Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL17-0030 - BOEING - DUWAMISH SEDIMENT OTHER AREA - SEPA / ADDENDUMSEPA ADDENDUM - BOEING DSOA 3324049002 Associated Files: PL17-0030 This File: E17-0003 SEPA/ADDENDUM City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ADDENDUM DUWAMISH SEDIMENT OTHER AREA CORRECTIVE ACTION Description of original proposal: The original proposal was to conduct upland soil remediation and remove approximately 270,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the Lower Duwamish Waterway, as well as contaminated upland soils. As part of the mitigation for the impacts of the contaminated soils and sediments, the Boeing Company removed an industrial building that hung over the shoreline, restored 2,400 linear feet of shoreline, restored/created approximately 4.8 acres of intertidal and riparian area, created approximately 700 linear feet of new shoreline, and removed 560 piles and 10,000 sq. ft. of wave abatement skirting. The project was carried out pursuant to the Administrative Order on Consent under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Docket No. 1092-01-22-3008(h). The work on the original SEPA, El 1-0008, was completed in 2012. Description of this Addendum: The Boeing Co. is applying for a ten-year maintenance and monitoring permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The past five years have provided an opportunity to observe how the implementation of the shoreline mitigation has been working and has informed the proposed maintenance and monitoring program under review by the COE. There have been some unexpected developments that have required corrective action on the part of the applicant, as identified below. These corrective actions are noted in this Addendum as information to supplement that provided in the original SEPA checklist, and where applicable, serve as mitigation measures that will be implemented as needed. The following issues have been encountered: • Eleven different seeps have developed along portions of the shoreline due to changes to the site hydrology which have caused erosion requiring fill material to be placed. The sizes of the seeps have ranged from 6 feet by 10 feet and 0.5 feet deep to 18 feet by 30 feet and 2-3 feet deep. Seeps repaired in 2015 required approximately 200 cubic yards of fill. The SEPA addendum anticipates the need to continue to repair new seeps with the use of fill material, in similar quantities to what has been experienced over the past five years. Other "soft" erosion control methods may be used as well and may include installation of coir fabric, coir logs or log cribs • On -going maintenance work has been necessary to repair damage from the loss of plant material due to the failure of goose exclusion fencing. Additional goose exclusion fencing will be added throughout the restoration areas to protect the plantings and replacement plantings will be installed as needed. • Erosion along the constructed slope has occurred - stabilization efforts in the future may include installation of coir fabric and coir logs and minor regrading and filling. Regrading would be conducted to level out areas where deposited or placed material is significantly above the design grades in locations where the potential for the development of marsh plants may be impacted. Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov E17-0003 Duwamish Sediment Other Area SEPA Addendum Page 2 • Large woody debris (LWD) adjustments/installations: it is anticipated that the chains anchoring the LWD may need to be tightened occasionally, which may require the chain to be shortened and re -shackled using hand tools to tighten the chains. Small tracked equipment may be required to reposition logs within a bundle if they become loose or shift. If the anchors holding the bundles to the substrate become loose, small tracked equipment may be required to reset the anchors. The Natural Resource Trustees have recommended adding LWD to the site to increase habitat complexity. To -date, this has included importing four pieces of LWD as well as capturing and anchoring five other naturally recruited logs. In the future, when suitable LWD is naturally recruited to the site, the material would be anchored in the upper intertidal zone using soil anchors and chain or cable. Repositioning or anchoring LWD would likely require the use of a small tracked excavator. Based on what has occurred at the site since completion of the project, it is anticipated that maintaining or anchoring LWD would occur a couple times a year. Work would occur during low tide and have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. • Sediment monitoring: long-term sediment monitoring at 36 stations within the remediated and constructed habitats has been on -going. The monitoring includes sampling within the North and South shoreline areas and in the remediated intertidal and subtidal areas adjacent to Plant 2. Additional rounds of long-term monitoring are scheduled for 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2025. Approximately 160 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. In addition to the long-term monitoring, quarterly sediment sampling to monitor silt accumulation may be conducted at 15-18 locations along the shoreline, inshore of the edge of the navigational channel. It is not known at this point how long the quarterly monitoring will be conducted, but it is assumed that less than 150 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. Sediment monitoring will be conducted throughout the year and is expected to have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. Maintenance and monitoring work will be conducted for ten years under aquatic permits obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. A detailed description of the scope of the work is found in Attachment A. Proponent: The Boeing Company, owner Location of Proposal: East bank of the Lower Duwamish River Waterway between river miles 2.8 and 3.6 in Tukwila and Seattle, WA. Tax parcels #3324049002, 0022000005, 2185000005, 0001600020, & 332404HYDR. The nearest intersection is S. 81st P1 and E. Marginal Way S. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File Number: E17-0003 (Addendum to E11-0008) Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov E 17-0003 Duwamish Sediment Other Area SEPA Addendum Page 3 The City has determined that the addendum does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(C). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The original DNS was issued January 27, 2012. This addendum is adopted on May 23, 2017. Jack ' . ce, SEPA Official City of Tukwila, Washington. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188. (206)-431-3670 Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Cif* at, ,Tuftwita Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION Jaclyn Adams , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Application Notice of Decision Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting x Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 24th day of May , 2017 Project Name: SEPA ADDENDUM - BOEING DSOA Project Number: E17-0003 Associated File Number (s): Addendum to E11-0008 Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Mailer's signature: /2Z,----- - W:\USERS\JACKI E\PLANNINGMAILINGS\AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTIONJACKIE.DOCX name Vlp 1a4-tv/ 5123 I agency �1WFrR4DADAN6ii1 DEPT OF ECOLOGY NW REGIONAL OFFICE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT address 3190 160th AVE SE PO BOX 40117 city st zip BELLEVUE WA 98008 LACEY WA 98504 WI . Lama WII,Ldxel 11111 o Cult Ld WA FISHERIES & WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 �I YNDA STYRK 4EN ST AMANT DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE N1.1wAMISH RIVER CLEAN UP COALITION VPEOPLE FOR PUGET SOUND � ^-,, '''' II jsJ j lin Vasquez / City of Seattle ePANI/ �`'r� PORT OF SEATTLE KC DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE -FISHERIES . • Se ttla Sea Planning &Development 1 n Kern Nat I Marine Fisheries Service Rbecca Hoff Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service ch Brooks The Suquamish Tribe -Fisheries • La ...e.. s.Lauraura Arbor VIPJ ILiL,..J Greg Griffith OSTER LIBRARY Nor eff Krausmann d1 Came.. Helen Pressley len Perkowski - City of Seattl a.„.VtA ,nry . L'fl, co c ol>ultt lS SPA '-efxart'te.0.41e.Per ite U.S. CPA R..gi n 10 Scd...c..t M..gt PO BOX 1209 PO 47015 39015 172nd AVE SE 4705 W MARGINAL WAY SW 1620 18TH AVE, Ste 100 911 WESTERN AVENUE, STE 580 700 5th Ave., Suite 2000 7600 Sand Point Way NE 7600 Sand Point Way NE P.O. Box 498 ►.C. gvn S7, 1'_0B 6th Ave. AWT 121 SEATTLE WA 98111 OLYMPIA WA 98504 AUBURN WA 98092 SEATTLE WA 98106 SEATTLE WA 98122 SEATTLE WA 98104 Seattle WA 98124 Seattle WA 98115 Seattle WA 98115 Suquamish WA 98392 ]Cattle vvA 7e114 Se Ole WA 98101 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife WA SLR D.pt. of Ce A g► Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Pres. US Fish & Wildlife -Western WA Office WA D.pt. of fi.Le,e1 WIIdCf. II.L:.ol WA ST DOE - Ecology Headquarters Department of Planning and Development 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. 31301L0t4+ A.c. S.C. P.O. Box 48343 4060 5144th STREET 510 Desmond Dr. SE. Ste 102 1111 We.6,.5t.,.. PO Box 47600 700 5th Ave., Suite 2000 to`izt i�x� �ed1�0�111c e56414 •,5°1/ '5121111 MILL CREEK WA 98012 0ELLEVUE WA 30000 Olympia WA 98504 TUKWILA WA 98168 Lacey WA 98503 OIy,,,Pla WA 9061 Olympia WA 98504 Seattle WA 98124 Carol Lumb From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi Carol Whitmus, Cliff <Cliff.Whitmus@amecfw.com> Tuesday, May 23, 2017 7:48 AM Carol Lumb RE: Addendum DSOA_parties_of_record_list_CJW.pdf I have marked up the list. I wouldn't send it to Larry Fisher since Plant 2 is not his area. T he additional people that I think need to get the SEPA determination and Shorelines Exemption are: Krenz U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Laura Inouye, PhD Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environmental Assistance P.O. Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 ,�(360) 407-6165 i/� Donna Podger Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 /John S. Murdoch — �"`" The Boeing Company West Corridor Site Services, Code Compliance and Permitting P.O. Box 3707 M/C 46-88 Seattle WA. 98124-2207 If you have any question, please let me know. Cheers, Cliff From: Carol Lumb [mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:10 PM To: Whitm us, Cliff <Cliff.Whitmus@amecfw.com> Subject: RE: Addendum Hi again, • I have an old list of" interested parties" from the 2011 permit — I'm assuming some of the staff have changed since then. Do you have a current list of "parties of record" who should receive the notice of the SEPA addendum as well as the shoreline exemption?? I will attach the list I have. As far as I know the City of Seattle contacts are OK, as is Larry Fisher at WDFW and Laura Arber. Thanks, Carol From: Whitmus, Cliff [mailto:Cliff.Whitmus@amecfw.com] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:03 PM To: Carol Lumb <CaroLLumb@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: RE: Addendum Hey Carol The original habitat was constructed by the end 2013 so we have about 3+ years of observation. Cheers, Cliff From: Carol Lumb [mailto:CaroLLumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:47 PM To: Whitmus, Cliff <CIiff.Whitmus@amecfw.com> Subject: RE: Addendum Cliff, You're welcome! A question for you — the mitigation measures were completed in 2015 so there is only about 1 % years of observation of issues that have developed with the mitigation, is that correct? Carol From: Whitmus, Cliff [mailto:Cliff.Whitmus@amecfw.com] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:38 PM To: Carol Lumb <Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: RE: Addendum Thanks so Carol. Cheers, Cliff From: Carol Lumb[mailto:CarolLumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 2:39 PM To: Whitmus, Cliff <Cliff.Whitmus@amecfw.com> Subject: Addendum Hi Cliff, 2 Avszi AGENCY LABELS 4, je_c 4,gr atkAv pTt. ( ) City Clerk Office - Ana Le PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS need to go to Ana to include in Digital Records Center ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( )US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Dept of Social & Health Services ( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ( ) Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. ( ) Dept of Natural Resources ,,SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ) Office of the Governor ( Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically ( ) WA State Department of Commerce (formerly Community Dev) ( ) Office of Attorney General ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ( X) KC Assessor's Office ( ) KC Watershed Coordination WRIA 9 Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Environmental Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) Westfield Mall Library f, ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) Century Link ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Waste Management ( ) Cascade Water Alliance ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Fire ( ) Police ( ) Finance ( ) Planning ( ) Building ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City Clerk (PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS) Section 6 CITY AGENCIES ( ) Kent Planning Dept ( ) Renton Planning Dept ( ) City of SeaTac ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects Section 7 OTHER * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ( ) Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Fisheries Program ( ) Wildlife Program ( ) Duwamish Indian Tribe * ( ) People for Puget Sound * LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) Futurewise ( ) Puget SoundKeeper ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce ( ) Tukwila Historical Society** ** send notices for all Tukwila projects which require pulblic notice — via email to: tukwilahistsociety@tukwilahistory.orq and rcwieser(alcomcast.net ( ) Seattle Times ( ) Highline Times Section 8 MEDIA ( ) South County Journal ( ) City of Tukwila Website W:\\Planning\Development Review Manual\LU Application Review Process\Public Notice Procedures\Mailing\Agency Checklist r1 Li r '. r'11 fi '; Cy Public Notice Mailings For Permits SEPA MAILINGS (Comment period starts on date of mailing) Notice of Application mailed to: Department of Ecology (send checklist with Notice of Application), applicant, other agencies as necessary, property owners and tenants within 500 feet. It is also posted on site. KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand. Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice of Application SEPA Determination mailed to Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE at the time of SEPA determination: SEPA Determination Staff report SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice ofAppii'cation for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to applicant, property owners and residents within 500 feet of subject property, agencies with jurisdiction. Comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the notice of decision and staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: One complete packet should also be sent to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe if they commented on the project during comment period. Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Decision (Signed by Director) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site pllan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross -sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (Signed by Director) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) W:\\Planning\Development Review Manual\LU Application Review Process\Public Notice Procedures\Mailing\Agency Checklist name n OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Clement Ms. Laura Whitaker Dag tb paw✓ LARRY FISHER LYNDA SYYRK GLEN ST AMANT DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN UP COALITION PEOPLE FOR PUGET SOUND Colin Vasquez / City of Seattle John Kern Rebecca Hoff Rich Brooks Ms. Olivia Romano Shawn Blocker Erika Hoffman Ms. Laura Arber Brad Helland Greg Griffith FOSTER LIBRARY Jeff Krausmann Randy Carmen Helen Pressley Ben Perkowski - City of Seattle agency DEPT OF ECOLOGY NW REGIONAL OFFICE ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT The Boeing Co. Perkins Coie LLP WA FISHERIES & WILDLIFE WA FISHERIES & WILDLIFE PORT OF SEATTLE KC DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE -FISHERIES Seattle Planning & Development Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service The Suquamish Tribe -Fisheries U.S. Army COE, Seattle District U.S. EPA - Corrective Action & Permits U.S. EPA - Region 10 Sediment Mngt WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife WA State Dept. of Ecology Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Pres. US Fish & Wildlife -Western WA Office WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife - Habitat Program WA ST DOE - Ecology Headquarters Department of Planning and Development address 3190 160th AVE SE PO BOX 40117 P.O. Box 3707 1W-09 1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD 1775 - 12 AVE NW, Ste# 201 PO BOX 1209 PO 47015 39015 172nd AVE SE 4705 W MARGINAL WAY SW 1620 18TH AVE, Ste 100 911 WESTERN AVENUE, STE 580 700 5th Ave., Suite 2000 7600 Sand Point Way NE 7600 Sand Point Way NE P.O. Box 498 P.O. Box 3755 1200 6th Ave. AWT-121 300 Desmond Dr. SE, Ste 102 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. 3190 160th Ave. S.E. P.O. Box 48343 4060 S 144th STREET 510 Desmond Dr. SE. Ste 102 1111 Washington Street SE PO Box 47600 700 5th Ave., Suite 2000 city st zip BELLEVUE WA 98008 LACEY WA 98504 Seattle WA 98124 Seattle WA 98101 MILL CREEK WA 98012 Issaquah WA 98027 SEATTLE WA 98111 OLYMPIA WA 98504 AUBURN WA 98092 SEATTLE WA 98106 SEATTLE WA 98122 SEATTLE WA 98104 Seattle WA 98124 Seattle WA 98115 Seattle WA 98115 Suquamish WA 98392 Seattle WA 98124 Seattle WA 98101 Lacey WA 98503 MILL CREEK WA 98012 BELLEVUE WA 98008 Olympia WA 98504 TUKWILA WA 98168 Lacey WA 98503 Olympia WA 98501 Olympia WA 98504 Seattle WA 98124 name f Vlb A OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL agency DEPT OF ECOLOGY NW REGIONAL OFFICE ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT IVIh..am LARRY MICR I YNOA STYRK • GLEN ST AMANT DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN UP COALITION PEOPLE FOR PUGET SOUND ,,-.I',,I j.li' _ Colin Vasquez / City of Seattle t:/�mu�fl. John Kern Rebecca Hoff Rich Brooks Ms. Laura Arber 0 of Iktlo..J Greg Griffith FOSTER LIBRARY Jeff Krausmann —RendrCorenen IC address 3190 160th AVE SE PO BOX 40117 city st zip BELLEVUE WA 98008 LACEY WA 98504 rn Rn n wlc LLr WA FISHERIES & WILDLIFE WA f11:I ICRICS & WILDLITC PORT OF SEATTLE KC DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MUCKLESH00T INDIAN TRIBE -FISHERIES Seattle Planning & Development Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service The Suquamish Tribe -Fisheries I.UL, JCO 17I>Gl.t it G GPA iorse' Iv'.Aeiiev °-Pefmita I.S. EPA Resien 193edint...tA/nrt WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife WAr.t,t.D.pt. fCce1.,8 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Pres. ac . 30 .1 AVC., >41LC 4aUt1 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD 177S 12 AVE NW, 1e.# 201 PO BOX 1209 PO 47015 39015 172nd AVE SE 4705 W MARGINAL WAY SW 1620 18TH AVE, Ste 100 911 WESTERN AVENUE, STE 580 700 5th Ave., Suite 2000 7600 Sand Point Way NE 7600 Sand Point Way NE P.O. Box 498 ca.u. WI. JU1U3 MILL CREEK WA 98012 I a h WA 30027 SEATTLE WA 98111 OLYMPIA WA 98504 AUBURN WA 98092 SEATTLE WA 98106 SEATTLE WA 98122 SEATTLE WA 98104 Seattle WA 98124 Seattle WA 98115 Seattle WA 98115 Suquamish WA 98392 US Fish & Wildlife -Western WA office 1200 ctk Ave. AWT 121 3004ennvond Drr6E, 6te 102 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. 31301CON+A.c. S.C. P.O. Box 48343 4060 S 144th STREET 510 Desmond Dr. SE. Ste 102 ea.( e Wr7o114 `eat* WA 30101 Lowy WA O0603 MILL CREEK WA 98012 BELLEVUE WA 30000 Olympia WA 98504 TUKWILA WA 98168 Lacey WA 98503 Helen Pressley Ben Perkowski - City of Seattle\ tot WA ST DOE - Ecology Headquarters PO Box 47600 Department of Planning and Development 700 5th Ave., Suite 2000 v.v. ,NA 98,51 Olympia WA 98504 Seattle WA 98124 Carol Lumb From: Sent: To: Subject: Vasquez, Colin <Colin.Vasquez@seattle.gov> Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:22 AM Carol Lumb Duwamish Sediment Other Area - SEPA Addendum ( Email #1) (related to AP 3012353) Hi Carol, Thanks for the email and attachments on this. It is always good to hear from you. Take care. Colin R. Vasquez, Senior Land Use Planner "As stewards and regulators of land and buildings, we preserve and enhance the equity, livability, safety and health in our communities." City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections P.O. Box 34019, Seattle, WA 98124-4019 P: 206.684.5639 F: 206.233.7902 1 colin.vasquez@seattle.gov Office Hours: Tuesday thru Thursday, 7:15 am until 4 pm From: Carol Lumb[mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:15 AM To: Vasquez, Colin <Colin.Vasquez@seattle.gov> Subject: Duwamish Sediment Other Area - SEPA Addendum ( Email #1) Hi Colin, I haven't been in touch for quite a while — I hope this email finds you well and enjoying the weather. We certainly deserve a break from the wet and grey we've been enduring! Tukwila has been working with Boeing on their need to get a permit from the COE for maintenance and monitoring work for the DSOA. The original SEPA determination didn't address this aspect of the project, so we requested that they apply for a SEPA Addendum. I am attaching our decision plus the incoming request for the Addendum. In a separate email (due to the size of the file) I will send along the JARPA that Boeing has submitted to Fish and Wildlife. Let me know if you have any questions. Carol CarotLumb, .SIC?, Senior ?Canner Department of Community Development City of gitkwi(a 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 7ukwiCa, tiV.Yl 98188 206-431-3661 Ca.roCLumb@7ukwvi(a►va.gov 1 2'ukwiCa, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 2 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:17 AM To: 'Murdoch, John S' Subject: SEPA Addendum Attachments: E17-0003_Addendum-signed.pdf Hi John I'm attaching the SEPA Addendum that Tukwila has approved for the maintenance and monitoring work needed at the DSOA site. We are still working on the shoreline exemption request. I will send that along as soon as it is signed. I am not sending you the incoming request we received from Cliff Whitmus, or the JARPA — let me know if you need those documents. Let me know if you have questions. Carol Carol Lumb, ,AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite ioo Tukwila, ILVA 98188 206-43i-3661 CarolCuinb@7ukwvilawa.gov Tukwiai, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:00 AM To: 'sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov' Subject: SEPA Addendum Attachments: E17-0003_Addendum-signed.pdf; SEPA Addendum Request.pdf Hello, Attached please find a SEPA Addendum, file E17-0003, to original SEPA determination E11-0008) for the Duwamish Sediment Other Area maintenance and monitoring work related to mitigation carried out under a consent decree. The Biological Evaluation that was prepared is a very large file —14 MB — if you would like this document please let me know if there is a site where I can post it for your use. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Carol Lumb CaroCLumb, J4JCP, Senior Planner Department of Community DeveCopment City of i'ukwi(a 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 7-ukwi(a, W5t 98188 206-431-3661 Carol um6@Y7ukwilawa.gov ?ukwiCa, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 Carol Lumb From: Whitmus, Cliff <Cliff.Whitmus@amecfw.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 7:48 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: RE: Addendum Attachments: DSOA_parties_of_record_list_CJW.pdf Hi Carol I have marked up the list. I wouldn't send it to Larry Fisher since Plant 2 is not his area. The additional people that I think need to get the SEPA determination and Shorelines Exemption are: Daniel Krenz U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Laura Inouye, PhD Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environmental Assistance P.O. Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 (360) 407-6165 Donna Podger Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 `/John S. Murdoch — J:A The Boeing Company West Corridor Site Services, Code Compliance and Permitting P.O. Box 3707 M/C 46-88 Seattle WA. 98124-2207 If you have any question, please let me know. Cheers, Cliff From: Carol Lumb[mailto:Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.govj Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:10 PM To: Whitmus, Cliff <Cliff.Whitmus@amecfw.com> Subject: RE: Addendum Hi again, C - 000 3 amec foster wheeler May 9, 2017 Project No. 0148440200 Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188-2544 Subject: Addendum to SEPA Determination for the Boeing Plant 2 Duwamish Sediment Other Area and SW Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Restoration Project (File Number E11-008) Dear Carol: We are seeking an addendum to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued for the Boeing Plant 2 Duwamish Sediment Other Area and Southwest Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Restoration Project (File Number El 1-008). This request for an addendum provides additional information on maintenance and monitoring activities that will be conducted in support of the original project but will not substantially change the conclusion of a Determination of Nonsignificance that was issued for the original project. We believe that issuing an addendum is appropriate under the guidance provided in WAC 197-11-600 (4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625. Under WAC 197-11-600 (4)(c), existing documents (the previous SEPA Determination) may be used for a proposal by employing an addendum that adds analyses or information about a proposal but does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The Boeing Company (Boeing) completed the upland soil remediation and contaminated sediment removal along the shoreline pursuant to the Administrative Order on Consent (Order) [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket No. 1092-01-22-3008(h)]. Boeing has also constructed and restored shoreline at the project site under the Consent Decree between the Natural Resource Trustees and Boeing executed in December 2010 (Sheet 1). As part of the Consent Decree Boeing is required to maintain and monitor the habitat for a minimum of 10 years. Boeing will be conducting several different types of maintenance activities at the restored/created habitat sites to maintain and improve the functioning of the habitat. The activities described below are a continuation of the activities conducted during the original construction/restoration phase of the project. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 601 Lynnwood, Washington 98037-4763 USA Tel +1 (425) 921-4000 Fax +1 (425) 921-4040 www.amecfw.com Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 9, 2017 Page 2 amec foster wheeler 1.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 1.1 SHORELINE SEEP REPAIR Discharge of groundwater or bank recharge through the fill placed along the South Shoreline Area has created localized areas of erosion. Since the original construction, seep erosion has been repaired at 11 locations. Sheet 2 shows the location of four of the previously repaired seeps. Erosion areas have been repaired by placing 2-inch-minus gravel (see Sheet 3). The repairs have been limited to areas where erosion threatens the habitat suitable for marsh colonization (i.e., above elevation +5 feet mean lower low water [MLLW]). The sizes of the seeps have varied greatly from about 6 feet by 10 feet and 0.5 foot deep to 18 feet by 30 feet and 2 to 3 feet deep. Seeps repaired in fall/winter 2015 required approximately 200 cubic yards (cy) of fill. Fill volumes ranged from about 10 cy to 100 cy per seep, with a median volume of about 30 cy per seep. Equipment used to repair the seeps has included a small tracked excavator and tracked dump truck. All previous seep repairs have been conducted at low tide "in the dry." It is anticipated that all future repair work would be conducted in the same manner to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered migrating salmonids and their critical habitat. The number of seeps that would need to be filled in the future is not known; however, assuming that five seeps would be repaired every year, the volume of gravel that may be placed would be on the order of 200 cy per year or 2,000 cy for 10 years. This volume is a high -end estimate; the actual volume of fill required is expected to be less. In addition to filling, other "soft" erosion control methods may be used and may include installation of coir fabric, coir Togs, or log cribs, in which logs are interspersed with vegetation (Sheets 4, 5, and 6). Coir mats and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. If logs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation may be required to set the logs. If needed, the excavation volume for log placement is expected to be less than 50 cy per installation, depending on the type of installation. All excavated material for log installation would be reused on site. Repair of shoreline seeps would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats because all work would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." 1.2 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL Erosion of the slope along the constructed shoreline has been noted in places and has required stabilization. Stabilization of the shoreline in future years may include installation of coir fabric and coir logs and minor regrading and filling. Other "soft" erosion control methods may be considered (Sheets 4, 5, and 6). If Togs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation (likely less than 50 cy per installation) may be required to set the logs. Excavated material would be reused on site. Coir mats and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. Shoreline regrading, filling, and excavation may include use of small tracked equipment on the shoreline at low tides. The regrading would be conducted to level out areas where deposited or placed material is significantly above the design Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 9, 2017 Page 3 amec foster wheeler grades in locations where the potential for the development of marsh plants may be impacted. Regrading may also be conducted in areas where depressions could potentially trap fish. Placement of additional fill (shoreline stabilization) would be conducted in areas where erosion of the shoreline threatens marsh plantings. Work conducted at the site since the original construction was completed has included placement of fill material along the outer North Shoreline Area to control erosion of the peninsula and reduce subsequent potential impacts to the off -channel habitat area (see Sheets 7 and 8). This work was conducted in summer 2016 and required approximately 4,500 cy of 3-inch-minus fill. It is anticipated that the shoreline would not require major stabilization over the next 10 years as was conducted previously. The precise volume of material that may be regraded or placed is unknown, but it would likely be less than 2,000 cy over the 10-year period. Placement of additional shoreline fill to control erosion would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats, since all work would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." 1.3 INSTALLATION OF PLANTS AND ENCLOSURES Marsh plantings installed in 2012 and subsequent years were heavily grazed by geese that reside at the site. The original goose exclusion fencing installed along the perimeter of the marsh planting zone was not totally effective in excluding geese from the site. Subsequent to the installation of the exclusion fencing in 2012, Boeing worked with the Natural Resource Trustees to address the herbivory problem. A method currently being used with success to reduce herbivory is to enclose smaller areas (on the order of 10 feet by 10 feet or 10 feet by 20 feet) with wire or plastic mesh supported by fence posts. Depending on the enclosure size, 40 to 80 native plants would be installed within each rectangular enclosure. Boeing is planning to aggressively pursue developrnent of the marsh habitat across the site and may install (and later remove) several hundred of the smaller enclosures over the next several years. Installation of the enclosures and plants would be conducted in the spring and/or fall during the growing season. All work (enclosure and plant installation) would be conducted at low tide "in the dry" using hand tools. The enclosures and plants would be installed above +5.5 feet MLLW. Installation of the enclosures and plants would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 1.4 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ADJUSTMENTS/INSTALLATION As part of the habitat development, bundles of large woody debris (LWD) were placed along the shoreline. Logs were stacked, chained together, and anchored to the substrate. It is anticipated that the chains on the LWD bundles may occasionally need to be tightened. This generally would require the chain to be shortened and reshackled using hand tools to tighten the chains; however, small tracked equipment may be required to reposition logs within a bundle if they become loose or shift. In addition, if the anchors holding the bundles to the substrate become loose, small tracked equipment may be required to reset the anchors. Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 9, 2017 Page 4 amec 4 foster wheeler Based on feedback from the Natural Resource Trustees, Boeing has been adding additional LWD to the site to increase habitat complexity. These activities have included importing four pieces of LWD as well as capturing and anchoring five other naturally recruited logs. It is anticipated in the future, when suitable LWD is naturally recruited to the site, that the material would be anchored in the upper intertidal zone using soil anchors and chain or cable. Repositioning or anchoring LWD would likely require the use of a small tracked excavator. It is not known when or if LWD would need to be maintained or how many logs would recruit to the site through natural processes; however, based on what has occurred at the site, it is reasonable to assume that maintaining or anchoring LWD would occur a couple times a year.. Any work that would be conducted to maintain or install LWD would be conducted during low tide and would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 1.5 SEDIMENT MONITORING The Boeing Company has been conducting Tong -term sediment monitoring at 36 stations within the remediated and constructed habitats at the Boeing Plant 2 site (Sheet 9). This monitoring includes sampling within the North and South Shoreline Areas and in the remediated intertidal and subtidal areas adjacent to Boeing Plant 2. Additional rounds of long-term monitoring are scheduled for 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2025. It is anticipated that approximately 160 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. In addition to the long-term monitoring, quarterly sediment sampling to monitor silt accumulation may be conducted at 15 to 18 locations along the shoreline, inshore of the edge of the navigational channel. It is not known how bong the quarterly monitoring will be conducted, but it is assumed that Tess than 150 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. Additional sediment monitoring may be conducted and additional sampling locations selected to meet data and adaptive management needs required by the maintenance and monitoring plan. Sediment monitoring will be conducted throughout the year and is expected to have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 2.0 CONCLUSION This maintenance and monitoring work will be conducted under aquatic permits obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (Section 10/404 permit) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Hydraulic Project Approval). Boeing has prepared a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application for submittal to the agencies and has prepared a Biological Evaluation for submittal to the Corps to assist in the evaluation of the potential effects of the activities on any Endangered Species Act listed species that might be impacted by the proposed activities. We believe that the work as described above is a continuation of the work for which a SEPA Determination was previously issued and that a SEPA Addendum is appropriate for the work. As part of the permit application Boeing is requesting that an addendum to the SEPA DNS be issued for Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 9, 2017 Page 5 inclusion with the application package. Thank you for reviewing this request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. CI Lk/ us P ncipScientist Direct Tel.: (425) 921-4023 E-mail: cliff.whitmus@amecfw.com Rob Gilmour Senior Scientist Direct Tel.: (425) 921-4003 E-mail: rob.gilmour@amecfw.com cjw p:\boeing\permitting\3000 reports\long-term maintenance permit\tukwila letters\sepa addendurn 050917.docx Attachment: Sheets 1-9 cc: Project File loverdale r� Street Interchange,�i ,1 S HENDEHSON(IST -j � Ii iLS DIRECTr OST Terminal 115 �111 I` �1I SrIN KENYONS_T R V E S 1 �IA ,s s� I I `. TpuBoeingiField:King County S MtYRTLEiSTQInternatlo�nalAirport \ \ s OTHEL I; �50• ,LS AUST/N STD ii ,S HOLDEN ST NORTH SITE A_CHIGAGD QIS 75YLONSTI�w_ ,1I Ji f(t, ;is MONROE STiz _ s s0 322404FiYDR t\ HOSELST ��� /• G �S LLL SU, I N ST� I S CLIOVERDALE STII^ ESo wi 11 Ir —� S DONOVAN ST mil ' . i iJ'..= .; � `i ((--�� \\al I. 1 332N.S401�4HYDR S HPNOtnaU IShIRE_TO;R;S:T= Driv ng directions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District: Proceed southeast on East Marginal Way South/WA-99 toward S. Alaska Street. Continue to follow East Marginal Way South for a total of 2.5 miles. The site is located on the west side of East Marginal Way South. Driving directions to the site from Interstate 5 are provided below: From North Take 1-5 S toward SEATTLE. Take the CORSON AVE exit, EXIT 162, toward MICHIGAN ST. 0.7 mi Stay STRAIGHT to go onto CORSON AVE S. 0.6 mi Turn LEFT onto E MARGINAL WAY S. 0.5 mi End at 7755 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 From South Take 1-5 N toward SEATTLE. Take EXIT 161 for Swift Ave toward ALBRO PLACE 0.3 mi Turn LEFT onto SWIFT AVE S 0.3 mi Take the 1st LEFT onto S ALBRO PLACE 0.4 mi Continue onto ELLISE AVE S 0.4 mi Turn LEFT onto EAST MARGINAL WAY S 0.6 mi End at 7755 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 9T" iale� \\s 99 Map Courtesy of USGS ✓JUtvt LU 5'F V i\sj WE SOUTH SITE \ \� \\� ;i 0001600020 \ \ \\ c0001600023 The project extents from north to south: 47.5341 N Lat, 122.3211 W Long to 47.5272 N Lat, 122.3093 W Long Sections 29, 32, and 33 Township 24N Range 4E APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 SITE VICINITY 4000 Oi%ST PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 1of9 DATE: 04-26-2017 it • Legend Approximate Seepage Erosion Area Approximate Seepage Origin The project extents from north to south: 47.5341 N Lat, 122.3211 W Long to 47.5272 N Lat, 122.3093 W Long Sections 29, 32, and 33 Township 24N Range 4E Distance (Feet) Elevation Datum: 0=MLLW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 TYPICAL SEEP PLAN VIEW PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 25 50 100 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: IN: NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 2of9 DATE: 04-26-2017 N WS-2011-0384 STATE: WA m 0 w 1- 0 w Z 0� 0 co J J0 1 w 0 0 cc w w w (1)' r w. ROM IL w (0 0 (0 0 (Arlin 11) uogena13 LO 0 0 r 0 rn 0 O 0 O 0 M 0 0 TYPICAL SEEP CROSS SECTION t o o�' 00C -C C C t 2 J °33 E-+m o�Ol N O �mm a�NN C N N Y rl x al f0 N J J Z Z 'p-lN aN Cm N Vn Li-) I-av PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 3 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 )\ EXAMPLE LOG CRIB SLOPE AND RIPARIAN AREA (SECTION VIEW) PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE. WA SHEET 4 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 ./ of eg as io 1 Not to Scale 4 Anchored large woody debris, installed at -grade, plus 8 to '10 feet MLLW Select sand, aggregate and cobble substrate improvement (one to two feet depth) Natural fiber fabric substrate cover, with native marsh vegetation planting Single, below -grade large woody debris, with anchor and attachment Variable Slope 12-30 1I Native Marsh Vegetation Sub -grade rock bolster Concept Drawing Courtesy of Port of Seattle EXAMPLE BURIED LOG SILL (SECTION VIEW) PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 5of9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA Not to Scale Variable Slope 25-30 1 4 1 Approximately plus 14 feet MLLW Large -Woody Debris (cross -log) Natural fiber fabric substrate cover, with native marsh vegetation planting Native Riparian Vegetation Continuous natural fiber fabric surface soil stabilization, with native riparian vegetation planting Footer log Sub -grade rock bolster Below -grade large woody -debris, with anchor and attachment Concept Drawing Courtesy of Port of Seattle EXAMPLE ROUGHENED LOG TOE (SECTION VIEW) PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle. WA 98108 Reference Number NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 6of9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE WA Rol Dale 04/36,17. II 1731.1. Pbtled pary pn•nre. Orawing..11,,BOEINGON Snorabie Ma.ICADVIslonat Mon 6 0 f.0 L 0 c m Z -n cc) g -0 71' PP° 0 rr, na z cr) 64 8 -< I) 0 8 z m ) 8 :3S0dthld 5 co -4 '6 0 cn cp — • m co 0 = co • 0 Z CD CD CD. > tu =)0 0 7 cal CO cj . 1:3 " > CO ° co 2,CD 0 -t:3 • • o co 1),) 3 :2 cos< -o cn.< O cn o z > 1 o m • • --1 m c > m m ▪ z o 75 771 41" -4 7 r- • 5 0 0 cn co co co CT 0 3 g- 6:7 'OA :31V1S :JaqwnN apueialaN 49£0-1•1.0Z-S/V\ N 7J m 0 m 7J - 0 r- rn •Inlemrser JARP4 20110.0 Eros. StablYzabon, 0 Nam. JAPPA 201 Ilat.Maintertence Erosion &up 111 LI II II 0 DUWAMISH WATERWAY The project extents from north to south: 47.5341 N Lat, 122.3211 W Long to YEAR 2 CONDITION SURVEY ELEVATION 47.5272 N Lat, 122.3093 W Long 15 CONTOURS (AUGUST 2016) AFTER SLOPE STABILIZATION Sections 29, 32, and 33 Township 24N Range 4E EDGE OF DUWAMISH WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHANNEL Elevation Datum: 0=MLLW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 0 to N .- O 19 W N If) O (C) O to (M111,1 ll) uoljenal3 TYPICAL EROSION AREA CROSS SECTION s 0 0 N o • 00 00 c C C J J� °33 -m cn N 0 -o w O N c mm N N N co Y C N _l .-IN N r') Z Ql J J W N i el .0 W O .-V N o " 0) 0.m Nul in C I- 0) 1-c PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 8 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA rA e 00 ^0 YON dI e P 0 0l al J • r C� Match Line 01 SEDIMENT MONITORING STATIONS s 0 0 iy L 0 c E 0 C Y Elevation Datum: O=MLLW 0 C C 0 0 J J +m -1 O1 N 0 mm N N N N I-r v co co J J alZ Z p c1 N O.M N Ln (n L N N F V 0 0 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ch c fC (N c') Z 0) N • aW N • O CD C m U 0)0 C 03 h Ce LONG-TERM MONITORING ADDITIONAL MONITORING • ED PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 9 of 9 DATE: 04-27-2017 STATE: WA El May 8, 2017 3013 Project No. 0148440200 Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188-2544 amec Olf foster wheeler eiAscok, -tt' octod e, (/[-h 1 01 Subject: Addendum to SEPA Determination for the Boeing Plant 2 Duwamish Sediment Other Area and SW Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Restoration Project (File Number E111-008) Dear Carol: We are seeking an addendum to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued for the Boeing Plant 2 Duwamish Sediment Other Area and Southwest Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Restoration Project (File Number El 1-008). This request for an addendum provides additional information on maintenance and monitoring activities that will be conducted in support of the original project but will not substantially change the conclusion of a Determination of Nonsignificance that was issued for the original project. We believe that issuing an addendum is appropriate under the guidance provided in WAC 197-11-600 (4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625. Under WAC 197-11-600 (4)(c), existing documents (the previous SEPA Determination) may be used for a proposal by employing an addendum that adds analyses or information about a proposal but does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The Boeing Company (Boeing) completed the upland soil remediation and contaminated sediment removal along the shoreline pursuant to the Administrative Order on Consent (Order) [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket No. 1092-01-22-3008(h)]. Boeing has also constructed and restored shoreline at the project site under the Consent Decree between the Natural Resource Trustees and Boeing executed in December 2010. As part of the Consent Decree Boeing is required to maintain and monitor the habitat for a miniimum of 10 years. Boeing will be conducting several different types of maintenance activities at the restored/created habitat sites to maintain and improve the functioning of the habitat. The activities described below are a continuation of the activities conducted during the original construction/restoration phase of the project. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 601 Lynnwood, Washington 98037-4763 USA Tel +1 (425) 921-4000 Fax +1 (425) 921-4040 www.amecfw.com r• amec foster Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP wheeler City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 8, 2017 Page2 • �. . 1.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 1.1 SHORELINE SEEP REPAIR Discharge of groundwater or bank recharge through the fill placed along the South Shoreline Area has created localized areas of erosion. Since the original construction, seep erosion has been repaired at 11 locations. Erosion areas have been repaired by placing 2-inch-minus gravel. The repairs have been limited to areas where erosion threatens the habitat suitable for marsh colonization (i.e., above elevation +5 feet mean lower low water [MLLW]). The sizes of the seeps have varied greatly from about 6 feet by 10 feet and 0.5 foot deep to 18 feet by 30 feet and 2 to 3 feet deep. Seeps repaired in fall/winter 2015 required approximately 200 cubic yards (cy) of fill. Fill volumes ranged from about 10 cy to 100 cy per seep, with a median volume of about 30 cy per seep. Equipment used to repair the seeps has included a small tracked excavator and tracked dump truck. All previous seep repairs have been conducted at low tide "in the dry." It is anticipated that all future repair work would be conducted in the same manner to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered migrating salmonids and their critical habitat. The number of seeps that would need to be filled in the future is not known; however, assuming that five seeps would be repaired every year, the volume of gravel that may be placed would be on the order of 200 cy per year or 2,000 cy for 10 years. This volume is a high -end estimate; the actual volume of fill required is expected to be Tess. In addition to filling, other "soft" erosion control methods may be used and may include installation of coir fabric, coir logs, or log cribs, in which logs are interspersed with vegetation. Coir mats and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. If logs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation may be required to set the Togs. If needed, the excavation volume for log placement is expected to be less than 50 cy per installation, depending on the type of installation. All excavated material for log installation would be reused on site. Repair of shoreline seeps would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats because all work would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." 1.2 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL Erosion of the slope along the constructed shoreline has been noted in places and has required stabilization. Stabilization of the shoreline in future years may include installation of coir fabric and coir logs and minor regrading and filling. Other "soft" erosion control methods may be considered. If logs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation (likely less than 50 cy per installation) may be required to set the logs. Excavated material would be reused on site. Coir mats and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. Shoreline regrading, filling, and excavation may include use of small tracked equipment on the shoreline at low tides. The regrading would be conducted to level out areas where deposited or placed material is significantly above the design grades in locations where the Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 8, 2017 Page 3 amec foster wheeler potential for the development of marsh plants may be impacted. Regrading may also be conducted in areas where depressions could potentially trap fish. Placement of additional fill (shoreline stabilization) would be conducted in areas where erosion of the shoreline threatens marsh plantings. Work conducted at the site since the original construction was completed has included placement of fill material along the outer North Shoreline Area to control erosion of the peninsula and reduce subsequent potential impacts to the off -channel habitat area. This work was conducted in summer 2016 and required approximately 4,500 cy of 3-inch-minus fill. It is anticipated that the shoreline would not require major stabilization over the next 10 years as was conducted previously. The precise volume of material that may be regraded or placed is unknown, but it would likely be less than 2,000 cy over the 10-year period. Placement of additional shoreline fill to control erosion would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats, since all work would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." 1.3 INSTALLATION OF PLANTS AND ENCLOSURES Marsh plantings installed in 2012 and subsequent years were heavily grazed by geese that reside at the site. The original goose exclusion fencing installed along the perimeter of the marsh planting zone was not totally effective in excluding geese from the site. Subsequent to the installation of the exclusion fencing in 2012, Boeing worked with the Natural Resource Trustees to address the herbivory problem. A method currently being used with success to reduce herbivory is to enclose smaller areas (on the order of 10 feet by 10 feet or 10 feet by 20 feet) with wire or plastic mesh supported by fence posts. Depending on the enclosure size, 40 to 80 native plants would be installed within each rectangular enclosure. Boeing is planning to aggressively pursue development of the marsh habitat across the site and may install (and later remove) several hundred of the smaller enclosures over the next several years. Installation of the enclosures and plants would be conducted in the spring and/or fall during the growing season. All work (enclosure and plant installation) would be conducted at low tide "in the dry" using hand tools. The enclosures and plants would be installed above +5.5 feet MLLW. Installation of the enclosures and plants would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 1.4 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ADJUSTMENTS/INSTALLATION As part of the habitat development, bundles of large woody debris (LWD) were placed along the shoreline. Logs were stacked, chained together, and anchored to the substrate. It is anticipated that the chains on the LWD bundles may occasionally need to be tightened. This generally would require the chain to be shortened and reshackled using hand tools to tighten the chains, however, small tracked equipment may be required to reposition logs within a bundle if they become loose or shift. In addition, if the anchors holding the bundles to the substrate become loose, small tracked equipment may be required to reset the anchors. amec legfr foster Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP wheeler City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 8, 2017 Page 4 Based on feedback from the Natural Resource Trustees, Boeing has been adding additional LWD to the site to increase habitat complexity. These activities have included importing four pieces of LWD as well as capturing and anchoring five other naturally recruited logs. It is anticipated in the future, when suitable LWD is naturally recruited to the site, that the material would be anchored in the upper intertidal zone using soil anchors and chain or cable. Repositioning or anchoring LWD would likely require the use of a small tracked excavator. It is not known when or if LWD would need to be maintained or how many logs would recruit to the site through natural processes; however, based on what has occurred at the site, it is reasonable to assume that maintaining or anchoring LWD would occur a couple times a year. Any work that would be conducted to maintain or install LWD would be conducted during low tide and would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 1.5 SEDIMENT MONITORING The Boeing Company has been conducting Tong -term sediment monitoring at 36 stations within the remediated and constructed habitats at the Boeing Plant 2 site. This monitoring includes sampling within the North and South Shoreline Areas and in the remediated intertidal and subtidal areas adjacent to Boeing Plant 2. Additional rounds of long-term monitoring are scheduled for 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2025. It is anticipated that approximately 160 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. In addition to the long-term monitoring, quarterly sediment sampling to monitor silt accumulation may be conducted at 15 to 18 locations along the shoreline, inshore of the edge of the navigational channel. It is not known how long the quarterly monitoring will be conducted, but it is assumed that less than 150 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. Additional sediment monitoring may be conducted and additional sampling locations selected to meet data and adaptive management needs required by the maintenance and monitoring pllan. Sediment monitoring will be conducted throughout the year and is expected to have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 2.0 CONCLUSION This maintenance and monitoring work will be conducted under aquatic permits obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (Section 10/404 permit) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Hydraulic Project Approval). Boeing has prepared a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application for submittal to the agencies and has prepared a Biological Evaluation for submittal to the Corps to assist in the evaluation of the potential effects of the activities on any Endangered Species Act listed species that might be impacted by the proposed activities. We believe that the work as described above is a continuation of the work for which a SEPA Determination was previously issued and that a SEPA Addendum is appropriate for the work. As part of the permit application Boeing is requesting that an addendum to the SEPA DNS be issued for Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development May 8, 2017 Page 5 amec foster wheeler inclusion with the application package. Thank you for reviewing this request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Al 01-4-'/ (--Zi'o-2.--1. Cli it us Rob Gilmour P ncip Scientist Senior Scientist Direct Tel.: (425) 921-4023 Direct Tel.: (425) 921-4003 E-mail: cliff.whitmus@amecfw.com E-mail: rob.gilmour@amecfw.com cjw p:\boeing\permitting\3000 reports\long-term maintenance permit\tukwila letters\sepa addendum 050817.docx cc: Project File WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form1,2 u_ijgd i• n US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. Part 1—Project Identification AGENCY USE ONLY Date received: Agency reference #: Tax Parcel #(s): 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) [help] Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Project (Corps Reference Number NWS-2011-0384) Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help] 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Anderson, Brian D. 2b. Organization (If applicable) The Boeing Company 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) P.O. Box 3707, MC 2R-96 2d. City, State, Zip Seattle, WA 98124 2e. Phone (1) 2f. Phone (2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail (425) 373-8825 (206) 930-0336 brian.d.anderson2@boeing.com Additional forms may be required for the following permits: • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http://www. nws. usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies.aspx. • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. 2To access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to http://www.epermittinq.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa iarpa form/9984/iarpa form.aspx. For other help, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help a(7.oria.wa.gov. ORIA-16-011 Page 1 of 18 Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this application.) fhelpl 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Whitmus, Clifford J. 3b. Organization (If applicable) Amec Foster Wheeler 3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 3500 188th Street Southwest, Suite 601 3d. City, State, Zip Lynnwood, WA 98037 3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail (425) 921-4023 (206) 300-0520 cliff.whitmus@amecfw.com Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help] © Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ® Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights -of -way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) 4b. Organization (If applicable) 4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 4d. City, State, Zip 4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail ORIA-16-011 Page 2 of 18 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. Them ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help] city, special districts like schools, Resources (DNR) — managed ports, etc.) aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) 0 Private • Federal // Publicly owned (state, county, • Tribal • Department of Natural 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [help] 7755 East Marginal Way South 5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help' Seattle, WA 98108 5d. County Ihelpl King 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help] 1/4 Section Section Township Range 29, 32, and 33 24N 4E 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project • Example: 47.03922 N lat. /-122.89142 W long. (Use location. (help[ decimal degrees - NAD 83) Project extends from north to south: 47.5341 N lat./122.3211W long. to 47.5286 N lat./122.3091 W long. 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. Ihelpl 292404HYDR, 322404HYDR, 332404HYDR, 0001600020, 3324049002, and 0022000005 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) (help] Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) Jorgensen Forge 8531 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98108 0001600023 Waste Management PO Box 1450 Chicago IL 60690 2136200641 Port of Seattle Kathy Bahnick PO Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 292404HYDR, 322404HYDR, and 332404HYDR ORIA-16-011 Page 3 of 18 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help] The project area includes estuarine marsh that was constructed by The Boeing Company (Boeing) in 2013. 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [help] Lower Duwamish Waterway 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [help] 0 Yes • No • Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help] The habitat projects • Riparian zone • Marsh zone (+12 • Intertidal zone Currently, the habitat habitat in the riparian The following native were designed to create habitat within three elevation zones: (above elevation +12 feet relative to mean lower low water [MLLW]), to +5.5 feet MLLW), and (+5.5 to +2 feet MLLW). project has 2.83 acres of habitat in the marsh zone (+5.5 to +12 feet MLLW), zone (above +12 feet MLLW), and 1.30 acres in the intertidal zone (+2 to trees, shrubs, and marsh plants are present at the site. 1.52 acres of +5 feet MLLW). Common Name Scientific Name Riparian Trees Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum Red alder Alnus rubra Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Shorepine Pinus contorta Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata Douglas -fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Riparian Shrubs Tall Oregon grape Berberis aquifolium Red -osier dogwood Corpus sericea Western hazelnut Corylus cornuta Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor Twinberry Lonicera involucrata Bald -hip rose Rosa gymnocarpa Pacific willow Salix lasiandra Sitka willow Salix sitchensis Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Hooker's willow Salix hookeriana Marsh Plants Douglas aster Aster subspicatus Lyngbye's sedge Carex lyngbyei Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa Pacific silverweed Potentilla anserina Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus ORIA-16-011 Page 4 of 18 Additional non-native pseudacorus], respectively) Lower intertidal and Marsh Plants iris [Iris habitats. Softstem bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Seacoast bulrush Scirpus maritimus American bulrush Schoenoplectus americanus Dwarf spikerush Eleocharis parvula Grasswort Lilaeopsis sp. Brass buttons Cotula coronopifolia Orache Atriplex patula Western dock Rumex occidentalis and invasive plants (Bird's -foot trefoil [Lotus corniculatus] and Yellow -flag are being actively controlled at the site. subtidal areas adjacent to Boeing Plant 2 are unvegetated sand and gravel 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [help] In 2013, Boeing constructed two habitat projects at Boeing Plant 2 along the Duwamish Waterway in Seattle and Tukwila, Washington (Sheet 1). The projects were constructed in accordance with a Consent Decree executed in December 2010 between the Natural Resource Trustees (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology], the Suquamish Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe) and Boeing. The two projects restored and/or created off - channel and riparian habitats in the Lower Duwamish Waterway in an area where they had been largely eliminated due to channelization and industrialization of the Waterway. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help] All adjacent properties are developed and used for commercial or industrial purposes. Other than the Lower Duwamish Waterway, there are no undeveloped or residential properties adjacent to the project site. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current condition. [help] The project site is located in a highly developed industrial area consisting of office, manufacturing, and maintenance buildings supporting Boeing's commercial aircraft manufacturing activities. Areas surrounding the buildings are paved streets and parking areas. In addition, along the shoreline adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway, Boeing created/restored approximately 5 acres of riparian, marsh, and intertidal habitat in 2013 and remediated an additional 16 acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat along the Boeing Plant 2 shoreline pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (Order) [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket No. 1092-01-22-3008(h)] issued to Boeing in 1994 by the EPA under authority of RCRA Section 3008(h), as amended [42 USC 6928(h)]. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [helrl Driving directions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District: Proceed southeast on East. Marginal Way South/WA-99 toward S. Alaska Street. Continue to follow East Marginal Way South for a total of 2.5 miles. The site is located on the west side of East Marginal Way South (Sheet 1). Sheet 1 also provides driving directions to the site from Interstate 5. Part 6—Project Description ORIA-16-011 Page 5 of 18 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help] The objective of the project is to maintain and/or enhance estuarine habitat that was constructed in 2013. Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the habitat project is required as part of a Consent Decree executed in December 2010 between the Natural Resource Trustees and Boeing. In addition, as a requirement of EPA, monitoring of the physical and chemical quality of the post-remediated sediment surface will be conducted. 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help] The Boeing Company will be seeking long-term maintenance permits from the Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to be able to conduct maintenance and adaptive management activities for the constructed habitats along the Plant 2 shoreline. The habitat areas were constructed pursuant to a Consent Decree between the Natural Resource Trustees and Boeing. Habitat maintenance and adaptive management activities that have been conducted to date include seep repair, installation of small fenced plant enclosures, and planting of marsh plants in fenced and unfenced areas. It is anticipated that these, and potentially other activities, may be conducted for up to 10 years. The 10-year period is pursuant to conditions of the Consent Decree. Any work to be conducted under the 10-year maintenance permit would be coordinated with the Natural Resource Trustees. Described below are the activities that can reasonably be expected to be conducted during the 10-year maintenance period. In addition, sediment monitoring of the post -construction sediment surface will be conducted as required by EPA. Sediment monitoring conducted to date include Tong -term post -construction monitoring of the remediated and constructed sediment surfaces for Year 0 and Year 1. This monitoring is to be conducted for a minimum of 10 years post -construction pursuant to the conditions of the RCRA Order. Additional sediment monitoring has been conducted to monitor the accumulation of silty material on the surface of the clean backfill. 1.0 SHORELINE SEEP REPAIR Discharge of groundwater or bank recharge through the fill placed along the South Shoreline Area has created localized areas of erosion. Since the original construction, seep erosion has been repaired at 11 locations. The locations where four previous shoreline seeps were repaired are shown on Sheet 2. Erosion areas have been repaired by placing 2-inch-minus gravel. The repairs have been limited to areas where erosion threatens the habitat suitable for marsh colonization (i.e., above elevation +5 feet MLLW). The sizes of the seeps have varied greatly from about 6 feet by 10 feet and 0.5 feet deep to 18 feet by 30 feet and 2 to 3 feet deep. Seeps repaired in fall/winter 2015 required approximately 200 cubic yards (cy) of fill. Fill volumes ranged from about 10 cy to 100 cy per seep, with a median volume of about 30 cy per seep. Equipment used to repair the seeps has included a small tracked excavator and tracked dump truck. All previous seep repairs have been conducted at low tide "in the dry." It is anticipated that all future repair work would be conducted in the same manner to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered migrating salmonids and their critical habitat. The number of seeps that would need to be filled in the future is not known; however, assuming that five seeps would be repaired every year, the volume of gravel that may be placed would be on the order of 200 cy per year or 2,000 cy for 10 years. This volume is a high -end estimate; the actual volume of fill required is expected to be less. A section showing an anticipated typical shoreline seep repair is shown on Sheet 3. In addition to filling, other "soft" erosion control methods may be used and may include installation of coir fabric, coir logs, or log cribs, in which logs are interspersed with vegetation. Soft engineering concepts using logs that may be considered are depicted on Sheets 4 to 6. Coir mats and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. If logs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation may be required to set the logs. If needed, the excavation volume for log placement is expected to be less than 50 cy per installation, depending on the type of installation. All excavated material for log installation would be reused on site. Repair of shoreline seeps would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats because all work would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." ORIA-16-011 Page 6 of 18 2.0 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL Erosion of the slope along the constructed shoreline has been noted in places and has required stabilization. Stabilization of the shoreline in future years may include installation of coir fabric and coir Togs and minor regrading and filling. Other "soft" erosion control methods may be considered, such as those depicted in Sheets 4 to 6. If logs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation (likely less than 50 cy per installation) may be required to set the logs. Excavated material would be reused on site. Coir mats and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. Shoreline regrading, filling, and excavation may include use of small tracked equipment on the shoreline at low tides. The regrading would be conducted to level out areas where deposited or placed material is significantly above the design grades in locations where the potential for the development of marsh plants may be impacted. Regrading may also be conducted in areas where depressions could potentially trap fish. Placement of additional fill (shoreline stabilization) would be conducted in areas where erosion of the shoreline threatens marsh plantings. Work conducted at the site since the original construction was completed has included placement of fill material along the outer North Shoreline Area to control erosion of the peninsula and reduce subsequent potential impacts to the off -channel habitat area. This work was conducted in summer 2016 and required approximately 4,500 cy of 3-inch minus fill (Sheets 7 and 8). It is anticipated that the shoreline would not require major stabilization over the next 10 years as was conducted previously. The precise volume of material that may be regraded or placed is unknown, but it would likely be less than 2,000 cy over the 10-year period. Placement of additional shoreline fill to control erosion would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats, since all work would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." 3.0 INSTALLATION OF PLANTS AND ENCLOSURES Marsh plantings installed in 2012 and subsequent years were heavily grazed by geese that reside at the site. The original goose exclusion fencing installed along the perimeter of the marsh planting zone was not totally effective in excluding geese from the site. Subsequent to the installation of the exclusion fencing in 2012, Boeing worked with the Natural Resource Trustees to address the herbivory problem. A method currently being used with success to reduce herbivory is to enclose smaller areas (on the order of 10 feet by 10 feet or 10 feet by 20 feet) with wire or plastic mesh supported by fence posts. Depending on the enclosure size, 40 to 80 native plants would be installed within each rectangular enclosure. Boeing is planning to aggressively pursue development of the marsh habitat across the site and may install (and later remove) several hundred of the smaller enclosures over the next several years. Installation of the enclosures and plants would be conducted in the spring and/or fall during the growing season. All work (enclosure and plant installation) would be conducted at low tide "in the dry" using hand tools. The enclosures and plants would be installed above +5.5 MLLW. Installation of the enclosures and plants would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 4.0 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ADJUSTMENTS/INSTALLATION As part of the habitat development, bundles of large woody debris (LWD) were placed along the shoreline. Logs were stacked, chained together, and anchored to the substrate. It is anticipated that the chains on the LWD bundles may occasionally need to be tightened. This generally would require the chain to be shortened and reshackled using hand tools to tighten the chains; however, small tracked equipment may be required to reposition logs within a bundle if they become loose or shift. In addition, if the anchors holding the bundles to the substrate become loose, small tracked equipment may be required to reset the anchors. Based on feedback from the Natural Resource Trustees, Boeing has been adding additional LWD to the site to increase habitat complexity. These activities have included importing four pieces of LDW as well as capturing and anchoring five other naturally recruited Togs. It is anticipated in the future, when suitable LWD is naturally recruited to the site, the material would be anchored in the upper intertidal zone using soil anchors and chain or cable. Repositioning or anchoring LWD would likely require the use of a small tracked excavator. It is not known when or if LWD would need to be maintained or how many Togs would recruit to the site through natural processes; however, based on what has occurred at the site, it is reasonable to assume that maintaining or anchoring LDW would occur a couple times a year. Any work that would be conducted to maintain or install LWD would be conducted during low tidle and would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. ORIA-16-011 Page 7 of 18 5.0 SEDIMENT MONITORING The Boeing Company has been conducting long-term sediment monitoring at 36 stations within the remediated and constructed habitats at the Boeing Plant 2 site. This monitoring includes sampling within the North and South Shoreline Areas and in the remediated intertidal and subtidal areas adjacent to Boeing Plant 2. The locations of the long-term sediment monitoring locations are shown on Sheet 9. Additional rounds of long-term monitoring are scheduled for 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2025. It is anticipated that approximately 160 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. In addition to the Tong -term monitoring, quarterly sediment sampling to monitor silt accumulation may be conducted at 15 to 18 locations along the shoreline. The additional monitoring locations are shown on Sheet 9. It is not known how long the quarterly monitoring will be conducted but it is assumed that Tess than 150 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. Additional sediment monitoring may be conducted and additional sampling locations selected to meet data and adaptive management needs. Sediment monitoring will be conducted throughout the year. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help] • Commercial • Residential • Institutional ■ Transportation • Recreational 1. Maintenance r, Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] • Aquaculture 0Bank Stabilization • Boat House • Boat Launch • Boat Lift • Bridge • Bulkhead • Buoy • Channel Modification • Culvert • Dam / Weir • Dike / Levee / Jetty ■ Ditch • Dock / Pier • Dredging • Fence • Ferry Terminal • Fishway • Float J Floating Home ■ Geotechnical Survey • Land Clearing I] Marina / Moorage • Mining • Outfall Structure ■ Piling/Dolphin • Raft • Retaining Wall (upland) • Road • Scientific Measurement Device • Stairs • Stormwater facility • Swimming Pool • Utility Line 0 Other: Marsh plantings, and placement of large woody debris to provide habitat complexity. Sediment sampling to monitor physical and chemical quality of the post-remediation sediment surface. 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. [help] • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. ORIA-16-011 Page 8 of 18 It is anticipated that shoreline seep repair, shoreline erosion control, and LWD adjustments and installation will be conducted adjacent to the Lower Duwamish Waterway and within the 100-year floodplain using small tracked excavators and tracked dump trucks. All work would be conducted "in the dry" at low tide to avoid or minimize any potential impacts to biota utilizing the Lower Duwamish Waterway or to water quality. Because shoreline erosion and groundwater seeps can impact the stability of the shoreline relatively quickly, it is anticipated that work conducted under the maintenance permit may occur at any time of the year as long as no placement of material occurs in the water. In addition, tracked equipment would not be allowed to enter the waterway at any time. If in -water work is required, then the work would be conducted during the approved in - water work windows for the Lower Duwamish Waterway. Installation of plants and enclosures would be conducted using hand tools "in the dry" at low tide. No heavy equipment would be used. Sediment sampling will be conducted using either hand collection methods (i.e., trowels in the upper intertidal zone) or grab sampling methods (e.g., using a 0.2 square meter grab sampler in the intertidal and subtidal zone). Sediment samples will be collected in intertidal and subtidal areas of the Lower Duwamish Waterway that have been remediated or in constructed habitat areas adjacent to the Lower Duwamish Waterway, within the 100-year floodplain. Waste sediment from the collections will be held onboard the sampling vessels and will not be returned to the waterway. The waste sediments to be transferred to storage containers for disposal at an approved upland disposal facility by Boeing. 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) (help] • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start Date: 9/2017 End Date: 6/2027 • See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [helpl $150,000 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? fhelpj • If yes, list each agency providing funds. • Yes No • Don't know Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ® Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help] 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [help] • Not applicable The project purpose is maintain and/or enhance existing estuarine habitats; therefore, any impacts to wetlands will be beneficial. All maintenance activities within the marsh habitats will be conducted "in the dry" at low tide to minimize adverse effects on aquatic and wetland habitats. In addition, surface sediments will be monitored within the remediated areas and recently constructed habitat portions of the project area. Sediments within the upper intertidal vegetated areas will be sampled by hand to reduce the total volume of sediment collected and to minimize impacts to the existing marsh vegetation. 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help] E Yes • No • Don't know ORIA-16-011 Page 9 of 18 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help] 0 Yes • No ■ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? • If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the [help] JARPA package. ■ Yes 0 No 7e. Have the wetlands System? ]help' been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. • If Yes, submit the • Yes 0 No • Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. [help] • Yes 0 No • Don't know NA. The project purpose is to maintain and/or enhance existing estuarine habitats and to conduct long-term monitoring of the remediated sediment surface; therefore, any impacts to wetlands would be beneficial. 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. [help] NA 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the extent and duration a mitigation plan. [hem of the plan with a Activity (fill, drain, excavate, flood, etc.) Wetland Name' Wetland type and rating category' Impact area (sq. ft. or Acres) Duration of impact' Proposed mitigation type4 Wetland mitigation area (sq. ft. or acres) Fill (seeps) NA NA Unknown Unknown R, P, E NA' Fill (shoreline erosion control) NA NA Unknown Unknown R, P, E NA Excavation (seeps; log crib installation) NA NA Unknown Unknown R, P, E NA Excavation (shoreline erosion control; log crib installation) NA NA Unknown Unknown R, P, E NA ' If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as "Wetland 1 "). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable. 'Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B) ORIA-16-011 Page 10 of 18 Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: N/A 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help] Fill for either seep repair or shoreline stabilization would be obtained from an upland source that has been previously approved by EPA and/or the Trustees. Either trucks or floating equipment would be used to deliver the backfill material to the site. Trucks would deliver the backfill material to an upland stockpile location that would have access for tracked equipment to move the material to the shoreline. Small tracked dump trucks would move the material from the stock pile to the shoreline repair area, where a tracked excavator or dozer would bring the material to the design grade barges or the adjacent upland, depending on site conditions and accessibility of the area being backfilled. Depending on the volume of fill that may be required, material may be imported by floating equipment (floating crane and barges). Grounding of barges would not be permitted, but instead floating equipment would be held on location using spuds, and a crane would be used to lift equipment onto the peninsula shore face. The imported materials would be placed on the shoreline by floating crane, and brought to the final grade by tracked equipment. Material would be placed on the shoreline using tracked dump trucks hauling from the uplands or using a clamshell bucket to off-load material from a floating barge. The fill would be placed "in the dry" and would not be directly placed in the water. Once the material is placed on the shoreline, it would be regraded using small tracked equipment. The number of seeps that would need to be filled in the future is not known; however, assuming that five seeps will be repaired every year, the volume of 2- or 3-inch minus rounded gravel that may be placed would be on the order of 200 cy per year or about 2,000 cy for 10 years. This volume is a high -end estimate; the actual volume of fill required is expected to be Tess. It is not known if additional shoreline stabilization would be required as was previously conducted; therefore, the precise volume of material that may be regraded or placed is unknown. However, the volume would likely be Tess than 2,000 cy over the 10-year period. It is anticipated that material required for shoreline stabilization will be 3-inch minus rounded gravel. 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help] Any excavation that is required as part of shoreline maintenance will likely be conducted by a small tracked excavator. The tracked equipment would enter the shoreline area from the ends of the habitat projects to minimize impacts to riparian and marsh plantings. The equipment would not enter the area until the tide is at least as low as +5 feet MLLW to avoid transiting the marsh planting areas. The volume of material to be excavated is not known, but all material that is excavated would be reused on site. It is anticipated that no material will be transported off site. Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [help] Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. [helpl ❑ Not applicable ORIA-16-011 Page 11 of 18 Work that includes the use of shoreline -based excavation equipment will require the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed to minimize soil and sediment disturbance and to limit turbidity created when the shorelines areas are inundated. The following BMPs will be implemented when construction equipment is being used in the intertidal zone: • Equipment working in the intertidal zone will operate at least 2 feet back from the actual water line at all times. • Construction equipment will be kept out of the water at all times. • Clear paths of egress from the intertidal area will be maintained at all times. • The construction contractor will be responsible for ensuring that recovery options are available to retrieve equipment that may break down in the intertidal zone before it becomes inundated. • If excavation work for log placement requires more than one tidal cycle, then the excavation will be covered with plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric to reduce sediment resuspension during the time that the excavation is inundated. As applicable situations arise, the following BMPs will be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants when using construction equipment: • All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills. • Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment. • In order to perform emergency vehicle repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if rain is falling, over the disabled vehicle. • Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. • Fueling activities will occur in contractor staging areas to reduce the potential of a petroleum release to the Duwamish Waterway. Waste sediment generated during grab sampling will be held onboard the sampling vessels and will not be returned to the waterway. Waste sediment will be placed in containers until it can be offloaded to the shore. Waste sediment will be placed in drums for shipment to an approved upland disposal sites. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [help] El Yes No ORIA-16-011 Page 12 of 18 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation waterbodies? [help] plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland package and answer 8d. why a mitigation plan should not be required. • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA • If No, or Not applicable, explain below ■ Yes N No ■ Don't know As previously described, all habitat maintenance work will be conducted "in the dry" at low tide to avoid or minimize any potential impacts to biota utilizing the Lower Duwamish Waterway or to water quality. The project purpose is to maintain and/or enhance existing estuarine habitats; therefore, any impacts to adjacent waterbodies would be beneficial. Waste sediment generated during sediment sampling is collected, placed in drums, and disposed in an approved upland disposal site following Boeing's waste protocols. No long-term impacts to the Lower Duwamish Waterway are anticipated. 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g you do need to restate your answer here. [help] N/A 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help] Activity (clear, dredge, fill, pile drive, etc.) Waterbody name' Impact location2 Duration of impact' Amount of material (cubic yards) to be placed in or removed from waterbody Area (sq. ft. or linear ft.) of waterbody directly affected Fill (seeps) Duwamish Waterway In/adjacent to Waterbody Unknown Unknown (on the order of 2,000 cy over 10 years) Unknown Fill (shoreline erosion control) Duwamish Waterway In/adjacent to Waterbody Unknown Unknown (on the order of 2,000 cy over 10- years) Unknown Excavation (seeps; log crib installation) Duwamish Waterway In/adjacent ' to Waterbody Unknown All excavated material will be reused on site. No material will be removed from the Waterway Unknown Excavation (shoreline erosion control; log crib installation) Duwamish Waterway In/adjacent to Waterbody Unknown All excavated material will be reused on siite. No material will be removed from the Waterway Unknown Removal (grab samples) Duwamish Waterway In Waterbody 10 years Approximately 6 cy over the monitoring period Approximately 600 sq. ft. 1If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1") The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. 3lndicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter "permanent" if applicable. 8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. of the fill material, amount [help] (in cubic yards) ORIA-16-011 Page 13 of 18 See 7i above. 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help] See response to item 7j. Part 9-Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help] Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dan Krenz (206) 316-3153 May 2017 Washington Department of Ecology Laura Inouye (360) 407-6165 May 2017 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Laura Arber 425) 379-2306 April 2017 City of Tukwila Carol Lumb (206) 431-3661 May 2017 City of Seattle Ben Perkowski (206) 684-0347 April 2017 9b. Are any of the wetlands Department of Ecology's • If Yes, list the parameter(s) • If you don't know, use http://www.ecy.wa.bov/procrams/wq/303d/. or waterbodies identified in 303(d) List? [help] Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Water Quality Assessment tools at: below. Washington Department of Ecology's 0 Yes 0 No The project site is located within the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site, which is listed on Ecology's 3O3(d) List for multiple organic and inorganic contaminants in sediments and water, including metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code • Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify (HUC) is the project in? [helpl the HUC. 17110013 ORIA-16-011 Page 14 of 18 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? [help' • Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/wria/index.html to find the WRIA #. WRIA 9 9e. Will the in -water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? [help] • Go to http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wq/swgs/criteria.html for the standards. Yes • No ■ Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? [help] • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information, go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/2111 designations.html. 10 Urban • Natural • Aquatic • Conservancy • Other: 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [help] • Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/foresi-practices-water-tvping for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. @ Shoreline . Fish • Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? [help] • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. z Yes ■ No Name of manual: 9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [help] • If Yes, please describe below. ■ Yes @ No Contaminated sediment and soils were removed from the site during the cleanup that was conducted by Boeing from 2013 to 2015. All work that is proposed would be conducted in clean backfill that was placed to support development of riparian, marsh, and intertidal flora and fauna. 