United StatesDepartment of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DesmondDr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey,Washington 98503 In ReplyRefer To: SCANNED 1-3-06-F-0177

sEPI 5 2006

MagalieR. Salas,Secretary F6deralEnergy Regulatory Commission 888First Sffeet,NE WashingtonD.C. 24426 Attention:Ann Ariel Vecchio

DearSecretary Salas:

This documenttransmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service) Biological Opinion on the effectsto bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus),northern spotted owls (Srrlxoccidentalis caurina)and bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) fromthe relicensingof the Lewis River HydroeiectricProjects: Merwin (FERC No. 935),Yale (FERC No. 2071),Swift No. 1 (FERC No. Zr 11),and swift No. 2 (FERCNo. 2213). Theaction that comprises this consultationunder theEndangered Species Act of 1973,as amended (16 U.S.C. l53I et seq.)is therelicensing of the Lewis-RiverHydroelectric Projects by the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission and the interdependentactions contained in the SettlementAgreement (PacifiCorp et aL.2004e),dated November30,2004,and Washington Department of Ecology's401 Certifications.

Consultationfor the relicensingof the Lewis River Plojectswas initiated by the Commission's letterto the Servicewhich was received in our officeon October11,2005. Based on our letter datedMarch15,2006,the deadline for completingthis consultationwas extended by mutual agreementuntil May 5, 2006. On June12,2006,with concurrenceby thelicensees,we submittedanother request for an extensionto SeptemberI,2006, to completethe detailedand complexanalyses associated with theproposed action. This revised completion date was ,rrpport"oby pacificorp andcowlitz Publicutility District. Becausethe Servicewas receiving criticatinformation regarding components of the SettlementAgreement up to the endof August, we werenot ableto miet the Septemberl,2006,completion date. There has been regular contactbetween pacifiCorp, Cowlitz public Utility District, andthe Serviceduring the drafting of this documentand,agreement betweenallparties on thetiming of completionof theBiological Opinion.

TAxe PntDE.iffi'*-*;,j 'wfiMERTCAreq" SecretaryMagalie R. Salas

Thefinal Biologicalevaluation, dated January 15,2}}s,proposed a"may affect,not likely to adverselyaffecl'determination for the northernspotted owl. The FWS doesnot concurwith this determinationbecause the Wildlife HabitatManagementPlans will allow the removalof suitable spottedowl habitatwhich would adverselyaffect this species.The Final BiologicalEvaluation uiro propored a "may affect,not likely to advefselyaffect" determinationfor the bald eag1e.The FWS doesnot concurwith this effectdetermination because of the indirecteffects associated with increasedrecreational use of the actionarea which is likely to disturbforaging bald eagles on the reservoirsand in salmonspawning grounds. We thereforeconducted a formal consultationon the spottedowi andbald eagle. Theenclosed Biological Opinion contains the Service'sconcurrence with your determinationthat the proposedaction "may affect,but is not likely to adveiselyaffect" designatedbull trout criticalhabitat.

Becausethe Licenseesare uncertain where instream habitat enhancement projects will occur,the Servicewas unable to conductan analysisof effectsto spottedowls from this activity. Therefore,this aspectof theproposed action in relationto effectsto spottedowls mustbe addressed,as appropri ate, in a separatefuture section 7 consultationwhen site-specific conditionsare known. ThisBiological Opinion, therefore, does not includean analysisof effects of instreamhabitatenhancement projects on spottedowls.

We wish to commendFrank Shrier of PacifiCorpand Diana Gritten-MacDonald of CowlitzPUD for their invaluableassistance in preparingthis BiologicalOpinion. Theywere critical to our understandingof the proposedaction and provided valuable assistance in their review of draft documentsfor accuracyandcompleteness. Their professionalcommitment to completingthe Biological Opinionon time andin a legally sufficientmanner was tremendously helpful and appreciatedby my staff.

A completeadministrative record of this consultationis on file in the Service'sWestern WashingtonFish and Wildlife Office, in Lacey,Washington. If you haveany questions regardingthis BiologicalOpinion please contact Pam Repp at (360) 753-6037or Jim Michaelsat (360)753-7767, of my staff.

Sincerely, .f,,nn ffi*"a#z-frff A* -X"nS. Berg, Manager' Lf WesternWashington Fish and Wildlife Office cc: PacifiCorp (F. Shrier) Cowlitz PUD (D. Gritten-MacDonald) FfLtcSPy

SCANNED

BiologicalOPinion, for the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission Relicensing of the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects:Merwin (No.935),Yate (No. 2071)' Swift No. I (No.2111), and SwiftNo. 2 (No.2213)

FWS ReferenceNumber: L-3-06-F-0177

U.S.Department of theInterior U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service WesternWashington Fish andWildlife Office Lacey,Washington

September15,2006 GLOSSARY

ACC-Aquatic CoordinationCommiffee, representing the SettlementParties.

Action Area-The LewisRiver Subbasin'

AR-At risk; refersto environmentalbaseline indicators.

BE-Biological Evaluation

BypassReach-The old naturalLewis River channelbypassed by the Swift No. 2 PowerCanal.

Canal Drain-The existingadjustable valve in the Power Canalwhich supplieswater to the ConstructedChannel.

Canal Spillway-Also referredto as"side channelspillway" and"wasteway"-The existingspillway on the PowerCanal which allowsflow from the surfaceof the powercanal to enterthe byputs reachwhenflows exceedthe hydrauliccapacity of Swift No. 2' cfs-Cubic feetPer second

ConstructedChannel-The existingwetted channel from the CanalDrain to the BypassReach'

CowlitzPUD-Public Utilify DistrictNo. 1 of CowlitzCounty, Washington

DEIS-Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement

FEIS-Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement

FERC-Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission

FWS-United StatesFish and Wildlife Service,referred to asUSFWS in citations.

LewisRiver HydroelectricProjects-Merwin (P-0935),Yale (P-2071),Swift No. 2 (P-2213), andSwift No. 1 (P-2111)

LewisRiver Subbasin-The U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) fourth-field watershed extending from the ColumbiaRiver to the headwatersof the Lewis River.

Licensees-PacifiCorpand CowlitzPTJD, also known as "the Utilities'"

Lower Lewis River Watershed-The USGSfifth-field watershedextending from LakeMerwin to pine Creekand consisting almost entirely of thosetributaries which originateon U.S.Forest Serviceland andflow into to the North Fork Lewis River or its reservoirs.

LWD-Large woody debris Middle Lewis River Watershed-The USGSfifth-field watershedextending from Swift Creek Reservoirto theLower Falls of theLewis River.

NMFS-National MarineFisheries Service

NpF-Not properlyfunctioning; applies to baselineenvironmental indicators. pine Creek Subwatershed-Thethree USGS subwatersheds encompassing Pine Creek and its tributaries.

PCE-Primary constituentelement of designatedcritical habitat.

PF-Properly functioning;applies to environmentalbaseline indicators. power Canal-The earthenand concrete channel connecting the tailraceof the Swift No. 1 powerhouseto the Swift No. 2 Powerhouse.

SA-settlement AgreementConceming the Relicensingof the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects,dated November 30,2004.

SettlementParties-Parties that enteredthe SA.

Services-FWSand NMFS consideredtogether.

Swift Projects-Swift No. 1 andSwift No. 2 together.

TCC-Terrestrial CoordinationCommittee, representing the SettlementParties.

Turbine Intake-The point on the upstrgamface of a damwhere the penstock or flow line leadingto thepowerhouse and turbines begins.

Upper ConstructedChannet-The 240-footlong channelto be constructedfrom the Upper ReleasePoint to the upperend of the BypassReach.

Upper Lewis River Watershed-The USGSfifth-field watershed extending from LowerFalls to the headwatersof the Lewis River.

Upper ReleasePoint-That pointon thePower Canal just downsireamof the Swift No. 1 P6werhousewhere the Licenseesplan to build a structureto releasewatet to the BypassReach.

WDoE-Washington Departmentof Ecology

WDFw-Washington Departmentof Fish andWildlife TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTTON..,.. """" 1 CONSULTATTONIIISTORY ...... '..;.. """""' 1 BroLoGrcALOPINrON...... """" 4 ACTTONAREA """""""" 4 DESCRIPTIONOF TI{E PROPOSEDACTION ...""...... 4 Descriptionof the LewisRiver HydroelectricProjects '.'."."""' """' 4 Descriptionof the ProposedAction...... """""' 8 1.4Proposed Action.... """"""""""" 9 LewisRiver SettlementAgreement Terms.... """"""""' 1l STATUSOF THE SPECIES:Bull Trout """""" 21 STATUSOF THENORTHERN SPOTTED OWL .,..,.....,,...29 STATUSOF THE SPECIES:Bald Eagle - PacificPopulation ...... 56 ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIESAND CRITICAL HABITAT LIKELY TO BE AFF8CTED...... """' 60 Effectsto DesignatedBull TroutCriticalHabitat...... """"' 60 PrimaryConstituent Elements of Bull TroutCritical Habitat...... '.'....""""'61 Effectof ProiectElements on PCEs.... ' 61 ENVIRONMENTALBASELINE IN THE ACTION AREA - BULL TROUT...""...... 63 LewisRiver SubbasinOverview. """""""""' 64 FishCu1ture...... """"""""' 64 FederalForest Management...... ' """""" 65 IlydropowerFacilities ...... ,...... """"""""""' 65 Construction...... '. """""" 65 Operation """"""" 66 R'ecentHydropower Facility History....' """"""""""' 67 Non-hydropo*tiManagement of Utility Lands..... """" 68 Bull Trout Siatusin theAction Area...... """"""""""" 68 ENVIRONMENTALBASELINE IN THE ACTION AREA - SPOTTEDOWL....,,..,..,...,72 ENVIRONMENTALBASELINE IN THE ACTION AREA _ BALD EAGLE....,,,.,.,.,,,,,,,73 EFFECTSOF PROPOSEDACTION ON BULL TROUT ,.,.,,,,.,,.....76 ProjectElement L: AnadromousFish Reintroduction """""""""'76 Marine-DerivedNutrients.'...... ' """""""77 InterspecificCompetitionfor Food and Space """""'77 CompetttionforSpawning Habitat.,.'..'.'..-.. """""""' 78 Preiationoilurintle Bull Trout. """""""79 Effectsof RecreationalFishing on Bull Trout...... " ii**ory of Effectsof theReintroduction ofAnadromous Fish...... 80 ProjectElement ji gutt Trout Passage """"' 81 PermanentUpstream Passage.'.. """""""82 Interim[Jpstieam Passage.... """""""""" 85 InterimDownstream Passage """""""""' 87 Effectsof SPill """' 87 i6"rtt of TurbinePassage'... """""""""" 87 SwtftNo. 2 Canal...' """""""" 88 ' DownstreamPassage and Perntanent Collectors. """ 89 SatelliteCollection Facitity ""92 SwiftNo. 2 Canal """"""""""92 ReleasePond...... '."..'."""'92 Bull troutPassage Summary.. """""""""' 93 ProjectElement 3: InstreamConstruction and Habitat Restoration '.....'....'...... 94 SldimentImpacts...... '..'...'."""95 Mechanismof Effect.... """""" 95 Effectof SpecificActivities on Bull TroutfromSuspended Sediment... .'...... '95 Liagnitudeof theEffect...... """"""""""' 96 SpiwningGravel Embeddednes,s...... """""""""'97 PotentiaiforDirect Iinjury or Death... ""' 98 ProjectElement 4: HabitatProtection....'...... ;...... '..... """""" 98 ProlectElement 5: InstreamFlows """""""' 99 BypassReach F1ow...... """"99 MerwinStreamflow """""""' 101 ProjectElement 7: RainbowTrout andKokanee stocking...... 103 ProjectElement 8: Monitoringof Bull Trout..... """"' 104 ProjectElement 9: Informationand Education.'...... """"""""' 104 projectElement 10: Wildlife Habitat Management Plans...... 104 Summaryof Effects...... '....."'105 EFFECTSOF PROPOSEDACTION ON SPOTTEDOWL "...... 106 AquaticHabitat Enhancement Proiects...... "'109 Constructionof FishPassage Facilities and Aquatic Habitat Channel...... 109 WildtifeHabitat Acquisition, Protection, and Management...... "'110 Old-GrowthHabitat Goals and Obiectives (3.1.4) ...... '...."'112 RiparianHabitat Goals and Obiectives(3.3.4) ...... '.".'...... "'112 ForestlundHabitat Goalsand Obiectives(3.9.4). "' 113 RaptorSite Management Goal and Obiectives(4.2.4) """"""' 114 RecreationalFacilities Upgrades and Management ...... """"' I20 Summaryof Effects...... '....'..'.."121 EF'FECTSOF PROPOSEDACTION ON BALD EAGLE ...... ,..123 Elementsof theProposed Action that May Affectthe Bald Eagle...... ' .....'..."I23 ConservationMeasures Proposed by theUtilities."...... '...... "'I27 Old-GrowthHabitat Goals and Obiectives (3.1.4) ...... '..'."'128 RiparianHabitat Goalsand Obiectives(3.3.4) ...... '128 Raptor SiteManagement Goal and Obiectives(4.2.4) """"""' 129 Effectsof theAction ...... """"130 DirectEffects to Habitat ...'."130 IndirectEffect: Increase in ForageBase...... ' '.'...."I32 Increasein Disturbanceas a DirectEffect of theProposed Action".... '...... 'I32 Increasein Disturbanceas an IndirectEffect of theProposed Action ...... I34 Summaryof Effects...... ;...... '..'.'..."136 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... '138 BullTrout ...... 138 SpottedOw1...... ""' I4I 141 Bald Eagle """"""""" rtr 141 CONCLUSION ,."."",...L+L 141 Bull Trout """"""""" L+z SpottedOw1...... ,... ""' 143 1A< Bald Eagle """"""""" 't'rJ

SpottedOw1,...... ""' 150 trdA Eagte """"""""" 151 EFFECTOF THE TAKE ...... '"151 Bullrrout """"""""" 151 SpottedOw1...... ""' 151 natanagte """"""""" 151 REASONABLEAND PRUDENTMEASURES...... '...... 151 Bullrrout """"""""" 151 TERMSAND CONDITIONS...... '."....'r52 ReportingRequirements...... """""""""" 153 coN-snnv.q.TloN RECOMMENDATrONS...... r54 SECTION7 REINITIATION NOTICE...... 155 LITERATURECITED ...... ,.,,156 PERSONALCOMMUNICATIONS...... '180 IN L I TTE R,T,S REFERENCES INTRODUCTION

Theaction that comprises this consultationunder the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended(16 U.S.C. l53I et se4.)@SA) is therelicensing of theLewis River Hydroelectric Projectsby theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the interdependentactions containedin the SettlementAgreement (SA) (PacifiCorpet aL.2A04a),dated November 30, 20A4.The SA was signedby 26 stakeholdersrepresenting PacifiCorp and CowlitzPUD; Federal,State, and local governments;Tribes; and non-profrt organizations that participated in therelicensing of theprojects. The Final Biological Evaluation (BE) (Pacif,rCorpet al.2005)' datedJanuary 15, 2005, and additional information provided by the Licenseeswas used for completionof this consultation.We referto scientificpublications and published agency' documentsas literaturecited. We referto unpublishedwritten communications,e-mails, and meetingnotes from otheroffices as In Litteris. A completeadministrative record of this consultationis on file in theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(FWS) Western Washington Fish andWildlife Office in Lacey,Washington.

CONSULTATION HISTORY

TheFWS has been working with PacifiCorpsince 1995 on therelicensing of theYale HydroelectricProject. In 1998PacifiCorp, Cowlitz PUD, andother participants in the relicensingdecided to expandthe studiesand scope of the analysisto includethe remainingthree hydroelectricprojects on the North Fork Lewis River. The FWS hasparticipated in the relicensingof the remainingthree projects. The Licensees,agencies, and other interested parties agreedto usethe FERCs Alternative Licensing Process for relicensingall of theLewis River HydroelectricProjects. This processis a morecollaborative approach than the traditional relicensingprocess and allows for a thoroughdiscussion of the issuesbefore the FERC completesits environmentalanalysis.

In July Iggg,PacifrCorpand CowlitzPUD begana seriesof meetingswith the FWS,National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS), and FERC to discussa proposalfor habitatprotection measuresdesigned to conservesalmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.), as well asbull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).

In 2000,PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD filed applicationswith the FERCto amendtheir existing licensesfor theLewis River HydroelectricProjects to incorporatemeasures for protecting, enhancingor mitigatingimpacts to endangered,threatened, proposed, and candidate fish species underthe ESA. On October4,2000, the FERC sent a letterto NMFS andthe FWS requesting formal consultationfor the amendedlicenses. The FWS respondedthat moreinformation was requiredto initiateformal consultation. On December15,2000, the FERC sent the FWS a letter respondingto the informationrequested. On June28,2002, the NMFS andFWS QA02a)issued to theFERC a joint BiologicalOpinion (FWS: 1-3-02-F-0839),referred to hereas the Interim BiologicalOpinion (BO), on theeffects to listedfish speciesfrom continuedoperation of eachof the Lewis River HydroelectricProjects and from conservationmeasures included in the license amendmentapplications. The Interim BO included an Incidental Take Statement(ITS) which statedthe following:

"This biological opinion hasbeen framed in terms of the period of time from the present through 2006,the date identified in the ALP [Alternative Licensing Process]for completion of the studiesand developmentof a long-term settlementpackage. At that time, the Servicesexpect that a subsequentconsultation on the new licenseswould supersedethis opinion. This biological opinion assumesthat to the extent that studies required in that biological opinion identify additional mitigation measures,such mitigation will be includedin the biological opinion for the new license[s]and implemented during the new license term[s]. Starting annually April2006, if FERC has not issuednew licenses,the Servicesshall analyzePacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD's annual report to determineif re-initiation of consultationis required....If the Servicesdetermine that re-initiation is warranted,PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD consentto the ionsultation and shall remain in compliance under the curent ITS until consultation is completed. If the Servicesdetermine that re-initiation is not required, PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD shall remain in complianceunder the current ITS'"

On May 12,2003,theFERC amendedthe Merwin,Yale,Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2 licensesto bring them into compliancewith the Interim BO.

On April 2I,20l2,the Swift No. 2 power canal embankmentfailed, dewatering the canal, and resulting in the mortality of at least six bull trout. In a joint effort, the Licensees,agencies and volunteers salvagedbull trout remaining in the canal after the failure. The Interim BO included a description of the power canal failure and impacts to bull trout associatedwith this event.

Cowlitz PUD requestedinformal consultation for the reconstruction and repair of the Swift No. 2 Project, resulting in a letter from the FV/S (2004) stating our concuffencethat these activities "may affect, but are not likely to adverselyaffect" bull trout. On July 28,2004, the Cowlitz PUD sent supplementaldocumentation to the FWS regarding the Swift No. 2 repair and. reconstruction,describing modifications that were necessaryin the design, including construction and operation of a surge arrestingstructure. The FWS respondedby e-mail on August g,2004,that the effect of thesemodifications to the repair and reconstructionproject were not likely to adversely affect bull trout. Cowlitz PUD later formalized this understanding by a letter to the FWS datedFebruary 7,2006. On February23,2006, the FWS concurredwith thesefindings underthe ESA.

On January l5,2005,the Licenseessubmitted to FERC a Final BE (PacifiCorpet al. 2005). On October11, 2005, the FWS received aletter, datedSeptember 30, 2005, from the FERC requestingformal consultationunder section7 of the ESA for the relicensingof the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects. The FWS received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(FERC 2005) in the samemailing. The requestproposed the following determinations:

o "May affect,likely to adversely affect" the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout. The FWS agreeswith this effect determination. . "May affect,not likely to adverselyaffect" the northern spottedowl (spotted owl) (Strix occidentalis caurina). The FWS does not concur with this effect determinationbecause the Wildlife Habitat ManagementPlans allows for the removal of suitable spottedowl habitatwhich would result in adverseeffects to the spottedowl.

. "May affbct, not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The FWS does not concur with this effect determinationbecause of the anticipated indirect effectsof increasedrecreationists associated with the recreationalfacilities upgrades/expansionsand increasedfisheries associatedwith the reintroduction of salmon and steelheadwhich are likely to disturbbald eagles.

. "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" designatedbull trout critical habitat. The Final BE stated a*may affect,not likely to destroy or adverselymodiff" determination for bull trout designatedcritical habitat. On May I7,2006, the FWS receiveda revised BE statementfor bull trout criticalhabitat from the Utilities which stated"the proposed action will not adverselyaffect designatedbull trout critical habitat in the lower Lewis River." The FWS concurswith this determination;see section in BO entitledAnalysis of the Speciesand Critical Habitat Likety to be Affected for our rationalefor concurrence.

o "No effect" for the following species: o Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) o Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) o Bradshaw'slomatium (Lomatiumbradshawii) o Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) o Columbia white-tailed deer (Odocoileusvirginianus leucurus) o Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) o Canadalynx(Lynx canadensis) o Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphusmarmoratus) o Gray wolf ( Canis lupus); although Table 6.0-1 in the Final BE statedthe proposed action was "not likely to adversely affect" the gray wolf, it was clarified by the Utilities on May 77,2006,that the effect determinationshould have beena "no effect" for the gray wolf to be consistentwith the statementon page 58 that "we do not anticipateany project effects on the gray wolf."

There is no requirement for FWS concwrence with "no effect" determinations. The determinationthat the proposedaction will haveno effect on the abovelisted speciesrests with the action agency;therefore, consultation on the above "no effect" speciesis not necessary. The FWS does not concur with the BE's "not likely to adverselyaffect" determinationsfor the bald eagleand spotted owl. The FWS concurs with the determinationthat the action is not likely to adverselyaffect designatedbull trout critical habitat. Finally, the FWS agreesthat the proposed actionmay adverselyaffect bull trout. Therefore,pursuant to section7(a)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. g 1536(aX2),the FWS has preparedthis Biological Opinion regardingbull trout, bald eagle,and northern spotted owl. BIOLOGICAL OPINION

ACTION AREA

Theaction areafor the relicensing includes the Lewis River subbasin, which is U.S.Geological Survey(USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code17080002, from the ColumbiaRiver upstreamto the headwaters.

