-- .. ' llr\\,t V - United State'SDepartment of the Interror FISHAND WILDLIFE SERVICE WashingtonFish and Wildlife Office 510Desmond Dr. SE, Suite102 Lacey, 98503 FEB2 2 2011

HonorableKimberly D. Bose Secretary FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street,NE WashingtonD.C. 20426

Dear SecretaryBose:

This documenttransmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(FWS) Biological Opinion (Opinion) basedon our review of the proposed issuanceof a new 45-yearFederal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) hydropowerlicense for the Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project (Project)located on the SultanRiver in SnohomishCounty, Washington. We evaluate the Project'seffects on marbledmurrelet (Brachyramphusmarmoratus), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),and bull trout critical habitatin accordancewith Section7 of the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA) of 1973,as amended (16 U.S.C.1531 et seq.). Your requestfor formal consultationwas receivedon August 13,2009. The FWS concurswith the FERC's determinationin its August 13,2010,letter that the proposedProject "may affect,but is not likely to adversely affect" the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). The FERC also determinedthat the proposedProject would have "no effect" on grizzlybear (Ursus arctos),gray wolf (Canis lupus), and Canadalynx (Lynx canadensis). Should the action agencydetermine that thereis no effect to listed speciesor critical habitat,there is no requirementfor FWS concunence,nor do the regulationsprovide the FWS with the authorityto concurwith that determination.The determinationthat therewill be no effect to listed speciesrests with the action agency,and no consultationwith the FWS is required. We recommendthat the action agencydocument their analysison effectsto listed species,and maintain that documentationas part of the project file. Thereis no designatedor proposedcritical habitat for federallylisted terrestrialwildlife specieswithin the action area.

This Opinion is basedon informationprovided in the Biological Assessment,the Draft EnvironmentalAssessrnent, the SettlementAgreement, the Pre-ApplicationDocument, field investigations,and other sourcesof information. A completerecord of this consultationis on file at the FWS WashingtonFish and Wildlife Office, Lacey,Washington.

Sincerely, A ,t r1/" lli'trt*' { 4/4,-"tu*r&o (/ l./t Ken S. Berg, Manager WashingtonFish and Wiidlife Office

Thrcg Fntnrg@frp+,* 'NAMERICA=' EndangeredSpecies Act - Section7 Consultation BiologicalOpinion

U.S.Fish and Wildlife ServiceReference No. 13410-2010-F-0609

Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project Project 2157-000

Agency: FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission

ConsultationConducted By: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office

February2011

//tl '?/z* /t t D^1" ' ashingtonFish and Wildlife Office TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSULTATIONHISTORY ,,...... ,,,,4 DESCRIPTIONOF THE PROPOSEDACTION ....,...... ,,...... 5 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS ..,....20 STATUSOF THE SPECIES(Bull Trou0...... ,...... ,...... 21 STATUSOF CRITICAL HABITAT (Bull Trout) ...... ,.33 STATUSOF THE SPECIES(Marbled Munelets) ...... 37 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (Bull Trout, Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Marbled Munelet) 64 EFFECTSOF THE ACTION.. ,...,...,,.74 CI-]MULATIVEEFFECTS ...... 107 CONCLUSrON...... 108 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT...... ,.110 CONSERVATIONRECOMMENDATIONS...... ,,.,IT2 REINITIATIONNOTICE ...,..,.,.,.....TI3 LITERATIIRE CITED .,,114 FIGI.IRES AND TABLES

Figure1. Projectlocation, .,...... ".'..'.....6 Figure2. Culmbackdam andthe morningglory spillway.,...... ,. '...... '..8 Figure3. Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project Powerhouse and switchyard...... ,...... 9 Figure4. The SultanRiver DiversionDam at RM 9.7. '.'..."' 11 Figure5. Actionarea.....,.,...... '...... ""14 Figure 6. The seasonalchanges in the relativeproportion of breedingand non-breeding murreletsin the marine and terrestrialenvironments within WashingtonState ...... 40 Figure7. Operationalreaches ,..'.".....'66 Figure8. Suitableand occupied marbled murrelet habitat within the action area...... ,72 Figure9. MarshCreek slide area cover type map. ..'...... '..."'98 Table1. Summaryof proposedLicense Articles. .'."'...... '."16 Table 2. Streamlshorelinedistance and acresof reservoiror lakesdesignated as bull trout critical habitatby state. ...."".....'."34 Table3. Rangewidemurrelet demographic parameter...... '.'...... '.".'....48 Table 4. Estimatedacres of suitablenesting habitat for the murreletmanaged by the Federaland non-Federalland managers in ConservationZonesI and2...... '.".., ...'..50 Table 5. Comparisonof different habitatmodeling results for the Washingtonnearshore zone 5I Table6. Proposedprocess flow components. '...,.85 Table7. ProposedReach 2 instantaneousminimum flows' '...."'.'....""..88 Table8. DefaultReach 3 instantaneousminimum monthlyflow releases. .."".....'.'.89 Table9 Thresholddistances to protectthe marbledmurrelet from noisedisturbance. ....,...'...". 99 CONSULTATION HISTORY

The Public Utility District No, I of SnohomishCounty (District) and the City of Everettr formally initiatedthe IntegratedLicensing Process for the Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project(Project) on DecemberI,2005, by filing a Notice of Intent for a new FederalEnergy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) Licenseand Pre-ApplicationDocument describing the Project and the existingenvironment (Snohomish County PUD and City of Everett 2005). The District subsequentlyconsulted with the resourceagencies and other stakeholdersto develop22 tecltrical studiesevaluating Project operations:geomorphology, water resources,fisheries, noxious weeds,wildlife habitat,recreation, cultural resources,andrare, threatened, and endangered species.The District usedthe resultsof thesestudies in combinationwith extensivestakeholder consultationto developa PreliminaryLicensing Proposal (Snohomish County PUD 2008),which was filed with the FERC on December3T,2008, and a Final LicenseApplication, which was filed on May 29,2009 (SnohomishCounty PUD 2009a).

In a separatebut parallel processto the IntegratedLicensing Process, the District and the stakeholdersmet regularly in settlementnegotiation sessions in an attemptto developa settlementagreement for the relicensingof the Project. On October 14,2009, the District filed a SettlementAgreement and ProposedLicense Articles signedby the District, National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), U.S. ForestService (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS), National Park Service,Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington StateDepartment of Ecology, Tulalip Tribes,Snohomish County, City of Everett,City of Sultan, andAmerican Whitewater(collectively known asthe SettlementParties) (Snohomish County PIJD 200eb).

Together,the SettlementAgreement and ProposedLicense Articles representa comprehensive packagethat resolvesall relicensingissues among the SettlementParties. As such,the SettlementParties (including the FWS and NMFS) view the FERC's adoptionof the Proposed LicenseArticles (without materialmodification) as essentialfor orderly and timely implementationof the SettlementAgreement,

On May 4,2010, the FERC publishedits Draft EnvironmentalAssessment (DEA) (FERC 2010). In the DEA, FERC staff recommendedrelicensing the Projectas proposed by the District with certainstaff modificationsand additionalmeasures. These modifications and additional measuresdiverge, in somecases, from what was includedin the SettlementParties' Proposed LicenseArticles. For purposesof this Section7 consultation,the DEA's StaffAlternative with Mandatory Conditions(FERC 2010) is the proposedaction and is describedin detail in the Descriptionof the Action sectionbelow.

While the FERC's DEA typically servesas the Biological Assessment(BA) for the purposeof Section7 consultation,in a June 18, 2010, letter,the FWS notified the FERC that its DEA did not containsufficient information for the FWS to completeits Section7 consultation

1 The District and the City entered into an agreementin2007 in which the District would be the sole applicant for a new Licenseunder the FederalPower Act. Both the Dishict and the City petitionedFERC to issuea declaratory order finding that the District has sufficient rights to the City's properliesand facilities that are necessaryfor Project purposesand that the City neednot be a co-applicantfor a new Licenseto operatethe Project. FERC approvedthis reoueston December20,2001 . responsibilities.The FWS proposedto work with the District to developan adequateBA, consideringthis approachto be the most efficient way to obtain the information neededfor analysisand to completeits consultationresponsibilities in a timely manner. The FWS also indicatedthat formal consultationwould be initiatedupon receiptof a completeBA from the District or the FERC. During a June 16,2010, conferencecall with the District, NMFS supportedthe FWS requestregarding the needfor a more thoroughBA. The FERC submitted the final BA to the FWS on August 13,2010, FWS considersthis dateto be when formal consultationwas initiated.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Project Location

The Projectis locatedin the northwesternsection of WashingtonState, on the westernslopes of the CascadeMountains (Figure 1). The Projectfacilities are sitedon the SultanRiver between river mile (RM) 4.3 andRM 16.5,and betweenelevations, 285 and 1,470feet meansea level (msl). The flows into the at RM 34.4. The Skykomish and Snoqualmierivers join at Monroe (RM 20.5) to form the SnohomishRiver. The watershedhas a drainagearca of 1,980square miles and is the secondlargest river basin emptyinginto PugetSound (Haring 2002,page36). f ;:r;%-r-C\

u f Henry M. Jackron 7/f, Hyd rcleclric Project

Figure 1. Project location.

The Projecthas an installed capacityof 11 1.8 megawatts(MW). Projectfacilities currently includeSpada Lake Reservoir,Culmback , the power conduit and Powerhouse,the Lake Chaplainpipeline, Portal2 structure,Diversion Dam, and a 1-mile-longtransmission line extendingfrom the power plant switchyardto the Lake ChaplainSubstation. The Projectis operatedto provide water for municipal water supply;minimum instreamflows to protect aquaticresources; power supply; and incidentalflood storageduring the winter months (SnohomishCounty PUD 2009a,pageE-xv),

Project Facilities

At 1,450feet msl, SpadaLake Reservoirhas a grossarea of 1,908acres and a grossstorage capacityof T53,260acre-feet. While the maximum operatingpool is at elevation1,450 feet msl, the normal maximum surfaceelevation rs I,445 feet msl. At this elevation,which typically occursfrom Junethrough mid-July, the normal maximum surfacearea of the lake is i,802 acres, with a storagecapacity of L43,982acre-feet. Starting in late July, the pool is loweredto elevationI,4I5 feetmsl by mid-Septemberto avoid spill later in the fall. This provides approximately58,500 acre-feet of incidentalflood storageprior to the onsetof the Octoberto Decemberwet season.To avoid vortex stressesin the power tunnel, diversionof water into the power tunnel ceasesif the pool elevationdrops to 1,380feet msl or lower (SnohomishCounty PIID 2009a,pageE-5 andE-6). The Projectuses all inflow to SpadaLake Reservoirto generatepower exceptfor required minimum instream flow releases(to protect andenhance fisheries) and any incidental spill at CulmbackDam. Water requiredto meetthe City's municipal supply demandsand to supplementinstream flows for fisheriesbelow the DiversionDam generatespower throughtwo Francisturbine units installedat the Powerhouse,using the 700 feet of elevationdifference (head)between Spada Lake Reservoirand Lake Chaplain. Water in excessof the above requirementsgenerates power throughtwo Peltonunits dischargingdirectly into the Sultan River, usingthe 1,000feet of headbetween Spada Lake Reservoirand the Powerhouse.

CulmbackDam is an earthand rock-filled dam, locatedat RM 16.5on the SultanRiver, with a crestelevation of I,470 feet msl. The crestof the dam is 25 feetwide, 640 feet long, andis 262 feet abovethe original streambed.A concretemorning glory spillway (Figure2) is located within the reservoirapproximately 250 feet from the right bank. This spillway has a94-foot- diametercresto a 38-foot-diametervertical shaft,and a 700-foothorizontal tunnel section. The morning glory spillway crestelevation is at 1,450feet msl and is designedto passthe probable maximum flood of 57,790 cubic feet per second(cfs) at eievation1,464.6 feet msl, or 5.4 feet below the crestof the dam (SnohomishCounty PUD 2009a,pageE-7).

The reservoiroutlet works consistof two 48-inch-diameterconduits embedded in the concrete plug of the diversiontunnel thatjoin the horizontaltunnel sectionof the spillway. The downstreamends of the conduits are equippedwith three slide gate valves (two 2-inch-diameter and one 48-inch-diameter)and one 48-inch Howell Bungervalve. A 16-inch-diameterpipeline runs throughthe right side of the damat elevation1,408 feet, then along its downstreamface.

This pipelineprovides the current20 cfs minimum flow releasewhen the spillway tunnel is dewateredfor maintenanceor safetyinspections. Normal flow releasesare accomplished througha 1O-inchcone valve piped upstreamof the 4S-inchHowell Bunger valve that directs flow into the spillway turmel.

The Powerhouseintake structureis locatednear the left abutment,approximately 250 feet upstreamof the Dam. The 110-foot-tallconcrete structure has three 20-foot moveablepanels. Positioningof thesepanels allows the selectivewithdrawal of storedwater from variousdepths to facilitate the control of water temperaturein the Sultan River below the Powerhouseand the Diversion Dam. A single 9-foot-wideby 14.3-foot-highfixed-wheel gateallows for closureand maintenanceof the power tunnel. The gateis operatedby a hydraulic cylinder on the access bridge. Hydraulic pressurefor the gateoperation is providedby a motorizedhydraulicpower unit locatedin an enclosureadjacent to the gatehoist. Figure 2. and the morning glory spillway. The power conduitis a l4-feet-diameterunlined tunnel,extending 3.8 miles from the intake structurethrough Blue Mountain. The tunnelhas 3,140feet of shotcrete-coveredsteel reinforcingto protectvarious soft, rock areas.At the end of the power tunnel is a 150-foot-long rock trap to capturematerials that fall into the tunnel. This collector prevents debris from enteringthe 10-foot-diameterwelded steelpipeline that transportswater for 3.7 miles to the Powerhouselocated on the lower Sultanfuver (SnohomishCounty PLID 2009a,page E-9).

The Powerhouseis located adjacentto the left riverbank at RM 4.3 (Figure 3). The structureis reinforcedconcrete with the top deck at elevation316 feet msl, approximately30 feet above peakriver level for a 100-yearflood. Two Peltonturbines and two Francisturbines are housed insideon the lower generatorfloor of the two-story structure.The two Peltonturbines discharge directly into 40-foot-longdischarge canals that transpofiwater to the main river channel. The Francis turbines re-route a portion of flow under the river via a pipeline (the Lake Chaplain pipeline)to the City's municipal water supply storage,Lake Chaplain,and to the DiversionDam to supplementand meet minimum instreamflows betweenthe Diversion Dam and the Project's Powerhouse(Snohomish County PI-ID2009a, page E-9).

Figure3. HenryM. JacksonHydroelectric Project Powerhouse and switchyard.

The District constructedand continuesto maintaina low-headfish-passage berm at the upstream end of the Powerhousein order to alleviate concernsthat at certain flows power generationmight confuseadult fish migrating upstreampast the Powerhouse.This berm has a passagewayor slot near the Powerhouseto concentratethe river flows into an areathat is more attractive to and can be more easilydetected by migrating fish. The berm has successfullyfacilitated fish passage upstreamof the Powerhousesince its constructionin 1983.

The City's water supply requirementsare mainly met by diverting water from SpadaLake Reservoirthrough the Powerhouse'stwo Francisunits. Sufficientpressure is retained,because of the 700-foot elevation difference between SpadaLake Reservoir and Lake Chaplain and the DiversionDam, to route the water from the Powerhousethrough a72-inch-diameterburied pipelineto the Portal 2 structurelocated on the shoreof Lake Chaplain. The first 500 feet of the pipeline is weldedsteel construction and the remaining17,886 feet is reinforcedconcrete cylinder pipe. The two Francisunits are sizedat I70 cfs eachto provide water delivery to Lake Chaplainand the minimum instreamflow requirementsbelow the Diversion Dam at RM 9'7 (SnohomishCounty PUD 2009a, pageE-9).

Under the currentLicense, the amountof water sufficientto maintainminimum instreamflows below the DiversionDam is retumedto the SultanRiver via a control structurelocated at the terminusof the Lake Chaplainpipeline, From the control structure,the water is forcedbackward throughthe existingdiversion tunnel to the DiversionDam. The control structureis called "Portal 2" becauseit was built on the lower end of the City's diversiontunnel that originally transportedwater to Lake Chaplainfrom the SultanRiver Diversion Dam. Within the baseof the Portal 2 controlstructure, water flowing into Lake Chaplainis constrictedby a 5-foot-square slide gate. The restrictedgate opening causes water to build up inside the tower, which then createi enoughhead to causethe water to back-flow to the Diversion Dam. By adjustingthe Portal 2 gateopening, the required amount of water to be diverted to both Lake Chaplain and to the Diveision Dam can be accuratelycontrolled (Snohomish County PUD 2009a,pageE-10)'

The diversiontunnel connectingLake Chaplainto the SultanRiver is a 1.5-mile-longhorseshoe- shapedand concrete-linedconveyanc e. A72-inch, 2,O00-foot-longconcrete cylinder pipeline connectsthe upstreamtunnel portal to the Diversion Dam where, under current Project operating conditions,flows are dischargedback into the SultanRiver to meet the Projectinstream flow requirementsin the reachbetween the Diversion Dam and the Powerhouse.Maximum flow return capacityof the existing facilities is 189 cfs (SnohomishCounty PUD 2009a,pageE-10).

The SultanRiver Diversion Dam hasbeen in placesince 1930. It was originally usedto divert water from the SultanRiver into Lake Chaplainfor the City of Everett'swater supply (Figure4). The Diversion Dam createsonly a small impoundmentmeasuring a few acresin size. Water from portal 2 flows into the forebay and is accuratelymeasured through a weir in the main sluice gate. All flow below 280 cfs is routed throughthis weir. Higher flows arepassed over the 120- foot-wide concretespillway (SnohomishCounty PllD 2009a,PaEa E-1 0).

l0 Figure 4. The Sultan River Diversion Dam at RM 9.7.

When the power conduit or the Lake Chaplainpipeline is not operational,the City's water requirementscan alsobe met by supplementingLake Chaplainstorage with water divertedfrom the SultanRiver via the Diversion Dam and diversiontunnel to Lake Chaplain.

The ProjectPowerhouse contains two 47.5 MW Peltonturbines (units I and2) and two 8.4 MW Francisturbines (units 3 and 4). Minimum unit dischargefor eachPelton unit is 80 cfs and for eachFrancis unit, 44 cfs (SnohomishCounty PUD 2009a, pa3eE- 11 ). The generatingunits are eachequipped with a solid-statestatic excitation and voltage regulation system. The neutralof eachgenerator is groundedthrough a single-phasedistribution transformer. The generatorsare protectedagainst possible winding insulationdamage due to lighting or switching surgevoltages.

Power generatedwithin the Projectis deliveredto the District's existingtransmission system at a switchyardlocated adjacent to the Powerhouse.The Project'sprimary transmissionsystem terminatesat the three separateoil-filled circuit breakerslocated within the switchyard;one circuit breakerassociated with eachPelton unit and one servingboth Francisunits (Snohomish CountyPUD 2009a,page E-12).

From the three-switchyardcircuit breakers,power is transmittedto the "JacksonLoop," comprisedof two single-circuit 11s-kilovolt transmissionlines with ACSR 795 conductorson wood poles. The "south transmissionline" extendsapproximately 3.79 miles eastand south from the Powerhouseswitchyard and follows existingroads for most of the distanceinto the communityof Sultan,where it connectsto the District's SultanSubstation. After leavingthe Powerhouseswitchyard, the "north transmissionline," which hasnever met the standardof a

11 primary transmissionline, immediatelycrosses the SultanRiver and connectsto the District's Lake ChaplainSubstation approximately one mile to the west of the Powerhouse.Together thesesegments of the JacksonLoop provide dual redundancyto protectthe generationfacilities from line outages,

Existing Project Operations

The Project diverts water from SpadaLake Reservoir to provide water for hydroelectric generation,minimum stream-flowrequirements, and the City of Everett'smunicipal water supplystorage reservoir, Lake Chaplain. Flow to the Powerhousefrom the intake structureat SpadaLake Reservoirpasses through a7.S-mile-longpower conduit. Upon reachingthe Powerhouse,flow eitherpasses through the two Peltonturbines and/or the two Francisturbines. Flows passingthrough the Pelton turbinesdischarge into the SultanRiver atthe Powerhouse. Flows passingthrough the Francisturbines enter the Lake Chaplainpipeline, propelled up gradientby the headdifferential between Spada Lake Reservoirand Lake Chaplain. At the end of the Lake Chaplainpipeline, the Portal2 structureregulates both the amountof water to be deliveredto Lake Chaplainfor consumptivewater supplypurposes and the amountof water passingthrough the SultanRiver Diversion Dam tunnel andpipeline back to the SultanRiver DiversionDam andreleased to the bypassedreach to meet aquatichabitat needs. The existing Licenserequires the District to releasea20 cfs minimum flow to the reachof the SultanRiver betweenCulmback Dam (SpadaLake Reservoir)and the SultanRiver Diversion Dam. The District providesminimum flows at CulmbackDam througha combinationof (1) a 16-inch bypassline throughCulmback Dam at elevation1408 msl which has a dischargecapacity of 20 cfs; (2) a 10-inchcone valve connectedto the dam outlet works which has a dischargecapacity of 5 to 45 cfs; and (3) a secondpipe corurectedto the outlet works leadingto the 60-kW turbine generator(5 cfs capacity)that provideslocal power to the dam.

In 1965,Stage I of CulmbackDam (SpadaLake Reservoir)was built to provide additional storagefor the City's municipal water supply;the traditionaloperation of the SultanRiver DiversionDam and tunnel to Lake Chaplainwere essentiallyunchanged. The function of the DiversionDam changedwith completionof the StageII Projectfacilities in 1984, StageII includeda raisedCulmback Dam (to its currentdimensions), the power tunnel andpipeline, the Powerhouseand Lake Chaplainpipeline, and Portal 2 structure.Prior to the completionof Stage II, water flowed west from the SultanRiver Diversion Dam throughthe tunnel into Lake Chaplain. Currently,water typically flows eastthrough the tunnel betweenLake Chaplainand the SultanRiver Diversion Dam to meet the minimum instreamflow requirementsbelow the Diversion Dam as specifiedin the existingLicense,

Projectoperations are governedby an OperatingPlan, which hasbeen modified severaltimes sincethe power generationfacilities were constructedin the early 1980s. Currently,operation of the Powerhouseis dictatedby four differentreservoir states:

State1 - Zoneof Spill. Above elevation1,450 feet msl, SpadaLake Reservoir is in a stateof spill, Therefore,the District operatesthe Powerhouseto withdraw at least 1,300cfs throughthe Dowertunnel.

T2 State2 - Zone of PotentialSpill. The District operatesthe Powerhouseto withdraw at least 1,300cfs throughthe power tunnel.

State3 - Zone of DiscretionarvOperation. The District may operatethe Powerhousebetween the extremesof State2 andState 4 dependingon maintenance,power supply,and prudent operationto minimize the impactsto the fishery resources.

State4 - Zone of Water Conservation.The District operatesthe Powerhouseto satisfythe requirementsof its water supply obligationsto the City of Everettand the instreamflow requirementsin the SultanRiver.

The Projectis not operatedto provide flood storageor specificflood regulation;however, flood control on the Sultanand Skykomishrivers is an incidentalbenefit of Projectoperations for electricity generationand water supply.

Existing Environmental Measures

In accordancewith its currentLicense (Article 54), the District releases20 cfs to the Sultan River from CulmbackDam on a year-roundbasis, and 95 to I75 cfs below the SultanRiver Diversion Dam and 165 to 200 cfs below the Powerhouse,depending on the season,to protect fisheryresources. The District also implementsa downrampingschedule for releasesfrom the Powerhouseinto the SultanRiver of 1 to 4 inchesper hour (asmeasured at the Powerhouse gage)depending on the seasonand time of day (Article 55). Basedon studiesconducted in2004 and2005,the District voluntarily implementsa downrampingschedule of 1.5 to 6 inchesper hour for releasesfrom the Diversion Dam into the SultanRiver (SnohomishCounty PtiD 2009a).

As describedpreviously, the District alsoconstructed a berm at the Powerhousethat concentrates flow and facilitatesupstream fish passagein accordancewith provisionsof Article 55. Aquatic and wildlife habitat enhancementsand managementare conductedin accordancewith plans developedpursuant to Article 53 of the currentLicense. The Aquatic Mitigation Plan developed underArticle 53 requiresthe District to fund WDFW to produce30,000 steelhead smolts that supplementwild stocksand enhanceangling opportunities. Recreational opportunities are providedby the District at recreationalaccess sites along the shoresof SpadaLake Reservoirand SultanRiver pursuantto Article 52. Prcjectoperations are modified during the winter steelhead fishing seasonto enhanceangling opportunitiesin accordancewith the approvedProject OperatingPlan requiredby Article 57 (SnohomishCounty PUD 2009a,pageE-57).

Action Area

An actionarea is definedby 50 CFR $402as "all areasto be affecteddirectly or indirectly by the Federalaction and not merely the immedratearca involved in the action." Regardingthe District's analysisof ESA-listed fish species,the areadirectly or indirectly affectedby the Projectincludes the SultanRiver from CulmbackDam downstreamto the SkykomishRiver. Historically, slightly downstreamof the CulmbackDam site representedthe upperextent of anadromousfish distribution (Ruggerone2006, page 1).

1a IJ In additionto the SultanRiver from CulmbackDam downstreamto the SkykomishRiver, the actionarea for listed terrestrialspecies includes District-owned lands that would be coveredby the District's proposedTerrestrial Resource Management Plan (TRMP) and National Forest System (NFS) lands in the upper Sultan River Canyon (Figure 5).

WilliamsonCreek

LAKE Losl Lake

LostLake Tract i

i- Lake Chaplain Pipeline

ProposedTRtIP Tracts)

a.-l], ir' ]! I LEGEND I Powerhouse ProposedTRIVP Tracts t._ ------ExistingWHMP Tracts 0 05 1 DiversionDam t El-l Addition VMlliamsonCreek Tract N Miles

Figure 5. Action area including lands that would be managedunder the District's Terrestrial ResourceManagement Plan.

ProposedAction

For purposesof Section7 consultation,the proposedaction is the issuanceof a new 45-year Licensefor continuedoperation of the Projectunder LheStaff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions(staff alternative),as describedin the DEA (FERC 2010), To the extentthat the staff alternativediffers from the measuresproposed in the SettlementAgreement, this biological opinion also analyzesthe effectsof thosedifferences on ESA-listed species.

In addition,this BA addressesthe effectsof two off-Licenseagreements (the JacksonOff- LicenseSupplementation Program Agreement and the Lake ChaplainTract Land Management Off-LicenseAgreement), which are consideredinterrelated actions (i.e., actionsthat would not occurapart from the proposedaction) (seeAttachments A and B in SnohomishCounty PUD [2ooeb]).

T4 In the SettlementAgreement, the District proposesto remodelthe governorand needle-valve controlsfor the Peltonunits to protectthe aquaticresources of the SultanRiver below the powerhousefrom rapid flow fluctuationswhen eitherof the Peltonunits trip off-line. The modificationswould allow flow continuationthrough the Powerhousewhen eitherunit is shut down. The modificationswould allow independent,controlled operation of the deflectorblades andneedle closure. The District notified the FERC by letter filed on January27 ,2010, that these proposedmodifications are essentiallycomplete with the exceptionof testing.

ProposedProj ect Operations

The District proposesto modify Projectoperations to enhanceaquatic habitat, provide whitewater boating flows, and ensurethat environmental,power generation,and water supply needsare appropriatelybalanced. Proposedmeasures to achievethese objectives include: (1) managingr4.us.r from SpadaLake Reservoir in accordancewith modified rule curves; (2) increasingminimum instreamflows in affectedreaches of the SultanRiver; (3) providing periodicshort-term increased flows to promotegeomorphologic processes; (4) providing flow ieleasesfor whitewaterboating; (5) providing temperatureconditioning flows from Culmback Dam to Reach 3 of the Sultan River to enhancethe suitabilrty of aquatic habitat upstreamof the SultanRiver Diversion Dam for salmonids;(6) implementingprocedures to reduce downrampingrates to minimize the potentialfor strandingof aquaticorganisms; (7) providing for adaptivemanagement of SpadaLakeReservoir water in responseto anticipatedincreased demandin domesticwater supply; (8) prioritization of water supply and quality requirements over power generation;and (9) managingProject lands for late-seralforests and for the benefit of wildlife speciesresiding on Project lands.

ProposedEnvironmental Measures(License Articles) under the SettlementAgreement

The SettlementAgreement contains a comprehensiveset of measurescovering the full rangeof resourcesin the SultanRiver watershed,Table 1 summarizesthose measures or proposed LicenseArticles (LicenseArticles) containedin the SettlementAgreement (Snohomish County PUD 2009b). The SettlementAgreement envisionsthat all License Articles would be included in a new ProjectLicense with implementationcommencing at the issuanceof the new license. TheseLicense Articles are consistentwith the provisionsin the FWS andNMFS Sectioni 8 fishwayprescriptions and the USFS Section4(e) conditions.

The District also filed two off-Licenseagreements on October14,2009, for the FERC information(Snohomish County PUD 2009b), Measuresassociated with theseoff-License agreementsare not intendedto be includedin a new Licensefor this Project,and aretherefore not listedin Table 1. The first agreementis the "Lake ChaplainTract ManagementOff-License Agreementbetween the Public Utility District No. 1 of SnohomishCounty, City of Everett, and WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife." The secondagreement is the "JacksonOff- LicenseSupplementation Program Agreement between Public Utility District No. 1 of SnohomishCounty, Washington and WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife." Although theseagreements would not be includedas LicenseArticles, they are analyzedin this Opinion as interrelatedactions, which would not occur apartfrom the proposedaction.

15 Table 1. Summary of proposedLicense Articles.

LicenseArticle included in the Settlement Agreement Summary of ProposedEnvironmental Measure Aquatic LicenseArticle (A- . Establish and convenean Aquatic ResourceCommiftee, consisting LA) l: Aquatic Resource of the Tulalip Tribes,NMFS, FWS, USFS, WDFW, WDOE, the Committee cities of Everett and Sultan, SnohomrshCounty, and American Whitewater,to assistin implementationof aquaticresources LicenseArticles. A-LA 2: Marsh Creek Slide o Identify methods and schedulefor developing a permanentsuryey Modification and control point, conductinga detailedbaseline physical survey at low Monitoring flow, and modifying the slide to facilitatefish passage. r Jdentify methods and schedulefor monitoring fish use and escapementupstream of the Marsh Creek slide area of the Sultan River, located within Reach 2 approximately 2 mrles downstreamof the SultanRiver DiversionDam. o Identify methods and schedulefor conducting surveys of the Marsh Creek slide subsequentto large flow events, and implementing further modifications to the slide subject to the availability of funds in the habitat enhancementaccount. A-LA 3: Temperature o Preparea Water TemperatureConditioning Plan that provides the Conditioninein Reach methods and schedulefor a two-phaseprogram to improve water temperatureconditions for salmonids and other aquatic resourcesin Reach3 betweenCulmback Dam and the SultanRiver Diversion Dam. o Monitor water temperatureand aquatic resource responseto temperatureconditioning. . Report aruruallyon consultation with the Aquatic Resource Committee. A-LA 4: Whitewater o Provide 12 whitewaterboating eventsin SultanRiver downstream Boating Flows of CulmbackDam every 3 years. r Preparea WhitewaterRecreation Plan with provisionsfor boater notificationprocedures; methods for assessingboater satisfaction, level ofeffort, and aquaticresources effects; and dam access. A-LA 5: Downramping o Staff the Powerhouseduring potential electrical storms during RateConditions initial testing of flow continuation system, and until the bypass systemproves effective at preventing fish shanding. . Implement a mean daily dischargeceiling of 550 cfs during the fall peak spawning period for Chinook salmon to protect spawning redds. o Implement seasonalramping rates downstream of Culmback Dam, the Sultan River Diversion Dam, and Powerhousein accordance with criteria specified in the SettlementAgreement. A-LA 6: LargeWoody o Prepare aLarge Woody Debris (LWD) Plan with provisions for Debris installing eight LWD shuctures in the Sultan River within 5 years ofplan approval, and up to four additional shuctures after year 10 of Licenseissuance; and monitoring the effectivenessof the LWD strucfures. License Article included in the SettlementAgreement Summary of ProposedEnvironmental Measure A-LA7: SideChannel o Enhancea minimum of 10.000linear feet of side channelarea to Projects provide a mjnimum of 3 acresof additional rearing habitat along Reach 1 of the Sultan River downstreamof the Powerhouse. o Preparea Side Channel EnhancementPlan that includes provisions for: restoring and maintaining year-round flow connectivity between the Sultan River and identified side channels;enhancing and maintaining other off-channel habitat; using LWD collected at Culmback Dam to add structure and function within the side charurels;and monitoring, maintaining, and reporting on side channel enhancementmeasures. A-LA 8: ProcessFlow r Implement periodic processflows to provide for channel Regime maintenance,channel forming and flushing, and upstreamand downstreamfish mrgration flows to the Sultan River. . Preparea ProcessFlow Plan with provisionsfor Aquatic Resource Committee consultation; timing controlled flow releaseswith natural flow events and other flow enhancementmeasures; minimizing adverseflow-related effects on aquatic resourcesand the City of Sultan; and monitoring and adaptively managing the orocessflow releases. A-LA 9: MinimumFlows e Implement a new minimum instream flow regime for Reach 2 downstreamof the Sultan River Diversion Dam and Reach 1 downsheam of the Powerhouse. o In consultation with Aquatic ResourceCommittee, provide an annual water budget of 20,362 acre-feetfor flow releasesto Reach 3 immediately downstreamof Culmback Dam through June2020. Increaseannual budget to 23,831 acre-feet after June2020. A-LA 10: SpadaLake Develop a SpadaLake RecreationalFishery Plan with provisions RecreationalFishery for: removing barriers to fish passagein tributaries to SpadaLake Reservoir; improving the boat launch at the South Fork Recreation Site on SpadaLake Reservoir; attempting to maintain a minimum lake elevationabove 1,430feet msl during the summer;preparing a recreational fishing brochure for SpadaLake Reservoir; and conducting frsh sampling in SpadaLake Reservoir every 5 years. A-LA 12: Fish Habitat o Develop a Fish Habitat EnhancementPlan with funding provisions EnhancementPlan for a habitat enhancementaccount and additional provisions for: potential fish habitat improvement projects primarily in the Sultan River Basin and potentially in the Snohomish River Basin; future modifications to the plan; and evaluation and reporting reoufements. LicenseArticle included in the Settlement Agreement Summary of ProposedEnvironmental Measure A-LA 13: DiversionDam Construct upstreamvolitional fish passageat the Sultan River Volitional Passage DiversionDam if spawningescapement meets the passagetrigger. Facilitatedownstream fish passageat the SultanRiver Diversion Dam by curtailing flow diversions from the Sultan River to Lake Chaplainwhen spawningescapement exceeds certain thresholds. Develop a DiversionDam Volitional Fish PassagePlan with provisionsfor methods,schedule, and criteria for achieving upstreamand downsfreamfish passage;monitoring annual spawning escapement;testing and verifying fish passage effectivenessat the Sultan River Diversion Dam; and annual monitoring, reporting, and Aquatic ResourceCommittee consultationrequirements. A-LA 14: Reservoir r Implement revised reservoir rule curves with provisions for Operations reportingtemporary and emergencymodifications. A-LA 15: Adaptive o Develop an Adaptive ManagementPlan with provisions for ManagementPlan resolving conflicting water demandsand creating a processfor evaluating and managing such conflicts A-LA 16: Steelhead o Providefunds to WDFW to annuallystock 30,000 steelheadsmolts PlantingProgram in the Sultan River until volitional fish passageis provided at the Sultan River diversion dam. A-LA 11: Fisheriesand o Develop a Fisheriesand Habitat Monitoring Plan to inform the HabitatMonitoring Plan implementation of other aquatic environmental measuresand to provide for monitoring of; riverine fish habitat; water temperature; fish spawner abundance,distribution, and timrng; and juvenile fish production, distribution, and habitat use. A-LA l8;WaterSupply . Operatethe Projectso that the City of Everett'swater supply and water quality requirementshave precedenceover power generation to the extent specified within the SupplementalAgreement Between Public Utility Dishict No. I of SnohomishCounty and the City of Everett,Washington, October 17,2007, Part E. 1 and Exhibit 1. Cultural License Article (C- r Implement the Historic PropertiesManagement Plan. LA )1: Historic Propertres ManaeementPlan RecreationLicense Article o Implementthe RecreationalResources Manaqement Plan. (R-LA) 1: Recreation ResourcesManagement Plan TerrestrialLicense Article o Implement the Tenestrial ResourcesManagement Plan. (T-LA) 1: Tenestrial ResourceManagement Plan T-LA2: Noxious Weed o Implement the Noxious Weed Management Plan, ManaeementPlan T-LA 3: Marbled Munelet o Imolement the Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection Plan. HabitatProtection Plan License Article included in the SettlementAgreement Summaryof ProposedEnvironmental Measure Water Quality License r Develop a Water Quality ProtectionPlan with provisionsfor water- Article (W-LA) 1: Water quality protection measuresfor construction or maintenance Quality Monitoring License activities; spill prevention and containmentprocedures; procedures Article for applicationof herbicides,pesticides, fungicides, and disinfectants;compliance monitoring and reporting procedures; water quality sampling parameters;a map of sampling locations; and proceduresfor quality control.

Additional MeasuresRecommended by the FERC Under the FERC staff altemative with mandatory conditions, the FERC included all of the District's proposedmeasures in the SettlementAgreement except for A-LA 12 (Fish Habitat EnhancementPlan) (FERC 20l0,page27). The FERC alsoincluded the modificationsand additionalmeasures discussed in the following list. Annually stock 30,000steelhead smolts in the SultanRiver until volitional fish passageis provided at the SultanRiver Diversion Dam (proposedmeasure A-LA 16), and prepareand file an annualreport that documentscompliance with the smolt stocking program (rather than just fund WDFW to implementthe program).

Include in the annual fisheries and habitat monitoring report documentationof protective measuresfor Chinook salmonspawning.

Develop andimplement an OperationalCompliance Monitoring Plan that specifiesthe methodsthat would be usedto measureminimum flows and ramping ratesin Reach3, ensurescontinued operation of two SultanRiver U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) gages,and providesfor filing an annualcompliance monitoring report.

Modify the proposedSide ChannelEnhancement Plan to include a provision to file a report within 180 daysof the completionof the five side-channelenhancement projects that documentsthe amountof habitat enhancedand specifiesany proposedadditional side charurelenhancement proj ects.

Modify the Marsh Creek Slide Monitoring andModification Plan to includeprovisions for filing a reportwithin 180 daysof completionof the initial 6-yearslide modification monitoring period specifyingwhether additional slide modificationsare proposed.

Coordinatewith the USFS regardingother federallyauthorized uses of NFS lands(USFS 4(e) condition 3).

Develop site-specificplans for habitat-or ground-disturbingactivities on NFS lands(USFS 4(e)condition 3).

EvaluateCulmback Dam for National Registereligibility by 2015.

I9 CONCURRENCE FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

The FWS concurswith the SnoPIJD'sdetermination that the proposedaction as describedin the BA, "may affect,but is not likely to adverselyaffect" the northernspotted owl. The rationalefor our concurenceis discussedbelow.

Northern SpottedOwl

Very few northernspotted owl sitesare currentlyknown in the Projectvicinity. A single residentnorthern spotted owl site is documentedon the drainageabout 3 miles northwestof CulmbackDam (WDFW 2009)outside of the action area. Apreviously activesite of a reproductivepair is locatedover 1 mile northeastof the Williamson CreekTract, although the current statusof the site is unknown. To further evaluatehabitat conditions and potential owl occuffencein the Project area,the District conductedfocused surveys for northem spottedowls in the actionarea in 2007 and2008 (Biota Pacific 2008a). Basedon thesesurveys, no northern spottedowls arepresent anywhere within the action area. Given the absenceof owls in the action area,thesmall number of northernspotted owls thoughtto nestin westernWashington at the currenttime, and declinesin populationthroughout western Washington; northem spotted owl distributionmay not changein the actionarea within the new Licenseperiod, evenwith currentlevels of forestprotection in the action area.In addition,all suitablenesting habitat will be protectedunder the terms of the SettlementAgreement and License.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS

JeopardyDetermination

In accordancewith policy and regulation,the jeopardy analysisin this Opinion relies on four components:(1) the Statusof the Species,which evaluatesthe speciesname rangewide condition,the factorsresponsible for that condition,and its survival and recoveryneeds; (2) the EnvironmentalBaseline,which evaluatesthe conditionof the speciesin the action area,the factorsresponsible for that condition,and the relationshipof the action areato the survival and recoveryof the species;(3) the Effectsof theAction, which determinesthe direct and indirect effectsofthe proposedFederal action and the effectsofany interrelatedor interdependent activitieson the species;and (4) CumulativeEffects, which evaluatesthe effectsof future, nonfederalactivities in the action areaon the species.

In accordancewith policy and regulation,the jeopardy determinationis madeby evaluatingthe effectsof the proposedFederal action in the contextof the speciescurrent status, taking into accountany cumulativeeffects, to determineif implementationof the proposedaction is likely to causean appreciablereduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recoveryof the species in the wild.

20 Thejeopardy analysisin this Opinion emphasizesconsideration of the rangewidesuruival and recoveryneeds of the speciesand the role of the action arearnthesurvival and recoveryof the species.It is within this contextthat we evaluatethe significanceof the effectsof the proposed Federalaction, taken together with cumulativeeffects, for purposesof making thejeopardy determination,

Adverse Modifi cation Determination

This Opinion doesnot rely on the regulatorydefinition of "destructionor adversemodification" of critical habitatat 50 CFR 402.02. Instead,we haverelied upon the statutoryprovisions of the ESA to completethe following analysiswith respectto critical habitat'

In accordancewith policy and regulation,the adversemodification analysis in this Opinion relies on four components:(1) theStatus of Critical Habitat,which evaluatesthe range-widecondition of designatedcritical habitatfor the speciesin termsof primary constituentelements (PCEs), the factorsresponsible for that condition,and the intendedrecovery function of the critical habitat overall;(2) theEnvironmental Baseline, which evaluatesthe condition of the critical habitatin the action arca,the factorsresponsible for that condition,and the recoveryrole of the critical habitat in the action area;(3) the Effects of the Action, which determinesthe direct and indirect effectsof the proposedFederal action and the effectsof any interrelatedor interdependent activitieson the PCEs and how that will influencethe recoveryrole of affectedcritical habitat units; and (4) CumulativeEffects, which evaluatesthe effectsof future,nonfederal activities in the actionarea on the PCEs and how that will influencethe recoveryrole of affectedcritical habitatunits.

