Kelso Martin’s Bluff Improvement Projects – Tasks 5 and 6 

DRAFT Environmental Assessment

August 2014 

J-4

June 15, 2009 

Ms. Pam Trautman 

Cultural Resources Specialist 

Washington State Department of Transportation 

P.O. Box 47332 

Olympia, W A 98504-7332 

In future correspondence please refer to: 

Log: 061509-13-FHW A 

Property: Kelso to Martin's Bluff-New Siding Railroad Project 

Re: Archaeology - No Historic Properties 

Dear Ms. Trautman: 

Received 

JUN 16 2009 

Environmental Services OfflctMottman 

Thank you for contacting our office and providing a project description and history. Based on the 

previous reviews of the project and the information contained in your report, we concur with your 

professional recommendations and your finding of No Historic Properties Affected. 

We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties 

that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4( a)( 4). 

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the 

State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. 

Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. In the event that 

archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate 

vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this office and the concerned tribes notified. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Sterner, M.A., RP A 

Transportation Archaeologist 

(360) 586-3082 

matthew .sterner@dahp. wa.gov 

J J PARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVAnON 

Protect the Post, Shape the Future 
Kelso Martin’s Bluff Improvement Projects – Tasks 5 and 6 

DRAFT Environmental Assessment J-41

Washington State Department of Transportation 

P. 0. Box 47332 

Olympia, WA 98504 

In future correspondence please refer to: 

Log: 050813-05-FRA 

Mottman 

Property: Kelso Martin's Bluff-Kelso to Longview Junction, Task 6 Improvements Re: Eligibility Determinations, No Adverse Effect 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation (DAHP). The Kelso Martin's Bluff-Kelso to Longview Junction, Task 6 

Improvements project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer 

under provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) 

and 36 CFR Part 800. My review is based upon documentation contained in your 

communication. 

First, DAHP concurs with your determination that the Coweeman River Bridge is eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Furthermore, we concur with your 

determination that the Everett Stout Gas Station and Auto Repair is not eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. Based on these concurrences and the description of the proposed construction work 

associat.ed with this project, I concur with your determination of no adverse effect for the 

undertaking. 

If additional information on the project becomes available, or if any archaeological resources are 

uncovered during construction, please halt work in the area of discovery and contact the 

appropriate Native American Tribes and DAHP for further consultation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact 

me. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Sterner, M.A. 

Transportation Archaeologist 

(360) 586-3082 

matthew.sterner@dahp.wa.gov 

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 

P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 

www.dahp.wa.gov 
Kelso Martin’s Bluff Improvement Projects – Tasks 5 and 6 

DRAFT Environmental Assessment J-40

Mr. Michael Johnsen 

Environmental Team Lead 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington DC 20590 

In future correspondence please refer to: 

Log: 050813-05-FRA 

April17, 2014 

Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Director 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Property: Kelso Martin's Bluff-Kelso to Longview Junction, Task 6 Improvements: Coweeman 

River Bridge Pedestrian Walkways, Handrails, and Lighting Installation 

Re: No Adverse Effect 

Dear Mr. Johnsen: 

Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation (DAHP). The proposed modifications to the Coweeman River Bridge have been 

reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer under provisions of Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and 36 CFR Part 800. My review is 

based upon documentation contained in your communication. 

Based on the information provided to our office concerning modifications to be made to the 

Coweeman River Bridge, a property considered eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places, we concur with your determination that the proposed changes will not constitute 

an adverse effect to the property. Please make every effort to introduce 'context sensitive' 

design elements whenever possible, making every attempt to blend new elements with the 

historic character of the bridge. 

If additional information on the project becomes available, or if any archaeological resources are 

uncovered during construction, please halt work in the area of discovery and contact the 

appropriate Native American Tribes and DAHP for further consultation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact 

me. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Sterner, M.A. 

Transportation Archaeologist 

(360) 586-3082 

matthew.sterner@dahp.wa.gov 

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 

P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • [360) 586-3065 

www.dahp.Wa.gov 
OF 

ARCHAEOLOGY & 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

Mr. David Valenstein 

August 11 , 2014 

Chief, Environment and Systems Planning 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

In future correspondence please refer to: 

Log: 061509-13-FHWA 

Property: Kelso to Martin's Bluff-New Siding Railroad Project 

Re: APE Concur, More Information Required 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Director 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

I have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the Kelso to Martin's Bluff-New Siding 

Railroad project. Thank you for your description of the modification to the area of potential effect 

(APE) associated with the culvert replacement. I have no concerns with the definition of the APE 

modification. However, due to the highly sensitive nature of the area under consideration, I will 

require a more detailed plan concerning archaeological testing of the area associated with the 

culvert installation. 

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf 

of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional 

information become available, our assessment may be revised. We would appreciate receiving 

any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as 

you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please feel 

free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Sterner, M.A. 

Transportation Archaeologist 

(360) 586-3082 

matthew.sterner@dahp.wa.gov 

Cc: Jennifer Papazian, FRA 

Erin Littauer, WSDOT 

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 

P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 

www.dahp.wa.gov 
State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation

P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 

www.dahp.wa.gov 

January 27, 2015 

Mr. David Valenstein 

Chief, Environment and Systems Planning 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

In future correspondence please refer to: 

Log: 061509-13-FHWA 

Property: Kelso to Martin's Bluff-New Siding Railroad Project 

Re: Archaeology - No Historic Properties 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

Thank you for contacting our office and providing your determination of effect for tthis culvert 

replacement project that is part of the Kelso to Martin's Bluff-New Siding Railroad project. I 

concur with the professional recommendations as stated in the previously reviewed 

geoarchaeological report and your finding of no historic properties affected for this portion of the 

project. As I stated in my previous letter reviewing the geoarchaeological report, I agree with the 

consultant’s recommendation that an archaeological monitor be present during grounddisturbing construction as per the parameters stipulated in the report. 

We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or 

other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). 

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the 

behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. 

Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. In the event 

that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the 

immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this office and the concerned tribes notified. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact 

me. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Sterner, M.A. 

Transportation Archaeologist 

(360) 586-3082 

matthew.sterner@dahp.wa.gov 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

West Coast Region 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 

Seattle, Washington 98115 

Refer to 

NMFS Tracking Number:

NWR-2013-10618 December 18, 2014

David Valenstein 

Chief, Environment and Systems Planning Division 

Federal Rail Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 formal consultation, conference opinion, and MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for 

the Kelso to Martins Bluff Task 5: New Siding, Cowlitz County, Washington. (Sixth Field 

Hydrologic Unit Code: (HUC) 170800030100 Kalama River) 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

The enclosed document contains a biological and conference opinion prepared by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act on the 

effects of the Federal Rail Administration proposal to add a third mainline track to the existing 2 

lines for a distance of approximately 4 miles. In this biological opinion, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Lower Columbia River (LCR) coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), LCR steelhead (O. mykiss), or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of their designated and proposed critical habitat. 

As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS provided an incidental take statement with the 

biological opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures that 

NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize incidental take associated with this action. 

The take statement sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting 

requirements, that the Federal agency and any person who performs the action must comply with 

to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from actions that meet these 

terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA take prohibition. 

This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action’s likely effects on essential 

fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), and includes three conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize, 

or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on EFH. One of these conservation 

recommendations is a a subset of the ESA terms and conditions. 
-2-

Section 305(b) (4) (B) of the MSA requires Federal agencies to provide a detailed written 

response to NMFS within 30 days after receiving these recommendations. If the response is 

inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendations, the FRA must explain why the 

recommendations will not be followed, including the scientific justification for any 

disagreements over the effects of the action and the recommendations. In response to increased 

oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, 

NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many conservation 

recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by 

the action agency. Therefore, we request that in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this 

consultation, you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations accepted. 

If you have any questions, please contact Scott E. Anderson of the Washington State Habitat 

Office at (360) 753-5828 or electronic mail at scott.anderson@noaa.gov. 