DESCRIPTIONOF THE PROPOSEDACTION

Descriptionof the Lewis River HydroelectricProjects

The following sectiondescribes all four hydroelectricprojects in the North Fork Lewis River basin.The projects begin approximately 10 miles east of Woodland,Washington. The upstream sequencoof theprojects from theconfluence of theLewis and Columbia rivers is asfollows: Merwin,Yale, SwiftNo. 2, atd SwiftNo.1. TheMerwin, Yale, and Swift No. 1 projects representa linkedreservoir/powerhouse system covering over 30 milesof theLewis River. The Swift No. 2 projectdoes not includea damand reservoir. It utilizeswater directly from the tallraceof Swift No. 1, which flows into a 3-mile-longcanal that discharges through the Swift No. 2 powerhouseinto YaleLake.

Thethree-reservoir four-project system is operatedin a coordinatedfashion to achieveoptimum benefitsfor powerproduction, flood management,and to providefor naturalresources in the basinsuch as fish, wildlife and,reqeation.The four projectsutilize the waterresources within theNorth Fork Lewis River basinfrom elevation50 ft meansea level (msl) (Merwin Project tailwater)to 1,000ft msl (Swift No. I normalpool). The total usablestorage in the reservoirsis 814,000acre-ft. The total installed capacity for thefour projects is 580megaWatts (MW).

Merwin Dam andReservoir

TheMerwin Hydroelectric Project is a 136MW plantowned and operated by PacifiCorp.It is the furthermostdownstream project of the four operatingon the North Fork Lewis River. Constructionof the Merwin Projectbegan tn 1929and was completedwith a singleunit in 1931. Two additionalunits were added ]n 1949and 1958.

Merwin Dam spansthe North Fork Lewis River 21 milesupstream from the confluencewith the ColumbiaRiver. It is a concretearch structure with atotal crestlength of 1,300ft anda maximumheight above its lowestfoundation of 314 ft. The damconsists of an archsectionT52 ft in crestlength, a 75-foot-longgravity thrust block, a206-foot-longspillway section, a non- overflowgravity section242 ftlong, followedby a concretecore wall section20 ft high and extending25 ft into the bank. The spillwayis equippedwith four taintorgates 39 ft wide and30 ft high, andone taintor gate 10 ft wide and30 ft high. Thetaintor gates have been extended to an elevationof 240ft abovemsl by the additionof 5-foot flashboards.

The reservoirformed by Merwin Dam is about14.5 miles long with a surfacearea of approximately4,000 acres at elevation239.6 ft msl (full pool). At full pool,the reservoir has a

4 grossstorage capacity of approximately422,800 acre-ft. Of this amount,182,600 acre-ft of usablestorage is availablebetween elevation 190 and 239.6ft msl, with an additional81,100 acre-ftof usable storaseavailable if the reservoir is lowered to its allowable minimum level of 165ft msl.

P enstocks and P owerhouse

Three penstockslead from Merwin Dam to the powerhouse,via separateintakes. The Merwin intakes are relatively deep (approx. 203 ft. below full pool), high-head intakes with design velocities ranging from between 10 and20 feet per second(fps). The intakes are protectedfrom large debris by steel trash racks on approximately 4-inch spacing. The capacity of the three penstocksis different,with Unit Nos. I and2 capableof carrying 3,790 cubic feet per second (cfs), and Unit No. 3 carryingof 3,890 cfs. The penstock inlet diametersand the minimum water surfaceelevation in Merwin Lake allow the intake systemto passmore than 150 percent of the existing plant hydraulic capacity. A fourth penstockwas originally constructedbut is currently not utilized by the project.

The powerhousecontains 3 semi-outdoor-typeFrancis turbine generatorunits, each with an installed capacityof 45,000kilowatts (kW), and one 1,000kW houseunit, for a total installed capacityof 136,000kW.

Transmissionand Auxiliary Equipment

Power is transportedfrom the Merwin Projectby two 115 kV transmissionlines. One of these extendsin a westerly direction a distanceof approximately 15.9 miles from the project to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Cardwell substationnear Kalama, Washington. The other line runs in a southerly direction for 26.7 miles to the Clark County PUD View substation nearBattleground, Washington and then into Portland, Oregon.

YaleDam and Reservoir

The Yale HydroelectricProject is a 134MW plant owned and operatedby PacifiCorpthat lies directly upstreamof the Merwin Project. Construction of the Yale Project began in 1951 and was completeby 1953. The project consistsof a main embankmentdam, saddledam, reservoir, penstocks,powerhouse, and transmissionline. The project is operatedin coordinationwith the other three hydroelectric facilities on the North Fork Lewis River.

Yale Dam is located on the North Fork Lewis River approximately 30 miles upstreamfrom the confluencewith the Columbia River. Yale Dam is a rolled earthenfill embankmenttype dam with a crestlength of 1,305ft and a height of 323 ft aboveits lowest foundationpoint. Its crest elevation is 503-ft msl. The saddledam is located 0.25 mile west of the main dam and is approximately 1,600 ft long and40 ft high with a crest elevation of 503 ft msl. The main dam has a chute-type spillway,located in the right abutment,with a capacityof 120,000cfs through five 30-foot by 39-foot taintor gatesat reseryoirelevation 490 ft msl.

Yale Lake is approximately 10.5 miles long with a surface areaof approximately 3,800 acresat elevation 490-ft msl (full pool). At full pool, the reservoir has a gross storage capacityof approximately 401,000 acre-ft. At the minimum pool elevation of 430-ft msl, the reservoir has a capacityof approximately190,000 acre-ft.

Tunnels /P enst ocks and P owerhous e

The Yale Project consistsof two tunnels/penstocksleading from Yale Dam to the powerhouse. Water is delivered to the tunnels/penstocksvia a common intake. The Yale intake is a relatively deep(approximately 90 ft. below full pool), high-head intake with designvelocities ranging from between 10 and 20 fps. The intakes are protectedfrom large debris by steel trash racks on approximately 4-inch spacing. The maximum diameter of each of the Yale tunnels/penstocksis 18.5ft; the minimum diameteris 16 ft. Penstockvelocities range from 18.2fps in the tunnelto 24.3 fps in the penstocks'smallest sections. The Yale penstocksue eachcapable of passinga maximum of 4,880 cfs.

The Yale powerhousecontains 2 Francis-typegenerator units with atotal installed capacity of 108,000kW (nameplate).The powerhouseis locatedat the baseof the earthembankment on the left side (facing downstream)of the old river channel. The generatorunits were originally installed in L952. The turbines were rehabilitated coincident with generatorrewinds in 1987 and 1988,respectively. In 1995,PacifiCorp installed a new runner in Yale Unit No. 2. A similar runner was installed in Unit No. 1 in 1996. The new runners increasedYale capacityto I34 MW.

Transmission and Auxiliary Equipment

Power generatedatthe Yale Projectis transmitted11.5 miles over a 115kilovolt (kV)- transmissionline (Lake Line) to a substationadjacent to the Merwin Project.

Swift Dam and Reservoir

The Swift No. 1 HydroelectricProject is a240 MW plant owned and operatedby PacifiCorp. The project is the furthermost upstreamhydroelectric facility on the North Fork Lewis River, lying directly upstreamof the Swift No 2Hydroelectric Project. Construction of the Swift No. 1 Projectbegan in1956 and was completedin 1958. It consistsof a main embankmentdam, reservoir, penstocks,powerhouse, and transmissionline, and is operatedin coordination with the other three hydroelectric facilities on the North Fork Lewis River.

Swift Dam spansthe North Fork Lewis River approximately 40 miles upstreamfrom the confluericewith the Columbia River and 10.5 miles upstreamof Yale Dam. It is an earthenfill embankmenttype dam with a crest length of 2,100 ft and a height of 5I2 ft. At the time of its construction, Swift Dam was the tallest earthenfill dam in the world. Its overflow spillway, locatedin the left abutment,has a capacityof 120,000cfs (at reservoirelevation 1,000 ft msl) throughtwo 50-foot by 5l-foot taintor gates. The elevationat the top of the taintor gatesis I ,001.6-ftmsl.

The reservoirformed by Swift Dam is approximately11.5 miles long with a surfacearea of approximately4,680 acresat elevation1,000-ft msl (full pool). At maximum pool, the reservoir has a gross storagecapacity of approximately 755,000 acre-ft. At the minimum pool elevation of 878-ft msl, the reservoir has a capacityof approximately 447,000 acte-ft. Tunnels/Penstocks and P owerhouse

Water is delivered from Swift Creek Reservoir to the powerhousethrough a systemcontaining a tunnel, a surge tank, andan outlet, which branchesinto three penstocks. The Swift No. 1 intake is a relatively deep (approximately 135 ft deep at fullpool), high-head intake with design velocities rangingfrom between 10 and20 fps. The intakes are protected from large debris by steel trash racks on approximately 4-inch spacing. The Swift No. 1 surge tank is located approximately 1,196 ft downstreamof the tunnel intake and about 482 ft upstreamof the powerhouse. This surge tank is of the restricted orifice, non-overflow style, with a diameterof 55 ft and a top elevationof 1,035-ftmsl. Downstreamof the tank, individual penstocksfor each generatingunit branch from the main tunnel. Each of the Swift No. I penstocksis 13 ft in diameter. At maximum turbine flows, water in the penstocksreaches velocities of up to 23 fps. The Swift No. 1 penstocksare capableof passinga maximum of 9,I20 cfs, combined.

The Swift No. 1 Powerhousecontains 3 Francis-typegenerator units with atotal installed capacityof 240,000kW (nameplate).The turbineswere rewoundin 1987(unit No. l2),1990 (unit No. 11) and 1991(unit No. 13) resultingin a capacityupgrade from 204 MW to 240 ll4W. The powerhouseis locatod at the baseof tho dam on the left side (faeing doWnsfeam) of the old river channel. The powerhouseis operatedby remote control from the Hydro Control Centetat Merwin Headquarters.

Transmission and Auxiliary Equipment

The project is servedby the 230kV Speelyaitransmission line which extendsfrom Swift No. 1 to the Swift No. 2 switchyard and then to a Bonneville Power Administntion (BPA) switching station near Woodland, Washington.

Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Proiect

The Swift No. 2 HydroelectricProject is a 70 MW developmentowned by Cowlitz PUD. The project lies betweenthe Swift No. 1 and Yale hydroelectric projects on the North Fork Lewis River. The Swift No. 2 Project consistsof a power canal,intake structure,penstocks, powerhouse, talhace dischargechannel, substation, and transmissionline. The powerhouseis located3 miles downstreamfrom Swift No. 1. Constructionof the Swift No. 2 Projectbegan in L956 andwas completedin 1958. It is operatedin coordinationwith the other three hydroelectric facilities on the North Fork Lewis River.

Power Canal

The Swift No. 2 Power Canalbegins at the taikace of the Swift No. I Powerhouseand consists of an earthen-linedupper section(approximately 11,000 ft long) anda concrete-linedlower section(approximately 5,900 ft long). Water releasedfrom the Swift No. I Powerhouse immediately entersthe 3-mi1epower canal and is conveyedto the Swift No. 2 Powerhouse. A gatedcheckstructure and ungated side-channelspillway/wasteway exist as part of the canal facilities. The purpose of the check structureis to allow isolation of the canal for operation of Swift No. 1 when Swift No. 2 is out of service. The gatesin the check structureimmediately downstreamof the wasteway can be closed,to block flow, if, for example, the downstream sectionof the canalneeds to be dewateredfor maintenanceactivities including inspection. Duringnormal operations, the wastewayprevents canal flows from exceedingthe Swift No' 2 hydraulic capacityandmaintains the maximumlevel in the canal. Watermay be releasedto the bypassreach over the wastewayif flows in the canalexceed the Swift No. 2 hydrauliccapacity or if the checkstructure gates are closed. A drainon the downstreamside of the checkstructure may alsobe usedto releasewater from the canalif needed.As a FERCPart 12 safety requirementfor the project,a surgearresting structure (SAS) is locatedadlacent to the intake structureto releasewater from the canalintheevent there is a surgefrom a turbinegenerator trip at Swift No. 2 andexcess flow mustbe releasedfrom the canal The releasevalve at the terminusof theSAS consists of two conevalves. Under normal operating conditions, the elevationof the canalwaters at the Swift No. 2 intakestructure range from 601to 604ft msl. The canalsurface area is approximately56 acres,and the canalholds approximately 922 acre-ft of water. Theoperatingcapacity of thepower canal is 9,000cfs.

Penstocksand Powerhouse

Wateris deliveredfrom the Swift No. 2 intakestructureto the powerhousevia two penstocks, onefor eachof two turbinegenerator units. The intakesto the penstocksare protected from largedebris by steeltrash racks with approximately4-inch spacing. The Swift No. 2 Powerhousehas two Francis-typeturbines; each rated at40,950 kW. Undercontract with Cowlitz PUD, PacifiCorpcurrently operates the powerhousevia remotecontrol from the Hydro ControlCenter at Merwin headquarters.

Transmission

Theproject is servedby the same230 kV Speelyaitransmission line that servesSwift No. 1 and that extendsfrom the Swift No. 2 switchyardto a BPA switchingstation near Woodland, Washington.

Descriptionof the ProposedAction

Theproposed action is thecontinued operation of theLewis River Hydroelectric Projects to be operatedunder four new licenseswith proposedterms of 50 years.As specifiedin theletter requestingconsultation under section 7 of theEndangered Species Act for the relicensingof the LewisRiver Hydroelectric Projects dated September 30,2005, the preferred action is theLewis RiverSA asmodified by FERCstaff in its final EIS. Specifically,FERC issued a FinalEIS in March 2006thatincluded additional measures recommended by FERCstaff andalso included measuresfrom WDOEsdraft Clean Water Act Section401 Certifications. In the final EIS, FERCstaff recommendsthat all the measuresin the SA be includedas conditions of any licenses issuedfor theLewis River Projects except for thefollowing measures:

. The In Lieu Fund, becauseit is a contingency fund that may or may not occur, will dependon the decisionsmade by other agencies.

. Funding law enforcementand emergencyservices at existing levels and providing additional funds to the appropriate agency to support fire services and three additional marine and land basedFTE law enforcementofficers; law enforcement andfire servicesin the project areaare the responsibilityof countyand federal agencies.

. Improvementsof five river accesssites outside of the Merwin Projectboundary alongthe lower Lewis River,because there is no physicalnexus between the lower-riversites and the Merwin Project,located 5 milesupstream.

. Providingfunding to the ForestService for managingdispersed camping sites outsideof the projectboundaries, because other proposed measures in the SA would be sufficientto addresscamping use during peak-use periods.

. Providingfunding to the ForestService for maintenanceof ForestRoad 90.

However,FERC has stated in its Final EIS that PacifiCorpand Cowlitz PUD may electto providethese measures as terms of the SA eventhough FERC does not recommendthem as licenseconditions. Section 7 regulationsprovide that the FWS mustconsider the directand indirecteffects of an action,as well asthe effectof any interrelatedand interdependent actions (50 CFR $ec.402.0D. The remainingSA termsthat were not beenadopted by FERCas a conditionof any licenseare interrelated and interdependent because they would not be implementedbut for FERCsissuance of the licenses.The Servicetherefore will analyzein this BO the effectsof FERCsaction, which is the SA asmodified above by FERCstaff in its EIS, as well asthe remainderof the SA andthe requirementsin the 401Water Quality Certifications as interrelatedand interdependent actions.

Due to the complexitiesand specific meaning of the SA, the FWS haschosen to incorporate verbatimthe following descriptionof the proposedaction from the January15, 2005, BE to avoidmisinterpreting or inadvertentlychanging the meaningof the SA.

1.4 ProposedAction "The proposedaction for this consultationis the continuedoperation of the Lewis River HydroelectricProjects (Yale Project FERC No. 2071,Swift No. 1 ProjectFERC No. 2111, MerwinProject FERC No. 935and Swift No. 2 ProjectFERC No. 2213),operated under four newlicenses with proposedterms of 50 years.The proposed action is describedin theLewis River SettlementAgreement.

Theproposed action includes a comprehensivesuite of bull trout, steelhead,and salmon protectionand restoration measures and actions that will be implementedin a phasedapproach overthe termsof the licensesto primarily benefitbull trout,winter steelhead,spring Chinook andcoho. The fish passageelements of theprogram will be subjectto rigorousperformance standards.These include overall quantitative survival standards, specific salmonid life stage standardsand facility designstandards. These will assistin gaugingprogram success and whetherthere is needfor potentialfacility adjustmentsor ultimately,modifications.

The overarchinggoal of the comprehensiveprogram is to achievegenetically viable, self- sustainingnaturally reproducing, harvestable anadromous fish populationsabove Merwin Dam at greaterthan minimum viable populations. For bull trout, the primary goal is to providehabitat continuity between spawning,rearing, foraging, migration, and overwintering habitatsby providing upstreamand downstreampassage at all project dams. There is recognition that commercial and tribal harvest, and oceanconditions may dramatically affect program results for salmon,but are not within the Licensees' control. Statuschecks are built into the program over time to monitor progressand adaptively managethe program as neededto maximize the expectedbenefits.

A central, significant feature of the comprehensiveprogram involves reintroduction of extirpated salmon speciesinto their historical range. The program takes a comprehensiveapproach to salmonprotection and reintroduction given the experimentalnature of reintroducing extirpated anadromousspecies into their native range after many decadeshave passed. A key premise of the program is that it will provide an estimated I74 miles of potential anadromousfish habitat aboveMerwin Dam. Of this,lI7 miles of habitatabove Swift No. 1 Dam will becomeavailable in the fourth year of the reintroduction program as anadromousfish are trappedat Merwin Dam and transportedupstream to above Swift Creek Reservoir. Over the next seventeenyears, unless otherwisedirected by NOAA Fisheriesand the United StatesFish and Wildlife Service(the "services"), each anadromousfish specieswill be reintroducedto Lake Merwin and Yale Lake via neWly conStructOdupstream fish passagefacilities atthe Merwin, Yale and Swift Projects and downstreampassage at all three facilities. Ultimately, this program will result in upstream fish passagethrough each of the reservoirsassociated with the Lewis River Projects fbr bull trout, steelhead,and salmon.

The Lewis Projectsare high-headprojects that posetechnological challenges with respectto fish passage. As a result, the program includes many other important andcomplementary measures to underpin and strengthenthe reintroduction effort. These include habitatpreparation activities in tributaries to the project reservoirsprior to speciesreintroduction, funding for habitat protection and restorationprojects on key tributary streamsto the reservoirs,and supplementationusing hatchery fish over a period of years both to launch the reintroduction effort and provide support over time. The trap and transport effort will include the best available technologyand designsto addressthe specificcharacteristics of the Lewis projectsas high-head, high flow projects. Project operational changesalso will be implemented to addressimpacts on speciesdownstream

Under the proposedaction, it will likely take many years to reap the benefits of all the measures and activities that will be undertakenand for the program to fully succeed:

. Habitat restoration activities need to occur over a period of severalyears to make the habitat fully functioning and productive;

. It will take several life cycles of salmon to determinewhether the program is delivering anticipatedbenefits and to better understandpotential outside impacts on the program such as harvest;

. The program contemplatesphasing in reintroduction into the various reservoirs so that experienceand knowledge gained from reintroduction above Swift No. 1 Dam can be applied to reintroduction into YaleLake and Lake Merwin;

10 . It will take time to construct fish passagefacilities and time to determinewhat is working or what needsto be modified basedon establishedperformance standards;

. An aggressivemonitoring and evaluationprogram, overseenby a multi-party committee,will be undertakenover many years to collect new information and scientific datato implement an adaptivemanagement approach to speciesrestoration and protection.

As noted, the proposedaction includes rigorous facility and fish survival performancestandards and a monitoring and evaluation program to ffack progress. The program also includes built-in, major "status checks" in years 27 and37 to provide for a detailed review of program measures and activities and to track progress. As part of thesereviews, a "limiting factors analysis" will be undertakento more precisely determinewhether performanceand speciesgoals have been met, whether other factors are undermining program performance,and whether other actions could be undertakento provide biological benefits equivalent to any project-relatedlimiting factor.

In addition to the phasedreintroduction of extirpated anadromousspecies and construction of fish passagefacilities, the proposedaction also includes hatchery and supplementationprograms; flows in the bypass reach;construction of an aqtatichabitat channel; funding for aquatic habitat improvement; minimum flows below the Merwin Dam, flow plateau operation and ramping procedures;wildlife habitat acquisition, protection, and management;recreation upgradesand maintenance;cultural and historic resourcesprotection measures;funding of law enforcement; and a visitor's center. Appendix A and the discussionbelow in this Section1.4 provide additional details regarding the proposedaction analyzedin this BE. All of thesemay provide indirectbenefits to aquaticspecies. The discussionbelow in this Section1.4 provides additional details regarding the proposedaction to assistin the reader's understandingof its analysisin this BE; however, the SettlementAgreement is consideredthe best and most accuratedescription of the proposedaction, and has beenrelied upon by PacifiCorpand CowlitzPUD in preparingthis BE."

Lewis River SettlementAgreement Terms

A summary of the measuresincluded in the Lewis River SettlementAgreement is presentedin Table 1.4-I, as excerptedfrom the Final BE. More detailedinformation describingthese measuresis provided in the Final BE. The section numbersreferred to in Table L4-T conespond to sectionsof the Lewis River SettlementAgreement.

