Biological Assessment

Wells Hydroelectric Project Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Okanogan County, Washington

USFWS Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2017-SLI-0165 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared For:

Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County East Wenatchee, Washington

Prepared by:

January 26, 2016 Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project

Document Title: Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment Date: 1/26/17 Client Name: Douglas County PUD Author: Craig Broadhead, Senior Biologist

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

123 East Yakima Ave, Ste. 250 Yakima, Washington 98901 www.jacobs.com

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Executive Summary Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County (Douglas PUD) needs to repair an eroding bank on the Columbia River south of Pateros, Washington. The erosion repair project (Project) will restore shoreline protection and enhance both terrestrial and aquatic habitat. The work supports Douglas PUD’s obligations under its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate the Wells Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2149. The design incorporates biotic and abiotic elements to reduce erosion and increase shoreline stabilization and habitat values. These elements include placing a cobble and gravel berm below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to dissipate wave energy, constructing a layered coir fabric revetment to protect the shoreline and promote vegetation establishment, flattening steep eroded slopes, and replanting with native vegetation. All work below the OHWM will be completed in the dry during a reservoir drawdown period. Jacobs produced this Biological Assessment (BA) for the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on behalf of Douglas PUD.

The Project is proposed for construction in September 2017, and if possible will be completed concurrently with the Cassimer Bar Dike Breaching project located upstream. The Cassimer Bar project requires drawdown of the Columbia River (Lake Pateros / Wells Reservoir), and completing the Project concurrently allows work to be completed in the dry. The Project is located approximately 4 miles south of Pateros in Okanogan County, Washington (Township 29N, Range 24E, Section 19, Willamette Meridian; Appendix A, Map 1).

A species list was acquired from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC system and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) website (Appendix C). Based on a review of the action area (defined in Section 3 below), Project actions and timing, impact minimization measures, and federally listed species and critical habitat that could occur in the action area, the following determinations in Table S1 are proposed: Table S1: Project Effects Summary

Common Name Listing Status Determination USFWS Gray wolf Endangered No effect Yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened No effect Ute ladies’-tresses Threatened No effect North American wolverine Proposed Threatened No effect

Bull trout – Columbia River DPS Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Bull trout –Critical Habitat Designated May affect, not likely to adversely affect

NMFS Chinook – Upper Columbia River Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Spring-run ESU Chinook – Critical Habitat Designated May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Steelhead – Upper Columbia Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect River Summer-run DPS Steelhead – Critical Habitat Designated May affect, not likely to adversely affect

With this submittal, Douglas PUD is requesting informal consultation on the may affect, not likely to adversely affect determinations above.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Project Overview ...... 4 1.1 Federal Nexus ...... 4 1.2 Project Description ...... 4 2. Project Details ...... 6 2.1 Construction ...... 6 2.1.1 Project Timeline and Sequencing ...... 6 2.1.2 Equipment ...... 6 2.1.3 Construction Access and Staging ...... 6 2.1.4 Construction of Cobble and Gravel Berm and Revetment ...... 6 2.1.5 Post-Project Planting and Site Restoration ...... 7 3. Project Action Area ...... 8 3.1 Terrestrial Zone of Impact ...... 8 3.2 Aquatic Zone of Impact ...... 9 4. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...... 10 5. Federally Proposed and Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat ...... 11 5.1 Species Excluded from Further Assessment ...... 11 5.2 Columbia River DPS Bull Trout ...... 12 5.2.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area ...... 12 5.3 Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat ...... 12 5.3.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area ...... 13 5.4 Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU Chinook Salmon ...... 14 5.4.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area ...... 14 5.5 Chinook Salmon Designated Critical Habitat ...... 14 5.6 Upper Columbia River summer-run DPS Steelhead ...... 15 5.6.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area ...... 15 5.7 Steelhead Designated Critical Habitat ...... 16 6. Environmental Baseline ...... 17 6.1 Aquatic Resources ...... 17 6.1.1 Wells Hydroelectric Project ...... 17 6.2 Uplands Overview ...... 18 7. Effects Analysis ...... 19 7.1 Direct Effects ...... 19 7.1.1 Terrestrial Noise ...... 19 7.1.2 Water Quality ...... 19 7.1.3 Habitat Alteration ...... 19 7.2 Indirect Effects ...... 20 7.2.1 Altered Predator-Prey Relationships ...... 20

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

7.2.2 Long-Term Habitat Alteration ...... 20 7.2.3 Indirect Land Use Impacts ...... 20 7.3 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions and Activities ...... 20 8. Effect Determinations ...... 21 8.1 Effect Determinations for Listed Species ...... 21 8.1.1 Columbia River DPS Bull Trout ...... 21 8.1.2 Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU Chinook Salmon ...... 22 8.1.3 Upper Columbia River summer-run DPS steelhead ...... 23 8.2 Effect Determination for Designated Critical Habitats ...... 24 8.2.1 Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat ...... 24 8.2.2 Chinook Designated Critical Habitat ...... 25 8.2.3 Steelhead Designated Critical Habitat ...... 26 9. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment and Effect Determination ...... 28 10. References ...... 29

Appendix A. Project Maps ...... 31 Appendix B. Project Drawings, Site Plans and Photographs...... 32 Appendix C. USFWS and NMFS Species List ...... 33

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

1. Project Overview

1.1 Federal Nexus The Project will require a Corps permit, and is therefore a federal action. This BA addresses the proposed action in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Section 7 of the ESA requires that, through consultation (or conferencing for proposed species) with the USFWS and NMFS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered, or proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

This BA evaluates the potential effects of the Project on species and critical habitats that are federally listed under the ESA. Specific Project design elements are identified that avoid or minimize adverse effects of the proposed Project on listed species and/or critical habitat.

1.2 Project Description The Project is located approximately 4 miles south of Pateros in Okanogan County, Washington (Township 29N, Range 24E, Section 19, Willamette Meridian; Appendix A, Map 1).The Project includes the repair of approximately 300 linear feet of actively eroding Columbia River bank. The eroding bank is located in an area with high wave erosion potential, and the combination of lack of vegetation and fine soils at the location are not able to withstand current conditions to prevent on-going erosion. A layered coir revetment, cobble and gravel beach berm, and native willow plantings will be used to dissipate wave energy and prevent further erosion (Appendix B).

An existing non-native willow tree located on the end of a small point bar has provided some protection of the bank, but is severely undercut and has caused erosion to develop a small embayment to the west of the tree. A layered coir fabric revetment will be constructed at this location, surrounding the existing tree and embayment. The bottom layer will be filled with gravel to provide additional wave protection. Subsequent layers will be filled with a compressed topsoil mix suitable for vegetation re-establishment. As each layer is constructed, willow cuttings will be placed between the layers to a depth suitable to reach saturated soil. The coir revetment will be approximately 125 linear feet in length, approximately 12 feet wide at the bottom, three feet wide at the top, and approximately five feet high depending on location. The layered coir revetment will be constructed so about ½ of the revetment is above the OHWM, providing wave energy dissipation at a variety of water surface elevations and protecting existing vegetation. Approximately 98 cubic yards (cy) of fill will be required below the OHWM for the construction of the coir revetment. The revetment footprint is approximately 1,500 square feet (sf) (Appendix B).

In the linear erosion area to the east of the point bar, a cobble and gravel berm will be placed waterward of the toe of slope to dissipate wave energy. The cobble and gravel bar will be approximately 175 feet long, 12 feet wide at the base and one foot wide at the top, and will be 3- 4 feet in height depending on the location (Appendix B). The waterward slope of the cobble and gravel bar will be 4:1, and the land side will be 2:1. The finished elevation will be approximately one foot above the OHWM. Approximately 71cy of fill will be required below the OHWM for the construction of the cobble and gravel berm. The berm footprint is approximately 2,100 sf.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

In places where the existing bank is vertical, the bank will be reshaped to contours suitable for willow stake establishment. The shoreline and the area between the shoreline and both the cobble and gravel berm will be planted with coyote willow stakes. Approximately 1,200 sf will be planted with coyote willow to provide additional shoreline stabilization.