Sincerely!... 

~~~ 

P

v William W. Stelle, Jr. 

- Regional Administrator 

cc: Colleen Vaughn, Federal Rail Administration 

Cheryl McNamara, WSDOT State Rail and Marine Office 

Chris Regan, WSDOT, Environmental Services 

Cameron Kukes, WSDOT Environmental Services 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological and Conference 

Opinion Consultation Report, Section 7(a)(2) "Likely to Adversely Affect" 

Determination 

And 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation (EFH) 

Kelso to Martins Bluff Task 5, New Siding, Hydraulic Unit Code (HUC) 170800030106 

Kalama River-Frontal Columbia River, Cowlitz County, Washington 

NMFS Consultation Number: NWR-2013-10618 

·Lead Action Agency: Federal Railroad Administration 

Aft! ecte dS ;pec1es an dD etermmat10ns: 

Is Action Likely to Is Action Likely Is Action Likely To 

ESA-Listed Species Status Adversely Affect To Jeopardize Destroy or Adversely 

Species or Critical the Species? Modify Critical 

Habitat? Habitat? 

Lower Columbia River 

Steelhead DPS Threatened Yes No No 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Lower Columbia River Threatened Yes No No* coho salmon (0. kisutch) .. *Cntlcal habttat IS proposed for LCR coho salmon 

Fishery Management Plan That 

Describes EFH in the Project Area 

Pacific Coast Salmon 

Consultation Conducted By: 

Issued by: 

Date: 

Does Action Have an Adverse Are EFH Conservation 

Effect on EFH? Recommendations Provided? 

Yes No 

National Marine _fisheries Service, Northwest Region 

~tid )t/'4-- illiam W. Stelle, Jr. "' 1 u· Regional Administrator 

December 18, 2014 
-iTABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1

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

1.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 2

1.3.1 Measures to Avoid and Minimize Effects of the Action ........................................... 5

1.3 Action Area ......................................................................................................................... 7

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINION AND 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT .............................................................................................7

2.1 Approach to the Analysis .................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................ 8

2.2.1 Status of Listed Species ............................................................................................. 8

2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitat .......................................................................................... 13

2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Effects of the Action on the Species and Critical Habitat ................................................ 18

2.4.1 Effects on Listed Species ......................................................................................... 18

2.4.2 Effects of the Action on Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat ........................ 22

2.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 23

2.6 Integration and Synthesis .................................................................................................. 24

2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 25

2.8. Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................ 26

2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take ....................................................................................... 26

2.8.2 Effect of the Take ..................................................................................................... 27

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions ............................... 28

2.9. Conservation Recommendations ..................................................................................... 29

2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation ............................................................................................ 29

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION ......................................................................30

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project ................................................................. 30

3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................ 30

3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations .................................................. 30

3.4 Statutory Response Requirement ...................................................................................... 31

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .....31

5. REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................33

Appendix I. Worksite Isolation and Fish Capture and Handling Protocol ...............................39

Appendix I - In-water Construction Monitoring Report ................................................................43
-iiLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BMP – Best Management Practice 

BNSF- Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

CESCL – Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead 

CFS – Cubic Feet per Second 

DPS – Distinct Population Segment 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

ESU – Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FRA – Federal Highway Administration 

HPA – Hydraulic Permit Approval 

HUC – Hydrologic Unit Code 

LCR – Lower Columbia River 

NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service 

NTU – Nephelometric Turbidity Units

OHW – Ordinary High Water 

PCE – Primary Constituent Element 

PHS – Priority Habitats and Species 

RM – River Mile 

SPCC – Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

TESC – Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control 

USFS – United States Forest Service 

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WDFW – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDNR – Washington Department of Natural Resources 

WRIA – Water Resources Inventory Area 

WSDOT – Washington Department of Transportation 
-1- 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document 

and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 

This document contains a biological opinion (Opinion) that was prepared by National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

402.1

 It also contains essential fish habitat (EFH) conservation recommendations prepared by 

NMFS in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. 

The administrative record for this consultation is on file at the Lacey, Washington office. 

1.1 Background and Consultation History 

On October 5, 2013, NMFS received a letter and biological assessment (BA) from the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) requesting formal consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA, and EFH consultation pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the MSA for the Kelso to Martins 

Bluff (KMB) Task 5 New Siding, in Cowlitz County, Washington. The Project lies within the 

range and habitats of several species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and because the Project will receive funding from the 

FRA, a federal nexus is formed under Section 7 of the ESA. The FRA is funding the project with 

an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant in cooperation with the Washington 

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), who is, in turn, coordinating with the owner of 

the railway, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), on the implementation of the 

project. This consultation is for one segment (task 5) of a multi-year, phased project. Previous 

consultations were conducted by NMFS to address other segments of the project (NMFS # 2009-

03885, 2013-10101). The project work for this consultation will not be contiguous but will be 

located within five segment areas along the railroad right-of-way as follows: Area 1 – North End 

(MP 105.65 to 105.92), Area 2 – Oak Street (MP 107.16 to 107.56), Area 3 – Kalama Yard (MP 

107.16 to 107.56), Area 4 – Double Crossovers (MP 108.51 to 108.87), and Area 5 – South End 

(MP 109.40 to 100.00). We are considering the effects of these individual actions on listed 

species and critical habitat in an additive manner as we complete each consultation. 

During consultation, NMFS inquired as to indirect or interrelated effects from increased rail 

traffic and possible ancillary automobile traffic and other potential indirect effects related to the 

addition of 1.7 miles of bypass track. The project will reduce automobile traffic by adding two 

high-speed passenger trains per day. Further, the project will not add any additional access to 

ports, passenger stations, parking areas, or other termini. Therefore, NMFS concurred that no 

indirect or interrelated effects will result from the 1.7 miles of bypass track constructed for this 

project, and there are no indirect effects from this proposed action. 

In the BA, the FRA determined the proposed action was likely to adversely affect Lower 

Columbia River (LCR) steelhead (O. mykiss), and LCR coho salmon (O. kisutch). The FRA also 

 

1

 With respect to designated critical habitat, the following analysis relied only on the statutory provisions of the 

ESA, and not on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” at 50 CFR 402.02. 
-2- 

determined the proposed action was likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat of LCR 

steelhead, and was not likely to destroy or aversely modify proposed critical habitat for LCR 

coho salmon, but would have an adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for LCR coho 

salmon. The NMFS requested further information on October 10, 2013. Sufficient information 

was supplied and NMFS initiated formal consultation on October 25, 2013. New questions 

regarding indirect or interrelated effects were raised by NMFS. A field visit to the construction 

site occurred on January 23, 2014. Further information was received on April 20, 2014. On May 

2, 2014, the WSDOT contacted NMFS with a significant design change and requested that the 

project be put on hold. On June 11, 2014, an addendum to the BA detailing design changes was 

received by NMFS. Formal consultation began on June 11, 2014. 

The biological and conference opinion (opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this 

document were prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance with 

section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et 

seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. This biological opinion is based on 

information provided in the BA, information obtained from the WDFW, field investigations, and 

other sources of information. The consultation also included telephone conversations and 

electronic mail between NMFS and Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). A 

complete record of this consultation is on file at the Lacey, Washington office. 

The NMFS also completed an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation in accordance with 

section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 

(16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. The opinion and EFH 

conservation recommendations are both in compliance with section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-5444) (“Data Quality Act”) 

and underwent pre-dissemination review. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

“Action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in 

whole or in part, by Federal agencies. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action 

and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have 

no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. As explained above, we did not 

identify any interrelated or interdependent actions. 

The FRA proposes to fund the construction of approximately 4.3 miles of a third mainline track 

to the east of the existing BNSF double-track mainline in the Port of Kalama from BNSF 

milepost (MP) 110.00 near Toteff Road north to MP 105.7 south of the Kalama River (Figure 1). 

Grading, excavation, retaining walls, and rail embankment construction will support the new 

track and associated infrastructure improvements. This project’s only location for potential 

impacts to ESA-listed aquatic species are in tributary (T3) and a few adjacent wetland channels 

between Interstate 5 and the railroad. These channels combine with T3 and flow under the BNSF 

tracks via the existing 36-inch diameter culvert. The stream discharges to the Columbia River, 

approximately 270 feet downstream from the upper end of the culvert. In this general location, 

along the east slope of the existing railroad grade, a 1,500 foot retaining wall will be constructed 

to add 8 feet of width to facilitate rail improvements. The construction of the retaining wall will 
-3- 

require approximately 0.08 acres of fill in the adjacent, fish-accessible wetland channels. The 

270-foot long, 36-inch culvert is proposed to be removed. A pair of new, 90-foot long, side-byside, 60-inch wide culverts will be installed, and will transition into a 5-foot high, 15-foot wide, 

110-foot long box culvert. From the end of the box culvert, T-3 will flow daylighted 

approximately 70-feet across the beach, where a new stream channel will be constructed. 

The new box culvert would extend approximately 200 feet west of BNSF right-of-way (ROW) to 

the Columbia River (Figure 1). The limits of construction for this culvert include pit excavation 

for a jack and bore machine west of the railroad structure on BNSF ROW and in Hendrickson 

Drive. The 20-by 40-foot bore pit would be excavated to a depth of 20 to 25 feet below the 

surface. Pumps would be used to dewater during construction and use of the bore pit. Two new 

60-inch diameter, 90-foot long culverts would be installed under the railroad structure by the 

jack and bore method to limit disruption of rail traffic. West of the bore pit, an approximately 5-

foot-high by 15-foot-wide three-sided (bottomless) box culvert would be installed via an open 

cut across Hendrickson Drive and the Port of Kalama’s parking lot (Figure 1). It would convey 

water to an open stream channel that would flow across the beach use area of the Port of 

Kalama’s Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park. The open cut would be approximately 10 to 20 feet 

deep and 30-feet wide. In addition, the culvert outfall would include a gate (i.e. traditional 

culvert gate, angled culvert gate, or equivalent) to prevent pedestrian access for safety reasons. 

The gate will be designed to not inhibit fish passage. After installation, the open cut would be 

closed and the stream channel would be enhanced with appropriate sized boulders, and riparian 

plantings. Construction is anticipated to take up to two months. 

Work is expected to include stream isolation and fish handling, and will take place in three 

phases over an estimated 45-day work period between July 15 to August 31, 2015. Permanent 

impacts to fish-accessible off-channel wetlands associated with the T3 drainage will be limited to 

approximately 3,485 square feet (sf), or approximately 0.08 acre. Tributary 3 and adjacent 

accessible habitat is designated critical habitat for LCR steelhead, and proposed critical habitat 

for LCR coho salmon. 

As currently proposed, the stream would be an approximately 70-foot-long, open, enhanced 

stream channel to the Columbia River. The stream channel is expected to be roughly 20 feet at 

bank full width, with gradual embankments and a rock and gravel stream bottom. Water levels in 

the stream would range from 3 to 4 inches at low tide and 14 to 18 inches at high tide. Winter 

river flows may reach as high as 3 to 4 feet. The outfall of the existing culvert will be removed 

once construction of the new culvert is completed. 

The existing retaining wall on the east side of the tracks in the BNSF right of way (ROW) will be 

extended no more than 8 feet to the east of the proposed walls, in the vicinity of the off-channel 

wetland. Besides this fill, this area may have vegetation trimmed back for safe and efficient 

construction access, but the existing soil and vegetation will not be graded or grubbed. The 

culverts are proposed to be “jacked” under the railroad, but the length of the culverts will be 

limited to the railroad property. 

The edges of linear wetland features temporarily affected during the Project, such as along the 

toe of fill or outside the limits of a retaining wall, will be restored to pre-work conditions. These 

activities will occur within the BNSF ROW and will include, but not be limited to, removal of 
-4- 

invasive species and restoration and re-vegetation with native plant species along the edges of 

the proposed retaining walls when adjacent to wetland areas. This restoration and enhancement is 

expected to benefit listed ESA species within T3 by improving cover and shade and by 

stabilizing the riparian edge areas to avoid long-term erosion and sedimentation. 

Figure 1 Site plan view rendering of the T‐3 outfall and natural stream engineering design

Figure 2. Ground plan view rendering of the T‐3 outfall and natural stream 
-5- 

Figure 3. Vicinity map of Project and action area (BA, 2013) 

1.3.1 Measures to Avoid and Minimize Effects of the Action 

General minimization and conservation measures for avoiding and minimizing Project impacts to 

ESA-listed species and critical habitats are: 

• An approved Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) will be 

implemented prior to and during construction. Implementation of the SPCC is intended to 

minimize potentially adverse effects from construction activities that are primarily related 

to equipment fueling and maintenance. It includes protocols for equipment operation in 

or near jurisdictional areas, types of hydraulic fluids used, emergency spill containment 

procedures, and the spill containment materials to have on hand in the event of a spill. 
-6- 

• Prior to the start of construction, work staging and construction material stockpile areas 

will be identified and developed in either existing BNSF yard or maintenance areas or in 

upland locations within the BNSF ROW. These areas will be located a minimum of 150 

feet away from aquatic habitat areas containing potential ESA-listed species. 

• Prior to earth disturbing activities, clearing/grading limits will be marked with 

stakes/flagging or high visibility sediment fencing to avoid impacts to jurisdictional areas 

that are not part of the Project work. 

• Permanent removal of existing, established native vegetation will be restricted to what is 

required for direct construction impacts, such as retaining wall construction, new rail 

grade establishment, new track, and safe signal and crossing sight distances for the 

completion of the Project. 

• Existing established vegetation areas that will only be temporarily impacted may be 

trimmed back for work access and safety, but will not be grubbed. 

• During construction, disturbed soil areas will not remain open to become a possible 

source of offsite sediment pollution (i.e., storm water runoff or construction dust) for 

more than seven (7) days. Such areas will be stabilized with rock cover, mulch, or plastic 

cover. 

• All disturbed areas associated with the new third mainline track or roads for maintenance 

access, will be stabilized and restored with native grass in accordance with the Projectspecific SWPPP. 

• Final slopes within the Project corridor (i.e., track embankment or rail grade) will be 

stabilized to avoid sedimentation to wetlands and surface waters. 

• Construction related waste or debris will be contained in appropriate receptacles and 

regularly managed by the BNSF general contractor throughout the construction Project. 

• Portable toilet facilities will be available as needed throughout the Project work area and 

regularly maintained. 

• Culvert extensions will be the minimum required and are designed to not adversely affect 

fish passage or water flow in the existing culvert structures. 

• Retaining wall construction and permanent maintenance access road development will be 

the minimum required for appropriate safe management of rail operations. 

• All in-water work will be conducted during windows recommended by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and approved by NMFS. 

• If needed, fish relocation and handling activities will follow the most current WSDOT 

protocols which can be found in Appendix 1. 
-7- 

1.3 Action Area 

“Action area” means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not 

merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The Project corridor occurs 

in portions of Sections 6, 7, 18, 20, 37, and 44 in Township 6 North, Range 1 West, Willamette 

Meridian, Cowlitz County, Washington. Latitude/Longitude points for either end of the Project 

are: North End (MP 105.7) = 46o2’2.80” N; 122o51’30.04”W and South End (MP 110.0) = 

45o58’33.42” N; 122o49’24.75”W (Figure 1). 

The Project is within the unincorporated City limits of Kalama, Washington and Watershed 

Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 27 – Lewis, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – Lower Cowlitz. 

170800030106, Kalama River-Frontal Columbia River. 

The action area for the project is centered where adverse effects on ESA-listed species and 

habitats are expected to occur. Impacts to roughly 270 feet of stream habitat and the 0.08 acre of 

fill into the adjacent wetland for retaining wall construction are not expected to have any 

upstream impacts or to extend more than 270-feet downstream from the point of construction. 

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINION AND 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of 

fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat on which they depend. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS, or both, to 

ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. Section 

7(b)(3) requires that at the conclusion of consultation, the Service provide an opinion stating how 

the agencies’ actions will affect listed species or their critical habitat. If incidental take is 

expected, Section 7(b)(4) requires the provision of an incidental take statement (ITS) specifying 

the impact of any incidental taking, and including reasonable and prudent measures to minimize 

such impacts. 

2.1 Approach to the Analysis 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, in consultation with NMFS, to ensure that 

their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened 

species, or adversely modify or destroy their designated or proposed critical habitat. The 

jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the species. The adverse modification 

analysis considers the impacts to the conservation value of the designated critical habitat.

“To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species” means to engage in an action that 

would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the 

survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). 
-8- 

This biological opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse 

modification” of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have relied upon the statutory 

provisions of the ESA to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat.2

 

We will use the following approach to determine whether the proposed action is likely to 

jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat (and proposed critical 

habitat for our conference opinion): 

 Identify the rangewide status of the species and critical habitat likely to be adversely 

affected by the proposed action. 

 Describe the environmental baseline for the proposed action. 

 Analyze the effects of the proposed actions. 

 Describe any cumulative effects. 

 Integrate and synthesize the above factors to assess the risk that the proposed action poses 

to species and critical habitat. 

 Reach jeopardy and adverse modification conclusions. 

 If necessary, define a reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed action. 

2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat 

This opinion examines the status of each species that would be affected by the proposed action. 

The status is the level of risk that the listed species face, based on parameters considered in 

documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and listing decisions. The species status 

section helps to inform the description of the species’ current “reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution” as described in 50 CFR 402.02. The opinion also examines the condition of critical 

habitat throughout the designated area, evaluates the conservation value of the various 

watersheds and coastal and marine environments that make up the designated area, and discusses 

the current function of the essential physical and biological features that help to form that 

conservation value. 

One factor affecting the status of ESA-listed species and aquatic habitat at large is climate 

change as explained further, below. 

2.2.1 Status of Listed Species 

For LCR coho and steelhead, NMFS commonly uses four parameters to assess the viability of 

the populations that, together, constitute the species: spatial structure, diversity, abundance, and 

productivity (McElhany et al. 2000). These viable salmonid population criteria therefore 

encompass the species’ “reproduction, numbers, or distribution” as described in 50 CFR 402.02. 

When these parameters are collectively at appropriate levels, they maintain a population’s 

capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions and allow it to sustain itself in the natural 

environment. These attributes are influenced by survival, behavior, and experiences throughout a 

 

2

 Memorandum from William T. Hogarth to Regional Administrators, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 

(Application of the “Destruction or Adverse Modification” Standard Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act) (November 7, 2005). 
-9- 

species’ entire life cycle, and these characteristics, in turn, are influenced by habitat and other 

environmental conditions. 

“Spatial structure” refers both to the spatial distributions of individuals in the population and the 

processes that generate that distribution. A population’s spatial structure depends fundamentally 

on habitat quality and spatial configuration and the dynamics and dispersal characteristics of 

individuals in the population. 

“Diversity” refers to the distribution of traits within and among populations. These range in scale 

from DNA sequence variation at single genes to complex life history traits (McElhany et al. 

2000). 

“Abundance” generally refers to the number of naturally-produced adults (i.e., the progeny of 

naturally-spawning parents) in the natural environment (e.g., on spawning grounds). 

“Productivity,” as applied to viability factors, refers to the entire life cycle; i.e., the number of 

naturally-spawning adults produced per parent. When progeny replace or exceed the number of 

parents, a population is stable or increasing. When progeny fail to replace the number of parents, 

the population is declining. McElhany et al. (2000) use the terms “population growth rate” and 

“productivity” interchangeably when referring to production over the entire life cycle. They also 

refer to “trend in abundance,” which is the manifestation of long-term population growth rate. 

For species with multiple populations, once the biological status of a species’ populations has 

been determined, NMFS assesses the status of the entire species using criteria for groups of 

populations, as described in recovery plans and guidance documents from technical recovery 

teams. Considerations for species viability include having multiple populations that are viable, 

ensuring that populations with unique life histories and phenotypes are viable, and that some 

viable populations are both widespread to avoid concurrent extinctions from mass catastrophes 

and spatially close to allow functioning as metapopulations (McElhany et al. 2000). 

Climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the abundance of 

ESA-listed species, and the conservation value of designated critical habitats, in the Pacific 

Northwest. These changes will not be spatially homogeneous across the Pacific Northwest. Areas 

with elevations high enough to maintain temperatures well below freezing for most of the winter 

and early-spring will be less affected. Low-elevation areas are likely to be more affected. 

During the last century, average regional air temperatures increased by 1.5°F, and increased up 

to 4°F in some areas. Warming is likely to continue during the next century as average 

temperatures increase another 3°F to 10°F. Overall, about one-third of the current cold-water fish 

habitat in the Pacific Northwest is likely to exceed key water temperature thresholds by the end 

of this century (USGCRP 2009). 

Precipitation trends during the next century are less certain than for temperature but more 

precipitation is likely to occur during October through March and less during summer months, 

and more of the winter precipitation is likely to fall as rain rather than snow (ISAB 2007; 

USGCRP 2009). Where snow occurs, a warmer climate will cause earlier runoff so stream flows 
-10- 

in late spring, summer, and fall will be lower and water temperatures will be warmer (ISAB 

2007; USGCRP 2009). 

Higher winter stream flows increase the risk that winter floods in sensitive watersheds will 

damage spawning redds and wash away incubating eggs. Earlier peak stream flows will also 

flush some young salmon and steelhead from rivers to estuaries before they are physically 

mature, increasing stress and the risk of predation. Lower stream flows and warmer water 

temperatures during summer will degrade summer rearing conditions, in part by increasing the 

prevalence and virulence of fish diseases and parasites (USGCRP 2009). Other adverse effects 

are likely to include altered migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature 

emergence of fry, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing habitat, and increased 

competition and predation risk from warm-water, non-native species (ISAB 2007). 

The earth’s oceans are also warming, with considerable interannual and inter-decadal variability 

superimposed on the longer-term trend (Bindoff et al. 2007). Historically, warm periods in the 

coastal Pacific Ocean have coincided with relatively low abundances of salmon and steelhead, 

while cooler ocean periods have coincided with relatively high abundances (Scheuerell and 

Williams 2005; Zabel et al. 2006 USGCRP 2009;). Ocean conditions adverse to salmon and 

steelhead may be more likely under a warming climate (Zabel et al. 2006). 

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

Originally part of a larger lower Columbia River/southwest Washington ESU, Lower Columbia 

coho were identified as a separate ESU and listed as threatened on June 28, 2005. Three status 

evaluations of LCR coho salmon status, all based on WLCTRT criteria, have been conducted 

since the last NMFS status review in 2005 (McElhany et al. 2007, Beamesderfer et al. 2010, 

LCFRB 2010). Of the 27 historical populations in the ESU, 24 are at “very high” risk. The 

remaining three populations (Sandy, Clackamas and Scappoose) are at “moderate” or “high” risk 

(Ford et al. 2011). NOAA Fisheries issued results of a five-year review on August 15, 2011 and 

concluded that this species should remain listed as threatened because, overall, the new 

information considered does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the last 

status review (Ford 2011). 

Spatial Structure and Diversity. This species includes all naturally-spawned populations of coho 

salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon, from the mouth of 

the Columbia up to and including the Big White Salmon and Hood rivers; in the Willamette 

River to Willamette Falls, Oregon; and progeny of 25 artificial propagation programs. The 

WLCTRT identified 24 historical populations of LCR coho salmon and divided these into two 

strata based on major run timing: early and late (Myers et al. 2006). Three strata and nine 

historical populations of LCR coho salmon occur within the action area. Of these nine 

populations, Clackamas River is the only population characterized as “viable” (McElhany et al. 

2007). Spatial diversity is rated “moderate” or “low” risk for all the populations, except the 

North Fork Lewis River, which has a “high” risk rating for spatial structure. All LCR coho 

salmon populations, except the Clackamas and Sandy river populations (low risk), are at 

“moderate” or “high” risk for diversity. 
-11- 

Abundance and Productivity. In Oregon, the Scappoose Creek and Clackamas River populations 

have “moderate” risk ratings for abundance and productivity, while the rest are rated “high” or 

“very high” risk. Of the Clackamas and Sandy populations, the geometric mean abundance is 

substantially below the long-term Minimum Abundance Threshold of 3,000 spawners, and 

neither population shows a clear long term trend in log natural origin abundance. All of the 

Washington populations have “extirpated or nearly so” ratings for abundance and productivity. 

The results from Oregon and Washington are largely driven by the very low abundance and 

productivity of naturally produced LCR coho. As was noted in the 2005 status review, smolt 

traps indicate some natural production in Washington populations, though given the high fraction 

of hatchery origin spawners suspected to occur in these populations it is not clear that any are 

self-sustaining (Ford, 2011). 

Limiting factors identified for the ESU in LCFRB 2010 and NMFS 2011) include: 

 Degraded estuarine and near-shore marine habitat resulting from cumulative impacts of 

land use and flow management by the Columbia River hydropower system 

 Fish passage barriers that limit access to spawning and rearing habitats 

 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, stream flow, and 

water quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, 

forestry, and development 

 Hatchery-related effects 

 Harvest-related effects 

 An altered flow regime and Columbia River plume has altered the temperature regime 

and estuarine food web, and has reduced ocean productivity 

 Reduced access to off-channel rearing habitat in the lower Columbia River 

 Reduced productivity resulting from sediment and nutrient-related changes in the estuary 

 Juvenile fish stranding that result from ship wakes 

 Contaminants affecting fish health and reproduction 

Estimates of returning Kalama River adult LCR coho salmon spawners show considerable 

variability in the annual abundance from year to year. Adult LCR coho salmon return to the 

Kalama River in the fall/winter, migration upstream to spawn, with a peak in November to 

December. Out-migration of juveniles to the ocean occurs from February through June, with a 

peak from April to mid-May. Coho juveniles may seek forage and refuge during higher flows of 

the Columbia River but they are less likely to be present during summer low flow conditions. No 

spawning habitat exists in the project action area. 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead

This DPS was listed as threatened on March 19, 1998; in 2005 the BRT found moderate risks in 

all the VSP categories its threatened status was reaffirmed on January 5, 2006. The 2010 ODFW 

recovery plan and the 2010 LCRFB recovery plan indicate that only 2 of the 26 historical LCR 

steelhead populations are considered viable, while 17 populations are considered at high or very 

high risk. NOAA Fisheries issued results of a five-year review on August 15, 2011 and the 

current review retains the status as threatened (Ford 2011). 
-12- 

Spatial Structure and Diversity. This species includes all naturally-spawned steelhead 

populations below natural and manmade impassable barriers in streams and tributaries to the 

Columbia River between and including the Cowlitz and Wind rivers, Washington; in the 

Willamette and Hood rivers, Oregon; and progeny of ten artificial propagation programs; but 

excluding all steelhead from the upper Willamette River basin above Willamette Falls, Oregon, 

and from the Little and Big White Salmon rivers, Washington. 

Summer steelhead return to freshwater long before spawning. Summer steelhead spawning areas 

in the Lower Columbia River are found above waterfalls and other features that create seasonal 

barriers to migration. Winter steelhead, in contrast, return from the ocean much closer to 

maturity and spawn within a few weeks. Where no temporal barriers exist, the winter-run life 

history dominates. There are six strata and 26 historical populations of LCR steelhead hatchery 

contribution to natural spawning remains high in many populations. At least four historical 

populations are extirpated (Myers et al 2002). 

Abundance and Productivity. All of the populations increased in abundance during the early 

2000s, generally peaking in 2004. Most populations have since declined back to levels within 

one standard deviation of the long term mean. Exceptions are the Washougal summer run and 

North Fork Toutle winter run, which are still higher than the long term average, and the Sandy, 

which is lower. In general, the populations do not show any sustained dramatic changes in 

abundance or fraction of hatchery origin spawners since the 2005status review (Ford . 2011). 

Limiting factors for the DPS identified in LCFRB 2010 and NMFS 2011) include: 

 Degraded estuarine and nearshore marine habitat resulting from cumulative impacts of 

land use and flow management by the Columbia River hydropower system 

 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and recruitment of large wood, stream substrate, stream flow, 

and water quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, 

forestry, and development 

 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat mainly as a result of tributary 

hydropower projects and lowland development 

 Avian and marine mammal predation in the lower mainstem Columbia River and estuary. 

 Hatchery-related effects 

 An altered flow regime and Columbia River plume has altered the temperature regime 

and estuarine food web, and has reduced ocean productivity 

 Reduced access to off-channel rearing habitat in the lower Columbia River 

 Reduced productivity resulting from sediment and nutrient-related changes in the estuary 

 Juvenile fish strandings that result from ship wakes 

 Contaminants affecting fish health and reproduction 

Estimates of returning Kalama River adult LCR steelhead spawners show some variability in the 

annual abundance from year to year, but summer steelhead have generally stayed below 500 fish, 

and winter steelhead have generally stayed below 1000 fish. In 2009, WDFW counted 269 adult 

summer steelhead spawners in the Kalama, and an additional 940 winter steelhead spawners. 
-13- 

Myers et al (2003) identified two historical demographically independent populations of LCR 

steelhead within the subbasin: Kalama River summer- and winter-run steelhead. The Kalama 

River summer-run population has been classified by the TRT as a “core” population i.e. 

historically abundant and “may offer the most likely path to recovery” (WLC-TRT 2003). Both 

summer-and –winter-run steelhead juveniles from the Kalama population may be present in T3 

where suitable habitat exists. 

Use of T3 by LCR coho salmon and steelhead juveniles is limited to migration and rearing, 

where they may forage of seek refuge during higher flows of the Columbia River. Both coho 

salmon and steelhead juveniles could be present year round in T3 but are less likely during warm 

summer months when water temperatures are elevated. 

2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitat 

The following includes consideration of the status of critical habitat that will be designated for 

LC coho salmon for our conference opinion. NMFS reviews the status of designated critical 

habitat affected by the proposed action by examining the condition and trends of the PCEs 

throughout the designated area. The PCEs are physical features essential to the conservation of 

the ESU or DPS(for example, spawning gravels, good water quality and appropriate water 

quantity, accessible side channels, sufficient forage species), because these features enable 

spawning, rearing, migration, and foraging behaviors essential for survival and recovery. 

Specific types of sites, and the features associated with the PCEs for salmonids, include: 

1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate 

supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development 

2. Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and 

maintain physical habitat conditions and support parr growth and mobility; (ii) water 

quality and forage supporting parr development; and (iii) natural cover such as shade, 

submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, 

large rocks and boulders, side channels and undercut banks. 

3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water 

quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging 

large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut 

banks supporting parr and adult mobility and survival. 

4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) water quality, water 

quantity and salinity conditions supporting parr and adult physiological transitions 

between fresh and saltwater; (ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large 

wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and (iii) parr and 

adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and 

maturation. 

5. Near shore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) water 

quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, 
-14- 

supporting growth and maturation; and (ii) natural cover such as submerged and 

overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. 

6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic 

invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. 

In designating critical habitat in freshwater spawning, rearing, and migration corridors, NMFS 

determined that critical habitat includes the stream channels in each designated reach with a 

lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. While critical habitat must contain one 

or more PCEs, this does not mean that all PCEs are present or that the PCEs present are 

functioning optimally. The NMFS designated critical habitat for LCR steelhead and LCR 

Chinook salmon in Pacific, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Lewis, Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat 

counties.

Salmonids require properly functioning habitat components and many of these have been 

negatively affected by natural and man-made influences. Throughout southwest Washington, the 

loss of riparian habitat, elevated water temperatures, elevated levels of nutrients, increased 

nitrogen and phosphorus loading, and higher levels of turbidity, presumably from urban and 

highway runoff, wastewater treatment, failing septic systems, and agriculture or livestock 

impacts, have degraded critical habitat. 

On the mainstem of the Columbia River, hydropower projects, including the Federal Columbia 

River Hydropower System (FCRPS), have significantly degraded and adversely affected 

salmonids and their habitats (Bottom et al. 2005, Fresh et al. 2005, NMFS 2005, 2006). The 

series of dams and reservoirs that make up the FCRPS block an estimated 12 million cubic yards 

of debris and sediment that would otherwise naturally flow down the Columbia and replenish 

shorelines along the Washington and Oregon coasts. 

In addition to the hydropower development in the Columbia River, complex freshwater and 

estuarine habitats needed to maintain diverse wild populations and life histories have been lost 

and fragmented, increasing the risk of extinction for salmon stocks in the Columbia River basin. 

Freshwater rearing sites and migration corridors for juvenile salmonids are PCEs of critical 

habitat. Not only have rearing habitats been removed or altered within the Lower Columbia 

River, but the connections among habitats needed to support tidal and seasonal movements of 

juvenile salmon have been severed. 

The Columbia River estuary has lost a significant amount of tidal marsh and tidal swamp habitat 

that are critical to juvenile salmon and steelhead, particularly small or ocean-type species 

(Johnson et al. 2003, Thomas 1983, COE 2001). Edges of marsh areas provide sheltered habitats 

for juvenile salmon and steelhead where food, in the form of amphipods or other small 

invertebrates which feed on marsh detritus, is plentiful, and larger predatory fish can be avoided 

(Seaman 1977). Habitat and food-web changes within the estuary, and other factors affecting 

salmon population structure and life histories, have altered the estuary’s capacity to support 

juvenile salmon (Bottom et al. 2005, Fresh et al. 2005, NMFS, 2006). Diking and filling 

activities that decrease the tidal prism and eliminate emergent and forested wetlands and 

floodplain habitats have likely reduced the estuary’s salmon-rearing capacity. Moreover, water 
-15- 

and sediment in the lower Columbia River and its tributaries have levels of toxic contaminants 

that are harmful to fish and wildlife (LCREP 2007). Contaminants of concern include dioxins 

and furans, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides such 

as dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). 

Historically, floodwaters of the Columbia River inundated the margins and floodplains along the 

estuary, allowing juvenile salmon and steelhead access to a wide expanse of low-velocity 

marshland and tidal channel habitats. In general, the riverbanks were gently sloping, with 

riparian and wetland vegetation at the higher elevations of the river floodplain becoming habitat 

for salmon and steelhead during flooding river discharges or flood tides. Sherwood et al. (1990) 

estimated that the Columbia River estuary lost 20,000 acres of tidal swamps, 10,000 acres of 

tidal marshes, and 3,000 acres of tidal flats between 1870 and 1970. This study further estimated 

an 80 percent reduction in emergent vegetation production and a 15 percent decline in benthic 

algal production. Restoration of estuarine habitats, particularly diked emergent and forested 

wetlands, reduction of avian predation by terns, and flow manipulations to restore historical flow 

patterns might significantly enhance the estuary’s productive capacity for salmon, although 

historical changes in population structure and salmon life histories may prevent salmon from 

making full use of the productive capacity of estuarine habitats, even in their presently altered 

state. 

The most extensive urban development in the lower Columbia River subbasin occurs in the 

Portland/Vancouver area where industrial harbor and port development have been, and continue 

to be, significant influences (Bottom et al. 2005, Fresh et al. 2005, NMFS 2005, 2006). The 

lower Columbia River supports three deep water port districts on the Washington side: Kalama, 

Longview, and Vancouver. These ports primarily focus on the transport of timber and 

agricultural commodities. Since 1878, 100 miles of river channel within the mainstem Columbia 

River, the estuary, and Willamette River have been dredged to create a shipping and navigation 

channel to support these ports. Originally dredged to a 20-foot minimum depth, the Federal 

navigation channel of the lower Columbia River is now maintained at a depth of 43 feet and a 

width of 600 feet. In addition to the disruption of benthic habitat due to dredging along with the 

loss of riparian habitat, high levels of several chemicals, such as arsenic and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAH), have been identified in sediments within lower Columbia River watersheds 

in the vicinity of these ports. 

Altered channel morphology and stability, lost/degraded floodplain connectivity are significant 

limiting factors in the Willamette and lower Columbia Rivers and their tributaries. Other major 

factors affecting critical habitat PCEs are loss of habitat diversity, excessive sediment, degraded 

water quality, increased stream temperatures, reduced stream flows, and blocked fish passage. 

The range of critical habitat designated for LCR steelhead includes 46 watersheds in Washington 

and Oregon. In CHART Team conservation value ratings, 29 of those watersheds received a high 

rating, eleven watersheds received a medium rating, and two received a low rating. The Lower 

Columbia/Clatskanie subbasin, of which the Kalama River watershed is a portion, contains PCEs 

sufficient to deem it of moderately high conservation value. The Kalama River watershed 

supports summer-and- winter-run populations and the summer-run Kalama River fish are a 

Technical Recovery Team (TRT) core population (McElhany et al. 2006). 
-16- 

2.3 Environmental Baseline 

The “environmental baseline” includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or 

private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 

7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the 

consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). 

The action area for this project incorporates T3, which supports rearing and refuge for LCR coho 

and steelhead, and confluence habitat of this unnamed tributary in the mainstem Columbia River 

where rearing, refuge and migratory habitat functions are provided. The action area is not 

recognized in the LCR recovery plan as uniquely important or fundamental for LCR listed 

salmonids survival or recovery, but losses or gains in the functions of the habitat in the action 

area could have incremental effects on the viability of individuals of listed stocks using the 

action area. Tributary 3 flows from hillside drainage east of the Project through a culvert under 

Interstate 5 to various seasonal channels that merge and flow under the BNSF tracks through a 

36-inch diameter culvert at BNSF MP 108.19. This culvert conveys T3 into the Columbia River 

approximately 270 feet from the culvert inlet in the wetland (Figure 4). The portion of the 

drainage in the project area has limited riparian vegetation and is dominated by reed canarygrass. 

The main drainage channel is approximately three feet wide, one foot deep where it enters the 

BNSF culvert at MP 108.19. Tributary 3 is identified by WDFW and NMFS as providing 

degraded habitat for LCR coho salmon and steelhead. The WDFW assumes this culvert is 

impassable at low tide, and partially passable during higher tides. 

Figure 4. Current conditions of Culvert Outlet (left) and culvert inlet (right) with trash rack 

on Tributary 3. 

Water quality data for small drainages in the project vicinity, including T3, is unavailable. Water 

quality is presumed to have elevated summer water temperatures due to the small drainage areas 
-17- 

and adjacent land uses (i.e. interstate highway, interstate rail corridor, urban/industrial 

development). Salmonid habitat in these drainages also appears to be limited by fish barriers and 

compromised floodplain connectivity from development. 

Tributary 3 is designated critical habitat for LCR steelhead and proposed critical habitat for LCR 

coho salmon. The stream in the project area is characteristic of a depositional reach, where fine 

sediment has accumulated as a result of low-velocity hydrologic conditions created by 

constrictions from an undersized culvert upstream under the freeway, and another under the 

railroad, which this consultation addresses. Further, elevated levels of suspended sediment are 

common within the creek during most flows, diminishing the function as rearing habitat. 

Elevated fine sediments have filled interstitial spaces used by aquatic invertebrates, displacing a 

source of forage for juvenile salmon in the reach; resulting in extremely limited gravels and 

associated benthic invertebrates. Further, vegetation around T3 in the action area is dominated by 

reed canarygrass (Figure 5), and overhanging native vegetation, large wood, and other complex 

habitat features are largely absent. As a result of these degraded conditions, PCEs for critical 

habitat are minimally functioning in the action area. Shallow pools that may provide some 

rearing habitat are located within the immediate vicinity of the proposed culvert extension and 

upstream, although summer low flow and high temperatures will limit the presence of juvenile 

steelhead and coho salmon in the vicinity. No suitable spawning habitat is present within the 

project limits of T3. 

Land management and development activities (road and railroad building, timber harvest, 

industrial development) in the action area have reduced connectivity (i.e., the flow of energy, 

organisms, and materials) between streams, riparian areas, floodplains, and uplands. Decreasing 

these structural components of salmon and steelhead habitat features (e.g. natural substrate and 

links to allochthonous material sources) impairs the processes that maintain channel complexity, 

reducing the extent of available rearing habitat (Spence et al. 1996). Evidence of past land 

management actions affecting action area function are reflected in the habitat of tributary T3 

pictured in Figure 2. As notable in this photograph, the channel of the small creek appears to 

have been straightened such that it currently has low sinuosity, which in turn, prevents the creek 

from accumulating large wood that would otherwise improve rearing conditions, and allow for 

sediment sorting—a process needed for the accrual of spawning gravels. Development actions 

likely associated with the development of I-5, or perhaps even pre-dating that, have also created 

conditions wherein invasive reed canary grass has become the dominant vegetation along the 

riparian corridor of the creek, and within the creek channel. This invasive species slows water 

flow, degrading water quality, and prevents a robust tree layer from becoming established that 

would otherwise recruit wood to the stream to provide enhanced functions for rearing. 
-18- 

Figure 5. Looking east and upstream of the culvert inlet on unnamed tributary T3, Interstate 

5 in the background. 

2.4 Effects of the Action on the Species and Critical Habitat 

“Effects of the action” means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical 

habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with 

that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects are 

those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain 

to occur. 

2.4.1 Effects on Listed Species 

The Project will require fish relocation activities for the extension of the culvert at T3. Listed 

fish species present (LCR coho salmon and steelhead) may experience trauma as a result of the 

electrofishing and netting and seining removal process necessary to remove individuals from the 

isolated in-water work area. Juvenile fish rearing in the area may be present during the identified 

in-water work window (July 15 through October 31), although warmer water temperatures and 

low water levels typical during this period will reduce that potential. The BNSF’s contractor will 

use the most recent WSDOT Fish Removal Protocols when completing the fish removal/creek 

channel isolation activities to minimize adverse effects to individuals present. 
-19- 

Effects of Worksite Isolation and Fish Exclusion Operations on ESA-Listed Fish 

Contractors will isolate the work areas to avoid or reduce exposure of listed fish to certain inwater work during construction. All fish exclusion and handling will comply with the WSDOT’s 

Fish Exclusion Protocol and Standards (WSDOT 2009). Work area isolation and the attendant 

removal of juvenile fish within the project action area is designed to reduce the number of fish 

that would be injured or killed during project construction; however, isolation and removal 

techniques themselves can injure or kill fish. Additionally, juvenile fish can be stranded in the 

dewatered sections of the stream and if not detected, can die there. 

Isolating the worksites is intended to reduce the number of individual fish exposed to the effects 

of in-water work including equipment operating in the channel. Installing cofferdams and 

removing fish from the isolated worksites are designed to reduce stranding, capture, and 

handling. While these activities minimize the number of fish exposed to in-water work, the 

activities themselves can adversely affect fish. All capture methods are stressful to some degree 

(Wydoski 1980 in Synder 2003). Therefore, the effects of capture and relocation are discussed 

below. 

Construction will require work below the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL), including fish 

exclusion, electroshocking, and potential handling of juvenile LCR steelhead and LCR coho 

salmon. Typically, fish recover fairly rapidly from the stress and fatigue of capture and 

relocation, unless injured. Stress and fatigue are physiological responses that disrupt 

physicochemical balance, osmoregulatory functions, and normal behavior, but usually require 

only a short time for recovery (Snyder 2003). To minimize stress, injury and death an 

experienced fishery biologist will directly supervise all fish capture and handling operations, and 

all staff working with the seining, netting, and trapping operations will have the necessary 

knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure the safe capture and relocation of salmonids. Fish 

remaining within the isolated areas when construction commences will likely die or be injured as 

a result of direct contact from heavy equipment or from the extremely high turbidity expected 

within the isolated areas. 

Even though the goal of the fish exclusion is to reduce overall stress and mortality, capturing and 

handling fish can cause short-term stress, disrupt normal behavior, and may result in injury or 

mortality (Frisch and Anderson 2000). Fish handling may also cause reduced predator avoidance 

(Olla et al. 1995). Injury and handling stress from nets and seines are expected to be lower than 

the stress from electroshocking but may still result in adverse effects. Worksite isolation, capture, 

handling, transport and release of at-risk fish species will strand some juvenile fish, disrupt 

normal behavior, and cause short-term stress, fatigue, and some injury and mortality. Capturing 

and handling fish causes them short-term stress, including increased plasma levels of cortisol and 

glucose (Frisch and Anderson 2000; Hemre and Krogdahl 1996). Even short-term, low intensity 

handling may cause reduced predatory avoidance for up to 24 hours (Olla et al. 1995). 

Regardless of best practices used, salvage and relocation efforts could harm listed juvenile 

steelhead and coho salmon that may be rearing in the vicinity of the project. In summary, the 

capture, transport, and release of ESA-listed fish, if needed, would cause short-term stress and 

possibly kill juveniles from netting and electrofishing injury, as well as from an increased chance 

of predation. Effects of stocking captured fish into a new upstream habitat may lead to 
-20- 

competitive interactions with fish residing at the site and in some cases can lead to predation on 

the disoriented fish being released. 

The dewatered areas would temporarily reduce the amount of habitat available to fish. However, 

as discussed above, the number of fish affected by this is expected to be very low since the 

stream temperatures are expected to be above optimal for rearing, and flow in the tributary is 

expected to be very low at the time of project implementation. 

Work area isolation activities for the project are expected to take place in phases between July 15 

and August 31, and are expected to temporarily affect 270 feet of stream habitat. Seasonal low 

water levels and high temperatures in the action area waters are likely to preclude or reduce the 

presence of juvenile fish in the construction zone prior to dewatering. However, NMFS 

conservatively assumes that some juvenile LCR coho salmon and steelhead will be present in the 

pool above the culvert where project construction will occur. Assuming some level of presence, 

the number of fish affected by worksite isolation can be crudely estimated. Suring and Constable 

Jr. (2009) estimated distribution and density of summer juvenile coho and steelhead within nontidal rearing habitat in tributaries along the Oregon Coast and Lower Columbia River from 

snorkel surveys conducted in 2008. Average pool density of juvenile coho in Fourth- to Sixthorder (mainstem) streams was 0.006 coho per square meter and 0.010 steelhead per square meter. 

Assuming that juvenile coho and steelhead densities within the dewatered work area above the 

existing culvert are similar to those reported for rearing pool habitats surveyed in the 2008 study, 

NFMS’ estimates fewer than 5 coho salmon and 5 steelhead may be present and affected by fish 

handling. 

Effects of Construction-Related Suspended Sediments and Turbidity on ESA-Listed Fish 

Prolonged elevations of suspended sediment can stress fish by impairing their ability to locate 

predators, find prey, and defend territory, and/or by interfering with gill and related 

osmoregulatory function. Increased stress can alter blood physiology and compromise the 

effectiveness of the immune system, growth, and reproduction, and thereby affect mortality rates 

(USFWS, 1998). Effects realized in individual fish are dependent on the exposure concentration 

of total suspended solids (TSS) and the exposure duration, and manifest as often harmless 

behavioral avoidance at low concentrations and/or low exposure time, to sublethal physiological 

responses or death at extremely high concentrations over long exposure periods (Newcomb and 

Jensen 1996). 

For the current action, a temporary increase in suspended sediments (solids) and associated 

turbidity is reasonably certain to occur during the placement of the culvert extension, due to the 

disturbance of existing channel substrates. Increased turbidity within the aquatic portion of the 

action area is anticipated to be limited to the 3-foot wide channel of T3 for a total distance of 

about 270 feet from areas of disturbance to where it discharges into the Columbia River. 

Several measures inherent to the action description will minimize the likelihood of exposure of 

fish to the effects of elevated suspended sediment in the action area, but will not eliminate the 

likelihood of exposure entirely. First, all work in fish-bearing waters below the OHWL will be 

conducted over a seven-day period during the July 15 through August 31 in-water work window, 

when juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead are least likely to be present. Further, sediment 
-21- 

recruitment into action area waters from upland erosion will be minimized by applying 

appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs before construction begins and maintaining 

these measures in working order throughout the construction period. Most juvenile salmonids 

remaining in the action area affected by elevated suspended sediments and turbidity are 

reasonably certain to avoid the degraded water quality by moving into other areas for foraging 

and refuge while the source of disturbance continues. However, not all juvenile salmonids would 

be able to avoid elevated turbidity. Any juvenile salmonids that cannot avoid the turbidity would 

be subject to those effects discussed above, and subject to take in the form of harm 

Effects on Fish from Permanent and Temporary Habitat Loss 

Permanent and temporary habitat effects will result from in-stream work on T3 and fill from the 

new retaining wall. As discussed above, temporary impacts to water quality components of 

habitat with potential effects to individual fish are expected from construction-related turbidity 

and suspended sediment. Further, approximately 270 feet of stream habitat will be affected from 

placement of new culverts and habitat features. While the existing habitat to be impacted is 

severely degraded (Figure 2), algae and macroinvertebrates in the culvert and adjacent drainage 

channel will be temporarily affected by the proposed work. As such, forage opportunities are 

reasonably likely to be diminished for up to about 6 months following construction (Fowler 

2004, Korsu 2004). 

Fish-accessible wetlands will also be impacted. Permanent impacts to fish habitat from the new 

1500-foot retaining wall adjacent to T3 are estimated to be 0.08 acres. Spawning areas are not 

currently present in T3 in the action area or in upstream locations. Installation of the new fishpassable culverts will create improved access to habitat in and associated with T3, and will also 

create an additional 3,240 square feet of new stream channel. Approximately 200 feet of this 

stream channel will remain within culverts, blocking the stream from sunlight and allochthonous 

inputs, precluding primary producers such as algae and diatoms, which require sunlight to fuel 

the photosynthetic process. However, many aquatic invertebrates drift, migrate, and otherwise 

move within stream channels, and will occupy streambeds within culverts (at least temporarily) 

as long as passage and appropriate substrate is available (Vaughan, 2002). Further, studies have 

shown that several aquatic invertebrates will move upstream in their nymph or larval stage, as 

long as the culvert is passable (Vaughan, 2002). 

While culverts are not optimal for invertebrate colonization, the increased culvert size and 

passage conditions within the streambed area of the culvert will greatly improve conditions for 

fish and other organisms within T3. Given the short term nature of the construction disturbances 

to habitat associated with the project, the project timing which largely avoids direct fish exposure 

to the temporal effects of these habitat changes, and the recovery of the benthic forage that is 

reasonably certain to occur before the seasonal fish use of the area is presumed to typically 

occur, the effects on fish from this element of the action are unlikely to rise to the level of take. 

While not a factor in our evaluation of the acute effects of this component of the action on 

individual fish, the improved passage conditions and channel habitat enhancements will 

ultimately increase the functional value of this small action area for rearing and refuge over the 

long term within the recovery domains for LCR coho salmon and steelhead. 
-22- 

Relevance of Effects on Individual Fish to Salmonid Population Viability. The NMFS 

evaluates project effects at the population scale by determining if effects to individual fish will 

negatively influence VSP characteristics of specific populations. The death or injury of five LCR 

coho and five LCR steelhead juvenile from the effects of the action will be indiscernible against 

present abundance and therefore unlikely to influence the rate of juvenile to adult survival for 

returning adults. Therefore, abundance within the populations in the DPS is not negatively 

affected by this proposed action. Because the number of juveniles lost from each ESU and DPS 

is indiscernible, the proposed action will not influence population viability for any of the affected 

populations. 

2.4.2 Effects of the Action on Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat 

As discussed above, the FRA determined the proposed action was not likely to adversely affect 

designated critical habitat of LCR steelhead and will not destroy or adversely modify proposed 

critical habitat for LCR coho salmon. NMFS agrees with the determination for proposed critical 

habitat and concludes the conference accordingly as described below in the conclusion section of 

this opinion. But NMFS disagrees with the effect determination for designated critical habitat for 

LCR steelhead. Therefore, NMFS assesses the effects of water quality and other habitat changes 

on designated critical habitat during construction, shortly after construction, and long term, 

below. 

The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for critical habitat in the action area are 1) freshwater 

spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, 

incubation and larval development; 2) freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain 

connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and 

mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as 

shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, 

large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks; and 3) Freshwater migration 

corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions 

and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large 

rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and 

survival. The majority of these PCEs at T3 are not currently functioning. 

Approximately 270 feet of stream habitat will be directly impacted by the new culverts and 

habitat features at T3. Permanent impacts from fill in the adjacent wetland, associated with T3, 

are estimated to be 0.08 acres. Algae and macroinvertebrates in the adjacent wetland drainage 

channels will be temporarily affected by the proposed work. Invasive species removal and native 

plantings will, over time, help replace some lost or absent functions such as shade, stream 

complexity, and forage opportunities. Existing designated critical habitat for steelhead and 

proposed critical habitat for coho salmon will be enhanced with the addition of the fully passable 

culvert, daylighted stream channel, and other enhancements. Further, although use by steelhead 

and coho salmon is limited, significant improvements to the existing migration or feeding habitat 

functions in the action area are expected because of passage and habitat improvements relative to 

the conditions under the environmental baseline. As such, we expect critical habitat PCEs for 

forage and cover for to improve in the long term. Spawning areas are not currently present in T3 
-23- 

in the Project action area or in upstream locations and this condition is not expected to change 

from the proposed action. 

Water quality is an essential element of each of the three freshwater PCEs in the action area. 

Water quality must be sufficient to support each of the life histories or behaviors associated with 

those PCEs. As described above for project effects of fish, temporary changes in water quality 

will briefly lower the function of the three freshwater PCEs present in the action. However, 

water quality will return to pre-project conditions within hours of completion. 

2.5 Cumulative Effects 

“Cumulative effects” are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal 

activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject 

to consultation (50 CFR 402.02). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action 

are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 

of the Act. 

The population of the Cowlitz County grew from 68,600 in 2000 to 75,621 in 2012, an 

approximately 10 percent increase. Thus, NMFS assumes that the population will continue to 

rise and future private and state actions will continue within the action area, increasing as 

population density rises. As the human population in the action area continues to grow, demand 

for agricultural, commercial, or residential development is also likely to grow. The NMFS 

believes the majority of environmental effects related to future growth will be linked to land 

clearing, associated land-use changes (i.e., from forest to lawn or pasture) and increased 

impervious surface and related subbasin changes. The effects of these activities have been 

cumulatively adverse to ESA-listed fish. These effects include contaminant loading into 

receiving waters which compromises individuals’ fitness, simplification of fish habitat through 

the alteration of sediment supply and wood loading, and by altering hydrological regimes such 

that extreme flows occur more rapidly and with greater frequency to the detriment of the habitat 

components upon which fish depend. While these effects are inherent to the environmental 

baseline of this proposed project, we expect that land use changes and development of the built 

environment are reasonably certain to continue under existing zoning into the future. Future 

actions within the action area specifically for this project are likely to involve a federal nexus, 

given the location along the Columbia River, and within the jurisdiction of the FRA. As such, 

these actions would involve Section 7 consultation where such effects could be considered and 

minimized. However, NMFS believes that many of the existing local and state regulatory 

mechanisms intended to minimize and avoid effects on subbasin function and listed species from 

future commercial, industrial, and residential development are generally not adequate, or not 

implemented sufficiently. Though these existing regulations could decrease adverse effects on 

subbasin function, as currently constructed and implemented, they still allow incremental 

degradation to occur and these effects are reasonably certain to be conveyed into the action area. 

Over time, the incremental degradation, when added to the already degraded environmental 

baseline, can result in reduced habitat quality for at-risk salmon and steelhead. 

In 2006, NMFS approved an interim recovery plan developed by the LCFRB in collaboration 

with local citizens, tribes, technical experts and policy makers to protect and restore steelhead 
-24- 

and salmon runs within the lower Columbia River. In partnership with the LCRFB, many ongoing habitat restoration projects in the Lower Columbia basin that include, but are not limited 

to, riparian plantings, removal of fish passage barriers, culvert replacements, and placement of 

in-stream habitat structures. 

When considered together, these cumulative effects are likely to have a small, negative effect on 

salmon and steelhead population abundance and productivity. To the extent that recovery actions 

are implemented and on-going actions continued, adverse cumulative effects may be minimized, 

but will probably not be completely avoided. 

2.6 Integration and Synthesis 

The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step of NMFS’ assessment of the risk posed to 

species and critical habitat as a result of implementing the proposed action. In this section, 

NMFS adds the effects of the action to the environmental baseline together with the cumulative 

effects to formulate the agency’s biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely 

to: (1) Result in appreciable reductions in the likelihood of both survival and recovery of the 

species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or (2) reduce the value 

of designated or proposed critical habitat for the conservation of the species. These assessments 

are made in full consideration of the status of the species and critical habitat. Critical habitat for 

LCR coho salmon has not been designated but is proposed. 

Although the vast majority of the LCR populations of coho salmon and steelhead considered in 

this opinion spawn primarily in the Kalama River watershed and other tributaries along the lower 

mainstem Columbia River, low numbers of coho salmon and steelhead may migrate into and rear 

and forage in the action area. Of these populations, Kalama River coho salmon is classified as a 

“contributing” population, and Kalama River winter and summer steelhead as “primary” 

populations (LCFRB, 2010). A primary population is biologically significant, highly viable, and 

as such, primary populations are considered to have an important role in the recovery of the DPS. 

Historically, primary populations were a large segment of the population structure. A 

contributing population is recognized as viable but in lower abundance than a primary 

population. However, a contributing population is recognized as an important source of diversity 

and contributes to the health of the overall ESU or DPS. 

As discussed above, the area of direct habitat effects are limited to a discrete area. Further, the 

area is currently only partially accessible by LCR steelhead and LCR coho salmon and is 

presumed to be used for juvenile rearing only by a limited number of fish. Because the project 

will not affect adults, and particularly spawning adults, project effects will have little if any 

influence on VSP parameters for LCR steelhead and LCR coho salmon. Since the proposed 

action is unlikely to bear on any of the viability characteristics, the effects of the action are 

unlikely to bear on long term survival or recovery of the species considered in this consultation. 

However, the effects of the project together with the baseline existence of commercial and 

residential development, water withdrawal, and a host of other activities bear on all four of the 

VSP parameters. Even though an individual project may not impose significant impacts on 

salmon ESU, DPS, or population, the baseline and cumulative effects of watershed modifications 

has contributed to, and is likely to perpetuate, the decline of several salmon species. 
-25- 

Any land or water management action that changes habitat conditions beyond the tolerance of 

the species results in lower life-stage survival and abundance of the species. In some cases, the 

range of tolerance for some species is quite narrow and relatively small changes in habitat can 

have large effects on species survival (Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB) 

2007). Thus, continued development in the spawning, rearing and migration corridor of already 

high-risk species will further increase the level of risk of both listed salmonids. However, the 

proposed action’s negative effects are short-term and not additive to risk, and the action will 

provide improved habitat conditions after project completion. Additionally, LCR coho salmon 

and LCR steelhead, although currently well below historic levels, are distributed widely enough 

and are presently at high enough abundance levels that any short-term adverse effects resulting 

from project activities will not have an observable effect on the spatial structure, productivity, 

abundance and diversity of these species. Therefore, when considered in light of existing risk, 

baseline effects, and cumulative effects, the project itself does not increase risk to either of the 

affected populations to a level that would reduce appreciably the likelihood for survival and 

recovery of the subject ESU or DPS. 

The quality of proposed and designated critical habitat for LCR steelhead and coho salmon 

varies at the designation scale. There are a few select areas where high quality is high, but most 

habitat has been degraded to some degree by human development. In the action area, habitat is 

currently degraded but still provides some function to a small number of LCR steelhead and 

coho salmon. Cumulative effects from ongoing and future development are likely to have some 

negative impact on critical habitat at the designation-scale and in the action area, 

At the watershed scale, the project will not increase the extent of degraded habitat within 

tributary T3, add to the degradation of water quality, further decrease limited rearing areas, or 

limit access to rearing habitat Proposed and designated critical habitat for coho salmon and LCR 

steelhead will remain functional, or retain the current ability for the PCEs to become functionally 

established, to serve the intended conservation role for the species. These same considerations 

support the action agency’s effects determination for proposed critical habitat as well. 

Although the project will have temporary adverse effects on critical habitat related to elevated 

turbidity and suspended sediment from the construction elements of the action, critical habitat 

PCEs in the action area will slightly improve as a result of native vegetation plantings, 

stabilization and restoration of the affected stream reach, and improved passage conditions in T3. 

These project components are reasonably certain to provide improved cover, shade, forage and 

migration conditions in the long term. Therefore, PCEs of critical habitat will not be impaired in 

a way that would undermine the conservation value within the action area or the HUC 5 wherein 

the project is located. 

2.7 Conclusion 

After reviewing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within the 

action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ biological 

opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of LCR coho 

salmon, or LCR steelhead. Additionally, the action will not destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat for LCR steelhead or proposed critical habitat for LCR coho salmon. 
-26- 

You may ask NMFS to adopt the conference opinion as a biological opinion when critical habitat 

for LCR coho salmon is designated. The request must be in writing. If we review the proposed 

action and find there have been no significant changes to the action that would alter the contents 

of the opinion and no significant new information has been developed, including during the 

rulemaking process, we may adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion on the 

proposed action and no further consultation will be necessary. 

2.8. Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by regulation to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take 

is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise 

lawful activity. For purposes of this consultation, we interpret “harass” to mean an intentional or 

negligent action that has the potential to injure an animal or disrupt its normal behaviors to a 

point where such behaviors are abandoned or significantly altered.3

 Section 7(b)(4) and Section 

7(o)(2) provide that taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not 

considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA, if that action is performed in compliance with 

the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. 

2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take 

As described in the effects analysis above, we assume a few individual fish from the identified 

populations are reasonably certain to be present in the action area and exposed to the effects of 

the action. Some exposed fish will respond to exposure with impaired behavior in ways that 

results in their injury. Therefore, incidental take of individual fish is reasonably certain to occur. 

In this case, take is expected from work site isolation and fish handling, and from the elevated 

suspended sediments resultant from construction. 

Take from Work Site Isolation and Fish Handling 

Assuming that juvenile coho and steelhead densities within the dewatered work area above the 

existing culvert are similar to those reported for rearing pool habitats surveyed in the 2008 study, 

as discussed in Section 2.4, we estimate that no more than 5 juvenile coho salmon and 5 juvenile 

steelhead may be present and affected by work site isolation and the associated fish handling that 

is presumed to require electrofishing. 

 

3

 NMFS has not adopted a regulatory definition of harassment under the ESA. The World English Dictionary 

defines harass as “to trouble, torment, or confuse by continual persistent attacks, questions, etc.” The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service defines “harass” in its regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the 

likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns 

which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The interpretation we adopt in 

this consultation is consistent with our understanding of the dictionary definition of harass and is consistent with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife interpretation of the term. 
-27- 

Take from Suspended Sediment 

Some ESA-listed LCR coho salmon and steelhead are presumed to be exposed to elevated 

suspended sediment concentrations from construction actions. We expect juvenile coho salmon 

and steelhead will be harmed by short-term exposures to sublethal concentrations of suspended 

sediments. Exposure to sediment inputs will be sporadic, with the largest pulses occurring during 

excavation and construction events. Take caused by the effects of this action cannot be 

accurately quantified as a number of fish. This is because the precise distribution and abundance 

of fish within the action area at the time the action is proposed is not a simple function of the 

quantity, quality, or availability of predictable habitat resources within that area. Rather, the 

distribution and abundance of fish within this action area shows wide, random variations due to 

biological and environmental processes operating at much larger demographic and regional 

scales. Furthermore, the number of fish injured or killed by elevated turbidity can almost never 

be accurately detected as not all affected fish are captured or seen. 

In such circumstances, NMFS quantifies the extent of take based on the extent of habitat 

modified by the project. Here, the extent of take is that aquatic habitat influenced by elevated 

turbidity. As such, NMFS expects direct injury or death and behavioral effects to occur within 

the 270-foot stream channel and associated 0.08 acres of off-channel wetlands to be affected at 

T3. The NMFS expects this extent of take, measured as turbidity no longer measurable above 

background near the confluence of T3 and the Columbia River, to persist only during periods of 

in-water work in this location. This exemption for take applies during the July 15 to August 31 

work window. Exceeding these limits will trigger the reinitiation provisions of this Opinion. 

Take is exempted for: 

1. Lower Columbia River coho salmon and steelhead that are harmed by the temporary 

degradation of T3 from pulses of elevated suspended below the OHWL from the 

construction site to T3’s outlet at the Columbia River to occur between July 15 and 

August 30. 

The pulses of elevated suspended sediment will harm fish by impairing the feeding and 

sheltering success of LCR steelhead and LCR coho through displacement from their preferred 

habitat, and through increased physiological stress. The estimated extent of habitat affected by 

elevated sediment levels represents the extent of take from the temporary water quality 

degradation of the T3, to the point where turbidity falls to background levels. This extent is 

readily observable and therefore suffices to trigger reinitiation of consultation, if exceeded and 

necessary (see H.R. Rep. No 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 27 (1982). 

2.8.2 Effect of the Take 

In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, 

coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species 

or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 
-28- 

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 

“Reasonable and prudent measures” are nondiscretionary measures to minimize the amount or 

extent of incidental take (50 CFR 402.02). “Terms and conditions” implement the reasonable and 

prudent measures (50 CFR 402.14). These must be carried out for the exemption in section 

7(o)(2) to apply. The following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate 

to minimize the take of listed species. 

The FRA shall: 

1. Minimize take of LCR coho salmon and LCR steelhead from elevated turbidity. 

2. Minimize incidental take from fish capture and removal operations 

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the FRA and its cooperators must 

comply with the following terms and conditions that implement the reasonable and prudent 

measures described above. 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure #1, the FRA shall: 

a. Conduct all in-water work for a brief a period as practicable between July 15 and 

October 31; 

b. When operating machinery below the OHWL, use extreme care to avoid mistakes 

to minimize the amount of time spent working below OHWL. 

c. Monitor erosion control activities, including minimization measures and BMPs, 

and take corrective action if necessary to ensure protection of riparian areas and 

waterways. The FRA shall submit reports on the contractor’s compliance with and 

the effectiveness of the erosion control BMPs, minimization measures, to NMFS 

within 60 days of project completion. 

d. Monitor turbidity levels in T3 near the confluence but prior to reaching the 

Columbia River, where turbidity levels are expected to fall to background levels 

or below. The FRA shall report the results of the turbidity monitoring to NMFS 

within 60 days of project completion. 

2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure #2, The FRA shall: 

a. Conduct fish exclusion, electrofishing, and relocation actions in accordance with 

applicable guidelines outlined in Appendix I. 

b. Document all LCR steelhead and LCR coho salmon encountered during work 

area isolation by submitting an In-water Construction Monitoring Report 

(Appendix I) or equivalent to NMFS within 30 days of work area isolation. 

c. All reports shall be sent to National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon 

Washington Coastal Area Office, Attention: Scott E. Anderson, 510 Desmond 

Drive SE, Suite 103, Lacey, Washington 98503. 
-29- 

d. NOTICE: To follow inactive projects and, if necessary, withdraw the opinion for 

an incomplete project, the FRA shall provide an annual report even if no actual 

work was completed in a particular year. 

2.9. Conservation Recommendations 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and 

endangered species. Specifically, conservation recommendations are suggestions regarding 

discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed 

species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information (50 CFR 402.02). 

The following recommendation is a discretionary measure that NMFS believes is consistent with 

this obligation and therefore should be carried out by the FRA: 

Monitor the stream culvert inlet and outlet monthly and after heavy storms for debris to 

ensure fish passage. 

To be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects, or those that benefit 

listed salmon and their habitats, NMFS requests notification of any actions leading to the 

achievement of the conservation recommendation. 

2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation 

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where 

discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is 

authorized by law) and if: (1) The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, (2) new 

information reveals effects of the agency action on listed species or designated critical habitat in 

a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion, (3) the agency action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed species or critical habitat not considered 

in this opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by 

the action. 

To reinitiate consultation, contact the Oregon Washington Coastal Area Office of NMFS, and 

refer to the NMFS Tracking Number assigned to this consultation (NWR-2013-10618). 

Please notify NMFS if the FRA carries out any of these recommendations so that we will be kept 

informed of actions that are intended to improve the conservation of listed species or their 

designated critical habitats. 
-30- 

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION 

The consultation requirement of section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult 

with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA (section 

3) defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, 

or growth to maturity.” Adverse effects include the direct or indirect physical, chemical, or 

biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey 

species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the 

quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects on EFH may result from actions occurring within 

EFH or outside EFH, and may include site-specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, 

cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). Section 305(b) also 

requires NMFS to recommend measures that can be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH. 

This analysis is based, in part, on the EFH assessment provided by the FRA and descriptions of 

EFH for Pacific coast salmon (PFMC 1999) contained in the fishery management plans 

developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and approved by the Secretary 

of Commerce. 

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project 