11 Table L4-1 Measuresproposed under the Lewis River SettlementAgreement with the Potential to Affect ESA Listed es (Source:Final BE dated t5 2005 ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing Section3 Anadromous 3.1 Work to achieve genetically viable, spawning, harvestablepopulations of Fish naturally Terms of the steelheadand coho above Merwin Reintroduction Chinook, New Licenses Outcome Goals Dam. Check statusof goals in Years 27 and37 ofnew licenses. Aquatics UpstreamFish 4.2Metwin Trap. Repair the fuke net. Section4 Passage Reduce generationwhen personnel are ByYear 2, working the trap. Improve efficiency and modify trap human safety of existing Merwin trap and add ByYear 4, a new sorting and truck loading facility. Truck operatenew spring Chinook, coho & steelheadfrom the collectionand Merwin sorting facility to Swift Creek transport Reservoir or Yale Lake, per Upstream facility Transport Plan. Truck bull trout to Yale Lake. 4.7 Upstream Passageat Yale Dam. Construct an upstream adult trap and sorting/trucking ByYear17 facility. 4.8 UpstreamPassage at the Swift Projects. Constructan upstream adult trap and By Year l7 sorting/truckingfacility. 4.9.1 Collect-and-HaulPrograms. Net bull trout in Yale and Swift No. 2 tailraces and transport to Yale Lake or as directed by Ongoing USFWS. Investigate alternative trapping methods. 4.l0.2Bull Trout Passagein the Absenceof AnadromousFish Facilities. If 4.7 and/or4.8 By Yeat 17 aI are not constructed,develop facility to collect Swift and Yale bull trout at Yale and at Swift. Downstream 4.4 Downstream Transport at Swift No. lDam. FishPassage Install a floating surface collector system with guide walls and nets at Swift Dam. Collect anadromousfish, sort, mark a sub-sample,and By Year4.5 truck to releasepond below Lake Merwin. Releasebull trout in Yale Lake or below Merwin, dependingon developmental stage. 4.4.2 SpringChinook Satellite Collection Facility.If directedby NOAA-Fisheries, evaluate,design and install a satellitepassage If Required faciliWin Swift CreekReservoir.

releasepond 4.4.3 ReleasePond. Construct ByYear4.5 below Merwin Dam for downstream migrants. ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing 4.5 Downstream Passageat Yale Dam. Install a floating surface similar to Swift. Collect fish, sort, mark a sub-sample,and truck to release pond below Lake Merwin. Bull trout will be By Year 13 returned to Yale Lake or transportedto the downstreamrelease pond, depending on development stage. 4.6 Downstream Passageat Merwin Dam. Install a floating surface collector similar to fish, sort, mark a sub-sample, Swift. Collect By Year 17 and truck to a releasesite below Lake Merwin. Releasebull trout in Lake Merwin or as directed by USFWS. 4.9.3 Yale and Merwin Bull Trout Entrainment By Year I at Reduction. Evaluate and implement measures Yale,when to reduce entrainment up to and until directedby downstreamfloating collector is constructed. USFWSat Merwin

4. 10.I Bull Trout Passagein the Absenceof By Year 13 at If 4.5 andlor4.6 AnadromousFish Facilities. Yale; afterYear facility to not built, develop downstream 17at Merwin collect/transport bull trout. Yale Aquatics Additional 5.1 Yale Spillway modifications.Modi$' By Year4.5 of fish Section5 Aquatic spillway to improve downstreamresident the Yale Measures survival (including bull trout) during spill License. events. 5.2 Bull Trout HabitatEnhancement Measures. Manageexisting conservation covenants to Complete protectbull trout habitatin perpetuify. 5.5 Bull Trout Limiting FactorsAnalysis. By 2"0 ConductLFA on Merwin andSwift Creek anniversaryof Reservoirtributaries. EffectiveDate 5.6 Public Information Program to Protect Listed Anadromous Species. Provide signage and educationalmaterials to inform the public When of efforts to reintroduce and protect listed Requested anadromousfish to the Lewis River above Merwin Dam. 5.7 PublicInformation Program to ProtectBull trout. Install signageand distribute flyers to Within 6 informpublic aboutbull trout in theproject months afea. Aquatics BypassFlow 6.1 Bypass Reach. Releaseflows to the reach Section6 of the Lewis River downstreamof Swift No. I Year I ending at Yale Lake. 6.1.1Flow releasesfrom canaldrain. Release Upon up to 47 cfs. completionof SwiftNo. 2 reconstruction ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing upperrelease point. Design 6.1.2Construct Year I andconstruct upper water release point. Determinefeasibility of constructed 6.1.3 Upon in bypassreach and fund construction. channel completion of flow schedule:60 cfs,July I through Interim upper release 100cfs, Nov. 1 throughJan,31;75 Oct.31; structure cfs, Feb.I throughJune 30. 6.1.4 Flow Schedule. Develop an interim and final flow releaseschedule for the bypass StartYear 1 reach. Merwin Flow 6.2.1.Ramping Rates Below Merwin Dam. Up rampingrates limited to 1.5ft per hour,down rampinglimited to 2 inchesper hour,with crilical.flow setat 8,000cfs; no rampingfrom StartYear I February16 through June 15, one hour before/aftersunrise or onehour before/after sunset. 6.2.2PlaheauOperations at Merwin Dam. Follow PlateauOperation proceduresbetween February 16 and August 15. Changesin flow of will be consistentwith ramping restriction StartYear 1 6.2.1at or below flows of 8,000 cfs, aad flow changeswill be limited to no more than one ohangein any 24-hour period, and 4 times in any 7-day period, or 6 times/month. 6.2.3 StrandingStudy and Habitat Evaluation. Conduct stranding study and habitat evaluation Complete by below Merwin Dam to evaluateoperation Year 3 effects on anadromoussalmonids and their habitats, 6.2.4Minimum FlowsBelow Merwin Dam. flows rangefrom a high of 4,200cfs . Minimum Start Year I (Nov 1 to Dec 15)to 1,200cfs (July3l to Oct 12\ 6.2.5 Low Flow Procedures.During dry years convene Flow Coordination Committee to implement adaptive management;focused on As Needed fish needs,flood management,and reservoir recreationalpool levels. .l LargeWoody Debris Program. Stockpile Aquatic Habitat Habitat 7 Start Year I of LargeWoody Debris under direction of ACC Section7 Enhancement Merwin License Actions for useby otherentities for habitatprojects. Provide annuallyfor 7.1.1Funding. $2,000 Within 6 qualifiedentities to usefor LWD projectsand monthsof annuallyfor theAquatics Fund $10,000 Merwin License earmarkedfor habitatproiects. 7.1.2LWDStudy. Conduct a LWD studyto Within 1"'year identify issuesand opporhrnities for LWD of Merwin projectsbelow Merwin Dam. License ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing 7.2 Spawning Gravel Program. Develop Startwithin 6 spawning gravel monitoring and augmentation monthsof program below Merwin, EffectiveDate Conductone-time study of 7.3 PredalorStudy. Completeby predationin Merwin is a limiting whether Year 10 factorto anadromoussalmonid survival. Releaseadult T.4Habitat PreparationPlan. Within 6 prior salmon for five years into the reservoirs monthsof to passageto begin preparing the spawning EffectiveDate habitat and to enhancenutrients. 7.5 Aquatic EnhancementFund. Provide PacifiCorp funding for aquatic enhancement projects; startsin 2005; PacifiCorpto provide $5.2 million over 14 Cowlitz PUD years, and Cowlitz PUD to provide $520,000 startsat endof over 20 years, Year I 7.6In Lieu Fund. Establish In Lieu Fund if Contributionsin , the Servicesdetermine salmonid introduction Years11-13 to Yale or Merwin is not required and passage and14-17 of facilities not built; PacifiCorp to provide up to Yale;Years 14- a total of $30 million; funds to be spent on 17of Merwin; aquatic enhancementmeasures. Years14-17 of SwiftNo. 1 HatcheryProgram Hatcheries 8.2 AnadromousFish Hatchery Adult Ocean and RecruitTarget by Species.Anadromous Fish Supplementation HatcheryProduction. Licensees will produce Startin Year I Section8 86,000adult ocean recruits according to allocationin Section8.2.1. 8.3 Anadromous Fish Hatchery Juvenile production are Production. Juvenile targets Startin Year 1 definedin Table 8.3 for Years 1-3,4-5, and 6- 60. will 8.4 SupplementationProgram. Licensees Variesby juvenile supplementadult and salmon and speciesand sections steelheadaccording to allocation in reservoir 8.4.1,8.4.2, and 8.4.3. 8.5 ResidentFish Production.Stock 20,000 annuallyin Swift Creek lbs. of rainbow Startin Year 1 Reservoir.Stock 12,500 lbs. ofkokanee annuallyin LakeMerwin. 8.6 Hatchery and SupplementationPlan. Develop a plan for hatchery production and Start between supplementationaccording to Section 8.6.1 Years 1 and 3 and8.6.2. 8.7 Hatchery and SupplementationFacilities, Upgrades, and Maintenances. Fund or Per Schedule undertakeupgrades to existing hatcheriesin 8,7 collaboration with WDFW and the ACC. juvenile 8.8.1Locate and install acclimation By Year 4 sites (if feasible) above Swift Creek Reservoir. ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing 8.8.2Install juvenile acclimation sites in Yale Lake andLake Merwin. Temporarysites in By Year 13 hibutarvstreams. Aquatic 9.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Plans. Develop Monitoring By 2nu Monitoring and monitoring and evaluation plans to evaluate Section 9 anniversaryof Evaluation the effectivenessof various aquatic measures. licenses Prepare annual monitoring teports. 9.2 Monitoring and Evaluation Related to Fish Passage.Monitor perfofinance of upstream As Needed and downstreampassage facilities according to performancecriteria. andChum. Monitor 9.3 Wild Fall Chinook Annually spawnersbelow Merwin, 9.4 WaterQuality Monitoring. Monitor water qualityand fund NPDEScompliance As Required monitoring. Hatcheryand Supplementation 9.5 Monitor Reportas Assesseffects of supplementation Program. Directed efforts. 9.6 Bull TroutMonitoring. Monitor bull hout Start in Year I collectionand test alternate passage facilities. 9,7 ResidentFish Assessment,Monitor Yale aanually and kokaneepopulation in As Required impacts of anadromousfish introduction on residentfish species. to fund 9.8 Monitoring of Flows. PacifiCorp Report and flows in the monitoring of Merwin flows Annually bypassreach. 10.1 Yale Land Acquisition and Habitat Terrestrial Land In Years 1 and ProtectionFund. Provide$2.5 million to Section10 Acquisition 2 of Effective purchasewildlife mitigation lands near the Date Yale Proiect. 10.2 SwiftNo. 1 and SwiftNo. 2Land Acquisition and Habitat Protection Fund. Initiatedwithin Provide $7.5 million to purchasewildlife l8 monthsof mitigation lands for the Swift No, I and Swift Swift licenses No. 2 projects. 10.3 Lewis River Land Acquisition and million Habitat Protection Fund. Provide $2.2 Initiatein Year not total and matching contributions annually 4.5of Yale in any ten to exceed$100,000 or $500,000 License consecutiveyears, to purchasewildlife mitieation lands in the Lewis River basin. 10.8 Wildlife Habitat ManagementPlan. Management Develop the Wildlife Habitat Startin Year I Plan to direct habitat conservationfunds and provide effectivenessmonitoring. HabitatEvaluation Procedures. Update 10.8.4 Year17 HEP studvof all WHMP lands. ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing Recreation RRMP Implement the RRMP that will include all of In 3 phases Section11 Pacifi Corp's recreation measures. beginning in Year 1 PacifiCorp Swift Creek 11.2.1. I Swift DispersedShoreline Use Sites. Startin Year 1 Recreation Reservoir Manage and maintain disperseduse sites on Measures Measures PacifiCorp and USFS land and within the FERC project boundary, 11.2.1.2Eagle Cliff Trail. Developtrail from Year 4 EagleCliff Parkto USFSboundary. 11.2.1.3Control of SwiftForest Camp. End of Year I Acquirecampground from WDNR or negotiatemanagement agreement. 11,2.1.4Swift ADA Accessibility Years I through Improvements. Evaluate ADA compliaflce at 7 developedfacilities at Swift Creek Reservoir and renovate as needed. 112.1:5 Swift Day Use Facilities:Provide a Year 5 for Swift new picnic shelter at Swift Forest Camp; Camp;Year 11 toilets, picnic area and day use renovations at for Eagle Cliff Easle Cliff Park. Park 11.2.1.6Swift Campground and Group Camp When needed Expansion.Expand campground and improve facilities. 11.2.1.7Swift O&M. Operateand maintain Year 1 EagleCliff Parkand Swift ForestCamp. Yale Lake 1l.2.2.1YaleDispersed Shoreline Use Sites. Startin Year 1 Measures Maintainand manage dispersed shoreline use sites. 11.2.2.2Yale/IP Road Phase I. Attemptto ByYear 4 secureaccess to roadand bridee. 11.2.2.3Yale/IP Road Phase II. Developtrail, When PhaseI is parking,reservoir access and day use facilities. complete. 11.2.2.4Yale/IP Road Phase III. Resurface Yearl5 -16 trail. 11.2.2.5Yale Trails. Develop SaddleDam Year 5 trail segment,parking at Saddle Dam Park, managementapproach for SaddleDam Park, trail from Cougar Park to Beaver Bay, and loop trail in Cougar. 11.2.2.6 ADA AccessibilityImprovements. Year| -7 EvaluateADA compliaftceaI developed facilitiesat Yale Lake andrenovate as needed. 11.2.2.7Yale Park Boat Launch. Extend the Year 4 rampand replace the docks. 11.2.2.8Beaver Bay Boat Launch. Replace Year 4 the dock and repairbank erosion. 11.2.2.9Beaver Bay DayUse Parking. Isolate Year 4 parkingarea from wetland. ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing 11.2.2.10Yale Lake Day Use Facilities. Year 7 Improvefacilities at Yale Park,Beaver Bay andCougar Park. 11.2.2.11Cougar Day Use Restroom. Replace Year 6 or renovate to meet ADA standards. 11.2.2.12Beaver Bay Campgroundand Group Year13 Camps.Redesign campground and replace restrooms. 11.2.2.13Cougar Campground. Renovate tent Year14 only camping area. 11.2.2.14Cougar Campground and Group When needed Camp. Expand facilities. Lake Merwin lL2.3.l MerwinDispersed Shoreline Use Year 1 Measures Areas. Maintaindispersed shoreline use sites. IL2.3.2 Merwin Trails. Provideinformation Year 5 aboutarea trails. 11.2.3.3Marble Creek Trail. Improvetrail and Year 4 ADA accessibility. 11.2.3.4South Shore Merwin Trail Access. When needed Evaluatepotential trail easementfrom County landto lake. 11.2.3.5Merwin ADA Accessibility Years1-7 Improvements.Renovate Lake Merwin facilities. 11.2.3.6Boat Launches.Extend ramp at tt/30/04 Speelyai Bay Park. 11.2.3.7Yale Bridge Boating Access. Yeat 6 Developaccess for launchingnon-motorized watercraft. 11.2.3.8Merwin Park Day Use Facilities. Year 4 Providenew dayuse features. 11.2.3.9Merwin Park Picnic Shelters. Year4 Constructnew sheltersand move tables. 11.2.3.10Speelyai Park Restroom. Upgrade to Year 6 meetADA requirements. 11.2.3.11Day Use Parking. Improve parking Year12 at SpeelyaiBay Park. 11.2.3.12Merwin O & M. Keep CresapBay Year I Campground open through September. Maintain existing sites and shoreline day use sites. Lower River 11.2.4.1LowerLewis River Vault Toilets. Year 1 and by Measures Provide new toilets at CedarCreek, Merwin 2007 for Island Hatchery, JohnsonCreek, Lewis River River. Hatchery, and Island River accesspoints. 11.2.4.2Lower Lewis River Day Use Year11 Improvements.Provide picnic tablesat 5 sites. ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing Project Area ll.2.5I & E Program. Utilities to collaborate Years1-4 Measures on a single project-wide I&E program. I 1.2.6Visitor ManagementControls. Year I PacifiCorp to implement controls to enhance safety and visitor enjoyment. 11.2.7Communications on RecreationFacility Year 1 Availability. PacifiCorpwill inform public whenrecreation sites are at capacity. I 1.2.8Recreation Access to ProjectLands. Year I Non-motorized day use allowed on PacifiCorp lands. | 1.2.9 Land Ownership Retention for Year I Recreation. PacifiCorp retains Switchback property for future recreation development when needed. 1l .2.10Parking and Dispersed Shoreline Use Year I at Yale andSwift Creekreservoirs. Overnight parkingallowed atboal launches. ll.2.ll CampgroundGate Access and Year I Schedule. Close but not lock gates at campgroundsat night. ll.2.l2 DispersedCamping Funds to USFS. Year 1 PacifiCorpprovides $5,220 annually to USFS to managedispersed camping on USFSland. 11.2.13Vehicle Access and Use. Workto Year 1 restrictdispersed upland camping and motorizeduse. ll.2.l4 ADA-AccessibleFishing Sites. Year7: Study Assessfeasibility of ADA-accessiblebank Year10: fishingsites. Implement 11.2.15Public Use of RV DumpSites. Use of Year 1 PacifiCorp'sRV dumpsites to be allowed. CowlitzPUD 11.3. I Swift No. 2 Power CanalBank Fishing 9/30/05 Recreation Facility. Construct ADA-compliant bank Measures fishing facility at canalbridge, with parking and portable toilets. I 1.3.3I & E Program.Collaborate with YearsI - 4 PacifiCorpon a singleproject-wide I&E program. 11.3.4Recreation Access to ProjectLands. Year 1 Non-motorizedday use allowed on lands withinthe Swift No. 2projectboundary. 11.3.5Dispersed Camping Funds to USFS. Year I CowlitzPUD provides$780 annually to USFS to managedispersed camping on USFSland. Flood Notification 12.4 Emergency Notification. PacifiCorp will installation Management contribute to County-developed Wheninstalled Section12 and maintenanceof emergencyphone system for flood notification. ResourceArea Resource and Section Component ProposedMeasure Timing Communications 12.6 NOAA Communications Transmitter. Fund NOAA weather radio transmitter 8123103 installation and maintenance. High Runoff 12.8High Runoff Procedure.Implement revisedhigh runoffproceduresfor all 3 project Year I reservoirs. Cultural Resource I 3.1 CulturalResources. Finalize and Section13.1 Management ImplementHistoric Properties Management Year I Planfor Merwin.Yale andSwift No. 1. I 3. I ( I ) Curate artifacts in a securelocation in As defined in the basin. HPMP 13, I (2) Protectintegrity ofproperties listed in the NationalRegister of HistoricPlaces Year 1 (NRHP). (3) tribal accessfor traditional I 3.1 Preserve Year I uses, 13.I (4) Monitor andprotect cultural resources Year I 13.1.2Cowlitz PUD Obligationfor Cultural PUD will follow Unanticipated Resources. Year I DiscoveryPlan and consult as needed for Section106 compliance. Socioeconomics 13.2,I Fund 2 full time law enforcement Section13.2 officers and one full-time fish and wildlife Within1.5 offrcer to patrol in the North Fork Lewis River years basin. 13.2.2Provideannual funding for the Beginin April maintenanceof ForestRoad 90. 2005 13.2.3Pine Creek Work Center CommunicationLink. Continuefunding Ongoing support. fund developmentof the 13.2.4Partially As determined InformationCenter or perform Visitor by USFS maintenancefor the term of the new licenses. Coordination and | 4.2 Technical Coordination Committees. Decision Making Form one technical committee for terrestrial Wirhin 60 davs Section14 implementation and one for aquatic implementation.

As was clarified at ameetitg with the FWS and the Licenseeson May 10,2006, it is the intent that this BO would analyzeand provide for the direct take of bull trout for those activities that would continue into the future that had previously been authorized under a 10(a)(1XA) Permit and the Interim BO Incidental Take Statementfor actions such as the collection, handling, marking, transporting, andreleasingof bull trout at the forebays and tailraces of dams, specific habitat improvement sites, and ponds to be constructedin the Action Area over the 50-yearterm of the licenses.

20 STATUSOF THE SPECIES: Bull Trout

Listing Status

The coterminousUnited Statespopulation of the bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) was listed as threatenedon November l, 1999(64 FR 53910).The threatened bull troutgenerally occurs in the KlamathRiver Basinof south-centralOregon; the JarbidgeRiver in Nevada;the Willamette River Basinin Oregon;Pacific Coast drainages of Washington,including Puget Sound; major riversin Idaho,Oregon, Washington, and Montana, within the ColumbiaRiver Basin;and the St. Mary-BellyRiver, eastof the ContinentalDivide in northwesternMontana (Cavendet 1978; Bond 1992;Brewinand Brewin 1997;Learyand Allendotf 1997).

Throughoutits range,the bull trout is threatenedby the combinedeffects of habitatdegradation, fragmentation,and alterations associated with dewatering,road construction and maintenance, mining,grazing, the blockageof migratorycorridors by damsor otherdiversion structures, poor waterquality, entrainment (a processby which aquaticorganisms are pulled through a diversion or otherdevice) iato diversionchannels, and introducednon-native species (64 FR 58910). Poachingand incidental mortality of bull trout duringother targeted fisheries are additional threats.

Thebull troutwas initially listedas three separate Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) (63 FR 31647;64FR 17lI0). Thepreamble to thefinal listingrule for theUnited States coterminous populationof the bull trout discussesthe consolidationof theseDPSs with the Columbiaand Klamathpopulation segments into onelisted taxon and the applicationof thejeopardy standard undersection 7 of theESA relativeto this species(64 FR 58910):

Althoughthis rule consolidatesthe five bull troutDPSs into onelisted taxon, basedon conformancewith the DPSpolicy for purposesof consultationunder section7 of theAct,we intendto retainrecognition of eachDPS in light of availablescientific information relating to their uniquenessand significance. Underthis approach,these DPSs will be treatedas interim recovery units with respectto applicationofthejeopardy standard until an approvedrecovery plan is developed.Formal establishment of bull trout recoveryunits will occurduring therecovery planning process.

Current Statusand ConservationNeeds

In recognitionof availablescientific information relating to their uniquenessand significance, five segmentsof the coterminousUnited Statespopulation of the bull trout areconsidered essentialto the survivaland recovery of this speciesand are identified as interimrecovery units: 1) JarbidgeRiver, 2)KlamathRiver, 3) ColumbiaRiver,4) Coastal-PugetSound, and 5) St. Mary-BellyRiver (USFWS 2002;2004a, b). Eachof theseinterim recovery units is necessaryto maintainthe bull trout's distribution,as well asits geneticand phenotypic diversity, all of which areimportant to ensurethe species'resilience to changingenvironmental conditions.

21 A summaryof the currentstatus and conservation needs of the bull trout within theseinterim recoveryunits is providedbelow andacomprehensive discussion is foundin the FWSsdraft recoveryplans for the bull trout (USFWS2002; 2004a,b).

The conservationneeds of bull trout areoften generally expressed as the four Cs: cold, clean, complex,and connected habitat. Cold streamtemperatures, clean water quality that is relatively freeof sedimentand contaminants, complex channel characteristics (including abundant large wood andundercut banks), andlargepatches of suchhabitat thatare well connectedby unobstructedmigratory pathways are all neededto promoteconservation of bull trout at multiple scalesranging from the coterminousto localpopulations (a localpopulation is a groupof bull trout that spawnwithin aparticularstream or portion of a streamsystem). The recovery planningprocess for bull trout(USFWS 2002; 2004a, b) hasalso identified the following conservationneeds: 1) maintenanceand restoration of multiple,interconnected populations in diversehabitats across the rangeof eachinterim recovery unit, 2) preservationof the diversityof life-historystrategies, 3) maintenanceof geneticand phenotypic diversity across the rangeof eachinterim recovery unit, and4) establishmentof a positivepopulation trend. Recently,it has alsobeen recognizedthaq bull troutpopulations need to be protectedfrom catastrophicfires acrossthe rangeof eachinterim recovery unit (Riemanet al. 2003).