For purposesof the adversemodification determination,the effectsof the proposedFederal action on speciescritical habitat are evaluatedin the context of the rangewide condition of the crtticalhabitat, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determineif the critical habitat rangewidewould remain functional (or would retain the currentability for the PCEsto be functionallyestablished in areasof currentlyunsuitable but capablehabitat) to serveits intended recoveryrole for the species.

The analysisin this Opinion placesan emphasison using the intendedrangewide recovery functionof speciescritical habitatand the role of the action arearelative to that intendedfunction asthe contextfor evaluatingthe significanceof the effectsof the proposedaction, taken together with cumulativeeffects, for purposesof making the adversemodification determination.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (Bull Trout)

Listing Status

The coterminousUnited Statespopulation of the bull trout (Salvelinusco4fluentus) was listed as threatenedon Novemberl,1999 (64 FR 58910). The threatenedbull trout generallyoccurs in the Klamath River Basin of south-centralOregon; the JarbidgeRiver in Nevada;the Willamette River Basin in Oregon;Pacific Coastdrainages of Washington,including PugetSound; major

21 rivers in Idaho,Oregon, Washington, and Montana,within the ColumbiaRiver Basin; andthe St, Mary-Belly River, eastof the ContinentalDivide in northwestemMontana (Bond 1992,p.4; Brewin andBrewin 1997,pp.209-216;Cavender 1978,pp. 165-166;Leary and Allendorf 1997, pp.715-720).

Throughoutits range,the bull trout are threatenedby the combinedeffects of habitat degradation,fragmentation, and alterationsassociated with dewateing, road constructionand maintenance,mining, grazing,the blockageof migratory corridorsby damsor other diversion structures,poor water quality, entrainment(a processby which aquaticorganisms are pulled througha diversionor other device)into diversionchannels, and introducednon-native species (64 FR 58910). Although all salmonidsare likely to be affectedby climate change,bull trout are especiallyvulnerable given that spawningand rearrngare constrainedby their location in upper watershedsand the requirementfor cold water temperatures(Battin et aL.2007;Rieman et al, 2007). Poachingand incidentalmortality of bull trout during other targetedfisheries are additionalthreats.

The bull trout was initially listed as threeseparate Distinct PopulationSegments (DPSs) (63 FR 3T647;64FR 17110). The preambleto the final listing rule for the United Statescoterminous populationof the bull trout discussesthe consolidationof theseDPSs with the Columbia and Klamathpopulation segments into one listed taxon and the applicationof thejeopardy standard undersection 7 of the Act relativeto this species(64 FR 58910):

Although this rule consolidatesthe five bull trout DPSs into one listed taxon, basedon conformancewith the DPS policy for purposesof consultationunder section7 of the Act, we intend to retainrecognition of eachDPS in light of availablescientific information relatingto their uniquenessand significance. Under this approach,these DPSs will be treatedas interim recoveryunits with respectto applicationofthejeopardy standarduntil an approvedrecovery plan is developed.Formal establishmentof bull trout recoveryunits will occur during the recoveryplanning process.

Current Statusand ConservationNeeds

In recognitionof availablescientific information relatingto their uniquenessand significance, five segmentsof the coterminousUnited Statespopulation of the bull trout are considered essentialto the survival and recoveryof this speciesand are identified as interim recoveryunits: 1) JarbidgeRiver, 2)KlamathRiver, 3) ColumbiaRiver, 4) Coastal-PugetSound, and 5) St, Mary-Belly River (USFWS 2002a;2004a;2004b).Each of theseinterim recoveryunits is necessaryto maintainthe bull trout's distribution,as well as its geneticand phenotypicdiversity, all of which areimportant to ensurethe species'resilience to changingenvironmental conditions,

A summary of the current statusand conservationneeds of the bull trout within theseinterim recoveryunits is provided below and a comprehensivediscussion is found in the FWS's draft recoveryplans for the bull trout (USFWS 2002a;2004a;2004b).

22 The conservationneeds of bull trout areoften generallyexpressed as the four "Cs": cold, clean, complex,and connectedhabitat. Cold streamtemperatures, clean water quality that is relatively free of sedimentand contaminants,complex channelcharacteristics (including abundantlarge wood andundercut banks), and largepatches of suchhabitat that arewell connectedby unobstructedmigratory pathwaysare all neededto promoteconservation of bull trout at multiple scalesranging from the coterminousto local populations(a local populationis a group of bull trout that spawnwithin a particularstream or portion of a streamsystem). The recovery planningprocess for bull trout (USFWS 2002a;2004a;2004b) has alsoidentified the following conservationneeds: 1) maintenanceand restoration of multiple, interconnectedpopulations in diversehabitats across the rangeof eachinterim recoveryanrt,2) preservationof the diversityof life-historystrategies, 3) maintenanceof geneticand phenotlpic diversity acrossthe rangeof eachinterim recoveryunit, and 4) establishmentof a positivepopulation trend. Recently,it has alsobeen recognized that bull trout populationsneed to be protectedfrom catastrophicfires acrossthe range of each interim recovery unit (Rieman et al. 2003).

Centralto the survival and recoveryof bull trout is the maintenanceof viable core areas (USFWS 2002a;2004a;2004b).A core areais definedas a geographicarea occupied by one or more local bull trout populationsthat overlapin their useof rearing,foraging, migratory, and overwinteringhabitat. Each of the interim recoveryunits listed aboveconsists of one or more core areas.There are I21 core areasrecognized across the coterminousrange of the bull trout (USFWS 2002a; 2004a; 2004b).

JarbideeRiver Interim RecoverliUnit

This interim recoveryunit curently containsa singlecore areawith six local populations.Less than 500 residentandmigratory adult bull trout, representingabout 50 to 125 spawningadults, areestimated to occur in the core area. The currentcondition of the bull trout in this interim recoveryunit is attributedto the effectsof livestock grazing,roads, incidental mortalities of releasedbull trout from recreationalangling, historic anglerharvest, timber harvest,and the introductionof non-nativefishes (USFWS 2004b). The draft bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2004b)identifies the following conservationneeds for this interim recoveryunit: 1) maintainthe cunent distributionof the bull trout within the core area,2)maintain stable or increasingtrends in abundanceof both residentand migratory bull trout in the core area,3)restore and maintain suitablehabitat conditions for all life history stagesand forms, and4) conservegenetic diversity and increasenatural opportunities for geneticexchange between resident and migratory forms of the bull trout. An estimated270 to 1,000spawning bull trout per year areneeded to provide for the persistenceand viability of the core areaand to supportboth residentand migratory adultbull trout (USFWS 2004b).

KlamathRiver Interim RecovervUnit

This interim recoveryunit currentlycontains three core areasand sevenlocal populations.The currentabundance, distribution, andrangeof the bull trout in the Klamath River Basin are greatlyreduced from historical levels due to habitatloss and degradationcaused by reduced waterquality, timber harvest,livestock grazing,water diversions,roads, and the introductionof non-nativefishes (USFWS 2002b). Bull trout populationsin this interim recoveryunit face a

z) high risk of extirpation(USFWS 2002b). The draft Klamath River bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2002b)identifies the following conservationneeds for this interim recoveryunit: 1) maintainthe currentdistribution of bull trout andrestore distribution in previouslyoccupied areas,2)maintain stable or increasingtrends in bull trout abundance,3) restoreand maintain suitablehabitat conditions for all life history stagesand strategies,4) conservegenetic diversity andprovide the opportunityfor geneticexchange among appropriate core area populations. Eight to 15 new local populationsand an increasein populationsize from about2,400 adults currentlyto 8,250adults are needed to provide for the persistenceand viability of the threecore areas(USFWS 2002b).

ColumbiaRiver lnterim RecoveryUnit

The ColumbiaRiver interim recoveryunit includesbull trout residingin portionsof Oregon, Washington,Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are estimatedto have occupiedabout 60 percentof the ColumbiaRiver Basin, and presentlyoccur in 45 percentof the estimatedhistorical range (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997,p.II77). This interim recoveryunit currently contains97 core areasand 527 localpopulations. About 65 percentofthese core areasand local populations occur in central Idaho and northwesternMontana. The Columbia River interim recovery unit has declinedin overall rangeand numbersof fish (63 FR 31647). Although somestrongholds still exist with migratoryfish present,bull trout generallyoccw as isolatedlocal populationsin headwaterlakes or tributarieswhere the migratory life history form hasbeen lost. Though still widespread,there have been numerous local extirpationsreported throughout the Columbia River basin. In Idaho,for example,bull trout havebeen extirpated from 119 reachesin 28 streams(Idaho Departmentof Fish and Gamein litt,1995). The draft Columbia River bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2002d) identifiesthe following conservationneeds for this interim recoveryunit: 1) maintain or expandthe currentdistribution of the bull trout within core areas, 2) mainlainstable or increasingtrends in bull trout abundance,3) restoreand maintain suitable habitatconditions for all bull trout life history stagesand strategies,and 4) conservegenetic diversity andprovide opportunitiesfor geneticexchange.

This interim recoveryunit currently contains97 coreareas and 527 local populations. About 65 percentof thesecore areasand local populationsoccur in Idaho and northwesternMontana. The conditionof the bull trout within thesecore areasvaries from poor to good. All core areashave beensubject to the combinedeffects of habitatdegradation and fragmentationcaused by the following activities: dewatering;road constructionand maintenance;mining; grazing1'the blockageof migratorycorridors by damsor other diversionstructures; poor water quality; incidentalangler harvest; entrainment into diversionchannels; and introducednon-native species.The FWS completeda core areaconservation assessment for the 5-yearstatus review and determinedthat, of the 97 core areasin this interim recovery unit, 38 are at high risk of extirpation,35 areat risk, 20 areat potentialrisk, 2 are at low risk, and 2 areat unknown risk (usFws200s).

.A LA Coastal-PusetSound Interim RecoveryUnit

Bull trout in the Coastal-PugetSound interim recoveryunit exhibit anadromous,adfluvial, fluvial, andresident life history patterns. The anadromouslife history form is uniqueto this interim recovery unit. This interim recovery unit currently contains 14 core areasand 67 local populations(USFWS 2004a). Bull trout aredistributed throughout most of the largerivers and associatedtributary systemswithin this interim recoveryunit. Bull trout continueto be present in nearly all major watershedswhere they likely occurredhistorically, although local extirpations haveoccurred throughout this interim recoveryunit. Many remainingpopulations are isolated or fragmentedand abundancehas declined,especially in the southeasternportion of the interim recovery unit. The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is attributedto the adverseeffects of ,forest management practices (e.g., timber harvestand 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 targetedfisheries, and the introductionof non-nativespecies. The draft Coastal-PugetSound bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2004a)identifies the following conservationneeds for this interim recoveryunit: 1) maintain or expandthe current distribution of bull trout within existing core areas,2) increase bull trout abundanceto about 16,500adults across all core areas,and 3) maintain or increase connectivitybetween local populationswithin eachcore area.

St. Marv-Belly River Interim RecoverlzUnit

This interim recoveryunit currentlycontains six core areasand nine local populations(USFWS 2002c). Currently, bull trout are widely distributed in the St. Mary-Belly River drainageand occurin nearly all of the watersthat it inhabitedhistorically. Bull trout are found only in a |.2- mile reachof the North Fork Belly River within the .Redd count surveysof the North Fork Belly River documentedan increasefrom 27 reddsin 1995to 119 reddsin 1999. This increasewas attributed primarily to protection from angler harvest (USFWS 2002c). The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is primarily attributed to the effectsof dams,water diversions,roads, mining, and the introductionof non-nativefishes (USFWS 2002c). The draft St. Mary-Belly bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2002c)identifies the following conservationneeds for this interim recoveryunit: 1) maintain the current distributionof the bull trout and restoredistribution in previouslyoccupied areas, 2) maintain stableor increasingtrends in bull trout abundance,3) restoreand maintainsuitable habitat conditionsfor all life history stagesand forms, 4) conservegenetic diversity andprovide the opportunityfor geneticexchange, and 5) establishgood working relationswith Canadian interestsbecause local bull trout populationsin this interim recoveryunit are comprisedmostly of migratory fish, whosehabitat is mostly in Canada.

Life History

Bull trout exhibit both residentand migratory life history strategies.Both residentand migratory forms may be found together, and either form may produce offspring exhibiting either residentor migratorybehavior (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Residentbull trout completetheir entirelife cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streamsin which they spawn and rear. The resident form tends

25 to be smaller than the migratory form at maturity and also producesfewer eggs (Fraley and Shepard1989; Goetz 1989). Migratory bull trout spawnin tributary streamswhere juvenile fish rear I to 4 yearsbefore migrating to either a lake (adfluvial form), river (fluvial form) (Fraley and Shepard1989; Goetz 1989),or saltwater(anadromous form) to rear as subadultsand to live as adults(Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996;WDFW et al. 1997). Bull trout normally reachsexual maturity in 4 to 7 yearsand may live longer than 12 years, They areiteroparous (they spawnmore than once in a lifetime). Repeat-and alternate-yearspawning has been reported,although repeat-spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality arenot well documented(Fraley and Shepard1989; Leathe and Graham 1982;Pratt 1992;Rieman and Mclntyre 1996).

The iteroparousreproductive strategy of bull trout has importantrepercussions for the managementof this species.Bull trout requirepassage both upstreamand downstream,not only for repeatspawning but also for foraging, Most fish ladders,however, were designed specificallyfor anadromoussemelparous salmonids (fishes that spawnonce and then die, and requireonly one-waypassage upstream). Therefore, even dams or otherbarriers with fish passagefacilities may be a faclor in isolatingbull trout populationsif they do not provide a downstreampassage route. Additionally, in somecore areas,bull trout thatmigrateto marine waters must passboth upstreamand downstreamthrough areaswith net fisheries at river mouths. This can increasethe likelihood of morlality to bull trout during thesespawning and foraging migrations.

Growth variesdepending upon life-history strategy.Resident adults range from 6 to 12 inches total length,and migratory adultscommonly reach24 inchesor more (Goetz 1989;Pratt 1985), The largestverified bull trout is a 32-poundspecimen caught in Lake PendOreille, Idaho,in 1949 (Simpsonand Wallace 1982).

Habitat Characteristics

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirementsthan most other salmonids (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Habitat componentsthat 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 Shepard1989; Goetz 1989;Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989;Howell andBuchanan I992;Pratt 1992;Rich 1996;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Rieman and Mclntyre 1995;Sedell and EverestI99l; Watsonand Hillman 1997). Watsonand Hillman (1997) concludedthat watershedsmust have specificphysical characteristics to provide the habitatrequirements necessary for bull trout to successfullyspawn andrear and that these specificcharacteristics are not necessarilypresent throughout these watersheds. Because bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993),bull trout shouldnot be expectedto simultaneouslyoccupy all availablehabitats (Rieman et al. 1997). Migratory corridorslink seasonalhabitats for all bull trout life histories, The ability to migrateis importantto the persistenceof bull trout (Mike Gilpin in litt. 1997;Rieman et al. 1997;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Migrations facilitategene flow amonglocal populationswhen individuals from different local populationsinterbreed or strayto nonnatalstreams. Local populationsthat are extirpatedby catastrophicevents may alsobecome reestablished by bull trout migrants. However,it is importantto note that the geneticstructuring of bull trout indicatesthere is limited

26 gene flow among bull trout populations, which may encouragelocal adaptationwithin individual populations,and that reestablishmentof extirpatedpopulations may take a long time (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Spruell et al. 1999). Migration alsoallows bull trout to accessmore abundantor largerprey, which facilitatesgrowth andreproduction. Additional benefitsof migration and its relationshipto foraging arediscussed below under"Diet."

Cold water temperaturesplay an important role in determiningbull trout habitat quality, as these oC oF), fish areprimarily found in colder streams(below 15 or 59 and spawninghabitats are 'C generally characterrzedby temperaturesthat drop below 9 (48 "F) in the fall (Fraley and Shepard1989; Pratt 1992;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).

Thermal requirementsfor bull trout appearto differ at different life stages. Spawning areasare often associatedwith cold-watersprings, groundwater infiltration, and the coldeststreams in a given watershed(Baxter et al.I997;PratI1992; Riemanet al.1997; Rieman and Mclntyre oC oC 'F 1993). Optimum incubationtemperatures for bull trout eggsrange from2 to 6 (35 to oC oC 'F 39 "F) whereasoptimum water temperaturesfor rearingrange from about6 to 10 (46 to 50 'F) (Buchananand Gregory 1997; Goetz1989; McPhail andMurray 1979). In GraniteCreek, Idaho,Bonneau and Scarnecchia(1996) observedthat juvenile bull trout selectedthe coldest oC 'C oF oF), water availablein a plungepool, 8 to 9 (46 to 48 within a temperaturegradient of 8 'C to 15 oC (4 oF to 60 'F). In a landscapestudy relating bull trout distributionto maximum water temperatures,Dunham et al. (2003) found that the probability ofjuvenile bull trout occulrencedoes not becomehigh (i.e., greaterthan 0.75)until maximum temperaturesdecline to oC oC 11 to 72 (52'F to 54 "F).

Although bull trout are found primarily in cold streams,occasionally these fish are found in larger, wafiner river systemsthroughout the Columbia River basin (Buchananand Gregory 1997; Fraley and Shepard1989; Rieman et al.1997;Rieman andMclntyre 1993;'Rieman and Mclntyre 1995). Availability and proximity of cold waterpatches and food productivity can influencebull trout ability to survive in warmer rivers (Myrick et aL,2002). For example, in a study in the oC Little Lost River of Idaho where bull trout were found at temperaturesranging from 8 to 20 'C oF), (46 "F to 68 most sitesthat had high densitiesof bull trout were in areaswhere primary productivity in streamshad increasedfollowing a fire (Bart L. Gamett,Salmon-Challis National Forest,pers. comm. June20,2002),

All life history stagesof bull trout are associatedwith complexforms of covet, including large woody debris,undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscherand Bjomn 1989;Pratt 1992;Rich 1996;Sedell and Everestl99l; Sexauerand James 1997;Thomas1992; Watson and Hillman 1997). Maintainingbull trout habitatrequires stability of streamchannels and maintenanceof naturalflow pattems(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993), Juvenileand adult bull trout frequentlyinhabit sidechannels, stream margins, and pools with suitablecover (Sexauerand James1997). Theseareas are sensitiveto activitiesthat directly or indirectly affect streamchannel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, altered streamflow in the fall may disruptbull trout during the spawningperiod, and channelinstability may decreasesurvival of eggsand youngjuveniles in the gravel from winter throughspring (Fraleyand Shepard1989; Pratt 1992;Pratt andHuston 1993). Pratt (1992) indicatedthat increasesin fine sedimentreduceegg survival and emergence.

27 Bull trout typically spawnfrom August throughNovember during periodsof increasingflows and decreasingwater temperatures.Preferred spawninghabitat consists of low-gradientstream reacheswith loose,clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard1989). Reddsare often constructedin streamreaches fed by springsor nearother sourcesof cold groundwater(Goetz 1989;Pratt 1992; Rieman andMclntyre 1996). Dependingon water temperature,incubation is normally 100to 145 days (Pratt 1992). After hatching, fry remain in the substrate,and time from egg deposition to emergencemaysurpass 200 days. Fry normally emergefrom early April throughMay, dependingon water temperaturesand increasing streamflows (Pratt 1992;Ratliff and Howell 1ee2),

Early life stagesof fish, specificallythe developingembryo, require the highestinter-gravel dissolvedoxygen (IGDO) levels,and arethe most sensitivelife stageto reducedoxygen levels. The oxygen demandof embryosdepends on temperatureand on stageof development,with the greatestIGDO requiredjust prior to hatching.

A literaturereview conductedby the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology (WDOE2002) indicatesthat adverseeffects of lower oxygen concentrationson embryo survival aremagnified as temperaturesincrease above optimal (for incubation). In a laboratorystudy conductedin Canada,researchers found that low oxygen levels retardedembryonic developmentin bull trout (Giles and Van derZweep 1996in Stewartet al.2007). Normal oxygen levels seenin rivers usedby bull trout during spawningranged from 8 to 12 mglL (in the gravel),with corresponding instreamlevels of 10 to 11.5 mgll. (Stewartet al. 2007). In addition,IGDO concentrations, water velocitiesin the water column, and especiallythe intergravelflow rate, are interrelated variablesthat affect the survival of incubatingembryos (ODEQ 1995). Due to a long incubation period of 220+ days,bull trout areparticularly sensitiveto adequateIGDO levels. An IGDO level below 8 mg/L is likely to result in morlality of eggs,embryos, and fry.

Migratory forms of bull trout may developwhen habitatconditions allow movementbetween spawning and rearing streams andlarger rivers, lakes or nearshoremarine habitat where foraging opportunitiesmay be enhanced(Brenkman andCorbett 2005;Frissell 1993;Goetz et aL.2004). For example,multiple life history forms (e.g.,resident and fluvial) and multiple migration patternshave been noted in the GrandeRonde River (Baxter 2002). Parts of this river system haveretained habitat conditions that allow free movementbetween spawning and rearingareas andthe mainstemSnake River. Suchmultiple life history strategieshelp to maintainthe stability andpersistence of bull trout populationsto environmentalchanges. Benefits to migratorybull trout includ e greatergrowth in the more productive waters of larger streams,lakes, and marine waters; greaterfecundity resultingin increasedreproductive potential; and dispersingthe populationacross space and time so that spawningstreams may be recolonizedshould local populationssuffer a catastrophicloss (Frissell 1999; MBTSG 1998;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).

In the absenceof the migratory bull trout life form, isolatedpopulations cannot be replenished when disturbancesmake local habitatstemporarily unsuitable. Therefore,the rangeof the speciesis diminished,and the potentialfor a greaterreproductive contribution from larger size fish with higher fecundity is lost (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993).

28 Diet

Bull trout areopportunistic feeders, with food habitsprimarily a function of size and life-history strategy.A single optimal foraging strategyis not necessarilya consistentfeature in the life of a fish, becausethis strategycan changeas the fish progressesfrom one life stageto another(i.e., juvenile to subadult). Fish growth dependson the quantityand quality of food that is eaten (Gerking 1994),and as fish grow, their foraging strategychanges 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; Donald and Alger 1993; Goetz1989). Subadultand adult migratorybull trout feed on various fish species(Brown 1994;Donald and Alger 1993;Fraley and Shepard1989; Leathe and Graham 1982). Bull trout of all sizesother than fry have been found to eat fish half their length (Beauchampand VanTassell2001). In nearshoremarine areasof westernWashington, bull trout feedon Pacific herring (Clupeapallasi), Pacific sand lance (Ammodyteshexapterus), and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus)(GoeIz et aI.2004; WDFW et al.1997).

Bull trout migration and life history strategiesare closely related to their feeding and foraging strategies.Migration allows bull trout to accessoptimal foraging areasand exploit a wider variety of prey resources.Optimal foragingtheory can be usedto describestrategies fish useto choosebetween alternative sources of food by weighing the benefitsand costsof capturingone sourceof food over another. For example,prey often occur in concentratedpatches of abundance("patch model" ; Gerking 1994). As the predatorfeeds in one patch,the prey populationis reduced,and it becomesmore profitablefor the predatorto seeka new patchrather than continuefeeding on the original one. This canbe explainedin terms of balancingenergy acquiredversus energy expended. For example,in the SkagitRiver system,anadromous bull trout make migrations as long as l2l miles betweenmarine foraging areasin Puget Sound and headwaterspawning grounds, foraging on salmoneggs and juvenile salmonalong their migration route (WDFW et al.1997). Anadromousbull trout alsouse marine waters as migtation corridorsto reachseasonal habitats in non-natalwatersheds to forageand possiblyovetwinter (Brenkmanand Corbett2005; Goetzet aL 2004).

Chaneesin Statusof the Coastal-PugetSound Interim RecoveryUnit

Although the statusof bull trout in Coastal-PugetSound interim recoveryunit hasbeen improved by certainactions, it continuesto be degradedby other actions,and it is likely that the overall statusof the bull trout in this populationsegment has not improved sinceits listing on November 1,1999. lmprovementhas occurredlargely throughchanges in fishing regulationsand habitat- restorationprojects. Fishing regulationsenacted in 1994either eliminated harvest of bull trout or restrictedthe amountof harvestallowed, andthis likely hashad a positive influenceon the abundanceof bull trout. Improvementin habitathas occurredfollowing restorationprojects intendedto benefit eitherbull trout or salmon,although monitoring the effectivenessof these projectsseldom occurs. On the other hand,the statusof this populationsegment has been adverselyaffected by a number of Federaland non-Federal actions, some of which were addressedunder section 7 of the Act. Most of theseactions degraded the environmental baseline;all of thoseaddressed through formal consultationunder section7 of the Act permitted the incidentaltakeof bull trout.

29 Section10(a)(1)(B) permits havebeen issued for Habitat ConservationPlans (HCP) completed in the Coastal-PugetSound population segment. These include: 1) the City of Seattle'sCedar River WatershedHCP, 2) SimpsonTimber HCP, 3) TacomaPublic Utilities GreenRiver HCP, 4) Plum CreekCascades HCP, 5) WashingtonState Depaftment of Natural ResourcesHCP, 6) West Fork Timber HCP (Nisqually River), and 7) ForestPractices HCP. TheseHCPs provide landscape-scaleconservation for fish, including bull trout. Many of the coveredactivities associatedwith theseHCPs will contributeto consewingbull trout over the long-term;however, somecovered activities will result in short-termdeeradation of the baseline. All HCPs permit the incidentaltakeof bull trout.

Chanqesin Statusof the Columbia River Interim Recover)'Unit

The overall statusof the Columbia River interim recoveryunit hasnot changedappreciably since its listing on June 10, 1998. Populationsof bull trout and their habitatin this areahave been affectedby a numberof actionsaddressed under section 7 of the Act. Most of theseactions resultedin degradationof the environmentalbaseline of bull trout habitat,and all permittedor analyzedthe potentialfor incidentaltake of bull trout. The Plum Creek CascadesHCP, Plum CreekNative Fish HCP, and ForestPractices HCP addressedportions of the ColumbiaRiver populationsegment of bull trout,

Changesin Statusof the Klamath River Interim Recovery Unit

Improvementsin the Threemile,Sun, and Long Creeklocal populationshave occured through efforts to remove or reduce competition and hybridization with non-native salmonids,changes in fishing regulations,and habitat-restorationprojects. Populationstatus in the remaininglocal populations (Boulder-Dixon, Deming, Brownsworth, and Leonard Creeks) remains relatively unchanged.Grazing within bull trout watershedsthroughout the recoveryunit hasbeen curtailed. Efforls at removal of non-nativespecies of salmonidsappear to have stabilizedthe Threemileand positively influencedthe Sun Creeklocal populations. The resultsof similar efforts in Long Creek are inconclusive. Mark and recapturestudies of bull trout in Long Creek indicate alarger migratory componentthan previouslyexpected.

Although the statusof specific local populationshas been slightly improved by recoveryactions, the overall statusof Klamath River bull trout continuesto be depressed.Factors considered threatsto bull trout in the Klamath Basin atthe time of listing - habitat loss and degradation causedby reducedwater quality, past andpresent land usemanagement practices, water diversions,roads, and non-nativefishes - continueto be threatstoday.

Changesin Statusof the SaintMary-Belly River Interim RecoverLUnit

The overall statusof bull trout in the SaintMary-Belly River interim recoveryunit hasnot changedappreciably since its listing on November 1, 7999. Extensiveresearch efforts have been conductedsince listing, to betterquantify populationsof bull trout and their movementpattems. Limited effbrts in the way of active recoveryactions have occurred. Habitat occursmostly on Federaland Tribal lands (GlacierNational Park and the BlackfeetNation). Known problemsdue to instreamflow depletion,entrainment, and fish passagebarriers resulting from operationsof

30 the U.S. Bureauof Reclamation'sMilk River Inigation Project(which transfersSaint Mary- Belly River water to the Missouri River Basin) and similar projectsdownstream in Canada constitutethe primary threatsto bull trout andto datethey havenot been adequatelyaddressed undersection 7 of the Act. Plansto upgradethe agingir'rigation delivery systemare being pursued,which haspotential to mitigate someof theseconcems but alsothe potentialto intensify dewatering.A major fire in August 2006 severelyburned the forestedhabitat in Red Eagleand Divide Creeks,potentially affectingthree of nine local populationsand degradingthe baseline.

Snohomish-SkykomishCore Area

The Snohomish-Skykomishcore areacomprises the Snohomish,Skykomish, and Snoqualmie Rivers andtheir tributaries. Bull trout occur throughoutthe SnohomishRiver system downstreamof barriers to anadromousfish. Bull trout are not known to occur upstreamof SnoqualmieFalls, upstreamof SpadaLake on the SultanRiver, in the upperforks of the Tolt River, aboveDeer Falls on the North Fork SkykomishRiver, or aboveAlpine Falls on the Tye River.

Fluvial, resident,and anadromouslife history forms of bull trout occur in the Snohomish River/Skykomishcore area. A largeportion of the migratory segmentof this populationis anadromous.No lakeswithin the basin supportan adfluvial populationof bull trout. However, anadromousand fluvial forms occasionallyforage in a numberof lowland lakescorurected to the mainstemrivers.

The mainstemsof the Snohomish,Skykomish, North Skykomish,and SouthFork Skykomish Rivers provide imporlant foraging, migratrng, and overwintering habitat for subadult and adult bull trout. The amountof key spawningand earlyrearing habitat is more limited, in comparison with many other core areas,because of the topographyof the basin. Rearingbull trout occur throughoutmost of the accessiblereaches of the basinand extensivelyuse the lower estuary, nearshoremarine areas)and PugetSound for extendedrearing.

The statusof the bull trout core areapopulation is basedon four key elementsnecessary for long-termviability: (1) number and distributionof local populations,(2) adult abundance,(3) productivity, and (4) connectivity (FWS 2004).

Number andDistribution of Local Populations

Four local populationshave beenidentified: (1) North Fork SkykomishRiver (including Goblin and West Cady Creeks),(2) TroublesomeCreek (resident form only), (3) SalmonCreek, and (4) SouthFork SkykomishRiver. With only four local populations,bull trout in this corearea are consideredat increasedrisk ofextirpation and adverseeffects from randomnaturally occurring events(see "Life History").

a1 J_t Adult Abundance

The Snohomish-Skykomishcore area probably supportsbetween 500 and 1,000adults and as a resultthe core arearemains at risk of geneticdrift. Most of the spawnersin the core areaoccur in the North Fork Skykomish local population. Redd countswithin the North Fork Skykomish local populationpeaked at over 530 in 2002 (FWS 2004),but haverecently declined to just over 240 in2005 and2006 (WDFW 2007). This is one of two local populationsin the core area(the other is SouthFork SkykomishRiver) that supportsmore than 100 adults,which minimizesthe deleteriouseffects of inbreeding. The TroublesomeCreek population is mainly a resident populationwith few migratory fish. Although adult abundanceis unknown in this local population,it is probably stabledue to intact habitatconditions. The SalmonCreek local populationlikely has fewer than 100 adults. Although spawningand early rearinghabitat in the SalmonCreek area is in good to excellentcondition, this local populationis at risk of inbreeding depressionbecause of the low numberof adults. Monitoring of the SouthFork Skykomishlocal populationindicates increasing numbers of adult migrants. This local populationrecently exceeded100 adultsand is not consideredat risk ofinbreeding depression(Chad Jackson, WDFW, in litt.2004).

Productivity

Long-termredd countsfor the North Fork Skykomishlocal populationindicate increasing populationtrends, Productivity of the TroublesomeCreek and SalmonCreek local populations is unknown but presumedstable, as the availablespawning and early rearinghabitats are consideredto be in good to excellentcondition. In the SouthFork Skykomishlocal population, new spawningand rearing areasare being colonized,resulting in increasingnumbers of spawners.Sampling of the Norlh Fork and SouthFork Skykomishlocal populationareas indicatesthe overall productivity of bull trout in the Snohomish-Skykomishcore areais increasing.

Connectivity

Migratory bull trout occur in threeof the four local populationsin the Snohomish-Skykomish core area(North Fork Skykomish,Salmon Creek, and SouthFork Skykomish). The lack of connectivitywith the TroublesomeCreek local populationis a naturalcondition. The connectivitybetween the other threelocal populationsdiminishes the risk of extirpationof the bull trout in the core areafrom habitatisolation and fragmentation.

Chansesin EnvironmentalConditions and PopulationStatus

Sincethe listing of bull trout, Federalactions occurring in the Snohomish-Skykomishcore area havecaused harm to, or harassmentof, bull trout. Theseactions include statewideFederal restorationprograms that include rrparianrestoration, removal of fish-passagebarriers, and fish habitatimprovement projects; federally fundedtransportation projects involving repair and protectionof roadsand bridges;and section10(aX1XB) permits for HCPs addressingforest- managementpractices. Captureand handling during implementationof section6 andsection 10(aXlXA) permitshave directly affectedbull trout in the Snohomish-Skykomishcore area.

JZ The numberof nonfederalactions occurring in the Snohomish-Skykomishcore areasince the bull trout tisting is unknown. However,activities conducted on a regularbasis, such as emergencyflood control, development,and infrastructuremaintenance, affect riparian and instreamhabitat and probably negativelyaffect bull trout.

Threats

Threatsto bull trout in the Snohomish-Skykomishcore areainclude:

o Nearshoreforaging habitat has been, and continuesto be, affectedby development activities.

o Agricultural and livestockpractices, including blocking fish passage,altering stream morphology,and degradingwater quality in the lower watershed(FMO habitat),have significantly affected the floodplain and bull trout habitat.

o Water quality has been degradedby municip al andindustrial effluent dischargesand development.

o Illegal harvestor incidentalhooking mortality may occur at severalcampgrounds where recreationalfishine is allowedby the WDFW.

o Pasttimber harvestand harvest-relatedactivities, such as roads,have degradedhabitat conditionsin the upperwatershed.

STATUS OF CRITICAL HABITAT (Bull Trout)

This Opinion doesnot rely on the regulatorydefinition of "destructionor adversemodification" of critical habitatat 50 CFR 402.02. Instead,we haverelied upon the statuteand the August 6, 2004,Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsdecision in Gifford PinchotTask Forcev. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(No. 03-35279)to completethe following analysiswith respectto critical habitat.

Legal Status

The FWS published a final critical habitat designationfor the coterminousUnited States populationof the bull trout on September26,2005 (70 FR 56212);the rule becameeffective on October26,2005. The scopeof the designationinvolved the Klamath River, ColumbiaRiver, Coastal-PugetSound, and Saint Mary-Belly River populationsegments (also consideredas interim recoveryunits). Rangewide,the FWS designatedI43,2I8 acresof reservoirsor lakes and 4,813 streamor shorelinemiles asbull trout critical habitat(Table2).

JJ Table 2. Streatrt/shorelinedistance and acresof reservoiror lakesdesisnated as bull trout critical habitatbv state. Stream/shoreline Stream/shorelineAcres Hectares Miles Kilometers Idaho 294 474 s0.627 20,488 Montana 1,058 r.703 3I,916 12,916 Oreqon 939 1,51I 27.322 II,O57 Oreson/Idaho l/ 27 Washngton r,519 2,445 ?? ?{1 t3,497 Washington 985 1,585 (marine)

Although critical habitathas been designated across a wide area,some critical habitatsegments were excludedin the final designationbased on a carefulbalancing of the benefitsof inclusion versusthe benefitsof exclusion(see Section 3(5XA) and Exclusionsunder Section4(b)(2) in the final ru1e). This balancingprocess resulted in all proposedcritical habitatbeing excludedin 9 proposedcritical habitatunits: Unit 7 (Odell Lake),Unit 8 (JohnDay River Basin),Unit 15 (ClearwaterRiver Basin),Unit 16 (SalmonRiver Basin),Unit 17 (SouthwestIdaho River Basins),Unit 18 (Little Lost River), Unit 2I (Upper ColumbiaRiver), UniI24 (ColumbiaRiver), andUnit 26 (JarbidgeRiver Basin), The remaining20 proposedcritical habitatunits were designatedin the final rule. It is important to note that the exclusion of waterbodiesfrom designatedcritical habitat doesnot negateor diminish their importancefor bull trout conservation.

ConservationRole and Description of Critical Habitat

The conservationrole of bull trout critical habitatis to supportviable core areapopulations (70 FR 56212). The core areasreflect the metapopulationstructure of bull trout and arethe closest approximationof a biologically functioningunit for the purposesof recoveryplanning andrisk analyses.Critical habitatunits generallyencompass one or more core areasand may include foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) areas,outside of core areas,that arc important to the survival and recoverv of bull trout.

Becausethere are numerous exclusions that reflect land ownership,designated critical habitatis often fragmentedand interspersedwith excludedstream segments. These individual critical habitat segmentsare expectedto contribute to the ability of the streamto support bull trout within local populationsand core areasin eachcritical habitatunit.

The primary function of individual critical habitatunits is to maintain and supportcore areas which 1) containbull trout populationswith the demographiccharacteristics needed to ensure their persistenceand containthe habitatneeded to sustainthose characteristics (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993);2) provide for persistenceof stronglocal populations,in part, by providing habitatconditions that encouragemovement of migratory fish (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998);3) are large enoughto incorporategenetic and phenotypic diversity, but small

5+ enoughto ensurecorurectivity between populations (Rieman and Mclntyre I993;Hard 1995; Healey andPrince 1995;MBTSG 1998); and4) aredistributed throughout the historicrange of the speciesto preserveboth geneticand phenotypicadaptations (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993; Hard 1995;MBTSG 1998;Rieman and Allendorf 2001).

The Olympic Peninsulaand PugetSound critical habitatunits are essentialto the conservationof amphidromousbull trout, which areunique to the Coastal-PugetSound bull trout population. Thesecritical habitat units contain nearshoreand freshwater habitats, outside of core areas,that areused by bull trout from one or more core areas.These habitats, outside of core areas,contain Primary ConstituentElements (PCEs) that arecritical to adult and subadult foraging, overwintering, and mi gration.

Within the designatedcritical habitatareas, the PCEsfor bull trout arethose habitat components that areessential for the primary biological needsof foraging,reproducing, rearing of young, dispersal,genetic exchange, or sheltering.Note that only PCEs I, 6,7 , and 8 apply to marine nearshorewaters identified as critical habitat;and all exceptPCE 3 apply to FMO habitat identified ascritical habitat.

The PCEsare as follows:

(1) Water temperaturesthat supportbull trout use. Bull trout havebeen documented in streamswith temperaturesfrom 32oto 72'F (0' to 22 "C) but are found more frequently in temperaturesranging from 36oto 59 "F (2" to 15 "C). Thesetemperature ranges may vary dependingon bull trout life-history stageand form, geography,elevation, diurnal and seasonalvariation, shade,such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwaterinfluence. Streamreaches with temperaturesthat preclude bull trout use are specificallyexcluded from designation.

(2) Complex streamchannels with featuressuch as woody debris,side channels,pools, andundercut banks to provide avariety of depths,velocities, and instreamstructures.

(3) Substratesof sufficient amount, size,and compositionto ensuresuccess of egg and embryooverwinter survival, fry emergence,and young-of-the-yearand juvenile survival. This shouldinclude a minimal amountof fine substrateless than 0.25 inch (0.63 centimeter)in diameter.

(4) A naturalhydrograph, including peak,high, low, and baseflows within historic rangesor, ifregulated, currently operateunder a biological opinion that addressesbull trout, or a hydrographthat demonstratesthe ability to supportbull trout populationsby minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departuresfrom the natural cycle of flow levelscorresponding with seasonalvariation.

(5) Springs,seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurfacewater to contributeto water quality and quantity as a cold water source.

35 (6) Migratory corridorswith minimal physical,biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonalbariers inducedby high watertemperatures or low flows.

(7) An abundantfood base including terrestrial organismsof riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates,and forage fish.

(8) Permanentwater of sufficient quantityand quality suchthat normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.

Critical habitatincludes the streamchannels within the designatedstream reaches, the shoreline of designatedlakes, and the inshoreextent of marinenearshore areas, including tidally influencedfreshwater heads of estuaries.

In freshwaterhabitat, critical habitatincludes the streamchannels within the designatedstream reaches,and includesa lateralextent as definedby the ordinaryhigh-water line. In areaswhere ordinaryhigh-water line has not beendefined, the lateralextent will be definedby the bankfull elevation. Bankfull elevationis the level at which water beginsto leavethe channeland move into the floodplain and is reachedat a dischargethat generallyhas a recurrenceinterual of I to 2 yearson the annualflood series. For designatedlakes, the lateralextent of critical habitatis definedby the perimeterof the water body as mappedon standardt:24,000 scaletopographic maps.

In marine habita| critical habitat includes the inshore extent of marine nearshoreareas between meanlower low-water (MLLW) and minus 10 meters(m) meanhigher high-water(MHHW), including tidally influencedfreshwater heads of estuaries.This refersto the areabetween the averageof all lower low-water heightsand all the higherhigh-water heights of the two daily tidal levels. The offshoreextent of critical habitatfor marinenearshore areas is basedon the extentof the photic zone,which is the layer of water in which organismsare exposedto light. Critical habitatextends offshore to the depth of 33 feet (10 m) relativeto the MLLW.

Adjacentstream, lake, and shorelineriparian areas,bluffs, and uplandsare not designatedas critical habitat, However, it shouldbe recognizedthat the quality of marine and freshwater habitatalong streams,lakes, and shorelinesis intrinsicallyrelated to the characterof these adjacentfeatures, and that human activitiesthat occuroutside of the designatedcritical habitat can havemajor effectson physical and biological featuresof the aquaticenvironment.

Activities that causeadverse effects to critical habitatare evaluatedto determineif they are likely to "destroyor adverselymodify" critical habitatby alteringthe PCEs to such an extentthat critical habitatwould not remain functionalto servethe intendedconservation role for the species(70 FR 56212,USFWS 2004). The FWS's evaluationmust be conductedat the scaleof the entirecritical habitat areadesignated, unless otherwise stated in the final critical habitatrule (USFWS and NMFS 1998). Therefore,adverse modification of bull trout critical habitatis evaluatedat the scaleof the final designation,which includesthe critical habitat designatedfor the Klamath River, Columbia River, Coastal-PugetSound, and SaintMary-Belly River populationsegments.

36 Current Condition Rangewide

The conditionof bull trout critical habitatvaries across its rangefrom poor to good. Although still relativelywidely distributedacross its historic range,the bull trout occursin low numbersin many areas,and populations are considereddepressed or decliningacross much of its range(67 FR 71240), This conditionreflects the conditionof bull trout habitat.

