the agency must either initiate

formal consultation or seek written concurrence from the involved Service that the action

"is not likely to adversely affect" [see definition above] listed species.

Media – Plural for “medium”; a substance through which something is transmitted.

Mean lower-water mark – Tidal datum used in reference to tidelands or the tidally

affected portion of a stream. This mark is equal to the average lowest daily tide during a

19-year Metonic cycle, as established by the National Ocean Service of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Mesic soils – Soils conditioned by a temperate moist climate; neither xeric nor hydric;

pertaining to conditions of moderate moisture supply.

Metapopulation – Interacting populations of a single species across a geographic region.

Interbreeding and localized extirpation occur, and not all available habitats are used at

one time.

Minimization and avoidance measures – Actions taken to minimize and avoid effects

to Federally listed species.

Monotypic – Containing only one taxon of the next lower rank (e.g., a family containing

only one genus; or describing site conditions of one taxon).

Net habitat acres – The number of acres of habitat potentially affected by project

activities (after taking into consideration the overlapping bridge APIs).
xxi

No effect – The conclusion when the determination is made that a proposed action will

not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat.

Noise disturbance – Adverse effects on a Federally listed species from construction

activities.

Noise harassment – Adverse effects on a Federally listed species from construction

activities. These adverse effects are less severe than those associated with noise

disturbance.

Non-lethal take – Effects to a listed species that do not result in death of the individual.

Non-native – Fish, wildlife, or plant species not endemic to their present locale.

Normative physical process (normative fluvial process) – (Used in the Fluvial

Performance Standard.) A condition achieved by promoting natural sediment transport

patterns for the reach, providing unaltered fluvial debris movement, improving the

longitudinal continuity and connectivity of the stream-floodplain system, and providing

suitable passage for terrestrial and aquatic species.

Not determinable critical habitat – A critical habitat designation of “not determinable”

may be made if the Service does not have enough information to define critical habitat at

the time a species is listed. [See ESA Sec 4(b)(6)(C)(ii)]

Not properly functioning – A term describing the inhibition or restriction of natural

habitat-forming processes in a watershed (e.g., riparian community succession, bedload

transport, precipitation runoff pattern, channel migration) that are required for the longterm health of a fish species.

ODFW-defined in-water work periods – Guidelines that establish in-water work

periods that minimize the potential effects on fish and other aquatic resources.

ODOT standard specifications – "Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction",

current edition, published by the Oregon Department of Transportation.

Off-channel habitat – Aquatic habitat elements within a floodplain such as sloughs,

beaver ponds, wetlands, and other permanently or seasonally flooded lands that promote

fish spawning and rearing.

Old growth – Stands regenerated by natural succession, with a substantial number of old

trees and amount of deadwood; often variably aged. These stands represent climax or late

succession stages evidencing little or no effect from human activity.

Oregon State Boundary GIS layer – This layer shows the jurisdictional and

cartographic state perimeters for Oregon in the Oregon Lambert Projection.
xxii

OTIA III – Oregon Transportation Investment Act – Oregon State House Bill 2041,

the transportation funding package. This legislation will use increased DMV and

trucking-related fees to finance $2.5 billion in transportation construction projects in

Oregon cities and counties, and along the Oregon State highway system.

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program – The ODOT construction program for

430 bridges within the State of Oregon funded by House Bill 2041.

Performance standards – see Enviromental Performance Standards.

Physiographic province – A physiographic province is a landform region, delineated by

similar terrain and shaped by a common geologic history.

Pollutant loading – For purposes of this project, “pollutant loading” includes, but is not

limited to debris, sediment, nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals.

Primary constituent elements (PCEs) – The physical and biological features of

designated or proposed critical habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species,

including, but not limited to: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for

normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological

requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, the rearing of

offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) areas that are protected from

disturbance or are representative of the historic geographic and ecological distributions of

a species.

Programmatic consultation – A consultation addressing the Federal agency’s multiple

actions on a program, regional, or other basis.

Project watershed – For purposes of this project, “project watershed” refers to the 5th

Field Hydrologic Unit Code.

Proposed action – For the OTIA III project, this includes the proposed actions’ scope

and duration; construction to repair and replace bridges in the program during the next 10

years.

Provincial radius – The home range of a northern spotted owl around a known activity

center. This term was developed through home range studies by the Interagency

Scientific Council (1990) and geographic province descriptions by Franklin and Dyrness

(1988).

Pubescent – (of a plant) Covered with short, soft, erect hairs.

Range – The biogeographic region and set of conditions throughout which an organism

(e.g., plant species) naturally occurs.
xxiii

Rearing areas – Areas that support the fish developmental life phase from fertilization of

eggs to adulthood.

Reasonable and prudent measures – Actions identified during formal consultation that

the Service believes necessary or appropriate to minimize adverse effects (i.e., amount or

extent, of incidental take). [50 CFR §402.02]

Recovery – Improvement in the status of listed species to the threshold at which listing is

no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a) of the ESA.

Recovery goal – One of the objectives specified for an endangered species with an

established comprehensive recovery plan.

Recovery plan – Detailed and comprehensive plan outlining methods to reach the

recovery goal. Usually includes details about the species’ life history, limiting factors,

and current distribution.

Recovery units – Management subsets of a listed species, created to establish recovery

goals or carry out management actions. Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act and to lessen confusion, a subset of animal or plant species identified for the purpose

of recovery management will be called a “recovery unit” instead of a “population.”

Redd – A nest made in streambed gravel by fish for egg deposition, fertilization, and

incubation.

Refugia – Habitat elements such as undercut banks, large boulders, root wads, and debris

jams that promote freshwater aquatic habitat.

Regulatory authorities - include the ODEQ, ODSL, ODFW, ODA, Corps, and other

agencies with project-specific or activity-specific jurisdiction.

Reinitiation – A formal reconsideration of a portion of the proposed action. Section 7

regulations outline four general conditions for reinitiating formal consultation: (1) the

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the

action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not

previously considered; (3) the action is modified in a manner causing effects to listed

species or critical habitat not previously considered; (4) a new species is listed or critical

habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

Resident fish – Fish species that spend their entire life cycle in freshwater habitats.

Rookery – A breeding ground for certain gregarious birds and mammals.

Significant project changes – For purposes of this project, “significant project changes”

encompass actions or designs that affect the take statement and include, but are not

limited to, design elements or construction activities not described in the project
xxiv

description that result in effects not discussed in the biological opinion, changes to the

scope or magnitude of project effects that exceed the range of those described in the

biological opinion or approved variances, and activities that exceed the quantification or

extent of take identified in the project PCA or other appropriate reports. Significant

project changes may also include project changes in magnitude appropriate for

documentation in the Services’ or appropriate Regulatory Authorities’ administrative

record(s).

Site-potential tree height – A tree that has attained the maximum height possible given

the site conditions where it occurs.

Stream floodplain corridor – Floodplain width on either side of a stream for a set

distance upstream and downstream of a specified bridge scheduled for repair or

replacement in the Bridge Program.

Sub-lethal – Not resulting in death.

Sub-lethal effects – Effects resulting in disturbance of a species, but not death.

Take – The Federal ESA defines this term as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is

further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation

that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral

patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as

actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to

significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to,

breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Temporary barriers – Non-permanent obstructions to fish passage that may require

moving fish around a project site by hand.

Third-party contractor – A contractor, hired by a principal contractor, to perform work

for the principal contractor’s client.

Threatened – Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Tiering – A categorization utilized in ESA Section 7 programmatic consultations.

Subsequent “tiered” consultations are performed on individual project activities, groups

of similar projects, or annual programs, where specific effects on species can be

determined within the context of a local geographic area, or can contain incidental take

statements identifying the anticipated amount of incidental take from the site-specific

action under consultation.

Timing restrictions – See “Work timing restrictions”.
xxv

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) – A measure of inorganic and organic materials dissolved

in water (passing through a 0.45 micron filter); expressed as mg/l FR. Sometimes

considered similar to conductivity as an indicator of potential production in habitat

quality indices.

Urbanized watersheds – For purposes of this project, “urbanized watersheds” are

determined by a low percentage of natural vegetation and a high percentage of

impervious surface within the project watershed (5th Field HUC). Other methods may

include FEMA mapping, land management, land cover types, or land ownership. The

hydrology of these watersheds has been significantly altered by land development.

Vacant structures – 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.

Vernal pool complexes – Hydrologically and ecologically functional units of vernal pool

wetlands and depressions within a matrix of surrounding uplands.

Vernal pool wetland – Shallow, intermittently flooded wet meadow, generally dry for

most of the summer and fall.

Visual disturbance – Construction activity in view of wildlife, which may disrupt

normal behavior and adversely affect Federally listed wildlife species.

Visual harassment – Construction activity in view of wildlife, where the effect is less

severe than visual disturbance.

Waters – 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.

Water quality event – 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% 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.

Working adequately – For purposes of the Water Quality Performance Standard,

“working adequately” means that project activities do not increase ambient stream

turbidity by more than 10% above background 100 feet below the discharge, when

measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity-causing

activity.
xxvi

Work timing restrictions – Seasonal and/or diurnal restrictions placed on construction

activities to protect Federally listed wildlife, fish, and plant species (e.g., in-water work

periods for salmonids and time-of-day restrictions for northern spotted owls).

Xeric soils – Soils characterized by a scant supply of moisture; tolerating, or adapted to,

arid conditions.

1200CA permit – A general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

Stormwater Discharge Permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

This permit is issued pursuant to ORS 468B.050 and the Federal Clean Water Act. The

sources covered by this permit are all construction activities including clearing, grading,

excavation, and stockpiling activities under the authority or jurisdiction of a public

agency that will result in the disturbance of five or more acres. Also included are

activities that disturb a total of five or more acres if part of a larger common plan of

development.

303(d) list – Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states, territories, and

authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These impaired waters

do not meet water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set

for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels

of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority

rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for

these waters

5th field HUC – USGS Hydrologic Unit Code of 5th order streams (i.e., the Upper Little

Deschutes River in the Upper Deschutes River and Deschutes River systems).
xxvii

Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials

API Area of Potential Impact

BA Biological Assessment

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Dbh Diameter at Breast Height

DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EBOR Economic and Bridge Options Report

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EOE Evaluation of Effects

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Federal Endangered Species Act

ESL Effect Screening Layer

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

DSL Division of State Lands

FHWA Federal Highways Administration

GIS Geographic Information System

HCA Habitat Conservation Areas

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Society

NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

ONHP Oregon Natural Heritage Program

ORWD Oregon Water Resources Department

OTC Oregon Transportation Commission

OTIA III Oregon Transportation Investment Act III

OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

PCE Primary Constituent Elements

MB&G Mason, Bruce & Girard

MSA Magnuson Stevens Act

RCDG reinforced concrete deck girder

SESA Oregon State Endangered Species Act

SOER Oregon Stat of the Environment Report

TE&P Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed Species

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
ES - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this document is to address the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species

Act (Federal ESA), the Oregon State Endangered Species Act (SESA), the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (F&WCA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) as they relate to the repair and replacement of 430 highway bridges funded by the

Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program (Bridge

Program). The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will administer the Bridge

Program with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds. FHWA will serve as the lead

Federal agency, although both FHWA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers

(providing a Regional General Permit for the Program), constitute a Federal nexus for the

Program.

ODOT and FHWA began working with a number of Federal and State regulatory and resource

agencies in late 2002 to develop permitting strategies that meet the dual goals of providing

timely review of individual project permit applications and protecting or enhancing the natural

and built environments. In cooperation with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, it was decided

that a batched consultation with programmatic elements (batched-programmatic) would be

appropriate since the proximity, distribution, duration, and disturbance frequency of the

proposed action were known (these are the batched elements) and the timing, nature of the effect,

and disturbance intensity and severity are controlled through measures administered throughout

the program (these are the programmatic elements). This consultation approach has been used in

previous Section 7 consultations, such as the Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Treatment batchedprogrammatic BA prepared by the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service (USFS

2001).

The main body of this document is structured as a Biological Assessment (BA), which addresses

the proposed action in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Federal ESA, as amended, and the

SESA (for fish and wildlife species). This BA provides a discussion of evaluation methods; of

the proposed action, including minimization and avoidance measures developed for the Program;

of statewide environmental baseline conditions; of species-specific effects analyses; and of

cumulative effects. Subsequent chapters rely on the information and analyses provided in the BA

to address the MSA (Section 7) and the MMPA (Section 8). Mandatory and recommended

measures to avoid and minimize effects to species and habitats protected by the MBTA and

F&WCA are included in Section 3.

This document utilized Service-approved or Service-drafted reports and Biological Opinions as

often as possible to ensure consistency of the BA with previous successful ESA consultation

processes. Existing Biological Opinions were used to collect relevant information, such as the

status of the species, the most up-to-date effects analyses, and the most appropriate conservation

measures. Existing programmatic consultations, such as the Corps’ Standard Local Operating

Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES II) (NOAA Fisheries 2003a), were used as the

basis for the consultation approach. The outline of this BA follows previous batchedprogrammatics, such as the Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Treatment batched-programmatic BA
ES - 2

prepared by the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service. The MSA portion of this

document relies heavily on the recent ODOT Maintenance Activities Programmatic, which

received high praise from NOAA Fisheries.

A key product of the May 30, 2003 workshop involving national and State representatives from

FHWA, USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries was the identification and staffing of three groups with

specific roles and responsibilities for this project. The Level 1 Working Group, including

representatives from USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, ODFW, and ODOT, was established to meet on

a weekly basis through the submittal of the BA. The purpose of this effort was to introduce the

Bridge Program to these agencies and to develop the content of the BA. The Level 2 Reviewing

Group was identified to meet on an as-needed basis to resolve conflicts and receive progress

reports and updates on important issues. The Level 2 Reviewing Group effort also provided

feedback and approval of the consultation direction. The Level 3 Executive Group met at

significant project milestones to provide approval of the consultation process.

Environmental performance standards were developed with the goal of improving habitat

conditions within the action area and avoiding or minimizing adverse effects on habitat.

Environmental performance standards (Section 3) are essentially barriers to, or constrictions of,

effects pathways with regard to their ability to deliver effects of proposed actions to Federally

listed species. These standards also increase the predictability of effects associated with the

proposed action.

The analysis of effects of the proposed action included in this BA considers both the short-term

and long-term beneficial and adverse effects on the baseline conditions necessary to sustain a

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species (TEPS) species and ultimately lead to recovery.

Effects analysis was performed using a GIS database to screen, describe, and estimate the effects

of the proposed action on TEPS species and their habitats. The database was populated with

existing data, while the processes to interpret the data were developed with the Level 1 Working

Group participants and other resource and regulatory agency staff.

Program bridges are located in 33 of Oregon’s 36 counties, and within every ecoregion in the

State. Fifty two percent of the program bridges occur along the I-5 and I-84 corridors, resulting

in a heavy skew of program bridges to the western half of the State. As a result, the Willamette

Valley, Klamath Mountains, and Coast Range ecoregions have the greatest density of program

bridges, and 62% of construction activity will occur within the Southern Oregon Coastal Basin

and Willamette Basin (3rd field Hydrologic Unit Codes). The OTIA III State Bridge Delivery

Program has the potential to affect the following species:
ES - 3

NOAA Fisheries Species Effect Determinations

NOAA Fisheries Species Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Effect

Determination*

Marine Mammals

Steller sea lion

(Eastern population)

Eumetopias jubatus Threatened NLAA

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered NE

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered NE

Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered NE

Right whale Eubalaena jubatus Endangered NE

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered NE

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered NE

Anadromous Fish

Chum salmon

(Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus keta Threatened LAA

Coho salmon

(Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coasts ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Threatened LAA

Coho salmon

(Oregon Coast ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Threatened LAA

Coho salmon

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch N/A LAA

Steelhead

(Upper Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Endangered NLAA

Steelhead

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened LAA

Steelhead

(Middle Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened LAA

Steelhead

(Snake River Basin ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened LAA

Steelhead

(Upper Willamette River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened LAA

Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Endangered NLAA
ES - 4

NOAA Fisheries Species Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Effect

Determination*

(Snake River ESU)

Chinook salmon

(Snake River Spring/Summer-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Threatened LAA

Chinook salmon

(Snake River Fall-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Threatened NLAA

Chinook salmon

(Upper Willamette ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Threatened LAA

Chinook salmon

(Upper Columbia River Spring-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Endangered NLAA

Chinook salmon

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Threatened LAA

USFWS Species Effect Determinations

USFWS Species Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Effect

Determination*

Terrestrial Mammals

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened NLAA

Columbian white-tailed deer (Columbia

River DPS)

Odocoileus virginianus

leucurus Endangered NLAA

Kit fox Vulpes macrotis N/A NE

Wolverine Gulo gulo N/A NE

Washington ground squirrel Spermophilus washingtoni N/A NE

Birds

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus

marmoratus

Threatened LAA

Western snowy plover

(Pacific Coast population)

Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus Threatened NE

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened LAA

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened LAA

Western snowy plover

(Interior population)

Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus N/A NE
ES - 5

USFWS Species Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Effect

Determination*

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum N/A MA

Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered NE

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

californicus Endangered NLAA

Reptiles and Amphibians

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened NE

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened NE

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered NE

Olive (Pacific) Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Threatened NE

Resident Fish

Foskett speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus Threatened NE

Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris Endangered LAA

Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus Endangered LAA

Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis Threatened NE

Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri Endangered LAA

Hutton tui chub Gila bicolor Threatened NE

Borax Lake chub Gila boraxobius Endangered NE

Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhychus clarki henshawi Threatened NE

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened LAA

Cutthroat trout

(SW Washington/Columbia River DPS) Oncorhychus clarki clarki Not Warranted LAA

Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata Petitioned LAA

River lamprey Lampetra ayresi Petitioned LAA

Western brook lamprey Lampetra richardsoni Petitioned LAA

Invertebrates

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened NLAA
ES - 6

USFWS Species Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Effect

Determination*

Fender’s blue butterfly Icaricia icariodes fenderi Endangered LAA

Oregon silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened NE

Plants

McDonald’s rock-cress Arabis mcdonaldiana Endangered NE

Applegate’s milk-vetch Astragalus applegatei Endangered NE

Golden paintbrush Castilleja levisecta Threatened NLAA

Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens var.

decumbens Endangered NLAA

Gentner’s fritillary Fritillaria gentneri Endangered NLAA

Water howellia Howellia aquatilis Threatened NLAA

Western lily Lilium occidentale Endangered NE

Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam Limnanthes floccosa ssp.

grandiflora Endangered NLAA

Bradshaw’s Lomatium Lomatium bradshawii Endangered NLAA

Cook’s Lomatium Lomatium cookii Endangered NLAA

Kincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphureus ssp.

kincaidii Threatened NLAA

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock Mirabilis macfarlanei Threatened NE

Rough popcornflower Plagiobothrys hirtus Endangered NLAA

Nelson’s checker-mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana Threatened NLAA

Spalding’s catchfly Silene spaldingii Threatened NE

Malheur wire-lettuce Stephanomeria malheurensis Endangered NE

Howell’s spectacular thelypody Thelypodium howellii ssp.

spectabilis Threatened NE

Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered NE

* NE= No Effect

MA= May Affect

NLAA= May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

LAA= Likely to Adversely Affect
1 – 1

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to address the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species

Act (Federal ESA), the Oregon State Endangered Species Act (SESA), the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (F&WCA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) as they relate to the repair and replacement of 430 highway bridges funded by the

Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program (Bridge

Program) (Appendix A-1). The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will administer

the Bridge Program with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds and United States

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permits. FHWA will serve as the lead Federal agency,

although both agencies (FHWA and Corps) constitute a Federal nexus for the Program.

The main body of this document is structured as a Biological Assessment (BA) that addresses the

proposed action in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Federal ESA, as amended, and the SESA

(for fish and wildlife species). This BA provides a discussion of evaluation methods; of the

proposed action, including minimization and avoidance measures developed for the Program; of

statewide environmental baseline conditions; of species-specific effects analyses; and of

cumulative effects. Subsequent chapters rely on the information and analyses provided in the BA

to address the MSA (Section 7) and the MMPA (Section 8). Mandatory and recommended

measures to avoid and minimize effects to species and habitats protected by the MBTA and

F&WCA are included in Section 3.

The purpose of this BA is to identify and assess the effects of the Bridge Program on 73

threatened, endangered, proposed, and selected sensitive (TEPS) species and their designated or

proposed critical habitat (Table 1.0-1). Section 7 of the Federal ESA assures that, through

consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence

of any threatened, endangered, or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of designated or proposed critical habitat.

Table 1.0-1. List of TEPS species included in this consultation.

Common Name Scientific Name Federal

Status

State Status Critical

Habitat

Terrestrial Mammals

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Threatened

Columbian white-tailed deer

(Columbia River DPS)

Odocoileus virginianus

leucurus

Endangered

Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Threatened
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

1 – 2

Table 1.0-1. (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Federal

Status

State Status Critical

Habitat

Wolverine Gulo gulo Threatened

Washington ground squirrel Spermophilus

washingtoni

Endangered

Marine Mammals

Steller sea lion

(Eastern population)

Eumetopias jubatus Threatened

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered

Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered

Right whale Eubalaena jubatus Endangered

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered

Birds

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus

marmoratus marmoratus

Threatened Threatened Designated

Western snowy plover

(Pacific Coast population)

Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus

Threatened Designated

Bald eagle Haliaeetus

leucocephalus

Threatened Threatened

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis

caurina

Threatened Threatened Designated

Western snowy plover

(Interior population)

Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus

Threatened

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered

Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

californicus

Endangered
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

1 – 3

Table 1.0-1. (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Federal

Status

State Status Critical

Habitat

Reptiles and Amphibians

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Designated

Olive (Pacific) Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Threatened

Resident Fish

Foskett speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus Threatened

Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris Endangered Endangered Proposed

Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus Endangered Endangered Proposed

Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis Threatened Designated

Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri Endangered

Hutton tui chub Gila bicolor Threatened

Borax Lake chub Gila boraxobius Endangered Designated

Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhychus clarki

henshawi

Threatened

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Proposed

Cutthroat trout

(SW Washington/Columbia River DPS)

Oncorhychus clarki

clarki

Species of

Concern

Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata Petitioned Sensitive

River lamprey Lampetra ayresi Petitioned Sensitive

Western brook lamprey Lampetra richardsoni Petitioned Sensitive

Anadromous Fish

Chum salmon

(Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus keta Threatened

Coho salmon

(Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coasts ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Threatened Designated
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

1 – 4

Table 1.0-1. (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Federal

Status

State Status Critical

Habitat

Coho salmon

(Oregon Coast ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Threatened

Coho salmon

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus kisutch Endangered

Steelhead

(Upper Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Endangered

Steelhead

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened

Steelhead

(Middle Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened

Steelhead

(Snake River Basin ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened

Steelhead

(Upper Willamette River ESU)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened

Sockeye salmon

(Snake River ESU)

Oncorhynchus nerka Endangered Designated

Chinook salmon

(Snake River Spring/Summer-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus

tschawytscha

Threatened Designated

Chinook salmon

(Snake River Fall-run ESU)

Oncorhynchus

tschawytscha

Threatened Designated

Chinook salmon

(Upper Willamette ESU)

Oncorhynchus

tschawytscha

Threatened

Chinook salmon

(Upper Columbia River Spring-run

ESU)

Oncorhynchus

tschawytscha

Endangered

Chinook salmon

(Lower Columbia River ESU)

Oncorhynchus

tschawytscha

Threatened

Invertebrates

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Designated

Fender’s blue butterfly Icaricia icariodes

fenderi

Endangered

Oregon silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene

hippolyta

Threatened Designated
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

1 – 5

Table 1.0-1. (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Federal

Status

State Status Critical

Habitat

Plants

McDonald’s rock-cress Arabis mcdonaldiana Endangered

Applegate’s milk-vetch Astragalus applegatei Endangered Endangered

Golden paintbrush Castilleja levisecta Threatened Endangered

Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens var.

decumbens

Endangered Endangered

Gentner’s fritillary Fritillaria gentneri Endangered Endangered

Water howellia Howellia aquatilis Threatened

Western lily Lilium occidentale Endangered Endangered

Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam Limnanthes floccosa ssp.

grandiflora

Endangered Endangered

Bradshaw’s Lomatium Lomatium bradshawii Endangered Endangered

Cook’s Lomatium Lomatium cookii Endangered Endangered

Kincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphureus ssp.

kincaidii

Threatened Threatened

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock Mirabilis macfarlanei Threatened Endangered

Rough popcornflower Plagiobothrys hirtus Endangered Endangered

Nelson’s checker-mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana Threatened Threatened

Spalding’s catchfly Silene spaldingii Threatened Endangered

Malheur wire-lettuce Stephanomeria

malheurensis

Endangered Endangered Designated

Howell’s spectacular thelypody Thelypodium howellii

ssp. spectabilis

Threatened Endangered

Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

1 – 6

1.1 Background

In 2001, the Oregon State Legislature passed the original OTIA, which that 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, ODOT has developed the OTIA III Bridge Program, an

aggressive program of 430 bridge repair and replacement projects throughout the State that will

be completed over the next 10 years (ODOT 2003a).

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 (EBOR) in August 2003 (ODOT 2003a). 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 EBOR, ODOT conducted a Statewide Bridge Assessment (SBA) 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 SBA are

available on ODOT’s FTP site.

In order to meet the aggressive construction schedule of the Bridge Program, one of the principal

requirements identified by ODOT is the timely completion of environmental regulatory

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

State regulatory and resource agencies in late 2002 to develop permitting strategies that meet the

dual goals of providing timely review of individual project permit applications and protecting or

enhancing the natural and built environments. Through negotiations with USFWS, NOAA

Fisheries, and ODFW, a batched BA with programmatic elements (batched-programmatic) was

determined to be the most appropriate and efficient ESA consultation process (refer to Section 2

for additional discussion on this process).

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

emphasizes context sensitive designs with consideration of the landscape, and monitoring at all

levels of program administration, including design, construction, and restoration (refer to Section

3 for more discussion on this program management strategy).

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

assist ODOT in the development and implementation of a Bridge Program Management

Strategy. This management strategy will include the implementation and evaluation of
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

1 – 7

environmental performance standards designed to minimize adverse effects to natural resources,

including TEPS species and their habitats (Section 3).

1.2 Location

Program bridges are located in 33 of Oregon’s 36 counties, and within every ecoregion in the

State (Figure 1.2-1). Fifty two percent of the program bridges occur along the I-5 and I-84

corridors, resulting in a heavy skew of program bridges to the western half of the State. As a

result, the Willamette Valley, Klamath Mountains, and Coast Range ecoregions have the greatest

density of program bridges, and 62% of construction activity will occur within the Southern

Oregon Coastal Basin and Willamette Basin (3rd field HUCs).

1.3 Purpose and Need

Purpose

The purpose of the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Program is to ensure the ongoing viability of

Oregon’s primary commercial ground transportation corridors while meeting FHWA and

AASHTO standards for safety and design.

Need

Two-thirds of Oregon bridges were built between 1947 and 1961 using AASHTO specifications.

Most of the bridges built at this time are reinforced concrete deck girder (RCDG) design. The

RCDG bridges were designed to last about 50 years. As they near the end of their useful life

shear (diagonal) cracking has been found on many of the older bridges throughout the State.

Shear cracking in bridges reduces the weight that the bridges can safely support.

The shear cracking found on the RCDG bridges is an accelerating problem. In 2001, routine

bridge inspections indicated that known shear cracking on several bridges had increased in size.

The shear cracking at these bridges had progressed to the point that functionality of the bridges

was at risk. Weight restrictions and emergency repairs were implemented to temporarily address

the problem. However, weight restrictions on bridges will not stop the deterioration; it will only

delay the inevitable structural failure and, in most cases, emergency repairs enable only three to

five years of additional use, ultimately requiring a permanent solution.

In 2001, further investigations of the 555 State-owned and 300 locally owned RCDG bridges

indicated 487 and 122, respectfully, have varying degrees of cracking problems. The shear

cracking is predicted to grow exponentially over the next ten years as more RCDG bridges

approach the 50 years threshold. It is predicted that by 2010, 30% of State bridges will require

weight restriction to ensure continued safety. These weight restrictions may require detours that

could affect the economic health of Oregon and surrounding states.
LAKE

HARNEY

MALHEUR

LANE

GRANT

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

LINN

BAKER

CROOK

UMATILLA

WASCO

UNION

WALLOWA

JACKSON

COOS

DESCHUTES

CURRY

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

MARION

JOSEPHINE

POLK

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

screening\BA_figures\bridge_ov.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

0 10 20 40 60 80

Miles

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 1.2-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Bridges Location Overview

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

California

Ida

h

o

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

County

Streams and Rivers

City

OTIA III Bridges
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

1 – 9

The Oregon bridge problem will increasingly affect the economy in the future if repairs and

replacements do not occur. An estimated 75% of the State’s economic production relies heavily

on I-84 and I-5 for the movement of goods in the Portland and upper Willamette Valley regions.

Weight restrictions on highway bridges on these two main arteries would be detrimental to the

movement of freight traffic. The remaining 25% of the State’s economic production occurs in

rural areas. Goods such as timber, minerals, and agricultural products could be land-locked if

repairs do not occur. The neglect of bridges in need of repairs has the potential to cost the State

economy as much as $123 billion in lost production and 88,000 lost jobs over the next 25 years.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

2 – 1

2.0 Evaluation Methods

The potential effects of the proposed action were evaluated by first defining the effects pathways,

or avenues by which effects to TEPS species may be delivered. Effects may be in the form of

habitat altering actions, such as wetland impacts; effects to individuals, e.g., fish injury during

work area isolation; or to entire populations, e.g., effects to isolated plant populations. Effects

pathways include soil, air, water, vegetation, and chemicals—e.g., because soil can be the

medium through which a species is affected, if erosion is problematic to that species. Direct

effects and incidental take of individuals of a species may also occur.

Throughout this BA, effects to Federally listed species are considered in the context of the above

pathways. Environmental performance standards (Section 3) are essentially barriers to, or

constrictions of these pathways with regard to their ability to deliver effects of project actions to

Federally listed species. Environmental performance standards were developed with the goal to

improve habitat conditions within the action area and to avoid or minimize adverse effects on

habitat. The analysis of effects included in this BA evaluated the effects of the proposed action

considering both the short-term and long-term beneficial and adverse effects on the baseline

conditions necessary to sustain a TEPS species and ultimately lead to recovery.

The evaluation process relied on three key elements: (1) early and on-going communication with

regulatory and resources agencies, (2) review and incorporation of existing consultations and

strategies, and (3) a Geographic Information System (GIS) database designed to screen for and

describe effects.

2.1 Communication

To facilitate the environmental regulatory compliance processes, ODOT and FHWA began

working with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, as well as a number of Federal and State regulatory

and resource agencies, to develop permitting strategies that meet the dual goals of providing

timely review of individual project permit applications and protecting or enhancing natural

resources. Coordination efforts were initiated in late 2002 and are planned to continue until

issuance of the Biological Opinion.

The development of three groups with specified roles and responsibilities was the product of a

May 30, 2003 workshop involving national and State representatives from FHWA, USFWS, and

NOAA Fisheries. As a result of this workshop, a Level 1 Working Group, including

representatives from USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, ODFW, and ODOT, was established to meet on

a weekly basis through the submittal of the BA. The purpose of this effort was to introduce the

Bridge Program to these agencies and to develop the content of the BA. A Level 2 Reviewing

Group was identified to meet on an as-needed basis to resolve conflicts and receive progress

reports and updates on important issues. The Level 2 Reviewing Group effort also provided

feedback and approval of the consultation direction. A Level 3 Executive Group met at

significant project milestones to provide approval of the consultation process to the Level 1 and

Level 2 Groups.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

2 – 2

Products from the Level 1 Working Group include: (1) a consultation approach and outline, (2)

an action area definition, (3) species ranges for effects analysis, (4) metrics to calculate potential

effects to species and habitats, (5) design- and construction-based environmental performance

standards, and (6) a process to administer the Bridge Program, including monitoring strategies,

non-conforming activities, and continued communication between the Action Agency and the

Services.

2.1.1 Consultation Approach

In cooperation with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, it was decided that a batched consultation

with programmatic elements (batched-programmatic) would be appropriate since the proximity,

distribution, duration, and disturbance frequency of the proposed action were known (these are

the batched elements) and the timing, nature of the effect, and disturbance intensity and severity

are controlled through measures administered throughout the program (these are the

programmatic elements). This consultation approach has been used in previous Section 7

consultations, such as the Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Treatment batched-programmatic BA

prepared by the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service (USFS 2001).

2.1.2 Action Area

The diverse actions involved with the Bridge Program required the Level 1 Working Group to

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

program, the conservation and mitigation strategy (Section 3), and the individual bridge actions.

The action area for the overall program could easily encompass the entire State because of the

shifting importance and reliance of existing travel corridors. The action area for the conservation

and mitigation strategy encompasses all areas within 4th field HUCs populated by program

bridges. 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. As a result, the environmental baseline conditions were presented on

an ecoregion scale (Section 4).

2.1.3 Species Range

To facilitate the effects analysis, TEPS species ranges, habitats, and occurrences were entered

into a GIS database. The process used to develop the data layer, including the data source and

biological justification, is outlined in Effects Screening Layer (ESL) memoranda that were

submitted to the Services for review and approval (Appendix 2-A).

2.1.4 Effects Metrics

To facilitate the analysis of the effects of the proposed action, the Level 1 Working Group

developed metrics for each TEPS species, as appropriate. These metrics are also important tools

for evaluating the success of the environmental performance standards during the administration

of the Bridge Program. The metrics and the process to calculate them are outlined in an

Evaluation of Effect (EOE) memorandum that was submitted to the Services for review and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

2 – 3

approval (Appendix 2-B). Calculating the values to populate the metrics for each species was a

critical step in analyzing the effects of the proposed action.

2.1.5 Environmental Performance Standards

Specialized working groups were identified to develop design- and construction-based

environmental performance standards that target potential effects associated with the proposed

action. The intent of the Level 1 Working Group participants is that the environmental

performance standards become the Terms and Conditions of the Biological Opinion. A list of the

participants involved in these working groups is included in Appendix 2-C. The environmental

performance standards are presented in Section 3 of this BA.

The goals of the environmental performance standards are to improve habitat conditions and

avoid and minimize adverse effects to TEPS species. The environmental performance standards

include a description of the goals, the approach for achieving those goals, and a means of

evaluating success, as applicable. In essence, these environmental performance standards provide

a design framework– describing desired outcomes, allowing creativity and innovation on the part

of the bridge design and construction team. This method uses a “tell them what you would like to

see” approach rather than the traditional “tell them what they cannot do” approach.

2.1.6 Program Administration

The Action Agency (ODOT/FHWA) and the Services have jointly developed a monitoring and

reporting program for the administration of the Bridge Program. As described in Section 3, one

of the key components of the program administration is to evaluate bridge projects on a projectby-project basis to determine if the proposed design and construction elements are in compliance

with the environmental performance standards and within the range of effects analyzed in this

BA.

The Services have recognized the need for flexibility in implementation of this consultation; the

Bridge Program is a long-term endeavor that encompasses numerous projects in a variety of

regions in the State. This flexibility will help to minimize the need for reinitiation of formal

consultation for variances of projects unable to comply with an environmental performance

standard. Many of these anticipated variances have been addressed in the effects section. A fivetiered categorization was developed to provide flexibility, and projects were divided into the

following:

1) Those that have no potential to affect a listed species. The location of these

projects relative to species ranges and habitats afford negligible opportunities for

effects.

2) Those that have the potential to affect a listed species, but which will comply with

the environmental performance standards. These projects would be covered by the

biological opinion and will be noted as such in the Pre-Construction Assessment.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

2 – 4

3) Those that are amended or have variances in procedure to the environmental

performance standards, but for which the effects are the same as addressed in the

BA. These projects would be covered by the biological opinion, and the

justification for inclusion will be presented in the Pre-Construction Assessment.

4) Those that have greater potential effects than were originally analyzed, but

additional conservation actions will result in lesser effects than analyzed in this

BA. These projects would be covered by the biological opinion, but will require

approval by the Services after reviewing the Pre-Construction Assessment or

similar document.

5) Those for which the magnitude or scope of taking specified in the Incidental Take

Statement is exceeded, or is expected to be exceeded; those for which new

information reveals effects of the action may affect listed species in a way not

previously considered; those for which the action is modified in a way that causes

an effect to the listed species that was not previously considered (e.g., inclusion of

a new bridge); and those for which a new species is listed or critical habitat is

designated that may be affected by the action (50 CFR 402.16). These projects

may be covered by the biological opinion, but will require additional coordination

between the Services and the Action Agency.

Projects that are not identified in this batched consultation will require separate Incidental

Take Statements.

2.2 Background Review

This document utilized Service-approved or Service-drafted reports and Biological Opinions as

often as possible to ensure consistency of the BA with previous successful ESA consultation

processes. Existing Biological Opinions were used to collect relevant information, such as the

status of the species, the most up-to-date effects analysis, and the most appropriate conservation

measures. Existing programmatic consultations, such as the Corps’ Standard Local Operating

Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES II) (NOAA Fisheries 2003a), were used as the

basis for the consultation approach. The outline of this BA followed previous batchedprogrammatics, such as the Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Treatment batched-programmatic BA

prepared by the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service. The MSA portion of this

document relied heavily on the recent ODOT Maintenance Activities Programmatic, which

received high praise from NOAA Fisheries.

2.3 GIS Analysis

Effects analysis relied on a GIS database to screen, describe, and estimate the effects of the

proposed action on TEPS species and their habitats. The database was populated with existing

data, while the processes to interpret the data were developed with the Level 1 Working Group

participants and other resource and regulatory agency staff. The data received an initial threestep transformation to capitalize on opportunities for the effects analysis.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

2 – 5

2.3.1 Transforming the Data

The initial bridge dataset (provided by ODOT) was transformed to facilitate the evaluation

process. The first step transformed the bridge point data to account for bridge size. The second

step created an area of potential project activities around the transformed bridge data (this is

referred to as the Area of Potential Impact, or API). The third step expanded, or buffered the

project activities area with an area of detectable effects. These areas of effect (buffers) and data

transformations resulted in a greater area of potential effect than would be anticipated under

standard bridge construction activities, and thus a greater margin of error. Steps in this process

are summarized below.

Step 1: 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.

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.

Step 2: Project activities can be immediately adjacent to existing structures or distributed

over a large area. To account for many of the unknowns of the individual project design

and construction, an area of potential project activities was buffered around the circular

bridge areas. 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 2,000-foot

buffer, representing the API, was placed around the bridge circles from Step 1.

Step 3: The majority of the effects associated with bridge construction activities are not

detectable beyond 500 feet (e.g., noise from standard construction equipment, turbidity,

hydraulic scour); however some activities, such as pile driving, blasting, large turbidity

plumes or accidental chemical spills, may be detectable up to a mile away or more. In

addition, not all activities will be limited to the 2,000-foot buffer around the bridge. To

account for these effects, a species-specific effect buffer was placed around the API

(predominately a 2-mile screening buffer; however, each ESL presents the size of these

buffers).

2.3.2 Screening the Effects

All 430 program bridges, including APIs and effects buffers, were mapped and entered into the

GIS database. These multi-radius areas were overlaid onto the TEPS species ranges, habitats, and

occurrences (from ESL memos; Appendix 2-A). If the effect buffer did not intersect a TEPS

species’ ESL, then activities at that bridge were determined to have no potential to affect that

TEPS species. If the effect buffer did intersect a TEPS species’ ESL, then additional GIS

analysis was conducted to describe and estimate the effects to the TEPS species and its

associated habitat.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

2 – 6

2.3.3 Describing the Effects

GIS analysis was used to describe the proximity and distribution of potential effects within a

given TEPS species’ range or habitat. For example, the GIS analysis could determine the number

of bridges crossing a water body within the range of a fish species, thus allowing interpretation

of the nature of the effect. In many cases, species-specific distances were used to determine

effects from such activities as noise and human activity (i.e., visual disturbance).

2.3.4 Estimating the Effects

The original multi-radius areas, and the species-specific and effect-specific buffers (noise, visual,

vegetation) were also overlaid onto the ESLs to estimate the quantities provided by agreed upon

metrics used to evaluate the Program effects (from EOE memos; Appendix 2-B). For example,

the area of habitat associated with a TEPS species potentially affected by high noise could be

determined and presented in relation to ecoregions, watersheds, ESUs, DPSs, or management

provinces.

Among the program bridges with the potential to affect species and habitat addressed under this

consultation, there are a number of overlapping APIs where program bridges are close to one

another (e.g., paired bridges crossing the same feature; Figure 2.3-1). In several instances, the

overlapping APIs indicate that some habitat for a given species is common to more than one

bridge API, and this common area is often counted more than once. To account for the

overlapping APIs, the terms “gross” and “net” are used in this BA to differentiate overlapping

vs. non-overlapping habitat area. Both net and gross effects are provided in the individual species

evaluations. Discounting the gross area was deemed inappropriate as it is possible to have a timelag between two projects with overlapping APIs, which would increase disturbance frequency

and duration.
 



2,000 ft.

2,000 ft.

A

B

Figure 2.3-1. Illustration of gross and net area estimates within bridge API's.

Net area equals A or B only. Gross area equals net area plus overlap area.
3 – 1

3.0 Proposed Action

3.1 Statewide Action

The Bridge Program involves the repair and replacement of 430 bridges throughout Oregon. The

Final Economic and Bridge Options Report (EBOR) (ODOT 2003a) summarizes the condition of

Oregon bridges and provides recommendations for repairing and replacing State and local

bridges over the next ten years. The EBOR indicates that hundreds of Oregon bridges built

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

years, and that cracking has been found on many of these older bridges.

The EBOR recommends changing the fundamental bridge repair and replacement system from

the current “worst-first” approach to a “corridor-based” strategy. Under the “worst-first”

approach, ODOT addressed the bridge with the highest deficiency rating and then moved to the

next highest rated bridge. The new “corridor-based” strategy focuses resources on opening and

maintaining entire corridors for freight rather than scattering efforts over a large area. The Bridge

Program will utilize this “corridor-based” strategy throughout the State, as practicable.

The 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 likelier for bridges designated for repair to be replaced than

for a bridge designated for replacement to be repaired.

The construction contracts will be released over eight to nine construction seasons with the

estimated cost of this program at $1.6 billion dollars for the first 365 bridges. As a result of the

corridor-based strategy, the construction will tend to occur in clusters.

The dominant corridors involved in the Bridge Program are I-5 and I-84; 52% of all program

bridges are in these corridors. The major East-West corridors are I-84, OR-22, OR-42, US-20,

and US-26; 32% of all program bridges are in these corridors. The dominant North-South

corridors are I-5, OR-99, and OR-97; 48% of all program bridges are in these corridors. The

number of bridges within the Bridge Program per highway corridor is provided in Table 3.1-1.

The number of bridges per 3rd field HUC and ecoregion are provided in Table 3.1-2. Information

on the 4th field HUCs within each 3rd field HUC is provided as well. The Willamette Valley,

Klamath Mountains, and Coast Range ecoregions have the largest number of bridges slated for

repair or replacement in the Bridge Program. The Southern Oregon Coastal and Willamette 3rd

field HUCs contain the largest number of bridges to be repaired or replaced; 62% of all

construction will occur within these basins. The major East-West and North-South corridors are

found within these basins and ecoregions.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 – 2

Table 3.1-1. Number of OTIA III bridges along highways in Oregon.

Highway Number of Bridges

East-West Corridors

Interstate 84 57

U.S. 26 22

Oregon 22 20

U.S. 20 19

Oregon 42 18

Oregon 126 11

Oregon 82 8

Oregon 18 5

Oregon 6 4

Oregon 126B 3

Oregon 138 3

U.S. 30 2

Oregon 7 2

Oregon 244 2

Oregon 140 2

Oregon 66 1

Oregon 228 1

North-South Corridors

Interstate 5 166

Oregon 99 21

U.S. 97 20

Oregon 19 12

U.S. 395 11

U.S. 101 4

U.S. 199 3

Unidentified Corridors 3

Oregon 203 2

Oregon 213 2

Oregon 99E 2

U.S. 95 1

Oregon 78 1

Oregon 99W 1

Oregon 230 1

Grand Total 430
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 – 3

Table 3.1-2. Number of OTIA III bridges within each ecoregion and 3rd field HUC.

Ecoregion

Basin Name

 (3rd Field HUC/4th Field HUC)

Basin & RangeBlue Mountains

Coast Range

Columbia

Basin

East Cascades

Klamath

Mountains

Lava Plains

OwyheeU

plands

West Cascades

Willamette

Valley

Total

Deschutes

 Lower Crooked

 Lower Deschutes

 Trout

 Upper Deschutes

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

9

3

3

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

15

John Day

 Lower John Day

 North Fork John Day

 Upper John Day

0

0

0

0

6

0

4

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

8

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

Klamath

 Lost River

 Upper Klamath Lake

 Williamson

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

3

5

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

Lower Columbia

 Lower Columbia

 Lower Columbia/Clatskanie

 Lower Columbia/Sandy

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

2

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

8

5

0

1

4

19

Lower Snake

 Upper Grande Ronde River

 Wallowa River

0

0

0

13

9

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

Middle Columbia

 Middle Columbia/Hood

 Middle Columbia/Lake Wallula

 Umatilla

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

12

5

1

6

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

Middle Snake/Boise

 Jordan

 Middle Snake/Payette

 Upper Malheur

 Willow

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

1

6

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

Middle Snake/Powder

 Burnt River

 Powder River

0

0

0

11

6

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

Northern Oregon Coastal

 Necanicum

 Nehalem

 Siletz/Yaquina

 Suislaw

 Wilson/Trask/Nestucca

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

28

3

7

11

3

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

29

Oregon Closed Basins

 Lake Abert

 Silver

 Silvies

2

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 – 4

Table 3.1-2. (continued).

Ecoregion

Basin Name

 (3rd Field HUC/4th Field HUC)

Basin & RangeBlue Mountains

Coast Range

Columbia

Basin

East Cascades

Klamath

Mountains

Lava Plains

OwyheeU

plands

West Cascades

Willamette

Valley

Total

Southern Oregon Coastal

 Coos

 Coquille

 Illinois

 Lower Rogue

 Middle Rogue

 North Umpqua

 South Umpqua

 Umpqua

 Upper Rogue

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

3

10

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

88

0

1

3

10

32

8

25

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

112

Willamette

 Coast Fork Willamette

 Lower Willamette

 McKenzie

 Middle Fork Willamette

 Middle Willamette

 Molalla/Pudding

 North Santiam

 South Santiam

 Tualatin

 Upper Willamette

 Yamhill

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0

0

2

3

0

0

5

1

0

0

0

141

37

10

5

2

20

2

4

0

7

48

6

154

Total 2 34 54 12 24 88 22 11 31 152 430

3.2 Compliance and Reporting

ODOT/FHWA is ultimately responsible for environmental compliance of the Bridge Program.

OTIA III specifies that ODOT utilize consultants for delivery of the Bridge Program including a

Bridge Program Management firm (BPM) to operate the program. The BPM will serve as an

extension of ODOT staff and will have virtually all the technical abilities that ODOT uses during

the standard project delivery process. The BPM 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 Bridge Program Management firm will include ensuring environmental

compliance. ODOT will retain a third party audit firm to ensure compliance by the BPM with all

terms of the contract including meeting environmental requirements.

The BPM 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. The 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 – 5

environmental performance standards (Section 3), 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 and the services.

Every bridge project will be reviewed for environmental compliance. A summary of each of

these program elements is provided below.

Pre-construction monitoring will include development of a Pre-Construction Assessment (PCA)

for each bridge project that will identify which environmental performance standards are

applicable and demonstrate how the project meets the applicable environmental performance

standards. 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 environmental performance standards. The construction element will consist of

monitoring and documenting compliance with environmental performance standards during

construction and identification of significant breaches of environmental performance standards.

Post-construction monitoring will document the progress of site restoration activities for each

bridge project.

ODOT will provide annual monitoring reports 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 environmental

performance standards 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 notifications, construction, and post-construction monitoring

documentation will be available for review and audit by the Services on a project web page.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 6

3.3 Environmental Performance Standards

Developed through close coordination between ODOT and the Services, the

environmental performance standards represent the criteria that individual bridge

replacement and repair projects must meet in order to be included in this consultation and

receive coverage for incidental take. The proposed action (predominately bridge

construction activities) was divided into dominant construction activities, which were

further divided into construction elements (Table 3.5-1). The potential effects of each

construction element were identified, and this list was used to identify needed

environmental performance standards (Table 3.3-1). The Bridge Repair/Replacement

Activities section (Section 3.5) references these standards to illustrate which criteria

apply to which construction activities and elements. Table 3.3-1 presents a matrix

showing the application of the various environmental performance standards to

construction elements discussed in Chapter 3.4 of this BA.

Table 3.3-1. Matrix of environmental performance standards and bridge repair / replacement elements. 3.4 Bridge Repair / Replacement Elements: 3.4.1 Preconstruction 3.4.2 Clearing 3.4.3 Equipment Control 3.4.4 Construction Material Containment 3.4.5 Earthwork 3.4.6 Foundations 3.4.7 In-water Work 3.4.8 Roadwork 3.4.9 Stormwater Management 3.4.10 Illumination 3.4.11 Planting and

Seeding3.4.12 ExclusionaryDevices

3.3 Performance Standards:

3.3.1 Program Administration

3.3.2 Species Avoidance x x x x x x x x

3.3.3 Habitat Avoidance x x x x x x x

3.3.4 Water Quality x x x x x x x x x

3.3.5 Site Restoration x x

3.3.6 Compensatory Mitigation

3.3.7 Fluvial x x

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

1. Ensure compliance with all performance standards developed for this program.

a. Monitor & Reporting. Develop and carry out a monitoring and reporting

program to confirm that the performance standards are being properly
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 7

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) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) Annual Program Coordination. Discuss the annual

monitoring report with the Services and the appropriate
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 8

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, 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

(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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 9

(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

State.

(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.

(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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 10

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 take

statements.

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 significant project changes1 as soon

as possible.

SPECIES AVOIDANCE

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 bankfull elevation2

during the preferred in-water work period included in Appendix 3-A of

 

1 For purposes of this project, “significant project changes” encompass actions or designs that affect the

take statement and include, but are not limited to, design elements or construction activities not described

in the project description that result in effects not discussed in the biological opinion, changes to the scope

or magnitude of project effects that exceed the range of those described in the biological opinion or

approved variances, and activities that exceed the quantification or extent of take identified in the project

PCA or other appropriate reports. Significant project changes may also include project changes in

magnitude appropriate for documentation in the Services’ or appropriate Regulatory Authorities’

administrative record(s).

2

 For the purposes of this project, “bankfull elevation” means the bank height inundated by a 1.5 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 Ordinary High Water

(OHW). Bankfull elevation will be field surveyed and marked by a qualified professional.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 11

this BA, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities3

.

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 criteria4 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, for the life of the

project, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Services and the

appropriate Regulatory Authorities5

. Upstream passage is not required

during construction if it did not previously exist.

e. 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 sound pressure levels will be

maintained below 150 dB rms (re: 1 micro Pascal) for a minimum

of 50% 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.

ii. ODOT/FHWA will review and approve the NAP prior to steel pile

driving activities in the water column.

iii. During hydroacoustic measurements, 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.

 

3 For purposes of this Project, “Regulatory Authorities” include the ODEQ, ODSL, ODFW, ODA, Corps,

and other agencies with project-specific or activity-specific jurisdiction.

4

 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).

5 Ensure compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 509.585 regarding fish passage.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 12

(2) The pile is acoustically isolated from the water using

measures including, but not limited to; dewatering, flow

diversion, confined bubble curtains6

 (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).

f. 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 rewatering 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.

g. 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.

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 64o

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.7

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.

 

6 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.

7

 National Marine Fisheries Service, Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines (December 1998)

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/electrog.pdf).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 13

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.

2. Wildlife Avoidance/Harassment (High Noise). Minimize incidental take of listed

wildlife species and adverse effects to wildlife species from high-noise producing

activities8

.

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

 

8

 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).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 14

implement a daily limited operating period (LOP) of daytime work

being conducted from two hours after sunrise9

 to two hours before

sunset4. 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 sites10 or

communal roosts11 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.

c. Northern Spotted Owl. For blasting activities within one mile of suitable

nesting and roosting habitat and non-blasting construction activity within

300 feet of nesting and roosting habitat:

i. Inventory. Inventory the area of potential harassment for nesting

and roosting (NR) habitat12.

ii. Avoidance. If NR habitat is present, then prohibit high-noise

producing activities during the following critical nesting periods:

(1) March 1 to July 7 for the North Coast Province.13

 

9

 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.

10 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.

11 Communal roost sites are defined in the Biological Assessment. 12 Nesting and roosting habitat are defined in the Biological Assessment.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 15

(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 NF.

iii. Minimization. Daytime construction 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.

3. 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

supporting marine mammals14 or known seal or sea lion haulouts15 or

rookeries16,17.

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 hydroacoustic environmental performance

standard for fish species avoidance for waters occupied by marine

mammals.

 13 Province boundaries are shown on page E-19 of the 1994 Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest

Plan.

14 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).

15 A haulout will be considered occupied if at least one individual is observed at the time of monitoring.

16 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.

17 For purposes of this project, areas capable of supporting marine mammals, haulouts, and rookeries will

be defined as marine mammal habitat, unless stated otherwise.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 16

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 hours18 during weather

conditions that allow the observer a constant line-of-sight to

marine mammal habitats.

ii. Effort. The number of observers19 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 occupancy20. 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

 

18 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

19 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.

20 A haulout will be considered occupied if at least one individual is observed at the time of monitoring.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 17

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, weather21 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.

4. 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) of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

i. Prevent nesting by native birds22 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 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

 

21 Weather should include temperature, precipitation, wind, visibility, and cloud cover

22 Exotic birds, such as European starling, rock pigeons, and house sparrows are not protected by the

MBTA.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 18

sized crossing (36-inch pipe or larger) in the roadfill 1/3 below the

soil surface.

ii. Design bridges and approach fills to provide wildlife passage.23

iii. Replace existing fencing with “wildlife friendly” livestock fencing

in areas where native ungulate crossing is likely.24

iv. Refer to the “Critter Crossing” guidance provided by the Federal

Highway Administration to identify potential problem situations

and solutions.25

5. Plant Avoidance. Avoid disturbance to State and Federally listed plants and their

occupied habitat26.

a. 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 survey27 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. Delineation 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.

6. Invertebrate Avoidance. Avoid removal of State and Federally listed invertebrate

occupied habitat and designated critical habitat.

a. For project within the range of listed invertebrates, 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

listed butterfly and vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.

 

23 Refer to ODFW-ODOT liaison biologists for appropriate passage designs.

24 Project design criteria are available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, 2600

SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.

25 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2000). Critter Crossings: Linking Habitats and Reducing

Roadkill. Available URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ wildlifecrossings.

26 Occupied habitat will be delineated by a qualified professional. 27 Documented site evaluations by a qualified botanist may be considered a documented survey.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 19

b. Flag and map occupied and critical habitat within the area of potential

disturbance, prior to construction.

c. Ensure construction personnel, equipment, and associated pollutants (e.g.,

sediments, chemical contaminants28, 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 habitats are found, then a management buffer will be

developed to protect plants from indirect effects such as herbicide drift.

HABITAT AVOIDANCE

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

depends on the mechanisms of streambank failure operating at site- and reachscale.29

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.

 

28 For purposes of this performance standard, chemical contaminants include, but are not limited to aerial

drift of abrasives, grindings, paint, and other similar materials.

29 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/).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 20

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.

(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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 21

b. Use of Large Wood and Rock. Whenever possible, use large wood as an

integral component of streambank protection treatments.30 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.

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., Biological Assessment, 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.

 

30 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).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 22

iii. Do not 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 possible, do not remove

documented nest trees of great blue herons and other non-listed bird

species.

d. Breeding Habitat. Do not remove potential nesting, breeding, or alter

reasonably likely spawning habitat during the breeding season31 of listed

species, unless protocol surveys show the area is not occupied.

e. Functional Habitat. Whenever possible, do not modify or degrade

functional32 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.

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 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 Highway

Construction (2002), meets requirements of all applicable laws and regulations,

and includes the following:

 

31 Breeding season restrictions are identified in the Biological Assessment.

32 Functional habitat is synonymous with suitable habitat such that it is capable of supporting a protected

species either presently or within the future.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 23

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 State, 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 State.

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.33

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

 

33 For purposes of this performance standard, “working adequately” means that project activities do not

increase ambient stream turbidity by more than 10% above background 100 feet below the discharge, when

measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity-causing activity.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 24

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 State, 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 State.

c. If staging areas are within 150 feet of any waters of the State, 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 State

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

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 State to

prevent leaks, unless other suitable containment is provided to prevent

potential spills from entering any waters of the State.

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, and

the maximum size of any aperture may not exceed one inch.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 25

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 State, 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

State.

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.

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 State. If treated

wood debris does fall into waters of the State, 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 26

authorized, except for pilings installed following NOAA Fisheries’

guidelines34.

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.

b. Water Quality. Improve long-term water quality conditions associated

with pollutant loading from the road network within the project

watershed35.

i. Drains. Eliminate direct discharge from the bridge deck to waters

of the State36.

ii. Treatment Level. Increase treatment of stormwater runoff

discharged to waters of the State. Reduce the annual pollutant

 

34 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). 35 For purposes of this project, “project watershed” refers to the 6th Field Hydrologic Unit Code.

36 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 27

loading37 to waters of the State, relative to pre-project conditions

by providing treatment for the water quality event38.

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 State, 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 (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.

 

37 For purposes of this project, “pollutant loading” includes, but is not limited to debris, sediment, nutrients,

petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals.

38 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% 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 28

(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 watersheds39, reduce the post-project

frequency, magnitude, and duration of the peak 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 peak

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 peak 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 peak 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.

(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% of the 2-year peak flow up to

the 50-year peak 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

 

39 For purposes of this project, “urbanized watersheds” are determined by a low percentage of natural

vegetation and a high percentage of impervious surface within the project watershed (5th Field HUC). Other

methods may include FEMA mapping, land management, land cover types, or land ownership. The

hydrology of these watersheds has been significantly altered by land development.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 29

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 State. 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

bankfull elevation and at least 150 feet from any waters of the

State, 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.

(3) Stockpile all large wood40, 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:

 

40 For purposes of this project, “large wood” means a tree, log, or rootwad 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).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 30

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;

(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% exposed soils with margins

anchored by deeply rooted vegetation or coarse-grained

alluvial debris.

v. Work Plan. Develop a work plan with sufficient detail to include a

description of the following elements, as applicable:
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 31

(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) Forbs, shrubs and trees. 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 5 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.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION

1. Ensure the proposed action meets the goal of ‘no net loss’ habitat functions by

offsetting unavoidable long-term adverse effects to habitats. Activities that

prevent development of properly functioning condition of natural habitat

processes require a Compensatory Mitigation Plan to offset long-term adverse

effects. General considerations:

a. Make mitigation plans compatible with adjacent land uses or, if necessary,

use an appropriate buffer to separate mitigation areas from developed

areas or agricultural lands.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 32

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.

c. Acceptable mitigation must be consistent with all program-specific

environmental performance standards 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.

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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 33

FLUVIAL

1. Fluvial. Allow normative physical processes41 within the stream-floodplain

corridor.

a. Channel Processes. Design water crossings other than overflow

crossings42 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 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.43

(c) Step 3: Determine the Entrenchment Ratio (E).44

(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:

 

41If 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.

42Overflow crossings will be designed to pass the 50-year flood event or ODOT’s most up-to-date design

standards.

43 Floodprone Width (FPW) is defined as the width at the elevation of twice the maximum bankfull depth

or three times the average bankfull depth.

44 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 34

(i) The bankfull discharge level (elevation)45

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

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

 

45 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 1.5-year event (Janine Castro, Pers. Comm.

2003).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 35

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

motion46 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 volumes47

within the floodprone area.

(3) Remove vacant48 bridge support structures in the functional

floodplain: Possible measures may include removing

 

46 Incipient motion is defined as the velocity at which bed material becomes mobile.

47 Fill volumes will be calculated from the existing soil surface to the floodprone elevation.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 36

structures to below the modeled scour depth49 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 supplemental50 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 height51 and the large

wood transport capacity52 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.

 48 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.

49 For purposes of this performance standard, the scour analysis shall be performed according to

methodology developed by the Federal Highway 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 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.

50 For purposes of this project, “supplemental scour protection” can also be referred to as “active scour

protection”

51 For purposes of this project, the site potential tree height can be obtained in the county-specific Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys.

52 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 - 37

b. Floodway Processes. Design crossings that allow lateral connectivity

between the stream and floodplain.

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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 – 38

3.4 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 3.5) 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 BA (e.g., pre-construction, Section 3.4.1) to direct the reader

to the detailed descriptions of the construction element being discussed.

3.4.1 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 Highway Construction (ODOT 2002a). Pre-construction 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 environmental performance standards for Species Avoidance, Habitat Avoidance, and Water

Quality (Section 3.3).

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 3.4.5), erosion control limits, environmental impact

mitigation features, settling basins, waters of the State, ordinary high water elevations, and other

drainage and water quality structures and facilities (in-water work, Section 3.4.7) (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 environmental performance standards developed to minimize and avoid these effects.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –39

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 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.

Environmental performance standards 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.

3.4.2 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 3.4.5) 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 3.4.3), roadwork (Section 3.4.8), 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –40

• 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 are various. 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. Environmental performance standards 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.

3.4.3 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. Environmental performance standards 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.

3.4.4 Construction Material Containment

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 Highway Construction (ODOT 2002a).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –41

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

environmental performance standards for Water Quality (Section 3.3). 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 Highway 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. Environmental performance standards 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.

3.4.5 Earthwork

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

ditching, backfilling, embankment construction, augering discing, 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,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –42

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 offsite 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. Environmental performance standards 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.

Blasting

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, and

mammals. 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –43

The contractor will follow the Species Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard 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 Highway Construction

(ODOT 2002a).

3.4.6 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, 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 end-bearing 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 (3.4.7). Shaft

drilling generates a slurry mixture of water and substrate that can create turbid stream conditions

if released to flowing waters. 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 3.3). Following shaft drilling, concrete is poured to form the column. Containment of

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

3.4.3) and construction material containment (Section 3.4.4) and the Water Quality

Environmental Performance Standard.

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 3.4.5) 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

3.4.7). 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 3.4.3) and construction material

containment (Section 3.4.4) and the Water Quality Environmental Performance Standard.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –44

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 environmental performance standards for Species Avoidance (Section 3.3) 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 Environmental

Performance Standard [Section 3.3]). 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 pilesupported structures will incorporate construction methods and standards for earthwork (Section

3.4.5), equipment control (Section 3.4.3), and construction material containment (Section 3.4.4).

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).

Temporary effects are those associated with in-water work (Section 3.4.7) 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. Environmental performance standards 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.

3.4.7 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 or bankfull elevation. The bankfull 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. Bankfull 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –45

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

• work area isolation

• flow diversion

• 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 in-water

work timing guidelines established for specific watersheds incurring Bridge Program activities.

ODOT construction activities will follow timing guidelines established in this consultation to

help minimize potential effects to fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. In-water work periods are

established to avoid the vulnerable life stages (spawning, rearing, and migration) of fish and

other aquatic species. Alterations to these in-water work periods require 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 the corresponding

Biological Opinion.

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

• Underwater blasting

• 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 or solid barriers like the Porta Dam.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –46

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.

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.

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 flowredirection 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. Only activities at existing retaining walls associated

with repair bridges will be allowed under this consultation.

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 Environmental

Performance Standard (Section 3.3) will be applied to minimize and avoid adverse effects

associated with riprap.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –47

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 implemented

prior to any streambed excavation.

Pile Driving and Removal

See Foundations (Section 3.4.6).

Shaft Drilling

See Foundations (Section 3.4.6)

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 in-water

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 State. 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 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. Equipment

operating in or near the water increases 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –48

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 longterm loss of riparian vegetation and habitat development. Environmental performance standards

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.

3.4.8 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 3.4.2), earthwork (Section 3.4.5), 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 3.4.2)

vegetation, grading as described under earthwork (Section 3.4.5), 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 sub-grade,

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.

Guardrail Installation

Guardrail construction may require augering (earthwork [Section 3.4.5]), 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –49

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. Environmental performance standards 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.

3.4.9 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 pre-treated 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

Stormwater Management Environmental Performance Standard.

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, but scour protection may be

required below the OHW, where unavoidable. Construction methods presented under clearing

(Section 3.4.2), earthwork (Section 3.4.5), and sometimes in-water work (Section 3.4.7) 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 3.4.5) and in-water-work

(Section 3.4.7) activities. Environmental performance standards 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.

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)
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –50

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 channel-forming processes in

watersheds where the new facilities occur.

3.4.10 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.

Environmental performance standards 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 (e.g., limited operating periods).

3.4.11 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 3.4.12) such

as browse protectors, tree stakes and ties, or trunk wrap may be used to protect plants (ODOT

2002a). Planting occurs when the following earthwork (Section 3.4.5) 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 3.4.7) area (e.g., wetland and riparian

areas) and staging areas.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –51

Potential Effects

Planting activities require ground disturbance (earthwork [Section 3.4.5]). 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 non-native 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. Environmental

performance standards were developed with the assistance of the Services during the preconsultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation to minimize and avoid these

effects.

3.4.12 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.

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. Environmental performance standards 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.

3.5 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 maintenance1

. Bridge repair projects may not always

include the fourth phase if the repair work involved no ground-disturbing activities. The design

phase occurs prior to any on-the-ground pre-construction 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

 

1

 This does not include maintenance of the structure, rather of the vegetation plantings and other habitat elements.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –52

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 3.4 which will be

referenced (in italics) in this discussion to provide the necessary detail regarding construction

methods, potential effects, and the applicable environmental performance standards presented in

Section 3.3. Table 3.5-1 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). The environmental performance standards are

referenced in the Bridge Repair/Replacement Elements section (Section 3.4) 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 short- or 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.

Table 3.5-1. Matrix of Bridge Repair / Replacement Activities and Elements

3.4 Bridge Repair / Replacement Elements:

3.5 Bridge Repair /Replacement Activities:3.5.1 Design3.5.2 Preconstruction3.5.3 Construction3.5.3.1 Construction andTraffic Staging3.5.3.2 Bridge Removal3.5.3.3 Bridge Construction3.5.4 Site Restoration3.5.4.1 Maintenance

3.4.1 Preconstruction x

3.4.2 Clearing x x X

3.4.3 Equipment Control x x x X

3.4.4 Construction Material Containment x X

3.4.5 Earthwork x x x X x x

3.4.6 Foundations X

3.4.7 In-water Work x x X x

3.4.8 Roadwork x X

3.4.9 Stormwater Management X

3.4.10 Illumination X

3.4.11 Planting and Seeding x x

3.4.12 Exclusionary Devices x x
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –53

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 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.

3.5.1 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 environmental performance standards will act as guiding principles in the design

phase of the Bridge Program (Section 3.3) in order to avoid adverse effects on listed species.

Where complete avoidance of adverse effects is not possible, the standards will be applied in

such a way as to minimize potential effects, with the goal of no long-term adverse effects to

listed species and their habitat.

3.5.2 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. Pre-construction activities will be conducted in accordance with

the environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) which have been developed with the

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

consultation.

3.5.3 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –54

3.5.3.1 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 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 environmental performance

standards (Section 3.3) which have been developed with the assistance of the Services during the

pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation.

3.5.3.2 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 3.4.7) 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. 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 Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance

Standard (Section 3.3). 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –55

structure or with normative fluvial processes. All bridge removal activities described above will

be conducted in accordance with the environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) which

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

assistance phases of this consultation.

3.5.3.3 Bridge Construction

Bridges constructed under the proposed action will be built using a wide variety of

configurations, methods, and standards (Section 3.3). For the purposes of this consultation, the

bridge construction process is divided into four major categories. These include (1) substructure

construction, (2) superstructure construction, (3) approach construction (roadwork), (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

above, so long as they are in compliance with the goals and objectives outlined in the

environmental performance standards.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –56

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 wildlife), earthwork, and construction material containment. All bridge

substructure construction activities will be conducted in accordance with the environmental

performance standards (Section 3.3) which have been developed with the assistance of the

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

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-in-place, 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, and guardrail

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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –57

onto the structure, or concrete which may consist of pre-fabricated barriers set in place or cast-inplace 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. 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 environmental

performance standards (Section 3.3) which have been developed with the assistance of the

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

3.5.4 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 environmental performance standards for Site Restoration (Section 3.3). 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. Environmental performance standards will

require the establishment of vigorous native plant growth (capable of competing with non-native

species), plant community diversity (e.g., wetland v. upland species), minimal bare soil, and soil

stabilization. In addition to the five-year monitoring plan, annual monitoring will take place until

the Agency has certified that environmental performance standards have been reached. 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 State 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 environmental performance

standards (Section 3.3) which have been developed with the assistance of the Services during the

pre-consultation and technical assistance phases of this consultation.

3.5.4.1 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –58

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 scour2

. 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 environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) which have been

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

phases of this consultation.

3.6 Conservation and Mitigation Actions

ODOT is currently developing a comprehensive set of environmental performance standards for

the Bridge Program. These standards will facilitate the avoidance and minimization of adverse

effects; however, some projects will nevertheless have effects on listed species and/or their

habitat. To address compensatory obligations and stewardship issues arising from those effects

and to meet ODOT/FHWA’s section 7(a)(2) responsibilities under the ESA, ODOT/FHWA has

committed to developing an Integrated Resource Management Program (IRMP). The IRMP will

also address ODOT/FHWA’s section 7(a)(1) responsibility to assist in species conservation and

recovery.

In addition to implementation of the IRMP, ODOT/FHWA has identified other actions that will

assist in species conservation in furtherance of its responsibilities under section 7(a)(1) of the

ESA. These actions are expected to further minimize or avoid the adverse effects of the proposed

action on listed species and critical habitat and aid in recovery of the species. The actions are

also anticipated to aid in the conservation of unlisted species.

3.6.1 Integrated Resource Management Program Summary

The IRMP will address conservation efforts associated with the ESA, wildlife-habitat issues

(e.g., Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act), and ecosystem services. It will also address

compensatory obligations associated with effects on wetlands and water resources (CWA, State

Removal/Fill). The IRMP will be developed in conjunction with agency representatives from the

Corps, DSL, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, EPA, ODFW, DEQ, DLCD, and FHWA, who will serve

as the Comprehensive Mitigation/Conservation Strategy Team (CMCS).

3.6.1.1 The Proposed Integrated Resource Management Program:

The IRMP provides the vision, goals, objectives, overall structure, methods, and adaptive

management program for ODOT’s stewardship and compensatory mitigation projects. The focus

 

2

 This refers predominately to repaired facilities because the fluvial performance standards allow no supplemental

scour protection for new or replaced structures.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –59

will be on resource function, value, and ecosystem services. Compensatory obligations

(wetlands/waters, ESA, wildlife-habitat) and stewardship issues (on-site restoration, habitat

protection/enhancement) will be addressed.

The framework will be designed to accommodate Bridge Program needs as well as other future

ODOT resource management and mitigation/conservation needs. The methods will be

documented and reproducible, enabling future entities to adopt program methods and goals. This

will enable other agencies and jurisdictions to benefit from development of the streamlined

system and focus their mitigation/conservation efforts toward the identified regional ecological

goals.

Stewardship templates and conceptual mitigation design plans will be included. Compensatory

mitigation criteria (function- and value-based) will be defined in the IRMP and will form the

basis for the Comprehensive Mitigation/Conservation Framework (CMCF), to be developed in

conjunction with the CMCS team. The CMCF will set the overall structure, objectives, goals,

criteria, and adaptive management protocols for future projects.

Detailed compensatory mitigation site design work (Final Mitigation Plans) will be completed

upon approval of the CMCF by the resource agencies. The Final Mitigation Plans will result in

identification of regional ecological needs/goals and a comprehensive mitigation/conservation

strategy (created by the CMCS) that allows development of a coordinated method for effect

assessment and mitigation planning/tracking and development of a combined

mitigation/conservation credit and accounting method to provide the greatest resource benefit

and streamline regulatory processes.

3.6.1.2 Schedule

ODOT proposes to submit the draft CMCS strategy (with conceptual mitigation plans) to the

resource agencies in October of 2004. The goal is to obtain approval of the conceptual plans by

the end of the 2004 calendar year, enabling final plans to be developed in advance of the 2005

construction season.

3.6.2 Section 7(a)(1) Actions

This consultation will implement many conservation measures that will allow ODOT/FHWA to

meet its section 7(a)(1) obligations. The implementation of a landscape-level analysis will enable

conservation benefits to be targeted to the areas where the greatest benefits would be realized.

The regional mitigation will provide more benefit at the watershed scale, with priority

watersheds targeted for conservation actions. Implementing conservation measures in these

watersheds would benefit the targeted species and other non-listed species the most and benefit

the recovery of the species the greatest.

Aggregate Sources

ODOT has changed the manner in which it addresses aggregate sources. The exemption for

commercial, continuously-operated sources is no longer available. This exemption allowed
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –60

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.

Unlisted Species

The FWCA and MBTA are addressed by several performance standards. For example, the

Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3) will provide enhanced or restored

wildlife passage at many bridge sites. The Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard will also

allow the channel to meander more naturally in many systems, and reestablishment of the natural

meander will benefit fish and wildlife. The Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard will

also negate many long-term adverse effects associated with channel constriction. The overall

objective of the Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard is to protect habitat-forming

processes, (i.e., normative physical processes) such as natural sediment transport patterns, fluvial

debris movement, and longitudinal continuity and connectivity of the stream-floodplain system.

Monitoring

ODOT/FHWA can meet much of its Section 7(a)(1) responsibilities by involving the USFWS

and NOAA Fisheries in project monitoring that will occur at all program bridges. Their

participation augments other discussions that ODOT/FHWA has had with the Services regarding

conservation of protected species. Examples of such activities include:

• Involving Service officials in annual review of the effectiveness of the environmental

performance standards. They will be involved in field demonstrations, if needed, to

observe how the conservation planning process is conducted and how conservation

practices are implemented.

• Discussions with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries regarding the potential to modify

conservation practices to better address the needs of protected species and ways to

provide technical assistance in a manner that furthers the conservation of threatened

and endangered species.

• Identification of priority areas that benefit listed species or designated critical habitat.

• On a site-specific basis, ODOT/FHWA can also use its authority to support Section

7(a)(1) requirements by implementing conservation recommendations the Service

makes during Section 7(a)(2) consultation process. Conservation recommendations

are non-binding suggestions the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries make during formal or

informal consultation.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

3 –61

3.7 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

actions described above do 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 Bridge Program.

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/FHWA 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-controlled sources, and (3) expanding the ODOT Standard Specifications

language to require proof of permits (DOGAMI, DSL, local government authorities) to all

commercial sources. The first approach involves the development and implementation of a

Recycling Goal Performance Standard (Appendix 3-B). 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 removing the statement “except for continuouslyoperated 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 3.4. 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 has the ability to apply the environmental performance standards

presented in Section 3.3 of this BA to the right-of-entry 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 1

4.0 Assessment of Ecosystem Condition

Oregon comprises ten ecoregions, each of which contains multiple habitat types. Section 4.2

provides a complete description of these 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) (Figure 4.0-1). 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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 ONRHP

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 4.0-1 provides the acreage of the various habitat types

within each ecoregion.

4.1 Ecoregions

4.1.1 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).
Blue Mountains

Basin & Range

East Cascades

West Cascades

Coast Range

Lava Plains

Owyhee Uplands

Columbia Basin

Klamath Mountains

Willamette Valley

screening\BA_figures\ecoregion.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 4.0-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Ecoregion Overview

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

California

Ida

h

o

0 10 20 40 60 80

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Streams and Rivers

Highway

OTIA III Bridges

Ecoregion

Basin & Range

Blue Mountains

Coast Range

Columbia Basin

East Cascades

Klamath Mountains

Lava Plains

Owyhee Uplands

West Cascades

Willamette Valley
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 3

Table 4.0-1. 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

HighLava

Plains

OwyheeUplands

Agriculture, Pasture,and MixedEnvironments

250,430 550,910 164,950 1,740,960 459,780 609,980 299,810 250,250 

Alpine Grasslands andShrublands

1,180 214,120 0 0 8,920 960 0 0 

Bays and Estuaries 0 0 22,450 0 0 0 0 0 Ceanothus-ManzanitaShrublands

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 & SaltScrub

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 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 4

Table 4.0-1. (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

HighLava

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 Forestand Woodlands 20 2,260 0 0 507,590 0 0 0 Marine Nearshore 0 0 3,610 0 0 0 0 0 Montane ConiferousWetlands 0 5,400 0 0 41,350 90 130 0 Montane MixedConifer Forest 280 485,720 0 0 190,740 39,710 0 0 Ponderosa Pine andEastside White OakForest 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 1,327,670 4,911,800 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 5

Table 4.0-1. (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

HighLava

Plains

OwyheeUplands

Southwest OregonMixed 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 MixedEnvironments 3,190 16,270 57,810 29,340 22,570 42,170 20,560 6,030 Western Juniper andMountain MahoganyWoodlands

555,940 471,600 0 72,190 642,080 0 2,178,370 116,900 

Westside LowlandConifer-HardwoodForest

0 0 4,961,680 0 10,720 256,560 0 0 

Westside Oak and DryDouglas-fir Forest andWoodlands

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 inEcoregion 9,802,580 11,181,910 5,757,660 4,287,480 6,780,760 3,865,460 4,168,.690 5,520,200 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 6

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 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).

4.1.2 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).

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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 7

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 low-lying 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).

4.1.3 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 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 Highway

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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 8

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% 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).

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).

4.1.4 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 shrub-steppe 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 9

agricultural and range land, with over 85% 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%. 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.

4.1.5 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 sagebrushjuniper 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 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 low-lying 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 10

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%. 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.

4.1.6 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 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.

4.1.7 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,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 11

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.

4.1.8 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 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 12

4.1.9 West Cascade Mountains Ecoregion

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-thirds of the forest in this ecoregion. More than twothirds 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 13

4.1.10 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% 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 closedcanopy 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% reduction in total

riparian area since the 1850s. An estimated 72% of the original riparian and bottomland forest is

gone, as well as an estimated 99% of wet prairies, 88% of upland prairies, and 87% of upland

forests at the margins of the valley (SOER 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% in the headwaters to more than 50% of

the number of species in the mainstem Willamette.

4.2 Johnson and O’Neil Habitat Type Descriptions

The Johnson and O’Neil habitat types (Johnson and O’Neil 2001) discussed in the above

ecoregion sections are described below in sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.15. Johnson and O’Neil

(2001) provided the following information on the habitat types. A map of Johnson and O’Neil

habitat types is provided in Figure 4.2-1.
plants\BA_figures\johab.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 4.2-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Johnson & O'Neil Habitat Types in Oregon

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user. Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

California

Johnson & O'Neil Habitat Types

Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs

Alpine Grasslands and Shrublands

Bays and Estuaries

Ceanothus-Manzanita Shrublands

Coastal Dunes and Beaches

Coastal Headlands and Islets

Desert Playa and Salt Scrub

Dwarf Shrub-steppe

Eastside (Interior) Canyon Shrublands

Eastside (Interior) Grasslands

Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forest

Eastside (Interior) Riparian - Wetlands

Herbaceous Wetlands

Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs

Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands

Marine Nearshore

Marine Shelf

Montane Coniferous Wetlands

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest

Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands

Shrub-steppe

Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest

Subalpine Parklands

Upland Aspen Forest

Urban and Mixed Environs

Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands

Westside Riparian - Wetlands

Ida

h

o

0 10 20 40 60 80

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

OTIA III Bridges

Highway

Streams and Rivers

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 15

4.2.1 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.

4.2.2 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 16

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.

4.2.3 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.

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 1 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).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 17

4.2.4 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, semi-permanently 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 grasslike life form (graminoids). These meadows often occur with deep- or shallow-water 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).

4.2.5 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 18

conditions. Soil drought plays a role in maintaining an open tree canopy in part of this dry

woodland habitat.

4.2.6 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 shrubsteppe 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.

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.

4.2.7 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 19

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.

4.2.8 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 20

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.

4.2.9 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 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 old-growth forest

remains, mostly in national forests in the Cascade Mountains.

4.2.10 Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands

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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 21

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 lowlying 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.

4.2.11 Montane Coniferous Wetlands

This habitat occurs in mountains throughout Oregon, except the Basin and Range of southeastern

Oregon, the Klamath Mountains of 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% 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 22

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.

4.2.12 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 suspendedsediment 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 shortlived.

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.

4.2.13 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
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 23

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 codominant. 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.

4.2.14 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.

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 Douglas-fir/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 codominant with oak.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 24

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 oakdominated stands).

4.2.15 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 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 scrub-shrub 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 longterm 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-
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

4 – 25

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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 1

5.0 Taxonomical Group and Species Evaluation

This section of the BA evaluates and quantifies the effects of the proposed action on 73

threatened, endangered, proposed, and selected sensitive (TEPS) species and their designated or

proposed critical habitat (see Table 1.0-1 for a listing of these species). Information in this

section will be critical to facilitating determinations of effect to listed species.

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action (and its

interrelated and interdependent activities) on TEPS species and/or their critical habitat. These

determinations of effect were based on factors suggested by the jointly developed ESA

Consultation Handbook (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS, 1998), assumptions documented in the

Evaluation of Effects Memoranda developed in collaboration with the Services (Appendix 2-B),

and the analysis of an extensive geographic and biological data set collected through this

consultation. Evaluation methods are described in detail in Section 2, and summarized below.

5.1 Summary of Evaluation Methods

Analysis of the effects of the proposed action was conducted in close coordination with the

Services, as well as State agency personnel. The Level 1 Working Group (described in Section 2

and Appendix 2-C) developed assumptions for each listed species for use in evaluating the

effects of the proposed action (Appendix 2-B).

All potential effects on TEPS species were assessed in light of the proposed environmental

performance standards, which target these potential effects; ultimately becoming the Terms and

Conditions of the Biological Opinion. The environmental performance standards are presented in

Section 3 of this BA.

The potential effects of the proposed action on fish, wildlife, and plant species were evaluated

based on Service-approved or Service-drafted reports and Biological Opinions as well as on

professional knowledge and data provided by local resource specialists. GIS data used in this

analysis are a product of these reports, and of confirmed GIS information obtained through this

consultation. As described in Section 2, the GIS data were critical to screening, describing, and

calculating the effects of the proposed action on listed species and their habitats. Interpretation of

the data was also jointly conducted with Level 1 Working Group participants and other resource

and regulatory agency staff. Steps in data analysis were described in Section 2.

As described in Section 2, the effects of the Bridge Program on TEPS species are considered in

the context of effects pathways, (i.e., soil, air, water, chemicals, or vegetation). Actions that can

affect the viability of TEPS species are delivered through these pathways, and can alter one or

more of the physical, chemical, or biological parameters necessary for continued viability and

recovery. In addition, direct effects to individuals can occur during any activity that requires

handling or that would otherwise displace TEPS species. These effects are considered to result

from the species pathway.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 2

As discussed in Section 2, effects analyses are discussed in terms of both “gross” and “net”

effects. Numerous bridge APIs overlap, and the areas of effect therefore include the specific

bridge API, as well as a portion of an adjacent, overlapping bridge API. Both net and gross

effects are provided in the individual species evaluations.

The remainder of this section addresses potential effects to Fish (Sections 5.2 and 5.3), Wildlife

(Section 5.4), and Plants (Section 5.5). With some variation depending on the species or

taxonomic group, the analyses include the following major elements:

• Life history and status

• Species specific effects pathways

• Minimization and avoidance measures

• Analysis of effect

• Determination of effect.

Methodology and assumptions used in determining effects to listed fish, and estimation of

potential take, are discussed separately in Sections 5.2.3 for anadromous species, and 5.3.3 for

resident species.

5.2 Fish (Anadromous) Species

5.2.1 Life History and Status

There are five species of Pacific salmon and steelhead in Oregon: chinook salmon (O.

tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), chum salmon (O. keta), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and

steelhead (O. mykiss). Different populations of these species exist in different ecoregions of the

state. The ESA considers distinct populations to be different species, but does not specify how

distinctness should be evaluated for populations within a species. In an effort to efficiently and

appropriately implement ESA regulations for salmonids, NOAA Fisheries has developed a

species policy to guide ESA listings for Pacific salmon and steelhead in order to conserve

genetic diversity (Waples 1995). According to the policy, a population or group of populations is

considered distinct if it represents an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of the species. The

unifying theme of the policy is the desire to identify and conserve important genetic resources,

thus allowing evolution to continue, largely unaffected by human factors (Waples 1995). An

ESU is a population with the distinct genetic resources necessary to allow resilience to

changing environmental conditions and to allow the evolutionary process to continue. In

Oregon, the Federal ESA currently lists 11 Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs as threatened, and

three as endangered.

The life histories and current status of the Pacific salmon and steelhead addressed in this BA are

well documented; existing information is abundant. Therefore, to more efficiently address

potential effects of Bridge Program activities on Pacific salmon and steelhead, this section refers

to other documents that provide this information. Life history information is critical to the

determination of the potential effects that the proposed action may have on Pacific salmon and

steelhead. Detailed life histories of the five Pacific salmon and steelhead species addressed in
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 3

this BA can be found in the Federal Register and in other reports prepared by NOAA Fisheries.

Table 5.2.1-1 provides reference information on Pacific salmon and steelhead and ESU listing.

Table 5.2.1-1. Oregon Pacific salmon and steelhead life history, status, and Federal listing information.

Species ESU ESA Status Federal Register Documentation

Lower Columbia River Threatened 64 FR 14308, 65 FR 7764

Snake River Threatened 57 FR 14653, 58 FR 68543

Upper Columbia River Endangered 64 FR 14308

Chinook salmon

Upper Willamette River Threatened 64 FR 14308, 65 FR 7764

Northern California/ Southern

Oregon Coasts

Coho salmon Threatened 62 FR 24588, 64 FR 24049

Oregon Coast Threatened 63 FR 42587, 65 FR 7764

Chum salmon Columbia River Threatened 64 FR 14508, 65 FR 7764

Sockeye salmon Snake River Endangered 56 FR 58619, 58 FR 68543

Steelhead trout Lower Columbia River Threatened 64 FR 14517, 65 FR 7764

Middle Columbia River Threatened 64 FR 14517, 65 FR 7764

Upper Columbia River Endangered 62 FR 43937

Snake River Basin Threatened 64 FR 14517, 65 FR 7764

Upper Willamette River Threatened 64 FR 14517, 65 FR 7764

Coastal cutthroat trout SW Washington/Columbia River Not Listed 64 FR 16397, 65 FR 24420

5.2.2 Analysis of Effects on Fish (Anadromous)

As a functional group, the anadromous fish species addressed in this BA 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.

Essential habitat features include substrate composition; water quality; water quantity, depth, and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 4

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.

5.2.2.1 Effects Pathways

This BA provides an analysis of the potential effects of the proposed action on the habitat

elements that are critical for sustained, viable populations of Federally listed fish. Actions can

affect the viability of listed species by altering one or more physical, chemical, or biological

parameters. All effects are delivered via the displacement, disruption, removal, or other alteration

of soil, air, water, chemicals, or vegetation. In addition, incidental take of the species (e.g., via

direct physical injury) may occur. Throughout this section of the BA, the Bridge Program’s

effects on Federally listed fish are considered in the context of the above pathways. A further

discussion of each of these effects pathways follows.

Soil

The displacement and transport of soil can result in turbidity and sedimentation within

stream channels. The effects of suspended sediments (turbidity) may be sub-lethal or

lethal, 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.

Water

Alterations to fluvial processes can have sub-lethal and lethal effects on anadromous

salmonids as well as direct effects on their 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 salmonids by inhibiting run timing and by degrading habitat refugia. The

addition of hardened structures (i.e., bridge bents) within a fluvial channel can alter the
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 5

hydrology of the system by increasing flow velocities, encouraging scour, and limiting

the natural movement of bedload materials—thus causing sub-lethal effects on

salmonids. Changes to the hydrologic regimes of streams and rivers are a potential

pathway for these types of effects.

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 salmonids. Increasing the magnitude of

peak flows will often have an indirect effect on 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 salmonid. Lowered base flows can have sub-lethal or lethal

effects on salmonids.

Water may also be a pathway for the conveyance of hydroacoustic effects on anadromous

fish. Hydroacoustic effects are generally created during activities that generate excessive

noise within the water column, typically pile-driving (NOAA Fisheries 2003a). Piledriving 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 hydroacoustic effects can kill salmonids (e.g., by ruptured swim bladders),

or can be sub-lethal (e.g., injury or harassment and displacement from productive feeding

habitats).

Chemicals

The delivery of chemicals to streams and rivers is another pathway for adverse effects on

anadromous salmonids. Chemical contamination can alter fecundity, increase disease,

shift biotic communities, and reduce the overall health of migrating salmon. 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 effects of

stormwater on salmonids may be sub-lethal or lethal, and are generally correlated to the

concentration of chemical contaminants within the water column.

Vegetation

Plants are an important element of functioning anadromous fish habitat. Riparian

vegetation provides cover for fish, streambank stability, stream temperature control, and

habitat for prey (Meehan 1991). Cover is provided by overhanging vegetation and

undercut banks. Fallen riparian vegetation provides channel-forming large woody

material (LWM) that promotes pool formation and the retention of bedload material. The

removal of riparian vegetation can reduce soil cohesion and bank stability, inducing
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 6

erosion and streambank loss; this degradation of overall habitat conditions can have sublethal effects on salmonids. Additionally, temperature increases may result from

increased solar radiation due to the loss of overstory vegetation, and loss of bank stability

can result in streams becoming wide and shallow, further increasing stream temperature

during summer low-flow conditions. Terrestrial insects inhabit riparian vegetation and

provide food for fish when they fall into water. Detritus falling into streams provides

food for aquatic insects, which can, in turn, become food for fish. Thus, the removal of

riparian vegetation can also lead to diminished primary and secondary productivity in

streams (Meehan 1991).

The loss of riparian vegetation can affect channel morphology if recruitment of woody

material is diminished. Woody material retains sediments of various sizes, including

gravels suitable for spawning. The loss of woody material can allow sediments to be

more quickly flushed through the system, thus depleting available spawning habitat and

reducing productivity/fecundity. Wood in streams also provides a substrate for aquatic

insect populations, which may diminish with the depletion of instream woody material.

Where watersheds are already at risk due to prior disturbance, the removal of riparian

habitat may trigger habitat changes that exceed the tolerance of anadromous fish. For

instance, small temperature increases may have no detectable adverse effects on fish in a

stream with a well developed riparian corridor and summer temperatures well within the

tolerable range—but small temperature increases in a stream with already high summer

temperatures may create unacceptable conditions for individuals and populations.

Species

In addition to effects via the pathways described above, direct effects (sub-lethal and

lethal) on anadromous 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.) However, anadromous salmonid outmigrants,

particularly during downstream passage through the mainstem Columbia River, are less

likely to be affected 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 trout, chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon tend to stay

out in the river rather than orienting to the shoreline. Although 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, 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 7

Direct effects may also occur if incubating eggs or larvae are destroyed as a result of any

activity. Additionally, disturbances that increase stress or energy loss of spawning adults

can reduce productivity/fecundity.

5.2.2.2 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

The effects of actions proposed under this consultation may be delivered by one or multiple

pathways. The degree to which The Bridge Program affects anadromous salmonid populations or

habitat is dependent on the intensity, magnitude, duration, timing, and frequency of the activity

having the effect. The efforts to minimize the effects of the proposed action are focused on

restricting the pathways through which the habitat elements critical for sustaining viable

salmonid populations can be degraded. Minimization and avoidance measures for the bridge

program consist of environmental performance standards and conservation measures that provide

proactive methods for habitat and species conservation during bridge design and construction.

Section 3.3 lists and defines these environmental performance standards.

5.2.2.3 Effects on the Environmental Baseline

The potential effects of the proposed action were evaluated with regard to the individual habitat

elements critical for sustained, viable anadromous fish populations, and the environmental

performance standards (Section 3.3) were specifically developed to minimize Bridge Program

effects on these critical habitat elements.

Habitat-altering actions affect salmonid population viability by affecting the physical, chemical,

and biological parameters central to salmon survival in freshwater ecosystems (NOAA Fisheries

1999). When evaluating actions that affect freshwater habitat elements, NOAA Fisheries defines

the biological requirements of the species in terms of the concept of properly functioning

condition (PFC). Properly functioning condition is characterized by the sustained presence in a

watershed of natural habitat-forming processes that are necessary for the long-term survival and

recovery of salmon and steelhead. Natural habitat-forming processes include, but are not limited

to, bedload transport, large woody material recruitment, and riparian vegetation succession. The

concept of PFC constitutes the habitat component of a species’ biological requirements.

Actions that affect habitat have the potential to affect population abundance, productivity, and

diversity. These effects can be particularly acute when populations are at low levels. Freshwater

habitat degradation is a factor for decline in every salmon listing on the West Coast. By

analyzing the effects of a given action on the habitat portion of a species’ biological

requirements, NOAA Fisheries is able to gauge how that action will affect the population and

ultimately, how the action will affect the species’ current and future recovery.

NOAA Fisheries has designated 18 distinct habitat parameters that influence the continued

existence of anadromous salmonids (NOAA Fisheries 1999). Their effects on anadromous

salmonids are determined by the degree to which a proposed action alters the baseline condition

of these parameters, which are assessed at the individual watershed scale. The proposed Bridge

Program will be carried out statewide, and will encompass a variety of habitat types and

conditions. Therefore, effects on the baseline condition of these parameters will be analyzed at
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 8

the scale of the ESU rather than an individual watershed. These parameters and their components

are described below.

Water Quality

Temperature

Temperature has a significant effect on cold-water fish (such as trout, salmon, and

steelhead), including effects on both behavioral and physiological processes. High water

temperatures are often associated with poor conditions in other water quality parameters,

such as algal density, sedimentation, habitat modification, dissolved oxygen, and

bacteria. The removal of riparian vegetation can cause elevated stream temperatures by

increasing solar radiation loading.

Riparian vegetation removal will be necessary within action area stream corridors.

However, the amount of riparian vegetation to be cleared at individual bridge sites is

small relative to the amount of riparian vegetation available to the stream systems within

the action areas. This clearing will rarely extend more than a few hundred feet on either

side of a replaced bridge. For most systems, temperature increases due to riparian

vegetation removal on this scale will be undetectable. In accordance with the Site

Restoration Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3), site clearing will be

minimized and all vegetation removed will be replaced with a functional equivalent,

unless the cleared area is part of the new permanent bridge footprint. The standard also

requires a monitoring plan that will ensure the long-term survival of replacement

plantings. Some temporary minor effects on water temperature in some stream systems

may be expected while the replaced riparian vegetation matures, but over time, the new

growth will be functionally equivalent to the vegetation removed. The effects of riparian

vegetation removal on stream temperature are therefore considered to be temporary, and

in most cases minor.

Sediment/Turbidity

Turbidity within and across action areas varies significantly. All work will adhere to

environmental performance standards designed to minimize erosion and turbidity

stemming from bridge work within or near stream channels. However, temporary,

localized effects are possible during bridge replacement and repair activities. The

condition of this parameter should improve over the long term, with the restoration of

more natural sediment transport regimes at many bridge sites throughout the state.

Chemical Contamination

Many of the bridges proposed for replacement occur within watersheds that have been

listed on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 303(d) list for

chemical contamination exceedances (ODEQ 1999). Therefore, the environmental

baseline for this parameter varies throughout the action area. Contamination sources are

numerous and consist of point and non-point sources.

Two primary sources of chemical contamination to waterbodies that may result from the

proposed action are roadway pollutants delivered in stormwater runoff and accidental
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 9

spills. The latter includes catastrophic releases of hazardous substances within or near a

waterbody and/or leaky equipment operating within or near a waterbody. Contamination

due to stormwater is a long-term effect on salmonids. The Bridge Program will improve

this condition through implementation of the Water Quality Environmental Performance

Standard (Section 3.3). The effects of leaky equipment and spills are associated with

construction, and are therefore temporary.

Environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) will be followed to minimize the

potential for chemical contamination of project action areas. Relevant elements of these

standards include proper equipment staging, the preparation of Pollution and Erosion

Control Plans, and stormwater management. All construction sites are subject to minor

spills and drips of materials that could eventually cause minor chemical contamination of

streams and water. However, these small, localized effects on water quality are expected

to be negligible relative to the long-term beneficial effects of the proposed Bridge

Program.

Habitat Access

Physical Barriers

Natural and anthropogenic barriers to fish passage exist throughout Oregon. On many

streams and rivers, natural stream size and gradient are the limiting factors. Too often,

though, migration barriers are partially or wholly due to human activities. Diversions can

reduce stream depth and divert fish from streams; stream crossings can block fish passage

through improperly placed culverts; and fish passage barriers can restrict the access of

migrating adults to spawning grounds, which can significantly or totally limit successful

spawning. In addition, fish passage barriers such as dams limit the downstream migration

of juvenile anadromous salmonids during outmigration, which can significantly limit

survival and maturation.

The proposed action will not create new barriers to fish passage. However, temporary

(i.e., lasting a few hours at a time) barriers may occur during activities that require inwater work-area isolation and stream diversions. The implementation of the

environmental performance standards will ensure that fish passage will be maintained

during in-water work, or that blockages will be temporary and allowed only with

regulatory agency approval. Therefore, it is expected that no new, permanent barriers to

fish passage will be created by the proposed action. The replacement of some bridges

may even improve existing fish passage conditions, by eliminating in-channel structures

and flow constriction (i.e., culverts and bridge bents). Furthermore, it is anticipated that a

number of culverts that currently function as fish passage barriers will be replaced as part

of the Bridge Program; these culverts will be replaced with structures that allow fish

passage, providing a net improvement in fish passage conditions.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 10

Habitat Elements

Substrate

Stream substrates within the action areas vary significantly and are influenced at a

watershed scale by topography, geology, hydrology, land cover, and anthropogenic land

uses. Substrate quality is an extremely important parameter for sustaining viable

anadromous salmonid populations. All salmonids require appropriately-sized substrates

with a low level of embeddedness for successful spawning and egg incubation. The

recruitment of appropriately-sized substrate is a function of an adequate substrate source

combined with the habitat elements (i.e., large wood, channel complexity) needed to

retain substrate assemblages under various flows.

Bridge and roadway construction may disturb soil over large areas, increasing the

potential for delivery of fine sediment to streams. Additionally, roadway surfaces collect

and transport sediment to streams through various modes such as stormwater runoff.

Because the Bridge Program will follow the environmental performance standards

defined in Section 3.3, the proposed action will likely have no long-term adverse effect

on the substrate of the streams within the action areas. Rather, because replaced bridges

will allow normative fluvial processes that may be hindered at existing bridges, the

proposed action should have long-term beneficial effects on substrate conditions. Shortterm, localized effects on substrates may occur during the in-stream activities associated

with bridge removal and construction; however, substrate embeddedness potentially

caused by the proposed action will be limited by the implementation of the erosion and

sediment control measures outlined in the standards. In some cases, the removal of

bridges that are currently causing channel constrictions or otherwise blocking normative

stream channel or floodplain functions may locally improve substrate conditions.

Large Wood

Riparian vegetation is a critical source of LWM inputs to fluvial systems. Large wood

within stream channels provides or promotes a multitude of habitat conditions such as

pool formation, sediment retention, and cover necessary for sustaining viable anadromous

salmonid populations. The extensive clearing of riparian corridors as a result of

urbanization and agricultural activities has limited the recruitment of LWM to stream

channels throughout Oregon. The proposed action will require the removal of riparian

vegetation that would otherwise constitute LWM sources for stream channels. Adherence

to the environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) will limit the amount of

riparian vegetation removed and ensure that what is removed is replaced with a

functional equivalent. Where feasible, wood removed for bridge replacement and repair

will be left on site or within stream channels to promote large wood input to streams.

Disturbed areas will be re-planted and restored, providing future LWM recruitment.

Although there may be a temporary reduction in large wood availability while the

replaced riparian vegetation matures, over time the new growth will be functionally

equivalent to the vegetation removed. Existing large wood will not be removed from the

action area in the stream channel or floodplain areas. Furthermore, application of the

Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard will allow for undisrupted transport of

LWM through the action area. Therefore, the removal of riparian vegetation that could
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 11

contribute large wood to stream systems will have only minor and temporary effects on

most bridges.

Pool Frequency and Quality

The frequency and quality of pools within a waterbody are influenced by many factors,

including downed large wood volumes, watershed hydrology, streambank conditions,

floodplain connectivity, longitudinal gradient, and the level of sediment transport.

Watersheds that experience intensive urban and agricultural land uses tend to have lower

pool frequency and quality due to the alteration of pool-forming habitat elements

discussed above. Pool infilling occurs when the load of fine sediments is substantially

greater than the transport capacity of the flow (Castro and Cluer 2003).

The Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3) will be followed during

bridge design and replacement activities to allow normative physical processes within the

stream-floodplain corridor. Implementation of this standard could affect pool frequency

and quality by having long-term beneficial effects or localized adverse effects.

Implementation of the Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard on stream systems

containing pools caused by the bridge structure (i.e., bridge pier or contraction scour

pools) may locally reduce the frequency and/or quality of current pool habitat. However,

implementation of the Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard will allow

unimpeded transport of habitat elements such as LWM, improving the overall condition

of fluvial systems.

Off-Channel Habitat

Off-channel habitats are critical for sustaining viable anadromous salmonid populations.

This habitat provides rearing areas for juveniles during high flow events, promotes proper

channel and streambank evolution, and promotes healthy riparian and floodplain

corridors. In many of the watersheds addressed in this BA, off-channel habitats have

diminished as a result of stream channel and floodplain confinement, increases in

width/depth ratios, incision, and overall degradation, all of which have been caused

primarily by agricultural and urban development.

Temporary detour routes, detour and work bridges, temporary fill near streams and

general construction disturbance associated with the proposed action have the potential to

encroach upon off-channel habitats. The Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard for

the Bridge Program details the reduction of fills within functional floodplains and allows

normative physical processes to occur within the stream-floodplain corridor (Section 3.3).

This will likely improve the stream/floodplain interface, which could lead to off-channel

habitat development or improve the existing off-channel habitat. Efforts will be made at

the design stage of each bridge repair and replacement project to minimize effects on

sensitive areas, including off-channel habitats. Vegetation clearing will be minimized and

cleared vegetation will be replaced as part of the implementation of the environmental

performance standards (Section 3.3). Temporary detour roads and structures will be

completely obliterated upon project completion and disturbed areas will be restored to

pre-project conditions. Any adverse effects associated with construction (e.g., vegetation

removal and temporary detour roads) will be temporary. Implementation of the
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 12

environmental performance standards will promote long-term benefits with respect to offchannel habitat by conserving, and promoting the development of, essential habitat

elements.

Refugia

Refugia are complex habitat elements such as off-channel ponds, side channels (and other

areas flooded during over-bank flows), undercut banks, large boulders, overhanging logs

and roots, root wads, and debris jams. Such habitats are important for sensitive aquatic

organisms because they provide protection and cover from predators, high-energy stream

flow, temperature extremes, and other potential threats. Habitat refugia has been reduced

or eliminated in areas where stream channels and floodplains have been modified.

The proposed Bridge Program may have an effect on refugia through removal of riparian

vegetation, hydrologic alterations, channel simplification and loss of floodplain

connectivity; however, application of the environmental performance standards (Section

3.3) will minimize these effects. In some cases, the application of these standards and the

removal of some bridges, may improve the processes that form refugia by restoring

normative channel and floodplain processes.

Width/Depth Ratio

Channel width/depth ratios directly affect salmonid populations. Excessively wide and/or

shallow stream reaches promote stream warming and pose water quality problems for

salmonids. Channelization associated with flood prevention and agricultural activities has

had a significant affect on the width/depth ratio of many streams within the state,

especially in those portions of the action area that occur in low gradient reaches. In

addition, the removal of riparian vegetation, loss of natural streambed material (e.g., large

wood), and destabilization of streambanks has promoted a departure from properly

functioning width/depth ratios.

Width/depth ratios may be affected as a result of the Bridge Program due to temporary

loss of riparian vegetation and subsequent destabilization of streambanks, but application

of the environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) will minimize these effects. In

particular, the Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard, which requires the

maintenance of normative physical processes within the stream-floodplain corridor, will

ensure that the proposed action will not adversely affect this parameter. Furthermore, in

locations where the existing bridge impedes natural channel evolution and the

stream/floodplain interface, bridge replacement will have beneficial effects on this

parameter.

Streambank Condition

Streambank condition reflects many variables that occur within a stream channel,

floodplain, and riparian corridor. The increased magnitude and intensity of runoff from

impervious surfaces (i.e., roadway) associated with the transportation system is a

common cause of streambank degradation. Channelization and the modification of

floodplain and riparian areas also have direct and indirect consequences on streambank

condition. Streambank conditions within action area fluvial systems vary greatly and are
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 13

subject to many watershed processes; they also depend on the level and type of land uses

within a watershed.

The proposed action will have temporary effects on streambanks due to vegetation

removal for equipment access or other construction activity; however, it may also have

permanent effects on streambanks directly underneath proposed structures (e.g., where an

existing structure has been widened, requiring vegetation removal and possibly additional

riprap armoring for bridge repair projects). Implementation of the environmental

performance standards defined in Section 3.3 will minimize these potential effects. Site

restoration activities in disturbed areas will generally involve grading streambanks to

appropriate slopes and replacing any vegetation removed. Many of the bridges that are

proposed for replacement currently promote streambank degradation by encroaching

upon floodplains and constricting flows. In addition, many have required the placement

of riprap or other armoring materials within or near stream channels, which has had

adverse effects on streambank conditions both at the bridge location and downstream.

Improvements to these bridges will likely result in localized beneficial effects on

streambank conditions across the State.

Floodplain Connectivity

Floodplain connectivity throughout Oregon is limited primarily by development, road

corridors, and agriculture. In addition, flood prevention activities— including stream

channelization and the construction of levees and dams—have disrupted fluvial

processes, leading to fragmented floodplains and an overall reduction in floodplain

connectivity. Exaggerated flow regimes (i.e., increased peak flows) associated with

impervious surface increases may cause scour and degradation of stream channels,

resulting in reduced frequency of overbank flows.

To help protect and restore this habitat parameter, the Bridge Program will implement the

Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3), which is intended to allow

normative physical processes within the stream-floodplain corridor. Specifically, this will

be achieved partly by improving the longitudinal continuity and connectivity of the

stream-floodplain system. Therefore, bridges for which the Fluvial Environmental

Performance Standard applies will not significantly affect the existing level of floodplain

connectivity on a given stream. Furthermore, the replacement of existing bridges will

likely result in localized beneficial effects on floodplain connectivity where the existing

structures fragment, constrict, or otherwise degrade the floodplain connectivity of the

system.

Flow/Hydrology

Peak/Base Flows

Development, dams, agriculture, road construction, and other activities that alter natural

drainage networks have altered peak and base flows within many stream systems.

Impervious surface increases have had a significant effect on this parameter by increasing

the magnitude and frequency of peak stream flows during precipitation events.

Watersheds containing large areas of impervious surfaces experience increased runoff
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 14

rates and volumes, and experience reduced infiltration of precipitation events into

underlying aquifers. Bridge crossings of streams and rivers in more developed and

urbanized watersheds are likely to have disrupted hydrologic regimes.

The proposed action will likely cause minor increases in the impervious surfaces

associated with bridge replacement. Many of the program bridges will be widened for

safety upgrades, and their associated roadway approaches will be widened as well.

Adherence to the environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) will improve the

long-term hydrologic conditions associated with increased runoff from the road network

within the action areas. This will be accomplished by eliminating direct discharge from

the existing bridge decks to aquatic systems and increasing the amount of stormwater

runoff infiltration. Many of the bridges proposed for replacement currently discharge

stormwater directly to the system spanned. The proposed action will include measures to

collect, convey, detain, treat, and release stormwater generated on bridge surfaces in

appropriate locations without causing the erosion or sedimentation of waterbodies.

Stormwater detention and infiltration measures will reduce the frequency, magnitude, and

duration of peak flows relative to pre-project conditions for most storm events, and

provide infiltration where possible. The proposed action is not expected to impair the

recovery of the existing peak/base flow conditions within the action area.

Drainage Network

Flooding periodically occurs in some of the alluvial portions of the action area. Flood

control activities, sewer systems, agriculture, and stormwater runoff have greatly affected

the natural drainage of many of the action area watersheds. Roads are also a major

contributor to the increase in drainage networks.

The proposed action will involve an increase in impervious surfaces and alterations to

existing drainage networks. However, application of the environmental performance

standards (Section 3.3) will ensure that stormwater is properly treated to maintain or

improve water quality and hydraulic conditions. The proposed action will not require new

roadways, although minor realignment of existing roads may be required. Therefore, the

Bridge Program is not expected to increase the overall drainage network within the action

area.

Watershed Conditions

Road Density and Location

Road density is proportional to the degree of habitat fragmentation caused by roads, as

well as potential road-related mass wasting and sedimentation problems. NOAA

Fisheries has developed a road-density threshold for watersheds in order to determine the

point at which road density has adverse effects on Federally listed salmonids. Watersheds

with road densities of 3 miles per square mile, or higher, are considered to be not

properly functioning. Most of the watersheds encompassed by the Bridge Program likely

have road densities above the NOAA Fisheries threshold for a properly functioning

condition.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 15

The proposed action may involve minor relocation of existing roads for new bridge

alignments, and may include temporary detour roads; however, the overall permanent

road density will not increase, and thus no long-term adverse effects on aquatic habitats

are expected. Detour roads may require placement in sensitive areas. However, by

following the environmental performance standards (Section 3.3), these disturbances will

be minimized and existing conditions will be restored following construction.

Disturbance History

Historic disturbance in the project action areas includes urban development and

agricultural activities, as well as natural resources extraction. The Bridge Program

involves the repair and replacement of approximately 430 bridges throughout the State

over eight to nine years. The potential effects of the proposed action include temporary

construction-related effects, and those that have a more prolonged effect on salmonids

and salmonid habitat (e.g., bridge design). Waterbody systems have been disturbed by the

construction of hydroelectric and/or flood control dams in most of the major river basins

in Oregon. Urban development has caused a loss of wetlands and floodplain integrity as

well as increases in impervious surfaces and runoff rates. Agricultural activities have

included the ditching of stream channels and draining of wetlands to create land adequate

for farming. All of these activities have caused significant disturbance to the ecological

processes of watersheds in the action areas.

Riparian Reserves

Intact riparian reserves are critical for sustaining many habitat elements that support

anadromous salmonids. Riparian reserves have become degraded in many parts of

Oregon as a result of urbanization, agricultural development, and forest practices. These

activities occur throughout Oregon’s watersheds. The ability of many riparian corridors

along fluvial systems throughout Oregon to provide adequate shading and allochthonous

energy sources to stream channels has been degraded, reducing primary and secondary

production and overall complexity of aquatic systems. In addition, many riparian

corridors lack mature trees, limiting both shade and large wood input to streams. Invasive

native and non-native species that have replaced these trees in many sites are unable to

provide adequate stream shading or functional habitat for fish.

As previously discussed, riparian vegetation removal will be necessary within action area

stream corridors. However, riparian vegetation clearing at individual bridge sites will be

small relative to the amount of riparian vegetation available to the stream systems within

the action areas. Vegetation clearing will be limited to that which is absolutely necessary

to complete bridge replacement or repair activities. In most case, riparian clearing will

likely affect only about a few hundred feet of vegetation on either streambank within the

immediate vicinity of the bridges. In accordance with the environmental performance

standards (described in Section 3), site clearing will be minimized and all vegetation

removed will be replaced, unless the cleared area is part of the new permanent bridge

footprint. Adherence to these standards also requires development of monitoring plans to

ensure the long-term survival of replacement plantings. Some temporary reductions of

existing riparian reserves and riparian functions may be expected while the replaced

riparian vegetation matures. However, over time, the new growth will be functionally
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 16

equivalent to the vegetation removed. The effects of riparian vegetation removal on

riparian reserves are therefore considered to be temporary, and in most cases minor.

Environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) have been developed to address potential

short- and long-term adverse effects on fluvial systems spanned by these structures. These

standards address the major effects pathways that pose risks to the anadromous salmonid

functional group. They will likely result in the Bridge Program having long-term beneficial

effects on habitat conditions in many of the action areas.

5.2.3 Determination of Effects Methodology

The implementation of the Bridge Program will occur over an eight to nine year period, and the

duration of its potential effects will be limited by the temporal nature of the construction.

Furthermore, the construction of each bridge will be a one-time event, and the actual work will

span only one or two construction seasons. Program bridges are not new or undisturbed sites;

construction at these sites involves the repair and replacement of existing structures. The range

of potential effects is therefore predictable (i.e., the systems have already responded to a

constriction, barrier, pollutant source, etc.). The proposed action’s potential effects on

anadromous salmonids include those that occur during the construction process (i.e., increases in

turbidity, chemical contamination, and direct physical harm from construction materials or fish

handling procedures) and those that occur as a result of habitat changes from the replaced or

repaired bridge (i.e., channel constriction, floodplain fragmentation, and streambank

degradation). Environmental performance standards have been developed to guide the

implementation of conservation measures that will minimize the effects of bridge construction

and design on these species. These standards aim to minimize disturbance to the key habitat

components for salmonids before, during, and after construction. The results of the analysis of

effects process for all anadromous fish species is presented in Table 5.2.3-1.

Implementation of the environmental performance standards will limit fish deaths to the few

associated with fish salvage (i.e., capture and release) activities and the isolation of in-water

work areas. Any other adverse effects will likely be transitory, and juvenile and adult salmonid

should be able to avoid them by bypassing or temporarily leaving the proposed action area,

resulting in non-lethal take.

It is impossible to accurately quantify the take associated with the proposed action’s effects on

habitat, or to measure the resulting long-term effect on populations. Therefore, although

ODOT/FHWA expects the habitat-related effects to cause a low level of incidental take, the best

scientific and commercial data available are not sufficient to enable ODOT/FHWA to estimate a

specific amount of incidental take due to habitat-related effects. The isolation of in-water work
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 1

7

Table 5.2.3-1. Summary results of Federally listed anadromous fish species in Oregon.Species BA

Section

Bridges Bridges/Ecoregion 

Total In ESU Within

2 mi of

ESU

In

Migration

Corridor

Willamette Coast

Range

East

Cascades

West

Cascades

Columbia

Basin

Lava

Plains

Klamath

Mountains

Blue

Mountain

Lower Columbia RiverChinook Salmon ESU

5.2.4 44 43 1 N/A 18 6 4 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Upper Columbia RiverChinook Salmon ESU

5.2.5 43 N/A N/A 43 10 6 8 13 6 N/A N/A N/A 

Snake RiverSpring/Summer RunChinook Salmon ESU

5.2.6 56 13 N/A 43 10 6 8 13 6 N/A N/A 13 

Snake River Fall RunChinook Salmon ESU

5.2.7 43 N/A N/A 43 10 6 8 13 6 N/A N/A 13 

Upper Willamette RiverChinook Salmon ESU

5.2.8 155 136 3 16 142 9 N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Oregon Coast CohoSalmon ESU

5.2.9 100 94 6 N/A 4 46 N/A 1 N/A N/A 43 N/A 

N. CA/S. OR Coast CohoSalmon ESU

5.2.10 45 45 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45 N/A 

Lower Columbia RiverCoho Salmon

5.2.11 44 43 1 N/A 18 6 4 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Columbia River ChumSalmon ESU

5.2.12 42 42 N/A N/A 15 6 8 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Snake River SockeyeSalmon ESU

5.2.13 43 N/A 43 N/A 10 6 8 13 6 N/A N/A N/A 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 - 18

Table 5.2.3-1. (continued).

Species BA

Section

Bridges Bridges/Ecoregion 

Lower Columbia RiverSteelhead ESU

5.2.14 44 36 3 5 18 6 4 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Middle Columbia RiverSteelhead ESU

5.2.15 74 41 4 29 10 6 8 13 12 17 N/A 8 

Upper Columbia RiverSteelhead ESU

5.2.16 43 N/A N/A 43 10 6 8 13 6 N/A N/A N/A 

Snake River BasinSteelhead ESU

5.2.17 56 13 N/A 43 10 6 8 13 6 N/A N/A 13 

Upper Willamette RiverSteelhead ESU

5.2.18 90 75 4 11 80 8 N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

SW WA/Lower ColumbiaR. Coastal Cutthroat ESU

5.2.19 51 50 1 N/A 18 6 8 16 3 N/A N/A N/A 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 19

areas and subsequent fish handling procedures are assumed to be the components of the program

with the greatest potential to result in lethal and sub-lethal take of listed anadromous salmonids.

Given the lack of a comprehensive dataset regarding the density of anadromous salmonid

populations throughout the range of the Bridge Program, the life histories of these species, and

their seasonal migration behavior, estimating the level of take from these activities requires

certain assumptions to be made. Review of previous ESA consultations regarding similar actions

within the range of Federally listed anadromous salmonids provides guidance for estimating take

from projects requiring in-water work, stream diversion, and fish handling/salvage (NOAA

Fisheries 2003a). Estimates using these assumptions are presented below.

Lethal Take

ODOT/FHWA has made the following five assumptions to quantify the level of lethal take for

this functional group based on Bridge Program data analysis and a review of ESA consultations

for similar actions:

All water-spanning bridges within an ESU will require in-water work area isolation and

fish capture and release.

Some larger bridge repair and replacement operations will require multiple years of work,

and in-water work may occur during more than one work season.

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).

Species composition of captured and handled salmonids is assumed to be evenly

distributed among ESUs intersected by a given bridge project.

Captured salmonids would be 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.

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.

Of the ESA-listed juvenile salmonids to be captured and handled, 98% 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)

The higher estimate of six percent lethal take per 100 juvenile fish will be used for bridges

requiring in-water work, 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. Even if monitoring confirms the six
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 20

percent death rate, the isolation of in-water work area activities will not affect Federally listed

salmonids at the population level.

Streambank Disturbance

ODOT/FHWA has estimated the amount of streambank disturbance that is likely to occur at

bridges that cross water (Appendix 2-B). Permanent and temporary streambank disturbances are

estimated below. Permanent disturbance is defined as the additional area that results when a

replacement bridge footprint is larger than the original. Temporary disturbance is defined as the

area on one or both sides of a bridge where temporary work bridges, detour bridges, falsework,

and access roads may be constructed. These areas will be disturbed during construction only and

will be stabilized, graded, and re-vegetated to replace properly functioning streambank elements

following construction. While these numbers cannot be used to estimate lethal or non-lethal take

of salmonids, they can give an estimate of the magnitude of likely disturbance, consistent with

the Habitat Approach (NOAA Fisheries 1999) to evaluating affects to listed fish species.

5.2.4 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU

There are 44 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Oregon portion of

the Lower Columbia River (LCR) ESU for chinook salmon: 43 bridges within the range of the

ESU and one bridge within 2 miles of the ESU boundary (this bridge drains to the ESU) (Figure

5.2.4-1; Table 5.2.4-1). Of the 44 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect

LCR chinook salmon, six bridges occur in the Coast Range ecoregion, 18 occur in the

Willamette Valley ecoregion, 16 occur in the West Cascades ecoregion, and four occur in the

East Cascades ecoregion.

There are 13 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within the ESU. Within the ESU, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River, Columbia Gorge

Tributaries, Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek, Lower Sandy River, and Middle Columbia/Grays

Creek watersheds; these account for 70% of the gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the LCR Chinook Salmon ESU. Approximately 44 bridges

in this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area, and therefore, capture and handling

of LCR chinook salmon. As previously discussed in Section 5.2.3, it is expected that lethal take

may occur—of six percent or less of the LCR chinook salmon captured and handled at each

bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge

construction. Therefore, it is expected that approximately 910 juvenile LCR chinook salmon will

be handled for all proposed bridge repair and replacement work within this ESU and that a

maximum lethal taking of 54 juvenile LCR chinook salmon will occur as a result of fish handling

activities.

In addition to the lethal take estimated for fish handling activities, the disturbance of

streambanks may have indirect effects on the LCR chinook salmon ESU (and all other species

within the anadromous and resident fish functional groups). Although take cannot be determined

from such disturbance, the amount of streambank disturbed can be estimated to help determine
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 21

the magnitude of impacts. This anticipated streambank disturbance was estimated by multiplying

the number of bridges that could potentially affect the LCR chinook salmon ESU (44) by the

permanent and temporary streambank disturbance area for each bridge (40 feet of permanent

disturbance and 300 feet of temporary disturbance). The total amount of permanent streambank

disturbance at the bridges where the proposed action may affect the ESU is approximately 1,760

feet, or 0.33 river mile. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect

the ESU is approximately 13,200 feet, or 2.5 river miles. The total amount of temporary riparian

disturbance that may affect this ESU is 45.5 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the current

status of the LCR Chinook Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area, the

effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination that the Bridge Program, as proposed,

is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated or previously designated critical habitat.

This conclusion is based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires

individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with

the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is

included as an enforceable condition of the permit and contract documents; (2) the cumulative

effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-term effects

on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and

watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive

for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design

approach that will be applied to each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitatforming processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial

effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel

and reductions in riprap); and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are

not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, to appreciably reduce the

functioning of already impaired habitats, or to retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or

ESU scale.
LINN

CLACKAMAS WASCO

MARION POLK

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

LINCOLN

YAMHILL

JEFFERSON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

BENTON

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

screening/BA Figures/chinook_lcr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.4-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

OTIA III Bridges

No Potential to Affect

Chinook Salmon ESU(Selected for Species)

Chinook Salmon Migratory Corridor

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Highway

State Boundary

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 23

Table 5.2.4-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9591 Lewis & Clark Br Conn 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. with2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. with3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. with4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. with5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. with6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. with7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. with8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. with9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. with

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. with11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. with12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. with13 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough with14 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough with15 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough with16 09254D Conn to SW Market St 2 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough with
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 24

Table 5.2.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

17 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  &Hwy

64 Conns #1 & #2

8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. with

18 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. with19 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. with20 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. with21 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. with22 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. with23 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. with24 01439A Rock Cr. 3 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. with25 7867 UPRR Mainline 5 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. with26 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. with27 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. with28 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. with29 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. with30 2285 SW Canyon Rd (Sylvan) 4 Lower Tualatin R. Fanno Cr. with31 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. with32 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. with
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 25

Table 5.2.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

33 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. with34 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. with35 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. with36 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. with37 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. with38 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. with39 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. with40 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. with41 00665B Alder Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Lower Middle Sandy R. with42 00689B Wildcat Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Upper Middle Sandy R. with43 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver with44 03026A Zig Zag R. 3 Zigzag R. Zigzag Canyon with
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 26

5.2.5 Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU

No OTIA III program bridges are located within the Upper Columbia River (UCR) ESU for

chinook salmon (Figure 5.2.5-1). Upper Columbia River 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 within 2 miles of the Columbia River, and their

replacement could affect UCR ESU chinook salmon. 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; Table 5.2.5-1).

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% of the gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for the UCR Chinook Salmon ESU. Juvenile UCR chinook

salmon pass through the mainstem Columbia River quickly and tend to prefer the mid-channel

(Floyd 2003). Additionally, because of the low numbers of this population and the relatively few

Bridge Program projects expected to occur where this ESU may be affected, the likelihood of

adverse effects is considered negligible.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 43 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 1,720 feet, or 0.32 river mile, and potential effects

are limited to downstream habitat modifications, which may necessitate the handling of fish

within 2 miles of the Columbia River. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance

that may affect the ESU is approximately 12,900 feet, or 2.4 river miles. The total amount of

temporary riparian disturbance expected to occur is 43.6 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the UCR Chinook Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the proposed

action area, the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards

proposed, and the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination that the Bridge

Program, as proposed, is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated or previously

designated critical habitat. This conclusion is based on the following considerations: (1) no

bridge work will occur within this ESU, and potential impacts are limited to downstream habitat

modifications, which may necessitate the handling of fish within 2 miles of the Columbia River;

(2) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed

action will be in compliance with the environmental performance standards identified herein, and

that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the permit and contract

documents; (3) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will

ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel

conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to

occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 27

periods); (4) the ecological design approach that will be applied to each program bridge to

protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to result in many projects that

will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge

piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (5) the individual and combined

effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats,

appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress

of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery

at the population or ESU scale.
LANE

GRANT LINN

HARNEY

CROOK

UMATILLA

WASCO

DESCHUTES

LAKE

MORROW

DOUGLAS

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

UNION

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

BAKER

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

KLAMATH

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

COOS

HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

screening/BA Figures/chinook_ucr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.5-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Highway

State Boundary

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Chinook Salmon Migratory Corridor

Chinook Salmon ESU (Selected for Species - Not in Oregon)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 29

Table 5.2.5-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

1 9591 Lewis & Clark Br Conn 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side 2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr.3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr.4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr.5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr.6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr.9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.13 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough14 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R15 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R16 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 30

Table 5.2.5-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

17 00308A Fifteen Mile Cr. 5 Fifteenmile Cr. Lower Fifteenmile Cr.18 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R.19 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R.20 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.21 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.22 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.23 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.24 8605 Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.25 08605W Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.26 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.27 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.28 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.29 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr.30 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.31 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.32 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 31

Table 5.2.5-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

33 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr.34 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock35 7771 The Dalles Dam Access Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/Threemi36 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.37 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.38 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.39 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.40 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver41 08931E Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 5 Upper Lake Umatilla Lower Paterson Slough42 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr.43 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr.

Note: All bridges are located within 2 miles of a migratory corridor for this ESU.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 32

5.2.6 Snake River Spring/Summer Run Chinook Salmon ESU

There are 13 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Oregon portion of

the Snake River Spring/Summer Run (SRSSR) ESU for chinook salmon (Figure 5.2.6-1; Table

5.2.6-1). All of these bridges occur within the ESU, and no bridges are within 2 miles of the ESU

boundary (and drain to the ESU). Snake River Spring/Summer Run chinook salmon use the

lower and middle Columbia River as a migratory corridor to reach their natal waters in northeast

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Therefore, chinook salmon of the SRSSR chinook salmon ESU

may be present near program bridges in downstream portions of the Columbia River. Migrating

SRSSR ESU chinook salmon may be affected by the repair or replacement of 43 bridges

occurring within 2 miles of the Columbia River. Of the bridges where the proposed action may

affect SRSSR 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, six occur in the Columbia Basin ecoregion, and 13 occur in the Blue

Mountains ecoregion.

There are seven 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within the SRSSR ESU. Within this ESU,

the greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Grande Ronde River/Five Points Creek

watershed, which accounts for 33% of the gross API.

Of the bridges located along the Columbia River migration corridor of the SRSSR ESU, 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% of the total API outside the

ESU and along the migratory corridor.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the SRSSR Chinook Salmon ESU. Approximately 56

bridges within this ESU or along the migration corridor of this ESU will require isolation of the

in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas may cause local and temporary

reductions in water quality and may necessitate the handling of SRSSR chinook salmon

Therefore, it is expected that up to 650 juvenile SRSSR chinook salmon will be handled for all

bridge repair and replacement and repair work within the ESU, and that a maximum lethal taking

of 39 juvenile SRSSR chinook salmon may occur as a result of bridge work within 2 miles of the

ESU.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 56 bridges is approximately 2,240

feet, or 0.42 river mile. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect

the ESU is approximately 16,800 feet, or 3.18 river miles. The total amount of riparian

disturbance is expected to be no more than 57.8 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the SRSSR Chinook Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the action

area, the effects of the Bridge Program, the environmental performance standards proposed, and

the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of is not likely to destroy or
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 33

adversely modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These conclusions are

based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each

bridge project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental

performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an

enforceable condition of the permit document and contract documents; (2) the cumulative effect

of the environmental performance standards applied to each project will ensure that any shortterm effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics,

flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are

least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the

ecological design approach that will be applied to each program bridge to protect and stimulate

natural habitat-forming processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term

beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active

channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions

permitted are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce

the functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or

ESU scale.
LAKE

HARNEY

LANE

MALHEUR

GRANT

DOUGLAS

LINN

BAKER

CROOK

KLAMATH

UMATILLA

UNION

WASCO

WALLOWA

DESCHUTES

MORROW

WHEELER

COOS

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

LINCOLN

JACKSON

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

JOSEPHINE

CURRY

screening/BA Figures/chinook_srss.mxd.Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.6-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Snake River Chinook Salmon

(Spring/Summer Run)

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Ida

h

o

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

No Potential to Affect

Chinook Salmon ESU(Selected for Species)

Chinook Salmon Migratory Corridor

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 35

Table 5.2.6-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9591 Lewis & Clark Br Conn 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. wi2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. wi3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. w4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. wi5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. wi6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. wi7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. wi8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. wi9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi13 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough wi14 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. wi15 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 36

Table 5.2.6-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

17 00308A Fifteen Miles Cr. 5 Fifteenmiles Cr. Lower Fifteenmiles Cr. wi18 04841A Grande Ronde R. (Hilgard) 3 Grande Ronde R./Beaver Cr. Grande Ronde R./Hilgard wi19 8502 Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) 4 Grande Ronde R./Beaver Cr. Grande Ronde R./Hilgard wi20 1996 Grande Ronde R. (Northeast Elgin) 4 Grande Ronde R./Cabin Cr. Grande Ronde R./Partridge Cr. wi21 04821A Grande Ronde R. (Island City) 3 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Haywire Canyon wi22 8431 Unknown 7 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Wright Slough wi23 08431A Unknown 4 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Wright Slough wi24 00449A Emigrant Hill Frtg Rd & UPRR (Glover) 5 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Pelican Cr. wi25 00800A Grande Ronde R. (S. Elgin) 6 Grande Ronde R./Indian Cr. Grande Ronde R./Lower Clark Cr. wi26 8780 Grande Ronde R. & INP RR (Indian Cr.) 6 Grande Ronde R./Indian Cr. Grande Ronde R./Lower Clark Cr. wi27 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. wi28 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. wi29 7573 Lostine R. 3 Lostine R. Lower Lostine R. wi30 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 37

Table 5.2.6-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

31 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi32 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi33 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi34 2184 Wallowa R. (Bear Cr.) 5 Lower Wallowa R. Wallowa R./Water Canyon wi35 8605 Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi36 08605W Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi37 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi38 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi39 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi40 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. wi41 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wi42 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wi43 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wi44 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. wi45 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock wi46 7771 The Dalles Dam Access Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/Threemiles Cr. wi47 01038A Wallowa R. (Minam) 6 Minam R. Lower Minam R. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 38

Table 5.2.6-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

48 5192 Minam Viaduct 8 Minam R. Lower Minam R. wi49 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. wi50 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. wi51 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. wi52 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. wi53 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver wi54 08931E Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 5 Upper Lake Umatilla Lower Paterson Slough wi55 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. wi56 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. wi

Note: All bridges are located within 2 miles of a migratory corridor for this ESU.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 39

5.2.7 Snake River Fall Run Chinook Salmon ESU

There are no bridges where repair and replacement activities will affect the Oregon portion of the

Snake River Fall Run (SRFR) ESU for chinook salmon (Figure 5.2.7-1). 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, SRFR chinook salmon use the lower and middle Columbia River as

a migratory corridor to reach their natal waters in northeast Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

Migrating SRFR chinook salmon could be affected by the repair or replacement of 43 bridges

occurring within 2 miles of the Columbia River. Of the bridges where the proposed action may

affect SRFR 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 (Table 5.2.7-1).

Of the bridges located along the migration corridor of the SRFR ESU, 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% of the total API outside the ESU and along the

migratory corridor.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for the SRFR Chinook Salmon ESU. No program bridges

occur in the Oregon portion of the ESU and no program bridges cross waters of the Columbia

River estuary where outmigrating SRFR chinook salmon potentially would be present.

Therefore, the likelihood that fish capture and handling activities would encounter individuals of

this ESU is considered discountable.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 43 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the migration corridor of this ESU is approximately 1,720 feet, or 0.32 river

mile. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is

approximately 12,900 feet, or 2.4 river miles. The total area of riparian disturbance that may

affect this ESU is 43.6 acres

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the SRFR Chinook Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the Bridge Program, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the

following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each bridge

project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental

performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an

enforceable condition of the permit and contract document; (2) the cumulative effect of the

conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water

quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed

conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the

species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 40

that will be applied to each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming

processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on

aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and

reductions in riprap); and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not

expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of

already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the

properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
LANE

GRANT LINN

CROOK

WASCO

UMATILLA

DESCHUTES

HARNEY

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

LINCOLN

DOUGLAS

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

UNION

LAKE

HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

COOS KLAMATH

BAKER

BAKER

screening/BA Figures/chinook_srf.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.7-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Snake River Chinook Salmon (Fall Run)

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Chinook Salmon Migratory Corridor

Chinook Salmon ESU (Selected for Species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 42

Table 5.2.7-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green C2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle 3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr.5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower C7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower C8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilto9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner 

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner 11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner 12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner 13 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columb14 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willam15 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willam16 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willam
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 43

Table 5.2.7-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 

17 00308A Fifteen Mile Cr. 5 Fifteenmile Cr. Lower F18 7458 UPRR (2nd St) 6 Hood R. Lower H19 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower H20 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver 21 06875A Sandy R., Hwy 2 WB 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver 22 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver 23 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver 24 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson 25 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson 26 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson 27 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson 28 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson 29 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman 30 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays C31 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays C32 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays C
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 44

Table 5.2.7-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 

33 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena 34 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columb35 7771 The Dalles Dam Access Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle 36 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower M37 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower M38 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock C39 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock C40 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancou41 08931E Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 5 Upper Lake Umatilla Lower P42 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish 43 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish 

Note: All bridges are located within 2 miles of a migratory corridor for this ESU.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 45

5.2.8 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU

There are 155 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Upper Willamette

River (UWR) ESU for chinook salmon: 136 bridges are within the range of the ESU, three

bridges are within 2 miles of the ESU boundary (and drain to the ESU), and the remaining six

bridges are located downstream of the ESU (Willamette Falls) near either the Willamette or

Columbia Rivers (Figure 5.2.8-1; Table 5.2.8-1). Repair and replacement of these bridges will

potentially affect habitat within the UWR Chinook Salmon ESU. UWR chinook salmon use the

lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers as a migratory corridor to reach their natal waters.

Therefore, UWR chinook salmon may be present near bridges in downstream portions of the

Columbia River. Migrating UWR chinook salmon could be affected by the repair or replacement

of 16 bridges occurring within 2 miles of the lower Willamette River and lower Columbia River.

Of the bridges where the proposed action may affect UWR chinook salmon, nine occur in the

Coast Range ecoregion, 142 occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, and four occur in the

West Cascades ecoregion.

There are 25 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within this ESU. The greatest concentration of

bridges occurs in the Calapooia River, Lower Coast Fork Willamette River, Upper Coast Fork

Willamette River, Willamette River/Chehalem Creek, Muddy Creek, and Oak Creek watersheds;

these account for 60% of the total API for program bridges with the potential to affect this ESU.

Of the bridges located along the migration corridor of this ESU, the greatest concentration of

bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River watershed, which accounts for 57% of

the total API outside the ESU and inside the migratory corridor.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the UWR Chinook Salmon ESU. Approximately 155

bridges within this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water

work areas may cause local and temporary reductions in water quality and may necessitate the

handling of UWR chinook salmon. Therefore, it is expected that up to 10,000 juvenile UWR

chinook salmon will be handled for all bridge repair and replacement and repair work within the

ESU. A maximum lethal taking of 600 juvenile UWR chinook salmon may occur as a result of

bridge work within 2 miles of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers and within the ESU itself.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 155 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 6,200 feet, or 1.2 river miles. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is approximately 46,500 feet, or 8.8

river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this ESU is expected to be no more

than 160 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the UWR Chinook Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These findings are based on the

following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 46

ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance

standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable

condition of the permit document; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied

to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat

elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor,

and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e.,

designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied to

each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
LANE

LINN

WASCO

DESCHUTES

CROOK

JEFFERSON

CLACKAMAS

MARION POLK

DOUGLAS

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

LAKE

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

GILLIAM

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

KLAMATH

WHEELER

COOS

screening/BA Figures/chinook_uwr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.8-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

0 5 10 20 30

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Chinook Salmon Migratory Corridor

Chinook Salmon ESU (Selected for Species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 48

Table 5.2.8-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 07794A Hwy 51 SB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. w2 07794B Hwy 51 SB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. w3 9870 Hwy 1 Conn #1 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. w4 9591 Lewis & Clark Br Conn 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. w5 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. w6 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. w7 08232N Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr. w8 08232S Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr. w9 08236N Calapooia R. 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. w

10 08236S Calapooia R. 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. w11 08239N Sodom Ditch Overflow 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. w12 08239S Sodom Ditch Overflow 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. w13 08241N Courtney Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. w14 08241S Courtney Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. w15 8252 Hwy 212 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. w16 08233N Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch w17 08233S Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 49

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

18 08235N Calapooia Overflow 5 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch w19 08235S Calapooia Overflow 5 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch w20 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. w21 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. w22 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w23 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w24 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w25 09254D Hwy 47 EB Conn to SW

Market St

2 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w

26 7964 Unknown 17 Detroit Reservoir/Blow Out Divide Cr. Detroit Reservoir/Kinney Cr. w27 4041 Bear Cr. 7 Long Tom R. Long Tom R./Bear Cr. w28 7867 UPRR Mainline 5 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. w29 07736A Camas Swale 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Camas Swale Cr. w30 07736C Camas Swale 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Camas Swale Cr. w31 07739A Hwy 1 (Creswell) 7 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Bear Cr.

w

32 07740A Hill Cr. 1 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Bear Cr.

w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 50

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

33 07740C Hill Cr. 1 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Bear Cr.

w

34 07743A Tunnel Mill Race 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Bear Cr.

w

35 07745A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 8 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Bear Cr.

w

36 07756A Coast Fk. Relief Opening 4 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Bear Cr.

w

37 07757A Gettings Cr. 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Hill Cr.

w

38 07757B Gettings Cr. 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Hill Cr.

w

39 07793A Brown Cr. 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Hill Cr.

w

40 7825 Saginaw Rd. over Hwy 1 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Hill Cr.

w

41 01324A Gate Cr. 4 Lower Mckenzie R. Gate Cr. w42 2285 SW Canyon Rd (Sylvan) 4 Lower Tualatin R. Fanno Cr. w43 6768 Lost Cr. 5 Middle Fk. Willamette/Lookout Point Lost Cr. w44 8076 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Beaver Cr. w45 9413 Calapooia Overflow 5 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 51

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

46 9414 Calapooia Overflow 3 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. w47 12205B Calapooia R. 8 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. w48 7941 Unknown 5 Rickreall Cr. Bashaw Cr. w49 745 Unknown 5 Upper S. Yamhill R. Gold Cr. w50 2081 Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Gold Cr. w51 00123K Unknown 33 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w52 07253B Unknown 35 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w53 07253R Unknown 8 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w54 7366 Unknown 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w55 07440A UPRR Main Line 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w56 07441A Marietta St SE 4 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w57 07522A Turner Rd SE 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w58 07538A Boone Rd SE 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w59 8889 Unknown 7 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. w60 07855E Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) 4 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Glenn Cr. w61 07793B Brown Cr. 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Hill Cr.

w

62 5286 Coast Fk. Willamette R. 7 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 52

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

R./Papenfus Cr.

63 05285A Coast Fk. Willamette R.

Relief Opening

5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Papenfus Cr.

w

64 05287B Willamette R. Relief Opening 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Papenfus Cr.

w

65 06836A Franklin Blvd & UPRR

(Goshen)

5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Papenfus Cr.

w

66 07732A Hwy 18 & Conn 6 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Papenfus Cr.

w

67 07732B Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen

Grade)

6 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Papenfus Cr.

w

68 2262 COR (Oakhill) 8 Long Tom R. Lower Coyote Cr. w69 2472 Devils Lake Fk. Wilson R. 9 Wilson R. Lower Devils Lake Fk. Of

Wilson R.

w

70 2366 E. Fk. Dairy Cr. 4 Dairy Cr. Lower E. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. w71 2367 PNWR (Vadis) 8 Dairy Cr. Lower E. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. w72 7347 Unknown 7 Little N. Santiam R. Lower Little N. Santiam R. w73 8616 Hwy 33 EB 10 Marys R. Lower Marys R. w74 8617 Hwy 33 3 Marys R. Lower Marys R. w75 2365 McKay Cr. 5 Dairy Cr. Lower Mckay Cr. w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 53

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

76 2015 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./S. Yamhill R. Lower Mill Cr. w77 01756A Unknown 5 Mill Cr./S. Yamhill R. Lower Mill Cr. w78 7439 Mill Cr., Hwy 1 NB 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Lower Mill Cr./Willamette R. w79 07439A Mill Cr. 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Lower Mill Cr./Willamette R. w80 08171N Muddy Cr. 3 Muddy Cr. Lower Muddy Cr. / Dry Muddy

Cr.

w

81 08171S Muddy Cr. 3 Muddy Cr. Lower Muddy Cr. / Dry Muddy

Cr.

w

82 8121 Santiam Overflow No 2 6 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. w83 8122 Santiam Overflow No 3 3 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. w84 8124 Santiam Overflow No 4 5 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. w85 08226N AERC (Tallman Branch) 5 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. w86 08226S AERC (Tallman Branch) 5 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. w87 08227N Oak Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. w88 08227S Oak Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. w89 01323A Blue R. Bridge 2 Mckenzie R./Quartz Cr. Mckenzie R. / Elk Cr. w90 1516 EWEB Canal (Walterville) 3 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal w91 08175N McKenzie R. & Frtg Rd

(Spores)

11 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 54

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

92 08175S McKenzie R. & Frtg Rd

(Spores)

11 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal w

93 08178N McKenzie Overflow 4 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal w94 08178S McKenzie Overflow 4 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal w95 07524B Hwy 1E NB (Commercial St

SE)

3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Mckinney Cr. w

96 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. w97 01075A Marys R. (Noon) 3 Marys R. Middle Marys R. w98 02362A Unknown 4 Dairy Cr. Middle W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. w99 7110 UPRR (Pleasant Hill) 8 Lower Middle Fk. Of Willamette R. Rattlesnake Cr. w

100 4573 Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Rogue Cr. w101 7830 OP&ERR (Abandoned) 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w102 7832 Unknown 6 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w103 07828B Cr. 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w104 07829A Row R. 5 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w105 07833A Row R. Rd (Cottage Grove) 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w106 07833B Row R. Rd (Cottage Grove) 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w107 07871A Row R. Overflow 6 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 55

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

108 07871B Row R. Overflow 6 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake w109 01612A Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Rowell Cr. w110 1706 Soda Fk. 3 S. Santiam R. Soda Fk. w111 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. w112 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. w113 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. w114 07809A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Martin Cr.

w

115 07809B Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Martin Cr.

w

116 07810A Latham Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Martin Cr.

w

117 07810B Latham Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Martin Cr.

w

118 07861B Martin Cr. 3 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Martin Cr.

w

119 7860 Hwy 1 6 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Silk Cr.

w

120 7863 Row R. Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Silk Cr.

w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 56

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

121 07863A Row R. Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Silk Cr.

w

122 07864A 16th Street (Landess Rd) 3 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Silk Cr.

w

123 07865A Taylor Ave 3 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette

R./Silk Cr.

w

124 4056 Hayes Cr., Hwy 200 1 Long Tom R. Upper Coyote Cr. w125 8071 Unknown 3 Abiqua Cr./Pudding R. Upper Little Pudding R. w126 8073 Unknown 3 Abiqua Cr./Pudding R. Upper Little Pudding R. w127 01205A Harris Rd & WPRR (Wren

Conn)

6 Marys R. Upper Marys R. w

128 00866B Marys R. & WPRR 6 Marys R. Upper Marys R. / Horton Cr. w129 8069 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Upper Mill Cr./Willamette R. w130 8070 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Upper Mill Cr./Willamette R. w131 07584A Comstock Cemetery Rd 3 Elk Cr. Upper Pass Cr. w132 2001 Unknown 3 Salt Cr./S. Yamhill R. Upper Salt Cr. w133 2672 Unknown 5 Dairy Cr. Upper W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. w134 2673 Unknown 5 Dairy Cr. Upper W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. w135 8329 Willamette R. & Hwy 15 &

UPRR

19 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 57

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

136 8445 Hwy 225 7 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w137 8870 Hwy 225 Conn (McVay

Access)

1 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w

138 9587 Unknown 4 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w139 08180N McKenzie Overflow 3 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w140 08180S McKenzie Overflow 3 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w141 08182N UPRR (Abandoned) & Game

Farm Rd

6 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w

142 08182S UPRR (Abandoned) & Game

Farm Rd

6 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. w

143 8217 Murder Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w144 8223 Unknown 6 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w145 08218A Murder Cr. Rd 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w146 08218B Hwy 1 SB over Murder Cr.

Rd

3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w

147 08221A Knox Butte Rd (N. Albany

Intchg)

3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w

148 08221B Hwy 58 NB (N. Albany

Intchg)

4 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w

149 08221C Knox Butte Rd (N. Albany

Intchg)

3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 58

Table 5.2.8-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

150 08221D Hwy 58 NB (N. Albany

Intchg)

4 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w

151 08221E Knox Butte Rd (N Albany Int) 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w152 08222N Cox Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w153 08222S Cox Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. w154 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver w155 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 59

5.2.9 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

There are 100 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Oregon Coast Coho

Salmon ESU: 94 are within the range of the ESU and six are within 2 miles of the ESU boundary

(and drain to the ESU) (Figure 5.2.9-1; Table 5.2.9-1). The 94 bridges within the Oregon Coast

Coho ESU are distributed throughout four ecoregions, with the majority located in the Coast

Range and Klamath Mountains ecoregions. Specifically, 46 bridges are located in the Coast

Range ecoregion, 43 occur in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion, four are in the Willamette

Valley ecoregion (due to proximity to these bridges API), and one is in the West Cascades

ecoregion. There are 24 5th field HUCs affected by bridges within the Oregon Coast ESU. Within

this ESU, the greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Elk Creek Watershed (15 bridges),

Lower South Umpqua River (10 bridges), the Middle Fork Coquille (nine bridges), the Middle

South Umpqua River (eight bridges), and the Lower North Umpqua River (eight bridges); these

account for 53% of the total API for program bridges with the potential to affect this ESU.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU. Approximately 62

bridges in this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water

work areas and the removal of trapped fish may require handling of juvenile coho salmon; it is

expected that handling of up to 100 Oregon Coast coho salmon at each bridge site may be

required during fish removal operations conducted prior to commencement of any work area

dewatering activities. As previously discussed in Section 5.2.3, it is expected that a lethal take

may occur—of six percent or less of the anticipated 100 Oregon Coast coho salmon at each

bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge

construction. Therefore, it is expected that approximately 6,200 juvenile Oregon Coast coho

salmon will be handled for all proposed bridge repair and replacement work within this ESU and

that a maximum lethal taking of 372 juvenile Oregon Coast coho salmon will occur as a result of

fish-handling activities.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 62 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the Oregon Coast Coho salmon ESU is approximately 2,480 feet, or 0.24 river

mile. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the Oregon Coast

Coho salmon ESU is approximately 18,600 feet, or 1.76 river miles. The area of riparian

disturbance that may affect this ESU is not expected to exceed 32 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the Oregon Coastal Coho Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the

action area, the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards

proposed, and the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to

destroy or adversely modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These

conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires

individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with

the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is

included as an enforceable condition of the permit document and contract documents; (2) the

cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 60

term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics,

flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are

least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the

ecological design approach applied to each bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitatforming processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial

effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel

and reductions in riprap) ; and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions permitted

are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the

functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or

ESU scale.
LAKE

LANE

DOUGLAS

LINN

CROOK

KLAMATH

WASCO

COOS

DESCHUTES

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

CURRY JACKSON

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

HARNEY

MORROW

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON HOOD RIVER MULTNOMAH

JOSEPHINE

screening/BA Figures/coho_oc.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.9-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

03.57 14 21 28 35

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Coho Salmon ESU

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 62

Table 5.2.9-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Oregon Coast Coho Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 07563A Calapooya Cr. 7 Calapooya Cr. Polloc Cr. 2 1950 North Bend 3 Coos Bay Coos Bay 3 03172A COR 3 Coos Bay Lower Millicoma 4 8281 Hwy 9 NB 3 Coos Bay Lower Millicoma 5 1424 Hardscrabble Cr. 3 Elk Cr. Hardscrabble Cr. 6 1406 Elk Cr. 5 Elk Cr. Lower Big Elk Cr. 7 1465 Elk Cr. 6 Elk Cr. Lower Big Elk Cr. 8 1601 Elk Cr. 6 Elk Cr. Lower Big Elk Cr. 9 1614 Elk Cr. 6 Elk Cr. Lower Big Elk Cr. 

10 07567B Elk Cr. 3 Elk Cr. Theft Cr. 11 07572A Curtis Cr. 4 Elk Cr. Theft Cr. 12 07636A Elkhead Rd 3 Elk Cr. Theft Cr. 13 07469B Bear Cr. 4 Elk Cr. Upper Pass Cr. 14 07569A Buck Cr. Rd 3 Elk Cr. Upper Pass Cr. 15 07584A Comstock Cemetery Rd 3 Elk Cr. Upper Pass Cr. 16 07640A COR (Yoncalla) 5 Elk Cr. Yoncalla Cr. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 63

Table 5.2.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

17 07644A Rice Hill Frtg Rd 3 Elk Cr. Yoncalla Cr. 18 7640 COR (Yoncalla) 3 Elk Cr. Yoncalla Cr. 19 7642 Hwy 1 4 Elk Cr. Yoncalla Cr. 20 03173A Beaver Cr. 24 Lower Coquille Beaver Slough 21 03173B Beaver Cr. 24 Lower Coquille Beaver Slough 22 2496 N. Umpqua R. (Lone Rock) 7 Lower N. Umpqua R. Bradley Cr. 23 07627A Rogers Rd Conn 3 Lower N. Umpqua R. Plat I 24 07627B Rogers Rd Conn 3 Lower N. Umpqua R. Plat I 25 07631A CORP & County Rd 6 Lower N. Umpqua R. Winchester 26 07663A N Umpqua R & CORP & Cr. & Co Rd 17 Lower N. Umpqua R. Winchester 27 07663C N Umpqua R & CORP & Cr. & Co Rd (Winchester) 18 Lower N. Umpqua R. Winchester 28 7631 CORP & County Rd 4 Lower N. Umpqua R. Winchester 29 7632 Hwy 1 (Winchester) 3 Lower N. Umpqua R. Winchester 30 2164 Unknown 14 Lower Nehalem R. Cow Cr. 31 2165 Unknown 12 Lower Nehalem R. Cow Cr. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 64

Table 5.2.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

32 1831 Unknown 3 Lower Nehalem R. Humbug Cr. 33 1832 Unknown 3 Lower Nehalem R. Humbug Cr. 34 07804N Speedway Rd 3 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roberts Cr. 35 07835A Roberts Cr. Rd 4 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roberts Cr. 36 7806 Hwy 1 4 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roberts Cr. 37 7835 Roberts Cr. Rd 4 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roberts Cr. 38 07670A Portland Ave (Fairgrounds Intchg) 5 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roseburg W. 39 07711A McLain Ave (Garbage Dump Rd) 3 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roseburg W. 40 07713A S. Umpqua R. & CORP (Shady) 12 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roseburg W. 41 1923 S. Umpqua R. (Winston) 7 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roseburg W. 42 7404 S. Umpqua R. (Vets) 6 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roseburg W. 43 7667 Unknown 4 Lower S. Umpqua R. Roseburg W. 44 00925A Unknown 5 Lower Siletz R./Drift Cr. Lower Drift Cr./Siletz R. 45 00924A Unknown 6 Lower Siletz R./Drift Cr. Schooner Cr. 46 8370 Knowles Cr. 3 Lower Siuslaw R. Knowles Cr. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 65

Table 5.2.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

47 7530 Beaver Cr. 3 Lower Yaquina R. Drift Cr. 48 7532 Beaver Cr. 3 Lower Yaquina R. Drift Cr. 49 7533 Beaver Cr. 3 Lower Yaquina R. Drift Cr. 50 7534 Little Beaver Cr. 3 Lower Yaquina R. Drift Cr. 51 09352A Conn (Glendale Intchg) 3 Middle Cow Cr. Cow Cree/Fortune Branch 52 00559B Middle Fk. Coquille R. 3 Middle Fk. Coquille Camas Valley 53 07931N S. Umpqua R. (Missouri Bottom) 6 Middle S. Umpqua R. Lane Judd 54 07931S S. Umpqua R. (Missouri Bottom) 6 Middle S. Umpqua R. Lane Judd 55 07952A COR (Weaver) 5 Middle S. Umpqua R. Lane Judd 56 7952 COR (Weaver) 5 Middle S. Umpqua R. Lane Judd 57 8024 Hwy 1 5 Middle S. Umpqua R. Lane Judd 58 07900A Boomer Hill Rd Conn #2 3 Middle S. Umpqua R. Willis Vandine 59 7839 Clarks Branch Rd Conn #2 3 Middle S. Umpqua R. Willis Vandine 60 7950 Myrtle Cr. Conn (Myrtle Cr. Intchg) 3 Middle S. Umpqua R. Willis Vandine 61 1697 Paradise Cr. 5 Middle Umpqua R. Paradise Cr. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 66

Table 5.2.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

62 03212A Endicot Cr. 3 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 63 8830 Middle Fk. Coquille R. 5 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 64 8842 Middle Fk. Coquille R. 8 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 65 8843 Hwy 242 3 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 66 8875 Middle Fk. Coquille R. 5 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 67 8876 Middle Fk. Coquille R. 4 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 68 8935 Middle Fk. Coquille R. 7 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 69 8936 Middle Fk. Coquille R. 5 Middle Fk. Coquille Lower Mf Coquille 70 03091A Unknown 1 Necanicum R. Lower Necanicum R. 71 03092A Unknown 1 Necanicum R. Middle Necanicum R. 72 2601 Unknown 4 Necanicum R. Middle Necanicum R. 73 00587C Olalla Cr. (Upper Lookingglass) 3 Ollala Cr./Lookingglass Lookinglass Cr. 74 00805C Lower Looking Glass Cr. 3 Ollala Cr./Lookingglass Lookinglass Cr. 75 00588C Tenmiles Cr. 3 Ollala Cr./Lookingglass Shields 76 7904 Rock Cr. 5 Rock Cr./N. Umpqua R. Lower Rock Cr. 77 07364A 5th St (Canyonville) 3 S. Umpqua R. Canyon Cr. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 67

Table 5.2.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

78 08028N Irwin Access Conn 3 S. Umpqua R. Lower Shively Oshea 79 08028S Irwin Access Conn 3 S. Umpqua R. Lower Shively Oshea 80 00922A Unknown 3 Salmon R./Siletz/Yaquina Bay Devils Lake 81 13491 Unknown 3 Salmon R./Siletz/Yaquina Bay Lower Salmon R. 82 4192 Unknown 9 Salmon R./Siletz/Yaquina Bay Upper Salmon R. 83 07809A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin 84 07809B Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin 85 07810A Latham Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin 86 07810B Latham Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin 87 07861B Martin Cr. 3 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin 88 16861 Rough Cr. (Penstock) 5 Upper N. Umpqua Soda Springs Reservoir 89 02364A Unknown 3 Upper Nehalem R. Lousignont Cr. 90 02027A Unknown 3 Upper Nehalem R. Wolf Cr. 91 2029 Unknown 3 Upper Nehalem R. Wolf Cr. 92 4062 S. Fork Siuslaw R. 4 Upper Siuslaw R. S. Fk. Siuslaw R. 93 8446 Siuslaw R. 3 Upper Siuslaw R. Upper Siuslaw R./Whitaker Cr. 94 683 Yaquina R. 4 Upper Yaquina R. Middle Yaquina R. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 68

Table 5.2.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

95 654 Hayes Cr. 6 Upper Yaquina R. Simpson Cr. 96 8554 Wildcat Cr. 3 Wildcat Cr. Lower Wildcat Cr. 97 01872A Jordon Cr. 4 Wilson R. Jordan Cr. 98 2472 Devils Lake Fk. Wilson R. 9 Wilson R. Lower Devils Lake Fk. Of Wilson R. 99 01869A Wilson R. 11 Wilson R. Lower Wilson R. 

100 1868 Wilson R. (Mills) 3 Wilson R. Lower Wilson R. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 69

5.2.10 Northern California/Southern Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

There are 45 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Oregon portion of

the Northern California/Southern Oregon Coast (NCSOC) ESU for coho salmon (Figure 5.2.10-

1; Table 5.2.10-1). All of the bridges fall within the range of the ESU and no bridges are located

within 2 miles (and drain to the ESU). All of these bridges are located within the Klamath

Mountains ecoregion.

There are six 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within the ESU. Within this ESU, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Bear Creek watershed, which accounts for 39% of the

gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the NCSOC Coho Salmon ESU. Approximately 45 bridges

in this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas

and the removal of trapped fish may require handling of juvenile coho salmon; it is expected that

handling of NCSOC coho salmon at each bridge site may be required during fish removal

operations conducted prior to commencement of any work area dewatering activities. As

previously discussed in Section 5.2.3, it is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or

less of the NCSOC coho salmon at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from

unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected that

approximately 4,500 juvenile NCSOC coho salmon will be handled for all proposed bridge

repair and replacement work within this ESU and that a maximum lethal taking of 270 juvenile

NCSOC coho salmon will occur as a result of fish-handling activities.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 45 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the NCSOC Coho salmon ESU is approximately 1,800 feet, or 0.34 river mile.

The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the NCSOC Coho salmon

ESU is approximately 13,500 feet, or 2.5 river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may

affect this ESU is not expected to exceed 45.5 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the NCSOC Coho Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the

following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to

ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance

standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable

condition of the permit document and contract documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the

conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water

quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed

conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the

species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach

applied to each bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 70

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap) ; and (4) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
DOUGLAS

LANE

JACKSON

COOS

CURRY

JOSEPHINE

KLAMATH

screening/BA Figures/coho_ncso.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.10-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Northern California/Southern Oregon Coast

Coho Salmon

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Coho Salmon ESU

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

City

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 72

Table 5.2.10-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect N. California/Southern Oregon/ Coastal Coho Salmon.

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

1 8682 Unknown 5 Bear Cr. Anderson Cr./Fern Valley

2 8743 Unknown 4 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Hamilton Cr.

3 08738N Eagle Mill Rd. 4 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Hamilton Cr.

4 08738S Eagle Mill Rd. 5 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Hamilton Cr.

5 08742N Bear Cr. 5 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Hamilton Cr.

6 08742S Bear Cr. 5 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Hamilton Cr.

7 8542 Hwy 1 7 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Larson Cr.

8 8543 Unknown 14 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Larson Cr.

9 08540A Hwy 1 4 Bear Cr. Bear Cr./Larson Cr.

10 7777 COR (Seven Oaks) 9 Bear Cr. Bear Cree/Jackson Cr.

11 8539 Hwy 1 (Seven Oaks Intchg) 8 Bear Cr. Bear Cree/Jackson Cr.

12 07777B COR (Seven Oaks) 9 Bear Cr. Bear Cree/Jackson Cr.

13 8681 Unknown 6 Bear Cr. Bear Cree/Meyer Cr.

14 8693 Hwy 1 (N Ashland Intchg) 6 Bear Cr. Bear Cree/Meyer Cr.

15 8745 Hwy 1 4 Bear Cr. Neil Cr.

16 8749 Unknown 6 Bear Cr. Neil Cr.

17 9184 Neil Cr. Rd 3 Bear Cr. Neil Cr.

18 9439 Sunny Valley Rd 3 Grave Cr. Grave Cr./Sunny Valley

19 9440 Leland Rd 3 Grave Cr. Grave Cr./Sunny Valley

20 06493A Grave Cr. 6 Grave Cr. Grave Cr./Sunny Valley

21 09439A Sunny Valley Rd 3 Grave Cr. Grave Cr./Sunny Valley

22 09440A Leland Rd 3 Grave Cr. Grave Cr./Sunny Valley

23 9339 S Wolf Cr. Conn 3 Grave Cr. Wolf/Cr.