Centralto the survivaland recovery of bull trout is the maintenanceof viablecore areas (USFWS2002;2004a, b). A corearea is definedas a geographicarea occupied by oneor more local bull trout populationsthat overlapin their useof rearing,foraging, migratory, and overwinteringhabitatEach of the interimrecovery units listedabove consists of oneor more coreareas. There areI2l coreareas recognized across the coterminousrange of the bull trout (USFWS2002;2004a,b).

JarbidgeRiver InterimRecovery Unit

This interim recoveryunit currentlycontains a singlecore area with six local populations.Less than500 resident andmigratory adult bull trout,representing about 50 to 125spawning adults, areestimated to occurin the corearea. The currentcondition of the bull trout in this interim recoveryunit is attributedto the effectsof livestockgrazing, roads, incidental mortalities of releasedbull trout from recreationalangling, historic angler harvest, timber harvest, and the introductionof non-nativefishes (USFWS 2004a). The draftbull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2004a)identifies the following conservationneeds for this interimrecovery unit: 1) maintainthe currentdistribution of the bull trout within the corearea,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 historystages and forms, and4) conservegenetic diversity andincrease natural opportunities for geneticexchange between resident andmigratory forms of thebull trout. An estimated270 to 1,000spawning bull troutper yearare needed to providefor the persistenceand viability of the corearea and to supportboth residentand migratory adult bull trout(USFWS 2004a).

22 KlamathRiver InterimRecovery Unit

This interimrecovery unit currentlycontains 3 coreareas and 7 local populations.The current abundance,distribution, and rangeof the bull trout in the KlamathRiver Basin aregteatly reducedfrom historicallevels due to habitatloss and degradation caused by reducedwater quality,timber harvest, livestock grazing,water diversions, roads, and the introductionof non- nativefishes (USFWS 2002). Bull trout populationsin this interimrecovery unit facea high risk of extirpation(USFWS 2002). The draft KlamathRiver bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS2002) identifiesthe following conservationneeds for this interimrecovery unit: 1) maintainthe current distributionof bull trout andrestore distribution in previouslyoccupied areas,2) maintain stable or increasingtrends in bull trout abundance,3) restoreand maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life historystages and strategies, 4) conservegenetic diversity and provide the opportunity for geneticexchange among appropriate core area populations. Eight to 15new local populationsand an increasein populationsize from about2,400 adults currently to 8,250adults areneeded to providefor thepersistence and viability of the3 coreareas (USFWS 2002). 9ql-,ry9,iq\i"" Itlgli-,,S"qqlgryVq! The ColumbiaRiver interim recoveryunit includesbull trout residingin portionsof Oregon, Washington,Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout areestimated to haveoccupied about 60 percentof the ColumbiaRiver Basin,and presently occur in 45 percentof the estimatedhistorical tange (Quigleyand Arbelbide 1997). This interimrecovery unit currentlycontains 97 coreareas and 527 localpopulations.About 65 percentofthese core areas and local populations occur in centralIdaho and northwestern Montana. The ColumbiaRiver interimrecovery unit has declinedin overall rangeand numbers of fish (63 FR 31647).Although some strongholds still existwith migratoryfish present,bull trout generallyoccur as isolated local populationsin headwaterlakes or tributarieswhere the migratorylife historyform hasbeen lost. Thoughstill widespread,there have been numerous local extirpationsreported throughout the Columbia River basin. In Idaho,for example,bull trout havebeen extirpated from lI9 reachesin 28 streams(Idaho Department of Fishand Game in litt. 1995).The draft Columbia River bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2002) identifies the following conservation needs for this interim recoveryunit: 1) maintainor expandthe currentdistribution of the bull trout within coreareas, 2) maintainstable or increasingtrends in bull trout abundance,3)restore and maintain suitable habitatconditions for all bull trout life historystages and strategies, and 4) conservegenetic diversityand provide opportunities for geneticexchange.

This interimrecovery unit currentlycontains 97 coreareas and 527 local populations.About 65 percentof thesecore areas and local populations occur in Idahoand northwestern Montana. The conditionof the bull trout within thesecore areas varies from poor to good. All coreareas have beensubject to the combinedeffects of habitatdegradation and fragmentation caused by the following activities: dewatering;road construction and maintenance; mining; grazing;the blockageof migratorycorridors by damsor otherdiversion structures; poor waterqualify; incidentalangler harvest; entrainment into diversionchannels; and introduced non-native species.The Service completed a corearea conservation assessment for the 5-yearstatus review anddetermined that, of the 97 coreareas in this interimrecovery unit, 38 areat high risk of

23 extirpation,35are at risk, 20 areat potentialrisk, two areat low risk, andtwo areat unknown risk (USFWS2005).

Coastal-PugetSound Interim Recovery Unit

Bull trout in the Coastal-PugetSound interim recovery unit exhibit anadromous,adfluvial, fluvial, andresident life historypattems. The anadromouslife historyform is uniqueto this interimrecovery unit. This interimrecovery unit currentlycontains 14 coreareas and 67 local populations(USFWS 2004b). Bull trout aredistributed throughout most of the largerivers and associatedtributary systems within this interimrecovery unit. Bull trout continueto be present in nearly aTlmajorwatersheds where they likely occurredhistorically, although local extirpations haveoccurred throughout this interimrecovery unit. Many remainingpopulations are isolated or fragmentedand abundance has declined, especially in the southeasternportion of the interim recoveryunit. The currentcondition of the bull trout in this interimrecovery unit is attributedto the adverseeffects of dams,forest management practices (e.g., timber harvest and associated roadbuilding activities),agricultural practices (e.g., diking, watercontrol structures, draining of wetlands,channelization, and the removalof riparial vegetation),livcstoqk grazing, roads, mining,urbanization, poaching, incidental mortality from othertargeted fisheries, and the introductionof non-nativespecies. The draft Coastal-PugetSound bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS2004b) identifies the following conservationneeds for this interimrecovery unit: 1) maintainorexpand the currentdistribution of bull trout within existingcore areas, 2) increase bull troutabundance to about16,500 adults across all coreareas, and 3) maintainor increase connectivitybetween local populationswithin eachcore arca'

St. Mary-BellltRiver Interim RecoveryUnit

This interimrecovery unit currentlycontains six coreareas and nine local populations(USFWS 2002). Currently,bull trout arewidely distributedin the St.Mary River drainageand occur in nearlyall of the watersthat it inhabitedhistorically. Bull trout arefound only in a 1.2-milereach of the North Fork Belly River within the United States.Redd count surveys of the North Fork Belly Riverdocumented an increasefrom 27 reddsin 1995to 119redds in 1999.This increase was attributedprimarily to protectionfrom anglerharvest (USFWS 2002). The currentcondition of the bull trout in this interimrecovery unit is primarily attributedto the effectsof dams,water diversions,roads, mining, and the introductionof non-nativefishes (USFWS 2002). The draft St Mary Belly bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS2002) identifies the following conservationneeds for this interimrecovery unit: 1) maintainthe currentdistribution of the bull trout andrestore distributionin previouslyoccupied areas, 2) maintainstable or increasingtrends in bull trout abundance,3) restoreand maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life historystages and forms,4) conservegenetic diversity and provide the opportunityfor geneticexchange, and 5) establishgood working relationswith Canadianinterests because local bull trout populationsin this interimrecovery unit arecomprised mostly of migratoryfish, whosehabitat is mostlyin Canada.

24 Life History

Bull trout exhibit both residentand migratory life history strategies. Both residentand migtatory forms may be found together, and either form may produce offspring exhibiting either residentor migratory behavior (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Residentbull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streamsin which they spawn and rear. The resident form tends to be smaller than the migratory form at maturity and also produces fewer eggs (Fraley and Shepard1989; Goetz 1989).Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streamswhere juvenile fish rear 1 to 4 years before 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. I99l). Bull trout normally reach sexualmaturity in 4 to 7 years andmay live longer than T2 years. They are iteroparous (they spawn more than once in a lifetime). Repeat- and alternate-yearspawning has been reported, although repeat-spawningfrequency and post-spawningmortality arc not well documented(Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and Mclntyre 1996). tt lt.-purous reproductive strategyoiU.rtt trout has i-pottuni i.p.rrrrrriorrs for the management" of this species. Bull trout require passageboth upstreamand downstream,not only for repeat spawning but also for foraging. Most fish ladders,however, were designed specifically for anadromoussemelparous salmonids (fishes that spawn once and then die, and require only one-way passageupstream). Therefore, even dams or other barriers with fish passagefacilities may be afactor in isolating bull trout populations if they do not provide a downstreampassage route. Additionally, in some core areas,bull trout thatmigrate to marine waters must passboth upstreamanddownstreamthrough areaswith net fisheries at river mouths. This can increasethe likelihood of mortality to bull trout during thesespawning and foraging migrations.

Growth varies dependingupon life-history strategy. Resident adults range from 6 to 12 inches total length, and migratory adults commonly reach 24 inchesor more (Pratt 1985; Goetz 1989). The largestverified bull trout is a 32-poundspecimen caught in Lake PendOreille, Idaho, in 1949(Simpson and 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; Sedelland Everest 7997;Howell and Buchanan1992;Pntt 7992;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993,lgg5; Rich 1996;Watson and Hillman 1997). Watsonand Hillman (1997) concludedthat watershedsmust have specific physical characteristicsto provide the habitat requirements necessaryfor bull trout to successfullyspawn andrear and that thesespecific characteristicsare not necessarilypresent throughout thesewatersheds. Becausebull trout exhibit apatchy distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993), bull trout should not be expectedto sirnultaneouslyoccupy all avallablehabitats (Rieman et al. 1997).

25 Migratorycorridors link seasonalhabitats for all bull trout life histories.The abilityto migrateis importantto thepersistence of bull trout(Riemanand Mclntyre 1993; Gilpin, in litt. 1997: Riemanet al. 1997).Migrations facilitate gene flow amonglocal populationswhen individuals from differentlocal populationsinterbreed or strayto nonnatalstreams. Local populationsthat areextirpated by catastrophicevents may alsobecome reestablished by bull trout migrants. Howevei,it is importantto notethat the geneticstructuring of bull trout indicatesthere is limited geneflow amongbull trout populations,which may encouragelocal adaptationwithin individual populations,and that reestablishment of extirpatedpopulations may takea long time (Spruellet al. 1999;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).Migration also allows bull trout to accessmore abundant or largerprey, which facilitatesgrowth and reproduction. Additional benefits of migrationand its relationshipto foragingare discussed below under "Diet,"

Cold watertemperatures play an importantrole in determiningbull trout habitat,as these fish are primarily found in colderstreams (below 15 oCor 59 oF),and spawning habitats are generally 'C 'F) characterizedby temperaturesthat dropbelow 9 (48 in the fall (Fraleyand Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).

Thermalrequirements for bull troutappear to differ at differentlife stages.Spawning areas are oftenassociated with cold-watersprings, groundwater infiltration, and the coldeststreams in a givenwatershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman andMclntyre l993;Baxter et al. 1997;Rieman et al. oC 'C 1997).Optimum incubation temperatures for bull trout eggsrange from 2 to 6 (35'F to oC 39 .F) whereasoptimum water temperatures for rearingrunge from about6 to 10 "C (46 "F to 50 "F) (McPhailand Murray 1979;Goetz 1989; Buchanan and Gregory 1997). In GraniteCreek, Idaho,Bonneau and Scarne cchia (1996) observed that juvenile bull trout selectedthe coldest oF), wateravailable in a plungepool, 8 oCto 9 'C (46 oFto 48 within a temperaturegradient of 8 oCto 15 oC(4 oFto 60 'F). In a landscapestudy relating bull trout distributionto maximum watertemperatures, (Dunham et al. 2003)found that the probabilityofjuvenile bull trout occurrencedoes not becomehigh (i.e.,greater than 0.75) until maximumtemperatures decline to 11oC to 12"C(52"F to 54'F).

Althoughbull trout arefound primarily in cold streams,occasionally these fish arefound in larger,wannerriver systemsthroughout the ColumbiaRiver basin(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Riemanand Mclntyre 1993,1995;Buchanan and Gregory 1997; Rieman etal' 1997)' Availability andproximity of cold waterpatches and food productivity can influence bull trout ability to survivein warmerrivers (Myrick et aL 2002). For example,in a studyin the Little Lost River of Idahowhere bull trout werefound at temperaturesranging from 8 "C to 20 "C (46 oFto 68 oF),most sites that hadhigh densitiesof bull trout werein areaswhere primary productivityin streamshad increased followingafte (B. Gamett,pers. comm. June 20, 2002).

A11life historystages of bull trout areassociated with complexforms of cover,including large woodydebris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscherand Bjornn 1989;Sedell and Everest t99l;Pratt t992; Thomas1992; Rich 1996; Sexauerand James 1997;Watson and Hillman 1997). Maintainingbull trout habitatrequires stabilityof streamchannels and maintenance of naturalflow patterns(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).Juvenile and adult bull trout frequentlyinhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitablecover (Sexauer and James 1997). These areas are sensitiveto activitiesthat directly

26 or indirectly affect streamchannel stability and alter naturalflow patterns. For example,altered streamflow in the fall may disruptbull trout duringthe spawningperiod, and channel instability may decreasesurvival of eggsand young juveniles in the gravelfrom winter throughspring (Fraleyand Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992;Pratt and Huston 1993). Pratt(1992) indicated that increasesin fine sedimentreduceegg survival and emergence.

Bull trout typically spawnfrom Augustthrough November during periods of increasingflows anddecreasing water temperatures. Preferred spawninghabitat consists of low-gradientstream reacheswith loose,clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Redds are often constructed in streamreaches fed by springsor nearother sources of cold groundwater(Goetz I989;Pntt 1992; Riemanand Mclntyre 1996). Dependingon watertemperature, incubation is normally 100to 145days (Pratt 1992).After hatching,fry remainin the substrate,and time from eggdeposition to emergencemaysurpass 200 days. Fry normallyemerge from earlyApril throughMay, dependingon watertemperatures and increasing stream flows (Pratt I992;Ratliff andHowell ree2).

Migratoryfo{t4s of bull {rout may developwhen habitat condilions allow movementbetween spawningand rearing streams and larger rivers, lakes or nearshoremarine habitat where foraging opporfunitiesmay be enhanced(Frissell 1993; Goetz et aL.2004;Brenkman and Corbett2005). For example,multiple life historyforms (e.g., resident and fluvial) andmultiple migration patternshave been noted in the GrandeRonde River (Baxter2002). Partsof this river system haveretained habitat conditions that allow freemovement between spawning and rearing areas andthe mainstemSnake River. Suchmultiple life historystrategies help to maintainthe stability andpersistence of bull trout populationsto environmentalchanges. Benefits to migratorybull trout includegreater growth in the moreproductive waters of largerstreams, lakes, and marine waters;greater fecundity resulting in increasedreproductive potential; and dispersing the populationacross space and time so that spawningstreams may be recolonizedshould local populationssuffer a catastrophioloss (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;MBTSG 1998;Frissell 1999). In the absenceof the migratorybull trout life form, isolatedpopulations cannot be replenished whendisturbances make local habitatstemporarily unsuitable. Therefore, the rungeof the speciesis diminished,and the potentialfor a greaterreproductive contribution from latger size fish with higherfecundity is lost(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).

Diet

Bull trout areopporfunistic feeders, with food habitsprimarily a functionof sizeand life-history strategy.A singleoptimal foraging strategy is not necessarilya consistentfeature in the life of a fish, becausethis strategycan change as the fish progressesfrom onelife stageto another(i.e., juvenile to subadult).Fish growthdepends on the quantityand quality of food that is eaten (Gerking 1994),and as fish grow,their foragingstrategy changes as their food changes,in quantity,size, or othercharacteristics. Resident and juvenil e migratorybull trout prey on terrestrialand aquatic insects, macrozooplankton, and small fish (Boag1987; Goetz 1989; Donaldand Alger 1993). Subadultand adult migratory bull trout feedon variousfish species (Leatheand Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Brown 1994;Donald and Alger 1993). Bull trout of all sizesother than fry havebeen found to eatfish half their length(Beauchamp and Van Tassell2001). In nearshoremarine areas of westernWashington, bull troutfeed on Pacific

27 herring (Clupeapallasi), Pacific sandlance (Ammodyteshexapterus), and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) (WDFW et al. 1997; Goetz et al. 2004).

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 foraging theory can be used to describestrategies fish use to choosebetween alternative sourcesof food by weighing the benefits and costs of capturing one source of food over another. For example,prey often occur in concentratedpatches of abundance("patch model;" Gerking 1994). As the predator feeds in one patch, the prey population is reduced,and it becomesmore profitable for the predator to seek a new patch rather than continue feeding on the original one. This can be explained in terms of balancing energy acquired versus energy expended. For example, in the Skagit River system,anadromous bull trout make migrations as long as I2l miles betweenmarine foraging areasin Puget Sound and headwaterspawning grounds, foraging on salmon eggqand juvenile salmon along their migration route (WDFW et al.1997). Anadromous bull trout also use marine waters as migration corridors to reach seasonalhabitats in non-natal watershedsto forage and possibly overwinter (Brenkman and Corbett2005; Goetzet al.2004).

Changesin Statusof the Coastal-PugetSound Interim RecovervUnit

Although the statusof bull trout in Coastal-PugetSound interim recovery unit has been improved by certain actions, it continuesto be degradedby other actions, and it is likely that the overall statusof the bull trout in this population segmenthas not improved since its listing on November I,Iggg. Improvementhas occurredlargely throughchanges in fishing regulationsandhabitat' restorationprojects. Fishing regulations enactedin 1994 either eliminated harvest of bull trout or restricted the amount of harvest allowed, and this likely has had a positive influence on the abundanceof bull trout. Improvement in habitat has occurred following restorationprojects intended to benefit either bull trout or salmon, although monitoring the effectivenessof these projects seldom occurs. On the other hand, the statusof this population segmenthas been adverselyaffected by a number of Federal and non-Federalactions, some of which were addressedunder section 7 of the ESA. Most of these actions degradedthe environmental baseline; all of those addressedthrough formal consultationunder section 7 of the ESA permitted the incidental take of bull trout.

Section 10(aX1XB)permits have beenissued for Habitat ConservationPlans (HCPs) 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 Creek CascadesHCP, 5) Washington StateDepartment of Natural ResourcesHCP,6) West Fork Timber HCP (Nisqually River), andT) ForestPractices HCP. TheseHCPs provide landscape-scaleconservation for fish, including bull trout. Many of the covered activities associatedwith theseHCPs will contribute to conserving bull trout over the long-term; however, some covered activities will result in short-term degradationof the baseline. All HCPs permit the incidentaltakeof bull trout.

28 Changesin Statusof the ColumbiaRiver InterimRecovery Unit

The overallstatus of the ColumbiaRiver interimrecovery unit hasnot changedappreciably since its listingon June10, 1998.Populations of bull troutand their habitat in this areahave been affectedby a numberof actionsaddressed under section 7 of theESA. Most of theseactions resultedin degradationof the environmentalbaseline of bull trout habitat,and all permittedor analyzedthepotential for incidentaltake of bull trout. The Plum CreekCascades HCP, Plum CreekNative Fish HCP, and Forest Practices HCP addressed portions of theColumbia River populationsegment of bull trout.

Changesin Statusof the KlamathRiver InterimRecovery Unit

Improvementsin the Threemile,Sun, and Long Creeklocal populationshave occurred through effortsto removeor reducecompetition and hybridization with non-nativesalmonids, changes in fishing regulations,and habitat-restoration projects. Population status in the remaininglocal populations(Boulder-dixon, Deming, Brownsworth, and Leonard Creeks) remains relatively qnchanged,Grazing within bull trou! watershedsthroughout the recorteqyunit hasbeen curtailed. Efforts at removalof non-nativespecies of salmonidsappear to havestabilized the Threemileand positively influenced the SunCreek local populations.The results of similar effortsin Long Creekare inconclusive. Mark andrecapture studies of bull trout in Long Creek indicatealarger migratory component than previously expected.

Althoughthe statusof specificlocal populationshas been slightly improvedby recoveryactions, the overallstatus of KlamathRiver bull trout continuesto be depressed.Factors considered threatsto bull trout in the KlamathBasin at the time of listing - habitatloss and degradation causedby reducedwater quality, past and present land usemanagement practices, water diversions,roads, and non-native fishes - continueto be threatstoday.

STATUS OF THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

LeealStatus

Thespotted owl waslisted as federally threatened on June26,1990, under the ESA. It was listeddue to widespreadhabitat loss across its entirerange and the inadequacyof existing regulatorymechanisms to providefor its conservation(55 FR 26114-26194).

Life History

Detailedaccounts of the taxonomy,ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the northern spottedowl arefound in the 1987and 1990U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceStatus Reviews (U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service1987, 1990), the 1989Status Review Supplement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1989), the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et al. 1990), the ForestEcosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) Report(Thomas and Raphael T993),thefinal rule designatingthe northern spotted owl asa threatenedspecies (55 FR 26114- 26194),and the ScientificEvaluation of the Statusof theNorthern Spotted Owl (Courtneyet al. 2004).

29 Taxonomy

The northern spottedowl is one of three subspeciesof spottedowls currently recognizedby the American Ornithologists'Union and is typically associatedwith old-growth foresthabitats throughout the Pacific Northwest. The taxonomic separationof thesethree subspeciesis' supportedby genetic (Barrowclough and Gutilrr.ez 1990), morphological (Guti6rrez et al. 1995) and biogeographicinformation (Barrowclough and Glrtienez 1990).