There is widespreadagreement 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 factorsthat contributeto degradedPCEs, those which appearto be particularly significantand haveresulted in a legacyof degradedhabitat conditions are as follows: 1) fragmentationand isolationof local populationsdue to the proliferationof damsand water diversionsthat have eliminated habitat, altered water flow and temperatureregimes, and impeded migratory movements(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Dunham and Rieman 1999);2) degradationof spawning and rearing habitat and upper watershed areas,particularly alterationsin sedimentationrates and water temperature,resulting from forest and rangelandpractices and intensivedevelopment of roads(Fraley and Shepard1989; MBTSG 1998);3) the introduction and spreadof nonnativefish species,particularly brook trout and lake trout, as a resultof fish stockingand degradedhabitat conditions, which competewith bull trout for limited resources and,in the caseof brook trout, hybridizewith bull trout (Leary et al. 1993;Rieman et aL.2006); 4) in the Coastal-PugetSound region where amphidromousbull trout occur,degradation of mainstemriver FMO habitat, and the degradationand loss of marine nearshoreforaging and migration habitat due to urban and residential development;and 5) degradationof FMO habitat resultingfrom reducedprey base,roads, agriculture, development, and dams.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (Marbled Murrelets)

Legal Status

The marbledmurrelet (murrelet) was federallylisted as a threatenedspecies in Washington, Oregon,and northernCalifornia effectiveSeptember 28,1992 (57 FR 45328fOctober l,1992)). The final rule designatingcriticalhabitat for the murrelet(61 FR 26256lMay 24,19961)became effectiveon June24,1996. The FWS recentlyproposed a revisionto the 1996murrelet critical habitatdesignation (7i FR 44678fJuly 31, 2008]). A final rule is expectedin 2009. The species'decline has largely been causedby extensiveremoval of late-successionaland old- growth coastalforests which serveas nestinghabitat for murrelets. Additional listing factors included high nest-sitepredation rates and human-inducedmortality in the marine environment from gillnets and oil spills.

The FWS determinedthat the California,Oregon, and Washington distinct populationsegment of the murreletdoes not meet the criteria setforth in the FWS's 1996Distinct Population Segmentpolicy (61 FR 4722lMay 24,19961;(Beissinger and Nur 1997in USFWS 2004). However,the murreletretains its listing andprotected status as a threatenedspecies under the Act until the original 1992listing decisionis revisedthrough formal rule-makingprocedures, involving public notice and comment.

37 Critical habitatwas designatedfor the murreletto addressesthe objectiveof stabilizingthe populationsize. To fulfill that objective,the Marbled Murrelet RecoveryPlan (USFWS 1997b) (RecoveryPlan), focuses on protectingadequate nesting habitat by maintainingand protecting occupiedhabitat and minimizingthe loss of unoccupiedbut suitablehabitat (USFWS 1997b,p. 119). The RecoveryPlan identified six ConservationZones throughout the listed rungeof the species:Puget Sound (Conservation Zone 1), WesternWashington Coast Range (Consewation Zone2), OregonCoast Range (ConservationZone 3), Siskiyou CoastRange (ConservattonZone 4), Mendocino(Conservation Zone 5), and SantaCruz Mountains(Conservation Zone 6).

As explainedin the EndangeredSpecies Consultation Handbook (USFWS andNMFS 1998)and clarified for recoveryunits throughMemorandum (USFWS 2006),jeopardy analysesmust alwaysconsider the effect of proposedactions on the survival and recoveryof the listed entity. In the caseof the murrelet,the FWS's jeopardy analysiswill considerthe effect of the actionon the long-termviability of the murreletin its listed range(Washington, Oregon, and northern California),beginning with an analysisof the action'seffect on ConservationZonesI and2 (describedbelow).

ConservationZoneI

ConservationZone1 includesall the watersof PugetSound and most watersof the Straitof Juan de Fuca southof the U.S.-Canadianborder and extendsinland 50 miles from the PugetSound, including the north CascadeMountains and the northernand easternsections of the Olympic Peninsula.Forest lands in the PugetTrough havebeen predominately replaced by urban developmentand the remainingsuitable habitat inZone 1 is typically a considerabledistance from the marine environment,lending specialimportance to nestinghabitat closeto PugetSound (usFwsr997b).

ConservationZone2

ConservationZone2 includeswaters within 1.2 miles of the Pacific Oceanshoreline south of the U,S.-Canadianborder off CapeFlattery and extendsinland to the midpoint of the Olympic Peninsula.ln southwestWashington, the Zone extendsinland 50 miles fiom the PacifrcOcean shoreline. Most of the forest landsin the northwesternportion of Zone 2 occuron public (State, county,city, and Federal)lands, while most forestlands in the southwesternportion areprivately owned. Extensive timber harvest has occurred throughout Zone 2 rn the last century, but the greatestloss of suitablenest habitat is concentratedin the southwestportion of Zone 2 (USFWS 1997b). Thus, murrelet conservationis largely dependentupon Federal lands in northern portion of Zone 2 andnon-Federal lands in the southernportion.

Life History

Murreletsare long-lived seabirdsthat spendmost of their life in the marine environment,but use old-growth forestsfor nesting. Detaileddiscussions of the biology and statusof the murreletare presentedin the final rule listing the murreletas threatened(57 FR 45328 fOctober I, 1992]),the RecoveryPlan, Ecology and Conservationof the Marbled Murrelet (Ralph eI al. 1995),the final

38 rule designatingmurrelet critical habitat(61 FR 26256lMay 24,1996)), and the Evaluation Reportin the 5-Year StatusReview of the Marbled Murrelet in Washington,Oregon, and California (McShaneet aL.2004)

PhysicalDescription

The murreletis taxonomicallyclassified in the family Alcidae (alcids),a family of Pacific seabirdspossessing the ability to dive using wing-propulsion. The plumageof this relatively small (9.5 in to 10 in) seabirdis identicalbetween males and females,but the plumageof adults changesduring the winter andbreeding periods providing somedistinction between adults and juveniles. Breedingadults have light, mottledbrown under-partsbelow sooty-brownupperparls contrastedwith dark bars. Adults in winter plumagehave white under-partsextending to below the napeand white scapularswith brown and grey mixed upperparts.The plumageof fledged young is similar to the adult winter plumage(USFWS 1997b).

Distribution

The range of the murrelet, defined by breeding and wintering areas,extends from the northern terminusof Bristol Bay, Alaska,to the southernterminus of MontereyBay in centralCalifornia. The listed portion of the species'range extends from the Canadianborder southto central California. Murrelet abundanceand distributionhas been significantly reduced in portionsof the listedrange, and the specieshas been extirpatedfrom somelocations. The areasof gteatest concemdue to small numbersand fragmenteddistribution include portions of centralCalifornia, northwestemOregon, and southwestemWashington (USFWS I997b).

Reproduction

Mun:eletbreeding is asynchronousand spreadover a prolongedseason. In Washington,the murreletbreeding season occurs between April 1 and September15 (Figure 6). Egg laying and incubationoccur from late April to early August and chick rearingoccurs between late May and late August,with all chicks fledging by early September(Hamer et aI.2003).

Murreletslay a single-eggclutch (Nelson 1997),which may be replacedif egg failure occurs early (Hebertet al. 2003;McFarlane-Tranquilla et al. 2003). However,there is no evidencea secondegg is laid after successfullyfledging a first chick. Adults tlpically incubatefor a24- hour period, then exchangeduties with their mate at dawn. Hatchlings appearto be broodedby an adult for one to two days and are then left alone at the nest for the remainder of the rearing period,except during feedings. Both parentsfeed the chick, which receivesone to eight meals per day (Nelson 1997). Most mealsare delivered early in the moming while abouta third of the food deliveriesoccur at dusk and intermittentlythroughout the day (Nelson and Hamer 1995b), Chicks fledge27 to 40 days after hatching. The initial flight of a fledgling appearsto occur at dusk and parcntalcare is thought to ceaseafter fledging (Nelson 1997).

39 Nov

sep

Jul

May

Mar

Jan 90% 100%

tr Non-nestingMunelets in the MarineBrvironnpnt Z NestingMunelets in the MarineEnvironnrent I NestingMurrelets in the TenestrialEnvironrrpnt E Muneletsin the MarineEnvironnpnt (non-nesturg period)

Figure 6. The seasonalchanges in the relative proportion of breeding and non-breeding murrelets in the marine and terrestrial environments"within Washington State (Conservation Zones 1 and 2)

Vocalization

Murrelets are known to vocalize between 480 Hertz and4.9 kilohertz and have at least 5 distinct call types(Suzanne Sanborn, pers. comm. 2005). Murreletstend to be more vocal at sea comparedto other alcids Q.{elson1997). Individuals of a pair vocalize after surfacing apart from eachother, after a disturbance,and during attemptsto reunite after being separated(Strachan et al. 1995).

MLIRRELETS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Murreletsare ususallyfound within 5 miles (8 kilometers)from shore,and in water lessthan 60 metersdeep (Ainley et al. 1995;Burger 1995;Strachan et al. 1995;Nelson 1997;Day andNigro 2000;Raphael et aL.2007).In general,birds occur closerto shorein exposedcoastal areas and fartheroffshore in protectedcoastal areas Q.trelson 1997). Courtship,foraging, loafing, molting, and preening occur in marine waters. Beginning in early spring, courtship continuesthroughout

2Demographic estimateswere derived from Peery eL al. (2004) and nesting chronology was derived from Hamer and Nelson(1995) and Bradley et al. (2004) where April 1 is the beginningof the nestingseason, September 15 is the end of the nestingseason, and August 6 is the beginningof the late breedingseason when an estimated70 percentof the murreletchicks have fledsed.

4U summerwith someobservations even noted during the winter period (Speckman1996; Nelson 1997). Observationsof courtship occurring in the winter suggestthat pair bonds are maintained throughoutthe year (Speckman1996; Nelson 1997). Courtshipinvolves bill posturing, swimming together,syrchronous diving, vocalizations,and chasingin flights just abovethe surfaceof the water. Copulationoccurs both inland (in the trees) and at.sea (Nelson 1997).

Loafing

When murrelets are not foraging or attendinga nest, they loaf on the water, which includes resting,preening, and other activities during which they appearto drift with the current, or move without direction(Strachan et al. 1995). Strachanet al. (1995)noted thatvocalizationsoccumed during loafing periods,especially during the mid-morningand late aftemoon.

Molting

Murreletsgo throughtwo molts eachyear. The timing of molts variestemporally throughout their rangeand are likely influencedby prey availability,stress, and reproductivesuccess (Nelson 1997). Adult (after hatch-year)munelets have two primary plumage types: altemate (breeding)plumage and basic (winter) plumage. The pre-alternatemolt occursfrom late Februaryto mid-May. This is an incompletemolt duringwhich the birds losetheir body feathers but retaintheir ability to fly (Carterand Stein 1995;Nelson 1997). A completepre-basic molt occursfrom mid-July throughDecember (Carter and Stein 1995;Nelson 1997). During the pre- basic molt, murrelets lose all flight featherssomewhat synchronously and are flightless for up to two months(Nelson 1997). In Washington,there is someindication that the pre-basicmolt occurs from mid-July through the end of August (Chris Thompson,pers. comm. 2003).

Flocking

Strachanet al. (1995) definesa flock as threeor more birds in closeproximity which maintain that formation when moving. Various observersthroughout the range of the murrelet report flocks of highly variablesizes. In the southernportion of the murrelet'srange (California, Oregon,and Washington),flocks rarely containmore than 10 birds. Larger flocks usually occur during the laterpart of the breedingseason and may containjuvenile and subadultbirds (Strachanet al. 1995).

Aggregationsof foraging murreletsare probably related to concentrationsof prey. In Washington,murrelets are not generally found in interspecific feeding flocks (Strachanet al. 1995). Stronget al. (in Strachanet al. 1995)observed that murreletsavoid large feedingflocks of otherspecies and presumedthat the small sizeof murreletsmay make them vulnerableto kleptoparasitismor predationin mixed speciesflocks. Strachanet al. (1995) point out that if murreletsare foraging cooperatively,the confusionof a large flock of birds could reduce foragingefliciency,

4l Foraging Behavior

Murreletsare wing-propelled pursuit diversthat forageboth during the day and at night (Carter and Sealy 1986;Gaston and Jones1998; Henkel et al. 2003; Kuletz 2005). Murreletstypically foragein pairs,but havebeen observed to foragealone or in groupsof three or more (Carterand Sealy 1990;Strachan et al. 1995;Speckman et aL.2003).Strachan et al. (1995) believepairing enhancesforaging success through cooperative foraging techniques. For example,pairs consistentlydive togetherduring foraging and often synchronizetheir dives by swimming towardseach other before diving (Carterand Sealy 1990)and resurfacingtogether on most dives, Strachanet al. (1995) speculatepairs may keepin visual contactunderwater. Paired foraging is common throughout the year, even during the incubation period, suggestingthat breedingmurrelets may temporarilypair up with other foragingindividuals (non-mates) (Strachanet al. 1995;Speckman et al. 2003).

Murreletscan make substantialchanges in foragingsites within the breedingseason, but many birds routinely foragein the samegeneral areas and at productiveforaging sites,as evidencedby repeateduse over a period of time throughoutthe breedingseason (Carter and Sealy 1990; Whitworth et aI.2000;Becker et aL.2001;Hull et al.200l; Mason et aL.2002;Piatt et al,2007). Murrelets are also known to forage in freshwaterlakes (I.trelson1997). Activity patternsand foraginglocations are influencedby biological and physicalprocesses that concentrateprey, such as weather,climate, time of day, season,light intensity,up-wellings, tidal rips, narow passagesbetween islands, shallow banks, and kelp (Nereocystlsspp.) beds (Ainley et al. 1995; Stronget al. 1995;Burger1995; Speckman 1996; Nelson 1997).

Juvenilesare generallyfound closerto shorethan adults(Beissinger 1995) and foragewithout the assistanceof adults (Strachanet al. 1995). Kuletz and Piatt (1999) found that in Alaska, juvenile murreletscongregated in kelp beds. Kelp bedsare often with productivewaters and may provide protectionfrom avianpredators (Kuletz andPiatt 1999). McAllister (in litt. in Strachanet al. 1995)found thatjuveniles were more commonwithin 328 feetof shorelines, particularly,where bull kelp was present.

Murreletsusually feed in shallow,near-shore water lessthan 30m (98 feet) deep(Huff et al. 2006),but arethought to be ableto dive up to depthsof 47 m (157 feet) (Mathewsand Burger 1998). Variation in depth and dive patternsmay be relatedto the effort neededto captureprey. Thick-billed murres(Uria lomvia) and severalpenguin species exhibit bi-modal foraging behaviorin that their dive depthsmimic the depthof their prey, which undergodaily vertical migrationsin the water column (Croll et al. 1992;Butler and Jones1997). Jodiceand Collopy's (1999) datasuggest murrelets follow this samepattern as they foragefor fish that occur throughoutthe water column but undergodaily verticalmigrations (to shallowerdepths at night andback to deeperdepths during the day). Murrelets observedforaging in deeperwater likely do so when upwelling, tidal rips, and daily activity patternsconcentrate the prey nearthe surface (Strachanet al. 1995).

42 The durationof dives appearsto dependupon age(adults vs. juveniles),water depth,visibility, and depthand availability of prey. Murrelet dive durationranges from 8 secondsto 115 seconds, althoughmost dives last between25 and45 seconds(Thorensen 1989; Jodice and Collopy 1999; Watanukiand Burger 1999;Day and Nigro 2000).

Adults and subadultsoften move away from breedingareas prior to molting andmust select areaswith predictableprey resourcesduring the flightlessperiod (Carterand Stein 1995;Nelson 1997). During the non-breedingseason, murrelets disperseand can be found farther from shore (Strachanet al. 1995). Little is known aboutmarine-habitat preference outside of the breeding season,but use during the early spring and fall is thought to be similar to that preferred during the breedingseason (Nelson 1997). During the winter theremay be a generalshift from exposed outercoasts into more protectedwaters (Nelson 1997),for examplemany murreletsbreeding on the exposedouter coast of VancouverIsland appearto congregatein the more shelteredwaters within the PugetSound and the Strait of Georgiain fall andwinter (Burger 1995). However,in many areas,murrelets remain associatedwith the inland nesting habitat during the winter months (Carter and Erickson 1992) and throughout the listed range,murrelets do not appearto disperse long distances,indicating they areyear-round residents (McShane et al. 2004)'

Prey Species

Throughout their range,murrelets are opportunistic feedersand utilize prey of diverse sizesand species.They feedprimarily on fish and invertebratesin marinewaters although they havealso beendetected on rivers and inland lakes(Carter and Sealy 1986);57 FR 45328fOctober 1, 19921).ln general,small schoolingfish and largepelagic crustaceans are the main prey items. Pacific sandlance (Ammodyteshexapterus), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), immature Pacific herring (Clupea harengus), capelin (Mallotus villosus), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax),juvenilerockfishes (Sebastas spp.) and surf smelt (Osmeridae)are the most commonfish speciestaken. Squid (Loligo spp.),euphausiids, mysid shrimp,and large pelagicamphipods are the main invertebrateprey. Murrelets are able to shift their diet throughout the year and over yearsin responseto prey availabllity (Becker et aL.2007). However, long-term adjustmentto lessenergetically-rich prey resources(such as invertebrates) appears to be partly responsiblefor poor muffelet reproductionin California (Beckerand Beissinger2006).

Breedingadults exercise more specific foragingstrategies when feedingchicks, usually carrying a single,relatively large (relativeto body size)energy-rich fish to their chicks (Burkett 1995; Nelson 1997),primarily arounddawn and dusk (Nelson 1997;Kuletz2005). Freshwaterprey appearsto be important to some individuals during severalweeks in summer and may facilitate more frequentchick feedings,especially for thosethat nest far inland (Hobson 1990). Beckeret al. (Beckeret al. 2007) found murreletreproductive success in California was stronglycorrelated with the abundanceof mid-trophic level prey (e.g. sandlance, juvenile rockfish) during the breedingand postbreeding seasons. Prey typesare not equalin the energythey provide; for exampleparents delivering fish other than age-l herringmay have to increasedeliveries by to up 4.2 timesto deliver the sameenergy value (Kuletz 2005). Therefore,nesting murrelets that are returningto their nest at leastonce per day must balancethe energeticcosts of foragingtrips with the benefitsfor themselvesand their young. This may result in murreletspreferring to foragein marineareas in closeproximity to their nestinghabitat. However,if adequateor appropriate

na +J foragingresources (i.e., "enough" prey, and/orprey with the optimum nutritional value for themselvesor their young) areunavailable in closeproximity to their nestingareas, murrelets maybeforcedtoforageatgrealer distancesortoabandontheirnests(Huff etaL2006,p.20). As a result, the distribution and abundanceof prey suitable for feeding chicks may greatly influencethe overall foraging behaviorand location(s)during the nestingseason, may affect reproductivesuccess (Becker et al.2007), andmay significantlyaffect the energydemand on adultsby influencingboth the foragingtime andnumber of trips inland requiredto feednestlings (Kuletz 2005).

Predators

At-seapredators include bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), percgrine falcons (Falco peregrinus),westem gulls (Larus occidentalis),and northern fur seals(Callorhinus ursinus) (McShaneet aI.2004). California sealions (Zalophuscalifornianzs), northern sea lions (Eumetopiasjubatus), and large fish may occasionallyprey on murrelets(Burger 2002),

Murrelets in the Terrestrial Environment

Murreletsare dependentupon old-growth forests,or forestswith an older tree component,for nestinghabitat (Ralph et al. 1995;Hamer andNelson 1995;McShane et al. 2004). Sites occupiedby murreletstend to have a higherproportion of matureforest age-classesthan do unoccupiedsites (Raphael et al. 1995). Specifically,murrelets prefer high and broadplatforms for landing and take-off, and surfaceswhich will support a nest cup (Hamer and Nelson 1995). The physicalcondition of a tree appearsto be the importantfactor in determiningthe tree's suitability for nesting(Ralph et al.1995); therefore,presence of old-growth in an areadoes not assurethe standcontains sufficient structures(i.e. platforms)for nesting. In Washington, murreletnests have been found in conifers,specifically, western hemlock (Tsugaheterophylla), Sitka spruce(Picea sitchensis),Douglas-ffu (Pseudotsuga menziesli), and westernred cedar (Thujaplicata) (Hamer and Nelson T995;Hamer and Meekins 1999). Nestshave been found in treesas small as 2.6 feetin diameterat breastheight on limbs at least65 feet from the ground and 0.36 feet in diameter(Hamer and Meekins 1999).

Murrelet populationsmay be limited by the availability of suitablenesting habitat. Although no dataare available, Ralph et al, (1995) speculatethe suitablenesting habitat presently available in Washington,Oregon, and Californramay be at or near car-ryingcapacity based on: 1) at-sea concentrationsof murreletsnear suitablenesting habitat during the breedingseason, 2) winter visitationsto nestingsites, and 3) the limitation of nestsites available in areaswith large amountsof habitatremoval.

Murreletshave been observed visiting nestinghabitat during non-breedingperiods in Washington,Oregon, and California (I.{aslund1993; Nelson 1,997)which may indicateadults are defendingnesting sites andlor stands(Ralph et al. 1995). Other studiesprovide further insightto the habitatassociations of breedingmurrelets, concluding that breedingmurrelets displaced by

AA nn the lossof nestinghabitat do not pack in higher densitiesinto remaininghabitat (McShane et al, 2004). Thus, murrelets may curently be occupying nesting habitat at or near canying capacity in highly fragmentedareas andlor in areaswhere a significantportion of the historic nesting habitathasbeen removed (Ralph et aL.1995).

Unoccupiedstands containing nesting structures are importantto the populationfor displaced breedersor first-time breedingadults. Even if nestinghabitat is at carrying capacity,there will be yearswhen currently occupiedstands become unoccupied as a result of temporary disappearanceof inhabitantsdue to deathor to irregularbreeding (Ralph et al. 1995). Therefore, unoccupiedstands will not necessarilyindicate that habitatis not limiting or that thesestands are not murrelethabitat(Ralph et al. 1995)and importantto the speciespersistence.

Radarand audio-visualstudies have shownmurrelet habitat use is positively associatedwith the presenceand abundanceof matureand old-growth forests,large core areasof old-growth,low edgeand fragnentation, proximity to the marine environment,total watershedarea, and increasingforest age and height (McShane et aL.2004). In Califomia and southernOregon, areas with abundantnumbers of murrelets were farther from roads, occurredmore often in parks protectedfrom logging, andwere lesslikely to occupyold-growth habitat if it was isolated(more than 3 miles or 5 km) from other nesting murrelets (Meyer et aL 2002). Meyer et al. (2002) also found at leasta few yearspassed before birds abandonedfragmented forests.

Murreletsdo not form densecolonies which is atypicalof most seabirds.Limited evidence suggeststhey may form loosecolonies or clustersof nestsin somecases (Ralph et al. 1995). The relianceof murreletson cryptic colorationto avoid detectionsuggests they utilize a wide spacingof nestsin order to preventpredators from forming a searchimage (Ralph et al. 1995). However,active nests have beenseen within 328 feet(100 m) of one anotherin the North Cascadesin Washingtonand within 98 feet (30 m) in Oregon(Kim Nelson, OregonState University,pers. comm. 2005). Estimatesof murreletnest densitiesvary dependingupon the methodof datacollection. For example,nest densities estimated using radar rangefrom 0.007to 0.104mean nests per acre(0.003 to 0.042mean nests per ha),while nestdensities estimated from treeclimbing efforts range from0.27 to 3.51mean nests per acre(0.11to 1.42mean nests per ha) (Nelson 2005).

Thereis little dataavailable regarding murrelet nest site fidelity becauseof the difficulty in locatingnest sitesand observingbanded birds attendingnests. However,murrelets have been detectedin the samenesting stands for many years(at least20 yearsin California and 15 yearsin Washington),suggesting murrelets have a high fidelity to nestingareas, most likely at the watershedscale (Nelson 1997). Use of the samenest platform in successiveyears as well as multiple nestsin the sametree havebeen documented, although it is not clearwhether the repeateduse involved the samebirds (Nelsonand Peck 1995;Divoky and Horton 1995;Nelson 1997;Manley 2000;Hebert et a|,2003). The limited observedfidelity to the samenest depressionin consecutiveyears appears to be lower than for other alcids,but this may be an adaptivebehavior in responseto high predationrates (Divoky and Horton 1995). Researchers havesuggested fidelity to specificor adjacentnesting platforms may be more commonin areas wherepredation is limited or the numberof suitablenest sites are fewer becauselarge, old- growth treesare rare (Nelson and Peck 1995;Singer et al. 1995;Manley 1999).

45 Ralph et al. (1995) speculatedthat the fidelity to nest sitesor standsby breedingmurrelets may be influencedby the nestingsuccess of previousrearing attempts, Although murreletnesting behaviorin responseto failed nest attemptsis unknown,nest failures could lead to prospecting for new nest sitesor mates. Other alcidshave shownan increasedlikelihood to relocateto a new nestin responseto breedingfailure (Divoky andHorton 1995). However,murrelets likely remainin the samewatershed over time as long as standsare not significantlymodified (Ralphet al.1995).

It is unknownwhether juveniles dispersefrom natal breedinghabitat (natal dispersal)or returnto their natalbreeding habitat after reachingbreeding age (natal philopatry). Natal dispersal distancecan be expectedto be ashigh or higherthan other alcids given 1) the reducedextent of the breedingtange,2) the overlapbetween the wintering and breedingareas, 3) the distance individualsare known to move from breedingareas in the winter, 4) adult attendanceof nesting areasduring the non-breedingseason where, in theory,knowledge of suitablenesting habitat is passedonto prospectingnon-breeders, and 5) the 3-yearto 5-yearduration required for the onset of breedingage allowing non-breedingmurrelets to prospectnesting and foragehabitat for severalyears prior to reachingbreeding age (Divoky andHorton 1995). Conversely,Swartzman et al. (1997in McShaneet al.2004)) suggestedjuvenile dispersalis likely to be low, as it is for other alcid species.Nevertheless, the presenceof unoccupiedsuitable nesting habitat on the landscapemay be important for first-time nestersif they disperseaway from their natalbreeding habitat.

Murreletsgenerally select nests within 37 miles (60 kilometers(km) of marine waters(Miller and Ralph 1995). However, in Washington,occupied habitat has beendocumented 52 miles (84 km) from the coastand murreletshave been detected up to 70 miles (113 km) from the coastin the southernCascade Mountains (EvansMack et aL.2003).

When tending activenests during the breedingseason (and much of the non-breedingseason in southemparls of the range),breeding pairs foragewithin commutingdistance of the nestsite. Daily movementsbetween nest sitesand foragingareas for breedingmurrelets averaged 10 miles in PrinceWilliam Sound,Alaska (McShaneet aL.2004),24miles in DesolationSound, British Columbia, Canada(Hull et al.200I), and48 miles in southeastAlaska. In California,Hebert and Golightly (2003) found the mean extentof north-southdistance traveled by breedingadults to be about46 miles.

Murrelet nestshave been locatedat a variety of elevationsfrom sealevel to 5,020feet (Burger 2002). However,most nestshave been found below 3,500feet. In ConservationZoneI, murreletshave exhibited"occupied" behaviorsup to 4,400 feet elevationand havebeen detected in standsup to 4,900 feet in the north CascadeMountains (Peter McBride, WDNR, in |itt.,2005). On the Olympic Peninsula,survey efforts for nestingmurrelets have encounteredoccupied standsup to 4,000 feet within ConseruationZone1 and up to 3,500 feet within Conservation Zone 2. Surveysfor murreletnesting at higher elevationson the Olyrnpic Peninsulahave not beenconducted, However, recent radio-telemetry work detecteda murreletnest at 3,600 feet elevationon the Olympic Peninsulain ConservationZoneI (Martin Raphael,USFWS, pers. comm.2005).

46 PopulationStatus in the CoterminousUnited States

PopulationAbundance

Researchon murreletpopulations in the early 1990sestimated murelet abundancein Washington,Oregon, and California at 18,550to 32,000(Ralph et al. 1995). However, consistentpopulation survey protocols were not establishedfor murreletsin the coterminous United Statesuntil the late 1990sfollowing the developmentof the marine componentof the Environmental Monitoring (EM) Program for the NWFP (Bentivoglio et al. 2002), As a consequence,sampling procedures have differed and thus the surveydata collected prior to the EM Programis unsuitablefor estimatingpopulation trends for the murrelet(McShane et al. 2004).

The developmentof the EM Program unified the various at-seamonitoring efforts within the 5 ConservationZones encompassed by the NWFP. The highesttotal populationestimate for this area(20,500 +l- 4,600birds at the 95 percentconfidence interval) was in 2004 andthe lowest total populationestimate (17,400 +l- 4,600birds at the 95 percentconfidence interval) was in 2007(Gary Falxa, in \itt.,2008). The most recentpopulation estimate for ConservationZone 6 is 400 (+/- 140birds at the 95 percentconfidence interval) (Peeryet al. 2008).

PopulationTrend

Estimatedpopulation trends within eachConservation Zone or for the entire coterminous population are not yet availablefrom the marine survey data. Trend information will eventually be providedthrough the analysisof marinesurvey data from the EM Program(Bentivoglio et al. 2002) and from survey data in Conservation Zone 6 once a sufficient number of survey years havebeen completed. Depending on the desiredminimum power (80 or 95 percent),at least8 to 10 yearsof successivesurveys are required for an overallpopulation estimate and thus detection of an annual decrease,while 7 to 16 years are required for Conseruation Zones 1 and 2 (Huff et al.2003).

In the interim, demographicmodeling has aided attemptsto analyzeand predict population trendsand extinctionprobabilities of murrelets. Incorporatingimportant population parameters and speciesdistribution data (Beissinger 1995; Beissinger and Nur 1997in USFWS 1997b;Cam et al.2003;Mcshane et aL.2004),demographic models can provide useful insightsinto potential populationresponses from the exposureto environmentalpressures and perturbations.However, weak assumptionsor inaccurateestimates of populationparameters such as survivorshiprates, breedingsuccess, and juvenile-to-adult ratios fiuvenile ratios),can limit the use of models. Thus, a cautiousapproach is warrantedwhen forecastinglong-term population trends using demographicmodels.

Most of the publisheddemographic models used to estimatemurrelet population trends employ Leslie Matrix modeling (McShaneet aL.2004).Two othermore complex,unpublished models (Akcakaya 1997 and Swartzman et al. I99l in McShane et al. 2004) evaluatethe effect of nest habitat loss on murrelets in ConservationZone 4 (McShane et al. 2004). McShane eI al. (2004) developeda stochasticLeslie Matrix model (termed"Zone Model") to project populationtrends

47 in eachmurelet ConservationZone.The Zone Model was developedto integrateavailable demographicinformation for a comparativedepiction of currentexpectations of future populationtrends and probability of extinctionin eachConservationZone (McShane et al. 2004). Table 3 lists rangewide murrelet demographicparameter values from four studiesall using Leslie Matrix models.

Table 3. Rangewidemurrelet demographicparameter values based on four studiesall using Leslie Matrix models Beissinger parameter Mcshaneet ar, Demographic "e'i;;it* "ftl'ii*#?"u anoYeefy m 2oo4 titt.zoo3 JuvenileRatios 0.T0367 0.124or 0.131 0.089 0.02- 0.09 Annual Fecundity 0.11848 0.124or 0.131 0.06-0.r2 (Seenest success) Nest Success 0.16-0.43 0.38- 0,54 a a Maturation 3 J J 2-5 Adult Estimated 85%-90% 8s%-88% 82%-90% 83%-92% Survivorship xin (USFWS1997b)

Regardlessof model preference,the overall resultsof modeling efforts are in agreement, indicatingmurrelet abundance is declining (McShaneet al.2004,p.6-27). The ratesof decline arehighly sensitiveto the assumedadult survivalrate usedfor calculation(Steven R. Beissinger and M. Z.Peery in 1itt.,2003). The most recentmodeling effort using the"Zone Model" (McShaneet aL.2004) suggests the murrelet zonalsub-populations are declining at a rateof 3,0 to 6.2 percentper year.

Estimatesof breedingsuccess are best determined from nestsite data,but difficulties in finding nestshas led to the use of other methods,such as juvenile ratios and radio-telemetryestimations, eachof which havebiases. The nest successdata presented in Murrelet Table 3 underMcShane et al. (2004)was derivedprimarily from radio telemetrystudies; however the nestssampled in thesestudies were not representativeof large areasand specificallydid not include Washington or Oregon, In general,telemetry estimates are preferred over juvenile ratios for estimating breedingsuccess due to fewer biases(McShane et al.2004),but telemetry dataare not currently availablefor Washingtonor Oregon. Therefore,it is reasonableto expectthat juvenile ratios derivedfrom at-seasurvey efforts bestrepresent murrelet reproductive success in Washington, Oregon,and Califomia.

Beissingerand Peery(Beissinger and Peery,in \itt.,2003) performeda comparativeanalysis using datafrom 24bird speciesto predict the juvenile ratios for murreletsof 0.27 (confidence intervalsranged from 0.15 to 0.65). Demographicmodels suggest murrelet population stability requiresa minimum of 0.18 to 0.28 chicksper pair per year(Beissinger and Nur 1997in USFWS 1997b).The lower confidenceintervals for both the predictedjuvenile ratio (0.1 5) and the stable populationjuvenile ratio (0.18) are greaterthan thejuvenile ratios observedfor any of the

ConservationZones (0.02 to 0.09chicks per pair) (Beissinger and Nur 1997in USFWS1,991b; Beissingerand Peery, in \itt.,2003). Therefore,the juvenile ratios observed in theConservation

48 Zonesare lower than predictedand are too low to obtain a stablepopulation in any Conservation Zone. This indicatesmurrelet populations are declining in all ConservationZones and will continueto declineuntil reproductivesuccess improves,

Demographicmodeling, the observedjuvenile ratios,and adult survivorshiprates suggests that the numberof murreletsin Washington,Oregon, and Califomia aretoo low to sustaina murrelet population. The rate of declinefor murreletsthroughout the listed rangeis estimatedto be between2.0 to 15.8percent (Beissinger and Nur 1997 LnUSFWS 1997b:'McShane et aL.2004).

Murreletsin Washineton (ConservationZones 1 and 2)

Populationestimates

Historically,murrelets in ConservationZones1 and 2were "common" (Rathbun1915 and Miller et al. 1935in USFWS 1997b),"abundant" (Edson 1908 and Rhoades 1893 in USFWS I997b), or "numerous"(Miller et al. 1935in Mcshane et al. 2004). ConservationZone1, encompassingthe PugetSound in northwestWashington, contains one of the largermurreiet populations in the species'listed range,and suppoftsan estimated41 percentof the murreletsin the coterminous United States(Huff et aL.2003).The 2007 populationestimate (with 95 percentconfidence intervals)for Conservation Zone 1 is 7,000 (4,1 00 - 10,400) and Conservation Zone 2 is 2,500 (1,300- 3,800)(Falxa, in \itt.,2008). ln ConservationZone2, ahigher densityof murrelets occurs in the northern portion of the Zone (Huff et al, 2003) where the majority of available nestinghabitat occurs, In ConservationZone1, higher densitiesof murreletsoccur in the Straits of Juande Fuca, the San Juan Islands, and the Hood CanaI(Huff et al.2003), which are in proximity to nestinghabitat on the Olympic Peninsulaand the North CascadeMountains.

Although population numbers in Conservation Zones 1 and 2 arelikely declining, the precise rate of declineis unknown. The juvenile ratio derivedfrom at-seasurvey efforts in Conservation Zone I is 0.09. The juvenile ratioswere not collectedin ConservationZone2; however,the juvenile ratio for ConservationZone3 is 0.08. Therefore,it is reasonableto infer that the juvenile ratio for ConservationZone 2 is likely between0.08 and 0.09. These1ow juvenile ratios infer thereis insufficientjuvenile recruitmentto sustaina murreletpopulation in Conservation ZonesI and2. Beissingerand Peery(Beissinger and Peery,in 1itt.,2003)estimated the rate of declinefor ConservationZone1 to be between2,0 to 12.6percent and between2.8 to 13.4 percentin ConservatronZone3, It is likely that the rate of declinein ConservationZone2 is similar to that of ConservationZones1 and 3.

Juvenileratios in Washingtonmay be skewedby murreletscoming and going to British Columbia. At-seasurveys are timed to occurwhen the leastnumber of murreletsfrom British Columbiaare expected to be present. However,recent radio-telemetry information indicates1) murreletsnesting in British Columbia foragein Washingtonwaters during the breedingseason (Bloxton andRaphael 2008) and could be countedduring at-seasurveys; and 2) adult murrelets foragingin Washingtonduring the early breedingseason moved to British Columbiain mid-June and mid-July (Bloxton and Raphael2008) andwould not havebeen counted during the at-sea surveys. The movementsofjuvenile murreletsin Washingtonand southernBritish Columbiaare unclear. Therefore,until further information is obtainedregarding murrelet migration between

49 British Columbia and Washington,we will continueto rely on the at-seaderived juvenile ratios to evaluatethe populationstatus in ConservationZones I and2.

Habitat Abundance

Estimatesof the amountof availablesuitable nesting habitat vary as much as the methodsused for estimatingmurrelethabitat. McShaneet al. (2004) estimatesmurrelet habitat in Washington Stateat 1,022,695acres, representing approximately 48 percentof the estimated2,223,048 acres remaining suitable habitat in the listed range. McShane et al, (2004) caution about making direct comparisonsbetween current and past estimatesdue to the evolving definition of suitablehabitat and methodsused to quantify habitat. As part of the ongoingpursuit to improve habitat estimates,information was collectedand analyzedby the FWS in 2005 resultingin an estimated 751,831acres in ConservationZone1 and 585,82Lacres in ConservationZone2 (Table4).

Table 4. Estimated acresof suitablenesting habitat for the murrelet managedby the Federal and non-Federalland managersin ConservationZones 1 and 2 Estimated acresof suitable murrelet habttat bv land ConservationZone managementcategory " Federal State Privatet Tribal Total PugetSound (Zone I) 650,937 98,036 2,338 520 75t,83r WesternWashington 485,574 82,349 9,184 8,714 585,821 CoastRange (Zone2) Total I,736,511 180,385 rr.522 9.234 r.337.652 *Estimated acres of private land representsoccupied habitat. Additional suitable nesting habitat considered unoccupied by nesting munelets is not included in this estimate.

Estimatedacreages of suitablehabitat on Federailands in Table 4 arebased on modeling and aerialphoto interpretation and likely overestimatethe actual acresof suitable murrelet habitat because1) most acreagesare based on modelspredicting spotted owl nestinghabitat which include forested lands that do not have structuressuitable for murrelet nesting, and 2) neither modeling or aerialphoto interpretationcan distinguishmicrohabitat features, such asnesting platformsor the presenceof moss,that arenecessary for murreletnesting. The amountof high quality murreletnesting habitat available in Washington,defined by the FWS as large,old, contiguouslyforested areas not subjectto humaninfluences (e.g., timber harvestor urbanization) is expectedto be a small subsetof the estimatedacreages in Table 4, Murrelets nestingin high- quality nestinghabitat are assumedto have a highernesting success rate than murreletsnesting in fragmentedhabitat near humans,

OtherRecent Assessments of Murrelet Habitat in Washington

Two recentassessments of murreletpotential nesting habitat were developedfor monitoringthe NorthwestForest Plan (Raphaelet aL.2006).This studyprovides a provincial-scaleanalysis of murrelet habitat derived from vegetationbase maps, and includes estimatesof habitat on State andprivate landsin Washingtonfor the period of 1994to 1996. Using vegetationdata derived from satelliteimagery, Raphael et al. (2006) developedtwo different approachesto model habitatsuitability. The first model, or the Expert JudgmentModel, is basedon thejudgment of an expertpanel that usedexisting forest structureclassification criteria (e,g.,percent conifer 50 cover,canopy structure, quadratic mean diameter, forest patch size)to classifyforests into four classesof habitatsuitability, with Class1 indicatingthe leastsuitable habitat and Class4 indicatingthe most highly suitablehabitat. Raphaelet al. (2006) found that acrossthe murrelet range,most habitat-capableIand (52 percent)is classifiedas Class 1 (lowest suitability)habitat and 18 percentis classifiedas Class4 (highestsuitability) habitat. In Washington,they found that therewere approximately954,200 acres of Class4 habitatin between1994 and 1996(Table 5). However,only 60 percentof known nestsites in their study areawere locatedin Class4 habitat.

The secondhabitat model developedby Raphaelet al. (2006)used the BiomapperEcological Niche-FactorAnalysis model developedby Hirzel et al. (2002). The resultingmurrelet habitat suitabilitymaps are based on both the physicaland vegetativeattributes adjacent to known murreletoccupied polygons or nest locationsfor eachNorthwest Forest Plan province. The resultingraster -up. ut" a grid of 269 feet2-cells(25 m2-celIs)(0.15 acresper pixel). Eachcell in the rasteris assigneda value of 0 to 100. Valuescloser to 100represent areas that matchthe murreletnesting locations while valuescloser to 0 are likely unsuitablefor nesting(Raphael et al.2006). Thesemaps do not provide absolutehabitat estimates, but rathera rangeof habitat suitabilityvalues, which can be interpretedin variousways. Raphaelet al. (2006)noted that the resultsfrom the EcologicalNiche FactorAnalysis (ENFA) are not easilycompared to results from the Expert JudgmentModel becauseit was not clearwhat thresholdfrom the habitat suitabilityranking to use. Raphaelet al. (2006) electedto displayhabitat suitability scores greaterthan 60 (HS >60) as a "generous"portrayal of potentialnesting habitat and a threshold greaterthan 80 (HS >S0) as a more conservativeestimate. ln Washington,there were over 2.1 million acresof HS >60 habitat,but only 440,700acres of HS >80 habitat(Table 5). It is importantto note that HS >60 habitatmap captures82 percentof the occupiednests sites in Washington,whereas the HS >80 habitatmap only captures36 percentof the occupiednests in Washington.