24 08018N Louse Cr. & Conn 4 Jumpoff Joe Cr. Louse Cr.

25 08018S Louse Cr. & Conn 4 Jumpoff Joe Cr. Louse Cr.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 73

Table 5.2.10-1. (continued).

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

26 08094N Jumpoff Joe Cr. 6 Jumpoff Joe Cr. Middle Jumpoff Joe Cr.

27 08094S Jumpoff Joe Cr. 6 Jumpoff Joe Cr. Middle Jumpoff Joe Cr.

28 8339 Beacon Dr 4 Rogue R./Grants Pass Lower Rogue R./Grants Pass

29 8341 Hwy 25 Spur 6 Rogue R./Grants Pass Lower Rogue R./Grants Pass

30 8500 Scoville Rd 3 Rogue R./Grants Pass Lower Rogue R./Grants Pass

31 8501 Hwy 25 NB 3 Rogue R./Grants Pass Lower Rogue R./Grants Pass

32 8333 Foothill Blvd 3 Rogue R./Grants Pass Upper Rogue R./Grants Pass

33 8375 Creek & County Rd. + Corp 9 Rogue R./Grants Pass Upper Rogue R./Grants Pass

34 08335N Foothill Blvd 5 Rogue R./Grants Pass Upper Rogue R./Grants Pass

35 08335S Foothill Blvd 5 Rogue R./Grants Pass Upper Rogue R./Grants Pass

36 07601B Hwy 1 (S Gold Hill) 4 Rogue R./Snyder Cr. Rogue R./Galls Cr.

37 07773A Foley Lane Frontage Rd 3 Rogue R./Snyder Cr. Rogue R./Galls Cr.

38 8382 Unknown 5 Rogue R./Snyder Cr. Rogue R./Sardine Cr.

39 08381N Rogue R. (Homestead) 8 Rogue R./Snyder Cr. Rogue R./Sardine Cr.

40 08381S Rogue R.(Homestead) 9 Rogue R./Snyder Cr. Rogue R./Sardine Cr.

41 08383N Hwy 60 5 Rogue R./Snyder Cr. Rogue R./Sardine Cr.

42 08383S Hwy 60 5 Rogue R./Snyder Cr. Rogue R./Sardine Cr.

43 01074A Elk Cr. 3 W. Fk. Illinois R. Elk Cr. (Illinois)

44 01108A W. Fk. Illinois R. 5 W. Fk. Illinois R. Lower W. Fk. Illinois R.

45 01107A Rough And Ready Cr. 3 W. Fk. Illinois R. Rough And Ready Cr.

Note: All bridges are located within the ESU.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 74

5.2.11 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

There are 44 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect State-listed Lower

Columbia River (LCR) coho salmon: 43 bridges within the range of the population and one

bridge within 2 miles of the range of LCR coho (and drain to the lower Columbia River) (Figure

5.2.11-1; Table 5.2.11-1). Of the total number of bridges where repair and replacement activities

may affect LCR coho salmon, six bridges occur in the Coast Range ecoregion, 18 occur in the

Willamette Valley ecoregion, 16 occur in the West Cascades ecoregion, and four occur in the

East Cascades ecoregion.

There are 14 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within the ESU. Within the range of LCR coho,

the greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River, Middle

Columbia/Eagle Creek, and the Columbia Gorge Tributaries watersheds; these account for 54%

of the gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the LCR coho salmon. Approximately 44 bridges in this

ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas and

the removal of trapped fish may require handling of juvenile LCR coho salmon; it is expected

that handling of LCR coho salmon at each bridge site may be required during fish removal

operations conducted prior to commencement of any work area dewatering activities. As

previously discussed in Section 5.2.3, it is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or

less of the LCR coho salmon at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from

unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected that

approximately 1,010 juvenile LCR coho salmon will be handled for all proposed bridge repair

and replacement work within this population and that a maximum lethal take of 61 juvenile LCR

coho salmon will occur as a result of fish-handling activities.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 44 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 1,760 feet, or 0.3 river mile. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is approximately 13,200 feet, or 2.5

river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this ESU is not expected to exceed

45.5 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of LCR coho salmon, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of

the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the cumulative

effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely modify

designated or previously designated critical habitat for LCR coho salmon.

These conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires

individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with

the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is

included as an enforceable condition of the permit document and contract documents; (2) the

cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any shortterm effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 75

flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are

least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the

ecological design approach applied to each bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitatforming processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial

effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel

and reductions in riprap) ; and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions permitted

are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the

functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population

scale.
LINN

CLACKAMAS WASCO

MARION POLK

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

LINCOLN

YAMHILL

JEFFERSON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

BENTON

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

SHERMAN

screening/BA Figures/coho_lcr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.11-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

California

Washington

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Coho Salmon Species Management Unit (SMU)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of SMU)

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of SMU

Potential to Affect - Within Species Management Unit (SMU)

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 77

Table 5.2.11-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge

ID No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9591 Hwy 2w 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. 2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. 3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. 4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. 5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. 6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. 7 7715 Swedetown County R 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. 8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. 9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. 

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. 11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. 12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. 13 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough 14 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough 15 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough 16 09254D Hwy 061 I-405 2 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough 17 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. 18 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 78

Table 5.2.11-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge

ID No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

19 13514E Hwy2 Con n2&3/Hwy64 Con 1&2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. wit20 7458 Uprr 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. wit21 8662 Uprr 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. wit22 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. wit23 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. wit24 7867 Uprr 5 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. wit25 01439A Rock Cr. 3 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. wit26 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wit27 6945 Conn 2 Jordan Rd. 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wit28 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wit29 06945A Conn 2 Jordan Rd. 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wit30 2285 Canyon Rd. 4 Lower Tualatin R. Fanno Cr. wit31 8605 Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wit32 8610 Moody St 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wit33 8623 Conn Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wit34 08605W Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wit
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 79

Table 5.2.11-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge

ID No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

35 08610W Moody St 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wit36 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. wit37 8534 Conn Viento Int 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wit38 8604 Conn Wyeth Int 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wit39 07496A Jaymar Rd 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wit40 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. wit41 00665B Alder Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Lower Middle Sandy R. wit42 00689B Wildcat Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Upper Middle Sandy R. wit43 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. wit44 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. wit45 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. wit46 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. wit47 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver wit48 03026A Zig Zag R. 3 Zigzag R. Zigzag Canyon wit
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 80

5.2.12 Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU

There are 42 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Columbia River ESU

for chum salmon (Figure 5.2.12-1; Table 5.2.12-1). All of these bridges are within the range of

the ESU. Of the 42 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect Columbia River

chum salmon, six bridges occur in the Coast Range ecoregion, 15 occur in the Willamette Valley

ecoregion, 13 occur in the West Cascades ecoregion, and eight occur in the East Cascades

ecoregion.

There are 11 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within the ESU. Within this ESU, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River watershed, which

accounts for 31% of the gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU. Approximately 42

bridges in this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water

work areas and the removal of trapped fish may require handling of juvenile Columbia River

chum salmon; it is expected that handling of Columbia River chum salmon at each bridge site

may be required during fish removal operations conducted prior to commencement of any work

area dewatering activities. As previously discussed in Section 5.2.3, it is expected that lethal take

may occur—of six percent or less of the chum salmon at each bridge—as a result of handling

stress or injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is

expected that approximately 885 juvenile Columbia River chum salmon will be handled for all

proposed bridge repair and replacement work within this population and that a maximum lethal

take of 53 juvenile Columbia River chum salmon will occur as a result of fish-handling

activities.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 42 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the Columbia River chum salmon is approximately 1,680 feet, or 0.31 river

mile. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect Columbia River

chum salmon is approximately 12,600 feet, or 2.4 river miles. The area of riparian disturbance

that may affect this ESU is not expected to exceed 43.6 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of Columbia River chum salmon, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat for the Columbia River Chum

Salmon ESU. These conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge

Program requires individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in

compliance with the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each

applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the permit document and contract

documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will

ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel

conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 81

occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work

periods); (3) the ecological design approach applied to each bridge to protect and stimulate

natural habitat-forming processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term

beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active

channel and reductions in riprap) ; and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions

permitted are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce

the functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population

scale.
CLACKAMAS

WASCO

POLK MARION

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

YAMHILL

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

LINCOLN

screening/BA Figures/chum.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.12-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Columbia River Chum Salmon

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Washington

0 10

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Highway

State Boundary

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Columbia River Chum ESU (selected for species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 83

Table 5.2.12-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Columbia River Chum Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia

Side Ch.

2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr.

3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr.

4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr.

5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr.

6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.

7 7715 Swedetown

County Rd

4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.

8 02176A Hwy 100 &

UPRR (Dodson)

10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr.

9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

13 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough

14 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough

15 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough

16 09254D SW Market St 2 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough

17 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette

R./Columbia R.

18 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette

R./Columbia R.

19 13514E Hwy 2 & Hwy 64 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette

R./Columbia R.

20 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R.

21 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R.

22 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 84

Table 5.2.12-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No.

Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

23 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette

24 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

25 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan

Rd)

1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

26 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

27 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan

Rd)

1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

28 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn

to Hwy 100

4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

29 8610 Moody St

(Cascade Locks)

5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

30 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

31 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn

to Hwy 100

3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

32 08610W Moody St

(Cascade Locks)

5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

33 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr.

34 8534 Conn Viento

Intchg

3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

35 8604 Conn (Wyeth

Intchg)

3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

36 07496A Jaymar Rd

(Westcliff Dr)

3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

37 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr.

38 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.

39 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.

40 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.

41 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.

42 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver

Note: All bridges are located within this ESU.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 85

5.2.13 Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU

No OTIA III bridges are located within the Snake River ESU for sockeye salmon (Figure

5.2.13). Snake River sockeye salmon use Oregon waters (the Columbia River) primarily as a

migration corridor to reach their natal waters in eastern Idaho. Therefore, sockeye salmon of the

Snake River ESU may be present near OTIA III bridge work. There are 43 bridges located

within 2 miles of the Columbia or Snake Rivers, and their replacement may affect Snake River

sockeye salmon. 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 (Table 5.2.13-1).

Bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Snake River Sockeye Salmon

ESU occur in 14 5th Field HUCs. The greatest concentration of these bridges occurs in the

Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek watershed, which accounts for 15% of the total API outside the

ESU and along the migratory corridor.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for the Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU. Juvenile Snake

River sockeye salmon pass through the mainstem Columbia River quickly and tend to prefer the

mid-channel (Floyd 2003). Additionally, because of the low numbers of this population and the

relatively few Bridge Program projects expected to occur where this ESU may be affected, the

likelihood of adverse effects is considered negligible.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 43 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU is approximately 1,720 feet, or 0.32

river mile. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is

approximately 12,900 feet, or 2.4 river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect

this ESU is not expected to exceed 43.6 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU, the environmental baseline for the

action area, the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards

proposed, and the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to

destroy or adversely modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These

conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) no bridge work will occur within this

ESU and potential impacts are limited to downstream habitat modifications, which may

necessitate the handling of fish within 2 miles of the Columbia River: (2) the Bridge Program

requires individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in

compliance with the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each

applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the permit and contract

documents; (3) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will

ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel

conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to

occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work

periods); (4) the ecological design approach that will be applied to each program bridge to
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 86

protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to result in authorization of

many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the

removal of bridge piers from the active channel reductions in riprap, etc.); and (5) the individual

and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently properly

functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard

the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition essential

to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
LANE

GRANT

HARNEY

LINN

CROOK

LAKE

DOUGLAS

WASCO

UMATILLA

DESCHUTES

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

KLAMATH

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

COOS

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

UNION

WASHINGTON HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

BAKER

screening/BA Figures/sockeye.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.13-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Snake River Sockeye

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

No Potential to Affect

Sockeye ESU (Selected for Species)

Migratory Corridor

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 88

Table 5.2.13-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River Sockeye Salmon.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side

Ch.

2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr.

3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr.

4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr.

5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr.

6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.

7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.

8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr.

9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

13 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia

Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough

14 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia

Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R.

15 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia

Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R.

16 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  &

Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 ColumbiaSlough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R.

17 00308A Fifteen Mile Cr. 5 Fifteenmile Cr. Lower Fifteenmile Cr.

18 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R.

19 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R.

20 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

21 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

22 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 89

Table 5.2.13-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

23 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

24 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy

100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

25 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

26 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

27 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy

100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

28 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

29 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr.

30 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

31 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

32 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

33 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr.

34 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock

35 7771 The Dalles Dam Access

Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/ThreemileCr.

36 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.

37 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.

38 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.

39 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.

40 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver

41 08931E Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 5 Upper Lake Umatilla Lower Paterson Slough

42 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle

Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr.

43 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle

Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr.

Note: All bridges are located within 2 miles of a migratory corridor for this ESU.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 90

5.2.14 Lower Columbia River Steelhead Trout ESU

There are 44 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Oregon portion of

the Lower Columbia River (LCR) ESU for steelhead trout: 36 are within the range of the ESU,

three are within 2 miles of the ESU boundary (and drain to the ESU), and five are within 2 miles

of the ESU’s migratory corridor (Figure 5.2.14-1; Table 5.2.14-1). Of the 44 bridges where

repair and replacement activities may affect LCR steelhead trout, five bridges occur in the Coast

Range ecoregion, 18 occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, 16 occur in the West Cascades

ecoregion, and four occur in the East Cascades ecoregion.

There are 12 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within the ESU. Within this ESU, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River watershed, which

accounts for 35% of the gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the LCR Steelhead Trout ESU. Approximately 39 bridges

in this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas

and the removal of trapped fish may require handling of juvenile steelhead trout; it is expected

that handling of LCR steelhead trout at each bridge site may be required during fish removal

operations conducted prior to commencement of any work area dewatering activities. As

previously discussed in Section 5.2.3, it is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or

less of LCR steelhead trout at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from

unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected that

approximately 735 juvenile LCR steelhead trout will be handled for all proposed bridge repair

and replacement work within this ESU and that a maximum lethal taking of 44 juvenile LCR

steelhead trout will occur as a result of fish handling activities.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 44 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 1,760 feet, or 0.3 river mile. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is approximately 13,200 feet, or 2.5

river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this ESU is not expected to exceed

45.5 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the current

status of the LCR Steelhead Trout ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area, the

effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the

following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to

ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance

standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable

condition of the permit and contract documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation

measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat

access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are

brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 91

(i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied

to each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in authorization of many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic

habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel, reductions in riprap

etc.); and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to

impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already

impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly

functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
LINN

WASCO CLACKAMAS

MARION

JEFFERSON

POLK

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

CLATSOP

WASHINGTON TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

CROOK

DESCHUTES

screening/BA Figures/steelhead_lcr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.14-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Lower Columbia River Steelhead

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

dI aho

Washington

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

California

Washington

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Steelhead Migratory Corridor

Steelhead ESU (Selected for Species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 93

Table 5.2.14-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Lower Columbia River Steelhead Trout.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC Lo

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. within 2 mile2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. within 2 mile3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. within 2 mile4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. within 2 mile5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. within 2 mile6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. within 2 mile7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. within 2 mile8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. within ESU9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within ESU

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within ESU11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within ESU12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within ESU13 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within ESU14 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within ESU15 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within ESU16 09254D Hwy 61 2 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within ESU
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 94

Table 5.2.14-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC Lo

17 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within ESU18 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within ESU19 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within ESU20 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. within ESU21 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. within ESU22 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. within ESU23 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. within ESU24 7867 UPRR Mainline 5 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. within ESU25 01439A Rock Cr. 3 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. within ESU26 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within ESU27 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within ESU28 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within ESU29 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within ESU30 2285 SW Canyon Rd (Sylvan) 4 Lower Tualatin R. Fanno Cr. within 2 mile31 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within ESU
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 95

Table 5.2.14-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC Lo

32 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within ESU33 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within ESU34 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within ESU35 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within ESU36 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. within ESU37 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within ESU38 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within ESU39 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within ESU40 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. within ESU41 00665B Alder Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Lower Middle Sandy R. within ESU42 00689B Wildcat Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Upper Middle Sandy R. within ESU43 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver within ESU44 03026A Zig Zag R. 3 Zigzag R. Zigzag Canyon within ESU
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 96

5.2.15 Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU

There are 74 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Oregon portion of

the Middle Columbia River (MCR) ESU for steelhead trout: 41 are within the ESU and four are

within 2 miles of the ESU boundary (and drain to the ESU) (Figure 5.2.15-1; Table 5.2.15-1).

MCR steelhead trout use the lower and middle Columbia River as a migratory corridor to reach

their natal waters in northeast Oregon and Washington. Therefore, steelhead trout of the MCR

steelhead trout ESU may be present near OTIA III bridge work in downstream portions of the

Columbia River. Migrating MCR steelhead trout could be affected by the repair or replacement

of 29 bridges occurring within 2 miles of the Columbia River. Of the bridges where the proposed

action may affect MCR steelhead trout, 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, 12 occur in the Columbia Basin ecoregion, eight occur in the Blue

Mountains ecoregion, and 17 occur in the Lava Plains ecoregion.

There are 27 5th Field HUCs affected by bridges within the Oregon portion of the MCR ESU.

Within this ESU, the greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Mosier Creek watershed,

which accounts for 10% of the gross API.

Of the bridges located along the Columbia River migration corridor of the MCR Steelhead Trout

ESU, the greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Beaver Creek/Columbia River

watershed, which accounts for five percent of the total API outside the ESU and along the

migratory corridor.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect likely to adversely affect for the MCR Steelhead Trout ESU. Approximately 41 bridges

are within this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water

work areas may cause local and temporary reductions in water quality and may necessitate the

handling of MCR steelhead trout. It is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or less

of the MCR steelhead trout captured and handled at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or

injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected

that up to 3,483 juvenile MCR steelhead trout will be handled for all bridge replacement and

repair work along the migration corridor of this ESU and within the ESU, and that a maximum

lethal taking of 209 juvenile MCR steelhead trout may occur as a result of bridge work within

the ESU.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 74 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 2,960 feet, or 0.56 river mile. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is approximately 22,200 feet, or 4.2

river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this ESU is not expected to exceed

76.3 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the MCR Steelhead Trout ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 97

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the

following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to

ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance

standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable

condition of the permit and contract documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation

measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat

access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are

brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle

(i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied

to each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
HARNEY

LAKE

LANE

MALHEUR

GRANT

DOUGLAS

LINN

BAKER

CROOK

UMATILLA

UNION

WASCO

KLAMATH

WALLOWA

DESCHUTES

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COOS

COLUMBIA

JACKSON

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

CURRY

screening/BA Figures/steelhead_mcr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.15-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Middle Columbia River Steelhead

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Washington

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Migratory Corridor

Steelhead ESU (Selected for Species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 99

Table 5.2.15-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Middle Columbia River Steelhead Trout.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. wi2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. wi3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. wi4 03553A Beech Cr. 3 Beech Cr. Clear Cr. wi5 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. wi6 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. wi7 2561 E. Fk. Birch Cr. (Pilot Rock) 3 Birch Cr. Lower E. Birch Cr. wi8 7372 Bridge Cr. 3 Bridge Cr. Upper Bridge Cr. wi9 7490 Bridge Cr. 3 Bridge Cr. Upper Bridge Cr. wi

10 7491 Bridge Cr. 3 Bridge Cr. Upper Bridge Cr. wi11 03558A Canyon Cr. 3 Canyon Cr. Lower Canyon Cr. wi12 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. wi13 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. wi14 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. wi15 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi16 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi17 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 100

Table 5.2.15-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

18 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. wi19 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough wi20 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. wi21 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. wi22 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. wi23 6204 Smith Cr. 1 Cottonwood Cr. Upper Fox Cr. wi24 6205 Fox Cr. 1 Cottonwood Cr. Upper Fox Cr. wi25 00308A Fifteen Miles Cr. 5 Fifteenmiles Cr. Lower Fifteenmiles Cr. wi26 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. wi27 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. wi28 2655 John Day R. (Goose Rock) 6 John Day R./Johnson Cr. Johnny Cr. wi29 7696 John Day R. (Coles) 3 Laycock Cr. Lower Beech Cr. wi30 4728 Camas Cr. 4 Lower Camas Cr. Bridge wi31 02233A Harper Cr. 3 Lower John Day R./Kahler Cr. Harper Cr. wi32 04979A Juniper Cr. 4 Lower John Day R./Kahler Cr. Harper Cr. wi33 04981A Mathas Cr. 3 Lower John Day R./Kahler Cr. Harper Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 101

Table 5.2.15-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

34 2235 Mule Shoe Cr. 3 Lower John Day R./Service Cr. Service Cr. wi35 02236A Alder Cr. 5 Lower John Day R./Service Cr. Service Cr. wi36 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi37 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi38 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi39 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. wi40 00815A Trout Cr. 5 Lower Trout Cr. Trout Cr. wi41 16453 Hwy 70 EB 3 Lower Umatilla R. Lower Umatilla R./Columbia R. wi42 16454 Hwy 70 EB 3 Lower Umatilla R. Lower Umatilla R./Columbia R. wi43 8050 McKay Cr. 3 Mckay Cr. Mckay Cr./Umatilla R. wi44 08498E Frtg Rd & UPRR (Meacham) 6 Meacham Cr. Beaver Cr. wi45 08498W Frtg Rd & UPRR (Meacham) 6 Meacham Cr. Beaver Cr. wi46 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi47 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi48 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi49 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi50 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 102

Table 5.2.15-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

51 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. wi52 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wi53 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wi54 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. wi55 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. wi56 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock wi57 7771 The Dalles Dam Access Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/Threemiles Cr. wi58 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. wi59 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. wi60 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. wi61 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. wi62 4729 N. Fk. John Day R. (Dale) 5 N. Fk. John Day R./Potamus Cr. Deerhorn wi63 02734A Rock Cr. (Picture Gorge) 3 Rock Cr. Lower Rock Cr. wi64 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver wi65 2463 Indian Cr. 3 Strawberry Cr. Castle Cr. wi66 2466 Dixie Cr. (Prairie City) 3 Strawberry Cr. Dixie Meadows wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 103

Table 5.2.15-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

67 9314 Hwy 6 (Stanfield Jct Intchg) 4 Umatilla R./Alkali Canyon Furnish Ditch/Umatilla R. wi68 9636 Unknown 4 Umatilla R./Mission Cr. Mission Cr. wi69 08931E Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 5 Upper Lake Umatilla Lower Paterson Slough wi70 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. wi71 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. wi72 2269 BNSF 3 Willow Cr. Lower Willow Cr. wi73 8600 Irrigation Canal 3 Willow Cr. Lower Willow Cr. wi74 00971A Willow Cr. 1 Willow Cr. Lower Willow Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 104

5.2.16 Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU

No OTIA III bridges are located within the Upper Columbia River (UCR) ESU for steelhead

trout (Figure 5.2.16-1). UCR steelhead trout use Oregon waters (the Columbia River) primarily

as a migration corridor to reach their natal waters in eastern Washington. Therefore, steelhead

trout of the UCR ESU could occur within the proximity of OTIA III bridge work. There are 43

bridges located within 2 miles of the Columbia River and their replacement could affect UCR

steelhead trout. 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 (Table 5.2.16-1).

Bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the UCR Steelhead Trout ESU occur

in 14 5th Field HUCs. The greatest concentration of these bridges occurs in the Middle

Columbia/Eagle Creek watershed, which accounts for 15% of the gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for the UCR Steelhead Trout ESU. Juvenile UCR steelhead

trout pass through the mainstem Columbia River quickly and tend to prefer the mid-channel

(Floyd 2003). Additionally, because of the low numbers of this population and the relatively few

Bridge Program projects expected to occur where this ESU may be affected, the likelihood of

adverse effects is considered negligible.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 43 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 1,720 feet, or 0.32 river mile. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is approximately 12,900 feet, or 2.4

river miles. The area of riparian d-+69*isturbance that may affect this ESU is not expected to

exceed 43.6 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the UCR Steelhead Trout ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the

following considerations: (1) no bridge work will occur within this ESU and potential effects are

limited to downstream habitat modifications, which may necessitate the handling of fish within 2

miles of the Columbia River: (2) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project

to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance

standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable

condition of the permit document; (3) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied

to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat

elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor,

and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e.,

designated in-water work periods); (4) the ecological design approach that will be applied to

each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 105

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (5) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
LANE

LINN GRANT

CROOK

WASCO

HARNEY

DESCHUTES

UMATILLA

MORROW

WHEELER

DOUGLAS

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

LAKE

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

COOS

WASHINGTON

KLAMATH

HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

UNION

screening/BA Figures/steelhead_ucr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.16-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Upper Columbia River Steelhead

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Steelhead ESU (Selected for Species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Migratory Corridor

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 107

Table 5.2.16-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Columbia River Steelhead Trout.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch.

2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr.

3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr.

4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr.

5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr.

6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.

7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R.

8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR

(Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr.

9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr.

13 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough

14 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R.

15 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R.

16 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  &

Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R.

17 00308A Fifteen Mile Cr. 5 Fifteenmile Cr. Lower Fifteenmile Cr.

18 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R.

19 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R.

20 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

21 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

22 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 109

Table 5.2.16-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

23 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr.

24 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to

Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

25 8610 Moody St (Cascade

Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

26 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

27 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to

Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

28 08610W Moody St (Cascade

Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr.

29 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr.

30 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

31 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

32 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff

Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr.

33 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr.

34 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock

35 7771 The Dalles Dam Access

Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/ThreemileCr.

36 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.

37 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr.

38 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.

39 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr.

40 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver

41 08931E Irrigon Junction Intchg

Conn 5 Upper Lake Umatilla Lower Paterson Slough
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 109

Table 5.2.16-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC

42 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr.

43 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr.

Note: All bridges are located within 2 miles of a migratory corridor for this ESU.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 110

5.2.17 Snake River Basin Steelhead ESU

There are 56 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect Snake River Basin ESU

for steelhead trout (Figure 5.2.17-1). Thirteen bridges are located within the Snake River Basin

(SRB) ESU for steelhead trout, and all 13 occur in the Blue Mountains Ecoregion. Snake River

steelhead trout use Oregon waters (the Columbia River) primarily as a migration corridor to

reach their natal waters in Idaho. Therefore, steelhead trout of the SRB ESU could occur near

OTIA III bridge work. There are also 43 bridges located within 2 miles of the Columbia or Snake

Rivers and their replacement could affect Snake River steelhead trout. Of these, 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 (Table 5.2.17-1).

Bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Snake River steelhead trout ESU

occur in 21 5th Field HUCs. The greatest concentration of these bridges occurs in the Middle

Columbia/Eagle Creek watershed, which accounts for 11% of the gross API. Of the bridges

located along the Columbia River migration corridor of the SRB Steelhead Trout ESU, the

greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Middle Columbia/Eagle Creek watersheds; these

account for 15% of the total API outside the ESU and along the migratory corridor.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the SRB steelhead trout ESU. Approximately 13 bridges

within the ESU and 43 bridges along the migration corridor of this ESU will require isolation of

the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas within the ESU may cause local and

temporary reductions in water quality or the handling of Snake River Basin steelhead trout.

While the handling of SRB steelhead trout is expected to be minimal as a result of bridge

construction within the ESU, incidental take may occur as a result of bridge activities. It is

expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or less of the SRB steelhead trout at each

bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge

construction. Therefore, it is expected that up to 650 juvenile SRB steelhead trout will be

handled for all bridge repair and replacement work along the migration corridor of this ESU, and

that a maximum lethal taking of 39 juvenile SRB steelhead trout may occur as a result of bridge

work within the ESU.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 56 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 2,240 feet, or 0.42 river mile. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is approximately 16,800 feet, or 3.2

river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this ESU is not expected to exceed

58.2 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the UCR Steelhead Trout ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 111

following considerations: (1) no bridge work will occur within this ESU and potential impacts

are limited to downstream habitat modifications, which may necessitate the handling of fish

within 2 miles of the Columbia River: (2) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each

project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental

performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an

enforceable condition of the permit and contract documents; (3) the cumulative effect of the

conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water

quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed

conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the

species’ life-cycle (e.g., designated in-water work periods); (4) the ecological design approach

that will be applied to each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming

processes is expected to result in authorization of many projects that will have long-term

beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active

channel and reductions in riprap); and (5) the individual and combined effects of all actions

permitted are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce

the functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or

ESU scale.
HARNEY

LAKE

LANE

MALHEUR

GRANT

DOUGLAS

LINN

BAKER

CROOK

UMATILLA

UNION

WASCO

WALLOWA

KLAMATH

DESCHUTES

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

COOS

WASHINGTON

JACKSON

HOOD RIVER

CURRY

screening/BA Figures/steelhead_srb.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.17-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Snake River Basin Steelhead

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Washington

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Migratory Corridor

Steelhead ESU (Selected for Species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 113

Table 5.2.17-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Snake River Basin Steelhead Trout.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. within 2 2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. within 2 3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. within 2 4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. within 2 5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. within 2 6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. within 2 7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. within 2 8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. within 2 9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 13 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/ Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within 2 14 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/ Willamette R. Columbia Slough within 2 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 114

Table 5.2.17-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

15 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within 2 16 13514E

Hwy 2 Conns #2 & Hwy 64Conns #1 & #2

8 Columbia Slough/ Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within 2 

17 00308A Fifteen Mile Cr. 5 Fifteenmile Cr. Lower Fifteenmile Cr. within 2 18 8502 Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) 4 Grande Ronde R./Beaver Cr. Grande Ronde R./Hilgard within E19 04841A Grande Ronde R. (Hilgard) 3 Grande Ronde R./Beaver Cr. Grande Ronde R./Hilgard within E20 1996 Grande Ronde R. (NE Elgin) 4 Grande Ronde R./Cabin Cr. Grande Ronde R./Partridge Cr. within E21 04821A Grande Ronde R. (Island City) 3 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Haywire Canyon within E22 8431 Unknown 7 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Wright Slough within E23 08431A Unknown 4 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Wright Slough within E24 00449A

Emigrant Hill FrtgRd & UPRR(Glover)

5 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Pelican Cr. within E

25 8780 Grande Ronde R. & INP RR (Indian Cr.) 6 Grande Ronde R./Indian Cr. Grande Ronde R./Lower Clark Cr. within E
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 115

Table 5.2.17-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

26 00800A Grande Ronde R. (S. Elgin) 6 Grande Ronde R./Indian Cr. Grande Ronde R./Lower Clark Cr. within E27 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. within 2 28 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. within 2 29 7573 Lostine R. 3 Lostine R. Lower Lostine R. within E30 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 31 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 32 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 33 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 34 2184 Wallowa R. (Bear Cr.) 5 Lower Wallowa R. Wallowa R./Water Canyon within E35 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 36 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 37 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 38 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 39 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 116

Table 5.2.17-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

40 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. within 2 41 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within 2 42 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within 2 43 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within 2 44 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. within 2 45 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock within 2 46 7771 The Dalles Dam Access Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/Threemile Cr. within 2 47 5192 Minam Viaduct 8 Minam R. Lower Minam R. within E48 01038A Wallowa R. (Minam) 6 Minam R. Lower Minam R. within E49 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. within 2 50 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. within 2 51 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. within 2 52 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. within 2 53 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver within 2 54 08931E Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 5 Upper Lake Umatilla Lower Paterson Slough within 2 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 117

Table 5.2.17-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

55 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. within 2 56 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. within 2 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 118

5.2.18 Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU

There are 90 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Upper Willamette

River (UWR) ESU for steelhead trout: 75 bridges are within the range of the ESU and four are

within 2 miles of the ESU boundary (and drain to the ESU); the remaining 11 are located

downstream of the ESU (Willamette Falls) near either the Willamette or Columbia Rivers

(Figure 5.2.18-1; Table 5.2.18-1). Repair and replacement of these bridges will potentially affect

habitat within the UWR Steelhead Trout ESU. UWR steelhead trout use the lower Willamette

and Columbia Rivers as a migratory corridor to reach their natal waters. Therefore, UWR

steelhead trout could be present near OTIA III bridges in downstream portions of the Columbia

River. Migrating UWR steelhead trout could be affected by the repair or replacement of 11

bridges that are within 2 miles of the lower Willamette River and lower Columbia River. Of the

bridges where the proposed action may affect UWR steelhead trout, eight occur in the Coast

Range ecoregion, 80 occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, and two occur in the West

Cascades ecoregion.

There are 19 5th Field HUCs impacted by bridges within this ESU. Within this ESU, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Oak Creek watershed, which accounts for 23% of the total

API for program bridges with the potential to affect this ESU.

Of the bridges located along the migration corridor of this ESU, the greatest concentration of

bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River watershed, which accounts for 45% of

the total API outside the ESU and inside the migratory corridor.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the UWR Steelhead trout ESU. Approximately 75 bridges

within this ESU will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work

areas may cause local and temporary reductions in water quality and may necessitate the

handling of UWR steelhead trout. It is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or less

of the UWR steelhead trout captured and handled at each bridge—as a result of handling stress

or injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected

that up to 3,767 juvenile UWR steelhead trout will be handled for all bridge replacement and

repair work within the ESU and along the migration corridor of this ESU. A maximum lethal

taking of 226 juvenile UWR steelhead trout may occur as a result of bridge work within 2 miles

of the ESU.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 90 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the ESU is approximately 3,600 feet, or 0.68 river mile. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the ESU is approximately 27,000 feet, or five

river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this ESU is not expected to exceed

91 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the UWR Steelhead Trout ESU, the environmental baseline for the action area,

the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the

cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of not likely to destroy or adversely
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 119

modify designated or previously designated critical habitat. These findings are based on the

following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to

ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance

standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable

condition of the permit document; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied

to each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat

elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor,

and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e.,

designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied to

each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or ESU scale.
LINN

CLACKAMAS WASCO

MARION POLK

LANE

CLATSOP

JEFFERSON

LINCOLN

TILLAMOOK

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

DESCHUTES

MULTNOMAH

CROOK

screening/BA Figures/steelhead_uwr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.18-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Upper Willamette River Steelhead

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Migratory Corridor

Steelhead ESU (Selected for Species)

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor (outside of ESU)

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of ESU

Potential to Affect - Within ESU

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 121

Table 5.2.18-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Upper Willamette River Steelhead Trout.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9870 Hwy 51 NB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. wi2 07794A Hwy 51 SB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. wi3 07794B Hwy 51 SB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. wi4 8071 Unknown 3 Abiqua Cr./Pudding R. Upper Little Pudding R. wi5 8073 Unknown 3 Abiqua Cr./Pudding R. Upper Little Pudding R. wi6 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. wi

Co

7 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. wi

Co

8 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. wi

Co

9 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. wi

Co

10 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. wi

Co

11 08232N Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr. wi12 08232S Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr. wi13 8252 Hwy 1 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi14 08236N Calapooia R. 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi15 08236S Calapooia R. 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 122

Table 5.2.18-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

16 08239N Sodom Ditch Overflow 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi17 08239S Sodom Ditch Overflow 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi18 08241N Courtney Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi19 08241S Courtney Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi20 08233N Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch wi21 08233S Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch wi22 08235N Calapooia Overflow 5 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch wi23 08235S Calapooia Overflow 5 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch wi24 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. wi

Co

25 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. wi

Co

26 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough wi27 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough wi28 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough wi

Co

29 09254D Hwy 61 2 Columbia Columbia Slough wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 123

Table 5.2.18-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

Slough/Willamette R.

30 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. wi

Co

31 2366 E. Fk. Dairy Cr. 4 Dairy Cr. Lower E. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. wi32 2367 PNWR (Vadis) 8 Dairy Cr. Lower E. Fk.. Of Dairy Cr. wi33 2365 McKay Cr. 5 Dairy Cr. Lower Mckay Cr. wi34 02362A Unknown 4 Dairy Cr. Middle W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. wi35 2672 Unknown 5 Dairy Cr. Upper W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. wi36 2673 Unknown 5 Dairy Cr. Upper W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. wi37 7964 Unknown 17 Detroit Reservoir/Blow Out Divide Cr. Detroit Reservoir/Kinney Cr. wi38 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. wi39 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. wi40 7347 Unknown 7 Little N. Santiam R. Lower Little N. Santiam R. wi41 7867 UPRR Mainline 5 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. wi

Co

42 8121 Santiam Overflow No 2 6 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. wi43 8122 Santiam Overflow No 3 3 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. wi44 8124 Santiam Overflow No 4 5 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 124

Table 5.2.18-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

45 2285 SW Canyon Rd (Sylvan) 4 Lower Tualatin R. Fanno Cr. wi46 2015 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./S. Yamhill R. Lower Mill Cr. wi47 01756A Unknown 5 Mill Cr./S. Yamhill R. Lower Mill Cr. wi48 8076 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Beaver Cr. wi49 7439 Mill Cr. 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Lower Mill Cr./Willamette R. wi50 07439A Mill Cr. 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Lower Mill Cr./Willamette R. wi51 07524B Hwy 1E NB (Commercial St SE) 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Mckinney Cr. wi52 8069 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Upper Mill Cr./Willamette R. wi53 8070 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Upper Mill Cr./Willamette R. wi54 9413 Calapooia Overflow 5 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. wi55 9414 Calapooia Overflow 3 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. wi56 12205B Calapooia R. 8 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. wi57 08226N AERC (Tallman Branch) 5 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. wi58 08226S AERC (Tallman Branch) 5 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. wi59 08227N Oak Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. wi60 08227S Oak Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 125

Table 5.2.18-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

61 8217 Murder Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi62 8223 Unknown 6 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi63 08218A Murder Cr. Rd 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi64 08218B Murder Cr. Rd 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi65 08221A Knox Butte Rd (N. Albany Intchg) 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi66 08221B Hwy 58 NB (N. Albany Intchg) 4 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi67 08221C Knox Butte Rd (N. Albany Intchg) 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi68 08221D Hwy 58 NB (N. Albany Intchg) 4 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi69 08221E Knox Butte Rd (N Albany Int) 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi70 08222N Cox Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi71 08222S Cox Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. wi72 7941 Unknown 5 Rickreall Cr. Bashaw Cr. wi73 1706 Soda Fk. 3 S. Santiam R. Soda Fk. wi74 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver wi

Co
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 126

Table 5.2.18-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

75 2001 Unknown 3 Salt Cr./S. Yamhill R. Upper Salt Cr. wi76 745 Unknown 5 Upper S. Yamhill R. Gold Cr. wi77 2081 Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Gold Cr. wi78 4573 Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Rogue Cr. wi79 01612A Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Rowell Cr. wi80 7366 Unknown 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi81 8889 Unknown 7 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi82 00123K Unknown 33 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi83 07253B Unknown 35 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi84 07253R Unknown 8 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi85 07440A UPRR Main Line 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi86 07441A Marietta St SE 4 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi87 07522A Turner Rd SE 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 127

Table 5.2.18-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

88 07538A Boone Rd SE 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. wi89 07855E Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) 4 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Glenn Cr. wi90 2472 Devils Lake Fk. Wilson R. 9 Wilson R. Lower Devils Lake Fk. Of Wilson R. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 128

5.2.19 Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Coastal Cutthroat Trout DPS

There are 51 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the Oregon portion of

the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River (SWCR) DPS for coastal cutthroat trout; 50 are

within the range of the DPS and one is within 2 miles of the DPS boundary (and drains to the

DPS) (Figure 5.2.19-1; Table 5.2.19-1). Of the 51 bridges where repair and replacement

activities may affect SWCR coastal cutthroat trout, six occur in the Coast Range ecoregion, 18

occur in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, 16 occur in the West Cascades ecoregion, three occur

in the Columbia Basin ecoregion, and eight occur in the East Cascades ecoregion.

There are 16 5th Field HUCs impacted by bridges within the ESU. Within this ESU, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Columbia Slough/Willamette River and Middle

Columbia/Eagle Creek watersheds; these account for 20% of the gross API.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the SWCR Coastal Cutthroat Trout DPS if the DPS

becomes listed during the life of the Bridge Program. Approximately 51 bridges in this DPS will

require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas and the removal

of trapped fish may require handling of juvenile coastal cutthroat trout; it is expected that

handling of SWCR coastal cutthroat trout at each bridge site may be required during fish

removal operations conducted prior to commencement of any work area dewatering activities.

As previously discussed in Section 5.2.3, it is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent

or less of the coastal cutthroat trout captured at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or

injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected

that approximately 1,160 juvenile coastal cutthroat trout will be handled for all proposed bridge

repair and replacement work within this DPS and that a maximum lethal taking of 70 juvenile

coastal cutthroat trout will occur as a result of fish handling activities.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 51 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the DPS is approximately 2,040 feet, or 0.38 river mile. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the DPS is approximately 15,300 feet, or three

river miles. The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this DPS is not expected to exceed

54.5 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the SWCR Coastal Cutthroat Trout DPS, the environmental baseline for the

action area, the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards

proposed, and the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, is

not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for this species if critical habitat is designated

during the life of the Bridge Program. These conclusions are based on the following

considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to ensure that

the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance standards

identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the

permit and contract documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to

each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 129

elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor,

and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e.,

designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied to

each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or DPS scale.
LINN

WASCO

LANE

CLACKAMAS

MARION POLK

JEFFERSON

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

LINCOLN

YAMHILL

BENTON

CROOK

COLUMBIA

DESCHUTES

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

SHERMAN

MULTNOMAH

screening/BA Figures/cutthroat.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.2.19-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

SW Washington / Columbia River

Cutthroat Trout

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Cutthroat Trout DPS

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of DPS

Potential to Affect - Within DPS

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 131

Table 5.2.19-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Coastal Cutthroat Trout.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. w2 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Middle Beaver Cr. w3 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. w4 7417 Big Cr. 3 Big Cr. Big Cr. w5 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Big Cr. Gnat Cr. w6 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. w7 7715 Swedetown County Rd 4 Clatskanie R. Lower Clatskanie R. w8 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. w9 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. w

10 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. w11 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. w12 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. w13 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w14 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w15 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w16 09254D Hwy 61 2 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough w17 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 132

Table 5.2.19-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

18 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. w19 13514E Hwy 2 Conns & Hwy 64 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. w20 00308A Fifteen Mile Cr. 5 Fifteenmile Cr. Lower Fifteenmile Cr. w21 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. w22 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. w23 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. w24 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. w25 7867 UPRR Mainline 5 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. w26 01439A Rock Cr. 3 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. w27 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. w28 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. w29 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. w30 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. w31 2285 SW Canyon Rd (Sylvan) 4 Lower Tualatin R. Fanno Cr. w32 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. w33 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 133

Table 5.2.19-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

34 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. w35 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. w36 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. w37 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. w38 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. w39 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. w40 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. w41 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. w42 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock w43 7771 The Dalles Dam Access Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/Threemile Cr. w44 00665B Alder Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Lower Middle Sandy R. w45 00689B Wildcat Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Upper Middle Sandy R. w46 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. w47 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. w48 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. w49 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. w50 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 134

Table 5.2.19-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

51 03026A Zig Zag R. 3 Zigzag R. Zigzag Canyon w
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 135

5.3 Fish (Resident) Species

Resident fish species addressed under this consultation include bull trout, Lahontan cutthroat

trout, shortnose sucker, Lost River sucker, Warner sucker, Oregon chub, Borax Lake chub,

Hutton tui chub, Foskett speckled dace, Modoc sucker, and three non-listed lamprey species.

These species have widely varying life history patterns, and thus their habitat requirements also

vary substantially. Some require the very cold, flowing water and clean substrates found only in

mountainous headwaters (e.g., bull trout). Others require the backwaters and sloughs with silty

organic and vegetated substrates more likely found in low lying rivers and floodplains (e.g.,

Oregon chub). However, all of these species depend on the same basic habitat elements (water

quality, space, food, and cover) necessary to carry out their various life history stages.

Degradation of any of these habitat elements will reduce the viability of resident fish

populations, and will limit the recovery of the species.

5.3.1 Life History and Status

5.3.1.1 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

Status

The USFWS issued a final rule listing the Columbia River and Klamath River Distinct

Population Segments (DPS) of bull trout as threatened species under the Federal Endangered

Species Act on June 10, 1998 (June 10, 1998, 63 FR 31647). The Columbia River population

segment is represented by widespread subpopulations that have declined in both overall range

and numbers of fish. The majority of Columbia River bull trout occur in isolated, fragmented

habitats that support low numbers of fish and are inaccessible to migratory bull trout (June 10,

1998, 63 FR 31647). A few remaining bull trout “strongholds” still remain in the Columbia

River basin. These are found in large areas of contiguous habitat in the Snake River basin of the

central Idaho mountains, upper Clark Fork and Flathead Rivers in Montana, and several streams

in the Blue Mountains in Washington and Oregon (June 10, 1998, 63 FR 31647). The USFWS

considers this DPS threatened as a result of habitat degradation and fragmentation, the blockage

of migratory corridors, poor water quality, the historical management practices of fisheries, and

the introduction of non-native species (June 10, 1998, 63 FR 31647). The Klamath River

population segment is limited to seven geographically isolated stream areas representing a

fraction of the historical habitat. The distribution and numbers of bull trout have declined in the

Klamath River basin due to habitat isolation, loss of migratory corridors, poor water quality, and

the introduction of non-native species.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat was proposed for the Columbia River Bull Trout DPS on November 29, 2002

(November 29, 2002, 67 FR 71235). For the Klamath River DPS, the proposed critical habitat

designation includes approximately 296 miles of streams and 33,939 acres of lakes and marshes

in Oregon. For the Columbia River DPS, the proposed critical habitat designation totals

approximately 18,175 miles of streams and 498,782 acres of lakes and reservoirs, which
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 136

includes: approximately 8,958 miles of streams and 205,639 acres of lakes and reservoirs in the

State of Idaho; 3,319 miles of streams and 217,577 acres of lakes and reservoirs in the State of

Montana; 3,391 miles of streams and 44,670 acres of lakes and reservoirs in the State of Oregon;

and 2,507 miles of streams and 30,897 acres of lakes and reservoirs in the State of Washington.

(November 29, 2002, 67 FR 71235)

The biological needs of bull trout in the two population segments are not sufficiently known to

permit identification of critical habitat. Insufficient information is available on the number of

individuals or spawning reaches required to support viable subpopulations throughout the

distinct population segment. In addition, the extent of habitat required and specific management

measures needed for the recovery of these fish have not been identified. This information is

considered essential for determining critical habitat for these population segments.

Life History

Historically, bull trout occurred throughout the Columbia River Basin; east to Montana, south to

the Jarbidge River in northern Nevada, the Klamath Basin in Oregon, and the McCloud River in

California; and north to Alberta, British Columbia, and possibly southeastern Alaska. In Oregon,

bull trout occurrences represent a fraction of the species’ historic distribution. A total of 69 bull

trout populations in 12 basins are currently identified in Oregon (Buchanan et al. 1997). These

basins include the Klamath River, Willamette River, Hood River, Deschutes River, John Day

River, Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, Pine Creek,

Powder River, and Malheur River. Within these basins, bull trout populations are highly

fragmented and in some cases only exist within a small portion of the basin.

Bull trout exhibit two basic life history strategies: resident and migratory. Migratory bull trout

live in larger river and lake systems and migrate to small stream headwaters to spawn. In general,

migratory fish are larger than resident fish. Research indicates that various types of bull trout

interbred at times, which helped maintain viable populations throughout the fish’s range (Rieman

and McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout reach sexual maturity in five to seven years and spawn from the end of August through

November. Spawning may occur annually for some populations, and every other year for the

rest. Migration for spawning is initiated by warming water temperatures in downstream reaches.

The distances traveled by migratory bull trout to spawn are on average farther than other nonanadromous salmonids (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Females select redd sites that are

characterized by gravel substrates with low compaction, ground water inputs, and proximity to

cover (Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Bull trout require particularly clean gravel substrates to

build their redds. Increased sediment suffocates eggs by reducing dissolved oxygen. If 20% of

the solids in spawning substrate are fine sediments, spawning success falls by more than 50%; a

40% proportion of fine sediments reduces success by 99% (Rieman and McIntyre 1996).

Bull trout eggs incubate over the winter and hatch in the late winter or early spring. Emergence

usually requires an incubation period of 120 to 200 days. Incubation success is highly sensitive

to temperature. Although adults can withstand water temperature up to 64oF, eggs develop better

with temperatures below 36oF. Temperatures above 46oF can reduce survival by more than 75%
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 137

(Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Alevins require 65-90 days to absorb their yolk sacs (Pratt 1992),

and emergence typically occurs after a peak in stream discharge from early April through May

(Pratt 1992).

As juveniles, resident and migratory bull trout occur together, but it is not known if they

represent a single or separate population (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Juveniles migrate to areas

upstream from spawning beds to grow and take advantage of cool headwater temperatures. Bull

trout less than one year old are generally found in areas along stream margins and in side

channels. Distribution of juvenile bull trout is strongly associated with stream substrate. Pratt

(1985) found that juvenile bull trout smaller than 0.3 inch usually remained near the stream

bottom, close to streambed materials and submerged fine debris. As bull trout grow they become

less associated with the streambed. Most migratory juvenile bull trout remain in headwater

tributaries for one to three years before emigrating downstream to larger stream reaches.

Emigration usually takes place from June to August.

Limiting Factors

Land and water management activities that degrade bull trout habitat and threaten all of the bull

trout population segments in the coterminous United States include dams, forest management

practices, livestock grazing, agriculture and agricultural diversions, roads, and mining (June 10,

1998, 63 FR 31647). The effects of these land and water management practices often extend

from the immediately affected area to a considerable distance downstream or downslope,

because of increased sediment loads in the stream and shifts in the hydrologic regime.

Timber harvesting and cattle grazing have removed important riparian vegetation from stream

banks throughout the Pacific Northwest (Gregory et al. 1991); this reduces instream woody

material important for rearing and winter habitat, and reduces stream cover that results in

increased water temperatures. These temperatures often exceed the range of successful bull trout

spawning, egg incubation, and juvenile rearing. All activities which cause a loss of riparian

buffer zones, including overgrazing, logging and road construction, also increase overland flow

of runoff to the stream, carrying increased sediment loads and increasing bank destabilization

through higher velocities (Ziller 1992). Improper grazing can also lead to collapsing streambanks

and increased stream width-to-depth ratio (Ziller 1992). Streams suffering from such effects

warm faster because they are wider and shallower, which exposes more units of water to

warming per unit of sunlight. Collapsed banks also reduce suitable bank habitat available for bull

trout.

Water management activities can impair bull trout by fragmenting populations, changing water

flow patterns, and degrading water quality. Dams and other passage barriers collectively have a

significant effect on bull trout throughout their range. Metapopulation function can be disabled

by a series of dams on the major rivers of the Pacific Northwest such as in the Columbia River

basin. Passage barriers delay or often block upstream migration of adult bull trout to their

spawning areas and can limit genetic interchange between bull trout populations (Ratliff and

Howell 1992). Many migratory bull trout populations have been extirpated as a result of dams in

the Columbia River basin (Goetz 1989) and bull trout populations on the upper Columbia River

are clearly fragmented by dams without adequate fish passage facilities.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 138

The use of river water for irrigation also affects bull trout in mainstream rivers (Ratliff and

Howell 1992). Irrigation creates four distinct impairments of bull trout habitat and water

conditions: irrigation practices remove water from rivers and reduce instream flows; irrigation

return water is frequently warmer than 64oF and thus creates a thermal barrier that can

behaviorally block fish from spawning areas and ultimately reduce genetic diversity; irrigation

return water is laden with sediments and agricultural chemicals, which represent a major source

of point and non-point source pollution in fluvial systems (Allen 1995); and finally, migrating

juvenile bull trout may also be stranded through unscreened irrigation diversions and passage

through dams (Ratliff and Howell 1992, Ziller 1992).

The degradation of the condition of the bull trout has been compounded by the introduction of

non-native salmonid species to native bull trout waters. Around the turn of the century, brook

trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were introduced into the rivers and streams of the Pacific Northwest.

The brook trout is genetically close enough to bull trout to permit hybridization, although

offspring of the bull trout / brook trout cross are infertile (Kitano et al. 1994). Brook trout often

have a higher fecundity rate and lower age at first reproduction. When bull trout and brook trout

occur in the same waters, the brook trout will greatly outnumber the bull trout because of their

greater reproductive potential (Kitano et al. 1994). Because of the physiological and habitat

similarities of brook trout and bull trout, forage competition has become a serious problem for

bull trout conservation. This problem is exaggerated in headwater areas, where bull trout are

frequently isolated as non-migratory populations (Kitano et al. 1994). Brown and lake trout were

also introduced in the Pacific Northwest around the turn of the century, and have occupied

mainstem streams and lakes formerly inhabited by bull trout. These species may also compete

with bull trout for forage resources.

5.3.1.2 Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes

brevirostris)

Status

The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker occupy similar habitat and have similar life history

traits. Therefore, the two species will be addressed concurrently to efficiently describe their

status, life histories, and limiting factors. The Lost River and shortnose suckers were listed as

endangered under the Federal ESA throughout their entire range on July 18, 1988 (July 18, 1988,

53 FR 27130 and 53 FR 27134).

Critical habitat (the shoreline area of Upper Klamath Lake) for both species was proposed on

December 1, 1994; however, the designation of critical habitat by USFWS has not occurred to

date (December 1, 1994, 59 FR 61744 and December 1, 1994, 59 FR 61759). The proposed

designation includes a total of approximately 456,000 acres of stream, river, lake, and shoreline

areas as critical habitat for the shortnose sucker—and approximately 424,000 acres of stream,

river, lake, and shoreline areas as critical habitat for the Lost River sucker—in Klamath County

(December 1, 1994, 59 FR 61744, December 1, 1994, 59 FR 61759). The USFWS has

determined that the physical and biological features (referred to as the primary constituent

elements, or PCEs) that support spawning, foraging, cover, refugia, growth, and dispersal, as
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 139

well as corridors between these areas, are essential to the conservation of these species. Only

lands or waters that contain one or more primary constituent elements are included in the

proposed designation. Areas within the 100-year floodplain that have been previously developed

are not likely to provide PCEs. Thus, paved areas, road and rail corridors, built-up areas within

municipalities, and other previously developed areas are not likely to provide PCEs and so would

not be affected by the proposed designation.

The Lost River sucker is native to Upper Klamath Lake (Williams et al. 1985) and its tributaries,

including the Williamson River, the Sprague River, the Wood River, Crooked Creek, Seven Mile

Creek, Four Mile Creek and Slough, Odessa Creek, and Crystal Creek. The Lost River sucker is

the only species in the genus Deltistes, therefore the entire genus is endanger of extinction The

Lost River sucker also historically inhabited the Lost River watershed, Tule Lake, Lower

Klamath Lake, and Sheepy Lake (Moyle 1976), but it is not considered native to the Klamath

River. The present distribution of the Lost River sucker includes Upper Klamath Lake and its

tributaries (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990), Clear Lake Reservoir and its tributaries (USFWS

1993a), Tule Lake and the Lost River up to Anderson-Rose Dam (USFWS 1993a), and the

Klamath River downstream to Copco Reservoir (Beak 1987) and probably to Iron Gate

Reservoir (USFWS 1993a).

Shortnose suckers historically occurred throughout Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries

(Williams et al. 1985, Miller and Smith 1981), although Moyle (1976) also includes Lake of the

Woods, Oregon, and probably the Lost River system (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991). The

current distribution of the shortnose sucker includes Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, the

Klamath River downstream to Iron Gate Reservoir, Clear Lake Reservoir and its tributaries,

Gerber Reservoir and its tributaries, the Lost River, and Tule Lake. Gerber Reservoir represents

the only habitat with a shortnose sucker population that does not also have a Lost River sucker

population.

Life History

Lost River and shortnose suckers are lake-dwelling, but spawn in tributary streams or springs

(July 18, 1988, 53 FR 27130). Both species of suckers spawn near the stream bottom; when

gravel is available, eggs are dispersed within the top several centimeters. Spawning occurs

between February and May, depending on water depth and stream temperature (Buettner and

Scoppettone 1990, Andreasen 1975). When spawning occurs over cobble and armored substrate,

eggs fall between crevices or are swept downstream (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990). More

detailed spawning information for both sucker species is provided by Buettner and Scoppettone

(1990) and USBR (1992).

Larval Lost River and shortnose suckers spend relatively little time in tributary streams, and

migrate back to the lake shortly after emergence. Buettner and Scoppettone (1990) found that in

1987 and 1988 over 90% of larval Lost River sucker emigrated back to Upper Klamath Lake

between May 5 and June 15. They found that the majority of larval shortnose suckers emigrated

within a six-week period after May 1 in 1978 and after May 7 in 1988. 90% of larvae were found

in water depths of less than 1.6 inches, and were surface-oriented and over sand, mud, and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 140

concrete; they were absent from soft organic mud and silt bottom (Buettner and Scoppettone

1990).

Adult Lost River and shortnose suckers usually spend relatively little time in tributary streams

before they migrate back to Upper Klamath Lake. However, only areas of the lake near inflows

from streams or springs maintain relatively low densities of algae and consistently provide the

water quality needed to support the suckers through stressful periods (USFWS 1993a). Refugial

areas of relatively good water quality are important for fish in Upper Klamath Lake during the

summer and early fall when dissolved oxygen and pH levels can be stressful or lethal in much of

the lake (Coleman and McGie 1988).

Limiting Factors

The final rule listing the Lost River and shortnose suckers as endangered species cited the

following reasons for their decline: the damming of rivers, instream flow diversions,

hybridization, competition and predation by exotic species, insularization of habitat, dredging

and draining of marshes, and water quality problems associated with timber harvest, the removal

of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, and agricultural practices (July 18, 1988, FR 53 27130).

Reduction and degradation of lake and stream habitats in the upper Klamath Basin is considered

by USFWS as the most important factor in the decline of both species (USFWS 1993a). A shift

toward hypereutrophication in Upper Klamath Lake has been documented (Vincent 1968, Miller

and Tash 1967) and is considered by USFWS to be a probable cause for the decline of Lost River

and shortnose suckers and a major limiting factor in recovery of the species. Tule Lake, the

lower portions of the Lost River, Lake Ewauna, and the Klamath River above Keno Dam also

have severe water quality problems associated with hypereutrophication. Over-harvest and

chemical contaminants may also have contributed to the decline. For more information regarding

limiting factors and the decline on Lost River and shortnose suckers see the Lost River and

Shortnose Sucker Recovery Plan, USFWS 1993.

5.3.1.3 Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri)

Status

The Oregon chub is a small minnow endemic to the Willamette River basin. The species was

listed as endangered under the Federal ESA on October 18, 1993 (October 18, 1993, 58 FR

53800). The species currently does not have designated critical habitat and is not represented in

different DPS. Historically, the species was distributed throughout low land areas of the

Willamette River drainage in lowland off-channel habitats such as sloughs, alcoves, and

overflow ponds. The historical records note collections from the Clackamas River, Molalla

River, Mill Creek, Luckiamute River, North Santiam River, South Santiam River, Calapooia

River, Long Tom River, Muddy Creek, McKenzie River, Coast Fork Willamette River, Middle

Fork Willamette River, and the mainstem Willamette River (Scheerer et al. 2002).

At the time of listing, there were only five known viable Oregon chub populations (Markle et al.

1989). By 2000, survey data existed for 25 Oregon chub populations in three different sub-basins

within the Willamette River watershed. Of these populations, two were considered to be
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 141

decreasing, seven were stable, and four were increasing. The remaining 12 populations had

insufficient data or insufficient detections of Oregon chub to estimate population size or establish

a population trend. Only 11 of the 25 populations contained 500 or more individuals. Seven

introduced populations existed, ranging from 15 to >14,000 individuals (Scheerer et al. 2001).

Currently, Oregon chub distribution is approximately two percent of its historic range (October

18, 1993, 58 FR 53800). Current distribution is limited to populations in the Santiam River,

Muddy Creek(s), Camas Creek, and the Middle Fork Willamette River drainages. Most

populations are located in the Middle Fork Willamette River and Santiam River drainages

(Scheerer et al. 2002). Oregon chub have been reintroduced into seven new habitats since 1994.

There are seven other locations where Oregon chub were collected at one time or another

between 1991-1997, yet were absent during subsequent sampling conducted more recently.

Currently, there are 23 known locations that contain Oregon chub, including the introduced

populations (Scheerer et al. 2002).

Life History

Life history information on the Oregon chub is somewhat limited and was derived primarily

from observations made at the Shady Dell Pond (Pearsons 1989). Oregon chub spawn from April

through September. Spawning activity has only been observed at temperatures exceeding 61oF.

Males over 1.4 inches have been observed exhibiting spawning behavior. The number of eggs

produced per female typically range from 150-670. During spawning periods, Oregon chub

primarily feed on copepods, cladoceransm, and chronomid larvae (Markle et al. 1991).

Limiting Factors

A variety of factors are likely responsible for the decline of the Oregon chub. These include

habitat alteration; the proliferation of non-native fish and amphibians; accidental chemical spills;

runoff from herbicide 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 harvesting in the watershed; and possibly the demographic

risks that result from a fragmented distribution of small, isolated populations (October 18, 1993,

58 FR 53800).

The decline of Oregon chub has been correlated with the construction of dams. Eight of 11 flood

control projects in the Willamette River drainage were completed between 1953 and 1968

(ACOE 1970). 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 (Li et al. 1987, Hjort et al.

1984, Sedell and Froggatt 1984, Willamette Basin Task Force 1969). Channel confinement,

isolation of the Willamette River from the majority of its floodplain, and the elimination or

degradation of both seasonal and permanent wetland habitats within the floodplain began as

early as 1872 and, for example, has reduced the 15.5 miles reach between Harrisburg and the

McKenzie River confluence from over 155 miles of shoreline in 1854 to less than 40 miles

currently (Sedell et al. 1990, Sedell and Froggatt 1984).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 142

The establishment and expansion of non-native species in Oregon have contributed to the decline

of the Oregon chub, and limited the species’ ability to expand beyond its current range. Many

species of non-native fish have been introduced and are common throughout the Willamette

Valley, including largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui),

crappie (Pomoxis sp.), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and western mosquitofish (Gambusia

affinis). The bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), an omnivorous nonnative amphibian, also occurs in the

valley and breeds in habitats preferred by the Oregon chub (Scheerer et al. 1992, Hjort et al.

1984, Willamette Basin Task Force 1969). The severe decline of the Oregon chub did not occur

simultaneously 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. 1989). Currently, 24 sites are known to contain Oregon chub; 15 of these sites are also

inhabited by non-native fishes or amphibians (Scheerer and Jones 1997). 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 in all of these sites. The 1996 flooding in the

Santiam River was probably responsible for three of these appearances of non-native fish

(Scheerer and Jones 1997). 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).

Many of the known extant populations of Oregon chub occur near rail, highway, and power

transmission corridors, as well as within public park and campground facilities. These

populations are threatened by stormwater runoff, chemical spills from overturned truck or rail

tankers, runoff or accidental spills of vegetation control chemicals, overflow from chemical

toilets in campgrounds, the sedimentation of shallow habitats from construction activities, and

changes in water level or flow conditions from construction, diversions, or natural desiccation.

Oregon chub populations near agricultural areas are subject to poor water quality as a result of

runoff laden with sediment, herbicide, and nutrients. Logging in the watershed can result in

increased sedimentation and herbicide runoff.

5.3.1.4 Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate), river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi),

and western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni)

Status

Three species of lamprey native to Oregon—Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook

lamprey—are currently not listed under the Federal or State ESA, but the limited available data

regarding these species indicates that current populations are well below historic levels (PSMFC

1997, Kostow 2002). On January 28, 2003, 11 conservation organizations in Oregon, California,

and Washington petitioned the USFWS to list the three species of lamprey as Federally

threatened or endangered. The USFWS is currently reviewing the petition and current status of

the three lamprey species to identify the need for Federal protection.

Lampreys became a conservation concern in the early 1990s when tribal co-managers and some

ODFW staff noted that populations of Pacific lampreys were apparently declining to perilously

low numbers (Kostow 2002). Pacific lamprey was listed as an Oregon State sensitive species in
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 143

1993 and was given further legal protection status by the State in 1997 (OAR 635-044-0130).

Lamprey status is difficult to assess for several reasons: 1) most observations of lampreys in

fresh water are juveniles and it is difficult to distinguish between various species at this life

stage; 2) data on lamprey are only collected incidental to monitoring of salmonids, and the

design and efficiency of the data collection effort is not always adequate for lampreys; and 3)

very little historic data is available on various lamprey species (Kostow 2002).

Life History

Oregon has between eight and twelve species of lamprey. The current distribution of Pacific

lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook lamprey is not fully understood due to a lack of

historic management attention and their phenotypic similarities to other lamprey species (Kostow

2002). Current information regarding the status of the three lamprey species is largely anecdotal,

and has been derived from sightings of the species during management activities intended for

other aquatic species. Lampreys occur in the Columbia River Basin, including the lower Snake

River; along the Oregon Coast; in the upper Klamath River Basin; and in the Goose Lake Basin

in southeastern Oregon. All lamprey species in Oregon begin life in fresh water, where juveniles

burrow into silt and filter feed on algae (Kostow 2002). As some species approach adulthood,

they migrate to marine or lacustrine environments where they briefly become ecto-parasites,

feeding on live fishes by attaching to them with sucker disc mouths (e.g., Pacific lamprey and

river lamprey). Other species remain non-parasitic (e.g., western brook lamprey).

Ammocoetes from different species are difficult to distinguish. Therefore, life history

descriptions tend to be generalized across all species (Moore and Mallatt 1980, Potter 1980). An

exception is the detailed observations of the Western brook lamprey, and to a lesser extent the

Pacific lamprey, made by Pletcher (1963). The major difference noted between species is the

duration of the ammocoete stage. A general description of ammocoete behavior and habitat use

is provided here—with specifics by species, to the extent that they are known, presented below.

The following descriptions largely follow Pletcher (1963) and Potter (1980).

Lamprey eggs are sticky and dense and are deposited in redds by spawning adults. Upon

completion of a redd, the eggs are buried beneath sand and gravel. The length of egg incubation

appears to be influenced by temperature, and perhaps varies by species, and falls between ten

and twenty days. Upon hatching, early larva spend another week to a month in the redd. They

eventually emerge from the natal redd at night and move downstream to areas with fine silt

deposits and a mild current where they burrow into the silt. At this age they are about 0.5 inch

long (Kostow 2002). Successful spawning grounds appear to be those located in riffle/gravel

areas close to pools or other silt deposits so that the initial movement into burrows by the tiny

larva is successful. The burrow is U-shaped, with the lamprey’s mouth at the surface of one end

from where it filter feeds.

For the next three to seven years (depending on species and regional variation), lamprey

ammocoetes will remain in burrows, filter feeding on algae, mostly diatoms. They will move

gradually downstream, moving primarily at night, seeking coarser sand/silt substrates and deeper

water as they grow. Older ammocoetes tend to accumulate in lower basins and flood plains.

Growth rate may vary seasonally, influenced by water temperature and food supply. The most
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 144

rapid increase in length occurs in the first years, during which ammocoetes of most species reach

about four inches in length. Lipid accumulation begins once the ammocoetes reach this size, and

growth rate in length declines in preparation for the non-feeding period of metamorphism. The

age of ammocoetes is very difficult to determine because the species lack bony structures.

The courtship and spawning behaviors of northwest lampreys have been described for only a few

species, and in some cases only in captivity. Pletcher (1963) described these behaviors for

Western brook lamprey in both captivity and the wild, and for Pacific lamprey mostly in

captivity. Beamish (1980) described the behaviors for captive river lamprey. There is enough

similarity between these descriptions that a single discussion is provided here.

Courtship occurs on spawning gravels and involves nest-building and mutual displays that are

tactile and probably chemical. Solitary males, and perhaps some females, may begin by

preparing multiple rudimentary nests. Either gender may initiate courtship by way of a

“courtship glide”, where one lamprey slithers along the body of a prospective mate. A receptive

mate will accompany the initiator to the rudimentary nest. Initial nests may be communal,

occupied by as many as a dozen individuals of both genders. Pletcher (1963) believed that

receptive females emits a chemical stimulus that attracts other lamprey. Communal courtship

generally breaks into pairs or smaller groups and disperses to separate nests before actual

spawning begins. The female lies in the rudimentary nest and undulates while the male performs

most of the nest building. Lamprey will carry small rocks to the edge of the nest in their oral

disks. Larger rocks may be pushed and finer substrates may be moved by rapid swimming

motions.

When the lampreys are ready to spawn the male grasps the female by the back of her head and

twists his tail around her. They vibrate together, depositing eggs and burying them. Spawning is

mostly done in pairs, but may include additional lamprey. Both polygamous and polyandrous

group matings have been observed. A female will deposit about 100 to 500 eggs in each

spawning bout. Between bouts, the female rests while the male departs briefly. He resumes nest

building upon return, enlarging the nest upstream so that previous egg deposits are undisturbed.

Another spawning bout will be followed by another rest. A female probably deposits all her eggs

in about 12 hours. Both sexes of all lampreys are expected to die soon after spawning. However,

ODFW staff on the southern Oregon coast have apparently observed healthy lamprey outmigrating to marine waters soon after spawning (Kostow 2002).

Limiting Factors

Lamprey and salmonids utilize similar freshwater habitats and are affected by similar effects

pathways; therefore lamprey species have encountered similar habitat problems. Historical

splash damming for logging operations has resulted in the scouring of substrates down to

bedrock in many locations inhabited by lamprey. This has resulted in the removal of habitat

necessary for the species’ early life cycles (PSMFC 1997). Dams can hinder adult and juvenile

passage or completely cut off prime spawning habitat. Logging and grazing practices can alter

stream flows and degrade habitat by removing riparian vegetation and altering stream channel

form.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 145

The first four to six years of life are critical times for lamprey species. Animals that filter water

and mud for food are very susceptible to pollutants in the water column and to sediments.

Lamprey may be adversely affected by pollutants from urban and agricultural runoff that can

concentrate in the sediments (PSMFC 2003). Because this species depends on muddy bottoms,

backwater areas, and low gradient areas during its juvenile life stage, it is susceptible to loss of

wetlands, side channels, back eddies, and beaver ponds resulting from agriculture, forestry,

urban development, or channelization for flood control (Kostow 2002). High stream

temperatures and lack of stream cover can also reduce the lampreys' food supply.

5.3.2 Analysis of Effects

5.3.2.1 Effects Pathways

Effects pathways to resident fish are the same as those described for the anadromous fish

functional group (Section 5.2.2). Essentially all effects are delivered via the displacement,

disruption, removal or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

The displacement and transport of soil can create turbidity and sedimentation within

stream channels and sloughs occupied by listed resident fish. The direct and indirect

effects (sub-lethal and lethal) of soil inputs to waterways occupied by resident fish

species are similar to those described for anadromous fish species (Section 5.2.2.1).

These include sedimentation of substrates necessary for spawning and macroinvertebrate

production, infilling of pools and other essential habitats such as sloughs, and the

displacement of individual fish. Resident fish may be more susceptible than anadromous

fish to soil effects such as turbidity, because they spend their entire lives in the streams

and waters that may be affected by bridge construction.

Water

Alterations to fluvial processes can have adverse effects on the habitat of listed resident

fish species. Alterations in channel hydraulics are triggered by the removal of habitat

elements which contribute to channel complexity, or by altering the flow regime of rivers

and streams. In addition, channel hydraulics can be modified by the introduction of

structures such as piers below the bankfull elevation. Changes to the hydrologic regimes

of lakes and streams are a potential pathway for these types of effects, providing both

sub-lethal and lethal effects on resident fish species.

Hydrologic alterations may be manifested as increases in the frequency and magnitude of

peak flows, as well as reductions of base flow levels. Increasing the magnitude of peak

flows will often result in channel scour and degradation, potentially leading to loss of

floodplain connectivity and overall habitat simplification (i.e., sub-lethal effects).

Decreasing base flows can allow water temperatures to increase beyond tolerable levels,

or even dewater sections of rivers and backwater areas, cutting off important habitat for

spawning and rearing (i.e., lethal effects). Desiccation of backwater habitats can greatly
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 146

affect species such as the Oregon chub, which is wholly dependent on this type of habitat

(Paul Sheerer, biologist, ODFW, pers. comm., November 27, 2003). For the primarily

lake-dwelling species (e.g., suckers), diminished flows at locations such as lake inlets

may reduce available refuge from low dissolved oxygen and high algal densities found

during warm summer months (USFWS 1993a).

Hydroacoustic effects can also be deleterious to resident fish species, causing acute

physiological damage to juvenile and adult fish, larvae, and incubating eggs. The

magnitude of the hydroacoustic disturbance and the proximity of the disturbance to

resident fish determines the level of effect on resident fish species (e.g., sub-lethal vs.

lethal).

Chemicals

The delivery of chemicals to streams and rivers has adverse effects on resident fish

species. Chemical contamination can alter fecundity, increase disease, shift biotic

communities, and reduce the overall health of resident fish species. The introduction of

chemicals can be acute, occurring as a result of an accidental spills or equipment leaks

during construction activities or the use of herbicide near streams. Chronic delivery of

chemical pollutants may also occur, as a result of increased stormwater runoff to

waterways. The effects of chemical contamination on resident fish habitat may be sublethal or lethal, and are generally correlated to the concentration of chemical

contaminants within the water column. Resident fish may be more susceptible than

anadromous fish to chronic chemical contamination, because they spend their entire lives

in the streams and waters that may be affected by bridge construction, whereas

anadromous fish spend much of their lives in larger rivers, estuaries and the open ocean.

Juvenile fish and larvae may be more sensitive than adult fish to chemical exposure

because they are more limited in their ability to disperse and avoid exposure.

Vegetation

Resident fish species and their habitats rely on plant material to provide and maintain

habitat elements and nutrient sources in the same manner as that described for

anadromous species (Section 5.2.2.1). In addition, some resident fish species are

somewhat more reliant on the presence of native aquatic vegetation for cover and food

throughout their life cycles, as opposed to anadromous fish, which spend much of their

life in larger rivers, estuaries and the open ocean. Thus, the removal of vegetation from

perennially and seasonally inundated habitats may have more acute and direct effects on

resident fish species than on anadromous species.

Species

As with anadromous fish species, direct effects on resident fish species can occur during

any activity that requires handling or that would otherwise displace them from cover,

refugia, and food sources. Direct effects may also occur if incubating eggs or larvae are
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 147

destroyed as a result of any activity. Indirect effects on species occur as a result of effects

delivered via any of the previously described pathways.

5.3.2.2 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

The effects of actions proposed under this consultation may be delivered by one or multiple

pathways. The degree to which Bridge Program affects resident fish populations or habitat is

dependent on the intensity, magnitude, duration, timing, and frequency of the activity causing the

effect. Efforts to minimize the effects on resident fish are focused on eliminating or restricting

the pathways by which the habitat elements critical for sustaining viable resident fish populations

can be degraded. Minimization and avoidance measures for the Bridge Program consist of

environmental performance standards that provide proactive methods for conservation of habitat

and species during bridge design and construction. Section 3.3 of this BA lists and defines the

environmental performance standards.

5.3.2.3 Effects on Environmental Baseline

Evaluation of potential effects from the proposed action on the resident fish functional group has

been completed by assessing the individual habitat elements critical for sustained viable

populations; the environmental performance standards proposed in this BA have been developed

to minimize Bridge Program effects on these critical habitat elements.

The habitat elements that support anadromous and resident fish species in freshwater habitats are

very similar. Furthermore, changes in freshwater habitat have similar repercussions for both

anadromous and resident fish. For actions that affect freshwater habitat, the USFWS has

developed a checklist for assessing and documenting environmental baseline conditions and

project effects on those baselines conditions in order to determine the overall effect a proposed

action will have on a resident fish species. The checklist incorporates the same 18 habitat

elements found in the NOAA Fisheries matrix for anadromous salmonids and incorporates five

additional parameters related to resident fish viability.

The USFWS has designated 23 distinct habitat parameters that influence the continued existence

of resident freshwater fish species. Effects on resident fish species are determined by the degree

to which a proposed action alters the baseline condition of these 23 habitat parameters. These

habitat parameters are intended to be assessed at the individual watershed (5th Field HUC) scale.

Due to the spatial scale of the Bridge Program and the broad habitat types and conditions

encompassed by the various bridge locations, effects on the baseline condition of these

parameters are analyzed by assessing the effect of general mitigated bridge activities on these

habitat parameters.

Subpopulation Characteristics

Subpopulation Size

The effects of an action on fish subpopulations have direct implications for the continued

survival of the species. Resident fish populations can be fragmented by natural or

anthropogenic causes. The known size of a subpopulation is important for determining
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 148

the level of effect relative to the overall species population. The resident fish species

addressed in this BA have relatively fragmented subpopulations as a result of long-term

anthropogenic effects on the species. Recovery goals for species such as Oregon chub

and bull trout include the strengthening of existing subpopulations and establishment of

new subpopulations within their range. Therefore, the effect of the proposed Bridge

Program on these species at the subpopulation level is critical in determining the overall

effect at the species level.

The proposed Bridge Program has been developed to minimize temporary (constructionrelated) and long-term (design-related) effects on Federally listed fish species. By

following the environmental performance standards, the proposed action will likely have

no long-term adverse affect on subpopulation levels of listed resident fish species.

Adherence to the environmental performance standards will avoid or minimize effects on

these populations to the maximum extent practicable. Some minor reductions in

subpopulations are expected, from unavoidable take associated with fish handling during

in-water work isolations activities, accidental spills of hazardous materials, or other

unforeseen construction accidents. However, based on current available information on

the distribution and size of species subpopulations and the broad spatial scale of the

Bridge Program coupled with the proposed environmental performance standards, the

Bridge Program is not expected to significantly reduce the size of current subpopulations

of any resident fish species.

Growth and Survival

Most fish species have the ability to adapt and recover from short-term disturbances to

their habitat. Disturbances over a variety of spatial and temporal scales have caused fish

species to adapt and evolve to achieve a certain level of resilience. However, the

intensity, frequency, and duration of disturbances have direct implications for the

continued growth and survival of a population or entire species. Anthropogenic

disturbance can limit the ability of resident fish species to adapt to natural disturbances.

In many cases the effects of natural disturbances on freshwater habitat are intensified by

the influence of anthropogenic disturbances.

The resident fish species addressed in this BA have varying levels of resilience against

short-term disturbance. However, because of their current listing status, these species are

considered to be very sensitive to both short-term and long-term disturbances. Species

distribution, habitat requirements, and the degree of existing and new disturbance play a

large role in determining the ability for a species to recover and survive disturbing events.

The program bridges are widely distributed throughout Oregon, though they are

concentrated near the two major interstate systems (I-5 and I-84). Bridge work will occur

in many areas known to sustain listed resident fish species. The distribution of proposed

bridge work and species occurrence across the state, combined with implementation of

the proposed environmental performance standards, is expected to minimize the potential

adverse effects of the proposed action on this parameter. While some minor, short-term

adverse effects on the growth and survival of some resident fish subpopulations may
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 149

occur, it is expected that the long-term effects will either be neutral or beneficial for all

bridges covered by this consultation.

Life History Diversity and Isolation:

Relative to their historic distribution, the Federally listed resident fish species addressed

in this BA are isolated and subject to reduced genetic diversity. Habitat fragmentation

and population isolation are key components of the decline of bull trout, Oregon chub,

Lost River sucker, and shortnose sucker. In some cases, historic distribution was limited

to a single ecoregion or drainage basin. However, even in these cases, the relative

reduction in distribution and the loss of habitat within these critical areas has led to the

isolation of these species (and sub-populations) relative to their historic ranges.

The proposed action presents a relatively small area of potential effect in terms of species

distributions and watershed-scale habitat elements. However, a concentration of bridge

activities within one watershed or area supporting a key metapopulation of resident fish

species could have significant effects on the entire species. To minimize the effects of the

Bridge Program on resident fish species, environmental performance standards have been

proposed for bridges qualifying under this consultation. For example, the bridges will not

create permanent barriers to fish passage or to the movement of key habitat components

(e.g., large wood, substrate materials). Impediments may exist temporarily, during work

isolation activities that alter existing flow and channel conditions. However, due to the

location of proposed bridge work, the existing ranges of listed resident fish, and the

implementation of environmental performance standards, the proposed Bridge Program is

not expected to adversely affect the existing diversity or isolation level for resident fish

species. In some cases, the replacement of bridges that are currently impeding properly

functioning habitat conditions may actually improve this parameter.

Persistence and Genetic Integrity:

Low levels of subpopulation connectivity and high levels of habitat fragmentation have

reduced the condition of this parameter for Federally listed resident fish species within

Oregon. In addition, competing species have displaced or hybridized these populations,

which has led to decreases in some subpopulation sizes and in genetic integrity.

The listed resident fish species addressed in this BA have specific habitat requirements

that have been and are affected by historic and current land uses. Specifically, bull trout

require colder water temperatures and cleaner substrates than other species in order to

complete their life cycles. Oregon chub require functioning off-channel habitat associated

with large lowland river reaches within the Willamette River basin. Lost River and

shortnose suckers require specific temperature and flow conditions that are often

disrupted by agricultural practices within the Klamath River basin. These species-specific

habitat requirements, coupled with anthropogenic habitat degradation, have led to

reductions in genetic integrity and subpopulation persistence.

The Bridge Program has been developed to protect, and in some cases improve, the

lateral and longitudinal connectivity of fluvial systems. Specifically, the proposed Fluvial

Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3) will allow normative physical
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 150

processes within the stream-floodplain corridor by (1) promoting natural sediment

transport patterns, (2) providing improved conditions for fluvial debris movement, and

(3) improving the longitudinal continuity and connectivity of the stream-floodplain

system. Implementation of this standard will improve existing subpopulation connectivity

where bridges proposed for replacement impair the normative physical processes within

the subject stream-floodplain corridor. The effects of construction on these areas will also

be minimized by implementation of the other environmental performance standards

(Section 3.3). Because the proposed action will follow the environmental performance

standards to ensure that both short- and long-term adverse effects are minimized or

avoided, the proposed action is not expected to have long-term adverse effects on the

genetic integrity and persistence of any resident fish subpopulations.

Species and Habitat

Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions

The habitat elements that support subpopulations of listed resident fish have been

disrupted by human influence to the extent that there is a clear declining trend in

subpopulation size for all of the resident fish species addressed in this BA. The decline in

these subpopulations and their habitat represents a long-term trend beginning with

European settlement of the Pacific Northwest in the late nineteenth century, and

continuing to the present. The cumulative effect of this ongoing trend has caused many

subpopulations of resident fish to respond negatively to natural environmental

disturbances (e.g., periodic flooding, seasonal reductions in water quality, wildfire).

The habitat requirements, location, and life history strategies of all of the listed fish

species addressed in this BA (both resident and anadromous) have been taken into

account in the development of environmental performance standards for the Bridge

Program. These performance standards will minimize and, in most cases, avoid adverse

effects of construction or repair of program bridges to listed resident fish species. To

some degree, most of the bridges proposed for replacement or repair currently impair the

function of the fluvial systems they span, and as a result, threaten the long-term viability

of listed resident fish species. By applying environmental performance standards to the

replacement and repair of program bridges, the chances for long-term survival of listed

resident fish will likely be increased by removing existing impediments to proper habitat

function, and improving the conditions under which functioning habitats develop.

Water Quality

Temperature: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Sediment/Turbidity: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Chemical Contamination: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 151

Habitat Access

Physical Barriers: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Habitat Elements

Substrate: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Large Wood: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Pool Frequency and Quality: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Off-Channel Habitat: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Refugia: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Width/Depth Ratio: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Streambank Condition: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Floodplain Connectivity: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Flow/Hydrology

Peak/Base Flows: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Drainage Network: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Watershed Conditions

Road Density and Location: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

Disturbance History: See Analysis of Effects section 5.2.2.

5.3.3 Determination of Effects Methodology

The implementation of the Bridge Program will occur over an eight to nine year period, and the

duration of its potential effects will be limited by the temporal nature of the construction.

Furthermore, the construction of each bridge will be a one-time event, and the actual work will

span only one or two construction seasons. Potential effects on resident fish species resulting

from proposed bridge work are identical to those that affect anadromous fish in that they include

those that occur during the construction process (i.e., increases in turbidity, chemical

contamination, and direct physical harm from construction materials or fish handling

procedures), and those that occur as a result of habitat changes from the constructed bridge (i.e.,

channel constriction, floodplain fragmentation, and streambank degradation). Environmental

performance standards have been developed to guide the implementation of conservation
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 152

measures to minimize the effects of bridge construction and design on these species. These

standards aim to minimize disturbance of the key habitat components for resident fish before,

during, and after construction.

The screening of effects from the proposed action on bull trout and Oregon chub was developed

using a process that was more geographically specific than the methods used for anadromous fish

(ESUs) and suckers (4th Field HUCs). Bull trout and Oregon chub screening was completed by

using specific management protocols and information from agency experts. The following

paragraphs describe the effect screening process for these two fish species.

Bull trout in Oregon are part of either the Columbia River or the Klamath River DPS; there are

22 recovery units within the Columbia River DPS, and one recovery unit in the Klamath River

DPS. Recovery units are composed of core areas, core habitats, and proposed critical habitat. The

screening of bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect bull trout was completed

by determining which bridges occurred in bull trout core areas and proposed critical habitat.

Bridges outside of this designation were considered to have no effect on bull trout.

According to Scheerer et al. (2003), Oregon chub are endemic to the Willamette Valley of

western Oregon. The species was formerly distributed throughout the Willamette Valley from

Oregon City to Oakridge, in off-channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows, stable backwater

sloughs, and flooded marshes. Currently, there are 32 known populations of Oregon chub; eight

are introduced populations.

Survey data were gathered by Scheerer et al. (2003) from the 40 OTIA III bridge sites within the

Willamette Basin that are scheduled to begin construction in 2004. Each surveyed site was given

a ranking of High, Medium, or Low to describe the relative quality of habitat for Oregon chub.

The three rankings are generally defined as follows:

High – Oregon chub present or site determined suitable habitat for chub

Medium – Habitat not significantly degraded; most suitable for other native species such

as salmonids (e.g., fast water); not suitable for Oregon chub

Low – Site dominated by non-native fish species, and lacking in essential habitat

elements such as water (i.e., dry channels), or otherwise degraded (e.g., ongoing grazing

and/or cattle access) at the time of the survey

The remaining Willamette River Basin bridge sites that are suspected to either be occupied by

Oregon chub or to encompass suitable habitat will be surveyed in 2004. The remaining bridges to

be surveyed will begin construction no sooner than 2005. This survey and construction schedule

will facilitate application of the appropriate environmental performance standards to protect

Oregon chub and their habitat.

Bridges meeting the following criteria were determined to potentially affect Oregon chub:

• Bridges within the Willamette River Basin, south of the Santiam River confluence

(Paul Scheerer, Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm.,

January 26, 2004);
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 153

• Bridge sites within the Basin and documented by Scheerer et al. (2003) as containing

Oregon chub and/or having a habitat ranking of “Medium” or “High” quality;

• Bridges located below 1,640 feet elevation; and

• Bridges that cross waterbodies.

Conservation measures described in the environmental performance standards will limit fish

deaths to the few associated with fish capture and release activities and the isolation of in-water

work areas. All other direct adverse effects will likely be transitory, and both juvenile and adult

fish should be able to avoid them by bypassing or temporarily leaving the proposed action area,

resulting in non-lethal take.

The isolation of in-water work areas and subsequent fish handling procedures are assumed to be

the components of the program with the greatest potential to result in lethal and sub-lethal take of

listed resident fish. The most appropriate type of fish handling and removal technique will be

carried out for each species according to the recommendations of ODFW regional biologists.

Given the lack of a comprehensive dataset regarding the density and range of resident fish

populations throughout the extent of the Bridge Program, the dynamic life histories of these

species, their seasonal migration behavior (i.e., bull trout and suckers), and the lack of

commercial/sport fishing hatchery supplementation and hatchery population data, estimating the

level of take from these activities requires certain assumptions to be made. Review of previous

ESA consultations regarding similar actions within the range of Federally listed resident fish

provides guidance for estimating take from projects requiring in-water work, stream diversion,

and fish handling/salvage. Estimates using these assumptions are presented below.

Lethal Take

ODOT/FHWA has made the following assumptions to quantify the level of lethal take for each

species within this functional group based on Bridge Program data analysis and review of ESA

consultations for similar actions:

Bull Trout

All water-spanning bridges within a bull trout DPS will require in-water work area

isolation and possibly fish capture and release.

Each project requiring in-water work area isolation within a bull trout core area is likely

to capture up to 20 bull trout adults and juveniles (in aggregate);

Of the 20 bull trout to be captured and handled in this way, 98% 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).

The higher estimate of six percent lethal take per 20 bull trout will be used for bridges

requiring in-water work, to allow for variations in experience and work conditions, to

provide coverage for unforeseen takings from bridge construction with no in-water work,

and to account for those bridges which may require minor in-water work extensions and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 154

more than one in-water work operation. Even if monitoring proves the six percent death

rate to be accurate, isolation of in-water work area activities will not affect Federally

listed bull trout at the population level.

Suckers

All bridges that are within the range of Federally listed suckers or are within 2 miles of

(and drain to) the range of Federally listed suckers will require in-water work area

isolation and possibly fish capture and release.

Each project requiring in-water work area isolation within the range of the Lost River

sucker and shortnose sucker is likely to capture up to 20 adult and juvenile (in aggregate)

Federally listed suckers;

Of the 20 Federally listed suckers to be captured and handled in this way, 98% 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).

The higher estimate of six percent lethal take per 20 Federally listed suckers will be used

for bridges requiring in-water work to allow for variations in personnel experience and

work conditions, to provide coverage for unforeseen takings from bridge construction

with no in-water work, and to account for the estimated 30 percent of program bridges

which may require minor in-water work extensions. Even if monitoring proves the six

percent death rate to be accurate, isolation of in-water work area activities will not affect

Federally listed Lost River and shortnose suckers at the population level.

Oregon chub

In-water work area isolation and possibly fish capture and release will be required for all

of the bridges within the range of Oregon chub that span water or directly affect offchannel habitat.

Each project requiring in-water work area isolation or disturbance to off-channel habitat

within the range of the Oregon chub is likely to capture up to 100 Oregon chub adults and

juveniles (in aggregate) (Paul Scheerer, Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, pers. comm., January 26, 2004).

Of the 100 Oregon chub to be captured and handled in this way, 99% or more are

expected to survive with no long-term effects and less than one percent are expected to be

injured or killed (including those that die later as a result of injury).

The higher estimate of two percent lethal take per 100 Oregon chub will be used for

bridges requiring in-water work or disturbance of off-channel habitat to allow for

variations in experience and work conditions, to provide coverage for unforeseen takings

from bridge construction with no in-water work, and to account for those bridges which

may require minor in-water work extensions. Even if monitoring proves the six percent
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 155

death rate to be accurate, isolation of in-water work area activities will not affect

Federally listed Oregon chub at the population level.

Streambank Disturbance

ODOT/FHWA has estimated the amount of streambank disturbance that is likely to occur at

bridges that cross water. Permanent disturbance is defined as the additional area that results

when the replacement bridge footprint is larger than the original bridge footprint. Temporary

disturbance is defined as the area on one or both sides of a bridge where temporary work bridges,

detour bridges, falsework, and access roads may be constructed. These areas will be disturbed

during construction only, and will be re-contoured and re-vegetated to replace properly

functioning streambank elements following construction. While these numbers cannot be used to

estimate lethal or non-lethal take of resident fish, they can give an estimate of the magnitude of

likely construction disturbance.

Permanent Disturbance Assumptions

Only bridges crossing perennial streams or waters may affect streambanks that provide

habitat functions to fish.

Each bridge will be widened by an average of 20 feet to include lane width and shoulder

increases for safety purposes.

Both banks of the stream crossing will be affected equally by width increases, for a total

of 40 feet of permanent streambank disturbance at each bridge site over perennial streams

or waters. It is assumed that permanent riparian disturbance may extend up to 150 feet

away from the streambank. This will provide an estimate of the potential area of

permanent riparian disturbance.

Temporary Disturbance Assumptions

Only bridges crossing perennial streams or waters may affect streambanks that provide

habitat functions to fish.

All bridges over perennial streams or waters will have the following temporary structures

installed during construction:

• One 40-foot wide work bridge

• One 40-foot wide detour bridge

• One 30-foot wide access road

• 30 feet of fill materials (e.g., for temporary detour bridge approach

embankments)

• Bridge falsework that results in 10 feet of disturbance

The temporary disturbance on each side will total 150 feet. Both banks of the stream

crossing will be affected equally by temporary structures, for a total of 300 feet of
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 156

temporary streambank disturbance at each bridge site over perennial streams. It is

assumed that temporary riparian disturbance may extend up to 150 feet away from the

streambank. This will provide an estimate of the potential area of temporary riparian

disturbance.

5.3.4 Bull Trout

Columbia River Bull Trout DPS

There are 271 bridges within the range of the Columbia River DPS for bull trout (Figure 5.3.4-1;

Table 5.3.4-1). Of these, 80 are bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect the

Columbia River DPS. Of these, there are seven bridges in the West Cascades ecoregion, 10 in

the High Lava Plains ecoregion, six in the East Cascades ecoregion, six in the Columbia Basin

ecoregion, 21 in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, two in the Owyhee Uplands ecoregion, and 28

in the Blue Mountains ecoregion (Table 5.3.4-2).

Within the Columbia River recovery unit, no bridges occur in, or within 2 miles of, a core area.

Two bridges within this recovery unit are located within 2 miles of critical habitat.

Within the Deschutes River Basin recovery unit, there are 14 bridges. Five bridges occur in, or

within 2 miles of, the Lower Deschutes core area. Of the bridges located within 2 miles of this

core area, one bridge also occurs within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat. Three bridges occur

within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat but are greater than 2 miles from any core area.

Within the Grande Ronde River Basin recovery unit, there are 13 bridges, all of which occur in,

or within 2 miles of, the Grande Ronde River core area. Of the bridges located within 2 miles of

this core area, 12 bridges also occur within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat.

Within the Hells Canyon Complex recovery unit, there are 11 bridges. Seven bridges occur in, or

within 2 miles of, the Powder River core area. Of the bridges located within 2 miles of this core

area, three bridges also occur within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat.
LAKE

HARNEY

MALHEUR

LANE

GRANT

KLAMATH

LINN

DOUGLAS

BAKER

CROOK

UMATILLA

UNION

WASCO

WALLOWA

DESCHUTES

JACKSON

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

screening/BA Figures/b_trout.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.4-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Bull Trout

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

Washington

Ida

h

o

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of DPS

Potential to Affect - Within DPS

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Migration Corridor

No Potential to Affect

Bull Trout Proposed Critical Habitat

Bull Trout DPS

Bull Trout Core Areas

City

County

Highway

Streams and Rivers

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 158

Table 5.3.4-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Bull Trout.

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9870 Hwy 51 NB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. wi2 07794A Hwy 51 SB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. wi3 07794B Hwy 51 SB 3 Abernethy Cr. Coffee Lake Cr. wi4 8071 Unknown 3 Abiqua Cr./Pudding R. Upper Little Pudding R. wi5 8073 Unknown 3 Abiqua Cr./Pudding R. Upper Little Pudding R. wi6 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. wi7 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Tide Cr. w8 03553A Beech Cr. 3 Beech Cr. Clear Cr. Re9 2561 E. Fk. Birch Cr. (Pilot Rock) 3 Birch Cr. Lower E. Birch Cr. Re

10 7372 Bridge Cr. 3 Bridge Cr. Upper Bridge Cr. wi11 7490 Bridge Cr. 3 Bridge Cr. Upper Bridge Cr. wi12 7491 Bridge Cr. 3 Bridge Cr. Upper Bridge Cr. wi13 08232N Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr. wi14 08232S Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr. wi15 8252 Hwy 1 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi16 08236N Calapooia R. 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. wi
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 159

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

17 08236S Calapooia R. 4 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. within a Rec18 08239N Sodom Ditch Overflow 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. within a Rec19 08239S Sodom Ditch Overflow 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. within a Rec20 08241N Courtney Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. within a Rec21 08241S Courtney Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Courtney Cr. within a Rec22 08233N Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch within a Rec23 08233S Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch within a Rec24 08235N Calapooia Overflow 5 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch within a Rec25 08235S Calapooia Overflow 5 Calapooia R. Calapooia R. / Sodom Ditch within a Rec26 03558A Canyon Cr. 3 Canyon Cr. Lower Canyon Cr. within 2 mil27 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR (Dodson) 10 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Hamilton Cr. within 2 mil28 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 mil29 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 mil30 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 mil
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 160

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

31 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 Columbia Gorge Tributaries Tanner Cr. within 2 mil32 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within a Rec33 8197 Unknown 13 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within a Rec34 08588B Unknown 16 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within a Rec35 09254D SW Market St 2 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough within a Rec36 02163A Unknown 11 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within a Rec37 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within 2 mil38 13514E Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & #2 8 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. within a Rec39 6204 Smith Cr. 1 Cottonwood Cr. Upper Fox Cr. Recovery U40 6205 Fox Cr. 1 Cottonwood Cr. Upper Fox Cr. Recovery U41 1825 Crescent Cr. 3 Crescent Cr. Middle Crescent Cr. within 2 mil42 2366 E. Fk. Dairy Cr. 4 Dairy Cr. Lower E. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. within a Rec43 2367 PNWR (Vadis) 8 Dairy Cr. Lower E. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 161

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

44 2365 McKay Cr. 5 Dairy Cr. Lower Mckay Cr. within a Rec45 02362A Unknown 4 Dairy Cr. Middle W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. within a Rec46 2672 Unknown 5 Dairy Cr. Upper W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. within a Rec47 2673 Unknown 5 Dairy Cr. Upper W. Fk. Of Dairy Cr. within a Rec48 1826 Odell Cr. 3 Deschutes R./Browns Cr. Middle Odell Cr. within 2 mil49 8888 N. Unit Canal & Swalley Canal 3 Deschutes R./Mckenzie Canyon Deschutes Junction within a Rec50 01675B Pilot Butte Canal 2 Deschutes R./Mckenzie Canyon Deschutes Junction within a Rec51 7017 Unknown 4 Detroit Reservoir/Blow Out Divide Cr. Detroit Reservoir/French Cr. within a Rec52 7295 Unknown 3 Detroit Reservoir/Blow Out Divide Cr. Detroit Reservoir/French Cr. within a Rec53 7964 Unknown 17 Detroit Reservoir/Blow Out Divide Cr. Detroit Reservoir/Kinney Cr. within a Rec54 00308A Fifteen Miles Cr. 5 Fifteenmiles Cr. Lower Fifteenmiles Cr. within 2 mil55 8502 Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) 4 Grande Ronde R./Beaver Cr. Grande Ronde R./Hilgard within 2 mil56 04841A Grande Ronde R. (Hilgard) 3 Grande Ronde R./Beaver Cr. Grande Ronde R./Hilgard within 2 mil
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 162

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

57 1996 Grande Ronde R. (Northeast Elgin)

4 Grande Ronde R./Cabin Cr. Grande Ronde R./Partridge Cr. within 2 mil

58 04821A Grande Ronde R. (Island City) 3 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Haywire Canyon within 2 mil59 8431 Unknown 7 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Wright Slough within 2 mil60 08431A Unknown 4 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Grande Ronde R./Wright Slough within 2 mil61 00449A Emigrant Hill Frtg Rd & UPRR (Glover) 5 Grande Ronde R./Five Points Cr. Pelican Cr. Recovery U62 8780 Grande Ronde R. & INP RR, Hwy 10 (Indian Cr.) 6 Grande Ronde R./Indian Cr. Grande Ronde R./Lower Clark Cr. within 2 mil63 00800A Grande Ronde R. (South Elgin) 6 Grande Ronde R./Indian Cr. Grande Ronde R./Lower Clark Cr. within 2 mil64 7171 Private Logging Rd. 3 Hills Cr. Reservoir Middle Fk. Willamette R. / Gray Cr. within 2 mil65 7894 Willamette R. (Barnard) 8 Hills Cr. Reservoir Middle Fk. Willamette R. / Gray Cr. within 2 mil66 7458 UPRR 6 Hood R. Lower Hood R. within 2 mil67 8662 UPRR 10 Hood R. Lower Hood R. within 2 mil68 2655 John Day R. (Goose Rock) 6 John Day R./Johnson Cr. Johnny Cr. within 2 mil
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 163

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

69 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. within a Rec70 08205R Unknown 6 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R. within a Rec71 7301 Algoma Log Pond 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5miles 1 within a Rec72 7302 Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5miles 1 within a Rec73 8345 USBR Canal 4 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5miles 1 within a Rec74 8352 UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) 4 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5miles 1 within a Rec75 8510 Unknown 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5miles 1 within a Rec76 7696 John Day R. (Coles) 3 Laycock Cr. Lower Beech Cr. within 2 mil77 7347 Unknown 7 Little N. Santiam R. Lower Little N. Santiam R. within a Rec78 7929 UPRR 8 Little Walker Mountain Corral Springs within a Rec79 7984 Hwy 4 SB 3 Little Walker Mountain N. Paunina within a Rec80 4041 Bear Cr. 7 Long Tom R. Long Tom R./Bear Cr. within a Rec81 2262 COR (Oakhill) 8 Long Tom R. Lower Coyote Cr. within a Rec82 4056 Hayes Cr. 1 Long Tom R. Upper Coyote Cr. within a Rec83 7573 Lostine R. 3 Lostine R. Lower Lostine R. within 2 mil84 9354 Lime Intchg Conn 4 Lower Burnt R. Burnt R./Jett Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 164

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

85 01786A Burnt R. (Dixie Cr.) 3 Lower Burnt R. Burnt R./Jett Cr. within a Rec86 4728 Camas Cr. 4 Lower Camas Cr. Bridge within 2 mil87 7867 UPRR Mainline 5 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. within a Rec88 01439A Rock Cr. 3 Lower Clackamas R. Clackamas R. / Rock Cr. within a Rec89 07736A Camas Swale 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Camas Swale Cr. within a Rec90 07736C Camas Swale 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Camas Swale Cr. within a Rec91 07739A Hwy 1 (Creswell) 7 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Bear Cr. within a Rec92 07740A Hill Cr. 1 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Bear Cr. within a Rec93 07740C Hill Cr. 1 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Bear Cr. within a Rec94 07743A Tunnel Mill Race 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Bear Cr. within a Rec95 07745A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 8 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Bear Cr. within a Rec96 07756A Coast Fk. Relief Opening 4 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Bear Cr. within a Rec97 7825 Hwy 1 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Hill Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 165

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

98 07757A Gettings Cr. 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Hill Cr. within a Rec99 07757B Gettings Cr. 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Hill Cr. within a Rec

100 07793A Brown Cr. 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Hill Cr. within a Rec101 07793B Brown Cr. 3 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Hill Cr. within a Rec102 5286 Coast Fk. Willamette R. 7 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Papenfus Cr. Recovery U103 05285A Coast Fk. Willamette R. Relief Opening 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Papenfus Cr. Recovery U104 05287B Willamette R. Relief Opening 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Papenfus Cr. Recovery U105 06836A Franklin Blvd & UPRR (Goshen) 5 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Papenfus Cr. within 2 mil106 07732A Hwy 18 & Conn 6 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Papenfus Cr. within 2 mil107 07732B Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen Grade) 6 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R./Papenfus Cr. within 2 mil108 7768 BNSF (Terrebonne) 4 Lower Crooked R. Grasslands Lower Crooked R. Gorge within 2 mil109 02233A Harper Cr. 3 Lower John Day R./Kahler Harper Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 166

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

Cr.

110 04979A Juniper Cr. 4 Lower John Day R./Kahler Cr. Harper Cr. within a Rec111 04981A Mathas Cr. 3 Lower John Day R./Kahler Cr. Harper Cr. within a Rec112 2235 Mule Shoe Cr. 3 Lower John Day R./Service Cr. Service Cr. within a Rec113 02236A Alder Cr. 5 Lower John Day R./Service Cr. Service Cr. within a Rec114 01324A Gate Cr. (Vida) 4 Lower Mckenzie R. Gate Cr. within 2 mil115 1516 EWEB Canal (Walterville) 3 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal within 2 mil116 08175N McKenzie R. & Frtg Rd (Spores) 11 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal within 2 mil117 08175S McKenzie R. & Frtg Rd (Spores) 11 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal within 2 mil118 08178N McKenzie Overflow 4 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal within 2 mil119 08178S McKenzie Overflow 4 Lower Mckenzie R. Mckenzie R. / Walterville Canal within 2 mil120 7110 UPRR (Pleasant Hill) 8 Lower Middle Fk. Of Willamette R. Rattlesnake Cr. within 2 mil121 8121 Santiam Overflow No 2 6 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 167

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

122 8122 Santiam Overflow No 3 3 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. within a Rec123 8124 Santiam Overflow No 4 5 Lower N. Santiam R. Lower N. Santiam R. within a Rec124 2201 Ochoco Cr. 1 Lower Ochoco Cr. Ochoco Main Canal\Lower Ochoco Cr. within 2 mil125 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 mil126 6945 Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 mil127 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 mil128 06945A Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. within 2 mil129 00815A Trout Cr., Hwy 4 5 Lower Trout Cr. Trout Cr. Recovery U130 2285 SW Canyon Rd (Sylvan) 4 Lower Tualatin R. Fanno Cr. within a Rec131 16453 Hwy 70 EB 3 Lower Umatilla R. Lower Umatilla R./Columbia R. within 2 mil132 16454 Hwy 70 EB 3 Lower Umatilla R. Lower Umatilla R./Columbia R. within 2 mil133 2184 Wallowa R. (Bear Cr.) 5 Lower Wallowa R. Wallowa R./Water Canyon within 2 mil134 02585A Kern Cr. 1 Lower Willow Cr. Kern Cr. within a Rec135 02586A Lancaster Cr. 1 Lower Willow Cr. Kern Cr. within a Rec136 8616 Hwy 1W SB 10 Marys R. Lower Marys R. within a Rec137 8617 WPRR 3 Marys R. Lower Marys R. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 168

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

138 01075A Marys R. (Noon) 3 Marys R. Middle Marys R. within a Rec139 01205A Harris Rd & WPRR (Wren Conn) 6 Marys R. Upper Marys R. within a Rec140 00866B Marys R. & WPRR 6 Marys R. Upper Marys R. / Horton Cr. within a Rec141 8050 McKay Cr. 3 Mckay Cr. Mckay Cr./Umatilla R. Recovery U142 01323A Blue R. Bridge 2 Mckenzie R./Quartz Cr. Mckenzie R. / Elk Cr. within 2 mil143 08498E Frtg Rd & UPRR (Meacham) 6 Meacham Cr. Beaver Cr. Recovery U144 08498W Frtg Rd & UPRR (Meacham) 6 Meacham Cr. Beaver Cr. Recovery U145 8605 Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100

4 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 mil

146 8610 Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 mil147 8623 Herman Cr. Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 mil148 08605W Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 mil149 08610W Moody St (Cascade Locks) 5 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Carson Cr. within 2 mil150 07403A Herman Cr. 3 Middle Columbia/Eagle Cr. Herman Cr. within 2 mil
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 169

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

151 8534 Conn Viento Intchg 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within 2 mil152 8604 Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within 2 mil153 07496A Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Grays Cr. within 2 mil154 7398 Conn 2 3 Middle Columbia/Grays Cr. Rowena Cr. within 2 mil155 8276 Hostetler Way Conn 3 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Columbia R./Murdock within 2 mil156 7771 The Dalles Dam Access Conn 1 Middle Columbia/Mill Cr. Middle Columbia/Threemiles Cr. within 2 mil157 6768 Lost Cr. 5 Middle Fk. Willamette/Lookout Point Lost Cr. within 2 mil158 00665B Alder Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Lower Middle Sandy R. within a Rec159 00689B Wildcat Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Upper Middle Sandy R. within a Rec160 2015 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./S. Yamhill R. Lower Mill Cr. within a Rec161 01756A Unknown 5 Mill Cr./S. Yamhill R. Lower Mill Cr. within a Rec162 8076 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Beaver Cr. within a Rec163 7439 Mill Cr. 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Lower Mill Cr./Willamette R. within a Rec164 07439A Mill Cr. 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Lower Mill Cr./Willamette R. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 170

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

165 07524B Commercial St SE 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Mckinney Cr. within a Rec166 8069 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Upper Mill Cr./Willamette R. within a Rec167 8070 Unknown 3 Mill Cr./Willamette R. Upper Mill Cr./Willamette R. within a Rec168 5192 Minam Viaduct 8 Minam R. Lower Minam R. within 2 mil169 01038A Wallowa R. 6 Minam R. Lower Minam R. within 2 mil170 7393 Mosier Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. within 2 mil171 07626A Unknown 4 Mosier Cr. Lower Mosier Cr. within 2 mil172 7392 Rock Cr. 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. within 2 mil173 7397 Unknown 3 Mosier Cr. Rock Cr. within 2 mil174 08171N Muddy Cr. 3 Muddy Cr. Lower Muddy Cr. / Dry Muddy Cr. within a Rec175 08171S Muddy Cr. 3 Muddy Cr. Lower Muddy Cr. / Dry Muddy Cr. within a Rec176 8329 Willamette R. & Hwy 15 & UPRR 19 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil177 8445 Hwy 1 7 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil178 8870 Hwy 225 Conn (McVay Access) 1 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil179 9587 Unknown 4 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 171

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

180 08180N McKenzie Overflow 3 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil181 08180S McKenzie Overflow 3 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil182 08182N UPRR (Abandoned) & Game Farm Rd 6 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil183 08182S UPRR (Abandoned) & Game Farm Rd 6 Muddy Cr. Upper Willamette / Spring Cr. within 2 mil184 4729 N. Fk. John Day R. (Dale) 5 N. Fk. John Day R./Potamus Cr. Deerhorn within 2 mil185 07292B UPRR (North Powder) 3 N. Powder R. Lower N. Powder R. within 2 mil186 9413 Calapooia Overflow 5 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. within a Rec187 9414 Calapooia Overflow 3 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. within a Rec188 12205B Calapooia R. 8 Oak Cr. Calapooia R. within a Rec189 08226N AERC (Tallman Branch) 5 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. within a Rec190 08226S AERC (Tallman Branch) 5 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. within a Rec191 08227N Oak Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. within a Rec192 08227S Oak Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr. within a Rec193 8217 Murder Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec194 8223 Unknown 6 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 172

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

195 08218A Murder Cr. Rd 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec196 08218B Hwy 1 SB over 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec197 08221A Knox Butte Rd (N. Albany Intchg) 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec198 08221B Hwy 58 NB (N. Albany Intchg) 4 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec199 08221C Knox Butte Rd (N. Albany Intchg) 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec200 08221D Hwy 58 NB (N. Albany Intchg) 4 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec201 08221E Knox Butte Rd (N Albany Int) 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec202 08222N Cox Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec203 08222S Cox Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R. within a Rec204 08302E Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 5 Powder R./Salisbury Ebell Cr. Recovery U205 08302W Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 5 Powder R./Salisbury Ebell Cr. Recovery U206 7316 Powder R. (Rancheria) 3 Powder R./Salisbury Powder R./Stices Gulch within 2 mil207 7431 Powder R. (Salisbury) 3 Powder R./Salisbury Powder R./Stices Gulch within 2 mil
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 173

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

208 7987 Pritchard Cr. & UPRR 6 Pritchard Cr. Pritchard Cr. within a Rec209 07987A Pritchard Cr. & UPRR 6 Pritchard Cr. Pritchard Cr. within a Rec210 08423E Alder Cr. Rd 3 Pritchard Cr. Upper Alder Cr. Recovery U211 08423W Alder Cr. Rd 3 Pritchard Cr. Upper Alder Cr. Recovery U212 7941 Unknown 5 Rickreall Cr. Bashaw Cr. within a Rec213 02734A Rock Cr. (Picture Gorge) 3 Rock Cr. Lower Rock Crek within 2 mil214 7830 OP&ERR (Abandoned) 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec215 7832 Unknown 6 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec216 07828B Cr. 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec217 07829A Row R. 5 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec218 07833A Row R. Rd 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec219 07833B Row R. Rd 3 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec220 07871A Row R. Overflow 6 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec221 07871B Row R. Overflow 6 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake within a Rec222 1706 Soda Fk. 3 S. Santiam R. Soda Fk. within a Rec223 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver within 2 mil224 2001 Unknown 3 Salt Cr./S. Yamhill R. Upper Salt Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 174

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

225 7188 Half Viaduct 9 Salt Cr./Willamette R. Middle Salt Cr. Recovery U226 7970 Hwy 6 5 Snake R./Jacobsen Gulch Jacobsen Gulch within a Rec227 7971 Doman Rd. 3 Snake R./Jacobsen Gulch Jacobsen Gulch within a Rec228 08107E Snake R. 10 Snake R./Locket Gulch Plummer Slough within a Rec229 08107W Snake R. 10 Snake R./Locket Gulch Plummer Slough within a Rec230 08397E UPRR (Ore-Ida) 3 Snake R./Locket Gulch Plummer Slough within a Rec231 08397W UPRR (Ore-Ida) 3 Snake R./Locket Gulch Plummer Slough within a Rec232 01961A Stinkingwater Cr. 3 Stinkingwater Cr. Lower Stinkingwater Cr. Recovery U233 2463 Indian Cr. 3 Strawberry Cr. Castle Cr. within 2 mil234 2466 Dixie Cr. (Prairie City) 3 Strawberry Cr. Dixie Meadows within 2 mil235 9314 Hwy 6 (Stanfield Jct Intchg) 4 Umatilla R./Alkali Canyon Furnish Ditch/Umatilla R. within 2 mil236 9636 Unknown 4 Umatilla R./Mission Cr. Mission Cr. within 2 mil237 07809A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin Cr. within a Rec238 07809B Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin Cr. within a Rec239 07810A Latham Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 175

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

240 07810B Latham Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin Cr. within a Rec241 07861B Martin Cr. 3 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Martin Cr. within a Rec242 7860 Hwy 1 6 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Silk Cr. within a Rec243 7863 Row R. Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Silk Cr. within a Rec244 07863A Row R. Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Silk Cr. within a Rec245 07864A 16th Street (Landess Rd) 3 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Silk Cr. within a Rec246 07865A Taylor Ave 3 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R./Silk Cr. within a Rec247 7454 Crescent Conn 3 Upper Little Deschutes R. Gilchrist within 2 mil248 01962A Middle Fk. Malheur R. 4 Upper Malheur R./Warm Springs Reservoir Cottonwood Cr. within 2 mil249 8893 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. within 2 mil250 8894 Spanish Hollow Cr. 3 Upper Middle Columbia/Hood Spanish Hollow Cr. within 2 mil251 5978 Unknown 3 Upper N. Santiam R. Boulder Cr./Marys Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 176

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

252 6806 Unknown 3 Upper N. Santiam R. Bugaboo Cr. / Minto Cr. within a Rec253 2553 Marks Cr. 3 Upper Ochoco Cr. Lower Marks Cr. within a Rec254 7649 Marks Cr. 3 Upper Ochoco Cr. Lower Marks Cr. within a Rec255 745 Unknown 5 Upper S. Yamhill R. Gold Cr. within a Rec256 2081 Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Gold Cr. within a Rec257 4573 Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Rogue Cr. within a Rec258 01612A Unknown 3 Upper S. Yamhill R. Rowell Cr. within a Rec259 7366 Unknown 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec260 8889 Unknown 7 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec261 00123K Unknown 33 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec262 07253B Unknown 35 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec263 07253R Unknown 8 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec264 07440A UPRR Main Line 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec265 07441A Marietta St SE 4 Willamette R./Chehalem Croisan Cr. within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 177

Table 5.3.4-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

Cr.

266 07522A Turner Rd SE 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec267 07538A Boone Rd SE 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr. within a Rec268 07855E Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) 4 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Glenn Cr. within a Rec269 6884 Spring Cr. 3 Williamson R. Below Klamath Marsh Williamson R/Spring Recovery U270 6886 Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) 3 Williamson R. Below Klamath Marsh Williamson/Sprague R.s Recovery U271 2269 BNSF 3 Willow Cr. Lower Willow Cr. Recovery U272 8600 Irrigation Canal 3 Willow Cr. Lower Willow Cr. Recovery U273 00971A Willow Cr. 1 Willow Cr. Lower Willow Cr. Recovery U274 03026A Zig Zag R. 3 Zigzag R. Zigzag Canyon within a Rec
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 178

Table 5.3.4-2. Summary of program bridges in the bull trout Columbia River DPS and Klamath River

DPS by ecoregion.

Ecoregion Columbia River DPS Klamath River DPS

Bridges

Blue Mountains 33 N/A

Coast Range 3 N/A

Columbia Basin 9 N/A

East Cascades 12 7

Lava Plains 22 N/A

Owyhee Uplands 10 N/A

West Cascades 28 N/A

Willamette Valley 147 N/A

Total 264 7

Permanent Streambank Disturbance (River Miles) 2 0.02

Temporary Streambank Disturbance (River Miles) 15 0.1

Within the Hood River Basin recovery unit, there are 24 bridges. Five bridges occur in, or within

2 miles of, the Hood River core area. All of the bridges located within 2 miles of this core area

are also within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat. Sixteen bridges occur within 2 miles of

proposed critical habitat but are greater than 2 miles from any core area.

Within the John Day River Basin recovery unit, there are 19 bridges. Eleven bridges occur in, or

within 2 miles of, the John Day River core area. Of the bridges located within 2 miles of this

core area, eight bridges also occur within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat.

Within the Lower Columbia River Basin recovery unit, there are six bridges, none of which are

in, or within 2 miles of, a core area. However, all six bridges within this recovery unit are within

2 miles of critical habitat.

Within the Malheur River Basin recovery unit, there are four bridges. Two bridges occur in, or

within 2 miles of, the Malheur River core area. Of the bridges located within 2 miles of this core

area, one bridge also occurs within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat.

Within the Odell Lake recovery unit, there is one bridge. This bridge occurs in, or within 2 miles

of, the Odell Lake core area. This bridge is also within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 179

Within the Umatilla-Walla Walla River Basins recovery unit, there are eight bridges, all of which

occur in, or within 2 miles of, the Umatilla River core area. Of the bridges located within 2 miles

of this core area, four bridges also occur within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat.

Within the Willamette River Basin recovery unit, there are 156 bridges. Twenty-six bridges

occur in, or within 2 miles of the Upper Willamette River core area. Of the bridges located

within 2 miles of this core area, 22 bridges also occur within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat.

Two bridges occur within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat but are greater than 2 miles from

any core area.

The 80 bridges that occur in or within 2 miles of a core area have the potential to affect bull trout

of the Columbia River DPS and their habitat. The greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the

Blue Mountains ecoregion, which accounts for 34% percent of the total API for bridges where

repair and replacement activities may affect Columbia River bull trout as a result of the proposed

action (Table 5.3.4-1).

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the Columbia River Bull Trout DPS. Approximately 80

bridges within this DPS are located in or within 2 miles of a core area and will require isolation

of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas may cause local and temporary

reductions in water quality and may necessitate the handling of juvenile bull trout. It is expected

that lethal take may occur—of six percent or less of the anticipated 20 bull trout at each bridge—

as a result of handling stress or injury, or from unforeseen take resulting from bridge

construction. Therefore, potentially up to 1,600 bull trout will be handled for all bridge

replacement and repair work within the DPS.

Streambank disturbance occurring during bridge work within the Columbia River Bull Trout

DPS may have indirect effects on bull trout of this DPS. This disturbance area was estimated in

the same manner as it was for anadromous fish (Section 5.2.3). The total amount of permanent

streambank disturbance at the 80 bridges where the proposed action may affect the DPS is

approximately 3,200 feet, or 0.6 river mile. The total amount of temporary streambank

disturbance that may affect the DPS is approximately 24,000 feet, or 4.5 river miles. The area of

riparian disturbance that may affect this DPS will not exceed 82 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the Columbia River Bull Trout DPS, the environmental baseline for the action

area, the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and

the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, not likely to

adversely affect proposed critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the following

considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to ensure that

the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance standards

identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the

permit and contract documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to

each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat

elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor,

and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e.,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 180

designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied to

each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or DPS scale.

Klamath River Bull Trout DPS

There are seven bridges within the range of the Klamath River DPS for bull trout. All of these

bridges are located within the East Cascades ecoregion. Within the Klamath River Basin

recovery unit, two bridges occur in, or within 2 miles of, the Upper Klamath core area. However,

none of these bridges are located within 2 miles of proposed critical habitat. Five bridges occur

outside of proposed critical habitat and are greater than 2 miles from any core area. The two

bridges that meet these criteria have the potential to affect bull trout of the Klamath River DPS

and their habitat (Table 5.3.4-1).

Of the bridges occurring within the Klamath River DPS for bull trout, five are located in the

Klamath Lake watershed, and two are located within the Williamson River watershed below

Klamath March. The greatest concentration of bridges occurs in the Klamath Lake watershed,

which accounts for 67% of the total API for program bridges with the potential to affect this

DPS.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the Klamath River Bull Trout DPS. Approximately two

bridges within this DPS are located in or within 2 miles of a core area and/or are located in or

within 2 miles and will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water

work areas may cause local and temporary reductions in water quality and may necessitate the

handling of juvenile bull trout. It is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or less of

the anticipated 20 bull trout at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from

unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected that up to 40 bull

trout will be handled for all bridge replacement and repair work within the DPS, and that a

maximum lethal taking of three Klamath River bull trout may occur as a result of bridge work

within the DPS.

Streambank disturbance occurring as a result of bridge work within the Klamath River Bull

Trout DPS may have indirect effects on bull trout of this DPS. The total amount of permanent

streambank disturbance at the two bridges where the proposed action may affect the DPS is

approximately 80 feet, or 0.02 river mile. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance

that may affect the DPS is approximately 600 feet, or 0.1 river mile. The area of riparian

disturbance that may affect this DPS will not exceed 2 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the Klamath River Bull Trout DPS, the environmental baseline for the action
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 181

area, the effects of the proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and

the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, not likely to

adversely affect proposed critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the following

considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project to ensure that

the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental performance standards

identified herein, and that each applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the

permit and contract documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to

each project will ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat

elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor,

and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e.,

designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied to

each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to

result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters

(e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the

individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently

properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or

retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition

essential to survival and recovery at the population or DPS scale.

5.3.5 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

On July 16, 1975 the Lahontan cutthroat trout was designated as Federally threatened in its entire

range (July 16, 1975 40 FR 29863). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

According to the Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery plan, Oregon populations of Lahontan

cutthroat trout are limited to the Upper Quinn and Alvord 4th field HUCs (USFWS 1994) (Figure

5.3.5-1). The proposed action does not involve bridge work within the Upper Quinn and Alvord

4th field HUCs. Therefore, given the location of known populations of this species and the range

of bridge work proposed, the proposed action will have No Effect on the Lahontan cutthroat

trout.
HARNEY

MALHEUR

LAKE

GRANT

CROOK

BAKER

WHEELER

DESCHUTES

noeffect\BA_figures\lc_trout.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.5-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

California

dI ah

P

o

acific Ocean

Washington

California

Ida

h

o

0 4 8 16 24 32 40

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

County

City

Streams and Rivers

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 183

5.3.6 Shortnose Sucker

There are 11 bridges within the range of the shortnose sucker (Figure 5.3.6-1; Table 5.3.6-1). Of

these, ten bridges are within the species’ range, while one is outside of the species’ range, but

within 2 miles and spans a stream that drains to the species’ range. All of these bridges are

located within the East Cascades ecoregion Table 5.3.6-2.

Within the range of the shortnose sucker, two bridges occur in the Williamson River 4th field

HUC, no bridges occur in the Sprague River 4th field HUC, five bridges occur in the Upper

Klamath Lake 4th field HUC, no bridges occur in the Upper Klamath River 4th field HUC, and

three bridges occur in the Lost River 4th field HUC. Within the species’ range, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Upper Klamath Lake watershed, which accounts for 41%

of the total API for the shortnose sucker resulting from proposed ODOT bridge repair and

replacement activities.
LAKE

LANE

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

JACKSON

DESCHUTES

CROOK

LINN

screening/BA Figures/s_sucker.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.6-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Shortnose Sucker

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect - Within Range

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Range

No Potential to Affect

Shortnose Sucker Population Range

County

Streams and Rivers

City

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 185

Table 5.3.6-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect the Shortnose Sucker DPS.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HU

1 7301 Algoma Log Pond 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 2 7302 Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 3 8345 USBR Canal 4 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 4 8352 UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) 4 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 5 8510 Unknown 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 6 8346 Oxing California Ave (Klamath Falls) 8 Lake Ewauna/Upper Klamath R. Lake Ewauna7 9692 Green Springs Dr (Old Alignment) & BNSF 5 Lake Ewauna/Upper Klamath R. Lake Ewauna8 08347A Unknown 6 Lake Ewauna/Upper Klamath R. Lake Ewauna9 7929 UPRR 8 Little Walker Mountain Corral Springs

10 6884 Spring Cr. 3 Williamson R. Below Klamath Marsh Williamson R./Sp11 6886 Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) 3 Williamson R. Below Klamath Marsh Williamson/Sprag

Note: All bridges are located within the DPS.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 186

Table 5.3.6-2. Shortnose and Lost River sucker screening summary table.

4th Field HUC Bridges

Williamson River 2

Sprague River 0

Upper Klamath Lake 5

Upper Klamath River 0

Lost River 3

Total 10

Gross Acreage 3,800

Net Acreage 3,100

Permanent Streambank Disturbance (River Miles) 0.08

Temporary Streambank Disturbance (River Miles) 0.6

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the shortnose sucker. Approximately 11 bridges within the

range of the species or within 2 miles of the range and span a stream that drains to the species’

range will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work areas may

cause local and temporary reductions in water quality and may necessitate the handling of

juvenile shortnose suckers. It is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent or less of the

anticipated 20 shortnose suckers at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or injury, or from

unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected that up to 220

juvenile shortnose suckers will be handled for all bridge replacement and repair work within the

range of the species, and that a maximum lethal taking of 13 juvenile shortnose suckers may

occur as a result of bridge work within the species’ range.

Streambank disturbance occurring from bridge work within the shortnose sucker population may

have indirect effects on the shortnose sucker. The total amount of permanent streambank

disturbance at the 11 bridges where the proposed action may affect the range of the shortnose

sucker is approximately 440 feet (0.08 river mile). The total amount of temporary streambank

disturbance that may affect the range of the shortnose sucker is approximately 3,330 feet (0.6

river mile). The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this population will not exceed 11.5

acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the current

status of the shortnose sucker, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the

proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the cumulative effects,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 187

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect proposed

critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge

Program requires individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in

compliance with the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each

applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the permit and contract

documents; (2) the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will

ensure that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel

conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to

occur at the times that are least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work

periods); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied to each program bridge to

protect and stimulate natural habitat-forming processes is expected to result in many projects that

will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge

piers from the active channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the individual and combined

effects of all actions permitted are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats,

appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress

of impaired habitats toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery

at the population or species’ range scale.

5.3.7 Lost River Sucker

There are 11 bridges within the range of the Lost River sucker (Figure 5.3.7-1; Table 5.3.7-1). Of

these, 10 are within the species’ range, while one is outside of the species’ range, but is within 2

miles and drains to the species’ range. All of these bridges are located within the East Cascades

ecoregion (shown previously in Table 5.3.6-2).

Within the range of the Lost River sucker, two bridges occur in the Williamson River 4th field

HUC, no bridges occur in the Sprague River 4th field HUC, five bridges occur in the Upper

Klamath Lake 4th field HUC, no bridges occur in the Upper Klamath River 4th field HUC, and

three bridges occur in the Lost River 4th field HUC. Within the species’ range, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs in the Upper Klamath Lake watershed, which accounts for 41%

of the total API for the Lost River sucker resulting from proposed ODOT bridge repair and

replacement activities.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect likely to adversely affect for the Lost River sucker. Approximately 11 bridges within the

range of the species or within 2 miles of the range and spanning a stream that drains to the

species’ range will require isolation of the in-water work area. The isolation of in-water work

areas may cause local and temporary reductions in water quality and may necessitate the

handling of juvenile Lost River suckers. It is expected that lethal take may occur—of six percent

or less of the anticipated 20 Lost River suckers at each bridge—as a result of handling stress or

injury, or from unforeseen takings resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected

that up to 220 juvenile Lost River suckers will be handled for all bridge replacement and repair

work within the range of the species, and that a maximum lethal taking of 13 juvenile Lost River

suckers may occur as a result of bridge work within the species’ range.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 188

Streambank disturbance occurring from bridge work within the Lost River sucker population

range may have indirect effects on the Lost River sucker. The total amount of permanent

streambank disturbance at the 11 bridges where the proposed action may affect the range of the

Lost River sucker is approximately 440 feet (0.08 river mile). The total amount of temporary

streambank disturbance that may affect the range of the Lost River sucker is approximately

3,330 feet (0.6 river mile). The area of riparian disturbance that may affect this population will

not exceed 11.5 acres.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the current

status of the Lost River sucker, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the

proposed action, the environmental performance standards proposed, and the cumulative effects,

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect proposed

critical habitat. These conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge

Program requires individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in

compliance with the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each

applicable standard is included as an enforceable condition of the permit document; (2) the

cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any shortterm effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics,

flows, and watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are

least sensitive for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the

ecological design approach that will be applied to each program bridge to protect and stimulate

natural habitat-forming processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term

beneficial effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active

channel and reductions in riprap); and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions

permitted are not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce

the functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or

species’ range scale.
LAKE

LANE

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

JACKSON

DESCHUTES

CROOK

LINN

screening/BA Figures/lr_sucker.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.7-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Lost River Sucker

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Lost River Sucker Population Range

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect - Within 2 Miles of Range

Potential to Affect - Within Range

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 190

Table 5.3.7-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect the Lost River Sucker DPS.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HU

1 7301 Algoma Log Pond 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 2 7302 Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 3 8345 USBR Canal 4 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 4 8352 UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) 4 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 5 8510 Unknown 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 6 8346 Oxing California Ave (Klamath Falls) 8 Lake Ewauna/Upper Klamath R. Lake Ewauna7 9692 Green Springs Dr (Old Alignment) & BNSF 5 Lake Ewauna/Upper Klamath R. Lake Ewauna8 08347A Unknown 6 Lake Ewauna/Upper Klamath R. Lake Ewauna9 7929 UPRR 8 Little Walker Mountain Corral Springs

10 6884 Spring Cr. 3 Williamson R. Below Klamath Marsh Williamson R./Sp11 6886 Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) 3 Williamson R. Below Klamath Marsh Williamson/Sprag

Note: All bridges are located within the DPS.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 191

5.3.8 Warner Sucker

On September 27, 1985 the Warner sucker was listed as threatened throughout its range

(September 27, 1985, 50 FR 39117). Critical habitat has been designated for the Warner sucker

(September 27, 1985, 50 FR 39117). According to the Federal Register (September 27, 1985, 50

FR 39117), the range (in Oregon) of the Warner Sucker is limited to the Warner Valley in south

central Oregon (Figure 5.3.8-1). Specifically, habitat for the Warner sucker is limited to Crump

and Hart Lakes, the spillway north of Hart Lake, and portions of Snyder, Honey, Twenty Mile,

and Twelve Mile Creeks. Critical habitat is designated as a 50-ft buffer on portions of the abovelisted streams. Therefore, the entire range of the Warner sucker (within Oregon) is within the

Warner Lakes 4th field HUC. The proposed action does not involve work within the Warner

Lakes 4th field HUC. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of no effect for the Warner sucker.
LAKE

HARNEY

KLAMATH

GRANT

LANE

CROOK

LINN

DESCHUTES

JACKSON

WASCO

WHEELER

DOUGLAS

JEFFERSON

MARION

CLACKAMAS

MORROW UMATILLA

SHERMAN GILLIAM

noeffect\BA_figures\warner.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.8-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Warner Sucker

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

dI aho

California

California

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Warner Sucker Population Range

Streams and Rivers

City

County

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 193

5.3.9 Oregon Chub

There are 105 bridges located within the current range of the Oregon chub, which includes the

entire Willamette River Basin below the 1,640-foot elevation and upstream of the Santiam RiverWillamette River confluence1

 (Figure 5.3.9-1; Table 5.3.9-1). In 2003, ODFW surveyed 40

Bridge Program sites and found Oregon chub were present at two sites. Seven sites showed no

presence but did contain habitat considered suitable to support Oregon chub. The remaining 31

sites were considered unsuitable habitat for Oregon chub (Paul Scheerer, Biologist, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm., November 6, 2003). Bridges where the proposed

action may affect Oregon chub include the nine surveyed bridges shown to have chub and/or

suitable habitat, and 31 additional unsurveyed bridges crossing water within the current range of

Oregon chub (Table 5.3.9-2).

1

Assumed uppermost elevation of historic Oregon chub presence based on prescece of typical co-occurring native

fish species. No known Oregon chub populations exist in the Willamette River Basin downstream of the Santiam

River (Scheerer 2003). Recovery goals for Oregon chub do not include establishment of populations downstream of

the Santiam River (USFWS 1998).
LANE

LINN

CLACKAMAS

MARION POLK

DESCHUTES

YAMHILL

BENTON

WASCO

JEFFERSON

DOUGLAS

TILLAMOOK

LINCOLN

HOOD RIVER

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH

screening/BA Figures/chub.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.9-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Oregon Chub

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Confluence of Willamette & Santiam Rivers

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Highway

State Boundary

1640 Feet Countour Line

Willamette River Basin (3rd field HUC)

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 195

Table 5.3.9-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Oregon Chub DPS.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HU

1 8073 Unknown 3 Abiqua Cr./Pudding R. Upper Little Pudding R2 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia S3 08232N Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr.4 08232S Butte Cr. 3 Calapooia R. Butte Cr.5 08233N Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Sodom Ditch6 08233S Sodom Ditch 8 Calapooia R. Sodom Ditch7 8195 Unknown 3 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Columbia Slough8 1601 Elk Cr. 6 Elk Cr. Lower Big Elk Cr.9 07567B Elk Cr. 3 Elk Cr. Theft Cr.

10 9440 Leland Rd 3 Grave Cr. Grave Cr./Sunny Valley11 09440A Leland Rd 3 Grave Cr. Grave Cr./Sunny Valley12 08203B Unknown 3 Johnson Cr. Tyson Cr./Willamette R13 08018N Louse Cr. & Conn 4 Jumpoff Joe Cr. Louse Cr.14 08094N Jumpoff Joe Cr. 6 Jumpoff Joe Cr. Middle Jumpoff Joe Cr15 7302 Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal 3 Klamath Lake 3mile/4mile/5mile 116 7929 UPRR 8 Little Walker Mountain Corral Springs17 7573 Lostine R. 3 Lostine R. Lower Lostine R.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 196

Table 5.3.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HU

18 07732B Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen Grade) 6 Lower Coast Fk. Willamette R. Papenfus Cr.19 04981A Mathas Cr. 3 Lower John Day R./Kahler Cr. Harper Cr.20 07663C N. Umpqua R & CORP & Cr. & Co Rd 18 Lower N. Umpqua R. Winchester21 8370 Knowles Cr. 3 Lower Siuslaw R. Knowles Cr.22 7530 Beaver Cr. 3 Lower Yaquina R. Drift Cr.23 07931S S. Umpqua R. (Missouri Bottom) 6 Middle S. Umpqua R. Lane Judd24 7950 Myrtle Cr. Conn (Myrtle Cr. Intchg) 3 Middle S. Umpqua R. Willis Vandine25 07900A Boomer Hill Rd Conn #2 3 Middle S. Umpqua R. Willis Vandine26 00665B Alder Cr. 3 Middle Sandy R. Lower Middle Sandy R27 03091A Unknown 1 Necanicum R. Lower Necanicum R.28 08227S Oak Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Lower Oak Cr.29 8217 Murder Cr. 3 Oak Cr. Upper Willamette R.30 7941 Unknown 5 Rickreall Cr. Bashaw Cr.31 02734A Rock Cr. (Picture Gorge) 3 Rock Cr. Lower Rock Crek32 07871B Row R. Overflow 6 Row R. Row R./Dorena Lake
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 197

Table 5.3.9-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HU

33 08028S Irwin Access Conn 3 S. Umpqua R. Lower Shively Oshea34 9636 Unknown 4 Umatilla R./Mission Cr. Mission Cr.35 07810B Latham Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Martin Cr.36 07863A Row R. Rd 4 Upper Coast Fk. Willamette R. Silk Cr.37 4062 S. Fork Siuslaw R. 4 Upper Siuslaw R. S. Fk. Siuslaw R.38 683 Yaquina R. 4 Upper Yaquina R. Middle Yaquina R.39 07440A UPRR Main Line 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr.40 07538A Boone Rd SE 3 Willamette R./Chehalem Cr. Croisan Cr.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 198

Table 5.3.9-2. Summary of survey results to date.

Results Bridges

Species Presence 2

Suitable Habitat 7

No Presence/No Suitable Habitat 31

Total 40

Bridges still needing surveys 31

Based on GIS analysis and assumptions stated in the effects screening process for Oregon chub

(Appendix 2-A) there are a total of 40 program bridges where repair or replacement activities

have the potential to affect the Oregon chub. The 31 bridge sites within the currently occupied

range of Oregon chub that have not been surveyed by ODFW will be surveyed prior to their

scheduled construction. Based on knowledge of the remaining (unsurveyed) sites, ODFW

believes that approximately five of the remaining sites encompass functioning habitat, and thus

have the potential to be occupied by Oregon chub (Paul Scheerer, Biologist, Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm., November 26, 2004). None of the remaining unsurveyed sites

encompass known populations currently being monitored by ODFW. Therefore, by adding these

five sites to the nine sites identified in ODFW surveys, approximately 14 program bridges are

expected to encompass habitat suitable for Oregon chub and/or be occupied by Oregon chub.

This estimate is consistent with survey results obtained for bridge sites surveyed in 2003 in terms

of the relative proportions of sites surveyed to sites with chub presence and/or suitable habitat.

Of the 40 bridges (nine surveyed and 31 unsurveyed sites) where the proposed action may affect

habitat within the range of Oregon chub, 33 are located within the Willamette Valley ecoregion,

six bridges are located within the West Cascades ecoregion, and one bridge is located within the

Coast Range ecoregion (Table 5.3.9-3 and Table 5.3.9-4).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 199

Table 5.3.9-3. Summary of screening results by ecoregion for bridges with the potential to affect Oregon

chub. These include nine of the surveyed sites and the 31 remaining unsurveyed sites.

Ecoregion Bridges

Coast Range 1

West Cascades 6

Willamette Valley 33

Total 40

Total Gross API Acreage 14,870

Total Net API Acreage 13,210

Temporary Streambank Disturbance (River Miles) 2.3

Permanent Streambank Disturbance (River Miles) 0.3

Table 5.3.9-4. Summary of screening results by 4th field HUC for bridges with the potential to affect Oregon

chub. These include nine of the surveyed sites and the 31 remaining unsurveyed sites.

4th Field HUC Bridges

Upper Willamette River 19

Coast Fork Willamette River 10

McKenzie River 5

North Santiam River 4

Middle Fork Willamette River 1

South Santiam River 1

Total 40

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the Oregon chub. Approximately 40 bridges within the

range of the species will require isolation of the in-water work area or disturbance to off-channel

habitat; however, it is expected that approximately 14 sites will contain Oregon chub and/or

habitat suitable for Oregon chub. Isolation of in-water work areas at these 14 sites may cause

local and temporary reductions in water quality and may necessitate the handling of Oregon
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 200

chub. It is expected that lethal take—of two percent or less of the anticipated 100 Oregon chub at

each bridge—may occur as a result of handling stress or injury, or from unforeseen takings

resulting from bridge construction. Therefore, it is expected that up to 1,400 Oregon chub will be

handled for all bridge replacement and repair work within the range of the species.

The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at the 40 bridges where the proposed

action may affect the range of the Oregon chub is approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 river mile). The

total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that may affect the range of the Oregon chub

is approximately 12,000 feet (2.3 river miles). The area of riparian disturbance that may affect

Oregon chub habitat will not exceed 41 acres.

5.3.10 Borax Lake Chub

On May 28, 1980, the Borax Lake chub was designated as Federally endangered throughout its

entire range (May 28, 1980, 45 FR 35821). Critical habitat for the Borax Lake chub was

designated on October 5, 1982 (October 5, 1982, 47 FR 43957). Borax Lake chub are only found

in Borax Lake (a 10.2-acre natural thermal lake), its outflow, and Lower Borax Lake, located in

the Alvord Basin of south central Oregon (Harney County) (Figure 5.3.10-1). These areas

provide the Borax Lake chub with all the necessary requirements for survival and reproduction

(i.e., food, spawning habitat, and appropriate water temperatures) (October 5, 1982, 47 FR

43957). Therefore, the entire range of the Borax Lake chub is completely within the Alvord

Lakes 4th field HUC. The proposed action does not involve work within the Alvord Lakes 4th

field HUC. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination

of no effect for the Borax Lake chub.
HARNEY

MALHEUR

LAKE

GRANT

CROOK

BAKER

WHEELER

DESCHUTES

noeffect\BA_figures\borax.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.10-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Borax Lake Chub

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

California

Idaho

Washington

Pacific Ocean

California

0 4 8 16 24 32 40

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

County

Streams and Rivers

City

Borax Lake Chub Population Range

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 202

5.3.11 Hutton Tui Chub

On March 28, 1985, the Hutton tui chub was designated as threatened (March 28, 1985, 50 FR

12302). Critical habitat is not designated for this species. According to the Recovery Plan for the

Native Fishes of the Warner Basin, the range of the Hutton tui chub is contained within the

Alkali Subbasin (USFWS 1998a) (Figure 5.3.11-1). Specifically, the Hutton tui chub is found in

two springs in the Alkali Subbasin—the Hutton Spring and an unnamed spring located 1,700 feet

southeast of the Hutton Spring. Therefore, the entire range of the Hutton Tui chub is contained

within the Alkali Lake Subbasin (5th field watershed). The proposed action does not involve

work within the Alkali Lake Subbasin (5th field watershed). Based on this analysis for the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the Hutton tui chub.
LAKE

HARNEY

KLAMATH

CROOK

GRANT

DESCHUTES

JEFFERSON

LANE

LINN

WHEELER

DOUGLAS

noeffect\BA_figures\hutton.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.11-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Hutton Tui Chub

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

California

Washington

Idah

P

o

acific Ocean

0 3 6 12 18 24 30

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

County

Streams and Rivers

City

Hutton Tui Chub Habitat

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 204

5.3.12 Foskett Speckled Dace

On March 28, 1985, the Foskett speckled dace was designated as threatened (March 28, 1985, 50

FR 12302). Critical habitat is not designated for this species. According to the Recovery Plan for

the Native Fishes of the Warner Basin (USFWS 1998a), the range of the Foskett speckled dace is

contained within the Warner Lake Basin (Figure 5.3.12-1). Specifically, the Foskett speckled

dace is found in two springs in the Warner Basin—Foskett Spring and Dace Spring. Therefore,

the entire range of the Foskett speckled dace is contained within the Warner Lakes 4th field HUC.

The proposed action does not involve work within the Alkali Lake Subbasin (5th field

watershed). Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of no effect for the Foskett speckled dace.
LAKE

HARNEY

KLAMATH

DESCHUTES

CROOK

GRANT LANE

noeffect\BA_figures\foskett.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.3.12-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Foskett Speckled Dace

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

California

Idaho

California

0 3 6 12 18 24 30

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Foskett Speckled Dace Habitat

Streams and Rivers

City

County

Highway
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 206

5.3.13 Lamprey

The current status and growing attention to the apparent declining trend of Pacific lamprey, river

lamprey, and western brook lamprey in Oregon makes these species likely candidates for future

Federal and/or State protection under ESA. Effects on these species as a result of the proposed

action have been assessed in a broad sense, and environmental performance standards have been

developed that will minimize adverse effects on the life history requirements and habitat

utilization of these lamprey species.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, likely to adversely affect for the Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook

lamprey in the event that they are Federally listed as endangered or threatened during the life of

the Bridge Program.

After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the

current status of the Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook lamprey, the

environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, the environmental

performance standards proposed, and the cumulative effects, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for this species if

critical habitat for these species were to be designated during the life of the Bridge Program.

These conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires

individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with

the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable standard is

included as an enforceable condition of the permit and contract documents; (2) the cumulative

effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will ensure that any short-term effects

on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and

watershed conditions are brief, minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive

for the species’ life-cycle (i.e., designated in-water work periods); (3) the ecological design

approach that will be applied to each program bridge to protect and stimulate natural habitatforming processes is expected to result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial

effects on aquatic habitat parameters (e.g., the removal of bridge piers from the active channel

and reductions in riprap); and (4) the individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are

not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the

functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats

toward the properly functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or

metapopulation scale.

5.3.14 Modoc Sucker

On June 11, 1985, the Modoc sucker was designated as Endangered throughout its range (June

11, 1985, 50 FR 24526). Critical habitat for the Modoc Sucker was designated on June 11, 1985

(June 11, 1985, 50 FR 24526). Within the area covered by this listing, the Modoc sucker is

known to occur in California (June 11, 1985, 50 FR 24526). The Modoc sucker historically

occurred in small tributaries of the upper Pit River in Lassen and Modoc Counties, California.

Currently, the Modoc sucker is found only in two small drainage systems (Turner and Rush
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 207

Creeks) in Modoc County, California (June 11, 1985, 50 FR 24526). The proposed action does

not involve work within the current range of the Modoc sucker. Based on this analysis for the

Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the Modoc sucker.

5.4 Wildlife Species

Potential effects of the Bridge Program on Federally and State-listed birds, mammals, reptiles,

and invertebrates are discussed in this section of the BA. The Effects Pathways section provides

a description of how adverse effects may be delivered to wildlife species. This is followed by an

effects analysis for each listed species that may be adversely affected by the proposed action

(sections 5.4.3 to 5.4.15). Listed species that will not be affected by proposed action are

discussed separately in section 5.14.5 (Other Wildlife).

5.4.1 Effects Pathways

This BA provides an analysis of the potential effects of the proposed action on the habitat

elements that are critical for sustained, viable populations of Federally listed wildlife. Actions

can affect the viability of listed wildlife species by altering one or more physical, chemical, or

biological parameters. All effects are delivered via the displacement, disruption, removal, or

other alteration of soil, air, water, chemicals, and vegetation. In addition, incidental take of the

species (e.g., via direct physical injury) may occur. Throughout this section of the BA, the

Bridge Program’s effects on Federally listed wildlife species are considered in the context of the

above pathways. A further discussion of each of these effects pathways follows.

Air

Air is the medium through which light and sound waves travel. Activities that may be

detected either visually or audibly by terrestrial species are disruptive if they prevent or

inhibit behaviors that are essential to a species. Sensitivity to noise and visual disturbance

varies by species; and effects may be significantly influenced by environmental

conditions such as topography, vegetation, and weather. As a result, species thresholds

for disturbance are poorly understood and are generally based on estimates from a limited

body of research.

Noise-related effects

Sound is conducted through the air as a series of pressure waves that have kinetic energy.

The ear converts (transduces) these pulses into electrical activity in sensory nerves, and

interprets such nervous activities as sounds. The kinetic energy of these sound waves can

be quantified in decibels. The decibel (or dBA) scale for noise ranges from 0 (for the

threshold of perception of sound) to approximately 140 dBA (for the threshold of human

pain at the ear) (Peterson and Gross 1972).

Noise decreases with increasing distance from the source. The rate of noise reduction is

governed by several factors, such as the nature of the source, atmospheric conditions

(wind and rain), topography and vegetation, and the level of destructive interference from

other sound sources. Reductions in noise levels are greatest along “soft site” conditions
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 208

where sloping topography and vegetation decrease sound levels over distances.

Interrupting the line of sight between the source and a receptor can further reduce or

mask noise from distant sources.

Noises detected by wildlife that are significantly above existing ambient conditions may

cause direct adverse effects by altering behavior essential for survival. Noise disturbance

can cause adults to flush from a nest or natal den area, leaving eggs or young vulnerable

to predation, exposure, and/or malnutrition (as a result of missed feedings). Noise

disturbance that occurs for an extended length of time or during times that are sensitive

for a species may have an indirect lethal effect by preventing individuals from accessing

areas essential to survival, such as foraging areas, migration corridors, roosting sites,

dens, or breeding grounds. In general, impulse noises such as those generated by piledriving have the greatest potential for direct and indirect disturbances to wildlife. This is

also the type of noise to which species are less likely to become habituated.

Wildlife can become familiar with certain disturbances, thus lessening the effects they

have. If a species is accustomed to a disturbance, and the disturbance offers no known

direct threat, then the species is likely to ignore it. If the disturbance is new, intermittent,

or unexpected, then the species will be less tolerant of that disturbance.

Background (i.e., ambient) noise is present in every natural setting. It is generally

accepted that noise generated by construction activities can have direct adverse effects on

wildlife if it consistently exceeds ambient noise levels by 10 dBA at the receptor site.

Most construction activities, including pile-driving and guardrail installation, are

naturally attenuated to within 10 dBA of ambient conditions within 0.5 mile of the source

(USDOT 1980, USDOT 1979, USDOT 1977, WHI 1971) However, blasting can be an

exception, and may require distances of up to 1.0 mile to attenuate to within 10 dBA of

ambient levels. The effects of noise disturbance can be minimized through timing and

seasonal restrictions on noise-generating activities; scheduling a potential disturbing

activity outside of a species’ peak daily activity period can significantly minimize

adverse effects.

Visual effects

Effects are said to be visual when they arise because the sight of human beings or their

activities disrupts the animal’s normal behavior. Visual disturbance is similar to noise

disturbance in that it varies depending on the species’ ability to detect the activity, the

species’ relative familiarity with the changes, the species’ tolerance of visual changes,

and the species’ ability to avoid the potential disturbance. Visual factors affecting

whether a human activity can disturb wildlife include the distance, intensity, and color of

the activity (depending on the animal’s ability to see colors), and its relative height and

size. Due to this variability, visual disturbance thresholds for a particular species are

subjective and based on limited research. For the purposes of this BA, it is assumed that

adverse visual effects occur when individuals have a direct line-of-sight to human activity

ranging from 300 feet to 0.5 mile, depending on the individual species being considered

(see sections 5.4.3 to 5.4.14 for species-specific criteria).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 209

Visual disturbances can have indirect sub-lethal effects on wildlife by causing animals to

abandon normal resting and feeding areas critical to their survival. A sudden visual

change may cause adults to abandon established nest or den sites, leaving eggs or young

vulnerable to predation and to an increased risk of death due to missed feedings or lack of

care. Wildlife can become acclimated to localized disturbances if such disturbances are

not perceived to be a threat.

Chemicals

The introduction of chemicals into the environment through construction activities and

accidental discharges can have lethal and sub-lethal effects on wildlife. Applications of

herbicides can remove or alter vegetation communities needed by wildlife species for

cover, food, and nesting habitat. Pesticides and other chemicals can poison wildlife, or

indirectly affect wildlife by removing prey species. Accidental discharges can have an

immediate lethal effect (i.e., from chemical burns or adsorption through skin) or can have

indirect lethal and sub-lethal effects as a result of contaminated soil or vegetation, or the

alteration of habitat required for feeding, breeding, and sheltering.

Vegetation

The assemblage of plants within a particular area is one of the most important parameters

that define “habitat” for most wildlife species. Wildlife species rely on assemblages of

plants (i.e., plant communities or habitat types) for foraging, reproduction, migration,

cover, and escape or concealment. Many animals have specific plant community

requirements that must be met in order to survive (e.g., Fender’s blue butterfly must have

Kincaid’s lupine). Certain plant communities may play a role essential to a species by

serving as preferred habitat for feeding, breeding, and sheltering. Intact and contiguous

vegetation communities are also essential for daily wildlife movements and seasonal

migration.

The direct removal of vegetation that provides a critical habitat element for a particular

species can have immediate adverse sub-lethal effects by forcing the species to abandon

the area. For example, the removal of fruit- or seed-bearing vegetation can immediately

affect food availability and foraging habits, requiring an animal to look elsewhere for

food. Site clearing can also lead to indirect sub-lethal effects through the inadvertent

introduction of exotic weed species and the exclusion of native vegetation; wildlife that

has adapted to a specific assemblage of native plants may be forced to leave the disturbed

area.

The removal or alteration of currently nonfunctional habitat can also have a delayed

adverse effect on wildlife. Habitat that is now considered nonfunctional habitat for one

species may develop through natural succession into favorable habitat if such habitat is

allowed to grow undisturbed. The clearing of vegetation for construction can interrupt

normal plant succession and affect the quality and type of habitat in future years.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 210

Soil

Soils are the media upon which many wildlife species depend for shelter and cover. The

displacement of soils during land clearing and construction can have a direct effect on

wildlife by removing dens or burrows critical for shelter and the rearing of young.

Indirect sub-lethal effects may result from the removal of den sites, forcing wildlife to

relocate to adjacent undisturbed areas. Soil erosion from improperly stabilized slopes can

also expose dens or burrows, forcing the abandonment of a site. In wetlands and other

aquatic sites, sedimentation or erosion can cause indirect sub-lethal effects by smothering

or altering vegetation that wildlife species are dependent upon for food and shelter. Large

erosive events (e.g., mass wasting or mudslides) can have indirect effects on wildlife by

destroying existing habitat and altering landforms.

Water

Water is one of the principle elements that defines the wildlife habitats that occupy a

particular region. The presence of both upland and wetland wildlife habitats within a

particular area is largely dependent upon the availability and duration of water supplies.

Changes in existing hydrology can have immediate direct and indirect effects on wildlife

species by removing water sources critical for drinking, the maintenance of existing

habitats, and the protection and rearing of young (e.g., nest sites next to open bodies of

water). Changes in seasonal or permanent hydrology can also affect water-dependent

habitats such as forested wetlands or vernal pools.

Changes in hydrology may result from construction-related activities such as the filling of

wetlands and the redirecting of streams or springs, as well as from an increase in the

amount of impervious surface. Altering hydrology typically results in a conversion of

habitat and a corresponding indirect effect on the wildlife dependent upon the affected

habitat.

Species

Direct lethal and sublethal effects on listed wildlife can occur during any activity that

results in physical contact with listed wildlife. Direct lethal effects on wildlife species,

though rare, can occur from the removal of active nest trees and the destruction of

occupied dens or burrows. Site clearing or other activities can result in direct lethal

effects on relatively immobile wildlife species or young through outright contact with

construction equipment. In most instances, healthy adults will be able to disperse from a

project site and utilize other functional habitat in the area. Sub-lethal direct effects on

wildlife species may occur when animals are injured but not killed by such activities, or

when animals are handled during trapping and relocation.

Migration/Dispersal

The construction of new bridges or roadways can have sub-lethal indirect effects on

wildlife by altering established daily habits or seasonal migration patterns. New bridges
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 211

and roadways generally have the most profound effects, since they force immediate

adaptation to their presence, as well as deviation from preferred movement and migration

corridors critical to wildlife survival. At established bridge sites and roadways, bridge

repair and replacement activities generally have minimal sub-lethal indirect effects on

wildlife migration and dispersal; in most instances, wildlife in the vicinity of an

established bridge have long since adapted to the presence of the bridge by establishing

new daily and seasonal migration patterns. Repair of an existing bridge could have

temporary adverse effects during the actual period of construction; however, such adverse

effects would mainly be limited to the period of active construction.

The effects on migration and dispersal patterns would also be dependent on the size of

the bridge structure. On small bridge structures, it is reasonable to assume that larger,

highly mobile wildlife species would be affected less than smaller, less mobile species.

Larger species generally have larger home ranges, and are more mobile and thus more

capable of avoiding blocked corridors. However, the effects of a smaller bridge may be

species-specific, particularly when the bridge blocks or restricts movement along a

preferred corridor such as a riparian forest. In some instances, the replacement of a small

existing bridge structure with a larger structure may have a beneficial effect on wildlife

migration/dispersal by creating a larger opening underneath the bridge to facilitate

wildlife movement. Replacement with a larger bridge structure may reestablish historic

migration corridors that were blocked by the construction of the original bridge. Any

action that improves wildlife movement under or around a new bridge would be

considered to have a beneficial effect on wildlife.

5.4.2 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 a particular

species or habitat is dependent on the intensity, magnitude, duration, timing, and repetition of the

action causing the effect.

Minimization and avoidance measures for the Bridge Program consist of specific environmental

performance standards that provide for habitat and species conservation during bridge repair and

replacement. Section 3.3 of this BA provides detailed information regarding these environmental

performance standards and conservation measures. The following sections (5.4.3 to 5.4.15) of

this BA provide a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on each of the 18 Federally

listed wildlife species in Oregon.

5.4.3 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

5.4.3.1 Life History and Status

On December 4, 1990, the Steller sea lion was designated as threatened throughout its range

under the Federal ESA (November 26, 1990, 55 FR 49204). Primary threats to the Steller sea

lion include disease, incidental take in fishing gear, shooting, and natural or anthropogenic
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 212

changes in the abundance and species composition of its prey (August 27, 1993, 58 FR 45269).

The Steller sea lion population was determined to have two genetically and reproductively

isolated populations (Robin Brown, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm., November 11, 2003). As a

result, in 1997 NOAA Fisheries re-classified the Steller sea lion as two Distinct Population

Segments (DPSs) (May 5, 1997, 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 (Figure

5.4.3-1).

The eastern DPS of the Steller sea lion ranges from southeast Alaska south to central California

(November 26, 1990, 55 FR 49204). Oregon is near the southern extent of their eastern range,

where species abundance and distribution are reduced (November 26, 1990, 55 FR 49204).

However, numbers in the eastern DPS and specifically at rookery sites in Oregon are increasing

(Robin Brown, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm., November 11, 2003). Between 1975 and 1990,

non-pup (adults and juveniles) aerial counts at the Rogue Reef have increased 53% (from 802 to

1,229 non-pups), and counts at the Orford Reef rookery have increased seven percent (from 716

to 766 non-pups) (NOAA Fisheries 1992). Steller sea lion numbers statewide are increasing at an

average of four percent annually, and the possibility of de-listing the eastern population is being

considered (Robin Brown, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm., November 11, 2003).

Steller sea lions spend most of their time at sea feeding on a variety of fish species (August 27,

1993, 58 FR 45269). The Steller sea lion is not known to migrate, but they disperse widely

outside the breeding season (NOAA Fisheries 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 (NOAA Fisheries 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 (NOAA Fisheries 1992). Pupping occurs

from late April to early July (Robin Brown, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm., November 11, 2003).

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 (August 27, 1993, 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 (Robin Brown, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm., November 11, 2003). 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 2 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 (Robin

Brown, NOAA Fisheries, pers. comm., November 11, 2003). 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;
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 213

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 (August 27, 1993, 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 (August 27, 1993, 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 (Robin Brown, NOAA Fisheries,

pers. comm., November 11, 2003). Haulouts in Oregon are not included in critical habitat

designation (August 27, 1993, 58 FR 45269). For regulatory purposes, rookeries and haulout

boundaries are defined as the mean lower-water mark (August 27, 1993, 58 FR 45269).
LAKE

LANE

DOUGLAS

LINN

KLAMATH

CROOK

WASCO

COOS

DESCHUTES

JACKSON

WHEELER

CURRY

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

HARNEY

LINCOLN

MORROW

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

JOSEPHINE

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON HOOD RIVER MULTNOMAH

GRANT

screening/BA Figures/slion.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.3-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Steller Sea Lion

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Steller Sea Lion Habitat

Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat Zones

Steller Sea Lion Foraging Areas

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 215

5.4.3.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to any species.

Essentially all effects on Steller sea lions are delivered through the displacement, disruption,

removal, or addition of one or more of the following media:

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

Adverse effects on the Steller sea lion from noise harassment may lead to flushing from

haulout sites, an increase in energy expenditure, or an overall avoidance or abandonment

of functional habitat. Occasional noise disturbance at low levels may have little long-term

effect (NOAA Fisheries 1992).

There is no documented threshold for noise harassment for sea lions. However, NOAA

Fisheries evaluates the effects of noise-generating activities, such as pile driving and

blasting, on marine mammals within a 1,640-foot radius of the activities (Caltrans 2001).

Thus, for the purposes of the Bridge Program, the noise harassment area for Steller sea

lion is encompassed by a 1,640-feet perimeter surrounding the API.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

Close approach by humans may cause resting sea lions to go into the water, and

disturbances that cause stampedes on rookeries may cause a trampling or abandonment of

pups (NOAA Fisheries 1992). Areas exposed to repeated disturbance may be avoided or

permanently abandoned, which could adversely affect the condition and survival of pups

by interrupting normal nursing cycles (NOAA Fisheries 1992).