Physical Description

The northern spottedowl is a medium-sizedowl, approximately 18- 19 in (46-48 cm) in length and approximately1.1-1.9 lbs (490-850gm) in weight (Gutienez et al. 1995),and is the largest of the three subspecies(Guti 6nez et al. 1995). It is dark brown with a barred tall andwhite spots on the head and breast,and has dark brown eyesthat are suffounded by prominent facial disks. Three ageclasses can be distinguishedon the basisof plumagecharacteristics (Forsman 1981; Moen ef al. 1991). The nortlrern spotted owl superficially resemblesthe barred owl(Sfrzx varia), a specieswith which it occasionally hybridizes (Kelly et aL.2003). Hybrids exhibit characteristicsof both species(Hamer et al. 1994).

Current and Historical Range

The current range and distribution of the northern spottedowl extendsfrom southernBritish Columbia through western Washington, Oregon, and California as far south as Marin County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). The southeasternboundary of its rangeis the Pit River area of ShastaCounty, California. The range of the northern spotted owl is partitioned tnlo 12 physiographicprovinces (provinces), based upon recognizedlandscape subdivisions exhibiting different physical and environmental features(Thomas et al. 1993). Theseprovinces are distributed acrossthe range as follows: four provinces in Washington (Washington Cascades East,Olympic Peninsula,Washington Cascades West, WesternLowlands); five provincesin Oregon(Oregon Coast Range, Willamette Valley, OregonCascades West, OregonCascades East, Klamath Mountains); and three provinces in California (California Coast, California Klamath, California Cascades). The current range of the northem spottedowl is similar to its historical range where forested habitat still exists. The distribution of habitat is influenced by the natural and human-causedfragmentation of vegetation and natural topography. The northern spotted owl has been extirpated or is uncommon in certain areas. For instance,there have only been a few nesting pairs in southwesternWashington for a number of years, although they have persistedthere for the past decade. Timber harvest activities have eliminated, reduced,or fragmentednorthern spotted owl habitat and decreasedoverall population densitiesacross its range, particularly within the coastalprovinces where habitat reduction has been concentrated (Thomasand Raphael1993).

30 Behavior

Northern spottedowls are territorial. However, home rangesof adjacentpairs overlap (Forsman et al. 1984; Solis and Guti6rrez 1990) suggestingthat the areadefended by an owl pair is smaller than the areathey use for foraging. Territorial defenseis primarily done through hooting, barking and whistle type calls.

Northern spottedowls are monogamousand usually form long-term pair bonds, although separationsof pairs do occur. There are no known examplesof northem spotted owl polygyny, although associationsof three or more birds have been reported (Guti6nez et al. 1995).

Habitat Relationships

Home Range

Northern spottedowl home range size varies by province. Home rangesizegenerally increases from south to north, wfrich is likely in responseto decreasinghabitat quality (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1990). Home rangesize hasbeen linked to habitattype, availability, and abundanceof prey (Zabel et al. 1995)

Based on available radio-telemetry data (Thomas et al. 1990), the FWS estimatedmedian annual home r:rngesize for the northern spottedowl by province throughout its range. Becausethe actualconfiguration of the home range is rarely known, the estimatedhome range of a northern spotted owl pair is representedby a circle centeredupon a northern spottedowl activity center, with an areaapproximating the provincial median annual home range. For example, estimated home rungearea varies ftom3,340 acres(based on a 1.3-mileradius area) in California to 14,271 acres(based on a 2.7-mile radius circle) in Washington. The FWS uses a0.7-mile radiuscircle (984 acres)to delineate the arcamost heavily used (core area)by northem spotted owls during the nesting season. Variation in the size of the actual corc areaalso varies geographically. For example, northern spottedowls in northern California focusedtheir activities in core areasthat ranged from about 167 to 454 acres,with a mean of about 409 acres;approximately half the area of the 0.7-mile radius circle (Bingham andNoon 1997). Northern spottedowls maintain smaller home rangesduring the breeding seasonand often dramatically increasetheir home nnge size during fall and winter (Forsmanet al. 1984;Sisco 1990).

Although differencesexist in natural stand characteristicsthat influence provincial home range size,habitat loss and forest fragmentationeffectively reduce habitat quality in the home runge. A reduction in the amount of suitable habitat reducesnorthern spottedowl abundanceand nestingsuccess (Bart and Forsman1992;Bart 1995).

Habitat Use

Forsmanet al.(L984) reported that northernspotted owls havebeen observed in the following forest types: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesiz), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), grand fir (Abiis grandis),white fir (Abiesconcolor),ponderosa pine (Pinusponderosa), Shasta red fir (Abiesmagnifica shastensis), mixed evergreen,mixed conifer hardwood(Klamath montane),and

31 redwood (Sequoiasempervirens). In parts of the Oregon Coast Range,northern spottedowls have been recorded in pure hardwood stands(Glenn et aI.2004). In California, northem spotted owls are found from near sea level in coastalforests to approximately 6,988 ft (2,130 m) in the Cascades(Guti&rez 1996). The upper elevation limit at which northern spottedowls occur decreasesgradually with increasing latitude in Oregon and Washington (Lint 2005). In all areas, the upper elevation limit at which northern spottedowls occur correspondsto the transition to subalpineforest, which is characterizedby relatively simple structure and severewinter weather (Gutilnez 1996).

Roost sites selectedby northern spottedowls have more complex vegetation structurethan forests generallyavailable to them (Barrows and Barrows 1978; Forsman et al. 1984; Solis and Guti6rrez 1990). Thesehabitats are usually multi-layered forests having high canopy closure and large diametertrees in the overstory.

Northem spottedowls nest almost exclusively in trees. Like roosts, nest sites are found in forests having complex structuredominated by large diametertrees (Forsman et al. 1984; Hershey et al. 1998). Even in foreststhat havebeen previously logged, northern spotted owls selectforests having a structure(i.e., larger trees,greater canopy closure) different than forests generally availableto them (Folliard 1993;Buchanan et al. 1995;Hershey et al. 1998).

Foraging habitat is the most variable of all habitatsused by territorial northern spottedowls (Thomas et al. 1990). Descriptions of foraginghabitat have ranged from complex structure (Solis and Gutidrrez 1990) to forestswith lower canopy closure and smaller trees than forests containing nests or roosts (Gutilnez 1996).

Habitat Selection

Northern spottedowls generally rely on older forestedhabitats because they contain the structures and characteristicsrequired for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. These characteristicsinclude the following: 1) a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominatedby large overstory trees,2) moderateto high canopy closure, 3) a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other types of deformities, especially dwarf mistletoe brooms,4) numerouslarge snags,5) an abundanceof large, dead wood on the ground, and 6) open spacewithin and below the upper canopy for northern spottedowls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1990). Forestedstands with high canopyclosure also provide thermalcover (Weathers et al.200I), as well as protectionfrom predation. Recentlandscape-level analyses in portionsof the Klamath Province suggestthat amosaic of late-successionalhabitat interspersedwith other vegetation types may benefit northern spotted owls more thanlarge, homogeneousexpanses of older forests(Zabel et al. 2003; Franklin et al. 2000;Meyer et al. 1998).

Dugger et al. (2005) found that apparentsurvival and reproduction was positively associated with the proportion of older forest near the territory center in the Klamath Province. Survival decreaseddramatically when the amount of non-habitat exceededapproximately 50 percent (Dugger et al. 2005). Northern spottedowl territorieswith habitatfitness potentials (i.e., expressedas a lambda estimatefor the territory) of less than 1.0 were generally charactetizedby lessthan 40 to 50 percentold foresthabitat near the territory center(Dugger et al. 2005). The

32 authors concluded thatthey found no support for either a positive or negative direct effect of intermediate-agedforest on either survival or reproduction.

Olson et al. (2004) found that survival in the Oregon Coast Range had a quadratic relationship with the amount of late- and mid-seral forest near nesting centers. Reproductiverates fluctuated biennially and were positively related to the amount of edgebetween late- and mid-seral forests and other habitatclasses. Olson et al. (2004) conclude that their result indicated that while mid- and late-seralforests are important to northern spottedowls, a mixture of theseforest types with younger forest and non-forest may be best for northern spottedowl survival and reproduction in their study area.

In redwood forests along the coast rungeof California, northern spottedowls may be found in younger forest standswith structural characteristicsof older forests (Thomas et al. 1990) However, northern spottedowls do not generally appearto select for standsof intermediateor youngerages (Solis and Guti6rrez 1990 Thomaset al. 1990). Where northernspotted owls have been found nesting in young forest, such occurrenceshave been attributed to the presenceof large residual trees with cavities (Buchananet al. 1993), climatiq condition$ conducive to the use of platform nests (Forsmanand Giese T997), andlor alternatesources of prey that do not rely on cavities for reproduction (Zabel et al. 1995). In Washington, foraging occurs in nesting and roosting habitaq as well as in coniferous forest with smaller trees and less structural diversity, if prey suchas the northem flying squirrelare present (Hanson et al. 1993).

In mixed conifer forestsof the EasternCascade Mountains, Washington,2T percent of nest sites were in old-growth forests, 57 percentin the understoryreinitiation phaseof forest stand development, and I7 percentin the stem exclusion phaseof forest stand development(Buchanan et al. 1995). In the Western CascadeMountains, Oregon, 50 percent of northern spottedowl nests were in late-seral/old-growthstands (greater than 80-years-old)and none were found in standsless than 40-years-old(Irwin et al. 2000).

Ward (1990) found that northern spottedowls foraged in areasthat had lower variancein prey densities(prey were more predictable in occurrence)within older forests and near ecotonesof old forest andbrush seralstages. Zabelet al. (1995) showedthat northernspotted owl home ranges arelarger where flying squirrels are the predominantprey and, conversely,are smaller where woodrats (Neotoma spp.) are the predominant prey.

In the Western Washington CascadeMountains, northern spottedowls used mature/old forests dominated by trees greater than20 in (50 cm) diameter-at-breastheight with greaterthan 60 percent canopy closure more often than expectedfor roosting during the non-breedingseason and used young forest trees 8 to 20 in (20 to 50 cm) diameter at breastheight with greaterthan 60 percent canopy closure) less often than expectedbased on availability (Herter et aL.2002).

ReproductiveBiology

Northern spottedowls exhibit high adult annual survival rates and are relatively long-lived (Anthony et a\.2004). Northern spottedowls do not typically reach sexual maturity until after two yearsof age (Miller et al. 1985;Thomas et al. 1990). Adult femaleslay an averageof 2 eggs

^a JJ per clutchwith a rangeof 1 to 4 eggs.Northern spotted owl pairsdo not typically nestevery year,nor arenesting pairs successful every year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1990). The small clutchsize, temporalvariability in nestingsuccess, and somewhat delayed maturation all contributeto the relativelylow reproductiverate of this species(Gutilrrez 1996).

Nestsites are usually located within standsof old-growthand late-successional forest dominated by Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), and they containstructures such as cavities,broken tree tops,or mistletoe(Arceuthobium spp.) brooms (Forsman et al. 1984;Blakesley et al. 1992; LaHayeand Guti6rrez 1999). Northern spotted owls do not build their own nests.Most nesting occurswithin naturallyformed cavities in live treesor snags,but abandonedplatform nests of the northerngoshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and common raven (Corvus corax) have also been used (Buchananet al. 1993). In general,courtship and nesting behavior begins in Februaryto March with nestingoccurring from March to June;however, timing of nestingand fledging varies with latitudeand elevation (Forsman et al. 1984). After youngfledge from the nest,they dependon their parentsuntil they areable to fly andhunt on their own. Parentalcare continues post- fledginginto September,and sometimes into October(Forsman et al. 1984). During this time the adultsmay not roostwith their youngduring the day,but they respondto begging vocalizationsby bringingfood to the young(Forsman et al. 1984).

Somenorthern spotted owls arenot territorialbut eitherremain as residents within the territory of a pair or moveamong territories (Gutidnez 1996). Thesebirds arereferred to as"floaters." Floatershave special significance in northernspotted owl populationsbecause they may buffer the territorialpopulation from decline(Franklin 1992). Little is known aboutfloaters other than thattheyexist and typically do not respondto callsas vigorously as territorial birds (Guti6nez ree6).

DispersalBiology

Natal dispersalof northernspotted owls from Oregonand Washington typically beginsfrom mid- to late-September,and it is remarkablysynchronous across broad areas (Forsman et al. 2002). Whendata from maflydispersing northern spotted owls arepooled, the directionof dispersalaway from the natalsite appearsrandom (Miller 1989;Ganey et al. 1998;Forsman et al. 2002). Dispersaldirection from individualterritories, however, may be non-randomin responseto the local distributionof habitatand topography (Forsman et aI.2002). Natal dispersaloccurs in stages,with juvenile northernspotted owls settlingin temporaryhome ranges betweenbouts of dispersal(Forsman et aI.2002).Median natal dispersal distance is about10 mi for malesand 15.5 mi for females(Forsman etal.2002; Miller 1989;Ganey et al. 1998). Successfuldispersal ofjuvenile northernspotted owls may dependon their ability to locate unoccupiedsuitable habitat in closeproximity to otheroccupied sites (LaHaye et al. 2001).

Breedingdispersal occurs among a smallproportion of adultnorthern spotted owls; these movementswere more frequent among females and unmated individuals (Forsman et aL.2002). Breedingdispersal distances were shorter than natal dispersal distances and also apparently randomin direction(Forsman et aI.2002).

34 Largenon-forested valleys are apparent barriers to nataland breeding dispersal. Forested foothills betweenvalleys may providethe only opportunitiesfor dispersal(Forsman et al.2002). The degreeto which waterbodies, such as the ColumbiaRiver andPuget Sound, function as barriersto dispersalis unclear.Analysis of geneticstructure of northernspotted owl populations suggestsadequate rates of geneflow may occuracross the PugetTrough between the Olympic Mountainsand Washington Cascades and across the ColumbiaRiver betweenthe Olympic Mountainsand the CoastRange of Oregon(Haig et al. 2001).Both telemetryand genetic studies indicateinbreeding is rare.

Dispersingjuvenile northemspotted owls experiencehigh mortalityrates, exceeding 70 percent in somestudies (Miller 1989). Leadingknowncauses of mortalityare starvation, predation, and accidents(Miller 1989;Forsman et aL.2002).Parasitic infection may contributeto thesecauses of mortality (Forsmanet aL.2002).In a studyon habitatuse by dispersingjuvenile northern spottedowls in the OregonCoast Range, Klamath and Western Oregon Cascades Provinces (Miller et al. 1997),mature and old-growth forest were used slightly morethan expected based on availabilityduring the transientphase and nearly twice its availabilityduring the colonization phase. Closedpole-sapling:sawtimber habitat was used roughly in proportionto availabilityin both phases;open sapling and clearcuts were used less than expected based on availabilityduring colonization.

FoodHabits

Compositionof preyin thenorthern spotted owl's dietvaries regionally, seasonally, annually, andlocally, which is likely in responseto preyavailability (Carey 1993; Forsman et al.200l; Forsmanet aI.2004). Northernspotted owls aremostly nocturnal (Forsman et al. 1984),but they may forageopportunistically during the day (Laymon1991; Sovern et al. 1994). Northernflying squirrelsand woodrats are usually the predominant prey both in biomassand frequency (Barrows 1980;Forsman et al. 1984;Ward 1990;Bevis et al. 1997;Forsman et a1.2001, 2004) with a clear geographicpattern of prey availability,parulleling differences in habitat(Thomas et al. 1990). Northernflying squirrelsare generally the dominantprey item in the moremesic Douglas- firlwesternhemlock forests characteristic of the northernportion of the range,whereas woodrats aregenerally the dominantprey item in the drier mixed conifer/mixedevergreen forests typically foundin the southernportion of the ftnge (Forsmanet al. 1984;Thomas et al. 1990;Ward et al. 1998,as reviewed by Courtneyet aI.2004).These prey items were found to be co-dominantin thesouthwest interior of Oregon(Forsman etaI.2001,2004).

Otherprey speciessuch as the red tree vole (Arborimuslongicaudaus), red backed voles (Clethrionomysgapperi), mice, rabbits and hares, birds, and insects may be seasonallyor locally important(as reviewed by Courtneyet al. 2004).For example,Rosenberg et al. (2003)showed a strongcorrelation between annual reproductive success of northernspotted owls (numberof youngper territory)and abundance of deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus) (r' : 0.68),despite thefact they only madeup 1.6+ 0.5percent of thebiomass consumed. However, it is unclearif the causativefactor behind this correlationwas prey abundanceor a synergisticresponse to weather(Rosenberg et aL.2003).Ward (1990) also noted that mice were more abundant in areas selectedfor foragingby northernspotted owls. Nonetheless,foraging northern spotted owls deliver largerprey to owls on the nestand eat smaller food itemsthemselves to reduceforaging

35 energy costs;therefore, the importance of smaller prey items, like Peromyscus,in the northern spotted owl diet should not be underestimated(Forsm an et al. 1984, 200I , 2004).

Population Dynamics

The northern spotted owl is a relatively long-lived bird; producesfew, but large young; invests significantly in parental carc; experienceslater or delayedmaturity; and exhibits high adult survivorship. The northern spottedowl's long reproductive life span allows for some eventual recruitment of offspring, even if recruitment doesnot occur eachyear (Franklin et al. 2000).

Annual variation in population parametersfor northern spottedowls has been linked to environmental influences at various life history stages(Franklin et al. 2000). In coniferous forests, mean fledgling production of the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), a closely related subspecies,was higher when minimum spring temperatureswere higher (North et al, 2000), indicating a relationship that may be a function of increasedprey availability. Across their range, northern spottedowls have previously shown an unexplainedpattern of alternating years of high and low reproduction,with highest reproduction occurring during even- numbered years (e.g., Franklin et al. 1999). Annual variation in breeding may be related to weather (i.e., temperatureand precipitation) (Wagner et al. 1996 andZabel et al. 1996In: Forsman et al. 1996) and fluctuation in prey abundance(Zabel et al. 1996).

A variety of factors may regulate northern spottedowl population levels. These factors may be density-dependent(e.g., territorial behavior, habitat quality, habitat abundance)or density- independent(e.g., climate). Interactionsmay occur among factors. For example, as habitat quality decreases,density-independent factors may have more influence on variation in rate of population growth (Franklin et al. 2000). For example,weather could have increasednegative effects on northern spottedowl fitness for those owls occurring in relatively lower quality habitat (Franklin et al. 2000). At some point, lower habitat quality may also causethe population to decline(Franklin et al. 2000).

Olson et al. (2005) usedpopulation modeling of site occupancythat incorporatedimperfect and variable detectability of northern spottedowls and allowed modeling of temporal variation in site occupancy,extinction, and colonizatronprobabilities (at the site scale). The authors found that visit detectionprobabilities averagedless than 0.70 and were highly variable among study years and among their three study areasin Oregon. Pair site occupancyprobabilities declined greatly at one study area and slightly atthe other two areas. However, for all northern spottedowls, including singles and pairs, site occupancywas mostly stablethrough time. Barred owl presenco had anegative effect on theseparameters (see barred owl discussionin the New Threatssection below).

Threats

Reasonsfor Listing The northern spotted owl was listed as threatenedthroughout its range "due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbatedby catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms" (55 FR 26114-26194). More

36 specifically, significant threatsto the northern spottedowl included the following: 1) low populations, 2) declining populations, 3) limited habitat,4) declining habitat, 5) distribution of habitator populations,6) isolationof provinces,7) predationand competition,8) lack of coordinatedconservation measures , and (9) vulnerabilityto naturaldisturbance (57 FR 1796- 1S3S).These threats were characterizedfor eachprovince as severe,moderate, low, or unknown. Declining habitat wbs recognizedas a severeor moderatethreat to the northern spottedowl in all 12 provinces,isolation of provinceswithin 11 provinces,and declining populations in 10 provinces. Consequently,these three factors representedthe greatestconcern range-wide to the conservationof the northern spottedowl. Limited habitat was considereda serreteor moderatethreat in nine provinces, and low populations a severeor moderateconcern in eight provinces, suggestingthat thesefactors are a concern throughout the majority of the range. Vulnerability to natural disturbanceswas rated as low in five provinces.

The degreeto which predation and competition might pose athreat to the northern spottedowl was unknown in more provinces than any of the other threats,indicating a need for additional information. Few empirical studiesexist to confirm that habitat fragmentation contributesto increasedlevels of predation on northern spottedowls (Courtney et al. 2004). However, great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), an effective predator on northern spottedowls, are closely associatedwith fragmentedforests, openings,and clearcuts(Johnson 1992; Laidig and Dobkin 1995). As mature forests are harvested,great horned owls may colonize fragmentedforests, thereby increasingnorthem spottedowl vulnerability to predation'

New Threats

Barced Owls Since the listing of the northern spottedowl under the ESA, new information suggeststhat hybridization with the barred owl is less of a threat(Kelly and Forsman 2004) and competition with the barred owl is a greaterthreatthan previously anticipated (Courtney et aI.2004). Since Igg},the barred owl has expandedits range south into Marin County, California, and the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, such that it is now roughly coincident with the range of the northern spotted owl (Courtney et aL.2004). Further, barred owl populations appearto be increasing throughout the Pacific Northwest, particularly in Washington and Oregon (Zabel et aI. 1996; Dark et al. 1998;Wiedemeier and Horton2000; Kelly et aL.2003;Pearson andLivezey 2003; Anthony et aL.2004),notwithstanding the likely bias in survey methods towards underestimating actual baned owl numbers (Courtney et al. 2004). Barred owl numbers now may exceed northern spottedowl numbers in the northern Washington Cascades(Kuntz and Christopherson 1996)and in British Columbia (Dunbar et al. 1991) and appearto b'eapproaching northern spotted owl numbers in several other areas(e.g., Redwood National and StateParks in California fschmidt 2003]). Barred owl populationsin the Pacific Northwestappear to be self-sustaining basedon current density estimatesand apparentdistribution (Courtney et al. 2004).

Barred owls apparently competewith northern spottedowls through avariety of mechanisms: prey overlap(Hamer et al. 2001), habitatoverlap (Hamer et al. 1989;Dunbar et al. L99I; Herter and Hicks 2000; Pearson andLivezey 2003), and agonistic encounters(Leskiw and Guti6rrez 1998; Pearsonand Livezey 2003). New information on encountersbetween barred owls and northem spottedowls comesprimarily from anecdotalreports which corroborateinitial observationsthat barred owls react more aggressivelytowards northern spottedowls than the reverse (Courtney et aL.2004). There is also limited circumstantial evidenceof barred owl predation on northern spottedowls (Leskiw and Gutierrez 1998; Johnston2002). Information. collectedto dateindicates that encountersbetween these two speciestend to be agonisticin nature, and that the outcome is unlikely to favor the northern spottedowl (Courtney et al. 2004).