See Section 2 below for additional Project details.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

2. Project Details

2.1 Construction The Project will protect the eroding shoreline by placing a cobble and gravel berm below the OHWM to dissipate wave energy, constructing a layered coir fabric revetment to protect the shoreline and promote vegetation establishment, flattening steep eroded slopes, and replanting with native vegetation. Project details for each design feature are provided in the sub-sections below.

2.1.1 Project Timeline and Sequencing

The Project will begin in September 2017 and will take up to four weeks to complete. Work will potentially occur simultaneous with the Cassimer Bar dike project located upstream. The Cassimer Bar project requires drawdown of the Columbia River (Lake Pateros / Wells Reservoir). Completing the Project concurrently allows work to be completed in the dry.

2.1.2 Equipment

Equipment to be used will include, but is not limited to: excavators, mini-excavators, dump trucks, and backhoes. The use of pumps or other equipment is not anticipated, as work will occur after reservoir drawdown and dewatering or isolation will not be necessary.

2.1.3 Construction Access and Staging

Access will be by easement through the adjacent property owner’s yard. If necessary, geotextile fabric and/or hog fuel may be used to protect access points, existing yards, and prevent erosion during construction. Staging of equipment and materials will occur within the Project area or access area as approved by the property owner. Existing State highways and County roads will be used to access the Project site. If the Contractor chooses to utilize an area for staging outside of those described here, they will be responsible for obtaining permits and necessary clearances for the use of alternate sites. No access by boat is anticipated.

It is likely the Contractor can utilize a single location to access the area below the OHWM to construct the berm and revetment (Appendix A, Map 3). The steep bank area will be flattened to allow equipment access to the river bed and geotextile fabric will be placed to prevent erosion during ingress and egress. Work will occur below the OHWM after drawdown has occurred and the aquatic bed has dried. Based on the cobble substrate present at the site, no BMPs except for placement of geotextile fabric will be necessary for equipment access below the OHWM. No vegetation will need to be removed for access. When construction is complete, the geotextile fabric will be removed and the access area planted with willow stakes.

2.1.4 Construction of Cobble and Gravel Berm and Revetment

The berm will be constructed of a mixed cobble and gravel, sized appropriately to withstand erosive forces while having some deformability. The intent is to allow native willow growth to occur behind the berm, with long-term sediment deposition and bank reforming. The material will be placed on the dry river bed with dump trucks, and shaped using a small excavator or backhoe.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

The layered coir revetment is comprised of stacked layers of geotextile-wrapped gravel or soil lifts. Lifts are constructed by laying geotextile fabric out, placing fill material, and pulling back the geotextile material to create the lift. A template can be used to help hold fill material and make it easier to form each lift. Each layer of the revetment can vary in height depending on amount of fill. For this Project, lifts will likely be between 12 and 16 inches. The bottom lift will be filled with gravel to build a solid base and provide protection against wave action. The remaining lifts will be filled with a compressed topsoil mix that is suitable for plant growth. As each lift is placed, willow cutting are stacked between, with sufficient length to reach back to saturated soil contact. Willow cutting can also be placed directly through each lift vertically for additional growth potential and enhanced protection.

2.1.5 Post-Project Planting and Site Restoration

The Contractor will incorporate willow cuttings as the revetment is being placed. The area behind the berm and revetment, including the flattened banks at and just above the OHWM, will be planted with willow stakes. Coyote willow will be harvested from a local source, or purchased from a native plant nursery. If temperatures preclude stake planting during September, Douglas PUD will return and plant willow stakes later in the fall.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

3. Project Action Area The action area includes all areas that could be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and is not limited to the actual work area (project area). The action area represents the geographic extent of the physical, biological, and chemical impacts of the project. The project area and secondary project features are considered when defining the action area. Secondary project features include staging areas.

The Project area is defined as the project footprint, work area, and immediate vicinity of the proposed action. The project area includes the access area from adjacent private property, areas where bank shaping will occur, and all impacted areas below the OHWM where the gravel and cobble berm and revetment will be constructed.

The Project action area will include potential effects from visual and audible disturbance, terrestrial habitat impacts, and impacts to aquatic environments. Work below the OHWM will occur.

3.1 Terrestrial Zone of Impact The Project is located in a low-density rural residential and agricultural area on the valley floor of the Columbia River. US Highway (US) 97 is located approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the Project. Due to the distance to US 97, it is not likely that traffic noise contributes significantly to baseline noise levels. However, it is likely that traffic noise from US 97 would limit the extent of noise disturbance associated with construction. A large gravel operation is located approximately 2,500 feet northwest of the Project, and the area landward of the Project is dominated by orchards and agricultural operations (Appendix A, Maps 2 and 3).

Background sound levels vary depending on the level of development. Urban areas have the highest background sound levels, with daytime levels approximating 60 to 65 decibels (dBA), suburban or residential areas have background levels around 45 to 50 dBA, and rural areas are the quietest with sound levels of 35 to 40 dBA (FTA 2006). While the Project vicinity is relatively low-density rural residential, agricultural operations likely contribute to elevated baseline noise levels. For the purpose of this assessment, a background noise level of 45 dBA is assumed.

The construction equipment with the highest associated noise levels are to be used are dump trucks (76 dBA), backhoe (78 dBA), and excavators (81 dBA) (FHWA 2011). Using the rules for decibel addition to combine the three loudest pieces of equipment (WSDOT 2015), the estimated noise level from construction is 84 dBA.

Sound attenuates differently depending on whether it is point or line source, and whether it travels over a soft site (ground) or a hard site (water). Construction will occur generally from the same location, so point source attenuation (-6 dBA/doubling of distance) is used in this assessment. In addition, the majority of the action area is water, so no attenuation factor for a soft site is used. This remains conservative and the terrestrial zone of impact is likely overestimated in areas to the north and west. Table 1 summarizes construction noise attenuation compared to baseline noise levels to estimate the terrestrial zone of impact.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Table 1: Airborne Noise Attenuation Table Construction Noise (point source + hard site) Distance (feet) (attenuation = -6 dBA for doubling of distance) 50 84 100 78 200 72 400 66 800 60 1600 54 3200 48 6400 42

Based on the data in Table 1, construction noise would attenuate below the baseline noise estimate of 45 dBA between 3,200 and 6,400 feet from the Project area. Solving an attenuation equation for distance construction noise attenuates to background sound level; construction noise attenuates to background at a distance of 4,456 feet from Project activity. This relatively simplistic model does not take into account variables such as traffic, environmental conditions such as wind and vegetation, or topography of adjacent terrain. The outer limit of terrestrial noise disturbance is assumed to be 4,456 feet from the Project site. Appendix A, Map 2 provides a graphic representation of the physical extent of the action area based on the information above.

3.2 Aquatic Zone of Impact

The construction of the gravel and cobble berm and revetment will require work below the OHWM. However, there will be no in-water work (Appendix A, Map 3). As described above, the work will occur during a drawdown period when the elevation of the reservoir is lowered to work on the Cassimer Bar project upstream. The potential does exist for a slight temporary increase in turbidity when the reservoir elevation is raised after construction and water reaches the work area. The bottom substrate within the work area is large cobble and gravels, so it is unlikely much sediment will be mobilized from the bottom during re-watering. However, there may be a slight leaching effect causing minor amounts of turbidity when water first reaches the layered coir revetment and gravel and cobble berm. Any turbidity associated with the “first flush” will be localized, and will settle out quickly. This zone of impact will be a one-time event, and water quality should return to baseline levels within 50 feet of the Project area. This is likely a conservative estimate, based on low water depths (less than 2 feet), a relatively long duration to completely raise the water surface elevation (longer saturation period indicates less leaching), and the likely wave action holding turbidity against the revetment or berm until it settles out.