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help] The property has been used for manufacturing commercial aircraft for approximately 70 years. 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help] • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. • Yes 0 No Any ground disturbance that would occur will take place in fill that was placed during the cleanup and habitat restoration work conducted between 2013 and 2015. 91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. [help] ORIA-16-011 Page 15 of 18 • Puget Sound Chinook salmon • Puget Sound steelhead trout • Puget Sound rockfish (bocaccio, yelloweye, and canary) • Puget Sound/coastal bull trout. 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. (help] The PHS polygon code for the project area is "estuarine." Priority anadromous fish include: • Fall Chinook salmon • Fall chum salmon • Coho salmon • Sockeye salmon • Pink salmon • Summer and winter steelhead trout • Bull trout/Dolly Varden. Priority resident fish: resident coastal cutthroat trout. Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.oria.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help(c�oria.wa.gov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA. 10a. • Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help] For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html. A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. • A SEPA determination is pending with City of Tukwila (lead agency). The expected decision date is 0 June 2017. I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) [help' • This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). • • Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? • Other: SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. • ORIA-16-011 Page 16 of 18 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help] LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: • Substantial Development • Conditional Use ■ Variance 0 Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): The project is exempt under WAC 173-27-040 (2)(b) Normal Maintenance and Repair Other City/County permits: • Floodplain Development Permit • Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: 0 Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) • Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption — Attach Exemption Form You must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. Check the appropriate boxes • $150 check enclosed. Check # Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. • My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption): • HPA processing is conducted by applicant funded WDFW staff. Agreement # • Mineral prospecting and mining • Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use) • Project is modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. HPA # Washington Department of Natural Resources: ■ Aquatic Use Authorization Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology: 0 Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): 0 Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) @ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: • Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) ORIA-16-011 Page 17 of 18 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11 a. Applicant Signature (required) [heir)] I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. BA (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. BA (initial) Digitally signed by Brian D y5..;-.�-1Ll, Anderson,121740 Brian D. Anderson Date:2017.05.11 10:33:20-07'00' Applicant Printed Name 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [heir)] Applicant Signature Date I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. Clifford J. Whitmus fr J 6 Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Agent Signature Date 11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) [he►p] Not required if project is on existing rights -of -way or easements (provide copy of easement with JARPA). I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833- 6341. ORIA publication number: ORIA-16-011 rev. 09/2016 ORIA-16-011 Page 18 of 18 f ij $1 sT \,[10 SW KENYONNS.T ROVE STLTE ki sr r711-11—mGT Terminal 115 NumberThree\ i \\ Q nh 292404HYDR `e. lier L \ , j 509 G S AUS71N ST\ 4'p \� 1 / vAiyI� 1 .vv'S LOH DENSr \\.NORTH SITE.' "HLC.AGO \�tl'l iitlt1l_ 1 Al QiLS N ,ON ST�i" c\ �o� �\ SMONROES I��. I b .Z','(1 S o322404HYDR tI \ --- I J T;y\ p BoeirlgLField-King County S M1YRTEf STv n er'�aai0 a Airport S OTHEL 1 tEatt 2136200641 .� IQ Cloverdale ri Street Interchange:11 1!. 7 II /nI SHENDE 0 LST Ls OIRECTORjST - 'A 0022000005 3324049002 ROSE ST�W \-uth P. M 0001600020 �S SU,IL.LLVANIsr �S CLIOVERDALE (Sou Pa \\ -=—�r I 0 W0 16 0023 S DO NO VAN ST x,` "N� t Driv ng directions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Se District: Proceed southeast on East Marginal Way SouthIWA 99 toward S. Alaska Street. Continue to follow East Marginal W South for a total of 2.5 miles. The site is located on the west of East Marginal Way South. Z'�1,s\H.E.N/7332404HYDA tn,,urv_,.. I'J� �� �tL1 SIIDIRECTO:R=S:T �\ 99 4' •Slip'Number W I ' Fo eenth � Six Avenuie South Interch. attle 961 y 9.c side `Vvw -\\ Map Courtesy of USGS Driving directions to the site from Interstate 5 are provided below: From North Take 1-5 S toward SEATTLE. Take the CORSON AVE exit, EXIT 162, toward MICHIGAN ST. 0.7 mi Stay STRAIGHT to go onto CORSON AVE S. 0.6 mi Turn LEFT onto E MARGINAL WAY S. 0.5 mi End at 7755 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 From South Take 1-5 N toward SEATTLE. Take EXIT 161 for Swift Ave toward ALBRO PLACE 0.3 mi Turn LEFT onto SWIFT AVE S 0.3 mi Take the 1st LEFT onto S ALBRO PLACE 0.4 mi Continue onto ELLISE AVE S 0.4 mi Turn LEFT onto EAST MARGINAL WAY S 0.6 mi End at 7755 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 TerminalkNumber The project extents from north to south: 47.5341 N Lat, 122.3211 W Long to 47.5272 N Lat, 122.3093 W Long Sections 29, 32, and 33 Township 24N Range 4E APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 SITE VICINITY 4000 PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 1 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA 1 1 Approximate Seepage Erosion Area Approximate Seepage Origin The project extents from north to south: 47.5341 N Lat, 122.3211 W Long to 47.5272 N Lat, 122.3093 W Long Sections 29, 32, and 33 Township 24N Range 4E Distance (Feet) Elevation Datum: 0=MLLW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET —MI Ell 0 25 TYPICAL SEEP PLAN VIEW 50 100 PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: IN: NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 2 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 NWS-2011-0384 STATE: WA 1 i� F 11 8 0 Lt 1- 0 LL Z 0 D o In 0 N � IW_ w .. _ < Lij W ICI 0 t. 1LI I Q 2 0 li Z O O D_ CC) 0 LC) O (M"11W ) uollena13 0 0 O rn O 0 O ti O O M 0 GV 0 O TYPICAL SEEP CROSS SECTION L ul 0 o Y O d0 bO L C C ` _J O o3m N 0 M M ✓ N N C N N (re -I e-I X o -. J c J Z Z p.-i N am N a)Ln In -CvCr PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 3 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 I EXAMPLE LOG CRIB SLOPE AND RIPARIAN AREA (SECTION VIEW) PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 4 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 1 11 6i Not to Scale Anchored large woody debris, installed at -grade, plus 8 to 10 feet MLLW Select sand, aggregate and cobble substrate improvement (one to two feet depth) , Approximately 4, plus 8 feet MLLW Natural fiber fabric substrate cover, with native marsh vegetation planting Single, below -grade large woody debris, with anchor and attachment ,11 Variable Slope 12-30 1 1- Native Marsh Vegetation Concept Drawing Courtesy of Port of Seattle EXAMPLE BURIED LOG SILL (SECTION VIEW) PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 5 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 sa Not to Scale Variable Slope 25-30 1 1 4 Approximately plus 14 feet MLLW Large-VVoody Debris (cross -log) Native Riparian Vegetation Natural fiber fabric substrate cover, with native marsh vegetation planting Continuous natural fiber fabric surface soil stabilization, with native riparian vegetation planting • Approximately plus 11 feet MLLW Footer log Sub -grade rock bolster Below -grade Large woody -debris, with anchor and attachment Concept Drawing Courtesy of Port of Seattle EXAMPLE ROUGHENED LOG TOE (SECTION VIEW) PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 6 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA 1 pz DUWAMISH WATERWAY EROSION AREA PLAN VIEW Elevation Datum: 0=MLLW _E APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 0 0 0 Lc) 0 no O -' 00 00 -C C C 4-' 0 0 ,- -J --I 0 C E q-I rn r) 0 r-1 01 C) , N 0 73 C 4-I N N RS C eq N 13,1r-I N- x ...; ....; c')Z O m m A ..... _1 —I oi N • Z Z C. 1.1.1 , .:1' r-, 0 (1) (1) ci. rn iNI — C a) IA un t C .CNN CD 0 C6 I— .:1' nt (/) I— CC z 0 17- w I-U >- 0 cNI — o) =I < 0 0 1— U) 5 .4c Lu 2! CL U) 0 (-) =3 U) c) cc F- < Z WO L. >- < 0 PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 7 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA 1 O LO O N e— LO O `n • • Q II f Q J li J Q 1.- _>I-- W W QZ (yo Z • • • Q ( O U) O lt) O N tt) (MIIW 11) UOIBA9l3 O to 0 O N 0 0 0 O rn O co O O CO V7 O O M O N O O TYPICAL EROSION AREA CROSS SECTION r 0 0 • o o � ▪ bf b L C C J C 3 3 Em o 01 m m ▪ N N C N N w '-1 -i w ▪ J J yZZ 0'1 N 0- M N in in L N N PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 8 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 1 1 Match Line t Elevation Datum: O=MLLW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 0 0 N O O 11 OOCT' ) ) N r m m C N N CO C N N p 01 .--1 c-I N " M Z X y tZco y_j_j O)N •O 1 N C -C am N O C a) WLI O 3 c I- a v CD CO ICO — } w CL 0) N U CL Et ZO Z�. OZ UO I-U OZ a0 o Q W i W SEDIMENT MONITORING STATIONS LONG-TERM MONITORING ADDITIONAL MONITORING PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 9 of 9 DATE: 04-27-2017 amec foster wheeler DRAFT BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: The Boeing Company Seattle, Washington Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 601 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 May 2017 Project No. 0148440200 amec foster wheeler TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED AT THE BOEING HABITAT PROJECT 3 2.1 SHORELINE SEEP REPAIR 4 2.2 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 5 2.3 PLACEMENT OF PLANTS AND ENCLOSURES 6 2.4 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ADJUSTMENTS/INSTALLATION 6 2.5 SEDIMENT MONITORING 7 3.0 CONSTRUCTION METHODS 9 3.1 SHORELINE SEEP REPAIR 9 3.2 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 9 3.3 INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND PLANT ENCLOSURES 10 3.4 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS INSTALLATIONREPLACE 10 3.5 SEDIMENT MONITORING 10 3.6 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 10 3.7 CONSTRUCTION TIMING 11 4.0 ACTION AREA 13 4.1 IN -WATER ACTION AREA 13 4.2 ABOVE -WATER ACTION AREA 13 5.0 SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 15 5.1 LIFE -HISTORY STAGES OF LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING IN ACTION AREA 16 5.1.1 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 16 5.1.2 Puget Sound Steelhead Trout 16 5.1.3 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout and Dolly Varden 17 5.1.4 Puget Sound Rockfish 17 5.2 CRITICAL HABITAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA 18 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 21 6.1 GENERAL 21 6.2 WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER 21 6.2.1 Existing Conditions 21 6.2.2 Effects of the Action 22 6.3 SHORELINE AND BATHYMETRY, SEDIMENT AND SUBSTRATE, AND HABITAT DIVERSITY 23 6.3.1 Existing Conditions 23 6.3.1.1 Shoreline and Bathymetry 23 6.3.1.2 Sediment and Substrate 24 6.3.1.3 Habitat Diversity 24 6.3.2 Effects of the Action 24 6.3.2.1 Shoreline and Bathymetry 25 6.3.2.2 Sediment and Substrate 25 6.3.2.3 Habitat Diversity 25 6.4 ACCESS AND REFUGIA 25 Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.4.1 Existing Conditions 25 6.4.2 Effects of the Action 25 6.5 FLOW, CURRENT PATTERNS, SALTWATER —FRESHWATER MIXING 26 6.5.1 Existing Conditions 26 6.5.2 Effects of the Action 26 6.6 MACROALGAE 26 6.6.1 Existing Conditions 26 6.6.2 Effects of the Action 26 6.7 BENTHIC FAUNA 26 6.7.1 Existing Conditions 26 6.7.2 Effects of the Action 27 6.8 FORAGE FISH 27 6.8.1 Existing Conditions 28 6.8.2 Effects of the Action 28 7.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON LISTED SPECIIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS 29 7.1 PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON 29 7.1.1 Direct Effects 29 7.1.1.1 Long -Term 29 7.1.1.2 Short -Term 29 7.1.2 Indirect Effects 30 7.1.2.1 Long -Term 30 7.1.2.2 Short -Term 30 7.1.3 Effects Determination 30 7.1.4 Effects on Critical Habitat 31 7.2 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT 31 7.2.1 Effects Determination 31 7.2.2 Effects on Critical Habitat 32 7.3 COASTAL/PUGET SOUND BULL TROUT AND DOLLY VARDEN 32 7.3.1 Effects Determination 32 7.3.2 Effects on Critical Habitat 32 7.4 PUGET SOUND ROCKFISH 33 7.4.1 Effects Determination 33 7.4.2 Effects on Critical Habitat 33 8.0 INTERRELATED/INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 35 9.0 SUMMARY 37 10.0 REFERENCES 39 Amec Foster Wheeler II Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES amee foster wheeter ESA -Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Action Area Adult Escapement for Green/Duwarnish River Chinook and Winter Steelhead Summary of Effects Determinations for Listed and Proposed Species and Their Critical Habitats in the Action Area FIGURES Project Vicinity Project Areas Sediment Monitoring Locations Timing of ESA -Listed Salmonids Occurring in Action Area APPENDICES Appendix A Biological Opinions from NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS Appendix B JARPA Drawing Sheet Set Appendix C Species Lists from NOAA-Fisheries, USFWS, and WDFW PHS Program Appendix D Species' Life Histories Appendix E Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 III maintenance be 050917.docx 114 amec foster wheeler TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler iV Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Amec Foster Wheeler Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. BE biological evaluation BMP best management practice BO Biological Opinion Boeing The Boeing Company cy cubic yards DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FMO foraging, migrating, and overwintering KCIA King County International Airport LDW Lower Duwamish Waterway LWD large woody debris m meter MLLW mean lower low water NOAA-Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service PCE primary constituent elements PHS Priority Habitat and Species RI remedial investigation RM river mile TOC total organic carbon USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 V maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued) (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler Vi Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler DRAFT BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that actions of federal agencies should be "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any (listed) species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species." Issuance of permits by federal agencies falls under this requirement. This Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared as part of a permit application for maintenance of habitat constructed on the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW). The Boeing Company (Boeing) constructed the habitat project between 2013 and 2015 as part of the Boeing Plant 2 Duwamish Sediment Other Area and Southwest Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Project (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] Reference Number NWS-2011-0384). The project site is located on the east bank of the LDW between river mile (RM) 2.8 and 3.6 within Township 24 North, Range 4 East, Sections 29, 32, and 33 in Tukwila and Seattle, King County, Washington (Figure 1). The projects were constructed in accordance with a Consent Decree executed in December 2010 between the Natural Resource Trustees (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service [NOAA-Fisheries], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology], the Suquarnish Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe) and Boeing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the lead federal agency for the corrective measure and habitat project, sought formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS for construction of the project. Construction involved creating/restoring approximately 5 acres of nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian habitat, including approximately 3,000 linear feet of shoreline. An additional 16 acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat along the Boeing Plant 2 shoreline was remediated (dredged and backfilled) pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (Order) [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket No. 1092-01-22-3008(h)] issued to Boeing in 1994 by the EPA under authority of RCRA Section 3008(h), as amended [42 USC 6928(h)]. As a result of the consultation, NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS issued Biological Opinions (BOs) for the project (NWR-2012-115 and 01 EWFWOO-2012-F-0109, respectively). The BOs are included in this BE as Appendix A. Many of the conclusions of the BOs are relevant to the maintenance project described in this BE and are referenced where appropriate. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 1 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler To assist in the evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed work on listed species, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler), prepared this BE on behalf of Boeing for the USACE to use in the consultation process. This BE describes the potential effects of the proposed action on listed species and their critical habitats. Amec Foster Wheeler 2 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 2.0 SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED AT THE BOEING HABITAT PROJECT The proposed action involves maintenance activities at newly constructed habitat along the LDW. The project area is shown on Figure 2 and includes work in the following habitat areas: • North Shoreline Area: — The North Shoreline Area lies on the northwestern corner of the property adjacent to Slip 4 and Boeing's Building 2-122 (Figure 2). - Material within the footprint of the North Shoreline Area was excavated (approximately 35,000 cubic yards [cy] of material) to create a blind channel embayment at the north end of Plant 2 that restored shoreline and created off -channel habitat. — Clean material was imported to provide stable slopes and suitable substrates for shoreline restoration. • South Shoreline Area: - The South Shoreline Area lies along the LDW south of the South Park Bridge at the site of Boeing's former Building 2-40 Complex. - The over -water portion of the Building 2-40 complex was removed, and contaminated material within the footprint of the South Shoreline Area was excavated (approximately 39,000 cy of material) to create an area suitable for habitat restoration. - Clean material was imported to provide stable slopes and suitable substrates for shoreline restoration. The habitat projects were designed to create habitat within three elevation zones: • Riparian zone (above elevation +12 feet relative to mean lower low water [MLLW]), • Marsh zone (+12 to +5.5 feet MLLW), arid • Intertidal zone (+5.5 to +2 feet MLLW). Construction of the projects included the following key elements: • Grading, backfilling with clean materials, and placement of soil amendments to reshape the shoreline and create a blind embayment channel (North Shoreline Area); • Planting native marsh and riparian plants to establish a vegetation community; • Placing and securing large woody debris (LWD) bundles and individual logs; and • Construction of goose -exclusion fencing to reduce herbivory of plantings. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 3 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler Upon completion of construction in 2013, the habitat projects had created 2.64 acres of habitat in the marsh zone (+5.5 to +12 feet MLLW), 1.52 acres of habitat in the riparian zone (above +12 feet MLLW), and an estimated 1.08 acres in the intertidal zone (+2 to +5 feet MLLW) (AMEC, 2014). An additional 16 acres of contaminated intertidal and subtidal sediments were remediated along the shoreline of Plant 2 and adjacent to the habitat projects. As part of the Consent Decree for the project, a joint Trustee/Boeing technical team developed a Scope of Work (Appendix A of the Consent Decree) that described the maintenance and monitoring plan to be developed and implemented to determine if the goals and objectives of the habitat projects are being met. Meeting the goals and objectives of the habitat projects requires ongoing maintenance and the implementation of adaptive management activities to address ongoing or recurring issues that may arise within the habitat areas. The Boeing Company is seeking Tong -term maintenance permits from the USACE and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to conduct maintenance and adaptive management activities for the constructed habitat along the Plant 2 shoreline. Drawing sheets to be included with the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application are included as Appendix B. Habitat maintenance and adaptive management activities that have been conducted to date include seep repair (Appendix B, Sheets 2 and 3), stabilization of slopes (Appendix B, Sheets 7 and 8), installation of small fenced plant enclosures, planting of additional marsh plants in fenced and unfenced areas, and capture and installation of additional LWD within the upper intertidal marsh areas. It is anticipated that these, and potentially other, activities may be conducted for up to 10 years. The 10-year period is pursuant to conditions of the Consent Decree. Any work to be conducted under the 10-year maintenance permit will be coordinated with the Natural Resource Trustees. Described below are the activities that can reasonably be expected during the 10-year maintenance period. 2.1 SHORELINE SEEP REPAIR Discharge of groundwater or bank recharge through the fill placed along the South Shoreline area has created localized areas of erosion. Since the original construction, seep erosion has been repaired at 11 locations. Several areas were repaired in fall/winter 2015, and these areas currently appear stable. However, additional localized areas of erosion may occur. The erosion areas have been repaired by placing 2-inch-minus gravel. Repairs have been limited to areas where erosion threatens the habitat suitable for marsh colonization (i.e., above elevation +5 feet MLLW). The sizes of the seeps have varied greatly, ranging from about 6 feet by 10 feet and 0.5 foot deep to 18 feet by 30 feet and 2 to 3 feet deep. Seeps repaired in fall/winter 2015 required a total of Amec Foster Wheeler 4 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler approximately 200 cy of fill. The volumes ranged from about 10 cy to 100 cy per seep, with a median volume of about 30 cy per seep. Equipment used to repair the seeps has included a small tracked excavator and tracked dump truck. All previous seep repairs have been conducted at low tide "in the dry." It is anticipated that all future repair work would be conducted in the same manner to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered migrating salmonids and their critical habitat. The number of seeps that will need to be filled in the future is not known; however, assuming that five seeps would be repaired every year, the volume of gravel that may be placed would be on the order of 200 cy per year or 2,000 cy for 10 years. This volume is a high -end estimate; the actual volume of fill required is expected to be Tess. A section showing an anticipated typical shoreline seep repair is shown in Appendix B (Sheet 3). In addition to filling seep areas with 2-inch-minus gravel, other "soft" erosion control methods may be used and may include installation of coir fabric, coir Togs, or natural logs and LWD interspersed with vegetation. Coir fabric and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. Soft engineering concepts that include the use of logs or LWD to reduce erosion may require minor excavation to set the Togs. Examples of soft engineering concepts using logs that may be considered are depicted in Appendix B (Sheets 4 to 6). The volume of the excavation is expected to be less than 50 cy per installation (depending on type of installation). Equipment used to conduct the excavation would include a small tracked excavator and tracked dump truck. All material excavated during the log installation would be reused on site. Excavations would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." 2.2 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL Erosion of the slope along the constructed shoreline has been noted in places and has required stabilization. Stabilization of the shoreline in future years may include installation of coir fabric and coir Togs and minor regrading and filling. Additional soft stabilization options, such as natural logs or LWD as shown in Appendix B (Sheets 4 to 6), may also be considered. Stabilization measures may require minor regrading and filling. If logs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation (likely less than 50 cy per installation) may be required to set the logs. Excavated material will be reused on site. Coir mats and coir logs would be installed by hand at low tide. Shoreline regrading, filling, and excavation may include use of small tracked equipment on the shoreline at low tides, as was conducted for the seep repairs described above. The regrading would be conducted to level out areas where deposited or placed material is significantly above the design grades in locations where the potential for development of marsh plants may be impacted. Regrading may be also be conducted in areas where depressions could potentially trap fish. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 5 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler Placement of additional fill (shoreline stabilization) would be conducted in areas where erosion of the shoreline threatens marsh plantings. Erosion control work conducted at the site since the original construction was completed has included placement of fill material along the outer North Shoreline Area to control erosion of the peninsula and reduce subsequent potential impacts to the off -channel habitat area. This work was conducted in summer 2016 and required approximately 4,500 cy of 3- inch-minus rounded gravel fill. It is anticipated that the shoreline will not require major stabilization over the next 10 years as was conducted previously along the North Shoreline Area. The precise volume of material that may be regraded or placed is unknown, but it would likely be Tess than 2,000 cy over the 10-year period. Placement of additional shoreline fill to control erosion would be conducted at low tide "in the dry." 2.3 PLACEMENT OF PLANTS AND ENCLOSURES Marsh plantings installed in 2012 and subsequent years were heavily grazed by geese that reside at the site. The original goose exclusion fencing installed along the perimeter of the marsh planting zone was not totally effective in excluding geese from the site. Subsequent to installation of the original exclusion fencing in 2012, Boeing worked with the Natural Resource Trustees to address the herbivory problem. A method currently being used with success to reduce herbivory is to enclose smaller areas (on the order of 10 feet by 10 feet or 10 feet by 20 feet) with wire or plastic mesh supported by fence posts. Depending on the enclosure size, 40 to 80 native plants can be installed within each rectangular enclosure. Boeing is planning to aggressively pursue development of the marsh habitat across the site and may install (and later remove) several hundred of the smaller enclosures over the next several years. Installation of the enclosures and plants will be conducted in the spring and/or fall during the growing season. All work (enclosure and plant installation) will be conducted at low tide "in the dry" using hand tools. The enclosures and plants will be installed above +5.5 feet MLLW. Installation of the enclosures and plants would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 2.4 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ADJUSTMENTS/INSTALLATION As part of the habitat development, bundles of LWD were placed along the shoreline. Logs were stacked, chained together, and anchored to the substrate. It is anticipated that the chains on the LWD bundles may occasionally need to be tightened. This work generally would require the chain to be shortened and reshackled using hand tools to tighten the chains; however, small tracked equipment may be required to reposition logs within a bundle if they become loose or shift. In addition, if the anchors holding the bundles to the substrate become loose, small tracked equipment may be required to reset the anchors. Amec Foster Wheeler 6 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec ft3, foster wheeler Based on feedback from the Natural Resource Trustees, Boeing has been adding additional LWD to the site to increase habitat complexity. When suitable LWD is recruited to the site through natural processes, Boeing anticipates anchoring the newly recruited LDW in the upper intertidal zone using soil anchors and chain or cable. Repositioning or anchoring the LWD would likely require the use of a small tracked excavator. It is not known when or if LWD would need to be maintained or how many Togs may recruit to the site through natural processes; however, based on what has occurred at the site since construction was completed, it is reasonable to assume that maintaining or anchoring LDW would occur a couple times a year. Any work that would be conducted to maintain or install LWD would be conducted during low tide and would have minimal impacts to federally listed species and their critical habitats. 2.5 SEDIMENT MONITORING As part of the adaptive management activities, Tong -term post -construction sediment sampling is being conducted to monitor the surface sediments within the constructed habitats and within the areas that were remediated adjacent to the shoreline and habitat areas. Post -construction sediment monitoring was conducted in 2015 and 2016 at 36 sampling locations (Figure 3). Additional rounds of monitoring are scheduled for 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2025. It is anticipated that approximately 160 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. In addition to the Tong -term monitoring, quarterly sediment sampling to monitor silt accumulation may be conducted at 15 to 18 locations along the shoreline (Figure 3). It is not known how long the quarterly monitoring will be conducted but it is assumed that less than 150 grabs will be collected over the monitoring period. Additional sediment monitoring may be conducted and additional sampling locations selected as required to meet data and adaptive management needs. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 7 maintenance be 050917.docx amec : foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler 8 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 3.0 CONSTRUCTION METHODS This section describes general construction methods to be used for shoreline seep repair, shoreline erosion control, installation of plant enclosures, and installation (and adjustment) of LWD. The actual methods to be used will be determined by the contractor selected to perform the work within the framework of the design documents and specifications. 3.1 SHORELINE SEEP REPAIR Shoreline seep repair will be conducted "in the dry" to the degree reasonably possible using land - based equipment. Equipment used to repair seeps has included a small tracked excavator and tracked dump truck. Installation of coir fabric and coir logs would be conducted using hand tools to the degree reasonably possible. If logs are installed to reduce erosion, then minor excavation may be required to set the logs. Because shoreline erosion and groundwater seeps can impact the stability of the shoreline relatively quickly, it is anticipated that work conducted under the maintenance permit may occur at any time of the year as long as no placement of material occurs in the water. In addition, tracked equipment would not be allowed to enter the waterway at any time. If in -water work is required, then the work would be conducted during the approved in -water work windows for the Lower Duwamish Waterway. 3.2 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL Shoreline erosion control will be conducted "in the dry." Installation of coir fabric and coir Togs would be conducted using hand tools to the degree reasonably possible. Staging and moving of "soft" erosion control materials may be facilitated using land -based equipment, such as small tracked excavators and tracked dump truck. Placement of additional fill (shoreline stabilization) or regrading needed to re-establish design grades would use land -based equipment to the degree reasonably possible and would be conducted "in the dry." Either trucks or floating equipment would deliver the backfill material to the site depending on site conditions and accessibility of the area being backfilled. The backfill material would be placed at an upland stockpile location with access for tracked equipment to move the material to the shoreline. Small tracked dump trucks would move the material from the stockpile to the shoreline repair area, where a tracked excavator or dozer would bring the material to the design grade. Depending on the volume of fill that may be required, material may be imported by floating equipment (floating crane and barges). Grounding of barges would not be permitted; instead, floating equipment would be held on location using spuds, and a crane would be used to lift equipment onto the Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 9 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler peninsula shore face. The imported materials would be placed on the shoreline by floating crane and brought to the final grade by tracked equipment. 3.3 INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND PLANT ENCLOSURES Installation of plants and plant enclosures would be conducted using hand tools "in the dry." Removal of the plant enclosures would also be conducted using hand tools "in the dry" after the marsh plants have become sufficiently established. 3.4 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS INSTALLATION Adjustments to the anchor chains of installed log bundles will be conducted with hand tools. Capture and anchoring of recruited logs may require the use of land -based equipment to move or position the Togs and drive soils anchors for anchoring the new logs. All work would be conducted "in the dry." 3.5 SEDIMENT MONITORING Sediment sampling will be conducted using either hand collection methods (i.e., trowels in the upper intertidal zone) or grab sampling methods (e.g., using a 0.2 square meter grab sampler in the intertidal and subtidal zone). Sediment samples will be collected in intertidal and subtidal areas of the Lower Duwamish Waterway that have been remediated or in constructed habitat areas adjacent to the Lower Duwamish Waterway, within the 100-year floodplain. Sediment sampling will be conducted throughout the year. Waste sediment will be retained onboard the sampling vessel and will not be returned to the waterway. Retained sediment will be offloaded, placed in drums, labelled, and sent to an approved upland disposal facility using the Boeing waste disposal protocols. 3.6 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Maintenance and construction work will be conducted "in the dry" to the degree reasonably possible using hand tools or land -based equipment. The work is best done during daylight hours during very low tides, which occur only during May through August of each year. However, if emergency maintenance work is required during portions of the year when the lowest tides occur at night, then night work may be authorized. Work that includes the use of shoreline -based excavation equipment will require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed to minimize soil and sediment disturbance and to limit turbidity created when the shorelines areas are flooded. Amec Foster Wheeler 10 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler The following BMPs will be implemented when construction equipment is being used in the intertidal zone: • Equipment working in the intertidal zone will operate at least 2 feet back from the actual water line at all times. • Construction equipment will be kept out of the water at all times. • If excavation work for log placement requires more than one tidal cycle, then the excavation will be covered with plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric to reduce sediment resuspension during the time that the excavation is inundated. • Clear paths of egress from the intertidal area will be maintained at all times. • The construction contractor will be responsible for ensuring that recovery options are available to retrieve equipment that breaks down in the intertidal area before the equipment becomes inundated. • All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needed to prevent leaks or spills. • Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment. • In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if rain is falling, over the vehicle. • Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. • Fueling activities will occur in contractor staging areas to reduce the potential of a petroleum release to the Duwamish Waterway. 3.7 CONSTRUCTION TIMING It is expected that maintenance activities will continue in 2017 and for an additional 10 years. Boeing proposes that placement of clean fill material to repair seeps, placement of material to stabilize the shoreline, installation of posts and fence material for goose exclusion fencing, and placement (or capture) and adjustment of LWD within the intertidal area be allowed throughout the year as long as work is not conducted in the water. The work is best done during daylight hours during very low tides, which occur only during May through August of each year. However, very low tides occur only at night during the rest of the year. Therefore, if work needs to be conducted at other times of the year, then work may be scheduled at night to take advantage of these very low tides so that work can be conducted "in the dry." Amec Foster Wheeler 11 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler 12 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 4 amec foster wheeler 4.0 ACTION AREA The Action Area is the defined geographic area that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. For the purpose of establishing baseline conditions from which to evaluate potential effects of the project, the project activities as well as physical site conditions, such as substrate composition and bathymetry, were reviewed. In -water and above -water Action Areas can be defined based on project activities that may result in disturbance of sediment or soil, respectively, or changes to water quality. Both in -water and above - water Action Areas are described below for the proposed project. 4.1 IN -WATER ACTION AREA The in -water Action Area for the proposed project will be defined as the area where project activities could potentially have effects on water quality. - By conducting construction activities outlined in this biological evaluation "in the dry," water quality impacts from these activities are limited to minor turbidity effects associated with disturbance of surficial sediment in the intertidal work area and from placement of "double -washed" gravel during repair of seep areas or areas of slope instability. Sediment sampling will result in limited water quality impacts associated with minor turbidity effects. Sampling will be conducted in areas with clean backfill material. Waste sediments will be retained onboard the sampling vessel and will not be returned to the waterway. 4.2 ABOVE -WATER ACTION AREA An above -water Action Area was not determined, because no terrestrial or avian species listed under the ESA are likely to occur in the vicinity of the project site (see Section 5.0). The project site is located in a heavily industrialized area consisting of manufacturing, commercial shipping, and commercial flight operations (King County International Airport [KCIA] and the approach for Seattle - Tacoma International Airport). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 13 amec foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler 14 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 5.0 SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT This section discusses species listed under the ESA that may occur in the Action Area, including specific life -history stages that may occur in the Action Area. The presence of critical habitat within the Action Area is also addressed. NOAA-Fisheries' and USFWS2 were consulted for lists of ESA -listed species occurring in the Action Area (Appendix C). In addition, WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) program was contacted for a list of sensitive species and habitats within the site vicinity (Appendix C). Table 1 presents a list of ESA -listed species that could potentially occur in the Action Area. Although NOAA-Fisheries lists southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) as potentially occurring in the Action Area, their occurrence in the Action Area is very unlikely. Additionally, on March 16, 2010, NOAA-Fisheries listed the Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) as threatened under the ESA. Eulachon are rare in Puget Sound (Gustafson et al., 2010), so their occurrence in the Action Area is highly unlikely. The southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) was listed as threatened on April 7, 2006. The northern DPS of green sturgeon is considered a NOAA-Fisheries species of concern. A few green sturgeons are recovered in Puget Sound as incidental harvest (mostly trawl fisheries) (Adams et al., 2002). The proposed action will likely have no effect on the southern resident killer whale, leatherback sea turtle, humpback whale, green sturgeon southern or northern DPS, or the Pacific eulachon DPS. The USFWS has determined that several species of listed animals, other than, those listed in Table 1, occur in King County. These are: • Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis); • Gray wolf (Canis lupus); • Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos); • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus); and • Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). 1. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ Species-Lists.cfm. 2. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/KING.html. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 15 amec foster wheeler It is extremely unlikely that these species occur in the Action Area; therefore, the proposed action would have had no effect on these species. 5.1 LIFE -HISTORY STAGES OF LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING IN ACTION AREA Brief life histories of each of the listed species addressed in this BE are provided in Appendix D. This section presents information on the life -history stages of species that may occur in the Action Area. 5.1.1 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon The Green/Duwamish River system supports a native stock of Chinook salmon (fall/summer run). The stock status is rated as healthy (WDFW, 2010). Table 2 summarizes adult escapement numbers for Green/Duwamish River Chinook from 1995 through 2015. Broodstock from the original Soos Creek hatchery Chinook program came from native Green River adults captured on the river or diverted into Soos Creek in the early 1900s. Eggs from out -of -basin hatcheries have occasionally been imported to supplement egg takes at Soos Creek, but the hatchery stock has remained, to a very large extent, a local Soos Creek stock. Significant genetic interchange occurs between wild Chinook and hatchery - origin Chinook that return to the hatchery and are spawned each year, as well as between stray hatchery adults and wild fish that intermingle on spawning grounds (WDFW, 2002). Most Chinook spawning generally occurs in the mainstem Green River from RM 25 to RM 61 and in the lower 6 miles of Newaukum and Soos creeks (WDFW, 2017). Figure 4 summarizes the run timing of the different freshwater phases of Chinook salmon in the Green/Duwamish River. 5.1.2 Puget Sound Steelhead Trout Both summer and winter steelhead trout use the Green/Duwamish River. The summer steelhead stock is non-native. Skamania hatchery -origin (lower Columbia River Basin) smolts were first released into the Green River in 1965. Prior to hatchery introduction, no known evidence exists that summer steelhead were present in this system. This stock is presumed to have arisen from uncaught hatchery -origin adults that spawn, with limited success, in the system. The stock status is listed as depressed (WDFW, 2002). The winter steelhead stock is a native stock with wild production. The winter steelhead hatchery program on the Green River utilizes Chambers Creek hatchery -origin fish. Adult broodstock is trapped at the Palmer Rearing Ponds on the Green River and at out -of -basin hatcheries. Because hatchery - origin adults return to the river and spawn earlier than the native stock, it is believed that there has been very little genetic introgression between the hatchery -origin fish and wild stocks. The winter steelhead stock status is listed as healthy (WDFW, 2010). Amec Foster Wheeler 16 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler Figure 4 summarizes the run timing of the different freshwater phases of both summer and winter steelhead in the Green/Duwamish River. Table 2 summarizes adult escapement numbers for Green/Duwamish River winter steelhead from 1995 through 2015. 5.1.3 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Information on the presence, abundance, distribution, and life history of bull trout in the Green River Basin is extremely limited. No information is available on the tinning or distribution of spawning, if any, in the Green River. Howard Hanson Dam has been a complete barrier to the upstream passage of salmonids since its construction in 1961. The City of Tacoma's municipal water diversion has also been an anadromous fish barrier since 1911. Anecdotal reports of bull trout harvested in the Green River may refer to fish that have strayed into the Green River but were produced in a different basin. No confirmation or quantitative measure of bull trout natural production or juvenile rearing in the Green River basin has been identified (WDFW, 2004). Isolated observations of adult bull trout have been reported in the lower Duwamish, including one adult captured at RM 5 in 1994 and two adult bull trout/Dolly Varden (species unconfirmed) at RM 2.1 and 4.0 in the early 1980s. Eight adults were captured near Turning Basin 3 during two sampling events in August and September 2000. It is not known if these fish were of Green/Duwamish River origin, were non-Green/Duwamish River fish temporarily in the Duwamish, or strays attempting to recolonize the basin (SEA, 2004). Although bull trout do not spawn in the Duwamish-Green River watershed, they may be attracted to the Duwamish River during periods of juvenile salmonid outmigration. The Action Area provides foraging, migrating, and overwintering (FMO) habitat for anadromous bull trout originating from other core areas, such as the Puyallup, Snohomish-Skykomish, and Skagit rivers. Non -core FMO habitat provides important foraging and overwintering opportunities, and is essential to maintaining connectivity between the Puget Sound Management Unit's core areas and populations (USFWS, 2011). It is expected that bull trout use the Action Area infrequently and in relatively low numbers. Available data suggest that bull trout presence in the Duwamish Waterway generally coincides with the outmigration of juvenile salmonids. Anadromous bull trout generally return to their core areas and natal waters by mid -fall. 5.1.4 Puget Sound Rockfish Two species of Puget Sound rockfish have been listed under the ESA: bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish (Table 1). These species of rockfish are typically associated with deep -water (.50 meters [m] Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 17 amec foster wheeler deep) marine habitats (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a,b). A survey of nonsalmonid fishes in the Green/Duwamish River system did not report any rockfish species (SEA, 2004); however, brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) and an unidentified rockfish species (Sebastes spp.) were reported to occur rarely in the LDW (Windward, 2010). 5.2 CRITICAL HABITAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA This section discusses the occurrence of critical habitat for salmonids and rockfish. Primary constituent elements (PCEs) of species -specific critical habitats for salmonids within the Action Area are presented below. PCEs have not been developed for rockfish critical habitats. The physical and biological characteristics of rockfish critical habitat are presented below. The Action Area contains critical habitats for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout. The PCEs for each of these species are listed below, although not all of the PCEs listed occur within the Action Area. The critical habitat PCEs for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead 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; 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction, with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover, such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, arge rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks, supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival; 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction, with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and salt water; natural cover, such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction, with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover, such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and 6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Amec Foster Wheeler 18 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler Of the PCEs listed above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead, only the attributes described in PCE 4 occur in the Action Area. No freshwater or marine habitats occur within the Action Area. The PCEs for Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout are: 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia; 2. Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including, but not limited to, permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers; 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks, and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure; 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 degrees Celsius (36 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range (specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence); 6. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the -year and juvenile survival (a minimal amount [e.g., less than 12 percent] of fine substrate Tess than 0.85 millimeter [0.03 inch] in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions). 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows, within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal departures from a natural hydrograph; 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited; and 9. Few or no non-native predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass), inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present. All of the PCEs listed above for Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout apply in the Action Area, except not the attributes described for PCEs 6 and 9. No non-native species are believed to occur in the Action Area that would be predators of bull trout, would inbreed with them, or compete with them. Critical habitats for rockfish within Puget Sound include nearshore juvenile rearing habitats that support foraging and provide refuge and deepwater sites (less than 30 meters) that supports growth, Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 19 amec foster wheeler survival, reproduction, and feeding. Nearshore critical habitat is used by juvenile bocaccio. Deepwater habitat is used by adult bocaccio and adult and juvenile yelloweye rockfish. The Action Area does not contain critical habitat for the listed species of Puget Sound rockfish. Amec Foster Wheeler 20 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec f foster wheeler 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE This section provides a brief description of the general habitat and environmental conditions within the project and Action Areas. Additionally, this section provides descriptions of habitat elements, significant to the species being addressed, that could be affected by the proposed action or that would affect the use of the Action Area by listed species. Information provided in this section is summarized from site -specific studies, when available, and the Final Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation Report (Windward, 2010). The remedial investigation (RI) report presents extensive information on the history of development, current conditions, habitat, and flora and fauna of the LDW, as well as detailed data on chemicals detected in surface water, sediment, and tissue samples collected throughout the LDW since the early 1990s. Because of the volume of information describing environmental chemistry in the LDW, this biological evaluation only briefly summarizes environmental chemistry information. For more detailed information about the LDW adjacent to the proposed project site, the RI may be viewed online.3 6.1 GENERAL The proposed project site is located on the LDW, which was added to the National Priorities List as a Superfund site on September 13, 2001. The shorelines along the majority of the LDW have been heavily developed for industrial and commercial operations. Much of the upland areas are heavily industrialized. In addition, this reach of the LDW is the receiving water body for discharges from over 100 storm drains, combined sewer overflows, and other outfalls. Historical or current commercial and industrial operations include cargo handling and storage, marine construction, boat manufacturing, marina operation, paper and metals fabrication, food processing, and airplane manufacturing. Contaminants may have entered the LDW via several transport mechanisms, including spillage during product shipping and handling, direct disposal or discharge, contaminated groundwater discharge, surface water runoff, stormwater discharge, or contaminated soil erosion (EPA, 2001). 6.2 WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to water quality. 6.2.1 Existing Conditions As stated above, the LDW is the receiving water body for discharges from over 100 storm drains, combined sewer overflows, and other outfalls. Washington State's Water Quality Assessment [303(d) & 305(b) Report] (Ecology, 2017) identified the section of the LDW adjacent to the project site as a 3. at http://www.ldwg.org/. Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx Amec Foster Wheeler 21 amec foster wheeler Category 5 water for noncompliance with dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and temperature criteria. Category 5 waters are those for which at least one characteristic or designated use is impaired, as evidenced by failure to attain applicable water quality standards for one or more pollutants. Windward (2010) summarized surface water chemistry data for the LDW in the final LDW RI. They reported detectable concentrations of most metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalate esters, phenol, total polychlorinated biphenyls, and some pesticides, but did not report exceedances of state or federal ambient water quality criteria for any of these chemicals. Since 2003, more than 250 individual outfalls have been identified that discharge into the LDW. These outfalls discharge stormwater and/or industrial wastewaters transported via a collection system, though most industrial discharges are now routed through the sanitary sewer and no longer discharge directly to the waterway. The classifications of direct discharges include combined sewer overflows, emergency overflows, and public and private storm -drain systems (Windward, 2010). 6.2.2 Effects of the Action Placement of fill materials within the intertidal area will be the project element most likely to affect water quality through temporary resuspension of finer sediment in the placed material. Resuspension of recently placed material following inundation of the work area is the primary contributor to potential water quality impairment. The material placed in the intertidal area to repair seeps and stabilize shoreline will be double washed gravel source material. The material will be placed "in the dry" and is not expected to result in increased turbidity during placement. Some resuspension of finer materials may occur during the period of time when the work area is re -flooding from tidal advance. Any turbidity associated with the resuspension would be limited in scope and duration. During construction of the habitat project, turbidity plumes were observed along the shoreline where material had been placed, but the turbidity dissipated within a single tidal cycle. Therefore, temporary increases in turbidity following placement of washed fill in the intertidal area and subsequent flooding are expected to be insignificant and discountable and are not expected to result in long-term degradation of existing water quality conditions within the Action Area or to have adverse effects on listed species. Amec Foster Wheeler 22 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 6.3 SHORELINE AND BATHYMETRY, SEDIMENT AND SUBSTRATE, AND HABITAT DIVERSITY This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to habitat diversity, slopes, bathymetry, and shoreline conditions within the project area. 6.3.1 Existing Conditions 6.3.1.1 Shoreline and Bathymetry The original Duwamish River in the project area was a meandering stream, with frequent seasonal flooding. By 1917, the Duwamish River was channelized to form the Duwamish Waterway (Blomberg et al., 1988). The realignment was completed in approximately 1918 and moved the Duwamish River from its former location at the present-day King County International Airport to its current location to the west. Between 1928 and 1931, the federally authorized navigation channel was dredged into the native alluvial deposits of the Duwamish Waterway adjacent to what is now Boeing's Plant 2 property. The dredged material from the channel was used to fill in low-lying areas near the waterway. The dredging and filling activities resulted in a relatively flat upland with an elevation of approximately 18 feet MLLW, adjacent to the shoreline of a tidally influenced channel approximately 350 to 400 feet wide with bottom elevations of about -20 feet MLLW. In 2013, Boeing constructed two habitat projects at Boeing Plant 2, as described in Sections 1.0 and 2.0. The two projects restored and/or created off -channel and riparian habitats in the LDW in an area where they had been largely eliminated due to channelization and industrialization of the waterway. The projects involved construction of habitat at two sites, the North Shoreline Area and South Shoreline Area, as described in Section 2.0, resulting in new habitat in three elevation zones: • 2.64 acres of habitat in the marsh zone (+5.5 to +12 feet MLLW), • 1.52 acres of habitat in the riparian zone (above +12 feet MLLW), and • An estimated 1.08 acres in the intertidal zone (+2 to +5 feet MLLW) (AMEC, 2014). Between 2012 and 2015 Boeing conducted a cleanup project on the intertidal and subtidal sediment adjacent to the Plant 2 site. Sediments within an area of approximately 16 acres were dredged and backfilled with clean sand and sand/gravel material. The post -construction shoreline and bathymetry are illustrated on Figure 2, and selected details and typical cross sections are presented in Appendix B (Sheets 2, 3, 7, and 8). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 23 amec foster wheeler 6.3.1.2 Sediment and Substrate Sediment sampling was conducted in 2015 within the constructed habitats at the North and South Shoreline areas as part of habitat monitoring for the Year 1 Habitat Monitoring Report (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016). Percent fines and total organic carbon (TOC) content in surface sediments within the project area vary greatly between the upper marsh habitat samples (collected at +11 feet MLLW) and the sand habitat samples in the intertidal zone (collected at +4 feet MLLW), as shown in the following table: Habitat Zone Elevation (feet MLLW) Percent Fines Total Organic Carbon (percent) Range Mean Range Mean Marsh +11 10.8-18.1 15.4 1.09 to 1.93 1.46 Intertidal +4 1.2-2.7 1.8 0.06 to 0.26 0.15 The results of the post -construction sediment monitoring conducted in 2015 (Year 0) and 2016 (Year 1) demonstrated that a majority of the surface sediments remain well below the Washington State Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) criteria. In 2016 a single sample collected within the embayment at the North Shoreline had a measured concentration of benzyl alcohol above the SQS. Benzyl alcohol has industrial uses; however, it is also naturally occurring in plant material. As discussed in the Year 2 habitat monitoring report (Amec Foster Wheeler 2017), the amended sand that was used along the Plant 2 shoreline to support plant growth contained elevated concentrations of benzyl alcohol (and benzoic acid and phenol) due to the presence of decomposed wood in the material. Ongoing erosion of the amended sand along the shoreline will likely continue to contribute to the benzoic acid concentrations in the offshore areas. 6.3.1.3 Habitat Diversity Habitat diversity within the project area has been improving since the shoreline construction and habitat restoration. Placement of clean sediments during construction of the habitat projects has improved sediment quality, and the marsh planting and riparian plantings have increased habitat diversity. 6.3.2 Effects of the Action This section addresses the potential effects of the proposed action on the shoreline, sediment and substrate, bathymetry, and habitat diversity of the project area. Amec Foster Wheeler 24 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 6.3.2.1 Shoreline and Bathymetry The proposed maintenance activities would stabilize and maintain the existing shoreline and bathymetry of the constructed habitats. 6.3.2.2 Sediment and Substrate The proposed maintenance activities related to seep repair and shoreline stabilization would result in changes to the sediment size distribution within the footprint of the repair sites; however, the area potentially impacted by seep repair or shoreline stabilization activities is expected to be limited to a small percentage of the total project area. Additional maintenance activities relating to plant installation or anchoring of LWD would have little or no effect on sediment and substrate. The proposed maintenance activities would result in a net benefit to the environment and aquatic species using the LDW by stabilizing the constructed habitats and promoting development of vegetation. 6.3.2.3 Habitat Diversity The proposed maintenance activities related to seep repair and shoreline stabilization would maintain habitat diversity in the project area for both terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Planting additional marsh plants would substantially increase habitat diversity in the marsh and adjacent intertidal areas for aquatic organisms. The proposed action would result in a net beneficial effect on habitat diversity. 6.4 ACCESS AND REFUGIA This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to refugia and access. 6.4.1 Existing Conditions No fish passage barriers occur in the project area, which may provide shallow -water habitat for migrating juvenile salmonids, as well as for other fish and aquatic biota. Refugia consisting of LWD, overhanging vegetation within the adjacent riparian buffer, and side -channel habitats constructed within the project area provide refugia in addition to the existing piers and over -water structures in the project area. 6.4.2 Effects of the Action The proposed actions would have a net beneficial effect on access and refugia within the shallow - water and off -channel habitat for juvenile salmonids using the LDW. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 25 amec foster wheeler 6.5 FLOW, CURRENT PATTERNS, SALTWATER —FRESHWATER MIXING This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action related to flow, current patterns, and saltwater —freshwater mixing within the LDW. 6.5.1 Existing Conditions Water circulation within the LDW, a well -stratified estuary, is driven by tidal actions and river flow; the relative influence of each is highly dependent on seasonal river discharge volumes. Fresh water moving downstream overlies the tidally influenced salt water entering the system. Typical of tidally influenced estuaries, the LDW has a relatively sharp interface between the freshwater outflow at the surface and saltwater inflow at depth (Windward, 2010). 6.5.2 Effects of the Action The project is not expected to affect flow, current, or saltwater —freshwater mixing in the Action Area of the LDW. 6.6 MACROALGAE This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action relevant to macroalgae in the project area. 6.6.1 Existing Conditions There have been no surveys conducted in the project area to quantify macroalgae communities; however, anecdotal observations suggest that there are no macroalgae communities present. 6.6.2 Effects of the Action The project is not expected to affect macroalgae. 6.7 BENTHIC FAUNA This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action relevant to benthic fauna in the LDW. 6.7.1 Existing Conditions Numerous studies have investigated site use of the LDW by benthic invertebrates. Benthic invertebrate communities observed in the LDW consisted of 670 taxa, representing 178 families in 13 phyla (Windward, 2010). Typical of estuarine environments, the benthic invertebrate community was dominated by annelid worms, mollusks, and crustaceans. Crustaceans were the most diverse of Amec Foster Wheeler 26 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler these three groups in the LDW, including more than 250 taxa. Mollusks included various bivalves and snails. The most abundant large epibenthic invertebrates included slender crabs, crangon shrimp, and coonstripe shrimp. Dungeness crabs were also common, although their distribution was generally limited to the portions of the LDW with higher salinity (Windward, 2010). Benthic invertebrates in the LDW form two distinct communities. The infaunal community is typified by burrowing polychaetes and bivalves. At most sampling locations, the infaunal community was dominated by surface detrital/surface-deposit feeding organisms. The epibenthic community (invertebrates living on top of the sediment) consisted mainly of larger crustaceans (crabs and shrimps) and mussels, and was dominated by surface detrital and surface filter -feeding organisms (Windward, 2010). Monitoring of the intertidal benthic community at the two habitat project sites was conducted as part of the biological monitoring for the projects (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016). Infauna core samples were collected at approximately +11 feet MLLW, +7 feet MLLW, and +4 feet MLLW. The benthic community was dominated by oligochaetes with low densities of dipterans, crustaceans, polychaetes, and mollusks. 6.7.2 Effects of the Action The proposed maintenance actions may result in the placement: of up to 4,000 cy of coarse gravel (up to 2,000 cy for seep repair and 2,000 cy for shoreline stabilization) over a 10-year period. Placement of new gravel for seep repair or shoreline stabilization would temporarily bury the existing benthic fauna within the impacted area. It is expected that this fill material placed would be recolonized by fauna from adjacent areas within 1 to 2 years. The washed gravel material is significantly coarser than the sandy material originally placed in the intertidal zone, and the benthic fauna may shift to a community dominated by epibenthic organisms (e.g., harpacticoid copepods, dipteran larvae), an important food source for juvenile salmonids. Sediment sampling will result in the temporary loss of small areas of benthic habitat. It is expected that the areas would be rapidly recolonized from adjacent areas. 6.8 FORAGE FISH This section describes existing conditions and expected effects of the proposed action relevant to forage fish in the LDW. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 27 amec foster wheeler 6.8.1 Existing Conditions Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and Iongfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), though known to be abundant in the LDW, were encountered infrequently in recent beach seine and trawling efforts, as were Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus pretiosus). Though these species were not encountered frequently during recent sampling, they are occasionally found in large numbers in the LDW (Windward, 2010). The Action Area does not provide suitable substrate for Pacific sand lance or surf smelt spawning, and no eelgrass or macroalgal beds are located in the project area to provide spawning habitat for Pacific herring. The Action Area does not provide suitable spawning habitat for any of these species (WDFW, 2005; Pentilla, D., WDFW, email dated October 28, 2002). 6.8.2 Effects of the Action The proposed action would not affect forage -fish spawning habitat. The presence of forage fish in the LDW does not necessarily mean that there is suitable habitat for these species. Given that these species are present in Puget Sound throughout the year, it is certainly possible that some forage -fish species could be present in the LDW during the maintenance activities covered in this BE. Amec Foster Wheeler 28 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 7.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS This section discusses temporary and permanent direct and indirect effects on listed species attributable to project activities and concludes with an effects determination. This section discusses only attributes of listed species that are relevant to the project area and likely to be affected by the project. Appendix E addresses Essential Fish Habitat, describing habitat for federally managed commercial fish species, potential project impacts, and proposed conservation measures. 7.1 PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON This section discusses temporary and permanent direct and indirect effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon attributable to project activities. 7.1.1 Direct Effects The long-term and short-term temporary and permanent direct effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound Chinook salmon are described below. 7.1.1.1 Long -Term The proposed maintenance activities are expected to result in a net long-term, beneficial direct effect on Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The proposed actions would improve foraging and nursery habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in the LDW. Additionally, maintenance activities (including the planting of additional marsh plants) would improve the restored nearshore and side -channel habitat. The proposed action is expected to have no direct, long-term adverse effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 7.1.1.2 Short -Term The primary short-term direct effects of the proposed action include temporary and localized water quality impairment (e.g., increased turbidity). Turbidity (as measured by suspended sediment concentration) may occur during flooding of areas where coarse gravel has been placed to repair seeps or stabilize the shoreline. Some temporary increase in turbidity may also occur in areas where excavation for potential log placement has occurred. The turbidity increases are expected to be short term, with plume size decreasing exponentially with increasing distance, horizontal and vertical, from the construction or maintenance areas (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001). Turbidity associated with the newly placed material or inundation of excavated areas is expected to last only a single tidal cycle. Turbidity associated with sediment sampling is expected to be short term with any plume rapidly dissipating. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 29 10 amec foster wheeler Temporary increases in turbidity during maintenance and construction activities are expected to be insignificant and discountable and are not expected to result in Tong -term degradation of the existing water quality condition within the Action Area or to have adverse effects on listed species. 7.1.2 Indirect Effects The long-term and short-term temporary and permanentindirect effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound Chinook salmon are described below. 7.1.2.1 Long -Term The primary long-term indirect adverse effect of the proposed action on Puget Sound Chinook salmon would be the long-term (1 to 2 years), temporary disturbance of small areas of benthic habitat (e.g., 1,000 square feet) potentially used by juvenile Chinook salmon as foraging habitat. As discussed in Section 6.7.2, maintenance activities, such as placing gravel in seep areas or in localized areas of slope instability, or sediment sampling, may temporarily impact benthic habitat by burying or removing benthic fauna within the impacted area. Areas that are undergoing scour from focused groundwater discharge or that are unstable due to erosion would likely already have depauperate benthic communities, so placing coarse gravel materials would likely have a minimal impact on the existing benthic community and prey abundance for foraging fish. It is unknown how long this condition would persist; however, it is expected, as stated in Section 6.7.2, that the benthic community would become re-established in the impacted area within 1 to 2 years and provide improved foraging habitat for Chinook salmon. During the time that the benthic community in these limited areas is impacted, fish would be forced to forage in adjacent areas of the project area and the LDW. The temporary, Tong -term disturbance of benthic habitat in the fill areas within the LDW could cause a minimal impact to Puget Sound Chinook salmon that may forage in the Action Area, due to the turbidity impacts and the recovery time for the benthic community (up to 2 years after completion of fill placement). 7.1.2.2 Short -Term No short-term indirect adverse effects are expected from the proposed action. 7.1.3 Effects Determination The proposed maintenance activities would have a net beneficial effect on Puget Sound Chinook salmon though improvements to habitat diversity and functioning. Proposed maintenance activities would further improve nearshore habitat, improving both foraging and nursery habitats for juvenile Amec Foster Wheeler 30 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler Chinook salmon. Some short-term, direct impacts attributable to impaired water quality could occur for the duration of the project, but these impacts would be transient. Placement of gravel within scour areas associated with seeps or areas of slope instability may result in disturbance of the benthic infauna habitat; however, the benthic communities in these areas are already unstable due to the scour activity and eroding sediments. Potential disruption of foraging opportunities within the Action Area would persist for up to 2 years until the area has had time to be recolonized. Thus, the effects determination for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, based primarily on the Tong -term disruption of benthic habitat and foraging opportunities for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, is that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 7.1.4 Effects on Critical Habitat The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are presented in Section 5.2. Of the listed PCEs, only PCE 4 occurs in the Action Area. The proposed action would have no effect on the PCEs that do not occur in the Action Area. The proposed action may have short-term adverse effects on water quality, but these effects would be localized and transient. Benthic habitat disturbance in the immediate project area would likely be a long-term effect, taking up to 2 years to recover, reducing prey abundance and foraging opportunities for juvenile Chinook salmon using the Action Area. Although the proposed action is expected to result in a net beneficial effect to these PCEs, there would be a long -germ impact over a relatively small area of benthic habitat where gravel is placed, reducing abundance and foraging opportunities for Puget Sound Chinook salmon for up to 2 years. Therefore, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, PCE 4 and Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 7.2 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT The effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound steelhead are expected to be similar or identical to those discussed for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Please refer to Section 7.1 for a discussion of potential effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound steelhead that may use the Action Area. 7.2.1 Effects Determination The effects determination for the proposed action is that it may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead that may occur in the Action Area. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 31 amec foster wheeler 7.2.2 Effects on Critical Habitat The proposed action is expected to have a net beneficial effect on Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat. The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, PCE 4 and Puget Sound steelhead. 7.3 COASTAL/PUGET SOUND BULL TROUT AND DOLLY VARDEN The effects of the proposed action on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout and Dolly Varden are expected to be similar to those discussed above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. It is expected that bull trout use the Action Area infrequently and in relatively low numbers. Available data suggest that bull trout presence in the Duwamish Waterway generally coincides with the outmigration of juvenile salmonids. Anadromous bull trout generally return to their core areas and natal waters by mid -fall, and bull trout presence in the Duwamish Waterway has never been documented during the previous in -water work window (November 1 to February 15) for maintenance dredging operations conducted by the USACE (USFWS, 2011). During the majority of the proposed maintenance work conducted "in the dry," it is unlikely that any bull trout would be present in the Action Area. Any bull trout that may occur in the Action Area during the maintenance activities may be behaviorally affected (i.e., foraging inhibited) by short-term increases in turbidity following gravel placement or shoreline excavation. The proposed action is not expected to affect reproduction, growth, or survival of bull trout that may occur in the Action Area during in -water work activities. 7.3.1 Effects Determination The effects determination for the proposed action is that it may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout and Dolly Varden that may occur in the Action Area. 7.3.2 Effects on Critical Habitat The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of coastal/Puget Sound bull trout are presented in Section 5.2. All of the listed PCEs except 6 and 9 would likely apply in the Action Area. Of these PCEs, the proposed action would likely have no effect on PCEs 1, 5, and 7. Fill operations conducted as part of the proposed maintenance activities may result in temporary impacts to water quality that could affect PCEs 2, 3, 4, and 8. The proposed action may have short-term adverse effects on water quality, but these would be localized and transient and limited to a single tidal cycle. Benthic habitat disturbance in the immediate project area would likely be a long-term temporary effect, taking 1 to 2 years to recover; however, Amec Foster Wheeler 32 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler adjacent foraging areas would be available to Puget Sound bull trout. The proposed action is expected to have a net beneficial effect on Coast/Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat. The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect PCEs 2, 3, 4, and 8, but will have no effect on PCEs 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9. 7.4 PUGET SOUND ROCKFISH No short-term or long-term direct or indirect effects on bocaccio or yelloweye rockfish are expected to occur as a result of the proposed action. 7.4.1 Effects Determination The effects determination for the proposed action is that it will have no effect on bocaccio or yelloweye rockfish, as these species likely do not occur in the Action Area. 7.4.2 Effects on Critical Habitat Nearshore and deepwater critical habitat has been designated for the two listed species of rockfish in Puget Sound; however, critical habitat is not found in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed action will have no effect on Puget Sound rockfish critical habitat. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 33 amec foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler 34 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 8.0 INTERRELATED/INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Interdependent actions are those from actions with no independent utility apart from the proposed action. Interrelated actions include those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for justification. Cumulative effects are those from state or private activities not involving activities of other federal agencies that are reasonably certain to occur within the area of the federal action subject to consultation (Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 402.02, Definitions). The proposed maintenance activities would improve shoreline habitat. No interdependent or interrelated actions are expected as a result of the proposed action. Federal actions unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, a number of other actions with a federal nexus may occur concurrently or in the near future within the LDW in close proximity to the proposed action described in this BE. No other state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the area as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected as a result of the proposed action. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 35 amec foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler 36 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec foster wheeler 9.0 SUMMARY The proposed action has the potential to affect listed species or their critical habitat, as discussed in Section 5.0. The determinations of effects for the proposed action for each listed species that may occur in the Action Area are summarized in Section 7.0. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 37 amec fr,!_' foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler 38 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx amec ?1IF foster wheeler 10.0 REFERENCES Adams, P.B., Grimes, C.B., Hightower, J.E., Lindley, S.T., and Moser, M.L. 2002. Status Review for the North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/ greensturgeon.pdf (accessed February 1, 2017). AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC). 2014. Habitat Project Construction Completion Report, Duwamish Sediment Other Area and Southwest Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Project, Boeing Plant 2, Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler). 2016. Year 1 Habitat Monitoring Report, Habitat Project, Boeing Plant 2, Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington. . 2017. Year 2 Habitat Monitoring Report, Habitat Project, Boeing Plant 2, Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington. Blomberg, G., Simenstad, C., and Hickey, P. 1988. Changes in Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years, in Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research, Volume II. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington, p. 437-454. Gustafson, R.G., Ford, M.J., Teel, D.J., and Drake, J. 2010. Status Review of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-105, Seattle, Washington, https:// www.nwfsc. noaa.gov/assets/25/1093_06162010_142619_EulachonTM 105WebFinal.pdf (accessed February 1, 2017). Nightingale, B., and Simenstad, C. 2001. White Paper, Dredging Activities — Marine Issues. Prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries). 2009a. Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). NOAA-Fisheries, Office of Protected Species, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ fish/bocaccio (accessed February 1, 2017). . 2009b. Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus). NOAA-Fisheries, Office of Protected Species, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ species fish/yelloweyerockfish (accessed February 1, 2017). Striplin Environmental Associates (SEA). 2004. Lower Duwamish Waterway Slip 4 Early Action Area: Summary of Existing Information and Identification of Data Gaps. Prepared for the City of Seattle and King County, Seattle, Washington, http://www.duwamishcleanup.org/uploads/ pdfs/Slip4lnfoGaps.pdf (accessed June 28, 2010). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx 39 amec foster wheeler U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. National Priorities List: NPL Site Narrative for Lower Duwamish Waterway. EPA, Washington, D.C., https://semspub.epa.gov/work/ 10/501000220.pdf (accessed February 1, 2017). Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2017. Washington State's Water Quality Assessment [303(d) & 305(b) Report], Current EPA Approved Assessment. Ecology, Olympia, http:// http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html (accessed February 1, 2017). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Letter from Mr. Ken S. Berg (USFWS) to Mr. Evan R. Lewis (Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) — Upper Duwamish Waterway Maintenance Dredging 2012-2027. Reference No. 13410-2011-1-0340. August 19. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2002. Salmonid Stock Inventory 2002 (database updated September 2006). WDFW, Olympia, http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ (accessed June 25, 2010). . 2004. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory: Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. WDFW, Olympia. . 2005. Marine Finfish, Shellfish, and Baseline GIS Coverages, Published Map Files, and Web Version of Technical Report 79, June. WDFW, Olympia. . 2010. SalmonScape. WDFW, Olympia, http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ index.html (accessed June 25, 2010). . 2017. SCoRE. WDFW, Olympia, https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/maps/ map_details.jsp?geocode=wria&geoarea=WRIA09_Duwamish_Green (accessed January 31, 2017). Windward Environmental, LLC (Windward). 2010. Final Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington, and the Washington State Department of Ecology, Northwest Field Office, Bellevue, http://www.Idwg.org/rifs_docs8.htm#draftri (accessed February 1, 2017). Amec Foster Wheeler 40 Project No. 0148440200 maintenance be 050917.docx Lt., , 4 amec tilik- foster wheeler TABLES TABLE 1 amec 747 foster wheeler ESA -LISTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ACTION AREA Biological Evaluation Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington Species Listing Status (Date) Critical Habitat Fish Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened (03/24/99) Designated Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened (06/10/98) Designated Dolly Varden (S. malma) Proposed — Threatened (01/09/01 Not Designated Puget Sound Steelhead Trout (O. mykiss) Threatened (05/11/07) Designated Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Endangered (04/27/10) Designated Yelloweye Rockfish (S. ruberrimus) Threatened (04/27/10) Designated Abbreviation(s) ESA = Endangered Species Act Permitting\Mai ntenanceBE_Fig3_Tbls_041217.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 2 ADULT ESCAPEMENT FOR GREEN/DUWAMISH RIVER CHINOOK AND WINTER STEELHEAD' Biological Evaluation Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington 7 amec foster wheeler Year Total Natural Escapement / Total Natural Spawners Chinook Winter Steelhead Total Natural Spawners Natural -Origin Spawners Hatchery -Origin Spawners Total Natural Spawners Index Natural Escapement 1995 7,939 2,198 102 1996 6,026 2,500 133 1007 7,101 1,882 7 1998 5,963 2,284 78 1999 7,135 2,480 94 2000 4,473 1,694 11 2001 6,473 1,402 2002 7,564 1,068 2003 1,228 4,636 1,615 2004 2,555 5,392 2,359 2005 1,108 1,415 1,298 2006 2,586 3,204 1,955 2007 1,762 2,539 1,452 2008 3,792 2,179 833 2009 165 523 304 2010 859 1,233 423 2011 459 534 855 2012 1,638 1,452 392 2013 524 1,517 656 2014 756 1,974 997 2015 864 3,223 1,622 Note(s1 1. Source: WDFW, 2017. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. SCORE. WDFW, Olympia, https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/maps/map_details.jsp?geocode=wria&geoarea=WRIA09_Duwamish_Green (accessed January 31, 2017). Permitting \ M a i me n a n ce B E_ F i g 3_Tb l s_041217. x l sx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 3 amec foster wheeler SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS IN THE ACTION AREA Biological Evaluation Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington Species/Critical Habitat PCEs No Effect May Affect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound Chinook Salmon X Critical Habitat PCE 4 X Critical Habitat PCEs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 X Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout X Critical Habitat PCEs 2, 3, 4, and 8 X Critical Habitat PCEs 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 X Dolly Varden (proposed)' Puget Sound Steelhead Trout X Rockfish (bocaccio and yelloweye) X Note(s) 1. Will not jeopardize their continued existence. Abbreviation(s) PCE = primary constituent element Permitting\MaintenanceBE_Fig3_Tbls_041217.xlsx Page 1 of 1 amec foster wheeler FIGURES File path: "PIBOEING\PERMITTING\3000 REPORTS\Long-Term Maintenance Permit\Maintenance BE_JARPA\Figure 1 Project Mcinity.mxd" 24-ON R3-OE SO2 Street Address: 7755 East Marginal Way South Seattle, Washington 98370 County: King County Section: 28, 29, 32, 33 Township: 24N Range: 4E Aquatic System: Lower Duwamish Waterway (River Mile 2.9 to 3.6) USGS Hydrological Unit Code: 17110013 Tax Parcels: 0022000005, 0022000165, 0022000195, 2924049056, 2924049098, 2185000005, 2824049009, 3324049002, 2924049112, 001600020, 292404HYDR, and 322404HYDR 1,000 2,000 Fee amec foster wheeler • T2o.oN-R4 6E S28 PROJECT VICINITY Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance By: RHG Date:3/10/2017 Proj No. 01484400200 Figure 1 'n"P -Ta.rm Mainlrnanne Parmit\Maintenance AF DARPA\FiOn e 2 Proieei AIean.mxd' Slip 4 ;;;.. July 2014 Aerial Courtesy 11"0k "7 $ ,.. h ; . s, • I �OP'h9A/ July 2014 Aerial Courtesy of Google t 4Z m , ♦',.4. North Site . ,: _ _ -- o zoo Feet of Google South Site --------------- _ _ , Duwamish Waterway , , July 2014 Aerial 0 J0 100 150 200 Courtesy of Google Feet i* r Elevation Contours Installed Log Bundle - 44 r +12 ft MLLW (contour interval 5 feet) A.t amec +12 ft MLLW (contour interval 1 feet) foster wheeler +12 ft MLLW (contour interval 5 feet) +12 ft MLLW (contour interval 1 feet)0:1_By. Elevation datum: 0 = MLLW BOEzAw PROJECT AREAS Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Below Below Above Above RHG i Date 3/70/2017 Project No. 0148440200 Figure 2 Maintenance.Perm itlMaintenance BE JARPA\Figure 2 Pro tect•Areas.mxd" . ® July 2014 Aerial Courtesy of Google ... , ,. '. . " _. aaP 4 L ,I. zoo Feet \ 0 o 1; 1 r _- ® 0 _ ` e -..—,.,..ram _ / #... . I I i a t i tt . South Site :,;. 60 120 180 240 • j July 2014 Aerial Courtesy of Google' w•. } R s Duwamish Waterway Legend • Long-term Sediment Monitoring 4- Additional Monitoring i, amec foster wheeler v BO6E7AVG SEDIMENT MONITORING LOCATIONS Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance By: RHG I Date:4/26/2017 Project No. 0148440200 Figure 3 Species Freshwater Life Phase Month J F I M A M ' Jun Jul A S 0 N D Spring/Fall Chinook Upstream Migration Spawning Intergravel Development Juvenile Rearing Juvenile Outmigration _ ■� Summer Steelhead Upstream Migration Spawning Intergravel Development Juvenile Rearing' Juvenile Outmigration Winter Steelhead Upstream Migration Spawning Intergravel Development Juvenile Rearing' Juvenile Outmigration --C _ ' Normally extends over a 2-year period Source: Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 1980, Green-Duwamish River Basin Administrative Rules and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Water Resource Inventory Resources Management Program, Olympia. Instream Resources Protection Program Including Proposed Area 9) (W.W.I.R.P.P. Series - No. 4). Ecology, Water TIMING OF ESA -LISTED SALMONIDS OCCURRING IN ACTION AREA Biological Evaluation Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington By: RHG 'Date: 2/23/17 Proj No. 01484400200 tj' 6roE/iv" t. Figure 4 amec foster wheeler APPENDIX A Biological Opinions from NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS tea or 43. taro Nres aFp� Refer to NMFS Tracking Nos: 2011/05778 2012/00115 Holly Arrigoni US Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-1273 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 September 27, 2012 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Jorgensen Forge and Boeing Plant 2 Superfund Removal Action, Seattle, King County, Washington (6th Field HUC 171100130305). Dear Ms. Arrigoni: On November 29, 2011 and January 17, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received your requests for formal consultation on the Jorgensen Forge and Boeing Plant 2 Superfund Removal Actions under the Endangered Species Act. These consultations were combined into a single biological opinion because of their substantial overlap in time, location, and extent of effects. As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS is providing an incidental take statement (ITS) with this Opinion. The ITS describes reasonable and prudent measures that NMFS considers necessary and appropriate to minimize the impact of incidentall take associated with this action. The ITS sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements that the EPA 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's prohibition against take of the listed species. The NMFS also reviewed the proposed action for potential effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) designated under the Magnuson -Stevens Act (MSA) This review was pursuant to section 305(b) of the MSA, implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. After completing EFH consultation, NMFS determined that measures in the proposed action so adequately address the effects of the action on EFH that NMFS makes no conservation recommendations. If you have questions regarding this consultation, please contact Zach Hughes of the Washington State Habitat Office at 360-753-6052 or by email at zach.hughes@noaa.gov. fr Sincerely, William W. Stelle, Jr. Regional Administrator 2 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Jorgensen Forge and Boeing Plant 2 Superfund Sediment and Soil Remediation Projects NMFS Consultation Number: 2011/05778 and 2012/00115 Action Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Affected Species and 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? Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened Yes No No Puget Sound Steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Yes No No Fishery Management Plan That Describes EFH in the Project Area Does Action Have an Adverse Effect on EFH? Are EFH Conservation Recommendations Provided? Pacific Coast Salmon Yes No Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region Issued By: William W. Stelle, Jr. Regional Administrator Date: September 27, 2012 LIST OF ACRONYMS ASAOCRA Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent for Removal Action Biological Assessment Best Management Practice - Biological Review Team - Code of Federal Regulations - Design Dredge Elevation Depth of Contamination Distinct Population Segment Data Quality Act Duwamish Sediment Other Area - Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Protection Agency - Endangered Species Act Evolutionarily Significant Unit Federal Register - Global Positioning System Hydrologic Unit Code - Incidental Take Statement Lower Duwamish Waterway Mean Lower Low Water Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation National Marine Fisheries Service Polychlorinated biphenyl Primary Constituent Element Puget Sound Sediment Quality Standards Technical Recovery Team Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Ecology - Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan BA BMP BRT CFR DDE DoC DPS - DQA - DSOA - EFH EPA ESA ESU FR GPS HUC ITS LDW - MLLW - MSA - NMFS - PCB - PCE - PS - SQS - TRT - WDFW - WDOE - WQMWP i and Management Act TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Consultation History 1 1.3 Proposed Action 2 1.4 Action Area 4 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 5 2.1 Approach to the Analysis 5 2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat 6 2.3 Environmental Baseline 14 2.4 Effects of the Action 15 2.5 Cumulative Effects 19 2.6 Integration and Synthesis 19 2.7 Conclusion 20 2.8 Incidental Take Statement 21 2.9 Conservation Recommendations 22 2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation 23 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION 24 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project 24 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat 24 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations 24 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement 25 3.5 Supplemental Consultation 25 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATIONREVIEW 25 4.1 Utility 25 4.2 Integrity 25 4.3 Objectivity 25 5. REFERENCES 27 ii 1. INTRODUCTION This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Section 2 and 3 below. 1.1 Background The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this document 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. NMFS 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. The opinion, incidental take statement, and EFH conservation recommendations are each in compliance with the Data Quality Act (44 U.S.C.:3504(d)(1) et seq.) and they underwent pre - dissemination review. 1.2 Consultation History This biological opinion is based on the information provided in the November 2011 Jorgensen Forge biological assessment (BA) and the December 2011 Boeing Plant 2 BA, telephone conversations, e-mails, meetings, and field investigations. Consultation was requested by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Jorgensen Forge project on November 29, 2011, and for the Boeing project on January 17, 2012. The initiation package was completed for both projects on February 8, 2012 and consultation was initiated on this same date. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Washington State Habitat Office located in Lacey, Washington. The EPA determined that the proposed actions were likely to adversely affect Puget Sounds Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead, that the proposed actions were likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. NMFS concurred with these determinations based on the potential for exposure to increased suspended sediments and contaminants within the action area. Formal consultation was initiated on February 8, 2012. These separate requests for formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA are being consolidated into this single opinion due to their overlapping action areas and overlapping construction dates. Additionally, these actions are both part of the larger superfund cleanups throughout the Lower Duwamish Waterway mandated by Administrative Settlement Agreements and Orders on Consent for Removal Action (ASAOCRA). 1 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. The EPA proposes to administer two superfund remediation projects under the ASAOCRA for: 1) the Jorgensen Forge Facility and 2) Boeing Plant 2. Each project will also include a water quality monitoring plan that ensures water quality standards are met at the 150 foot compliance boundary for turbidity and PCBs. These plans must be submitted to NMFS at least 60 days prior to construction activities. Jorgensen Forge The Jorgensen project's proposed action consists of: 1) Bank excavation and containment; 2) Complete removal of all PCB removal action value exceedances followed by backfill placement of clean sediments; 3) Subtitle D upland disposal of excavated and dredged material; and 4) Additional miscellaneous activities needed to undertake and complete the project. Contractors will excavate the shoreline to remove upland nearshore soils and intertidal and subtidal sediments. Removed sediments exceed EPA Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) for chemical contaminants. Then contractors will place a four foot deep slope containment layer including bank armoring. The slope containment layer will include overlying sand and gravel mixture to promote slope stability, enhance habitat, and contain underlying contaminated fill. Excavation, dredging, and subsequent bank reconfiguration will extend from approximately 20 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW) elevation down to 0 MLLW. Work will be conducted in the dry to the maximum extent possible, but a substantial portion of the work will be conducted in water. Contractors will remove existing derelict structures and debris including dolphins and piles prior to excavation. Contractors may leave inert materials, such as concrete debris and pile remnants, that are below the final design elevation if they will not impact the ability of the project to contain contaminants. Contractors will excavate to a depth of four feet (with a one foot over -excavation tolerance) along 605 linear feet. The slope resulting from the excavation and reconfiguration will be reduced to a lower slope ratio of two to one (horizontal to vertical) for shoreline and three to one in water, reducing the slope of intertidal sediment and increasing the amount of available intertidal habitat. Dredging will be completed in sections, and each dredge unit will be dredged during a single dredging event and then immediately covered with the containment layer. The process will remove approximately 6000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, sediment, and debris. The containment layer will consist of a 30 inch filter layer (sandy gravel to gravelly sand) topped with a 12 inch armor layer of riprap/cobble, and finally overlain with a 6 inch layer of washed habitat substrate. A total of approximately 3400 yards of containment material will be placed over 0.38 acres. 2 Excavation and dredging will occur using an articulated, enclosed bucket to the extent possible. Large debris may be removed using a heavier bucket with a clamshell dredge, grapple, or vibratory hammer. Sediments removed during dredging willbe placed on a barge equipped to retain sediment and filter return water. The sediment will be transported to and offloaded at an EPA -approved offloading facility. Dredged sediments and soils will be disposed of at an EPA - approved landfill. A sand cover (3 to 6 inches) will be placed over dredge cuts in each subunit as soon as practical to minimize suspension of loosened sediments. The project will also remove 40 pilings from the intertidal project area. These pilings will be removed via vibratory hammer, direct pull, or cut at the mud Dine. Creosote pilings will be cut into four foot or smaller sections and disposed of at an approved upland facility. All in -water work will occur during the work window for the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) of October 1 to February 15. Work will be temporarily suspended if ESA listed species are observed as injured, sick, or dead in the project area. Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline excavation will occur between May 1 and February 15 during daylight low tides, when such work can occur in the dry. In -water construction will occur between August 1 and February 15. Work may occur 24 hours a day, but limited by local noise restrictions. Shoreline dredging will occur prior to dredging of adjacent in -water areas to the extent practical to limit the potential for recontamination. All dredging and excavation activities will use the following best management practices (BMPs): 1. Develop an accurate model for depth of contamination (DoC). Use the results of the completed sediment coring program, in combination with geospatial analysis, to develop an accurate digital terrain model of the DoC to be removed during dredging. 2. Use the DoC terrain model, plus an allowance for dredge tolerance, to develop an accurate digital terrain model of the Design Dredge Elevation (DDE). 3. Perform dredging to the DDE in a single operation for each subunit (dredge unit), as verified by periodic bathymetric surveys. 4. Place a sand cover (nominal 6 inches) over dredge cuts in each subunit of the site in a timely manner, as soon as practical after dredging of the subunit is complete. Conduct backfilling as appropriate, once all upstream and adjacent dredging is complete. The final layer of backfill (minimum 2 feet, except within the 10-foot navigation channel buffer) may be scheduled to occur after all dredging is complete. 5. Select appropriate dredging equipment (excavator or derrick based on the site conditions and accuracy requirements. 6. Use an enclosed environmental -type bucket to limit sediment loss to the extent possible. A standard clamshell bucket may be required for denser sediments and debris removal. 7. Use sub -foot accuracy global positioning system (GPS) for accurate bucket positioning. 3 8. Implement stair -step dredge cuts for steeper slops to reduce sloughing of sediment. 9. Use an excavator dredge, as appropriate, for improved bucket control on steeper slopes. 10. Remove water from sediment barges actively during dredging (no direct overflow) for processing and management as dredging return water. 11. Conduct intertidal excavation "in the dry" to the degree reasonably possible using land -based equipment. The in -water area to be dredged is divided into two areas, Duwamish Sediment Other Area (DSOA) and Slip 4. With these areas combined, the proposed action calls for approximately 202,500 cubic yards of sediment to be dredged and 172,500 cubic yards of clean fill placed. Dredge return -water will be processed to the degree needed to maintain water quality standards at the compliance zone boundary. These compliance standards will be established through the 401 Water Quality Certification that the EPA issues for the project. All pilings in the project area will be removed using a vibratory hammer. If a piling cannot be extracted, the piling will be cut off at least three feet below the final project grade. The contractor will remove the concrete building slab and support structure, 560 pilings, riprap, foundation, bulkheads, and sediment under the existing building slab using equipment located upland. Lower sections of piling clusters (small groups of pilings) may be left in place instead of being pulled to provide sediment stabilization, though these clusters will still be cut at three feet below the final project design contour. The project includes the installation of a temporary floating dock that will be no more than 640 square feet. The temporary pilings to anchor the dock will be installed and removed via vibratory hammer. This dock will be used to provide moorage for the project support vessels. Four new outfalls will be constructed, and will be included in the Plant 2 Industrial Stormwater General Permit. 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 504.02). The action area for this project all waters of the Duwamish River extending from the Duwamish Turning Basin (about river mile 6.5), and downriver approximately 6000 feet. This includes the entire mixing and resettlement zone for suspended sediments and contaminants, and the area of increased sound above background levels. The extent of action area for the proposed actions is determined by propagation of sound energy in water, which is the furthest distance upstream and downstream in a straight line from project activities. The action area includes designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 4 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 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 Services provide an opinion stating how the agencies' actions will affect listed species and their critical habitat. If incidental take is expected, section 7(b)(4) requires the consulting agency to provide an incidental take statement (ITS) that specifies the amount of any incidental taking and includes a 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 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). 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.' We use the following approach to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat: • Identify the rangewide status of the species and critical habitat likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. • Describe the effects of the environmental baseline in the action area. • Analyze the effects of the proposed actions on both species and habitat. • Describe any anticipated cumulative effects in the action area. • Integrate and synthesize the above factors to assess the risk that the proposed action poses to species and critical habitat. 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). 5 • 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 species face, based on parameters considered in documents such as recovery plans, status review, 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 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 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed as threatened on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), with the listing becoming effective on May 24, 1999. This evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) includes progeny of all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha River eastward, rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, south Puget Sound, North, Puget Sound, and the Strait of Georgia in Washington, as well as 26 artificial propagation programs, including the Icy Creek Pond, Soos Creek, and Keta Creek Hatchery programs on the Green River. Spatial structure, diversity, numbers, and abundance across the PS Chinook salmon ESU have not changed substantially since the 2005 status review (Ford 2011), while habitat throughout Puget Sound has continued to be steadily altered or degraded (Judge 2011). The abundance of PS Chinook in the Green River has declined over the most recent 5 year review period, however the risks to this population are not considered to have changed since the status review (Ford 2011). The steady pace of habitat alteration throughout the range of PS Chinook makes restoration and conservation projects all the more essential to meeting the conservation and recovery goals of ESA listing. Below, we briefly summarize the current status of the PS Chinook salmon ESU. Spatial Structure and Diversity: Indices of spatial distribution and diversity have not been developed at the population level. Spatial structure and diversity are estimated for the ESU as a whole to indicate whether the total Chinook salmon abundance is being distributed in a healthy pattern among populations and regions within Puget Sound. Diversity is greatest when there is uniform distribution among populations, but this is typically not the natural condition since larger streams will naturally have a greater abundance than small systems. If most recovery occurs in a particular area (such as the Skagit River Basin or the Elwha River), then the distribution of salmon throughout Puget Sound is disproportionately emphasized in that area, and this is indicated as reduced diversity across the ESU. Diversity is also related to preserving the range of populations that have separate spawn -timings and lengths of freshwater rearing. While 6 the few extant early -returning populations remain since 1999, current estimates of diversity based on abundances show a decline over the past 25 years for PS Chinook, indicating a decline of abundance in some areas and increases in others (Ford 201 1). Salmon returns to the Whidbey Region increased in abundance while returns in other regions declined. In aggregate, the diversity of the ESU as a whole has been declining over the past 25 years. The spatial structure of the ESU describes how independent populations are geographically distributed across Puget Sound. Since the listing in 1999, the spatial structure has not appreciably changed, although the limits of accessible habitat for anadromous fish have been extended in a few rivers by removing barriers and adding fish passage structures. Abundance and Productivity: Natural origin recruit spawners have remained fairly constant between 1985 and 2009. Total natural origin recruit abundance and productivity have continued to decline. Median recruits per spawner for the last five-year period (brood years 2002-2006) is the lowest of any of the 5 year intervals during the 1985 to 2009 time period. However, results vary across populations in the ESU, with some populations showing stronger trends. All PS Chinook salmon populations are well below spawner abundance levels ("planning ranges") identified as required for recovery to low extinction risk in the recovery plan. In addition, most populations are consistently below the productivity goals identified in the recovery plan as necessary for recovery. Although trends vary for individual populations across the ESU, most populations have declined in total natural origin recruit abundance between the 2005 and 2011 PS Chinook status reviews (Good et al. 2005, Ford 2011), and the current trend for all populations across the ESU is negative. Limiting Factors: Several of the risk factors identified in the previous status review (Good et al. 2005) are still present, including widespread loss and degradation of habitat. The principle factors for the decline of PS Chinook salmon, as identified by NMFS, is the present, ongoing, or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Judge 2011). Barriers to fish passage and adverse effects on water quality and quantity resulting from dams, reduce available habitat for rearing and spawning, and alter stream hydrology. The loss of wetland and riparian habitats, and agricultural land and urban development activities have contributed and continue to contribute to the loss and degradation of freshwater and marine Chinook habitats in Puget Sound. Specifically, Chinook are most dramatically affected by the number of large dams and impassable culverts in river systems feeding Puget Sound and increases in urban. development (Hard et al. 2007). Previous harvest management practices likely contributed to the historical decline of PS Chinook salmon (63 FR 11482). Harvest rates for PS Chinook salmon continue to be high, significantly reducing adult spawning escapement, with mean harvest rates between 52% and 65% over the past decade (Ford 2011). Puget Sound Chinook salmon throughout Washington are also ;likely affected by climate change. Given the increasing certainty that climate change is occurring and is accelerating (Battin et al. 2007), the NMFS anticipates fish habitats will be affected (Ford 2011). Such changes may also restrict our ability to conserve diverse salmon life histories. Climate change is expected to make 7 recovery targets for PS Chinook salmon more difficult to achieve. It is uncertain to what extent climate change will affect populations within the PS Chinook salmon ESU. Ocean -climate change and variability was also listed as a factor contributing considerable uncertainty to the viability of PS Chinook salmon into the foreseeable future (Ford 2011). Habitat action can help mitigate for the adverse impacts of climate change on salmon and steelhead in some watersheds. General examples include restoring connections to historical floodplains, freshwater and estuarine habitats to provide fish refugia and areas to store excess floodwaters, protecting and restoring riparian vegetation to ameliorate stream temperature increases, and purchasing or applying easements to lands that provide important cold water or refuge habitat (Battin et al. 2007; ISAB 2007; Mantua 2009). Overall, the most recent information on abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity indicates that the biological risk category of threatened for the PS Chinook ESU is still appropriate. Over the last five years, the PS Chinook salmon ESU has made little progress towards meeting the recovery criteria, and current trends in abundance are negative. Although this ESU's total abundance is greatly reduced from historic levels, recent abundance levels do not indicate that the ESU is at immediate risk of extinction. This ESU remains relatively well distributed over 22 populations in 5 geographic areas across Puget Sound. Although current trends indicate increased risk of extinction since listing, the available information indicates that this ESU remains at no more than moderate risk of extinction. Green River/Duwamish Population of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon: Currently, the Green River Chinook salmon population is well below the recovery target established by the Technical Recovery Team of 17,000 fish. The Green River Chinook salmon natural spawners consist of a high proportion (56%) of hatchery origin fish, with local hatchery sources from the Soos Creek, Icy Creek, and Keta Creek hatchery programs (Ford 2011). Because the source of the hatchery fish is identical with natural origin spawners, it is not likely that adverse effects are present from potential introgression of the mixture of hatchery and natural -origin spawners. The Green River Chinook salmon are subject to high harvest rates, with an average harvest rate of 62% of all adults during the most recent 5 year period (Ford 2011). The Green River/LDW also lacks estuarine habitat, which has been largely converted to industrial uses with less than 3 percent of intertidal wetlands remaining (Kerwin and Neslon 2000). Estuarine habitat supports a productive life history strategy for juvenile Chinook that allows them to rear and smoltify to a length that greatly increases survival in marine nearshore waters, and lacking this habitat juvenile Chinook salmon that would normally rear in estuarine habitat instead rear in marine nearshore waters with greatly reduced survivability (Neilson and Geen 1986; Greene and Beechie 2004). The waters and substrate in the LDW, where the remaining estuary is located are also mostly contaminated from over a century of heavy industrial use and continuing industrial pollution, with areas of high chemical concentrations separated by large areas of comparatively lower contaminant concentrations (LDWG 2010). All juvenile salmonids from the Green River watershed must migrate through the LDW corridor in order to complete their life cycle. Juvenile salmonids are the most susceptible life stage to effects of contamination. With multiple factors reducing the survival and spawner to spawner productivity (lack of estuary, 8 contaminant exposure, harvest, and ongoing pollution,) in the Green River/LDW, the local population of Chinook experiences one of the highest levels of human impacts to habitat and impairment to recovery. With Green River Chinook salmon trending down in terms of productivity and abundance, this population faces significant risk to its continued existence. Puget Sound Steelhead After assessing information concerning steelhead abundance, distribution, population trends, risks, and protection efforts, NMFS listed the Puget Sound Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) as "threatened" under the ESA on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722), which became effective on June 11, 2007. The listed Puget Sound steelhead DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) populations, from streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west by the Elwha River (inclusive) and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek (inclusive), as well as the native origin Green River and Hamma Hamma winter -run steelhead hatchery stocks. The PS steelhead DPS includes populations of summer and winter run fish, comprised mainly of winter run populations (Hard et al. 2007). Summer -run populations, also included in the DPS, are generally small and exist primarily in northern Puget Sound. Resident O. mykiss (rainbow trout) occur within the range of Puget Sound steelhead but are not part of the DPS due to marked differences in physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral characteristics (71 FR 15666). The most recent status review for PS steelhead states that risks for the species have remain substantially unchanged from the time of listing, and that the ESA listing of threatened is still warranted. Below, we briefly summarize the current status of the PS steelhead ESU. Spatial Structure and Diversity: The Biological Review Team (BRT) determined that lack of spatial structure posed a moderate risk to the viability of the PS steelhead DPS due to reduced complexity and diminishing connectivity among populations (Hard et al. 2007). Large numbers of barriers, such as impassable culverts, together with declines in natural abundance, greatly reduce opportunities for adfluvial movement and migration between steelhead groups within watersheds. The original listing was based on the BRT that determined a lack of diversity posed a moderate risk to the viability of the PS steelhead DPS due to influences of non-native hatchery programs producing winter run steelhead that are widespread throughout the Puget Sound region. Most hatcheries in Puget Sound propagate non-native Chamber Creek stock for harvest augmentation. With the exception of the Cedar River and a few smaller tributaries to Puget Sound and Hood Canal, Chambers Creek hatchery -origin winter run steelhead have been released in nearly every basin in the PS steelhead DPS (Hard et al. 2007). Diversity of the DPS is further reduced by the low number of summer steelhead populations within the DPS and a lack of knowledge about them. Summer steelhead stocks within the DPS are relatively small, occupy limited habitat, and most are believed subject to introgression by hatchery fish. Historically, higher harvest rates prior to the mid-1990s may have eliminated a significant proportion of natural summer run and early -returning natural winter run fish in many Puget Sound watersheds (Hard et al. 2007). Little or no data are available on summer run populations to evaluate extinction risk. Because of their small population sizes and the complexity of monitoring fish in the headwater holding areas, summer steelhead have not been broadly monitored. Temporal overlap exists in spawn timing 9 between the two life history types, particularly in northern Puget Sound, where both summer and winter steelhead are present, although summer run steelhead typically spawn farther upstream (Behnke 1992; Busby 1996). Abundance and Productivity: The NMFS evaluated trends in abundance of natural steelhead over the most recent decade (Ford 2011). In the Puget Sound Steelhead DPS, six of the 19 populations with sufficient data to be analyzed by the Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team (TRT) demonstrate mixed temporal trends in escapement and total run size deemed statistically non -significant from the Biological Review Team (BRT) in the 2007 steelhead status review (TRT 2012). For the only summer run steelhead population for which data are available (Tolt River summer run), these populations appears to be showing slight increases in escapement but weak declines in run size for both time series (e.g., all years and over the last 10 years). Overall, run size data show less consistent temporal trends than those for escapement of naturally produced steelhead due to the management for numerical escapement goals for steelhead in the DPS. Nonetheless, distinct declines in natural run size are apparent in all regions of the DPS demonstrating widespread reduced productivity of natural steelhead (Hard et al. 2007). Limiting Factors: The principle factor for the decline of PS steelhead, as identified by NMFS, is the present, ongoing, or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (72 FR 26722). Barriers to fish passage and adverse effects on water quality and quantity resulting from dams, the loss of wetland and riparian habitats, and agricultural land and urban development activities have contributed and continue to contribute to the loss and degradation of steelhead freshwater habitats in Puget Sound. Specifically, steelhead are most dramatically affected by the number of large dams and impassable culverts in river systems feeding Puget Sound, and increases in urban development resulting in changing of stream hydrology (Hard et al. 2007). Previous harvest management practices likely contributed to the historical decline of PS steelhead, but the NMFS concluded that the elimination of the directed harvest of wild steelhead in the mid-1990s largely addressed this threat (72 FR 26722). Predation by marine mammals (principally seals and sea lions) and birds as well as the extensive propagation of the Chambers Creek and Skamania hatchery steelhead are also potential sources of concern. Steelhead throughout Washington are also likely affected by climate change. Given the increasing certainty that climate change is occurring and is accelerating (Battin et al. 2007), the NMFS anticipates fish habitats will be affected (Ford 2011). Such changes may also restrict our ability to conserve diverse salmon life histories. Climate change is expected to make recovery targets for PS steelhead more difficult to achieve, particularly for summer run steelhead. The summer run steelhead life history is adapted to specific environmental conditions that are less common in Puget Sound when compared to the winter run life history. Summer steelhead appear to be more at risk from further habitat degradation imposed by climate changes than winter steelhead because of their low abundances and limited distribution in upper tributaries (Busby et al. 1996). All summer steelhead populations appear to be small, most averaging less than 200 spawners annually. Because summer run populations represent a substantially different life history in Puget Sound, loss of any summer steelhead populations would likely diminish the ecological and genetic diversity of the entire DPS (Ford 2011). It is uncertain to what extent climate change will affect populations within the PS steelhead DPS. Ocean -climate change and 10 variability was also listed as a factor contributing considerable uncertainty to the viability of PS steelhead into the foreseeable future (Ford 2011). Habitat actions can help mitigate for the adverse impacts of climate change on salmon and steelhead in some watersheds. General examples include restoring connections to historical floodplains, freshwater and estuarine habitats to provide fish refugia and areas to store excess floodwaters, protecting and restoring riparian vegetation to ameliorate stream temperature increases, and purchasing or applying easements to lands that provide important cold water or refuge habitat (Battin et al. 2007; ISAB 2007; Mantua 2009). Restoring connections to historical floodplains will also provide potential for genetically similar, neighboring native steelhead populations to contribute to stocks in high risk areas of Puget Sound adversely affected by climate change. The recent five-year review steelhead status review (Ford 2011) provides more detailed information regarding the DPS distribution, trend, limiting factors, and status. The Puget Sound Steelhead TRT has preliminarily determined the population structure for recovery of the DPS, and has prepared a draft for widespread review (TRT 2012). As that information becomes available, it will be incorporated into future biological opinions and evaluations of fishery management actions. Green River/Duwamish Population of Puget Sound Steelhead: Estimated historical abundance for the Green River population of Puget Sound steelhead was much higher than current population estimates. Historically, however, the historically Green River was also fed by the Cedar and White Rivers and Lake Washington in addition to the present-day Green River, making historical abundance non -applicable to current conditions. Intrinsic potential modeling estimates a carrying capacity of 19,768 (TRT 2012), while the population is trending down significantly over the 5 years analyzed in the most recent status review (Ford et al. 2011), with only 423 steelhead adults to the Green River in 2010 (WDFW 2012). During the past 10 years for which there are data, only one year saw returns within 25% of what the state considers a healthy escapement goal of 2000 fish (WDFW 2012). The Tacoma Headworks Diversion Dam has also eliminated access to the upper 31.6 miles of the river, limiting the availability of spawning and rearing habitat. Additionally, the lower 23 miles of the LDW and Green River is channelized, heavily developed with heavy industrial use, reducing potential rearing habitat and reducing the quality of the migration corridor for emigrating steelhead. The Green River population of steelhead is limited to winter run only; access to the upper watershed that may have supported a native population of summer -run steelhead has been eliminated. With multiple factors reducing the survival and spawner to spawner productivity (harvest, loss of floodplains, ongoing pollution, and potential hatchery influence) in the Green River/LDW, the local population of steelhead experiences high levels of human impacts on habitat and impairment to recovery. With Green River steelhead trending down in terms of productivity and abundance, this population faces risks to its continued existence. 11 2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook The NMFS designated critical habitat for the PS Chinook salmon ESU on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). In determining what areas are critical habitat, NMFS considered those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given species, referred to as "primary constituent elements" (PCEs), and that may require special management considerations or protections. Such requirements include, but are not limited to: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and generally; (5) habitats that are protect from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). The NMFS identified six PCEs considered essential to conserving the species when designating critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon, and consist of the following elements: 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 juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks; 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival; 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with/ (i) water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between freshwater and saltwater; (ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and (iii) juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) Water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and 6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. The NMFS reviews the status of designated CH affected by the proposed action by examining 12 the condition and trends of PCEs throughout the designated area. The PCEs are physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the listed species because they support one or more life stages of the ESU (i.e. sites with conditions that support spawning, rearing, migration and foraging). Watersheds within designated critical habitat, called Fifth -field Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) have been ranked as to the conservation value they provide to each listed species they support2: conservation rankings are high, medium, or low. To determine the conservation value of each watershed to ESU viability, the NMFS evaluated the quantity and quality of habitat features (for example, spawning gravels, wood and water condition, side channels), the relationship of the area compared to other areas within the ESU, and the significance to the ESU of the population occupying that area. Thus, evena location that has poor quality of habitat could be ranked at high conservation value if that location was essential due to factors such as limited availability (e.g., one of a very few spawning areas), the unique contribution of the population it served (e.g., a population at the extreme end of geographic distribution), or other important role (e.g., obligate area for migration to upstream spawning areas). The NMFS designated CH for PS Chinook salmon in Clallam, Jefferson, King, Mason, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties. Areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species are designated as CH only when a designation limited to the present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12). At the time of this consultation, no presently unoccupied habitat was designated as CH for PS Chinook salmon. Critical habitat throughout the Puget Sound recovery domain has been, and continues to be, degraded by numerous management and development activities (Judge 2011). Continued loss of habitat and the degradation of critical habitat remains a substantial threat to the continued existence of PS Chinook (Judge 2011). All PCEs CH have been degraded throughout the Puget Sound region, some PCEs more severely impaired than others. Off -channel and floodplain habitat in all major Puget Sound tributaries has been greatly reduced by diking, filling and channelization. The sub -estuaries of Puget Sound --the major river deltas —have suffered a collective 80 percent loss of tidal marsh habitats in the past 150 years (Dean et al. 2001). The causes for these losses of CH are again related to human development, including diking, filling, and channelization. At least 33 percent of Puget Sound shorelines (813 miles) have been modified with bulkheads or other armoring, and one-half of this is associated with single-family residences (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 2002). The Washington State Nearshore Inventory (Nearshore Habitat Program 2001) reports thousands of overwater structures in Puget Sound in the late 1990s to 2000, including 3,500 piers and docks; 29,000 small boat slips; and 700 large ship slips. This continued growth and development of the Puget Sound shoreline contributes to a cumulative degradation or loss of near shore and estuarine habitat, reducing the availability of highly productive rearing habitat for Chinook and other species. As described above, the three 2 The conservation value of a site depends upon "(1) the importance of the populations associated with a site to the ESU [or DPS] conservation, and (2) the contribution of that site to the conservation of the population through demonstrated or potential productivity of the area" NMFS 2005. 13 most common life history types of juvenile Chinook, fry migrants, delta migrants, and parr migrants, all heavily rely on the marine nearshore. The development of shorelines includes the introduction of obstructions in the nearshore, each a source of structure and shade which can support predator fish, interfere with juvenile salmonid migration, diminish aquatic food supply, and is a potential source of water pollution from boating uses. The degradation of multiple PCEs throughout CH of PS Chinook salmon indicates that the conservation potential of the CH is not being reached, even in areas where the conservation value of habitat is ranked high. 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 forma 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 Green/Duwamish sub -basin encompasses approximately 487 square miles and contains approximately 1,433 miles of streams, 171 miles of which are designated as critical habitat by NMFS. The CHART assessment of critical habitat concluded that all occupied areas contained at least one of the PCEs for PS Chinook. The assessment for the lower watershed rated the conservation value of the area as high, as this area supports one of the six independent populations for the geographic region. Based on mapping of human land use and development by HUC, the Green River faces the second highest threat to habitat and ecosystem function for all the independent populations of Puget Sound Chinook. The lower river is channelized and heavily developed with high industrial use, point and non -point source pollution inputs, high historical contamination, and heavy marine traffic, and the lower watershed is of very poor habitat quality due to these factors. Fish and invertebrates in the lower Duwamish have been found to have excessive levels of chemical contaminants and have been rated as a hazard to human health (LDWG 2010). Currently, several efforts are underway throughout the LDW to restore habitat and habitat function, as well as numerous cleanup efforts to lower the levels of contamination in the sediments and entering the waters of the area (NOAA 2012). However, the watershed continues to be developed with increasing urbanization throughout the watershed, altering the hydrologic regime, reducing habitat complexity and floodplain connectivity, and increasing sources of non -point pollution for waters entering the river above the action area and flowing through it. Conditions in the LDW are highly influenced by the waterborne uses and surround land uses. The LDW serves as a major shipping route for bulk and containerized cargo, and the shoreline along the majority of the LDW has been developed for industrial and commercial operations. Common shoreline features include constructed bulkheads, wharves, sheet piling walls, buildings that extend over the water, and steeply sloped banks armored with riprap or other fill material. The LDW uplands within the watershed subunit (6th field HUC) contains approximately 45% impervious surface, and much of the adjacent upland areas are heavily industrialized. The LDW is also subject to an altered hydrologic regime due to upstream damming, disconnection from the 14 floodplain and wetland function, and rapid, contaminated peak flows of runoff from impervious surfaces. The majority of the LDW was formerly an estuary of the Duwamish River, and has been channelized and converted to uplands over the past 150 years, with less than 3 percent of the intertidal wetlands remaining (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The action area also provides very poorly functioning riparian zones with little to no functioning riparian vegetation. Riparian function is a critical component to supporting the local food web and providing prey for juvenile salmonids. In addition, this reach of the LDW is the receiving water body for discharges from over 250 storm drains, combined sewer overflows, and other outfalls and non -point source runoff. Nearby historical or current commercial and industrial operations include cargo handling and storage, marine construction, boat manufacturing, marina operation, paper and metals fabrication, food processing, and airplane manufacturing. Contaminants may have entered and continue to enter the LDW via several transport mechanisms, including spillage during product shipping and handling, direct disposal and discharge, contaminated groundwater discharged, surface water runoff, stormwater discharge, or contaminated soil erosion among other potential methods (EPA 2001). Invertebrates and resident fish have also been found to contain high levels of bioaccumulating contaminants. These high levels of contaminants present an ongoing threat to the health of the local food web and salmonids, and have also been determined to be a risk to human health as well. In addition to exposure from a contaminated prey base, salmonids face risks to reproductive success, growth, and survivability from exposure to waterborne contaminants as well (Baldwin et al. 2009). The members of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group, including the Port of Seattle, City of Seattle, King County, the Boeing Company, and others, entered into an agreement with the EPA and Washington Department of Ecology to coordinate investigative and feasibility studies, and to prioritize, strategically plan, and complete corrective actions and clean-ups such as the proposed actions to address the significantly polluted and degraded habitat of the LDW. The proposed project site is located on the LDW, which was added to the National Priorities List as a Superfund site on September 13, 2001. The proposed actions are within an "early action area" (EAA) identified for the LDW superfund site (the Boeing Plant 2/Jorgensen Forge EAA), and adjacent to another EAA (Terminal 117)(WDOE 2012). Remediation of the EAAs is required before more comprehensive cleanup of the LDW can be completed. Federal actions in the past have consisted of routine dredging to maintain navigational channel depth, pier maintenance, and restoration activities. The US Army Corps of Engineers maintains the LDW as a navigable waterway by dredging every 1 to 3 years. Property owners along the LDW occasionally make repairs and upgrades to piers and pilings, requiring in water pile driving. Additionally, several small scale restoration activities have been undertaken along the LDW in order to increase the availability of intertidal and riparian habitat and to improve overall habitat function. 2.4 Effects of the Action "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 15 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 are still reasonably certain to occur. Neither NMFS nor the action agency identified any interrelated or interdependent actions during consultation. Work will be conducted over a three year period beginning in the Fall of 2012, with in -water work limited to work windows to avoid periods of salmonid migration (August 1 to February 15 for Boeing, and October 1 to February 15 for Jorgensen Forge). The proposed action will also include the temporary installation of a dock (640 square feet or less) for loading and unloading materials from barges. This structure will, however, be far less overwater structure than that removed during the proposed actions and is temporary. Dredging for both projects will consist primarily of using an articulated, enclosed bucket without barge overflow, which has been shown to resuspend less than 1 percent of the dredged sediment (Bridges et al. 2008). It is expected that an equivalent amount of the sediment -bound contaminants would be resuspended. An open bucket excavator dredge will be used when large debris is encountered that cannot be removed by the closed bucket. Dredging will result in increased localized turbidity levels, direct habitat disturbance and removal, and increased concentrations of contaminants in the nearby waters. The project will have a 150 foot mixing zone that will be monitored to ensure that waters outside of the mixing zone do not exceed thresholds for general compliance with Clean Water Act standards. Installation of temporary structures and pilings will be done via vibratory methods whenever feasible, with a maximum steel pile size of 24 inches. Piles will also be removed via vibratory methods. Piles that break or are unable to be extracted will be cut at least three feet below the final project grade. The primary effects of the action will consist of underwater noise exposure from the installation and removal of piles for temporary structures, increased turbidity, and exposure to increased concentrations of contaminants due to dredging activities, increased noise from dredging operations, and direct disturbance of benthic and intertidal habitat. The effects of pile driving and removal will be too small to adversely affect listed species in the action area because no impact pile driving will occur during the project, and sound is unlikely to exceed levels in the baseline. Benthic and intertidal habitat disturbance will occur throughout the project area. However, estuarine benthic fauna have a demonstrated ability to recolonize disturbed substrates rapidly (Dernie et al. 2003), with ecological function of the project area gradually increasing as a result of project activities. Effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead Turbidity/Suspended Sediments Construction and removal of temporary structures and dredging will disturb sediments in the action area, causing increased turbidity through direct and indirect suspension of sediments. Increased suspended sediments can cause avoidance behavior, disrupt feeding, cause physiologic stress, and adversely affect fish survival (Newcombe and Jensen 1996; Bash et al 2001). The 16 duration of exposure is a critical determinant of effects to fish, with increasing potential for harm with increased duration of effects (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Increased suspended sediments and turbidity from the proposed actions is anticipated to occur within a 150 foot mixing zone throughout the work windows for up to 3 years, with suspended sediment levels decreasing exponentially with distance from the point of dredging. Suspended sediment loads will be increased for up to 6.5 months per year (August 1 to February 15), with potentially harmful chronic increases contained within the 150 foot compliance boundary. This 150 foot compliance boundary will limit the effects to the east side of the river. Juvenile Chinook salmon can be found in very low numbers in the LDW throughout the year, but beginning in late January they become more abundant until July (Ruggerone et al. 2006). Juvenile steelhead were found in the LDW from February to May (Ruggerone et al. 2006). These emigrations timing indicated that juveniles of both species will have some overlap with project activities at the edge of their emigration timing. Adults of both species will overlap with project activities when returning to spawn. During dredging, suspended sediments will usually disperse either upstream or downstream depending on tidal and river flow. Most suspended sediments will tend to settle rapidly. The vast majority of dredging will occur with an enclosed bucket type dredge and temporary storage on a barge with no overflow, which greatly reduces the amount of sediment suspended during dredging. This method of dredging has been shown to suspend less than 1 percent of the dredged material (Bridges et al. 2008). Dredging may occur for up to 20 hours in a 24 hour period, effectively causing a chronic increase in sediment concentration during in -water activities. For chronic exposure, even small increases in suspended sediment as little as 7mg/L can cause negative impacts to fish health (Newcombe and Jensen, 1996). Because of the project duration and daily duration of project activities, increased suspended sediment is likely to adversely affect listed species in the area by interfering with migration and foraging behavior and increasing physiological stress. Contaminants The sediment in the action area contains contaminants, each of which are likely to increase in concentration during dredging and can injure or kill salmonids. Concentrations of PCBs and other contaminants may reach acutely toxic levels during dredging. The action agency selected PCBs as the proxy for all contaminants because they are the most prominent and pervasive contaminant in the sediments for the proposed actions. The acute threshold for likely injury to salmonids is 10µg/L (i.e., 10 parts per billion) for PCBs based on Environmental Protection Agency exposure response curves (EPA 2012). Other contaminants were detected, but were within the footprint defined by the broader PCB contamination. Contaminant concentrations will be increased for up to 6.5 months per year (August 1 to February 15), with potentially harmful acute increases contained within the 150 foot compliance boundary. This 150 foot compliance boundary will limit the effects to the east side of the river. Juvenile Chinook salmon can be found in very low numbers in the LDW throughout the year, but beginning in late January they become more abundant until July (Ruggerone et al. 2006). Juvenile steelhead were found in the LDW from February to May (Ruggerone et al. 2006). 17 These emigration timings indicated that juveniles of both species will have some overlap with project activities at the edge of their emigration timing. Adults of both species will overlap with project activities when returning to spawn upriver. Because contaminant exposure over a short period of time can be detrimental to developing juvenile fish, and multiple contaminant species may have multiplicative effects, some portion of the few early and late -emigrating juvenile salmonids and immigrating adult salmonids are likely to be exposed to levels of contaminants at levels that impair behavior, growth, and survival. Contaminant exposure will not reach levels that cause death, as effects on growth and survival from exposure to contaminants are generally limited to migrating and rearing juvenile salmonids exposed to the contaminants. However, depressed growth and altered normal behavior will in some cases increase mortality. Effects on Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat The action area includes 3 of 6 PCEs, including freshwater rearing areas, freshwater migratory corridors, and estuarine areas. While project activities are occurring, water quality aspects of each of the PCEs will be impaired by increased suspended sediments and contaminants, and may impair. juvenile Chinook salmon development and survival within the local areas of high sediment concentration. The effects on water quality are only expected to occur during in water work, and are not expected to extend outside of the scheduled work windows or beyond the duration of the project. The project may disturb and destroy benthic organisms for up to two years. Conditions that support these benthic organisms in the action area may not fully recover until two years after the completion of the proposed actions. However, based on feeding specialties of Chinook salmon, this disturbance of the benthic community is unlikely to negatively affect juvenile or adult salmonids because juvenile salmon feed on floating and drifting invertebrates and small fishes. The proposed actions are not expected to have any short term negative impact on availability of habitat or natural cover. The proposed actions will increase the availability of intertidal habitat, and includes riparian restoration that will improve the availability of natural cover over the long term. This increase of natural cover will also likely lead to an increase in forage opportunities for juvenile Chinook salmon over the long term. Finally, the remediation of contaminated sediments will reduce the biological availability of contaminants in the sediments, will improve water quality, and reduce the potential for exposure to contaminants to juvenile Chinook salmon. Thus, over the short term to moderate term, the project will adversely affect the function of the PCEs for Chinook salmon, but over the long term the proposed actions are expected to increase the function of the PCEs. 18 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. King County is planning improvements to combined -sewer -overflows along the LDW to reduce the volume and frequency of occurrences of overflow events that contribute to pollution and habitat degradation (King County 2012). These county actions are expected to reduce the rate at which recontamination of the LDW occurs, but are unlikely to have significant short term impacts because they require little or no in -water work. Reducing the rate of recontamination will slow the rate at which the function of habitat :is degraded. Combined with this project, and other mitigation, restoration, and remediation projects, fish and other wildlife are likely to experience an improvement in habitat function and health over current baseline conditions for years into the future. Any other contemporaneous non -Federal actions expected to occur within the action area are likely to be limited to state or locally funded restoration activities designed to enhance habitat quality in the LDW (NOAA 2012). All other actions that may occur within the action area are expected to be subject to NMFS consultation based on the relevant Federal authorities. The overall trend of these activities is expected to increase the amount and quality of habitat available to listed salmonids and have an overall beneficial effect over the long term on growth, survival, and reproductive success. 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, we add the effects of the action (Section 2.4) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.3) and the cumulative effects (Section 2.,5) 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 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 (Section 2.2). The baseline conditions of the Green River/LDW are severely degraded, particularly for rearing habitat in the lower river and for critical habitat function in the LDW. The populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead are both well below their target viability (Chinook) or healthy stock (steelhead) targets. Both populations have conservation hatchery programs that supplement the natural origin fish in order to bolsters numbers of listed species. The Green 19 River/LDW continues to experience degradation and threats to habitat quality and function based on existing human land uses in the watershed. The proposed actions will worsen conditions in a portion of the Green River/LDW watershed for up to 6 %2 months per year, for up to 3 years. However, all project in -water activities will occur during times when juvenile salmon are less likely to be present, thus minimizing the total number of fish exposed to potentially deleterious effects from project activities. Intertidal shoreline excavations that will occur during the spring and summer outside of the standard work window (May to August) will all occur in the dry and will follow BMPs as described in the BA to ensure potential for harmful effects is minimized (such as placing cover or capping excavations before inundation). Adult salmon, while likely to encounter effects from the project, are not expected to have reduced survival or reproductive success through exposure to project effects. The use of general BMPs, such as vibratory pile installation, will ensure that the late portion of the emigrating population of PS Chinook salmon and early -returning adults are not disproportionately adversely affected by the proposed actions. This approach is expected to not adversely affect the variability and diversity of the Green River population. Over the short to moderate term of 3-5 years, the proposed actions will expose a small portion of the overall Green River/LDW populations of Chinook salmon and steelhead to conditions that may be harmful for exposed individuals. Overall, the number of individuals that might be expected to encounter effects from the proposed action is a very small proportion of the populations for both Chinook salmon and steelhead, and is not expected to have long term consequences for the Green River populations or for the PS Chinook salmon ESU and PS steelhead DPS as a whole. The proposed actions will have a short term adverse affect on designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon. The projects will result in short term adverse effects on the water quality aspects of the relevant PCEs. The project effects will occur in an already severely degraded area of critical habitat, and will not diminish the function of the PCEs over the long term. The proposed actions will increase the amount of available critical habitat. Additionally, over time this project is expected to improve PCEs for designated critical habitat and improve overall function of habitat, while reducing exposure to contaminants contained in the existing sediments. This, combined with a reduction in the rate of recontamination from non-federal improvements to CSOs is expected to result in a long term increase in the conservation value of the action area. Because the project is expected to cause only short term effects that will not be significant at the population level, and the proposed actions will result in a long term increase in the conservation value of the action area, NMFS believes that the proposed actions will contribute to the recovery of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead, and improve functions of designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon. 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 20 opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, or to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 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. 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 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 Individual fish from the Green/Duwamish populations of listed PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead will be present in and co-occur with the effects of the action. Therefore, incidental take of individuals of each species is reasonably certain to occur. Take will occur in the form of harm, where habitat modified by suspended solids and contaminants will actually injure fish by impairing normal patterns of behavior including rearing and migrating in the action area, and by reducing survival and growth of exposed juveniles. Take in the form of harm from these causes cannot be accurately quantified as a number of fish. The distribution and abundance of fish within the action area cannot be predicted precisely based on existing habitat conditions, and because of temporal and dynamic variability in population dynamics in the action area, nor can NMFS precisely predict the number of fish that are reasonably certain to respond adversely to habitat modified by the proposed action. When NMFS cannot quantify take in numbers of affected animals, focus shifts to the likely extent of changes in habitat quantity and quality to indicate the extent of take. 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 US 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 in consistent with our understanding of the dictionary definition of harass and is consistent with the US Fish and Wildlife interpretation of the term. 21 For this consultation, the best available indicator for the extent of take from suspended sediment and contaminants is the spatial extent within which turbidity and contaminant levels increase from project activities to levels that can injure or kill fish in the action area while in water work is occurring from the proposed actions. In water work may occur for 6 '/2 months per year for up to 3 years, between the dates of August 1 and February 15. The levels of suspended sediments and contaminants are expected to be proportional to the amount of injury that the proposed action is likely to cause through physiological stress from elevated suspended sediments and contaminants throughout the duration of the projects' in water activities and potentially throughout the compliance boundary of 150 feet from ongoing activities. The maximum extent of take is defined by the compliance area for turbidity and PCB monitoring of 150 feet upstream or downstream (depending on tidal flow) from current project activities. Within the compliance boundary, injury may occur to listed species present in the area due to increased turbidity and contaminant exposure. At the 150 feet monitoring boundary, turbidity will be within 20% of background turbidity levels (or within 10 NTU if background is below 50 NTU), and PCB levels will be below acute exposure threshold of 101.1g/L as indicated by EPA exposure response curves (EPA 2012). 2.8.2 Effect of Take In section 2.7, NMFS determined that the level 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 and Terms and Conditions Reasonable and prudent measures are non -discretionary measure to avoid or minimize take. NMFS believes that the full application of the reasonable and prudent measures described below is necessary and appropriate to minimize the likelihood of incidental take of ESA -listed species: 1. Minimize and monitor incidental take caused by elevated turbidity and suspended sediments during construction. 2. Minimize and monitor incidental take caused by acute contaminant exposures during construction. The terms and conditions described below are non -discretionary, and the EPA or their agent must comply with them in order to implement the reasonable and prudent measures (50 CFR 402.14). The EPA or their agent has 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 following terms and conditions are not complied with, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) will likely lapse. To implement reasonable and prudent measure No.1: 22 1. The EPA and their agents shall monitor turbidity levels in the Lower Duwamish River during sediment -generating activities. Water quality monitoring will occur in two tiers that includes intensive monitoring and routine monitoring as described in the Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan (WQMWP). 2. Perform baseline condition monitoring away from sediment generating activities to establish background turbidity levels. 3. Project activities will be modified, reduced, or ceased when turbidity conditions exceed water quality monitoring standards as described in the WQMWP. To implement reasonable and prudent measure No. 2: 1. The EPA and their agents shall monitor PCB levels as a proxy for re -suspended contaminants during sediment -generating activities. Water quality monitoring will occur in two tiers that includes intensive monitoring and routine monitoring as described in the WQMWP. 2. Project activities will be modified, reduced, or ceased when PCB levels exceed water quality monitoring compliance standards as described in the WQMWP. 2.9 Conservation Recommendations Because the action itself will improve quality of habitat and ecosystem function, reduces overwater coverage, increases the amount of intertidal habitat and riparian vegetation, and includes BMPs sufficient to minimize risk to listed species, no conservation recommendations are being made at this time. 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 an 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 no 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. 23 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 occur when EFH quality or quantity is reduced by a direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the waters or substrate, or by the loss of (or injury to) benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, or other ecosystem components. Adverse 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 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 EPA and applicants 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 entire action area fully overlaps with identified EFH for Pacific Coast salmon. As an estuary, the LDW is also identified as a habitat area of particular concern. 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat The proposed actions will cause negative impacts on the quality of habitat by increasing sound energy, suspended sediment, benthic disturbance, and increased concentrations of waterborne contaminants. These effects will occur during the work windows over a period of up to three years, with negative impacts quickly fading after project completion and improvement of habitat quality and ecological function over the long term. 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations Because the action itself will improve quality of habitat and ecosystem function, reduces overwater coverage, increases the amount of intertidal habitat and riparian vegetation, and includes BMPs sufficient to minimize impact to EFH, no additional conservation recommendations are being made at this time. 24 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement Because NMFS is not making any conservation recommendations at this time, no 30 day response to conservation recommendations is required. 3.5 Supplemental Consultation The EPA 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(1)). 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATIONREVIEW 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 EPA. Other interested users could include the Jorgensen. Forge Corporation, the Boeing Company, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group, King County, the Port of Seattle, and other groups. Individual copies of this opinion were provided to the EPA, Jorgensen Forge Corporation, and the Boeing Company. This Opinion will be posted on the NMFS Northwest Region website (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov). 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 polices 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. 25 They adhere to published standards including the NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA Regulations, 50 CFR 402.01, et seq., and the MSA implementing guidelines 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 analysis in this opinion/EFH consultation contains more background on information sources and quality. Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analysis 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. 26 5. REFERENCES Baldwin, DH, JA Spromberg, TK Collier, and NL Scholz. 2009. A fish of many scales: extrapolating sublethal pesticide exposures to the productivity of wild salmon populations. Ecological Applications, 19(8): 2004-2015. Bash, J, C Berman, and S Bolton. 2001. Effects of turbidity and suspended solids on salmonids. Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle, WA. 92pp. Battin, J, MW Wiley, MH Ruckelshaus, RN Palmer, E Korb, KK Bartz, and H Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 104(16): 6720-6725. Behnke, RJ. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph No. 6. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD. 275pp. Bridges, TS, S Ellis, D Hayes, D Mount, SC Nadeua, MR Palermo, C Patmont, and P Schroeder. 2008. The four R's of environmental dredging: Resuspension, release, residual, and risk. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/EL TR-08-4, Washington, DC. 56pp. Busby, PJ, TC Wainwright, GJ Bryant, LJ Lerheirner, RS Waples, FW Waknitz, and IV Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. US Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. Accessed 9/12/2011 at: http//www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm27/tm27.htm Dean, T, Z Ferdana, and J White. 2001. Identifying and prioritizing sites for potential estuarine habitat restoration in Puget Sound's Skagit River Delta. Proceedings of the 2001 Puget Sound Research Conference, Olympia, WA. 12pp. Dernie, KM, MJ Kaiser, and RM Warwick. 2003. Recovery rates of benthic communities following physical disturbance. Journal of Animal Ecology, 72:1043-1056. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. National Priorities List: NPL site narrative for the Lower Duwamish Waterway. EPA. Washington D.C. Accessed 8/21/2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1622 .htm Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed September 7, 2012 at: www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0294.htm Ford MJ (ed.), T Cooney , P McElhany, N Sands, L Weitkamp, J Hard, M McClure, R Kope, J Myers, A Albaugh, K Barnas, D Teel, P Moran, and J Cowen. 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: 27 Northwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA- NWFSC-113, 281pp. Good, TP, RS Waples, and P Adams (eds.). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598pp. Greene, CM and TJ Beechie. 2004. Consequences of potential density -dependent mechanisms on the recovery of ocean -type Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 69:590-602. Hard, JJ, JM Meyers, MJ Ford, RG Cope, GR Pess, RS Waples, G Winans, BA Berjikian, FW Waknitz, PB Adams, PA Bisson, DE Campton, and RR Resenbichler. 2007. Status review of Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). US Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-81, 117pp. Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River basin fish and wildlife. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Portland, Oregon. Accessed 9/13/2011 at www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2007-2.pdf. Judge, MM. 2011. A qualitative assessment of the implementation of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan. Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting, Inc., 45pp. Kerwin, J, and TS Nelson (eds.) 2000. Habitat limiting factors and reconnaissance assessment report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources. King County. 2012. King County at work preventing pollution in the Lower Duwamish Waterway. King County Wastewater Treatment Division. Accessed 8/21/2012 at http://www .kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/Duwamish- waterway/PreventingPollution/ReducingCS OVolumes. aspx Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (LDWG). 2010. Lower Duwamish Waterway remedial investigation: Remedial investigation report. Windward Environmental Inc., Seattle, WA, 826pp. Mantua, N, I Tohver, and AF Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of climate change on key aspects of freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State. In: Washington climate change impacts assessment: Evaluating Washington's future in a changing climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. Accessed on 9/13/2011 at http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciah6salmon649.pdf Nearshore Habitat Program. 2001. The Washington State shorezone inventory. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 28 Neilson, JD and GH Geen. 1986. First -year growth rate of Sixes River Chinook salmon as inferred from otoliths: effects on mortality and age a maturity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 115:28=33. Newcombe, CP, and JOT Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediments and fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. Journal of Fisheries Management, 4(16): 693-727. Nightingale, B, and C Simenstad. 2001. White paper: Dredging Activities: Marine Issues. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA. 184pp. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Fishery management plan for Pacific Salmon. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/background Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team. 2012. Identifying historical populations of steelhead within the Puget Sound distinct population segment, review draft. Department of Commerce, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA. 336pp. Puget Sound Water Quality .Action Team. 2002. Puget Sound update 2002. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia, WA. 156pp. NOAA. 2012. Supplement to the DRAFT Lower Duwamish River NRDA Programmatic Restoration Plan & Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 123p. Accessed August 21, 2012 at: http : //www. darrp. noaa. gov/northwest/lowerduwamishriver/pdf/PEI S %20main%20text_0 720_2012.pdf Ruggerone, GT, TS Nelson, J Hall, and E Jeanes. 2006. Habitat utilization, migration timing, growth, and diet of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Duwamish River and estuary. Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. Seattle, WA. 71pp. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2012. Lower Duwamish Waterway source control status report: October 2010 through June 2011. Toxics Cleanup Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Bothell, WA. 304pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012. Stock report: Green River (Duwamish) winter steelhead. WDFW. Accessed on 8/15/2012 at https://fortress.wa.go v/dfw/gispublic/apps/salmonscape/salmonscapeJSP/summarystockr eport.jsp?sasistknum=6175 29 USFWS United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 In Reply Refer To: 01EWFW00-2012-F-0046 01 E WF W00-2012-F-0109 Daniel Opalski, Director Office of Environmental Cleanup U.S. EPA — Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, ECL-117 Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Opalski and Mr. Albright: us. FISH e£WILDLIFE AUG 2 2 2012 Rick Albright, Director Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics U.S. EPA — Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, AWT-128 Seattle, Washington 98101 Subject: Biological Opinion — Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup Actions at Jorgensen Forge and Boeing Plant 2/Duwamish Sediment Other Area This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the cleanup actions and related activities proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at two locations within the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site, and their potential effects on the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and designated bull trout critical habitat. This formal consultation has been conducted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The EPA provided information in support of "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determinations for the bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat: ■ Superfund Removal Action at the Jorgensen Forge Facility and Early Action Area 4 — Cover Letter and Biological Assessment (BA), dated November 23, 2011, and received in our office on November 28, 2011 (FWS Ref. No. 01EWFW00-2012-F-0046); ■ Boeing Plant 2/Duwamish Sediment Other Area/Southwest Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Project — Cover Letter and BA, dated January 13, 2012, and received in our office on January 17, 2012.(FWS Ref. No. O1EWFW00-2012-F-0109). Daniel Opalski and Rick Albright 2 The enclosed Opinion addresses the proposed actions' adverse effects on the bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat, and includes mandatory terms and conditions intended to minimize certain adverse effects. The EPA has determined that these actions will have "no effect" on several additional listed species and critical habitat known to occur in King County, Washington. There is no requirement for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to concur on "no effect" determinations. Therefore, your determinations that these actions will have no effect on these species and critical habitat rest with the Federal action agency. If you have any questions regarding the Opinion or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, please contact Ryan McReynolds at (360) 753-6047 or Martha Jensen at (360) 753- 9000, of this office. Sincere , Ken S. Berg, Manager Washington Fish and Wildlife Office cc: USEPA, Seattle, WA (H. Arrigoni) USEPA, Seattle, WA (A. Lambert) Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation BIOLOGICAL OPINION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service References: 01 EWFW00-2012-F-0046 01EWFW00-2012-F-0109 Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup Actions Jorgensen Forge and Boeing Plant 2/ Duwamish Sediment Other Area King County, Washington Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, Washington Consultation Conducted By: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Lacey, Washington Ken S. Berg, Manager Washington Fish and Wildlife Office fit 2� Z-o/Z Da TABLE OF CONTENTS CONSULTATION HISTORY 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4 Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4 7 Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA 11 Conservation Measures 15 ACTION AREA 17 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS 20 STATUS OF THE SPECIES (BULL TROUT) 21 STATUS OF CRITICAL HABITAT (BULL TROUT) 21 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 21 Environmental Baseline in the Action Area 21 Status of the Species in the Action Area 27 Status of Critical Habitat in the Action Area 29 Effects of Past and Contemporaneous Actions 32 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 33 Insignificant and Discountable Effects (Bull Trout) 34 Adverse Effects of the Action (Bull Trout) 41 Exposure to Elevated Turbidity and Sedimentation During Construction 42 Acute Exposure to Hazardous Contaminants 44 Chronic Contaminant Exposures and Effects 54 Summary of Effects (Bull Trout) 56 Effects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat 57 Indirect Effects (Bull Trout and Critical Habitat) 61 Effects of Interrelated & Interdependent Actions (Bull Trout and Critical Habitat) 62 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (Bull Trout and Critical Habitat) 63 CONCLUSION 65 AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 69 EFFECT OF THE TAKE 70 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 70 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 71 REINITIATION NOTICE 74 APPENDIX A: Status of the Species (Bull Trout; Coterminous Range) 83 APPENDIX B: Status of Designated Critical Habitat (Bull Trout; Coterminous Range) 84 APPENDIX C: Core Area Summaries (Bull Trout) 85 APPENDIX D: Sediment Analysis Framework (2010) 86 ii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Summary - Applicants, orders, and documentation 2 Table 2. Summary statistics for select contaminants of concern in surface sediments 24 Table 3. Summary statistics for select contaminants of concern in subsurface sediments 24 Table 4. Detection frequency, mean and maximum surface sediment concentrations for select contaminants of concern; comparison with marine SQSs and CSLs 25 Table 5. Predicted water column concentrations for select contaminants of concern, with comparison to TRVs. 52 Table 6. Hazard indices for metals, PAHs, and PCBs desorbing to the water column. 53 Table 7. Effects of the action ("Matrix of Pathways & Indicators"). 57 Figure 1. Vicinity map (EPA 2012c). 5 Figure 2. Location of EAAs and proposed actions (EPA 2012c). 6 Figure 3. Vicinity Map — Jorgensen Forge EAA-4 (Anchor QEA 2011a). 9 Figure 4. Removal Action Boundary — Jorgensen Forge EAA-4 (Anchor QEA 2011a). 10 Figure 5. Vicinity Map — Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA (AMEC Geomatrix 2011). 12 Figure 6. Removal Action Boundary — Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA (AMEC Geomatrix 2011)12 Figure 7. South Shoreline Restoration Area (AMEC Geomatrix 2011). 15 Figure 8. Aerial photo depicting extent of the action area 19 Figure 9. Sediment total PCB concentrations and RABs (AECOM 2010, p. ES-11). 