Although barred owls were initially thought to be more closely associatedwith early successionalforests than northern spottedowls from studiesconducted on the west slope of the CascadeMountains in Washington(Hamer 1988),recent studies conducted elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest indicate that baned owls utilize a broader rurLgeof habitat types than do northern spottedowls (Courtney et aL.2004). For example, a telemetry stqdy conductedon barred owls in the fire prone forests of easternWashington showed that barred owl home ranges were locatedon lower slopesor valley bottoms,in closedcanopy, mature, Douglas-fir forest (Singleton et al. 2005). In contrast,northern spottedowl siteswere characterizedby closed canopy, mature,ponderosapine or Douglas-fir forests,on southernor westem exposure,mid- elevationareas (Singleton et aL.2005).

The only study comparingnorthern spotted owl and barredowl food habitsin the Pacific Northwest indicated that barred owl diets overlappedstrongly (greater than 75 percent)with northern spottedowl diets (Hamer et al. 2001). However, barred owl diets were also more diverse than northern spottedowl diets, including speciesassociated with riparian and other moist habitats,and more terrestrial and diurnal species.

Evidence that barred owls are causingthe displacementof northern spottedowls is largely indirect, basedprimarily on retrospectiveexamination of long-term data collected on northern spotted owls. Correlationsbetween local northern spottedowl declines and barred owl increases have been noted in the northem Washington Cascades(Kuntz and Christopherson1996;Herter and Hicks 2000; Pearson andLivezey 2003), on the Olympic peninsula (Wiedemeier and Horton 2000; Gremel 2000,2003), in the southernOregon CascadeMountains (e.g., Crater Lake National Park fJohnston2002]), and in the coastalredwood zonein Califomia (e.g.,Redwood National and StateParks [Schmidt 2003]). Northern spottedowl occupancywas significantly lower in northem spotted owl territories where barred owls were detectedwithin 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the northern spotted owl territory center than in northern spotted owl territories where no barred owls were detected(Kelly et aL.2003). Kelly et al. (2003) also found that in northern spotted owl territories where barred owls were detected,northern spottedowl occupancywas significantly lower (P < 0.001) after barredowls were detectedwithin 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the territory center.Occupancy was "only marginally lower" (P: 0.06) if barredowls were located more than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from northern spottedowl territory centers. In a Roseburg,Oregon study arca,46 percent of northern spottedowls moved more than 0.5 mi (0.8 km), and 39 percent of northern spotted owls were not relocated again in at least two years after barred owls were detectedwithin 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the territory center. Observationsprovided by Gremel(2000) from the Olympic National Park are consistentwith those of Kelly et al. (2003); he documented significant displacementof northern spotted owls following barred owl detections"coupled with elevational changesof northern spottedowl sites on the east side of the Park" (Courtney et al. 2004). Pearson andLivezey (2003) reported similar findings on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest where unoccupiednorthern spottedowl sites were characterizedby significantly more

38 barredowl siteswithin 0.5mi (0.8km), 1 mi (1.6km), and1.8 mi (2.9km) from theterritory centerthan in occupiednorthem spotted owl sites. Becausebarred owl presenceis increasing within the rangeof the northernspotted owls, Olsonet al. (2005)suggest that furtherdeclines in the proportionof sitesoccupied by northemspotted owls arelikely.

At two studyareas in Washington,investigators found relatively high numbersof territories previouslyoccupied by northernspotted owls that arenow apparentlynot occupiedby either northernspotted or barredowls (e.g.,49 of I07 tertitoriesin the CascadeMountains fHerter and Hicks 20001;23of 33 territoriesin the OlympicExperimental State Forest [Wiedemeier and Horton20001). Given thathabitatwasstill presentin thesevacant territories, some factor(s) may be reducinghabitatsuitability or local abundanceof both species.For example,weather conditionscould cause prolonged declines in abundanceof both species(Franklin et al. 2000). Becausenorthern spotted owls havebeen anecdotally reported to give fewer vocalizationswhen barredowls arepresent, it is possiblethat thesesupposed vacant territories are still occupiedby northernspotted owls that do not respondto surveys.Likewise, survey protocols for northern spottedowls arebelieved to under-detectbarred owls (Courtneyet al. 2004).Olson et al. (2005) showedthat barred owl presencehad a negativeeffect on northemspotted owl-detection probabilities,and it hadeither a positiveeffect on local-extinctionprobabilities (at the territory scale)or a negativeeffect on colonizationprobabilities for threestudy areas in Oregon.Olson et al. (2005)concluded that futureanalyses of northernspotted owls mustaccount for imperfect andvariable detectability, and barred owl presence,to properlyinterpret results. Thus,some proportionof seeminglyvacant territories may be an artifactof reduceddetection probability of the surveyprotocol. Nonetheless,previously occupied territories apparently vacant of both northernspotted and barred owls suggestthat factorsother than barred owls aloneare contributingto declinesin northernspotted owl abundanceand territorial occupancy (Courtney et al.2004).

Two studies(Kelly 2}}I,Anthony et aL.2004)attempted to determinewhether barred owls affectedfecundity of northernspotted owls in the long-termdemographic study areas. Neither studywas ableto clearlydo so, althoughthe Wenatcheeand Olympic demographicstudy areas showedpossible effects (Anthony et aL.2004).However, both studiesdescribed the shortfallsof their methodsto adequatelytest for this effect. Iverson(2004) reported no effectof barredowl presenceon northernspotted owl reproduction,but his resultscould have been influenced by small samplesize (Livezey 2005). Barredowls hada negativeeffect on northernspotted owl survivalon the Wenatcheeand Olympic study areas and possibly an effecton the Cle Elum study area(Anthony et aL.2004).Olson et al. (2005)found a significant(but weak)negative effect of barredowl presenceon northemspotted owl reproductiveoutput but not on survivalat a Roseburg,Oregon study area (Courtney et al. 2004).

Uncertaintiesassociated with methods,analyses, and possible confounding factors such as effectsof pasthabitat loss and weather warrant caution in interpretationof the patternsemerging from the dataand information collected to dateon interactionsbetween barred and northern spottedowls (Courtneyet aL.2004).Further, data are currently lacking that would allow accurateprediction of how barredowls will affectnorthern spotted owls in the southern,more xericprovinces in Californiaand Oregon Klamath regions. In spiteof theseuncertainties, the preponderanceof the evidencegathered thus far is consistentwith the hypothesisthat barred

39 owls areplaying some role in northernspotted owl populationdecline, particularly in Washington,portions of Oregon,and the northerncoast of California(Courtney et al. 2004).

Althoughthe barredowl currentlyconstitutes a significantlygreater threat to the northernspotted owl thanoriginally thought atthe time of listing (Courtneyet al. 2004),at presentit is unclear whetherforest management influences the outcomeof interactionsbetween barred and northern spottedowls (Courtniyet al. 2004as summarized by Lint 2005). Someof themost recent summariescompiled. on thebarred owl (Courtneyet aI.2004;Lint2005;U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2004a) do not providerecommendations about how to dealwith this potentialthreat. However,Buchanan et al.(2005) offer researchand management options to addressinter- specificrelationships between barred and northern spotted owls. Due to uncertainties surroundingbarred owl interactions,the FWSsstatus review of the northernspotted owl (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service2004a) did not considerthe risks sufficientto reclassifythe northern spottedowl asendangered.

Wildfi.re The short-term(i,e., a few years)affects of wildfires on northernspotted owl demographyis an importantconsideration for resourcesmanagers. Bond et al. (2002)examined the demography of northernspotted owls post-wildfire,in which wildfire burnedthrough northern spotted owl nestand roost sites in varyingdegrees of severity.Depending on the severityof the burn, wildfires mayhaverelativelylittle short-termimpact on northernspotted owl demography(i.e., survival,reproduction, and site fidelity). In a preliminarystudy conducted by Anthonyand Andrews(2004) in the KlamathProvince of Oregon,their sampleof northernspotted owls appearedto be using avarietyof habitattypes within the TimberedRock Fire, includingareas which hadexperienced moderate burning. In 1994,the HatcheryComplex wildfires burned 43,498acres (I7,603 hectares) in theWenatchee National Forest, eastern Cascades, Washington, affectingsix northemspotted owl activity centers(Gaines et al. 1997). Northernspotted owl habitatwithin a 1.8mi (2.9km) radiusof the activity centerswas reduced by 8 to 45 percent (meanequals 31 percent)due to directeffects of thefire andby 10to 85percent (mean equals 55 percent)due to delayedmortality of fire-damagedtrees and insect caused tree mortality. Northernspotted owl habitatloss was greateron mid- to upper-slopes(especially south-facing) thanwithin riparianareas or on topographicalbenches (Gaines et al. 1997).Direct mortalityof northernspotted owls wasassumed to haveoccurred at onesite. Datawere too sparsefor reliablecomparisons of site occupancyor reproductiveoutput between sites affected by the fires andother sites on the WenatcheeNational Forest. Two wildfires burnedon the YakamaIndian Reservation,eastern Cascades, Washington, in 1994,affecting home ranges of two radio-tagged northernspotted owls (King et al. 1997). Althoughthe amountof homeranges burned was not quantified,northern spotted owls wereobserved using areas that received low andmedium intensityburning. No directmortality of northernspotted owls was observedeven though thick smokecovered several owl site centersfor a week.

At the time of the northernspotted owl listing therewas recognition that large-scalewildfire posedathreatto the northernspotted owl andits habitat(55 FR 26114-26194).New informationsuggests that fire may be moreof a threatthan previously thought (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2004a). In particular, the rateof habitatloss in the relativelydry EastCascades andKlamath provinces has been greater than expected (see "Habitat Trends" below). However,

40 overall, the total amountof habitataffected by wildfires hasbeen relatively small (Lint 2005). It may be possible to influence, through silvicultural management,how fire prone forestswill burn and the extent of the fire when it occurs. Silvicultural managementof forest fuels are currently being implementedthroughout the northern spottedowl's range,in an attempt to reducethe high levels of fuels that have accumulatedduring nearly 100 years of effective fire suppression. However, our ability to protect northern spottedowl habitat and viable populations of northern spotted owls from large fires through risk-reduction endeavorsis uncertain (Courtney et al. 2004). The Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management I994a) recognizedwildfire as an inherentpart of managing northern spottedowl habitat in certain portions of the range. The distribution and size of reserveblocks as part of the Northwest Forest Plan design may help mitigate the risks associatedwith large-scalefire (Lint 2005).

WestNile Virus WestNile Virus (WNV) haskilled millions of wild birds in North Americasince it arrivedin 1999(McLean et al. 200I; Caffrey2003;Marra et al. 2004). Mosquitoesare the primary carriers (vectors)of the virus that causesencephalitis in humans,horses, and birds. Mammalianprey may also play arole in spreadingWNV amongpredators, like northernspotted owls. Owls and otherpredators of micecan contract the disease by eatinginfected prey (Garmendia et al. 2000; Komaret al. 2001). Recenttests of treesquirrels, including flying squirrels,from Los Angeles County,California, found over70 percentwere positive for WNV (R. Carney,Pers. Comm., 2004,as citedin Courtneyet aL.2004).One captive northern spotted owl in Ontario,Canada, is known to havecontracted WNV anddied.

Healthofficials expectthat WNV will eventually,spread throughout the rangeof the northern spottedowl (Courtneyet aI.2004),but it is unknownhow WNV will ultimatelyaffect owl populations.Susceptibility to infection andmortalityrates of infectedindividuals vary among bird species,even within groups(Courtney et al.2004). Owls appearto be quitesusceptible. For example,breeding screech owls (Megascops asio) in Ohio experienced100 percent mortality (T. Grubb,Personal Communication, as cited in Courtneyet aI.2004).Barred owls, in contrast, showedlower susceptibility(8. Hunter,Personal Communication, as cited in Courtneyet al. 2004). Somelevel of innateresistance may occur(Fitzgerald et aL.2003),which couldexplain observationsin severalspecies of markedlylower mortality in the secondyear of exposureto WNV (Caffreyand Peterson2}}3). Wild birds alsodevelop resistance to WNV through immuneresponses (Deubel et al. 2001). The effectsof WNV on bird populationsat a regional scalehave not beenlarge, even for susceptiblespecies (Caffrey and Peterson2}}3),perhaps due to the short-term(a few years)and patchy distribution of mortality(K. McGowan,pers. comm., cited in Courtneyet aL.2004)or annualchanges in vectorabundance and distribution.

Courtneyet al.(2004) offer competingpropositions for the likely outcomeof northernspotted owl populationsbeing infected by WNV. Oneproposition is that northernspotted owls can toleratesevere, short-term population reductions due to WNV, becausenorthern spotted owl populationsare widely distributedand number in the severalhundreds to thousands.An alternativeproposition is that WNV will causeunsustainable mortalify, due to the frequency and/ormagnitude of infection,thereby resulting in long-termpopulation declines and extirpation from partsof the northernspotted owl's currentrange.

4T Habitatrestoration for northern spottedowls will take decadesto be realized. As such, it is too early to evaluatethe long-term effectivenessof conservationefforts under the Northwest Forest Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). Thus far, no mortality in wild, northern spotted owls has been recorded from west nile virus (Courtney et al. 2004). However, the potential threatsto the northern spottedowl, like WNV, may not respondto or be affected by habitat managementor improvement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a) including conservation efforts under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Sudden Oak Death Suddenoak death was recently identified as a potential threatto the northern spottedowl (Courtney et al. 2004). This diseaseis causedby the fungus-like pathogen,Phytopthora ramorum, that was recently introduced from Europe and is rapidly spreadingin northern California. At the presenttime, suddenoak death is found in natural standsfrom Monterey to Humboldt Counties, Califomia, and has reachedepidemic proportions in oak (Quercus spp.) and tanoak(Lithocarpus densiflorzs) forests along approximately186 mi (300 km) of the centraland northern California coast (Rizzo et al. 2002). It has also been found near Brookings, Oregon, killing tanoak and causing dieback of closely associatedwild rhododendron(Rhododendron spp.) and evergreenhuckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) (Goheenet aL.2002). It has been found in several different forest types and at elevationsfrom sea level to over 2625 ft (800 m). Sudden oak death poses athreat of uncertain proportion becauseof its potential impact on forest dynamics and alterationof key prey and northern spottedowl habitat components(e.g., hardwood trees - canopy closure and nest tree mortality); especially in the southernportion of the northern spottedowl's range(Courtney et aL.2004). However, uncertainty about the likely scale of habitat effects and the potential for managementto addressthe additive effects of suddenoak death on habitat availability mediated againstplacing too much weight on this factor in the FWSs Five-YearReview Evaluationof the northernspotted owl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a).

Inbreeding Depression, GeneticIsolation, and ReducedGenetic Diversity Inbreeding and other genetic problems due to small population sizes were not consideredan imminent threatto the northern spottedowl at the time of listing. Recent studiesshow no indication of reduced genetic variation and past bottlenecksin Washington, Oregon, or California (Barrowcloughet al.1999; Haig et aL.2004;Henke et al. 2005). However,inCanada, the breeding population is estimatedto be less than 33 pairs and annual population decline may be as high as 35 percent (Harestadet al. 2004). Canadianpopulationsmay be more adversely affected by issuesrelated to small population size including inbreeding depression,genetic isolation,and reducedgenetic diversity (Courtneyet aL.2004).Low and persistentlydeclining populations throughout the northern portion of the speciesrange (see "Population Trends" below) may be at increasedrisk of losing geneticdiversity.

Climate change Climate change,a potential additional threat to northern spottedowl populations, is not explicitly addressedin the Northwest Forest Plan. Climate changecould have direct and indirect impacts on northern spottedowls and their prey. However, the emphasison maintenanceof seral stage complexity and related biological diversity in Matrix Lands under the Northwest Forest Plan

42 shouldcontribute to the resiliencyof the Federalforest landscape related to impactsof climate change(Courtney et al. 2004).

Basedupon a global meta-analysisof climatechange data,Parmesan and Yohe (2003)discussed severalpotential implications of globalclimate change to biologicalsystems, including terrestrial plantsand animals. Results indicated that 62 percentof speciesexhibited trends indicative of advancementof springconditions. In bird species,climate change trends were manifested in eafliernesting activities. Becausethe northern spotted owl exhibitsa limited toleranceto heat relativeto otherbird species(Weathers et al. 200I), subtlechanges in climatehave the potential to affectnorthern spotted owls. However,the specificimpacts to the speciesare unknown.

ConservationNeeds of the Northern SpottedOwl

Basedon the aboveassessment of threats,the northernspotted owl hasthe followinghabitat- specificand habitat-independent conservation (i.e., survival and recovery) needs (adapted from Courtneyet aL.2004):

Habitat-specificNeeds

l. Largeblocksof suitablehabitatto support clusters or local populationcenters of northern spottedowls (e.g., 15 to 20 breedingpairs) throughout the owl's range;

2. Suitablehabitat conditions and spacing between local northernspotted owl populations throughoutits rangeto facilitatesurvival and movement;

3. Suitablehabitatdistributed across avariety of ecologicalconditions within the northern spottedowl's rangeto reducerisk of localor widespreadextirpation;

4. A coordinated,adaptive management effort to reducethe lossof habitatdue to catastrophic wildfire throughoutthe northernspotted owl's range,and amonitoring program to clarify whetherthese risk reductionmethods are effective and to determinehow owls usehabitat treated to reducefuels; and

5. In areasof significantpopulation decline, sustain the full rangeof survivaland recovery optionsfor this speciesin light of significantuncertainty.

Habitat-independentNeeds

1. A coordinated,research and adaptive management effort to betterunderstand and manage competitiveinteractions between northern spotted and barred owls; and

2. Monitoringto betterunderstand the risk that WestNile Virus andsudden oak deathpose to northernspotted owls and,for WestNile Virus, researchinto methodsthat may reducethe likelihoodor severityof outbreaksin northernspotted owl populations.

43 ConservationStrategy

Since 1990,various efforts have addressedthe conservationneeds of the northern spottedowl and attemptedto formulate conservationstrategies based upon theseneeds. The various efforts began with the Interagency Scientific Committee's ConservationStrategy (Thomas et al. 1990). The efforts continued with the designationof critical habitat (57 FR 1796-1838,the Draft RecoveryPlan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992));the ScientificAnalysis Teamreport (Thomas et al. 1993); and the report of the Forest EcosystemManagement Assessment Team (Thomas and Raphael 1993). The efforts culminated with the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management T994a). Each conservationstrategy was basedupon the reseryedesign principles first articulated in the Interagency Scientific Committee's report, which are summarizedas follows:

o Species that arewell distributed acrosstheir range are less prone to extinction than speciesconfined to small portions of their range.

o Large blocks ofhabitat, containing multiple pairs of the species,are superior to small blocks of habitat with only one to a few pairs.

o Blocks of habitat that arc close together are better than blocks far apart. Habitatthat occurs in contiguous blocks is better than habitat that is more fragmented.

o Habitatbetween blocks is more effective as dispersalhabitat if it resemblessuitable habitat.

Conservationand Recovery Efforts on Federal Lands

The Northwest Forest Plan is the current conservationstrategy for the northern spottedowl on Federal lands. It is designedaround the conservationneeds of the northern spottedowl and basedupon the designationof a variety of land-useallocations whose objectives are eitherto provide for population clusters (i.e., demographicsupport) or to maintain connectivity between population clusters. Severalland-use allocations are intended to contribute primarily to supportingpopulation clusters: Late-successionalReserves, Managed Late-Successional Areas, CongressionallyReserved Areas, Managed Pair Areas, and ReservePair Areas. The remaining land-useallocations (Matrix, Adaptive ManagementAreas, Riparian Reserves,Connectivity Blocks, and Administratively Withdrawn Areas) provide connectivity betweenhabitat blocks intended for demographicsupport.

The range-widesystem of Late-SuccessionalReserves set up under the NorthwestForest Plan capturesthe variety of ecological conditions within the 12 different provinces to which northern spotted owls are adapted. This design reducesthe potential for extinction due to large catastrophicevents in a single province. Multiple, largeLate-SuccessionalReserves in each province reducethe potential that northern spottedowls will be extirpated in any individual province and reduce the potential that large wildfires or other eventswill eliminate all habitat within a Late-SuccessionalReserve. In addition,Late-Successional Reserves are generally arrangedand spacedso that northern spotted owls may disperseto two or more adjacentLate-

44 SuccessionalReserves. This network of reservesreduces the likelihood that catastrophicevents will impact habitat connectivity and population dynamics within and betweenprovinces.

FEMAT scientistspredicted that northern spottedowl populations would decline in the Matrix over time, while populations were expectedto stabilize and eventually increasewithin Late- SuccessionalReserves, as habitatconditions improve over the next 50 to 100years (Thomas and Raphael1993; USDA ForestService and USDI Bureauof Land Management1994a,1994b). Based on the results of the first decadeof monitoring, the Northwest Forest Plan's authorscannot determine if the declining population trend will be reversedbecause not enough time has passed to provide the necessarymeasure of certainty (Lint 2005). However, the results from the first decadeof monitoring do not provide any reasonto depart from the objective of habitat maintenanceand restoration as describedunder the Northwest Forest Plan (Lint 2005). Other stressorsthat operatein intact suitable habitat, such as barred owls (already in action) and West Nile virus (yet to occur) may complicate the conservationof the northern spotted owl. Recent reports about the statusof the northern spottedowl offer few managementrecommendations to deal with the emerging threats. The arrangementand distribution and resilience of the Northwest Forest Plan land use allocation systemmay prove to be the most appropriatestrategy in responding to theseunexpected challenges (Courtney et al, 2004).

Under the NorthwestForest Plan, the agenciesinvolved (FWS, U.S. ForestService, Bureau of Land Management,and the National Park Service) anticipateda decline of northern spottedowl populations during the first decadeof implementation. Recentreports (Courtney et al.2004; Anthony et al. 2004) identified greaterthan expectednorthern spotted owl declinesin Washington and northem portions of Oregon, and more stationarypopulations in southern Oregon and northern California. The reports did not find a direct correlation betweenhabitat conditions and changesin vital rates of northern spottedowls at the meta-populationscale. However, at the tenitory scale,there is evidenceof negative effects to northern spottedowl fitness due to reducedhabitat quantrty and quality. Also, there is no evidenceto suggestthat dispersal habitatis currently limiting (Courtney et aL.2004;Lint 2005). Even with the population decline, Courtney et al (2004) noted that there is little reasonto doubt the effectivenessof the core principles underpinning the Northwest Forest Plan conservation strategy.