Based on the above, the aquatic zone of impact includes the area below the OHWM of the Columbia River, extending the approximate 300-foot length of the revetment and berm, and extending outward 50 feet. The area of the aquatic zone of impact is approximately 15,000 sf.

Based on this analysis, the action area for the Project is defined as extending 4,456 feet from the Project location and includes the approximate area below the OHWM of the Columbia River extending the length of the revetment and berm and extending outward 50 feet (Appendix A, Map 2).

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

4. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Douglas PUD and the Contractor will implement several minimization measures (MM) to avoid or minimize impacts to species, habitats, and the environment. A summary of these measures is below.

MM 1 – Work below the OHWM will only occur in the dry, after drawdown has occurred. No in- water work will occur.

MM 2 – Equipment working below the OHWM will utilize vegetable oil or other biodegradable fluid instead of hydraulic fluid.

MM 3 – The revetment and cobble and gravel berm will be built by accessing from the impacted footprint and upland bank where possible. Equipment will avoid working from the waterward side of the revetment and berm.

MM 4 – All equipment will be inspected for leaks prior to work each day.

MM 5 – Staging and fueling of equipment will occur more than 50 feet from the OHWM.

MM 6 – Existing shoreline vegetation will be protected where possible.

MM 7 – Geotextile fabric or other BMP will be placed beneath the access point to protect the bank and prevent erosion.

MM 8 – Gravel and gravel/cobble mix used for the revetment and berm will be clean and free of any debris.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

5. Federally Proposed and Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat

The following section provides the justification for a No Effect determination for gray wolf, wolverine, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Ute ladies’-tresses. Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS) bull trout, Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook, UCR summer-run steelhead, and designated critical habitat for these species are further addressed below.

5.1 Species Excluded from Further Assessment

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) was identified on the species list as potentially occurring in the Project action area. This population is currently listed as Endangered, but is proposed for delisting. In Washington, this population occurs west of the centerline of US 97 and State Route 17 north of Mesa. According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reporting database (WDFW 2016), transient gray wolves have been reported within 7 miles of the Project area, with all sightings occurring during late fall or winter. Gray wolves are associated with mid-to high elevation habitats with an abundance of prey species. The Project area is located at approximately 780 feet in elevation. Vegetation in the action area consists of developed orchards, sagebrush, and bunch grasses. Based on the absence of suitable habitat and lack of prey species in the action area, and construction during late summer when wolves are in higher elevations, the Project will have No Effect on gray wolf. Gray wolf is not further addressed in this assessment.

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo) are proposed to be listed as threatened in Washington State, and were listed as potentially occurring in the Project action area. In Washington State, wolverine historically occupy alpine and subalpine habitats of the Cascades, Blue Mountains, and Rocky Mountains (WDFW 2012a). Wolverine occur in very low densities, and are associated year-round near areas with permanent snow pack. The Project area is located at about 780 feet in elevation. Vegetation in the action area consists of developed orchards, sagebrush, and bunch grasses. The Project action area does not contain suitable habitat for wolverine. The Project will not jeopardize the continued existence of wolverine. Should wolverine be listed prior to the completion of the Project, the Project will have No Effect on wolverine, and they are not considered further in this assessment.

The Western United States Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are listed as threatened in Washington State. In the breeding range, yellow-billed cuckoos prefer open lowland deciduous woodlands with clearings and shrubby vegetation. No nesting records exist for eastern Washington, despite the presence of apparently suitable riparian corridors, occasional past sightings during the summer, and documented breeding in eastern Oregon and southern Idaho (WDFW 2012b). Reports of individual cuckoos have been very rare in recent decades, with only about 12 records made between 1950 and 2000 (eight in eastern Washington) (Tweit 2005; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). Yellow- billed cuckoo require large tracts of willow-cottonwood or mesquite forest or woodland for their nesting season habitat. Western yellow-billed cuckoos rarely nest at sites less than 50 acres (ac) (20 hectares (ha)) in size, and sites less than 37 ac (15 ha) are considered unsuitable habitat (79 FR 48551). There are no large tracts of willow or cottonwood within the Project action area. Due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat in the Project action area, the Project will have No Effect on Yellow-billed cuckoo and they are not further addressed in this assessment.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) are listed as threatened in Washington State. Documented populations in Washington State occur in Okanogan County at Wannacut Lake (WA Natural Heritage Program 1999) and along the Rocky Reach Reservoir in the northeastern corner of Chelan County (Beck Botanical Services 2004). They are endemic to mesic or wet meadows and riparian/wetland habitats near springs, seeps, lakes or perennial streams. Soils may be inundated early in the growing season, which normally become drier but retain subsurface moisture through the season. Plants usually occur in small scattered groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian systems. Early to mid-seral riparian habitats created and maintained by stream activity within the floodplain appear to be essential to the orchid. Rare plant surveys for the Wells Hydroelectric Project relicensing found no populations of Ute ladies’-tresses, although potentially suitable habitat was documented at stabilized gravel bars on the Columbia and Methow rivers that are moist throughout the growing season and inundated early in the growing season (Douglas PUD 2006a). The Project action area does not have any wetlands present, and no stabilized gravel bars are able to form due to erosive forces. There is no suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses in the Project action area. The Project will have No Effect on Ute ladies’-tresses and this species is not further addressed in this assessment.

5.2 Columbia River DPS Bull Trout

The Columbia River DPS bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is listed as threatened under the ESA in Okanogan County. USFWS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing.

5.2.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area

The Action Area is within the Upper Columbia River Recovery Unit. The Upper Columbia River Recovery Unit includes the Columbia and Okanogan rivers. The Columbia River recovery unit currently contains about 90 core areas and 500 local populations. The condition of the bull trout within all 90 core areas varies from poor to good but generally all have been subject to the combined effects of habitat degradation, fragmentation and alterations associated with one or more of the following activities: dewatering; road construction and maintenance; mining and grazing; the 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.

Bull trout have the most specific habitat requirements of salmonids. Bull trout require colder water temperature than most salmonids. Bull trout require temperatures below 59°F (15°C) throughout their lifecycle. BioAnalysts in 2001 and 2002 radio tagged bull trout at Rocky Reach dam and followed the trout’s migration to their tributary stream. Bull trout were subsequently documented in the Methow River. (BioAnalysts, Inc. 2002). The Project action area is between Rocky Reach dam and the Methow River, so transitory bull trout have been documented in the Project action area. However, elevated temperatures associated with low water depths in the action area and warmer temperatures in late summer likely inhibit more than short-term presence.

5.3 Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat

USFWS finalized the revised critical habitat designation for bull trout October 18, 2010.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

5.3.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area

Designated critical habitat includes all of the Wells Project waters except the Okanogan River (75 FR 63898). The Physical or Biological Features (PBFs) identified as essential for conservation of the species are: (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, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species. Within these PBFs, nine Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) have been identified:

 (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 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; streamflow; 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.

 (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.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Of these PCEs, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are present within the aquatic zone of impact in the action area. The Project action area lacks springs, seeps, and other groundwater sources, an abundant food base for bull trout, adequate water temperatures for thermal refugia, spawning or rearing areas, and low-levels of predatory or competitive species (bass and northern pike minnow).