The proposed action and action area for this consultation are described in the Introduction to this 

document. The action area includes areas designated as EFH for of coho salmon (O. kisutch) and 

Chinook salmon, but does not occur within a Habitat Area of Particular Concern. 

3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat 

The NMFS determined that the proposed action will have adverse effects on EFH designated for 

coho and Chinook salmon, based on information provided in the BA and the analysis of effects 

presented in the ESA portion of this document. . During project construction, salmon could be in 

the action area. Therefore, NFMS believes that during project construction in-water work will 

damage water quality over a short timeframe. 

The NMFS determined that the proposed action will adversely affect EFH as follows: 

1. A short-term, temporary reduction in water quality (turbidity) will result from in-stream 

work associated with the culvert replacement. 

2. A short-term reduction in benthic forage production in the affected stream channel and 

culvert placement areas. 

3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations 

The NMFS believes that the ESA terms and conditions are necessary and sufficient to avoid, 

mitigate, and offset the impact of the proposed action on EFH. Therefore, NMFS recommends 

that the FRA adopt the following measures as EFH conservation recommendations: 
-31- 

1. Minimize all in-water work to as brief a period as practicable between July 15 and 

October 31, and use extreme care when conducting in-water work to minimize 

disturbance and turbidity to the extent possible. 

2. Minimize damage and vegetation removal to the extent possible while creating and using 

access points for construction near and below the OHWL. 

3. Monitor the benthic recolonization rate below, within and above the culvert placement 

area, where in-water work was performed. 

3.4 Statutory Response Requirement 

Federal agencies are required to provide a detailed written response to NMFS’ EFH conservation 

recommendations within 30 days of receipt of these recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(k)(1)). 

The response must include a description of measures proposed to avoid, mitigate, or offset the 

adverse effects of the activity on EFH. If the response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation 

recommendations, the response must explain the reasons for not following the recommendations. 

The reasons must include the scientific justification for any disagreements over the anticipated 

effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset 

such effects. 

3.5 Supplemental Consultation 

The FRA must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially 

revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that 

affects the basis for NMFS’ EFH conservation recommendations [50 CFR 600.920(l)]. 

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW 

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 

106-554) (Data Quality Act) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a 

document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section addresses these Data Quality 

Act (DQA) components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this opinion has 

undergone pre-dissemination review. 

4.1 Utility 

Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, 

serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended users of the information in these 

two consultations are the COE and their contractors, and NMFS. The information is also useful 

and of interest to the general public as it describes the manner in which public trust resources are 

being managed and conserved. The information is beneficial to citizens of Cowlitz County in 

Washington State because the underlying project affects natural resources at a site within that 

county. 
-32- 

An individual copy was provided to the COE. The format and naming adheres to conventional 

standards for style. 

4.2 Integrity 

This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with 

relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, ‘Security 

of Automated Information Resources,’ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the 

Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act. 

4.3 Objectivity 

 Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan. 

Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and 

unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They 

adhere to published standards including the NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA 

regulations, 50 CFR 402.01, et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 

CFR 600.920(j). 

Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best 

available information, as referenced in the Literature Cited section. The analyses in this 

Opinion/EFH consultation contain more background on information sources and quality. 

Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly 

referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style. 

Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and 

MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with Northwest Region ESA quality control 

and assurance processes. 
-33- 

5. REFERENCES 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le 

Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007: 

Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Bottom, D., G. Anderson, A. Baptista, J. Burke, M. Burla, M. Bhuthimethee, L. 

 Campbell, E. Casillas, S. Hinton, K. Jacobson, D. Jay, R. McNatt, P. Moran, C. 

 Roegner, C. Simenstad, V. Stamatiou, D. Teel, and J. Zamon. 2008. Salmon life 

 histories, habitat, and food webs in the Columbia River estuary: an overview of 

 research results, 2002-2006. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power Administration, 

 Portland, OR. Available www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/scientificpubs.cfm 

COE. 2001. Biological Assessment Columbia River Channel Improvements Project. Submitted 

to NMFS and USFWS. December 28, 2001. Portland, Oregon. 

Ford, M.J. (ed.). 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the 

Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-113, 281 p. 

Fowler, R.T. 2004. The recovery of benthic invertebrate communities following dewatering in 

two braided rivers. Hydrobiologia 523: 17-28. 

Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the estuary in the 

recovery of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead: An evaluation of the effects of 

selected factors on salmonid population viability. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69, 105 p 

Friesen, T.A. 2005. Biology, behavior, and resources of resident and anadromous fish in the 

 lower Willamette River. Final Report to the City of Portland. ODFW, Clackamas, 

 Oregon. 

Frisch, A.J., and T.A. Anderson. 2000. The Response of Coral Trout (Plectropomus leopardus) 

to Capture, Handling and Transport and Shallow Water Stress. Fish Physiology and 

Biochemistry 23: 23–34. 

Fulton L. A. 1970. Spawning areas and abundance of steelhead trout and coho, sockeye, and 

chum salmon in the Columbia River basin–past and present. Special Scientific Report, 

Fisheries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 618 p. 
-34- 

Harza Northwest, Inc. 1997a. 1996 Juvenile salmonid radio-tagging study. 1996 Stream 

habitat and fish population surveys. 1996 Intergravel dissolved oxygen study. 1996 

Cowlitz River fall chinook redd surveys. Prepared for Tacoma Public Utilities. 

 April. 

Hemre, G.I., and A. Krogdahl. 1996. Effect of Handling and Fish Size on Secondary Changes in 

Carbohydrate Metabolism in Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L. Aquaculture Nutrition (2): 

249-252. 

Hunter, M.; B. Gerke. 1992. Identification of anadromous barriers and a review of the 

productivity estimates for the upper Cowlitz River basin (draft report). Washington 

 Department of Fisheries. October, 1992. 21pp. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change Report.2007. 

Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia 

River basin fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2007-2, Portland, Oregon. 

Johnson GE, BD Ebberts, RM Thom, NM Ricci, AH Whiting, JA Southard, GB Southerland, JD 

Wilcox, T Berquam. 2003. An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Habitat Restoration Projects 

with Emphasis on Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. PNNL-14412, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 

Korsu, K. 2004. Response of benthic invertebrates to disturbance from stream restoration: the 

importance of bryophytes. Hydrobiologia 523: 37-45. 

Kostow, K. 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon. Oregon Department of 

 Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 217 p. 

Lanigan, Steve; Jane Banyard; Rick Larson. 1998. Programmatic biological assessment 

for on-going USDA Forest Service activities affecting lower Columbia River 

steelhead within southwest Washington provinces. USDA submitted to NMFS April 

10, 1998. 

LCFRB (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board). 2004b. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery 

and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan: Vol. II-H. Lower Columbia Tributaries: Salmon – 

Washougal and Lewis Rivers (WRIAs 27-28). 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/lowerColumbia/plan/ 

LCFRB (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board). 2010. Washington Lower Columbia Salmon 

Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan. June. 

http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/Recovery%20Plans/March%202010%20review%20draft%20

RP/RP%20Frontpage.htm. 

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 2007. Lower Columbia River and Estuary 

Ecosystem Monitoring: Water Quality and Salmon Sampling Report. 
-35- 

Marr, J.C. 1943. Age, length, and weight studies of three species of Columbia River salmon 

(Oncorhynchus keta, O. gorbuscha and O. kisutch). Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 

 2(6):157-197. 

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. 

Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156p. 

McElhany, P., C. Busack, M. Chilcote, S. Kolmes, B. McIntosh, J. Myers, D. Rawding, A. Steel, 

C. Steward, D. Ward, T.Whitesel, and C. Willis. 2006. Revised Viability Criteria for 

Salmon and Steelhead in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins, Review Draft 

April 1. Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team and Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. 178 p. 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/wlc/viability_report_revised.cfm. 

McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. Myers, R. Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability Status of Oregon Salmon 

and Steelhead Populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, Seattle, Washington, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

414 p. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/wlc/trt_wlc_psr2007.cfm. 

Mote, P.W., Parson, E.A., Hamlet, A.F., Keeton, W.S., Lettenmaier, D., Mantua, N., Miles, E.L., 

Peterson, D.W., Peterson, D.L., Slaughter, R., Snover, A.K. 2003. Preparing for climatic 

change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61, 45–

88. 

Myers, J.M., C. Busack, D. Rawding, and A. Marshall. 2002. Identifying historical populations 

of Chinook and chum salmon and steelhead within the Lower Columbia River and Upper 

Willamette River evolutionarily significant units. Draft report to the comanagers from 

the Willamette/Lower Columbia River Technical Recovery Team, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, Washngton. May 10. 

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, and A. Marshall. 2003. Historical population 

structure of Willamette and lower Columbia River basin Pacific salmonids. 

92 Willamette/Lower Columbia River Technical Recovery Team report. (October 

2003). (Available at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/popid_report.htm) 

Myers, J. M., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. R. Marshall, D. J. Teel, D. M. Van Doornik, and M. T. 

Maher. 2006. Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette River 

and lower Columbia River basins. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., 

NMFS-NWFSC-73, 311 p. 

Newcombe, C.P., and J.O. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis 

for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 16:693-727. 
-36- 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1997b. Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous 

Salmonids. National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Region, Santa Rosa, CA. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2004. Habitat Improvements as Offsite Mitigation 

for FCRPS Operations: A Qualitative Assessment. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries. 2005a. Critical habitat 

analytical review teams for 12 evolutionarily significant units of west coast salmon and 

steelhead. Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. August. 27 p. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2005b. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries' 

Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West 

Coast Salmon and Steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries Protected 

Resources Division, NMFS Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon (August 2005). 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/2005-Biological-TeamsReport.cfm. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final 

Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead. 

Final Rule. Federal Register 71(3):834-862. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006b. Biological Opinion for the Stream Crossing 

Structure Replacement and Removal Activities, Snake and Clearwater River Basins, 

170601 & 170603, Idaho, Reference Nos. 2005/06396, 2005/07365, 2005/07366. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. August. 118 p. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007a. 2007 Report to Congress: Pacific Coastal 

 Salmon Recovery Fund FY 2000-2006. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine 

 Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility 

Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. February. 137 p. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of 

the Federal Columbia River Power System and Mainstem Effects of USBR Upper Snake 

and Other Tributary Actions. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon. 

 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011 Supplemental Information Report to the 2008 

Final Environmental Assessment- Reducing the Impact on at Risk Salmon and Steelhead 

by California Sea Lions in the Area Downstream of Bonneville Dam on the Columbia 

River, Oregon and Washington, Northwest Region. 
-37- 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ). 2003. Timing data tables: North Willamette. 

ODFW, Fish Division, Salem, Oregon. 

Olla, B.L., M.W. Davis, and C.B. Schreck. 1995. Stress-Induced Impairment of Predator Evasion 

and Non-predator Mortality in Pacific Salmon. Aquaculture Research 26: 393-398. 

Quinn, T.P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Maryland. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington and 

London, England. 378 p. 

Seaman, M.H. (Ed). 1977. Columbia River Estuary Inventory of Physical, Biological, and 

CulturalCharacteristics. Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, 750 Commercial St. 

Rm. 205, Astoria, OR 97103. 

Snyder, D.E. 2003. Electrofishing and Its Harmful Effects on Fish. Information Technology 

Report USGS/BRD/ITR—2003-0002: U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, 

Colorado. 161 p. 

Scheuerell, M. D., J. G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival of 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. Fisheries Oceanography, 14(6):448-457.

Suring, E. , and R. J. Constable, Jr. 2009. Abundance Monitoring of Juvenile Salmonids in 

Coastal Oregon and Lower Columbia Streams, 2008. Monitoring Program Report 

Number OPSW-ODFW-2009-1, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. 

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/CRL/Reports/2009-11.pdf 

Thomas, D.W. 1983. Changes in Columbia River estuary habitat types over the past century. 

CREDDP,Astoria, OR. 51pp. and appendices. (CREST, 750 Commercial St. Rm. 205, 

Astoria, OR 97103). 

UCSRB (Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board). 2007. Upper Columbia Spring Chinook 

Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. August. 352 p. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Interior-Columbia/UpperColumbia/upload/UC_Plan.pdf. 

USFWS. 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of 

Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed 

Scale. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 (Pacific), Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Biological Opinion for USDA Forest Service 

Fish Passage Restoration Activities in Eastern Oregon and Washington 2004-2008. 

Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon, and Western Washington 

Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. 
-38- 

USGCRP 2009. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts to the 

United States 2009 Report. Website: http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/ 

Vaughan, D. Mace. Potential Impact of Road-Stream Crossings (Culverts) on the Upstream 

Passage of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. The Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Report 

submitted to the United States Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development 

Center. March 21, 2002 

Wade, G. 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors – Water Resource Inventory 

Area 26 – Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, 

 Washington 

WDW, 1990. Cowlitz River Subbasin: Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. 

Washington Department of Wildlife, Northwest Power Planning Council, and the 

Agencies and Indian Tribes of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2008a. Chapter 14.0 In-Water Work. Pages 

14.1 – 14.10 in Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects, 

Advanced Training Manual Version 10-08. Environmental Affairs Office, Washington 

 State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA 

Williams and Thom. 2001. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. White Paper 

prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of 

Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation. April. 136 p. 

Wydoski, R.S. 1980. Effects of Electric Current on Fish and Invertebrates [mimeo]. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Center. Leetown, Kearneysville, West Virginia. 

Zabel, M. D. Scheuerell, McClure, and Williams. 2006. The interplay between climate 

variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. 

Conservation Biology 20:190-200. 

Zimmerman, M. S. 2011. 2011 wild coho forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and 

Lower Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 
-39- 

Appendix I. Worksite Isolation and Fish Capture and Handling Protocol 

This Appendix provides additional clarifying detail for the non-discretionary terms and 

conditions that must be undertaken by COE to ensure the reasonable and prudent measures 

identified in the Section on “Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions” in 

the opinion, are implemented, and specifically, Reasonable and Prudent Measure Number 2. 

1. Personnel conducting fish capture and handling have the necessary training, knowledge, 

skills, and abilities to ensure the safe handling of all ESA-listed fish: 

a. Fish capture operations will only be conducted by or under the direct supervision 

of a fishery biologist trained and experienced in such efforts; 

b. All personnel operating electrofishing equipment will have appropriate training 

and experience with electrofishing techniques (NMFS 2000), and specifically: 

i. The supervising biologist will: 

1. Have a minimum of 100 hours electrofishing experience in the 

field using similar equipment; 

2. Be familiar with the principles of electrofishing, including the 

effects of voltage, pulse width and pulse rate on fish, and 

associated risk of injury or mortality; and 

3. Have knowledge regarding galvanotaxis, narcosis and tetany, their 

relationships to injury/mortality rates, and has the ability to 

recognize these responses when exhibited by fish. 

ii. All other individuals operating electrofishing equipment will have a 

minimum of 40 hours electrofishing experience under direct supervision. 

c. Adequate numbers of trained and experienced personnel to conduct fish capture 

and removal will be available at all times during these operations. 

2. Steps will be taken to encourage the volitional excavation of juvenile salmon and 

steelhead from areas where equipment will be used prior to construction as described in 

this opinion, and to ensure the safe removal of those salmonids trapped or stranded by 

work site isolation operations, including: 

a. Conducting work site isolation and fish capture and handling as described in this 

opinion. 

b. Use of the following mandatory fish capture methods and equipment, unless 

otherwise stated: 

i. Dip nets, seines, and block nets composed of soft (non-abrasive) nylon 

material. 

ii. Sanctuary dip nets that are used in conjunction with other methods as the 

area is dewatered – use of sanctuary dip nets is mandatory. 

iii. Optional use of aquarium nets if water depths in remaining pools are very 

shallow and/or fish are concentrated in very small receding pools or coarse 

substrate; however, once netted, fish must remain in water until transferred 

to a holding container with dissolved oxygen concentrations at 

saturation—either through supplemental aeration provided, or flow-
-40- 

through conditions consistent with a netted ‘live box’ holding apparatus 

secured in the stream flow. 

iv. Seines with mesh of a size to ensure entrapment of the residing ESA-listed 

fish and age classes, and with a bag to minimize handling stress. 

v. Electrofishing only after all other means of fish capture have been 

exhausted (e.g., a minimum of three complete passes of the seine without 

fish capture); and provided electrofishing methods and equipment comply 

with NMFS’ Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines (NMFS 2000) (attached 

to this opinion) that include, but are not limited to: 

1. Use of the minimum voltage, pulse width, and rate settings 

necessary to achieve the desired response. 

2. Measurement of water conductivity in the field prior to each 

electrofishing attempt to determine the appropriate settings. 

3. Use of the initial and maximum settings as specified in the NMFS 

guidelines. 

4. Use of only direct current (DC) or pulsed DC current. 

5. Preventing fish from coming into direct contact with the netted 

anode while an electrical current is discharged. 

6. Careful observation and documentation of the condition of 

captured fish; adjustment of electrofishing unit settings and manner 

in which used as necessary; and termination of electrofishing 

operations if the adjustments do not lessen the frequency of 

observed stress. 

NOTE: Additional information for fish capture and handling that may 

be of assistance to avoid and minimize the number of fish captured and 

handled and to ensure their safe release can be found in The Fish 

Exclusion Protocols and Standards in the Washington State 

Department of Transportation Biological Assessment Preparation for 

Transportation Projects – Advanced Training Manual – Version 02-

2011/02/2012, Part 2, Chapter 14, Inwater Work (available at: 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm) 

7. A last check for remaining fish is conducted once the area is dry. 

vi. Completing the cofferdam at the downstream end of the dewatered reach. 

vii. Pulling the surrogate block net taut against the outside of the installed 

barrier/cofferdam, securing it to the bankline, and leaving it in place until 

all work, including cofferdam removal is complete. 

c. Handling ESA-listed fish with extreme care by: 

i. Keeping them in water at all times during transfer procedures. 

ii. Transferring fish with a sanctuary net that holds water during transfer, 

whenever necessary to prevent the added stress of an out-of-water transfer. 

iii. Providing a healthy environment for captured fish by: 

1. Ensuring water quality conditions in the buckets used to transport 

fish are adequate by providing circulation of clean, cold water, 

using aerators to provide dissolved oxygen, and minimizing hold 

times; 
-41- 

2. Use of large, dark colored, lidded buckets (5 gallon minimum to 

prevent overcrowding) and minimal handling of fish; 

3. Keeping densities of fish within buckets low (no more than 10 fish 

per 5 gallon bucket) and larger fish separated from smaller fish; 

4. Not allowing the water temperature in the transfer buckets to 

exceed above that of the ambient stream water temperature in the 

action area during fish transfer activities associated with the action; 

5. Suspending electrofishing when turbidity reduces visibility to less 

than 0.5 meter (1.6 feet), when water conductivity exceeds 

350 picosiemens per centimeter (pS/cm), or when water 

temperature is above 18 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit), 

unless no other method of capture is available; 

6. Retaining fish the minimum time possible (less than 10 minutes) to 

ensure that stress is minimized, temperatures do not rise, and 

dissolved oxygen remains suitable; 

7. Releasing fish as near as possible to the isolated reach in a pool or 

area that provides cover and flow refuge, and as quickly as 

possible; and 

8. Frequently monitoring of captured fish to minimize fish stress. 

9. Ensuring that the hands of individuals handling are free of harmful 

and/or deleterious products, including but not limited to sunscreen, 

lotion, and insect repellent. 

10. Minimizing handling of fish by visually counting, determining 

approximate age (age-0 plus or age-1 plus) and whether the fish is 

marked or not; assessing species and releasing the fish without 

further handling if species is not immediately determinable (note 

as such). 

11. Not measuring fish, using anesthesia, or conducting other sampling 

activities, except visual assessments as noted above. 

d. Rewatering of the coffered area at a slow, measured pace to minimize bed 

disturbance and the downstream release of suspended sediments, and in 

essentially the reverse order of the dewatering procedure by: 

i. Removing the downstream barrier. 

ii. Removing the top layer to the upstream barrier to slowly release 

one-quarter to one-third of the streamflow 

iii. Inspecting the block net for impinged or dead fish, carefully removing 

impinged or dead fish, 

iv. Removing the next layer to the upstream barrier to slowly release one-half 

to two-thirds of the streamflow such that the release of suspended 

sediments does not exceed limits described in Term and Condition 

Number 2 described in the Section on “Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

and Terms and Conditions” in the opinion. 

v. Continuing block net inspections and slow removal of the upstream 

barrier. 
-42- 

vi. Removing the block net once the dewatered area is completely rewatered 

and the entire barrier is removed. Removal proceeds from the downstream 

end, upstream. 

e. Describing the capture and release effort in a post-project report (see Term and 

Condition Number 2 described in the Section on “Reasonable and Prudent 

Measures and Terms and Conditions” in the opinion). 
-43- 

Appendix I - In-water Construction Monitoring Report 

Start Date: _______________ 

End Date: _______________ 

Waterway: _____________________ in ______________ County 

Construction Activities: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Number of fish observed: ___________ 

Number of salmonid juveniles observed (what kind?): 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Number of salmonid adults observed (what kind?): 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

What were fish observed doing prior to 

construction?___________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

What did the fish do during and after construction? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Number of fish stranded as a result of this activity: __________ 

How long were the fish stranded before they were captured and released to flowing water? 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Number of fish that were killed during this activity: __________ 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

West Coast Region 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 

Seattle, Washington 98115 

Refer to NMFS No.: February 04, 2015 

WCR-2014-813 

David Valenstein 

Chief, Environmental & Systems Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Rail Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological and Conference Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat 

Response for the Kelso to Martin’s Bluff Rail Improvements—Task 6 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

Thank you for your letter of May 2, 2014 requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the Kelso to Martin’s Bluff Rail Improvements—

Task 6. We prepared the enclosed biological opinion (opinion) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA on the effects of the project. In this Opinion, we conclude that the proposed action is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the ESA-listed salmon and steelhead of the 

Columbia River and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. 

The document also contains the results of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation. The Federal Rail 

Administration (FRA) determined that the project will adversely affect EFH. We concur with 

this determination and is therefore providing conservation recommendations pursuant to the 

MSA (section 305(b)(4)(A)). The FRA must respond to these recommendations within 30 days 

(MSA section 305(b)(4)(B)). 

If the response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendations, the Federal action 

agency must explain why the recommendations will not be followed, including the scientific 

justification for any disagreements over the effects of the action and the recommendations. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological and Conference 

Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 

Kelso to Martin’s Bluff Rail Improvements—Task 6 

NMFS Consultation Number: WCR-2014-813 

Action Agency: Federal Rail Authority 

Affected Species and NMFS’ Determinations: 

ESA-Listed Species Status Is Action Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

Species or Critical 

Habitat? 

Is Action Likely 

To Jeopardize the 

Species? 

Is Action Likely To 

Destroy or Adversely 

Modify Critical 

Habitat? 

Lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened Yes No No 

Upper Columbia River 

spring-run Chinook 

Salmon (O. tshawytscha) 

Endangered Yes No No 

Snake River fall-run 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened Yes No No 

Snake River 

spring/summer-run 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened Yes No No 

Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened Yes No No 

Columbia River Chum 

Salmon (O. keta) 

Threatened Yes No No 

Lower Columbia River 

Coho Salmon (O. 

kisutch) 

Threatened Yes No No (proposed) 

Snake River Sockeye 

Salmon (O. nerka) 

Endangered Yes No No 

Snake River basin 

Steelhead (O. mykiss) 

Threatened Yes No No 

Upper Columba River 

Steelhead 

Threatened Yes No No 

Middle Columba River 

Steelhead 

Threatened Yes No No 

Lower Columba River 

Steelhead 

Threatened Yes No No 

Upper Willamette River 

Steelhead 

Threatened Yes No No 

Southern Pacific 

Eulachon (Thaleichthys 

pacificus) 

Threatened No No No 

 

-iTABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Consultation History ........................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Action Area ......................................................................................................................... 6

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE 

STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................................8

2.1 Analytical Approach ........................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Status of the Species ................................................................................................ 9

2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitats ...................................................................................... 16

2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................... 18

2.4 Effects of the Action ......................................................................................................... 21

2.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 26

2.6 Integration and Synthesis .................................................................................................. 28

2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 29

2.8 Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................. 30

2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take ..................................................................................... 30

2.8.2 Effect of the Take .................................................................................................. 31

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ........................................................................ 31

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................ 31

2.9 Reinitiation of Consultation .............................................................................................. 32

2.10 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations ......................................................... 33

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION ......................................................................33

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project ................................................................. 33

3.2 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations .................................................. 34

3.3 Statutory Response Requirement ...................................................................................... 34

3.5 Supplemental Consultation ............................................................................................... 35

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .....36

5. REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................37
-1- 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document 

and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 

1.1 Background 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological and conference opinion 

(opinion) and incidental take statement in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. 

We also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action, in 

accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. 

We completed pre-dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, 

and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, 

Public Law 106-554). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the OregonWashington Coastal Area Office. 

1.2 Consultation History 

September 9, 2013: We and the project proponents began pre-consultation coordination on the 

project scope and potential effects to listed species and their habitats.. 

January 31, 2014: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) designated the Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) as its non-Federal representative for ESA and MSA. 

September 9, 2013 to May 6, 2014: We worked with the project proponents, via meetings, email, 

and site visits, to reduce the impacts of the proposed action on listed species. 

May 7, 2014: We received the biological assessment (BA) and request for formal consultation 

from FRA. 

May 7, 2014 to September 22, 2012: We continued to work with the project proponents to further 

reduce the adverse effects by requesting additional information and clarification of the project 

description and the effects of the proposed action via meetings and email. 

September 22, 2014: We received all of the requested information. Formal consultation on the 

proposed action was initiated. 
-2- 

Table 1. FRA ESA Determinations1

Species Federal 

Status 

Species 

Determination 

Critical Habitat 

Determination 

Listing/ Designation 

Date 

Lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened LAA LAA 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160)/

9/2/05 (70 FR 52630) 

Upper Columbia River 

spring-run Chinook 

Salmon (O. tshawytscha) 

Endangered LAA n/a 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160)/

9/2/05 (70 FR 52630) 

Snake River fall-run 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened LAA n/a 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160)/

12/28/93 (50 FR 68534) 

Snake River 

spring/summer-run 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened LAA n/a 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160)/

10/25/99 (50 FR 57399) 

Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) 

Threatened LAA n/a 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160)/

9/2/05 (70 FR 52630) 

Columbia River Chum 

Salmon (O. keta) 

Threatened LAA LAA 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160)/

9/2/05 (70 FR 52630) 

Lower Columbia River 

Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) 

Threatened LAA LAA (proposed) 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160) 

Snake River Sockeye 

Salmon (O. nerka) 

Endangered LAA n/a 6/28/05 (70 FR 37160)/

12/28/93 (50 FR 68534) 

Snake River basin 

Steelhead (O. mykiss) 

Threatened LAA n/a 1/5/06 (71 FR 834)/ 9/2/05 

(70 FR 52630) 

Upper Columba River 

Steelhead 

Threatened LAA n/a 1/5/06 (71 FR 834)/ 9/2/05 

(70 FR 52630) 

Middle Columba River 

Steelhead 

Threatened LAA n/a 1/5/06 (71 FR 834)/ 9/2/05 

(70 FR 52630) 

Lower Columba River 

Steelhead 

Threatened LAA LAA 1/5/06 (71 FR 834)/ 9/2/05 

(70 FR 52630) 

Upper Willamette River 

Steelhead 

Threatened LAA n/a 1/5/06 (71 FR 834)/ 9/2/05 

(70 FR 52630) 

Southern Pacific Eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus) 

Threatened NLAA NLAA 3/18/10 (75 FR 13012)/

10/20/11 (50 FR 65324) 1

 NMFS agreed with these determinations and initiated consultation accordingly. 2

 LAA = likely to adversely affect 

3

 NLAA = not likely to adversely affect 

1.3 Proposed Action

“Action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in 

whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 CFR 402.02). WSDOT is improving intercity 

passenger rail service by constructing projects along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor 

(PNWRC). The FRA is funding the program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009. The PNWRC Improvement Program will add two additional Amtrak round- trips –

per- day (from four to six) between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. The PNWRC 

Improvement Program includes 17 individual tasks between Vancouver, Washington, and the 

Washington State – Canadian border. The Kelso Martin’s Bluff Improvement Projects will 

improve passenger rail operations near the ports of Kalama (Tasks 4 and 5) and Longview (Task 

6). This opinion is for Task 6. We are considering the effects of these individual actions on listed 

species and critical habitat in an additive manner as we complete each consultation. 
-3- 

Currently, freight trains from the Port of Longview frequently block one of two main- line 

tracks, which in turn leads to congestion on the rail system. Task 6 will build an additional mainline track through this area which will allow passenger trains to bypass the congestion. The 

Kelso Martin’s Bluff Improvement Projects – Kelso to Longview Junction (Task 6) Project 

occurs entirely within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) right-of-way 

(ROW). 

Task 6 extends from the Kelso Amtrak Station in Township 8 North, Range 2 West, Section 27, 

Willamette Meridian (W.M.) to approximately 2,000 feet south of the BNSF bridge over Owl 

Creek in Township 7 North, Range 2 West, Section 24, W.M.. The project is within the Lower 

Columbia Watershed (6 Field Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 170800), Lower Cowlitz Watershed 

(8 Field HUC 17080005), and Water Resource Index Area (WRIA) 26 – Cowlitz River. The 

project extends north to south along the eastern bank of the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers and 

crosses Owl Creek at River Mile (RM) 0.6 and the Coweeman River at RM 0.03. All in-water 

work will take place during the following windows: 

 

1. Coweeman River, July 1 to October 31. 

2. Off-channel habitat tributary to the Coweeman River, July 1 to November 30. 

3. Owl Creek and its off-channel habitat, July 16 to October 14. 

WSDOT will conduct the following activities: 

1. upgrade the existing railroad bridge over the Coweeman River; 

2. construct a new single-track bridge over the Coweeman River; 

3. fill approximately 5.7 acres of off-channel habitat within the Coweeman River and Owl 

Creek watersheds; 

4. replace the existing culverts under a BNSF access road; 

5. replace a culvert under the Owl Creek Sand and Gravel Company access road; 

6. remove a berm separating the Coweeman River and Owl Creek off-channel habitats and 

create a minimum of 1.5 acres of new off-channel habitat; and 

7. acquire and permanently preserve no less than 50 acres of wetlands in the lower 

Columbia River watershed. 

1.3.1 New Coweeman River Bridge 

WSDOT will construct a new bridge over the Coweeman River to accommodate the new mainline track adjacent to the existing BNSF Coweeman River bridge. The new Coweeman River 

Bridge will be approximately 29 feet wide and 246 feet long. WSDOT will construct two new inwater concrete piers on the banks of the Coweeman River. The northern pier will be located 

entirely below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) while the southern pier will be partially 

below the OHWM. A 164-foot-long steel span will extend between the new in-water piers across 

the Coweeman River. 
-4- 

The in-water work will take at least 114 work days to complete, between July 1 and October 31, 

2015. On July 1, 2015, the WSDOT will begin constructing temporary coffer dams along both 

banks of the Coweeman River. Once the coffer dams are in place, they will remove any stranded 

fish, per NMFS-approved WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards (WSDOT 2013), 

and dewater the areas. Sumps and pumps will maintain the dewatered work areas. Within the 

coffer dams, WSDOT will install sheet piles around the perimeter of the new pier footings to 

provide shoring. They will then construct four, 54-inch drilled shafts to support each pier 

foundation using a crane to oscillate hollow, steel casings through the soil and excavating the soil 

out of the casings. It may be necessary to fill the casings with a bentonite (clay) slurry to support 

the walls of the boring hole. After excavating the shaft, they will lower a reinforcing steel shaft 

cage and pump concrete into the casing, displacing the water or slurry. WSDOT will contain, 

collect, and treat the water or slurry prior to reuse or disposal. 

WSDOT will use cranes to construct the bridge and lower the spans into place. WSDOT will 

temporarily fill 0.25 acre of the off-channel habitat of the Coweeman River in order to build a 

crane pad. They will shore the fill with sheet piles and isolate the in-water work area with a 

coffer dam. WSDOT will restore the off-channel habitat after construction (see Section 1.3.5). 

WSDOT will also place 400 cubic yards of rip rap to the in-water piers to protect against scour. 

The rip rap will cover approximately 460 square feet of habitat below th ordinary high water 

mark (OHWM) for a total of 920 square feet (0.02 acre). 

1.3.2 Culvert Replacements 

A wetlands tributary to the Coweeman River, which runs parallel to the BNSF tracks, provides 

off-channel habitat for listed fish species. The BNSF access road from Talley Way to the 

Longview Junction Yard crosses this habitat. The water is conveyed by a submerged 24-inch 

culvert and a perched 66-inch culvert at this crossing. These two culverts provide some degree of 

fish passage but do not meet NMFS fish passage standards (NMFS 2011). WSDOT will replace 

these culverts with a single, larger crossing to meet the fish passage standards. 

Owl Creek flows through the BNSF right-of way and connects, via a 36-inch concrete culvert 

below an access road, to off-channel habitat which runs parallel to the existing tracks. This 

culvert provides some degree of fish passage but does not meet NMFS fish passage standards. 

WSDOT will replace this culvert with a larger crossing to improve fish passage and tidal 

exchange. 

WSDOT will isolate the in-water work areas for the culvert replacements with coffer dams, and 

will remove any stranded fish from the work areas following NMFS-approved WSDOT Fish 

Exclusion Protocols and Standards (WSDOT 2013) and complete all in-water work between July 

16 to October 14. 

1.3.3 Widened Track 

WSDOT will dump up to 236,000 cubic yards of fill into the off-channel aquatic habitat in order 

to construct the new track. This off-channel habitat runs parallel to the tracks from Owl Creek to 

the Coweeman River. The fill will consist of washed quarry spalls, soil, gravel, small rock, and 
-5- 

crushed stones. Prior to dumping the fill, WSDOT will isolate the in-water work areas using 

temporary coffer dams, dams, and culvert blockages and will remove any stranded fish from the 

work areas following NMFS-approved WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards 

(WSDOT 2013). An excavator and other equipment, operating from adjacent uplands or isolated 

in-water work areas, will shape the fill. 

1.3.4 Coweeman Off-channel Habitat Restoration 

Currently, the off-channel habitat tributary to the Coweeman River becomes disconnected from 

the river during low flow conditions. This habitat is a shallow and unvegetated tidal channel. 

WSDOT will restore the channel after project construction is complete, to provide more frequent 

connectivity to the Coweeman River and greater habitat diversity for juvenile forage and rearing 

salmonids. To accomplish this, WSDOT will lower the tidal channel elevation and excavate 

wetland fingers off of the enhanced tidal channel between the Coweeman River and the BNSF 

driveway. The fingers will support a variety of vegetation and cover types. WSDOT will use the 

same coffer dam for the south bank of the Coweeman River Bridge construction to isolate the 

wetland restoration and tidal channel enhancement area. 

1.3.5 Removal of Upland Berm 

The off-channel habitats of the Coweeman River and Owl Creek are linear and parallel the 

BNSF track. An upland berm separates the Coweeman River portion from the Owl Creek 

portion. WSDOT will remove the berm and restore a seasonal hydrologic connection between 

the River and the Creek at a level between the one-year and two-year design floods. To prevent 

stranding, the new slopes will be graded at a 2:1 slope. 

1.3.6 Habitat Acquisition and Preservation 

The FRA and WSDOT will acquire a minimum of 57 acres of wetlands on various parcels of 

property within 10 miles of the project area. This property will help offset impacts to 

jurisdictional wetlands as well as the loss of off-channel fish habitat. We estimate at least 30 

acres of these wetlands provide off-channel habitat for ESA-listed species from the same 

populations that will be impacted by this project. Major construction work impacting fish habitat 

will not commence on the project until property title is acquired by BNSF on behalf of WSDOT. 

Properties acquired for the project will be transferred to the Cowlitz Tribe before project 

completion; the Tribe will be the terminal owner/manager of the property. 

1.3.7 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions 

“Interrelated actions” are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for 

their justification. “Interdependent actions” are those that have no independent utility apart from 

the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). 

While this project is Task 6 of the 17-task PNWRC Improvement Program between Vancouver, 

Washington, and the Washington State – Canadian border, each task has independent utility and 

is not dependent upon each other for their justification. Each task solves a different problem with 
-6- 

the current rail system and each will incrementally improve passenger rail service regardless of 

whether the other tasks are built. Therefore the tasks are not interrelated or interdependent. 

1.4 Action Area

“Action area” means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not 

merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area for this 

project includes portions of the Cowlitz and Coweeman rivers, Owl Creek, and off-channel 

wetland habitat connected to the Coweeman River and to Owl Creek (Figure 1). The action area 

includes portions of the Cowlitz and Coweeman rivers within 328 feet of the new Coweeman 

River Bridge; based on the extent of effects from impact pile- driving. The action area also 

includes six acres of Owl Creek, off-channel wetland habitat connected to the Coweeman River 

and to Owl Creek bound by the extent of fill for the track widening and the extent of turbidity. 

These areas are occupied by the species listed in Table 1 and are critical habitat for one or more 

species. This area is also EFH for Pacific salmon. Although the action area is seasonally 

occupied by upriver species such as MCR steelhead, SR sockeye, and UCR Chinook salmon, 

most of the fish affected by the proposed action are LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, 

CR chum salmon, and LCR steelhead. 
-7- 

Figure 1. Kelso Martin’s Bluff Project Area 

*not to scale 
-8- 

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE 

STATEMENT 

The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of 

fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat upon which they depend. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

requires federal agencies to insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of endangered or threatened species or adversely modify or destroy their designated 

critical habitat. Per the requirements of the ESA, Federal action agencies consult with NMFS and 

section 7(b)(3) requires that, at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS provides an opinion stating 

how the agency’s actions would affect listed species and their critical habitat. If incidental take is 

expected, section 7(b)(4) requires NMFS to provide an incidental take statement (ITS) that 

specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes non-discretionary reasonable and 

prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize such impacts. 

2.1 Analytical Approach

This biological opinion includes both a jeopardy analysis and an adverse modification analysis. 

The jeopardy analysis relies upon the regulatory definition of “to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species,” which is “to engage in an action that would be expected, directly or 

indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed 

species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 

CFR 402.02). Therefore, the jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the 

species. 

The adverse modification analysis considers the impacts of the Federal action on the 

conservation value of designated critical habitat. This biological opinion does not rely on the 

regulatory definition of "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat at 50 CFR 

402.02. Instead, we have relied upon the statutory provisions of the ESA to complete the 

following analysis with respect to critical habitat.1

We use the following approach to determine whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize 

listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat: 

 Identify the range-wide status of the species and critical habitat likely to be adversely 

affected by the proposed action. 

 Describe the environmental baseline in the action area. 

 Analyze the effects of the proposed action on both the species and their habitat using an 

“exposure-response-risk” approach. 

 Describe any cumulative effects in the action area. 

 Integrate and synthesize the above factors to assess the risk that the proposed action poses 

to the species and their critical habitat. 

 Reach jeopardy and adverse modification conclusions. 

 

1

 Memorandum from William T. Hogarth to Regional Administrators, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS 

(Application of the “Destruction or Adverse Modification” Standard Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act) (November 7, 2005). 
-9- 

2.2 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat 

This opinion examines the status of each species that would be adversely affected by the 

proposed action. The status is determined by the level of extinction risk that the listed species 

face, based on parameters considered in documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and 

listing decisions. This informs the description of the species’ likelihood of both survival and 

recovery. The species status section also helps to inform the description of the species’ current 

“reproduction, numbers, or distribution” as described in 50 CFR 402.02. The opinion also 

examines the condition of critical habitat throughout the designated area, evaluates the 

conservation value of the various watersheds and coastal and marine environments that make up 

the designated area, and discusses the current function of the essential physical and biological 

features that help to form that conservation value. 

2.2.1 Status of the Species 

Recovery domains (Table 2) are the geographically-based areas NMFS is using to prepare multispecies recovery plans. For each recovery domain, a technical review team (TRT) appointed by 

NMFS has developed, or is developing, criteria necessary to identify independent populations 

within each species, recommended viability criteria for those species, and descriptions of factors 

that limit species recovery. 
-10- 

Table 2. Recovery planning domains identified by NMFS and their ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead species. 

Recovery Domain Species

Willamette-Lower Columbia 

LCR Chinook 

salmon UWR 

Chinook salmon CR 

chum salmon 

LCR coho 

salmon LCR 

steelhead UWR 

steelhead 

Interior Columbia 

UCR spring-run Chinook 

salmon SR spring/summer 

Chinook salmon SR fall-run 

Chinook salmon 

SR sockeye 

salmon SR 

sockeye salmon 

UCR steelhead 

MCR steelhead 

SRB steelhead 

The following is a summary of the limiting factors and threats for these two recovery domains 

(IC-TRT 2006; Ford et al. 2011; UCSRB 2007; NMFS 2009; ODFW and NMFS 2011; LCFRB 

2010): 

 Degraded estuarine and near-shore marine habitat from the cumulative impacts of land 

use and flow management by the Columbia River hydropower system; 

 Degraded freshwater habitat (floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas, stream substrate, stream flow, and water quality) from the 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development; 

 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat from tributary hydropower 

projects; 

 Hatchery-related effects;

 Harvest-related effects;
-11- 

 Reduced access to off-channel rearing habitat in the Lower Columbia River;

 Reduced productivity from sediment and nutrient-related changes in the estuary;

 Juvenile fish strandings from ship wakes; 

 Contaminants affecting fish health and reproduction; 

 Degraded stream flow as a result of hydropower and water supply operations;

 Current or potential predation from hatchery-origin salmonids; 

 Fish passage barriers that limit access to spawning and rearing habitats;

 Avian and marine mammal predation in the lower mainstem Columbia River and estuary;

 Predation, competition, and disease from non-native species and out-of-ESU races of 

salmon and steelhead; and 

 Genetic diversity effects from out-of-population hatchery releases. 

Species in the Willamette and Lower Columbia (WLC) recovery domain include LCR Chinook, 

Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook, Columbia River (CR) chum, LCR coho, LCR 

steelhead, and UWR steelhead. The WLC-TRT has identified 107 demographically independent 

populations of Pacific salmon and steelhead. These populations were further aggregated into 

strata, groupings above the population level that are connected by some degree of migration, 

based on ecological subregions. All 107 populations use parts of the mainstem of the Columbia 

River and the Columbia River estuary for migration, rearing, and smoltification. 

Species in the Interior Columbia (IC) recovery domain include Upper Columbia River (UCR) 

spring-run Chinook salmon, Snake River (SR) spring/summer run Chinook salmon, SR fall-run 

Chinook salmon, SR sockeye salmon, UCR steelhead, Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead, 

and Snake River Basin (SRB) steelhead. The IC-TRT identified 82 populations of those species 

based on genetic, geographic (hydrographic), and habitat characteristics. All 82 populations 

identified use the lower main-stem of the Snake River, the main-stem of the Columbia River, and 

the Columbia River estuary, or part thereof, for migration, rearing, and smoltification. 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon 

The LCR Chinook Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) includes all naturally-spawned 

populations of Chinook salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries; from its mouth at the 

Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between Washington and Oregon just east of the 

Hood River; and from the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon (exclusive of spring-run 

Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River). The LCR Chinook ESU also includes the progeny of 

seventeen artificial propagation programs. LCR Chinook populations exhibit three different life 

history types based on return timing and other features: fall-run (a.k.a. “tules”), late-fall-run 

(a.k.a. “brights”), and spring-run. 
-12- 

Of the 32 historical populations in the ESU, 28 are extirpated or at “very high” risk. Based on the 

recovery plan analyses, all of the tule populations are at “very high” risk except one that is 

considered at “high” risk. Tule harvest management modeling suggests three of the populations 

(Coweeman, Lewis, and Washougal) are at lower risk. However, even these more optimistic 

evaluations suggest that the remaining 18 populations are at a substantial risk due to very low 

natural origin spawner abundance (less than 100 per population), high hatchery origin fractions, 

significant habitat degradation and increased harvest impacts. However, the overall status, based 

on the new information, does not indicate a change in their biological risk category since the last 

status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

Columbia River Chum Salmon 

This species includes all naturally-spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River 

and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon, and progeny of three artificial propagation 

programs. The WLC-TRT identified 17 historical populations of CR chum salmon (Myers et al.

2006). Unlike other species in the WLC recovery domain, CR chum salmon spawn in the 

mainstem Columbia River. 

The vast majority (14 out of 17) of the chum salmon populations remain “extirpated or nearly 

so.” The Grays River and Lower Gorge populations showed a sharp increase in 2002, but have 

since declined back to low abundance levels. Chinook and coho salmon populations in the Lower 

Columbia and Willamette showed similar increases in the early 2000s followed by declines to 

recent levels, suggesting the increase in chum salmon may be related to ocean conditions. Recent 

data on the Washougal/mainstem Columbia population are not available, but they likely follow a 

pattern similar to the Grays and Lower Gorge populations. The overall status, based on the new 

information considered, does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the last 

status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

This species includes all naturally-spawned populations of coho salmon in the Columbia River 

and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon, from the mouth of the Columbia up to and 

including the Big White Salmon and Hood rivers; in the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, 

Oregon; and progeny of 25 artificial propagation programs. The WLC-TRT identified 24 

historical populations of LCR coho salmon (Myers et al. 2006). Of the 27 historical populations 

in the ESU, 24 are at “very high” risk. The remaining three populations (Sandy, Clackamas, and 

Scappoose rivers) are at “moderate” or “high” risk (Ford et al. 2011). As was noted in the 2005 

status review, smolt traps indicate some natural production in Washington populations, though 

given the high fraction of hatchery origin spawners suspected to occur in these populations, it is 

not clear that any are self-sustaining (Ford et al. 2011). Overall, the new information considered 

does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the last status review (Ford et al. 

2011). 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead 
-13- 

This species includes all naturally-spawned steelhead populations below natural and man-made 

impassable barriers in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River between and including the 

Cowlitz and Wind rivers, Washington and in the Willamette and Hood rivers, Oregon. The ESU 

also includes progeny of ten artificial propagation programs; but excludes all steelhead from the 

upper Willamette River basin above Willamette Falls, Oregon, and from the Little and Big White 

Salmon rivers, Washington. 

Summer steelhead return to freshwater long before spawning. Winter steelhead, in contrast, return 

from the ocean much closer to maturity and spawn within a few weeks. Summer steelhead 

spawning areas in the Lower Columbia River are found above waterfalls and other features that 

create seasonal barriers to migration. Where no temporal barriers exist, the winter-run life history 

dominates. All of the populations increased in abundance during the early 2000s. Most 

populations have since declined back to levels within one standard deviation of the long- term 

mean. Exceptions are the Washougal summer run and North Fork Toutle winter run, which are 

still higher than the long-term average, and the Sandy, which is lower. In general, the populations 

do not show any dramatic changes in abundance since the 2005 status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon 

This species includes all naturally -spawned populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the 

Clackamas River and in the Willamette River and its tributaries above Willamette Falls, Oregon. 

This species also includes the progeny of seven artificial propagation programs. The WLC-TRT 

identified seven historical populations of UWR Chinook salmon. Only the Clackamas population 

is “viable” (McElhany et al. 2007). Data since the last status review in 2005 has confirmed the 

high fraction of hatchery origin fish in all of the populations of this species. The new data have 

also highlighted the substantial risks of pre-spawning mortality. Although recovery plans target 

key limiting factors, there have been no significant on-the-ground actions since the last status 

review to resolve the lack of access to historical habitat above dams. There has not been 

substantial actions removing hatchery fish from the spawning grounds. Overall, the new 

information does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the last status review 

(Ford et al. 2011). 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead

This species includes all naturally-spawned steelhead populations below natural and manmade 

impassable barriers in the Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from Willamette 

Falls to the Calapooia River. The WLC-TRT identified five historical populations of UWR 

steelhead, all with winter run timing (Myers et al. 2006). The UWR steelhead are currently 

inhabiting many tributaries that drain the west side of the upper Willamette River Basin. Analysis 

of historical observations, hatchery records, and genetic analysis strongly suggested many of 

these spawning aggregations are the result of recent introductions and do not represent an 

historical population. Nevertheless, the WLC-TRT recognized these tributaries may provide 

juvenile rearing habitat or may be temporarily (for one or more generations) colonized during 

periods of high abundance. Summer steelhead have become established in the McKenzie River 

where historically no steelhead existed. Since the last status review in 2005, the UWR steelhead 

initially increased in abundance but subsequently declined, and current abundance is at the levels 
-14- 

observed in the mid-1990s. The Distinct Population Segments (DPS) appears to be at lower risk 

than the UWR Chinook salmon ESU, but continues to have overall low abundance. The 

elimination of winter-run hatchery release in the basin reduced hatchery threats, but non-native 

summer steelhead hatchery releases are still a concern. Overall, the new information considered 

does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the last status review (Ford et al. 

2011). 

Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon 

The Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon species includes all naturally-spawned 

populations of Chinook salmon in all river reaches accessible to Chinook salmon in Columbia 

River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in 

Washington (excluding the Okanogan River), and the Columbia River from a straight line 

connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the 

Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington. It 

also includes the progeny of six artificial propagation programs. The IC-TRT identified four 

independent populations of UCR spring-run Chinook salmon in the upriver tributaries of 

Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan (extirpated) (IC-TRT 2003; Ford et al. 2011). 

Increases in natural origin abundance relative to the extremely low spawning levels observed in 

the mid-1990s are encouraging; however, average productivity levels remain extremely low. 

Overall, the viability of UCR spring-run Chinook salmon ESU has likely improved somewhat 

since the last status review, but the ESU is still clearly at “moderate-to-high” risk of extinction 

(Ford et al. 2011). 

Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook Salmon

This species includes all naturally-spawned populations of spring/summer-run Chinook salmon 

in the main-stem Snake River and in the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, 

and Salmon River subbasins. It also includes the progeny of fifteen artificial propagation 

programs. The IC-TRT identified 27 extant and four extirpated populations of SR 

spring/summer-run Chinook salmon (IC-TRT 2003; Ford et al. 2011). Each of these populations 

faces a “high” risk of extinction (Ford et al. 2011). Overall, the new information considered does 

not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the last status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

Snake River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon 

This species includes all naturally-spawned populations of fall-run Chinook salmon in the mainstem Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam, and in the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, 

Imnaha River, Salmon River, and the Clearwater River. It also includes the progeny of four 

artificial propagation programs. The IC-TRT identified three populations of this species, although 

only the lower main-stem population exists at present, and it spawns in the lower main stem of 

the Clearwater, Imnaha, Grande Ronde, Salmon, and Tucannon rivers. The extant population of 

Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon is the only remaining population from an historical ESU 

that also included large main-stem populations upstream of the current location of the Hells 

Canyon Dam complex (IC-TRT 2003; Ford et al. 2011). The recent increases in natural origin 

abundance are encouraging. However, hatchery origin spawner proportions have increased 
-15- 

dramatically in recent years. Overall, the new information considered does not indicate a change 

in the biological risk category since the last status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

Snake River Sockeye Salmon 

This species includes all anadromous and residual sockeye salmon from the Snake River basin, 

Idaho, and artificially-propagated sockeye salmon from the Redfish Lake captive propagation 

program. The IC-TRT identified historical sockeye salmon production in at least five Stanley 

Basin and Sawtooth Valley lakes and in lake systems associated with Snake River tributaries 

currently cut off to anadromous access (e.g., Wallowa and Payette Lakes), although current 

returns of SR sockeye salmon are extremely low and limited to Redfish Lake (IC-TRT 2007). 

Although the captive brood program has been successful in providing substantial numbers of 

sockeye for use in supplementation efforts, substantial increases in survival rates across life 

history stages must occur in order to re-establish sustainable natural production (Hebdon et al. 

2004; Keefer et al. 2008). Overall, although the status of the Snake River sockeye salmon ESU 

appears to be improving, the new information considered does not indicate a change in the 

biological risk category since the last status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

The key factor limiting recovery of SR sockeye salmon ESU is survival outside of the Stanley 

Basin. Portions of the migration corridor in the Salmon River are impeded by water quality and 

temperature (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 2011). Increased temperatures may 

reduce the survival of adult sockeye returning to the Stanley River basin. The natural hydrological

regime in the upper main-stem Salmon River basin has been altered by water withdrawals. In 

most years, sockeye adult returns to Lower Granite Dam suffer catastrophic losses (e.g. greater 

than 50 percent mortality in one year; Reed et al. 2003) before reaching the Stanley Basin. The 

cause of these losses is unknown. In the Columbia and Lower Snake River migration corridor, 

predation rates on juvenile sockeye salmon are unknown. However, terns and cormorants 

consume 12 percent of all salmon smolts reaching the estuary, and fish consume an estimated 8 

percent of migrating juvenile salmon (Ford et al. 2011). 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead

This species includes all naturally-spawned steelhead populations below natural and artificial 

impassable barriers in streams from above the Wind River, Washington, and the Hood River, 

Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and including, the Yakima River, Washington (excluding 

steelhead from the Snake River basin). It also includes the progeny of seven artificial propagation 

programs. The IC-TRT identified 17 extant populations in this DPS (IC-TRT 2003). There have 

been improvements in the viability ratings for some of the component populations, but the MCR 

steelhead DPS is not currently meeting the viability criteria (adopted from the IC- TRT) in the 

MCR steelhead recovery plan (NMFS 2009). In addition, several of the factors cited by Good et 

al. (2005) remain as concerns or key uncertainties. Natural origin spawning estimates of 

populations have been highly variable with respect to meeting minimum abundance thresholds. 

Straying frequencies into at least the Lower John Day River population are high. Returns to the 

Yakima River basin and to the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers have been higher over the most 

recent brood cycle, and natural origin returns to the John Day River have decreased. Out-of-basin 

hatchery stray proportions, although reduced, remain very high in the Deschutes River basin. 
-16- 

Overall, the new information considered does not indicate a change in the biological risk category 

since the last status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead

This species includes all naturally-spawned steelhead populations below natural and manmade 

impassable barriers in streams in the Columbia River basin upstream from the Yakima River, 

Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border. It also includes the progeny of six artificial propagation 

programs. The IC-TRT identified four independent populations of UCR steelhead, the 

Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan rivers (IC-TRT 2003; Ford et al. 2011). All extant 

populations are considered to be at high risk of extinction (Ford et al. 2011). 

The UCR steelhead populations have increased in natural origin abundance in recent years, but 

productivity levels remain low. The proportions of hatchery origin returns in natural spawning 

areas remain extremely high across the DPS, especially in the Methow and Okanogan river 

populations. The modest improvements in natural returns in recent years are probably the result 

of several years of relatively good natural survival in the ocean and tributary habitats. Overall, the 

new information considered does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the 

last status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

Snake River Basin Steelhead

This species includes all naturally-spawned steelhead populations below natural and manmade 

impassable barriers in streams in the Snake River basin of southeast Washington, northeast 

Oregon, and Idaho, and from the progeny of six artificial propagation programs. The IC-TRT 

identified 25 historical populations (IC-TRT 2006; Ford et al. 2011). The IC-TRT has not 

assessed the viability of this species. The level of natural production in the two populations with 

full data series and the Asotin Creek index reaches is encouraging, but the status of most 

populations in this DPS remains highly uncertain. The relative proportion of hatchery fish in 

natural spawning areas near major hatchery release sites is highly uncertain. There is little 

evidence for substantial change in ESU viability relative to the previous BRT and IC-TRT 

reviews. Overall, therefore, the new information considered does not indicate a change in the 

biological risk category since the last status review (Ford et al. 2011). 

2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitats 

Willamette and Lower Columbia Recovery Domain 

We designated critical habitat in the WLC recovery domain for UWR spring-run Chinook 

salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, UWR steelhead, and CR chum salmon (see Table 

1, above). Land management activities have severely degraded stream habitat conditions in the 

Willamette River Basin. Agriculture and high density urban development have impaired aquatic 

and riparian habitat, water quality and quantity, and watershed processes. Channelization, 

dredging, and other activities have reduced rearing habitat by 75 percent. In addition, 37 dams 

block access to more than 435 miles of spawning habitat. The dams have also altered the 

temperature regime of the Willamette River and its tributaries, affecting the timing and 
-17- 

development of eggs and fry. Agriculture, urbanization, logging, and gravel mining have 

contributed to increased erosion and sediment loads throughout the basin. 

The banks of the Willamette River have more than 96 miles of revetments. Approximately half 

were constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Generally, the revetments are in 

the vicinity of roads or on the outside bank of river bends. The revetments cover 65 percent of 

the meander bends diminishing the complexity and productivity of aquatic habitats (Gregory et 

al. 2002c; Gregory et al. 2002b). 

Riparian forests have diminished considerably in the lower reaches of the Willamette River 

(Gregory et al. 2002a). Gregory et al. (2002a) described the changes in riparian vegetation in 

river reaches from riparian forests to agriculture and other uses. This conversion has reduced 

shading, wood recruitment, channel complexity, and the quality of salmonid habitats. 

On the main-stem of the Columbia River, hydropower projects, including the Federal Columbia 

River Hydropower System (FCRPS), have significantly degraded salmon and steelhead habitats 

(Bottom et al. 2005; Fresh et al. 2005; NMFS 2006; LCFRB 2010). The series of dams and 

reservoirs that make up the FCRPS block an estimated 12 million cubic yards of debris and 

sediment that would otherwise naturally flow down the Columbia River and replenish shorelines 

along the Washington and Oregon coasts. 

Industrial harbor and port development are also significant influences on the lower Willamette 

and lower Columbia rivers (Bottom et al. 2005; Fresh et al. 2005; NMFS 2006b; LCFRB 

2010). Since 1878, the USACE has dredged 100 miles of river channel within the Columbia 

River, its estuary, and the Willamette River for navigation channels. Originally 20 feet deep, 

the USACE now maintains the navigation channel of the lower Columbia River at 43 feet deep 

and 600 feet wide. The lower Columbia River has five ports on the Washington State side, 

Kalama, Longview, Skamania County, Woodland, and Vancouver. The ports and associated 

industrial facilities have contaminated the sediments in the lower Columbia River with high 

levels of arsenic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other pollutants. 

The most extensive urban development in the lower Columbia River subbasin is the City of 

Portland. Outside of this major urban area, the majority of residences and businesses rely on 

septic systems. Common water quality issues with urban development and residential septic 

systems include higher water temperatures, lowered dissolved oxygen, increased fecal coliform 

bacteria, and increased stormwater pollutants (e.g. pesticides and metals). 

The Columbia River estuary has lost 62 percent of tidal marsh and 77 percent tidal swamp 

habitats which are critical to juvenile salmon and steelhead (Sherwood et al. 1990). Edges of 

marsh areas provide sheltered habitats for juvenile salmon and steelhead where food and shelter 

from predators is plentiful. 

Interior Columbia Recovery Domain 

We designated critical habitat in the IC recovery domain for SR spring/summer-run Chinook 

salmon, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, SR sockeye salmon, 

MCR steelhead, UCR steelhead, and SRB steelhead (see Table 1, above). Habitat quality in 
-18- 

tributary streams in the IC recovery domain varies from excellent in wilderness and roadless areas 

to poor in areas with heavy agricultural and urban development (Wissmar et al. 1994; NMFS 

2009). 

Dams, including the FCRPS in the main-stem Columbia River, Bureau of Reclamation tributary 

projects, and privately owned dams in the Snake and Upper Columbia River basins, block 

migration for ESA-listed salmon. For example, the construction of Hells Canyon Dam eliminated 

access to the Burnt, Powder, Weiser, Payette, Malheur, Owyhee, and Boise river basins (Ford et 

al. 2011), and the Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams completely block anadromous fish 

passage on the upper main-stem Columbia River. Hydroelectric dams modify natural flow regimes, 

increase water temperature, increase predation rates on juvenile salmon and steelhead, and prevent 

and delay migration for both adult and juveniles. Physical features of dams such as turbines also 

kill migrating fish. In-river survival is inversely related to the number of hydropower projects 

encountered by emigrating juvenile salmon and steelhead. 

Similarly, development and operation of extensive irrigation systems and dams for water 

withdrawal and storage in tributaries have drastically altered hydrological cycles. A series of 

large dams on the Deschutes River have extirpated salmonid populations by altering flows and 

blocking access to upstream habitat (IC-TRT 2003). Operation and maintenance of large water 

reclamation systems such as the Umatilla Basin and Yakima Projects have significantly reduced 

flows and degraded water quality. Many stream reaches in the IC recovery domain are overallocated under state water law (i.e. more allocated water rights than the stream flow conditions 

can support). Water withdrawals increase summer stream temperatures, block fish migration, 

strand fish, and alter sediment transport (Spence et al. 1996). Reduced tributary stream flow is a 

major limiting factor for all listed salmon and steelhead species in this area except SR fall-run 

Chinook salmon and SR sockeye salmon (NMFS 2007a; Ford et al. 2011). 

Many stream reaches are listed on the state of Oregon’s Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for 

impaired water temperature. Many areas of rearing and spawning habitat are now unsuitable due 

to high summer stream temperatures. Removal of riparian vegetation, alteration of natural stream 

morphology, and withdrawal of water for agricultural and municipal use all contribute to elevated 

stream temperatures. Contaminants such as insecticides and herbicides from agricultural runoff 

and heavy metals from mine waste impair water quality in the IC Recovery Domain. 

2.3 Environmental Baseline

The “environmental baseline” includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or 

private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 

7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the 

consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). 

The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and the USACE response has significantly altered the 

conditions in the action area. Sediment from Mount St. Helens continues to deposit in the 

Cowlitz and Columbia rivers. The USACE dredges these rivers and deposits the spoils 

throughout the project area in upland, riparian, and wetland environments. The USACE dredged 
-19- 

the lower Cowlitz River (RMs 0 to 2.5) most recently in 2007-2008 (USACE 2012). The 

USACE (1984) identified several disposal sites in the action area, including the Collins Estate 

and Cottonwood Island. The Collins Estate appears is south of SR 432, west of I-5, and east of 

the Cowlitz and Columbia rivers. By 1984, the USACE had filled 220 acres of the Collins Estate 

with sediment dredged from the lower 1.5 miles of the Cowlitz River. 

The Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway, a joint venture by the Great Northern Railway and 

the Northern Pacific Railway, built the railroad in the action area in 1906. Today, an average of 

60 trains travel through the action area daily, including 10 Amtrak passenger trains and 

approximately 50 freight trains. 

Water bodies within the action area include the Columbia, Cowlitz, and Coweeman rivers, Owl 

Creek, and off-channel habitat connected to the Coweeman River and Owl Creek. The Cowlitz 

River flows north to south along the west side of the project area through the action area before 

joining the Columbia River at approximately RM 68. The Coweeman River joins the Cowlitz 

River at approximately RM 1.2. Within the action area, stormwater from Interstate (I)-5, State 

Route (SR) 432, and Talley Way and coal dust from freight trains degrades the water quality in 

these water bodies. 

Ecology’s 2012 Water Quality 303d List identified the Cowlitz River as being impaired for 

temperature (Ecology 2012). The Cowlitz River is designated critical habitat for LCR Chinook 

salmon, LCR steelhead, Columbia River (CR) chum salmon, and is proposed critical habitat for 

LCR coho salmon. The Cowlitz River provides spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for 

LCR Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, LCR coho salmon, and CR chum salmon (primary 

constituent elements [PCEs] 1, 2, and 3 of salmonid critical habitat). 

The Coweeman River confluences with the Cowlitz River at RM 1.2. The existing BNSF bridge 

and the Talley Way bridge span the Coweeman River in the action area. Wetlands tributary to 

the Coweeman River which run parallel to the BNSF tracks provide off-channel habitat for listed 

fish species. These wetlands cover approximately 10.5 acres. The BNSF access road from Talley 

Way to the Longview Junction Yard crosses this habitat. The water is conveyed by a submerged 

24-inch culvert and a perched 66-inch culvert at this crossing. 

Ecology determined the Coweeman River is impaired for temperature (Ecology 2012). 

The tidal influence extends into the lower Coweeman River. LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho 

salmon, LCR steelhead, Columbia River and chum salmon, use the Coweeman River within the 

action area. The Coweeman River provides spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for LCR 

Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, LCR coho salmon, and CR chum salmon (primary constituent 

elements [PCEs] 1, 2, and 3 of salmonid critical habitat) and spawning, incubation. Because of 

its proximity to the Columbia River, it also provides habitat for upriver populations of listed 

salmonids. 

Upstream of the project site, Owl Creek flows through a developed residential area, under Old 

Pacific Highway South, I-5 and a utility access road, and into the project footprint. As Owl 

Creek flows through the BNSF right-of way, it connects, via a 36-inch concrete culvert below an 

access road to the Owl Creek Sand Company, to off-channel habitat which runs parallel to the 
-20- 

existing tracks. Owl Creek flows south between I-5 and the tracks for approximately 0.5 mile 

before crossing under the tracks and joining with the Columbia River. There are approximately 

311 acres of wetlands associated with Owl Creek in the vicinity of the project. 

Owl Creek is critical habitat for LCR Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, and Columbia River 

chum salmon and is proposed critical habitat for LCR coho salmon. Owl Creek provides 

spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for LCR Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, LCR coho 

salmon, and CR chum salmon (primary constituent elements [PCEs] 1, 2, and 3 of salmonid 

critical habitat). Because of its proximity to the Columbia river, it also provides habitat for 

upriver populations of listed salmonids. 

Of the total of approximately 311 acres of off-channel wetland habitat within the vicinity of Owl 

Creek, approximately 23 are within the action area. These off-channel wetlands provide habitat 

for juvenile salmon and steelhead. Off-channel habitat and floodplain areas provide productive 

early rearing habitat, flood refugia, overwintering habitat, and cover from predators (NMFS 

2013). The culverts at the BNSF driveway and the Owl Creek Sand Company road restrict 

salmonid access to this habitat, and the upland berm blocks the hydraulic connection between the 

Coweeman River and Owl Creek habitats. 

Chinook Salmon 

LCR Chinook salmon use the Columbia, Cowlitz, and Coweeman rivers and Owl Creek for 

spawning, rearing, and foraging. Upriver populations of Chinook salmon use these water bodies 

for rearing, foraging, and refugia. Adult spring Chinook salmon migrate into the Coweeman 

River from March to June. Adult summer Chinook salmon migrate between June and July, and 

adult fall Chinook salmon migrate from mid-August to mid-September. Chinook salmon spawn 

in the main-stem of the Coweeman River between the Jeep Club Bridge (RM 13). and 

Mulholland Creek at RM 18.4. No suitable spawning habitat is within the action area. Juvenile 

spring and summer Chinook salmon outmigrate between December and April. Fall Chinook 

salmon juveniles out-migrate in late spring and summer. 

Coho salmon 

LCR coho salmon use Cowlitz River, Coweeman River, and Owl Creek for spawning, rearing, 

and foraging. Upriver populations of coho salmon use these water bodies for rearing, foraging, 

and refugia. Coho salmon migrate into the Coweeman River from September to December and 

out-migrate from February to June. They spawn in November and December, although no 

suitable spawning habitat is within the action area. Coho salmon migrate in and out of Owl 

Creek during the same months. 

 
-21- 

Chum salmon 

CR chum salmon use both the Coweeman River and Owl Creek for spawning, rearing, and 

foraging habitat. Chum salmon migrate into the Coweeman River between October 15 through 

December 3, and juveniles out-migrate from February to June. Chum salmon migrate in and out 

of Owl Creek during the same months. No suitable spawning habitat is within the action area. 

Steelhead 

LCR steelhead salmon use Cowlitz River, Coweeman River, and Owl Creek for spawning, 

rearing, and foraging. Upriver populations of steelhead use these water bodies for rearing, 

foraging, and refugia. Steelhead migrate into the Coweeman River from December to April and 

out-migrate in April and May. No suitable spawning habitat is within the action area. Steelhead 

migrate in and out of Owl Creek during the same months. 

2.4 Effects of the Action 

Under the ESA, “effects of the action” means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the 

species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or 

interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 

402.02). Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but 

still are reasonably certain to occur. 

2.4.1 Suspended Sediment 

Turbidity is a measurement of water clarity, and is used by NMFS as a surrogate for the 

concentration of suspended sediments in the water column. A nephelometric turbidity unit 

(NTU) is a measurement of turbidity. 

Four project activities will suspend sediment and increase turbidity above background level. 

These activities are 1) the placement of rip- rap on the existing Coweeman River bridge and the 

installation and removal of the coffer dams for the new Coweeman River Bridge; 2) the isolation 

and subsequent reconnection of the in-water work areas in the Coweeman River off-channel 

habitat; 3) the isolation and reconnection of the in-water work areas between July 16 to October 

14 for the BNSF driveway culvert replacement, the Coweeman off-channel habitat restoration, 

the fill for the new track, and the upland berm removal; and 4) the isolation and reconnection of 

the upland berm removal, the Owl Creek Sand Company road culvert replacement, and the track 

widening in-water work areas within Owl Creek and its off-channel habitat. The duration of inwater work for each of these activities is constrained to reduce the exposure of fish to increased 

turbidity. Furthermore, based on standard modeling described in the BA, these activities will 

generate turbid water within 150 feet or less of the source of suspended sediment. Turbid water 

should dissipate a short time after occurrence (a few hours to a few days at most). The proximity 

of three of these activities to the confluence of the Coweeman and Cowlitz Rivers ensures that 

these effects will be fleeting and the spatial extent of effects will be very small. 
-22- 

Salmonids typically avoid areas of higher suspended sediment which can mean that they displace 

themselves from their preferred habitats in order to seek areas with less suspended sediment. 

Fish unable to avoid suspended sediment can experience adverse effects. The severity of effect 

of suspended sediment increases as a function of the sediment concentration and exposure time 

(Newcombe and Jensen 1996; Bash et al. 2001). Suspended sediments can cause sublethal 

effects such as elevated blood sugars and cough rates (Servizi and Martens 1991), physiological 

stress, and reduced growth rates. Elevated turbidity levels can reduce the ability of salmonids to 

detect prey, cause gill damage (Sigler et al. 1984; Lloyd et al. 1987; Bash et al. 2001), and cause 

juvenile steelhead to leave rearing areas (Sigler et al. 1984). Additionally, short-term pulses of 

suspended sediment influence territorial, gill-flaring, and feeding behavior of salmon under 