The current scientific information, including information showing northern spottedowl population declines,indicates that the northern spottedowl continuesto meet the definition of a threatenedspecies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004a). That is, populations are still relatively numerousover most of the northern spottedowl's historic range,which suggeststhat the threat of extinction is not imminent.

ConservationEfforts on Non-Federal Lands

FEMAT noted that limited Federal ownership in some areasconstrained the ability to form an extensive reservenetwork to meet conservationneeds of the northern spottedowl. Thus, non- Federal lands were determinedto be an important contribution to the range-wide goal of achieving conservationand recovery of the northern spottedowl. The FWSs main expectations for private lands are for their contributions to demographicsupport (pair or cluster protection)

45 andlor connectivity with lands. In addition, timber harvest within each stateis governedby rules thatmay provide protection of northern spottedowls andlor their habitat to varying degrees.

There are 16 current or completedHabitat ConservationPlans (HCPs) with incidental take permits issuedfor northern spottedowls, eight in Washington, four in Oregon, and four in California. They range insize from 40 acresto over 1.6 million acres,though not all acresare included in the mitigation for northern spotted owls. In total, the HCPs cover approximately2.9 million of the 32 million acresof non-Federalforestlands in the range of the northern spotted owl. MostHCPs arcfairly longinduration,thoughtheyrangefromonlyfiveyearsupto 100 years. While each HCP is unique, there are severalgeneral approachesto mitigation of incidentaltake of northem spottedowls, including: 1) reservesof varioussizes, some associated with adjacentFederal reserves;2) forest harvest that maintainsor develops suitable habitat; 3) forest managementthat maintains or developsdispersal habitat; and 4) deferral of harvestnear specific sites. Individual HCPs may employ one or more of thesemitigation measures. Similarly the conservationobjectives of individual HCPs vary from specified numbers of breeding northern spottedowls, with specified levels of reproductive success,to management objectives for nesting/roosting/foraginghabitatordispersal habitat (Courtney et aL 2404).

Washington . In 1996,the Washington Forest PracticesBoard adoptedrules (Washington Forest Practices Board 1996)that would "contribute to conservingthe northern spottedowl and its habitat on non-Federallands" basedon recommendationsfrom a ScienceAdvisory Group which identified important non-Federallands and recommendedroles for those lands in northern spottedowl conservation(Hanson et al. 1993 Buchananet al. 1994). The 1996 rules designated10 northern spottedowl specialemphasis areas (SOSEAs) in Washingtonthat compriseover 1.5million acresof Stateand private lands where owl protections on non-Federallands would be emphasized. At all sites within SOSEAs, any proposedharvest of suitable spotted owl habitat within a territorial owl circle is considereda "Class-IV special" and would trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Within SOSEAs, all suitable habitatwithin 0.7 mile of northern spotted owl activity centers, and40 percent of suitable habitatwithin the provincial median home rungecircle surrounding an occupied activity center is generally protectedfrom timber harvest. Proposedharvest that would reducehabitat amountsbelow these levels are consideredto have a significant probable adverseaffect on the environment with respectto SEPA. If a determination of significance is made,preparation of a SEPA Environmental Impact Statementis required prior to proceeding. If a determinationof non-significance or mitigated determination of non-significance is reached,the action can proceed without further environmental assessment.Until recently, thesehabitat protections could be lifted if a northern spotted owl activity centerwas determinedto be unoccupied (Buchananand Swedeen2005). In 2005,the Forest PracticesBoard adoptedemergency rules to further protect suitable habitat in northernspotted owl circleswithin SOSEAs(Washington Forest Practices Board 2005). Under the 1996 Washington Forest PracticesRules, suitable northern spottedowl habitat located on non-Federallands outside of owl managementcircles or located outside of a SOSEA boundary was not protectedfrom timber harvest,unless the habitat was protectedby an approvedHCP. Northern spottedowl-related HCPs in Washington cover over 1192million acresand generally provide both demographicand connectivity support as recommendedin the draft northern spottedowl recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992).

46 Oregon The Oregon Forest PracticesAct provides for protection of 70-acre core areasaround known northern spottedowl nest sites, but doesnot provide for protection of northern spottedowl habitat beyond these areas(Oregon Dept. of Forestry 2006). In general,no large-scalenorthern spotted owl habitat protection strategyor mechanismcurrently exists for non-Federallands in Oregon. The four northern spottedowl-related HCPs currently in effect in Oregon cover over 300,000acres of non-Federallands. TheseHCPs haveprovided, and will continueto provide, some nestinghabitat and connectivify over the next few decades.

California In 1990, the California Forest PracticeRules, which govern timber harvest on private lands, were amendedto require surveys for northern spottedowls in suitable habitat and to provide protection around activity centers(Califomia Dept. of Forestry 2005). Under the California Forest PracticesRules, no timber harvest plan canbe approvedif it is likely to result in incidental take of federally listed species,unless authorized by a Federal HCP. The California Department of Fish and Game initially reviewed all timber harvestplans to ensurethattake was not likely to _ oecur; the FWS took over that review function in 2000. Severallarge indusffial owners operate under SpottedOwl ManagementPlans that have been reviewed by the FWS; the plans specify basic measuresfor northern spottedowl protection. Four HCPs authorizingtake of northern spottedowls havebeen approved covering over 669,000acres of non-Federallands. Implementation of theseHCPs has provided, and will continue to provide, for northern spotted owl demographicand connectivity support to Northwest Forest Plan lands.

Current Condition of the Northern Spotted Owl

The current condition of a speciesincorporates the effects of all past human and natural activities or eventsthat have led to the present-daystatus of the speciesand its habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand National Marine FisheriesService 1998).

Range-wide Habitat Trends

Habitat Trends The FWS hasused information provided by the U.S. ForestService, Bureau of Land Management,and National Park Service to update the habitat baseline conditions on Federal lands for northem spottedowls on severaloccasions since the northern spottedowl was listed in 1990. The estimateof 7.4 million acresused for the NorthwestForest Plan in 1994(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management I994a) was determinedto be representativeof the general amount of northern spottedowl habitat on theselands. This baselinewas usedto track relative changesover time in subsequentanalyses. In 2005, a new map depicting suitable northern spottedowl habitat throughout their range was produced as a result of the NorthwestForest Plan's effectivenessmonitoring program (Lint 2005). However, the spatial resolution of this new habitat map currently makes it unsuitable for tracking habitat effects at the scale of individual projects. The FWS is evaluating the map for future use in tracking habitat trends. Additionally, there are no reliable estimatesof northern spottedowl habitat on other land ownerships;consequently, acres that have undergoneESA section 7 consultation can be tracked, but not evaluatedin the context of changewith respectto a reference

47 condition on non-Federallands. The production of the Northwest Forest Plan monitoring program habitatmap does,however, provide an opportunity for future evaluationsof trends in non-Federalhabitat. The following analysesindicate changesto the baselinecondition establishedin 1994.

Range-wideAnalysis 1994 - 2001 In200l, the FWS conductedan assessmentof habitatbaseline conditions, the first since implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001), This range- wide evaluation of habitat, comparedto the Final SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement,was necessaryto determineif the rate of potential changeto northern spottedowl habitatwas consistentwith the changeanticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan. In particular, the FWS consideredhabitat effects that were documentedthrough the ESA section 7 consultationprocess since 1994. In general,the analyticalframework of theseconsultations focused on the reserveand connectivity goals establishedby the Northwest Forest Plan land-use allocations (IJSDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a),with effects expressedin terms of changesin suitable northern spottedowl habitat within those land-use allocations. The FWS determinedthat actions and effects were consistentwith the expectations for implementationof theNorthwest Forest Plan from 1994to June,2001 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2001).

During the 2001assessment, the FWS developedan intranetdatabase for compilingand tracking habitatlosses anticipated through ESA section7 consultationsand other habitat effects (e.g., wildfire effects,though this datais incomplete).Information in the databaseis updatedwith eachnew consultationacross the rangeof the species.The total acresof habitatloss changes over time asadditional consultations are completed. As projectsare implemented, Federal agenciesreport the actualacres implemented, and in somecases, the implementedacres are substantiallyless than the acresthat were analyzedin the consultation.The FWS usesthese reportsto updatethe databaseand add or subtracthabitat acres. For eachESA section7 consultation,the FWS usesthe currentinformation in the consultationdatabase to trackthe effectsacross the rangeof the northernspotted owl andupdate the informationon the statusof the northernspotted owl. As a result,the acresfrom ESA sectionconsultation reported in this Opinionmay vary from previousconsultations due to updatedinformation in the consultation database.Copies of the summarytables from the databaseused for this Opinionare filed in the administrativerecord for this Opinion.

Range-wideAnalysis 1994 - 2004ffirst decadeof theNorthwest Forest Plan) This sectionupdates the information considered in U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(2001), relying particularlyon informationin documentsthe FWSproduced pursuant to ESA section7 and informationprovided by NorthwestForest Plan agencies on habitatloss resulting from natural events(e.g., fires, windthrow, insects, and disease).

In 1994,about 7.4 million acresof suitablenorthern spotted owl habitatwere estimated to exist on Federallands (USDA ForestService and USDI Bureauof LandManagement 1994a). As of April, 2004,theFWS had consulted (under ESA section7) on theproposed removal of 57I,I92 aeresof northemspotted owl habitatrange-wide, including 165,677acres on Federallands managedunder the NorthwestForest Plan (Table 1). Federallands were expected to experience

48 an approximate2.6 percent decline in suitable northern spottedowl habitat due to all managementactivities (not just timber harvest) over the past decade,with approximately 2.3 percent being removed by timber harvest. The consulted-oneffects for the Northwest Forest Plan areaindicated a decadalloss of approximately 2.2 percent These anticipatedchanges in suitable northern spottedowl habitat were consistentwith the expectationsfor implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.

There was little available information regarding northern spottedowl habitat trends on non- Federal lands. Yet, we do know that internal FWS consultationsconducted since T994have documentedthe eventualloss of 413,480acres of habitaton non-Federallands (Table 2). Most of these losseshave yet to be realized becausethey are part of large-scale,long-term HCPs.

In2005,the WDFW releasedthe report, An Assessmentof Spotted Owl Habitat on Non-Federal Lands in Washingtonbetween 1996 and 2004 (Pierceet al. 2005). This study estimatesthe amount of northern spottedowl habitat in2004 on lands affected by Stateand private forest practices. The study area is a subsetof the total Washington forest practice lands, and stalistically-basedestimates of exlsting habitat and habitat loss due to fire and tim-berharvest are reported. In the 3.2-million acrestudy arca,Pierceet al. (2005) estimatedthere were 816,000 acresof suitable northern spottedowl habitat in2004, or about 25 percentof their study area. Most of the suitable northern spottedowl habitat in the Pierce et al. (2005) study areain 2004 (56 percent)occurred on Federallands, and lesseramounts were presenton State-locallands (21 percent),private lands(22 percent)and tribal lands(1 percent). A total of 172,000acres of timber harvest occurred in the 3.2 million-acre study area,including harvest of 56,400 acresof suitable northern spottedowl habitat. This representeda loss of about 6 percent of the northern spotted owl habitat in the study area distributed acrossall ownerships(Pierce et al. 2005). Approximately 77 percent of the harvestedhabitat occurred on private lands and about 15 percent occurred on Statelands. Pierce et al. (2005) also evaluatedsuitable northern spottedowl habitatlevels in 450 owl managementcircles (basedon the provincial annual median owl home range). Across their study area,they found that northern spottedowl circles averagedabout26 percent suitable habitat in the circle acrossall landscapes.Values in the study ranged from an averageof 7 percent in southwestWashington to an ayerageof 3 1 percent in the easternCascade Mountains, indicating that many northern spottedowl territories in Washington are significantly below the 40 percent suitable habitat threshold used by the Stateand FWS as a viability indicator for northern spotted owl territories (Pierce et al. 2005).

49 Table 1. Changesto NRFI habitatacres from activitiessubject to ESA section7 consultations andother causes range-wide from May 1994to April2004 (thefirst decadeof the Northwest ForestPlan). ESA Section 7 Consultation Other Ilabitat Northwest Forest Plan Habitat Changes2 Changes3 Group/Ownership Removed/ Removed/ Downgraded Degraded Downgraded Degraded BureauofLand Management 60,944 8,622 760 I Federal- ForestService 88,650 414,883 28,492 5,109 Northwest Park Forest National 908 2,861 0 I Plan Service Multi-agencya 15,175 )??14 0 I NWFP Subtotal 165,677 449,680 29,252 5,109 Other Bureauof Indian Management Affairs and and Tribes 99,062 27,890 0 r Conservation Habitat Plans ConservationPlans 295,889 14,430 0 0 (oMCP) OMCP Subtotal 394,951 42,320 2,309 n Other Federal Agencies & Landss 24r I 28 70 Other Public & Private Lands6 r0,323 878 30,240 20,949 TOTAL Changes 571,t92 492,879 61,829 26,128

Source:Table A from the FWSNorthern Spotted Owl ConsultationEffects Tracker (web application and database) Aug.29, 2006. I Nesting, roosting,foraging habitat. In California, suitablehabitat is divided into two components;nesting - roosting(NR) habitat,and foraging (F) habitat. TheNR componentmost closely resembles NRF habitatin Oregonand Washington. Due to differencesin reportingmethods, effects to suitablehabitat conipiled in this,and all subsequenttables include effects for nesting, roosting,and foraging (NRF) for 1994-June26,2001. After June26,2001, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washingtonand Oregonbut only nestingand roosting (NR) for Califomia. 2 Includesboth effectsreported by U.S. Fish andWildlife Service(2001) and subsequent effects compiled in theNorthern SpottedOwl ConsultationEffects Tracker (web application and database). 3includes effects to NRF habitat(as documented through technical assistance) resulting from wildfires (not from suppression efforts),insect and disease outbreaks, and other natural causes, private timber harvest, and land exchanges not associatedwith consultation.Information from all firesoccurring since 1994 is not yet availablefor entryinto the databaseand thus is not includedhere but is compiledin Table3. a The 'Multi-agency'grouping is usedto lump a varietyof NorthwestForest Plan mixed agency or adminunit consultationsthat werereported together prior to J:une26,2001, andcannot be separatedout. 5 Includeslands that are owned or managedby otherFederal agencies not includedin the NorthwestForest Plan. 6 Includeslands not coveredby HabitatConservation Plans that are owned or.managed by states,counties, municipalities, and privateentities. Effects that occurredon privatelands from right-of-waypermits across U.S. ForestService and Bureau ofland Managementlands are included.

50 Table2. Changesto NRFr habitatacresfrom activitiessubject to ESA section7 consultations andother causes range-wide from May 1994to present(August 29,2006). ESA Section7 Consultation Other Habitat Northwest Forest Plan Habitat Changes2 Changes3 Group/Ownership Removed/ Removed/ Downgraded Degraded Downgraded Degraded Bureau of Land Management 61,255 8,973 760 c - Federal Forest Service 90,376 451,368 29,832 5,481 Northwest National Park Forest 1 2,842 3,302 J c Plan Service Multi-agencya 15,775 23,314 0 0 NWFP Subtotal 169,648 486,957 30,595 5,48r Other Bureau of Indian Management Affairs and and Tribes 107,015 28,041 2,309 0 Conservation Habitat Plans ConservationPlans 295,889 14,430 0 0 (oMCP) OMCP Subtotal 402,904 42,471 2,309 0 Other Federal Agencies& Landss 241 466 28 70 Other Public & Private Lands6 10,576 880 30,244 2A,949 TOTAL Changes 583,369 530,774 63,172 26,500

Source:Table A from theFWS Northern Spotted Owl ConsultationEffects Tracker (web application and database) Aug.29, 2006. t,Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California,suitable habitat is dividedinto two components;nesting - roosting(NR) habitat,andforaging (F) habitat. TheNR componentmost closely resembles NRF habitatin Oregonand Washington. Due to differencesin reportingmethods, effects to suitablehabitat compiled in this, andall subsequenttables include effects for nesting, roosting,and foraging (NRF) for 1994-June6,2001. After June26,2001, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washingtonand Oregonbut only nestingand roosting (NR) for California. 2 Includesboth effectsreported by U.S. Fish andWildlife Service(2001) and subsequent effects compiled in theNorthern SpottedOwl ConsultationEffects Tracker (web application and database). 3 Includeseffects to NRF habitat(as documented through technical assistance) resulting from wildfires(not from suppression efforts),insect and disease outbreaks, and other natural causes, private timber harvest, and land exchangesnot associatedwith consultation.Information from all fires occurringsince 1994 is not yet availablefor entryinto the databaseand thus is not includedhere but is compiledin Table3. a The 'Multi-agency'grouping is usedto lump avarietyof NorthwestForest Plan mixed agency or adminunit consultationsthat werereported together prior to June26,2001, and cannot be separatedout. 5 Includeslands that are ownedor managedby other Federalagencies not includedin the NorthwestForest Plan. 6 Includeslands not coveredby HabitatConservation Plans that are owned ormanaged by states,counties, municipalities, and privateentities. Effects that occurredon privatelands from right-of-waypermits across U.S. ForestService and Bureau ofland Managementlands are included.

51 The FWS estimatedan increaseof approximately600,000 acres of late-successionalforest across the range of the northern spottedowl since 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004b). This estimatewas basedon a projection of forest age and sizeclass over time. Becausestand age and size class do not necessarilyaccount for the complex forest structureoften associatedwith northern spottedowl habitat, Courtney et al. (2004) believed the FWSs in-growth estimatelikely overestimatesactual habitat development. Also, without more detailed spatial information, the availability of theseadditional acresof late-successionalforest to northern spottedowls and their significance to northern spottedowl conservationremains unknown.

Range-wideAnalysis from 1994 to the Present As statedpreviously , in 1994 about 7 .4 mlllion acresof suitable habitat were estimatedto exist on Federallands. As of August2006, the FWS has consultedon the removal of 583,369acres of northernspotted owl habitatrange-wide, of which 169,648acres occulred on Federallands managedunder the Northwest Forest Plan (Table 2). From April, 2004, to the present,the FWS has consulted on the removal or degradationof 3,971 acresof northern spottedowl habitat range- wide on Federal lands managedunder the Northwest Forest Plan (Tables I and2).

Habitat loss from Federallands has variedby provincewith most lossesconcentrated in the Oregon physiographic provinces. Habitat removed from the Oregon Klamath Mountains province and the two Oregon Cascadesprovinces made up 75 percent of the habitx loss on NorthwestForest Plan landsrange-wide since 1994(Tables 3).

In summary, habitat loss in Washington accountedfor 12.08 percent of the range-wide loss, but it only resulted in a loss of 1.06percent of available habitat on Federal lands in Washington (Table 3). In Oregon,habitat loss accountedfor 77.85percent of the range-widelosses, but only 7.09 percentof available habitat on Federal lands in Oregon (Table 3). Loss of habitat on Federallands in California accountedfor 10.07percent of the lossesrange-wide, but only 2.61 percentof habitaton Federallands in California (Table 3).

The FWS has limited information on the impacts of recent wildfires. From 1994 to present,the FWS estimatedthat approximately 168,301acres was lost due to natural events(Table 3). About two-thirds of this loss was attributed to the Biscuit Fire that burned over 500,000 acresin southwestOregon (Rogue River basin) and northern California in2002. This fire resultedin a loss of approximately113,000 acres of northernspotted owl habitat,including habitatwithin five Late-Successional Reserves.

Northern SpottedOwl Numbers. Distribution. and Reproduction Trends

There are no estimatesof the historical population size and distribution of northern spottedowls, although they arebelieved to have inhabited most old-growth forests throughout the Pacific Northwestprior to modernsettlement (mid-1800s), including northwesternCalifornia (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). According to the final rule listing the northernspotted owl as threatened(55 FR 26114-26194),approximately 90 percent of the roughly 2,000 known northern spotted owl breeding pairs were located on federally managedlands, 1.4 percent on Statelands, and 6.2 percent on private lands; the percent

52 tbo(,) .= V)

cl \o N o o c.t tat o t'* o oo sf tar €) r.)ooFooo\F-..nNOF-O o-c.)ciO .d r-.r c.i .t \o .d o c.i to E> o:i -|0)E€ eiififi,€

lr]J tE d(l) cn +r ggeSF cn lr< E 0.)0) H +F FlJ{ E#68€;E 9ra \o r/) o o F-. co o\ 0o o t-,n q\ $ ;oo-ooocota)oo= (.) H* 9;e ! Gr+i afg*EiF Fro<

aY. O-c{OO\\Oco\OOOoot.-N €B* €"r5€ 6o\oocao\Otr)tnocotr) q)5 -f-i(nOO\OcAtnOOl.)rtr HEf 3E E€ .t -l-lc.i S6i+rs +\t\d r- d-f-*r-N(\ aO F dcO '- .1 o) A$EEhiEt O\=fOO\ONoOcOOQOq\= aYl8e d\r.)-\oNo00o\oo o! c.l q \O^ O^ v} oq c'I tgs€?€EE {* E9E? v1F-\f,$ta)@ aA v EEEE dNE\O fTl R .cqQcr> d E)Ze a€;€$FtE )r* I .+ N - o + \o N co o o\ 00 co f-- cF a a.I sl O I-- ra) r.) 0O \O O O\ O o a.looo\car-ooF aY A rr. F-|r)rc)o|\0O.oOOdOc)<- H o \OO\mO\-!SO\OO\s' teffiEsgi€EEE gcal$' ; q9 q) oo\- coclc\q .a q\o^ ca --d-N-i (n ^7 () r 5s€H rE rp o iri tr q) da -,v^ t-- O\ O O F- oo O\ .9 oo S l= \Q qp v.^v ;+ooF-o\lr)\otr)o\ca\oo\ x bR c\ oo^ { vI c\ \o- \ \o^ n" o{ oo- o^ ::JV \O (r) tn - 0o O\ F- tEs:E€EEi O \O c.f \O ca 'E qc.l \b6li-ooi'dr.r1ool'-O\ Fr v-rF-rnF*siOOc.) cg ()o\ () -i .qHc.r -i c.i t-: +o\F-OOO\tr)rtt.)ootr)c96l O .4 O O\ O\ co co ca \O C.l oo \0 cO 9--E c) (l. ra) - 0 P F t'- * f- O cO O o|\ ci tt- dnhn - O c'- $ t-- \O (a \n .a \O !O N IYAW q) -6sfO\.oO\c4c{<{'O rt o c\c'l"o-?cavl _r;E< - C.l EEE$HEEEE c)v I -i.,tl) cr :iE E {= q)F z V)rg d.F -^u a gSgODSXRE€il8€ q) g;t?ggEEE (, :F- q df \o^ dl v} \O^ q ,., vI oo^ 1 vl :IVLH >'!) -(go a T8S NS+r $Gsx ql rrrhoo\f$NO--S cCEH EEE gEg€HE ggi 967 -#- ZE'-=.| . F ih< --- q) EE6 -q) t- g EffA,E*ss aZ otr., d9 d,( (5S TE c F e P!-q P't .:!reJ€€€E SoE€ 0, q/ +i €€ OXr- q), = l'! e :: ct c\t = c{ - >. Oi E$?FEigF6 Foj5E 58358!HHFTHE oog E

Usingdata from 1986-1992,Gutienez (1994) tallied 3,753 known pairs and 980 singles throughoutthe rangeof the northernspotted owl. At the time theNorthwest Forest Plan was initiated(July 1, I994),therewere 5,431 known locations of or sitecenters of northernspotted owl pairsor residentsingles: 851 sites (16 percent) in Washington,2,893(53 percent) in Oregon, and 1,687(31 percent) in California(60 FR 9484-9495).The actual population of northern spottedowls acrossthe rangewas believed to be largerthan either of thesecounts because some areaswere, and remain, unsurveyed (57 FR 1796-1838;Thomas et al. 1993).