5.4 Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU Chinook Salmon

UCR spring-run ESU Chinook (Oncoryhnchus tshawytscha) salmon are listed as endangered under the ESA in Okanogan County. NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing.

5.4.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area

The Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon in all river reaches accessible to Chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington (excluding the Okanogan River), as well as six artificial propagation programs: the Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow Composite, Winthrop National Fish Hatchery, Chiwawa River, and White River spring-run Chinook hatchery programs (NMFS 2010).

Spring Chinook exhibit classic stream type life history strategies, emigrating from freshwater as yearling smolts and undertaking extensive offshore ocean migrations. The majority of adult Chinook mature at 4 years of age and return to the Columbia River from March through mid- May. In the mid-Columbia River Basin, Chinook salmon passing Wells Dam before June 28 are considered spring Chinook salmon (NMFS 2002). Spawning generally occurs from late July through September and typically peaks in late August, although the peaks vary among tributaries (Chapman et al. 1995). Spring Chinook salmon eggs hatch in late winter and the fry emerge from gravel in April and May (Chapman et al. 1995). Most of these juveniles (73- 193mm in size) rear in tributary headwater streams for 1 year before migrating to the ocean, typically during the months of April, May, and June (Douglas PUD 2002). The Methow River is the closest documented spawning area.

The Project will occur in September. Based on timing shown above, presence of in-migrating adults bound for the Methow or out-migrating juveniles will be unlikely in the Project action area during construction.

5.5 Chinook Salmon Designated Critical Habitat

The main stem Columbia River from the Wells tailrace to the confluence of the Columbia and Methow rivers, along with the accessible portions of the Methow River Basin, are included in the critical habitat designation for spring Chinook in the Wells Project area (70 FR 52731). The Columbia River in the Project action Area is within the critical habitat designated for UCR spring-run Chinook salmon.

Within designated critical habitat, there are three PCEs identified for freshwater systems:

 (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)

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

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, and;

 (3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.

Of these PCEs, PCE 3 is the only one present in the Project action area. The Columbia River in the Project action area is considered a migration corridor for Chinook, not a spawning or rearing reach (WDFW 2016).

5.6 Upper Columbia River summer-run DPS Steelhead

UCR summer-run DPS steelhead (Oncoryhnchus mykiss) are listed as threatened under the ESA in Okanogan County. NMFS is the lead regulatory agency for this listing.

5.6.1 Status/Presence in the Action Area

The Upper Columbia River ESU includes all naturally spawned anadromous steelhead populations below natural and man-made impassable barriers in streams in the Columbia River Basin upstream from the Yakima River to the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam and to the U. S. Canada border on the Okanogan River. NOAA Fisheries has initially identified three important spawning populations within this ESU: the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow populations (NMFS 2003). NMFS considers all summer-run steelhead (O. mykiss) returning to tributary streams upstream of the confluence of the Yakima River and the Columbia River as belonging to the UCR DPS (NMFS 2008). The majority of the steelhead are of hatchery origin (Chapman et al. 1994). Steelhead hatchery programs that were included in the listing determination include the Wells and Eastbank Fish hatcheries. These programs release listed steelhead into the Okanogan, Similkameen, Methow and Wenatchee rivers.

Adult steelhead rear one to two years in the ocean before returning to the Columbia River from March through October. Returning adults typically pass the mid-Columbia River dams from June through October. The adult migration is protracted over a relatively long period. Further, spawning does not occur until the following March through July (Peven 1992). Unlike other anadromous salmonids, some steelhead adults (kelts) return to the ocean after spawning and may spawn more than once during their lifetime; however, repeat spawners in the mid-Columbia River region represent only 2.1 percent of the population (Brown 1995).

Steelhead eggs incubate from late March through June, and fry emerge from late spring to August. Their use of tributaries for rearing is variable, depending upon population size, and both weather and flow at any given time. Generally, juveniles rear in tributaries for two to three years (range from one to seven years) before migrating downstream as smolts. Fry and smolts disperse downstream through the Wells Project in late April through June. Some steelhead are thought to residualize and live their entire lives in freshwater (Peven et al. 1994). Juveniles from the Methow and Okanogan rivers migrate actively through the reservoir in late spring, and residence time is short.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

The Project will take place in September. Very few steelhead smolts are likely within Wells Reservoir at this time. In addition, water temperatures in the shallow water near the Project are likely elevated in late summer, and may present a thermal barrier to residual or migrating adults in the action area.

5.7 Steelhead Designated Critical Habitat

Critical habitat does occur in the Wells Project area and includes the main stem Columbia River from the Wells tailrace to the confluence of the Columbia and Okanogan rivers. The Project action area is within the critical habitat for steelhead on the Columbia River.

Similar to Chinook salmon, within designated critical habitat, there are three PCEs identified for freshwater systems:

 (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, and;

Of these PCEs, PCE 3 is the only one present in the Project action area. The Columbia River in the Project action area is considered a migration corridor for steelhead, not a spawning or rearing reach (WDFW 2016).

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

6. Environmental Baseline

The Project is located on the right bank of the Columbia River in north central Washington, within the Wells Hydroelectric Project. The Columbia River in Washington State is a managed reservoir system, supporting hydroelectric operations and large-scale irrigation.

6.1 Aquatic Resources

6.1.1 Wells Hydroelectric Project The body of water formed and directly influenced by Wells Dam is known as Wells Reservoir. Wells Reservoir consists of portions of three rivers including 29.1 miles of the Columbia River, 1.5 miles of the lower Methow River (Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 48), and 15.5 miles of the lower Okanogan River (WRIA 49). The normal maximum water surface elevation of Wells Reservoir is 781 feet mean sea level (MSL). At this elevation, Wells Reservoir surface area is 9,740 acres, the total storage capacity is 331,200 acre-feet (ac-ft), and the usable storage capacity is 97,985 ac-ft. The Wells Project has an impoundment right of 331,200 ac-ft per year and is authorized to maintain its reservoir level between elevation 781 and 771 feet MSL for power and non-power purposes. The maximum depth of the reservoir under average conditions is >100 feet and the mean depth is 34 feet. The flushing rate varies seasonally with average flushing rates of 0.48 days in June and 2.98 days in January (Douglas PUD 2006b).

The Wells Project is a “run-of-river” hydroelectric project meaning that on average, daily inflow to Wells Reservoir equals daily outflow. The inflow to Wells Reservoir is primarily determined by operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), which is managed for a number of purposes, including flood control, irrigation, power production, protection of fish resources and recreation. In general, the FCRPS is operated to fill upstream storage reservoirs by the end of June, provide augmented summer flows for fish passage and power production through the summer, draft storage reservoirs to meet power demand and salmon spawning requirements through the fall and winter and, depending on snow accumulations and runoff forecasts, draft for flood control and fill to meet the June refill target through the spring (Douglas PUD 2006b).

The uppermost five mile section of Wells Reservoir immediately downstream from the Chief Joseph Dam tailrace (RM 540 to RM 544.9) is characteristic of a riverine environment. This section of Wells Reservoir is relatively narrow and fast-flowing with a precipitous shoreline. Dominant substrate in this upper section is characterized by larger sized cobble substrate. The middle 10-mile section between the town of Brewster (RM 530) and just upstream of Chief Joseph State Park (RM 540) is more characteristic of a lacustrine environment. This section of Wells Reservoir is a shallow, relatively broad area containing the confluence of the Okanogan River. Water velocities in this middle section are slower, more of the substrate is composed of fine sediment, and the bathymetry is more gradual than the Upper Wells Reservoir. This section has the highest density of aquatic plant communities and has the largest area of littoral fish habitat compared to the other two sections of Wells Reservoir (Le and Kreiter 2006). The lowermost 15-mile section is relatively narrow and fast flowing, compared to the middle section, but eventually slows and deepens as it nears Wells Dam. Shoreline slopes are steep with a relatively high frequency of riprap; substrates in this section tend to be coarse.