Table 5. Comparisonof different habitat modelingresults for the Washington nearshore zone (0 to 0 miles inland or Northwest Forest Plan Murrelet Lone Percentof Habitat TotalHabitat Known Habitat Acreson Acreson Munelet Acreson Federal, Non-Federal Percentof Nest Sitesin Federal Non- TotalHabitat Lands(City, Total Habitat StudyArea Murelet Reserves Reserves Acreson State, Total Habitat Acreson Occuring in Habitat (LSRs, (USFS Federal Private, Acres- All Non-Federal this Habitat Model Natl.Parks) Matrix) Lands Tribal) Ownerships Lands Classification

ENFA* HS>80 284,300 18,600 302.900 137,800 440.700 3r% 36% EJM* Class4 659^200 40,700 699.900 2s4.300 954.200 1l% 60% EJM Class 3 andClass A 770.600 s4.700 825.300 s35.200 1.360,s00 t6% 65% ENFA HS>60 927.000 85,300 1,0 12,300 1.147,1002.ts9.400 53% 82% *ENFA : EcologicalNiche Facto Analysis. EJM : ExpertJudgment Model. Resultswere sunlmarizeddirectly from Tables4 and5andTablesgandl0inRaphaeletal(2005).All habitatestimatesrepresentl994-l996values.

51 Becausethe HS >60 model performedbest for capturingknown murreletnest sites,Raphael et al. (2006) suggestthat the ENFA HS >60 model yields a reasonableestimate of potential murreletnesting habitat. However,we found thatlarge areasin southwestWashington identified in the HS >60 model likely overestimatesthe actualsuitable habitat in this landscapedue to a known lack of old-forestin this landscape.Despite the uncertaintiesassociated with interpreting the various map datadeveloped by Raphael et al. (2006), it is apparentthat there is a significant portion of suitablehabitat acreslocated on non-Federallands in Washington,suggesting that non-Federallands may play a grealerroie in the conservationneeds of the speciesthan has previouslybeen considered. Using the most conservativecriteria developedby Raphaelet al. (2006) the amountof high-qualitymurrelet nesting habitat on non-Federallands in Washington variesfrom 11 percentto ashigh as 31 percent(Table 5).

Raphael et al. (2006) note that the spatial accuracyof the map dataare limited and that the habitatmaps are best usedfor provincial-scaleanalysis. Due to potentialerors in vegetation mappingand otherpotential errors,these maps arenot appropriatefor fine-scaleproject mapping.

ConservationZoneI

The majority of suitablemurrelet habitat in ConservationZone(Zone) 1 occursin northwest Washingtonand is found on ForestService and National Park Servicelands, and to a lesser extent on Statelands. The majority of the historic habitat along the easternand southem shores of the PugetSound has beenreplaced by urbandevelopment resulting in the remainingsuitable habrtat further inland from the marine environment (USFWS I997b).

ConservationZone2

Murrelet nestinghabitat north of Gray's Harbor inZone 2 occurslargely on State,Forest Service,National Park Service,and Tribal lands,and to a lesserextent, on private lands. Altematively, the majority of habitat in the southernportion of Zone 2 occursprimarily on State lands,with a small amounton private lands.

Threats

Murreletsremain subjectto a variety of anthropogenicthreats within the upland and marine environment,They also face threatsfrom low populationnumbers, low immigration rates,high predationrates, and disease.

Threats in the Marine Environment

Threatsto murreletsin the marine environmentinclude declines in prey availability; mortality associatedwith exposureto oil spills, gill net and other fisheries;contaminants suspended in marinewaters; and visual or sounddisturbance from recreationalor commercialwatercrafts (57 FR 45328 fOctober l, 1992]; (Ralph et al. T995;USFWS 1997b;McShane et at.2004). Activities, suchas pile driving and underwaterdetonations, that result in elevatedunderwater soundpressure levels may alsopose a threatto murrelets.

52 Prey Availability

Many fish populationshave been depleted due to overfishing,reduction in the amountor quality of spawninghabrtat,and pollution. As of 2004,only 50 percentof the PugetSound herring stockswere classifiedas healthy or moderatelyhealthy, with north PugetSound's stock being considereddepressed and the Strait of Juande Fuca's stocksbeing classifiedas critical (WDFW 2005d). Natural mortality in someof thesestocks has increased (e.g. the mean estimatedannual natural mortality rate for sampledstocks from 1987 through 2003 averaged7I percent,up from 20 to 40 percentin the late 1970s)(WDFW 2005c). Thereis currentlyonly one commercial herring fishery which operatesprimarily in southand centralPuget Sound (WDFW 2005b) where herring stocks are healthier. Unfortunately, the decline of someherring stocksmay be affecting the forage base for murrelets in Puget Sound. There is limited information available for the coastalherring populations,but thesepopulations appear to haverelatively high levelsof abundance(WDFW 2005a). There are herring fisheries in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, but no directharvest is allowed in the coastalwaters.

While thereare commercial and recreationalfisheries for surf smelt,the amountof harvestdoes not appearto be impactingthe surf smelt stocks(Bargmann 1998). There areno directed commercialfisheries for sandlance (Bargmann 1998). Anchoviesare taken commercially within coastaland estuarinewaters of Washington. While the currentharvest level doesn't appearto be impacting anchovy stocks,there is no current abundanceinformation (Bargmann 1998).

In additionto fishing pressure,oceanographic variation can influenceprey availability, While the effectsto murreletsfrom eventssuch as El Niflo havenot beenwell documented,El Niffo eventsare thought to reduce overall prey availability and severalstudies have found that El Niflo eventscan influencethe behaviorof murrelets(McShane et al. 2004). Even thoughchanges in prey availability may be due to natural and cyclic oceanographicvariation, thesechanges may exacerbateother threatsto murrelets in the marine environment.

Shorelinedevelopment has affectedand will continueto effect coastalprocesses. Shipping, bulkheads,and other shorelinedevelopments have contributed to the reductionin eelgrassbeds and other spawningand rearing areasfor foragespecies.

Oil Spills

Murrelet mortality from oil pollution is a conservationissue in Washington(USFWS 1997b). Most oil spills and chronic oil pollution that can affectmurrelets occur in areasof high shipping traffrc,such as the Strait of Juande Fuca and PugetSound. Therehave been at least47 oil spills of l0,000galormoreinWashingtonsince1964(WDOE2004). However,thenumberof oil spills has generallydeclined since passage of the U,S. Oil Pollution Act in 1990. The estimated annualmortality of murreletsfrom oil spills in Washingtonhas decreasedfrom 3 to 41 birds per year (between 1977 and 1992)to 1 to 2 birds per year (between1993 and2003) (McShaneet al. 2004).

53 Since the murrelet was listed, the amount of oil tanker and shipping traffic has continued to increase(USFWS 1997b;Burger 2002). Large commercialships, including oil tankers,cargo ships,fish processingships, and cruiseships, enter Washington waters more than 7,000times eachyear, bound for ports in PugetSound, British Columbia,Grays Harbor, and the Columbia River (WDOE 2004). Additionally, 4,500tank-barge transits, 160,000 ferry transits,and military vesseltraffic occur in thesesame waters each year (WDOE 2004). Individually these vesselsmay carryup to 33 M gal of crudeoil or refinedpetroleum products, but collectively, they carry about 15. 1 B gal acrossPuget Sound waters eachyear (WDOE 2004). Thesenumbers are expectedto increaseas the humanpopulation and commercecontinues to grow. Currently, thereare Stateand Federalrequirements for tug escortsof ladenoil tankerstransiting the waters of PugetSound east of DungenessSpit. However,the Federalrequirements do not apply to double-hulledtankers and will no longerbe in effectonce the single-hulltanker phase-out is complete(WDOE 2005). WashingtonState is consideringrevising their tug escortrequirements (WDOE 2005);however, the currenttug escortrequirements remain in placeuntil the WashingtonState Legislature makes a change,

The U.S. CoastGuard rated the Dungenessareain the Strait of Juande Fuca asbeing in the top five high-risk areasof the United Statesfor being impactedby oil spills (USFWS 2003b), Therefore,even though the threatfrom oil spills appearsto havebeen reduced since the murrelet was listed,the risk of a catastrophicoil spill remains,and could severelyimpact adult and/or juvenile murreletsin ConservationZonesI and2.

Gillnets

Murrelet mortality from gillnet fishing hasbeen considered a conservationissue in Washington (USFWS 1997b;Melvin et al. 1999). Murreletscan alsobe killed by hooking with fishing lures and entanglementwith fishing lines (Carteret al. 1995). Thereis little information availableon murelet mortality from net fishing prior to the 1990s,although it was known to occur (Carteret aL.1995). In the mid 1990s,a seriesof fisheriesrestrictions and changeswere implementedto addressmortality of all speciesof seabirds,resultin g in a lower mortality rate of murrelets (McShaneet al. 2004). Fishing effort has also decreasedsince the 1980sbecause of lower catches,fewer fishing vessels,and greaterrestrictions (McShane et al. 2004), althougha regrowthin gill net fishing is likely to occur if salmonstocks increase. In most areas,the threat from gill net fishing has beenreduced or eliminatedsince 1992,but threatsto adult andjuvenile murreletsare still presentin Washingtonwaters due to gill net mortality (McShaneet aL.2004).

Entanglementin derelict fishing nets,which arenets that havebeen lost, abandonedor discarded in the marineenvironment,may also pose atYveat.Derelict gearcanpersist in the environment for decadesand poses athreat to marinemammals, seabirds, shellfish, and fish. A recentsurvey estimated3,900 derelict nets need to be removedfrom PugetSound annually (Northwest Straits Foundation 2007) and each year the number of new derelict nets increasesfaster than the number removed. Over 50 percentof the derelictnets in PugetSound occur in waterswhere murrelet densitiesare the highestin Washington. Derelict fishing gearalso occursalong the Washington coastand the outer Straitsof Juande Fuca. While this high energyenvironment may reducethe time a derelictnet remainssuspended compared to a lower energyenvironment like the irurer

54 Puget Soundwhere gearmay persist for years (NRC 2007), the amount of time a derelict net posesathreat to marine speciesdepends on the lengthand type of the net and causeof entanglement.

Marine Contaminants

The primary consequencefrom the exposureof murrelets to contaminantsis reproductive impairment. Reproductioncan be impactedby food web bioaccumulationof organochlorine pollutantsand heavy metals discharged into marineareas where murrelets feed andprey species concentrate(Fry 1995). However,murrelet exposure is likely arare eventbecause murrelets havewidely dispersedforaging areasand they feedextensively on transientjuvenile and subadultmidwater fish speciesthat are expectedto havelow pollutant loads(McShane et al. 2004). The greatestexposure risk to murreletsmay occur at regularfeeding areas near major pollutant sources,such as thosefound in PugetSound (McShane et aL.2004).

Disturbance

In coastaland offshore marine environments,vehicular disturbance (e.g., boats, airplanes, personalwatercraft) is known to elicit behavioralresponses in murreletsof all ageclasses (Kuletz 1996;Speclcman 1996; Nelson 1997). Aircraft flyttrg at low altitudesand boating activrly, in particular motorized watercraft, are known to causemurrelets to dive and are thought to especiallyaffect adultsholding fish (Nelson 1997). It is unclearto what extentthis kind of disturbanceaffects the distribution, movements,foraging efficiency, and overall fitness of murrelets. However,it is unlikely this type of disturbancehas decreasedsince 1992becausethe shipping traffic and recreationalboat use in the Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca has continuedto increase.

Marine projectsthat include seismicexploration, pile driving, detonationof explosivesand other activitiesthat generatepercussive sounds can exposemurrelets to elevatedunderwater sound pressurelevels (SPLs). High underwaterSPLs can have adversephysiological andneurological effectson a wide variety of vertebratespecies (Yelverton et aL.1973; Yelverton and Richmond 1981;Steevens et al. 1999;Fothergill et aL 200I; Cudahyand Ellison 2002;U.S. Departmentof Defense 2002; Popper 2003). High underwaterSPLs are known to injure and/or kill fish by causingbarotraumas (pathologies associated with high soundlevels including hemorrhageand ruptureof internalorgans), as well as causingtemporary stunning and alterationsin behavior (Tumperuryand Nedwell 1994;Turnpenny et al. 1994;Popper 2003; Hastings and Popper2005). During monitoring of seabirdresponse to pile driving in Hood Canal,Washington, a pigeon guillemot (Cepphuscolumba) was observedhaving difficulty getting airborneafter being exposedto underwatersound from impact pile driving (Entranco and Hamer Environmental 2005). In controlledexperiments using underwaterexplosives, rapid changein SPLscaused intemal hemorrhaging and mortality in submergedmallard ducks (Anasplatyrhnchos) (Yelvertonet al. 1973). Risk of injury appearsrelated to the effect of rapid pressurechanges, especiallyon gasfilled spacesin the bodiesof exposedorganisms (Turnpenny et al. 1994). In studieson ducks(Anas spp.) anda variety of mammals,all speciesexposed to underwaterblasts had injuriesto gas filled organsincluding eardrums(Yelverton and Richmond 1981). These studiesindicate that similar effectscan be expectedacross taxonomical species groups.

55 Physicalinjury may not result in immediatemortality. If an animal is injured, deathmay occur severalhours or days later, or injuries may be sublethal. Sublethalinjuries can interferewith the ability ofan organismto carry out essentiallife functionssuch as feedingand predator avoidance.Diving birds are able to detectand alter their behaviorbased on soundin the underwaterenvironment (Ross et al. 2001) and elevatedunderwater SPLs may causemurrelets to alternormal behaviors,such as foraging, Disturbancerelated to elevatedunderwater SPLs may reduceforaging efficiency resultingin increasedenergetic costs to all murrelet ageclasses in the marineenvironment and may result in fewer deliveriesor lower quality food being deliveredto nestlings.

Threatsin the Terrestrial Environment

Habitat

Extensiveharvest of late-successionaland old-growth forestwas the primary reasonfor listing the murreletas threatened. Due primarily to extensivetimber cutting over the past 150 years,al least82 percentof the old-growth forestsexisting in westernWashington and Oregonprior to the 1840shave been harvested (Teensma et al. 1997;Booth 1991;Ripple 1994;Perry 1995). About 10 percentof pre-settlementold-growth forestsremain in westernWashington (Norse 1990; Booth 199I). Although the NorthwestForest Plan has reducedthe rate of habitatloss on Federal lands,the threatof continuedloss of suitablenesting habitat remains on Federaland non-Federal lands through timber harvest and natural eventssuch as wildfire, insect outbreaks,and windthrow,

Natural disturbancehas the potential to affect the amount and quality of murrelet nesting habitat. Wildfire and windthrow result in immediateloss of habitatand can also influencethe quality of adjacenthabitat. Global warming, combinedwith long-termfire suppressionon Federallands, may result in higher incidencesof stand-replacingfires in the future(McShane et al. 2004). As forest fragmentationincreases, the threatof habitatloss due to windthrow is likely to increase. In addition,insects and diseasecan kill completestands of habitatand can contributeto hazardousforest fire conditions.

Between 1992 and2003 , the loss of suitablemurrelet habitat totaled 22,398 acres in Washington, Oregon,and California combined,of which 5,364 acresresulted from timber harvestand I7,034 acresresulted from naturalevents (McShane et al.2004). The datapresented by McShane representedlosses primarily on Federallands, and did not include datafor most private lands within the murrelets'range. Habitat loss and fragmentationis expectedto continuein the near future,but at an uncertainrate (McShaneet aL.2004).Raphael et al. (2006) recentlycompleted a changeanalysis for murrelethabitat on both Federaland non-Federal lands for the period from 1992to 2003,based on standdisturbance map datadeveloped by Healey et al. (2003). Raphael et al. (2006) estimatedthat habitat lossranging from 60,000acres up to 278,000acres has occurredacross the listed rangeof the species,with approximately10 percentof habitatloss occurringon Federallands, and 90 percentoccurring on non-Federallands. The variationin the acreageestimates provided by Raphaelet al. (2006) aredependant upon the habitatmodel used (Table 5) to evaluatehabitatchange over time.

56 Gainsin suitablenesting habitat are expectedto occur on Federallands over the next 40 to 50 years,but dueto the extensivehistoric habitatloss and the slow replacementrate of murelets andtheir habitat,the speciesis potentiallyfacing a severereduction in numbersin the coming20 to 100years (USFS and USBLM 1994a;Beissinger 2002). In additionto direct habitatremoval, forest managementpractices can fragnent murrelet habitat; this reducesthe amount and heterogeneousnature of the habitat,reducesthe forestpatch sizes, reduces the amountof interior or core habitat,increases the amount of forest edge,isolates remaining habitat patches,and creates"sink" habitats(McShane et aL.2004).There are no estimatesavailable for the amountof suitablehabitatthat has been fragmented or degradedsince 1992. However,the ecological consequencesof thesehabitat changes to murreletscan includeeffects on populationviability andsize,local or regionalextinctions, displacement, fewer nestingattempts, failure to breed, reducedfecundity, reduced nest abundance,lower nestsuccess, increased predation and parasitismrates, crowding in remainingpatches, and reductions in adult survival (Raphaelet al. 2002).

Predation

Predationis expectedto be the principal factor limiting murreletreproductive success and nest site selection(Ralph et al. 1995;Nelson and Hamer 1995a). Murrelets arebelieved to be highly vulnerableto nestpredation compared to other alcidsand forestnesting birds (Nelsonand Hamer 1995a;USFWS I997b). Murreletshave no protectionat nest sitesother than the ability to remainhidden. Nelson and Hamer (I995a) hypothesizedthat small increasesin murelet predationwill have deleteriouseffects on murreletpopulation viability due to their low reproductiverate (one egg clutches).

Known predatorsof adult murrelets in the forest environment include the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), sharp-shinnedhawk (Accipiter striatus), common raven (Corvus corax), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), and bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Common ravensand Stellar's jays(Cyanocitta stelleri) areknown to takeboth eggsand chicks at the nest,while sharp-shinnedhawks havebeen found to take chicks. Commonravens account for the majority of egg depredation,as they appearto be the only predatorcapable of flushing incubatingor broodingadults from a nest (Nelson andHamer 1995a). Suspectednest predators include great horned owls (Bubo virginianus),barred owls (Slrzxvaria), Cooper'shawks (Accipiter cooperi), northwesterncrows (Corvus caurinus),American crows (Corvusbrachyrhynchos), and grayjays (Perisoreuscanadensis) (Nelson and Hamer I995a; Nelson I997;Manley 1999). Predationby squirrelsand mice has beendocumented at artificial nestsand theseanimals cannot be discountedas potential predators on eggsand chicks (Luginbuhl et al. 2001; Raphaeletal.2002; Bradley andMarzluff 2003 ).

Lossesof eggsand chicks to avianpredators have been determined to be the most important causeof nestfailure (Nelson and Hamer I995a; McShaneet aL.2004).The risk of predationby avianpredators appears to be highestin complex structuredlandscapes in proximity to edgesand humanactivity, where many of the corvid (e.g.,crows, ravens) species are in high abundance. Predationrates are influencedmainly by habitatstand size, habitat quality, nestplacement (on the edgeof a standversus the interior of a stand),.and proximity of the standto humanactivity centers.The quality of murreletnest habitat decreases in smallerstands because forest edge

57 increasesin relationto the amountof interior forest,while foreststands near humanactivity centers(less than 0.62 miles or 1 km), regardlessof size,are often exposedto a higher densityof corvids due to their attractionto humanfood sources(Marzluff et al. 2000). The lossof nest contentsto avianpredators increases with habitatfragmentation and an increasein the ratio of forest edgeto interior habitat (Nelsonand Hamer 1995a;McShane et al.2004). For example, Nelson and Hamer (I995a) found successfulnests were fartherfrom edges(greater than 55 m) and were betterconcealed than unsuccessfulnests.

The abundanceof severalcorvid specieshas increaseddramatically in westernNorth America as a result of forest fragmentation, increasedagriculture, and urbanization (McShane et al. 2004). It is reasonableto infer that aspredator abundance has increased,predation on muffelet chicksand eggshas alsoincreased, and murreletreproductive success has decreased.It is alsoreasonable to assumethat this trend will not be intemrptedor reversedin the near future, as forest fragmentation,agriculture, and urbanizationcontinue to occur.

Other Threats

Murrelets aresubject to additionalthreats from diseases,genetics, low populationnumbers, and low immigration rates. To date,inbreeding (mating between close genetic relatives) and/or hybridizing (breedingwith a different speciesor subspecies)have not beenidentified asthreats to murreletpopulations. However, as abundancedeclines, a correspondingdecrease in the resilienceof the populationto disease,inbreeding orhybridization, and otherperlurbations may occur, Additionally, murreletsare consideredto havelow recolonizationpotentialbecause their low immigrationrate makesthe speciesslow to recoverfrom local disturbances(McShane et al. 2004),

The emergenceof fungal, parasitic,bacteial, and viral diseaseshas affectedpopulations of seabirdsin recentyears. West Nile virus diseasehas been reported in California which is known to be lethal to seabirds.While the amountof negativeimpact this diseasemay bring is unknown, researchersagree that it is only amatter of time beforeWest Nile virus reachesthe Washington seabirdpopulation. Effects for murreletsfrom West Nile virus and other diseasesare expectedto increasein the near future due to an accumulationof stressorssuch as oceanictemperature changes,overfishing, and habitatloss (McShaneet al.2004).

Murreletsmay be sensitiveto human-causeddisturbance due to their secretivenature and their vulnerability to predation. There are little dataconcerning the murrelet's vulnerability to disturbanceeffects, except anecdotal researcher observations that indicatemurrelets typically exhibit a limited, temporarybehavioral response (if any) to noisedisturbance at nest sitesand are ableto adaptto auditory stimuli (Long and Ralph 1998;Golightly et aI.2002; Singeret al. 1995 in Mcshane et al. 2004). ln general,responses to auditorystimuli at nestssites have been modificationsof postureand on-nestbehaviors (Long and Ralph 1998). While the unique breedingbiology of the murreletis not conduciveto comparisonof the reproductivesuccess of other species,studies on other alcid and seabirdspecies have revealed detrimental effects of disturbanceto breedingsuccess and the maintenanceof viable populations(Cairns 1980;Pierce and Simons 1986;Piatt et al.1990; Beale and Monaghan2}}4).

58 Researchon a variety of other species,including other seabirds,indicate an animal'sresponse to disturbancefollows the samepattem as its responseto encounteringpredators, and anti-predator behaviorhas a cost to other fitnessenhancing activities, such as feedingand parentalcare (Frid andDill 2002). Someauthors indicate disturbance stimuli can directly affect the behaviorof individualsand indirectly affect fitnessand populationdynamics through increasedenergetic costs(Carney and Sydeman1999; Frid and Dlll2002). Responsesby murreletadults and chicks to calls from corvids and otherpotential predators include no response,alert posturing, aggressiveattack, and temporarilyleaving a nest(adults only) (McShaneet aI.2004). However, the most tlpical behaviorof chicks and adultsin responseto the presenceof a potentialpredator is to flatten againsta tree branchand remainmotionless (Nelson and Hamer 1.995a;McShane et a|.2004). Therefore,researcher's anecdotal observations oflittle or no physicalresponse by murreletsare consistent with the behaviorthey will exhibit in responseto a predator. In addition, theremay havebeen physiological responses researchers cannot account for with visual observations.Corticosterone studies have not beenconducted on murrelets,but studieson other avianspecies indicate chronic high levelsof this stresshormone may have negative consequenceson reproductionor physicalcondition (Wasser et aI. 1997;Kitaysky et al.200l; Mar:ia and Holberton 1998 in McShane et al. 2004).

Although detectingeffects of sub-lethalnoise disturbance at the populationlevel is hinderedby the breedingbiology of the murrelet,the effect of noisedisturbance on murreletfitness and reproductivesuccess should not be completelydiscounted (McShane et al.2004), In recently completedanalyses, the FWS concludedthe potentialfor injury associatedwith disturbance (visual and sound)to murrelets in the terrestrial environment includes flushing from the nest, abortedfeeding, and postponedfeedings (USFWS 2003a). Theseresponses by individual murreletsto disturbancestimuli can reduceproductivity of the nestingpair, aswell asthe entire population(JSFWS 1997b).

ConservationNeeds

The RecoveryPlan outlinesthe conservationstrategy for the species.In the short-term,specific actionsnecessary to stabilizethe populationinclude maintaining occupied habitat, maintaining large blocks of suitablehabitat, maintaining and enhancingbuffer habitat, decreasingrisks of nestinghabitat loss due to fire and windthrow, reducingpredation, and minimizing disturbance,

Long-termconservation needs include increasingproductivity (abundance,the ratio ofjuveniles to adults,and nest success)and populationsize; increasing the amount(stand size andnumber of stands),quality, and distribution of suitable nesting habilat; protecting and improving the quality of the marine environment; and reducing or eliminating threatsto survivorship by reducing predationin the terrestrialenvironment and anthropogenicsources of mortality at sea. The FWS estimatesrecovery of the murreletwill requireat least50 years(USFWS I997b).

The RecoveryPlan statesthat four of the six Conservation Zones(Zones) must be functionalin orderto effectivelyrecover the murreletin the short-and long-term;that is, to maintainviable populationsthat are well-distributed. However,based on the new populationestimates, it appearsonly threeof the Zonescontain relatively robustnumbers of murrelets(Zones I, 3, and 4). Zones I and4 contain the largest number of murrelets comparedto the other four Zones.

59 This alonewould seemto indicatea bettercondition there, but areasof concemremain' For example,the populationin Zone 4 was impactedwhen oil spitls killed an estimated10 percentof the population(Bentivoglio et al. 2002;Ford et aL.2002),small oil spills continueto occurin Zoie 1, and thejuvenile ratios in both of theseZones continue to be too low to establishstable or increasingpopulations (Beissinger and Peery,in Litt.,2003).

Murrelets inZones 3, 5, and 6 have sufferedvariously from past oil spills which killed alarge number of murrelets (Zone 3) (Ford et al. 2001), extremely small population sizes(Zones 5 and 6), and alarmingly low reproductive rates (Zone 6) (Peery et aL 2002). These factors have broughtthe statusof the speciesto a point whererecovery in Zones5 and 6 may be precluded (Beissinger 2002). The poor statusof murrelet populationsin the southernZones emphasizesthe impoftanceof supportingmurrelet populations in Zones I and2 in order to preservethe opportunityto achievemurrelet recovery objectives'

ConservationStrategy

Marine Environment

Protectionof marinehabitat is a componentof the recoverystrategy. The main threatto murrelets in the marine environment is the loss of individuals through death or injury, generally associatedwith oil spills and gill-net entanglements.The recoverystrategy recommends providing protectionwithin marinewaters in such away as to reduceor eliminatemurrelet mortality (USFWS lggib). The recovery strategyspecifically recommendsprotection within all watersof puget Soundand Strait of Juande Fuca,and within 1.2 miles of shorealong the Pacific Coastfrom CapeFlattery to Willapa Bay. However,newer information indicatesthe majority of murreletactivity alongthe WashingtonCoast occurs within 5 miles (8 km) of shore(Raphael et al.2007),suggesting that protectionsshould be extendedto encompassthis area. Management strategiescould include exclusionof vessels,stricter hull requirements,exclusion of net fisheries,or modification of fishing gear.

In WashingtonState, the WashingtonFish and GameCommission requires the use of altemative gear(i.e., visual alertswithin the upper 7 feetof a multifilament net), prohibits noctumal and Iu*n fishing for all non-treatygill-net fisheries,and closesareas to gill-net fishing in order to reduceby-catctr of murrelets. The Olympic CoastNational Marine Sanctuarywas establishedin 1994 alingthe outer Washington coast from CapeFlattery south to approximately the Copalis River and extendingbetween 25 miles and40 miles offshore. Oil explorationand development are prohibited within this Sanctuary(NOAA 1993)'

Terrestrial Habitat Management

The loss of nestinghabitat (old-growtVmatwe forest)has generallybeen identified asthe primary causeof itre murrelet population decline and disappearanceacross portions of its range have all contributedto iRutptt.t al.1995). Logging, urbanization,and agriculturaldevelopment the lossof habitat,especially at lower elevations.

60 The recovery strategyfor the murrelet is containedwithin the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (RecoveryPlan) (USFWS 1997b)relies heavily on the NorthwestForest Plan (NWFP) to achieverecovery on Federallands in Washington,Oregon, and California. However,the RecoveryPlan alsoaddresses the role of non-Federallands in recovery,including Habitat ConservationP1ans, State forest practices, and landsowned by Native American Tribes. The importanceof non-Federallands in the survival andrecovery of murreletsis particularlyhigh in ConservationZones, where Federallands, and privately held conservationlands (e.g., The NatureConservancy Teal Slough,Ellsworth, Washington),within 50 miles of the coastlineare sparse,such asthe southernhalf of ConservationZone2.

Landsconsidered essential for the recoveryof the murreletwithin ConservationZones I and2 are 1) any suitablehabitat in aLate SuccessionalReserve (LSR), 2) all suitablehabitat located in the Olympic Adaptive ManagementArea, 3) large areasof suitablenesting habitat outside of LSRs on Federallands, such as habitatlocated in the Olympic National Park, 4) suitablehabitat on Statelands within 40 miles of the coast,and 5) habitatwithin occupiedmurrelet sites on private lands(USFWS 1997b).

Northwest Forest Plan

When the USFS and Bureau of Land Managementincorporated the NWFP as the management framework for public lands, a long-term habitat managementstrategy for murelets (USFS and USBLM 1994a;USFSand USBLM 1994b)was established.The NWFP institutedpre-project surveysof murrelet habitat in areasplanned for timber harvest and the protection of existing habitat at sites determinedthrough surveysto be occupiedby murrelets.

In the short-term,all known-occupiedsites of murreletsoccurring on USFS or Bureauof Land Managementlands under the NWFP areto be managedas Late SuccessionalReserves (LSRs). In the long-term, unsuitable or marginally suitable habitat occurring in LSRs will be managed, overall,to developlate-successional forest conditions, therebyproviding alarger long-term habitat baseinto which murrelets may eventually expand. Thus, the NWFP approachoffers both short-term and long-term benefits to the murrelet.

Over 80 percent of murrelet habitat on Federal lands in Washington occurs within land managementallocations that protectthe habitatfrom removalor significantdegradation. Scientistspredicted implementation of the NWFP would result in an 80 percentlikelihood of achievinga well-distributedmurrelet population on Federallands over the next 100 years(USFS and USBLM 1994a).Although the NWFP offers protectionof known-occupiedmurrelet sites, concernsover the lingering effectsof the historic widespreadremoval of suitablehabitat will remainuntil the habitatrecovers to late-successionalcharacteristics. Habitat recoverywill requireover 100 yearsin many LSRs.

Habitat ConservationPlans

Four Habitat ConservationPlans (HCP) addressingmurrelets in Washingtonhave been completed for private/corporateforest landmanagerswithin the range of the murrelet: West Fork Timber Corporation(Murray Pacific Corporation1993; Murray Pacific Corporation1995;

61 USFWS 1995)(Mineral Tree Farm HCP); Plum CreekTimber Company(Plum CreekTimber Company,L.P. 1996;USFWS T996a;Plum CreekTimber Company,L.P. 1999;USFWS 1999) (CascadesHCP; I-90 HCP); PortBlakely TreeFarms, L.P. (PortBlakely TreeFarms,LP.1,996; USFWS 1996b)(R.B. Eddy Tree Farm HCP); and SimpsonTimber Company(Simpson Timber Company2000; USFWS 2000b) (Olympic Tree Farm HCP), Habitat ConservationPlans have alsobeen completed for two municipal watersheds,City of Tacoma(USFWS 2001;Tacoma Public Utilities 2001) (GreenRiver HCP) and City of Seattle(USFWS 2000a;City of Seattle 2001)(Cedar River HCP), and the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources(WDNR 1997; USFWS 1997a). The HCPs which addressmurrelets cover approximately500,000 acres of non- Federal(private/corporate) lands, over 100,000acres of municipal watershed,and over 1.6 million acresof State-managedlands. However,only a portion of theselands contain suitable murrelethabitat.

The WDNR HCP addressesmurrelets in ConservationZones I and2. All of the othersaddress murreletsin ConservationZone1. Most of the murreletHCPs in Washingtonemploy a consistentapproach for murreletsby requiringthe majority of habitatto be surveyedprior to timber management,Only poor-quality marginalhabitat (with a low likelihood of occupancy)is releasedfor harvestwithout survey. All known occupiedhabitat is protectedto varying degrees, but a "safe-harbor-like"approach is usedto addressstands which may be retainedas, or develop into, suitablehabitat and becomeoccupied in the future. This approachwould allow future harvestof habitatwhich is not currentlynesting habitat.

WashingtonState Forest Practices Regulations

Under WashingtonForest Practices Rules, which apply to all non-Federallands not coveredby an HCP (WFPB 2005), surveysfor murreletsare required prior to the harvestof suitablenesting habitat. Thesecriteria vary dependingon the locationof the stand. For standsfound to be occupiedor known to be previouslyoccupied, the WDNR makesa decisionto issuethe permit basedupon a significancedetermination. If a determinationof significanceis made,preparation of a StateEnvironmental Policy Act EnvironmentalImpact Statementis requiredprior to proceeding.If a determinationof non-significanceor mitigateddetermination of non- significanceis reached,the action can proceedwithout further environmentalassessment.

Tribal Management

The managementstrategy of the Bureau of lndian Affairs for the murrelet focuseson working with Tribal govemmentson a government-to-govemmentbasis to developmanagement strategiesfor reservationlands and trust resources.The Bureauof Indian Affairs' management strategytypically focus on avoidingharm to murreletswhen feasible,to facilitatethe trust responsibilitiesof the United States. However,other factorsmust be considered.Strategies must fosterTribal self-determination,and must balancethe needsof the speciesand the environmental,economic, and other objectivesof Indian Tribes within the rangeof the murrelet (Renwald1993). For example,one of the Bureauof Indian Affairs' main goalsfor murrelet protectionincludes assisting Native American Tribes in managinghabitat consistentwith tribal priorities,reserved Indian rights, and legislativemandates.

62 Summary

Demographicmodeling resultsindicate murrelet populations are declining within each ConservationZone and throughout the listed range. The juvenile to adult ratios observedat sea in the ConservationZones are too low to obtain a stablepopulation in any ConservationZone, which indicatesmurrelet abundancein all ConservationZones will continue to decline until reproductivesuccess improves. In otherwords, thereis insufficientrecruitment ofjuveniles to sustaina murreletpopulation in the listed rangeof the species.

Someof the threatsto the murreletpopulation may havebeen reduced as a result of the species' listing underthe Act, such as the passageof the Oil Pollution Act and implementationof the NWFP. However,no threatshave been reversed since listing and in someareas threats, such as predationand West Nile Virus, may be increasingor emerging. Threatscontinue to contributeto murreletpopulation declines through adult andjuvenile mortality and reducedreproduction' Therefore, giurn the current statusof the speciesand backgroundrisks facing the species,it is reasonableto assumethat murrelet populations in ConservationZones I and2 and throughout the listedrange have little resilienceto deleteriouspopulation-level effects and areat high risk of extirpation.

Consideringthe life history characteristicsof the murrelet, with the aggregateeffects of inland habitatlosJand fragmentationand at-seamortality, the species'capability to recoverfrom lethal perturbationsat the populationor metapopulation(ConservationZone) scale is extremelylow. th" lo* observedreproductive rates make the specieshighly susceptibleto local extirpations when exposedto repeatedperturbations at a frequencywhich exceedsthe species'loss- replacementrate.Also troublesomeis the ineffectivenessof recoveryefforts at reversingthe ongoing lethal consequencesin all demographicclasses from natural and anthropogenicsources. OespitJtirerelatively long potentiallife spanof adult murrelets,the arurualmetapopulation replacementrates needed for long-termmetapopulation maintenance and stability is currently *e11b.|o* the annualrate of individualsbeing removedfrom eachmetapopulation' As a result, murreletmetapopulations are currentlynot self-sustainingor self-regulating.

Accordingly,the FWS concludesthe currentenvironmental conditions for murreletsin the coterminousUnited Statesappear to be insufficientto supportthe long-tefin conservationneeds of the species.Although information is not sufficientto determinewhether murrelets are nesting at or near the carrying capacityin the remaining nest habitat, activities which degradethe existingconditions of occupiednest habitat or reduceadult survivorship andlornest successof murreletswill be of greatestconsequence to the species. Actions resulting in the further loss of occupiednesting habitat, mortality to breedingadults, eggs, or nestlingswill reinforcethe current murreletpopulation decline throughout the coterminousUnited States.

63 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (Bull Trout, Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Marbled Murrelet)

Regulationsimplementing the ESA (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmentalbaseline as the past andpresent impacts of all Federal,State, or private actionsand other human activitiesin the actionarea, Also included in the environmentalbaseline are the anticipatedimpacts of all proposedFederal projects in the action areathathave undergone Section 7 consultation,and the impacts of Stateand private actions which are contemporaneouswith the consultation in progress.

Aquatic Habitat BaselineConditions

The SultanRiver has a watershedarea of approximately1 10 squaremiles. The SultanRiver Basin is boundedon the eastby the CascadeMountains, on the north and southby lateralridges extendingwestward from the Cascadecrest, and on the west by the PugetSound lowlands. Elevationsin the basinrange from the 6,6I7-foot summit of Del CampoPeak to 130 feet msl at the confluenceof the Sultan and Skykomishrivers. Most humandevelopment is limited to the lower portion of the SultanRiver Basin,below the Powerhouse.The town of Sultanencroaches upon the floodplainnear the mouth of the river. The Projectprovides flood protectionduring most storm events,but occasionallythe town of Sultancan experiencesignificant flooding,

Downstreamof CulmbackDam (RM 16.5),the SultanRiver flows through a deepgorge for nearly 14 miles. The steepside-slopes above the channelare denselyforested with conifer and deciduoustrees, The river channelin this reachis relatively high gradientand confined, containingnumerous cascades and rapids separatedby shortpool-riffle stretches.Much of the streambankis sheerrock face or large rock cuts. The SultanRiver Diversion Dam is locatedat RM 9.7 within this confinedreach. Near RM 3.0, the SultanRiver emergesfrom the canyon reach onto a broad, relatively flat valley floor containing intermittent standsor strips of deciduoustrees, underbrush and somemixed conifers. The river charurelin this reachhas a moderategradient with a numberof split channelsections.

Becauseof the steeptopography in much of the basin and intenseprecipitation, the SultanRiver, by nature,is a very "flashy" system,subject to extremesin maximum and minimum flows. The SultanRiver Basin annuallyaverages 163 inchesof rainfall with variationsas high as 214 inches and as low as 120 inches. November,December, and Januaryexperience the most intense rainfall with monthly averagesof 2J,27, and23 inches,respectively. Daily precipitationof eight inchesor more is not uncommon. The maximum measureddaily rainfall of 11.57 inches wasmeasured on NovemberII,7990.

The SultanRiver providesspawning and rearinghabitat for severalESA-listed and non-listed anadromousfish species,including Chinook, coho,pink, and chum salmon;steelhead; and coastalcutthroat trout. Bull trout have not beenobserved spawning in the SultanRiver; however, they are known to use the river as foraging and over-wintering habitat. Each of these specieshas accessto the SultanRiver from its mouth to the Diversion Dam at RM 9.7. CulmbackDam (RM 16.5)is locatedupstream of the historical anadromouszone (Ruggerone 2006,page 13), Residentrainbow trout (O. mykiss)reside above the Diversion Dam.

64 The lower SultanRiver can alsobe divided into threeoperational reaches (Reach 1, Reach2, and Reach3) demarcatedby physical structuresthat regulateflow (i.e.,the Powerhouse,Diversion Dam, and Culmback Dam), and therefore,aquatic habitat availability in the lower Sultan River. BecauseProject water releasesto thesereaches largely dictatehabitat quantity within the lower Sultan River, habitat is summarized in this sectionby operationalreach, rather than by habitat processreach.

65 Figure 7. Operationalreaches. OperationalReach 3

Reach3 (the Projectbypass reach) is bestdescribed as a high gradient,highly confinedbedrock gorge characterizedby higher rates of sedimenttranspott comparedto downstreamreaches. The channelis approximately6.8 miles long and gradientsrange from 0.7 to 13.l percent,averaging 1.6percent. Channelgradient becomes progressively steeper in upperporlions of the reach,with the highest gradient near Culmback Dam.

Aquatic habitatwithin Reach3 is primarily pool and glide habitattypes (65 percent). Most of the pool habitatunits (38 of 45) are controlledby bedrockformations. Channelsubstrate is generallycoarse with boulder,bedrock, cobble, and large gravelsas the dominantsubstrates.

The active channelwidth in Reach3 averagesapproximately 50 feet. Main channelpools averuge263 feet in length, cascadesaveruge 140 feet in length, and glides and low gradient riffles average2I5 and250 feetin length,respectively. Islands arerare,likely reflectingthe limited tendencyof gravel depositsand vegetationto accumulatein this reachdue to scouring flood flows. Eight LWD jams were found within Reach3. A total of 550 piecesof LWD were notedin Reach3, but only 112 individual pieceswere characteizedas over 2 feetin diameter. LWD frequencywas approximately102 pieces per mile (SnoPLID2010).

OperationalReach 2

Reach2 is approxrmately5.4 miles long andis largely confinedwithin a nalrow, deepcanyon with channel gradientsranging from 0.7 to 3.4 percent. Reach2 is characterizedby frequent main channelpools separatedby numerouslow gradientriffles. Habitat compositionis primarily pools (45.9percent) and low gradientriffles (22.7 percent).More than two-thirds (43 of 60) of the pool habitatunitswere controlledby bedrockand boulder substrates.Charurel substrates were primarily boulder,bedrock, cobble, and large gravels. The activechannel width averages nearly 70 feet, Main channelpools average318 feet long. On average,lowgradient riffles are 230 feetlong. Glides and rapids average190 and 201 feet long, respectively.

Of the 10 LWD jams found in Reach2,two were notably large (eachcontaining nearly 80 pieces)with approximately586 piecesof woody debrisfound in the entirereach. Oniy 55 individual pieceswere characterizedas over 2 feetin diameter. LWD frequencywas 196pieces per mile in Reach2.

On December11, 2004,a landslideoccurred within a naffow canyonsegment of Reach2 just downstreamfrom Marsh Creek at RM 7.6. The landslide,referred to as the Marsh Creekslide, temporarilyblocked the upstreampassage of adult anadromoussalmonids. Sincethen, the characteristicsand geometryof the landslidehave changedand are currently allowing somefish passageto occur.

OperationalReach I

Reach1 is approximately4.3 miles long. The upper-most1.6 miles are deeplyincised and largely confinedwithin a bedrockcanyon. Widths in this sectionrange from 40 to 160 feet and channelgradients range from 0.7 to 2.9 percent, The lower 2.7 miles of the reach arelargely

67 unconfined within a broad floodplain and a number of split channel sectionshave formed. Channelgradients runge from 0.2 to 0.7 percent. Active channelwidths rangefrom 60 to over 200 feet.