23 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Act Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) Applicants Jorgensen Forge Corporation and The Boeing Company BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practice CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CSL Cleanup Screening Level CSO Combined Sewer Overflow cy cubic yards DSOA Duwamish Sediment Other Area EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis EAA Early Action Area EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FMO Foraging, Migration, and Overwintering HQ Hazard Quotient LDWG Lower Duwamish Waterway Group MLLW Mean Lower Low Water NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units Opinion Biological Opinion PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PCE Primary Constituent Elements RAB Removal Action Boundary RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI Remedial Investigation RM river mile RPM Reasonable and Prudent Measures Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SEV Severity of Effect SPL sound pressure level SQS Sediment Quality Standards TRV Toxicity Reference Values VOC volatile organic compound WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area iv CONSULTATION HISTORY The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their Applicants propose to conduct coordinated cleanup actions and related activities at two locations within the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site. These actions include removal of contaminated media from the lower Duwamish and adjacent uplands, replacement with clean back -fill, related source control measures, related habitat enhancement and mitigation measures, and associated activities. The EPA is the lead Federal action agency, responsible for the approval, administration, and oversight of these cleanup actions and related activities, pursuant to the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Applicants, or Responsible Parties, are the Jorgensen Forge Corporation (Jorgensen • Forge) and the Boeing Company (Boeing). The EPA and Responsible Parties have entered into Orders on Consent, have completed an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), Corrective Measures Study, and selected a preferred alternative for each cleanup action (Table 1). The EPA has completed a Remedial Investigation (RI) of the larger Superfund Site (Windward Environmental 2010), and has determined that each of the proposed actions is fundamental to, and must proceed in advance of, the comprehensive cleanup and remediation action. These cleanup actions require EPA approval, and the action at Boeing Plant 2 will likely require the issuance of Federal permits under both the Clean Water Act, Section 404, and Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10. Federal approvals, and issuance of Federal permits, establish a nexus requiring consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.)(Act). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) based this Biological Opinion (Opinion) on the following sources of information: • Superfund Removal Action at the Jorgensen Forge Facility and Early Action Area 4 (EAA-4) — Cover Letter and Biological Assessment (BA), dated November 23, 2011, and received in our office on November 28, 2011 (Anchor QEA 2011 a); ■ Additional information provided by the EPA, Re: Jorgensen Forge Removal Action (Blocker, in litt. 2012); • Memorandum - Jorgensen Forge BA Response to Comments (Anchor QEA, in litt. 2012); • Boeing Plant 2/Duwamish Sediment Other Area (DSOA)/Southwest Bank Corrective Measure and Habitat Project — Cover Letter and BA, dated January 13, 2012, and received in our office on January 17, 2012 (AMEC Geomatrix 2011). 1 Table 1. Summary - Applicants, orders, and documentation. Site / Action Applicant / Responsible Party Orders on Consent Documentation Settlement Agreement EPA Docket No. CERCLA- Jorgensen and Order on Consent 10-2003-0111 Superfund Removal Forge for Removal Action Final EE/CA — March 2011 Action at the Jorgensen (June 30, 2003) (Anchor QEA 2011b) Forge Facility EAA 4 Earle M. Jorgensen First Amendment Action Memorandum Re: Company (2008) Alternative Selection (EPA 2011) Administrative Order RCRA Docket No. Boeing Plant 2/ DSOA/ on Consent (1994) 1092-01-22-3008(h) Southwest Bank Corrective Measure and Boeing Consent Decree with Alternatives Study (AMEC Habitat Project Natural Resource and FSI 2010) Trustees (2010) • A field review of the project site (December 5, 2011); and, • Various scientific literature and personal communications cited herein. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington. The following timeline summarizes the history of this consultation: July 29, 2011 — The Service provided written comments to the EPA and Boeing based on our review of the draft BA (dated May 2011) addressing the Boeing Plant 2/DSOA corrective measure. October 19, 2011 — The Service met with the EPA and Boeing to discuss the Boeing Plant 2/DSOA corrective measure in advance of consultation. November 28, 2011 — The Service received a cover letter and BA from the EPA requesting formal consultation on the removal action at the Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4. December 20, 2011 — The Service requested additional information regarding the Jorgensen Forge removal action. 2 January 3, 2012 — The EPA provided a partial response to our request for information regarding the Jorgensen Forge removal action (via email correspondence). January 17, 2012 — The Service received a cover letter and BA from the EPA requesting formal consultation on the Boeing Plant 2/DSOA corrective measure and habitat project. February 7, 2012 — Jorgensen Forge provided a partial response to our request for information regarding the Jorgensen Forge removal action (via email correspondence, with attachments). February 7, 2012 — The Service initiated formal consultation. June 28, 2012 — The Service shared a copy of the draft Opinion with the EPA for their review and comment. August 9, 2012 — The EPA provided comments for the draft Opinion. August 14, 2012 — The EPA provided a draft water quality monitoring plan for Boeing Plant 2. 3 BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The EPA and Applicants (Jorgensen Forge and The Boeing Company) propose to conduct coordinated cleanup actions and related activities at two locations within the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site. Each of the proposed actions is fundamental to, and must proceed in advance of, comprehensive cleanup and remediation of the larger Superfund Site. These actions include removal of contaminated media from the lower Duwamish and adjacent uplands, replacement with clean back -fill, related source control measures, related habitat enhancement and mitigation measures, and associated activities. The EPA, Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (LDWG), and other interested parties and stakeholders are implementing a long term strategy to clean and remediate contaminated portions of the lower Duwamish, and control historic and continuing sources of contamination. The EPA placed the Lower Duwamish Waterway onto the National Priorities List of Superfund sites during 2001, but determining the sources of toxic surface water and sediment contamination, and the feasibility of various source control and corrective actions, have been the focus of intensive study since the mid-1970s (LDWG 2012b). Related corrective actions began as early as the 1950s and 60s with curtailment of toxic industrial discharges and improved or replaced sewer and water treatment infrastructure. Corrective actions have continued to the present in the form of hazardous waste disposal programs, preservation and restoration of intertidal habitats, control and retrofit of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and further improvements to sewer and water treatment infrastructure, and cleanup (removal and disposal) of soil, water, and sediment contamination at a number of locations along the lowermost six miles (LDWG 2012a). The members of the LDWG, including Boeing, the City and Port of Seattle, and King County have entered into a voluntary agreement with the EPA and Ecology to improve and better coordinate investigative and feasibility studies, and to prioritize, strategically plan, and complete corrective actions and cleanups. The EPA identifies and prioritizes EAAs where they are part of a larger Superfund site and may become a threat to people or the environment before the long term comprehensive cleanup can be completed (EPA 2012c). Cleanup and source control actions, when taken at or within EAAs, also serve the purpose of sequencing actions so as to prevent re -contamination and improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of comprehensive cleanup and remediation efforts. The EPA and Responsible Parties have already taken Interim Measures at these EAA sites and facilities, including stormwater system improvements and related source control measures, Time Critical Removal Actions, and "independent" actions (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, Appendix A, pp. 1-2). Also, the EPA and King County completed cleanup at the Duwamish Diagonal EEA during 2005 (EPA 2012c), which was the subject of a previous consultation with the Service (X Ref 1-3-04-F-0090). Figures 1 and 2 depict the Superfund Site, the location of EAAs, and the vicinity of the proposed actions. 4 Figure 1. Vicinity map (EPA 2012c). 5 Terminal 117 orgefsef Forge Figure 2. Location of EAAs and proposed actions (EPA 2012c). 6 The proposed actions include cleanup, source control, habitat enhancement, and associated activities planned for implementation at the Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4, and at the Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA (including the Boeing -owned portions of Slip-4). The actions are located between river mile (RM) 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River, in the Cities of Seattle and Tukwila (King County, Washington): Township 24 North, Range 4 East, Sections 29, 32, and 33; Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 — Duwamish-Green. The EPA and Applicants (Jorgensen Forge and Boeing) have established and agreed to the Removal Action Boundaries (RABs), appropriate Removal Action Levels, and preferred removal action alternative for each of the EAA sites and facilities. The EPA, Ecology, and Applicants determined the appropriate set of Removal Action Levels, contaminant concentrations above which sediment cleanup measures are required, based on the most significant risk drivers for human and ecological health, associated risk -based threshold concentrations, remediation objectives, and feasibility. The RI Report characterizes baseline risks for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site, identifies significant risk drivers for human health and ecological receptors, and explains the process and considerations for determining appropriate Removal Action Levels (Windward Environmental 2010, Executive Summary). The proposed actions would permanently remove, in total, approximately 270,000 cy of contaminated media (sediment and soils) from more than 16.5 acres of the lower Duwamish and adjacent uplands. These actions include related source control measures to prevent re- contamination, and habitat enhancement and mitigation measures to partially offset the environmental and natural resource damages resulting from the historic and continuing releases of hazardous substances to the lower Duwamish. The EPA and Applicants expect that the proposed actions will dramatically improve sediment and water quality conditions in these portions of the lower Duwamish, will reduce long term contaminant exposure risks with both human health and ecological benefits, and contribute substantially to the comprehensive Superfund Site cleanup and remediation effort. The sub -sections that follow provide additional details regarding activities planned for implementation at the Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4, and at the Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA. The BAs submitted by the EPA provide complete project descriptions, which we incorporate here by reference (AMEC Geomatrix 2011; Anchor QEA 2011a). What follows below is only a summary of the complete project descriptions provided by the BAs and any subsequent correspondence between the Service, EPA, and Applicants. The final sub -section summarizes the conservation measures which are common to each of the proposed actions. Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4 Based on their Final EE/CA, the EPA and Responsible Party (Jorgensen Forge and Earle M. Jorgensen Company) have agreed to a preferred alternative for CERCLA site cleanup and remediation of the Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4. On October 13, 2011, the EPA selected the full removal alternative for this Non -Time Critical Removal Action (Anchor QEA 2011 a, p. 2). The Jorgensen Forge EAA-4 is located at approximately RM 3.6, extending from the waterway's navigational channel shoreward along the right -bank of the Duwamish River (Figure 3). The 7 Jorgensen Forge EAA-4 is located directly adjacent to both the Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA. The EPA has identified the limits of the RAB (Figure 4), and has characterized site soil and sediment contamination. The site is contaminated with legacy pollutants, principally polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs), and metals. Extending from the top -of -bank, at approximately the +20 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) mark, to the navigational channel, surface and subsurface sediments exhibit consistently high PCB contaminant concentrations (Anchor QEA 2011a, pp. 34-38). High organic and metal contaminant concentrations are present at shallower depths, mostly within the nearshore intertidal zone. At the Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4 the proposed action includes (Anchor QEA 2011a, pp. 6-13, 17): ■ Removal of all contaminated media exceeding Removal Action Levels (soils, sediment, and debris) from the RAB; ■ Dredge removal of 17,000 to 22,000 cy of contaminated sediments from 11 sediment management units, using an enclosed, environmental clamshell bucket; ■ Excavation of approximately 6,000 cy of contaminated media and debris from the intertidal zone, along approximately 605 linear ft of channel (+20 thru +2 MLLW); ■ Removal of existing creosote -treated wood piles from the intertidal zone using a vibratory hammer, by direct pulling, cutting at the mudline, or by a combination of these methods; ■ Placement of slope containment and backfill materials, approximating pre -project contours, including approximately 900 cy of armor rock and 20,500 cy of clean sand/gravel habitat mix; and, ■ Waste and contaminated media handling, storage, treatment, and disposal. The RAB, where contaminated media would be excavated and dredged, includes approximately 1.5 acres of the Duwamish River's channel bed, intertidal zone, and banks (Figure 4). To the extent practicable, the EPA and Jorgensen Forge will complete work located at elevations above +2 MLLW during low tides, with equipment operating from upland positions (Anchor QEA 2011a, pp. 7, 10, 15, 16, 41). 8 \sti_ \s, 4 1 Arlon Arra fiountbry r • . . . • . • r r • iF Boe rta-ErA.I'Jorge-men eanup Boundanes Teem to! 117 Fz-fly Ar.ion Art 5 R ver Mile 8 Lori( Acton Area JORGENSEN FORGE FACILITY Figure 3. Vicinity Map — Jorgensen Forge EAA-4 (Anchor QEA 2011a). 9 Boeing DSOA. !cr .en as // �L7o n,re+ t.araia rvYI,•14OkettlmtM.ty..*y .y.i.ic.•.l..q,..ro1l.tt•!w ••.lr. a•i++tast(ti!!� µ!Mt F1OWt a0u !. sac. to ►Fp.ryA1 r j i $ Cows• c. u Jorgensen Forge FadiItV t_,.,I _.J L.,.., • Is MhViaf 1_[•q 10►a• Lr 0M4 ^_ MW42 M:tr.4) •.1 tt P:- Wool I _.. af., R144 /kill SECO ltCOI x fi•.N...+.t.v • • • fydDary 1-',NE IfKr tam rodeo! Hant,ao0n Cwwtttt Orepme Rmnnval A[kr fltlu-c Apcto•Im?1f tOP 01 Wt. Shretp:.'e watt corXrc;o 1me1 Vi4I Tot of R+Yap Fottnar Erba'tT'ra 114•t'IO4ry u:surfice Surd=,11101700+t (Mcttoe 71701 S.iLttffact Solving locatim IOthl"u Su 1 furl%Surok 114•41'0n. 70)41 C•444-4rvsttt Mar(Oe`re WrT Coot% Serum I Ol4l1;r1, and N11 461411 Shr.0 eo.Y151 ry o-t z OAol Erc auaro• and 4l[ $ Ope Cap SS•Ft bract,. Coed 7.5.1t► 001' 2•[t Crtdlr a'4 7-et Ea[••141 KINK a•rt atcaltrr artd { r t a 3dta 141 Omit* and 1.1t S.tttt to sort l4eq * ra 10.S I t bact11 95.4! 12rtdw -1 -4 4 S-e Ilaah:l 4 ft trwet Mat 4 ft Ilaetrn 02.7217.73 NOTES: Toe °env -CM' lY6er•sen cle.tnao Oound,ry:de .1: 11ad r Llarro•onairt OttOetsta-^4,44 :etweenPotty Pot E4J(tyStrterlfortie.Ea:elkucts•70+tt, 2. Er•ACI:ce Araa StA.ndar+sapvroritnl:e es UtOat l� 1,44ECt Wttfn' 111 M'aieewzy Rtrn d a' Ir.I 1pW n Rtpon (AloO.vard 20101 . 6.1m ic:rt wrvtxd try 10aN 1'1uc.a rr.th Wata.N7y Group (4.10 t:10C21 A. o,.E'Yllocl7Oh:'Natdce:.Ledtr,l✓4r14,70t11. s. The Coe Of tM Apta6 axd inncle,n 244 rn and :2•nd1 00eiR 0•000'1E 1x El.ria IcCri6ntel dstttorie)!acre futyeyee 6trlrtg 114+r djC M A.4 4.1t 2017f:. Figure 4. Removal Action Boundary — Jorgensen Forge EAA-4 (Anchor QEA 201 la). Construction is scheduled to begin during 2013 and will require approximately eight weeks in total. All work below +2 MLLW will be completed between August 1 and February 15, to avoid and minimize impacts to bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and other listed salmonids (Anchor QEA 201 la, pp. 4, 19). Work located at elevations above +2 MLLW may be completed during low tides at any time of year. Related source control measures will include cleaning and decommissioning of existing stormwater conveyances and outfalls, abandonment and removal of associated structures and contaminated media, and stormwater system upgrades and improvements, including additional treatment facilities and/or best management practices (BMPs)(Anchor QEA 2011a, p. 18; Anchor QEA, in litt. 2012, pp. 3, 4; Blocker, in litt. 2012; Anchor QEA Memo dated June 19, 2012). Decisions and design details regarding these source control measures are tentative. The EPA and Jorgensen Forge will provide the Service with additional information as related decisions are made and design details become available (Anchor QEA 2011a, p. 18; Anchor QEA, in litt. 2012, pp. 3, 4). 10 These source control measures include post -construction monitoring and adaptive management, performed in coordination with ongoing monitoring required under the facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater General Permit (Stormwater General Permit). If monitoring identifies discharges exceeding the limits of the Stormwater General Permit, or that are deemed likely to re -contaminate the RAB, the EPA and Jorgensen Forge will identify and implement additional source control measures (Anchor QEA, in litt. 2012, pp. 3, 4). At the time of this Opinion's writing, related habiitat enhancement and mitigation measures are also only tentatively known. CERCLA establishes Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) procedural requirements designed to evaluate environmental and natural resource damages resulting from historic and continuing releases of hazardous substances, and determine appropriate restoration and public compensation (EPA 2012d). Subject to a pending NRDA settlement between the Responsible Party (Jorgensen Forge and Earle M. Jorgensen Company) and the Elliot Bay Natural Resource Trustees, we expect that Jorgensen Forge will implement habitat enhancement and mitigation measures to offset natural resource damages (Anchor QEA 2011 a, p. 18). The EPA is not a party to the NRDA settlement. Jorgensen Forge will provide the Service with additional information as related decisions are made and design details become available. Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA The EPA and Responsible Party (Boeing) have agreed to the preferred RCRA corrective measures for contaminant cleanup and source control at the Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA, including the Boeing -owned portions of Slip-4 (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 3-8). Selection of the preferred alternative was based, in part, upon information included in a corrective measures alternatives study (AMEC and FSI 2010). The Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA are located between RM 2.8 and RM 3.6, extending from the waterway's navigational channel shoreward along the right -bank of the Duwamish River (Figure 5). The RAB includes portions of Slip-4, which extends north and east of the downstream limits of the DSOA cleanup area (Figure 6). The Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA are located directly adjacent to both the Jorgensen Forge EAA-4. The EPA has characterized site soil and sediment contamination. The site is contaminated with legacy pollutants, principally PCBs, VOCs (including PAHs and phthalates), and metals. Extending from the bank to the navigational channel, surface and subsurface sediments exhibit consistently high PCB contaminant concentrations (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 32-33). High organic contaminant concentrations are present with a less consistent distribution, and metal contaminant concentrations are present at shallower depths, mostly within the nearshore intertidal zone at the upstream limits of the cleanup area ("Southwest Bank Shoreline Area", Figure 6). Available information indicates that high metal and organic contaminant concentrations are always co -located with the broader and more extensive PCB contamination (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 32-33). 11 Figure 5. Vicinity Map — Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA (AMEC Geomatrix 2011). Figure 6. Removal Action Boundary — Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA (AMEC Geomatrix 2011). 12 At the Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA the proposed action includes (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 3-8): • Removal of all contaminated media exceeding Sediment Quality Standards (soils, sediment, and debris) from the RAB; • Dredge removal of approximately 200,000 cy of contaminated sediments from within the DSOA boundary, using an enclosed, environmental clamshell bucket; • Dredge removal and excavation of approximately 2,500 cy of contaminated sediments from 4 locations along Slip-4; • Dredge removal and excavation of approximately 39,000 cy of contaminated soil, sediments, and debris from the "South Shoreline Area" (Figure 6); • Controlled demolition and removal of the existing overwater structures and bulkheads associated with the Boeing 2-40s Complex (Figure 6), including creosote -treated wood piles and pile clusters, batter boards, concrete foundations and debris, concrete floor slabs, and associated infrastructure; • Placement of approximately 170,000 cy of clean back -fill within the DSOA boundary, approximating pre -project contours; • Placement of approximately 2,500 cy of clean back -fill at 4 locations along Slip-4, approximating pre -project contours; • Placement of approximately 26,000 cy of back -fill along the "South Shoreline Area," including armor and a clean habitat mix suitable for wetland establishment; • Waste and contaminated media handling, storage, treatment, and disposal; and, • Habitat enhancement and mitigation components restoring and enhancing approximately 4.8 acres of nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian habitat, including approximately 3,000 linear ft of shoreline restoration. Removal of existing creosote -treated wood piles and pile clusters will be accomplished with the use of a vibratory hammer, by direct pulling, cutting at the mudline, or by a combination of these methods. Where essential to maintaining the structural integrity of adjacent fill, pile clusters may be cut at the excavation surface or at least three feet below the final backfill surface (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 6, 9). To the fullest extent practicable, the EPA and Boeing will use an enclosed, environmental clamshell bucket when dredging, to minimize re -suspension of contaminated sediments (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 11). The EPA and Boeing will use a conventional clamshell bucket or grapple when/where coarse debris, dense sediment, or other obstructions prevent use of an 13 enclosed, environmental clamshell bucket. The EPA and Boeing may use a diver -operated hydraulic dredge in the vicinity of the South Park Bridge (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 11, 13). Completion of the proposed work will require temporary structures placed on the channel bed, intertidal zone, and banks, including mooring piles or dolphins and an access pier or dock located along Slip-4 (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 7, 8). The EPA and Boeing expect that temporary moorage for barges and tugs will be needed at approximately twenty locations, and that each of these temporary structures will consist of either a single 12- to 24-inch diameter steel pile, or a cluster of three such piles (i.e., a dolphin). In addition, staging of equipment, materials, and personnel from the uplands will require a temporary access pier or dock located along Slip-4. The pier and ramp will be held in -place with approximately 16, 12-inch diameter steel piles. The RAB, where contaminated media would be excavated and dredged, includes approximately 15 acres of the channel bed, intertidal zone, and banks (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 41, Figure 6). To the extent practicable, the EPA and Boeing will complete work located at elevations above +2 MLLW during low tides, with equipment operating from upland positions (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 9, 12, 13). Construction is scheduled to begin during 2012 and will require two or more years to complete (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 15). All work below +2 MLLW will be completed between August 1 and February 15, to avoid and minimize impacts to bull trout and other listed salmonids (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 9, 15). Work located at elevations above +2 MLLW may be completed during low tides at any time of year. Related source control measures already completed by Boeing (i.e., Interim Measures) have included cleaning and decommissioning of existing stormwater conveyances and outfalls, abandonment and removal of associated structures and contaminated media, and removal of caulk and other building materials containing contaminants of concern (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, Appendix A). Additional, future source control measures will include decommissioning all of the existing stormwater outfalls within the project area south of Building 2-10, construction of four new stormwater outfalls, and of three new stormwater treatment facilities (bioswales or functionally -equivalent BMPs) serving approximately 78 acres of impervious surface within redeveloped portions of the Boeing Plant 2 Facility (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 8, Appendix A). These source control measures include post -construction monitoring and adaptive management, performed in coordination with ongoing monitoring required under the facility's Stormwater General Permit. If discharges exceeding the limits of the Stormwater General Permit are identified during monitoring, or are deemed likely to re -contaminate the RAB, the EPA and Boeing will identify and implement additional source control measures (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 8, Appendix A). Pursuant to NRDA requirements, Boeing and the Elliot Bay Natural Resource Trustees agreed during December 2010 to additional habitat enhancement and mitigation measures to be completed concurrent with the RCRA action (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 1). These related habitat enhancement and mitigation measures would restore and enhance approximately 4.8 acres of nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian habitat, including approximately 3,000 linear 14 ft of shoreline, along and at the upstream and downstream limits of the cleanup area ("North Shoreline," "South Shoreline," and "Southwest Bank Shoreline Area," Figure 6)(AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 5-7, 33). Some of this restoration and enhancement will be completed within the former footprint of the removed Boeing 2-40s Complex overwater structures and bulkheads (Figure 7). These habitat enhancement and mitigation measures will include creation of additional shallow intertidal habitat, functional wetland and riparian plantings, and features to support Tribal fishing access (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 5-7). swhl s$JHEUr.E AREA /OWE Art. arrEm NE51Akahlrr Buar*.Y. um Cowed ...Ana" ano Pu of a-ypc booacrsi /aiem.srs Figure 7. South Shoreline Restoration Area (AMEC Geomatrix 2011). Conservation Measures The EPA and their Applicants (Jorgensen Forge and Boeing) have identified a number of minimization measures and BMPs. Those descriptions are incorporated here by reference, except where they have been revised or amended as agreed to during the course of consultation and documented in correspondence between the EPA and the Service (Anchor QEA, in litt. 2012). What follows is a summary of those conservation measures which are common to each of the proposed cleanup and removal actions, and that are of particular relevance to the potential effects of the actions to bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat. 15 • The EPA and Applicants will develop and implement spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plans (Spill Plans) to prevent the release of harmful or deleterious materials to the lower Duwamish, or to land with a possibility of re-entering the adjacent waterbody. The Spill Plan(s) shall identify designated refueling and equipment maintenance areas, specify physical and procedural BMPs, and provide for the security and containment of any stored fuels or other hazardous materials. The EPA and Applicants will regularly inspect and maintain all equipment, vessels, storage containers, and stockpiles to ensure proper function, and will proactively address any identified deficiencies. ■ The EPA and Applicants will implement appropriate BMPs when demolishing and removing structures over or adjacent to the waterway (e.g., containment booms, tarps, etc.). ■ All dredging will proceed according to an approved dredge plan(s), using bathymetric data and digital terrain models to ensure accurate bucket placement and targeting of materials. The EPA and Applicants will use stair -step dredge cuts on steeper slopes, will complete dredging within each sediment management unit (or sub -unit) as a single operation, and will in a timely manner place a thin (3 to 6 inch) sand cover over completed dredge cuts in each subunit, so as to prevent and minimize dredge residuals, sloughing, and re -suspension of contaminated sediment. ■ To the fullest extent practicable, the EPA and Applicants will use an enclosed, environmental clamshell bucket when dredging, to minimize re -suspension of contaminated sediments. The EPA and Applicants will use a conventional clamshell bucket or grapple when/where coarse debris, dense sediment, or other obstructions prevent use of an enclosed, environmental clamshell bucket. An excavator dredge may be used on steeper slopes for improved bucket control. • All wastes and contaminated media will be handled, stored, transported, tested, treated, and disposed in full compliance with all applicable State and Federal requirements. Creosote -treated wood and contaminated sediments and soil will be disposed at permitted and approved upland disposal sites accepting hazardous (Subtitle C) or non -hazardous (Subtitle D) solid wastes, as appropriate. ■ Haul barges and scows used to contain and transport dredged sediment will be monitored to prevent over -filling, overflow, and/or direct discharge to the waterbody. The EPA and Applicants will take measures, as necessary, to actively dewater or remove water from dredged material, and will route the removed water to barge- and/or land -based water management systems designed to remove excess sediment and associated contaminants. The EPA and Applicants will ensure that all return water has been adequately treated to prevent exceedances of the State of Washington's surface water quality criteria beyond the edge of the allowable mixing -zone (or compliance boundary). All return water will be discharged to the lower Duwamish within the RABs. 16 • The EPA and Applicants will take all measures necessary, including temporary cessation of work, to prevent exceedances of the State of Washington's surface water quality criteria beyond the edge of the allowable mixing -zone (or compliance boundary). The EPA and Applicants will monitor surface water quality during the course of work to ensure compliance with applicable criteria, and to inform adaptive management and corrective response. [Note: the EPA and Applicants have tentatively identified an allowable mixing-zone/compliance boundary positioned approximately 150 ft upstream and downstream of sediment -generating activities.] • All clean back -fill material will be from an approved source(s), and shall be free of any harmful or deleterious material. • All temporary and permanent steel piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer or by direct -pushing. If the EPA and/or Applicants determine that impact pile driving is necessary to achieve the required substrate embeddedness and/or load -bearing capacity, they shall cease piling installation operations and provide timely notice to the Service. • All in -water work located at elevations below +2 MLLW will be completed during the approved in -water work windows: Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4 (August 1 to February 15); and, Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA (August 1 to February 15). Work located at elevations above +2 MLLW may be completed during low tides at any time of year. • The EPA and Applicants will conduct post -construction monitoring and will adaptively manage any ongoing, un-controlled or incompletely controlled sources of contamination that originate from the Boeing or Jorgensen Forge EAA uplands. The EPA and Applicants will prevent re -contamination of the RABs to the fullest extent practicable. Post -construction monitoring will be performed in coordination with ongoing monitoring required under the applicable NPDES Stormwater General Permit(s). If this monitoring identifies discharges exceeding the limits of the Stormwater General Permit, or that are deemed likely to re -contaminate the RABs, the EPA and Applicants will identify and implement additional source control measures (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 8, Appendix A; Anchor QEA, in Litt. 2012, pp. 3, 4). 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. The terrestrial boundaries of the action area were defined based on the extent of temporary sound and visual disturbance that will result during construction. Temporary increases in sound associated with impact pile driving and proofing are expected to have the farthest reaching effects in the terrestrial environment. Increased sound levels will exceed ambient in -air sound levels to a distance of approximately 2 miles (Figure 8). 17 The aquatic boundaries of the action area were defined with consideration for where and how far work activities may temporarily increase underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) as a result of piling installation operations, where temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation may result from construction, and where and how far re -suspended sediments contaminated with PCBs, VOCs, dioxins/furans, and metals may travel before resettling. Downstream transport of fine-grained sediments (silts and clays) is expected to have the farthest reaching effects in the aquatic environment. The best available science would lead us to conclude that a portion of the re -suspended sediments, and the sediment -bound contaminant concentrations they carry, may travel the entire length of the lower Duwamish and into Elliot Bay (a distance of approximately 5 miles downstream) before falling out of suspension (Figure 8). All wastes and contaminated media will be handled, stored, transported, tested, treated, and disposed in full compliance with all applicable State and Federal requirements. Creosote -treated wood and contaminated sediments and soil will be disposed at permitted and approved upland disposal sites accepting hazardous (Subtitle C) or non -hazardous (Subtitle D) solid wastes, as appropriate. Operations at these permitted and approved upland disposal sites, and any effects resulting from their operations, are not a focus of the Opinion, and therefore the Service does not include these sites in the action area defined for the Opinion. 18 Action Area Terrestrial Component iN Aquatic Component .m w •se MM. 1114, .f as e. Figure 8. Aerial photo depicting extent of the action area. 19 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 species' rangewide condition, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the species in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the 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, non -Federal activities in the action area on the species. 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 places an emphasis on consideration of the rangewide survival and recovery needs of the species and the role of the action area in the survival and recovery of the species as the context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making the jeopardy determination. Adverse Modification This 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 Act to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. In accordance with policy and regulation, the adverse modification analysis in this Opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of Critical Habitat, which evaluates the rangewide condition of designated critical habitat for the species in terms of primary constituent elements (PCEs), the factors responsible for that condition, and the intended recovery function of the critical habitat overall; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the critical habitat in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the recovery role of the critical habitat in the action area; (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 PCEs and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non -Federal activities in the action area on the PCEs and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units. 20 For purposes of the adverse modification determination, the effects of the proposed Federal action on critical habitat are evaluated in the context of the rangewide condition of the critical habitat, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if the critical habitat rangewide would remain functional (or would retain the cun-ent ability for the PCEs to be functionally established in areas of currently unsuitable but capable habitat) to serve its intended recovery role for the species. The analysis in this Opinion places an emphasis on using the intended rangewide recovery function of critical habitat, and the role of the action area relative to that intended function as the context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of :making the adverse modification determination. STATUS OF THE SPECIES (BULL TROUT) The rangewide status of the bull trout is provided in Appendix A. STATUS OF CRITICAL HABITAT (BULL TROUT) The rangewide status of bull trout critical habitat is provided in Appendix B. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 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. Environmental Baseline in the Action Area Land use throughout the action area is almost exclusively industrial, commercial/light-industrial, and dense urban residential. Lands within the action area are zoned General Industrial, Industrial Commercial, Industrial Buffer, Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Residential Multifamily, and Residential Single -Family (City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development 2012). Throughout the action area the lower Duwamish and its floodplain are almost completely developed. Since the late 1800s these portions of the lower Duwamish River have been the focus of a long succession of flood control, navigational, port, industrial, and other activities (LDWG 2012b). Less than 2 percent of the lower Duwamish River's pre -development estuarine mud flat, sand flat, and intertidal wetland remains intact (KCDNRP and WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission) 2000). The lower Duwamish River plays an important role as migratory habitat for all salmon and steelhead of the Green-Duwamish watershed. These populations include: Green River Chinook 21 salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha; status rated as "healthy"), Duwamish/Green and Crisp Creek fall chum salmon (O. keta; status "unknown"), Green River/Soos Creek coho salmon (O. kisutch; status "healthy"), and Green River summer and winter steelhead (O. mykiss; status "depressed" and "healthy" respectively)(WDFW 2008). The waters within the action area are also presumed to support sea run coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki), and anadromous bull trout have been documented in the project area. The lower Duwamish River and nearshore marine waters of Elliot Bay are designated as critical habitat for bull trout (50 FR 63898 [October 18, 2010]). These waters are also identified by the draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan as important foraging, migrating, and overwintering (FMO) habitat (USFWS 2004). Factors that limit salmonid productivity in the action area include: floodplain modification and loss of hydrologic connectivity with estuarine wetlands, heavily degraded riparian conditions and a lack of mature woody vegetation, reduced instream habitat complexity (including channelization, bank hardening, reduced large woody material, degraded substrate conditions, and loss of pool, refuge, and off -channel habitat), impaired surface water and sediment quality, and loss or degradation of nearshore habitats and habitat forming processes (KCDNRP and WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission) 2000). The current baseline instream habitat and watershed conditions were assessed with the Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators (USFWS 1998). The matrix provides a framework for considering the effects of individual or grouped actions on habitat elements and processes important to the complete life cycle of bull trout. The BAs submitted by the EPA described baseline environmental conditions at the scale of the action area (AMEC Geomatrix 2011; Anchor QEA 2011 a). Those descriptions are incorporated here by reference, and what follows is a brief summary: the waters within the action area are functioning at unacceptable levels of risk for 18 of 22 indicators, including temperature, chemical contamination/nutrients, substrate, pool frequency/quality, off -channel habitat, refugia, floodplain connectivity, and riparian reserves; and, the waters within the action area are not functioning adequately for any indicator, except width/depth ratio. The Service has used additional information to characterize the chemical contamination indicator. The sub -section that follows presents information from the BAs and other sources as cited. Chemical Contamination Indicator The LDWG completed a final RI Report of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site on July 9, 2010, for submittal to the EPA and Ecology (Windward Environmental 2010). The RI collected, sampled, and analyzed a great number of surface and subsurface sediment, surface and groundwater, and fish and shellfish tissue samples from locations throughout the lowermost six miles of the Duwamish River, and from the adjacent uplands (Windward Environmental 2010, p. ES-4). These data and analyses are too voluminous and cannot be concisely summarized here. The reader is directed, instead, to the RI Report for a full and complete discussion of contaminant concentrations and baseline risks to ecological and human health receptors. 22 Sediment Quality and Contamination Throughout the lower Duwamish, including the proposed RABs, surface and subsurface sediments exhibit variable and discontinuous patterns of contamination (Figure 9). Some areas exhibit relatively high concentrations of one or more contaminants of concern, while other areas (even in close proximity) appear to contain only low concentrations (Windward Environmental 2010, p. ES-4). At some locations these bottom sediments contain a highly complex and variable mixture of PCBs, PAHs, dioxins/furans, VOCs, and metals. Tables 2 and 3 report summary statistics for select contaminants of concern from surface and subsurface sediments, respectively. Many of the highest concentrations are in areas identified as EAAs (Windward Environmental 2010, p. ES-4), as can be seen in Figure 9 for total PCB contaminant concentrations and their proximity to the proposed RABs. Legend Proposed RABs Interpolated Total PCBs ug/kg dw ---- Navigation Channel River Mile Marker o 230 o oc0 Figure 9. Sediment total PCB concentrations and RABs (AECOM 2010, p. ES-11). 23 Table 2. Summary statistics for select contaminants of concern in surface sediments (Windward Environmental 2010, p. ES-5). DETECTION CONCENTRATION CHEMICAL UNIT FREQUENCY MEAN MEDIAN 95TMPERCENTILE MAXIMUM Total PCBs pg/kg dw 1,243/1,327 1,170 137 4,300 220,000 ' Arsenic mg/kg dw 794/852 17 11 30 1,100 cPAHsa pg/kg dw 780/828 460 260 1,500 11,000 Dioxin and furan TEQ nglkg dw 54/54 82.1 10.4 490 2,100 BEHP pg/kg dw 674/832 590 230 2,400 14,000 Note: summary statistics were calculated assuming one-half the reporting limit for non -detect results. ' cPAH concentrations are expressed in terms of benzo(a)pyrene equivalents. dw — dry weight BEHP — bis(2-ethyihexy1) phthalate cPAH — carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB — polychlorinated biphenyl TEQ — toxic equivalent Table 3. Summary statistics for select contaminants of concern in subsurface sediments (Windward Environmental 2010, p. ES-6). CONCENTRATION DEPTH INTERVAL OF CHEMICAL UNIT DETECTION FREQUENCY' MEAN MEDIAN 95"' PERCENTILE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (ft)b Total PCBs pg/kg dw 609/821 3,000 170 5,600 890,000 0.3 -1.5 Arsenic mg/kg dw 267/325 40 12 63 2,000 2 — 4 cPAHs` pg/kg dw 252/304 400 190 1,500 7,000 1 — 2 Dioxin and furan TEQ ng/kg dw 26/26 27.2 14.4 170 194.0 J 4 — 6 BEHP pg/kg dw 216/306 500 230 1,800 5,100 0 — 3 Note: summary statistics were calculated assuming one-half the reported or calculated non -detect results. a Total number of samples represents all samples collected from any subsurface interval at all locations. Statistics are calculated based on all samples. b Depth interval with highest concentration for a given chemical within any single core within the LDW. cPAH concentrations are expressed in terms of benzo(a)pyrene equivalents. dw — dry weight BEHP — bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate cPAH — carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB — polychlorinated biphenyl TEQ — toxic equivalent Table 4 reports data from the Draft Final Feasibility Study (AECOM 2010, pp. 2-63 thru 2-65), describing detection frequency and mean and maximum surface sediment concentrations for select contaminants of concern. Table 4 also provides a comparison with Washington State's marine sediment quality standards (SQSs). Washington State's marine SQSs are established for the protection of marine biological resources and, "...correspond to a sediment quality that will result in ... no acute or chronic 24 adverse effects" (WAC 173-204-320). The State's marine cleanup screening levels (CSLs) are associated with "...minor adverse effects ... levels above which [locations] are defined as cleanup sites" (WAC 173-204-520). [Note: Ecology and the EPA have not consulted with the Service (or the National Marine Fisheries Service) regarding these criteria; the Service has not determined whether the application of these criteria will or may have adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat.] Table 4. Detection frequency, mean and maximum surface sediment concentrations for select contaminants of concern; comparison with marine SQSs and CSLs. Contaminant of Concern Detection Frequency' Mean Concentration' Maximum Concentration' WA Marineb SQS WA Marine` CSL Metals (mg/kg dry weight or parts per million) Copper 100% 106 12,000 390 390 Lead 100% 139 23,000 450 530 Zinc 100% 194 9,700 410 960 PAHs (µg/kg dry weight or parts per billion) *See Note Regarding Marine SQSs and CSLSa * Acenaphthene 39% 65 5,200 500 730 Anthracene - 73% 134 10,000 960 4,400 Benzo(a)anthracene 92% 322 8,400 1,300 1,600 Benzo(a)pyrene 92% 308 7,900 1,600 3,000 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 94% 731 17,000 3,200 3,600 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 86% 164 3,800 670 720 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 94% 731 17,000 3,200 3,600 Chrysene 95% 473 7,700 1,400 2,800 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 56% 62 1,500 230 540 Fluoranthene 97% 887 24,000 1,700 2,500 Fluorene 48% 78 6,800 540 1,000 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 90% 180 4,300 600 690 Phenanthrene 93% 429 28,000 1,500 5,400 Pyrene 96% 723 16,000 2,600 3,300 Total H-PAHs 98% 3,809 85,000 12,000 17,000 Total L-PAHs 94% 696 44,000 5,200 13,000 PCBs (µg/kg dry weight or parts per billion) *See Note Regarding Marine SQSs and CSLs' * Total PCBs 94% 1,133 223,000 130 1,000 Phthalates (µg/kg dry weight or parts per billion) *See Note Regarding Marine SQSs and CSLsa * Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [BEHP] 79% 589 17,000 1,300 1,900 Butyl benzyl phthalate [BBP] 54% 87 7,100 63 900 Dimethyl phthalate 21% 25 440 71 160 Sources: a(AECOM 2010, pp. 2-63 thru 2-65); °WAC 173-204-320; `WAC 173-204-520 a Many of Washington State's Marine SQSs and CSLs are normalized for organic carbon; for ease of comparison, the criteria reported here are taken from Windward Environmental (2010, pp. 170-171) and represent functional equivalents expressed as dry weight. 25 Data from Table 4 allow us to make the following statements regarding contaminants of concern and their presence in lower Duwamish surface sediments: • PCBs - PCBs were detected in 94 percent of the samples from the baseline dataset. The mean surface sediment total PCB concentration exceeds the marine CSL. The maximum surface sediment total PCB concentration exceeds the marine CSL by more than two orders of magnitude. • Metals - Copper, lead, and zinc were detected in 100 percent of the samples from the baseline dataset. Mean surface sediment metal concentrations are below both the marine SQSs and CSLs. However, maximum surface sediment metal concentrations exceed the marine SQSs and CSLs by at least one order of magnitude. • PAHs - High- and low -molecular weight PAHs (H-PAHs and L-PAHs) were detected in 98 percent and 94 percent of the samples from the baseline dataset, respectively. Mean surface sediment total H-PAH and L-PAH concentrations are below both the marine SQSs and CSLs. However, maximum surface sediment total H-PAH and L-PAH concentrations are three to five times greater than the marine CSLs. • Phthalates - Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (BEHP) and Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) were detected in 79 percent and 54 percent of the samples from the baseline dataset, respectively. Maximum surface sediment BEHP and BBP concentrations are seven to nine times greater than the marine CSLs. Samples taken from sediment cores detect many of the same contaminants of concern below the surface sediment layer (Windward Environmental 2010, p. ES-5). Even though some of the highest contaminant concentrations have been detected in subsurface samples, most notably for total PCBs and arsenic, the depth interval of maximum concentration is located within 4 ft of the surface sediment layer for most contaminants of concern, and the 95th percentile contaminant concentrations in surface and subsurface sediments are generally comparable (Tables 2 and 3). Water Quality The RI Report summarizes surface water quality data for the lowermost portions of the Duwamish River (Windward Environmental 2010). The report describes widespread, detectable concentrations of PCBs, PAHs, VOCs, metals, and some pesticides, but does not document exceedances of State of Washington surface water quality criteria for these parameters (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 28). The current 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies identifies portions of the Duwamish Waterway as Category 4 and 5 polluted waters, for exceedances of the fecal coliform, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen criteria (WDOE 2008). In addition, the EPA and LDWG report that these waters frequently fail to meet criteria for pH and water temperature (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 28; Windward Environmental 2010, p. 630). 26 Samples have been taken and analyzed from areas adjacent to known, upland sources of contamination along the lower Duwamish, including groundwater found seeping from banks along the river, and pore water trapped within sediments. At some locations this seep and pore water has been found to contain metal concentrations exceeding State of Washington acute marine water quality criteria for arsenic, copper, and zinc (Windward Environmental 2010, pp. ES-11, ES-12). Within the RABs, VOCs have also been detected in pore water. The RI Report includes tabular data to describe surface water, seep, and pore water contaminant concentrations (Windward Environmental 2010, pp. 195-200), but the authors warn against making explicit comparisons between these data and established water quality criteria for many contaminants of concern (Windward Environmental 2010, p. 188). Contaminant Risks Associated with the Existing Baseline Conditions Based on sediment chemistry and toxicity tests, the RI Report finds that baseline risks to most ecological receptors are "low" (Windward Environmental 2010, pp. ES-30, ES-31). No adverse effects to the benthic invertebrate community would be expected throughout much of the study area (approximately 75 percent). However, more than three dozen contaminants of concern do present a risk of adverse effects to the benthic invertebrate community throughout approximately 7 percent of the study area, including the Jorgensen Forge EAA-4 and Boeing Plant 2 DSOA, and the risk of adverse effects to these same biota is uncertain for an additional 18 percent of the study area (Windward Environmental 2010, pp. ES-12, ES-13, ES-31). The RI Report identifies PCBs as a significant risk driver for the river otter (Lontra canadensis) receptor (Windward Environmental 2010, pp. ES-15, ES-30). Because of their prey preferences, which include filter -feeding crustaceans and mollusks, and because PCBs tend to bioaccumulate in fatty tissue, the EPA expects that river otters consuming a high percentage of prey from the lower Duwamish may experience exposure concentrations sufficient to result in measurable adverse effects. The RI Report identifies PCBs, arsenic, carcinogenic PAHs, and dioxins/furans as significant human health risk drivers. The highest human health risks are associated with consumption of resident fish, crabs, and clams, with lower risks associated with activities bringing human receptors into direct contact with contaminated sediment (e.g., beach play)(Windward Environmental 2010, p. ES-30). Risk -based threshold concentrations determined for human seafood consumption scenarios, and comparisons with Puget Sound background concentrations, have been important considerations when determining required Removal Action Levels (Windward Environmental 2010, pp. ES-22 thru ES-25, ES-32). Status of the Species in the Action Area The action area is used seasonally by bull trout for foraging, migration, and overwintering (lower Green River FMO and Puget Sound Marine FMO). FMO habitat is important for maintaining a diversity of life history forms and for providing access to productive foraging areas (USFWS 2004, p. 49). The lower Duwamish River plays an important role as a migratory corridor linking the Green River and its tributaries to nearshore marine waters of the Puget Sound. As transitional habitat between the freshwater and saltwater environments, lowermost portions of 27 the Duwamish River provide habitats where outmigrating juvenile salmon and in -migrating adult salmon adjust physiologically to changing surface water salinities and chemistry. The waters within the action area, including nearshore marine waters of Elliot Bay, support a prey base important to anadromous bull trout of the Puget Sound Management Unit. Migratory bull trout use nonnatal watersheds, habitat located outside of their spawning and early rearing areas, to forage, migrate, and overwinter (Brenkman and Corbett 2003a,b in USFWS 2004). Anadromous adult and subadult bull trout are known to occur in the action area, and presumably originate from the local populations of the Puyallup River, Snohomish-Skykomish River, and Skagit River core areas. Current information, while incomplete, suggests that the Green River does not support local bull trout populations, spawning, or rearing (USFWS 2004), and suitable bull trout spawning and rearing habitats are not present in the action area. The Puyallup River and Snohomish-Skykomish River core areas are located in relatively close proximity to the action area. The Snohomish-Skykomish River and Skagit River core areas support robust local populations, including a significant anadromous component. For these reasons, most bull trout using the lower Duwamish River and nearshore marine waters of Elliot Bay are likely to originate from any of these cores areas and local populations. Appendix C provides core area summaries for the Puyallup, Snohomish-Skykomish, and Skagit River Core Areas. Adult and subadult bull trout may occupy these waters at any time of year, but information is not available to reliably estimate the number of bull trout that may forage, migrate, and overwinter in the action area. Historically, bull trout were reported to use the Duwamish River and lower Green River in "vast" numbers (Suckley and Cooper 1860 in USFWS 2004). In contrast, bull trout are observed infrequently in this system today. Prior to the permanent redirection of the Stuck River (lower White River) into the Puyallup River system in 1906 (Williams et al. 1975), the lower Green River system provided habitat for spawning populations of bull trout from the White River. Another factor that may have diminished the Green-Duwamish River system's value for bull trout is the loss of the Black River due to construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in the mid-1910's. The Black River historically connected the Lake Washington Basin and Cedar River to the Green-Duwamish River system. Creation of the ship canal and Ballard Locks lowered Lake Washington by 2.7 meters (9 ft) and completely redirected flows of the Cedar River and Lake Washington tributaries to the canal (Warner 1996). The effect of these diversions was to leave the Green-Duwamish River system with approximately one-third of its original watershed, by area (Parametrix and NRC 2000 in USFWS 2004). More recently, bull trout have been reported on the lower Green River as far upstream as the mouth of Newaukum Creek, at approximately river mile 41, and are consistently reported in the lower Duwamish (Berge and Mavros 2001; KCDNRP and WSCC 2000; KCDNRP 2002). It is presumed that bull trout utilize the Green River up to the City of Tacoma's Headworks Diversion Dam at river mile 61, which has been a barrier to upstream migration since 1912 (KCDNRP and WSCC 2000). It is not known for certain whether the bull trout observed in the lower Green River basin are foraging individuals from other core areas, or if natural reproduction may still persist somewhere within the basin. However, based on observed behavior from other systems within the management unit, and the size of individuals typically reported, there is a strong 28 likelihood that bull trout in the lower Green River are anadromous migrants from other core areas. Reports of historical use of tributaries in the lower Green River are rare, and there have been no recent observations (KCDNRP and WSCC 2000). Given their size and potential as a foraging area, tributaries such as Newaukum and Soos Creeks may occasionally be used by bull trout. Bull trout occurrence in the Duwamish River has been documented several times over the past few decades. In April 1978, Dennis Moore, Hatchery Manager for the Muckleshoot Tribe, talked with three fishermen in the vicinity of North Wind Weir, river mile 7 of the Duwamish, and identified four fish as adult char (Brunner, pers comm 1999b). One adult bull trout was observed near Pier 91 in May 1998 (Brunner, pers comm 1999a). During 2000, eight subadult bull trout were captured in the Duwamish River at the head of the navigation channel, near the Turning Basin restoration site at river mile 5.3. These fish averaged 299 mm (11.8 inches) in length and were captured in August and September (Shannon, in litt. 2001 in USFWS 2004). A single subadult char (222 mm; 8.7 inches) was caught at this same site during September of 2002 (Shannon 2002). During May of 2003, a large adult bull trout (582 mm; 23 inches) was captured in the lower Duwamish River at Kellogg Island (Shannon 2003). It is not known whether bull trout historically occupied habitats in the upper Green River basin. Various fish sampling efforts in the upper Green River (above Howard Hansen Dam) have not detected bull trout (KCDNRP and WSCC 2000). The City of Tacoma has proposed to construct a trap and haul facility at the Headworks Diversion Dam to allow fish passage to the upper watershed as part of their habitat conservation plan. Although uncertain, it is possible that a bull trout population may become established or reestablished in the upper watershed once this facility is constructed. Establishing a self-sustaining population in the Green River system would help maintain bull trout distribution within the southern portion of the Puget Sound Management Unit. The recovery team currently identifies the upper Green River, above the Headworks Diversion Dam, as a research needs area. The action area provides FMO habitat for bull trout, plays an important role as a migratory corridor linking the Green River and its tributaries to nearshore marine waters of the Puget Sound, and supports a prey base which is important to anadromous bull trout of the Puget Sound Management Unit. The Service expects that low numbers of adult and subadult bull trout may occupy these waters at any time of year. However, information is not available to reliably estimate the number of bull trout that may forage, migrate, and/or overwinter in the action area. Status of Critical Habitat in the Action Area The Service's recent final rulemaking revises the previous (2005) bull trout critical habitat designation (50 FR 63898 [October 18, 2010]). This final rule took effect on November 17, 2010. The action area provides eight of the nine PCEs that define bull trout critical habitat: (1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. 29 Throughout the action area the river and its floodplain are almost completely developed. Less than 2 percent of the lower Duwamish River's intertidal wetland remains intact today (KCDNRP and WSCC 2000). This loss of floodplain connectivity and wetland function contributes to low base flow conditions and elevated surface water temperatures. However, it is unclear how springs, seeps, and other groundwater sources historically contributed to water quantity and quality at this low position in the watershed. Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is severely impaired. (2) Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. The lower Duwamish River's proper function as a migratory corridor is greatly diminished. Elevated surface water temperatures, extensive sediment and surface water contamination, loss of floodplain connectivity, altered hydrologic conditions (including low base flows), degraded riparian conditions, extensive bank hardening and channelization, loss of pool, refuge, and off - channel habitat, and a great many and wide variety of artificial overwater structures and encumberances present physical, biological, and water quality impediments to free movement and migration. Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is severely impaired. (3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. Despite heavily degraded flooplain, riparian, and instream habitat conditions in the lower Duwamish River, the Green-Duwamish watershed still supports salmon and steelhead. These populations of Chinook, chum, and coho salmon, steelhead, and sea run coastal cutthroat trout, as well as other native and nonnative fishes, provide a sizable prey base for adult and subadult bull trout. However, sediments and surface water are contaminated throughout large portions of the lower Duwamish River and these present an ongoing threat to the health of the benthic invertebrate community and food web in general (Windward Environmental 2010). Sources of terrestrial prey are greatly diminished. Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is moderately impaired. (4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. The lower Duwamish River exhibits greatly reduced instream habitat complexity and diversity. Throughout the action area the river and its floodplain are almost completely developed. Since the late 1800s these portions of the lower Duwamish River have been the focus of a long succession of flood control, navigational, port, industrial, and other related activities (LDWG 30 2012b). Less than 2 percent of the lower Duwamish River's pre -development estuarine mud flat, sand flat, and intertidal wetland remains intact today (KCDNRP and WSCC 2000). The action area exhibits fragmented and heavily degraded riparian conditions, extensive bank hardening and channelization, a fairly uniform U-shaped channel, degraded substrate conditions, greatly diminished pool, refuge, and off -channel habitat, and a great many and wide variety of artificial overwater structures and encumberances. Instream habitat function and complexity is substantially diminished cornpared to historic conditions. Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is severely impaired. (5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will depend on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; stream flow; and local groundwater influence. Portions of the lower Green and Duwamish Rivers are identified as waters of concern for the temperature criteria, and the lower Duwamish River frequently experiences elevated surface water temperatures during the summer months. Extremes of temperature may prevent or discourage bull trout from using and occupying habitats along the lower Duwamish River from July through September of some years. Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is moderately impaired. (7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. The hydrology of the lower Duwamish River has been substantially altered from historic conditions through diversion of the Stuck River (lower White River), Black River, and Cedar River early in the last century. The effect of these diversions was to leave the Green-Duwamish River system with only a third of its original watershed (Parametrix and NRC 2000 in USFWS 2004). Today the lower Duwamish River exhibits reduced base flows. The floodplain is almost completely developed and no doubt contributes to an altered storm hydrograph (i.e., "flashy" peak flows). Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is moderately impaired. (8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. Throughout the action area the river, its floodplain, and intertidal wetlands are almost completely developed. Diversions leave the Green-Duwamish River system with only a third of its original watershed (Parametrix and NRC 2000 in USFWS 2004). This loss of floodplain connectivity, wetland function, and naturalhydrology contributes to low base flow conditions and elevated surface water temperatures. Extremes of temperature may prevent or discourage bull trout from using and occupying habitats along the lower Duwamish River from July through September of 31 some years. Sediments and surface water are contaminated throughout large portions of the lower Duwamish River and these present an ongoing threat to the health of the benthic invertebrate community and food web in general (Windward Environmental 2010). Water quantity and quality conditions are degraded throughout the action area and limit normal bull trout reproduction, growth, and survival. Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is severely impaired. (9) Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. Nonnative fish known to occur in the Green-Duwamish watershed include yellow perch (Perca flavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) escapees from commercial net -pens in the Puget Sound (KCDNRP and WSCC 2000). Adult and subadult bull trout inhabiting the action area are sufficiently large and therefore these nonnative species do not pose a threat of predation. However, nonnative fish do compete for prey resources within the action area, and existing baseline environmental conditions may advantage warm water fish and/or those species which have been found to exploit artificial overwater structures (e.g., large and smallmouth bass). Within the action area this PCE still functions, but is moderately impaired. Effects of Past and Contemporaneous Actions Throughout the action area the lower Duwamish River and its floodplain are almost completely developed. Since the late 1800s these portions of the lower Duwamish River have been the focus of a long succession of flood control, navigational, port, industrial, and other related activities (LDWG 2012b). Less than 2 percent of the lower Duwamish River's pre -development estuarine mud flat, sand flat, and intertidal wetland remains intact today (KCDNRP and WSCC 2000), and hydrology has been substantially altered from historic conditions through diversion of the Stuck River (lower White River), Black River, and Cedar River. The effect of these diversions was to leave the Green-Duwamish River system with only a third of its original watershed (Parametrix and NRC 2000 in USFWS 2004). The EPA placed the Lower Duwamish Waterway onto the National Priorities ("Superfund") List during 2001, but sources of toxic surface water and sediment contamination, and the feasibility of various source control and corrective actions, have been the focus of intensive study since the mid-1970s (LDWG 2012b). Related corrective actions began as early as the 1950s and 60s with curtailment of toxic industrial discharges and improved or replaced sewer and water treatment infrastructure. Corrective actions have continued to the present in the form of hazardous waste disposal programs, preservation and restoration of intertidal habitats, control and retrofit of CSOs 32 and further improvements to sewer and water treatment infrastructure, and cleanup (removal and disposal) of soil, water, and sediment contamination at a number of locations along the lowermost six miles (LDWG 2012a). The quality and amount of FMO habitat available to bull trout along the lower Duwamish River, and its proper function as a migratory corridor, are today greatly diminished. Degraded floodplain and riparian conditions, loss of instream habitat complexity and function, and impaired surface water and sediment quality may limit normal bull trout reproduction, growth, and survival in the action area. While the action area does provide seasonal foraging opportunities (e.g., during periods of juvenile salrnonid outmigration), baseline environmental conditions also expose bull trout to sources of stress and the action area functions poorly as a migratory corridor transitioning between the freshwater and marine environments. The Service has previously issued Opinions and granted incidental take for more than two dozen actions adversely affecting bull trout of the Puyallup River, Snohomish-Skykomish River, or Skagit River core areas. The Service determined that each of these actions is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bull trout, and will not destroy or adversely modify designated bull trout critical habitat. Nevertheless, the combined effects of these past and contemporaneous Federal actions have resulted in short and long term adverse effects to bull trout and, in some instances, an incremental degradation of the environmental baseline. Other past and contemporaneous actions with particular relevance include completed and on- going source control, cleanup, and remedial actions to address toxic soil, surface/groundwater, and sediment contamination. Presumably, sources of contamination are now reduced and completed actions have made some progress in lessening exposure and effects to the lower Duwamish River ecosystem. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION Regulations implementing the Act define the "effects of the action" as "the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action that will be added to the environmental baseline" (50 CFR Section 402.02). This section details the anticipated effects of the proposed action on the bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat. We expect that the proposed action will result in both direct and indirect effects to bull trout and to designated bull trout critical habitat. Some of these effects will be temporary, construction - related, and limited in both physical extent and duration. Others will be long term and/or permanent. The analysis that follows addresses these effects, as well as any potential effects associated with interrelated and interdependent actions. The proposed action will permanently remove a large quantity of contaminated media (sediment and soils) from the lower Duwamish and adjacent uplands, will implement related source control measures to prevent re -contamination, and provide habitat enhancement and mitigation to partially offset the environmental and natural resource damages resulting from the historic and 33 continuing releases of hazardous substances to the lower Duwamish. Accordingly, we expect that the proposed action will dramatically improve sediment and water quality conditions in these portions of the lower Duwamish River, will reduce long term contaminant exposure risks, and contribute substantially to the comprehensive Superfund Site cleanup and remediation effort. We expect that the proposed action will provide significant, measurable, long term benefits to the bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat, resulting from improved sediment and water quality, a healthier prey base with reduced contaminant burdens, and improved overall ecological function. The proposed action will have measurable, temporary, adverse effects to bull trout and to designated bull trout critical habitat. Construction activities will directly affect instream habitat that supports bull trout and bull trout may be present at the time of construction. The EPA and Applicants have committed to a number of conservation measures which we expect will reduce temporary impacts, including the extent and severity of temporary water quality stressors resulting from re -suspension of contaminated sediment and release of contaminated interstitial pore water. We conclude, however, that exposure of adult and subadult bull trout to construction activities is not discountable. A sub -section that follows discusses the adverse effects to bull trout and to designated bull trout critical habitat which we expect are reasonably certain to occur. The following sub -sections discuss insignificant and discountable effects, adverse effects to bull trout individuals and habitat, and effects to the PCEs of designated bull trout critical habitat. Insignificant and Discountable Effects (Bull Trout) Some of the proposed action's potential effects to the bull trout are insignificant or discountable. Effects to bull trout resulting from the following items of work are considered extremely unlikely to occur (discountable), or will not be measurable or detectable (insignificant): Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4 • Excavation of contaminated media and debris from the intertidal zone (+20 thru +2 MLLW). • Removal of existing creosote -treated wood piles from the intertidal zone, accomplished with the use of a vibratory hammer, by direct pulling, cutting at the mudline, or by a combination of these methods. • Upland disposal of contaminated media. • Source control measures, including cleaning and decommissioning of existing stormwater conveyances and outfalls, abandonment and removal of associated structures and contaminated media, and stormwater system upgrades and improvements. 34 Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA • Excavation of contaminated media and debris from the intertidal zone (+20 thru +2 MLLW). • Controlled demolition and removal of the existing overwater structures and bulkheads associated with the Boeing 2-40s Complex, including creosote -treated wood piles and pile clusters, batter boards, concrete foundations and debris, concrete floor slabs, and associated infrastructure. ■ Upland disposal of contaminated media. • Installation and use of temporary structures placed on the channel bed, intertidal zone, and banks, including mooring piles or dolphins and an access pier or dock located along Slip-4. ■ Source control measures, including cleaning and decommissioning of existing stormwater conveyances and outfalls, abandonment and removal of associated structures and contaminated media, removal of caulk and other building materials containing contaminants of concern, and construction of new stormwater treatment facilities and outfalls. • Habitat enhancement and mitigation measures, including creation of additional shallow intertidal habitat, functional wetland and riparian plantings, and features to support Tribal fishing access. Similarly, the following direct and indirect effects are considered extremely unlikely to occur (discountable), or will not be measurable or detectable (insignificant): • Entrainment, stranding, and/or handling when completing work in the intertidal zone (+20 thru +2 MLLW). • Entrainment when dredging sediments with an enclosed, environmental clambshell bucket, conventional clamshell bucket, or diver -operated hydraulic dredge. • Effects to bull trout prey resources. Work Completed During Low Tides With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that work completed during low tides at elevations above +2 MLLW will not disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering), and will have an insignificant effect on bull trout and their habitat. This work includes excavation of contaminated media from the intertidal zone; removal of creosote -treated wood piles, pile clusters, and other debris from the intertidal zone; and, controlled demolition and removal of overwater structures and bulkheads associated with the Boeing 2-40s Complex. The action includes conservation measures designed to 35 minimize residuals, sloughing, and re -suspension of contaminated sediment, and the EPA and Applicants will take all measures necessary to prevent exceedances of the State of Washington's surface water quality criteria beyond the edge of the allowable mixing -zone (or compliance boundary). Work completed during low tides at elevations above +2 MLLW will not expose bull trout to temporary stressors, and will not disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering). Work completed above +2 MLLW will not preclude use of the intertidal zone and will create measurably improved habitat conditions for bull trout and their prey, especially where habitat is restored and enhanced with placement of clean habitat mix and functional wetland and riparian plantings. With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that work completed during low tides at elevations above +2 MLLW will have an insignificant effect, and/or beneficial effect, on bull trout and their habitat. Upland Disposal of Contaminated Media With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that upland disposal of contaminated media will have no effect on bull trout or their habitat. All wastes and contaminated media will be handled, stored, transported, tested, treated, and disposed in full compliance with all applicable State and Federal requirements. These media include contaminated soils, surface and subsurface sediments, creosote -treated wood, caulk and other building materials containing contaminants of concern, and contaminated media found and removed from stormwater conveyance and treatment systems as part of the proposed source control measures. All removed creosote -treated wood and contaminated media will be disposed at permitted and approved upland disposal sites accepting hazardous (Subtitle C) or non -hazardous (Subtitle D) solid wastes, as appropriate. The action does not include in -water disposal of dredged surface or subsurface sediments. With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that upland disposal of contaminated media will have no effect on bull trout or their habitat. Temporary Structures With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that temporary structures placed on the channel bed, intertidal zone, and banks will not disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering), and will have an insignificant effect on bull trout and their habitat. This work includes: installation of mooring piles or dolphins at approximately twenty locations, each of these consisting of either a single 12- to 24- inch diameter steel pile, or a cluster of three such piles; and, installation of an access pier or dock located along Slip-4, including approximately sixteen (16) 12-inch diameter steel piles. The EPA and Applicants have stated that they will install all steel piles with a vibratory hammer, or by direct -pushing, to the fullest extent practicable (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 7, 8). Except for the purpose of proofing piles associated with the Slip-4 access pier or dock, and determining load -bearing capacity, the EPA and Applicants will not resort to use of an impact hammer unless and until site conditions are encountered that prevent effective use of a vibratory hammer (or 36 direct pushing). If the EPA and/or Applicants determine that impact pile driving is necessary to achieve the required substrate embeddedness and/or load -bearing capacity, they shall provide notice to the Service. Vibratory hammers produce underwater SPLs that are substantially lower than those generated by impact hammers (Nedwell and Edwards 2002). Underwater sound produced by vibratory and impact hammers differs not only in intensity, but also in frequency and impulse energy (i.e., total energy content of the pressure wave). This may explain why no documented fish kills have been associated with the use of vibratory hammers. Most of the sound energy produced by impact hammers is concentrated at frequencies between 100 and 800 Hz, across the range thought to be most harmful to exposed aquatic organisms, while sound energy produced by vibratory hammers is concentrated between 20 and 30 Hz. In addition, SPLs produced by impact hammers rise much more rapidly than do the SPLs produced by vibratory hammers (Carlson et al. 2001; Nedwell and Edwards 2002). The sites where temporary piles would be placed and removed with a vibratory hammer are located in a large river where currents, boat/tug arid barge traffic contributes substantially to ambient levels of underwater sound. We expect that underwater SPLs produced when installing steel piles with a vibratory hammer, and when removing these piles, will not be detectable to a significant distance. Pile installation and removal with a vibratory hammer will not produce SPLs with a potential to kill or injure exposed bull trout. Furthermore, while bull trout individuals may be exposed to resulting temporary stressors (underwater sound), we expect those exposures will be low -intensity, intermittent, and therefore will not measurably affect normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering). We conclude that pile installation and removal with a vibratory hammer will have no measurable effect on bull trout individuals, their prey base, or habitat, and is therefore insignificant. In the event that the EPA and/or Applicants find it necessary to conduct impact pile driving, either for the purpose of proofing piles or determining load -bearing capacity, they shall provide a timely notice to the Service. However, based on location within a small, "blind" channel extending off of the waterway, and assuming that the EPA and Applicant conduct the work during the approved in -water work window (August 1 to February 15; Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA) and at low tide, we expect that limited impact pile driving conducted at the location of the Slip-4 access pier or dock will not expose bull trout to injurious SPLs, or significantly disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering). The same line of reasoning may or may not hold for other locations, and therefore, the EPA and Applicants are advised that if impact pile driving is necessary at other locations, they should expect to implement a bubble curtain noise attenuation device meeting established design and performance standards. With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that temporary structures placed on the channel bed, intertidal zone, and banks will not disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering), and will have an insignificant effect on bull trout and their habitat. 