The entire shoreline length is 105 miles long, most of which has a relatively steep topography with banks rising sharply to 20 to 40 feet above the reservoir elevation. Exceptions to this

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

include: shoreline areas near Pateros and Brewster; near the mouth of Okanogan River; at Washburn Island; and at Bridgeport Bar. The reservoir shoreline is diverse and includes stable areas with dense riparian vegetation; unstable and eroding areas; areas of minimal vegetation and exposed bedrock; and areas that are relatively unvegetated and have been stabilized by riprap.

There are 142 acres of riparian vegetation with deciduous tree over story on lands within the Wells Project Boundary (Douglas PUD 2006a). Shrub-steppe, irrigated agriculture, wildlife habitat (e.g., wildlife management areas), recreation lands, and the towns of Pateros, Brewster and Bridgeport, surround the reservoir.

Within the reservoir, native aquatic plant communities (i.e., macrophytes) are dominated by various native species of pondweed (Potamegeton spp.) and are most common between depths of 4 to 18 feet (Douglas PUD 2006a and Le and Kreiter 2006). Macrophytes generally were not found at water depths less than 4 feet, which encompasses the area most susceptible to fluctuating reservoir water levels (Le and Kreiter 2006). Invasive species such as Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamegeton crispus) also occur in Wells Reservoir, but at this time are in low proportion relative to the dominant native macrophyte species (Le and Kreiter 2006).

The substrate of the Columbia River within the Project footprint is mostly silt with cobbles and limited gravel. The bathymetry in the Project footprint is relatively flat, with water depths of less than 2 feet on the outer construction limits. Due to wave energy and scour, there is no aquatic vegetation present and very little siltation within the existing cobble substrate (see photos, Appendix B).

6.2 Uplands Overview The Project area is east of the Cascade Range, in the interior Columbia basin which is characterized by low rainfall, cold winters, and hot, dry summers. The immediate Project area is generally characterized by rural residences, fruit production orchards, minimal farming, and some rangeland. The land immediately adjacent to the Wells Project is private, however, the Wells Project includes the reservoir shoreline and Douglas PUD owns over 99% of shorelands in fee.

The vegetation and habitat near the Project area is characterized as Columbia Plateau low- sagebrush steppe and Inter-mountain basins, cliffs, and canyons (WNHP 2015). These habitats are found in the interior Columbia Basin where riverine canyons are adjacent to plateaus or cliffs. Vegetation is characteristic of shrub-steppe, with sagebrush (Artemesia spp.), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), perennial bunch grasses, and non-native cheat grass (Bromus spp). Steep basalt ravines and open rock and grassland slopes dominate the terrain in the Project vicinity. Riparian buffers in the managed system have been highly altered by adjacent agricultural practices, and mostly consist of thin bands of willow (Salix spp) and cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) can be found in limited shoreline areas and in higher elevations in the Project vicinity.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

7. Effects Analysis

7.1 Direct Effects A direct effect is the direct or immediate effect of the Project on a species or its habitat. According to ESA regulatory definitions, direct effects occur at or very close to the time of the action itself. Direct effects for the Project are noise associated with construction, water quality impacts when water surface elevation is raised, and habitat alteration.

7.1.1 Terrestrial Noise

Construction noise from the Project is expected to extend approximately 4,456 feet from the Project area before returning to baseline conditions. Any listed terrestrial species within this area during construction would be exposed to elevated noise levels, and if not habituated, could be displaced from the area. However, the action area does not contain suitable habitat for any listed terrestrial species. In addition, the Project will be completed in late summer when even transient presence of gray wolf and wolverine is unlikely. The risk of exposure to elevated sound levels by any listed terrestrial species is very minimal.

7.1.2 Water Quality

The Project will be constructed in the dry, after the water surface elevation has been lowered. The river substrate of the Project area is medium-to-large cobble and gravel, with very little sediment deposition. Access by construction equipment is not likely to mobilize sediment and lead to impacts from turbidity. In addition, the Contractor will work from the shoreline outward when constructing the berm and revetment to minimize the aquatic disturbance footprint where possible. Because the work will occur in the dry, listed species presence is discountable in the aquatic zone of impact during construction.

When the water surface elevation is raised after the Project is complete, there will likely be short-term and localized turbidity associated with leaching of the revetment lifts. The cobble berm will utilize clean material, so turbidity will be minimized in this location during re-watering. If leaching occurs during re-watering, any turbidity will be held against the revetment as the water surface elevation increases, and would be expected to settle out relatively quickly. Water surface elevations will be increased gradually, with a duration of several days required to return the reservoir to full operating level. This long duration will minimize the extent of turbidity impacts.

Based on Project timing, Chinook salmon and bull trout are not likely to be present in the aquatic zone of impact when the water surface elevation is raised. Steelhead adults could be migrating past the Project at this time, but their presence in the aquatic zone of impact is discountable based on shallow water depths and elevated temperatures.

7.1.3 Habitat Alteration

The cobble/gravel berm and coir revetment will cover approximately 3,600 sf of habitat. In addition, approximately 1,200 sf of area behind the berm and revetment will be excluded from flowing water and will be planted with coyote willow. This represents approximately 4,800 sf of currently accessible Columbia River habitat that will be replaced with plant-protected shoreline. The revetment and berm are being constructed in the approximate location of the shoreline toe- 19

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

of-slope prior to erosion occurring, so true habitat alteration is very minimal. The habitat that is being altered is not always available, as reservoir operations fluctuate and the amount of access can vary. In addition, the habitat in the Project area is degraded due to bank erosion, higher temperatures, and lack of riparian vegetation. More suitable habitat is available elsewhere within the reach. Habitat alteration of 4,800 sf of already degraded habitat is insignificant when compared to that available elsewhere in the Columbia River.

The Project will have a beneficial effect on riparian habitat. Halting the erosion and planting the revetment and shoreline area will have long-term beneficial effects, providing increased vegetative cover, lower water temperatures, and a slight increase in habitat complexity on the shoreline.

7.2 Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time after the action is completed. The Project does not create a new facility, does not increase access or use, does not increase capacity, and does not have new development contingent on the Project.

7.2.1 Altered Predator-Prey Relationships

The Project will not impact suitable food items or prey species of any listed species. There may be a short-term displacement to salmon and steelhead during reservoir draw-down, but the amount of displaced area is insignificant when compared to the amount of suitable aquatic habitat elsewhere in the action area.

7.2.2 Long-Term Habitat Alteration

The Project will alter approximately 4,800 sf of currently available but degraded aquatic habitat. The revetment and berm will be constructed in the approximate location of the shoreline prior to erosion occurring, so true habitat alteration is minimal. The area of permanent altered habitat below the OHWM is insignificant when compared to the amount of suitable habitat within the action area. The Project will have a long-term beneficial impact to riparian habitat.

7.2.3 Indirect Land Use Impacts

There are no land use impacts associated with the Project. The new structures do not add capacity or facilitate growth in the action area in any way.

There will be no indirect effects associated with the construction of the Project.

7.3 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions and Activities

There are no interrelated or interdependent actions or activities associated with the construction of the Project.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

8. Effect Determinations

The Project will not jeopardize the continued existence of wolverine, or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo. Should wolverine be listed prior to completion of the Project, or critical habitat designated for yellow-billed cuckoo, the Project will have No Effect on this species and critical habitat. In addition, the Project will have No Effect on gray wolf, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Ute ladies’-tresses. Refer to Section 5.1 for the justification of these effect determinations.