Visual harassment can adversely affect the Steller sea lion; however, there is no

documented visual harassment threshold for Steller sea lions. Critical habitat 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 (August

27, 1993, 58 FR 45269). For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from

visual harassment are considered possible if the visual disturbance occurs within a

distance of 3,000 feet from known haulout or rookery sites.

Chemicals

Because Steller sea lions inhabit the marine environment and occasionally the lower

Rogue and Columbia Rivers (both large river systems), there is no potential for a

construction-related spill (usually a few gallons at most) to affect them.

Species

Direct effects on the species may occur if there is direct physical contact with humans or

their equipment. Steller sea lion haulout and rookery sites include remote islands, rocks,

reefs, and beaches, often in areas exposed to wind and waves where access by terrestrial
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 216

predators is limited (NOAA Fisheries 1992). The Bridge Program will not directly affect

these areas; therefore, direct effects on Steller sea lions will not occur.

5.4.3.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on Steller sea lion populations. The environmental performance standards in

Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat and

species conservation during bridge construction.

5.4.3.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the Steller sea lion using GIS

analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where bridge repair

and replacement activities have the potential to affect the Steller sea lion. The methods and

assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary below, and in

detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and assumptions used

to assess the effects on the Steller sea lion via the various pathways are presented below, and in

detail in the Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the Effect Screening Layer

memo and the Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed by the Services as part

of the ongoing consultation process for the Bridge Program.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, Steller sea lion habitat includes all areas: 1) within 1

mile of the Pacific Ocean shoreline, or 2) within the Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Bays &

Estuaries habitat type, or 3) within the lower 8 miles of the Rogue River or the lower 70 miles of

the Columbia River (i.e., below Longview), or 4) within 3,000 feet of a designated critical

habitat area or Three Arch National Wildlife Refuge. A total of 7 Program Bridges meet one or

more of these criteria; construction activities at these 7 bridges are considered to have the

potential to affect Steller sea lions (Table 5.4.3-1). These 7 bridges are further analyzed below to

determine what, if any, adverse effects their repair and replacement activities may have on the

Steller sea lion via the various effects pathways.

Table 5.4.3-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Steller Sea Lion.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

Ecoregion

Name

1 1950 Central OR RR 3 Coast Range

2 8281 US 101 NB (Hwy 009) 3 Coast Range

3 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Coast Range

4 13491 Unknown 3 Coast Range

5 00922A Unknown 3 Coast Range
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 217

Table 5.4.3-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Steller Sea Lion.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans

Ecoregion

Name

6 00924A Unknown 6 Coast Range

7 00925A Unknown 5 Coast Range

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

For purposes of the Bridge Program, the potential for noise harassment was assumed to

exist if the bridge API is within 1,640 feet of Steller sea lion habitat. The area of potential

noise harassment to Steller sea lions for individual bridges ranges depending on bridge

size and proximity of the bridge to a haulout or rookery site. For all 7 bridges, a total area

of 974 net acres (1,036 gross acres) of Steller sea lion habitat may be affected by noise

harassment disturbance. Bridge Program activities will be carried out in conformance

with the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard; this will minimize

noise levels and restrict loud noises to certain times of the year (see Section 3.3), thus

minimizing adverse effects on Steller sea lions.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For purposes of the Bridge Program, the potential for visual harassment was assumed to

exist if the bridge API is within 3,000 feet of haulout or rookery sites. No bridges meet

this criterion.

Chemicals

Because Steller sea lions inhabit the marine environmental and occasionally the lower

Rogue and Columbia Rivers (both large river systems), there is no potential for a

construction-related spill (usually a few gallons at most) to affect Steller sea lions.

Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard

will further ensure that there are no adverse effects on this species through the chemical

effects pathway.

Species

Steller sea lion 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 (NOAA Fisheries 1992). The Bridge Program will not directly affect these

areas. Implementation of the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard

will ensure that direct effects on Steller sea lions do not occur.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 218

5.4.3.5 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for Steller sea lions. Implementation of environmental

performance standards at all 7 bridges where the potential exists for adverse effects on Steller sea

lions will serve to minimize effects on this species to the greatest extent practicable. Although

large areas of Steller sea lion habitat have the potential to be affected by noise, visual

disturbance, and chemical contamination, the probability of adverse effects actually occurring is

remote.

5.4.4 Columbian White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)

5.4.4.1 Life History and Status

The Columbian white-tailed deer was Federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967. There

are two populations of Columbian white-tailed deer in Oregon: the Douglas County population

and the Columbia River population. These populations are separated by a distance of more than

200 miles, much of which is discontinuous or nonfunctional habitat. These populations are

considered Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) (July 24, 2003, 68 FR 43647). On July 24,

2003 the Douglas County DPS was Federally de-listed; however, the Columbia River DPS

remains Federally listed (July 24, 2003, 68 FR 43647) (Figure 5.4.4-1).

Recovery of the Columbia River DPS of the Columbian white-tailed deer will occur after: 1) the

attainment of at least three self-sustaining subpopulations, two of which need to be in secure

habitat, and 2) the existence of at least 400 adult animals in the population (USFWS 1976).

Currently there are 600-800 adult animals in four subpopulations occupying an area of

approximately 16,000 acres (USFWS 2002a). A fifth subpopulation is being established through

reintroduction of transplanted deer in 1999 and 2000. However, these subpopulations and their

habitat are still susceptible to flooding, dike erosion, predation, and competition from elk

(Cervus elaphus). As a result, the USFWS is reintroducing 60 adults to an island complex in the

Columbia River that includes approximately 964 acres on Fisher Island, Hump Island, Walker

Island, and Lord Island (USFWS 2002a).

The Columbian white-tailed deer historically ranged from Roseburg in southern Oregon to the

south end of Puget Sound in Washington (USFWS 1976). Their drastic decline is predominantly

the result of habitat loss due to increased agriculture, development, and fire suppression

(USFWS 1976).

The existing populations of the Columbia River DPS are in Columbia and Clatsop County in

Oregon, in adjacent Washington counties, and on the islands and within the floodplain of the
CLATSOP

COLUMBIA

TILLAMOOK WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH

screening/BA Figures/wt_deer.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.4-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Columbia White-Tailed Deer

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

dI aho

Washington

California

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 1 2 4 6 8 10

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

100 Foot Elevation Contour

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 220

Columbia River (ODFW 1995). Preferred habitats for this DPS include the riparian forest,

brushlands, and pastures within the tidally influenced floodplains of the Columbia River,

generally below 10 feet in elevation (ODFW 1995, WDFW 1990).

Critical habitat has not been designated for the Columbian white-tailed deer; however, several

recovery areas for the Columbian white-tailed deer have been designated in the Columbian

White-Tailed Deer Recovery Plan (USFWS 1976) (Table 5.4.4-1).

Table 5.4.4-1. Lands classified by the USFWS as essential to the survival and recovery of Columbian white-tailed

Deer (USFWS 1976).

Location Township Range Section

8 North 6 West 4 and 5

Tennasillahe Island

9 North 6 West 28 and 33

7 North 6 West 1 Northeast 1⁄4 (north of Highway 30)

8 North 6 West 25 South 1⁄2

8 North 6 West 36 (north and east of Highway 30)

7 North 5 West 6 (north of Highway 30)

Westport Area

8 North 5 West 30 South 1⁄2

8 North 5 West

25, 31, 34 (northeast 1⁄4), 35, and 36 (north 1⁄2 that

part of Anurdes Island with the section)

8 North 4 West 30 and 31

Wallace Island,

Anurdes Island Area,

Kinnunen Cut, and

adjacent shorelines

7 North 4 West 6 and that part of Kinnunen Cut in the northeast 1⁄4)

The Columbian white-tailed deer rut begins in November and peaks in the second week of

November. A Columbian white-tailed deer needs to be at least 18 months old to breed. Nearly all

females will breed each year, and have either one or two fawns. The fawning season is from midMay to mid-June, peaking during the second week in June (ODFW 1995, USFWS 1976).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 221

5.4.4.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to any species. Actions

that may affect Columbian white-tailed deer are delivered through the displacement, disruption,

removal, or addition of one or more of the following media:

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

The response of Columbian white-tailed deer to disturbance is influenced by the type of

disturbance, the predictability of the activity causing the disturbance, the frequency and

magnitude of the activity, the timing (e.g., during breeding or-non breeding season), and

the relative proximity or position of the activity (e.g., above versus below on a slope)

(Canfield et al. 1999). For Columbian white-tailed deer, the adverse effects of noise

disturbance may range from general alertness and increased heart rate to outright flight

and avoidance of, or even displacement from, functioning habitats (Canfield et al.1999).

Noise disturbance can be particularly detrimental to nursing females, which may abandon

fawns or reduce attentiveness, which can result in increased vulnerability to predation or

malnourishment. Consequently, activities that occur within a certain distance of

functional habitat during the summer fawning season, and that require heavy equipment,

chainsaws, aircraft, or blasting, have the potential to significantly disrupt the feeding or

sheltering of fawns, which can result in harassment take (USFWS 1976).

There is no documented threshold for noise disturbance for Columbian white-tailed deer.

However, the USFWS typically evaluates the effects of noise-generating activities on

other species, such as the bald eagle, if the species and/or critical habitat exists within a

0.25 mile of the activity. For open air blasting and other major disturbances, the distance

is increased to 1 mile. Thus, for the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from

noise disturbance are considered possible if habitat exists within a 1-mile perimeter

surrounding the API.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

Hiding/concealment cover is an important element of deer habitat. Typically, hiding

cover consists of either a topographical barrier or vegetation capable of hiding 90% of a

standing adult deer from the view of a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet

(USFS 1979). Columbian white-tailed deer will seldom forage farther than 750 feet from

a woodland edge (i.e., from hiding cover) (WDFW 1990).

The Columbian white-tailed deer’s responses to visual disturbance are similar to those for

noise disturbance, ranging from general alertness and increased heart rate, to a slow

retreating movement or outright flight (Canfield et al. 1999) Visual disturbance events

can be more detrimental to nursing does, which may abandon fawns or become less

attentive to them, thus increasing their vulnerability to predation or malnourishment.

There is no documented Columbian white-tailed deer threshold for visual disturbance.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual disturbance are
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 222

considered possible if the disturbance occurs within a distance of 1,500 feet from habitat

within the range of the DPS.

Vegetation

Habitat loss and degradation are the greatest threats to the Columbian white-tailed deer

(USFWS 1976). The removal of trees and shrubs can reduce hiding cover, and can alter

the quantity or quality of foraging habitat by promoting invasive competing species. For

the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects due to vegetation alteration are

considered possible within the API of any bridges within the range of the DPS.

Species

Direct effects on the species may occur if there is direct physical contact with humans or

their equipment. Bridge repair and replacement activities will not result in the direct

physical take of Columbian white-tailed deer.

5.4.4.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on Columbian white-tailed deer populations. The environmental performance

standards in Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for

habitat and species conservation during bridge construction.

5.4.4.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the Columbian white-tailed

deer using GIS analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify

where bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect Columbian whitetailed deer. The methods and assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in

summary below, and in detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The

methods and assumptions used to assess the effects on Columbian white-tailed deer via the

various pathways are presented below, and in detail in the Evaluation of Effect memos

(Appendix 2-B). Both the Effect Screening Layer memo and the Evaluation of Effect memo for

this species were reviewed by the Services as part of the ongoing consultation process for the

Bridge Program.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential Columbian white-tailed deer habitat includes

all areas: 1) within the 4th field HUC of Lower Columbia/Clatskanie or Grays/Elokoman and 2)

below 100 feet elevation.

ODOT/FHWA determined that a single program bridge (Big Creek Bridge - No. 07417) met

these criteria; construction activities at this bridge were considered to have the potential to affect

Columbian white-tailed deer. This bridge is further analyzed below to determine what, if any,

adverse effects repair and replacement activities may have on Columbian white-tailed deer via

the various effects pathways.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 223

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, the potential for noise disturbance was assumed

to exist within all Columbian white-tailed deer habitat within 1 mile of the perimeter of

the Big Creek Bridge (No. 07417) API. This was calculated to be 3,913 acres. Bridge

Program activities will be carried out in conformance with the Wildlife Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard; this will minimize noise levels and restrict loud

noises to certain times of the year (see Section 3.3), thus minimizing adverse effects on

Columbian white-tailed deer.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For purposes of the Bridge Program, the potential for visual disturbance was assumed to

exist in the area within 1,500 feet of the Big Creek Bridge (No. 07417) API. This area

was calculated to be 959 acres.

Vegetation

For purposes of the Bridge Program, effects on vegetation are assumed to be limited to 2

acres per bridge site. This is a safe estimate of the actual area of habitat impacts based on

past ODOT bridge projects (Appendix 2-B). Since only one bridge site is within the

vicinity of Columbian white-tailed deer habitat, ODOT/FHWA estimates that 2 acres of

habitat will be affected. The Big Creek Bridge replacement project is one of the smaller

projects in the Bridge Program; thus the actual effect on Columbia white-tailed deer

habitat is expected to be less than 2 acres. The Habitat Avoidance and Site Restoration

Environmental Performance Standards (Section 3.3) will be followed to limit the amount

of vegetation cleared and to ensure that any vegetation removed outside of a specific

bridge footprint is restored.

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities will not result in the direct physical take of

Columbian white-tailed deer. Implementation of the Wildlife Avoidance and Habitat

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standards at the Big Creek Bridge – No. 07417

will ensure that direct effects on Columbian white-tailed deer do not occur.

5.4.4.5 Determination of Effect

Only one bridge (Big Creek Bridge – No. 07417) was identified as being within habitat for

Columbian white-tailed deer. This bridge is located along Highway 30 in Clatsop County,

between the rural communities of Svensen and Knappa Junction. The USFWS considers the Big

Creek Bridge area to be just outside the known range of the Columbian white-tailed deer (Al

Clark, Biologist, Julia Butler Hanson National Wildlife Refuge, pers. comm., January 26, 2004).

Adherence to the Wildlife Passage and Migration Performance Standard will avoid or minimize

potential long-term effects to white-tailed deer that may disperse into the vicinity of the Big

Creek Bridge. Adherence to the Site Restoration and Habitat Avoidance Environmental
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 224

Performance Standards during the replacement of the Big Creek Bridge will serve to greatly

minimize adverse effects on Columbian white-tailed deer habitat. Due to the high levels of noise

and disturbance around the bridge site, the location of the bridge outside the known range of the

species, and application of the Environmental Performance Standards, the likelihood of adverse

effects to the Columbia white-tailed deer are discountable. Based on this analysis for the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect for

the Columbian white-tailed deer.

5.4.5 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)

5.4.5.1 Life History and Status

On March 24, 2000 the Canada Lynx was Federally listed as threatened throughout its range

(March 24, 2000, 65 FR 16051) (Figure 5.4.5-1). Critical habitat was not designated for the

species because the species and its habitat are continually shifting across the landscape.

Therefore critical habitat would provide a static designation of broad geographic areas that

would include many areas of nonfunctional habitat that are not critical to the species (March 24,

2000, 65 FR 16051).

The Canada lynx ranges throughout Alaska, Canada, the western mountainous states (Montana,

Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington), the Great Lakes region (Minnesota,

Wisconsin, and Michigan), and the northeast United States (New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont,

New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts) (March 24, 2000, 65 FR 16051). In Oregon, there

are limited historic lynx records indicating presence in the Willamette Valley, Cascade

Mountains, Steens Mountain, Stinkingwater Mountains, Blue Mountains, and Wallowa

Mountains (Verts and Carraway 1998). Based on the limited number of verified records, lack of

evidence of lynx reproduction, frequency of presence in atypical habitat, and correlation of such

occurrences with cyclic highs, the USFWS believes lynx occur in Oregon as dispersers; that is,

individual animals that have left an area they originally occupied for various reasons (such as a

decline in a snowshoe hare population) (July 3, 2003, 68 FR 40076). The Blue Mountain

Ecoregion in northeastern Oregon provides the highest potential for supporting lynx because of

its proximity to occupied habitat, higher elevations, and appropriate forest type. This area also

has the greatest number of historical occurrences in Oregon.

Specific habitat associations vary throughout the range of Canada lynx. In the Pacific Northwest,

lynx are associated with the high elevation boreal forests that typify northern latitudes; these

forests are primarily found above 4,500 feet in Oregon (Lee et al. 1998). Lynx require a mosaic

of early successional forests with high prey densities for foraging, and late-successional forests

with an accumulation of downed logs to use for denning and for thermal and hiding cover (Lee et

al. 1998). The lynx breeding season begins in mid-March to early April; the kittens are born in

May and remain with the mother until the onset of the following breeding season (Verts and

Carraway 1998). Litter size, age of breeding, and reproductive rates are cyclic and directly

correlate to snowshoe hare populations cycles (Lee et al. 1998).
GRANT

BAKER

MALHEUR

CROOK

UMATILLA

HARNEY

UNION

WALLOWA

MORROW

WHEELER

GILLIAM SHERMAN

WASCO

DESCHUTES

LAKE

JEFFERSON

screening/BA Figures/Lynx.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.5-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Canada Lynx

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Ida

h

o

Washington

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

Highway

County

City

Streams and Rivers

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Canada Lynx Area of Concern

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 226

 5.4.5.2 Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to a species. Essentially

all effects on the Canada lynx are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal or

addition of one or more of the following media:

Air

Noise Disturbance

There is little information regarding the Canada lynx’s susceptibility to noise harassment;

however, several anecdotal observations suggest that lynx can be relatively tolerant of

human activity and even continued presence (Ruediger et al. 2000, Joslins and Youmans

1999, Ruggiero et al. 1999). However, noise disturbance may result in an overall

avoidance of an area. Disturbances that occur close to a den site during denning season

would be more detrimental, resulting in reduced kitten survival due to abandonment or

the moving of kittens to an alternate site (Joslins and Youmans 1999).

There is no documented threshold for noise harassment for Canada lynx. However, the

USFWS typically evaluates the effects of noise-generating activities if the species and/or

critical habitat exists within a 0.25 mile of the activity. For open air blasting and other

major disturbances, the distance is increased to 1 mile. Thus, for the purposes of the

Bridge Program, adverse effects from noise disturbance are considered possible if habitat

exists within a 1-mile perimeter surrounding the API.

Visual Disturbance

Anecdotal observations suggest that lynx are tolerant of human disturbance (Ruediger et

al. 2000, Joslins and Youmans 1999, Ruggiero et al. 1999). Reactions to visual

disturbance are similar to those for noise disturbance. If the activity is near a den, there

may be reduced kitten survival due to den abandonment or the moving of kittens to an

alternate site (Joslins and Youmans 1999). Vegetation or topography capable of

concealing an adult Canada lynx may be important in providing lynx with an insulating

buffer from the visual disturbance. Snow tracking research in north central Washington

determined that Canada lynx travel the edges of meadows, but only cross meadows where

openings are less than 330 feet (Ruggiero et al. 1999).

There is no documented Canada lynx threshold for visual disturbance. For the purposes

of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual disturbance are considered possible if

the disturbance occurs within a distance of 330 feet from habitat.

Vegetation

There is little information regarding the effects of small scale vegetation removal on

Canada lynx; however, any vegetation removal has the potential to decrease functional

habitat for preferred prey, to decrease available cover for the Canada lynx, and to

promote the introduction or expansion of non-native invasive species. However, it is very

unlikely that the areas immediately adjacent to highway bridges are preferred habitat for
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 227

lynx due to the relatively high level of human presence. Nonetheless, for the purposes of

the Bridge Program, adverse effects due to vegetation alteration are considered possible

within the API of any bridges within the range of the species.

Species

Direct effects on the species may occur if there is direct physical contact with humans or

their equipment. Lynx deaths from vehicular collisions drastically increase with relatively

small increase in traffic volumes and speed; however, this appears to be a minimal risk to

Canada lynx in Oregon due to the few lynx present (Ruediger et al. 2000). Highways

speeds will be temporarily reduced during the period of active bridge construction.

Bridge repair and replacement activities will not result in the direct physical take of

Canada lynx.

5.4.5.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on Canada lynx populations. The environmental performance standards in

Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat and

species conservation during bridge construction.

5.4.5.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the Canada lynx using GIS

analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where bridge repair

and replacement activities have the potential to affect the Canada lynx. The methods and

assumptions used to perform this screening process are summarized below, and detailed in the

Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and assumptions used to assess the

effects on the Canada lynx via the various pathways are presented below, and in detail in the

Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the Effect Screening Layer memo and the

Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed by the Services as part of the ongoing

consultation process for the Bridge Program.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, Canada lynx habitat includes all areas within the lynx

Area of Concern as identified by the USFWS (USFWS 2003). A total of 38 Program Bridges fall

within this area (Table 5.4.5-1). These 38 bridges are further analyzed below to determine what,

if any, adverse effects their repair and replacement activities may have on the Canada lynx via

the various effects pathways.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 228

Table 5.4.5-1. Program Bridge Projects That May Affect Canada Lynx.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

1 1996 Grande Ronde R (Elgin) 4 Blue Mountains

2 2184 Wallowa River (Bear Cr Br.) 5 Blue Mountains

3 3596 Trout C. Overflow 1 Blue Mountains

4 4728 Camas C. 4 Blue Mountains

5 4729 N. Fk. John Day R.(Dale) 5 Blue Mountains

6 5192 Minam Viaduct 8 Blue Mountains

7 6204 Smith Cr. 1 Blue Mountains

8 6205 Fox Cr. 1 Blue Mountains

9 7316 Powder R. (Rancheria) 3 Blue Mountains

10 7431 Powder R. (Salisbury) 3 Blue Mountains

11 7573 Lostine R. 3 Blue Mountains

12 7987 UPRR/Pritchard Cr. 6 Blue Mountains

13 8431 Unknown 7 Blue Mountains

14 8502 Hilgard Interchange 4 Blue Mountains

15 8780 Inp/Grande Ronde (Indian) 6 Blue Mountains

16 00449A UPRR & Frontage Rd. 5 Blue Mountains

17 00800A Grande Ronde R. (S Elgin) 6 Blue Mountains

18 01038A Wallowa R.-Minam Br. 6 Blue Mountains

19 03553A Beech C. (6th Xing) 3 Blue Mountains

20 03558A Canyon C. 3 Blue Mountains

21 04821A Grande Ronde R/Island Ct 3 Blue Mountains

22 04841A Grande Ronde R(Hilgard) 3 Blue Mountains

23 07292B UPRR 3 Blue Mountains

24 07987A UPRR/Pritchard Cr. 6 Blue Mountains
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 229

Table 5.4.5-1. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

25 08302E Encina Interchange 5 Blue Mountains

26 08302W Encina Interchange 5 Blue Mountains

27 08423E Alder Cr. Rd. 3 Blue Mountains

28 08423W Alder Cr. Rd. 3 Blue Mountains

29 08431A Unknown 4 Blue Mountains

30 08498E UPRR & Meacham Cr. 6 Blue Mountains

31 08498W UPRR & Meacham Cr. 6 Blue Mountains

32 2463 Indian Cr. 3 Lava Plains

33 2466 Dixie Cr.-Prairie City 3 Lava Plains

34 2655 John Day R. (Goose Rock) 6 Lava Plains

35 7696 John Day R. (Coles) 3 Lava Plains

36 02233A Harper Cr. 3 Lava Plains

37 02734A Rock Cr. (Picture Gorge) 3 Lava Plains

38 04981A Mathas Cr. 3 Lava Plains
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 230

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, the potential for noise harassment was assumed

to exist within 1 mile of the perimeter of program bridge APIs within the lynx Area of

Concern. A total of 114,665 net acres (148,995 gross acres) of lynx habitat therefore have

the potential of being affected by noise disturbance. Due to the variation in the annual

timing of lynx dispersal, it would not be feasible to apply a seasonal restriction to

minimize the potential effects of noise disturbance.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For purposes of the Bridge Program, visual disturbance was assumed to occur in all

habitats within 330 feet of the perimeter of program bridge APIs within the lynx Area of

Concern. This area was calculated to be approximately 14,462 net acres (17,002 gross

acres). As noted above, it would not be feasible to apply a seasonal restriction to

minimize the potential effects of visual disturbance on dispersing Canada lynx.

Vegetation

For purposes of the Bridge Program, effects on vegetation are assumed to be limited to 2

acres per bridge site. This is a safe estimate of the actual area of habitat impacts based on

past ODOT bridge projects (Appendix 2-B). Thus, approximately 76 acres of vegetation

will be disturbed in the vicinity of program bridges within the lynx Area of Concern. It is

unlikely that very much of the area where vegetation disturbance will occur is functional

lynx habitat.

The Habitat Avoidance and Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standards

(Section 3.3) will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that

any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint is restored. There is no

designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx; therefore no critical habitat will be

removed.

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities will not result in the direct physical take of

Canada lynx. Implementation of the Wildlife Avoidance and Habitat Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standards will ensure that direct effects on Canada lynx do

not occur.

5.4.5.5 Determination of Effect

A total of 38 program bridges were identified within the Canada lynx Area of Concern. The

potential effects of the Bridge Program on the Canada lynx delivered through pathways above

will be discountable or avoided with the application of environmental performance standards to

these 38 bridges. Canada lynx are extremely rare in Oregon, and exist only as dispersing or

possibly breeding individuals; there is no established breeding population (July 3, 2003, 68 FR
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 231

40076). However, due to the high baseline level of noise along the roadways; the very unlikely

chance of a lynx denning near a bridge and the improvement of habitat connectivity via bridges

along the riparian corridors, the likelihood of adverse effects to lynx are discountable. Based on

this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, not

likely to adversely affect for the Canada lynx.

5.4.6 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)

5.4.6.1 Life History and Status

The marbled murrelet is a robin-sized seabird that inhabits coastal areas from Alaska to southcentral California. Marbled murrelets spend most of their lives in the marine environment, where

they feed primarily on small fish and invertebrates in the near-shore marine water (May 24,

1996, 61 FR 26256). Typically, murrelets live within 1-2 miles of the shore and concentrate at

the mouth of rivers and creeks. In Oregon, marbled murrelets nest in coastal forests as far as 40

miles inland of the Pacific Ocean (Evans-Mack et al. 2003).

The marbled murrelet was Federally listed as threatened on October 1, 1992, due to the loss of

older forested habitat associated with its nest sites (October 1, 1992, 57 FR 45328). Lesser

threats include oil spills and gill-net mortalities (October 1, 1992, 57 FR 45328). In Oregon, the

current population is much smaller than its historic population, but is thought to have been stable

since 1987 (USFWS 1997).

The USFWS designated critical habitat for nesting marbled murrelets on May 24, 1996 (May 24,

1996, 61 FR 26256). Lands identified as critical habitat provide nesting habitat; they are near to

marine foraging habitat, are typically large continuous blocks, are distributed throughout the

range of the species, and are adequate for existing protection and management (May 24, 1996, 61

FR 26256) (Figure 5.4.6-1). Not all functional or occupied marbled murrelet nesting habitat is

designated critical habitat.

Marbled murrelets typically nest in large-diameter old-growth trees in low-elevation forest with

multi-layered canopies (May 24, 1996, 61 FR 26256, Nelson 1990). Functional nesting trees

have branches of at least 5 inches in diameter, and deformities or other natural structures that

provide a platform for nesting (January 27, 1994, 59 FR 3811). The platform is typically covered

with moss or duff, creating the necessary nest substrate, and the trees typically have dense overhanging branches that provide protection from predators and weather (Hamer et al. 1993). Nests

are typically in trees greater than 32 inches in diameter at breast height, and are frequently

located in the largest trees available in the stand (January 27, 1994, 59 FR 3811, Hamer et al.

1993).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 232

Marbled murrelet nesting occurs from early April to August (Carter and Sealy 1987). A single

egg is laid and both sexes incubate in alternating 24-hour shifts for approximately 30 days; the

young fledge after approximately 28 days (Singer et al. 1991, Hirsch et al. 1981, Simons 1980).

Chicks are fed once daily. The adults commonly fly inland from the ocean feeding areas to the

nest site at dusk and dawn, although these flights may occur at any time of day (Hamer and

Cummins 1991). Murrelets frequently follow linear openings, such as roads, creeks, or other

natural or human-made corridors to directly approach and depart from nest stands (USFWS

2003a).
LAKE

LANE

HARNEY

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

LINN

CROOK

GRANT

WASCO

JACKSON

COOS

DESCHUTES

CURRY

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

MARION

JOSEPHINE

UMATILLA

POLK

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

screening\BA_figures\mamu.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.6-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Marbled Murrelet

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

Idaho

California

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

0 5 10 20 30

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Pacific Shoreline + 40 Miles Inland

Johnson & O'Neil Habitat Types

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 234

5.4.6.2 Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the species.

Essentially, all effects on marbled murrelets are delivered through the displacement, disruption,

degradation, removal, or addition of the following:

Air

Noise Disturbance

Murrelets may be adversely affected by noise during the breeding season. Activities

involving heavy equipment, chainsaws, aircraft, or blasting within specified distances

during the critical breeding season (approximately April 1 to August 5) have the potential

to cause disturbance and harassment by significantly disrupting breeding, feeding, or

sheltering. For murrelets, the adverse effects of noise disturbance may also lead to nest

abandonment by adults, reduced nest attentiveness (leading to increased vulnerability to

predation for juveniles), aborted feeding visits, premature fledging, and avoidance of

otherwise functional habitat (Hamer and Nelson 1998). The sensitivity of an individual

murrelet to disturbance is likely related to the baseline level of disturbance the bird is

accustomed to, the proximity of the disturbance, and the timing of the disturbance within

the nesting cycle and daily activity periods (Hamer and Nelson 1998).

In the past the USFWS typically determined the threshold of general noise harassment to

be within a 0.25-mile radius of the activity, and within a 1.0-mile radius for larger

disturbances such as open air blasting (USFWS 2003b). However, based on information

contained in a recent Olympic National Forest ESA consultation (USFWS 2003a), the

USFWS has refined the thresholds for noise harassment for marbled murrelets (Table

5.4.6-1). This recent guidance was used by ODOT/FHWA in developing marbled

murrelet environmental performance standards and evaluating the effects of the proposed

action. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from noise disturbance

are considered possible if the disturbance occurs within a 1-mile perimeter surrounding

the API. Adverse effects from noise disturbance from sources other than blasting are

considered possible if the other noise-generating activities occur within a 300-foot

perimeter surrounding the API.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 235

Table 5.4.6-1. Noise disturbance thresholds for marbled murrelets.

Activity Threshold Distance

Blast (greater than 2 lb charge) 1.0 mile

Blast (less than a 2 lb charge) 360 feet

Pile driving, jackhammer, or rock drill 180 feet

Helicopter or single-engine Aircraft 360 feet

Chainsaws 135 feet

Heavy equipment 105 feet

Source: USFWS 2003a.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

Anecdotal observations presented in Long and Ralph (1998), as well as limited controlled

experiments conducted by Hamer and Nelson (1998), suggest that murrelets may be

adversely affected by visual disturbance. Due to the murrelets’ ecological position as a

prey item for several species of birds and mammals, visual disturbances that resemble

those of their predators have the greatest potential to adversely affect marbled murrelets

(USFWS 1997). For example, the presence of people walking near a nest, and of corvids

flying or perching nearby, has disturbed murrelets by causing adults to abort feeding

visits, flush from the nest, or freeze on the landing pad or in the nest until the perceived

threat had passed. Long and Ralph (1998) reported the findings of several studies on

other seabird species which showed reduced reproductive success in areas where human

presence (often researchers) caused disturbance. Again this was believed to be due to

reduced nest attentiveness and increased predation. Hamer and Nelson (1998) found that

adults were more likely than nestlings to show a severe response to a disturbance (e.g.,

aborting a feeding visit or flushing from the nest).

For their programmatic ESA consultation (USFWS 2003a), the Olympic National Forest

compiled information from experienced marbled murrelet biologists as well as incidental

observation of visual disturbance to determine the estimated sight-only injury threshold—

the distance at which a murrelet would be flushed from its nest or miss feeding its young

merely by the sight (not sight and sound) of human activity. Overall, the farthest

murrelets flushed from perches or nests due to the presence of pedestrians (without

motorized equipment) was 33 feet. However, the USFWS has yet to adopt this visual

harassment threshold and continues to evaluate the effects of visual harassment that

occurs within 300 feet of a marbled murrelet nest or suitable unsurveyed habitat. Thus,

for the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual disturbance are

considered possible if the disturbance occurs within a 300-foot perimeter surrounding the

API.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 236

Chemicals

Because marbled murrelets inhabit the marine environment, there is no potential for a

construction-related spill to affect them. Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion

Control Environmental Performance Standard will further ensure that there are no

adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Some bridge repair and replacement activities may require vegetation removal (including

cutting of large trees), which may result in the removal of functional nesting habitat. The

greatest threat to marbled murrelet recovery is continued loss of nesting habitat (Ralph et

al. 1995). For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects due to vegetation

alteration are considered possible at bridges within the range of the species, if those

bridges have murrelet habitat within 500 feet of the center of the bridge.

Species

Removal of occupied nesting habitat during the breeding season has the potential to

directly take marbled murrelets by killing juveniles. In addition, human activity and the

clearing of vegetation adjacent to marbled murrelet nests may increase the presence of

corvids, a primary predator of marbled murrelets, which would make juveniles and

incubating adults vulnerable to predation.

5.4.6.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on marbled murrelet populations. The environmental performance standards in

Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat and

species conservation during bridge construction.

5.4.6.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the marbled murrelet using

GIS analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where bridge

repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect the marbled murrelet. The methods

and assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary below, and in

detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and assumptions used

to assess the effects on the marbled murrelet via the various pathways are presented below, and

in detail in the Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the Effect Screening Layer

memo and the Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed by the Services as part

of the ongoing consultation process for the Bridge Program.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 237

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, marbled murrelet habitat includes all areas: 1) within 40

miles of the Pacific Ocean shoreline, and 2) within the Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Westside

Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Bays

and Estuaries, Marine Nearshore, and Marine Shelf habitat types.

A total of 87 program bridges are within 40 miles of the Pacific Ocean, but only 63 of these have

marbled murrelet habitat (as defined above) within 1 mile of their API (Table 5.4.6-2). These

bridges are further analyzed below to determine what, if any, adverse effects their associated

repair and replacement activities may have on the marbled murrelet via the various effects

pathways.

Table 5.4.6-2. Program Bridge projects that may affect Marbled Murrelet.

Record

No.

Bridge

ID No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

1 654 Hayes Cr. 6 Coast Range

2 683 Yaquina R. 4 Coast Range

3 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Coast Range

4 1406 Elk Cr. 4th Xing 5 Coast Range

5 1465 Elk Cr. 3rd Xing 6 Coast Range

6 1601 Elk Cr. 2nd Xing 6 Coast Range

7 1614 Elk Cr. 1st Xing 6 Coast Range

8 1697 Paradise Cr. 5 Coast Range

9 1831 Unknown 3 Coast Range

10 1832 Unknown 3 Coast Range

11 1868 Wilson R. Mills Br. 3 Coast Range

12 1950 Central OR RR 3 Coast Range

13 2029 Unknown 3 Coast Range

14 2164 Unknown 14 Coast Range

15 2165 Unknown 12 Coast Range

16 2472 Devils Lake Fk. #2 9 Coast Range

17 2601 Unknown 4 Coast Range
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 238

Table 5.4.6-2.

Record

No.

Bridge

ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

18 4192 Unknown 9 Coast Range

19 4573 Unknown 3 Coast Range

20 7417 Big Cr. 3 Coast Range

21 7519 Clatskanie R. 3 Coast Range

22 7530 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

23 7532 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

24 7533 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

25 7534 Little Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

26 7715 Swedetown County Rd. 4 Coast Range

27 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Coast Range

28 8281 Us 101 NB (Hwy 009) 3 Coast Range

29 8370 Knowles Cr. 3 Coast Range

30 8446 Siuslaw R. 3 Coast Range

31 8554 Wildcat Cr. 3 Coast Range

32 8830 Coquille R. 5 Coast Range

33 8842 Coquille R. 8 Coast Range

34 8843 Hwy 242 3 Coast Range

35 8875 Coquille R. 5 Coast Range

36 8876 Coquille R. 4 Coast Range

37 8935 Coquille R. 7 Coast Range

38 8936 Coquille R. 5 Coast Range

39 9591 Hwy 2W 3 Coast Range

40 13491 Unknown 3 Coast Range

41 00866B WPRR & Marys R. 6 Coast Range
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 239

Table 5.4.6-2.

Record

No.

Bridge

ID No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

42 00922A Unknown 3 Coast Range

43 00924A Unknown 6 Coast Range

44 00925A Unknown 5 Coast Range

45 01869A Wilson R. 2nd Xing 11 Coast Range

46 01872A Jordon Cr. 4 Coast Range

47 02027A Unknown 3 Coast Range

48 02364A Unknown 3 Coast Range

49 03091A Unknown 1 Coast Range

50 03092A Unknown 1 Coast Range

51 03172A Central OR RR 3 Coast Range

52 03173A Beaver Cr. 24 Coast Range

53 03173B Beaver Cr. 24 Coast Range

54 03212A Endicot Cr. 3 Coast Range

55 1424 Hardscrabble Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

56 00559B Middle Fk. Coquille R. 3 Klamath Mountains

57 00587C Olalla Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

58 00588C Tenmile Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

59 01074A Elk Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

60 01107A Rough & Ready Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

61 01108A W Fk. Illinois R. 5 Klamath Mountains

62 07563A Calapooya Cr. 7 Klamath Mountains

63 07644A Rice Hill Front Rd. 3 Klamath Mountains
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 240

Air

Noise Disturbance

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from noise disturbance are

considered possible if the disturbance occurs within a 1-mile perimeter surrounding the

API. Adverse effects from noise disturbance from sources other than blasting are

considered possible if the other noise-generating activities occur within a 300-foot

perimeter surrounding the API.

Construction noise occurring within the range of the marbled murrelet may affect

marbled murrelets at the nest site as well as those traveling to or from the nest.

Consequently, construction noise at all 87 bridges within the range of the marbled

murrelet, regardless of whether or not functional habitat is present in the vicinity, has the

potential to affect marbled murrelets. Assuming that noises from bridge repair and

replacement activities will attenuate to near background levels within 1.0 mile of the

activity, the area of potential noise disturbance at individual bridges ranges from 3,824

acres to 4,725 acres depending on bridge size. A total of 153,445 net acres (255,463 gross

acres) of land area could be affected by noise disturbance. However, the Wildlife

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3) will essentially eliminate

the potential adverse effects of noise on marbled murrelets by prohibiting high noise

activities when murrelets may be present. Furthermore, the Bridge Program will be

carried out over a period of 7-10 years, so any potential effects on murrelets will be

spread out geographically and temporally.

Visual Disturbance

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual disturbance are

considered possible if the disturbance occurs within a 300-foot perimeter surrounding the

API. Only 61 bridges have functional murrelet nesting habitat within 300 feet of their

API. A total of about 19,127 net acres (21,095 gross acres) of murrelet habitat is present

in the vicinity of these 61 bridges. However, it is unlikely that construction activities at

any of the bridges will actually affect marbled murrelets through visual disturbance.

Marbled murrelets nesting near highways would be acclimated to higher noise levels and

to the presence of people; therefore, they are less likely to be affected by a potential

visual disturbance. Furthermore, the Bridge Program will be carried out over a period of

7-10 years, so any potential effects on murrelets will be spread out geographically and

temporally.

Chemicals

Because marbled murrelets inhabit the marine environment, there is no potential for a

construction-related spill to affect them. Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion

Control Environmental Performance Standard will further ensure that there are no

adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects pathway.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 241

Vegetation

For purposes of the Bridge Program, effects on vegetation are assumed to be limited to 2

acres per bridge (for all bridges with murrelet habitat within 500 feet of the bridge

center). This is a safe estimate of the actual area of habitat impacts based on past ODOT

bridge projects (Appendix 2-B). Fifty bridges meet this criterion. Thus, approximately

100 acres of vegetation will be disturbed in the vicinity of program bridges with potential

marbled murrelet habitat nearby. It is unlikely that very much of the area where

vegetation disturbance will occur is functional murrelet habitat.

Only two bridges have marbled murrelet designated critical habitat present within 500

feet of the bridge center point. Both of these bridges are completely within designated

critical habitat. By following the Habitat Avoidance Performance Standard, no primary

constituent elements will be removed as a result of this project.

The Habitat Avoidance and Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standards

(Section 3.3) will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that

any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint is restored. Implementation

of the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will ensure that murrelet

critical habitat and functional habitat will not be removed during the breeding season

unless surveys indicate that murrelets are not present. No documented marbled murrelet

nest trees or primary constituent elements of marbled murrelet critical habitat will be

removed per this environmental performance standard.

Species

Direct removal of habitat may affect marbled murrelets currently occupying that habitat.

However, by adhering to the Habitat Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard,

no marbled murrelet habitat will be removed during the breeding season unless surveys

show that murrelets are not present. Thus no direct physical take of marbled murrelets

will occur.

5.4.6.5 Determination of Effect

Through the application of environmental performance standards, adverse effects on marbled

murrelets will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. However, the possibility exists

that marbled murrelets could be adversely affected by noise and visual harassment, and some

marbled murrelet functional habitat may be removed. However, any potential effects on

murrelets will be spread out geographically and temporally and are expected to be minor. Based

on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes the determination of may affect,

likely to adversely affect for the marbled murrelet via harassment and habitat effects and may

affect, not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet via adverse modification of

designated critical habitat.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 242

5.4.7 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

5.4.7.1 Life History and Status

The bald eagle was down-listed from Federally endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states

on July 12, 1995 (July 12, 1995, 60 FR 36000). Habitat loss due to logging, recreational and

urban development, and mineral exploration and extraction has affected the habitat functionality

of breeding, wintering, and foraging areas (USFWS 1986). In addition, contaminants such as

dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethylene (DDE), which is the derivative of dichlorodiphenyl

trichloroethane (DDT), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) continue to threaten bald eagles by

lowering reproductive success (July 12, 1995, 60 FR 36000). Other threats include lead

poisoning from ingesting prey items that contain lead shot, poisoning from eating baited

carcasses, and illegal shootings (July 12, 1995, 60 FR 36000). No critical habitat has been

designated for bald eagles (USFWS 2000a).

The Pacific Recovery Region for bald eagles includes Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada,

Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. The de-listing goal for this recovery region is 800 nesting pairs

with an average reproductive rate of 1.0 fledge young per pair and an average success rate per

occupied site of not less than 65% over a five-year period. De-listing would also require the

attainment of breeding population goals in at least 80% of management zones and stable or

increasing wintering populations (July 12, 1995, 60 FR 36000). De-listing goals have been met

in all categories except nest distribution in zones with nesting targets (July 12, 1995, 60 FR

36000). In Oregon, the number of nesting territories has either increased or remained stable in

each recovery zone since 1998 (Isaacs and Anthony 2003) (Figure 5.4.7-1).

Bald eagles are found throughout the Pacific Northwest in close association with freshwater,

estuarine, and marine ecosystems that provide abundant prey and functional habitat for nesting

and communal roosting (Watson et al. 1991). Breeding territories are typically located within 1

mile of permanent water in predominantly coniferous, variably aged forest stands with oldgrowth structural components (Anthony and Isaacs 1989, Stalmaster 1987, Anthony et al. 1982).

Bald eagle pairs in Oregon often have alternate nests in their territories that are used in different

years (Anthony and Isaacs 1981).

Bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest nest in relatively open forests where the average crown

closure is less than 50% (Anthony et al. 1982, Anthony and Isaacs 1981). Nest trees are usually

the largest tree or snag in a stand that provides an unobstructed view of the surrounding area and

a clear flight path to and from the nest (Rodrick and Milner 1991, Stalmaster 1987). A pilot tree

within 100 feet of the nest is often used as a perch site and an access to the nest. Additional snags

and trees with exposed lateral limbs or dead tops within a nesting territory typically serve as

perching or roosting sites (USFWS 1986).

Bald eagles winter along lakes, streams, and rivers. Their concentrations reflect winter food

sources, although perch availability and level of human disturbance are also important

(Stalmaster 1980, Steenhof 1978, USFS 1977). If sufficient winter food sources are available

around a nest site, the nesting pair may remain in the area throughout the winter (Swenson et al.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 243

1986). Fish, waterfowl, and carrion are important winter food sources for bald eagles (USFWS

1986). Most eagles that breed in Oregon and Washington winter in the vicinity of their nests

(Garrett et al. 1988).

During the winter, bald eagles often form communal night roosts consisting of two to more than

500 birds. Roosts occur in areas that are sheltered from the wind, and where conditions are

otherwise favorable for conserving energy (WDFW 2001). Although the advantages to

communal roosting are not completely understood, these roosting areas may provide a place for

pairs to form bonds and a place for eagles to learn of food sources (WDFW 2001). Communal

night roosting typically occurs near a foraging area, in forested stands that are variably aged with

older dominant trees with broken crowns (WDFW 2001). In areas that lack coniferous forest

stands, roosts will occur in dominant cottonwood (Populus spp.) trees or willows (Salix spp.)

(USFWS 1986).

Nesting behaviors typically begin in January, with egg laying and incubation occurring in

February and March (Isaacs et al. 1983). Young are reared throughout April, May, and June.

Fledging occurs in July and August. Disturbances during the nesting period may result in

increased energy expenditure from avoidance flights, and decreased energy intake due to

interference with feeding activities (Knight 1984). Distance to disturbance is the most important

factor affecting the influence of human disturbance on bald eagles (Grubb and King 1991).

However, their tolerance of loud noises appears to increase if the source is concealed from view

by vegetation (Stalmaster and Newman 1978, Steenhof 1978).
LAKE

HARNEY

MALHEUR

LANE

GRANT

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

LINN

BAKER

CROOK

UMATILLA

UNION

WASCO

WALLOWA

JACKSON

COOS

DESCHUTES

CURRY

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

MARION

JOSEPHINE

POLK

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

screening/BA Figures/eagle.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.7-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Bald Eagle

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user. Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

California

0 510 20 30 40 50 60

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Bald Eagle Nest Sites

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 245

5.4.7.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the species.

Essentially all effects on bald eagles are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal,

or addition of one or more of the following:

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

Bald eagles may be susceptible to harassment from noise during the breeding season and

at communal winter roost. Consequently, the UFWS considers activities requiring the use

of heavy equipment, chainsaws, aircraft, or blasting during the breeding season

(approximately January 1 to August 15) within specified distances to bald eagle nests,

and from October 31 to March 15 within specified distances to communal winter roost

sites, to have the potential to significantly disrupt breeding, feeding or sheltering of bald

eagles (USFWS 1981). For bald eagles, the adverse effects of harassment range from

behavioral responses such as flushing, reduced nest attendance, or nest failure, to

displacement or avoidance of functional habitat (WDFW 2001). The sensitivity of an

individual bald eagle to disturbance is likely related to its prior experience and the density

of nesting bald eagles in the area. Other factors include the proximity, duration,

frequency, line-of-sight, sound, and position of the disturbance in relation to the bird

(WDFW 2001).

The USFWS evaluates the effects of general disturbance activities within a 1,300-foot

radius of the activity, and within a 1.0-mile radius for major disturbances such as open air

blasting (USFWS 1986). For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from

noise disturbance are considered possible if nest or communal roost sites are present

within a 1-mile perimeter surrounding the API. Adverse effects from noise disturbance

from sources other than blasting are considered possible if nest or communal roost sites

are present within a 1300-foot perimeter surrounding the API.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

Bald eagles are susceptible to harassment from visual activity in proximity to their nests

during the breeding season (January 1 and August 15) and at communal winter roost sites

between October 31 and March 15. Bald eagle responses to visual harassment are similar

to those for noise harassment, including flushing, reduced nest attendance, and

displacement from functional habitat (WDFW 2001). The USFWS evaluates visual

harassment of bald eagles to occur if the activity is within line-of-sight of a nest or roost

site, to a distance of 2,600 feet (0.5 mile) (USFWS 1986). Thus, for the purposes of the

Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual disturbance are considered possible if nest or

communal roost sites are present within a 2,600-foot (0.5 mile) perimeter surrounding the

API.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 246

Chemicals

The Bridge Program has the potential to affect bald eagles through contamination

resulting from an accidental chemical spill during bridge construction. A chemical spill

may affect bald eagles directly, via chemical contact with an individual eagle (highly

unlikely), or indirectly, through the mortality or contamination of primary prey species.

The distance required to dilute a chemical spill to an undetectable level would vary

depending on the type of chemical, the amount spilled, and the environmental conditions

under which the spill occurred. It is assumed for the purposes of the Bridge Program that

only chemical spills at over-water bridges have the potential to affect bald eagles, and

that all chemicals spills would be diluted to undetectable levels within 1.0 mile of the

contamination site.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal within the vicinity of eagle nests or roosting areas may adversely

affect bald eagles. In the extreme, vegetation clearing could result in the cutting of

nesting or roosting sites. The removal of vegetation may also alter the microclimate of

the nest or roosting site, thereby decreasing the site’s energetic benefits or increasing the

site’s susceptibility to windthrow (WDFW 2001). Vegetation removal adjacent to nest

sites and roosting areas may increase the site’s susceptibility to disturbance by removing

the vegetation screen that buffers line-of-sight disturbances and loud noises. The bald

eagle management guidelines for Oregon and Washington recommend restricting all land

development and timber harvest activities within 660 feet surrounding a bald eagle nest

site (USFWS 1981). However, more recent recommendations include the prohibition of

clear-cut logging, road building, hiking trails, and boat launches within 1,300 feet of a

nest site (Anthony and Isaacs 1989). For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse

effects due to vegetation alteration are considered possible at bridges within the range of

the species, if a bald eagle nest or communal roost site is present within 1,300 feet of the

center of the bridge.

Species

The removal of occupied nest trees during the breeding season has the potential to

directly affect bald eagles by killing nestlings or incubating adults. However, this activity

will be prohibited as described in the Habitat Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard. Thus, no direct effect on the species will occur.

5.4.7.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on bald eagle populations. The environmental performance standards in Section

3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat and species

conservation during bridge construction.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 247

5.4.7.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the bald eagle using GIS

analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where bridge repair

and replacement activities have the potential to affect the bald eagle. The methods and

assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary below, and in

detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and assumptions used

to assess the effects on the bald eagle via the various pathways are presented below, and in detail

in the Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the Effect Screening Layer memo and

the Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed by the Services as part of the

ongoing consultation process for the Bridge Program.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, bridge construction activities were assumed to have the

potential to affect bald eagles if a known bald eagle nest or communal roost site is present within

a 1-mile perimeter surrounding the API. A total of 31 program bridges meet this criterion (Table

5.4.7-1). These 31 bridges are further analyzed below to determine what, if any, adverse effects

their repair and replacement activities may have on the bald eagle via the various effects

pathways.

Table 5.4.7-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Bald Eagle.

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

1 2184 Wallowa R. (Bear Cr. Br.) 5 Blue Mountains

2 1697 Paradise Cr. 5 Coast Range

3 7530 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

4 7532 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

5 00924A Unknown 6 Coast Range

6 00925A Unknown 5 Coast Range

7 03172A Central OR RR 3 Coast Range

8 03173A Beaver Cr. 24 Coast Range

9 03173B Beaver Cr. 24 Coast Range

10 6884 Spring Cr. 3 East Cascades

11 6886 Hwy 422 3 East Cascades

12 7301 Algoma Log Pond 3 East Cascades
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 248

Table 5.4.7-1. (continued).

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

13 8345 USBR Canal 4 East Cascades

14 8346 California Ave 8 East Cascades

15 8510 Unknown 3 East Cascades

16 08347A Unknown 6 East Cascades

17 7894 Willamette R. 8 West Cascades

18 8623 Conn Herman Cr. 3 West Cascades

19 07403A Herman Cr. 3 West Cascades

20 8124 Santiam Overflow No 4 5 Willamette Valley

21 8195 Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

22 8197 Unknown 13 Willamette Valley

23 8889 Unknown 7 Willamette Valley

24 00123K Unknown 33 Willamette Valley

25 07253B Unknown 35 Willamette Valley

26 07736A Camas Swale 3 Willamette Valley

27 07736C Camas Swale 3 Willamette Valley

28 07745A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 8 Willamette Valley

29 07756A Coast Fk. Relief Opening 4 Willamette Valley

30 07757A Gettings Cr. 5 Willamette Valley

31 07757B Gettings Cr. 5 Willamette Valley

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from high noise harassment such

as that generated by open air blasting, are considered possible if nest or communal roost

sites are present within a 1-mile perimeter surrounding the API. Adverse effects from
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 249

noise harassment from sources other than blasting are considered possible if nest or

communal roost sites are present within a 1,300-foot (0.25-mile) perimeter surrounding

the API. There are 17 bald eagle pairs associated with the 31 bridges within 1 mile of a

bridge API (the additional 14 sites are alternate nest sites). Therefore, open air blasting

activities at the 31 bridges have the potential to adversely affect 17 pairs of bald eagles

due to noise harassment; however, only two of the 14 sites are within 1,320 feet (0.25

mile) of the API;. The Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard (Section

3.3) will avoid or minimize noise harassment on bald eagles by prohibiting high-noise

activities from occurring during critical nesting periods, or providing a daily limited

operating period to minimize harassment during daily activity periods.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual disturbance are

considered possible if nest or communal roost sites are present within a 2,640-foot (0.5

mile) perimeter surrounding the API. Fourteen bald eagle nest or roost sites (at 12

different bridges; two bridges have two sites each) are within 2,640 feet (0.5 mile) of a

bridge API; 14 nest/roost sites are from 1,320-2,640 feet (0.25-0.5 mile) from the API.

These 14 nest or roost sites lie within 9 different bald eagle pair territories (some pairs

have alternate nests). Therefore, visual disturbance has the potential to affect up to 9 pairs

of bald eagles. Many of the nest sites within 2,640 feet (0.5 mile)of a bridge API,

particularly those more than 1,320 feet (0.25 mile)from the API, will not be in line-ofsight (due to the presence of screening vegetation or topography), which will eliminate

the likelihood of visual harassment on those bald eagle nest sites. Furthermore, the

Bridge Program will be carried out over a period of 7-10 years, so any potential effects

on bald eagles will be spread out geographically and temporally. In summary, adverse

effects on bald eagles due to visual disturbance are expected.

Chemicals

Chemical effects resulting from a chemical spill entering a waterway near bald eagle

foraging habitat may affect bald eagles or their prey. For the purposes of this Bridge

Program BA, it is assumed that such chemical effects would likely be contained or

diluted to an undetectable level within 1.0 mile of the bridge API. Only 12 of the bridges

that span water (and thus have the potential to transport a chemical spill affecting bald

eagles) are within 1.0 mile of a bald eagle nest or communal roost site. These 12 bridges

lie within eight bald eagle pairs’ nesting territories. Therefore, up to eight pairs of bald

eagles could be affected by chemical spills. However, implementation of the

environmental performance standards (Section 3.3) will ensure that most foreseeable

chemical spills are avoided, or contained or cleaned up before they could affect bald

eagles or their prey. Therefore, the risks to bald eagles from chemical spills are

considered discountable.

Vegetation

For purposes of the Bridge Program, effects on vegetation are assumed to be limited to 2

acres per bridge (for all bridges with a bald eagle nest or communal roost site within
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 250

1,320 feet [0.25 mile] of the bridge center). This is a high estimate of the actual area of

habitat impacts based on past ODOT bridge projects (Appendix 2-B). ODOT/FHWA has

determined that only two bridges are within 1,300 feet of a nest or communal roost site

(one is 1,305 feet from the bridge center point, and the other is 830 feet). Thus, a

maximum of 4 acres of bald eagle habitat will be disturbed by Bridge Program

construction activities.

The Habitat Avoidance and Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standards

(Section 3.3) will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that

any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint is restored. Implementation

of the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will ensure that

documented bald eagle nest or communal roost sites will not be removed. Because bald

eagle critical habitat has not been designated, the Bridge Program will not affect critical

habitat.

Species

Direct removal of occupied nest or roost trees habitat may affect bald eagles currently

occupying that habitat. However, by adhering to the Habitat Avoidance Environmental

Performance Standard, no known bald eagle nest or roost trees will be removed. No bald

eagle habitat will be removed during the breeding season unless surveys show that bald

eagles are not present. Thus no incidental take of habitat within an occupied bald eagle

nest or roost site will occur.

5.4.7.5 Determination of Effect

Through the application of environmental performance standards, adverse effects on bald eagles

will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. However, the possibility exists that bald

eagles could be affected by noise and visual disturbance, and some bald eagle functional habitat

may be removed. However, any potential effects on bald eagles will be spread out geographically

and temporally and are expected to be minor. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program,

ODOT/FHWA makes the determination of may affect, likely to adversely affect the bald eagle

via harassment and habitat effects. There will be no effect on critical habitat as bald eagle critical

habitat has not been designated.

5.4.8 Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)

5.4.8.1 Life History and Status

The brown pelican was designated as Endangered throughout its range (except for the U.S.

Atlantic Coast, Florida, and Alabama) on June 2, 1970 (June 2, 1970, 35 FR 8491). Brown

pelicans are threatened by a limited food supply, oceanic pollution, persistent pesticides,

disturbance at nest locations, coastal development, disease, and accidental death resulting from

recreational and sport fishing (June 2, 1970, 35 FR 8491, USFWS 1983). There are two

genetically and geographically distinct subspecies of brown pelican, both of which are listed as

endangered. The California brown pelican (P.o. californicus) occurs along the Pacific Coast and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 251

the eastern brown pelican (P.o. carolinensis) occurs along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic

Coast. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

The California brown pelican breeds in nesting colonies on islands in the Gulf of California and

along the Pacific Coast from Baja California to Santa Barbara Island, and non-breeding brown

pelicans range from Colima, Mexico to British Columbia, Canada (USFWS 1983). Brown

pelicans in Oregon are non-breeding individuals that are limited to the coastline; however,

pelicans have been detected inland as far the Willamette Valley after large storm events (Figure

5.4.8-1). Non-breeding pelicans’ dispersal patterns are dependent on food availability and

oceanographic conditions, such as temperature and currents (USFWS 1983). Both breeding and

non-breeding pelicans require roosting and loafing sites free from human disturbance for resting

and drying their feathers (USFWS 2002b). Roosting and loafing sites include offshore rocks and

islands, river mouths with sandbars, breakwaters, pilings, and jetties (USFWS 1983).
LANE

LINN

DOUGLAS

POLK

LINCOLN

MARION

BENTON

COOS

CLACKAMAS

YAMHILL TILLAMOOK

screening/BA Figures/Pelican.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.8-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Brown Pelican

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user. Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Brown Pelican Habitat

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 253

5.4.8.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the species.

Essentially all effects on brown pelicans are delivered through the displacement, disruption,

removal, or addition of the following:

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

Adverse effects on brown pelicans from noise harassment may lead to flushing from

roost or loafing sites, resulting in an increase in energy expenditures, and possible

avoidance or abandonment of functional habitat. Bridge construction activities may affect

brown pelicans at roosting or loafing sites along the Oregon Coast. The sensitivity of an

individual pelican to disturbance is likely related to the baseline level of disturbance the

bird is accustomed to and the proximity of the disturbance to the individual bird. There is

no documented threshold for noise disturbance for brown pelicans; however, the USFWS

typically evaluates the potential for noise effects on other species within a 0.25-mile

radius of the activity, or within a 1-mile radius for large disturbance activities such as

open air blasting. Thus, for the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from

noise harassment are considered possible if habitat exists within a 1-mile perimeter

surrounding the API.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

There is no documented visual harassment threshold for brown pelicans. However, the

Channel Island National Park in California has designated a brown pelican “protection

zone” on West Anacapa Island to protect a brown pelican nesting colonies from human

disturbance (USFWS 1983). This zone is on the west side of the island between

Portuguese Rock and Frenchy’s Cove, and extends from the high tide mark seaward to a

water depth of 120 feet, which is an estimated distance of 1,500 feet from the island’s

shoreline (USFWS 1983). For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from

visual harassment are considered possible if habitat exists within a 1,500-foot perimeter

surrounding the API.

Chemicals

Because brown pelicans inhabit the marine environment and occasionally the lower

reaches of large river systems near the marine environment, there is no potential for a

construction-related spill (usually a few gallons at most) to affect them.

Species

Direct effects on the species may occur if there is direct physical contact with humans or

their equipment. This is very unlikely.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 254

5.4.8.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on brown pelican populations. The environmental performance standards in

Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat and

species conservation during bridge construction.

5.4.8.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the brown pelican using GIS

analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where bridge repair

and replacement activities have the potential to affect the brown pelican. The methods and

assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary below, and in

detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and assumptions used

to assess the effects on the brown pelican via the various pathways are presented below, and in

detail in the Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the Effect Screening Layer

memo and the Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed by the Services as part

of the ongoing consultation process for the Bridge Program.

Table 5.4.8-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Brown Pelican.

Record

Number

Bridge

ID No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

1 1950 Central OR RR 3 Coast Range

2 7530 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

3 13491 Unknown 3 Coast Range

4 00922A Unknown 3 Coast Range

5 00924A Unknown 6 Coast Range

6 00925A Unknown 5 Coast Range

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, brown pelican habitat includes all areas: 1) within 5

miles of the Pacific Ocean, and 2) within 1 mile of the Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Bays &

Estuaries, Urban and Mixed Environs, Marine Nearshore, and Coastal Headlands and Islets

habitat types. A total of six Program Bridges meet these criteria (Table 5.4.8-1); construction

activities at these six bridges are considered to have the potential to affect brown pelicans. These

six bridges are further analyzed below to determine what, if any, adverse effects their repair and

replacement activities may have on the brown pelicans via the various effects pathways.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 255

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects on brown pelicans from noise

harassment are considered possible if habitat exists within a 1-mile perimeter surrounding

the API. The area of potential noise harassment to brown pelicans for individual bridges

ranges from 39 acres to 1,361 acres depending on bridge size and proximity of the bridge

to brown pelican habitat. For all six bridges, a total area of 4,981 net acres (5,716 gross

acres) of brown pelican habitat may be affected by noise. Bridge Program activities will

be carried out in conformance with the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard; this will minimize noise levels and restrict loud noises to certain times of the

year (see Section 3.3), thus minimizing adverse effects on brown pelicans. Because,

brown pelicans are uncommon in Oregon and are only transient, non-nesting individuals,

actual effects on brown pelicans due to noise disturbance will be very minor, at most.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual harassment are

considered possible if habitat exists within a 1,500-foot perimeter surrounding the API. A

total of 5 bridges meet this criterion. The area of potential visual harassment for

individual bridges ranges from 180 acres to 530 acres depending on bridge size, resulting

in a total area of 1,780 net acres (1,900 gross acres) of brown pelican habitat that could

be affected by visual disturbance. Because, brown pelicans are uncommon in Oregon and

are only transient, non-nesting individuals, actual effects on brown pelicans due to visual

disturbance will be discountable.

Chemicals

Because brown pelicans inhabit the marine environment and occasionally the lower

reaches of large river systems near the marine environment, there is no potential for a

construction-related spill (usually a few gallons at most) to affect them.

Species

Direct effects on the species may occur if there is direct physical contact with humans or

their equipment. Nest sites will not be disturbed as brown pelicans do not nest in Oregon.

Furthermore, the occasional transient birds that may be present will fly away if

approached by humans. Therefore there is no potential for the Bridge Program to directly

affect brown pelicans.

5.4.8.5 Determination of Effect

Through the application of environmental performance standards, the lack of brown pelican

breeding in Oregon, and the high baseline level of activity at the bridge sites, adverse effects on

brown pelicans from the bridge program are expected to be insignificant. Although up to 5,716

acres of brown pelican foraging habitat may be affected by noise and visual disturbance, the

habitat is only rarely occupied by brown pelicans and is subject to a high baseline level of
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 256

activity at the existing bridges. Thus, these effects are expected to be insignificant and

discountable to the species. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes

a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect the brown pelican. There will be

no effect on critical habitat as critical habitat has not been designated for the species.

5.4.9 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis)

5.4.9.1 Life History and Status

The northern spotted owl was Federally listed as threatened throughout its range on June 26,

1990 (June 26, 1990, 55 FR 26114) (Figure 5.4.9-1). Primary threats to the northern spotted owl

include the loss and alteration of habitat (mainly resulting from timber harvesting) and

catastrophic events such as volcanic eruptions, fires, and wind storms (June 26, 1990, 55 FR

26114). Additionally, the barred owl (Strix varia) has been expanding its range west and south.

As a result, spotted owls are being out-competed by barred owls for nesting territories. Critical

habitat was designated for the northern spotted owl on January 15, 1992 (January 15, 1992, 57

FR 1796).

Northern spotted owls range from southwestern British Columbia to the coast range of

northwestern California and as far south as San Francisco. The northern spotted owl is a forestdwelling owl that favors mature to old-growth mixed conifer forest habitats (USFWS 1990a).

Northern spotted owls will occupy second-growth forests if key components of mature forests

are present; however, population density and reproductive success are usually lower than in oldgrowth forests (USFWS 1989). Major roosting and nesting areas are generally dispersed

throughout a territory, and their use varies seasonally (Forsman et al. 1984).

Determinants of northern spotted owl nesting habitat in west-side forests (i.e., west of the

summit of the Cascade Mountains) include abundant dead and down woody material, a mediumto high-closure canopy, multiple layers in the forest canopy, and mature trees (generally 200

years or older) greater than 32 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) (Thomas et al. 1990).

Northern spotted owl functional habitat east of the Cascade Mountain crest does not typically fit

the west-side functional habitat definition. The Deschutes National Forest defines functional

nesting, roosting, and foraging northern spotted owl habitat as occurring in mixed conifer stands

and within riparian areas (USFS 2002). These stands typically have multi-storied canopies

containing some larger trees. The canopy cover is typically greater than or equal to 40% with an

overstory comprised of at least five percent of trees greater than 21 inches dbh (USFS 2002).

Northern spotted owls usually do not breed until their third year, and have a life expectancy of up

to 15 years in the wild. Northern spotted owl pairs are capable of reproducing every year, but

seldom do, and offspring survival varies annually and geographically (USFS 1988). The

breeding season is from February to August, and young usually disperse from the nesting areas

by mid-August to mid-October.

Northern spotted owls prey on a variety of small animals including mammals, birds, and insects.

Diet varies considerably between regions and habitat types; however, small mammals are the

principal prey throughout their range (Barrows 1985, Forsman et al. 1984). Dusky-footed
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 257

woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), and red tree voles

(Arborimus longicaudus) are the three most common prey species for northern spotted owls, and

diet is usually determined by prey abundance (USFWS 1989).
screening/BA Figures/nso.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.9-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Northern Spotted Owl

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Northern Spotted Owl Range

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Highway

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 259

5.4.9.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the species.

Essentially all effects on northern spotted owls are delivered through the displacement,

disruption, removal, or addition of the following:

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

Northern spotted owls may be adversely affected by noise during the breeding season.

Activities involving heavy equipment, chainsaws, aircraft, or blasting within specified

distances during the early breeding season (early March to mid-July) have the potential to

significantly disrupt breeding, feeding, or sheltering—that is, result in incidental take due

to harassment. Harassment may lead spotted owls to flush from the nest, abort a feeding,

or postpone a feeding (USFWS 2003a). The sensitivity of an individual owl to

disturbance is likely related to the baseline level of disturbance the bird is accustomed to,

the level and proximity of the disturbance, and the timing of the disturbance within the

nesting cycle and nightly activity period.

The USFWS typically considers the harassment threshold for general noise generating

activities within a 0.25-mile radius (125-acre area) of the activity, or within a 1.0-mile

radius (2,176-acre area) for large disturbance activities such as open air blasting (USFWS

2003a). However, based on a recent Olympic National Forest ESA consultation (USFWS

2003a), the USFWS is refining the distances and thresholds for noise disturbance for

northern spotted owls (Table 5.4.9-1). This recent guidance was used by ODOT/FHWA

in developing spotted owl environmental performance standards and evaluating the

effects of the proposed action. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects

from noise disturbance are considered possible if the disturbance occurs within a 300-ft

perimeter surrounding the API. Adverse effects from noise harassment from blasting are

not considered in this analysis because blasting will be conducted outside of the sensitive

nesting period for northern spotted owls.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 260

Table 5.4.9-1. Noise disturbance thresholds for northern spotted owls.

Activity Injury Threshold Distance

Blast (greater than 2 lb charge) 1.0 mile

Blast (less than a 2 lb charge) 360 feet

Effect pile driving, jackhammer, or a rock drill 180 feet

Helicopter or single-engine aircraft 360 feet

Chainsaws 135 feet

Heavy equipment 105 feet

Source: USFWS 2003a.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For their programmatic ESA consultation (USFWS 2003a), the Olympic National Forest

compiled information from experienced spotted owl biologists and results from similar

species studies to determine the estimated sight-only injury threshold—the distance at

which a spotted owl would be flushed from its nest or perch merely by the sight (not sight

and sound) of human activity. The flushing distance ranged from 6 feet to 78 feet.

However, the USFWS has yet to adopt this visual disturbance threshold. For the purposes

of the Bridge Program, an area similar to that used for noise harassment is used to

determine adverse effects from visual harassment. Visual harassment is considered

possible if the harassment occurs within a 300-foot perimeter surrounding the API.

Vegetation

Bridge repair and replacement activities may require vegetation removal (including

cutting of large trees), which may result in the removal of functional habitat or increase

the exposure of the nest to predators or adverse weather conditions. Loss and adverse

modification of functional habitat has been identified as a primary threat to northern

spotted owls; therefore, further habitat removal may adversely affect northern spotted

owls. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects due to vegetation alteration

are considered possible at bridges within the range of the species, if those bridges have

spotted owl habitat within 500 feet of the center of the bridge.

Species

The removal of occupied nesting habitat during the breeding season has the potential to

directly affect northern spotted owls by killing eggs or nestlings.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 261

5.4.9.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on northern spotted owl populations. The environmental performance standards

in Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat

and species conservation during bridge construction.

5.4.9.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the northern spotted owl

using GIS analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where

bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect the northern spotted owl. The

methods and assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary

below, and in detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and

assumptions used to assess the effects on the northern spotted owl via the various pathways are

presented below, and in detail in the Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the

Effect Screening Layer memo and the Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed

by the Services as part of the ongoing consultation process for the Bridge Program.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, bridge projects that may affect the northern spotted owl

are those bridges with: 1) an API within 1.0 mile of the range of the spotted owl (REO 2003),

and 2) any of the following Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat types within 500 feet of the

bridge centerpoint: Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Westside Oak and Dry

Douglas-fir Forest & Woodland, Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Montane

Mixed Conifer Forests, Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forests, Lodgepole Pine Forest &

Woodland, Ponderosa Pine & Eastside White Oak Forest & Woodlands, and Upland Aspen

Forests. A total of 336 bridges with API’s within 1.0 mile of the range of the northern spotted

owl were identified. Of these 336 bridges, 141 bridges contained suitable Johnson and O’Neil

habitat within 500 feet of the bridge center point. Construction activities at these 141 bridges are

considered to have the potential to affect northern spotted owls (Table 5.4.9-2). These 141

bridges are further analyzed below to determine what, if any, adverse effects their repair and

replacement activities may have on the northern spotted owl via the various effects pathways.

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects to the northern spotted owl from

noise harassment are considered possible if the harassment occurs within a 300-foot

perimeter surrounding the bridge center point. Project-related activities may result in

noise harassment at the 141 bridges identified in the initial screening process. A total of

915 acres surrounding the center points of the 141 bridges have the potential to be

affected by noise harassment. The Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard (Section 3.3) will minimize the potential adverse effects of noise on spotted

owls by limiting high noise activities and prohibiting blasting during critical times of the
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 262

Table 5.4.9-2. Program Bridge projects that may affect Northern Spotted Owl.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

1 654 Hayes Cr. 6 Coast Range

2 683 Yaquina R. 4 Coast Range

3 921 Gnat Cr. 4 Coast Range

4 1406 Elk Cr. 4th Xing 5 Coast Range

5 1465 Elk Cr. 3rd Xing 6 Coast Range

6 1601 Elk Cr. 2nd Xing 6 Coast Range

7 1614 Elk Cr. 1st Xing 6 Coast Range

8 1697 Paradise Cr. 5 Coast Range

9 1831 Unknown 3 Coast Range

10 1832 Unknown 3 Coast Range

11 1868 Wilson R. Mills Br.. 3 Coast Range

12 2029 Unknown 3 Coast Range

13 2164 Unknown 14 Coast Range

14 2165 Unknown 12 Coast Range

15 2472 Devils Lake Fk. #2 9 Coast Range

16 2601 Unknown 4 Coast Range

17 4192 Unknown 9 Coast Range

18 4573 Unknown 3 Coast Range

19 7417 Big Cr. 3 Coast Range

20 7530 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

21 7532 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

22 7533 Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

23 7534 Little Beaver Cr. 3 Coast Range

24 7722 Lost Cr. 3 Coast Range
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 263

Table 5.4.9-2. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

25 8281 US 101 NB (Hwy 009) 3 Coast Range

26 8370 Knowles Cr. 3 Coast Range

27 8446 Siuslaw R. 3 Coast Range

28 8554 Wildcat Cr. 3 Coast Range

29 8830 Coquille R. 5 Coast Range

30 8843 Hwy 242 3 Coast Range

31 8875 Coquille R. 5 Coast Range

32 8876 Coquille R. 4 Coast Range

33 8935 Coquille R. 7 Coast Range

34 8936 Coquille R. 5 Coast Range

35 13491 Unknown 3 Coast Range

36 00925A Unknown 5 Coast Range

37 01869A Wilson R. 2nd Xing 11 Coast Range

38 01872A Jordon Cr. 4 Coast Range

39 02027A Unknown 3 Coast Range

40 02364A Unknown 3 Coast Range

41 03091A Unknown 1 Coast Range

42 03092A Unknown 1 Coast Range

43 03172A Central OR RR 3 Coast Range

44 03173A Beaver Cr. 24 Coast Range

45 03173B Beaver Cr. 24 Coast Range

46 03212A Endicot Cr. 3 Coast Range

47 1825 Crescent Cr. 3 E. Cascades

48 6884 Spring Cr. 3 E. Cascades
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 264

Table 5.4.9-2. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

49 1424 Hardscrabble Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

50 2496 N Umpqua R. (Lone Rock) 7 Klamath Mountains

51 7631 I-5 @ Corp & Co. Rd 4 Klamath Mountains

52 7632 I-5 (001), Winchester 3 Klamath Mountains

53 7640 Central OR RR 3 Klamath Mountains

54 7806 I-5 (Hwy 001) 4 Klamath Mountains

55 7835 Roberts Cr. Rd 4 Klamath Mountains

56 7950 Myrtle Cr Inter 3 Klamath Mountains

57 8339 Beacon Dr 4 Klamath Mountains

58 9339 S Wolf Cr Conn 3 Klamath Mountains

59 9439 Sunny Valley Rd 3 Klamath Mountains

60 9440 Leland Rd 3 Klamath Mountains

61 01074A Elk Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

62 01107A Rough & Ready Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

63 01108A W Fk. Illinois R. 5 Klamath Mountains

64 07567B Elk Cr. 3 Klamath Mountains

65 07572A Curtis Cr. 4 Klamath Mountains

66 07627A Rogers Rd Conn 3 Klamath Mountains

67 07627B Rogers Rd Conn 3 Klamath Mountains

68 07631A I-5 @ Corp & Co Rd 6 Klamath Mountains

69 07636A Elkhead Rd 3 Klamath Mountains

70 07663A N Umpqua,Corp,Cr, & Co R 17 Klamath Mountains

71 07663C N Umpqua,Corp,Cr, & Co R 18 Klamath Mountains

72 07670A I-5 @ Portland Ave 5 Klamath Mountains
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 265

Table 5.4.9-2. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

73 07711A I-5 @ Mclain Rd 3 Klamath Mountains

74 07713A S Umpqua R, & Corp 12 Klamath Mountains

75 07804N I-5 @ Speedway Rd 3 Klamath Mountains

76 07835A Roberts Cr. Rd 4 Klamath Mountains

77 08018N Louse Cr, Frontage Rd 4 Klamath Mountains

78 08018S Louse Cr, Frontage Rd 4 Klamath Mountains

79 08028N Irwin Access 3 Klamath Mountains

80 08028S Irwin Access 3 Klamath Mountains

81 08094N Jumpoff Joe Cr. 6 Klamath Mountains

82 08094S Jumpoff Joe Cr. 6 Klamath Mountains

83 09352A Glendale Int 3 Klamath Mountains

84 09439A Sunny Valley Rd 3 Klamath Mountains

85 09440A Leland Rd 3 Klamath Mountains

86 1706 Soda Fk. 3 W. Cascades

87 1826 Odell Cr. 3 W. Cascades

88 3461 Rogue R. 4 W. Cascades

89 5978 Unknown 3 W. Cascades

90 6806 Unknown 3 W. Cascades

91 7171 Private Logging Rd. 3 W. Cascades

92 7188 Half Viaduct 9 W. Cascades

93 7295 Unknown 3 W. Cascades

94 7894 Willamette R. 8 W. Cascades

95 7904 Rock Cr. 5 W. Cascades

96 7964 Unknown 17 W. Cascades
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 266

Table 5.4.9-2. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

97 8534 Conn Viento Int 3 W. Cascades

98 8604 Conn Wyeth Int 3 W. Cascades

99 8623 Conn Herman Cr. 3 W. Cascades

100 16861 PP&L Penstock 5 W. Cascades

101 00665B Alder Cr. 3 W. Cascades

102 00689B Wildcat Cr. 3 W. Cascades

103 01323A Blue R. Bridge 2 W. Cascades

104 01324A Gate Cr. 4 W. Cascades

105 02062A Tanner Cr. 6 W. Cascades

106 02062B Tanner Cr. 6 W. Cascades

107 02176A Hwy 100 & UPRR 10 W. Cascades

108 02194A Moffett Cr. 5 W. Cascades

109 02194B Moffett Cr. 5 W. Cascades

110 03026A Zig Zag R. 3 W. Cascades

111 07403A Herman Cr. 3 W. Cascades

112 08610W Moody St 5 W. Cascades

113 745 Unknown 5 Willamette Valley

114 2081 Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

115 2262 Central OR RR 8 Willamette Valley

116 2672 Unknown 5 Willamette Valley

117 2673 Unknown 5 Willamette Valley

118 4041 Bear Cr. 7 Willamette Valley

119 4062 S Fk. Siuslaw R. 4 Willamette Valley

120 6768 Lost Cr. 5 Willamette Valley
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 267

Table 5.4.9-2. (continued).

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

121 7347 Unknown 7 Willamette Valley

122 8445 I-5 (Hwy 001) 7 Willamette Valley

123 8870 Mcvay Access 1 Willamette Valley

124 00338A Tide Cr. 4 Willamette Valley

125 01075A Marys R. 3 Willamette Valley

126 01205A WPRR & Harris Rd 6 Willamette Valley

127 01612A Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

128 01756A Unknown 5 Willamette Valley

129 05285A Willamette R Relief Opng 5 Willamette Valley

130 07469B Bear Cr. 4 Willamette Valley

131 07569A Buck Cr Rd 3 Willamette Valley

132 07745A Coast Fk. Willamette Rive 8 Willamette Valley

133 07757A Gettings Cr. 5 Willamette Valley

134 07757B Gettings Cr. 5 Willamette Valley

135 07794A Hwy 51 3 Willamette Valley

136 07794B Hwy 51 3 Willamette Valley

137 07864A 16th St. 3 Willamette Valley

138 08175N Mckenzie R. & Front Rd 11 Willamette Valley

139 08175S Mckenzie R. & Front Rd 11 Willamette Valley

140 08180N Mckenzie Overflow 3 Willamette Valley

141 08180S Mckenzie Overflow 3 Willamette Valley
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 268

year. Furthermore, the Bridge Program will be carried out over a period of 7-10 years, so

any adverse effects on spotted owl populations will be spread out geographically and

temporally.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects to the northern spotted owl from

visual disturbance are considered possible if the disturbance occurs within a 300-foot

perimeter surrounding the bridge center point. However, the 300-foot threshold for

disturbance is generous, as it is not uncommon for northern spotted owl to nest within

150 to 300 feet of an active road (USFWS 2003a). In addition, the USFWS protocol for

determining the nest and reproductive status of northern spotted owls requires humans to

be near nesting northern spotted owls (USFWS 1992). Therefore, it is unlikely that

actions at any of the bridges will actually affect northern spotted owls via visual

disturbance or harassment. Project-related activities may result in visual disturbance at

the 141 bridges identified in the initial screening process. A total of 915 acres

surrounding the center points of the 141 bridges have the potential to be affected by

visual disturbance. The Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard

(Section 3.3) will minimize the potential adverse effects of visual disturbance on spotted

owls by limiting highly disruptive activities (such as blasting and pile driving) during

critical times of the year. Furthermore, the Bridge Program will be carried out over a

period of 7-10 years, so any adverse effects on spotted owl populations will be spread out

geographically and temporally.

Vegetation

For purposes of the Bridge Program, effects on vegetation are assumed to be limited to 2

acres per bridge (for all bridges with suitable Johnson and O’Neil spotted owl habitat

within 500 feet of the bridge center point). This is a safe estimate of the actual area of

habitat impacts based on past ODOT bridge projects (Appendix 2-B). 141 bridges have

suitable Johnson and O’Neil northern spotted owl habitat within 500 feet of the bridge

center point. Thus, approximately 282 acres of vegetation will be disturbed in the vicinity

of program bridges with potential spotted owl habitat nearby. It is likely that some of the

area where vegetation disturbance will occur is functional spotted owl habitat.

Only 10 bridges have northern spotted owl designated critical habitat present within 500

feet of the bridge center point. However, by following the Habitat Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard, the removal of primary constituent elements of

designated northern spotted owl critical habitat will be avoided, thus adverse effects to

northern spotted owls from critical habitat disturbance or removal will be discountable.

The Habitat Avoidance and Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standards

(Section 3.3) will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that

any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint is restored. Implementation

of the Habitat Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will ensure that spotted

owl critical habitat and functional habitat will not be removed during the breeding season
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 269

unless surveys indicate that spotted owls are not present. No spotted owl nest trees or

primary constituent elements of spotted owl critical habitat will be removed at any time

per this environmental performance standard.

Species

Direct removal of habitat may affect spotted owls currently occupying that habitat.

Following the Habitat Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard, no spotted owl

habitat will be removed during the breeding season unless surveys show that spotted owls

are not present. Therefore there is no potential for the Bridge Program to directly affect

northern spotted owls.

5.4.9.5 Determination of Effect

Through the application of environmental performance standards, adverse effects on the northern

spotted owl will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. However, approximately 915

acres of potential northern spotted owl habitat could be affected by noise and visual

disturbance/harassment. Furthermore, approximately 282 acres of functional northern spotted

owl habitat may be disturbed. Ten bridges are located within designated northern spotted owl

critical habitat, but no primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat will be

removed, thus adverse effects are discountable. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program,

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, is likely to adversely affect the northern

spotted owl via harassment and habitat removal. This proposed action may affect, is not likely

to adversely affect the northern spotted owl designated critical habitat.

5.4.10 Western Snowy Plover (Coastal Population), (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus)

5.4.10.1 Life History and Status

The western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population) was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993

(March 5, 1993, 58 FR 12864) (Figure 5.4.10-1). Threats to the western snowy plover include:

coastal development and beach and shoreline stabilization; sand removal; dredging and disposal

of dredged materials; driftwood removal; beach fires and camping within nesting habitat; water

course diversion, impoundment, or stabilization; encroachment of introduced beachgrass or other

non-native vegetation; habitat conversion for other special status species; predation; limited

protection of breeding habitat; disturbance from domestic animals and humans, including beach

walkers and joggers; beach cleaning (mechanized or around nesting habitat); and poor water

quality and urban runoff.

The population of western snowy plovers along the Oregon Coast has increased steadily since

1993 (USFWS 2001a). The 2003 nesting season was the most successful breeding season on

record, with a dramatic increase in reproductive success. This increased reproductive success can

be attributed to good weather, habitat enhancement, successful restriction of public access into

nesting areas, and increased chick survival. An additional measure contributing to this success
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 270

was the implementation of predator control at the recovery units (Lauten, D. et al. 2003, David

Leal, biologist, USFWS, pers. comm., November 6, 2003).

Western snowy plovers breed primarily above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand spits,

dune-backed beaches, sparsely-vegetated dunes, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans

at lagoons and estuaries (USFWS 2001a). Less common nesting habitats include bluff-backed

beaches, dredged material disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds, and river bars (USFWS

2001a). In winter, western snowy plovers are found on many of their nesting beaches as well as

on beaches where they do not nest, in man-made salt ponds, and on estuarine sand and mud flats.

The breeding season for the western snowy plover extends from early March through late

September. In Oregon, the critical nesting period is April 1 through August 15 (USFWS 2001a).

There are two distinct populations of western snowy plover in Oregon: a Pacific coast population

and an interior population. Federal listing applies only to the Pacific Coast population, defined as

those individuals that nest adjacent to tidal waters, which include all nesting birds on the

mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays, estuaries, and coastal rivers

(December 7, 1999, 64 FR 68507).

The USFWS designated critical habitat areas for the western snowy plover on December 7, 1999

(Pacific Coast population) (64 FR 68507). Areas supporting at least four nesting western snowy

plover pairs or 10 wintering plovers were designated as critical habitat areas (64 FR 68507).

Seven of 28 critical habitat areas in Oregon are located along the Pacific shoreline; these areas

support 97% of the nesting and 98% of the wintering plovers in Oregon (64 FR 68507). In

addition to critical habitat areas, the USFWS has drafted a recovery plan with proposed recovery

units and recovery locations. These recovery locations are also known to support nesting western

snowy plovers. These recovery units are assumed to account for the entire range of western

snowy plovers along the Oregon Coast.
LANE

LINN

DOUGLAS

LINCOLN

COOS

BENTON

POLK MARION

noeffect\BA_figures\snowy.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.10-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Western Snowy Plover (Coastal Population)

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

dI aho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

California

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Highway

County

City

Western Snowy Plover Recovery Unit

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect

Streams and Rivers
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 272

5.4.10.2 Analysis of Effects

Western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population) habitat is limited to the Coast Range ecoregion.

Within the Coast Range ecoregion, the identified and mapped recovery units account for the

entire known range of western snowy plovers along the Oregon Coast. The Bridge Program does

not include any bridges within the range of the western snowy plover.

5.4.10.3 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no

effect for the western snowy plover.

5.4.11 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

5.4.11.1 Life History and Status

The American peregrine falcon is listed as endangered under the State of Oregon’s ESA. The

American peregrine falcon was Federally listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 and was

removed from the Federal Endangered Species List on August 25, 1999 (August 25, 1999, 64 FR

46542). This determination was based on the subspecies recovery following restrictions on

organochlorine (DDT and PCBs) pesticides in the United States and Canada.

The peregrine population continues to be below historic levels due to eggshell thinning and other

reproductive failure correlated with widespread use of organochlorine contaminants (Aulman

1992, Pagel and Jarman 1991, Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982).

Other pollutants, disturbance, loss of nesting and foraging habitats, shooting, and collisions with

transmission lines and their supporting structures have also contributed to the reduction in

peregrine numbers (Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982). Blasting,

road construction, low-flying aircraft, and recreational activities (i.e., photographers, bird

watchers, hikers, and rock climbers) may disturb nesting peregrines and result in nest failure.

Disturbances that occur during courtship and incubation are more likely to result in nest

abandonment, whereas disturbances that occur later in the nesting cycle do not, because nest

tenacity increases as incubation progresses and hatching occurs.

Peregrines range from central Alaska to north-central Canada, south to central Arizona and Baja,

California. Peregrines are found in a variety of habitats throughout North America, including

plains, tundra, forests, coastal regions, and mountains up to 10,000 feet (Johnsgaard 1990).

Peregrines prefer open habitat near a water source with available cliff faces or inaccessible

ledges for nesting (Csuti et al. 1997). Peregrine nests, referred to as eyries, are usually located on

a small scrape on the ledge of a cliff face, or on a man-made structure. A functional cliff face or

structure is typically within 0.25-0.5 mile of riparian, lacustrine, or marine habitat. In wild sites,

peregrines defend a territory that may extend 700-1,000 feet around an eyrie. The nest is located

above the ground at approximately 40-80% of the total cliff height and is inaccessible to

mammalian predators (Pagel 1992). The nest may consist of a small scrape, decomposed rock, or

gravel. Nest sites in Oregon are mainly on tall cliffs (usually between 75-2,000 feet) in the
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 273

Cascade and Klamath mountains, the Grande Ronde River valley, and in the Portland

metropolitan area (ODOT 2000).

As the population of peregrines increases, the number of peregrines using urban nest sites has

increased as well. The most obvious attractants to urban nest sites are the abundant prey and

ready availability of structures providing functional nest sites. Urban nest sites are usually

buildings and power plants (61%), bridges and overpasses (30%), and other structures (9%).

Other structures include water tanks, grain silos and elevated railroad bridges (Cade et al.

1996a).

Urban nest sites contain many hazards for both adult and fledging peregrines. Hazards include

secondary poisoning from consuming poisoned prey, exposure to diseases acquired from prey,

and shooting by pigeon breeders. Birds fledging from buildings and bridges often face a sheer

drop-off from the nest ledge to the ground or water. Many nestlings fall out of the nest before

they are ready to fly, and land on the ground. Once on the ground, they face traffic, predators,

people, and starvation (if the adult fails to find and feed them) (Cade and Bird 1990).

In Oregon, peregrine falcon courtship begins in January and continues through March; however,

some behaviors, such as copulation, can occur any month of the year. Timing is variable

depending on elevation, weather, and the geographic location of the nesting territory (Table

5.4.11-1). Courtship activities normally last 6-8 weeks (Pagel 1992). There are eight distinct

phases in the pre-incubation activity of peregrines: (1) the attraction of mates to one another, (2)

mutual roosting on a ledge or cliff, (3) cooperative hunting excursions, (4) courtship flights, (5)

courtship behavior on ledge or cliff, (6) courtship feeding, (7) copulation, and (8) nest scraping

(Cade 1960).

Copulation begins about eight weeks after the onset of courtship and about three weeks prior to

egg laying. Egg laying may begin as early as mid-March and as late as the end of May.

Incubation of the eggs generally begins after the laying of the second to last egg (Nelson 1972).

The eggs are incubated for 31 to 33 days, generally in the months of April and May. Peregrines

that lose their eggs before or about the tenth day of incubation period usually produce a second

clutch (Ratcliffe 1993, Newton 1979); this is called recycling.

Recycling will occur approximately 14 days after the first nesting attempt fails, and it may

involve moving the nest site to an alternate ledge (Cade et al. 1996b). With recycling, egg laying

can continue into June. Brooding is nearly continuous for the first three days and then gradually

decreases; very little brooding occurs after 10 to 20 days (Cade et al. 1996b, Carlier 1993, Hovis

et al. 1985). Fledging occurs when the nestlings are 35-45 days old, but they remain dependent

on the adults for protection and food until their hunting skills have developed (Palmer and White

1988, Thelander 1978). The fledgling peregrines disperse as early as 3 weeks after fledging and

as late as 3 months. Peregrines typically disperse as much as hundreds of miles away from the

nest, although some urban birds have been known to nest within 10 miles of their natal nest

(ODOT 2000).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 274

Table 5.4.11-1. General nest chronology for peregrine falcons in Oregon.

Activity January February March April May June

Courtship (6 – 8 Weeks Jan 1 to March 15

Laying eggs (2-8 days) March 15 to May 31

Incubation (30-35 days) March 15 to May 31

Recycle (14 days) March 15 to April 30

Hatching (31-33 days) April 1 to June 30

Nestling (35-54 days) April to June 30

Fledge (14 days) May 1 to June 30

Nesting Seasonal Restriction is January 1 to July 1

Source: ODOT (2000).

5.4.11.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to any species.

Essentially, all effects on peregrine falcons are delivered through the displacement, disruption,

removal, or addition of the following:

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

Peregrines may be adversely affected by noise harassment during the breeding season,

especially at the onset of courtship behavior (early January through mid March).

Consequently, activities using heavy equipment and aircraft or blasting during the

breeding season (January 1 – June 30) within specified distances to a nest have the

potential to significantly disrupt nesting peregrines, which can lead to crushing of eggs,

nest abandonment by adults, reduced nest attentiveness, and premature fledging (Pacific

Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982). In addition, the level of impact

that certain disturbances may have on peregrine falcons depends upon the familiarity of

an individual or nesting pair to that particular disturbance (Olsen and Olsen 1978). If

peregrines are accustomed to certain activities as a normal or routine occurrence, then the

activity offers no direct threat, and the peregrines will likely ignore it. If the activity is

new, intermittent, or unexpected, then the peregrines will be less tolerant of that activity.

When peregrines have not experienced a routine or regular presence of humans, or if the

activity is intermittent (e.g., log skidding, aircraft flight, or distant rockfall) then

peregrines may become noticeably concerned (ranging from curiosity fly-overs, kacking,

or intense territorial defense) (Pagel 2001).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 275

Typically, the effects of general disturbance activities on peregrine falcons are evaluated

based on management zones (nest zone, restricted zone, and sensitive zone) (ODOT

2000). The objective of each management zone is to establish spatial and temporal

boundaries that will protect peregrine falcons. The zones are defined as spatial

boundaries around a particular nest site where the majority of hunting, perching, and

feeding activities occur during nesting. This concept has been widely accepted for nonurban peregrine nest sites (Pagel 2001, USFS 2000, WSDOT 1998). The Nest Zone,

Restricted Zone, and Sensitive Zone will be used as the management zones for the Bridge

Program. All of the management zones are 3-dimensional, radiating in all directions from

the nest ledge. The management zone concept also encompasses temporal (also known as

seasonal) boundaries which are for all of the management zones and include the entire

nesting season of January 1 to July 1.

The nest zone is a radius extending up to 0.25 mile from the eyrie. The nest zone is

established to protect the integrity of the nest site and to minimize harassment from

humans. Usually no potentially harassing activity is allowed during the restriction period,

and no resource extraction (e.g., road construction, structure placement, logging, mineral

extraction) or other permanent or semi-permanent disturbance may occur even outside of

the restriction period (Pagel 1995). The objective of the nest zone is to avoid or to

minimize activities, visual changes, and noises to levels equal to or less severe than

normal daily conditions.

The restricted zone is the radius extending 0.25-0.5 mile from the eyrie. This zone is

considered to be a high use area for the peregrines for foraging and roosting. Specific

activities (listed above under primary management zone restrictions) may be allowed

within this zone based on site specifics (e.g., topography) (Pagel 1995). Usually no

potentially harassing activities are allowed during the nesting season, and management

activities outside of the seasonal restriction are designed to protect and maintain

peregrine falcon habitat, with special emphasis on riparian areas used as foraging habitat

(Pagel 1995). The objective of this area is to limit drastic visual changes to the area and

to minimize noises excessively greater than ambient conditions (ODOT 2000).

The sensitive zone is the radius extending 2 miles from the eyrie (Pagel 1995). This zone

is generally beyond the direct line-of-sight to the nest but is within visual/auditory range

of other areas of peregrine activities such as roosting and foraging. Human activities in

this zone have less potential to cause noise harassment, because of the distance to the nest

site. The objective of this area is to avoid activities that generate extremely loud noises

(such as blasting or helicopter use) (ODOT 2000). For the purposes of the Bridge

Program, adverse effects from noise harassment are considered possible if a nest site is

present within a 2-mile perimeter surrounding the API.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

Visual harassment is evaluated in a 0.25-mile radius extending from known peregrine

nests during the breeding season. Peregrine falcons are susceptible to visual harassment,

especially during the onset of courtship behavior beginning in early January through midMarch (Pagel 1995). Nest sites have failed or been deserted due to visual harassment
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 276

caused by human activity. People disturb nesting birds both from the ground and from the

air (with aircraft) and thus affect nesting outcomes (Pagel 1995). Peregrine falcons that

have thin eggs, or that are on small or debris-filled ledges, can cause eggshell breakage or

chick displacement if they bolt from the nest site when human disturbance intrudes. The

chilling or overheating of eggs and young, and the diversion of energy to territorial

defense, can also affect nesting outcomes (Grier and Fyfe 1987, Olsen and Olsen 1978,

Fyfe and Olendorff 1976). For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from

visual disturbance are considered possible if a nest site is present within a 0.25-mile

perimeter surrounding the API.

Chemicals

Historically peregrine falcons have been adversely affected by the use of organochlorine

pesticides, such as DDT. The use of these pesticides has been restricted in the United

States and Canada. Since the time of restriction, the peregrine falcon population has

greatly increased. The Bridge Program will not involve the use of organochlorine

pesticides, DDT, or PCBs. There is really no potential for a chemical spill to affect

peregrine falcons either directly or through contact with contaminated prey since

peregrine falcons take their prey (other birds) in flight.

Vegetation

Bridges may require vegetation removal, which may result in the removal of functional

habitat for prey species important to peregrine falcons. Vegetation removal adjacent to

the nest site may increase the site’s susceptibility to disturbance by removing vegetation

that breaks the line-of-sight and buffers high noise impacts. For the purposes of the

Bridge Program, adverse effects due to vegetation alteration are considered possible at

bridges if a peregrine falcon nest is present within 0.5 mile of the center of the bridge.

Species

Peregrine falcons frequently have eggs with thin shells and nest on small ledges. In such

situations, eggshell breakage or chick displacement can occur when adults bolt from the

nest site as a result of sudden human disturbance.

5.4.11.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on peregrine falcon populations. The environmental performance standards in

Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat and

species conservation during bridge construction.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 277

5.4.11.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the peregrine falcon using

GIS analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where bridge

repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect the peregrine falcon. The methods

and assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary below, and in

detail in the Effect Screening Layer memo (Appendix 2-A).

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, bridge construction activities were assumed to have the

potential to affect peregrine falcons if a known peregrine falcon nest is present within a 2-mile

perimeter surrounding the API. A total of six program bridges meet this criterion (Table 5.4.11-

2). These six bridges are further analyzed below to determine what, if any, adverse effects their

repair and replacement activities may have on the peregrine falcon via the various effects

pathways.

Table 5.4.11-2. Bridges within each management zone of a peregrine falcon nest site.

Nest Site

Name/Number

Bridge(s) within the Nest

Zone

Bridge(s) within the

Restricted Zone

Bridge(s) within the Sensitive

Zone

B. Normal

(OE-038)

No bridges are within the

Nest Zone

No bridges are within the

Restricted Zone Bridge Number -07392

Horsetail

(OE-025) Bridge Number – 02176A No bridges are within theRestricted Zone

No bridges are within the

Sensitive Zone

Shellrock

(TOE-106)

No bridges are within the

Nest Zone

No bridges are within the

Restricted Zone Bridge Number - 08604

Starving

(OE-053)

No bridges are within the

Nest Zone

No bridges are within the

Restricted Zone Bridge Number - 08534

Wyeth

(OE-017)

No bridges are within the

Nest Zone

No bridges are within the

Restricted Zone

Bridge Number – 08604

Bridge Number - 08623

Air

Noise Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from noise harassment are

considered possible if a nest site is present within a 2-mile perimeter surrounding the

API. There are five peregrine falcon nest sites associated with four bridges within 2 miles

of a bridge API. Therefore, construction activities at the four bridges have the potential to

adversely affect five pairs of peregrine falcons and their young due to noise harassment.

However, the Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3)
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 278

will essentially eliminate the potential adverse effects of noise on peregrine falcons by

prohibiting high-noise activities from occurring during sensitive time periods.

Visual Disturbance/Harassment

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, adverse effects from visual harassment are

considered possible if a nest site is present within a 0.25-mile perimeter surrounding the

API. Only one falcon nest site is within the described area. The Wildlife Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard will minimize the potential for visual harassment to

peregrine falcons.

Chemicals

Because peregrine falcons do not forage in the water or on the ground, there is no

potential for a chemical spill to adversely affect them.

Vegetation

For purposes of the Bridge Program, effects on vegetation are assumed to be limited to 2

acres per bridge (for all bridges with a peregrine falcon nest present within 0.5 mile of the

bridge center). Only one bridge meets this criterion. Thus, approximately 2 acres of

vegetation will be disturbed in the vicinity of program bridges with a falcon nest nearby.

The Habitat Avoidance and Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standards

(Section 3.3) will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that

any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint is restored.

Species

Direct effects on peregrines are limited to disturbances that cause an adult peregrine

falcon to crush its eggs during nesting, and/or abandon its young. The implementation of

timing restrictions (Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard) at bridges

within 2 miles of known peregrine falcon occupied habitat will eliminate any direct

species effects.

5.4.11.5 Determination of Effect

Through the application of environmental performance standards, adverse effects on peregrine

falcons will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. However, minor areas of peregrine

falcon habitat could be affected by noise disturbance. Based on this analysis for the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect for the peregrine falcon.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 279

5.4.12 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)

5.4.12.1 Life History and Status

The vernal pool fairy shrimp was Federally listed as threatened throughout its range on

September 19, 1994 (September 19, 1994, 59 FR 48136) (Figure 5.4.12-1). The species was not

discovered in Oregon until 1998, and is limited to Jackson County. Specifically, vernal pool fairy

shrimp are limited to an area of 32 square miles known as the Agate Desert, north of Medford

(August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683).

Critical habitat was designated for this species on August 6, 2003 (August 6, 2003, 68 FR

46683). Critical habitat units include vernal pool complexes rather than individual vernal pools.

Therefore, the most accurate indication of the distribution and abundance of vernal pool fairy

shrimp is the number of inhabited vernal pool complexes. Not all vernal pool habitat is

accounted for in the critical habitat designation (August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683), and it is likely

that vernal pool fairy shrimp inhabit vernal pools that are not included in the critical habitat

designation.

Determining the specific areas that vernal pool fairy shrimp occupy is difficult; their distribution

depends on climatic factors and other natural variations in habitat conditions. The size of the

localized area in which vernal pool fairy shrimp appear may fluctuate dramatically from one year

to another. Therefore, it is likely that each of the critical habitat units include some areas that are

unoccupied. However, populations may expand into unoccupied areas, which may serve to

provide connectivity between groups of organisms within a unit (August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683).

The USFWS has designated Critical Habitat to ensure the survival and propagation of vernal

pool fairy shrimp (August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683). Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of

vernal pool fairy shrimp critical habitat are vernal pools, swales, and other ephemeral wetland

features of appropriate sizes (1 square yard) and depths (1.2 to 48 inches) that typically both

become inundated during winter rains and hold water for the length of time necessary for the

vernal pool fairy shrimp to complete its life cycle (August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683, CDFG 2002).

This PCE is essential to the conservation of the vernal pool fairy shrimp because the species is

ecologically dependent on the inundation and subsequent slow drying of their habitats to provide

the soil moisture and aquatic environment required for seed germination, cyst hatching, growth,

maturation, reproduction, dispersal, and the appropriate periods of dry-down for seed and cyst

dormancy (August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683).

The second PCE concerns the geographic, topographic, and edaphic features that support

aggregations of vernal pool complexes. These complexes consist of hydrologically

interconnected pools, swales, and other ephemeral wetlands and depressions within a matrix of

surrounding uplands that together form hydrologically and ecologically functional units. The

entire vernal pool complex—including the pools, swales, and associated uplands—is essential to

maintaining both the aquatic phase and the drying phase of the vernal pool habitat. Although

upland areas are not occupied by fairy shrimp, they are essential to maintaining the aquatic and

drying phases of the vernal pool, and they provide nutrients and food sources to the vernal pool
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 280

(August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683). In addition, moderate temperatures and specific chemical

characteristics—such as low Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), conductivity, alkalinity, and

chloride—are required to support juvenile and adult vernal pool fairy shrimp (CDFG 2002).
JACKSON

Medford

Central Point

Eagle Point

screening/BA Figures/shrimp.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.12-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

dI aho

0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Habitat

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 282

5.4.12.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways are the media through which effects are delivered to any species. Essentially all

effects on vernal pool fairy shrimp are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal,

or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

The displacement of soils during construction may have direct effects on vernal pool

fairy shrimp. Erosion and/or sedimentation resulting from earth-moving activities can

smother dormant cysts and eggs. Displacement of soil can also result in changes in the

topography that supports vernal pools, or disturbance to the duripan soil layer, an

impervious layer of soil that prevents surface water or shallow groundwater from

infiltrating, and that allows water to perch on the surface, forming vernal pools. Vernal

pools are susceptible to even minor changes in topography caused by soil-disturbing

activities such as disking, grading, and leveling (USFWS 2002c). Disturbance of the

duripan layer can allow water that ordinarily would either stay on the surface in a vernal

pool, or flow along the ground surface or shallow pervious layer to supply a vernal pool,

to instead infiltrate into the ground, thus reducing the amount of available water to a

vernal pool. Disturbing soils that support vernal pool habitats usually results in adverse

affects to the vernal pool fairy shrimp, as the overall function of the vernal pool is

disrupted. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on vernal

pool fairy shrimp from the displacement, disruption, removal, or addition of soil are

considered possible if such actions occur within vernal pool habitat within the range of

the species.

Water

Vernal pool fairy shrimp are ecologically dependent on a particular duration of

inundation and rate of drying of their vernal pool habitats to provide the necessary soil

moisture and aquatic environment for seed germination, cyst hatching, growth,

maturation, reproduction, dispersal, and the appropriate periods of dry-down for seed and

cyst dormancy (August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683). Alterations in hydrology can thus cause

changes to vernal pools. Vernal pools in a given location have formed over time in

response to local topographic and hydrologic conditions. Changes in runoff, infiltration,

or topography as a result of development can change the amount of water available to

vernal pools. Increases in impervious surfaces within vernal pool watersheds can change

the timing of flow events and reduce the amount of water that infiltrates into the shallow

groundwater layer, which would normally provide a slow release of water into vernal

pools. This can cause vernal pools to both fill up faster and dry out faster. In some cases

re-direction of stormwater can reduce the total volume of water available to a vernal pool.

The vernal pool fairy shrimp, while tolerant of drought in the cyst stage, requires water in

the vernal pools in the amount and duration necessary to support the adult life stages.

Therefore any alteration in the hydrology of vernal pools may affect the vernal pool fairy

shrimp population. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 283

vernal pool fairy shrimp from the displacement, disruption, removal, or addition of water

are considered possible if such actions occur within vernal pool habitat within the range

of the species.

Chemicals

The Bridge Project has the potential to affect vernal pool fairy shrimp through

contamination as the result of an accidental chemical spill. A chemical spill may affect

vernal pool fairy shrimp by infiltrating into groundwater through permeable soils, or by

direct runoff into a vernal pool. The distance required to dilute chemicals to an

undetectable level through either soils or water would vary depending on the type of

chemical, the amount, and other environmental conditions. However, on level terrain

where vernal pools exist, and considering the small volume of a potential spill (typically

less than several gallons) it is likely that chemicals from a spill or release site (e.g., minor

drips, leaks, or spills) would be confined to the immediate area of the contamination. For

the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on vernal pool fairy shrimp

from chemicals are considered possible if a chemical spill or release occurs within vernal

pool habitat within the range of the species.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal within a vernal pool complex has the potential to alter the hydrology,

soil moisture, temperature, chemical composition, inundation duration, and rate of drying

of the vernal pools. In addition, vegetation removal may limit the amount of nutrient and

food sources to vernal pools. Any of these changes may affect some or all of the vernal

pool fairy shrimp’s life cycle. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse

effects on vernal pool fairy shrimp from vegetation alteration are considered possible if

such alteration occurs within vernal pool habitat within the range of the species.

Species

Any direct disturbance to a vernal pool occupied by vernal pool fairy shrimp has the

potential to directly affect vernal pool fairy shrimp; for example, by mechanical harm or

dewatering, and result in direct physical take of the species.

5.4.12.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on vernal pool fairy shrimp populations. The environmental performance

standards in Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for

habitat and species conservation during bridge construction.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 - 284

5.4.12.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the vernal pool fairy shrimp

using GIS analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where

bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect the vernal pool fairy shrimp.

The methods and assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary

below, and in detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and

assumptions used to assess the effects on the vernal pool fairy shrimp via the various pathways

are presented below, and in detail in the Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the

Effect Screening Layer memo and the Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed

by the Services as part of the ongoing consultation process for the Bridge Program.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat includes all areas: 1)

within the Agate Desert in Jackson County, Oregon, and 2) mapped by the NRCS as AgateWinlo Complex soils. A total of five Program Bridges meet both of these criteria within a

portion of their API and thus are considered to have the potential to affect vernal pool fairy

shrimp (Table 5.4.12-1). These five bridges are further analyzed below to determine what, if any,

adverse effects their repair and replacement activities may have on the vernal pool fairy shrimp

via the various effects pathways.

Table 5.4.12-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. ofSpans Ecoregion Name

1 7777 Central OR RR 9 Klamath Mountains

2 8539 I-5 (Hwy 001) 8 Klamath Mountains

3 8543 None 14 Klamath Mountains

4 07777B Central OR RR 9 Klamath Mountains

5 08540A I-5 (Hwy 001) 4 Klamath Mountains

Soil

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on vernal pool fairy

shrimp from the displacement, disruption, removal, or addition of soil are considered

possible if such actions occur within vernal pool habitat within the range of the species. A

total of 63 net acres (119 gross acres) of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat is present within

the five bridge APIs. Of the 63 acres, 7 acres are located within habitat that contains

severely altered vegetation and leveled topography—and thus, altered hydrology.

Approximately 29 acres are located within habitat that has altered vegetation and weak

hydrology and topography. The remaining 26 acres are located within altered-vegetation
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 285

habitat (Jackson County 2003). Thus, none of the 63 net acres are considered intact.

Nonetheless, the Invertebrate Environmental Performance Standard will be followed

(Section 3.3) to ensure that no disturbance to vernal pools occurs. As a result, effects on

vernal pool fairy shrimp via the soil effects pathway are considered to be negligible.

Water

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on vernal pool fairy

shrimp from the displacement, disruption, removal, or addition of water are considered

possible if such actions occur within vernal pool habitat within the range of the species.

Each of the five bridges identified as having vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat within their

API will follow the Water Quality and Invertebrate Avoidance Environmental

Performance Standards. The Invertebrate Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard requires that existing hydrologic regimes be maintained, while the

implementation of the Stormwater Environmental Performance Standard ensure the

maintenance of existing peak and base flows, and treatment of water quality (Section

3.3). As a result, effects on vernal pool fairy shrimp via the water effects pathway are

considered to be negligible.

Chemicals

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on vernal pool fairy

shrimp from chemicals are considered possible if a chemical spill or release occurs within

vernal pool habitat within the range of the species. Such an effect has the potential to

occur within the 63 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat within the five bridge APIs.

However, implementation of the Water Quality Environmental Performance Standard and

the Invertebrate Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will ensure that most

foreseeable chemical spills are avoided, or contained and cleaned up before they can

adversely affect vernal pool habitat. The effect on vernal pool fairy shrimp from chemical

spills is therefore considered to be negligible.

Vegetation

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on vernal pool fairy

shrimp from vegetation alteration are considered possible if such alteration occurs within

vernal pool habitat within the range of the species. Therefore, the potential for adverse

effects on vegetation exists on 63 acres in the five bridge APIs. The Invertebrate

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will be followed at each of these

bridges to protect vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. In addition, the Habitat Removal and

Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standards will be followed to minimize the

amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that any vegetation removed outside of the

bridge footprint area is restored, thus minimizing effects on vernal pool fairy shrimp from

upland vegetation removal. As a result, effects on vernal pool fairy shrimp via the

vegetation effects pathway are considered to be negligible.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 286

Species

Direct removal of occupied habitat may affect vernal pool fairy shrimp. Implementation

of the Invertebrate Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard for the five bridges

with known vernal pool habitat will eliminate the potential for any direct species effects.

5.4.12.5 Determination of Effect

The application of environmental performance standards to the five bridges identified as

potentially affecting vernal pool fairy shrimp will minimize effects to the greatest extent

practicable. Effects on the 63 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat are likely to be negligible

in light of these performance standards, and considering that none of the 63 acres are intact

vernal pool habitat. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and

its designated critical habitat.

5.4.13 Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi)

5.4.13.1 Life History and Status

The Fender’s blue butterfly was Federally listed as endangered throughout its range on January

25, 2000 (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875) (Figure 5.4.13-1). Historically, the Fender’s blue

butterfly was widely distributed on approximately 685,000 acres of upland prairie habitats

throughout the Willamette Valley (USFWS 2003c). However, due to extensive fire suppression,

agricultural conversion, urbanization, and the introduction of invasive vegetation, upland prairie

habitat has been depleted to less than 988 acres and limited to four counties (USFWS 2003c). As

a result, the Fender’s blue butterfly is confined to 32 known habitat patches in Yamhill, Polk,

Benton, and Lane counties, Oregon (USFWS 2003c). Critical habitat has not been designated at

this time.

The Fender’s blue butterfly is known to use Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus kincaidii),

which is Federally listed as threatened (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875), as its primary larval food

plant. It will also use spur lupine (Lupinus laxiflorus), and sickle-keeled lupine (Lupinus

albicaulis) as secondary host plants for larvae (USFWS 2003c). Adult butterflies lay their eggs

on the foliage of perennial lupine species in late May or early June; this foliage is also the food

source for the caterpillar during May and June. The newly hatched larvae emerge to feed on the

foliage for a short time during late June, reaching their second instar in the early summer, at

which point they enter an extended diapause (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Diapausing larvae

remain in the leaf litter at or near the base of the host plant through the fall and winter and may

become active again in March or April of the following year. Adult Fender’s blue butterflies feed

on nectar. Nectar sources include but are not limited to: wild onion (Allium amplectans), cat’s

ear mariposa lily (Calachortus tolmiei), and common camas (Camassia quamash). Native

wildflowers in the Willamette Valley prairies provide more nectar than non-native flowers for

adult butterflies, and the Fender’s blue butterfly population density is thus positively correlated

with the density of native wildflowers (USFWS 2003c).
LANE

LINN

CLACKAMAS

MARION

DESCHUTES

POLK

WASCO

DOUGLAS

YAMHILL

BENTON

LINCOLN

JEFFERSON

TILLAMOOK

KLAMATH

WASHINGTON

HOOD RIVER

MULTNOMAH

LAKE COOS

screening/BA Figures/b_butterfly.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.13-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Fender's Blue Butterfly

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Fender's Blue Butterfly Range

County

Streams and Rivers

City

Highway

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 288

5.4.13.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways are the media through which effects are delivered to any species. Essentially all

effects on Fender’s blue butterflies are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal,

or addition of one or more of the following:

Chemicals

Chemical spills or releases are not expected to have any effect on Fender’s blue butterfly.

Herbicide application may affect the habitat for this species as discussed in the

Vegetation section that follows.

Vegetation

Fender’s blue butterfly habitat is limited to native upland prairie habitat in the Willamette

Valley (USFWS 2003c). Fender’s blue butterfly and Kincaid’s lupine coexist at 27 of the

32 remnant habitat patches in Oregon (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Proposed actions

include vegetation removal, which could result in the removal of habitat or the

introduction or promotion of invasive species, which may out-compete host plants or

plants that provide nectar sources. The Bridge Program may also require the use of

herbicide for clearing lands, or for invasive species control during the site restoration

phase of the project. Herbicides have the potential to have direct effects on eggs, larvae,

or individuals and host plants. However a recent study on the effects of herbicide on the

development of the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis) eggs and larvae (a

species similar to Fender’s blue butterfly) assessed different application methods and

herbicide mixtures including glyphosate, sulfmeturon methyl, trichlor as active

ingredients, and Entry II as the surfactant. The preliminary results indicated virtually no

direct herbicide toxicity to Karner blue butterflies (USFWS 2003c). These results, as well

as anecdotal observations of effects of herbicide use within Fender’s blue butterfly

populations indicate that Fender’s blue butterfly will probably not be directly affected by

herbicides. However even if herbicides do not directly kill Fender’s blue butterfly,

butterfly larva mortality (or loss of future breeding habitat) is still likely due to the death

of the host plant. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, potential adverse effects on

Fender’s blue butterfly from vegetation alteration are considered possible if such

alteration occurs in the vicinity of Kincaid’s lupine plant populations.

Species

Removal or trampling of occupied host plants has the potential to directly take Fender’s

blue butterflies by removing or crushing eggs, larvae, or adult butterflies.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 289

5.4.13.3 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

Minimization and avoidance measures have been developed to reduce the proposed action’s

adverse affects on Fender’s blue butterfly populations. The environmental performance standards

in Section 3.3 detail these minimization measures as well as the methods developed for habitat

and species conservation during bridge construction.

5.4.13.4 Analysis of Effects

ODOT/FHWA assessed the likely effects of the Bridge Program on the Fender’s blue butterfly

using GIS analyses. A screening process was applied to all program bridges to identify where

bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect the Fender’s blue butterfly.

The methods and assumptions used to perform this screening process are presented in summary

below, and in detail in the Effect Screening Layer memos (Appendix 2-A). The methods and

assumptions used to assess the effects on the Fender’s blue butterfly via the various pathways are

presented below, and in detail in the Evaluation of Effect memos (Appendix 2-B). Both the

Effect Screening Layer memo and the Evaluation of Effect memo for this species were reviewed

by the Services as part of the ongoing consultation process for the Bridge Program.

For the purposes of the Bridge Program, Fender’s blue butterfly habitat has the potential to occur

in all areas: 1) within the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, and 2) within Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and

Lane Counties, and 3) within the Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Westside Grasslands; Herbaceous

Wetlands; or Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environments habitat types. A total of 74 Program

Bridges meet these criteria; construction activities at these 74 bridges are considered to have the

potential to affect Fender’s blue butterfly (Table 5.4.13-1). These 74 bridges are further analyzed

below to determine what, if any, adverse effects their repair and replacement activities may have

on the Fender’s blue butterfly via the various effects pathways.

Table 5.4.13-1. Program Bridge projects that may affect Fender’s Blue Butterfly.

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

1 4573 Unknown 3 Coast Range

2 745 Unknown 5 Willamette Valley

3 1516 EWEB Canal 3 Willamette Valley

4 2001 Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

5 2015 Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

6 2081 Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

7 2262 Central OR RR 8 Willamette Valley
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 290

Table 5.4.13-1. (continued).

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

8 4041 Bear Cr. 7 Willamette Valley

9 4056 Hayes Cr. 1 Willamette Valley

10 4062 S. Fk. Siuslaw R. 4 Willamette Valley

11 5286 Coast Fk. Willamette R. 7 Willamette Valley

12 6768 Lost Cr. 5 Willamette Valley

13 7110 UPRR 8 Willamette Valley

14 7366 Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

15 7825 I-5 (Hwy 001) 5 Willamette Valley

16 7830 Abandoned RR 3 Willamette Valley

17 7832 Unknown 6 Willamette Valley

18 7860 I-5 (Hwy 001) 6 Willamette Valley

19 7863 Row R. Rd. 4 Willamette Valley

20 8329 Willamette R Hwy 015 UPRR 19 Willamette Valley

21 8445 I-5 (Hwy 001) 7 Willamette Valley

22 8616 Oxing SB Hwy 1W 10 Willamette Valley

23 8617 WPRR 3 Willamette Valley

24 8870 Mcvay Access 1 Willamette Valley

25 8889 Unknown 7 Willamette Valley

26 9587 Unknown 4 Willamette Valley

27 00123K Unknown 33 Willamette Valley

28 01075A Marys R. 3 Willamette Valley

29 01205A WPRR & Harris Rd. 6 Willamette Valley

30 01612A Unknown 3 Willamette Valley

31 01756A Unknown 5 Willamette Valley
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 291

Table 5.4.13-1. (continued).

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

32 05285A Willamette R. Relief Opening 5 Willamette Valley

33 05287B Willamette R. Relief Opening 5 Willamette Valley

34 06836A Franklin Blvd. & UPRR 5 Willamette Valley

35 07253B Unknown 35 Willamette Valley

36 07253R Unknown 8 Willamette Valley

37 07732A Hwy 018 (Or 58) & Conn 6 Willamette Valley

38 07732B OR 58 (Hwy 018) & Conn 6 Willamette Valley

39 07736A Camas Swale 3 Willamette Valley

40 07736C Camas Swale 3 Willamette Valley

41 07739A I-5 (Hwy 001) 7 Willamette Valley

42 07740A Hill Cr. 1 Willamette Valley

43 07740C Hill Cr. 1 Willamette Valley

44 07743A Tunnel Mill Race 3 Willamette Valley

45 07745A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 8 Willamette Valley

46 07756A Coast Fork Relief Opening 4 Willamette Valley

47 07757A Gettings Cr. 5 Willamette Valley

48 07757B Gettings Cr. 5 Willamette Valley

49 07793A Brown Cr. 3 Willamette Valley

50 07793B Brown Cr. 3 Willamette Valley

51 07809A Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Willamette Valley

52 07809B Coast Fk. Willamette R. 5 Willamette Valley

53 07810A Latham Rd. 4 Willamette Valley

54 07810B Latham Rd. 4 Willamette Valley

55 07828B Creek 3 Willamette Valley
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 292

Table 5.4.13-1. (continued).

Record No. Bridge ID No. Feature Crossed No. of

Spans Ecoregion Name

56 07829A Row R. 5 Willamette Valley

57 07833A Row R. Rd. 3 Willamette Valley

58 07833B Row R. Rd. 3 Willamette Valley

59 07861B Martin Cr. SB 3 Willamette Valley

60 07863A Row R. Rd. 4 Willamette Valley

61 07864A 16th St. 3 Willamette Valley

62 07865A Tayler St. 3 Willamette Valley

63 07871A Row R. Overflow 6 Willamette Valley

64 07871B Row R. Overflow 6 Willamette Valley

65 08171N Muddy Cr. Overflow 3 Willamette Valley

66 08171S Muddy Cr. 3 Willamette Valley

67 08175N Mckenzie R. & Front Rd 11 Willamette Valley

68 08175S Mckenzie R. & Front Rd 11 Willamette Valley

69 08178N Mckenzie Overflow 4 Willamette Valley

70 08178S Mckenzie Overflow 4 Willamette Valley

71 08180N Mckenzie Overflow 3 Willamette Valley

72 08180S Mckenzie Overflow 3 Willamette Valley

73 08182N Game Farm Rd 6 Willamette Valley

74 08182S Game Farm Rd 6 Willamette Valley

Vegetation

For purposes of the Bridge Program, effects on vegetation are assumed to be limited to 2

acres per bridge (for the 74 bridges where Fender’s blue butterfly habitat has the potential

to occur). Thus, approximately 148 acres of vegetation will be disturbed in the vicinity of

program bridges; this vegetation has the potential to include the plant species upon which

the Fender’s blue butterfly relies for feeding and breeding. However, it is unlikely that
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 293

very much of the area where vegetation disturbance will occur actually supports these

preferred plant species.

The Habitat Avoidance and Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standards

(Section 3.3) will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that

any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint is restored. Implementation

of the Invertebrate Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will ensure that

occupied or potential Fender’s blue butterfly habitat will not be removed.

Species

Direct removal or trampling of host plant species could directly affect the Fender’s blue

butterfly. The implementation of the Invertebrate Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard will eliminate any direct species effects on individual Fender’s blue butterflies.

5.4.13.5 Determination of Effect

The application of environmental performance standards to all bridges identified as potentially

affecting Fender’s blue butterflies will minimize the effects summarized above to the greatest

extent practicable. However, some Fender’s blue butterfly habitat could be indirectly affected by

vegetation disturbance, including herbicide application, or from direct effects associated with

vegetation removal or the trampling of Fender’s blue butterflies. Based on this analysis for the

Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may affect, likely to adversely affect

the Fender’s blue butterfly.

5.4.14 Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta)

5.4.14.1 Life History and Status

The Oregon silverspot butterfly was Federally listed as threatened, and critical habitat was

designated, on July 2, 1980 (July 2, 1980, 45 FR 44935). At the time of listing, the only known

viable population of Oregon silverspot butterflies was at the Rock Creek – Big Creek area in

Lane County, Oregon. This population was threatened by loss of habitat due to housing

development and recreational activities (July 2, 1980, 45 FR 44935, USFWS 2001b).

The Oregon silverspot butterfly has six larval and one pupal stage before metamorphosing into

an adult. Newly hatched larvae enter diapause immediately and overwinter in this condition until

the host plant, the common blue violet (Viola adunca), sends up new growth, which can be as

early as March (USFWS 2001b). When the larvae emerge they feed on the violets, and will

undergo six developmental stages before emerging as adults (WDFW 1993). Adult emergence

and flight period typically correspond with the best coastal conditions, usually from July into

September (WDFW 1993). As adults, they mate, lay eggs, and die, thus completing a year-long

life cycle (WDFW 1993).

The Oregon silverspot butterfly inhabits early successional coastal grasslands with topography or

forest fringe that provides protection from strong coastal winds (TNC 2003). Discovered
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 294

subsequent to Federal listing, grassland habitats that support Oregon silverspot butterfly

populations are currently known to exist in marine terrace and coastal headland “salt spray”

meadows, stabilized dunes, and montane grasslands in the higher elevations of the Oregon Coast

Range (USFWS 2001b) (Figure 5.4.14-1). In addition to providing functional environmental

conditions, these habitats provide an adequate supply of caterpillar host plants and adult nectar

sources.

Extensive surveys of habitat conditions and populations throughout the range of the Oregon

silverspot butterfly were conducted between 1982 and 1993 to determine known localities and

also areas that may potentially support future populations. These surveys determined that the

Oregon silverspot butterfly occurs at six sites: Lake Earl in California, the Rock Creek – Big

Creek area (Lane County, Oregon), Bray Point (Lane County, Oregon), Cascade Head

(Tillamook County, Oregon), Mt. Hebo (Tillamook County, Oregon), and the Clatsop Plains

(Clatsop County, Oregon) (USFWS 2001b). These six sites were grouped according to their

proximity and similarity of habitat to form Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) (USFWS

2001b). There are six HCAs, four of them in Oregon: Clatsop Plains HCA, Coastal Mountain

HCA (at Mt. Hebo and Fairview Mt.), Cascade Head HCA, and Central Coast HCA (at Rock

Creek – Big Creek and Bray Point). The only critical habitat area designated for Oregon

silverspot butterfly is the Rock Creek-Big Creek area, which is entirely contained within the

Central Coast HCA (July 2, 1980, 45 FR 44935, USFWS 2001b).
LINN

LANE

CLACKAMAS

MARION POLK

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

YAMHILL

BENTON

WASCO

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

JEFFERSON

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

DESCHUTES

noeffect\BA_figures\silverspot.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.4.14-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

dI aho

Washington

Pacific Ocean

California

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 3 6 12 18 24 30

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

State Boundary

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Habitat Conservation Areas

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 296

5.4.14.2 Analysis of Effects

Within Oregon, the Oregon silverspot butterfly’s habitat is limited to the four designated HCAs

as determined by the recovery plan for this subspecies. The identified and mapped HCAs

account for the entire range of the Oregon silverspot butterfly. The Bridge Program does not

include the repair or replacement of bridges within the range of the Oregon silverspot butterfly

(i.e., the four designated HCAs).

5.4.14.3 Determination of Effect

The Bridge Program does not include the repair or replacement of bridges within the range of the

Oregon silverspot butterfly. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT makes a

determination of no effect for the Oregon silverspot butterfly.

5.4.15 Other Wildlife species

5.4.15.1 Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Oregon is listed as threatened under the Federal ESA (April 1,

2003, 68 FR 15803), and is classified as endangered under the Oregon ESA. In 1995, gray

wolves were re-introduced into portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The reintroduced

populations of wolves are listed as “experimental, non-essential” under the ESA (November 22,

1994, 59 FR 60252).

The gray wolf was once widely distributed throughout the continental United States. By the

1930s, gray wolves were extirpated from the western U.S. Between 1999 and 2002, three wolves

were confirmed in Oregon; two were killed and one captured and returned to Idaho. At present,

there are no plans to re-introduce wolves into Oregon. However, as wolf populations in Idaho

increase, individuals are expected to wander into Oregon (ODFW 2002). Since 2002,

approximately 60 wolf or wolf track sightings have been made in eastern Oregon. However, no

wolves are presently known to live in Oregon (ODFW 2003a).

Except for lone wolves, wolves travel in packs of 5 to 8 individuals. Pack wolves are territorial,

and forage cooperatively. In the U.S., the home ranges of pack wolves have been identified as 50

to 5,000 square miles (Marshall et al., 1996).

Wolves tend to avoid populated areas, though they have been known to kill livestock in rural

areas. Due to the gray wolf’s extensive home range, rare occurrences in Oregon, and tendency to

avoid human activity, it is unlikely the bridge repair and replacement would adversely affect

gray wolves. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of no effect for the gray wolf.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 297

5.14.5.2 Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

The wolverine (Gulo gulo) was listed as threatened under the Oregon State ESA in 1987 (OAR

635-100-0125). Oregon wolverine populations are currently considered not warranted for

protection under the Federal ESA (April 19, 1995, 60 FR 19567).

The wolverine has a holarctic distribution throughout Alaska, Canada, and the western U.S.

(Verts and Carraway 1998, Csuti et al. 1997). In Oregon, the species was long thought to have

been extirpated (Bailey 1936). However, a series of live or skeletal wolverine sightings has

occurred in the State between the 1960s and the 1990s (Verts and Carraway 1998). Wolverines

in Oregon are typically found in forest environments at higher elevations and in alpine areas.

Open, unvegetated areas are avoided by wolverines, and a key component of their presence is the

absence of human activity or development (Hash 1987). The wolverine travels widely,

maintaining a home range of 150 to 163 square miles (Verts and Carraway 1998).

The entire range of the wolverine (within Oregon) is within the Cascade and Blue Mountain

provinces above 2,000 feet. Due to this species’ rarity and its tendency to avoid human activity,

it is unlikely that the bridge APIs provide functional habitat for wolverines. The wolverine is

naturally rare in Oregon and typically prefers wilderness areas; therefore it unlikely that highway

bridge construction would adversely affect the wolverine. Based on this analysis for the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the wolverine.

5.14.5.3 Washington Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni)

The Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni) was listed as endangered under the

Oregon State ESA in 2000 (OAR 635-100-0125). Both the Washington and Oregon populations

of Washington ground squirrel were designated as candidates for listing under the Federal ESA

on October 25, 1999 (October 25, 1999, 64 FR 57533).

The entire range of the Washington ground squirrel is defined by three fragmented populations.

Two of these populations are in Washington and one is in Oregon. All three populations occur

within the Columbia Basin physiographic region. In Oregon, Washington ground squirrels have

been identified in Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties (Verts and Carraway 1998). At the

time of early settlement in the region these populations were likely contiguous; however,

grazing, fire, cultivation, and irrigation have removed or altered much of the vegetation that

supports Washington ground squirrels and, consequently, have limited the distribution of

Washington ground squirrels into the existing fragmented populations (Verts and Carraway

1998).

The range of the Washington ground squirrel in Oregon is Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla

Counties. Bridges within Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla County were evaluated by ODFW

biologists Simon Wray, Russ Morgan, and Mark Henjum and were determined not to have

Washington ground squirrel or their associated habitat (Randy Reeve, ODFW/ODOT liaison,

ODOT, pers. comm. December 18, 2003).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 298

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no

effect for the Washington ground squirrel.

5.14.5.4 Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis)

The kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) was listed as threatened under the Oregon State ESA in 1987

(OAR 635-100-0125). Oregon kit fox populations are currently considered not warranted for

protection under the Federal ESA.

In Oregon, the kit fox is found in arid desert valleys dominated by halophytic plants (Csuti et al.

1997). Historic records of kit fox distribution in Oregon include Deschutes, Malheur, Harney,

and Klamath Counties (Verts and Carraway 1998). However, current distribution is thought to

only occur in a small portion of southern Harney County, and in Malheur County east and south

of Steens Mountain (Csuti et al. 1997).

The entire range of the kit fox in Oregon is within the Alvord Lake, Crooked/Rattlesnake,

Middle Owyhee, South Fork Owyhee, East Little Owyhee, and Upper Quinn 4th field HUCs.

Bridges outside of the 4th field HUCs listed above will be documented as having no effect on the

kit fox.

Kit foxes have a limited range and are naturally rare in Oregon. As a result, there are no bridges

associated with the Bridge Program within the range of the kit fox. Based on this analysis for the

Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the kit fox.

5.4.15.5 Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albutrus)

The only terrestrial area in U.S. jurisdiction that is currently used by the short-tailed albatross

(Phoebastria albatrus) is the Midway Atoll (July 31, 2000, 65 FR 46643). Short-tailed

albatrosses have been sighted within 6 miles of the shore of Alaska (with some sightings within 3

miles of the shore (July 31, 2000, 65 FR 46643). The marine range of the short-tailed albatross

within U.S. territorial waters includes Alaska’s vast coastal shelf break areas and the marine

waters of Hawaii for foraging, but it is not known how much or to what extent the short-tailed

albatross utilizes open ocean areas of the Gulf of Alaska, North Pacific Ocean, and Bering Sea

(July 31, 2000, 65 FR 46643).

The short-tailed albatross range for migrating, foraging, roosting, or nesting does not come

within 2 miles of a program bridge. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program,

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the short-tailed albatross.

5.4.15.6 Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia)

The Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) was listed as endangered under the

Oregon State ESA (ESA) in 1987 (OAR 635-100-0125). On March 11, 1967, the Aleutian

Canada goose was listed as endangered under the Federal ESA (March 11, 1967, 32 FR 4001).

On December 12, 1990, the Aleutian Canada goose was down-listed as threatened under the

Federal ESA (December 12, 1990, 55 FR 51106). On March 20, 2001, the Aleutian Canada
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 299

goose was de-listed under the Federal ESA as populations were considered to be recovered from

the threat of extinction (March 20, 2001, 66 FR 15643).

The Aleutian Canada goose is one of eleven generally recognized sub-species of Canada geese.

It is the second-smallest species in the Pacific Flyway (Walker and Wiese 1995). The species

historically nested on maritime islands from the Alaska Peninsula, westward along the Aleutian

Chain, to the Commander and Kuril islands of Asia (ADFG 1999). Aleutian Canada geese winter

in and use pastures and grain fields along the coasts of Oregon and northern California and in

California's Central Valley. However, the vast majority of Aleutian Canada geese overwinter in

California (Brad Bales, waterfowl biologist, ODFW, pers. comm., October 28, 2003). The

species typically is found in shoreline and valley floodplain environments in Oregon’s coastal

counties during fall and spring months, when they are migrating to or from their northern

breeding grounds (Brad Bales, waterfowl biologist, ODFW, pers. comm., October 28, 2003).

Some Aleutian Canada geese stray inland to the Willamette Valley during migration, but their

numbers are insignificant and they are often impossible to distinguish from other Canada goose

sub-species (Brad Bales, waterfowl biologist, ODFW, pers. comm., October 28, 2003).

The entire range of the Aleutian Canada goose in Oregon occurs within the Coast Range

physiographic province. Bridges outside of the Coast Range province will be documented as

having no effect on the Aleutian Canada goose.

Aleutian Canada geese are migratory in Oregon and only occur for a limited time in the fall and

spring months. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of no effect for the Aleutian Canada goose.

5.4.15.7 Artic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius)

On October 13, 1970, the Artic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) was listed as

endangered under the Federal ESA (October 13, 1970, 35 FR 16047). The Arctic peregrine

falcon was reclassified to Threatened on April 19, 1984 (March 24, 1984, 49 FR 10520). On

October 5, 1994, the Artic peregrine falcon was removed from the Federal ESA list as

populations were considered to be recovered from the threat of extinction (October 5, 1994, 59

FR 50796). The Artic peregrine falcon was listed as endangered under the Oregon State ESA

(SESA) in 1987 (OAR 635-100-0125) and currently is protected by the SESA only.

The Artic peregrine falcon is one of three subspecies of peregrine falcon that occur in North

America (October 5, 1994, 59 FR 50796). The Artic peregrine falcon nests in the tundra region

of northern Alaska, across the Canadian tundra, and Greenland (October 5, 1994, 59 FR 50796).

This species is highly migratory and winters as far south as Latin America, with some

individuals wintering in northern Mexico and southern Florida (October 5, 1994, 59 FR 50796).

In Oregon, the Artic peregrine falcon is a migratory species that appears between mid-September

and mid-April (Snow 1972).

Artic peregrine falcons are migratory in Oregon and only occur for a limited time in the fall and

spring months. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of no effect for the Arctic peregrine falcon.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 300

5.4.15.8 Western Snowy Plover (Interior population) (Charadrius

alexandrinus)

The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) has two distinct populations in Oregon: a

Pacific Coast population and an interior population. The western snowy plover was listed as

threatened statewide under the Oregon ESA in 1989 (OAR 635-100-0125, ODFW 2003b). In

1993, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Federally listed the Pacific Coast population of

the western snowy plover as threatened; this population is defined as those individuals that nest

adjacent to tidal waters, and includes all nesting birds on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore

islands, adjacent bays, estuaries, and coastal rivers (March 5, 1993, 58 FR 12864, December 7,

1999, 64 FR 68507). Therefore this listing does not apply to the interior population, which is a

state-listed species only.

The interior population of the western snowy plover is found in southeastern Oregon along the

bare margins of alkali lakes in Harney and Lake Counties (Csuti et al. 1997). Alkali Lakes are

generally barren flat areas that are associated with larger pluvial lake basins such as Alvord,

Summer, Malheur, Catlow, and Pueblo Lakes (Adamus et al. 2001). Although this species has

been recorded in the Klamath Falls area, breeding has not been confirmed (Adamus et al. 2001).

The breeding season for western snowy plover is generally mid-May to July, with interior

populations nesting later (Csuti et al. 1997). The interior population is migratory and winters

along the California and Baja coasts (Csuti et al. 1997).

The bridge program has the potential to adversely effect snowy plover through alteration of a

water course either temporarily (during construction) or permanently (by affecting water quality,

promoting nonnative vegetation, or encouraging predators to the area) (USFWS 2001a). Each of

these potential effects should have no effect on snowy plovers if they occur greater than 1.0 mile

from snowy plover areas. Any potential for noise disturbance from construction activities will

have no effect at distances greater than 1.0 mile.

The western snowy plover interior population habitat is limited to the margins of alkali lakes in

southeastern Oregon. Only the bridges with an API within 1.0 mile of an alkali lake have the

potential to affect the western snowy plover interior population. Based on this analysis for the

Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the western snowy

plover interior population.

5.4.15.9 Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis)

In the North Pacific, the sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) has been found mainly south of the

Aleutian Islands (Leatherwood et al. 1982, Nasu 1974). Sei whales are present throughout the

temperate North Pacific north of 40o

N latitude. Throughout their range, sei whales appear

predominantly in deep water; they are most common over the continental slope (Martin 1983,

CeTAP 1982, Mitchell 1975). Their offshore distribution along the continental slope probably

explains, at least in part, the infrequency of observations in shelf waters between northern

California and Washington (Reeves et al. 1998a).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 301

Because of their range and preference for deep water, sei whales will not be affected by bridge

repair or replacement activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA

makes a determination of no effect for the sei whale.

5.4.15.10 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)

The range of the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) is known to encompass much of the North

Pacific Ocean, from Kamchatka to southern Japan in the west, and from the Gulf of Alaska and

California south to at least Costa Rica in the east. The blue whale is not known to move through

inland coastal waters of Oregon based on the information provided in the Recovery Plan for the

Blue Whale (Reeves et al. 1998b).

The blue whale does not migrate or inhabit waters that will be affected by bridge repair or

replacement activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of no effect for the blue whale.

5.4.15.11 Finback Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

The migratory behavior of finback (Balaenoptera physalus) whales in the eastern North Pacific

is complex. The finback whales can appear in any given season at many different latitudes

(Reeves et al. 1998a). Finback whales have been observed in the summer off of the Oregon

coast; however, fin whales do not travel near shore (Reeves et al. 1998a, Green et al. 1992).

Finback whales do not inhabit near shore areas that will be affected by bridge repair or

replacement activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of no effect for the finback whale.

5.4.15.12 Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

The northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is the world’s most endangered large whale. No

more than a few hundred individuals are estimated to exist (NOAA Fisheries 1991a). Right

whales live over the continental shelf areas of the Pacific Ocean. In the summer, they may be

nomadic, temporarily aggregating in areas with abundant food sources (NOAA Fisheries 1991a).

Sightings of right whales during winter months have been made off of the coast of Washington,

Oregon, California, Baja California, and near the Hawaiian Islands (Scarff 1986). Sightings have

occurred approximately 4 to 8 miles offshore of Catalina Island (in California). There are no

known wintering areas off the North American Pacific coastline (NOAA Fisheries 1991a).

Right whales do not travel close enough to shore to be affected by bridge repair or replacement

activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination

of no effect for the northern right whale.

5.4.15.13 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae)

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae) is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins.

Humpback whales generally inhabit waters over continental shelves, along their edges, and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 302

around some oceanic islands (Whitehead 1987, Balcomb and Nichols 1978). Humpback whales

are typically found in waters at least 500 feet deep. Most humpback whales migrate considerable

distances to high latitude summering areas. Summer ranges are often relatively close to shore,

including major coastal embayments and channels. Sightings of humpback whales along the

coast of Oregon occur less frequently than sightings in Central California and Southeast Alaska

and it is unclear whether the whales use these waters for purposes other than migration (NOAA

Fisheries 1991b). Historically, humpback whales were hunted off the coast of Oregon (usually

from April through October) (NOAA Fisheries 1991b).

No bridge repair or replacement activities will affect the humpback whale due to the depth

required for the humpback whale (i.e., humpback whales do not travel close to shore). Based on

this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the

humpback whale.

5.4.15.14 Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

The sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) is one of the most widely distributed marine

mammals (Rice 1989). In the North Pacific, the northernmost distribution boundary extends from

Cape Navarin to the Pribilof Islands (Omura 1955). Females and young sperm whales usually

remain in tropical and temperate waters year-round, while males are thought to move north in the

summer to feed in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and waters around the Aleutian Islands. Tag

data from the days of commercial whaling revealed a great deal of east-west movement between

Alaskan waters and the western North Pacific (Japan and the Bonin Islands), with little evidence

of north-south movement in the eastern North Pacific (NOAA Fisheries 1998). The seasonal

movement of sperm whales in the North Pacific at this time is not well understood (NOAA

Fisheries 1998).

Sperm whales are naturally rare in Oregon; therefore it is unlikely they would be affected by

bridge repair or replacement activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program,

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the sperm whale.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 303

5.4.15.15 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)

Most known loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) sightings are in southern California (Stinson

1984; Guess 1981a, Guess 1981b), with a few sightings in Grays Harbor Washington (Hodge

1982) and Alaska (Bane 1992). No additional sightings are known. With the exception of four

records from Hawaii, U.S. Pacific sightings are confined to the west coast of the continent

(NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1998a). It is not known whether these individuals are resident or

transient. The major nesting grounds for the loggerhead sea turtle are generally located in warm

temperate and subtropical regions, with some scattered nesting in the tropics. There are no

known nesting locations along the west coast of the United States (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS

1998a). Because nesting is not documented in the U.S. Pacific, the conclusion has been made

that U.S. waters (principally those off of the California coastline) are used as foraging grounds

and as migratory corridors. Sightings are typically confined to the summer months in the eastern

Pacific, peaking from July through September off southern California and southwestern Baja

California, Mexico (Ramirez-Cruz et al. 1991, Stinson 1984).

The loggerhead sea turtle is a rare occurrence in Oregon; therefore it would not be affected by

bridge repair or replacement activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program,

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the loggerhead sea turtle.

5.4.15.16 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)

The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is a circumglobal species found in tropical seas and to a

lesser extent in subtropical waters (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1998b). The U.S. West Coast

has no known nesting sites for green sea turtles (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1998b).

The green sea turtle is naturally rare in Oregon; therefore it is unlikely to be affected by bridge

repair or replacement activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA

makes a determination of no effect for the green sea turtle.

5.4.15.17 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is found worldwide (NOAA Fisheries and

USFWS 1998c). Adult leatherback sea turtles exhibit broad thermal tolerances and are reported

in the Pacific Ocean as far north as Alaska and the Bering Sea, and as far south as Chile and New

Zealand (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1998c). The leatherback sea turtle has been known to

inhabit waters within 30 miles of the shore. No nesting of the leatherback sea turtle occurs on

beaches under U.S. jurisdiction (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1998c).

The leatherback sea turtle is naturally rare in Oregon; therefore it is unlikely to be affected by

bridge repair or replacement activities. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program,

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for the leatherback sea turtle.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 304

5.4.15.18 Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)

The preferred nesting areas for the Olive (Pacific) Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)

occur along continental margins and to a lesser extent on oceanic islands. No known nesting by

the Olive Ridley sea turtle occurs in the United States or in any territory under U.S. jurisdiction

(NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1998d). The Olive (Pacific) Ridley sea turtle is naturally rare in

Oregon; therefore it is unlikely it would be affected by bridge repair or replacement activities.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no

effect for the Olive Ridley sea turtle.

5.5 Plant Species

The potential effects of the Bridge Program on Federal and State-listed plant species are

discussed in this section of the BA. ODOT relied on a combination of plant surveys conducted in

2003, Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC) occurrence records, and USFWS

data to make determinations of effect for the 18 Federally listed plant species that exist in

Oregon and may potentially occur near the bridge APIs.

The methods used to assess the effects of the Bridge Program on Federally listed plants,

including the screening of bridge APIs and the resulting categories of bridges, are discussed in

Section 5.5.1. Section 5.5.2 includes a discussion of the primary pathways through which effects

may be delivered to individuals or to populations of listed plant species. Minimization and

avoidance measures for listed plants as a group are discussed in Section 5.5.3. Following these

sections, the potential effects on individual plant species and species-specific determinations of

effect are discussed in Sections 5.5.4 through 5.5.21.

5.5.1. Evaluation Methods and Results

ODOT developed a two-stage screening process to determine which of the 430 bridges in the

Bridge Program required rare plant surveys in 2003. The first stage of the process identified

bridges within 2 miles of rare plant occurrences based on ORNHIC records (ORNHIC 2003)

(Figure 5.5.1-1). This initial ORNHIC screening indicated that 138 bridges required on-theground rare plant surveys (Otting and Lytjen 2003).

The second stage of ODOT’s screening process involved literature reviews; discussions with

agency, academic, and local botanists, including Ron Halvorson (Prineville District BLM), Nora

Taylor (Burns District BLM), and Jean Wood (Umatilla National Forest); and related searches

(Otting and Lytjen 2003) to determine additional locations where listed species may be present.

The sources consulted during literature reviews included taxonomic keys and species guides

(CPC 2003, Eastman 1990, Meinke 1982, Hitchcock et al. 1973, Hitchcock and Cronquist 1964,

Peck 1961); these sources provided information on habitat requirements, morphological

characteristics, phenology, and species ranges. This stage of the screening process added 37

bridge APIs to those identified in Stage 1 based on ORNHIC records. In conjunction with

ODOTs initial screening, this resulted in a list of 175 bridges requiring on-the-ground rare plant

surveys. ODOT completed surveys at many of these bridges in 2003.
Figure 5.5.1-1. ODOT screening methodology for rare plant surveys.

Scenario A:

Results in selection of bridge for

survey since ORNHIC species

occurrence is within 2 miles.

Scenario B:

Results in bridge not being

selected for survey since

ORNHIC plant species

occurrence is greater than 2

miles from bridge.

Survey completed only if site

specific information indicates

potential habitat or if local input/

literature indicates potential

presence.

2-mile radius

2-mile radius

Legend

= Bridge

= ORNHIC plant species occurrence

= 2-mile buffer around bridge

No Scale

ORNHIC plant

species occurrence

within 2 miles of

bridge

ORNHIC plant

species occurrence

greater than 2 miles

from bridge.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 306

After the ODOT rare plant surveys were completed and the data were compiled, ODOT applied a

screening process developed by the USFWS to determine the possible presence of Federally

listed plants associated with the program bridges (Robinson 2004, Robinson 2003). This

approach served as an independent assessment of the potential occurrences of Federally listed

plant species at all 430 bridges in the Bridge Program, and a means of finalizing survey sites for

2004. The USFWS screening process uses a plant GIS database (known as the XID plant

database), that defines potential and known ranges of Federally listed plants. Potential range is

defined by a combination of proximity to ORNHIC occurrences (within a 2.5-mile radius) and

the area encompassed by any adjoining USGS quadrangle map. Known range is a subset of this

area containing the soil series that the plant is associated with as mapped by the Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The USFWS screening approach is summarized in

(Figure 5.5.1-2).

Implicit in the process by which survey sites are identified is that methods used to screen bridges

have an acceptably low probability of Type II Error (i.e., the failure to identify the need for a

survey at a particular bridge site when in fact a listed species is present). However, some level of

error is likely to be present, as evidenced by an ODOT rare plant survey conducted in 2003 that

documented an occurrence of Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii) at a bridge site that lacked the

soil type preferred by this species. The XID plant database has since been updated based on this

finding (Andy Robinson, USFWS, pers. comm., January 20, 2004).

Based on the results of rare pant surveys conducted to date, and the application of the USFWS

screening process as described above, all program bridges were assigned to one of the following

four categories:

Category 1: Bridges not requiring surveys based on USFWS screening. A total of 189 bridges

are outside of the potential range of listed plants. Proposed actions at these bridges therefore

have no potential to affect listed plants.

Category 2: Bridges that required a survey based on the USFWS screening, and that were

subsequently surveyed by ODOT in 2003, where listed plant species were not found. A total of

92 bridges are in this category; proposed actions at these bridges are assumed to have no

potential to affect Federally listed plants. Rare plant surveys conducted to date will be valid for

the duration of Bridge Program, which is unlikely to be more than 10 years (i.e., to 2013; Andy

Robinson, USFWS, pers. comm., January 21, 2004).

Category 3: Bridges that required a survey based on the USFWS screening, and that were

subsequently surveyed by ODOT in 2003, where one or more plant species were found (this is

sometimes referred to as documented plant presence). A total of nine bridges are in Category 3.

Since construction of Category 3 bridges has the potential to affect threatened or endangered

plant populations, species-specific analyses of potential effects are presented later in this Section.

Direct take of listed plants will be avoided at all Category 3 bridges through implementation of

the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect effects on listed plants will

be minimized through implementation of the other environmental performance standards
 







 



   



 

 



 

Figure 5.5.1-2. USFWS screening methodology for rare plant surveys.

Legend

= Soil Series associated with known

 ORNHIC plant species occurrences

= USGS quadrangle maps (not to

scale)

= 2,000 ft API





No Scale

2000 ft

2000 ft

Bridge not selected

for survey.

Bridge selected

for survey.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 308

presented in Section 3.3. Individual consultation with the USFWS will be required where

incidental take of a species cannot be avoided.

Category 4: Bridges where rare plant surveys are required (based on the USFWS screening

process as described above) but not yet conducted. A total of 140 bridges fall into Category 4

and remain to be surveyed. Direct take of any listed plants identified during the course of future

surveys will be avoided at all Category 3 bridges through implementation of the Plant Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect effects on listed plants will be minimized through

implementation of the other environmental performance standards presented in Section 3.3.

Individual consultation with the USFWS will be required where incidental take of a species

cannot be avoided. A summary of screening results is shown below (Table 5.5.1-1) and in Figure

5.5.1-3.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 140 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 9 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 92 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 189 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

LAKE

HARNEY

MALHEUR

LANE

GRANT

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

LINN

BAKER

CROOK

UMATILLA

UNION

WASCO

WALLOWA

JACKSON

COOS

DESCHUTES

CURRY

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

MARION

JOSEPHINE

POLK

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH

plants\BA_figures\plant_ov.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.1-3

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Summary of Plant Screening Results

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

California

Ida

h

o

0 20 40 80

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 310

Table 5.5.1-1. Summary of results of the bridge API screening process by species.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species Federal

Listing

Status

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed Bridges

with Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Kincaid’s Lupine T 55 289 0 86

Water Howellia T 34 304 0 92

Golden

Paintbrush

T 15 361 0 54

Bradshaw’s

Lomatium

E 24 348 2 56

Willamette

Daisy

E 30 356 0 44

Nelson’s

Checker-mallow

T 16 356 0 58

Gentner’s

Fritillary

E 22 397 1 10

Rough

Popcornflower

E 7 413 5 5

Cook’s

Lomatium

E 8 414 1 7

Large-flowered

Wooly

Meadowfoam

E 2 425 0 3

Western Lily E 1 429 0 0

Howell’s

Spectacular

Thelypody

T 1 429 0 0

McDonald’s

Rock-cress

E N/A 430 N/A N/A

Marsh Sandwort E N/A 430 N/A N/A

Applegate’s

Milk-vetch

E N/A 430 N/A N/A
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 311

Table 5.5.1-1. (continued).

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species Federal

Listing

Status

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed Bridges

with Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

MacFarlane’s

Four-o’clock

T N/A 430 N/A N/A

Spalding’s

Catchfly

T N/A 430 N/A N/A

Malheur WirelettuceE N/A 430 N/A N/A

Totals1 92 189 9 140

1 Totals do not sum due to species occurrence at multiple bridges.

Table 5.5.1-1 indicates that water howellia and golden paintbrush may be present at a relatively

large number of bridges where surveys have not yet been conducted (Category 4). However,

since the USFWS screening process did not identify plant/soil associations for these species, the

much larger potential range, in contrast to the smaller known range, was used to identify the

bridges where surveys for these plants are needed. This is likely a significant over-estimate of the

actual number of bridges where these species will be found.

5.5.2 Effects Pathways

This BA provides an analysis of the potential effects of the proposed action on the habitat

elements that are critical for sustained, viable populations of Federally listed plants. The viability

of listed plants can be affected when one or more physical, chemical, or biological parameters

are altered. All effects are delivered via the displacement, disruption, removal, or other alteration

of soil, air, water, chemicals, and vegetation. In addition, incidental take of the species (e.g., via

physical removal) may occur. Throughout this section of the BA, the Bridge Program’s effects

on Federally listed plant species are considered in the context of the above pathways. A further

discussion of each of these effects pathways follows.

Soil

Soil is the medium through which plant species obtain nutrients, water, and minerals. The

displacement of soil during earthwork may have direct and indirect lethal and sub-lethal

effects on plants. Direct lethal effects may occur when areas that plants are occupying are

excavated or filled. Direct sub-lethal effects may occur when soil movement temporarily

alters plant life cycle processes or health, but does not lead to plant death. Soil movement

may result from erosion, soil compaction, or construction related activities such as minor
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 312

grading, disking, and plowing. The restoration of habitat areas can also have beneficial

effects, particularly when the plant species reproduces via bulblets, rhizomes, or other

vegetative means. Earthwork may simultaneously increase land coverage and population

numbers by facilitating species distribution.

Differing degrees of soil erosion (e.g., exposed ground, mud flows, mass wasting, and

mudslides) caused by project work may have direct or indirect effects on plants by

destroying existing habitats (and plants) or altering potentially functional habitat. Indirect

lethal and sub-lethal effects may result when activities eliminate existing habitat critical

for plant growth, or potential habitat suitable for plant growth. These indirect effects may

occur when soil disturbance results in the introduction of invasive species or facilitates

the growth of competing vegetation.

During dry conditions, wind erosion can cause sediments to become airborne (i.e., as

dust). Activities that may result in the dispersal of airborne sediments onto plants have

the potential to affect plant species by preventing or inhibiting the species from

completing actions essential to propagation and survival. The presence of large amounts

of airborne sediments on plants may result in indirect sub-lethal effects such as reduced

opportunities for photosynthesis, and thus, reduced plant vigor, health, and growth.

Airborne sediments may also result in lost opportunities for the pollination and

subsequent fertilization of plants that reproduce sexually. For example, a layer of

sediments on a flowering plant may reduce the likelihood of, or eliminate the opportunity

for, appropriate pollination. This indirect sub-lethal effect may result in infertile seeds

and the loss of reproductive opportunity.

Water

To a large extent, water determines the type and extent of plant populations within a

particular region. Changes in hydrology can result from construction-related activities

such as pumping; the alteration of topography and surface drainage patterns, installation

of culvert inlets and outlets; the filling of wetlands; the redirection of streams or springs;

and the creation of additional impervious surfaces. Plants may experience direct and

indirect lethal or sub-lethal effects from project actions that alter existing runoff patterns

or hydrologic regimes essential to plant survival. Direct lethal effects may occur when

runoff is routed either into or away from an area, thereby killing the plant. Direct sublethal effects may occur when runoff is re-routed into or away from an area and the new

condition adversely effects plant vigor, health, or reproductive capability. Indirect sublethal effects may occur when changes to runoff patterns make habitat no longer

functional for specific plant species. These indirect sub-lethal effects may also be

beneficial if they result in the creation of functional habitat or increased plant growth.

It should be noted that plant species associated with water-dependent habitats, such as

wetlands or riparian areas, are more prone than upland plant species to adverse effects

resulting from changes in runoff patterns and runoff-related contaminants since these wet

areas serve as sinks for runoff.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 313

Chemical

The introduction of chemicals into the environment can have both direct and indirect

lethal and sub-lethal effects on plant species. Herbicide application may have a direct and

lethal effect on plant species. Applications of herbicides can also result in both indirect

lethal and sub-lethal effects on plants. Indirect lethal effects may occur if herbicides are

sprayed in the vicinity of a plant species and eventually come into contact with the plant

(e.g., through wind or runoff), causing death. Indirect sub-lethal effects may include

herbicide applications that alter vegetation communities upon which threatened or

endangered plant species depend upon. For example, herbicides may eliminate certain

habitat elements (e.g., shade and wind protection) that some threatened and endangered

plant species require.

Accidental chemical discharges can have direct lethal effects on plants if direct contact

occurs and plant death results. If contact does not cause plant death, but does reduce plant

health, vigor, or reproductive capabilities, a direct sub-lethal effect is realized.

Indirect lethal and sub-lethal effects may also occur if a plant absorbs chemicals via

contaminated soil or water. In such instances, either plant death or reductions in plant

vigor and/or reproductive processes result. Accidental chemical discharges can also result

in the temporary or permanent alteration or loss of functional habitat, making an area

incapable of facilitating the growth of a listed plant species in the future.

Vegetation

The assemblage of plants that comprise a vegetative community within a particular area

is one of the most important parameters that define “habitat” for most plant species, and

facilitate a species’ survival. Many plants have specific community or habitat type

requirements relative to species diversity and stature that must be met in order for a

species to become established, propagate, and survive. Specifically, some plant species

rely on assemblages of other plants for protection from the elements (e.g., wind and sun),

for the elimination of competitor or invasive species, for nutrients, and for other essential

needs.

Changes in vegetation can be induced by complete or selective vegetation removal during

project construction. These activities may include clearing, grubbing, mowing, and

related activities. Vegetation removal activities can interrupt normal plant life cycles and

affect the type of functional habitat both immediately and in future years.

Direct lethal effects can occur when vegetation removal eliminates threatened or

endangered plants themselves (See the species pathway). Similarly, direct sub-lethal

effects may occur if portions of plants are removed, resulting in a reduction of vigor,

health, or reproductive capability. Indirect lethal and sub-lethal effects may occur when

the vegetation necessary for a specific plant’s survival is altered or removed. For

example, the elimination of overstory cover around a species that cannot survive in direct

sunlight is an example of an indirect lethal effect, since without shade, the plant would
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 314

die. Alternatively, an indirect sub-lethal effect would occur if plant reproductive

capability, vigor, or general growth was affected, but the death of the plant did not occur.

Vegetation removal (e.g., site clearing) can also lead to indirect sub-lethal and lethal

effects through the inadvertent introduction of exotic or invasive weed species that may

out-compete threatened and endangered plant species. Alternatively, vegetation removal

can beneficially affect threatened and endangered plant species if exotic or invasive

species are removed and thus a listed plant’s ability to become established, propagate,

and survive is enhanced.

Species

Direct and indirect effects to plants can occur during any activity that requires physical

contact with listed plants. Direct lethal and sub-lethal effects can occur if specific or

general vegetation removal eliminates threatened or endangered plants themselves, or if

portions of the plants are removed, resulting in an incremental reduction in plant health,

vigor, and/or reproductive capability.