37 Source Control Measures With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that the proposed source control measures will not disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering), and will have an insignificant effect on bull trout and their habitat. This work includes cleaning and decommissioning of existing stormwater conveyances and outfalls, abandonment and removal of associated structures and contaminated media, and removal of caulk and other building materials containing contaminants of concern. At Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4, this work will also include stormwater system upgrades and improvements, including additional treatment facilities and/or BMPs. At Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA, this work will include decommissioning all of the existing stormwater outfalls within the project area south of Building 2-10, construction of four new stormwater outfalls, and of three new stormwater treatment facilities (bioswales or functionally -equivalent BMPs). The proposed source control measures will function to prevent re -contamination of the RABs, and will improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the comprehensive Lower Duwamish Waterway cleanup and remediation effort. These measures include post -construction monitoring and adaptive management, performed in coordination with ongoing monitoring required under the applicable NPDES Stormwater General Permit(s). If this monitoring identifies discharges exceeding the limits of the Stormwater General Permit, or that are deemed likely to re - contaminate the RABs, the EPA and Applicants will identify and implement additional source control measures (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 8, Appendix A; Anchor QEA, in litt. 2012, pp. 3, 4). The EPA and Boeing have already begun or completed many of the recommended source control activities, as Interim Measures (see Description of the Proposed Action, Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA). Source control activities that remain to be completed at Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA include decommissioning all of the existing stormwater outfalls within the project area south of Building 2-10, construction of four new stormwater outfalls, and of three new stormwater treatment facilities serving approximately 78 acres of impervious surface within redeveloped portions of the Boeing Plant 2 Facility (AMEC Geomatrix 2011, p. 8, Appendix A). The new stormwater outfalls will discharge at depths of -9 to -10 MLLW, away from the areas where EPA and Boeing propose to restore and enhance nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian habitat ("South Shoreline", and "Southwest Bank Shoreline Area")(AMEC Geomatrix 2011, Appendix A, p. 3). The new stormwater treatment facilities will consist of bioswales or functionally - equivalent BMPs. We expect that post -construction, operational discharges of stormwater runoff from redeveloped portions of the Jorgensen Forge and Boeing Plant 2 facilities may measurably affect surface water quality within a discernible mixing -zone. However, we expect that the proposed stormwater system improvements will also significantly reduce the discharge of conventional industrial stormwater pollutants (solids; total and dissolved metals; etc.), and nearly or completely eliminate all contributions of contaminants of concern to the RAB. The stormwater design will not cause or contribute to measurable increases in surface water temperature, degrade thermal refugia within the action area, or impair function of the proposed nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian enhancements. With consideration for the baseline conditions in the action 38 area, proposed source control and water quality treatment, and the receiving water's large size and assimilative capacity, we conclude that long term effects to surface water quality will not be measurable to any significant distance beyond the points of stormwater discharge. With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, including post -construction monitoring and adaptive management, we expect that operational discharges of stormwater runoff will not disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering), and will have an insignificant effect on bull trout and their habitat. We expect that the proposed source control measures will prevent re -contamination of the RABs and will have an insignificant effect, and/or beneficial effect, on bull trout and their habitat. Habitat Enhancement and Mitigation Measures At Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA, this work will include restoration and enhancement of approximately 4.8 acres of nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian habitat, including approximately 3,000 linear ft of shoreline, along and at the upstream and downstream limits of the cleanup area ("North Shoreline", "South Shoreline", and "Southwest Bank Shoreline Area")(AMEC Geomatrix 2011, pp. 5-7, 33). Pursuant to NRDA requirements, the proposed habitat enhancement and mitigation measures will, create additional shallow intertidal habitat, functional wetland and riparian plantings, and features to support Tribal fishing access. Subject to a pending NRDA settlement between the Responsible Party (Jorgensen Forge and Earle M. Jorgensen Company) and the Elliot Bay Natural Resource Trustees, work at Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4 will also include habitat enhancement and mitigation measures to offset natural resource damages (Anchor QEA 2011 a, p. 18). Details regarding these tentative plans for habitat mitigation are unavailable and subject to change. The EPA and Jorgensen Forge will provide the Service with additional information as related decisions are made and design details become available. Much or all of this work will be completed during low tides at elevations above +2 MLLW. We expect that related construction activities will not preclude use of the intertidal zone or otherwise disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering). With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that the proposed habitat enhancement and mitigation measures will have an insignificant effect, and/or beneficial effect, on bull trout, their habitat, and prey resources. Entrainment, Stranding, or Handling With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that the EPA and Applicants can and will completely avoid entrainment, stranding, or direct handling of bull trout individuals. All in -water work located at elevations below +2 IVILLW will be completed during the approved in -water work windows, when bull trout are least likely to be present (Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4, August 1 to February 15; Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA, August 1 to February 15). Based on location, timing, and the inherent nature of the work, we conclude that dredge removal 39 of contaminated sediments with an environmental clamshell bucket, conventional clamshell bucket, or diver -operated hydraulic dredge, is extremely unlikely to result in entrainment, injury, or mortality of bull trout individuals. Work located at elevations above +2 MLLW will be completed during low tides. The best opportunities to complete this work include the low and extreme -low tides of early- and mid- summer, when bull trout presence in the lower Duwamish cannot be ruled -out. However, with full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, including placement of thin (3 to 6 inch) sand covers over completed dredge cuts, we conclude that excavation of contaminated media and other work on the intertidal zone (i.e., removal of creosote -treated wood piles and other debris; controlled demolition and removal of overwater structures and bulkheads) is extremely unlikely to result in entrainment, stranding, or direct handling of bull trout individuals. The Service expects that work completed during low tides at elevations above +2 MLLW will not result in injury or mortality of bull trout individuals, and will not disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering). With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we conclude that entrainment, stranding, or direct handling of bull trout individuals is extremely unlikely and therefore discountable. Effects to Bull Trout Prey Resources Dredge removal of contaminated sediments, and subsequent placement of clean back -fill, will result in measurable short term effects to substrate condition and benthic prey abundance and productivity within the 16.5 acre RABs. With complete removal and replacement of the benthos to a depth of several feet throughout the RABs, it is not possible to avoid these measurable, short term effects to habitat and bull trout prey resources. Most of the benthic habitat located within the RABs is subject to disturbance resulting from routine maintenance dredging and regular use of the waterway's navigational channel. It is widely accepted that benthic habitats which are subject to these forms of regular disturbance typically support a community of more tolerant benthic organisms. Several recent studies have examined benthic community response to large and small dredging projects (Guerra -Garcia et al. 2003; Kotta et al. 2009; Merkel and Associates 2009). These studies consistently report measurable short term effects, but also rapid recolonization and recovery of the benthic community within one or two years of disturbance. We expect that dredging and placement of back -fill will measurably reduce benthic prey abundance and productivity within the RABs for a duration of one to two years. We expect that benthic organisms will rapidly recolonize and recruit to the clean back -fill, and that there will be little or no noticeable change to community composition and long term productivity within the RABs. It is unlikely that the action will cause a fundamental shift in aquatic community composition and structure, or a permanent change to primary production or nutrient and organic cycling and 40 dynamics. By substantially reducing sources of chronic contaminant exposure, it is possible that the action may allow for recolonization by comparatively less tolerant benthic organisms. We expect measurable temporary effects to bull trout prey resources within the RABs, including a temporary loss of benthic prey production and availability. However, it is safe to assume that the adult and subadult bull trout that forage within the action area prey mostly upon other fish, and do not rely significantly upon the benthic prey resources that are found within the RABs. Given the limited size and duration of foreseeable temporary effects to bull trout prey resources, we conclude that the action will not significantly reduce bull trout foraging opportunities or success within the action area, and therefore will not significantly disrupt normal bull trout behaviors. In the long term, we expect that the action will provide measurable benefits in the form of a healthier prey base with reduced contaminant burdens. With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, we expect that the action will have an insignificant effect, and/or long term beneficial effect, on bull trout prey resources. Adverse Effects of the Action (Bull Trout) The proposed action will have measurable adverse effects to bull trout and to designated bull trout critical habitat. Construction activities will directly affect instream habitat that supports bull trout and bull trout may be present at the time of construction. However, suitable bull trout rearing and spawning habitats are not present in the action area, and therefore the proposed action will have no effect on bull trout rearing or spawning habitat, or these essential behaviors. Construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW, specifically dredge removal of contaminated sediments and placement of clean back -fill, will temporarily degrade surface water quality. We expect that these construction activities will expose adult and subadult bull trout to elevated levels of turbidity, re -suspended river sediments contaminated with PCBs, VOCs (including PAHs and phthalates), and metals, and to elevated water column concentrations of these same hazardous contaminants resulting from sediment re -suspension, release of contaminated interstitial pore water, and/or discharge of treated return water. These impacts to water quality and resulting exposures will be temporary and episodic, but will persist on an intermittent basis over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). Temporary exposures causing a significant disruption to normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, or sheltering), or potentially resulting in sublethal effects with significance for growth and long term survival, will be confined to the area of the RABs between RM 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River; approximately 1.5 acres (Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4) and 15 acres (Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA) of the lower Duwamish. Construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW will also temporarily degrade or impair function of the PCEs of designated bull trout critical habitat. Impacts to water quality will impair function of the migratory corridor on an intermittent basis, but over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). Dredge removal of contaminated sediments and placement of clean back -fill may also measurably degrade bull trout prey resources within the action area. For a fuller discussion of the action's potential effects to the PCEs of designated bull trout critical habitat, please see a sub -section that follows (Effects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat). 41 The proposed action will permanently remove, in total, approximately 270,000 cy of contaminated media (sediment and soils) from more than 16.5 acres of the lower Duwamish and adjacent uplands. These actions include related source control measures to prevent re- contamination, and habitat enhancement and mitigation measures to partially offset the environmental and natural resource damages. The Service expects that the proposed action will improve sediment and water quality conditions in these portions of the lower Duwamish, will reduce long term contaminant exposure risks with ecological benefits, and contribute to the comprehensive Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site cleanup and remediation effort. The sub -sections that follow discuss the adverse effects to bull trout individuals, their habitat, and prey resources which we expect will result from temporary exposures to elevated turbidity and sedimentation, and from temporary exposures to hazardous contaminants. These sub- sections also discuss chronic contaminant exposures and effects. Exposure to Elevated Turbidity and Sedimentation During Construction We expect that construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW, specifically dredge removal of contaminated sediments and placement of clean back -fill, will produce measurable, temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation. We expect that temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation will significantly disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (i.e., ability to successfully feed, move, and/or shelter). Increases in turbidity resulting from dredging and placement of back -fill may cause bull trout to temporarily avoid the area, may impede or discourage free movement through the area, prevent individuals from exploiting preferred habitats, and/or expose individuals to less favorable conditions. Estimate of the Extent of Effect Anadromous adult and subadult bull trout are known to occur in the action area, and presumably originate from the local populations of the Puyallup River, Snohomish-Skykomish River, and Skagit River core areas. Bull trout may occupy these portions of the lower Duwamish River at any time of year, but information is not available to reliably estimate the number of bull trout that forage, migrate, and overwinter in the action area. Although few studies have specifically examined the issue as it relates to bull trout, increases in suspended sediment affect salmonids in several recognizable ways. The variety of effects of suspended sediment may be characterized as lethal, sublethal or behavioral (Bash et al. 2001, p. 10; Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, pp. 72-73; Waters 1995, pp. 81-82). Lethal effects include gill trauma (physical damage to the respiratory structures)(Curry and MacNeill 2004, p. 140) and smothering and other effects that can reduce egg -to -fry survival (Bash et al. 2001, pp. 17-18; Cederholm and Reid 1987, p. 384; Chapman 1988, pp. 12-16). Sublethal effects include physiological stress reducing the ability of fish to perform vital functions (Cederholm and Reid 1987, pp. 388, 390), severely reduced respiratory function and performance (Waters 1995, p 84), increased metabolic oxygen demand (Servizi and Martens 1991, p. 497), susceptibility to disease and other stressors (Bash et al. 2001, p. 6), and reduced feeding efficiency (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, p. 73). Sublethal effects can act separately 42 or cumulatively to reduce growth rates and increase fish mortality over time. Behavioral effects include avoidance, loss of territoriality, and related secondary effects to feeding rates and efficiency (Bash et al. 2001, p. 7). Fish may be forced to abandon preferred habitats and refugia, and may enter less favorable conditions and/or be exposed to additional hazards (including predators) when seeking to avoid elevated concentrations of suspended sediment. In order to assess the suspended sediment concentrations at which adverse effects will occur, and to determine the upstream and downstream extent to which these effects may extend, we used the analytical framework attached as Appendix D (USFWS 2010). This framework uses the findings of Newcombe and Jensen (1996) to evaluate the "severity -of -effect" (SEV) based on suspended sediment concentration, exposure, and duration. Factors influencing suspended sediment concentration, exposure, and duration include waterbody size, volume of flow, the nature of the construction activity, construction methods, erosion controls, and substrate and sediment particle size. Factors influencing the SEV include duration and frequency of exposure, concentration, and life stage. Availability and access to refugia are other important considerations. The framework in Appendix D requires an estimate of suspended sediment concentration (mg/L) and exposure duration. Data collected at the long term water quality monitoring station in closest proximity (WDOE 2012) was used to determine the ratio of turbidity, measured in nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs), to suspended solids (1 NTU : 2.52 mg/L). To determine exposure duration, the Service assumed that construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW would occur 12 hours a day, for as many as 450 working days. It is important to note, the Service expects that any measurable increases in turbidity will be temporary and episodic, but will persist on an intermittent basis over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). Using this approach, we expect that adverse effects to adult and subadult bull trout, resulting from temporary increases in turbidity and associated sublethal exposures, are likely to occur under the following circumstances: 1. When background NTU levels are exceeded by 160 NTUs at any point in time. 2. When background NTU levels are exceeded by 59 NTUs for more than 1 hour, continuously, over a 12-hour workday. 3. When background NTU levels are exceeded by 18 NTUs for more than 7 hours, cumulatively, over a 12-hour workday. 4. When background NTU levels are exceeded by 9.5 NTUs for the duration of an entire workday, or longer. Based on the nature of the proposed work, and with implementation of the proposed conservation measures, we expect that suspended sediment concentrations resulting in adverse effects to bull trout are reasonably certain to occur as far as 800 ft from the ongoing, sediment - generating activity. [Note: the EPA and Applicants have tentatively identified an allowable mixing-zone/compliance boundary positioned approximately 150 ft upstream and downstream of sediment -generating activities.] 43 The Service expects that low numbers of foraging and migrating adult and subadult bull trout will be in the action area at the time of construction and may be exposed to elevated turbidity and sedimentation. Temporary exposures resulting in adverse effects to bull trout may occur at any time during the approximately 450 day period (Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4: August 1, 2013 to February 15, 2014; Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA: August 1, 2012 to February 15, 2015). Exposures may occur anywhere within the approximately 16.5 acre RABs, but will be confined to only a small portion of the RABs at any one time. We expect that some bull trout will avoid the ongoing, sediment -generating activity. Resulting turbidities may also impede or discourage free movement through the area, may prevent individuals from exploiting preferred habitats, and/or expose individuals to less favorable conditions. Use of the area may be precluded until suspended sediment concentrations diminish. Exposures to elevated turbidity and sedimentation will result in a significant temporary disruption of normal bull trout behaviors (i.e., ability to successfully feed, move, and/or shelter). Suitable bull trout spawning and rearing habitats do not occur within the action area, and therefore construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW will have no effect on bull trout rearing or spawning habitat, or these essential behaviors. Acute Exposure to Hazardous Contaminants Construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW, specifically dredge removal of contaminated sediments and placement of clean back -fill, will temporarily degrade surface water quality. We expect that these construction activities will expose adult and subadult bull trout to re -suspended river sediments contaminated with PCBs, VOCs, and metals, and to elevated water column concentrations of these same hazardous contaminants resulting from sediment re - suspension, release of contaminated interstitial pore water, and/or discharge of treated return water. These impacts to water quality and resulting exposures will be temporary and episodic, but will persist on an intermittent basis over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). Temporary exposures causing a significant disruption to normal bull trout behaviors (feeding, moving, or sheltering), or potentially resulting in sublethal effects with significance for growth and long term survival, will be confined to the area of the RABs between RMs 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River. Whether exposed bull trout may suffer lethal or sublethal effects (e.g., reduced growth, reproductive fitness, or long term survival), is difficult to determine with available information, and given potential contingencies and uncertainties. However, the best available science leads us to conclude, with a high degree of certainty, that acute contaminant exposures resulting from the proposed action will cause measurable adverse effects. The Service relies on toxicity data for other salmonids when information specific to bull trout is not available. Due to taxonomic similarity, species in the Salmonidae family are considered better surrogates for bull trout than non-salmonids. However, Hansen et al. (Hansen et al. 2002) demonstrate that even among the members of Salmonidae sensitivities to chemical contaminants and mixtures of contaminants may differ. The Service has relied on toxicity data for species in the following preferential order: species (bull trout), genus (Salvelinus), family (Salmonidae). 44 Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are the primary freshwater fish species used by the EPA when developing toxicity data for regulatory purposes. Therefore, the majority of data available are from studies using rainbow trout as test subjects. The most commonly reported end points in the toxicity literature are concentrations at which 50 percent of the test subjects/population died (LC50). Concentrations that result in the death of a smaller percentage of the test population (e.g., LC10) are likely to be somewhat lower. Bull trout and other salmonids would be adversely affected if exposed to contaminant concentrations with the potential to result in acute toxicity and death, if exposed to contaminant concentrations likely to cause measurable sublethal effects (e.g., reduced growth or reproductive fitness), or if exposed to contaminant concentrations sufficient to significantly disrupt normal behaviors (feeding, moving, and sheltering). Throughout the RABs, surface and subsurface sediments exhibit complex, variable, and discontinuous patterns of contamination. Some areas exhibit relatively high concentrations of one or more contaminants of concern, including PCBs, PAHs, dioxins/furans, VOCs, and metals, while other areas (even in close proximity) appear to contain only low concentrations. Even though some of the highest contaminant concentrations have been detected in subsurface samples, most notably for total PCBs and arsenic, the depth interval of maximum concentration is located within 4 ft of the surface sediment layer for most contaminants of concern. Seep and pore water collected from areas adjacent to known, upland sources of contamination has been found to contain metal concentrations exceeding State of Washington acute marine water quality criteria for arsenic, copper, and zinc. For a fuller discussion of the baseline environmental conditions, including patterns of existing sediment and water contamination within the RABs and project area, please see a previous section (Environmental Baseline in the Action Area). PCBs, PAHs, and metals are present in sediments at concentrations which, if re -suspended and allowed to desorb to the surrounding water column, may cause adverse effects to acutely exposed fish. In order to assess the potential for adverse effects stemming from acute exposures, it is necessary to know something of the exposure concentration, duration, and physical extent. Whether acute exposures cause lethal or sublethal effects will be strongly influenced by the exposure concentration and duration. Information is limited and there are important sources of uncertainty. These sources of uncertainty include the actual quantity of contaminated sediment that will or may be re -suspended, the composition and contaminant concentrations in that re- suspended sediment, the quantity and chemical composition of released interstitial pore water, and the rate or degree of contaminant desorption to the surrounding water column. Additional sources of uncertainty include the effect of intermittent, episodic, or transient exposures (Burton et al. 2000; Marsalek et al. 1999), variations in tolerance among exposed individuals, populations, and/or species (Ellis 2000, p. 89; Hodson 1988; Lloyd 1987, p. 502), and, the potential for additive or synergistic effects among contaminants with similar or the same modes of toxic action (Burton et al. 2000; Ellis 2000, p. 88; Lloyd 1987, p. 494). Burton et al. (Burton et al. 2000) warn that traditional toxicity tests may not lead to reliable conclusions if not tailored to reflect "real -world" patterns of exposure. Lloyd (1987, pp. 492, 501) suggests that 45 contaminants may be more toxic to salmonids when dissolved oxygen is reduced, and advises that water quality standards should apply to whole groups of contaminants with common modes of action, rather than individual contaminants. A number of site -specific conditions will influence the spatial extent of potential exposures. Acute exposures are usually most intense in the initial mixing zone where sediment re - suspension creates a three-dimensional plume that dissipates vertically, horizontally, and longitudinally (Bridges et al. 2008, pp. 6-8, 15, 18). The size and shape of the temporary plume, and therefore the spatial extent of potential contaminant exposures, will be influenced by the quantity and chemical composition of re -suspended sediment, the rate or degree of contaminant desorption to the surrounding water column, particle size and resettling rate, discharge volume, current, tidal flux, degree of turbulence, height of release to the water column, sheer stress at the channel bottom, water temperature and salinity, and operational considerations (Bridges et al. 2008, pp. 5, 7-9, 13, 20, 42). Without the information needed to definitively model the spatial component of potential exposures, we relied on best professional judgment and a number of simplifying assumptions. We employed the same methods used previously by the Service when addressing a large construction project located within these same portions of the Duwamish River (Opinion — South Park Bridge Replacement, August 17, 2009; FWS Ref. No. 13410-2008-F-0383). Instantaneous partitioning and equilibrium of the sediment and water column contaminant concentrations is our most important "worst -case" assumption (Bridges et al. 2008, pp. 22, 37; Herrera Environmental Consultants, in litt. 2007, pp. 8, 10). Under most conditions where sediment re -suspension and contaminant desorption to the water column determine exposure, equilibrium partitioning will not be achieved (Bridges et al. 2008, p. 18; Herrera Environmental Consultants, in litt. 2007, p. 10). Therefore, by assuming that instantaneous partitioning and equilibrium will occur, we may over -estimate (but we are not likely to under -estimate) the size or intensity of the resulting contaminant plume. Empirical evidence suggests that contaminant plumes resulting from dredging frequently transition from "near field zone" processes (including potential acute exposures), to "far -field zone" processes within 100 meters of the operation (Bridges et al. 2008, p. 7). However, some dredging operations have been shown to cause large and very intense turbidity plumes (Phipps et al. 1992 in USACE 2006, pp. 12-14). Therefore, we expect that temporary exposures with a potential to cause adverse effects in bull trout may likely extend to a greater distance from the on -going activity. It is possible, though unlikely, that resulting contaminant plumes may at times span the entire channel. More typically, however, we expect that contaminant plumes will occupy only a portion of the channel cross-section, and only a small portion of the RABs and action area, at any one time. Acute contaminant exposures with a potential to cause measurable adverse effects to bull trout will be confined to the same area where suspended sediment concentrations are elevated over ambient, background conditions; i.e., to a distance of approximately 800 ft upstream and downstream of the ongoing, sediment -generating activity, depending upon the direction of tidal flux. Temporary exposures resulting in adverse effects to bull trout may occur at any time during the approximately 450 day period (Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4: 46 August 1, 2013 to February 15, 2014; Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA: August 1, 2012 to February 15, 2015). Exposures may occur anywhere within the approximately 16.5 acre RABs, but will be confined to only a small portion of the RABs at any given time. Acute contaminant exposures resulting from sediment re -suspension, release of contaminated water, and/or discharge of treated return water will be limited in duration and extent, but some of the anticipated effects (e.g., reduced growth or reproductive fitness) may last for the lives of the exposed individuals. There is at least some risk of lethal exposures for a limited number of bull trout. Contaminants released to the water column may also significantly disrupt normal bull trout behaviors (i.e., ability to successfully feed, move, and/or shelter), including predator avoidance behaviors. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) The PCBs are a class of synthetic organic chemical compounds, consisting of 1 to 10 chlorine atoms attached to a biphenyl group (two bonded benzene rings). These compounds originate from various industrial sources and processes, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, coolants, lubricants, electrical wiring and components, pesticides, cutting oils, flame retardants, hydraulic fluids, sealants, adhesives, paints and finishes, and dust control agents (EPA 2012b). As an environmental contaminant, these compounds are of concern because of their documented carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic properties, and because they have the potential to bioaccumulate. The toxicological literature reports reduced fertilization success and egg survival, reproductive failure, reduced growth, liver malfunction, and altered blood and enzyme function as effects to benthic invertebrates and/or fish resulting from exposure to PCBs (EPA 2012b). PCBs were detected in 94 percent of the samples from the baseline dataset. The mean surface sediment total PCB concentration exceeds the marine CSL. The maximum surface sediment total PCB concentration exceeds the marine CSL by more than two orders of magnitude. Predicted equilibrium water column concentrations for individual Aroclor PCBs, i.e., recognizable mixtures of PCB congeners, are sufficiently high to present a risk of adverse acute exposures and effects (see below). As a group of contaminants with a common mode of toxic action, PCBs also present a risk of toxic interaction and additive or synergistic effects in acutely exposed fish. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) The PAHs are a class of organic chemical compounds, consisting of fused aromatic rings, commonly found in oil, coal, and tar and frequently occurring in nature as a byproduct of fuel burning and/or incomplete combustion. As an environmental contaminant, these compounds are of concern because of their documented carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic properties, and because they show an apparent tendency for bioaccumulation (EPA 2008). Many of the PAHs are potent carcinogens, and a host of other (i.e., non -cancer -causing) potential biological effects are poorly understood. In aquatic systems, the high -molecular -weight PAHs tend to exhibit greater toxicity than do the low -molecular -weight PAHs. The toxicological literature reports 47 inhibited reproduction, delayed emergence, liver disease or malfunction, morphological abnormalities, immune system impairment, and mortality as effects to benthic invertebrates and/or fish resulting from exposure to PAHs (EPA 2008). High- and low -molecular -weight PAHs (H-PAHs and L-PAHs) were detected in 98 percent and 94 percent of the samples from the baseline dataset, respectively. Mean surface sediment total H-PAH and L-PAH concentrations are below both the marine SQSs and CSLs. However, maximum surface sediment total H-PAH and L-PAH concentrations are three to five times greater than the marine CSLs. Predicted equilibrium water column concentrations for several PAHs are sufficiently high to present a risk of adverse acute exposures and effects (see below). As a group of contaminants with a common mode of toxic action, PAHs also present a risk of toxic interaction and additive or synergistic effects in acutely exposed fish. Metals There are three known physiological pathways by which salmonids may uptake metals: 1) uptake of ionic metals at the gill surfaces (Niyogi et al. 2004), 2) dietary uptake, and 3) olfaction (sense of smell) involving receptor neurons (Baldwin et al. 2003). Of these three pathways, the mechanism of dietary uptake is least understood. For dissolved metals, the most direct pathway is through the gill surfaces. Measurements of total recoverable metal concentration include a fraction that is bound to suspended solids and/or complexed with organic matter or other ligands; this fraction is not available to bind to gill receptor sites. As such, most metal toxicity studies have examined the dissolved metal fraction which is more bioavailable and therefore of greater significance for acute exposure and toxicity. The relative toxicity of a metal can be altered by hardness, water temperature, pH, organic content, phosphate concentration, suspended solid concentration, the presence of other metals or contaminants (i.e., synergistic effects), and other factors. Eisler (1998) and Playle (2004) found that dissolved metal mixtures exhibit greater than additive toxicity. Water hardness affects the bio-available fraction of metals; as hardness increases, metals become less bio-available for uptake at the gill surfaces and therefore less toxic (Hansen et al. 2002; Niyogi et al. 2004). Metals, including copper and zinc, were detected in all samples from the baseline dataset. Mean surface sediment metal concentrations are below both the marine SQSs and CSLs. However, maximum surface sediment metal concentrations exceed the marine SQSs and CSLs by at least one order of magnitude. In addition, seep and pore water collected from areas adjacent to known, upland sources of contamination has been found to contain metal concentrations exceeding State of Washington acute marine water quality criteria for copper and zinc. Predicted equilibrium water column concentrations for copper and zinc are sufficiently high to present a risk of adverse acute exposures and effects (see below). 48 Copper Even at low concentrations, copper is acutely toxic to fish. Effects of exposure to copper include 1) weakened immune function and impaired disease resistance, 2) impaired respiration, 3) disruptions to osmoregulation, 4) impaired function of olfactory organs and brain, 5) altered blood chemistry, 6) altered enzyme activity and fiznction, and 7) pathology of the kidneys, liver, and gills (Eisler 1998). The acute lethality of copper has been evaluated for bull trout. Hansen et al. (2002) examined acute toxicity and determined that rainbow trout firy and bull trout fry have similar sensitivities. The authors describe a 96-hour and 120-hour LC50 for bull trout under test conditions (100 mg/L hardness and 8 °C), approximately 66.6 and 50.0 µg/L, respectively. Baldwin et al. (2003) found that short pulses of dissolved copper, at concentrations as low as 2 µg/L, reduced olfactory sensory responsiveness by approximately 10 percent within 10 minutes, and by 25 percent within 30 minutes. At 10 µg/L responsiveness was reduced by 67 percent within 30 minutes. Baldwin et al. (2003) identified a copper concentration neurotoxic threshold of an increase of 2.3 to 3.0 µg/L, when background levels are 3.0 µg/L or less. When exceeded, this threshold is associated with olfactory inhibition. The authors also reference three other studies examining long -duration copper exposures (i.e., exceeding 4 hours); these studies found that long -duration exposures resulted in cell (olfactory receptor neuron) death in rainbow trout and Atlantic and Chinook salmon. Baldwin et al. (2003) found that water hardness did not influence the toxicity of copper to coho salmon sensory neurons. More recently, Sandahl et al. (2007) documented sensory physiological impairment, and related disruption to predator avoidance behaviors, in juvenile coho at concentrations as low as 2 µg/L dissolved copper. The effects of short-term copper exposure may persist for hours and possibly longer. Although salmonids may actively avoid surface waters containing an excess of dissolved copper, exposed individuals may experience olfactory function inhibition. Avoidance of a chemical plume may cause fish to leave refugia or preferred habitats in favor of less suitable or less productive habitats. This, in turn, can make fish more vulnerable to predation and can impair foraging success, feeding efficiency, and thereby growth. Folmar (1976) observed avoidance responses in rainbow trout fry when exposed to a Lowest Observed Effect Concentration of 0.1 µg/L dissolved copper (hardness of 90 mg/L). The EPA (1980a) also documented fry avoidance of dissolved copper concentrations as low as 0.1 µg/L during a 1 hour exposure, as well as a LC10 for smolts exposed to 7.0 µg/L for 200 hours, and a LC10 for juveniles exposed to 9.0 µg/L for 200 hours. Zinc Zinc occurs naturally in the environment and is an essential trace element for most organisms. However, in sufficient concentrations and when bioavailable for uptake by aquatic organisms, excess zinc is toxic. Toxicity in the aquatic environment and for exposed aquatic organisms is 49 influenced by water hardness, pH, organic matter content, levels of dissolved oxygen, phosphate, and suspended solids, the presence of mixtures (i.e., synergistic effects), trophic level, and exposure frequency and duration (Eisler 1993). Bioavailability of zinc increases under conditions of high dissolved oxygen, low salinity, low pH, and/or high levels of inorganic oxides and humic substances. Most of the zinc introduced into aquatic environments is eventually partitioned into sediments (Eisler 1993). Effects of zinc exposure include 1) weakened immune function and impaired disease resistance (Ghanmi et al. 1989), 2) impaired respiration, including potentially lethal destruction of gill epithelium (Eisler 1993), 3) altered blood and serum chemistry, and enzyme activity and function (Hilmy et al. 1987a; Hilmy et al. 1987b), 4) interference with gall bladder and gill metabolism (Eisler 1993), 5) hyperglycemia, and 6) jaw and branchial abnormalities (Eisler 1993). Hansen et al. (2002) determined 120-day lethal concentrations of zinc for test subjects that included bull trout and rainbow trout fry. Multiple pairs of tests were performed with a nominal pH of 7.5, hardness of 30 mg/L, and at a temperature of 8 °C. Bull trout LC50 values measured under these conditions ranged from 35.6 to 80.0 µg/L, with an average of 56.1 µg/L. Hansen et al. (2002) found that rainbow trout fry are more sensitive to zinc (i.e., exhibit a lower LC50) than are bull trout fry. The authors also report that older, more active juvenile bull trout are more sensitive than younger, more docile juvenile bull trout based on observed changes in behavior at the juvenile life stage. The authors argue that the timing of zinc and cadmium exposure and the activity level of the exposed fish are germane to predicting toxicity in the field. The mode of action for zinc toxicity relates to net loss of calcium. Studies suggest that zinc exposure inhibits calcium uptake, although it appears this effect is reversible once fish return to clean water. The apparent difference in sensitivity between rainbow trout and bull trout may be due to the lesser susceptibility of bull trout to calcium loss. Hansen et al. (2002) state that differences in sensitivity between these two salmonids may reflect different physiological strategies for regulating calcium uptake. These strategies may include gills that differ structurally, differences in the mechanisms for calcium uptake, and/or variation in resistance to or tolerance for calcium loss. There are no known studies or data describing adult bull trout response to lethal or near -lethal concentrations of zinc. Active feeding and increased metabolic activity are apparently related to sensitivity. It is unknown whether sensitivity to zinc varies between adult, subadult, and juvenile bull trout. Activity level may be a better predictor of sensitivity than age. In addition to the physiological effects of zinc exposure, studies have also documented a variety of behavioral responses. Among these, Eisler (1993) includes altered avoidance behavior, decreased swimming ability, and hyperactivity. The author also suggests zinc exposure has implications for growth, reproduction, and survival,. Sublethal endpoints have been evaluated with test subjects that include both juvenile and adult rainbow trout (Eisler 1993; USEPA 1980b; USEPA 1987). Some of these test results clearly indicate that juvenile rainbow trout are more sensitive than adult rainbow trout. Using juvenile rainbow trout as test subjects, studies have found that sublethal effects occur at concentrations 50 approximately 75 percent lower (5.6 µg/L) than the concentrations that result in lethal effects (24 µg/L) (Eisler 1993; Hansen et al. 2002). Sprague (1968) found that at concentrations as low as 5.6 µg/L juvenile rainbow trout exhibit avoidance behavior. Avoidance of a chemical plume may cause fish to leave refugia or preferred habitats in favor of less suitable or less productive habitats. This can make fish more vulnerable to predation and can impair foraging success, feeding efficiency, and thereby growth. Estimate of Exposure Concentration, Duration, and Extent Without the information needed to definitively model the spatial component of potential exposures, we relied on best professional judgment and a number of simplifying assumptions. We employed the same methods used previously by the Service when addressing a large construction project located within these same portions of the Duwamish River (Opinion — South Park Bridge Replacement, August 17, 2009; FWS Ref. No. 13410-2008-F-0383). Methods have been described in greater detail elsewhere (Herrera Environmental Consultants, in litt. 2007). In order to assess the potential for adverse effects stemming from acute exposures, it is necessary to know something of the exposure concentration, duration, and physical extent. We applied accepted methods, and used conservative assumptions (e.g., instantaneous equilibrium partitioning), to predict the equilibrium PCB, PAH, and dissolved metal water column concentrations that might result from re -suspension of contaminated sediments, desorption to the surrounding water column, release of contaminated water, and/or discharge of treated return water. These temporary, elevated water column concentrations were then compared to Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs) obtained from the toxicological literature. Ecological TRVs are "...species -specific and chemical -specific estimates of an exposure level that is not likely to cause unacceptable adverse effects on growth, reproduction, or survival," and are generally based on dose -response studies conducted under controlled laboratory conditions (EPA 2012a). TRVs must be selected with care since whole classes of organisms (e.g., benthic invertebrates, fishes, and mammals), species, populations, and individuals can exhibit varying sensitivities or tolerances for environmental contaminants. If TRVs are selected such that they represent the tolerances of a relativity more sensitive receptor among the full range of potential receptors, then comparisons with these TRVs should provide a reliable, conservative means for assessing the risk of adverse effects to the group of potential receptors as a whole (EPA 2012a). However, the derivation of TRVs is an emerging science and there is not, as yet, a universally accepted set of TRVs. The Service has not endorsed, and does not intend to endorse here, a particular set of TRVs for the assessment of potential adverse effects to Act -listed species or critical habitat. Hazard Quotients (HQs) provide a numerical comparison of exposure concentrations and TRVs. If a HQ is greater than 1.0, then the exposure concentration exceeds the TRV selected for comparison, and exposed receptors may be at some risk of adverse effects. Higher HQs indicate an increased probability of effect to sensitive species, and "...as the HQ for [a group of receptors] becomes larger, it is expected that more and more [receptors] in the group would be at risk" (EPA 2012a). 51 Table 5 provides a summary of our findings. It presents predicted, maximum, equilibrium PCB, PAH, and dissolved metal water column concentrations, and allows for comparisons with contaminant -specific TRVs. Table 5 also presents associated HQs for Aroclor PCBs (i.e., recognizable mixtures of PCB congeners), Total PCBs, several of the PAHs, and metals. These findings suggest that water column concentrations for copper, three PAHs (anthracene, fluoranthene, and fluorene), and Aroclor-1254 will substantially exceed TRVs and are reasonably certain to result in measurable, adverse acute exposures and effects. The same can be said, with less certainty (and perhaps with less severity of effect), for elevated water column concentrations of zinc, phenanthrene, pyrene, and Aroclor-1260. Table 5. Predicted water column concentrations for select contaminants of concern, with comparison to TRVs. Contaminant of Concern Max. Concentrations in Sediments (µg/kg) Max. Water Column Concentration (µg/L) TRV /L (µg ) Hazard Quotient Copper 12,000* 165.9** 2.3 72.1 Zinc 9,700* 67.1 * * 23.9 2.8 Anthracene 4,400 10.5 1.3 8.1 Fluoranthene 10,000 11.5 0.9 12.8 Fluorene 1,500 10.7 0.8 13.4 Phenanthrene 4,900 13.2 7.7 1.7 Pyrene 3,900 3.3 0.8 4.1 Aroclor-1254 110,000 61.1 10 6.1 Aroclor-1260 51,000 28.3 10 2.8 Total PCBs 110,000 0.4 10 0.04 Source: a (AMEC and FSI 2011) * For metals (copper and zinc), concentration in sediments is measured as mg/kg dry weight (or parts per million). * * For metals, the predicted maximum water column concentration has been adjusted downward to represent the bioavailable, dissolved fractions. Total -to -dissolved translator values (Cu - 0.693; Zn - 0.871) were obtained from Ecology's Phase 2 study of toxic chemicals in Puget Sound (EnviroVision et al. 2008). The PCBs, the PAHs, and dissolved metals, as groupings or classes of related contaminants, present a risk of additive or synergistic effects. The various PAHs cause effects in exposed receptors by similar or the same modes of toxic action, as do the various PCBs. As a means to address this potential for toxic interaction, Table 6 presents Hazard Indices which sum individual HQs for the PCBs, PAHs, and metals. These findings lend still more support for the conclusion that temporary, elevated water column concentrations are reasonably certain to cause measurable, adverse effects in acutely exposed fish. 52 Table 6. Hazard indices for metals, PAHs, and PCBs desorbing to the water column. Contaminant Group Hazard Index Metals 74.9 PAHs 40.1 Aroclor PCBs 8.9 It should be noted that these predicted water column concentrations represent conservative estimates. In addition, the TRVs have been developed through laboratory dose -response studies employing long exposure durations (e.g., 24-hour/day, 4- to 7-day test periods), and it is unlikely that individual bull trout would be exposed for these durations. However, when adjusted for more realistic or relevant exposure durations (e.g., 3, 6, or 12 hour exposures), the Hazard Indices would be substantially lower, but still two to six times greater than would be associated with little or no risk of adverse effects (i.e., HQ less than or equal to 1.0). Taken as whole, these findings (i.e., predicted water column concentrations, HQs, Hazard Indices, and duration -adjusted Hazard Indices) would lead us to conclude that acute contaminant exposures resulting from the proposed action will cause measurable adverse effects with a high degree of certainty. It is difficult to determine with available information whether exposed bull trout may suffer lethal or sublethal effects as a result of these acutecontaminant exposures. However, Hazard Indices adjusted for shorter and more realistic exposure durations are relatively low. Accordingly, we expect that most bull trout that are acutely exposed to temporarily elevated PCB, PAH, and dissolved metal water column concentrations will not suffer lethal effects (i.e., immediate or delayed mortality), but will instead experience less severe sublethal effects. These sublethal effects may include an incremental reduction in growth or long term reproductive fitness. The Service expects that the contaminant plumes resulting from the proposed action will be temporary and will occupy only a portion of the channel cross-section, and only a small portion of the RABs and action area, at any one time. We expect that acute contaminant exposures with the potential to cause measurable adverse effects to bull trout will be confined to the same area where suspended sediment concentrations are temporarily elevated over ambient, background conditions; i.e., to a distance of approximately 800 ft upstream and downstream of the ongoing, sediment -generating activity, depending upon the direction of tidal flux. Temporary exposures resulting in adverse effects to bull trout may occur at any time during the approximately 450 day period (Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4: August 1, 2013 to February 15, 2014; Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA: August 1, 2012 to February 15, 2015). Exposures may occur anywhere within the approximately 16.5 acre RABs, but willbe confined to only a small portion of the RABs at any one time. The Service expects that low numbers of foraging and migrating adult and subadult bull trout will be in the action area at the time of construction and may be temporarily exposed to sediments and water contaminated with PCB, PAH, and dissolved metal concentrations 53 sufficient to cause measurable adverse effects. Acute exposures will be limited in duration, but some of the anticipated effects (e.g., reduced growth or reproductive fitness) may last for the lives of the exposed individuals. Both the PCBs and the PAHs are highly toxic, carcinogenic, and fat soluble (lipophilic). The total "body burden," which has significance for the severity of long term effects, may accumulate over the lives of individuals as a result of multiple, repeated exposures (and/or through multiple exposure pathways):. Bull trout that are acutely exposed to contaminants as a result of the proposed action will likely have experienced similar exposures elsewhere (and at other times) within the lower Duwamish River and/or marine waters of the Puget Sound. PCB and PAH contamination are pervasive problems throughout the Puget Sound (Hart Crowser et al. 2007), and low- or moderate -level exposures most likely contribute to total body burdens by way of multiple exposure pathways (including the prey base). Available information does not allow us to predict how exposures within the action area might add incrementally to the accumulative effect of multiple exposures over the lives of individual fish. However, over the long term, we expect that acute exposures resulting from the proposed action are likely to result in an incremental reduction in individual growth and/or reproductive fitness. Chronic Contaminant Exposures and Effects The proposed action includes excavation and dredge removal of approximately 270,000 cy of contaminated media (sediment and soils) from more than 16.5 acres of the lower Duwamish and adjacent uplands. The RABs are highly contaminated and, even with full implementation of the proposed conservation measures, we expect that construction activities conducted above and below MLLW present some risk of directly mobilizing and transporting contaminated media downstream. We expect that the action will mobilize and transport some amount of PCB, VOC, dioxin/furan, and metal contamination to portions of the lower Duwamish and Elliot Bay located downstream of the RABs and immediate project area. The action will thereby measurably alter patterns of contaminant exposure, for a period both during and after construction, within and outside the RABs. In the long term, we expect that the action will measurably improve sediment and water quality conditions within the RABs and elsewhere, will contribute to the planned comprehensive cleanup and remediation effort along the lower Duwamish, and thereby provide significant ecological benefits by reducing or eliminating long term contaminant exposure risks. We expect that the action will measurably reduce the extent and severity of chronic contaminant exposures and effects to bull trout, their habitat, and prey resources. No measurable, adverse, long term or permanent effects to bull trout, their habitat, or prey resources are expected. Bottom sediments in the RABs contain a complex and variable mixture of PCBs, VOCs, dioxins/furans, and metals. A number of these contaminants are present at sediment concentrations that exceed marine and freshwater quality standards and guidelines recommended for the protection of aquatic life. These sediments include a significant fraction composed of fine-grained silts and clays. The smallest of these sediments have very slow settling velocities, and in a system as large as the lower Duwamish may travel long distances before falling out of suspension. The best available science lead us to conclude that some of the 54 re -suspended sediments, and the sediment -bound contamination they carry, may travel the entire length of the lower Duwamish and into Elliot Bay (a distance of approximately 5 miles downstream) before falling out of suspension. It is difficult to reliably determine what quantities of contamination may fall out of suspension and re -deposit along downstream portions of the lower Duwamish and Elliot Bay. Accordingly, it is also difficult to ascertain how this contamination may incrementally affect bull trout, their habitat, and prey resources within the action area. The RABs are clearly more contaminated than other large portions of the lower Duwamish; 75 percent or more of the lower Duwamish (by area) may be less contaminated than the RABs (Windward Environmental 2010, pp. ES-12, ES- 13, ES-30, ES-31). However, there are also numerous sources of these same contaminants along the lowermost six miles of the Duwamish River, including additional EAAs located both upstream (Norfolk CSO) and downstream (Duwamish/Diagonal). The project area may, in general, be characterizedas a depositional reach (AMEC and FSI 2011, pp. 9-13). Contaminated sediment has and is now being buried by relatively less contaminated sediment from upstream. The proposed action will have the effect of temporarily interrupting typical patterns of sediment transport. However, the EPA and Applicants will place clean back - fill approximating pre -project contours, and we expect that the fine-grained channel bed will adjust to altered conditions relatively quickly. We expect that typical patterns of sediment transport will resume in a matter of weeks or months. The proposed action will not affect a permanent change to sediment transport dynamics in the action area. The Service expects that re -suspension and subsequent downstream resettling or deposition of mobilized sediment will, in the short term, measurably alter patterns of contaminant exposure along some portions of the lower Duwamish. The LDWG has documented effects to the invertebrate community that may be attributable to similar short term releases of contaminated sediment (LDWG 2007, p. 535). The LDWG has been sampling and analyzing tissue chemical concentrations in fish and invertebrates from throughout the lower Duwamish since 1995. During 2004, several months after a series of dredging operations, the LDWG found that tissue total PCB concentrations were "...much higher in some species ... than in older (1995 to 1998) and more recent (2005 and 2006) samples" (LDWG 2007, p. 535). This, they suggest, indicates "...that exposure to total PCBs may have been higher immediately following the dredging events than is typical for the Lower Duwamish Waterway." They also report that increases in tissue chemical concentrations have been documented elsewhere in the country following dredging operations. Some studies have found that short term contaminant releases can be as much as three orders of magnitude greater than baseline, pre -dredging releases (Bridges et al. 2008, p. 19). Where contaminated sediments are concerned, it is widely accepted that "...exposure processes are dominated by what happens in the top several centimeters of sediment" (Bridges et al. 2008, p. 39). The proposed action will transport to downstream locations a volume of sediment and contamination that might otherwise have presented little risk of direct exposure or effects to bull trout, their habitat, and prey resources. While suspended in the water column, and after resettling or re -depositing along downstream portions of the lower Duwamish and Elliot Bay, this sediment -bound contamination will become more bioavailable (and therefore more 55 biologically relevant) for at least a period of time. It is possible that some of this sediment - bound contamination may re -deposit in areas where the surface sediment layer is less contaminated, or not contaminated at all. This altered pattern of exposure will affect the benthic invertebrate community most directly. With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, the Service expects that the amount of contaminated media which is transported downstream and beyond the RABs will be relatively small. Downstream transport and deposition of mobilized sediments will alter patterns of contaminant exposure, at least temporarily, both during and after construction. However, we expect that over a period of months, the widely and thinly dispersed layer of resettled sediment and sediment -bound contamination will become buried by cleaner upstream sources. It is possible that these altered patterns of exposure may cause measurable, temporary increases in benthic invertebrate tissue contaminant concentrations, but we expect it will be difficult or impossible to detect a change in benthic invertebrate community health or productivity outside of the RABs. It is unlikely that the action will cause a fundamental shift in aquatic community composition and structure, or a permanent change to primary production or nutrient and organic cycling and dynamics. In the long term, the Service expects overwhelmingly positive and beneficial effects to result from the proposed action. While not insignificant, the temporary contaminant exposures and effects resulting from the action will operate on scales that are small in comparison to the baseline level and extent of contamination, and in comparison to the measurable long term benefits we expect throughout the action area. The action will contribute to comprehensive cleanup and remediation efforts along the lower Duwamish River, and thereby measurably reduce the extent and severity of chronic contaminant exposures and effects to bull trout, their habitat, and prey resources. The Service expects no measurable, adverse, long term or permanent effects to bull trout, their habitat, or prey resources. Summary of Effects (Bull Trout) An earlier section applied the Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators (USFWS 1998) as a tool for describing whether aquatic habitat is properly functioning, functioning at risk, or functioning at unacceptable levels of risk at the scale of the action area (Environmental Baseline in the Action Area). Table 7 summarizes the effects of the action using this same matrix. For a fuller description of the anticipated effects of the action see the preceding sub -sections. 56 Table 7. Effects of the action ("Matrix of Pathways & Indicators"l. Pathway indicator Baseline Conditions Effect of the Action Water Quality Temperature Unacceptable Risk Maintain Sediment At Risk Degrade (Temporary) Chemical Contamination & Nutrients Unacceptable Risk Degrade (Temporary) Restore (Long Term) Habitat Access Physical Barriers At Risk Degrade (Temporary) Habitat Elements Substrate Unacceptable Risk Degrade (Temporary) Restore (Long Term) Large Woody Debris Pool Frequency / Quality Unacceptable Risk Maintain Unacceptable Risk Maintain Large Pools At Risk Maintain Off -Channel Habitat Refugia Unacceptable Risk Maintain, with Limited Restoration Unacceptable Risk Maintain Channel Conditions & Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio Functioning Adequately Maintain Streambank Condition Floodplain Connectivity Unacceptable Risk Maintain, with Limited Restoration Unacceptable Risk Maintain Flow / Hydrology Peak / Base Flows Drainage Network At Risk Maintain Unacceptable Risk Maintain Watershed Conditions Road Density / Location Unacceptable Risk Maintain Disturbance History Unacceptable Risk Maintain Riparian Reserve Unacceptable Risk Maintain Effects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat An earlier section identified the PCEs of bull trout critical habitat and described their baseline condition in the action area (Status of Critical Habitat in the Action Area). The following sub- section discusses the effects of the action with reference to the eight PCEs which are present and may be affected. Suitable bull trout spawning habitats are not present in the action area; PCE #6 (suitable spawning substrates) is not present and will not be affected. 57 (1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. The action will influence patterns of runoff, infiltration, and subsurface water exchange on a local scale, but will have no discernible effect on the size or frequency of peak, high, low or base flows, or on day-to-day or seasonal fluctuations of the natural hydrograph. The proposed stormwater system improvements will significantly reduce the discharge of conventional industrial stormwater pollutants (solids; total and dissolved metals; etc.), and nearly or completely eliminate all contributions of contaminants of concern to the RABs. The proposed stormwater design will not cause or contribute to measurable increases in surface water temperature, or degrade thermal refugia within the action area. The action will permanently remove a large quantity of contaminated media from the lower Duwamish River and adjacent uplands, will implement related source control measures to prevent re -contamination, and thereby provide significant, measurable, long term benefits. These benefits will include improved protection of the groundwater resource. We conclude that foreseeable effects to this PCE will not be measurable, or will be beneficial, and are therefore considered insignificant. Within the action area this PCE will retain its current level of function (severely impaired). (2) Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. The action will have temporary adverse effects to PCE #2. Construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW, specifically dredge removal of contaminated sediments and placement of clean back -fill, will temporarily degrade surface water quality and function of the migratory corridor. Temporary impacts to water quality may impede or discourage free movement through the area, but will not preclude continued use of the migratory corridor. The foreseeable temporary adverse effects to the migratory corridor will be limited in both physical extent and duration. Impacts to water quality will be episodic, but will persist on an intermittent basis over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). Measurable temporary impacts to this PCE will be confined to the area of the RABs between RM 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River. At any one time, we expect that the action will degrade water quality and function of the migratory corridor through only a small portion of the RABs. The action will measurably diminish the function of the migratory corridor in the short term, but in the long term effects to this PCE will not be measurable, and are therefore considered insignificant. The action will not create or contribute to any permanent physical, biological, or water quality impediments to migration or free movement. We conclude that the action will have no permanent adverse effects, and will improve long term function of PCE #2. 58 (3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. The action will have temporary adverse effects to PCE #3. With complete removal and replacement of the benthos to a depth of several feet throughout the 16.5 acre RABs, it is not possible to fully avoid measurable, adverse, short term effects to the bull trout prey base. Temporary adverse effects will be limited in both physical extent and duration. We expect that dredging and placement of back -fill will measurably reduce benthic prey abundance and productivity within the RABs for a duration of one to two years. We expect that benthic organisms will rapidly recolonize and recruit to the clean back -fill. In the long term, we expect that the action will provide measurable benefits in the form of improved sediment and water quality, reduced contaminant exposure risks, and a healthier prey base with reduced contaminant burdens. With removal of the contamination from the river, the quality and availability of bull trout prey resources may measurably improve over time. We expect reduced bioaccumulation in the native benthos and resident fish populations. The action will measurably diminish the productivity or availability of bull trout prey in the short term, but in the long term the foreseeable effects to this PCE will not be measurable, or will be beneficial, and are therefore considered insignificant. We conclude that the action will have no permanent adverse effects to PCE #3. Within the action area this PCE will retain its current level of function (moderately impaired). (4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. The lower Duwamish River exhibits greatly reduced habitat complexity and diversity. Within the action area, instream habitat complexity and function is substantially diminished compared to historic conditions. The action will not cause or contribute to a further simplification of instream habitats in either the short or long term. Instead, with the inclusion of habitat enhancement and mitigation measures, including those proposed by the EPA and Applicants to satisfy NRDA requirements, we expect that the action will provide measurable benefits in the form of improved sediment and water quality, reduced long term contaminant exposure risks (including a healthier prey base with reduced contaminant burdens), and modestly improved nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian habitat functions. We conclude that foreseeable effects to this PCE will not be measurable, or will be beneficial, and are therefore considered insignificant. Within the action area this PCE will retain its current level of function (severely impaired). 59 (5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will depend on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; stream flow; and local groundwater influence. Sources of cold water are insufficient to maintain water temperatures within the optimal range for bull trout during all times of year. However, the action area does provide pools where bull trout can seek refuge from seasonally high surface water temperatures. The proposed stormwater design will not cause or contribute to measurable increases in surface water temperature, or degrade thermal refugia within the action area. The action will have no other foreseeable effects to water temperatures. We conclude that foreseeable effects to this PCE will not be measurable, and are therefore considered insignificant. Within the action area this PCE will retain its current level of function (moderately impaired). (7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. The action will influence patterns of runoff, infiltration, and subsurface water exchange on a local scale, but will have no discernible effect on the size or frequency of peak, high, low or base flows, or on day-to-day or seasonal fluctuations of the natural hydrograph. We conclude that foreseeable effects to this PCE will not be measurable, and are therefore considered insignificant. Within the action area this PCE will retain its current level of function (moderately impaired). (8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. The action will have temporary adverse effects to PCE #8. Construction activities completed at elevations below +2 MLLW, specifically dredge removal of contaminated sediments and placement of clean back -fill, will temporarily degrade surface water quality. The foreseeable temporary adverse effects will be limited in both physical extent and duration. Impacts to water quality will be episodic, but will persist on an intermittent basis over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). Measurable temporary impacts will be confined to the area of the RABs between RM 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River. In the long term, we expect that the action will provide measurable benefits in the form of improved sediment and water quality, and reduced contaminant exposure risks. The action will remove some of the most highly contaminated sediments found anywhere along the lower Duwamish River. The action will remove a large area and volume of contaminated sediment from one of the largest EAAs, and will contribute substantially to the comprehensive Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site cleanup and remediation effort. 60 The action will measurably degrade water quality in the short term, but long term effects to this PCE will be beneficial. We conclude that the action will have no permanent adverse effects, and will improve long term function of PCE #8. (9) Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. Nonnative fish compete for prey resources within the action area. Existing baseline environmental conditions may advantage warm water fish and/or those species which have been found to exploit hardened banks and artificial overwater structure (e.g., large and smallmouth bass). The action includes habitat enhancement and mitigation measures, including those proposed by the EPA and Applicants to satisfy NRDA requirements. These measures have been designed to improve functions which are important to and/or limiting for native salmonids. In particular, we expect that demolition of the existing overwater structures and bulkheads associated with the Boeing 2-40s Complex will remove degraded habitat which is attractive to and supports nonnative species. With inclusion of these habitat enhancement and mitigation measures, we expect that the action will provide measurable benefits in the form of modestly improved nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian habitat functions. We conclude that foreseeable effects to this PCE will not be measurable, or will be beneficial, and are therefore considered insignificant. Within the action area this PCE will retain its current level of function (moderately impaired). Indirect Effects (Bull Trout and Critical Habitat) Indirect effects are caused by or result from the proposed action, are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur. Indirect effects may occur outside of the area directly affected by the action (USFWS and NMFS 1998). The proposed actions satisfy, in part, Administrative Orders on Consent agreed to by the Applicants and EPA. These Orders outline the Applicants' responsibilities under RCRA and CERCLA for cleanup and remediation of historic and continuing sources of contamination to the Lower Duwamish Waterway. The Administrative Orders on Consent do not, however, describe in total the Applicants' responsibilities under RCRA, CERCLA, and other applicable State and Federal law. Subject to a pending NRDA settlement with the Elliot Bay Natural Resource Trustees, the Jorgensen Forge and Earle M. Jorgensen Company will perform and/or construct additional habitat enhancement and mitigation measures to offset natural resource damages. Both Applicants, Jorgensen Forge and Boeing, will have continuing responsibilities for ensuring that source control measures function as expected to prevent re -contamination of the RABs. These source control measures include post -construction monitoring and adaptive management, performed in coordination with ongoing monitoring required under the applicable NPDES Stormwater General Permits. 61 The Administrative Orders on Consent do not prevent the Applicants from redeveloping or repurposing upland portions of the project area for uses consistent with their industrial land use designation, provided that source control measures and requirements, and all other requirements continue to be satisfied. Therefore, the Service expects that these actions may prompt, or make possible, some redevelopment of the Jorgensen Forge and Boeing facilities. We expect that this redevelopment or repurposing will be consistent with current zoning and established, light and heavy industrial uses. We assume that the EPA, Applicants, and Ecology will ensure that any future redevelopment maintains and improves upon the source controls measures implemented under this action. Post -construction, operational discharges of stormwater runoff from redeveloped portions of the Boeing Plant 2 Facility may measurably affect surface water quality within a discernible mixing - zone. However, we expect that the proposed stormwater system improvements will also significantly reduce the discharge of conventional industrial stormwater pollutants (solids; total and dissolved metals; etc.), and nearly or completely eliminate all contributions of contaminants of concern to the RAB. The stormwater design will not cause or contribute to measurable increases in surface water temperature, degrade thermal refugia within the action area, or impair function of the proposed nearshore intertidal, wetland, and riparian enhancements. With full and successful implementation of the agreed -upon conservation measures, including source control requirements for post -construction monitoring and adaptive management, we expect that the action's indirect effects will have an insignificant effect on bull trout and their habitat. We conclude that this action will have no foreseeable adverse effects occurring later in time. Effects of Interrelated & Interdependent Actions (Bull Trout and Critical Habitat) Interrelated actions are defined as actions "that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification"; interdependent actions are defined as actions "that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration" (50 CFR section 402.02). The EPA has completed a RI of the larger Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site (Windward Environmental 2010), and has determined that each of the proposed actions is fundamental to, and must proceed in advance of, the comprehensive cleanup and remediation action. These actions at Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4, and at Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA, will improve sediment and water quality conditions in these portions of the lower Duwamish, will reduce long term contaminant exposure risks, and contribute substantially to the future, comprehensive Superfund Site cleanup and remediation effort. That future comprehensive cleanup and remediation action will require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act, and therefore the potential effects of that future action are not addressed here. All wastes and contaminated media produced in completing the actions at Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4, and at Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA, will be handled, stored, transported, tested, treated, and disposed in full compliance with all applicable State and Federal requirements. Creosote - treated wood and contaminated sediments and soil will be disposed at permitted and approved 62 upland disposal sites accepting hazardous (Subtitle C) or non -hazardous (Subtitle D) solid wastes, as appropriate. Operations at these permitted and approved upland disposal sites, and any potential effects resulting from their operations, are not a focus of this Opinion. Subject to a pending NRDA settlement between the Responsible Party (Jorgensen Forge and Earle M. Jorgensen Company) and the Elliot Bay Natural Resource Trustees, we expect that Jorgensen Forge will implement habitat enhancement and mitigation measures to offset natural resource damages (Anchor QEA 2011 a, p. 18). The EPA is not a party to the NRDA settlement. Jorgensen Forge will provide the Service with additional information as related decisions are made and design details become available. We conclude that there are no interrelated or interdependent actions with potential effects to listed species, which the EPA, Applicants, and the Service can and should address at this time. The Service expects no foreseeable adverse effects attributable to interrelated or interdependent actions. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (Bull Trout and Critical Habitat) Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are 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. Future actions with particular relevance for the action area include additional planned cleanup and remedial actions to address contaminated soil, surface water, groundwater, and sediment contamination throughout the lower Duwamish River and contributing uplands. The EPA expects that additional actions will be on -going for years into the future. Some may be Federally -funded or permitted and will require consultation, but others may not. This Opinion has described a variety of contaminant exposures and resulting effects to bull trout, their habitat, and prey base (see Effects of the Action, Acute Exposure to Hazardous Contaminants, Chronic Contaminant Exposures and Effects). However, the exposures and effects described here are not unique to this action. It is reasonable to expect that future cleanup and remedial actions conducted along the lower Duwamish will present the risk of similar short term exposures and adverse effects to bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat. However, we expect that the cumulative effect of these actions over time will be largely or exclusively beneficial. Future actions to cleanup the Duwamish River's surface waters and sediment will improve the quality and function of FMO habitat in the action area. At the scale of the action area, we expect these actions will address an important limiting factor on normal bull trout reproduction, growth, and survival. These actions will improve long term conditions for bull trout and their prey, will address to some degree existing impediments to free movement and function of the migratory corridor, and will allow one or more PCEs of designated bull trout critical habitat to become more functional within the action area. 63 The lower Duwamish River floodplain is today very heavily developed. It is unlikely that future development within the action area will further degrade floodplain, riparian, or instream conditions. Instead, we expect that redevelopment according to current environmental standards may over time result in modest improvements to these conditions. Several parties have plans that include riparian and instream enhancements. As part of the larger effort to cleanup the Lower Duwamish Waterway, such actions will help to restore proper ecosystem function. Taken as a whole, the foreseeable future State, tribal, local, and private actions will have both beneficial effects and adverse effects to bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat. However, the Service expects that the cumulative effect of these actions over time will be largely beneficial. At the scale of the action area, we expect that future actions will improve the quality and function of FM0 habitat and address important limiting factors on normal bull trout reproduction, growth, and survival. Climate Change There is now widespread consensus within the scientific community that atmospheric temperatures on earth are increasing and that effects from climate change will continue for at least the next several decades (IPCC 2007, pp. 2, 7-9). There is also consensus within the scientific community that this warming trend will alter current weather patterns and climatic phenomena, including the timing and intensity of extreme events such as heat waves, floods, storms, and wet -dry cycles. Recent observations and modeling for Pacific Northwest aquatic habitats suggest that bull trout and other salmonid populations will be negatively affected by ongoing and future climate change. Rieman and McIntyre (1993, p. 8) listed several studies which predicted substantial declines of salmonid stocks in some regions related to long term climate change. More recently, Battin et al. (2007, pp. 6721-6722) modeled impacts to salmon in the Snohomish River Basin related to predictions of climate change. They suggest that long term climate impacts on hydrology would be greatest in the highest elevation basins, although site specific landscape characteristics would determine the magnitude and timing of effects. Streams fed by snowmelt and rain -on -snow events may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Battin et al. 2007, p. 6724). Warming air temperatures are predicted to result in receding glaciers, which in time would be expected to seasonally impact turbidity levels, timing and volume of flows, stream temperatures, and species response. Changing climatic conditions are expected to similarly affect other North Puget Sound basins. With the impacts of climate change, habitat connectivity and thermal refugia may become even more important to the growth and survival of fluvial and anadromous bull trout. If the current climate change models and predictions for Pacific Northwest aquatic habitats are accurate, bull trout may be affected by the following: ■ Changes in distribution, reduced spawning habitat, and/or seasonal thermal barriers along migratory corridors resulting from increased stream temperatures. • Short or long term changes in habitat and prey species availability due to larger or more frequent stochastic events. 64 • Shifts in seasonal availability of prey, resulting from changes in flow and the timing of out -migration. CONCLUSION The Service has identified the following recovery objectives, which are important to ensuring the long term persistence of self-sustaining, complex, and interacting groups of bull trout (USFWS 2004, p. 15): 1) maintain the current distribution of bull trout and restore distribution in previously occupied areas, 2) maintain stable or increasing trends in abundance of bull trout, 3) restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies, and 4) conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunities for genetic exchange. We have reviewed the current status of the bull trout in its coterminous range, the current status of designated bull trout critical habitat in its coterminous range, the environmental baseline for the action area, the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. It is the Service's Biological Opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bull trout in its coterminous range. This determination is based on the following: • The waters within the action area provide non -core FMO habitat for bull trout. FMO habitat is important to bull trout of the Puget Sound Management Unit for maintaining diversity of life history forms and for providing access to productive foraging areas. Anadromous adult and subadult bull trout are known to occur in the action area, and presumably originate from the local populations of the Puyallup, Snohomish-Skykomish, and Skagit River core areas. Current information, while incomplete, suggests that the Green River does not support local bull trout populations, spawning, or rearing, and suitable bull trout spawning and rearing habitats are not present in the action area or watershed. Adult and subadult bull trout may occupy these waters at any time of year, but information is not available to reliably estimate the number of bull trout that may forage, migrate, and overwinter in the action area. • The proposed action incorporates both permanent design elements and conservation measures which will reduce effects to habitat and avoid and minimize impacts during construction. The action's temporary adverse effects are limited in both physical extent and duration. No measurable, adverse, long term effects to bull trout, their habitat, or prey resources are anticipated, and the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action (permanent and temporary) will not preclude bull trout from foraging, migrating, and overwintering within the action area. • The proposed action will adversely affect foraging and migrating adult and subadult bull trout. Temporary adverse effects will result from exposure to elevated levels of turbidity, re -suspended river sediments contaminated with PCBs, VOCs, dioxins/furans, and 65 metals, and to elevated water column concentrations of these same hazardous contaminants. The action will also have temporary adverse effects on the condition and function of the migratory corridor, and to bull trout prey resources. • The proposed action will permanently remove, in total, approximately 270,000 cy of contaminated media (sediment and soils) from more than 16.5 acres of the lower Duwamish River and adjacent uplands. The action will improve sediment and water quality conditions in these portions of the lower Duwamish, will reduce long term contaminant exposure risks with ecological benefits, and contribute to the comprehensive Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site cleanup and remediation effort. The action will measurably reduce the extent and severity of chronic contaminant exposures. The Service expects no measurable, adverse, long term or permanent effects to bull trout, their habitat, or prey resources. ■ With full implementation of the conservation measures, the Service expects only low numbers of adult and subadult bull trout will be exposed to construction activities and may suffer adverse effects. Impacts to water quality and resulting exposures will be temporary and episodic, but will persist on an intermittent basis over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). Temporary exposures causing a significant disruption to normal bull trout behaviors (i.e., ability to successfully feed, move, or shelter), or potentially resulting in sublethal effects with significance for growth and long term survival, will be confined to the area of the RABs between RM 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River; approximately 1.5 acres (Jorgensen Forge and EAA-4) and 15 acres (Boeing Plant 2 and DSOA) of the lower Duwamish. • Some bull trout may avoid the ongoing, sediment -generating activity, and resulting degraded water quality conditions. Degraded water quality conditions may impede or discourage free movement through the area, may prevent individuals from exploiting preferred habitats, and/or expose individuals to less favorable conditions. Use of the area may be precluded, on an intermittent basis, until water quality conditions improve. We expect that most of these exposures will elicit mild behavioral responses, and very few bull trout will suffer effects causing reduced growth, reproductive fitness (fecundity), or survival. Temporary impacts to water quality are unlikely to span the entire channel, will occupy only a portion of the channel cross-section and RABs at any one time, and will not preclude use of the migratory corridor. ■ Some bull trout may experience reduced growth, reproductive fitness (fecundity), or survival as a result of sublethal contaminant exposures. Available information does not allow us to predict how exposures within the action area might add incrementally to the accumulative effect of multiple exposures over the lives of individual fish. However, over the long term and for a very small number of adult and subadult bull trout, we expect that acute exposures resulting from the proposed action will result in an incremental reduction in growth and/or reproductive fitness. Because these subadult and adult bull trout originate from any of three bull trout core areas (Puyallup, 66 Snohomish-Skykomish, and/or Skagit River core areas), and fifteen (or more) local populations, we expect that any resulting effects to bull trout numbers (abundance) or reproduction (productivity) will not be measurable at the scale of the local populations or core areas. • The proposed action will measurably reduce benthic prey abundance and productivity for a duration of one to two years. However, we expect that benthic organisms will rapidly recolonize and recruit to the clean back -fill, and that there will be little or no noticeable change to community composition and long term productivity. Given the limited size and duration of these temporary effects, we conclude that the action will not significantly reduce bull trout foraging opportunities or success within the action area, and therefore will not significantly disrupt bull trout foraging behaviors. In the long term, we expect that the action will provide measurable benefits in the form of a healthier prey base with reduced contaminant burdens. • The anticipated direct and indirect effects of the action, combined with the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects associated with future State, tribal, local, and private actions will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species. The anticipated direct and indirect effects of the action (permanent and temporary) will not measurably reduce bull trout numbers, reproduction, or distribution at the scale of the local populations, core areas, or Puget Sound interim recovery unit. The anticipated direct and indirect effects of the action will not alter the status of bull trout at the scale of the Puget Sound interim recovery unit or coterminous range. It is our Biological Opinion that the action, as proposed, will not destroy or adversely modify designated bull trout critical habitat. This determination is based on the following: • The action area includes the RABs between RM 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River, but also extends a distance of approximately 5 miles downstream to the point where the river enters Elliot Bay. These portions of the lower Duwamish River provide eight of the nine PCEs of designated bull trout critical habitat. Suitable bull trout spawning habitats are not present in the action area; PCE #6 (suitable spawning substrates) is not present, and will not be affected. • The action area provide non -core FMO habitat for bull trout. FMO habitat is important to bull trout of the Puget Sound Management Unit for maintaining diversity of life history forms and for providing access to productive foraging areas. Adult and subadult bull trout may occupy these waters at any time of year, but information is not available to reliably estimate the number of bull trout that forage, migrate, and overwinter in the action area. • The proposed action incorporates both permanent design elements and conservation measures which will reduce effects to habitat and avoid and minimize impacts during construction. The action's temporary adverse effects are limited in both physical extent and duration. No measurable, adverse, long term effects to designated bull trout critical 67 habitat are anticipated, and the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action (permanent and temporary) will not preclude bull trout from foraging, migrating, and overwintering within the action area. • The proposed action will have measurable, temporary adverse effects to PCEs #2 (migration habitats with minimal impediments), #3 (bull trout prey base), and # 8 (water quality and quantity). Any permanent or temporary effects to the other PCEs will not be measurable, or will be beneficial, and are therefore considered insignificant. • Construction activities, specifically dredge removal of contaminated sediments and placement of clean back -fill, will temporarily degrade surface water quality and function of the migratory corridor. Temporary adverse effects will be limited in both physical extent and duration; these effects will be confined to the area of the RABs between RM 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River, but will persist on an intermittent basis over multiple construction seasons (2012-2015). The action will measurably diminish function of the migratory corridor in the short term, but in the long term the foreseeable effects to PCE #2 will not be measurable, or will be beneficial, and are therefore considered insignificant. The action will not create or contribute to any permanent physical, biological, or water quality impediments to migration or free movement. • The action will provide measurable benefits in the long term, in the form of improved sediment and water quality, and reduced chronic contaminant exposure risks. The action will measurably degrade water quality in the short term, but in the long term the foreseeable effects to PCE #8 will not be measurable, or will be beneficial, and are therefore considered insignificant. We conclude that the action will have no permanent adverse effects, and will improve the long term function of PCE #8 (water quantity and quality). • The action will have temporary adverse effects to the bull trout prey base. Temporary adverse effects will be limited in both physical extent and duration; these effects will be confined to the area of the RABs between RM 2.8 and 3.6 of the lower Duwamish River. Dredging and placement of back -fill will measurably reduce benthic prey abundance and productivity within the RABs for a duration of one to two years. However, we expect that benthic organisms will rapidly recolonize and recruit to the clean back -fill, and that there will be little or no noticeable change to community composition and long term productivity within the RABs. In the long term, we expect that the action will provide measurable benefits in the form of improved sediment and water quality, reduced contaminant exposure risks, and a healthier prey base with reduced contaminant burdens. • Within the action area, the PCEs of designated bull trout critical habitat will remain functional, and designated critical habitat will continue to serve its conservation role as FMO. The anticipated direct and indirect effects of the action, combined with the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects associated with future State, tribal, local, and private actions will not prevent the PCEs of critical habitat from being maintained, and will not degrade the current ability to establish functioning 68 • PCEs at the scale of the action area. Critical habitat within the action area will continue to serve the intended conservation role for the species at the scale of the core area, interim recovery unit, and coterminous range. 