Aquatic habitatwithin Reach 1 is comprisedmostly of glide (51,7 percent)and low gradient riffle types(28.4 percent), Glides and low gradientriffles average463 and295 feetin length, respectively.Channel substrate in the lower portion of Reach I was predominatelylarge and small cobble,coarse gravel, and boulder. The numberof LWD pieceswas lower per mile than the two upstreamreaches; 35 individual piecesover 2 feet in diameterwere identified and the frequencyof LWD was 80 piecesper mile.

ReachI is the only reachthat containsside-channel habitat. There are threemajor (over 1,000 feet long) and severalminor side channelswithin Reach1. Only the three large sidechannels supportunrestricted fish access(R2 ResourceConsultants 2008a,page 3-5). The total lengthof all sidechannel habitats is approximately0.9 miles and accountsfor 4.7 percentof the lengthof all riverine habitatsurveyed. Side channelhabitat was composednearly equally of glides(54 percent)and low-gradientriffles (46 percent).

Bull Trout Statusin the Action Area

There are four bull trout populationsin the SnohomishRiver Basin: North Fork Skykomish, SouthFork Skykomish,Salmon Creek, and TroublesomeCreek (SharedStrategy Committee 2007, page 63). Three of thesepopulations migrate to the estuary and nearshorefor the spring and summer,and immaturefish use the lower reachesof the SnohomishRiver from Ebey Slough to Thomas' Eddy during the winter months. Mature adult fish migrate all the way upriver to spawnprimarily in the Upper North Fork SkykomishRiver and its tributaries. They alsospawn in the FossRiver, afterbeing trappedand hauledabove Sunset, Canyon and Eagle falls by the WDFW,

While all life stagesof bull trout havebeen documented in the SnohomishRiver Basin,adult and subadultbull trout have only beenobserved sporadically in the SultanRiver, and always downstreamof the Diversion Dam at RM 9.7 (CH2M Hill2005, page3-9). Bull trout havenot beenobserved in the upper SultanRiver Basin (CH2M Hill 2005, page3-9). Bull trout present in the lower SultanRiver arepresumed to be foraging sub-adultor adult fish, as it is unlikely that the SultanRiver containsany habitat suitablefor native char spawningbased on its relatively warrn temperaturesand low elevation.

Migratory bull trout are highly piscivorousand aremost likely presentat times of the yearthat overlapswith salmonfry emergence,which occursannually late winter and spring. They may also feedon eggsduring salmonspawning from Septemberthrough December. Bull trout were not obseruedduring the District's 2007 and 2008juvenile fish surveysin the lower SultanRiver (R2 ResourceConsultants 2009). Bull trout abundancein the SultanRiver is influenced primarily by factors outside the Sultan River, as spawning and early rearing occur elsewhere within the Snohomish/Skykomishbull trout core area. Factorsfor their declineoutside the SultanRiver likely include spawningand rearinghabitat degradation, historic overharvest,brook trout presence,and overall reductionin the fish foragebase from historic levels. Factorsfor declineinside the action include spawningand rearing habitat degradation and overall reduction

68 in the fish forage basefrom historic levels and the reduction and changesin the flows as comparedto historic conditions. Regardlessof thesefactors, FWS (2008a,page35) indicated that the short-term abundancetrend of the Snohomish/Skykomishbull trout core areais increasing.

ConservationRole of the Action Area for Bull Trout

The Sultan River is a productive salmon streamimportant to bull trout for seasonalforaging by anadromousand adfluvial bull trout. All habitatsbelow the Diversion Dam (9.7 streammiles) arecurrently accessible by bull trout and five speciesof anadromoussalmon (FWS 2010).

Bull Trout Critical Habitat Statusin the Action Area

The FWS proposedcritical habitatfor Coastal/PugetSound bull trout on January10, 2010. The final crrticalhabitat rule was publishedNovember 17,2010. Under the final rule, the mainstem SultanRiver downstreamof the Diversion Dam (RM 9.7) is designatedcritical habitat. The lower SultanRiver is most likely usedby adult and subadultbull trout as foraging,migration, and over-wintering(FMO) habitat. The Project Areais not usedby bull trout for spawningor early rearing. Spawning and early rearing occurs in other tributaries to Skykomish River at higher elevations.

The2010 critical habitatrule identified primary constituentelements needed for bull trout survival. Within the proposeddesignated critical habitatareas of the SultanRiver, the PCEsfor bull trout arethose habitat components that are essentialfor the primary biological needsof foraging,dispersal, genetic exchange, or sheltering.The PCEs applicableto the SultanRiver in the actionarea, and their status,are as follows:

PCE (1): Springs,seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurfacewater connectivity(hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.

Basedon the prevailing fluvial and amphidromouslife history in the SnohomishRiver Basin, bull trout aremost likely presentin the lower SultanRiver during late fall, winter, spring,and early summer. Water temperaturesin the lower Sultan River during this period are within bull trout temperaturetolerances for adult and sub-adult foraging, migration, and over- wintering. Temperaturesare negatively affected by the presenceof CulmbackDam.

PCE.(2): Migratory habitatswith minimal physical,biological, or water quality impediments betweenspawning, rearrng,overwintering, and freshwaterand marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent,partial, intermittent,or seasonalbarrrers.

The Marsh Creekslide likely hindersbull trout migration upstreamof RM 1.6 andthe Diversion Dam at RM 9.7 preventsbull trout from accessingthe upper 6.8 miles of the lower river below CulmbackDam.

PCE (3): An abundantfood base,including terrestrialorganisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates,and foragefish,

69 The SultanRiver supportsa robustpopulation of pink salmon(odd year run). Bull trout are known to prey heavily on pink salmonfry (Lowery 2009, page29) and salmoncarcass flesh. In evenyears, the foragePCE is likely impairedto somedegree, due to the impairmentof spawning and rearing of salmonids.

PCE (4): Complex river, stream,lake, reservoir,and marine shorelineaquatic environments andprocesses with featuressuch as largewood, sidechannels, pools, undercutbanks and substrates,to provide avariety of depths,gradients, velocities, and structure.

SultanRiver habitatis relatively low in complexitydue to severalfactors including a limited amountof LWD, a limited numberof sidechannels, and reductionin flows over historic conditions.

PCE (5): Water temperaturesranging from2 to 15 oC (36 to 59 'F), with adequatethermal refugiaavailable for temperaturesat the upperelevation end of this range. Specific temperatureswithin this rangewould vary dependingon bull trout life history stageand form; geography;elevation; diurnal and seasonalvariation; shade,such as that providedby riparian habita! and local groundwaterinfluence.

Basedon the prevailing fluvial and amphidromouslife history in the SnohomishRiver Basin, bull trout aremost likely presentin the lower SultanRiver during late fall, winter, spring,and early summer. Water temperaturesin the lower Sultan River during this period are within bull trout temperaturetolerances for adult and sub-adult foraging, migration, and over- wintering

PCE (7): A naturalhydrograph, including peak,high, low, and baseflows within historical and seasonalranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departuresfrom a natural hydrograph,

The frequency,magnitude, and durationof high flow events(peak flood flows) in the Sultan River below CulmbackDam havebeen reduced under Stage II operations.While this flow regulationhas allowed the establishment,persistence, and in somecases proliferation of salmonbelow the Diversion Dam, it has alsoreduced the active channelarca and affected the creationand maintenanceof sidechannels in the Reach1 (alluvial reach)of SultanRiver.

PCE (8): Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival arenot inhibited.

Spawningand rearing of bull trout doesnot occurin the SultanRiver, however,adult and subadultforaging, migration, and overwinteringin the SultanRiver doesnot appearto be impaired by water quality and quantity in the Sultan River.

PCE (9): Few or no non-nativepredatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northernpike, smallmouth bass);inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive(e.g,, brown trout) speciespresent.

Thesespecies are not known to be presentin the lower SultanRiver.

70 ConservationRole of Critical Habitat in the Action Area

The SultanRiver is a productivesalmon stream important to bull trout for seasonalforaging by anadromousand adfluvial bull trout. All habitatsbelow the Diversion Dam (9.7 streammiles) arecurrently accessible by bull trout and five speciesof anadromoussalmon (FWS 2010).

Terrestrial Habitat BaselineConditions

The action area for murrelets includes all the Sultan River from Culmback Dam downstreamto the SkykomishRiver, landswithin the proposedProject boundary, and NFS landsin the upper SultanRiver Canyon. Under a new License,Project lands would encompassthe Lost Lake, ProjectFacility Lands,Spada Lake and Williamson Creektracts, and land adjacentto Williamson Creekthat would be addedto the Williamson Creektract'

The Project arealies within the Western Hemlock Zone andPacific Silver Fir Zone of the NorthernCascades Physiographic Province. The dominantnative vegetationis similar in both zonesand consistsof denseforests of westernhemlock, Douglas-fir, and westernred cedar(and Pacific silver fir at higher elevations). Scatteredthroughout the coniferous forests are individual and small standsof red alder,bigleaf maple,and black cottonwood. Thesehardwoods are found primarily on wet andlorrecently disturbed soils. The ruggedtopography of the Cascade Mountainsand foothills dominatesthe SnohomishRiver Basin, and landsused for timber productionor forestrecreation account for 74 percentof the basin area. Agriculture comprises5 percentof the basin area,with farms coveringthe floodplainsof the SnohomishRiver valley. The secondlargest land use in the basin (at 17 percent)is rural residentialdevelopment, which is scatteredacross the foothills and valleys.

Most humandevelopment is limited to the lower portion of the SultanRiver Basin,below the Powerhouse.Most timber harvestin the basinoccurred below Big Four Creek (RM 1I.2, or about 1.5miles upstreamof the SultanRiver DiversionDam) in the 1920s,and somestands have beenharvested again more recently. Areasupstream of Big Four Creekthat havebeen harvested sincethe 1960sare in various successionalstand conditions. Someold-growth forestremains on steepslopes along the SultanRiver betweenthe CulmbackDam and SultanRiver Diversion Dam, and within the SpadaLake and Williamson Creek tracts managedunder the current Project Wildlife HabitatManagement Plan (WHMP). WashingtonDNR's Morning StarNRCA in the upperbasin alsocontains some old-growth forest.

Status of Marbled Murrelets in the Action Area

The District conducteda murrelethabitat assessment and field surveysfor this speciesin2007 and 2008 (Biota Pacific 2008b). Basedon the resultsof the habitatassessment, biologists delineated884 acresof suitablehabitat near Culmback Dam, Olney Pass,the SouthFork inlet to SpadaLake Reservoir,Williamson Creek,Lake Chaplain,and HorseshoeBend.

Old-growthand matureconifer forest in the SpadaLake Tract was assessedas suitablemurrelet habitataccording to the StateForest Practices Rules definition (WAC-222-I2-090) in2007. The suitablehabitat was surveyed for murrelets as four survey areas(Culmback West, Culmback East,Olney Passand SouthFork SpadaInlet) in 2007 and2008 accordingto Pacific Seabird

71 Group protocol ((Evans et al. 2003) (Figure 2-L)). Occupancywas confirmed in the Culmback West suryey area,and presence was confirmedin the otherthree (Biota Pacific 2008). Since CulmbackWest, CulmbackEast and Olney Passsurvey areas are contiguous,all areconsidered occupied. While no occupancydetections were madeat SouthFork SpadaInlet in 2007 or 2008, the surveyarea is contiguouswith occupancydetections on Statelands from the 1990s (Norlhwest % of Section2, Township 28 North, Range9 East),and is consideredoccupied as wel1.

Standsof contiguousmature and old-growth forestin Williamson Creekwere also assessedas suitable. They were surveyedas two survey areas(Williamson CreekNorth and Williamson CreekSouth) (Figure 2-2) (BioIaPacific 2008). Occupancywas confirmedin the Williamson CreekNorth survey areain 2007. While no occupancyor presencedetections were madeat Williamson CreekSouth in 2007, the surveyarea is contiguouswith Williamson CreekNorth, and is consideredoccupied as well (Figure 8).

tr'Iarbled &Iurrelet Habirat

USFSOqs @t hlffilM

/'\/ t4\wtle

9effi dRr€3

r_-etsrew f]**r.**-* I e&ofl

Q wc*nm a RHoMY. i tuAgr$@

M6rlbled Murrelet Holritot

lllllllllIoiuuuo"-eio

,\"r**-* j**T

Figure 8. Suitable and occupiedmarbled murrelet habitat within the action area.

72 Conservation Role of the Action Area for Marbled Murrelets

Threatsto the murrelet in the terrestrial environmentinclude habitat loss and predation. Extensiveharvest of late-successionaland old-growthforests was the primary reasonfor listing the murrelet as threatened. Although implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (I\{WFP) has significantlyreduced the rate of habitatloss on Federallands, the threatof continuedremoval of suitablenesting habitat remains imminent on Federal and non-Federallands through timber harvestand natural events such as wildfire, insectoutbreak, and windthrow. Habitat lossis expectedto continue in the near future, but at an uncertainrate (McShane et aI.2004). Confoundingthis issue,murrelets may be lessable to respondto the modificationsof the native forestlandscape (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1997a). Gainsin suitablenesting habitat are expectedto occur on Federallands over the next 40 to 50 years,but due to the extensivehistoric habitatloss andthe slow replacementrate of murreletsand their habitat,the speciesis potentially facing a severereduction in numbersin the coming 20 to 100 years(U.S. ForestService and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994b;Beissinger 2002).

Populationtrend datafor the listedrange of this speciesindicates declines of about26 percent since2002(USFWS 2009,page19). In ConservatronZone1, which includeshabitat within SnohomishCounty, annualdeclines are estimatedat about4.2 percenLperyear (using2000-2008 surveydata) to 7.9 percentper year (using 200I-2008 surveydata) (USFWS 2009,page 19). No historical or long-term data are availablethat would indicate population trends in the action area itself.

The action areacontains approximately 884 acresof suitablehabitat. Of that, 820 acreswas determinedto be occupiedduring the 2007 and 2008 surveysconducted by SnoPUD(SnoPUD 200). The occupiedstands range from 200 to 50 acresin size. All old growth stands,stands 1O0-yearsold or older, and standsthat will become100-years old during the licenseterm will be protectedproviding viable nestinghabitat for murreletsin the action area.

Climate Change

Climate changehas the potentialto profoundly alter aquatichabitat throughout the PugetSound (Bissonet al. in press). Theseeffects would be expectedto be evidentas alterationsof water yield, peak flows, and streamtemperature. Other effects,such as increasedvulnerability to catastrophicwildfires, may occur as climate changealters the structureand distributionof forest and aquaticsystems. Given the increasingcertainty that climate changeis occurringand accelerating(IPCC 2007,Battin ef aL.2007),we can no longer assumethat climateconditions in the futurewill resemblethose in the past.

In WashingtonState, most modelspredict waffner air temperatures,increases in winter precipitation,and decreasesin summerprecipitation. Averagetemperatures are likely to increase oF 'F) betweenLT "C and2.9'C (3.1 and5.3 by 2040(Casola et al.2005,page l0). Warmerair temperatureswill leadto more precipitationfalling asrain ratherthan . As the snow pack diminishes,seasonal hydrology will shift to more frequentand severeearly large storms, changingstreamflow timing and increasingpeak river flows, which may limit salmonidsurvival (NMFS 2008,page 60).

73 In a studyto predict effectsof climate changeon salmonidhabitat in the SnohomishBasin, model resultsindicate alarge negativeeffect on freshwatersalmonid habitat driven by increased winter peak flows that scourthe streambedand destroysalmonid eggs (Battin et al. 2007). Higher water temperatures,lower spawningflows, andhigher magnitudeof winter peak flows are all likely to increasesalmonid mortality in the SnohomishBasin and in hydrologicallysimilar watershedsthroughout the region. This is expectedto makerecovery targets for salmonid populationsmore difficult to achieve. Recommendationsto mitigate the adverseeffects of climate changeon salmonidsinclude (1) restoringconnections to historical floodplainsand freshwaterand estuarinehabitats to provide fish refugia and areasto store excessfloodwaters; (2) protectingand restoringripartan vegetation to amelioratestream temperature increases; and (3) purchasingor applying easementsto landsthat provide importantcold water or refugehabitat (ISAB 2007, page82; Battin et al. 2007, page6723).

Higher ambientair temperatureswill likely causewater temperaturesto rise (ISAB 2007, page 2). Salmonids,particularly bull trout, requirecold water for spawningand incubation. Suitable spawninghabitat is often found in accessiblehigher elevationtributaries and headwatersof rivers, Thus, as climate changeprogresses and streamtemperatures warrn, thermalrefugia will be essentialto the persistenceof many salmonidpopulations, particularly bull trout. Thermal refugia provide important patchesof suitable habitat for salmonidsthat will allow them to undertakemigrations through or to make foraging forays into areaswith greaterthan optimal temperatures.To avoid wanner waters,juvenile rearingmay be increasinglyfound only at the confluenceof colder tributariesor other areasof cold water refugia.

There is still a greatdeal of unc ertainty associatedwith in the timing, location, and magnitudeof future climatechange. It is likely that the intensityof effectswill vary by region (ISAB 2007, page l2);however, severalstudies indicate that climatechange has the potentialto affect ecosystemsin nearly all tributariesthroughout the State(ISAB 2007, page29; Battin et aL.2007, page672I; Rieman et"al.2007, page 1558). The cumulativeeffects from land use change combined with climate changemay further hinder bull trout survival and recovery.

In the terrestrialenvironment, global warming, combinedwith the long-term fire suppressionon Federallands, may result in higher incidencesof stand-replacingfires in the future (McShaneet aI.2004). As forest fragmentationincreases, the threatof habitat loss due to windthrow is likely to increase.Insects and diseasecan kill completestands of habitatand can contributeto hazardousforest fire conditions.

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

This sectionaddresses the direct and indirect effectsof the proposedaction and its interrelated and interdependentactivities. The regulationsimplementing the ESA define "effects of the action"as follows:

"The direct and indirect effectsof an actionon the speciesor critical habitat,together with the effects of other activities that areinterrelated or interdependentwith that action, that will be addedto the environmentalbaseline.. . .Indirect effects are those that are

74 causedby the proposedaction and arelater in time, but still arereasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and dependon the larger action for their justification. Interdependentactions are those that have no independentutility apartfrom the actionunder consideration" (50 CFR $402.02),

The following effectsanalysis is organizedby speciesand Project component. Effects of the proposedProject to bull trout and murreletdue to operationand maintenanceof the Project including the implementationof the SettlementAgreement, two off-licenseagreements, USFS 4(e) conditions,FWS and NMFS Section 18 prescriptions,and the FERC's Staff Alternative with MandatoryConditions could result due to the modificationin instreamflows, water quality degradation,sound disturbance,and habitat modification. The SettlementAgreement includes aquaticlicense articles (A-LA) ,terrestrial license articles (T-LA) and recreation license articles (R-LA) that are designedto minimize and mitigate potential adverseeffects from license implementation,but arenot anticipatedto fully avoid their occurrence.Bull trout in the action areaare amphidromous subadult and adult bull trout. Effects of the proposedaction may result in effects to feeding and over-wintering activities. Young and adult murrelets in the forested environmentmay alsobe affectedby the proposedProject. Effects of the proposedaction may resultin effectsto feeding,breeding, and shelteringactivities.

Effects to Bull Trout and Bull Trout Critical Habitat

The following proposedLicense articles are likely to adverselyaffect bull trout and its proposed critical habitat:

o Marsh CreekSlide Modification and Monitoring Plan (A-LA 2); o TemperatureConditioning in Reach3 (A-LA 3); o WhitewaterBoating Flows (A-LA a); o DownrampingRate Conditions(A-LA 5); o Large Woody Debris (A-LA 6), Side ChannelProjects (A-LA 7); o ProcessFlow Regime (A-LA 8); o Minimum Flows (A-LA 9); o Fish Habitat EnhancementPlan (A-LA 12); o Diversion Dam Volitional Passage(A-LA 13); o ReservoirOperations (A-LA 14); . Adaptive ManagementPlan (A-LA 15); o SteelheadPlanting Program (A-LA 16); o Fisheriesand Habitat Monitoring Plan (A-LA 17); o Water Supply (A-LA 18); Historic ProprietiesManagement Plan (C-LC 1); o RecreationResource Management Plan (R-LA 1); o TerrestrialResource Management Plan (T-LA 1), o Water Quality Monitoring (W-LA 1); and . USFS 4(e) Condition 3 - Implementationof Activities on NFS Lands.

75 We discuss the effectsof eachof theseLicense articles , aswell as the effectsof the Jackson Off-LicenseSupplementation Program Agreement and Lake ChaplainTractLand Management Off-LicenseAgreement. Other Licensearticles approved in the SettlementAgreement, but not mentionedabove, were determinedto have "no effect" on or were "not likely to adverselyaffect" bull trout or bull trout critical habitat.

A-LA 2: Marsh Creek Slide Modification andMonitorins Plan

On December11, 2004,the Marsh Creek landslideblocked or reducedthe upstreampassage of adult anadromoussalmonids beyond RM 7.6 in Reach2 of Ihe SultanRiver. The Marsh Creek slide depositeda significantvolume of largerock and debrisin the river, temporarilyblocked flows, and createda high-gradient,constricted channel that had blocked or severelylimited upstreamfish passage.Two high-flow eventsof up to 3,560cfs subsequentlyoccurred in the river in November2006 andMarch 2007. The high flows from theseevents cleared some of the rocks,most of the sediment,and all of the exposedwoody debrisfrom the slide area. After these two events,limited fish passagethrough the original slide areawas restoredfor somespecies,

As a componentof the SettlementAgreement, the District filed a Marsh Creek Slide Modification and Monitoring Plan (A-LA 2). This plan was developedin consultationwith the SettlementParties and includes:provisions for establishinga pernanent survey controlpoint or benchmarkwithin the Marsh Creekslide areaof the SultanRiver; a scheduleand methodsfor conductinga detailedbaseline physical survey at low flow; and provisionsfor establishinga scheduleand methodsfor modificationsof the size and locationof specificrocks in the slide area. If the committeedetermines modifications are necessary to enhancefish passage,the plan also includes:provisions for continuationof annualspawner escapement monitoring upstreamof the slide areato evaluatefish passagefollowing implementationof any modificationswithin the slide area;provisions for conductingvisual inspectionsof the slide areafollowing flow events exceeding4,000 cfs; provisionsfor conductingpost-modification physical surveys;a schedule and provisionsfor conductingfuture modificationsafter the initial modification is completedand evaluated;and provisions to file a post-modificationreport with the FERC that documents methodsused to modify the slide.

Under A-LA 2,the District's monetaryobligations would be limited to a one-timeeffort to improve fish passagepast anatural,partialbarrier causedby slopefailure. If this effort is not effective(as definedby the LicenseArticle), the ARC would have the ability to approvefunding for additionalcorrective measures through the Fish Habitat EnhancementPlan's Habitat EnhancementAccount (A-LA 12).

Under existingconditions, Project operations limit high flows that could flush the remaining large rocks from the slide areaand eventuallyfully restorefish passage.The primary impedimentto upstreamfish migration within the slide areais a turbulent, 16-foot-long,two-step chute/smallpool/falls with a 46-percentgradient and a channelwidth of 10 to 20 feet. Modification of the slide is anticipatedto provide safe,timely, and effective accessto 2.1 miles of salmonand steelheadspawning and rcaringhabitatup to the Diversion Dam, and an additional 6,8 miles of historically availablehabitat upstream of the Diversion Dam, after passageis

76 providedat the Diversion Dam (A-LA 13). If successfulrestoration of fish passageis achieved, it is anticipatedthat this measurewould increaseChinook and coho salmonand steelhead productionin the SultanRiver by allowing thesespecies to fully utihze historically available, productivespawning habitat upstream of the Marsh Creekslide. Bull trout would alsobenefit from accessto additionalforaging and overwinteringhabitat and an increasein the prey base.

Improving fish passageat the Marsh CreekSlide may requiresome channel modifications and slopestabilizationwork. Disturbanceor modificationof the channelcould resultin short-term turbidity and sedimentation,at a minimum, and dependingon the method chosenfor channel modification(i.e., explosives), frdy result in disturbance,injury, or mortality to bull trout. Regardlessof the method selectedto restorefish passageat the slide, only limited amountsof sedimentor turbidity will be generated.Most of the sedimentand all the woody debristrapped behindthe slide havebeen flushedout by repeatedhigh flows since2004. In addition,only selectedlarge rocks will be moved or brokeninto small piecesthen removedto restorefish passagegenerating little, if any, sediment. If it is necessaryto use explosivesto break someof the rock, someadverse effects are atticipated. Using work windows to limit exposureof bull trout to potentialconcussive blasts would reduce,but may not completelyeliminate the likelihood of adverseeffects from such actions. In the eventexplosives are not used,we would not anticipateto adverseeffects to bull trout from the project. The particularmethod to improve fish passageat the March Creek Stidewill be reviewedand approvedby FWS prior to implementation.

A-LA 3: TemperatureConditioning in Reach3

Under existingconditions, the water releasedto Reach3 of the SultanRiver from the valve at the baseof CulmbackDam rangesfrom 3 to 6"C yearround. As a result,water temperaturesin the upper endof Reach3 are5 to 8oCcolder than optimal for salmonidsand other aquaticresources. The low densitiesof rainbow trout in this reachare likely the result of theselow temperatures.

Under the SettlementAgreement, the District proposesto developand implementa Water TemperatureConditioning Plan to provide more seasonallyappropriate water temperaturesfor spawningand rearing salmonidsand other aquaticbiota in Reach3. The plan would include temperatureconditioning regime targets for the water releasepoints and the downstreamend of Reach3 (i.e.,near the Diversion Dam) from April throughOctober. Thesetargets would be set at the suitabletemperature ranges to benefit salmonidsand other aquaticresources. The District would alsomonitor the biological responseof salmonidsand other aquaticresources (including other fishesand macro-invertebrates)to the temperatureconditioning for the term of the license.

The watertemperature-conditioning program would be implementedin two phases.

PhaseI would begin immediatelyupon Licenseissuance and would consistof modifying some of the existingflow releasestructures at the baseof CulmbackDam to releaseup to 70 cfs throughthe 10-inchcone valve (45 cfs), hydro unit (5 cfs), and new 12-inchcone valve on the existingauxiliary water line (20 cfs). Due to constraintson the intake elevationof the existing auxiliary water line, PhaseI conditioningcould only occurwhen reservoirelevations are greater than I,410 feet msl, and during periodsof reservoirstratification, typically April through October.

7l PhaseII would consistof installationof a floating inlet collectorcombined with a flexible conveyancesystem that allows the withdrawal water from the top of the SpadaLake Reservoirto provide greaterflow releaseand temperatureconditioning opportunities than would be possible underPhase I. The PhaseII improvementswould allow for temperatureconditioning when the reservoiris stratified andat an elevationgreater than 1,380feet msl. The PhaseII improvements would be designedto accommodatea minimum 165-cfsrelease of temperature-conditioned water when the reservoirelevation is at 1,430feet msl. PhaseII is intendedto conditionthe higherminimum instreamflows that would be provided in Reach3 following the constructionof any volitional fish passagefacilities at the SultanRiver DiversionDam. Accordingly, PhaseII would be implementedby the earlierof: (1) 2 yearsafter the datethat volitional fish passage modificationsare completedat the SultanRiver Diversion Dam; or (2) JanuaryI,2020.

The District usedtemperature modeling to evaluatethe potentialeffects of the proposed conditioningmeasure on water temperaturesin Reach3. The model resultsindicate that conditionedreleases from CulmbackDam would raisethe daily meanwater temperaturesduring the summerunder existing conditions from 5.5"Cto about 14"Cbelow CulmbackDam, and from about1 1.8"C to asmuch as 13.3"Cat RM 9.8just upstreamof the SultanRiver DiversionDam. The resultsof the modeling indicatethat the summer7-DADMax (the highesI"T-DayAverage of Daily Maximum) water temperaturesthroughout Reach 3 would be lessthan the Statecriterion for Core SalmonidHabitat of t6oC during typical summerconditions.

Under current conditions, the year-round water temperaturesdownstream of Culmback Dam rangebetween 3 and 6'C. Theselow water temperaturesmay prolong egg incubation,delay larval development,and retardrainbow trout growth throughoutmost of Reach3. Improved water temperaturesunder Phase I, would likely increasemacro-inverlebrate production and improve fish growth, condition, and survival for residentrainbow trout, When fish passage facilities areconstructed at the Diversion Dam (seeA-LA 13), the improved water temperatures realtzedunder Phase II would also improve habitatconditions for ESA-listed steelheadand Chinook salmon,and may also benefit bull trout through an increasein the foragebase, Adverse effectsto bull trout from the implementationof this measureare not anticipated.Temperatures achievedby this licensearticle arewithin thoseconsidered suitable for foraging and overwinteringof bull trout. The effectivenessof water temperatureconditioning in Reach3 would be determinedby the monitoring of both water temperaturesand any changesto aquatic community in Reach3.

A-LA 4: WhitewaterBoatine Flows

Under A-LA4, the District would developand implementa plan to provide flows for 12 viable whitewaterboating eventsevery 3 yearsfor the durationof a new Licensewith sufficient advancenotice to whitewaterboaters. Proposedwhitewater flows would rangefrom 600 to 2,000cfs for at least3 hours. During each3-year period, the District would provide a firm total waterbudget of 2,100 acre-feetof water to ensurethat 12 viable whitewaterevents occur. If the 2,100 acre-feetof water budgetin combinationwith controlledand uncontrolledflow releases (i.e,, spill) and accretionflows is not sufficientto achieve12 vrablewhitewater boating events during each3-yearperiod, the District would provide a reservebudget of 1,200acre-feet to ensurethat such eventsoccur.

78 The ARC would annually coordinate schedulingof the April, May, and Septemberwhitewater flow releasesand the proposedprocess flows discussedin A-LA 8. Any combinationof the proposedwhitewater recreation flows could be usedto satisfythe requirementsof the proposed process andmrgration flows, as long as the timing, duration, and magnitude are greaterthan or equalto the proposedprocess and migration flows, and vice versa. Any potentialadverse effects to forage fish (stranding) from the whitewater flow releaseswould be minimized through the implementationof timing restrictionsdeveloped in consultationwith the Aquatic Resource Committee. lnstancesofjuvenile salmonidmortalities due to strandingin combinationwith otheractions that injure or kill juvenile salmonidsmay adverseeffect prey abundancein the SultanRiver.

A-LA 5 DownrampinsRate Conditions Rapid reductionsin river flow associatedwith Projectoperations have the potentialto strandfish and other aquaticorganisms in pools, off-channelhabitats, and low-gradientgravel bars (often resultingin immediateor delayedmortality) (Hunter 1992,page5). Fry andjuvenile fish less than2 inches in length are particularly vulnerable to strandingdue to their weak swimming ability; preferencefor shallow, low-velocity habitatand sidechannels; and their tendencyto burrow into the substrate.In additionto stranding,Project-related flow changescan alsodewater redds, alterhabttatuse, and adverselyaffect the production of macroinvertebrates.Limits governing the rute,timing, and number of Project-inducedflow changesare often establishedat hydroelectricprojects to protect aquaticorganisms, including ESA-listed fish species,Different ramping rate requirementsare appropriatefor different times of the year dependingon the speciesand life history stagespresent and the prevailingflows.

Releasesfrom the JacksonPowerhouse (i.e. dischargethrough the Pelton turbines)largely control flow levelsin the SultanRiver downstreamof RM 4,5. Historically, any emergency shutdown of the Pelton units at the Powerhousehas had the potential for stranding fry and juvenile salmonidsthatmay be presentin the lower SultanRiver - particularlyduring March throughAugust. Pelton unit shutdowncan decreaseflow by as much as 650 cfs per Peltonwheel unit over a shortperiod in Reach 1 downstreamof the Powerhouse.Over the last 10 years,there havebeen nine occurrencesof shutdownof the Peltonunits; only one of theseinstances involved both Peltonwheels.

To addressthis sourceof rapid downrampingin Reach1, the District recentlyinstalled and is currentlytesting a new Pelton unit flow continuationsystem. This new systemis designedto minimize the risk of excessivedownramping events during an emergencyshutdown. The newly installedPelton unit continuationsystem should allow the District to bypasswater when the Peltonunits arerequired to shut down operation. The systemwould also allow the otherPelton unit, if operutingor in standbymode, to be operatedto reducerapid flow decreasesfrom a single unit outage(8 of the 9 Pelton unit outagesin the last decadewere singleunit outages).These effortswould help preventdewatering of reddsor strandingof fry during power outages.

Under A-LA5, the District is requiredto operatethe Projectwithin specifieddownrampingrate limitations, establishedin the SettlementAgreement, to reducethe potential for harmful effects on aquaticresources. These downramping rates would not apply to power-generationequipment failures,forced outages, or modification to flow releaseswhen downstreamflood conditionsare

79 occurring. However,until the new Peltonunit flow continuationsystem proves to be effective, the District will maintain staff at the Powerhouseduring electricalstorms or similar eventslikely to trigger an emergencyPowerhouse shutdown to provide flow continuation minimizing the effectsof a power outage.

With implementationof A-LA 5, the District would also formally adoptits existingvoluntary downramping rates for Reach 2. The Reach 2 downramping rates would not apply to flushing flows, which would requiremanual operation of the sluice gateat the SultanRiver Diversion Dam. For flow releasesfrom CulmbackDam (into Reach3), the District would attempt,within the constraintsof the Project's existingequipment, to limit the downrampingrate to no more than 0.5 feet per hour when the proposedprocess, special purpose, and whitewaterrecreation flows causethe flow rangeat the SultanRiver DiversionDam gageto be greaterthan 300 cfs but lessthan 1,000cfs.

In additionto the abovemeasures, the District will institutea ceiling flow of 550 cfs (meandaily dischargemeasured at the Powerhousegage) during the September15 to October 15 period of peak spawningfor Chinook salmon,unless natural accretion flows or SpadaLake Reservoir inflow supersedesthe District's hydraulic control of the Project. This spawningflow should ensurethat reddsremain wetted shouldProject flows be reducedto a minimum of 300 cfs before the end of the egg incubationand fry emergenceperiod. The District would use spawnersuwey information on an annual basis to determinethe highest elevation and the correspondingflow at which spawninghas occurredduring the Chinook salmonand steelheadspawning seasons. Basedon this information,the District would attemptto keepredds covered with wateruntil fry emergencehas occurred. The spawningflow ceilingand correspondingminimum flow could be adjustedbased upon approvalby the Aquatic ResourceCommittee.

The District's proposedmean daily dischargeceiling of 550 cfs during the peak Chinook salmon spawningperiod (September15 to October 15) shouldprotect Chinook salmonredds from being dewateredif Project flows arereduced to 300 cfs. The District would use the annualChinook salmon and steelheadspawning survey and flow datalo attemptto keep redds coveredwith water until fry emergencehas occurred. The District's proposedannual downramping report would quantify how successfulthe District hasbeen in its attemptsto keepredds submerged, so that the needfbr additionalprotective measures can be identified and incorporatedinto future downrampingdecisions, if appropriate.The Aquatic ResourceCommittee would usethe annual downrampingreport to determinewhether additional ramping rate restrictionsare necessaryto protectfish from strandingin the side channels,once the proposedaccess to thoseside channels is restored.

The implementationof ramping ratesbelow CulmbackDam, as approvedin the Settlement Agreement,would provide greaterprotection for bull trout and their prey resourcesthan under existingconditions. We would not anticipatebull trout to becomestranded from the implementationof ramping ratesand minimal instreamflows approvedunder the Settlement Agreementbecause sub-adult and adult bull trout aremore mobile and lessvulnerable to strandingthan juvenile fishes. Although the rampingrates in A-LA 5 representan improvement over existingconditions in the SultanRiver, somelimited strandingofjuvenile salmonidswould still occur. lnstancesofjuvenile salmonid mortalities due to downramping in combination with other actionsthat injure or kill juvenile salmonidsmay adverseeffect prey abundancein the

80 SultanRiver potentially adverselyaffecting bull trout's ability to forage. Overall, implementationof this license articlewould benefitsalmonid spawning and rearingin the Sultan River by creatingimproved spawning,incubation, and rearingflow conditionsin the lower SultanRiver.

A-LA 6 Laree Woody Debris

Largewoody debris(LWD) is an importantcomponent of a healthyriver ecosystem.Large trees that fall into rivers perform an important role in forming pools, regulating storageand routing of sediment,and trappingspawning gravel. LWD alsoprovides complex fish habitatthat increases carrying capacity,high-flow refugia for fish, and substratefor macroinvertebrates.LWD of sufficientsize is eithernot being recruitedfrom the older second-growthstands found in the bypassreach or it is recruitedbut not being deliveredfrom standsupstream of Culmback. As a result,the wood loading rate in the lower 3 miles of the SultanRiver is substantiallyless than that observedin unregulatedrivers in Washington,and much of the LWD is small- to medium- sizedand positioned along the channelmargins (Stillwater Sciences and Meridian Environmental Inc, 2008b). Under existing conditions,there is limited wood of suitablesize to provide the neededstructural complexity to createpools. While this is likely the consequenceof long-term logging datingback to the late 1800s(Stillwater Sciences and Meridian Environmental,Inc. 2008a,pagevi), operationof the Projectcontinues to block the downstreamrecruitment of LWD.

A lack of in-channelLWD has alsobeen identified as a major salmonidhabitat-limiting factor in the mainstemSkykomish and Snohomishrivers. According to the SnohomishRiver Basin SalmonConservation Plan (SnohomishBasin SalmonRecovery Forum 2005),mainstem channelsin the watershedhave low levelsof LWD and debrisjams, contributingto a lack of pools and sidechannels. The ConservationPlan alsonotes that it would take at least50 yearsfor existingriparian foreststo contributeLWD. As a result,structural remedies (engineered logjams and other featuresdesigned to increasehabitat complexity) arerecommended in somelocations.

In A-LA 6, the District proposesto developand implementa LWD Plan that would resultin the placementof LWD in the Sultan River, both in the form of engineeredstructures and by placementof LWD collectedat CulmbackDam at appropriatedownstream locations. The plan would describe: (1) the designand locationof eachLWD structure;(2) the LWD installation schedule;(3) the restrictionsnecessary to minimize adverseeffects to public safetyand property; (4) the methodand schedulefor monitoring the effectivenessof the LWD structures;and (5) the methodand schedulefor moving LWD accumulatedin SpadaLake Reservoirbetween CulmbackDam and the log boom to areastargeted for restoration.

Within 5 yearsof licensing, and aftergaining regulatory approval and legal access,the District would install five to eight LWD structuresin the lower SultanRiver (RM 0 to 16). Up to hve of the initial eight LWD structureswould be designedto improve main channelhabitat complexity, re-directflow, carveand createhabitat, add diversity,retain and sort sediment,provide salmonid-rearrnghabitat,and provide a medium for useby macroinverlebrates.Up to threeof

81 the eight structureswould be associatedwith sidechannels and would be designedto improve mainstem/sidechannel connectivity by directingflow into sidechannels. The District would install up to four additionalLWD structuresin the SultanRiver beginning 10 yearsafter license issuance.

The specificlocations and designsof the LWD structureswould be basedon the probability of retentionand possible risk to property,and would be developedin consultationwith the Aquatic ResourceCommittee. Each LWD structurewould include 5 to 30 structuralpieces of Douglas fir, hemlock,or cedarof approximately 24 to 36 inchesin diameter(at breastheight) and 35 to 40 feet in length (with intact rootwads);larger structural pieces would be usedwithin the transportcapabilities of trucks or a helicopter. The structureswould be designedto rack wood and eventuallydevelop into logjams. LWD from SpadaLake Reservoirwould be usedto build the structuresand to provide materialfor the proposedside-channel enhancement projects.

Whereasthe function of LWD upstreamof RM 3,0 is unlikely to changein the foreseeablefuture (dueto the channel'shigh streampower, confinement,and the small size of availabletrees), an increasein the quantity of wood downstreamof RM 3.0 would likely increaseoverall physical heterogeneityin that reach,benefiting resident and anadromoussalmonids. The LWD structures areexpected to increaseChinook, coho, and steelheadproductivity in the lower SultanRiver, which would provide additional foragefor bull trout.

Most of the constructionof LWD structurewould be accomplishedoutside the active channelor in dewateredside channels. However, somestreambank and in-water work could be neededto construct andlor securethe structures. In-water work would likely causeshort-term turbidity plumesand sedimentation,and may resultin someinjury or mortality to fish, particularlyyoung- of-the-yearsalmonids. Best managementpractices including in-water work windows employed during any construction and maintenanceactivities are anticipatedto minimize potential adverse effects from LWD placement,but are not anticipatedto fully avoid their occurrence. Adult and subadultbull trout are lesssusceptible to short-termincreases in turbidity and sedimentbecause of their size andmobility. Impactsto prey resourcesfiuvenile salmonids)are more likely to occur. Suchoccurrences in combinationwith otheractions that adverselyaffect bull trout prey abundancemay adverselyaffect bull trout's ability to forage. Overall, LWD placementis likely to improve habitatconditions in the SultanRiver for adult and subadultbull trout and their prey resourcesover the term of the License.

A-LA 7 Side ChannelProiects

Sidechannels in the alluvial lower reachof the SultanRiver provide importantspawning and rearinghabitatfor severalspecies of residentand anadromoussalmonids. Juvenilecoho in particularare known to make widespreaduse of off-channelhabitats, often gaining accessto small streamsand backwaterenvironments that arc eitherinaccessible to adult coho or unsuitable for spawning. Side channelsare alsorecognized for their value as summerand winter rearing habitatfor juvenile fishes and,when regularly available,provide high quality protectedspawning habital,especially for coho, chum, and pink salmon. Juvenilefish of thesespecies are often prey for bull trout in the riverine environment.

82 Implementationof A-LA 7 requiresa Side-ChannelEnhancement Plan to addressthe lossof this type of habitat. Under this measure,the District would enhancea minimum of 10,000linear feet of sidechannel arcato provide a minimum of 3 acresof salmonidrearing habitat. This habitat would be locatedwithin the wetted areadefined by a SultanRiver flow of 4,100 cfs, asmeasured at the USGS gagedownstream of the Powerhouse.The SettlementAgreement targets five specificside channels in Reach 1. The enhancementprojects would be designedto improve flow connectivityand include otherhabitat modifications such as the placementof LWD. The proposedplan would outline the methodsand schedulesfor monitoring,reporting, and maintaining side channel enhancementsthroughout the term of the License.