Activities that fragment a plant population or its habitat may cause direct and indirect

lethal and sub-lethal effects on the genetic diversity of listed plant species. For example,

the construction of detour routes, other roadwork, or any other activity that significantly

alters the surrounding landscape may, over time, reduce a plant population’s genetic

diversity and thus increase the probability of genetic drift, reduced fitness, and the

accumulation of deleterious mutations through inbreeding. Compared to large plant

populations, small populations are more prone to genetic loss, because smaller

populations typically lack the genetic variability necessary to respond to random

environmental changes. Because of this increased risk, smaller populations may be more

susceptible to pressures from pests and diseases (USFWS 2003d).

In addition, the more that populations become fragmented from one another, the greater

the risk of limited gene exchange. Habitat fragmentation can also cause detriment to other

species, such as wildlife, that depend on a specific listed plant for survival. An example is

the symbiotic relationship between the Federally listed Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia

icarioides fenderi) and Kincaid’s lupine.

Mitigation efforts involving the relocation of listed plants may have direct lethal or sublethal effects on species if the relocation is accomplished improperly or if the essential

habitat elements necessary for successful relocation and plant survival do not exist at the

mitigation site. Specifically, these actions may affect plant health, vigor, and subsequent

reproductive capability.

5.5.3 Minimization and Avoidance

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 a particular

species or habitat is dependent on the intensity, magnitude, duration, timing, and repetition of the
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 315

action causing the effect. Minimization and avoidance measures for the Bridge Program consist

of specific environmental performance standards that provide for habitat and species

conservation during bridge repair and replacement. Section 3.3 of this BA provides detailed

information regarding these environmental performance standards and conservation measures.

The following sections (5.5.4 to 5.5.21) of this BA provide a discussion of the effects of the

proposed action on each of the 18 Federally listed plant species in Oregon.

It must be noted that throughout sections 5.5.4 to 5.5.21, the term “population” is used to

describe a group of plants at a specific geographic location. It is frequently used interchangeably

with the terms “site” and “occurrence,” and is not intended to necessarily define populations in a

biological sense (i.e., a defined group of interbreeding plants where genetic exchange is

sufficient enough to offset divergence due to natural selection or genetic drift [USFWS 1998b]).

5.5.4 Applegate’s Milk-vetch (Astragalus applegatei)

5.5.4.1 Life History and Status

Applegate’s milk-vetch (Astragalus applegatei) was Federally listed as an endangered species on

July 28, 1993 (July 28, 1993, 58 FR 40547). Critical habitat has not been designated for this

species (July 28, 1993, 58 FR 40547). Applegate’s milk-vetch is endemic to Oregon and

historically occurred at three sites near Klamath Falls in Klamath County; however, extensive

agricultural use has likely extirpated one population near Keno (July 28, 1993, 58 FR 40547).

The smaller of the remaining two populations supports approximately 30-80 individuals and

occurs on less than 1 acre on the State’s Klamath Management Area. The larger remaining

population is estimated to support 30,000 individuals and is limited to 6 acres on private land

that is zoned for industrial development (July 28, 1993, 58 FR 40547).

Applegate’s milk-vetch is a slender perennial, which can be discerned from other Astragalus

species by its slightly curved stems, the number and location of flowers, and its inability to

colonize dry, disturbed areas (July 28, 1993, 58 FR 40547). The plant’s whitish to lilac flowers

bloom from June to early August (Eastman 1990, Meinke 1982). Applegate’s milk-vetch grows

at approximately 4,000 feet above mean sea level, on flat, open, and seasonally moist remnants

of floodplain alkaline grasslands within the East Cascades ecoregion (July 28, 1993, 58 FR

40547, Robinson 2003, Meinke 1982).

Applegate’s milk-vetch is found in association with other members of the bunchgrass-flat plant

community in areas with about 10-20% exposed ground (July 28, 1993, 58 FR 40547). Potential

threats to Applegate’s milk-vetch include urban development, road construction, low population

numbers, wildlife grazing, and management alterations to suppress fire and flood events (July 28,

1993, 58 FR 40547).

5.5.4.2 Analysis of Effects

The USFWS screening process (Section 5.5.1) was used to determine which program bridges

may affect Applegate’s milk-vetch (Robinson 2003). The results of this screening process
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 316

indicate that no program bridges are present within the known range of the Applegate’s milkvetch.

5.5.4.3 Determination of Effects

The results of the USFWS screening process indicate that all Bridge Program APIs are located

outside the known range for Applegate’s milk-vetch. Based on this analysis for the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for Applegate’s milk-vetch.

5.5.5 Bradshaw’s Lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii)

5.5.5.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii) was Federally listed as an endangered plant on

September 30, 1988 (September 30, 1988, 53 FR 38448). The species merited listing because the

few remnant populations, limited to the central and southern portions of the Willamette Valley,

are being threatened by habitat alteration or destruction as a result of agricultural and residential

development, as well as by competition with encroaching woody vegetation. Critical habitat has

not been designated for this species (September 30, 1988, 53 FR 38448).

Plant Description

Bradshaw’s lomatium is a small perennial herb in the Parsley family (Apiaceae) that grows from

8-20 inches tall, is glabrous, and has primarily basal leaves that are divided into very fine, almost

threadlike, linear segments (Eastman 1990). The small, compact yellow flowers are subtended by

green bracts divided into three or doubly divided into three. This bract arrangement differentiates

it from other Lomatium species.

Bradshaw’s lomatium blooms in April and May and fruits appear in late May and June (Eastman

1990). The large fruits have corky thickened wings, and usually fall to the ground fairly close to

the parent plant. Fruits appear to float, and may be distributed by water. The population patterns

do appear to follow seasonal micro-channels in the tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa)

prairies, but whether this is due to dispersal or habitat preference is not clear (USFWS 1993b).

This species reproduces entirely by seed; however, a typical population is composed of many

more vegetative plants than reproductive plants (USFWS 1993b).

Habitat, Range, and Associated Species

Bradshaw’s lomatium is endemic to the Willamette Valley ecoregion, where it is associated with

the native lowland prairie community. Once widespread in the valley, this species is now limited

to a few sites in Benton, Linn, Lane, Polk, and Marion Counties. Bradshaw’s lomatium occurs in

two very distinct habitats.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 317

The rarer habitat for this plant is shallow, stream-covered basalt areas in Marion and Linn

Counties near the Santiam River. Bradshaw’s lomatium plants at these sites occur in areas with

almost no soil, usually in vernal wetlands or along stream channels.

Most Bradshaw’s lomatium populations occur on seasonally saturated or flooded bottomland

prairie habitats, which are common by creeks and small rivers in the southern Willamette Valley.

They occur in areas with deep clays, usually in a matrix with alluvial silts. The soils at these sites

are dense heavy clays with a slowly permeable clay layer located 6-12 inches below the surface.

They are characterized as Dayton silt loams or Natroy or Bashaw clays by the NRCS (USFWS

1993b). This slowly permeable clay layer is critical to the seasonal wetland character of the

grasslands, and results in a perched water table in winter and spring. As such, the soils are

generally either saturated to the surface or slightly inundated during the wet season. These areas

typically qualify as jurisdictional wetlands under the Federal wetland delineation criteria

(USFWS 1993b).

Associated plant species within both habitats include tufted hairgrass, red fescue (Festuca

rubra), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), field woodrush (Luzula campestris), sweet

vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), Kentucky

bluegrass (Poa pratensis), redtop (Agrostis alba), orchardgrass (Dactylus glomerata), and tall

fescue (F. arundinacea). Various sedge (Carex spp.) and rush (Juncus spp.) species are also

noted as associates in the wetter habitats. Several native forbs are also associated with

Bradshaw’s lomatium, including the Willamette daisy (Erigeron decumbens ssp. decumbens),

Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphereus var. kincaidii), White-topped aster (Aster curtus), peacock

larkspur (Delphinium pavaenocium), and Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana)

(USFWS 1993b).

Occurrences and Population Status

Bradshaw’s lomatium is known to have occurred historically from Salem to Creswell, Oregon,

but it is now reduced to 14 known populations scattered from Stayton to just south of Eugene

(September 30, 1988, 53 FR 38448, USFWS 1993b). Known plant populations vary in size from

approximately 50 individuals to over 25,000 individuals. Over 90% of the known plants are

located within a 10-mile radius of the City of Eugene, Oregon, with the greatest concentrations

found in West Eugene. According to the 1993 recovery plan for Bradshaw’s lomatium, known

plants then totaled approximately 52,250 individuals (USFWS 1993b).

The recovery plan for Bradshaw’s lomatium calls for the establishment of 10 populations with at

least 2,000 flowering plants occupying at least 20 acres of secure habitat before down-listing this

species to threatened status. The 10 populations are to be distributed in the four established

Willamette Valley recovery areas as follows: the North Central recovery area will have two

populations, the Central recovery area will have two populations, the Southwest recovery area

will have four populations, and the Southeast recovery area will have two populations (USFWS

1993b).

The 14 extant sites of Bradshaw’s lomatium occur in four major areas in the Willamette Valley.

These four areas correspond with the recovery areas outlined in the recovery plan for Bradshaw’s
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 318

lomatium (USFWS 1993b). The following narrative summarizes known locations, acreage, and

population estimates from the recovery plan (USFWS 1993b).

• The North Central recovery area is at the northern edge of the range of Bradshaw’s

lomatium. This area is located near the North Santiam River between Linn and Marion

Counties, and includes one known site in each county. These sites range from 2-5 acres

and have 250-5,000 plants.

• The Central recovery area includes three sites in Benton County. One of the sites is

located in North Corvallis (Jackson-Frazier), is approximately 15 acres in size, and has

approximately 350 plants. The Muddy Creek site is roughly 5 acres in size and has

approximately 50 plants. Finally, the William Finley National Wildlife Refuge site is

approximately 20 acres and has about 2,500 plants.

• The Southwest recovery area (West Eugene) has six sites. The sites are identified as Long

Tom ACEC, Fern Ridge Lake, West Eugene Wetlands, Veneta, Amazon Park, and

Coyote Creek. These six sites range in size from approximately 2 acres to over 100 acres

and have between 200 and 25,000 plants.

• The Southeast recovery area includes three small populations. The newly discovered

population at the Springfield Drive Inn site is approximately 5 acres in size and has an

estimated 100 plants. The Buford Park site is also 5 acres in size; however, this site has

an estimated 5,000 plants. Finally, the Short Mountain-Camas Swale site is roughly 100

acres in size and has approximately 1,250 plants.

Summary of Threats

The most significant threat to this plant’s survival has been the conversion of native prairie

habitat to agricultural land. More recently, residential and industrial developments have

encroached upon much of its remaining habitat. These agriculture- and development-related

effects are often exacerbated by the subsequent changes in flooding patterns and water

movement in nearby areas, which may be critical to the seedling establishment of Bradshaw’s

lomatium plants. Finally, fire suppression in some areas also appears to allow encroachment

upon prairie habitat by woody vegetation, resulting in a decline of the Bradshaw’s lomatium.

In light of the listed threats, the recovery plan details two goals critical for the recovery of

Bradshaw’s lomatium. The first is to ensure the protection of sites by acquisition, conservation

easement, or management agreement to prevent their destruction from rural, urban, and industrial

development. The second is management of protected sites to assure long-term survival of the

known populations (USFWS 1993b).

5.5.5.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the Bradshaw’s

lomatium. All effects on the Bradshaw’s lomatium are delivered through the displacement,

disruption, removal, or addition of one or more of the following:
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 319

Soil

Because of Bradshaw’s lomatium’s affinity for wetlands, it is likely that soil erosion

could significantly affect the species by destroying existing habitat or limiting the

potential for new functional habitat development. Within occupied or potential habitat,

ground-disturbing activities that cause local hydrologic patterns to be altered or

eliminated may further endanger this species. Specific ground-disturbing activities may

include alterations in topography, the filling or draining of wetlands, and alterations to

existing stream channels. Because Bradshaw’s lomatium reproduces entirely by seed,

effects on this species by means of airborne dust may also pose a significant threat to the

species. Reductions in plant health, vigor, or reproductive capability may also result from

airborne sediment accumulation. The Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental

Performance Standard has been developed to minimize adverse effects on this species

through the soil effects pathway.

Water

Bradshaw’s lomatium is known to exist within vernal pool habitats that are typically fed

by surface runoff, and within seasonally wet bottomland prairie habitats that are

commonly near stream channels and fed by winter and spring floods. This species is

specially adapted to the seasonal wet and dry cycles of its preferred wetland habitats.

Consequently, any of the proposed actions that result in the alteration or elimination of

existing runoff patterns or stream and floodplain connectivity could adversely effect

Bradshaw’s lomatium populations or limit the potential for new habitat development.

Slight increases in water supply may not affect the species. The Water Quality

Environmental Performance Standard and the Fluvial Environmental Performance

Standard have been developed to minimize adverse effects on this species through the

water effects pathway.

Chemical

As a perennial wetland species that reproduces entirely by seed, Bradshaw’s lomatium

may be affected by herbicide application, accidental chemical discharges, or inadvertent

fuel and oil spills. These activities may result in a temporary die-back of seasonal growth

(above-ground or floating vegetation) or in the death of the entire plant. Since

Bradshaw’s lomatium is a perennial species that reproduces exclusively by seed, effects

from chemical exposure may cause seeds to become infertile, thus limiting population

growth over the long term. In addition, chemical applications or accidental chemical

discharges in occupied habitat may be more harmful during wet periods than during dry

periods, because of the increased dispersal rate of chemicals in aquatic versus soil

mediums. In some cases, chemical exposure may limit the potential for Bradshaw’s

lomatium to colonize potential functional habitat. Implementation of the Pollution &

Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects on

this species through the chemical effects pathway.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 320

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with bridge construction may eliminate or modify the

habitat elements necessary for survival of Bradshaw’s lomatium. The removal or addition

of vegetation within or adjacent to occupied habitat or potentially functional habitat may

alter the seasonally wet and dry periods characteristic of Bradshaw’s lomatium’s

preferred habitat to the extent that the species is unable to complete its life cycle.

Implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will

minimize adverse effects on this species through the vegetation effects pathway.

Due to decades of fire suppression, the encroachment of nonnative invasive vegetation

within occupied or potential habitat for this species is a major factor in the decline of

Bradshaw’s lomatium. The removal of invasive vegetation may benefit the recovery of

this species. Recent surveys conducted for the Bridge Program identified two invasive

species as potential threats to Lomatium cookii, including reed canarygrass (Phalaris

arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) (ODOT 2003b). The Site

Restoration Environmental Performance Standard has been developed to minimize the

future encroachment of invasive species.

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to cause Bradshaw’s lomatium

plants to be trampled and mowed (during dry periods), or buried (during wet or dry

periods), to the extent that the species is directly affected. Loss and fragmentation of

Bradshaw’s lomatium populations or potential functional habitat may limit gene

exchange and increase the risk of inbreeding, depending on the degree of fragmentation

and the distances by which populations are separated. However, implementation of the

Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will eliminate direct effects on

this species.

5.5.5.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process and of the surveys conducted to date for Bradshaw’s

lomatium are summarized in Table 5.5.5-1 and Figure 5.5.5-1.

Table 5.5.5-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect Bradshaw’s Lomatium.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Bradshaw’s Lomatium E 348 82 2 56
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 56 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 2 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 24 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 348 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

LANE

LINN

POLK

LINCOLN

MARION

YAMHILL

BENTON

TILLAMOOK

CLACKAMAS

DOUGLAS

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH

plants\BA_figures\lombra.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.5-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Bradshaw's Lomatium

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

California

Idaho

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 322

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of Bradshaw’s lomatium is

fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the occurrence of

Bradshaw’s lomatium (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by ODOT in

2003. Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect Bradshaw’s lomatium at two

documented bridge sites and at the 56 Bridge Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct

effects of the proposed action on (i.e., incidental take of) Bradshaw’s lomatium will be avoided

at all bridge sites by the implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard. Indirect adverse effects of the proposed action on Bradshaw’s lomatium (i.e., via the

air, water, chemical, and vegetation effects pathways) will be greatly reduced by the

implementation of the other referenced environmental performance standards.

5.5.5.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for Bradshaw’s lomatium. Past and future plant survey

efforts, and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether

or not they actually contain Bradshaw’s lomatium occurrences) will serve to minimize effects on

Bradshaw’s lomatium to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental

performance standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual consultation with

the USFWS will be necessary for this species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 323

5.5.6 Cook’s Lomatium (Lomatium cookii)

5.5.6.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii) was Federally listed as an endangered plant on November 7,

2002 (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). The species merited listing because the few remaining

populations—located in the Agate Desert in Jackson County and the French Flat/Illinois Valley

in Josephine County—were being threatened by the destruction of their specialized vernal pool

habitat by industrial and residential development, road construction and powerline maintenance

(November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Agricultural conversion, certain grazing practices, off-road

vehicle use, and competition with invasive plants have also contributed to population declines

and local extirpations. In Josephine County, Cook’s lomatium is also threatened by habitat

alteration associated with gold mining and by woody species encroachment resulting from fire

suppression (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Critical habitat has not been designated for this

species (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

Plant Description

Cook’s lomatium is a small perennial herb in the Parsley family (Apiaceae) that grows from 6-20

inches tall from a slender, twisted taproot. The basal leaves are smooth and finely dissected. One

of four groups of pale yellow flowers produces boat-shaped fruits, 0.3-0.5 inch long, with

thickened margins. The taproot often branches at ground level to produce multiple stems, and

this characteristic feature is used to differentiate this species from other Lomatium species

(November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003, Eastman 1990).

Reproduction occurs by seed production, and Cook’s lomatium generally blooms from midMarch through mid-May (NatureServe 2003). Some individuals may initiate flowering the last

week of February; however, plants located in vernal pools generally flower approximately one

week earlier than those on pool flanks or mounds. Those rooted in pools may flower under water

(NatureServe 2003). The dispersal distance is 12-24 inches. Fruits are knocked off the plant by

wind or other physical disturbance. Fruit flotation on the pools does not seem to be a dispersal

mechanism (NatureServe 2003). Seeds require approximately 7 weeks to 4 months of

submersion at cool temperatures to germinate. Seed germination generally begins and peaks

during the first week of February, but can continue for more than a month (NatureServe 2003).

Habitat, Range, and Associated Species

Cook’s lomatium may be found in and around seasonally wet habitats, known as vernal pools,

within the Agate Desert, an approximately 32-square-mile landform located north of the City of

Medford, in Jackson County. Cook’s lomatium is also known to occur on seasonally wet soils

within an approximately 4-square-mile area of the French Flat/Illinois Valley in Josephine

County (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 324

The Agate Desert consists of a gentle mound-swale topography with a characteristic appearance

in aerial photographs that is sometimes referred to as “patterned ground” (November 7, 2002, 67

FR 68003). Located on the floor of the Rogue River basin, the Agate Desert is characterized by

shallow Agate-Winslow soils, a relative lack of trees, sparse prairie vegetation, and agates,

which are commonly found on the soil surface. During the winter rainy season, a pattern of

shallow pools develops in the frequently interconnected swales due to the shallow hardpan layer

within the soil profile (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Associated plant species within the

Agate Desert include bract popcornflower (Plagiobothrys bracteatus), inch-high rush (Juncus

uncialis), naverretia (Naverretia sp.), common wooly meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp.

floccosa), large-flowered wooly meadowfoam (Limnanthes flocossa ssp. grandiflora), annual

hairgrass (Deschampsia danthanoides), and white hyacinth (Triteliea hyacinthina) (November 7,

2002, 67 FR 68003). Associated invasive species that compete with Cook’s lomatium include

brome (Bromus mollis), medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), dogtail (Cynosurus

echinatus), and bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

In French Flat/Illinois Valley, Cook’s lomatium grows in wet meadow areas underlain with a

clay hardpan at 24-35 inches (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). The clay hardpan creates

seasonally wet areas similar to the vernal pools of the Agate Desert, but these areas lack the

distinctive mound-swale topography unique to the Agate Desert (November 7, 2002, 67 FR

68003). Associated plant species in the French Flat/Illinois Valley include California oatgrass

(Danthonia californica), bract popcornflower (Plagiobothrys bracteatus), shaggy horkelia

(Horkelia congesta), mariposa lily (Calochortus uniflorus), and trout lily (Erythronium howelii).

Shrub species such as buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus) and manzanita ssp. (Arctostaphylos ssp.)

are also found with areas of Cook’s lomatium (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

Occurrences and Population Status

There are approximately 15 occurrences of Cook’s lomatium within the Agate Desert and 21

occurrences within the French Flat/Illinois Valley (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Mapped

habitat compiled in 1998 within the Agate Desert totaled approximately 133 acres. However, due

to the recent alteration and destruction of vernal pools, the area currently occupied by Cook’s

lomatium is estimated to be approximately 69 acres. Of the known occurrences, two sites occur

entirely or partially within the Agate Desert Preserve owned by The Nature Conservancy. Two

more sites are located within the Ken Denman Wildlife Area (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

Two additional sites are located on land managed by Jackson County; however, one site has

largely been extirpated by construction. Similarly, portions of two Cook’s lomatium sites are on

lands owned by the City of Medford within an area designated as the Whetstone Industrial Park.

Of the remaining known sites, four are located in highway or powerline rights-of-way and the

rest are on private land (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

The number of Cook’s lomatium plants in the Agate Desert was generally stable or increased

during 2000-2002; however, over 60% of the vernal pool habitat has been destroyed. In addition,

none of the habitat has escaped the invasion of weedy competitor species. Limited information

exists regarding the total number of individuals in each known population; however, surveys in

2000 and 2001 at one historical site on private land that was originally estimated to contain 6,000

plants indicated that there were in fact 580,000 flowering individuals (November 7, 2002, 67 FR
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 325

68003). Another population on the City of Medford airport property previously estimated at

1,000 plants was later shown to have over 5,000 flowering plants (November 7, 2002, 67 FR

68003).

Of the 21 Cook’s lomatium sites in the French Flat/Illinois Valley, 15 are located partially or

entirely on land managed by the BLM. The remaining six sites in this area occur on private land

(November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). The 21 sites occupy approximately 150 acres of habitat, but

many of these sites are small and have only approximately 50 plants (November 7, 2002, 67 FR

68003).

Summary of Threats

Cook’s lomatium is being threatened primarily by the destruction of vernal pool habitat by

industrial and residential development, road construction, and powerline maintenance.

Additional factors contributing to population decline and local extirpations include agricultural

conversion, certain grazing practices, off-road vehicle use, mining practices, woody species

encroachment resulting from fire suppression, competition with invasive plants, and thatch

buildup resulting from invasive plant growth. A recovery plan for this species has not yet been

prepared.

5.5.6.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the Cook’s lomatium.

All effects on the Cook’s lomatium are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal,

or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

Based on Cook’s lomatium’s affinity for vernal pool habitat, it is likely that soil erosion

could significantly affect the species by destroying existing habitat or limiting the

potential for new functional habitat development. Within occupied or potential vernal

pool habitat, ground-disturbing activities that cause the filling or draining of the wetland

will further threaten this rare species. Because Cook’s lomatium reproduces entirely by

seed, effects on this species by means of airborne dust may pose a significant threat.

However, since Cook’s lomatium is a perennial species, effects from ground-disturbing

activities may be somewhat reduced. Reductions in plant health, vigor, or reproductive

capability may also result from airborne sediment accumulation. The Pollution & Erosion

Control Environmental Performance Standard has been developed to minimize adverse

effects on this species through the soil effects pathway.

Water

Cook’s lomatium is known to exist within vernal pool habitats in Jackson County and

seasonally wet meadows in Josephine County. This species is specially adapted to the

seasonal wet and dry cycles of its preferred wetland habitat. These seasonal wetlands are

generally fed by surface runoff. Consequently, any of the proposed actions that result in
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 326

the alteration or elimination of existing runoff patterns, such that a decrease in available

water supply results, could adversely effect Cook’s lomatium populations or limit the

potential for new functional habitat development. Slight increases in water supply may

not affect the species. The Water Quality Environmental Performance Standard and the

Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard have been developed to minimize adverse

effects on this species through the water effects pathway.

Chemical

As a perennial wetland species that reproduces entirely by seed, Cook’s lomatium may be

affected by herbicide application, accidental chemical discharges, and inadvertent fuel or

oil spills. These activities may result in a temporary die-back of seasonal growth (floating

vegetation) or in the death of the entire plant. Since Cook’s lomatium is a perennial

species that reproduces exclusively by seed, effects from chemical exposure may cause

seeds to become infertile and thus limit population growth over the long term. In

addition, chemical applications or accidental chemical discharges to occupied habitat

may be more harmful during wet periods than during dry periods because of the increased

dispersal rate of chemicals in aquatic versus soil mediums. In some cases, chemical

exposure may limit the potential for Cook’s lomatium to colonize potential functional

habitat. Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance

Standard will minimize adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects

pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with bridge construction may eliminate or modify the

habitat elements necessary for survival of Cook’s lomatium. The removal or addition of

vegetation within or adjacent to surrounding occupied habitat or potentially functional

habitat may alter the seasonally wet and dry periods characteristic of Cook’s lomatium’s

preferred habitat to the extent that the species is unable to complete its life cycle.

Implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will

minimize adverse effects on this species through the vegetation effects pathway.

Due to decades of fire suppression, the encroachment of woody vegetation within

occupied or functional potential habitat is a major factor in the decline of Cook’s

lomatium. The removal of woody vegetation may benefit the recovery of this species. For

the Bridge Program, the Site Restoration Environmental Performance Standard has been

developed to minimize the future encroachment of invasive species due to the proposed

actions.

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to cause Cook’s lomatium

plants to be trampled and mowed (during dry periods), or buried (during wet or dry

periods), or subjected to disturbance to the extent that the species is directly affected.

Loss and fragmentation of Cook’s lomatium populations or potential functional habitat
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 - 327

may limit gene exchange and increase the chances for inbreeding to occur, depending on

the distances by which populations are separated. However, implementation of the Plant

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will eliminate direct effects on this

species.

5.5.6.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

Cook’s lomatium are summarized in Table 5.5.6-1 and Figure 5.5.6-1.

Table 5.5.6-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect Cook’s Lomatium.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Cook’s Lomatium E 414 8 1 7

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of Cook’s lomatium is

fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the occurrence of

Cook’s lomatium (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by ODOT in 2003.

Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect Cook’s lomatium at one documented

bridge site and at the seven Bridge Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct effects of the

proposed action on (i.e., incidental take of) Cook’s lomatium will be avoided at all bridge sites

by the implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect

adverse effects of the proposed action on Cook’s lomatium (i.e., via the air, water, chemical, and

vegetation effects pathways) will be greatly reduced by the implementation of the other

referenced environmental performance standards.

5.5.6.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect for Cook’s lomatium. Past and future plant survey

efforts, and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether

or not they contain Cook’s lomatium occurrences) will serve to minimize the effects on Cook’s

lomatium to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental performance

standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual consultation with the USFWS

will be necessary for this species.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 7 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 1 Bridge

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 8 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 414 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

JACKSON

JOSEPHINE

DOUGLAS

CURRY

COOS

plants\BA_figures\lomcoo.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.6-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Cook's Lomatium

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

California

Idaho

Pacific Ocean

California

0 1 2 4 6 8 10

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 329

5.5.7 Gentner’s Fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri)

Listing and Critical Habitat

Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri) was Federally listed as an endangered plant on

December 10, 1999 (December 10, 1999, 64 FR 69195). The species merited listing because the

few remnant populations, primarily within Jackson and Josephine Counties, Oregon, are being

threatened by habitat loss as a result of residential and agricultural development, successional

encroachment by trees and brush, invasive weeds, timber harvest, recreational activities, and the

vulnerability associated with extremely small population sizes. Critical habitat has not been

designated for this species (December 10, 1999, 64 FR 69195, USFWS 2003e).

Plant Description

Gentner’s fritillary is a perennial herb in the lily family (Liliaceae) that grows from a fleshy bulb

to a height of 2 feet with showy, deep red to maroon flowers. Non-flowering individuals

outnumber flowering plants in natural populations and are recognizable only by their single basal

leaves, which appear virtually identical to those of other Fritillaria species. Alternatively,

flowering individuals lack basal leaves, but produce single, erect flowering stems 20-28 inches

tall, with several groups of narrow leaves arranged in whorls around the stems.

Flowers bloom from April through June. The bell-shaped flowers are deep red to maroon and

usually streaked or mottled with pale yellow. Flowers can be solitary or may occur in bracted

racemes on long, slender pedicels. The fruit is a broadly winged capsule. Reproduction is by

fruits and seeds from flowers in sporadic or episodic cycles. Individual plants do not flower each

year and very low levels of seed production and viability have been observed (December 10,

1999, 64 FR 69195, USFWS 2003e).

Successful reproduction occurs clonally, or asexually, by means of numerous small “rice-grain”

bulblets that break off from larger bulbs (USFWS 2003e). The life span and lifetime output of

bulblets for a single plant is unknown, as is the number of growing seasons required for young

plants to reach reproductive maturity. However, when young bulblet plants and the larger nonreproductive plants are considered, the number of individuals actually in flower generally

comprises only a small fraction of the total population size at any given site (USFWS 2003e).

Observations suggest that some mature plants may remain reproductive over many consecutive

years, whereas others may periodically return to a vegetative condition, or a dormant state under

the soil surface, producing no leaves at all.

Habitat, Range, and Associated Species

Gentner’s fritillary populations exist in the rural foothills of the Rogue and Illinois River valleys

in Jackson and Josephine Counties in southwestern Oregon. One small population has been

recently found in northern California, close to the Oregon border (USFWS 2003e). Recent

mapping of both current and historical locations indicate that this species occurs at elevations
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 330

ranging from approximately 1,000-5,000 feet above mean sea level, and that all locations are

within the Klamath Mountains ecoregion (USFWS 2003e).

Gentner’s fritillary is often found in very small, widely scattered patches in grassland and

chaparral habitats within, or on the edge of, dry, open woodlands that are somewhat protected

from wind and sun (e.g., ridgeline ecotones) (December 10, 1999, 64 FR 69195, USFWS 2003e).

This species appears to have specific moisture and light requirements that may be provided by

several habitat types or successional stages; however, it is only known to exist in three habitats:

oak woodlands dominated by Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana); mixed hardwood forest

dominated by California black oak (Q. kelloggii), Oregon white oak, and Pacific madrone

(Arbutus menziesii); and coniferous forests dominated by Pacific madrone and Douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii). Associated understory shrubs may include white–leaved manzanita

(Arctostaphylos viscida), buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus), snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus),

mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), and poison oak (Tocicodendron diversiloba)

(December 10, 1999, 64 FR 69195, USFWS 2003e). Herbaceous understory species may include

ashy rock cress (Arabis subpinnatifida), Rogue River milk-vetch (Astragalus accidens var.

hendersoni), fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus), cat’s-ear (Calochortus tolmiei), hound’s tongue

(Cynoglossum grande), larkspur (Delphinium decorum), Henderson’s shootingstar (Dodecatheon

hendersonii), pink fawn lily (Erythronium hendersonii), California fescue (Festuca californica),

Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), woods strawberry (Fragaria vesca var. bracteata), fineleaf

biscuit-root (Lomatium utriculatum), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa sandbergii), western buttercup

(Ranunculus occidentalis), checkermallow (Sidalcea malvaeflora), Lemmon’s needle grass

(Stipa lemmonii), tower butterweed (Senecio integerrimus), American vetch (Vicia americana),

and two other fritillary species, chocolate lily (Fritillaria affinis) and scarlet fritillary (Fritillaria

recurva).

Gentner’s fritillary is sometimes found in areas of frequent human disturbance, including

roadsides, the edges of trails, bulldozer routes, vineyards, and mounds left from past mining

activities. Opinions vary on the importance of historical disturbance regimes to species dispersal,

invasive species competition, and vegetative succession. These unknowns are due, in part, to the

fact that Gentner’s fritillary inhabits a wide range of habitats within its limited range, that it is

found in various successional stages of those habitats, and that it is associated with a wide

variety of plant species.

Occurrences and Population Status

Occurrences of Gentner’s fritillary are highly localized within about a 30-mile radius of the

Jacksonville Cemetery in Jacksonville, Oregon, and the majority of known individuals (about

73%) occur within a 7-mile radius of the cemetery (USFWS 2003e). Surveys on BLM land in

2000 and 2001 documented a total of 775 flowering plants and approximately 3,300 vegetative

plants (non-flowering species). The largest known population from this survey contains 306

plants, while the smallest population has one individual. After incorporating historic data and

surveys across both public and private ownership, the result is a total estimated population of

1,700 flowering plants (USFWS 2003e).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 331

The survey results must be analyzed in light of the constraints presented by the unique life and

reproductive cycles of this species. Obtaining accurate counts of the number of flowering plants

is difficult, since they do not flower each year. Similarly, determining the number of nonflowering plants is difficult since many plants remain dormant for several years and do not

produce above-ground stems and flowers. Additionally, the non-flowering plants have basal

leaves that are indistinguishable from other non-flowering Fritillaria species (USFWS 2003e).

The USFWS has outlined a recovery plan for Gentner’s fritillary (USFWS 2003e). The recovery

plan for Gentner’s fritillary is based on species conservation brought about by the protection of

populations distributed in natural densities across the historical range of the species, which is

divided into four designated recovery units. Prior to being down-listed to threatened, each

recovery unit must maintain at least 750 flowering plants. Alternatively, each recovery unit must

maintain at least 1,000 flowering plants prior to de-listing (USFWS 2003e).

Summary of Threats

The most significant threat to the survival and recovery of Gentner’s fritillary is the loss of

functional habitat. This species has a very narrow geographic range, and the majority of its few

remaining occurrences consist of lone plants or small clusters of plants. Individual occurrences

are vulnerable to extirpation from even small-scale losses of habitat. Since 1982, Gentner’s

fritillary has been extirpated from at least eight of its known historical locations as a result of

agricultural development; the construction of homes, schools, roads, and driveways; and the

recreational use of logging roads on Federal lands (USFWS 2003e). Other factors contributing to

the decline of this species include recreational bulb collecting, disease, and predation

(herbivory).

5.5.7.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the Gentner’s

fritillary. All effects on the Gentner’s fritillary are delivered through the displacement,

disruption, removal, or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

Because of the Gentner’s fritillary affinity for upland habitat, it is unlikely that soil

erosion would significantly affect the species by destroying existing habitat or limiting

the potential for new functional habitat development. Because Gentner’s fritillary

reproduces asexually, effects on this species from airborne dust are expected to be minor,

especially when compared to species that reproduce sexually. Reductions in plant growth

and vigor resulting from airborne sediment accumulation are also expected to be minor.

The Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard has been

developed to minimize adverse effects on this species through the soil effects pathway. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 332

Water

Because Gentner’s fritillary is an upland plant, the water effects pathway should have a

minor effect on it. Nonetheless, Gentner’s fritillary may be affected by any of the

proposed actions that alter existing runoff patterns or hydrologic regimes in upland areas

with documented Gentner’s fritillary populations. Such actions may also limit the

potential for new functional habitat development. The Water Quality Environmental

Performance Standard and the Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard have been

developed to minimize adverse effects on this species through the water effects pathway.

Chemical

As a perennial upland species that reproduces vegetatively, Gentner’s fritillary may be

affected by herbicide application, accidental chemical spills, and inadvertent fuel or oil

discharges. These activities may result in a temporary die-back of seasonal growth

(above-ground foliage) or in the death of the plant. Effects from chemical exposure may

cause bulbs to become infertile, thus limiting population growth over the long term.

Because it is an upland plant, chemical applications or accidental chemical discharges

may be less harmful to this species than to wetland species, due to the reduced dispersal

rate of chemicals in soil versus aquatic mediums. However, direct chemical discharges

over occupied habitat would have an adverse effect on Gentner’s fritillary.

Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard

will minimize adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with proposed actions may eliminate or modify the habitat

elements necessary for survival of Gentner’s fritillary. This upland species is typically

found grasslands and does not tolerate shade. The removal of overstory trees or tall

shrubs may benefit Gentner’s fritillary by providing new functional habitat. Conversely,

the species may be affected in the long term if trees are planted near existing plants. In

addition, invasive species introduced during the proposed action may out-compete

Gentner’s fritillary plants. Implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental

Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects on this species through the

vegetation effects pathway.

Species

The proposed actions may cause Gentner’s fritillary plants to be trampled, mowed, or

buried to the extent that the species is directly affected. However, implementation of the

Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will eliminate direct effects on

this species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 333

5.5.7.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

Gentner’s fritillary are summarized in Table 5.5.7-1 and Figure 5.5.7-1.

Table 5.5.7-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect Gentner’s fritillary.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining Bridges

to be Surveyed

Gentner’s Fritillary E 397 22 1 10

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of Gentner's fritillary is

fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the occurrence of

Gentner's fritillary (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by ODOT in 2003.

Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect Gentner's fritillary at one

documented bridge site and at the 10 Bridge Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct

effects of the proposed action on (i.e., incidental take of) Gentner's fritillary will be avoided at all

bridge sites by the implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard.

Indirect adverse effects of the proposed action on Gentner's fritillary (i.e., via the air, water,

chemical, and vegetation effects pathways) will be greatly reduced by the implementation of the

other referenced environmental performance standards.

5.5.7.4 Determination of Effects

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for Gentner’s fritillary. Past and future plant survey efforts,

and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether or not

they actually contain Gentner's fritillary occurrences) will serve to minimize effects on the

Gentner's fritillary to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental

performance standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual consultation with

the USFWS will be necessary for this species.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 10 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 1 Bridge

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 22 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 397 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

Douglas

Jackson

Klamath

Josephine

Coos

Lane

Curry

plants\BA_figures\frigen.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.7-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Gentner's Fritillary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

California

Washington

Idah

P

o

acific Ocean

California

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 335

5.5.8 Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta)

5.5.8.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) was Federally listed as a threatened species on June 11,

1997 (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31740). The species merited listing because the few remaining

known populations, located in the Puget Trough ecoregion in Washington State, are threatened

by the conversion of their habitat for residential, commercial, and agricultural development, and

by habitat damage associated with road maintenance. Threats also include competition with

encroaching native and non-native plant species, habitat modification from fire suppression, and

grazing by herbivores (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31740). This species has not been observed in

Oregon for over 50 years and is considered extinct in the State (USFWS 2000b). Critical habitat

has not been designated for this species (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31740).

Plant Description

Golden paintbrush is a small perennial herb that has one to 15 erect to spreading unbranched

stems up to 12 inches tall. The erect stems are covered with soft, sticky hairs. The lower leaves

are entire and narrowly pointed, while the upper leaves are broader (June 11, 1997, 62 FR

31740). The leaves are about 1-1.5 inches long and turn reddish with age (Eastman 1990). The

species is distinguished from other Castilleja species by the brilliant golden to yellow floral

bracts it produces. The plants emerge in early March, and flowering begins in the last week in

April, and continues until early June. This species tends to grow in clumps; however, golden

paintbrush is only known to reproduce by seed. Individual plants are short-lived, and generally

do not survive longer than 5-6 years (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31740, USFWS 2000b).

Range, Habitat, and Associated Species

Golden paintbrush historically occurred from Oregon to Vancouver Island in British Columbia,

Canada. Its historic occurrences in Oregon were within the Willamette Valley ecoregion. The

species presently occurs in open grasslands below 330 feet in elevation around the periphery of

the Puget Trough (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31740). Most known populations (in Washington State

and Canada) occur on glacially derived soils (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31740). The USFWS does

not have any specific plant/soil associations for Oregon, as this species has not been located in

the State in over 50 years. Nonetheless, the recovery plan for this species indicates that golden

paintbrush historically occurred on the clayey alluvial soils in the Willamette Valley (USFWS

2000b). This species occurs on generally flat grasslands, including some that are characterized

by mounded topography, and on steep coastal bluffs that are grass-dominated. Associated species

include Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), redtop (Festuca rubra), camas (Camassia quamash),

common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), western brackenfern

(Pteridium aquilinum), vetch (Vicia spp.), and brome species (Bromus spp.) (June 11, 1997, 62

FR 31740). Low deciduous shrubs are commonly present as small to large thickets (USFWS

2000b).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 336

Occurrences and Population Status

Golden paintbrush was historically reported at more than 30 sites in Washington, Oregon, and

British Columbia. Currently, there are 11 known populations, of which nine are located in

Washington, while the remaining two are located in British Columbia (USFWS 2000b). In

Oregon, golden paintbrush historically occurred in the grasslands and prairies of the Willamette

Valley; however, the species has been extirpated from all of these sites. Most of the populations

in Washington and British Columbia are either stable or declining, and population sizes range

from just a few plants to over 4,000 plants. Information about the remaining known populations

in Washington and British Columbia is available in the recovery plan for golden paintbrush

(USFWS 2000b).

Summary of Threats

In summary, golden paintbrush is presumed to be extinct in Oregon, since this species has not

been observed in over 50 years. The remaining populations in Washington and British Columbia

are currently threatened by the conversion of habitat for residential, commercial, and agricultural

development, and by habitat damage associated with road maintenance. Additional threats

include competition with encroaching native and nonnative plant species, habitat modification

through succession in the absence of fire, and grazing by herbivores.

5.5.8.2 Golden Paintbrush Effect Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the golden paintbrush.

All effects on the golden paintbrush are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal,

or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

Because of golden paintbrush’s affinity for grassland habitat, it is likely that soil erosion

could significantly affect the species by destroying existing habitat or limiting the

potential for new functional habitat development. Because golden paintbrush reproduces

entirely by seed, effects on this species by means of airborne dust may pose a significant

threat to this species. Increased airborne dust during its flowering months has the

potential to cover pollen and render seeds infertile. Reductions in plant health, vigor, or

reproductive capability may also result from airborne sediment accumulation. The

Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard has been developed to

minimize adverse effects on this species through the soil effects pathway.

Water

Normally an upland species or transitional wetland species, golden paintbrush will be

little affected by the water effects pathway. Nonetheless, any of the proposed actions that

result in the alteration of existing runoff patterns or hydrologic regimes (e.g., increasing

water supply) in upland areas could adversely effect golden paintbrush populations or
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 337

limit the potential for new functional habitat development. The Water Quality

Environmental Performance Standard and the Fluvial Environmental Performance

Standard have been developed to minimize adverse effects on this species through the

water effects pathway.

Chemical

Golden paintbrush may be affected if exposed to herbicide application, accidental

chemical discharges, or inadvertent fuel or oil discharges. Because golden paintbrush is

an upland or transitional wetland species that reproduces by seed, chemical discharges

may cause a temporary die-back of foliage, a loss of reproductive opportunity, or death of

the entire plant. Because the species prefers upland habitats and is perennial, long-term

effects will likely be minimal except in instances where chemicals are accidentally

discharged directly into occupied habitat. Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion

Control Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects on this

species through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with the proposed action may eliminate or modify the

functional habitat elements necessary for survival of golden paintbrush. In addition,

vegetation removal may introduce invasive species that can out-compete golden

paintbrush. The removal of overstory trees and woody shrub species would benefit

golden paintbrush since the species does not tolerate shade. Conversely, the planting of

trees within occupied or functional habitat may adversely affect golden paintbrush over

the long term. In the absence of fire, Douglas-fir, Nootka rose, and Scot’s broom are

known to out-compete golden paintbrush in its native grassland habitat and to reduce the

potential for future functional habitat (USFWS 2000b). Implementation of the Plant

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects on this

species through the vegetation effects pathway.

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to cause golden paintbrush

plants to be trampled, mowed, or disturbed. The loss and fragmentation of functioning

habitat may decrease the chances of such habitat being occupied in the future, or for

populations within occupied habitat to disperse and establish new populations. However,

implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will

eliminate direct effects on this species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 338

5.5.8.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

golden paintbrush are summarized in Table 5.5.8-1. Figure 5.5.8-1 graphically depicts previous

survey results and upcoming survey needs.

Table 5.5.8-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect golden paintbrush.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Golden Paintbrush T 361 15 0 54

According to the recovery plan for golden paintbrush, the species has not been documented in

Oregon in over 50 years. The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of

golden paintbrush is fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for

the occurrence of golden paintbrush (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by

ODOT in 2003. Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect golden paintbrush at

the 54 Bridge Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct effects of the proposed action on

(i.e., incidental take of) golden paintbrush will be avoided at all bridge sites by the

implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect adverse

effects of the proposed action on golden paintbrush (i.e., via the air, water, chemical, and

vegetation effects pathways) will be greatly reduced by the implementation of the other

referenced environmental performance standards.

5.5.8.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for golden paintbrush. Past and future plant survey efforts,

and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether or not

they actually contain golden paintbrush occurrences) will serve to minimize effects on the golden

paintbrush to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental

performance standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual consultation with

the USFWS will be necessary for this species.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 54 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 15 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 361 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

LINN

POLK MARION

CLACKAMAS

LINCOLN

TILLAMOOK

YAMHILL

BENTON

LANE

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH

COLUMBIA

plants\BA_figures\caslev.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.8-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Golden Paintbrush

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

California

Idaho

Pacific Ocean

Washington

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 340

5.5.9 Howell’s Spectacular Thelypody (Thelypodium howellii spectabilis)

5.5.9.1 Life History and Status

Howell’s spectacular thelypody (Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis) was Federally listed as a

threatened plant on May 26, 1999 (May 26, 1999, 64 FR 28393). The species occurs within the

Blue Mountains and Owyhee Uplands ecoregions of northeastern Oregon (Robinson 2003).

Specifically, this species occurs within the Baker-Powder River Valley in Baker and Union

Counties (May 26, 1999, 64 FR 28393). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species

(May 26, 1999, 64 FR 28393).

Howell’s spectacular thelypody is an herbaceous biennial that grows approximately 2 feet tall

and is glabrous and glaucous (Eastman 1990). The oblong and toothed or lobed leaves are

arranged in a basal rosette (May 26, 1999, 64 FR 28393, Eastman 1990). Flowers are arranged in

a long and loose raceme and consist of four sepals and petals that are purple or lavender in color,

with wavy, white, thin, membranous margins (May 26, 1999, 64 FR 28393, Eastman 1990).

Howell’s spectacular thelypody blooms from late May though June, with peak flowering in midJune (Eastman 1990).

Plant species commonly associated with Howell’s spectacular thelypody include greasewood

(Sarcobatus vermiculatus), green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), Great Basin

wildrye (Elymus cinereus), alkali saltgrass (Distichlis stricta), and alkali bluegrass (Poa

juncifolia) (USFWS 2002d). Threats to the few remaining populations of Howell’s spectacular

thelypody include habitat destruction and fragmentation caused by agricultural and urban

development, grazing by domestic livestock, competition from non-native vegetation, and

alterations of wetland hydrology (May 26, 1999, 64 FR 28393).

5.5.9.2 Analysis of Effects

The USFWS screening process (Section 5.5.1) was used to determine which program bridges

may affect Howell’s spectacular thelypody (Robinson 2003). The results of this screening

process indicated that one bridge site is located within the known range of Howell’s spectacular

thelypody and required a survey. ODOT surveyed this bridge in 2003 and no Howell’s

spectacular thelypody plants were identified (Figure 5.5.9-1).

5.5.9.3 Determination of Effects

The results of the USFWS screening process and the ODOT surveys indicated that all but one of

the Bridge Program APIs are located outside the known range of Howell’s spectacular

thelypody. The one bridge API within the known range was surveyed, and no Howell’s

spectacular thelypody were found. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA

makes a determination of no effect for Howell’s spectacular thelypody.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 1 Bridge

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 429 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

BAKER

UNION

WALLOWA

UMATILLA

GRANT

MALHEUR

plants\BA_figures\thhosp.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.9-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Howell's Spectacular Thelypody

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

California

Idaho

Ida

h

o

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 342

5.5.10 Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii)

5.5.10.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii) was Federally listed as a threatened species

on January 25, 2000 (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Development, agriculture, silvicultural

practices, road improvement, collection, herbicides, and naturally occurring demographic and

environmental events threaten Kincaid’s lupine (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Critical habitat

has not been designated for Kincaid’s lupine (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875).

Plant Description

Kincaid’s lupine is a long-lived perennial species, with a maximum reported age of 25 years

(January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). This species has unusual-appearing leaves that are glabrous on

the upper surface with silvery-white hairs underneath (Eastman 1990). Kincaid’s lupine is

distinguished from other Lupinus species by its low-growing morphology and unbranched

inflorescence (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Kincaid’s lupine blooms from May to July

(Eastman 1990).

Seed production of Kincaid’s lupine is low, with small and variable numbers of flowers

producing fruit from year to year (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Seeds are dispersed from

fruits that open explosively upon drying. Kincaid’s lupine can also spread by rhizomes producing

clumps of plants more than 65 feet in diameter. However, rhizomes will not produce adventitious

roots and will not separate from the parent clump. Clumps may be short-lived, regularly dying

back to the crown (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875).

Habitat, Range and Associated Species

Kincaid’s lupine was once widespread throughout the Willamette Valley ecoregion. Several

isolated populations have been identified just south of the Willamette Valley in the Umpqua

Valley of Douglas County, and in Lewis County in southern Washington. Kincaid’s lupine is

primarily associated with native upland prairie sites in the Willamette Valley in heavy soils that

have mesic to slightly xeric soil moisture levels. Immediately south of the Willamette Valley,

Kincaid’s lupine occurs on well-developed soils adjacent to serpentine outcrops where the plant

is frequently found under scattered oaks (Quercus spp.) (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875).

Associated plant species are those typically found in native upland prairie sites and include red

fescue (Festuca rubra), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), Tolmie’s mariposa (Calochortus

tolmiei), Hooker’s catchfly (Silene hookeri), broadpetal strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), rose

check-mallow (Sidalcea virgata), and common lomatium (Lomatium spp.) (January 25, 2000, 65

FR 3875).

In the absence of fire, woody species encroach on native prairies and shade out Kincaid’s lupine.

Invasive woody species of concern include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), multiflora
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 343

rose (Rosa multiflora), and Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius) (USFWS 2002e, Pendergrass and

Hoppe 1999). The presence of fast-growing, invasive herbaceous species speeds the conversion

of upland native prairie to simplified prairie and shrub lands. Invasive grass species that suppress

Kincaid’s lupine include velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), falsebrome (Brachypodium sylvaticum), tall oatgrass (Arrhenatherum elatius), and bent grass

(Agrostis tenuis) (USFWS 2002e).

Occurrences and Population Status

It is estimated that only 988 acres of native upland prairie remain in the Willamette Valley; this

constitutes only one-tenth of one percent of the original upland prairie once available to

Kincaid’s lupine. As a result of this habitat loss, there are only 86 remnant Kincaid’s lupine sites

throughout the Willamette Valley, in addition to eight sites in the Umpqua Valley in Douglas

County (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875, USFWS 2002e, USFWS 2001c). Three additional sites

are known in Lewis County, Washington.

In Oregon, habitat at 80% of the remnant sites is rapidly disappearing (January 25, 2000, 65 FR

3875). Approximately 49 sites occupied by Kincaid’s lupine occur on private lands and are

expected to be lost in the near future unless conservation actions are implemented (January 25,

2000, 65 FR 3875). Three of the larger native prairie sites with Kincaid’s lupine are located on

undisturbed hilltops within the Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge (Polk County), at the

Coburg Ridge site (Lane County), and McDonald State Forest (Benton County) (January 25,

2000, 65 FR 3875, USFWS 2002e). These sites contain some of the largest remaining Kincaid’s

lupine populations (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Only the Baskett Slough site is considered

relatively protected, and invasive species remain a threat at this site (January 25, 2000, 65 FR

3875). Conservation at the larger Kincaid’s lupine sites where native upland prairie still persists,

including the largest known population of the species at Crabtree Hill in Lane County

(approximately 6,000 plants), provides the greatest potential for long-term persistence of the

species (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875).

The smaller Kincaid’s lupine sites are confined to disturbed areas along fencerows, in pastures,

and in intervening strips of land along agricultural fields and roadsides (USFWS 2001c). These

smaller patches are important “stepping stones” or dispersal mechanisms for larger sites. Should

these smaller sites disappear, a 74% reduction in the population would occur, and the larger sites

would inevitably become genetically isolated and extinction-prone, as opportunities for recolonization would be limited (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). The smaller remnant populations

are especially important for Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), which depends

on Kincaid’s lupine as its primary larval food source as well as for migration corridors (January

25, 2000, 65 FR 3875, USFWS 2002e, USFWS 2002f, USFWS 2001c, Pendergrass and Hoppe

1999, Schulz and Dlugosch 1998).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 344

Summary

Kincaid’s lupine is currently threatened by development, agriculture, silvicultural practices, road

improvement, collection, herbicide use, and naturally occurring demographic and environmental

events. A recovery plan has not been prepared for this species.

5.5.10.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the Kincaid’s lupine.

All effects on the Kincaid’s lupine are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal,

or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

Because Kincaid’s lupine has an affinity for upland prairie habitat, it is likely that soil

erosion could significantly affect the species by destroying existing habitat or limiting the

potential for new functional habitat development. Because Kincaid’s lupine is capable of

reproduction by seed, effects on this species by means of airborne dust may pose a

significant threat to this species. Increased airborne dust during flowering months may

cover pollen and render seeds infertile. Reductions in plant health, vigor, or reproductive

capability may also result from airborne sediment accumulation, but will most likely be

minimal. As a long-lived perennial species, Kincaid’s lupine is likely to be less affected

by airborne sediment than an annual species. The Pollution & Erosion Control

Environmental Performance Standard has been developed to minimize adverse effects on

this species through the soil effects pathway.

Water

Because it is an upland species, the potential effects on Kincaid’s lupine from the water

effects pathway will likely be minimal. Nonetheless, any of the proposed actions that

result in the alteration of existing runoff patterns or hydrologic regimes (e.g., an increase

in water supply) in upland areas could adversely effect Kincaid’s lupine populations or

limit the potential for new functional habitat development. There are a few examples of

Kincaid’s lupine growing in a wetland habitat such as the Eugene Wetland Complex.

However, even in these areas, the species grows on upland hummocks within the wetland

habitat. The Water Quality Environmental Performance Standard and the Fluvial

Environmental Performance Standard have been developed to minimize adverse effects

on this species through the water effects pathway.

Chemical

Kincaid’s lupine may be affected by herbicide applications, accidental chemical

discharges, or inadvertent fuel or oil spills. These activities may cause a temporary dieback of foliage, a loss of reproductive opportunity, or the death of the plant. Because the

species is found in upland habitats and is a long-lived perennial species, long-term effects

from chemical exposure will likely be minimal except in situations where the species is
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 345

directly exposed to the chemical. Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control

Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects on this species

through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removals associated with the proposed action may eliminate or modify the

functioning habitat elements necessary for survival of Kincaid’s lupine. Normally,

Kincaid’s lupine exists on open native upland prairie habitat; however, decades of fire

suppression and the encroachment of successional plant species has eliminated its

preferred prairie habitat. Specifically, Himalayan blackberry, multiflora rose, Scot’s

broom, and several fast-growing herbaceous grass species such as velvet grass, orchard

grass, false-brome, tall oatgrass, and bent grass are known to out-compete Kincaid’s

lupine (USFWS 2002e, Pendergrass and Hoppe 1999). Mitigation measures that include

the removal of invasive species will benefit the long-term persistence of this species.

Implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will

minimize adverse effects on this species through the vegetation effects pathway.

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to cause Kincaid’s lupine

plants to be trampled, mowed, or disturbed to the extent that the species is directly

affected. Transplanting the species for mitigation purposes may be difficult as the species

typically grows in clumps of plants with a rhizomatous root structure that is difficult to

separate (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Loss and fragmentation of Kincaid’s lupine

populations or accompanying functional habitat may limit gene exchange and increase

the chances for inbreeding, depending on the degree of fragmentation. The distance

between populations is also important, as smaller populations serve as stepping stones

between larger neighboring populations (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). The loss or

fragmentation of Kincaid’s lupine populations or its functional habitat severely

compromises the ability of the species disperse from the larger known sites (January 25,

2000, 65 FR 3875). However, implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental

Performance Standard will eliminate direct effects on this species.

5.5.10.3 Analysis of Effects

 The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

Kincaid’s lupine are summarized in Table 5.5.10-1. Figure 5.5.10-1 graphically depicts previous

survey results and upcoming survey needs.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 346

Table 5.5.10-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect Kincaid’s lupine.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Kincaid’s Lupine T 289 55 0 86

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of Kincaid’s lupine is fairly

low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the occurrence of Kincaid’s

lupine (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by ODOT in 2003. Nonetheless,

the Bridge Program has the potential to affect Kincaid’s lupine at the 86 Bridge Program sites

that remain to be surveyed. Direct effects of the proposed action on (i.e., incidental take of)

Kincaid’s lupine will be avoided at all bridge sites by the implementation of the Plant Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect adverse effects of the proposed action on

Kincaid’s lupine (i.e., via the air, water, chemical, and vegetation effects pathways) will be

greatly reduced by the implementation of the other referenced environmental performance

standards.

5.5.10.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for Kincaid’s lupine. Past and future plant survey efforts,

and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether or not

they actually contain Kincaid’s lupine occurrences) will serve to minimize effects on Kincaid’s

lupine to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental performance

standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual consultation with the USFWS

will be necessary for this species.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 86 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 55 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 289 Bridges

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Highway

State Boundary

LANE

DOUGLAS

LINN

LAKE

WASCO

COOS

DESCHUTES

KLAMATH

CROOK

CLACKAMAS

MARION

JEFFERSON

POLK

LINCOLN

TILLAMOOK

YAMHILL

BENTON

SHERMAN

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

COLUMBIA CLATSOP

CURRY JACKSON

GILLIAM

WHEELER

plants\BA_figures\lupsulkin.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.10-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Kincaid's Lupine

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user. Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Idaho

California

Washington

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 4 8 16 24 32 40

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 348

5.5.11 Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp.

grandiflora)

5.5.11.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora) was Federally listed

as an endangered species on November 7, 2002 (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). The species

merited listing because its few remaining populations, located in the Agate Desert in Jackson

County, are being threatened by the loss of their specialized vernal pool habitat as a result of

industrial and residential development, road construction, and power-line maintenance.

Agricultural conversion, certain grazing practices, and competition with invasive plants also

contribute to population declines and local extirpations. Critical habitat has not been designated

for this species (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

Plant Description

Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam is a low annual, growing only approximately 6 inches tall.

The white flowers are large relative to the plant and are lined with green veins on the inside

(Eastman 1990). The sepals and petals are approximately the same length and are densely

pubescent. In addition, there are two rows of wooly pubescent hairs at the narrow base of the

petals (Eastman 1990). Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam is distinguished from other species

of Limnanthes mainly by the pubescent calyx and from other subspecies of meadowfoam (L.

floccosa) by the two lines of hairs on the petal claws, the sparse pubescence of the stems and

leaves, and the larger corolla (USFWS 2003f). Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam blooms in

April and May.

Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam reproduces by seed (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). In

response to its unique vernal pool habitat, this species has specially adapted to grow, flower, and

set seed during the short time that water is available in the spring. Individual plants finish their

life cycle before the dry hot summers (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

Habitat, Range, and Associated Species

In Oregon, large-flowered wooly meadowfoam is found in and around seasonally wet habitats,

known as vernal pools, in the Agate Desert, an approximately 32-square-mile landform located

north of the City of Medford, in Jackson County (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Typically,

the species is found at elevations of 1,230-1,310 feet above mean sea level (USFWS 2003f). The

habitat of the subspecies, common wooly meadowfoam (L. floccosa ssp. floccosa), is sympatric

with large-flowered wooly meadowfoam over much of its range; however, common wooly

meadowfoam grows on the slightly drier outer fringes of pools, whereas large-flowered wooly

meadowfoam grows on the relatively wetter, inner fringe of the pools (November 7, 2002, 67 FR

68003).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 349

The Agate Desert is located in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion, and consists of a gentle

mound-swale topography with a characteristic appearance in aerial photographs that is

sometimes referred to as “patterned ground” (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Located on the

floor of the Rogue River basin, the Agate Desert is characterized by shallow Agate-Winslow

soils, a relative lack of trees, sparse prairie vegetation, and agates commonly found on the soil

surface. During the rainy winter season, a striking pattern of shallow pools develops in the

frequently interconnected swales, due to the shallow hardpan in the soil profile (November 7,

2002, 67 FR 68003).

Associated species within the Agate Desert include bract popcornflower (Plagiobothrys

bracteatus), inch-high rush (Juncus uncialis), Naverretia (Naverretia sp.), common wooly

meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. floccosa), Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii), annual

hairgrass (Deschampsia danthanoides), and white hyacinth (Triteliea hyacinthina) (November 7,

2002, 67 FR 68003).

Occurrences and Population Status

There are approximately 15 occurrences of large-flowered wooly meadowfoam in the Agate

Desert (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Mapped habitat compiled in 1998 within the Agate

Desert totaled approximately 198 acres. However, due to the continued destruction of vernal

pools, the areas currently occupied by large-flowered wooly meadowfoam are approximately 116

acres (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Of the known occurrences, two sites occur entirely or

partially within the Agate Desert Preserve owned by The Nature Conservancy. Two sites are on

State land mainly within the Ken Denman Wildlife Area, where much of the habitat has been

altered and planted to grasses (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Portions of three largeflowered wooly meadowfoam sites are on lands owned by the City of Medford in an area

designated as the Whetstone Industrial Park. Of the remaining known sites, two are located in

highway or power-line rights-of-ways and the remainder are located on private land (November

7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

Each year plant populations exhibit some natural variation; however, as an annual plant, largeflowered wooly meadowfoam may fluctuate in number more than perennial plants (November 7,

2002, 67 FR 68003). The numbers of large-flowered wooly meadowfoam in the Agate Desert are

generally stable, but fluctuate from year to year based on temperature and rainfall conditions

(November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). For example, in the year 2000, there was a large increase in

the numbers of large-flowered wooly meadowfoam, mainly due to wet conditions. However, in

2001, dry conditions resulted in a sharp decrease in numbers. On one protected site owned by

The Nature Conservancy, large-flowered wooly meadowfoam plants totaled 68,000 in the year

2000, and then plummeted to 39,000 plants in 2001, only to return to about 63,000 plants in 2002

(November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Year-to-year changes of this magnitude may be within the

normal range of variation for this annual species; however, it is possible that a number of

consecutive drought years could eliminate some populations (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).

Further, this variation should be considered in light of the fact that over 60% of the Agate Desert

vernal pool habitat has been modified and none of the habitat has escaped the encroachment of

invasive species (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 350

Summary of Threats

In summary, large-flowered wooly meadowfoam is currently threatened primarily by the

destruction of its specialized vernal pool habitat by industrial and residential development, road

construction, and power-line maintenance (November 7, 2002, 67 FR 68003). Additional factors

contributing to population declines and local extirpations include agricultural conversion, certain

grazing practices, collection, and competition with non-native plants (November 7, 2002, 67 FR

68003). A recovery plan for this species has not yet been prepared.

5.5.11.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the large-flowered

wooly meadowfoam. All effects on the large-flowered wooly meadowfoam are delivered through

the displacement, disruption, removal, or addition of one or more of the following media:

Soil

Because the large-flowered wooly meadowfoam prefers wetland habitats, it is likely that

soil erosion could adversely affect the species by destroying existing functional habitat or

limiting the potential for new functional habitat development. Within occupied or

potential habitat, ground-disturbing activities that cause local hydrologic patterns to be

altered or eliminated may further endanger this species. Specific ground-disturbing

activities may include alterations in topography and the filing or draining of wetlands. As

an annual species that reproduces entirely by seed, large-flowered wooly meadowfoam

may be adversely affected by airborne dust. Reductions in plant health, vigor, or

reproductive capability may result from airborne sediment accumulation. The Pollution &

Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard has been developed to minimize

adverse effects on this species through the soil effects pathway.

Water

Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam is known to exist only in vernal pool habitats that

are fed by surface runoff. This species is specially adapted to the seasonal wet and dry

cycles of its preferred wetland habitat. Consequently, any of the proposed actions that

alter existing runoff patterns or hydrologic regimes and result in a decrease in available

water supply (e.g., changes in topography) could aversely affect large-flowered wooly

meadowfoam. Alternatively, slight increases in water supply may not affect the species.

The Water Quality Environmental Performance Standard and the Fluvial Environmental

Performance Standard have been developed to minimize adverse effects on this species

through the water effects pathway.

Chemical

As an annual wetland species that reproduces entirely by seed, large-flowered wooly

meadowfoam may be affected by herbicide application, accidental chemical discharges,

or inadvertent fuel or oil spills. These activities may result in a temporary die-back of
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 351

seasonal growth (floating vegetation) or in the death of the plant. Since large-flowered

wooly meadowfoam is an annual species that reproduces exclusively by seed, effects

from chemical exposure may cause seeds to become infertile and thus limit population

growth over the long term. In addition, chemical applications or accidental chemical

discharges to occupied habitat may be more harmful during wet periods than during dry

periods, because of the increased dispersal rate of chemicals in aquatic versus dry soil

mediums. In some cases, chemical exposure may limit the potential for large-flowered

wooly meadowfoam to colonize potential functional habitat. Implementation of the

Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse

effects on this species through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with the proposed actions may eliminate or modify the

habitat elements necessary for survival of large-flowered wooly meadowfoam. In

addition, the removal or addition of vegetation within or adjacent to occupied habitat or

potentially functional habitat may adversely alter the seasonally wet and dry periods

characteristic of large-flowered wooly meadowfoam’s preferred habitat to the extent that

the species is unable to complete its life cycle. Implementation of the Plant Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects on this species

through the vegetation effects pathway.

Species

Repair and replacement of individual bridges within the Bridge Program may cause

large-flowered wooly meadowfoam plants to be trampled and mowed (during dry

periods), or buried (during wet or dry periods) to the extent that the species is directly

affected. Because there are so few populations of this species presently known, the direct

removal of any specimens would have an adverse effect on the species’ overall recovery.

Loss and fragmentation of large-flowered wooly meadowfoam populations or potential

functional habitat may limit gene exchange and increase the risk of inbreeding,

depending on the degree of fragmentation and the distances by which populations are

separated. However, implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard and Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard

will eliminate direct effects on this species.

5.5.11.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

large-flowered wooly meadowfoam are summarized in Table 5.5.11-1. Figure 5.5.11-1

graphically depicts previous survey results and upcoming survey needs.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 352

Table 5.5.11-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect large-flowered wooly

meadowfoam.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with

no Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Large-flowered Wooly

Meadowfoam E 425 2 0 3

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of large-flowered wooly

meadowfoam is fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the

occurrence of large-flowered wooly meadowfoam (based on proximity to ORNHIC records)

were surveyed by ODOT in 2003. Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect

large-flowered wooly meadowfoam at the three Bridge Program sites that remain to be surveyed.

Direct effects of the proposed action on (i.e., incidental take of) large-flowered wooly

meadowfoam will be avoided at all bridge sites by the implementation of the Plant Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect adverse effects of the proposed action on largeflowered wooly meadowfoam (i.e., via the air, water, chemical, and vegetation effects pathways)

will be greatly reduced by the implementation of the other referenced environmental

performance standards.

5.5.11.4 Determination of Effects

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for large-flowered wooly meadowfoam. Past and future

plant survey efforts, and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge

APIs (whether or not they actually contain large-flowered wooly meadowfoam occurrences) will

serve to minimize effects on large-flowered wooly meadowfoam to the greatest extent

practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental performance standards is not possible at a

specific bridge site, then individual consultation with the USFWS will be necessary for this

species.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 3 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 2 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 425 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

JACKSON

DOUGLAS

JOSEPHINE

COOS

CURRY

KLAMATH

plants\BA_figures\liflgr.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.11-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Large-flowered Wooly Meadowfoam

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

Idaho

California

California

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 354

5.5.12 MacFarlane’s Four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei)

5.5.12.1 Life History and Status

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) was Federally listed as an endangered species

on October 26, 1979 (October 26, 1979, 44 FR 61912), and then down-listed to threatened status

on March 15, 1996 (March 15, 1996, 61 FR 10693), due to both an improvement in the species

status and the discovery of additional populations (March 15, 1996, 61 FR 10693). MacFarlane’s

four-o’clock occurs in Wallowa County, Oregon, and in Idaho County, Idaho. In Wallowa

County, the species occurs in the Blue Mountains ecoregion along the banks and canyon slopes

of the Imnaha River and the Snake River (in Hells Canyon). Specifically, approximately 4,750

plants occupy 25 acres of habitat along 6 miles of Hells Canyon, and approximately 800 plants

occupy 70 acres of habitat along 3 miles of the Imnaha River (March 15, 1996, 61 FR 10693).

The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for this species (March 15, 1996, 61 FR 10693).

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock is a perennial plant that grows from a deep-seated taproot and forms

clumps with many branches. The shiny succulent leaves are nearly sessile and the magenta

flowers are showy, funnel-like, and arise from a colored whorl of bracts at the tip of the stem.

Flowers bloom in May to early June (Eastman 1990).

Plant species associated with MacFarlane’s four-o’clock include bluebunch wheatgrass

(Agropyron spicatum), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza

sagittata), scorpion weed (Phacelia heterophylla), desert parsley (Lomatium dissectum), sand

dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), threadleaf phacelia

(Phacelia linearis), and cryptantha (Cryptantha spp.) (Meinke 1982). Potential threats to

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock include collection, recreational land use in its habitat, and naturally

occurring disease and predation (Meinke 1982).

5.5.12.2 Analysis of Effects

The USFWS screening process (Section 5.5.1) was used to determine which program bridges

may affect MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Robinson 2003). The results of this screening process

indicate that no program bridges are present within the known range of MacFarlane’s fouro’clock.

5.5.12.3 Determination of Effects

Results of the USFWS screening process indicate that all Bridge Program APIs are located

outside the known range for MacFarlane’s four-o’clock. Based on this analysis of the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for MacFarlane’s four-o-clock.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 355

5.5.13 Malheur Wire-lettuce (Stephanomeria malheurensis)

5.5.13.1 Life History and Status

Malheur wire-lettuce (Stephanomeria malheurensis) was Federally listed as an endangered

species, and critical habitat was designated, on November 10, 1982 (November 10, 1982, 47 FR

50881). The designated critical habitat includes a 160-acre Scientific Study Area that

encompasses the only known location and range of this species (November 10, 1982, 47 FR

50881). The location and range is within the Basin and Range ecoregion (Robinson 2003). The

known population is located on top of a dry, broad hill near the Malheur National Wildlife

Refuge in Harney County (November 10, 1982, 47 FR 50881).

Malheur wire-lettuce is a sparse plant, growing to a height of 20 inches, with wiry branching

stems and leaves that are reduced to bracts. Flowering heads have 5-11 white flowers that bloom

in July and August (Eastman 1990). Malheur-wire lettuce yearly plant numbers are directly

correlated to precipitation during the spring growing season (November 10, 1982, 47 FR 50881).

Plant species associated with Malheur wire-lettuce include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata),

rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), yellow rabbitbrush (C. viscidiflorus), Russian

thistle (Salsola kali), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (Meinke 1982). Potential threats to

Malheur wire-lettuce include mining, the introduction of non-native species including cheatgrass,

and grazing by small herbivores (November 10, 1982, 47 FR 50881).

5.5.13.2 Analysis of Effects

The USFWS screening process (Section 5.5.1) was used to determine which program bridges

may affect Malheur wire-lettuce (Robinson 2003). The results of this screening process indicate

that no program bridges are present within the known range of Malheur wire-lettuce.

5.5.13.3 Determination of Effects

Results of the USFWS screening process indicate that all Bridge Program APIs are located

outside the known range for Malheur wire-lettuce. Based on this analysis for the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for Malheur wire-lettuce.

5.5.14 Marsh Sandwort (Arenaria paludicola)

5.5.14.1 Life History and Status

Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) was Federally listed as an endangered species on August

3, 1993 (August 3, 1993, 58 FR 41378). The species merited this listing due to the rapid rate at

which its specialized wetland habitat is disappearing, a trend that is attributable to urbanization

and the conversion of wetlands (August 3, 1993, 58 FR 41378). Critical habitat has not been

designated for this species (August 3, 1993, 58 FR 41378).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 356

The species was historically known to occur along the coastline of Washington, south to San

Bernardino County, California, where it inhabited swamps and freshwater marsh habitats

(August 3, 1993, 58 FR 41378). However, surveys conducted in 1988 revealed only one known

extant population of 10 plants, located in a 55-square-foot marshy area of Black Lake Canyon in

San Luis Obispo County, California (August 3, 1993, 58 FR 41378). In Washington,

investigations conducted in the 1990s discovered that all but one historical site had been

misidentified; surveys conducted in 1990 found no specimens from those historical sites (August

3, 1993, 58 FR 41378).

5.5.14.2 Analysis of Effects

There are no historic or current documented occurrences of marsh sandwort in Oregon (Andy

Robinson, botanist, USFWS, pers. comm., December 5, 2003). Since there are no records

showing presence in Oregon, the USFWS does not recognize this plant as endangered in the

State (Andy Robinson, botanist, USFWS, pers. comm., December 5, 2003). As a result, marsh

sandwort was not screened for the purposes of this Bridge Program.

5.5.14.3 Determination of Effects

Because there are no historic or current documented occurrences of marsh sandwort in Oregon,

the USFWS does not recognize this plant as endangered in the State. Based on this analysis for

the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for marsh sandwort.

5.5.15 McDonald’s Rock-Cress (Arabis mcdonaldiana)

5.5.15.1 Life History and Status

McDonald’s rock-cress (Arabis mcdonaldiana) was Federally listed as an endangered plant on

September 28, 1978 (September 28, 1978, 43 FR 44810). McDonald’s rock-cress occurs in an

extremely narrow range in northern California and southern Oregon. Specifically, the species is

only known on Red Mountain (in northern Mendocino County, California) and in southern Curry

County, Oregon. Occurrences have also been documented in Del Norte County, California;

however, the taxonomic status of these occurrences is questionable (USFWS 1990b).

McDonald’s rock-cress is limited to serpentine soils rich in minerals and belonging to the

Cornutt and Huse soil series (CDFG 2000, USFWS 1990b). The species occurs in open montane

coniferous forests, often growing in rock crevices or on sites with naturally high soil disturbance

(e.g., steep, unstable slopes). However, smaller numbers can be found on deeper soils and on fine

gravel in open areas and among shrubs (USFWS 1990b). Around 1990, the BLM estimated the

population of McDonald’s rock-cress to be between 1,000-5,000 plants (USFWS 1990b). Critical

habitat has not been designated for this species (September 28, 1978, 43 FR 44810).

McDonald’s rock-cress is a perennial herb that has several simple stems that rise from a taproot

to a height of 2-8 inches. The lower leaves (in rosettes) are 0.4-0.8 inch long, spatulate in shape,

toothed, and glabrous, while the few leaves on the stems are smaller in size. The rose or purple

flowers of this species bloom between April and June (Eastman 1990, Meinke 1982).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 357

Associated species known to coexist with McDonald’s rock-cress at the Red Mountain site

include tree species such as ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Jeffrey pine (P. jeffreyi), sugar

pine (P. lambertiana), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and occasionally dense stands of

knobcone pine (P. attenuata) (USFWS 1990b). Associated shrubs include dwarf silk-tassel

(Garrya buxifolia), huckleberry oak (Quercus vaccinifolia), and hoary manzanita

(Arctostaphylos canescens) (USFWS 1990b). Several other rare plants are associated with

McDonald’s rock-cress, including Kellogg’s buckwheat (Eriogonum kelloggii), Red Mountain

stonecrop (Sedum laxum ssp. eastwoodiae), and Red Mountain campion (Silene campanulata

ssp. campanulata) (USFWS 1990b). Potential threats to McDonald’s rock-cress include habitat

loss associated with mining activities (USFWS 1990b).

5.5.15.2 Analysis of Effects

The USFWS screening process (Section 5.5.1) was used to determine which program bridges

may affect McDonald’s rock-cress (Robinson 2003). The results of this screening process

indicate that no program bridges are present within the known range of McDonald’s rock-cress.

5.5.15.3 Determination of Effects

Results of the USFWS screening process indicate that all Bridge Program APIs are located

outside the known range for McDonald’s rock-cress. Based on this analysis for the Bridge

Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for McDonald’s rock-cress.

5.5.16 Nelson’s Checker-Mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana)

5.5.16.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) was Federally listed as a threatened species on

February 12, 1993 (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235). Activities such as grazing, agricultural

development, fire suppression, mowing, plowing, stream channel alteration, recreational

activities, roadside spraying, and the introduction of invasive non-native plant species have all

contributed to the decline of this species (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235, USFWS 1998b).

Critical habitat has not been designated for Nelson’s checker-mallow (February 12, 1993, 58 FR

8235).

Plant Description

Nelson’s checker-mallow is a perennial herb that is differentiated from other Sidalcea species by

its pinkish-lavender to pinkish-purple flowers, 0.25-0.5-inch long petals, an almost glabrous

calyx, and simple pubescence on the stem (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235, Eastman 1990).

Stems arise from a taproot and grow 1-2.5 feet tall. Nelson’s checker-mallow normally blooms in

June and July (Eastman 1990); however, the species can bloom from mid-May to late September

in the Willamette Valley, depending on weather and site conditions (February 12, 1993, 58 FR

8235).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 358

Nelson’s checker-mallow is a gynodioecious species, which means the plant may have either

perfect flowers (male and female) or pistillate flowers (female). The species can reproduce

vegetatively by rhizomes and can produce seeds that drop near the parent plant (February 12,

1993, 58 FR 8235). In general, Coast Range populations flower later and produce seed earlier,

most likely because of the shorter growing season (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235). Studies

have shown seed loss due to predation by weevils to exceed 85% in Willamette Valley

populations (USFWS 1998b).

Habitat, Range, and Associated Species

Nelson’s checker-mallow is thought to have once been widespread in the Willamette Valley;

however, it is currently known to exist in only a few areas in the Willamette Valley and the

northern Coast Range in Oregon. This species has also been found in Cowlitz and Lewis

Counties, Washington (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235, USFWS 1998b).

The species has no preference for a single habitat type (USFWS 1998b). Nelson’s checkermallow has been documented growing on gravelly and well-drained soils, and poorly- to welldrained clay, clay loam, and gravelly-loam soils (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235). Nelson’s

checker-mallow is most often found in open meadows, and rarely in shaded wooded areas. The

species can occasionally be found in areas where wetland or upland prairie or grassland remnants

persist, such as along fences, drainage swales, and at the edges of plowed fields adjacent to

wooded areas (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235). In the Willamette Valley, the species is most

often found at elevations from 140-650 feet above mean sea level. Other habitats include Oregon

ash (Fraxinus latifolia) swales, meadows with wet depressions, and stream corridors. In the

Coast Range, Nelson’s checker-mallow is found in similar habitats and at the margins of

coniferous forests at elevations of 1,600-1,960 feet above mean sea level. Coast Range habitats

generally support higher components of native vegetation than Willamette Valley sites (USFWS

1998b).

Common associates in the Willamette Valley include yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Oregon ash,

tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), timothy (Phleum pretense), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus),

colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), reed canarygrass

(Phalaris arundinacea), and sedge species (Carex spp.) (February 12, 1993, 58 FR 8235,

USFWS 1998b). Common Coast Range associates are tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), spearhead senecio (Senecio triangularis), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), and rush spp. (Juncus

spp.) (USFWS 1998b). Studies have documented that the presence of tall fescue may reduce the

vigor of Nelson’s checker-mallow seedlings as a result of tall fescue’s ability to emit substances

that inhibit plant growth or seed germination in other plants (USFWS 1998b).

Occurrences and Population Status

There are 51 extant Willamette Valley occurrences of Nelson’s checker-mallow distributed in

Benton, Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties, with the greatest concentrations around the

Cities of Corvallis and Salem. At least 50% of the occurrences within the Willamette Valley are

on public land (USFWS 1998b). In the Coast Range, there are 11 extant Nelson’s checker-
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 359

mallow sites distributed in Yamhill, Washington, and Tillamook Counties. Of these Coast Range

populations, land ownership is split almost evenly between private land and land owned by the

City of McMinnville (USFWS 1998b). Finally, in Washington, there are two additional

populations of Nelson’s checker-mallow that are best compared with the Willamette Valley

occurrences due to their similar valley bottom habitats (USFWS 1998b).

Small populations are more prone to a loss of genetic variation and to inbreeding due to limited

gene exchange, and may subsequently become more susceptible to pressures from pests and

disease. This problem may be exacerbated in many Nelson’s checker-mallow populations by its

extensive habitat fragmentation, specifically within the Willamette Valley (USFWS 1998b).

Throughout its range, nearly 50% of the documented Nelson’s checker-mallow sites contain 100

or fewer plants, and 16 contain fewer than 25 plants (USFWS 1998b). Only five populations

contain more than 1,000 plants; two of these occur in the Willamette Valley and three are located

in the Coast Range (USFWS 1998b).

The USFWS has outlined a recovery plan for Nelson’s checker-mallow, pursuant to ESA

requirements (USFWS 1998b). The recovery plan calls for the establishment of nine natural

habitat reserves distributed evenly throughout the species’ range via the hydrologic subbasins in

which the species occurs. Different standards apply to populations in the Coast Range, as they

are expected to be less stable than those in the Willamette Valley. Recovery and eventual Federal

de-listing of the species is anticipated to occur when at least 0.74 acre of habitat is established

within each of the nine subbasins and the required occupied habitat in each of the subbasins

covers at least two reserves (USFWS 1998b).

Summary of Threats

Land use and subsequent habitat loss, competition with invasive species, woody vegetation

succession due to fire suppression, reproductive limitations, and small, fragmented population

sizes are the primary causes of the decline of Nelson’s checker-mallow populations. However,

the most serious threats are related to private land management and use, since 29 of the 62

populations of Nelson’s checker-mallow occur on private land and are not subject to State and

Federal laws (USFWS 1998b).

5.5.16.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the Nelson’s checkermallow. All effects on the Nelson’s checker-mallow are delivered through the displacement,

disruption, removal, or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

Since Nelson’s checker-mallow can be found in a variety of upland or seasonal wetland

habitats, it is likely that soil erosion could adversely affect the species by destroying

habitat or limiting the potential for new functional habitat development. Airborne dust

may affect Nelson’s checker-mallow, as the species can reproduce sexually by seed or

asexually by rhizomes; high levels of airborne dust when the species is in flower may
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 360

cover pollen and render seeds infertile. In addition, reductions in plant health or vigor

may result from airborne sediment accumulation. The Pollution & Erosion Control

Environmental Performance Standard has been developed to minimize adverse effects on

this species through the soil effects pathway.

Water

Because Nelson’s checker-mallow grows in diverse wetland and upland habitats, small

changes in hydrology may not significantly affect the species. The ability of Nelson’s

checker-mallow to exist in both upland and seasonal wetland areas may enable the

species to adapt to alterations in hydrologic regimes or runoff patterns as a result of the

proposed actions. However, drastic changes in hydrology (e.g., large increases in surface

runoff that result in permanent ponding) would adversely affect Nelson’s checkermallow. The Water Quality Environmental Performance Standard and the Fluvial

Environmental Performance Standard have been developed to minimize adverse effects

on this species through the water effects pathway.

Chemical

Anticipated effects on Nelson’s checker-mallow by the chemical effects pathway will

depend on the habitat the species is occupying (upland versus wetland). Chemical

discharges would pose a more serious threat to populations in wetland habitats than to

those in upland habitats due to the increased dispersal rate of chemicals in aquatic versus

dry soil mediums. Nelson’s checker-mallow is a perennial species that can reproduce by

seed or rhizomes. As such, herbicide applications, accidental chemical discharges, or

inadvertent fuel or oil spills may affect Nelson’s checker-mallow plants, depending on

their individual reproductive strategy. In general, exposure to chemical discharges may

cause a temporary loss of seasonal growth (above-ground foliage) or the death of the

entire plant. Individuals that reproduce by seed may experience a reduced or lost

reproductive opportunity, whereas individuals reproducing vegetatively would probably

experience minimal losses, unless chemical exposure occurs directly in occupied habitat.

Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard

will minimize adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with the proposed actions may eliminate or modify the

habitat elements necessary for survival of Nelson’s checker-mallow. Vegetation removal

may also result in the colonization of occupied habitat by invasive species that have the

ability to out-compete Nelson’s checker-mallow. Decades of fire suppression and the

encroachment of invasive species have shaded out areas historically occupied by

Nelson’s checker-mallow. Because the species is most often found in open meadows, the

removal of overstory trees and tall shrub may benefit Nelson’s checker-mallow. Large

shade-producing vegetation should not be planted in occupied Nelson’s checker-mallow

sites as part of site restoration or as a mitigation measure. In addition, the removal of tall

fescue in occupied habitat or potential functional habitat may benefit Nelson’s checker-
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 361

mallow due to the plant’s ability inhibit the growth of other species. Implementation of

the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects

on this species through the vegetation effects pathway.

Species

Repair and replacement of individual bridges within the Bridge Program may cause

Nelson’s checker-mallow plants to be trampled, mowed, or disturbed. Many sites

occupied by Nelson’s checker-mallow are small and fragmented. Further fragmentation

of these smaller populations or their potential functional habitats may cause higher losses

of genetic diversity, and thus increase the species’ vulnerability to disease or

environmental changes. Larger populations will likely be less affected by individual plant

or habitat losses, and they are often important seed sources for mitigation and species

propagation. Implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard will eliminate direct effects on this species.

5.5.16.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

Nelson’s checker-mallow and summarized in Table 5.5.16-1. Figure 5.5.16-1 graphically depicts

previous survey results and upcoming survey needs.

Table 5.5.16-2. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect Nelson’s checker-mallow.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Nelson’s Checker-mallow T 356 16 0 58

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of Nelson’s checkermallow is fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the

occurrence of Nelson’s checker-mallow (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed

by ODOT in 2003. Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect Nelson’s checkermallow at the 58 Bridge Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct effects of the proposed

action on (i.e., incidental take of) Nelson’s checker-mallow will be avoided at all bridge sites by

the implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect

adverse effects of the proposed action on Nelson’s checker-mallow (i.e., via the air, water,

chemical, and vegetation effects pathways) will be greatly reduced by the implementation of the

other referenced environmental performance standards.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 58 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 16 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 356 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

LINN

CLACKAMAS

MARION POLK

YAMHILL

BENTON

TILLAMOOK

WASHINGTON

WASCO

MULTNOMAH

JEFFERSON

HOOD RIVER

COLUMBIA

LANE

CLATSOP

LINCOLN

DESCHUTES

plants\BA_figures\sidnel.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.16-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Nelson's Checker-mallow

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

California

Idaho

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

Washington
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 363

5.5.16.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for Nelson’s checker-mallow. Past and future plant survey

efforts, and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether

or not they actually contain Nelson’s checker-mallow occurrences) will serve to minimize effects

on the Nelson’s checker-mallow to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the

environmental performance standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual

consultation with the USFWS will be necessary for this species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 364

5.5.17 Rough Popcornflower (Plagiobothrys hirtus)

5.5.17.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Rough popcornflower (Plagiobothrys hirtus) was Federally listed as an endangered species on

January 25, 2000 (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3866). The species merited listing due to habitat loss

from development, the conversion of wet meadows to agricultural use, and the channelization of

creeks. In addition, fire suppression and the introduction of invasive plant species such as

pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), and meadow knapweed (Centaurea

debeauxii) are considered ongoing threats to the species (USFWS 2003d). Critical habitat has not

been designated for rough popcornflower (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3866).

Plant Description

Rough popcornflower is an annual herb on drier sites and a perennial herb on wetter sites

(January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3866). The plant can have ascending or reclining stems of up to 28

inches long (Eastman 1990). Leaves are linear and paired lower on the stem; they alternate

higher on the stem. The lower part of the plant is glabrous, while the upper part is pubescent,

with spreading white or yellowish hairs. The flower consists of five pure white petals that are

twice as long as the sepals and sometimes have a bright yellow center (Eastman 1990). Rough

popcornflower blooms from mid-June into early July. Fruits are 0.08-inch long ovate nutlets

(Meinke 1982) with a basal attachment scar (USFWS 2003d).

The seedlings of rough popcornflower germinate in the fall with the onset of fall rains, and

overwinter as submerged rosettes in seasonally wet meadow habitats (USFWS 2003d). As waters

recede in the late spring, rosettes emerge and develop flowering stems. Flowering is

indeterminate and continues throughout the summer. Up to 100 flowers may bloom per

flowering stem, but only three to seven flowers will open at any one time (USFWS 2003d).

Habitat, Range and Associated Species

Rough popcornflower grows in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion and is endemic to the Umpqua

River drainage in Douglas County, Oregon (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3866, Robinson 2003). The

species grows in seasonally wet swale, meadow, and vernal pool habitats in poorly-drained clay

or silty clay loam soils. Rough popcornflower occurs at elevations ranging from 100-900 feet

above mean sea level (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3866, USFWS 2003d). Associated herbaceous

wetland species include green-sheathed sedge (C. feta), clustered sedge (C. arcta), one-sided

sedge (C. unilateralis), common rush (J. effusus), pointed rush (J. oxymeris), tapered rush (J.

acuminatus), and other rush (Juncus spp.) species. Western mannagrass (Glyceria occidentalis),

great white camas (Camasia leichtlinii), and several annual species including skullcap speedwell

(Veronica scutellata) and Douglas’ meadow-foam (Limnanthes douglasii) may also be present.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 365

Occurrences and Population Status

Extensive habitat fragmentation has isolated previously contiguous populations of rough

popcornflower. These smaller populations are not able to interbreed and are at a greater risk of

losing genetic variability and becoming susceptible to disease (USFWS 2003d). Populations

below 5,000 individuals are at risk of insufficient adaptive genetic variability and those below

1,000 individuals experience population decline (USFWS 2003d).

Only 17 known rough popcornflower sites exist and most sites are composed of a few individual

plants (USFWS 2003d). The known sites range in size from 0.1-17 acres and have populations

ranging from one to 3,000 individuals (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3866).

Pursuant to the Federal listing, the USFWS has developed a recovery plan for rough

popcornflower (USFWS 2003d). The recovery goal is to protect a minimum of three viable

populations of 5,000 individuals within each of the three recovery units. All known natural

populations are included in the recovery units based on corresponding watersheds (within the

North Umpqua River basin) and genetic similarity. The Yoncalla Creek recovery unit contains

two extant ODOT-owned rough popcornflower sites that are maintained as a Special

Management Area. These are the only two extant populations within this recovery unit and they

are close enough to interbreed. There are more than 5,000 plants between the two extant

populations (USFWS 2003d).

Summary of Threats

Rough popcornflower is at risk of extirpation as a result of threats including direct habitat loss,

hydrological alterations, fire suppression, spring and summer livestock grazing, roadside

mowing and spraying, competition with non-native vegetation, and landscaping (January 25,

2000, 65 FR 3866). Approximately five populations are under direct management, while the

larger group of approximately 12 populations has no protective management and is subsequently

at risk of extirpation (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3866).

5.5.17.2 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the rough

popcornflower. All effects on the rough popcornflower are delivered through the displacement,

disruption, removal, or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

Because rough popcornflower has an affinity for wetland habitat, it is likely that soil

erosion could significantly affect the species by destroying existing habitat or limiting the

potential for new functional habitat development. Specific ground-disturbing activities

that cause the filling or draining of its wetland habitat may further endanger this endemic

species. Rough popcornflower is a wetland annual on drier sites and a perennial species

on wetter sites. Because rough popcornflower reproduces entirely by seed, effects on this

species by means of airborne dust may pose a significant threat to the species. Reductions
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 366

in plant health and vigor may also result from airborne sediment accumulation. The

implementation the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard

will minimize adverse effects on this species through the soils effects pathways.

Water

Rough popcornflower exists in seasonably wet swale, meadow, and vernal pool habitats,

which are generally fed by surface runoff. This species is specially adapted to the

seasonal wet and dry cycles of its preferred wetland habitat. Consequently, any of the

proposed actions that result in the alteration or elimination of existing runoff patterns

such that a decrease in available water supply results could adversely affect this species.

Slight increases in water supply may not affect the species. The Water Quality

Environmental Performance Standard and the Fluvial Environmental Performance

Standard have been developed to minimize adverse effects on this species through the

water effects pathway.

As a mitigation measure, the creation of functional seasonable wetland habitat may allow

rough popcornflower to colonize new areas and develop stable populations. In addition,

this species has been shown to easily grow and propagate under human control (Steven

Gisler, botanist, ODOT, pers. comm., January 8, 2004). Seed collection and introduction

to created functional wetland habitats may help in the recovery of this species.

Chemical

Rough popcornflower may be affected by the chemical effects pathway through herbicide

application, accidental chemical discharges, or inadvertent fuel or oil spills. These

activities may result in a temporary die-back of seasonal growth (floating vegetation) or

in the death of plant. Since rough popcornflower reproduces entirely by seed, chemical

exposure may cause seeds to become infertile and thus may limit population growth over

the long term. In addition, accidental chemical discharges to its habitat may be more

harmful during wet periods than during dry periods because of the increased dispersal

rate of chemicals in aquatic versus soil mediums. In some cases, chemical exposure may

limit the potential for rough popcornflower to colonize potentially functional habitat.

Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard

will minimize adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with the proposed action may eliminate or modify the

habitat elements necessary for the survival of rough popcornflower. The removal or

addition of vegetation within or adjacent to occupied habitat or potentially functional

habitat may adversely alter the seasonal wet and dry periods of rough popcornflower’s

preferred habitat to the extent that the species is unable to complete its life cycle. During

proposed actions, the removal of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) will benefit

rough popcornflower populations, as this non-native, invasive species out-competes

rough popcornflower and is known to exist at most of the species’ documented
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 367

occurrences (Steven Gisler, botanist, ODOT, pers. comm., January 8, 2004).

Implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will

minimize adverse effects on this species through the vegetation effects pathway.

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to cause rough popcornflower

plants to be trampled and mowed (during dry periods), or buried (during wet or dry

periods), to the extent that the species is directly affected. Because there are so few

populations of this rare plant, the direct removal of any specimens would have drastic

effects on the species’ overall recovery. Implementation of the Plant Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard will eliminate direct effects on this species.

5.5.17.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

rough popcornflower are summarized in Table 5.5.17-1. Figure 5.5.17-1 graphically depicts

previous survey results and upcoming survey needs.

Table 5.5.17-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect rough popcornflower.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with

no Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Rough Popcornflower E 413 7 5 5

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of rough popcornflower is

fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the occurrence of

rough popcornflower (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by ODOT in

2003. Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect rough popcornflower at five

documented bridge sites and at the five Bridge Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct

effects of the proposed action on (i.e., incidental take of) rough popcornflower will be avoided at

all bridge sites by the implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance

Standard. Indirect adverse effects of the proposed action on rough popcornflower (i.e., via the

air, water, chemical, and vegetation effects pathways) will be greatly reduced by the

implementation of the other referenced environmental performance standards.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 5 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 5 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 7 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 413 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

LANE

DOUGLAS

LINN

KLAMATH

DESCHUTES

JACKSON

BENTON

plants\BA_figures\plahir.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.17-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Rough Popcornflower

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

California

Idaho

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 369

5.5.17.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for rough popcornflower. Past and future plant survey

efforts, and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether

or not they actually contain rough popcornflower occurrences) will serve to minimize effects on

the rough popcornflower to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the

environmental performance standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual

consultation with the USFWS will be necessary for this species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 370

5.5.18 Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene Spaldingii)

5.5.18.1 Life History and Status

Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) was Federally listed as a threatened species on October

10, 2001 (October 10, 2001, 66 FR 51598). Populations of Spalding’s catchfly occur in the

northwest United States and in British Columbia, Canada. In the U.S., the species occurs in

Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon. In Oregon, Spalding’s catchfly occurs in the Blue

Mountains ecoregion, in the mesic prairie or steppe grasslands that make up the Palouse region.

There are seven populations of this species in Wallowa County, Oregon, that range in size from

one to over 500 individuals (October 10, 2001, 66 FR 51598). The USFWS has not designated

critical habitat for this species (October 10, 2001, 66 FR 51598).

Spalding’s catchfly is a long-lived perennial with four to seven pairs of lance-shaped leaves and

foliage that is lightly to densely covered with sticky hairs. The spirally arranged inflorescence

consists of small greenish-white flowers that bloom from June to September (October 10, 2001,

66 FR 51598, Meinke 1982).

Grasslands dominated by native perennial grasses such as Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) or

rough fescue (Festuca scabrella) characterize the habitat of Spalding’s catchfly (October 10,

2001, 66 FR 51598, Meinke 1982). Other associated species include bluebunch wheatgrass

(Agropyron spicatum), prairie junegrass (Koeleria cristata), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus),

Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), prairie smoke avens (Geum

triflorum), sticky purple geranium (Geranium viscosissimum), and arrowleaf balsamroot

(Balsamorhiza sagittata) (October 10, 2001, 66 FR 51598, Meinke 1982).

5.5.18.2 Analysis of Effects

The USFWS screening process (Section 5.5.1) was used to determine which program bridges

may affect Spalding’s catchfly (Robinson 2003). The results of this screening process indicate

that no program bridges are present within the known range of Spalding’s catchfly.

5.5.18.3 Determination of Effects

Results of the USFWS screening process indicate that all Bridge Program APIs are located

outside the known range for Spalding’s catch-fly. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program,

ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of no effect for Spalding’s catch-fly.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 371

5.5.19 Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis)

5.5.19.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) was Federally listed as a threatened species on July 14, 1994

(July 14, 1994, 59 FR 35860). The species merited this listing because the few remaining

populations (located in Montana, Washington, Idaho, and California) are threatened by a loss of

wetland habitat and by habitat changes resulting from timber harvesting, livestock grazing,

residential development, and competition by introduced plants. The species was first collected in

Oregon near Sauvie Island in 1879, and was not identified again until 2001 when a specimen was

identified at Finley Wildlife Refuge in Benton County. Critical habitat has not been designated

for this species (July 14, 1994, 59 FR 35860).

Plant Description

Water howellia is an aquatic annual plant that grows 4-24 inches tall, is mostly submerged, and

is rooted in the bottom sediments of ponds and sloughs. It has extensively branched, submerged,

or floating stems with narrow leaves 0.4-2 inch long. Two types of flowers are produced—small,

inconspicuous flowers beneath the water's surface, and emergent white flowers about 0.08-0.11

inch long. The plant is self-pollinating and each fruit contains up to five large brown seeds 0.08-

1.6 inches long (July 14, 1994, 59 FR 35860, USFWS 2003g). Flowers bloom from May through

August (Meinke 1982). All reproduction occurs by seed; however, germination only occurs when

the seeds are exposed to air when the seasonal wetland habitats temporarily dry out (July 14,

1994, 59 FR 35860, USFS 1997). Seed dispersion may occur in part in the wanderings of

migratory waterfowl (Meinke 1982).

Habitat, Range, and Associated Species

Water howellia historically existed in a large area of the Pacific Northwest, but the species is

currently found only in specific aquatic habitats (July 14, 1994, 59 FR 35860, USFWS 2003g). It

has been reported in Mendocino County, California; Clackamas, Marion, and Multnomah

Counties, Oregon; Mason, Thurston, Clark, and Spokane Counties, Washington; Kootenai and

Latah Counties, Idaho; and Lake and Missoula Counties, Montana (July 14, 1994, 59 FR 35860).

This aquatic plant is restricted to small pothole ponds or the quiet waters of abandoned river

oxbows. These pond habitats are generally shallow (less than 3 feet deep) and typically occur in

a matrix of dense forest vegetation. They are always surrounded in part by broadleaf deciduous

trees. The bottom surfaces of the wetlands consist of firm, consolidated clay and organic

sediments. Pond habitats are generally filled by snowmelt runoff and spring rains, and then dry

out toward the end of the growing season. This species occurs at elevations from 10 feet above

mean sea level in Washington to 4,500 feet above means sea level in Montana (USFS 1997).

Limited information on associated species is available; however, in Montana, associated tree

species often include grand fir (Abies grandis), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), western larch
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 372

(Larix occidentalis), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa),

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Western white pine (Pinus monticola), and Douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) (USFS 1997). The broadleaf deciduous trees most frequently associated

with water howellia include black cottonwood (Populous trichocarpa) and quaking aspen

(Populous tremuloides), while shrub species may include mountain alder (Alnus incana), redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), common dwarf juniper (Juniperus communis), alder-leaved

buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia), and Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana) (USFS 1997). Aquatic

herbaceous species most commonly associated with water howellia in Montana include blister

sedge (Carex vesicaria), twoheaded water-starwort (Callitriche heterophylla), water horsetail

(Equisetum fluviatile), grass-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton gramineus), water buttercup

(Ranunculus aquatilis), water parsnip (Sium suave), and least bur-reed (Sparganium minimum)

(USFS 1997).

Occurrences and Population Status

There are approximately 170 known occurrences of water howellia range-wide (USFS 1997).

Most of the known occurrences are on Federal lands. Its populations occur in ponds from less

than 1 acre to greater than 30 acres in size, while the number of individual plants in each

population is difficult to quantify due to large annual fluctuations. The populations range in size

from just a few specimens to over 400 plants (July 14, 1994, 59 FR 35860, USFS 1997).

Water howellia was first collected in 1879 in a slough on Sauvie Island (along the Columbia

River near Portland, Oregon), and was recently located in 2001 within the Finley Wildlife

Refuge in Benton County. Historically, the four reported populations in Oregon occurred within

the floodplains of the lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers (July 14, 1994, 59 FR 35860,

USFS 1997).

Summary of Threats

The remaining known populations in Oregon, California, Montana, and Washington are being

threatened primarily by the loss of wetland habitat and by habitat changes resulting from timber

harvesting, livestock grazing, residential development, and competition by invasive weeds.

5.5.19.2 Water Howellia Effect Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the water howellia.

All effects on the water howellia are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal, or

addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

Because water howellia has an affinity for ponded wetland habitat, it is likely that soil

erosion could significantly affect the species by destroying existing habitat or limiting the

potential for new functional habitat development. Because water howellia only occurs in

particular wetland habitats, ground-disturbing activities that cause the filling or draining

of this wetland habitat may further endanger this rare species. Because water howellia
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 373

reproduces exclusively by seed, effects on this species by airborne dust may also pose a

significant threat to the species. Reductions in plant health, vigor, or reproductive

capability may also result from airborne sediment accumulation. The Pollution & Erosion

Control Environmental Performance Standard has been developed to minimize adverse

effects on this species through the soil effects pathway.

Water

Water howellia is only known to exist in seasonally wet, small, and shallow ponds or

backwater sloughs that are generally fed by snowmelt or spring rains. As a result, any of

the proposed actions that alter or eliminate existing runoff patterns and floodplain

connectivity, such that a decrease in available water supply results, could adversely

effects water howellia populations or limit the potential for new functional habitat

development. Alternatively, slight increases in hydrology may not affect the species. The

Water Quality Environmental Performance Standard and the Fluvial Environmental

Performance Standard have been developed to minimize adverse effects on this species

through the water effects pathway.

Chemical

As an annual wetland species that reproduces entirely by seed, water howellia may be

affected by herbicide application, accidental chemical spills, and inadvertent fuel or oil

discharges. These activities may result in a temporary die-back of seasonal growth

(floating vegetation) or in the death of the entire plant. Because water howellia is an

annual species that reproduces exclusively by seed, effects from chemical exposure may

cause seeds to become infertile, thus limiting population growth over the long term. In

addition, herbicide applications or accidental chemical discharges to functional habitat

may be more harmful during wet periods than during dry periods because of the increased

dispersal rate of chemicals in aquatic versus soil mediums. In some cases, chemical

exposure may limit the potential for water howellia to colonize potential functional

habitat. Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance

Standard will minimize adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects

pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with the proposed action may eliminate or modify the

habitat elements necessary for the survival of water howellia. A dense matrix of forest

vegetation and an overstory of deciduous trees species typically surrounds occupied

ponds. The removal of this forested riparian zone during the proposed action may affect

the ability of water howellia to persist in or colonize these altered habitats. In addition,

the removal or addition of vegetation within or adjacent to occupied habitat or potentially

functional habitat may alter the seasonally wet and dry periods characteristic of water

howellia’s preferred habitat to the extent that the species is unable to complete its life

cycle. Implementation of the Plant Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will

minimize adverse effects on this species through the vegetation effects pathway.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 374

Species

Bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to directly affect water

howellia via wetland filling activities. Due to the rarity of this species in Oregon, any

action that results in the direct removal of specimens would have an adverse effect on the

species’ overall recovery. However, implementation of the Plant Avoidance

Environmental Performance Standard will eliminate direct effects on this species.

5.5.19.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

Cook’s lomatium are summarized in Table 5.5.19-1. Figure 5.5.19-1 graphically depicts previous

survey results and upcoming survey needs.

Table 5.5.19-1. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect water howellia.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed Bridges

with no Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed Bridges

with Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Water Howellia T 304 34 0 92

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of water howellia is fairly

low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the occurrence of water

howellia (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by ODOT in 2003.

Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect water howellia at the 92 Bridge

Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct effects of the proposed action on (i.e., incidental

take of) water howellia will be avoided at all bridge sites by the implementation of the Plant

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect adverse effects of the proposed action

on water howellia (i.e., via the air, water, chemical, and vegetation effects pathways) will be

greatly reduced by the implementation of the other referenced environmental performance

standards.

5.5.19.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for water howellia. Past and future plant survey efforts, and

the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether or not they

actually contain water howellia occurrences) will serve to minimize the threat to water howellia

to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental performance standards

is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual consultation with the USFWS will be

necessary for this species.
LAKE

LANE

HARNEY

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

LINN

CROOK

GRANT

WASCO

DESCHUTES

JACKSON

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

UMATILLA

JOSEPHINE

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA

HOOD RIVER MULTNOMAH

COOS

CURRY

plants\BA_figures\howaqu.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.19-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Water Howellia

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

Idaho

California

Washington

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 92 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 34 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 304 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 376

5.5.20 Western Lily (Lilium occidentale)

5.5.20.1 Life History and Status

The western lily (Lilium occidentale) was Federally listed as an endangered species on August

17, 1995 (August 17, 1994, 59 FR 42171). The range of this species is confined to the Coast

Range ecoregion (Robinson 2003) (Figure 5.5.20-1), within an extremely restricted area of

approximately 200 miles along the Pacific coastline—from Hauser, Coos County, Oregon, south

to Humboldt Bay, California (August 17, 1994, 59 FR 42171, USFWS 1998c). Critical habitat

has not been designated for this species (August 17, 1994, 59 FR 42171).

Western lily is a perennial herb that grows up to 5 feet tall and has as many as 10 nodding

flowers per stem (Eastman 1990). This species can be distinguished from similar Liliaceae

species by several features; crimson red flowers with yellow to green centers in the shape of a

star; highly reflexed petals; non-spreading stamens closely surrounding the pistil; and an

unbranched rhizomatous bulb (August 17, 1994, 59 FR 42171). Western lily blooms from late

June through July; plants may take 4-5 years to flower for the first time and may live for more

than 25 years (USFWS 1998c, Eastman 1990).

Common associates include coast pine (Pinus contorta), sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), waxmyrtle (Myrica californica), Labrador tea (Ledum glandulosum), Douglas’ spiraea (Spiraea

douglasii), western rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), evergreen huckleberry

(Vaccinium ovatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), blackberry (Rubus spp.), Pacific reedgrass

(Calamagrostis nutkaensis), sedge species (Carex spp.), sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.),

California pitcher-plant (Darlingtonia californica), and king's scepter gentian (Gentiana

sceptrum). Potential threats to western lily include extensive habitat destruction by cranberry

farm development, livestock grazing, and highway construction. Other threats include collection

and habitat loss due to decades of fire suppression (August 17, 1994, 59 FR 42171).

5.5.20.2 Analysis of Effects

The USFWS screening process (Section 5.5.1) was used to determine which program bridges

may affect western lily (Robinson 2003). The results of this screening process indicated that one

bridge site was located within the known range of western lily and required a survey. ODOT

surveyed this bridge in 2003 and no western lily plants were identified (Figure 5.5.20-1).

5.5.20.3 Determination of Effects

Results of the USFWS screening process and the ODOT surveys indicated that all Bridge

Program APIs are either located outside the known range of western lily or do not have an

occurrence of this species. Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes

a determination of no effect for western lily.
DOUGLAS

COOS

LANE

CURRY

plants\BA_figures\lilocc.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.20-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Western Lily

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Washington

California

Idaho

Pacific Ocean

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 1 Bridge

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 429 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 378

5.5.21 Willamette Daisy (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens)

5.5.21.1 Life History and Status

Listing and Critical Habitat

The Willamette daisy (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens) was Federally listed as an

endangered plant on January 25, 2000 (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). The species merited

listing because the few remaining populations in the Willamette Valley are threatened by

commercial and residential development, agriculture, silvicultural practices, road improvement,

collection, herbicide use, and naturally occurring demographic and environmental events.

Critical habitat has not been designated for Willamette Daisy (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875).

Plant Description

The Willamette daisy is a small perennial herb that grows from 6-28 inches tall, with erect to

sometimes prostrate stems at the base. The basal leaves often wither prior to flowering, but are

mostly linear, 2-5 inches long and 0.1-0.23 inch wide. Flowering stems produce two to five

heads, each of which is daisy-like with pinkish to pale blue ray flowers and yellow disk flowers.

The ray flowers fade to white with age. Flowering typically occurs in June and July, and seeds

are released in July and August (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875, Eastman 1990, Meinke 1982).

Although the seeds are wind-dispersed, the short stature of this species likely prevents the longdistance travel of many seeds. In addition to sexual reproduction, the Willamette daisy is also

capable of vegetative spreading, and is commonly found in large clumps scattered throughout a

site (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875).

Habitat, Range, and Associated Species

The Willamette daisy is restricted primarily to native prairie habitat in the Willamette Valley

ecoregion of Oregon. Once widespread throughout the valley, the species is now limited to a few

sites in Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties

(January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875, USFWS 2002f).

The Willamette daisy primarily occupies native wetland prairie grassland habitats. This habitat is

characterized by the seasonally wet tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa) community that

occurs on low, flat regions of the valley where flooding creates anaerobic and strongly reducing

soil conditions. The wetland prairie community also includes rush (Juncus spp.) and California

oatgrass (Danthonia californica) as co-dominants, in addition to introduced species such as tall

fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), and sweet vernal grass

(Anthoxanthum odoratum). Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii), a Federally listed

endangered species, has also been known to occur with Willamette daisy (January 25, 2000, 65

FR 3875).

Two atypical Willamette daisy populations have also been discovered on top of a dry, stony butte

in an upland prairie in the Willamette Valley (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Dominant
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 379

associated species in this upland prairie habitat include red fescue (Festuca rubra) and Idaho

fescue (Festuca idahoensis), while Tolmie’s mariposa (Calochortus tolmiei), Hooker’s catchfly

(Silene hookeri), broadpetal strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), rose check-mallow (Sidalcea

virgata), and lomatium spp. (Lomatium spp.) serve as herbaceous indicator species.

Most Willamette Valley grasslands are early seral habitats, requiring natural or human-induced

disturbance for their maintenance. Consequently, fire suppression and woodland succession have

resulted in a reduction in the number of acres of Willamette Valley grasslands, while the

conversion of this resource to agricultural and urban uses has also had drastic consequences. Of

the estimated 1,010,000 acres of historic native grasslands extant prior to 1850, approximately

685,000 acres appear to have consisted of upland prairie and 325,000 acres appear to have

consisted of wet prairie (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Current estimates of the remaining

native upland prairie in the Willamette Valley indicate fewer than 988 acres (USFWS 2002g).

Similar losses have occurred for wet prairie habitats, but estimates and current acreages are not

available; however, it is estimated that over 99% of the known habitat for this species has been

lost due to human alteration (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875, USFWS 2002g).

Occurrences and Population Status

Since 1980, the Willamette daisy has been identified at 48 remnant prairie sites in Polk, Marion,

Linn, Benton, and Lane Counties, for a total of approximately 160 acres. The plant is known to

have been extirpated from an additional 19 historic locations (USFWS 2002g). The largest

known occurrence of Willamette daisy was approximately 6,000 plants, and this population was

plowed under in 1986 prior to the development of an industrial and residential site. Many of the

sites occupied by the Willamette daisy are less than 8.3 acres in size (January 25, 2000, 65 FR

3875), and these small acreage sites, often along roadside and fenceline boundaries, face an

immediate threat of destruction from a variety of disturbances. These small and fragmented

populations are also more vulnerable to environmental changes than relatively large and

contiguous populations (USFWS 2002g).

Table 5.5.21-1 represents the current range-wide distribution of known Willamette daisy sites

(USFWS 2002f). A number of these sites are relatively secure and are being managed to benefit

this and other native prairie species. Approximately 59% of extant occupied habitat is currently

protected at 18 sites, including lands managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), The

Nature Conservancy (TNC), the BLM, and the USFWS Refuge System.

Table 5.5.21-1. Summary of current rangewide knowledge for Willamette daisy sites.

Site Name Area (acres) Ownership Protected

Willow Creek Preserve 1 11.3 TNC 11.3

Willow Creek Preserve 2 0.48 TNC 0.48

Willow Creek Preserve 3 0.79 TNC 0.79
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 380

Table 5.5.21-1. (continued).

Site Name Area (acres) Ownership Protected

Willow Creek Preserve 5 2.2 TNC 2.2

Bald Hill City Park 0 2.5 City of Corvallis 2.5

Bald Hill City Park 1 0.59 City of Corvallis 0.59

Green Hill Road S. of RR 1 10.9 Ownership Unknown.

Possibly BLM.

10.9

Green Hill Road S. of RR 3 5.8 Ownership Unknown.

Possibly Private.

0

NW of Green Hill Road & West 11th 3.8 Private 0

Green Hill Road N. of RR 5 1.1 Private 0

ODOT Right of Way 2.5 ODOT 2.5

Green Hill Road S. of RR 7 0.59 Ownership Unknown.

Possibly Private.

0

Green Hill Road North of RR 9 3 Ownership Unknown.

Possibly Private.

0

Fisher Butte 26.8 COE 26.8

Fisher Butte Dike 4.1 COE 4.1

East Coyote 4.9 COE 4.9

Eugene Speedway 1 7.3 Private 0

Eugene Speedway 2 4.1 Private 0

Goshen 1.7 Private/ ODOT 0

Danebo & Hwy 126 1.2 BLM (not extant) 0

West 18th Av. 3.7 Private 0

Sublimity 0 0.6 Private 0

Sublimity 1 0.63 Private 0

Kingston - Lyons Road 0 3.5 Private 0

Kingston - Lyons Road 1 1.1 Private 0

Kingston - Lyons Road 2 0.43 Private 0
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 381

Table 5.5.21-1. (continued).

Site Name Area (acres) Ownership Protected

Shelburne Drive 0.16 Ownership Unknown.

Possibly County.

0

Grand Ronde 1 0.39 Private 0

Grand Ronde 2 0.38 Private 0

Grand Ronde 3 0.7 Private 0

Starlight Road. 3.9 Private 0

Danebo Drag Strip 0 0.49 BLM 0.49

Danebo Drag Strip 1 0.25 BLM 0.25

Anderson Road 2.5 Ownership Unknown.

Possibly BLM.

0

Baskett Butte 5.2 USFWS 5.2

Baskett Butte-N. Boundary 2.7 USFWS 2.7

McKenzie View Drive 1.5 Private 0

Sanford Road. 1 0.73 Private 0

Sanford Rd. 2 0.34 Private 0

Wallis Street 3.3 Private 0

Muddy Creek 1.1 USFWS (not extant) 0

Amazon Canal 1 4.6 BLM 4.6

Amazon Canal 2 4.6 Ownership Unknown 0

Neilson Road 1.4 Ownership Unknown 0

Belts Road 2.4 Ownership Unknown 0

Totals 158.1 93.6

Source: USFWS 2002f.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 382

Summary of Threats

In summary, the Willamette daisy is threatened by commercial and residential development,

agriculture, silvicultural practices, road improvement, collection, herbicide use, and naturally

occurring demographic and environmental events (January 25, 2000, 65 FR 3875). Critical

habitat has not been designated and a recovery plan for Willamette daisy has not been prepared.

5.5.21.1 Species-Specific Effects Pathways

Effects pathways include the media through which effects are delivered to the Willamette daisy.

All effects on the Willamette daisy are delivered through the displacement, disruption, removal,

or addition of one or more of the following:

Soil

The Willamette daisy occurs in wetland habitats and has limited occurrences in upland

habitats. Because the species may be present in both wetland and upland areas, any of the

ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed actions may affect this species.

Soil erosion from these activities may destroy existing Willamette daisy habitat or limit

the potential for new functional habitat development. Ground disturbances within

wetland habitats will likely cause more disturbances to populations or accompanying

functional habitat than ground disturbances in upland areas, because these effects are

compounded by the presence of water. In addition, Willamette daisies are far more

common in wetland prairie habitats than in upland habitats.

The effects of airborne dust on the Willamette Daisy will vary, because it is a perennial

plant species that can reproduce either sexually or vegetatively. Reductions in plant

growth and vigor resulting from airborne sediment accumulation may also vary,

depending on the preferred reproductive strategy of the local Willamette daisy

occurrence. Overall, reductions in plant health, vigor, and reproductive capability will

likely result from airborne sediment accumulation. The implementation of the Plants

Environmental Performance Standard, Pollution and Erosion Control Environmental

Performance Standard, Habitat Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard and Site

Restoration Environmental Performance Standard (Section 3.3) will minimize adverse

effects on Willamette daisy resulting from airborne dust, erosion, and ground disturbance.

Water

The Willamette daisy may be found in upland or wetland areas; occurrences in upland

areas are considered atypical, since this species normally prefers native wetland prairie

habitat. Consequently, any of the proposed actions that alter existing runoff patterns or

hydrologic regimes could adversely effect documented Willamette daisy populations, or

limit the potential for new functional habitat development. Willamette daisies in wetlands

may be adversely affected if changes in hydrologic regimes cause decreases in available

water supply in occupied habitat or potential functional habitat. Conversely, Willamette

daisy occurrences in upland areas may also be affected should changes in hydrologic
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 383

regimes cause an increase in the local water supply. The Water Quality Environmental

Performance Standard and the Fluvial Environmental Performance Standard have been

developed to minimize adverse effects on this species through the water effects pathway.

Chemical

As a perennial upland or wetland species that can reproduce either by seed or

vegetatively, the Willamette daisy may be affected by herbicide application, accidental

chemical discharges, or inadvertent fuel and oil spills. Herbicide applications or

accidental chemical discharges may cause a temporary loss of seasonal growth (aboveground foliage), or the death of the plant. For plants that reproduce by seed, effects from

chemical exposure may cause seeds to become infertile, thus limiting potential population

growth over the long term. Chemical applications or accidental chemical discharges in

occupied wetland habitat may be more harmful than in occupied upland habitat because

of the increased dispersal rate of chemicals in aquatic versus soil mediums.

Implementation of the Pollution & Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard

will minimize adverse effects on this species through the chemical effects pathway.

Vegetation

Vegetation removal associated with the proposed action may eliminate or modify the

habitat elements necessary for survival of Willamette daisy. The Willamette daisy is not

typically found in shaded habitats. Thus, the removal of overstory trees or vegetation may

benefit Willamette daisy. Willamette daisy may be adversely affected in the long-term if

trees are planted near existing occurrences or if invasive species introduced as a result of

vegetation removal out-compete Willamette daisy plants. Implementation of the Plant

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will minimize adverse effects on this

species through the vegetation effects pathway.

Species

Repair and replacement of the program bridges may cause Willamette daisy plants to be

trampled, mowed, or disturbed to the extent that the species is directly affected. Clumps

of Willamette daisy may be difficult to transplant for relocation or mitigation purposes, as

the root structure of the clumps is interconnected, and clumps can be relatively large.

Many sites occupied by Willamette daisy are small and fragmented. Further

fragmentation of these small populations may lead to losses of genetic diversity and

increased species vulnerability to disease or environmental changes. Larger populations

will likely be less affected by species or habitat losses, although larger populations are

often important seed sources for mitigation and propagation. Implementation of the Plant

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard will eliminate direct effects on this

species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

5 – 384

5.5.21.3 Analysis of Effects

The results of the screening process (Section 5.5.1) and of the surveys conducted to date for

Willamette daisy are summarized in Table 5.5.21-2. Figure 5.5.21-1 graphically depicts previous

survey results and upcoming survey needs.

Table 5.5.21-2. Summary of program bridges where the proposed action may affect Willamette daisy.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Plant Species

Federal

Listing

Status

No Field

Survey

Required

Surveyed

Bridges with no

Rare Plant

Populations

Surveyed

Bridges with

Rare Plant

Populations

Remaining

Bridges to be

Surveyed

Willamette Daisy E 356 30 0 44

The likelihood of future surveys documenting additional occurrences of Willamette daisy is

fairly low because the program bridge APIs with the highest potential for the occurrence of

Willamette daisy (based on proximity to ORNHIC records) were surveyed by ODOT in 2003.

Nonetheless, the Bridge Program has the potential to affect the Willamette daisy at the 44 Bridge

Program sites that remain to be surveyed. Direct effects of the proposed action on (i.e., incidental

take of) Willamette daisy will be avoided at all bridge sites by the implementation of the Plant

Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard. Indirect adverse effects of the proposed action

on Willamette daisy (i.e., via the air, water, chemical, and vegetation effects pathways) will be

greatly reduced by the implementation of the other referenced environmental performance

standards.

5.5.21.4 Determination of Effect

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of may

affect, not likely to adversely affect for Willamette daisy. Past and future plant survey efforts,

and the application of environmental performance standards at all bridge APIs (whether or not

they actually contain Willamette daisy occurrences) will serve to minimize effects on the

Willamette daisy to the greatest extent practicable. If adherence to all of the environmental

performance standards is not possible at a specific bridge site, then individual consultation with

the USFWS will be necessary for this species.
OTIA III Bridges

Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) -- 44 Bridges

Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) -- 0 Bridges

Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) -- 30 Bridges

No Survey Required (Category 1) -- 356 Bridges

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

LANE

LINN

POLK

LINCOLN

BENTON

MARION

DOUGLAS

TILLAMOOK YAMHILL

CLACKAMAS

plants\BA_figures\eridecdec.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 5.5.21-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Willamette Daisy

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

Washington

California

Idaho 0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

6 - 1

6.0 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects, as defined in 50 CFR Section 402.02, include the effects of future

State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the

action area. Future Federal actions requiring separate consultations pursuant to Section 7

of the ESA are not considered in this analysis.

The geographic scope and duration of the Bridge Program, and the multiple pathways by

which it may affect listed species, make it all but certain that such non-Federal actions

will occur and will cumulatively affect the Federally listed species addressed herein. A

recently completed Biological Opinion addressed the cumulative effects of the Federal

Columbia River Power System at spatial and temporal scales similar to those of the

Bridge Program (NOAA Fisheries 2000b), providing a useful framework for assessing

cumulative effects of the Bridge Program due to State, Tribal, local, and private actions

that are reasonably certain to occur in the future.

Cumulative effects are possible in the short term during the construction of program

bridges, as well as during the lifespan of repaired or replaced bridges (a period of

approximately 50-75 years). However, the Bridge Program will adhere to the

environmental performance standards detailed in Section 3 to minimize both short and

long-term adverse effects on listed species; this will also help to reduce the magnitude of

adverse cumulative effects resulting from future actions.

State, Tribal, and local government actions resulting in cumulative effects may be in the

form of legislation, administrative rules, or policy initiatives; of actions taken to improve

sustainability in forest lands or to improve aquatic habitat; or of actions taken in response

to human population growth, such as changes in land and water use patterns, road

density, or ownership. Any of these could affect listed species or their habitat. Though

such actions are likely to occur, the uncertainty regarding the kind and scope of these

actions, and the numerous government entities and jurisdictions involved, make analysis

of cumulative effects speculative at best.

The actions proposed herein involve the repair or removal of 430 highway bridges

throughout Oregon; these actions are linked to population growth. However, as discussed

in Section 4, the Bridge Program is a response to existing—not anticipated—population

growth, and the proposed actions are not expected to induce growth, or to increase the

likelihood of cumulative effects over and above existing conditions.

Non-Federal actions that may cumulatively affect listed species are expected to increase

in direct proportion to population. Actions tied to population growth that may affect listed

species within Oregon include, but are not limited to: development associated with urban,

water, flood control, highway/roadway and utility projects; the application of pesticides;

the conversion of habitat to agricultural uses; and the application of seasonal water to

create irrigated pastures. Urbanization is the greatest threat to watersheds from the

standpoint of cumulative effects (Friedrichsen 1998 and May 1996).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

6 - 2

The Office of Economic Analysis has projected that all counties in Oregon will

experience positive population growth by the year 2015 (ODAS 1997). Central Oregon

(Deschutes, Jefferson, Crook, and Wheeler Counties) is projected to be the fastestgrowing region in the state. By 2010, Deschutes County is predicted to grow 48%,

Jefferson County by 47%, Crook County by 28%, and Wheeler County by 24%. The

counties surrounding the major urban areas of Portland (Washington, Clackamas, and

Yamhill Counties), Salem (Marion, Polk, and Linn), and Medford (Jackson, Josephine,

and Curry) are also predicted to have particularly significant population growth by 2015

(Table 6.0-1). On average, statewide population is expected to increase by six percent

from 2000 to 2005, 12% from 2005 to 2010, and 18% from 2010 to 2015. It is likely that

cumulative effects will be greatest in those locations that experience the most population

growth.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

6 - 3

Table 6.0-1. Percent change in population in the State of Oregon by county1

.

State/County

Number

of

Bridges

2000 2005 Percent

Change 2010 Percent

Change 2015 Percent

Change

Baker 10 17,349 18,001 4 18,635 7 19,267 11

Benton 5 79,291 82,116 4 85,080 7 88,167 11

Clackamas 8 338,247 369,683 9 403,915 19 441,193 30

Clatsop 9 35,622 36,919 4 38,376 8 40,018 12

Columbia 6 41,780 43,722 5 45,777 10 47,954 15

Coos 13 63,612 64,950 2 66,338 4 67,870 7

Crook 3 17,168 18,662 9 20,215 18 21,892 28

Curry 0 24,699 26,643 8 28,576 16 30,541 24

Deschutes 3 112,846 132,829 18 151,230 34 167,231 48

Douglas 53 102,344 106,652 4 111,068 9 115,713 13

Gilliam 0 1,992 2,032 2 2,071 4 2,116 6

Grant 9 8,292 8,517 3 8,742 5 8,989 8

Harney 5 7,531 7,606 1 7,651 2 7,694 2

Hood River 12 20,152 21,477 7 22,804 13 24,174 20

Jackson 26 177,982 188,746 6 199,415 12 210,373 18

Jefferson 4 18,763 21,468 14 24,376 30 27,530 47

Josephine 20 76,608 81,040 6 85,319 11 89,596 17

Klamath 15 64,996 68,099 5 71,376 10 74,868 15

Lake 2 7,779 7,982 3 8,171 5 8,354 7

Lane 66 331,464 352,944 6 374,499 13 397,350 20

Lincoln 11 44,689 47,190 6 49,794 11 52,539 18

Linn 34 104,894 110,573 5 116,053 11 121,593 16

Malheur 9 31,762 32,799 3 33,793 6 34,819 10
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

6 - 4

Table 6.0-1. (continued).

State/County

Number

of

Bridges

2000 2005 Percent

Change 2010 Percent

Change 2015 Percent

Change

Marion 21 285,975 308,364 8 331,025 16 354,561 24

Morrow 1 9,828 10,723 9 11,594 18 12,463 27

Multnomah 19 659,087 676,975 3 694,597 5 713,532 8

Polk 12 60,719 65,040 7 69,402 14 73,940 22

Sherman 2 1,925 1,974 3 2,020 5 2,068 7

Tillamook 4 24,761 26,143 6 27,538 11 29,030 17

Umatilla 10 69,854 72,870 4 75,869 9 78,936 13

Union 11 24,927 25,422 2 25,927 4 26,439 6

Wallowa 3 7,458 7,632 2 7,815 5 8,025 8

Wasco 7 23,198 23,713 2 24,258 5 24,867 7

Washington 9 422,886 467,233 10 510,564 21 554,945 31

Wheeler 8 1,697 1,833 8 1,966 16 2,100 24

Yamhill 0 83,826 92,429 10 101,152 21 110,253 32

Average

Increase 6 12 18

1

 Source: County Population Forecasts. Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, State

of Oregon. January 1997.

State and Tribal governments may take actions that serve to counter or exacerbate actions

resulting from population growth. State, local, and Tribal actions that may cumulatively affect

Federally listed species are described below.

6.1 State Actions

The State of Oregon administers the allocation and use of water resources within its borders.

New water developments, transfers of points of diversion, inter-basin transfers, increased

impervious surface, and continued use of limited groundwater may act cumulatively with the

proposed action to aggravate adverse effects to listed species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

6 - 5

Most future State actions affecting aquatic and riparian resources are governed by the Oregon

Plan for Salmon and Watershed (Oregon Plan) measures. The purpose of the Oregon Plan is to

improve water quality and to restore Oregon's wild salmon and trout populations and fisheries to

sustainable and productive levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and

economic benefits. The improvement of habitat features by State actions implemented pursuant

to the Oregon Plan will benefit fish and wildlife dependent on aquatic or riparian habitat. These

actions may counter some of the adverse cumulative effects of increased population.

6.2 Local Actions

As noted above, population growth is expected in all Oregon counties over the next decade, and

local governments will be required to address the resulting demands for intensified development

in rural areas, as well as the increased demands for water, municipal infrastructure, and other

resources. Local actions are likely to involve urbanization, which has the greatest potential to

cause adverse cumulative effects on Federally listed species.

Goal 5 of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines instructs local governments to

“adopt programs that will protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open

spaces for present and future generations.” Implementation of Goal 5 has the potential to benefit

listed species at the local scale, and potentially aid in offsetting the increased pressures on natural

resources caused by increased population growth and urbanization.

6.3 Tribal Actions

Tribal governments can beneficially affect listed species by applying and sustaining

comprehensive natural resource programs to areas under their jurisdiction; they can also

adversely affect listed species (e.g., by timber harvest). The Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, also

known as the Spirit of the Salmon Plan, is a joint restoration plan for anadromous fish among the

Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes through an inter-tribal government

administered by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). The plan

emphasizes strategies and principles that rely on natural production and healthy river systems.

CRITFC developed a River Operations Plan (Plan) (CRITFC 2003) for the Federal Columbia

River Power System (FCRPS), the Hells Canyon Complex, and mid-Columbia FERC-licensed

hydro-projects including Rock Island, Rocky Reach, Wanapum and Priest Rapids. The Plan

contains recommendations for water management and dam operations, including flows, reservoir

elevations, spill, and fish facility operations. It also contains recommendations for water

acquisition. Each of the recommended actions will contribute singularly and cumulatively to

mainstem salmon protection. CRITFC believes that the actions in the Plan will likely reduce

salmonid mortality rates. Implementation of both plans will likely result in benefits to salmonid

species and aquatic habitats, and overall beneficial cumulative effects on listed species and their

habitat.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

6 - 6

6.4 Private Actions

Determining the effects of private actions is difficult because of the uncertainty associated with

privately owned land. Landowner actions may be motivated by Federal, State, and local laws;

environmental incentives; or growth and economic pressures. Additionally, changes in

ownership patterns may have unknown impacts. Assessing the cumulative effects associated with

private actions and land use is speculative, although such actions are a likely, and possibly

significant, contributor of cumulative effects on Federally listed species.

Summary

Although State, Tribal, and local governments have developed plans and initiatives to benefit

listed species, they must be applied and sustained in a comprehensive manner before the Services

can consider them “reasonably foreseeable” in a cumulative effects analysis. However, in light of

projected population growth, the broad geographic scope of this consultation, the duration of the

proposed action, and the number of ongoing or planned actions by State, Tribal, and local

governments, cumulative effects are likely to occur. However, programs identified in the Oregon

Plan, and the emphasis on avoidance and minimization of adverse effects on listed species

inherent in the design of bridges within the Bridge Program, may reduce or offset both short- and

long-term cumulative effects.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 1

7.0 Magnuson-Stevens Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (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. The MSA requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS

on all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may

adversely affect EFH (MSA §305(b)(2)). An adverse effect means any impact that reduces the

quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects 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.

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 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 life 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 objective of this EFH assessment is to describe potential adverse effects on designated EFH

for Federally managed fisheries species within the proposed action area. It also references

performance standards proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects

on designated EFH resulting from the proposed action.

For the Pacific West Coast, there are three Fishery Management Plans, covering groundfish,

coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon. Due to the geographic scope of the Bridge Program,

the proposed actions have the potential to impact only groundfish EFH and Pacific salmon EFH.

Coastal pelagic EFH are therefore not addressed in this analysis.

Groundfish

EFH for Pacific coast groundfish is defined as the aquatic habitat necessary to allow for

groundfish production to support long-term sustainable fisheries for groundfish and for

groundfish contributions to a healthy ecosystem. Descriptions of groundfish EFH for

each of the 82 species and their life stages result in more than 400 EFH identifications.

When these EFHs are taken together, the groundfish EFH includes all waters from the

mean higher high water line, and the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths,

along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California seaward to the boundary of the

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (200 nautical miles offshore).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 2

Pacific salmon

EFH for the Pacific coast salmon fishery means those waters and substrate necessary for

salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon

contributions to a healthy ecosystem. To achieve that level of production, EFH includes

all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently viable water bodies and

most of the habitat historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California. In the estuarine and marine areas, salmon EFH extends from the nearshore

and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of

the EEZ (230 miles) offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point

Conception. Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds,

wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas upstream of certain impassable

man-made barriers (as identified by the PFMC), and longstanding, naturally-impassable

barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years).

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are those areas of "EFH that are judged to

be particularly important to the long-term productivity of populations of one or more

managed species, or to be particularly vulnerable to degradation." Among other things,

habitat areas may be prioritized by the importance of ecological function and the relative

contribution towards sustainable fisheries; and, the extent to which habitat is sensitive to

environmental degradation.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has not yet designated any areas as

HAPCs in Oregon or any of the area covered by the PFMC, but has begun laying the

groundwork for future HAPC designations.

7.1 Essential Fish Habitat Applicability

The proposed action, as described in Section 3 of this document, lies within an area designated as

EFH for two Federal fishery management plans: Pacific groundfish and Pacific salmon. A formal

EFH assessment for Pacific salmon is not presented separately in this document, as the analysis

of the proposed action on 14 salmonid ESUs listed under the ESA and their designated critical

habitat is sufficient to fulfill this requirement for EFH. Further, the potential effects of the

proposed action on nine non-listed ESUs of salmon EFH are not likely to be significantly

different than those discussed for listed salmonids in the Effects Analysis (Section 5) of this BA.

The estuarine and offshore marine waters are designated EFH for various life stages of 82

species of groundfish. A detailed description and identification of EFH for groundfish is found in

the Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review for Amendment 11 to The

Pacific Coast Groundfish Management Plan (PFMC 1998a) and the NOAA Fisheries Essential

Fish Habitat for West Coast Groundfish Appendix (Casillas et al. 1998). The proposed action

area also encompasses EFH for 23 ESUs of salmon and steelhead. A description and

identification of EFH for chinook and coho salmon is found in Amendment 14 to the Pacific

Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 3

7.2 Description of the Project/Proposed Action

The Bridge Program described in this BA includes the repair or replacement of 430 bridges that

require Federal permits from either the ACOE for fill in waters of the U.S. or wetlands (Section

404 of the Clean Water Act) or for any activities in tidal or navigable waters (Section 10 of the

Rivers and Harbors Act). Actions proposed under the Bridge Program are described in Section 3.

The spatial extent of the potential area of impact of the Bridge Program extends from the upriver

limits of estuaries where bridges cross such rivers, seaward to US-101 and several other ODOT

highways that cross estuaries or bays on bridges. The spatial extent of the potential area of

impact of the Bridge Program encompasses the Estuarine, Rocky Shelf, and Non-rocky Shelf

Composites of groundfish EFH: estuarine and nearshore areas of EFH for Pacific salmon, and

freshwater EFH for salmon. No ODOT road or structure is in contact with Neritic Composite

waters at depths of 33 feet or more.

Effects on Pacific salmon and groundfish EFH may occur as a result of bridge repair or

replacement activities within or upstream of designated EFH. Effects are either water-borne

(turbidity, chemical), habitat related (stream channel impacts and riparian impacts) or direct

(stream work, flow diversion). Bridge repair or replacement activities in an EFH or upstream of a

natural barrier upstream of an EFH may adversely affect that EFH. Program bridges within EFH

for Pacific salmon or groundfish are shown in Figures 7.2-1 and 7.2-2, respectively.

The Bridge Program may include activities at ODOT bridges that cross portions of an estuary or

bay, including approach fills, abutments, wing walls, utility lines, pilings, or isolated bents.

Bridge repair or replacement activities on bridges over estuaries could affect deeper subtidal

waters around approach fills or isolated bents, with habitat features such as artificial rocky reefs

(e.g., riprap) or around pilings driven into flat, soft (unconsolidated) bottom habitats including

mud, sand, gravel, or cobble, into aquatic algal or seagrass beds, or into hard rocky bottom

substrates.

7.3 Description of Species with EFH Potentially Affected by the Proposed Program

This section of the BA presents habitat descriptions, requirements, and life history of groundfish

(Section 8.3.1) and Pacific salmon (Section 8.3.2). Information in this section has largely been

obtained from ODOT’s Draft EFH Analysis for the ODOT Maintenance Programmatic

Biological Assessment (Floyd 2003). Numeric references in this section are contained in McCain

(2003), cited within Floyd (2003) unless otherwise noted.

7.3.1 Groundfish

The waters and substrate that comprise groundfish EFH include rocky reefs, intertidal salt

marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation, turbidity zones, and salinity gradients.
LAKE

HARNEY

MALHEUR

LANE

GRANT

KLAMATH

DOUGLAS

LINN

BAKER

CROOK

UMATILLA

UNION

WASCO

WALLOWA

JACKSON

COOS

DESCHUTES

CURRY

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

MARION

JOSEPHINE

POLK

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

screening/BA Figures/salmon2.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 7.2-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

EFH Salmon

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

California

Washington

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

Ida

h

o

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

EFH Salmon Habitat: 4th Field HUC

City

County

Streams and Rivers

Highway

State Boundary
LAKE

LANE

DOUGLAS

LINN

KLAMATH

CROOK

WASCO

COOS

DESCHUTES

JACKSON

WHEELER

CURRY

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

POLK MARION

LINCOLN

HARNEY

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

JOSEPHINE

MORROW

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH HOOD RIVER

screening/BA Figures/groundfish2.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 7.2-2

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Groundfish EFH

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pacific Ocean

California

Washington

Idaho

0 4 8 16 24 32 40

Miles

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.

OTIA III Bridges

Highway

Streams and Rivers

County

City

Groundfish EFH (5th HUC)

Heads of Tide 2-mile Buffer

Heads of Tide Used for Screening

No Potential to Affect

Potential to Affect

State Boundary
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 6

7.3.1.1 Groundfish EFH Composites

The West Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (groundfish FMP) groups the various

EFH descriptions for the 82 managed groundfish species into seven units called “composite”

EFHs based on major habitat types. This approach focuses on ecological relationships among

species and between the species and their habitat. Three of the composites, Estuarine, Non-rocky

Shelf, and Rocky Shelf, are most susceptible to adverse impacts from non-fishing activities and

could be affected by the Bridge Program. Two additional composites have been proposed in the

draft revised appendix to the groundfish FMP (McCain 2003); one of these, the Intertidal Zone,

also could be affected by the Bridge Program and is included here.

Estuarine

The Estuarine Composite EFH are those waters, substrates and associated biological

communities within bays and estuaries of the EEZ, from mean higher high water level

(MHHW, which is the high tide line) or extent of upriver saltwater intrusion (greater than

0.5 ppt ocean-derived salt) seaward to the respective outer boundaries for each bay or

estuary as defined in 33 CFR 80.1 (Coast Guard lines of demarcation).

Non-rocky Shelf

The Non-rocky Shelf Composite EFH are those waters, substrates, and associated

biological communities living on or within 5.5 fathoms overlying the substrates of the

continental shelf, excluding the rocky shelf and canyon composites, from the high tide

line MHHW to the shelf break (~109 fathoms).

Rocky Shelf

The Rocky Shelf Composite EFH are those waters, substrates, and associated biological

communities living on or within 5.5 fathoms overlying rocky areas, including reefs,

pinnacles, boulders and cobble, along the continental shelf, excluding canyons, from the

high tide line MHHW to the shelf break (~109 fathoms). Habitats associated with the

rocky shelf composite include kelp forests.

Intertidal Zone

The Intertidal Zone is between high tide (MHHW) and low tide (MLLW).

Species of groundfish and life-stages with designated EFH in the action area are presented in

Tables 7.3.1-1, 7.3.1-2, 7.3.1-3, and 7.3.1-4.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 7

Table 7.3.1-1. Estuarine Groundfish.

Groundfish species/life history stages within the Estuarine Composite EFH in Oregon.

Note: table legend at bottom of page

Species Adults Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae Juveniles/Small Juveniles Large Juveniles

Big Skate NA NA

California Skate X X X NA X NA

Longnose Skate NA NA

Leopard Shark1 X X X NA X NA

Soupfin Shark X X X NA X NA

Spiny Dogfish X X NA X X

Cabezon X X X X X X

Finescale Codling NA

Kelp Greenling X X X X X X

Lingcod X X X X X X

Pacific Cod X X X X X NA

Pacific Rattail NA

Pacific Whiting (Hake) X X X X X NA

Sablefish X

Spotted Ratfish X X NA X NA

Arrowtooth Flounder NA

Butter Sole NA

Curlfin Sole NA

Dover Sole NA

English Sole X X X X X NA

Flathead Sole X NA

Pacific Sanddab X X X X NA

Petrale Sole NA
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 8

Table 7.3.1-1. (continued).

Species Adults Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae Juveniles/Small Juveniles Large Juveniles

Rex Sole X X NA

Rock Sole X X X X X NA

Sand Sole NA

Starry Flounder X X X X X NA

Aurora Rockfish

Bank Rockfish1

Black Rockfish X X

Black-and-yellow

Rockfish1

Blackgill Rockfish

Blue Rockfish

Bocaccio X X

Brown Rockfish X X X X X NA

Canary Rockfish

Chilipepper

China Rockfish NA

Copper Rockfish X X X X X X

Cowcod NA

Darkblotched Rockfish

Flag Rockfish

Gopher Rockfish1

Grass Rockfish1 NA

Greenspotted Rockfish NA
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 9

Table 7.3.1-1. (continued).

Greenstriped Rockfish NA

Harlequin Rockfish2

Longspine Thornyhead NA

Pacific Ocean Perch

Pink Rockfish1

Quillback Rockfish X X X X X X

Redbanded Rockfish NA

Redstripe Rockfish NA

Rosethorn Rockfish NA

Rosy Rockfish NA

Rougheye Rockfish NA

Sharpchin Rockfish NA

Shortbelly Rockfish

Shortraker Rockfish NA

Shortspine Thornyhead NA

Silverygray Rockfish NA

Speckled Rockfish1 NA

Splitnose Rockfish NA

Squarespot Rockfish1 NA

Stripetail Rockfish NA

Tiger Rockfish NA

Vermilion Rockfish NA

Widow Rockfish

Yelloweye Rockfish NA
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 10

Table 7.3.1-1. (continued).

Yellowmouth Rockfish NA

Yellowtail Rockfish

Table Legend:

X = The EFH for the particular species and life stage occurs within the EFH composite in Oregon.

Blank = The EFH for the particular species and life stage is not currently known to occur within the EFH composite

in Oregon, or insufficient information is currently available to identify its EFH.

NA = Not applicable

1absent from northern Oregon; 2absent from southern Oregon
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 11

Table 7.3.1-2. Non-rocky shelf groundfish

Groundfish species/life history stages within the Non-rocky Shelf Composite EFH in Oregon.

Note: table legend same as for Estuarine Composite.

Species Adults Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae Juveniles/Small

Juveniles Large Juveniles

Big Skate X X X NA X NA

California Skate X X X NA X NA

Longnose Skate X X X NA X NA

Leopard Shark1 X X X NA X NA

Soupfin Shark X X X NA X NA

Spiny Dogfish X X NA X

Finescale Codling NA

Lingcod X X

Pacific Cod X X X X NA

Pacific Rattail X X X NA

Pacific Whiting (Hake) NA

Sablefish X X

Spotted Ratfish X X X NA X NA

Arrowtooth Flounder X X X NA

Butter Sole X X NA

Curlfin Sole X X NA

Dover Sole X X X NA

English Sole X X X NA

Flathead Sole X X X NA

Pacific Sanddab X X X NA

Petrale Sole X X NA

Rex Sole X X X NA

Rock Sole X X X X NA
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 12

Table 7.3.1-2. (continued).

Species Adults Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae Juveniles/SmallJuveniles Large Juveniles

Sand Sole X X X NA

Starry Flounder X X X NA

Aurora Rockfish X X X

Bank Rockfish1 X X NA

Black Rockfish X

Blue Rockfish X

Bocaccio X X X

Brown Rockfish NA

Chilipepper X X X X

China Rockfish NA

Copper Rockfish X NA

Cowcod X NA

Darkblotched Rockfish X X X X

Gopher Rockfish1 X X NA

Grass Rockfish1 X NA

Greenspotted Rockfish X X X NA

Greenstriped Rockfish X X X NA

Longspine Thornyhead NA

Pacific Ocean Perch X X

Pink Rockfish1 X X NA

Quillback Rockfish X

Redbanded Rockfish X NA

Redstripe Rockfish NA
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 13

Table 7.3.1-2. (continued).

Rosethorn Rockfish X X NA

Rosy Rockfish NA

Rougheye Rockfish X X NA

Sharpchin Rockfish X X NA

Shortbelly Rockfish X X X

Shortraker Rockfish X NA

Shortspine Thornyhead X X NA

Silverygray Rockfish X NA

Speckled Rockfish1 NA

Splitnose Rockfish X X X NA

Squarespot Rockfish1 NA

Stripetail Rockfish X X X NA

Tiger Rockfish NA

Vermilion Rockfish X NA

Widow Rockfish X X X X X

Yelloweye Rockfish NA

Yellowmouth Rockfish NA

Yellowtail Rockfish X X X X X
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 14

Table 7.3.1-3. Rocky shelf groundfish.

Groundfish species/life history stages within the Rocky Shelf Composite EFH in Oregon.

Note: table legend same as for Estuarine Composite

Species Adults Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae Juveniles/Small

Juveniles Large Juveniles

Big Skate NA NA

California Skate NA NA

Longnose Skate NA NA

Leopard Shark X X X NA X NA

Soupfin Shark X X NA X NA

Spiny Dogfish X X NA X

Cabezon X X X X

Finescale Codling NA

Kelp Greenling X X X X

Lingcod X X X X

Pacific Cod NA

Pacific Rattail NA

Pacific Whiting (Hake) NA

Sablefish X

Spotted Ratfish X X X NA X NA

Arrowtooth Flounder NA

Butter Sole NA

Curlfin Sole NA

Dover Sole NA

English Sole X X X NA

Flathead Sole NA

Pacific Sanddab NA

Petrale Sole NA

Rex Sole NA
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 15

Table 7.3.1-3. (continued).

Species Adults Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae Juveniles/SmallJuveniles Large Juveniles

Rock Sole X X X X NA

Sand Sole NA

Starry Flounder NA

Aurora Rockfish X X

Bank Rockfish X X NA

Black Rockfish X X

Black-and-yellow

Rockfish X X NA

Blackgill Rockfish X

Blue Rockfish X X X X

Bocaccio X X X

Brown Rockfish X X X X NA

Canary Rockfish X X X

Chilipepper X X X

China Rockfish X X X NA

Copper Rockfish X X

Cowcod X X NA

Darkblotched Rockfish X X X X X

Flag Rockfish X X NA

Gopher Rockfish X X NA

Grass Rockfish X X X NA

Greenspotted Rockfish X X X NA

Greenstriped Rockfish X X X NA

Harlequin Rockfish X
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 16

Table 7.3.1-3. (continued).

Species Adults Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae Juveniles/SmallJuveniles Large Juveniles

Longspine Thornyhead NA

Pacific Ocean Perch X X X X X

Pink Rockfish X X NA

Quillback Rockfish X X X X

Redbanded Rockfish X NA

Redstripe Rockfish X X NA

Rosethorn Rockfish X X NA

Rosy Rockfish X X X NA

Rougheye Rockfish X NA

Sharpchin Rockfish X X X

Shortbelly Rockfish X X X

Shortraker Rockfish X NA

Shortspine Thornyhead NA

Silverygray Rockfish X X

Speckled Rockfish X X X NA

Splitnose Rockfish NA

Squarespot Rockfish X X X NA

Stripetail Rockfish X NA

Tiger Rockfish X NA

Vermilion Rockfish X X NA

Widow Rockfish X X X X X

Yelloweye Rockfish X X X NA

Yellowmouth Rockfish X X NA

Yellowtail Rockfish X X X X X
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 17

Table 7.3.1-4. Intertidal groundfish.

Groundfish species/life history stages found within the intertidal zone in Oregon

Note: table legend same as for Estuarine Composite

Species Adults

Spawning/

Mating

Eggs/

Parturition Larvae

Juveniles/Smal

l Juveniles

Large

Juveniles

Cabezon X

Black Rockfish X

Black-and-yellow

Rockfish1 X

Blue Rockfish X

Canary Rockfish X

Gopher Rockfish1 X

Grass Rockfish1 X

Shortbelly Rockfish X

Yellowtail Rockfish X

7.3.1.2 Life History Information

Life history information for groundfish species with EFH potentially affected by the Bridge

Program is presented below. Species using habitats in the Estuarine, Intertidal, or the inshore

areas of Rocky Shelf and Nonrocky Shelf EFH composites, at any life stage, are included.

Information in this section has largely been obtained from ODOT’s Draft EFH Analysis for the

ODOT Maintenance Programmatic Biological Assessment (Floyd 2003). Numeric references in

this section are contained in McCain (2003), cited within Floyd (2003) unless otherwise noted.

LEOPARD SHARK (Triakis semifasciata)

Range

Leopard sharks are found from southern Oregon to Baja California, Mexico including the

Gulf of California. The leopard shark reaches the northern extent of their range along the

southern Oregon coast. In Oregon, both adults and juveniles are found near the bottom

over a variety of substrates, from sandy bottoms to rocky reefs and kelp beds.

Habitat

A neritic species, the leopard shark is most abundant in California bays and estuaries and

along southern California beaches. Although they are common in enclosed, muddy bays,

other habitats of the leopard shark are flat, sandy areas, mud flats, and bottoms strewn

with rocks near rocky reefs or kelp beds. It is common in littoral waters and around jetties
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 18

and piers. It is also known to congregate around warmwater outfalls of power plants. The

leopard shark occurs in polyhaline (salt concentration between 18 and 30l) to euhaline

(salt concentrations of 30-40l) waters.

Leopard sharks are most common on or near the bottom in waters less than 13 feet deep,

but have been caught as deep as 300 feet. Estuaries and shallow coastal waters appear to

be used as pupping and feeding/rearing grounds. Neonate pups occur in and just beyond

the surf zone in areas of southern California, such as Santa Monica Bay.

Migrations and Movements

Leopard sharks often enter shallow bays and onto intertidal flats during high tides and

retreat on ebb tides. Leopard sharks are active during the day, unlike other nocturnal

sharks. They may form large nomadic schools that may be mixed with gray or brown

smooth hounds or spiny dogfish.

In Elkhorn Slough, most adult leopard sharks leave by June and return by October

whereas juveniles are most abundant there during the summer. Tagging studies in San

Francisco Bay show most leopard sharks reside in the bay during March-September, but

they also occur both inside and outside the bay from October-February.

Reproduction

Leopard sharks are gonochoristic, ovoviviparous, and iteroparous. Fertilization occurs

internally and embryogenesis occurs within the female; there is no yolk-sac placenta.

Leopard sharks have a gestation period of 10-12 months. Mating occurs soon after the

females give birth, primarily in April and May. Coitus occurs while swimming. Females

give birth to 7-36 pups from March-August.

Growth and Development

Young develop inside the mother but do not receive nourishment from her. Leopard

sharks are born as juveniles ranging in size from 7-8 inches at parturition. The maximum

recorded length of a leopard shark is 71 inches, but with a[n] average growth rate

estimated at 0.5 inch per year, most do not exceed 63 inches in length. Females may take

10-15 years to reach maturity, while males may only take 7-13 years. Maximum age is

reported to be 30 years.

Trophic Interactions

The leopard shark utilizes several major food sources without depending upon one, and

food preference is dependent upon the size of the shark. Juveniles and adults are

carnivorous, opportunistic, benthic and littoral feeders. Small sharks (<35 inches) in

Elkhorn Slough are known to feed almost entirely on crabs and in San Francisco Bay, on

crabs and shrimp, particularly of the genus Crangon (Floyd 2003). Leopard sharks 35-47

inches in length feed mostly on echiuroid worms (Urechis caupo). Sharks 47-51 inches

feed on crabs, clams, fishes, fish eggs, and Urechis caupo. Fishes make up the greatest

portion of food eaten by 51-55 inches long sharks. Leopard sharks also prey upon

polychaete worms and octopi and feed rapidly on the eggs of herring, topsmelt,

jacksmelt, and midshipmen when available. Presence of mud-burrowing prey in their diet
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 19

signifies that the leopard shark is feeding very close to or in the mud. The leopard shark

must display a sucking or digging behavior to remove clam siphons and Urecis caupo

from the mud.

In Elkhorn Slough, adult leopard sharks seasonally shift their diet preference. During the

fall, when fish eggs are not abundant, they feed more on clams and crabs. During the

winter and spring, the yellow shore crab decreases in importance whereas cancrid crabs,

fish eggs, and Urechis caupo increase as prey items. Leopard sharks do not compete for

food sources with neighboring shark species because their diets differ. The leopard shark

probably has no major predators except man and possibly other shark species.

Leopard shark Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are pelagic, commonly near the bottom, and occur from southern Oregon

southward, at depths <300 feet. Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf,

neritic

Mating Stage

During April and May, mating likely occurs within the known adult habitat from northern

California southward. Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, neritic

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are pelagic, commonly near the bottom, and occur from southern Oregon

southward, at depths <300 feet. Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf,

neritic

Parturition

During March to August, pupping occurs in estuaries and shallow coastal areas from

northern California southward. Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf,

neritic

The adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition stage of estuarine EFH, rocky shelf, non-rocky-shelf,

and neritic for leopard shark could be affected by bridge repair and replacement projects.

Estuarine EFH potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes muddy bays, flat, sandy

areas, mud flats, littoral waters, and jetties and piers.

SOUPFIN SHARK (Galeorhinus zyopterus)

Range

Soupfin sharks are found from northern British Columbia to Abreojos Point, Baja

California and the Gulf of California.

Habitat

Soupfin sharks are an abundant coastal-pelagic species of temperate continental and

insular waters. They are often associated with the bottom, inhabiting bays and muddy
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 20

shallows. Although the soupfin sharks are often found well offshore, they are not oceanic.

Although soupfin shark often occur in waters as shallow as 7 feet, they also occur in

submarine canyons up to 1,550 feet. The population of soupfin sharks along the western

Pacific Coast is considered to be homogeneous.

Males and females apparently segregate by sex. Adult males favor deeper waters,

whereas females occur closer inshore. The proportion of males is greater in northern

waters off California whereas females occur mostly in southern California waters with a

mix of sexes in central California waters. Young soupfin are abundant in southern

California waters, probably in association with the larger number of females there.

San Francisco Bay, Tomales Bay, and southern California inshore areas (south of Point

Conception) are used as pupping grounds.

Migrations and Movements

Soupfin sharks form dense shoals and has a coastwide movement that is not completely

understood. The soupfin migrates north in summer and southward in the winter. They

have extensive movements without recognizable patterns of up to 35 miles per day with

sustained speeds of 10 miles per day for 990 miles.

Reproduction

Mating occurs during the spring and fertilization is internal. Eggs grow to a size of 2

inches in diameter before they are hatched within the mother. There is no yolk-sac

placenta. After a gestation period of approximately 1 year, females move into bays to

bear their live young. Litter sizes range from 6-52 young and average 35. The number of

young depends on the size of the mother; larger females produce more young.

Growth and Development

Newborn soupfin range in size from 12-16 inches in length. Males mature at 47-67 inches

while females mature at 50-73 inches in length. Males can reach a maximum length of

60-70 inches and females can grow to 70-77 inches. Estimated age of maturity and

maximum age are reported as 12 and 40 years, respectively.

Trophic Interactions

Soupfin sharks are opportunistic, carnivorous feeders. They feed at the bottom, middepths, and at the surface. Diversity of pelagic and bottom-living prey indicates soupfin

will pursue food where available. Soupfin feed primarily on moderate-sized bony fishes

but also readily feed on invertebrates. Young may consume more invertebrate prey than

adults.

Prey items include: herring, sardines and other clupeids, anchovies, salmon, smelt, hake,

cod, lingcod, midshipmen, flying fish, mackerel and small tuna, barracuda, croakers,

wrasses, opaleye, surfperches, damselfishes, gobies, kelp fish, halibut and other

flatfishes, rockfishes and scorpionfish, sculpins, sablefish, cephalopods, marine snails,

crab, shrimp, annelid worms, echinoderms, and uncommonly other chondrichthyians
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 21

such as ratfish, sharks, and small stingrays and skates. Predators include the spotted

sevengill shark, the great white shark, marine mammals, and man.

Soupfin Shark Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are pelagic and occur all along the west coast at depths from 7-1,550 feet.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, neritic, oceanic

Mating Stage

During the spring, mating occurs in adult habitat, mainly off California.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, neritic, oceanic

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are pelagic and occur within the adult habitat.

Composities: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, neritic, oceanic.

Parturition

Females release young during the spring in bays and inshore areas.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf, neritic

Adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition stage of estuarine EFH for soupfin shark could be

affected by the Bridge Program. Estuarine EFH potentially affected by the Bridge Program

includes muddy shallows and bottom habitat of bays and estuaries.

The adult, mating, and juvenile stage of rocky shelf EFH for soupfin shark could be affected by

the Bridge Program such as slope/bank stabilization, bridge repair, scour repair, concrete work,

and temporary bridges.

The adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for soupfin shark

could be affected by the Bridge Program such as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, bridge

repair, scour repair, pile replacement, concrete work, access roads, stockpiling, temporary

detours, temporary bridges, and staging.

SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias)

Range

Spiny dogfish are found in temperate and subarctic latitudes in both the northern and

southern hemispheres. In the northern and central Pacific Ocean, they occur from the

Bering Sea to Baja California.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 22

Habitat

For the North Pacific and Bering Sea, Allen and Smith report that the spiny dogfish is an

inner shelf-mesobenthal species with a depth range of 0-2,950 feet. From survey data,

they determined that most dogfish inhabit waters <1,150 feet. They occur from the

surface and intertidal areas to greater depths [12, 23, 57, 189, 260], and are common in

estuaries, such as San Francisco Bay [76] and Puget Sound [12], and in shallow bays

from Alaska to central California [81]. Females move inshore to release their young [148,

260].

Adult females move inshore to shallow waters during the spring to release their young

[148, 260]. Small juveniles (<10 years old) are neritic while subadults and adults are

mostly sublittoral-bathyal [260]. Subadults are found on muddy bottoms when not found

in the water column [260]. Spiny dogfish may occur in waters as deep as 3,280 feet, but

occur more commonly at depths less than 1,150 feet [23, 57, 189, 260]. They also inhabit

the mesobenthal (outer slope) zone [12]. Known physical and chemical requirements are

euhaline waters of 3.7-15.6EC, with a preferred range of 43-52° F [260]. In southern

California, spiny dogfish are often found in close association with white croaker [57, 83,

260].

Migrations and Movements

Dogfish often migrate in large schools, which feed avidly on their journeys [23].

Seasonal migrations are taken so as to stay in the preferred temperature range [57].

Schooling behavior occurs with inshore populations and with migratory offshore

populations [81]. The schools, numbering in the hundreds, exhibit north-south coastal

movements and onshore-offshore movements that are not completely understood [57, 83,

189]. The schools tend to divide up according to size and sex although the young, both

male and female, tend to stay together [83, 260].

Spiny dogfish can travel long distances. In one instance a tagged dogfish from Queen

Charlotte Sound in 1980 was recovered off the northeast coast of Japan in 1982 [83, 234].

They also make diel migrations from near bottom during the day to near surface at night

[260].