laboratory conditions (Berg and Northcote 1985). Adult and larger juvenile salmonids appear to 

be little affected by the high concentrations of suspended sediments that occur during storm and 

snowmelt runoff episodes (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). However, research indicates that chronic 

exposure can cause physiological stress responses that can increase maintenance energy and 

reduce feeding and growth (Lloyd et al. 1987; Servizi and Martens 1991). 

Based on run time and life history information, some adult LCR Chinook and CR chum salmon, 

and some juveniles from each of the Columbia Basin listed ESUs and DPSs could be present in 

the action area during these brief pulses of sediment, for each of the four activities. Some fish 

present in the action area will be exposed to elevated suspended sediment from each of these 

actions. While we cannot estimate the number of exposed individuals, pulses of elevated 

suspended sediment will be so spatially limited and episodic that water clarity will return quickly 

to background levels, limiting the overall extent and intensity of exposure. At most, some 

exposed individuals will experience sublethal effects described above. Because of these 

limitations the number of individuals will be too small to have any influence on population 

abundance or productivity. 

The aquatic habitats affected by suspended sediments are designated critical habitat including 

freshwater rearing and migration corridors (PCEs 2 and 3) for LCR Chinook, LCR coho 

(proposed), and CR chum salmon and LCR steelhead. The elevated suspended sediment will 

temporarily degrade 10 acres of critical habitat. This area includes the Coweeman River, Owl 

Creek, and the off-channel wetland habitat. Shortly after completion of each element of in-water 

work, suspended sediment will return to pre-project levels. Therefore, elevated suspended 

sediment will not cause a long-term reduction in the conservation value of critical habitat. 
-23- 

2.4.2 Pile Driving 

For this project, WSDOT will drive steel sheet piles for the new Coweeman River Bridge 

abutments using vibratory and impact hammers. This work will take place between mid-July and 

mid-August. WSDOT will install the coffer dams, remove fish, and dewater the work areas prior 

to driving the piles. 

Impact pile -driving can cause levels of underwater sound sufficient to injure or kill fish and alter 

their behavior (Yelverton et al. 1975; Hasting 1995; Turnpenny et al. 1994; Turnpenny and 

Nedwell 1994; Popper 2003; Hastings and Popper 2005). Death from barotrauma can be 

instantaneous or delayed up to several days after exposure. Even when not enough to kill fish, 

high sound levels can cause sublethal injuries. Fish suffering damage to hearing organs may 

suffer equilibrium problems, and may have a reduced ability to detect predators and prey 

(Turnpenny et al. 1994; Hastings et al. 1996). Hastings (2007) determined that a cumulative 

Sound Exposure Level (cSEL) as low as 183 dB (re: 1 μPa2-sec) was sufficient to injure the nonauditory tissues of juvenile spot and pinfish with an estimated mass of 0.5 grams. 

Adverse effects on survival and fitness can occur even in the absence of overt injury. Exposure 

to elevated noise levels can cause a temporary shift in hearing sensitivity (referred to as a 

temporary threshold shift), decreasing sensory capability for periods lasting from hours to days 

(Turnpenny et al. 1994; Hastings et al. 1996). Popper et al. (2005) found temporary threshold 

shifts in hearing sensitivity after exposure to cSELs as low as 184 dB. Temporary threshold 

shifts reduce the survival, growth, and reproduction of the affected fish by increasing the risk of 

predation and reducing foraging or spawning success. 

Cumulative SEL is a measure of the sound energy integrated across all of the pile strikes. The 

Equal Energy Hypothesis, described by NMFS (2007), is used as a basis for calculating cSEL. 

The number of pile strikes is estimated per continuous work period. This approach defines a 

work period as all the pile driving between 12-hour breaks. NMFS uses the practical spreading 

model to calculate transmission loss. 

NMFS, USFWS, and WSDOT agreed to interim criteria to minimize potential impacts to fishes 

from pile- driving noise propagation (FHWG 2008). The interim criteria identify the following 

thresholds for the onset of physical injury using peak sound pressure level (SPL) and cSEL: 

 Peak SPL: levels at or above 206 dB from any hammer strike; and 

 cSEL: levels at or above 187 dB for fish sizes of two grams or greater, or 183 dB for fish 

smaller than two grams. 

The primary mechanism for noise transmission during impact pile driving is from the submerged 

portion of the pile directly into the water column. For this project, WSDOT has eliminated the 

possibility of this by driving all of the piles within dewatered work areas. A second mechanism 

for noise transmission, sound flanking, is from the tip of the pile into the substrate and from the 

substrate into the water column. Several studies of impact pile- driving in dewatered or upland 

work areas have shown in-water noise levels exceeding the cSEL injury thresholds but below the 

peak SPL noise levels (Laughlin 2005; 2006; Miner 2008). Impact driving steel sheet piles 
-24- 

produces sound levels equivalent to impact driving 24-inch round steel piles (Reyff and Rodkin 

2012). While we do not have data on impact driving of sheet piles in dewatered areas, we do 

have data on impact driving 24-inch steel piles in a dewatered river bed (Laughlin 2005). Using 

the monitoring results from Laughlin (2005), we estimate the maximum sound levels for a single 

strike to steel sheet piles will be 199 dBpeak, 171 dBrms, and 165 dBsel. Using these values and the 

strike count data from Reyff and Rodkin (2012) for sheet piles (660 strikes per pile; eight sheet 

piles per day), we calculated the distance and the area that will be subjected to cSELs greater 

than or equal to 183dB (fish less than two grams) and 187dB (fish two grams and over). Impact 

pile driving of the steel sheet piles within the dewatered coffer dams piles will subject the area 

within 328 feet to cSELs greater than or equal to 183dB. 

Adult LCR Chinook and CR chum salmon are likely to be present during mid-July to midAugust when impact pile-driving will be taking place in the action area. Impact pile- driving will 

occur episodically during July and August. Juveniles from all of the Columbia Basin listed 

salmon and steelhead populations, with the exception of CR chum salmon, are also likely to be 

present. Given the relatively low peak SPLs, the sound flanking from this project is unlikely to 

cause fish mortality and permanent injury. However, we expect any fish which are present within 

328 feet to experience sublethal effects such as temporary threshold shifts in hearing sensitivity. 

We cannot estimate the number of individuals that will experience adverse effects from 

underwater noise. Furthermore, not all exposed individuals will experience adverse effects. We 

expect the number to be relatively small since effects will be limited to within 328 feet of the 

pile. 

2.4.3 Fish Handling 

WSDOT will remove fish from approximately seven acres of in-water work areas for the 

construction of the new Coweeman River Bridge, the culvert replacements, and the track 

widening. Handling stresses fish, increasing plasma levels of cortisol and glucose (Hemre and 

Krogdahl 1996; Frisch and Anderson 2000). Electrofishing can kill fish or cause physical injuries 

including internal hemorrhaging, spinal misalignment, or fractured vertebrae. Although 

potentially harmful to fish, electrofishing is intended to locate fish in the isolated work area for 

removal to avoid more certain injury. Ninety-five percent of fish captured and handled survive 

with no long-term effects, and up to five percent are expected to be injured or killed, including 

delayed mortality because of injury (NMFS 2003). 

Numerous studies have shown juvenile salmonid densities in off-channel habitats between 24 

and 82 fish per 100 square meters (Foy and Decker 1997; Zaldokas et al. 1997; Bustard 1997). 

We estimate densities will be 50 fish per 100 square meters or 2,000 fish per acre. Therefore, 

WSDOT will remove a total of 14,000 fish from the in-water work areas. We expect an injury 

rate of 0.05 (McMichael et al. 1998). Therefore, approximately 700 of these fish are likely to be 

injured or killed. The majority of these fish will be juvenile fish from the LCR Chinook salmon, 

LCR coho salmon, and LCR steelhead populations. We expect juveniles from up-river 

populations to be handled in far fewer numbers. Adult salmon and steelhead are extremely 

unlikely to be present inside the coffer dams. 
-25- 

We estimate a smolt- to- adult survival ratio of 0.02 (Smoker et al. 2004; Scheuerell and 

Williams 2005). This is very conservative because many juveniles are likely to be captured as fry 

or parr, life history stages that have a survival rate to adulthood that is exponentially smaller than 

for smolts. Using this conversion rate, 14 adult equivalents will be injured or killed by the fish 

handling. 

2.4.4 Permanent Habitat Loss 

Widening the track base to accommodate the new third track and the rip rap placement at the 

new birdge piers will result in the loss of 5.70 acres of off-channel habitat, 2.78 acres in the 

Coweeman River system and 2.93 acres in the Owl Creek system. Off-channel habitats are 

productive rearing habitats for juvenile salmonids. These habitats provide abundant prey, refuge 

from high flows and turbidity in mainstems, and protection from predators (Sommer et al. 2001; 

Crouse et al. 1981; Erman 1988). These benefits lead to increased juvenile growth rates and 

reduced mortality (Limm and Marchetti 2009). The loss of 5.70 acres of off-channel habitat will 

reduce the productivity of these habitats. The salmon and steelhead populations which spawn in 

the Coweeman River will have the greatest exposure to this loss of productivity because the 2.78 

acres is a significant proportion of the remaining off-channel habitat in the Coweeman River. 

The impact to Owl Creek spawners will be less severe due to the abundance of off-channel 

habitat relative to the size of the creek and the number of salmon and steelhead which use it. The 

5.70 acre loss is also a small (relative to the total amount of habitat available) but measurable 

loss of off-channel rearing habitat for Cowlitz River spawners and upriver salmon ESUs and 

steelhead DPSs. 

The 5.70 acre-loss will degrade PCE 2 of LCR Chinook, LCR coho (proposed), and CR chum 

salmon and LCR steelhead critical habitat. The lack of off-channel habitat is a limiting factor for 

the recovery of these populations. This loss will reduce the ability of critical habitat to provide 

for the recovery of these populations. 

2.4.6 Mitigation 

In order to compensate for the loss of off-channel habitat, the FRA and WSDOT are proposing a 

suite of mitigation activities to address habitat deficiencies identified by NMFS, WDFW, and the 

Cowlitz Indian Tribe as well as the recommendations from the Lower Columbia River Salmon 

and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan (NMFS 2013). The deficiencies include the following: 

1. degraded off-channel habitat (1.29 acre) between the Coweeman River and the BNSF 

driveway (identified as “wetland H” in the BA); 

2. restricted access to the off-channel habitat (9.11 acres) between the BNSF driveway and 

the upland berm caused by the driveway culverts; 

3. the upland berm which blocks the connection between the Coweeman and Owl Creek 

off-channel habitat; and 

4. restricted access to the Owl Creek off-channel habitat caused by the sand company’s road 

culvert. 
-26- 

To improve “wetland H,” WSDOT will lower the channel elevation and excavate fingers off of 

the channel between the Coweeman River and the BNSF driveway. This will improve the 

connection to the Coweeman River and increase the quality and quantity of habitat in this area. 

As described above, WSDOT will replace the crossing at the BNSF driveway with a fishpassable structure. This will substantially improve access to the remaining 6.35 acres of offchannel habitat (8.85 acres existing minus 2.76 acres of impacts). 

The upland berm removal will create 1.5 acre of off-channel habitat, restore the hydrologic 

connection between the Coweeman River and Owl Creek, and allow for fish passage between the 

two systems. The replacement of the Owl Creek sand company road culvert will provide 

unrestricted access to approximately 3.5 acres of off-channel habitat from Owl Creek. 

 In addition to these improvements, WSDOT will also acquire and protect in perpetuity 57 acres 

of property in the project vicnity, of which at least 30 acres will be off-channel habitat accessible 

to juvenile salmon and steelhead. 

These habitat improvements will increase the quality and quantity of off-channel habitat for both 

ESA-listed fish species in the Coweeman River. The salmon and steelhead juveniles currently 

have restricted access to 10.5 acres of off-channel habitat in the action area. After project 

construction, they will have access to over 55 acres of off-channel habitat. This increase will 

enhance growth rates and reduce mortality for juveniles in these populations. The hydrologic 

connection will also improve the water quality and productivity of this habitat. 

Currently, Owl Creek fish have unrestricted access to 45 acres of off-channel habitat. Given the 

small size of the Creek, off-channel habitat is not likely to be a limiting factor. However, the 

increase to 55 acres of available off-channel habitat may result in a small increase in growth and 

survivorship of juvenile salmon and steelhead in Owl Creek. 

The Cowlitz River is just downstream from where the off-channel habitats connect to the 

Coweeman River. The Cowlitz River fish rearing in the Coweeman River will experience the 

same gains in the quality and quantity of off-channel habitat, but upriver populations will be able 

to access the improved off-channel habitat either directly from the Columbia River into Owl 

Creek or by traveling up the Cowlitz River to the Coweeman River. 

2.5 Cumulative Effects

“Cumulative effects” are those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal 

activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject 

to consultation (50 CFR 402.02). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action 

are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 

of the ESA. 

Future non-Federal actions will affect water quality in the action area. Stormwater runoff from I5, SR 432, and Talley Way flow into water bodies within the action area. Presently, less than six 

acres of this stormwater is treated. Future projects in the action area include Segale Properties 

retail development site, just north of the linear Coweeman River off-channel habitat (Figure 2). 
-27- 

This property has 82 developable acres. The City of Kelso strongly supports this development, 

and it is reasonably certain to occur. Untreated stormwater from this development would reduce 

the water quality in the Coweeman River off-channel habitat. 

Exposure to stormwater pollutants causes reduced growth, impaired migratory ability, and 

impaired reproduction in salmonids and other fishes. The extent and severity of these effects 

varies depending on the extent, timing, and duration of the exposure, ambient water quality 

conditions, the species and life history stage exposed, pollutant toxicity, and synergistic effects 

with other contaminants (EPA 1980). Existing and future stormwater runoff is likely to cause 

reductions in the productivity of aquatic habitats in the action area. 

Figure 2. Segale Properties Retail Development Site 

*not to scale 

http://www.cbre.us/o/seattle/properties/kelsoland/Pages/kelsoland.aspx 
-28- 

2.6 Integration and Synthesis

The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step in our assessment of the risk posed to 

species and critical habitat as a result of implementing the proposed action. In this section, we 

add the effects of the action (Section 2.4) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.3) and the 

cumulative effects (Section 2.5), taking into account the status of the species and critical habitat 

(section 2.2), to formulate the agency’s biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is 

likely to: (1) reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed 

species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or (2) reduce the value 

of designated or proposed critical habitat for the conservation of the species. 

Individuals from all of the salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs in Table 1 will be exposed to the 

stressors from this project. However, individuals from the Cowlitz and Coweeman river 

populations of LCR Chinook salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho salmon, and LCR steelhead 

will experience most of the adverse and beneficial effects of this project. A small number of 

individuals from these ESUs and DPS also use the Owl Creek system which will be significantly 

modified by this project. The upriver ESUs and DPSs use of the action area is limited. 

The effects from elevated suspended sediment and impact pile- driving on individual ESA-listed 

salmon and steelhead will be minor and temporary, due to the small size of the affected areas and 

the limited duration and sublethal nature of these effects. We do not expect any individual to be 

permanently injured. The sublethal effects to a very small proportion of these populations use the 

action area will not influence spatial structure, productivity, abundance or diversity in a way that 

diminishes viability of the affected populations of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. 

Fish handling will injure or kill approximately 700 juvenile fish (14 adult equivalents). 

The project will also have the following effects to off-channel habitat: 

1. permanently remove up to six acres of existing off-channel habitat and habitat below the 

OHWM of the coweeman River; 

2. create 1.5 acres of new off-channel habitat; 

3. improve the accessibility and quality of 55 existing acres; and 

4. acquire and protect into perpetuity at least 30 acres. 

2.6.1 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon, Lower Columbia 

River Coho Salmon, and Lower Columba River Steelhead 

The abundance and productivity are currently “low” to “very low” for most populations in these 

ESUs and DPSs (Ford et al. 2011). The Coweeman River alone has between 3,200 and 5,300 

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead spawners per year. The 14 adult equivalents that will be injured 

or killed will not have a long-term effect on abundance and productivity. The net effects to offchannel habitat will be a long-term improvement to quantity and quality of off-channel habitat 

available to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. While up to six acres of habitat will be removed as 

a result of the action, the action will create, open, improve or protect over 57 acres of off channel 

habitat. The Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan identifies the 
-29- 

restoration, connectivity, and protection of off-channel habitat as key strategies for recovery of 

ESA-listed fish species (NMFS 2013).

Overall, the effects of the proposed action; when added to the environmental baseline, status, and 

cumulative effects; are not reasonably likely to appreciably reduce the abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, or genetic diversity of the populations of LCR Chinook salmon, CR chum 

salmon, LCR coho salmon, and LCR steelhead.

2.6.2 Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook Salmon, Snake River fall-run Chinook Salmon, 

Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook Salmon, Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon, 

Snake River Sockeye Salmon, Snake River basin Steelhead, Upper Columba River Steelhead, 

Middle Columba River Steelhead, and Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

The status of these species varies widely from moderate risk to critically endangered. However, 

the individuals from these populations will have limited presence within the action area. While a 

few individuals are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action, we do not expect this 

project to measurably affect the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or genetic diversity of 

these populations. 

2.6.3 Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum 

Salmon, Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, and Lower Columba River Steelhead 

The elevated suspended sediments from the project actions will temporarily degrade PCEs 2 and 

3(water quality) in the action area. Elevated suspended sediments will not impair the function of 

these PCEs in the long-term. As described above, the off-channel habitat impacts will 

substantially increase the function of PCE 2 in the long-term and protect over 30 acres from 

future degradation. Therefore, the proposed action will not significantly reduce the conservation 

value of critical habitat in the action area or at the ESU or DPS scale. 

2.7 Conclusion

After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species and critical habitat, the 

environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, the effects of 

interrelated and interdependent activities, and the cumulative effects, we conclude that our 

biological opinion for the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species listed in Table 1 nor will the proposed action destroy or adversely modify their 

designated critical habitat. 

You may ask NMFS to adopt the conference opinion as a biological opinion when critical habitat 

for LCR coho salmon is designated. The request must be in writing. If we review the proposed 

action and find there have been no significant changes to the action that would alter the contents 

of the opinion and no significant new information has been developed (including during the 

rulemaking process), we may adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion on the 

proposed action and no further consultation will be necessary.
-30- 

2.8 Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the 

take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. The ESA 

defines “Take” as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. Regulation define “harm” to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, 

feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). Regulation defines “Incidental take” as takings that 

result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the 

Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) provide that 

taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not considered to be prohibited 

taking under the ESA if that action is performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of 

this incidental take statement. In circumstances where we cannot estimate the number of 

individual fish that would be injured or killed by the effects of the proposed action, we assess the 

extent of take as an amount of modified habitat and exempts take based only on that extent. This 

extent is readily observable and therefore suffices to trigger reinitiation of consultation, if 

exceeded and necessary (see H.R. Rep. No 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 27 (1982). 

2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take 

Effects of the action will coincide with the presence of ESA-listed ESUs and DPSs of salmon 

and steelhead such that the incidental take is reasonably certain to occur. With the exception of 

fish handling, the take described below cannot be accurately quantified as a number of fish 

because NMFS cannot predict, using the best available science, the number of individuals of 

listed fish species that will be exposed to these stressors. Furthermore, even if NMFS could 

estimate that number, the manner in which each exposed individual responds to that exposure 

cannot be predicted. 

In circumstances where NMFS cannot estimate the amount of individual fish that would be 

injured or killed by the effects of the proposed action, NMFS assesses the extent of take as an 

amount of modified habitat and exempts take based only on that extent. This extent is readily 

observable and therefore suffices to trigger reinitiation of consultation, if exceeded and 

necessary (see H.R. Rep. No 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 27 (1982). The extent of injurious 

levels of underwater noise will be determined by monitoring the noise levels of impact pile 

driving at approximately 10 meters (or a similar distance) from pile driving. Take will be 

exceeded if the monitored sound levels or strike count cause cSELs greater than 183 dB to 

extend further than 328 feet from the sheet piles. The extent of take due to exposure to elevated 

suspended sediment will be exceeded if for turbidity is visible above background levels more 

than 150 feet from the in-water activity. If more than six acres of habitat are filled as a result of 

this project, the extent of take will be exceeded. 

In this biological opinion, we determined that incidental take to listed salmon and steelhead will 

occur from the following actions: 

1. visible turbidity up to but not exceeding 150 feet downstream of in-water work; 
-31- 

2. the exposure of areas of the Coweeman and Cowlitz rivers within 328 feet of impact pile 

driving to in-water noise from impact pile-driving above the injury thresholds; 

3. the handling of 14,000 individual listed fish per year of which 700 will be injured or 

killed; and 

4. fill of up to six acres of habitat. 

2.8.2 Effect of the Take 

In this biological opinion, we determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, coupled 

with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

“Reasonable and prudent measures” are nondiscretionary measures that are necessary or 

appropriate to minimize the impact of the amount or extent of incidental take (50 CFR 402.02). 

The FRA and WSDOT shall: 

1. minimize incidental take from elevated suspended sediments; 

2. minimize incidental take from impact pile driving; 

3. minimize incidental take from fish handling; and 

4. minimize incidental take from the habitat loss. 

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions

The terms and conditions described below are non-discretionary, and the FRA and WSDOT must 

comply with them in order to implement the reasonable and prudent measures (50 CFR 402.14). 

The FRA and WSDOT have a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of incidental take and must 

report the progress of the action and its impact on the species as specified in this incidental take 

statement (50 CFR 402.14). If the entity to whom a term and condition is directed does not 

comply with the following terms and conditions, protective coverage for the proposed action 

would likely lapse. 

The following term and condition implements reasonable and prudent measure 1: 

Monitor turbidity during in-water work as specified in the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act 

certification and report the results of the monitoring to NMFS. 

The following term and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 2: 
-32- 

a) Use a vibratory hammer to drive the sheet piles to the maximum extent practicable; 

b) Monitor the underwater noise levels from at least one sheet pile; 

c) Submit an Underwater Noise Monitoring Plan (WSDOT 2013) at least 30 days prior to 

the start of in-water work; and 

d) Submit the noise monitoring results to NMFS within six months of the completion of the 

in-water work. 

The following term and condition implements reasonable and prudent measure 3: 

a) Follow WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards (WSDOT 2012) or most the 

recent NMFS-approved guidance; 

b) Submit to NMFS a fish removal plan for the off-channel habitat and the cofferdams at 

least 14 days prior to the start of in-water work. The fish removal plan will follow 

NMFS-approved WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards as closely as possible; 

and 

c) Report the number and species of all listed fish handled during in-water work to NMFS 

within 30 days of work area isolation. 

The following term and condition implements reasonable and prudent measure 4: 

a) Submit to NMFS the following (reports prepared for the USACE which contain this 

information will meet these requirements): 

1) Documentation showing the actual acreage of accessible off-channel habitat 

within the 57-acre wetland property acquisition; 

2) documentation of the property acquisition and transfer to the Cowlitz Tribe; 

3) the final plans for the off-channel restoration (identified as “wetland H” in the 

BA), the upland berm removal, and the new culverts; and 

4) a post-construction report on all restoration activities, including post-construction 

site photos. 

b) Design and construct the new BNSF driveway and Owl Creek Sand Company road 

culverts to meet NMFS and the WDFW the water crossing design standards (NMFS 

2011; Barnard et al. 2013). 

2.9 Reinitiation of Consultation

This concludes formal consultation for the Kelso to Martin’s Bluff Task 6 project. As 50 CFR 

402.16 states, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency 

involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and if: (1) the 

amount or extent of incidental taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded, (2) 

new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical 
-33- 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion, (3) the agency action is 

subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 

that was not considered in this opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated 

that may be affected by the action. 

2.10 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations

Southern Distinct Population Segment Eulachon 

No life history stage of eulachon will be present in the Coweeman River during the in-water 

work window, July 1 to October 31. Eulachon do not use the Owl Creek system. Therefore, they 

will not be exposed to elevated suspended sediments, underwater noise, or fish handling. Any 

effects to the species will be discountable. 

The Cowlitz River is designated critical habitat for eulachon. The only effects to the Cowlitz 

River critical habitat will be from underwater noise, when eulachon are not present. Therefore, 

the effects to eulachon critical habitat will be insignificant. 

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION

Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with us on all actions or proposed 

actions that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA (section 3) defines EFH as “those waters and 

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Adverse 

effect means any impact that reduces quality or quantity of EFH, and may include direct or 

indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the waters or substrate and loss of (or 

injury to) benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if 

such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Ad 

Iverse effects on EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of it and may 

include site-specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic 

consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). Section 305(b) also requires us to recommend 

measures that can be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH. This analysis is based, in part, 

on the EFH assessment provided by the FRA and descriptions of EFH for Pacific coast salmon 

(PFMC 1999) contained in the fishery management plans developed by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project

As described fully in the preceding sections, the following effects to Pacific coast salmon EFH 

for both Chinook salmon and coho salmon will result from the proposed action: 

1. the temporary degradation of 10 acres aquatic habitat from elevated suspended sediment; 

2. the permanent loss of six acres of off-channel habitat; and 
-34- 

3. improved access to and quality of 55 acres of off-channel habitat. 

3.2 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations

The following conservation recommendation addresses impacts from elevated suspended 

sediment: 

Monitor turbidity during in-water work and report the results of the monitoring to NMFS. 

The following conservation recommendations address the off-channel habitat impacts:

a) Submit to NMFS the following : 

1) the actual acreage of accessible off-channel habitat within the 57-acre wetland 

property acquisition; 

2) documentation of the property acquisition and transfer; 

3) the final plans for the off-channel restoration (identified as “wetland H” in the 

BA), the upland berm removal, and the new culverts; and 

4) a post-construction report on all restoration activities, including post-construction 

site photos. 

b) Design and construct the new BNSF driveway and Owl Creek Sand Company road 

culverts to meet NMFS and WDFW water crossing design standards (NMFS 2011; 

Barnard et al. 2013). 

Fully implementing these EFH conservation recommendations would protect, by avoiding or 

minimizing the adverse effects described in section 3.1, above, approximately 65 acres of 

designated EFH for Pacific coast salmon. 

3.3 Statutory Response Requirement 

As required by section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA, the FTA must provide a detailed response in 

writing to us within 30 days after receiving an EFH Conservation Recommendation. Such a 

response must be provided at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action if the response is 

inconsistent with any of our EFH Conservation Recommendations unless we and the Federal 

agency have agreed to use alternative time frames for the Federal agency response. The response 

must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or 

offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the 

Conservation Recommendations, the Federal agency must explain its reasons for not following 

the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with us over 

the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or 

offset such effects (50 CFR 600.920(k)(1)). 

In response to increased oversight of the overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of 

Management and Budget, we established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how 

many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how 
-35- 

many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, we ask that in your statutory reply to the EFH 

portion of this consultation, you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations 

accepted. 

3.5 Supplemental Consultation

The FRA must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially 

revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that 

affects the basis for NMFS’ EFH Conservation Recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(l)). 
-36- 

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW 

The Data Quality Act (DQA) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a 

document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the opinion addresses these 

DQA components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this opinion has 

undergone pre-dissemination review. 

4.1 Utility 

Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, 

serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended users of this opinion are the FRA. 

Other interested users include [e.g., permit or license applicants, citizens of affected areas, 

others interested in the conservation of the affected ESUs/DPS]. We provided individual copies 

of this opinion to the FRA. We will post this opinion on the Public Consultation Tracking 

System web site (https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pcts-web/homepage.pcts ). The format and naming 

adheres to conventional standards for style. 

4.2 Integrity 

This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with 

relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, ‘Security 

of Automated Information Resources,’ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the 

Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act. 

4.3 Objectivity 

Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan 

Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and 

unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They 

adhere to published standards including NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA regulations, 

50 CFR 402.01 et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR 600. 

Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available 

information, as referenced in the References section. The analyses in this opinion and EFH 

consultation contain more background on information sources and quality. 

Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, 

consistent with standard scientific referencing style. 

Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and MSA 

implementation, and reviewed in accordance with West Coast Region ESA quality control and 

assurance processes. 

 
-37- 

5. REFERENCES 

Barnard, R.J., Johnson, J., Brooks, P., and others. 2013. Water crossings design guidelines: 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington, 

Bash, J., C. Berman, and S. Bolton. 2001. Effects of turbidity and suspended solids on 

salmonids. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, 

Washington. 

Berg, L. and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill-flaring, and feeding behavior in 

juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended 

sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 1410-1417. 

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138. 

Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A.M. Baptista, D.A. Jay, K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, M.H. 

Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river's end: The role of the estuary in the decline and recovery 

of Columbia River salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-68, 246 p. 

Bustard, D.R. 1997. Juvenile coho studies at the Telkwa River km 1011 ponds. Province of B.C., 

Watershed Restoration Program. 

Crouse, M. R., C. A. Callahan, K. W. Malueg, and S. E. Dominguez. 1981. Effects of fine 

sediments on growth of juvenile coho salmon in laboratory streams. Transactions ofthe 

American Fisheries Society 110:281-286. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 

Copper - 1980. EPA, Publication 440/5-80-036, Washington, DC (October 1980). 162p. 

Erman, D. C., E. D. Andrews, and M. Yoder-Williams. 1988. Effects of winter floods on fishes 

in the Sierra Nevada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:2195–2200. 

FHWG (Fisheries Habitat Working Group). 2008. Agreement in Principal for Interim Criteria 

for Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities. Memorandum of Agreement between 

NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest and Southwest Regions; USFWS Regions 1 and 8; 

California, Washington, and Oregon Departments of Transportation; California 

Department of Fish and Game; and Federal Highways Administration. June 12, 2008. 

Ford, M.J. (ed.). 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the 

Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-113, 281 p. 

Foy, M., and S. Decker. 1997. Coho salmon smolt abundance in restored off-channel and 

mainstem habitats of the Coquitlam River, British Columbia. Streamline 2(4): 2A 
-38- 

Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the estuary in the 

recovery of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead: An evaluation of the effects of 

selected factors on salmonid population viability. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69, 105 p. 

Frisch, A.J. and T.A. Anderson. 2000. The response of coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) to 

capture, handling and transport and shallow water stress. Fish Physiology and 

Biochemistry 23(1): 23-24. 

Gregory, S., L. Ashkenas, P. Haggerty, D. Oetter, K. Wildman, D. Hulse, A. Branscomb, and J. 

VanSickle. 2002a. Riparian vegetation. Pages 40-43 in: D. Hulse, S. Gregory, and J. 

Baker (editors). Willamette River Basin planning atlas: Trajectories of environmental and 

ecological change. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Gregory, S., L. Ashkenas, D. Oetter, P. Minear, and K. Wildman. 2002b. Historical Willamette 

River channel change. Pages 18-26 in: D. Hulse, S. Gregory, and J. Baker (editors). 

Willamette River Basin planning atlas: Trajectories of environmental and ecological 

change. 

Gregory, S., L. Ashkenas, D. Oetter, P. Minear, R. S. Jett, and K. Wildman. 2002c. Revetments. 

Pages 32-33 in: D. Hulse, S. Gregory, and J. Baker (editors). Willamette River Basin 

planning atlas: Trajectories of environmental and ecological change. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis. 

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams, editors. 2005. Updated Status of Federally Listed 

ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Technical Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-66, Seattle, Washington. 598 p. 

Hastings, M. C. 1995. Physical effects of noise on fishes. Proceedings of INTER NOISE 95, The 

1995 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering, vol. II, pp. 979–984. 

Hastings, M.C. 2007. Calculation of SEL for Govoni et al. (2003, 2007) and Popper et al. 

(2007)studies. Report for Amendment to Project 15218, J&S Working Group, Applied 

Research Lab, Penn State University. 7 pp. 

Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. Prepared by Jones and 

Stokes for the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California (August 

23, 2005). 82 p. 

Hastings, M.C., A.N. Popper, J.J. Finneran, and P. Lanford. 1996. Effects of low-frequency 

underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish 

Astronotus ocellatus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99(3): 1759-1766 
-39- 

Hebdon, J.L., P. Kline, D. Taki, and T.A. Flagg. 2004. Evaluating reintroduction strategies for 

Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon captive brood progeny. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 44:401-

413. 

Hemre, G.I. and A. Krogdahl. 1996. Effect of handling and fish size on secondary changes in 

carbohydrate metabolism in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Aquaculture Nutrition 2(4): 

249-252. 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

 final 2010 integrated report. Boise, Idaho. 

IC-TRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Independent populations of 

Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed evolutionarily significant units within the 

Interior Columbia River Domain – Working Draft. 173 p. (April 2003) 

IC-TRT. 2006. Draft Snake River salmon and steelhead recovery plan. National MarineFisheries 

 Service, Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. 

IC-TRT. 2007. Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs – 

 Review draft. 90 p. + appendices. (March 2007) 

Keefer, M.L., C.A. Peery, and M.J. Henrich. 2008. Temperature mediated en route migration 

mortality and travel rates of endangered Snake River sockeye salmon. Ecology of 

Freshwater Fish 17:136-145. 

Laughlin, J. 2005. Underwater Sound Levels Associated with Pile Driving on the SR 24, I-82 To 

Keys Road Project – Yakima River. Washington State Department of Transportation. 

Seattle, WA. 

Laughlin, J. 2006. Underwater Sound Levels Associated with ‘Dry’ Pile Driving at the Evans 

Creek Bridge on SR 202. Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle, WA. 

Limm, M. and M. Marchetti. 2009. Juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

growth in off-channel and main-channel habitats on the Sacramento River, CA using 

otolith increment widths. Environ Biol Fish (2009) 85:141–151. 

Lloyd, D.S., J.P. Koenings, and J.D. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of 

 Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 18-33. 

LCFRB (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board). 2010. Washington lower Columbia salmon 

recovery & fish and wildlife subbasin plan. May 28. Final. Lower Columbia Fish 

Recovery Board, Olympia, Washington.
-40- 

McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. Myers, and R. Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability status of Oregon 

salmon and steelhead populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. 

Prepared for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Portland, Oregon. 

McMichael, G.A., A.L. Fritts, and T.N. Pearsons. 1998. Electrofishing injury to stream 

salmonids; injury assessment at the sample, reach, and stream scales. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 18:894-904. 

Miner, R. 2008. Underwater Sound Measurements: Tolt Hill Bridge. King County, WA. 

Myers, J.M., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A.R. Marshall, D.J. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, M.T. 

Maher. 2006. Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette River 

and lower Columbia River basins. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., 

NMFS- NWFSC-73, 311 p. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)2003. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 

Biological and Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential 

Fish Habitat Consultation for the issuance of two Endangered Species Act section 

10(a)(1)(A) permits. Consultation No: 2003/00998. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS. 2006. Columbia River estuary recovery plan module. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS. 2007a. 2007 Report to Congress: Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, FY 2000-2006. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

NMFS. 2007b. Rationale for the Use of 187 dB Sound Exposure Level for Pile Driving Impacts 

 Threshold. Unpublished memorandum. Seattle, Washington: National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

NMFS. 2009. Middle Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment ESA recovery plan. 

 November 30. Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS. 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, 

Oregon. 

NMFS. 2013. ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia 

River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon, and Lower Columbia River 

Steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service. Portland, OR. 

Newcombe, C.P. and J. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis 

for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 16: 693-727. 
-41- 

ODFW and NMFS (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Region). 2011. Upper Willamette River conservation and recovery 

plan for Chinook salmon and steelhead. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Description and identification of essential 

fish habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon. 

Appendix A to Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, Portland, Oregon. March. 

Popper, A.N., Fay, R.R., Platt, C., and Sand, O. 2003. Sound detection mechanisms and 

capabilities of teleost fishes. In: Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments (eds. S.P. 

Collin and N.J. Marshall). Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 3-38. 

Popper, A. N., Smith, M. E., Cott, P. A., Hanna, B. W., MacGillivray, A, O, Austin, M. E, Mann, 

D. A. 2005. Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. 

Acoust. Soc. Am., 117:3958-3971. 

Reed, D.H., J.J. O’Grady, J.D. Ballou, and R. Frankham. 2003. The frequency and severity of 

catastrophic die-offs in vertebrates. Animal Conservation 6:109-114. 

Reyff, J. and R. Rodkin. 2012. Appendix I-Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data. Technical 

Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on 

Fish. California Department of Transportation. 2009. Sacramento, CA. 

Scheuerell, M.D., and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival 

of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries 

Oceanography 14:448-457. 

Servizi, J.A. and D.W. Martens. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute 

lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 493-497. 

Sherwood, C., D. Jay, B. Harvey, P. Hamilton, and C. Simenstad. 1990. Historical changes in the 

 Columbia River estuary. Progress in Oceanography.25: 299-352. 

Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn, and F.H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on density and 

growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

113: 142-150. 

Smoker, W.W., I.A. Wang, A.J. Gharrett, and J.J. Hard. 2004. Embryo survival and smolt to 

adult survival in second-generation outbred coho salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 65 

(Supplement A):254-262. 

Sommer, T.R., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W.J. Kimmerer. 2001. Floodplain 

rearing of juvenile chinook salmon: evidence of enchanced growth and survival. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(2):325-333. 
-42- 

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach 

to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services, Inc., Corvallis, 

Oregon, to National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Portland, 

Oregon (Project TR-4501-96-6057). 

Turnpenny, A. and J. Nedwell. 1994. The Effects on Marine Fish, Diving Mammals and Birds 

of Underwater Sound Generated by Seismic Surveys. Fawley Aquatic Research 

Laboratories Limited, Marine and Freshwater Biology Unit, Southampton, Hampshire, 

UK. 48 p. 

Turnpenny, A.W.H., K.P. Thatcher, and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. The effects on fish and other 

marine animals of high-level underwater sound. Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratory, 

Ltd., Report FRR 127/94, United Kingdom (October 1994). 79 p. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1984. Mount St. Helens, Washington Feasibility 

Report And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1. Portland, OR. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Portland District. 

USACE. 2012. Sediment retention structure (SRS) spillway raise project, Mount St. Helens 

Sediment Management For Flood Risk Reduction, Final Environmental Assessment. 

Portland, OR. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. 

UCSRB (Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board). 2007. Upper Columbia spring Chinook 

salmon and steelhead recovery plan. 

WSDOT. 2013. WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards. Washington State 

Department of Transportation. Olympia, WA. 

WSDOT. 2012. Underwater Noise Monitoring Plan Template. Washington State Department 

 of Transportation. Olympia, WA. 

Wissmar, R.C., J.E. Smith, B.A. McIntosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reeves, and J.R. Sedell. 1994. 

Ecological Health of River Basins in Forested Regions of Eastern Washington and 

Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-326. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 65 p. 

Yelverton, J. T., Richmond, D. R., Hicks, W., Saunders, K., and Fletcher, E. R. 1975. The 

Relationship Between Fish Size and Their Response to Underwater Blast. Report DNA 

3677T, Director, Defense Nuclear Agency. Washington, DC. 

Zaldokas, D.O., P.A. Slaney, and D.Duff. 1997. Restorative treatments and smolt yield in a small 

tributary to a large and glacial coastal river. B.C. Streamline 2(4):13A 
United States Department of the Interior 

In Reply Refer To: 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0383 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0399 

Xref: 13410-2007-1-0655-ROOl 

13410-2010-1-0143 

Megan White, P .E 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 

Lacey, Washington 98503 

Director, Environmental Services 

Washington State Department of Transportation 

310 Maple Park A venue SE 

P.O. Box 47331 

Olympia, Washington 98504-7331 

David Valenstein 

Chief, Environmental and Systems Planning Division 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. White and Mr. Valenstein: 

OCT 3 0 2014 

This letter transmits the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) 

based on our review of the proposed Tasks 5 (New Siding) and 6 (Kelso to Longview Junction) 

of the Kelso to Martin's Bluff Improvements Project located in Cowlitz County, Washington, 

and its effects on the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Columbian white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus luecurus) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your April 30, 2014, request for formal 

consultation on Task 5 was received on May 5, 2014, and your April 25, 2014, request for formal 

consultation on Task 6 was received on May 1, 2014. 

Although these two Tasks are independent of each other and each has independent utility, they 

are very similar, located in the same general area, and are likely to generate the same, if not 

substantially similar, effects. For these reasons, and to reduce workload, the Service decided to 

batch the consultations for these Tasks in the enclosed Opinion. 
Megan White and David Valenstein 

This Opinion is based on information provided in the April 2014 and August 2013 Biological 

Assessments, and other sources of information. A complete record of this consultation is on file 

at the Service's Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey Washington. 

You also requested concurrence with your determination that the proposed action "may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect" streaked homed lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) and, 

with respect to Task 6, yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). We have interpreted these 

determinations to apply to both Tasks. Based on the information provided in the Biological 

Assessments and according to the rationale provided in the enclosed document, we provide a 

concurrence with your determination of "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" for 

streaked horned lark and yellow-billed cuckoo. Your determination for Columbian white-tailed 

deer was "may affect, likely to adversely affect." The enclosed Opinion addresses the adverse 

effects to Columbian white-tailed deer. 

If you have any questions about this letter or our joint responsibilities under the Endangered 

Species Act, please contact Bill Vogel at (360) 753-4367, Mike Lisitza (206) 515-3855, or Mark 

Miller (360) 534-9347, of this office. 

Enclosure 

~omas L. McDowell, Acting Manager 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

2 
Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion 

Consultation for 

Tasks S and 6 of the Kelso to Martin's Bluff: 

High-Speed Passenger Rail Improvement Project 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Numbers: 

OIEWFW00-2014-F-0383 

OIEWFW00-2014-F-0399 

Agency: 

Consultation Conducted By: 

~Yb ' ~·McDowell, Acting Manager 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

Federal Railroad Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation; and 

Rails Division, Washington State 

Department of Transportation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

Date I 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

CONSULTATION HISTORY ........................................................................................................1

Task 5: New Siding in Kalama Rail Yard ................................................................................. 1

Task 6: Kelso to Longview Junction ......................................................................................... 2

Combined Consultation .............................................................................................................. 2

CONCURRENCE............................................................................................................................3

Streaked Horned Lark................................................................................................................. 3

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo.................................................................................................. 4

BIOLOGICAL OPINION................................................................................................................5

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...........................................................................5

Conservation Measures............................................................................................................... 7

Action Area................................................................................................................................. 7

Description of Action Area within Potential CWTD Range ...................................................... 8

Task 5 Footprint...................................................................................................................... 9

Task 6 Footprint...................................................................................................................... 9

Remainder of Action Area within Potential CWTD Range.................................................. 10

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE 

MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS......................................................................................12

Jeopardy Determination............................................................................................................ 12

STATUS OF THE SPECIES - Columbia River DPS of the Columbian White-tailed Deer.........12

Species Description................................................................................................................... 12

Legal Status............................................................................................................................... 13

Status and Distribution.............................................................................................................. 14

Historical Status and Distribution......................................................................................... 14

Current Status and Distribution ............................................................................................ 15

Life History............................................................................................................................... 17

Population Trends..................................................................................................................... 20

Factors of Decline at Listing..................................................................................................... 21

Current Factors Affecting the Status of the Species................................................................. 21

Conservation Needs of the Species........................................................................................... 28

Conservation Strategy and Current Management..................................................................... 29

Current Condition of the Species.............................................................................................. 30

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE.................................................................................................30

Status of the Species in the Action Area................................................................................... 31

Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area..................................................................... 32

Conservation Role of the Action Area for the Species............................................................. 37

Current Condition of the Species in the Action Area ............................................................... 37

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION........................................................................................................37

Effects to Individual CWTD..................................................................................................... 38

Exposure Analysis ................................................................................................................ 38

Response Analysis................................................................................................................ 40

Effects at the Population Scale ................................................................................................. 63

ii
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...........................................................................................................64

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS ....................................................................65

Current Condition ..................................................................................................................... 65

Summary of Ongoing Threats................................................................................................... 66

Summary of Future Threats...................................................................................................... 67

Effects of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 67

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................69

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT...........................................................................................69

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE.............................................................................................70

EFFECT OF THE TAKE...............................................................................................................70

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURE............................................................................71

TERMS AND CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................71

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................72

REINITIATION NOTICE.............................................................................................................73

LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................74

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Most recent estimated number of Columbian white-tailed deer by subpopulation. ...... 15

Table 2. Crossing times for CWTD crossing train tracks near Cottonwood Island and 

Ridgefield NWR, 2013–2014. .......................................................................................................54

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Columbian white-tailed deer estimated numbers and their distribution within 

subpopulations provided by survey year....................................................................................... 16

Figure 2. Assessment of Barriers and Permeability - Lewis River to Ridgefield........................ 46

Figure 3. Assessment of Likelihood of Crossing - Lewis River to Ridgefield............................ 47

Figure 4. Assessment of Barriers and Permeability - Ridgefield South ...................................... 49

Figure 5. Assessment of Likelihood of Crossing - Ridgefield South .......................................... 50

Figure 6. Assessment of Permeability and Barriers - South of Campbell Lake .......................... 51

Figure 7. Assessment of Likelihood of Crossing - South of Campbell Lake .............................. 52

iii
ACROYNMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Opinion Biological Opinion

DPS Distinct Population Segment

CWTD Columbian white-tailed deer

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

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe

JBH NWR Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

HLS Hair Loss Syndrome

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

VHF Very High Frequency

Plan Collision Reduction Plan

Project Tasks 5 and 6 of the Kelso to Martin’s Bluff Improvement Project

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

iv
INTRODUCTION

This document represents the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion 

(Opinion) based on our review of the proposed Tasks 5 and 6 of the Kelso to Martin’s Bluff 

Improvement Project (Project) located in Cowlitz County, Washington, and its effects on the 

Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus luecurus)(CWTD) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). Your April 30, 2014, request for formal 

consultation on Task 5 was received on May 5, 2014, and your April 25, 2014, request for formal 

consultation on Task 6 was received on May 1, 2014.

This Opinion is based on information provided in the April 2014 and August 2013 Biological 

Assessments, and other sources of information. A complete record of this consultation is on file 

at the Service’s Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington.

CONSULTATION HISTORY

On March 21, 2013, Service staff attended a meeting with staff from Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) regarding Federal Railroad Administration funding 

projects through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that would facilitate 

travel from Eugene, Oregon, to Vancouver, British Columbia, as part of the Pacific Northwest 

Rail Corridor Program. The meeting focused on three individual projects proposed for the Kelso 

to Martin’s Bluff general area: Tasks 4, 5, and 6. These tasks would occur within an 

approximately 19-mile corridor in Southwestern Washington. While these projects had 

previously been analyzed together, Federal Railroad Administration determined that these 

projects had independent utility and therefore separated these tasks into separate projects. On 

March 28, 2013, after internal discussion, Service staff recommended reconsidering the effects 

determination for CWTD as they had been recently released in the general vicinity.

Task 5: New Siding in Kalama Rail Yard

Your letter dated September 12, 2013, and enclosed Biological Assessment, dated August 14, 

2013, was received by our office on September 24, 2013. On March 21, 2014, the Service 

responded indicating that we were unable to concur with your determination that the proposed 

project would “not likely adversely affect” CWTD. On April 7, 2014, Service staff and WSDOT 

staff held a conference call to discuss the project and information concerning CWTD. Your 

subsequent April 30, 2014, request for formal consultation on Task 5 was received on May 5, 

2014. 

One of these projects (known as the “Kelso to Martin’s Bluff Task 4: Toteff Siding Extension”)

is in the same work corridor as Task 5. The Task 4 Project will be constructed prior to Task 5 

Project. While the improvements to switches, turnouts, and signalization for Task 4 has separate 

and independent utility from Task 5, both projects will address the goals of corridor 

1
improvement within this section of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline. On July 

17, 2014, the Service concurred with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination 

for CWTD regarding Task 4 (01EWFW00-2014-I-0408).

Task 6: Kelso to Longview Junction

Coordination occurred with Service staff between August 26 and September 12, 2013, through email and by telephone. A site visit occurred on January 23, 2014, with Service staff. WSDOT’s 

April 25, 2014, request for formal consultation on Task 6 and April 2014 Biological Assessment

were received on May 1, 2014. Task 6 would upgrade existing track and add a third main track 

between Kelso and the Longview Junction. This project and Task 5 would have very similar 

effects to CWTD.

Combined Consultation

On April 28, 2014, Service staff met to discuss Tasks 5 and 6. It was determined that the major 

effects to CWTD for both projects will occur as a result of increased and expedited high-speed 

passenger trains, the final level of which is dependent on the completion of both projects. 

Therefore, the Service decided to address Tasks 5 and 6 (hereafter referred to as the Project) in a 

single Opinion. WSDOT was notified of the Service’s intent to prepare a single Opinion and 

expressed concerns that the timing of consultation be met for the earlier of the two Tasks.

During May, Service staff had several discussions with staff from Julia Butler Hansen National 

Wildlife Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer (JBH NWR) regarding telemetry data. On 

June 12, Service staff met with WSDOT staff to discuss the kind of information that could be 

gleaned from telemetry data as well as the limitations of current data to the project at hand. 

During June and July, Service staff held a series of discussions regarding how to estimate the 

number of CWTD that may be injured or killed as a result of this project. Preparation of the 

Opinion began in August 2014.

On August 27, a partial draft of the Opinion (Introduction, Status of the Species, Environmental 

Baseline) was shared with experts on CWTD within the Service. On September 17, a complete 

draft of the Opinion was shared with Service experts.

Between May and October 2014, we worked with WSDOT to avoid and minimize effects to 

streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). WSDOT and Federal Railroad 

Administration agreed to avoid accessing suitable habitat from April 1 to September 15 and to 

avoid visual and noise disturbance for areas within 100 meters of suitable nesting habitat from 

April 15 to September 1. 

2
CONCURRENCE

Streaked Horned Lark

Species Distribution

The current range of the streaked horned lark includes the Washington coast and lower

Columbia River islands, including airports and dredge-deposition sites and industrial sites

near the Columbia River (Rogers 2000, pp. 37; Pearson and Altman 2005, pg. 23). Streaked 

horned larks require open landscapes with substantial areas of flat bare ground and sparse lowstature vegetation primarily comprised of grasses and forbs for nesting (Pearson and Hopey 

2005, p. 27). These areas may be 300 acres or more in size (Converse et al. 2010, p. 21), or can 

have smaller amounts of suitable prairie habitat if it is located adjacent to open areas (e.g., 

islands in the Columbia River) (77 FR 61946). Wintering streaked horned larks use habitats 

that are very similar to breeding habitats, with most streaked horned larks migrating to the 

Willamette Valley for the winter (Pearson et al. 2005).

Historical nesting habitat for streaked horned lark included grasslands, estuaries, and sandy

beaches in British Columbia, dune habitats along the coast of Washington, prairies in

western Washington and western Oregon, and sandy beaches and spits of the Columbia and

Willamette rivers. Today, streaked horned larks nest in native prairies, coastal dunes,

agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields, recently

planted Christmas tree farms, grazed pastures, gravel roads and road shoulders, airports, and

dredge-disposal sites in the lower Columbia River (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Altman

2005, p. 5; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). On the Washington coast, there are four known

breeding sites for streaked horned lark: (1) Damon Point; (2) Midway Beach; (3) Graveyard

Spit; and (4) Leadbetter Point in Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties. On the lower Columbia

River, streaked horned larks breed on several of the sandy islands downstream of Portland,

Oregon (Pearson and Altman 2005, pp. 4-6).

Species Occurrence in the Action Area

WSDOT surveyed potentially suitable streaked horned lark nesting habitat in Pacific,

Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, and Clark Counties on December 17, 2013 and December 20, 2013. 

They observed streaked horned larks in an area of dredge-soil disposal southwest of the State 

Route 432 and Interstate 5 interchange near Talley Way, Washington. Based on the presence

of suitable nesting habitat and observed nesting behavior in April and May, 2013, they 

determined that streaked horned larks were likely nesting at that site (WSDOT 2014). 

Effects to the Species

Streaked horned larks establish territories and breed from late March to early August

(Pearson and Altman 2005, pg. 9, Pearson and Hopey 2005, pg. 11, Moore 2011, pg. 32). 

Noise and visual disturbance to nesting and foraging behaviors are the only potential effects

because WSDOT will not remove suitable nesting habitat or access suitable habitat between 

April 1 and September 15. The project will not permanently impact or remove suitable

3
nesting habitat or impact the food base. The following activities influence streaked horned

lark behavior (Pearson and Hopey 2004): mowing, moving vehicles (including off-road

vehicles), model airplane flying, shooting fireworks, dog walking, and gatherings of people

or vehicles. Disturbances of more than an hour may result in nest abandonment. 

Pearson and Altman (2005, page 14) found activities within 100 feet of nesting streaked

horned larks are more likely to cause flushing events than more distant activities. In order

to further reduce the likelihood that streaked horned larks will abandon their nests or flush 

as a result of human noise disturbance activities, WSDOT has agreed to avoid all project 

activities that could result in nest abandonment within 328 feet of potentially suitable

nesting habitat between April 15 and September 1. Due to the lack of suitable nesting

habitat within the project footprint and the timing of the project activities, the impacts to

streaked horned larks are discountable. Therefore, we concur with your determination that 

streaked horned larks are “not likely to be adversely affected” by the proposed action. 

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo

Species Distribution

The Service listed the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) as 

threatened on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59992-60038). In the Pacific Northwest, including 

Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, Canada, the western yellow-billed cuckoo was 

formerly fairly common in willow and cottonwood forests along the Willamette and lower 

Columbia rivers in Oregon and Washington, and in the Puget Sound lowlands of Washington. 

In Washington, the last confirmed breeding records of western yellow-billed cuckoos are from

the 1930's, and it is likely that cuckoos no longer breed in the State. Incidental sightings of the

species have occurred throughout the state, and the possibility of a vestigial breeding population

may still exist. Recent sightings have been documented in the cottonwood forests along the

Columbia River, the most recent being at the Sandy River delta in 2012. The available data

suggest that if western yellow-billed cuckoos still breed in Washington, the numbers are

extremely low, with pairs numbering in the single digits.

Species Occurrence in the Action Area

There are relatively small patches of willow and cottonwood forest in the project action area that 

might be suitable habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo. However, the last confirmed 

breeding records of western yellow-billed cuckoos in Washington State are from the 1930's, and 

it is likely that cuckoos have been extirpated as a breeder in the State.

4
Effects to the Species

Given the extremely low probability that western yellow-billed cuckoo occur within the action 

area, and the relatively small amount of suitable habitat in the project action area, the potential 

project impacts to western yellow-billed cuckoo are discountable. Therefore, we concur with 

your determination that yellow-billed cuckoo are “not likely to be adversely affected” by the 

proposed action. 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is a cooperative project between WSDOT and BNSF. The rail line is 

owned and operated by the BNSF, which is a private corporation. The Federal nexus for this 

project is American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds administered by the Federal 

Railroad Administration who would not have control or authority over rail freight operations

(including the number of freight trains operated along the line) and would not have control or 

authority over the use of the private corporation’s property. This project is part of the Pacific 

Northwest Rail Corridor Improvement Program of projects identified to enhance intercity 

passenger rail service. The Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Improvement Program includes 17 

individual tasks between Vancouver, Washington, and the Washington State - Canadian border. 

Rail improvements analyzed under this Opinion include two tasks that together will be 

conducted on about 9 to 9.5 miles of BNSF rail lines. 

The BNSF tracks are chronically congested in the Project location, which affects both freight rail 

traffic and passenger rail service in western Washington. This portion of the BNSF mainline has 

been the subject of over 20 years of proposed design improvements and upgrades to 

approximately 20 miles of track on this regional rail corridor. The key features of the past 

proposals have incorporated signal and track-switching upgrades, closure of at-grade crossings, 

and the construction of a third mainline. This Opinion addresses two of three rail-improvement 

projects that are currently being proposed in the Kelso/Kalama area (Tasks 5 and 6). All three 

projects have independent utility and have been submitted to the Service as separate projects for 

ESA Section 7 consultation.

Tasks 5 and 6 are creating a new third main track in each location and associated switches and 

signals. The new track is intended to provide improved high-speed passenger rail service with 

reduced travel time and increased frequency between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. 

More specifically, the projects are intended to result in two additional round-trip, high-speed 

passenger rail trains per day. Currently, the equivalent of five round-trip passenger rail trains 

travels the tracks each day (i.e., two 1-way Coast Starlight trains, four current round-trip 

Cascades Amtrak trains). Following completion of the Tasks, two additional round-trip 

Cascades Amtrak service trains, for a total of seven round-trips, will go through the area each 

day. Additionally, the project is expected to reduce the trip time from Seattle to Portland by ten

5
minutes and improve passenger service reliability to 88 percent. Additional passenger rail trips 

could have been scheduled without the proposed improvements, but would not have met the 

desired goals of increased reliability and reduced trip time.

Utility-infrastructure upgrades are also proposed to occur within the construction foot-prints. 

These will include, but not be limited to, electrical, natural gas, and communications/fiber optic 

lines throughout the work areas. This work would be conducted by outside (non-BNSF) utility 

contractors, but under the direction of BNSF along with their general contractor, and would be 

fully compliant with the BMPs and environmental permit conditions for both projects.

The projects at Task 5 and 6 will include some vegetation removal and will also include grading 

and various construction actions. Work will involve heavy equipment and power tools and may 

occur at any time of the year. A variety of actions will be taken to protect aquatic and wetland 

habitats. 

This project is creating a new rail facility on a private right-of-way owned and operated by a 

private freight operator, BNSF. The project is designed to deliver specific outcomes for 

passenger rail service that will result in increased ridership. BNSF and WSDOT have agreed to 

partner on the construction of rail infrastructure that will reduce conflict between passenger and 

freight trains. The current rail line provides service for approximately 70 freight train trips per

day. 

Changes in the number of freight trains entering or leaving the Ports are not expected as a result 

from the upgrades. Potential future increases in freight traffic are, however, possible as freighttransportation demand is projected to nearly double by 2035. If present market trends continue, 

railroads will be expected to handle an 88 percent increase in tonnage during that same period 

(USDOT Strategic Plan 2010-2015.). Unlike passenger rail service, freight-rail mobility through 

the corridor is dependent upon factors totally independent of a third main track. These factors 

include access to ports, port and commodity scheduling, and other regional and global economic 

forces. Therefore, we do not believe it is reasonably certain to expect changes in the capacity or 

type of freight-rail trips in this corridor due to the passenger-rail infrastructure improvements 

associated with this project.

The projects will increase the capacity of the existing rail line for passenger service. The 

projects propose to add 4 more passenger train trips per day (2 early in the morning and 2 late in 

the evening) in the immediate future. The Project will allow increased speeds through turnouts, 

improved track conditions on the existing two mainline tracks, and generally free-up the new 

third mainline to be used by high-speed intercity passenger trains. Average speed of passenger 

trains will increase as many passenger trains will no longer need to slow down or stop to 

accommodate freight-train traffic. It will also reduce delays to passenger trains by allowing 

them to avoid freight trains entering or leaving the Port. Peak speeds are not anticipated to 

change for passenger trains as peak speeds are controlled by shape and condition of the track and 

a variety of other factors. However, passenger trains will be moving somewhat faster through 

areas with CWTD following the projects than they would have in the absence of these 

improvements.

6
Given these projected outcomes, it is reasonable to assume that passenger rail ridership will 

increase as the faster and more-frequent passenger rail service becomes more convenient and 

desirable. Amtrak, with ridership at record levels of 31.2 million passengers for fiscal year 2012, 

predicts those numbers could increase to 60 million by 2050 (operation lifesaver web site

http://oli.org/rail-safety - checked August 21, 2014). Increased ridership may be accommodated

in a variety of ways including: 1) Fewer empty seats in each car; 2) Additional cars on each 

train; and 3) Additional trains. Therefore, additional passenger trains (beyond the 2-round trips 

proposed) may be added in the future, but due to this uncertainty were not addressed in the 

biological assessments prepared for either task. Other than the two round-trips discussed above, 

new passenger train trips would comprise new information and potential additional effects 

beyond what is analyzed herein and may therefore warrant reinitiation of consultation.

Increased development may occur in the projects’ action area, but not as a result of the

construction of the third mainline track. The projects do not include any destination features

such as passenger platforms, associated parking, stations, etc. as this is a pass-through section of

passenger rail service.

In summary, Tasks 5 and 6 will result in increased passenger-train trips as well as increased 

average speeds for all passenger trains. However, according to WSDOT and the respective 

requests for consultation, there is no projected change to freight train numbers or speeds as a 

result of the proposed tasks, nor are there any anticipated effects to the level of development as a 

result of the proposed tasks.

Conservation Measures

Many conservation measures will provide for the protection of soil, aquatic, and wetland 

resources. The most-pertinent measures for CWTD include:

• Permanent removal of existing, established native vegetation will be restricted to what is

required for direct construction, such as construction of a retaining wall, establishment of 

a new rail grade, installation of new track, and creation of safe signal and crossing sight 

distances for the completion of the projects.

• Existing established vegetation areas that will only be temporarily impacted may be

trimmed back for work access and safety, but will not be grubbed.

These measures will reduce the loss of vegetated areas within and immediately adjacent to the 

project footprint.

Action Area

The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action 

and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). In delineating the 

action area, we evaluated the farthest reaching physical, chemical, and biotic effects of the 

action on the environment. In assessing these farthest reaching effects, we examined the entire 

Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor of Vancouver, British Columbia, to Eugene, Oregon, (467 

7
miles), but were unable to establish a relationship between the proposed projects and increased 

traffic beyond the Seattle to Portland segments. Therefore, we limited our assessment to areas 

between Seattle and Portland.

The Action Area for these projects includes the following:

1. Footprint of construction;

2. Staging and access areas;

3. Extent of noise from construction – approximately 1,196 feet from construction and 

staging footprints;

4. Aquatic extent of runoff – Impacts from culvert work and the unavoidable wetland fill as 

well as retaining wall construction are not expected to have any upstream impacts or to 

extend more than 100 feet downstream from the point of construction;

5. Extent of noise from additional trains – approximately 1,650 feet from tracks between 

Portland and Seattle. The Service notes that locomotive horns are required to be 96-110 

dB(A) at 100 feet forward of the locomotive (49 CFR 229.129) and are required to be 

deployed at specified times and durations (49 CFR 222). Trains (including clatter and 

wheel squeal) generally generate about 83 dB or more at 100 feet depending upon 

condition of the track, rail track discontinuities, speed on curves, and other factors. 

Locomotives generally generate less than 83 to 85 dB due to regulations (49 CFR 

229.121). Factors that affect how sound attenuates include weather, relative humidity, 

and the surrounding environment. Predictions become less reliable where topography is 

irregular or beyond 1,650 feet (CTA 2011); and

6. Impact Danger Zone – corridor from Seattle to Portland modified by passing train traffic 

or for a distance in which a deer can be struck by train or any of the equipment, lading, or 

strapping hanging from the train. Trains may overhang rail by 3 or more feet; but, loose 

strapping and shifted lading may create a hazard up to 25 feet from rail. Because the 

project will affect the number and speed of passenger trains, lading and strapping will 

seldom be an issue. However, deer in proximity of tracks may panic and run in front of 

train or may run into the side of the train. Therefore, the danger zone includes an area 

extending approximately 25 feet on each side of the rail from Seattle to Portland. 

However, the relevant portion of the action area for this analysis is that part within the current 

and foreseeable potential range of the CWTD. Therefore, we further focused our assessment on 

the corridor described above from Longview/Kelso to the developed portions of Vancouver, 

Washington.

Description of Action Area within Potential CWTD Range

The tracks are used by BNSF, Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad, the Longview switching 

company, and industry owners. Congestion in and around the rail yards along with infrequent 

cross-over opportunities in the action area results in an inflexible rail system and passenger train 

delays. Construction activities will take place in areas that have been previously disturbed by 

either the original construction of the tracks in the late 1800s or by routine and regular 

maintenance of the right-of-way for freight and passenger rail operations. The tracks are part of 

8
the north/south mainline rail corridor from British Columbia, Canada, to Southern California and 

near the terminus of an east/west mainline rail corridor from the mid-west to west coast ports. 

The siding and lead tracks within the Project provide rail service to industrial areas at the Port. 

Task 5 Footprint

The Task 5 physical footprint is within the existing right-of-way of a mainline interstate railroad

which is generally 100 feet, but varies from 125 feet to 150 feet in some locations. 

Existing vegetation is comprised of wetland/upland areas that have been historically disturbed by 

highway, railroad, and industrial development. Some work areas currently are composed of 

invasive grasses/weeds, shrubs, and some small trees that are generally less than 12-inch 

diameter at breast height. Other construction areas are existing rail-grade or existing flat, nonvegetated graded areas currently utilized by BNSF for maintenance vehicle parking, access, and 

other maintenance actions. Current land uses in the Project area are related to the interstate 

highway and rail transportation corridor and associated commercial/industrial activities.

The north end of the Project is more disturbed. The area to the west of the BNSF right-of-way in 

this section is highly developed with Port grain elevators and other industrial facilities. This area 

is either paved or gravel covered and generally void of vegetation. There are no undeveloped or 

complex forested areas, and open areas are sparsely vegetated with grasses. 

The south end of the Project is relatively undisturbed except for the existing two mainline tracks 

and public roads (Toteff/Dupont Road crossing the tracks and becoming Port Road). Upland 

vegetation in this area is more native with diversity of both species and type of habitat. The railgrade embankments and upland areas are covered with Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 

Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), western red cedar (Thuja 

plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), and invasive grasses/weeds. Wetland areas are on both sides of 

the BNSF right-of-way and vegetation is comprised of red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), 

willow (Salix spp.), stinging nettles (Urtica dioica), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), 

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Task 6 Footprint

The northern third of the project area, which extends from the Kelso-Longview Train Depot to 

Douglas Street to the south, is located among predominantly urbanized land uses with the 

Cowlitz River to the east. Urbanized land uses include retail, office, and commercial uses within 

the Kelso downtown commercial core surrounding the Kelso-Longview Train Depot; highdensity residential, commercial, and manufacturing generally comprise the middle section; and 

low-density residential at the southern end of this northern third.

Vegetation within the northern third of the project area is generally limited to low-growing

herbaceous vegetation along the existing track structure, such as scouring rush horsetail

(Equisetum hyemale) and Himalayan blackberry with patches of shrubs and deciduous or 

evergreen trees at the toe of the track structure. The exception to this is a forested wetland 

9
adjacent to the east side of the existing track structure, between Hawthorne Street and South 

River Road, dominated by deciduous tree species such as red alder, Oregon ash, and black 

cottonwood.

The middle of the project area, from Douglas Street south to the BNSF Longview Junction, is 

predominantly property zoned for recreational, industrial, and commercial land uses. At present, 

this property remains sparsely vegetated by Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius) and other weedy

species. Talley Way and associated stormwater infrastructure has been extended into this 

property. 

Vegetation within this middle third of the project area is generally comprised of weedy 

herbaceous and shrub vegetation within the upland areas along the track structure with patches of 

red alder and black cottonwood. Vegetation along the east side of the project area within this 

section is limited, apart from that maintained by the Three Rivers Golf Course. Few trees are

established within the riprap protection along the existing track structure. Patches of deciduous 

and coniferous trees are maintained along the perimeter of fairways and along the eastern 

perimeter of the Three Rivers Golf Course where it abuts the BNSF right-of-way. 