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 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 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 EPA so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The EPA has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the EPA (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the contractor or applicant 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 EPA 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 section 402.14(i)(3)]. AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE We anticipate that take in the form of harm and harassment of adult and subadult bull trout from the Puyallup, Snohomish-Skykomish, and Skagit River core areas will result from the proposed action. The Service expects that incidental take of bull trout will be difficult to detect or quantify for the following reasons: 1) the low likelihood of finding dead or injured individuals; 2) delayed mortality; and, 3) losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers. Where this is the case, we use a description of the affected habitat (i.e., physical extent, frequency, and duration), and the intensity of temporary exposures, as a surrogate indicator of take. 69 1. Incidental take of bull trout in the form of harm resulting from degraded surface water quality during construction, exposure to elevated turbidity and sedimentation, and acute contaminant exposures. Water quality will be degraded intermittently during the approximately 450-day period when construction activities are being completed below +2 MLLW of the lower Duwamish River. Take will result when levels of turbidity reach or exceed the following: i) When background NTU levels are exceeded by 160 NTUs at any point in time; or ii) When background NTU levels are exceeded by 59 NTUs for more than 1 hour, continuously, over a 12-hour workday; or iii) When background NTU levels are exceeded by 18 NTUs for more than 7 hours, cumulatively, over a 12-hour workday; or iv) When background NTU levels are exceeded by 9.5 NTUs for the duration of an entire workday, or longer. • All adult and subadult bull trout within the wetted perimeter of the lower Duwamish River, from a point approximately 800 ft upstream, to a point approximately 800 ft downstream of the ongoing, sediment -generating activity (an area of approximately 16.5 acres in total), will be harmed between August 1, 2012 and February 15, 2015 (Jorgensen Forge Facility and EAA-4: August 1, 2013 to February 15, 2014; Boeing Plant 2 Facility and DSOA: August 1, 2012 to February 15, 2015). EFFECT OF THE TAKE In the accompanying Opinion, the Service has determined that the level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the bull trout. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES The proposed action incorporates design elements and conservation measures which we expect will reduce permanent effects to habitat and avoid and minimize impacts during construction. We expect that the EPA will fully implement these measures, and therefore they have not been specifically identified as Reasonable and Prudent Measures or Terms and Conditions. The following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary and appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take to bull trout: 1. Minimize and monitor incidental take caused by elevated turbidity and sedimentation during construction. 70 2. Minimize and monitor incidental take caused by acute contaminant exposures during construction. TERMS AND CONDITIONS In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the EPA must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above. These terms and conditions are non -discretionary. The following terms and conditions are required for the implementation of RPM 1: 1. The EPA and Applicants (Jorgensen Forge and Boeing) shall monitor turbidity levels in the lower Duwamish River during sediment -generating activities, when conducting work below +2 MLLW. 2. The EPA and Applicants shall monitor for compliance with State of Washington aquatic life turbidity criteria: less than 10 NTU over background; or, less than 20 percent over background, when background turbidities exceed 50 NTU. 3. Monitoring shall be conducted at a distance of 150 ft upstream and/or downstream of sediment -generating activities, dependent on position within the tide -cycle. To the extent practicable, samples shall be taken from directly upstream/downstream of the on -going activity, or activities, at two depths (near -surface and near -bottom). 4. The EPA and Applicants will implement a two -tiered water quality monitoring plan that includes both intensive and routine monitoring: a. Dredge Operations Below +2 MLLW — (1) Intensive monitoring will be conducted during the first 7 days of dredging each construction season and shall include a minimum of 2 sample events per day. (2) Routine monitoring will be conducted 2 days per week when not conducting intensive monitoring, and shall include a minimum of 2 sample events per day. (3) If monitoring documents an apparent exceedance of the turbidity criteria, a second sample shall be taken as confirmation. If a second sample confirms the exceedance, additional sampling for conventional parameters will be conducted every 2 hours for the remainder of the workday, or until compliance with the criteria has been documented. (4) If there is a change in equipment (e.g., dredge bucket type) additional monitoring will be conducted. b. Placement of Backfill Below +2 MLLW — (1) Intensive monitoring will be conducted during the first 7 days each construction season and shall include a minimum of 2 sample events per day. (2) If monitoring documents an apparent exceedance of the turbidity criteria, a second sample shall be taken as confirmation. If a second sample confirms the exceedance, additional sampling for conventional parameters will be conducted every 2 hours for the remainder of 71 the workday, or until compliance with the criteria has been documented. (3) If intensive monitoring consistently documents compliance with criteria, no routine monitoring is required. (4) If there is a change in equipment or methods additional monitoring will be conducted. 5. If, at any time, turbidity measured at a distance of 150 ft exceeds 59 NTUs over background, the EPA and Applicants shall conduct additional monitoring to confirm that measured turbidity at a distance of 800 ft does not exceed 18 NTUs over background. Monitoring at a distance of 800 ft will be conducted every 2 hours for the remainder of the workday, or until measured turbidity falls below 18 NTUs over background. 6. If turbidity levels measured at 800 ft from the sediment -generating activities exceed 160 NTUs above background at any time, 59 NTUs above background for more than 1 hour continuously, or 18 NTUs above background for more than 7 hours, cumulatively, over a 12-hour workday, then the amount of take authorized by the Incidental Take Statement will have been exceeded. Sediment -generating activities shall cease, and the EPA shall contact the Federal Activities Branch at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington (360-753-9440) within 24 hours. 7. Monitoring shall be conducted to establish background turbidity levels away from the influence of sediment -generating activities. Background turbidity shall be monitored at least twice daily during sediment -generating activities. In the event of a visually appreciable change in background turbidity, an additional sample shall be taken. Alternatively, the EPA and Applicants may choose to implement continuous monitoring with a deployable data logger instrument. 8. If, in cooperation with other permit authorities, the EPA and Applicants develop a functionally equivalent monitoring strategy, they may submit this plan to the Service for review and approval in lieu of the above monitoring requirements. The strategy must be submitted to the Service a minimum of 60 days prior to construction. In order to be approved for use in lieu of the above requirements, the plan must meet each of the same obj ectives. 9. The EPA shall submit a monitoring report to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington (Attn: Federal Activities Branch), by April 1 following each construction season. The report shall include, at a minimum, the following: (a) dates, times, and locations of construction activities, (b) monitoring results, sample times, locations, and measured turbidities (in NTUs), (c) summary of construction activities and measured turbidities associated with those activities, and (d) summary of corrective actions taken to reduce turbidity. The following terms and conditions are required for the implementation of RPM 2: 1. The EPA and Applicants (Jorgensen Forge and Boeing) shall monitor turbidity levels in the lower Duwamish River, per the Terms and Conditions implementing RPM 1 (above). 72 2. The EPA and Applicants shall provide a copy of the approved spill control and containment plan(s) to the Service prior to any operations generating a contaminated, or potentially contaminated, waste stream (i.e., soils, sediments, or water). 3. Protocols for waste sampling and characterization shall strictly adhere to Quality Assurance/ Quality Control standards, so as to ensure that contaminated and uncontaminated waste streams are accurately characterized, to prevent co -mingling of contaminated and uncontaminated waste streams, and to inform selection of appropriate treatment and disposal methods. 4. The EPA and Applicants shall provide and maintain on -site the materials and equipment necessary to ensure at all times there is sufficient capacity for the temporary storage, proper segregation, treatment, and ultimate dispensation of generated wastes, including water in -contact with contaminated or potentially contaminated sediments or soils. 5. The EPA and Applicants shall detain and treat all dredge return water to ensure compliance with the State of Washington's surface water quality standards within 800 ft of the point(s) of discharge. All points of discharge shall be located within the limits of the RABs. 6. The EPA and Applicants shall implement a two -tiered water quality monitoring plan designed to ensure proper function of the dredge return water treatment system(s) for the duration of construction activities: (a) Intensive monitoring will be conducted during the first 7 days of dredging each construction season; (b) Intensive monitoring shall include at least two 24-hour composite samples analyzed for PCBs and metals, and continuous turbidity monitoring (every 15 minutes); (c) Routine monitoring will be conducted 2 days per week when not conducting intensive monitoring, and shall include 24-hour composite samples analyzed for turbidity; (d) If monitoring documents an apparent exceedance of applicable water quality criteria, discharge from the dredge return water treatment system(s) will be temporarily suspended; and, (e) The EPA and Applicants will inspect the dredge return water treatment system(s) for proper function, and will perform required maintenance and/or replacement of system components (e.g., geotextile fabric tubes, flocculent injection system, carbon adsorption vessels). 7. The EPA and Applicants shall ensure that all equipment used to handle contaminated waste streams, including containment and transport BMPs, storage containers, and temporary on -site treatment facilities or BMPs, is properly decontaminated prior to handling any uncontaminated waste stream. 8. The EPA shall document waste handling, containment, testing, storage, treatment, and disposal operations according to all applicable State and Federal requirements. The EPA shall submit a monitoring report to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington (Attn: Federal Activities Branch), by April 1 following each construction season. The report shall include, at a minimum, the following: (a) a description of the treatment facilities and/or BMPs utilized on -site; (b) a quantitative waste characterization 73 or profile for any sediments and water disposed at an in -water dredged material disposal site(s), and for any return water discharged within the RABs; and (c) a summary of corrective actions taken to maintain and/or reestablish proper function of the dredge return water treatment system(s). We expect that the amount or extent of incidental take described above will not be exceeded as a result of the proposed action. The RPMs, with 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 EPA must 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. REINITIATION NOTICE This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the request. As provided in 50 CFR section 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. 74 LITERATURE CITED AECOM. 2010. Draft final feasibility study, Lower Duwamish waterway, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for EPA and WDOE, Seattle, WA, October 15, 2010. 395 pp. AMEC and FSI (AMEC Geomatrix and Floyd Snider, Inc.). 2010. Duwamish sediment other area and southwest bank corrective measure alternatives study - Boeing Plant 2, Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for the Boeing Company, Seattle, WA, 2010. AMEC and FSI (AMEC Geomatrix and Floyd Snider, Inc.). 2011. Duwamish sediment other area and southwest bank corrective measure alternatives study - Boeing Plant 2, Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Appendix B (compilation of sediment data within and adjacent to the DSOA). Prepared for the Boeing Company, Seattle, WA. 249 pp. AMEC Geomatrix. 2011. Biological assessment - Boeing Plant 2 Duwamish sediment other area and Southwest bank corrective measure and habitat project, Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for the Boeing Company, Seattle, WA, December 2011. 60 pp. Anchor QEA. 2011 a. Biological assessment - Jorgensen Forge facility. Prepared for EPA, Seattle, Washington, November 2011. 79 pp. Anchor QEA. 2011b. Final engineering evaluation/cost analysis for the Jorgensen Forge facility. Prepared for EPA, Seattle, Washington, March 2011. Anchor QEA. 2012. Memorandum - Jorgensen Forge biological assessment, response to comments from the USFWS and NMFS. February 6, 2012. Baldwin, D.H., J.F. Sandahl, J.S. Labenia, and N.L. Scholz. 2003. Sublethal effects of copper on coho salmon: impacts on nonoverlapping receptor pathways in the peripheral olfactory nervous system. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(10):2266-2274. Bash, J., C.H. Berman, and S. Bolton. 2001. Effects of turbidity and suspended solids on salmonids. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, November 2001. 72 pp. Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(16):6720-6725. Berge, H.B., and B.V. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program: 2000 Bull trout surveys. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington, June 2001.42 pp. Blocker, S. 2012. Communication from Shawn Blocker, EPA, to Ryan McReynolds, WFWO, USFWS, re: EPA response to questions regarding the Jorgensen Forge superfund removal action. January 3, 2012. 75 Bridges, T.S., S. Ells, D. Hayes, D. Mount, S.C. Nadeau, M.R. Palermo, and C. Patmont. 2008. The four Rs of environmental dredging resuspension, release, residual, and risk. US Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/EL TR-08-4, Washington, DC, Feb 2008.63 pp. Brunner, K. 1999a. Meeting notes from December 12, 1999, Minutes of Third Bull Trout Working Group Meeting/ Communication from Doug Hotchkiss, Port of Seattle. Brunner, K. 1999b. Meeting notes from November 4, 1999, Minutes of the First Bull trout Working Group Meeting. Communication from. Doug Hotchkiss, Port of Seattle. Burton, G.A., R. Pitt, and S. Clark. 2000. The role of traditional and novel toxicity test methods in assessing stormwater and sediment contamination. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Toxicology 30(4):413-447. Carlson, T.J., G. Ploskey, R.L. Johnson, R.P. Mueller, M.A. Weiland, and P.N. Johnson. 2001. Observations of the behavior and distribution of fish in relation to the Columbia River navigation channel and channel maintenance activities. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, PNNL-13595, Portland, Oregon, October 2001. 38 pp. Cederholm, C.J., and L.M. Reid. 1987. Impact of forest management on coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: A project summary. Pages 373-398 In E.O. Salo, and T.W. Cundy, eds. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. University of Washington Institute of Forest Resource Contribution 57. Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical -review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117(1):1-21. City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development. 2012. Seattle zoning maps. Seattle, Washington, Available at< www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Zoning Maps/default.asp> (Date Accessed: February 28, 2012). Curry, R.A., and W.S. MacNeill. 2004. Population -level responses to sediment during early life in brook trout. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:140-150. Eisler, R. 1993. Zinc hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlfe Research Center, Biological Report 10, Laurel, Maryland, April 1993. 106 pp. Eisler, R. 1998. Copper hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-- 1997-0002, Laurel, MD, January 1998. 120 pp. Ellis, J.B. 2000. Risk assessment approaches for ecosystem responses to transient pollution events in urban receiving waters. Chemosphere 41(1-2):85-91. 76 EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental Consultants, and WDOE. 2008. Control of toxic chemicals in Puget Sound, Phase 2: Improved estimates of toxic chemical loadings to Puget Sound from dischargers of municipal and industrial wastewater, Ecology Publication Number 08- 10-089, Olympia, Washington, September 2008. 88 pp. EPA. 2008. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), 3. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. Available at< http://www.epa.gov/osw/:hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pcb-fs.pdf> (Date Accessed: May 18, 2012). EPA. 2011. Letter with subject: action memorandum, responsiveness summary and future actions, Jorgensen Forge early action area (EPA Docket No. CERCLA-10-2003-001). Prepared for Farallon Consulting, LLC and the Earle M. Jorgensen Company, October 7, 2011. EPA. 2012a. Ecotoxicity assessment, Region 8, Denver, Colorado. Available at< http://www.epa.gov/region8/r8risk/eco toxicity.html> (Date Accessed: May 18, 2012). EPA. 2012b. Fact Sheet: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), 4. Available at< http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pcb-fs.pdf (Date Accessed: May 18, 2012). EPA. 2012c. Lower Duwamish waterway superfund site, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. Available at< http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/sites/lduwamish> (Date Accessed: February 8, 2012). EPA. 2012d. Natural resource damages: A Primer, Superfund Program, Washington, D.C. Available at< http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/primer.htm> (Date Accessed: February 8, 2012). Folmar, L.C. 1976. Overt avoidance reaction of rainbow trout fry to nine herbicides. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15(5):509-514. Ghanmi, Z., M. Rouabhia, O. Othmane, and P.A. Deschaux. 1989. Effects of metal ions on cyprinid fish immune response: invitro effects of Zn2+ and Mn2+ on the mitogenic response of carp pronephros lymphocytes. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 17(2):183-189. Guerra -Garcia, J.M., J. Corzo, and C. Garcia -Gomez. 2003. Short-term benthic recolonization after dredging in the Harbour of Ceuta, North Africa. Marine Ecology 24(3):217-229. Hansen, J.A., P.G. Welsh, J. Lipton, D. Cacela, and A.D. Dailey. 2002. Relative sensitivity of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to acute exposures of cadmium and zinc. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(1):67-75. 77 Hart Crowser, I., WDOE, and USEPA. 2007. Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound, Phase 1: Initial Estimate of Toxic Chemical Loadings to Puget Sound and Puget Sound Partnership. Washington State Department of Ecology, Ecology Publication Number 07-10- 079, Olympia, Washington, October 2007. 188 pp. Herrera Environmental Consultants. 2007. Technical memorandum: South Park bridge ESA support. September 3, 2007. Hilmy, A.M., N.A. Eldomiaty, A.Y. Daabees, and H.A.A. Latife. 1987a. Some physiological and biochemical indices of zinc toxicity in 2 fresh -water fishes, Clarias lazera and Tilapia zilli. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, C. 87C(2):297-301. Hilmy, A.M., N.A. Eldomiaty, A.Y. Daabees, and H.A.A. Latife. 1987b. Toxicity in Tilapia zilli and Clarias lazera (Pisces) induced by zinc, seasonally. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, C. 86C(2):263-265. Hodson, P.V. 1988. Effect of metal metabolism on uptake, disposition, and toxicity in fish. Aquatic Toxicology 11(1-2):3-18. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability - summary for policymakers. KCDNRP. 2002. King County bull trout program: 2001 bull trout surveys, freshwater and marine nearshore. Prepared by Talylor Associates, Inc, Seattle, Washington, October 2002. 32 pp. KCDNRP, and WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Habitat limiting factors and reconnaissance assessment report: Green/Duwamish and central Puget Sound watersheds (water resource inventory area 9 and Vashon Island) executive summary, Olympia and Seattle, Washington. Kotta, J., K. Herkiila, I. Kotta, H. Orav-Kotta, and R. Aps. 2009. Response of benthic invertebrate communities to the large-scale dredging of Muuga Port. Estonian Journal of Ecology 58(4):286-296. Lloyd, R. 1987. Special tests in aquatic toxicity for chemical mixtures: Interactions and modifications of response by variation of physicochemical conditions. Pages 491-507 In V.B. Vouk, G.C. Butler, A.C. Upton, D.V. Parke, and S.C. Asher, eds. Methods for assessing the effects of mixtures of chemicals, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (Port of Seattle, City of Seattle, King County, and the Boeing Company). 2007. Lower Duwamish Waterway remedial investigation - draft remedial investigation report. Wind Ward Environmental, Draft, Seattle, Washington, November 5, 2007. 32 pp. 78 Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (Port of Seattle, City of Seattle, King County, and the Boeing Company). 2012a. Early actions moving cleanup forward, Available at< http://www.ldwg.org/EAA.htm> (Date Accessed: February 18, 2012). Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (Port of Seattle, City of Seattle, King County, and the Boeing Company). 2012b. The LDW then and now — Duwamish River chronology, Available at< http://www.ldwg.org/history.htm> (Date Accessed: February 18, 2012). Marsalek, J., Q. Rochfort, B. Brownlee, T. Mayer, and M.R. Servos. 1999. An exploratory study of urban runoff toxicity. Water Science and Technology 39(12):33-39. Merkel and Associates, I. 2009. Post -dredging recolonization study. Prepared for the NMFS, Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Port of San Diego, and US Navy NAVFAC, Available at< http://www.portofsandiego.org/> (Date Accessed: May 18, 2012). Nedwell, J., and B. Edwards. 2002. Measurements of underwater noise in the Arun River during piling at County Wharf, Littlehampton. Subacoustech Ltd, Report No. 513 R 0108, Hampshire, UK, August 01, 2002.25 pp. Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16(4):693-727. Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11(1):72-82. Niyogi, S., P. Couture, G. Pyle, D.G. McDonald, and C.M. Wood. 2004. Acute cadmium biotic ligand model characteristics of laboratory -reared and wild yellow perch (Perca flavescens) relative to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:942-953. Playle, R.C. 2004. Using multiple metal -gill binding models and the toxic unit concept to help reconcile multiple -metal toxicity results. Aquatic Toxicology 67(4):359-370. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-302, Ogden, Utah, September 1993. 38 pp. Sandahl, J.F., D.H. Baldwin, J.J. Jenkins, and N.L. Scholz. 2007. A sensory system at the interface between urban stormwater runoff and salmon survival. Environmental Science & Technology 41(8):2998-3004. 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(3):493-497. 79 Shannon, J. 2002. Personal communication with Jeff Chan re: char documented at the Duwamish turning basin (email correspondence). Shannon, J. 2003. Personal communication with Jeff Chan re: char documented near Kellogg Island (email correspondence). Sprague, J.B. 1968. Avoidance reactions of rainbow trout to zinc sulfate solutions. Water Research 2:367-372. USACE. 2006. Fiscal years 2007-2011 maintenance dredging and disposal Grays Harbor and Chehalis River navigation project Grays Harbor County, Washington. USEPA. 1980a. Ambient water quality criteria for copper. Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Publication 440/5-80-036, Washington, D.C. 162 pp. USEPA. 1980b. Ambient water quality criteria for zinc. The Division; Available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C; Springfield, Va. USEPA. 1987. Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria document for zinc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratories; Available from the National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C; Springfield, Va. 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. Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA. 45 pp. USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I: Puget Sound Management Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277+xvi pp, Portland, Oregon. USFWS. 2010. Sediment analysis framework: determining effects for Section 7 consultations. USFWS, Lacey, WA, 2010. 21 pp. USFWS, and NMFS. 1998. Final endangered species consultation handbook: Procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. GPO: 2004-690-278, Washington, D.C., March 1998. 189 pp. Warner, E. 1996. Historic changes to littoral Lake Washington: implications for spawning and outmigrant salmonids. 13 pp. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society, Monograph Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pp. 80 WDFW. 2008. Salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Olympia, Washington. WDOE. 2008. Information presented on: Washington State's water quality assessment [303(d)] report. Available at < http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html> (Date Accessed: May 18, 2012). WDOE. 2012. River and stream water quality monitoring station 09A060 (Duwamish River, Allentown Bridge), Lacey, Washington. Available at< http://www.ecy.wa.gov./apes/watersheds/riv/station. asp?theyear=&tab=notes&scrolly=0&sh owhistoric=true&sta=09A060> (Date Accessed: May 18, 2012). Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1: Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA, November 1975. 375 pp. Windward Environmental. 2010. Lower Duwamish waterway remedial investigation report (Final). Prepared for the EPA and WDOE, Seattle, WA, July 9, 2010. 2231 pp. 81 APPENDICES Appendix A: Status of the Species (Bull Trout; Coterminous Range) Appendix B: Status of Designated Critical Habitat (Bull Trout; Coterminous Range) Appendix C: Core Area Summaries — Puyallup, Snohomish-Skykomish, and Skagit River Core Areas (Bull Trout) Appendix D: Sediment Analysis Framework (2010) 82 APPENDIX A: Status of the Species (Bull Trout; Coterminous Range) 83 Appendix A: Status of the Species (Bull Trout) Listing Status The coterminous United States population of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). The threatened bull trout generally occurs in the Klamath River Basin of south-central Oregon; the Jarbidge River in Nevada; the Willamette River Basin in Oregon; Pacific Coast drainages of Washington, including Puget Sound; major rivers in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana, within the Columbia River Basin; and the St. Mary -Belly River, east of the Continental Divide in northwestern Montana (Bond 1992, p. 2; Brewin and Brewin 1997, p. 215; Cavender 1978, pp. 165-166; Leary and Allendorf 1997, pp. 716-719). Throughout its range, the bull trout are threatened by the combined effects of habitat degradation, fragmentation, and alterations associated with dewatering, road construction and maintenance, mining, grazing, the blockage of migratory corridors by dams or other diversion structures, poor water quality, entrainment (a process by which aquatic organisms are pulled through a diversion or other device) into diversion channels, and introduced non-native species (64 FR 58910). Although all salmonids are likely to be affected by climate change, bull trout are especially vulnerable given that spawning and rearing are constrained by their location in upper watersheds and the requirement for cold water temperatures (Battin et al. 2007, pp. 6672-6673; Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1552). Poaching and incidental mortality of bull trout during other targeted fisheries are additional threats. The bull trout was initially listed as three separate Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) (63 FR 31647; 64 FR 17110). The preamble to the final listing rule for the United States coterminous population of the bull trout discusses the consolidation of these DPSs with the Columbia and Klamath population segments into one listed taxon and the application of the jeopardy standard under section 7 of the Act relative to this species (64 FR 58910): Although this rule consolidates the five bull trout DPSs into one listed taxon, based on conformance with the DPS policy for purposes of consultation under section 7 of the Act, we intend to retain recognition of each DPS in light of available scientific information relating to their uniqueness and significance. Under this approach, these DPSs will be treated as interim recovery units with respect to application of the jeopardy standard until an approved recovery plan is developed. Formal establishment of bull trout recovery units will occur during the recovery planning process. Current Status and Conservation Needs In recognition of available scientific information relating to their uniqueness and significance, five segments of the coterminous United States population of the bull trout are considered essential to the survival and recovery of this species and are identified as interim recovery units: 1) Jarbidge River, 2) Klamath River, 3) Columbia River, 4) Coastal -Puget Sound, and 5) St. Mary -Belly River (USFWS 2002a, pp. iv, 2, 7, 98; 2004a, Vol. 1 & 2, p. 1; 2004b, p. 1). Each of 1 these interim recovery units is necessary to maintain the bull trout's distribution, as well as its genetic and phenotypic diversity, all of which are important to ensure the species' resilience to changing environmental conditions. A summary of the current status and conservation needs of the bull trout within these interim recovery units is provided below and a comprehensive discussion is found in the Service's draft recovery plans for the bull trout (USFWS 2002a, pp. vi-viii; 2004a, Vol. 2 p. iii-x; 2004b, pp. iii- xii). The conservation needs of bull trout are often generally expressed as the four "Cs": cold, clean, complex, and connected habitat. Cold stream temperatures, clean water quality that is relatively free of sediment and contaminants, complex channel characteristics (including abundant large wood and undercut banks), and large patches of such habitat that are well connected by unobstructed migratory pathways are all needed to promote conservation of bull trout at multiple scales ranging from the coterminous to local populations (a local population is a group of bull trout that spawn within a particular stream or portion of a stream system). The recovery planning process for bull trout (USFWS 2002a, pp. 49-50; 2004a, Vol 1 & 2 pp. 12-18; 2004b, pp. 60-86) has also identified the following conservation needs: 1) maintenance and restoration of multiple, interconnected populations in diverse habitats across the range of each interim recovery unit, 2) preservation of the diversity of life -history strategies, 3) maintenance of genetic and phenotypic diversity across the range of each interim recovery unit, and 4) establishment of a positive population trend. Recently, it has also been recognized that bull trout populations need to be protected from catastrophic fires across the range of each interim recovery unit (Rieman et al. 2003). Central to the survival and recovery of bull trout is the maintenance of viable core areas (USFWS 2002a, pp. 53-54; 2004a, Vol. 1 pp. 210.-218, Vol 2. pp. 61-62; 2004b, pp. 15-30, 64- 67). A core area is defined as a geographic area occupied by one or more local bull trout populations that overlap in their use of rearing, foraging, migratory, and overwintering habitat. Each of the interim recovery units listed above consists of one or more core areas. There are 121 core areas recognized across the coterminous range of the bull trout (USFWS 2002a, pp. 6, 48, 98; 2004a, Vol. 1 p. vi, Vol. 2 pp. 14, 134; 2004b, pp. iv, 2; 2005, p. ii). Jarbidge River Interim Recovery Unit This interim recovery unit currently contains a single core area with six local populations. Less than 500 resident and migratory adult bull trout, representing about 50 to 125 spawning adults, are estimated to occur in the core area. The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is attributed to the effects of livestock grazing, roads, incidental mortalities of released bull trout from recreational angling, historic angler harvest, timber harvest, and the introduction of non-native fishes (USFWS 2004b). The draft bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2004b) identifies the following conservation needs for this interim recovery unit: 1) maintain the current distribution of the bull trout within the core area, 2) maintain stable or increasing trends in abundance of both resident and migratory bull trout in the core area, 3) restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life history stages and forms, and 4) conserve genetic diversity and increase natural opportunities for genetic exchange between resident and migratory forms of 2 the bull trout. An estimated 270 to 1,000 spawning bull trout per year are needed to provide for the persistence and viability of the core area and to support both resident and migratory adult bull trout (USFWS 2004b). Klamath River Interim Recovery Unit This interim recovery unit currently contains three core areas and seven local populations. The current abundance, distribution, and range of the bull trout in the Klamath River Basin are greatly reduced from historical levels due to habitat loss and degradation caused by reduced water quality, timber harvest, livestock grazing, water diversions, roads, and the introduction of non-native fishes (USFWS 2002a). Bull trout populations in this interim recovery unit face a high risk of extirpation (USFWS 2002a). The draft Klamath River bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2002a) identifies the following conservation needs for this interim recovery unit: 1) maintain the current distribution of bull trout and restore distribution in previously occupied areas, 2) maintain stable or increasing trends in bull trout abundance, 3) restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life history stages and strategies, 4) conserve genetic diversity and provide the opportunity for genetic exchange among appropriate core area populations. Eight to 15 new local populations and an increase in population size from about 2,400 adults currently to 8,250 adults are needed to provide for the persistence and viability of the three core areas (USFWS 2002a). Columbia River Interim Recovery Unit The Columbia River interim recovery unit includes bull trout residing in portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are estimated to have occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River Basin, and presently occur in 45 percent of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1177). This interim recovery unit currently contains 97 core areas and 527 local populations. About,65 percent of these core areas and local populations occur in central Idaho and northwestern Montana. The Columbia River interim recovery unit has declined in overall range and numbers of fish (63 FR 31647). Although some strongholds still exist with migratory fish present, bull trout generally occur as isolated local populations in headwater lakes or tributaries where the migratory life history form has been lost. Though still widespread, there have been numerous local extirpations reported throughout the Columbia River basin. In Idaho, for example, bull trout have been extirpated from 119 reaches in 28 streams (IDFG, in litt. 1995). The draft Columbia River bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2002c) identifies the following conservation needs for this interim recovery unit: 1) maintain or expand the current distribution of the bull trout within core areas, 2) maintain stable or increasing trends in bull trout abundance, 3) restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies, and 4) conserve genetic diversity and provide opportunities for genetic exchange. This interim recovery unit currently contains 97 core areas and 527 local populations. About 65 percent of these core areas and local populations occur in Idaho and northwestern Montana. The condition of the bull trout within these core areas varies from poor to good. All core areas have been subject to the combined effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation caused by the following activities: dewatering; road construction and maintenance; mining; grazing; the 3 blockage of migratory corridors by dams or other diversion structures; poor water quality; incidental angler harvest; entrainment into diversion channels; and introduced non-native species. The Service completed a core area conservation assessment for the 5-year status review and determined that, of the 97 core areas in this interim recovery unit, 38 are at high risk of extirpation, 35 are at risk, 20 are at potential risk, 2 are at low risk, and 2 are at unknown risk (USFWS 2005, pp. 2, Map A, and pp. 73-83). Coastal -Puget Sound Interim Recovery Unit Bull trout in the Coastal -Puget Sound interim recovery unit exhibit anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial, and resident life history patterns. The anadromous life history form is unique to this interim recovery unit. This interim recovery unit currently contains 14 core areas and 67 local populations (USFWS 2004a). Bull trout are distributed throughout most of the large rivers and associated tributary systems within this interim recovery unit. Bull trout continue to be present in nearly all major watersheds where they likely occurred historically, although local extirpations have occurred throughout this interim recovery unit. Many remaining populations are isolated or fragmented and abundance has declined, especially in the southeastern portion of the interim recovery unit. The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is attributed to the adverse effects of dams, forest management practices (e.g., timber harvest and associated road building activities), agricultural practices (e.g., diking, water control structures, draining of wetlands, channelization, and the removal of riparian vegetation), livestock grazing, roads, mining, urbanization, poaching, incidental mortality from other targeted fisheries, and the introduction of non-native species. The draft Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2004a) identifies the following conservation needs for this interim recovery unit: 1) maintain or expand the current distribution of bull trout within existing core areas, 2) increase bull trout abundance to about 16,500 adults across all core areas, and 3) maintain or increase connectivity between local populations within each core area. St. Mary -Belly River Interim Recovery Unit This interim recovery unit currently contains six core areas and nine local populations (USFWS 2002b). Currently, bull trout are widely distributed in the St. Mary -Belly River drainage and occur in nearly all of the waters that it inhabited historically. Bull trout are found only in a 1.2- mile reach of the North Fork Belly River within the United States. Redd count surveys of the North Fork Belly River documented an increase from 27 redds in 1995 to 119 redds in 1999. This increase was attributed primarily to protection from angler harvest (USFWS 2002b). The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is primarily attributed to the effects of dams, water diversions, roads, mining, and the introduction of non-native fishes (USFWS 2002b). The draft St. Mary -Belly River bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2002b) identifies the following conservation needs for this interim recovery unit: 1) maintain the current distribution of the bull trout and restore distribution in previously occupied areas, 2) maintain stable or increasing trends in bull trout abundance, 3) restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life history stages and forms, 4) conserve genetic diversity and provide the opportunity for genetic exchange, and 5) establish good working relations with Canadian interests because local bull trout populations in this interim recovery unit are comprised mostly of migratory fish, whose habitat is mostly in Canada. 4 Life History Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history strategies. Both resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either form may produce offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 1-18) . Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. The resident form tends to be smaller than the migratory form at maturity and also produces fewer eggs (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 1; Goetz 1989, pp. 15-16). Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear 1 to 4 years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial form), river (fluvial form) (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Goetz 1989, pp. 22-25), or saltwater (anadromous form) to rear as subadults and to live as adults (Cavender 1978, pp. 139, 165-68; McPhail and Baxter 1996, p. 14; WDFW et al. 1997, pp. 17-18, 22-26). Bull trout normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and may live longer than 12 years. They are iteroparous (they spawn more than once in a lifetime). Repeat- and alternate -year spawning has been reported, although repeat -spawning frequency and post -spawning mortality are not well documented (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Leathe and Graham 1982, p. 95; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1996, p. 133). The iteroparous reproductive strategy of bull trout has important repercussions for the management of this species. Bull trout require passage both upstream and downstream, not only for repeat spawning but also for foraging. Most fish ladders, however, were designed specifically for anadromous semelparous salmonids (fishes that spawn once and then die, and require only one-way passage upstream). Therefore, even dams or other barriers with fish passage facilities may be a factor in isolating bull trout populations if they do not provide a downstream passage route. Additionally, in some core areas, bull trout that migrate to marine waters must pass both upstream and downstream through areas with net fisheries at river mouths. This can increase the likelihood of mortality to bull trout during these spawning and foraging migrations. Growth varies depending upon life -history strategy. Resident adults range from 6 to 12 inches total length, and migratory adults commonly reach 24 inches or more (Goetz 1989, pp. 29-32; Pratt 1984, p. 13) The largest verified bull trout is a 32-pound specimen caught in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace 1982). Habitat Characteristics Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7). Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrate, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 137, 141; Goetz 1989, pp. 19- 26; Bond in Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989, p. 57; Howell and Buchanan 1992, p. 1; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rich 1996, pp. 35-38; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 4-7; Rieman and McIntyre 1995, pp. 293-294; Sedell and Everest 1991, p. 1; Watson and Hillman 1997, pp. 246-250). Watson and Hillman (1997, pp. 247-249) concluded that watersheds must have specific physical characteristics to provide the habitat requirements necessary for bull trout to successfully spawn and rear and that these specific characteristics are not necessarily present throughout these 5 watersheds. Because bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7), bull trout should not be expected to simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1560). Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life histories. The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of bull trout (Gilpin, in litt. 1997, pp. 4-5; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1114). Migrations facilitate gene flow among local populations when individuals from different local populations interbreed or stray to nonnatal streams. Local populations that are extirpated by catastrophic events may also become reestablished by bull trout migrants. However, it is important to note that the genetic structuring of bull trout indicates there is limited gene flow among bull trout populations, which may encourage local adaptation within individual populations, and that reestablishment of extirpated populations may take a long time (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7; Spruell et al. 1999, pp. 118- 120). Migration also allows bull trout to access more abundant or larger prey, which facilitates growth and reproduction. Additional benefits of migration and its relationship to foraging are discussed below under "Diet." Cold water temperatures play an important role in determining bull trout habitat quality, as these fish are primarily found in colder streams (below 15 °C or 59 °F), and spawning habitats are generally characterized by temperatures that drop below 9 °C (48 °F) in the fall (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 133; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7). Thermal requirements for bull trout appear to differ at different life stages. Spawning areas are often associated with cold -water springs, groundwater infiltration, and the coldest streams in a given watershed (Baxter et al. 1997, pp. 426-427; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1117). Optimum incubation temperatures for bull trout eggs range from 2 °C to 6 °C (35 °F to 39 °F) whereas optimum water temperatures for rearing range from about 6 °C to 10 °C (46 °F to 50 °F) (Buchanan and Gregory 1997, pp. 121-122; Goetz 1989, pp. 22-24; McPhail and Murray 1979, pp. 41, 50, 53, :55). In Granite Creek, Idaho, Bonneau and Scarnecchia (1996) observed that juvenile bull trout selected the coldest water available in a plunge pool, 8 °C to 9 °C (46 °F to 48 °F), within a temperature gradient of 8 °C to 15 °C (4 °F to 60 °F). In a landscape study relating bull trout distribution to maximum water temperatures, Dunham et al. (2003) found that the probability of juvenile bull trout occurrence does not become high (i.e., greater than 0.75) until maximum temperatures decline to 11 °C to 12 °C (52 °F to 54 °F). Although bull trout are found primarily in cold streams, occasionally these fish are found in larger, warmer river systems throughout the Columbia River basin (Buchanan and Gregory 1997, pp. 121-122; Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 2; Rieman and McIntyre 1995, p. 288; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1114). Availability and proximity of cold water patches and food productivity can influence bull trout ability to survive in warmer rivers (Myrick et al. 2002). For example, in a study in the Little Lost River of Idaho where bull trout were found at temperatures ranging from 8 °C to 20 °C (46 °F to 68 °F), most sites that had high densities of bull trout were in areas where primary productivity in streams had increased following a fire (Bart Gamett, pers. comm. 2002). 6 All life history stages of bull trout are associated with complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Goetz 1989, pp. 22-25; Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989, p. 54; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rich 1996, pp. 35-38; Sedell and Everest 1991, p. 1; Sexauer and James 1997, pp. 367-369; Thomas 1992, pp. 4-5; Watson and Hillman 1997, pp. 247-249). Maintaining bull trout habitat requires stability of stream channels and maintenance of natural flow patterns (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7). Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997, pp. 367-369). These areas are sensitive to activities that directly or indirectly affect stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the spawning period, and channel instability may decrease survival of eggs and young juveniles in the gravel from winter through spring (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Pratt and Huston 1993, pp. 70- 72). Pratt (1992, p. 6) indicated that increases in fine sediment reduce egg survival and emergence. Bull trout typically spawn from August through November during periods of increasing flows and decreasing water temperatures. Preferred spawning habitat consists of low -gradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 135). Redds are often constructed in stream reaches fed by springs or near other sources of cold groundwater (Goetz 1989, p. 15; Pratt 1992, p. 8; Rieman and McIntyre 1996, p. 133). Depending on water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 1992, p. 8). After hatching, fry remain in the substrate, and time from egg deposition to emergence may surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge from early April through May, depending on water temperatures and increasing stream flows (Ratliff and Howell 1992 in Howell and Buchanan 1992, pp. 10, 15; Pratt 1992, pp. 5-6). Early life stages of fish, specifically the developing embryo, require the highest inter -gravel dissolved oxygen (IGDO) levels, and are the most sensitive life stage to reduced oxygen levels. The oxygen demand of embryos depends on temperature and on stage of development, with the greatest IGDO required just prior to hatching. A literature review conducted by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 2002) indicates that adverse effects of lower oxygen concentrations on embryo survival are magnified as temperatures increase above optimal (for incubation). In a laboratory study conducted in Canada, researchers found that low oxygen levels retarded embryonic development in bull trout (Giles and Van der Zweep 1996, pp. 54-55). Normal oxygen levels seen in rivers used by bull trout during spawning ranged from 8 to 12 mg/L (in the gravel), with corresponding instream levels of 10 to 11.5 mg/L (Stewart et al. 2007). In addition, IGDO concentrations, water velocities in the water column, and especially the intergravel flow rate, are interrelated variables that affect the survival of incubating embryos (ODEQ 1995). Due to a long incubation period of 220+ days, bull trout are particularly sensitive to adequate IGDO levels. An IGDO level below 8 mg/L is likely to result in mortality of eggs, embryos, and fry. Migratory forms of bull trout may develop when habitat conditions allow movement between spawning and rearing streams and larger rivers, lakes or nearshore marine habitat where foraging opportunities may be enhanced (Brenkman and Corbett 2005, pp. 1073, 1079-1080; Frissell 1993, p. 350; Goetz et al. 2004, pp. 45, 55, 60, 68, 77, 113-114, 123, 125-126). For example, multiple life history forms (e.g., resident and fluvial) and multiple migration patterns have been 7 noted in the Grande Ronde River (Baxter 2002). Parts of this river system have retained habitat conditions that allow free movement between spawning and rearing areas and the mainstem Snake River. Such multiple life history strategies help to maintain the stability and persistence of bull trout populations to environmental changes. Benefits to migratory bull trout include greater growth in the more productive waters of larger streams, lakes, and marine waters; greater fecundity resulting in increased reproductive potential; and dispersing the population across space and time so that spawning streams may be recolonized should local populations suffer a catastrophic loss (Frissell 1999, pp. 15-16; MBTSG 1998, pp. iv, 48-50; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 18-19; USFWS 2004a, Vol. 2, p. 63). In the absence of the migratory bull trout life form, isolated populations cannot be replenished when disturbances make local habitats temporarily unsuitable. Therefore, the range of the species is diminished, and the potential for a greater reproductive contribution from larger fish with higher fecundity is lost (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 1-18). Diet Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits primarily a function of size and life -history strategy. A single optimal foraging strategy is not necessarily a consistent feature in the life of a fish, because this strategy can change as the fish progresses from one life stage to another (i.e., juvenile to subadult). Fish growth depends on the quantity and quality of food that is eaten (Gerking 1994), and as fish grow, their foraging strategy changes as their food changes, in quantity, size, or other characteristics. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macrozooplankton, and small fish (Boag 1987, p. 58; Donald and Alger 1993, pp. 239-243; Goetz 1989, pp. 33-34). Subadult and adult migratory bull trout feed on various fish species (Brown 1994, p. 21; Donald and Alger 1993, p. 242; Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 135; Leathe and Graham 1982, p. 95). Bull trout of all sizes other than fry have been found to eat fish up to half their length (Beauchamp and VanTassell 2001). In nearshore marine areas of western Washington, bull trout feed on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) (Goetz et al. 2004, p. 114; WDFW et al. 1997, p. 23). Bull trout migration and life history strategies are closely related to their feeding and foraging strategies. Migration allows bull trout to access optimal foraging areas and exploit a wider variety of prey resources. Optimal foraging theory can be used to describe strategies fish use to choose between alternative sources of food by weighing the benefits and costs of capturing one source of food over another. For example, prey often occur in concentrated patches of abundance ("patch model" ; (Gerking 1994). As the predator feeds in one patch, the prey population is reduced, and it becomes more profitable for the predator to seek a new patch rather than continue feeding on the original one. This can be explained in terms of balancing energy acquired versus energy expended. For example, in the Skagit River system, anadromous bull trout make migrations as long as 121 miles between marine foraging areas in Puget Sound and headwater spawning grounds, foraging on salmon eggs and juvenile salmon along their migration route (WDFW et al. 1997). Anadromous bull trout also use marine waters as migration corridors to reach seasonal habitats in non -natal watersheds to forage and possibly overwinter (Brenkman and Corbett 2005, p. 1079; Goetz et al. 2004, pp. 36, 60). 8 Changes in Status of the Coastal -Puget Sound Interim Recovery Unit Although the status of bull trout in Coastal -Puget Sound interim recovery unit has been improved by certain actions, it continues to be degraded by other actions, and it is likely that the overall status of the bull trout in this population segment has not improved since its listing on November 1, 1999. Improvement has occurred largely through changes in fishing regulations and habitat - restoration projects. Fishing regulations enacted in 1994 either eliminated harvest of bull trout or restricted the amount of harvest allowed, and this likely has had a positive influence on the abundance of bull trout. Improvement in habitat has occurred following restoration projects intended to benefit either bull trout or salmon, although monitoring the effectiveness of these projects seldom occurs. On the other hand, the status of this population segment has been adversely affected by a number of Federal and non -Federal actions, some of which were addressed under section 7 of the Act. Most of these actions degraded the environmental baseline; all of those addressed through formal consultation under section 7 of the Act permitted the incidental take of bull trout. Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits have been issued for Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) completed in the Coastal -Puget Sound population segment. These include: 1) the City of Seattle's Cedar River Watershed HCP, 2) Simpson Timber HCP (now Green Diamond Resources), 3) Tacoma Public Utilities Green River HCP, 4) Plum Creek Cascades HCP, 5) Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR) State Trust Lands HCP, 6) West Fork Timber HCP, and 7) WSDNR Forest Practices HCP. These HCPs provide landscape -scale conservation for fish, including bull trout. Many of the covered activities associated with these HCPs will contribute to conserving bull trout over the long-term; however, some covered activities will result in short-term degradation of the baseline. All HCPs permit the incidental take of bull trout. Changes in Status of the Columbia River Interim Recovery Unit The overall status of the Columbia River interim recovery unit has not changed appreciably since its listing on June 10, 1998. Populations of bull trout and their habitat in this area have been affected by a number of actions addressed under section 7 of the Act. Most of these actions resulted in degradation of the environmental baseline of bull trout habitat, and all permitted or analyzed the potential for incidental take of bull trout. The Plum Creek Cascades HCP, Plum Creek Native Fish HCP, Storedahl Daybreak Mine HCP, and WSDNR Forest Practices HCP addressed portions of the Columbia River population segment of bull trout. Changes in Status of the Klamath River Interim Recovery Unit Improvements in the Threemile, Sun, and Long Creek local populations have occurred through efforts to remove or reduce competition and hybridization with non-native salmonids, changes in fishing regulations, and habitat -restoration projects. Population status in the remaining local populations (Boulder -Dixon, Deming, Brownsworth, and Leonard Creeks) remains relatively unchanged. Grazing within bull trout watersheds throughout the recovery unit has been curtailed. Efforts at removal of non-native species of salmonids appear to have stabilized the Threemile and positively influenced the Sun Creek local populations. The results of similar 9 efforts in Long Creek are inconclusive. Mark and recapture studies of bull trout in Long Creek indicate a larger migratory component than previously expected. Although the status of specific local populations has been slightly improved by recovery actions, the overall status of Klamath River bull trout continues to be depressed. Factors considered threats to bull trout in the Klamath Basin at the time of listing — habitat loss and degradation caused by reduced water quality, past and present land use management practices, water diversions, roads, and non-native fishes — continue to be threats today. Changes in Status of the Saint Mary -Belly River Interim Recovery Unit The overall status of bull trout in the Saint Mary -Belly River interim recovery unit has not changed appreciably since its listing on November 1, 1999. Extensive research efforts have been conducted since listing, to better quantify populations of bull trout and their movement patterns. Limited efforts in the way of active recovery actions have occurred. Habitat occurs mostly on Federal and Tribal lands (Glacier National Park and the Blackfeet Nation). Known problems due to instream flow depletion, entrainment, and fish passage barriers resulting from operations of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Milk River Irrigation Project (which transfers Saint Mary - Belly River water to the Missouri River Basin) and similar projects downstream in Canada constitute the primary threats to bull trout and to date they have not been adequately addressed under section 7 of the Act. Plans to upgrade the aging irrigation delivery system are being pursued, which has potential to mitigate some of these concerns but also the potential to intensify dewatering. A major fire in August 2006 severely burned the forested habitat in Red Eagle and Divide Creeks, potentially affecting three of nine local populations and degrading the baseline. 10 LITERATURE CITED Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(16):6720-6725. Baxter, C.V. 2002. Fish movement and assemblage dynamics in a Pacific Northwest riverscape. Doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Baxter, J.S., E.B. Taylor, and R.H. Devlin. 1997. Evidence for natural hybridization between dolly varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in a northcentral British Columbia watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:421- 429. Beauchamp, D.A., and J.J. VanTassell. 2001. Modeling seasonal trophic interactions of adfluvial bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:204-216. Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habits of bull char (Salvelinus confluentus), and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), coexisting in a foothills stream in northern Alberta. Canadian Field -Naturalist 101(1):56-62. Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of the bull trout and the effects of human activity on the species. Pages 1-4 In P.J. Howell, and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. Bonneau, J.L., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 1996. Distribution of juvenile bull trout in a thermal gradient of a plunge pool in Granite Creek, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125(4):628-630. Brenkman, S.J., and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromy in bull trout and implications for conservation of a threatened species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1073-1081. Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brewin. 1997. Distribution maps for bull trout in Alberta. Pages 209-216 In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings, Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited, Calgary. Brown, L.G. 1994. The zoogeography and life history of Washington native charr. Washington Department of Fish and Widlife, Fisheries Management Division, Report # 94-04, Olympia, WA, November, 1992.47 pp. 11 Buchanan, D.V., and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon. Pages 119- 126 In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewing, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings, , Alberta, Canada. Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64(3):139-174. Donald, D.B., and D.J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:238- 247. Dunham, J., B. Rieman, and G. Chandler. 2003. Influence of temperature and environmental variables on the distribution of bull trout within streams at the southern margin of its range. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:894-905. Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63:133-143. Frissell, C.A. 1993. Topology of extinction and endangerment of native fishes in the Pacific Northwest and California. Conservation Biology 7(2):342-354. Frissell, C.A. 1999. An ecosystem approach to habitat conservation for bull trout: groundwater and surface water protection. Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Open File Report Number 156-99, Polson, MT. 46 pp. Gamett, B.L. 2002. Telephone conversation between Bart L. Gamett, Salmon -Challis National Forest, and Shelley Spalding, USFWS, re: relationship between water temperature and bull trout distribution and abundance in the Little Lost River, Idaho. June 20, 2002. Gerking, S.D. 1994. Feeding ecology of fish. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Giles, M.A., and M. Van der Zweep. 1996. Dissolved Oxygen Requirements for Fish of the Peace, Athabasca and Slave River Basins: A Laboratory Study of Bull Trout (Salveninus Confluentus) and Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium Williamsoni) , Northern River Basins Study Technical Report No. 120 ed. Gilpin, M. 1997. Memo to Shelly Spalding, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Connectivity on the Clark Fork River: The Bigger Picture. August 27, 1997. Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a literature review. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon. Goetz, F., E.D. Jeanes, and E.M. Beamer. 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Preliminary draft, Seattle, Washington, June, 2004. 396 pp. 12 Hoelscher, B., and T.C. Bjornn. 1989. Habitat, density, and potential production of trout and char in Pend Oreille Lake tributaries. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Project F-710R-10, Subproject III, Job No. 8., Boise, Idaho. Howell, P.J., and D.V. Buchanan. 1992. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 1995. List of streams compiled by IDFG where bull trout have been extirpated. Leary, R.F., and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Genetic confirmation of sympatric bull trout and Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:715- 720. Leathe, S.A., and P.J. Graham. 1982. Flathead Lake fish food habits study. US EPA, Region VIII, Water Division, Contract R008224-01-4, Denver, Colorado, October, 1982. 209 pp. MBTSG (The Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1998. The relationship between land management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MT, May 1998.77 pp. McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life -history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Fisheries Management Report Number 104, Vancouver, BC. 31 pp. McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life -history and ecology of dolly varden (Salvelinus Malmo) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology and Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, Fort Steele, British Columbia. 113 pp. Myrick, C.A., F.T. Barrow, J. Dunham, B.L. Garnett, G.R. Haas, J.T. Peterson, B. Rieman, L.A. Weber, and A.V. Zale. 2002. Bull trout temperature thresholds: Peer review summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. 13 pp. ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 1995. 1992-1994 water quality standards review: dissolved oxygen - final issue paper. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. Pratt, K.L. 1984. Habitat use and species interactions of juvenile cutthroat, Salmo clarki, and bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, in the upper Flathead River basin. Master's Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 In P.J. Howell, and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. 13 Pratt, K.L., and J.E. Huston. 1993. Status of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Lake Pend Oreille and the lower Clark Fork River. Washington Water Power Company, Spokane, WA. 200 pp. Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 3:1174-1185. Rich, C.F. 1996. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on occurrence of resident Bull Trout in fragmented habitats, Western Montana. Master's Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. Rieman, B.E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C.H. Luce, and D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(6):1552-1565. Rieman, B.E., D. Lee, D. Burns, R.E. Gresswe11,1MI.K. Young, R. Stowell, and P. Howell. 2003. Status of native fishes in western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management 178(1-2):197-211. Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. ]Distribution, status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:1111-1125. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-302, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(3):285-296. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1996. Spatial and temporal variability in bull trout redd counts. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:132-141. Sedell, J.R., and F.H. Everest. 1991. Historic changes in pool habitat for Columbia River Basin salmon under study for TES listing. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Draft U.S. Department of Agriculture Report, Corvallis, Oregon. 6 pp. Sexauer, H.M., and P.W. James. 1997. Microhabitat use by juvenile trout in four streams located in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 361-370 In W.C. McKay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings, Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Simpson, J.C., and R.L. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 14 Spruell, P., B.E. Rieman, K.L. Knudsen, F.M. Utter, and F.W. Allendorf. 1999. Genetic population structure within streams: Microsatellite analysis of bull trout populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8:114-121. Stewart, D.B., N.J. Mochnacz, C.D. Sawatzky, T.J. Carmichael, and J.D. Reist. 2007. Fish life history and habitat use in the Northwest territories: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2801, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2007.54 pp. Thomas, G. 1992. Status of bull trout in Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 83 pp. USFWS. 2002a. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan - Chapter 2: Klamath River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USFWS. 2002b. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan - Chapter 25: Saint Mary -Belly River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USFWS. 2002c. Chapter 20 of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan: Lower Columbia Recovery Unit, Washington. USFWS, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 102 pp. USFWS. 2004a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I: Puget Sound Management Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277+xvi pp, Portland, Oregon. USFWS. 2004b. Draft recovery plan for the Jarbridge River distinct population segment of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 132 pp. USFWS. 2005. Bull trout core area template - complete core area by core area analysis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 662 pp. Watson, G., and T.W. Hillman. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of bull trout: an investigation at hierarchical scales. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(2):237-252. WDFW, FishPro Inc., and Beak Consultants. 1997. Grandy Creek trout hatchery biological assessment. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, March 1997.47 pp. WDOE. 2002. Evaluating criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life in Washington's surface water quality standards - dissolved oyxgen: Draft discussion paper and literature summary. Washington Department of Ecology, Publication Number 00-10-071, Olympia, WA, December 2002. 90 pp. 15 Appendix B: Status of Designated Critical Habitat (Bull Trout; Coterminous Range) Legal Status Current Designation The Service published a final critical habitat designation for the coterminous United States population of the bull trout on October 18, 2010 (70 FR 63898); the rule becomes effective on November 17, 2010. A justification document was also developed to support the rule and is available on our website (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout). The scope of the designation involved the species' coterminous range, which includes the Jarbidge River, Klamath River, Columbia River, Coastal -Puget Sound, and Saint Mary -Belly River population segments (also considered as interim recovery units)1. Rangewide, the Service designated reservoirs/lakes and stream/shoreline miles as bull trout critical habitat (Table 1). Designated bull trout critical habitat is of two primary use types: 1) spawning and rearing, and 2) foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO). Table 1. Stream/shoreline distance and reservoir/lake area designated as bull trout critical habitat by state. State Stream/Shoreline Miles Stream/Shoreline Kilometers Reservoir /Lake Acres Reservoir/ Lake Hectares Idaho 8,771.6 14,116.5 170,217.5 68,884.9 Montana 3,056.5 4,918.9 221,470.7 89,626.4 Nevada 71.8 115.6 - - Oregon 2,835.9 4,563.9 30,255.5 12,244.0 Oregon/Idaho 107.7 173.3 - - Washington 3,793.3 6,104.8 66,308.1 26,834.0 Washington (marine) 753.8 1,213.2 - - Washington/Idaho 37.2 59.9 - - Washington/Oregon 301.3 484.8 - - Total 19,729.0 31,750.8 488,251.7 197,589.2 The 2010 revision increases the amount of designated bull trout critical habitat by approximately 76 percent for miles of stream/shoreline and by approximately 71 percent for acres of lakes and reservoirs compared to the 2005 designation. This rule also identifies and designates as critical habitat approximately 1,323.7 km (822.5 miles) of streams/shorelines and 6,758.8 ha (16,701.3 acres) of lakes/reservoirs of unoccupied habitat to address bull trout conservation needs in specific geographic areas in several areas not occupied at the time of listing. No unoccupied habitat was included in the 2005 designation. These 1 The Service's 5 year review (USFWS 2008, pg. 9) identifies six draft recovery units. Until the bull trout draft recovery plan is finalized, the current five interim recovery units are in affect for purposes of section 7 jeopardy analysis and recovery. The adverse modification analysis does not rely on recovery units. 1 APPENDIX B: Status of Designated Critical Habitat (Bull Trout; Coterminous Range) 84 unoccupied areas were determined by the Service to be essential for restoring functioning migratory bull trout populations based on currently available scientific information. These unoccupied areas often include lower main stem river environments that can provide seasonally important migration habitat for bull trout. This type of habitat is essential in areas where bull trout habitat and population loss over time necessitates reestablishing bull trout in currently unoccupied habitat areas to achieve recovery. The final rule continues to exclude some critical habitat segments based on a careful balancing of the benefits of inclusion versus the benefits of exclusion. Critical habitat does not include: 1) waters adjacent to non -Federal lands covered by legally operative incidental take permits for habitat conservation plans (HCPs) issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), in which bull trout is a covered species on or before the publication of this final rule; 2) waters within or adjacent to Tribal lands subject to certain commitments to conserve bull trout or a conservation program that provides aquatic resource protection and restoration through collaborative efforts, and where the Tribes indicated that inclusion would impair their relationship with the Service; or 3) waters where impacts to national security have been identified (75 FR 63898). Excluded areas are approximately 10 percent of the stream/shoreline miles and 4 percent of the lakes and reservoir acreage of designated critical habitat. Each excluded area is identified in the relevant Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) text, as identified in paragraphs (e)(8) through (e)(41) of the final rule. See Tables 2 and 3 for the list of excluded areas. It is important to note that the exclusion of waterbodies from designated critical habitat does not negate or diminish their importance for bull trout conservation. Because exclusions reflect the often complex pattern of land ownership, designated critical habitat is often fragmented and interspersed with excluded streams segments. Table 2.-Stream/shoreline distance excluded from bull trout critical habitat based on tribal ownership or other elan. Ownership and/or Plan Kilometers Miles Lewis River Hydro Conservation Easements 7.0 4.3 DOD - Dabob Bay Naval 23.9 14.8 HCP - Cedar River (City of Seattle) 25.8 16.0 HCP - Washington Forest Practices Lands 1,608.30 999.4 HCP - Green Diamond (Simpson) 104.2 64.7 HCP - Plum Creek Central Cascades (WA) 15.8 9.8 HCP - Plum Creek Native Fish (MT) 181.6 112.8 HCP-Stimson 7.7 4.8 HCP - WDNR Lands 230.9 149.5 Tribal - Blackfeet 82.1 51.0 Tribal - Hoh 4.0 2.5 Tribal - Jamestown S'Klallam 2.0 1.2 Tribal - Lower Elwha 4.6 2.8 Tribal - Lummi 56.7 35.3 Tribal - Muckleshoot 9.3 5.8 Tribal - Nooksack 8.3 5.1 Tribal - Puyallup 33.0 20.5 Tribal - Quileute 4.0 2.5 2 Ownership and/or Plan Kilometers Miles Tribal — Quinault 153.7 95.5 Tribal — Skokomish 26.2 16.3 Tribal — Stillaguamish 1.8 1.1 Tribal — Swinomish 45.2 28.1 Tribal — Tulalip 27.8 17.3 Tribal — Umatilla 62.6 38.9 Tribal — Warm Springs 260.5 161.9 Tribal — Yakama 107.9 67.1 Total 3,094.9 1,923.1 Table 3. Lake/Reservoir area excluded from bull trout critical habitat based on tribal ownership or other elan. Ownership and/or Plan Hectares Acres HCP — Cedar River (City of Seattle) 796.5 1,968.2 HCP — Washington Forest Practices Lands 5,689.1 14,058.1 HCP — Plum Creek Native Fish 32.2 79.7 Tribal — Blackfeet 886.1 2,189.5 Tribal — Warm Springs 445.3 1,100.4 Total 7,849.3 19,395.8 Conservation Role and Description of Critical Habitat The conservation role of bull trout critical habitat is to support viable core area populations (75 FR 63898:63943 [October 18, 2010]). The core areas reflect the metapopulation structure of bull trout and are the closest approximation of a biologically functioning unit for the purposes of recovery planning and risk analyses. CHUs generally encompass one or more core areas and may include FMO areas, outside of core areas, that are important to the survival and recovery of bull trout. Thirty-two CHUs within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing are designated under the revised rule. Twenty-nine of the CHUs contain all of the physical or biological features identified in this final rule and support multiple life -history requirements. Three of the mainstem river units in the Columbia and Snake River basins contain most of the physical or biological features necessary to support the bull trout's particular use of that habitat, other than those physical biological features associated with Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) 5 and 6, which relate to breeding habitat. The primary function of individual CHUs is to maintain and support core areas, which 1) contain bull trout populations with the demographic characteristics needed to ensure their persistence and contain the habitat needed to sustain those characteristics (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 19); 2) provide for persistence of strong local populations, in part, by providing habitat conditions that encourage movement of migratory fish (MBTSG 1998, pp. 48-49; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 22-23); 3) are large enough to incorporate genetic and phenotypic diversity, but small enough to ensure connectivity between populations (Hard 1995, pp. 314-315; Healey and Prince 1995, p. 182; MBTSG 1998, pp. 48-49; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 22-23); and 4) are distributed 3 throughout the historic range of the species to preserve both genetic and phenotypic adaptations (Hard 1995, pp. 321-322; MBTSG 1998, pp. 13-16; Rieman and Allendorf 2001, p. 763; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 23). The Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound CHUs are essential to the conservation of amphidromous bull trout, which are unique to the Coastal -Puget Sound population segment. These CHUs contain marine nearshore and freshwater habitats, outside of core areas, that are used by bull trout from one or more core areas. These habitats, outside of core areas, contain PCEs that are critical to adult and subadult foraging, overwintering, and migration. Primary Constituent Elements for Bull Trout Within the designated critical habitat areas, the PCEs for bull trout are those habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs of foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, dispersal, genetic exchange, or sheltering. Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of this species and the characteristics of the habitat necessary to sustain its essential life -history functions, we have determined that the following PCEs are essential for the conservation of bull trout. 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. 2. Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 °C to 15 °C (36 °F to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will depend on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streainflow; and local groundwater influence. 6. In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the - year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system. 4 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. 9. Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of non-native predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. The revised PCE's are similar to those previously in effect under the 2005 designation. The most significant modification is the addition of a ninth PCE to address the presence of nonnative predatory or competitive fish species. Although this PCE applies to both the freshwater and marine environments, currently no non-native fish species are of concern in the marine environment, though this could change in the future. Note that only PCEs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 apply to marine nearshore waters identified as critical habitat. Also, lakes and reservoirs within the CHUs also contain most of the physical or biological features necessary to support bull trout, with the exception of those associated with PCEs 1 and 6. Additionally, all except PCE 6 apply to FMO habitat designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and has a lateral extent as defined by the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the opposite bank. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain and is reached at a discharge that generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual flood series. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the ordinary high-water line must be used to determine the lateral extent of critical habitat. The lateral extent of designated lakes is defined by the perimeter of the waterbody as mapped on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. The Service assumes in many cases this is the full - pool level of the waterbody. In areas where only one side of the waterbody is designated (where only one side is excluded), the mid -line of the waterbody represents the lateral extent of critical habitat. In marine nearshore areas, the inshore extent of critical habitat is the mean higher high-water (MHHW) line, including the uppermost reach of the saltwater wedge within tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. The MHHW line refers to the average of all the higher high-water heights of the two daily tidal levels. Marine critical habitat extends offshore to the depth of 10 meters (m) (33 ft) relative to the mean low low-water (MLLW) line (zero tidal level or average of all the lower low-water heights of the two daily tidal levels). This area between the MHHW line and minus 10 m MLLW line (the average extent of the photic zone) is considered the habitat most consistently used by bull trout in marine waters based on known use, forage fish 5 availability, and ongoing migration studies and captures geological and ecological processes important to maintaining these habitats. This area contains essential foraging habitat and migration corridors such as estuaries, bays, inlets,, shallow subtidal areas, and intertidal flats. Adjacent shoreline riparian areas, bluffs, and uplands are not designated as critical habitat. However, it should be recognized that the quality of marine and freshwater habitat along streams, lakes, and shorelines is intrinsically related to the character of these adjacent features, and that human activities that occur outside of the designated critical habitat can have major effects on physical and biological features of the aquatic environment. Activities that cause adverse effects to critical habitat are evaluated to determine if they are likely to "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitat by no longer serving the intended conservation role for the species or retaining those PCEs that relate to the ability of the area to at least periodically support the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs to such an extent that the conservation value of critical habitat is appreciably reduced (75 FR 63898:63943; USFWS 2004, Vol. 1. pp. 140-193, Vol. 2. pp. 69-114). The Service's evaluation must be conducted at the scale of the entire critical habitat area designated, unless otherwise stated in the final critical habitat rule (USFWS and NMFS 1998, pp. 4-39). Thus, adverse modification of bull trout critical habitat is evaluated at the scale of the final designation, which includes the critical habitat designated for the Klamath River, Jarbidge River, Columbia River, Coastal -Puget Sound, and Saint Mary -Belly River population segments. However, we consider all 32 CHUs to contain features or areas essential to the conservation of the bull trout (75 FR 63898:63901, 63944). Therefore, if a proposed action would alter the physical or biological features of critical habitat to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation function of one or more critical habitat units for bull trout, a finding of adverse modification of the entire designated critical habitat area may be warranted (75 FR 63898:63943). Current Critical Habitat Condition Rangewide The condition of bull trout critical habitat varies across its range from poor to good. Although still relatively widely distributed across its historicrange, the bull trout occurs in low numbers in many areas, and populations are considered depressed or declining across much of its range (67 FR 71240). This condition reflects the condition of bull trout habitat. The decline of bull trout is primarily due to habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, past fisheries management practices, impoundments, dams, water diversions, and the introduction of nonnative species (63 FR 3164'7, June 10 1998; 64 FR 17112, April 8, 1999). There is widespread agreement in the scientific literature that many factors related to human activities have impacted bull trout and their habitat, and continue to do so. Among the many factors that contribute to degraded PCEs, those which appear to be particularly significant and have resulted in a legacy of degraded habitat conditions are as follows: 1) fragmentation and isolation of local populations due to the proliferation of dams and water diversions that have eliminated habitat, altered water flow and temperature regimes, and impeded migratory movements (Dunham and Rieman 1999, p. 652; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7); 2) degradation of spawning and rearing habitat and upper watershed areas, particularly alterations 6 in sedimentation rates and water temperature, resulting from forest and rangeland practices and intensive development of roads (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 141; MBTSG 1998, pp. ii - v, 20- 45); 3) the introduction and spread of nonnative fish species, particularly brook trout and lake trout, as a result of fish stocking and degraded habitat conditions, which compete with bull trout for limited resources and, in the case of brook trout, hybridize with bull trout (Leary et al. 1993, p. 857; Rieman et al. 2006, pp. 73-76); 4) in the Coastal -Puget Sound region where amphidromous bull trout occur, degradation of mainstem river FMO habitat, and the degradation and loss of marine nearshore foraging and migration habitat due to urban and residential development; and 5) degradation of FMO habitat resulting from reduced prey base, roads, agriculture, development, and dams. Effects of Climate Change on Bull Trout Critical Habitat One objective of the final rule was to identify and protect those habitats that provide resiliency for bull trout use in the face of climate change. Over a period of decades, climate change may directly threaten the integrity of the essential physical or biological features described in PCEs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Protecting bull trout strongholds and cold water refugia from disturbance and ensuring connectivity among populations were important considerations in addressing this potential impact. Additionally, climate change may exacerbate habitat degradation impacts both physically (e.g., decreased base flows, increased water temperatures) and biologically (e.g., increased competition with non-native fishes). Consulted on Effects for Critical Habitat The Service has formally consulted on the effects to bull trout critical habitat throughout its range. Section 7 consultations include actions that continue to degrade the environmental baseline in many cases. However, long-term restoration efforts have also been implemented that provide some improvement in the existing functions within some of the critical habitat units. 