Installation of the structures,channel excavation,and other instreamwork related to the proposedside-channel enhancement projects would likely causeshort-term turbidity plumesand sedimentationthat could causemortality of eggs,fry, andjuveniles of bull trout prey species, Adult and subadultbull trout are lesssusceptible to short-termincreases in turbidity and sedimentbecause of their size andmobility. Best managementpractices including in-water work windows, employed during any constructionand maintenanceactivities and timed to avoid periods when the majority of bull trout and bull trout prey arepresent, are anticipatedminimize affectsto bull trout prey species.Some mortality ofjuvenile salmonidsfrom side channel projectsis anticipatedto occur.These impacts to preyresourcesfiuvenile salmonids)in combination with other actions that adverselyaffect bull trout prey abundancemay adversely affectbull trout's ability to forage.

A-LA 8 ProcessFlow Reeime

The frequency,magnitude, and durationof high flow events(peak flood flows) in the Sultan River below CulmbackDam havebeen reduced under Stage II operations.While this flow regulationhas allowedthe establishment,persistence, and in somecases increase of salmon populationsbelow the Diversion Dam, it has alsoreduced the activechannel area and affected the creationand maintenance of side channelsin the 3-mile alluvial reachof the SultanRiver (Reach1). Specifically,the PhysicalProcesses Study (Stillwater Sciencesand Meridian EnvironmentalInc. 2008b,pages 48 and 49) concluded:

"Vegetationencroachment in the lower alluvial reachhas been an unforeseen consequenceof flow alteration. Riparianvegetation has reduced the active channelarea in the alluvial reachby 32 percentsince Stage II operationsbegan.

Side channelsin the SultanRiver arerelict features,a consequenceof vegetation encroachmentinto formerly active channelsof the river."

During Projectrelicensing, several stakeholders expressed an interestin the releaseof additional high flows (processflows) to improve channel and aquatic habitat conditions in the lower Sultan River. Under the SettlementAgreement, the District would developand implementa Process Flow Plan to provide flushing, maintenance,channel forming, and fish migration flows throughoutthe Projectreaches (Settlement Agreement proposed measure A-LA 8). The plan would documenthow the District would implementa programfor periodic, controlledflow releasesfrom the Powerhouse,the outlet pipe locatedadjacent to the SultanRiver Diversion Dam. and CulmbackDam.

83 Specifically,the plan would describe: (1) the frequency,magnitude, duration, and timing of processflow components;(2) the on-goinginvolvement of the Aquatic ResourceCommittee in implementingthis program; (3) the mechanismfor timing controlledflow releasesincluding whitewaterboating releases (discussed later in this section)to coincidewith naturalrainfall eventsor uncontrolled flow releasesto achievethe flow frequency,magnitude, and duration for eachof the processflow components;(4) the timing and other restrictionsnecessary to minimize effectson aquaticresources and not exacerbatedownstream flood damagein the City of Sultan; (5) the method, locations, and schedulefor monitoring and measuringprocess flow components; (6) the methodand schedulefor studyingthe necessityof flushing flow for supportingthe geomorphicprocess goals; (7) the methodand schedulefor studyingthe necessityof upstream migration flow and out-migrationflow for providing timely and effectiveupstream and downstreammigration of anadromousfishes; and (8) the method and schedulefor monitoringthe effectsof processflows on aquaticresources.

If necessary,the District would developa processflow releaseschedule for periodsof droughtin consultationwith the Aquatic ResourceCommittee when: (1) a droughtevent resulting in voluntaryreductions in domesticwater consumption(defined as a stage2 responseto a drought event)is occurring;(2) the processflows requireinterim modification including changesin timing or reductionsin flow magnitudeto managewater supply during periodsof drought;and (3) sucha schedulewould not underminethe purposesof this LicenseArticle, The District would notify the FERC and would implementthe drought-releaseflow schedulewithin 7 daysof providing suchnotice, unless otherwise directed by the FERC.

Inyear 10 of the new Licenseand every 10 yearsthereafter, the District, in consultationwith the Aquatic ResourceCommittee, would file with the FERC, a processflow effectivenessreport basedon the proposedfisheries and habitatmonitoring program and the best available information.

The proposedprocess flows would consistof the componentsspecified in Table 6. Unless otherwiseprovided, the magnitude,duration, timing, and frequencyof the processflows may be achievedthrough any combinationof uncontrolledspills, controlledflow releasessuch as whitewaterboating releases, and accretionflows. Suchflow releasescould indirectly affectbull trout throughredd scouringand juvenile strandingof other salmonidspecies (bull trout prey resources).

84 Table 6. Pro rocessllow components. ProcessFlow Magnitude and Duration Frequency

Channel Maintenance and Channel Forming Flows

Reach 1 channel Channel maintenanceflow would be achievedwhen: Four times every 10 maintenanceflow yearsbut not less than once every 4 measuredat USGS gage (a) a targetflow of at least4,100 cfs is maintainedfor years. 12138160 24 hours;or just downsffeamofthe Powerhouseat RM 4.5 (b) a targetflow of at least4,1 00 cfs is achievedand the District provides a maximum teleaseflow at the time when flow dropsbelow 4,100 cfs for a total duration (including the target flow and maximum release)of24 consecutivehours.

Reach 1 charurelforming Channel forming flow would be achievedwhen: Once every 10 years. flow measuredat USGS gage12138160 (a) a targetflow of at least6,500 cfs is maintainedfor 24 consecutivehours; or

(b) a targetflow of6,500 cfs is achievedand the District provides a maximum releaseflow at the time when flow drops below 6,500 cfs for a total duration (including the target flow and maximum release)of 24 consecutivehours. or

(c) the District provides a maximum releaseflow for 24 consecutivehours that is timed to achieve,to the extentfeasible, atarget flow of6,500 cfs.

Flushing Flows

Reach 1 flushing flows Reach 1 flushing flow would be achievedwhen 1,500 Twice a year; once in measuredat USGS gage cfs is maintained for 6 consecutivehours. Septemberand once 12138160 between April 1 and May 31. If SpadaLake is below elevation7,420 feet msl, Reach I flushing flow would be achievedwhen a 1,200-cfsinstantaneous minimum flow is maintained for 6 consecutivehours.

Reach2 flushing flow Reach 2 flushing flow would be achievedwhen: Twice a year; oncein measuredimmediately Septemberand once April I and upstreamof the (a) a 500-cfs instantaneousminimum flow is between May 31. Powerhouseat RM 4.7 maintained for 6 consecutivehours: or

(b) a 700-cfs instantaneousminimum flow is maintained for 3 consecutivehours. ProcessFlow Magnitude and Duration Frequency

Reach3 flushing flow Reach3 flushing flow would be achievedwhen: Twice a year; oncein measuredimmediately Septemberand once upsrreamofthe Sultan (a) a 400-cfs instantaneousminimum flow is between April 1 and River Diversion Dam at maintainedfor 6 consecutivehours: or May 31. RM 9.8

(b) a 600-cfs instantaneousminimum flow is maintained for 3 consecutivehours.

UpstreamMigration Flows

Reach1 upstream Reach1 upstreammigration flow would be achieved Onceper year in migration flow measured when a minimum flow between 800 and 1,200 cfs is September atUSGS Gage 12138160 maintainedor exceededfor 6 consecutivehours.u

Reach2 upstream Reach2 upstreammigration flow would be achieved Once per year in migration flow measured when a flow between 400 and 600 cfs instantaneous September, immediately upstreamof minimum flow is maintained for 6 consecutivehours.u the Powerhouseat RM 4.1

Reach 3 upstream Reach 3 upstream migration flow would be achieved Once per year in migration flow measured when a minimum flow between 300 and 500 cfs is Septemberafter immediatelyupstream of maintainedor exceededfor 6 consecutivehours.u completionof Sultan the Sultan River River Diversion Dam DiversionDam at RM 9.8 volitional fish passagemodification.

Out-migration Flows

Reach1 out-migration Reach t out-migration flow would be achievedwhen Twice a year; once in flow measuredat USGS a minimum flow of between800 and 1,200cfs is April and once in gage 12138160 maintainedor exceededfor 6 consecutivehours.u May.

Reach 2 out-migration Reach2 out-migrationflow would be achievedwhen Twice a year; once in flow measured a minimum flow of between 400 and 600 cfs is April and once in immediately upsfream of maintainedor exceededfor 6 consecutivehours.u May. the Powerhouseat RM 4.7

Reach3 out-migration Reach 3 out-migration flow would be achievedwhen Twice a year; oncein flow measured a minimum flow of between200 and 400 cfs is April and once in immediatelyupstream of maintainedor exceededfor 6 consecutivehours.u May after volitional the SultanRiver fish passageand the DiversionDam at RM 9.8 Aquatic Resource Committee determinesthe need.

Actual upstream and out-migration flows would be determinedby the Aquatic ResourceCommittee.

Flushingflows arehigh-flow pulsesthat provide sufflcientflow depth and velocity for fish migration,flushing organicmatter and fine sedimentfrom the channel,renewing spawning habttat, and maintaining juvenile rearing habitat. The mean alrnual or averagedischarge on

86 unregulatedstreams in Washingtontypically has sufficientdepth and velocity to provideboth fish passagefunctions and the force necessaryfor flushing organic matter and fine-grained sedimentfrom the channel.

Channelmaintenance flows are small floods that provide geomorphicand ecologicalfunctions, suchas sedimenttransport and maintenanceof streamsidevegetation. They scourthe channel bed to reshapealluvial features,provide lateral migration and periodic inundation of the floodplain, and protect and sustainchannel banks and the floodplain by maintaining healthy streamsidevegetation. Channel maintenanceflows mobilize sandand larger sediments,scour streambeds,undercut banks, relocateLWD, prevent ipanan encroachment,maintain floodplain connectivity,and provide accessto sidechannels and otherimportant rearing habitat for juvenile salmon.

Channel forming flows are large floods that createand sustainchannel patterns and floodplain morphology,form and maintain sidechannels, scour floodplain surfaces,refill off-channel wetlands, and rechargegroundwater storagenear the river. Large floods transport significant amountsof sediment,recruit and transport LWD from the floodplain, and maintain riparian habitat. The District developedthe proposedReach 1 channelforming flows to mimic the channelforming flows on unregulatedstreams that havea recurrenceinterval of 10 to 25 years.

The characteristicsand geomorphicprocesses that form channelfeatures are basedon complex interactionsbetween channel gradient, confinement, discharge, sediment load, LWD, and ripaianvegetation. Project operationshave altered the timing and decreasedthe frequencyof channelflushing, channel forming, and channelmaintaining flows comparedto unregulated conditionsin the SultanRiver. Combined,these flows would likely maintain more normative channelprocesses in the SultanRiver benefitingbull trout and its prey resources.

Although the flow regimesproposed under the SettlementAgreement are a significantdeparture from currentoperations, the FWS believesoccasional releases of higher flows areneeded to marntainthe natural processesof the river including the recruitment and transportationof spawning gravels and large woody debris, the formation of side channelsand off-channel habitats,and the restorationand maintenance of channeldiversity throughout the lower Sultan River. Although it is anticipatedthat a returnto more normativeflows in the lower SultanRiver could causelimited red scourand juvenile strandingover the term of the new license,the FWS doesnot expectedthis to significantlyimpact bull trout or their prey resources,because no bull trout spawningoccurs in the SultanRiver; and flow magnitudesand timing will be coordinated with the ARC to minimize impactsto spawningsalmonids, redd incubation,and rearing juvenile fish, In additions,process flow releaseswill be timed to occur during or following naturalhigh flow eventsand the more significantprocess flow releaseswill only occur periodically (i.e.,once every 10 years). The Project would continueto reducepeak flows and increaseminimum flows comparedto the natural,unregulated hydrograph. However,the new FERC-licensewill provide additionalreleases in the form of channelflushing, channel maintenance, channel-forming flows (processflows) to more closely mimic naturalpre-Project flows and improve habitatconditions in the lower river. Overall, the FWS believesthe proposedprocess flow regimesin the SettlementAgreement will benefitbull trout and its prey resourcesby improving and maintaininshabitat in the lower SultanRiver.

87 A-LA 9 Minimum Flows

Minimum instream flow levels can affect water temperature,the availability of spawning and rearing habitat, main channel and side charurelconnectivity, and fish migration. Project operationsdirectly affect SultanRiver instreamflows throughoutthe entire 16.5-milereach downstreamof CulmbackDam. Under the SettlementAgreement, the District proposesthe foliowing seasonallyshaped minimum instreamflow schedulefor all threereaches of the Sultan River downstreamof CulmbackDam:

Reach1 - The District would releasewater from the Powerhouseto maintain instantaneous minimum flows of 300 cfs.

Reach2 - The District would releasewater from the outlet pipe locatedadjacent to the Sultan River Diversion Dam to maintain instantaneousminimum flows accordingto the scheduleshown in Table7.

able osedReach 2 rnstantaneousmrnimum flows. Instantaneous SpadaLake Reservoir Minimum Level Instream Flow (cfs) (feet msl) Date 100 November 1 throush March l5 140 March16 through June 15 r00 June 16 through September14 200 Above1,415 September15 through October 3 I 115 1,415to 1,405 Septemberl5 throughOctober 31 150 Below1,405 September15 throughOctober 31

Reach3 - The District would provide an annualwater budget of 20,362acre-feet for releasefrom CulmbackDam until 2020. The District would provide an additional3,469 acre-feetto the water budgetfor a total annualwater budgetof 23,831acre-feet beginning during the July 2020 to June 202I water year, andfor the remainingterm of a License,unless the ARC decidesto delay or postponethis increase.

The District would releasethe annualwater budgetas instantaneousminimum flows with a releaseschedule developed prior to eachwater budget year (July 1 to June30) in consultation with the ARC. In the event that the ARC is unable to reach consensusregarding the releaseof the waterbudget 15 daysprior to the beginningof the waterbudget year, the defaultReach 3 flow regimesshown in Table 8 would be implementedbeginning the first day of the water budgetyear.

88 Table 8. Defaultu Reach3 rnstantaneousmlnlmum monthlv flow releases Minimum Flow Releases Prior to the 3,469-acre-foot Prior to the 3,469-acre-foot water budget increaseand the water budget increase,but After the 3,469- date the District completesthe after the date the District acre-foot water DiversionDam's volitional completesthe Diversion budgetincrease fi sh passagemodifications Dam's volitional fish passage beginning July Month (cf0 modifications (cfs) 2020 (cfs) July 20 30 40 August 20 35 45 September1-15 20 45 55 September16-30 20 55 65 October1-15 20 65 70 October16-31 20 50 60 November 20 20 20 December 20 20 20 January 20 20 20 February 25 20 20 March 30 20 20 April1-15 +) 20 20 April 16-30 55 20 20 May1-15 65 20 JT' May16-31 50 20 30 June 35 25 35

The objectivesof this instreamflow PME areto protect,mitigate, and enhancefish and wildlife resources,riparian vegetation, and water quality in the SultanRiver. The proposedseasonal allocationof minimum instreamflows in the SultanRiver were developedin collaborationwith the resourceagencies and the Tribe, arebased on the habitatflow relationshipsdetermined during the District's InstreamFlow Study (R2 ResourceConsultants 2008a). The Settlement Agreement'sproposed minimum instreamflow schedulewould, in most cases,substantially increaseexisting minimum flows in the SultanRiver.

Reach1 - Reach1 containsthe most productiveChinook, steelhead,coho, chum, and pink salmon,rainbow trout, and cutthroat trout habitat in the Sultan River downstreamof Culmback Dam. Spawningflows in this reachare generallynot limiting, with the potentialexception of pink and chum salmon. The proposed300-cfs minimum flow would increasethe amountof spawninghabitat for Chinook (by 25 percent)and steelhead(by 30 percent). Although not listed underthe ESA, the proposedminimum flow would alsoincrease the amountof spawninghabitat for coho (by 7 percent),chum (by 6 percent),and rainbow trout (by 25 percent),compared to currentconditions. Pink salmonand cutthroattrout spawninghabitat would decreaseby 15 and I7 to 27 percent,respectively, compared to cumentconditions.

89 The proposed300-cfs minimum flow would alsoincrease the amountofjuvenile rearinghabitat for Chinook salmon(by 8 to 11 percent)and steelhead(by 16 to 24 percent),and rainbow (by 8 to 15 percent)in Reach I comparedto currentconditions. The amountof cutthroattrout rearing habitatwould remainessentially unchanged. The amountof mainstemcoho salmonjuvenile rearinghabitat would decreaseby 12 to 15 percent,compared to currentconditions. However, the proposedminimum flows are expectedto increasethe amountof side channelhabitat in Reach 1, which is highly productivecoho salmonrearing habitat.

Reach2 - Reach2 receivesmoderate use by spawningsteelhead, Chinook, and coho salmon,and the confinednature of the channelmakes the availability of fish habitatless sensitive to flow changes.Spawning flows in this reachare generallynot limiting. The District, in consultation with the resourceagencies and other stakeholders,used steelhead-spawning criteia to determine preferred winter and spring minimum flows, and coho rearing criteria to determine summer minimum flows. The proposedseasonal range of minimum flows would increasethe amountof spawninghabitat for fall spawningChinook salmonby 3 to 18 percentcompared to current conditions. The amountof habitatfor pink salmonand spring spawningsteelhead would decreaseby 12-14 and l7 -43percent, respectively. Significant accretion during steelhead spawningseason will mitigate reductionsin spawninghabitat associated with the minimum flow regime. Chum salmon, rainbow and cutthroat trout spawning habitatwould remain essentially the same. Juvenilerearing habitat for all modeledspecies would remain essentiallythe same.

Reach3 - Under existing conditions,Reach 3 has a small populationof residentrainbow trout and is inaccessibleto anadromousfish. The proposedinitial defaultminimum flows would increasespawning habitat for resident rainbow and cutthroat trout, dependingon the month. After completionof volitional fish passageat the Diversion Dam and againin2020, the default minimum flows would either retain the existing amount of spawning habitat for rainbow and cutthroattrout or increaseit from 2 to 36 percent,depending on the month. Rearinghabitat for rainbow and cutthroat trout under the initial default minimum flows would either remain the sameor increaseby up to 28 and46 percent. After completionof volitional fishways,rearing habitatfor rainbow and cutthroattrout would eitherremain the sameor increaseby up to 2I and 37 percent,respectively, dependingon the month, After 2020, rearinghabitat for rainbow and cutthroattrout would increaseby up to 6 to 28 and9 to 46 percent,respectively, depending on the month. Although not modeledduring relicensingstudies, the increasedminimum flows in Reach3 would also likely benefit ESA-listed Chinook and steelheadthat may spawnand rear in this reach. Providing passagealone would increasehabitat availability for anadromousfish, comparedto existing conditions.

During droughtconditions, releases from the Projectfacilities accountfor the vast majority of flows within the SultanRiver. Under the SettlementAgreement, the District would implementa contingencyminimum flow-releaseprotocol for droughtconditions. Thesecontingency flow releaseswould generallyallow for interim modificationsto the proposedrelease schedule to managewater supply during periods of drought.

Implementationof a drought-controlledminimum flow releaseschedule, in consultationwith the ARC, would allow for interim modificationsto the minimum flow regimein all threereaches during periodsof weather-relatedshortages. This flexible approachwould allow the District and

90 stakeholdersthe opportunityto provide asmuch flow aspossible to protectaquatic resources while accountingfor the severity of the drought coupled with anticipatedvoluntary and involuntarymunicipal water usereductions.

The proposedminimum flow in all threereaches of the SultanRiver underthe Settlement Agreementrepresent an increasein minimum instreamflows over cuffent operations.Increasing minimum instreamflows will allow for betterdistribution of spawningadult salmonidsover the availablehabitat and increasethe amountofjuvenile rearinghabitat. Although suchincreases in would representan increasein minimum flows comparedto the natural, unregulatedhydrograph, the FWS believesminimum instreamflow in the SettlementAgreement will mainly benefitbull trout by improving and maintaining spawning and reainghabitat in the lower Sultan River for its prey resources

A-LA 12 Fish Habitat EnhancementPlan

Under A-LA 12, theDistrict proposesto developa comprehensiveFish Habitat Enhancement Plan to guide the implementation of similar aquatichabitat enhancementprojects in addition to thosespecified in otherproposed environmental measures. The plan would be fundedby a habitatenhancement account with a $2.5 million initial deposit,with subsequentdeposits of $200,000starting the tenth year following Licenseissuance and then annuallyfor the term of the License. Potentialprojects that would be fundedby the District throughthe plan could include: instreamstructure enhancements; side channelhabitat development; LWD projects;fish passage barrier removal; gravel augmentation;land purchasesfor aquatic habitat enhancement;up to $3,000in annualfunding for the National ResourcesConservation Service's hydrological monitoring equipment; and other unspecifiedprojects throughout the Sultan River and Snohomish River basins.

If availablefunds remain within this account,the District would implementother appropriate aquatichabitat enhancement and restorationprojects developed by the ARC within the SnohomishRiver Basin; however,any measuresidentified in the plan for implementationin a locationthat is both (1) outsidethe SultanRiver Basin, and(2) outsideof the existingProject boundary,would be limited to actionsthat do not result in an expansionof the Projectboundary. In the eventthat a future landslide causesa barrier to upstreammigration, and the District and the ARC determinethat thereis a relationshipbetween the Projectand the barier, the District would prioritrzethe use of funds to study and,if necessary,modify suchlandslide to removethe barrierto upstreammigration.

Overall,it is anticipatedthat the funds associatedwith this measurewould likely benefitbull trout andprey resourcesin the SultanRiver and otherrivers in the SnohomishRiver Basin throughthe implementationof projectsdesigned to enhanceor increasethe amountof habitatfor thesespecies. In-water work would likely causeshort-term turbidity plumes and sedimentation, and may resultin someinjury or mortality to fish, particularlyyoung-of-the-year salmon. Best managementpractices including in-water work windows, employedduring any constructionand maintenanceactivities and timed to avoid periodswhen the majority of fish arepresent, are anticipatedto minimize potentialadverse effects from projects. Adult and subadultbull trout are lesssusceptible to shorl-termincreases in turbidity and sedimentsbecause of their size and mobility, Impactsto prey resourcesfiuvenile salmonids)are more likely to occur. Such 91 occurencesin combinationwith other actionsthat adverselyaffect bull trout prey abundance may adverselyaffect bull trout's ability to forage. FWS is a memberof the ARC andwill be involved in the developmentof theseprojects. Projectwill alsohave to get FWS approvalbefore being fundedand implemented

A-LA 13 Diversion Dam Volitional Passase

The SultanRiver Diversion Dam at RM 9.7 preventsfish from accessingapproximately 6.68 miles of historicalspawning and rearinghabitat above the Diversion Dam. The only species currentlyknown to persistin Reach3 (DiversionDam to CulmbackDam) areresident rainbow trout, mountainwhitefish, and unidentifiedsculpin.

Under A-LA 13, the District would provide volitional fish passageat the SultanRiver Diversion Dam; the timing of this would be basedon future index areaspawning surveys. The District would make structuralmodifications to the Diversion Dam to provide for the construction, maintenance,and operationof safe,timely, and effectiveupstream and downstreamvolitional fish passageto reintroduceanadromous fish to the river abovethe dam. The District's designfor any upstreamfishway at the Diversion Dam or installationof a fish screenwould conformto criteriain the AnadromousSalmonid Passage Facility DesignManual G\rMFS2008b).

The District would file a Volitional PassagePlan with the FERC within I yearof License issuance.This plan would include: (1) the conceptualdesign drawings and cost estimatesof the proposedupstream and downstreamfishways; (2) the methodand schedulefor implementingthe fishwaysin the eventthat the passagetriggers occur; (3) the method and the schedulefor monitoring annualspawning escapement within the SultanRiver index areasand abovethe Diversion Dam; (a) the method and schedulefor testingandverifying fish passageeffectiveness at the Diversion Dam; and (5) annualmonitoring, reporting, and ARC consultationrequirements.

The District, in consultationwith the ARC, would file the final designfor the Diversion Dam modificationswith the FERC and apply for all necessarypermits within 6 monthsafter the fish passagetrigger occurs. The District would not begin constructionof the fishwaysuntil the ARC, FWS, NMFS, and FERC approvethe final designand plan, and all the necessarypermits have beenobtained. The District would completethe fishwaysno later than two full construction seasonsafter FERC approvalof the final designand plan and obtainingall necessarypermits.

After upstreamfishways have been implemented,the District would not divert water directly from the river to Lake Chaplain from the Diversion Dam in any year in which more than six anadromoussalmonid redds occur abovethe Diversion Dam, unlessno othermeans are available to meet the City of Everett'swater supply requirements.If this water supply requirementis triggered,the District would respondappropriately to prevententrainment of federallylisted fish in consultationwith the ARC. In the eventthat the District installs and operatesa fish screenat the entranceto the tunnel from the Diversion Dam to Lake Chaplain,the District may resumethe direct diversionof SultanRiver water to Lake Chaplainat any time.

92 The SultanRiver Diversion Dam at RM 9.7 hasbeen a completebarrier to upstreamfish migrationsince its constructionin 1916. The lower 6 miles of Reach3 have suitablehabitat for residentand anadromoussalmonids. The averagechannel gradient is moderate(1.6 percent), andthe dominanthabitat types arepools and glides(65 percent)separated by cascades. Providing accessto this historical spawningand rearing habitat between the Diversion Dam and CulmbackDam and implementingthe proposedinterrelated environmental measures (i.e., water temperatureimprovements, instream and processflows, and downramping rate control) would likely increasethe productionof Chinook salmonand steelheadjuveniles. Although conditions would be suitablefor bull trout spawning(i.e. suitabletemperatures and substrate)above the Diversion Dam, it remainsto be seenif bull trout will colonizeReach 3 to spawn. Thereis no documenteduse of the lower river by bull trout for spawning. It is expectedthat any bull trout usingthe SultanRiver for foraging and overwinteringhas the potentialto use the volitional fish passagefacility. The potentialincrease in Chinook and steelheadproduction would benefitbull trout in the termsof an increasedforage base. Sincethis licensearticle is not expectedto be implementedimmediately following licenseissuance, all anadromousspecies including bull trout will continueto be preventedfrom using habitatin Reach3 until the fish passagefacility is constructed.

Effects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat PCEs

Under the ESA, critical habitatis definedhas having severalPCEs. PCEs arephysical and biologicalrequirements that are essentialto the conservationof a given species.The proposed actionwill causqperiodic short-termadverse effects to somePCEs, but all PCEs areexpected to improve over the term of the License. The focusof this analysisis to determineif critical habitat rangewidewould remain functional (or would rctain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally establishedin areasof currently unsuitablebut capablehabitat) to serveits intended recoveryrole for the species.

For the SultanRiver, critical habitatis designatedfrom the confluenceof the SultanRiver with the SkykomishRiver upstreamto the DiversionDam. The proposedaction would havethe following effectson bull trout critical habitatPCEs:

PCE (1): Springs,seeps, groundwater soLrces, and subsurfocewater connectivity(hyporheic flows) to contributeto water quality and quantityand provide thermal refugia.

Under the proposedaction, the Projectwould continueto provide beneficialwater temperature control in Reach1 and Reach2. As the City's water demandincreases, the likelihood that Spada Lake Reservoirwould drop below elevation1,380 feet msl would increase,resulting in cold waterreleases from CulmbackDam (to meetwater withdrawal and minimum flow requirements).While it is likely that thesecold water releaseswould be minimized through implementationof the AMP, theseevents would likely occur in the mid- to late-summer.Cooler watertemperatures in the SultanRiver during this time period are likely to benefit bull trout by providing short-term,cold water refugia,which may be usedby upstreammigrant fluvial and anadromousbull trout as they migrate from PugetSound and the lower SnohomishRiver to upstreamspawning grounds in the Snohomish/Skykomishbasin.

93 PCE (2): Migratory habitatswith minimalphysical, biological, or water quality impediments betweenspawning, rearing, overwintering,andfreshwater and marineforaging habitats, including but not limited to permanent,partial, intermittent,or seasonalbarriers.

The Marsh Creekslide currently restrictsaccess to upstreamspawning and rearinghabitat of somesalmon species and foraging and overwinteringhabitat for bulI trout. Under existing conditions,Project operations limit high flows that could flush the remaininglarge rocks from the slide areaand eventually fully restorefish passage.The primary impedimentto upstream fish migrationwithin the slide areais a turbulent,16-foot-long, two-step chute/small pool/falls with a 46-percentgradient and a channelwidth of 10 to 20 feet. In addition,the DiversionDam at RM 9.7 preventsall anadromousspecies including bull trout from enteringReach 3. Therefore,under existing conditionsand until fish passageat the Marsh CreekSlide is addressed underLicense article A-LA 2,the Migration Corridor PCE is properly not functioning.

Under the proposedaction, the Migration Corridor PCE would be improvedby correctingthe fish blockageatthe Marsh Creek Slide,providing fish passageat Diversion Dam, increasingthe minimum instreamflow requirements,providing beneficialwater temperaturesin Reach1 and Reach2, andimproving side channelconnectivity in Reach L

PCE (3): An abundantfood base,including teruestrialorganisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates,and forage fish.

The SultanRiver supportsa robustpopulation of pink salmon(odd-year run). Bull trout are known to prey heavily on pink salmon eggs,flesh , and fry (Lowery 2009, page 29). In addition, Chinook, coho and steelheadalso spawnin largenumbers in the SultanRiver. Conservation measuresto improve instreamflows in the lower Sultan,to improve habitatconditions especially in Reach 1, andto improve or restorefish passageat the Marsh Creek and the Diversion Dam shouldprovide increasedspawning and rearing capacityin the SultanRiver Basin for all salmon species.It is expectedthat the proposedaction would continueto supportan increasingtrend in salmonabundance in the SultanRiver. If properly implemented,these actions are anticipatedto increasethe foragebase for bull trout over the Licenseterm. Actions that increasesediment (in- water habitatprojects) or scourredds (process flows) could result in temporaryreductions in bull trout prey in someyears.

PCE (a): Complexriver, stream,lake, reservoir,and marine shorelineaquatic environmentsand processeswith features such as large wood, side channels,pools, undercutbanlcs and substrates, to provide a variety of depths,gradients, velocities,and structure.

The increasedminimum flows underthe ProposedAction will maintain sufficient streamflow in the Lower SultanRiver to ensurea variety of depthsand velocities. Flushing flows that will also be implementedunder SettlementAgreement are expectedto result in increasedstream channel complexity (throughscour and redistributionof wood and sediment)and contributeto the formationof undercutbanks and side-channelhabitat, Under the SettlementAgreement, funds will be availableto implement a wide rangeof aquatichabitat enhancement projects. These projectswill incorporateadditional large woody debrisand improve side-channelhabitat in the lower river. Theseprojects, although important to the long-termmaintenance of habitatin the lower SultanRiver, will result in short-termsediment pulses that could rendersome habitat

94 unsuitablefor short-periodsof time following installation. As previouslydiscussed, these measuresare expectedto promotesuccessful bull trout foragingand overwinteringhabitat throughoutthe action area, The lower SultanRiver will continueto not experiencethe full range of pre-Projectflows becauseof the existenceof CulmbackDam. oC PCE (5): Watertemperatures rangingfrom 2 to l5 (36 to 59 "F), with adequatethermal refugia availablefor temperaturesat the upper elevation end of this range. Specific temperatureswithin this range would vary dependingon bull trout life history stage andform; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonalvariation; shade,such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwaterinfluence.

Under existing conditions, water temperaturesin the lower Sultan River are within temperature tolerancesfor foraging and overwinteringbull trout. Beneficialwater temperaturecontrol would continueto be provided underthe proposedaction and increasesin instreamflows would also occur. Therefore,it is expectedthat properly functioningwater temperature conditions for foraging,migration, and overwinteringhabitat would be maintainedand improvedover the new licenseterm.

PCE (7): A natural hydrograph,including peak, high, low, and baseflows within historic and seasonalranges or, ifflows are controlled,they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph.

Flows in the lower SultanRiver havebeen regulated by the Project sinceits installation. ln general,the regulatedhydrograph has negatively affectedthe quality and quantity of aquatic habitat in the lower Sultan River. Vegetation encroachmentin the lower alluvial reach is a direct resultof flow alteration. Riparianvegetation has reduced the activechannel arearn the alluvial reachand sidechannels in the SultanRiver arerelict features,a consequenceof vegetation encroachmentinto formerly active channelsof the river. The Project would continue to reduce peak flows and increaseminimum flows comparedto the natural unregulatedhydrograph under the proposedaction perpetuatingsimilar habitx degradationin the near term, However, the new FERC-licensewill provide additionalreleases in the form of channelflushing, channel maintenance,channel forming flows (processflows) to more closelymimic the natural hydrographand improve habitatconditions in the lower river andbegin to reversethe adverse effects of a man-alteredhydrograph.

PCE (8): Sfficient water quality and quantitysuch that normal reproduction,growth, and survival are not inhibited.

The flow schedulesin the SettlementAgreement attempt to mimic the naturalseasonal variation in the lower SultanRiver. ln addition,the Project'sminimum flow scheduleimproves on the existingLicense schedule in timing and volume. The flow schedulesin the Settlement Agreementwill substantiallyimprove bull trout habitatby improving foraging and overwintering habitatin the lower SultanRiver. However.because of the existenceof CulmbackDam, the lower SultanRiver will not experiencethe full rangeof pre-damflows.

PCE (9): Few or no non-nativepredatory (e.g.,lake trout, walleye,northern pike, smallmouth bass);inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive(e.g., brown trout) speciespresent.

95 Speciesthat may interbreedor directly competewith bull trout, such asbrook trout, arenot known to occurin the lower SultanRiver and thereare no proposalsin the new FERC-licenseto introducethese species or affect their abundanceor distributionin the lower SultanRiver in any way.

The proposedaction is anticipatedto improve all proposedbull trout critical habitatPCEs in the SultanRiver over the term of the proposedFERC License, Habitat enhancements(i.e., side channelsand LWD) and the implementationof processflows are expectedto improve bull trout foraging,migration, and overwinteringhabitat uses over the term of the proposedFERC-license. In the near term, fish blockageat the Marsh CreekSlide and the Diversion Dam will continue impedebull trout distributionin the lower SultanRiver, CulmbackDam will continueto negativelyaffect the recruitmentof largewoody debrisand alterthe naturalhydrograph by increasingminimum flows and reducingmost peak flows.

Effects to Marbled Murrelets

Most of the environmentalmeasures included under the proposedaction addressaquatic resources,andlor would occur in areasthat do not overlap with suitable habitat for murrelets. The following actions have the potential to adverselyaffect murrelets or their suitable habitat. Theseactions include the Marsh CreekSlide Modification and Monitoring Plan (A-LA 2); RecreationResource Management Plan (R-LA 1), TerrestrialResource Management Plan (T-LA 1), Noxious WeedManagement Plan (T-LA 2),Marbled Murrelet Habitat ProtectionPlan (T-LA 3); and developmentof site-specificplans for habitator ground-disturbingactivities on NFS lands, The following sectionsdiscuss the effectsof eachof thesemeasures on murreletand suitable habitaq as well as the Lake Chaplain Tract Land ManagementOff-License Agreement andhazardtree removal alongtrails and roads. Although measuresare included to minimize and mitigatepotential adverse effects from licenseimplementation on murrelets,they arenot anticipatedto fully avoid adverseeffects from occurring.

Adverseeffects to murreletscan occurwhen known or potentialnest treesare felled, or when the forestsurrounding nest trees is materially alteredby the felling of other trees. Noise disturbance during the nestingseason can also adverselyaffect murreletswhen murrelets are activeat their nests, Human activity can indirectly affectmurrelets by attractingmurrelet predators, such as ravens,crows, andjays to occupiedhabitats. The District has developeda Marbled Murrelet HabitatProtection Plan (MMHPP)(SnoPUD 2009)that describesmeasures the District would implementto avoid or minimize habitator disturbanceimpacts on murreletsthat could result from any Project-relatedoperations or activities.

A-LA 2 Marsh Creek Slide Modification and Monitorins Plan

The District proposesto identify methodsand a schedulefor modifying the slide to facilitatefish passage.Methods under considerationinclude using helicopters,ahrgh-lead cable system, crawlertractor andwinch line, hand-operatedequipment (i.e. jackhammer), and blasting, or somecombination of thesemethods. Potentiallysuitable habitat for the murreletis located within 1 mile of the Marsh Creek slide. The District surveyedan 8.3-acrestand of suitable habitat on City-owned land within the Lake Chaplain Tract of the WHMP in2007 and 2008 and no murreletswere detected,Another approximately6.5-acre stand of potentially suitablehabitat

96 within 1 mile of the Marsh Creekslide was not surveyeddue to ownershipconcems and it was not known that modifications would be made to the Marsh Creek Slide at that time. This potentially suitable habitat is directly acrossfrom the slide and runs upstreamand downstream the adjacentbank. Both tractsprovide similar habitat. The potentialhabitat adjacent to the slide is a narrow strip lessthan 300 feet-wide,with the exceptionof a small portion of the southern end that is adjacentto suitable habitx on Washington Departmentof Natural Resources'(DNR) land,which was surveyedin 2006 and2007 andno marblemurrelets were detected(Figure 9).

97 E'!/4 mil€ bufier Owner ..'oth€r .'CITY OF EVERETT .-.DNR

Figure 9. Marsh Creek slide areacover type map.

98 Accordingto the MMHPP, suitablehabitat would be consideredoccupied unless surveyed and shownto be unoccupied. Surveysmust be to PSG protocol andprocedures and layout approved by WDFW or the FWS or both. The 8.3 acresof suitablehabitat was surveyedto PGS protocol and found to be unoccupied.The additionalpotentially suitable habitat has not beensurveyed nor hasit beendetermined to be suitable. Therefore,prior to commencingwork on Marsh Creek Slide the District would assessthis habitatto determineif it is suitable. If it is considered suitableit would alsobe consideredoccupied until surveyswere conductedand occupancywas determined.If occupied,work will be scheduledoutside the nestingseason (April 1 through September22), at distancethresholds adequate to protectmurrelets from noisedisturbance (table 9) andlor3) with timing restrictions(construction-noise from2 hours after sunriseto 2 hours beforesunset) during the nestingseason.

Thresholddistances for disturbanceto murreletsfrom severalactivity types are shownin Table 9. The District will adhereto thesethreshold distances during the nestingseason. In addition,no suitablehabitat will be removedduring the restorationof fish passageat the Marsh CreekSite. The plan to improve fish passageat the March CreekSlide and any proposeddeviation from the MMHPP will be reviewedand approvedby FWS prior to implementationto ensurethe likelihood of murreletsbeing disturbedduring constructionactivities at Marsh Creekslide is discountable.

Table 9 Thresholddistances to protectthe marbledmurrelet from noise disturbanceassociated with constructionactivities. Activity Threshold Distancet Blast > 2 pounds 1.0mile Blast< 2 pounds 120yards Impact pile driver, jackhammer, rock drill 60 yards Helicopter, single-engineairplane 120yards Chainsaw 45 yards Heavy equipment 35 yards Thresholddistances are based on USFWS 2003.

R-LA 1 RecreationResources Management Plan Under the RRMP, the District would improve severalexisting recreational facilities and constructtwo new facilities. Measurescontained in the RRMP are summarizedbelow:

1. Improve Trout Farm Road River AccessSite: The District would betterdefine the existingparking spacesat this accesspoint, removenoxious weeds,revegetate degradedareas with native trees,shrubs and grasses,and remove boulders that interfere with boat launching. The District would alsoimprove informationalsignage and increasemanagement presence to detervandalism and dumpingthat have occurredin the past.

99 2. Improve SouthFork RecreationSite: The District would improve the existingboat ramp to accommodatetrailered boat accessand expand the turn-around area. This measurewould requirethe removal of lessthan 1 acreof mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. This site is expectedto becomethe primary boat launchsite on SpadaLake Reservoir. Improvementsof this boat ramp arenot expectedto significantlyincrease recreationuse ofSpada Lake by boatersin the project area.

a J. Improve Niqhthawk and Bear Creekrecreation sites: The WashingtonState DNR is proposingto abandonthe South ShoreRoad at the South ShoreRecreation Site, and to develop atrall that would provide pedestrianaccess to the Nighthawk andBear Creek recreationsites, and eastwardto the Greiderand Boulder Lake trailheads.As a result, vehiclescould no longer be driven to the Nighthawk or Bear CreekRecreation sites. The District proposesto replaceexisting toilets at both siteswith a differenttype of sanitation facility, remove the concreteboat ramp at Nighthawk, and install new guardrailsatBear Creek. Disturbedareas would be revegetatedwith native tree and shrubspecies and grassessuitable to the site. Changingthe existingroad to a trail and removing the existing concreteboat ramp is expectedto reducerecreation use of these sitesand the associatednoise.

A T. Improve North ShoreRecreation Site and accessacross Culmback Dam: The District proposesto restorehiking and biking recreationaccess to the North ShoreRecreation Site by improving accessacross Culmback Dam. The District would upgradesignage and railings at the North Shore site, and continue to monitor and maintain the picnic areasand vault toilets.

5. Constructa new trail for whitewaterboater access to the SultanRiver Canyon: The District would construct atrail following the existingauxiliary releaseflow line down the face of Culmback Dam to the canyon entrance.

6. Constructnew recreationsite: A new recreationsite nearthe intersectionof the CulmbackDam Road and ForestRoad (FR) 6122 would accommodateparking for six vehicles,two to fourpicnic sites,wildlife-proof trashreceptacles, and interpretive signs. Sometrees and shrubswould be removedon approximately2 aqes of closed canopysapling/pole-sized conifer forestin orderto developthe site.

7. Constructa new trail for hiker and anqleraccess to the SultanRiver Canyon: The District proposesto maintainboth the District-owned0.5-mile portion and the Forest Service-owned0.4 mile portion of FR 6122 that crosseswildlife landsnear Culmback Dam for use as atrall. The District will gatethe trail for public use as atrail for hiking and mountainbiking. The trail will occasionallybe accessedby vehiclesfor administrativeuse by the District, USFS,DNR, and for non-Projectmineral claimants.

Of the sevenrecreation measures listed above,two would have the potentialto affectmurrelets, becausethey arc locatedin or near suitablehabitat. Thesemeasures include: (1) the new recreationsite near CulmbackDam(#6); and(2) the new accessfor hikers and anglersinto the SultanRiver Canyonvia ForestRoad 6122 (#7).

100 New RecreationSite

The new recreationsite is approximately 300 feet from suitable murrelet habita! so construction of the new facility would haveno direct effectson suitablehabitat. Constructionwould require the use of chain saws and heavy equipment for clearing and grading. The MMHPP specifiesthat timing restrictionsand specificdistances will be implementedfor various constructionactivity involving chainsawsand heavy equipmentduring the murrelet nesting season(April 1 and September22). Any deviationsfrom protectionmeasures in the MMHPP during the planning and constructionof this site will be reviewedand approvedby FWS to ensurethe likelihood of murreletsbeing disturbedduring the constructionof this site is discountable.