The southern third of the project area, south of the BNSF Longview Junction, is predominantly 

comprised of a broad wetland complex zoned for industrial land use. Interstate Highway 5 is 

located to the east and parallels the project area.

Vegetation within this southern third of the project is generally associated with the broad wetland 

complex. However, an upland berm extends from the southern end of a large commercial 

property along the east side of the BNSF Longview Junction and connects to the existing track 

structure. Vegetation throughout this upland berm is dominated by weedy species such as Scot's 

broom and Himalayan blackberry.

Remainder of Action Area within Potential CWTD Range

From State Route 4 to U.S. Highway 432, industrial and commercial development dominates 

areas west of the tracks. East of the tracks, the area is primarily mixed residential / forested with 

some openings. The forest appears to be primarily mixed conifer and deciduous with some areas 

dominated by younger deciduous forests. The topography is generally rolling.

From U.S. Highway 432 to the Kalama River Road, areas east of the tracks are mixed 

residential / forest as described above, except that Interstate 5 is immediately adjacent to the 

tracks. To the west of the tracks, there are limited areas of vegetated land between the river and 

the tracks, but Cottonwood Island is also west of much of this section. There is some industrial 

development west of the tracks near the Kalama River Road at the south end of this section.

In the area from the Kalama River Road to Oak Street, the west side of the tracks is dominated 

by industrial development from the tracks to the river. The areas east of the tracks are mixed 

residential / forest.

10
From Oak Street through the town of Kalama, there is development on both sides of the tracks 

with little to no vegetated lands between Interstate 5 and the River.

From the town of Kalama to Martins Island, there is mixed residential / forest in areas east of 

Interstate Highway 5. The tracks occupy a narrow strip of land between Interstate 5 and the 

River with some industrial development and some vegetated lands and wetlands. 

Beginning just north of Martins Island, and continuing south almost to the town of Woodland, 

the tracks are located in the median of Interstate 5. In this section, there are low-lying vegetated 

lands and fields west of the Interstate and mixed residential / forest east of the Interstate. The 

southern end of this section, known as Martin’s Bluff, is steeper than in other areas.

Through the Town of Woodland, residential, commercial, and industrial development is found 

east of the tracks and some agricultural and industrial development and agricultural fields are 

found west of the tracks.

South of Woodland, low-lying vegetated lands are found west of the tracks and areas to the east 

are composed of mixed residential / forest and the tracks are increasingly far from Interstate 5 at 

the southern portion of this area.

South of the Lewis River, there are substantial amounts of cover and forested lands immediately 

adjacent to the tracks on both sides. There is a hill slope to the east of the tracks with mixed 

residential / forest further to the east. In this area, there are substantial amounts of vegetated 

lands on both sides of the tracks. 

Ridgefield, Washington is located east of the tracks and low-lying vegetated lands are found 

west of the tracks.

South of Ridgefield, there are vegetated lands on both sides of the tracks until Campbell Lake. 

From Campbell Lake south, mixed residential / forest habitat occurs with increasing densities of 

homes and decreasing amounts of cover. The low-lying vegetated lands west of the tracks 

become more dominated by wetlands and fields, and have fewer areas of cover.

From Salmon Creek south, the areas to the east of the tracks are dominated by development, 

while the areas west of the tracks are dominated by fields and Lake Vancouver. Just south of 

Lake Vancouver, there is no longer any substantial amount of vegetated lands that could be 

suitable habitat for CWTD.

In summary, the portion of the action area that was further analyzed for effects to CWTD is a 

linear corridor that contains the tracks from Kelso to Vancouver, Washington. The tracks pass 

through areas of industrial activity, rural residential development, and vegetated areas. Other 

than a few bridges, the tracks are primarily located at ground level.

11
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE 

MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS

Jeopardy Determination

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy analysis in this Opinion relies on four 

components: (1) the Status of the Species, which evaluates the CWTD rangewide condition, the 

factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental 

Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the CWTD in the action area, the factors responsible 

for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the 

CWTD; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the 

proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the 

CWTD; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, nonfederal activities in 

the action area on the CWTD.

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the 

effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the species’ current status, taking into 

account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to 

cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species 

in the wild.

The jeopardy analysis in this Opinion emphasizes consideration of the rangewide survival and 

recovery needs of the CWTD and the role of the action area in the survival and recovery of the 

CWTD. It is within this context that we evaluate the significance of the effects of the proposed 

Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making the jeopardy 

determination.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES - COLUMBIA RIVER DPS OF THE COLUMBIAN 

WHITE-TAILED DEER

For detailed information about the Columbian white-tailed deer (CWTD), please consult the 

Recovery Plan (USFWS 1976, 1977, and 1983), the final rule delisting the Douglas County 

(Roseburg, OR) DPS (68 FR 43647), and the 5-year review of the Columbia River DPS 

(USFWS 2013a). For information about white-tailed deer in general, we recommend Whitetailed Deer: Ecology and Management (WMI 1984).

Species Description 

The CWTD (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) is the western-most of the 38 subspecies of 

Odocoileus virginianus, the white-tailed deer, a species with a continuous geographic 

distribution that extends from Canada to South America, including most of the continental 

United States (Whitehead 1972). White-tailed deer like other members of the family Cervidae

are herbivorous hoofed animals that derive the vast majority of their nutrition from eating plants. 

Deer are ruminants and are able to extract nutrients from plant-based food by fermenting plant 

material via bacterial action in a specialized 4-chambered stomach prior to digestion. The 

12
white-tailed deer species has tremendous genetic variation. White-tailed deer are generalists and 

can adapt to a wide variety of habitats and conditions. They respond to threats by either hiding, 

running, or sneaking away.

CWTD resemble other white-tailed deer subspecies, ranging in size from 85 to 100 pounds for 

females and 115 to 150 pounds for males (ODFW 1995, p 2). Generally, the species displays a 

red-brown color in summer and gray in winter, with distinct white rings around the eyes and a 

white ring just behind the nose. Its tail is relatively long, brown on top with a white fringe and 

white underneath (Verts and Carraway 1998, p 479).

Legal Status 

On March 11, 1967, the Columbian white-tailed deer was listed in the Federal Register as an 

endangered species under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (32 FR 4001). At 

that time, the subspecies was believed to occur only along the Columbia River, whereas the 

population in Douglas County was believed to be hybridized with the Columbian black-tailed

deer (O. hemionus columbianus)(ODFW 1995). On March 8, 1969, the Service again published 

in the Federal Register (34 FR 5034) a list of fish and wildlife species threatened with extinction 

under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. This list again included the CWTD. 

On August 25, 1970, we published a proposed list of endangered species, which included the

CWTD, in the Federal Register (35 FR 13519) as part of new regulations implementing the

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. This rule became final on October 13, 1970 (35 

FR 16047). Species listed as endangered on the above-mentioned lists were automatically 

included in the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife when the Endangered Species Act 

was enacted in 1973.

The CWTD Recovery Plan was prepared in 1976 and revised in 1977 and again in 1983 

(USFWS 1983). In 1976 and 1977, the recovery plan referred to the “potential subpopulation 

near Roseburg, OR” and indicated that it was uncertain whether these deer were CWTD or 

hybrids with black-tailed deer. In 1978, the State of Oregon determined that white-tailed deer in 

the Roseburg area belonged to the Columbian subspecies (ODFW 1995). This determination

resulted in the Roseburg (Douglas County) population being considered as endangered, together 

with the Columbia River population. The two populations of CWTD were treated separately in 

the 1983 revision of the Recovery Plan. These two populations are apparently remnants of a 

population that once occurred continuously along the Columbia, Cowlitz, and Willamette Rivers 

(Nowak 1991 p 1387).

In 1996, the Service developed its Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722). Beginning in 1999, the 

Service proposed to treat CWTD as two separate and distinct population segments (DPSs) and to

delist the Douglas County DPS (near Roseburg, OR). In 2003, following a series of proposals, 

comment periods, and peer reviews, the O. v. leucurus subspecies was separated into two 

separate DPSs on the basis of demographic and genetic dissimilarities: the Douglas County DPS 

and the Columbia River DPS. 

13
The Douglas County and Columbia River populations are considered significant under our policy 

based on two factors. First, the loss of either of the Douglas County or Columbia River 

population would result in a significant gap in the range of the subspecies. The loss of either 

population would substantially constrict the current range of the subspecies. Second, each 

population has genetic characteristics that are not found in the other population (Gavin and May 

1988). Because the Douglas County and Columbia River populations of the CWTD are discrete 

and significant, they warrant recognition as separate DPSs. 

As a result of recovery efforts, the Douglas County DPS grew to over 6,000 animals and was 

delisted in 2003; while the status of the Columbia River DPS was left unchanged (68 FR 43647–

43659). The Columbia River DPS continues to be classified as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act. The most recent 5-Year Status Review for CWTD recommended 

reclassification of the Columbia River DPS from endangered to threatened (USFWS 2013a). To 

date, no critical habitat has been designated for the CWTD. 

The Service is currently considering reclassification of the Columbia River DPS of CWTD as 

threatened, because the status has improved, the down-listing criteria have been met, and threats 

have decreased since listing to a point where no threat puts the DPS at risk of extinction. The 

Service currently recognizes six subpopulations: Tenasillahe Island, Puget Island, 

Westport/Wallace Island, Mainland JBH NWR, Ridgefield NWR, and Upper Estuary Islands. 

The main threats continuing to affect CWTD populations throughout its range are habitat 

fragmentation, loss, and modification, though these are less of a threat than previously thought. 

The Service believes that CWTD are no longer at risk of extinction and therefore do not meet the 

definition of endangered, but are still threatened.

Status and Distribution 

Historical Status and Distribution

The historical distribution of the CWTD extended west from the Cascade foothills in the 

Willamette Valley of Oregon to the coast, and north from Roseburg, Oregon, to south of the 

Puget Sound in Washington (USFWS 1983). Early accounts indicate CWTD were locally 

common, particularly in riparian areas along major rivers (Crews 1939, p. 5). In 1806, Lewis 

and Clark observed and recorded the presence of white-tailed deer (“common deer”) along the 

Columbia River from the present location of The Dalles, Oregon to Astoria, Oregon on the coast 

(Gavin 1984 p 487). In 1829, Douglas described a new species of white-tailed deer (Douglas 

1829). Douglas claimed that these deer were common along the Columbia River and in the 

fertile prairies along the Cowlitz and Willamette Rivers (Douglas 1829 p 331). Historically, 

CWTD occupied a range of approximately 23,170 square miles west of the Cascades Mountains; 

from Grants Pass, Oregon, in the south to The Dalles, Oregon, in the east and along the Cowlitz 

River to the north (Smith 1985). Within this broader range, the subspecies was formerly 

distributed throughout the bottomlands and prairie woodlands of the lower Columbia, 

Willamette, and Umpqua River basins in Oregon and southern Washington (Bailey 1936; Verts 

and Carraway 1998).

14
The decline in CWTD numbers was rapid with the arrival and settlement of pioneers in the fertile 

river valleys (Gavin 1978). Conversion of brushy riparian land to agriculture, urbanization, 

uncontrolled sport and commercial hunting, and perhaps other factors apparently caused the 

extirpation of CWTD over most of its range by the early 1900s (Gavin 1978). By 1940, a 

population of 500 to 700 CWTD along the lower Columbia River in Oregon and Washington, 

and a disjunct population of 200 to 300 in Douglas County, Oregon, survived (Crews 1939; 

Gavin 1984; Verts and Carraway 1998). These two remnant populations remain geographically 

separated by about 200 miles, much of which is unsuitable or discontinuous habitat. 

Current Status and Distribution

The historical range of the Columbia River DPS has been reduced to its current range of 

approximately 93 square miles (Smith 1985, p. 247) in limited areas of Clatsop and Columbia 

Counties in Oregon, and Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, and now Clark Counties in Washington. Within 

this range, it now exists on national wildlife refuges, nearby islands, and some lowlands in the 

lower Columbia River (Nowak 1991 p 1387) and occupies approximately 16,000 acres with a 

2014 population estimate of about 850 deer. There are six identified subpopulations: the JBH 

NWR Mainland, Tenasillahe Island, Puget Island, Wallace Island/Westport, the Upper Estuary 

Islands, and Ridgefield NWR subpopulations. Current estimates by subpopulation are displayed 

in Table 1 and additional information concerning their approximate distribution is contained in 

Figure 1.

Table 1. Most recent estimated number of Columbian white-tailed deer by subpopulation.

Subpopulation1 Estimated Number of Deer

Puget Island 227

Tenasillahe Island 160

Westport/Wallace Island 175

JBH NWR Mainland 88

Upper Estuary Islands 2 145

Ridgefield NWR 48

Approximate Total 843

1 Surveys conducted in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014. Above numbers provided by JBH NWR staff, data from 

previous year’s surveys can be found in the 5-year review (USFWS 2013a). Some estimates are derived by using 

Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) instruments and adjusting the number of CWTD according to the information 

about the relative abundance of CWTD and black-tailed deer derived from trail cameras.

2 Upper Estuary Islands includes Cottonwood Island.

15
Figure 1. Columbian white-tailed deer estimated numbers and their distribution within subpopulations provided by survey year.

16
Life History

Although white-tailed deer can live up to 20 years, their lifespan in the wild is typically limited to 

less than 6 years. One Service study of CWTD showed a median age at death of 3 years for 

bucks and 5 years for does (Gavin 1984, p. 490). Does can reach sexual maturity by age 6 

months or when their weight reaches approximately 80 pounds, however their maturation and 

fertility depends on the nutritional quality of available forage (Verme and Ullrey 1984, p. 96). 

Breeding will occur from mid-September through late February, and the peak of the breeding 

season, or rut, occurs in November. Fawns are born in the early summer after an approximate 

200-day gestation period. In their first pregnancy, does usually give birth to a single fawn, 

though twins are common in later years if adequate forage is abundant (Verme and Ullrey 1984, 

p. 96).

CWTD fawning begins in early June and ends in mid- to late July. Peak fawning occurs in 

mid- to late June. Habitats used for fawning include tall grass fields and other habitats that 

provide thermal and hiding cover and are located away from other CWTD. CWTD does often 

select closed canopy habitats, including poplar (Populus spp) plantations and dense coniferous

forests as fawning sites. After giving birth, the female displays normal activities, but returns

several times a day to nurse the newborn fawns. Young fawns generally rest or hide during the 

day in or near the location where they were born. Fawns typically are weaned and become 

relatively independent after 10 weeks, although some may continue nursing into the fall 

(USFWS 1983). CWTD typically do not gather in large herds, but remain in small family groups 

or singles.

Habitat Use and Selection

The following discussion is primarily based on information presented in the CWTD Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1983) and the 5-year review (USFWS 2013a). The CWTD typically inhabits 

forested areas along waterways and generally selects areas that offer both food and cover. Areas 

forested with Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and a grass understory are used most frequently; 

however, in the summer, CWTD preferentially inhabit mixed forests of western red cedar, red 

alder, and parkland habitat with a grassy understory. CWTD density has been shown to be 

greatest in areas where woodland cover was around 50 percent. However, the CWTD can thrive 

in areas with various ratios of canopy cover. The most-important aspect of habitat appears to be 

the available food supply within or close to escape cover. While the CWTD frequents 

bottomlands, its local distribution is not limited by elevation if other suitable habitat 

characteristics are present (USFWS 1983). 

Ricca (1999) found that the areas of concentrated use within a CWTD’s home range were 

generally located within about 650 feet of streams, which confirms earlier work (Smith 1981) 

suggesting that habitat type is less important than distance to a stream. It is unclear whether this 

relationship is due to the presence of water, or the dense cover often associated with streams. 

Open areas such as grasslands and oak savanna are often used for feeding between dusk and 

dawn (Ricca 1999). Observations suggest that fawns on the JBH NWR Mainland are most-often

associated with pastures of tall, dense reed canary grass and tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae), 

as well as mixed deciduous and spruce forest (USFWS 1983, Brookshier 2004).

17
Communities providing both cover and forage were more heavily utilized than were 

communities providing cover or forage alone. Communities providing forage alone were used 

most near adjacent cover. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) provided cover in summer and 

allowed deer to utilize previously unused areas (Suring and Vohs 1979 p 616-617). Habitat-use 

values for reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and improved pasture communities were 

relatively low throughout the year.

Food Habits

We would anticipate that the smaller rumen volume to body volume ratio in CWTD, like other 

small deer, would mean that CWTD require high-quality forage. The diet of CWTD consists of 

forbs (broad-leaved herbaceous plants), shrubs, grasses, and a variety of other foods such as 

lichens, mosses, ferns, seeds, and nuts (L. Whitney, pers. comm. 2001). 

Foraging habitat used by the CWTD is generally located in proximity to forest cover and varies 

greatly with the season (USFWS 2013b). The CWTD is a generalist in diet, utilizing both forage 

and browse. Typical forage includes meadow foxtail (Alopecurus spp), orchard grass (Dactylis 

glomerata), reed canary grass, tall fescue, mannagrass (Glyceria spp), yarrow (Achillea 

millefolium), red clover (Trifolium pretense), and buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Typical 

browse includes evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus 

capitatus), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and western red 

cedar. We also suspect that CWTD readily utilize other species of clover, blackberry, and 

palatable forbs and grasses. Twenty-five to fifty percent of the CWTD’s diet can be composed 

of woody browse species. In a study by Dublin (1980), essentially all browse consumed was 

non-woody browse (such as blackberry leaves). CWTD consumption of browse species appears 

to increase in the fall, while grasses and forbs are the most-important food items in the spring 

and summer. Dublin (1980) concluded that CWTD on the JBH NWR selected for browse in 

every season except spring and selected for forbs in all seasons. CWTD selected against grass in 

autumn, winter, and spring.

Annually, the diet of the CWTD on JBH NWR consists of roughly one third browse, one third 

grasses, and one third forbs. However, no single food type is exclusively consumed even when 

abundant, suggesting that the CWTD prefers or requires a variety of food items at all times of the 

year. Optimum CWTD habitat will contain a variety of food types that are abundant at different 

times of year (Meyers 2009).

A diet and nutrition study was conducted by JBH NWR staff from 1996 to 1998 (USFWS 

2010c). Fecal nitrogen and DAPA (2,6, diaminopimelic acid) values (Davitt and Nelson 1984; 

Kie and Burton 1984) for CWTD showed seasonal variation but indicated adequate dietary 

protein and energy for growth and reproduction. Phosphorus and calcium availability also 

appeared sufficient. Selenium showed marginal deficiency during some months, but these 

deficiencies can be counterbalanced with adequate vitamin E, which was abundant. Deficiencies 

of other trace elements such as iodine, copper, zinc, and cobalt are possible, but would be 

difficult to assess because the requirements of deer for these elements are not known.

18
Population Density and Home Range

Observations of marked CWTD at JBH NWR mainland indicate that individual CWTD had the 

same home range in successive years (Gavin 1979; Gavin 1984). CWTD generally distribute 

across the landscape and do not herd, but their home ranges often overlap (P. Meyers pers. 

comm. 2010b as cited in USFWS 2013b). The average home range was 391 acres for does and 

475 acres for bucks (Gavin 1984 p 490). The area travelled by a CWTD in any 24-hour period 

was considerably smaller. The density of CWTD in a given habitat can range from 25 to 75 

CWTD per square mile, and is very habitat dependent, with higher-quality suitable habitats 

supporting a higher density of CWTD than lower-quality suitable habitats. Biologists at JBH 

NWR believe that the ideal density for the CWTD on the refuge is approximately 40 CWTD per 

square mile in high-quality habitat (P. Meyers pers. comm. 2010b as cited in USFWS 2013b). 

Adult CWTD are not migratory and their home ranges tend to be very stable in space and time 

(WDFW 2004).

Dispersal

White-tailed males tend to disperse at about 1 year of age just prior to fawning as their mothers 

prepare for the new fawns; as such, late May and early June are times of peak dispersal and 

mortality. Young does may be separated from their mothers during fawning, but later may rejoin 

their mothers and share home ranges for 1 to 2 years. Yearling bucks, however, are much more 

likely to disperse longer distances. Vogel (1983 p 33) reported that 46 percent of the yearling 

male carcasses collected during a study in Montana were collected during a 4-week period of late 

May to early June. A similar trend was found by Puglisi et al. (1974). Peak dispersal times for 

white-tailed deer in Montana include prior to the fawning season and again during the fall rut 

(Vogel 1983). Meyers (P. Meyers, pers. comm. 2010a) reported that CWTD bucks probably 

disperse in the fall around the rutting season while looking for breeding opportunities.

In a Pennsylvania study of white-tailed deer, most dispersal (95 to 97 percent) occurred during 

two 12-week periods: spring, when yearling males still closely associate with related females, 

and prior to fall breeding season, when yearling males closely associate with other breeding-age 

males. Spring dispersal distances were greater than fall dispersal distances, suggesting that 

adaptive inbreeding-avoidance dispersal requires greater distance than mate-competition 

dispersal (Long et al. 2008). CWTD move between the subpopulations and this type of 

movement promotes gene flow between the subpopulations and is, therefore, an important 

facilitator of genetic mixing (P. Meyers, pers. comm. 2010a).

Movement Patterns

In general, deer appear most active at sunrise and sunset (Montgomery 1963; Vogel 1983, 1989; 

Beier and Mccullough 1990; Hayes and Krausman 1993). Vogel (1983 p 40-45) found that 

white-tailed deer were crepuscular and nocturnal. He also found that nocturnal activity was 

related to lunar illumination and weather conditions, with white-tailed deer being more active 

during nights with substantial lunar illumination. The pattern of nighttime activity was 

particularly pronounced in the summer and fall, compared to the winter; a pattern that was also 

reported by Skinner (1929), Montgomery (1963), Progulske and Duerre (1964), and McCaffery 

19
and Creed (1969). The pattern of activity during winter days was to be expected in Montana and 

other areas where winters are severe and deer may be active during the warmer part of the day, 

especially where high-quality agricultural-based food was available. 

In addition, deer are likely to be active diurnally less often when occupying areas near human 

activity. Vogel (1983 p 63) also found that deer were less likely to be active during the day with 

increasing amounts of human disturbance. As human disturbance increased (as indicated by

increasing housing density), home ranges became more linear as white-tailed deer concentrated 

their activity along linear riparian areas and associated cover (Vogel 1989).

The amount of daily activity and movement in white-tailed deer varies depending on habitats 

being utilized, disturbance, gender, and season. Based upon experience, daily movements of 

white-tailed deer may vary from less than a mile to over 5 miles per day. In some cases, whitetailed deer use different areas in the summer compared with the winter. In addition, deer are 

prone to make occasional excursions outside their home range. Such excursions are often more 

pronounced in males and appear to be motivated by the breeding season (Karns et al. 2011). 

Adult male deer venturing on excursions are highly vulnerable to hunter harvest, antagonistic 

encounters with competing males, and other mortality factors in areas where they are lessintimately familiar (Swenson 1982).

Anecdotal information from observers indicates that CWTD may approach the tracks, skirt along 

the tracks for a short distance, and then return to the refuge and that this behavior is seldom 

observed during the day (J. Heale pers. comm. 2014). It is too early to make conclusive 

statements about how CWTD will use their new range. 

Population Trends

The declining population trend seen in the JBH NWR Mainland subpopulation in past decades

was largely the result of overpopulation that occurred in the years after the area became a refuge. 

During 1985 to 1988, the JBH NWR Mainland subpopulation ranged from 410 to 500 animals, 

which represented a density of about 117 to 143 deer per square mile (USFWS 2013a). JBH 

NWR has undergone declines that the other subpopulations have not. When only considering the 

other subpopulations, the overall population shows a more stable trend (USFWS 2013a). Two 

subpopulations, Puget Island and Westport/Wallace Island, have maintained relatively large and 

stable numbers over the last three decades. Puget Island farmers and ranchers often implement 

predator control on their lands. A large portion of Westport/Wallace Island is owned and 

managed by one individual family and has implemented intensive predator control as part of 

their land-management practices.

In 1975 and 1976, most marked females 2 years and older were pregnant or later observed with 

fawns, yet most fawns did not survive until November. Twins were rarely observed, and there 

were no indications of breeding by female fawns (Gavin 1984 p 491), which is indicative of poor 

nutrition. The low fawn survival and lack of productivity by 1-year-old females resulted in low 

annual recruitment. Since 1986, Tenasillahe Island, Puget Island, and Westport subpopulations 

have had an average fawn:doe ratios of 0.36 or more. Over the last 5 years, Tenasillahe Island, 

Puget Island, Westport, and JBH NWR Mainland have had fawn:doe ratios over 0.37.

20
Puget Island and Westport/Wallace Island have maintained populations of three to four times the 

viable standard for most of the last 30 years. Initial analysis from a minimum viable population 

model (Skalski 2012) suggests that the probability of extinction for the Columbia River DPS 

with 3 subpopulations of 50 CWTD each is less than 1 percent over the next 50 years. In 

addition, given the current population distribution, the model suggests a less than 1 percent 

likelihood of extinction for this DPS over the next 100 years (USFWS 2013a).

Factors of Decline at Listing

The CWTD was extirpated throughout most of its historical range by 1900. The main factor in 

its decline was human-caused habitat modification from clearing of wooded land for agriculture, 

the draining of beaver ponds, dike building and channelization of water, and fire suppression. 

Unregulated hunting of the CWTD also likely played a role in its decline.

Current Factors Affecting the Status of the Species

Additional threats identified since listing include flooding and the spread of invasive plants that 

reduce food availability (USFWS 1983). Potential threats to the CWTD outlined in the 

Recovery Plan include continued degradation of CWTD habitats through habitat removal, 

alteration, and development; vehicle collisions; and predation. The discussion below examines 

current threats to the DPS.

Habitat Loss and Degradation

Loss of habitat is suspected as a key factor in historical CWTD declines, as more than 30,000 

acres of habitat along the lower Columbia River were converted for residential and agricultural 

use from 1870 to 1970 (NPCC 2004). Over time, CWTD were forced into habitat that was 

fragmented, wetter, and more “lowland” than what would be ideal for the species. The recovery 

of the Douglas County, Oregon, DPS reflects the availability of more-favorable habitat (managed 

upland oak savannah) and land-use practices (intensive sheep grazing with very high levels of 

predator control). Though limited access to high-quality upland habitat in the Columbia River 

DPS remains the most-prominent hindrance to CWTD recovery, the majority of habitat loss and 

fragmentation has already occurred. Much of the current population exists on reclaimed land 

behind levees. There is interest in removing some levees for fish and wetland habitat restoration. 

Efforts to remove levees in certain areas, such as Westport, would represent a significant loss of 

habitat. While this remains a concern, other significant future changes to currently available 

habitat for the Columbia River DPS is not anticipated.

The persistence of invasive species, especially reed canary grass, has reduced forage quality over

much of the CWTD range but it remains unclear as to how much this change in forage quality is

affecting the overall status of CWTD. While CWTD will eat the reed canary grass, it is not a 

preferred forage species. It is only palatable for about 2 months in spring if it is not managed. 

The amount of reed canary grass can be controlled by frequent repeated mowing during the 

growing season as well as by grazing (TNC 2004), but these techniques do not seem to be 

effective unless combined with other techniques (WRCGMWG 2009). Grazing by cattle has 

been used on JBH NWR lands to control the growth of reed canary grass along with tilling and 

21
planting of pasture grasses and forbs. This management entails a large effort that will likely be 

required on a continual basis unless other control options are discovered. This effort also 

requires an intensive system of fencing. Reed canary grass is often suppressed in agricultural 

and suburban landscapes, but remote areas, such as the upriver islands, experience little control.

Reed canary grass thrives in wet soil. Increased groundwater due to sea-level rise or subsidence 

of diked lands may exacerbate this problem by extending the area impacted by reed canary grass. 

However, where groundwater levels rise high enough, reed canary grass will be drowned out and 

eradicated, though this rise in water level may also negatively affect CWTD and their preferred 

forage. The total area occupied by reed canary grass in the future may therefore decrease, 

remain the same, or increase, depending on topography and/or land management.

The Service has also focused recovery efforts on acquiring new habitat and has seen an increase 

in the amount of habitat specifically protected for the benefit of CWTD. Furthermore, habitat in

many areas of the Columbia River DPS has improved over time through targeted restoration

efforts that increased the quality of browse, forage, and cover. The greatest restoration effort has

occurred on JBH NWR Mainland, followed by Tenasillahe Island and Crims Island. Finally,

CWTD now have access to the upland areas at Ridgefield NWR and it is expected that they will

respond positively to the higher-quality habitat. Overall, although the threat of habitat loss and

modification from development still remains, it is much lower than previously thought and does

not put the Columbia River DPS of CWTD at risk of extinction.

Predation

Young fawns are extremely susceptible to predation; high levels of predation from coyotes

(Canis latrans) have led Refuge staff to adopt coyote-control measures. The poor fawn survival 

of the Columbia River DPS of CWTD may also be indicative of poor habitat quality. The 

scientific literature on wild cervids tends to show that deer and elk in favorable (medium to high 

quality) habitat are rarely depressed by predation. Coyote population estimates do not exist for 

the Columbia River DPS area.

While coyote predation exerts strong influence over fawn recruitment, Phillips (2009) observed

that long-term gains in population size may require management efforts that emphasize survival

across age-classes, or at a minimum include strategies for increasing doe survival, rather than

focusing only on fawn recruitment. The focus for managing a successful population should 

include addressing doe survival as well as fawn recruitment. Doe survival relies more heavily on 

the availability of nutritious forage than avoiding predation alone. An intermediate focus on 

coyote control (and monitoring of predation by other species such as bobcat), used in 

conjunction with long-term improvement of habitat conditions, should yield larger and quicker 

population increases. Managing predation and habitat to enhance across-age-class survival will 

provide the most benefit to the Columbia River DPS of CWTD.

Since the listing of CWTD, the Service and our partners have developed improved ability to 

implement predator management. The positive effects to subpopulations resulting from predator

management demonstrate that the effect of predation to a subpopulation can be mitigated on 

22
accessible USFWS-managed lands. While predation remains a potential threat to subpopulations 

if predator management is not in place, predation is manageable for some of the major 

subpopulations and does not put the DPS at risk of extinction.

Vehicle Collisions

Collision with vehicles remains a concern, especially with respect to newly translocated CWTD.

In 2010, 15 CWTD were translocated to Cottonwood Island, Washington, from Westport,

Oregon. Seven of those translocated CWTD were killed by collisions with vehicles on U.S.

Highway 30 in Oregon and on Interstate 5 in Washington (Cowlitz Indian Tribe 2010 as cited in 

USFWS 2013c). There were several vehicle strikes that went unreported to authorities 

(pers.com. E. White, Cowlitz Indian Tribe as cited in USFWS 2013c). JBH NWR personnel 

recorded 4 CWTD killed by vehicle collisions in 2010 along Highway 4 and on the JBH NWR

Mainland. These were deer that were either observed by Refuge personnel or reported directly to 

the JBH NWR. The Washington Department of Transportation removes road kills without 

reporting species details to the JBH NWR, so the actual number of CWTD struck by cars in 

Washington is probably higher. Since the 2013 translocation, Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) has requested that Oregon Department of Transportation personnel assigned to 

stations along U.S. Highway 30 report any CWTD mortalities that they find. So far, they have 

been contacting the Oregon State Police or ODFW staff when they find CWTD with collars or 

ear tags. It is uncertain if the Oregon Department of Transportation staff report un-marked 

CWTD mortalities (D. VandeBergh, pers. comm. 2013 as cited in USFWS 2013a). Given that 

the JBH NWR Mainland currently supports approximately 88 CWTD, 4 or more collisions per 

year could be a significant source of adult mortality for that subpopulation. The threat of deer 

collisions may increase over time as CWTD are translocated closer to urban areas and 

agricultural areas see increased housing development, but it is unlikely to rise to the level of 

putting the DPS at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future.

Illegal Killing

While overharvest of CWTD historically contributed to CWTD population decline, all legal

harvest has ceased. Just after the establishment of the JBH NWR, poaching was not uncommon.

Public understanding and views of CWTD have gradually changed, however, and poaching has

decreased. However, there were two cases of suspected illegal killing of 2013 translocated deer 

that occurred off the refuge.

If subpopulations should decline, poaching could have an impact on CWTD numbers and would 

need to be monitored. Regulations and enforcement are in place to protect the CWTD; however, 

poaching still occurs and the level of poaching is not a threat that can be completely alleviated. 

Overall, the threat of overutilization has likely decreased since the development of the Revised 

Recovery Plan and does not put the Columbia River DPS at risk of extinction.

23
Regulatory Mechanisms

Based on an analysis of the existing regulatory mechanisms, the Service has found a diverse 

network of laws and regulations that provide varied protections to the CWTD and its habitat 

rangewide. Specifically, CWTD habitat that occurs on National Wildlife Refuges is protected 

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. On Federal lands, the 

ESA protects both the species and its habitat. However, protection of CWTD habitat on 

nonfederal lands is not required by any such regulations, unless it would rise to the level of 

“take” for individual CWTD (as defined under the ESA). “Take” of CWTD is prohibited on all

lands without a permit from the Service. NEPA requires a rigorous analysis of impacts from

activities with a Federal nexus. Additionally, the CWTD receives some protection under State

laws in Washington and Oregon. Both Oregon and Washington have regulations that protect 

Columbia River DPS CWTD from direct harm, but do not offer protection to CWTD habitat. 

The Service’s 5-year review (USFWS 2013a) concluded that adequate regulatory mechanisms 

are in place to protect the species, now and in the foreseeable future.

Flooding

While the JBH NWR Mainland subpopulation has shown the ability to increase beyond the

assessed carrying capacity of approximately 125 individuals, it has been hit with catastrophic 

flooding events that have led to the loss of up to 50 percent of the subpopulation. Direct 

mortality from flooding has been low during prior floods, but indirect mortality has been more 

significant. High waters push deer to the elevated roadways, making them susceptible to vehicle 

strikes, and deer move off their normal home ranges into off-refuge areas with unfamiliar 

dangers, such as dogs or unfamiliar predators. The imminent threat of dike failure led the 

Service, in early 2013, to implement an emergency translocation of 37 CWTD from the JBH 

NWR Mainland to Ridgefield NWR in an effort to limit the potential adverse effects that a dike 

failure would have on the subpopulation (USFWS 2013a).

While flooding has caused short-term population declines, the population has returned to prior

levels within a few years. Flooding is a threat to CWTD habitat when grazing and fawning 

grounds become inundated for prolonged periods, and the risk of large flooding events could 

increase with impacts of climate change. In the past, significant flooding events have caused 

large-scale CWTD mortality and emigration from the JBH NWR Mainland (USFWS 2007). The 

JBH NWR Mainland has experienced three storm-related floods since 1996. These flooding 

events have been associated with a sudden drop in population numbers and recovery during the 

following few years. During some chronic historical flooding events, CWTD have left low-lying 

areas and did not return (particularly in areas which continued to sustain frequent flooding, for 

example Karlson Island).

A large proportion of occupied CWTD habitat is land that was reclaimed from tidal inundation 

by construction of dikes and levees for agricultural use in the early twentieth century (USFWS

2010c). In recent years, there has been interest in restoring the natural tidal regime to some of

this land, mainly for fish-habitat enhancement. This restoration could pose a threat to CWTD in

certain areas where the majority of the subpopulation relies upon the reclaimed land. Since

2009, three new tide gates were installed on the JBH NWR Mainland to increase fish passage 

24
and facilitate drainage in the event of another large-scale flood. Because of the imminent failure 

at a point of erosion in the Steamboat Slough Road dike, a setback dike is scheduled for 

completion in fall of 2014. When this dike is complete, the original dike under Steamboat 

Slough Road will be breached and the estuarine buffer created will provide additional protection 

from flooding to the JBH NWR Mainland. It is important to note however that breaching of the 

old dike will result in the loss or degradation of about 70 acres of CWTD habitat.

Disease

The Revised Recovery Plan lists necrobacillosis (hoof disease) as a primary causal factor in

CWTD mortality on the JBH NWR (USFWS 1983). Fusobacterium necrophorum is identified

as the etiological agent in most cases of hoof disease, although concomitant bacteria such as

Arcanobacterium pyogenes may also be at play (Langworth 1977; Chirino-Trejo et al. 2003).

Damp soil or inundated pastures increase the risk of hoof disease among CWTD with foot

injuries (Langworth 1977). Among 155 carcasses recovered from 1974 to 1977, hoof disease

was evident in 31 percent (n=49) of the cases, although hoof disease only contributed directly to 

3 percent (n=4) of CWTD mortalities (Gavin et al. 1984).

Of the 49 CWTD captured from the JBH NWR Mainland and Puget Island in 2013, none 

displayed evidence of hoof disease and 22 displayed some evidence of hoof abnormalities in 

2014. All but 1 of the 22 deer were translocated. However, with the increased threat of flooding 

events predicted by climate models and the possible increase in groundwater levels due to sealevel rise, hoof disease presents a persistent threat.

Hair Loss Syndrome (HLS) in Columbian black-tailed deer was first described in western 

Washington in 1995 and in northwest Oregon from 2000 to 2004 (Biederbeck 2004). The 

condition is caused by a heavy infestation with a Eurasian louse of poorly defined taxonomic 

status in the genus Damalinia (Cervicola). The normal hosts of this louse are European and 

Asian deer and antelope, which are not seriously affected by the lice. In contrast, when native

deer become infested, they tend to develop a hypersensitivity (severe allergic) reaction to the 

lice, which causes irritation and inflammation of the skin, and excessive grooming by the deer. 

Excessive grooming, biting, scratching, and licking affected areas ultimately leads to loss of the 

guard hairs in those affected regions, leaving yellow or white patches along the sides. 

Infestations are heaviest during late winter and early spring, and many affected deer, especially 

fawns, die during this time. The geographical distribution of HLS has steadily expanded since 

its first appearance and now affects deer throughout their range in western Washington and

western Oregon.

This condition is found most commonly among deer occupying low-elevation agricultural areas 

(below 600 feet elevation). While a higher instance has been found in black-tailed deer, cases in 

CWTD were observed. Most cases (72 percent) of HLS were detected in the Saddle Mountain 

Wildlife Management Unit in northwest Oregon. Among black-tailed deer, 13 percent of those

surveyed in the Saddle Mountain Wildlife Management Unit showed symptoms of HLS, while 

only 7 percent of CWTD were symptomatic. Additionally, cases were identified in CWTD only 

in 2002 and 2003. CWTD captured during translocations in recent years have occasionally 

exhibited evidence of hair loss. On the JBH NWR, HLS is most often observed among fawns 

25
and yearlings during winter months (USFWS 2010c). HLS is not thought to be highly 

contagious, nor is it considered to be a primary threat to CWTD survival, although it has been 

associated with deer mortality (Biederbeck 2002, 2004). Reports of HLS among black-tailed 

deer in Washington have indicated significant mortality associated with the condition. 

In 2006, a high number of Yakima area mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) mortalities 

were reported with symptoms of HLS (WDFW 2010). In Yakima and Kittitas counties, the mule 

deer population has decreased an estimated 50 percent since the arrival of the lice. The lice 

involved in that infestation were identified as Bovicola tibialis, yet another exotic old world 

species with fallow deer (Dama dama) as the normal host. 

Parasite loads were tested in 16 CWTD on the JBH NWR Mainland and Tenasillahe Island in

February of 1998 (Creekmore and Glaser 1999). All CWTD tested showed evidence of the

stomach worm, Haemonchus contortus, in fecal samples. Lung worm (Parelaphostrongylus

spp.) and trematode eggs, possibly from liver flukes (Fascioloides spp.) were also detected.

These results are generally not a concern among healthy populations, but for a population under

nutritional stress, such as the Columbia River DPS of CWTD with less than optimal forage and

habitat quality available, a high parasite load can increase the likelihood of mortality, especially

among fawns (Creekmore and Glaser 1999).

Diseases naturally occur in wild ungulate populations. Diseases such as hoof disease or HLS can 

often work through a population without necessarily reducing the overall population. When

compounded with additional stressors such as poor quality forage, flooding, etc., diseases could

potentially affect long term productivity and viability. However, the threat of disease does not in

itself put the Columbia River DPS of CWTD at risk of extinction.

Hybridization

New information has surfaced regarding the genetic associations of the northwestern white-tailed 

deer subspecies (Odocoileus virginianus ochrorous) (found in northeastern Oregon and eastern 

Washington) and the Douglas County and Columbia River CWTD populations since the 

publication of the revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983). Piaggio and Hopken (2009) studied 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and microsatellite loci to determine the genetic relationships and 

diversity of northeastern Oregon white-tailed deer and the two DPSs of CWTD. The study 

suggests that the three deer populations were once connected, and found that the Douglas County

and Columbia River DPS populations each had a greater genetic similarity toward the 

northeastern Oregon population than to each other. The genetic isolation between the Douglas 

County and Columbia River DPS populations has led to a decrease in observed genetic diversity 

in each population compared to the northeastern Oregon population.

Although deer from both CWTD DPSs appear to be more closely related to O. v. ochrorous deer 

than to each other, the three populations have been isolated for some time and have lost a large 

proportion of shared diversity through genetic drift (Piaggio and Hopken 2009). Even though 

there are genetic similarities between the various subspecies, taxon listings under the ESA are 

based not only on genetics but also on morphologic/morphometric differences, biogeography, 

behavior, and ecology.

26
There has been concern that hybridization with O. hemionus is threatening the genetic integrity 

of O. v. leucurus (Nowak 1991 p 1387). There is strong circumstantial evidence that CWTD 

occasionally interbreed with black-tailed deer. Suring (1974) observed interspecific mating 

behavior and Gavin noted apparent hybrid deer (Nowak 1991 p 1387). Coloration of the dorsal 

surface of the tail, length of the tail, and facial characteristics were used by Davidson (1979) to 

classify 179 deer observed on the JBH NWR mainland. Nearly one third of the deer classified 

were thought to exhibit hybrid characteristics. None of the 48 deer classified on Puget Island or 

37 deer classified on 5 other islands exhibited hybrid characteristics.

Hybridization with black-tailed deer was not considered a significant threat to the Columbia 

River DPS of CWTD at the time of the development of the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1983). However, later studies raised concerns over the presence of black-tailed deer genes in the 

isolated Columbia River DPS population. Gavin and May (1988) found evidence of 

hybridization in 6 of 33 samples of CWTD on the JBH NWR Mainland and surrounding area by 

analyzing electrophoretic loci. A later study employing mtDNA analysis revealed evidence of 

hybridization on Tenasillahe Island, but not the JBH NWR Mainland (Piaggio and Hopken 

2009). On Tenasillahe Island, 32 percent (n=8) of deer tested and identified as CWTD contained 

black-tailed deer haplotypes. 

Translocation efforts have at times placed CWTD in areas that support black-tailed deer

populations. While few black-tailed deer inhabit the JBH NWR Mainland or Tenasillahe Island, 

the Upper Estuary Islands population may experience more interspecific interactions. Aerial 

FLIR survey results in 2006 detected 44 deer on the 4-island complex of Fisher/Hump and 

Lord/Walker. Using the proportion of CWTD to black-tailed deer sightings on trail cameras on 

these islands, refuge biologists estimated that at most, 14 of those detected were CWTD 

(USFWS 2007). Piaggio and Hopken (2010) showed no hybridization in any of the samples 

collected on Crims, Lord, and Walker Islands. They believed that hybridization was not a 

contemporary phenomenon but found evidence of a historical introgression event. Based on 

their data, they believed that this hybridization event was restricted to Tenasillahee Island. 

However, black-tailed deer haplotypes are present on Tenasillahe, the JBH NWR Mainland, and 

Puget Island. Hybridization has been documented and could be more prevalent than the limited 

studies have indicated (Meyers, P. pers. comm. 2014).

Therefore, it seems that although hybridization can occur between CWTD and black-tailed deer, 

it may not be a common event. The actual threat of hybridization has probably not changed 

since listing the CWTD. However, hybridization can affect the genetic viability of the Columbia 

River DPS and additional research regarding hybridization could give broader insight to the 

implications and occurrence of this phenomenon, and how it may influence subspecies 

designation.

Climate Change

Climate change is an atmospheric response to high carbon dioxide levels caused by Federal and 

nonfederal actions that has significant implications on weather that will likely influence the 

condition of species and alter (lessen or magnify) the effects of human proposed actions on 

species.

27
Although climate change and rising sea levels will not put the Columbia River DPS at risk of 

extinction in the foreseeable future, they could potentially represent a long-term future threat to 

CWTD occupying low-lying habitat that is not adequately protected by well-maintained dikes. 

Climatic models have predicted significant sea-level rise over the next century (Glick et al.

2007). Rising sea levels could degrade or inundate current habitat, forcing CWTD to move out 

of currently used habitat along the Columbia River into marginal or more-developed habitat. A 

rise in groundwater levels could lower forage quality and allow invasive plants to expand their

range into new areas. Maintaining the integrity of existing flood barriers that protect CWTD

habitat will be important to the recovery of the Columbia River DPS until greater numbers of

CWTD can be relocated to upland habitat. The JBH NWR Mainland has experienced three 

storm-related floods since 1996. While this could be a cluster of storms in the natural frequency 

of occurrence, it could also indicate increased storm intensity due to climate change. These

flooding events have been associated with a sudden drop in the CWTD population, which then

slowly recovers. An increased rate of occurrence of these events, however, could hinder

recovery and permanently reduce the numbers and distribution of this subpopulation. The 

potential for increased numbers of flooding events could also lead to increases in the occurrence 

of hoof disease and other deer maladies. There are no known existing regulatory mechanisms 

currently in place at the local, State, national, or international level that effectively address these 

types of climate-induced threats to CWTD habitat.

The National Wildlife Federation has employed a model to predict changes in sea level in Puget

Sound, Washington, and along areas of the Oregon and Washington coastline. The study

predicted an average rise of 2.26 feet in the Columbia River region, compared to a global

average rise of 0.92 feet by 2050 (Glick et al. 2007). The local rise in sea level translates into an 

estimated loss of over 11,000 acres of undeveloped dry land by 2050. Tidal and inland fresh 

marsh habitats also face high losses according to this model. By 2050, these low-lying habitats 

could lose from 17 to 37 percent of their current area due to an influx of saltwater. In addition, 

since the JBH NWR Mainland and Tenasillahe Island were diked in the early 1900s, the land 

within the dikes has subsided, causing the land in those areas to drop to a level near or below 

groundwater levels. This in turn has degraded CWTD habitat quality. Although saltwater

intrusion does not extend this far inland, the area experiences 7- to 8-foot tidal shifts due to a 

backup of the Columbia River. Sea-level rise may further increase groundwater levels in both of 

these areas, as well as other areas occupied by CWTD. The long-term stability of the Columbia 

River DPS of CWTD may rely on the availability of and access to high-quality upland habitat 

protected from the effects of sea-level rise; however, in the foreseeable future, climate change is 

not a threat that puts the Columbia River DPS at risk of extinction.

Conservation Needs of the Species

Habitat Needs

CWTD evolved as a prairie edge/woodland-associated species with historically viable 

populations that were not confined to river valleys. CWTD were then extirpated in all but two 

areas of their historical range: the Columbia River DPS area and the Douglas County DPS area. 

The remnant Columbia River DPS population has been forced by anthropogenic factors 

(residential and commercial development, roads, agriculture, etc., causing fragmentation of 

28
natural habitats) into the lowland areas it now inhabits. Urban, suburban, and agricultural areas 

now limit population expansion, and existing occupied areas support densities of CWTD 

indicative of moderate to low-quality habitats, particularly lower lying and wetter habitat than 

that with which the species would typically be associated. CWTD need continued protection of 

remaining habitats and improvement in habitat quality. Forage quality, cover, and secure 

habitats are all necessary for CWTD.

Population Needs

As mentioned above, the most-important requirements for the survival of the CWTD population 

appear to be an adequate quantity and quality of habitat with an available food supply within or 

close to escape cover, and habitat that is secure. According to the Revised Recovery Plan for the 

CWTD (USFWS 1983), full recovery of the species (to a condition where delisting of the DPS 

would be warranted) would occur when a minimum of 400 CWTD are distributed in at least 

three viable subpopulations located on suitable, secure habitat. To meet the down-listing criteria, 

only two viable and secure subpopulations are required. Habitat is considered secure according 

to Recovery Plan criteria only when it is free from adverse human activities in the foreseeable 

future and relatively safe from natural phenomena that would destroy its value to CWTD (e.g., 

areas prone to flooding). The Revised Recovery Plan indicates that, for a CWTD subpopulation 

to be classified as viable, the minimum population size of that subpopulation must remain above 

50 deer (in November) in secure habitat. The total population of the Columbia River DPS of the 

CWTD is currently estimated at approximately 850 animals. As of the 5-year review, there were

three viable subpopulations of CWTD: Tenasillahe Island at 90 deer, Puget Island at 159 deer, 

Westport/Wallace Island at 163 deer. These subpopulations now number about 160, 227, and 

175 respectively. Two of these viable subpopulations, Tenasillahe Island and Puget Island 

subpopulations, are located on what is considered “secure” habitat (USFWS 2013a). Recovery 

goals listed in the Recovery Plan for the CWTD (USFWS 1983) include ensuring the viability of 

each subpopulation and securing the habitat of extant subpopulations of the CWTD. Quality of 

habitat is a limiting factor for CWTD subpopulations. The deer that are located in higher-quality 

habitat have consistently higher population rates (Puget Island and Wallace Island/Westport). At 

the time of the 5-year review, the Service stated that “future recovery efforts must focus on 

securing high-quality upland habitat for the species”. 

According to the 5-year review (USFWS 2013a), the translocation of CWTD to Ridgefield NWR 

is expected to result in the stabilization and subsequent viability of the new secure CWTD 

subpopulation at Ridgefield NWR. Meanwhile, the JBH Mainland has recovered to 88 deer, and 

the setback levee is currently being completed. This, in addition to a small expansion of the 

Ridgefield subpopulation will result in two additional viable and secure subpopulations in the 

Columbia River DPS, effectively satisfying the delisting criteria for the DPS laid out in the 

Revised Recovery Plan (1983).

Conservation Strategy and Current Management

The Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of the CWTD is federally endangered and 

CWTD are State endangered in Washington and listed as a “sensitive-vulnerable” species in 

Oregon. Management of CWTD is guided by the revised recovery plan (USFWS 1983).

29
The CWTD working group consists of representatives from the Service’s Refuge and Ecological 

Services offices, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW), and the ODFW. The group has been meeting on a regular basis for several decades to 

discuss recovery priorities and actions, and continues to have monthly conference calls and 

occasional meetings to discuss and coordinate CWTD recovery in general. Current management 

focuses on reducing mortality, securing high-quality habitat, and increasing the distribution and 

number of deer within subpopulations.

Current Condition of the Species

The Columbia River DPS of the CWTD is currently estimated to contain about 850 individuals

occurring along the lower Columbia River in Wahkiakum and Cowlitz Counties, Washington, 

and Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon. CWTD within the Columbia River DPS are 

distributed in six subpopulations. Because deer will disperse beyond home ranges, CWTD may 

be found outside of the geographical boundaries of these six subpopulations – but the six 

subpopulations represent the substantive population groups within the Columbia River DPS. 

Each of the subpopulations is geographically separated by major channels of the Columbia 

River.

CWTD are currently impacted or are likely to be impacted in the foreseeable future by one or 

more of the following factors: 1) habitat loss and degradation of habitat; 2) low fawn and doe 

survival (including predation and vehicle collisions); and 3) flooding and its associated effects to 

habitat and to individual deer.

Initial analysis from a minimum viable population model (Skalski 2012) suggests that the 

probability of extinction for the Columbia River DPS with 3 subpopulations of 50 CWTD each is 

less than 1 percent over the next 50 years. In addition, given the population distribution at that 

time, the model suggests a less than 1 percent likelihood of extinction for this DPS over the next 

100 years (USFWS 2013a). However, we now have all six subpopulations at or above 50, four 

of which are 140 or more. CWTD in the Columbia River DPS currently exceed the targets for 

down-listing to threatened status. While the population has fluctuated over time, the range of the 

DPS has greatly expanded as a result of translocation efforts, and deer subpopulations now 

occupy habitat within the action area.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

Regulations implementing the ESA (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the 

past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the 

action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have undergone section 7 consultation, and the 

impacts of State and private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in 

progress.

30
Status of the Species in the Action Area

The area where deer could be affected by the proposed action is comprised of areas within the 

current and future range of the CWTD between Portland and Seattle along and adjacent to the 

tracks where noise and other physical and chemical changes may be found. Specifically, the 

action area includes land within the project footprint and within 1,196 feet where construction 

noise may be heard. It also includes lands outside the project footprint that lie along the tracks 

within the range of the CWTD (e.g., Kelso to Vancouver Lake). These specifically include the 

areas adjacent to tracks along Ridgefield NWR in Clark County as well as other portions of 

Cowlitz and Clark County that are along the tracks. In those areas, deer could be affected within 

1,640 feet on either side of the track through noise and could be struck and injured if within 25 

feet of the tracks. 

Distribution

Within and adjacent to the action area, CWTD are located in two general areas: 1) Ridgefield 

NWR and adjacent ownerships; and 2) Other areas along the Columbia River including lands 

near Cottonwood Island. Following historical extirpation, it has only been recently that CWTD 

have again been found in these areas, directly and indirectly as a result of translocations to 

Ridgefield NWR and Cottonwood Island. A translocation program began in 2009 that relocated 

several deer to Cottonwood Island, located in the Columbia River to the west of the projects. A 

second translocation of deer to Cottonwood Island occurred during 2013. The CWTD on 

Cottonwood Island are likely comprised of approximately 10 to 20 individuals who often move 

off the island (E. White pers. comm. 2013 as cited in Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2014; and K. 

Brenner pers. comm. 2014). CWTD were relocated to Ridgefield NWR in 2013 and 2014. The 

current estimates are 43 CWTD on or adjacent to Ridgefield NWR with an additional 5 further to 

the south near Vancouver Lake.

We anticipate that the distribution of CWTD will continue to change as they pioneer new areas 

that are now available to them. For instance, CWTD were released on only portions of 

Ridgefield NWR but are anticipated to become distributed throughout the refuge as well as 

neighboring private and public lands

CWTD have been located around the Talley Way Industrial Area. However, deer do not appear 

to make much use of the habitat between the existing tracks and Interstate 5 (Meyers, P. pers. 

comm. 2013 as cited in Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2014), except for some use in a small area 

between the tracks and interstate south of the industrial area (Brenner, K., pers. comm. 2014). 

CWTD also make use of the Owl Creek area and unmarked fawns have been documented in the 

area. CWTD from Cottonwood Island appear to be using the habitat to the west and southwest of 

Task 6 (Brenner, K., pers. comm. 2014). 

Cottonwood Island is approximately 3.5 miles downstream (e.g., north) from the Task 5 work 

corridor. At the most upstream end of Cottonwood Island, a nearly 0.25 mile-wide portion of 

Carroll’s Slough separates the island from the Kalama Flats, a preserved conservancy area about 

2 miles north of the Kalama River and the north end of the Task 5 work area. Between Kalama 

Flats and the Task 5 work area is an industrial complex of over 200 acres bounded by the 

31
Columbia River to the west and the BNSF mainline tracks/Interstate 5 corridor to the east. 

Several deer have been observed from time-to-time using habitats around the port of Kalama, but 

the Project work corridor and BNSF right-of-way do not generally provide the type of vegetated 

areas that normally would be considered “suitable” habitat. While CWTD may occasionally 

wander into the work area from adjacent areas, it is unlikely for CWTD to spend a considerable 

amount of time in these areas or to depend on these areas for any of their life-history 

requirements. Suitable habitat exists within the action area, and to a much lesser extent within 

the project sites.

Numbers and Reproduction

The historical decline in the action area and extirpation of CWTD from the action area was due 

to the same factors that were addressed in the Status of the Species section. Following the 

translocations of 2014, there were estimated to be 48 CWTD on Ridgefield NWR or to the south, 

as well as an unknown number on the mainland near Cottonwood Island. 

The highest densities of CWTD in the actions area in the foreseeable future are expected to be 

along Ridgefield NWR. Ridgefield NWR is located near the town of Ridgefield, Washington,

and is comprised of 5,218 acres of marshes, grasslands, and woodlands of which about 3,800 

acres are terrestrial habitat, or almost 6 square miles. If translocations are successful, it is 

possible that CWTD numbers may rise to a high level prior to establishing a long-term balance 

with their habitat. In addition, there are additional areas off the refuge where CWTD have 

already traveled and may continue to expand, as well as areas CWTD have not yet accessed but 

may eventually reach and occupy. It is feasible that deer on and adjacent to Ridgefield NWR 

may peak at 500 or more (approximately 100 deer per square mile in some locations and less in 

some others). Long-term numbers would more-likely fluctuate around 120 to 240 CWTD

(approximately 20 to 40 deer per square mile).

Factors Affecting the Species in the Action Area 

Primary factors affecting the current status of the species in the action area are historical declines

and extirpation, followed by recent translocations and movements of CWTD. Below we review 

other potential factors that are currently operating or may operate on CWTD populations in the 

foreseeable future.

Habitat Loss and Forage Quality

We do not anticipate that these factors will be substantially different than described in the Status 

of the Species section.

Ridgefield NWR is separated into five units, including the Carty, Roth, and Bachelor Island units 

where the translocated CWTD were first released in early 2013. The Carty Unit supports mixed 

deciduous habitat with oak savannah comprising a large portion of the unit. The area contains 

some areas of moderate to sparse reed canary grass, with upland meadows supporting a variety 

of grasses and forbs. This area also contains large areas of dry soils above the normal flood 

level. The Roth unit represents more of a parkland mosaic, with dense deciduous tree stands and 

32
open meadows. The topography within this unit consists of fingers of high ground separated by 

swales. The three remaining units (Bachelor Island, River S, and Ridgeport Dairy) all contain 

large areas of low-lying meadow or seasonally-flooded wetlands with pockets of woody cover. 

Most of the open areas in the River S and Bachelor Island units consist of low-lying meadows 

and wetlands. Adjacent to Ridgefield NWR is a mix of suburban residential, fields, and cover 

that may also provide habitat to CWTD.

Other lands located near Kalama (e.g., Kelso to Woodland) are also now home to some CWTD. 

These areas are similar to Ridgefield NWR in that there are some secure lands nearby as well as 

a variety of habitat types. These deer apparently originated from Cottonwood Island. However, 

in comparison to Ridgefield NWR, we anticipate fewer deer to occupy these mainland areas in 

the long term. 

It remains to be seen how CWTD adjust to their new habitats and how these provide for their 

nutritional needs. However, there do appear to be a wide variety of habitats available on the 

refuge (and adjacent upland areas) as well as on lands near Kalama (e.g., Kelso to Woodland) 

that may support CWTD.

Disease, Parasites, Predation, and Biological Interactions

We do not anticipate that these factors will be substantially different than described in the Status 

of the Species section.

Stabilization of the new subpopulation at Ridgefield NWR would eventually lead to a range 

expansion of CWTD into areas away from the release sites. Currently black-tailed deer occur in 

nearly all of the areas that the CWTD may eventually occupy. As CWTD population expands, it 

is expected that a certain level of habitat partitioning will occur, and that black-tailed deer will be 

replaced in marginal habitats that are more suited to CWTD. CWTD may be exposed to other 

animals and therefore diseases and parasites as they pioneer more “urban/suburban” areas.

Genetics and Hybridization

We do not anticipate that these factors will be substantially different than described in the Status 

of the Species section.

As CWTD population expands, it is expected that a certain level of habitat partitioning will 

occur, and that black-tailed deer will be replaced in marginal habitats that are more suited to 

CWTD. However, this may also result in additional opportunity for hybridization as this change 

in species composition progresses.

Collisions

CWTD near Kalama and Ridgefield NWR may be exposed to a higher level of vehicle and train 

traffic and larger highways than they have experienced elsewhere in their range. We anticipate 

that vehicle collisions may represent a higher proportion of the annual mortality than was seen in 

other subpopulations. We anticipate that train collisions may not be as frequent as vehicle 

33
collisions, but there is a dearth of information on this subject. We do note that other than a few 

bridges, the tracks are located at ground level with little to no provisions for wildlife crossing, 

and therefore, little amelioration of the probability of collision.

WSDOT (2009) estimated that an average of between 55 and 92 trains per day will travel 

through the Kelso to Martin’s Bluff corridor. The 55 trains is a 2008 estimate. The 92 trains is 

the estimate for the average daily number of trains in 2028. Other estimates have been that 70 

freight trains use the corridor each day. However, much of this is freight train traffic which may 

be much slower, albeit with a wider strike area. Freight trains run at all times of the day and 

night. We anticipate that that the strike rate for freight trains would be somewhat less than for 

high-speed passenger trains. (Refer to the Effects of the Action section for an explanation of the 

considerations in developing collision rates). We estimate that 2 to 4 CWTD may be struck each 

year by freight trains.

Passenger trains (Coast Starlite and Amtrack Cascades) that currently run may strike deer as 

well, even without the additional speed resulting from this project. Even without the additional 

trains added by this project, the existing schedule includes morning trains and trains running 

beyond sunset, a time when strikes become increasingly probable. If we consider that morning 

and evening trains have the highest probability of striking a deer, we estimate that 0.5 to 1 

CWTD may be struck each year by existing passenger trains without the additional effects of the 

project described below. 

In total, up to 2 to 5 CWTD may be struck annually in the foreseeable future regardless of 

whether the project occurs. This estimation is for the existing condition of traffic with the newly 

introduced CWTD, and what would continue into the future if the project did not happen.

Illegal Purposeful Killing

We do not anticipate that these factors will be substantially different than described in the Status 

of the Species section. However, the proximity of pioneering CWTD to areas of dense human 

population may lead to increased rates of illegal killing as their range expands. Deer translocated 

to Cottonwood and Ridgefield have experienced 2 known and 1 suspected poaching events. This 

is a high rate compared to rates of suspected poaching in established areas. It is likely that 

events such as these will decrease as people become more educated to the presence and status of 

CWTD, but as deer enter new areas there will be a period of education where poaching will 

probably be more likely, but still low enough not to significantly affect the population. We 

believe that illegal killing will be more likely off Ridgefield NWR than on it. 

Flooding

We do not anticipate that these factors will be substantially different than described in the Status 

of the Species section.

34
Climate Change

Climate change is an atmospheric response to high carbon dioxide levels caused by Federal and 

nonfederal actions that has significant implications on weather that will likely influence the 

condition of species and alter (lessen or magnify) the effects of human proposed actions on 

species. The anticipated effects within the action area are the same as discussed in the Status of 

the Species section.

Ongoing Management

Several releases of CWTD have occurred on Ridgefield NWR and Cottonwood Island. CWTD 

from Cottonwood Island have reached adjacent mainland areas. At least one additional future 

release is being planned for Ridgefield NWR. Concurrently, the USFWS is working with 

Wildlife Services to conduct predator control on Ridgefield NWR. Translocation of additional 

CWTD to Ridgefield NWR is anticipated to improve the numbers and genetic diversity of 

CWTD on Ridgefield NWR. Source areas have abundant numbers of CWTD and would be 

expected to return to normal numbers within 2 years or less.

Capture attempts are not always successful (Sullivan et al. 1991; White and Bartmann 1994;

Haulton et al. 2001) and during an unsuccessful attempt the deer will still be harassed through 

disturbance. Even when a deer is successfully captured, some negative responses would occur 

due to the stress of capture attempts and the stress of release to an unfamiliar location. 

Translocation can also result in deer injury and mortality. The Service takes all reasonable 

precautions to avoid and minimize injury and to maximize an animal’s chance of survival 

following release.

Post-release mortality is less understood than capture mortality. When the muscle is exerted, its 

metabolism changes from aerobic to anaerobic and it uses stored energy in the muscles. This 

leads to a series of physiological changes. This process, known as exertional myopathy or 

capture myopathy, is considered a noninfectious disease of animals characterized by 

degenerative or necrotizing damage to skeletal and cardiac muscles associated with physiologic 

imbalances after extreme exertion and stress (Williams and Thorne 1996). In mammals, the 

disease has been documented primarily in ungulates after capture or restraint, hence common use 

of the more-restrictive term “capture myopathy”. 

Because deer are given antibiotics and supplements, they often have better survival than resident 

deer. But that can be offset by mortality resulting from unfamiliar surroundings (e.g., vehicle 

strikes or poor nutrition). Clark (USFWS 1988) translocated 64 deer from Puget Island in 

1986-1988 and found no higher mortality than the baseline rate of resident deer (USFWS 2005). 

Expected natural annual mortality is 20 percent for does and 40 percent for bucks (Gavin 1984). 

However, post-release mortality can vary widely due to deer condition and factors at the release 

site. Post-release mortality may include capture myopathy, or less direct and poorly understood 

mechanisms such as increased predation or accidents. The Service takes steps during capture 

35
attempts and during handling and transport to reduce the stress to CWTD. Steps taken during 

these stages can significantly alter the rate and severity of myopathy, and may also help reduce 

other causes of post-release mortality.

Translocation represents a redistribution of deer within the Columbia River DPS and has 

established the Ridgefield subpopulation. It has also facilitated the establishment of home ranges 

north of Ridgefield NWR near the Kalama River. In association with such translocations, 

control of predators has been conducted to support fawn and doe survival. Ultimately, these 

management actions should enhance the distribution and viability of the Columbia River DPS of 

CWTD and result in a net benefit to the population. These management actions are expected to 

contribute to the conservation of the Columbia River DPS by establishing additional viable and 

secure subpopulations. 

Regulatory Mechanisms

Although there is no State Endangered Species Act in Washington, the Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Commission has the authority to list species (RCW 77.12.020) and they listed CWTD as 

endangered in 1980. State listed species are protected from direct take, but their habitat is not 

protected (RCW 77.15.120). Under the Washington State Forest Practices Act the Washington 

State Forest Practices Board has the authority to designate critical wildlife habitat for State listed 

species affected by forest practices (WAC 222-16-050, WAC 222-16-080), though there is no 

critical habitat designated for CWTD. The WDFW hunting regulations remind hunters that 

CWTD are listed as endangered by the State of Washington (WDFW 2014, p. 16, 18, 81, and 

82). This designation means it is illegal to hunt, possess, or control CWTD in Washington. This 

designation adequately protects individual CWTD from direct harm, but offers no protection to 

CWTD habitat.

The Washington State Legislature established the Forest Practices Act in 1974 (Chapter 76.09

RCW). The Forest Practices Act formed the Forest Practices Board and gave them the authority 

to develop rules to implement the Forest Practices Act and to amend the rules as necessary. The 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is responsible for implementing 

the Forest Practices Rules and is required to consult with WDFW on matters relating to wildlife, 

including CWTD. The Forest Practices Rules do not specifically address CWTD under critical 

habitats (WAC 222-16-080), but they do address threatened and endangered species under their 

“Class IV-Special” rules (WAC 222-10-040; WDNR 2014, pp. 10-2 to 10-3). If a landowner’s 

forestry-related action would “reasonably...be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce 

appreciably the likelihood of the survival or recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing 

the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species...” the landowner would be required to 

comply with the State’s Environmental Policy Act guidelines before they could perform the 

action in question. These guidelines can require the landowner to employ mitigation measures or 

they may place conditions on the action such that any potentially significant adverse impacts 

would be reduced. Compliance with the Forest Practices Rules does not substitute for or ensure 

compliance with the Federal ESA; however a permit or consultation under ESA is recognized by 

the Forest Practices Rules. A permit system for the scientific taking of State-listed threatened 

and endangered wildlife species is managed by the WDFW.

36
The WDNR manages 1.8 million acres of forested Trust land under a multiple species Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP). Their HCP technically includes the CWTD, as their land ownership 

overlaps the range of the deer. Some of these lands are leased to private entities for agricultural 

uses (WDNR 1997, p. III-51). However, the WDNR HCP does not address agricultural activities 

and the leasing of agricultural lands. Any take of CWTD that may result from agricultural 

activities on those lands, is not authorized under the HCP. Some non-timber resource activities 

that occur on the forested lands are covered to the extent that impacts to CWTD do not exceed 

the levels of impact present in 1996. At the time of signing of the HCP, WDNR also leased 

lands to the JBH NWR. However, those lands have since been purchased by the Service. Three 

other HCPs address CWTD through a habitat-based approach, but are located in areas well 

outside the current distribution of CWTD (and most likely outside the historical distribution) and 

are therefore unlikely to affect CWTD in the foreseeable future.

Conservation Role of the Action Area for the Species

The action area is a relatively small area that is long and narrow and contains only small amounts 

of habitat suitable for CWTD. The most-important roles of the action area are to: 1) Provide 

connectivity of habitats on either side of the tracks; and 2) Minimize the tracks contribution to 

direct mortality of CWTD so that the Ridgefield NWR subpopulation and Upper Estuary Islands 

subpopulation can continue to increase in numbers and distribution and support the function of 

the DPS.

Current Condition of the Species in the Action Area

Stabilization of the new subpopulation at Ridgefield NWR and nearby mainland areas would 

eventually lead to a range expansion of CWTD into some human-dominated landscapes. Such 

expansion represents a return to the historical range, but also may lead to human/animal 

interaction in areas away from the release sites. Currently, the number of CWTD in the 

Ridgefield NWR subpopulation is below objectives and may receive additional supplementation 

from other subpopulations in the foreseeable future. It remains to be seen how the deer adjust to 

this area and the quality of forage the area will provide. Active predator management may 

improve fawn survival. The action area contains habitat for CWTD and in some places, hiding 

cover is present on both sides of the tracks indicating a heightened potential for crossings; 

however, there are few safe places for CWTD to cross the tracks.

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

The regulations implementing the ESA define “effects of the action” as “the direct and indirect 

effects of an action on the species or habitat together with the effects of other activities that are 

interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline” 

(50 CFR 402.02).

37
Effects to Individual CWTD

The proposed action may potentially result in short-term and long-term effects to CWTD. Below 

we examine potential effects such as direct injury, habitat loss, and disturbance. These potential 

effects are described in greater detail in the following sections.

The proposed actions for Tasks 5 and 6 are similar and involve the following components:

• Construction 

o Clearing, vegetation removal, or management

o Grading and substrate movement

o Track installation

o Installation of switches, lights, and minor infrastructure

o Utility improvements

o Construction-generated noise

• Operation 

o Operation of switches, signaling devices, lights, etc.

o Operation of rail yard including trains stopping and starting, assembling of trains, 

shunting of cars (switching), 

o Intermodal yard operations, including the transfer of containers.

• Routine maintenance of infrastructure

o Routine repairs (similar to construction)

o Minor repairs (similar to operation)

o Cleaning and upkeep

o Track and infrastructure inspections

o Other routine maintenance such as snow or debris clearing 

o Unscheduled operations as a result of equipment or infrastructure malfunctions

• Other Effects

o Increased average speed

o Increased train trips 

o Increased noise from increased train trips and increased average speed

Exposure Analysis

The exposure analysis presents the set of resources (species, populations, individuals, life stages 

or forms, or habitat elements) that are present in the action area and that are likely to be exposed 

38
to the action. These resources co-occur with the stressors caused by the proposed activities 

conducted in areas occupied by CWTD. This analysis provides a foundation for determining 

whether the action could result in a response by CWTD. The Response Analysis will then 

further analyze stressors to which CWTD may be exposed. 

CWTD within and adjacent to the Action Area

Currently, the number of CWTD within the action area is relatively few. However, translocation 

of additional CWTD is planned for the 2014-2015 season and should help increase the numbers 

of CWTD on Ridgefield NWR. The introduced population will likely expand in numbers and 

distribution in the coming years. Populations of introduced large herbivores tend to increase to 

peak abundance following introduction to a new range, crash to a lower abundance, and then 

increase to a carrying capacity lower than the peak abundance (Leopold 1943; Riney 1964; and 

Caughley 1970). Typical irruption patterns of other introduced populations would lead us to 

anticipate an increasing number of CWTD with an eventual dense population for a period of 

time, followed by a decrease to a number in better balance with available habitat. Following the 

initial growth and decline periods, we would anticipate that the population would then remain 

relatively stable or fluctuate more mildly.

Populations of 70 to 100 deer per square mile, or more, are possible during such a peak 

population. But long-term densities would more likely stabilize /fluctuate around approximately 

20 to 40 deer per square mile. Action area south of Kelso extends for 30 to 40 miles, including 

some areas that we would not anticipate to see deer on a regular basis. From Martins Bluff 

northward, suitable habitat may not be of the same quality as further south and may be quite 

isolated by the Columbia River and Interstate 5. However, CWTD in areas surrounding this 

northern portion of the action area may also increase in numbers and occupy a sizeable range 

along the tracks with some potential for crossings and interaction with trains. This area extends 

for about 16 miles south of Kelso to Martin’s Bluff.

Another 16 miles of track south of Martins Bluff extends through or adjacent to potentially 

suitable habitat, and in some cases through higher-quality habitat. CWTD in the action area may 

occur on the tracks or within 25 feet of the tracks from time to time and may therefore be 

exposed to risk of being struck. CWTD deer in the action area may occur in habitats within 

1,650 feet of the tracks and may be exposed to additional noise. Affected deer may include 

adults and fawns. Refer to the Anticipated Adverse Effects section for more details regarding 

timing and level of exposure to risk of being struck.

CWTD within the Work Zones

CWTD have been observed in the areas surrounding Task 5 and Task 6. However, in both Task 

5 and Task 6 work areas, deer use is not anticipated to be frequent or persistent due to the lack of 

habitat and presence of industrial activity. While CWTD may occasionally wander into the work 

area from adjacent areas, it is unlikely for CWTD to spend a considerable amount of time in 

these areas or to depend on these areas for any of their life-history requirements. Introduced 

CWTD are present in areas surrounding each of the Tasks but are unlikely to be on tracks and in 

the train yard during the proposed construction, operation, and maintenance activities.

39
Activities with a Discountable Likelihood of Adverse Effects

Injury from Construction, Operation, or Maintenance Activities: None of these actions are 

anticipated to result in direct injury or contact with deer as the likelihood of deer being present in 

the construction area during construction is extremely unlikely and, even if they were present in 

the work area, it would be extremely unlikely that they would be co-located with the proposed 

activities and injured by such operations. Therefore, injury to CWTD from construction, 

operation, or maintenance activities is discountable. However, CWTD may be found throughout 

the area surrounding construction, operation, and maintenance activities. Effects from noise and 

disturbance are discussed below.

Response Analysis

This response analysis focuses on actions and their stressors that are likely to result in exposure 

to individual CWTD.

Activities Likely to Cause Insignificant Effects to Individual CWTD 

The following actions are anticipated to result in only insignificant effects (i.e., effects that are 

not able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) for the reasons discussed below.

Vegetation Removal from Construction, Operation, and Maintenance: There is currently little to 

no suitable habitat within the work areas and no grading, clearing, or grubbing is proposed in 

areas that have the potential to degrade suitable deer habitat. Construction, operation, and 

maintenance activities will remove vegetation but not in an amount that would be meaningful to 

the needs of any individual CWTD. Vegetation removal will be minimal and will occur in areas 

unlikely to be regularly used by CWTD.

Disturbance from Construction, Operation, and Maintenance: Noise, vibration, and human 

presence from construction, operation, and maintenance would have an insignificant effect on 

CWTD because there is little suitable habitat within the work areas and therefore CWTD are not 

expected to be in the work areas during such work. There have only been limited CWTD 

sightings in or near the work areas. CWTD have the ability to readily move away from areas of 

disturbance. Deer are resilient to disturbances and often habituate to local noises and regular 

activities. They seem to habituate to noises and vehicle / equipment presence more readily than 

to presence of humans on foot. Even if CWTD do exhibit some response to such disturbance, 

minor amounts of increased vigilance, small-scale movement, and increased use of cover are not 

likely to negatively affect individual CWTD.

Disturbance from Passenger Train Traffic: Noise from trains may vary in intensity and 