Reproduction

Mating with internal fertilization occurs on the ocean bottom between October and

January [147, 155, 260]. Spiny dogfish are ovoviviparous. Fecundity is 1-26 eggs per

female, per season [57, 81, 147, 260]. Males mate annually and females mate biannually

[147, 260]. Their gestation period lasts 18-24 months (usually 23 months), the longest of

any vertebrate [23, 147, 256, 260, 301]. Females release their young during the spring in

shallow waters.

Growth and Development

Small litters (4-7 pups) are common, but litter size may range from 2-20 pups. Newborn

pups range in length from 8 to 9 inches [57, 147, 155, 189, 260]. Females reach sexual

maturity at 23-35 years [345] and males reach maturity at 11-19 years. The maximum age
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 23

of females is about 70 years [345]. Females live longer than males, which only live to a

maximum of 36 years [23, 57, 81, 83, 147, 155, 189, 234, 260].

Spiny dogfish seem to be larger at the northern end of their range. Adults usually range in

size from 30-40 inches, although they may reach a maximum size of 50 inches (22

pounds) [12, 23, 260]. Their growth rate is 0.5-1.5 inches per year [57, 76].

Trophic Interactions

They are carnivorous and occasionally scavengers [260]. They are an opportunistic

feeder, taking whatever is available. They are important predators on many commercial

fishes and invertebrates [260]. Their diet consists primarily of fish and crustaceans,

especially sandlance, herrings, smelts, cods, capelin, hake, ratfish, shrimps, and crabs.

Fish become a more important dietary source as they grow larger [57, 83, 148, 260].

Other food items include worms, krill, squid, octopus, jellyfish, algae, and any carrion

[23]. Although most of their diet consists of pelagic prey, they also feed on benthic

organisms [260]. They are voracious predators that can be quite aggressive in pursuit of

prey [57, 81, 83, 148].

Based on occurrences, 55% of the diet of dogfish off British Columbia was teleosts, 35%

crustaceans, and five percent molluscs. The principal food items consisted of herring and

euphausids [148]. Pelagic prey consisted of 80% of their diet and they consumed twice as

much food in the summer as in the winter [148, 260].

Spiny dogfish may compete with sablefish, Pacific cod, soupfin shark, and sea lions

[260]. They have few natural predators, except blue and tiger sharks and some marine

mammals. For defense, it possesses a strong spine in front of its two dorsal fins that is

partially sheathed by toxic tissue.

Spiny Dogfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults occur throughout the water column, often near the bottom, all along the west

coast, commonly at depths <1,150 feet.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental shelf/basin,

neritic, oceanic

Mating Stage

From October through January, mating occurs all along the west coast, near the bottom at

depths from 490-1,310 feet.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental shelf/basin

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles occur throughout the water column, often near the bottom, all along the

west coast, commonly at depths 660< feet.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 24

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, neritic

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles are pelagic all along the west coast, commonly at depths <330 feet.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Parturition Stage

Females release their young all along the west coast during the spring in shallow, inshore

waters, usually at depths <330 feet.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf

The adult, large juvenile, small juvenile, and parturition stages of estuarine, rocky shelf, and nonrocky shelf EFH for spiny dogfish could be affected by the Bridge Program. Estuarine EFH

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes intertidal areas and muddy bottoms of

estuaries and shallow bays. Non-rocky shelf EFH for spiny dogfish potentially affected by the

Bridge Program includes muddy bottoms in intertidal areas.

CALIFORNIA SKATE (Raja inornata)

Range

California skates range from the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Canada south to Cedros Island,

central Baja California, Mexico. California skates are primarily found off the southern

Oregon coast southward, but can occasionally occur throughout the area covered by this

EFH analysis. They are associated with shallow bays, estuaries, and inshore muddy

bottoms.

Fishery

Coastal trawl fleets account for the majority of the commercial catch off the west coast,

although some are caught by trammel nets in California and longlines in Puget Sound.

Only the pectoral fins, or "wings," are bought commercially. Skates are caught

incidentally in fisheries for sole and rockfish. In California, the leading areas for skate

landings are San Francisco and Monterey [212].

Habitat

The California skate is common off most of the California coast [315], as well as inshore

and in shallow bays (60 feet of water or less) [81, 212]. The California skate has been

taken as deep as 2,200 feet [81, 212]. California skates typically inhabit inshore muddy

bottoms [315]. Egg cases are deposited on the bottom [120].

Migrations and Movements

Little is known about the movements of skates [212].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 25

Reproduction

California skates, like other skates, are oviparous, have internal fertilization, and deposit

their eggs on the bottom to develop and hatch [120]. When the eggs are laid, they are

done so in a distinctive leathery case [315]. The egg case of California skates is smooth

with horns [81]. When the eggs hatch, the young are fully developed although they do

have a yolk sac that is gradually absorbed [368].

Growth and Development

Skates are long-lived creatures that grow and mature slowly [368]. Their lifespan is

estimated at 20-30 years [368]. Females and males reach sexual maturity at

approximately 20 inches in length and attain a maximum TL of 30 inches [212].

Trophic Interactions

The California skate feeds on shrimps and probably other invertebrates.

California Skate Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur primarily off southern Oregon through Central California,

at depths <2,220 feet, commonly associated with inshore muddy bottom,

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

Mating likely occurs within the adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are demersal and likely occur within the adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Egg Stage

Egg cases are deposited on the bottom in the adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

The adult stage, mating stage, juvenile stage, and egg stage of estuarine and non-rocky shelf EFH

for California skate could be affected by bridge repair and replacement projects. Estuarine EFH

for California skate potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes muddy bottoms of

shallow bays and estuaries. Non-rocky shelf EFH for California skate potentially affected by the

Bridge Program includes inshore muddy bottoms.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 26

CABEZON (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus)

Range

Cabezon are found in southeast Alaska to as far south as central Baja California [114,

240, 263]. Cabezon occur throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis.

Habitat

Cabezon are abundant all year in estuarine and subtidal areas, as well as to mid-depths

along the continental shelf. Eggs, large juveniles and adults are demersal; larvae and

small juveniles are pelagic and planktivorous [263]. Larvae have been found offshore as

far as 200 miles [263]. Juveniles and adults reside primarily in shallow water bays and

estuarine areas [114, 221]. Off Washington, adults are found as deep as 262 feet, but are

most common intertidally to 82 feet [221].

Off Washington and Oregon, cabezon occur only infrequently at depths over 164 feet.

However, off California, cabezon are found in moderate to great abundance in the waters

along the inner shelf. Cabezon are most abundant in estuaries of the west coast, where all

life stages can be found. Eggs and larvae are found there from winter through spring

[332]. Eggs, juveniles and adults are not reported to occur far offshore. However,

neustonic planktivorous larvae have been reported as far from shore as 200 miles [263,

332]. Cabezon are found intertidally or in shallow, subtidal areas on a variety of habitats,

often in the vicinity of kelp beds, jetties, isolated rocky reefs or pinnacles, and in shallow

tide pools [395]. Rocky bottoms and cobble substrates are utilized most frequently.

Eelgrass beds and occasionally sandy bottoms are used [181, 219, 263]. Adults tend to

move to somewhat deeper waters with increased size [263]. Females in Puget Sound are

rarely found deeper than 30 feet [181]. Wilson-Vandenberg [395] reported that cabezon

spawn their eggs on subtidal, algae-free rocky surfaces, which can be horizontal or

vertical in orientation.

Movements and Migrations

Adult cabezon are not known to make any significant migrations. A tag-recapture study

in Monterey Bay showed the cabezon to be residential [239]. Adults are known to move

inshore with a flood tide, and retreat offshore on an ebb tide [239, 263]. Planktivorous

larvae can be carried great distances by offshore oceanic currents. Wilson-Vandenberg

[395] reported that cabezon spend most of their time sitting in holes on reefs, in pools, or

on kelp blades beneath the canopy, but not actively swimming.

Reproduction

Egg masses are fertilized externally. The spawning season runs from late October to

March and peaks in January in southern California [263], and is from November to early

May in Puget Sound, peaking in March [180]. Cabezon spawn more than once per year,

so absolute fecundity is not known. Cabezon males build and guard nests, and more than

one female may spawn in the same male's nest. Batch fecundity of a 17-inch female is

approximately 48,700 eggs. Based on estimated weight to batch fecundity relationships, a

5.5-pound female had an estimated 62,000 viable oocytes, whereas a 14-pound female

contained an estimated 154,000 viable oocytes [180, 221].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 27

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are adherent and 0.06-0.07 inches in diameter [181]. Eggs hatch in 12-16

days [263]. Larvae are 0.2-inch long with a yolk sac, which is absorbed by 0.4 inch [263].

These small juveniles are planktonic and settle out to the bottom at about 2.6 inches

[181].

Male cabezon mature at 2-3 years and 9-12 inches. Females grow faster, larger and live

longer than do males. Females mature at 3-5 years and 12-16 inches [197]. Cabezon may

reach an age of more than 20 years [395].

Trophic Interactions

Larvae are planktivorous. Juveniles and adults are carnivorous, feeding opportunistically

[114]. Larvae eat copepods, barnacle larvae, fish larvae, and fish eggs [114, 181, 221,

263]. Cannibalism of eggs and newly hatched larvae may be very high among the larvae.

Newly metamorphosed juveniles eat amphipods and small shrimps. At 6 inches, cabezon

begin to prey on crabs, which become the dominant crustacean in the cabezon diet

thereafter [263]. In southern California, cabezon prey heavily on abalone [197].

Cabezon eggs, though toxic to humans, are eaten by scalyhead sculpin, striped surfperch

and pile perch [181, 221]. Juveniles and adults may be preyed on by other rocky reef

fishes like lingcod.

Cabezon Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur in estuaries and all along the west coast, at depths from 0-

80 feet, commonly associated with kelp beds, jetties, rocky reefs and pinnacles.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs from late fall through late spring in estuaries and all along the west

coast at depths <100 feet on rocky substrates.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles are demersal and occur in the adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles are pelagic and occur in estuaries and probably over the shelf and slope.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic, intertidal (draft)
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 28

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and occur in estuaries, over the shelf and slope.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

Eggs are deposited from late fall to late spring on rocky substrates in estuaries and along

the west coast at depths <87 feet.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

The juvenile/small juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for cabezon could be affected by ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities.

The adult stage, spawning stage, small juvenile stage, large juvenile stage, egg stage, and larval

stage of estuarine EFH for cabezon could be affected by all ODOT replacement and repair

activities. Estuarine EFH potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes shallow water bays

and estuaries with cobble and rocky substrates, intertidal pools with hard bottoms, eelgrass beds,

sandy bottoms, and jetties.

The adult, spawning, large juvenile and egg stages of rocky shelf EFH for cabezon could be

affected by ODOT bridge activities such as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, culvert repair

or removal, shoulder repair, bridge repair, scour repair, concrete work, and temporary bridges.

Rocky shelf EFH for cabezon potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes intertidal

waters, shallow, subtidal areas including isolated rocky reefs or pinnacles, shallow tide pools,

rocky bottoms, cobble substrates, and subtidal, algae-free rocky surfaces.

KELP GREENLING (Hexagrammos decagrammus)

Range

Kelp greenling are relatively common all along the west coast of North America from the

Gulf of Alaska to southern California. They are not commonly found south of Point

Conception, California [94, 114, 152, 197]. Kelp greenling occur throughout the area

covered by this EFH analysis. Larvae and small juveniles are pelagic. Other life stages

are demersal and show a high affinity for rocky banks near dense algae or kelp beds, or in

kelp beds (Garrison and Miller 1982). Adults, spawning adults, and large juveniles are

most abundant in estuaries, and adults often live their whole lives in estuaries (Hart

1973).

Habitat

Adults, spawning adults, and large juveniles are most abundant in estuaries, and adults

often live their whole lives in estuaries [94, 97, 114, 250]. Eggs are demersal and found

subtidally [94]. Larvae and small juveniles are pelagic [97, 114, 221]. Large juveniles are

demersal [221]. Adults are demersal and not commonly found below 66 feet [197],

although they may range down to 171 feet [135]. In Puget Sound, adults are most
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 29

abundant between 23 and 39 feet and male kelp greenling are found an average of 10 feet

deeper than females [94].

Adults inhabit rocky reefs of shallow nearshore areas. Kelp greenling show a very high

affinity to rocky banks near dense algae or kelp beds, or in kelp beds [94, 97, 114, 152,

197, 221, 250]. Larvae and small juveniles are found in the upper 148 feet of the water

column in spring and summer [152, 221], and may be found up to 600 miles offshore [94,

97].

For Puget Sound, Patten [276] found that kelp greenling adults, spawning adults, eggs

and large juveniles prefer water temperatures between 48° F and 55° F, and favorable

salinities were 27.5-29.9 ppt. Larvae and small juveniles experience accelerated growth

in the warmer surface waters of the open ocean. Eggs will not hatch and many die when

held at 72° F for 10 minutes. Larvae were torpid after 10 minutes at 68° F [276]. Allen, et

al., [10] observed that kelp greenling showed a stronger affinity to habitat than to

temperature; that is, rocky reefs, kelp beds and algae in water below 48° F or above 55° F

is favored to sandy, muddy, or silty substrates in waters between 48° F and 55° F.

Migrations and Movements

Adult kelp greenling are not a migratory species. Matthews [221] reported that most

adults are in 43 feet of water or less all year round, which inhibits migration. Moulton

[250], in a series of dives in northern Puget Sound, found no changes in kelp greenling

density, indicating that no individuals were leaving or entering the study area. However,

newly hatched larvae move out of estuaries or shallow nearshore areas and into open

waters [94, 97]; this migration may take up to a year [94].

Reproduction

Kelp greenling are oviparous with external fertilization [94]. Spawning occurs in the fall

in Puget Sound, peaking in October and November [94, 250]. In the Gulf of Alaska,

spawning is earlier in the fall, and Love [197] found that kelp greenling in California

waters spawn in late fall to early winter.

Male and female kelp greenling mature at 3-5 years [197, 221]. The maximum age is 16

years [135].

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are laid on or between rocks, or in algae beds and guarded by males.

Incubation time is estimated at about 20 days, because Garrison and Miller [94] reported

newly hatched larvae were found in the water column in early December. Larvae are

approximately 0.3 inch at hatching [97, 114, 250]. Larvae immediately move to open seas

for about one year, and return as demersal juveniles. Female kelp greenling grow faster

and larger than do males [197].

Kelp greenling are approximately 2 inches after one year [97]. Age at maturity for both

sexes is 3-5 years. Love [197] observed that a typical 10-inch specimen is 6-9 years old.

Kelp greenling may reach 21 inches and 12 years of age [114, 197].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 30

Trophic Interactions

Pelagic kelp greenling larvae and juveniles feed on copepods and copepod nauplii,

amphipods, brachyuran larvae, euphausiids and larval fish [97, 114]. Adult kelp greenling

feed on just about anything present, with preferences for shrimps, crabs, worms, octopi,

brittle stars, snails, and small fishes [197].

Eggs are preyed on heavily by other kelp greenling, other closely related species, and by

the male guarding the egg mass. Larval kelp greenling are eaten by pelagic fishes like

salmon and steelhead, and marine birds [114]. Adults are eaten by spiny dogfish, lingcod

and other hexagrammids [114]. Kelp greenling compete very closely for preferred habitat

and food with other fishes of the rocky reef assemblage.

Kelp Greenling Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur mainly from central California northward in estuaries and

coastal areas <171 feet, commonly associated with rocky substrates and kelp.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs during the fall, probably in adult habitats.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Large Juveniles

Large juveniles are demersal and occur within adult habitats.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Small Juveniles

Small juveniles are pelagic and occur in the upper 148 feet of the water column, mainly

from northern California northward.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and occur in the upper 148 feet of the water column, mainly from

northern California northward.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

In the fall, eggs are deposited on rocky substrates in the adult habitats.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 31

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

The adult, spawning, large juvenile, small juvenile, larval, and egg life stages of estuarine EFH

for kelp greenling could be affected by all ODOT bridge activities. Estuarine EFH for kelp

greenling potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sand, mud, or silt substrates in

estuaries.

The adult, spawning, large juvenile, and egg stages of rocky shelf EFH for kelp greenling could

be affected by ODOT bridge activities such as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, culvert

repair or removal, shoulder repair, bridge repair, scour repair, concrete work, and temporary

bridges. Rocky shelf EFH for kelp greenling potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes

rocky reefs of shallow nearshore areas and rocky banks near dense algae or kelp beds.

LINGCOD (Ophiodon elongatus)

Range

Lingcod occur from Baja California to Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Highest

densities are found from Point Conception, California to Cape Spencer, Alaska [240,

295]. Adults are most abundant from intertidal to 1,000 feet water depth, occurring in the

shallower depths from central California northward. Juveniles occur to at least 656 feet,

and move deeper with age.

Lingcod occur throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis and are associated with

estuaries, rocky reefs and banks, and seaweed, kelp and eelgrass beds (Emmett et al.

1991, NOAA Fisheries 1990). Eggs, young larvae, older juveniles, and adults are

demersal while very young juveniles and older larvae are epipelagic (Allen and Smith

1988, Phillips and Barraclough 1977, Miller and Geibel 1973). Spawning occurs from the

intertidal zone to 98 feet deep, over rocky reefs with swift current. Juveniles prefer sandy

substrates in subtidal zones and estuaries (Shaw and Hassler 1989). Oil and other

petrochemical spills may reduce lingcod populations (Shaw and Hassler 1989). Estuarine

dredging may alter natural open-sand rearing areas (Buckley et al. 1984).

Adults are common in Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Juveniles are common in most large

estuaries between Puget Sound and San Pedro Bay, California. Larvae are common in

Coos Bay. Eggs and larvae occur in nearshore areas from winter through late spring.

Small juveniles settle in estuaries and shallow waters all along the coast, but are more

common in northerly extents of the range. Juveniles prefer sandy substrates in subtidal

zones and estuaries.

Habitat

In the North Pacific, lingcod occupy the estuarine-mesobenthal zone, occurring from

intertidal areas to 1,560 feet [12]. Older larvae and very young juveniles are epipelagic,

primarily found in the upper 10 feet of the water column [295] in waters <492 feet. Off

California, pelagic juveniles occur in the upper 115 feet of surface waters [5]. Eggs,

young larvae, older juveniles, and adults are demersal [12, 260, 331]. Spawning generally

occurs in waters 10-33 feet below mean lower low water over rocky reefs in areas of
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 32

swift current [1, 5, 95, 96, 171]. Adults, spawning adults and eggs are common in Puget

Sound, Hood Canal, and Skagit Bay in Washington and Humboldt Bay in California.

Adults are also common in Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Juveniles are common in most large

estuaries between Puget Sound and San Pedro Bay, California. Larvae are common in

most Washington estuaries, as well as Coos Bay, Oregon and throughout San Francisco

Bay, California [77]. Eggs and larvae occur in nearshore areas from winter through late

spring. Small juveniles settle in estuaries and shallow waters all along the coast, but are

more common in northerly extents of the range. Juveniles move to deeper waters as they

grow, but are still most common in waters <492 feet.

Adults prefer two main habitat types: slopes of submerged banks 33-230 feet below the

surface with seaweed, kelp and eelgrass beds that form feeding grounds for small prey

fish, and channels with swift currents that flow around rocky reefs that concentrate

plankton and plankton-feeding fish [77, 96, 260, 331].

Eggs masses are found in association with rocky reefs [95, 96]. Egg masses are usually

found wedged in rock crevices or under overhanging boulders in areas with currents 70

miles per hour or greater to maintain interstitial oxygen levels in the center of the mass

[88, 95, 114, 239]. Egg masses are also often located on rocky ledges with an opening

directly behind the eggs to allow water to pass over the nest [5].

Juveniles prefer sandy substrates in subtidal zones and estuaries [77, 88, 114, 260, 331].

All life history stages occur in polyhaline to euhaline waters (18-30+ ppt) that are

between 5-15EC, although juveniles may also be found in mesohaline waters (5-18 ppt)

[77, 260, 331]. Aggregations of territorial males form to spawn in late fall to early spring,

depending on latitude. Egg masses are laid in rock crevices and under rock ledges in

water from intertidal depth to at least 410 feet. Males guard nests during egg incubation

(5 weeks to 11 weeks). Pelagic larvae and young juveniles occur near the surface in

nearshore waters; older juveniles settle to a variety of benthic habitats including sand,

gravel, shell debris, and eelgrass beds in relatively shallow water (down to about 230

feet). Adult lingcod are mostly associated with rocks, although have been found over soft

bottom especially in deep water. Older juveniles and adults likely are sedentary, although

they seasonally migrate to shallow water to spawn. Some movement to at least 62 miles

has been noted. These movements are thought to be made largely by immature fish.

Migrations and Movements

Adult lingcod are considered a relatively sedentary species, but migrations greater than

62 miles have been reported [145, 219, 227, 338]. Long migrations were typically done

by sexually immature fish. Smith, et al., [338] found that tagged male lingcod can move

up to 1,640 feet/day and tagged females can move more that 3,280 feet/day. Jagielo [145]

and Matthews [227] noted that fish in the San Juan Islands migrated from estuaries in a

general southwesterly direction to nearshore areas in spring, but this was mostly by

immature fish. Mature females live in deeper water than males and move from deep

water to shallow water in the winter to spawn [88, 114, 145, 171, 219, 227, 338].

Matthews [227] found that tagged lingcod move only at night.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 33

Mature males may live their whole lives associated with a single rock reef, possibly out

of fidelity to a prime spawning or feeding area [12, 298, 331]. Larvae are carried by tidal

currents into estuaries to rear. Larvae metamorphose in early summer, and juveniles rear

until winter before moving to deeper waters [219, 239].

Reproduction

Lingcod are oviparous, iteroparous and gonochoristic; fertilization is external [77, 94,

331]. Spawning takes place December through April. For the Humboldt Bay stock, peak

spawning is January-February; Yaquina Bay stocks peak from late January-early March;

in Washington (Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Skagit Bay), spawning peaks from FebruaryMarch [1, 94, 295, 298]. Fecundity of female fish ranges from about 40,000 (30-inch

fish) to about 500,000 (38-inch fish).

Lingcod achieve a maximum size of 5 feet and live to at least 20 years old. Females grow

faster and larger than males. Most females are sexually mature at 3 years old and 30

inches in length; males mature at 2 years and 20 inches. As with most other fishes,

fecundity of lingcod increases exponentially with age and size, from about 40,000 eggs

per 30-inch female to about 500,000 eggs per 38-inch female. Lingcod recruitment has

steadily declined from 1985 (Adams et al. 1999).

Growth and Development

Eggs are about 0.11 inch diameter when laid; they increase to 0.14 inch diameter after

being water-hardened [88, 95]. Egg masses are adherent and usually laid in rock crevices

or on rocky reefs [95, 96, 114, 171, 260]. Males guard the nest until hatching, usually

about six weeks [95, 171, 331]. Embryonic development is indirect and external.

Larvae hatch at 0.3-0.4 inch with a yolk sac and stay on the bottom until it is absorbed,

about 10 days. They then ascend into the water column. At 2-3 inches, they

metamorphose into juveniles and settle out of the water column [77, 88, 260, 331].

Juveniles are 2-30 inches TL, depending on sex [77, 114, 239, 295, 331].

In Humboldt Bay and San Francisco Bay, newly hatched larvae occur in January and

February. From March until June, lingcod larvae grow and transform into pelagic

juveniles, which are taken in pelagic trawls in the upper 115 feet of the surface waters

from April to June. After June, these juveniles disappear from surface waters and migrate

to bottom habitats, frequently around kelp and eelgrass beds [5].

Lingcod are about 11 inches at one year and 18 inches at two years. At this point, females

begin to grow faster than males. Males begin maturing at about 2 years and 20 inches,

whereas females mature at 3+ years and 30 inches. In northern extents of their range, fish

mature at an older age and larger size [77, 114, 219, 239, 331]. Maximum age is about 20

years [5].

Trophic Interactions

Larvae are zooplanktivores, feeding on all life stages of copepods, as well as small

amounts of amphipods, euphausiids, and decapod larvae [260]. Small demersal juveniles
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 34

prey upon copepods, shrimps and other small crustaceans. Larger juveniles shift to

clupeids and other small fishes [77, 260]. Adults feed primarily on demersal fishes

(including smaller lingcod), squids, octopi and crabs [114, 239, 331]. Lingcod are a

visual predator, feeding primarily by day. Eggs are eaten by gastropods, crabs,

echinoderms, spiny dogfish, and cabezon. Juveniles and adults are eaten by marine

mammals, sharks, and larger lingcod.

Lingcod Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur mainly from central California northward at depths <980

feet, commonly associated with rocky reefs and banks, often with seaweed, kelp or

eelgrass beds.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Spawning Adult Stage

From winter through spring and central California northward, spawning occurs from the

intertidal zone to 98 feet deep over rocky reefs in areas of swift current.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles are demersal and occur mainly from central California northward at

depths <492 feet, commonly associated with rocky reefs and banks, often with seaweed,

kelp or eelgrass beds.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles are pelagic and occur mainly from central California northward in surface

waters, at depths <115 feet, in estuaries and over the continental shelf <492 feet deep.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Larval Stage

After hatching and rising from the bottom, larvae are pelagic and occur mainly from

central California northward in surface waters, at depths <246 feet in estuaries and over

the continental shelf <492 feet deep.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Egg Stage

From winter through spring in nearshore areas <98 feet deep from central California

northward, eggs occur in nests deposited on the bottom, generally in association with

rocky reefs and swift currents.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 35

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

The adult, spawning adult, large juvenile, small juvenile, larval stage, and egg stage of estuarine

EFH for lingcod could be affected by all ODOT bridge activities. Estuarine EFH for lingcod

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes benthic habitats including open sand, gravel,

and shell debris, and eelgrass beds in relatively shallow water in estuaries.

The adult, spawning adult, large juvenile, and egg stages of rocky shelf EFH for lingcod could be

affected by ODOT bridge activities such as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, bridge repair,

concrete work, and temporary bridges. Rocky shelf EFH for lingcod potentially affected by the

Bridge Program includes intertidal and subtidal water over rocks and rocky reefs.

The adult and large juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for lingcod could be affected by

ODOT bridge activities such as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, bridge repair, scour

repair, pile replacement, concrete work, access roads, stockpiling, temporary detours, temporary

bridges, and staging. Non-rocky shelf EFH for lingcod potentially affected by the Bridge

Program includes sandy substrates in subtidal zones, and gravel, shell debris, and eelgrass beds

in relatively shallow water.

PACIFIC WHITING (PACIFIC HAKE) (Merluccius productus)

Range

Pacific hake of the coastal stock range from Sanak Island in the western Gulf of Alaska to

Magdalena Bay, Baja California Sur. They are most abundant in the California Current

System [21, 114, 197, 260]. There are three much smaller stocks with much smaller

ranges: a Puget Sound stock, a Strait of Georgia stock, and a dwarf stock limited to

waters off Baja California [22, 351].

Pacific whiting occurs throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis. Juveniles are

pelagic and utilize shallow bays, estuaries, and coastal waters (Dark and Wilkins 1994,

Bailey et al. 1982). Other life stages are pelagic and utilize deeper (131 – 1,640 feet)

offshore waters.

Habitat

The coastal stock of Pacific hake is migratory and inhabits the continental slope and shelf

within the California current system from Baja California to British Columbia [306].

Eggs and larvae of the coastal stock are pelagic in 130-460 feet of water [340]; adults are

epi-mesopelagic [22, 260, 363]. Juveniles reside in shallow coastal waters, bays, and

estuaries [20, 22, 66, 67, 72, 260, 328, 340]. Highest densities of Pacific hake are usually

between 164 and 1,640 feet, but adults occur as deep as 3,020 feet and as far offshore as

248 miles [21, 22, 67, 72, 114, 260, 351]. Spawning is greatest at depths between 426 and

1,640 feet [22, 260, 340].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 36

The Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia stocks live their whole lives in these estuaries

[235, 330]. Smith [340] recognizes three habitats utilized by the coastal stock of Pacific

hake: 1) a narrow 11,580 mile2

 feeding habitat near the shelf break of British Columbia,

Washington, Oregon and California populated 6-8 months per year; 2) a broad 115,830

mile2 open-sea area of California and Baja California populated by spawning adults in the

winter and embryos and larvae for 4-6 months; and 3) a continental shelf area of

unknown size off California and Baja California where juveniles brood. Eggs of the

Pacific hake are neritic and float to neutral buoyancy [20, 22, 260]. All life stages are

found in euhaline waters and at 48° F and 59° F [260].

Movements and Migrations

Coastal stocks spawn off Baja California in the winter, then the mature adults begin

moving northward and inshore, following food supply and Davidson currents [260]. Hake

reach as far north as southern British Columbia by fall. They then begin the southern

migration to spawning grounds and further offshore [22, 72, 340, 351]. Juveniles move to

deeper water as they get older [260]. Stocks in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound

undergo similar migration patterns, but on a greatly reduced scale [235, 330]. Hake

school at depth during the day, then move to the surface and disband at night for feeding

[235, 364, 369].

Reproduction

Pacific hake are oviparous with external fertilization. The coastal stock spawns from

December through March, peaking in late January [340]. In the Strait of Georgia,

spawning occurs from March through May and peaks in late April [30, 330]. In Puget

Sound, spawning occurs primarily during February through April, peaking in March

(Floyd 2003). Spawning aggregations begin to form up to a month before actual

spawning.

Hake may spawn more than once per season, so absolute fecundity is difficult to know.

Coastal stocks have 180-232 eggs/gram body weight, but Puget Sound and Strait of

Georgia stocks have only 50-165 eggs/gram body weight [214]. Bailey [21] estimated

that an 11-inch female had 39,000 eggs, while a 24-inch female had 496,000 eggs.

Growth and Development

Eggs are spherical and approximately 0.05 inch in diameter with a single oil droplet [22].

Embryonic development is indirect and external [260]. Hatching occurs in 5-6 days at

48° F-50° F and 4-5 days at 52-55° F [21, 128]. Larvae hatch at approximately 0.1 inch

total length [351, 363] with a yolk sac that is gone in 5-7 days [21]. Larvae

metamorphose into juveniles at 1.4 inch, typically in 3-4 months [128]. Juveniles range

from 1.4 to 16 inches depending on sex [22, 30, 128]. In Puget Sound and the Strait of

Georgia, female Pacific hake mature at 15 inches and 4-5 years [235]. Females of the

coastal stock mature at 3-4 years and 13-16 inches, and nearly all males are mature by 3

years and as small as 11 inches. Females grow more rapidly than males after four years;

growth ceases for both sexes at 10-13 years [22].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 37

Trophic Interactions

All life stages feed near the surface late at night and early in the morning [364]. Larvae

eat calanoid copepods, as well as their eggs and nauplii [235, 364]. Juveniles and small

adults feed chiefly on euphausiids [260]. Large adults also eat amphipods, squid, herring,

smelt, crabs, and sometimes juvenile hake [21, 67, 235, 260]. Eggs and larvae of Pacific

hake are eaten by pollock, herring, invertebrates, and sometimes hake. Juveniles are eaten

by lingcod, Pacific cod and rockfish species. Adults are preyed on by sablefish, albacore,

pollock, Pacific cod, marine mammals, soupfin sharks and spiny dogfish.

Pacific Whiting Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are pelagic and occur all along the west coast, mainly at depths from 164-1,640

feet and as far offshore as 248 miles. The Puget Sound stock is estuarine.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic.

Spawning Stage

From winter to spring, spawning occurs mainly off central and southern California at

depths from 426-1,640 feet. The Puget Sound stock spawns in the estuary.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are pelagic and occur at depths <656 feet in coastal waters, bays, and estuaries

all along the west coast.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and occur at depths from 131-459 feet.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

From winter to spring, eggs occur in the same habitat as larvae.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

The adult, spawning, juvenile, larval, and egg life stages of estuarine EFH for Pacific whiting

could be affected by all ODOT bridge activities. Estuarine EFH for Pacific whiting potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes shallow bays and estuaries.

The ODOT Bridge Assessment will have no effect on neritic EFH for Pacific whiting.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 38

SABLEFISH (Anoplopoma fimbria)

Range

Sablefish are very abundant in the north Pacific, from Honshu Island, Japan, north to the

Bering Sea, and southeast to Cedros Island, Baja California. Large adults are uncommon

south of point Conception [114, 197, 232, 233, 260]. Larvae and young juvenile sablefish

occasionally occur throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis. Larvae are

demersal until the yolk sac is absorbed, at which time they become pelagic. Small

juveniles are also pelagic. They are often found drifting in kelp (NOAA Fisheries 1990),

and are occasionally found in estuaries. Other life stages occur in deeper waters outside

the territorial sea boundary.

Habitat

In the North Pacific, sablefish is considered an inner shelf-bathybenthal species. Adults

are found as deep as 6,230 feet, but are most abundant between 656 and 3,280 feet [31,

151, 215]. In survey data for the North Pacific, nearly all sablefish were taken at depths

<2,300 feet [12]. However, off southern California, sablefish were abundant to depths of

4,920 feet [230]. Spawning takes place at depths greater than 984 feet [42, 101, 114,

215].

Sablefish eggs, larvae (after yolk sac is absorbed), and age-0 juveniles are pelagic

whereas older juveniles and adults are benthopelagic on soft bottoms. Eggs are usually

found deeper than 984 feet [114, 151, 215]. Eggs and newly hatched larvae are found in

these deep waters from January through March [101, 151, 215, 260]. Newly hatched

larvae are demersal until the yolk sac is absorbed [215]. At this time, larvae become

pelagic and rise to the neuston layer at the surface. Larvae and young juveniles are found

up to 230 miles offshore often near drifting kelp [260]. Small (age-0) juveniles inhabit

the upper 328 feet of the water column [230]. Larvae and small juveniles move inshore

after spawning and may rear here for up to four years [42, 215]. Older juveniles and

adults inhabit progressively deeper waters. Sablefish are an important groundfish over

soft substrates in deep marine waters [197]. Adults and large juveniles commonly occur

over sand and mud [232, 260]. They were also reported on hard-packed mud and clay

bottoms in the vicinity of submarine canyons [230].

The preferred salinity range of spawning adults is between 33.7l -34.5l [215, 260],

although eggs and larvae were occasionally found in less saline waters [260]. The optimal

temperature range for egg incubation was 39-44° F [215]. The temperature range for

larvae and epipelagic juvenile growth was found to range between 42-62° F and 53-62°

F, respectively [151, 215, 260].

Migrations and Movements

Sablefish are not considered to be a migratory species, although some individuals have

been recorded as moving up to 1,700 miles. Sexually mature adults do not undergo any

spawning migration [31, 114, 215, 232]. Small juvenile sablefish descend to the bottom

during the fall and remain in relatively shallow water for about a year before moving into

deeper water [230]. Heifetz and Fujioka [116] reported that small fish move much more
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 39

than do large fish. Hart [114] recognized localized movement from shallow summer

waters to deeper waters in the winter.

Reproduction

Sablefish are oviparous with external fertilization [260]. Spawning occurs annually in the

late fall through winter in waters greater than 984 feet [114, 260]. Spawning occurs

increasingly later in the winter in southern waters [51, 260]. A 21-inch female (5-7 years)

may produce 100,000 eggs. A 39-inch female (10+ years) may produce as many as 1.3

million eggs [151, 215, 260].

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are spherical and about 0.08 inch in diameter [151, 197, 215, 233, 260].

Embryonic development is indirect and external; eggs hatch in about 15 days at 43° F

[215, 260]. Larvae hatch at about 0.2 inch and metamorphose at about 1.5 inch [114, 215,

260]. Juveniles join the benthic community after 1-2 years in a pelagic stage. Females

grow faster and larger and live longer than males. Age and size at maturity are difficult to

know because sablefish exhibit such a discontinuous growth rate. It was estimated that

50% of females are mature at 5-6 years and 24 inches, and 50% of males are mature at 5

years and 20 inches. However, McFarlane and Beamish [236] found that tagged sablefish

experienced significantly depressed growth, so length-age relationships may not be

accurate. The growth rate after reaching maturity slows to 0.07-0.10 inch/year for males,

and 0.22-0.26 inch/year for females [233].

Trophic Interactions

Sablefish larvae prey on copepods and copepod nauplii. Copepod eggs provide

accelerated growth rates [101, 151, 260]. Pelagic juveniles feed on small fishes and

cephalopods, (mainly squids [114, 215]. Demersal juveniles eat small demersal fishes,

amphipods and krill [260]. Adult sablefish feed on fishes like rockfishes and octopus

[114, 232].

Larvae and pelagic juvenile sablefish are preyed heavily upon by sea birds and pelagic

fishes. Juveniles are eaten by Pacific cod, Pacific halibut, lingcod, spiny dogfish, and

marine mammals, such as Orca whales [51, 114, 197, 215, 260]. Sablefish compete with

many other co-occurring species for food, mainly Pacific cod and spiny dogfish.

Sablefish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are benthopelagic (associated with the bottom, but often farther off the bottom

than most demersal species) all along the west coast. They mainly occur at depths <4,920

feet and are commonly associated with soft bottoms, although they also associate with

pinnacles.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, rocky shelf, canyons, continental slope/basin
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 40

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs from fall through winter in waters from 984-2,300 feet.

Composites: continental slope/basin

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles are benthopelagic and occur at depths from 328-656 feet over soft

bottom.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, canyon

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles are pelagic and occur at depths <328 feet in the water column over the

shelf and slope, and occasionally in estuaries.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Larval Stage

Larvae are demersal until the yolk sac is absorbed, then they become pelagic at depths

<328 feet, up to 230 miles offshore.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

From fall through winter, eggs occur at depths <2,300 feet in the water column over the

continental slope/basin.

Composites: oceanic

The small juvenile stage estuarine EFH for sablefish could be affected by all ODOT bridge

activities. The adult and large juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for sablefish could be

affected by ODOT bridge activities such as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, scour repair,

pile replacement, concrete work, access roads, stockpiling, temporary detours, temporary

bridges, and staging. Non-rocky shelf EFH for sablefish potentially affected by the Bridge

Program includes soft sand and mud substrates.

The adult stage rocky shelf EFH for sablefish could be affected by ODOT bridge activities such

as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, culvert repair or removal, shoulder repair, bridge

repair, scour repair, concrete work, and temporary bridges.

SPOTTED RATFISH (Hydrolagus colliei)

Range

Ratfish are found from Cape Spencer in southeast Alaska to Sebastian Vizcaino Bay,

Baja California, and in the northern part of the Gulf of California [12, 240]. Ratfish occur

all along the Oregon coast. They are generally a deepwater species, usually found from
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 41

164 to 1,310 feet. They prefer low relief rocky bottoms, including gravel and cobble

(Allen 1982). In winter and spring, ratfish use shallow nearshore waters and estuaries for

feeding and mating (Quinn et al. 1980). In summer and fall, ratfish move offshore into

deep waters where egg cases are most commonly deposited (Johnson and Horton 1972).

Habitat

In the North Pacific, ratfish are considered a middle-shelf-mesobenthal species and have

been reported at depths of 0-2,990 feet [12]. In survey data, they most frequently occur

between 328-492 feet, with nearly all taken at depths of 164-1,310 feet [12]. Ratfish are a

common demersal fish in larger estuaries throughout its range, especially from early

winter to late spring [197, 304]. It is believed that ratfish enter estuaries to feed and mate

[69]; they do not occur as often in estuaries in summer and fall [304]. In Puget Sound,

ratfish often occur in less than 33 feet of water, depending on the time of day and season

[304]. All free-swimming life history stages share essentially the same habitat; there is no

partitioning by age or size [69].Generally, ratfish is a deepwater species that prefers low

relief rocky bottoms [11]. Ratfish also prefer exposed gravel and cobble as a habitat and

are not common on sand or over boulders [11]. Eggs are attached by the mother to rocks,

or placed upright in the sand [69, 114, 146] in polyhaline to euhaline waters. In the

summer and fall, ratfish move offshore into deep waters. It is in these deep waters that

egg cases are most often deposited [69, 146].

Migrations and Movements

Although they are poorly understood, it is known that ratfish make significant seasonal

and diel migrations [197, 218, 304]. In the winter, ratfish move into shallow nearshore

waters and estuaries, probably for feeding and pre-spawn mate selection [146, 218, 304].

In Puget Sound and other estuaries, ratfish move from deep water by day to much

shallower water at night. This diel migration is undertaken mostly by smaller fish,

suggesting it is preferred feeding ground for young ratfish, or a means of predator

avoidance [304]. Quinn [304] suggested that the migrations are completed to regulate

ambient light conditions for ratfish because they have an all-rod retina and no means of

regulating the amount of light entering their eyes.

Reproduction

Ratfish are oviparous and fertilization is internal [69, 146, 197, 218]. Spawning occurs at

all times throughout the year, but seems to peak from late summer to early fall [69, 146].

Ratfish, regardless of size or age, produce only two egg cases per year [69].

Growth and Development

Fertilized egg capsules are elongate, diamond-shaped, and are about 5 inches long at

extrusion [114]. The egg case hangs by capsular filaments from the mother's oviducts for

4-6 days before being deposited on rocks or placed in sand where it completes

development and hatches [69, 114, 146, 197, 348, 397]. Full development of the egg may

take up to a year. Larval stages are completed in the egg, and the hatched ratfish

resembles a small adult [69]. Females grow faster and reach a larger mean size than do

males [218, 304]. Female ratfish may reach 38 inches in length [197].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 42

Trophic Interactions

Ratfish at all life history stages are opportunistic feeders; no one single food item usually

makes up more than 25% of a ratfish's diet [12, 114, 197, 304]. Common foods are

isopondylous fishes, mollusks, squid, nudibranchs, opisthobranchs, annelids, and small

crustaceans. On more than one occasion, a ratfish was found with a stomach full of

seaweed [69, 114, 197, 218, 304]. Off southern California, the most important prey were

brittle stars, ostracods and amphipods [11]. Ratfish seek their food by smell [114] and

weak electroreception in the pits on their heads [197]. Ratfish are in turn preyed upon by

Pacific halibut, soupfin shark, and spiny dogfish [114, 197, 218, 304]. Ratfish have been

recorded as being cannibalistic.

Spotted Ratfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur in estuaries and all along the west coast from 164-1,310

feet, commonly associated with low relief rocky bottoms and exposed gravel and cobble.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

Mating likely occurs within the adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are demersal and likely occur within the adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Egg Stage

Egg cases are deposited year round, on a variety of substrates offshore in deep water.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

The adult, mating, and juvenile life stages of estuarine EFH for spotted ratfish could be affected

by all ODOT bridge activities. Estuarine EFH for spotted ratfish potentially affected by the

Bridge Program includes exposed gravel.

The adult, mating, juvenile, and egg stages of rocky shelf EFH for spotted ratfish could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for spotted ratfish

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes rocky bottoms, rocks, and cobble.

The adult, mating, juvenile, and egg stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for spotted ratfish could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for spotted

ratfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sand and exposed gravel bottoms.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 43

BUTTER SOLE (Isopsetta isolepis)

Range

Butter sole are found from the south Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands south to Ventura,

Southern California [160, 240]. Butter sole is a demersal species that occurs throughout

the area covered by this EFH analysis, at depths less than 366 m. They are associated

with muddy or silty bottoms (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). Shallow waters off the Oregon

coast are important for benthic recruitment and early growth (Hogue and Carey 1982).

Larvae are pelagic and float in nearshore coastal waters (PFMC 1998b).

Habitat

Butter sole are common in shallow water, occasionally as deep as 1,200 feet [81] and are

found on muddy or silty bottoms [160]. They are usually found in coastal waters within

11 miles of shore [310]. They utilize shallow water off the Oregon coast as a site of

benthic recruitment and early growth [124]. Little information is available, but they do

occur in Puget Sound [310].

Migrations and Movements

No information.

Reproduction

Spawning takes place primarily in coastal areas rather than bays and estuaries and occurs

from winter to spring [310]. Spawning of butter sole occurs at the same time as English

sole. The young of these species avoid competition for habitat by segregating: butter sole

larvae move offshore and English sole larvae move into bays and estuaries [310]. Off

British Columbia, butter sole spawn at depths of 89-208 feet [188]. Their eggs are

planktonic, spherical and transparent [310]. The specific gravity of fertilized eggs is

1.0208-1.0219 [188]. Butter sole eggs sink at salinities less than or equal to 26.61‰

[310].

Growth and Development

Larvae and eggs are part of the zooplankton community. Either they float near-surface or

in the surface layer, or like most flatfish, control their specific gravity so as to float

somewhere below the surface [323]. Early and middle stage eggs of butter sole co-occur

with eggs of English sole, sand sole, and starry flounder [310]. Larvae are abundant in

nearshore coastal waters off Oregon and Washington in the winter and spring [310].

Butter sole transformation from larval to juvenile form takes place at 0.7 to 0.9 inch

[310]. Settling time is restricted to May-August over a broad depth range, 29-197 feet

[124]. Recently- transformed benthic individuals of butter sole are usually found offshore

for their first year of life rather than in the bay or nearshore habitats occupied by young

and juvenile English sole [310]. Butter sole adults can reach a maximum size of 22 inches

[160], but are usually less than 12 inches [81]. The maximum age of butter sole is 11

years [323].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 44

Trophic Interactions

Butter sole is a large-mouthed predator, feeding on elusive prey items, primarily fish and

shrimp [365]. Butter sole larger than 1.4 inch SL feed mainly on amphipods, cumaceans,

and decapods. Larger fish consume larger prey.

Butter Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur all along the west coast at depths <1,200 feet, on soft

bottoms.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs mainly from northern California northward at depths from 89-210 feet,

over soft bottom.

Composites: non-rocky shelf

Juvenile Stage

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and float in surface waters in nearshore coastal waters.

Composites: neritic

Egg Stage

Eggs are pelagic and float in surface waters over the continental shelf.

Composites: neritic

The adult and spawning stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for butter sole could be affected by

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for butter sole potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes soft muddy or silty bottoms.

CURLFIN SOLE (Pleuronichthys decurrens)

Range

Curlfin sole are found along the Pacific Coast of North America from the Bering Sea

south to San Quintin, Baja California [85, 160, 240, 261]. Curlfin sole is a demersal

species associated with soft bottoms (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). They are usually found in

waters shallower than 295 feet. Eggs are pelagic and occur in nearshore waters.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 45

Distribution in the EEZ

Curlfin sole have been taken between 23 and 1,740 feet [81], but most occur shallower

than 295 feet [85]. They are found on soft bottoms [81, 160].

Migrations and Movements

No information.

Reproduction

Transparent eggs have been noted in curlfin sole ovaries from November-June. They

spawn from late April-August [85]. Eggs are pelagic with specific gravity equal to that of

sea water [85]. The eggs are spherical ranging from 0.07-0.08 inch [362]. Each egg is

enclosed in a thin membrane which appears translucent because of a hexagonal pattern

throughout its thickness. The yolk is clear and transparent and contains no oil globule

[85].

Growth and Development

Curlfin sole eggs hatch in slightly less than 7 days (160 hrs) after fertilization [85].

Curlfin sole larvae are heavily pigmented, even at hatching [362]. Newly hatched larvae

measure 0.15 inch [85]. Of flatfishes, curlfin sole are the largest at hatching and attain the

largest size before transformation [362]. In laboratory experiments, the left eye begins to

migrate when larvae attain 0.4 inch SL, but had not completed migration in a larva 0.8

inch SL [362]. The maximum size of adult curlfin sole is 15 inches [81, 85, 160]. The

maximum weight of curlfin sole is 25 ounces [85]. As adults, females are generally larger

than male curlfin sole [85].

Trophic Interactions

Curlfin sole feed primarily on polychaete worms, nudibranchs or tectibranchs, crustacean

(possibly crab) eggs and brittle star fragments.

Curlfin Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur all along the west coast at depths from 125-1,150 feet,

associated with soft bottoms.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs from April-August, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Juvenile Stage

No information.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 46

Larval Stage

No information.

Egg Stage

Eggs are pelagic and occur in nearshore and sometimes far offshore.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

The adult and spawning life stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for curlfin sole could be affected by

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for curlfin sole potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes soft bottoms.

DOVER SOLE (Microstomus pacificus)

Range

Dover sole are distributed from the Navarin Canyon in the northwest Bering Sea and

westernmost Aleutian Islands to San Cristobal Bay, Baja California [109, 114, 260].

Dover sole is a demersal species associated with soft bottom substrates at depths from 33

to 1,800 feet (Allen and Smith 1988). Eggs and larvae are found in surface and

midwaters.

Habitat

Dover sole are a dominant flatfish on the continental shelf and slope from Washington to

southern California. In the North Pacific, they are regarded as an inner shelf-mesobenthal

species [12]. Adults are found from 30-4,760 feet, with highest abundance below 656-

984 feet. The majority inhabit waters <1,640 feet [12]. Spawning occurs in waters 262-

1,800 feet deep at or near the bottom [94, 109, 114, 283].

Eggs are epipelagic; larvae are epi-mesopelagic. Juveniles and adults are demersal [94].

Eggs are found primarily in the upper 164 feet of the water column [283]. Larvae are

found as deep as 1,970 feet, but the majority are found from the surface to 164 feet of

depth, and up to 522 miles offshore [94, 260, 283]. Juveniles are sublittoral-bathyal and

found from 328-2,300 deep; most are found >656 feet [114, 260]. Dover sole populations

spawn, rear, and grow in Puget Sound and off Vancouver Island, as well as other

estuaries along the west coast. Summer feeding grounds of offshore populations may be

in shallow-water estuaries and bays, often as shallow as 180 feet off British Columbia

[391]. Juveniles are often found in deep waters of the nearshore domain. Winter

spawning grounds are located as deep as 1,800 feet. Dover sole are an important flatfish

of soft-bottom marine and estuarine environments [260]. Adults and juveniles show a

high affinity toward soft bottoms of fine sand and mud. All life stages of Dover sole are

found in euhaline water at 39-60° F [260]. Egg and larval development was found to be

best at 46-50° F [94]. Spawning may occur at sub-zero temperatures.

Movements and Migrations

Dover sole are considered to be a migratory species. In the summer and fall, mature

adults and juveniles can be found in shallow-water feeding grounds. By late fall, the sole
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 47

begin moving offshore into deep waters (1,310 feet) to spawn. Westrheim and Morgan

[391] found the movements to be onshore-offshore in nature, with little coastal northsouth migration. Larvae are transported offshore and to nursery areas by ocean currents

and winds. Juvenile fish move into deeper water with age, and begin seasonal spawningfeeding migrations upon reaching maturity.

Reproduction

Dover sole are oviparous; fertilization is external. Spawning occurs from January-August

in the Gulf of Alaska, November-April off Oregon and California, and January-March in

Puget Sound [94, 114, 260, 283]. Dover sole are a batch spawner; total fecundity of a 17-

inch female is estimated at 52,000 eggs, whereas a 23-inch female was estimated to have

266,000 eggs [138, 403].

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs average 0.08-0.10 inch in diameter [283]. Embryonic development is

indirect and external. The eggs hatch in 40 days at 5EC; 24 days at 8EC; and 15 days at

54° F [48]. Larvae hatch at about 0.25 inch [260]. Metamorphosis may begin as early as

1.4-1.9 inches; however, larvae are planktonic for up to two years, and metamorphosis

may not begin until the sole has reached 4 inches [48, 114, 211, 373]. Settlement to

benthic living occurs mid-autumn to early spring off Oregon, and February-July off

California [211]. Juveniles grow to a size of 12-18 inches over the first four years of life

[138].

Trophic Interactions

Dover sole larvae eat copepods, eggs and nauplii, as well as other plankton. Juveniles and

adults eat polychaetes, bivalves, brittlestars and small benthic crustaceans. Dover sole

feed diurnally by sight and smell [67, 91, 114, 260].

Larvae are eaten by high seas pelagic fishes like albacore, jack mackerel and tuna, as well

as sea birds. Juveniles and adults are preyed upon by sharks, demersally feeding marine

mammals, and to some extent by sablefish [260]. Dover sole compete with various

eelpout species, rex sole, English sole, and other fishes of the mixed species flatfish

assemblage.

Dover Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults occur all along the continental shelf and slope at depths between 33 and 1,800 feet

on soft bottom, primarily sand, silt, or mud.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Spawning Adult Stage

From November through April, spawning adults occur from the northern border of the

EEZ to north of the Channel Islands, in offshore areas at depths between 262 and 1,800

feet on soft bottom, primarily sand, silt, or mud.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 48

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles occur all along the continental shelf and slope of the EEZ at depths between

328 and 2,300 feet on soft bottom, primarily sand, silt, or mud.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Larval Stage

Larvae occur all along the coast in surface and midwaters up to 1,640 feet deep and up to

522 miles offshore.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

From November through May, eggs occur all along the coast in surface and midwaters up

164 feet deep and up to 522 miles offshore.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

The adult, spawning adult, and juvenile life stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for dover sole could

be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for dover

sole potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes soft bottoms of sand, silt, or mud.

While estuaries are not designated as EFH for dover sole, the species does occur in estuaries and

could be affected by the Bridge Program.

ENGLISH SOLE (Parophrys vetulus)

Range

English sole are found from Nunivak Island in the southeast Bering Sea and Agattu

Island in the Aleutian Islands, to San Cristobal Bay, Baja California Sur [12]. English

sole is a demersal species associated with soft bottom substrates. Eggs, larvae, and

juveniles utilize shallow coastal areas including estuaries and bays (Krygier and Pearcy

1986). Spawning occurs over soft bottom substrates at depths of 164 to 230 feet (Ketchen

1956).

Habitat

In the North Pacific, English sole is an inner shelf- mesobenthal species, occurring to 180

feet [12]. In research survey data, nearly all occurred at depths <820 feet [12]. It is a

member of the outer continental shelf community in southern California, the shallow

sublittoral community in Puget Sound, and the intermediate depth Nestucca assemblage

off Oregon [260].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 49

Eggs and larvae are pelagic; juveniles and adults are demersal [94]. Larvae are found

primarily in waters <656 feet deep [172]. Juveniles reside primarily in shallow-water

coastal, bay, and estuarine areas [154, 166, 174, 268, 284, 316, 372, 375, 387]. Small

juveniles settle in the estuarine and shallow nearshore areas all along the coast, but are

less common in southerly areas, particularly south of Point Conception. As they grow,

they move to deeper water. Large juveniles commonly occur up to depths of 492 feet.

Spawning occurs over soft-bottom mud substrates at depths of 164-230 feet [154].

Adults, spawning adults, and eggs have been found in Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Skagit

Bay and Grays Harbor in Washington and in Santa Monica Bay, California. Adults are

also common in San Pedro Bay, California. Larvae and juveniles occur in most estuaries

between Puget Sound and San Pedro Bay, California [77]. English sole uses nearshore

coastal and estuarine waters as nursery areas [166, 316].

English sole is a very important flatfish in shallow-water, soft-bottom marine and

estuarine environments along the Pacific coast [77]. Adults and juveniles prefer soft

bottoms composed of fine sands and mud [154] but also are reported to occur in eelgrass

habitats [289]. In Puget Sound, juveniles and adults prefer shallow (<40 feet deep)

muddy substrates [33]. Males show a preference for fine sediments [34].

Eggs are neritic and buoyant, but sink just before hatching [114]. Eggs are mostly found

in polyhaline waters at temperatures of 39-54° F, optimally at 25-28 ppt and 46-48° F

[94]. Adults are found primarily in euhaline waters. Juveniles and larvae occur in

polyhaline and euhaline waters. Optimum conditions for larval survival were found to be

salinities of 25-28 ppt and temperatures of 46-48° F [6]. No spawning occurs at

temperatures below approximately 46° F [142]. Temperatures >64° F appear to be the

upper thermal tolerance (reduced daily ration and growth) for juvenile English sole [401].

The upper lethal limit for this species is 80° F [17].

Migrations and Movements

Adults make limited migrations. Those off Washington show a northward post-spawning

migration in the spring on their way to summer feeding grounds, and a southerly

movement in the fall [94]. Tagging studies have identified separate stocks based on this

species' limited movements and meristic characteristics [149]. Tidal currents appear to be

the mechanism by which English sole move into estuaries [38]; larvae are transported to

nearshore nursery areas (i.e., shallow coastal waters and estuaries) by these currents.

Larvae metamorphose into juveniles in spring and early summer and rear until fall/winter

at which time most emigrate to deeper waters [268]. Although many postlarvae may

settle outside of estuaries, apparently most will enter estuaries during some part of their

first year of life [105]. Early- and late-stage larvae undergo diel vertical migrations [241,

242]. There is a general movement to deeper waters as fish grow [154]. Smaller fish tend

to be restricted to shallow waters, with larger fish more abundant in deeper water [78,

241, 347].

Reproduction

English sole are gonochoristic, oviparous, and iteroparous; eggs are fertilized externally

[94]. Spawning occurs from winter to early spring depending on the stock: in Monterey
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 50

Bay stocks, from January to May, peaking in March or April [46]; in Bodega Bay-Point

Monterey stocks, from December to April, peaking in January or February [379]; cited in

[94]; in Santa Monica Bay-Santa Barbara Channel stocks, from December to April; in

Eureka-Oregon border stocks from October to May [149]; in Oregon stocks from January

to April, peaking in February or March [113]; in Puget Sound stocks, from January to

April, peaking in February or March [341]. Five- to six-year-old females (14-15 inches in

length) can produce about 1 million eggs, whereas large fish (17 inches long) may

produce nearly 2 million eggs [88, 113, 153].

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are spherical and average 0.04 inch in diameter [271]. Embryonic

development is indirect and external. The planktonic eggs hatch in 3.5 days at 12EC, or

11.8 days at 39° F [6]. After hatching, larvae float with their yolk sac up. The yolk sac is

absorbed in 9-10 days [271], with the planktonic larvae taking from 8-10 weeks to

metamorphose to benthic living juveniles [173]. Larvae are 0.08-0.11 inch TL at hatching

[271] and grow to 0.7-1.0 inch before becoming juveniles [94, 242]. Juveniles range in

size from 0.7 to about 10 inches long, depending on sex [113]. Growth appears to be

affected by upwelling [163] and cohort abundance of age-1 fish [293]. Some females

mature as 3-year-olds and 10 inches long, but all females over 14 inches long are mature.

Males mature earlier, beginning at 2 years and 8 inches in length. All males are mature at

lengths >11 inches [113]. In Puget Sound, all 2-year-old males are mature, but most

females do not mature until they are 4 years old [341].

Trophic Interactions

Larvae are planktivorous. Larvae probably eat different life stages of copepods and other

small planktonic organisms. Larvae appear to have a strong preference for

appendicularians [44]. Juveniles and adults are carnivorous, apparently feeding primarily

during daylight hours [33]. Juveniles feed on harpacticoid copepods, gammarid

amphipods, cumaceans, mysids, polychaetes, small bivalves, clam siphons, and other

benthic invertebrates [11, 33, 124, 337]. Small juvenile English sole concentrate their

feeding on harpacticoid copepods and other epibenthic crustaceans until they reach

approximately 2-2.5 inches in length, then they switch to feeding primarily on

polychaetes [372]. Off Oregon, adult English sole feed on a variety of benthic organisms,

but primarily polychaetes, amphipods, molluscs, ophiouroids, and crustaceans [162].

English sole feed primarily by day, using sight and smell, and sometimes dig for prey

[11, 137].

Larvae are probably eaten by larger fishes. A juvenile English sole's main predators are

probably piscivorous birds such as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), larger fishes and

marine mammals. Adults may be eaten by marine mammals, sharks, and other large

fishes. The English sole's sharp anterior anal spine may provide a defense against

predators [11]. English sole competes with slim sculpin, blackbelly eelpout, Pacific

tomcod, ratfish, Dover sole, and white croaker [11, 142]. It occasionally interbreeds with

starry flounder and produces a hybrid.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 51

English Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults occur all along the continental shelf and slope, mainly from central California

northward, at depths <820feet.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Spawning Adult Stage

From early winter through spring, spawning adults occur all along the continental shelf,

mainly from central California northward, between 164 and 230 feet on soft bottom,

primarily silt or mud.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles occur all along the continental shelf, mainly from central California northward,

at depths <492 feet on soft bottom, primarily sand, silt, or mud.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Larval Stage

Larvae occur all in estuaries and along the coast, mainly from central California

northward, in surface and midwaters <656 feet deep.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Egg Stage

From early winter through spring, eggs occur in estuaries and along the coast, mainly

from central California northward, in surface and midwaters <656 feet deep.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

All life stages of estuarine EFH for English sole could be affected. Estuarine EFH for English

sole potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes soft bottom substrates composed of fine

sands and mud and eelgrass habitats in shallow-water.

The adult, spawning adult, and juvenile stages of rocky shelf EFH for English sole could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities.

The adult, spawning adult, and juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for English sole could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for English

sole potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes soft bottoms of sand, silt, or mud.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 52

FLATHEAD SOLE (Hippoglossoides elassodon)

Range

Flathead sole are found on the Pacific coast of North America from Point Reyes, northern

California northward through the Gulf of Alaska and across the Bering Sea [9, 81, 240,

261]. Flathead sole is a demersal species that occurs mainly from northern Oregon

northward, in waters up to about 984 feet, over soft bottoms (PFMC 1998bb). Larger

individuals occur in deeper waters. Estuaries, bays, and coastal areas are important as

nursery areas.

Habitat

Flathead sole commonly inhabit the continental shelf of the North Pacific Ocean [319].

They inhabit water as deep as 1,800 feet, but usually occur in depths less than 1,200 feet

[319]. The flathead sole often occurs in trace amounts in trawl samples off Washington

and Oregon and is found more frequently as one moves northward [319]. Flathead sole

are mesobenthic [323] with larger individuals occurring in deeper waters [319].

Nursery areas along the northern Pacific coast are usually shallow (<328 feet) estuaries,

bays, and nearshore coastal areas [127]. Young flathead sole are also frequently

encountered in shallow depths of the inside waters of Puget Sound northward [319]. Age0 and age-1 flathead sole are mainly captured deeper than 131 feet [127]. Flathead sole

inhabit soft [81], silty or muddy bottoms [160]. They also occur on mud mixed with

gravel or sand [127]. Newly spawned eggs are buoyant in salinities of 25-27‰ or greater.

Incubating eggs are euryhaline. Newly hatched larvae are buoyant in salinities of 17-18‰

or greater. Total hatch and viable hatch are highest (>90%) at 25‰, 43° F and 25‰,

7EC. Post hatching flathead sole develop normally from 25-39.58‰ and at temperatures

from 42-51° F or greater [9]. Adult flathead sole occur in water 27-34‰ [9]. The

preferred temperature range of adult flathead sole is 36-39° F [278]. Bottom temperatures

during spawning season are from 43-46° F [9].

Migrations and Movements

Adult fish migrate from wintering grounds on the upper continental slope onto the shelf

during the spring and summer [319]. In Auke Bay, southeastern Alaska, flathead sole

larvae perform diel vertical migrations, including nocturnal ascent, nocturnal descent, and

nocturnal diffusion [110]. During the day larvae concentrate at 16 feet. At twilight they

appear to descend somewhat, but still have peak densities at 16-33 feet. At midnight there

are relatively high numbers at the surface [110].

Reproduction

Flathead sole are oviparous and iteroparous. Eggs are fertilized externally and fecundity

ranges from 72,000-600,000, varying with the size of the female [319]. Flathead sole

spawn from May-June at 240-420 feet [323]. The eggs of the flathead sole range from

0.11-0.14 inch in diameter [323].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 53

Growth and Development

The larvae and eggs of the flathead sole are part of the zooplankton community. Either

they float near-surface or on the surface layer or, like most flatfish, control their specific

gravity so as to float somewhere below the surface [323]. Larger eggs occur when the

water salinity is between 20 and 27.5‰ [9]. The eggs incubate for 7.2-20.9 days.

Absorption of the yolk occurs at 6-17 days [9]. Flathead sole metamorphosize and settle

to the bottom beginning in late summer [319]. Larvae grow at 0.02 inch/day at lower

temperatures and 0.04 inch at higher temperatures [9]. Flathead sole larvae average 0.5-

1.4 inch SL [45]. Adults can grow to 22 inches [160].

Males and females may mature as young as 2-3 years in Puget Sound, but not until 6

years in the Bering Sea [260]. Males live to 17 years and females to 21 years [260].

Trophic Interactions

Flathead sole feed on a wide variety of small mobile prey both on and off the bottom.

Dominant prey items vary with area and season. They are opportunistic predators [319]

and are considered to be piscivorous feeders because they actively pursue prey [323].

Around Kodiak Island, Alaska, young flathead sole feed mostly on crustaceans. In order

of importance, age-0 flathead sole preyed on amphipods, bivalves, mysids, and shrimps.

Age-0 flathead sole in depths of 33-131 feet and 230-262 feet consumed mainly

gammarid amphipods; at depths of 164-197 feet they split their diet among Caridea,

Mysidea, and Gammaridea; and at depths of 262-295 feet they consumed primarily

Bivalvia [127]. For one-year-old flathead sole off Kodiak Island, Alaska, their diet (in

order of importance) consisted of mysids, shrimps, amphipods, and bivalves. Age-1

flathead sole in depths 66-131 feet and 164-197 feet primarily consumed mysids; at

depths of 33-66 feet and 131-164 feet they consumed nearly equal amounts of mysids and

caridean shrimps; and in 262-295 feet depths, mysids, amphipods, shrimps, and

chaetognaths were of similar importance in their diet [127]. Minimal dietary requirements

of flathead sole ranges from 2.2-6.2% of body weight per day during its first year [277].

Around the San Juan Islands in Washington, adult flathead sole prey upon mysids, fishes,

shrimps, polychaetes, and clams. The commonest fish in their diet is Pacific herring,

Clupea pallasi [238]. Mysids are important contributors to the diet for all size groups,

although primarily only in the summer and fall for larger sole. Shrimps are important in

the diet of sole 7 inches and larger. Fishes and clams are important in the diet of sole 10

inches and larger. Polychaetes were of some importance in the diet of medium-sized sole

in the summer and early fall [238]. With the exception of larger fish, feeding decreases in

the winter months.

Flathead Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur mainly from northern Oregon northward, at depths <984

feet, over soft bottom.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 54

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs during late spring and early summer, at depths from 164-984 feet over

soft bottom.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are demersal and occur at depths <984 feet over soft bottom.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic in waters <459 feet.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

Eggs are pelagic and occur in neritic waters and occasionally in oceanic waters.

Composites: neritc, oceanic

The adult, spawning, and juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for flathead sole could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for flathead

sole potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes soft, silty or muddy bottoms or mud

mixed with gravel or sand.

PACIFIC SANDDAB (Citharichthys sordidus)

Range

Pacific sanddab are found from Cape Lucas, Baja California, to the Bering Sea [27, 94,

114]. Pacific sanddab is a demersal species that occurs throughout the area covered by

this EFH analysis at depths up to 492 feet over sand or gravel substrates (Garrison and

Miller 1982). Both adults and juveniles are found in shallow coastal waters, bays, and

estuaries (Hart 1973). Older individuals also occur in shallower water (Sakuma and

Larson 1995a).

Habitat

Pacific sanddab inhabit the shallow sublittoral zone of Puget Sound [114], and the inner

continental shelf along the west coast [16, 27, 162]. Adults are found in estuaries and

coastal waters to as deep as 1,000 feet, but highest abundance is in waters <492 feet

[114]. Pearcy and Hancock [279] found that sanddab were most abundant off Oregon and

Washington between 121 and 295 feet. In Puget Sound, adults may be found to 492 feet,

but are common in <66 feet of water [94]. Barss [27] reported adult sanddab occur in San

Francisco Bay, and Leos [187] found adults in Monterey Bay.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 55

Eggs and larvae are pelagic; juveniles and adults are demersal [94]. Larvae may be found

as far offshore as 450 miles in the upper 656 feet of the water column [327]. Juveniles are

primarily found in shallow coastal waters, bays and estuaries [114].

Off Oregon, Pacific sanddab are numerically the most abundant species on sandy bottom

habitats between 243 and 335 feet [279]. Small juveniles <2.8 inches prefer substrates of

silty sand, whereas adults prefer coarser sediments [282].

Eggs are found in mostly in polyhaline waters at 4-12EC, optimally at 46-48° F [94].

Adults are found in high salinity areas correlated with upwelling [327, 328]. Larvae are

found offshore in areas of lower salinity [327]. Pearcy [279] and Sakuma and Larson

[327] report that older fish occur in shallower water and nearer shore than younger fish.

Movements and Migrations

Pacific sanddab make limited migrations that are poorly studied and understood. Pearcy

[279] reported that sanddab are absent from deep-water trawls made off Oregon during

the summer and fall, but present in the same areas in the winter and spring. This is

thought to be a migration between winter-spring spawning grounds and summer-fall

feeding grounds [279]. Coastal movements are minimal. Larvae are carried by wind and

ocean currents as far offshore as 450 miles [327].

Reproduction

Pacific sanddab are oviparous and iteroparous, and eggs are fertilized externally [94].

Spawning occurs from late winter through summer, depending on stock and location. In

Puget Sound, spawning begins in February and continues through spring, peaking in

March and April [94, 114]. Off California, spawning takes place July through September,

peaking in August [19, 94]. Female sanddab may spawn twice per season [19, 94, 114].

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are spherical, translucent and contain a single oil globule [94, 114]. Eggs

are 0.02-0.03 inches in diameter [94]. Embryonic development is indirect and external.

Larvae hatch at <0.2 inches [94] and are pelagic and planktonic. This pelagic stage may

last up to 271 days [327]. Settlement to benthic living occurs at 0.8-1.5 inches [327].

Juveniles range in size from 0.8 inches to over 7 inches [19, 114].

In Puget Sound, 50% of the species is mature by age 2 (both sexes) [94]. In California,

50% of sanddab are mature by 7.5 inches and 3 years [19, 114]. Off Oregon, Pacific

sanddab may reach 13 years of age (Floyd 2003). Both sexes grow at the same rate for

the first four years, at which time females grow faster [19].

Trophic Interactions

Juveniles and adults are carnivorous. Unlike many sympatric species, Pacific sanddab are

mainly pelagic feeders; the only evidence of benthic feeding is annelid worms found in

stomachs of some specimens [282]. The main food items of large sanddab are crab

larvae, squids, octopi and northern anchovy [282]. Smaller sanddab eat euphausiids,

amphipods, shrimps and some fish [162, 282]. The diet of the sanddab is determined
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 56

mainly by food availability; crab larvae are present only in certain months, and fish

consumption is higher in the summer months [282]. Pacific sanddab are often found with

Dover sole, slender sole and rex sole.

Pacific sanddab Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults occur all along the continental shelf at depths <492 feet, primarily on sand or

gravel bottom.

Composites: non-rocky shelf

Spawning Adult Stage

From late winter through summer, spawning adults occur all along the continental shelf,

mainly from central California northward, between 164 and 230 feet on soft bottom,

primarily silt or mud.

Composites: non-rocky shelf

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles occur in bays and estuaries and in shallow waters all along the inner continental

shelf on soft bottom, primarily sand, silt, or mud.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf

Larval Stage

Larvae occur all along the continental shelf and slope in surface and midwaters <656 feet

deep and as far offshore as 435 miles.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

From late winter through summer, eggs occur along the coast, mainly over the

continental shelf from central California northward.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

The juvenile, larval, and egg stages of estuarine EFH for Pacific sanddab could be affected by all

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Estuarine EFH for Pacific sanddab potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes sand bottoms.

The adult, spawning adult, and juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for Pacific sanddab could

be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for Pacific

sanddab potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sand, silty sand, or gravel bottoms.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 57

PETRALE SOLE (Eopsetta jordani)

Range

Petrale sole are found form Cape St. Elias, Alaska to Coronado Island, Baja California.

The range may possibly extend into the Bering Sea, but the species is rare north and west

of southeast Alaska and in the inside waters of British Columbia [94, 114]. Petrale sole is

a demersal species that occurs throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis at depths

up to 984 feet over soft substrates, primarily sand, silt or mud. Estuaries are used by

juveniles, adults, and overwintering sub-adults (NOAA Fisheries 1990). Larger

individuals utilize deeper water.

Habitat

Petrale sole is an inner shelf-mesobenthal species [12] and is an important predator on the

continental shelf from British Columbia to central California [260]. Eggs are pelagic;

juveniles and adults are demersal [94]. Larvae are neritic and epipelagic. Young juveniles

are generally found between 59-269 feet and larger juveniles at 82-476 feet. Adults are

found from the surf line to 1,800 feet, but their highest abundance is <984 feet [260].

Adults migrate seasonally between deep water, winter spawning areas to shallower,

spring feeding grounds [260]. Larvae are often found in the upper 164 feet of the water

column far offshore [260]. Spawning occurs over the continental shelf and continental

slope to as deep as 1,800 feet.

Spawning adults, as well as eggs, larvae and juveniles, are found in Puget Sound and the

waters around Vancouver Island. Juveniles of offshore stocks often spend time rearing in

estuaries. Adults may utilize summer feeding grounds in estuaries, and non-migrating

subadults may overwinter in estuaries [260, 291, 292]. Over a range of shallow to deep

water, petrale sole are an important flatfish and benthic predator. They show an affinity to

sand, sandy mud and occasionally muddy substrates [260]. Eggs are found primarily in

waters 39-50° F and salinities of 25-30l [94]. Optimum conditions for egg incubation and

larval growth were 43-45° F and 27.5-29.5l [7]. No egg hatching was found to occur

below 40° F [7]. Adults and juveniles are found in euhaline waters.

Movements and Migrations

Petrale sole move from shallow summer feeding grounds to deep-water spawning

grounds in the winter. There seems to be little north-south movement up and down the

coast, but distances of 390 miles have been reported [94, 114]. Eggs and larvae are

transported from offshore spawning areas to nearshore nursery areas by oceanic currents

and wind. Petrale sole tend to move into deeper water with increased age and size. Nine

separate breeding stocks have been identified, although all stocks intermingle on summer

feeding grounds [7, 114, 260]. Of these nine, one occurs off British Columbia, two off

Washington, two off Oregon and four off California [260].

Reproduction

Petrale sole are oviparous, and fertilization is external. The petrale sole is a broadcast

spawner [260]. In British Columbia, Washington and Oregon waters, the spawning

season lasts from December - April, and peaks in February - March [94, 283]. In
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 58

California, spawning begins slightly earlier. Petrale sole spawn in the same area year

after year.

A 16-inch female petrale sole may produce 400,000 eggs, whereas a 22-inch female may

produce as many as 1,200,000 eggs [94, 260].

Growth and Development

Embryonic development is indirect and external. The planktonic eggs hatch in 13.5 days

at 41° F, and 6 days at 47° F [94]. Larvae hatch at approximately 0.12 inch with a yolk

sac. The yolk sac is gone by the time the larvae reaches 0.22 inch, about 10-16 days [94].

Larvae metamorphose into juveniles at 0.9 inch and six months of age, and settle to the

bottom of the inner continental shelf [283].

Petrale sole begin maturing at three years. Half of males mature by seven years, and 11-

17 inches and half of the females are mature by eight years, and 17 or more inches [291,

292]. Near the Columbia River, petrale sole mature one to two years earlier [291, 292].

Trophic Interactions

Larvae are planktivorous. Larvae prey on copepods, their eggs and nauplii. Small

juveniles eat mysids, sculpins and other juvenile flatfishes. Large juveniles and adults eat

shrimps and other decapod crustaceans, as well as euphausiids, pelagic fishes, ophiuroids

and juvenile petrale sole [94, 114, 162, 260, 283, 291, 292]. Petrale sole eggs and larvae

are eaten by planktivorous invertebrates and pelagic fishes. Juveniles are preyed upon

(sometimes heavily) by adult petrale sole, as well as other large flatfishes. Adults are

preyed upon by sharks, demersally feeding marine mammals, and larger flatfishes and

pelagic fishes [260].

Petrale sole competes with other large sympatric flatfishes. It has the same summer

feeding grounds as lingcod, English sole, rex sole and Dover sole.

Petrale Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults occur all along the continental shelf and upper slope, mainly from central

California northward, at depths from 0 to 984 feet on soft bottom, primarily sand, silt, or

mud.

Composites: non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Spawning Adult Stage

From early winter through spring, spawning adults occur all along the upper continental

slope, mainly from northern California northward, between 900-1,200 feet on soft

bottom, primarily silt or mud.

Composites: continental slope/basin
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 59

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles occur all along the continental shelf, mainly from central California northward,

at depths between 59 and 476 feet on soft bottom, primarily sand, silt, or mud.

Composites: non-rocky shelf

Larval Stage

Larvae occur all along the coast, mainly from northern California northward, in surface

and midwaters <328 feet deep over the continental shelf and slope.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

Egg Stage

From early winter through spring, eggs occur along the coast, mainly from northern

California northward, in waters <1,150 feet deep over the continental shelf and slope, but

primarily in surface waters.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

The adult and juvenile life stage of non-rocky shelf EFH for petrale sole could be affected by

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for petrale sole potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes soft bottoms of sand, silt, or mud.

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities may take place where adult and juvenile petrale

sole occur in estuaries; however, the estuarine composite has not been designated as EFH for

petrale sole.

ROCK SOLE (Lepidopsetta bilineata)

Range

Rock sole are distributed continuously on the Pacific west coast from southern California

to the Gulf of Alaska [114, 130]. Rock sole is a demersal species associated with sandy or

gravelly substrates (Garrison and Miller 1982). They occur at depths up to 984 feet

(Horton 1989). Larvae are pelagic; all other life stages are demersal.

Habitat

Adult rock sole are found as deep as 2,400 feet, but they are uncommon below 984 feet

[130]. Juveniles and adults are demersal and found primarily in shallow water bays over

the continental shelf [14, 87, 130]. They overwinter on the edge of the continental slope

at depths of 410-902 feet [130] and occupy the shelf during the summer at depths of 59-

262 feet. In Puget Sound, rock sole are uncommon below 180 feet and spawning occurs

in shallow water [94], even intertidally.

Eggs are demersal and adhesive [130]. Larvae are pelagic and primarily found in the

upper 98 feet of the water column [110, 114, 130]. Small juveniles settle all along the

coast, with a much higher occurrence further north. Juveniles move into deeper waters
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 60

with increased size. Eggs occur in polyhaline to euhaline waters, from sub-zero

temperatures to 59° F [94, 130]. Adults are found almost exclusively in euhaline waters.

Juveniles and larvae occur in polyhaline to euhaline waters. Larval development was

most successful at 43° F [130]. Temperatures above 64° F inhibit egg and larval growth,

as well as adult feeding. The upper lethal limit for this species is 77° F [130].

Adults and juveniles prefer sandy or gravel substrates on the Pacific coast, and also show

an affinity to steep rock slopes in Puget Sound [94, 114, 130]. Garrison and Miller [94]

also reported that rock sole occur over soft bottoms. Spawning occurs over a variety of

substrates, from rocky banks to sand and mud [94, 130].

Migrations and Movements

Rock sole are sedentary [94, 130]. They undergo a southerly movement to deeper water

in the winter to spawning grounds, and a northward post-spawning migration to summer

feeding grounds in the shallow waters over the continental shelf [14, 87, 114]. Haldorson,

et al., [110] reported that larvae migrate from 16-33 feet during the day to 98 feet at

night, most likely following the peak abundances of copepod nauplii. Larvae are

transported by wind and tidal currents. Rock sole also move into deeper water with

increased size [335].

Reproduction

Rock sole are oviparous with external fertilization [94]. Spawning occurs from winter

through early spring depending on location of the stock. In Puget Sound, spawning

occurs from December-April, peaking in March. In southern California, spawning occurs

from November-March, peaking in February. In the Bering Sea, spawning occurs from

March-June, peaking in April [94, 114, 130, 197, 335]. A 14-inch fish may produce

400,000 eggs per year, whereas an 18-inch fish may produce up to 1,300,000 eggs per

year [94, 130].

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are spherical and 0.03-.04 inch in diameter [130]. Embryonic

development is indirect and external. The eggs hatch in 6.4 days at 52° F, 9-18 days at

44-46° F, and 25 days at 37° F [14]. Larvae hatch at 0.13-0.2 inch with a yolk sac that is

absorbed in 10-14 days [14]. Metamorphosis occurs at 0.7-0.8 inch [94, 130]. Juveniles

range from 0.7 to 13 inches, depending on sex [383].

Rock sole females mature at 4-5 years and 13-14 inches. Males mature at 3-4 years and

12 inches [87, 94, 114]. In Puget Sound, female rock sole mature in 3-4 years at 12-13

inches, and males mature at 2 years [94]. After 2-3 years, females grow faster than males

and reach a larger average size. Growth of both sexes decreases after 8 years. Rock sole

may live up to 25 years (Floyd 2003).

Trophic Interactions

Larvae are planktivorous. Juveniles and adults are carnivorous, feeding during the

daylight hours [269]. Juveniles consume mobile prey, such as cumaceans, carideans, and

gammarid amphipods. Adults feed on more sedentary foods, such as polychaetes,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 61

echiuroids, mollusks, echinoderms, benthic fishes and urochordates [269]. Polychaetes

may constitute up to 62% of an adult rock sole's diet [170]. Depending on the season,

clam siphons may be consumed almost exclusively [114]. Diet variation results as much

from food availability as it does from prey preference [170]. Larvae are probably eaten

by larger fishes and perhaps sea birds. Juveniles are eaten by larger fishes. Cannibalism

by adults on larvae and juveniles can be very detrimental to populations [14]. Adult rock

sole may be eaten by sharks, marine mammals, and larger fishes.

Rock Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur all along the west coast, at depths <984 feet.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs from winter through early spring, at depths <984 feet.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are demersal and occur at depths <984 feet.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic, primarily in the upper 98 feet of the water column.

Composites: neritic

Egg Stage

Eggs are demersal and occur at depths <984 feet, within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/shelf

The adult, spawning, juvenile, and egg stages of rocky shelf EFH for rock sole could be affected

by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for rock sole potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes steep rock slopes and rocky banks.

The adult, spawning, juvenile, and egg stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for rock sole could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for rex sole

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes soft bottoms of sand, mud, or gravel

substrates.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 62

SAND SOLE (Psettichthys melanostictus)

Range

Sand sole occur from southern California north as far as the Alaskan Peninsula and the

Bering Sea [94, 114]. Sand sole is a demersal species that occurs over soft substrates at

depths up to 600 feet (Allen and Smith 1988). Spawning occurs over sandy or muddy

substrates in water 66 to 98 feet deep (Garrison and Miller 1982). Adults, larvae, and

juveniles use estuaries (Hart 1973).

Habitat

Sand sole are considered an inner shelf-outer shelf species and occur as deep as 1,065

feet, but nearly all <492 feet [12]. Eggs, larvae and small juveniles are pelagic; older

juveniles and adults are demersal [110]. Larvae are generally found in the upper 33 feet

of the water column of waters <656 feet deep [94, 110]. Small juveniles may remain

pelagic for some time, and in Puget Sound, usually occur in 16-66 feet of water [94].

Adults and older juveniles are found as deep as 600 feet, but do not occur in high

densities below 262 feet of water [114, 318, 346]. Spawning occurs over sandy and

muddy substrates in water 66-98 feet deep [94].

Adults are found year-round in some estuaries, and spawning adults, eggs and larvae are

found winter-spring in Puget Sound, Bellingham Bay and East Sound [114, 346]. Larvae

and juveniles occur in most estuaries along the west coast. Sand sole show a high affinity

to shallow waters with sandy and muddy substrates all along the Pacific coast [94, 114,

346].

Eggs are pelagic and float up just before hatching [114, 346]. Egg and larval development

is fastest between 39° F and 54° F [94]. Adults are found from sub-zero temperatures to

as warm as 61° F [346]. All life stages are found in euhaline water [110].

Migrations and Movements

Sand sole are not considered to be a migratory species. Adults may move into shallow

nearshore waters in early winter to spawn, then move south and offshore in the summer

to feed [318]. Adults and demersal juveniles tend to move to deeper waters with

increased size and age [94]. Larvae and small juveniles are transported to estuaries and

shallow nearshore bays by tidal currents [110].

Reproduction

Sand sole are oviparous with external fertilization [94, 346]. Spawning occurs in winter

and spring. In Puget Sound, the spawning season is January-April, peaking in February.

In Bellingham Bay, spawning peaks in March. In northern British Columbia, spawning

peaks in late April. On the west coast of Vancouver Island, spawning peaks in July [94,

114, 346]. An 11-inch female may produce 900,000 eggs, while a 15-inch fish may

produce 1,400,000 eggs.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 63

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are spherical and 0.04 inch in diameter [114, 346]. Embryonic

development is indirect and external. The planktonic eggs hatch in 6-7 days at 35° F, 5

days at 45-48° F, and 3.5 days at 54° F [94, 114]. Larvae hatch at 0.11 inch and float with

their yolk sacs up [346]. The yolk sac is absorbed in 10-12 days. Larvae begin

metamorphosis into juveniles between 0.9 and 1.1 inches [114]. Juveniles range in size

from 0.9 to 9 inches, depending on sex.

Sommani [346] reported that all females were mature by age 3, and males by age 2.

These ages correspond to 9 inches for males, and 11 inches for females [114]. After 2

years, females begin to grow more rapidly than males. Sand sole may attain 10 years of

age (Floyd 2003).

Trophic Interactions

Larvae and small juveniles feed on copepods, their eggs and nauplii. Juveniles feed on

small crustaceans such as mysids and crangons, worms and mollusks [26, 114, 346].

Adults feed mainly on speckled sanddabs, herring, anchovies, crustaceans, worms, and

mollusks [26, 114, 318, 346]. Large adults eat more mobile prey; crabs and fish may

make up to 80% of their diet [26]. Eggs and larvae are preyed upon by small fishes and

sea birds. Juveniles are preyed on by larger fishes. Adults are eaten by larger fishes,

sharks and marine mammals.

Sand Sole Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur from central California northward, at depths <600 feet,

over soft bottoms.

Composites: non-rocky shelf

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs during winter and spring at depths <98 feet over soft bottoms.

Composites: non-rocky shelf

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are demersal and occur at depths <600 feet over soft bottoms.

Composites: non-rocky shelf

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and may occur at depths <66 feet.

Composites: neritic
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 64

Egg Stage

Eggs are pelagic and occur mainly over the shelf.

Composites: neritic

The adult, spawning, and juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for sand sole could be affected

by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for sand sole

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sandy or muddy substrates.

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities may take place where adult, juvenile, and larval

sand sole occur in estuaries; however, the estuarine composite has not been designated as EFH

for sand sole.

STARRY FLOUNDER (Platichthys stellatus)

Range

Starry flounder are found in the western Bering Sea and north of the Bering Strait south

to Los Angeles Harbor, California. They are common in Puget Sound [94, 114, 260].

Starry flounder is a demersal species that occurs over soft substrates at depths up to 492

feet (NOAA Fisheries1990). Larvae, juveniles, and adults utilize estuaries. Spawning

occurs in waters less than 148 feet deep over soft substrates.

Habitat

Starry flounder is an important member of the inner continental shelf and shallow

sublittoral communities [260]. Older juveniles and adults are found from 75 miles

upstream to the outer continental shelf at 1,230 feet, but most adults are found in less than

492 feet [260]. Most spawning occurs in estuaries or sheltered inshore bays [270], in less

than 148 feet of water.

Eggs and larvae are epipelagic; juveniles and adults are demersal [94]. Eggs occur at or

near the surface over water 66-230 feet deep [63, 94, 114]. Larvae are found in estuaries

to 23 miles offshore. Juveniles are found in estuaries and the lower reaches of major

coastal rivers [114, 270]. Adults also occur in estuaries or their freshwater sources yearround in Puget Sound [94]. Juveniles prefer sandy to muddy substrates, and adults prefer

sandy to coarse substrates [260]. Eggs are found in polyhaline to euhaline waters;

juveniles are found in mesohaline to fresh water; adults and larvae are found in euhaline

to fresh water [63, 94, 270]. All life stages can survive and grow at temperatures below

32° F to 55° F [260].

Movements and Migrations

Starry flounder is not considered to be a migratory species. However, adults move

inshore in late winter-early spring to spawn and offshore and deeper in the summer and

fall, but these coastal movements are generally less than 3 miles [63]; [260]. Some starry

flounder have shown movements of >124 miles [63], but this is not considered typical.

Adults and juveniles are known to swim great distances up major coastal rivers (>75
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 65

miles) but not following any migratory trend. Larvae may be transported by oceanic

currents great distances.

Reproduction

Starry flounder are oviparous; eggs are fertilized externally [94]. Spawning occurs

annually in a short time frame in winter and spring, with the exact timing depending on

location. In California, starry flounder spawn from November-February, peaking in

December [94, 270]. In Puget Sound, spawning occurs from February-April, peaking in

March [94, 114]. In British Columbia and the Gulf of Alaska, spawning occurs from

February-May, peaking in early April [114]. In the Bering Sea, females of 15-19 inches

produced between 900,000 and 2,500,000 eggs [260]. In California, a 22-inch fish had

11,000,000 eggs [270].

Growth and Development

Fertilized eggs are spherical and between 0.03 and 0.04 inch in diameter [114, 260].

Embryonic development is indirect and external. Eggs hatch in 2.8 days at 55° F, 4.6

days at 50° F, and 14.7 days at 36-42° F [94, 114, 300].

Larvae hatch at approximately 0.08 inch and float with their yolk sacs up [94, 114, 300].

The yolk sac is gone in 4-5 days, by the time the larvae reaches 0.24 inch [94].

Metamorphosis to the benthic juvenile form occurs at 0.4-0.5 inch [94, 299]. Sexually

immature juveniles range in size from 0.4 to 18 inches, depending on sex [63, 114, 197,

270].

Females begin maturing at 9 inches and 3 years, but some may not mature until 18 inches

and 4-6 years [94, 114, 197, 270]. Males begin maturing at 2 years and 9 inches, but

some may not reach maturity until 4 years and 14 inches [94, 114, 197]. After 2 years,

females grow faster than males and reach larger sizes. Maximum age is reported as 21

years [260].

Trophic Interactions

Larvae are planktivorous. Juveniles and adults are carnivorous. At 0.2-0.5 inch, larvae eat

copepods, eggs and nauplii as well as barnacle larvae and diatoms [114, 300]. Small

juveniles feed on copepods, amphipods and annelid worms [231]. Barry, et al., [26]

reported that adult starry flounder in Elkhorn Slough, California fed on 87 different taxa

of prey over one year, yet mollusks and infaunal worms made up >65% of their diet.

Large fish fed on a wider variety of items, including crabs and other more mobile foods.

In other areas, clams and benthic fishes are an important part of the starry flounder's diet

[260]. Starry flounder do not feed during spawning or coldwater periods [260].

Larvae are eaten by larger fish and herons. Juveniles and adults are eaten by pinnipeds,

larger fishes, sharks and marine mammals [260]. Wading and diving seabirds such as

herons and cormorants feed on juvenile starry flounder [115].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 66

Starry flounder probably competes with other soft-bottom benthic fishes of estuaries and

shallow nearshore bays. It occasionally interbreeds with the English sole to produce a

hybrid.

Starry Flounder Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur mainly from central California northward, in estuaries and

at depths <492 feet, over soft bottoms.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf

Spawning Stage

Spawning occurs during winter and spring at depths <148 feet, over soft bottoms.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles are demersal and occur at depths <328 feet, over soft bottoms.

Composites: estuarine, non-rocky shelf

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and occur in waters <230 feet.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Egg Stage

Eggs are pelagic and occur at depths from 66-230 feet.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

All life stages of estuarine EFH for starry flounder could be affected by all ODOT bridge

replacement and repair activities. Estuarine EFH for starry flounder potentially affected by the

Bridge Program includes sandy to muddy substrates to coarse substrates throughout estuaries

including upriver portions of estuaries.

The adult, spawning, and juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for starry flounder could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for starry

flounder potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sandy to muddy substrates, and

sandy to coarse substrates.

The ODOT Bridge Assessment will have no effect on neritic EFH for starry flounder.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 67

BLACK ROCKFISH (Sebastes melanops)

Range

Black rockfish are found from southern California (San Miguel Island) to the Aleutian

Islands (Amchitka Island), and they occur most commonly from San Francisco northward

[114, 240, 296, 352]. Black rockfish occur throughout the area covered by this EFH

analysis. Larvae and young juveniles are pelagic. Larger juveniles are demersal. They are

found in nearshore habitats, including estuaries, over a variety of substrates including

rocky or sandy bottoms and kelp or eelgrass beds (Stein and Hassler 1989). Adults are

pelagic, and are usually associated with rocky bottoms and kelp. They may occur in

estuaries (PFMC 1998bb).

Habitat

Black rockfish occur from the surface to greater than 1,200 feet; however, they are most

abundant at depths less than 177 feet [352]. Off California, black rockfish make up the

kelp-rockfish assemblage along with the blue, olive, kelp, black-and-yellow, and gopher

rockfishes, and they are distinguished, to some degree, from offshore species [112].

However, they can occur far offshore [74]. Juveniles occur well up in the water column,

usually near or in such shelter as kelp or pilings, though they may live in deeper waters in

the winter [352]. Adults are also usually observed well up in the water column [112]. In

the water column, the frequency of black rockfish occurring closer (<2 feet) to vertical

Macrocystis fronds is significantly greater than that expected had they been randomly

distributed [55].

Black rockfish larvae and young juveniles (<1.6-2.0 inches) are pelagic but are benthic at

larger sizes [39, 175]. When benthic, juvenile black rockfish inhabit waters less than 66

feet and can occur over sand bottom [175]. As described by Stein and Hassler [352],

juveniles in the kelp beds of Monterey Bay, California, live both in the canopy and on

bottom, often associated with kelp holdfasts and sporophylls. They are recruited to the

bottom primarily in June. Off Oregon, age-0 juveniles occur seasonally from June to

October. The June transition from pelagic to benthic habitat is marked by a distinct

inshore movement to estuaries, tidepools and nearshore depths of less than 66 feet. In

nearshore areas of central California, postpelagic newly settled black rockfish were first

observed at the seaward, sand-rock interface of nearshore reefs in depths of 20-66 feet.

They are associated with crevices, sand channels among the rocks, or depressions in the

reef [377]. Small juveniles occur in three habitats: pelagic individuals offshore at <2.4

inches SL in summer; nearshore on bottom at 1.6-2.8 inches SL in June, and in estuaries

at 1.4-3.6 inches SL from April to October, often in eelgrass. Larger juveniles up to 6

inches may live in rocky holes. Black rockfish use low rock and high rock substrata

during the summer recruitment period [55]. Juvenile black rockfish may inhabit intertidal

eelgrass beds from March-October in Yaquina Bay, Oregon [39].

The abundance of black rockfish in shallow water declines in the winter and increases in

the summer [352]. Densities of black rockfish decrease with depth during both the

upwelling and non-upwelling seasons [112, 294]. Off Oregon larger fish seem to be in
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 68

deeper water (66-164 feet) [352]. Black rockfish are also found in the Strait of Juan de

Fuca [60].

Migrations and Movements

Black rockfish off the northern Washington coast and outer Strait of Juan de Fuca exhibit

no significant movement. However, fish appear to move from the central Washington

coast southward to the Columbia River, but not into waters off Oregon. Also, movement

displayed by black rockfish off the northern Oregon coast is primarily northward to the

Columbia River [65]. Black rockfish form mixed sex, midwater schools, especially in

shallow water [114, 352]. In the summer, schools of feeding black rockfish are

commonly seen at the surface along the kelp-lined shores of the western Juan de Fuca

Strait, particularly near Duncan Rock (about 1.7 miles north, northwest of Cape Flattery)

[74]. Schools of black rockfish occur above shallow water British Columbia reefs only

from June-September [352]. In kelp beds, larger adult black rockfish seem to migrate

outside the kelp diurnally, returning before dusk; juveniles and small adults remain in the

kelp and also tend to be closer to the bottom at night [352]. Black rockfish may travel up

to 370 miles, but they usually remain in one area [352].

Reproduction

Black rockfish have internal fertilization and annual spawning [352]. Parturition occurs

from February-April off British Columbia, January-March off Oregon, and January-May

off California [39, 133, 352]. Spawning areas are unknown, but spawning may occur in

offshore waters because gravid females have been caught well offshore [74, 114, 352].

Growth and Development

Age of 50% maturity for black rockfish off California is estimated at 7 years (Floyd

2003). Black rockfish can live to be more than 20 years in age. Off California males may

be sexually mature at 3 years (10 inches); all are mature by 10 years (17 inches). Females

off California may mature at 5 years (12 inches); all are mature by 11 years (19 inches).

Off Oregon, males may mature in 5 years, and females in 6 years. The maximum length

attained by the black rockfish is 24 inches [114, 352]. After age 7, females are larger than

males of the same age [352].

Trophic Interactions

Off Oregon, black rockfish primarily prey on pelagic nekton (anchovies and smelt) and

zooplankton such as salps, mysids, and crab megalops. Off central California, juveniles

eat copepods and zoea, while adults prey on juvenile rockfish, euphausiids, and

amphipods during upwelling periods; during non-upwelling periods they primarily

consume invertebrates. Most feeding probably occurs during the day or at twilight [352].

Black rockfish feed almost exclusively in the water column [65]. Black rockfish have a

dietary overlap with black-and-yellow rockfish, kelp rockfish, and gopher rockfish [112]

and probably other species of Sebastes (Floyd 2003). Black rockfish are known to be

eaten by lingcod and yelloweye rockfish.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 69

Black Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

From the northern boundary of the EEZ to San Miguel Island, California, adults are

pelagic throughout the water column to depths up to 1,200 feet, but most commonly up to

177 feet deep over rocky habitat and associated with kelp.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, oceanic

Mating Adult Stage

No specific information, but may occur offshore based on capture of gravid females.

Large Juvenile Stage

From the northern boundary of the EEZ to San Miguel Island, California, demersally

over depths less than 66 feet and a variety of substrates, most commonly over rocky

habitat and associated with kelp or eelgrass.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles occur in three habitats: pelagic individuals offshore in summer; nearshore

on the bottom at depths less than 66 feet in early summer; and in estuaries from spring

through fall, often in eelgrass.

Composites: estuarine, neritic, intertidal (draft)

Larval Stage

No specific information, but probably move from offshore to inshore waters as they

develop.

Parturition

No information except timing: during winter and spring, but may occur offshore based on

capture of gravid females.

The adult and small juvenile stages of estuarine EFH for black rockfish could be affected by all

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Estuarine EFH for black rockfish potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes pilings, rocky or sandy bottoms, and eel grass beds of

estuaries. Larval black rockfish may occur in estuaries where ODOT bridge replacement and

repair activities could take place, but no EFH composites have been designated for the larval

stage.

The small juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for black rockfish could be affected by all ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities. Juvenile black rockfish may inhabit intertidal eelgrass

beds from March-October in Yaquina Bay, Oregon (Boehlert and Yoklavich 1983).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 70

The large juvenile stage of rocky shelf EFH for black rockfish could be affected by ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for black rockfish potentially affected

by the Bridge Program includes rocky bottoms and tidepools.

The large juvenile stage of non-rocky shelf EFH for black rockfish could be affected by ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for black rockfish potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes sandy bottoms and eelgrass beds.

BLACK-AND-YELLOW ROCKFISH (Sebastes chrysomelas)

Range

Black-and-yellow rockfish are found from Eureka to central Baja California and are

common from about Mendocino County southward to about San Diego [197].

Habitat

Black-and-yellow rockfish are considered a kelp forest or inshore rockfish species [112].

Black-and-yellow rockfish occur from the intertidal zone down to 121 feet [240], but are

most common in waters <18 feet [197] in kelp beds and rocky areas [240].

Juvenile black-and-yellow rockfish live in the surface kelp canopy [123]. Young initially

occupy the surface and mid-depth portions of the water column in very close proximity

with the Macrocystis canopy. Gradually they migrate down the kelp stipes and assume a

demersal existence in close proximity to benthic algal cover, and cracks and crevices

within the rocky substratum. Once assuming a bottom residence, young apparently

sequester in cracks and holes [112]. Black-and-yellow rockfish defend a shelter hole,

which they inhabit during turbulent days, and a feeding area, where they rest in more

exposed positions during calm days and at night [179]. They spend most of their time

sheltering in rocky holes and crevices, or perching on the bottom in the open [178].

Migrations and Movements

Adults are demersal, sedentary residents [129]. Black-and-yellow rockfish are more

active at dusk than during the daytime and are more active during the summer than winter

[178]. They are territorial and agonistic encounters included simple chases, often

accompanied by displays, sounds, and biting by the resident fish [178]. Black-andyellows rockfish defend their territories from all but very small fish [179]. If artificially

or naturally displaced up to 0.7 mile from their home site they have the ability to find

their way back home and can do so relatively quickly [222]. Some movement may also

occur with the pursuit of better habitat [222].

Reproduction

Black-and-yellow rockfish reach sexual maturity at 3-4 years, at sizes of 5 inches SL or

greater [178]. Mating occurs from late January to early February. Females then carry

eggs internally until hatching, which occurs from March-May [178].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 71

Growth and Development

Planktonic larvae settle in their adult habitats in early summer [178]. Black-and-yellow

rockfish grow to 15 inches [201] and have been aged to 21 years (Floyd 2003)

Trophic Interactions

Juvenile black-and-yellow rockfish pick zooplankton out of the water and fall prey to a

variety of predators, including birds [123]. Small black-and-yellow rockfish eat

zooplankton such as copepods and crab larvae [197] and larger ones eat crabs, shrimps,

and occasionally fish and octopi [129, 178, 179, 197]. Black-and-yellow rockfish have a

high similarity in diet with Sebastes melanops, S. atrovirens, and S. carnatus, owing to

their common predation on juvenile rockfishes.

Black-and-Yellow Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge

Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur off California, primarily over rocky substrates at depths

<121 feet, commonly associated with kelp.

Composites: rocky shelf

Mating Stage

Mating occurs from late January to early February, probably in adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles live in the surface canopy of kelp beds off California.

Composites: rocky shelf, intertidal (draft)

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and settle in adult habitats in early summer.

Composites: neritic

Parturition

Parturition occurs from March through May, probably in adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf

The juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for black-and-yellow rockfish could be affected by all

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities.

The adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for black-and-yellow

rockfish could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 72

for black-and-yellow rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes intertidal

rocky areas.

BLUE ROCKFISH (Sebastes mystinus)

Range

Blue rockfish are found from San Tomas, Baja California north as far as the Bering Sea,

but their distribution is inconsistent north of Vancouver Island [114, 240]. Blue rockfish

occur throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis. Adults are demersal and are

usually found over rocky substrates from 82 to 131 feet. They are strongly associated

with kelp beds (Lea 1992). Larvae and young juveniles are pelagic and are found in

nearshore waters. All other life stages are demersal.

Habitat

Off California, blue rockfish reportedly range in depth from tidepools to 328 feet, but

adults are usually taken over rocky depths of 82 to 131 feet [134]. They are not caught in

large numbers south of the Channel Islands or north of Eureka, California [134]. Blue

rockfish adults have been found in water as deep as 1,800 feet [114] and show a strong

affinity for kelp forests [182].

Larvae and early-stage juveniles are pelagic, whereas older juveniles, subadults and

adults are semi-demersal or demersal [200]. Larvae live in the surface waters for several

months. In nearshore areas of central California, postpelagic newly settled blue rockfish

were first observed at the seaward, sand-rock interface of nearshore reefs in depths of 20-

66 feet. They were associated with crevices, sand channels among the rocks, or

depressions in the reef [377]. Juveniles appear, often in massive swarms, in the kelp

canopy and shallow rocky areas by April or May [134]. Adults are most common over

deep rocky reefs, but are also found over hard, flat substrates [199].

Movements and Migrations

As described by Houk [134] in inshore kelp bed areas, blue rockfish form loose to

compact aggregations. They can also often be found as solitary, wandering individuals

moving in and about the kelp or swimming along with other rockfish species, such as

olive, black, and kelp rockfishes. Under dense kelp canopies, they will sometimes form a

column as wide as 13 feet and as deep as 82 feet. In deeper waters, they form dense

aggregations that may extend from the surface to the bottom, but are usually in the middepth levels from 59 to 118 feet.

Blue rockfish are not considered to be a migratory species. Love et al. [199] report that

movements that do occur are most likely related to changes in water temperature or water

turbulence. Early life history stages are generally found in shallower water than adults,

suggesting a movement toward deeper water with age. Diel movements have been noted,

with the fish moving slightly off the bottom during the day to feed [199].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 73

Reproduction

Blue rockfish are ovoviviparous [94]. In southern California, mating begins in November

and continues through early spring [199].

A 9-inch female may give birth to as many as 50,000 larvae, and a 13-inch female may

give birth to as many as 300,000 larvae [94]. Hart [114] reported that fecundity may be as

high as 524,000 larvae, but it was not specified if this was over a whole breeding season

or in a single birthing event. Blue rockfish may give birth twice in a breeding season

[199].

Growth and Development

Embryonic development is internal, and larvae are born at about 0.14 inch [94]. Larvae

are considered juveniles after acquiring a full complement of meristic characters, but

specific lengths or ages for this were not found.

Wyllie Echeverria [398] estimated that 50% of males are mature at age 5 and 50% of

females at age 6. Nearly all are mature by age 11 (Floyd 2003).

Trophic Interactions

Tunicates, hydroids, jellyfishes, and larval and juvenile fishes of many species are the

main prey items of the blue rockfish [114, 200, 208]. Juvenile blue rockfish prey heavily

on all life stages of calanoid copepods and euphausiids [112]. The blue rockfish competes

with other species of rockfishes for space and food; two of the main competitors are the

kelp bass and olive rockfish.

Blue Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are generally demersal and occur mainly off northern and central California, at

depths <328 feet, commonly associated with rocky reefs and kelp.

Composites: rocky shelf

Mating Stage

Mating occurs from November through early spring, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles are generally demersal and occur mainly off northern and central

California.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 74

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles are pelagic in nearshore areas.

Composites: neritic, intertidal (draft)

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic in surface waters.

Composites: neritic

Parturition

No information.

The small juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for blue rockfish could be affected by all ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities. The adult, mating, and large juvenile stages of rocky

shelf EFH for blue rockfish could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities.

Rocky shelf EFH for blue rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes rocky

areas and tidepools.

The large juvenile stage of non-rocky shelf EFH for blue rockfish could be affected by ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities.

BOCACCIO (Sebastes paucispinis)

Range

Bocaccio are found in the Gulf of Alaska off Krozoff and Kodiak Islands, south as far as

Sacramento Reef, Baja California [114, 240]. Bocaccio have been taken from the Alaska

Peninsula to central Baja California, but have been most abundant historically from

Oregon to northern Baja California. Currently, there are just a few sites that still hold

numbers of bocaccio, off British Columbia, along the southern California coast, and off

northern Baja. These sites probably represent the remnants of a once-coastwide bocaccio

population. Adults are most abundant in 164-820 feet water depth, and juveniles

generally occur at shallower depths. Bocaccio recently have been identified as a

candidate for National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) List of Endangered and

Threatened Species (ETS).

Larval and juvenile Bocaccio are found within the area covered by this EFH analysis.

Larvae and small juvenile bocaccio are pelagic and may occur in estuaries and other

nearshore habitats. All other life stages are parademersal (Sakuma and Ralston 1995b)

and are associated with a variety of habitats including eelgrass and kelp beds, rocky

bottoms, and firm sand-mud substrates (PFMC 1998bb).

Bocaccio achieve a maximum size of 36 inches and, although difficult to age,

conceivably live to about 50 years old. The age of female bocaccio about 34 inches in

length recently has been validated to be 30 years using radiochemical techniques (Cailliet

et al. 1999). Females probably live longer than males, and are sexually mature starting at
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 75

about 3 years old. Fifty percent of the females off southern California are mature at 1.4

inches in length, and all are mature by 17 inches; size at maturity increases northward

with females off Oregon just beginning to mature at 21 inches in length. As with most

other fishes, fecundity of bocaccio increases exponentially with age and size; while a

female of 15 inches in length produces about 20,000 eggs per year, a 30-inch long female

can produce 2.3 million young every year.

Bocaccio have infrequent recruitment success; in most years relatively few young survive

to reproductive age. It is likely that an outstanding year class may occur only once in

about 20 years. For example, the last strong year class for bocaccio was 1977, which has

been harvested since the early 1980s. Recruitment success is linked to environmental

factors (Ralston and Howard 1995), and has been depressed since the onset of coastal

ocean warming in the late 1970s. To sustain the resource, spawning biomass needs to be

high enough to produce a large year class during those few years when environmental

conditions are conducive to high recruitment success.

Habitat

The bocaccio is classified as a middle shelf-mesobenthal species [12]. In survey catches,

Allen and Smith [12] found bocaccio to be most common at 328-492 feet over the outer

continental shelf; nearly all were between 164 and 984 feet. Sakuma and Ralston [328]

categorized bocaccio as both a nearshore and offshore species. Larvae and small

juveniles are pelagic; large juveniles and adults are semi-demersal [94]. Larvae and small

juveniles are commonly found in the upper 328 feet of the water column, often far from

shore [230]. They are most often found in shallow coastal waters over rocky bottoms

associated with algae [328]. Postpelagic newly settled larvae in central California are first

observed associated with the giant kelp canopy, but are also seen throughout the water

column [377]. Adults are commonly found in eelgrass beds, or congregated around

floating kelp beds [201, 328]. Young and adult bocaccio also occur around artificial

structures, such as piers and oil platforms [230]. Although juveniles and adults are

usually found around vertical relief, adult aggregations also occur over firm sand-mud

bottoms [230]. Juvenile bocaccio also have been reported in 26-66 feet in Diablo Canyon

[201].

All life stages of bocaccio are found in euhaline waters, and may congregate in local

areas of high salinity [328]. Warm temperatures are preferred, at least by larvae; Sakuma

and Ralston [328] found highest larval densities in water 54° F or higher. Bocaccio

reportedly occur in typical marine waters with salinities of 31 to 34l, temperatures of 43-

60° F and dissolved oxygen concentrations of 1.0 to 7.0 ppm [230]. Pelagic larval and

juvenile bocaccio are found in surface waters from nearshore to as far offshore as 300

miles. They often associate with drifting kelp, and settle to benthic nearshore habitats

after 3-5 months. Juveniles occur over rocks and sand patches with vegetation; in some

years high numbers of young bocaccio recruit to oil platforms and piers off southern

California. Juveniles (8-9 inches long) tagged in water <180 feet moved up to 92 miles

over 2 years as they settled to deeper habitats (443-722 foot depth); (Hartmann 1987 in

Floyd 2003). Significant movements of adults have not been documented, but it is

conceivable that young adults (14-24 inches long) move limited distances (of 16 tagged
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 76

fish, 6 stayed in the 4 mile2 study area at least 45% of the time; 5 stayed in the area more

than 75% of the time; 10 bocaccio occupied the study area less than 10% of the time;

Floyd 2003). Adults aggregate over rocks of relatively high relief, and have been

observed well off the bottom in mixed-species groups of chilipepper, and widow, canary,

and vermilion rockfishes. The largest individuals of the population likely are sedentary

and most abundant under rock ledges and in crevices of boulder fields, in association

with lingcod, cowcod, and greenspotted and yelloweye rockfishes (Yoklavich et al. In

Press).

Movements and Migrations

Adult bocaccio may move more than 1.2 miles per day and they are known to be transient

around oil platforms around Santa Barbara, California; large aggregations may remain

near a platform for months and then disappear suddenly [230]. Also, large adults

disappear from traditional commercial fishing grounds during winter spawning and

reappear in the spring [230]. Bocaccio move into shallow waters during their first year of

life [114], then move into deeper water with increased size and age [94].

Reproduction

Bocaccio are ovoviviparous [94, 114]. Love et al. [201] reported the spawning season to

be protracted and last almost year-round (>10 months). Parturition occurs during January

to April off British Columbia and Washington, November to March off northern and

central California, and October to March off southern California [230]. In California,

bocaccio may become pregnant in October, give birth in November, and prepare

immediately for a second brood to be born in March [94, 114]. Two or more broods may

be born in a year in California [201]. The spawning season is not well known in northern

waters. Although age-at-size calculations were not given, a 15-inch female may give birth

to 20,000 young, while a 30-inch specimen may give birth to 2.3 million young [94, 114].

MacGregor [209] estimated that a female produces 339 eggs/gram of body weight.

Growth and Development

Mature eggs measure about 0.02 in diameter [94]. Eggs develop for 40-50 days in the

ovary, hatch, and yolkless larvae are released about one week later at 0.16-0.24 inch [94,

114]. Larvae remain pelagic for up to 150 days [328, 396]. Metamorphosis to a semidemersal juvenile stage occurs near 1.2 inches TL [94, 114]. Males mature at 3 to 7 years

with 50% mature in 4 to 5 years. Females mature at 3 to 8 years with 50% mature in 4 to

6 years [230].

Trophic Interactions

Larval bocaccio often eat diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans [364].

Copepods and euphausiids of all life stages (adults, nauplii and egg masses) are common

prey for juveniles [364]. Adults eat small fishes associated with kelp beds, including

other species of rockfishes, and occasionally small amounts of shellfish [364]. Bocaccio

probably locate prey by sight and feed mostly at night [230]. Bocaccio are eaten by

sharks, salmon, other rockfishes, lingcod and albacore, as well as sea lions, porpoises,

and whales [230]. Bocaccio directly compete with chilipepper and widow, yellowtail, and

shortbelly rockfishes for both food and habitat resources.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 77

Bocaccio Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are parademersal all along the west coast, at depths from 164-984 feet, commonly

associated with rocky habitat and kelp.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

No information.

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles occur at depths from 0 to 984 feet.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles are pelagic and usually occur in the top 328 feet of water.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and usually occur in the top 328 feet of water.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Parturition:

Parturition occurs during fall through spring. Insufficient information to define EFH

The small juvenile and larval life stages of estuarine EFH for bocaccio could be affected by all

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Estuarine EFH for bocaccio potentially affected

by the Bridge Program includes rocky bottoms associated with algae or rocks and sand patches

with vegetation.

The adult and large juvenile stages of rocky shelf EFH for bocaccio could be affected by ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for bocaccio potentially affected by

the Bridge Program includes rocks, rock ledges, and boulder fields.

The adult and large juvenile stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for bocaccio could be affected by

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for bocaccio potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes firm sand-mud bottoms and sand patches with

vegetation.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 78

BROWN ROCKFISH (Sebastes auriculatus)

Range

Brown rockfish are found from central Baja, California to southeastern Alaska [81, 114,

197, 225, 240, 352]. Brown rockfish occur throughout the area covered by this EFH

analysis and are common in shallow water areas, including bays and estuaries (PFMC

1998bb). Estuaries are used as nursery grounds, and young fish are typically found in

shallower waters than adults. Brown rockfish are demersal and are usually found over

hard substrates (Lea 1992).

Habitat

Brown rockfish are common in shallow water [224, 225] and occur from the surface to

420 feet [81]. However, they are most common from 20 feet down and are widely

distributed in shallow water bays [197]. Juveniles usually live in shallower water than

adults [197]. Brown rockfish use estuaries as nursery grounds [352] and they are common

in Puget Sound [114]. There, brown rockfish initially settle at 0.71-0.99 inch TL, to

shallow, vegetated habitats such as beds of kelp or eelgrass [386]. Off California, young

brown rockfish recruit to hard substrate and low (<3 feet) relief reefs [199]. Brown

rockfish are bottom dwellers, living on hard bottom such as low profile siltstone [182] or

sand. They aggregate near rocks, oil platforms, sewer pipes, and even old tires [197, 225].

Off California, some frequent sewer outfalls [352]. In Puget Sound, highest densities are

reported on artificial reefs, natural reefs, and rock piles in water less than 98 feet [225]. In

California they are primarily found on sandy, low-relief areas [225]. Adults occupy

higher-relief portions and young-of-the-year occupy lower-relief portions [386].

Brown rockfish maintain small home ranges on high relief rocky reefs and display strong

reef fidelity that is not affected by season. On artificial reefs in Puget Sound, they

maintain small home ranges (most within 323 feet2

). In the summer, artificial reefs

become less suitable and considerable off-reef movement occurs. On low relief reefs,

they maintain considerably larger home ranges (most within 4,300 feet2 and some up to

16,150 feet2

). The low relief reefs are only inhabited during the summer and brown

rockfish only return to low relief reefs in the summer coincident with peak algal cover

[224]. Because brown rockfish inhabit shallow water, they are exposed to a relatively

broad range of seasonal temperature variations, of at least 50° F-63° F [352]. Their

capacity for acclimation is higher than that of rockfishes living below the thermocline

and they can tolerate higher temperatures to at least 72° F [352]. Occurrence in estuaries

and oceanic waters suggests a relatively broad salinity tolerance [352].

Migrations and Movements

Movements of greater than 2 miles are rare for brown rockfish [216, 224] and they are

said to have a strong homing tendency [197]. Juveniles gradually move into deeper water

as they mature [197].

Reproduction

Off Oregon, 50% of brown rockfish mature at 12 inches (5 years) and all are mature at 15

inches (10 years) [197]. Brown rockfish mate in March and April in Puget Sound [352].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 79

In Puget Sound they are carrying young in May and probably give birth in June [114].

Off Oregon, spawning occurs in May and June; the spawning season is longer off central

California, at least from December to July [197]. Also, off California females spawn

more than once per season [197]. In Puget Sound they spawn once per year [352]. A 12-

inch female brown rockfish produces approximately 52,000 young and a 19-inch female

produces 339,000 [114].

Growth and Development

Brown rockfish are 0.20-0.23 inch in length at birth [352]. Brown rockfish can grow to a

length of 22 inches [114, 197]. Brown rockfish measuring 20 inches have been aged at 18

years [197]. Males and females probably grow at the same rate and mature at similar ages

and lengths [197].

Trophic Interactions

Brown rockfish eat small fishes, crabs, shrimps, isopods, and polychaetes.

Brown Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur all along the west coast, at depths <420 feet, often

associated with rocky habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Mating Stage

Mating apparently occurs during late winter and spring, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles usually occur in similar habitats, but shallower water than adults.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Larval Stage

Insufficient information to define EFH

Parturition:

Parturition occurs from winter to summer, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

The adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition life stages of estuarine EFH for brown rockfish could

be affected by all ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Estuarine EFH for brown

rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes shallow, vegetated habitats such as

beds of eelgrass, on hard bottom such as low profile siltstone or sand, near sand-rock interfaces
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 80

and rocky bottoms of artificial and natural reefs, in eelgrass beds; near sewer pipes or old tires,

on rock piles, or over sandy, low-relief areas (young-of-the-year) in shallow water.

The adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for brown rockfish could

be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for brown

rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes hard substrates, low relief rocky

reefs, low profile siltstone, and rock piles.

CANARY ROCKFISH (Sebastes pinniger)

Range

Canary rockfish are found between Cape Colnett, Baja California, and southeastern

Alaska. Canary rockfish occur throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis. Canary

rockfish inhabit shallow water when they are young and deep water as adults (Mason

1995). Larvae and juveniles are pelagic and can occur from tide pools to beyond the

continental shelf (Richardson and Laroche 1979). Adults are demersal and are associated

with hard bottom substrates. They mainly occur beyond the territorial sea boundary, but

some occur in the deeper portions of Oregon’s waters.

Habitat

Canary rockfish are considered a middle shelf-mesobenthal species [12]. There is a major

population concentration of canary rockfish between latitude 44E30' and 45EN off

Oregon [311]. Canary rockfish have a depth range from the surface (juveniles) to 900 feet

[36, 114, 197], but primarily inhabit waters 300-600 feet deep [37]. Larvae and juveniles

are pelagic [37, 311]. Larvae can be captured over a wide area, from 8-190 miles

offshore, and pelagic juveniles occur mostly beyond the continental shelf [311]. Youngof-the-year rockfish can also be found in tide pools [197].

Canary rockfish inhabit shallow water when they are young and deep water as adults

[216]. Canary rockfish are associated with pinnacles and sharp drop-offs [197]. They are

also found near, but usually not on the bottom, often associating with yellowtail, widow,

and silvergray rockfish [197]. Canary rockfish are most abundant above hard bottoms

[37]. In the southern part of its range, the canary rockfish appears to be a reef-associated

species [36]. In central California, newly settled canary rockfish are first observed at the

seaward, sand-rock interface and farther seaward in deeper water 60-80 feet. They are

often seen hovering above sand or small rock piles [377].

Migrations and Movements

Canary rockfish are densely aggregating fish [197]. Juveniles descend into deeper water

as they mature [197]. Canary rockfish appear to move deeper with age and also are

capable of major latitudinal movements.

Reproduction

Canary rockfish are ovoviviparous and have internal fertilization [37, 311]. Off

California, canary rockfish spawn from November-March and from January-March off

Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia [114, 197, 311]. A wide range in larval sizes
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 81

over a broad time span indicates that canary rockfish may have protracted and variable

spawning [311].

The age of 50% maturity of canary rockfish is 9 years; nearly all are mature by age 13

(Floyd 2003). Maximum age has been estimated as 60 years [4] to 75 years (Floyd 2003).

Growth and Development

The mean length of newly extruded canary rockfish larvae is 0.14 inch SL [311]. The

transformation to pelagic juvenile occurs at sizes greater than 0.5 inch SL.

Transformation to benthic juveniles occurs after 2.3 inches, during June-August [311].

Canary rockfish growth does not vary with latitude [37]. The maximum length canary

rockfish grow to is 30 inches [37, 114, 197].

Off California, about 50% of the population is mature at 14 inch (5 or 6 years). A 19-inch

long female carries approximately 260,000 young and fish 21- to 26-inch long carries

about 1,900,000 young [114]. Canary rockfish can live to be 75 years old. A 10-year-old

canary rockfish is approximately 20 inch SL [197]. After age 11, females grow faster

than males and mature at a larger size, but males live longer [36, 40, 197].

Trophic Interactions

Canary rockfish primarily prey on planktonic creatures, such as krill, and occasionally on

fish [197]. Canary rockfish feeding increases during the spring-summer upwelling period

when euphausiids are the dominant prey and the frequency of empty stomachs is lower.

Canary Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are associated with the bottom at depths from 328-656 feet all along the west

coast,

Composites: rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

No information.

Large Juvenile Stage:

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Small Juvenile Stage:

Pelagic juveniles occur from near shore to beyond the continental shelf.

Composites: neritic, oceanic, intertidal (draft)

Larval Stage

Larvae occur from 8-190 miles offshore.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 82

Composites: neritic, oceanic

Parturition

Parturition occurs from November through March, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

The small juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for canary rockfish could be affected by the Bridge

Program. The adult and parturition life stages of rocky shelf EFH for canary rockfish may be

affected by the Bridge Program, although adults are usually found at depths of 328 feet or more.

CHILIPEPPER (Sebastes goodei)

Range

Chilipepper are found from Magdalena Bay, Baja California, to as far north as the

northwest coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia [12, 114, 240]. Chilipepper occur

in the area covered by this EFH analysis. They are more common from southern Oregon

southward. Adults are parademersal and frequent rocky reefs as well as sand and mud

bottoms. They are mainly located in the deeper portions of Oregon’s territorial sea (164-

1,150 feet). Larvae and small juveniles are pelagic and are frequently associated with

kelp beds (Love et al. 1990). Larvae and juveniles inhabit shallower, nearshore waters.

Habitat

Allen and Smith [12] define chilipepper as a middle shelf mesobenthal to outer shelf

species. Chilipepper have been taken as deep as 1,390 feet, but nearly all in survey

catches were taken between 164 and 1,150 feet [12]. They are considered to be a

parademersal species.

Adults and older juveniles usually occur over the shelf and slope; larvae and small

juveniles are generally found near the surface. In California north of Point Conception,

age-0 chilipepper are found from the surface to 26 feet around inshore rocky reefs during

the summer [230]. Larvae and juveniles are associated with kelp canopies, but not as

frequently as other rockfish species [201]. Juveniles are primarily found in 98-164 feet of

water and are pelagic [201]. In California, chilipepper are most commonly found

associated with deep, high relief rocky areas and along cliff drop-offs [201], as well as on

sand and mud bottoms [230]. They are occasionally found over flat, hard substrates

[201]. Juvenile chilipepper have been reported in 26-66 feet in Diablo Canyon [201]

Chilipepper are found in water with salinities of 32 to 34l, temperatures of 41° F to 77° F,

and at dissolved oxygen levels of 1.0 to 6.8 ppm [230].

Movements and Migrations

Love [196] does not consider this to be a migratory species. However, movements of up

to 1.5 miles per day have been recorded [196]. Chilipepper may migrate as far as 148 feet

off the bottom during the day to feed [196]. Chilipepper also school by sex just prior to

spawning [230].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 83

Reproduction

Chilipeppers are ovoviviparous, and eggs are fertilized internally [308]. In California,

fertilization of eggs begins in October. Spawning occurs from September to April [267];

peak spawning is December to January [201]. Chilipepper may spawn multiple broods in

a single season [201]. A 12-inch female may give birth to as many as 29,000 larvae

[114]. Hart [114] also found that a 20- to 22-inch female may give birth to as many as

538,000 young, but Love, et al. [201] found this number to be significantly too high.

Growth and Development

Eggs develop internally for 40-50 days [308]. Larvae are extruded at 0.18-0.23 inch in

length [326]. Larvae are considered to be juveniles typically around 0.9-1.0 inch in length

[326]. Females of the species are significantly larger, reaching lengths of up to 22 inches

[114]. Males are usually smaller than 16 inches [67].

Males mature at 2 to 6 years of age and 50% are mature at 3 to 4 years. Females mature

at 2 to 5 years with 50% mature at 3 to 4 years [230]. Females may attain an age of about

27 years whereas the maximum age for males is about 12 years [230].

Trophic Interactions

Larval and juvenile chilipepper eat all life stages of copepods and euphausiids, and are

considered to be somewhat opportunistic feeders [308]. In California, adults prey on large

euphausiids, squid, and small fishes such as anchovies, lanternfish and young hake [114,

201]. Chilipepper are found with widow rockfish, greenspotted rockfish, and swordspine

rockfish [201]. Juvenile chilipepper compete for food with bocaccio, yellowtail rockfish,

and shortbelly rockfish.

Chilipepper Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are parademersal and occur mainly from southern Oregon southward, at depths

from 164-1,150 feet.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles are parademersal and usually occur over the shelf and slope, probably in

the same habitat as adults.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles are pelagic and primarily occur at depths of 98-164 feet in inshore areas.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 84

Composites: neritic

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and often are associated with kelp canopies.

Composites: neritic

Parturition

Parturition occurs from September to April, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

The adult, large juvenile, and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for chilipepper could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for chilipepper

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes rocky reefs.

The adult, large juvenile, and parturition stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for chilipepper could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for chilipepper

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sand and mud bottoms.

CHINA ROCKFISH (Sebastes nebulosus)

Range

China rockfish occur from southeastern Alaska southward to Redondo Beach (southern

California) on the mainland and San Miguel Island offshore [81, 86, 197, 203]. China

rockfish is a nearshore species and occur throughout the area covered by this EFH

analysis. Larvae are pelagic but all other life stages are demersal, associated with rocky

bottoms and reefs from 10- 420 feet (Eschmeyer et al. 1983).

Habitat

China rockfish occur both inshore and along the open coast [81] from 10- 420 feet [81,

114, 197]. They are taken in water less than 302 feet [114]. China rockfish occur among

rocks and reefs [81]. They spend virtually all their time sitting on the bottom, often

sheltering in crevices [197]. China rockfish are sedentary, probably a territorial species

[81, 197].

Off southeastern Alaska, China rockfish occur in semi-protected habitats, but seem to

prefer high-energy or more exposed environments and divers frequently observed them

around high-relief rocky reefs, submerged wave-cut platforms and boulder fields.

Juvenile China rockfish inhabited shallow subtidal waters during summer and early fall

[321].

Migrations and Movements

They remain close to home crevices and take shelter when disturbed [114, 197].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 85

Reproduction

Male and female China rockfish mature at the same size: half are mature at 11 inches and

all are mature at 12 inches [197]. Spawning occurs from January-July throughout most of

its range, with a January peak [197].

Growth and Development

China rockfish grow to 17 inches [81, 197].

Trophic Interactions

Prey taxa of the China rockfish off southeastern Alaska includes brittle stars, rock crabs,

decorator crabs, brachyuran crab larvae, caridean shrimps, hermit crabs, and fish remains.

Most observed feeding was directed toward the bottom as China rockfish forage on

sedentary invertebrates comprising the living turf [322]. Off Oregon they consume

crustaceans, particularly decorator or spider crabs, and rock crabs [322]. Off California,

China rockfish consume crustaceans (primarily brachyuran crabs), octopi, abalones,

chitons, fishes, and brittle stars (Floyd 2003). China rockfish are dietary specialists and

have the greatest dietary similarity with quillback rockfish.

China Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur all along the west coast at depths from 10-420 feet,

commonly associated with rocky habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf

Mating Stage

No information.

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles can occur in shallow, subtidal waters and probably occur within other adult

habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and probably neritic.

Composites: neritic

Parurition:

Young are released from January - June throughout most of its range.

Composites: rocky shelf
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 86

The adult, juvenile, and parturition life stages of rocky shelf EFH for China rockfish could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for chilipepper

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes high-relief rocky reefs, submerged wave-cut

platforms and boulder fields.

COPPER ROCKFISH (Sebastes caurinus)

Range

Copper rockfish are found from the Gulf of Alaska southward to central Baja California

[81, 197, 226, 352]. Copper rockfish is a nearshore species and occur throughout the area

covered by this EFH analysis. Larvae and small juveniles are pelagic but all other life

stages are demersal, associated with rocky and rock-sand bottoms from 0 – 600 feet

(Eschmeyer et al. 1983). Bays and estuaries are used as nursery areas (Stein and Hassler

1989). Copper rockfish are closely associated with reefs or vegetation (Matthews 1990).

Habitat

Adult copper rockfish occur in nearshore waters, reportedly from the surface to 600 feet

[81, 352]. Copper rockfish are somewhat shallower during upwelling [352]. Juvenile

copper rockfish tend to live in shallower water, up to about 20 feet [197]. Copper

rockfish may use bays as nursery areas [352]. They are relatively abundant in Puget

Sound [24] and are common throughout the San Juan Islands and the Strait of Juan de

Fuca [225].

Copper rockfish are considered habitat generalists [225]. Young-of-the-year copper

rockfish initially occupy a greater diversity of habitats off British Columbia than

California; kelp forests are an especially important habitat during this phase [111]. In

central California juveniles are closely associated initially with the surface and mid-depth

Macrocyctis kelp beds [352]. Off British Columbia, juveniles have been found riding in

gooseneck barnacles on floatsam [352]. In Puget Sound, small young-of-the-year copper

rockfish are first observed in October, near the base of rockpiles or under pieces of bark

or fronds of kelp lying on the bottom [275].

Copper rockfish are common in rocky areas or on rock-sand bottoms in shallow water

[81, 111, 352]. Copper rockfish are never observed on an exclusively sand bottom [275,

352]. They are found on natural rocky reefs, artificial reefs, and rock piles; typically

found directly on the bottom, closely associated with reefs or vegetation [226]. In a study

off British Columbia [253], copper rockfish were observed within 10 feet of quillback

rockfish 92% of the time. They have even been sighted sharing caves with giant Pacific

octopus [197]. Copper rockfish hide in rock interstices in the winter but not in the

summer [275]. Fish within rockpiles are inactive and maintain contact, even curving their

bodies around rocks [275]. From July to October, when bull kelp is the most dense, few

copper rockfish are seen in the rock interstices, but they are always within 3 feet of the

rocks perimeter [275]. On high relief rocky reefs they maintain small home ranges (most

within a 323-feet2

 area), yet returned to their home sites when experimentally displaced

up to 4 miles in an underwater tag-resighting study. On low relief reefs, they have larger

home ranges [226]. These low relief reefs are only inhabited by copper rockfish during
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 87

the summer, coincident with the densest kelp cover; in fall and winter when algal cover is

reduced, low relief reefs appear quite barren [224]. Copper rockfish do not seem to

defend their territories. They assess habitat quality on the presence of structure, protective

cover, mates, and food, not on presence of predators [224]. Copper rockfish also avoid

warm water by living in deeper depths off southern California (usually below 180 feet)

than farther north. Conversely, off British Columbia, they are found in quite shallow

water, mostly less than 59 feet [197].

Migrations and Movements

Copper rockfish may move inshore to release their young [224]. Once adults find a good

reef, many do not seem to move about much [197, 352]. In northern waters, copper

rockfish probably withdraw in winter deep within crevices to avoid storms [197].

Reproduction

Off central California, male copper rockfish may be sexually mature at 3 years of age (12

inches); all are mature by 7 years (16 inches). All females are mature off central

California by 8 years (16 inches). In Puget Sound, Washington, sexual maturity occurs at

age 4, but occasionally at age 3 [352].

Copper rockfish spawn once per year. In Puget Sound, Washington eggs mature by

February. Fertilization occurs from March to May off Washington. Egg production

ranges from 15,000 eggs in a 9-inch female to 640,000 in one 18-inch long [114, 352].

Parturition occurs from April to June in Puget Sound [225], from February to April south

of British Columbia, and from March to July in southeastern Alaska [197].

Growth and Development

Young are pelagic as larvae and measure 0.19-0.24 inch in length at birth; they remain

pelagic until 1.6-2.0 inches SL [352]. Copper rockfish are slow growing and live to 55

years [225]. They can grow to 22 inches in length [81, 352]. In Humboldt Bay,

California, fish are 4-6 inches long as underyearlings, 5-8 inches at age one year, 7-9

inches at age two, and 9-12 inches at age three [352]. Growth rates are highest during the

summer, coinciding with high feeding rates and upwelling [352].

Trophic Interactions

Copper rockfish are opportunistic carnivores. Crustaceans, followed by fish and

molluscs, are the most important food groups of the copper rockfish in terms of volume,

number, and frequency of occurrence. In Humboldt Bay, juvenile Dungeness crabs were

the most important individual food item in terms of volume and frequency of occurrence

[302]. Off British Columbia, they feed on herring, kelp perch, pile perch, squat lobsters,

coonstriped shrimp, and to a lesser extent mysids [252]. Demersal crustaceans are

important prey throughout all seasons, increasing in occurrence from winter to fall [252].

Generally, copper rockfish rely less on reef associated food organisms as their age (size)

increases [352]. Copper rockfish feed during the day and at night [302, 352]. In

Humboldt Bay, northern anchovy comprises the largest portion of fish in the copper

rockfish diet; shiner perch is also important. Smaller copper rockfish (<1.8 inch SL) in
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 88

the kelp canopy eat primarily calanoid copepods, with some harpacticoids and zoea. Fish

4-5 inches eat small crustaceans such as amphipods, shrimp, caprellids, isopods, and

pinnixid crabs. Copper rockfish 1-3 years old eat juvenile Dungeness crab and anchovies,

with fish increasing and crustaceans decreasing as the fish grow.

Copper Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur in estuaries and all along the west coast at depths from 0-

600feet, associated with rocky reefs or vegetation.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Mating Stage

Mating may occur from late winter through spring. Insufficient information to define

EFH.

Large Juveniles

Large juveniles probably occupy adult habitats.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Small Juveniles

Small juveniles live in estuaries and shallow waters, often associated with the surface and

mid-depth kelp beds.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Larval Stage

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Parturition

Young are released inshore, mainly during winter and spring.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

The adult, large juvenile, small juvenile, and parturition stages of estuarine EFH for copper

rockfish could be affected by all ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Estuarine EFH

for copper rockfish potentially affected by the ODOT Bridge Assessment includes sandy areas in

shallow habitats, eelgrass beds, cobble near the base of rockpiles, sand and low rock formations,

in rocky areas, and on rock-sand bottoms in shallow water.

The adult and large juvenile stages of rocky shelf EFH for copper rockfish could be affected by

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for copper rockfish potentially

affected by the ODOT Bridge Assessment includes rocky and rock-sand bottoms, rocky reefs,

and rock piles.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 89

GOPHER ROCKFISH (Sebastes carnatus)

Range

Gopher rockfish are common and range from Eureka, California, to San Roque, Baja

California [159, 240].

Habitat

Gopher rockfish generally occur in waters <98 feet [55] but have been taken as deep as

180 feet [159]. Gopher rockfish are shallow-water benthic rockfishes that inhabit rocky

reefs. They spend the majority of their time during the day in rocky shelters [177] and at

night (and to a lesser degree during the day) perching on the bottom in the open [178].

Home ranges of gopher rockfish consist of a primary shelter hole and a larger, feeding

area in which they often rest in more exposed positions. The home range size increases

with fish size and depth [178]. Both the young-of-the-year and adults rest on the bottom.

Young gopher rockfish prefer low rock relief or sand bottoms. They are closely

associated with algae and are distributed equally among drift algae and Macrocystis.

During and after fall storms, they shift to crevices within high relief rock and are less

associated with algae [55]. Early gopher rockfish recruits (planktonic larvae) initially

occur in the surface canopy in late May and increase in density through July. By July,

individuals at mid-depth and on the bottom are larger. As density decreases in the surface

canopy, it increases at mid-depth and on the bottom, indicating a gradual movement from

surface to bottom in a 1-month period [55]. Adult territories, in rocky reefs dominated by

the giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), are aggressively defended.

Migrations and Movements

In one study [222], gopher rockfish moving 0.7 mile from a natural reef to an artificial

reef in pursuit of a better habitat. However, movements of more than 2 miles are rare

[216].

Reproduction

Gopher rockfish are ovoviviparous; eggs are fertilized internally and are carried for 1-2

months and then spawned as pelagic larvae [177]. Gonadal development begins in late

November and mating occurs in late January and early February; spawning occurs from

March-May [177].

Growth and Development

Larvae are planktonic and they settle in late June [177]. Metamorphosing juveniles first

appear inshore during mid- to late June [177]. Gopher rockfish reach sexual maturity in 3

to 4 years at sizes of 5 inches SL or greater [178]. Gopher rockfish can live to be more

than 30 years old [216].

Trophic Interactions

The gopher rockfish is a sedentary predator [178] that occupies an intermediate trophic

level feeding primarily on crabs and shrimp, with more motile fish and cephalopods

comprising most of the remainder of their diet [177]. In deeper waters juvenile gopher
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 90

rockfish are the primary prey of adult gopher rockfish, probably because preferred food

(crabs and shrimp) is less abundant in the deeper water [112].

Young-of-the-year gopher rockfish consume algal-associated prey [55]. Juveniles living

in the surface canopy fall prey to a variety of predators including birds.

Gopher Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are benthic and occur at depths <180 feet off California.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Mating Stage

Mating occurs in January and February, probably within the adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Juveniles

Benthic juveniles probably occur within the adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, intertidal (draft)

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic. Insufficient information to define EFH.

Parturition

Parturition occurs from March - May, probably within the adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

The juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for gopher rockfish could be affected by all ODOT bridge

replacement and repair activities.

The adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for gopher rockfish could

be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for gopher

rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes rocky reefs.

The adult, mating, juvenile, and parturition stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for gopher rockfish

could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf EFH for

gopher rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sand bottoms.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 91

GRASS ROCKFISH (Sebastes rastrelliger)

Range

Grass rockfish are found from Playa Maria Bay, Baja California to Yaquina Bay, Oregon

[81, 240, 324]. Grass rockfish is a common shallow-water species (Eschmeyer et al.

1983) that occurs throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis. They occupy

nearshore rocky areas, rocky bottom tidepools, areas along jetties, and kelp and eelgrass

beds (Miller and Lea 1972). Juveniles use tidepools.

Habitat

The grass rockfish is a common, shallow-water rockfish [81]. They are found from the

intertidal zone to 151 feet [240], frequently less than 49 feet [81, 240, 324]. Tide pools

usually only contain juveniles [197]. Young-of-the-year grass rockfish appear in shallow

water during the spring and summer [197] and recruit to hard substrate [199]. Grass

rockfish are common in nearshore rocky areas, rocky bottom tidepools, along jetties, in

kelp, and eelgrass [81, 240, 324]. Juvenile grass rockfish are most common in kelp beds

off California [150].

Migrations and Movements

No information.

Reproduction

Grass rockfish spawn in winter [197]. Fertilization occurs internally and eggs develop

and hatch inside the ovary of the female.

Growth and Development

Adult grass rockfish can grow to a maximum of 22 inches TL [81, 240, 324] and can live

to be at least 20 years of age (Floyd 2003).

Trophic Interactions

The grass rockfish is cryptic and nocturnal [126]. Grass rockfish are predators on black

surfperch [126]. They also prey upon crabs, shrimps, fishes, and octopi. Midshipmen,

which migrate into shallow water in the spring to spawn, are a common part of their diets.

Grass Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults occur from southern Oregon southward, at depths <151 feet, associated with rocky

areas and vegetation.

Composites: rocky shelf

Mating Stage

No information.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 92

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles occur from tide pools to adult depths.

Composites: rocky shelf, intertidal (draft)

Larval Stage

No information.

Parturition

Parturtion occurs during the winter, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf

The juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for grass rockfish could be affected by all ODOT bridge

replacement and repair activities.

The adult, juvenile, and parturition life stages of rocky shelf EFH for grass rockfish could be

affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for grass rockfish

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes intertidal rocky areas and rocky bottom

tidepools.

QUILLBACK ROCKFISH (Sebastes maliger)

Range

Quillback rockfish are found from the northern Channel Islands in southern California

(Floyd 2003), to the Gulf of Alaska [240]. The are common in the Strait of Georgia, San

Juan Islands, and Puget Sound and from southeastern Alaska to northern California [60,

114, 197, 224]. Quillback rockfish is a common shallow-water (<902 feet) benthic

species that occurs throughout the area covered by this EFH analysis. Like other rockfish,

larvae and young juveniles are pelagic while adults and older juveniles are demersal.

Young fish are typically found in shallower waters than adults. Quillback rockfish are

associated with rocky reef habitats and kelp and eelgrass beds (PFMC 1998bb). Estuaries

are used by all life stages.

Habitat

Quillback rockfish are a common, shallow-water benthic species [224]. They are taken

from subtidal depths to 902 feet [114, 197], but they occur mainly from 134-197 feet

[197, 253]. Young quillback rockfish occur along the shores and adults usually in deeper

waters [60]. Quillback rockfish are solitary reef-dwellers, living close to or on the bottom

[197, 223, 322]. Occasionally they will rise up 29-39 feet in the water column [197]. In

Puget Sound, they occupy a wide variety of habitats, having the highest densities on

shallow (<98 feet) reefs [224]. Quillback rockfish live among rocks or sometimes on

coarse sand or pebbles next to reefs, particularly in areas with a lot of flat-bladed kelp

[197]. They are either found perched on rock or kelp or wedged into crevices and holes,

and are rarely seen out in the open or unstructured areas of reefs [223]. Adults tend to

associate with high-relief substrate and young-of-the-year tend to associate with low-
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 93

relief substrate. Young-of-the-year tend to be on the most complex areas of low-relief

reefs [386] and use eelgrass/sand habitat as temporary habitat [225]. Young settle at 0.7-

1.0 inch TL to shallow, vegetated habitats such as beds of kelp and eelgrass [386].

Densities on low-relief reefs and sand/eelgrass increased during the summer coincident

with peak plant cover [224].

Migrations and Movements

On high-relief rocky reefs in Puget Sound, quillback rockfish maintain small home

ranges (within 323 feet2

). Off-reef movement occurs during the summer. During the fall

and winter, they remain on artificial reefs. On low-relief rocky reefs, they maintain

considerably larger home ranges (4,300-16,150 feet2

). Quillback rockfish only inhabit

low relief reefs during the summer and only return from displacements in the summer

coincident with peak algal cover. They move from artificial reefs to low relief reefs

during the summer and return to artificial reefs in the fall when kelp disappears on low

relief reefs. Returns to original reefs when artificially displaced indicates site fidelity.

Quillbacks can return to their home sites when experimentally displaced up to 4 miles.

Quillback rockfish are not territorial of their home range. They may use navigation or

olfactory cues to relocate home sites. They maintain small home ranges during the day,

night, and high currents [223, 226]; and [224]. Female quillback rockfish probably move

to other habitat to release larvae because no pregnant individuals were observed in these

studies [223].

Reproduction

Quillbacks are viviparous. Mating probably occurs in March in Puget Sound and

parturition in May [225]. Over their geographic range, they spawn from April-July, with

a peak early in the season [197, 223].

Growth and Development

Quillback rockfish can grow to 24 inches [60, 114, 197]. They can live to be 32 years old

but almost certainly live longer [197]. Growth rates differ along its range; off

southeastern Alaska a 12-year-old is approximately 12 inches, and 50% of quillback

rockfish mature at 12 inches; whereas off California a 12-year-old would only be 7

inches, and 50% mature at 9 inches [197].

Trophic Interactions

Quillback rockfish consume a wide range of prey taxa, but are more dietary generalists

than other rockfish species [322]. Off British Columbia, quillback rockfish feed on

herring and demersal and pelagic crustaceans. They feed primarily during mid-day and

are inactive, sheltering in holes and crevices during the night [252]. In Puget Sound

quillback rockfish principally prey upon brachyuran crabs; gammarid amphipods;

euphausiids, and calanoid copepods.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 94

Quillback Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge

Program

Adult Stage

Adults occur from in estuaries and along the coast from central California northward, at

depths < 902 feet, and mainly associated with rocky habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Mating

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Large Juveniles

Large juveniles probably occupy a somewhat shallower part of the adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf

Small Juveniles

Small juveniles are pelagic and occur in estuaries and waters over the shelf.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and occur in estuaries and waters over the shelf.

Composites: estuarine, neritic

Parturition

Parturition occurs from April through July, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: estuarine, rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

The adult, large juvenile, small juvenile, larval, and parturition stages of estuarine EFH for

quillback rockfish could be affected by all ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities.

Estuarine EFH for quillback rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes

shallow, vegetated habitats such as beds of eelgrass.

The adult, large juvenile, and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for quillback rockfish could

be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for quillback

rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes rocky reefs.

REDSTRIPE ROCKFISH (Sebastes proriger)

Range

Redstripe rockfish occur from San Diego, California to the Bering Sea [12, 114, 240].

Redstripe rockfish occur primarily in deeper waters, but can be found within the western

portions of the territorial sea boundary, and are most common between 328 and 1,150

feet (Allen and Smith 1988). Young redstripe rockfish can occur in estuaries (Kendall
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 95

and Lenarz 1986). Adults are semi-demersal while larvae and juveniles are pelagic to

semi-demersal. They are associated with high and low relief rocky areas.

Habitat

Redstripe rockfish inhabits the outer shelf and upper slope [12]. Redstripe rockfish have

been reported between 39 and 1,390 feet in depth, but are most common (95%) between

328 and 1,150 feet [12]. Adults are semi-demersal, while larvae and juveniles are pelagic

to semi-demersal [94]. Young redstripe rockfish can occur in estuaries [150]. All life

stages of this species are found in Puget Sound, but they are relatively uncommon [94].

Redstripe rockfish are generally found slightly off the bottom (one meter or so) over both

high and low relief rocky areas [350].

Movements and Migrations

Redstripe rockfish are very sedentary, exhibiting little or no movement from a home

habitat or range [228]. In one study off California [228], displaced fish returned to a

home range in some but not all cases, suggesting that redstripe rockfish show fidelity to a

specific habitat type as opposed to a specific area.

Reproduction

Redstripe rockfish are ovoviviparous [94]. Off Oregon, larvae are released between April

and July, but later off northern and central California, during July through September

[150]. Larvae are released during July in Puget Sound [94].

Growth and Development

Larvae are extruded between 0.12 and 0.28 inch [150]. The length at 50% maturity of this

species is 11 inches for both sexes in Puget Sound, [94]. Redstripe rockfish may grow to

reach 24 inches [114].

Trophic Interactions

Larvae and juveniles of this species were found to feed primarily on copepods, their eggs,

and copepod nauplii, as well as all stages of euphausiids [150]. Food of adult redstripe

rockfish consists of small fish such as anchovies, herring and early stages of other

groundfish, as well as squid [350].

Redstripe rockfish may compete for food and habitat resources with widow, squarespot,

shortbelly, and canary rockfishes, as well as lingcod and spiny dogfish.

Redstripe Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge

Program

Adult Stage

Adults are parademersal and occur all along the west coast at depths from 328-1,150 feet,

associated with rocky substrates.

Composites: rocky shelf, continental slope/basin
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 96

Mating Stage

No information.

Juvenile Stage

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Larval Stage

No information.

Parturition

Parturition occurs from April through September, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

The adult and parturition life stages of rocky shelf EFH for redstripe rockfish could be affected

by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for redstripe rockfish

potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes rocky areas.

Redstripe rockfish can occur in estuaries and could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and

repair activities. However, estuaries are not designated as EFH for redstripe rockfish.

SHORTBELLY ROCKFISH (Sebastes jordani)

Range

Shortbelly rockfish are found from San Benito Islands, Baja California, Mexico to La

Perouse Bank, British Columbia [81, 185]. Shortbelly rockfish are a parademersal species

and occur in waters from 164 to 1,150 feet deep (Allen and Smith 1988). Small juveniles

can occur in shallow waters. Shortbelly rockfish are associated with soft, smooth

bottoms.

Habitat

Shortbelly rockfish are considered a middle shelf-mesobenthal species, inhabiting waters

from 164-1,150 feet [12]. Shortbelly rockfish are a cold-temperate species occurring on

the continental shelf [59] and upper-slope [359]. Larvae are found up to 173 miles

offshore, but are generally taken much closer to shore [185], mostly within 12 miles of

land [209]. Young-of-the-year shortbelly rockfish have been observed in the surf line off

California [186].

The habitat of the shortbelly rockfish is wide ranging [81]. They occur in midwater and

away from underwater objects such as reefs or kelp more often than most, if not all,

California rockfishes [185]. Adults commonly form very large schools over smooth

bottom near the shelf break [186]. Shortbelly rockfish were also observed along the

Monterey Canyon ledge [361]. Off California, young shortbelly rockfish recruit to soft

substrate and low (<3 feet) relief reefs [199].
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 97

Migrations and Movements

During intense upwelling (May-June) relatively small fish stay deep, presumably to avoid

advection to shore [184]. During the day shortbelly rockfish are found near the bottom in

dense aggregations that often extend 49 feet up in the water column. At night they are

more dispersed, 66-230feet above the bottom but still more than 98 feet below the surface

of the water [59]. During the summer shortbelly rockfish tend to move into deeper waters

and to the north as they grow, but they do not make long return migrations to the south in

the winter to spawn [185]. Shortbelly rockfish sometimes are found forming large

schools well offshore and off-bottom [81].

Reproduction

Shortbelly rockfish are viviparous, bearing advanced yolk-sac larvae at the time of

parturition [307]. Shortbelly rockfish spawn off California during January through April

[186]. A 50-g fish produces approximately 115 eggs (larvae) per gram of spawning

female, whereas a 275-g fish should produce 139 eggs per gram of body weight [209].

Growth and Development

Shortbelly rockfish larvae is the longest at birth of any eastern Pacific rockfish. Also their

larval period is long prior to transformation to the juvenile stage when compared with

other eastern Pacific rockfish [185]. On average, developing shortbelly rockfish grow at a

rate of 0.02 inch per day [184]. Larvae undergo flexion at 0.31-0.39 inch SL [168].

Larvae metamorphose to juveniles at 1.1 inch and appear to begin forming schools at the

surface at that time [168, 185]. Juveniles up to 2.5 inches have been taken by dip nets and

benthic individuals have been taken as small as 2.8 inches [185]. The size of shortbelly

rockfish tends to increase with depth and the size for a given depth stratum tends to

increase in a northerly direction between latitude 34 and 39EN [185].

A few shortbelly rockfish mature at 6 inches, 1 ounce (age 2); 50% are mature at 6.5

inches, 1 ounce (age 3). Nearly all are mature by age 4 [186]. Their maximum size is 12

inches or 9 ounces, and they can live to be about 10 years old [185, 209]. The maximum

recorded age is 22 years [186].

Trophic Interactions

Shortbelly rockfish feed primarily on various life stages of euphausiids and calanoid

copepods both during the day and night [59, 184]. Shortbelly rockfish play a key role in

the food chain, as they are preyed upon by chinook and coho salmon, lingcod, black

rockfish, hake, bocaccio, chilipepper, pigeon guillemots, western gull, marine mammals,

and others.

Shortbelly Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge

Program

Adult Stage

Adults are parademersal and occur all along the west coast, at depths from 164-1,150

feet.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 98

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

No information.

Large Juveniles

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Small Juveniles

Small juveniles can occur in shallow waters. Insufficient information to define EFH.

Composites: intertidal (draft).

Larval Stage

Larvae are pelagic and can occur far offshore, but mainly within 12 miles of shore.

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Parturition

Spawning occurs during winter and spring, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin

The small juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for shortbelly rockfish could be affected by all ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities.

The adult and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for shortbelly rockfish could be affected by

the Bridge Program.

The adult and parturition stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for shortbelly rockfish could be affected

by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities.

VERMILION ROCKFISH (Sebastes miniatus)

Range

Vermilion rockfish are found from Cape Bartolome, southeastern Alaska (lat. 60 14'N,

long. 146 58'W) south to central Baja California, Mexico [197, 264]. Vermillion rockfish

is a demersal species associated with rocky substrates (Love et al. 1990). Adults are

found in waters up to 784 feet deep, and young fish are most common in waters between

16 and 98 feet deep (Love et al. 1990).

Habitat

Vermilion rockfish occur in shallow water when young and in deeper water as larger

adults [81, 216]. Adults occur in water up to 784 feet [201], and were observed in 23 feet

in Diablo Canyon [201]. Newly released larvae are pelagic and found near the surface for

three to four months, then settle to the bottom [376] in waters between 16 and 98 feet

deep [201]. Vermilion rockfish are usually found over rocks, along drop-offs and over
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 99

hard bottom, often in aggregations. They occur mostly on or near the bottom, rarely

rising more than 10 feet above the reef [197]. Young vermilion rockfish recruited to sand

and sand/low rock substrata without algae or kelp [55]. In general, young are recruited to

the bottom on soft or hard substrate with low (<3 feet) relief [199]. Juveniles are secretive

and often take refuge in dense algae [376].

Migrations and Movements

Vermilion rockfish are usually found aggregating near or slightly above the bottom, often

over high relief [201] or artificial structures such as wastewater discharge pipes and oil

drilling platforms [230]. They probably move from reef to reef, particularly in deep

water, but it is unknown how far they move [197]. It is thought that movements of

vermilion rockfish off reefs may be associated with following schools of prey (such as

squid) [196].

Reproduction

The length at first maturity for male vermilion rockfish is 12 inches, 50% are mature at

14 inches, and all are mature by 15 inches. Females begin to mature at 12 inches, 50% are

mature at 15 inches, and all are mature at 18 inches [201]. Half the population is mature

at 8 years [376].

Peak spawning months are September in northern California and November in southern

California [376]. An 18-inch SL female spawned 158,915 eggs while a 27-inch SL

female spawned 2,683,768 eggs [201]. Vermilion rockfish are single brooders [201].

Growth and Development

Young-of-the-year appear in inshore water beginning in February [197]. Vermilion

rockfish can grow to 30 inches and 15 pounds [81]. The oldest individual aged was 25

years old [376].

Trophic Interactions

Vermilion rockfish prey on other fishes (anchovies, lanternfishes, small rockfishes),

octopi, squids, and krill [197]. Pelagic young feed primarily upon crustaceans.

Vermilion Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge

Program

Adult Stage

Adults are demersal and occur all along the west coast at depths <784 feet, associated

with rocky substrates.

Composites: rocky shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

No information.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 100

Juvenile Stage

Juveniles occur over a variety of substrates, and probably occur in the shallower part of

the adult range.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Larval Stage

No information.

Parturition

Insufficient information to define EFH.

The adult and juvenile stages of rocky shelf EFH for vermilion rockfish could be affected by

ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for tiger rockfish potentially

affected by the Bridge Program includes rocks, drop-offs, hard bottoms, and rocky reefs.

WIDOW ROCKFISH (Sebastes entomelas)

Range

Widow rockfish range from Albatross Bank of Kodiak Island to Todos Santos Bay, Baja

California [81, 176, 240, 260]. Widow rockfish is a pelagic species, but older juveniles

and adults are often found over hard bottom substrates at depths between 164 and 1,150

feet (NOAA Fisheries 1990). Larvae and small juveniles are found in surface waters from

nearshore to 186 miles offshore (Laroche and Richardson 1981).

Habitat

Adults are sublittoral to bathyal over depths of 66-1,200 feet, mostly 328-984 feet [81,

176, 260]. Larvae and small juveniles are neritic and epipelagic, occurring from near

surface to 66 feet deep and nearshore to 186 miles offshore [176, 260]. Larger juveniles

occur near-bottom, inshore over depths of 29-121 feet [81, 260]. All life stages are

pelagic, but older juveniles and adults are often associated with the bottom [260]. All life

stages are fairly common from Washington to California [260]. Off Oregon they are

reported to be most common on the continental shelf [176]. Pelagic larvae and juveniles

co-occur with yellowtail rockfish, chilipepper, shortbelly rockfish, and bocaccio larvae

and juveniles off central California [308]. In a study off central California, postpelagic

newly settled widow rockfish were first observed at the seaward, sand-rock interface of

nearshore reefs in depths of 20-66 feet. They were associated with crevices, sand

channels among the rocks, or depressions in the reef [377]. They also recruit to soft

substrates and low (<3 feet) relief in association with macrophytes [199]. Juvenile widow

rockfish have also been reported from 26-66 feet in Diablo Canyon [201], and adult

widow rockfish occur along Monterey Canyon ledge [361]. Widow rockfish occur over

hard bottoms along the continental shelf [260]. Substrate preferred by widow rockfish are

rocky banks, seamounts, ridges near canyons, headlands, and muddy bottoms near rocks.

All life stages occur in euhaline (31-34 ppt) waters [81, 260], and temperatures of 43-60°

F and dissolved oxygen levels of 1.0 to 7.0 ppm [230]. Large widow rockfish

concentrations occur off head lands such as Cape Blanco, Cape Mendocino, Pt. Reyes,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 101

and Pt. Sur, common characteristics of these areas include extended points of land,

offshore canyons, and current circulation eddies inshore of main currents. These

oceanographic characteristics appear to be associated in some manner with aggregations

of widow rockfish during their reproductive cycle [305].

Migrations and Movements

Adults form dense, irregular, midwater and semi-demersal schools deeper than 328 feet at

night and disperse during the day [81, 260, 393].

Reproduction

Widow rockfish are viviparous, have internal fertilization, and brood their eggs until

released as larvae [260, 307, 308]. Mating occurs from late fall-early winter, occurring

earliest off California, and latest off British Columbia. Off Oregon, mating occurs mostly

in December, and in September off California. The mating process occurs in current

circulation eddies inshore of main currents, often off extended points of land and in

offshore canyons. Parturition of larvae occurs from late winter to early spring with a

regional timing sequence similar to mating. Larval release occurs from DecemberFebruary off California, and from February-March off Oregon, and in April off British

Columbia and Alaska. Fecundity increases with size of the female, from 55,000 eggs at

13 inches, to 915,000 eggs at 20 inches [260].

Growth and Development

Larvae are 0.2 inch at parturition and the larval period lasts several weeks. Juveniles are

0.8-1.2 inches at metamorphosis, and they grow to 10 inches over 3 years. Age and size

at sexual maturity varies by region and sex, generally increasing northward and at older

ages and larger sizes for females. Some mature in 3 years (10 inches), 50% are mature by

4-5 years (10-14 inches), and most are mature in 8 years (15-16 inches) [28, 260]. The

maximum age of widow rockfish is 28 years, but rarely over 20 years for females and 15

years for males [260]. The largest size is 21 inches, about 5 pounds [81, 260].