8.1 Effect Determinations for Listed Species

8.1.1 Columbia River DPS Bull Trout

The Project May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect Columbia River DPS bull trout.

The Project May Affect bull trout because:

 Bull trout presence cannot be precluded in the Columbia River during construction.

 The Project will temporarily limit access to shoreline aquatic habitat.

 The Project will permanently alter approximately 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat.

 A minor and short-term increase in turbidity will be associated with re-watering the work area.

 The Project will replant riparian vegetation that was lost with the unauthorized activity.

However, the Project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect bull trout because:

 The Project will be completed in the dry during September. Bull trout presence in the aquatic zone of impact is discountable due to elevated temperatures, lack of water, and shallow water depths.

 Shoreline habitat in the aquatic zone of impact is degraded due to bank erosion, and the access will be short term and temporary. There is access to more suitable habitat elsewhere in the Columbia River and tributaries. Exclusion from the shoreline area will be an insignificant effect when compared to the amount of suitable habitat elsewhere.

 The 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat is degraded due to continuing bank erosion. In addition, the berm and revetment will be placed in the location of the previous toe-of-slope prior to erosion occurring. The amount of permanent habitat alteration is insignificant compared to suitable habitat elsewhere in the Columbia River.

 As water elevations increase, it is likely turbidity will remain localized in the area adjacent to the berm or revetment. In addition, re-watering will extend over several days, limiting the extent of potential turbidity. The likelihood of bull trout being exposed to increased turbidity is discountable due to elevated water temperatures, relatively low

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

numbers in the Columbia River during construction, and relatively small aquatic zone of impact when compared to more suitable habitat areas.

 Restoring vegetation is an entirely beneficial effect, providing increased bank resiliency to erosion, lowering water temperatures, and increasing shoreline complexity.

8.1.2 Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU Chinook Salmon

The Project May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect UCR spring-run ESU Chinook salmon.

The Project May Affect Chinook because:

 Chinook presence cannot be precluded in the Columbia River during construction.

 The Project will temporarily limit access to shoreline aquatic habitat.

 The Project will permanently alter approximately 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat.

 A minor and short-term increase in turbidity will be associated with re-watering the work area.

 The Project will replant riparian vegetation that was lost with the unauthorized activity.

However, the Project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Chinook salmon because:

 The Project will be completed in the dry during September. Chinook presence in the aquatic zone of impact during the Project is discountable due to run timing, elevated temperatures, lack of water, and shallow water depths.

 The 4,800 sf or currently available aquatic habitat is degraded due to continuing bank erosion. In addition, the berm and revetment will be placed in the location of the previous toe-of-slope prior to erosion occurring. The amount of permanent habitat alteration is insignificant compared to suitable habitat elsewhere in the Columbia River.

 As water elevations increase, it is likely turbidity will remain localized in the area adjacent to the berm or revetment. In addition, re-watering will extend over several days, limiting the extent of potential turbidity. The likelihood of Chinook being exposed to increased turbidity is discountable due to elevated water temperatures, run timing which limits presence of adults or juveniles, and a relatively small aquatic zone of impact when compared to more suitable habitat areas.

 Restoring vegetation is an entirely beneficial effect, providing increased bank resiliency to erosion, lowering water temperatures, and increasing shoreline complexity.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

8.1.3 Upper Columbia River summer-run DPS steelhead

The Project May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect UCR summer-run DPS steelhead.

The Project May Affect steelhead because:

 Steelhead presence cannot be precluded in the Columbia River during construction.

 The Project will temporarily limit access to shoreline aquatic habitat.

 The Project will permanently alter approximately 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat.

 A minor and short-term increase in turbidity will be associated with re-watering the work area.

 The Project will replant riparian vegetation that was lost with the unauthorized activity.

However, the Project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect steelhead because:

 The Project will be completed in the dry during September. Residual steelhead or migrating adults may be present in the reservoir at this time, but presence in the aquatic zone of impact during the Project is discountable due to elevated temperatures, lack of water, and shallow water depths.

 As water elevations increase, it is likely turbidity will remain localized in the area adjacent to the berm or revetment. In addition, re-watering will extend over several days, limiting the extent of potential turbidity. The likelihood of steelhead being exposed to increased turbidity is discountable due to elevated water temperatures, limited presence of residuals or migrating adults, and a relatively small aquatic zone of impact when compared to more suitable habitat areas.

 Restoring vegetation is an entirely beneficial effect, providing increased bank resiliency to erosion, lowering water temperatures, and increasing shoreline complexity.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

8.2 Effect Determination for Designated Critical Habitats

8.2.1 Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat

The Project May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect bull trout designated critical habitat.

The Project May Affect bull trout designated critical habitat because:

 PCE 2 (migration habitat), PCE 4 (complex shoreline habitats), PCE 7 (minimal flow departure in managed systems, and PCE 8 (sufficient water quality and quantity) are present in the action area.

 The Project will temporarily limit access to shoreline aquatic habitat.

 The Project will permanently alter approximately 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat.

 A minor and short-term increase in turbidity will be associated with re-watering the work area.

 The Project will replant riparian vegetation that was lost with the unauthorized activity.

However, the Project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect bull trout designated critical habitat because:

 Effects to PCEs 2, 4, 7, and 8 will be short-term and temporary. The Project will be completed in September, in the dry, with construction lasting less than a month. More suitable migration habitat, complex shoreline habitats and permanent water depths with better water quality are located outside the aquatic zone of impact.

 Shoreline habitat in the aquatic zone of impact is degraded due to on-going bank erosion. The limited habitat complexity (PCE 4) is available only when the reservoir is at full operating levels, and only in the area of the undercut tree. There is access to more suitable habitat elsewhere in the Columbia River and tributaries. Exclusion from the shoreline area will be an insignificant effect when compared to the amount of suitable and complex habitats elsewhere.

 As water elevations increase, it is likely turbidity will remain localized in the area adjacent to the berm or revetment. In addition, re-watering will extend over several days, limiting the extent of potential turbidity. The extent of minor degradation of water quality (PCE 8) is insignificant when compared to more suitable habitats within the Columbia River outside of the aquatic zone of impact.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

 Restoring vegetation is an entirely beneficial effect to PCEs 4 and 8, providing increased bank resiliency to erosion, lowering water temperatures, and increasing shoreline complexity.

8.2.2 Chinook Designated Critical Habitat

The Project May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect Chinook designated critical habitat.

The Project May Affect Chinook designated critical habitat because:

 PCE 3 (freshwater migration habitat) is present in the action area.

 The Project will temporarily limit access to shoreline aquatic habitat.

 The Project will permanently alter approximately 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat.

 A minor and short-term increase in turbidity will be associated with re-watering the work area.

 The Project will replant riparian vegetation that was lost with the unauthorized activity.

However, the Project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Chinook designated critical habitat because:

 The Project will be completed in September, in the dry, with construction lasting less than a month. Migrating Chinook would most likely be utilizing the deeper water areas away from the shoreline for migration.

 The amount of dewatered area is insignificant when compared to the available migratory habitat available elsewhere in the Columbia River.

 Shoreline habitat in the aquatic zone of impact is degraded due to on-going bank erosion. There is access to more suitable habitat elsewhere in the Columbia River and tributaries. Exclusion from the shoreline area will be an insignificant effect when compared to the amount of suitable and complex habitats elsewhere.

 The 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat is degraded due to continuing bank erosion. In addition, the berm and revetment will be placed in the location of the previous toe-of-slope prior to erosion occurring. The amount of permanent migratory habitat alteration is insignificant compared to suitable habitat elsewhere in the Columbia River.