attenuation. In general, estimates for noise from locomotives may be approximately 83 dB at 

100 feet (49 CFR 229.121). Other factors contributing to the noise include passing of trains on 

parallel tracks; movements on curved track sections which can generate wheel squeal; and 

passing of trains over rail track discontinuities such as switches, frogs, special track work, hot 

boxes, dragging equipment, wheel-impact detectors, joints for signalization, and at-grade 

intersections with roads and other rail infrastructure. Tracks in need of repair (loose joints, 

40
rough rail, ground settlements) can increase the noise from passing trains. Audible warning 

devices of all types (e.g., horns and whistles), whether mounted on the train or near at-grade road 

crossings may generate additional noise. Train horns, by regulation, must be 96 to 110 dB at 100 

feet (49 CFR 229.129). Attenuation is affected by the weather, relative humidity, surrounding 

environment, and other factors and may be highly variable at greater distances. For distances 

greater than 1,650 feet or where topography is very irregular, the use of prediction methods for 

rail-traffic noise is not recommended (CTA 2011).

Increased rail traffic (4 trips per day) will result in some increased noise; however, it would only 

occur in one location for a short period of time each time a train passed and would occur within 

the corridor where such noise is a regular occurrence. Increased average speeds may increase 

noise, such as wheel squeal and clatter, but may also decrease noise from acceleration and 

deceleration. Increased average speed may decrease the amount of time that any one particular 

point is exposed to noise. Maximum speed would not change. Therefore, we believe it is remote

and speculative to attribute any additional noise to poorly understood increases in average speed.

Deer are resilient to disturbances and often habituate to local noises and regular activities. The 

minor amount of increased noise from additional train trips through a corridor (with substantial 

existing train traffic) is not likely to elicit meaningful responses from individual CWTD. 

Therefore, we anticipate that if CWTD are present in surrounding areas, noise from additional 

train traffic would not have a measurable effect on CWTD.

Barrier effects: Whether roads act as barriers is largely unknown for most taxa even though such 

information seems critical in developing species management programs, especially for declining 

populations (Shepard et al. 2008). Forman and Alexander (1998) summarize some of the 

investigations on wildlife regarding barrier effects. Ito et al. (2005) documented a distinct barrier 

effect of railroad tracks in Mongolia when examining gazelles; they did not document any 

gazelles crossing the tracks. Dyer et al. (2002) found late winter barrier effects were evident as 

caribou crossed actual roads 6 times less frequently than simulated road networks.

Barriers are likely with less-mobile species, lower profile species, and roads that are wide and 

heavily used. As an example, it would not be surprising to see barrier effects manifest 

themselves when examining frogs and snakes, or certain mustelids. Regarding larger species 

such as ungulates and large carnivores, some species have behavioral patterns that may increase 

the likelihood of barrier effects. For instance, barrier effects may be greater in gregarious 

ungulates where factors such as group cohesion may influence animal decisions. However, 

white-tailed deer have shown a propensity to feed along roads and to cross roads (successfully 

and unsuccessfully). While transportation corridors may serve as a filter for white-tailed deer, 

we do not consider them complete barriers.

The tracks through most of the action area already exist and have been in use for many years. 

The corridor already receives significant traffic by both passenger and freight trains. The 

marginal change in traffic volume and speed of passenger trains is not likely to influence any 

barrier effect that may be ongoing. We do not anticipate that the tracks will become an 

increasing barrier as a result of the proposed actions. Therefore, we believe any barrier effects 

from the proposed action will be so small as to not be measurable.

41
Actions Likely to Cause Adverse Effects to Individual CWTD

Of all recorded wildlife-vehicle accidents in the United States, the vast majority involve deer, 

especially white-tailed deer (Hubbard et al. 2000). Increased injury or death of CWTD from 

deer-train strikes are the main factor that we have identified that could reasonably occur from the 

proposed projects. There are two factors that may cause increased strikes: 1) increased number 

of passenger train trips (including the timing of those trips); and 2) increased average speed of all 

passenger train trips. In both cases, the factors affecting deer are a result of modifications to 

passenger train traffic.

There is a certain level of strikes that would be anticipated to occur even if additional train trips 

were not added and existing train trips continued to travel at their current speeds. Our analysis in 

this Opinion will focus on the effects of the proposed Federal actions, which limits our analysis 

to the factors changed by the proposed projects - increased train trips and increased average 

speed. The proposed projects are not necessary for continuation of passenger train traffic at the 

current level or for continuation of freight traffic. Effects from the existing ongoing level of 

train traffic are considered to be in the environmental baseline for the CWTD (discussed above) 

and will be considered again later during an assessment of population-level effects.

Increased Train Trips

In order to assess the likelihood of strikes, we examined factors such as number of additional 

trips and timing of additional trips. We also needed to examine the likelihood of deer being 

present on the tracks which is a function of the frequency and duration of crossings or presence 

on tracks. Other than the possibility of some elevated sections of track over bridges, there are no 

absolute barriers to CWTD along the action area and deer can, and eventually will, go almost 

anywhere in the action area. However, we do recognize that some portions of the track may 

have higher likelihoods of collision than other portions.

Risk of collision varies with traffic (volume, timing, and speed), animal density and movement 

patterns, and the proximity of preferred habitats. Below we examine these and some additional 

factors that are likely to contribute to the probability of train - deer interactions either by 

affecting the likelihood and duration of CWTD on the tracks, or the probability of collisions if 

the CWTD are on the tracks.

Amount of tracks within potential range of deer: From Kelso to Martins Bluff vegetated areas 

near the tracks are limited, and may be quite isolated by the Columbian River and Interstate 5. 

However, there is some potential for deer to cross the tracks and subsequent interaction with 

trains. This area extends for about 16 miles south of Kelso to Martin’s Bluff. 

In addition, another portion of the tracks up to 16 miles in length south of Martins Bluff extends 

through or adjacent to vegetated areas. South of the Lewis River, these tracks are adjacent to 

about a mile of land north of the Ridgefield NWR, and then for the next approximately 7.5 miles, 

Ridgefield NWR lies west of the tracks. South of Ridgefield NWR, there is another 

approximately 2.5 miles of tracks that have vegetated areas to the west.

42
The vast majority of the tracks in the action area are at ground level. There are only a few 

bridges over rivers and large streams and no other sections of elevated tracks. Therefore, almost 

all 32 miles of track may experience some probability of trains striking deer, yet the probabilities 

are likely influenced by the habitats through which the tracks pass.

Adjacent habitat and potential to affect track usage: While deer and deer-vehicle collisions may 

be widespread, their occurrence is not randomly distributed across the landscape. Certain road 

sections (“hotspots”) and certain times of day have a much higher occurrence of wildlife–vehicle 

collisions than one would expect if these types of collisions would be truly random in time or 

space (Huijser et al. 2007). Studies show road kills tend to be spatially aggregated with a small 

percentage of locations accounting for a large proportion of kills (Puglisi et al. 1974, Bashore et 

al. 1985, Hubbard et al. 2000, Malo et al. 2004). A similar trend was seen on Hokkaido Island, 

Japan, by Ando (2003) when examining deer collisions caused by trains. A majority of the kills 

(97 percent) within the 7-km long study area occurred within a 2 km section of track.

Areas with high risk of collisions can be predicted to a fair degree from vegetation and 

topography. Forest cover and its proximity to the road are also important predictors of collision 

risks with other ungulates, such as white-tailed deer in Illinois and Pennsylvania (Puglisi, 

Lindzey and Bellis 1974; Bashore et al. 1985; Finder et al. 1999) and roe deer in Austria and 

France (Kofler and Schulz 1987 as cited in Seiler 2005; Berthoud 1987 as cited in Seiler 2005). 

Foraging deer are often killed between fields in forested landscapes and between wooded areas 

in open landscapes (Bellis and Graves 1971, Romin and Bissonette 1996.); as deer in open 

landscapes concentrate near cover while deer in forested landscapes concentrate on foraging 

opportunities.

Yet the effect of forest habitat depends on the composition of the wider landscape; where 

preferred habitat is extensive and common, deer accident sites were more randomly distributed 

(Allen and McCullough 1976; Bashore et al. 1985; Feldhamer et al. 1986). White-tailed deer

and vehicle collisions are typically associated with mixed landscapes that provide cover (forests, 

shrub land) as well as food (more open areas with grasses, herbs, crops, but also young 

trees)(Finder et al. 1999, Huijser et al. 2007). A high heterogeneity and diversity of the 

landscape, proximity to cover, and the occurrence of edge habitat (transitions from cover to more 

open habitat), riparian habitat, and shrub land are strongly associated with the presence of whitetailed deer and white-tailed deer-vehicle collisions (Finder et al. 1999, Huijser et al. 2007, Puglisi 

et al. 1974, Mundinger 1979, Leach 1982, Arno et al. 1987, Leach and Edge 1994, Nielsen et al.

2003, and Rogers 2004).

Many studies have shown that linear landscape elements, such as riparian corridors, ditches, 

steep slopes, or ridges, as well as fences, may funnel animals alongside or across the roadway, 

increasing the probability of collision (Bashore et al. 1985, Feldhammer et al. 1986, Madsen et 

al. 1998 as cited in Seiler 2005, Finder et al. 1999, Hubbard et al. 2000). Gunson and 

Cleveneger (2003) did not find that the presence of a waterway drainage perpendicular to the 

roadway was a significant factor related to mortalities in all watersheds. This can largely be 

explained due to the presence of a bridge associated with some of the water crossings, which 

may have provided a tunnel for wildlife to traverse the highway. In addition, many of the water 

crossings were associated with steep topography typical of mountain landscapes, which may 

43
cause animals to travel the highway corridor in search of more-level crossing locations. Gunson 

and Clevenger (2003) found that habitat was useful as a predictive variable, but its effects 

differed by watershed conditions.

The relationship between slopes and collisions is uncertain (Huijser et al. 2008). Carbaugh 

(1970) found that deer favored steep declines and inclines and rarely used level areas. By 

contrast, Malo and others (2004) found that lateral embankments, especially with guardrail, 

negatively correlated with collisions. Alexander and Waters (2000) found that slopes less than 5 

degrees were optimal for wildlife movement, but that west to south facing slopes were also 

indicative of locations with wildlife movement. Pellet (2004) found that on a section of 

Interstate 90 near Bozeman, Montana, as the absolute mean slope increased up to 19.5 percent, 

ungulate vehicle collisions decreased; while further increases in slope led to an increase in 

collisions. This may have been due to the fact that steeper slopes are found near Interstate 90 in 

areas connecting mountainous areas (Bridger and Gallatin Range) and are frequent travel 

corridors. In the Gallatin Valley, most of the land is flat and fertile. Moderate slopes are 

generally found in areas with less-fertile soils and fewer deer; and steeper slopes are found where 

ridgelines meet the Interstate. In the Gallatin Valley, riparian corridors and areas of cover were 

more influential than slopes in determining roadkill locations (Vogel, W., pers. comm. 2014).

Studies on wildlife and roads have demonstrated the potential for the effect of steep 

embankments on the potential for wildlife-vehicle collisions. In general, wildlife-vehicle 

collisions are substantially less likely when there is a topographic break between the roadway or 

railway and the surrounding landscape. Kusta et al. (2011) found, “Findings of body residues 

occurred in those sections where the line does not form a distinct height barrier, whether with its 

embankment or ditch. All killed individuals of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and European 

hare (Lepus europaeus) were found on open, flat sections of the track, in the vicinity of which 

the animals stayed over the long term.” The areas where animals “stayed over the long term” 

were areas near the croplands where they fed at night.

The slope on the sides of the railroad bed throughout much of this corridor is a likely factor 

affecting CWTD movement. In some areas, the slopes are very steep on one side (the uphill 

side), in other areas, there is also a steep slope on the downhill side. There are also places where 

the tracks have two uphill sides (where the tracks are built in a depression e.g., lower than 

immediately surrounding lands), or two downhill sides (where the tracks are built on a berm).

As we analyzed the actions area we considered that CWTD appear to show a preference for 

gentle terrain and cover. In open habitats when cover is available, deer-vehicle collisions are 

also more prevalent near cover which deer often use when traveling.

Below we analyze the tracks by sections to assess likelihood of deer use, likelihood of crossings, 

and available alternatives to crossing tracks. However, there are no absolute barriers to CWTD 

along the action area and deer can, and eventually will, go almost anywhere in the action area 

with the possible exception of some elevated sections.

Kelso to Lewis River: About 1.2 miles south of State Route 432 there is a road that goes under 

the tracks and another 0.5 mile south of that crossing, there is a bridge over a stream. The tracks 

44
then go over the Kalama River on a bridge and, almost 0.5 miles to the north of the river the 

Kalama River Road goes over tracks. The Kalama River Bridge does not span any substantial 

amount of habitat on either side of the river, but deer have apparently been going under the 

bridge. There is a small island under the Interstate bridges that at least one deer uses frequently. 

Oak Street, just north of Kalama, crosses the tracks on an overpass. South bound lanes of 

Interstate 5 go over tracks at 0.4 mile north of Martin Island and again at the Dike Access Road 

near Woodland, Washington. The tracks then cross the Lewis River 1.5 miles east of its 

confluence with the Columbia River, but do not span any substantial amounts of habitat.

In most of this section, tracks have limited habitat along them due to the adjacent Interstate 5, 

Columbia River, industrial lands, and other factors. There are some small areas that would likely 

harbor deer. From Burke Island to the Lewis River (west of Woodland), the tracks pass through 

a mainly agricultural area, however, this area has relatively sparse cover for deer.

This section has some habitat and has had deer observed in this area. Proximity to Cottonwood 

Island and small areas experiencing current use will likely mean that there will be some deer 

using this area in the future. We anticipate the use of this area will be light in comparison to 

other sections of track further to the south; however, how deer use differing habitat patterns on 

either side of the interstate and railway may be difficult to predict and may depend on factors we 

have not yet considered.

Lewis River to Town of Ridgefield: Vegetated areas occur on both sides of the tracks along 

much of this section, although terrain is quite steep in some places and many areas west of the 

tracks are dominated by wetlands or open water. There are no apparent crossing structures in 

this section, with the exception of a possible culvert 1 mile north of the town of Ridgefield. 

However, the size of this culvert is not known.

This section has portions where the terrain is not excessively steep and there is cover on both 

sides of the tracks. We anticipate deer will use this area, but use will be unevenly distributed due 

to wetlands and terrain. Areas to the east of the tracks that may harbor deer include Lake 

Rosannah and associated woodlands as well as the intermixed residential wooded areas.

We consider this 2- to 3-mile section to be an area of concern. A cursory assessment of habitat 

conditions, including terrain, cover, land and water, and other factors that could hinder 

movements indicate three areas of probable crossings (Figures 2 and 3). From north to south, 

these crossings are: 1) 0.4 mile long and moderate probability; 2) 0.4 mile long and higher 

probability; and 3) 0.03 mile long and moderate probability. Other areas in this section may also 

be crossed by deer or be used by deer. The third, southern-most crossing area has a potential 

culvert of unknown size on its northern edge.

45
Figure 2. Assessment of Barriers and Permeability - Lewis River to Ridgefield

Legend

• Red line indicates topographic feature

• Yellow lines indicates water or other 

features that may hinder movements

• Green line indicates areas with cover on 

each side of the tracks

• Yellow arrow indicates a potential 

culvert of unknown size

46
Figure 3. Assessment of Likelihood of Crossing - Lewis River to Ridgefield

Legend

• Green lines delineate areas of 

high probably crossing

• Yellow lines delineate a 

moderate probability of crossing

• Yellow arrow indicates a 

potential culvert of unknown size

47
Town of Ridgefield to Campbell Lake: There are significant areas of cover east of the tracks 

between Long Lake and Campbell Lake. Several draws are crossed by the tracks in the general 

area of Bowers Slough, but the areas between the draws are rather steep. Much of this section of 

track is bounded on the west side by the Vancouver Lake outlet. Therefore, in addition to 

crossing the tracks, deer would need to swim the outlet to access any substantial areas of habitat 

beyond the small amounts between the tracks and the outlet. However, CWTD move freely 

across the outlet. There is a bridge at 1.6 miles south-southwest of the town of Ridgefield and 

apparently a large culvert at 1.4 miles south-southwest of the town of Ridgefield.

We consider this 2- to 3-mile section to be an area of concern. Cursory assessment of factors 

that could hinder movements indicates three areas of probable crossings (Figures 4 and 5). All 

three of these crossings (number 4 through 6 from north to south) are 0.2 mile long and of higher 

probability. If the Vancouver Outlet is a substantial factor affecting deer movements, these 

crossings may only be moderate in probability. Other areas in this section may also be crossed 

by deer or be used by deer. Probable crossing area 5 potentially has a culvert of unknown size

and crossing area 6 appears to have a bridge. The bridge may serve as an alternative to crossing 

the tracks.

Campbell Lake to Vancouver Lake: The tracks go over a bridge at NW Fales Road east of 

Campbell Lake and there is likely a large culvert near the north end of Green Lake. A box 

culvert road underpass exists near south end of Green Lake and there is another bridge across 

Salmon Creek near the Clark County Wastewater Treatment Facility.

While the concern about deer use of tracks in portions of this section may not be as high as some 

of the areas to the north, we consider approximately 3.5 miles of this section to be an area of 

concern. Cursory assessment of factors that could hinder movements indicates two areas of 

probable crossings (Figure 6 and 7). Crossing 7 is 0.2 mile long and of high probability while 

crossing 8 is only 0.1 mile or less and is of moderate probability.

Most of the track in this section is bordered on the west by either Green Lake or the Vancouver 

Lake outlet. We anticipate the use of this area will be light in comparison to other sections of 

track further to the north; and, therefore, the chances of deer-train interactions in this section are 

relatively low.

Summary of adjacent habitat and potential to affect track usage: Our assessment indicates 16 

miles of track in which deer use of tracks is most likely (Martin’s Bluff and South), although 

some use of the tracks will also occur between Martin’s Bluff and Kelso. Between Martin’s 

Bluff and Vancouver, the probability of deer use is relatively low along about 7.5 miles of track, 

slightly higher along about 3.5 miles, and higher along about 5 miles of track. Habitat conditions 

appear most suitable to deer on both sides of the track within a 2- to 3-mile section of track north 

of the town of Ridgefield, Washington, and another 2- to 3-mile section south of Ridgefield. An 

additional area of concern would be the next 3.5 miles of track to the south between Campbell 

Lake and Salmon Creek. Deer-train interactions appear most likely within these 5 to 8.5 miles of 

track (“Areas of concern”), even though deer could possibly be affected over a larger area.

48
Figure 4. Assessment of Barriers and Permeability - Ridgefield South

Legend

• Red line indicates topographic 

feature

• Yellow line indicates water or 

other features that may hinder 

movements 

• Green arrow indicates a bridge 

(elevated section of track)

• Yellow arrow indicates a 

potential culvert of unknown size

49
Figure 5. Assessment of Likelihood of Crossing - Ridgefield South

Legend

• Green lines delineate areas of 

high probability of crossing

• Green arrow indicates a bridge 

(elevated section of track)

• Yellow arrow indicates a 

potential culvert of unknown size

50
Figure 6. Assessment of Permeability and Barriers - South of Campbell Lake

Legend

• Red line indicates topographic 

feature

• Yellow line indicates water or other 

features that may hinder movements

• Green lines indicate areas with cover 

on each side of the tracks

• Green arrow indicates an elevated 

section of track

51
Figure 7. Assessment of Likelihood of Crossing - South of Campbell Lake

Legend

• Green lines delineate areas of high

probably crossing

• Yellow delineates a moderate 

probability of crossing

• Green arrow indicates an elevated 

section of track

52
We then focused on these 8.5 miles of “area of concern” and attempted to identify probable

crossing areas within those areas of concern. Within the concern areas north of Campbell Lake 

totaling about 5 miles, we have identified six probable crossing areas comprising 1.0 mile with a 

high probability of crossings and 0.8 mile with moderate probability of crossings. In the area of 

concern between Campbell Lake and Salmon Creek about 3.5 miles in length, we identified 2 

small probable crossing areas (0.2 mile high probability and 0.1 mile of moderate probability). 

In our subsequent analysis, we intend to rely on the estimates of 8.5 miles of concern areas, and 

2.1 miles of probable crossing areas to assist us in estimating deer-train interactions.

We anticipate that crossings are likely to be relatively less frequent along most of the track than 

in certain other areas (probable crossing areas) where topographical and vegetative conditions 

are conducive to crossing. Other studies have also shown that a high portion of crossings may 

occur in a very small part of the landscape. We also tried to consider features such as bridges 

over riparian areas and/or areas where tracks are elevated, as well as other features at streams 

(e.g., box culverts) but were unable to obtain information about size, design, and location of such 

crossings.

Documented deer usage: Deer movements have been documented in the action area. These data 

are from Very High Frequency (VHF) collars and Global Positioning System (GPS) collars. 

GPS collars take frequent locations when satellites can be reached and represent a more complete 

dataset of the 24-hour day. VHF collars require staff on the ground and data are collected only 1 

to 3 times a week usually around midday, whereas most crossings are likely to occur at dusk or 

dawn. 

Existing telemetry data for relocated CWTD indicate that CWTD are likely travelling parallel to 

the tracks on Ridgefield NWR far more than crossing the tracks. This has also been supported 

by anecdotal observations. It is unclear whether they are avoiding tracks or the bank below the 

tracks, or whether they are merely showing preference for the vegetation types in the lowlands.

CWTD were translocated to Ridgefield NWR and Cottonwood Island during winter of 2013 and 

2014. Both VHF collars and GPS collars were deployed. The most appropriate data are those 

collected from the GPS collars as they represent a fairly complete picture of deer movements 

over an entire day. They were programmed to attempt relocation every 2 hours and were mostly 

successful, with an average of about 11 relocations per day. When they failed to get a relocation

or two, it led to some relocations being separated by 4 to 8 hours.

While the GPS observations represent a better dataset than the VHF data, they still contain some 

inherent bias. First, these data only represent does. Bucks tend to move more, especially during 

rut, and have slightly larger home ranges. Second, these data only represent 8 individuals, only 2 

of which were from Cottonwood Island. Third, these data are from adult deer. Younger animals 

reaching adulthood may have a higher tendency to disperse. Finally, these data are from 

translocated deer. Translocated deer spend an initial period exploring soon after translocation 

and again just prior to fawning. This may increase the likelihood of crossing a track. Overall 

these data may not represent true crossing rates deer with established home ranges. Out of 8 

does fitted with GPS collars, 3 crossed nearby railroad tracks during the period of observation. 

These 3 animals crossed multiple times.

53
Of the 2 does collared on Cottonwood Island, both crossed the train tracks at some point. The 

first crossed 5 times within an 8-day period and did not cross again, however this deer ended up 

being struck by a vehicle on Interstate 5, which runs parallel and near the train tracks. We 

monitored this doe for 154 days for a rate of 0.03 crossings per day. The second Cottonwood 

doe crossed 22 times in 499 days (0.04 per day), however this deer discovered a bridge over the 

Kalama River, and we think it was crossing under the tracks in the water for most of the crossing 

events. 

Of 6 Ridgefield does fitted with GPS collars, 1 crossed nearby railroad tracks 6 times and 5 

never crossed at all. All crossings for this doe occurred over a 15-day period within 30 days of 

being translocated, and then did not cross anymore. This deer died of natural causes at 168 days 

(1927 points) for a rate of 0.04 crossing per day over that 168-day period. Highest crossing rates 

were from evening and early night, and late morning (Table 2).

Table 2. Crossing times for CWTD crossing train tracks near Cottonwood Island and Ridgefield 

NWR, 2013–2014.

Time of Day 00:01–

04:00

04:01–

08:00

08:01–

noon

12:01–

16:00

16:01–

20:00

20:01–

midnight

Number of Crossings 4 2 6 4 10 7

Deer that did not cross tracks were simply less likely to be in the vicinity of tracks. The 

likelihood of a deer crossing the tracks is probably most affected by whether its home range is 

near a track or overlays a track. Obviously those deer that have home ranges away from a track 

have little opportunity to cross. Timing was another factor. Of the 3 deer that crossed the tracks, 

one only crossed within a 15-day period during 30 days of release and another only crossed 

within an 8-day period.

The VHF data should be viewed with caution as it contains many inherent biases, the greatest of 

which is that these data were collected 1 to 3 times per week during daytime hours, generally 

midday within about a 4-hour timeframe. As such, these data only reflect where a deer was at

midday, about once per week. While this can lead to a general idea of home range over time, it 

misses any nighttime or crepuscular activity. In addition, detecting a track crossing requires the 

deer to move across the track and stay there for a week, or that by chance the deer happens to be 

located on the other side of the track the following week. Finally VHF data are from 

triangulation and can have a comparatively large amount of error associated with some of the 

relocations. Each point has a unique error around it depending on distance and angles of 

triangulation. The VHF data suggest a higher rate of individuals crossing tracks than the GPS 

data for Ridgefield deer and a similar rate of crossing for Cottonwood deer. However, the VHF

sampling scheme does not represent a full picture of deer movement and any rates of crossing 

from this data are not likely to reflect true crossing rates.

54
The telemetry data indicate that CWTD that have crossed the tracks in some fashion were within 

or near riparian corridors and that riparian corridors (i.e., bridges) may have been used more than 

other areas for crossing the tracks and Interstate 5. We anticipate that when available nearby and 

when CWTD have a choice, CWTD may prefer riparian under-crossings as opposed to going up 

and over a potentially steep and rocky railroad grade.

Unfortunately, the existing telemetry data is relatively new and is only tracking deer that have 

been translocated from other parts of their range. These deer are relatively naive in their use of 

this habitat and are still present at lower densities. Usage patterns may shift substantially in the 

next few years as additional deer are translocated and as the population increases from 

reproduction. Deer that are more familiar with their surroundings may develop patterns that 

include crossings or deer that pioneer habitats east of the tracks may incorporate crossings into 

daily or seasonal movements. 

Deer Density: The relationship between deer population density and the number of collisions

seems intuitive, but this is not necessarily the case (Waring et al. 1991, Lehnert et al. 1998). 

Generally, increases in density of deer are likely to result in additional strikes. We anticipate that 

the density of deer will remain relatively low on the mainland from the Cowlitz River to the 

Lewis River due to dearth of habitat and relatively high level of development adjacent to the 

tracks. However, we do anticipate continued use by deer especially considering the proximity to 

Cottonwood Island. 

We further anticipate density of deer will be at low levels south of Campbell Lake. We believe 

low densities will occur because of small amount of cover within vegetated areas and the linear 

narrow shape of many vegetated areas. Also this area will likely experience substantial use by 

humans as indicated by a high density of development and residential areas nearby. Between the 

Lewis River and Campbell Lake, we anticipate that a combination of reintroductions and 

reproduction of existing deer will establish a subpopulation on Ridgefield NWR and adjacent 

areas. Following the translocations in spring 2014, there were estimated to be 43 CWTD on 

Ridgefield NWR, 5 CWTD south of Ridgefield, as well as an unknown number near Cottonwood 

Island. However, additional translocations are planned for the 2014-2015 season.

The highest densities of CWTD in the action area in the foreseeable future are expected to be 

along Ridgefield NWR or adjacent areas. Ridgefield NWR is located near the town of 

Ridgefield, Washington, and is comprised of 5,218 acres of marshes, grasslands, and woodlands 

of which about 3,800 acres (approximately 6 square miles) are terrestrial habitat. If 

translocations are successful, it is possible that CWTD numbers may rise to a high level prior to 

establishing a long-term balance with their habitat. It is feasible that deer on and adjacent to 

Ridgefield NWR may peak at 500 or more (approximately 100 deer per square mile in some 

locations over more than 6 square miles). Long-term numbers would more-likely fluctuate 

around 120 to 240 CWTD (approximately 20 to 40 deer per square mile).

The number of CWTD will likely change over time and future numbers are quite uncertain. 

However, over the long term (approximately 20 years), we believe it is reasonable to assume that 

deer densities may average about 20 deer per square mile and therefore have used this density in 

our calculation below.

55
Daily Movements: Another key determinant in train collisions is the amount of movement by 

deer along and across the tracks. We anticipate that CWTD movements in the action area will 

follow patterns similar to what has been observed in ungulates elsewhere and discussed in the 

Status of the Species section. This indicates that CWTD will be exposed to additional collision 

risk during mornings and evenings, even though we do not have data specific to this relationship

for CWTD. We anticipate daily patterns will vary by season and surrounding topography and 

vegetation. However, in general, we anticipate peak movements on a daily basis will occur at 

and following dusk, with another period of high daily movement near dawn. In addition to these 

crepuscular periods, we also anticipate that nighttime movements may be more common than 

movements during the day.

Looking at ungulate-vehicle relationships elsewhere, we note that Allen and McCullough (1976) 

indicated that deer-vehicle collisions involving white-tailed deer happened more frequently 

during the evening and at night in southern Michigan. In northeastern Minnesota, more moose 

(Alces alces) were struck by vehicles at night than during the day (Belant 1995). In Norway, 

trains running at night, in the morning, or in the evening experienced a higher risk of collision 

with moose than did trains running during the day; and the probability of collision was also 

higher during nights of full moons than during nights of half or no moons (Gunderson and 

Andreassen1998). The risk of collision was 5 to 6.8 times higher during the night, morning, or 

evening than during the daytime and 1.3 times higher during periods with a full moon than 

during periods with a new or half-moon (Gunderson and Andreassen1998).

Huijser et al. (2008) reported peaks in wildlife-vehicle collisions at 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. to 

10 p.m. For large mammals, numerous studies have shown that collisions occur more frequently 

in the morning (5 a.m. to 8 a.m.), the evening (4 p.m. to 12 a.m.), in the fall (October and 

November), and in the spring (May through June)(Joyce and Mahoney 2001, Putman 1997, and 

Hughes et al. 1996). Huijser et al. (2008, Figure 8) suggests 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 12 

midnight had higher rates of collisions, with a particularly pronounced peak from 7 p.m. to 

11p.m.

In Finland, the recorded times for 13,379 crashes with moose and 8191 crashes with white-tailed 

deer were adjusted to sunset and sunrise. The highest crash peak relative to traffic volume 

occurred 1 hour after sunset for both species of deer. The relative risk peaked at 30 times the 

seasonal daytime level of the crash rate for white-tailed deer in the fall and at over 60 times for 

moose in the summer (Haikonen and Summala 2001).

For vehicles, peak traffic times and driver visibility during the first hours of darkness have been 

cited as contributing factors. Unlike vehicles, trains trips are more constant and visibility is not a 

factor, so daily activity patterns of deer seem to be the primary factor contributing to daily 

patterns in collisions with trains.

Seasonal Movements: CWTD are not migratory, but some movements will be more common at 

certain times of the year. We anticipate additional dispersal movements by yearling CWTD just 

prior to and during the fawning season, and anticipate additional excursions and exploratory 

movements during the pre-rut and the rut.

56
In northeast Minnesota, frequency of moose-vehicle collisions was similar between sexes, as was 

the number of vehicle collisions involving adults or calves. There were, however, differences in 

collision frequency between sexes over time. Thirty-six percent of collisions involving males 

(primarily adults) occurred during September and October in contrast to 19 percent of females. 

(Belant 1995). Regarding deer-vehicle collisions, Vogel (1983 p 33) reported that 46 percent of 

the yearling male carcasses collected during a study in Montana were collected during a 4-week 

period of late May to early June. A similar trend was found by Puglisi et al. (1974).

Train Traffic: Vehicle traffic volume explained 59 percent of the monthly variation in frequency 

of moose train collisions in northeastern Minnesota (Belant 1995). However, lower traffic 

volumes do not necessarily equate with fewer roadkills (Jaarsma and Willems 2002). In fact, 

collisions actually decrease when traffic volume increases to a high enough level that it is, in 

effect, a barrier (i.e., animals do not attempt to cross)( Jaarsma and Willems 2002, Huijer et al. 

2000, Trocme et al. 2003). Several researchers have hypothesized an inverse relationship 

between successful and unsuccessful crossings and the barrier effect with increasing traffic 

(Trocme et al. 2003, Seiler 2003, and Alexander et al. 2005). However, vehicles travel busy 

roads more than trains travel on tracks. With respect to CWTD, we anticipate additional highspeed passenger trains will contribute to additional mortality.

Train Speed: Vehicle speeds seem to contribute to collisions with deer. In Yellowstone National 

Park, 41 percent of ungulate (primarily elk (Cervus canadensis) and mule deer) accidents 

occurred in roadway segments with a posted speed limit of 55mph but these segments 

represented only some 8 percent of the roadway within Yellowstone National Park (Gunther et 

al. 1998 as cited in Putman et al. 2004). Average operating speeds measured along the roadway 

segments with a 55 mph posted speed limit were about 9 to 16 mph higher than that posted. The 

operating speed measured along those segments with a 35 and 45 mph posted speed limit, 

however, were within 1 to 3 mph of that posted. Looking at elk in Canada, researchers

concluded that a decrease in the posted speed limit had a significantly negative effect on the 

number of vehicle collisions that occurred (Bertwistle 1999 as cited in Putman et al. 2004). 

Vehicle speed can also increase frequency of moose collisions (Del Frate and Spraker 1991, 

Lavsund and Sandegren 1991). Danks and Porter (2010) found a 35 percent increase in moose 

collisions for every additional 5 mile per hour from 25 to 55 miles per hour, but this relationship 

was most-pronounced above 45 miles per hour.

Gunderson and Andreassen(1998) found that the probability of moose-train collisions increased 

with increasing train speed. For instance, an increase in train speed from 50 to 100 km/hour 

doubled the risk of collision. The slope of the association between train speed and moose 

collisions was not statistically significant; although the authors believed that reduced speed could 

serve as a means to reduce the number of moose-train collisions in certain areas during high-risk 

periods. The authors stated that “although the relation between train speed and moose collision 

is considerably uncertain statistically, the relation should nevertheless be considered carefully in 

the future prior to the introduction of faster trains. High-speed trains may increase the number of 

moose-train collisions considerably in the future, and in particular if careful attention to the time 

schedule when high-speed trains pass high-risk areas is not paid” (Gunderson and 

Andreassen1998). In Alaska, reduced trains speeds were tested but failed to reduce the 

57
likelihood of moose strikes. Speeds were reduced from 50 to 25 mph (Becker and Grauvogel 

1991). The authors noted that at some speed, strikes may decrease but these speeds were cost 

prohibitive and were not tested further.

The effect of speed for trains is not same as for vehicles – slower vehicles may give deer a 

chance to avoid the collision but also give drivers a chance to respond or stop - with trains, the 

response time of the engineer and the time needed to stop are too long to be factors in 

minimizing collisions. However, slower speeds might provide CWTD additional opportunities 

to avoid collision.

Effects of Collision: In most cases the animals die immediately or shortly after the collision. 

Even in collisions with smaller vehicles such as cars, there is frequently considerable internal 

damage including situations where the deer walks or runs away from the collision. In some 

cases, multiple animals may be struck during a single vehicle collision (Vogel 1983) and 

multiple, sometimes many, animals may be struck by a train during one incidence (e.g., 270 

pronghorn struck by one freight train; Missoulian 2011). Gunderson and Andreassen(1998) 

documented 406 moose-train collisions in Norway, which killed 466 moose.

In some cases, losses from collision can include young animals that may not have been hit 

themselves but that were orphaned, resulting in reduced survival probability. Mule deer fawns 

die if orphaned prior to 6 weeks of age, but older fawns survive (Swenson 1972). Robinette 

(1966:345) reported that mule deer fawns orphaned in fall quickly join another doe or 

matriarchal group. White-tailed deer fawns are rarely seen alone in Texas following antlerless 

hunts (Thomas et al. 1965:317), and apparently join other social groups. Orphaned sibling fawns 

in Illinois commonly remain together and surviving members of family groups usually function 

as a family after the dominant doe is killed (Hawkins 1967:127). No adverse effects of 

simulated orphaning (doe removal from 20 September to 11 November) were observed on whitetailed deer fawns in Virginia (Woodson et al. 1980).

Because adult does may be struck less frequently than males and younger deer, and because the 

time during which fawns would be vulnerable to orphaning is relatively short (6 to 12 weeks), 

we do not further consider the effects of orphaning in this Opinion. Although such effects may 

occur, we believe that they would be relatively rare and would not add substantially to the 

population level effects we are already considering. Similarly, while multiple strikes during one 

train trip are possible, they would occur less commonly than single strikes and are already 

accounted for in our analysis of probability of strikes.

Mitigating factors: Reduced collisions have been documented where alternatives to actually 

crossing roads or tracks, such as bridges and underpasses, were present. Seiler (2003) found that 

the risk of collision was higher where private roads connected to a main road, but the risk 

decreased where tunnels or bridges separated the intersecting roads. In some cases, underpasses 

and overpasses have been constructed specifically for wildlife crossing, and are often associated 

with fencing to direct animals to the crossing points. A successful mitigation strategy requires a 

detailed analysis of the problem, the species and their behavior, the local situation, and often 

involves a combination of different types of mitigation measures. In this case, the lack of 

elevated tracks other than a few bridges, and the lack of a strategy to minimize or mitigate 

58
impacts of collisions lead us to adopt a reasonable worst-case scenario where, other than the 

bridges over major rivers and one unnamed creek, little opportunity existed for us to reduce our 

estimates of collision based upon alternate crossing options for CWTD.

Estimates of Injury Rates (additional Train Trips): Little information has been published 

regarding rates of deer collision by trains. In addition, deer struck by vehicles may be 

underreported by perhaps 50 percent or more (Allen and McCullough 1976; Romin and

Bissonette 1996). We would anticipate that reporting rates for trains in the United States would 

be even lower than for vehicles. For these reasons, we examine a variety of information to help 

inform our estimates of future deer strikes by trains.

Hokkaido Case Study: Ando (2003) studied collisions of trains with sika deer (Cervus nippon)

on Hokkaido Island, Japan. He looked at 7 km of track (about 4.3 miles) and documented 72 

kills over 10 years with 23 trains per day (0.31 kills per train trip per year). Ando (2003) 

documented approximately 1.6 deer per mile per year. Onoyama et al. (1997) noted a lower rate 

for 696 kills on 331 km of tracks over 7 years (about 0.5 kills per mile per year). If we assume 

that Onoyama et al. (1997) reported on tracks with similar levels of traffic, then we can calculate 

the strike rate (number of deer struck per mile per train trip on an annual basis). The strike rate 

reported by Ando (2003) would be 0.07 deer struck per mile per train trip per year and by 

Onoyama et al. (1997) would be 0.02 deer struck per mile per train trip per year. When only 

examining the more-intensive 2 km section discussed by Ando, the rate would be 0.24 deer 

struck per mile per train trip per year.

However, it is important to consider the density of deer along the tracks. While sika deer often 

occur at low densities in forested environments, they may also tolerate higher population 

densities as their small body size would indicate. Yamamura et al. (2008) estimated the 

Hokkaido population of sika deer at about 550,000 in 2005, due to a significant increase in 

western Hokkaido. For the year 1993 which was during the time of the Ando study (1986 to 

1995), Yamamura et al. (2008) estimated a total population of about 275,000.

Hokkaido Island has 32,222 square miles. However, while much of Hokkaido is covered with 

forests or farms, it also has significant areas of development, such as the city of Sapporo. 

Hokkaido is about the same size as Ireland and is slightly more populated. Using an estimate of 

275,000 sika deer or an overall density of less than 10 sika deer per square mile would be 

misleading due to the tremendous variability of habitat and sika density across the island. 

Unfortunately, eastern and western Hokkaido have had different population densities, and the 

wintering concentrations in eastern Hokkaido cannot be accurately estimated.

Ito et al. (2014) reported sika deer density ranging from 10 and 80 sika deer per square mile with 

intermediate densities of 14 to 19 sika deer per square mile on a portion of mainland Japan. 

Tsujino and Yumoto (2004) documented densities of 130 to 170 sika deer per square mile on 

Yakushima Island, while Ito and Takatsuki (2005) documented over 2,000 sika deer per square 

mile on Kinkazan Island which is a preserve with no hunting and no predators. We assume that 

densities during the Ando study were likely far higher than 20 sika deer per square mile of winter 

range, and may have approached 200 or more sika deer per square mile.

59
We considered whether the densities of sika deer present during the Ando 2003 study may have 

been consistent with what may occur in the action area. We note that densities of CWTD in the 

future may vary within a wide range. However, given the migratory nature of the sika deer in 

Ando’s study, and the likely far lower density of CWTD during the next 20 years, it is 

appropriate to consider that his densities may have been several times greater than would occur 

in the situation we are currently analyzing.

Ando (2003) reported that 97 percent of all collisions occurred along an approximately 2-km 

(1.2-mile) section of the track. Collisions varied with season with a large portion of the total 

collisions and documented crossings occurring during January through March. However, 

Ando’s study occurred in an area where sika deer migrated seasonally to winter range near the 

tracks. Deer in this area also moved regularly between feeding and resting areas on opposite 

sides of the track. Ando (2003) also reported that collisions were most frequent in the evenings 

with 69 percent occurring after 17:00, with a peak between 17:00 and 19:00. This corresponded 

with the peak collision period reported by Onoyama et al. (1997) of 16:00 to 23:00. Ando 

(2003) concluded that deer-train collisions occurred in relation to the daily activity pattern of 

deer in the vicinity of the railway tracks.

Application of strike rates from Hokkaido study: The strike rate reported by Ando (2003) was 

0.07 for all 7 km of his study and 0.24 for the 2 km with the most strikes. The strike rate 

calculated from Onoyama et al. (1997) was 0.02 deer struck per mile per train per year. If we 

apply these rates from Hokkaido to southwest Washington, we could develop some possible 

estimates of CWTD struck per year. 

However, we must consider that rates developed by Ando (2003) were for a migratory 

population on a winter range where concentrations during portions of the year were likely quite 

high. On an annual basis, the increased strikes during the winter would be somewhat 

ameliorated by lower strikes in the summer, but not completely. In addition, sika deer have a 

small body size and can likely attain higher densities that white-tailed deer. Ando (2003) may 

have had densities over 200 sika deer per square mile while we anticipate about 20 CWTD per 

square mile. For these reasons, we reduced the collision rates for our estimates to one-quarter

that observed by Ando (2003). Onoyama et al. (1997) looked at a larger area than Ando (2003) 

and may not have included as much winter range; however, due to the smaller body size of sika 

deer and likely higher densities, we reduced the collision rates for our estimates to one-half that 

observed by Onoyama et al. (1997).

For the 2.1 miles of probable crossing areas, we would apply the higher rate (0.24) observed by 

Ando (2003) for his concentrated 2 km section of track. Adjusting this rate by one quarter would 

lead us to a rate of 0.06 deer struck per mile per train per year and an estimate that about 0.13

CWTD would be struck per year per train, or about 0.5 CWTD would be struck per year as a 

result of the proposed project.

60
For the 8.5 miles of concern areas, we would apply rates of 0.02 to 0.07 from Onoyama et al. 

(1997) and Ando (2003) respectively. We would apply half the Onoyama rate (0.01 deer struck 

per mile per train per year) and only apply a quarter of the Ando (2003) rate (0.018 deer struck 

per mile per train per year). This would lead us to estimate that about 0.08 to 0.15 CWTD would 

be struck per year per train, or about 0.3 to 0.6 CWTD would be struck per year as a result of the 

proposed project over the 20-year analysis perioid.

Independent Estimates: Using best professional judgment, we considered the variability in the 

number of deer that may occupy home ranges that overlap with the tracks, or that may travel on 

excursions outside their normal home ranges on a periodic basis. This is difficult to predict 

because the track corridor is not uniformly permeable to deer and the habitats on either side of 

the tracks are very different. Habitats in intermixed residential areas east of the tracks provide 

local abundant cover and may also provide good foraging opportunities.

A “normal” density would be less than the optimum of 40 deer per square mile and may be 

approximately half that if the translocations are successful. CWTD densities in the range of 20 

to 40 per square mile appear common. Additionally, deer most likely to cross the track would 

likely reside within proximity to the tracks, and likely spend much of their time within a quarter 

mile on either side. Therefore, we used 20 deer per square mile and a corridor of a half square 

mile to approximate 10 deer per mile of track with a likelihood of crossing the tracks or using 

areas nearby. We also looked at the availability of habitat on either side of the track and adjusted 

our estimate of 85 deer to 50 deer in this 8.5-mile corridor. From preliminary telemetry 

information, it appears that CWTD seldom cross the tracks and prefer to remain west of the 

tracks. However, the telemetry data also indicate that some CWTD now spend at least some of 

their time east of the tracks. While some deer may make daily trips between cover on one side of 

the track and forage on the other, we believe the majority of the deer will reside on one side or 

the other. However, we also recognize that excursions will become much more common during 

certain times of the year, such as pre- fawning, fawning, pre-rutting, and rutting periods.

Some deer may spend time on the tracks or in the right-of-way to forage on adjacent shrubs and 

plants or forage on spillage. While efforts have been made in some parts of the country to 

reduce spillage of grain and other foods to reduce strikes of ungulates and carnivores, it is 

unclear whether these efforts would be employed by freight trains in this area. Spillage is most 

likely to occur during peak transport periods for various crops. Spillage of grains such as wheat 

and corn may be particularly attractive to any deer and other wildlife. We also assume that salt 

is not used as a de-icing agent very frequently if at all due to the moderate climate.

Using the 8.5 miles of concern and a density of 20 CWTD per square mile, we estimate that up 

to 85 deer may reside within proximity of the tracks (10 deer per mile of track in an area that is 

0.5 mile across); however, we adjusted this number to 50 based upon areas without habitat likely 

to contain deer on both sides of the tracks. Due to the factors discussed above, we anticipate that 

only a few of these will cross or occupy the tracks on a daily basis. Based on best professional 

judgment and careful analysis of the topography, vegetation, and other factors along the tracks, 

we anticipate that fewer than 5 percent will cross on a daily basis (fewer than 2.5 CWTD per 

day) and most of those will utilize alternative crossings (e.g., bridges). Based upon telemetry 

data from recent translocations, the rate of crossing for deer that crossed the tracks seemed to be 

61
about 0.03 crossing per day; however, most deer never crossed the tracks. If we apply a 0.01 

crossing per day rate to 50 deer, it would result in 0.5 crossing per day. Therefore, we estimate 

that 0.5 crossing will be made per day within the 8.5 mile areas of concern. We anticipate that 

some deer will cross rapidly while others may stop to feed, or to travel parallel to the tracks. To 

be conservative, we estimate that each deer will spend 5 minutes on the tracks, for a total of 2.5 

minutes of occupancy per day, or on a proportional basis 0.0017 of the day or year. In other 

words, each of the new proposed train trips would have a 0.0017 probability of passing by while 

a deer is within the right-of-way. We anticipate 1,460 additional passenger train trips per year. 

Therefore, on an annual basis, 2.5 trains would pass by a deer in the right-of-way. Passenger 

trains are not anticipated to have the lading or strapping that freight trains have and are therefore 

not likely to strike a deer unless the train itself strikes the deer. Although some deer may panic 

and run in front of or into the side of the moving train, we anticipate that most deer will avoid the 

oncoming train. We estimate that only 10 percent of the trains passing deer on the right-of-way 

will strike a deer. This would result in a mortality rate of 0.25 CWTD each year from the 

proposed project. If up to 5 percent (our initial estimates) crossed the track every day, this 

number could be as high as 1.25; however, the telemetry information suggest this is unlikely and 

the average rate of crossing per day is likely closer to 1 percent.

However, we anticipate most crossings will occur near dawn and dusk or early evening hours 

which is the time when the additional trains under the proposed project would be added. 

Therefore, deer crossings may occupy a greater portion of the time of day when these additional 

trains would be running. For instance, if we examine 2 hours before and after sunrise and sunset 

(8 hours) or at night (4 hours) and assume that the additional trains would run during this time, 

we might estimate that 5 trains would be passing deer on the right-of-way and that up to 0.5

CWTD would be killed per year. During years with exceedingly dense populations of CWTD

(and associated additional movement), this number, based on our best professional judgment, 

could be as high as 2 CWTD killed per year.

If the number of deer along the action area is fewer, we would anticipate much fewer strikes. 

For instance, if the Ridgefield NWR subpopulation contains less than 100 CWTD and those deer 

make limited use of areas adjacent to the tracks; we might only anticipate fewer than 0.1 crossing 

per day or occupancy of less than 0.0003 of the time. If fewer than 0.5 trains pass a deer in the 

right-of way per year, and only strike a deer 10 percent of the time, this would result in about one 

strike every 20 years. 

Summary of Estimates: Using Rates from previous studies on sika deer in Japan, we grossly 

estimated that 0.3 to 0.6 CWTD may be struck annually as a result of the project. Using our 

independent analyses, we anticipated strike rates of 0.25 to 1.25 CWTD per year. When 

considering the time of day these additional trains would run and the possibility of peak 

populations, we anticipate that, 2 or more CWTD may be struck and killed per year during peak 

populations. We anticipate this number will vary over time and with population density. As a 

reasonable worst-case, up to 2 CWTD may be struck annually from a population of about 200 

CWTD and therefore we intend to use this rate of mortality (1 percent) for our assessment of 

population effects. However, we believe that this level is not reasonably certain to occur. It is 

62
reasonably certain that 1 CWTD would be struck every 2 to 4 years, or that 0.25 to 0.5 CWTD 

would be killed per year. This range is similar to what we derived when analyzing the work on 

sika deer from Japan, as well as conforming to the moderate assumptions in our independent 

analysis.

Increased Average Speed 

In this assessment, we consider that there will only be an increase in average train speed, not the 

maximum speeds. The most-likely change would be that trains will no longer need to slow down 

and stop at times. However, for some portion of the trip, the change in speed may be meaningful 

to the strike rate of CWTD. However, as discussed earlier, there is an uncertain relationship of 

train speed to strikes. Yet a doubling of speed has been observed to cause a doubling in the rate 

of collisions (Gunderson and Andreassen1998). This increased speed does not only apply to the 

newly proposed passenger train trips, but also to the existing passenger train trips. Some of the 

existing passenger train trips occur during the morning and evening time, while others occur 

midday. We anticipate a much smaller rate of strikes for passenger train trips in the midday 

period. However, we also consider that the change in speed applies to all of the passenger trains

that would be using this corridor. Given the uncertain pattern of train speed following the 

proposed project in comparison to the existing pattern, it is difficult to predict the change in 

strike rate that may be attributable to the change in speed alone. The change in speed may be 

most pronounced at slow speeds and would likely be relatively small. For these reasons, we use 

our best professional judgment and estimate that one additional CWTD may be struck due to 

increases in passenger train speed attributable to this project during the 20-year analysis period.

Effects at the Population Scale

Our independent estimates of deer strikes were based upon a presumed future density of about 20 

deer per square mile across much of the suitable habitat available to deer and averaged over a 

20-year time period. Higher densities may result in additional mortalities, but at a similar 

proportion of the population.

Our estimates of mortality were up to one percent of a subpopulation (e.g., 1 CWTD per year 

from a subpopulation of 100, or up to 2 CWTD from a subpopulation of 200). As a reasonable 

worst-case analysis, we discuss the meaning of an additional one percent mortality to CWTD in 

the newly formed Ridgefield NWR subpopulation. Total mortality rates are anticipated to be 

about 20 percent annual mortality for does and about 40 percent for bucks based upon rates 

observed in the past in other subpopulations (Gavin 1984). Therefore, loss of one percent would 

be a small portion of the ongoing mortality.

Tenasillahe Island, Puget Island, JBH NWR Mainland, and Westport have averaged higher than

0.37 fawn:doe ratios for the last 5 years. On average from 1986 to 2006, the fawn:doe ratio on 

Puget Island was 0.44, with a range of 0.22 to 0.70. Several factors may contribute to the higherthan-average fawn recruitment and overall robust CWTD population on Puget Island, including 

coyote control, availability of quality forage, and a larger local range protected from flooding 

(USFWS 2009b). We also consider that during some years, fawn:doe ratios could be 

substantially lower. With a population of 100 does, recruitment of 37 fawns, and loss of 20 does 

63
per year, there would be a 17 percent annual increase without the proposed project. The 

mortality anticipated as an indirect result of this project could slightly reduce this increase, or 

may be compensated for by other forms of mortality. 

Mortality in an increasing population may somewhat slow population growth, but is anticipated 

to be increasingly compensatory in populations that approach their carrying capacity. For 

instance, a deer struck on the tracks may reduce the number of deer struck on roads. As deer 

reach or exceed carrying capacity, the principle of inversity indicates that density-dependent 

mortality rates will increase and reproductive rates will decline.

We anticipate that CWTD less than a year old may comprise a slightly larger component of the 

deer struck on the tracks. Deer less than a year old generally have lower survival rates, and thus 

such mortality of young deer on tracks is more likely to be compensated by other mortality 

factors.

CWTD, like other white-tailed deer, have a promiscuous breeding pattern. Bucks compete for 

the ability to breed does in estrus. From a population standpoint, most bucks are “surplus.” In 

addition, feedback mechanisms exist to adjust the sex ratios of newborn deer according to the 

density of bucks (Verme 1981). During certain times of the year, we anticipate that yearling and 

adult males may be struck in higher proportion compared to fawns and does. Regardless of life 

history stage of deer that are struck, we anticipate that these strikes will not substantially reduce 

the rate of increase of CWTD in the action area and will not reduce the ability of the action area 

to provide for the conservation needs of the species.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this Opinion. Future Federal actions 

that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 

separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.

Within the action area, nonfederal actions that would have detrimental effects on CWTD are 

likely to include human population growth and associated land-use practices that further modify 

and decrease quality and availability of CWTD habitat. New homes, businesses, and other landaltering developments would modify CWTD habitat. The associated construction of utility 

transmission lines, roads, and highways, with associated increases in vehicular traffic, noise, and 

human presence within the action area can be expected. However, there are no specific future 

nonfederal activities reasonably certain to occur within the action area that would cause 

significantly greater impacts on CWTD than presently occur. Anticipated development would to 

some degree clear native vegetation, leading to further habitat fragmentation and potential 

decreases in the remaining native habitat. Additionally, increased traffic associated with existing 

and new roads and highways would increase the likelihood of CWTD collision-related mortality. 

This development may delay the recovery of CWTD, leading to a reduction in both the access to 

suitable habitat and in the security of existing suitable habitat for the species. 

64
Within the project areas, more specific information is available. Upgrades to existing industrial

facilities in the Kalama Industrial Area and the Port are expected as typical, ongoing actions

within this commercialized area. Several currently issued permits, public notice review of

applications, or other documentation for work by others, range from building permits, Shoreline 

Management review, and State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Checklist review for

improvements to existing commercial facilities. Within the City of Kelso, we anticipate the 

expansion of the Southwest Washington Regional Airport according to its Capital Improvement 

Program which identifies a 5-year capital improvement plan to implement the Master Plan. This 

is anticipated to include runway and taxiway expansions as well as new hangers. The 

commercial property east of Task 6 is also in process of development or consideration of 

development.

Within the action area, nonfederal actions that would have beneficial effects on CWTD include 

native species’ conservation and recovery actions that seek to restore habitats important to 

CWTD and other native species. Land conservation organizations are actively and effectively 

seeking opportunities to acquire conservation easements and fee title ownership of important 

lands that support CWTD habitat. Other conservation groups are planning and implementing 

conservation actions directly and indirectly targeted at restoring CWTD habitat.

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS

Current Condition

Based upon the most-recent survey information, there are 843 or more CWTD in the Columbia 

River DPS, distributed among 6 subpopulations. Four of these subpopulations have well over 

100 CWTD each. Since 1986, three subpopulations have had an average fawn:doe ratio of 0.36 

or higher (Tenasillahe Island, Puget Island, and Westport). Tenasillahe Island, Puget Island, 

Westport, and JBH NWR Mainland have had fawn:doe ratios higher than 0.37 for the last 5 

years. Puget Island and Westport/Wallace Island have maintained populations of three to four 

times the viable standard for most of the last 30 years. Initial analysis from a minimum viable 

population model (Skalski 2012) suggests that the probability of extinction for the Columbia 

River DPS with 3 subpopulations of 50 CWTD each is less than 1 percent over the next 50 years. 

In addition, given the population distribution at that time, the model suggests a less than 1 

percent likelihood of extinction for this DPS over the next 100 years (USFWS 2013a). However, 

we now have all six subpopulations at or above 50, four of which are 140 or more.

Existing habitat for CWTD in the lower Columbia consists of pastures, forested tidal swamps, 

brushy woodlots, marshes, and sloughs along and nearby the Columbia River. There is 

essentially no elevational relief to the lower Columbia River bottomlands and CWTD are 

restricted to these flatlands. Most of the bottomlands have been diked and are crisscrossed with 

numerous sloughs and drainage ditches.

65
Summary of Ongoing Threats

Based on the most-recent data, the Columbia River DPS has approximately 850 CWTD in 6 

subpopulations. The Service has expanded the range of the DPS upriver from its eastern-most 

range of Wallace Island in 1983 to Ridgefield, Washington. The Ridgefield NWR subpopulation 

is expected to grow. The Columbia River DPS population has consistently exceeded the 

minimum population criteria of 400 CWTD over the past two decades. Due to the lack of 

contiguous habitat along much of its range, CWTD have been translocated to establish new 

subpopulations. Although the Columbia River DPS has certainly been negatively affected by 

habitat loss, fragmentation, and modification in the past, it appears that many of the changes 

currently occurring in land use patterns within the current range are compatible with the habitat 

needs of CWTD.

Coyotes have consistently been identified as the main cause in fawn mortalities, and lethal 

control of these predators appears to have shown some success. Research indicates that greater 

population gains may be achieved with increases in doe survival plus fawn recruitment than with 

increases in fawn recruitment alone. Predator control has less of an impact on doe survival than 

does improving habitat quality. Continuing predator control until subpopulation abundance 

objectives are reached, as well as improving the quality of forage habitat, should remain primary 

management objectives.

Hybridization and low genetic diversity recently have been identified in the Columbia River 

DPS. Evidence of low-level hybridization was detected among CWTD on JBH NWR, but future

genetics work could give a broader insight to the implications and occurrence of this apparently 

rare phenomenon. New information revealed a low genetic diversity among CWTD.

The predicted rise in sea level by climate change models could be the greatest future threat to 

any low-lying habitat of the Columbia River DPS not adequately protected by dikes. 

Maintenance of dikes and tide gates is paramount to protecting currently occupied lowland 

habitat on and off Refuge lands in the DPS. However, to ensure the long-term recovery of the 

species, priority must be placed on identifying suitable high-quality upland habitat and to 

develop partnerships with state wildlife agencies to facilitate the expansion and/or translocation 

of CWTD to these areas.

Freight trains would be anticipated to strike fewer CWTD than passenger trains when 

considering their potentially slower speeds, but due to their frequency and 24-hour schedules 

may still strike up to 2 to 4 CWTD per year. Passenger trains (Coast Starlite and Amtrack 

Cascades) that currently run may strike deer as well, even without the additional speed resulting 

from this project. Even without the additional trains added by this project, the existing passenger 

schedule includes morning trains and trains running beyond sunset, a time when strikes become 

increasingly probable. If we consider that morning and evening trains have the highest 

probability of striking a deer, we estimate that 0.5 to 1 CWTD may be struck each year by 

existing passenger trains without the additional effects of the project described below.

In total, up to 2 to 5 CWTD may be struck by trains annually in the foreseeable future regardless 

of whether the project occurs. This estimation is for the existing condition of traffic with the 

newly introduced CWTD, and what would continue into the future if the project did not happen.

66
Based on our review of the best available scientific information, we conclude that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect the species, now and in the foreseeable future. But 

protection of CWTD habitat on nonfederal lands is not required by any such regulations. From 

this review, it is apparent that since the publication of the Revised Recovery Plan in 1983, threats 

from habitat loss or degradation still remain but are less severe than previously thought. 

Predation can exist at a subpopulation level if predator control is not implemented but does not 

rise to the level of putting the entire DPS at risk of extinction. Vehicle collisions, disease and 

hybridization, and social resistance to expanded distribution are not likely threats to 

subpopulations of CWTD. The threat of sea-level rise due to climate change could potentially be 

a long-term threat to subpopulations that reside on low lying land that is not adequately protected 

by dikes. 

Overall, CWTD are on an upward trajectory toward recovery in both terms of numbers and 

distribution. Expansion to additional subpopulations should decrease the potential for stochastic 

effects, such as flooding.

Summary of Future Threats

New homes, businesses, and other land-altering developments are reasonably certain to modify 

CWTD habitat. The associated construction of utility transmission lines, roads, and highways, 

with associated increases in vehicular traffic, noise, and human presence within the action area 

can be expected. Additionally, increased traffic associated with existing and new roads and 

highways would increase the likelihood of CWTD collision-related mortality. In particular, 

future ownership of the land supporting the Westport subpopulation is uncertain. This area has 

seen an interest in levee removal for fish habitat restoration. Removal of levees in this area 

would represent a significant loss of habitat to a critical subpopulation.

CWTD are already subject to potential low recruitment and high fawn and doe mortality. 

Sources of mortality include predation by coyotes as well as accidents, such as vehicle-deer 

collisions. It is difficult to estimate each of these factors within the newly established Ridgefield 

NWR subpopulation. However, we believe it is reasonable to assume that the total annual

mortality rates will be approximately what have been documented elsewhere within their range 

(20 percent for does and 40 percent for bucks). We also anticipate that continued human 

development will remove potential habitat, restrict CWTD potential range, and may exacerbate 

many of the other threats discussed above.

Effects of the Proposed Action

Actual construction of the rail infrastructure and its maintenance are anticipated to have only 

insignificant effects on individual deer with no population consequences. However, the 

increased number of trains and increased average speeds of trains are anticipated to cause 

indirect effects in the form of train-deer collisions. 

67
Our estimates of collisions were made using two separate methods. We compared rates of 

collisions with those observed for other deer in other parts of the world. We also used best 

professional judgment to estimate the number and duration of occurrences of CWTD on tracks, 

the probability of a passing train, and the probability of a resulting strike. We applied the latter 

estimates to several scenarios that included different densities of CWTD.

First, we examined observed collisions from other studies. Due to a dearth of information about 

train-deer collisions, we examined several studies from Hokkaido Island, Japan. These numbers 

were adjusted for the likely higher population density of wintering sika deer, and they provided 

us with estimates ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 CWTD struck per year.

Second, using best professional judgment, we examined the tracks and adjacent habitat and made 

some assumptions about future CWTD densities and habitat use patterns. One set of estimates 

was conducted for a relatively large number of future CWTD. This led us to anticipate that 0.25 

to 0.5 CWTD per year may be struck as a result of the project. We also estimated that at 

exceedingly high densities up to 2 CWTD per year may be struck However, at lower populations

of CWTD, we believed the number of CWTD struck each year could be as low as 0.05.

We also considered the general lack of elevated track or crossing structures. We found little 

reason to adjust our estimates to a lower number as there is a general lack of crossing structures 

or minimization measures.

Peaks in mortality may occur in the spring during dispersal and/or in the fall during the rut. 

Amounts of mortality may be greater in some years than in others and would generally increase 

when CWTD population densities are high. We anticipate that adults and fawns will be killed, 

but that fawns (less than 1 year old deer) will be killed disproportionately more frequently than 

adult deer. We also anticipate that yearling and adult bucks will be killed at a disproportionately 

high rate.

At a population level, we conducted a reasonable worst case analysis and assessed the effects of 

an additional 1 percent mortality rate on the newly established Ridgefield NWR subpopulation. 

We anticipate fawn: doe ratios at or about 0.35 and annual doe mortality of about 20 percent. In 

this context, we anticipate that an additional 1 percent mortality will only slow the increase of 

CWTD to a minor extent. Once the population reaches carrying capacity, we believe this 

mortality rate will be partially compensatory with other mortality causes.

We anticipate that CWTD struck as a result of this project, will not substantially slow the 

increase of CWTD in the action area and will not reduce the ability of this subpopulation to 

support the DPS. The Service believes it is reasonably certain that 0.5 individual CWTD 

(associated with 1,460 additional passenger train trips per year) could be struck annually as an 

indirect result of this proposed action. We also anticipate that the additional average speed of 

passenger trains may result in 1 CWTD being struck over the next 20 years. Therefore, we 

believe the mortality of 11 CWTD over the next 20 years is reasonably certain to occur and that 

this mortality will be ongoing into the future, although sporadic and difficult to predict.

68
After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding the 

current status of CWTD, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the 

proposed action, and cumulative effects, the Service concludes that the proposed action is not 

anticipated to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of CWTD in the action 

area or in the listed range. Ridgefield NWR and surrounding areas will likely see an increase in 

their CWTD populations, even with a potential additional annual loss of 1 percent of the CWTD 

from the subpopulation and we do not anticipate that this project will affect the ability of the 

action area to contribute to the survival and recovery of the CWTD.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of the Columbia River DPS of the Columbian white-tailed 

deer, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action and the 

cumulative effects, it is the Service's Biological Opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. No critical habitat has been designated for 

this species; therefore, none will be affected.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm is defined by the Service as an act which actually kills or 

injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it 

actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Harass is defined by the Service as an 

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Incidental take is 

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise 

lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to 

and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the 

ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental 

Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the (agency) so 

that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the (applicant), as 

appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The (agency) has a continuing duty to 

regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the (agency) 1) fails to assume 

and implement the terms and conditions or 2) fails to require the (applicant) to adhere to the 

terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to 

69
the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to 

monitor the impact of incidental take, the (agency or applicant) must report the progress of the 

action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement 

[50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)].

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

The Service anticipates that 0.5 individual Columbian white-tailed deer associated with 1,460

passenger train trips per year could be killed annually as a result of this proposed action. We 

also anticipate that one (1) additional CWTD may be killed over the next 20 years as a result of 

additional speed on existing passenger trains resulting from proposed track improvements. 

Therefore, we anticipate that 11 CWTD will be taken over the next 20 years as a result of the 

proposed project. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harm. We anticipate that 

this take will be ongoing, although sporadic and difficult to predict. Peaks in mortality may 

occur in the spring during dispersal and/or in the fall during the rut. Amounts of mortality may 

be greater in some years than in others and would generally increase when CWTD population 

densities are high. We anticipate that adults and fawns will be killed. We anticipate that fawns 

(less than 1 year old deer) and yearling and older bucks will be killed disproportionately more 

frequently than adult does.

The Service anticipates incidental take of CWTD will be difficult to detect for the following 

reason(s). Incidental take may occur along many miles of track and often at night. CWTD 

struck by trains will not often be known or discernable. Walking along the private property 

containing the tracks is both illegal without permission and dangerous. CWTD struck by trains 

or lading that are not killed may crawl into cover and later die. CWTD struck by trains will 

likely be scavenged quickly and remains will decay. Even with a proper sampling regime, many 

carcasses will not be accounted for. Without a robust sampling or survey effort, it will be 

impossible to get a reliable estimate of collision mortality. CWTD are wide-ranging and use 

cover effectively, so that it may be difficult to detect minor changes in population numbers. 

However, the following level of take of this species can be anticipated by the number and timing 

of proposed additional trains because the primary factors determining strikes are 1) the 

occurrence of deer on the tracks and 2) the frequency of passing trains. For these reasons, while 

it may be difficult to monitor the number of CWTD struck by trains, we believe it is feasible and 

appropriate to monitor the number of additional passenger train trips as a surrogate indicator of 

the level of take.

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

In the accompanying Opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not 

likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat.

70
REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURE

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate 

to minimize impacts of incidental take of CWTD:

1. Minimize the frequency of train collisions with CWTD.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the Federal Railroad

Administration must ensure compliance with the following terms and conditions, which 

implement the reasonable and prudent measure, described above and outline required 

reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 

1. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) shall assess that portion of the Vancouver, 

B.C. to Portland, OR rail corridor that contains the action area for habitat connectivity in 

the Washington State Service Development Plan, to be finalized in 2017. The habitat 

connectivity analysis shall focus on CWTD in the range of CWTD. The FRA will 

request assistance from the Service in assessing habitat connectivity along the rail line in 

the range of the CWTD. Measures identified in the plan shall be implemented in the 

action area by the FRA, when reasonable to do so, as part of any subsequent rail 

improvement action funded by FRA.

2. The FRA shall coordinate with the Service and BNSF to develop and implement an 

Animal Retrieval Plan that specifies methods and contacts for retrieval of CWTD found 

dead or injured on the BNSF right-of-way. Such a plan shall be completed and 

implemented by the Federal Railroad Administration and BNSF by October 30, 2015.

3. The Federal Railroad Administration shall monitor and report the number of passenger 

train trips that occur each calendar year. Reports shall be submitted annually to the 

Service by March 1 of the following year.

The Service believes that no more than 11 CWTD will be incidentally taken as a result of the 

proposed action over the next 20 years.

The reasonable and prudent measure, with its implementing terms and conditions, is designed to 

minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, 

during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take 

represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable 

and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately provide an explanation 

of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the 

reasonable and prudent measures.

The Service is to be notified within three working days upon locating a dead, injured or sick 

endangered or threatened species specimen. Initial notification must be made to the nearest U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Office. Notification must include the date, time, 

71
precise location of the injured animal or carcass, and any other pertinent information. Care 

should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to preserve biological materials in the best 

possible state for later analysis of cause of death, if that occurs. In conjunction with the care of 

sick or injured endangered or threatened species or preservation of biological materials from a 

dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to ensure that evidence associated with the 

specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed. Contact the Service’s Law Enforcement Office at (425) 

883-8122, or the Service’s Washington Fish and Wildlife Office at (360) 753-9440.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

The FRA should implement the following measures:

1. The FRA shall assess the Vancouver, BC to Portland, OR rail corridor for habitat 

connectivity in the Washington State Service Development Plan, to be finalized in 

2017. The habitat connectivity analysis shall focus on CWTD in the range of 

CWTD. The FRA will request assistance from the Service in assessing habitat 

connectivity along the rail line in the range of the CWTD. Measures identified in 

the plan shall be implemented by the FRA, when reasonable to do so, as part of 

any subsequent rail improvement action funded by FRA.

2. Develop information flyers with pictures of distinguishing characteristics, or other 

approaches to facilitate identification of CWTD by WSDOT or BNSF staff who 

may work along the tracks or along roads within the range of the species. 

3. Fund larger-scale collision reduction efforts as more-effective technologies 

become available in the future. 

4. Improve wildlife safety and increase permeability within the existing Kelso to 

Vancouver Lake rail and interstate corridors. 

5. In cooperation with the Service, use information from deer strikes, crossings, and 

other data such as telemetry to identify places of frequent crossings of highways 

and tracks, and identify opportunities to enhance permeability of highways and 

tracks to CWTD within the range of the species. Incorporate collision 

reduction/permeability as a consideration in all future WSDOT and Federal 

Railroad Administration projects south of Kelso in Washington. For instance, if 

existing culverts are replaced or new culverts are added, consider installing 

culverts that would provide CWTD passage under highways and/or tracks.

72
6. Provide assistance to the Service to better estimate the number of deer (CWTD 

and black-tailed deer) struck by trains and vehicles in Washington south of Kelso.

In order to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting 

listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any conservation 

recommendations.

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the (request/reinitiation request). 

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where 

discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is 

authorized by law) and if: 1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 2) new 

information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in 

a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; 3) the agency action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered 

in this opinion; or 4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by 

the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any 

operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

73
LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, S.M., and N.M. Waters. 2000. The effects of highway transportation corridors on 

wildlife: a case study of Banff National Park. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging 

Technologies 8: 307–320.

Alexander, S.M., N.M. Waters, and P.C. Paquet. 2005. Traffic volume and highway 

permeability for a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The 

Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 49(4): 321–331.

Allen, R. and McCulough, D. 1976. Deer-car accidents in southern Michigan. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 40, 317–325

Ando C. 2003. The relationship between deer-train collisions and daily activity of the sika deer, 

Cervus Nippon. Mammal Study 28:135-143.

Arno, S.F., G.E. Gruell, J.G. Mundinger, and W. Schmidt. 1987. Developing silvicultural 

prescriptions to provide both deer winter habitat and timber. Western Wildlands Winter 

1987: 19–24.

Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North Am. Fauna. No. 55. 416 pp.

Bashore T.L., W.M. Tzilkowski, and E.D. Bellis. 1985. Analysis of deer vehicle collision sites in 

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 769–774.

Becker, E.F., and Grauvogel, C.A. 1991. Relationship of reduced train speed on moose-train 

collisions in Alaska. Alces, 27: 161-168. As Cited In: Dorsey, B.P. 2011. Factors 

affecting bear and ungulate mortalities along the Canadian Pacific Rail Road through 

Banff and Yoho National Parks M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 99 p

Beier, P., and D. R. McCullough. 1990. Factors influencing white-tailed deer activity patterns 

and habitat use. Wildl. Monogr. 109. 5lpp

Belant, J.L. 1995. Moose collisions with vehicles and trains in northeastern Minnesota. Alces 

31: 45–52.

Bellis ED, Graves HB. 1971. Deer mortality on a Pennsylvania interstate highway. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 35:232-37

Berthoud, G. (1987) Impact d’une route sur une population de chevreuils. Actes du colloques 

‘Route et fauna sauvage’. Strasbourg, 1985 (eds J.-M.Bernard, M.Lansiart, C.Kempf & 

M.Tille), pp. 167–170. Ministère de l’Équipement, du Longement, de l’Aménagement du 

Territoire et des Transports, Colmar, France. As cited in Seiler 2005

Biederbeck, H. 2002. Monitoring of deer hair loss syndrome in Columbian black-tailed and 

white-tailed deer in the Northern Coast Range of Oregon. Interim Report. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tillamook, Oregon. 9 pp. 

74
Biederbeck, H. 2004. Monitoring deer hair loss syndrome in Columbian black-tailed and 

whitetailed deer in the North Coast Range of Oregon, 2000-2004. Interim Report. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tillamook, Oregon. 16 pp. 

Brookshier, J. 2004. Management recommendations for Washington's Priority Species. 

Columbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus leucurus. Volume 4: Mammals. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Vancouver, WA. 

Carbaugh, B.T. 1970. Activity and Behavior of White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

Along an Interstate Highway in a Forest Region of Pennsylvania. Dissertation. The 

Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

Caughley, G. 1970 Eruption of Ungulate Populations, with Emphasis on Himalayan Thar in 