7 LITERATURE CITED Dunham, J.B. and B.E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout: influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. Ecological Applications 9(2):642-55. Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63:133-43. Hard, J. 1995. A quantitative genetic perspective on the conservation of intraspecific diversity. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:304-26. Healey, M.C. and A. Prince. 1995. Scales of variation in life history tactics of Pacific salmon and the conservation of phenotype and genotype. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:176-84. Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and S.H. Forbes. 1993. Conservation genetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River drainages. Conservation Biology 7(4):856-65. MBTSG (The Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1998. The relationship between land management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MT, May 1998, 77 pp. Rieman, B.E. and F.W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic conservation criteria for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:756-64. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, 38 pp. Rieman, B.E., J.T. Peterson, and D.E. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) displaced bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 63:63-78. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I: Puget Sound Management Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277+xvi pp. Portland, Oregon. 8 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. GPO:2004-690-278. March 1998. 9 APPENDIX C: Core Area. Summaries (Bull Trout) 85 Appendix C: Core Area Summaries (Bull Trout) Puyallup Core Area The Puyallup core area comprises the Puyallup, Mowich, and Carbon Rivers; the White River system, which includes the Clearwater, Greenwater, and the West Fork White Rivers; and Huckleberry Creek. Glacial sources in several watersheds drain the north and west sides of Mount Rainier and significantly influence water, substrate, and channel conditions in the mainstem reaches. The location of many of the basin's headwater reaches within Mount Rainier National Park and designated wilderness areas (Clearwater Wilderness, Norse Peak Wilderness) provides relatively pristine habitat conditions in these portions of the watershed. Anadromous, fluvial, and potentially resident bull trout occur within local populations in the Puyallup River system. Bull trout occur throughout most of the system although spawning occurs primarily in the headwater reaches. Anadromous and fluvial bull trout use the mainstem reaches of the Puyallup, Carbon, and White Rivers to forage and overwinter, while the anadromous form also uses Commencement Bay and likely other nearshore areas within Puget Sound. Habitat conditions within the lower mainstem Puyallup and White Rivers have been highly degraded, retaining minimal instream habitat complexity. In addition, habitat conditions within Commencement Bay and adjoining nearshore areas have been severely degraded as well, with very little intact intertidal habitat remaining. The Puyallup core area has the southernmost, anadromous bull trout population in the Puget Sound Management Unit (USFWS 2004, Vol. 2 p. 19). Consequently, maintaining the bull trout population in this core area is critical to maintaining the overall distribution of migratory bull trout in the management unit. The status of the bull trout core area population is based on four key elements necessary for long-term viability: 1) number and distribution of local populations, 2) adult abundance, 3) productivity, and 4) connectivity (USFWS 2004, Vol 2 p. 215). Number and Distribution of Local Populations Five local populations occur in the Puyallup core area: 1) Upper Puyallup and Mowich Rivers, 2) Carbon River, 3) Upper White River, 4) West Fork White River, and 5) Greenwater River. The Clearwater River is identified as a potential local population, as bull trout are known to use this river and it appears to provide suitable spawning habitat, but the occurrence of reproduction there is unknown (USFWS 2004, Vol 2 pp. 119-121). Information about the distribution and abundance of bull trout in this core area is limited because observations have generally been incidental to other fish species survey work. Spawning occurs in the upper reaches of this basin where higher elevations produce the cold water temperatures required by bull trout egg and juvenile survival. Based on current survey data, bull trout spawning in this core area occurs earlier in the year (i.e., September) than typically observed in other Puget Sound core areas (Marks et al. 2002). The known spawning areas in local 1 populations are few in number and not widespread. The majority of spawning sites are located in streams within Mount Rainier National Park, with two exceptions, Silver Creek and Silver Springs (Ladley, in litt. 2006; Marks et al. 2002). Rearing likely occurs throughout the Upper Puyallup, Mowich, Carbon, Upper White, West Fork White, and Greenwater Rivers. However, sampling indicates most rearing is confined to the upper reaches of the basin. The mainstem reaches of the White, Carbon, and Puyallup Rivers probably provide the primary freshwater foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for migratory bull trout within this core area. With fewer than 10 local populations, the Puyallup core area is considered to be at intermediate risk of extirpation and adverse effects from random naturally occurring events. Adult Abundance Rigorous abundance estimates are generally not available for local populations in the Puyallup core area. Currently, fewer than 100 adults probably occur in each of the local populations in the White River system, based on adult counts at Mud Mountain Dam's Buckley Diversion fish trap. Although these counts may not adequately account for fluvial migrants that do not migrate downstream of the facility, these counts do indicate few anadromous bull trout and few mainstem fluvial bull trout return to local populations in the White River system. Therefore, the bull trout population in the Puyallup core area is considered at increased risk of extirpation until sufficient information is collected to properly assess adult abundance in each local population. Productivity Due to the current lack of long-term, comprehensive trend data, the bull trout population in the Puyallup core area is considered at increased risk of extirpation until sufficient information is collected to properly assess productivity. Connectivity Migratory bull trout are likely present in most local populations in the Puyallup core area. However, the number of adult bull trout expressing migratory behavior within each local population appears to be very low compared to other core areas. Although connectivity between the Upper Puyallup and Mowich Rivers local population and other Puyallup core area local populations was reestablished with the creation of an upstream fish ladder at Electron Dam in 2000, this occurred after approximately 100 years of isolation. Very low numbers of migratory bull trout continue to be passed upstream at the Mud Mountain Dam's Buckley Diversion fish trap. The overall low abundance of migratory life history forms limits the possibility for genetic exchange and local population refounding, as well as limits more diverse foraging opportunities to increase size of spawners and therefore, overall fecundity within the population. Consequently, the bull trout population in the Puyallup core area is at intermediate risk of extirpation from habitat isolation and fragmentation. 2 Changes in Environmental Conditions and Population Status Since the bull trout listing, the Service has issued Biological Opinions that exempted incidental take in the Puyallup core area. These incidental take exemptions were in the form of harm and harassment, primarily from hydrologic impacts associated with increased impervious surface, temporary sediment increases during in -water work, habitat loss or alteration, and handling of fish. None of these projects were determined to result in jeopardy to bull trout. The combined effects of actions evaluated under these Biological Opinions have resulted in short-term and long-term adverse effects to bull trout and degradation of bull trout habitat within the core area. Of particular note, in 2003 the Service issued a Biological Opinion (FWS Ref. No. 1-3-01-F- 0476) on the State Route 167 North Sumner Interchange Project. This project was located in Pierce County in the White River portion of the Puyallup watershed and was proposed by Washington State Department of Transportation. The project's direct and indirect impacts and cumulative impacts within the action area included urbanization of approximately 600 acres of land. We anticipated that conversion of this land to impervious surface would result in the permanent loss and/or degradation of aquatic habitat for bull trout and their prey species through reduced base flows, increased peak flows, increased temperatures, loss of thermal refugia, degradation of water quality, and the degradation of the aquatic invertebrate community and those species dependent upon it (bull trout prey species). These impacts will result in thermal stress and disrupt normal behavioral patterns. Incidental take of fluvial, adfluvial, and anadromous bull trout in the form of harassment due to thermal stress and the disruption of migrating and foraging behaviors was exempted for this project. These adverse effects were expected to continue in perpetuity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits have also been issued for HCPs that address bull trout in this core area. Although these HCPs may result in both short and/or long-term negative effects to bull trout and their habitat, the anticipated long-term beneficial effects are expected to maintain or improve the overall baseline status of the species. Additionally, capture and handling, and indirect mortality, during implementation of section 6 and section 10(a)(1)(A) permits have directly affected some individual bull trout in this core area. The number of non -Federal actions occurring within the Puyallup core area since the bull trout were listed is unknown. However, activities conducted on a regular basis, such as emergency flood control, development, and infrastructure maintenance affect riparian and instream habitat which typically results in negative affects to bull trout and their habitat. Threats Threats to bull trout in the Puyallup core area include: • Extensive past and ongoing timber harvest and harvest -related activities, such as road maintenance and construction, continue to affect bull trout spawning and rearing areas in the upper watershed. 3 • Agricultural practices, such as bank armoring, riparian clearing, and non -point discharges of chemical applications continue to affect foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats for bull trout in the lower watershed. • Dams and diversions have significantly affected migratory bull trout in the core area. Until upstream passage was recently restored, the Electron Diversion Dam isolated bull trout in the Upper Puyallup and Mowich Rivers local population for nearly 100 years and has drastically reduced the abundance of migratory bull trout in the Puyallup River. Buckley Diversion and Mud Mountain Dam have significantly affected the White River system in the past by impeding or precluding adult and juvenile migration and degrading foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats in the mainstem. Despite improvements to these facilities, passage related impacts continue today but to a lesser degree. • Urbanization, road construction, residential development, and marine port development associated with the city of Tacoma, have significantly reduced habitat complexity and quality in the lower mainstem rivers and associated tributaries, and have largely eliminated intact nearshore foraging habitats for anadromous bull trout in Commencement Bay. • The presence of brook trout in many parts of the Puyallup core area and their potential to increase in distribution, including into Mount Rainer National Park waters, are considered significant threats to bull trout. Because of their early maturation and competitive advantage over bull trout in degraded habitats, brook trout in the upper Puyallup and Mowich Rivers local population is of highest concern because of past isolation of bull trout and the level of habitat degradation in this area. • Until the early 1990s, bull trout fisheries probably significantly reduced the overall bull trout population within this and other core areas in Puget Sound. Current legal and illegal fisheries in the Puyallup core area may continue to significantly limit recovery of the population because of the low numbers of migratory adults. • Water quality has been degraded due to municipal and industrial effluent discharges resulting from development, particularly in the lower mainstem Puyallup River and Commencement Bay. • Water quality has also been degraded by stormwater discharge associated with runoff from impervious surface. Impervious surface in the Puyallup watershed increased by 12 percent between 1990 and 2001 (PSAT 2007). • Major flood events in November 2006 significantly impacted instream habitats within the Puyallup River system. These events are assumed to have drastically impacted bull trout brood success for the year, due to significant scour and channel changes that occurred after peak spawning. Significant impacts to rearing juvenile bull trout were also likely, further impacting the future recruitment of adult bull trout. • In November 2006, an 18,000 gallon diesel spill in the head waters of Spring Creek (Hebert, in litt. 2006), a bull trout spawning area of the Upper White River local population, likely impacted the available instream spawning habitat. The duration of ongoing contamination of instream habitats by residual diesel is unknown. 4 LITERATURE CITED Hebert, C. 2006. Email from C. Herbert to Jeff Krausmann, USFWS, regarding Crystal Mt. diesel spill - update. November 7, 2006. Ladley, R. 2006. Email from Russ Ladley, NPS, to Jeffrey Chan, USFWS, regarding bull trout telemetry update. September 29, 2006. Marks, E.L., T.G. Sebastian, R.C. Ladley, and B.E. Smith. 2002.2001-2002 annual salmon, steelhead, and char report: Puyallup River watershed. Puyallup Tribal Fisheries, Puyallup, Washington, 2002. 17 pp. PSAT (Puget Sound Action Team). 2007. State of the Sound 2007. Puget Sound Action Team, PSAT 07-01, Olympia, Washington, July 22, 2007.96 pp. USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I: Puget Sound Management Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277+xvi pp, Portland, Oregon. Snohomish-Skykomish Core Area The Snohomish-Skykomish core area comprises the Snohomish, Skykomish, and Snoqualmie Rivers and their tributaries. Bull trout occur throughout the Snohomish River system downstream of barriers to anadromous fish. Bull trout are not known to occur upstream of Snoqualmie Falls, upstream of Spada Lake on the Sultan River, in the upper forks of the Tolt River, above Deer Falls on the North Fork Skykomish River, or above Alpine Falls on the Tye River. Fluvial, resident, and anadromous life history forms of bull trout occur in the Snohomish River/Skykomish core area. A large portion of the migratory segment of this population is anadromous. There are no lake systems within the basin that support an adfluvial population. However, anadromous and fluvial forms occasionally forage in a number of lowland lakes connected to the mainstem rivers. The mainstems of the Snohomish, Skykomish, North Skykomish, and South Fork Skykomish Rivers provide important foraging, migrating, and overwintering habitat for subadult and adult bull trout. The amount of key spawning and early rearing habitat is more limited, in comparison with many other core areas, because of the topography of the basin. Rearing bull trout occur throughout most of the accessible reaches of the basin and extensively use the lower estuary, nearshore marine areas, and Puget Sound for extended rearing. The status of the bull trout core area population is based on four key elements necessary for long-term viability: 1) number and distribution of local populations, 2) adult abundance, 3) productivity, and 4) connectivity (USFWS 2004, Vol. 1, p. 215). 5 Number and Distribution of Local Populations Four local populations have been identified: (1) North Fork Skykomish River (including Goblin and West Cady Creeks), (2) Troublesome Creek (resident form only), (3) Salmon Creek, and (4) South Fork Skykomish River. With only four local populations, bull trout in this core area are considered at increased risk of extirpation and adverse effects from random naturally occurring events (see "Life History" in Bull Trout Status of the Species, in Appendices, p. 5). Adult Abundance The Snohomish-Skykomish core area probably supports between 500 and 1,000 adults. However, this core area remains at risk of genetic drift. Most of the spawners in the core area occur in the North Fork Skykomish local population. Redd counts within the North Fork Skykomish local population peaked at over 530 in 2002 (USFWS 2004, Vol. 1, p. 103), but have recently declined to just over 240 in 2005 and 2006 (WDFW 2007, p. 17). This is one of two local populations in the core area (the other is South Fork Skykomish River) that support more than 100 adults, which minimizes the deleterious effects of inbreeding. The Troublesome Creek population is mainly a resident population with few migratory fish. Although adult abundance is unknown in this local population, it is probably stable due to intact habitat conditions. The Salmon Creek local population likely has fewer than 100 adults. Although spawning and early rearing habitat in the Salmon Creek area is in good to excellent condition, this local population is at risk of inbreeding depression because of the low number of adults. Monitoring of the South Fork Skykomish local population indicates increasing numbers of adult migrants. This local population recently exceeded 100 adults (Jackson, in litt. 2004) and is not considered at risk of inbreeding depression. Fishing is allowed in this system. Productivity Long-term redd counts for the North Fork Skykomish local population indicate increasing population trends. Productivity of the Troublesome Creek and Salmon Creek local populations is unknown but presumed stable, as the available spawning and early rearing habitats are considered to be in good to excellent condition. In the South Fork Skykomish local population, new spawning and rearing areas are being colonized, resulting in increasing numbers of spawners. Sampling of the North Fork and South Fork Skykomish local population areas indicates the overall productivity of bull trout in the Snohomish-Skykomish core area is increasing. Connectivity Migratory bull trout occur in three of the four local populations in the Snohomish-Skykomish core area (North Fork Skykomish, Salmon Creek, and South Fork Skykomish). The lack of connectivity with the Troublesome Creek local population is a natural condition. The connectivity between the other three local populations diminishes the risk of extirpation of the bull trout in the core area from habitat isolation and fragmentation. 6 Changes in Environmental Conditions and Population Status Since the bull trout listing, Federal actions occurring in the Snohomish-Skykomish core area have caused harm to, or harassment of, bull trout. These actions include statewide Federal restoration programs that include riparian restoration, replacement of fish passage barriers, and fish habitat improvement projects; federally funded transportation projects involving repair and protection of roads and bridges; and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for Habitat Conservation Plans addressing forest management practices. Capture and handling during implementation of section 6 and section 10(a)(1)(A) permits have directly affected bull trout in the Snohomish-Skykomish core area. The number of non -Federal actions occurring in the Snohomish-Skykomish core area since the bull trout listing is unknown. However, activities conducted on a regular basis, such as emergency flood control, development, and infrastructure maintenance, affect riparian and instream habitat and probably negatively affect bull trout. Threats Threats to bull trout in the Snohomish-Skykomish core area include: • Loss of habitat that can provide thermal and high -flow refuge. Armoring the riparian areas results in the loss of natural river functions. o Bank armoring to protect homes, towns, and roads built in the rivers natural channel migration zones results in the river's inability to develop side- and off - channel habitat that bull trout need for survival. o Bank armoring is also associated with reduced riparian vegetation and shading, which eliminates prey sources and thermal refuge for bull trout. • Degraded habitat conditions from timber harvests and associated activities, including roads, sedimentation, and fertilization, especially in the upper watershed, where spawning occurs. • Blocked fish passage, altered stream morphology, and degraded water quality in the lower watershed resulting from agricultural and livestock practices. • Injury and/or mortality from illegal harvest or incidental hooking/netting, which may occur where recreational fishing is allowed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. • Degraded water quality from municipal and industrial effluent discharges and development. • Loss of nearshore foraging habitat and prey from continual development along riparian areas, especially from residential, commercial, and transportation construction, which usually substantiate the need for bank armoring to protect the river's natural migratory process. 7 LITERATURE CITED Jackson, C. 2004. Email from Chad Jackson, WDFW, to Jeff Chan, WFWO, regarding bull trout South Fork of the Skykomish River fish traps and North Fork Skykomish redd counts. Email string dated November 26, 2004 through December 29, 2004. 2004. USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I: Puget Sound Management Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277+xvi pp, Portland, Oregon. WDFW. 2007. 2006 bull trout report: section 6(c)(1) Endangered Species Act - report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on hatchery, stock assessment, and research activities that have the potential to take listed Washington coastal -Puget Sound DPS bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Lower Skagit Core Area The Lower Skagit core area comprises the Skagit basin downstream of Seattle City Light's Diablo Dam, including the mainstem Skagit River and the Cascade, Sauk, Suiattle, White Chuck, and Baker River including the lake systems (Baker Lake and Lake Shannon) upstream of upper and lower Baker Dams. Bull trout, which occur throughout the Lower Skagit core area, include fluvial, adfluvial, resident, and anadromous life history forms. Resident life history forms, found in several locations in the core area, often occur with migratory life history forms. Adfluvial bull trout occur in Baker, Shannon, and Gorge Lakes. Fluvial bull trout forage and overwinter in the larger pools of the upper portion of the mainstem Skagit River and, to a lesser degree, in the Sauk River (Kraemer 2003; WDFW et al. 1997). Many bull trout extensively use the lower estuary and nearshore marine areas for extended rearing and subadult and adult foraging. Key spawning and early rearing habitat, found in the upper portion of much of the basin, is generally on federally protected lands, including North Cascades National Park, North Cascades Recreation Area, Glacier Peak Wilderness, and Henry M. Jackson Wilderness Area. The status of the bull trout core area population is based on four key elements necessary for long-term viability: 1) number and distribution of local populations, 2) adult abundance, 3) productivity, and 4) connectivity (USFWS 2004). Number and Distribution of Local Populations Nineteen local populations were identified in the draft recovery plan (USFWS 2004) 1) Bacon Creek, 2) Baker Lake, 3) Buck Creek, 4) Cascade River, 5) Downey Creek, 6) Forks of Sauk River, 7) Goodell Creek, 8) Illabot Creek, 9) Lime Creek, 10) Lower White Chuck River, 11) Milk Creek, 12) Newhalem Creek, 13) South Fork Cascade River, 14) Straight Creek, 15) Sulphur Creek, 16) Tenas Creek, 17) Upper South Fork Sauk River, 18) Upper Suiattle River, 8 and 19) Upper White Chuck River. Although initially identified as potential local populations in the draft recovery plan (USFWS 2004), Stetattle Creek and Sulphur Creek (Lake Shannon), each now meets the definition of local population based on subsequent observations of juvenile bull trout and prespawn migratory adult bull trout (R2 Resource Consultants and Puget Sound Energy 2005; Shannon, in litt. 2004). With 21 local populations, the bull trout in the Lower Skagit core area is at diminished risk of extirpation and adverse effects from random naturally- occurring events (see "Life History"). Adult Abundance The Lower Skagit core area, with a spawning population of migratory bull trout that numbers in the thousands, is probably the largest population in Washington (Kraemer 2001). Consequently, the bull trout population in this core area is not considered at risk from genetic drift. The majority of local populations in the core area include 100 adults or more; therefore, they are at a diminished risk of extirpation. However, some local populations probably have fewer than 100 adults and may be at risk from inbreeding depression. There is some risk of extirpation of the following local populations due to their lower numbers of adults; however, other factors, such as stable or increasing population trends may reduce this risk. Fewer than 100 migratory adults and a limited number of resident fish use the Forks of the Sauk River; however, the migratory component appears abundant and is increasing (Kraemer 2003). Fewer than 100 adults probably occur in Tenas Creek, but this local population is presumed to be increasing. The Straight Creek local population includes fewer than 100 migratory adults and an unknown number of resident fish (Kraemer 2001), but the migratory component appears stable. The Lime Creek local population probably has fewer than 100 migratory adults, but resident and migratory components are considered abundant. The South Fork Cascade River local population probably has fewer than 100 migratory adults (Kraemer 2001); however, resident and migratory components are considered stable. Based on recent observations, the Sulphur Creek local population in the Lake Shannon system also has fewer than 100 adults (R2 Resource Consultants and Puget Sound Energy 2006). Prior to 2004, Goodell Creek supported more than 100 adult spawners. In October 2003, a large landslide in Goodell Creek blocked access to the majority of spawning habitat for migratory bull trout in the Goodell Creek local population. Adult counts of migratory bull trout in 2004 and 2005 have been fewer than 100 individuals (Downen 2006) in this local population. In the Baker Lake local population, annual peak counts of 85 adults have been recorded between 2001 and 2005 (R2 Resource Consultants and Puget Sound Energy 2006). Since the most upstream accessible habitat was not surveyed in these efforts, and bull trout typically spawn as far upstream as they can within a stream system, this would suggest that on average there may be at least 100 adults in this local population. Total adult abundances in Newhalem and Stettatle Creek local populations are unknown. Productivity Long-term redd counts in the index areas of the Lower Skagit core area generally indicate stable to increasing population trends (USFWS 2004). Therefore, this core area is not considered at risk of extirpation at this time. Recent declines in redd counts may indicate a potential change to this long-term trend (Downen 2006). Redd counts conducted by WDFW between 2002 and 9 2005 show a significant downward trend in Bacon, Goodell, and Illabot Creeks, and the Sauk River. However, Downey Creek had a significant increase in the reported redd counts between these years. The reason for these changes is unknown. Connectivity The presence of migratory bull trout in most of the local populations indicates the bull trout in the Lower Skagit core area has a diminished risk of extirpation from habitat isolation and fragmentation. However, the lack of connectivity of the Baker Lake and Sulphur Creek local populations in the Baker River system and Stetattle Creek local population in the Gorge Lake system with other local populations in the core area is a concern with respect to long-term persistence, life history expression, and refounding. In addition, there is currently only partial connectivity within the Baker Lake system, with no upstream passage for adults within Lake Shannon at upper Baker Dam. Changes in Environmental Conditions and Population Status Since the bull trout listing, Federal actions occurring in the Lower Skagit core area have caused harm to, or harassment of, bull trout. These actions include statewide Federal restoration programs that include riparian restoration, replacement of fish passage barriers, and fish habitat improvement projects; federally funded transportation projects involving repair and protection of roads and bridges; and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for Habitat Conservation Plans addressing forest management practices. Capture and handling, and indirect mortality, during implementation of section 6 and section 10(a)(1)(A) permits have negatively directly affected bull trout in the Lower Skagit core area. The number of non -Federal actions occurring in the Lower Skagit core area since the bull trout listing is unknown. Activities conducted on a regular basis, such as emergency flood control, development, and infrastructure maintenance, affect riparian and instream habitat and probably have negatively affected bull trout and parts of their forage base. Threats Threats to bull trout in the Lower Skagit core area include: • Gorge and Baker Dams restrict connectivity of the Stetattle Creek, Baker Lake, and Sulphur Creek (Lake Shannon) local populations with the majority of other local populations in the core area due to impaired fish passage. • Operations of the Lower Baker Dam occasionally have significantly affected water quantity in the lower Baker and Skagit Rivers. • Agricultural practices, residential development, and the transportation network, with related stream channel and bank modifications, have caused the loss and degradation of foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats in mainstem reaches of the major forks and in a number of the tributaries. 10 • Estuarine nearshore foraging habitats have been, and continue to be, negatively affected by agricultural practices and development activities. LITERATURE CITED Downen, M.R. 2006. Region 4 bull trout monitoring summary report, September 2006. Kraemer, C. 2001. Draft: Puget Sound bull trout core areas - lower Skagit core area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, July 31, 2001. 8 pp. Kraemer, C. 2003. Management brief: Lower Skagit bull trout, age and growth information developed from scales collected from anadromous and fluvial char. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, January 1, 2003. R2 Resource Consultants, and Puget Sound Energy. 2005. Native char investigations. results of 2004 activities and proposed 2005 activities. Baker River hydroelectric project (FERC No. 2150), FERC No.2150, April 2005. 57 pp. R2 Resource Consultants, and Puget Sound Energy. 2006. Native char investigations. results of 2005 activities. Baker River hydroelectric project (FERC No. 2150), FERC No. 21050, Bellevue, Washington, January, 2006. 68 pp. Shannon, J. 2004. Email from Jim Shannon, Taylor Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA, to Jeffrey Chan, Fish Biologist, USFWS, Re: Gorge Lake bulls. October 8, 2004. USFWS. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I: Puget Sound Management Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic Peninsula Management Unit, 277+xvi pp, Portland, Oregon. WDFW, FishPro Inc., and Beak Consultants. 1997. Grandy Creek trout hatchery biological assessment. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 11 APPENDIX D: Sediment Analysis Framework (2010) 86 Appendix D: Sediment Analysis Framework (2010) DETERMINING EFFECTS FOR SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS There are numerous factors that can influence project -specific sediment effects on bull trout and other salmonids. These factors include the concentration and duration of sediment input, existing sediment conditions, stream conditions (velocity, depth, etc.) during construction, weather or climate conditions (precipitation, wind, etc.), fish presence or absence (bull trout plus prey species), and best management practice effectiveness. Many of these factors are unknown. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) and Anderson et al. (1996) provide the basis for analyzing sediment effects to bull trout and other salmonids and their habitat. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) conducted a literature review of pertinent documents on sediment effects to salmonids and nonsalmonids. They developed a model that calculated the severity of ill effect (SEV) to fish based on the suspended sediment dose (exposure) and concentration. No data on bull trout were used in this analysis. Anderson et al. (1996), using the methods used by Newcombe and Jensen (1996), developed a model to estimate sediment impacts to salmonid habitat. A 15-point scale was developed by Newcombe and Jensen (1996, p. 694) to qualitatively rank the effects of sediment on fish (Table 1). Using a similar 15-point scale, Anderson et al. (1996) ranked the effects of sediment on fish habitat (Table 2). We analyzed the effects on different bull trout life history stages to determine when adverse effects of project -related sediment would occur. Table 3 shows the different ESA effect calls for bull trout based on severity of ill effect. Table 1— Scale of the severity (SEV) of ill effects associated with excess suspended sediment on salmonids. SEV Description of Effect Nil effect 0 No behavioral effects Behavioral effects 1 Alarm reaction 2 Abandonment of cover 3 Avoidance response Sublethal effects 4 Short-term reduction in feeding rates; short-term reduction in feeding success 5 Minor physiological stress; increase in rate of coughing; increased respiration rate 6 Moderate physiological stress 7 Moderate habitat degradation; impaired homing 8 Indications of major physiological stress; long-term reduction in feeding rate; long-term reduction in feeding success; poor condition Lethal and paralethal effects 9 Reduced growth rate; delayed hatching; reduced fish density 10 0-20% mortality; increased predation; moderate to severe habitat degradation 11 > 20 — 40% mortality 12 > 40 — 60% mortality 13 > 60 — 80% mortality 14 > 80 — 100% mortality 1 The effect determination for a proposed action should consider all SEV values resulting from the action because sediment affects individual fish differently depending on life history stage and site -specific factors. For juvenile bull trout, an SEV of 5 is likely to warrant a "likely to adversely affect" (LAA) determination. However, abandonment of cover (SEV 2), or an avoidance response (SEV 3), may result in increased predation risk and mortality if habitat features are limiting in the project's stream reach. Therefore, a LAA determination may be warranted at an SEV 2 or 3 level in certain situations. For subadult and adult bull trout, however, abandonment of cover and avoidance may not be as important. A higher SEV score is more appropriate for adverse effects to subadult and adult bull trout. In all situations, we assume that SEV scores associated with adverse effects are also sufficient to represent a likelihood of harm or harass2. When evaluating impacts to habitat as a surrogate for species effects, adverse effects may be anticipated when there is a notable reduction in abundance of aquatic invertebrates, and an alteration in their community structure. These effects represent a reduction in food for bull trout and other salmonids, and correspond to an SEV of 7 — moderate habitat degradation. Table 2 — Scale of the severity (SEV) of i11 effects associated with excess suspended sediment on salmonid habitat. 'SEV ,,.. Description of Effect , 3 Measured change in habitat 7 _preference Moderate habitat degradation measured by a change in invertebrate community 10 Moderately severe habitat degradation — defined by measurable reduction in the productivity of habitat for extended period (months) or over a large area (square kilometers). 12 Severe habitat degradation measured by long-term (years) alterations in the ability of existing habitats to support fish or invertebrates. 14 Catastrophic or total destruction of habitat in the receiving environment. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) used six data groups to conduct their analysis. These groups were 1) juvenile and adult salmonids (Figure 1), 2) adult salmonids (Figure 2), 3) juvenile salmonids (Figure 3), 4) eggs and larvae of salmonids and non-salmonids (Figure 4), 5) adult estuarine nonsalmonids (no figure provided), and 6) adult freshwater nonsalmonids (no figure provided). No explanation was provided for why juvenile and adult salmonids were combined for group 1. As juveniles are more adapted to turbid water (Newcombe 1994, p. 5), their SEV levels are generally lower than for adult salmonids given the same concentration and duration of sediment (Figures 1-3). 2 Harm and harass in this context refers to the FWS's regulatory definition at 50 CFR 17.3. E.g., Harm means "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." 2 Table 3 — ESA Effect calls for different bull trout life stages in relation to the duration of effect and severity of ill effect. Effect calls for habitat, specifically, are provided to assist with analysis of effects to individual bull trout. SEV << ESA Effect Call Egg/alevin 1 to 4 5 to 14 Not applicable - alevins are still in gravel and are not feeding. LAA - any stress to egg/alevin reduces survival Juvenile 1 to 4 5 to 14 NLAA LAA Subadult and Adult 1 to 5 6 to 14 NLAA LAA Habitat 1 to 6 7 to 14 NLAA LAA due to indirect effects to bull trout The figures of Newcombe and Jensen (1996) have been modified in this document. In each figure, values (in mg/L) are provided for each duration to determine when adverse effects would occur. Specific values are also given for when harm would be likely to occur. For example: Figure 1 — This figure is for both juveniles and adults. From Table 2, bull trout are "likely to be adversely affected" given an SEV of 5. On Figure 1, a sediment concentration of 99 mg/L for one hour is anticipated to be the maximum concentration for an SEV of 4. At 100 mg/L, an SEV of 5 occurs. In addition, one hour of exposure to 5,760 mg/L is the maximum for an SEV of 7. Exposure to 5,761 mg/L for one hour would warrant an SEV of 8. This would be the threshold between harassment and harm. An SEV of 7 would be harassment, and an SEV of 8 would be considered harm. The following provides some guidance on use of the figures. Definitions from Newcombe and Jensen (1996, p. 696). These definitions are provided for consultations that may have impacts to bull trout prey such as Chinook and coho salmon. Eggs and larvae — eggs, and recently hatched fish, including yolk -sac fry, that have not passed through final metamorphosis. Juveniles — fry, parr, and smolts that have passed through larval metamorphosis but are sexually immature. Adults — mature fish. 3 Bull trout use: Newcombe and Jensen (1996) conducted their analysis for freshwater, therefore the use of the figures within this document in marine waters should be used with caution. Figure 1 — Juvenile and Adult Salmonids. This figure should be used in foraging, migration and overwintering (FMO) areas. In FMO areas, downstream of local populations, both subadult and adult bull trout may be found. Figure 2 — Adult Salmonids. This figure will not be used very often for bull trout. There may be circumstances, downstream of local population spawning areas that may have just adults, but usually this would not be the case. Justification for use of this figure should be stated in your consultation. Figure 3 — Juvenile Salmonids. This figure should be used in local population spawning and rearing areas outside of the spawning period. During this time, only juveniles and sub -adults should be found in the area. Adults would migrate to larger stream systems or to marine water. If the construction of the project would occur during spawning, then Figure 1 should be used. Figure 4 — Eggs and Alevins. This figure should be used if eggs or alevins are expected to be in the project area during construction. Figure 5 — Habitat. This figure should be used for all projects to determine whether alterations to the habitat may occur from the project. Background and Environmental Baseline In determining the overall impact of a project on bull trout, and to specifically understand whether increased sediment may adversely affect bull trout, a thorough review of the environmental baseline and limiting factors in the stream and watershed is needed. The following websites and documents will help provide this information. 1. Washington State Conservation Commission's Limiting Factors Analysis. A limiting factors analysis has been conducted on watersheds within the State of Washington. Limiting factors are defined as "conditions that limit the ability of habitat to fully sustain populations of salmon, including all species of the family Salmonidae." These documents will provide information on the current condition of the individual watersheds within the State of Washington. The limiting factors website is http://salmon.scc.wa.gov. Copies of the limiting factors analysis can be found at the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Library. 2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (1998) Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) inventoried bull trout and Dolly Varden (S. malma) stock status throughout the State. The intent of the inventory is to help identify available information and to guide future restoration 4 planning and implementation. SaSI defines the stock within the watershed, life history forms, status and factors affecting production. Spawning distribution and timing for different life stages are provided (migration, spawning, etc.), if known. SaSi documents can be found at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/index.htm. 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS 1998a) Matrix of Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators (MPI). The MPI was designed to facilitate and standardize determination of project effects on bull trout. The MPI provides a consistent, logical line of reasoning to aid in determining when and where adverse effects occur and why they occur. The MPI provides levels or values for different habitat indicators to assist the biologist in determining the level of effects or impacts to bull trout from a project and how these impacts may cumulatively change habitat within the watershed. 4. Individual Watershed Resources. Other resources may be available within a watershed that will provide information on habitat, fish species, and recovery and restoration activities being conducted. The action agency may cite a publication or identify a local watershed group within the Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation. These local groups provide valuable information specific to the watershed. 5. Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) - The WDOE has long- and short- term water quality data for different streams within the State. Data can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw riv/ry main.html. Clicking on a stream or entering a stream name will provide information on current and past water quality data (when you get to this website, scroll down to the Washington map). This information will be useful for determining the specific turbidity/suspended sediment relationship for that stream (more information below). 6. Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) - The WDOE has also been collecting benthic macroinvertebrates and physical habitat data to describe conditions under natural and anthropogenic disturbed areas. Data can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw benth/index.htm. You can access monitoring sites at the bottom of the website. 7. U.S. Forest Service, Watershed Analysis Documents - The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is required by the Record of Decision for Amendments to the USFS and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl to conduct a watershed analysis for watersheds located on FS lands. The watershed analysis determines the existing condition of the watershed and makes recommendations for future projects that move the landscape towards desired conditions. Watershed analysis documents are available from individual National Forests or from the Forest Plan Division. 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Bull Trout Recovery Plans and Critical Habitat Designations. The draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan for the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (also the Jarbidge River and the St. Mary -Belly River DPS) and the proposed and final critical habitat designations provide current species status, 5 habitat requirements, and limiting factors for bull trout within specific individual recovery units. These documents are available from the Endangered Species Division as well as the Service's web page (www.fws.gov). These documents and websites provide baseline and background information on stream and watershed conditions. This information is critical to determining project -specific sediment impacts to the aquatic system. The baseline or background levels need to be analyzed with respect to the limiting factors within the watershed. Consultation Sediment Analysis The analysis in this section only applies to construction -related physiological and behavioral impacts, and the direct effects of fine sediment on current habitat conditions. Longer -term effects to habitat from project -induced channel adjustments, post -construction inputs of coarse sediment, and secondary fine sediment effects due to re -mobilization of sediment during the following runoff season, are not included in the quantitative part of this effects determination. Those aspects are only considered qualitatively. The background or baseline sediment conditions within the project area or watershed will help to determine whether the project will have an adverse effect on bull trout. The following method should be followed to assist in reviewing effects determinations and quantifying take in biological opinions. 1) Determine what life stage(s) of bull trout will be affected by sedimentation from the project. Life history stages include eggs and alevins, juveniles, and sub -adults and adults. If projects adhere to approved work timing windows, very few should be constructed during periods when eggs and alevins are in the gravels. However, streambed or bank adjustments may occur later in time and result in increased sedimentation during the time of the year when eggs and alevins may be in the gravels and thus affected by the project. 2) Table 4 provides concentrations, durations, and SEV levels for different projects. This table will help in analyzing similar projects and to determine sediment level impacts associated with that type of project. Based on what life history stage is in the project area and what SEV levels may result from the project, a determination may be made on effects to bull trout. (Table 4 located on the Q drive: Q:\linked Literature Materials\Species & Issues & BO Templates with RefMan\Sediment Issue Paper) 3) Once a "likely to adversely affect" determination has been made for a project, the figures in Newcombe and Jensen (1996) or Anderson et al. (1996) are used to determine the concentration (mg/L) at which adverse effects3 and "take" will occur (see Figures 1-5). For example, if a project is located in FMO habitat, Figure 1 would be used to determine the concentrations at which adverse effects will occur. Since Figure 1 is used for both 3 For the remainder of the document, references to "adverse effects" also refer to harm and harass under 50 CFR 17.3. 6 adults and juveniles, an SEV of 5 (for juveniles) is used (see Table 2). For (a.) the level when instantaneous adverse effects occur, find the SEV level of 5 in the one hour column; The corresponding concentration is the instantaneous value where adverse effects occur. In this example, it is 148 mg/L. For (b), (c), and (d), adverse effects will occur when sediment concentrations exceed SEV 4 levels. The exact concentrations for this have been provided. For each category, find the SEV 4 levels and the corresponding concentration levels are the values used. For impacts to individual bull trout, adverse effects would be anticipated in the following situations: a. Any time sediment concentrations exceed 148 mg/L over background. b. When sediment concentrations exceed 99 mg/L over background for more than one hour continuously. c. When sediment concentrations exceed 40 mg/L over background for more than three hours cumulatively. d. When sediment concentrations exceeded 20 mg/L over background for over seven hours cumulatively. For habitat effects, use Figure 5 and the same procedure as above for individual bull trout. For example, adverse effects would be expected to occur in the following situations: a. Any time sediment concentrations exceed 1,097 mg/L over background. b. When sediment concentrations exceed 885 mg/L over background for more than one hour continuously. c. When sediment concentrations exceed 345 mg/L over background for more than three hours cumulatively. d. When sediment concentrations exceeded 167 mg/L over background for over seven hours cumulatively. 4) Because sediment sampling for concentration (mg/L) is labor intensive, many applicants prefer to monitor turbidity as a surrogate. To do this, the sediment concentration at which adverse effects to the species and/or habitat occurs is converted to NTUs. Two methods, regression analysis and turbidity to suspended solid ratio, are available for this conversion. The regression analysis method should be used first. If not enough data are available then the turbidity to suspended solid ratio method should be used. a. Data — as described above in Background and Environmental Baseline, an attempt should be made to find turbidity and suspended solid information from the project area, action area, or the stream in which the project is being constructed. This information may be available from the Tribes, watershed monitoring groups, etc. Try to obtain information for the months in -water construction will occur, which is usually during the fish timing window (in most cases, July through September). 7 If you are unable to find any data for the action area, use the WDOE water quality monitoring data. The following are the steps you need to go through to locate the information on the web and how to download the data: i. Go to the WDOE webpage (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw riv/ry main.html). ii. When you get to the website, the page will state "River and Stream Water Quality Monitoring." If you scroll down the page, you will see the following text and map. a Ilep40.51,111 of Icnkk v • kin.r .4 urea swim oil rs e7 nnsckaakm • Mu r Il Inlnrret kspkmr IN t$ Yon lwatrl rant nth A L 46 a 63• R. Mori of the ref+.iCs wa have C0a* IOd over CM galls ate n0w avrelaa* .nknreree'I otl 401.nedprpnayyJ b y #400, ro amp exMCur rd?+Ge ease, qtr anre * reg r t 4 potethert the tree trek. a1 Iyno a1 a v4.41 af.e the . d 0 tM water Tate an sioWutere et ter Staten n rrie.eee ally h *go pyaplo Fav ways to eet to the enoneorlog rasutts 4ptlwr 1. linardl ern n river or term nnrrrn pptinn 7. eoleei from n elate IIst t latut_ra rreanl n.un aiAnrg krkbte0/ ftprien;1. Uteri Iron. n W NIA iN 01. Nodts. is Osinn 4. tick on 4 stole mop Data updeo uire4ob opd.g. type sdred0I Wnt nr f;wlily ,Jp44t14 •4P4. trr,* tngnth$ 0f 14k W% data. hake A iii. The map shows all the water quality monitoring stations in Washington. You can click on a watershed, or go to Option 3, click on the down arrow and find your watershed. You will then get the following webpage. This is an example for the Nooksack River. 3 MAN, liotprq Wolof Q _IIr.MaMtIK MN1(IN *let.m,. Mkrolnll }Awl not C.p3) Wirt 04.3 r.-1 14? iw44° WM". e r ire • tinier a Stream Water Quality Monitoring ¢n+hsru c Ecology €4G4191L01111..{.►maa• Statbrt OM for WUA 01 CF.q. M4e1, 41. Plats•so Omra ial[a tcalahv061A01, Isessmissits4 roar .3 •.aeRe 4.4,14•11, sktiall,. caM•e iffinaiLIMAASilin Asks, spivM.1M MN rasa Yew r a.w+.ny,.r+a....alain..rr. z.r. • leas• s s urr.. v94.•. • 04a,u .I.A!AOYi1te aar, a }e5[•ta{ R rt 3 webs, sem I aa. sir' Q., IRr n clraavllvm..a1......a+1 1 1 1 iv. This webpage shows you all the monitoring stations in this watershed. Scrolling down a little on the webpage, you get a list of the monitoring stations and the years that data were collected. The more years in which data were collected the better; however, you want to pick the monitoring station closest to the project site. If a project is located on a tributary, do not use data from the main river in the watershed. Find a monitoring station on a tributary and use that data. Justification for the use of the data needs to be made in the BO. The following language was used in the Anthracite Creek Bridge Scour BO. Changes to this paragraph to represent regression analysis are not italicized. "The guidance of Newcombe and Jensen (1996) requires a measurement of the existing suspended sediment concentration levels (mg/L) and duration of time that sediment impacts would occur. The Service used data available on the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) website to determine a ratio of turbidity (NTU) to suspended solids (mg/L)(website to find the correlation between turbidity and suspended solids) in Anthracite Creek. No water quality data was available for Anthracite Creek, so the Service used water quality monitoring data from a different tributary within the Snohomish River watershed. Patterson Creek, which is a tributary to the Snoqualmie River, was used to determine the ratio of turbidity to suspended solids (correlation between turbidity and suspended solids). The Service believes that Patterson Creek would have very comparable water quality data as Anthracite Creek. The turbidity to suspended solid ratio for Patterson Creek is 1:2.4 during the proposed months of construction (July through September)." Delete the last sentence for regression analysis or put in the equation used for analysis and the R2. 9 v. When you select the monitoring station, the following webpage appears. This monitoring station is on the Nooksack River at North Cedarville. ]n @5,1,s-, 'lt,nr•r Skaleyh-^..,.T. tilie n1 Ql1 1 3 N'. 1_:nle Interns! rrpl-:nr rlr fee w- re.nea reds nen a ' •L.41Its rrea, e • A.Res s 1•teete as eereserd rteret wire4091PralseamPers91614 Myer a Stream Water Quality Monitoring Water quality monitoring station 01A120 * Nookeack R © No Cedarville S.i lee 111Z atal' g NM dal en Asskes. A Meet aoaegrn Ltrw1Y! /lets rebse 'et dale tag Iriei9ali9RA Yexe WWI sweetie has Mee* 01 W re OD W 9e Rs Se ce - n PI CO oil es 97 re es se el SC le b 79 * 7r - 9 70 fe 67 tys f4 Y CJ C N W f4 4) lisersiel 'Reim r etatlotrt none tens rat sampled sinc:lgt11 t4Fan N404 `M I»1d 0 01 erk7 hesee tk R it0Seen tn **ben 1001 0 Otre10 PeellesiesR •774C Fee r I erlele, i00i rD 01111le nwktire R item We re lute Mt 0 mono lump R aknH r eee One 7007 0 01070 YreelesereprektNO Field 7007 o 019G40 rf wekaickR teem 7001 o 0110r0 fence Cr eserdereee twee iW7 0 Reeser vi. Moving down the webpage, you find the following. The page shows the years data were collected and 4 to 6 tabs that provide different information. Click on the finalized data tab. Me fit Vow 4404041 11•k 1110 a...•Q- A Al t`'1.►`."►*. Iq'w»a is• .4 46 • 4011•10eur40a:].c.4i tree Mee w• amps. eo1•Iy1n Roe t.ait camel wow. .041444 L51t9 lua.'ucuelt rein wren, trr..q mat at(011d CA 02 07 01 m 1e le Se. IS 1] r 0) e• . te, ae 44 4] p: 01 in, `1 re 7. 't '0 t0 4` 14 55 St 5] L. t1 M. 4, • J :ancn.ne 4.1. nip 0 OW% NuSix• 114Ilxl•San 10,03-1110 703a O OUltt4 Neonu•1.Ipnocnanr wglwm X44 0014140 twe]1t•eM. R.]aneelf n•ta1 7002 0 010080 Bunn 4100.4**, Wd Bet* 2002 0 014070 '60140040444 0lad04. Rd 011340 200 0 010010 00 14410400a IT 00o i007 0aware Twee hre lieu* Rd Mon 2007 MOW(m010GK44 tt ratiti treirmary data totnpet' ]ire 010,74 Nlolwd. N 8t• 01 Cedef,ale Station avarvisw Oteral0g0er twiny. et 41s steam is of rrud rate cote* (based on *rater year 204t3 assessment) t •, ]. ,tvol1q✓R1>• Y'Mo40.R1;! LL Self ' 1,VV aim}0a ._44•4•••]•• ,'4E 4*Jro C..oa f.r1 I4. SkC11020 0r0100 4Yrne.d 5100 • m& p1 4 63 41178 tad eiof p0 iat Men r M • ea.... 9d,10.. 5.5n4-••.10...V.tIYY.1..n . 1400.`40.4,11 n._.p•.•y11..0.n • start vii. Selecting the finalized data, a new page comes up; scrolling down that page you see the following. The top part of the page shows the finalized data for the most recent year data were collected. Below the data is a box that says "Bulk data download options..." Click on the "save to file" button for the 14 standardized data parameters. Follow the instructions to save this file. This saves all the data from that monitoring station so the regression analysis can be conducted. 1rMatm Duality W.e.rerg- {t•Lbn01.tI40 St moat lm*. l nsf.nr 0.1 0m wee Me.d•4. 401 1t.0 0"1 • CO •..1.t. w� .,d,e E -..•- urft. .••,- ..IIMM.�..✓*4,..a..,. •ti-•�nr-.N.Fla..1.Na4?'�i�1%i.�u•..1td✓..�Il[.'ll tki 14 Ir. conK ROW no ..a5 4449.04 MJi wives pal L mess ost.. •vim or . na • R. - Mnb•..m. •e 000.2, ytaL1 Cw.lr 1..41 1►15, erg,• 1•00 own Ow ✓,40. '.Ny 401e1. mute 4.14, '0*41AQ.L% Ill r•] I Ile ]C. 2 0ae DOM) 1125 105 r,ta.,1 ] 101 0, 0r.10 a. 11r402]L17 111 0] ]I ] !MOO 00 4 4TSt3 00000 1!N '] '0401L J}. .4 o-1>s• Ca5 110 •01000%,.'.11• 1M 1 e 100 *0., n21a DWR 1:a .a. .11. > ss aTr n•.1 .• '4344(' 0 0242 Y nrr a[e b... aa15 1; !1 1tl K.1, . 1• vbY bm -J 2.01.0902 Sit 02 e 1 . 1016 JC• L. 0,1 C01.1] 121.1 +tl 01r a. 4 l: =[n. a]]1 :C 555179e0 CR25 01 1 +LAC 01, J 42,0 1000, 122 1ID 714.1 Y1 11 .:0.' 0222 1 •211 ] al OS . • a ] .2,'a 001 J 01:5 R001 /05 110•g1, e r .. Cn• r . tgcpin0 9iM M ..® 00, J 0001 0e0i u 11 .. !14 !y . • -t•15' 01)1 •. 41r1.2011 a•4$ .d W • 0L01 dt. J by 011111 .0b •, 421•44 1] tb• b): 00.4 .i 0T202f0 If 20 Of 9] .'^.V 0M .] 00]] 00]' 0 1011 14r SS4Y. re 12t a re.. 0045 14 3,220o4-3 Cm 11 .1 10 ] 19W O M ] 0C.5• 0037 J 1, . ! S9 Man 12 11 2 .: 1M' 110 -Y2341,12 0.25 12 11 t}q 0C. ] OM 000I1 1L1 •• 114211 21 li4.110 411 COMM,401. •w.4sa 1l ..M *M1bl • Inv nay.frat•rno a ...w4ee+a.. me••.•4•0ana 1.1..•. tV r..e a•nwa.t tiM am*, a..•b.•• M mar.rnm n-rsr..fr let. ,••••a r4.a••.'1.101M4M•i0.,rL...ob►eo.1R1w111111,10•4 -rx.fw f..lr f L W..4Pro e4..t Ea* tst• d1+1b•d .p•0r0 to 10)A1:4 • 14 144444100 S41e040 rain, Vess-t*fore flW • Y•,etla d.[•.a NZM 01 • 11 viii. Open Excel and open the file that was just downloaded. Verify that all data appear to be available. After you have worked with these files, you will get an idea if something appears wrong. If the data looks like something is wrong, verify it by comparing the data to the finalized data on the webpage (look at each year's finalized data). After the file is open, delete all columns except the date, sussol (mg/L) and turb (NTU). ix. Next delete the rows that do not need to be included. Only save the months in which the project will be constructed. For example, if work will be conducted during the work timing window of July 15 through August 31, delete all rows except those that contain data for July and August. The data consist of one data collection point each month. In addition, delete any values that have a "U" or "J" in the column to the right of the NTU value. This data may not be accurate; data may not be detectable at reported level or is an estimated value. The blue cells indicate the value exceeds water quality standards or contrasted strongly with historical results. x. After deleting the unnecessary columns and rows, your data should contain 5 columns. You can now delete the columns to the right of the values. This will give you 3 columns. The first being the date, the second column contains the suspended solid data (mg/L) and the third column the turbidity (NTU) data. b. Regression analysis. Once you have the data reduced to the months construction will occur, you can determine the relationship between turbidity and suspended solids using regression. The following steps will provide the regression equation using the data obtained above. These steps are for Excel 2007. i. With your mouse, highlight both columns of data (suspended solid and turbidity), but do not include the heading information. ii. Then click on "Insert", "Scatter" and then the graph that does not have any lines on it (should be the upper left graph). iii. The graph is placed on your Excel sheet, so move it over so you can see all the data and the graph. iv. Now add the trendline to the graph. This is done by clicking (left button) once on any of the points on the graph. Then right click. A window pops open and click on "Add Trendline." A "Format Trendline" window appears. Make sure Linear is checked, and down on the bottom, check Display Equation on chart and Display R-squared value on chart. Click on close. 12 1. The X and Y data are opposite of what you want so you need to swap the values. This is done by left clicking once anywhere on the graph and then right click and click on "select data." A window pops open and you want to click on Edit. An Edit Series window appears and you want to click on the little red arrow next to Series X values. This allows you to select the data in the table. Upon clicking the red arrow, you will see the column under sussol (mg/L) being selected by a moving line around the cells. Select the data under Turb (NTU) by left clicking and holding the button down and drag all the way down to the last cell in that column. The whole column should have the moving line around all the cells. Click on the little red arrow in the Edit Series window. That will expand out the window and you will do the same for the Series Y values. Click on the red arrow next to that, then left click and hold and select all the cells in the column under Sussol (mg/L), and then click on the red arrow again. When the Edit Series window expands, click on OK, and then click on OK. v. The equation that you want to use for your conversion from NTUs to suspended solids is now on the graph. Hopefully, your R-squared value is also high. This gives you an indication of how well your data fits the line. A one (1) is perfect. If this number is low (and a ballpark figure is less than 0.60) then you may want to consider using the ratio method to determine your conversion from NTUs to suspended solids. 1. Outliers — sometimes there will be data that will be far outside the norm. These values can be deleted and that will help increase your R- squared value. If you are good at statistics there are ways of determining outliers. If not, you will probably just use the data as is, unless you think something is really not right, then you may want to delete those data points. vi. Using the equation for the regression analysis, convert the sediment concentrations found for when adverse effects occur to bull trout and their habitat (number 3 above) to NTUs. For our example, let's say our NTU to suspended solid equation is: y = 1.6632x - 0.5789. Adverse effects would then occur at (solve for x): For impacts to the species adverse effect would occur in the following situations: a. Any time sediment concentrations exceed 89 NTU over background. b. When sediment concentrations exceed 60 NTU over background for more than one hour continuously. c. When sediment concentrations exceed 24 NTU over background for more than three hours cumulatively. d. When sediment concentrations exceeded 12 NTU-over background for over seven hours cumulatively. For impacts to habitat a. Any time sediment concentrations exceed 660 NTU over background. b. When sediment concentrations exceed 532 NTU over background for more than one hour continuously. c. When sediment concentrations exceed 208 NTU over background for more than three hours cumulatively. d. When sediment concentrations exceeded 101 NTU over background for over seven hours cumulatively. c. Turbidity:suspended solid ratio: To calculate the turbidity to suspended solid ratio you need to download the same data off the Ecology website as described above. Sometimes the monitoring stations have limited amount of data and by running the regression analysis it is possible to get a negative slope (an increase in turbidity results in a decrease in suspended solids). This is very unlikely to occur in a stream. Other times you have so few data points that the R2 value shows that the correlation between suspended solid and turbidity is not very good. When R2 values are below 0.60, determine the turbidity to suspended solid ratio. The following are the steps needed to calculate the turbidity to suspended solid ratio. i. After you deleted all the columns and rows of data you do not need, you should have 3 columns of data. The first being the date, the second column contains the suspended solid data (mg/L) and the third column the turbidity (NTU) data. ii. Calculate the average turbidity and suspended solid value for all data. Average the turbidity column and average the suspended solid column. iii. Calculate the turbidity to suspended solid value for the average turbidity and average suspended solid value obtained in ii. Divide the average suspended solid value by the average turbidity value. iv. If any outliers are identified, they should be deleted. Recalculate the turbidity:suspended solid ratio if outliers have been removed (should automatically be done when values are deleted). vii. Using the turbidity to suspended solid ratio, convert the sediment concentrations found for when adverse effects occur to bull trout and their habitat (number 3 above) to NTUs. For our example, let's say our NTU to suspended solid ratio is 2.1. Adverse effects to the species would then occur in the following situations: 14 a. Any time sediment concentrations exceed 70 NTU over background. b. When sediment concentrations exceed 47 NTU over background for more than one hour continuously. c. When sediment concentrations exceed 19 NTU over background for more than three hours cumulatively. d. When sediment concentrations exceeded 10 NTU over background for over seven hours cumulatively. Adverse effects to the species through habitat impacts would occur in the following situations: a. Any time sediment concentrations exceed 522 NTU over background. b. When sediment concentrations exceed 421 NTU over background for more than one hour continuously. c. When sediment concentrations exceed 164 NTU over background for more than three hours cumulatively. d. When sediment concentrations exceeded 80 NTU over background for over seven hours cumulatively. 5) Determine how far downstream adverse effects and take will occur. There is no easy answer for determining this. Table 4 provides some sediment monitoring data for a variety of projects. These data can be used to determine the downstream extent of sediment impacts for a project. Note that in Table 4 there is not a single downstream point that can always be used because sediment conveyance and mixing characteristics are different for each stream. An explanation of how the distance downstream was determined needs to be included in each BO. 15 Figure 1 — Severity of ill effect scores for juvenile and adult salmonids. The individual boxes provide the maximum concentration for that SEV. The concentration between 4 and 5 represents the threshold for harassment, and the concentration between 7 and 8 represents the threshold for harm. Concentration (mg/L) 162755 59874 22026 8103 Juvenile and Adult Salmonids Average severity of ill effect scores 10 11 11 12 12 13 14 14 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 8 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 2981 5760 1097 403 148 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 2335 1164 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 5 6 491 7 7 5 5 6 7 55 99 20 7 3 1 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 214-1 7 8 4 5 5 6 6 40 3 4 20 3 3 4 95 8 9 10 10 11 7 8 8 9 9 10 5 6 6 8 42 7 8 8 9 9 4 5 6 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 1 2 2 3 3 18 8 7 7 8 9 5 5 6 7 2 4 5 5 6 4 7 8 2 7 7 1 3 7 1 2 6 2 7 4 11 30 Hours Days Weeks Months 16 Figure 2 - Severity of ill effect scores for adult salmonids. The individual boxes provide the maximum concentration for that SEV. The concentration between 5 and 6 represents the threshold for harassment, and the concentration between 7 and 8 represents the threshold for harm. Concentration (mg/L) 162755 59874 22026 8103 2981 Adult Salmonids Average severity of i11 effect scores 10 10 11 9 10 10 8 9 9 8 8 9 8 1097 2190 403 7 8 6 1095 642 148 156 55 20 7 3 1 7 7 5 6 6 5 78 5 4 4 6 46 5 3 4 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 12 13 13 14 14 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 11 11 12 12 13 13 10 10 11 11 12 12 9 10 10 11 11 12 8 9 9 10 10 11 8 8 9 9 10 10 175 7 7 8 8 9 9 94 6 7 7 8 8 9 27 5 6 6 7 7 8 14 5 5 6 6 7 7 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 3 4 4 5 5 5 331 24 50 12 7 14 14 13 13 12 13 11 12 10 10 9 9 8 8 2 7 9 8 4 7 6 6 1 3 7 1 2 6 2 7 4 11 30 Hours Days Weeks Months 17 Figure 3 - Severity of ill effect scores for juvenile salmonids. The individual boxes provide the maximum concentration for that SEV. The concentration between 4 and 5 represents the threshold for harassment, and the concentration between 7 and 8 represents the threshold for harm. Concentration (mg/L) 162755 59874 22026 Juvenile Salmonids Average severity of ill effect scores 9 10 11 9 9 10 8 9 9 8103 13119 2981 1097 403 7 6 8 4448 7 6 6 9 8 1931 7 5 6 6 148 197 55 20 7 3 1 4 5 6 67 4 4 5 29 3 4 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 11 12 13 14 14 - 11 11 12 13 14 14 10 11 11 12 13 13 9 10 11 11 12 13 9 9 10 11 11 12 8 9 9 10 11 11 687 7 8 9 9 10 11 F4I 6 7 8 9 9 10 96 6 6 7 8 8 9 36 5 6 6 7 8 8 13 4 5 6 6 7 8 5 4 4 5 6 6 7 3 4 4 5 6 6 2 10 1 3 7 4 1 6 2 4 14 13 14 13 13 12 13 11 12 11 11 10 11 9 10 8 9 8 8 8 8 11 30 Hours Days Weeks Months 7 18 Figure 4 - Severity of ill effect scores for eggs and alevins of salmonids. The individual boxes provide the maximum concentration for that SEV. The concentration between 4 and 5 represents the threshold for both harassment and harm to eggs and alevins. Concentration (mg/L) 162755 59874 22026 8103 2981 1097 403 148 55 20 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 7 11 3 1 4 4 4 Eggs and Alevins of Salmonids Average severity of ill effect scores 9 10 11 12 13 14 - 8 9 10 12 13 14 - - - - 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 - - 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 - - 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 1 3 7 1 2 6 2 7 4 11 30 Hours Days Weeks Months 19 Figure 5 - Severity of ill effect scores for salmonid habitat. The individual boxes provide the maximum concentration for that SEV. The concentration between 6 and 7 represents the threshold for anticipating adverse effects to bull trout through habitat modifications. Concentration (mg/L) 162755 59874 22026 8103 2981 1097 Salmonid Habitat Average severity of ill effect scores 11 12 12 13 14 10 11 12 12 13 14 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 13 14 403 885 148 55 20 7 3 1 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 345 5 6 167 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 12 68 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 11 29 ] 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 2 3 6 12 4 5 5 6 2 2 3 4 7 7 8 9 10 5 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 2 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 1 3 7 1 2 6 2 7 4 11 30 Hours Days Weeks Months 20 Reference List 1. Anderson, P. G., B. R. Taylor, and G. C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their habitats.Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2346. 2. Newcombe, C. P. and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16(4): 693-727. 3. Newcombe, C. P. 1994. Suspended sediment in aquatic ecosystems: ill effects as a function of concentration and duration of exposure. Victoria, British Columbia. 21 amec 474\ foster wheeler APPENDIX B JARPA Drawing Sheet Set a•� 1 Terminal 115 _S13 KEN YON\.‘ I`t l P. STl '4,1 •w It�i h 111_ SW CCOVEROAIE ST QFri 292404HYDR M 1 \\ We st.S � . \ [the �i. 1 Reservoir Damil i IL Q ,I w m n yr—lr-1t I p Boeing1Fr,.ield_King County S MVRrLEIsr\Internatl0 \Airport 2136200641 0022000005 S 0THEL HICAGO T S KENYON STIE" I) IIQ� lS MONROE STIr� _1L 1°' s so 322404HYDR rSROSEST �1L_JI \iQ �\S SU,LLIVANIST I RALE . S CLOVERDACE ST.('Sou Qoverdale Street Interchange z1 % —If (' r HENOERSONLST LS OIRECTORICST \'!332404HYDR S HENDtnaurv_b(+, iUj SJID /R EC EO Driv ng directions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District: Proceed southeast on East Marginal Way SouthlWA-99 toward S. Alaska Street. Continue to follow East Marginal Way South for a total of 2.5 miles. The site is located on the west side of East Marginal Way South. Driving directions to the site from Interstate 5 are provided below: From North Take 1-5 S toward SEATTLE. Take the CORSON AVE exit, EXIT 162, toward MICHIGAN ST. 0.7 mi Stay STRAIGHT to go onto CORSON AVE S. 0.6 mi Turn LEFT onto E MARGINAL WAY S. 0.5 mi End at 7755 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 From South Take 1-5 N toward SEATTLE. Take EXIT 161 for Swift Ave toward ALBRO PLACE 0.3 mi Turn LEFT onto SWIFT AVE S 0.3 mi Take the 1st LEFT onto S ALBRO PLACE 0.4 mi Continue onto ELLISE AVE S 0.4 mi Turn LEFT onto EAST MARGINAL WAY S 0.6 mi End at 7755 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 Map S, EDDY®� I� J lU\ "ir•'' \to, WARSAw sr '�Q�Q� Roll if a� � r�`"'i��Park� �11 111 r, LE_ 0001600020 The project extents from north to south: 47.5341 N Lat, 122.3211 W Long to 47.5272 N Lat, 122.3093 W Long Sections 29, 32, and 33 Township 24N Range 4E APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 SITE VICINITY WE N,N\ \ HOLDEN2EK S'PORTa \' l \ SOUTH SITE CC=,inAi%-ST 4000 PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 1 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA Legend Approximate Seepage Erosion Area Approximate Seepage Origin The project extents from north to south: 47.5341 N Lat, 122.3211 W Long to 47.5272 N Lat, 122.3093 W Long Sections 29, 32, and 33 Township 24N Range 4E Distance (Feet) Elevation Datum: O=MLLW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 TYPICAL SEEP PLAN VIEW 25 50 100 PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: IN: NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 2 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 NWS-2011-0384 STATE: WA o ▪ o N 0 `) a N 0 M) 1 I� J J - RAVEL Ff J EROD JAREA IIW KA IY: W= iL =ROM WA Z O (M11W 1) uol;eAeI3 0 O 0 O rn O co 0 O _ cfl 15 I a) O O 0 0 O ca) CO 0 m TYPICAL SEEP CROSS SECTION r 0 • o -C ▪ c C i JO C ECM O m N 0 M ▪ N N C N N al c-I ci axi co m 22 O c N O. M N N vLnLn CNN PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 3 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 32 d1 2 r f 0 Z EXAMPLE LOG CRIB SLOPE AND RIPARIAN AREA (SECTION VIEW) N PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 4 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA a; If 26 1 Not to Scale 4 Anchored large woody debris, installed at -grade, plus 8 to 10 feet MLLW Select sand, aggregate and cobble substrate improvement (one to two feet depth) Natural fiber fabric substrate cover, with native marsh vegetation planting Single, below -grade large woody debris, with anchor and attachment Variable Slope 12-30 1 Native Marsh Vegetation Sub -grade rock bolster Concept Drawing Courtesy of Port of Seattle EXAMPLE BURIED LOG SILL (SECTION VIEW) hil PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 5 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA Not to Scale Variable Slope 25-30 Approximately plus 14 feet MLLW Large -Woody Debris (cross -log) Native Riparian Vegetation Natural fiber fabric substrate cover, with native marsh vegetation planting Continuous natural fiber fabric surface soil stabilization, with native riparian vegetation planting Footer log Approximately plus 11 feet MLLW Sub -grade rock bolster Below -grade large woody -debris, with anchor and attachment Concept Drawing Courtesy of Port of Seattle EXAMPLE ROUGHENED LOG TOE (SECTION VIEW) PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: None ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 6 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 STATE: WA DU EROSION AREA PLAN VIEW Elevation Datum: O=MLLW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET O O N 0 0 O to O s Y 0 0 . O y, to c L C C ` O O CE H co co O‘-IQl co *-NO -p M m C i N N t6 C N N 41 .--1 N +' M Z w Ytc, Y , _J O) N •O'H N C t O. M N O ln C N G) U C I -a V U)I-Ct PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 7 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 I< =Y 1i 0 O to 0 e- tt7 0 Q ' CL _I -J LIL :__I W —> o cc W I-- Q W 0 Z_ Z I I i a Q t. l O ll) 0 lit) O N (M11W 11) uoi1eA012 0 1.1) 0 0 M 0 N 0 0 0 0 a) O CO O 0 O O 0 0 M O N 0 0 TYPICAL EROSION AREA CROSS SECTION r 3 0 o o ▪ Oa Oa 4-, C C E %-I O N O �mm ▪ N C N N Ye-4 X a: a Z N N PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King STATE: WA SHEET 8 of 9 DATE: 04-26-2017 • ^.:tn i l I3 LW p'ON dllS SEDIMENT MONITORING STATIONS ›- 0 H 0 CC H rn z 0 0 H 0 0 cc w } Elevation Datum: O=MLLW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET O O L 7 0 . O O ''' y c OA C C C ` O O C33 E.1m M O M N O n7 • M M C ▪ N N CO C N N N c-1 1--1 N xi m C.)a'Cr , J J a) N O —1 N C -C O M N C N Wu?'^ .O.3 c I- (0 ICC — O N_ rn cc 0 H z 0 0 z 0 1- w J w LONG-TERM MONITORING ADDITIONAL MONITORING PURPOSE: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Maintenance DATUM: 0 = MLLW F ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: :1 Jorgensen Forge 0001600023 Waste Management 2136200641 NAME: Brian D. Anderson (The Boeing Company) SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: The Boeing Company 7755 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Reference Number: NWS-2011-0384 IN: Lower Duwamish Waterway NEAR/AT: Seattle COUNTY: King SHEET 9 of 9 DATE: 04-27-2017 STATE: WA amec foster Wheeler APPENDIX C Species Lists from NOAA-Fisheries, USFWS, and WDFW PHS Program NOAA-Fisheries NOAA HOME WEATHER OCEANS FISHERIES CHARTING SATELLITES CLIMATE RESEARCH COASTS CAREERS Search NMFS Site ... • NOAAFISHERIES •o NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Fisheries Home About Us Programs Regions Science Centers Partners News & Multimedia Fisheries Resources OPR Home Species Health & Stranding Permits Laws & Policies Conservation & Recovery Publications About OPR Fisheries Home Protected Resources » Species Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction Approximately 2,270 species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Of these species, about 650 are foreign species, found only in areas outside of the U.S. and our waters. We have jurisdiction over 151 endangered and threatened marine species, including 57 foreign species. We work with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to manage ESA -listed species. Generally, we manage marine species, while USFWS manages land and freshwater species. • Marine Mammals • Sea Turtles & Other Marine Reptiles • Fish (Marine and Anadromous) • Marine Invertebrates and Plants Congress Marine Mammals (31 listed "species") Educators and Students Get Involved Forms FOLLOW US: Stay connected with us around the nation » Sign up for FishNews I;o Manatees and sea otters are also listed under the ESA, but fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (E _ "endangered"; T = "threatened"; F = "foreign"; n/a = not applicable) SA Fact Sheet » How does the ESA define "species"? Species Year Listed Status Critical Habitat* Recovery Plan Cetaceans dolphin, Chinese River / baiji (Lipotes vexillifer) 1989 E (F) n/a n/a dolphin, Indus River (Platanista minor) 1991 E (F) n/a n/a porpoise, Guff of California harbor / vaquita (Phocoena sinus) 1985 E (F) n/a n/a whale, beluga (1 listed DPS) (Delphinapterus leucas) o Cook Inlet 2008 E final final whale, blue (Balaenoptera musculus) 1970 E n/a final whale, bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) 1970 E n/a n/a* whale, false killer (1 listed DPS) (Pseudorca crassidens) o Main Hawaiian Islands Insular 2012 E no in process whale, fin (Balaenoptera physalus) 1970 E n/a final whale, gray (1 listed DPS) (Eschrichtius robustus) o Western North Pacific 1970 E (F) n/a n/a whale, humpback (5 DPSs) (Megaptera novaeangliae) » original listing - 1970 final` o Arabian Sea 2016 E (F) n/a o Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 2016 E (F) n/a o Central America 2016 E no o Mexico 2016 T no o Western North Pacific 2016 E no whale, killer (1 listed DPS) (Orcinus orca) o Southem Resident 2005 E final final whale, North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis) original listing as "northern right whale" - 2008 1970 E E final final whale, North Pacific right (Eubalaena japonica) original listing as northern right whale" - 2008 1970 E E final final whale, sei (Balaenoptera borealis) 1970 E n/a final whale, Southern right (Eubalaena australis) 1970 E (F) n/a n/a whale, sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) 1970 E n/a final Pinnipeds sea lion, Steller (1 listed DPS) (Eumetopiasjubatus) o Western original listing - 1997 1990 E T final final seal, bearded (2 listed DPSs) (Erignathus barbatus) o Beringia 2012 T no no o Okhotsk 2012 T (F) n/a no seal, Guadalupe fur (Arctocephalus townsendi) 1985 T n/a n/a seal, Hawaiian monk (Neomonachus schauinslandi) 1976 E final final seal, ringed (4 listed subspecies) (Phoca hispida) o Baltic (Phoca hispida botnica) 2012 T (F) n/a no o Ladoga (Phoca hispida ladogensis) 2012 E (F) n/a no o Okhotsk (Phoca hispida ochotensis) 2012 T (F) n/a no o Saimaa (Phoca hispida saimensis) 1993 E (F) n/a n/a seal, Mediterranean monk (Monachus monachus) 1970 E (F) n/a n/a seal, spotted (1 listed DPS) (Phoca largha) o Southern 2010 T (F) n/a n/a Recovery plan written prior to the identification of DPSs Sea Turtles & Other Marine Reptiles (26 listed "species") (E = "endangered"; T. "threatened"; F = "foreign"; n/a = not applicable) Species Year Listed Status Critical Habitat* Recovery Plan* Sea Turtles turtle, green (11 listed DPSs) (Chelonia mydas) » original listing - 1978 o Central North Pacific 2016 T no final * o Central South Pacific 2016 E no final * o Central West Pacific 2016 E no final * o East Indian -West Pacific 2016 T(F) n/a no o East Pacific 2016 T no final* o Mediterranean 2016 E(F) n/a no o North Atlantic 2016 T final final o North Indian 2016 T(F) n/a no o South Atlant.c 2016 T no final' o Southwest Indian 2016 T(F) n/a no o Southwest Pacific 2016 T(F) n/a no turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 1970 E final final turtle, Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii 1970 E n/a final turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) 1970 E final final turtle, loggerhead (9 listed DPSs) (Caretta caretta) » original listing - 1978 no final o Mediterranean Sea 2011 E (F) n/a n/a o North Indian Ocean 2011 E (F) n/a n/a o North Pacific Ocean 2011 E no final o Northeast Atlantic Ocean 2011 E (F) n/a n/a o Northwest Atlantic Ocean 2011 T final final o South Atlantic Ocean 2011 T (F) n/a n/a o South Pacific Ocean 2011 E (F) n/a n/a o Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean 2011 T (F) n/a n/a o Southwest Indian Ocean 2011 T (F) n/a n/a turtle, olive ridley (2 listed populations^) (Lepidochelys olivacea) o Mexico's Pacific coast breeding colonies 1978 E n/a final o all other areas 1978 T n/a final Other Marine Reptiles sea snake, dusky (Aipysurus fuscus) 2015 E (F) n/a no ^ These populations were listed before the 1978 ESA amendments that restricted population listings to "distinct population segments of vertebrate species." * Recovery plan written prior to the identification of DPSs Fish (Marine & Anadromous) (66 listed "species") (E = "endangered"; T = "threatened"; F = "foreign"; XN = "nonessential experimental population"; n/a = not applicable) Species Year Listed Status Critical Habitat* Recovery Plan angelshark, common (Squatina squatina) 2016 E(F) n/a no angelshark, sawback (Squatina aculeata) 2016 E(F) n/a no angelshark, smoothback (Squatina oculata) 2016 E(F) n/a no bocaccio (1 listed DPS) (Sebastes paucispinis) o Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 2010 E final no cardinaffish, Banggai (Pteropogon kaudemi) 2016 T(F) n/a no coelacanth, African (1 listed DPS) (Latimeria chalumnae) o Tanzanian 2016 T(F) n/a no eulachon, Pacific / smelt (1 listed DPS) (Thaleichthys pacificus) o Southern DPS 2010 T final no grouper, gulf (Mycteroperca jordani) 2016 E no no grouper, island (Mycteroperca fusca) 2016 T(F) n/a no grouper, Nassau (Epinephelus striatus) 2016 T no no guitarfish, blackchin (Rhinobatos cemiculus) 2017 T(F) n/a no guitarfish, common (Rhinobatos, rhinobatos) 2017 T(F) n/a no rockfish, yelloweye (1 listed DPS) (Sebastes ruberrimus) o Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 2010 T final no salmon, Atlantic (1 listed DPS) (Salmo salar) o Gulf of Maine original listing - 2009 (expanded) 2000 E final draft salmon, Chinook (9 listed ESUs & 2 XNs) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) o California coastal 1999** T final draft o Central Valley spring -run 1999** T final final o Central Valley spring -run in the San Joaquin River, CA 2013 XN n/a - o Lower Columbia River 1999** T final final o Puget Sound 1999** T final final o Sacramento River winter -run 1994** E final final o Snake River fall -run 1992** T final draft o Snake River spring/ summer -run 1992** T final in process o Upper Columbia River spring -run 1999** E final final o Upper Columbia River spring -run in the Okanogan River subbasin, WA 2014 XN n/a - o Upper Willamette River 1999** T final final salmon, chum (2 listed ESUs) (Oncorhynchus keta) o Columbia River 1999** T final final o Hood Canal summer -run 1999** T final final salmon, coho (4 listed ESUs) (Oncorhynchus kisutch) o Central California coast original listing - 2005** 1996** E T final final o Lower Columbia River 2005** T final final o Oregon coast 2008 T final draft o Southern Oregon & Northern California coasts (SONCC) 1997** T final final salmon, sockeye (2 listed ESUs) (Oncorhynchus nerka) o Ozette Lake 1999** T final final o Snake River 1991** E final final sawfish, dwarf (Pristis clavata) 2014 E (F) n/a no sawfish, green (Pristis zijsron) 2014 E (F) n/a no sawfish, largetooth (Pristis pristis) (formerly P. perotteti, P. pristis, and P. microdon) 2014 E no no sawfish, narrow (Anoxypristis cuspidala) 2014 E (F) n/a no sawfish, smalltooth (2 listed DPSs) (Pristis pectinata) o U.S. portion of range 2003 E final final o Non-U.S. portion of range 2014 E (F) n/a no shark, scalloped hammerhead (4 listed DPSs) (Sphyma lewini) o Central & Southwest Atlantic 2014 T no no o Eastern Atlantic 2014 E (F) n/a no o Eastern Pacific 2014 E no no o Indo-West Pacific 2014 T no no steelhead (11 listed DPSs & 1 XN) (Oncorhynchus mykiss) o California Central Valley 1998** T final final o Central California coast 1997** T final draft o Lower Columbia River 1998** T final final o Middle Columbia River 1999** T final final o Middle Columbia River 2013 XN n/a o Northern California 2000** T final draft o Puget Sound 2007 T final no o Snake River Basin 1997** T final in process o South -Central California coast 1997** T final final o Southern California 1997** E final final o Upper Columbia River original listing - change in status - court reinstated status - 2009+ 1997** 2006** 2007+ T E T E final final + reinstated to endangered status per U.S. District Court decision in June 2007;reclassified to threatened [pdf] per U.S. District Court order in June 2009 o Upper Willamette River 1999** T final final sturgeon, Adriatic (Acipenser naccarii) 2014 E (F) n/a no sturgeon, Atlantic (Atlantic subspecies; 5 listed DPSs) (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) o Carolina 2012 E no no o Chesapeake Bay 2012 E no no o Gulf of Maine 2012 T no no o New York Bight 2012 E no no o South Atlantic 2012 E no no sturgeon, Atlantic (Gulf subspecies) (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 1991 T final final sturgeon, Chinese 2014 E (F) n/a no (Acipenser sinensis) sturgeon, European (Acipensersturio) 2014 E (F) n/a no sturgeon, green (1 listed DPS) (Acipenser medirostris) o Southern DPS 2006 T final in process sturgeon, Kaluga (Huso dauricus) 2014 E (F) n/a no sturgeon, Sakhalin (Acipensermikadoi) 2014 E (F) n/a no sturgeon, shortnose (Acipenser bre virostrum) 1967 E n/a final totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi) 1979 E (F) n/a n/a **All Pacific salmonid listings were revisited in 2005, 2006, and 2016. Only the salmonids whose status changed as a result of the review will show the revised date; for all others, only the original listing date is shown. For more information on the listing history, please click on the link for each ESU/DPS. Marine Invertebrates (27 listed "species") (E = "endangered"; T = "threatened"; F = "foreign"; n/a = not applicable) Species Year Listed Status Critical Habitat* Recovery Plan Abalone abalone, black (Haliotis cracherodii) 2009 E final no abalone, white (Haliotis sorenseni) 2001 E not prudent [pdf] final Corals coral, [no common name] (Acropora globiceps) 2014 T no no coral, [no common name] (Acropora jacquelineae) 2014 T no no coral, [no common name] (Acropora lokani) 2014 T (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Acropora pharaonis) 2014 T (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Acropora retusa) 2014 T no no coral, [no common name] (Acropora rudis) 2014 T (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Acropora speciosa) 2014 T no no coral, [no common name] (Acropora tenella) 2014 T (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Acropora spinosa) 2014 T (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Cantharellus noumeae) 2015 E (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Euphyllia paradivisa) 2014 T no no coral, [no common name] (Isopora crateriformis) 2014 T no no coral, [no common name] (Montipora australiensis) 2014 T (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Pavona diffluens) 2014 T (F) no no coral, [no common name] (Porites napopora) 2014 T (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Seriatopora aculeata) 2014 T no no coral, [no common name] (Siderastrea glynni) 2015 E (F) n/a no coral, [no common name] (Tubastraea floreana) 2015 E (F) n/a no coral, boulder star (Orbicella franksi) 2014 T no no coral, elkhorn (Acropora palmate) 2006 T final final coral, lobed star (Orbicella annularis) 2014 T no no coral, mountainous star (Orbicella faveolata) 2014 T no no coral, pillar (Dendrogyra cylindrus) 2014 T no no coral, rough cactus (Mycetophyllia ferox) 2014 T no no coral, staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) 2006 T final final Marine Plants (1 listed "species") (E = "endangered"; T = "threatened"; F = "foreign"; n/a = not applicable) Species Year Listed Status Critical Habitat* Recovery Plan* Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) 1999 T final final * NOTE: Critical habitat cannot be designated in foreign waters; critical habitat is also not required for species listed prior to the 1978 ESA amendments that added critical habitat provisions. Recovery plans for sea turtles are developed and implemented by NMFS and USFWS; the plans have been written separately for turtles in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (and East Pacific for the green turtle) rather than for each listed species. Bowhead whales are exempt from recovery planning. Endangered and Threatened Species Under NMFS' Jurisdiction: • All Endangered and Threatened Species under NMFS Jurisdiction » Marine Mammals » Sea Turtles & Other Marine Reptiles » Fish (Marine & Anadromous) » Marine Invertebrates & Plants Additional Species: • Species Petitioned for Listing under the ESA (awaiting 90-day findings) • Candidates for ESA Listing • Species Proposed for ESA Listing • Species with' Not Warranted" 12-month findings (we reviewed the status, but determined that listing was not warranted) ▪ Delisted Species and Species Under Review or Proposed for Delisting Updated: February 3, 2017 Fisheries Service Inside NOAA Fisheries Home Linking Policy USA.gov Our Mission Work for NOAA Fisheries Information Quality Privacy Policy FOIA Contact Us EEO & Diversity Exit Disclaimer Copyright Policy Search Feedback USFWS United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DESMOND DRTVE SE, SUITE 102 LACEY, WA 98503 PHONE: (360)753-9440 FAX: (360)753-9405 URL: www.fws.gov/wafwo/ Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2017-SLI-0303 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2017-E-00302 Project Name: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Restoration Maintenance 1,1511a WILDLIFE SERVICE January 04, 2017 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ or at our office website: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species new.html. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether or not the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit our website at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/for information on disturbance or take of the species and information on how to get a permit and what current guidelines and regulations are. Some projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan: ( http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy[) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More information can be found on the MMPA website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Related website: National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected species/species list/species lists.html Attachment 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Restoration Maintenance Official Species List Provided by: Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DESMOND DRIVE SE, SUITE 102 LACEY, WA 98503 (360) 753-9440 http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/ Consultation Code: 01 EWFW00-2017-SLI-0303 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2017-E-00302 Project Type: ** OTHER ** Project Name: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Restoration Maintenance Project Description: Conducting maintenance of shoreline restoration activities along the lower Duwamish Waterway in King County, Seattle, WA. Maintenance activities may occur over the next 10 years, as needed. Please Note: The FWS office may have modified. the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/04/2017 11:42 AM United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Restoration Maintenance Project Location Map: T t , 0.11.1 - NAtimal — OW( FNaM Harbor he Baikal Itationad Fosist . . • .1., .1 .1.‘ mgc Ngional Project Coordinates: The coordinates are too numerous to display here. Project Counties: King, WA http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/04/2017 11:42 AM 2 United States Department of Interiior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Restoration Maintenance Endangered Species Act Species Liist There are a total of 11 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area sectionfurther below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. Amphibians Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s) Oregon Spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) Population: Wherever found Threatened Final designated Birds Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA) Threatened Final designated Northern Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Population: Wherever found Threatened Final designated Streaked Horned lark (Eremophiia alpestris strigata) Population: Wherever found Threatened Final designated Yellow -Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Population: Western U.S. DPS Threatened Proposed Conifers and Cycads Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) Population: Wherever found Candidate http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/04/2017 11:42 AM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Restoration Maintenance Fishes Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states Threatened Final designated Mammals Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Population: Contiguous U.S. DPS Threatened Final designated Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Population: U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WA. Mexico. Endangered Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) Population: U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) States, except where listed as an experimental population Threatened North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) Population: Wherever found Proposed Threatened http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/04/2017 11:42 AM 4 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Boeing Plant 2 Habitat Restoration Maintenance Critical habitats that lie within your project area The following critical habitats lie fully or partially within your project area. Birds Critical Habitat Type Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA) Final designated Northern Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Population: Wherever found Final designated Fishes Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states Final designated http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/04/2017 11:42 AM WDFW PHS Program WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT SOURCE DATASET: PHSPIusPublic REPORT DATE: 01 /04/2017 11.10 Common Name cientific Name Biodiversity Areas And Site Name Source Dataset Source Record Source Date WEST DUWAMISH PHSREGION 915023 Query ID: P170104110956 Priority Area Occurrence Type More Information (URL) Mgmt Recommendations Terrestrial Habitat N/A Accuracy 1/4 mile (Quarter Federal Status State Status PHS Listing Status N/A N/A http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED Sensitive Data Resolution- - AS MAPPED Source Entity Geometry Type WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Polygons Bull Trout Salvelinus malma Duwamish Waterway Occurrence NA Threatened SASI Occurrence N/A 8132 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS Listed N AS MAPPED WDFW Fish Program Lines Chinook Duwamish Waterway Occurrence NA Threatened N Oncorhynchus tshawytscha SASI Occurrence N/A AS MAPPED 1160 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS Listed WDFW Fish Program Lines Chum Oncorhynchus keta Duwamish Waterway SASI 2143 Occurrence NA Not Warranted N Occurrence N/A AS MAPPED http://wdfw.wa.gov/wIm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS Listed WDFW Fish Program Lines Chum Oncorhynchus keta Duwamish Waterway SASI 2154 Occurrence NA Not Warranted N Occurrence N/A AS MAPPED http://wdfw.wa.gov/wIm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS Listed WDFW Fish Program Lines Coho Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Oncorhynchus kisutch SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED 42624 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED Lines Coho Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Oncorhynchus kisutch SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED 42625 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED Lines 01 /04/2017 11.10 1 -Common Name Site Name Priority Area Accuracy Federal Status Scientific Name Source Dataset Occurrence Type State Status Source Record More Information (URL) PHS Listing Status Notes Source Date Mgmt Recommendations Coho Occurrence/Migration NA N/A Oncorhynchus kisutch SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A 42698 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED Sensitive Data Resolution N AS MAPPED Source Entity Geometry Type Lines Coho Duwamish Waterway Oncorhynchus kisutch SWIFD 43626 Occurrence/Migration NA N/A Occurrence/migration N/A http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED N AS MAPPED Lines Coho Occurrence NA Candidate N Oncorhynchus kisutch SASI Occurrence N/A AS MAPPED 3140 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS Listed WDFW Fish Program Lines Coho Occurrence NA Candidate N Oncorhynchus kisutch SASI Occurrence N/A AS MAPPED 3140 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS Listed WDFW Fish Program Lines Coho Duwamish Waterway Oncorhynchus kisutch SASI 3140 Occurrence NA Candidate Occurrence N/A http://wdfw.wa.gov/wIm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS Listed N AS MAPPED WDFW Fish Program Lines Dolly Varden/ Bull Trout Salvelinus malma Duwamish Waterway SWIFD 43627 Occurrence/Migration NA N/A Occurrence/migration N/A http://wdfw.wa.gov/wIm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED N AS MAPPED Lines Estuarine and Marine N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Estuarine and Marine N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons 01 /04/2017 11.10 2 Common Name Scientific Name Estuarine and Marine Site Name Source Dataset Source Record Source Date N/A NWIWetlands Priority Area Accuracy Federal Status Sensitive Data Occurrence Type State Status Resolution More Information (URL) PHS Listing Status Mgmt Recommendations Aquatic Habitat NA N/A N Aquatic habitat N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed Source Entity Geometry Type US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Estuarine and Marine N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Estuarine and Marine N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Esturine Zone PHSREGION 904754 Aquatic Habitat N/A 1/4 mile (Quarter N/A N/A http://wdfw.wa. PHS LISTED N AS MAPPED WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Polygons Fall Chinook Duwamish Waterway Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Oncorhynchus tshawytscha SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED 43624 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED Lines Fall Chum Oncorhynchus keta Duwamish Waterway Occurrence/Migration NA N/A SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A 43625 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED N AS MAPPED Lines Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons 01 /04/2017 11.10 3 Common Name Scientific Name Site Name Source Dataset Source Record Notes Source Date Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Priority Area Occurrence Type More Information (URL) Mgmt Recommendations Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat Accuracy NA Federal Status Sensitive Data State Status Resolution PHS Listing Status N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed Source Entity Geometry Type US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www:ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons 01/04/2017 11.10 4 Common Name cScientific Name Freshwater Emergent Site Name Source Dataset Source Record Source Date N/A NWIWetlands Priority Area Occurrence Type More Information (URL) Mgmt Recommendations Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat Accuracy NA Federal Status Sensitive Data Source Entity State Status Resolution Geometry Type PHS Listing Status N/A N US Fish and Wildlife Service N/A AS MAPPED Polygons http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons 01 /04/2017 11.10 5 Common Name Scientific Name Notes Site Name Source Dataset Source Record Source Date Priority Area Occurrence Type More Information (URL) Mgmt Recommendations Freshwater Emergent N/A Aquatic Habitat NWIWetlands Aquatic habitat Accuracy NA Federal Status Sensitive Data State Status Resolution PHS Listing Status N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed Source Entity Geometry Type US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat http://www.ecy.wa. NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat http://www.ecy.wa. NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Emergent N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat http://www.ecy.wa. NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat http://www.ecy.wa. NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons 01 /04/2017 11.10 6 Common Name Scientific Name Site Name Source Dataset Source Record Source Date Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Priority Area Occurrence Type More Information (URL) Mgmt Recommendations Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat Accuracy NA Federal Status Sensitive Data State Status Resolution PHS Listing Status N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed Source Entity Geometry Type US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat http://www.ecy.wa. NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons 01/04/2017 11.10 7 Common Name Site Name Scientific Name Source Dataset Source Record Notes Source Date Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Priority Area Occurrence Type More Information (URL) Mgmt Recommendations Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat Accuracy NA Federal Status Sensitive Data State Status Resolution PHS Listing Status N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed Source Entity Geometry Type US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub N/A NWIWetlands Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat NA N/A N N/A AS MAPPED http://www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed US Fish and Wildlife Service Polygons Pink Salmon Odd Year Duwamish Waterway Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Oncorhynchus gorbuscha SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED 43628 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED Lines Resident Coastal Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki SWIFD 41575 Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED http://wdfw.wa.gov/wIm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED Lines Resident Coastal Cutthroat Duwamish Waterway Occurrence/Migration NA N/A Oncorhynchus clarki SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A 43623 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED N AS MAPPED Lines Sockeye Duwamish Waterway Oncorhynchus nerka SWIFD 43629 Occurrence/Migration NA N/A Occurrence/migration N/A http://wdfw.wa.gov/wIm/diversty/soc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHS LISTED N AS MAPPED Lines Steelhead Duwamish Waterway Occurrence NA Threatened Oncorhynchus mykiss SASI Occurrence N/A 6168 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm PHS Listed N AS MAPPED WDFW Fish Program Lines Steelhead Duwamish Waterway Occurrence NA Threatened N Oncorhynchus mykiss SASI Occurrence N/A AS MAPPED 6175 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm PHS Listed WDFW Fish Program Lines 01 /04/2017 11.10 8 Common Name _Scientific Name Site Name Priority Area Accuracy Source Dataset Occurrence Type Source Record More Information (URL) Source Date Mgmt Recommendations Summer Steelhead Duwamish Waterway Occurrence/Migration NA N/A Oncorhynchus mykiss SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A 43630 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Federal Status State Status PHS Listing Status PHS LISTED Sensitive Data Resolution N AS MAPPED Source Entity Geometry Type Lines Wetlands GREEN RIVER WETLANDS Aquatic Habitat PHSREGION N/A 902525 1/4 mile (Quarter N/A N/A http://www.ecy.wa. PHS LISTED N AS MAPPED WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Polygons Winter Steelhead Duwamish Waterway Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Oncorhynchus mykiss SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED 43631 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm PHS LISTED Lines DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to vraition caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. 01 /04/2017 11.10 9 WDFW Test Map January 4, 2017 PHS Report Clip Area PT LN PO LY AS MAPPED SECTION QTR-TW P TOWNSHIP 0 0 0.225 � J 0.35 1:26,362 0.45 rl r 0.7 0.9 mi tl 1.4 km Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRJ D, IGN, and the GIS User Community amec foster wheeler APPENDIX D Species' Life Histories amec foster wheeler APPENDIX D SPECIES' LIFE HISTORIES Biological Evaluation Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Prepared for: The Boeing Company Seattle, Washington Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 601 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (425) 921-4000 March 2017 Project No. 0148440200 7 amec 7 foster wheeler TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 CHINOOK SALMON 3 2.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION 3 2.2 HABITAT 3 2.3 DISTRIBUTION 4 2.4 POPULATION TRENDS 4 2.5 THREATS 5 2.6 CONSERVATION EFFORTS 6 3.0 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT 7 3.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION 7 3.2 HABITAT 7 3.2.1 Winter -Run Steelhead 8 3.2.2 Summer -Run Steelhead 8 3.2.3 Juvenile Life History 8 3.2.4 Ocean Migration 8 3.3 DISTRIBUTION 9 3.4 POPULATION TRENDS 9 3.5 THREATS 9 3.6 CONSIERVATION EFFORTS 10 4.0 COASTAL/PUGET SOUND BULL TROUT AND DOLLY VARDEN 11 4.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION 11 4.2 HABITAT 12 4.3 DISTRIBUTION 12 4.4 POPULATION TRENDS 12 4.5 THREATS 13 4.6 CONSERVATION EFFORTS 13 5.0 PUGET SOUND/GEORGIA BASIN ROCKFISH SPECIES LISTING UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 15 5.1 BOCACCIO 15 5.1.1 Species Description 15 5.1.2 Habitat 16 5.1.3 Distribution 16 5.1.4 Population Trends 16 5.1.5 Threats 17 5.1.6 Conservation Efforts 17 5.2 YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH 17 5.2.1 Species Description 17 5.2.2 Habitat 18 5.2.3 Distribution 18 5.2.4 Population Trends 18 5.2.5 Threats 20 5.2.6 Conservation Efforts 20 Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-i amec foster wheeler TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.0 REFERENCES 21 Amec Foster Wheeler D-ii Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec foster wheeler APPENDIX D SPECIES' LIFE HISTORIES Biological Evaluation Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document provides brief descriptions of the life histories of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and those proposed for listing, that may occur in the action area of the Shoreline Habitat Maintenance project. The species discussed herein include: • Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); • Puget Sound steelhead trout (O. mykiss); • Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Dolly Varden (S. malma); • Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis); and • Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species _life histories 0412117.docx D-1 amec foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler D-2 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec7 foster wheeler 2.0 CHINOOK SALMON This section presents descriptions of the biology, habitat, distribution, population trend, threats, and conservation efforts for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 2.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION The Chinook salmon is the largest of the Pacific salmon. Also known as "king" salmon, adult Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into freshwater streams and rivers of their birth, where they spawn and die. Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved: 1. A "stream -type" Chinook is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream -type Chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. 2. An "ocean -type" Chinook is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean - type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first 3 months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in fresh water prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean -type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late -fall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate (Healey, 1991). The difference between these life history types is physical, with both genetic and morphological foundations (USACE, 2000). 2.2 HABITAT Adult female Chinook prepare a spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel composition, water depth, and velocity. Redds vary widely in size and in location within the stream or river. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in four to five "nesting pockets" within a single redd. After laying eggs in a redd, adult Chinook guard the redd from 4 to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs hatch, depending upon water temperatures, between 90 and 150 days after deposition. Streamflow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing Chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in fresh water after emergence and before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts. They then migrate into the ocean to feed and mature. Juvenile ocean -type Chinook tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for rearing. Juvenile Chinook salmon feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae and terrestrial insects, typically in the nearshore areas. Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatch and rear in streams and rivers flowing into Puget Sound and the Dungeness River and its tributaries (USACE, 2000). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_I.ife histories 0412117.docx D-3 amec foster wheeler 2.3 DISTRIBUTION The Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is listed as threatened under the ESA. The range for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU includes all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood Canal, and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan De Fuca to a straight line extending north from the west end of Freshwater Bay, inclusive. Excluded are areas above Tolt Dam (Washington), Lansburg Diversion (Washington), and Alder Dam (Washington) or above longstanding, natural impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years) (USACE, 2000). Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU spawn from Dakota Creek north of the Nooksack River in the north, through south Puget Sound, into Hood Canal, and out the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Elwha River. These spawning distributions are relatively well known compared to information on the location of juvenile rearing areas and historical spawning distributions in most basins (Ruckelshaus et al., 2006). Ruckelshaus et al. (2006) determined that the following 22 historical populations currently contain Chinook salmon: 1. North Fork Nooksack River 2. South Fork Nooksack River 3. Lower Skagit River 4. Upper Skagit River 5. Cascade River 6. Lower Sauk River 7. Upper Sauk River 8. Suiattle River 9. North Fork Stillaguamish River 10. South Fork Stillaguamish River 11. Skykomish River 12. Snoqualmie River 13. Sammamish River 14. Cedar River 15. Green/Duwamish River 16. White River 17. Puyallup River 18. Nisqually River 19. Skokomish River 20. Mid -Hood Canal Rivers 21. Dungeness River 22. Elwha River 2.4 POPULATION TRENDS The 2005 status review (Good et al., 2005) found that, overall, the natural spawning escapement estimates for Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations were improved relative to those at the time of Amec Foster Wheeler D-4 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx Project No. 0148440200 amec foster wheeler the previous status review of Puget Sound Chinook salmon conducted with data through 1997. The differences between population escapement estimates based on status assessments using data from 1997 and the 2005 status review assessment using data through 2002 could be due to (1) revised pre-1997 data, (2) differences in which fish are counted as part of a population, (3) new information on the fraction of natural spawners that are hatchery fish, or (4) true differences reflected in new data on natural spawners obtained over the most recent 5 years. The status review conducted in 2010 (Ford [ed]., 2011) concluded that the recovery escapement levels for all of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations remained below the minimum planning ranges. A majority of the populations were also below the spawner recruitment levels needed for recovery. The most recent status review update (Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2015) uses data from 1980 through 2013 for most populations. Additional data for some populations was available through 2014. The 2010 status review (Ford [ed]., 2011) showed that trends for total ESU escapement for individual populations were variable, with no obvious trends. The current update, which includes additional data through 2014, shows that the natural -origin Chinook salmon spawner population abundances are displaying widespread negative trends. 2.5 THREATS Habitat throughout the ESU has been blocked or degraded. In general, forest practices impacted upper tributaries, and agriculture or urbanization impacted lower tributaries and mainstem rivers. Diking for flood control, draining and filling of freshwater and estuarine wetlands, and sedimentation due to forest practices and urban development are problematic throughout the ESU. Blockages by dams, water diversions, and shifts in flow regime due to hydroelectric development and flood control projects are major habitat problems in several basins. A variety of critical habitat issues exist for streams in the range of this ESU, including changes in flow regime, sedimentation, high temperatures, streambed instability, estuarine loss, loss of large woody debris, loss of pool habitat, and blockage or passage problems associated with dams or other structures (Good et al., 2005). The Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC, 1997) provided an extensive review of habitat conditions for several stocks in this ESU. It concluded that reductions in habitat capacity and quality have contributed to escapement problems for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, citing evidence of direct losses of tributary and mainstem habitat due to dams, and of slough and side -channel habitat due to diking, dredging, and hydromodification. It also cited reductions in habitat quality due to land management activities. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-5 amec foster wheeler Harvest impacts on Puget Sound Chinook salmon stocks were quite high. Ocean exploitation rates on natural stocks averaged 56 to 59 percent; total exploitation rates averaged 68 to 83 percent (1982 to 1989 brood years). Total exploitation rates on some stocks have exceeded 90 percent (Good et al., 2005). Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU identified several stocks as being at risk or of concern (Good et al., 2005). 2.6 CONSERVATION EFFORTS On January 19, 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Services (NOAA-Fisheries) adopted the final ESA recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Under the ESA, a recovery plan must include quantitative recovery criteria and goals, identify threats to survival, specify site -specific management strategies and actions necessary to address the threats, provide cost estimates of the actions, and include a schedule for implementation. A monitoring and adaptive management program is also included in the recovery plan. In addition to the general requirements, this plan was directed by the recovery criteria developed by the group of scientists appointed by NOAA-Fisheries and the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. Amec Foster Wheeler D-6 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec foster wheeler 3.0 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT This section presents descriptions of the biology, habitat, distribution, population trend, threats, and conservation efforts for Puget Sound steelhead trout. 3.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION The life history of steelhead trout is one of the most complex of any of the salmonid species. The species exhibits both anadromous forms (steelhead) and resident forms (usually referred to as rainbow or redband trout). They reside in the marine environment for 2 to 3 years before returning to their natal stream to spawn as 4- or 5-year-old fish. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead trout are iteroparous or capable of spawning more than once before they die. However, it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before dying, and those that do are usually females (USACE, 2000). Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive ecotypes, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry. These two ecotypes are termed "stream -maturing" and "ocean - maturing." Stream -maturing steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and require from several months to a year to mature and spawn. These fish are often referred to as "summer -run" steelhead. Ocean -maturing steelhead enter fresh water with well -developed gonads and spawn shortly after river entry. These fish are commonly referred to as "winter -run" steelhead. In the Columbia River Basin, essentially all steelhead that return to streams east of the Cascade Mountains are stream -maturing. Ocean -maturing fish are the predominant ecotype in coastal streams and lower Columbia River tributaries (USACE, 2000). 3.2 HABITAT Native steelhead in California generally spawn earlier than those to the north, with spawning beginning in December. Washington populations begin spawning in February or March. Native steelhead spawning in Oregon and Idaho is not well -documented. In the Clackamas River in Oregon, winter -run steelhead spawning begins in April and continues into June. In the Washougal River, Washington, summer -run steelhead spawn from March into June whereas summer -run fish in the Kalama River, Washington, spawn from January through April. Among inland steelhead, Columbia River populations from tributaries upstream of the Yakima River spawn later than most downstream populations. Depending on water temperature, fertilized steelhead eggs may incubate in redds for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as alevins. Following yolk sac absorption, young juveniles or "fry" emerge from the gravel and begin active feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water for 1 to 4 years, then migrate to the ocean as smolts. Downstream migration of wild steelhead smolts in the lower Columbia River begins Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-7 amec foster wheeler in April, peaks in mid -May and is essentially complete by the end of June (FPC, 1993, 1995, 1997). Previous studies of the timing and duration of steelhead downstream migration indicate that they typically move quickly through the lower Columbia River estuary with an average daily movement of about 21 kilometers (km) (Dawley et al., 1979 and 1980). 3.2.1 Winter -Run Steelhead In general, winter -run, or ocean -maturing, steelhead return as adults to the tributaries of Puget Sound from December to April (WDF et al., 1973). Spawning occurs from January to mid -June, with peak spawning occurring from mid -April through May. Prior to spawning, maturing adults hold in pools or in side channels to avoid high winter flows. Steelhead tend to spawn in moderate to high -gradient sections of streams. In contrast to semelparous Pacific salmon, steelhead females do not guard their redds or nests, but return to the ocean following spawning (Burgner et al., 1992). Spawned -out females that return to the sea are referred to as "kelts" (NOAA-Fisheries 2005). 3.2.2 Summer -Run Steelhead The life history of summer -run steelhead is highly adapted to specific environmental conditions. Because these conditions are not common in Puget Sound, the relative incidence and size of summer -run steelhead populations are substantially Tess than that for winter -run steelhead. Summer - run steelhead have also not been widely monitored, in part because of their small population size and the difficulties in monitoring fish in their headwater holding areas. 3.2.3 Juvenile Life History The majority of steelhead juveniles reside in fresh water for 2 years prior to emigrating to marine habitats, with limited numbers emigrating as 1- or 3-year old smolts. Smoltification and seaward migration occur principally from April to mid -May (WDF et al., 1973). Two -year -old naturally produced smolts are usually 140 to 160 millimeters (mm) in length (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979; Burgner et al., 1992). The inshore migration pattern of steelhead in Puget Sound is not well understood; it is generally thought that steelhead smolts move quickly offshore (Hartt and Dell, 1986). 3.2.4 Ocean Migration Steelhead oceanic migration patterns are poorly understood. Evidence from tagging and genetic studies indicates that Puget Sound steelhead travel to the central North Pacific Ocean (French et al., 1975; Hartt and Dell, 1986; Burgner et al., 1992). Puget Sound steelhead feed in the ocean for 1 to 3 years before returning to their natal stream to spawn. Typically, Puget Sound steelhead spend Amec Foster Wheeler D-8 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx C'?';:e amec'� foster wheeler 2 years in the ocean, although, notably, Deer Creek summer -run steelhead spend only a single year in the ocean before spawning (NOAA-Fisheries 2005). 3.3 DISTRIBUTION Steelhead are found in most larger tributaries with access to Puget Sound and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. A survey of the Puget Sound District in 1929 and 1930, which did not include Hood Canal, identified steelhead in every major basin except the Deschutes River. The propensity for steelhead to spawn in side channels and tributaries during winter and spring months when flows are high and visibility is low would likely have resulted in an underreporting of steelhead sightings. Additionally, by the late 1920s, steelhead abundance had already undergone significant declines, and many marginal or ephemeral populations may have already disappeared (Hard et al., 2007). 3.4 POPULATION TRENDS Declining trends in abundance have occurred despite widespread reductions in direct harvest of natural steelhead in this ESU since the mid-1990s. Natural -run sizes (sum of harvest and escapement) for most populations show even more markedly declining trends than indicated by escapements, indicating that the substantially reduced harvest rates for natural fish since the early 1990s have not resulted in a rebound in steelhead production in Puget Sound. For many of the Puget Sound populations, the decline in adult recruits per spawner has been precipitous. Populations of summer -run steelhead occur throughout the Puget Sound ESU but are concentrated in the northern Puget Sound area, are generally small, and are characterized as isolated populations adapted to streams with distinct attributes (Hard et al., 2007). 3.5 THREATS Habitat utilization by steelhead has been most affected by reductions in habitat quality and by fragmentation. A number of large dams in Puget Sound basins have affected steelhead. In addition to eliminating accessibility to habitat, dams affect habitat quality through changes in river hydrology, temperature profile, downstream gravel recruitment, and the movement of large woody debris. Many of the lower reaches of rivers and their tributaries in Puget Sound have been dramatically altered by urban development. Urbanization and suburbanization have resulted in the loss of historical land cover in exchange for large areas of impervious surface (buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.) (Hard et al., 2007). The loss of wetland and riparian habitat has dramatically changed the hydrology of many urban streams, with increases in flood frequency and peak flow during storm events and decreases in groundwater -driven summer flows. Flood events result in gravel scour, bank erosion, and sediment Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-9 amec foster wheeler deposition. Land development for agricultural purposes has also altered the historical land cover; however, because much of this development took place in river floodplains, there has been a direct impact on river morphology. River braiding and sinuosity have been reduced through the construction of dikes, hardening of banks with riprap, and channelizing the mainstem. Constriction of rivers, especially during high -flow events, increases likelihood of gravel scour and dislocation of rearing juveniles (Hard et al., 2007). This ESU is likely to be at elevated risk due to the reduced complexity of spatial structure of its steelhead populations and, consequently, diminishing connectivity among them. The declines in natural abundance for most populations, coupled with large numbers of anthropogenic barriers, such as impassable culverts, sharply reduce opportunities for natural adfluvial movement and migration between steelhead aggregations in different watersheds. Resident O. mykiss below migration barriers in watersheds throughout the ESU may provide short-term buffers against demographic stochasticity in many of these populations. Resident O. mykiss were considered to be a relatively minor component of these anadromous populations based on field surveys of juvenile fish in fresh water (Hard et al., 2007). Reduced harvest levels and recent changes in management of natural steelhead, the recent onset of recovery efforts in Puget Sound and Hood Canal for Chinook salmon and summer run chum salmon (O. keta) prompted by the listing of those ESUs, and reduced off -site plantings of hatchery steelhead were all considered as recent actions that could positively affect Puget Sound steelhead. However, the continued releases of out-of-ESU hatchery summer -run and winter -run steelhead throughout the region, reductions in steelhead escapement goals to help support harvest opportunities in several systems, evidence for diminishing marine survival rates, a recent increase in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index reflecting a general change in climate in the region toward warmer and drier conditions, increases in pinniped populations in Puget Sound, degradation of water quality in Hood Canal and southern Puget Sound, and continued land development and urbanization with associated impacts on freshwater habitat are all likely to increase risk to this ESU (Hard et al., 2007). 3.6 CONSERVATION EFFORTS Reduced harvest levels and recent changes in management of natural steelhead, the recent onset of recovery efforts in Puget Sound and Hood Canal for Chinook salmon and summer -run chum salmon prompted by the listing of those ESUs, and reduced off -site plantings of hatchery steelhead are recent actions that could positively affect Puget Sound steelhead (Hard et al., 2007). Amec Foster Wheeler D-10 appendix d species _life histories 0412117.docx Project No. 0148440200 i.:: ,,,,... amec Y, foster - wheeler 4.0 COASTAL/PUGET SOUND BULL TROUT AND DOLLY VARDEN This section presents descriptions of the biology, habitat, distribution, population trend, threats, and conservation efforts for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout and Dolly Varden. Dolly Varden have been proposed as threatened under the ESA by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because of the similarity of appearance to bull trout. It is assumed that Dolly Varden share many of the same life -history characteristics of bull trout. 4.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION Bull trout are native to western North America and are widespread throughout tributaries of the Columbia River Basin, including the headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout are generally nonanadromous and live in a variety of habitats, including small streams, large rivers, and lakes or reservoirs. However, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout are anadromous, migrating and maturing in Puget Sound or the Pacific Ocean. They may spend the first 2 to 4 years in small natal streams and then migrate through the larger rivers, lakes, and reservoirs to Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean (USACE, 2000). Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life -history strategies through much of the current range (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from 1 to 4 years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial), or, in certain coastal areas, to salt water (anadromous), where maturity is reached in one of the three habitats (Fraley and Shephard, 1989; Goetz, 1989). Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and it is suspected that bull trout give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). In some stocks of bull trout, maturing adults may begin migrating to spawning grounds in the spring or early summer. Female bull trout may deposit up to 5,000 or 10,000 eggs in redds they build, depending on their size. The embryos incubate during the fall, winter, and spring, and the surviving fry emerge from the redds in April and May. The rate of embryonic development depends on temperature. After they emerge, the young bull trout disperse upstream and downstream to find suitable areas to feed. Feeding areas for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout include estuaries and nearshore marine waters. Young fish feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates in the streams during their first 2 or 3 years but become more piscivorous as they get larger (USACE, 2000). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-11 4.4 amec t_\ foster wheeler The bull trout has been eliminated from some of its native range and seriously reduced in abundance in most of the remaining drainages. Excessive exploitation, habitat degradation, and introductions of exotic species are probably the major causes of the declines (USACE, 2000). 4.2 HABITAT Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements compared to other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). Habitat components that appear to influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrates, and migratory corridors (Oliver, 1979,; Pratt, 1984, 1992; Fraley and Shephard, 1989; Goetz, 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn, 1989; Sedell and Everest, 1991; Rieman and McIntyre, 1993, 1995; Rich, 1996; Watson and Hillman, 1997). Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures. However, migratory bull trout frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April. Bull trout require spawning substrate consisting of loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine sediments (Fraley and Shephard, 1989). Depending on water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt, 1992), and, after hatching, juveniles remain in the substrate. Time from egg deposition to emergence may surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge from early April through May depending upon water temperatures and increasing stream flows (Pratt, 1992; Ratliff and Howell, 1992). Bull trout are opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a function of size and life -history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro zooplankton, and small fish (Boag, 1987; Goetz, 1989; Donald and Alger, 1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily piscivorous, known to feed on various fish species (Fraley and Shephard 1989; Donald and Alger, 1993). 4.3 DISTRIBUTION The Coastal bull trout distinct population segment (DPS) is listed as threatened under the ESA. The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses all Pacific Coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound. This population segment is discrete because the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range geographically segregate it from subpopulations. The population segment is significant to the species as a whole because it is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the conterminous United States, thus, occurring in a unique ecological setting. No bull trout exist in coastal drainages south of the Columbia River (USACE, 2000). 4.4 POPULATION TRENDS A 1998 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (VVDFW, 1998) study found 80 bull trout/Dolly Varden populations in Washington: 14 (18 percent) were healthy, two (3 percent) were in poor Amec Foster Wheeler D-12 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx Project No. 0148440200 amec foster wheeler condition, six (8 percent) were critical, and the status of 58 (72 percent) of the stocks was unknown (WDFW, 1998). Bull trout are estimated to have occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River Basin, and presently occur in 45 percent of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997). Although specific data on population abundance, trends, and spatial distribution are scarce, ample information exists to indicate that the bull trout are threatened. Population abundance and distribution have declined within many individual river basins, and habitat is severely fragmented in many instances (SSDC, 2007). 4.5 THREATS Bull trout display a high degree of sensitivity to environmental disturbance and have been significantly impacted by habitat degradation similar to other listed and sensitive species. In addition to migratory barriers, such as dams or diversion structures that isolate populations, bull trout are threatened by poor water quality, sedimentation, harvest, and the introduction of nonnative species. Although several populations lie completely or partially within national parks or wilderness areas, these local populations are threatened by the presence of introduced brook trout or from habitat degradation outside of the park boundaries. Based on biological and genetic information, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has delineated two management units in the Coastal/Puget Sound population segment. Olympic Peninsula bull trout populations are thought to differ from those in the Puget Sound management unit, which originate in watersheds on the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains. Although the two units are connected by marine waters, there is currently no evidence that bull trout from Puget Sound migrate to the Strait of Juan de Fuca or Hood Canal (SSDC, 2007). Land and water management activities that degrade bull trout habitat and continue to threaten all of the bull trout population segments include dams, forest management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, and roads and mining (Beschta et al., 1987; Chamberlain et al., 1991; Furniss et al., 1991; Meehan, 1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; Sedell and Everest, 1991; Craig and Wissmar, 1993; MBTSG, 1998). Fish barriers, timber harvesting, agricultural practices, and urban development are thought to be major factors affecting "native char" in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS (64 Federal Register 58909- 58933). 4.6 CONSERVATION EFFORTS The USFWS prepared a recovery plan (USFWS, 2015) for the coterminous United States population of bull trout. The Coastal Recovery Unit includes two separate management units: the Puget Sound Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx Amec Foster Wheeler D-13 amec foster wheeler and the Olympic Peninsula. An overview of the success of the conservation efforts since 1999 is found in USFWS (2013). Amec Foster Wheeler D-14 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx Project No. 0148440200 amec foster wheeler 5.0 PUGET SOUND/GEORGIA BASIN ROCKFISH SPECIES LISTING UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT On April 27, 2010, NOAA-Fisheries listed three species of Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish under the ESA. The three species are: • The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), listed as endangered; • The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of the yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimis), listed as threatened; and • The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of the canary rockfish (S. pinniger), listed as threatened. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of the canary rockfish was subsequently delisted on January 23, 2017 (82 Federal) Register 7711). The following sections present brief descriptions of the biology, habitats, distribution, population trends, threats, and conservation efforts of the two rockfish species that remain listed. 5.1 BOCACCIo This section presents descriptions of the biology, habitat, distribution, population trend, threats, and conservation efforts for the bocaccio. 5.1.1 Species Description Bocaccio are large Pacific Coast rockfish that reach up to 3 feet (1 meter [m]) in length with a distinctively long jaw extending to at least the eye socket. Their body ranges in color from olive to burnt orange or brown as adults. Young bocaccio are light bronze in color and have small brown spots on their sides (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a). Rockfish are unusual among the bony fish in that fertilization and embryonic development are internal, and female rockfish give birth to live larval young. Larvae are found in surface waters, and may be distributed over a wide area extending several hundred miles offshore. Fecundity in female bocaccio ranges from 20,000 to over 2 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species. Larvae and small juvenile rockfish may remain in open waters for several months, being passively dispersed by ocean currents (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a). Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans, and juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life stages. Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-15 amec foster wheeler including other species of rockfish, associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp dropoffs. Approximately 50 percent of adult bocaccio mature in 4 to 6 years. Bocaccio are difficult to age but are suspected to live as long as 50 years (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a). 5.1.2 Habitat Bocaccio are most common at depths between 160 and 820 feet (50 to 250 m), but may be found as deep as 1,560 feet (475 m). Adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outcrops. Juveniles and subadults may be more common than adults in shallower water, and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a). 5.1.3 Distribution Bocaccio range from Punta Blanca, Baja California, to the Gulf of Alaska off the Krozoff and Kodiak Islands. They are most common between Oregon and northern Baja California. In Puget Sound, most bocaccio are found south of the Tacoma Narrows (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a). 5.1.4 Population Trends Recreational catch and effort data spanning 12 years from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s suggest possible declines in abundance in Washington. Additional data over this period show the number of angler trips increased substantially and the average number of rockfish caught per trip declined. Taken together, these data suggest declines in the population over time. Currently there are no survey data being taken for this species, but few of these fish are caught by fishermen and none have been caught by Washington state biological surveys in 20 years, suggesting very low population abundance. They are thought to be at an abundance that is less than 10 percent of their unfished abundance. A 2005 stock assessment by NOAA-Fisheries suggests bocaccio may have higher populations than was thought to be the case (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a). Bocaccio were infrequently recorded in the recreational catch data reported by Buckley (1967, 1968, and 1970) and Bargmann (1977) for Puget Sound Proper from the mid-1960s into the early 1970s. However, bocaccio were reported up to 8 to 9 percent of the catch in the late-1970s from the Washington State Sport Catch Reports (WDF 1975-1986). The majority of the catch (66 percent) during 1975 to 1986 was from punch card area 13 (south of the Tacoma Narrows) (as reported in the Washington Sport Catch Reports); Point Defiance and the Tacoma Narrows were historically reported as local areas of high bocaccio abundance in punch card area 13. Bocaccio appear to have declined in frequency, relative to other species, from the 1970s to the 1980s to the 1990s. From 1975 to 1979, bocaccio were reported as an average of 4.63 percent of the catch (sample size unknown; reference Amec Foster Wheeler D-16 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx 1 amec foster wheeler Washington State Sport Catch Reports). During 1980 to 1989, they were 0.24 percent of the 8,430 rockfish identified (Palsson et al., 2008). From 1996 to 2007, bocaccio have not been observed out of the 2,238 rockfish identified in the dockside surveys of the recreational catches (Palsson et al., 2008). In a sample this large, the probability of observing at least one bocaccio would be 99.5 percent, assuming it occurred at the same frequency (0.24 percent) as in the 1980s. Also (as expected as a result of their habitat preferences), bocaccio have not been observed in the WDFW fisheries independent trawl surveys (Palsson et al., 2008). 5.1.5 Threats Bocaccio are fished directly and are often caught as by -catch in other fisheries, including those for salmon. Adverse environmental factors led to recruitment failures in the early to mid-1990s (NOAA- Fisheries, 2009a). 5.1.6 Conservation Efforts Various state restrictions on fishing have been put in place over the years. Current regulations in the State of Washington,, where the species is most at risk, limit the daily rockfish catch to three rockfish total (of any species). Because this species is so slow -growing, late to mature, and long-lived, recovery from the above threats will take many years, even if the threats are no longer affecting the species (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009a). 5.2 YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH This section presents descriptions of the biology, habitat, distribution, population trend, threats, and conservation efforts for the yelloweye rockfish. 5.2.1 Species Description Yelloweye rockfish are very large rockfish that reach up to 3.5 feet (-1 m) in length and 39 pounds (18 kilograms [kg]) in weight. They are orange -red to orange -yellow in color and may have black on their fin tips. Their eyes are bright yellow. Adults usually have a light to white stripe on the lateral line; juveniles have two light stripes, one on the lateral line and a shorter one below the lateral line (NOAA Fisheries, 2009b). Rockfish are unusual among the bony fish in that fertilization and embryonic development are internal, and female rockfish give birth to live larval young. Larvae are found in surface waters and may be distributed over a wide area extending several hundred miles offshore. Fecundity in female yelloweye rockfish ranges from 1.2 to 2.7 million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-17 amec foster wheeler Larvae and small juvenile rockfish may remain in open waters for several months being passively dispersed by ocean currents (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009b). Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans, and juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life stages. Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish, associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp dropoffs. Approximately 50 percent of adult yelloweye rockfish are mature by 16 inches (41 centimeters [cm]) total length (about 6 years of age). Yelloweye rockfish are among the longest lived of rockfishes, living up to 118 years (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009b). 5.2.2 Habitat Juveniles and subadults tend to be more common than adults in shallower water, and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms. Adults generally move into deeper water as they increase in size and age, but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outcrops. Yelloweye rockfish occur in waters 80 to 1,560 feet (25 to 475 m) deep, but are most commonly found between 300 and 590 feet (91 to 180 m) (NOAA- Fisheries, 2009b). 5.2.3 Distribution Yelloweye rockfish range from northern Baja California to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, but are most common from central California northward to the Gulf of Alaska (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009b). 5.2.4 Population Trends Recreational catch and effort data spanning 12 years from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s suggest possible declines in abundance. While catch data are generally constant over time, the number of angler trips increased substantially, and there was a decline in the average number of rockfish caught per trip. Taken together, these data suggest declines in the population over time. Currently there are no survey data being taken for this species, but few of these fish are caught by fishermen, suggesting low population abundance (NOAA-Fisheries 2009b). Yelloweye rockfish occur more consistently in the recreational catch than bocaccio but at lower frequency than other rockfish and are still infrequently observed (typically 1 to 2 percent in Puget Sound proper and 2 to 5 percent in north Puget Sound). The frequency of yelloweye rockfish in Puget Sound proper appears to have increased from a frequency of 0.34 percent (sample size 8,430) in 1980 to 1989 to a frequency of 2.7 percent (sample size 550) in 1996 to 2001. During three recent years (1999 to 2001), yelloweye rockfish were not reported in the recreational catch; however, the Amec Foster Wheeler D-18 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec foster wheeler sample sizes were low those years, and zero catch would be expected for an infrequent species when sample sizes are low (NOAA-Fisheries, 2008). In north Puget Sound, in contrast, the frequency of yelloweye rockfish decreased between the 1980s and 1990s in the catch surveys. From 1980 to 1989, they were reported at a frequency of 1.9 percent (sample size 3,910), and from 1996 to 2001, they were reported at a frequency of 0.65 percent (sample size 1,718). Since 2002, fishing for yelloweye rockfish has been prohibited in Puget Sound, and thus no frequency data are available since 2002 from the recreational fishery (NOAA-Fisheries, 2008). The early stock data do not report sample size (number of individuals identified), thus the uncertainty in the early estimates cannot be calculated. Species misidentification should not be a problem for yelloweye rockfish, but their frequency may be affected by nonrandom reporting in the 1960s and early 1970s. Buckley (1967, 1968, 1970) and Bergmann (1977) suggest that only a few (two to three) common species were being recorded in some punch card areas for the time period 1965 to 1973 (NOAA-Fisheries, 2008). As expected, yelloweye rockfish have been observed infrequently in the WDFW fisheries independent trawl surveys in Puget Sound Proper. In north Puget Sound, yelloweye rockfish were not observed in the WDFW trawl survey in 1987, 1989, 1991, or 2001, but were caught in 2004 (0.65 percent of the catch). In the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF, 2008) scuba survey data, yelloweye rockfish have been sighted consistently throughout the Puget Sound (north and south) since 2001, with an average of 0.5 percent of dives in the south reporting a sighting of yelloweye rockfish and 2 percent of dives in the north reporting a sighting. There is no evidence of a decline in the probability of sightings during dives (NOAA-Fisheries, 2008). In the Strait of Georgia, yelloweye rockfish are common in the recent recreational catches; the proportion of yelloweye rockfish in the 2006 and 2005 recreational catch (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO] catch data) was 17.1 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively. The high frequency of yelloweye rockfish in the recreational catch may reflect targeting for this species, as yelloweye rockfish are a small proportion of the rockfish observed in the few fisheries independent surveys that are available. A genetic tagging study in 2003 (Yamanaka et al., 2004), where data were collected from tissue taken from hooks, 1 percent of samples were yelloweye rockfish. In a 2003 pilot camera study designed to estimate rockfish biomass (Yamanaka et al., 2006), 439 rockfish were observed, of which one (0.2 percent) was a yelloweye rockfish. Another survey in 2004 in the southern Strait of Georgia identified 105 individuals of rockfish, of which 5 (4.8 percent) were yelloweye rockfish (NOAA Fisheries, 2008). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species _life histories 0412117.docx D-19 amec foster wheeler There appears to be limited information on population trends for yelloweye rockfish in the Strait of Georgia. Data from the recreational creel survey conducted by the DFO (2008) is of limited value, because the species composition information and groundfish-targeted effort is lacking; salmon - targeted and groundfish-targeted trips are reported together. Submersible surveys were conducted in 1984 and 2003 in the Strait of Georgia (Yamanaka et al., 2004). Between the two surveys, the mean number of yelloweye rockfish per transect declined (8.57 to 4.65), but the difference was not statistically significant. Trend data are also available from the commercial long -line fishery (Yamanaka et al., 2004), which show generally declining trends in catch -per -unit -effort (CPUE) from the late 1980s through the 1990s, but interpretation is difficult given the effects of market forces and management regulations on commercial fisheries (NOAA-Fisheries, 2008). 5.2.5 Threats Yelloweye rockfish are targeted by recreational and commercial fisheries and are often caught as by - catch in other fisheries, including those for salmon. Adverse environmental factors led to recruitment failures in the early- to mid-1990s (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009b). 5.2.6 Conservation Efforts Various state restrictions on fishing have been put in place over the years, leading to the current ban on retention of yelloweye rockfish in Washington in 2003. Because this species is slow -growing, late to mature, and long-lived, recovery from these threats will take many years, even if the threats are no longer affecting the species (NOAA-Fisheries, 2009b). Amec Foster Wheeler D-20 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec foster wheeler 6.0 REFERENCES Bargmann, G.G. 1977. The Recreational Hook and Line Fishery for Marine Fish in Puget Sound 1968- 1973, Technical Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Progress Report No. 33, Olympia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R.E., Brown, G.W., Holtby, L.B., and Hofstra, T.D. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat — fisheries and forest interaction, in Salo, E.O., and Cundy, T.W. (eds.), Streamside Management — Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution 57, Seattle, 41 p. Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habits of bull charr, Salvelinus confluentus, and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in Northern Alberta. Canadian Field -Naturalist 101:56-62. Buckley, R.M. 1967. 1965 Bottomfish Sport Fishery, Technical Report. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Supplemental Progress Report, Olympia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Buckley, R.M. 1968. 1966 Bottomfish Sport Fishery Occurring in Washington Marine Punch Card Areas 2 through 12, Technical Report. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Supplemental Progress Report, Olympia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Buckley, R.M. 1970. 1967 Bottomfish Sport Fishery, Technical Report. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Supplemental Progress Report, Olympia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Burgner, R.L., Light, J.T., Margolis, L., Okazaki, T., Tautz, A., and Ito, S. 1992. Distribution and Origins of Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Offshore Waters of the North Pacific. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin Number 51. Chamberlain, T.W., Harr, R.D., and Everest, F.H. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed processes, in Meehan, W.R. (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19, 24 p. Craig, S.D., and Wissmar, R.C. 1993. Habitat Conditions Influencing a Remnant Bull Trout Spawning Population, Gold Creek, Washington, Draft Report. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. Dawley, E.M., Sims, C.W., Ledgerwood, R.D., Miller„ D.R., and Thrower, F.P. 1979. A Study to Define the Migrational Characteristics of Chinook and Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout in the Columbia River Estuary: 1978 Annual Report to Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, 90 p. Dawley, E.M., Sims, C.W., Ledgerwood, R.D., Miller, D.R., and Williams, J.G. 1980. A Study to Define the Migrational Characteristics of Chinook and Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout in the Columbia River Estuary. 1979 Annual Report to Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, 53 p. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-21 41 amec t foster wheeler Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2008. Pacific Region Regional Data Services Unit. DFO, Ottawa, Ontario (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Donald, D.B., and Alger, J. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:238-247. Fish Passage Center (FPC). 1993. 1992 Annual Report. Fish Passage Center of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, Oregon. . 1995. 1994 Annual Report. Fish Passage Center of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, Oregon. . 1997. 1996 Annual Report. Fish Passage Center of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, Oregon. Ford, M.J. (ed.). 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWFSC 113, 1- 281. Fraley, J.J., and Shephard, B.B. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake river system, Montana. Northwest Science 63:133-143. French, R.F., Bakkala, R.G., and Sutherland, D.F. 1975. Ocean Distribution of Stock of Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and Steelhead Trout, Salmo gairdneri, as Shown by Tagging Experiments. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Service, MFS SSRF-689. Furniss, M.J., Roelofs, T.D., and Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance, in Meehan, W.R. (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, 26 p. Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a Literature Review. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon. Good, T.P., Waples, R.S., and Adams, P. (eds.). 2005. Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-Status-Reviews/ loader.cfm?csModule=security/ getfile&pageid=21346) (accessed July 14, 2009). Hard, J.J., Myers, J.M., Ford, M.J., Cope, R.G., Pess, G.R., Waples, R.S., Winans, G.A., Berejikian, B.A., Waknitz, F.W., Adams, P.B., Bisson, P.A., Campton, D.E., and Reisenbichler, R.R. 2007. Status Review of Puget Sound Steel Head (Oncorhynchus mykiss). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-81, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, http:// Amec Foster Wheeler D-22 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec foster wheeler www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6649_07312007_160715_SRSteelheadTM81 Final.pdf (accessed July 14, 2009). Hartt, A.C., and Dell, M.B. 1986. Early Oceanic Migrations and Growth of Juvenile Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin Number 46. Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), in Groot, C., and Margolis, L. (eds.), Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 82 p. Hoelscher, B., and Bjornn, T.C. 1989. Habitat, Density, and Potential Production of Trout and Char in Pend Oreille Lake Tributaries: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Project F 71-R-10, Subproject III, Job No. 8, Boise. Meehan, W.R. 1991. Introduction and overview, in Meehan, W.R. (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19, 15 p. Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG). 1998. The Relationship Between Land Management Activities and Habitat Requirements of Bull Trout. The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. Nehlsen, W., Williams, J.E., and Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads — stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington: Fisheries 16:4 21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA- Fisheries). 2005. Status Review Update for Puget Sound Steelhead. 2005 Puget Sound Steelhead Biological Review Team, NOAA-Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/ Biological-Status- Reviews/upload/SR2005-steelhead.pdf (accessed May 10, 2007). . 2008. Preliminary Scientific Conclusions of the Review of the Status of 5 Species of Rockfish — Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), Greenstriped Rockfish (Sebastes elongatus) and Redstripe Rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound, Washington. NOAA-Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, http:// www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/Puget- Sound-Marine-Fishes/upload/PS-rockfish-review-08.pdf (accessed July 2, 2009). . 2009a. Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). NOAA-Fisheries, Office of Protected Species, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ species/fish/bocaccio.htm#status (accessed July 2, 2009). . 2009b. Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus). NOAA-Fisheries, Office of Protected Species, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, Washington, http:// www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/yelloweyerockfish.htm#status (accessed July 2, 2009). Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 2015. Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. December 21. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx D-23 { amec foster wheeler Oliver, G. 1979. A Final Report on the Present Fisheries Use of the Wigwam River with an Emphasis on the Migratory Life History and Spawning Behavior of Dolly Varden Char, Salvelinus malma (Walbaum). Fisheries Investigations in Tributaries of the Canadian Portion of Libby Reservoir, British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria. Palsson, W.A., Tsou, T.S., Barbman, G.G., Buckley, R.M., West, J.E., Mills, M.L., Cheng, Y.W., and Pacunski, R.E. 2008. The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1997. Review of the 1996 Ocean Salmon Fisheries. PFMC, Portland, Oregon (as cited in Good et al. 2005). Pratt, K.P. 1984. Habitat Use and Species Interactions of Juvenile Cutthroat (Salmo clarkii lewisi) and Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Upper Flathead River Basin. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. Pratt, K.P. 1992. A review of bull trout life history, in Howell, P.J., and Buchanan, D.V. (eds.), Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, 4 p. Quigley, T.M., and Arbelbide, S.J. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portion of the Klamath and Great basins, volume III, in Quigley, T.M. (ed.), The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Scientific Assessment, USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-405, Portland, Oregon, 656 p. Ratliff, D.E., and Howell, P.J. 1992. The status of bull trout populations in Oregon, in Howell, P.J., and Buchanan, D.V. (eds.), Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, 7 p. Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF). 2008. Scuba Survey Data. REEF, Key Largo, Florida, http://www.reef.org (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Rich, C.F. 1996. Influence of Abiotic and Biotic Factors on Occurrence of Resident Bull Trout in Fragmented Habitats, Western Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. Rieman, B.E., and McIntyre, J.D. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-308, Ogden, Utah. Rieman, B.E., and McIntyre, J.D. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(3):285-296. Ruckelshaus, M.H., Currens, K.P., Graeber, W.H., Fuerstenberg, R.R., Rawson, K., Sands, N.J., and Scott, J.B. 2006. Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/puget_docs/ popidtm78final.pdf (accessed July 14, 2009). Amec Foster Wheeler D-24 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec foster wheeler Sedell, J.R., and Everest, F.H. 1991. Historic Changes in Pool Habitat for Columbia River Basin Salmon Under Study for TES Listing, Draft USDA Report. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. Shared Strategy Development Committee (SSDC). 2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. SSDC, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery- Domains/Puget-Sound/PS-Recovery-Plan.cfm (accessed July 14, 2009). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. Appendix B — Species Life Histories. USACE, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/REG/ appendix_b_- _general_fish_life_histories.pdf (accessed May 15, 2005). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Summary of bull trout conservation successes and actions since 1999. USFW, https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/ documents/USFWS _2013_summary_of conservation_successes.pdf (accessed March 27, 2017). . 2015. Recovery plan for the conterminous United States population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon 179 p. Watson, G., and Hillman, T.W. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of bull trout — an investigation at hierarchical scales. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:237-252. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington Salmonid Stock Inventory: Appendix bull trout/Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 437 p. Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). 1975-1986. Washington State Sport Catch Reports, Technical Report. WDF, Olympia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Washington Department of Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington State Department of Game (WDF et al.). 1973. Joint Statement Regarding the Biology, Status, Management, and Harvest of Salmon and Steelhead Resources, of the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula Drainage Areas of Western Washington. WDF, Olympia. Wydoski, R.S., and Whitney, R.R. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Yamanaka, K.L., L.C. Lacko, L.C., Lochead, J.K., Martin, J., Haigh, R., Grandin, C., and West, K. 2004. Stock Assessment Framework for Inshore Rockfish. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2004/068, Nanaimo, British Columbia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Yamanaka, K.L., Lacko, L.C., Withler, R., Grandin, C., Lochead, J.K., Martin, J.C., Olsen, N., and Wallace, S.S. 2006. A Review of Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus along the Pacific Coast of Canada — Biology, Distribution, and Abundance Trends. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2006/076, Nanaimo, British Columbia (as cited in NOAA-Fisheries 2008). Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species _life histories 0412117.docx D-25 amec foster wheeler (this page left blank intentionally) Amec Foster Wheeler D-26 Project No. 0148440200 appendix d species_life histories 0412117.docx amec foster wheeler APPENDIX E Essential Fish Habitat Assessment amec foster wheeler APPENDIX E ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Biological Assessment Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington 1.0 ACTION AGENCY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District 2.0 LOCATION East Shore of the Lower Duwamish Waterway, Seattle and Tukwila, King County, Washington (Township 24 North, Range 4 East, and Sections 29, 32, and 33). 3.0 PROJECT NAME Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance. 4.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA- Fisheries) on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." "Waters" include "aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish." They may include aquatic areas historically used by fish. "Substrate" includes "sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities" (NOAA-Fisheries, 1999). The MSA requires consultation for all actions that may adversely affect EFH, and does not distinguish between actions within and outside of EFH. Any reasonable attempt to encourage the conservation of EFH must take into account actions that occur outside of EFH, such as upstream and upslope activities that may have an adverse effect on EFH. Therefore, EFH consultation with NOAA-Fisheries is required by federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of its location. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix e efh_041217.docx E-1 1\ P amec foster wheeler This assessment evaluates the impacts of the project to determine whether it "may adversely affect" designated EFH for federally managed fisheries species in the proposed action area. The assessment also describes conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects of the proposed action on designated EFH. 5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EFH The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for federally managed fisheries within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. The designated EFH for groundfish (PFMC, 1998a; Casillas et al., 1998) and coastal pelagic species (PFMC, 1998b) encompasses all waters from the mean high water line and upriver extent of salt water to the boundary of the United States exclusive economic zones (370.4 kilometers [km]) (PFMC, 1998a,b). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho, except areas upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers (as identified by the PFMC), and long-standing, naturally impassable barriers (e.g., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years) (PFMC, 1999). In estuarine and marine areas, designated salmon EFH extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception, to the Canadian Border (PFMC, 1999). Groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid fish species that have designated EFH in Puget Sound are listed in Table 1. Some of these species may occur in the action area. Refer to the relevant EFH designations (Casillas et al., 1998; PFMC, 1998a,b; PFMC, 1999) for life -history stages of these species that may occur in the project vicinity. Assessment of the impacts to these species' EFH from the proposed project is based on this information. 6.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Habitat maintenance and adaptive management activities that have been conducted to date at the project site include seep repair, stabilization of slopes, installation of small fenced plant enclosures and the planting of additional marsh plants in fenced and unfenced areas, and the capture and installation of additional large woody debris within the upper intertidal marsh areas. It is anticipated that these, and potentially other, maintenance activities may be conducted for up to 10 years. The 10-year period is pursuant to conditions of a Consent Decree between Boeing and the Natural Resource Trustees (NOAA-Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology], the Suquamish Tribe, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe). Any work that will be conducted under the 10-year maintenance permit will be coordinated with the Natural Amec Foster Wheeler E-2 Project No. 0148440200 appendix e efh_041217.docx amec foster wheeler Resource Trustees. For a more detailed project description, please refer to Section 2.0 of the biological evaluation (BE). 7.0 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above the impassible barriers identified by PFMC (1999). In estuarine and marine areas, proposed designated EFH for salmon extends from nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception (PFMC, 1999). The Pacific salmon management unit includes Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha). All three of these species use Puget Sound for adult migration, juvenile outmigration, and rearing, where suitable habitat is present. Resident coho and Chinook remain within Puget Sound throughout their entire life histories. The EFH designation for ground fishes and coastal pelagics is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to ensure the production needed to support a long-term sustainable fishery. The marine extent of ground fish and coastal pelagic EFH includes those waters from the nearshore and tidal submerged environment within Washington, Oregon, and California state territorial waters out to the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km [231.5 miles]) offshore between Canada and the Mexican border. The West Coast ground fish management unit includes 83 species that typically live on or near the bottom of the ocean. Species groups include skates and sharks, rockfishes (55 species), flatfishes (12 species) and ground fishes. Some ground fishes, such as lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), and species of rockfish (Sebastes spp.), potentially occur in the action area located in north Puget Sound. Coastal pelagics are schooling fishes, not associated with the ocean bottom, that migrate in coastal waters. West Coast pelagics include the Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomberjaponicus), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens). These fishes are primarily associated with the open -ocean and coastal areas (PFMC, 1998a) and are not likely to occur in the action area. The Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and the surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus pretiosus) are important forage fishes for Chinook and coho salmon. Loss of prey is considered an adverse effect on EFH. Surf smelt are known to occur in the action area. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix e eth_041217.docx E-3 amec 7,74 foster wheeler Essential fish habitat for ground fishes and Pacific salmon is present in the project action area. Short- term effects of the proposed actions include temporary and localized water quality impairment (e.g., increased turbidity). Turbidity (as measured by suspended sediment concentration) may occur during flooding of areas where coarse gravel has been placed to repair seeps or stabilize the shoreline. There may be some turbidity associated with areas where excavation for potential log placement has occurred. The turbidity increases are expected to be short term, with plume size decreasing exponentially with increasing distance, both horizontal and vertical, from the construction or maintenance areas (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001). Turbidity associated with the newly placed material or inundation of excavated areas is expected to last only a single tidal cycle and to be insignificant and discountable. Longer term (1 to 2 years) adverse effects of the proposed maintenance actions will be temporary disturbance of small areas of benthic habitat (e.g., 1,000 square feet) potentially used as foraging habitat. As discussed in Section 6.7.2 of the BE, maintenance activities, such as placement of gravel in seep areas or in localized areas of slope instability, may temporarily impact benthic habitat by burying benthic fauna within the impacted area. Areas that are undergoing scour from focused groundwater discharge or that are unstable due to erosion would likely have depauperate benthic communities, and placement of coarse gravel materials would likely have a minimal impact on the existing benthic community and prey abundance for foraging fish. It is unknown how long this condition would persist; however, it is expected, as stated in Section 6.7.2 of the BE, that the benthic community would be re-established in the impacted area within 1 to 2 years and provide foraging habitat for ground fish and Pacific Salmon. During the time that the benthic community in these limited areas is impacted, fish would be forced to forage in adjacent areas of the project area and the Lower Duwamish Waterway. The temporary, long-term disturbance of benthic habitat in the fill areas within the Lower Duwamish Waterway could cause a minimal impact to ground fish and Pacific salmon that may forage in the EFH; however, the long-term impacts are not expected to result in permanent adverse effects to EFH for ground fishes or Pacific salmonids, or their prey species. 8.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES Implementing the maintenance and conservation measures specified in the BE would avoid and minimize potential effects of the proposed project on EFH. Amec Foster Wheeler E-4 Project No. 0148440200 appendix e efh_041217.docx amec"i7 foster Wheeler 9.0 CONCLUSION The proposed maintenance activities are expected to result in an overall net benefit to EFH for ground fishes and Pacific salmonids. No permanent adverse effects on EFH for ground fishes, or Pacific salmonids, or their prey species would result from the proposed maintenance activities. 10.0 REFERENCES Casillas, E., Crockett, L., deReynier, Y., Glock, J., Helvey, M., Meyer, B., Schmitt, C., Yoklavich, M., Bailey, A., Chao, B., Johnson, B., and Pepperell, T. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Groundfish Appendix. National Marine Fisheries Service Seattle, Washington. Nightingale, B., and Simenstad, C. 2001. White Paper, Dredging Activities — Marine Issues: Prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA- Fisheries). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland. . 2001. Endangered Species Act —Section 7 and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Biological Opinion — Port of Olympia Cascade Pole Sediment Remediation (WSB-00-453). NMFS, Northwest Region, Washington State Habitat Branch, Lacey, Washington. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998a. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December 1998). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. . 1998b. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October 1998). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. . 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, Appendix A — Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 0148440200 appendix e efh_041217.docx E-5 ,, amec A foster wheeler TABLE 1 SPECIES OF FISH WITH DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE ACTION AREA (NMFS 2001) Biological Assessment Boeing Plant 2 Shoreline Habitat Maintenance Seattle/Tukwila, Washington Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Groundfish Groundfish (cont.) arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger big skate Raja binoculata rex sole Glyptocephalus zachirus black rockfish Sebastes melanops rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus butter sole Iopsetta isolepis rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Psettichthys melanostictus California skate Raja inornata sand sole canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens splitnose rockfish Sebastes diploproa darkblotch rockfish Sebastes crameri starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Dover sole Microstomus pacificus striptail rockfish Sebastes saxicola English sole Parophrys vetulus tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus flathead sole Hippoglossoides elassodon vermilion rockfish Sebastes miniatus greenstriped rockfish Sebastes elongatus yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus hake Merluccius productus yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus jack mackeral Trachurus symmetricus kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus Coastal Pelagic lingcod Ophiodon elongatus anchovy Engraulis mordax longnose skate Raja rhina market squid Loligo opalescens Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Pacific mackerel Scomberjaponicus Sardinops sagax Pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus Pacific sardine Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus petrale sole Eopsetta jordani Salmonid Species quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ratfish Hydrolagus colliei coho salmon redbanded rockfish Sebastes babcocki pink salmon Amec Foster Wheeler E-6 Project No. 0148440200 appendix e eth_041217.docx