 As water elevations increase, it is likely turbidity will remain localized in the area adjacent to the berm or revetment. In addition, re-watering will extend over several days, limiting the extent of potential turbidity. The extent of minor degradation of water quality is insignificant when compared to more suitable migratory habitats within the Columbia River outside of the aquatic zone of impact. 25

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

 Restoring vegetation is an entirely beneficial effect, providing increased bank resiliency to erosion, lowering water temperatures, and increasing shoreline complexity.

8.2.3 Steelhead Designated Critical Habitat

The Project May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect Chinook designated critical habitat.

The Project May Affect steelhead designated critical habitat because:

 PCE 3 (freshwater migration habitat) is present in the action area.

 The Project will temporarily limit access to shoreline aquatic habitat.

 The Project will permanently alter approximately 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat.

 A minor and short-term increase in turbidity will be associated with re-watering the work area.

 The Project will replant riparian vegetation that was lost with the unauthorized activity.

However, the Project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect steelhead designated critical habitat because:

 The Project will be completed in September, in the dry, with construction lasting less than a month. Residual or migrating adults would most likely be utilizing the deeper water areas away from the shoreline.

 The amount of dewatered area is insignificant when compared to the available migratory habitat available elsewhere in the Columbia River.

 The 4,800 sf of currently available aquatic habitat is degraded due to continuing bank erosion. In addition, the berm and revetment will be placed in the location of the previous toe-of-slope prior to erosion occurring. The amount of permanent migratory habitat alteration is insignificant compared to suitable habitat elsewhere in the Columbia River.

 As water elevations increase, it is likely turbidity will remain localized in the area adjacent to the berm or revetment. In addition, re-watering will extend over several days, limiting the extent of potential turbidity. The extent of minor degradation of water quality is insignificant when compared to more suitable migratory habitats within the Columbia River outside of the aquatic zone of impact.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

 Restoring vegetation is an entirely beneficial effect, providing increased bank resiliency to erosion, lowering water temperatures, and increasing shoreline complexity.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

9. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment and Effect Determination

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) evaluation of impacts is necessary for the Project. EFH is defined by the MSFCMA in 50 CFR 600.905-930 as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The Upper Columbia River and its tributaries are designated as EFH for Pacific salmon, which includes Chinook and coho populations (PFMC 1999). Coho salmon are considered extinct within the mid-Columbia River, but the Yakama Nation in the Wenatchee River and Methow River subbasin has initiated a coho reintroduction program. The Project action area includes habitats that have been designated as EFH for various life-history stages of Pacific salmon.

The assessment of potential effects to Pacific salmon EFH from the proposed Project is described within Section 7 of this BA. Specific elements that could affect EFH for Pacific salmon are temporary water quality impacts, temporary habitat loss, and habitat alteration. Impact avoidance and minimization measures are presented in Section 4.

Based on the minimization measures implemented during construction, and the justifications provided in Section 8 above, the Project will have No Adverse Effect on Pacific salmon EFH.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

10. References

Beck Botanical Service. 2004. Spiranthes diluvialis Survey 2004. Prepared for Chelan County PUD. Wenatchee. Washington.

BioAnalysts, Inc. 2002. Movement of bull trout within the mid-Columbia River and tributaries, 2001-2002. Prepared for the Public Utility District of Chelan County, Wenatchee, Washington.

Brown, L.G. 1995. Mid-Columbia River summer-run steelhead stock assessment – A summary of the Priest Rapids steelhead sampling project, 1986-1994 cycles. Progress report by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Anadromous Fish Division, Fish Management Program. AF95-02.

Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, F. Utter, M. Hill, J. Stevenson, and M. Miller. 1995. Status of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Mid-Columbia Region. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, Idaho.

Douglas PUD. 2006a. Botanical Resources Final Study Report: Cover Type Mapping, Rare Threatened and Endangered Plant Surveys and Invasive Plant Species Surveys, Wells Hydroelectric Project. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. for Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County.

_____. 2006b. Wells Hydroelectric Project Pre-Application Document (PAD). Prepared by Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County. December 2006.

_____. 2002. Anadromous Fish Agreement and Habitat Conservation Plan for Wells Hydroelectric Project (FERC License No. 2149). March, 2002. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, Washington.

FHWA. 2011. Federal Highway Administration. Construction Noise Handbook. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm

FTA. 2006. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

Lê, B. and S. Kreiter. 2006. Wells Project Macrophyte Identification and Distribution Study, 2005. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, Washington.

NMFS. 2010. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service – Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook ESU. Available: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESASalmon-Listings/Salmon- opulations/Chinook/CKUCS.cfm

______. 2008. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service – Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS. Available: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon- Populations/Steelhead/STUCR.cfm

______. 2002. Anadromous Fish Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans: Final

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Environmental Impact Statement for the Wells, Rocky Reach, and Rock Island Hydroelectric Projects. US Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. December 2002.

Peven, C.M. 1992. Population status of selected stocks of salmonids from the mid-Columbia River Basin. Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Fish and Wildlife Operations, Wenatchee, Washington.

PFMC. 1999. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Appendix A. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Tweit, B. 2005. Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus. Page 210 in T. R. Wahl, B. Tweit, and S. G.Mlodinow, editors. Birds of Washington: status and distribution. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon

USFWS. 2016. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). USFWS research website related to USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species. Website accessed on September 28, 2016. ______. 2002. Chapter 22, Upper Columbia Recovery Unit, Washington. 113 pp. In: US Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 137pp.

WDFW. 2016. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Gray Wolf Sightings Database. Accessed January 2017. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/reporting/sightings.html

_____. Salmonscape Database. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html Accessed January 2017.

_____. 2012(a). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012 WDFW Annual Report, Wolverine. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/wolverine.pdf

_____. 2012(b). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW Status Report, Yellow- billed Cuckoo. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/yellow- billed_cuckoo.pdf

WNHP. 2015. Ecological Systems of Washington State. A Guide to Identification. October 19, 2015. 384 pp.

_____. 2009. Washington Natural Heritage Program. An illustrated guide to the endangered, threatened and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 328 pp.

WSDOT. 2015. Washington State Department of Transportation. Biological Assessment Preparation Advanced Training Manual. Olympia, WA.

Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Appendix A. Project Maps

Map 1 - Vicinity Map

Map 2 – Action Area

Map 3 – Project Site Features

Project Area d x m . t i

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, a r t r

USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance o P _

Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 1 1 x 8 MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community \ p o t k s e D \ d c h d a o Map 1: Project Vicinity Map r b \ s r

Douglas PUD Tract 4 Bank Stabilization Project e s U \ : C

: h t a P

Ü n e 0 2,450 4,900 9,800 m

Feet Biological Assessment January 2017 u c o D Source: ESRI Aerial (pre-landslide); WSDOT Aerial Photo (post-landslide); Snohomish County, DNR, & WSDOT GIS Data 2015; Project Area d x m . t

Legend i a r t r o P _

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus 1 Project Action Area (4,456 ft) 1 x 8 DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and \ p o t

the GIS User Community k s e D \ d c h d a o Map 2: Project Action Area w/Aquatic Zone of Impact r b \ s r

Douglas PUD Tract 4 Bank Stabilization Project e s U \ : C

: h t a P

Ü n e 0 1,400 2,800 5,600 m

Feet Biological Assessment January 2017 u c o D Source: ESRI Aerial (pre-landslide); WSDOT Aerial Photo (post-landslide); Snohomish County, DNR, & WSDOT GIS Data 2015; d x m . t i a r t r o P _