Trophic Interactions

Widow rockfish are carnivorous. Adults feed on small pelagic crustaceans, midwater

fishes (such as age-1 or younger Pacific hake), salps, caridean shrimp, and small squids

[3, 260]. They pursue nektonic prey in the water column probably hunting by sight,

feeding in upper levels at night and in deeper water during the daytime. During spring,

the most important prey item is salps, during the fall fish are more important, and during

the winter widow rockfish primarily eat sergestid shrimp [3]. Feeding is most intense in

the spring after spawning [260]. Pelagic juveniles are opportunistic feeders and their prey

consists of various life stages of calanoid copepods, and sub-adult euphausiids (including

eggs).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 102

Widow Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge Program

Adult Stage

Adults are pelagic, but associated with the bottom along the continental shelf and slope

and in submarine canyons at depths between 164 and 1,150 feet, primarily over hard

bottoms, such as rocky banks, ridges and headlands.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin

Mating Adult Stage

During late fall and early winter, mating occurs in current circulation eddies inshore of

main currents, often off extended points of land and in offshore canyons.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin

Large Juvenile Stage

Large juveniles are pelagic, but associated with the bottom along the inner continental

shelf at depths between 30 and 121 feet, probably over hard, rocky bottoms.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon

Small Juvenile Stage

Small juveniles occur in surface waters up to 66 feet deep from near shore to 186 miles

offshore.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

Larval Stage

Larvae occur in the same areas as small juveniles: in surface waters up to 66 feet deep

from near shore to 186 miles offshore.

Composites: neritic, oceanic

Parturition

From late winter through early spring, parturition occurs along the coast in adult areas.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin

The adult, mating, large juvenile, and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for widow rockfish

could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH for

widow rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes sand-rock interfaces of

nearshore reefs, crevices, or depressions in the reef, hard bottoms, rocky banks, seamounts,

ridges near canyons, headlands, rock outcrops surrounded by mud, high relief outcroppings, and

low relief cobble outcroppings.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 103

The adult, mating, large juvenile, and parturition stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for widow

rockfish could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf

EFH for widow rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes soft substrates and

low relief, sand-rock interfaces of nearshore reefs, sand channels among the rocks, muddy

bottoms near rocks, and sand.

YELLOWTAIL ROCKFISH (Sebastes flavidus)

Range

Yellowtail rockfish range from San Diego, California, to Kodiak Island, Alaska [89, 98,

191, 197, 240, 262]. The center of yellowtail rockfish abundance is from Oregon to

British Columbia [89]. Yellowtail rockfish is a paradmersal species and occurs over

sloping shores, rocky reefs, mud with cobble, rocky ridges, and sand habitats (Hart 1973).

Adults are pelagic and occur near, but not on, the bottom. Pelagic juveniles occur in areas

outside the territorial sea, but benthic juveniles occur nearshore, at depths of 66 to 121

feet.

Habitat

Yellowtail rockfish are a common, demersal species that is most abundant over the

middle shelf [54, 89, 366, 384]. In the North Pacific, they are considered a middle shelfmesobenthal species, and have been reported at depths of 0-1,800 feet, although nearly all

were taken between 164-984 feet in survey catches [12]. Off Heceta Bank, Oregon, they

usually remain at midwater depths of 82-115 feet, well above seafloor depths of

approximately 246 feet [197, 280]. Yellowtail adults are considered as being semipelagic [349, 355] or pelagic which allows them to range over wider areas than benthic

rockfish [280]. Yellowtail rockfish are most common near the bottom, but not on the

bottom [197, 349]. Pelagic juveniles occur 15-165 miles offshore, benthic juveniles occur

nearshore, in 66-121 feet deep water [366].

Yellowtail rockfish are part of the shelf rockfish assemblage which includes Pacific

ocean perch, bocaccio, chilipepper, and canary, silvergray, black, and widow rockfishes

[2, 89, 119, 197, 355]. Based on research trawl surveys, the area from Cape Flattery to

Cape Blanco is characterized by a canary-yellowtail-silvergray assemblage in 300-594

feet of water. The Cape Blanco to Cape Mendocino region is dominated by yellowtail

and stripetail rockfishes in the 300-594 feet zone. Yellowtail rockfish are not as common

in survey catches from Cape Mendocino to Point Hueneme [107], although yellowtail

rockfish are relatively common in recreational catches off central California (Floyd

2003). In Puget Sound, Washington, yellowtail rockfish are more abundant in northern,

than in central areas [366]. Adult yellowtail rockfish occur along steeply sloping shores

or above rocky reefs [114]. They can be found above mud with cobble, boulder and rock

ridges, and sand habitats; they are not; however, found on mud, mud with boulder, or flat

rock [197, 355].

Migrations and Movements

Yellowtail rockfish form large (sometimes greater than 1,000 fish) schools and can be

found alone or in association with other rockfishes [197, 280, 321, 355, 366]. These
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 104

schools may persist at the same location for many years [280]. In one study, yellowtail

rockfish made rapid descents to near bottom depths, but no obvious diel vertical or

horizontal migrations were detected [280]. However, others [191, 366] report that

yellowtail rockfish exhibit diurnal vertical migrations in behavior associated with feeding

on vertically migrating prey.

Yellowtail rockfish can make long distance movements [349]. Young-of-the-year come

into shallow water, often into kelp beds, and usually migrate to deeper water as they

mature [53, 197, 349]. Adult yellowtail rockfish show strong site fidelity and homing

abilities [53, 54, 98, 280].

Reproduction

Yellowtail rockfish are viviparous [262]. Along the west coast yellowtail rockfish mate

from October to December, parturition peaks in February and March (ranges from

November to June) off Oregon-British Columbia [197, 366, 389] and from NovemberMarch off California [389]. Fecundity varies with length, 66,000 eggs at 12 inches to

1.15 million eggs at 21 inches in length [297, 366].

Growth and Development

Larvae are approximately 0.2 inch in length when extruded [366]. Larvae transform to

pelagic juveniles at 0.9-1.1 inches in length. They transform to benthic juveniles at 1.6-

2.0 inches in length. Young-of-the-year pelagic juveniles often appear in kelp beds

beginning in April and live in and around kelp, in midwater during the day, descending to

the bottom at night [197, 366]. Benthic juveniles begin to settle from June-November

[366]. Male yellowtail rockfish are 13-16 inches in length (5-9 years) at 50% maturity,

females are 15-18 inches (6-10 years) [366].

Yellowtail rockfish are long-lived and slow-growing; the oldest recorded was 64 years

old [90, 366]. Even though they are slow growing, like other rockfish, they have a high

growth rate when compared to other rockfish [366]. They reach a maximum size of about

22 inches in approximately 15 years [366].

Trophic Interactions

Yellowtails feed mainly on pelagic animals, but are opportunistic, occasionally eating

benthic animals as well [191]. Large juveniles and adults eat fish (small hake, Pacific

herring, smelt, anchovies, lanternfishes, and others), along with squid, krill, and other

planktonic organisms (euphausiids, salps, and pyrosomes) [197, 297, 321, 366].

Yellowtail rockfish caught in bottom trawls off Washington fed almost exclusively on

euphausiids, while those caught in midwater trawls off Queen Charlotte Sound fed on

euphausiids as well as pelagic and benthic fishes [191]. Feeding primarily occurs during

night or early morning hours, although some feeding probably occurs during the daytime

as well.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 105

Yellowtail Rockfish Life Stages and EFH Potentially Affected by the Bridge

Program

Adult Stage

Adults are parademersal and occur all along the west coast, at depths from 164-1,150

feet.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Mating Stage

Mating occurs from October to December, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

Large Juveniles

Large juveniles occur at depths from 66-121 feet.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf

Small Juveniles

Small juveniles are pelagic and occur from 15-165 miles offshore.

Composites: neritic, oceanic, intertidal (draft)

Larval Stage

Insufficient information to define EFH.

Parturition

Parturition occurs from November to late spring, probably within adult habitat.

Composites: rocky shelf, non-rocky shelf, continental slope/basin

The small juvenile stage of intertidal EFH for yellowtail rockfish could be affected by all ODOT

bridge replacement and repair activities.

The adult, mating, large juvenile, and parturition stages of rocky shelf EFH for yellowtail

rockfish could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Rocky shelf EFH

for yellowtail rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes rocky areas, steeply

sloping shores with walls and cliffs, ridges and boulders.

The adult, mating, large juvenile, and parturition stages of non-rocky shelf EFH for yellowtail

rockfish could be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair activities. Non-rocky shelf

EFH for yellowtail rockfish potentially affected by the Bridge Program includes mud with

cobble, boulder and rock ridges, and sand habitats.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 106

7.3.2 Description of Essential Fish Habitat for Pacific Salmon

EFH is the aquatic habitat necessary to allow for salmon production needed to support a longterm sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. The salmon

fishery EFH includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently

or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. In the

estuarine and marine areas, salmon EFH extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged

environments to 37 miles offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point

Conception. Foreign waters (i.e., off Canada) are not included in salmon EFH because they are

outside U.S. jurisdiction. The Pacific coast salmon fishery EFH also includes the marine areas

off Alaska designated as salmon EFH by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The

geographic extent of freshwater EFH is specifically defined as all waters currently or historically

accessible to salmon within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic units

identified in Table 7.3.2-1. Salmon EFH excludes areas upstream of longstanding naturally

impassible barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years). Salmon EFH

includes aquatic areas above all artificial barriers except those listed in Table 7.3.2-2. In the

future, should salmon access or reintroduction above any of the dams listed in Table 7.3.2-2

become technologically and economically feasible, these areas would be designated as salmon

EFH.

Table 7.3.2-1. Pacific salmon freshwater EFH identified by USGS hydrologic unit number.

USGS Hydr.

Unit

State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon species

17080001 OR/WA L. Columbia-Sandy chinook and coho salmon

17080003 OR/WA L. Columbia - Clatskanie chinook and coho salmon

17080006 OR/WA Lower Columbia chinook and coho salmon

17090001 OR M.F. Willamette River chinook salmon

17090002 OR Coast F. Willamette R. chinook salmon

17090003 OR U. Willamette River chinook and coho salmon

17090004 OR McKenzie River chinook and coho salmon

17090005 OR N. Santiam River chinook and coho salmon

17090006 OR S. Santiam River chinook and coho salmon

17090007 OR Mid. Willamette River chinook and coho salmon
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 107

Table 7.3.2-1. (continued).

USGS Hydr.

Unit

State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon species

17090008 OR Yamhill River chinook and coho salmon

17090009 OR Molalla - Pudding River chinook and coho salmon

17090010 OR Tualatin River chinook and coho salmon

17090011 OR Clackamas River chinook and coho salmon

17090012 OR L. Willamette River chinook and coho salmon

17070101 OR/WA Mid. Columbia - Lake Wallula chinook salmon

17070102 OR/WA Walla Walla River chinook salmon

17070103 OR Umatilla River chinook salmon

1707104 OR Willow chinook salmon

17070105 OR/WA Mid. Columbia - Hood chinook and coho salmon

17070301 OR Upper Deschutes River chinook salmon

17070303 OR Beaver - South Fork chinook salmon

17070304 OR Upper Crooked River chinook salmon

17070305 OR Lower Crooked River chinook salmon

17070306 OR Lower Deschutes River chinook and coho salmon

17070307 OR Trout Creek chinook and coho salmon

17070201 OR Upper John Day River chinook salmon

17070202 OR N.F. John Day River chinook salmon

17070203 OR Middle F. John Day River chinook salmon

17070204 OR Lower John Day River chinook salmon

17060101 OR/ID Hells Canyon chinook salmon

17060102 OR Imnaha River chinook salmon

17060103 OR/WA/ID Lower Snake - Asotin Creek chinook and coho salmon

17060104 OR Upper Grande Ronde chinook and coho salmon
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 108

Table 7.3.2-1. (continued).

USGS Hydr.

Unit

State(s) Hydrologic Unit Name Salmon species

17060105 OR Wallowa River chinook and coho salmon

17060106 OR/WA Lower Grande Ronde chinook and coho salmon

17100201 OR Necanicum River chinook and coho salmon

17100202 OR Nehalem River chinook and coho salmon

17100203 OR Wilson - Trask - Nestucca chinook and coho salmon

17100204 OR Siletz - Yaquina River chinook and coho salmon

17100205 OR Alsea River chinook and coho salmon

17100206 OR Siuslaw River chinook and coho salmon

17100207 OR Siltcoos River chinook and coho salmon

17100301 OR N. Umpqua River chinook and coho salmon

17100302 OR S. Umpqua River chinook and coho salmon

17100303 OR Umpqua River chinook and coho salmon

17100304 OR Coos River chinook and coho salmon

17100305 OR Coquille River chinook and coho salmon

17100306 OR Sixes River chinook and coho salmon

17100307 OR Upper Rogue River chinook and coho salmon

17100308 OR Middle Rogue River chinook and coho salmon

17100309 CA/OR Applegate River chinook and coho salmon

17100310 OR Lower Rogue River chinook and coho salmon

17100311 CA/OR Illinois River chinook and coho salmon

17100312 CA/OR Chetco River chinook and coho salmon

18010101 CA/OR Smith River chinook and coho salmon

18010206 CA/OR Upper Klamath River chinook and coho salmon

18010209 CA/OR Lower Klamath River chinook and coho salmon
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 109

Table 7.3.2-2. Tentative list of man-made barriers under consideration for exclusion of EFH above such barriers.

The salmon fishery EFH will exclude historic habitat above barriers that are considered to not be technologically

and economically feasible for salmonid passage and/or re-establishment of self-sustaining runs above such barriers.

Name of Barrier State USGS Hydro.

Unit

Basin Comments

Pelton Dam

Round Butte

Dam

OR 17070306 Deschutes River A passage project is pending - proposed delete

from this list. Next upstream dam is Round Butte.

Dams represent the upstream extent of proposed

critical habitat for chinook.

Big Cliff Dam OR 17090005 N. Santiam River Passage under consideration. Adult passage

feasible. Juvenile passage may be feasible.

Proposed delete from this list.

Foster Dam

Green Peter Dam

OR 17090006 S. Santiam River This dam has passage facilities - proposed delete

from this list. Next upstream dam is Green Peter.

Dams represent the upstream extent of proposed

critical habitat for chinook.

Cougar Dam OR 17090004 McKenzie River Passage under consideration - proposed delete

from this list. Dam represents the upstream extent

of proposed critical habitat for chinook.

Dexter Dam OR 17090001 Middle Fork

Willamette River

Passage under consideration. Adult passage

feasible. Juvenile passage may be feasible.

Proposed delete from this list. Dam represents the

upstream extent of proposed critical habitat for

chinook.

Dorena Dam OR 17090002 Coast Fork

Willamette River

Passage under consideration. Adult passage

feasible. Juvenile passage may be feasible.

Proposed delete from this list.

Soda Springs

Dam

OR 17100301 N. Umpqua River Passage under consideration - proposed delete

from this list.

Lost Creek Dam OR 17100307 Rogue River Habitat is flooded. Dam represents the upstream

extent of critical habitat for coho and proposed

critical habitat for chinook.

Applegate Dam OR 17100309 Applegate River Dam represents the upstream extent of critical

habitat for coho and proposed critical habitat for

chinook.

Bull Run Dam OR 17080001 Sandy River Dam represents the upstream extent of proposed

critical habitat for chinook.

Oak Grove Dam OR 17090011 Clackamas River Dam represents the upstream extent of proposed

critical habitat for chinook.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 110

Listed Salmonid ESUs with EFH in Oregon:

CHINOOK SALMON:

SNAKE RIVER FALL-RUN ESU

SNAKE RIVER SPRING / SUMMER-RUN ESU

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ESU

UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING-RUN ESU

UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER ESU

COHO SALMON:

SOUTHERN OREGON / NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ESU

OREGON COAST ESU

Salmon ESUs with EFH in Oregon that are not listed under ESA:

Deschutes River Summer/Fall Run Chinook

SONC Chinook

Oregon Coast Chinook

Mid-Columbia River Spring Chinook

Upper Columbia Summer/Fall Chinook

Lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington Coho

7.3.2.1 Deschutes River Summer/Fall Run Chinook Salmon

This ESU includes all naturally-spawned populations of chinook salmon from the Deschutes

River. Major river basins containing spawning and rearing habitat for this ESU comprise

approximately 2,687 square miles in Oregon. The following counties lie partially or wholly

within these basins: Oregon - Crook, Hood River, Jefferson, Sherman, and Wasco.

Among ocean-type Columbia River populations above Celilo Falls, summer-run chinook salmon

spawn in the mid- and lower reaches of tributaries with peak spawning occurring in October,

whereas fall-run chinook salmon spawn in the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers and the

lower reaches of the Deschutes and Yakima Rivers with peak spawning occurring in November

([Garcia et al. 1996] [Marshall et al. 1995] [Mullan 1987] [Howell et al. 1985]). The Deschutes

River and Marion Drain systems support fall-runs with very high incidences of 2-year-old "jack"

chinook salmon ([ODFW 1995b] [Hymer et al. 1992]). A significant number of tagged fall-run

chinook salmon from the Snake and Deschutes Rivers are recovered in southerly waters off the

Oregon and California Coast, and recovery of CWT-marked Snake and Deschutes River fall-run

chinook salmon off Alaska is not large ([Waples et al. 1991] [Howell et al. 1985]). A summer

run may have existed on the Deschutes River. Recoveries of returning adults tagged at

Bonneville Dam in June and July (a migration timing that is generally associated with summer

runs) were made in the Deschutes and Metolius (a tributary to the upper Deschutes River) Rivers

(Galbreath 1966). Jonasson and Lindsay (1988) speculated that a distinct summer run spawned in

the upper Deschutes River prior to the construction of Pelton Dam (river mile 103) in 1958 and

Round Butte Dam (river mile 110) in 1964, and that subsequently the run was eliminated or

assimilated into the fall-run. Presently, fall-run chinook salmon on the Deschutes River return

much earlier than any other fall-run stock on the Columbia River (Olsen et al. 1992), suggesting
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 111

that some assimilation may have taken place. Deschutes River fall-run chinook salmon are

described as having a small size for their age (Kostow 1995).

The Deschutes River contains "native" stream-type chinook salmon. Even prior to the

construction of Pelton Dam, spawning areas for spring-run chinook salmon on the Deschutes

River lay below 3,280 feet (Nehlsen 1995).

The Deschutes River population continues to increase. Most recent data shows annual returns to

be at a five-year average of about 16,000 fish, increasing at about 18% a year

Concerns remain over the possible extinction of the summer-run life history type in the

Deschutes Basin, and the loss of fall-run fish from adjacent river basins (Umatilla, John Day,

Walla Walla) that may have shared a common ESU with Deschutes chinook.

Pathogens have the largest effect on chinook survival in the lower Deschutes River (Mobrand

1999 in Floyd 2003). Data indicate that habitat diversity, oxygen, pathogens, predation, sediment

load, and temperature had the largest effect on salmon productivity.

7.3.2.2 Southern Oregon/Northern California Chinook Salmon

The Southern Oregon/Northern California chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned

populations of chinook salmon from rivers and streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon

(excluding the Elk River), and the lower Klamath River, California, excluding populations in the

Klamath River Basin upstream from the confluence of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. Major

river basins containing spawning and rearing habitat for this ESU comprise approximately 6,528

square miles in California and Oregon. The following counties lie partially or wholly within

these basins: California - Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou; Oregon - Coos, Curry, Douglas,

Jackson, Josephine, and Klamath.

Chinook salmon in this ESU exhibit an ocean-type life-history; ocean distribution (based on

marine CWT recoveries) is predominantly off of the California and Oregon coasts. Ecologically,

the majority of river systems in this ESU are relatively small and heavily influenced by a

maritime climate. Low summer flows and high temperatures in many rivers result in seasonal

physical and thermal barrier bars that block movement by anadromous fish.

8.3.2.3 Oregon Coast Chinook Salmon

The Oregon Coast chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon in

Oregon coastal basins north of, and including, the Elk River. Major river basins containing

spawning and rearing habitat for this ESU comprise approximately 10,604 square miles in

Oregon. The following counties lie partially or wholly within these basins: Benton, Clatsop,

Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Lincoln, Polk, Tillamook,

Washington, and Yamhill.

These populations exhibit an ocean-type life-history and mature at ages 3, 4, and 5. In contrast to

the more southerly ocean distribution pattern shown by populations from the lower Columbia
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 112

River and farther south, CWT recoveries from populations within this ESU are predominantly

from British Columbia and Alaska coastal fisheries.

7.3.2.4 Mid-Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon

This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon in Columbia

River tributaries from the Klickitat River upstream to include the Yakima River (excluding the

Snake River Basin). Major river basins containing spawning and rearing habitat for this ESU

comprise approximately 26,739 square miles in Oregon and Washington. The following counties

lie partially or wholly within these basins: Oregon - Baker, Clackamas, Crook, Gilliam, Grant,

Harney, Hood River, Jefferson, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, and

Wheeler.

Chinook salmon from this ESU emigrate to the ocean as yearlings and apparently migrate far

off-shore, as they do not appear in appreciable numbers in any ocean fisheries. The majority of

adults spawn as 4-year-olds.

7.3.2.5 Upper Columbia Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon

The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of summer- and fall-run chinook salmon in

the Columbia River and tributaries upstream of the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers

to Chief Joseph Dam (with the exception of chinook salmon which spawn in the Marion Drain).

Major river basins containing spawning and rearing habitat for this ESU comprise approximately

8,795 square miles in Washington. The following counties lie partially or wholly within these

basins: Adams, Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, King, Kittitas, Klickitat, and Yakima.

These chinook salmon migrate up the Columbia River past Oregon as adults and outmigrate past

Oregon as rearing subyearlings and smolts.

Chinook salmon from this ESU primarily emigrate to the ocean as subyearlings but mature at an

older age than ocean-type chinook salmon in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers.

7.3.2.6 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon from 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 113

7.3.3 Salmon Life History Information

Chinook Salmon

Juveniles (freshwater)

Chinook salmon fry are typically 1.3-1.4 inches in length when they emerge, though there

is considerable variation among populations and size at emergence is determined in part

by egg size. The length of freshwater residence before seaward migration is as variable as

size; ocean-type fish can migrate seaward immediately after yolk absorption, but most

migrate 30-90 days after emergence. Others move seaward as fingerlings in the late

summer of their first year, while still others, particularly in less productive or cold water

systems, overwinter and migrate as yearling fish (Taylor 1990a, 1990b). The proportion

of fingerling and yearling migrants within a population may vary significantly from one

year to the next ([Myers et al. 1998] [Roni 1992]).

In contrast, stream-type fish generally spend at least one year in freshwater before

emigrating to sea. Alaskan fish are predominantly stream-type, while chinook salmon

from northern British Columbia are approximately half stream-type and half ocean-type

(Taylor 1990a, Healey 1991). Ocean-type life histories are most common in central and

southern British Columbia, the Pacific Northwest, and California, with the exception of

populations inhabiting the upper reaches of large river basins such as the Fraser,

Columbia, Snake, and to a lesser extent the Klamath and Sacramento.

Water and habitat quality and quantity determine the productivity of a watershed for

chinook salmon. Both stream- and ocean-type fish utilize a variety of habitats during their

freshwater residency, and are dependent on the quality of the entire watershed, from

headwater to estuary. Juvenile chinook inhabit primarily pools and stream margins,

particularly undercut banks, behind woody debris accumulations, and other areas with

cover and reduced water velocity ([Bjornn and Reiser 1991] [Lister and Genoe 1970]).

While chinook salmon habitat preferences are similar to those for coho salmon, chinook

inhabit slightly deeper (2-47 inches) and higher velocity (0-15 inches/second) areas than

coho (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, Healey 1991). The stream or river must provide adequate

summer and winter rearing habitat, as well as migration corridors from spawning and

rearing areas to the sea. Stream-type juveniles are more dependent on freshwater

ecosystems because of their extended residence in these areas. The length of freshwater

residence and growth is determined partially by water temperature and food resources.

The principal foods in freshwater are larval and adult insects, while those in estuarine

areas include epibenthic organisms, insects, and zooplankton.

Growth rates during the period of initial freshwater residency depend on the quality of

habitats occupied by the fish. Growth rates between 0.008 inch/day and 0.024 inch/day

have been reported for ocean-type fish and between 0.004 inch/day and 0.013 inch/day

for stream-type fish ([Healey 1991] [Kjelson et al. 1982] [Loftus and Lenon 1977]

[Mains and Smith 1964] [Meehand and Siniff 1962] [Rich 1920]). For ocean-type fish,

growth rates in estuarine habitats are generally much higher than in riverine or stream

habitats, which is most likely due to a higher abundance of prey.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 114

Juveniles (estuarine)

Although both stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon may reside in estuaries, streamtype chinook salmon generally spend a very brief period in the lower estuary before

moving into coastal waters and the open ocean (Healey 1983, Healey 1982, Healey 1980;

Levy and Northcote 1981). In contrast, ocean-type chinook salmon typically reside in

estuaries for several months before entering coastal waters of higher salinity (Healey

1980, 1982; Congleton et al. 1981, Levy and Northcote 1981, Kjelson et al. 1982).

Ocean-type chinook salmon typically begin their estuarine residence as fry (immediately

after emergence) or as fingerling (after spending several months in freshwater). Fry

generally enter the upper reaches of estuaries in late winter or early spring, beginning in

January at the southern end of their range in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and as

late as April farther north, such as in the Fraser River Delta (Sasaki 1966; Dunford 1975,

Levy et al. 1979; Healey 1980, 1982; Gordon and Levings 1984). In contrast, chinook

salmon fingerling typically enter estuarine habitats in June and July (April to June in the

Sacramento Delta), or approximately when the chinook salmon who arrived in the

estuary as fry are emigrating to higher salinity marine waters. Regardless of time of

entrance, juvenile ocean-type chinook salmon spend from 1 to 3 months in estuarine

habitats (Rich 1920, Reimers 1973, Myers 1980 in Floyd 2003; Kjelson et al. 1982, Levy

and Northcote 1981, Healey 1980, 1982; Levings 1982).

Chinook salmon fry prefer protected estuarine habitats with lower salinity, moving from

the edges of marshes during high tide to protected tidal channels and creeks during low

tide; they venture into less protected areas at night (Healey 1980, 1982; Levy and

Northcote 1981, 1982; Kjelson et al. 1982, Levings 1982). As the fish grow larger, they

increasingly enter higher-salinity waters and less protected habitats, including delta fronts

the estuary edge, before finally dispersing into strictly marine habitats. In contrast to fry,

chinook fingerling, with their larger size, immediately take up residence in deeper-water

estuarine habitats (Everest and Chapman 1972, Healey 1991).

The chinook diet during estuarine residence is highly variable, and is dependent upon the

particular estuary, year, and season, as well as prey abundance. In general, chinook are

opportunistic feeders, consuming larval and adult insects and amphipods when they first

enter estuaries, and increasingly depending on larval and juvenile fish as they grow

larger. Preferred diet items for chinook salmon include aquatic and terrestrial insects such

as chironomid larvae, dipterans, cladocerans such as Daphnia, amphipods including

Eogammarus and Corophium, and other crustaceans such as Neomysis, crab larvae, and

cumaceans (Sasaki 1966, Dunford 1975, Birtwell 1978 in Floyd 2003, Levy et al. 1979,

Northcote et al. 1979 in Floyd 2003, Healey 1980, 1982; Kjelson et al. 1982, Levy and

Northcote 1981, Levings 1982, Gordon and Levings 1984, Myers 1980 in Floyd 2003;

Reimers 1973). Larger juvenile chinook consume juvenile fishes such as anchovy

(Engraulidae), smelt (Osmeridae), herring (Clupeidae), and stickleback (Gasterosteidae).

Growth in estuaries is quite rapid, and chinook may enter the upper reaches of estuarine

environments as 1.4-1.6-inch fry, and leave as 2.8-4.3-inch smolts (Rich 1920, Levy and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 115

Northcote 1981, 1982; Reimers 1973, Healey 1980). Growth rates during this period are

difficult to estimate because small individuals are continually entering the estuary from

upstream, while larger individual depart for marine waters. Reported growth for

populations range from 0.008 inch/day to 0.034 inch/day, and are as high as 0.052

inch/day for groups of marked fish (Rich 1920, Levy and Northcote 1981, 1982; Reimers

1973, Healey 1980, Kjelson et al. 1982, Healey 1991, Levings et al. 1986).

Juveniles (marine)

After leaving the freshwater and estuarine environment, juvenile chinook disperse to

marine feeding areas. Ocean-type fish which have a longer estuarine residence tend to be

coast-oriented, preferring protected waters and waters along the continental shelf (Healey

1983). In contrast, stream-type fish pass quickly through estuaries, are highly migratory,

and may migrate great distances into the open ocean.

Chinook salmon typically remain at sea for 1 to 6 years. They have been found in oceanic

waters at temperatures ranging from 34-50°F, although few are found in waters below

410

F (Major et al. 1978). They do not concentrate at the surface as do other Pacific

salmon, but are most abundant at depths of 98-230 feet and are often associated with

bottom topography (Taylor 1969, Argue 1970 in Floyd 2003). However, during their first

several months at sea, juvenile chinook salmon of less than 5 inches are predominantly

found at depths of less than 121 feet (Fisher and Pearcy 1995). Because of their

distribution in the water column, the majority of chinook salmon harvested in commercial

troll fisheries are caught at depths of 98 feet or greater.

Chinook salmon range widely in the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea, as far south

as the U.S./Mexico border (Godfrey 1968, Major et al. 1978). Chinook salmon from

California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho have been recovered in coastal areas

throughout the Straight of Georgia and Inland Passage, along the Alaskan Coast into

Cook Inlet and waters surrounding Kodiak Island, extending out into the Aleutian/Rat

Island chains to 180oW, and northward in the Bering Sea to the Priblof Islands (Hart and

Dell 1986, Meyers et al. 1996).

Chinook salmon may stay in coastal waters or may migrate into offshore oceanic habitats.

Migration from coastal to oceanic waters may begin off the coast of Vancouver Island, or

may be delayed until reaching as far as Kodiak Island (Hartt and Dell 1986). Limited tag

release and recovery data have found Washington origin chinook salmon in the Emperor

Sea Mounts area, at approximately 44oN and 175oW (Meyers et al. 1996). Based on high

seas tagging data presented in Meyers et al. (1996) and Hartt and Dell (1986), the oceanic

distribution of Pacific Northwest chinook salmon appears to include the Pacific Ocean

and Gulf of Alaska north of approximately 44oN and east of 180oW, including some areas

of the Bering Sea.

The coastal distribution of chinook salmon is similar to coho salmon (Hartt and Dell

1986), with high concentrations in areas of pronounced coastal upwelling. Juvenile

chinook are generally found within 34 miles of the Washington, Oregon, and California

coast, with the vast majority of fish found less than 17 miles offshore (Pearcy and Fisher
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 116

1990, Fisher and Pearcy 1995). Historically, juvenile chinook salmon have been reported

in coastal streams as far south as San Luis Obisbo (Jordan 1894) and the Ventura River

(Jordan and Gilbert 1881), so it can be presumed that their historical ocean distribution

occasionally included coastal upwelling areas off southern California. Point Conception

(34o30'N), California, is considered the faunal break for marine fishes, with salmon and

other temperate water fishes found north and subtropical fishes found south of this point

(Allen and Smith 1988). Therefore, the historic southern edge of the marine distribution

appears to be near Point Conception, California, and this expands and contracts

seasonally and annually depending on ocean temperature patterns and upwelling.

It has been shown that ocean-migration patterns are influenced by both genetics and

environmental factors (Healey 1991). Migratory patterns may have evolved as a balance

between the benefits of accessing specific feeding grounds and the energy expenditure

and dispersion risks necessary to reach them. Along the eastern Pacific rim, chinook

salmon originating north of Cape Blanco on the Oregon coast tend to migrate north

towards and into the Gulf of Alaska, while those originating south of Cape Blanco

migrate south and west into waters off Oregon and California (Godfrey 1968, Major et al.

1978, Cleaver 1969 in Floyd 2003, Wahle and Vreeland 1977 in Floyd 2003, Wahle et al.

1981 in Floyd 2003, Healey and Groot 1987).

While the marine distribution of chinook salmon can be highly variable within and

among populations, migration and ocean distribution do show some consistent patterns.

For example, chinook salmon that spawn in rivers south of the Rogue River in Oregon

disperse and rear in marine waters off the Oregon and California Coast, while those

spawning north of the Rogue River migrate north and west along the Pacific coast

(Godfrey 1968, Major et al. 1978, Cleaver 1969 in Floyd 2003, Wahle and Vreeland 1977

in Floyd 2003, Wahle et al. 1981 in Floyd 2003, Healey and Groot 1987). These patterns

result in the harvest of fish from Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia within the

Alaskan exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Chinook salmon are the most piscivorous of the Pacific salmon. Accordingly, fishes

make up the largest component of their diet at sea, although squids, pelagic amphipods,

copepods, and euphausiids are also important at times (Merkel 1957, Prakash 1962, Ito

1964, Hart 1973, Healey 1991).

Adults

Throughout their range, adult chinook salmon may enter freshwater during almost any

month of the year, although there are generally one to three peaks of migratory activity.

In northern areas, chinook salmon river entry peaks in June, while in rivers such as the

Fraser and Columbia, entry occurs between March and November, and peaks in spring

(March-May), summer (May-July), and fall (August-September). The Sacramento also

has a winter-run population, which enters freshwater between December and July.

Chinook salmon become sexually mature at anywhere between 2 and 8 years of age, with

"jacks” (precocious males) maturing after only 1-2 years. Overall, the most common age

for the sexual maturity of ocean- and stream-type fish is 3-5 years, with males tending to
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 117

mature slightly younger than females. In general, stream-type fish have a longer

generation time than do ocean-type fish, presumably owning to their longer freshwater

residence, and chinook salmon from Alaska and more northern latitudes typically mature

a year or more later than their southern counterparts (Roni and Quinn 1995, Myers et al.

1998).

The size and age of adults at sexual maturity varies considerably among populations and

years, and is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Size at maturity is

thought to represent adaptation to local spawning environment (Ricker 1980, Healey

1991, Roni and Quinn 1995). Most adult chinook salmon females are 26-33 inches in

length, while the slightly younger males are 20-33 inches. However, male and female fish

larger than 39 inches in length at maturity are not uncommon in many populations.

Prior to sexual maturation and spawning, adult chinook salmon often rest, or hold, in

large deep, low velocity pools, with abundant large woody material or other cover

features. These areas may serve as a refuge from high river temperatures or predators,

where they can reduce metabolic demands and reserve energy prior to spawning (Berman

and Quinn 1991). The spawning densities of chinook and coho salmon have been

correlated with large woody material and pool frequency (Montgomery et al. In prep. in

Floyd 2003).

The survival of chinook salmon is affected by factors including run type (i.e., spring,

summer, fall), freshwater migration length, and year. Hatchery spring and summer

chinook salmon have smolt-to-adult survival rates that average one percent, although

survival of many upper Columbia and Snake River basin hatchery stocks is typically less

than 0.2% (Coronado-Hernandez 1995). Wild stocks from these areas are thought to have

ocean survival are rates 2 to 10 times greater than hatchery fish (Coronado-Hernandez

1995). Fall chinook hatchery stocks also survive from smolt to adult at approximately one

percent; fish from some areas, such as the Oregon coast, are consistently higher, though

typically less than five percent (Coronado-Hernandez 1995).

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

While lack of information at a sufficiently fine scale precludes identification of specific

stream reaches and habitats as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), information

exists on the type of stream reaches preferred by chinook salmon for spawning and

rearing. It is generally accepted that salmon spawn and rear primarily in stream reaches

with a slope less than four to five percent (Lunetta et al. 1997), though they migrate

through much steeper stream reaches. Furthermore, recent research has indicated that

chinook and other fall-spawning anadromous salmonids are found primarily in plane-bed,

pool-riffle, and forced-pool riffle stream channels, with slopes of less than four percent

(Montgomery and Buffington 1997, Montgomery et al. In prep. in Floyd 2003). Stream

reaches with a slope of greater than four percent are not frequently utilized by chinook

salmon for spawning and rearing because of their high bed load transport rate, deep

scour, and coarse substrate (Montgomery et al. In prep. in Floyd 2003).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 118

The delineation of channel types allows the identification of potentially important and

vulnerable habitats in the absence of accurate distribution or habitat data. Moreover,

degraded stream reaches, those lacking key roughness elements (e.g., large woody

material), and stream reaches with a high potential for restoration will still be identified

as potential habitat. Therefore, the protection and restoration of chinook salmon habitat

should focus on pool-riffle, plane bed, and forced-pool-riffle channels. Furthermore, any

activity adjacent to or upstream of activity that could influence the quality of these

important reaches or channels should be evaluated. Other vulnerable habitats that are in

need of protection and restoration are off-channel rearing areas (e.g., wetlands, oxbows,

side channels, sloughs) and estuarine and other near-shore marine areas. Submarine

canyons and other regions of pronounced upwelling are also thought to be particular

important during El Nino events (N. Bingham, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen

Association, P.O. Box 783, Mendocino, CA 985460 pers. comm.) and may need

additional consideration for protection.

Freshwater Essential Habitat

Freshwater Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for chinook salmon consists of habitat suitable

for 4 critical stages: (1) spawning and incubation; (2) juvenile rearing; (3) juvenile

migration; (4) adult migration and holding. Important features of essential habitat for

spawning, rearing, and migration include adequate: (1) substrate composition; (2) water

quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen, nutrients, temperature, etc.); (3) water quantity, depth and

velocity; (4) channel gradient and stability; (5) food; (6) cover and habitat complexity

(e.g., large woody material, pools, channel complexity, aquatic vegetation, etc.); (7)

space; (8) access and passage; and (9) flood plain and habitat connectivity. This

incorporates but is not limited to life-stage specific habitat criteria summarized in Table

7.3.3-1. Chinook salmon EFH includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands,

distributaries, and other waterbodies currently and historically utilized by chinook salmon

in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The geographic extent of chinook

essential habitat includes all waters currently and historically used by chinook salmon

within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic units identified in Table

II.E-1.

Marine Essential Habitat

The important stages with regard to chinook salmon marine EFH are 1) estuarine rearing;

2) early ocean rearing; and 3) juvenile and adult migration. Important features of this

estuarine and marine habitat are 1) adequate water quality; 2) adequate temperature; 3)

adequate prey species and forage base (food); and 4) adequate depth, cover, marine

vegetation, and algae in estuarine and near-shore habitats. The available information for

each life-history stage is summarized below (Table 7.3.3-1). Overall, chinook salmon

marine distribution is extensive, varies seasonally and interannually, and can only be

defined generally. While limited information exists on chinook habitat use in marine

waters, it is clear that those habitats utilized during early-ocean entry are the most
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 119

Table 7.3.3-1. Chinook salmon habitat use by life history stage. (Please see notes on next page).

Stage - EFH Level Duration or

Age

Diet/Prey Season/Time Location Water Column Bottom

Type

Oceanographic

Features

Eggs, 0-4 -Not all habitatshave been sampled

50-130 d Non-feeding stage;

eggs consumed by

birds, fish and

mammals

late summer, fall,

and winter

intragravel

in stream

beds

8 to 31 inches

gravel depth; 6

inches to 23 feet

water depth

medium to

coarse

gravel

NA 

Larvae, 0-4 -(alevins)Not all habitatshave been sampled

50-125 d

until fry

emerge from

gravel

Non-feeding stage;

Alevins consumed

by birds, fish and

mammals

fall, winter, and

early spring

intragravel

until fry

emergence

8 to 31 inches in

gravel depth; 6-275

inches water depth

medium to

coarse

gravel

NA 

Juveniles, 0-4(freshwater) -Not all habitatshave been sampled

days-years Insect larvae, adults,

plankton

year-round,

depending on race

streams,

sloughs,

rivers

0-47 inches varied NA 

Juveniles, 0-3(Estuary andoceanic) -Not all habitatshave been sampled

6-months to

two years

Estuary: copepods,

euphausiids,

amphipods

Ocean: Fish, squid,

euphausiids

Estuary: Spring,

summer, fall

Ocean: year-round

BCH BAY,

IP, ICS,

OCS

P, N, SD/SP

30-80 m preferred

depth

All bottom

types

estuarine,

littoral then

more open

water, UP, F,

CL, G

Adults, 0-2 -Not all habitatshave been sampled

2-8 yrs of

age from

egg to

mature adult

Fish, squid,

euphausiids,

amphipods, and

copepods

Spawning: (JulyFeb) Nonspawning: Year

round

Oceanic to

nearshore

migrations

Spawn in

freshwater

P, N, SD/SP NA Different stock

groups have

specific oceanic

migratory

patterns

Major sources: Healey 1991, Bjorrn and Reiser 1991, Myers et al. 1998, NOAA 1990, Fisher and Pearcy 1995, Spence et al. 1996
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 120

NOTES for Table 7.3.3-1:

EFH Data Level

0: No systematic sampling has been conducted for this species and life stage; may have been caught

opportunistically in small numbers during other surveys.

1: Presence/absence distribution data are available for some or all portions of the geographic range.

2: Habitat-related densities are available. Density data should reflect habitat utilization, and the degree that a habitat

is utilized is assumed to be indicative of habitat value.

3: Habitat-related growth, reproduction, or survival rates are available. The habitats contributing the most to

productivity should be those that support the highest growth, reproduction, and survival of the species (or life history

stage).

4: Habitat-related production rates are available. Essential habitats are those necessary to maintain fish production

consistent with a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem.

Location where found (in waters of these depths)

BCH - beach (intertidal)

ICS - inner continental shelf (3-160 feet)

MCS - middle continental shelf (160-330 feet)

OCS - outer continental shelf (330-660 feet)

USP - upper slope (660-3,300 feet)

LSP - lower slope (3,300-9,800 feet)

BSN - basin (>9,800 feet)

BAY - nearshore bays, give depth if appropriate (e.g., fjords)

IP - island passes (areas of high current), give depth if appropriate

Where found in water column

D - demersal (found on bottom)

SD/SP - semi-demersal or semi-pelagic if slightly greater or less than 50% on or off bottom

P - pelagic (found off bottom, not necessarily associated with a particular bottom type)

N - neustonic (found near surface)

Bottom Types

M - mud

S - sand

R - rock

SM - sandy mud

CB - cobble

C - coral

MS - muddy sand

G - gravel

K - kelp

SAV - subaquatic vegetation other than kelp (e.g., eelgrass).

Oceanographic Features

UP - upwelling

G - gyres

F - fronts

CL - thermo-or pycnocline

E - edges

Other

U=Unknown

NA=not applicable
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 121

important. Furthermore, available research (Pearcy and Fisher 1990, Fisher and Pearcy

1995), catch data, and interviews with commercial fisherman all indicate and confirm that

juvenile and maturing chinook salmon are found in highest concentrations along the

continental shelf within 35 miles of the Washington, Oregon, and California coastlines.

Therefore, the geographic extent of essential marine habitat for chinook salmon includes

all waters from mean high water to 35 miles offshore north of Point Conception,

California.

Coho Salmon

Juveniles (freshwater)

The vast majority of juvenile coho salmon from California to central British Columbia

spend 1 year in fresh water before migrating to sea as 3.3-4.5-inch smolts (Pritchard

1940, Sumner 1953, Drucker 1972, Blankenship and Tivel 1980; Seiler et al. 1981, 1984;

Blankenship et al. 1983; Lenzi 1983, 1985, 1987; Irvine and Ward 1989; Lestelle and

Weller 1994). Because growth rates are lower in colder water, juveniles from northerly

areas require 2 years in fresh water to attain this size, and some populations may need as

many as 4-5 years to reach this size (Gribanov 1948, Drucker 1972, Crone and Bond

1976).

Coho smolt production is most often limited by the availability of summer and winter

freshwater rearing habitats (Williams et al. 1975, Reeves et al. 1989, Nickelson et al.

1992). The lack of winter rearing habitats, such as backwater pools, beaver ponds,

wetlands, and other off-channel rearing areas, is considered the primary factor limiting

coho salmon production in many coastal streams (Cederholm and Scarlett 1981, Swales

et al. 1988, Nickelson et al. 1992). If spawning escapement is adequate, sufficient fry are

usually produced to exceed the carrying capacity of rearing habitat. In such cases,

carrying capacity of summer habitats set a density-dependent limit on the juvenile

population, which then may suffer density-independent mortality during winter

depending on the severity of conditions, fish size, and quality of winter habitat.

Coastal streams, wetlands, lakes, sloughs, distributaries, estuaries, and tributaries to large

rivers can all provide coho rearing habitat. The most productive habitats exist in smaller

streams (less than fourth order) having low-gradient alluvial channels with abundant

pools formed by large woody material (Foerster and Ricker 1953, Chapman 1965).

Beaver ponds and large slackwater areas can provide some of the best rearing areas for

juvenile coho (Bustard and Narver 1975, Nickelson et al. 1992). Coho juveniles may also

use brackish-water estuarine areas in summer and migrate upstream to fresh water to

overwinter (Crone and Bond 1976).

During summer rearing, the highest juvenile coho densities tend to occur in areas with

abundant prey (e.g., drifting aquatic invertebrates and terrestrial insects that fall into the

water) and structural habitat elements (e.g., large woody material and associated pools).

Their preferred habitats include a mixture of different types of pools, glides, and riffles

with large woody material, undercut banks, and overhanging vegetation to provide

advantageous positions for feeding (Foerster and Ricker 1953, Chapman 1965, Reeves et
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 122

al. 1989, Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Coho grow best where water temperature is between

50oF and 59oF, and dissolved oxygen (DO) is near saturation. Juvenile coho can tolerate

temperatures between 32oF and 79oF if changes are not abrupt (Brett 1952, Konecki et al.

1995). Their growth and stamina decline significantly when DO levels drop below 4

mg/l, and a sustained concentration of less than 2 mg/l is lethal (Reeves et al. 1989).

Summer populations are usually constrained by density-dependant effects mediated by

territorial behavior. In flowing water, juvenile coho usually establish individual feeding

territories, whereas in lakes, large pools, and estuaries they are less likely to establish

territories and may aggregate where food is abundant (Chapman 1962, McMahon 1983).

Because growth in summer is often density-dependent, the size of juveniles in late

summer is often inversely related to population density.

In winter, territorial behavior is diminished, and juveniles aggregate in freshwater

habitats that provide cover and relatively stable depth, velocity, and water quality. Winter

mortality factors include hazardous conditions during winter peak stream flow (e.g.,

scour, high velocities), stranding of fish during floods or by ice damming, physiological

stress from low temperature, and progressive starvation (Hartman et al. 1984). In winter,

juveniles prefer a narrower range of habitats than in summer, especially large mainstream

pools, backwaters, beaver ponds, off-channel ponds, sloughs, and secondary channel

pools with abundant large woody material, and undercut banks and debris along riffle

margins (Skeesick 1970, Nickelson et al. 1992). Survival in winter, in contrast to

summer, is generally density-independent, and varies directly with fish size and the

amount of available cover and ponded water, and inversely with the magnitude of the

peak stream flow. Survival from eggs to smolts is usually less than two percent (Neave

and Wickett 1953).

The habitat requirements of coho during seaward migration are similar to those of coho

juveniles. A high streamflow aids their migration by flushing them downstream and

reducing their vulnerability to predators. Migrating smolts are particularly vulnerable to

predation because they are concentrated, and moving through areas of reduced cover.

Mortality during seaward migration can be quite high (Tytler et al. 1978, Dawley et al.

1986 in Floyd 2003, Seiler 1989). The seaward migration of smolts in native stocks is

thought to be timed so that the smolts arrive in the estuary and nearshore ocean when

food is plentiful (Foerster and Ricker 1953, Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Drucker 1972). In

California the seaward migration is also timed to occur prior to the closing of some

estuaries and tidal reaches by the formation of impassible sand bars (Bryant 1994). Rapid

growth during the early period in the estuary and nearshore ocean is critical to survival,

because mortality from predation appears to be size dependent (Myers and Horton 1982,

Dawley et al. 1986 in Floyd 2003, Pearcy and Fisher 1988, Holtby et al. 1990, Pearcy

1992).

Juveniles (Estuarine)

The amount of time juvenile coho salmon rear in estuaries appears to be highly variable,

with northern populations generally dwelling longer in estuaries than southern

populations (Pearce et al. 1982, Simenstad et al. 1982, Tschaplinksi 1982). For example,

Oregon coast, Columbia River, and Puget Sound coho salmon are thought to remain in
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 123

estuarine areas for several days to several weeks, while many British Columbian and

Alaskan populations remain in estuaries for several months (Myers and Horton 1982,

Pearce et al. 1982, Simenstad et al. 1982, Tschaplinksi 1982, Levings et al. 1995). As in

the stream environment, large woody material is an important element of juvenile coho

salmon habitat in estuaries (McMahon and Holtby 1992). In estuarine environments,

coho salmon consume large planktonic or small nektonic animals, such as amphipods

(Corophium spp., Eogammarus spp.), insects, mysids, decapod larvae, and larval and

juvenile fishes (Myers and Horton 1982, Simenstad et al. 1982, Dawley et al. 1986 in

Floyd 2003, McDonald et al. 1987 in Floyd 2003). They are in turn preyed upon by

marine fishes, birds, and mammals. In estuaries, smolts appear in intertidal and pelagic

habitats, with deep, marine-influenced habitats often preferred (Pearce et al. 1982,

Dawley et al. 1986 in Floyd 2003, McDonald et al. 1987 in Floyd 2003).

Juveniles (Marine)

Two primary dispersal patterns have been observed in coho salmon after the emigration

from freshwater. Some juveniles spend several weeks in coastal waters before migrating

northwards into the offshore waters of the Pacific Ocean (Hartt 1980, Hartt and Dell

1986, Pearcy and Fisher 1988, Pearcy 1992), while others remain in coastal waters near

their natal stream for at least the first summer before migrating north. The latter dispersal

pattern is commonly seen in coho salmon from California, Oregon, and Washington

(Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Godfrey 1965, Miller et al. 1983). It is not clear whether

these less migratory fish, particularly those from coastal areas, make extensive migrations

after the first summer. However, it is known that some Puget Sound/Strait of Georgiaorigin coho salmon spend their entire ocean residence in the Sound and Strait, while

others migrate to the open ocean in late summer (Healey 1980, Godfrey et al. 1975, Hartt

and Dell 1986). The spatial distribution of suitable habitat conditions is affected by

annual and seasonal changes in oceanographic conditions, and may affect the tendency of

fish to migrate from, or reside in, coastal areas after ocean entry.

Coho from the Pacific Northwest generally stay in nearshore coastal and inland waters

well into October (Hartt and Dell 1986). Juvenile coho from Oregon and presumably

other areas will initially be found south of their natal streams, moved by strong southerly

currents (Pearcy 1992). When these currents weaken in the winter months, juvenile coho

migrate northward. In strong upwelling years, when the band of favorable temperatures

and available prey is more extensive, coho salmon appear to disperse further from shore.

In weak upwelling years, coho salmon concentrate in upwelling zones closer to the shore

(Pearcy 1992), often near submarine canyons and other areas of consistent upwelling

(Nat Bingham, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, P.O. Box 783,

Mendocino, CA, 95460 pers. com., February 1998). Generally, juvenile coho are found

within 37 miles of the California, Oregon, and Washington coast, with the majority found

within 23 miles of the coast (Pearcy and Fisher 1990, Pearcy 1992). Puget Sound-origin

coho salmon are typically found in coastal waters of the Straight of Juan de Fuca and

Vancouver Island throughout summer months (Hartt and Dell 1986).

Coho leaving Puget Sound and other inland waters are found to migrate north along the

east or west coast of Vancouver Island and out into the Pacific Ocean (Williams et al.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 124

1975, Hart and Dell 1986). Tag, release, and recovery studies suggest that immature coho

salmon from Washington and Oregon are found as far as 60oN along the Pacific Coast,

and California-origin coho salmon as far as 58oN in SE Alaska (Meyers et al. 1996).

Coho salmon from Oregon streams have been taken in offshore waters near Kodiak

Island in the northern Gulf of Alaska (Hart and Dell 1986, Meyers et al. 1996). Westward

migration of coho salmon into offshore oceanic waters appears to extend beyond the U.S.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beginning around 45oN latitude off the Oregon coast

(Meyers et al. 1996). Coded-wire and high-seas tag data for Washington and Oregon

suggest that oceanic migration for these coho stocks can extend as far south and west as

43oN and 175oE around the Emperor Sea Mounts (Meyers et al. 1996), believed to be an

area of high prey abundance. Thus it appears that coho salmon stocks from Washington,

Oregon, and California are found at least occasionally in the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of

Alaska north of 44oN to 57oN, extending westward and southward along the Aleutian

chain to the Emperor Sea Mounts area near 43oN and 175oE.

While juvenile and maturing coho are found in the open north Pacific, the highest

concentrations are found in the more productive waters of the continental shelf, within 37

miles of the coast. Coho salmon have been occasionally reported off the coast of southern

California near the Mexican border (Bryant 1994). However, Point Conception

(34o30'N), California, is considered the faunal break for marine fishes, with salmon and

other temperate water fishes primarily found north and subtropical fishes to the south

(Allen and Smith 1988), although the southern limit expands and contracts seasonally and

annually depending on ocean temperature patterns and upwelling.

Coho salmon in coastal and oceanic waters originate in stocks from a wide variety of

streams in Washington, Oregon, and California (Godfrey et al. 1975, French et al. 1975,

Burgner 1980, Hartt 1980, Hartt and Dell 1986, Weitkamp et al. 1995). Analysis of coded

wire tag (CWT) data indicates distinct migration patterns for various basins, provinces,

and states. For example, coho salmon from the Columbia River make up a high

proportion of fish captured in Oregon waters, whereas coho from the Washington coast

are rarely recovered in Oregon waters but frequently recovered in British Columbia

(Weitkamp et al. 1995). The vast majority of CWT coho salmon are recovered in coastal

waters where coho salmon fisheries occur.

Marine invertebrates, such as copepods, euphausiids, amphipods, and crab larvae are the

primary food when coho first enter salt water. Fish represent an increasing proportion of

the diet as coho salmon grow and mature (Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Healey 1978,

Myers and Horton 1982, Pearcy 1992). Growth is controlled mainly by food quantity,

food quality, and temperature. Growth is best in pelagic habitats where forage is

abundant and sea surface temperature is between 54oF and 59oF (Godfrey et al. 1975,

Hartt 1980, Healey 1980). Coho salmon rarely use areas where sea surface temperature

exceeds 59oF and are generally found in the uppermost 33 feet of the water column. Coho

salmon do not aggregate in offshore waters and prefer slightly warmer ocean

temperatures than do other Pacific salmon (Godfrey 1965, Manzer et al. 1965, Welch

1995 in Floyd 2003). Before entering fresh water, most coho slow their feeding and begin

to lose weight as they develop secondary sexual characteristics and large gonads.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 125

Precocious males return to spawn after approximately 6 months at sea, but most coho

remain at sea for about 16 months before returning to coastal areas and entering fresh

water to spawn (Godfrey 1965; Wright 1968, 1970; Sandercock 1991).

Adults

Adult coho enter fresh water from early July through December, often after the onset of

fall freshets, with peak river entry occurring as early as September in Alaska; October

and November in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon; and December and even

January in California (Briggs 1953, Godfrey 1965, Ricker 1972, Fraser et al. 1983,

Bryant 1994). Some populations, often referred to as the "summer-run" coho salmon, are

exceptionally early, entering rivers in late spring and early summer (Aro and Shepard

1967, Houston 1983, WDF et al. 1993). In general, larger river basins have a wider range

of river entry times than do smaller systems, and river entry occurs later the farther south

a river is situated (Godfrey 1965, Sandercock 1991). The fish feed little and migrate

upstream to their natal stream using olfactory cues imprinted in early development

(Harden Jones 1968, Quinn and Tolson 1986, Sandercock 1991). The fidelity of mature

fish to their natal streams is high, and straying rates are generally less than five percent

(Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Lister et al. 1981, Labelle 1992). Adult coho may travel for a

short time and distance upstream to spawn in small streams or may enter large river

systems and travel for weeks to reach spawning areas more than 1,240 miles upstream

(Godfrey 1965, Aro and Shepard 1967, McPhail and Lindsay 1970 in Floyd 2003,

Sandercock 1991, WDF et al. 1993).

Most coho salmon spawn at approximately the same time regardless of when they entered

fresh water (Foerster and Ricker 1953, Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Sandercock 1991).

Consequently, populations that enter fresh water in late summer and early fall may reside

in fresh water 3-4 months before spawning, while fish entering fresh water in late fall

may spawn within weeks of entry. At the extreme southern end of their range in central

California, most coho salmon enter fresh water in late December or January and spawn

shortly thereafter (Briggs 1953, Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Bryant 1994).

The survival of coho salmon is generally affected by numerous factors in both salt and

fresh water, including ocean conditions, location of natal stream, freshwater migration

length, stream flow, and other environmental factors. Hatchery coho salmon have smoltto-adult survival rates that average between three to five percent, but can be much higher

in areas such as Puget Sound, as well as lower during unfavorable years (CoronadoHernandez 1996 in Floyd 2003). Wild stocks typically show marine survival rates 2-3

times greater than hatchery fish (Seiler 1989, Pearcy 1992, Coronado-Hernandez 1996 in

Floyd 2003).

Freshwater Essential Habitat (Freshwater)

Freshwater Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coho salmon consists of habitat suitable for

four critical stages: 1) spawning and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile

migration; and 4) adult migration. Important features of essential habitat for spawning,

rearing, and migration include adequate: 1) substrate composition; 2) water quality (e.g.,

dissolved oxygen, nutrients, temperature, etc.); 3) water quantity, depth and velocity; 4)
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 126

channel gradient and stability; 5) food; 6) cover and habitat complexity (e.g., large woody

material, channel complexity, aquatic vegetation, etc.); 7) space; 8) access and passage;

and 9) habitat and flood plain connectivity. This incorporates but is not limited to the lifestage-specific habitat criteria summarized in Table II.B-1. Coho salmon freshwater

essential habitat includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other waterbodies

currently and historically utilized by coho salmon within Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California. The geographic extent of coho salmon essential habitat includes all waters

currently and historically used by coho salmon within the United States Geological

Survey (USGS) hydrologic units identified in Table 7.3.3-2.

The diversity of habitats utilized by coho salmon, coupled with the inadequacy of

existing species distribution maps, makes it extremely difficult to identify all stream

reaches, wetlands, and waterbodies essential for the species at this time. Designating each

specific river reach would invariably exclude small, important tributaries from

designation as EFH.

Defining specific river reaches is also complicated because of the current low population

of the species and our imperfect understanding of its freshwater distribution, both current

and historical. Adopting a more inclusive, watershed-based description of EFH is

appropriate because it 1) recognizes the species’ use of diverse habitats and underscores

the need to account for all of the habitat types supporting the species’ freshwater and

estuarine life stages, from small headwater streams to migration corridors and estuarine

rearing areas; 2) takes into account the natural variability in habitat quality and use (e.g.,

some streams may have fish present only in years with plentiful rainfall) that makes

precise mapping difficult; and 3) reinforces the important linkage between aquatic areas

and adjacent upslope areas. Moreover, this watershed-based approach is consistent with

other Pacific salmon habitat protection and recovery efforts such as the ESA, Northwest

Forest Plan, and the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. Therefore, the

geographic extent of coho salmon essential habitat was delineated using hydrologic units

defined in the U.S. Geological Survey’s 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps for

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California (USGS 1975, 1976, 1978, 1989 in Floyd

2003, Seaber et al. 1986 in Floyd 2003).

Marine Essential Habitat

The important stages with regard to coho salmon marine EFH are 1) estuarine rearing; 2)

early ocean-rearing; and 3) juvenile and adult migration. Important features of this

estuarine and marine habitat are 1) adequate water quality; 2) adequate temperature; 3)

adequate prey species and forage base (food); and 4) adequate depth, cover, and marine

vegetation in estuarine and nearshore habitats. Overall, coho salmon marine distribution

is extensive, varies seasonally and by year, and can only be defined generally. While

limited information exists on coho salmon habitat use in marine waters, it is clear that

those habitats utilized during early ocean entry are the most important. Furthermore,

available research, catch data, and interviews with commercial fishermen indicate and
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 127

Table 7.3.3-2. Coho salmon habitat use by life history stage. (See notes on following page.)

Stage - EFH Level Duration or

Age

Diet/Prey Season/

Time

Location Water Column Bottom

Type

Oceanographic

Features

Eggs, 0-4 -Not all habitatshave been sampled

50 days at

optimum

temperatures

Non-feeding stage; eggs

consumed by birds, fish

and mammals

fall/winter streambeds intragravel; water

depth 1.5-14

inches

NA NA 

Larvae, 0-4 -(alevins)Not all habitatshave been sampled

100 days at

optimum

temperatures

Non-feeding stage;

Alevins consumed by

birds, fish and mammals

winter/spring streambeds intragravel; water

depth 1.5-14

inches

NA NA 

Juveniles, 0-4(freshwater) -Not all habitatshave been sampled

1-5 yrs, most

(>90%) 1

yrs

Aquatic, terrestrial, and

estuarine invertebrates,

fish; Predators include

birds, fish, mammals

rearing -all year

migration- spring

and fall

streams, lakes,

BAY

(estuaries)

Water depth 0-48

inches in streams

NA NA 

Juveniles, 0-3(marine) -Not all habitatshave been sampled

16 months

(except

precocious

males)

epipelagic fish (herring,

sand lance) and marine

invertebrates (copepods,

euphausiids, amphipods,

crab larvae)

rearing- all year

migration - all

year

BCH, ICS,

MCS, OCS,

USP, BAY, IP

pelagic NA UP, CL, F;

migration

influenced by

currents,

salinity and

temperature
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 128

Table 7.3.3-2. (continued).

Stage - EFH Level Duration or

Age

Diet/Prey Season/

Time

Location Water Column Bottom

Type

Oceanographic

Features

Adults, 1-2 -Not all habitatshave been sampled

up to 2months

little or none migration - fall

spawning - fall,winter

rivers, streams,lakes

NA 

Primary Sources: Shapovalov and Taft 1954, Sandercock 1991, Bjorrn and Reiser 1991, Weitkamp et al. 1995, Spence et al. 1996.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 129

NOTES for Table 7.3.3-1:

EFH Data Level

0: No systematic sampling has been conducted for this species and life stage; may have been caught

opportunistically in small numbers during other surveys.

1: Presence/absence distribution data are available for some or all portions of the geographic range.

2: Habitat-related densities are available. Density data should reflect habitat utilization, and the degree that

a habitat is utilized is assumed to be indicative of habitat value.

3: Habitat-related growth, reproduction, or survival rates are available. The habitats contributing the most

to productivity should be those that support the highest growth, reproduction, and survival of the species

(or life history stage).

4: Habitat-related production rates are available. Essential habitats are those necessary to maintain fish

production consistent with a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem.

Location where found (in waters of these depths)

BCH - beach (intertidal)

ICS - inner continental shelf (1-160 feet)

MCS - middle continental shelf (160-330 feet)

OCS - outer continental shelf (330-660 feet)

USP - upper slope (660-3,280 feet)

LSP - lower slope (3,280-9,840 feet)

BSN - basin (>9,840 feet)

BAY - nearshore bays, give depth if appropriate (e.g., fjords)

IP - island passes (areas of high current), give depth if appropriate

Where found in water column

D - demersal (found on bottom)

SD/SP - semi-demersal or semi-pelagic if slightly greater or less than 50% on or off bottom

P - pelagic (found off bottom, not necessarily associated with a particular bottom type)

N - neustonic (found near surface)

Bottom Types

M - mud

S - sand

R - rock

SM - sandy mud

CB - cobble

C - coral

MS - muddy sand

G - gravel

K - kelp

SAV - subaquatic vegetation other than kelp (e.g., eelgrass).

Oceanographic Features

UP - upwelling

G - gyres

F - fronts

CL - thermo-or pycnocline

E - edges

Other

U=Unknown 

NA=not applicable
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 130

confirm that the highest concentrations of juvenile and maturing coho salmon are

found within 37 miles of the Washington, Oregon, and California coasts (Pearcy

and Fisher 1990, Pearcy 1992). Therefore, the geographic extent of essential

marine habitat for coho salmon is defined as all waters between mean high water

and 37 miles offshore north of Point Conception, California.

7.4 Analysis of Effects on Groundfish and Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat

The Bridge Program may have effects on the Pacific salmon and groundfish EFH as a

result of bridge repair or replacement activities within or upstream of designated EFH.

These effects will be either water-borne (turbidity, chemicals) or habitat-related (stream

channel and riparian effects). Bridge repair or replacement activities in an EFH or

upstream of a natural barrier upstream of an EFH may adversely affect that EFH.

7.4.1 Screening Criteria

A screening of the geographic extent and concentration of potential effects on groundfish

and Pacific salmon EFH was completed by preparing a GIS data layer that provided the

spatial extent of EFH for both groups and then comparing the location of EFH with the

known bridge replacement or repair locations. For Pacific salmon, the 4th field HUCs

were selected from the list provided in Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan:

Appendix A (PFMC 1999). The 4th field HUCs with barriers to fish passage were

included in the GIS analysis, under the assumption that partial or future access of these

areas to salmonids is or will be available during the span of the proposed action.

Furthermore, activities occurring above impassible barriers that are likely to adversely

affect EFH below impassible barriers are subject to the consultation provisions of the

MSA.

For groundfish, “head of tide” data collected by the Oregon Division of State Lands

(DSL 1989) were used as a proxy for the extent of saltwater incursion into coastal

streams. A GIS data layer was created for this information, in conjunction with a

hydrography layer of Oregon rivers. The assumptions used in the analysis of potential

effects of the Bridge Program on EFH are documented in Appendix 2-A (Effects

Screening Layer Memos) and 2-B (Evaluation of Effects Memos).

7.4.2 Potential Adverse Effects on Groundfish EFH and Associated

Mitigation/Avoidance Measures

Non-fishing activities associated with the proposed action that may adversely affect

groundfish EFH include filling, excavation, impoundment, discharge, water diversions,

thermal additions, actions that contribute to non-point source pollution and

sedimentation, the introduction of potentially hazardous materials, the introduction of

exotic species, and the conversion of aquatic habitat that may eliminate, diminish, or

disrupt the functions of EFH. The environmental performance standards detailed in

Section 3 have been developed to minimize or avoid adverse effects on designated EFH.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 131

7.4.2.1 Groundfish Estuarine EFH

This document provides an analysis of the potential effects of the proposed action on the

estuarine EFH for groundfish. EFH can be affected when one or more physical, chemical,

or biological parameters are altered. Pathways through which potential effects may be

delivered to groundfish EFH are summarized below.

Riparian Vegetation

Bridge replacement or repair activities along banks with riparian vegetation may

degrade the function of the existing riparian habitat by removing vegetation and

destabilizing the banks. Potential impacts include the loss of riparian shade and

cover, loss of organic inputs, and loss of habitat complexity. Allochthonous

detritus probably constitutes the dominant pathway of trophic carbon into

estuarine food webs, and riparian vegetation is often the dominant source of

organic matter contributing to the estuarine detritus pool, such as in the Columbia

River estuary (Simenstad and Wissmar 1996 in Floyd 2003).

Riparian vegetation removal will likely be required by the proposed action.

However, the amount of riparian vegetation cleared at individual bridge sites is

small relative to the available riparian vegetation for estuarine systems within the

range of the project. Riparian vegetation clearing will rarely extend more than 75

feet on either side of a replaced bridge. For most systems, temperature increases

due to riparian vegetation removal on this small scale will not be measurable. The

environmental performance standards in Section 3 will minimize vegetation

removal, and ensure that removed vegetation that is not part of the new permanent

bridge footprint is replaced with a functional equivalent; monitoring will be

conducted to ensure the long-term survival of replacement plantings. Some

temporary minor effects on water temperature in some stream systems may be

expected while the replaced riparian vegetation matures. Over time, the new

growth will be functionally equivalent to the vegetation removed by the project.

Therefore, riparian vegetation removal effects on stream temperature are

considered to be temporary, and in most cases minor.

Wetlands

Bridge replacement or repair activities may take place in estuarine wetlands.

Wetland size may be reduced by the placement of fill, reducing or eliminating

habitat for submerged aquatic or emergent vegetation, and reducing food web

support.

Fill may cause direct harm to EFH or estuarine habitat by burying plants; fish; or

invertebrate eggs, larvae, or adults; or by displacing mobile animals. The removal

of material from wetlands for the purpose of creating open and/or deeper water,

the excavation of exotic plants, or drainage of adjacent lands may modify

hydrologic regimes to the detriment of wetland plant species.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 132

The addition of fill to estuarine wetlands may reduce water quality by eliminating

the normal settling, filtration, adsorption of contaminants and nutrients, and

denitrification of surface runoff formerly entering the estuarine system through

that wetland. As a result, excess nutrients in surface water may lead to algae

blooms and subsequently to reduced dissolved oxygen content in streams. During

the construction or repair activity and until revegetation is complete, adjacent

waters are likely to have increased turbidity from surface runoff and the erosion

of fill materials.

Additionally, vegetation clearing associated with fill may reduce site productivity,

and eliminate EFH structure. Vegetation clearing and the associated surface

disturbance often result in the colonization or expansion of non-native plant

species that compete with native plants, in a reduction of the habitat available for

rare plants, and in a reduction of diversity and food sources for aquatic and

terrestrial animals.

Submerged aquatic vegetation beds in estuaries provide key habitats for marine

and anadromous organisms. Seagrasses supply many habitat functions, including:

(1) the support of large numbers of epiphytic organisms; (2) the damping of

waves and slowing of currents which enhances sediment stability and increases

the accumulation of organic and inorganic material; (3) the binding of sediments

by roots, thus reducing erosion and preserving sediment microflora; and, (4) the

provision of horizontal and vertical complexity to habitat by roots and leaves,

which, together with abundant and varied food sources, support densities of fauna

generally exceeding those in unvegetated habitats (Thayer et al. 1984). Estuarine

emergent vegetation (e.g., hardstem bulrush, soft rush, Lyngby’s sedge) typically

provides habitat for nematodes, oligochaetes, chironomid pupae, and polychaete

annelids. Bridge replacement or repair activities that remove emergent vegetation

would remove habitat for important invertebrate food species.

Bridge replacement and repair activities may alter the timing of estuarine wetland

hydrology, and these changes may make the wetland nonfunctional for species

that have evolved with specific hydrologic regimes. Increased impervious

surfaces and the diversion of surface runoff or stormwater to treatment facilities

may disrupt the groundwater recharge to wetlands. Changes in hydrology may

change other wetland functions including nitrogen and phosphorus cycling,

particularly de-nitrification, thermoregulation, primary production, and habitat for

EFH species. Partial fills of wetlands may re-distribute water within a wetland,

thus changing the hydrologic regime of the remaining habitat.

Temporary detour routes and bridges associated with the proposed actions have

the potential to encroach upon estuarine wetlands. Implementation of the Fluvial

Environmental Performance Standard will minimize the use of fills within

functional floodplains and allow normative physical processes to occur within the

stream-floodplain corridor. This will likely improve the existing condition of this
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 133

parameter in many bridge locations by improving the stream/floodplain interface,

which has direct implications for improving wetlands. Efforts will be made at the

design stage of each project to minimize effects on sensitive areas including

wetlands. Vegetation clearing will be minimized and cleared vegetation will be

replaced to specifications detailed in Section 3.

Bank Disturbance

Access and excavation for bridge replacement and repair activities may disturb

the bank, release sediment, remove structural habitat along the edge of the water,

and result in bank instability and habitat simplification. Sessile macroalgae that

occur on estuarine banks with natural or artificial cobble to solid rock substrate

may be destroyed or displaced.

Some effects may be unavoidable, particularly temporary effects during

construction and permanent effects on banks directly underneath proposed

structures (i.e., where an existing structure has been widened, requiring vegetation

removal and possibly additional riprap armoring). However, bridge construction

permitted under this program will minimize potential effects on existing bank

conditions by adhering to the environmental performance standards in Section 3.

Site restoration activities in disturbed areas will generally involve grading banks

to appropriate slopes and replacing any vegetation removed. Many of the bridges

that are proposed for replacement currently promote bank degradation by

encroaching upon floodplains and constricting flows. In addition, many of these

bridges have required the placement of riprap or other armoring materials within

or near banks, with adverse effects on bank conditions at and downstream of the

bridge location. Adherence to environmental performance standards will likely

result in localized beneficial effects to estuarine bank conditions throughout the

State.

In-water Work

Proposed bridge work may require the use of machinery in the water. As with all

bridge activities, accidental release of diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and

other contaminants may occur during in-water work. Operation of back-hoes,

excavators, and other equipment requires the use of fuel and lubricants, which, if

spilled into the water or into the adjacent wetland or riparian zone, can seriously

degrade water quality constituents of EFH.

The effects of hardened embankments on an estuary include the simplification of

bank habitat and the alteration of tidal processes. Simplification reduces

vegetative refugia (which assist in predator avoidance), and may degrade or

eliminate shallow water habitat.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 134

Several of the environmental performance standards presented in Section 3 will

minimize the effects of the Bridge Program on groundfish EFH. Performance

standards will avoid or minimize project-related effects on water quality or

aquatic habitat by controlling staging and equipment operation, by minimizing

hardened structures within waterbodies, and by maintaining normative fluvial

processes.

Conservation measures include proper equipment staging, the preparation of spill

prevention and containment plans, and the routing of stormwater generated on

bridge surfaces to stormwater treatment facilities. All construction sites are

subject to minor spills and drips of materials that could eventually cause minor

chemical contamination. However, the adverse effects on water quality are

expected to be local and negligible. Moreover, treatment of stormwater at bridges

that currently lack treatment facilities will be a net benefit to groundfish EFH.

The proposed action will involve minimal or no activities within intertidal areas.

The environmental performance standards that address in-water work will guide

construction timing and methods in order to limit impacts to estuarine benthic

communities in the event that the proposed action occurs within or near a benthic

community.

Sediment

The release of sediment from actions associated with bridge replacement and

repair may affect water quality during the project, and may have residual effects

following the project. Localized increases in sedimentation will likely result from

excavation and grading of the streambank. The release of sediment during inwater work and the movement of eroded material into the water may increase

turbidity, with direct or indirect effects on EFH. Most effects of sediment will be

short-term and directly related to the extent and duration of in-water work. The

removal of riparian vegetation for site access and staging may cause a short-term

increase in runoff and increase sediment loads, and may also mobilize fine

sediment on the stream bottom. Soil compaction from equipment can reduce the

ability of the site to grow vegetation and can contribute to erosion and

sedimentation.

The environmental performance standards will minimize erosion and turbidity

stemming from bridgework within or near estuarine areas (Section 3). Temporary,

localized effects are possible during bridge replacement activities; however,

conducting all in-stream work during specified in-water work periods will

minimize the potential for these increases.

Staging

Most bridge construction or repair activities require the use of equipment and

materials that must be parked near a project site. Locations within the ODOT
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 135

right-of-way that provide close, convenient access to a project site are usually

located in wide, open, level spots along the highway. The locations of staging

areas are limited by available space and adherence to distance buffers designed to

protect water quality and aquatic resources.

Parked equipment may leak oil, hydraulic fluid, or fuel that contaminates the soil

or is transported into the estuary or wetland. Equipment repair and maintenance

(fueling, changing oil, lubrication) may also result in spills of fuel, oil, antifreeze,

or hydraulic fluids that contaminate the soil or are transported into the estuary or

wetland.

The temporary stockpiling of repair or waste materials may result in

contamination of soil or water with wood preservatives or other toxic substances

being removed from a bridge replacement and repair project site. The Pollution

and Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard will be applied to

every bridge replacement or repair activity included in this consultation. Plans

will detail appropriate staging methods that minimize the delivery of sediment,

contaminants, or construction materials to aquatic resources. Restrictions will be

made regarding equipment use and refueling, and staging and special containment

measures will be required for stationary equipment that operates near a regulated

waterbody.

Rocky Shelf EFH

Rocky shelf EFH may affected by actions associated with bridge repair or

replacement, such as erosion repair, slope/bank stabilization, culvert repair or

removal, shoulder repair, bridge repair, scour repair, concrete work, and

temporary bridges. Where roads or structures are located directly above rocky

coasts or over chasms cut into headlands, these activities may affect intertidal

rocky areas, tide pools, and inshore subtidal rocky habitats as a result of leaks or

spills from equipment, the downslope transport of sediment, or the unavoidable

downslope movement of rocks or other repair materials below the MHHW line.

Bridge work where rocky shelf EFH occurs immediately below US-101 would

mostly take place from the highway due to lack of access on the steep slopes

below. It is highly unlikely that construction equipment would be placed below

the MHHW line in these areas due to lack of access.

Adherence to the environmental performance standards developed for this

program will significantly reduce the likelihood that groundfish rocky shelf EFH

is adversely affected by bridge replacement or repair work. At this time, no

bridges are scheduled for replacement within rocky shelf EFH. However, bridge

repair work could occur within this type during the life of the Bridge Program. All

potential repair work authorized under this consultation will implement

environmental performance standards that address construction activity within or

near aquatic resources.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 136

7.4.3 Determination of Effects on Groundfish EFH

There are 48 bridges within the range of groundfish EFH. Of these, 46 bridges are in the

Coast Range ecoregion, one is in the Klamath Mountains ecoregion, and one is in the

Willamette Valley ecoregion. Forty two are located in a riverine environment and six are

located in a bay or estuary.

Bridges where repair or replacement activities may affect groundfish EFH occur in 11 5th

Field HUCs. Within this groundfish EFH, the greatest concentration of bridges occurs in

the Middle Fork Coquille watershed, which accounts for 23% of the gross API.

The disturbance of streambanks may cause indirect effects on groundfish EFH. The area

of streambank disturbance was estimated by multiplying the number of bridges that may

affect groundfish EFH (48), by the permanent and temporary streambank disturbance

area assumed for each bridge (40 feet of permanent disturbance and 300 feet of

temporary disturbance). The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance at these

48 bridges is approximately 1,920 feet, or 0.36 river miles. The total amount of

temporary streambank disturbance that could affect groundfish EFH is approximately

14,400 feet, or 2.7 river miles.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a determination of

will adversely affect for groundfish EFH. However, implementation of the environmental

performance standards will minimize adverse effects on EFH for groundfish. These

conclusions are based on the following considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires

individual review of each project to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance

with the environmental performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable

conservation measure is included as an enforceable condition of the permit document; (2)

the cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will ensure

that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements, channel

conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions will be minor and of short

duration. The ecological design approach that will be applied to program bridges is

expected to result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on aquatic

habitat parameters; and the individual and combined effects of all actions permitted are

not expected to impair currently properly functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the

functioning of already impaired habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired

habitats toward the proper functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the

population or species scale.

7.4.4 Potential Adverse Effects on Pacific Salmon EFH and Associated

Mitigation/Avoidance Measures

A formal assessment of the freshwater EFH components for listed ESUs of Pacific

salmon is not presented separately in this document, as the analysis of effects of the

Bridge Program on 14 listed salmonid ESUs and their designated critical habitat

presented in Section 5 fulfills this requirement for EFH analysis. However, an assessment
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 137

of the mitigated effects on the estuarine EFH composite for salmonids is summarized

below.

Estuaries provide a protected and food-rich environment for juvenile salmon growth, and

allow a transition for both juveniles and adults between the fresh and saltwater

environments. Adults also may hold and feed in estuaries before beginning their upstream

migration.

Simenstad and others (1982) hypothesized three important estuarine functions that

enhance the growth and survival of Pacific salmon:

Physiological Transition

Salmonids undergoing physiological change may benefit from the gradual change from

fresh to salt water within the estuary.

Predator Avoidance

Although the abundance of predators is higher in the estuary, juvenile salmon may

disperse into habitats (e.g., aquatic vegetation, shallow areas, small side channels, etc.)

that offer protection from predators. In addition, turbidity is often higher, which reduces

the efficiency of predators.

Optimum Foraging Conditions

The size, distribution, and density of many prey organisms in the estuary appear to be

optimal for juvenile salmon.

The possible effects of the program on Pacific salmon EFH that are of particular concern

with respect to the Bridge Program include the following:

• Lowered water quality

• Altered timing/quantity of fresh water in-flow

• Loss of habitat resulting from diking, dredging, filling

• Diminished habitat complexity

• Loss of channels, eel grass beds, woody material

• Increased predation resulting from habitat simplification

• Diminished prey/competition for prey.

Floyd (2003) summarized mechanisms by which Pacific salmon EFH may be altered or

degraded. The major effects on Pacific salmon EFH that may occur as a result of the

Bridge Program are discussed below.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 138

Riparian Vegetation Removal

Bridge replacement and repair activities along banks with riparian vegetation may

degrade the function of existing riparian habitat by removing vegetation and destabilizing the banks. Potential effects to Pacific salmon EFH include the loss of

riparian shade and cover, the loss of organic inputs, and the loss of habitat

complexity. Detritus probably constitutes the dominant pathway of trophic carbon

into estuarine food webs, and riparian vegetation is often the dominant source of

organic matter contributing to the estuarine detritus pool (Simenstad and Wissmar

1996 in Floyd 2003).

Riparian vegetation removal will likely be required as part of the proposed action.

However, the amount of riparian vegetation cleared at individual bridge sites is

small fraction of the available riparian vegetation for the estuarine systems in the

range of the project. Riparian vegetation clearing will rarely extend more than 75

feet on either side of a replaced bridge. For most systems, temperature increases

due to riparian vegetation removal on this scale will not be measurable.

Environmental performance standards will require that vegetation removed that is

not part of the new permanent bridge footprint be replaced with a functional

equivalent. The environmental performance standards also require a monitoring

plan that will ensure the long-term survival of replacement plantings. Some

temporary minor effects on water temperature in some stream systems may be

expected while the replaced riparian vegetation matures, but over time, the new

growth will be functionally equivalent to the vegetation removed by the project.

Therefore, these effects on stream temperature are considered to be temporary,

and in most cases minor.

Wetlands

Bridge replacement and repair activities may take place in estuarine wetlands.

Wetland size may be reduced by the placement of fill, reducing or eliminating

habitat for submerged aquatic or emergent vegetation, and reducing food web

support.

Fill may cause direct harm to Pacific salmon EFH by burying plants; or by

removal of material from wetlands for the purpose of creating open and/or deeper

water. Excavation of exotic plants, or the drainage of adjacent lands may modify

hydrologic regimes to the detriment of wetland plant species that may provide

refugia or rearing habitat constituents of Pacific salmon EFH.

Fill in estuarine wetlands may reduce water quality by eliminating normal

settling, filtration, adsorption of contaminants and nutrients, and denitrification of

surface runoff formerly entering the estuarine system through that wetland.

Without these wetland functions present, excess nutrients in surface water may

lead to algae blooms and subsequently to lowered dissolved oxygen content in

streams. During the bridgework and until revegetation is complete, adjacent
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 139

waters are likely to have increased turbidity from surface runoff and erosion of fill

materials.

The vegetation clearing associated with fill may reduce site productivity and

eliminate EFH structure. Vegetation clearing and associated surface disturbance

often result in the colonization or expansion of non-native plant species that

compete with native plants, or in the reduction of habitat available for rare plants

and of diversity and temporal supplies of food sources for aquatic and terrestrial

animals.

Submerged aquatic vegetation beds in estuaries provide key habitats for marine

and anadromous organisms. Seagrasses supply many habitat functions, including:

(1) the support of large numbers of epiphytic organisms; (2) the damping of

waves and slowing of currents which enhances sediment stability and increases

the accumulation of organic and inorganic material; (3) the binding of sediments

by roots, which reduces erosion and preserves sediment microflora; and, (4) the

provision of horizontal and vertical complexity to habitat by roots and leaves,

which, together with abundant and varied food sources, support densities of fauna

generally exceeding those in unvegetated habitats (Thayer et al. 1984).

Estuarine emergent vegetation (e.g., hardstem bulrush, soft rush, Lyngby’s sedge)

typically provides habitat for nematodes, oligochaetes, chironomid pupae, and

polychaete annelids. Bridge replacement and repair activities that remove

emergent vegetation will remove habitat for important invertebrate food species.

Bridge replacement and repair activities in estuaries may require disturbance of

the benthic substrate. Such disturbance could cause mortality to benthic

invertebrate prey species and the loss of benthic habitat for invertebrates that

provide food for salmonids.

Bridge replacement and repair activities in estuaries have the potential to disturb

or remove submerged aquatic vegetation. Construction access and drilling

activities in estuaries will be permitted on the condition that submerged aquatic

vegetation is avoided. Best management practices designed to avoid submerged

aquatic vegetation will also be implemented.

Bridge replacement and repair activities may alter the timing or duration of

estuarine wetland hydrology. These changes may make the wetland nonfunctional

for species that have evolved with specific hydrologic regimes. Increased

impervious surfaces and the diversion of surface runoff or stormwater to

treatment facilities may disrupt the groundwater recharge to wetlands. Changes in

hydrology may change other wetland functions including nitrogen and

phosphorus cycling, particularly de-nitrification, thermoregulation, primary

production, and physical habitat for EFH species. Partial fills of wetlands may redistribute water within a wetland, thus changing the hydrologic regime of the

remaining habitat.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 140

Temporary detour routes and bridges associated with the proposed action have the

potential to encroach upon estuarine wetlands. Implementation of the

environmental performance standards will ensure the reduction of fill within

functional floodplains and allow normative physical processes to occur within the

stream-floodplain corridor. This will likely improve the existing condition of this

parameter in many bridge locations by improving the stream/floodplain interface,

which has direct implications for wetlands. Efforts will be made at the design

stage of each bridge replacement project to minimize effects on sensitive areas

including wetlands. Vegetation clearing will be minimized, and cleared vegetation

will be replaced to specifications detailed in the Site Restoration Environmental

Performance Standard. Temporary detour roads and structures will be completely

obliterated upon project completion, and disturbed areas will be restored to preproject conditions.

Bank Disturbance

Access and excavation may disturb banks, release sediment, remove structural

habitat along the edge of the water, and result in bank instability and habitat

simplification. Sessile macroalgae that occur on estuarine banks with natural or

artificial cobble to solid rock substrate may be destroyed or displaced.

Some effects on streambanks may be unavoidable, particularly temporary effects

during construction and permanent effects on banks directly underneath proposed

structures (i.e., where an existing structure has been widened, requiring vegetation

removal and possibly additional riprap armoring). However, bridge construction

permitted under this program will minimize potential effects on existing bank

conditions by adhering to the environmental performance standards detailed in

Section 3. Site restoration activities in disturbed areas will generally involve

grading banks to appropriate slopes and replacing any vegetation removed. Many

of the bridges that are proposed for replacement currently promote bank

degradation by encroaching upon floodplains and constricting flows. In addition,

many of these bridges have required the placement of riprap or other armoring

materials within or near banks which has had direct adverse effects on bank

conditions at and downstream of the bridge location. Removal and replacement of

these bridges with structures adhering to the environmental performance

standards will likely result in localized beneficial effects to estuarine bank

conditions throughout the State.

In-Water Work

Some bridge work will require machinery to work within the water. As with all

bridge replacement and repair activities, the accidental release of diesel fuel,

motor oil, hydraulic fluid, and other contaminants may occur. Operation of backhoes, excavators, and other equipment requires the use of fuel and lubricants

which, if spilled into the water or into the adjacent wetland or riparian zone, can
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 141

seriously degrade water quality constituents of Pacific salmon EFH. Petroleumbased contaminants (such as fuel, oil, and some hydraulic fluids) contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which can cause acute toxicity to fish at

high levels of exposure and can also cause chronic lethal as well as acute and

chronic sub-lethal effects on aquatic organisms (Neff 1985).

The effects of hardened embankments on an estuary include the simplification of

bank habitat and the alteration of tidal processes. Simplification reduces

vegetative refugia sites for fish (which assist in predator avoidance), eliminates

shallow water habitat, and eliminates benthic habitat. Following the

environmental performance standards and adhering to in-water work windows

will minimize effects on Pacific salmon EFH.

Implementation of the environmental performance standards described in Section

3 will minimize the potential for hazardous spills and leakages to affect Pacific

salmonid EFH. The proposed action will involve minimal or no activities within

intertidal areas. Conservation measures include proper equipment staging, the

preparation of spill prevention and containment plans, and the routing of

stormwater generated on bridge surfaces to stormwater treatment facilities. All

construction sites are subject to minor spills and drips of materials that could

eventually cause minor chemical contamination of streams and waters; however,

any adverse effects on water quality are expected to be negligible and temporary.

Moreover, treating stormwater from bridges that currently lack treatment facilities

will result in a net benefit to water quality and aquatic resources.

Sedimentation

Actions associated with bridge construction and repair may cause localized

increases in turbidity and sedimentation from excavation and grading of the

streambank. The release of sediment during in-water work and movement of

eroded material into the water from the bank will generate increased suspended

solids and turbidity, causing short-term degradation of EFH. The extent of these

effects will be directly related to the duration of in-water work.

Actions associated with the Bridge Program may also cause turbidity by

mobilizing fine sediment already within the channel substrate, thus increasing

turbidity levels. These short-term increases in turbidity may be offset by reduced

erosion in the action area. The removal of riparian vegetation for site access and

staging may cause a short-term increase in runoff and increase sediment loads.

Soil compaction from equipment can reduce the ability of the site to grow

vegetation and can contribute to erosion and sedimentation.

The environmental performance standards described in Section 3 will be followed

to minimize erosion and turbidity stemming from bridgework within or near

estuarine areas. Temporary, localized effects are possible during bridge

replacement activities; however, conducting all in-stream work during specified
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 142

in-water work periods will minimize the potential for temporary, localized

increases in turbidity.

Staging

Most bridge replacement and repair activities require the use of equipment and

materials that must be parked near a project site. Locations within the ODOT

right-of-way that provide close, convenient access to a project site are usually in

wide, open, level spots along the highway. The locations of staging areas are

limited by available space and adherence to distance buffers from estuaries to

protect water quality and aquatic resources.

Parked equipment may leak oil, hydraulic fluid, or fuel that contaminates the soil

or is transported into the estuary or wetland. Equipment repair and maintenance

(fueling, changing oil, lubrication) may also result in spills of fuel, oil, antifreeze,

or hydraulic fluids that contaminate the soil or are transported into the estuary or

wetland.

Preparation of repair materials may result in the contamination of soil or water

with chemicals that leach or leak from structural materials. The temporary

stockpiling of repair or waste materials may result in contamination of soil or

water with wood preservatives or other toxic substances being removed from a

bridge replacement and repair project site.

The Pollution and Erosion Control Environmental Performance Standard will be

applied to every bridge replacement or repair activity included in this

consultation. Plans will detail appropriate staging methods that minimize the

delivery of sediment, contaminants, or construction materials to aquatic resources.

Restrictions will be made regarding equipment use and refueling, and staging and

special containment measures will be required for stationary equipment that

operates near a regulated waterbody.

Rocky Shelf EFH

Rocky shelf EFH may be affected by ODOT bridge replacement and repair

activities where bridges are located directly above rocky coasts or over chasms

cut into headlands. These activities may affect intertidal rocky areas, tide pools,

and inshore subtidal rocky habitats as a result of leaks or spills from equipment,

the downslope transport of sediment, or the unavoidable downslope movement of

rocks or other repair materials below the MHHW line. Bridgework in these

locations will mostly take place from the highway due to lack of access down the

steep slopes. Where rocky shelf EFH occurs immediately below US-101, it is

highly unlikely that bridge replacement and repair equipment will be placed

below the MHHW line due to lack of access.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 143

The effects of bridge replacement and repair activities on the estuarine EFH of

nine non-listed ESUs are not likely to be significantly different than those effects

discussed for listed salmonids in the Effects Analysis section herein (Section 5),

or for the effects of bridge replacement and repair activities on estuarine EFH

presented above.

Determination of Effects on Pacific Salmon EFH

There are 389 bridges within the range of Pacific salmon EFH. Of these, 54 are

within the Coast Range ecoregion, 22 are within the Blue Mountains ecoregion,

12 are within the Columbia Basin ecoregion, eight are within the East Cascades

ecoregion, 88 are within the Klamath Mountains ecoregion, 22 are within the

Lava Plains ecoregion, 31 are within the West Cascades ecoregion, and 152 are

within the Willamette Valley ecoregion. The 389 bridges identified as being

within the range of Pacific salmon EFH include 18 that are located upstream of

manmade barriers.

Bridges where repair or replacement activities may affect Pacific salmon EFH

occur in 110 5th Field HUCs. Within the Pacific salmon EFH, the greatest

concentration of bridges occurs within the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, which

accounts for 40% of the gross API.

The disturbance of streambanks may have indirect effects on Pacific salmon EFH.

The amount of streambank disturbed can be estimated to help determine the

magnitude of the effect. Streambank disturbance area was estimated by

multiplying the number of bridges that could potentially affect Pacific salmon

EFH (389), by the assumed permanent and temporary streambank disturbance

area assumed for each bridge (40 feet of permanent disturbance and 300 feet of

temporary disturbance). The total amount of permanent streambank disturbance

that could affect Pacific salmon EFH is approximately 15,560 feet, or three river

miles of streambank. The total amount of temporary streambank disturbance that

could affect Pacific salmon EFH is approximately 116,700 feet or 22 river miles

of streambank.

Based on this analysis for the Bridge Program, ODOT/FHWA makes a

determination of will adversely affect for Pacific salmon EFH. The environmental

performance standards and temporal staging of the proposed action described in

Section 3 of this BA are considered adequate to minimize adverse effects on

Pacific salmon EFH for this project. These conclusions are based on the following

considerations: (1) the Bridge Program requires individual review of each project

to ensure that the proposed action will be in compliance with the environmental

performance standards identified herein, and that each applicable conservation

measure is included as an enforceable condition of the permit document; (2) the

cumulative effect of the conservation measures applied to each project will ensure

that any short-term effects on water quality, habitat access, habitat elements,

channel conditions and dynamics, flows, and watershed conditions will be brief,
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

7 – 144

minor, and scheduled to occur at the times that are least sensitive to most

disturbance (i.e., in-water work periods coincide with non-channel forming stream

flows); (3) the ecological design approach that will be applied to each bridge in

this program to protect and stimulate natural habitat forming processes is

expected to result in many projects that will have long-term beneficial effects on

aquatic habitat parameters; and (4) the individual and combined effects of all

actions permitted in this way are not expected to impair currently properly

functioning habitats, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired

habitats, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitats toward the properly

functioning condition essential to survival and recovery at the population or

species scale.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

8 – 1

8.0 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 are addressed in the ESA

consultation for this project.

8.1 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.

To determine which bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect marine

mammals, GIS 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

8 – 2

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 (Robin Brown, Marine Mammal

Program Manager, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm. August 30,

2002).

Bridges meeting all of the following criteria will be documented as having no potential to

affect marine mammals:

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).

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).

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).

Bridges with APIs greater than 3,000 feet from an identified marine mammal

rookery or haulout (ODFW 2003c).
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

8 – 3

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.

8.2 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 (NOAA

Fisheries 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 (NOAA Fisheries 1992). Occasional

disturbance at low levels may have little long-term effect (NOAA Fisheries 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 (August 27, 1993, 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 rookery sites. This is likely an over-estimate

considering marine mammals are not always present at these locations.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

8 – 4

Chemicals

Because marine mammals inhabit the marine environment and occasionally the lower

reaches of larger river systems, there is no potential for a construction-related spill to

affect them.

Species Pathway

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 (NOAA Fisheries 1992). In addition, marine mammals are known to utilize

manmade structures such as breakwaters, navigational aids, and floating docks for

haulout sites (August 27, 1993, 58 FR 45269). The Bridge Program has the potential to

remove or adversely modify man-made structures that support hauled out marine

mammals.

8.3 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 Bridge

Program consist of specific environmental performance standards that provide for habitat and

species conservation during bridge repair and replacement. Section 3 provides detailed

information regarding these environmental performance standards and conservation measures.

8.4 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 environmental performance standards.

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 environmental performance

standards, 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

8 – 5

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 no 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 3.3) 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

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 Environmental Performance Standards outlined in Section 3.3, including the

Wildlife Avoidance Environmental Performance Standard and the Water Quality

Environmental Performance Standard (which includes bridge demolition conservation

measures), should ensure that direct and indirect effects on marine mammals are avoided.

Determination of Effects

There are a total of 14 bridges where repair and replacement activities may affect marine

mammals (Figure 8.4-1; Table 8.4-1). 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 environmental performance standards, (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.
LAKE

LANE

KLAMATH

HARNEY

DOUGLAS

LINN

CROOK

GRANT

WASCO

JACKSON

COOS

DESCHUTES

CURRY

MORROW

WHEELER

JEFFERSON

GILLIAM

CLACKAMAS

MARION

JOSEPHINE

POLK

LINCOLN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK UMATILLA

SHERMAN

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON HOOD RIVER

screening\BA_figures\mammal.mxd. Mar 1, 2004

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Natural Resource Consultants since 1921

Figure 8.4-1

OTIA III: Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

Marine Mammals

Spatial Data Source: See Document Bibliography.

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

California

Pacific Ocean

Washington

dI aho

California

Harbor Seal Haulout

Bridge 00924A

0 10 20 40 60

Miles

OTIA III Bridges

Potential to Affect

No Potential to Affect

Marine Mammal Haulout Locations

City

Streams and Rivers

County

Highway

State Boundary

This product is for informational purposes, and may

not be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying

purposes. This information or data is provided with

the understanding that conclusions drawn from

such information are the responsibility of the user.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

8 – 

7

Table 8.4-1. Program Bridges that may affect marine mammals.

Record

No.

Bridge ID

No. Feature Crossed No. of Spans 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC 

1 9591 Hwy 2w 3 Beaver Cr./Columbia R. Green Cr./ Columbia Side Ch. 2 04516A Unknown 1 Columbia Slough/Willamette R. Willamette R./Columbia R. 3 1950 Central OR RR 3 Coos Bay Coos Bay 4 8281 US 101 NB (Hwy 009) 3 Coos Bay Lower Millicoma 5 6875 Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. 6 6945 Conn 2 Jordan Rd 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. 7 06875A Sandy R. 10 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. 8 06945A Conn 2 Jordan Rd. 1 Lower Sandy R. Beaver Cr. 9 00925A Unknown 5 Lower Siletz R./Drift Cr. Lower Drift Cr./Siletz R. 

10 00924A Schooner Cr. 6 Lower Siletz R./Drift Cr. Schooner Cr. 11 03173A Beaver Cr. 24 Lower Coquille Beaver Slough 12 7333 Unknown 16 Salmon Cr. Vancouver 13 00922A Unknown 3 Salmon R./Siletz/Yaquina Bay Devils Lake 14 13491 Unknown 3 Salmon R./Siletz/Yaquina Bay Lower Salmon R. 
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 1

9.0 References

ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1970. Floodplain Information, Willamette River,

Johnson, Kellogg, and Mt. Scott Creeks. ACOE, Portland, Oregon.

Adams, P.B., E.H. Williams, K.R. Silberberg and T.E. Laidig. 1999. Southern lingcod stock

assessment in 1999 in Status of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery through 1999 and

recommended acceptable biological catches for 2000: stock assessment and fishery

evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Adamus, P.R., K. Larsen, G. Gilson and C.R. Miller. 2001. Oregon breeding bird atlas. Oregon

Field Ornithologists, Eugene, Oregon.

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1999. Aleutian Canada Goose. Alaska

Department of Fish and Game. Available:

http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/wildlife/geninfo/game/al_goose.htm

(Accessed October 28, 2003).

Allen, D. 1995. Stream ecology; structure and function of running waters. Chapman and Hall.

London, England

Allen, M.J. 1982. Functional structure of soft_bottom fish communities of the southern

California shelf. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California, San Diego, California.

Allen, M.J. and G.B. Smith. 1988. Atlas and zoogeography of common fishes in the Bering Sea

and northeastern Pacific. Technical Report: 66, NOAA Fisheries, National Marine

Fisheries Service.

Andreasen, J. 1975. Systematics and status of the family catostomidae in southern Oregon. PhD

Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon

Anthony, R.G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1981. Characteristics of bald eagle nests in Oregon. Unpublished

report. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon

Anthony, R.G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nests in Oregon. Journal of

Wildlife Managment. 53 (1):148-159.

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. In Transactions of the North

America Wildlife Natural Resource Conference, Wildlife Management Institution,

47:332-342, Washington D.C.

Aro, K.V. and M.P. Shepard. 1967. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean--Part IV. Spawning

populations of North Pacific salmon, 5. Pacific salmon in the Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Science Bulletin of the International North Pacific Fisheries

Commission 23:225-327.

Aulman, D.L. 1992. The impacts and pressures on west coast peregrines. Pages 55-65 in J.E.

Pagel, editor. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest,

January 1991. Rogue River National Forest.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 2

Bailey, K.M., R.C. Francis and P.R. Stevens. 1982. The life history and fishery of Pacific

whiting, (Merluccius productus). California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigative

Report 23:81-98.

Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna 55:1-416.

Balcomb, K.C. and G. Nichols. 1978. Western north Atlantic Humpback whales. Report in the

Journal of the International Whaling Commission 28:159-164.

Bane, G. 1992. First report of a loggerhead sea turtle from Alaska. March Turtle Newsletter

58:1-2.

Barrows, C.W. 1985. Breeding success relative to fluctuations in diet for spotted owls in

California. Pages 50-54 in Gutierrez, R.J. and Carey, A.B., technical editors. Ecology and

Mangement of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, General

Technical Report PNW-185.

Beak Consultants, Inc. 1987. Shortnose and lost river sucker studies: Copco Reservoir and the

Klamath River. Report prepared for the City of Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Beamish, R.J. 1980. Adult biology of the River Lamprey (lampetra ayresi) and the Pacific

Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) from the pacific coast of Canada. Canadian Journal of

Fish and Aquatic Science 37:1906-1923.

Berman, C.H. and T.P. Quinn. 1991. Behavioral thermoregulation and homing by spring chinook

salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Yakima River. Journal of Fish Biology

39:301-312.

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams in Meehan

W.R. editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their

habitats. America Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.

Blankenship, L. and R. Tivel. 1980. Puget Sound wild stock coho trapping and tagging, 1973-

1979. Washington Department of Fisheries Program Report 111.

Blankenship, L., P. Hanratty and R. Tivel. 1983. Puget Sound wild stock coho trapping and

tagging, 1980-1982. Washington Department of Fisheries Program Report 198.

Boehlert, G.W. and M.M. Yoklavich. 1983. Effects of temperature, ration, and fish size on

growth of juvenile black rockfish, (Sebastes melanops). Environmental Biology of Fishes

8:17-28.

Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerances of young Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus). Journal of the

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 9(6):264-323.

Briggs, J.C. 1953. The behavior and reproduction of salmonid fishes in a small coastal stream.

California Department Fish and Game, Fishery Bulletin 94:1-62.

Bryant, G.J. 1994. Status review of coho salmon in Scott Creek and Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz

County, California. National Marine Fisheries Service, SW Region, Protected Species

Management Division, Long Beach, California.

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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 3

Buchanan, D., M.L. Hanson and R.M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon's bull trout: distribution,

life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status. Prepared for the

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Buckley, R., G. Hueckel, B. Benson, S. Quinnell and M. Canfield. 1984. Enhancement research

on lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) in Puget Sound. State of Washington Department of

Fisheries. Progress Report No. 216.

Buettner, M. and G.G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history and status of castosmids in the Upper

Klamath Lake, Oregon. USFWS Completion Report.

Burgner, R.L. 1980. Predicting sockeye run timing with temperature data. Coastal

Oceanographer Climatology News 2:42.

Bustard, D.R. and D.W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of the winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus Kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gardineri). Journal of the Fisheries

Research Board of Canada 32:667-680.

Cade, T.J. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon population in Alaska. University of

California publications in Zoology 63:151-289.

Cade, T.J. and D.M. Bird. 1990. Peregrine Falcons, falco peregrinus, nesting in an urban

environment: a review. Canadian Field Naturalist.

Cade, T.J., M. Martell, P. Redig, G. Septon and H. Tordorff. 1996a. Peregrine falcons in urban

North America. In raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London, United

Kingdom.

Cade, T.J., J.H. Enders and J. Linthicum. 1996b. Guide to management of Peregrine falcons at

the Eyrie. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho.

Cailliet, G.M., A.H. Andrews, W.W. Wakefield, G. Moreno and K.L. Rhodes. 1999. Fish faunal

and habitat analyses using trawls, camera sleds and submersibles in benthic deep-sea

habitats off central California. Oceanologica Acta 22:579-592.

CalTrans (California Department of Transportation). 2001. Marine mammal impact assessment:

Pipe installation demonstration project San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridge east span

seismic safety project. Unpublished report of the California Department of

Transportation. Sacramento, California.

Canfield, J.E., L.J. Lyon, J.M. Hilllis and M.J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. Pages 6.1-6.25 in G.

Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife:

A review for Montana. Committee of effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana chapter

of The Wildlife Society.

Carlier, P. 1993. Sex differences in nesting site attendance by Peregrine falcons (Falcon

peregrinus brookei). Journal of Raptor Research 27:31-34.

Carter, H.R. and S.G. Sealy. 1987. Inland records of downy young and fledgling marbled

murrelets in North America. Murrelet 68:58-63

Casillas, E., L. Crockett, Y. deReynier, J. Glock, M. Helvey, B. Meyer, C. Schmitt, M.

Yoklavich, A. Bailey, B. Chao, B. Johnson and T. Pepperell. 1998. Essential fish habitat

west coast groundfish appendix, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 4

Castro, J. and B. Cluer. 2003. Instream aggregate mining issues in Oregon. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2000. The status of rare, threatened, and

endangered animals and plants of California: McDonald's rock-cress. California

Department of Fish and Game. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/cgigin/read_one.asp?specy=plants&idNum=7 (Accessed December 11, 2003).

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2002. Vernal pool fairy shrimp species

account. Available:

http://www.scwa2.com/HCP/VERNAL%20POOL%20FAIRY%20SHRIMP%20.htm.

(Accessed October 17, 2003).

Cederholm, C.J. and W.J. Scarlett. 1981. Seasonal immigrations of juvenile salmonids into four

small tributaries of the Clearwater River, Washington, 1977-1981. Pages 98-110 in

Brannon, E. L. and E. O. Salo, editors. Salmon and Trout Migratory Behavior

Symposium. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forks, Washington.

CeTAP (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program). 1982. Cetacean and turtle assessment

program, University of Rhode Island to Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department

of the Interior. Final report Ref. No. AA551-CT8-48. Cetacean and Turtle Assessment

Program.

Chapman, D.W. 1962. Aggressive behavior in juvenile coho salmon as a cause of emigration.

Journal of the Fisheries Resource Board of Canada 19:1047-1080.

Chapman, D.W. 1965. Net production of juvenile coho salmon in three Oregon streams.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 94(1):40-52.

Coleman, M.E. and A.M. McGie. 1988. Annual progress report 1987, fish research project,

Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Project No. E-2.

Congleton, J.L., S.K. Davis and S.R. Foley. 1981. Distribution, abundance and outmigration

timing of chum and chinook salmon fry in the Skagit salt marsh. Pages153-163 in E.L.

Brannon and E.O. Salo, editors. Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory behavior

symposium. School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Coronado-Hernandez, M.C. 1995. Spatial and temporal factors affecting survival of hatcheryreared chinook, coho and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest. PhD Thesis. School of

Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

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/OBS79.31.

CPC (Center for Plant Conservation). 2003. National collection of endangered plants, [online

database]. Available: http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/NC_Choice.html.

(Accessed 2003).

Crone, R.A. and C.E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon, (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in

Sashin Creek, southeastern Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 74(4):897- 923.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 5

Csuti, B., A.J. Kimberling, T.A. O'Neil, M.M. Shaugnessy, E.P. Gaines and M.P. Huso. 1997.

Atlas of Oregon wildlife distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Dark, T.A. and M.E. Wilkins. 1994. Distribution, abundance, and biological characteristics of

groundfish off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California, 1977-1986. NOAA

Technical Report NMFS-NWFSC-117.

Drucker, B. 1972. Some life history characteristics of coho salmon of the Karluk River system,

Kodiak Island, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 70:79-94.

Dunford, W.E. 1975. Space and food utilization by salmonids in marsh habitats in the Fraser

River estuary. MSc Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British

Columbia.

Eastman, D.C. 1990. Rare and endangered plants of Oregon. Beautiful America Publishing

Company.

Emmett, R.L., S.A. Hinton, S.L. Stone and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of

fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume II: Species life history

summaries. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Estuarine

Living Marine Resoruces Report (ELMR) No. 8, Rockville, Maryland.

Eschmeyer, W.N., E.S. Herald and H. Hammon. 1983. A field guide to Pacific Coast fishes of

North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.

Evans-Mack, D., W.P. Ritchie, S.K. Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, P. Harrison and T.E. Hamer.

2003. Methods for surveying Marbled Murrelets in forests: a revised protocol for land

managment and research. Pacific Seabird Group. Available:

http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org.

Everest, F.H. and D.W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction of juvenile

chinook salmon and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in the South Alouette River.

Province, British Columbia Fisheries Technical Circle No. 32:19

Federal Register for March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). Endangered Species List - 1967. Final

listing.

Federal Register for June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Part 17 - conservation of endangered species

and other gish or wildlife (first list of endangered foreign fish and wildlife as Appendix

A). Final listing, endangered.

Federal Register for October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047). Appendix D - United States list of

endangered native fish and wildlife.

Federal Register for July 16, 1975 (40 FR 29863). Threatened status for three species of trout

(Lahontan cutthroat, Paiute cutthroat, Arizona trout). Final reclassify, downlist

threatened, final special rule.

Federal Register for September 28, 1978 (43 FR 44810). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of five plants as endangered species. Final rule.

Federal Register for October 26, 1979 (44 FR 61912). Determination that MacFarlane's Fouro'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) is an endangered species. Final rule.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 6

Federal Register for May 28, 1980 (45 FR 35821). Emergency determination of endanagered

status and critical habitat for the borax lake chub. Emergency critical habitat, critical

habitat-fishes. Emergency listed, endangered.

Federal Register for July 2, 1980 (45 FR 44935). Listing the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly as a

Threatened Species With Critical Habitat. Final Rule.

Federal Register for October 5, 1982 (47 FR 43957). Endangered status and critical habitat for

borax lake chub. Final critical habitat-fishes, final listing, endangered.

Federal Register for November 10, 1982 (47 FR 50881). Determination of Stephanomeria

Malheurensis (Malheur wire-lettuce) to be an endangered species, with determination of

critical habitat.

Federal Register for March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10520). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; reclassification of the artic Peregrine falcon and clarification of its status in

Washington and elsewhere in the conterminous United States. Final rule.

Federal Register for March 28, 1985 (50 FR 12302). Determination of threatened status for the

Hutton Tui Chub and Foskett Speckled Dace. Final listing, threatened, final special rule.

Federal Register for June 11, 1985 (50 FR 24526). Determination of endangered status and

critical habitat for Modoc sucker. Final critical habitat, final listing, endangered.

Federal Register for September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39117). Final critical habitat - fishes, final

listing, threatened. Final special rule.

Federal Register for July 18, 1988 (53 FR 27130). Determination of endangered status for

shortnose sucker & Lost River sucker. Final rule.

Federal Register for September 30, 1988 (53 FR 38448). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; endangered status for Bradshaw's lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii). Final rule.

Federal Register for June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Final rule.

Federal Register for November 20, 1991 (56 FR 58619). Endangered and threatened species:

Endangered status for Snake River sockeye salmon. Final rule.

Federal Register for November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Listing of stellar sea lions as threatened

under the Endangered Species Act. Final rule.

Federal Register for December 12, 1990 (55 FR 51106). Reclassification of the Aleutian Canada

goose from endangered to threatened status.

Federal Register for January 15, 1992 (57 FR 1796). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Final rule.

Federal Register for April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653). Endangered and threatened species:

threatened status for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon, threatened status for

Snake River fall chinook salmon. Final rule.

Federal Register for October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45328). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon, and California

population of the marbled murrelet.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 7

Federal Register for March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). Determination of threatened status for the

Pacific coast population of the Western snowy plover. Final listing, threatened.

Federal Register for July 28, 1993 (58 FR 40547). Endangered and threatened wildlife plants;

determination of endangered status for the plant Applegate's Milk-Vetch (Astragalus

applegatei). Final rule.

Federal Register for August 3, 1993 (58 FR 41378). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of endangered status for two plants, Arenaria Paludicola (Marsh

sandwort) and Rorippa Gambellii (Gambel's Watercress). Final rule.

Federal Register for August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). Designated critical habitat; stellar sea lion.

Final rule.

Federal Register for October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53800). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of endangered status for the Oregon chub. Final rule.

Federal Register for December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543). Endangered and threatened species:

designated critical habitat: Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake River spring/summer

chinook salmon, and Snake River fall chinook salmon. Final rule.

Federal Register for January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3811). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants, proposed designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet.

Federal Register for July 14, 1994 (59 FR 35860). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; the plant, Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis) determined to be a threatened

species. Final rule.

Federal Register for August 17, 1994 (59 FR 42171). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of endangered status for Lilium occidentale (Western lily). Final

rule.

Federal Register for September 19, 1994 (59 FR 48136). Determination of threatened status for

the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Final listing.

Federal Register for October 5, 1994 (59 FR 50796). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; removal of artic peregrine falcon from the list of endangered and threatened

wildlife. Final rule.

Federal Register for November 22, 1994 (59 FR 60252). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; establishment of a nonessential experimental population of gray wolves in

Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

Federal Register for December 1, 1994 (59 FR 61744). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; proposed determination of critical habitat for Lost River sucker. Proposed rule.

Federal Register for December 1, 1994 (59 FR 61759). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; proposed determination of critical habitat for shortnose sucker. Proposed rule.

Federal Register for March 15, 1996 (61 FR 10693). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; reclassification of Mirabilis Macfarlanei (MacFarlane's four-o'clock) from

endangered to threatened status. Final rule.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 8

Federal Register for April 19, 1995 (60 FR 19567). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; 90-day finding for a petitiion to list as endangered and threatened the contiguous

United States population of North American wolverine.

Federal Register for July 12, 1995 (60 FR 36000). Endangered and threatened species; bald eagle

Reclassification. Final rule.

Federal Register for May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26256). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet.

Federal Register for May 5, 1997 (62 FR 24345). Threatened fish and wildlife; change in listing

status of steller sea lions under the Endangered Species Act. Final rule.

Federal Register for May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588). Endangered and threatened species: threatened

status for southern Oregon /northern California coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit

(ESU) of coho salmon. Final rule.

Federal Register for June 11, 1997 (62 FR 31740). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of threatened status for Castilleja levisecta (Golden Paintbrush).

Final rule.

Federal Register for August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937). Endangered and threatened species: Listing

of several Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of west coast steelhead. Final rule.

Federal Register for June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of threatened status for the Klamath River and Columber River

distinct population segments of bull trout. Final rule.

Federal Register for August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42587). Endangered and threatened species;

threatened status of the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of coho salmon.

Final rule.

Federal Register for October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58012). Small takes of marine mammals incidental

to specified activities.

Federal Register for March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308). Endangered and threatened species;

threatened status for three chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in

Washington and Oregon, and endangered status for one chinook salmon ESU in

Washington. Final rule.

Federal Register for March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517). Endangered and threatened species:

Threatened status for two ESUs of steelhead in Washington and Oregon. Final rule.

Federal Register for March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14508). Endangered and threatened species;

threatened status for two ESUs of chum salmon in Washington and Oregon. Final rule.

Federal Register for April 5, 1999 (64 FR 16397). Endangered and threatened species; threatened

status for southwestern Washington/Columiba River coastal cutthroat trout in

Washington and Oregon. Proposed rule.

Federal Register for May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24049). Designated critical habitat: designated critical

habitat for central California coast and southern Oregon/northern California coast coho

salmon. Final rule.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 9

Federal Register for May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28393). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; threatened status for the plant Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis (Howell's

Spectacular Thelypody). Final rule.

Federal Register for August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46542). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final rule to remove the american peregrine falcon from the federal list of

endangered and threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision

for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. Final rule.

Federal Register for October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57533). Review of plant and animal taxa that are

candidates or proposed for listing as endangerd or threatened; annual notice of findings

on recycled petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions.

Federal Register for December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68507). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; designation of critical habitat for the pacific coast population of the western

snowy plover. Final rule.

Federal Register for December 10, 1999 (64 FR 69195). Endangered and Threatened wildlife

and plants; final endangered status for Gentner's Frittilary (Fritillaria gentneri). Final

rule.

Federal Register for January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3866). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; endangered stats for the plant Plagiobothrys hirtus (Rough popcornflower). Final

rule.

Federal Register for January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3875). Endangered status for Erigeron decumbens

var. decumbens (Willamette Daisy) and Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides

fenderi) and threatened status for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's Lupine).

Final listing.

Federal Register for February 16, 2000 (65 FR 7764). Designated critical habitat; critical habitat

for 19 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of salmon and steelhead trout in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Final rule.

Federal Register for March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16051). Determination of threatened status for the

contiguous U.S. distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and related rule. Final

rule.

Federal Register for April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24420). Final rule to remove the Umpqua River

cutthroat trout from the list of endangered wildlife. Final rule.

Federal Register for July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46643). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final rule to list the short-tailed albatross as endangered in the United States. Final

rule.

Federal Register for March 20, 2001 (66 FR 15643). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final rule to remove the Aleutian Canada Goose from the federal list of

endangered and threatened wildlife. Final reclassify.

Federal Register for July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38258). Small takes of marine mammals incidental to

specified activities; seismic retrofit of the Richmond-San Fafael bridge, San Francisco,

California.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 10

Federal Register for October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51598). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final rule to list Silene spaldingii (Spalding's catchfly) as threatened. Final rule.

Federal Register for November 29, 2002 (67 FR 71235). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; proposed designation of critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River

distinct population segments of bull trout and notice of availability of the draft recovery

plan. Proposed rule and notice.

Federal Register for February 6, 2003 (68 FR 6116). Small takes of marine mammals incidental

to specified activities; installation of a new floating dock at the U.S. Coast Guard pier,

Monterey, California.

Federal Register for April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15803). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and

threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous United States; establishment of two

special regulations for threatened gray wolf. Final and proposed rules.

Federal Register for July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40076). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

notice of remanded determination of status for the contiguous United States distinct

population segment of the Canada lynx; clarification of findings. Final rule.

Federal Register for July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43647). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final rule to remove the Douglas County distinct population segment of columbia

white-tailed deer from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife.

Federal Register for August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46683). Final designation of critical habitat for 4

vernal pool vrustaceans and 11 vernal pool plants in California and southern Oregon.

Fisher, J.P. and W.G. Pearcy. 1990. Spacing of scale circuli versus growth rate in young coho

salmon. Fishery Bulletin 88:637-643.

Fisher, J.P. and W.C. Pearcy. 1995. Distribution, migration, and growth of juvenile chinook

salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) off Oregon and Washington. Fishery Bulletin

93(2):274-289.

Floyd, R. 2003a. 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. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon.

Floyd, R. 2003b. Draft EFH Analysis for the ODOT Maintenance Programmatic Biological

Assessment. Oregon Department of Transportation Statewide Maintenance Program. US

Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon.

Foerster, R.E. and W.E. Ricker. 1953. The coho salmon of Cultus Lake and Sweltzer Creek.

Journal of the Fisheries Resource Board of Canada 10(6):293-319

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow and H.M. Wright. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl

in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87.

Fraley, J. and 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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 11

Fraser, F.J., E.A. Perry and D.T. Lightly. 1983. Big Qualicum River salmon development

project, Volume I: A biological assessment, 1959-1972. Canadian Technical Report of

Fisheries and Aquatic Science 1189.

French, R.R., R.G. Bakkala and D.F. Sutherland. 1975. Ocean distribution of stocks of Pacific

salmon, (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdnerii) as shown by tagging

experiments. U.S. Department Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-689.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roeloggs and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. Pages

297-323 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on

salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No.

19, Bethesda, Maryland.

Fyfe, R.W. and R.R. Olendorff. 1976. Minimizing the dangers of nesting studies on raptors and

other sensitive species. Enviornment Canada Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Society

occasional paper No. 23.

Galbreath, J.L. 1966. Timing of tributary races of chinook salmon through the lower Columbia

River based on analysis of tag recoveries. Fish Commission Oregon Research Briefs 12.

Garcia, A.P., W.P. Connor, R.D. Nelle, C. Eaton, R.S. Bowen, P.W. Bigelow, E.A. Rockhold

and R.H. Taylor. 1996. Fall chinook salmon spawning ground surveys in the Snake

River, 1994. Pages 1-15 in D.W. Rondorf and K.F. Tiffan editors. Identification of the

spawning, rearing, and migratory requirements of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia

River Basin. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,

Oregon.

Garison, K.J. and B.S. MIller. 1982. Review of the early life history of Puget Sound fishes.

Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Garrett, M., R.G. Anthony, J.W. Watson and K. McGarigal. 1988. Ecology of bald eagles on the

lower Columbia River. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit for the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers.

Godfrey, H. 1965. Salmon of the North Pacific ocean. Part IX. Coho, chinook and masu salmon

in offshore waters. 1. Coho salmon in offshore waters. International North Pacific

Fisheries Commission Bulletin 16:1-39.

Godfrey, H., K.A. Henry and S. Machidori. 1975. Distribution and abundance of coho salmon in

offshore waters of the North Pacific Ocean. International North Pacific Fisheries

Commission Bulletin 31.

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), A literature review. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Willamette National Forest. Eugene, Oregon.

Gordon, D.K. and C.D. Levings. 1984. Seasonal changes of inshore fish populations on Sturgeon

and Roberts Bank, Fraser River estuary, British Columbia. Canadian Technical Report of

Fisheries Aquatic Science 1240.

Green, G.A., J.J. Brueggeman, R.A. Grotefendt, C.E. Bowlby, M.L. Bonnell and K.C. Balcomb.

1992. Catacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington, 1989-1990.

Final report to Mineral Management Service, contract 14-12-0001-30426.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 12

Gregory, S., F. Swanson, W. McKee and K Cimmunis. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of

riparian zones. Bioscience. 41:540-551.

Gribanov, V.I. 1948. Coho (Oncorhynthus kisutch) (General Bioliogy, Vol. 28.) Fisheries

Research Board of Canada, Translation Service, Number 370.

Grier, J.W. and R.W. Fyfe. 1987. Preventing research and management disturbance in Giron,

B.A. et al, editors. Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation,

Washington D.C.

Grubb, T.G. and R.M. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with

classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management, 55(3):500-511.

Guess, R.C. 1981a. A pacific loggerhead captured off California's northern Channel Islands.

Herpetology Review 12(1):15.

Guess, R.C. 1981b. Occurrence of a Pacific loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta gigas)

Deraniyagala, in the waters off Santa Cruz, California. California Fish Game Notes

68:122-123.

Hamer, T.E. and E.B. Cummins. 1991. Relationship between forest characteristics and use of

inland sites by marbled murrelets in Northwestern Washington. Washington Department

of Wildlife.

Hamer, T.E., W.P. Ritchie, E.B. Cummins and C.W. Turley. 1993. Forest habitat relationships of

marbled murrelets in western Washington. Unpublished report, Non-game Program,

Wildlife Management Division of Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia,

Washington.

Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1998. Effects of disturbance on nesting Marbled Murrelets:

summary of preliminary results. Unpublished report submitted to the US Fish and

Wildlife Service, Office of Technical Support, Portland, Oregon.

Harden Jones, F.R. 1968. Fish Migration. Edward Arnold, London, United Kingdom.

Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada 180.

Hartman, G.F., L.B. Holtbay and J.C. Scrivener. 1984. Some effects of natural and loggingrelated winter stream temperature changes on the early life history of coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Pages 141-149 in W. R.

Meehan, T. R. Merrill, Jr., and T. A. Hanley, editors. Fish and wildlife relationships in

old-growth forests. American Institute of Fisheries Biologists.

Hartt, A.C. 1980. Juvenile salmonids in the oceanic ecosystem- the critical first summer. Pages

25-57 in W. J. McNeil, and D. C. Himsworth, editors. Salmonid ecosystems of the North

Pacific. Oregon State University Press and Oregon State University Sea Grant College

Program, Corvallis, Oregon.

Hartt, A.C. and M.B. Dell. 1986. Early oceanic migrations and growth of juvenile Pacific salmon

and steelhead trout. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin 46.

Hash, H.S. 1987. Wolverine. Pages 575-585 in M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B.

Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resouces, Toronto, Canada.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 13

Healey, M.C. 1978. The distribution, abundance, and feeding habits of juvenile Pacific salmon in

Georgia Strait, British Columbia. Fisheries Marine Service (Canada) Technical Report

788.

Healey, M.C. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaimo River Estuary by Juvenile Chinook Salmon

(Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha). Fishery Bulletin 77:653-668.

Healey, M.C. 1982. Catch, escapement, and stock-recruitment for British Columbia chinook

salmon since 1951. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science

1107:77.

Healey, M.C. and C. Groot. 1987. Marine migration and orientation of ocean-type chinook and

sockeye-salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1:298-312.

Healey, M.C. 1991. The life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-

393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis,editors. Life history of Pacific salmon. University of

British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Hirsch, K.V., D.A. Woodby and L.B. Astheimer. 1981. Growth of a nestling marbled murrelet.

Condor 83:264-265.

Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1964. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of

Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Owenbey and J.W. Thompson. 1973. Vascular plants of the

Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.

Hjort, R., P. Hulett, L. LaBolle and H. Li. 1984. Fish and invertebrates of revetments and other

habitats in the Willametter River, Oregon. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental

Station. EWQOS Technical Report E-84-9.

Hodge, R.P. 1982. Caretta caretta giga (Pacific loggerhead) USA: Washington. Herpetology

Review 13(1):24.

Holtby, L.B., B.C. Andersen and R.K. Kadowaki. 1990. Importance of smolt size and early

ocean growth to interannual variability in marine survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 47:2181-2194.

Horton, H.F. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal

fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-Dover and rock sole. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Biology Report 82(11.123). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Houge, E.W. and A.G. Carey. 1982. Feeding ecology 0-age flatfish at a nursery ground on the

Oregon coast. Fishery Bulletin 80:555-565.

Houston, D.B. 1983. Anadromous fish in Olympic National Park: A status report. National Park

Service Pacific Northwest Region, Port Angeles, Washington.

Hovis, J., T.D. Snowman, V.L. Cox, R. Fay and K.L. Bildstein. 1985. Nesting behavior of

Peregrine falcons in west Greenland during the nestling period. Raptor Research 19:15-

19.

Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Knedra and D. Orrmann. 1985. Stock

assessment of Columbia River anadromous salmonids. Vol: I. U.S. Department of

Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 83-335, Portland, Oregon
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 14

Hymer, J., R. Pettit, M. Wastel, P. Hahn and K. Hatch. 1992. Stock summary reports for

Columbia River anadromous salmonids. Vol. IV: Washington subbasins above McNary

Dam. Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 88-108, Portland, Oregon.

Irvine, J.R. and B.R. Ward. 1989. Patterns of timing and size of wild coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts migrating from the Keogh River Watershed on northern

Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 46:1086-1094.

Issacs, F.B., R.G. Anthony and R.J. Anderson. 1983. Distribution and productivity of nesting

bald eages in Oregon, 1978-1982. 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.

ITD (Idaho Transportation Department). 2002. Memorandum of understanding to create the

Idaho aquatic resources compensation trust Fund or Idaho Transportation Department

impacts.

Ito, J. 1964. Food and feeding habits of Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) in their oceanic

life. Bulletin Hokkaido Fishery Research Laboratory (29): 85-97.

Jefferson, C.A. 1975. Plant communities and succession in Oregon coastal salt marshes. PhD.

Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Johnsgaard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, A.G. and H.F. Horton. 1972. Length-weight relationship, food habits, parasites, and sex

and age determination of the ratfish, (Hydrolagus colliei) in Puget Sound. Fishery

Bulletin 70: 421-429.

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington.

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Jonasson, B.C. and R.B. Lindsay. 1988. Fall chinook salmon in the Deschutes River, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Informational Report 88-6.

Jordan, D.S. 1894. Notes on the fresh-water species of San Luis Obispo County, California.

Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission for 1894, 14:141-142.

Joslin, G. and H. Youmans. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review

for Montana. Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana chapter of The

Wildlife Society.

Kendall, A.W. Jr. and W.H. Lenarz. 1986. Status of early life history studies of northeast Pacific

rockfishes. Pages 99-128 in Proceedings of the International Rockfish Symposium.

Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Anchorage, Alaska.

Ketchen, K.S. 1956. Factors influencing the survival of the lemon sole (Parophrys vetulus) in

Hecate Strait, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Resource Board of Canada

13:647-694.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 15

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.

Kitano, S., K. Maekawa, S. Nakano and K.D. Fausch. 1994. Spawning behavior of bull trout in

the upper flathead drainage, Montana, with special reference to hybridization with brook

trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:988-992.

Kjelson, M.A., P.F. Raquel and F.W. Fisher. 1982. Life history of fall-run juvenile chinook

salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary, California.

Pages 393-411 in V. S. Kennedy editor. Estuarine Comparisons, Academic Press, New

York, New York.

Knight, R.L. 1984. Response of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. Journal of Wildlife

Management 48:999-1004.

Konecki, J.T., C.A. Woody and T.E. Quinn. 1995. Critical thermal maxima of coho salmon

(Oncor- hynchus kisutch) fry under field and laboratory acclimation regimes. Canadian

Journal of Zoology 73: 993-996.

Kostow, K. 1995. Status of wild fish in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Biennial report. Portland, Oregon.

Kostow, K. 2002. Oregon Lampreys: Natural history, status and analysis of managment issues.

Prepared for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon.

Krygier, E.E. and W.G. Pearcy. 1986. The role of estuarine and offshore nursery areas for young

English sole (Parophrys vectulus Girard) off Oregon. U.S National Marine Fisheries

Service. Fisheries Bulletin 84:119-132.

LaBelle, M. 1992. Straying patterns of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) stocks from

southeast Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic

Science 49:1843-1855.

Laroche, W.A. and S.L. Richardson. 1981. Development of larvae and juveniles of the rockfishes

(Sebastes entomelas and S. Scorpaenidae) 2nd zacentrus (family occurrence off Oregon,

with notes on head spines of S. -mystinus, S. flavidus,' and S. Kelanops). U.S. National

Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries Bulletin 79(2):231-257.

Lauten, D., K. Palmero and J. Valdivia. 2003. Western snowy plover nesting success up on

Oregon coast in 2003. Unpublished report dated November 17, 2003 of the Oregon

Natural Heritage Information Center, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Documents received via email from David Leal (USFWS Biologist) to

Kendel Emmerson (Mason, Bruce & Girard)

Lea, R.N. 1992. Rockfishes: Overview. Pages 114-117 in W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees, and C.W.

Haugen, editors. California's living marine resources and their utilization. California Sea

Grant College Progam, Davis, California.

Leatherwood, S., R.R. Reeves, W.F. Perrin and W.E. Evans. 1982. Whales, dolphins, and

porpoises of the easthern North Pacific and adjacent artic waters: a guide to their

indentification. NOAA technical report NMFS Circ. 444.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 16

Lee, C., E. Rybak, J. Weaver, K. Aubry, R. Naney, G. Gunderson, J. Lehmkuhl, 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 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wenatchee National Forest.

Lenzi, J. 1983. Coho smolt enumeration on several small Puget Sound streams, 1978-1981.

Washington Department of Fisheries Program Report 199.

Lenzi, J. 1985. Coho smolt enumeration on several small Puget Sound streams, 1982-1984.

Washington Department of Fisheries Program Report 232.

Lenzi, J. 1987. Coho smolt enumeration on several small Puget Sound streams, 1985-1987.

Washington Department of Fisheries Program Report 262.

Lestelle, L.C. and C. Weller. 1994. Summary report: Hoko and Skokomish River coho salmon

indicator stock studies 1986-1989. Point No Point Treaty Council Technical Report TR

94-1, Kingston, Washington.

Levings, C.D. 1982. Short term use of a low tide refuge in a sandflat by juvenile chinook,

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Fraser River estuary. Canadian Technical Report of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1111.

Levy, D.A., T.G. Northcote and G.J. Birch. 1979. Juvenile salmon utilization of tidal channels in

the Fraser River Estuary. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia,

Technical Report No. 23. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Levy, D.A. and T.G. Northcote. 1982. Juvenile salmon residency in a marsh area of the Fraser

River Estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Sciences 39:270-276.

Li, H., C.B. Schreck, C.E. Bond and E. Retstad. 1987. Factors influencing changes in fish

assemblages of Pacific Northwest streams. Pages 193-202 in W.J. Matthews and D.C.

Heinz, eds. Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes.

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Lister, D.B. and H.S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of

chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum

River, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27:1215-

1224.

Long, L. and C.J. Ralph. 1998. Regulation and observation of human disturbance near nesting

marbled murrelets. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood

Science Laboratory, Arcata, California

Love, M.S., P. Morris, M. McCrae and R. Collins. 1990. Life history aspects of 19 rockfish

species (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes) from the southern California bight. NOAA Fisheries.

NMFS Technical Report 87.

Lunetta, R.S., B.L. Cosentino, D.R. Montgomery, E.M. Beamer and T.J. Beechie. 1997. GISbased evaluation of salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Photogrammetric

Engineering and Remote Sensing 63(10):1219-1229.

Mains, E.M. and J.M. Smith. 1964. The distribution, size, time, and current preferences of

seaward migrant chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Washington

Department of Fisheries. Fisheries Research Papers 2(3): 5-43.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 17

Major, R.L., J. Ito, S. Ito and H. Godfrey. 1978. Distribution and abundance of chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in offshore waters of the North Pacific Ocean. International

North Pacific Fisheries Community Bulletin 38:1-54.

Manzer, J.I., T. Ishida, A.E. Peterson and M.E. Hanavan. 1965. Salmon of the north Pacific

Ocean, Part 5, offshore distribution of salmon. International North Pacific Fisheries

Community Bulletin. 15.

Markle, D., T. Pearsons and D. Bills. 1989. Taxonomic status and distributional survey of the

Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crarneri). Final report to Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (Contract No. OSU 30-262-9714).

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.

Marshall, A.R., C. Smith, R. Brix, W. Dammers, J. Hymer and L. LaVoy. 1995. Genetic

diversity units and major ancestral lineages for chinook salmon in Washington. Pages

111-173 in C. Busack and J. B. Shaklee, editors. Genetic diversity units and major

ancestral lineages of salmonid fishes in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Technical Report RAD 95-02. Olympia, Washington.

Marshall, D.B., M.W. Chilcote and H. Weeks. 1996. Species at risk: sensitive, threatened and

endangered vertebrates of Oregon. Second edition. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Martin, A.R. 1983. The sei whale off western Iceland. Size, distribution and abundance.

International Whaling Commission 33:457-463.

Mason, J.E. 1995. Species trends in sport fisheries, Monterey Bay, California, 1959-86. Marine

Fisheries Review 57:1-16.

Matthews, K.R. 1990. An experimental study of the habitat preferences and movement patterns

of copper, quillback, and brown rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Environmental Biology Fishes

29:161-178.

May, C., R. Cooper, R. Horner, J. Karr, B. Mar, E. Welch and A. Wydzga. 1996. Assessment of

cummulative effects of urbanization of small streams in the Puget Sound lowland

ecoregion. A paper presented at the Urban Streams Conference held on November 15-17,

1996. Arcata, California.

McCain, B. 2003. Draft revised appendix. Essential fish habitat, west coast groundfish. Prepared

initially in June, 1998 by EFH Core Team for west coast groundfish: Ed Casillas, Lee

Crockett, Yvonne deReynier, Jim Glock, Mark Helvey, Ben Meyer, Cyreis Schmitt, and

Mary Yoklavich, and staff: Allison Bailey, Ben Chao, Brad Johnson, and Tami Pepperell.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

McMahon, T.E. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: coho salmon. U.S. Department of

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.49.

McMahon, T.E. and L.B. Holtby. 1992. Behavior, habitat use, and movements of coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts during seaward migration. Canadian Journal of Fish and

Aquatic Science 49:1478-1485.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 18

Meehan, W.R., editor. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes

and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Meehan, W.R. and D.B. Sniff. 1962. A study of downstream migrations of anadromous fishes in

the Taku River. Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91:399-407.

Meinke, R.J. 1982. Threatened and endangered vascular plants of Oregon: an illustrated guide.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

Merkel, T.J. 1957. Food habits of king salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Walbaum), in the

vicinity of San Francisco, California. California Fish Game 43(4):249-270.

Miller, D.J. and J.J. Geibel. 1973. Summary of blue rockfish and lingcod life histories; a reef

ecology study; and giant kelp, (Macrocystis pyrifera), experiments in Monterey Bay,

California. California Department of Fish and Game. Fishery Bulletin 158.

Miller, D.J. and R.N. Lea. 1972 (1976). Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California.

California Department of Fish and Game Bulletin 157.

Miller, D.R., J.G. Williams and C.W. Sims. 1983. Distribution, abundance and growth of

juvenile salmonids off the coast of Oregon and Washington, summer 1980. Fisheries

Research 2:1-17.

Miller, R. and G. Smith. 1981. Distribution and evolution of Chasmistes (pisces: catostomidae)

in western north America. Occasional Paper of the Museum of Zoology., University

Michigan. No.696:1-46.

Miller, W. and J. Tash. 1967. Interim report, upper Klamath lake studies, Oregon. Pacific

Northwest water laboratory, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Water

Pollution Control Research Series No. WP-20-8.

Mitchell, E. 1975. Preliminary report on Nova Scotia fishery for sei whales (Balaenoptera

borealis). Report from International Whaling Commission 25:218-224.

Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage

basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109(5): 596-611.

Moore, J.W. and J.M. Mallatt. 1980. Feeding of larval lamprey. Canadian Journal of Fish and

Aquatic Science, 37: 1658-1664.

Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkley,

California.

Mullan, J.W. 1987. Status and propagation of chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia River

through 1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 89(3):1-111.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant,

F.W. Waknitz, K. Neeley, S.T. Lindley and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook

salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce,

NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS_NWFSC-35.

Myers, K.W. and H.F. Horton. 1982. Temporal use of an Oregon estuary by hatchery and wild

juvenile salmon. Pages 377-391 in V.S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine comparisons.

Academic Press, Inc. New York.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 19

Myers, R.A., J.A. Hutchings and N.J. Barrowman. 1996. Hypotheses for the decline of cod in the

North Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 138: 293-308.

Nasu, K. 1974. Movement of baleen whales in relation to hydrographic conditions in the

northern part of the North Pacific Ocean and the Berin Sea. Pages 345-361 in D.W. Hood

and E.J. Kelly editors. Oceanography of the Bering Sea. Institute of Marine Science,

University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.

NatureServe. 2003. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 1.8 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available:

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lomatium+cooki

i. (Accessed: November 24, 2003).

Neave, F. and W.P. Wickett. 1953. Factors effecting the freshwater development of Pacific

salmon in British Columbia. Proceedings of Seventh Pacific Science Congress 1949

(4):548-556.

Nehlsen, W. 1995. Historical salmon and steelhead runs of the upper Deschutes River and their

environments. Portland General Electric. Portland, Oregon.

Nelson, R.W. 1972. The incubation period in Peale's falcons. Raptor Research 6:11-15.

Nelson, S.K. 1990. Distribution of the marbled murrelet in western Oregon. Unpublished report,

Nongame Wildlife Research Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Portland, Oregon.

Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. T&AD Poyser, Berkhamstead, England.

Nickelson, T.E., J.W. Nicholas, A.M. McGie, R.B. Lindsay, D.L. Bottom, R.J. Kaiser and S.E.

Jacobs. 1992. Status of anadromous salmonids in Oregon coastal basins. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Res. Develop. Sect. and Ocean Salmon Manage.

Portland, Oregon.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California . National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS NWFSC-35. Available:

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm35/index.htm.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1990. West coast of North America

coastal and ocean zones strategic assessment: data atlas. U.S. Department of Commerce.

NOAA. OMA/NOS, Ocean Assessments Division, Strategic Assessment Branch.

Invertebrate and Fish Volume. Prepublication Edition.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991a. Recovery plan for the Right whale

(Eubalaena glacialis). Prepared by the Right Whale Recovery Team for the National

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991b. Recovery plan for the Humpback

whale (Megaptera novaengliae). Prepared by the Humpback whale recovery team for the

National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1992. Final recovery plan for steller sea

lions (Eumetopias jubatus). NOAA, Recovery Plan.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 20

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Sperm whale (Physeter

macrocephalus): North Pacific Stock records. National Marine Fisheries Service.

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service). 1998a. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the loggerhead turtle

(Caretta caretta gigas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service). 1998b. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific population of the green turtle (Chelonia

mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service). 1998c. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the Leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service). 1998d. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the Olive Ridley turtle

(Lepidochelys olivacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. The habitat approach:

Implementation of aection 7 of the Endangered Species Act for actions affecting the

habitat of Pacific anadromous salmonids. Northwest Region Habitat Conservation and

Protected Resources 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 (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000b. Endangered Species Act - Section

7 consultation, biological opinion of the reinitiation of consultation on operation of the

federal Columbia river power system, including the juvenile fish transport program, and

19 bureau of reclaimation projects in the Columbia basin. Northwest region. National

Marine Fisheries Service.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003a. Revised standard local operating

procedures for endangerd species (SLOPES II) for certain regulatory and operations

activities carried out by the Department of the Army in Oregon and the north shore of the

Columbia River

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

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.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 21

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003d. 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.

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.

ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 1999. DEQ's 1998 303(d) list of water

quality limited waterbodies & Oregon's criteria used for listing waterbodies. Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality, Salem, Oregon. Available:

http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995a. ODFW Backgrounder: The

Columbian White-tailed Deer and the Oregon Endangered Species Act.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/PDFs/BKGWhiteTail.pdf.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995b. Letter to M. Schiewe regarding west

coast chinook salmon status review by D. McIsaac, 9 October 1997. Portland, Oregon.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2002. Fast facts about wolves from town hall

meeting of December 17, 2002. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,

Oregon.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003a. Gray wolves - Oregon wolf issues.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/wolves.htm (Accessed January 15, 2004).

ODFW (Oregon Fish and Wildlife). 2003b. Status of western snowy plover management in

Oregon. Staff report from Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission May 9, 2003 meeting.

Oregon Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Available:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/meeting_schedule/May/MayF2.pdf (Accessed

October 30, 2003).

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003c. 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 seal (Mirounga angustirostris).

Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2000. ODOT's Peregrine falcon management

plan as revised by ODOT. Abbreivated version. Oregon Department of Transportation.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002a. Standard specifications for highway

construction. ODOT, Salem, Oregon.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 22

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

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002c. Bear Creek bridge fish passage

biological assessment. Oregon Department of Transportation, Portland, Oregon.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003a. 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). 2003b. Oregon Natural Heritage Information

Center rare plant survey and field survey form for Bradshaw's Lomatium (Lomatium

bradshawii), completed May 7 and June 14, 2003. Unplublished data on file at Oregon

Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003c. OTIA I-5: Row River and overflow

bridges replacement project biological assessment. Oregon Department of Transportation,

Portland, Oregon.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003d. I-84 Quarry bridges replacement project,

OTIA design-build program, biological assessment. Oregon Department of

Transportation, Portland, Oregon.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003e. Jackass Creek fish passage biological

assessment. Oregon Department of Transportation, Portland, Oregon

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.

OEA (Office of Economic Analysis). 1997. Non-agricultural forecasts for counties. Office of

Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, State of Oregon. Available:

http:www.oea.das.state.or.us/demographic/longterm/co_emp.txt (Accessed January 28,

2004).

Olsen, E., P. Pierce, M McLean and K. Hatch. 1992. Stock Summary Reports for Columbia

River anadromous salmonids Volume I: Oregon. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville

Power Administration. Project No. 88-108. Portland, Oregon.

Olsen, P. and J. Olsen. 1978. Alleviating the impacts of human disturbance on the breeding

peregrine falcon. Corella Journal of the Australian Bird Study Association 2(1):1-7.

Omura, H. 1955. Whales in the northern part of the North Pacific. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tidende

44(6):3233-345.

OPB, 2000. Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000. P.G. Risser, Chair of the State of the

Environment Science Panel. Published by the Oregon Progress Board, Salem, Oregon,

214 pp.

ORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center). 2003. The biological and conservation

data system, element occurrence record digital data set.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 23

Otting, N. and D. Lytjen. 2003. Memo to Nicole Wolters (MB&G) detailing the screening and

survey methods outlined for the ODOT and Parametrix rare plant surveys conducted in

2003. Private consultants, 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.

Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1982. Coast recovery plan for the

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Denver, Colorado.

Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known potential Peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific

Northwest. Pages 83-96 in J.E. Pagel, editor. Proceedings of a symposium on peregrine

falcons in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Forest Service, Medford, Oregon.

Pagel, J.E. 1995. American Peregrine falcon status of species Columbia River basin. U.S. Forest

Service, Region 6.

Pagel, J.E. 2001. Draft Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) nest site and habitat

management plan. Unpublished draft report, prepared for Oregon Department of

Transportation.

Pagel, J.E. and W.M. Jarman. 1991. Peregrine falcons, pesticides and contaminants in the Pacific

Northwest. Journal of Pesticide Reform 2(4):7-12

Palmer, R.S. and C.H. White. 1988. Peregrine (Falco peregrinus). Pages 324-338 in R.S. Palmer,

editor. Handbook on North America birds. Vol 5. Yale University, New Haven and

London.

Pearce, T.A., J.H. Meyer and R.S. Boomer. 1982. Distribution and food habits of juvenile

salmon in the Nisqually Estuary, Washington, 1979-1980. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, Washington.

Pearcy, W.G. 1992. Movements of acoustically-tagged yellowtail rockfish (Sebastes flavidus) on

Heceta Bank, Oregon. Fishery Bulletin 90: 726-735.

Pearcy, W.G. and J.P. Fisher. 1988. Migrations of coho salmon, (Oncorhynchus kisutch) during

their first summer in the ocean. Fishery Bulletin 86:173-195.

Pearsons, T. 1989. Ecology and decline of a rare Western Minnow: the Oregon chub

(Oregonichthys crameri). Master's thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Peck, M.E. 1961. A manual of the higher plants of Oregon. Binfords and Mort, Portland,

Oregon.

Pendergrass, K and G.A. Hoppe. 1999. Enhancement activities for Kincaid's lupine and Fender's

blue butterfly. Environmental Assessment No. ORO 90-99-26. Bureau of Land

Management, Eugene district office, Eugene, Oregon.

Peterson, A.P. and E.E. Gross Jr. 1972. Handbook of noise measurement. 7th edition. General

Radio Company. Concord, Massachusetts.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 24

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998a. Final environmental

assessment/regulatory review for amendment 11 to the pacific coast groundfish fishery

management plan (October 1998). Pacific Fishery Management Council.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998b. The coastal pelagic species fishery

management plan: amendment 8 (December 1998). Pacific Fishery Management Council.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the pacific coast salmon

plan. Appendix A: Description and indentification of essential fish habitat, adverse

impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon (August 1999). Pacific

Fishery Management Council.

Phillips, A.C. and W.E. Barraclough. 1977. On the early life history of the lingcod (Ophiodon

elongatus). Can. Fish. And Mar. Serc. Res. Dev. Technical Report 756. Nanaimo, British

Columbia.

Pletcher, F.T. 1963. The life history and distribution of Lampreys in the salmon and certain other

rivers in British Columbia, Canada Master of Science Thesis. University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Potter, I.C. 1980. Ecology of larval and metamorphosing lampreys in Canadian Journal of Fish

and Aquatic Science 37:1641-1657.

Prakash, A. 1962. Seasonal changes in feeding of coho and Chinook (spring) salmon in southern

British Columbia waters. Journal of the Fisheries Resource Board of Canada 19:851-866.

Pratt, K.L. 1985. Pend Oreille trout and char life history Study. Idaho Department of Fish and

Game. Boise, Idaho.

Pratt, K.L. 1992. A Review of bull trout life history. In Howell, P.J.; Buchanan, D., editors.

Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop; August 1992; Gearhart

Mountain, Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society: 1-4.

Pritchard, A.L. 1940. The age of spring salmon in the commercial catches of British Columbia.

Journal of the Fisheries Resource Board of Canada Prog. Rep. Pac. 44:9-11.

PSMFC (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission). 1997. Life history of the Pacific lamprey.

http://www.psmfc.org (Accessed December 9, 2003).

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 PNW-GTR-405.

Quinn, T.P. 1988. Estimated swimming speeds of migrating adult sockeye salmon. Canadian

Journal of Zoology 66(10):2160-2163.

Quinn, T.P., B.S. MIller and R.C. Wingert. 1980. Depth distribution and seasonal and diel

movements of ratfish, (Hydrolagus colliei) in Puget Sound, Washington. Fishery Bulletin

78: 816-821.

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Jr. Hunt, M.G. Raphael and J.F. Piatt, (tech. eds). 1995. Ecology and

conservation of the marbled murrelet. USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station, General

Technical Report, PSW-GTR-152. Albany, California.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 25

Ralston, S. and D.F. Howard. 1995. On the development of year-class strength and cohort

variability in two northern California rockfishes. Fishery Bulletin 93(4):710-720.

Ramirez-Cruz, J.C., I. Pena-Ramirez and D. Villanueva-Flores. 1991. Distribution and

abundance of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) off the coast of Baja, California,

Mexico. Archelon 1(2):1-4.

Ratcliffe, D.A. 1993. The Peregrine Falcon. Second edition. T&AD Poyser, London, England.

Ratliff, D.E. and P.J. Howell. 1992. The status of bull trout populations in Oregon. In Howell,

P.J. and D.V. Buchanan editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout

workshop; August 1992, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society: 10-17.

Gearhart Mountain, Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon.

Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest and T.E. Nickelson. 1989. Identification of physical habitats limiting

the production of coho salmon in western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-245.

Reeves, R.R., P.J. Clapham, R.L. Brownell and G.K. Silber. 1998b. Recovery Plan for the Blue

whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Silver Spring, Maryland.

Reeves, R.R., G.K. Silber and P.M. Payne. 1998a. Draft recovery plan for the Fin whale

(Baleanoptera physalus) and the Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). Prepared for the

National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland.

Reimers, P.E. 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall chinook salmon in the Sixes River,

Oregon. Pages 2-43 in Oregon Fisheries Commission 4.

REO (Regional Ecosystem Office). 2002. Hydrologic unit boundaries for Oregon, Washington,

and California, Vector Digital Data. REO, Portland, Oregon. http://www.reo.gov.

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.

Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm whale, (Physeter macracephalus). Pages 177-233 in S.H. Ridgway and

R. Harrison (editors). Handbook of marine mammals. Vol. 4. River Dolphins and the

larger toothed whales. Academic Press, New York.

Rich, W.H. 1920. Early history and seaward migration of chinook salmon in the Columbia and

Sacramento Rivers. Fisheries Bulletin 37:74.

Richardson, S.L. and W.A. Laroche. 1979. Development and occurrence of larvae and juveniles

of the rockfishes (Sebastes crameri, Sebastes pinniger, and Sebastes helvomaculatus,

family Scorpaenidae)off Oregon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fishery

Bulletin 77(1):1-46.

Ricker, W.E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid populations.

Pages 19-160 in R. C. Simon and P. A. Larkin, editors. The stock concept in Pacific

salmon. H. R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, British Columbia.

Ricker, W.E. 1980. Causes of the decrease in age and size of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 26

tshawytscha). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 944:1-25.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat

patches of various size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 124:285-296.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1996. Spatial and temporal variability in bull trout redd counts.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:132-141.

Robinson, A.F. 2003. Unpublished U.S. Fish and Wildlife service plant database. [Last update,

October, 2003].

Robinson, A.F. 2004. Unpublished U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plant database. [Last update,

January 2004]. Included updates to McDonald's rock cress (Arabis mcdonaldiana) and

Cook's lomatium (Lomatium cookii).

Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991. Managment recommendations for Washington's priority

habitats and species. Fish Management and Habitat Management Division, Washington

Department of Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.

Roni, P. 1992. Life history and spawning habitat in four stocks of large-bodied chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, R. Naney, G. Patton, T.

Rinanldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger and A Williamson.

2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USFS, USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service, Missoula,

MT.

Ruggiero, L., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey and J.R.

Squires. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General technical

report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrsgtr30.html.

Sakuma, K.M. and R.J. Larson. 1995a. Distribution of pelagic metamorphic-stage sanddabs

(Citharichthys sordidus) and (C. stigmaeus) within areas of upwelling off central

California. Fishery Bulletin 93: 516-529.

Sakuma, K.M. and S. Ralston. 1995b. Distribution patterns of late larval groundfish off central

California in relation to hydrographic features during 1992 and 1993. California

Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigative Report 36: 179_192.

Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 396-445 in

C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University British

Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sasaki, S. 1966. Distribution and food habits of king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and

steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerii) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

California Department of Fish and Game. Fishery Bulletin 133:108-114.

Scarff, J.E. 1986. Historic and present distribution of the Right Whales (Eubaleana glacilis) in

eastern North Pacific south of 50 degrees N and east of 180 degrees W. Pages 43-63 in

Brownell, Jr., R.L, B.B. Best, and J.H. Prescott (editors). Right whales: Past and present
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 27

status. Report of the International Whaling Commission, special issue No. 10.

Cambridge, England.

Scheerer, P. and K. Jones. 1997. Annual Progress Report on Oregon chub. Report EF-96 VII-1.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Scheerer, P., C.S. Mease, P.S. Kavanagh and K.K. Jones. 2001. Oregon chub investigations.

Unpublished. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project, May

2000-April 2001. Annual Progress Report, E-2. Portland, Oregon.

Scheerer, P., C. Shafer and K. Jones. 1992. Oregon chub investigations. Fish Research Project

EF-9 1 VII-1. 32. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Scheerer, P.D., P.S. Kavanagh and K.K. Jones. 2002. Annual progress report Oregon chub

investigations. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Scheerer, P.D., P.S. Kavanagh and K.K. Jones. 2003. Annual progress report: Fish research

project Oregon, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Schulz, C.B and K.M. Dlugosch. 1998. Nector and hostplant scarcity limit populations of an

endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia (1999) 119:231-238.

Scoppettone, G.G. and C.L. Vinyard. 1991. Life history and management of four lacustrine

suckers. Pages 369-387 in Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon (editor). Battle Against

Extinction - Native Fish Management in the American West. The University of Arizona

Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Sedell, J. and 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. Internationale Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie

Verhandlungen. 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. Environmental

Management 14(5): 711-724.

Seiler, D. 1989. "Differential survival of Grays Harbor basin anadromous salmonids: Water

quality implications." Pages 123-135 in C.D. Levings, L.B. Holtby, and M.A. Henderson,

editors. Proceedings of the national workshop on effects of habitat alteration on salmonid

stocks. Canada Publication of Fisheries Aquatic Science 105.

Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser and M. Ackley. 1981. Upstream/downstream salmonid trapping project,

1977-1980. Washington Department of Fisheries Program Report 144.

Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser and M. Ackley. 1984. Upstream/downstream salmonid trapping project,

1980-1982. Washington Department of Fisheries Program Report 200.

Shapovalov, L. and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo

gairdneri gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)with special reference to

Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. California

Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 98.

Shaw, W.N. and T.J. Hassler. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-lingcod. U.S. Fish
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 28

and Wildlife Service. Biol. Report. 82(11.119). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL82-4.

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.

Simons, T.R. 1980. Discovery of a ground-nesting marbled murrelet. Condor 82:1-9.

Singer, S.W., N.L. Naslund, S.A. Singer and C.J. Ralph. 1991. Discovery and observation of two

tree nests of the marbled murrelet. Condor 93:330-339.

Skeesick, D.G. 1970. The fall immigration of juvenile coho salmon into a small tributary. Fish

Comm. Oregon Res. Rep. 2(1):1-6.

Snow, C. 1972. Habitat management species: American peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus

anatum) and Artic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius). United States

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado.

SOER (Science Panel). 2000. Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000, SOER, Report,

Salem, Oregon.

Stalmaster, M.V. 1980. Management strategies for wintering bald eagles in the Pacific

Northwest. Pages 46-47 in Knight, R.L. et al. editors. Proceedings of the Washington

Bald Eagle Symposium. June 14-15, 1989. Seattle, Washington.

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to

human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513.

Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of wintering bald eagles. Eastern Energy and Land Use Team,

USFWS, Office of Biology Service.

Stein, D. and T.J. Hassler. 1989. Brown rockfish, copper rockfish and black rockfish. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Species Profiles: Life histories and

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest). U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Stimson, M.L. 1984. Biology of sea turtles in San Diego, California and in the northeastern

Pacific Ocean. Master of Science thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego,

California.

Sumner, F.H. 1953. Migrations of salmonids in Sand Creek, Oregon. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 82:139-149.

Swales, S., F. Caron, J.R. Irvine and C.D. Levings. 1988. Overwintering habitats of coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and other juvenile salmonids in the Keogh River system, British

Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:254-261.

Swenson, J.E., K.L. Alt and R.L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the greater Yellowstone

ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs No. 95.

Taylor, E.B. 1990a. Environmental correlates of life-history variation in juvenile chinook

salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum). Journal of Fish Biology 37:1-17.

Taylor, E.B. 1990b. Phenotypic correlates of life-history variation in juvenile chinook salmon
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 29

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Journal of Animimal Ecology 59:455-468.

Taylor, O.C. 1969. Importance of peroxyacetyl nitrate as a phytotoxic air pollutant. Journal of

the Air Pollution Control Association 19:347-51.

Thelander, C.H. 1978. The status of Peregrine falcons in California - past and present. Pages 3-

12 in Schaeffer, P.P. and S.M. Ehlers, editors. Proceedings of the National Audubon

Society symposium - the current status of Peregrine falcon populations in North America.

Richardson Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, Tiburon, California.

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. A report by the Interagency Scientific

Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest

Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Bureau of Land Management, and

USDI National Park Service, Portland, Oregon

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2003. Enhancement of Survival Permit for Threatened Wildlife

Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta). TNC, USFWS Seventh Annual

Report, Permit #TE-804885-7. Unpublished report of the Nature Conservancy. Otis,

Oregon

Tschaplinski, P.J. 1982. Aspects of the population biology of reared and stream-reared juvenile

salmon in Carnation Creek: A summary of current research. Pages 289-305 in

G.Hartman, editor. The Carnation Creek Workshop: Ten-year Review. Malapina

Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Tytler, P., J.E. Thorpe and W.M. Shearer. 1978. Ultrasonic tracking of the movements of

Atlantic salmon smolts (Salmo salar) in the estuaries of two Scottish rivers. Journal of

Fisheries Biology 12: 575-586.

USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 1992. Long Term Project Operations. USBR, Biological

Assessment, Klamath Falls, Oregon

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 1977. Highway construction noise: measurement,

prediction, and mitigation. Report No. FHWA-HH1-22/R10-91(200)EW, Federal

Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 1979. Fundamentals and abatement of highway

traffic noise. Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1. Federal Highway Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 1980. Fundamentals an abatement of highway

traffic noise. Noise fundamentals training document 2: Highway noise fundamentals.

Federal Higway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1977. Bald eagle habitat management guidelines. USFS, Pacific

Southwest Region, Guidelines, San Francisco, California

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1979. Wildlife habitat in managed forest of the Blue Mountains of

Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1988. Final Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement for

an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. Volumes 1 and 2. USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 30

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1997. Conservation strategy for Howellia aquatilis, Second Edition.

U.S. Forest Service, Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, Montana.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2000. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) nest site and

habitat management plan with site specific appendix. U.S. Forest Service

USFS (U.S. Forest Service, Southwest Region). 2001. Biological Assessment and Evaluation:

Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Treatment

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2002. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Metolius basin

forest managment project. USDA Forest Service Deschutes National Forest, Sisters

Ranger District, Sisters, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1976. Columbia white-tailed deer recovery plan. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1981. Bald eagle management guidelines OregonWashington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan.

USFWS, Recovery Plan, Sacramento, California.