New Zealand. Ecology 51(1): 53-72. 

Chirino-Trejo, M., M.R. Woodbury, and F. Huang. 2003. Antibiotic sensitivity and biochemical 

characterization of Fusobacterium spp. and Arcanobacterium pyogenes isolated from 

farmed white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) with necrobacillosis. Journal of Zoo 

and Wildlife Medicine 34(3):262–268. 

Clark, A., G. Phillips, K. Kilbride, and T. Kollasch. 2010. Factors affecting Columbian 

whitetailed deer fawns in the lower Columbia River. unpublished. 21 pp. 

Clarke, G.P., White, P.C.L., and Harris, S. 1998. Effects of roads on badger Meles meles 

populations in south-west England. Biol. Conserv. 86: 117–124.

Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. DuBow, and W.A. Sanborn. 1995. Review of 

human injuries, illnesses and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 407–414.

Cowlitz Indian Tribe. 2010. Columbian white-tailed deer summary report. 7 pp. 

Creekmore, T., and L. Glaser. 1999. Health evaluation of Columbian white-tailed deer on the 

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian white-tailed deer. National Wildlife 

Health Center technical report 99-001. United States Geological Survey, Madison, 

Wisconsin, USA. 

Crews, A.K. 1939. A study of the Oregon white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus leucurus 

(Douglas). M.S. Thesis. Oregon State College, Corvallis. 46 pp.

CTA (Canadian Transportation Agency). 2011. Railway Noise Measurement and Reporting 

Methodology. August 2011. 86pp. Available at www.cta.gc.ca. 

Danks, Z.D. and W.F. Porter. 2010. Temporal, spatial, and landscape habitat characteristics of 

moose-vehicle collisions in western Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1229-

1241

75
Davison, M.A. 1979. Columbian white-tailed deer status and potential on off-refuge habitat. 

Columbian White-tailed Deer Study Completion Report Project E-I, Study 2, Jobs 3, 4, 

and 5. WDG. 66 pp.

Davison, M.A. and R.D. Spencer. 1979. Columbia River islands land status survey. Columbian 

White-tailed Deer Study Completion Report, Project E-l, Study 2, Job 4, Sec. 4. WOG. 

108 pp.

Davitt, B.B., and J.R. Nelson. 1984. Methodology for the determination of DAPA in feces of 

large ruminants. Pages 133-147 in R.W. Nelson, editor. Proceedings of the 1984 

Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop. Alberta Fish and Wildlife, 17-19 April 

1984, Edmonton, Canada.

deCalesta, D.S. and S.L. Stout. 1997. Relative deer density and sustainability: a conceptual 

framework for integrating deer management with ecosystem management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 25(2):252-258. 

Del Frate, G.G. and T.H. Spraker. 1991. Moose vehicle interactions and an associated public 

awareness program on the Kenai peninsula, Alaska. Alces 27:1-7.

DeYoung, C.A. 1988. Comparison of net-gun and drive-net capture for white-tailed deer. Wildl. 

Soc. Bull., 16(3):318-320.

Douglas, D. 1829. Observations on two undescribed species of North American mammalia 

(Cervus leucurus et Ovis californianus). Zool. J., 4:330-332.

Dublin, H.T. 1980. Relating deer diets to forage quality and quantity - the Columbian whitetailed deer. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. 135 pp.

Dyer, S.J., J.P. O’Neill, S.M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of roads 

and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. 

Can. J. Zool. 80: 839–845 

Ennen, J.R., B.R. Kreiser, and C.P. Qualls. 2010. Low genetic diversity in several gopher 

tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) populations in the Desoto National Forest, Mississippi. 

Herpetologica. 66 (1): 31-38. 

Feldhamer, G.A., Gates, J.E., Harman, D.M., Loranger, A.J. and Dixon, K.R. 1986. Effects of 

interstate highway fencing on white-tailed deer activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 50: 497–503.

Finder, R.A., J.L. Roseberry, and A. Woolf. 1999. Site and landscape conditions at whitetailed 

deer vehicle collision locations in Illinois. Landscape and Urban Planning 44: 77–85.

Forman, R.T.T., and Alexander, L.E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu. Rev. 

Ecol. Syst. 29: 207–231.

Gavin, T.A. 1978. Status of the Columbian white-tailed deer: some quantitative uses of 

biogeographic data. Threatened Deer 185-202. IUCN. Morges, Switzerland. 434 pp.

76
Gavin, T.A. 1979. Population ecology of the Columbian white-tailed deer. Ph.D. dissertation, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 168 pp. 

Gavin, T.A. and B. May. 1988. Taxonomic status and genetic purity of Columbian white-tailed 

deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 52(1): 1-10. 

Gavin, T.A., L.H. Suring, P.A. Vohs, Jr. and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Population Characteristics, 

Spatial Organization, and Natural Mortality in the Columbian White tailed Deer. Wildl. 

Monogr. 91. 41 pp.

Gavin, T.A., L.H. Suring, P.A. Vohs, Jr., and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Population characteristics, 

spatial organization, and natural mortality in the Columbian white-tailed deer. Wildlife 

Monograph 91. 38 pp. 47 

Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2007. Sea-level rise and coastal habitats in the Pacific 

Northwest: an analysis for Puget Sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern 

Oregon. National Wildlife Federation, Seattle, Washington. 106 pp. 

Gundersen, H., Andreassen, H.P. & Storaas, T. (1998) Spatial and temporal correlates to 

Norwegian moose–train collisions. Alces, 34, 385–394.

Gunson, K.E., and A.P. Clevenger. 2003. Large animal vehicle collisions in the central Canadian 

Rocky Mountains: patterns and characteristics. In: Irwin, C.L., P. Garrett, and K.P. 

McDermott (eds.). Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation: Making Connections: 355–366. Lake Placid, NY. Center for 

Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Haikonen, H. and H. Summala. 2001. Deer-vehicle crashes: extensive peak at 1 hour after sunset. 

American Journal of Preventative Medicine 21 (3): 209-213.

Haulton, S.M., W.F. Porter, and B.A. Rudolph. 2001. Evaluating 4 methods of capturing whitetailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29(1):255-264.

Hawkins, R. E. 1967. Social organization of the white-tailed deer on Crab Orchard National 

Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale. 180pp.

Hayes, C.L. and P.R. Krausman. 1993. Nocturnal activity of female desert mule deer. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 57:897-904.

Hubbard, M.W., Danielson, B.J. and Schmitz, R.A. (2000) Factors influencing the location of 

deer–vehicle accidents in Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64, 707–713.

Hughes, W.E., R.A. Reza, and J.F. Paniati. 1996. Vehicle-animal crashes: An increasing safety 

problem. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal 66: 24–28.

77
Huijser, M.P., P.J.M. Bergers, and C.J.F. Ter Braak. 2000. Road, traffic and landscape 

characteristics of hedgehog traffic victim sites. In: Huijser, M.P. (ed.). Life on the Edge. 

Hedgehog Traffic Victims and Mitigation Strategies in an Anthropogenic Landscape. 

Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Huijser, M.P., J. Fuller, M.E. Wagner, A. Hardy, and A.P. Clevenger. 2007. Animal vehicle 

collision data collection. A synthesis of highway practice. NCHRP Synthesis 370. Project 

20-05/Topic 37-12. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 

Washington DC. Available from the Internet, accessed 14 April, 2008. URL: 

http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=8422

Huijser, M.P., P. McGowen, J. Fuller, A. Hardy, A. Kociolek, A.P. Clevenger, D. Smith and R. 

Ament 2008 Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress. Federal 

Highway Administration. August 2008

Ito, H. and T. Hino. 2005. How do deer affect tree seedlings on a dwarf bamboo-dominated 

forest floor? Ecol Res (2005) 20: 121–128

Ito, H., T. Hino, and H. Takahashi. 2014. Optimum Density of Sika Deer for Tree Seedling 

Survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(4):739–746; 

Ito, T.Y. and S. Takatsuki. 2005. Relationship between a high density of sika deer and 

productivity of the short-grass (Zoysia japonica) community: a case study on Kinkazan 

Island, northern Japan. Ecol Res 20: 573-579.

Ito, T.Y. A. Okada, B. Buuveibaatar, B. Lhagvasuren, S. Takatsuki, and A. Tsunekawa. 2008. 

One-Sided Barrier Impact of an International Railroad on Mongolian Gazelles. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 72(4):940-943.

Ito, T.Y., N. Miura, B. Lhagvasuren, D. Enkhbileg, S. Takatsuki, A. Tsunekawa, and Z. Jiang. 

2005. Preliminary evidence of barrier effect of a railroad on the migration of Mongolian 

gazelles. Conservation Biology 19:945–948.

Jaarsma, C.F., and G.P.A. Willems. 2002. Reducing habitat fragmentation by minor rural roads 

through traffic calming. Landscape and Urban Planning 58: 125–135.

Joyce, T.L., and S.P. Mahoney. 2001. Spatial and temporal distributions of moose vehicle 

collisions in Newfoundland. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1): 281–291.

Karns, G. R., R. A. Lancia, C. S. DePerno, and M. C. Conner. 2011. Investigation of adult male 

white-tailed deer excursions outside their home range. Southeastern Naturalist 10:39–52.

Kie,. J.G., and T.S. Burton. 1984. Dietary quality, fecal nitrogen, and 2,6 diaminopimelic acid 

in black-tailed deer in northern California. United States Forest Service, Research Note 

PSW-364. Berkeley, California, USA.

78
Kofler, H. & Schulz, W. (1987) Wildunfälle und Schutzmassnahmen in Österreich. Actes du 

colloques ‘Route et fauna sauvage’. Strasbourg, 1985 (eds J.-M.Bernard, M.Lansiart, 

C.Kempf & M.Tille), pp. 93–102. Ministère de l’Équipement, du Longement, de 

l’Aménagement du Territoire et des Transports, Colmar, France. As cited in Seiler 2005

Kušta, T., Ježek, M., Keken, Z. 2011. Mortality of Large Mammals on Railway Track. Scientia 

Agriculturae Bohemica 42(1) 12-18

Langworth, B.F. 1977. Fusobacterium necrophorum: its characteristics and role as an animal 

pathogen. Bacteriological Review. 41:373-390. 

Lavsund. S. and Sandegren. F. 1991: Moose-vehicle relations in Sweden: a review. Alces 27: 

118-126.

Leach, R.H. 1982. Statewide White-Tailed Deer Ecology Studies. Population Ecology and 

Habitat Relationships of White-Tailed Deer in Coniferous Forest Habitat in Northwestern 

Montana (Summer Range Ecology of White-Tailed Deer in the Coniferous Forests of 

Northwestern Montana). Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

Leach, R.H., and W.D. Edge. 1994. Summer home range and habitat selection by white-tailed 

deer in the Swan Valley, Montana. Northwest Science 68(1): 31–36.

Lehnert, M.E., J.A. Bissonette, and J.W. Haefner. 1998. Deer (Cervidae) highway mortality: 

using models to tailor mitigative efforts. Gibier Faune Sauvage Wild. 15: 835–841.

Leopold, A. 1943. Deer irruptions. WCB 8:8 (Aug 1943), 1-11 and Wisconsin Academy of 

Sciences, Arts, and Letters: 35:351–366. 

Long, E. S., D. R. Diefenbach, C. S. Rosenberry, and B. D. Wallingford. 2008. Multiple 

proximate and ultimate causes of natal dispersal in white-tailed deer. Behavioral Ecology 

19:1235–1242

Madsen, A.B., Fyhn, H.W. & Prang, A. (1998) Trafikdræbte dyr i landskapsøkologisk 

planlægning og forskning. Rapport 228. National Environmental Research Institute, 

DMU, Kalö, Denmark. As cited in Seiler 2005

Malo, J.E., F. Suarez, and A. Diez. 2004. Can we mitigate animal vehicle accidents using 

predictive models? Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 701–710.

McCaffery, K. and W. Creed. 1969 Significance of forest openings to deer in northern 

Wisconsin. Wisonconsin Dept. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. 44 104pp.

Meyers, P. 2009. CWTD Suitable Habitat Description. Julia Butler Hansen NWR, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Cathlamet, Washington.

79
Missoulian. 2011. Trains kill more than 800 antelope and deer on Montana tracks this winter. 

March 06, 2011 1:26 pm • By the Associated Press http://missoulian.com/news/stateand-regional/trains-kill-more-than-antelope-and-deer-on-montanatracks/article_3d955d6a-4831-11e0-84f6-001cc4c03286.html accessed October 29, 

2014.Montgomery, G.G. 1963. Nocturnal movements and activity rhythms of whitetailed deer. J. wildl. Manage. 27:122-127.

Mundinger, J. 1979. Population ecology and habitat relationships of white-tailed deer in 

coniferous forest habitat of northwestern Montana. In: Mackie, R.J. (ed.). Statewide Deer 

Research: Job Progress Report, Research Project Segment: 5–65. Montana Department of 

Fish and Game, Helena, MT.

Nielsen, C.K., R.G. Anderson, and M.D. Grund. 2003. Landscape influences on deer vehicle 

accident areas in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 46–51.

Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 2 volume set. John Hopkins 

University Press. Baltimore and London. 

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2004. “Appendix B: Other species.” In 

Lower Columbia River province plan, Columbia River basin fish and wildlife Program. 

Portland, Oregon. Chapter 4, pp. 1-20. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995. Backgrounder: The Columbian whitetailed deer and the Oregon Endangered Species Act. October 2, 1995. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem Oregon. 4pp.

Onoyama, K. N. Ohsumi, N. Mitsumochi, and T. Kishihara. 1997. Data analysis of deer-train 

collisions in eastern Hokkaido, Japan. In: (C. Hayashi, N. Ohsumi, K. Yagima, Y. 

Tanaka, H.H. Bock, and Y. Baba eds.) Data Sceince, Classification, and Related 

Methods. Pp. 746-751. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo.

Pais, R.C. 1987. Mortality, dispersal and habitat use of resident and translocated whitetailed deer 

does on the Cumberland Plateau of eastern Kentucky. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Kentucky, 

Lexington. 82pp. As cited in Jones et al. 1997.

Pellet, N.R. 2004. Roadway and Landscape Characteristics Leading to Increases in UngulateVehicle Collisions. MSc. Thesis. Civil Engineering Department, Montana State 

University, Bozeman.

Phillips, G.E. 2009. Modeling population dynamics and coyote control for Columbian 

whitetailed deer at the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge. USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services, 

National Wildlife Research Center. Fort Collins, Colorado. 36 pp. 

Piaggio, A. and M. Hopken. 2009. Evolutionary relationships and population genetic assessment 

of Oregon white-tailed deer. Unpublished manuscript. 37 pp. 

80
Piaggio, A. and M. Hopken. 2010. Genetic assessment of Columbian white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) and Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus columbianus) hybridization on the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge. Report from 

the National Wildlife Research Center Wildlife Genetics Lab to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 34 pp. 

Progulske, D.R. and D.C. Duerre. 1964. Factors influencing spotlighting counts of deer. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 28:27-34

Puglisi, M.J., J.S. Lindzey, and E.D. Bellis. 1974. Factors associated with highway mortality of 

white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 38(4): 799–807.

Putman, R.J. 1997. Deer and road traffic accidents: options for management. Journal of 

Environmental Management 51: 43–57.

Putman, R.J., J. Langbein, and B.W.Staines. 2004. Deer and Road Traffic Accidents: A review 

of mitigation measures: costs and cost-effectiveness. [Report for the Deer Commission 

for Scotland; Contract RP23A] May 3, 2004. 89pp.

Ricca, M.A., R.G. Anthony, and D.H. Jackson. 2003. Spatial use and habitat associations of 

Columbian white-tailed deer fawns in Southwestern Oregon. Northwest Science 

77(1):72-80. 

Riney, T. 1964. The impact of introductions of large herbivores on the tropical environment. 

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) Publication New Series 

4:261–273.

Robinette, W. L. 1966. Mule deer home range and dispersal in Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 30:335-

349.

Rogers, E. 2004. An Ecological Landscape Study of Deer Vehicle Collisions in Kent County, 

Michigan. Report by White Water Associates Inc. Prepared for Kent County Road 

Commission, Grand Rapids, MI.

Romin LA, Bissonette JA. 1996. Temporal and spatial distribution of highway mortality of mule 

deer on newly constructed roads at Jordanelle Reservoir, Utah. Gt. Basin Nat. 56: 1-1 1

Romin, L.A. and J.A. Bissonette. 1996. Deer-vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring 

activities and mitigation efforts. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24:276-283.

Seiler, A. 2003. The Toll of the Automobile: Wildlife and Roads in Sweden. Doctoral Thesis, 

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Seiler, A. 2005. Predicting locations of moose vehicle collisions in Sweden. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 42: 371–382.

Shepard D.B., A.R. Kuhns, M.J. Dreslik & C.A. Phillips. 2008. Roads as barriers to animal 

movement in fragmented landscapes Animal Conservation 11 (2008) 288–296

81
Singer, F.J., and Doherty, J.L. 1985. Managing mountain goats at a highway crossing. Wildl. 

Soc. Bull. 13: 469–477.

Skalski, J.R. 2012. Estimation of minimum viable population size for Columbian white-tailed 

deer. University of Washington, Seattle. Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacy, 

WA. 9 pp.

Skinner, M.P. 1929. White-tailed deer formerly in Yellowstone Park. J. Mamm. 10:101-115

Slater, F.M. 2002. An assessment of wildlife road casualties: the potential discrepancy between 

numbers counted and numbers killed. Web Ecology 3: 33–42.

Smith, W.P. 1985. Current geographic distribution and abundance of Columbian white-tailed 

deer, Odocoileus virginianus leucurus (Douglas). Northwest Science 59(4):243-251. 

Smith, W.P. 1987. Dispersion and habitat use by sympatric Columbian white-tailed deer and 

Columbian black-tailed deer. Journal of Mammalogy 68(2):337-347. 

Smith, W.P., L.N. Carraway, and T.A. Gavin. 2003. Cranial variation in Columbian white-tailed 

deer populations: implications for taxonomy and restoration. Proceedings of the 

Biological Society of Washington 116(1):1-15.

Sudharsan, K., S.J. Riley, and S.R. Winterstein. 2006. Relationship of autumn hunting season to 

the frequency of deer–vehicle collisions in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 

70(4): 1161–1164.

Sullivan, J.B., C.A. DeYoung, S.L. Beasom, J.R. Heffelfinger, S.P. Coughlin, and M.W. 

Hellickson. 1991. Drive-netting deer: incidence of mortality. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 

19(4):393-396.

Suring, L.H. 1974. Habitat use and activity patterns of the Columbian white-tailed deer along the 

lower Columbia River. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 70 pp. 

Suring, L.H. and P.A. Vohs, Jr. 1979. Habitat use by Columbian white-tailed deer. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43(3):610-619. 

Swenson, L. K. 1972. Mortality in orphaned mule deer fawns. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State 

Univ., Ft. Collins. 50pp.

Swenson, J.E. 1982. Effects of hunting on habitat use by Mule Deer on mixed-grass prairie in 

Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:115–120.

Thomas, J. W., R. M. Robinson, and R. G. Marburger. 1965. Social behavior in a white-tailed 

deer herd containing hypogonadal males. J. Mammal. 46:314-327.

TNC 2004 Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) Control and Management in the Pacific 

Northwest. http://tncinvasives.ucdavis.edu/moredocs/phaaru01.pdf

82
Trocmé, M., S. Cahill, J.G. de Vries, H. Farrall, L. Folkeson, G. Fry, C. Hicks, and J. Peymen 

(eds.) 2003. COST 341: Habitat Fragmentation Due to Transportation Infrastructure: The 

European Review. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 

Luxembourg.

Tsujino, R. and T. Yumoto. 2004. Effects of sika deer on tree seedlings in a warm temperate 

forest on Yakushima Island, Japan. Ecological Research (2004) 19: 291–300

USDOT 2010. USDOT Strategic Plan FY 2010-2015: Transportation for a New Generation. 

72ppUSFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. Revised Columbian white-tailed 

deer recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior, Portland, 

Oregon. 86 pp. 

USFWS. 1977. Revised Columbian white-tailed deer recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Olympia, Washington.

USFWS. 1976. Columbian white-tailed deer recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Olympia, Washington.

USFWS. 1988. Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian white-tailed deer annual narrative 

report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior, Cathlamet, 

Washington. 17 pp. 

USFWS. 1988. Transplanting and herding Columbian white-tailed deer. Report of Activities, 

Permit CLARA (2/20/87). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Julia Butler Hansen Refuge.

USFWS. 2005. 2004 Report of activities permit WNWR-6: Establish a second new 

subpopulation of Columbian white-tailed deer. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Department of the Interior, Ilwaco, Washington. 2 pp. 

USFWS. 2009b. Columbian white-tailed deer 2008 fawn:doe summaries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, Cathlamet, Washington. 5 pp. 

USFWS. 2010. Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge and Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for 

the Columbian White-tailed Deer final comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Willapa National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Ilwaco, WA. 557 pp. 

USFWS. 2013. Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of the Columbian Whitetailed Deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Oregon Office of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. 51 pp.

USFWS. 2013a. Proposed translocation of deer from the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the 

Columbian white-tailed deer and Puget Island to Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge and 

Cottonwood Island. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior, Julia 

Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian white-tailed deer and Ridgefield National 

Wildlife Refuge, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, and Clark counties, Washington. 37 pp. 

83
USFWS. 2013b. Biological opinion on the effects of issuing recovery permits related to the 

translocation of the endangered Columbian white-tailed deer from the Julia Butler 

Hansen National Wildlife Refuge to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge and from 

Puget Island, Washington to Cottonwood Island, Washington. FWS Reference Number 

01EOFW00-2013-F-0086. January 23, 2013. 25 pp. 

USFWS 2014 Biological Opinion on the Effects of Issuing Recovery Permit Related to the 

Translocation of Columbian White-tailed Deer to Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge 

and Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer. (FWS Reference 

Number OIEOFWOO-2014-F-0054). Prepared by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. January 17, 2014. 20pp.

Verme, L.J. 1981. Sex ratio of white-tailed deer and the estrus cycle. J. Wildl. Manage. Vol. 

45, No.3: p.710.

Verme, L. J. and D.E. Ullrey 1984. Physiology and Nutrition. Pages 91- 118 in L. K. Halls (ed.). 

White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 870 pp. 

Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. Berkeley: University of 

California Press. 668 pp.

Vogel, W.O. 1983. The effects of housing developments and agriculture on the ecology of 

white-tailed deer and mule deer in the Galatin Valley, Montana. M.S. Thesis. Montana 

State University, Bozeman. June 1983. 86pp.

Vogel, W.O. 1989. Response of deer to density and distribution of housing in Montana. Wildl. 

Soc. Bull. 17:406-413.

Waring, G.H, J.L. Griffis, and M.E. Vaughn. 1991. White-tailed deer roadside behavior, wildlife

warning reflectors, and highway mortality. Applied Animal Behavior Science 29:215–

223.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2004. Management Recommendations 

for Washington’s Priority Species – Volume V: Mammals, Columbian White-tailed Deer. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lacey, Washington. July 2004.

WDFW. 2010. Deer “hair loss syndrome” fact sheet. April 2010. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hair_loss/ Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Accessed September 19, 2012. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Washington’s 2014 Big Game Hunting 

Seasons & Regulations. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

Washington. 117 pp.

WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1997. Final habitat conservation plan. 

Olympia, Washington. 546 pp.

84
White G.C. and R.M. Bartmann. 1994. Drop nets versus helicopter net guns for capturing mule 

deer fawns. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:248-252.

Whitehead, C.J., Jr. 1972. A preliminary report on white-tailed and black-tailed deer 

crossbreeding studies in Tennessee Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish 

Comm. 25:65-69.

Whitehead, G.K. 1972. Deer of the world. Constable and Co., London. 194 pp.

Williams, E. S., and E. T. Thorne. 1996. Exertional Myopathy (Capture Myopathy). Pages 181-

193 in A. Fairbrother, L. N. Locke, and G. L. Hoff, editors. Noninfectious Diseases of 

Wildlife, Second Edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.

Woodson, D.L., Reed E.T, Downing R.L., and McGinnes B.S. 1980. Effect of Fall Orphaning 

on White-Tailed Deer Fawns and Yearlings. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 

44(1): 249-252

WMI (Wildlife Management Institute). 1984. White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. 

Compiled and edited by L.K. Halls. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 870 + 

xxiii pp.

WRCGMWG (Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group). 2009. Reed 

Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Management Guide: Recommendations for 

Landowners and Restoration Professionals. PUB-FR-428 2009

Yamamura K, H. Matsuda, H. Yokomizo, K. Kaji, H. Uno, K. Tamada, T. Kurumada, T. Saitoh, 

H. Hirakawa. 2008. Harvest-based Bayesian estimation of sika deer populations using

state-space models Laboratory of Population Ecology, National Institute for AgroEnvironmental Sciences. 34 pp + app.

Yanes, M., Velasco, J.M., and Suarez, F. 1995. Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: 

the importance of culverts. Biol. Conserv. 71: 217–222.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Meyers, Paul. 2010a. Julia Butler Hansen NWR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Telephone

conversation with Rebecca Toland, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 

February 2, 2010. Subject: CWTD populations, movement, sensitivity to noise, and 

potential sites for conservation projects. As cited in USFWS 2013b.

Meyers, Paul. 2010b Julia Butler Hansen NWR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Telephone

conversation with Rebecca Toland, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 

February 4, 2010. Subject: Discussion of CWTD home range, density and distribution. 

As cited in USFWS 2013b

85
Brenner, Kathryn. 2014. Julia Butler Hansen NWR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Telephone 

Conversation with William Vogel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA. 

September 12, 2014. Distribution of CWTD from latest estimates.

White, Erik. As cited in Biological Assessment, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2014. 

VandeBergh, Don, Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon,. 2013 as 

cited in USFWS 2013a

86
United States Department of the Interior 

In Reply Refer To: 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0383 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0399 

Megan White, P .E. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 

Lacey, Washington 98503 

Director, Environmental Services 

Washington State Department of Transportation 

310 Maple Park A venue SE 

P.O. Box 47331 

Olympia, Washington 98504-7331 

David Valenstein 

Chief, Environmental and Systems Planning Division 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. White and Mr. Valenstein: 

JAN - 2 2015 

Subject: Amendment to Biological Opinion for Tasks 5 (New Siding) and 6 (Kelso to 

Longview Junction) 

This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) 

based on our review of the proposed Tasks 5 (New Siding) and 6 (Kelso to Longview Junction) 

of the Kelso to Martin's Bluff Improvements Project located in Cowlitz County, Washington, 

and their effects on the threatened streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). This 

formal consultation has been completed in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species 

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

A Biological Opinion for Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) was 

issued October 30, 2014 (Service References OlEWFW00-2014-F-0383 and 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0399). An original determination for the proposed action was "may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect" for the streaked horned lark. Subsequent changes to the 

construction schedule posed potential adverse effects to streaked horned larks. The final 

Biological Opinion did not address adverse effects to streaked horned larks, which would result 
Megan White and David Valenstein 

from the changed proposed action. The Service recommended the Federal Railroad 

Administration change their effects determination to "may affect, likely to adversely affect" for 

the streaked homed lark, which they did via conference call on December 4, 2014. The Service 

received a request to reinitiate formal consultation on effects to streaked homed larks from the 

Federal Railroad Administration on December 29, 2014. 

This document serves as an amendment to the finalized Opinion and analyzes adverse effects to 

the streaked homed lark from Task 5 and 6. This amendment to the Opinion will reference the 

finalized Opinion whenever possible (Service References OlEWFW00-2014-F-0383 and 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0399). A complete decisional record of this consultation is on file at this 

office. 

2 

We look forward to continued collaboration with the Federal Railroad Administration on the 

implementation of measures to reduce adverse effects to the streaked homed lark and Columbian 

white-tailed deer. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed Opinion, or our joint 

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, please contact Lindsy Wright (360) 753-6037 

or Martha Jensen (360) 753-9000, of this office. 

cc: 

USFWS OFWO, Portland, OR (C. Brown) 

WSDOT, Olympia, WA (M. Bakeman) 

Sincerely, /} ~ 

£~M 

~omas L. McDowell, Acting Manager 

ZV.~shington Fish and Wildlife Office 
Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION-AMENDMENT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Numbers: 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0383 

OlEWFW00-2014-F-0399 

Task 5 and 6 of the Kelso to Martin's Bluff: 

High-Speed Passenger Rail Improvement Project 

Kalama and Kelso, Washington 

Action Agency: 

Consultation Conducted By: 

\,,Thomas L. McDowell, Acting Manager 

l\f Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Washington DC 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

Lacey, Washington 

Date 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

CONSULTATION HISTORY ........................................................................................................1

BIOLOGICAL OPINION................................................................................................................2

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...........................................................................2

Description of the Action Area for the Streaked Horned Lark ......................................... 5

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION

DETERMINATIONS ......................................................................................................................5

Jeopardy Determination..................................................................................................... 5

STATUS OF THE SPECIES: STREAKED HORNED LARK .....................................................6

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: STREAKED HORNED LARK.............................................6

Existing Conditions: Setting............................................................................................. 6

Conservation Role of the Action Area for Streaked Horned Larks................................... 7

Status of the Streaked Horned Lark in the Action Area.................................................... 8

Threats to the Survival and Recovery of Streaked Horned Larks................................... 11

Climate Change ............................................................................................................... 11

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: STREAKED HORNED LARK.............................12

Streaked Horned Lark...................................................................................................... 12

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: STREAKED HORNED LARK......................................................15

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS: STREAKED HORNED LARK.......................................15

Summary of the Effects of the Action............................................................................. 15

CONCLUSION: STREAKED HORNED LARK ........................................................................16

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT...........................................................................................16

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE.............................................................................................17

EFFECT OF THE TAKE...............................................................................................................18

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES..........................................................................18

TERMS AND CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................18

REINITIATION NOTICE.............................................................................................................20

LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................21

APPENDIX A: STATUS OF THE SPECIES – STREAKED HORNED LARK........................24

ii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Task 5, Kelso to Martin’s Bluff rail line addition ...........................................................3

Figure 2. Task 6, Kelso to Longview Junction rail line addition....................................................4

Figure 3. Streaked horned lark observations adjacent to the Task 6 rail line extension.................9

Figure 4. Streaked horned lark nest in an agricultural field at Finley National Wildlife 

Refuge, Corvallis, Oregon ....................................................................................................10

LIST OF ACROYNMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

A.T.V. All-terrain vehicle

BA Biological Assessment

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

dBA A-weighted decibels express sound loudness as perceived by the human ear

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

ft feet

Lmax Highest sound value measured by a sound level meter over a given period of time

MP Mile Post

Opinion Biological Opinion

RPM Reasonable and Prudent Measures

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

iii
(This page intentionally left blank)
INTRODUCTION

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion 

(Opinion) based on our review of the proposed Tasks 5 and 6 of the Kelso to Martin’s Bluff 

Improvement Project located in Kalama and Kelso, Cowlitz County, Washington, and its effects 

on the threatened streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). This consultation was 

completed in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). Your request for formal consultation for streaked 

horned larks was received by the Service on December 29, 2014.

This Opinion is based on information provided in the Biological Assessments (BA’s) and other 

information provided by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT). A complete decisional record of this consultation is on 

file at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington. 

CONSULTATION HISTORY

October 30, 2014 – An Opinion was issued addressing adverse effects to the Columbian whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus), but did not address adverse effects to the streaked 

horned lark. 

December 4, 2014 – The Service and WSDOT had a conference call and the Service

recommended that the FRA and WSDOT request formal consultation for effects to the streaked 

horned lark from the proposed changes to the action. 

December 29, 2014 – The FRA and WSDOT requested formal consultation for the streaked 

horned lark on this date. 

1
BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action includes creating a new third main track through two different locations 

(Task 5 (Figure 1) and Task 6 (Figure 2)), which will facilitate high-speed passenger rail service 

between Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. For a full description of the proposed 

activities, conservation measures, and action area, refer to the finalized Opinion (Service

References 01EWFW00-2014-F-0383 and 01EWFW00-2014-F-0399). 

Track Structure and Rail Construction Activities

There are four major construction activities that would occur within 100 meters of occupied 

and/or suitable habitat for streaked horned larks:

1. Placing a rock base layer of varying thickness comprised of washed quarry spalls.

2. Placing the remainder of the embankment material over the rock from step 1 above, 

including granular embankment fill material (e.g., structural fill) of variable thickness, a 

12-inch thick layer of sub-ballast, and a surface layer of ballast.

3. Installing approximately 10 miles of new track with specialized equipment (Track Laying 

Machine) and a variety of associated equipment.

4. Removing an upland berm near the south end of the streaked horned lark habitat area. 

Types of construction equipment include dump trucks, track-laying equipment, bull dozer, 

speedswing, lag machine, tool trailer, passenger vehicles, surfacing tamper, ballast regulator, and 

welding trucks. These activities will occur during and outside the nesting season (the nesting 

season is approximately April 15 through September 1).

2
Figure 1. Task 5, Kelso to Martin’s Bluff rail line addition

3
Figure 2. Task 6, Kelso to Longview Junction rail line addition

4
Description of the Action Area for the Streaked Horned Lark

The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action 

and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR § 402.02). In delineating the 

action area, we evaluated the farthest reaching physical, chemical, and biotic effects of the 

action on the environment.

The proposed action will install approximately 10 miles of additional rail line, portions of which 

are adjacent to areas that are currently occupied by streaked horned larks or contain suitable 

habitat and may be occupied. The loudest construction activity will be from dumping rock, 

laying new track, and use of heavy equipment operation (e.g., dump trucks, graders, compactors, 

ballast dumping, tampers, track-laying machinery, and regulators); sound levels range from 

approximately 70 to 99 dBA Lmax. All of these pieces of equipment within 43 meters of 

occupied/suitable streaked horned lark habitat. The Task 6 rail line installation is directly 

adjacent to an area that has year-round presence of streaked horned larks. The Task 5 rail line 

will be installed adjacent to areas that contain suitable habitat, but have not been surveyed, and 

have not yet had occupancy assessed (near MP 107 and 109, see Figure 2). 

The farthest reaching effects to streaked horned larks are from sound and visual disturbance 

associated with the operation of heavy-equipment and extended human presence. The action 

area includes the project site along the lower Columbia River and the distance that in-air sound 

would extend until it reaches background levels and/or would no longer have the potential to 

result in effects to streaked horned larks. There are no known thresholds for how sound affects 

streaked horned larks; therefore, we assume that any streaked horned larks within the ensonified 

area may be disturbed and experience a measurable disruption to their normal behaviors from

the in-air sound. 

Effects to streaked horned larks include sound and visual disturbance from construction of the 

rail lines. In-air sound is expected to reach 99 dBA at 50 ft during operation of some types of

heavy equipment and to exceed 99 dBA at 50 ft when more than one piece of equipment are 

being operated at the same time. The baseline ambient sound level is approximately 60 to 63

dBA at 50 ft (when trains are not passing). We assume sound will travel unobstructed because 

there are few trees and sound-absorbing infrastructure present adjacent to the construction. 

Project related in-air sound is expected to attenuate to baseline ambient sound levels within 

approximately 3,200 ft (976 meters/0.6 mile).

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE

MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS

Jeopardy Determination

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy analysis in this Opinion relies on four 

components: (1) the Status of the Species, which evaluates the streaked horned lark rangewide 

condition, the factors responsible for that condition, and their survival and recovery needs; (2) 

the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the species in the action area, the 

5
factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and 

recovery of these species; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect 

impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent 

activities on the species; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, nonFederal activities in the action area on the streaked horned lark.

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the 

effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the species’ current status, taking into 

account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to 

cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species 

in the wild.

The jeopardy analysis in this Opinion emphasizes consideration of the rangewide survival and 

recovery needs of the streaked horned lark and the role of the action area in the survival and 

recovery of these species. It is within this context that we evaluate the significance of the effects 

of the proposed Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making 

the jeopardy determination.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES: STREAKED HORNED LARK

The rangewide Status of the Species for the streaked horned lark is provided in Appendix A and 

includes a description the historic range and current range of the species.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: STREAKED HORNED LARK

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past 

and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the 

action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have undergone section 7 consultation, and the 

impacts of State and private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in 

progress.

Existing Conditions: Setting

The new rail line will be installed in southwest Washington, through the cities of Kalama and 

Kelso. This portion of the lower Columbia River system is characterized by a mix of 

agricultural, silvicultural, and industrial development. The industrial development is 

concentrated within the cities.

When dams were built on the Columbia River, it was no longer able to perform its natural 

functions, such as sediment transport, and migration, which would create habitat similar to 

habitat created by upland disposal of dredged materials. Sediment is trapped behind the dams, 

and the river flow is lower velocity, causing sediment accumulation. Shallow water conditions 

create a need for dredging to maintain adequate navigable depths to support the economic system 

6
that relies on transportation in the Columbia River. Also, the Columbia Rivers ability to migrate 

is halted by development and hardened shorelines. Consequently the River is no longer able to 

create sandy islands and shoreline areas that become suitable habitat for breeding streaked 

horned larks. 

Dredge spoil deposition gradually creates the habitat features that streaked horned larks prefer 

for breeding and other uses. If these dredge spoil deposition sites are left untouched long enough 

for vegetation to become established, they can develop the habitat characteristics that streaked 

horned larks select for breeding, nesting, and rearing chicks (bare ground, and low-height and 

low-density vegetation, and next to water, which contribute to the open-landscape context). The 

Columbia River has multiple dredge spoil deposit sites in shoreline areas and the uplands 

adjacent to the lower Columbia River, which provide breeding habitat for streaked horned larks. 

Streaked horned larks have likely relied on the ephemeral habitat provided by dredge spoil 

deposition as it is the only mechanism currently creating and providing suitable breeding habitat 

that remains along the lower Columbia River system except for land clearing that precludes 

development. 

Historically, streaked horned larks were recorded on islands near Portland, Oregon, dating back 

to the early 1900s (Rogers 2000, p. 27) and streaked horned larks were reported as far east as 

Clark County, Washington, and Multnomah County, Oregon (Rogers 2000, p. 27; Stinson 2005,

p. 51). Streaked horned larks evolved with habitat created by the natural habitat-forming 

processes such as wildfires or wind and wave-generated sandy beaches along the outer coast and 

islands along the lower Columbia River. Since the River no longer operates and performs 

natural habitat-maintaining functions, streaked horned larks currently select the upland dredge 

disposal sites and cleared/undeveloped lands along the shorelines because they are the only 

available habitat along the lower Columbia River that provide the habitat features they select.

Conservation Role of the Action Area for Streaked Horned Larks

The current range and distribution of the streaked horned lark can be divided into three regions: 

1) the south Puget Sound in Washington; 2) the Washington coast and lower Columbia River 

islands (including airports and dredge spoil deposition and industrial sites near the Columbia 

River); and 3) the Willamette Valley in Oregon (Rogers 2000, p. 37; Pearson and Altman 2005, 

p. 23; Pearson et al. 2005, p. 2; Anderson 2009, p. 4).

Based on our current understanding of their range and distribution, we expect rail line 

construction to affect streaked horned larks from the Washington coast and lower Columbia 

River Islands. On the Washington coast and Columbia River islands, there are about 120 to 140 

streaked horned larks (Altman 2011, p. 213) that breed on the outer coast in Grays Harbor,

Pacific Counties, and on several dredge deposit sites and islands downstream of Portland, 

Oregon. 

On the Columbia River, streaked horned larks breed, nest, rear young, and forage at dredge spoil 

deposit sites on islands downstream of Portland, Oregon and on open industrial sites adjacent to 

the mainstem Columbia River. Recent surveys have documented breeding streaked horned larks 

on Rice, Miller Sands Spit, Pillar Rock, Welch, Tenasillahe, Whites/Browns, Wallace, Crims, 

7
Northport, and Sandy Islands in Wahkiakum and Cowlitz Counties in Washington, and 

Columbia and Clatsop Counties in Oregon (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; Anderson 2009, p. 

4; Lassen 2011, in litt.). Streaked horned larks also breed at the Rivergate Industrial Complex 

and the Southwest Quad at Portland International Airport; both sites are owned by the Port of 

Portland, which are former dredge spoil deposition sites (Moore 2011, pp. 9–12). The lower 

Columbia River system provides a constantly shifting mosaic of breeding habitat along the lower 

river. If streaked horned lark populations are going to persist they need multiple options for 

breeding sites. These options are quickly being lost or affected by development and there is no 

certainty that they are being replaced in proportions sufficient to support the current or future

breeding population. 

Although suitable habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor for streaked horned larks

breeding along the Columbia River, the population had drastically declined and continues to 

decline at a rapid rate. No research has been conducted to assess whether habitat is a limiting 

factor. It is possible that habitat is not a limiting factor because the species abundance has 

declined to such critically low numbers that they are experiencing reduced reproductive success 

and reduced genetic diversity. The Washington coast and Columbia River islands combined 

currently have less than 140 breeding streaked horned larks (Altman 2011, p. 213). 

Studies from Washington sites (the open coast, Puget lowlands and the Columbia River islands) 

have found strong natal site fidelity – that is, streaked horned larks return each year to the place 

they nested or were born (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 11). It is not currently understood why streaked 

horned larks will select a particular site when there are others of similar structure/characteristics 

nearby that are not selected. This unknown selection criterion creates the need to be 

conservative when considering the impacts of the loss of occupied breeding habitat and the 

effects to the species. 

The action area includes open areas adjacent to the river and/or dredge deposit sites. These areas 

of suitable habitat have not all been surveyed for streaked horned larks. Areas attractive for 

nesting are subject to frequent disturbance during the breeding season can become habitat sinks; 

areas that attract them for nesting and nests are destroyed, habitat is lost, or repeated disturbance 

of adults occurs during the breeding season. All of these factors can lower reproductive success

and reduce the value of an area for long-term conservation and recovery of the species. 

Status of the Streaked Horned Lark in the Action Area

Streaked horned larks in the lower Columbia River use a shifting mosaic of habitat created by 

dynamic natural and anthropogenic processes. Streaked horned larks establish their nests in 

areas of extensive bare ground, and nests are placed adjacent to clumps of bunchgrass (Pearson 

and Hopey 2004, pp. 1–2). Deposition of dredged material in an area with the proper landscape 

context (e.g., large, flat, open) can create suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark; following 

dredged material deposition, there is a natural progression from bare sand to vegetation too dense 

to provide habitat for streaked horned larks. The amount of time needed for vegetation 

succession varies throughout the lower Columbia River but can be as little as one growing 

8
season (USFWS 2014, p. 24). Some sites maintain suitability for several years, depending on 

what activities occur on them (e.g., unauthorized A.T.V. use maintains low vegetation height and 

density). 

Rail line construction will occur adjacent to occupied nesting habitat or areas that contain 

suitable habitat but have not been surveyed for occupancy. Not all suitable habitat areas have 

been surveyed for occupancy and absent surveys, we assume that if it contains suitable habitat,

the birds may be using it any time of year. Throughout the remainder of this document these 

areas that are occupied or contain suitable habitat and could be occupied are referred to as 

“occupied/suitable habitat”. The property adjacent to the Task 6 rail line extension has 

documented observations of streaked horned larks during the nesting season (April 15 through 

Sept. 1) (Figure 3). Task 5 also has areas adjacent to it that may provide suitable habitat for 

streaked horned larks (near MP 107 and 109, see Figure 2). 

Figure 3. Streaked horned lark observations adjacent to the Task 6 rail line extension

9
Streaked horned lark nests are extremely difficult to see and locate (Figure 4) because they rely 

on cryptic behavior as a means of survival and breeding success. Even the most experienced 

streaked horned lark nest surveyors have difficulty locating nests. Adult streaked horned larks 

present and exhibiting breeding behaviors in suitable habitat conditions during the breeding 

season are assumed to be breeding there (e.g., aerial displays, aggressive pursuits, singing, 

calling, carrying food away instead of consuming it, etc.). Given their high natal site fidelity, we 

expect streaked horned larks will continue to be present in the action area and likely will nest 

and/or forage within the action area.

Figure 4. Streaked horned lark nest in an agricultural field at Finley 

National Wildlife Refuge, Corvallis, Oregon

(Moore and Kotiach 2010, p. 53).

10
Threats to the Survival and Recovery of Streaked Horned Larks

The streaked horned lark has disappeared from all formerly documented locations in the northern 

portion of its range, the Oregon coast, and the southern edge of its range. There are currently 

estimated to be fewer than 1,600 streaked horned larks rangewide, and population numbers are 

declining. Their range and distribution are continuing to contract; the south Puget Sound 

breeding population is estimated to be fewer than 170 individuals; the Washington coast and 

Columbia River islands breeding population is less than 140 individuals. Recent research 

estimates the number of streaked horned larks in Washington and on the Columbia River islands 

is still declining and there is evidence of inbreeding depression in the south Puget Sound, 

indicating that the streaked horned larks range may continue to contract further.

The primary long-term threats to the streaked horned lark are the loss, conversion, and 

degradation of habitat, particularly to agricultural and urban development, successional changes 

to grassland habitat, and the spread of invasive plants. Their habitat is threatened and declining

throughout their entire range. Natural disturbance regimes are no longer present, unsuitable 

vegetation is invading suitable habitat and making it unsuitable, and land management practices 

are incompatible with long-term presence of suitable habitat. Winter congregations are limited 

to the Washington coast, in the lower Columbia River at dredge deposit sites, and agricultural 

fields in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, putting them at risk from stochastic weather events. 

Today, most sites used by streaked horned larks require some level of disturbance or 

management to maintain the habitat structure they need; natural mechanisms that formerly

maintained the habitat in suitability no longer exist.

We expect adverse effects will occur to streaked horned larks from the proposed action, 

including disturbance and flushing of breeding and non-breeding adults and fledglings, increased 

depredation of nests and young, and displacement from nesting habitat, resulting in reduced 

reproductive success and fitness of individuals. 

Climate Change

Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate 

warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental 

drying (Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; IPCC 2007, p. 1181). Climate 

change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms and droughts (Golladay et 

al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015), as well as sea level 

rise.

During the breeding season, small populations of streaked horned larks are distributed across the 

range; in the winter, however, streaked horned larks concentrate mainly on the lower Columbia 

River sites and in the Willamette Valley. The small, isolated nature of the remaining populations 

of the streaked horned lark increases their vulnerability to stochastic (random) natural events. 

There are estimated to be fewer than 1,600 streaked horned larks rangewide (Altman 2011, p. 

213). Concentrating the rangewide population in this manner exposes the entire population to 

11
stochastic events such as heavy snow, ice storms or flooding that could kill individuals or destroy 

limited habitat; “a severe weather event could wipe out a substantial percentage of the entire 

subspecies” (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 13).

Surveys conducted at the Corvallis Airport since 2007 have consistently found 80 to 100 pairs 

during the breeding season (Moore 2008, Moore and Kotaich 2010, Moore 2013). However, 

heavy snow in the Willamette Valley during the winter of 2013/2014 appears to have reduced the 

resident breeding population of streaked horned larks at the Corvallis Airport; only 23 breeding 

pairs and 21 unmated singing males were counted in June at the airport (Randy Moore, pers. 

comm., 2014). This indicates that the small and declining population of streaked horned larks is 

certainly at risk of random environmental events that could have catastrophic consequences to 

their abundance. 

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: STREAKED HORNED LARK

The regulations implementing section 7 of the Act define “effects of the action” as “the direct 

and indirect effects of an action on the species or habitat together with the effects of other 

activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the 

environmental baseline” (50 CFR 402.02).

There are four major construction activities within 100 meters of occupied and/or suitable habitat 

for streaked horned larks:

1. Placing a rock base layer (large-diameter quarry spalls).

2. Placing fill over the base layer (12-inch thick layer of sub-ballast, and a surface layer of 

ballast rock).

3. Laying the new track.

4. Removing an upland berm near the south end of occupied habitat. 

Types of construction equipment include dump trucks, track-laying equipment, bull dozer, 

speedswing, lag machine, tool trailer, passenger vehicles, surfacing tamper, ballast regulator, and 

welding trucks. These activities will occur during and outside the nesting season (the nesting 

season is approximately April 15 through September 1). Construction will occur in or adjacent 

to areas known to be occupied year round or potentially occupied (suitable habitat). Effects to 

the species include disturbance, displacement, and increased depredation of nests and/or young, 

resulting in reduced reproductive success and fitness. 

Streaked Horned Lark 

The primary conservation need for streaked horned lark is to protect nesting populations from 

disturbance and direct mortality due to human activities [71 FR 61938: 61998 (October 11, 

2012)]. As proposed, the construction activities will measurably disturb streaked horned larks.

The life stages affected are nesting and/or non-nesting adults, fledglings, and eggs/chicks in the 

nest. 

12
Increased Human Presence 

Streaked horned larks using the areas adjacent to construction will be exposed to increased 

human presence for the duration of construction. Streaked horned larks perceive humans on foot 

as a threat and are expected to flush, abandon and/or be kept from nests, and/or neglect 

fledglings, resulting in the loss of vulnerable young and reduced reproductive success. Laying 

large-diameter rock, gravel, and installing new rail lines will occur as close as 43 meters to

suitable and/or occupied nesting and foraging areas. Streaked horned larks that use the areas 

adjacent to construction are expected to be acclimated to the routine activities that occur. 

Streaked horned larks using these areas are not accustomed to activities associated with the 

proposed activities, which vary from normal activities. Construction will result in higher levels 

of sound, intensity, and increased duration of human presence; additionally the proposed 

activities are less predictable than normal operations. We expect streaked horned larks foraging, 

nesting, or otherwise using areas adjacent and within 100 meters of the work will be measurably 

disrupted by the increased sound and human presence during the duration of the work. These 

disruptions are expected to result in reduced reproductive success from nest abandonment, 

depredation of eggs, chicks, or fledglings, interrupted foraging attempts, and reduced fitness of 

individuals.

Heavy Equipment Use/Construction

Construction will increase the frequency and duration of heavy equipment operation within 100 

meters of occupied/suitable streaked horned lark habitat, resulting in increased sound and visual 

disturbance. Sound from heavy equipment operation is expected to reach 99 dBA (at 50 feet)

and to exceed these levels when more than one piece of machinery is being used; however, it is 

impossible to predict which pieces of equipment will operate concurrently and the maximum 

sound levels associated with this. We estimate that project related in-air sound would attenuate 

to baseline ambient sound levels within approximately 3,200 ft (976 meters/0.6 mile); therefore, 

we expect construction-related sound would extend throughout occupied/suitable habitat areas 

for streaked horned larks within the action area. 

Female streaked horned larks have been observed leaving nests as a result of disturbance sources 

(i.e., pedestrians, vehicles, and aircraft) up to 100 meters away (CNLM 2012, p. 21). If a 

predator is detected by a streaked horned lark at some distance (23 to 91 meters) the birds may 

flush directly and silently, flying near the ground (Stinson 2005, p. 58). To protect nests 

containing vulnerable young, streaked horned lark females will “causally abandon” nests, flying 

silently and near the ground when an intruder is 25 to 100 meters away (Beason 1970, p. 99). 

The “behavior of females on the nest is different because she will fly from the nest when a 

human was 100 meters or more away, if she could see him” (Beason 1970, p. 41). Therefore, 

based on research in areas with regular human presence, we expect that some nesting streaked 

horned larks are reasonably certain to flush when construction activities are within a 100-meter 

radius of active nests.

Activities that “prevent females from returning to their nests for extended periods of time (more 

than an hour) may cause them to abandon their nest” (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Pearson 

and Altman 2005, p. 10). Human activities may be responsible for some of the observed nest 

13
abandonment (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16). The sound levels range from 70 to over 99 dBA, 

depending on which piece of equipment is being used and whether more than one piece of 

equipment is in use at the same time; equipment may be in operation for up to 8 to 10 hours per 

day in areas where streaked horned larks are expected to be nesting. When streaked horned larks 

are nesting or foraging within 100 meters of the equipment and the birds are exposed to 

stationary disturbances lasting longer than 1 hour, we expect some of these birds will experience 

a measurable disruption of normal behavior (especially the closer they are to the construction 

site).

Depending on the stage of nesting (early incubation or chicks) and distance from the disturbance, 

we expect some nesting adults may abandon their nests, flush repeatedly, experience interrupted 

foraging, or neglect vulnerable young, leaving nests at increased risk of depredation. Flushing 

adults from active nests repeatedly may result in nest abandonment and failure. Nests can fail 

when the eggs and nestlings are left unprotected from predators, young have missed feedings, or

young become overheated or too cold. Investing so much energy into failed nesting attempts 

reduces the reproductive fitness of adults by causing them to re-nest, increasing their energy 

demand and straining the adult’s fitness during the time of year when they are already stressed. 

Therefore, we expect disturbance from construction will result in measurable effects to 

individual reproductive fitness from temporary visual and sound disturbance to streaked horned

larks.

Streaked horned larks may shift their nesting locations in response to the visual and sound 

disturbance from construction activities. Shifting nesting locations could result in the birds being 

forced into less desirable areas where their reproductive success could be diminished. 

Displacing the birds from nesting areas may also cause the displaced birds to abandon their 

nesting attempt. Streaked horned larks have high breeding site fidelity (Anderson et al. 2013, p. 

3), and are expected to return to the same territories each year to breed. The birds may nest 

elsewhere in response to being displaced. Research has shown that reinitiating nests does not 

make nests, nestlings, and fledglings less vulnerable (Wolf and Anderson 2013, p. 60). 

Therefore, we expect that displacement is likely to result in reduced reproductive success, 

particularly for subsequent nesting attempts.

The effect of temporarily displacing nesting streaked horned larks from the areas that they may 

prefer, forage in, and/or have previously successfully fledged young is expected to vary 

depending on timing within the nesting season. If such displacement occurs late in the nesting 

season, streaked horned larks may not re-nest that year. This would result in reduced 

reproductive success for those individuals. If displacement occurs earlier, streaked horned larks 

are expected to attempt re-nesting, which is an increased energetic cost that is a disruption of 

normal behaviors significant enough that it creates a likelihood of injury to adults from reduced 

reproductive fitness and success. All streaked horned larks temporarily displaced from 

occupied/suitable habitat will experience a measurable disruption to their normal breeding and 

foraging behaviors during construction.

Construction, in general, has been associated with observed nest abandonment (Pearson and 

Hopey 2005, p. 17). Human-caused disturbance may have effects at every stage of streaked 

horned larks lives (Anderson et al. 2013, p. 5), but birds are most sensitive and more likely to 

14
abandon nests during early incubation than when they are tending chicks. The birds disturbed 

by construction may re-nest again, which does not mean they are less vulnerable in terms of 

reproductive fitness. There is no instance where nests, nestlings, and fledglings were less 

vulnerable because subsequent nests were reinitiated (Wolf and Anderson 2013, p. 60).

 

Depredation of streaked horned lark young is expected to increase when construction occurs 

within 100 meters of active nests. Construction crews will remain onsite for several hours each 

day over the duration of construction and may inadvertently generate food waste and other trash 

that attracts crows (Corvus spp.) and other predators. Crows are most likely the primary 

predators of streaked horned larks along rail line systems. If streaked horned larks are kept from 

returning to the nest for extended periods of time, we expect this will result in an increased risk 

of predation of eggs, nestlings, and/or flightless young (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 21); we 

expect that any adults precluded from tending nests/young for longer than one hour are at a 

higher risk of nest failure. Based on this information, we expect depredation of nests and young 

will be measurably increased when construction occurs within 100 meters of active nests.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: STREAKED HORNED LARK

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this Opinion. There are no nonFederal actions reasonably certain to occur in the action area. Future Federal actions that are 

unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate 

consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS: STREAKED HORNED LARK

In the Environmental Baseline and Status of the Species sections of the Opinion, we established 

that past, present, and future effects of the action would result in temporary adverse effects to the 

streaked horned lark. 

Summary of the Effects of the Action 

Streaked horned larks have experienced significant population declines in Washington over the 

past 10 years, resulting in a genetic bottleneck (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881). Primary long-term 

threats to the streaked horned larks along the lower Columbia River include the loss and 

conversion of habitat associated with development. There are no mechanisms in place to ensure 

that enough suitable nesting habitat is consistently available to sustain the local population along 

the lower Columbia River. The dredge spoil deposition areas and undeveloped areas along lower 

Columbia River are critical to conserving the streaked horned lark because these areas are the 

only suitable breeding areas available, besides airports. These ephemeral habitats provide 

demographic support to other populations throughout the range of the subspecies. 

We expect streaked horned larks nesting within 100 meters of construction will experience a 

measureable disruption to their normal behaviors. Construction will increase sound and visual 

disturbance to nesting, foraging, and overwintering birds within approximately 0.5 mile of 

15
construction. Streaked horned larks are expected to respond to increased sound and visual 

disturbance by flushing, shifting nest placement locations, abandoning nest-building attempts, 

abandoning nests with eggs, abandoning foraging attempts, and/or neglecting vulnerable young. 

Construction activities are also expected to cause an increased risk of depredation. All nesting 

adults disturbed by construction work lasting longer than 1 hour within 100 meters of active 

nests and/or foraging areas are expected to experience a measurable disruption to their normal 

behavior. We expect these responses will reduce the reproductive success and fitness of adult 

streaked horned larks. 

The proposed action is expected to cause temporary disturbance that could result in a short-term 

reduction in young produced. However, we do not expect the proposed action to result in a

measurable reduction in the population abundance of streaked horned larks along the lower 

Columbia River or to measurably affect the population at the scale of the State of Washington, or 

the range of the subspecies.

Likelihood of Persistence at the Rangewide Scale

The proposed action is not expected to result in the loss of adult streaked horned larks or a 

measurable reduction in the population of breeding birds along the lower Columbia River or the

range of the subspecies. The effects of the action, taken together with cumulative effects, are not 

expected to result in a measurable reduction of numbers, reproduction, or distribution of streaked 

horned lark at the range-wide scale and will not result in an appreciable reduction in their

likelihood of persistence. The areas of occupied/suitable habitat adjacent to the new rail line are

essential for the conservation of the streaked horned lark. The proposed action will not alter the 

habitat features in these areas in any way; therefore, the proposed action is not expected to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the streaked horned lark.

CONCLUSION: STREAKED HORNED LARK

After reviewing the status of the streaked horned lark, the environmental baseline for the action 

area, the effects of the action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's Biological Opinion 

that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the streaked 

horned lark.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm is defined by the Service as an act which actually kills or 

injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it 

actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Harass is defined by the Service as an 

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

16
annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Incidental take is 

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise 

lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to 

and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the 

Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental 

Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to them as appropriate, for 

the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The FRA and WSDOT have a continuing duty to 

regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the FRA and WSDOT fails to 

assume and implement the terms and conditions or 2) fails to adhere to the terms and conditions 

of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant 

document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact 

of incidental take, the FRA and WSDOT must report the progress of the action and its impact on 

the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)].

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 

The Service expects incidental take in the form of harm and harassment of streaked horned larks 

from the proposed action. Take of individuals will be from mortality, disturbance, displacement, 

and/or depredation. Although we have estimated the numbers of individuals taken, it will not be 

possible to accurately determine the exact numbers of individuals taken for the following 

reasons: low likelihood of finding dead or injured individuals due to their small size, life habits 

(living under ground or camouflage coloration), scavenging, and rapid rate of decomposition. 

Therefore, the Service is relying on the activity levels to determine the extent, frequency, and/or

duration of impacts to individuals. Therefore, the duration, frequency, and intensity of 

temporary exposures are used for quantifying take. These surrogates represent an amount and 

extent of take that can be more readily monitored. Using these surrogates, the Service expects

the following forms and extent of take will result from the action:

1. Take of juvenile streaked horned larks (eggs, nestlings, or flightless fledglings) in the 

form of harm between April and mid-September from:

a. Increased depredation of eggs/nestlings and flightless fledglings within 100 

meters of construction that are left unattended or unprotected for longer than 1 

hour.

b. Increased mortality of eggs/nestlings and flightless fledglings within 100 meters 

of construction that are left unattended or unprotected for longer than 1 hour.

2. Take of streaked horned larks in the form of harassment year round from:

a. Temporary disturbance of some individuals from construction activities lasting 

longer than 1 hour within 100 meters of active nests and/or foraging areas.

17
b. Temporary disturbance and displacement of streaked horned lark breeding pairs

during construction lasting longer than 1 hour within 100 meters of 

occupied/suitable nesting habitat.

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

In the accompanying Opinion, the Service determined that this level of expected take is not 

likely to result in jeopardy to the species.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary and 

appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of streaked horned larks:

RPM 1: Minimize sources of harm to streaked horned larks resulting from mortality associated 

with increased depredation.

RPM 2: Monitor sources of harm and harassment of streaked horned larks from disturbance that 

results in missed foraging/provisioning opportunities, neglect of nest/young, and 

interrupted pairing of breeding pairs.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the FRA and WSDOT must 

comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent 

measures, described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms 

and conditions are non-discretionary. The following terms and conditions apply to all of the 

construction projects discussed in this Opinion, unless indicated otherwise below.

The following terms and conditions are required for the implementation of RPM 1:

1. Construction personnel shall dispose of food waste in a manner that does not attract 

corvids or other predators.

The following terms and conditions are required for the implementation of RPM 2:

1. Monitor and log construction activities (type and duration) adjacent to occupied/suitable 

habitat for streaked horned larks. 

a. Submit a final report describing the type of equipment used, duration of use, and 

estimated sound levels of construction work to the Services within 6 months of 

completion of the project work. 

18
2. A qualified biologist shall survey occupied/suitable habitat areas during construction for 

streaked horned lark occupancy and use in and adjacent to the work sites. 

a. A qualified biologist shall monitor as much of the occupied/suitable habitat within 

100 meters of the construction as possible for a minimum of 4 days during the 

construction. 

i. Observers will document streaked horned lark presence and behavior (e.g., 

aerial displays, flying, chasing, singing, or any other behavior). 

ii. The four days shall be evenly spaced throughout the duration of 

construction adjacent to these areas (e.g., construction takes 30 days, space 

four surveys days evenly over the 30 day period).

iii. Surveys will be done according to a survey methodology coordinated with 

the Service. 

iv. If the occupied/suitable habitat is not directly accessible, an attempt to 

monitor from the nearest accessible location shall occur. 

b. Any streaked horned larks detected in and near the construction areas will be 

noted and their location mapped. 

c. The bird surveyor will provide a monitoring report that includes maps of these use 

areas and data sheets of the documented behaviors.

d. The final report shall be submitted to the Service within 6 months upon 

completion of construction.

The Service expects the amount or extent of incidental take described above will not be exceeded 

as a result of the proposed action. The RPMs and their implementing terms and conditions, are 

designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed 

action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such 

incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of 

the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal action agency must immediately 

provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for 

possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

The Service is to be notified within three working days upon locating a dead, injured or sick 

endangered or threatened species specimen. Initial notification must be made to the nearest U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Office. Notification must include the date, time, 

precise location of the injured animal or carcass, and any other pertinent information. Care 

should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to preserve biological materials in the best 

possible state for later analysis of cause of death, if that occurs. In conjunction with the care of 

sick or injured endangered or threatened species or preservation of biological materials from a 

dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to ensure that evidence associated with the 

specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed. Contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law 

Enforcement Office at (425) 883-8122, or the Service’s Washington Fish and Wildlife Office at 

(360) 753-9440.

19
REINITIATION NOTICE 

This concludes formal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the request. As provided in 50 

CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency 

involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: 1) the 

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, 2) new information reveals effects of the agency

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

in this Opinion, 3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect 

to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this Opinion, or (4) a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the 

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease 

pending reinitiation.

20
LITERATURE CITED

Altman, B. 2011. Historical and Current Distribution and Populations of Bird Species in PrairieOak Habitats in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science, 85(2):194-222.

Anderson, H. 2009. Streaked horned lark regional working group; minutes from the September 

29, 2009 meeting. Prepared by Hannah Anderson, The Nature Conservancy. 11 pp.

Anderson, H., A. Wolf, and R.A. Martin. 2013. Streaked horned lark conspecific attraction 

feasibility study. Center for Natural Lands Management. December 2013. pp. 29.

Beason, R.C. 1970. The annual cycle of the prairie horned lark in west central Illinois. Masters 

of Science Thesis. Western Illinois University. June 1970. pp. 160.

Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM). 2012. Streaked horned lark literature review. 

pp. 38. September 2012. 

Cook, E.R., C.A. Woodhouse, C.M. Eakin, D.M. Meko, and D.W. Stahle. 2004. Long-Term 

Aridity Changes in the Western United States. Science 306(5698): 1015-1018. 

Drovetski, S.V., S.F. Pearson, and S. Rohwer. 2005. Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

strigata has distinct mitochondrial DNA. Conservation Genetics. 6:875-883. 

Field, C.B., G.C. Daily, F.W. Davis, S. Gaines, P.A. Matson, J. Melack, and N.L. Miller. 1999. 

Confronting Climate Change in California. Ecological impacts on the Golden State. A 

report of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge , Massachusetts, and the 

Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC. 63 pp. 

Golladay, S.W., P.G. Gagnon, M. Kearns, J.M. Battle, and D.W. Hicks. 2004. Response of 

freshwater mussel assemblages (Bivalvia:Unionidae) to a record drought in the Gulf 

Coast Plain of southwestern Georgia. Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society. 23(3):494-506.

Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C.B. Field, P.C. Frumhoff, E.P. Maurer, N.L. Miller, S.C. Moser, S.H. 

Schneider, K.N. Cahill, E.E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R.M. Hanemann, L.S. 

Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C.K. Lunch, R.P. Neilson, S.C. Sheridan, and J.H. Verville. 2004. 

Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). 101(34):12422-

12427. Doi: 10.10773/pnas.0404500101.

21
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007: Regional Climate Projections. 

Chapter 11 in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, 

R. Jones, R.K. Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. 

Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Whetton. (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, editors.) 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 94 

pp. 

Lassen, M. 2011. Center for Natural Lands Management, Olympia, Washington. E-mail to C. 

Brown, USFWS, Portland, Oregon, dated 29 September 2011 and 6 October 2011 

(Subject: Re: data for 2011 Columbia River islands surveys?). 

McLaughlin, J.F., J.J. Hellmann, C.L. Boggs, P.R. Ehrlich. 2002. Climate change hastens 

population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 

States of America (PNAS). 99:6070-6074. 

Moore. R. 2008. Inventory of streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) populations on 

Federal, State, and municipal lands in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Technical Report, 

USFWS, Portland, OR. 63 pp. 

Moore, R. 2011. Abundance and Reproductive Success of Streaked Horned Larks (Eremophila 

alpestris strigata) in Multnomah County, OR: Breeding Season 2010. Report to the 

USFWS, Portland, Oregon. 32 pp. 

Moore, R. 2013. Survival of streaked horned lark nests and fledglings (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) in Oregon’s agricultural landscape. Southern Willamette Valley, 2012. Feb. 28, 

2012. pp. 51.

Moore, R. 2014. Personal communication from Randy Moore to Martha Jensen (US Fish and 

Wildlife Service) RE: heavy snow in the Willamette Valley during the winter of 

2013/2014 appears to have reduced the resident breeding population of streaked horned 

larks at the Corvallis Airport; only 23 breeding pairs and 21 unmated singing males were 

counted in June at the airport.

Moore, R. and A. Kotiach. 2010. Reproductive success of streaked horned larks in Oregon’s 

varied agricultural landscape. Mid-and Southern Willamette Valley, 2009. April 2, 2010. 

60 pp. 

Pearson, S., and B. Altman. 2005. Range-wide streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) assessment and preliminary conservation strategy. Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 25 pp. 

22
Pearson, S., and M. Hopey. 2004. Streaked horned lark inventory, nesting success and habitat 

selection in the Puget lowlands of Washington. Natural Areas Report 2004−1. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 36 pp. 

Pearson, S.F., and M. Hopey. 2005. Streaked Horned Lark nest success, habitat selection, and 

habitat enhancement experiments for the Puget Lowlands, Coastal Washington and 

Columbia River Islands. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-1. Washington Dept. of 

Natural Resources. Olympia, WA.

Pearson, S., M. Hopey, W. D. Robinson, and R. Moore. 2005. Range, Abundance and Movement 

Patterns of Wintering Streaked Horned Larks (Eremophila alpestris strigata) in Oregon and 

Washington. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-2. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. 

Olympia, WA. 12 pp.

Pearson, S., A.F. Camfield, and K. Martin. 2008. Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) fecundity, survival, population growth and site fidelity: Research progress 

report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, 

Olympia, WA. pp. 24. 

Rogers, R. 2000. The status and microhabitat selection of streaked horned lark, western bluebird, 

Oregon vesper sparrow and western meadowlark in western Washington. M.S. Thesis, 

Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. 185 pp. 

Stinson, D. 2005. Status report for the mazama pocket gopher, streaked horned lark, and Taylor’s 

checkerspot. WDFW, Olympia, Washington, November 2005. 129 pp.

Wolf, A. and H. Anderson. 2013. Streaked horned lark habitat management and population 

monitoring report Spring/Summer 2013. Habitat and Species Cooperative Restoration 

Program, Joint Base Lewis McChord, Center for Natural Lands Management. 66 pp.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Biological Opinion for the U.S. Corps of 

Engineers continued Operations and Maintenance Dredging Program for the Columbia 

River Federal Navigation In Oregon and Washington (2014- 2018). U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Reference Number: 01EPOFW00-2014-F-0112. Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office. Portland, Oregon. 47 pp.

23
(This page intentionally left blank)
APPENDIX A: STATUS OF THE SPECIES – STREAKED HORNED LARK

24
(This page intentionally left blank)
Appendix A: Status of the Streaked Horned Lark

Legal Status

The streaked horned lark was listed as a threatened species on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61452), 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) The final rule 

designating critical habitat for the subspecies was published on the same date (78 FR 61506 

[October 3, 2013]).

Life History

Taxonomy

The horned lark is found throughout the northern hemisphere (Beason 1995, p. 1); it is the only 

true lark native to North America (Beason 1995, p. 1). Subspecies of horned larks are based 

primarily on differences in color, body size, and wing length. Western populations of horned 

larks are generally paler and smaller than eastern and northern populations (Beason 1995, p. 3). 

The streaked horned lark was first described as Otocorys alpestris strigata by Henshaw (1884, 

pp. 261–264, 267–268). In addition to the streaked horned lark, there are four other subspecies 

of horned larks that occur in Washington and Oregon: pallid horned lark (E. a. alpina), dusky 

horned lark (E. a. merrilli), Warner horned lark (E. a. lamprochroma), and arctic horned lark (E. 

a. articola) (Marshall et al. 2003, p. 426; Wahl et al. 2005, p. 268). None of these other 

subspecies breed within the range of the streaked horned lark, but all four subspecies frequently 

overwinter in mixed species flocks in the Willamette Valley (Marshall et al. 2003, pp. 425–427). 

Genetic analyses indicate that the streaked horned lark population is well-differentiated and 

isolated from all other sampled localities, including coastal California, and has “remarkably low 

genetic diversity” (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 875).

The lack of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity exhibited by streaked horned larks is 

consistent with a population bottleneck (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881). The streaked horned lark 

is differentiated and isolated from all other sampled localities, and although it was 

“...historically a part of a larger Pacific Coast lineage of horned larks, it has been evolving 

independently for some time and can be considered a distinct evolutionary unit” (Drovetski et al. 

2005, p. 880). The streaked horned lark is recognized as a valid subspecies by the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2012).

Physical Description

The streaked horned lark is endemic to the Pacific Northwest (British Columbia, Washington, 

and Oregon) (Altman 2011, p. 196) and is a subspecies of the wide-ranging horned lark 

(Eremophila alpestris sp.). Horned larks are small, ground-dwelling birds, approximately 16 to 

20 centimeters (6−8 inches) in length (Beason 1995, p. 2). Adults are pale brown, but shades of 

brown vary geographically among the subspecies. The male’s face has a yellow wash in most 

subspecies. Adults have a black bib, black whisker marks, black “horns” (feather tufts that can 

1
be raised or lowered), and black tail feathers with white margins (Beason 1995, p. 2). Juveniles 

lack the black face pattern and are varying shades of gray, from almost white to almost black 

with a silver-speckled back (Beason 1995, p. 2). 

The streaked horned lark have unique characteristics that differentiate them from other horned 

larks including a dark brown back, yellowish underparts, a walnut brown nape and yellow 

eyebrow stripe and throat (Beason 1995, p. 4). The streaked horned lark subspecies is 

conspicuously more yellow beneath and darker on the back than almost all other subspecies of 

horned lark. The combination of small size, dark brown back, and yellow underparts 

distinguishes this subspecies from other horned larks.

Current and Historical Range

The current range and distribution of the streaked horned lark can be divided into three regions: 

1) The south Puget Sound in Washington; 2) the Washington coast and lower Columbia River 

islands (including dredge spoil deposition and industrial sites near the Columbia River in 

Portland, Oregon); and 3) the Willamette Valley in Oregon (Figure 1).

The streaked horned lark’s breeding range historically extended from southern British Columbia, 

Canada, south through the Puget lowlands and outer coast of Washington, along the lower 

Columbia River, through the Willamette Valley, the Oregon coast and into the Umpqua and 

Rogue River Valleys of southwestern Oregon (Altman 2011, pp. 200-202). The subspecies has 

been extirpated as a breeding species throughout much of its range, including all of its former 

range in British Columbia, the San Juan Islands, the northern Puget Trough, the Washington 

coast north of Grays Harbor County, the Oregon coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua Valleys in 

southwestern Oregon (Pearson & Altman 2005, pp. 4–5).

Current Breeding Range

Streaked horned larks currently breed on seven sites in the south Puget Sound. Four of these 

sites are on Joint Base Lewis McChord: 13th Division Prairie, Gray Army Airfield, McChord 

Field, and 91st Division Prairie. The largest population of streaked horned larks currently breeds 