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus 1 1 x 8 DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and \ p o t

the GIS User Community k s e D \ d c h d a o Map 3: Project Site Features r b \ s r

Douglas PUD Tract 4 Bank Stabilization Project e s U \ : C

: h t a P

Ü n e 0 60 120 240 m

Feet Biological Assessment January 2017 u c o D Source: ESRI Aerial (pre-landslide); WSDOT Aerial Photo (post-landslide); Snohomish County, DNR, & WSDOT GIS Data 2015; Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Appendix B. Project Drawings, Site Plans and Photographs







 





  







 





  







 





      







 





                   Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Biological Assessment

Appendix C. USFWS and NMFS Species List

Status of ESA Listings & Critical Habitat Designations Canada Uniited Sttates i a ! b for Bellingham m u

C West Coast Salmon & Steelhead

! ! S Spokane eattle ! Wenatchee W A S H I N G T O N ^ Evolutionarily Significant Unit / ESA Date of ESA Date of CH Ol ympia Distinct Population Segment Status Listing Designation ake ! Sn Yakima Puget Sound Recovery Domain ! Walla Walla Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 A ! storia bia um Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Col lmon ! Sa Puget Sound Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Portland !

e s Salmon Puget Sound Steelhead T 5/11/2007 2/24/2016 t t e

e u m ^ h a l Sale c l m s Interior Columbia Recovery Domain i e W D 3/25/1999 Middle Columbia River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 ! ! Snake River Fall-run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 12/28/1993 Eugene Bend Ump qu S Snake River Spring / Summer-run Chinook a n ^ I D A H O T 4/22/1992 10/25/1999 ak Boise Salmon ! e Snake River Sockeye Salmon E 11/20/1991 12/28/1993 Coos E G O N Pocatello Bay O R 8/18/1997 Snake River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 e Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Rogu E 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 ! Salmon Medford 8/18/1997 Upper Columbia River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 th Klama Willamette / Lower Columbia Recovery Domain

T r Columbia River Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 i n Recovery Domain ity ! Puget Sound Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Eureka ! Redding Interior Columbia Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon T 6/28/2005 2/24/2016

S 3/19/1998 a Willamette / Lower Columbia and Lower Columbia River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 c 1/5/2006 E r a Interior Columbia Overlap e m

l Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 e

n Willamette / Lower Columbia t

o 3/25/1999 Upper Willamette River Steelhead T 9/2/2005 Oregon Coast 1/5/2006 R u s Southern OR / Northern CA Coast s i a Oregon Coast Recovery Domain n So. OR / No. CA Coast and ^ North-Central CA Coast Overlap Oregon Coast Coho Salmon T 2/11/2008 2/11/2008 Sacramento North-Central California Coast Sa Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Recovery Domain n North-Central California Coast J Southern OR / Northern CA Coasts Coho ! o San Francisco a and Central Valley Overlap T 5/6/1997 5/5/1999 q Salmon u in Central Valley South-Central / Southern CA Coast North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain ! S California Coastal Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 anta Cruz ! 10/31/1996 (T) Sa Fresno lin Central California Coast Coho Salmon E 6/28/2005 (E) 5/5/1999 a s 4/2/2012 (RE) 8/18/1997 Central California Coast Steelhead T 9/2/2005 C A L I F O R N I A 1/5/2006 6/7/2000 Northern California Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006

Central Valley Recovery Domain 3/19/1998 California Central Valley Steelhead T 9/2/2005 1/5/2006 ! Santa Barbara L Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 o!s Angeles na Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook 11/5/1990 (T) a A E 6/16/1993 nt Salmon 1/4/1994 (E) Sa South-Central / Southern California Coast Recovery Domain 8/18/1997 s South-Central California Coast Steelhead T 9/2/2005 d Sttates 1/5/2006 ! Uniite d S o 8/18/1997 an Diego Mexxico Southern California Steelhead E 5/1/2002 (RE) 9/2/2005 1/5/2006

0 Miles 200 ESA = Endangered Species Act, CH = Critical Habitat, RE = Range Extension Updated July 2016 E = Endangered, T = Threatened, Critical Habitat Rules Cited

• 2/24/2016 (81 FR 9252) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Puget Sound Steelhead and Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52630) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 12 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in WA, OR, and ID • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52488) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 7 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in CA • 10/25/1999 (64 FR 57399) Revised Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon • 5/5/1999 (64 FR 24049) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Central CA Coast and Southern OR/Northern CA Coast Coho Salmon • 12/28/1993 (58 FR 68543) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Chinook and Sockeye Salmon • 6/16/1993 (58 FR 33212) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon

ESA Listing Rules Cited • 4/2/2012 (77 FR 19552) Final Range Extension for Endangered Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final ESA Listing for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 5/11/2007 (72 FR 26722) Final ESA Listing for Puget Sound Steelhead • 1/5/2006 (71 FR 5248) Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead • 6/28/2005 (70 FR 37160) Final ESA Listing for 16 ESU's of West Coast Salmon • 5/1/2002 (67 FR 21586) Range Extension for Endangered Steelhead in Southern California • 6/7/2000 (65 FR 36074) Final ESA Listing for Northern California Steelhead • 9/16/1999 (64 FR 50394) Final ESA Listing for Two Chinook Salmon ESUs in California • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14508) Final ESA Listing for Hood River Canal Summer-run and Columbia River Chum Salmon • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14517) Final ESA Listing for Middle Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14528) Final ESA Listing for Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon • 3/24/1999 (64 FR 14308) Final ESA Listing for 4 ESU's of Chinook Salmon • 3/19/1998 (63 FR 13347) Final ESA Listing for Lower Columbia River and Central Valley Steelhead • 8/18/1997 (62 FR 43937) Final ESA Listing for 5 ESU's of Steelhead • 5/6/1997 (62 FR 24588) Final ESA Listing for Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Coho Salmon • 10/31/1996 (61 FR 56138) Final ESA Listing for Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 1/4/1994 (59 FR 222) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon • 4/22/1992 (57 FR 14653) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Spring/summer-run and Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon • 11/20/1991 (56 FR 58619) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Sockeye Salmon • 11/5/1990 (55 FR 46515) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DESMOND DRIVE SE, SUITE 102 LACEY, WA 98503 PHONE: (360)753-9440 FAX: (360)753-9405 URL: www.fws.gov/wafwo/

Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2017-SLI-0165 November 15, 2016 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2017-E-00122 Project Name: Wells Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ or at our office website: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 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: Wells Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project

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: 01EWFW00-2017-SLI-0165 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2017-E-00122

Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION / ENHANCEMENT

Project Name: Wells Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project Project Description: Repair approximately 200 feet of actively eroding Columbia River shoreline. Repair will involve bioengineering techniques such as planted coir revetments and erodable gravel berms for energy dissipation.

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, 11/15/2016 12:36 PM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Wells Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project

Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-119.86538887023926 48.0030170459058, - 119.86478805541992 47.98050012940721, -119.89517211914061 47.9801554063829, - 119.89585876464842 48.002902188614314, -119.86538887023926 48.0030170459058)))

Project Counties: Douglas, WA | Okanogan, WA

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/15/2016 12:36 PM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Wells Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 5 threatened or endangered 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 section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus Threatened Proposed americanus) Population: Western U.S. DPS

Fishes

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened Final designated Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states

Flowering Plants

Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes Threatened diluvialis) Population: Wherever found

Mammals

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Endangered 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.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/15/2016 12:36 PM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Wells Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo Proposed luscus) Threatened Population: Wherever found

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/15/2016 12:36 PM 4 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Wells Tract 4 Shoreline Stabilization Project

Critical habitats that lie within your project area

The following critical habitats lie fully or partially within your project area.

Fishes Critical Habitat Type

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Final designated Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/15/2016 12:36 PM 5