The useof this recreationsite hasthe potentialto increaserecreational use in the vicinity of suitablehabitat. An increasein recreationaluse can leadto an increasein nestpredators near suitablehabitat. Studieswith artificial nestshave documented nest predation rates are highest within 50 metersof forest edges(including roads or clearcuts),and that predationrates along edgesincreased in areasthat were closeto humansettlements, recreations sites, and in areaswith complexold-growth forest habitat(Raphael et aI2002,p.230). Suitablehabitat is approximately 100meters from the site. The potentialfor attractingnest predators (e.g., ravens, crows, and jays) will be reducedby enforcing tight controls on food waste and other trash that attractsthe predators.To accomplishthis, the District will install wildlife-resistantgarbage containers and post informational signs at the site to alert visitors to the importance of managing waste and litter at this locationto minimize the risk of attractingmurrelet predators to the area. The District will regularly maintain the site to ensurethe containersare functioning properly. Based on the proximity of suitablehabitat to the recreationsite, the small size of the recreationsite (parking for up to six vehicles),and District's effortsto control nestpredator access to food wasteand trash,the FWS doesnot anticipatea measurableincrease in predationin and round the site.

New Trail for Hiker and Angler Accessto the Sultan River Canyon

The District-owned0.5-mile portion and the ForestService-owned 0.4- mile portion of FR 6122 traversessuitable murrelet habitat, Most work neededto maintain the road to appropriate standardswould occur within the existingroad prism. The total areaneeded to be clearedfor maintenanceof the road is not expectedto exceed0.3 acreover the 1-mile distance,since most of the areais alreadyan existingroad prism,

The new trail leadingfrom FR 6122 down to the SultanRiver would also traversesuitable habitat. The District is currently consultingwith the USFS regardingtrail layout and designto avoid the removal of overstorytrees and avoid platform trees. Although the final routehas not yet beendetermined, no more than 0.36 (assumingatotal length of 1 mile anda width of 3 feet) forestedacres would be convertedto trail by removingsmall understorytrees.

The MMHPP (SnoPUD 2009) calls for minimizing the total areaof trail within 100 feet of potentialnest trees, and not felling treeswith nestingplatforms or live dominantor co-dominant treesdirectly adjacentto treeswith platforms,unless necessary for safety,slope stability, and waterquality protection. On June I0,2010, a USFS biologist surveyedthe flag line for the proposedtrails. The survey indicatedthat it is not possibleto keepthe trail more than 100 feet from all nestplatforms at locationsalong the slopeinto the canyon,due to the largenumber of

101 treeswith suitableplatforms. The District will continueto work with the USFS to refine the trail alignmentto minimize the numberof conifer treesto be removed,and to minimize the footprint of the trail, which shouldresult in only minimal effectson the quality of habitatin the stand.

The District would implementtiming restrictionsto preventdisturbance to nestingmurrelets during road conversionand trail construction.Chain sawsand heavy equipmentwould not be usedfor constructionactivities within previouslyspecified distances of suitablehabitat during the murreletnesting season between April 1 and September22. Implementationof thesetiming restrictionswould avoid the likelihood of noisedisturbance to nestingmurelets.

The site describedabove would serveas the trailheadfor visitors using the convertedFR 6122 and new SultanRiver Canyontrail for fishing and whitewaterboater access. The use of this site has the potentialto increaserecreational use near suitable habitat, which, in turn, can leadto an increasein nestpredators near suitablehabitat, Studieswith artificial nestshave documented nestpredation rates are highest within 50 m of forestedges (including roadsor clearcuts),and that predationrates along edgesincreased in areasthat were closeto human settlements, recreationssites, and in areaswith complex old-growth foresthabitat (Raphael et aL2002,p. 230). The potentialfor attractingnest predators (e.g., ravens, crows, andjays) will be reducedby enforcingtight controlson food wasteand othertrash that attractsthe predators. To accomplish this, the District will install wildlife-resistantgarbage containers and post informationalsigns at the siteto alert visitors to the importanceof managingwaste and litter at this locationto minimize the risk of attractingmurrelet predators to the area. The District will regularly maintainthe site to ensurethe containersare functioningproperly. Basedon the proximity of suitablehabitat to the recreationsite and District's effortsto control nestpredator access to food wasteand trash, the FWS would not anticipatethis potentialeffect to extendmore than 50 meters from the trailhead.

The level of recreationalactivity within suitablemurrelet habitat is expectedto increaseonce the trail is completed. Increasedactivity in occupiedhabitat could disturb nestingmurrelets, Long and Ralph (1998,pages 18-19) discussed two comparablesituations where hikerswere a potentialdisturbance: Big Basin RedwoodsState Park, California (Singeret al. 1995;Singer, pers.comm.) and the northernCascade Mountains, Washington (Hamer, pers. comm.). "At neitherarea did hikers or park personnelappear to greatlyinfluence murrelet behavior." At the Big Basin site,"incubating birds only rarely showedbehavior suggesting agitation from human presenceor noise," and "no visible reactionto loud talking (or) yelling...nearthe nesttree." The trail to the SultanRiver is expectedto be within 100 feet of sometrees containing suitable nestingplatforms in a few locations,but generally,it will be alignedto stay at least 100 feet from most platform trees. Trail usewill consistmainly of day hikers, fisherpersons,and whitewater boatingenthusiasts transiting the areaduring daylight hoursto accessthe SultanRiver. FWS believesthat the level and type activitiesexpected to occur on the SultanRiver trail is within the rangeof thosediscussed in Long and Ralph (1998,pages 18-19), for example,activities that are foot-based,transitory in nature,and potentially within closeproximity of suitablenest trees. Therefore,the FWS believesit is reasonableto assumethat the increasein recreationalactivities as a resultof trail use is not likely to adverselyaffect murreletsnesting.

r02 T-LA 1 TerrestrialResource Manaeement Plan

With implementationof the TRMP, the District proposesto bring landsunder its ownership (Lost Lake, ProjectFacility Lands,Spada Lake and Williamson Creektracts) into the Project boundaryfor the Project. Thesetracts are collectivelyreferred to asthe "TRMP Lands". The District would managethe TRMP Landsin accordancewith the objectivesestablished under the WHMP, exceptthat Projectlands would be managedwith an emphasison promoting late- successionaland old growth forest habitat conditions. Forest managementactivities under the TRMP includecreating canopy gaps, thinning densestands, creating snags, decaying live trees and coarsewoody debris,and protectingwetland and streambuffers'

The TRMP setsa goal of creatingthree snags and decayinglive treesper acreevery 8 to 12 years in second-growthstands. It alsoprescribes the felling of live treesto createlogs. Gapswould be createdat the discretionof District biologists,and thiruringwould be conductedon a limited basis,where it is economicallyand operationallyfeasible and whereit is likely to acceleratelate- seralforest development. Once second-growthstands reach 100 yearsof age,the TRMP emphasizesstand protection, rather than activemanagement.

Under currentconditions, all of the areasthat are consideredoccupied murrelet habitat are locatedin standsmore than 100 yearsold. As describedabove, the District doesnot proposeto implementforest management activities within standsover 100 yearsold. For this reason,none of the proposedTRMP activitieswould occurwithin suitablehabitat. However,second-growth standsthat arenot currently classified as murrelet habitat may develop conditions within the new Licenseperiod that would trigger a reclassification.The MMHPP specifiesthat the District would updatemurrelet habitat maps every 10 years,to ensurethat protectivemeasures are implementedwhere they areneeded.

Implementingthe TRMP would continueto preserve502 acresof existingold-growth conifer forestknown to be occupiedby murreletsand promote the developmentof old-growth characteristicsin an additional I,II9 acresof second-growthconifer forest. Over the license term the proposedmanagement regime in the TRMP would add 1,119acres of suitablenesting habitatwith similar characteristicsto the existing502 acresof old-growth forestin the Williamson Creekand SpadaLake tractsof the TRMP. Expandingthe amountof available nestinghabitat on Project landswill resultin largeblocks of nestinghabitat and would reduce fragmentation,which we anticipatewould contributeto improvednesting success.

Creatingsnags, decaying live trees,and logs; thinning; and creatingforest canopygaps by felling or topping live treesin second-growthstands could reducethe potentialfor murreletnesting if theseactivities were conductedadjacent to suitablehabitat, because they could affect the buffering capabilities of the habrtat,by making nest treesmore vulnerable to windthrow or by making nestsmore vulnerableto predation. The MMHPP specifiesthe size,species, and density of treesthat should be retained in managedstands to ensureadequate habitat buffering for suitable habitat and to provide for habitat recruitment over time.

103 The MMHPP alsoincludes timing restrictionsthat would be appliedto TRMP activitiesin second-growthstands. Within 300 feet of suitablehabitat, no activitieswould be conducted during the murueletnesting season (April I throughSeptember 22). Beyond 300 feetbut within 0.25 miles of suitablehabitat, no activitieswould be conductedduring the daily peak activity periods(2 hour before official sunriseto 2 hoursafter official sunrise,and2 hour beforeofficial sunsetto 2 hour after official sunset)during the murreletnesting season between April 1 and September22. Any deviations from protection measuresin the MMHPP will be reviewed and approvedby FWS to ensurethe likelihood of murreletsbeing disturbedduring the implementationof the TRMP is discountable.

T-LA 2 Noxious Weed ManaqementPlan

The District proposesto implementa Noxious WeedManagement Plan that would build on the existingVegetation Management Plan and would includemeasures to monitor and control existingweed populations and preventthe introductionand spreadof weedsin the actionarea. Typically, mowing, hand-pulling,herbicide application, or clipping of weedsis usedto manage the spreadof weeds. Given that the primary purposeof the SpadaReservoir is municipal drinking water supply,the use of herbicidesfor weedmanagement on Projectlands has been, and will continueto be, extremelyrestricted. However,the District acknowledgesthe challenge of managingnoxious weedsover such alarge areaexclusively by manualand mechanical methods,and reservesthe option to investigatethe use of chemicalherbicides when no other method of weed managementis effective at achieving control as required by State and/or County regulations.The District's currentVegetation Management Plan includesspecifications for the applicationof pesticides(herbicides) on District lands,including herbicidetoxicity rutings, applicatorcredentials, sensitive area restrictions, and materialsstorage, handling, and record keeping(District 2003,as cited in SmaydaEnvironmental Associates et al. 2008a).

Implementationof the Noxious Weed ManagementPlan is not anticipatedto adverselyaffect murreletsor suitablemurrelet habitat. Most weedpopulations are associatedwith Project facilities,recreation sites, and roads,where grounddisturbance provides suitable soil conditions andtraffic may serveas a vector for spread. During field surveysrn 2007, few weedswere observedin forestedareas (Smayda Environmental Associates et al. 2008b) that could potentially serve as habitat for murrelets. In theseareas only hand-pulling, pack-back spraying of herbicide, or clipping of weedswould be permittedyear-round. Mowing in suitablehabitat would occur outsideof the murelet nestingseason (April 1 to September22) or at thresholddistances from suitablehabitat to protectthe murreletfrom noisedisturbance (Table 9) will be implemented.

Lake ChaplainTract Land ManaeementOff-License Asreement

The Lake ChaplainTract (Figure 8) includesa 44l-acrereservoir and2,198 acresof land in and adjacentto the City of Everett's Lake ChaplainWatershed, The tract is locatedoutside the Projectboundary. Under the currentLicense, the Lake ChaplainTract is managedpursuant to the Wildlife Habitat ManagementPlan (WHMP) for the Project. The WHMP addressesthe mitigation of wildlife effectsresulting from the constructionand operationof the Projectand was preparedby the City of Everett and the District in cooperationwith FWS, WDFW, USFS, and Tulalip Tribes.

t04 Pursuantto the Lake Chaplain Tract Land ManagementOff-License Agreement betweenthe District, the City of Everett,and WDFW, the City will managethe Lake ChaplainTract towards achievingthe managementobjectives and habitat priorities of the WHMP that areapplicable to the Lake ChaplainTract,but within 6 monthsof the effectivedate of the agreement,will develop a site-specificplan. The objectivesof this plan (the Lake ChaplainTract Plan, or LCT Plan) include(1) managingfor a diversity of species;(2) managingfor a higher percentof treesolder than 60 yearsof age;(3) retaininglegacy trees and creatingsnags; (4) limiting clearcutsize to lessthan 26 acres;(5) increasingthe numberof standswith multiple canopylayers by increasing the numberof uneven-agedharvest units; (6) continuingto provide understoryhabitat for deer and other species;(7) applyng adaptivemanagement principles; and (8) implementinghabitat treatmentsbased upon due considerationof the needsof wildlife habitat,water quality, and economics.The City would use the District's wildlife biologist staff or other qualifiedwildlife biologist(s)under the supervisionof the District, for the oversightof the biological aspectsof implementationand monitoring of the LCT Plan. The LCT Plan includesprovisions for monitoring, annual reports, and consultationwith the Partiesto the agreement.

The Lake Chaplain Tract is not located within designatedcritical habitat for the murrelet. The Lake ChaplainTract includesless than 100 acresof suitablenesting habitat for murelets, which are locatedalong the easternshoreline of Lake Chaplainand at HorseshoeBend. Both areasare within existingset-asides that would remainin placeunder the proposedLCT Plan in orderto maintainits consistencywith the goalsand objectivesof the WHMP; no timber harvestwould occur in theseareas. Surveysconducted in both areasin 2007 and2008 indicatedthat these areasare not currently occupied.

Hazard Tree Removal

An estimated3 miles of Projectroads and 1 mile of trail passthrough suitablehabitat, or through forests that arewithin 300 feet of suitable habitat. This number of affected road miles could increaseduring the term of the new license as forestsin and near the Project boundary mature and additionalacres become suitable for murreletnesting, or if the District assumesmanagement responsibilityfor additionalmiles of existingWashington State Department of Natural Resources(WDNR) roads along the south shoreof SpadaLake. Suitable habrtat along the three miles of roadwas surveyedrn200Tand 2008 andno detectionswere observed. Suitablehabitat alongthe trail route was also surveyedduring the sameperiod. Murrelet occupancywas detected in2007, but this site is not within or adjacentto the trail alignment.

Among the routinemaintenance activities conducted by the District arethe pruning, topping and felling of dangertrees (trees capable of falling onto andblocking the road or trail and/orstriking passingvehicles or hikers). To date,these activities have occurred outside the murreletnesting seasonand have resulted in the removal of 580 trees,mostly consistingof alderwith a diameter at breastheight of 10 inchesor less. None of the 580 treescontained platforms. Conducting theseactivities in foreststhat areoccupied or could be occupiedby murreletshas the potentialto directly or indirectly affectnesting success. The pruning,topping, or felling of an occupiedtree during the nestingperiod could lead to injury or deathof murreletchicks or eggsand the significantdisruption of adult nestingbehavior, Felling atree within closeproximity (45 yards) of an occupiedtree could also disturb nestingmurrelets and chicks. Similar activitiesoutside the nestingseason could reducethe availability of suitablenest sitesin successiveseasons. The

105 pruning, topping, or felling of other dominant or co-dominant overstory trees in forests surrounding suitable nesting habitat could also damagenesting trees or exposenest treesto increasedwind damageand make individual nestsmore vulnerable to disturbanceand predation.

Prior to the scheduledpruning, topping, or felling of dangertrees in suitable murrelet habitat, District biologistswill evaluateeach potential danger tree proposed for such activity for nesting platforms. A dangertree will be consideredan imminent threatif it is leaningtoward aroad at an angleof greater than 20 degreesfrom vertical, is upslope from a road or trail and being undercutby erosion,or is otherwisein a conditionthat would lead a professionalforester or other similarly qualified personto concludeit has a reasonablepotential to fall on or acrossthe road or trail without warning.

The District will not prune,top, or fell roadsidedanger trees in or within 300 feet of suitable habitatduring the murreletnesting season (April I throughSeptember 22), unlessthe roadside dangertree poses an imminentthreat to the operationof the Project or safeuse of a Projectroad. Any tree-fellingin or within 300 feet of suitablehabitat that must take placewithin the nesting seasonwill be performedbetween two hours after official sunriseand two hoursbefore official sunset. Outside the murrelet nesting season,the District may prune, top, or fell roadsidedanger trees within suitable habitat. The District will avoid felling trees that contain murelet nesting platformsunless such danger tree posesathreat to the operationof the Project or safeuse of a Projectroad or trial. Although the FWS expectsmost roadsidedanger trees in suitablehabitat to be pruned, topped, or felled outside the murrelet nesting season,there may be rare occasions when ahazardtree locatedin or adjacentto suitablehabitat is an imminent threatof falling on the road or trail and must be removedduring the murreletnesting season. The District estimates that approximately 20 dominateor co-dominatedanger trees in suitable habitat may need to be removedduring the murreletnesting season over the 45 yearlicense term. Although we do not anticipatethat every tree would contain suitablenesting structures,for the purpose of our analysiswe assumethese 20 treeswould be suitablenest trees. We believe felling one or more of thesetrees could result in a significantdisruption of breedingbehavior of adultsand the death of chicks or eggs.The pruning, topping,or felling of thesedominant or co-dominantoverstory treesin forestssurrounding suitable nesting habitat could alsodamage adjacent nesting trees or exposenest trees to increasedwind damageand make individual nestsmore vulnerable to disturbanceand predation. However, accordingto surveysconductedin200T and 2008, only a small proportionof the presencedetections and none of the occupancydetections were alongthe road. In addition,based on decliningpopulation trends the likelihood of thesetrees being occupiedover the licenseterm is reduced. Therefore,we assumeonly a small portion of these twenty treeswould be occupiedover the term of the license.

Helicopters to Install LWD Projects and RestoreMarsh Creek Slide

Helicopters may be used to transport material andlor equipmentto install large woody debris as part of A-LA (Large Woody Debris Projects),A-LA 7 (Side ChannelProjects), A-LA (Fish Habitat EnhancementPlan andlor to restorefish passageunder A-LA 2 (Marsh CreekSlide Modification and Monitoring Plan). Helicopters,especially those used to lift and transportheavy loadsare a significantsource of soundin the environment. In addition to being loud, helicopters are generallyrure in the action area. Adult murrelets will flush in responseto certain activities

106 (Long and Ralph 1998,p. 19), wherechicks show little or no reactionto aircraft flyng overhead ((Long and Ralph 1998,p. 19). Flushingexposes the adult and eggsor chicks to any predatorin the vicinity when they would otherwisebe motionlessand cryptic on the nest. This is presumed to be the most importantconsequence of flushing (Aubrey and Bowles 1990,p. 32). Flushing during feeding activities can also result in abortedfeeding attempts. The adult must then return to foraging habitat, capture anotherprey item and retum to the nest for prey delivery. Since adults average2.2 round-tnp feeding attemptsper day during the breeding season,a single unsuccessfultrip can constitute about a 50 percentreduction in that day's feeding effort, dependingon whether the adult returns to foraging habitat for anotherfeeding attempt. These scenarioscan be considereda significantdisruption of normal behavioras they costthe adult both energyand time that may have been spenton other life-sustaining activities such as foragingand result in a reduction in feeding for the chick. Additional flights also increase exposureof the adult to predation.

Sinceneither of the planswill be fully developedprior to the issuanceof the license,whether or not helicoptersare utilized, the type of helicopters selected,the flight paths chosento approach and leavethe varioussites, are all decisionsthat willbe madepost-license issuance and in coordinationwith the FWS. All applicablemeasures in the MMHPP will be incorporatedinto any final plans for theseprojects including; schedulingwork outside munelet nesting season (April 1 through September22), avoid disturbanceof suitablemurrelet habitat during in the murrelet nesting season,and by applyng the threshold distancesin Table 9 to protect the murrelet from noise disturbance. Any deviations from protection measuresin the MMHPP will be reviewed and approvedby FWS. Therefore,the FWS assumesthe likelihood of murrelets being disturbedor habitatbeing damagedfrom helicoptersis discountable.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State,tribal, local, or private actionsthat are reasonablycertain to occur in the action areaconsidered in this Opinion. Future Federal actions that areunrelated to the proposedaction are not consideredin this sectionbecause they require separateconsultation pursuant to Section7 of the ESA.

The City of Everettwater supply systemis the only otherwater resourcedevelopment located on the SultanRiver. Under existing andproposed conditions, the storageand diversionof water associatedwith the Project alters the natnral hydrology, geomorphologS and water quality in the Sultan River downstreamof Culmback Dam, which in tum affects the quality and quantity of aquatichabitat for resident and anadromousfish, including ESA-listed Chinook, steelhead,and bull trout. In addition to theseProject effects, municipal water withdrawals, the Sultan River Diversion Dam, agriculture, timber harvest,rural development,flood control, and commercial and recreationalfish harvest have and would continue to affect aquatic habitat and fish community structure.

The primary factor affecting old-growth in the Sultan River Basin was timber harvest. Timber harvestbegan in the late 1800sand resultedin the loss of large areasof old-growth conifer forest prior to constructionof PhaseI of CulmbackDam in 1965. Timber harvestin Washingtonsince 1965has varied in responseto economicpressures and environmentalrestrictions, but has t07 generallydropped from year to year sincethe late 1980s. Most remainingold-growth forestin the SultanRiver Basin is on NFS landsmanaged by the USFS and statelands managed by the Washington StateDNR. The remaining old-growth forest is generally protected from harvest underthe currentmanagement policies of both agencies.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current statusof bull trout, the environmentalbaseline for the actionarea,the effectsof the ProposedAction and the cumulativeeffects, it is the FWS's Opinion that the action, asproposed, is not likely to jeopardizethe continuedexistence of bull trout. This determination is basedon the followine rationale:

The measuresrequired by the SettlementAgreement will reducethe effectsto bull trout associatedwith the operationand presenceof the Projectand representa significant improvementover measuresin the existingFERC license.

The adverseeffects of the Projectto instreamflows and overall habitatdiversity in the lower SultanRiver will be reducedthrough the implementationof higher minimum instream flows, processflows, and the implementation of instream habitat featuressuch as large woody debris structuresand side channelsenhancements.

We anticipatethe installationof an upstreamfish-passage facility will restorevolitional fish passageto Reach3.

We anticipatebull trout will benefit from the increasesin the abundanceof prey resourcesresulting from the instreamflow measures,restoration of fish passage,and habitat enhancementsimplemented to improve anadromoussalmon spawning and rearing in the lower SultanRiver.

o The adverseeffects resulting from the constructionof the required measuresin the SettlementAgreement are expectedto persist for less than one year and mainly affect bull trout foraging opportunities in the lower Sultan River due to disturbanceand elevated levelsof sediment.

After reviewing the current statusof murrelet,the environmentalbaseline for the actionarea,the effects of the ProposedAction and the cumulative effects, it is the FWS's Opinion that the action, asproposed, is not likeiy to jeopardizethe continuedexistence of murrelet. This determination is basedon the followins rationale:

108 Implementing the Terrestrial ResourcesManagement Plan in the SettlementAgreement would continueto preserve502 acresof existingold-growth conifer forestknown to be occupied and promote the developmentof similar old-growth characteristicsin an additional1,119 acres of second-growthconifer forest. Expandingthe amountof availablenesting habitat on Project lands will result in large blocks of nesting habitat and reducefragmentation, which we anticipatewould contribute to recovery by improving murrelet nesting successin the action areaover the license term.

Noise disturbancewill be of short duration and will occur orrly during daylight hours, when murrelets are generallyless active. We expectthat theseexposures could temporarily disturb adult and chicks within 45 yards of hazardtree removal activities. However, basedon the intensity and limited duration of thesepotential exposuresof murreletsto noise,we do not expectthese exposures to havemeasurable, short- or long- term effect on juvenile recruitment, murrelet numbers,or productivity at the scaleof the action area,larger landscape,or Conservalion Zone I .

The proposedaction would removeup to 20 dominateor co-dominatehazardtrees in suitable habitat along project infrastructureduring the murrelet nesting seasonover the 45-yearlicense term. Although we do not anticipatethat every tree would contain suitablenesting structures, we believefelling one or more of thesetrees could resultin a significantdisruption of breedingbehavior of adultsand the deathof chicks or eggs. The pruning, topping, or felling of thesedominant or co-dominant trees in forests surrounding suitablenesting habitat could also damageadjacent nesting trees or exposenest trees to increasedwind damageand make individual nestsmore vulnerable to disturbanceand predation. However, accordingto surveysconducted in2007 and 2008, only a small proportionof the presencedetections and none of the occupancydetections were in areas where hazardtree removal is being considered. In addition, basedon deciining populationtrends the likelihood of thesetrees being occupiedover the licenseterm is reduced. Therefore,we assumeonly a small portion of thesetwenty treeswould be occupiedover the term of the license. This actionwill not precludemurrelets from nesting in the action area. We do not expectthe removal of up to 20 hazardtrees during the nestingseason over the 45 yearlicense term to havemeasurable, short- or long-term effect on juvenile recruitment,murrelet numbers, or productivity at the scaleof the action area,lar ger landscape,or Conservation Zone L

o In conclusion,we anticipatethat the direct and indirect (including beheficial)effects of the action, combined with the effects of interrelatedand interdependentagtions, and the cumulativeeffects associated with future State,tribal, local, andprivate actionswill not appreciablyreduce the likelihood of survival and recoveryof the species.The anticipated direct and indirect effects of the action (permanentand temporary) will not measurably reducemurrelet reproduction, numbers,or distribution at the scale of the surrounding landscape(i.e., SultanRiver basin)or in ConservationZone I. The anticipateddirect and indirect effects of the action will not alter the statusor distribution of the murrelet in ConservationZone1 or at the scaleof the coterminousrange. After reviewing the current statusof bull trout critical habitat, the environmental baselinefor the action arca,theeffects of the ProposedAction and the cumulativeeffects, it is the FWS's

109 Opinion that the action,as proposed,will not destroyor adverselymodify designatedbull trout critical habitat. This determination is basedon the followine:

Water temperatures,complex streamchannels, spawning substrate,and the hydrograph will all benefit from the variousflow regimesprovided for by the ProposedAction. For examples:a substantialincrease in the minimum daily flows will benefit foraging, overwintering, and migrating bull trout. Provisions for providing higher flows are intended to benefit fish migration and spawning,to periodically flush organic matter from spawning substrate,to maintain channelgeometry via sedimenttransport, to form new charurelmeanders, and to initiate side-channelactivation. The ProposedAction will restorebull trout connectivityto Reach3 of the lower Sultan River below CulmbackDam openingup approximately6.8 miles of habitatfor foraging and overwintering bull trout and spawning and reainghabitat for several speciesof salmonpotentially increasingthe prey basefor bull trout.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section9 of the ESA and Federalregulation pursuant to section4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangeredand threatenedspecies, respectively, without specialexemption. Take is defined as to harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,or collect, or to attemptto engagein any such conduct. Harm is defined by the FWS as an act, which actually kills or injureswildlife. Suchan act may include significanthabitat modification or degradationwhere it actuallykills or injureswildlife by significantlyimpairing essentialbehavior patterns, including breeding,feeding, or sheltering(50 CFR l7 ,3). Harass is definedby the FWS as an intentional or negligent act or omission which createsthe likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral pattems which include, but are not limited to, breeding,feeding, or sheltering(50 CFR 17,3). Incidentaltake is definedas take that is incidentalto, and not the pulposeof, the canying out of an otherwiselawful activity. Under the termsof Section7(b)(4) and Section7(o)(2), taking that is incidentalto and not intendedas part of the agencyaction is not consideredto be prohibitedtaking underthe ESA providedthat suchtaking is in compliancewith the terms and conditionsof this lncidentalTake Statement,

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE (Bull Trout)

The FWS expectsthat adult and subadultbull trout within 600 feet downstreamof the instream habitat enhancementprojects during construction and up to one year following completion would be taken as a result of constructionactivities associated with the following projects;LWD placementand side-channelenhancement, Take is anticipatedto be in the form of harassment,

110 The FWS expectsthat adult and subadultbull trout within 300 feet of Marsh Creek Slide during one-timeconstruction activities involving explosiveswould be taken. Take is anticipatedto be in the form of harm.

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE (Marbled Murrelet)

The FWS expectsthe harm of murreletchicks or eggsassociated with the 2}hazard treesto be removedduring the nestingseason. This takewill occur over the 45-yearlicense term.

The FWS expectsthe harassmentof adult marbledmurrelets within 45 yardsof the 2)hazard treesto be removedduring the nestingseason. This takewill occur over the 45-yearlicense term.

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

In the accompanyingOpinion, the FWS determinedthat this level of anticipatedtake is not likely to result in jeopardyto the bull trout and murrelet,or destructionor adversemodification of bull trout critical habitat.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

Reasonableand prudent measures(RPM) are non-discretionarymeasures designed to minimize impactson specificindividuals or habitatsaffected by the proposedaction, and involve only minor changesto the Project. Pursuantto 50 CFR 5402.14(I) (ii), RPMs are thosemeasures the FWS considersnecessary to minimize incidentaltake. The FWS believesthe following RPMs are necessaryand appropriateto minimize the incidental take of murrelets.

RPM 1. Minimize the likelihood of bull trout injury andmortality from Marsh CreekSlide modification.

RPM 2. Minimize the extent and likelihood of effects to murrelets from noise disturbance.

RPM 3. Minimize the extent and likelihood of effects to murrelets from habitat modification,

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In order to be exemptfrom the prohibitionsof section9 of the ESA, the District and the FERC must comply with the following terms and conditions(T&C), in additionto the conservation measures,all of which implementthe reasonableand prudent measures described above. T&Cs are nondiscretionary.

111 Implementthe followingT&C to fulfill RPM 1:

T&C 1. Seineand block net the pool below the Marsh Creekslide to removefish that are presentand then prevent fish from entering the pool during any blasting that is deemedharmful to fish.

Implementthe following T&C to fulfill RPM 2:

T&C 1. Prohibit helicopterswithin .5 miles of suitablemurrelet habitat during the murreletnestins season.

Implementthe following T&C to fulfill RPM 3:

T&C 1. Use the USFS manual(2008), "Field Guide for DangerTree Removal Identificationand Response"as additionalguidance to the MMHPP when identify and removing dangertrees in and adjacentto murrelet habitat,

T&C 2. If suitablenesting trees are to be felled during nestingseason, they shouldbe removedas early or as late in the nestingseason as possible.

T&C 3. Contactthe FWS to discusspotential options to reduceeffects to murreletsprior to the removal of potentialnest trees in suitablehabitat during the nestingseason.

T&C 4. UpdateMMHPP to reflect new information in this Opinion.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section7(a)(l) of the ESA directsFederal agencies to utilize their authoritiesto furtherthe purposesof the ESA by canying out conservationprograms for the benefit of endangeredand threatenedspecies. Conservation recommendations are discretionaryagency activities to minimize or avoid adverseeffects of a proposedaction on listed speciesor critical habitat, to help implementrecovery plans, or to developinformation.

The FWS offers the District and the FERC the following conservationrecommendations:

l. The District and the FERC shouldwork closelywith the FWS during the development and implementation of all plans to further mtnimrze adverseeffects to bull trout and murreletsin the action area.

2. Updatethe MMHPP every 10 yearsin coordinationwith the FWS to reflect new information.

rt2 a J. Conductno activitiesgenerating noise above ambient levels within 0.25 miles (1 miles for blastingand 0.5 miles for helicopters)of suitablemurrelet nesting habitat from April 1 to September22.

+.A Survey for murrelets in all suitable habitat in the action area.

5. The surveyresults and field notesof monitoring efforts for listed speciesshould be documentedand sent to the FWS on an arurualbasis, in order to maintain and update baselineinformation. and to facilitate future consultations.

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludesformal consultationon the action(s)outlined in the (request/reinitiationrequest). As providedin 50 CFR 402.16,reinitiation of formal consultationis requiredwhere discretionaryFederal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained(or is authorizedby law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;(2) new information reveals effects of the agency action thaLmay affect listed speciesor critical habitat in amanner or to an extent not consideredin this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causesan effect to the listed speciesor critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new speciesis listed or critical habitatdesignated thaLmay be affectedby the action. In instanceswhere the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded,any operationscausing such take must ceasepending reinitiation.

113 LITERATURE CITED3

Battin,J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus,R.N. Palmer,E. Korb, K.K.Bartz, andH. Imaki. 2001. Projectedimpacts of climate changeon salmonhabitat restoration. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of SciencesI04:6720-6125.

Biota Pacific. 2008a. JacksonHydroelectric Project (FERC ProjectNo. 2157) RevisedStudy Plan 11: Marbled Murrelet SurveysFinal TechnicalReport. Preparedfor Public Utility District No. 1 of SnohomishCounty, Everett, WA. August 2008.

Biota Pacific. 2008b. JacksonHydroelectric Project (FERC ProjectNo. 2157) RevisedStudy Plan 12: Northern SpottedOwl SurveysFinal TechnicalReport. Preparedfor Public Utility District No. i of SnohomishCounty, Everett, WA. August 2008.

Casola,J.H., J.E. Kay, A.K. Snover,R.A. Norheim,L.C. Whitely Binder andthe Climate ImpactsGroup. 2005. Climate Impactson Washington'sHydropower, Water Supply, Forests,Fish and Agriculture. A report preparedfor King County (Washington) by the Climate ImpactsGroup (Centerfor Sciencein the Earth System,Joint Institutefor the Study of the Atmosphereand Ocean,University of Washington,Seattle). 43 p.

CHzMHill. 2005. ProjectEffects on AnadromousSalmonids and Bull Trout in the Sultan River. Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project. FERC No. 2157. Preparedfor the Public Utility District No. 1 of SnohomishCounty, City of Everett, Washington. April 2005.

FederalEneryy RegulatoryCommission (FERC). 2010. Draft EnvironmentalAssessment for HydropowerLicense, Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project - FERC ProjectNo. 2157- 188,Washington. FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission Office of EnergyProjects Division of Hydropower Licensing. 888 First Street,NE Washington,DC 20426. May 20T0.

Hunter,M.A. 1992. Hydropower Flow Fluctuationsand Salmonids:A Review of the Biological Effects,Mechanical Causes, and Optionsfor Mitigation. Stateof Washington Departmentof Fisheries. TechnicalReport No. 119. September1992.

ISAB (IndependentScientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate changeimpacts on Columbia River basinfish and wildlife. ISAB, Report2007-2, Portland, Oregon.

IPCC (IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change).2007. Climate ChangeReport, 2007. Available at: http://www.ipcc. chlipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

Long, L.L. andC.J. Ralph. 1998. Regulationand observationsof human disturbancenear nestingmarbled murrelets. USDA ForestService, Pacific SouthwestResearch Station, RedwoodSciences Laboratory, Arcata,CA. June 1998. Available at: http://www. fs. fed.us/psw/publications/long/ 19 9 8 lone disturbance.pdf.

3 Literature cited for all sections except Statusof the Species(Bull Trout), Statusof CriticalHabitat (Bull Trout), and Status of the Species(Marbled Murrelet) tr4 Lowery, E.D. 2009. Trophic relationsand seasonaleffects of predationon Pacific salmonby fluvial bull trout in a riverine food web. M.S. thesis,University of Washington,Seattle, wA.

NMFS (NationalMarine FisheriesService). 2008. SpeciesAct - Section7 ConsultationFinal Biological Opinion andMagnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and ManagementAct EssentialFish Habitat Consultation for Implementationof the National Flood Insurance Programin the Stateof Washington. PhaseOne Document- PugetSound Region. NationalMarine FisheriesService, Northwest Region. NMFS Tracking No.: 2006- 00472.

NOAA Fisheries.2008. AnadromousSalmonid Passage Facility Guidelinesand Criteria. http://www.nwr.noaa.qov/lhvdrop/hydroweb/docs/Passagecriteria.extrevdraft.pdf NOAA Fisheries,Portland, Oregon. g2 ResourceConsultants. 2009. (Draft) JuvenileFish Abundance,Life History and Distribution within the SultanRiver, Washington- RSP 5. Preparedfor: Public Utility District No. 1 of SnohomishCounty. Preparedby: R2 ResourceConsultants, Inc. Redmond, Washington. February27, 2009.

Raphael,M.G., Evans,D.M., Marzluff, J.M., Luginbuhl, J.M., 2002. Effectsof forest fragmentationon populationsof the marbledmurrelet. Studiesin Avian Biology 25, 22T-235.

Rieman,B.E., D. Isaak,S. Adams,D. Horan,D. Nagel, C. Luce, D. Myers. 2007. Spatial variation in anticipatedclimate changeeffects on bull trout habitats acrossthe interior ColumbiaRiver basin. Transactionsof the AmericanFisheries Society 136: 1552-1565.

Ruggerone,G. T. 2006. Evaluationof Salmonand SteelheadMigration throughthe Upper SultanRiver CanyonPrior to Dam Construction,dated July 2006. Preparedby Natural ResourcesConsultants, for the City of Everett.

SharedStrategy for Puget Sound. 2007. PugetSound salmon recovery plan. Preparedby SharedStrategy Development Committee, Seattle, Washington. Available at http://www. sharedsalmonstrategy. org/.

SmaydaEnvironmental Associates, Inc., R2 ResourceConsultants, Inc. and Biota Pacific. 2008b. Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2157) Study Plan 8: Noxious Weed Inventory. Preparedfor Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County and City of Everett. January2008.

SnohomishCounty PUD. 2009a. Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2157. Application for New LicenseMajor Project- Existing Dam 18 CFR, Parts4 and5, SubpartF, Section4.51 Volume I, Part 2 of 2. Exhibit E. Preparedby: Public Utility District No. 1 of SnohomishCounty. With assistanceby: Meridian Environmental,Biota Pacific,R2 ResourceConsultants, CH2M HILL, EDAW, Historical ResearchAssociates, andVan NessFeldman. Mav 29.2009.

115 SnohomishCounty P[ID. 2009b. Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project, FERC ProjectNo. 2157;Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project Settlement Joint ExplanatoryStatement and SettlementAgreement for the Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project. October9, 2009.

SnohomishCounty PIID, 2010. Henry M. JacksonHydroelectric Project, Biological Assessment.Prepared for SnohomishCounty PUD by Meridian Environmental,Inc., Seattle,Washington. pp. 146.

Stillwater Sciencesand Meridian Environmental. 2008a. RevisedStudy Plan 18: Riverine, Riparianand Wetland Habitat Assessment,technical report. Preparedfor Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1.

Stillwater Sciencesand Meridian Environmental, 2008b. RevisedStudy Plan22: SultanRiver PhysicalProcess Studies, Final TechnicalReport. Preparedfor SnohomishCounty Public Utility District No. 1.

U.S, ForestService (IJSFS). 2008. Field Guide for DangerTree Removal Identificationand Response.United StatesDepartment of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 64 pages.

USFWS. 2008a. Bull Trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) 5-Year Review: Summaryand Evaluation, Portland,OR. http://www. fws. eov/pacifi c/bulltrout/5yr%20Review/BTFINAL 42508.pdf

116 LITERATURE CITED Status of the Species(Bull Trout)

Battin, J,, M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus,R.N. Palmer,E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H' Imaki. 2007. Projectedimpacts of climate changeon salmonhabitat restoration. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciencesof the United Statesof America l0aQQ:6720-25.

Baxter,C.V. 2002. Fish movementand assemblagedynamics in a Pacific Northwestriverscape. Doctor of Philosophy. OregonState University, Corvallis,OR.

Baxter,J.S., E.B. Taylor, and R.H. Devlin. 1997. Evidencefor naturalhybridrzation between dolly varden (Salvelinusmalma) and bull troat (Salvelinusconfluentus) in a northcentral British Columbiawatershed. CanadianJournalof Fisheriesand Aquatic Science54:42I- 29.

Beauchamp,D.A. and J.J.VanTassell. 2001. Modeling seasonaltrophic interactionsof adfluvial bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 130:204-16.

Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habitsof bull char(Salvelinus confluentus), and rainbow trottt (Salmo gairdneri), coexistingin a foothills streamin northem Alberta. CanadianField-Naturalist r0r(1):56-62.

Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclatureand distributionof the bull trout and the effectsof humanactivity on the species.Pages I-4,ln: Howell, P.J.and D.V. Buchanan(eds). Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the AmericanFisheries Society, Corvallis, OR.

Bonneau,J.L. and D.L. Scarnecchia.1996. Distribution ofjuvenile bull trout in a thermal gradientof a plunge pool in GraniteCreek, Idaho. Transactionsof the American FisheriesS ociety 125(4) :628 -3 0.

Brenkman,S.J. and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromyin bull trout and implicationsfor conservationof a threatenedspecies. North American Journalof FisheriesManagement 25:1073-B1'

Brewin, P.A. and M.K. Brewin. 1997. Distributionmaps for bull trout in Alberta. Pages209- 16.In: Mackay,W.C., M.K. Brewin,and M. Monita (eds).Friends of the Bull Trout ConferenceProceedings. Bull Trout TaskForce (Alberta),c/o Trout Unlimited, Calgary.

Brown, L.G. 1994. The zoogeogtaphyand life history of Washingtonnative charr. Report# 94-04. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Widlife, FisheriesManagement Division, Olympia, WA, November, 1992,47 pp.

Buchanan,D.V. and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Developmentof water temperaturestandards to protectand restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water speciesin Oregon. Pages 119-26.ln:Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewing, and M. Monita (eds).Friends of the Bull Trout ConferenceProceedings, Alb erta, Canada.

I17 Cavender,T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distributionof the bull trout, Salvelinusconfluentus (Suckley),from the American Northwest. CaliforniaFish and Game 64(3):139-74.

Donald,D.B. and D.J. Alger. 1993, Geographicdistribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. CanadianJournal of Zoology 7I:238-47,

Dunham,J.8., B.E. Rieman,and G. Chandler. 2003. Influenceof temperatureand environmental variables on the distribution of bull trout within streamsat the southern margin of its range. North American Journalof FisheriesManagement23:894-904.

Fraley,J.J. and B,B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecologyand populationstatus of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)in the FlatheadLake and River system,Montana. Northwest Science63 :133 -43.

Frissell,C.A. 1993. Topology of extinctionand endangermentof native fishesin the Pacific Northwestand California. ConservationBiolo gy 7(2):342-54.

Frissell,C.A. 1999. An ecosystemapproach to habitatconservation for bull trout: groundwater and surfacewater protection. OpenFile ReportNumber 156-99. FlatheadLake Biological Station,University of Montana,Polson, MT,46 pp.

Gamett,B.L. 2002. Telephoneconversation06120102 with ShelleySpalding, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,re: relationshipbetween water temperatureand bull trout distribution and abundancein the Little Lost River, Idaho.

Gerking,S.D. 1994. Feedingecology of fish. AcademicPress, San Diego, California. 51 pp.

Gilpin, M. 1997. Bull trout connectivityon the Clark Fork River.