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). 1989. The Northern spotted owl status review

supplement. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990a. Status review: Northern spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis caurina). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990b. McDonald's rock-cress (Arabis mcdonaldiana)

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Protocol for surveying proposed management

activities that may effect northern spotted owls. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1, U.S. Department of the Interior). 1993a. Lost

River (Deltistes luxatus) Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) sucker recovery plan

Portland, OR. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1993/930317.pdf.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993b. Recovery Plan for Lomatium bradshawii

(Bradshaw's lomatium). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki

henshawi) Recovery Plan Portland, Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet

(Washington, Oregon, and California). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland,

Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998a. Recovery plan for the native fishes of the

Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin: Hutton Tui chub, Foskett speckled dace, and Warner

sucker. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998b. Recovery plan for the threatened Nelson's
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 31

checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana). Final Version. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998c. Final recovery for the endangered Western lily

(Lilium occidentale). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of

Endangered Species. U.S. listed vertebrate animal species index by lead region and status

as of November 30, 1999. U.S. Listed Bird Species Profiles 1, as of November 30, 1999.

http://www.endangered.fws.gov/birds1.html#Lnkoh.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000b. Recovery plan for the Golden paintbrush

(Castilleja levisecta). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1). 2001a. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) Pacific Coast Population Draft Recovery Plan Portland, Oregon.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=fr14au01-101.pdf.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001b. Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene

hippolyta) revised recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001c. Formal consultation on the west Eugene

wetlands Amazon/Fern Ridge bicycle trail extension which may affect Fender's blue

butterfly, Kincaid's lupine, and Willamette daisy. Biological opinion reference No. 1-7-

01-F-650. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. Proposal to Establish a Second New

Subpopulation of Columbia White-tailed Deer. USFWS, Unpublished report, Portland,

Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002b. Species account: Brown Pelican. Created by

the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, updated April 2002.

http://oregonfwo.fws.gov/EndSpp/FactSheets/Birds/Pelican.dwt.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002c. Biological Opinion for a wetland permit

application for the Jackson County School District #9 to conduct earth work and

construction of school buildings in White City, Jackson County, Oregon (#2002-00097).

Roseburg, Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2002d. Recovery plan for Howell's Spectacular Thelypody

(Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1,

Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002e. Proposed monitoring, maintenance, and

enhancement of habitat for Fender's blue butterfly and Kincaid's lupine at the Fern Ridge

project, Lane County Oregon, Biological opinion reference No. 1-7-02-F-494. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002f. Initiation of formal consultation for

management activities to protect and enhance listed species at the Balboa, Oxbow West,

Fir Butte, and Coble sites of the West Eugene wetlands. Biological opinion reference No.

1-7-02-F-961. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eugene, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002g. Formal consultation on the west Eugene
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 32

wetlands Amazon/Fern Ridge bicycle trail extension which may affect Fender's Blue

Butterfly, Kincaid's Lupine and Willamette Daisy. Biological Opinion, 1-7-01-F-650.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eugene, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003a. Biological opinion and letter of concurrence

for effects to bald eagles, marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, bull trout, and

designated critical habitat for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls from Olympic

National Forest program of activities for August 5, 2003 to December 31, 2008.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003b. Biological Opinion for the Proposed Illahe

Road Improvement Project (Oregon Forest Highway 156), Curry County, Oregon. USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003c. Formal Consultation on monitoring and

managing populations of Kincaid's Lupine and Fender's Blue Butterfly (Log #1-7-02-F348) Portland, Oregon

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003d. Recovery plan for the Rough popcornflower

(Plagiobothrys hirtus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003e. Recovery plan for Fritillaria gentneri

(Gentner's fritillary). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003f. Species profile for Large-flowered woolly

meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora). Available:

http://oregonfwo.fws.gov/EndSpp/FactSheets/Plants/LFWMeadowfoam.htm. (Accessed

December 5, 2003).

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003g. Arcata Fish and Wildlife office endangered

species branch. Plant summary for Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis). U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Arcata, California. Available:

http:www.ccfwo.r1.fws.gov/es/plants/howellia.html (Accessed December 5, 2003).

USFWS and NOAA Fisheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries

Service). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting

Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press,

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

Vincent, D. 1968. The influence of some environmental factors on the distribution of fishes in

Upper Klamath Lake. Master's thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Wahle, R.J. and R.R. Vreeland. 1978. Bioeconomic contribution of Columbia River hatchery fall

chinook salmon, 1961 through 1964 broods, to the Pacific salmon fisheries. Fisheries

Bulletin 76:179-208.

Walker, C. and M. Wiese. 1995. The Aleutian canada goose. United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington D.C. Available:

http://www.orecity.k12.or./ochs/departments/science/species/aleutian_canadagoose.html

(Accessed October 28, 2003).

Waples, R. 1995. Evolutionarily significant units and the conservation of biological diversity

under the Endangered Species Act. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17:8-27.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 33

Waples, R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, (Oncorhynchus spp) and the definition of "species" under the

Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53 (3):11-22.

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, J.W., M.G. Garrett and R.G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald eagles in the

Columbia River Estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55:492-499.

WDF, WDW and WWTIT (Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of

Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1993. 1992 Washington State

salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1990. Managment recommendations for

priority species: Columbian white-tailed deer. Unpublished report of the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1993. Status of the Oregon Silverspot

Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) in Washington. WDFW, Wildlife Management

Division, Unpublished report, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Washington State status for the

bald eagle. Unpublished report of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Olympia, Washington

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright and G.J. Bryant, et al. 1995. Status Review of Coho Salmon

from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24.

WHI (Western Highway Institute). 1971. Fundamentals of noise and vehicle exterior noise

levels. Subcommittee on vehicle noise of the committee on operational problems.

Western Highway Institute, San Francisco, California

Whitehead, H. 1987. Updated status of the Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in

Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 101(2):284-294.

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, J.E., D.B. Bowman, J.E. Brooks, A.A. Echelle, R.J. Edwards, D.A. Hendrickson and

J.J. Landye. 1985. Endangered aquatic ecosystems in North American deserts with a list

of vanishing fishes of the region. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science

20:1-62.

Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie and J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon

utilization--Volume 1, Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Olympia. Washington.
Biological Assessment: ODOT OTIA III Statewide Bridge Delivery Program

9 – 34

Wright, S.G. 1968. Origin and migration of Washington's chinook salmon. Washington

Department of Fisheries, Information Booklet 1:25.

Wright, S.G. 1970. Size, age, and maturity of coho salmon in Washington's ocean troll fishery.

Washington Department Fish and Wildlife. Fisheries Research Papers 3(2):63-71.

WSDOT (Washington Department of Transportation). 1998. Lewis and Clark bridge

management plan for Peregrine falcons. Washington Department of Transportation,

Olympia Washington.

Yoklavich, Mary etal. In review. Our living oceans: habitat. NOAA Fisheries (National Marine

Fisheries Service).

Ziller, J.S. 1992. Distribution and abundance of bull trout in the Sprague River subbasin, Oregon.

In Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull

Trout Workshop; August 1992, Gearhart Mountain, Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society: 18-29.

Zobel, D.B. 1985. Ecology, pathology and management of Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis

lawsoniana). U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-184.

Zobel, D.B., L.F. Roth and G.M. Hawk. 1985. Ecology, pathology and management of PortOrford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). U.S. Forest Service General Technical

Report PNW-184.
Appendix 1-A

Program Bridge Data
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

1 01786A IS084 340.58 Baker Burnt River (Dixie Creek), Hwy 6 5 2 08423E IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Alder Creek Rd 5 3 08302E IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 5 4 09354 IS084 342.91 Baker Hwy 6 over Lime Intchg Conn 5 5 08423W IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Alder Creek Rd 5 6 08302W IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 5 7 07316 OR007 41.19 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 41.66 (Rancheria) 5 8 07431 OR007 42.31 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 42.77 (Salisbury) 5 9 07987A IS084 325.34 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 EB 5 

10 07987 IS084 325.31 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 WB 5 11 08616 US020 55.86 Benton Hwy 33 EB over Hwy 1W SB 2 12 01205A US020 45.68 Benton Hwy 33 over Harris Rd & W&P (Wren Conn) 2 13 08617 US020 55.73 Benton Hwy 33 over W&P 2 14 00866B US020 39.34 Benton Marys River & W&P, Hwy 33 at MP 39.34 2 15 01075A US020 48.88 Benton Marys River, Hwy 33 at MP 48.88 (Noon) 2 16 00665B US026 33.24 Clackamas Alder Creek, Hwy 26 1 17 09870 IS005 282.43 Clackamas Hwy 1 Conn #1 over Hwy 51 NB 2 18 07794A IS005 282.25 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB 2 19 07794B IS005 282.28 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB 2 20 07867 OR213 5.20 Clackamas Hwy 171 WB over UPRR Mainline 1 21 01439A OR213 8.13 Clackamas Rock Creek, Hwy 171 WB 1 22 00689B US026 34.09 Clackamas Wildcat Creek, Hwy 26 1 23 03026A US026 46.04 Clackamas Zig Zag River, Hwy 26 at MP 46.02 1 24 07417 US030 82.52 Clatsop Big Creek, Hwy 2W 2 25 01832 US026 17.37 Clatsop E Fork Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 2 26 00921 US030 77.25 Clatsop Gnat Creek, Hwy 2W 2 27 03092A US026 3.26 Clatsop Johnson Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 3.26 2 28 02164 US026 24.23 Clatsop N Fork Quartz Creek, Hwy 47 1 29 02601 US026 4.40 Clatsop Necanicum River, Hwy 47 at MP 4.40 (Black) 2 30 02165 US026 21.73 Clatsop Nehalem River & Hwy 103, Hwy 47 2 31 03091A US026 2.24 Clatsop Volmer Creek, Hwy 47 2 32 01831 US026 16.28 Clatsop West Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 2 33 07519 IS084 61.21 Columbia Clatskanie River, Hwy 2W 1 34 07715 IS084 60.82 Columbia Hwy 2W over Swedetown County Rd 1 35 09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis & Clark Br Conn over Hwy 2W 1 36 07722 IS084 55.29 Columbia Lost Creek, Hwy 2W 1 37 02027A US026 34.93 Columbia N Fork Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 1 38 00338A IS084 36.47 Columbia Tide Creek, Hwy 2W 1 39 03173A OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 EB 3 40 03173B OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 WB 3 41 03212A OR042 26.72 Coos Endicot Creek, Hwy 35 3 42 03172A OR042 4.14 Coos Hwy 35 over COR 3 43 08843 OR042 23.48 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 242 3 44 08281 OR042 0.07 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 9 NB 3 45 01950 US101 234.76 Coos Hwy 9 over COR (North Bend) 3 46 08842 OR042 23.37 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 23.37 3 47 08830 OR042 24.32 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 24.32 3 48 08875 OR042 25.52 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.52 3 49 08876 OR042 25.67 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.67 3 50 08936 OR042 30.10 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.10 3 

1 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

51 08935 OR042 30.59 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.59 3 52 02553 OR126 34.10 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 33.99 4 53 07649 OR126 37.44 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 37.44 4 54 02201 OR126 19.40 Crook Ochoco Creek, Hwy 41 4 55 07768 US097 113.94 Deschutes Hwy 4 over OTRR (Terrebonne) 4 56 08888 US097 136.46 Deschutes North Unit Canal & Swalley Canal, Hwy 4 4 57 01675B US097 129.72 Deschutes Pilot Butte Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 129.72 4 58 07469B IS005 163.43 Douglas Bear Creek, Hwy 1 at MP 163.43 3 59 07563A IS005 138.71 Douglas Calapooya Creek, Hwy 1 3 60 07572A IS005 156.49 Douglas Curtis Creek, Hwy 1 3 61 07632 IS005 129.22 Douglas Del Rio Rd over Hwy 1 (Winchester) 3 62 07567B IS005 156.03 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 1 NB 3 63 01614 OR099 36.39 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 36.39 3 64 01601 OR099 38.76 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 38.76 3 65 01465 OR099 39.64 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.64 3 66 01406 OR099 39.97 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.97 3 67 07667 IS005 125.08 Douglas Garden Valley Road over Hwy 1 3 68 01424 OR099 47.50 Douglas Hardscrabble Creek, Hwy 45 3 69 07364A IS005 98.28 Douglas Hwy 1 & Conn over 5th St (Canyonville) 3 70 07642 IS005 150.36 Douglas Hwy 1 Conn (Yoncalla Jct ) over Hwy 1 3 71 07640 IS005 150.76 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over COR (Yoncalla) 3 72 08028N IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Irwin Access Conn 3 73 07627B IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Rogers Rd Conn 3 74 07804N IS005 120.03 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Speedway Rd 3 75 07631 IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over SPRR & County Rd 3 76 07900A IS005 110.35 Douglas Hwy 1 over Boomer Hill Rd Conn #2 3 77 07569A IS005 162.06 Douglas Hwy 1 over Buck Creek Rd 3 78 07584A IS005 164.45 Douglas Hwy 1 over Comstock Cemetery Rd 3 79 07952A IS005 107.52 Douglas Hwy 1 over COR (Weaver) 3 80 07636A IS005 154.54 Douglas Hwy 1 over Elkhead Rd 3 81 07711A IS005 121.69 Douglas Hwy 1 over McLain Ave (Garbage Dump Rd) 3 82 07950 IS005 108.31 Douglas Hwy 1 over Myrtle Creek Conn (Myrtle Creek Intchg) 3 83 07670A IS005 123.01 Douglas Hwy 1 over Portland Ave (Fairgrounds Intchg) 3 84 07644A IS005 148.21 Douglas Hwy 1 over Rice Hill Frtg Rd 3 85 09352A IS005 80.80 Douglas Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Conn (Glendale Intchg) 3 86 07839 IS005 113.44 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Clarks Branch Rd Conn #2 3 87 07640A IS005 150.79 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over COR (Yoncalla) 3 88 08028S IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Irwin Access Conn 3 89 07627A IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Rogers Rd Conn 3 90 07631A IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & County Rd 3 91 07806 OR042 119.99 Douglas Hwy 35 over Hwy 1 3 92 00805C OR042 72.52 Douglas Lower Looking Glass Creek, Hwy 35 3 93 00559B OR042 53.17 Douglas Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 53.17 3 94 07663C IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 NB (Winchester) 3 95 07663A IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 SB (Winchester) 3 96 02496 OR138 17.95 Douglas North Umpqua River, Hwy 73 at MP 17.86 (Lone Rock) 3 97 00587C OR042 67.61 Douglas Olalla Creek, Hwy 35 (Upper Lookingglass) 3 98 01697 OR099 28.28 Douglas Paradise Creek, Hwy 45 3 99 08024 IS005 104.05 Douglas Riddle Rd (Pruner Rd) over Hwy 1 3 

100 07835 IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 NB 3 

2 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

101 07835A IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 SB 3 102 07904 OR138 22.30 Douglas Rock Creek, Hwy 73 3 103 16861 OR138 56.83 Douglas Rough Creek, Hwy 73 (Penstock) 3 104 07713A IS005 120.57 Douglas S Umpqua River & COPRR, Hwy 1 SB (Shady) 3 105 07931N IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 NB (Missouri Bottom) 3 106 07931S IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Missouri Bottom) 3 107 07404 IS005 124.54 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Vets) 3 108 01923 OR042 74.47 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 35 EB (Winston) 3 109 00588C OR042 63.97 Douglas Tenmile Creek, Hwy 35 3 110 18613 IS005 107.52 Douglas 111 03553A US395 110.20 Grant Beech Creek, Hwy 28 at MP 110.20 5 112 03558A US395 7.25 Grant Canyon Creek, Hwy 48 5 113 02466 OR019 174.96 Grant Dixie Creek, Hwy 5 (Prairie City) 5 114 06205 US395 99.13 Grant Fox Creek, Hwy 28 5 115 02463 OR019 170.49 Grant Indian Creek, Hwy 5 5 116 07696 OR019 155.75 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Coles) 5 117 02655 OR019 119.56 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Goose Rock) 5 118 02734A OR019 124.12 Grant Rock Creek, Hwy 5 (Picture Gorge) 5 119 06204 US395 98.31 Grant Smith Creek, Hwy 28 5 120 01962A US020 174.57 Harney Middle Fork Malheur River, Hwy 7 5 121 03506A US020 105.62 Harney Miller Creek, Hwy 7 5 122 03522A OR078 0.69 Harney Silvies Slough, Hwy 442 at MP 0.69 5 123 01961A US020 167.64 Harney Stinkingwater Creek, Hwy 7 5 124 03596 US395 42.95 Harney Trout Creek Oflow, Hwy 48 at MP 42.95 5 125 07403A IS084 46.10 Hood River Herman Creek, Hwy 2 1 126 08605 IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 1 127 07496A IS084 63.02 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 1 128 08610 IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) 1 129 08662 IS084 63.41 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over OWR & NRR 1 130 07458 IS084 63.98 Hood River Hwy 2 Frontage Rd (2nd St) over OWR & NRR (UPRR) 1 131 08604 IS084 50.99 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 1 132 07398 IS084 64.44 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn 2 1 133 08534 IS084 56.04 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn Viento Intchg 1 134 08623 IS084 47.31 Hood River Hwy 2 over Herman Creek Conn 1 135 08605W IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 1 136 08610W IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) 1 137 08543 IS005 31.30 Jackson Bear Creek & Table Rock Rd, Hwy 1 at MP 31.30 3 138 08742N IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 NB at MP 14.96 3 139 08742S IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 14.96 3 140 08542 IS005 32.75 Jackson Central Point Rd Conn #2 (East Pine St) over Hwy 1 3 141 08375 IS005 49.46 Jackson Creek & County Rd + COPRR, Hwy 1 at MP 49.46 3 142 08743 IS005 14.77 Jackson E Main St over Hwy 1 3 143 08682 IS005 24.40 Jackson Fern Valley Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 3 144 07777B IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over COR (Seven Oaks) 3 145 08738N IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Eagle Mill Rd 3 146 08383N IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 60 3 147 07773A IS005 38.73 Jackson Hwy 1 over Foley Lane Frontage Rd 3 148 09184 IS005 10.34 Jackson Hwy 1 over Neil Creek Rd 3 149 07777 IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over COR (Seven Oaks) 3 150 08738S IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Eagle Mill Rd 3 

3 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

151 08383S IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 60 3 152 08745 OR066 14.17 Jackson Hwy 21 over Hwy 1 3 153 07601B OR099 40.83 Jackson Hwy 271 Spur over Hwy 1 (S Gold Hill) 3 154 08382 OR099 43.77 Jackson Hwy 60 over Hwy 1 (Rocky Point) 3 155 08749 OR099 11.89 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (S Ashland Intchg) 3 156 08539 OR099 35.62 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (Seven Oaks Intchg) 3 157 08381N IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 NB (Homestead) 3 158 08381S IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 SB (Homestead) 3 159 03461 OR230 5.16 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 233 3 160 08540A IS005 33.85 Jackson Upton Rd over Hwy 1 3 161 08693 IS005 19.17 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #1 over Hwy 1 (N Ashland Intchg) 3 162 08681 IS005 21.21 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 3 163 02269 US026 116.57 Jefferson Hwy 53 over OTRR 4 164 08600 US097 90.11 Jefferson Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 90.11 4 165 00815A US097 75.04 Jefferson Trout Creek, Hwy 4 4 166 00971A US097 92.11 Jefferson Willow Creek, Hwy 4 NB 4 167 01074A US199 40.24 Josephine Elk Creek, Hwy 25 3 168 06493A IS005 71.72 Josephine Grave Creek, Hwy 1 NB 3 169 09439 IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 NB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd 3 170 08335N IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 NB over Foothill Blvd 3 171 08339 IS005 57.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Beacon Dr 3 172 08333 IS005 55.40 Josephine Hwy 1 over Foothill Blvd 3 173 08501 IS005 58.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 NB 3 174 08341 IS005 55.78 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 Spur 3 175 09339 IS005 76.03 Josephine Hwy 1 over S Wolf Creek Conn 3 176 08500 IS005 58.18 Josephine Hwy 1 over Scoville Rd 3 177 09439A IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd 3 178 08335S IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Foothill Blvd 3 179 09440 IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd 3 180 09440A IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd 3 181 08094N IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 NB 3 182 08094S IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 SB 3 183 08018N IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 NB 3 184 08018S IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 SB 3 185 01107A US199 34.28 Josephine Rough and Ready Creek, Hwy 25 3 186 01108A US199 32.10 Josephine W Fork Illinois River, Hwy 25 at MP 32.10 3 187 07301 US097 265.65 Klamath Algoma Log Pond, Hwy 4 4 188 07302 US097 263.11 Klamath Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 4 189 01825 OR058 73.40 Klamath Crescent Creek, Hwy 18 4 190 07984 OR058 86.30 Klamath Hwy 18 WB over Hwy 4 SB 4 191 07454 US097 183.16 Klamath Hwy 4 over Crescent Conn 4 192 09692 US097 275.75 Klamath Hwy 4 over Green Springs Dr (Old Alignment) & BNRR 4 193 06886 US097 247.54 Klamath Hwy 4 over Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) 4 194 08346 US097 274.73 Klamath Hwy 4 over Oxing California Ave (Klamath Falls) 4 195 07929 US097 202.09 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR 4 196 08352 US097 272.99 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) 4 197 08347A US097 275.38 Klamath Link River, Hwy 4 NB Conn 4 198 01826 OR058 67.95 Klamath Odell Creek, Hwy 18 2 199 06884 US097 243.98 Klamath Spring Creek, Hwy 4 4 200 08345 US097 273.71 Klamath USBR Canal, Hwy 4 4 

4 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

201 08510 US097 273.68 Klamath USBR Canal, Nevada Ave Conn to Hwy 4 4 202 03913 OR140 102.40 Lake Cattlepass, Hwy 19 at MP 102.40 4 203 03915 OR140 126.92 Lake Crooked Creek, Hwy 19 at MP 126.92 4 204 04041 6.60 Lane Bear Creek, Hwy 200 2 205 01323A OR126B 40.70 Lane Blue River Bridge, Hwy 15 2 206 07793A IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 207 07793B IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 208 07736A IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 NB 2 209 07736C IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 SB 2 210 07756A IS005 179.64 Lane Coast Fork Relief Opening, Hwy 1 SB 2 211 05285A OR058 1.96 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 2 212 07809A IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB 2 213 07745A IS005 179.99 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB 2 214 07809B IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 SB 2 215 05286 OR058 2.46 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 18 2 216 07828B IS005 175.84 Lane Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 175.84 2 217 01516 OR126B 13.06 Lane Eugene Water Board Canal, Hwy 15 at MP 13.06 (Walterville) 2 218 01324A OR126B 26.52 Lane Gate Creek, Hwy 15 (Vida) 2 219 07757B IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 220 07757A IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 221 07188 OR058 55.98 Lane Half Viaduct, Hwy 18 at MP 55.98 2 222 04056 29.78 Lane Hayes Creek, Hwy 200 2 223 07740C IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 224 07740A IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 225 07832 IS005 174.75 Lane Hwy 1 Conn over COR 2 226 07732B IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen Grade) 2 227 07810B IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Latham Rd 2 228 07863A IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Row River Rd 2 229 08182N IS005 195.78 Lane Hwy 1 NB over UPRR & Game Farm Rd 2 230 07864A IS005 173.84 Lane Hwy 1 over 16th Street (Landess Rd) 2 231 06836A IS005 188.91 Lane Hwy 1 over Franklin Blvd & SPRR (Goshen) 2 232 07739A IS005 182.83 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 222 (Creswell) 2 233 08870 IS005 190.76 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 225 Conn (McVay Access) 2 234 07865A IS005 173.40 Lane Hwy 1 over Taylor Ave 2 235 07732A IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 18 & Conn 2 236 07810A IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Latham Rd 2 237 07830 IS005 174.41 Lane Hwy 1 SB over OP&ERR 2 238 07863 IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Row River Rd 2 239 08182S IS005 195.80 Lane Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & Game Farm Rd 2 240 07171 OR058 37.09 Lane Hwy 18 over Private Logging Road 2 241 07110 OR058 8.08 Lane Hwy 18 over UPRR (Pleasant Hill) 2 242 08445 IS005 190.50 Lane Hwy 225 over Hwy 1 2 243 02262 OR126 0.60 Lane Hwy 69 over COR (Oakhill) 2 244 09587 OR126 195.45 Lane Hwy 69 over Hwy 1 2 245 08370 OR126 18.47 Lane Knowles Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 18.47 2 246 07860 IS005 172.24 Lane London Rd over Hwy 1 2 247 06768 OR058 9.51 Lane Lost Creek, Hwy 18 2 248 07861B IS005 169.58 Lane Martin Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 249 08180N IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.19 2 250 08178N IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.69 2 

5 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

251 08180S IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.19 2 252 08178S IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.69 2 253 08175N IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 NB 2 254 08175S IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 SB 2 255 08171N IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 256 08171S IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 257 07871A IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 NB 2 258 07871B IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 SB 2 259 07833B IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 NB (Cottage Grove) 2 260 07833A IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 SB (Cottage Grove) 2 261 07829A IS005 175.40 Lane Row River, Hwy 1 NB 2 262 07825 IS005 176.76 Lane Saginaw Rosd over Hwy 1 2 263 08446 OR126 26.48 Lane Siuslaw River, Hwy 62 2 264 04062 40.43 Lane South Forrk Siuslaw River, Hwy 200 2 265 07743A IS005 180.49 Lane Tunnel Mill Race, Hwy 1 SB 2 266 08554 OR126 27.66 Lane Wildcat Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 27.66 2 267 08329 IS005 192.75 Lane Willamette River & Hwy 15 & SPRR, Hwy 1 & Hwy 1W 2 268 05287B OR058 2.71 Lane Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 2 269 07894 OR058 33.24 Lane Willamette River, Hwy 18 (Barnard) 2 270 07530 US020 3.23 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 3.23 2 271 07532 US020 4.19 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.19 2 272 07533 US020 4.47 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.47 2 273 00922A US101 114.88 Lincoln Devils Lake Outlet, Hwy 9 (D River) 2 274 00925A US101 119.27 Lincoln Drift Creek, Hwy 9 2 275 00654 US020 21.01 Lincoln Hayes Creek, Hwy 33 2 276 13491 OR018 0.04 Lincoln Hwy 39 over Hwy 9 2 277 07534 US020 5.36 Lincoln Little Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 2 278 04192 OR018 6.23 Lincoln Salmon River, Hwy 39 2 279 00924A US101 118.17 Lincoln Schooner Creek, Hwy 9 2 280 00683 US020 23.38 Lincoln Yaquina River, Hwy 33 2 281 08232N IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 282 08232S IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 283 08235N IS005 220.04 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 220.04 2 284 08235S IS005 220.06 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 220.04 2 285 09413 US020 5.85 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.85 2 286 09414 US020 5.91 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.91 2 287 08236N IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 NB 2 288 08236S IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 SB 2 289 12205B US020 5.51 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 210 2 290 08241N IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 291 08241S IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 292 08222N IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 293 08222S IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 294 08226N IS005 230.83 Linn Hwy 1 NB over A&E (Tallman Branch) 2 295 08221B IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) 2 296 08221A IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) 2 297 08218A IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Murder Creek Rd 2 298 08221D IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) 2 299 08221C IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) 2 300 08218B IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Murder Creek Rd 2 

6 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

301 08226S IS005 230.86 Linn Hwy 1 SB over SPRR (Tallman Branch) 2 302 08223 US020 233.23 Linn Hwy 16 over Hwy 1 & Conns 2 303 08252 OR228 216.57 Linn Hwy 212 over Hwy 1 2 304 08221E OR099E 234.23 Linn Hwy 58 NB Conn to Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (N Albany In 2 305 06806 OR022 65.48 Linn Minto Creek, Hwy 162 at MP 65.48 2 306 08217 IS005 235.71 Linn Murder Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 307 08227N IS005 230.45 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 308 08227S IS005 230.48 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 309 08124 IS005 240.42 Linn Santiam Oflow No 4, Hwy 1 at MP 240.42 2 310 01706 US020 52.44 Linn Soda Fork, Hwy 16 2 311 08239N IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 NB 2 312 08239S IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 SB 2 313 08233N IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 NB 2 314 08233S IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 SB 2 315 05225A US095 10.98 Malheur Cow Creek, Hwy 456 5 316 07971 IS084 372.18 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over Doman Road 5 317 08397E IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) 5 318 08397W IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 WB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) 5 319 02585A OR019 265.33 Malheur Kern Creek, Hwy 5 5 320 02586A OR019 266.39 Malheur Lancaster Creek, Hwy 5 5 321 08107E IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 EB 5 322 08107W IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 WB 5 323 07970 IS084 371.45 Malheur Stanton Blvd over Hwy 6 5 324 08076 OR022 8.88 Marion Beaver Creek, Hwy 162 EB at MP E8.88 2 325 05978 OR022 54.09 Marion Boulder Creek, Hwy 162 2 326 07017 OR022 49.84 Marion Breitenbush River, Hwy 162 2 327 07855E IS005 259.49 Marion Chemawa Rd NE Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) 2 328 07538A IS005 251.34 Marion Hwy 1 over Boone Rd SE 2 329 07441A IS005 251.79 Marion Hwy 1 over Marietta St SE 2 330 07522A IS005 252.22 Marion Hwy 1 over Turner Rd SE 2 331 07440A IS005 252.13 Marion Hwy 1 over UPRR Main Line 2 332 07524B IS005 249.38 Marion Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1E NB (Commercial St SE) 2 333 08069 OR022 13.23 Marion Hwy 162 over Cascade Hwy SE 2 334 08071 OR022 4.03 Marion Hwy 162 over Deer Park Rd SE 2 335 08073 OR022 5.44 Marion Hwy 162 over Joseph St SE 2 336 07941 OR099E 244.68 Marion Hwy 164 over Hwy 1 2 337 07347 OR022 23.28 Marion Little North Fork Santiam River, Hwy 162 2 338 07439 IS005 252.54 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 NB 2 339 07439A IS005 252.57 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 SB 2 340 08070 OR022 13.58 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 162 2 341 07964 OR022 40.33 Marion Partial Viaduct, Hwy 162 at MP 40.33 2 342 08121 IS005 241.35 Marion Santiam Oflow No 2, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.35 2 343 08122 IS005 241.12 Marion Santiam Oflow No 3, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.12 2 344 07295 OR022 47.69 Marion Tumble Creek, Hwy 162 2 345 08931E IS084 167.95 Morrow Hwy 6 EB over Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 5 346 07333 IS005 308.38 Multnomah Columbia River & N Hayden Island Dr, Hwy 1 SB (Interstate) 1 347 08195 IS005 299.23 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Hwy 3 SB (SW Hood Ave) 1 348 04516A IS005 307.70 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Jantzen Pedestrian Tunnel 1 349 08203B IS005 296.04 Multnomah Hwy 1 over SW 26th Ave 1 350 08205R OR099W 6.21 Multnomah Hwy 1W SB Ramp to Hwy 1 SB 1 

7 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

351 06945 IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 352 02176A IS084 35.12 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 100 & UPRR (OWR & NRR) (Dodson) 1 353 08588B IS084 0.52 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1 (Banfield Intchg) 1 354 06945A IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 355 09254D US026 73.94 Multnomah Hwy 47 EB Conn to SW Market St over Hwy 61 1 356 02194B IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 EB 1 357 02194A IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 WB 1 358 13514E IS084 7.65 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & # 1 359 02163A IS084 6.73 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 EB 1 360 06875 IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 EB 1 361 06875A IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 WB 1 362 08197 IS005 298.24 Multnomah SW Iowa Street Viaduct, Hwy 1 1 363 02062B IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 EB 1 364 02062A IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 WB 1 365 02001 OR022 8.38 Polk \Salt Creek, Hwy 30 at MP 8.38 2 366 02015 OR022 3.97 Polk Gooseneck Creek, Hwy 30 2 367 08889 OR022 24.30 Polk Hwy 30 over Hwy 150 at MP 24.30 2 368 07366 OR022 25.62 Polk Hwy 30 WB over Hwy 150 Conn 2 369 01756A OR022 4.71 Polk Mill Creek, Hwy 30 2 370 04573 OR018 18.78 Polk Rogue River, Hwy 39 2 371 02081 OR022 0.03 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 30 (Wallace) 2 372 01612A OR018 21.55 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 21.55 2 373 00745 OR018 23.77 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 23.77 2 374 07253R OR022 25.85 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 Conn to Hwy 150 2 375 00123K OR022 25.88 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 EB 2 376 07253B OR022 25.91 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 WB & Hwy 72 Conn (Marion St) 2 377 08893 US097 2.37 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.37 4 378 08894 US097 2.48 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.48 4 379 02472 OR006 32.05 Tillamook Devils Lake Fork Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 32.05 1 380 01872A OR006 18.04 Tillamook Jordon Creek, Hwy 37 2 381 01869A OR006 11.80 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 11.80 2 382 01868 OR006 5.78 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 5.78 (Mills) 2 383 04728 US395 60.93 Umatilla Camas Creek, Hwy 28 5 384 02561 US395 15.27 Umatilla E Fork Birch Creek, Hwy 28 (Pilot Rock) 5 385 09314 US395 188.84 Umatilla Hwy 54 over Hwy 6 (Stanfield Jct Intchg) 5 386 08498E IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) 5 387 16454 IS084 179.45 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Hwy 70 EB 5 388 08498W IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) 5 389 16453 IS084 179.43 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Hwy 70 EB 5 390 09636 US395 207.47 Umatilla Hwy 67 over Hwy 6 (W Pendleton Intchg) 5 391 08050 US395 5.77 Umatilla McKay Creek, Hwy 28 5 392 04729 US395 63.81 Umatilla N Fork John Day River, Hwy 28 (Dale) 5 393 08431A OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 EB (Oro Dell) 5 394 08431 OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 WB (Oro Dell) 5 395 08780 OR082 17.88 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR, Hwy 10 (Indian Creek) 5 396 00800A OR082 19.20 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 19.20 (South Elgin) 5 397 04821A OR082 2.64 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 2.64 (Island City) 5 398 01996 OR082 20.62 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 20.62 (Northeast Elgin) 5 399 04841A OR244 46.75 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 341 (Hilgard) 5 400 08502 OR244 253.03 Union Hwy 341 over Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) 5 

8 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Existing Bridge Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 ODOT Region7 

401 07292B IS084 285.84 Union Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (North Powder) 5 402 00449A IS084 248.55 Union Hwy 6 over Emigrant Hill Frtg Rd & UPRR (Glover) 5 403 05192 OR082 31.15 Union Minam Viaduct, Hwy 10 5 404 07573 OR082 54.11 Wallowa Lostine River, Hwy 10 5 405 01038A OR082 33.65 Wallowa Wallowa River, Hwy 10 (Minam) 5 406 02184 OR082 45.83 Wallowa Wallowa River,Hwy 10 (Bear Creek) 5 407 00308A IS084 88.04 Wasco Fifteen Mile Creek, Hwy 2 4 408 08276 IS084 82.62 Wasco Hwy 2 over Hostetler Way Conn 4 409 07771 IS084 88.83 Wasco Hwy 2 over The Dalles Dam Access Conn 4 410 07397 IS084 69.85 Wasco Mosier Conn over UPRR (OWR & NRR) 4 411 07393 IS084 70.10 Wasco Mosier Creek, Hwy 2 4 412 07626A IS084 69.65 Wasco Mosier WB Conn over Hwy 2 4 413 07392 IS084 69.62 Wasco Rock Creek, Hwy 2 4 414 02366 US026 54.55 Washington E Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 WB 1 415 02285 US026 70.83 Washington Hwy 47 over Hwy 29 (SW Canyon Rd) WB, (Sylvan) 1 416 02367 US026 55.73 Washington Hwy 47 WB over P&W (Vadis) 1 417 02365 US026 57.85 Washington McKay Creek, Hwy 47 WB 1 418 02364A US026 37.88 Washington Nehalem River, Hwy 47 1 419 02672 US026 45.31 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 45.31 1 420 02673 US026 46.30 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 46.30 1 421 02362A US026 50.22 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 50.22 1 422 02029 US026 37.38 Washington Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 1 423 02236A OR019 80.92 Wheeler Alder Creek, Hwy 5 5 424 07372 OR126 62.54 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 62.54 4 425 07490 OR126 65.63 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.63 4 426 07491 OR126 65.85 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.85 4 427 02233A OR019 85.17 Wheeler Harper Creek, Hwy 5 5 428 04979A OR019 81.85 Wheeler Juniper Creek, Hwy 5 5 429 04981A OR019 84.53 Wheeler Mathas Creek, Hwy 5 5 430 02235 OR019 79.03 Wheeler Mule Shoe Creek, Hwy 5 5 

NOTES

1 General sequence number2 ODOT bridge identification number3 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. Route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)4 Milepost where bridge is located5 County where bridge is located6 Description of feature that bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation7 ODOT Region where bridge is located (ODOT is divided into 5 Regions)8 The year that the bridge was constructed9 Total length of bridge

10 Total width of bridge deck11 Number of travel lanes12 Number of bridge spans13 ODOT recommendation to repair or replace bridge14 ODOT proposed order of bridge construction

9 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Watershed Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 HUC Number7 Basin (3rd Field HUC)7 Subbasin (4th Field HUC)7 

1 01786A IS084 340.58 Baker Burnt River (Dixie Creek), Hwy 6 170502020808 Middle Snake/Powder Burnt River 2 08423E IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Alder Creek Rd 170502020701 Middle Snake/Powder Burnt River 3 08302E IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 170502030204 Middle Snake/Powder Powder River 4 09354 IS084 342.91 Baker Hwy 6 over Lime Intchg Conn 170502020808 Middle Snake/Powder Burnt River 5 08423W IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Alder Creek Rd 170502020701 Middle Snake/Powder Burnt River 6 08302W IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 170502030204 Middle Snake/Powder Powder River 7 07316 OR007 41.19 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 41.66 (Rancheria) 170502030202 Middle Snake/Powder Powder River 8 07431 OR007 42.31 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 42.77 (Salisbury) 170502030202 Middle Snake/Powder Powder River 9 07987A IS084 325.34 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 EB 170502020705 Middle Snake/Powder Burnt River 

10 07987 IS084 325.31 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 WB 170502020705 Middle Snake/Powder Burnt River 11 08616 US020 55.86 Benton Hwy 33 EB over Hwy 1W SB 170900030511 Willamette Upper Willamette 12 01205A US020 45.68 Benton Hwy 33 over Harris Rd & W&P (Wren Conn) 170900030503 Willamette Upper Willamette 13 08617 US020 55.73 Benton Hwy 33 over W&P 170900030511 Willamette Upper Willamette 14 00866B US020 39.34 Benton Marys River & W&P, Hwy 33 at MP 39.34 170900030501 Willamette Upper Willamette 15 01075A US020 48.88 Benton Marys River, Hwy 33 at MP 48.88 (Noon) 170900030504 Willamette Upper Willamette 16 00665B US026 33.24 Clackamas Alder Creek, Hwy 26 170800010402 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 17 09870 IS005 282.43 Clackamas Hwy 1 Conn #1 over Hwy 51 NB 170900070402 Willamette Middle Willamette 18 07794A IS005 282.25 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB 170900070402 Willamette Middle Willamette 19 07794B IS005 282.28 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB 170900070402 Willamette Middle Willamette 20 07867 OR213 5.20 Clackamas Hwy 171 WB over UPRR Mainline 170900110607 Willamette Clackamas 21 01439A OR213 8.13 Clackamas Rock Creek, Hwy 171 WB 170900110607 Willamette Clackamas 22 00689B US026 34.09 Clackamas Wildcat Creek, Hwy 26 170800010401 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 23 03026A US026 46.04 Clackamas Zig Zag River, Hwy 26 at MP 46.02 170800010202 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 24 07417 US030 82.52 Clatsop Big Creek, Hwy 2W 170800060201 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia 25 01832 US026 17.37 Clatsop E Fork Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 171002020306 Northern Oregon Coastal Nehalem 26 00921 US030 77.25 Clatsop Gnat Creek, Hwy 2W 170800060204 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia 27 03092A US026 3.26 Clatsop Johnson Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 3.26 171002010102 Northern Oregon Coastal Necanicum 28 02164 US026 24.23 Clatsop N Fork Quartz Creek, Hwy 47 171002020305 Northern Oregon Coastal Nehalem 29 02601 US026 4.40 Clatsop Necanicum River, Hwy 47 at MP 4.40 (Black) 171002010102 Northern Oregon Coastal Necanicum 30 02165 US026 21.73 Clatsop Nehalem River & Hwy 103, Hwy 47 171002020305 Northern Oregon Coastal Nehalem 31 03091A US026 2.24 Clatsop Volmer Creek, Hwy 47 171002010103 Northern Oregon Coastal Necanicum 32 01831 US026 16.28 Clatsop West Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 171002020306 Northern Oregon Coastal Nehalem 33 07519 IS084 61.21 Columbia Clatskanie River, Hwy 2W 170800030305 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 34 07715 IS084 60.82 Columbia Hwy 2W over Swedetown County Rd 170800030305 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 35 09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis & Clark Br Conn over Hwy 2W 170800030204 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 36 07722 IS084 55.29 Columbia Lost Creek, Hwy 2W 170800030206 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 37 02027A US026 34.93 Columbia N Fork Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 171002020102 Northern Oregon Coastal Nehalem 38 00338A IS084 36.47 Columbia Tide Creek, Hwy 2W 170800030202 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 39 03173A OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 EB 171003050603 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 40 03173B OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 WB 171003050603 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 41 03212A OR042 26.72 Coos Endicot Creek, Hwy 35 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 42 03172A OR042 4.14 Coos Hwy 35 over COR 171003040402 Southern Oregon Coastal Coos 43 08843 OR042 23.48 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 242 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 44 08281 OR042 0.07 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 9 NB 171003040402 Southern Oregon Coastal Coos 45 01950 US101 234.76 Coos Hwy 9 over COR (North Bend) 171003040405 Southern Oregon Coastal Coos 46 08842 OR042 23.37 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 23.37 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 47 08830 OR042 24.32 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 24.32 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 48 08875 OR042 25.52 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.52 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 49 08876 OR042 25.67 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.67 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 50 08936 OR042 30.10 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.10 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 51 08935 OR042 30.59 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.59 171003050210 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 52 02553 OR126 34.10 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 33.99 170703050204 Deschutes Lower Crooked 53 07649 OR126 37.44 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 37.44 170703050204 Deschutes Lower Crooked 54 02201 OR126 19.40 Crook Ochoco Creek, Hwy 41 170703050404 Deschutes Lower Crooked 55 07768 US097 113.94 Deschutes Hwy 4 over OTRR (Terrebonne) 170703051101 Deschutes Lower Crooked 56 08888 US097 136.46 Deschutes North Unit Canal & Swalley Canal, Hwy 4 170703010702 Deschutes Upper Deschutes 57 01675B US097 129.72 Deschutes Pilot Butte Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 129.72 170703010702 Deschutes Upper Deschutes 58 07469B IS005 163.43 Douglas Bear Creek, Hwy 1 at MP 163.43 171003030304 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 59 07563A IS005 138.71 Douglas Calapooya Creek, Hwy 1 171003030205 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 60 07572A IS005 156.49 Douglas Curtis Creek, Hwy 1 171003030302 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 61 07632 IS005 129.22 Douglas Del Rio Rd over Hwy 1 (Winchester) 171003011205 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 62 07567B IS005 156.03 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 1 NB 171003030302 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 63 01614 OR099 36.39 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 36.39 171003030310 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 64 01601 OR099 38.76 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 38.76 171003030310 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 65 01465 OR099 39.64 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.64 171003030310 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 

1 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Watershed Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 HUC Number7 Basin (3rd Field HUC)7 Subbasin (4th Field HUC)7 

66 01406 OR099 39.97 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.97 171003030310 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 67 07667 IS005 125.08 Douglas Garden Valley Road over Hwy 1 171003021305 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 68 01424 OR099 47.50 Douglas Hardscrabble Creek, Hwy 45 171003030307 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 69 07364A IS005 98.28 Douglas Hwy 1 & Conn over 5th St (Canyonville) 171003020507 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 70 07642 IS005 150.36 Douglas Hwy 1 Conn (Yoncalla Jct ) over Hwy 1 171003030303 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 71 07640 IS005 150.76 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over COR (Yoncalla) 171003030303 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 72 08028N IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Irwin Access Conn 171003020508 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 73 07627B IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Rogers Rd Conn 171003011204 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 74 07804N IS005 120.03 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Speedway Rd 171003021303 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 75 07631 IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over SPRR & County Rd 171003011205 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 76 07900A IS005 110.35 Douglas Hwy 1 over Boomer Hill Rd Conn #2 171003021002 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 77 07569A IS005 162.06 Douglas Hwy 1 over Buck Creek Rd 171003030304 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 78 07584A IS005 164.45 Douglas Hwy 1 over Comstock Cemetery Rd 171003030304 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 79 07952A IS005 107.52 Douglas Hwy 1 over COR (Weaver) 171003021001 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 80 07636A IS005 154.54 Douglas Hwy 1 over Elkhead Rd 171003030302 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 81 07711A IS005 121.69 Douglas Hwy 1 over McLain Ave (Garbage Dump Rd) 171003021305 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 82 07950 IS005 108.31 Douglas Hwy 1 over Myrtle Creek Conn (Myrtle Creek Intchg) 171003021002 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 83 07670A IS005 123.01 Douglas Hwy 1 over Portland Ave (Fairgrounds Intchg) 171003021305 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 84 07644A IS005 148.21 Douglas Hwy 1 over Rice Hill Frtg Rd 171003030303 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 85 09352A IS005 80.80 Douglas Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Conn (Glendale Intchg) 171003020703 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 86 07839 IS005 113.44 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Clarks Branch Rd Conn #2 171003021002 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 87 07640A IS005 150.79 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over COR (Yoncalla) 171003030303 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 88 08028S IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Irwin Access Conn 171003020508 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 89 07627A IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Rogers Rd Conn 171003011204 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 90 07631A IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & County Rd 171003011205 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 91 07806 OR042 119.99 Douglas Hwy 35 over Hwy 1 171003021303 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 92 00805C OR042 72.52 Douglas Lower Looking Glass Creek, Hwy 35 171003021206 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 93 00559B OR042 53.17 Douglas Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 53.17 171003050201 Southern Oregon Coastal Coquille 94 07663C IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 NB (Winchester) 171003011205 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 95 07663A IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 SB (Winchester) 171003011205 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 96 02496 OR138 17.95 Douglas North Umpqua River, Hwy 73 at MP 17.86 (Lone Rock) 171003011202 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 97 00587C OR042 67.61 Douglas Olalla Creek, Hwy 35 (Upper Lookingglass) 171003021206 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 98 01697 OR099 28.28 Douglas Paradise Creek, Hwy 45 171003030401 Southern Oregon Coastal Umpqua 99 08024 IS005 104.05 Douglas Riddle Rd (Pruner Rd) over Hwy 1 171003021001 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 

100 07835 IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 NB 171003021303 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 101 07835A IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 SB 171003021303 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 102 07904 OR138 22.30 Douglas Rock Creek, Hwy 73 171003011003 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 103 16861 OR138 56.83 Douglas Rough Creek, Hwy 73 (Penstock) 171003010305 Southern Oregon Coastal North Umpqua 104 07713A IS005 120.57 Douglas S Umpqua River & COPRR, Hwy 1 SB (Shady) 171003021305 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 105 07931N IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 NB (Missouri Bottom) 171003021001 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 106 07931S IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Missouri Bottom) 171003021001 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 107 07404 IS005 124.54 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Vets) 171003021305 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 108 01923 OR042 74.47 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 35 EB (Winston) 171003021305 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 109 00588C OR042 63.97 Douglas Tenmile Creek, Hwy 35 171003021204 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 110 18613 IS005 107.52 Douglas 171003021001 Southern Oregon Coastal South Umpqua 111 03553A US395 110.20 Grant Beech Creek, Hwy 28 at MP 110.20 170702010903 John Day Upper John Day 112 03558A US395 7.25 Grant Canyon Creek, Hwy 48 170702010704 John Day Upper John Day 113 02466 OR019 174.96 Grant Dixie Creek, Hwy 5 (Prairie City) 170702010802 John Day Upper John Day 114 06205 US395 99.13 Grant Fox Creek, Hwy 28 170702020901 John Day North Fork John Day 115 02463 OR019 170.49 Grant Indian Creek, Hwy 5 170702010806 John Day Upper John Day 116 07696 OR019 155.75 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Coles) 170702011002 John Day Upper John Day 117 02655 OR019 119.56 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Goose Rock) 170702011502 John Day Upper John Day 118 02734A OR019 124.12 Grant Rock Creek, Hwy 5 (Picture Gorge) 170702011403 John Day Upper John Day 119 06204 US395 98.31 Grant Smith Creek, Hwy 28 170702020901 John Day North Fork John Day 120 01962A US020 174.57 Harney Middle Fork Malheur River, Hwy 7 170501160701 Middle Snake/Boise Upper Malheur 121 03506A US020 105.62 Harney Miller Creek, Hwy 7 171200040305 Oregon Closed Basins Silver 122 03522A OR078 0.69 Harney Silvies Slough, Hwy 442 at MP 0.69 171200020803 Oregon Closed Basins Silvies 123 01961A US020 167.64 Harney Stinkingwater Creek, Hwy 7 170501160405 Middle Snake/Boise Upper Malheur 124 03596 US395 42.95 Harney Trout Creek Oflow, Hwy 48 at MP 42.95 171200020308 Oregon Closed Basins Silvies 125 07403A IS084 46.10 Hood River Herman Creek, Hwy 2 170701051301 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 126 08605 IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 170701051304 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 127 07496A IS084 63.02 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 170701051203 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 128 08610 IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) 170701051304 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 129 08662 IS084 63.41 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over OWR & NRR 170701050803 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 130 07458 IS084 63.98 Hood River Hwy 2 Frontage Rd (2nd St) over OWR & NRR (UPRR) 170701050803 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 

2 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Watershed Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 HUC Number7 Basin (3rd Field HUC)7 Subbasin (4th Field HUC)7 

131 08604 IS084 50.99 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 170701051203 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 132 07398 IS084 64.44 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn 2 170701051202 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 133 08534 IS084 56.04 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn Viento Intchg 170701051203 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 134 08623 IS084 47.31 Hood River Hwy 2 over Herman Creek Conn 170701051304 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 135 08605W IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 170701051304 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 136 08610W IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) 170701051304 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 137 08543 IS005 31.30 Jackson Bear Creek & Table Rock Rd, Hwy 1 at MP 31.30 171003080110 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 138 08742N IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 NB at MP 14.96 171003080105 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 139 08742S IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 14.96 171003080105 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 140 08542 IS005 32.75 Jackson Central Point Rd Conn #2 (East Pine St) over Hwy 1 171003080110 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 141 08375 IS005 49.46 Jackson Creek & County Rd + COPRR, Hwy 1 at MP 49.46 171003080401 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 142 08743 IS005 14.77 Jackson E Main St over Hwy 1 171003080105 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 143 08682 IS005 24.40 Jackson Fern Valley Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 171003080109 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 144 07777B IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over COR (Seven Oaks) 171003080112 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 145 08738N IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Eagle Mill Rd 171003080105 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 146 08383N IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 60 171003080205 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 147 07773A IS005 38.73 Jackson Hwy 1 over Foley Lane Frontage Rd 171003080204 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 148 09184 IS005 10.34 Jackson Hwy 1 over Neil Creek Rd 171003080104 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 149 07777 IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over COR (Seven Oaks) 171003080112 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 150 08738S IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Eagle Mill Rd 171003080105 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 151 08383S IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 60 171003080205 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 152 08745 OR066 14.17 Jackson Hwy 21 over Hwy 1 171003080104 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 153 07601B OR099 40.83 Jackson Hwy 271 Spur over Hwy 1 (S Gold Hill) 171003080204 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 154 08382 OR099 43.77 Jackson Hwy 60 over Hwy 1 (Rocky Point) 171003080205 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 155 08749 OR099 11.89 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (S Ashland Intchg) 171003080104 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 156 08539 OR099 35.62 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (Seven Oaks Intchg) 171003080112 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 157 08381N IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 NB (Homestead) 171003080205 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 158 08381S IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 SB (Homestead) 171003080205 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 159 03461 OR230 5.16 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 233 171003070105 Southern Oregon Coastal Upper Rogue 160 08540A IS005 33.85 Jackson Upton Rd over Hwy 1 171003080110 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 161 08693 IS005 19.17 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #1 over Hwy 1 (N Ashland Intchg) 171003080107 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 162 08681 IS005 21.21 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 171003080107 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 163 02269 US026 116.57 Jefferson Hwy 53 over OTRR 170703060205 Deschutes Lower Deschutes 164 08600 US097 90.11 Jefferson Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 90.11 170703060205 Deschutes Lower Deschutes 165 00815A US097 75.04 Jefferson Trout Creek, Hwy 4 170703070502 Deschutes Trout 166 00971A US097 92.11 Jefferson Willow Creek, Hwy 4 NB 170703060205 Deschutes Lower Deschutes 167 01074A US199 40.24 Josephine Elk Creek, Hwy 25 171003110402 Southern Oregon Coastal Illinois 168 06493A IS005 71.72 Josephine Grave Creek, Hwy 1 NB 171003100303 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 169 09439 IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 NB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd 171003100303 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 170 08335N IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 NB over Foothill Blvd 171003080401 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 171 08339 IS005 57.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Beacon Dr 171003080402 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 172 08333 IS005 55.40 Josephine Hwy 1 over Foothill Blvd 171003080401 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 173 08501 IS005 58.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 NB 171003080402 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 174 08341 IS005 55.78 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 Spur 171003080402 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 175 09339 IS005 76.03 Josephine Hwy 1 over S Wolf Creek Conn 171003100304 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 176 08500 IS005 58.18 Josephine Hwy 1 over Scoville Rd 171003080402 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 177 09439A IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd 171003100303 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 178 08335S IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Foothill Blvd 171003080401 Southern Oregon Coastal Middle Rogue 179 09440 IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd 171003100303 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 180 09440A IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd 171003100303 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 181 08094N IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 NB 171003100202 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 182 08094S IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 SB 171003100202 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 183 08018N IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 NB 171003100203 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 184 08018S IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 SB 171003100203 Southern Oregon Coastal Lower Rogue 185 01107A US199 34.28 Josephine Rough and Ready Creek, Hwy 25 171003110404 Southern Oregon Coastal Illinois 186 01108A US199 32.10 Josephine W Fork Illinois River, Hwy 25 at MP 32.10 171003110405 Southern Oregon Coastal Illinois 187 07301 US097 265.65 Klamath Algoma Log Pond, Hwy 4 180102030207 Klamath Upper Klamath Lake 188 07302 US097 263.11 Klamath Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 180102030207 Klamath Upper Klamath Lake 189 01825 OR058 73.40 Klamath Crescent Creek, Hwy 18 170703020206 Deschutes Upper Deschutes 190 07984 OR058 86.30 Klamath Hwy 18 WB over Hwy 4 SB 170703020503 Deschutes Upper Deschutes 191 07454 US097 183.16 Klamath Hwy 4 over Crescent Conn 170703020106 Deschutes Upper Deschutes 192 09692 US097 275.75 Klamath Hwy 4 over Green Springs Dr (Old Alignment) & BNRR 180102041202 Klamath Lost River 193 06886 US097 247.54 Klamath Hwy 4 over Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) 180102010504 Klamath Williamson 

194 08346 US097 274.73 Klamath Hwy 4 over Oxing California Ave (Klamath Falls) 180102041202 Klamath Lost River 195 07929 US097 202.09 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR 170703020501 Deschutes Upper Deschutes 

3 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Watershed Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 HUC Number7 Basin (3rd Field HUC)7 Subbasin (4th Field HUC)7 

196 08352 US097 272.99 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) 180102030207 Klamath Upper Klamath Lake 197 08347A US097 275.38 Klamath Link River, Hwy 4 NB Conn 180102041202 Klamath Lost River 198 01826 OR058 67.95 Klamath Odell Creek, Hwy 18 170703010202 Deschutes Upper Deschutes 199 06884 US097 243.98 Klamath Spring Creek, Hwy 4 180102010502 Klamath Williamson 200 08345 US097 273.71 Klamath USBR Canal, Hwy 4 180102030207 Klamath Upper Klamath Lake 201 08510 US097 273.68 Klamath USBR Canal, Nevada Ave Conn to Hwy 4 180102030207 Klamath Upper Klamath Lake 202 03913 OR140 102.40 Lake Cattlepass, Hwy 19 at MP 102.40 171200060404 Oregon Closed Basins Lake Abert 203 03915 OR140 126.92 Lake Crooked Creek, Hwy 19 at MP 126.92 171200060301 Oregon Closed Basins Lake Abert 204 04041 6.60 Lane Bear Creek, Hwy 200 170900030109 Willamette Upper Willamette 205 01323A OR126B 40.70 Lane Blue River Bridge, Hwy 15 170900040502 Willamette Mckenzie 206 07793A IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900020501 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 207 07793B IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900020501 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 208 07736A IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 NB 170900020503 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 209 07736C IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 SB 170900020503 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 210 07756A IS005 179.64 Lane Coast Fork Relief Opening, Hwy 1 SB 170900020504 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 211 05285A OR058 1.96 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 170900020505 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 212 07809A IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB 170900020305 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 213 07745A IS005 179.99 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB 170900020504 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 214 07809B IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 SB 170900020305 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 215 05286 OR058 2.46 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 18 170900020505 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 216 07828B IS005 175.84 Lane Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 175.84 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 217 01516 OR126B 13.06 Lane Eugene Water Board Canal, Hwy 15 at MP 13.06 (Walterville) 170900040706 Willamette Mckenzie 218 01324A OR126B 26.52 Lane Gate Creek, Hwy 15 (Vida) 170900040701 Willamette Mckenzie 219 07757B IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900020501 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 220 07757A IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900020501 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 221 07188 OR058 55.98 Lane Half Viaduct, Hwy 18 at MP 55.98 170900010302 Willamette Middle Fork Willamette 222 04056 29.78 Lane Hayes Creek, Hwy 200 170900030101 Willamette Upper Willamette 223 07740C IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900020504 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 224 07740A IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900020504 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 225 07832 IS005 174.75 Lane Hwy 1 Conn over COR 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 226 07732B IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen Grade) 170900020505 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 227 07810B IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Latham Rd 170900020305 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 228 07863A IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Row River Rd 170900020306 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 229 08182N IS005 195.78 Lane Hwy 1 NB over UPRR & Game Farm Rd 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 230 07864A IS005 173.84 Lane Hwy 1 over 16th Street (Landess Rd) 170900020306 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 231 06836A IS005 188.91 Lane Hwy 1 over Franklin Blvd & SPRR (Goshen) 170900020505 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 232 07739A IS005 182.83 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 222 (Creswell) 170900020504 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 233 08870 IS005 190.76 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 225 Conn (McVay Access) 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 234 07865A IS005 173.40 Lane Hwy 1 over Taylor Ave 170900020306 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 235 07732A IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 18 & Conn 170900020505 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 236 07810A IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Latham Rd 170900020305 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 237 07830 IS005 174.41 Lane Hwy 1 SB over OP&ERR 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 238 07863 IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Row River Rd 170900020306 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 239 08182S IS005 195.80 Lane Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & Game Farm Rd 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 240 07171 OR058 37.09 Lane Hwy 18 over Private Logging Road 170900010505 Willamette Middle Fork Willamette 241 07110 OR058 8.08 Lane Hwy 18 over UPRR (Pleasant Hill) 170900011002 Willamette Middle Fork Willamette 242 08445 IS005 190.50 Lane Hwy 225 over Hwy 1 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 243 02262 OR126 0.60 Lane Hwy 69 over COR (Oakhill) 170900030103 Willamette Upper Willamette 244 09587 OR126 195.45 Lane Hwy 69 over Hwy 1 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 245 08370 OR126 18.47 Lane Knowles Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 18.47 171002060802 Northern Oregon Coastal Siuslaw 246 07860 IS005 172.24 Lane London Rd over Hwy 1 170900020306 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 247 06768 OR058 9.51 Lane Lost Creek, Hwy 18 170900010702 Willamette Middle Fork Willamette 248 07861B IS005 169.58 Lane Martin Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900020305 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 249 08180N IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.19 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 250 08178N IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.69 170900040706 Willamette Mckenzie 251 08180S IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.19 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 252 08178S IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.69 170900040706 Willamette Mckenzie 253 08175N IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 NB 170900040706 Willamette Mckenzie 254 08175S IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 SB 170900040706 Willamette Mckenzie 255 08171N IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900030206 Willamette Upper Willamette 256 08171S IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900030206 Willamette Upper Willamette 257 07871A IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 NB 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 258 07871B IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 SB 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 259 07833B IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 NB (Cottage Grove) 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 260 07833A IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 SB (Cottage Grove) 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 

4 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Watershed Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 HUC Number7 Basin (3rd Field HUC)7 Subbasin (4th Field HUC)7 

261 07829A IS005 175.40 Lane Row River, Hwy 1 NB 170900020105 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 262 07825 IS005 176.76 Lane Saginaw Rosd over Hwy 1 170900020501 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 263 08446 OR126 26.48 Lane Siuslaw River, Hwy 62 171002060108 Northern Oregon Coastal Siuslaw 264 04062 40.43 Lane South Forrk Siuslaw River, Hwy 200 171002060101 Northern Oregon Coastal Siuslaw 265 07743A IS005 180.49 Lane Tunnel Mill Race, Hwy 1 SB 170900020504 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 266 08554 OR126 27.66 Lane Wildcat Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 27.66 171002060302 Northern Oregon Coastal Siuslaw 267 08329 IS005 192.75 Lane Willamette River & Hwy 15 & SPRR, Hwy 1 & Hwy 1W 170900030201 Willamette Upper Willamette 268 05287B OR058 2.71 Lane Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 170900020505 Willamette Coast Fork Willamette 269 07894 OR058 33.24 Lane Willamette River, Hwy 18 (Barnard) 170900010505 Willamette Middle Fork Willamette 270 07530 US020 3.23 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 3.23 171002040302 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 271 07532 US020 4.19 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.19 171002040302 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 272 07533 US020 4.47 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.47 171002040302 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 273 00922A US101 114.88 Lincoln Devils Lake Outlet, Hwy 9 (D River) 171002040804 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 274 00925A US101 119.27 Lincoln Drift Creek, Hwy 9 171002040707 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 275 00654 US020 21.01 Lincoln Hayes Creek, Hwy 33 171002040104 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 276 13491 OR018 0.04 Lincoln Hwy 39 over Hwy 9 171002040803 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 277 07534 US020 5.36 Lincoln Little Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 171002040302 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 278 04192 OR018 6.23 Lincoln Salmon River, Hwy 39 171002040802 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 279 00924A US101 118.17 Lincoln Schooner Creek, Hwy 9 171002040708 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 280 00683 US020 23.38 Lincoln Yaquina River, Hwy 33 171002040102 Northern Oregon Coastal Siletz/Yaquina 281 08232N IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900030306 Willamette Upper Willamette 282 08232S IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900030306 Willamette Upper Willamette 283 08235N IS005 220.04 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 220.04 170900030305 Willamette Upper Willamette 284 08235S IS005 220.06 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 220.04 170900030305 Willamette Upper Willamette 285 09413 US020 5.85 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.85 170900030403 Willamette Upper Willamette 286 09414 US020 5.91 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.91 170900030403 Willamette Upper Willamette 287 08236N IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 NB 170900030307 Willamette Upper Willamette 288 08236S IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 SB 170900030307 Willamette Upper Willamette 289 12205B US020 5.51 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 210 170900030403 Willamette Upper Willamette 290 08241N IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900030307 Willamette Upper Willamette 291 08241S IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900030307 Willamette Upper Willamette 292 08222N IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 293 08222S IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 294 08226N IS005 230.83 Linn Hwy 1 NB over A&E (Tallman Branch) 170900030402 Willamette Upper Willamette 295 08221B IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 296 08221A IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 297 08218A IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Murder Creek Rd 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 298 08221D IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 299 08221C IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 300 08218B IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Murder Creek Rd 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 301 08226S IS005 230.86 Linn Hwy 1 SB over SPRR (Tallman Branch) 170900030402 Willamette Upper Willamette 302 08223 US020 233.23 Linn Hwy 16 over Hwy 1 & Conns 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 303 08252 OR228 216.57 Linn Hwy 212 over Hwy 1 170900030307 Willamette Upper Willamette 304 08221E OR099E 234.23 Linn Hwy 58 NB Conn to Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (N Albany In 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 305 06806 OR022 65.48 Linn Minto Creek, Hwy 162 at MP 65.48 170900050104 Willamette North Santiam 306 08217 IS005 235.71 Linn Murder Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900030404 Willamette Upper Willamette 307 08227N IS005 230.45 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900030402 Willamette Upper Willamette 308 08227S IS005 230.48 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900030402 Willamette Upper Willamette 309 08124 IS005 240.42 Linn Santiam Oflow No 4, Hwy 1 at MP 240.42 170900050604 Willamette North Santiam 310 01706 US020 52.44 Linn Soda Fork, Hwy 16 170900060603 Willamette South Santiam 311 08239N IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 NB 170900030307 Willamette Upper Willamette 312 08239S IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 SB 170900030307 Willamette Upper Willamette 313 08233N IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 NB 170900030305 Willamette Upper Willamette 314 08233S IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 SB 170900030305 Willamette Upper Willamette 315 05225A US095 10.98 Malheur Cow Creek, Hwy 456 170501080602 Middle Snake/Boise Jordan 316 07971 IS084 372.18 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over Doman Road 170501150201 Middle Snake/Boise Middle Snake/Payette 317 08397E IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) 170501150104 Middle Snake/Boise Middle Snake/Payette 318 08397W IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 WB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) 170501150104 Middle Snake/Boise Middle Snake/Payette 319 02585A OR019 265.33 Malheur Kern Creek, Hwy 5 170501190602 Middle Snake/Boise Willow 320 02586A OR019 266.39 Malheur Lancaster Creek, Hwy 5 170501190602 Middle Snake/Boise Willow 321 08107E IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 EB 170501150104 Middle Snake/Boise Middle Snake/Payette 322 08107W IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 WB 170501150104 Middle Snake/Boise Middle Snake/Payette 323 07970 IS084 371.45 Malheur Stanton Blvd over Hwy 6 170501150201 Middle Snake/Boise Middle Snake/Payette 324 08076 OR022 8.88 Marion Beaver Creek, Hwy 162 EB at MP E8.88 170900070102 Willamette Middle Willamette 325 05978 OR022 54.09 Marion Boulder Creek, Hwy 162 170900050107 Willamette North Santiam 

5 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Watershed Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 HUC Number7 Basin (3rd Field HUC)7 Subbasin (4th Field HUC)7 

326 07017 OR022 49.84 Marion Breitenbush River, Hwy 162 170900050303 Willamette North Santiam 327 07855E IS005 259.49 Marion Chemawa Rd NE Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) 170900070302 Willamette Middle Willamette 328 07538A IS005 251.34 Marion Hwy 1 over Boone Rd SE 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 329 07441A IS005 251.79 Marion Hwy 1 over Marietta St SE 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 330 07522A IS005 252.22 Marion Hwy 1 over Turner Rd SE 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 331 07440A IS005 252.13 Marion Hwy 1 over UPRR Main Line 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 332 07524B IS005 249.38 Marion Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1E NB (Commercial St SE) 170900070103 Willamette Middle Willamette 333 08069 OR022 13.23 Marion Hwy 162 over Cascade Hwy SE 170900070101 Willamette Middle Willamette 334 08071 OR022 4.03 Marion Hwy 162 over Deer Park Rd SE 170900090108 Willamette Molalla/Pudding 335 08073 OR022 5.44 Marion Hwy 162 over Joseph St SE 170900090108 Willamette Molalla/Pudding 336 07941 OR099E 244.68 Marion Hwy 164 over Hwy 1 170900070205 Willamette Middle Willamette 337 07347 OR022 23.28 Marion Little North Fork Santiam River, Hwy 162 170900050506 Willamette North Santiam 338 07439 IS005 252.54 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 NB 170900070104 Willamette Middle Willamette 339 07439A IS005 252.57 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 SB 170900070104 Willamette Middle Willamette 340 08070 OR022 13.58 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 162 170900070101 Willamette Middle Willamette 341 07964 OR022 40.33 Marion Partial Viaduct, Hwy 162 at MP 40.33 170900050304 Willamette North Santiam 342 08121 IS005 241.35 Marion Santiam Oflow No 2, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.35 170900050604 Willamette North Santiam 343 08122 IS005 241.12 Marion Santiam Oflow No 3, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.12 170900050604 Willamette North Santiam 344 07295 OR022 47.69 Marion Tumble Creek, Hwy 162 170900050303 Willamette North Santiam 345 08931E IS084 167.95 Morrow Hwy 6 EB over Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 170701010604 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Lake Wallu346 07333 IS005 308.38 Multnomah Columbia River & N Hayden Island Dr, Hwy 1 SB (Interstate) 170800010901 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 347 08195 IS005 299.23 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Hwy 3 SB (SW Hood Ave) 170900120302 Willamette Lower Willamette 348 04516A IS005 307.70 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Jantzen Pedestrian Tunnel 170900120301 Willamette Lower Willamette 349 08203B IS005 296.04 Multnomah Hwy 1 over SW 26th Ave 170900120104 Willamette Lower Willamette 350 08205R OR099W 6.21 Multnomah Hwy 1W SB Ramp to Hwy 1 SB 170900120104 Willamette Lower Willamette 351 06945 IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 170800010803 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 352 02176A IS084 35.12 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 100 & UPRR (OWR & NRR) (Dodson) 170800010702 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 353 08588B IS084 0.52 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1 (Banfield Intchg) 170900120302 Willamette Lower Willamette 354 06945A IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 170800010803 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 355 09254D US026 73.94 Multnomah Hwy 47 EB Conn to SW Market St over Hwy 61 170900120302 Willamette Lower Willamette 356 02194B IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 EB 170800010701 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 357 02194A IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 WB 170800010701 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 358 13514E IS084 7.65 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & # 170900120301 Willamette Lower Willamette 359 02163A IS084 6.73 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 EB 170900120301 Willamette Lower Willamette 360 06875 IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 EB 170800010803 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 361 06875A IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 WB 170800010803 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 362 08197 IS005 298.24 Multnomah SW Iowa Street Viaduct, Hwy 1 170900120302 Willamette Lower Willamette 363 02062B IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 EB 170800010701 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 364 02062A IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 WB 170800010701 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia/Sandy 365 02001 OR022 8.38 Polk \Salt Creek, Hwy 30 at MP 8.38 170900080501 Willamette Yamhill 366 02015 OR022 3.97 Polk Gooseneck Creek, Hwy 30 170900080302 Willamette Yamhill 367 08889 OR022 24.30 Polk Hwy 30 over Hwy 150 at MP 24.30 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 368 07366 OR022 25.62 Polk Hwy 30 WB over Hwy 150 Conn 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 369 01756A OR022 4.71 Polk Mill Creek, Hwy 30 170900080302 Willamette Yamhill 370 04573 OR018 18.78 Polk Rogue River, Hwy 39 170900080103 Willamette Yamhill 371 02081 OR022 0.03 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 30 (Wallace) 170900080106 Willamette Yamhill 372 01612A OR018 21.55 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 21.55 170900080105 Willamette Yamhill 373 00745 OR018 23.77 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 23.77 170900080106 Willamette Yamhill 374 07253R OR022 25.85 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 Conn to Hwy 150 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 375 00123K OR022 25.88 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 EB 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 376 07253B OR022 25.91 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 WB & Hwy 72 Conn (Marion St) 170900070301 Willamette Middle Willamette 377 08893 US097 2.37 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.37 170701050101 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 378 08894 US097 2.48 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.48 170701050101 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 379 02472 OR006 32.05 Tillamook Devils Lake Fork Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 32.05 171002030501 Northern Oregon Coastal Wilson/Trask/Nestucca 380 01872A OR006 18.04 Tillamook Jordon Creek, Hwy 37 171002030505 Northern Oregon Coastal Wilson/Trask/Nestucca 381 01869A OR006 11.80 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 11.80 171002030508 Northern Oregon Coastal Wilson/Trask/Nestucca 382 01868 OR006 5.78 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 5.78 (Mills) 171002030508 Northern Oregon Coastal Wilson/Trask/Nestucca 383 04728 US395 60.93 Umatilla Camas Creek, Hwy 28 170702020609 John Day North Fork John Day 384 02561 US395 15.27 Umatilla E Fork Birch Creek, Hwy 28 (Pilot Rock) 170701030603 Middle Columbia Umatilla 385 09314 US395 188.84 Umatilla Hwy 54 over Hwy 6 (Stanfield Jct Intchg) 170701030706 Middle Columbia Umatilla 386 08498E IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) 170701030201 Middle Columbia Umatilla 

387 16454 IS084 179.45 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Hwy 70 EB 170701031306 Middle Columbia Umatilla 388 08498W IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) 170701030201 Middle Columbia Umatilla 389 16453 IS084 179.43 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Hwy 70 EB 170701031306 Middle Columbia Umatilla 390 09636 US395 207.47 Umatilla Hwy 67 over Hwy 6 (W Pendleton Intchg) 170701030307 Middle Columbia Umatilla 

6 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Watershed Data

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 HUC Number7 Basin (3rd Field HUC)7 Subbasin (4th Field HUC)7 

391 08050 US395 5.77 Umatilla McKay Creek, Hwy 28 170701030508 Middle Columbia Umatilla 392 04729 US395 63.81 Umatilla N Fork John Day River, Hwy 28 (Dale) 170702020703 John Day North Fork John Day 393 08431A OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 EB (Oro Dell) 170601040404 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 394 08431 OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 WB (Oro Dell) 170601040404 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 395 08780 OR082 17.88 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR, Hwy 10 (Indian Creek) 170601040906 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 396 00800A OR082 19.20 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 19.20 (South Elgin) 170601040906 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 397 04821A OR082 2.64 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 2.64 (Island City) 170601040405 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 398 01996 OR082 20.62 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 20.62 (Northeast Elgin) 170601041103 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 399 04841A OR244 46.75 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 341 (Hilgard) 170601040307 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 400 08502 OR244 253.03 Union Hwy 341 over Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) 170601040307 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 401 07292B IS084 285.84 Union Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (North Powder) 170502030505 Middle Snake/Powder Powder River 402 00449A IS084 248.55 Union Hwy 6 over Emigrant Hill Frtg Rd & UPRR (Glover) 170601040401 Lower Snake Upper Grande Ronde River 403 05192 OR082 31.15 Union Minam Viaduct, Hwy 10 170601050507 Lower Snake Wallowa River 404 07573 OR082 54.11 Wallowa Lostine River, Hwy 10 170601050204 Lower Snake Wallowa River 405 01038A OR082 33.65 Wallowa Wallowa River, Hwy 10 (Minam) 170601050507 Lower Snake Wallowa River 406 02184 OR082 45.83 Wallowa Wallowa River,Hwy 10 (Bear Creek) 170601050603 Lower Snake Wallowa River 407 00308A IS084 88.04 Wasco Fifteen Mile Creek, Hwy 2 170701050206 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 408 08276 IS084 82.62 Wasco Hwy 2 over Hostetler Way Conn 170701050406 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 409 07771 IS084 88.83 Wasco Hwy 2 over The Dalles Dam Access Conn 170701050404 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 410 07397 IS084 69.85 Wasco Mosier Conn over UPRR (OWR & NRR) 170701050502 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 411 07393 IS084 70.10 Wasco Mosier Creek, Hwy 2 170701050503 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 412 07626A IS084 69.65 Wasco Mosier WB Conn over Hwy 2 170701050503 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 413 07392 IS084 69.62 Wasco Rock Creek, Hwy 2 170701050502 Middle Columbia Middle Columbia/Hood 414 02366 US026 54.55 Washington E Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 WB 170900100105 Willamette Tualatin 415 02285 US026 70.83 Washington Hwy 47 over Hwy 29 (SW Canyon Rd) WB, (Sylvan) 170900100503 Willamette Tualatin 416 02367 US026 55.73 Washington Hwy 47 WB over P&W (Vadis) 170900100105 Willamette Tualatin 417 02365 US026 57.85 Washington McKay Creek, Hwy 47 WB 170900100107 Willamette Tualatin 418 02364A US026 37.88 Washington Nehalem River, Hwy 47 171002020101 Northern Oregon Coastal Nehalem 419 02672 US026 45.31 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 45.31 170900100101 Willamette Tualatin 420 02673 US026 46.30 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 46.30 170900100101 Willamette Tualatin 421 02362A US026 50.22 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 50.22 170900100102 Willamette Tualatin 422 02029 US026 37.38 Washington Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 171002020102 Northern Oregon Coastal Nehalem 423 02236A OR019 80.92 Wheeler Alder Creek, Hwy 5 170702040201 John Day Lower John Day 424 07372 OR126 62.54 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 62.54 170702040303 John Day Lower John Day 425 07490 OR126 65.63 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.63 170702040303 John Day Lower John Day 426 07491 OR126 65.85 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.85 170702040303 John Day Lower John Day 427 02233A OR019 85.17 Wheeler Harper Creek, Hwy 5 170702040109 John Day Lower John Day 428 04979A OR019 81.85 Wheeler Juniper Creek, Hwy 5 170702040109 John Day Lower John Day 429 04981A OR019 84.53 Wheeler Mathas Creek, Hwy 5 170702040109 John Day Lower John Day 430 02235 OR019 79.03 Wheeler Mule Shoe Creek, Hwy 5 170702040201 John Day Lower John Day 

NOTES

1 General sequence number2 ODOT bridge identification number3 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. Route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)4 Milepost where bridge is located5 County where bridge is located6 Description of feature that bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation7 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) designation from USDA Bureau of Land Management Regional Ecosystems Office

7 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

1 01786A IS084 340.58 Baker Burnt River (Dixie Creek), Hwy 6 2 08423E IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Alder Creek Rd 3 08302E IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 4 09354 IS084 342.91 Baker Hwy 6 over Lime Intchg Conn 5 08423W IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Alder Creek Rd 6 08302W IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) 7 07316 OR007 41.19 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 41.66 (Rancheria) 8 07431 OR007 42.31 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 42.77 (Salisbury) 9 07987A IS084 325.34 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 EB 

10 07987 IS084 325.31 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 WB 11 08616 US020 55.86 Benton Hwy 33 EB over Hwy 1W SB 1 

12 01205A US020 45.68 Benton Hwy 33 over Harris Rd & W&P (Wren Conn) 1 13 08617 US020 55.73 Benton Hwy 33 over W&P 1 

14 00866B US020 39.34 Benton Marys River & W&P, Hwy 33 at MP 39.34 1 15 01075A US020 48.88 Benton Marys River, Hwy 33 at MP 48.88 (Noon) 1 16 00665B US026 33.24 Clackamas Alder Creek, Hwy 26 1 1 1 17 09870 IS005 282.43 Clackamas Hwy 1 Conn #1 over Hwy 51 NB 1 18 07794A IS005 282.25 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB 1 19 07794B IS005 282.28 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB 1 20 07867 OR213 5.20 Clackamas Hwy 171 WB over UPRR Mainline 1 3 1 1 21 01439A OR213 8.13 Clackamas Rock Creek, Hwy 171 WB 1 1 1 22 00689B US026 34.09 Clackamas Wildcat Creek, Hwy 26 1 1 1 23 03026A US026 46.04 Clackamas Zig Zag River, Hwy 26 at MP 46.02 1 1 1 24 07417 US030 82.52 Clatsop Big Creek, Hwy 2W 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 25 01832 US026 17.37 Clatsop E Fork Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 126 00921 US030 77.25 Clatsop Gnat Creek, Hwy 2W 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 27 03092A US026 3.26 Clatsop Johnson Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 3.26 128 02164 US026 24.23 Clatsop N Fork Quartz Creek, Hwy 47 129 02601 US026 4.40 Clatsop Necanicum River, Hwy 47 at MP 4.40 (Black) 130 02165 US026 21.73 Clatsop Nehalem River & Hwy 103, Hwy 47 131 03091A US026 2.24 Clatsop Volmer Creek, Hwy 47 132 01831 US026 16.28 Clatsop West Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 133 07519 IS084 61.21 Columbia Clatskanie River, Hwy 2W 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 34 07715 IS084 60.82 Columbia Hwy 2W over Swedetown County Rd 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 35 09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis & Clark Br Conn over Hwy 2W 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 36 07722 IS084 55.29 Columbia Lost Creek, Hwy 2W 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 37 02027A US026 34.93 Columbia N Fork Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 138 00338A IS084 36.47 Columbia Tide Creek, Hwy 2W 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 39 03173A OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 EB 140 03173B OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 WB 141 03212A OR042 26.72 Coos Endicot Creek, Hwy 35 142 03172A OR042 4.14 Coos Hwy 35 over COR 143 08843 OR042 23.48 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 242 144 08281 OR042 0.07 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 9 NB 145 01950 US101 234.76 Coos Hwy 9 over COR (North Bend) 146 08842 OR042 23.37 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 23.37 147 08830 OR042 24.32 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 24.32 148 08875 OR042 25.52 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.52 149 08876 OR042 25.67 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.67 150 08936 OR042 30.10 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.10 151 08935 OR042 30.59 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.59 152 02553 OR126 34.10 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 33.99 53 07649 OR126 37.44 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 37.44 54 02201 OR126 19.40 Crook Ochoco Creek, Hwy 41 55 07768 US097 113.94 Deschutes Hwy 4 over OTRR (Terrebonne) 56 08888 US097 136.46 Deschutes North Unit Canal & Swalley Canal, Hwy 4 57 01675B US097 129.72 Deschutes Pilot Butte Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 129.72 58 07469B IS005 163.43 Douglas Bear Creek, Hwy 1 at MP 163.43 159 07563A IS005 138.71 Douglas Calapooya Creek, Hwy 1 160 07572A IS005 156.49 Douglas Curtis Creek, Hwy 1 161 07632 IS005 129.22 Douglas Del Rio Rd over Hwy 1 (Winchester) 162 07567B IS005 156.03 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 1 NB 163 01614 OR099 36.39 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 36.39 1

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

1 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

64 01601 OR099 38.76 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 38.76 165 01465 OR099 39.64 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.64 166 01406 OR099 39.97 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.97 167 07667 IS005 125.08 Douglas Garden Valley Road over Hwy 1 168 01424 OR099 47.50 Douglas Hardscrabble Creek, Hwy 45 169 07364A IS005 98.28 Douglas Hwy 1 & Conn over 5th St (Canyonville) 170 07642 IS005 150.36 Douglas Hwy 1 Conn (Yoncalla Jct ) over Hwy 1 171 07640 IS005 150.76 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over COR (Yoncalla) 172 08028N IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Irwin Access Conn 173 07627B IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Rogers Rd Conn 174 07804N IS005 120.03 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Speedway Rd 175 07631 IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over SPRR & County Rd 176 07900A IS005 110.35 Douglas Hwy 1 over Boomer Hill Rd Conn #2 177 07569A IS005 162.06 Douglas Hwy 1 over Buck Creek Rd 178 07584A IS005 164.45 Douglas Hwy 1 over Comstock Cemetery Rd 2 179 07952A IS005 107.52 Douglas Hwy 1 over COR (Weaver) 180 07636A IS005 154.54 Douglas Hwy 1 over Elkhead Rd 181 07711A IS005 121.69 Douglas Hwy 1 over McLain Ave (Garbage Dump Rd) 182 07950 IS005 108.31 Douglas Hwy 1 over Myrtle Creek Conn (Myrtle Creek Intchg) 183 07670A IS005 123.01 Douglas Hwy 1 over Portland Ave (Fairgrounds Intchg) 184 07644A IS005 148.21 Douglas Hwy 1 over Rice Hill Frtg Rd 185 09352A IS005 80.80 Douglas Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Conn (Glendale Intchg) 186 07839 IS005 113.44 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Clarks Branch Rd Conn #2 187 07640A IS005 150.79 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over COR (Yoncalla) 188 08028S IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Irwin Access Conn 189 07627A IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Rogers Rd Conn 190 07631A IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & County Rd 191 07806 OR042 119.99 Douglas Hwy 35 over Hwy 1 192 00805C OR042 72.52 Douglas Lower Looking Glass Creek, Hwy 35 193 00559B OR042 53.17 Douglas Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 53.17 194 07663C IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 NB (Winchester) 195 07663A IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 SB (Winchester) 196 02496 OR138 17.95 Douglas North Umpqua River, Hwy 73 at MP 17.86 (Lone Rock) 197 00587C OR042 67.61 Douglas Olalla Creek, Hwy 35 (Upper Lookingglass) 198 01697 OR099 28.28 Douglas Paradise Creek, Hwy 45 199 08024 IS005 104.05 Douglas Riddle Rd (Pruner Rd) over Hwy 1 1

100 07835 IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 NB 1101 07835A IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 SB 1102 07904 OR138 22.30 Douglas Rock Creek, Hwy 73 1103 16861 OR138 56.83 Douglas Rough Creek, Hwy 73 (Penstock) 2104 07713A IS005 120.57 Douglas S Umpqua River & COPRR, Hwy 1 SB (Shady) 1105 07931N IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 NB (Missouri Bottom) 1106 07931S IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Missouri Bottom) 1107 07404 IS005 124.54 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Vets) 1108 01923 OR042 74.47 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 35 EB (Winston) 1109 00588C OR042 63.97 Douglas Tenmile Creek, Hwy 35 1110 18613 IS005 107.52 Douglas 1111 03553A US395 110.20 Grant Beech Creek, Hwy 28 at MP 110.20 112 03558A US395 7.25 Grant Canyon Creek, Hwy 48 113 02466 OR019 174.96 Grant Dixie Creek, Hwy 5 (Prairie City) 114 06205 US395 99.13 Grant Fox Creek, Hwy 28 115 02463 OR019 170.49 Grant Indian Creek, Hwy 5 116 07696 OR019 155.75 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Coles) 117 02655 OR019 119.56 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Goose Rock) 118 02734A OR019 124.12 Grant Rock Creek, Hwy 5 (Picture Gorge) 119 06204 US395 98.31 Grant Smith Creek, Hwy 28 120 01962A US020 174.57 Harney Middle Fork Malheur River, Hwy 7 121 03506A US020 105.62 Harney Miller Creek, Hwy 7122 03522A OR078 0.69 Harney Silvies Slough, Hwy 442 at MP 0.69123 01961A US020 167.64 Harney Stinkingwater Creek, Hwy 7 124 03596 US395 42.95 Harney Trout Creek Oflow, Hwy 48 at MP 42.95125 07403A IS084 46.10 Hood River Herman Creek, Hwy 2 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 126 08605 IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 

2 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

127 07496A IS084 63.02 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 128 08610 IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 129 08662 IS084 63.41 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over OWR & NRR 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 130 07458 IS084 63.98 Hood River Hwy 2 Frontage Rd (2nd St) over OWR & NRR (UPRR) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 131 08604 IS084 50.99 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn (Wyeth Intchg) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 132 07398 IS084 64.44 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn 2 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 133 08534 IS084 56.04 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn Viento Intchg 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 134 08623 IS084 47.31 Hood River Hwy 2 over Herman Creek Conn 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 135 08605W IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 136 08610W IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 137 08543 IS005 31.30 Jackson Bear Creek & Table Rock Rd, Hwy 1 at MP 31.30 1138 08742N IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 NB at MP 14.96 1139 08742S IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 14.96 1140 08542 IS005 32.75 Jackson Central Point Rd Conn #2 (East Pine St) over Hwy 1 1141 08375 IS005 49.46 Jackson Creek & County Rd + COPRR, Hwy 1 at MP 49.46 1142 08743 IS005 14.77 Jackson E Main St over Hwy 1 1143 08682 IS005 24.40 Jackson Fern Valley Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 1144 07777B IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over COR (Seven Oaks) 1145 08738N IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Eagle Mill Rd 1146 08383N IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 60 1147 07773A IS005 38.73 Jackson Hwy 1 over Foley Lane Frontage Rd 1148 09184 IS005 10.34 Jackson Hwy 1 over Neil Creek Rd 1149 07777 IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over COR (Seven Oaks) 1150 08738S IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Eagle Mill Rd 1151 08383S IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 60 1152 08745 OR066 14.17 Jackson Hwy 21 over Hwy 1 1153 07601B OR099 40.83 Jackson Hwy 271 Spur over Hwy 1 (S Gold Hill) 1154 08382 OR099 43.77 Jackson Hwy 60 over Hwy 1 (Rocky Point) 1155 08749 OR099 11.89 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (S Ashland Intchg) 1156 08539 OR099 35.62 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (Seven Oaks Intchg) 1157 08381N IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 NB (Homestead) 1158 08381S IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 SB (Homestead) 1159 03461 OR230 5.16 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 233160 08540A IS005 33.85 Jackson Upton Rd over Hwy 1 1161 08693 IS005 19.17 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #1 over Hwy 1 (N Ashland Intchg) 1162 08681 IS005 21.21 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 1163 02269 US026 116.57 Jefferson Hwy 53 over OTRR 164 08600 US097 90.11 Jefferson Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 90.11 165 00815A US097 75.04 Jefferson Trout Creek, Hwy 4 166 00971A US097 92.11 Jefferson Willow Creek, Hwy 4 NB 167 01074A US199 40.24 Josephine Elk Creek, Hwy 25 1168 06493A IS005 71.72 Josephine Grave Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1169 09439 IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 NB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd 1170 08335N IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 NB over Foothill Blvd 1171 08339 IS005 57.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Beacon Dr 1172 08333 IS005 55.40 Josephine Hwy 1 over Foothill Blvd 1173 08501 IS005 58.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 NB 1174 08341 IS005 55.78 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 Spur 1175 09339 IS005 76.03 Josephine Hwy 1 over S Wolf Creek Conn 1176 08500 IS005 58.18 Josephine Hwy 1 over Scoville Rd 1177 09439A IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd 1178 08335S IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Foothill Blvd 1179 09440 IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd 1180 09440A IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd 1181 08094N IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1182 08094S IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1183 08018N IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 NB 1184 08018S IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 SB 1185 01107A US199 34.28 Josephine Rough and Ready Creek, Hwy 25 1186 01108A US199 32.10 Josephine W Fork Illinois River, Hwy 25 at MP 32.10 1187 07301 US097 265.65 Klamath Algoma Log Pond, Hwy 4 188 07302 US097 263.11 Klamath Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 189 01825 OR058 73.40 Klamath Crescent Creek, Hwy 18 

3 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

190 07984 OR058 86.30 Klamath Hwy 18 WB over Hwy 4 SB 191 07454 US097 183.16 Klamath Hwy 4 over Crescent Conn 192 09692 US097 275.75 Klamath Hwy 4 over Green Springs Dr (Old Alignment) & BNRR 193 06886 US097 247.54 Klamath Hwy 4 over Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) 194 08346 US097 274.73 Klamath Hwy 4 over Oxing California Ave (Klamath Falls) 195 07929 US097 202.09 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR 196 08352 US097 272.99 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) 197 08347A US097 275.38 Klamath Link River, Hwy 4 NB Conn 198 01826 OR058 67.95 Klamath Odell Creek, Hwy 18 199 06884 US097 243.98 Klamath Spring Creek, Hwy 4 200 08345 US097 273.71 Klamath USBR Canal, Hwy 4 201 08510 US097 273.68 Klamath USBR Canal, Nevada Ave Conn to Hwy 4 202 03913 OR140 102.40 Lake Cattlepass, Hwy 19 at MP 102.40203 03915 OR140 126.92 Lake Crooked Creek, Hwy 19 at MP 126.92204 04041 6.60 Lane Bear Creek, Hwy 200 1 

205 01323A OR126B 40.70 Lane Blue River Bridge, Hwy 15 1 

206 07793A IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 

207 07793B IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 

208 07736A IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 NB 1 

209 07736C IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 SB 1 

210 07756A IS005 179.64 Lane Coast Fork Relief Opening, Hwy 1 SB 1 211 05285A OR058 1.96 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 1 212 07809A IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB 1 2 213 07745A IS005 179.99 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB 1 214 07809B IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 SB 1 2 215 05286 OR058 2.46 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 18 1 216 07828B IS005 175.84 Lane Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 175.84 1 

217 01516 OR126B 13.06 Lane Eugene Water Board Canal, Hwy 15 at MP 13.06 (Walterville) 1 218 01324A OR126B 26.52 Lane Gate Creek, Hwy 15 (Vida) 1 

219 07757B IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 

220 07757A IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 

221 07188 OR058 55.98 Lane Half Viaduct, Hwy 18 at MP 55.98 222 04056 29.78 Lane Hayes Creek, Hwy 200 1 

223 07740C IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 

224 07740A IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 

225 07832 IS005 174.75 Lane Hwy 1 Conn over COR 1 

226 07732B IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen Grade) 1 227 07810B IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Latham Rd 1 2 

228 07863A IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Row River Rd 1 

229 08182N IS005 195.78 Lane Hwy 1 NB over UPRR & Game Farm Rd 1 230 07864A IS005 173.84 Lane Hwy 1 over 16th Street (Landess Rd) 1 231 06836A IS005 188.91 Lane Hwy 1 over Franklin Blvd & SPRR (Goshen) 1 232 07739A IS005 182.83 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 222 (Creswell) 1 233 08870 IS005 190.76 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 225 Conn (McVay Access) 1 234 07865A IS005 173.40 Lane Hwy 1 over Taylor Ave 1 

235 07732A IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 18 & Conn 1 236 07810A IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Latham Rd 1 2 

237 07830 IS005 174.41 Lane Hwy 1 SB over OP&ERR 1 

238 07863 IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Row River Rd 1 

239 08182S IS005 195.80 Lane Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & Game Farm Rd 1 240 07171 OR058 37.09 Lane Hwy 18 over Private Logging Road 241 07110 OR058 8.08 Lane Hwy 18 over UPRR (Pleasant Hill) 1 242 08445 IS005 190.50 Lane Hwy 225 over Hwy 1 1 

243 02262 OR126 0.60 Lane Hwy 69 over COR (Oakhill) 1 

244 09587 OR126 195.45 Lane Hwy 69 over Hwy 1 1 

245 08370 OR126 18.47 Lane Knowles Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 18.47 1246 07860 IS005 172.24 Lane London Rd over Hwy 1 1 

247 06768 OR058 9.51 Lane Lost Creek, Hwy 18 1 

248 07861B IS005 169.58 Lane Martin Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 2 

249 08180N IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.19 1 250 08178N IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.69 1 251 08180S IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.19 1 252 08178S IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.69 1 

4 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

253 08175N IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 NB 1 254 08175S IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 SB 1 255 08171N IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 

256 08171S IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 

257 07871A IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 NB 1 

258 07871B IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 SB 1 

259 07833B IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 NB (Cottage Grove) 1 260 07833A IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 SB (Cottage Grove) 1 261 07829A IS005 175.40 Lane Row River, Hwy 1 NB 1 

262 07825 IS005 176.76 Lane Saginaw Rosd over Hwy 1 1 

263 08446 OR126 26.48 Lane Siuslaw River, Hwy 62 1264 04062 40.43 Lane South Forrk Siuslaw River, Hwy 200 1265 07743A IS005 180.49 Lane Tunnel Mill Race, Hwy 1 SB 1 

266 08554 OR126 27.66 Lane Wildcat Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 27.66 1267 08329 IS005 192.75 Lane Willamette River & Hwy 15 & SPRR, Hwy 1 & Hwy 1W 1 268 05287B OR058 2.71 Lane Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 1 269 07894 OR058 33.24 Lane Willamette River, Hwy 18 (Barnard) 270 07530 US020 3.23 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 3.23 1271 07532 US020 4.19 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.19 1272 07533 US020 4.47 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.47 1273 00922A US101 114.88 Lincoln Devils Lake Outlet, Hwy 9 (D River) 1274 00925A US101 119.27 Lincoln Drift Creek, Hwy 9 1275 00654 US020 21.01 Lincoln Hayes Creek, Hwy 33 1276 13491 OR018 0.04 Lincoln Hwy 39 over Hwy 9 1277 07534 US020 5.36 Lincoln Little Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 1278 04192 OR018 6.23 Lincoln Salmon River, Hwy 39 1279 00924A US101 118.17 Lincoln Schooner Creek, Hwy 9 1280 00683 US020 23.38 Lincoln Yaquina River, Hwy 33 1281 08232N IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 282 08232S IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 283 08235N IS005 220.04 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 220.04 1 284 08235S IS005 220.06 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 220.04 1 285 09413 US020 5.85 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.85 1 286 09414 US020 5.91 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.91 1 287 08236N IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 NB 1 288 08236S IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 SB 1 289 12205B US020 5.51 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 210 1 290 08241N IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 291 08241S IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 292 08222N IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 293 08222S IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 294 08226N IS005 230.83 Linn Hwy 1 NB over A&E (Tallman Branch) 1 295 08221B IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) 1 296 08221A IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) 1 297 08218A IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Murder Creek Rd 1 298 08221D IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) 1 299 08221C IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) 1 300 08218B IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Murder Creek Rd 1 301 08226S IS005 230.86 Linn Hwy 1 SB over SPRR (Tallman Branch) 1 302 08223 US020 233.23 Linn Hwy 16 over Hwy 1 & Conns 1 303 08252 OR228 216.57 Linn Hwy 212 over Hwy 1 1 304 08221E OR099E 234.23 Linn Hwy 58 NB Conn to Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (N Albany In 1 305 06806 OR022 65.48 Linn Minto Creek, Hwy 162 at MP 65.48 306 08217 IS005 235.71 Linn Murder Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 307 08227N IS005 230.45 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 308 08227S IS005 230.48 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 309 08124 IS005 240.42 Linn Santiam Oflow No 4, Hwy 1 at MP 240.42 1 310 01706 US020 52.44 Linn Soda Fork, Hwy 16 1 311 08239N IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 NB 1 312 08239S IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 SB 1 313 08233N IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 NB 1 314 08233S IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 SB 1 

315 05225A US095 10.98 Malheur Cow Creek, Hwy 456

5 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

316 07971 IS084 372.18 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over Doman Road 317 08397E IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) 318 08397W IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 WB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) 319 02585A OR019 265.33 Malheur Kern Creek, Hwy 5 320 02586A OR019 266.39 Malheur Lancaster Creek, Hwy 5 321 08107E IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 EB 322 08107W IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 WB 323 07970 IS084 371.45 Malheur Stanton Blvd over Hwy 6 324 08076 OR022 8.88 Marion Beaver Creek, Hwy 162 EB at MP E8.88 1 325 05978 OR022 54.09 Marion Boulder Creek, Hwy 162 326 07017 OR022 49.84 Marion Breitenbush River, Hwy 162 327 07855E IS005 259.49 Marion Chemawa Rd NE Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) 1 328 07538A IS005 251.34 Marion Hwy 1 over Boone Rd SE 1 329 07441A IS005 251.79 Marion Hwy 1 over Marietta St SE 1 330 07522A IS005 252.22 Marion Hwy 1 over Turner Rd SE 1 331 07440A IS005 252.13 Marion Hwy 1 over UPRR Main Line 1 332 07524B IS005 249.38 Marion Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1E NB (Commercial St SE) 1 333 08069 OR022 13.23 Marion Hwy 162 over Cascade Hwy SE 1 334 08071 OR022 4.03 Marion Hwy 162 over Deer Park Rd SE 1 335 08073 OR022 5.44 Marion Hwy 162 over Joseph St SE 1 336 07941 OR099E 244.68 Marion Hwy 164 over Hwy 1 1 337 07347 OR022 23.28 Marion Little North Fork Santiam River, Hwy 162 1 338 07439 IS005 252.54 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 NB 1 339 07439A IS005 252.57 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 SB 1 340 08070 OR022 13.58 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 162 1 341 07964 OR022 40.33 Marion Partial Viaduct, Hwy 162 at MP 40.33 2 342 08121 IS005 241.35 Marion Santiam Oflow No 2, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.35 1 343 08122 IS005 241.12 Marion Santiam Oflow No 3, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.12 1 344 07295 OR022 47.69 Marion Tumble Creek, Hwy 162 345 08931E IS084 167.95 Morrow Hwy 6 EB over Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn 3 3 3 3 3 346 07333 IS005 308.38 Multnomah Columbia River & N Hayden Island Dr, Hwy 1 SB (Interstate) 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 347 08195 IS005 299.23 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Hwy 3 SB (SW Hood Ave) 1 3 1 1 348 04516A IS005 307.70 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Jantzen Pedestrian Tunnel 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 349 08203B IS005 296.04 Multnomah Hwy 1 over SW 26th Ave 1 3 1 1 350 08205R OR099W 6.21 Multnomah Hwy 1W SB Ramp to Hwy 1 SB 1 3 1 1 351 06945 IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 352 02176A IS084 35.12 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 100 & UPRR (OWR & NRR) (Dodson) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 353 08588B IS084 0.52 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1 (Banfield Intchg) 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 354 06945A IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 355 09254D US026 73.94 Multnomah Hwy 47 EB Conn to SW Market St over Hwy 61 1 3 1 1 356 02194B IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 EB 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 357 02194A IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 WB 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 358 13514E IS084 7.65 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & # 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 359 02163A IS084 6.73 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 EB 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 360 06875 IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 EB 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 361 06875A IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 WB 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 362 08197 IS005 298.24 Multnomah SW Iowa Street Viaduct, Hwy 1 1 3 1 1 363 02062B IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 EB 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 364 02062A IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 WB 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 365 02001 OR022 8.38 Polk \Salt Creek, Hwy 30 at MP 8.38 1 366 02015 OR022 3.97 Polk Gooseneck Creek, Hwy 30 1 367 08889 OR022 24.30 Polk Hwy 30 over Hwy 150 at MP 24.30 1 368 07366 OR022 25.62 Polk Hwy 30 WB over Hwy 150 Conn 1 369 01756A OR022 4.71 Polk Mill Creek, Hwy 30 1 370 04573 OR018 18.78 Polk Rogue River, Hwy 39 1 371 02081 OR022 0.03 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 30 (Wallace) 1 372 01612A OR018 21.55 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 21.55 1 373 00745 OR018 23.77 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 23.77 1 374 07253R OR022 25.85 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 Conn to Hwy 150 1 375 00123K OR022 25.88 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 EB 1 376 07253B OR022 25.91 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 WB & Hwy 72 Conn (Marion St) 1 377 08893 US097 2.37 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.37 3 3 3 3 3 378 08894 US097 2.48 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.48 3 3 3 3 3 

6 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

379 02472 OR006 32.05 Tillamook Devils Lake Fork Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 32.05 2 1 380 01872A OR006 18.04 Tillamook Jordon Creek, Hwy 37 1381 01869A OR006 11.80 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 11.80 1382 01868 OR006 5.78 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 5.78 (Mills) 1383 04728 US395 60.93 Umatilla Camas Creek, Hwy 28 384 02561 US395 15.27 Umatilla E Fork Birch Creek, Hwy 28 (Pilot Rock) 385 09314 US395 188.84 Umatilla Hwy 54 over Hwy 6 (Stanfield Jct Intchg) 386 08498E IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) 387 16454 IS084 179.45 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Hwy 70 EB 388 08498W IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) 389 16453 IS084 179.43 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Hwy 70 EB 390 09636 US395 207.47 Umatilla Hwy 67 over Hwy 6 (W Pendleton Intchg) 391 08050 US395 5.77 Umatilla McKay Creek, Hwy 28 392 04729 US395 63.81 Umatilla N Fork John Day River, Hwy 28 (Dale) 393 08431A OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 EB (Oro Dell) 1 1 394 08431 OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 WB (Oro Dell) 1 1 395 08780 OR082 17.88 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR, Hwy 10 (Indian Creek) 1 1 396 00800A OR082 19.20 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 19.20 (South Elgin) 1 1 397 04821A OR082 2.64 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 2.64 (Island City) 1 1 398 01996 OR082 20.62 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 20.62 (Northeast Elgin) 1 1 399 04841A OR244 46.75 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 341 (Hilgard) 1 1 400 08502 OR244 253.03 Union Hwy 341 over Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) 1 1 401 07292B IS084 285.84 Union Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (North Powder) 402 00449A IS084 248.55 Union Hwy 6 over Emigrant Hill Frtg Rd & UPRR (Glover) 1 1 403 05192 OR082 31.15 Union Minam Viaduct, Hwy 10 1 1 404 07573 OR082 54.11 Wallowa Lostine River, Hwy 10 1 1 405 01038A OR082 33.65 Wallowa Wallowa River, Hwy 10 (Minam) 1 1 406 02184 OR082 45.83 Wallowa Wallowa River,Hwy 10 (Bear Creek) 1 1 407 00308A IS084 88.04 Wasco Fifteen Mile Creek, Hwy 2 3 3 3 3 3 408 08276 IS084 82.62 Wasco Hwy 2 over Hostetler Way Conn 3 3 3 3 3 409 07771 IS084 88.83 Wasco Hwy 2 over The Dalles Dam Access Conn 3 3 3 3 3 410 07397 IS084 69.85 Wasco Mosier Conn over UPRR (OWR & NRR) 3 3 3 1 3 3 411 07393 IS084 70.10 Wasco Mosier Creek, Hwy 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 412 07626A IS084 69.65 Wasco Mosier WB Conn over Hwy 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 413 07392 IS084 69.62 Wasco Rock Creek, Hwy 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 414 02366 US026 54.55 Washington E Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 WB 1 415 02285 US026 70.83 Washington Hwy 47 over Hwy 29 (SW Canyon Rd) WB, (Sylvan) 2 1 2 2 416 02367 US026 55.73 Washington Hwy 47 WB over P&W (Vadis) 1 417 02365 US026 57.85 Washington McKay Creek, Hwy 47 WB 1 418 02364A US026 37.88 Washington Nehalem River, Hwy 47 1419 02672 US026 45.31 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 45.31 1 420 02673 US026 46.30 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 46.30 1 421 02362A US026 50.22 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 50.22 1 422 02029 US026 37.38 Washington Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 1423 02236A OR019 80.92 Wheeler Alder Creek, Hwy 5 424 07372 OR126 62.54 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 62.54 425 07490 OR126 65.63 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.63 426 07491 OR126 65.85 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.85 427 02233A OR019 85.17 Wheeler Harper Creek, Hwy 5 428 04979A OR019 81.85 Wheeler Juniper Creek, Hwy 5 429 04981A OR019 84.53 Wheeler Mathas Creek, Hwy 5 430 02235 OR019 79.03 Wheeler Mule Shoe Creek, Hwy 5 

NOTES

1 General sequence number2 ODOT bridge identification number3 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. Route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)4 Milepost where bridge is located5 County where bridge is located6 Description of feature that bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation

7 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Fish Data

LCR UCR SRF SRS UWR OC LCR SONC SRB LCR UCR 

NOAA FISHERIES SPECIES7 

Number1 Bridge Number2 Highway3 MP4 County5 Crossing6 Chinook Salmon ESUs9 

Coho Salmon ESUs10 Steelhead Tro

7 Species that require ESA Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 8 Species that require ESA Section 7 consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Division (NOAA Fisheries)9 Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)

LCR = Lower Columbia RiverUCR= Upper Columbia RiverSRF= Snake River Fall SRSS= Snake River Spring UWR= Upper Willamette River

1= Bridge is within ESU2= Bridge is within 2 miles of ESU3= Bridge is within 2 miles of a migratory corridor

10 Coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)

OC= Oregon CoastalLCR= Lower Columbia RiverSONC= Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal

1= Bridge is within ESU2= Bridge is within 2 miles of ESU3= Bridge is within 2 miles of a migratory corridor

11 Steelhead Trout Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)

SRB= Snake River BasinLCR= Lower Columbia RiverUCR= Upper Columbia RiverMCR= Middle Columbia RiverUWR= Upper Willamette River

1= Bridge is within ESU2= Bridge is within 2 miles of ESU3= Bridge is within 2 miles of a migratory corridor

12 Sockeye and Chum Salmon Evolutionarilyy Signficant Units (ESUs)

1= Bridge is within ESU2= Bridge is within 2 miles of ESU3= Bridge is within 2 miles of a migratory corridor

13 Bull Trout codes

1= Bridge is within a Recovery Unit2= Bridge is within a Recovery Unit and a Core Area3= Bridge is within 2 miles of Critical Habitat

14 Lower Columbia River/SW Washington Cutthroat Trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS)

1= Bridge is within DPS2= Bridge is within 2 miles of DPS3= Bridge is within 2 miles of a migratory corridor

15 Oregon Chub and Sucker Species Codes

1= Bridge is within the range of the species

8 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Wildlife Data

Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Cana

Lyn

1 01786A IS084 340.58 Baker Burnt River (Dixie Creek), Hwy 6 Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe2 08423E IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Alder Creek Rd Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe May A3 08302E IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe May A4 09354 IS084 342.91 Baker Hwy 6 over Lime Intchg Conn Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe5 08423W IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Alder Creek Rd Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe May A6 08302W IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe May A7 07316 OR007 41.19 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 41.66 (Rancheria) Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe May A8 07431 OR007 42.31 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 42.77 (Salisbury) Blue Mountains Shrub-steppe May A

9 07987A IS084 325.34 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 EB Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A

10 07987 IS084 325.31 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 WB Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A11 08616 US020 55.86 Benton Hwy 33 EB over Hwy 1W SB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 12 01205A US020 45.68 Benton Hwy 33 over Harris Rd & W&P (Wren Conn) Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 13 08617 US020 55.73 Benton Hwy 33 over W&P Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 14 00866B US020 39.34 Benton Marys River & W&P, Hwy 33 at MP 39.34 Coast Range Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 15 01075A US020 48.88 Benton Marys River, Hwy 33 at MP 48.88 (Noon) Willamette Valley Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 16 00665B US026 33.24 Clackamas Alder Creek, Hwy 26 West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 17 09870 IS005 282.43 Clackamas Hwy 1 Conn #1 over Hwy 51 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs18 07794A IS005 282.25 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 19 07794B IS005 282.28 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 20 07867 OR213 5.20 Clackamas Hwy 171 WB over UPRR Mainline Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs21 01439A OR213 8.13 Clackamas Rock Creek, Hwy 171 WB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs22 00689B US026 34.09 Clackamas Wildcat Creek, Hwy 26 West Cascades Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 23 03026A US026 46.04 Clackamas Zig Zag River, Hwy 26 at MP 46.02 West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 24 07417 US030 82.52 Clatsop Big Creek, Hwy 2W Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest May Affect 25 01832 US026 17.37 Clatsop E Fork Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 26 00921 US030 77.25 Clatsop Gnat Creek, Hwy 2W Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 27 03092A US026 3.26 Clatsop Johnson Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 3.26 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 28 02164 US026 24.23 Clatsop N Fork Quartz Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 29 02601 US026 4.40 Clatsop Necanicum River, Hwy 47 at MP 4.40 (Black) Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 30 02165 US026 21.73 Clatsop Nehalem River & Hwy 103, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 31 03091A US026 2.24 Clatsop Volmer Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 32 01831 US026 16.28 Clatsop West Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 33 07519 IS084 61.21 Columbia Clatskanie River, Hwy 2W Coast Range Urban and Mixed Environs 

34 07715 IS084 60.82 Columbia Hwy 2W over Swedetown County Rd Coast Range Urban and Mixed Environs 

35 09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis & Clark Br Conn over Hwy 2W Coast Range Urban and Mixed Environs 

36 07722 IS084 55.29 Columbia Lost Creek, Hwy 2W Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 37 02027A US026 34.93 Columbia N Fork Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 38 00338A IS084 36.47 Columbia Tide Creek, Hwy 2W Willamette Valley Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 39 03173A OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 EB Coast Range Herbaceous Wetlands 40 03173B OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 WB Coast Range Herbaceous Wetlands 41 03212A OR042 26.72 Coos Endicot Creek, Hwy 35 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 42 03172A OR042 4.14 Coos Hwy 35 over COR Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 43 08843 OR042 23.48 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 242 Coast Range Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 44 08281 OR042 0.07 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 9 NB Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 45 01950 US101 234.76 Coos Hwy 9 over COR (North Bend) Coast Range Urban and Mixed Environs 46 08842 OR042 23.37 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 23.37 Coast Range Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 47 08830 OR042 24.32 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 24.32 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 48 08875 OR042 25.52 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.52 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 49 08876 OR042 25.67 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.67 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 50 08936 OR042 30.10 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.10 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 51 08935 OR042 30.59 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.59 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 52 02553 OR126 34.10 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 33.99 Lava Plains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs53 07649 OR126 37.44 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 37.44 Blue Mountains Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands54 02201 OR126 19.40 Crook Ochoco Creek, Hwy 41 Lava Plains Urban and Mixed Environs55 07768 US097 113.94 Deschutes Hwy 4 over OTRR (Terrebonne) Lava Plains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs56 08888 US097 136.46 Deschutes North Unit Canal & Swalley Canal, Hwy 4 Lava Plains Urban and Mixed Environs57 01675B US097 129.72 Deschutes Pilot Butte Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 129.72 Lava Plains Shrub-steppe58 07469B IS005 163.43 Douglas Bear Creek, Hwy 1 at MP 163.43 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 59 07563A IS005 138.71 Douglas Calapooya Creek, Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 60 07572A IS005 156.49 Douglas Curtis Creek, Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 61 07632 IS005 129.22 Douglas Del Rio Rd over Hwy 1 (Winchester) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 62 07567B IS005 156.03 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 63 01614 OR099 36.39 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 36.39 Coast Range Urban and Mixed Environs 64 01601 OR099 38.76 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 38.76 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 65 01465 OR099 39.64 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.64 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 66 01406 OR099 39.97 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.97 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 67 07667 IS005 125.08 Douglas Garden Valley Road over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs68 01424 OR099 47.50 Douglas Hardscrabble Creek, Hwy 45 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 69 07364A IS005 98.28 Douglas Hwy 1 & Conn over 5th St (Canyonville) Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs 

70 07642 IS005 150.36 Douglas Hwy 1 Conn (Yoncalla Jct ) over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs71 07640 IS005 150.76 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over COR (Yoncalla) Klamath Mountains Herbaceous Wetlands 72 08028N IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Irwin Access Conn Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 73 07627B IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Rogers Rd Conn Klamath Mountains Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 74 07804N IS005 120.03 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Speedway Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 75 07631 IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over SPRR & County Rd Klamath Mountains Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 76 07900A IS005 110.35 Douglas Hwy 1 over Boomer Hill Rd Conn #2 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 

Johnson and O'Neil Habitat8 Ecoregion7 Bridge Number Number 2 1 Crossing6 County5 MP4 Highway3

1 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Wildlife Data

Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Cana

Lyn

Johnson and O'Neil Habitat8 Ecoregion7 Bridge Number Number 2 1 Crossing6 County5 MP4 Highway3

77 07569A IS005 162.06 Douglas Hwy 1 over Buck Creek Rd Willamette Valley Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 

78 07584A IS005 164.45 Douglas Hwy 1 over Comstock Cemetery Rd Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs79 07952A IS005 107.52 Douglas Hwy 1 over COR (Weaver) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs80 07636A IS005 154.54 Douglas Hwy 1 over Elkhead Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 81 07711A IS005 121.69 Douglas Hwy 1 over McLain Ave (Garbage Dump Rd) Klamath Mountains Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 82 07950 IS005 108.31 Douglas Hwy 1 over Myrtle Creek Conn (Myrtle Creek Intchg) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 

83 07670A IS005 123.01 Douglas Hwy 1 over Portland Ave (Fairgrounds Intchg) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 84 07644A IS005 148.21 Douglas Hwy 1 over Rice Hill Frtg Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 85 09352A IS005 80.80 Douglas Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Conn (Glendale Intchg) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 86 07839 IS005 113.44 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Clarks Branch Rd Conn #2 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs87 07640A IS005 150.79 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over COR (Yoncalla) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs88 08028S IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Irwin Access Conn Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 

89 07627A IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Rogers Rd Conn Klamath Mountains Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 90 07631A IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & County Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 

91 07806 OR042 119.99 Douglas Hwy 35 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 92 00805C OR042 72.52 Douglas Lower Looking Glass Creek, Hwy 35 Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs 93 00559B OR042 53.17 Douglas Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 53.17 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 94 07663C IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 NB (Winchester) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 95 07663A IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 SB (Winchester) Klamath Mountains Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs 96 02496 OR138 17.95 Douglas North Umpqua River, Hwy 73 at MP 17.86 (Lone Rock) Klamath Mountains Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest 

97 00587C OR042 67.61 Douglas Olalla Creek, Hwy 35 (Upper Lookingglass) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 98 01697 OR099 28.28 Douglas Paradise Creek, Hwy 45 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 99 08024 IS005 104.05 Douglas Riddle Rd (Pruner Rd) over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs

100 07835 IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 

101 07835A IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 SB Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 102 07904 OR138 22.30 Douglas Rock Creek, Hwy 73 West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 103 16861 OR138 56.83 Douglas Rough Creek, Hwy 73 (Penstock) West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 104 07713A IS005 120.57 Douglas S Umpqua River & COPRR, Hwy 1 SB (Shady) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 105 07931N IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 NB (Missouri Bottom) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs106 07931S IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Missouri Bottom) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs107 07404 IS005 124.54 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Vets) Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs108 01923 OR042 74.47 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 35 EB (Winston) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs109 00588C OR042 63.97 Douglas Tenmile Creek, Hwy 35 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 110 18613 IS005 107.52 Douglas Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs111 03553A US395 110.20 Grant Beech Creek, Hwy 28 at MP 110.20 Blue Mountains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands May A112 03558A US395 7.25 Grant Canyon Creek, Hwy 48 Blue Mountains Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands May A113 02466 OR019 174.96 Grant Dixie Creek, Hwy 5 (Prairie City) Lava Plains Urban and Mixed Environs May A114 06205 US395 99.13 Grant Fox Creek, Hwy 28 Blue Mountains Herbaceous Wetlands May A115 02463 OR019 170.49 Grant Indian Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A116 07696 OR019 155.75 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Coles) Lava Plains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A117 02655 OR019 119.56 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Goose Rock) Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands May A118 02734A OR019 124.12 Grant Rock Creek, Hwy 5 (Picture Gorge) Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands May A119 06204 US395 98.31 Grant Smith Creek, Hwy 28 Blue Mountains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands May A120 01962A US020 174.57 Harney Middle Fork Malheur River, Hwy 7 Owyhee Uplands Herbaceous Wetlands121 03506A US020 105.62 Harney Miller Creek, Hwy 7 Basin Range Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs122 03522A OR078 0.69 Harney Silvies Slough, Hwy 442 at MP 0.69 Basin Range Urban and Mixed Environs123 01961A US020 167.64 Harney Stinkingwater Creek, Hwy 7 Owyhee Uplands Shrub-steppe124 03596 US395 42.95 Harney Trout Creek Oflow, Hwy 48 at MP 42.95 Blue Mountains Herbaceous Wetlands May A125 07403A IS084 46.10 Hood River Herman Creek, Hwy 2 West Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs 126 08605 IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 West Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs127 07496A IS084 63.02 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs128 08610 IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) West Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs129 08662 IS084 63.41 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over OWR & NRR East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs130 07458 IS084 63.98 Hood River Hwy 2 Frontage Rd (2nd St) over OWR & NRR (UPRR) East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs131 08604 IS084 50.99 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn (Wyeth Intchg) West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 132 07398 IS084 64.44 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn 2 East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs133 08534 IS084 56.04 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn Viento Intchg West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 134 08623 IS084 47.31 Hood River Hwy 2 over Herman Creek Conn West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 135 08605W IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 West Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs136 08610W IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) West Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs 137 08543 IS005 31.30 Jackson Bear Creek & Table Rock Rd, Hwy 1 at MP 31.30 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 138 08742N IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 NB at MP 14.96 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs139 08742S IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 14.96 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs140 08542 IS005 32.75 Jackson Central Point Rd Conn #2 (East Pine St) over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs141 08375 IS005 49.46 Jackson Creek & County Rd + COPRR, Hwy 1 at MP 49.46 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs142 08743 IS005 14.77 Jackson E Main St over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs143 08682 IS005 24.40 Jackson Fern Valley Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs144 07777B IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over COR (Seven Oaks) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 145 08738N IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Eagle Mill Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs146 08383N IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 60 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs147 07773A IS005 38.73 Jackson Hwy 1 over Foley Lane Frontage Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs148 09184 IS005 10.34 Jackson Hwy 1 over Neil Creek Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs149 07777 IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over COR (Seven Oaks) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 150 08738S IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Eagle Mill Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs151 08383S IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 60 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs

2 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Wildlife Data

Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Cana

Lyn

Johnson and O'Neil Habitat8 Ecoregion7 Bridge Number Number 2 1 Crossing6 County5 MP4 Highway3

152 08745 OR066 14.17 Jackson Hwy 21 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs153 07601B OR099 40.83 Jackson Hwy 271 Spur over Hwy 1 (S Gold Hill) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs154 08382 OR099 43.77 Jackson Hwy 60 over Hwy 1 (Rocky Point) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs155 08749 OR099 11.89 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (S Ashland Intchg) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs156 08539 OR099 35.62 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (Seven Oaks Intchg) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 157 08381N IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 NB (Homestead) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs158 08381S IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 SB (Homestead) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs159 03461 OR230 5.16 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 233 West Cascades Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest 160 08540A IS005 33.85 Jackson Upton Rd over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 161 08693 IS005 19.17 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #1 over Hwy 1 (N Ashland Intchg) Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs162 08681 IS005 21.21 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs163 02269 US026 116.57 Jefferson Hwy 53 over OTRR Lava Plains Shrub-steppe164 08600 US097 90.11 Jefferson Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 90.11 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands165 00815A US097 75.04 Jefferson Trout Creek, Hwy 4 Lava Plains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs166 00971A US097 92.11 Jefferson Willow Creek, Hwy 4 NB Lava Plains Urban and Mixed Environs167 01074A US199 40.24 Josephine Elk Creek, Hwy 25 Klamath Mountains Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest 168 06493A IS005 71.72 Josephine Grave Creek, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 169 09439 IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 NB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 170 08335N IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 NB over Foothill Blvd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs171 08339 IS005 57.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Beacon Dr Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs 172 08333 IS005 55.40 Josephine Hwy 1 over Foothill Blvd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs173 08501 IS005 58.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 NB Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs174 08341 IS005 55.78 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 Spur Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs175 09339 IS005 76.03 Josephine Hwy 1 over S Wolf Creek Conn Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 176 08500 IS005 58.18 Josephine Hwy 1 over Scoville Rd Klamath Mountains Urban and Mixed Environs177 09439A IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 178 08335S IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Foothill Blvd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs179 09440 IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 180 09440A IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 181 08094N IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest 182 08094S IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 SB Klamath Mountains Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 183 08018N IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 184 08018S IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 SB Klamath Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 185 01107A US199 34.28 Josephine Rough and Ready Creek, Hwy 25 Klamath Mountains Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest 186 01108A US199 32.10 Josephine W Fork Illinois River, Hwy 25 at MP 32.10 Klamath Mountains Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest 187 07301 US097 265.65 Klamath Algoma Log Pond, Hwy 4 East Cascades Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands 188 07302 US097 263.11 Klamath Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 East Cascades Montane Coniferous Wetlands189 01825 OR058 73.40 Klamath Crescent Creek, Hwy 18 East Cascades Montane Coniferous Wetlands 190 07984 OR058 86.30 Klamath Hwy 18 WB over Hwy 4 SB East Cascades Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands191 07454 US097 183.16 Klamath Hwy 4 over Crescent Conn East Cascades Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands192 09692 US097 275.75 Klamath Hwy 4 over Green Springs Dr (Old Alignment) & BNRR East Cascades Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs193 06886 US097 247.54 Klamath Hwy 4 over Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) East Cascades Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 194 08346 US097 274.73 Klamath Hwy 4 over Oxing California Ave (Klamath Falls) East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs 195 07929 US097 202.09 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR East Cascades Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands196 08352 US097 272.99 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs197 08347A US097 275.38 Klamath Link River, Hwy 4 NB Conn East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs 198 01826 OR058 67.95 Klamath Odell Creek, Hwy 18 West Cascades Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 199 06884 US097 243.98 Klamath Spring Creek, Hwy 4 East Cascades Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forest 200 08345 US097 273.71 Klamath USBR Canal, Hwy 4 East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs 201 08510 US097 273.68 Klamath USBR Canal, Nevada Ave Conn to Hwy 4 East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs 202 03913 OR140 102.40 Lake Cattlepass, Hwy 19 at MP 102.40 East Cascades Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs203 03915 OR140 126.92 Lake Crooked Creek, Hwy 19 at MP 126.92 East Cascades Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands204 04041 6.60 Lane Bear Creek, Hwy 200 Willamette Valley Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 205 01323A OR126B 40.70 Lane Blue River Bridge, Hwy 15 West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 206 07793A IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 207 07793B IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 208 07736A IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 209 07736C IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 210 07756A IS005 179.64 Lane Coast Fork Relief Opening, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 211 05285A OR058 1.96 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 

212 07809A IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 213 07745A IS005 179.99 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs 214 07809B IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 215 05286 OR058 2.46 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs 216 07828B IS005 175.84 Lane Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 175.84 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 217 01516 OR126B 13.06 Lane Eugene Water Board Canal, Hwy 15 at MP 13.06 (Walterville) Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 

218 01324A OR126B 26.52 Lane Gate Creek, Hwy 15 (Vida) West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 219 07757B IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 220 07757A IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 221 07188 OR058 55.98 Lane Half Viaduct, Hwy 18 at MP 55.98 West Cascades Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 222 04056 29.78 Lane Hayes Creek, Hwy 200 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 223 07740C IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 224 07740A IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 225 07832 IS005 174.75 Lane Hwy 1 Conn over COR Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 

226 07732B IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen Grade) Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 

3 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Wildlife Data

Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Cana

Lyn

Johnson and O'Neil Habitat8 Ecoregion7 Bridge Number Number 2 1 Crossing6 County5 MP4 Highway3

227 07810B IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Latham Rd Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 228 07863A IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Row River Rd Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 229 08182N IS005 195.78 Lane Hwy 1 NB over UPRR & Game Farm Rd Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 230 07864A IS005 173.84 Lane Hwy 1 over 16th Street (Landess Rd) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 231 06836A IS005 188.91 Lane Hwy 1 over Franklin Blvd & SPRR (Goshen) Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 232 07739A IS005 182.83 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 222 (Creswell) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 233 08870 IS005 190.76 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 225 Conn (McVay Access) Willamette Valley Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 234 07865A IS005 173.40 Lane Hwy 1 over Taylor Ave Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 235 07732A IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 18 & Conn Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 236 07810A IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Latham Rd Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 237 07830 IS005 174.41 Lane Hwy 1 SB over OP&ERR Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 238 07863 IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Row River Rd Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 239 08182S IS005 195.80 Lane Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & Game Farm Rd Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 240 07171 OR058 37.09 Lane Hwy 18 over Private Logging Road West Cascades Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 241 07110 OR058 8.08 Lane Hwy 18 over UPRR (Pleasant Hill) Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 242 08445 IS005 190.50 Lane Hwy 225 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 243 02262 OR126 0.60 Lane Hwy 69 over COR (Oakhill) Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 244 09587 OR126 195.45 Lane Hwy 69 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 245 08370 OR126 18.47 Lane Knowles Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 18.47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 246 07860 IS005 172.24 Lane London Rd over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 247 06768 OR058 9.51 Lane Lost Creek, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 248 07861B IS005 169.58 Lane Martin Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 249 08180N IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.19 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 250 08178N IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.69 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 251 08180S IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.19 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 252 08178S IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.69 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 253 08175N IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs 254 08175S IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs 255 08171N IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 256 08171S IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 257 07871A IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 258 07871B IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 259 07833B IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 NB (Cottage Grove) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 260 07833A IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 SB (Cottage Grove) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 261 07829A IS005 175.40 Lane Row River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 262 07825 IS005 176.76 Lane Saginaw Rosd over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 263 08446 OR126 26.48 Lane Siuslaw River, Hwy 62 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 264 04062 40.43 Lane South Forrk Siuslaw River, Hwy 200 Willamette Valley Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 265 07743A IS005 180.49 Lane Tunnel Mill Race, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 266 08554 OR126 27.66 Lane Wildcat Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 27.66 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 267 08329 IS005 192.75 Lane Willamette River & Hwy 15 & SPRR, Hwy 1 & Hwy 1W Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 268 05287B OR058 2.71 Lane Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 269 07894 OR058 33.24 Lane Willamette River, Hwy 18 (Barnard) West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 270 07530 US020 3.23 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 3.23 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 271 07532 US020 4.19 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.19 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 272 07533 US020 4.47 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 273 00922A US101 114.88 Lincoln Devils Lake Outlet, Hwy 9 (D River) Coast Range Urban and Mixed Environs 274 00925A US101 119.27 Lincoln Drift Creek, Hwy 9 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 275 00654 US020 21.01 Lincoln Hayes Creek, Hwy 33 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 276 13491 OR018 0.04 Lincoln Hwy 39 over Hwy 9 Coast Range Bays and Estuaries 277 07534 US020 5.36 Lincoln Little Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 278 04192 OR018 6.23 Lincoln Salmon River, Hwy 39 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 279 00924A US101 118.17 Lincoln Schooner Creek, Hwy 9 Coast Range Urban and Mixed Environs 280 00683 US020 23.38 Lincoln Yaquina River, Hwy 33 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 281 08232N IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs282 08232S IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs283 08235N IS005 220.04 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 220.04 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs284 08235S IS005 220.06 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 220.04 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 285 09413 US020 5.85 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.85 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs286 09414 US020 5.91 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.91 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs287 08236N IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs288 08236S IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs289 12205B US020 5.51 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 210 Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands290 08241N IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands291 08241S IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs292 08222N IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs293 08222S IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs294 08226N IS005 230.83 Linn Hwy 1 NB over A&E (Tallman Branch) Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs295 08221B IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs296 08221A IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs297 08218A IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Murder Creek Rd Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands298 08221D IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs299 08221C IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs300 08218B IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Murder Creek Rd Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands301 08226S IS005 230.86 Linn Hwy 1 SB over SPRR (Tallman Branch) Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands

4 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Wildlife Data

Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Cana

Lyn

Johnson and O'Neil Habitat8 Ecoregion7 Bridge Number Number 2 1 Crossing6 County5 MP4 Highway3

302 08223 US020 233.23 Linn Hwy 16 over Hwy 1 & Conns Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs303 08252 OR228 216.57 Linn Hwy 212 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs304 08221E OR099E 234.23 Linn Hwy 58 NB Conn to Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (N Albany In Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs305 06806 OR022 65.48 Linn Minto Creek, Hwy 162 at MP 65.48 West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 306 08217 IS005 235.71 Linn Murder Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands307 08227N IS005 230.45 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs308 08227S IS005 230.48 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands309 08124 IS005 240.42 Linn Santiam Oflow No 4, Hwy 1 at MP 240.42 Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 310 01706 US020 52.44 Linn Soda Fork, Hwy 16 West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 311 08239N IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs312 08239S IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs313 08233N IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs314 08233S IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs315 05225A US095 10.98 Malheur Cow Creek, Hwy 456 Owyhee Uplands Herbaceous Wetlands316 07971 IS084 372.18 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over Doman Road Owyhee Uplands Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs317 08397E IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) Owyhee Uplands Urban and Mixed Environs318 08397W IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 WB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) Owyhee Uplands Urban and Mixed Environs319 02585A OR019 265.33 Malheur Kern Creek, Hwy 5 Owyhee Uplands Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs320 02586A OR019 266.39 Malheur Lancaster Creek, Hwy 5 Owyhee Uplands Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs321 08107E IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 EB Owyhee Uplands Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs322 08107W IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 WB Owyhee Uplands Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs323 07970 IS084 371.45 Malheur Stanton Blvd over Hwy 6 Owyhee Uplands Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs324 08076 OR022 8.88 Marion Beaver Creek, Hwy 162 EB at MP E8.88 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs325 05978 OR022 54.09 Marion Boulder Creek, Hwy 162 West Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs 326 07017 OR022 49.84 Marion Breitenbush River, Hwy 162 West Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs327 07855E IS005 259.49 Marion Chemawa Rd NE Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs328 07538A IS005 251.34 Marion Hwy 1 over Boone Rd SE Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands329 07441A IS005 251.79 Marion Hwy 1 over Marietta St SE Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs330 07522A IS005 252.22 Marion Hwy 1 over Turner Rd SE Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs331 07440A IS005 252.13 Marion Hwy 1 over UPRR Main Line Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs332 07524B IS005 249.38 Marion Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1E NB (Commercial St SE) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs333 08069 OR022 13.23 Marion Hwy 162 over Cascade Hwy SE Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands334 08071 OR022 4.03 Marion Hwy 162 over Deer Park Rd SE Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs335 08073 OR022 5.44 Marion Hwy 162 over Joseph St SE Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs336 07941 OR099E 244.68 Marion Hwy 164 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands337 07347 OR022 23.28 Marion Little North Fork Santiam River, Hwy 162 Willamette Valley Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs 338 07439 IS005 252.54 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs339 07439A IS005 252.57 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs340 08070 OR022 13.58 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 162 Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands341 07964 OR022 40.33 Marion Partial Viaduct, Hwy 162 at MP 40.33 West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 342 08121 IS005 241.35 Marion Santiam Oflow No 2, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.35 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs343 08122 IS005 241.12 Marion Santiam Oflow No 3, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.12 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs344 07295 OR022 47.69 Marion Tumble Creek, Hwy 162 West Cascades Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, and Reservoirs 345 08931E IS084 167.95 Morrow Hwy 6 EB over Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe346 07333 IS005 308.38 Multnomah Columbia River & N Hayden Island Dr, Hwy 1 SB (Interstate) Willamette Valley Bays and Estuaries347 08195 IS005 299.23 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Hwy 3 SB (SW Hood Ave) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 348 04516A IS005 307.70 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Jantzen Pedestrian Tunnel Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs349 08203B IS005 296.04 Multnomah Hwy 1 over SW 26th Ave Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs350 08205R OR099W 6.21 Multnomah Hwy 1W SB Ramp to Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs351 06945 IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs352 02176A IS084 35.12 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 100 & UPRR (OWR & NRR) (Dodson) West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 

353 08588B IS084 0.52 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1 (Banfield Intchg) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs354 06945A IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs355 09254D US026 73.94 Multnomah Hwy 47 EB Conn to SW Market St over Hwy 61 Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs356 02194B IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 EB West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 357 02194A IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 WB West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 358 13514E IS084 7.65 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & # Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs359 02163A IS084 6.73 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 EB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs360 06875 IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 EB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs361 06875A IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 WB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs362 08197 IS005 298.24 Multnomah SW Iowa Street Viaduct, Hwy 1 Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 363 02062B IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 EB West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 364 02062A IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 WB West Cascades Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 365 02001 OR022 8.38 Polk \Salt Creek, Hwy 30 at MP 8.38 Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 

366 02015 OR022 3.97 Polk Gooseneck Creek, Hwy 30 Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 367 08889 OR022 24.30 Polk Hwy 30 over Hwy 150 at MP 24.30 Willamette Valley Westside Riparian - Wetlands 368 07366 OR022 25.62 Polk Hwy 30 WB over Hwy 150 Conn Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 369 01756A OR022 4.71 Polk Mill Creek, Hwy 30 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 370 04573 OR018 18.78 Polk Rogue River, Hwy 39 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 371 02081 OR022 0.03 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 30 (Wallace) Willamette Valley Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 372 01612A OR018 21.55 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 21.55 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs 373 00745 OR018 23.77 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 23.77 Willamette Valley Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands 374 07253R OR022 25.85 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 Conn to Hwy 150 Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 375 00123K OR022 25.88 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 EB Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 376 07253B OR022 25.91 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 WB & Hwy 72 Conn (Marion St) Willamette Valley Urban and Mixed Environs 

5 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Wildlife Data

Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Cana

Lyn

Johnson and O'Neil Habitat8 Ecoregion7 Bridge Number Number 2 1 Crossing6 County5 MP4 Highway3

377 08893 US097 2.37 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.37 Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe378 08894 US097 2.48 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.48 Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe379 02472 OR006 32.05 Tillamook Devils Lake Fork Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 32.05 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 380 01872A OR006 18.04 Tillamook Jordon Creek, Hwy 37 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 381 01869A OR006 11.80 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 11.80 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 382 01868 OR006 5.78 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 5.78 (Mills) Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 383 04728 US395 60.93 Umatilla Camas Creek, Hwy 28 Blue Mountains Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands May A384 02561 US395 15.27 Umatilla E Fork Birch Creek, Hwy 28 (Pilot Rock) Columbia Basin Urban and Mixed Environs385 09314 US395 188.84 Umatilla Hwy 54 over Hwy 6 (Stanfield Jct Intchg) Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe386 08498E IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) Blue Mountains Eastside (Interior) Grasslands May A387 16454 IS084 179.45 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Hwy 70 EB Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe388 08498W IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) Blue Mountains Eastside (Interior) Grasslands May A389 16453 IS084 179.43 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Hwy 70 EB Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe390 09636 US395 207.47 Umatilla Hwy 67 over Hwy 6 (W Pendleton Intchg) Columbia Basin Urban and Mixed Environs391 08050 US395 5.77 Umatilla McKay Creek, Hwy 28 Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe392 04729 US395 63.81 Umatilla N Fork John Day River, Hwy 28 (Dale) Blue Mountains Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands May A393 08431A OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 EB (Oro Dell) Blue Mountains Eastside (Interior) Grasslands May A394 08431 OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 WB (Oro Dell) Blue Mountains Eastside (Interior) Grasslands May A395 08780 OR082 17.88 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR, Hwy 10 (Indian Creek) Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A396 00800A OR082 19.20 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 19.20 (South Elgin) Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A397 04821A OR082 2.64 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 2.64 (Island City) Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A398 01996 OR082 20.62 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 20.62 (Northeast Elgin) Blue Mountains Eastside (Interior) Grasslands May A399 04841A OR244 46.75 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 341 (Hilgard) Blue Mountains Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands May A400 08502 OR244 253.03 Union Hwy 341 over Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) Blue Mountains Eastside (Interior) Grasslands May A401 07292B IS084 285.84 Union Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (North Powder) Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A402 00449A IS084 248.55 Union Hwy 6 over Emigrant Hill Frtg Rd & UPRR (Glover) Blue Mountains Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and Woodlands May A403 05192 OR082 31.15 Union Minam Viaduct, Hwy 10 Blue Mountains Eastside (Interior) Grasslands May A404 07573 OR082 54.11 Wallowa Lostine River, Hwy 10 Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A405 01038A OR082 33.65 Wallowa Wallowa River, Hwy 10 (Minam) Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A406 02184 OR082 45.83 Wallowa Wallowa River,Hwy 10 (Bear Creek) Blue Mountains Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs May A407 00308A IS084 88.04 Wasco Fifteen Mile Creek, Hwy 2 Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe408 08276 IS084 82.62 Wasco Hwy 2 over Hostetler Way Conn Columbia Basin Urban and Mixed Environs409 07771 IS084 88.83 Wasco Hwy 2 over The Dalles Dam Access Conn Columbia Basin Shrub-steppe410 07397 IS084 69.85 Wasco Mosier Conn over UPRR (OWR & NRR) East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs411 07393 IS084 70.10 Wasco Mosier Creek, Hwy 2 East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs412 07626A IS084 69.65 Wasco Mosier WB Conn over Hwy 2 East Cascades Urban and Mixed Environs413 07392 IS084 69.62 Wasco Rock Creek, Hwy 2 East Cascades Eastside (Interior) Grasslands 414 02366 US026 54.55 Washington E Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 WB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs415 02285 US026 70.83 Washington Hwy 47 over Hwy 29 (SW Canyon Rd) WB, (Sylvan) Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs416 02367 US026 55.73 Washington Hwy 47 WB over P&W (Vadis) Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs417 02365 US026 57.85 Washington McKay Creek, Hwy 47 WB Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs418 02364A US026 37.88 Washington Nehalem River, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 419 02672 US026 45.31 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 45.31 Willamette Valley Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 420 02673 US026 46.30 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 46.30 Willamette Valley Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 421 02362A US026 50.22 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 50.22 Willamette Valley Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed Environs422 02029 US026 37.38 Washington Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 423 02236A OR019 80.92 Wheeler Alder Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands424 07372 OR126 62.54 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 62.54 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands425 07490 OR126 65.63 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.63 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands426 07491 OR126 65.85 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.85 Lava Plains Urban and Mixed Environs427 02233A OR019 85.17 Wheeler Harper Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands May A428 04979A OR019 81.85 Wheeler Juniper Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands429 04981A OR019 84.53 Wheeler Mathas Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands May A430 02235 OR019 79.03 Wheeler Mule Shoe Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany Woodlands

NOTES

1 General sequence number2 ODOT bridge identification number3 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. Route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)4 Milepost where bridge is located5 County where bridge is located6 Description of feature that bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation7 Oregon Natural Heritage Program Ecoregion where bridge is located8 Habitat category as defined in Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.9 Species that require ESA Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

10 Species that require ESA Section 7 consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Division (NOAA Fisheries)

6 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Plant Data

Overall 

Survey 

Status8

Species Found During

Survey ARAMCD8,9 CASLEV8,9 ERIDECDEC8,9 FRIGEN8,9 HOWAQU8,9 

1 01786A IS084 340.58 Baker Burnt River (Dixie Creek), Hwy 6 Blue Mountains2 08423E IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Alder Creek Rd Blue Mountains3 08302E IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 EB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) Blue Mountains4 09354 IS084 342.91 Baker Hwy 6 over Lime Intchg Conn Blue Mountains5 08423W IS084 315.29 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Alder Creek Rd Blue Mountains6 08302W IS084 313.65 Baker Hwy 6 WB over Conn & UPRR (Encina Intchg) Blue Mountains7 07316 OR007 41.19 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 41.66 (Rancheria) Blue Mountains8 07431 OR007 42.31 Baker Powder River, Hwy 71 at MP 42.77 (Salisbury) Blue Mountains9 07987A IS084 325.34 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 EB Blue Mountains

10 07987 IS084 325.31 Baker Pritchard Creek & UPRR, Hwy 6 WB Blue Mountains11 08616 US020 55.86 Benton Hwy 33 EB over Hwy 1W SB Willamette Valley 2 2 

12 01205A US020 45.68 Benton Hwy 33 over Harris Rd & W&P (Wren Conn) Willamette Valley 2 2 13 08617 US020 55.73 Benton Hwy 33 over W&P Willamette Valley 2 2 14 00866B US020 39.34 Benton Marys River & W&P, Hwy 33 at MP 39.34 Coast Range15 01075A US020 48.88 Benton Marys River, Hwy 33 at MP 48.88 (Noon) Willamette Valley 2 2 16 00665B US026 33.24 Clackamas Alder Creek, Hwy 26 West Cascades 3 317 09870 IS005 282.43 Clackamas Hwy 1 Conn #1 over Hwy 51 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 18 07794A IS005 282.25 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 19 07794B IS005 282.28 Clackamas Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 51 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 20 07867 OR213 5.20 Clackamas Hwy 171 WB over UPRR Mainline Willamette Valley 3 3 21 01439A OR213 8.13 Clackamas Rock Creek, Hwy 171 WB Willamette Valley 2 2 22 00689B US026 34.09 Clackamas Wildcat Creek, Hwy 26 West Cascades 2 223 03026A US026 46.04 Clackamas Zig Zag River, Hwy 26 at MP 46.02 West Cascades24 07417 US030 82.52 Clatsop Big Creek, Hwy 2W Coast Range25 01832 US026 17.37 Clatsop E Fork Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range26 00921 US030 77.25 Clatsop Gnat Creek, Hwy 2W Coast Range27 03092A US026 3.26 Clatsop Johnson Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 3.26 Coast Range28 02164 US026 24.23 Clatsop N Fork Quartz Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range29 02601 US026 4.40 Clatsop Necanicum River, Hwy 47 at MP 4.40 (Black) Coast Range30 02165 US026 21.73 Clatsop Nehalem River & Hwy 103, Hwy 47 Coast Range31 03091A US026 2.24 Clatsop Volmer Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range32 01831 US026 16.28 Clatsop West Humbug Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range33 07519 IS084 61.21 Columbia Clatskanie River, Hwy 2W Coast Range34 07715 IS084 60.82 Columbia Hwy 2W over Swedetown County Rd Coast Range35 09591 IS084 48.36 Columbia Lewis & Clark Br Conn over Hwy 2W Coast Range36 07722 IS084 55.29 Columbia Lost Creek, Hwy 2W Coast Range37 02027A US026 34.93 Columbia N Fork Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range 3 38 00338A IS084 36.47 Columbia Tide Creek, Hwy 2W Willamette Valley 3 339 03173A OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 EB Coast Range40 03173B OR042 5.37 Coos Beaver Creek, Hwy 35 WB Coast Range41 03212A OR042 26.72 Coos Endicot Creek, Hwy 35 Coast Range42 03172A OR042 4.14 Coos Hwy 35 over COR Coast Range43 08843 OR042 23.48 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 242 Coast Range44 08281 OR042 0.07 Coos Hwy 35 over Hwy 9 NB Coast Range45 01950 US101 234.76 Coos Hwy 9 over COR (North Bend) Coast Range 2 46 08842 OR042 23.37 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 23.37 Coast Range47 08830 OR042 24.32 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 24.32 Coast Range48 08875 OR042 25.52 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.52 Coast Range49 08876 OR042 25.67 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 25.67 Coast Range50 08936 OR042 30.10 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.10 Coast Range51 08935 OR042 30.59 Coos Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 30.59 Coast Range52 02553 OR126 34.10 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 33.99 Lava Plains53 07649 OR126 37.44 Crook Marks Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 37.44 Blue Mountains54 02201 OR126 19.40 Crook Ochoco Creek, Hwy 41 Lava Plains55 07768 US097 113.94 Deschutes Hwy 4 over OTRR (Terrebonne) Lava Plains56 08888 US097 136.46 Deschutes North Unit Canal & Swalley Canal, Hwy 4 Lava Plains57 01675B US097 129.72 Deschutes Pilot Butte Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 129.72 Lava Plains58 07469B IS005 163.43 Douglas Bear Creek, Hwy 1 at MP 163.43 Willamette Valley 3 59 07563A IS005 138.71 Douglas Calapooya Creek, Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 60 07572A IS005 156.49 Douglas Curtis Creek, Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 61 07632 IS005 129.22 Douglas Del Rio Rd over Hwy 1 (Winchester) Klamath Mountains 2 62 07567B IS005 156.03 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains 3 63 01614 OR099 36.39 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 36.39 Coast Range 3 64 01601 OR099 38.76 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 38.76 Coast Range 3 65 01465 OR099 39.64 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.64 Coast Range66 01406 OR099 39.97 Douglas Elk Creek, Hwy 45 at MP 39.97 Coast Range67 07667 IS005 125.08 Douglas Garden Valley Road over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 68 01424 OR099 47.50 Douglas Hardscrabble Creek, Hwy 45 Klamath Mountains69 07364A IS005 98.28 Douglas Hwy 1 & Conn over 5th St (Canyonville) Klamath Mountains 2 70 07642 IS005 150.36 Douglas Hwy 1 Conn (Yoncalla Jct ) over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 1 Plagiobothrys hirtu 71 07640 IS005 150.76 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over COR (Yoncalla) Klamath Mountains 1 Plagiobothrys hirtu 72 08028N IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Irwin Access Conn Klamath Mountains 2 73 07627B IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Rogers Rd Conn Klamath Mountains 1 Plagiobothrys hirtu 74 07804N IS005 120.03 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over Speedway Rd Klamath Mountains 3 75 07631 IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 NB over SPRR & County Rd Klamath Mountains 2 76 07900A IS005 110.35 Douglas Hwy 1 over Boomer Hill Rd Conn #2 Klamath Mountains 2 77 07569A IS005 162.06 Douglas Hwy 1 over Buck Creek Rd Willamette Valley 2 78 07584A IS005 164.45 Douglas Hwy 1 over Comstock Cemetery Rd Willamette Valley 3 79 07952A IS005 107.52 Douglas Hwy 1 over COR (Weaver) Klamath Mountains 3 80 07636A IS005 154.54 Douglas Hwy 1 over Elkhead Rd Klamath Mountains 3 81 07711A IS005 121.69 Douglas Hwy 1 over McLain Ave (Garbage Dump Rd) Klamath Mountains82 07950 IS005 108.31 Douglas Hwy 1 over Myrtle Creek Conn (Myrtle Creek Intchg) Klamath Mountains

County Bridge 5 Number Number 2 1 MP4 Highway3

SURVEY INFORMATION 

Ecoregion7 Crossing6

1 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Plant Data

Overall 

Survey 

Status8

Species Found During

Survey ARAMCD8,9 CASLEV8,9 ERIDECDEC8,9 FRIGEN8,9 HOWAQU8,9 

County Bridge 5 Number Number 2 1 MP4 Highway3

SURVEY INFORMATION 

Ecoregion7 Crossing6

83 07670A IS005 123.01 Douglas Hwy 1 over Portland Ave (Fairgrounds Intchg) Klamath Mountains 2 84 07644A IS005 148.21 Douglas Hwy 1 over Rice Hill Frtg Rd Klamath Mountains 2 85 09352A IS005 80.80 Douglas Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Conn (Glendale Intchg) Klamath Mountains86 07839 IS005 113.44 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Clarks Branch Rd Conn #2 Klamath Mountains 3 87 07640A IS005 150.79 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over COR (Yoncalla) Klamath Mountains 1 Plagiobothrys hirtu 88 08028S IS005 99.53 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Irwin Access Conn Klamath Mountains 2 89 07627A IS005 133.25 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over Rogers Rd Conn Klamath Mountains 1 Plagiobothrys hirtu 90 07631A IS005 130.46 Douglas Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & County Rd Klamath Mountains 2 91 07806 OR042 119.99 Douglas Hwy 35 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 92 00805C OR042 72.52 Douglas Lower Looking Glass Creek, Hwy 35 Klamath Mountains 2 93 00559B OR042 53.17 Douglas Middle Fork Coquille River, Hwy 35 at MP 53.17 Klamath Mountains94 07663C IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 NB (Winchester) Klamath Mountains 2 95 07663A IS005 128.92 Douglas N Umpqua R & SPRR & Creek & Co Rd, Hwy 1 SB (Winchester) Klamath Mountains 2 96 02496 OR138 17.95 Douglas North Umpqua River, Hwy 73 at MP 17.86 (Lone Rock) Klamath Mountains 2 2 

97 00587C OR042 67.61 Douglas Olalla Creek, Hwy 35 (Upper Lookingglass) Klamath Mountains 2 98 01697 OR099 28.28 Douglas Paradise Creek, Hwy 45 Coast Range99 08024 IS005 104.05 Douglas Riddle Rd (Pruner Rd) over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 

100 07835 IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains 3 101 07835A IS005 117.74 Douglas Roberts Creek Rd, Hwy 1 SB Klamath Mountains 3 102 07904 OR138 22.30 Douglas Rock Creek, Hwy 73 West Cascades 2 2103 16861 OR138 56.83 Douglas Rough Creek, Hwy 73 (Penstock) West Cascades104 07713A IS005 120.57 Douglas S Umpqua River & COPRR, Hwy 1 SB (Shady) Klamath Mountains 3 105 07931N IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 NB (Missouri Bottom) Klamath Mountains 3 106 07931S IS005 105.41 Douglas S Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Missouri Bottom) Klamath Mountains 3 107 07404 IS005 124.54 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 1 SB (Vets) Klamath Mountains 2 108 01923 OR042 74.47 Douglas South Umpqua River, Hwy 35 EB (Winston) Klamath Mountains 3 109 00588C OR042 63.97 Douglas Tenmile Creek, Hwy 35 Klamath Mountains 2 110 07952 IS005 107.52 Douglas Klamath Mountains 3 111 03553A US395 110.20 Grant Beech Creek, Hwy 28 at MP 110.20 Blue Mountains112 03558A US395 7.25 Grant Canyon Creek, Hwy 48 Blue Mountains113 02466 OR019 174.96 Grant Dixie Creek, Hwy 5 (Prairie City) Lava Plains114 06205 US395 99.13 Grant Fox Creek, Hwy 28 Blue Mountains115 02463 OR019 170.49 Grant Indian Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains116 07696 OR019 155.75 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Coles) Lava Plains117 02655 OR019 119.56 Grant John Day River, Hwy 5 (Goose Rock) Lava Plains118 02734A OR019 124.12 Grant Rock Creek, Hwy 5 (Picture Gorge) Lava Plains119 06204 US395 98.31 Grant Smith Creek, Hwy 28 Blue Mountains120 01962A US020 174.57 Harney Middle Fork Malheur River, Hwy 7 Owyhee Uplands121 03506A US020 105.62 Harney Miller Creek, Hwy 7 Basin & Range122 03522A OR078 0.69 Harney Silvies Slough, Hwy 442 at MP 0.69 Basin & Range123 01961A US020 167.64 Harney Stinkingwater Creek, Hwy 7 Owyhee Uplands124 03596 US395 42.95 Harney Trout Creek Oflow, Hwy 48 at MP 42.95 Blue Mountains125 07403A IS084 46.10 Hood River Herman Creek, Hwy 2 West Cascades126 08605 IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 West Cascades127 07496A IS084 63.02 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Jaymar Rd (Westcliff Dr) East Cascades128 08610 IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) West Cascades129 08662 IS084 63.41 Hood River Hwy 2 EB over OWR & NRR East Cascades130 07458 IS084 63.98 Hood River Hwy 2 Frontage Rd (2nd St) over OWR & NRR (UPRR) East Cascades131 08604 IS084 50.99 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn (Wyeth Intchg) West Cascades132 07398 IS084 64.44 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn 2 East Cascades133 08534 IS084 56.04 Hood River Hwy 2 over Conn Viento Intchg West Cascades134 08623 IS084 47.31 Hood River Hwy 2 over Herman Creek Conn West Cascades135 08605W IS084 45.05 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 100 West Cascades136 08610W IS084 43.93 Hood River Hwy 2 WB over Moody St (Cascade Locks) West Cascades137 08543 IS005 31.30 Jackson Bear Creek & Table Rock Rd, Hwy 1 at MP 31.30 Klamath Mountains 3 3 138 08742N IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 NB at MP 14.96 Klamath Mountains 2 2139 08742S IS005 14.96 Jackson Bear Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 14.96 Klamath Mountains 2 2140 08542 IS005 32.75 Jackson Central Point Rd Conn #2 (East Pine St) over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 3141 08375 IS005 49.46 Jackson Creek & County Rd + COPRR, Hwy 1 at MP 49.46 Klamath Mountains 3 3142 08743 IS005 14.77 Jackson E Main St over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 3143 08682 IS005 24.40 Jackson Fern Valley Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 3144 07777B IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over COR (Seven Oaks) Klamath Mountains 2 22 145 08738N IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Eagle Mill Rd Klamath Mountains 2 2146 08383N IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 60 Klamath Mountains 2 22 147 07773A IS005 38.73 Jackson Hwy 1 over Foley Lane Frontage Rd Klamath Mountains 2 2 2148 09184 IS005 10.34 Jackson Hwy 1 over Neil Creek Rd Klamath Mountains 2 2149 07777 IS005 36.09 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over COR (Seven Oaks) Klamath Mountains 2 22 150 08738S IS005 17.29 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Eagle Mill Rd Klamath Mountains 2 2151 08383S IS005 45.47 Jackson Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 60 Klamath Mountains 2 22 152 08745 OR066 14.17 Jackson Hwy 21 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 3153 07601B OR099 40.83 Jackson Hwy 271 Spur over Hwy 1 (S Gold Hill) Klamath Mountains 2 22 154 08382 OR099 43.77 Jackson Hwy 60 over Hwy 1 (Rocky Point) Klamath Mountains 3 33 155 08749 OR099 11.89 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (S Ashland Intchg) Klamath Mountains 3 3156 08539 OR099 35.62 Jackson Hwy 63 over Hwy 1 (Seven Oaks Intchg) Klamath Mountains 3 33 157 08381N IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 NB (Homestead) Klamath Mountains 2 22 158 08381S IS005 45.61 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 1 SB (Homestead) Klamath Mountains 2 22 159 03461 OR230 5.16 Jackson Rogue River, Hwy 233 West Cascades160 08540A IS005 33.85 Jackson Upton Rd over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 3161 08693 IS005 19.17 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #1 over Hwy 1 (N Ashland Intchg) Klamath Mountains 2 2162 08681 IS005 21.21 Jackson Valley View Rd Conn #2 over Hwy 1 Klamath Mountains 3 3 

163 02269 US026 116.57 Jefferson Hwy 53 over OTRR Lava Plains

2 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Plant Data

Overall 

Survey 

Status8

Species Found During

Survey ARAMCD8,9 CASLEV8,9 ERIDECDEC8,9 FRIGEN8,9 HOWAQU8,9 

County Bridge 5 Number Number 2 1 MP4 Highway3

SURVEY INFORMATION 

Ecoregion7 Crossing6

164 08600 US097 90.11 Jefferson Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 at MP 90.11 Lava Plains165 00815A US097 75.04 Jefferson Trout Creek, Hwy 4 Lava Plains166 00971A US097 92.11 Jefferson Willow Creek, Hwy 4 NB Lava Plains167 01074A US199 40.24 Josephine Elk Creek, Hwy 25 Klamath Mountains 2 2 168 06493A IS005 71.72 Josephine Grave Creek, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains169 09439 IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 NB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd Klamath Mountains170 08335N IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 NB over Foothill Blvd Klamath Mountains 2 2171 08339 IS005 57.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Beacon Dr Klamath Mountains 3 3172 08333 IS005 55.40 Josephine Hwy 1 over Foothill Blvd Klamath Mountains 1 Fritillaria gentner 1173 08501 IS005 58.06 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 NB Klamath Mountains 2 2174 08341 IS005 55.78 Josephine Hwy 1 over Hwy 25 Spur Klamath Mountains 2 2175 09339 IS005 76.03 Josephine Hwy 1 over S Wolf Creek Conn Klamath Mountains176 08500 IS005 58.18 Josephine Hwy 1 over Scoville Rd Klamath Mountains 2 2177 09439A IS005 71.39 Josephine Hwy 1 SB & Conn over Sunny Valley Rd Klamath Mountains178 08335S IS005 54.10 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Foothill Blvd Klamath Mountains 2 2179 09440 IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd Klamath Mountains180 09440A IS005 71.93 Josephine Hwy 1 SB over Leland Rd Klamath Mountains181 08094N IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains 3 3182 08094S IS005 65.74 Josephine Jumpoff Joe Creek, Hwy 1 SB Klamath Mountains 2 2183 08018N IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 NB Klamath Mountains 2 2184 08018S IS005 61.45 Josephine Louse Creek & Conn, Hwy 1 SB Klamath Mountains 2 2185 01107A US199 34.28 Josephine Rough and Ready Creek, Hwy 25 Klamath Mountains 3 186 01108A US199 32.10 Josephine W Fork Illinois River, Hwy 25 at MP 32.10 Klamath Mountains 1 Lomatium cookii 2 187 07301 US097 265.65 Klamath Algoma Log Pond, Hwy 4 East Cascades188 07302 US097 263.11 Klamath Barkley Springs Irrigation Canal, Hwy 4 East Cascades189 01825 OR058 73.40 Klamath Crescent Creek, Hwy 18 East Cascades190 07984 OR058 86.30 Klamath Hwy 18 WB over Hwy 4 SB East Cascades191 07454 US097 183.16 Klamath Hwy 4 over Crescent Conn East Cascades192 09692 US097 275.75 Klamath Hwy 4 over Green Springs Dr (Old Alignment) & BNRR East Cascades193 06886 US097 247.54 Klamath Hwy 4 over Hwy 422 (Chiloquin) East Cascades194 08346 US097 274.73 Klamath Hwy 4 over Oxing California Ave (Klamath Falls) East Cascades195 07929 US097 202.09 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR East Cascades196 08352 US097 272.99 Klamath Hwy 4 over UPRR & Pelican City Rd (Lakefront Blvd) East Cascades197 08347A US097 275.38 Klamath Link River, Hwy 4 NB Conn East Cascades198 01826 OR058 67.95 Klamath Odell Creek, Hwy 18 West Cascades199 06884 US097 243.98 Klamath Spring Creek, Hwy 4 East Cascades200 08345 US097 273.71 Klamath USBR Canal, Hwy 4 East Cascades201 08510 US097 273.68 Klamath USBR Canal, Nevada Ave Conn to Hwy 4 East Cascades202 03913 OR140 102.40 Lake Cattlepass, Hwy 19 at MP 102.40 East Cascades203 03915 OR140 126.92 Lake Crooked Creek, Hwy 19 at MP 126.92 East Cascades204 04041 6.60 Lane Bear Creek, Hwy 200 Willamette Valley 2 2 205 01323A OR126B 40.70 Lane Blue River Bridge, Hwy 15 West Cascades206 07793A IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 

207 07793B IS005 177.89 Lane Brown Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 

208 07736A IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 1 Lomatium bradshawii 2 2 209 07736C IS005 185.46 Lane Camas Swale, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 1 Lomatium bradshawii 2 2 210 07756A IS005 179.64 Lane Coast Fork Relief Opening, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 

211 05285A OR058 1.96 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley 2 2 2 212 07809A IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 2 2 

213 07745A IS005 179.99 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 214 07809B IS005 171.62 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 2 2 

215 05286 OR058 2.46 Lane Coast Fork Willamette River, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley 2 2 2 216 07828B IS005 175.84 Lane Creek, Hwy 1 SB at MP 175.84 Willamette Valley 3 3 

217 01516 OR126B 13.06 Lane Eugene Water Board Canal, Hwy 15 at MP 13.06 (Walterville) Willamette Valley 2 218 01324A OR126B 26.52 Lane Gate Creek, Hwy 15 (Vida) West Cascades219 07757B IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 2 2 

220 07757A IS005 178.40 Lane Gettings Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 2 2 

221 07188 OR058 55.98 Lane Half Viaduct, Hwy 18 at MP 55.98 West Cascades222 04056 29.78 Lane Hayes Creek, Hwy 200 Willamette Valley 2 2 223 07740C IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 224 07740A IS005 182.63 Lane Hill Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 225 07832 IS005 174.75 Lane Hwy 1 Conn over COR Willamette Valley 3 3 

226 07732B IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 18 & Conn (Goshen Grade) Willamette Valley 2 2 2 227 07810B IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Latham Rd Willamette Valley 2 2 

228 07863A IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 NB over Row River Rd Willamette Valley 3 3 

229 08182N IS005 195.78 Lane Hwy 1 NB over UPRR & Game Farm Rd Willamette Valley 3 3 230 07864A IS005 173.84 Lane Hwy 1 over 16th Street (Landess Rd) Willamette Valley 3 3 

231 06836A IS005 188.91 Lane Hwy 1 over Franklin Blvd & SPRR (Goshen) Willamette Valley 2 2 2 232 07739A IS005 182.83 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 222 (Creswell) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 233 08870 IS005 190.76 Lane Hwy 1 over Hwy 225 Conn (McVay Access) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 234 07865A IS005 173.40 Lane Hwy 1 over Taylor Ave Willamette Valley 3 3 

235 07732A IS005 188.34 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 18 & Conn Willamette Valley 2 2 2 236 07810A IS005 171.56 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Latham Rd Willamette Valley 2 2 

237 07830 IS005 174.41 Lane Hwy 1 SB over OP&ERR Willamette Valley 3 3 

238 07863 IS005 174.24 Lane Hwy 1 SB over Row River Rd Willamette Valley 3 3 

239 08182S IS005 195.80 Lane Hwy 1 SB over SPRR & Game Farm Rd Willamette Valley 3 3 240 07171 OR058 37.09 Lane Hwy 18 over Private Logging Road West Cascades241 07110 OR058 8.08 Lane Hwy 18 over UPRR (Pleasant Hill) Willamette Valley242 08445 IS005 190.50 Lane Hwy 225 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 243 02262 OR126 0.60 Lane Hwy 69 over COR (Oakhill) Willamette Valley 2 2 244 09587 OR126 195.45 Lane Hwy 69 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley 3 3 

3 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Plant Data

Overall 

Survey 

Status8

Species Found During

Survey ARAMCD8,9 CASLEV8,9 ERIDECDEC8,9 FRIGEN8,9 HOWAQU8,9 

County Bridge 5 Number Number 2 1 MP4 Highway3

SURVEY INFORMATION 

Ecoregion7 Crossing6

245 08370 OR126 18.47 Lane Knowles Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 18.47 Coast Range246 07860 IS005 172.24 Lane London Rd over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley 3 3 

247 06768 OR058 9.51 Lane Lost Creek, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley248 07861B IS005 169.58 Lane Martin Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 

249 08180N IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.19 Willamette Valley 3 3 250 08178N IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 196.69 Willamette Valley 3 3 

251 08180S IS005 196.19 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.19 Willamette Valley 3 3 252 08178S IS005 196.69 Lane McKenzie Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 196.69 Willamette Valley 3 3253 08175N IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 2 2 2 254 08175S IS005 197.38 Lane McKenzie River & Frtg Rd, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 2 2 2 255 08171N IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 2 2 2 256 08171S IS005 200.50 Lane Muddy Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 2 2 2 257 07871A IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 

258 07871B IS005 175.60 Lane Row River Oflow, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 

259 07833B IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 NB (Cottage Grove) Willamette Valley 3 3 

260 07833A IS005 174.74 Lane Row River Rd over Hwy 1 SB (Cottage Grove) Willamette Valley 3 3 

261 07829A IS005 175.40 Lane Row River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 

262 07825 IS005 176.76 Lane Saginaw Rosd over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley 3 3 

263 08446 OR126 26.48 Lane Siuslaw River, Hwy 62 Coast Range264 04062 40.43 Lane South Forrk Siuslaw River, Hwy 200 Willamette Valley 2 265 07743A IS005 180.49 Lane Tunnel Mill Race, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 266 08554 OR126 27.66 Lane Wildcat Creek, Hwy 62 at MP 27.66 Coast Range267 08329 IS005 192.75 Lane Willamette River & Hwy 15 & SPRR, Hwy 1 & Hwy 1W Willamette Valley 2 2 2 268 05287B OR058 2.71 Lane Willamette River Relief Opening, Hwy 18 Willamette Valley 2 2 269 07894 OR058 33.24 Lane Willamette River, Hwy 18 (Barnard) West Cascades270 07530 US020 3.23 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 3.23 Coast Range271 07532 US020 4.19 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.19 Coast Range272 07533 US020 4.47 Lincoln Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 at MP 4.47 Coast Range273 00922A US101 114.88 Lincoln Devils Lake Outlet, Hwy 9 (D River) Coast Range274 00925A US101 119.27 Lincoln Drift Creek, Hwy 9 Coast Range275 00654 US020 21.01 Lincoln Hayes Creek, Hwy 33 Coast Range276 13491 OR018 0.04 Lincoln Hwy 39 over Hwy 9 Coast Range277 07534 US020 5.36 Lincoln Little Beaver Creek, Hwy 33 Coast Range278 04192 OR018 6.23 Lincoln Salmon River, Hwy 39 Coast Range279 00924A US101 118.17 Lincoln Schooner Creek, Hwy 9 Coast Range280 00683 US020 23.38 Lincoln Yaquina River, Hwy 33 Coast Range281 08232N IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 2 2 2 2 282 08232S IS005 222.42 Linn Butte Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 2 2 2 2 283 08235N IS005 220.04 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 NB at MP 220.04 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 284 08235S IS005 220.06 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 1 SB at MP 220.04 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 285 09413 US020 5.85 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.85 Willamette Valley 2 2 286 09414 US020 5.91 Linn Calapooia Oflow, Hwy 210 at MP 5.91 Willamette Valley 2 2 287 08236N IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 288 08236S IS005 218.79 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 289 12205B US020 5.51 Linn Calapooia River, Hwy 210 Willamette Valley 2 3 290 08241N IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 291 08241S IS005 216.97 Linn Courtney Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 292 08222N IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 293 08222S IS005 233.65 Linn Cox Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 294 08226N IS005 230.83 Linn Hwy 1 NB over A&E (Tallman Branch) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 295 08221B IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 296 08221A IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 297 08218A IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 NB over Murder Creek Rd Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 298 08221D IS005 234.16 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 58 NB (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 299 08221C IS005 234.23 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Knox Butte Rd (North Albany Intchg) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 300 08218B IS005 235.67 Linn Hwy 1 SB over Murder Creek Rd Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 301 08226S IS005 230.86 Linn Hwy 1 SB over SPRR (Tallman Branch) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 302 08223 US020 233.23 Linn Hwy 16 over Hwy 1 & Conns Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 303 08252 OR228 216.57 Linn Hwy 212 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 304 08221E OR099E 234.23 Linn Hwy 58 NB Conn to Hwy 1 NB over Knox Butte Rd (N Albany In Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 305 06806 OR022 65.48 Linn Minto Creek, Hwy 162 at MP 65.48 West Cascades306 08217 IS005 235.71 Linn Murder Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 307 08227N IS005 230.45 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 308 08227S IS005 230.48 Linn Oak Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 309 08124 IS005 240.42 Linn Santiam Oflow No 4, Hwy 1 at MP 240.42 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 310 01706 US020 52.44 Linn Soda Fork, Hwy 16 West Cascades311 08239N IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 312 08239S IS005 217.39 Linn Sodom Ditch Oflow, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 313 08233N IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 314 08233S IS005 221.13 Linn Sodom Ditch, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 315 05225A US095 10.98 Malheur Cow Creek, Hwy 456 Owyhee Uplands316 07971 IS084 372.18 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over Doman Road Owyhee Uplands317 08397E IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) Owyhee Uplands318 08397W IS084 375.80 Malheur Hwy 6 WB over UPRR (Ore-Ida) Owyhee Uplands319 02585A OR019 265.33 Malheur Kern Creek, Hwy 5 Owyhee Uplands320 02586A OR019 266.39 Malheur Lancaster Creek, Hwy 5 Owyhee Uplands321 08107E IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 EB Owyhee Uplands322 08107W IS084 378.01 Malheur Snake River, Hwy 6 WB Owyhee Uplands323 07970 IS084 371.45 Malheur Stanton Blvd over Hwy 6 Owyhee Uplands324 08076 OR022 8.88 Marion Beaver Creek, Hwy 162 EB at MP E8.88 Willamette Valley 2 2 325 05978 OR022 54.09 Marion Boulder Creek, Hwy 162 West Cascades

4 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Plant Data

Overall 

Survey 

Status8

Species Found During

Survey ARAMCD8,9 CASLEV8,9 ERIDECDEC8,9 FRIGEN8,9 HOWAQU8,9 

County Bridge 5 Number Number 2 1 MP4 Highway3

SURVEY INFORMATION 

Ecoregion7 Crossing6

326 07017 OR022 49.84 Marion Breitenbush River, Hwy 162 West Cascades327 07855E IS005 259.49 Marion Chemawa Rd NE Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 72 (Salem Pkwy) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 328 07538A IS005 251.34 Marion Hwy 1 over Boone Rd SE Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 329 07441A IS005 251.79 Marion Hwy 1 over Marietta St SE Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 330 07522A IS005 252.22 Marion Hwy 1 over Turner Rd SE Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 331 07440A IS005 252.13 Marion Hwy 1 over UPRR Main Line Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 332 07524B IS005 249.38 Marion Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1E NB (Commercial St SE) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 333 08069 OR022 13.23 Marion Hwy 162 over Cascade Hwy SE Willamette Valley 2 2 334 08071 OR022 4.03 Marion Hwy 162 over Deer Park Rd SE Willamette Valley 2 2 2 2 335 08073 OR022 5.44 Marion Hwy 162 over Joseph St SE Willamette Valley 2 2 2 2 336 07941 OR099E 244.68 Marion Hwy 164 over Hwy 1 Willamette Valley 2 2 2 2 337 07347 OR022 23.28 Marion Little North Fork Santiam River, Hwy 162 Willamette Valley338 07439 IS005 252.54 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 NB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 339 07439A IS005 252.57 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 340 08070 OR022 13.58 Marion Mill Creek, Hwy 162 Willamette Valley 2 2 341 07964 OR022 40.33 Marion Partial Viaduct, Hwy 162 at MP 40.33 West Cascades342 08121 IS005 241.35 Marion Santiam Oflow No 2, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.35 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 343 08122 IS005 241.12 Marion Santiam Oflow No 3, Hwy 1 SB at MP 241.12 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 344 07295 OR022 47.69 Marion Tumble Creek, Hwy 162 West Cascades345 08931E IS084 167.95 Morrow Hwy 6 EB over Irrigon Junction Intchg Conn Columbia Basin346 07333 IS005 308.38 Multnomah Columbia River & N Hayden Island Dr, Hwy 1 SB (Interstate) Willamette Valley 3 3347 08195 IS005 299.23 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Hwy 3 SB (SW Hood Ave) Willamette Valley 3 3 3348 04516A IS005 307.70 Multnomah Hwy 1 over Jantzen Pedestrian Tunnel Willamette Valley 3 3349 08203B IS005 296.04 Multnomah Hwy 1 over SW 26th Ave Willamette Valley 3 3 3350 08205R OR099W 6.21 Multnomah Hwy 1W SB Ramp to Hwy 1 SB Willamette Valley 3 3 3351 06945 IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) Willamette Valley 2 2352 02176A IS084 35.12 Multnomah Hwy 2 EB over Hwy 100 & UPRR (OWR & NRR) (Dodson) West Cascades 2 2353 08588B IS084 0.52 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB Conn to Hwy 1 SB over Hwy 1 (Banfield Intchg) Willamette Valley 3 3354 06945A IS084 17.82 Multnomah Hwy 2 WB over Conn #2 (Jordan Rd) Willamette Valley 2 2355 09254D US026 73.94 Multnomah Hwy 47 EB Conn to SW Market St over Hwy 61 Willamette Valley 3 3356 02194B IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 EB West Cascades 2 2357 02194A IS084 38.98 Multnomah Moffett Creek, Hwy 2 WB West Cascades 2 2358 13514E IS084 7.65 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 Conns #2  & Hwy 64 Conns #1 & # Willamette Valley 3 3359 02163A IS084 6.73 Multnomah NE 102nd Ave over Hwy 2 EB Willamette Valley 3 3360 06875 IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 EB Willamette Valley 2 2361 06875A IS084 17.68 Multnomah Sandy River, Hwy 2 WB Willamette Valley 3 3362 08197 IS005 298.24 Multnomah SW Iowa Street Viaduct, Hwy 1 Willamette Valley 3 3 3363 02062B IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 EB West Cascades 2 2364 02062A IS084 40.14 Multnomah Tanner Creek, Hwy 2 WB West Cascades 2 2365 02001 OR022 8.38 Polk \Salt Creek, Hwy 30 at MP 8.38 Willamette Valley 3 3 366 02015 OR022 3.97 Polk Gooseneck Creek, Hwy 30 Willamette Valley 3 3 367 08889 OR022 24.30 Polk Hwy 30 over Hwy 150 at MP 24.30 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 368 07366 OR022 25.62 Polk Hwy 30 WB over Hwy 150 Conn Willamette Valley 3 3 3 369 01756A OR022 4.71 Polk Mill Creek, Hwy 30 Willamette Valley 3 3 370 04573 OR018 18.78 Polk Rogue River, Hwy 39 Coast Range 2 2 371 02081 OR022 0.03 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 30 (Wallace) Willamette Valley 3 3 372 01612A OR018 21.55 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 21.55 Willamette Valley 3 3 373 00745 OR018 23.77 Polk South Yamhill River, Hwy 39 at MP 23.77 Willamette Valley 3 3 374 07253R OR022 25.85 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 Conn to Hwy 150 Willamette Valley 3 3 3 375 00123K OR022 25.88 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 EB Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 376 07253B OR022 25.91 Polk Willamette River, Hwy 30 WB & Hwy 72 Conn (Marion St) Willamette Valley 3 3 3 3 377 08893 US097 2.37 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.37 Columbia Basin378 08894 US097 2.48 Sherman Spanish Hollow Creek, Hwy 42 at MP 2.48 Columbia Basin379 02472 OR006 32.05 Tillamook Devils Lake Fork Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 32.05 Coast Range380 01872A OR006 18.04 Tillamook Jordon Creek, Hwy 37 Coast Range381 01869A OR006 11.80 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 11.80 Coast Range382 01868 OR006 5.78 Tillamook Wilson River, Hwy 37 at MP 5.78 (Mills) Coast Range383 04728 US395 60.93 Umatilla Camas Creek, Hwy 28 Blue Mountains384 02561 US395 15.27 Umatilla E Fork Birch Creek, Hwy 28 (Pilot Rock) Columbia Basin385 09314 US395 188.84 Umatilla Hwy 54 over Hwy 6 (Stanfield Jct Intchg) Columbia Basin386 08498E IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) Blue Mountains387 16454 IS084 179.45 Umatilla Hwy 6 EB over Hwy 70 EB Columbia Basin388 08498W IS084 237.95 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Frtg Rd & UPRR (OWR NRR) (Meacham) Blue Mountains389 16453 IS084 179.43 Umatilla Hwy 6 WB over Hwy 70 EB Columbia Basin390 09636 US395 207.47 Umatilla Hwy 67 over Hwy 6 (W Pendleton Intchg) Columbia Basin391 08050 US395 5.77 Umatilla McKay Creek, Hwy 28 Columbia Basin392 04729 US395 63.81 Umatilla N Fork John Day River, Hwy 28 (Dale) Blue Mountains393 08431A OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 EB (Oro Dell) Blue Mountains394 08431 OR203 259.35 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR & Hwy 6 EB, Hwy 66 WB (Oro Dell) Blue Mountains395 08780 OR082 17.88 Union Grande Ronde River & UPRR, Hwy 10 (Indian Creek) Blue Mountains396 00800A OR082 19.20 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 19.20 (South Elgin) Blue Mountains397 04821A OR082 2.64 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 2.64 (Island City) Blue Mountains398 01996 OR082 20.62 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 10 at MP 20.62 (Northeast Elgin) Blue Mountains399 04841A OR244 46.75 Union Grande Ronde River, Hwy 341 (Hilgard) Blue Mountains400 08502 OR244 253.03 Union Hwy 341 over Hwy 6 (Hilgard Intchg) Blue Mountains401 07292B IS084 285.84 Union Hwy 6 EB over UPRR (North Powder) Blue Mountains 2 402 00449A IS084 248.55 Union Hwy 6 over Emigrant Hill Frtg Rd & UPRR (Glover) Blue Mountains403 05192 OR082 31.15 Union Minam Viaduct, Hwy 10 Blue Mountains404 07573 OR082 54.11 Wallowa Lostine River, Hwy 10 Blue Mountains405 01038A OR082 33.65 Wallowa Wallowa River, Hwy 10 (Minam) Blue Mountains406 02184 OR082 45.83 Wallowa Wallowa River,Hwy 10 (Bear Creek) Blue Mountains

5 
OTIA III Bridge Delivery Program

Plant Data

Overall 

Survey 

Status8

Species Found During

Survey ARAMCD8,9 CASLEV8,9 ERIDECDEC8,9 FRIGEN8,9 HOWAQU8,9 

County Bridge 5 Number Number 2 1 MP4 Highway3

SURVEY INFORMATION 

Ecoregion7 Crossing6

407 00308A IS084 88.04 Wasco Fifteen Mile Creek, Hwy 2 Columbia Basin408 08276 IS084 82.62 Wasco Hwy 2 over Hostetler Way Conn Columbia Basin409 07771 IS084 88.83 Wasco Hwy 2 over The Dalles Dam Access Conn Columbia Basin410 07397 IS084 69.85 Wasco Mosier Conn over UPRR (OWR & NRR) East Cascades411 07393 IS084 70.10 Wasco Mosier Creek, Hwy 2 East Cascades412 07626A IS084 69.65 Wasco Mosier WB Conn over Hwy 2 East Cascades413 07392 IS084 69.62 Wasco Rock Creek, Hwy 2 East Cascades414 02366 US026 54.55 Washington E Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 WB Willamette Valley 3 415 02285 US026 70.83 Washington Hwy 47 over Hwy 29 (SW Canyon Rd) WB, (Sylvan) Willamette Valley 3 3416 02367 US026 55.73 Washington Hwy 47 WB over P&W (Vadis) Willamette Valley 3 417 02365 US026 57.85 Washington McKay Creek, Hwy 47 WB Willamette Valley418 02364A US026 37.88 Washington Nehalem River, Hwy 47 Coast Range 3 419 02672 US026 45.31 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 45.31 Willamette Valley 2 420 02673 US026 46.30 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 46.30 Willamette Valley 3 421 02362A US026 50.22 Washington W Fork Dairy Creek, Hwy 47 at MP 50.22 Willamette Valley 3 422 02029 US026 37.38 Washington Wolf Creek, Hwy 47 Coast Range 3 423 02236A OR019 80.92 Wheeler Alder Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains424 07372 OR126 62.54 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 62.54 Lava Plains425 07490 OR126 65.63 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.63 Lava Plains426 07491 OR126 65.85 Wheeler Bridge Creek, Hwy 41 at MP 65.85 Lava Plains427 02233A OR019 85.17 Wheeler Harper Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains428 04979A OR019 81.85 Wheeler Juniper Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains429 04981A OR019 84.53 Wheeler Mathas Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains430 02235 OR019 79.03 Wheeler Mule Shoe Creek, Hwy 5 Lava Plains

NOTES

1 General sequence number2 ODOT bridge identification number3 Interstate Route (IS), U.S. Route (US), or Oregon Route (OR)4 Milepost where bridge is located5 County where bridge is located6 Description of feature that bridge is crossing and ODOT highway designation7 Oregon Natural Heritage Program Ecoregion where bridge is located8 Survey Status

Blank No Survey Required (Category 1) (according to USFWS XID Database)

1 = Surveyed, Presence Confirmed (Category 3) 2 = Surveyed, Absence Confirmed (Category 2) 3 = Remaining Survey Required (Category 4) 

9 Plant names follow scientific naming conventions (first three letters are genus, second three letters are species, third three letters are subspecies)

6 
Appendix 2-A

Effects Screening Layer (ESL) Memoranda
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EFFECTS SCREENING LAYER Memoranda

Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Effect Screening Layer Memo ........................................................1

Bull Trout Effect Screening Layer Memo .......................................................................................3

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Effect Screening Layer Memo...............................................................5

Shortnose Sucker Effect Screening Layer Memo............................................................................6

Lost River Sucker Effect Screening Layer Memo...........................................................................7

Warner Sucker Effect Screening Layer Memo................................................................................8

Oregon Chub Effect Screening Layer Memo ..................................................................................9

Borax Lake Chub Effect Screening Layer Memo..........................................................................11

Hutton Tui Chub Effect Screening Layer Memo...........................................................................12

Foskett Speckled Dace Effect Screening Layer Memo .................................................................13

Pacific Lamprey, River Lamprey, and Western Brook Lamprey Effect Screening Layer Memo.14

Modoc Sucker Effect Screening Layer Memo...............................................................................16

Steller (Northern) Sea Lion Effect Screening Layer Memo ..........................................................17

Columbian White-tailed Deer Columbia River Distinct Population Segment

Effect Screening Layer Memo.......................................................................................................20

Canada Lynx Effect Screening Layer Memo.................................................................................22

Marbled Murrelet Effect Screening Layer Memo .........................................................................24

Bald Eagle Effect Screening Layer Memo ....................................................................................26

Brown Pelican Effect Screening Layer Memo ..............................................................................28

Northern Spotted Owl Effect Screening Layer Memo ..................................................................30

Western Snowy Plover Pacific Coast Population Effect Screening Layer Memo.........................33

American Peregrine Falcon Effect Screening Layer Memo............................................................... 35

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Effect Screening Layer Memo.............................................................37

Fender’s Blue Butterfly Effect Screening Layer Memo................................................................39

Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Effect Screening Layer Memo .........................................................41
Appendix 2-A 1

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 7, 2003

TO: Art Martin and Maggie Sommer - NOAA Fisheries

FROM: Jon Adkins and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries),

Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed

species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat.