at the Olympia Regional Airport and a small population nests at the Port of Shelton’s Sanderson 

Field (airport) (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; Pearson et al. 2008, p. 3). One additional 

breeding population has recently been documented at the Tacoma Narrows Airport (Tirhi, in litt. 

2014); however, there is very limited population abundance information available.

On the Washington coast, there are four known breeding sites in Grays Harbor and Pacific 

Counties: Damon Point; Midway Beach; Graveyard Spit; and Leadbetter Point. On the lower 

Columbia River, streaked horned larks breed on several of the sandy islands downstream of 

Portland, Oregon. Recent surveys have documented breeding streaked horned larks on Rice, 

Miller Sands Spit, Pillar Rock, Welch, Tenasillahe, Coffeepot, Whites/Browns, Wallace, Crims, 

and Sandy Islands in Wahkiakum and Cowlitz Counties in Washington, and Columbia and 

Clatsop Counties in Oregon (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 23; Anderson 2009, p. 4; Lassen, in 

2
litt. 2011). Streaked horned larks also breed at the Rivergate Industrial Complex and the 

Southwest Quad at Portland International Airport; both sites are owned by the Port of Portland, 

and are former dredge spoil deposition fields (Moore 2011a, pp. 9–12). 

In the Willamette Valley, streaked horned larks breed in Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Linn, 

Marion, Polk, Washington, and Yamhill Counties. Streaked horned larks are most abundant in 

the southern part of the Willamette Valley. The largest known breeding population of streaked 

horned larks rangewide are resident at Corvallis Municipal Airport in Benton County, with 75 to 

102 pairs annually (Moore 2008, p. 15); other resident populations occur at the Baskett Slough, 

William L. Finley, and Ankeny units of the Service’s Willamette Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex (Moore 2008, pp. 8–9). Breeding populations also occur at municipal airports 

in the valley (including McMinnville, Salem, and Eugene) (Moore 2008, pp. 14–17). In 2008, a 

large population of streaked horned larks colonized a wetland and prairie restoration site on MDAC Farms, a privately-owned parcel in Linn County; as the vegetation at the site matured in 

the following 2 years, the site became less suitable for larks, and the population declined (Moore 

and Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13). This is likely a common pattern, as breeding streaked horned 

larks shift sites as habitat becomes available among private agricultural lands in the Willamette 

Valley (Moore 2008, pp. 9–11). 

3
Figure 1. Historic and current range of streaked horned larks (rangewide) (Anderson, in litt. 

2014a).

Wintering Range

Pearson et al. (2005b, p. 2) found that most streaked horned larks winter in the Willamette 

Valley (72 percent) and on the islands in the lower Columbia River (20 percent); the rest of the 

winter is spent on the Washington coast (8 percent) or in the south Puget Sound (1 percent). In 

the winter, most of the streaked horned larks that breed in the south Puget Sound migrate south 

4
to the Willamette Valley or west to the Washington coast; streaked horned larks that breed on the 

Washington coast either remain on the coast or migrate south to the Willamette Valley; birds that 

breed on the lower Columbia River islands remain on the islands or migrate to the Washington 

coast; and birds that breed in the Willamette Valley remain there over the winter (Pearson et al. 

2005b, pp. 5–6). Streaked horned larks spend the winter in large groups of mixed subspecies of 

horned larks in the Willamette Valley, and in smaller flocks along the lower Columbia River and 

Washington Coast (Pearson et al. 2005b, p. 7; Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 7). During the 

winter of 2008, a mixed flock of over 300 horned larks was detected at the Corvallis Municipal 

Airport (Moore, pers. comm. 2011b).

Range Contraction

Streaked horned lark has experienced a substantial contraction of its range; it has been extirpated 

from all formerly documented locations at the northern end of its range (British Columbia, and 

the San Juan Islands and northern Puget Trough of Washington), the Oregon coast, and the 

southern edge of its range (Rogue and Umpqua Valleys of Oregon). The streaked horned lark’s 

current range appears to have been reduced to less than half the size of its historical range in the 

last 100 years. The pattern of range contractions for other Pacific Northwest species (e.g., 

western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) shows a loss of populations in the northern part of the 

range, with healthier populations persisting in the southern part of the range (Altman 2011, p. 

214). The streaked horned lark is an exception to this pattern—its range has contracted from 

both the north and the south simultaneously (Altman 2011, p. 215).

Habitat and Biology

Habitat Selection

Habitat used by streaked horned larks is generally flat with substantial areas of bare ground and 

sparse low-stature vegetation primarily comprised of grasses and forbs (Pearson and Hopey 

2005, p. 27). Suitable habitat is generally 16–17 percent bare ground, and may be even more 

open at sites selected for nesting (Altman 1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). 

Vegetation height is generally less than 13 in (33 cm) (Altman 1999, p.18; Pearson and Hopey 

2005, p. 27). A key attribute of habitat used by larks is open landscape context. Our data 

indicate that sites used by streaked horned larks are generally found in open (i.e., flat, treeless) 

landscapes of 300 acres (120 ha) or more (Converse et al. 2010, p. 21). 

Some patches with the appropriate characteristics (i.e., bare ground, low stature vegetation) may 

be smaller in size if the adjacent areas provide the required open landscape context; this situation 

is common in agricultural habitats and on sites next to water. For example, many of the sites

used by streaked horned larks on the islands in the Columbia River are small (less than 100 ac 

(40 ha)), but are adjacent to open water, which provides the open landscape context needed. 

Streaked horned lark populations are found at nearly every airport within the range of the 

subspecies, because airport maintenance requirements provide the desired open landscape 

context and short vegetation structure.

5
Although streaked horned larks use a wide variety of habitats, populations are vulnerable 

because the habitats used are often ephemeral or subject to frequent human disturbance. 

Ephemeral habitats include bare ground in agricultural fields and wetland mudflats; habitats 

subject to frequent human disturbance include mowed fields at airports, managed road margins, 

agricultural crop fields, and disposal sites for dredge material (Altman 1999, p. 19). 

Foraging

Horned larks forage on the ground in low vegetation or on bare ground (Beason 1995, p. 6); 

adults feed on a wide variety of grass and weed seeds, but feed insects to their young (Beason 

1995, p. 6). Larks eat a wide variety of seeds and insects (Beason 1995, p. 6), and appear to 

select habitats based on the structure of the vegetation rather than the presence of any specific 

food plants (Moore 2008, p. 19).

Breeding and Nesting

The majority of streaked horned larks that breed in Washington are migratory, with birds 

spending the winter in the Willamette Valley, Columbia River or along the Washington coast. In 

the south Puget Sound geographic area, the first males begin to arrive mid-to-late February 

(Wolf, in litt. 2013). The first females begin arriving in early March (Anderson, in litt. 2014b) 

but don’t start arriving in numbers until late March and April (Pearson 2003, p.11). 

Horned larks form pairs in the spring (Beason 1995, p. 11) and establish territories 

approximately 1.9 acres (0.77 ha) in size (range 1.5 to 2.5 acres) (Altman, 1999, p. 11). Some 

areas used by streaked horned larks at study sites in Washington can be 9 acres or more in size 

(CNLM 2012, p. 20; CNLM, in litt. 2013). Horned larks create nests in shallow depressions in 

the ground and line them with soft vegetation (Beason 1995, p. 12). Female horned larks select 

the nest site and construct the nest without help from the male (Beason 1995, p. 12). Streaked 

horned larks establish their nests in areas of extensive bare ground with little or no woody 

vegetation, and nests are placed adjacent to clumps of bunchgrass, most often on the north side 

of the plant (Pearson and Hopey 2004, pp. 1–2; Anderson 2006, p.18; Moore 2013, p. 18). 

Studies from Washington sites (the open coast, Puget lowlands and the Columbia River islands) 

have found strong natal fidelity to nesting sites – that is, streaked horned larks return each year to 

the place they were born and will nest in the same territories every year (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 

11; Anderson et al. 2013, pp. 3, 7).

Historically, nesting habitat was found on grasslands, estuaries, and sandy beaches in British 

Columbia, in dune habitats along the coast of Washington, in western Washington and western 

Oregon prairies, and on the sandy beaches and spits along the Columbia and Willamette Rivers. 

Today, the streaked horned lark nests in a broad range of habitats, including native prairies, 

coastal dunes, fallow and active agricultural fields, wetland mudflats, sparsely-vegetated edges 

of grass fields, recently planted Christmas tree farms with extensive bare ground, moderately- to 

heavily-grazed pastures, gravel roads or gravel shoulders of lightly-traveled roads, airports, and 

dredge deposition sites in the lower Columbia River (Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Altman 

2005, p. 5; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15; Moore 2008, pp. 9–10, 12–14, 16; Anderson et al. 

6
2013, p. 4). The areas adjacent to road ways, airport runways and other vehicle rights-of ways 

are some of the most consistently (annually) available habitat for the streaked horned larks to 

breed (Moore 2013, p. 14) and the subspecies likely would not have persisted if not for the 

regular activities and disturbance that maintains habitat in the surrogate landscapes currently 

used for nesting. Wintering streaked horned larks use habitats that are very similar to breeding 

habitats (Pearson et al. 2005, p. 8). 

Nesting Phenology in the South Puget Sound Geographic Area

The nesting season for streaked horned larks begins in early April and ends mid- to late August 

(Figure 2 and 3) (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11; Anderson 2007, p. 6; Moore 2011a, p. 32). 

Clutches range from 1 to 5 eggs, with a mean of 3 eggs (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 12). After 

the first nesting attempt in April, streaked horned larks will often re-nest in late June or early 

July (Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 11). In some situations, they can renest up to 6 times per 

season (R. Moore, pers. comm. in CNLM 2012, p. 24) and can produce two or three successful 

broods per season. Young streaked horned larks leave the nest by the end of the first week after 

hatching, and are cared for by the parents until they are about 4 weeks old when they become 

independent (Beason 1995, p. 15). 

Figure 2. Clutch initiation dates for the Puget Lowlands (draft, WDFW). 

7
Figure 3: Clutch initiation dates for all nesting sites in Washington and Oregon.

Nest success studies (i.e., the proportion of nests that result in at least one fledged chick) in 

streaked horned larks report highly variable results. Nest success on the Puget lowlands of 

Washington is low, with only 28 percent of nests successfully fledging young (Pearson and 

Hopey 2004, p. 14; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16). According to reports from sites in the 

Willamette Valley, Oregon, nest success has varied from 23 to 60 percent depending on the site 

(Altman 1999, p. 1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 23). At one site in Portland, Oregon, Moore 

(2011a, p. 11) found 100 percent nest success.

Nestlings leave the nest about 8 to 10 days after hatching (once they leave the nest, they are 

fledglings). Fledgling grassland songbirds leave the nest much earlier than most other passerines 

and therefore have a lower percentage of muscle mass upon fledging (Moore 2013, p. 8). 

Immediately after leaving the nest, fledglings are quite ungainly and hop and flutter around 

following their parents. The young can fly poorly at 4 to 5 days old (Wolf, in litt. 2014). Young 

flightless birds generally avoid areas without much cover and rely on camouflage for 

concealment (Wolf, in litt. 2014). About 17 days after they leave the nest, they can walk and fly 

well. Young streaked horned larks are not able to efficiently flee danger (i.e., walk and fly well) 

until they are approximately 17 days out of the nest (approximately 27 days after hatching 

(Beason 1970, p. 134). 

Population Estimates and Current Status of the Streaked Horned Lark

Data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate that most grasslandassociated birds, including the horned lark, have declined across their ranges in the past three

decades (Sauer et al. 2011, pp. 3–5). The BBS can provide population trend data only for those 

species with sufficient sample sizes for analyses, but the data are insufficient for the streaked 

horned lark for a rangewide population trend analysis (Altman 2011, p. 214). An analysis of 

recent data from a variety of sources concludes that the streaked horned lark has been extirpated 

8
from British Columbia, Canada, the Oregon coast, and the Rogue and Umpqua Valleys (Altman 

2011, p. 213); this analysis estimates the current rangewide population of streaked horned larks 

to be about 1,170 to 1,610 individuals (Altman 2011, p. 213).

In the south Puget Sound, approximately 150 to 170 streaked horned larks breed at six sites 

(Altman 2011, p. 213), and breeding has been recently documented at the Tacoma Narrows 

Airport (WDFW, in litt 2014). Recent studies have found that larks have very low nest success 

in Washington (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 8); comparisons with other ground-nesting birds in the 

same prairie habitats in the south Puget Sound showed that streaked horned larks had 

significantly lower values in all measures of reproductive success (Anderson 2010a, p. 16). 

Estimates of population growth rate (λ, lambda) that include vital rates from nesting areas in the

south Puget Sound, Washington coast, and Whites Island in the lower Columbia River indicate 

that the Washington population is declining precipitously. One study estimated that the 

population of streaked horned larks was declining by 40 percent per year (λ = 0.61 ± 0.10 SD), 

apparently due to a combination of low survival and fecundity rates (Pearson et al., 2008, p. 12). 

More recent analyses of territory mapping at four sites in the south Puget Sound found that the 

total number of breeding streaked horned lark territories decreased from 77 territories in 2004 to 

42 territories in 2007– a decline of over 45 percent in three years (Camfield et al. 2011, p. 8). 

Pearson et al. (2008, p. 14) concluded that there is a high probability that populations may be lost 

in Puget Sound in the future given the low estimates of fecundity and adult survival along with 

high emigration out of Puget Sound. 

On the Washington coast and Columbia River islands there are about 120 to 140 breeding 

streaked horned larks (Altman 2011, p. 213). Data from the Washington coast and Whites Island 

were included in the population growth rate study discussed above; populations at these sites 

appear to be declining by 40 percent per year (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 12). Although nest success 

is high at the Portland industrial sites, fewer streaked horned larks are nesting at the Rivergate 

industrial site because the size of the site is decreasing with development.

There are about 900 to 1,300 breeding streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley (Altman 

2011, p. 213). The largest known population of streaked horned larks breeds at the Corvallis 

Municipal Airport and the population have been as high as 100 breeding pairs in years when the 

adjacent grass fields are suitable (Moore and Kotaich 2010, pp. 13–15). The population at the 

Corvallis Airport was 60 to 70 percent lower in 2014, with only 23 confirmed breeding pairs 

(Moore, in litt. 2014). In 2007, a large (580-acre (235-ha)) wetland and native prairie restoration 

project was initiated on a former rye grass field in Linn County (Cascade Pacific RC&D 2012, p. 

1). Large semi-permanent wetlands were created at the site, and the prairie portions were burned 

and treated with herbicides (Moore and Kotaich 2010, pp. 11–13). These conditions created 

excellent quality ephemeral habitat for streaked horned larks and the site was used by about 75 

breeding pairs in 2008 (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 12). The site had high use again in 2009, 

but the number of breeding streaked horned larks has steadily declined as the vegetation matured 

and most of the pairs have moved to other agricultural habitats (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 13).

There are no population trend data in Oregon that are comparable to the study in Washington by 

Pearson et al. (2008, entire); however, research on breeding streaked horned larks indicates that 

nest success in the southern Willamette Valley is higher than in Washington (Moore, pers. 

9
comm. 2011b). The best information on trends in the Willamette Valley comes from surveys 

conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); the agency conducted 

surveys for grassland-associated birds, including the streaked horned lark, in 1996 and again in 

2008 (Altman 1999, p. 2; Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 2). Point count surveys were conducted at 

544 stations in the Willamette Valley (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 2). Over the 12-year period 

between the surveys, measures of relative abundance of streaked horned larks increased slightly 

from 1996 to 2008 (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11). Population numbers decreased slightly in 

the northern Willamette Valley and increased slightly in the middle and southern portions of the 

valley (Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 11). 

Although there are no conclusive data on population trends throughout the streaked horned lark’s 

range, the rapidly declining population in Puget Sound, along the coast and the Columbia River 

islands suggests that the range of the streaked horned lark may still be contracting.

Table 1. High counts of streaked horned larks during May to July surveys at breeding sites in 

Washington, 2010-2013 (Linders, in litt. 2014; WDFW 2013, p. 701).

South Sound 

Sites 2010 2011 2012 20131

Columbia 

River and 

coastal 

sites

2010 2011 2012 20131

Gray Army 

Airfield 29 25 18 18

Whites/ 

Brown 

Island 32 24 30 40

13th Division 

Prairie 3 6 18 14 Rice Island 14 24 24 34

91st Division 

Prairie, 

Range 74

12 9 4 5

Kalama 

and Johns 

River* - -

4 (2 at 

each 

site)

-

McChord 26 18 17 23 Leadbetter - 20 13 10

Olympia 

Airport 47 41 46 45 Midway - - 2 2

Shelton 

Airport 15 11 16 16 Damon Point - 6 4 4

Total # 132 110 119 94 Total # 46 74 77 90

* Newly documented (2014) breeding areas include Johns River (2 pairs), the Tacoma Narrows Airport (3 pairs) and Range 50 in 

the Artillery Impact Area (7 or 8 pairs). 

10
Threats

Reasons for listing

The streaked horned lark was listed as threatened species because of the following:

• The streaked horned lark has disappeared from all formerly documented locations in the 

northern portion of its range, the Oregon coast, and the southern edge of its range.

• There are currently estimated to be fewer than 1,600 streaked horned larks rangewide, 

and population numbers are declining.

• Their range is small may be continuing to contract;

o The south Puget Sound breeding population is estimated to be less than 170 

individuals.

o The Washington coast and Columbia River islands breeding population is less 

than 140 individuals.

o Recent research estimates the number of streaked horned larks in Washington and 

on the Columbia River islands is declining.

 This decline considered with evidence of inbreeding depression on the 

south Puget Sound indicated the larks range may contract further in the 

future.

• Their habitat is threatened throughout their entire range from loss of natural disturbance 

regimes, invasion of unsuitable vegetation that alter habitat structure, and incompatible 

land management practices.

• Winter congregations are limited to one location, in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, putting 

it at risk from stochastic weather events.

• Most sites currently used by larks require some level of disturbance or management to 

maintain the habitat structure they need and natural mechanisms that used to provide this 

function no longer exist.

Land Conversion and Development

The prairies of south Puget Sound and western Oregon are considered one of the rarest 

ecosystems in the United States (Noss et al. 1995, p. I-2; Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v). Dramatic 

changes have occurred on the landscape over the last 150 years, including a 90 to 95 percent 

reduction in the prairie ecosystem. In the south Puget Sound region, where most of western 

Washington’s prairies historically occurred, less than ten percent of the original prairie persists, 

and only three percent remains dominated by native vegetation (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. 13–

14). In the remaining prairies, many of the native bunchgrass communities have been replaced 

by nonnative pasture grasses (Rogers 2000, p. 41), which streaked horned larks avoid using for 

territories and nest sites (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 27). In Oregon’s Willamette Valley native 

grassland has been reduced from being the most common vegetation type to scattered parcels 

intermingled with rural residential development and farmland; it is estimated that less than one 

percent of the native grassland and savanna remains in Oregon (Altman et al. 2001, p. 261).

11
Land Use Practices

Horned larks, including the streaked horned lark subspecies, need expansive areas of flat, open 

ground to establish breeding territories. As native prairies and scoured river banks in the Pacific 

Northwest have declined, the large, flat, treeless areas, which airports necessarily require, have 

become attractive breeding sites for streaked horned larks. Six of the seven streaked horned lark 

nesting sites remaining in the Puget lowlands are located on or adjacent to airports and military 

airfields (Rogers 2000, p. 37; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 15; Linders, in litt. 2014). At least 

four breeding sites are found at airports in the Willamette Valley, including the largest known 

population (historically) at Corvallis Municipal Airport (Moore 2008, pp. 14–17). Stinson 

(2005, p. 70) concluded that if large areas of grass had not been maintained at airports the 

streaked horned lark might already have been extirpated from the south Puget Sound area. 

Although routine mowing to meet flight path regulations helps to maintain grassland habitat in 

suitable condition for nesting larks, the timing of mowing is critical to avoid effects to nesting 

larks.

Mowing during the active breeding season (mid-April to late July) can destroy nests or flush 

adults, which may result in nest failure (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 72). 

Some of the airports in the range of the streaked horned lark have adjusted the frequency and 

timing of mowing in recent years to minimize impacts to larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). 

In 2011, McChord Air Field at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) agreed to a mowing regime 

that would protect the lark during their nesting period. Unfortunately, recent unseasonably wet 

weather doesn’t allow this strategy to be implemented. WDFW coordinates mowing schedules 

at the Olympia Airport to reduce impacts to larks.

In 2008, the Port of Olympia prepared an Interlocal Agreement with the WDFW that outlines 

management recommendations and mitigation for impacts to state-listed species from 

development at the airport. In December, 2010, a white paper and supplemental planning 

memorandum was developed as part of the Airport Master Plan Update (Port of Olympia 2010). 

This document, which is outlined in Appendix 2 of the Master Plan Update, describes 

management recommendations for the protection of critical areas and priority species, including 

the streaked horned lark. The recommendations include minimizing development, retaining 

open or bare ground, and avoiding mowing during the nesting season (April 15 through August 

15) in known or potential lark nesting areas. Although the Port of Olympia does not anticipate 

any development to occur in the streaked horned lark nesting areas within the next 20 years, the 

agreement is not a regulatory document and would not preclude future development, which is a 

primary source of revenue for the Port of Olympia. 

Airport expansions could result in further losses of some populations. At the Olympia Airport, 

hangars were built in 2005 on habitat used by streaked horned larks for foraging, resulting in a 

loss of grass and forb-dominated habitat. This could have resulted in a smaller local population 

due to reduced habitat availability for breeding and wintering larks (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 

12). Based on discussions with staff at Sanderson Field in Shelton, future development plans do 

not include impacts to streaked horned lark habitat at this time. Most of the proposed 

development at Sanderson Field will occur in areas already impacted (between existing 

12
buildings). The West Ramp at Gray Army Air Field on JBLM was expanded in 2005 into areas 

previously used by breeding larks, resulting in a loss of available breeding habitat (Stinson 2005, 

p. 72).

At the Portland International Airport, streaked horned larks nest in an area called the Southwest 

Quad. This is an old dredge material deposition site in a currently unused part of the airport. 

The Port of Portland, which owns the airport, may propose to develop the Southwest Quad to 

accommodate future expansion; however, there is currently no plan in place (Green, in litt. 

2012). Future development of the Southwest Quad would result in the loss of at least 33 ac (13 

ha) of habitat and three breeding territories (Moore 2011a, p. 12). 

Industrial development has also reduced habitat available to breeding and wintering larks. The 

Rivergate Industrial Park, owned by the Port of Portland, is a large industrial site in north 

Portland near the Columbia River; the site is developed on a dredge spoil field, and still has some 

large areas of open space between the industrial buildings. Rivergate has been an important 

breeding site for streaked horned larks, and a wintering site for mixed flocks of up to five horned 

lark subspecies (including the streaked horned lark). In 1990, the field used by larks at Rivergate 

measured more than 650 acres (260 ha) of open sandy habitat (Dillon, pers. comm. 2012). In the 

years since, new industrial buildings have been constructed on the site; now only one patch of 79 

acres (32 ha) of open dredge spoil field remains and the breeding population has dropped from 

20 pairs to 5 pairs in this time (Moore 2011a, pp. 9-10).

The 13th Division Prairie at JBLM is used for helicopter operations (paratrooper practices, touchand-go landings, and load drop and retrievals) and troop training activities. Foot traffic and 

training maneuvers that are conducted during the streaked horned lark breeding season are likely 

contributing factors to nest failure and low nest success at 13th Division Prairie. Recently, a 

streaked horned lark nest was destroyed at 13th Division Prairie by a porta-potty service vehicle 

(Linders, in litt. 2012). Artillery training, off-road vehicle use, and troop maneuvers at the 91st 

Division Prairie are also conducted in areas used by larks during the nesting season. Because 

access into this training area is limited and streaked horned lark surveys are only conducted 

opportunistically, we do not know the degree to which streaked horned lark nests are lost due to 

military activities at 91st Division Prairie.

Streaked horned lark populations on JBLM are exposed to differing levels of training activities. 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) proposed actions under ‘Grow the Army’ (GTA) include 

stationing 5,700 new soldiers, new combat service support units, a combat aviation brigade, 

facility demolition and construction to support the increased troop levels, additional aviation, 

maneuver, and live fire training (75 FR 55313, September 10, 2010). The increased training 

activities will affect nearly all training areas at JBLM resulting in an increased risk of accidental 

fires, and habitat destruction and degradation through vehicle travel, dismounted training, 

bivouac activities, and digging. Although training areas on the base have degraded habitat for 

the species, with implementation of conservation measures, these areas still provide habitat for 

the streaked horned lark. Military training, including bombardment with explosive ordnance and 

hot downdraft from aircraft, has been documented to cause nest failure and abandonment for 

13
streaked horned larks at Gray Army Airfield and McChord Field at JBLM (Stinson 2005, 

pp. 71–72). These activities harass and may kill some streaked horned larks, but the frequent 

disturbance also helps to maintain sparse vegetation and open ground needed for streaked horned 

lark nesting. 

In odd-numbered years since 2005, McChord Field has hosted a military training event known as 

the Air Mobility Rodeo. This international military training exercise is held at the end of July, 

during lark breeding season. This event includes aircraft, vehicles, and tents staged on or near 

lark nesting areas, although the majority of these activities take place on concrete hardstand areas 

(Geil, in litt. 2010). In even-numbered years, McChord Field hosts a public air show known as 

Air Expo, which is scheduled in mid-July. At the Air Expo, aerial events incorporate simulated 

bombing and fire-bombing, including explosives and pyrotechnics launched from an area 

adjacent to the most densely populated streaked horned lark nesting site at this location; these 

disturbances likely have adverse effects to fledglings of late nests (Stinson 2005, p. 72). 

Surveys in 2004 detected 31 pairs of streaked horned larks at McChord Field (Anderson 2011, p. 

14). In 2006, the number of lark pairs at McChord Field had dropped by more than half to 14 

pairs, and the number of lark pairs has remained low, with just 11 pairs detected in 2011 

(Anderson 2011, p. 14). The Rodeo and Air Expo events are scheduled to take advantage of the 

good weather that typically occurs in the summer on the south Puget Sound; this timeframe also 

coincides with the streaked horned lark nesting season, and the disturbance may continue to 

cause nest failure and abandonment (Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 18). During the airshows, tents, 

vehicles and concession stands are set up in the grassy areas along the runways used by streaked 

horned larks for nesting and thousands of visitors a day line the runways for viewing the shows. 

Airports routinely implement a variety of approaches to minimize the presence of hazardous 

wildlife on or adjacent to airfields and to prevent wildlife strikes by aircraft. McChord Field 

uses falcons to scare geese and gulls off the airfield, and also uses two dogs for this purpose; the 

falcons and dogs are part of McChord Field’s Integrated Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard 

program and are designed to minimize aircraft and crew exposure to potentially hazardous bird 

and wildlife strikes (Geil, in litt. 2010). The falcons and dogs cause streaked horned larks to 

become alert and fly (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 12), which imposes an energetic cost to 

adults and could expose nests to depredation. Portland International Airport uses a variety of 

hazing and habitat management tools to minimize wildlife hazards. Raptors and waterfowl pose 

the greatest danger to aircraft operations, but the airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 

aims to reduce the potential for any bird strikes (Port of Portland 2009, pp. 5–6). Streaked 

horned larks are not known to nest near the runways at Portland International Airport, but 

foraging individuals from the nearby Southwest Quad could be harassed by the hazing program, 

which could impose resulting energetic costs.

JBLM has committed to restrictions both seasonally and operationally on military training areas, 

in order to avoid and minimize potential effects to the streaked horned lark. These restrictions 

include identified non-training areas, seasonally restricted areas during breeding, and the 

adjustment of mowing schedules to protect the species. These conservation management 

practices are outlined in an operational plan that the Service has assisted the DOD in developing 

for JBLM (Thomas, pers. comm. 2012). 

14
Habitat features are not the only influence on where streaked horned larks nest, although it is 

usually attributed as the major influential component of nest site selection. More recent research 

has demonstrated that social information and behavioral cues can be as or more important than 

environmental cues in habitat selection (Ahlering et al. 2010). A recent conspecific attraction 

study by the CNLM used social cues (decoys and calls) to try luring birds to newly created 

habitats. Two years of observations resulted in 23 detections of streaked horned larks at the 

habitat restoration sites, but no birds established territories or bred on them (Anderson et al. 

2013, p. 3). 

Loss of Ecological Disturbance Regimes

Habitat has been rendered unusable for the streaked horned lark due to invasion of nonnative 

grasses and woody vegetation. These invasive species have established themselves across vast 

portions of the landscape because ecological disturbance regimes that prevented them, such as 

fire and flooding, have been suppressed or entirely ceased. The basic ecological processes that 

maintain prairies, meadows, and scoured river banks have disappeared from, or have been altered 

on, all but a few protected and managed sites.

Historically, the prairies and meadows of the south Puget Sound region of Washington and 

western Oregon are thought to have been actively maintained by the native peoples of the region, 

who lived here for at least 10,000 years before the arrival of Euro-American settlers (Christy and 

Alverson 2011, p. 93). Frequent burning reduced the encroachment and spread of shrubs and 

trees (Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 42), favoring open grasslands with a rich variety of native 

plants and animals. Following Euro-American settlement of the region in the mid-19th century, 

fire was actively suppressed on grasslands, allowing encroachment by woody vegetation into the 

remaining prairie habitat and oak woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973 p. 122; Kruckeberg 

1991, p. 287; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman et al. 2001, p. 262).

The result of fire suppression has been the invasion of the prairies and oak woodlands by native 

and nonnative plant species (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146), 

notably woody plants such as the native Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii) and the nonnative 

Scot’s broom, and nonnative grasses such as Arrhenatherum elatus (tall oatgrass) in Washington 

and Brachypodium sylvaticum (false brome) in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. This increase

in woody vegetation and nonnative plant species has resulted in less available prairie habitat 

overall and habitat that streaked horned larks avoid (Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27).

On tallgrass prairies in midwestern North America, fire suppression has led to degradation and 

the loss of native grasslands (Curtis 1959, pp. 296, 298; Panzer 2002, p. 1297). On northwestern 

prairies, fire suppression has allowed Douglas fir to encroach on and out-compete native prairie 

vegetation for light, water, and nutrients (Stinson 2005, p. 7). On JBLM alone, over 16,000 

acres (6,477 ha) of prairie has converted to Douglas-fir forest since the mid-19th century (Foster 

and Shaff 2003, p. 284). Where controlled burns or direct tree removal are not used as a 

management tool, this encroachment will continue to cause the loss of open grassland habitats 

for the streaked horned lark. 

15
Restoration in some of Washington’s south Puget Sound native grasslands has resulted in 

temporary control of Scot’s broom and other invasive plants through the careful and judicious 

use of herbicides, mowing, grazing, and fire. Fire has been used as a management tool to 

maintain native prairie composition and structure. Use of fire for these purposes is 

acknowledged to improve the health and composition of grassland habitat by providing a shortterm nitrogen addition, which results in a fertilizer effect to vegetation, thus aiding grasses and 

forbs as they re-sprout. 

Unintentional fires ignited by military training burns patches of prairie grasses and forbs on 

JBLM on an annual basis. These “low-intensity” ground fires create a mosaic of conditions 

within the grassland, maintaining a low vegetative structure of native and nonnative plant 

composition, and patches of bare soil. Because of the topography of the landscape, these fires 

create patches that burn completely, some areas that do not burn, and areas where consumption 

of the vegetation is mixed in its effects to the habitat. One of the benefits to fire in grasslands is 

that it tends to kill regenerating conifers, and reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs such as 

Scot’s broom; however, Scot’s broom seeds that are stored in the soil can be stimulated by fire 

(Agee 1993, p. 367). On sites where regular fires occur, such as on JBLM, there is a high 

complement of native plants and fewer invasive species. Management practices such as 

intentional burning and mowing require expertise in timing and technique to achieve desired 

results. If applied at the wrong season, frequency, or scale, fire and mowing can be detrimental 

to the restoration of native prairie species. 

Prior to the construction of dams on the Columbia River, annual flooding and scouring likely 

created nesting and wintering habitat for streaked horned larks on sandy islands and beaches 

along the river’s edge (Stinson 2005, p. 67). Once the dams were in place, willows (Salix spp.), 

black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and other vegetation established broadly on the 

sandbars and banks (Rogers 2000, pp. 41–42), resulting in unsuitable habitat for larks. Loss of 

these habitats may have been partially ameliorated by the formation of dredge spoil islands that 

have been established as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) shipping channel 

maintenance (Stinson 2005, p. 67). 

Streaked horned larks currently use sand islands in the lower Columbia River for both breeding 

and wintering habitat. These islands are a mosaic of Federal, State, and private lands, but there 

are no management or conservation plans in place to protect larks or these important habitats. 

The Corps has a dredging program to maintain the navigation channel in the Columbia River. In 

2002, the Corps established a deeper navigation channel in the river, a regular maintenance 

dredging program, and a plan for disposing dredge material on the islands in the lower Columbia 

River (USFWS 2002, pp. 1–14). In this plan, the Corps addressed the disposition of dredge 

material in the lower Columbia River, which has the potential to both benefit and harm streaked 

horned larks, depending on the location and timing of deposition. Recent studies by Anderson 

(2010a, p. 29) on the islands in the lower Columbia River have shown that fresh dredge material 

stabilizes and develops sparse vegetation suitable for lark nesting approximately three years after 

deposition, and can be expected to remain suitable for approximately two years before vegetation 

becomes too dense. Thus, deposition of dredge material can be both a tool for habitat creation 

and a threat, as deposition of dredge material at the wrong time (e.g., during the nesting season) 

can destroy nests and young or degrade suitable habitat. 

16
Destruction of occupied lark habitat through the deposition of dredge materials has been 

documented several times on the lower Columbia River islands (Stinson 2005, p. 67; Pearson 

and Altman 2005, p. 11; Pearson et al. 2008, p. 14). In 2006, dredge spoils were deposited on 

Whites Island while larks were actively nesting. All nests at this site were apparently destroyed 

(Pearson, pers. comm. 2012). This site had at least 21 nests and 13 territories during the 2005 

nesting season (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 21). In a similar situation, singing males were observed 

on Rice Island in June 2000, but dredge spoil was placed on the site in July 2000, which 

destroyed nesting habitat during the breeding season (MacLaren 2000, p. 3). In 2004 on Miller 

Sands Spit, the Corps deposited dredge material on lark breeding habitat, which likely resulted in 

nest failure (Pearson and Altman 2005, p. 10). The Corps has recently begun working with the 

Center for Natural Lands Management to coordinate dredge spoil depositions with timing of lark 

breeding season (Anderson, in litt. 2011).

Dredge spoil deposition also creates habitat for Caspian terns (Sterna caspia), a native bird 

species that nests in very large numbers in the lower Columbia River. These large terns have 

been shown to eat substantial numbers of salmon smolts, and for the past decade, an interagency 

effort has focused on reducing tern depredation on young salmon (Lyons et al. 2011, p. 2). One 

aspect of the effort to reduce the numbers of terns in the lower Columbia River has been a 

program to discourage tern nesting on Rice Island by planting vegetation and placing barrier 

fencing on open sandy habitats; these measures have also reduced habitat available to larks on 

the island and are ongoing (Stinson 2005, p. 73; Roby et al. 2011, p. 14). 

Larks appear to respond positively to habitat management that simulates natural processes. From 

2001 through 2004, JBLM mowed and controlled burns to control Scot’s broom during the 

nonbreeding season (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30). The September 2004 burns resulted in 

increased lark abundance and a dramatic vegetative response on 13th Division Prairie. Relative 

to the control sites, larks increased their use of burned areas immediately after a late summer fire 

in 2006, and in the breeding season following the fires (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 30).

Throughout the year, streaked horned larks use areas of bare ground or sparse vegetative cover in 

grasslands. These grasslands may be native prairies in the Puget lowlands, perennial or annual 

grass seed fields in the Willamette Valley, or the margins of airport runways throughout the 

range of the species. All of these habitats receive management to maintain desired structure: 

prairies require frequent burning or mowing to prevent succession to woodlands; agricultural 

fields are mowed during harvest or burned to reduce weed infestations; airports mow to maintain 

low-stature grasses around airfields to minimize attracting hazardous wildlife. Burning and 

mowing are beneficial to larks because these activities maintain the habitat structure required by 

the lark, but these activities can also harm larks if the activities occur during the breeding season 

when nests and young are present (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 29). In the nesting seasons from 

2002 to 2004, monitoring at the Puget lowlands sites (Gray Army Airfield, McChord Field, and 

Olympia Airport) documented nest failure of 8 percent of nests caused by mowing over the nests, 

young, and adults (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). Habitat management to maintain lowstature vegetation is essential to maintaining suitable habitat for streaked horned larks, but the 

timing of the management is important, as improperly-timed actions can destroy nests and 

young.

17
Restoration Activities

Management for invasive species and encroachment of conifers requires control through 

equipment, herbicides, and other activities. While restoration has conservation value for the 

species, management activities to implement restoration may also have direct impacts to the 

species that are the target of habitat restoration. The introduction of Eurasian beachgrass

(Ammophila arenaria) and American beachgrass (A. breviligulata), currently found in high and 

increasing densities in most of coastal Washington and Oregon, has dramatically altered the 

structure of dunes on the outer coast (Wiedemann and Pickart 1996, p. 289). The tall leaf canopy 

of beachgrass creates areas of dense vegetation, which is unsuitable habitat for streaked horned 

lark nesting (MacLaren 2000, p. 5).

Streaked horned larks require sparse, low-stature vegetation with at least 16–17 percent bare 

ground; areas invaded by beachgrass are too dense for streaked horned larks. The area suitable 

for streaked horned lark breeding on the Washington coast has decreased as a result of the spread 

of beachgrasses (Stinson 2005, p. 65; USFWS 2011, p. 4-2). In a 10-year period (from 1977 to 

1987) at Leadbetter Point on the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, spreading beachgrass 

reduced the available nesting habitat for streaked horned larks by narrowing the distance from 

vegetation to water by 112 feet (34 meters) (WDFW 1995, p. 19). Since 1985, encroaching 

beachgrasses have spread to cover over two-thirds of Damon Point at Grays Harbor, another lark 

breeding site on the Washington coast (WDFW 1995, p. 19). At Damon Point, Scot’s broom is 

also encroaching on lark habitat, reducing the area available for nesting (Pearson, in litt. 2011). 

On the Oregon coast, the disappearance of the streaked horned lark has been attributed to the 

invasion of exotic beachgrasses and the resultant dune stabilization (Gilligan et al. 1994, p. 205).

Some efforts have been successful in reducing the cover of encroaching beachgrasses. The 

Service’s Willapa National Wildlife Refuge has restored habitat on Leadbetter Point. In 2007, 

the area of open habitat measured 84 acres (34 ha); after mechanical and chemical treatment to 

clear beachgrass (mostly American beachgrass) and spreading oyster shell across 45 acres (18 

ha), 121 acres (50 ha) of sparsely vegetated open habitat suitable for lark nesting was created 

(Pearson et al. 2009, p. 23). The main target of the Leadbetter Point restoration project was the 

threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), but the restoration actions 

also benefited the streaked horned lark. Before the restoration project, this area had just 2 

streaked horned lark territories (Pearson et al. 2005a, p. 7); after the project, an estimated 8 to 10 

territories were located in and adjacent to the restoration area (Pearson, pers. comm. 2012).

Transient Agricultural Habitat

Roughly half of all the agricultural land in the Willamette Valley is devoted to grass seed 

production fields (Oregon Seed Council 2012, p. 1). Grasslands–both rare native prairies and 

grass seed fields–are important habitats for streaked horned larks in the Willamette Valley; open 

areas within the grasslands are used for both breeding and wintering habitat (Altman 1999, p. 18; 

Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 11; Myers and Kreager 2010, p. 9). About 420,000 acres (170,000 

ha) in the Willamette Valley are currently planted in grass seed production fields. Demand for 

grass seed is declining in the current economic climate (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2011, 

p. 1); this decreased demand for grass seed has resulted in farmers switching to other agricultural 

18
commodities, such as wheat or nurseries and greenhouses (Oregon Department of Agriculture 

2011, p. 1). The continued decline of the grass seed industry in the Willamette Valley will likely 

result in conversion from grass seed fields to other agricultural types; this will result in fewer 

acres of suitable breeding and wintering habitat for streaked horned larks.

Another potential threat related to agricultural lands is the streaked horned lark’s use of 

ephemeral habitats. In the breeding season, streaked horned larks will move into open habitats 

as they become available, and as the vegetation grows taller over the course of the season, will 

abandon the site to look for other open habitats later in the season (Beason 1995, p. 6). This 

ability to shift locations in response to habitat changes is a natural feature of the streaked horned 

lark’s life history strategies, as breeding in recently disturbed habitats is part of their 

evolutionary history. In the Willamette Valley, patches of suitable habitat in the agricultural 

fields shift from place to place as fields are burned, mowed, or harvested. Other suitable sites 

appear when portions of grass fields perform poorly, inadvertently creating optimal habitat for 

larks. The shifting nature of suitable habitat is not in itself a threat; the potential threat is in the 

overall reduction of compatible agriculture, which would reduce the area within which streaked 

horned lark habitat could occur. 

Depredation and Pest Control

Depredation on adult streaked horned larks has not been identified as a threat, but it is the most 

frequently documented source of mortality for eggs and young larks. In most studies of streaked 

horned lark nesting ecology, depredation has been the primary documented source of nest failure 

(Altman 1999, p. 18; Pearson and Hopey 2004, p. 15; Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16; Pearson 

and Hopey 2008, p. 1; Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 32). Sixty-nine percent of nest failures were 

caused by depredation at four south Puget Sound study sites (Gray Army Airfield, 13th Division 

Prairie, Olympia Airport, McChord Field) in 2002–2004 (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 18). 

Anderson (2006, p. 19) concluded that the primary predators of streaked horned lark eggs and 

young were avian, most likely American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), although garter snakes 

(Thamnophis spp.) and western meadowlarks have also been documented preying on eggs and 

young in the region (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 16; Pearson and Hopey 2008, p. 4). On the 

Washington coast and lower Columbia River islands, 46 percent of nest failures were caused by 

predation at three study sites (Midway Beach, Damon Point, and Puget Island) in 2004 (Pearson 

and Hopey 2005, p. 18). A study of five sites in the Willamette Valley (Corvallis Airport, MDAC Farms, William L. Finley, Baskett Slough, and Ankeny National Wildlife Refuges) 

determined that 23 to 58 percent of all streaked horned lark nests were lost to predation (Moore 

and Kotaich 2010, p. 32).

Video cameras were used to identify predators in the Willamette Valley study; documented 

predators include: red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), 

American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and rats and mice 

(Family Cricetidae) (Moore and Kotaich 2010, p. 36). Streaked horned larks are ground-nesting 

birds and are vulnerable to a many other potential predators, including domestic cats and dogs, 

coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), red foxes 

19
(Vulpes vulpes), long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), 

meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and shrews 

(Sorex spp.) (Pearson and Hopey 2005, p. 17; Stinson 2005, p. 59). 

Depredation is a natural part of the streaked horned lark’s life history, and in stable populations, 

the effect of predation would not be considered a threat to the species. However, in the case of 

the streaked horned lark, the effect of depredation may be magnified when populations are small, 

and the disproportionate effect of depredation on declining populations has been shown to drive 

rare species even further towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74–75). We consider the 

effect of depredation on streaked horned lark populations, particularly in the south Puget Sound, 

to be a threat to the subspecies.

The one area where depredation does not appear to be a threat to nesting streaked horned larks is 

in Portland at Rivergate Industrial Complex and the Southwest Quad at Portland International 

Airport. In 2009 and 2010, nesting success was very high, and only a single depredation event 

was documented at these sites (Moore 2011a, p. 11). The reason for the unusually low 

depredation pressure may be that the two industrial sites have few predators since both sites are 

isolated from other nearby natural habitats.

Depredation may have contributed to the extirpation of streaked horned larks on the San Juan 

Islands. The subspecies was last documented on the islands in 1962 (Lewis and Sharpe 1987, p. 

204). The introduction of several exotic animal species to the island roughly coincides with the 

disappearance of the streaked horned lark, including feral ferrets (Mustela outorius) and red 

foxes. These introduced predators may have significantly affected ground nesting birds and 

played a role in the eventual extirpation of streaked horned larks (Rogers 2000, p. 42). 

Disease and Genetics

Genetic analysis has shown that streaked horned larks have suffered a loss of genetic diversity 

due to a population bottleneck (Drovetski et al. 2005, p. 881), the effect of which may be 

exacerbated by continued small total population size. In general, decreased genetic diversity has 

been linked to increased chances of inbreeding depression, reduced disease resistance, and 

reduced adaptability to environmental change, leading to reduced reproductive success (Keller 

and Waller 2002, p. 235). 

Recent studies in Washington have found that streaked horned larks have lower fecundity and 

nest success than other Northwestern horned lark subspecies (Camfield et al. 2010, p. 277). In a 

study on the south Puget Sound, all measures of reproductive success were lower for streaked 

horned larks than for other ground-nesting birds at the same prairie sites (Anderson 2010a, p. 

15). The streaked horned lark’s egg hatching rate at these sites is extremely low (i.e., 44 percent 

at 13th Division Prairie) (Anderson 2010a, p. 18). Comparisons with savannah sparrows 

(Passerculus sandwichensis), a bird with similar habitat requirements that nests on the same 

prairies, found that streaked horned lark fecundity was 70 percent lower (Anderson 2010b, p. 

18). 

20
If the streaked horned lark’s very low reproductive success was caused by poor habitat quality, 

other ground-nesting birds at the study sites would be expected to show similarly low nest 

success rates. Other bird species have much higher nest success in the same habitat, suggesting 

that inbreeding depression may be playing a role in the decline of streaked horned larks in the 

south Puget Sound (Anderson 2010a, p. 27). Other factors consistent with hypothesized 

inbreeding depression in the south Puget Sound population include two cases of observed 

mother-son pairings (Pearson and Stinson 2011, p. 1), and no observations of immigration from 

other sites into the Puget lowland breeding sites (Pearson et al. 2008, p. 15).

Estimates of population growth rate (λ) that include vital rates from all of the nesting areas in 

Washington (south Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and one lower Columbia River island) 

indicate that streaked horned larks in Washington are declining by 40 percent per year, 

apparently due to a combination of low survival and fecundity rates (Pearson et al. 2008, pp. 10, 

13; Camfield et al. 2011, p. 7). Territory mapping at 4 sites on the south Puget Sound found that

the total number of breeding streaked horned lark territories decreased from 77 territories in 2004 

to 42 territories in 2007—a decline of over 45 percent in 3 years (Camfield et al. 2011, p. 8). 

The combination of low genetic variability, small and rapidly declining nesting populations, high 

breeding site fidelity, and no observed migration into the Puget lowlands populations suggests 

that the south Puget Sound population could become extirpated in the near future (Pearson et al. 

2008, pp. 1, 14, 15). 

In 2011, a project was initiated to increase genetic diversity in the south Puget Sound streaked 

horned lark population. Twelve eggs (four three-egg clutches) were collected from streaked 

horned lark nests in the southern Willamette Valley and were placed in nests at the 13th Division 

Prairie site at JBLM (Wolf 2011, p. 9). At least five young successfully fledged at the receiving 

site; if even one of these birds return to breed in future years, it will likely increase genetic 

diversity in the receiving population, resulting in improved fitness and reduced extinction risk for 

the south Puget Sound larks (Wolf 2011, p. 9). For 2014, these genetic rescue efforts were 

abandoned due to a 60 to 70 percent decline in the streaked horned lark population at the 

Corvallis Airport, the source of the transplanted eggs. Based on our consideration of these 

factors, we conclude that the loss of genetic diversity, the current number of small and isolated 

populations (particularly in Washington State), and the species’ low reproductive success are 

likely to combine to result in continued population declines for the streaked horned lark.

Summary of Threats

The streaked horned lark population decline in the south Puget Sound of Washington indicates 

that the observed range contraction for this subspecies may be continuing, and the subspecies 

may disappear from that region in the near future. There are many other ongoing threats to the 

streaked horned lark’s habitat throughout its range, including: (1) converting land use to 

agriculture and industry; (2) loss of natural disturbance processes such as fire and flooding; (3) 

encroachment of woody vegetation; (4) invasion of coastal areas by nonnative beachgrasses; and 

(5) incompatible management practices. The continued loss and degradation of streaked horned 

lark habitat may result in smaller, more isolated habitats available to the subspecies, which could 

further depress the rangewide population or reduce the geographic distribution of the streaked 

horned lark. 

21
Literature Cited

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Altman, 

B. 1999. Status and conservation of state sensitive grassland bird species in the Willamette 

Valley. Report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, Oregon. 68 pp.

Ahlering, M.A., D.A. Arlt, M.G. Betts, R.J. Fletcher Jr., J.J. Nocera, and M.P. Ward. 2010. Research 

needs and recommendations for the use of conspecific-attraction methods in the conservation 

of migratory songbirds. The Condor 112(2): 252-264. 

Altman, B. 1999. Status and conservation of state sensitive grassland bird species in the Willamette 

Valley. Report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, Oregon. 68 pp. 

Altman, B. 2011. Historical and Current Distribution and Populations of Bird Species in Prairie-Oak 

Habitats in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science, 85(2):194-222.

Altman, B., M. Hayes, S. Janes, and R. Forbes. 2001. Wildlife of westside grassland and chaparral 

habitats. pp. 261-291 in Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington (D. H. 

Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, editors). Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 736 

pp. 

Anderson, H. 2006. Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Nest Predation on 

Lowland Puget Prairie Remnants, Washington State – The Effects of Internal Edges and 

Scot’s Broom (Cytisus scoparius). M.S. Thesis, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, 

Washington. 37 pp. 

Anderson, H. 2007. Streaked horned lark surveys, RODEO impact and noxious weed control. 

McChord Air Force Base 2007. The Nature Conservancy, Olympia, WA. 

Anderson, H. 2009. Streaked horned lark regional working group; minutes from the September 29, 

2009 meeting. Prepared by Hannah Anderson, The Nature Conservancy. 11 pp.

Anderson, H. 2010a. Columbia River streaked horned lark habitat analysis and management 

recommendations. Final report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS Cooperative 

Agreement #13410-8-J011. April 2010. 33 pp.

Anderson, J.K. 2010b. Comparing endangered Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

fecundity to other grassland birds. M.S. Thesis, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, 

Washington. 47 pp.

Anderson, H. 2011. Streaked horned lark surveys: McChord Field, 2011. Prepared by Hannah 

Anderson, The Nature Conservancy for Joint Base Lewis-McChord Field. 38 pp. Anthony, 

A.W. 1886. Field Notes on the Birds of Washington County. The Auk 3(2):161-172. 

Anderson, A. 2013. Streaked horned lark conspecific attraction feasibility study. Final Report. 

December 2013. 29 pp.

22
Anderson, H. 2014a. Presentation by Hannah Anderson (CNLM) on Columbia River streaked horned 

larks. Presented January 24, 2014. 

Anderson, H. 2014b. Email from Hannah Anderson (CNLM) to Lindsy Wright (USFWS) re: 

breeding streaked horned larks observed February 15, 2014, at Olympia Airport. Email dated 

February 26, 2014 at 5:31 am. 

Beason, R.C. 1995. Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris). No. 195 in The Birds of North America. (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors). The American Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA 

and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Camfield, A. F., S. F. Pearson, and K. Martin. 2010. Life history variation between high and low 

elevation subspecies of horned larks Eremophila spp. Journal of Avian Biology 41:273-281.

Camfield, A. F., S. F. Pearson, and K. Martin. 2011. A demographic model to evaluate population 

declines in the endangered streaked horned lark. Avian Conservation and Ecology 6(2): 4. 

Cascade Pacific RC&D. 2012. M-DAC Farms Wetland Restoration. 

http://cascadepacific.org/mdac.htm. Accessed 17 January 2012. 

Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM). 2012. Streaked Horned lark literature review. 

Compiled by CNLM September 2012. 38 pp.

CNLM. 2013. Unpublished maps and information on streaked horned lark use areas (territories) at 

13th Division Prairie 2013.

Chappell, C. B. and J. Kagan. 2001. Westside grasslands. pp.41-43 in Wildlife-habitat relationships 

in Oregon and Washington (D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, editors). Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 736 pp. 

Christy, J.A. and E.R. Alverson. 2011. Historical Vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, circa 

1850. Northwest Science, 85(2):93-107. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSEWIC). 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the horned 

lark strigata subspecies Eremophila alpestris strigata in Canada. Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 23 pp. 

(www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_ec.cfm) 

Converse, S., B. Gardner, S. Morey, J. Bush, M. Jensen, C. Langston, D. Stokes, T. Thomas, J. 

Bakker, T. Kaye, J. Kenagy, S. Pearson, M. Singer, and D. Stinson. 2010. Parameterizing 

Patch Dynamics Models in Support of Optimal Reserve Design for Federal Candidates in 

South Puget Sound. Summary Report from Two Expert Workshops (December 9-11, 2008 

and October 21-22, 2009). Report received February 25, 2010. 28 pp. 

Crawford, R. and H. Hall. 1997. Changes in the south Puget prairie landscape. pp. 11–16 in Ecology 

and conservation of the South Puget Sound prairie landscape (P. Dunn and K. Ewing, 

editors). The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington. 289 pp. 

Curtis, J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of 

Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Print. 640 pp. 

23
Dillon, J. 2012. Email from J. Dillon (USFWS) to C. Brown (USFWS) Re: Change in habitat over 

time at Rivergate. 

Drovetski, S.V., S.F. Pearson, and S. Rohwer. 2005. Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

strigata has distinct mitochondrial DNA. Conservation Genetics. 6:875-883. 

Dunn, P. and K. Ewing. 1997. South Puget Sound prairie landscapes. The Nature Conservancy of 

Washington, Seattle. 289 pp. 

Foster, J.R. and S.E. Shaff. 2003. Forest Colonization of Puget Lowland Grasslands at Fort Lewis, 

Washington. Northwest Science. 77(4):283-296. 

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, United States Department 

of Agriculture. 417 pp. 

Geil, S. 2010. U.S. Air Force, Natural & Cultural Resources, and Operational Range Program 

Manager. In Litt. Email , to K. Flotlin, Biologist, USFWS, Lacey, Washington. RE: 

Comments on the 2009 Candidate Notice of Review for the streaked horned lark 

Gilligan, J., M. Smith, D. Rogers and A. Contrearas. 1994. Birds of Oregon: status and distribution. 

Cinclus Publications, McMinnville, Oregon. 330 pp. 

Green, D. 2012. Email from D. Green (Port of Portland) to C. Brown, USFWS, Portland, Oregon, 

dated 20 January 2012 (Subject: RE: planning timeframe for the SW Quad). 

Henshaw, H.W. 1884. The shore larks of the United States and adjacent territory. The Auk 1(3):254-

268. 

Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) [Internet]. 2012. ITIS Standard Report Page: 

Eremophila alpestris strigata [cited 2012 Apr 6]. Available from: 

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=178412. 

Keller, L.F. and D.M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. TRENDS in Ecology & 

Evolution 17(5):230-241. 

Kruckeberg, A.R. 1991. The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. Print. 468 pp.

Lassen, M. 2011. E-mail from M. Lassen (Center for Natural Lands Management, Olympia, 

Washington) to C. Brown (USFWS, Portland, Oregon) dated 29 September 2011 and 6 

October 2011 Re: data for 2011 Columbia River islands surveys.

Linders, M. 2012. Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. In Litt. Email to H. Allen, 

M. Cope, M. Tirhi, S. Pearson, all with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and K. 

Flotlin, Biologist, USFWS, Lacey, Washington. RE: Streaked horned lark nest that was 

destroyed on JBLM. 

24
Linders, M. 2014. Email from M. Linders (WDFW) to M. Jensen (USFWS) Re: Unpublished data on 

high counts of streaked horned larks at breeding sites in Washington and Oregon. 

Lewis, M. and F. Sharpe. 1987. Birding in the San Juan Islands. The Mountaineers. Seattle, 

Washington. 

Lyons, D., D. Roby, A.F. Evans, N.J. Hostetter and K. Collis. 2011. Benefits to Columbia River 

Anadromous Salmonids from Potential Reductions in Avian Predation on the Columbia 

Plateau. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Oregon. 78 

pp. 

MacLaren, P.A. 2000. Streaked horned lark surveys in western Washington, year 2000. Unpubl. 

report to the USFWS, Lacey, Washington. 12 pp. 

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Horned lark Eremophila alpestris in 

Birds of Oregon: A general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp. 

Moore. R. 2008. Inventory of streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) populations on 

Federal, State, and municipal lands in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Technical Report, 

USFWS, Portland, OR. 63 pp. 

Moore, R. 2011a. Abundance and Reproductive Success of Streaked Horned Larks (Eremophila 

alpestris strigata) in Multnomah County, OR: Breeding Season 2010. Report to the USFWS, 

Portland, Oregon. 32 pp. 

Moore, R. 2011b. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. In Litt. E-mail to K. Flotlin, USFWS, 

Lacey, Washington. RE: Streaked Horned Lark Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) –

Candidate Assessment Update –

Moore, R. 2013. Status of streaked horned lark nests and fledglings (Eremophila alpestris strigata) in 

Oregon’s agricultural landscape. Southern Willamette Valley, 2012. February 28, 2013. 51 

pp.

Moore, R. 2014. Email from Randy Moore (ODFW) to Lindsy Wright (USFWS) Re: 2014 streaked 

horned lark population declines at Corvallis Airport, Oregon. Email dated August 27, 2014. 

Moore, R. and A. Kotaich. 2010. Reproductive Success of Streaked Horned Larks (Eremophila 

alpestris strigata) in Oregon Varied Agricultural Landscape. Mid- and Southern Willamette 

Valley, 2009. Report to the USFWS, Portland, Oregon. 60 pp. 

Myers, A.M. and D.A. Kreager. 2010. Declining and State Sensitive Bird Species Breeding in 

Willamette Valley Grasslands: 2008/09 Status Update. Prepared for the Oregon Zoo 

Foundation and the USFWS. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 67 pp. 

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A 

preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. National Biological Service, Biological 

Report 28. 95 pp. Available from: http://biology.usgs.gov/pubs/ecosys.htm accessed 12 Apr 

2012. 

25
Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2011. Story of the Week. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/docs/pdf/news/110803grass_seed.pdf?ga=t . Accessed 10 

January 2012. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon. 48 pp. 

Oregon Seed Council. 2012. Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.oregonseedcouncil.org/faqs/. 

Accessed 9 January 2012. 

Panzer, R. 2002. Compatibility of Prescribed Burning with the Conservation of Insects in Small, 

Isolated Prairie Reserves. Conservation Biology. 16(5):1296-1307. Pearson, S., and B. 

Altman. 2005. Range-wide streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) assessment 

and preliminary conservation strategy. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA. 25 pp. 

Pearson, S.F. 2003. Breeding phenology, nesting success, habitat selection, and census methods for 

the streaked horned lark in the Puget lowlands of Washington. Natural Areas Program 

Report 2003-2. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia Wa. April 2003.

Pearson, S. 2011. E-mail from S. Pearson (WDFW) to K. Flotlin (USFWS) RE: Streaked Horned 

Lark Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) – Candidate Assessment Update. 

Pearson, S. 2012. Email from S. Pearson (WDFW) to C. Brown (USFWS Portland, Oregon) RE: 

Larks and dredge spoil deposition. 

Pearson, S., and B. Altman. 2005. Range-wide streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

assessment and preliminary conservation strategy. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 25 pp. 

Pearson, S., and M. Hopey. 2004. Streaked horned lark inventory, nesting success and habitat 

selection in the Puget lowlands of Washington. Natural Areas Report 2004−1. Washington 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 36 pp. 

Pearson, S., and M. Hopey. 2005. Streaked horned lark nest success, habitat selection, and habitat 

enhancement experiments for the Puget lowlands, coastal Washington, and Columbia River 

Islands. Natural Areas Report 2005−01. Washington Department of Natural Resources, 

Olympia. 49 pp. 

Pearson, S., and M. Hopey. 2008. Identifying streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) 

nest predators. Wildlife Science Division, WDFW, Olympia, WA. 10 pp. 

Pearson, S., H. Anderson, and M. Hopey. 2005a. Streaked horned lark monitoring, habitat 

manipulations, and a conspecific attraction experiment. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 38 pp. 

26
Pearson, S., M. Hopey, W. D. Robinson, and R. Moore. 2005b. Range, Abundance and Movement 

Patterns of Wintering Streaked Horned Larks (Eremophila alpestris strigata) in Oregon and 

Washington. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-2. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. 

Olympia, WA. 12 pp. 

Pearson, S., A.F. Camfield, and K. Martin. 2008. Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) fecundity, survival, population growth and site fidelity: Research progress report. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA. 24 

pp. 

Pearson, S., C. Sundstrom, K. Gunther, D. Jaques, K. Brennan. 2009. Snowy plover population 

monitoring, research, and management actions: 2008 nesting season research progress report. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia, WA. 31 

pp.

Port of Olympia. 2012. Olympia Regional Airport Master Plan. Draft copy. Received from R. 

Rudolph, Airport Director on April 9, 2012. 

Port of Portland, 2009. Portland International Airport Wildfire Hazard Management Plan. PDX 

Wildlife 2009 Update. 137 pp.

Roby, D., K. Collis, D. Lyons, J. Adkins, P. Loschl, Y. Suzuki, D. Battaglia, T. Marcella, T. Lawes, 

A. Peck-Richardson, L. Bayliss, L. Faulquier, D. Harvey, E. Tompkins, J. Tennyson, A. 

Evans, R. Ledgerwood and S. Sebring. 2011. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian 

Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid-Columbia River: Final 2010 Final 

Report. Report to the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Portland, OR. 167 pp.

Rogers, R. 2000. The status and microhabitat selection of streaked horned lark, western bluebird, 

Oregon vesper sparrow and western meadowlark in western Washington. M.S. Thesis, 

Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. 185 pp. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2011. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. < http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html > Accessed 31 October 2011. 

Stinson, D.W. 2005. Washington State status report for the Mazama pocket gopher, streaked horned 

lark, and Taylor’s checkerspot. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 129+ 

xii pp. 

Thomas, T. 2012. Conversation between US Fish and Wildlife and Department of Defense regarding 

standard operating procedures detailed in an email from H. Nelson to T. Thomas re: range 

75-76 standard operating procedures with mitigation. Email sent January 26, 2010. 

Tirhi, M. 2014. Email from Michelle Tirhi (WDFW Biologist) to Martha Jensen (USFWS 

Biologist) RE: July 10, 2014 survey at Tacoma Narrows Airport that documented breeding. 

27
Tveten, R.K. and R.W. Fonda. 1999. Fire effects on prairies and oak woodlands on Fort Lewis, 

Washington. Northwest Science 73(3):145-158 Wahl. T., B. Tweit and S.G. Mlodinow. 2005. 

Birds of Washington: status and distribution. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

436 pp. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Biological and Conference Opinions for the 

Columbia River Channel Improvements Project; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1-7-02-C0205). Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. 125 pp. 

USFWS. 2011. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Ilwaco, 

Washington. 499 pp. plus appendices.

Wahl, T.R., B. Tweit, and S.G. Mlodinow. 2005. Birds of Washington: Status and Distribution. 

Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1995. Washington State Recovery Plan for 

the Snowy Plover. Authored by Richardson. Olympia, WA. 87 pp. 

WDFW. 2013. Threatened and endangered wildlife in Washington: 2012 Annual Report. Listing 

and Recovery Section, Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia. 251 pp.

Wiedemann, A.M. and A. Pickart. 1996. The Ammophila problem on the northwest coast of North 

America. Landscape and Urban Planning 34:287-299. 

Wolf, A. 2011. South Puget Sound Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) Genetic 

Rescue Study, 2011. Final Report by Wolf Biological Services, prepared for The Center for 

Natural Lands Management, Olympia, WA. 20 pp. 

Wolf, A. 2013. Email from Adrian Wolf (CNLM) to Nancy Brennan Dubbs (USFWS) Re: first 

streaked horned larks observed exhibiting breeding behaviors in mid-February. Email dated 

November 13, 2013 at 9:05 am.

Wolf, A. 2014a. Email from Adrian Wolf (CNLM) to Nancy Brennan Dubbs (USFWS) Re: juvenile 

streaked horned larks hide in vegetation and fly poorly when 4 to 5 days old. Email dated M 

March 18, 2014 at 3:29 pm.

Woodworth, B.L. 1999. Modeling population dynamics of a songbird exposed to parasitism and 

predation and evaluating management options. Conservation Biology 13(1): 67-76.

28
RECEIVED

U. S. Department of Transportation DEC 05

204,

1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE

Federal Railroad Washington, DC 20590

Administration PORT OF KALAMA

November 18, 2014

Mr.Mark Wilson, Executive Director

Port ofKalama

390 West Marine Drive

Kalama, WA 98625

Subject: Request for Concurrence the Federal Railroad Administrations De Minimis Impacts Finding on Louis

Rasmussen Day Use Park from the Kelso Martin' s BluffImprovement Projects

Dear Mr. Wilson:

The purpose ofthis letter is to request the concurrence ofthe Port ofKalama, as the entity with jurisdiction, with

the Federal Railroad Administration( FRA) de minimis impact finding to Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park

Park). The effects will result from the construction/replacement ofthe Unnamed Tributary 3( UT3) culvert

within the Park. In the existing condition, the UT3 culvert extends from east of,and under, the existing BNSF

Railway tracks, under the Port ofKalama( Port) managed Hendrickson Drive, and under the Port' s day use

parking lot and beach recreation area of Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park, where it daylights and flows into the

Columbia River. Implementation ofthe Project, with proposed minimization measures, will not adversely affect

the recreational activities or other features that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f).

Consequently, the FRA finds that the Project will have a de minimis impact to Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park,

a Section 4(f)property. FRA respectfully requests your consideration ofthe potential effects ofthe Project on

the Park. This letter summarizes the proposed culvert replacement, the recreational activities in the Park, the

potential impacts, and the measures to minimize harm to the Park. Ifyou concur with our description ofthe

potential impacts and de minimis impact finding to Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park, please sign below

documenting your written concurrence as the agency with jurisdiction over this resource.

The Washington State Department ofTransportation( WSDOT) and FRA are completing an Environmental

Assessment( EA) in order to evaluate potential impacts ofthe proposed Kelso Martin' s BluffImprovement

projects( Project). The analysis includes determining the potential impacts ofthe Project on public lands, parks,

and recreational facilities. Section 4(f)ofthe U. S. Department ofTransportation Act( 49 U.S.C. 303) applies to

transportation projects and protects publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl

refuges and any land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance. Section 4( f) applies to this

Project because WSDOT is receiving grant funding through FRA' s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

Program for construction ofthe Project, including the proposed replacement ofthe UT3 culvert.

Under Section 4(f),an operating administration ofthe U.S. Department ofTransportation, in this case

FRA, may not approve a project that uses protected properties unless there are no prudent or feasible alternatives

and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such properties." Use" of a property can be

permanent, temporary or constructive. FRA can also find the impacts are de minimis. In the case of a park or

ecological reserve, FRA may find that the impacts are de minimis if,after opportunity for public review and

comment, FRA finds that a transportation project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes

qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f)after mitigation. FRA must also obtain written

concurrence in this finding from the officials withjurisdiction over the park or ecological reserve.

We understand that BNSF and WSDOT have discussed replacing this culvert within the Park with the Port' s

recreation managers and that the Port is engaged in conversations with BNSF and WSDOT to ensure the design

1
is consistent with your future improvement plans for the Park. Reports from WSDOT indicate the Port believes

the Project could provide an opportunity to improve fish passage as well as improve passive recreational

opportunities at the southern end ofthe park without creating a hazard for park visitors.

Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park:

The Park is approximately 6 acres in size and is located along the east bank ofthe Columbia River in Cowlitz

County, adjacent to the City ofKalama. The Park is bordered to the south by industrial Port land and to the

north by the Port-managed Marine Park, a 222-slip marina. BNSF Railway tracks extend the length ofthe park

to the east, across from the Port-managed Hendrickson Drive.

Unusual Characteristics Reducing or Enhancing Park Value •

The current UT3 culvert is a 36-inch diameter, approximately 200-foot long metal culvert, reinforced with rip

rap at its outfall on the beach within Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park. The UT3 culvert was identified by the

Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife as a fish passage barrier as it currently blocks 1. 6 miles ofhabitat

east of)the culvert. This section of UT3 has been identified as critical habitat for coho salmon and steelhead in

accordance with the Endangered Species Act. The culvert is located in an area ofthe beach used by pedestrians

but closed to on-beach vehicular traffic. A parking area immediately east provides easy access for passive use of

the beach.

We understand that Port plans for the future development ofthe upland areas in the vicinity of UT3 include

additional walking/biking trails but that the recreational emphasis in this area will continue to be passive beach

use( Figure 1).

O

m ,•

r...7.= erwr

t. 3. \ 

t/— 11

r$i

i

a. w,..... 4+_1s., n. 

w .•

f . 

il,i ' 1 : i1.. 

oz,, :? Y , 1 , i7- r'^ ! 7.-1 t 3 i

1

i7 t rt , 

Ws., : ft ' j' 

4 7.

1 ..;',

x,,., 

s ""''''': 4,• + R }

f

I

1 • 1.' l'• it t 101' i;tlt

c-'. y. rf. 1, .-. ' 37 1 . L12

sl 3 s i

4 " 4 ,_ A: = .

11 R)rt L

SCHEMATIC PARK& TRAIL PLAN

r",r

1 O. 1, x64 s Amaowi P) ti 0( IP PORT OF K9AIAMA

Figure 1. Site plan view offuture trails identified in the Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park Master Plan.

Access:

The Park is accessible via vehicle, bicycle, or foot from the Port-managed Hendrickson Drive and via boat from

the Columbia River.

Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park Use Assessment:

The Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park provides the following recreational opportunities: a playground;

basketball, volleyball, tennis courts, horseshoe pits and picnic areas. A two-mile pedestrian/ bike pathway

2
connects the Park with Marine Park and the marina. The Park also provides vehicle and pedestrian access to the

Columbia River for swimming, windsurfing, fishing, and passive enjoyment. Use ofthe Park project area is

open to pedestrian use only. Future plans for the Park are consistent with its current use and include enhancing

the upland areas with more pedestrian-only beach access points, additional picnic areas with river views, and

improvement ofpedestrian paths and parking areas. Following construction ofthe UT3 culvert replacement, the

recreational emphasis in this area will continue to be passive beach use, and the culvert will continue in its

present function. However, the Project will improve the culvert by replacing the current corrugated steel and rip

rap outfall with a gated box culvert and natural stream( see Figure 2 below). Once replaced, the culvert will

allow for pedestrian access above the culvert. In addition, the new culvert and outfall will give beach visitors an

opportunity to view salmon returning to spawn in UT3.

The UT3 culvert will require the temporary closure( approximately 3- 4 weeks) of Hendrickson Drive and the

Port' s north parking area. Emergency access will be maintained during this time but non-emergency access will

utilize existing roads to the east and west ofthe construction area. The new fish-passable culvert structure would

consist oftwo, 60-inch culverts that would extend approximately 200 feet west ofBNSF right-of-way( ROW)

to the outfall at the Columbia River. The limits of construction for this culvert include pit excavation for a jack

and bore machine west ofthe railroad structure on BNSF ROW and in Hendrickson Drive. The 20- by 40-foot

bore pit would be excavated to a depth of20 to 25 feet below the surface. Pumps would be used to dewater

during construction and use ofthe bore pit. Approximately 90 feet ofthe new culvert would be installed under

the railroad structure by this method( see 10 percent engineering in Attachment A).

The remainder ofthe culvert would be installed under Port-owned land. West ofthe bore pit, an approximately

5- foot-high by 15- foot-wide three- sided( bottomless) box culvert would be installed via an open cut across

Hendrickson Drive and the Port ofKalama' s parking lot. It would convey water to an open stream channel that

would flow across the beach use area ofthe Port ofKalama' s Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park. The open cut

would be approximately 10 to 20 feet deep and 30 feet wide. After installation, the open cut would be closed

and the area restored to pre-construction conditions; there would be no visible change to the Park after the open

cut is closed. In addition, the culvert outfall would include a gate( i.e. traditional culvert gate, angled culvert

gate, or equivalent) to prevent pedestrian access for safety reasons( Figure 2). The gate will be designed so as to

not inhibit fish passage.

r

rr- Jos- 114

2Z' a

Figure 2. Examples of a traditional culvert gate( left) and angled culvert gate( right)

As currently proposed, the stream would be an approximately 70-foot-long, open, more natural stream channel

to the Columbia River than the current culvert outfall. The stream is expected to be roughly 20 feet across with

gradual embankments and a rock and gravel stream bottom. Water levels in the stream would range from 3 to 4

inches at low tide and 14 to 18 inches at high tide. Winter river flows may reach as high as 3 to 4 feet. Figure 3

is based on the June 2014 10% engineering drawings attached and ongoing coordination with WDFW Habitat

Biologists and Engineers, and Port staff.The renderings depict a representation ofwhat the stream would look

like during high flow periods. The outfall ofthe existing culvert will be removed once construction ofthe new

culvert is completed.

3
ea : 94441'

if

Jwy

r0"

Figure 3. Ground plan view rendering ofthe UT-3 outfall and natural stream based on 10% engineering design.

The Project would have a footprint of approximately 1, 300 square feet, or approximately 0.03 acres ofthe Park

from the replacement ofthe UT3 culvert. This area represents approximately 0.005% ofthe total Park area. No

acquisition ofreal property interest would occur.

The area to be used for the Project is a section of sandy beach near the southern boundary ofthe Park. None of

the upland recreational features( described above) or their use would be affected by the Project. Recreational

activity on the beach is not expected to change, as the culvert outfall would be designed to provide a continuous

sandy beach for pedestrians for free travel north and south along the Columbia River( Figure 3). Vehicular

access to the beach would not be affected, as motorized vehicles are not currently permitted south of the culvert

location, and this is not contemplated by the Port' s future planning for this portion ofthe Park. The physical

attributes ofthe culvert and the stream it conveys will be affected; however the new culvert and outfall will

allow for free passage offish and would provide an enhanced feature for the Park which could be considered a

beneficial overall effect to the Park.

Access to the Park would remain largely unaffected during construction, although the construction zone area

would be cordoned off. Construction activities at the Park are expected to last for about 3 to 4 weeks. The

construction zone includes a temporary construction area( TCA) of about 13, 000 square feet( 0.30 acres) that

includes a section ofthe beach, a portion of a paved parking area, and a section ofHendrickson Drive. The TCA

will serve as a buffer between the construction activities and users ofthe Park. Once construction activities are

completed, the area used for the TCA would be restored to its original condition. Restoration would include

pavement restoration, grading, seeding, and planting of native herbaceous species at the outlet. Alternative

access routes to the Park as well as vehicle parking is available both north and south ofthe construction zone.

The temporary impacts and closures will be addressed through a separate agreement between the Port, BNSF

Railway, and WSDOT prior to construction.

Minimization

To minimize disruption and to protect park visitors, the Port has proposed specific conditions with BNSF and

WSDOT:

Access— A route on Hendrickson Drive capable of supporting emergency services will be maintained at

all times during construction. This condition will imposed for all construction related activities, and

included in all appropriate contracting documents.

Timing—WSDOT and BNSF Railway will coordinate construction timing with the Port to avoid

impacts to recreation use. A tentative schedule has been discussed with the Port and will be refined prior

4
to construction.

Maintenance—A future maintenance agreement between BNSF Railway and the Port will be secured

prior to constructing the UT3 culvert.

Design—Prior to proceeding with final design, WSDOT and BNSF Railway will provide the design and

review with the Port to ensure park resources and visitor safety are addressed with the culvert design. In

general, the culvert will be constructed, and following construction the area will be restored, in a manner

that conforms to the Port' s Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park Master Plan.

Construction—The culvert outfall and natural stream conveyance will be constructed to ensure the

safety ofpark visitors.

Construction—WSDOT will oversee the construction and use WSDOT' s construction best

management practices( BMPs) to control dust, noise, etc.

Conclusion:

WSDOT will ensure that these measures to minimize harm to the Park are implemented before and during

project construction. Consequently, the FRA finds that the Project will have a de minimis impact to Louis

Rasmussen Day Use Park, a Section 4( f) property. FRA respectfully requests your consideration ofthe potential

effects ofthe Project on the Park. Ifyou concur with our description ofthe potential impacts to Louis

Rasmussen Day Use Park, please sign below documenting your written concurrence as the agency with

jurisdiction over this resource.

The Port ofKalama, as owner ofLouis Rasmussen Day Use Park, concurs w it h FRA's description ofthe

potential impacts ofthe Project as described herein to Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park, a Section 4(f)

resource, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 303( d).

Signature: Date: -

Mark Wilson, Executive Director

Port ofKalama

Ifyou would like additional information or would like to meet in person to discuss the Project and the Section

4(f)findings, please contact Frank Green, WSDOT KMB Project Manager, at frank.green@wsdot.wa.gov or

by phone at( 360) 905- 1547, or contact Laura Schick with the Federal Railroad Administration via email at

Laura.Shick@dot.gov, or by calling( 202) 366-0340.

Sincerely,

David Valenstein

Environment and Systems Planning Division

Enclosure(s): 10% Design Documents for replacement ofthe UT3 culvert

cc: Frank Green, KMB Project Manager, WSDOT

Chris Regan, KMB Environmental Manager, WSDOT

Jennifer Papazian, Environmental Protection Specialist, Volpe—FRA

Michael Johnsen, Environmental Team Lead, FRA

5