Goetz,F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinusconfluentus, a literaturereview. Willamette National Forest,Eugene, Oregon. 53 pp.

Goetz,F., E. Jeanes,and E. Beamer. 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore.Preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers,Seattle, Washington, June, 2004,396 pp.

Hoelscher,B. and T.C. Bjornn. 1989. Habitat,density, and potentialproduction of trout and char in PendOreille Lake tributaries. ProjectF-710R-10, Subproject III, Job No. 8. Idaho Deparlmentof Fish and Game,Boise, Idaho.

Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan. 1992. Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapterof the American FisheriesSociety, Corvallis, Oregon.67 pp.

IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game, 1995. List of streamscompiled by IDFG wherebull trout havebeen extirpated.

118 Leary,R.F. and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Geneticconfirmation of sympatricbull trout andDolly Vardenin westernWashington. Transactionsof the AmericanFisheries Society 126:715- 20.

Leathe,S.A. and P.J. Graham. 1982. FlatheadLake fish food habitsstudy. ContractR008224- 01-4. US EPA, Region VIII, Water Division, Denver,Colorado, October, 1982,209 pp.

MBTSG (The MontanaBull Trout ScientificGroup). 1998. The relationshipbetween land managementactivities and habitat requirementsof 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 (Salvelinusconfluentus) life-history and habitatuse in relation to compensationand improvementopportunities. Fisheries ManagementReport Number 104. Departmentof Zoology,University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC, 31 pP.

McPhail, J.D. and C.B. Munay. 1979. The early life-history and ecologyof dolly varden (SalvelinusMatma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Departmentof Zoology and Institute of Animal ResourceEcology, Fort Steele,British Columbia, 113pp.

Myrick, C.A., F.T. Barrow,J.B. Dunham, B.L. Gamett,G. Haas,J.T. Peterson, B. Rieman,L.A. Weber,and A.V. Zale. 2002. Bull trout temperaturethresholds: Peer review summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Lacey, Washington, 13 pp.

ODEQ (OregonDepartment of EnvironmentalQuality). 1995. 1992-1994Water quality standardsreview: Dissolvedoxygen - Final issuepaper. OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality, Porlland, OR.

Pratt,K.L. 1985. Habitat use and speciesinteractions ofjuvenile cutthroat,Salmo clarki, and bull trout, Salvelinusconfluentus, in the upperFlathead River basin. University of Idaho, Moscow,ID.

Pratt,K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages5-9.In: Howeli, P.J.and D.V. Buchanan(eds). Proceedings of the GearhartMountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapterof the American FisheriesSociety, Corvallis, OR.

Pratt,K.L. and J.E. Huston. 1993. Statusof bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) in Lake Pend Oreille and the lower Clark Fork River. WashingtonWater Power Company,Spokane, WA,200 pp.

Quigley,T.M. and S.J.Arbelbide. 1997. An assessmentof ecosystemcomponents in the interior Columbia Basin and portionsof the Klamath and GreatBasins - Volume 3. U S Departmentof Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station 3:1174- 85.

Ratliff, D.E. and P.J.Howell 1992. The statusof bull trout populationsin Oregon. Pages10- 17.ln: Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan(eds). Proceedings of the GearhartMountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapterof the AmericanFisheries Society, Corvallis, OR.

119 Rich, C.F. 1996. Influenceof abiotic andbiotic factorson occurrenceof residentbull trout in fragmentedhabitats, westem Montana. Mastersof Sciencein Biological Sciences. MontanaState University, Bozeman,MT.

Rieman,B.E,, D. Isaak,S. Adams,D. Horan,D. Nagel,C. Luce,and D. Myers. 2007. Anticipatedclimate warming effectson bull trout habitatsand populationsacross the interior Columbia River Basin. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 136(6):1s52-6s.

Rieman,8.E., D. Lee,D. Burns,R.E. Gresswell,M.K. Young,R. Stowell,and P, Howell. 2003. Statusof native fishesin westernUnited Statesand issuesfor fire and fuels management. ForestEcolo gy and ManagementI7 8(I -2):197-21 1 .

Rieman,8.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status,and likely future trendsof bull trout within the ColumbiaRiver and Klamath River basins. North AmericanJoumal of FisheriesManagement 17 :1 I 1I - 15.

Rieman,B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre. 1996. Spatialand temporal variability in bull trout redd counts. North American Joumal of FisheriesManagement 16:132-41.

Rieman,B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre. 1993. Demographicand habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. GeneralTechnical Report INT-302. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, 38 pp.

Rieman,B.E. and J,D. Mclntyre. 1995. Occurrenceof bull trout in naturally fragmentedhabitat patchesof varied size. Transactionsof the AmericanFisheries Society 124(3):285-96.

Sedell,J.R. and F,H. Everest. 1991, Historic changesin pool habitatfor ColumbiaRiver Basin salmonunder study for TES listing. Draft U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Report. Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, Corvallis, Oregon, 6 pp.

Sexauer,H.M. and P.W. James. T997. Microhabitatuse by juvenile trout in four streamslocated in the eastemCascades, Washington. Pages 36I-70.1n: McKay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita (eds).Eriends of the Bull Trout ConferenceProceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited, Calgary,Alberta, Canada.

Simpson,J.C. and R.L. Wallace. 1982. Fishesof Idaho. University of Idaho Press,Moscow, ID. 93 pp.

Spruell,P., B.E, Rieman,K.L. Knudsen,F.M. Utter, and F.W. Allendorf. 1999. Genetic populationstructure within streams:Microsatellite analysis of bull trout populations. Ecologyof FreshwaterFish 8:II4-2I.

Stewart,D.B., N.J, Mocltnacz,C.D, Sawatzky,T.J.Carmichael, and J.D. Reist. 2007. Fish life history and habitatuse in the Northwestterritories: Bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus). CanadianManuscriptReport of Fisheriesand Aquatic Sciences2801. Departmentof Fisheriesand Oceans,Winnipeg, MB, Canada,2007, 54 pp.

t20 Thomas,G. 1992. Statusof bull trout in Montana. MontanaDepartment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,Helena, MT, 83 pp,

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. Bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) draft recoveryplan - Chapter1: Introduction. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon,October, 2002,137 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002b. Bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) draft recoveryplan - chapter2KlamathRiver. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002c. Bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) draft recoveryplan - Chapter25 SaintMary- Belly River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002d. Chapter20 of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)draft recoveryplan: Lower ColumbiaRecovery Unit, Washington. USFWS, Region 1, Portland,Oregon, I02pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004a. Draft RecoveryPlan for the Coastal-Puget Sounddistinct populationsegment of bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus). Volume I: Puget SoundManagement Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic PeninsulaManagement Unit, 277+xvi pp. Portland,Oregon.

USFWS (U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004b. Draft RecoveryPlan for the JarbridgeRiver distinctpopulation segment of the bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon, xii + 132pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Bull trout core areatemplate- completecore areabycore areaanalysis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon, 662 pp.

Watson,G. and T.W. Hillman. 1997. Factorsaffecting the distributionand abundanceof bull trout: an investigationat hierarchicalscales. North AmericanJournal of Fisheries ManagementI7 (2):237 - 52.

WDFW (WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife), FishProInc., and Beak Consultants. 1997. GrandyCreek trout hatcherybiological assessment.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

WDOE (WashingtonDepartment of Ecology). 2002. Evaluatingcriteria for the protectionof freshwater aquaticlife in Washington'ssurface water quality standards- dissolved oyxgen:Draft discussionpaper and literaturesummary. PublicationNumber 00-10-071. WashingtonDepartment of Ecology, Olympia, WA, 90 pp.

I2T LITERATURE CITED Status of Critical Habitat (Bull Trout)

Dunham,J.B. and B.E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulationstructure of bull trout: influencesof physical,biotic, and geometricallandscape characteristics, Ecological Applications 9(2):642-55.

Fraley,J.J. andB.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecologyand population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) in the FlatheadLake and River system,Montana. NorthwestScience 63 :I33 -43.

Hard, J. 1995. A quantitativegenetic perspective on the conservationof intraspecificdiversity. American FisheriesSociety Symposium 77 :304-26.

Healey,M.C. andA. Prince. 1995, Scalesof variationin life history tacticsof Pacific salmon and the conservationof phenotypeand genotype.American FisheriesSociety Symposium17:176-84.

Leary,R.F., F,W. Allendorf, and S.H. Forbes. 1993. Conservationgenetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River drainages.Conservation Biology 7(4):856-65.

MBTSG (The MontanaBull Trout ScientificGroup). 1998. The relationshipbetween land managementactivities and habitatrequirements of bull trout. MontanaFish, Wildlife, and Parks,Helena, Montana, May 1998,77 pp.

Rieman,B,E. and F.W, Allendorf. 2001. Effective populationsize and geneticconseryation criteria for bull trout. North AmericanJournal of FisheriesManagement2I:756-64.

Rieman,B.E. and J.D, Mclntyre. 1993. Demographicand habitatrequirementsfor conservation of bull trout. GeneralTechnical Report INT-302. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, 38 pp.

Rieman,8.E,, J.T. Peterson,and D.E. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) displacedbull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)along longitudinal gradientsin central Idaho streams?Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences63:63-78.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Draft RecoveryPlan for the Coastal-Puget Sounddistinct populationsegment of bull lrout (Salvelinusconfluentus). Volume I: Puget SoundManagement Unit, 389+xvii pp and Volume II: Olympic PeninsulaManagement Unit, 277+xvi pp. Portland,Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)and NMFS ${ational Marine FisheriesService). 1998. EndangeredSpecies Consultation Handbook: Proceduresfor conductingconsultation and conferenceactivities under Section7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act, U.S, GPO:2004-690-27 8. March 1998.

r22 LITERATURE CITED Status of the Species(Marbled Murrelet)

Ainley, D.G., S.G. Allen, and L.B. Spear. 1995. Offshoreoccurrence patterns of marbled munelets in centralCalifornia. Pages361-69. In: Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet GeneralTechnical Report: PSW-GTR-IS2. Pacific Southwest ExperimentalStation, U.S. ForestService, Albany, Califomia. 420 pp'

Bargmann,G. 1998. Foragefish managementplan: A Plan for managingthe foragefish resourcesand fisheriesof Washington. Olympia, Washington,66 pp.

Beale,C.M. andP. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance:People as predation-freepredators? Journalof Applied Ecology4l(7):335-43.

Becker,B.H., S.R.Beissinger, and H.R. Carter. 2001. Effectsof oceanographicvariation on marbledmurrelet diet and habitatselection. University of Califomia at Berkeley, Berkeley,CA.

Becker,B.H. and S.R. Beissinger, 2006. Centennialdecline in the trophic level of an endangeredseabird after fisheriesdecline. ConservationBiology 20(2):470-79.

Becker,B.H.,M.Z. Peery,and S.R. Beissinger. 2007. Oceanclimate and prey availability affect the trophic level and reproductive successof the marbled murrelet, an endangered seabird. Inter-ResearchMarine Ecology ProgressSeries 329:267-79,

Beissinger,S.R. 1995. Populationtrends of the marbledmurrelet projected from demographic analyses.Pages 385-93. In:Ptalph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report: PSW- GTW-I52. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

Beissinger,S.R. 2002. Analysis of the effectsof a l0o/oreduction of populationsize on marbled murreletpopulation dynamics in Northem California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata,CA, April 5,2002,10pp.

Beissinger,S.R. and M.Z.Peery. 2003. Range-wideanalysis ofjuvenile ratios from marbled murreletmonitoring programs:Implications for demographicanalyses. University of Califomia, Berkeley,CA. 30.

Bentivoglio,N., J. Baldwin,P.G.R. Jodice, D. EvansMack, T. Max, S. Miller, S.K. Nelson,K. Ostrom,C.J. Ralph, M.G. Raphael,C.S. Strong,C.W. Thompson,and R. Wilk. 2002. Northwest Forest Plan marbled murrelet effectivenessmonitoring 2000 Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon, 73 pp.

Bloxton, T.D. and M.G. Raphael. 2008. Breedingecology of the marbledmurrelet in Washingtonstate: project update2004-2007. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand U.S. ForestService, 32 pp.

t23 Booth, D.E, 1991. Estimatingpre-logging old-growth in the Pacific Northwest. Joumalof Forestry89 (I 0):25 -29 .

Bradley,J,E. and J,M. Marzluff. 2003. Rodentsas nestpredators: Influences on predatory behaviorand consequences to nestingbirds. Auk 120:1 180-87.

Burger,A.E. 1995. Marine distribution,abundance and habitat of marbledmurrelets in British Columbia,Pages 295-3T2.In: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report.PSW- GTW-152. Paci{ic SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, Califomia.420 pp.

Burger,A.E. 2002. Conservationassessment of marbledmurrelets in British Columbia,a review of biology, populations,habitat associations and conservation.Canadian Wildlife Service,Pacific and Yukon Region, 194 pp.

Burkett,E,E. 1995. Marbledmurrelet food habitsand prey ecology. Pages223-46. /z: Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report: PSW-GTW-I5Z. Pacific Southwest ExperimentalStation, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

Butler, P,J, and D.R. Jones. 1997. Physiologyof diving birds and mammals. Physiological Reviews77(3):837-99.

Cairns,D. 1980. Nesting density,habitat structure and human disturbanceas factorsin Black Guillemot reproduction. The Wilson Bulletin 92(3):352-61.

Cam,E., L. Lougheed,R. Bradley, andF. Cooke. 2003. Demographicassessment of a marbled murreletpopulation from capture-recapturedata. ConservationBiology n@):1118-26.

Camey,K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of humandisturbance effects on nesting colonialwaterbirds. Waterbirds 22(1):68-79.

Carter,H.R. and R.A. Erickson. 1992. Statusand conservationof the marbledmurrelet in California, 1892-1987.Pages 92-108.In: Carter,H.R. and M.L. Morrison (eds).Status and conservationof the marbledmurrelet in , 5th ed. WestemFoundation of VertebrateZoology, Camarillo,CA.

Carler,H,R., L.C. McAllister, and M.E. Isleib. 1995. Mortality of marbledmurrelets in gill nets in North America. Pages27I-83..I2: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report. PSW-GTW-152. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

Carler,H.R. and S.G. Sealy. 1986. Year-rounduse of coastallakes by marbledmurrelets. Condor88(4):473-77.

r24 Carter,H.R. and S.G. Sealy. 1990. Daily foragingbehavior of marbledmurrelets. Studiesin Avian Biology 14:93-102.

Carter,H.R. and J.L, Stein. 1995. Molts andplumages in the annualcycle of the marbled murrelet. Pages99-109.1n: Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report. PSW- GTW-152. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, Califomia. 420 pp.

City of Seattle. 2001. Final CedarRiver WatershedHabitat ConservationPlan for the issuance of a permit to allow incidentaltake of threatenedand endangeredspecies. Seattle, Washington,1034 pp.

Croll, D.A., A.J. Gaston,A.E. Burger, and D. Konoff. 1992. Foragingbehavior and physiologicaladaptation for diving in think-billed murres. Ecology 73(l):334-56.

Cudahy,E. and W.T. Ellison. 2002. A review of the potentialfor in vivo tissuedamage by exposureto underwater sound. Naval SubmarineResearch Laboratory, Departmentof the Navy, Groton, Connecticut,March 12,2002,6 pp.

Day, R.H. andD.A. Nigro. 2000. Feedingecology of Kittlitz's andmarbled murrelets in Prince William Sound,Alaska. Waterbirds23(I):I-14.

Divoky, G.J. andM. Horton. 1995. Breedingand natal dispersal,nest habitat loss and implicationsfor marbledmurrelet populations. Pages 83-87. In:Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. GeneralTechnical Report. PSW-GTW-I52. PacifrcSouthwest Experimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

Entranco,Inc. andHamer Environmental,L.P. 2005. Marbled Murrelet HazingReport - SR 104 Hood CanalBridge east-halfreplacement and west-halfretrofit project. Washington StateDepartment of Transportation,22 pp + appendices.

EvansMack, D., W.P. Ritchie, S.K. Nelson,E. Kuo-Harrison,P. Harrison,and T.E. Hamer. 2003. Methodsfor surveyingmarbled murrelets in forests,a revisedprotocol for land managementand research.Marbled Murrelet TechnicalCommittee, Pacific Seabird Group.

Falxa,G. 2008. Email to Martin Raphael,Lance, Monique, Pearson,Scott, Lynch, Deanna, Falxa, Gary,Nelson,Kim, Huff, Mark, Young, Rich, Bloxton, ThomasD., Bush, Jodi, Tuerler,Bridgette, Brown, Robin, Pereksta,David, Schmidt,Kristin, Flotlin, Kim, Burkett, E., Mclver, Bill, Bond, James,Watkins, Jim H., Hoffman, Ken R., Roberts, Llmn M., Bosch,Ray, Hamlin, Robin, Olah, Ryan, Rabot,Theresa, Thomas, Darrin, Roy, Michael, Hensen,Paul, Young, Kristi, and Corbett,Miel, February1 2008, Re: 2007 resultsof marbledmurrelet at-seapopulations surveys.

t25 Ford, R.G., G.K.H. Boor, B.E. Sharp,and J.L. Casey. 2002. Estimatesof bird impactsresulting from the M/V Kure/Humboldt Bay oil spill of November5,1997. U.S, Fish andWildlife Service,Sacramento, California, 7 | pp.

Ford,R.G., G,K. HimesBoor, andJ.C. Ward. 200I. FinalReport: Seabird mortality resulting from the M/V New Carissaoil spill incident,February and March 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, OR, 64 pp.

Fothergill,D.M., J.R. Sims, and M.D. Curley. 2001r Recreationalscuba diver's aversionto low- frequencyunderwater sound. Underseaand Hyperbaric Medicine 28(1):9-18.

Frid, A. and L. Dill. 2002. Human-causeddisturbance stimuli as a form of predationrisk. ConservationEcology 6(1): 1 -1 1.

Fry, D.M. 1995. Pollutionand fishing threats to marbledmurrelets. Pages 257-60.ln:Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F.Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report: PSW-GTW-152. Pacific Southwest ExperimentalStation, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

Gaston,A.J. and I. Jones. 1998. The Auks Alcidae. Oxford University Press,New York.

Golightly, R.T., P.N, Hebert, and D.L. Orthmeyer. 2002. Evaluationof human-caused disturbanceon the breeding successof marbled murrelets (Brachyramphusmarmoratus) in RedwoodNational and StateParks, California. 2001 ProgressReport. U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Humboldt StateUniversity, Arcata, C4,61 pp.

Hamer,T.E., S.K. Nelson, and T.J. MohagenIL 2003, Nesting chronologyof the marbled murrelet in North America. Hamer Environmental and Oregon CooperativeWildlife ResearchUnit, Portland,OR, February6,2003,22pp.

Hamer,T.E. andD.J. Meekins. 1999. Marbled murreletnest site selectionin relationto habitat characteristicsin westernWashington. Hamer Environmental,Mount Vernon, W1',26 pp,

Hamer,T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristicsof marbledmurrelet nest treesand nesting stands. Pages69-82. In: Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture ForestService, Pacific SouthwestResearch Station, General Technical Report PSW-152, Albany, California. 420 pp.

Hastings,M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effectsof soundon fish. ContractNo. 43,4.0139,Task Order, 1, California Departmentof Transportation,Sacramento, CA, January28,2005, 82 pp.

Healey,S., W. Cohen,and M. Lefsky. 2003. Stand-replacingharvests and fires in Washington, 1984-2002.Laboratory for the Application of RemoteSensing in Ecology (LARSE), Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, U.S. ForestService, USDA, Corvallis, Oregon.

t26 Hebert,P.N., H.R. Carter,R.T.Golightly, andD.L. Orthmeyer. 2003. Radiotelemetry evidence of re-nestingin the sameseason by the marbledmurrelet. Waterbirds26(3):261-65.

Hebert,P.N. and R.T. Golightly. 2003. Breedingbiology andhuman-caused disturbance to the nesting of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphusmarmoratus) in Northern California, ProgressReport 2002. UnpublishedDraft Report. Departmentof Wildlife, Arcala,CA, November12,2003.

Henkel,L.A., E.E. Burkett, and J.Y. Takekawa. 2003. At-seaactivity and diving behaviorof a radio-taggedmarbled murrelet in CentralCalifornia. Waterbirds26(4).

Hirzel, A.H., J. Hauser,D. Chessel,and N. Perrin. 2002. Ecological-nichefactor analysis:How to computehabitat-suitability maps without absencedata? Ecology 83(7):2027-36.

Hobson,K.A. 1990. Stableisotope analysis of marbledmurrelets: evidence for freshwater feedingand determinationof trophic level. The Condor 92:897-903.

Huff, M.H., P. Jodice,J. Baldwin, S. Miller, R. Young, K. Ostrom,C.J. Ralph, M. Raphael,C. Strong,C. Thompson,and G. Falxa. 2003. Marbled murreleteffectiveness monitoring - Northwest Forest Plan2002 annual summaryreport. 27 pp.

Huff, M.H., M.G. Raphael,S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson,and J. Baldwin. 2006. NorthwestForest Plan - The first 10 years(1994-2003): Status and trendsof populationsand nesting habitatfor the marbledmurrelet. GeneralTechnical Report: PNW-GTR-650. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, ForestService, Portland, Oregon, 149 pp.

Hull, C.L., G.W. Kaiser, C. Lougheed,L. Lougheed,S. Boyd, and F. Cooke. 2001. Intraspecific variationin commutingdistance of marbledmurrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus): Ecologicaland energeticconsequences of nestingfurther inland. The Auk 118(a):1036- 46.

Jodice,P.G.R. and M.W. Collopy. 1999. Diving and foragingpatterns of marbledmurrelets (Brachyramphusmarmoratus)'. Testing predictions from optimal-breathingmodels. CanadianJoumal of Zoology77 (9):1409- 1 8.

Kitaysky, A.S., J.C. Wingfield, and J.F.Piatt. 2001. Corticosteronefacilitates begging and affectsresource allocation in the black-leggedkittiwake. BehavioralEcology 12(5):619- 25.

Kuletz,K.J. 1996. Marbled murrelet abundarrceand breeding activity at Naked Island,Prince William Sound,and KachemakBay, Alaska,before and after the Exxon Yaldez oil spill. AmericanFisheries S ociety Symposium I 8:1 7 0 -8 4.

Kuletz, K.J. 2005. Foragingbehavior and productivity of a non-colonialseabird, the marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), relative to prey and habit. Doctor of Philosphy in the Departmentof Biology. University of Victoria,

r2l Kuletz, K.J. and J,F.Piatt. 1999. Juvenilemarbled murrelet nurseries and the productivity index. The Wilson Bulletin lIl(2):257-61.

Long, L.L. and J.C. Ralph. 1998. Regulationand observationsof human disturbancenear nestingmarbled murrelets. Pacific SouthwestResearch Station, Arcata,California, 35 pp.

Luginbuhl, J.M., J.M. Maruluff, J.E. Bradley,M.G. Raphael,and D.E. Varland. 2001. Corvid survey techniquesand the relationship betweencorvid relative abundanceand nest predation.Joumal of Field Ornithology72(4):556-72.

Manley, LA. 1999. Behavior and habitatselection of marbledmurrelets nesting on the sunshine coast. Masterof Sciencein Biological Sciences.Department of Biological Sciences, SimonFraser University, Burnaby, BC. 1-163,

Manley, I.A. 2000. Radarsurveys of marbledmurrelets on the northwestcoast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Ministry of the Environment, Lands, and Parks, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada,44 pp.

Marzltff, J.M., M.G. Raphael,and R, Sallabanks.2000. Understandingthe effectsof forest managementon avian species.Wildlife SocietyBulletin 28@):1132-43.

Mason,A., A.E. Burger, and B, Hansen. 2002. At-seasurveys of marbledmurrelets in ClayoquotSound, 1996-2000.Pages 15-33, In:Brrger, A. and T.A. Chatwin (eds). Multi-scale studiesof populations,distribution, and habitat associations of marbled murreletsin ClayoquotSound, British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection,Victoria, British Columbia.

Mathews,N,J.C. and A.E. Burger. 1998. Diving depthof a marbledmurrelet. Northwestem Naturalist7 9 (2) :7 0 -7 I .

McBride, P. 2005. lnformation presentedat the Pacific SeabirdGroup Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee meeting.

McFarlane-Tranquilla,L., B.R. Parker,N. Parker,D. Lank, and F. Cooke. 2003. Replacement layrng in marbled murrelets Brachyramphusmarmoratus . Marine Ornithology 3 1: 75 -8 1.

McShane,C., T.E. Hamer,H.R. Carter,R.C. Swartzman,V.L.Friesen, D.G. Ainley, K. Nelson, A.E. Burger, L.B. Spear,T. Mohagen,R. Martin, L. Henkel, K. Prindle, C. Strong,and J. Keany. 2004. Evaluation reports for the S-yearstatus review of the marbled murrelet in Washington,Oregon, and California. EDAW, Inc., Seattle,Washington,3T0 pp.

Melvin, E,F., J.K, Parrish, andL.L. Conquest. 1999. Novel tools to reduceseabird by-catch in coastalgillnet fisheries.Conservation Biology 13(6):1386-97.

Meyer, C.8., S.L. Miller, and C.J, Ralph. 2002. Multi-scale landscapeand seascapepatterns associatedwith marbledmurrelet nesting areas on the U.S. west coast. Landscape Ecology17(2):95-115.

t28 Miller, S.L. and C.J.Ralph. 1995. Relationshipof marbledmurelets with habitatcharacteristics at inland sitesin California. Pages20515.ln:Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report:PSW-GTW-I52. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

Murray Pacific Corporation. 1993. Habitat ConservationPlan for the northernspotted owl on timberlandsowned by the Murray Pacific Corporation,Lewis County, Washington.Beak ConsultantsIncorporated, Tacoma, WA, l54pp.

Murray Pacific Corporation. 1995. Amendmentto the Habitat ConservationPlan and incidental take permit PRT-777837for the northemspotted owl on timberlandsowned by the Murray Pacific Corporation,Lewis County,Washington. Beak Consultants,lnc., Tacoma,WA,205 pp.

Naslund,N.L. 1993. Why do marbledmurrelet attend old-growth forestnesting areas year- round? Auk 110(3):594-602.

Nelson,K. 2005. Note to file on 06122105with DeannaLynch,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, re: marbledmurrelet nest densities.

Nelson,S.K. 1997. The birds of North America,No. 276 - marbledmurrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Pagesl-32.hn: Poole,A. and F. Gill (eds).The birds of North America: Life histories for the 2lst century. The Academy of Natural Sciences& The American Ornithologists'Union, Philadelphia,PA; Washington,D. C.

Nelson,S.K. 2005. Surveysfor marbledmurrelets in potentialhabitat in the Oregoncoast range:draft final report preparedfor the trusteescouncil of the New Carissaoil spill and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. OregonCooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, OregonState University, Departmentof Fisheriesand Wildlife, Corvallis,OR, 26 pp.

Nelson,S.K. and T.E. Hamer. I995a, Nest successand the effectsof predationon marbled murrelets.Pages 89-97.1n: Ralph, C.J., G.L, Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. GeneralTechnical Report. PSW- GTW-152. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, Califomia. 420 pp.

Nelson,S.K. and T.E. Hamer. 1995b. Nestingbiology andbehavior of the marbledmurrelet. Pages57-67. In:Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt,M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report. PSW-GTW-152. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

Nelson,S.K. andR.W. Peck. 1995. Behaviorof marbledmurrelets at nine nest sitesin Oregon. NorthwestemNaturali st 76(l):43-53 .

129 NOAA (National Oceanicand AtmosphericAdministration). 1993. Olympic coastnational marine sanctuary,final environmental impact statement/managementplan. Washington D.C., VolumesI & II pp.

Norse,E,A. 1990. Ancient forestsof the Pacific Northwest. Island Press,Washington, D.C. 327PP.

NorthwestStraits Foundation. 2007. Derelict fishing gearpriority ranking project. Unpublished reportprepared for the RussellFamily Foundation.

NRC (NaturalResources Consultants, Inc.), 2007. Final report: Olympic coastnational marine sanctuaryderelict fishing gearremoval project. Seattle,Washington, December 28, 2007,20pp.

Peery,M.2., S.R.Beissinger, B.H. Becker,and S.H. Newman. 2002. Marbledmurrelet (Brachyramphusmarmoratus) demography in centralCalifornia: 2001 ProgressReport. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,California StateParks,2I pp.

Peery,M.2, L.A, Hall, J.T. Harvey, and L.A. Henkel, 2008. Abundanceand productivity of marbledmurrelets off centralCalifomia during the 2008 breedingseason. Final Report Submittedto California StateParks, Half Moon Bay, CA, September,2008,10pp.

Perry,D.A. 1995. Statusof foresthabitat of the marbledmurrelet. Pages381-83. In:Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F.Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report. PSW-GTW-I52. Pacific Southwest ExperimentalStation, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California. 420 pp.

Piatt,F.F., B.D. Roberts,W.W. Lidster,J.L. Wells,and S.A. Hatch. 1990. Effectsof human disturbanceon breedingleast and crestedauklets at St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. Auk 1,07:342-50.

Piatt,J.F., K.J. Kuletz,A.E. Burger,S.A. Hatch,V.L.Friesen, T.P. Birt, M.L. Arimitsu,G.S. Drew, A.M.A. Harding, and K.S. Bixler. 2007. Statusreview of the marbledmurrelet (Brachyramphusmarmoratus) in Alaska andBritish Columbia. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Open-FileReport 2006-1387. 258 pp.

Pierce,D,J. and T.R. Simons. 1986. The influenceof humandisturbance on tufted puffin breedingsuccess. Auk 103:214-16.

Plum CreekTimber Company,LP. 1996, Multi-speciesHabitat ConservationPlan on Forestlandsowned by Plum CreekTimber Company,L.P., in the I-90 Corridor of the CentralCascades Mountain Range,Washington. Plum CreekTimber Company,L.P., Seattle,WA. 478 pp.

Plum CreekTimber Company,LP, 1999. Final descriptionand analysisof modificationsto Plum CreekTimber Company'sCascade Habitat ConservationPlan. Plum CreekTimber Company,Seattle, Washington. 100 pp.

130 Popper,A.N. 2003. Effects of anthropogenicsounds of fishes. Fisheries28(10):24-31.

Port Blakely Tree Farms,LP. 1996. HabitatConservation Plan for the Robert B. Eddy Tree Farm. Port Blakely Tree Farms,L.P., Seattle,Washington' 136 pp.

Ralph,C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,andJ.F. Piatt. 1995. Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet in North America: An overview. Pages3-22. In: Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbled murrelet.General Technical Report. PSW-GTW-LSZ. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station,United StatesDepartment of Agriculture,Forest Service, Albany, Califomia.420 pp'

Raphael,M.G., D. Evans-Mack,J.M. Maruluff, and J.M. Luginbuhl. 2002. Effectsof forest fragmentationon populationsof the marbledmurrelet. Studiesin Avian Biology 25:221- 35.

Raphael,M.G., G.M. Gelleher,M.H. Hufl S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson,and R. Young. 2006. Spatially-explicitestimates of potentialnesting habitat for the marbledmurrelet, Pages 97-146.In:Huff, M. (ed).Northwest forest plan - the first 10 years(1994-2003): status and trend of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet - generaltechnical report. USDA ForestService, Portland, Oregon. 50 pp.

Raphael,M.G., J.A. Young, and B.M. Galleher, t995. Alandscape-levelanalysis of marbled murrelethabitatin WestemWashington. Pages177-89.1n: Ralph, C.J.,G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds).Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General TechnicalReport. PSW-GTW-152. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. Forest Service,Albany, California. 420 pp.

Raphael,M. 2005. Email on06/0l105 to RicirardBigley, DeannaL1mch, andZachPeery, re: 5127Progress Report.

Raphael,M.G., J. Baldwin, G. Falxa, M.H. Huff, M.M. Lance,S. Miller, S.F.Pearson, C.J. Ralph, C. Strong,and C. Thompson. 2001. Regionalpopulation monitoring of the marbledmurrelet: Field and analyticalmethods. PNW-GTR-7i6. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture ForestService, Portland, Oregon, May 2007,70 pp.

Renwald,D. 1993. Letter to the Marbled Murrelet RecoveryTeam on Bureauof Indian affairs' murreletstrategy. Portland,Oregon, December 1993,89-92 pp.

Ripple, W.J. 1994. Historic spatialpatterns of old forestsin westem Oregon. Journalof Forestry92(l l) :45- 49 .

Ross,B.P., J. Lien, and R.W. Furness. 2001. Use of underwaterpayback to reducethe impact of eiderson musselfarms. Joumal of Marine Science58:51.7-24.

Sanborn,S. 2005. Email on04107/05to DeannaLyrch, re: Mamu calls.U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

131 SimpsonTimber Company. 2000. Habitat ConservationPlan: Shelton,Washington Timberlands. SimpsonTimber Company,Shelton, WA, 379 pp.

Singer,S.W., D.L. Suddjian,and S.A. Singer. 1995, Fledging,behavior, flightpatterns, and forest characteristicsat marbled murrelet tree nestsin Califomia. Northwestern Naturalist76:54-62.

Speckman,S.G., J.F. Piatt, and A,M. Springer. 2003. Decipheringthe social structureof marbledmurrelets from behavioralobservations at sea. Waterbirds26(3):256-7a.

Speckman,S.G. 1996. Marbled murreletdistribution and abundancein relation to the marine environment.Master of Science.University of Alaska Fairbanks,Fairbanks, AK. 1-89.

Steevens,C.C., K.L, Russell,M.E. Knafeic,P.F. Smith, E,W, Hopkins,and J.B. Clark. 1999. Noise-inducedneurological disturbances in diversexposed to intensewater-borne sound: Two casereports. Underseaand HyperbaricMedicine 26(4):261-65.

Strachan,G., M. McAllister, and C.J. Ralph. 1995. Marbled murrelet at-seaand foraging behavior.Pages 247-53,ln:Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J,F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. PSW-GTR-152. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Albany, CA. 420 pp.

Strong,C.S., B.K. Keitt, W.R. Mclver, C.J.Palmer, and I. Gaffney. 1995. Distribution and populationestimates of marbledmurrelets at seain Oregonduring the summersof 1992 and1993. Pages339-52.,In: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael,and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology and conservationof the marbledmurrelet. General Technical Report: PSW- GTW-I52. Pacific SouthwestExperimental Station, U.S. ForestService, Albany, California.420 pp.

TacomaPublic Utilities. 2001. Final EnvironmentalImpact Statementand Final Habitat ConservationPlan for a multiple speciesincidental take permit issuedto the Tacoma Water Department, for their Green River water supply and operationsand watershed protectionactivities, King County, Washington. Tacoma,Washington, July 2001.

Teensma,P.D.A., J.T. Rienstra,and M.A. Yeiter. I99L Preliminaryreconstruction and analysis ofchangein foreststand age classes ofthe Oregoncoast range from 1850to 1940. TechnicalNote OR-9. Bureauof Land Management,Salem, OR, 9 pp.

Thompson,C. 2003. Telephoneconversation with Emily Teachout,USFWS, regardingmarbled murrelet molt period in regard to hazing.

Thorensen,A.C. 1989. Diving times and behaviorof pigeon guillemots and marbledmurrelets off RosarioHead, Washington. WesternBirds 20:33-37.

Turnpenny,A. and J. Nedwell, 1994. The effectson marinefish, diving mammalsand birds of underwatersound generated by seismicsurveys. Fawley Aquatic ResearchLaboratories Limited, Marine and FreshwaterBiology Unit, Southampton,Hampshire, lIK, 40 pp.

r32 Tumpenny,A., K.P. Thatcher,R. Wood, andJ. Nedwell. 1994. The effectson fish and other marineanimals of high-levelunderwater sound. ReportFRR 127194.Fawley Aquatic ResearchLaboratory,Ltd., Marine andFreshwater Biology Unit, Southampton,United Kingdom, 35 pp.

U.S. Departmentof Defense. 2002. Recordof Decisionfor surveillancetowed array sensor systemlow frequencyactive. FederalRegister 67(14l):48145-54.

USFS (U.S. ForestService) and USBLM (U.S. Bureauof Land Management). 1994a. Final SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statementon managementof habitat for late- successionaland old-growth forestrelated species within the rangeof the northem spottedowl. Portland,Oregon, 557.

USFS (U.S. ForestService) and USBLM (U.S. Bureauof Land Management). I994b. Record of decision for amendmentsto Forest Service and Bureau of Land Managementplanning documentswithin the range of the northern spottedowl; standardsand guidelines for managementof habitat for late-successionaland old-growth forestrelated species within the range of the northern spottedowl. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Biological/Conferenceopinion regardinga proposedamendment to and approval of an implementation agreementfor an incidental takepermit (PRT-777837)held by the Murray Pacific Corporationfor Mineral Tree Farm,Lewis County,Washington (FWS Reference: 1-3-95-FW-0919). June23,1995,

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996a. Intra-ServiceBiological Opinion on the ProposedIssuance of an IncidentalTake Permit (PRT-808398)for Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets,Grrzzly Bear,Gray Wolf to Plum CreekTimber Company (FWS Reference:1-3-96-FW-0190) and the Approval of an Unlisted SpeciesAgreement for A11Vertebrate Species. June24, 1996,I25 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996b. Intra-ServiceBiological/Conference Opinion regardingissuance of a section1O(aXlXB) IncidentalTake Permit (PRT-8I3744), and approvalof Unlisted Speciesagreements proposed by Port Blakely Tree Farms,L.P. for the RobertB. Eddy Tree Farm, Pacific and GraysHarbor Counties,Washington (FWS Reference:1-3-96-FW-593). July 16, 1996,25pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997a. Intra-FWSconcurrence memorandum and biological opinion on the proposedissuance of an incidentaltake permit (PRT- 812521) for northem spottedowls, marbledmurrelets, gray wolves, gizzly beats,bald eagles, peregrine falcons, Aleutian Canadageese, Columbian white-tailed deer, and Oregon silverspot butterflies, and the approval of the implementation agreementfor the WashingtonState Department of Natural ResourcesHabitat ConservationPlan (FWS Reference:1 -3 -96-FW -59 4).

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997b. RecoveryPlan for the threatenedmarbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington,Oregon, and Califomia. U.S, Departmentof the Interior, Portland,Oregon, 1997 ,203 pp.

r33 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Biological Opinion, reinitiation of Intra- Serviceconsultation on the modification of Plum Creek'sCascades Habitat Conservation Plan to accommodatethe Interstate-90Land Exchange.Incidental Take Permit (PRT- 808398)(FWS Reference:1-3-00-FR-0245). Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA, 84 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000a. Biological and conferenceopinion for the proposedissuance of a section1O(aX1XB) incidental take permit (PRT-TE020907-0)to the City of Seattle(Seattle Public Utility) for the CedarRiver WatershedHabitat ConservationPlan. April 19, 2000.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000b. Biological and conferenceopinions for the issuanceof an incidental take permit to SimpsonTimber Company, Northwest Operations,for SimpsonWashington Timberlands Habitat ConservationPlan, in Mason, GraysHarbor and ThurstonCounties, Washington (FWS Ref.: 1-3-00-FWF-2098). WesternWashington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey,WA, October 12,2000, 162 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 200L Biological and conferenceopinions for the issuanceof an incidentaltake permit to the City of Tacoma'sPublic Utilities Department, Tacoma Water, under the Tacoma Water GreenRiver WatershedHabitat Conservation Plan (FWS Reference:1 -3-0 1 -FWS-01 0 1). PRT-TE-0447 7 57 -0. June29, 200L

USFWS (U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003a. Biological opinion and letter of concurrence for effectsto bald eagles,marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, bull trout, and designatedcritical habitat for marbledmurrelets and northern spotted owls from Olympic NationalForest program of activitiesfor August5,2003, to December31, 2008. U.S. Departmentof the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Lacey, Washington.

USFWS (U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003b. Biomonitoring of environmentalstatus and trendsprogram, contaminant assessment process, final contaminantassessment process reporl for DungenessNWR. 3 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Marbled murrelet 5-yearreview process: overview. Portland,Oregon, 28 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Director'smemorandum on recoveryunits and jeopardy determinationsunder the EndangeredSpecies Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,March 6,2006.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)and NMFS (NationalMarine FisheriesService). 1998. Endangeredspecies consultation handbook: Proceduresfor conductingconsultation and conferenceactivities under Section7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act. U.S. GPO:2004- 690-278.March 1998.

WashingtonForest Practices Board (WFPB). 2005. WashingtonForest Practices Rules - WAC 222-12-041. WashingtonDepartment of Natural ResourcesForest Practices Division, Olympia, Washington.,

t34 Wasser,S.K., K. Bevis, G. King, and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasivephysiological measures of disturbancein the northem spottedowl. ConservationBiology 11(4):1019-22.

Watanuki,Y. and A.E. Burger. 1999. Body massand dive durationsin alcids andpenguins. CanadianJournal of Zoology 77:1838-42.

WDFW (WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife). 2005a. 2004 Washingtonstate herring stockstatus report. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program,Fish ManagementDivision, May 2005.

WDFW (WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife). 2005b. 2004 Washingtonstate herring stock statusreport. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program,Fish ManagementDivision, May 2005.

WDFW (WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife). 2005c. 2004 Washingtonstate herring stock statusreport. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program,Fish ManagementDivision, May 2005.

WDFW (WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife). 2005d. 2004 Washingtonstate herring stock statusreport. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program,Fish ManagementDivision, May 2005,

WDNR (WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources).1997. Final habitatconservation plan. WDNR, Olympia, Washington,September 1997, 546 pp.

WDOE. 2004. Oil spill preventionworks, but needsto be broader. Oil Spill Scene8(2):I-4. WDOE Publication04-08-004.

WDOE. 2005. Studyof tug escortsin PugetSound. Oil Spill Scene9(I):I-12. WDOE Publications05-08-002.

Whitworth, D.L., S.K. Nelson, S.H, Newman,G.B. Van Vliet, and W.P. Smith. 2000. Foraging distancesof radio-markedmarbled murrelets from inland areasin southeastAlaska. The Condor102(2):452-56.

Yelverton,J.T. andD.R. Richmond. 1981. Underwaterexplosion damage risk criteriafor fish, birds, and mammals. In: l}2ndMeeting of the AcousticalSociety of America, 36,November30 - December04, Miami Beach,Florida. Department of Biodynamics, LovelaceBiomedical and EnvironmentalResearch Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 36 PP'

Yelverton,J.T., D.R. Richmond,R.E. Fletcher,and R.K. Jones. 1973. Safedistances from underwaterexplosions for mammals and birds. Lovelace Foundation for Medical Educationand Research,Albuquerque, NM, September26, 1973,64 pp.

135