Table 1 lists Pacific salmon and steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) that may be affected

by OTIA III bridge replacement and repair activities.

Table 1: Oregon Pacific Salmon and Steelhead ESUs, Status and Federal Listing Information

Species ESU ESA Status Critical Habitat

Status

Federal Register

Documentation

Lower Columbia River Threatened Under Review 64 FR 14308

65 FR 7764

Snake River Fall Run

and Spring/Summer Run

Threatened Designated 57 FR 14653

58 FR 68543

Upper Columbia River Endangered Under Review 64 FR 14308

Chinook salmon

Upper Willamette River Threatened Under Review 64 FR 14308

65 FR 7764

Northern California /

Southern Oregon Coast

Threatened Under Review 62 FR 24588

64 FR 24049

Coho salmon

Oregon Coast Threatened Under Review 63 FR 42587

65 FR 7764

Chum salmon Columbia River Threatened Under Review 64 FR 14508

65 FR 7764

Sockeye salmon Snake River Endangered Designated 56 FR 58619

58 FR 68543

Lower Columbia River Threatened Under Review 64 FR 14517

65 FR 7764

Middle Columbia River Threatened Under Review 64 FR 14517

65 FR 7764

Upper Columbia River Endangered Under Review 62 FR 43937

Snake River Basin Threatened Under Review 64 FR 14517

65 FR 7764

Steelhead

Upper Willamette River Threatened Under Review 64 FR 14517

65 FR 7764
Appendix 2.A 2

GIS SOURCE DATA

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) data from NOAA Fisheries

ESU boundaries were compiled by the GIS group at the Bonneville Power Administration from various

sources based on written descriptions in NOAA Fisheries status reviews and mapping provided by NOAA

Fisheries. Initial boundaries were derived from USGS 1:250,000 scale hydrological unit boundaries.

Boundaries were modified based on migration blockages and known fish distribution. Drainage basin

delineation from blockages was based on 1:100,000 stream hydrography and/or available digital

topography (1:250,000).

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Federally-listed Pacific salmon and steelhead in Oregon are divided into Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESU). An ESU is a collection of one or more salmon populations that share similar genetic, ecological,

and life history traits but differ in important ways from salmon in other ESUs. Salmon ESUs are

considered to be "distinct population segments" under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Because a species, as defined in the ESA, can include subspecies, salmon ESUs can be listed under the

ESA if they are threatened or endangered. Because the ESA does not explain or define how "distinct

population segments" should be identified, the NMFS has developed a policy to do this for salmon based

on the ESU concept (NWFSC 2003).

ASSUMPTIONS

• ESUs for Pacific salmonid and steelhead do not extend upstream of longstanding, naturally

impassible barriers and certain artificial barriers (dams) identified in Appendix A, Amendment 14 to

the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999).

• Potential effects do not cross 5th field HUC boundaries.

EFFECT SCREENING CRITERIA

Bridges meeting the following criteria will be documented as having no potential adverse effect to the

individual Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs.

• Bridges outside of a designated ESU, except those located where adverse effects to habitat or fish

within the ESU downstream of the bridge are possible.

• The Area of Potential Impact (API) does not encompass any waters of the state.

Effects to the Federally-listed Pacific salmon and steelhead may occur as a result of bridge repair or

replacement activities within or upstream of any designated ESU. Effects are either water-borne

(turbidity, chemical), habitat related (stream channel impacts and riparian impacts) or direct (stream work,

flow diversion). Bridge repair or replacement activities in an ESU or upstream of a natural barrier

upstream within an ESU may adversely affect that fish or critical habitat within that ESU. Further effects

analysis will be possible as the data are received.

REFERENCES

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2003. Northwest salmon recovery planning. Internet website.

http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/faq.htm#4. Accessed November 6, 2003.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2003. Draft EFH Analysis for the ODOT

Maintenance Programmatic Biological Assessment. Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Appendix A: Identification and

Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation

Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Portland, Oregon.
Appendix 2.A 3

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 5, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Jon Adkins and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the coterminous United States was listed as threatened

on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). Earlier rulemakings had listed distinct population

segments of bull trout as threatened in the Columbia River, Klamath River and Jarbridge River

basins (63 FR 31647, 63 FR 42757, 64 FR 17110, respectively) (USFWS 2002).

GIS SOURCE DATA

Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan boundaries (USFWS 2003)

Bull Trout Proposed Critical Habitat Designation (67 FR 71235)

These data identify (in general) the boundaries for distinct population segments (DPS), recovery

units, core areas, core habitat and potential core areas/habitat for bull trout (Salvelinus

confluentus) across the species' native range as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) in the "Draft Recovery Plan for Bull Trout" (2002).

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Bull trout in Oregon are part of either the Columbia River or Klamath River Distinct Population

Segments (DPS). There are 22 recovery units within the Columbia River DPS and 1 recovery

unit in the Klamath River DPS. Recovery units are composed of: core areas, core habitats, and

proposed critical habitat.

ASSUMPTIONS

• Recovery units do not encompass mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers

• Proposed critical habitat is not inclusive of all historically occupied habitat

• Core habitats are currently unoccupied by bull trout populations

• Current bull trout presence is restricted to core areas

• Bull trout distribution is not ubiquitous throughout core areas

EFFECT SCREENING CRITERIA

Bridges meeting the following criteria will be documented as having No Effect to bull trout and

proposed critical habitat.

1) Bridges outside any DPS

2) Bridges inside the Columbia River DPS and Klamath River DPS, but not within any

recovery unit
Appendix 2.A 4

3) Bridges inside any recovery unit and greater than 2 miles from proposed critical habitat

and core areas

Effects to the species or their habitat may occur as a result of bridge replacement activities within

core areas and in proximity to proposed critical habitat and core habitat. Effects are either waterborne (turbidity, chemical), habitat related (stream channel impacts and riparian impacts) or

direct (streamwork, fish handling, flow diversion). Bridge replacement activities within 2 miles

of core areas and/or proposed critical habitat may result in direct or indirect impacts to both

species and habitat. Further effects analysis will be possible as the data are received.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). Determination of Threatened status for the

Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull trout. Final

Listing, Threatened, Final Special Rule.

Federal Register for August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42757). Emergency listing of the Jarbridge River

Population Segment of Bull Trout as Endangered. Emergency Listing, Endangered.

Federal Register for April 8, 1999 (64 FR 17110). Determination of Threatened Status for the

Jarbridge River Population Segment of Bull Trout. Final Listing, Threatened, Final

Special Rule.

Federal Register for November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). Determination of Threatened Status for

Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Final Listing, Threatened.

Federal Register for November 29, 2002 (67 FR 71235). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia

River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout and Notice of Availability of the Draft

Recovery Plan. Proposed Rule and Notice.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region. 2002. Chapter 1, Introduction. In: Bull Trout

(Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,

OR. 137 pp.URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2002/021129.pdf.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region. February 5, 2003. Bull Trout Recovery Plan

boundaries: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, OR.
Appendix 2.A 5

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 2, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi)

Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On July 16, 1970 the Lahontan cutthroat trout was designated as threatened in its entire range (40

FR 29863). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

DATA LAYER USED

4th field HUC – Upper Quinn and Alvord

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

According to the Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery plan, Oregon populations of Lahontan

cutthroat trout are limited to the Upper Quinn and Alvord 4th field HUCs.

ASSUMPTIONS

The entire range of the Lahontan cutthroat trout (within Oregon) is completely within the 4th

field HUCs – Upper Quinn and Alvord.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges that are outside of the 4th field HUCs – Upper Quinn and Alvord will have No Effect on

the Lahontan cutthroat trout.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for October 13, 1970 (40 FR 29863). Threatened status for three species of trout

(Lahontan cutthroat, Paiute cutthroat, and Arizona Trout). Final Reclassify, Downlist

threatened. Final Special Rule.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Oregon, Washington, and

California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Lahontan cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi,

Recovery Plan. Portland, OR. 147 pp.
Appendix 2.A 6

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 3, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) Effect Screening

Layer

INTRODUCTION

On July 18, 1988 the shortnose sucker was designated as Endangered in its entire range (53 FR

27130). Critical habitat is not designated for the shortnose sucker.

DATA LAYER USED

4th field HUCs: Williamson, Sprague, Upper Klamath Lake, Lost River, and Upper Klamath

River.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The shortnose sucker is only found in Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, Klamath River

downstream to Iron Gate Reservoir, Clear Lake Reservoir and its tributaries, Lost River, Tule

Lake, and Upper Klamath River from Link River Dam to Copco Reservoir (USFWS 1993).

ASSUMPTIONS

There are no shortnose suckers outside of the 4th field HUCs listed above.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges outside of the 4th field HUCs – Williamson, Sprague, Upper Klamath Lake, Lost River,

and Upper Klamath River will be documented as having No Effect to the Shortnose sucker.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for July 18, 1988 (53 FR 27130). Determination of Endangered Status for

shortnose sucker and lost river sucker. Final Listing, Endangered.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit (HUC) Boundaries for Oregon, Washington,

and California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose

(Chasmistes brevirostris) Sucker Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp.
Appendix 2.A 7

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 6, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On July 18, 1988 the Lost River sucker was designated as Endangered in its entire range (53 FR

27130). Critical habitat is not designated for the Lost River sucker.

DATA LAYER USED

Williamson, Sprague, Upper Klamath Lake, Lost River, and Upper Klamath River 4th field

HUCs.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The Lost River sucker is only found in Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, Klamath River

downstream to Iron Gate Reservoir, Clear Lake Reservoir and its tributaries, Lost River, Tule

Lake, and Upper Klamath River from Link River Dam to Copco Reservoir (USFWS 1993).

ASSUMPTIONS

There are no Lost River suckers outside of the 4th field HUCs listed above.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges outside of the 4th field HUCs – Williamson, Sprague, Upper Klamath Lake, Lost River,

and Upper Klamath River will be documented as having No Effect to the Lost River sucker.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for July 18, 1988 (53 FR 27130). Determination of Endangered Status for

shortnose sucker and lost river sucker. Final Listing, Endangered.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Oregon, Washington, and

California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose

(Chasmistes brevirostris) Sucker Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp.
Appendix 2.A 8

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 2, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Warner Sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) Effect Screening

Layer

INTRODUCTION

On September 27, 1985 the Warner Sucker was listed as threatened throughout all of its range

(50 FR 39117). Critical habitat is designated for the Warner Sucker (50 FR 39117).

DATA LAYER USED

4th field HUC – Warner Lakes

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

According to the Federal Register (50 FR 39117), habitat for the Warner Sucker is limited to the

Warner Valley in South Central Oregon. Specifically, habitat for the Warner Sucker is limited to

Crump and Hart Lakes, the spillway north of Hart Lake, and portions of Snyder, Honey, Twenty

Mile, and Twelve Mile Creeks. Critical habitat is designated as a 50-ft buffer on portions of the

above-listed streams.

ASSUMPTIONS

The entire range of the Warner Sucker (within Oregon) is within the 4th field HUC – Warner

Lakes.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges that are outside of the 4th field HUC – Warner Lakes will be documented as having No

Effect to the Warner Sucker.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39117). Final Critical Habitat – fishes, Final

Listing, Threatened. Final Special Rule.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Oregon, Washington, and

California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of the Warner Basin

and Alkali Subbasin. Portland, Oregon. 86 pp.
Appendix 2.A 9

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 16, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal (USFWS) and Paul Sheerer (ODFW)

FROM: Jon Adkins and Zak Toledo (MB&G)

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

The Oregon chub was listed as endangered under the Federal ESA on October 18, 1993 (58 FR

53800). The species currently does not have designated critical habitat and is not represented in

different Distinct Population Segments (DPS). Historically, the species was distributed

throughout lowland areas of the Willamette River drainage in lowland off-channel habitats such

as sloughs, alcoves, and overflow ponds. This Effect Screening Layer was developed through

conversations with Paul Sheerer, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Biologist.

GIS SOURCE DATA

Source data were obtained from ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project, Oregon chub sampling

data-set (ODFW 2003).

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

According to Sheerer et al. (2003), Oregon chub are endemic to the Willamette Valley of

western Oregon. This species was formerly distributed throughout the Willamette Valley from

Oregon City to Oakridge, in off-channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows, stable backwater

sloughs, and flooded marshes. Currently, there are 32 known populations of Oregon chub; eight

are introduced populations.

Survey data were gathered by Scheerer et al. (2003) from the 40 OTIA III bridge sites within the

Willamette Basin that are scheduled to begin construction in 2004. Each surveyed site was given

a ranking of High, Medium, or Low to describe the relative quality of habitat for Oregon chub.

The three rankings are generally defined as follows:

• High – Oregon chub present or site determined suitable habitat for chub

• Medium – Habitat not significantly degraded, may be most suitable for other native

species such as salmonids (e.g., fast water)

• Low – Site dominated by non-native fish species, lacks essential habitat elements such as

water (i.e., dry channels), or were otherwise degraded (e.g., ongoing grazing and/or cattle

access) at the time of the survey.

The remaining bridge sites within the Willamette River Basin that are suspected to either be

occupied by Oregon chub or encompass suitable habitat will be surveyed in 2004. The remaining

bridges to be surveyed will begin construction no sooner than 2005. This survey and construction
Appendix 2.A 10

schedule will facilitate application of appropriate conservation measures (performance standards)

to protect Oregon chub and their habitat.

ASSUMPTIONS

• Historic distribution is limited to the Willamette River Basin as described by ODFW (2003).

• Bridges not surveyed may have chub presence and/or suitable habitat.

• Historic distribution limited to elevations below 500 meters.

EFFECT SCREENING CRITERIA

Bridges meeting the following criteria will be documented as having No Effect to Oregon chub.

4) Bridges not within the Willamette River Basin

5) Bridges within the Willamette River Basin, north of the Santiam River confluence

6) Bridges within the Willamette River Basin, but documented by Scheerer et al. (2003) as

being absent of Oregon chub and a habitat ranking of “Medium” or “Low” quality

7) Bridges located above the 500 meter elevation

8) Bridges that do not cross waterbodies

Effects to the species or their habitat may occur as a result of bridge replacement activities within

known occupied or suitable habitat. Effects are either water-borne (turbidity, chemical), habitat

related (stream channel impacts and riparian impacts) or direct (streamwork, fish handling, flow

diversion).

Bridges identified as having High habitat quality by Scheerer (2003) will be subject to specific

conservation measures and performance standards.

Bridge sites not yet surveyed for chub presence or habitat quality will be assumed to be occupied

by Oregon chub until further surveys demonstrate otherwise.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53800). Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of endangered status for the Oregon chub. Final Rule

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2003. ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project- Oregon

Chub Coverage 1991-2003. Natural Production Section. Oregon Department of Fish &

Wildlife, Corvallis, OR.

Scheerer, P.D., P.S. Kavanagh, and K.K. Jones. 2003. Oregon chub investigations. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project EF-02 VII-1, Annual Progress

Report, Portland.
Appendix 2.A 11

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 3, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo – MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Borax Lake Chub (Gila boraxobius) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On May 28, 1980, the Borax Lake chub was designated as Endangered throughout its entire

range (45 FR 35821). Critical habitat for the Borax Lake chub was designated on October 5,

1982 (47 FR 43957).

DATA LAYER USED

4th field HUC – Alvord Lake Basin

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Borax Lake chub are only found in Borax Lake (a small 10.2 acre natural thermal lake), its

outflow, and Lower Borax Lake located in the Alvord Basin of South Central Oregon (Harney

County). These areas provide the Borax Lake chub with all the necessary requirements for

survival and reproduction (e.g., food, spawning habitat, and water temperatures) (47 FR 43957).

ASSUMPTIONS

The entire range of the Borax Lake chub is completely within the 4th field HUC – Alvord Lakes.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges that are outside of the 4th field HUC – Alvord Lakes will have No Effect on the Borax

Lake chub.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for May 28, 1980 (45 FR 35821). Emergency determination of Endangered

Status and Critical Habitat for the Borax Lake chub. Emergency Critical Habitat, Critical

Habitat – fishes. Emergency Listing, Endangered.

Federal Register for October 5, 1982 (47 FR 43957). Endangered Status and Critical Habitat for

Borax Lake chub. Final Critical Habitat – fishes, Final Listing, Endangered.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Oregon, Washington, and

California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.
Appendix 2.A 12

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 7, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Hutton Tui Chub (Gila bicolor) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On March 28, 1985, the Hutton tui chub was designated as threatened (50 FR 12302). Critical

habitat is not designated for this species.

DATA LAYER USED

5th field HUC - Alkali Lake Subbasin

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

According to the Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of the Warner Basin, the Hutton tui chub

range is contained within the Alkali Subbasin. Specifically, the Hutton tui chub is found in two

springs in the Alkali Subbasin - the Hutton Spring and an unnamed spring located 1,700 feet

southeast of the Hutton Spring.

ASSUMPTIONS

The entire range of the Hutton Tui chub is contained within the Alkali Lake Subbasin (5th field

watershed). This 179 mi2

 HUC is adequate for screening for any water-born effects to the springs

occupied by Hutton tui chub.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges that are outside of the Alkali Lake Subbasin (5th field watershed) will be documented as

having No Effect on the Hutton tui chub.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for March 28, 1985 (50 FR 12302). Determination of Threatened Status for

Hutton Tui Chub and Foskett Speckled Dace. Final listing, threatened, final special rule.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Oregon, Washington, and

California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of the Warner Basin

and Alkali Subbasin. Portland, Oregon. 86 pp.
Appendix 2.A 13

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 7, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Foskett Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus) Effect Screening

Layer

INTRODUCTION

On March 28, 1985, the Foskett speckled dace was designated as threatened (50 FR 12302).

Critical habitat is not designated for this species.

DATA LAYER USED

4th field HUC – Warner Lakes

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

According to the Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of the Warner Basin, the Foskett speckled

dace range is contained within the Warner Lake Basin. Specifically, the Foskett speckled dace is

found in two springs in the Warner Basin - the Foskett Spring and the Dace Spring.

ASSUMPTIONS

The entire range of the Foskett speckled dace is contained within the Warner Lakes 4th field

HUC.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges that are outside of the Warner Lakes 4th field HUC will be documented as having No

Effect on the Foskett speckled dace.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for March 28, 1985 (50 FR 12302). Determination of Threatened Status for

Hutton Tui Chub and Foskett Speckled Dace. Final listing, threatened, final special rule.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Oregon, Washington, and

California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Native Fishes of the Warner Basin

and Alkali Subbasin. Portland, Oregon. 86 pp.
Appendix 2.A 14

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 16, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Stuart Myers and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), river lamprey

(Lampetra ayresi), and western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

Three species of lamprey native to Oregon; Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook

lamprey, are currently not listed under the Federal or State ESA. Available data regarding these

species indicates that current populations of all three species are well below historic levels

(PFMFC 1997, ODFW 2002). On January 28, 2003, 11 conservation organizations in Oregon,

California, and Washington petitioned the USFWS to list the three species of lamprey as

Federally threatened or endangered. The USFWS is currently reviewing the petition and current

status of the three lamprey species to identify the need for Federal protection.

GIS SOURCE DATA

Oregon Coast ecoregion – all streams downstream of USACE impoundments, West Cascades

ecoregion - all streams downstream of USACE impoundments, Willamette Valley ecoregion –

all streams downstream of USACE impoundments, Columbia Basin ecoregion – all streams

except Deschutes, High Lava Plains ecoregion – John Day River basin, Blue Mountain ecoregion

– all tributaries of the Columbia River downstream of the Grande Ronde River (inclusive),

Klamath Mountains ecoregion – Rogue River basin downstream of Lost Creek and Applegate

dams and Umpqua River basin, 4th Field HUCS – Columbia/Sandy, Middle Columbia/Hood,

and Lower Deschutes (ODFW 2002).

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The current distribution of Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook lamprey is not

fully understood due to a lack of historic management attention and the phenotypic similarities to

other lamprey species (ODFW 2002). Current information regarding the status of the three

lamprey species is largely anecdotal and has been derived from sightings of the species during

management activities intended for other aquatic species. Lamprey and salmonids utilize similar

freshwater habitats and are affected by similar effect pathways. Therefore, the proposed

Performance Standards developed for other species addressed in this consultation will apply to

lamprey.
Appendix 2.A 15

ASSUMPTIONS

Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook lamprey are present in: Oregon Coast

ecoregion – all streams downstream of USACE impoundments, West Cascades ecoregion - all

streams downstream of USACE impoundments, Willamette Valley ecoregion – all streams

downstream of USACE impoundments, Columbia Basin ecoregion – all streams except

Deschutes, High Lava Plains ecoregion – John Day River basin, Blue Mountain ecoregion – all

tributaries of the Columbia River downstream of the Grande Ronde River (inclusive), Klamath

Mountains ecoregion – Rogue River basin downstream of Lost Creek and Applegate dams and

Umpqua River basin, 4th Field HUCS – Columbia/Sandy, Middle Columbia/Hood, and Lower

Deschutes.

EFFECT SCREENING CRITERIA

Bridges meeting the following criteria within the specified ecoregions or 4th field HUCS will

have No Effect on Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and western brook lamprey:

• Basin and Range ecoregion – all streams

• Owyhee Uplands ecoregion – all streams

• Oregon Coast ecoregion – all streams upstream of USACE impoundments

• West Cascades ecoregion - all streams upstream of USACE impoundments

• Willamette Valley ecoregion – all streams upstream of USACE impoundments

• High Lava Plains ecoregion – all streams except the John Day River basin

• Blue Mountain ecoregion – all tributaries of the Columbia River upstream of the Grande

Ronde River (inclusive)

• Klamath Mountains ecoregion – Rogue River basin upstream of Lost Creek and

Applegate dams, Umpqua River basin

REFERENCES

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2002. Oregon Lampreys: Natural History,

Status and Analysis of Management Issues. Draft Report. Salem, Oregon. 48 pp.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 1997. Life History of the Pacific

Lamprey. URL: http://www.psmfc.org. (accessed December 9, 2003)
Appendix 2.A 16

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 23, 2004

TO: David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Stuart Myers and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Modoc Sucker (Chtostomus Microps) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On June 11, 1985, the Modoc sucker was designated as Endangered throughout its entire range

(50 FR 24526). Critical habitat for the Modoc Sucker was designated on June 11, 1985 (50 FR

24526). Within the area covered by this listing, the Modoc sucker is known to occur in California

(50 FR 24526).

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The Modoc sucker historically occurred in small tributaries of the upper Pit River in Lassen and

Modoc Counties, California. Today, the Modoc sucker is only found in two small drainage

systems (Turner and Rush Creeks) in Modoc County, California (50 FR 24526). Preferred

habitat of the Modoc sucker consists of small streams characterized by large shallow pools with

cover, soft sediments, and clear water. Food of the Modoc sucker consists of benthic

invertebrates, algae, and detritus (50 FR 24526). During spring spawning runs, the species

ascends creeks or tributaries that may be dry during summer months (50 FR 24526).

ASSUMPTIONS

The entire range of the Modoc sucker is completely within the Turner and Rush Creek drainage

systems in Modoc County, California.

RESULTS

Following the analysis of the proximity of the proposed action to the range of the Modoc sucker,

we make a determination of No Effect for this species. The OTIA III Bridge Program does not

include the construction or replacement of bridges within the range of the Modoc Sucker.

Therefore, no effects to the Modoc sucker or their critical habitat will result from the proposed

action.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for June 11, 1985 (50 FR 24526). Final Critical Habitat, Critical Habitat, Fishes,

Final Listing, Endangered. Final Rule.
Appendix 2.A 17

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 26, 2003

TO: Art Martin and Marc Liverman - NOAA Fisheries

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Steller (Northern) Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Effect

Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On December 4, 1990 the Steller sea lion was designated as threatened throughout its entire

range (55 FR 49204). This listing was in response to a drastic decline in the Steller sea lion

population. The reasons for the decline are unknown but are suspected to be the results of

disease, incidental take in fishing gear, shooting, and natural or human induced changes in the

abundance and species composition of sea lion prey (58 FR 45269). Critical habitat was

designated September 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269).

DATA LAYER USED

1. Pacific Ocean shoreline as determined by the Oregon State Boundary GIS layer

2. A 3,000-foot buffer surrounding the critical habitat designated in the Federal Register (58 FR

45269) and the Three Arch National Wildlife Refuge rookery described in the personal

communication with Robin Brown (2002).

3. 4th field HUC – Lower Rogue, Grays and Elokoman, Lower Columbia/Clatskanie.

4. Johnson and O’Neil habitat types: Bays & Estuaries

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Steller sea lion primary habitat consists of rookeries where adults congregate during the breeding

season, which extends from late May to early July (58 FR 45269). In Oregon, important

reproductive activities and care of newborn sea lion pups on these rookeries occurs from late

April through early September (Robin Brown personal communication, 2003B). Rookeries are

remote islands, rocks, reefs, and beaches where access by terrestrial predators is limited.

In addition to rookeries, haulouts are essential habitat for Steller sea lions. A haulout may

include rookeries used outside of the breeding season, rocks, reefs, beaches, and occasionally sea

ice and manmade structures, such as breakwaters, navigational aids, and floating docks (58 FR

45269). Critical habitat in Oregon includes an air and aquatic zone that extends 3,000 feet from

historically occupied sea lion rookeries (58 FR 45269). In Oregon, there are three rookeries

designated as critical habitat: Rogue Reef Pyramid Rock Site, the Orford Reef Long Brown Rock

Site, and Seal Rock Site. Three Arch National Wildlife Refuge in Tillamook County has a

marginal Steller sea lion rookery, which is not designated as critical habitat (Robin Brown

personal communication, 2002). Haulouts in Oregon have not been identified as critical habitat

(58 FR 45269.
Appendix 2.A 18

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, Tillamook Rock, Three Arch Rocks, Cascade

Head, Seal Rock, Sea Lion Caves, Cape Arago, Rogue Reef, Blacklock Point, Blanco Reef,

Orford Reef, Rogue Reef, and Mack Reef (Robin Brown personal communication, 2003B).

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 2 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 (Robin Brown personal communication, 2003A and 2003B). Small numbers of

Steller sea lions may be found in any of the bays, estuaries, or lower portions of rivers along the

Oregon coast (Robin Brown personal communication, 2003B). In Oregon, Steller sea lions may

be found at any of the above listed rookeries, haul out areas, or river mouths anytime of the year;

however, the greatest number of occurrences in Oregon are during June and July, which

corresponds with the Steller sea lion’s reproductive period.

ASSUMPTIONS

In Oregon, the Steller sea lion only occurs along the Pacific Ocean shoreline, within the Bays &

Estuaries Johnson & O’Neil habitat type, up to 1,640 feet from the mouth of rivers along the

Oregon Coast, excluding the Columbia River and Rogue River. Steller sea lions only occur

within the Grays/Elokoman, Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 4th field HUCs of the Columbia River

and Lower Rogue 4th field HUC of the Rogue River.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

OTIA III Bridge Areas of Potential Impact (APIs) that are greater than 1,640 feet from the

Pacific Ocean shoreline and do not include Bays & Estuaries habitat type identified in Johnson &

O’Neil will be documented as having no effect on the Steller sea lions. Bridge APIs within 1

mile of the Pacific Ocean shoreline, Bays & Estuaries Johnson and O’Neil habitat type, or within

the Lower Rogue, Grays/Elokoman, and Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 4th field HUCs may affect

foraging. Further, bridge APIs that are located within 3,000 feet of a designated critical habitat

area or Three Arch National Wildlife Refuge may affect Steller sea lion breeding and/or normal

haulout behaviors.

REFERENCES

Brown, R. August 30, 2002. Personal Communication in an electronic mail with Francesca

Cafferata (Mason, Bruce, & Girard). Marine Mammal Program Leader, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.

Brown, R. November 18, 2003A. Personal Communication in a phone conversation with Kendel

Emmerson (Mason, Bruce, & Girard). Marine Mammal Program Leader, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon.

Brown, R. November 26, 2003B. Personal Communication in an email sent to Art Martin

(NOAA Fisheries) and forwarded to Kendel Emmerson (Mason, Bruce, & Girard).

Marine Mammal Program Leader, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis,

Oregon.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Ecoregions were based on those originally

published in The Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, by J.F. Franklin and

C.T. Dyrness in 1973. Geographic Information Systems data obtained from the Oregon

Natural Heritage Program March 2003.
Appendix 2.A 19

Federal Register for November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Listing of Steller Sea Lions as

Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. Final Rule.

Federal Register for August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). Designated Critical Habitat; Steller Sea

Lion. Final Rule.

O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger,

Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G.

Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat

Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. 2001. In D. H.

Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Appendix 2.A 20

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 2, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Columbian White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus

leucurus) Columbia River Distinct Population Segment Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

The Columbian white-tailed deer was listed as federally endangered on March 11, 1967. There

are two populations of Columbia white-tailed deer: the Douglas County population and the

Columbia River population. These populations are separated by a distance of greater than 200

miles, much of which is discontinuous or unsuitable habitat (68 FR 43647). On July 24, 2003 the

Douglas County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was federally de-listed; however, the

Columbia River DPS remains federally listed as endangered (68 FR 43647).

DATA LAYER USED

4th field HUC – Lower Columbia/Clatskanie and Grays/Elokoman and DEM for elevations.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Columbia white-tailed deer Columbia River DPS existing populations are in Columbia and

Clatsop County, Oregon on the islands and within the floodplain of the Columbia River (ODFW

1995). The Columbia River white-tailed deer preferred habitats are the riparian forest,

brushlands, and pastures within floodplains of the Columbia River (WDFW 1990, ODFW 1995).

Habitat loss is the greatest threat to this species; however, noise disturbance over extended

period or during critical times of the fawning season could adversely impact this species.

ASSUMPTIONS

The preferred habitat for Columbia white-tailed deer Columbia River DPS in Oregon is below

100 feet in elevation along the floodplain of the Columbia River in Columbia and Clatsop

Counties.

GIS PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SCREENING

OTIA III bridges outside of the Lower Columbia/Clatskanie and Grays/Elokoman 4th field HUC

in Clatsop and Columbia Counties will have no effect on Columbian white-tailed deer. OTIA III

Bridges that are within the Lower Columbia/Clatskanie and Grays/Elokoman 4th field HUC, but

are above 100 feet in elevation will have no effect on Columbian white-tailed deer.

REFERENCES
Appendix 2.A 21

Federal Register (68 FR 43647). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to

Remove the Douglas County Distinct Population Segment of Columbia White-Tailed

Deer from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. ODFW Backgrounder: The Columbian Whitetailed Deer and the Oregon Endangered Species Act. URL: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/

ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/PDFs/BKGWhiteTail.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2003. 4 pp.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 2002. Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Oregon, Washington, and

California. Vector Digital Data. Portland, Oregon. URL: http://www.reo.gov.

United States Geological Survey. 1999. 250K Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). Seamless DEM

layer for Oregon created by MB&G in 2000.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1990. WDFW Management Recommendations for

Priority Species: Columbian White-tailed Deer. Unpublished report of the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 3 pp.
Appendix 2.A 22

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 27, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On March 24, 2000 the Canada Lynx was Federally listed as threatened throughout its entire

range (65 FR 16051). Critical habitat for the Canada lynx has not been designated.

DATA LAYER USED

Camryn Lee (USFWS Biologist) provided a schematic of the area of concern for lynx habitat

blocks and connectivity in Oregon via a fax to Jessica Burton (MB&G GIS specialist) on

October 9, 2003. This schematic was used to create a map of the area of concern for lynx. To

ensure that the fax was interpreted correctly, the map was sent as a JPEG to Camryn Lee to

review in an email sent on October 15, 2003 from Kendel Emmerson. MB&G received verbal

approval via David Leal on October 21, 2003.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Canada lynx occur in higher elevations of boreal forest habitat types (Lee et al. 1998). In

Oregon, the Canada lynx occurs within the Blue Mountain Ecoregion in habitats above 4,500 ft

in elevation (Lee et al.1998).

ASSUMPTIONS

All potential suitable habitats and areas necessary for maintaining connectivity in Oregon are

within the USFWS designated area of concern.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

All OTIA III bridges API (Area of Potential Impact) that are outside of the area of concern will

be documented as having No Effect on Canada lynx.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for March 24, 2000 (65 FR 16051). Determination of Threatened Status for the

Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule,

Final Rule.

Lee, C., E. Rybak, J. Weaver, Doctor of Philosophy, K. Aubry, Doctor of Philosophy, R. Naney,

G. Gunderson, J. Lehmkuhl, Doctor of Philosophy., W. Zielinski, Doctor of Philosophy ,

G. Koehler, P. Murphy, C. Lorimor, and V. Agnew. 1998. Survey Protocol for the Lynx

(Lynx canadensis). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Forest Service,
Appendix 2.A 23

Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wenatchee

National Forest.
Appendix 2.A 24

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 2, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus)

Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On October 1, 1992 the marbled murrelet was listed as threatened (57 FR 45328). Critical habitat

was designated on May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26256).

DATA LAYER USED

EPA 2001 Ecoregions: Coast Range Ecoregion.

Johnson and O’Neil habitat types: Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Southwest

Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Bays and Estuaries, Marine Nearshore, and Marine

Shelf.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Marbled murrelets spend most of their lives in the marine environment where they feed primarily

on small fish and invertebrates in the near-shore marine water (61 FR 26256). Marbled murrelets

nest in large-diameter old-growth trees in low-elevation forest with multi-layered canopies (61

FR 26256). Marbled murrelets nest inland, as far as 40 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean

shoreline in Oregon (Evans et al. 2003).

ASSUMPTIONS

The Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood

Forest, Bays and Estuaries, Marine Nearshore, and Marine Shelf habitat types are the only

habitat types to support the Oregon population of marbled murrelets. Nesting by marbled

murrelets will not occur greater than 40-miles inland.

GIS PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SCREENING

Bridges that are greater than 40 miles from the Pacific shoreline will have no effect on the

marbled murrelet. OTIA III bridges Area of Potential Impact (API) within 40 miles of Pacific

Coast shoreline and within 1.0 mile of Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Southwest

Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood, Forest, Bays and Estuaries, Marine Nearshore, and Marine

Shelf habitat type have the potential to impact marbled murrelets.

Bridges that are within 40 miles of the Pacific shoreline, but not within 1.0 mile of the listed

habitat types have the potential to disturb marbled murrelets using water courses as travel
Appendix 2.A 25

corridors from the marine environment to nest sites. To insure that these bridges will have no

effect on marbled murrelets all construction activities that produce percussive noises greater than

10 dBA above ambient conditions would be restricted to 2 hours after official sunrise between

April 1 and August 5.

REFERENCES

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Ecoregions were based on those originally

published in The Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, by J.F. Franklin and

C.T. Dyrness in 1973. Geographic Information Systems data obtained from the Oregon

Natural Heritage Program March 2003.

Evans Mack, D., W.P. Ritchie, S.K. Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, P. Harrison, and T.E. Hamer.

2003. Methods for surveying Marbled Murrelets in forests: a revised protocol for land

management and research. Pacific Seabird Group unpublished document available at

http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org.

Federal Register for October 1, 1992. (57 FR 45328). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California

Population of the Marbled Murrelet.

Federal Register for May 24, 1996. (61 FR 26256). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet.

O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger,

Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G.

Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat

Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. 2001. In D. H.

Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 2001.
Appendix 2.A 26

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 5, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

The bald eagle was reclassified from federally endangered to threatened on July 12, 1995 (60 FR

36000). There is no critical habitat designated for bald eagles (USFWS 2000).

DATA LAYER USED

Issacs and Anthony

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Bald eagle breeding territories are typically located within 1.0 mile of permanent water in

predominantly coniferous, uneven-aged forest stands with old-growth structural components

(Anthony et al. 1982, Stalmaster 1987, Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Favored nest trees are usually

the largest tree or snag in a stand that provides an unobstructed view of the surrounding area and

a clear flight path to and from the nest (Stalmaster 1987, Rodrick and Milner 1991). Bald eagles

are territorial and often use the same nest year after year (Donohoo et al. 1997). Bald eagle pairs

in Oregon have alternate nests in their territories that are used in different years (Anthony and

Isaacs 1981). To monitor the bald eagle population in Oregon the existing and newly established

bald eagle nest territories are monitored annually by the Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit, which is a cooperative effort of several local, state, and federal agencies. Each

bald eagle territory’s status and nest site location is compiled into a database with records dating

to 1971 (Isaacs and Anthony 2003).

ASSUMPTIONS

The current Isaacs and Anthony data will account for all known bald eagle nests in Oregon.

GIS PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SCREENING

Isaacs and Anthony data will be updated annually to insure new nest sites are incorporated into

the GIS data. OTIA III bridges that are greater than 1.0 mile from a bald eagle nest site will have

No Effect on nesting bald eagles.

REFERENCES

Anthony, R.G. and F. B. Isaacs. 1981. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon.

Unpublished report. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Anthony, R.G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal

of Wildlife Management. 53(1):148-159.
Appendix 2.A 27

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. In Trans. North American

Wildlife Natural Resource Conference, Wildlife. Management. Institution, Washington

D.C. 47:332-342.

Donohoo, L., G. Kaltenecker, and J. Erickson. 1997. Biological Assessment for the Paradise

Integrated Resource Management Project in the Mountain Home Ranger District of the

Boise National Forest. USFS. 19 pp + Appendices.

Federal Register for July 12, 1995 (60 FR 36000). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species;

Bald Eagle Reclassification; Final Rule.

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.

21 pp., 6 tables, 2 figures, 1 appendix.

Rodrick, E., and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington’s Priority

Habitats and Species. Journal of Wildlife. Management., Fish Management and Habitat

Management Division, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. np.

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY. 227 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered

Species. U.S. listed vertebrate animal species index by lead region and status as of

November 30, 1999. US Listed Bird Species Profiles 1, as of November 30, 1999.

http://www.endangered.fws.gov/birds1.html#Lnkoh. Accessed January 10, 2000.
Appendix 2.A 28

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 19, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On June 2, 1970 the brown pelican was designated as Endangered throughout its entire range,

except for the U.S. Atlantic Coast, Florida, and Alabama (35 FR 8491). On February 4, 1985, the

brown pelican was de-listed in the U.S. Atlantic coast, Florida, and Alabama (50 FR 4938).

DATA LAYER USED

1. Pacific Ocean shoreline as determined by the Oregon State Boundary GIS layer

2. Johnson and O’Neil habitat types: Urban/Mixed Enviros, Coastal Dunes and Beaches,

Marine Nearshore, Coastal Headlands/Islets, and Bays and Estuaries.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The brown pelican breeds in nesting colonies on islands in the Gulf of California and along the

Pacific Coast from Baja, California to Santa Barbara Islands and the non-breeding brown

pelicans range from Colima, Mexico to British Columbia, Canada (USFWS 1983). Non-breeding

pelican dispersal patterns are dependent on food availability and oceanographic conditions, such

as temperature and currents (USFWS 1983). Both breeding and non-breeding pelicans require

roosting and loafing sites, free from human disturbance, for resting and drying theirs feathers

(USFWS 2002). Roosting and loafing sites include offshore rocks and islands, river mouths with

sandbars, breakwaters, pilings, and jetties (USFWS 1983). Brown pelicans are most threatened

by a limited food supply, oceanic pollution, persistent pesticides, and disturbance at nest

locations (USFWS 1983).

ASSUMPTIONS

The Pacific Ocean shoreline with the Johnson and O’Neil habitat types listed above are the only

habitats where brown pelicans are known to occur in Oregon. Brown pelicans have been

documented elsewhere in Oregon; however, this is often due to pelicans being “blown” off

course by storms. Areas greater than 5 miles from Pacific Ocean shoreline do not provide brown

pelican habitat.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

Bridges greater than 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean shoreline will be documented as having No

Effect on brown pelicans. Further, bridges within 5 miles of the Pacific Ocean shoreline, but

located greater than 1.0 mile from the listed habitat types will have No Effect on brown pelicans.
Appendix 2.A 29

REFERENCES

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Ecoregions were based on those originally

published in The Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, by J.F. Franklin and

C.T. Dyrness in 1973. Geographic Information Systems data obtained from the Oregon

Natural Heritage Program March 2003.

Federal Register for June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Part 17 – Conservation of Endangered Species

and other Fish or Wildlife (First list of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife as

Appendix A). Final Listing, Endangered.

Federal Register for February 4, 1985 (50 FR 4938). Removal of the Brown Pelican in

southeastern U.S. from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Final

Amendment, Exclusion of delisted subunits.

O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger,

Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G.

Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat

Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. 2001. In D. H.

Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 2001.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan.

Portland, Oregon. 179 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Species Account: Brown Pelican.

Created by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, updated April 2002. URL:

http://oregonfwo.fws.gov/EndSpp/FactSheets/Birds/ Pelican.dwt. Accessed October 17,

2003.
Appendix 2.A 30

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 6, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) Effect Screening

Layer

INTRODUCTION

The northern spotted owl was listed as threatened on June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114). Critical

habitat has been designated for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 1992).

DATA LAYER USED

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Northwest Forest Plan Boundary, FEMAT 1993 (REO

2003).

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Northern spotted owls are known to inhabit most types of coniferous forests below 6000 ft in

elevation west of, and including, the Cascade Mountains (USFS 1988). Major roosting and

nesting areas are generally dispersed throughout a northern spotted owl’s territory, and their

pattern of use varies seasonally (Forsman et al. 1984). Median home range size for northern

spotted owls varies depending on the physiographic province (Thomas et al. 1990). Suitable

nesting habitat in west-side forests (i.e., west of the summit of the Cascade Mountains) includes

abundant dead and downed woody material, a medium to high forest canopy closure, multiple

layers in the forest overstory, and mature trees (generally 200 years or older) or greater than 32

inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) (Thomas et al. 1990). Northern spotted owl suitable

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat east of the Cascade Mountain Crest differs from the westside suitable habitat definition and typically occurs in mixed conifer stands within areas with a

riparian plant association (USFS 2002). These stands typically have multi-storied canopies

containing some larger trees. The canopy cover is typically greater than or equal to 40 percent

with an overstory comprised of at least 5 percent of trees greater than 21 in dbh (USFS 2002).

ASSUMPTIONS

The Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Northwest Forest Plan Boundary, FEMAT 1993

(REO 2003) includes all known spotted owl nests.
Appendix 2.A 31

GIS PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SCREENING

OTIA III bridges that are greater than 1.0 miles from the boundary of the range of the northern

spotted owl will have no effect on northern spotted owls. The Oregon Cascades Province is the

eastern most province in the range of the northern spotted owl; therefore bridges outside of the

range would be east of this province. Bridges within 1.0 miles of the boundary and containing

suitable Johnson and O’Neil habitat types within 500 feet of the bridge center point will be

considered as having the potential to affect the northern spotted owl.

REFERENCES

Interagency Science Committee. 1990. Conservation Strategy for Northern Spotted Owl: A

Report of Interagency Science Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern

Spotted Owl. Oregon Natural Heritage Database. 427 pp.

Federal Register for June 26, 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wright, 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted

owl in Oregon. Wildl. Monog. 87. 64pp.

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. A report by the Interagency

Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S.D.A.

Forest Service, U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A. Bureau of Land

Management, and U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Portland, OR.

Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). 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.

Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). 2003. REO Geographic Information Systems Physiographic

Provinces with the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993) http://www.reo.gov/

gis/images/phypro.jpg

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1992A. Critical Habitat For The Northern Spotted

Owl. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. 73 pp.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 1988. Final Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement for

an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. Volumes 1 and 2. U.S.D.A.

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2002. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Metolius Basin

Forest Management Project. USDA For. Serv. Deschutes National Forest, Sisters Ranger

District, Sisters, Oregon. 404 pp + appendices.
Appendix 2.A 32

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 7, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)

Pacific Coast Population Effect Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

The western snowy plover Pacific Coast population was listed as threatened in March 5, 1993

(58 FR 12864). Critical habitat was designated in December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68508).

The western snowy plover has two distinct populations in Oregon: the Pacific Coast population

and the Interior population. Federal listing only applies to the Pacific Coast population, which is

defined as those individuals that nest adjacent to tidal waters, and includes all nesting birds on

the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays, estuaries, and coastal rivers (FR

68508).

DATA LAYER USED

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Geographic Information Systems

dataset for recovery location units of the western snowy plover along the Oregon Coast.

Received from Linda Roberts, USFWS GIS Branch, Sacramento, CA on October 2, 2003.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

USFWS designated critical habitat areas for the western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population)

(68 FR 68508). Critical habitat was selected for areas that supported at least four nesting snowy

plover pairs or 10 wintering plovers (68 FR 68508). Oregon has seven of the 28 critical habitat

areas, which support 97 percent of the nesting and 98 percent of the winter plovers in Oregon (68

FR 68508). In addition to the critical habitat areas the USFWS has proposed recovery units and

within each unit there are recovery locations. These locations are areas that are known to support

nesting western snowy plovers in addition to the critical habitat areas.

ASSUMPTIONS

Recovery units will account for all the range of western snowy plovers along the Oregon Coast.

GIS PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SCREENING

OTIA III bridges have the potential to adversely impact snowy plovers. Alteration of a water

course either temporarily during construction or permanently through bridge design could affect

snowy plover habitat by reducing sand delivery or by affecting water quality (USFWS 2001).

Ground disturbance activities may introduce or promote non-native vegetation that result in

significant losses of habitat, such as beachgrasses (Ammophila spp.) (USFWS 2001). The

increase presence of humans may encourage predators, such as crows, ravens or other Corvid
Appendix 2.A 33

species, to the area (USFWS 2001). Each of these potential impacts should have no effect on

snowy plovers if they occur greater than 1.0 mile from snowy plover areas. Any potential for

noise disturbance from construction activities will have no effect at distances greater than 1.0

mile. In Oregon, this population exists only in the Coast Range Ecoregion; therefore all OTIA III

bridges that are outside of the Coast Range Ecoregion will have no effect on the Pacific Coast

population of the western snowy plover.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Pacific Coast Population of the

Western Snowy Plover. Final Rule.

Federal Register for December 7, 1999 (68 FR 68508). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western

Snowy Plover. Final Rule.

O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger,

Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G.

Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat

Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. 2001. In D. H.

Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 2001.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) Pacific Coast Population Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.

xix ++ 630 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Geographic Information Systems

dataset for recovery locations of the western snowy plover along the Oregon Coast.

Received from Linda Roberts, USFWS GIS Branch, Sacramento, CA on October 2,

2003.
Appendix 2.A 34

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 10, 2003

TO: Randy Reeve - ODFW

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Effect

Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On October 13, 1970, the American peregrine falcon was listed as endangered under the federal

ESA (35 FR 16047). The American peregrine falcon was removed from the federal ESA list on

August 25, 1999 because populations were considered to be recovered from being threatened by

extinction (64 FR 46542). The American peregrine falcon was listed as endangered under the

Oregon State Endangered Species Act (SESA) in 1987 (OAR 635-100-0125) and currently is

protected by SESA only (ODFW 2003).

DATA LAYER USED

Nest location information was provided by Randy Reeve of ODFW for each OTIA III bridge that

is within 2.0 miles of a peregrine falcon nest.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The American peregrine falcon is one of three subspecies of peregrine falcon that occur in North

America (64 FR 46542). The American peregrine falcon nests from central Alaska, western

Canada, throughout the western United States, and south to highlands of central Mexico (64 FR

46542). Peregrine falcon nests are usually located on a small scrape on a ledge of a cliff face or a

man-made structure. A suitable cliff face or structure is typically between 75 to 2,000 ft tall and

within 0.25 mi to 0.50 mi of riparian, lacustrine, or marine habitat (Pagel 1992). Blasting, road

construction, low-flying aircraft, and recreational activities may disturb nesting peregrines

(Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982). Peregrines are most

susceptible to human disturbance during courtship and incubation; nest tenacity by adults

increases as incubation progresses and hatching occurs.

ASSUMPTIONS

Nest sites provided by Randy Reeve, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, will account for

all known nest sites within 1.0 miles of OTIA III bridges.
Appendix 2.A 35

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

OTIA III bridges greater than 1.0 miles form a peregrine falcon nest will be documented as

having No Effect on American peregrine falcon.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047). Appendix D - United States List of

Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife.

Federal Register for August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46542). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Final Rule to Remove the American Peregrine Falcon From the Federal List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and to Remove the Similarity of Appearance

Provision for Free-Flying Peregrines in the Conterminous Untied States.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Oregon Administrative Rules Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife Division 100 Wildlife Diversity Plan. URL:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/OARs/pdfs/fish/div_100.pdf. (November 3,

2003)

Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1982. Coast Recovery Plan for the

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service, Denver, Colorado. 86pp.

Pagel, J. E. 1992. Protocol for Observing Known Potential Peregrine Falcon Eyries in the Pacific

Northwest. Pages 83-96 in J.E. Pagel, editor. Proceedings of a symposium on peregrine

falcons in the Pacific Northwest. United States Forest Service, Medford, Oregon. 125

pp.
Appendix 2.A 36

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 3, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Bob Carson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) Effect

Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

On September 19, 1994 the vernal pool fairy shrimp was listed as threatened throughout all of its

range (59 FR 48136). Critical habitat has been designated for this species (68 FR 46683).

DATA LAYER USED

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wetland Inventory) Spring 1999 Vernal

pools identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Service that may or may not harbor

endangered fairy shrimp. Data layer was obtained from Jackson County GIS website

(Jackson County 2003).

• National Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for

Jackson County Area, Oregon, Parts of Jackson and Klamath Counties Agate-Winlo

Complex Soils (0-5 percent slope). September 22, 2000.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

According to the Federal Register (68 FR 46689), the species’ distribution in Oregon is limited

to a 32 square mile area known as the Agate Desert in Jackson County, north of Medford. Vernal

pool fairy shrimp are susceptible to disturbance from direct impacts to their habitat.

ASSUMPTIONS

• All vernal pools have Agate-Winlo Complex soils.

• All vernal pools indicated on the above-referenced mapping are suitable fairy shrimp

habitat except those classified as having both “developed hydrology” and “developed

vegetation”. Such classification indicates that human development via terrain leveling,

and removal of native vegetation has eliminated the vernal pools.

GIS PROCESS PROPOSED FOR SCREENING

• OTIA III bridges outside of Jackson County will be documented as having No Effect.

• OTIA III bridges within Jackson County that are not classified as vernal pool habitat,

within the Agate-Winlo Complex soil, or are classified as vernal pool habitat but with

developed vegetation and developed hydrology, will be documented as having No Effect

on vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Appendix 2.A 37

REFERENCES

Federal Register for September 19, 1994 (59 FR 48136). Determination of Threatened Status for

the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. Final Listing.

Federal Register for August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46683). Final Designation of Critical Habitat for 4

Vernal Pool Crustaceans and 11 Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon.

Jackson County. 2003. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Vernal Pools

identified by Fish and Wildlife Service that may or may not harbor endangered fairy

shrimp Spring 1999. URL: http://smartmap.org/downloads.cfm (October 27, 2003).

National Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for

Jackson County Area, Oregon, Parts of Jackson and Klamath Counties Agate-Winlo

Complex Soils (0-5 percent slope). September 22, 2000.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 6, 2003, Final Critical Habitat for 15 Vernal Pool

Species, Sacramento, California USA.
Appendix 2.A 38

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 3, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) Effect

Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

Fender’s blue butterfly was designated as Endangered throughout its entire range on January 25,

2000 (65 FR 3875).

DATA LAYER USED

1. Willamette Valley Ecoregion

2. Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Surveys indicated that the Fender’s blue butterfly is restricted to the Willamette Valley and

currently occupies 32 sites in Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties (65 FR 3877). Adult

butterflies lay their eggs on perennial lupine species, which are also the food plant of the

caterpillar during May and June. The newly hatched larvae feed for a short time, reaching their

second instar in the early summer, at which point they enter an extended diapause (65 FR 3877).

Diapausing larvae remain in the leaf litter at or near the base of the host plant through the fall

and winter and may become active again in March or April the following year. The Fender’s

blue butterfly is dependent on the presence of either the federally endangered Kincaid’s lupine

(Lupinus sulphureus kincaidii), spurred lupine (Lupinus laxiflorus), or the sickle-keeled lupine

(Lupinus albicaulis) as their host plant.

ASSUMPTIONS

The Fender’s blue butterfly is limited to Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties within the

Willamette Valley Ecoregion (65 FR 3877).

GIS PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SCREENING

All bridges located outside of the Willamette Valley Ecoregion will have No Effect on the

Fender’s blue butterfly. All bridges located within the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, but are

outside of Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties will have No Effect on the Fender’s blue

butterfly.

REFERENCES
Appendix 2.A 39

Federal Register for January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3875). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Endangered Status for “Erigeron decumbens” var. “decumbens” (Willamette

Daisy) and Fender’s Blue Butterfly (“Icaricia icarioides fenderi”) and Threatened Status

for “Lupinus sulphureus” ssp. “kincaidii” (Kincaid’s Lupine). Final Rule.
Appendix 2.A 40

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 17, 2003

TO: Nancy Lee and David Leal - USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo - MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Effect

Screening Layer

INTRODUCTION

The Oregon silverspot butterfly was listed as threatened and critical habitat designated on July 2,

1980 (45 FR 44935).

DATA LAYER USED

Descriptions and figures of Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA) provided in Oregon silverspot

butterfly Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001).

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The Oregon silverspot butterfly occurs in disjunct sites near the Pacific coast from Del Norte

County, California, north to Long Beach Peninsula, Washington (USFWS 2001). The species has

been extirpated from 11 localities and is currently know to occur at only 6 sites (USFWS 2001).

Oregon silverspot butterflies inhabit early sucessional coastal grasslands with protection from

strong coastal winds by topography or forest fringe (TNC 2003). Grassland habitats that support

Oregon silverspot butterfly populations are currently known to exist in marine terrace and coastal

headland “salt spray” meadows, stabilized dunes, and montane grasslands, which are found in

the higher elevations of the Oregon Coast Range (USFWS 2001). In addition to providing

suitable environmental conditions, these habitats provide adequate amount of caterpillar host

plants and adult nectar sources.

The Oregon silverspot butterfly primary food source is the early blue violet (Viola adunca) (TNC

2003). The adult butterfly nectars on members of the aster family including the following native

species: Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), dune goldenrod (Solidago spathulata),

California aster (Aster chilensis), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), dune thistle

(Cirsium edule) and yarrow (Achillea millefolium) (USFWS 2001). Less frequent nectar species

include chaparral broom (Baccharis pilularis), smooth hawksbeard (Crepis capillaris), woolly

sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum), and introduced plants such as, thistles (Cirsium spp.), tansy

ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), and false dandelion (Hypochaeris radicata) (USFWS 2001).

Extensive surveys of habitat conditions and populations throughout the range of the subspecies

were conducted to determine known localities and areas that may potentially support future

populations. Using the survey information, Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA) were designated

for areas that contain one or more populations, or potential habitat for management of at least
Appendix 2.A 41

two viable populations of Oregon silverspot butterfly (USFWS 2001). There are six HCA, 4 of

these are in Oregon: Clatsop Plains HCA, Coastal Mountain HCA (Mt. Hebo and Fairview Mt.),

Cascade Head HCA, and Central Coast HCA. The only critical habitat area designated for

Oregon silverspot butterfly is Rock Creek-Big Creek area, which is entirely contained within the

Central Coast HCA (45 FR 44935 and USFWS 2001).

ASSUMPTIONS

All localities of the Oregon silverspot butterfly in Oregon are within the four designated HCA’s.

GIS PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SCREENING

OTIA III bridges have the potential to adversely impact Oregon silverspot butterfly through

ground disturbance activities which may introduce or promote invasive species or alter the

microclimate of the habitat (i.e., removal of forested fringes adjacent to the grassland habitat

may increase exposure to winds). All OTIA III bridges API greater than 0.5 miles from an

Oregon silverspot butterfly HCA will be documented as having No Effect on Oregon silverspot

butterfly.

REFERENCES

Federal Register for July 2, 1980 (45 FR 44935). Listing the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly as a

Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. Final Rule.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Seventh Annual Report –

Permit #TE-804885-7. Enhancement of Survival Permit for Threatened Wildlife Oregon

silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta). Unpublished report of The Nature

Conservancy, Otis, Oregon. 16pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria

zerene hippolyta) revised recovery plan. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

113 pp + appendices.
Appendix 2-B

Evaluation of Effects (EOE) Memoranda
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Evaluation Of Effects Memoranda

Steller (Northern) Sea Lion Evaluation of Effects Memo................................................2

Columbian White-Tailed Deer Evaluation of Effects Memo............................................5

Canada Lynx Evaluation of Effects Memo.................................................................9

Marbled Murrelet Evaluation of Effects Memo..........................................................12

Bald Eagle Evaluation of Effects Memo..................................................................18

Brown Pelican Evaluation of Effects Memo.............................................................23

Northern Spotted Owl Evaluation of Effects Memo.....................................................26

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Evaluation of Effects Memo................................................31

Fender’s Blue Butterfly Evaluation of Effects Memo...................................................34
Appendix 2-B 1

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 26, 2004

TO: Art Martin and Marc Liverman, NOAA Fisheries

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Steller (Northern) Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Evaluation of

Effects

Likely effects to the Steller sea lion as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed using a

combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological requirements of

the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential effects of

disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the process used

to determine which bridges would potentially affect Steller sea lions.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where repair and replacement activities could potentially

affect Steller sea lions, the initial screening criteria for Steller sea lions were applied to all

bridges in the Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the initial

screening process.

Assumption:

• In Oregon the Steller sea lion only occurs along the Pacific Ocean shoreline, within the

Bays and Estuaries Johnson and O’Neil habitat type, up to 1,640 feet from the mouth of

rivers along the Oregon Coast, within the lower 70 miles of the Columbia River and the

lower 8 miles of the Rogue River. Steller sea lions only occur with the Grays/Elokoman,

Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 4th field HUCs of the Columbia River and Lower Rogue 4th

field HUC of the Rogue River.

• Bridges with an API greater than 1,640 feet from the Pacific Ocean shoreline that do not

include the Bays and Estuaries habitat type (Johnson and O’Neil 2001) will have no effect

on the Steller sea lions.

• Bridges with an API within 1,640 feet of the Pacific Ocean shoreline, Bays and Estuaries

habitat type (Johnson and O’Neil 2001), or within the Lower Rogue, Grays/Elokoman, or

Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 4th field HUCs may affect foraging. Further, bridges with an

API that is within 3,000 feet of a designated critical habitat area or Three Arch National

Wildlife Refuge may affect Steller sea lion breeding.

Result:

• A total of seven bridges were identified within 1,640 feet of the Pacific Ocean shoreline,

the Bays and Estuaries habitat type (Johnson and O’Neil 2001), within the Lower Rogue,
Appendix 2-B 2

Grays/Elokoman, and Lower Columbia/Clatskanie 4th field HUCs, or within 3,000 feet of a

designated critical habitat area or Three Arch National Wildlife Refuge.

Step 2. Identify Potential Noise Effects

Construction noise occurring within 1,640 feet of Steller sea lion habitat has the potential to

affect breeding Steller sea lions or Steller sea lions that are hauled out (resting). The following

is a list of assumptions and results from the noise disturbance screening process:

Assumption:

• Noise disturbance to Steller sea lions (especially short, high-intensity noises such as

blasting, pile driving, pipe ramming, etc.) is assumed to be attenuated to background levels

within 1,640 feet of the source of the disturbance. Beyond 1,640 feet there would be no

effect to Steller sea lions from noise disturbance.

• Noise disturbance to Steller sea lions is assumed to be limited to Johnson and O’Neil

(2001) habitat types that are capable of supporting Steller sea lions, or within the abovelisted HUCs within 1,640 feet of a bridge API.

• There is no topographic or vegetative buffer between haulouts or rookeries and the bridge

API.

Result:

• A net total area of 974 acres, (gross total of 1,036 acres) of Steller sea lion habitat may be

affected by noise disturbance.

Step 3. Identify Potential Visual Effects

For purposes of the Bridge Program, visual disturbance occurring within 3,000 feet of Steller

sea lion habitat may have the potential to affect Steller sea lions. This distance is the NOAA

Fisheries-established buffer around designated critical habitat to protect Steller sea lion rookery

sites (58 FR 45269).

Assumptions:

• Visual disturbance to Steller sea lions (e.g. construction equipment staging and operation,

general human presence, etc.) is assumed to be limited to Steller sea lion critical habitat

and documented haulouts provided by ODFW (2003c)..

Result:

• Of the seven bridges identified in the initial screening process, none have an API within

3,000 feet of Steller sea lion critical habitat or documented haulouts, therefore the

proposed action will have no potential for visual disturbance effects to the Steller sea lion.

Step 4. Identify Potential Species Effects
Appendix 2-B 3

Direct removal or modification of a haulout or rookery site may affect Steller sea lions.

However, direct adverse affects to the species would be rare due to Steller sea lions capability of

leaving the area of effect. Direct effects to Steller sea lions may also occur through effects to

prey species. However, by following performance standards outlined in this program, effects to

prey species for the Steller sea lion would be minimized.
Appendix 2-B 4

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Columbian White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)

Evaluation of Effects

Likely effects to the Columbian white-tailed deer as a result of the Bridge Program were

analyzed using a combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological

requirements of the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential

effects of disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the

process used to determine which bridges would potentially affect Columbian white-tailed deer.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where repair and replacement activities could potentially

affect Columbian white-tailed deer, the initial screening criteria for Columbian white-tailed deer

were applied to all bridges in the Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and

results from the initial screening process.

Assumption:

• The preferred habitat for Columbia white-tailed deer Columbia River DPS in Oregon is

below 10 feet in elevation along the floodplain of the Columbia River in Columbia and

Clatsop Counties. To provide an estimate of the amount of preferred habitat within the APIs

of the Bridge Program, the analysis of preferred habitat evaluated areas along the floodplain

of the Columbia River in Columbia and Clatsop Counties below 100 feet in elevation.

• Bridges outside of the Lower Columbia/Clatskanie and Grays/Elokoman 4th field HUC in

Clatsop and Columbia Counties will have no effect on Columbian white-tailed deer.

• Bridges that are within the Lower Columbia/Clatskanie and Grays/Elokoman 4th field HUC,

but are above 100 feet in elevation would have no effect on Columbian white-tailed deer.

Result:

• One bridge (Big Creek Bridge- No. 07417) was identified within the Lower

Columbia/Clatskanie and Grays/Elokoman 4th field HUC’s and below 100 feet in elevation.
Appendix 2-B 5

Step 2. Identify Potential Noise Effects

Construction noise occurring within 1 mile of identified Columbian white-tailed deer habitat

has the potential to harass Columbian white-tailed deer. Only Big Creek Bridge (No. 07417)

was identified in the initial screening process as being within the range of Columbian whitetailed deer and having the potential to adversely affect Columbian white-tailed deer through

noise disturbance. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the noise disturbance

screening process:

Assumption:

• Bridge APIs within 1 mile of Columbian white-tailed deer habitat would have the potential to

cause noise harassment.

• Assume that the entire habitat within a 1-mile radius around the Big Creek Bridge is suitable

Columbian white-tailed deer habitat.

Result:

• A total area of 3,913 acres within a 1-mile radius around the Big Creek Bridge API could be

affected by noise disturbance.

Step 3. Identify Potential Visual Effects

An over-estimate of visual disturbance threshold for Columbian white-tailed deer would be the

distance from the source of the visual disturbance to suitable hiding cover, or 1,500 feet,

whichever is less. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the visual disturbance

screening process.

Assumption:

• Bridge API’s within 1,500 feet of Columbian white-tailed deer habitat would have the

potential to cause visual harassment.

• Assume that all habitats within a 1,500-feet radius around the Big Creek Bridge (No. 07417)

are suitable Columbian white-tailed deer habitat.

Result:

• A total area of 959 acres within a 1,500-feet radius around the Big Creek Bridge API could

be affected by visual disturbance.

Step 4. Identify Potential Plant Effects (Affected Habitat)

The preferred habitat for the Columbian white-tailed deer includes riparian forest, brushlands,

and pastures within tidally-influenced floodplains of the Columbia River, typically below 10 feet

in elevation (WDFW 1990, ODFW 1995a). To obtain an estimate of the number of bridges

within the Bridge Program that could potentially affect Columbian white-tailed deer habitat, the

initial screening process evaluated all bridge locations below 100 feet elevation along the tidallyinfluenced floodplains of the Columbia River. This initial screening identified only one bridge

(Big Creek Bridge – No. 07417) in Clatsop County as being within the preferred habitat range of
Appendix 2-B 6

the Columbian white-tailed deer. The following is a list of the assumptions and results used to

determine the area of affected habitat:

Assumption:

• Assume that all habitats within a 1,500-foot radius around Big Creek Bridge are suitable

Columbian white-tailed deer habitat.

Result:

•A total area of 959 ac within a 1,500-foot radius around the Big Creek Bridge API contains

suitable habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer.

Step 5. Identify Potential Plant Effects (Habitat Removal Area)

The Bridge Program would require the removal of suitable Columbian white-tailed deer habitat,

which could cause adverse effects to Columbian white-tailed deer. The Vegetation Removal and

Site Restoration Performance Standard will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared

and to ensure that any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint area is restored.

For the one bridge identified above in the Affected Habitat Area Pathway, it is expected that

approximately 2 acres of Columbian white-tailed deer habitat would be removed. The following

is a list of assumptions and results used to determine the area of habitat removal:

Assumption:

• It is expected that 2 acres of habitat will be removed within a 500-foot radius of Big Creek

Bridge (No. 07417) center point identified in the initial screening process. This represents

the maximum expected area of disturbance from work bridges or detour routes within the

bridge project area. The 2 acres is based on the following information from previous bridge

replacement projects:

1. Based on analysis of two large ODOT bridge replacement projects, the Row River Bridge

(ODOT 2003c) and the Lower Quarry Bridges (ODOT 2003d), the area of actual ground

disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads did not exceed 2 acres

per construction site (1.3 and 0.7 acres, respectively). The Habitat Avoidance

Performance Standard prohibits staging areas and access roads to be constructed in

protected species habitat; therefore, these project elements are not included in the

estimate of habitat removal.

2. Based on an analysis of two small ODOT bridge projects, Jackass Creek Bridge (ODOT

2003e) and Bear Creek Bridge (ODOT 2002c), the area of actual ground disturbance

from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads was less than 0.5 acres per

construction site (0.5 and 0.2 acres, respectively).

3. Given the relatively small areas of disturbance for most bridge construction activities,

applying the 2 acres estimate of ground disturbance from the larger ODOT bridge

projects to the Big Creek Bridge project is considered an overestimate estimate of the

actual expected habitat effects. The Big Creek Bridge replacement project is one of the

smaller projects within the Bridge Program and its actual effect on Columbia white-tailed

deer habitat is expected to be less than 2 acres.
Appendix 2-B 7

Result:

• The area of likely Columbia white-tailed deer habitat removal equals 2 acres for the one

bridge (Big Creek Bridge – No. 07417) identified within the initial screening methods.

Step 6. Identify Potential Species Effects

Direct removal of hiding cover has the potential to directly affect Columbian white-tailed deer by

increasing the deer’s vulnerability to predation. In addition, improvements to bridges or

roadways may increase traffic speed, decrease driver line-of-sight or make other changes in

traffic patterns that may make deer crossing roadways more vulnerable to collisions with

vehicles. The implementation of timing restrictions (Wildlife Avoidance Performance Standard

and Habitat Avoidance Performance Standard) for the one bridge (Big Creek Bridge – No.

07417) identified with potential Columbian white-tailed deer habitat will eliminate any direct

species effects from removal of individual deer. The removal of hiding cover and vegetation

from suitable habitat could open these areas up to predators; however, estimating take from this

indirect effect, such as predation, is unquantifiable.
Appendix 2-B 8

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Evaluation of Effects

Likely effects to the Canada lynx as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed using a

combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological requirements of

the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential effects of

disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the process used

to determine which bridges would potentially affect Canada lynx.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where repair and replacement activities could potentially

affect the Canada lynx, the initial screening criteria for Canada lynx were applied to all bridges

in Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the initial screening

process:

Assumption:

•Camryn Lee (USFWS Biologist) provided a schematic of the area of concern for lynx habitat

blocks (MB&G created a map of the habitat blocks to determine which bridges were within

the area of concern) and connectivity in Oregon via a fax to Jessica Burton (MB&G GIS

specialist) on October 9, 2003. This schematic was used to create a map of the area of concern

for lynx. To ensure that the fax was interpreted correctly, the map was sent as a JPEG to

Camryn Lee to review in an email sent on October 15, 2003 from Kendel Emmerson. MB&G

received verbal approval via David Leal on October 21, 2003.

•All habitats and areas necessary for maintaining connectivity in Oregon are within the

USFWS Canada lynx area of concern.

•Bridges with API that are completely outside of the area of concern will have no effect on

Canada lynx.

Result:

•There are a total of 38 bridges within the USFWS Canada lynx area of concern.

•The 38 bridges will be subjected to further analysis to determine what, if any, adverse effects

may be delivered through the Effects Pathways.
Appendix 2-B 9

Step 2. Identify Potential Noise Effects

Only Bridges within USFWS designated Area of Concern for Canada lynx may have an effect on

Canada lynx. There are 38 Bridges within this Area of Concern. Due to the variation in annual

timing of dispersing lynx, it would not be feasible to apply a seasonal restriction to minimize the

potential effects of noise harassment. Canada lynx habitat that could be affected by noise

disturbance includes all lands within 1 mile of the bridge API.

Assumption:

•Bridges with an API within the area of concern for Canada lynx have the potential to cause

noise disturbance to the Canada lynx.

•Noise disturbance to wildlife (blasting, pile driving, pipe ramming, etc.) is assumed to be

limited to within 1 mile of a project site (this figure is generally accepted by most agency

wildlife biologists). Beyond 1 mile, there will be no effect to Canada lynx.

Result:

•The area of potential noise disturbance ranged from 1,733 to 4,544 acres that may affect

Canada lynx per individual bridge API. The size varies depending on the size of the bridge

and proximity to Canada lynx area of concern. A total of 114,665 net acres and 148,995 gross

acres within the area of concern for Canada lynx could be affected by noise disturbance.

Step 3. Identify Potential Visual Effects

Only bridges within the USFWS Area of Concern for Canada lynx may have an effect on Canada

lynx. There are 38 Bridges within this Area of Concern. It would not be feasible to apply a

seasonal restriction to minimize the potential effects of visual disturbance on dispersing Canada

lynx. Canada lynx habitat that would be affected by visual disturbance includes all lands within

330 feet of the Bridge API.

Assumption:

•Visual disturbance to the Canada lynx is limited to suitable Canada lynx habitat within 330

feet of the Bridge API.

Result:

•The area of potential visual disturbance ranged from 138 to 1,011 acres depending on the

bridge size and proximity to lynx area of concern. A total of 14,462 net acres and 17,002

gross acres within the area of concern for the Canada lynx could be affected by visual

disturbance.

Step 4. Identify Potential Plant Effects

The Vegetation Removal and Site Restoration Performance Standards will be followed to

minimize the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that any vegetation removed outside of

the bridge footprint area is restored. There is no designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx;

therefore no critical habitat will be removed.

Assumptions:
Appendix 2-B 10

• It is expected that 2 acres of habitat will be removed within a 500-foot radius of each of the

38 bridge center points identified in the Affected Habitat Area Pathway. This represents a

maximum expected area of disturbance from work bridges or detour routes for any given

bridge project area. The 2 acres is based on the following bridge replacement projects:

1. Based on analysis of two large ODOT bridge replacement projects, the Row River

Bridge (ODOT 2003c) and the Lower Quarry Bridges (ODOT 2003d), the area of

actual ground disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads did not

exceed 2 acres per construction site (1.3 and 0.7 acres, respectively). The Habitat

Avoidance Performance Standard prohibits staging areas and access roads to be

constructed in protected species habitat; therefore, these are not included in the

estimated habitat removal.

2. Based on analysis of two small ODOT bridge projects, Jackass Creek Bridge (ODOT

2003e) and Bear Creek Bridge (ODOT 2002c), the area of actual ground disturbance

from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads was less than 0.5 acres per

construction site (0.5 and 0.2 acres, respectively). However, it is understood that some

projects, such as Santiam Pass Bridges, may have considerably larger amounts of

ground disturbance. Therefore, the 2 acres standard should account for the few bridges

that require large amounts of clearing.

3. Given these relatively small areas of disturbance, the 2 acres areas of ground

disturbance will likely be an overestimate for most projects. This estimate for most

projects may be offset by a large bridge project with a ground disturbance area greater

than 2 acres. However, the overall area of ground disturbance for the Bridge Program is

over-estimated.

Result:

•The area of likely suitable Canada lynx habitat removal equals 2 acres for each bridge times

the 38 bridges that were determined to be within the USFWS area of concern for a total of

76 acres.

Step 5. Identify Potential Species Effects

Direct mortality from vehicular collisions will be minimized by implementing the Wildlife

Passage Performance Standards and the Fluvial Performance Standards at all Bridges within the

USFWS Area of Concern for Canada lynx connectivity.
Appendix 2-B 11

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Evaluation of

Effects

Likely effects to the marbled murrelet as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed using a

combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological requirements of

the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential effects of

disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the process used

to determine which bridges would potentially affect marbled murrelet.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine how many bridges where repair and replacement activities could potentially affect

the marbled murrelet, the initial screening criteria for marbled murrelet were applied to all

bridges in the Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and the results of the initial

screening process:

Assumption:

•Bridges that are greater than 40 miles from the Pacific Coast shoreline will have no effect on

the marbled murrelet.

•Bridges that have the potential to affect marbled murrelets are those within 40 miles of the

Pacific Coast shoreline and containing the following Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat types

within a 1 mile radius surrounding the API for each bridge (API equals 2,000 feet from the

ends of each bridge) (Johnson and O’Neil 2001): Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood

Forest, Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood, Forest, Bays and Estuaries, Marine

Nearshore, and Marine Shelf.

•The Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat types do not specify the age class, diameter breast

height, species, or density of trees; therefore, for the purposes of the Bridge Program the

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Southwest Oregon Mixed ConiferHardwood Forest habitat types are assumed to provide suitable and occupied marbled

murrelet nesting habitat.
Appendix 2-B 12

Result:

•A total of 159 bridges were identified within 40 miles of the Pacific Coast shoreline.

• 72 of these bridges are within the Willamette Valley Ecoregion (Bryce and Woods 2000).

This Ecoregion does not provide nesting habitat for marbled murrelet; therefore, those bridges

were eliminated.

•The remaining 87 bridges within the range of the marbled murrelet were further analyzed to

determine if at least one of the above-mentioned habitat types are within a 1-mile radius

around the bridge API. Sixty-eight bridges met this criterion.

Step 2. Identify Potential Noise Effects

Construction noise occurring within the range of the marbled murrelet may affect those marbled

murrelets at the nest site as well as those traveling to or from the nest during the breeding season.

Consequently, all 87 bridges within the range of the marbled murrelet, regardless of the habitat

types within a 1 mile radius of the bridge API, have the potential to adversely affect marbled

murrelet. The following is a list of assumptions and results of the screening for noise disturbance

effects:

Assumptions:

•Noise disturbance to marbled murrelets (especially short, high-intensity noises such as

blasting, pile driving, pipe ramming, etc.) is assumed to be attenuated to background levels

within 1 mile of a project site. Beyond 1 mile, there will be no effect to marbled murrelets

from noise disturbances.

Result:

•The area of potential noise disturbance for individual bridges ranged from 3,824 acres to

4,725 acres depending on bridge size. A net total of 153,445 acres of potential marbled

murrelet habitat could be affected by noise disturbance. A gross total, including overlapping

API areas that are counted more than once, is 255,463 acres of marbled murrelet habitat that

could be affected by noise disturbance.

Step 3. Identify Potential Visual Effects

Visual disturbance that occurs within 300 feet of a marbled murrelet nest site has the potential to

adversely affect marbled murrelets (USFWS 2003a). Although marbled murrelets are known to

nest within 33 feet of a highway, it is uncommon (USFWS 2003a). Additionally, marbled

murrelets nesting in proximity to highways are acclimated to higher noise levels and the presence

of people; therefore, they are less likely to be affected by a potential visual disturbance.

Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the bridges will actually affect marbled murrelets through

visual disturbance. By following the timing restrictions described under the Wildlife Avoidance

Performance Standard, the potential for visual disturbance to adversely affect marbled murrelets

will be minimized. Sixty one of the 68 bridges identified in the initial screening contain marbled

murrelet nesting habitat within the bridge API and therefore have the potential to affect marbled

murrelets through visual disturbance. Therefore, the area of visual disturbances was calculated
Appendix 2-B 13

for these 61 bridges. Assumptions and results for the visual disturbance effects calculation are

described below:

Assumptions:

•Visual disturbance to marbled murrelets (e.g., construction equipment staging and operation,

general human presence, etc.) is assumed to be limited to an area within a 300-feet radius

surrounding the API of a project site.

•The Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Southwest

Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat types provide occupied nesting habitat for

marbled murrelet.

•The marbled murrelet nesting habitat is within line-of-sight of the visual disturbance.

Result:

•The area of potential visual disturbance for individual bridges ranges from 5 acres to 705

acres depending on bridge size. A net total of 19,127 acres (gross total of 21,095 acres) of

marbled murrelet habitat could be affected by visual disturbance.

Step 4. Identify Potential Plant Effects

Analysis of potential affects to marbled murrelet nesting habitat delivered via the plant pathway

was conducted using a three-step approach: 1) the presence or absence of potential murrelet

nesting habitat was determined for the 87 bridges identified in the initial screening process, 2)

estimated habitat area to be removed was determined for bridges identified in step 1, and 3)

potential effects on designated critical habitat were assessed. The latter involved identification of

the number of bridges with an API that contained or was within 0.5 miles of designated critical

habitat.

Affected Habitat Area

A 500-foot radius around the center point of each of the 87 bridges identified in the initial

screening process was used to identify the presence or absence of marbled murrelet nesting

habitat within that circle (presence/absence only were identified, there were no area calculations

for amount of suitable habitat type). This analysis was based on the understanding that use of the

500-foot radius circle would overestimate the amount of marbled murrelet habitat types present

at some bridge locations and underestimate it at others. However, given the unknowns for each

bridge crossing, this number should account for most of the Bridge Program affected habitat. The

assumptions used to determine presence or absence of marbled murrelet nesting habitat and the

results of this analysis area are as follows:

Assumptions:

• The Bridge Program will not remove or modify marine habitat; therefore, those bridges that

contain only marine marbled murrelet habitat within a 500-foot radius around the center point

of the bridge are not included in this analysis. This eliminates 7 bridges from the affected

habitat analysis.

•A circle of 500-foot radius would encompass the area where direct ground- disturbing

activities associated with bridge replacement would occur. Some bridges may require long
Appendix 2-B 14

detour routes outside of this circle, but most will not. Therefore, it is assumed that any

ground-disturbing activities would occur within 500 foot of the center point of the bridge for

most bridges.

•A 500-foot radius would cover the length of all but one or two of the largest bridges

(maximum bridge length is approximately 1,300 feet).

•The Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Southwest

Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat types provide occupied nesting habitat for

marbled murrelet.

Result:

• Fifty bridges contain potential marbled murrelet nesting habitat within a 500-foot radius of the

center point of each bridge.

Habitat Removal Area

The Bridge Program would require the removal of marbled murrelet nesting habitat, and thus

could have adverse effects on the marbled murrelet. The Vegetation Removal and Site

Restoration Performance Standards will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared

and to ensure that any vegetation removed outside of the bridge footprint area is restored. For the

50 bridges identified above, the likely area of habitat removed was calculated by multiplying that

number of bridges by 2 acres. The assumptions used to determine the area of habitat removal,

and the results of this analysis are presented below:

Assumptions:

•The Johnson and O’Neil (2001) Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Southwest

Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat types provide occupied nesting habitat for

marbled murrelet.

•An area of 500 feet in radius around each bridge’s center point will contain a marbled

murrelet nesting habitat of between zero and 57 acres.

• It is expected that 2 acres of marbled murrelet nesting habitat (as described in the initial

screening methods) within a 500-foot radius of each bridge center point will be removed. This

represents a maximum expected area of disturbance from work bridges or detour routes for

any given bridge project area. The 2 acres estimate is based on the recent bridge replacement

projects described below:

1. According to an analysis of two large ODOT bridge replacement projects, the Row River

Bridge (ODOT 2003c) and the Lower Quarry Bridges (ODOT 2003d), the area of actual

ground disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges, and detour roads did not exceed 2

acres per construction site (1.3 and 0.7 acres, respectively).

2. According to an analysis of two small ODOT bridge projects, Jackass Creek Bridge

(ODOT 2003e) and Bear Creek Bridge (ODOT 2002c), the area of actual ground

disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges, and detour roads was less than 0.5 acres

per construction site (0.5 and 0.2 acres, respectively). However, it is understood that

some projects, such as the Santiam Pass Bridges, may have considerably larger amounts

of ground disturbance. Therefore, the 2 acres standard should account for the few bridges

that require large amounts of clearing.
Appendix 2-B 15

3. Given these relatively small areas of disturbance, the 2 acres areas of ground disturbance

is likely to be conservative for most projects. Even with the occasional large bridge

project with a ground disturbance area greater than 2 acres, the overall estimated area of

ground disturbance for the Bridge Program is conservatively high.

Result:

•The area of likely marbled murrelet nesting habitat removed equals 2 acres for each bridge

multiplied by the 50 bridges that were determined to be within the area of affected habitat, for

a total of 100 acres.

Designated Critical Habitat Removal

Removal of designated critical habitat, regardless of the actual vegetation type present at a site, is

considered by USFWS to have an adverse effect on marbled murrelets. The amount of

designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet that could be affected by the proposed project

is estimated below. These calculations represent a maximum amount of critical habitat that

would be removed. The Habitat Avoidance Performance Standard and Vegetation Removal and

Site Restoration Performance Standards will be followed to minimize the amount of vegetation

cleared and to ensure that any vegetation removed is restored; thus, the actual amount of

vegetation removed is likely to be less than this estimate.

For each of the 87 bridges identified in the initial screening process, a 0.5-mile radius

surrounding the bridge’s API was used to identify the amount of designated critical marbled

murrelet habitat that could be affected by construction activities. Location of designated critical

habitat was obtained from Region Ecosystems Office GIS database (REO 2003). Bridges

containing designated critical habitat within a 0.5 mile radius surrounding the bridge API were

further analyzed to determine if designated critical habitat was within a 500-foot radius of the

center point of each bridge; it was then assumed that 2 acres of critical habitat would be removed

at each of the bridges. The following is a list of assumptions used to determine the area of

designated critical habitat that would be affected, and the results of the analysis:

Assumptions:

•Critical habitat outside of a 0.5 mile radius around the center point of each bridge will not be

affected by construction activities.

•A circle with a 500-foot radius encompasses the area where direct ground-disturbing activities

will occur. Some bridges may require long detour routes outside of the 500-foot radius circle;

however, it is assumed that for most bridges all ground-disturbing activities will occur within

500 feet of the center point of the bridge.

•A 500-foot radius would apply to all but one or two of the largest bridges (maximum bridge

length is approximately 1,300 feet.

•Each bridge containing designated critical habitat within a 500-foot radius of the center point

of each bridge will not have any primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat

removed.

Result:
Appendix 2-B 16

•Thirteen bridges contain designated marbled murrelet critical habitat within a 0.5-mile radius

around the bridge API. A total of 6,067 acres of critical habitat could therefore be affected by

construction activities (noise and visual disturbance, but not critical habitat removal).

•Two bridges contained designated critical marbled murrelet habitat within 500 feet of the

center point of each bridge. No primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat will

be removed at these bridge sites.

Species Effects Pathway

Direct removal of occupied habitat or designated critical habitat could affect the marbled

murrelet. The implementation of timing restrictions (the Wildlife Avoidance Performance

Standard and the Habitat Avoidance Performance Standard) for bridges in potentially occupied

marbled murrelet habitat or designated critical habitat will likely eliminate any direct species

effects from removal of individual marbled murrelets. The removal of cover and vegetation near

nesting habitat could open these areas up to predators; however, estimating take from predation

is unquantifiable.
Appendix 2-B 17

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Evaluation of Effects

Likely effects to the bald eagle as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed using a

combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological requirements of

the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential effects of

disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the process used

to determine which bridges would potentially affect bald eagle.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where repair and replacement activities could potentially

affect the bald eagle, the initial screening criterion for bald eagles were applied to all bridges in

the Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the initial screening

process:

Assumptions:

• Bridges that are greater than 1 mile from a known bald eagle nest site or winter

communal roosting site will have no effect on bald eagles.

• Only bridges that are within 1 mile of a known bald eagle nest site or communal winter

roost site have the potential to adversely affect bald eagles.

• The current bald eagle nest data maintained by the Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit is the most current and accurate data for bald eagle nest sites in Oregon

(Isaacs and Anthony 2003).

• There is no current or consistent data available for bald eagle communal winter roost sites

within the State. Therefore, for the purposes of the Bridge Program, it is assumed that

each nesting territory also supports a communal winter roost, unless otherwise

determined by a biologist.

• For the purposes of the Bridge Program, a communal winter roost site will be defined as

three or more bald eagles roosting in the same tree, structure, or cliff face for consecutive

nights (WDFW 1990).

Result:
Appendix 2-B 18

•Thirty-one bridges were identified as having an API within 1 mile of a bald eagle nest or

communal winter roost site and will be analyzed further.

Step 2. Identify Potential Noise Effects

Construction noise occurring within 1 mile of an identified bald eagle nest or communal winter

roost site has the potential to harass bald eagles. As a result, all 31 bridges identified in the initial

screening process may adversely affect bald eagles through noise disturbance. The following is a

list of assumptions and results from the noise disturbance screening process:

Assumptions:

•Bridge APIs within 1 mile of an identified bald eagle nest site or communal winter roost site

would have the potential to cause noise harassment to bald eagles.

•Assume that each nest site also supports a communal winter roost site.

Result:

•Thirty-one bridges have bald eagle nest sites or communal winter roost sites within a 1-mile

radius of the bridge API.

•The 31 bald eagle nest sites comprise 17 bald eagle pair nesting territories. Therefore, the 31

bridges have the potential to adversely affect 17 pairs of bald eagles from noise disturbance.

Step 3. Identify Potential Visual Effects

The USFWS evaluates the visual effects of disturbance that occur within line-of-sight of a bald

eagle nest or communal winter roost site within of 2,640 feet (0.5 miles) of the visual disturbance

(Isaacs and Anthony, 1989). Following the timing restrictions described under the Wildlife

Avoidance Performance Standard will minimize the potential for visual disturbance to adversely

affect bald eagles. In addition, the line-of-sight to several of these nest sites or communal winter

roost sites would be buffered by topography and vegetation. Therefore, the 2,640-foot (0.5-mile)

line-of-sight disturbance threshold is considered a safe distance. Only the 31 bridges identified in

the initial screening methods will be evaluated for visual disturbance. The following is a list of

assumptions and results from the visual disturbance screening process.

Assumptions:

•Visual disturbance(s) (e.g. construction equipment staging and operation, general human

presence, etc.) occurring within 2,640 feet (0.5 miles) of a identified bald eagle nest or

communal winter roost site have the potential to adversely effect bald eagles.

•The visual disturbances are within line-of-sight to the bald eagle nest site or communal

winter roost.

Result:

• Fourteen bald eagle nest sites or communal wintering roost sites are within 2,640 feet (0.5

miles) of 12 bridge APIs.
Appendix 2-B 19

•The 14 bald eagle nest sites lie within nine bald eagle pair nesting territories. Therefore, these

12 bridges have the potential to adversely affect nine pairs of bald eagles from visual

disturbance.

Step 4. Identify Potential Chemical Effects

Chemical effects resulting from a chemical spill at a construction site near bald eagle foraging

habitat could affect bald eagles or their prey. However, by following the Chemical

Contamination Performance Standard, most foreseeable chemical spills can be avoided or

contained and cleaned up before they reach a waterway; therefore the effect to bald eagles from

chemical spills is considered negligible.

Assumptions:

•Chemical effects would be contained or diluted to an undetectable level within 1 mile of a

bridge center point.

•Only those bridges that have center points within 1 mile of a bald eagle nest site or communal

winter roost site and bridge center points that cross water have the potential to affect bald

eagles by a chemical spill.

Result:

• Sixteen bridges have a bald eagle nest site or communal winter roost site within a 1-mile

radius of the bridge center point. Of those 16 bridges, 12 bridge center points are across water.

•The 12 bridges lie within eight bald eagle pair nesting territories. Therefore, the 12 bridges

have the potential to adversely affect eight pairs of bald eagles from chemical contamination.

Step 5. Identify Potential Plant Effects (Affected Habitat Area)

The bald eagle management guidelines for Oregon and Washington recommend restricting all

land development and timber harvest activities within 660 feet around a bald eagle nest site

(USFWS 1981). However more recent guidance in Oregon recommends that no clear-cut

logging, road building, hiking trails, or boat launches be allowed within 1,320 feet (0.25 miles)

of a bald eagle nest site (Anthony and Isaacs, 1989). By applying this guidance to the of Bridge

Program, each bridge with a center point that is within 1,320 feet (0.25 miles)of a bald eagle nest

site or communal winter roost site would have the potential to adversely affect bald eagle habitat.

The Habitat Avoidance Performance Standards will also be followed to minimize the amount of

vegetation cleared and to ensure that any vegetation removed is restored. As such, effects to bald

eagle habitat would not result in a permanent net habitat loss. Because there is no designated

critical habitat for bald eagles, the Bridge Program will not affect designated critical habitat. The

following is a list of assumptions and results used to determine the area of affected habitat:

Assumptions:

• Only those bridges with a center point that is within 1,320 feet (0.25 miles) of a bald eagle

nest site or communal winter roost site have the potential to adversely affect bald eagle

habitat.
Appendix 2-B 20

Result:

•There are two bridges with a center point that is within 1,320 feet (0.25 miles) of a known

bald eagle nest or communal winter roost site (one is 1,305 feet from the bridge center point,

the other is 830 feet from the bridge center point).

Step 6. Identify Potential Plant Effects (Habitat Removal Area)

The Bridge Program would require the removal of suitable bald eagle nesting or roosting habitat,

which could cause adverse effects to bald eagles. The Vegetation Removal and Site Restoration

Performance Standard will be followed to limit the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure

that any vegetation removed outside of a specific bridge footprint area is restored. For the two

bridges identified above in the Affected Habitat Area Pathway, the likely area of habitat removed

was calculated by multiplying that number of bridges by 2 acres. The following is a list of

assumptions and results used to determine the area of habitat:

Assumptions:

• It is expected that 2 acres of bald eagle habitat (as described in the initial screening process)

within a 500-foot radius of each bridge center point will be removed. This represents a

maximum expected area of disturbance from work bridges or detour routes for any given

bridge project area. The 2 acre estimate is based on the recent bridge replacement projects

described below:

1. According to an analysis of two large ODOT bridge replacement projects, the Row River

Bridge (ODOT 2003c) and the Lower Quarry Bridges (ODOT 2003d), the area of actual

ground disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges, and detour roads did not exceed 2

acres per construction site (1.3 and 0.7 acres, respectively).

2. According to an analysis of two small ODOT bridge projects, Jackass Creek Bridge

(ODOT 2003e) and Bear Creek Bridge (ODOT 2002c), the area of actual ground

disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges, and detour roads was less than 0.5 acres

per construction site (0.5 and 0.2 acres, respectively). However, it is understood that

some projects, such as the Santiam Pass Bridges, may have considerably larger amounts

of ground disturbance. Therefore, the 2 acres standard should account for the few bridges

that require large amounts of clearing.

3. Given these relatively small areas of disturbance, the 2 acres areas of ground disturbance

is likely to be an overestimate for most projects. Even with the occasional large bridge

project with a ground disturbance area greater than 2 acres, the overall ground

disturbance estimate for the Bridge Program is an overestimate.

Result:

•The area of likely bald eagle nesting habitat removed equals 2 acres for each bridge times

the two bridges that were determined to be within the area of affected habitat for a total of

four acres.
Appendix 2-B 21

Step 7. Identify Potential Species Effects

Direct removal of occupied nest or roost trees could affect bald eagles. The implementation of

timing restrictions (Wildlife Avoidance Performance Standard and Habitat Avoidance

Performance Standard) for those bridges within potentially occupied bald eagle nest or

communal winter roost sites will eliminate any direct species effects from removal of individual

bald eagles. The removal of cover and vegetation around suitable nesting habitat could open

these areas up to predators; however, estimating take from this indirect effect, such as predation,

is unquantifiable.
Appendix 2-B 22

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) Evaluation

of Effects

Likely effects to the brown pelican as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed using a

combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological requirements of

the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential effects of

disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the process used

to determine which bridges would potentially affect brown pelican.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where bridge and repair activities could potentially affect

brown pelicans, initial screening criteria for brown pelican were applied to all bridges in the

Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the initial screening

process:

Assumptions:

•Bridge APIs greater than 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean shoreline will have no effect on

brown pelicans.

• Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat types capable of providing brown pelican habitat include

Urban and Mixed Environs, Marine Nearshore, Coastal Headlands and Islets, and Bays and

Estuaries.

• All bridge APIs within 5 miles of the Pacific Ocean shoreline that are greater than 1 mile

from a Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat type capable of providing brown pelican habitat

will have no effect on brown pelicans.

•Brown pelicans in Oregon are migratory or otherwise non-breeding individuals.

Result:

•A total of 6 bridge APIs are within 5 miles of the Pacific Ocean shoreline and within 1 mile of

a Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat type capable of providing brown pelican habitat and

would have the potential to affect brown pelicans.
Appendix 2-B 23

Step 2. Identify Potential Noise Effects

Construction noise occurring within 1 mile of brown pelican habitat has the potential to affect

roosting or loafing pelicans. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the noise

disturbance screening methods:

Assumptions:

•Noise disturbance to brown pelicans (especially short, high-intensity noises such as blasting,

pile driving, pipe ramming, etc.) is assumed to be attenuated to background levels within 1

mile of the source of the disturbance. Beyond 1 mile, there would be no effect to brown

pelicans from noise disturbance.

Result:

•The area of potential noise disturbance for the six individual bridges ranges from 39 acres to

1,361 acres depending on bridge size. A net total area of 4,981 acres (5,716 gross acres) of

brown pelican habitat that may be affected by noise disturbance.

Step 3. Identify Potential Visual Effects

For purposes of the Bridge Program, visual disturbance occurring within 1,500 feet of brown

pelican habitat may have the potential to affect brown pelicans. This distance is the estimated

distance the Channel Island National Park uses to protect brown pelican nesting colonies. This is

a safe distance considering brown pelicans are not known to nest in Oregon (USFWS 1983).

Assumptions:

•Visual disturbance to brown pelicans (e.g. construction equipment staging and operation,

general human presence, etc.) is assumed to be limited to Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat

types that are capable of supporting brown pelicans within 1,500 feet of a bridge API.

Result:

• Of the 6 bridges identified in the initial screening process, 5 bridges have an API that is

within 1,500 feet of a Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat type capable of providing

brown pelican habitat.

• The area of potential visual disturbance for individual bridges ranges from 180 acres to

534 acres depending on bridge size. A net total area of 1,780 acres (gross total area of

1,900 acres) of brown pelican habitat could be affected by visual disturbance.

Step 4. Identify Potential Species Effects

Direct removal or modification of a roosting or loafing site, particularly alteration of man-made

structures, may affect brown pelicans. However, direct adverse affects to the species would be

rare due to the ephemeral use of roost sites and that non-breeding pelicans are capable of leaving

the area of effect. Direct effects to the species would be minimal because most occurrences of

brown pelicans in Oregon are limited to a few individuals, instead of large colonies.
Appendix 2-B 24

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) Evaluation of Effects

Likely effects to the northern spotted owl as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed using

a combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological requirements of

the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential effects of

disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the process used

to determine where bridge repair and replacement activities have the potential to affect the

northern spotted owl.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where repair and replacement activities could potentially

affect the northern spotted owl, the initial screening criteria for this species were applied to all

bridges in the Bridge Program. The following presents a list of assumptions and results from the

initial screening methods.

Assumptions:

• Bridges that are greater than 1.0 mile from the easternmost boundary of the Forest

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 1993 Range of the Northern

Spotted Owl and Northwest Forest Plan Boundary (REO 2003) will have no effect on

northern spotted owls.

• The following Johnson & O’Neil (2001) habitat types are capable of supporting northern

spotted owls: Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Westside Oak and Dry

Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland, Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest,

Montane Mixed Conifer Forests, Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forests, Lodgepole

Pine Forest and Woodland, Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forest and

Woodlands, and Upland Aspen Forests (Johnson and O’Neil 2001).

• Bridges that are less than 1.0 mile from the easternmost boundary of the Oregon Cascade

Province or within the FEMAT 1993 Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Northwest

Forest Plan Boundary, and have suitable Johnson and O’Neil habitat types within 500

feet of the bridge center point may have the potential to affect northern spotted owls.

• A 500-foot radius circle around the bridge center point would encompass the area where

direct ground disturbing activities associated with bridge replacement are most likely to

occur. Some bridges may require long detour routes outside of the 500-foot radius circle;
Appendix 2-B 25

however, it is assumed that for most bridges any ground disturbing activities will occur

within 500 feet of the center point of the bridge.

• A 500-foot radius would cover the length of all but one or two of the largest bridges

(maximum bridge length is approximately 1,300 feet).

Results:

• A total of 141 bridges were identified within 1.0 miles of the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 1993 Range of the Northern Spotted Owl that

have suitable Johnson and O’Neil habitat types within 500 feet of the bridge center point.

Step 2. Identify Potential Noise Effects

Construction noise occurring within the range of the northern spotted owl may potentially affect

nesting northern spotted owls during the breeding season. As a result all 141 bridges identified in

the initial screening process have the potential to adversely affect northern spotted owls. The

following is a list of assumptions and results from the noise disturbance screening methods:

Assumptions:

•Blasting will occur outside the critical northern spotted owl nesting period, therefore noise

harassment from blasting will not occur.

•Noise disturbance to northern spotted owls is assumed to be attenuated to background levels

beyond 300 feet of a bridge center point (see BA for supporting details). Within 300 feet of

the bridge center point, the potential for noise harassment to the northern spotted owl exists.

Result:

•A total of 915 acres of northern spotted owl habitat associated with the 141 bridges identified

in the initial screening process could be affected by noise harassment.

Step 3. Identify Potential Visual Effects

Construction occurring within the range of the northern spotted owl may potentially affect

nesting northern spotted owls during the breeding season by causing visual harassment. As a

result all 141 bridges identified in the initial screening process have the potential to adversely

affect northern spotted owls. The following is a list of assumptions and results from the visual

disturbance screening methods:

Assumptions:

•Visual disturbance to northern spotted owls is assumed to only occur within 300 feet of a

bridge API. Beyond 300 feet, there will be no effect to northern spotted owls from visual

disturbances.

Result:

•A total of 915 ac of northern spotted owl habitat associated with the 141 bridges identified in

the initial screening process could be affected by noise harassment.
Appendix 2-B 26

Step 4. Identify Potential Plant Effects (Habitat Removal Area)

The Bridge Program would require the removal of suitable northern spotted owl nesting habitat,

which could cause adverse effects to northern spotted owls. The Habitat Avoidance Performance

Standard and Site Restoration Performance Standard will be followed to limit the amount of

vegetation cleared and to ensure that any vegetation removed outside of the bridge footprint area

is restored. For the 141 bridges identified in the initial screening process, the likely area of

habitat removed was calculated by multiplying that number of bridges by 2 acres. This analysis

was based on the understanding that use of the 500-foot radius circle would overestimate the

amount of suitable northern spotted owl habitat types present at some bridge locations and

underestimate it at others. However, given the unknowns about each bridge crossing, this number

is considered to be conservative and should account for most of the habitat affected by the

Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and results used to determine the area of

affected habitat: The following is a list of assumptions and results used to determine the habitat

removal area:

Assumptions:

•A 500-foot radius circle extending around each of the bridge center points identified in the

initial screening process will have suitable northern spotted owl nesting habitat ranging

between 0 and 57 acres.

•All bridges with any suitable northern spotted owl habitat as described in the initial screening

methods will have 2 acres of that habitat removed. This represents a maximum expected area

of disturbance from work bridges or detour routes for any given bridge project area. The 2

acres is based on the following bridge replacement projects:

1. Based on analysis of two large ODOT bridge replacement projects, the Row River Bridge

(ODOT 2003c) and the Lower Quarry Bridges (ODOT 2003d), the area of actual ground

disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads did not exceed 2 acres

per construction site (1.3 and 0.7 acres respectively). The Habitat Avoidance

Performance Standard prohibits staging areas and access roads to be constructed in

protected species habitat; therefore, these construction activities are not included in the

estimated habitat removal.

2. Based on analysis of two small ODOT bridge projects, Jackass Creek Bridge (ODOT

2003e) and Bear Creek Bridge (ODOT 2002c), the area of actual ground disturbance

from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads was less than 0.5 acres per

construction site (0.5 and 0.2 acres, respectively). However, it is understood that some

projects, such as the Santiam Pass Bridges, may have considerably larger amounts of

ground disturbance. Therefore, the 2 acres standard should account for the few bridges

that require large amounts of clearing.

3. Given these relatively small areas of disturbance, the 2-acre ground disturbance area will

likely be an over estimate for most projects. This conservative number for most projects

may be offset by a large bridge project with a ground disturbance area greater than 2

acres. However, the overall ground disturbance area for the Bridge Program is likely

overestimated.
Appendix 2-B 27

Result:

•The area of likely suitable northern spotted owl habitat removed equals 2 acres for each

bridge times the 141 bridges that were identified in the initial screening process for a total of

282 acres.

Step 6. Identify Potential Species Effects

Direct removal of occupied habitat or designated critical habitat could affect the northern spotted

owl. The implementation of timing restrictions (Wildlife Avoidance Performance Standard and

Habitat Avoidance Performance Standard) for those bridges within potentially occupied northern

spotted owl habitat or designated critical habitat will eliminate any direct species effects from

removal of individual northern spotted owls or the removal of primary constituent elements of

designated critical habitat. The removal of cover and vegetation around suitable nesting habit

could open these areas up to predators; however, estimating take from this indirect effect, such as

predation, is unquantifiable.
Appendix 2-B 28

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) Evaluation of

Effects

Likely effects to the vernal pool fairy shrimp as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed

using a combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological

requirements of the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential

effects of disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the

process used to determine which bridges would potentially affect vernal pool fairy shrimp.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where bridge repair and replacement activities could

potentially affect vernal pool fairy shrimp, the initial screening criteria for vernal pool fairy

shrimp were applied to all bridges in the Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions

and results from the initial screening process:

Assumptions:

•There is no vernal pool habitat located in Oregon outside of the Agate Desert in Jackson

County (68 FR 46683).

•Bridges within Jackson County with Agate-Winlo Complex soils within the API for each

bridge (API equals 2,000 feet from the ends of each bridge) have the potential to affect vernal

pool fairy shrimp.

•Bridges outside of the Agate Desert in Jackson County, Oregon will have No Effect to vernal

pool fairy shrimp.

•All vernal pools have Agate-Winlo Complex soils.

Result:

• Five bridges were identified within Jackson County that contain Agate-Winlo Complex soils

within the API for each bridge.

•A net total of 63 acres of potential suitable habitat lies within these five bridge APIs (119

gross acres).
Appendix 2-B 29

•Theses five bridges will be subjected to further analysis to determine what, if any, adverse

effects may be delivered through the Effects Pathways.

Step 2. Identify Potential Soil Effects

Ground disturbing activities associated with the bridge project have the potential to affect vernal

pool fairy shrimp and their habitats. There are five Bridge APIs identified within Jackson County

that contain the Agate-Winlo Complex soils identified as suitable vernal pool fairy shrimp

habitat.

Assumptions:

•Vernal pools indicated on the USFWS National Wetland Inventory Spring 1999 Vernal Pools

are classified by vegetation condition and topographic condition. Vegetation classifications

include “intact,” “altered,” “severely altered,” and “developed.” Topographical classifications

include “intact,” “weak,” “leveled,” and “developed.” The “developed” classification

indicates that human development via terrain leveling, and removal of native vegetation has

eliminated the vernal pools.

Result:

•Within the five Bridge APIs, 63 net acres of suitable habitat may be potentially affected. Of

the 63 acres, 7 acres are located within habitat that have severely altered vegetation and

leveled topography and thus, altered hydrology. Approximately 29 acres are located within

habitat that has altered vegetation and weak hydrology and topography. The remaining 26

acres are located within altered vegetation habitat. None of the 63 net acres are considered

intact. The Vernal Pool Performance Standard will be followed, which requires that no

disturbance to vernal pools or sedimentation of vernal pools will result from construction and

operation of the project.

Step 3. Identify Potential Water Effects

The ground disturbing activities have the potential to affect hydrology and water quality of

vernal pool fairy shrimp and their habitats. Each of the five Bridges identified as having vernal

pool fairy shrimp habitat within their API’s will follow the Stormwater and the Vernal Pool

Performance Standards. The Vernal Pool Performance Standard requires that existing hydrologic

regimes be maintained, while the implementation of the Stormwater Performance Standard will

maintain existing peak and base flows, and treat water quality. Therefore, no effects to vernal

pool fairy shrimp from changes in hydrology or stormwater runoff are expected.

Step 4. Identify Potential Chemical Effects

Chemical effects resulting from a chemical spill at a construction site near an occupied vernal

pool could affect vernal pool fairy shrimp. Chemical effects would likely be contained or diluted

to an undetectable level within 1,000 feet of the contamination. However, by following the

Chemical Contamination Performance Standard and the Vernal Pool Performance Standard,

most foreseeable chemical spills can be avoided or contained and cleaned up before they reach a
Appendix 2-B 30

vernal pool, therefore the effect to vernal pool fairy shrimp from chemical spills is considered to

be negligible.

Step 5. Identify Potential Plant Effects

There are five Bridge APIs within the Agate-Winlo Complex soils in Jackson County. The

Vernal Pool Performance Standard will be followed at each of these bridges to protect vernal

pool fairy shrimp habitat. In addition, the Vegetation Removal and Site Restoration Performance

Standards will be followed to minimize the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that any

vegetation removed outside of the bridge footprint area is restored, thus minimizing effects to

vernal pool fairy shrimp from upland vegetation removal.

Step 6. Identify Potential Species Effects

Direct removal of occupied habitat may affect the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The implementation

of the Vernal Pool Performance Standard for the five bridges within known vernal pool habitat

will eliminate any direct species effects from removal of individual vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Appendix 2-B 31

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

707 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1300

Portland, OR 97205-3530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 21, 2004

TO: David Leal, USFWS

FROM: Kendel Emmerson and Zak Toledo, MB&G

SUBJECT: ODOT OTIA III: Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) Evaluation

of Effects

Likely effects to the Fender’s blue butterfly as a result of the Bridge Program were analyzed

using a combination of GIS database analysis, assumptions based on known biological

requirements of the species, assumptions about the types of construction methods, and potential

effects of disturbance that could be expected at each bridge site. The following describes the

process used to determine which bridges would potentially affect Fender’s blue butterfly.

Step 1. Apply Effects Screening Criteria (Initial Screening Process)

To determine the number of bridges where repair and replacement activities could potentially

affect the Fender’s blue butterfly, the initial screening criteria for Fender’s blue butterfly were

applied to all bridges in the Bridge Program. The following is a list of assumptions and results of

the initial screening process:

Assumptions:

•All bridges with an API located completely outside of the Willamette Valley Ecoregion will

have no effect on the Fender’s blue butterfly (Bryce and Woods 2000).

•The Fender’s blue butterfly only exists in Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties within the

Willamette Valley Ecoregion. Therefore bridges with an API within the Willamette Valley

Ecoregion that are within Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and Lane counties have potential to affect

Fender’s blue butterfly.

•Bridges with an API located within the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, but outside of Yamhill,

Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties will have no effect on the Fender’s blue butterfly.

•Only three Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat types are utilized by Fender’s blue butterfly:

Westside Grasslands, Herbaceous Wetlands, and Agriculture, Pasture, and Mixed

Environments.

•Bridge APIs containing one or more of these habitat types have the potential to affect the

Fender’s blue butterfly.
Appendix 2-B 32

Result:

• 74 bridges have an API within Yamhill, Polk, Benton and Lane Counties that are within the

Willamette Valley Ecoregion and within the three Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat types

utilized by Fender’s blue butterfly. These 74 bridges will be analyzed further.

Step 2. Identify Potential Chemical Effects

A chemical spill or other chemical releases, such herbicide use, at a construction site could affect

Fender’s blue butterflies host plant or food source. For the purposes of the Bridge Program, it is

assumed that chemical effects would likely be contained or diluted within a bridge’s API.

However by following the Chemical Contamination Performance Standard and Butterfly

Avoidance Performance Standard, most foreseeable chemical spills would be avoided, contained,

or cleaned up before they reached Fender’s blue butterfly habitat and herbicide application

would be seasonally restricted to protect host plants and food sources, therefore the effects to

Fender’s blue butterflies from herbicide and chemical spills are considered negligible. The

following is a list of assumptions and results of screening for the chemical effects:

Assumptions:

•Chemical effects would be contained or diluted to an undetectable level within a bridge’s API.

•Only those bridges identified in the initial screening process have potential to affect Fender’s

blue butterflies through the chemical effects pathway.

Result:

• Seventy Four bridges with an API in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion and within Yamhill,

Polk, Benton and Lane Counties have potential to affect Fender’s blue butterfly through

chemical effects pathways.

Step 3. Identify Potential Plant Effects (Affected Habitat Area)

•There are three Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat types that are capable of providing Fender’s

blue butterfly habitat: Westside Grasslands, Herbaceous Wetlands, and Agriculture, Pasture,

and Mixed Environments (Johnson and O’Neil, 2001). All 74 bridges identified in the initial

screening process also contained Westside Grasslands, Herbaceous Wetlands, or Agriculture,

Pasture, and Mixed Environments habitat types within their API (for a total of 9,067 net acres

or 14,144 gross acres within the bridge APIs) (Kiilsgaard, C. and B.A Charley 1999). Table

2.B--1 has these acres of habitat type sorted by county.
Appendix 2-B 33

Table 2.B-1 Estimated Acres of Affected Habitat for Fender’s Blue Butterfly

Habitat Effects Benton

County

Lane

County

Polk

County

Yamhill

County

Total number of OTIA III Bridges within the range of

Fenders Blue Butterfly 4 58 12 0

Estimated total of Johnson and O’Neil habitat type acres

that may potentially be affected by OTIA III Bridges 380 12,356 1,408 0

Westside Grassland 0 0 0 0

Herbaceous Wetlands 0 0 0 0

Agriculture, Pasture & Mixed Environments 380 12,356 1,408 0

Step 4. Identify Potential Plant Effects (Habitat Removal Area)

The Bridge Program may require the removal of Fender’s blue butterfly habitat, and thus could

cause adverse effects to the Fender’s blue butterfly. The Habitat Avoidance Performance

Standard, Butterfly Avoidance Performance Standard, and Vegetation Removal and Site

Restoration Performance Standards will be followed to minimize effects to butterfly habitat

removal through limiting the amount of vegetation cleared and to ensure that any vegetation

removed outside of the bridge footprint area is restored. Assumptions used to determine the area

of habitat removal, and results of this analysis are presented below:

Assumptions:

•Each of the bridges identified in the Affected Habitat Area have Fender’s blue butterfly

habitat within 500 feet of the bridge center.

•A 500-foot radius circle would encompass the area where direct ground disturbing activities

associated with bridge replacement would occur. Some bridges may require long detour

routes outside of the 500-foot radius circle, but most will not. However, it is assumed that any

ground disturbing activities would occur within 500 feet of the center point of the bridge for

most bridges.

•A 500-foot radius would cover the length of all but one or two of the largest bridges

(maximum bridge length is approximately 1,300 feet).

•A 500-foot radius area around each of the bridge center points will have a range of Fender’s

blue butterfly habitat between 0 and 57 acres.

• It is expected that 2 acres of Fender’s blue butterfly habitat, as described in the initial

screening methods, within a 500-foot radius of each of the bridge center points will be

removed. This represents a maximum expected area of disturbance from work bridges or

detour routes for any given bridge project area. The 2 acres estimate is based on the recent

bridge replacement projects described below:

1. Based on analysis of two large ODOT bridge replacement projects, the Row River Bridge

(ODOT 2003c) and the Lower Quarry Bridges (ODOT 2003d), the area of actual ground

disturbance from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads did not exceed 2 acres

per construction site (1.3 and 0.7 acres, respectively).
Appendix 2-B 34

2. Based on analysis of two small ODOT bridge projects, Jackass Creek Bridge (ODOT

2003e) and Bear Creek Bridge (ODOT 2002c), the area of actual ground disturbance

from work bridges, detour bridges and detour roads was less than 0.5 acres per

construction site (0.5 and 0.2 acres, respectively). However, it is understood that some

projects, such as Santiam Pass Bridges, may have considerably larger amounts of ground

disturbance. Therefore, the 2 acres standard should account for the few bridges that

require large amounts of clearing.

3. Given these relatively small areas of disturbance, the 2 acres areas of ground disturbance

will likely be an overestimate for most projects. Even with the occasional large bridge

project with a ground disturbance area greater than 2 acres the overall area of ground

disturbance for the Bridge Program is overestimated.

Result:

•The area of likely Fender’s blue butterfly habitat removed equals 2 acres for each bridge

multiplied by the 74 bridges that were determined to be within the area of affected habitat for

a total of 148 acres.

Step 5. Identify Potential Species Effects

Direct removal or trampling of host plant species could directly affect the Fender’s blue

butterfly. The implementation of the Butterfly Avoidance Performance Standard for those

bridges within potentially occupied Fender’s blue butterfly habitat will eliminate any direct

species effects to individual Fender’s blue butterflies.
Appendix 2-B 35

References:

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.

Federal Register for August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269). Designated critical habitat; stellar sea lion.

Final Rule.

Federal Register for August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46683). Final designation of critical habitat for 4

vernal pool crustaceans and 11 vernal pool plants in California and southern Oregon.

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 1983. Distribution and productivity of nesting bald eagles in

Oregon, 1978-1982. 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.

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington.

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kiilsgaard, C. and B.A. Charley. 1999. Northwest Habitat Institute August 10, 1999 GIS

database or Oregon Current Wildlife-Habitat Types (orcurhab.zip). http://www.nwhi.org.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995. ODFW Backgrounder: The Columbian

White-tailed Deer and the Oregon Endangered Species Act.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/PDFs/BKGWhiteTail.pdf.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2003c. Excel spreadsheet of Oregon pinniped

haulout locations by lat/lon for the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion

(Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern elephant seal

(Mirounga angustirostris). Unpublished report.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002c. Biological Assessment, Bear Creek

Bridge (Fish Passage). Oregon Department of Transportation, Portland, Oregon.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003c. Biological Assessment, OTIA-I-5: Row

River and Overflow Bridges Replacement Project. Oregon Department of Transportation,

Portland, Oregon.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003d. Biological Assessment, I-84 Quarry

Bridges Replacement Project, OTIA Design-Build Program. Oregon Department of

Transportation, Portland, Oregon.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2003e. Biological Assessment, Jackass Creek

Fish Passage. Oregon Department of Transportation, Portland, Oregon.

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.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1981. Bald eagle management guidelines Oregon-
Appendix 2-B 36

Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan.

USFWS, Recovery Plan, Sacramento, California.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003a. Biological opinion and letter of concurrence

for effects to bald eagles, marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, bull trout, and

designated critical habitat for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls from Olympic

National Forest program of activities for August 5, 2003 to December 31, 2008.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1990. Management recommendations

for priority species: Columbian white-tailed deer. Unpublished report of the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
APPENDIX 2-C

ESA WORKING GROUP PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX 2-C

ESA WORKING GROUP PARTICIPANTS.

Name Organization

Level 1 Group

Bill Ryan Bridge Delivery Manager ODOT

Hal Gard Bridge Delivery Manager ODOT

Bill Warncke Fish and Wildlife Biologist ODOT

Greg Apke Biology Team Leader ODOT

Nick Testa Biology Team Leader ODOT

Art Martin Fish Biologist ODOT/NOAA Fisheries

David Leal Fish and Wildlife Biologist ODOT/USFWS

Randy Reeve Fish and Wildlife Biologist ODOT/ODFW

Zak Toledo ESA Specialist/Biologist MB&G

Jennifer Ennis Regulatory Specialist/Biologist MB&G

Kevin Halsey ESA Policy Analyst PMX

Level 2 Group

Molly Cary Biology Unit Manager ODOT

Marc Liverman Policy Analyst NOAA Fisheries

Joe Zisa Supervisor/Fish and Wildlife

Biologist

USFWS

Nancy Lee Assistant Project Leader USFWS

Level 3 Group

Heather Catron OTIA III Bridge Delivery Unit

Manager

ODOT

Dave McAllister Environmental Services Manager ODOT

Kemper McMaster State Supervisor USFWS

Mike Tehan Oregon Habitat Branch Chief NOAA Fisheries

Fluvial Performance Standard Group

William Fletcher Water Resources ODOT

Hal Gard Bridge Delivery Manager ODOT

Bill Ryan Bridge Delivery Manager ODOT

Tony Snyder Water Resources Engineer ODOT

Bill Warncke Biologist ODOT

Marc Liverman Policy Analyst NOAA Fisheries

Art Martin Fish Biologist ODOT/NOAA Fisheries

Janine Castro Fluvial Geomorphologist USFWS

David Leal Fish and Wildlife Biologist ODOT/USFWS

John Marshall Fish and Wildlife Biologist USFWS

Randy Reeve Fish and Wildlife Biologist ODOT/ODFW

Ken Vigil Civil and Environmental Engineer Vigil-Agrimis

Zak Toledo ESA Specialist/Biologist MB&G

Kevin Halsey ESA Policy Analyst PMX

Stormwater Performance Standard Group

William Fletcher Water Resources ODOT

Hal Gard Bridge Delivery Manager ODOT

Bill Ryan Bridge Delivery Manager ODOT

Bill Warncke Fish and Wildlife Biologist ODOT

Paul Wirfs Engineer ODOT

Marc Liverman Policy Analyst NOAA Fisheries

Art Martin Fish Biologist ODOT/NOAA Fisheries

John Marshall Fish and Wildlife Biologist USFWS

Ken Vigil Civil and Environmental Engineer Vigil-Agrimis

Zak Toledo ESA Specialist/Biologist MB&G
Appendix 3-A

Other Environmental Performance Standards
APPENDIX 3-A

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The following environmental performance standards were developed by ODOT and their

contractors under a separate process from the ESA Section 7 consultation. These

environmental performance standards were developed for compliance with other

applicable laws and regulations.

PROCESS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

1 The authorization holder shall conduct all work in compliance with the

comprehensive plan, zoning requirements or other local, state, or federal regulations

pertaining to the project. Local land use planning department approval shall be obtained

if the project is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

designated floodway. All other necessary approvals and permits shall be obtained before

commencing with the authorized project. All necessary approvals and permits shall be

obtained before commencing the project under this general authorization.

2 The authorization holder shall obtain all necessary access permits or rights-ofway prior to entering lands owned by another for the purposes of construction

activities for a project authorized under this general authorization.

3 The authorization holder shall conduct the activity during the time period

recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), unless

after consultation with ODFW, a waiver is granted by Agency for a longer or

alternative time period.

4 When listed species are present, the authorization holder shall comply with the

state and Federal Endangered Species Acts. If previously unknown listed

species are encountered during the project, the authorization holder shall cease

work and contact the Agency as soon as possible.

5 The authorization holder shall not disturb or destroy known archeological sites

unless authorized under a permit issued by the State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO). When previously unknown occurrences of archeological sites

are discovered during construction, the authorization holder shall immediately

cease work at the discovery site and contact the Agency.

6 The authorization holder shall ensure that the authorized work does not

unreasonably interfere with or create a hazard to recreational navigation.

7 The authorization holder is responsible for the activities of all contractors or

other operators involved in project work covered by the letter of authorization.

8 The authorization holder shall ensure that other structures, uses or activities not

associated with the application for the proposed project (i.e., vehicle

maintenance, construction of storage buildings, parking lots) are not permitted.

9 The authorization holder shall keep a copy of all relevant permits and approvals

available at the work site whenever the activity is being conducted.
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Proposed Performance Standard 1 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA.)

Proposed Performance Standard 2 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Proposed Performance Standard 3

Pollution and Erosion Control (Final proposed terms and conditions for erosion control

are being negotiated with DEQ).

Proposed Term and Condition 3

3.1 Prepare and carry out a pollution and erosion control plan to prevent pollution

caused by surveying or construction operations.

3.1.1 The plan must be available for inspection on request by ODOT.

3.2 The pollution and erosion control plan will contain the pertinent elements listed

below, and meet requirements of all applicable laws and regulations.

3.2.1 The name and address of the party(s) responsible for accomplishment of the

pollution and erosion control plan.

3.2.2 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.

3.2.3 Practices to confine, remove and dispose of excess concrete, cement, grout,

and other mortars or bonding agents, including measures for washout

facilities.

3.2.4 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.

3.2.5 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.

3.2.6 Practices to prevent construction debris from dropping into any stream or

water body, and to remove any material that does drop with a minimum

disturbance to the streambed and water quality.

3.2.7 Inspection of erosion controls. During construction, monitor instream

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.

3.2.7.1 If monitoring or inspection shows that the erosion controls are

ineffective, mobilize work crews immediately to make repairs,

install replacements, or install additional controls as necessary.

3.2.7.2 Remove sediment from erosion controls once it has reached 1/3 of

the exposed height of the control.
Proposed Performance Standard 4

Bank Stabilization – Provide measures to minimize and prevent the effects of

construction operations and/or procedures on shorelines within the project area.

Proposed Term and Condition 4

4.1 Unless precluded by flow conditions, channel and bank stabilization may include

but not are not limited to one of the following methods:

4.1.1 Woody plantings and variations (e.g., live stakes, brush layering, facines,

brush mattresses).

4.1.2 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.

4.1.3 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.

4.1.4 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.

4.1.5 Bank reshaping and slope grading, when used to reduce a bank slope angle

without changing the location of its toe, increase roughness and crosssection, and provide more favorable planting surfaces.

4.1.6 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.

4.1.7 Floodplain flow spreaders, consisting of one or more rows of trees and

accumulated debris used to spread flow across the floodplain.

4.1.8 Flow-redirection structures known as barbs, vanes, or bendway weirs, when

designed as follows, unless otherwise approved in writing by ODOT.

4.1.8.1 No part of the flow-redirection structure may exceed bank full

elevation, including all rock buried in the bank key.

4.1.8.2 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 1 meter in depth,

sufficient for salmon rearing habitats.

4.1.8.3 Fill the trench excavated for the bank key above bankfull elevation

with soil and topped with native vegetation.

4.1.8.4 The maximum flow-redirection structure length will not exceed 1/4

of the bankfull channel width.

4.1.8.5 Place rock individually without end dumping.

4.1.8.6 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.

4.1.8.7 Include woody riparian planting as a project component.

4.1.9 Rock may be used instead of wood for the following purposes and

structures.

4.1.9.1 The rock will be class 350 metric, or larger, wherever feasible, but

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.

4.1.9.2 As ballast to anchor or stabilize large woody debris components of

an approved bank treatment.

4.1.9.3 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.

4.1.9.4 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 flow control structure (e.g., a

culvert, water intake), utility line, or bridge support.

4.1.9.5 To construct a flow-redirection structure as described above.

4.2 If flow conditions require the use of riprap to achieve bank stabilization then

incorporate fines and substrate adequate to sustain the growth and survival of native

herbaceous vegetation and shrubs.

Proposed Performance Standard 5 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Site Restoration

Proposed Performance Standard 6

Access/Staging ODOT will limit impacts to wetlands from site access and staging

activities.

Proposed Term and Condition 6

6.1 Marking. Flag the boundaries of clearing limits associated with site access and

construction to prevent ground disturbance of critical riparian vegetation, wetlands

and other sensitive sites beyond the flagged boundary.

6.2 Use existing roadways, travel paths, and drilling pads whenever possible, unless

construction of a new way or drilling pad would result in less habitat take

6.3 Temporary roads or drilling pads built mid-slope or on slopes steeper than 30% are

not authorized

6.4 If temporary roads are required through wetlands, culverts will be installed to

maintain connectivity between wetland areas

6.5 In the case of road removal, the authorization holder shall ensure that all affected

stream and bank areas are restored to their approximate original contour

6.6 Locate vehicle staging, cleaning, maintenance, refueling, and fuel storage facilities

(1) in areas that have been previously compacted, disturbed, and cleared (if

available) and (2) in areas where delivery of contaminants to the soil and waters can

be prevented, contained, and cleaned rapidly
6.7 Hydraulic surveys. Hydraulic measurements that require access to the wetted

channel will be done outside of the spawning season, or will have a fisheries

biologist verify that there are no redds present at the site. If dye must be used, only

non-toxic vegetable dyes is authorized; use of short pieces of plastic ribbon to

determine flow patterns is not authorized.

6.8 Minimum area. Confine construction impacts to the minimum area necessary to

complete the project.

6.9 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.

6.10 Cessation of work. Cease operations under high flow conditions that may result in

inundation of the project area, except for efforts to avoid or minimize resource

damage.

Proposed Performance Standard 7 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Stormwater –

Proposed Performance Standard 8 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Wildlife Avoidance

Proposed Performance Standard 9 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Wildlife Passage

Proposed Performance Standard 10 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Butterflies.

Proposed Performance Standard 11 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Plants

Proposed Performance Standard 12 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Vernal Pools

Proposed Performance Standard 13 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Acoustic.

Proposed Performance Standard 14 (This text has been deleted. Please refer to the BA)

Public Awareness

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND STATE SCENIC WATERWAYS

The number of bridges potentially occurring in Wild and Scenic River corridors or State

Scenic Waterways has yet to be determined. Preliminary estimates indicate that two

bridges are located on designated Wild and Scenic River segments of the Umpqua River.

State Scenic Waterways potentially affected have not yet been identified. However, as

part of the Bridge Program compliance effort, draft performance standards/guidelines

relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers were developed with the assistance of Susan Whitney
(ODOT), William Jablonski (ODOT), and Arthur Lemke (PMX). Consultations with

Susan Sater (US Forest Service) continue, and will be complemented by consultations

with other USFS staff and Bureau of Land Management specialists, and may result in

refinements to these standards/guidelines. The following performance

standards/guidelines apply to projects with bridges located within streams designated

pursuant to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act), and when:

• Scenic attributes of the corridor are identified as an outstandingly remarkable value

(ORV) that contributes to the designation of the stream.

• Scenery (though potentially not specifically named) is included as an attribute of an ORV

(e.g., scenery is often an important underlying value comprising an identified Recreation

ORV, or may be important to Traditional Use, Lifestyle Adaptation, and Historic values).

• Impacts to Scenic values within the Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridor resulting

from activity outside the corridor may invade or unreasonably diminish Scenic,

Recreational, Fish, or Wildlife values.

In as much as designation of the stream pursuant to the Oregon Scenic Waterways Act is

concurrent, the standards/guidelines applying to such designation is considered.

Performance Standard

At a minimum, maintain the quality of existing views from the designated stream and

other important viewpoints or viewsheds (as seen from) within the designated WSR

corridor.

OR

Enhance topographic and/or vegetation screening from the river and other important

viewpoints or viewsheds within the designated WSR corridor, when reasonable

practicable and existing river views are determined inadequate through consultation or

applicable River Management Plan(s). This shall be accomplished using Conservation

Measures.

Conservation Measures

1. The federal agency designated as the river management agency has the authority and

responsibility for the WSR Section 7 determination of effects to federally designated

WSRs. For example, the USACOE cannot issue a wetlands permit without the river

management agency providing USACOE with the WSR Section 7 determination.

Consequently, of primary importance to WSR compliance, consultation is necessary

with the appropriate (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)) River Manager. In addition, when the stream is also designated pursuant to

the State Of Oregon’s Scenic Waterways Act, the appropriate planner from the

Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) must be consulted.

2. Projects must comply with visual and aesthetic standards contained in applicable

USFS, BLM, and, where applicable, the OPRD plans, policies, and regulations

relating to the WSR designated stream.

3. Projects must comply with the Act provisions for effects from any project within the

designated WSR corridor and from any project outside the corridor but that affects

values within the corridor.
4. Projects must comply with the guidelines and direction provided in the document

entitled “Wild & Scenic rivers Act: Section 7, Technical Report of the Interagency

Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council.”

5. Based on the agency having jurisdiction pursuant to the Act designation, either the

BLM Visual Resource Management Program, USFS Landscape Aesthetics: A

Handbook for Scenery Management, or the FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for

Highway Projects or other (visual assessment) techniques must be used, as

determined by the River Manager. Where appropriate, an OPRD planner must be

contacted to identify existing and desired future visual/aesthetic values and

conditions.

6. To implement numbers 7 through 9 below, by conducting numbers 1 through 5

above, the following must be determined:

• Extent to which, based on work already conducted by the river management agency, the

visual environment plays a role in the ORVs or Special Attributes that contribute to the

stream’s designation;

• Existing visual conditions that must be maintained, and existing visual conditions that

currently are inadequate or not consistent with the desired future condition and should be

enhanced, in order for the project to meet Section 7 requirements to not result in a “direct

and adverse effect” (for bridges crossing inside a designated river) or “invade the area or

unreasonably diminish” (for bridges crossing outside the designated river corridor); and

• Spatial, design, planting and topographic (and other as appropriate) parameters and

options that are reasonably practicable and should be considered in developing the bridge

and roadway design.

7. Except for situations where views of the river or other features from the roadway or a

roadway turnout are determined to necessarily preclude it, substantially screen

roadway approaches to bridges, retaining walls lacking natural-appearing aesthetic

treatments, bridge abutments and/or other structural appurtenances by use of

topographic treatments or vegetation as determined through consultation per Section

1 above. This may be accomplished by one or more of the following measures (or

others as determined appropriate through said consultation):

• Topography and natural vegetation shall be located in such a way that bridge features are

inconspicuous and in no case obtruding on the view of other important features from the

river.

• Topographic treatments may consist of vegetated berms, roadway slope contouring,

retaining wall aesthetic enhancements, etc.

• Substantial vegetation screening shall consist of the following:

o Native evergreen (preferred) and/or deciduous and non-invasive vegetation to totally

obscure (when practicable) or allow only a highly filtered view of the improvement

preferably within 4 to 5 years. The extent of screening, and targeted time frame for

achieving screening goals, shall be based on factors such as local growing conditions

and plant species.

o Native vegetation shall be compatible with natural vegetation growth in the area.

• All bridges and roadway approaches shall be designed and constructed according to

applicable provisions of the most current Oregon Department of Transportation Standards

and Specifications, including (but not necessarily limited to) Sections 00280 (Erosion and
Sediment Control), 01030 (Seeding) 01040 (Planting), and Special Provisions 01030 and

01040 (Right of Way Development and Control).

• No new riprap should be visible from the designated river.

8. Bridge elements spanning the stream or otherwise not capable of being screened

using topography and/or vegetation, shall be constructed of such materials as to be

unobtrusive and compatible with the identified scenic qualities of the area. (Elements

of bridges that otherwise might be considered obtrusive to the scenic qualities of the

area but contribute to the overall historic and/or visual setting associated with a

bridge [such as railings, arches, or non-structural or non-safety related aesthetic

embellishments] shall not be considered obtrusive.) Measures shall include, but not

necessarily be limited to:

• Structural elements shall be finished in muted tones appropriate to natural surroundings.

Structural elements shall include piers, abutments, girders, facing, railing, utilities (e.g.,

attached pipelines, lighting fixtures), and shall not necessarily include roadway surface.

• No structural areas shall be finished with white or bright colors or reflective materials,

except for roadway surfaces or as needed for safety requirements.

• Lighting shall be directional and focused on the roadway with little glare or dispersal into

natural land areas or areas above the bridge.

• Signage shall be placed and constructed of materials in such a manner as to minimize

visibility from the stream, considering factors such as sign surface, size, colors, and

reflective properties relative to the surrounding natural environment.

9. Exceptions to sections 7 and 8above shall apply if required to meet FHWA/ODOT

roadway safety requirements and/or maintenance requirements and policies.

Bridge Demolition Waste Reduction Plan

Performance Standards for bridge demolition material recycling will generally follow and

supplement existing ODOT Standard Specifications for Construction.

Performance Goals

1. To recycle or reuse the maximum possible amount of material from bridges that are

being demolished.

2. To not landfill any materials from bridge demolitions unless absolutely necessary.

Recycling Definition

To utilize, either onsite or offsite, the debris coming from a bridge structure that is to be

demolished to replace new virgin raw material requirements or for other beneficial uses

that reuse the material.

Qualifying Recycling Uses

The following are potential uses of various materials. Some of the potential uses will

have limited utilization because of the nature and location of the demolition project or the
practicality of the alternative. They are listed here only as a pre-approved list of

alternatives.

A. Concrete. To qualify as recycled material, concrete may be used as follows:

1) Offsite as large pieces to be reused in non-structural applications such as patio

slabs, walkways, etc.

2) Offsite and taken to sand and gravel companies for crushing and reuse.

3) Crushed onsite and used, onsite or offsite at another nearby project, to offset the

need for import of virgin raw material.

a) pieces less than 400 mm (15”) in any direction may be used as embankment

fill, but must be kept more than 300 feet from any stream and 30 feet from any

bridge approach. All material shall be at least 2 feet below the ground surface

and no rebar may be protrude more than 2” from concrete pieces.

b) Rebar free pieces less than 6” in any dimension may be used as subbase

material.

c) Rebar free material less than 3” in any dimension may be used as backfill or

base material if mixed with suitable other material and accepted by ODOT.

4) Crushed on site and used offsite where allowed by law and to offset the need for

virgin raw material.

5) A usage approved by ODOT that qualifies as recycling.

Concrete material may be buried on site, as permitted by ODOT Specifications, but will

not qualify for recycling unless it fits in to one of the categories above.

B. Asphalt. To qualify as recycled, it’s use must offset the requirement to import

raw material or be reincorporated into new asphalt, onsite or offsite.

1) Asphalt may be taken offsite to a sand and gravel supplier of asphalt products.

2) Asphalt may be taken offsite to an asphalt company.

3) Asphalt may be crushed onsite and used onsite to offset the need for raw material

import.

a) In embankments: less than 15” in size; same other requirements as for

concrete used in embankments.

b) On shoulders or gravel roads: sized as aggregate requirements for the

particular use.

4) A usage approved by ODOT as recycling.

All asphalt used onsite or at a nearby site must be weathered.

C. Treated wood. To qualify as recycled, treated wood may generally need to be used as

large sections in a use such as bumper guards, fence posts, falsework, etc. Treated

wood can not be chipped and used for ground cover. The majority of treated wood

will probably require disposal in a landfill. Disposal must follow Solid Waste and/or

Hazardous Material regulations.

D. Untreated Wood. To qualify for recycling, untreated wood must be used to offset the

need for virgin material.
1) Large pieces may be salvaged and used in other building structures or building

projects.

2) Used as falsework for new Contractor projects.

3) Chipped up onsite and used either onsite or offsite for ground cover.

E. Metal To qualify as a recycled material, metal may be used:

1) Large portions of items such as rails, trusses, sign poles, or light standards may be

removed intact in large sections and reused in other non structural applications

such as light standards elsewhere or other metal applications to replace the need

of new fabricated metal products.

2) Trusses or beams may be sold to the public for use as small bridges or other uses.

3) Taken to a metal scrap dealer.

F. Other. This category applies to everything not included above and may include

electrical wiring, plastics, etc. To qualify for recycling the Other material must be put

to a new beneficial use.

1) Contractor should save and preserve items of a historical nature such as

gargoyles, spires statues, plaques, etc.

2) Most other material will be landfilled.

Performance standard

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%

Performance Measures

The Contractor will provide a Recycling Plan with the Contractor’s bid. The Recycling

Plan will provide, as a minimum, a list of the type of demolished materials expected to be

recovered from the bridge demolition project; an estimated percentage of those recovered

bridge materials which the Contractor is proposing to recycle; the proposed disposition of

each recycled material; the name, address and phone number of the end user where the

material is to be taken; and a pledge to meet the recycling percentages proposed.

Contractors must propose recycling percentages at least in the amounts of the Minimum

Recycling Standards. If a Contractor cannot meet the Minimum Recycling Standards for

reasons of cost impracticality, lack of recycling alternatives nearby to the site area or any

other reason, the Contractor must provide an explanation with their bid as to why they

cannot meet the Minimum Recycling Standards.
Contractors that exceed all the Minimum Recycling Standards at the conclusion of the

job, as determined by weight or volume, will be eligible for a recycling bonus. The

bonus will be a percentage of the Contractor’s bid and will be determined by the

following chart:

Item

Weighting

Factor

Minimum

Recycling

Standard Recycling Percentage Bonus

Concrete 40% 70%

Act Recycle

75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

Bonus % Award 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Asphalt 20% 70% Act Recycle 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

Bonus % Award 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Treated Wood 10% 10% Act Recycle 15% 18% 21% 23% 25%

Bonus % Award 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Untreated Wood 10% 70%

Act Recycle

75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

Bonus % Award 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Metal 10% 50% Act Recycle 60% 70% 80% 90% 95%

Bonus % Award 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Other 10% 5%

Act Recycle

6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

Bonus % Award 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Total Bonus
The formula for determining Contractor’s bonus equals each item’s weighting factor

multiplied by its recycling percentage award to equal the bonus for that item. The total

bonus is the sum of the individual bonuses.

Example: Contractor’s bid is $1,000,000. Contractor recycled:

80% of the concrete

95% of the asphalt

10% of the treated wood

90% of the untreated wood

90% of the metal

7% of the “other” material

The Contractor’s recycling bonus would be calculated as follows:

Concrete .40 x .02 = .008

Asphalt .20 x .05 = .001

Treated wood .10 x 0 = 0

Untreated wood .10 x .04 = .004

Metal .10 x .04 = .004

Other .10 x .02 = .002

Total .019

Contractor’s bonus is $1,000,000 x .019 = $19,000
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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*)

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

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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

(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

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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*)

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*)

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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*)

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*)

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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*)

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*)

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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*)

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)

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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

(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

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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 395) July 15 - August 15 (CHS,STS,RT,BUT*)

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*)

Minam River July 1 – August 15 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)

Lookingglass Creek July 1 - August 15 (CHS,STS,RB,BUT*)

Catherine Creek

 

1

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.
Appendix 3-B

Preferred In-Water Work Periods

WATERWAY PREFERRED WORK PERIOD1

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

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

 Work period is established for named stream, all upstream tributaries, and associated lakes within the watershed unless

otherwise indicated.