Becauseexisting survey coverage and effort areinsufficient to producereliable population-size estimates,researchers use other indices, such as demographicdata, to evaluatetrends in northern spottedowl populations.Analysis of demographicdata canprovide an estimateof the rateand directionof populationgrowth [i.e., lambda (f,)]. A ], of 1.0indicates a stationarypopulation (i.e.,neither increasing nor decreasing),a ), lessthan 1.0 indicates a decliningpopulation, and a)" greaterthan 1.0indicates a growingpopulation. Demographic data are analyzed drring workshopsthat occurat 5-yearintervals.

In January2004, at ameta-analysisworkshop northern spotted owl demographicstudies, two meta-analyseswere conducted on the rateof populationchange using the re-parameterizedJolly- Sebermethod (XRJS); I meta-analysisfor all 13 studyareas and I meta-analysisfor the B study areasthat arepart of the EffectivenessMonitoring Program of the NorthwestForest Plan (Anthonyet aL.2004).Datawere analyzed separately for individualstudy areas, as well as simultaneouslyacross all studyareas (true meta-analysis).Estimates of I.RJSranged from 0.896-1.005for the 13study areas, and all but 1 (Tyee)of theestimates were <1.0 suggesting populationdeclines for mostareas (Anthony et aL.2004)(Figure 1). Therewas sffongevidence that populationson the Wenatchee,Cle Elum, Warm Springs,and Simpson study areas declined duringthe study,and there also was evidencethat populations on the Rainier,Olympic, Oregon CoastRange, and HJ Andrewsstudy areas were decreasing (see Figure 1). Precisionof the I,RJS estimatesfor the Rainierand Olympic studyareas were poor andnot sufficientto detecta differencefrom 1.00.However, the estimate of )"RJSfor Rainierstudy area (0.896) was the lowestof all of the areas.Populations on the Tyee,Klamath, South Oregon Cascades, Northwest California,and the Hoopastudy areas appeared to be stationaryduring the study,but therewas someevidence that the SouthOregon Cascades, Northwest California, and Hoopa study areas weredeclining (I,RJS <1,00). The weighted mean IRJS for all of the studyareas was 0.963 (SE : 0.009,95 percentconfidence Interval:0.945-0.981), suggesting that populations over all of the studyareas were declining by about3.7 percent per yearfrom 1985-2003.The meani"RJS for the 8 demographicmonitoring areas on Federallands was 0.976 (SE : 0.007,95percent confidenceinterval :0.962-0.990) and 0.942 (SE:0.016, 95percent confidence interval: 0.910-0.974)for non-Federallands, an averageof 2.4versus 5.8 percent decline, respectively, per year. This suggeststhat noflhernspotted owl populationson Federallands had better demographicrates than elsewhere, but interspersionof land ownershipon the studyareas confoundsthis analvsis.

54 ([o q) s @ 0) a h.s o et ;c .vxt- 9kH9'^'9t 9'h9r ';o (E> .= ;: i: .: ;: .: .: i: .= € c.) :9 !q) ;s: xxxx x(E(!X(!X g h d ,ii guuu d66d66 5 a I ao =.8el t-(o(oo0 @()tdf''@ 400|J) (-{ o)ro(' (oOl-Fo)O ;F.@@ Po) o)qo?ol (roo)oo)o, o,o ci-ciocio ooo Ho ESth -F - A, oEo .z t-i a'E oorDooc) o(Dol'E 2A R> U,E o ()ooooooo o(s$(5(v(q ([(E(!x ol9 ds ANAA

(oto)(o oN()\i !ONe()t- (n gE o@N Ar('00o)t€ o)VF.N NNo}N oO00O-(r, ('-No. R Y* OE v ^:a . JJJJ FF !a +ff J 9q ; *; JE u, OJ t! J>JE*= # ,; U) o'trOtr t -R s f H- 9.i - n odflodI a o0o0- E:qE *0) 9,"od 9-rA o 0 x; q) !u_urt! kEoJ HS .1 .^ A HEHHES {-1 JV o-]zl 3d556F s f F U 9Pu6 -'F O: tT=ii :Y 2 (- >'-):c - c) !'s v > E >.=.= ?H" (5 g gsHiE .i9 F 2 H iiS E x"i ;i H ;g;# .e -5-'q ; ?*aA e..?X;'( >.c (.) ! iE'; H E_[ade ffoFEgF u€-o?5 i9()9 ${ .Eb.E.; - ts hX v) P} o:=: ;tEE;$B?gEe? E?g$q :o *.= v - ^s: t-1 d6 ggESE66$E;sg ,5sfiiZj o E#ffi e{ E'; p.6 Fr IH N IH NffiH IH N fiid0 at ()a (-o

ia

o d 59 5o (n >'

() li The number of populations that have declined and the rate at which they have declined are noteworthy,particularly the precipitous declines on the four Washington study areas ('lVenatchee,Cle E1um,Rainier, Olympic) (estimatedat 30 to 50 percent population decline over 10 years) and the Warm Springs study areain Oregon (Anthony et al. 2004). Declines in adult survival rates may be an important factor contributing to declining population trends. Survival rates declined over time on five of the 14 study areas:four study areasin Washington, which showed the sharpestdeclines, and one study arcainthe Klamath province of northwest California (Anthony et aI.2004). In Oregon, there were no time trends in apparentsurvival for four of six study areas,and remaining areashad weak non-linear trends. In California, two study areasshowed no trend, one showed a slight decline, and one showed a significant linear decline (Anthony et aL.2004). Like the trends in annual rate of population change,trends in adult survival rate showed clear declines in some area, but not in others. Anthony et al. (2004) provide the only range-wide estimateof northem spottedowl demographicrates.

Loehle et al. (2005) sampleda small portion of the range of the northern spotted owl and questioned the accuracyof lambda estimatescomputed in Anthony et al. (2004), suggestingthat the estimateswere biasedlow by 3 to 4 percentagepoints. Loehle et al. (2005) contendsthe lambda estimatei in Anthony et al. (2004) do not accuratelyaccount for northern spottedowl emigration. Therefore, more of the northern spottedowl demographystudy areaswould have a lambda closer to 1.0, a stationarypopulation. The Loehle et al. (2005) statementcould be accurateif Anthony et al. (2004) used Leslie matrix models to compute survival andlantbda. Instead,Anthony et al. (2004) used the Pradel reparameterizedJolly-Seber method to compute survival and lambdato avoid the biasesassociated with the Leslie matrix method.

British Columbiahas a small populationof northernspotted owls. This populationis relatively isolated, apparentlydeclining sharply, and absentfrom large areasof apparently-suitablehabitat (Courtney et aL.2004). Breeding populations have been estimatedat fewer than 33 pairs and may be declining as much as 35 percent per year (Harestadet aI.2004). The amount of interaction betweennorthern spottedowls in Canadaand the U.S. is unknown (Courtney et al. 2004). The Canadianpopulation has reachedthe point where it is now vulnerable to stochastic demographicevents that could causefurther declinesand perhapsextirpation (Courtney et al. 2004,pgs. 3 -26 to 3-27).

STATUS OF THE SPECIES: Bald Eagle - Pacific Population

A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive charucteristicsof the bald eagleis presentedin the Pacific Bald EagleRecovery Plan (USDI 1986),the final rule to reclassifythe bald eagle from endangeredto threatenedin all of the lower 48 states(USDI 1994), and the proposedrule to delist the bald eagle (USDI 1999). The most current information regarding bald eaglesin WashingtonState and a detaileddescription of their biology and conservationcan be found in the WashingtonState Status Report for the Bald Eagle (Stinsonet al. 2001). A summary is provided below.

The bald eaglewas federallylisted in T978as an endangeredspecies in all statesexcept Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where it was designatedas

56 threatened(USDI 1978). The listing was a result of a decline in the bald eaglepopulation throughout the lower 48 States. The decline was largely attributed to the widespreaduse of dichloro-diphenyl trichloro-ethane (DDT) and other organochlorinecompounds, in addition to habitatloss, disturbance, shooting, electrocution from power lines,poisoning, anda declinein the food base.

The bald eaglewas reclassified in 1995 from endangeredto threatenedas a result of a significant increasein the number of nesting pairs, increasedproductivity, and expandeddistribution (USDI 1gg4). Since 1989 the bald eaglenesting population has increasedat an averugerate of approximately 8 percent per year (USDI 1999). The national averagefor fledglings per occupied breeding areais greaterthan one; therefore,the bald eaglepopulation continuesto increase. Certain geographicallyrestricted areas,such as southernCalifornia, the Columbia River, the Great Lakes, and parts of Maine still have contaminantthreats (USDI 1999). However, bald eaglerecovery goals have generally been met or exceededthroughout its range (USDI 1999).

The delistinggoals for the Pacific RecoveryArea include I) a minimum of 800 nestingpairs,2) an averagereproductiverate of 1.0 fledged young per occupiedbreeding area,with an average iuccess rate for occupiedbreeding areas of not lessthan 65 percentover a S-yeatperiod, 3) breeding population goals attainedin at least 80 percent of managementzones, and4) wintering populationswhich are stableor increasing(USDI 1986).

In the Pacific Recovery Area population delisting goals have been met since 1995, the productivity objectiveof an averageof 1.0young per occupiedbreeding area has beenmet since 1990, andtheaverage success rate for occupiedbreeding areas of65 percenthas beenexceeded since 1994 (USDI 1999). However, as of 1999,the distributionobjective among management zoneshad not yet been fully achieved.

Of the seven statescovered in the Pacific Recovery Area,Washington Statesupports the largest breedingand wintering populations(USDI 1986). In2001,684 nestterritories were occupiedin Washington (WDFW,2003,unpub. data). Most nesting territories in Washington are located on the San Juan Islands, along the coastline of the Olympic Peninsula,along the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound,Hood Canal, and the Columbia River. Wintering concentrationareas in Washington are along salmon spawning streamsand waterfowl wintering areas(Stinson et al. 200r).

Conservation Needs

Habitat

Nesting and wintering habitats are critical to the continued survival of the bald eagle (USDI 1999). Development-relatedhabitat loss has been a significant threat to bald eaglesin the Pacific Recovery Area of Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Califomia, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming (USDI lg94), although availability of habitat doesnot appearto be limiting bald eagle populations at this time (USDI 1999). Urban andrecreationaldevelopment, logging, mineral exploration and extraction, and other forms of human activities can adversely affect the suitability of breeding,wintering, andforaginghabitat. While individual and small-scaleactions

57 may not appearto significantlyaffect the speciesas a whole,the cumulativelong-term effects throughoutthe recoveryarea pose an importantthreat to the recoveryof the species(USDI tege).

Availability of suitable trees for nesting and perching is critical for maintaining bald eagle populations. The primary objective of the bald eaglerecovery processis to provide secure habitat for bald eagleswithin the recovery area,and to increasepopulation levels in specific geographicareas to the extent that the speciescan be delisted. Achieving the recovery goal of increasing the riumber of nesting pairs within the recovery arcarequires protection of existing habitat for breeding and wintering bald eagles,and restoring habitat that has been lost due to developmentor habitatmodification.

Nesting Habitat

Suitable habitat for bald eaglesis characterizedby accessibleforaging areasand trees that are large enough for nesting and roosting (Stalmaster1987). Food availability, such as aggregations of waterfowl or salmon runs, is aprimary factor attractingbald eaglesto wintedng areasand influences nest and territory distribution (Stalmaster1987, Keister et al. 1987).

Bald eaglesgenerally nest in the sameterritories eachyear and often use the samenest repeatedly,although alternatenests in the territory may be used as well. Bald eaglenests in the Pacific Recovery Area are usually located in uneven-agestands of coniferous trees with old- growth forest components(USDI 1986) thatar:elocated within 1 mile of large bodiesof water (Stalmaster 1987). Factors such as relative tree height, diameter,tree species,form, position on the surrounding topography, distancefrom the water, and distancefrom disturbanceinfluence nest site selection. Anthony and Isaacs(19S9) found thatbald eaglesconstruct nests in Douglas- fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii) or Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)trees with an averagediameter of 170.7 centimeters(cm) diameter breastheight (DBH) and a height of 56.6 meters (m) in Douglas-fir forests,and an averagediameter of 106.8cm DBH anda height of 38.6 m in mixed- conifer forests. Suitable perch trees,which bald eaglesuse for guarding the nest, loafing, and foraging,are alsoa componentof suitablenesting habitat (Stalmaster 1987, Buehler 2000).

Wintering Habitat

Wintering bald eagles typically congregatein large aggregationswhere, most importantly, food is abundant(See Foraging). Suitable perch sites adjacentto foraging areasand winter roost habitatare also necessary. In Washington, thesecriteria are fypically met where waterfowl and salmon populations are present,as well as marine areas(Stinson et al. 2001).

When foraging, bald eaglesselect perches that provide an unobstructedview of the surrounding arca, generallythe tallest trees in the arca. Tree speciescommonly used in Washington for perching in winter include black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), bigleaf maple (Acer ma cr ophy I lum), D ottglas -fi r, or Sitka spruce(Stalmaster and Newm an 1979).

Wintering bald eaglesoften roost at communal sites which provide shelter during inclement weather. Bald eaglesmay roost communallyin singletrees or large forest standsof unevenages.

58 Bald eaglesmay remain at their daytime perchesthroughout the night as well, but typically gather atlarge communal roosts in the evening.

Communal night roosting sites are traditionally used year after year. Roost trees are usually the largestand havethe most openstructure (Keister and Anthony 1983,Watson and Pierce1998a). They are often located in areasthat provide a more favorable microclimate during inclement weather(Keister et al. 1985,Knight et al. 1983,Watson and Pierce 1998a). Prey sourcesmay be available in the general vicinity, but for roosting, close proximity to food is not as critical as the needfor shelter. In Washington,26roosts studied by Watsonand Pierce(1998a) were all within 1,100m of foragingareas. However, Stalmaster(1987), in reviewingavariety of studiesfound that only 40 percent were within 1 kilometer of water.

Human Disturbance

Human disturbanceis a continuingthreat, which may inuease with increasinghuman populations and development(USDI 1999). Bald eaglesvary in their sensitivity to disturbance, but generally nest away from human disturbance(Stinson et al. 200I). However, distance, duration, visibility and position of an activity affect eagleresponse, with distancebeing the most importantfactor (Grubb and King 1991,Grubb etal.1992,Watson2004). The responseof nesting bald eaglesto human activity canrange from behavioral, such as flushing, or reduced nest attendance,tonest failure (Fraseretal.IgS5,McGarigal etal.1.99l, Grubb and King 1991, Grubb et al. 1992,Anthony et al. 1995, Steidl and Anthony 1996, Watson and Pierce 1998a). Wintering bald eaglesmay also be displacedfrom foraging areasby human activities (Stalmaster and Newman 1978,Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). The magnitudeof responsevaries inversely with distance,and increaseswith disturbanceduration, the number of vehicles or pedestriansper event,visibility, sound,and position in relationto nest(above, at eye-level,or below the nest) (Grubb and King 1991,Watson 2004). Watson and Pierce (1998a) found that vegetative screeningand distancewere the two most importantfactors determining the impact of disturbances. Heavy vegetative screeningcan dramatically reducebald eagleresponse to human activity. Human activities that aredistant, of short duration, out of sight, few in number, below the nest, and quiet have the least impact (Grubb and King 1991, Watson 2004).

The effects from disfurbanceto nesting bald eaglesvary, dependingon the stageof nesting. In western Washington most bald eaglesengage in courtship behavior in Januaryand February,and begin to incubatetheir eggsby the third week in March. Young hatch by late April, and generallyfledge during early to mid-July (Watsonand Pierce 1998a). Anderson(1990) found in red-tailed hawks (Buteojamaicensis), as well as in his review of other studies,that adults were more defensive as the parental investment in the young increased(and were therefore less likely to leave the nest unattendedor abandonthe nest). The natural exposuretime from incubation to brooding also naturally increases(Watson and Pierce I998a), and the bald eagletsbegan to thermoregulate atthe age of 15 days (Bortolotti T984),indicating that eagletswould be less affected by disruption of adult nest attendanceas the nesting seasonprogresses.

59 Contaminants

Contaminants,in particular organochlorinecompounds such as DDT, are recognizedas one of the primary causesof the declineof bald eaglepopulations (USDI 1986, 1999). DDT was banned, and registrationscancelled for other toxic persistentchemicals such as dieldrin, heptachlor and chlordane for all but the most restricteduses. The use of polychlorinated biphenyls has also been phasedout. The reduction of thesechemicals in the environmenthas resulted in a reduction of theselevels of contaminantsin bald eaglesand a steadyincrease in bald eaglenumbers (Schmitt and Bunck.1995). However,residues of PCBs and Dichloro- diphenylethylenecontinue to depressproductivity in certain locations such as the Channel Islands in California,the Greatlakes and the Lower Columbia River (USDI 1999). Bald eagles continue to be affectedby accumulatedchemicals such as mercury (USDI 1999), as well as poisoning by lead, organophosphorusand carbarnate(Franson et al. 1,995).

Foraging

An important componentof bald eaglenesting and wintering areasis a consistentsourqq of food. Fish and waterfowl are typically the most important food resource(Stalmaster 1987). Coastal and estuarineareas also provide abundantprey resources,including seabirdsand marine invertebrates(Watson etal.IggI,Watson and Pierce 1998b). The availability of food resources is critical during brood rearing,when food limits survival of young (Stalmaster1987)'

Food resourcesgovern the distribution of bald eaglesin the winter. In Washington, salmon carcasses,particularly those of chum salmon (Oncorltynchusketa), are the most important food source(Watson and Pierce2001). Becausesurvival of bald eaglesin their first year is typically low (Stalmaster 1987), winter food availability is important for survival. Stalmasterand Kaiser (1998) and Hansenand Hodges(1985) have also suggestedthat winter food shortagesor disrupted winter foraging may result in reducedreproductive rates.

Summary

The bald eaglepopulation in the Pacific Recovery Area continuesto increaseand the majority of recovery objectives have been met. The threatsto bald eagleshave been reduced,particularly impacts from contaminantsand shooting. However, the loss of potential nesting and wintering habitat, and disturbanceof bald eaglesby humans continues. Threats from these factors have beenreduced, but they continueto slow increasesin bald eaglepopulations.

ANALYSIS OF TIIE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED

Effects to DesignatedBull Trout Critical Habitat

The request for consultationproposed an effect determination of "may affect not likely to adversely affect" designatedbull trout critical habitat. The FWS concurs with this effect determinationfor the reasonslisted below.

60 TheFWS designateda bull trout CriticalHabitatUnit (CHU) alongthe mainstemLewis River from MerwinDam to theColumbia River [70 FR 5212(September 26,2005)]. The proposed rule identifiedthis sectionof the Lewis River asbeing "important foraging and overwintering habitat,and connectivity to the ColumbiaRiver oncefish passageat Merwin, Yale, andSwift Damsis restored"[67 FR 71236(November 29,2002)]. Although portions of theLewis River andits tributariesabove Merwin Dam hadbeen proposed as critical habita! duringthe final designationthese areas were removed based on the expectedbenefits of the SA for the relicensingof theLewis River Hydrolelectric Projects [70 FR 5212(September 26,2005)].

Primary ConstituentElements of Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Theprimary constituentelements (PCEs) that are essential to the conservationof bull trout [70 FR 5212(September 26,2005)l are:

PCE#I - Watertemperatures that supportbull troutuse. PCE#} - Complexstream channels with featuressuch as woody debris,side channels, pools, andundercut banks to provlde avarietyof depths,velocities, and ins{ream structures. PCE#3- Substratesof suffrcientamount, size, and composition to ensuresuccess of eggand embryooverwinter survival, fry emergence,and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. PCE#4- A naturalhydrograph, including peak, high, low, andbase flows within historic ranges,or if regulated,currently operate under a biologicalopinion that addressesbull trout, or a hydrographthat demonstratesthe ability to supportbull trout populationsby minimizing daily andday-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departuresfrom the naturalcycle of flow levelscorresponding to seasonalvariation. PCE#5- Springs,seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contributeto water quality andquantity as a cold watersource. PCE#6- Migratory corridorswith minimalphysical, biological, or waterquality impedimentsbetween spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittentor seasonalbarriers induced by high watertemperatures or low flows. PCE#] - An abundantfood base including terrestrial organisms of riparianorigin, aquatic macroinvertebrates,and forage fi sh. PCE#8- Permanentwater of sufficientquantity and quality suchthat normalreproduction, growthand survival are not inhibited.

Effect of Project Elementson PCEs

o Bull TroutPassage: Provision of two-waybull troutpassage at theLewis River Dams will providea migratorycorridor between the Lewis River bull trout CoreArea and potentialforaging and overwintering habitat in the CHU andelsewhere in the Lower ColumbiaRiver RecoveryUnit. In this way, migratorycorridors will be restored, resultingin a positiveeffect on PCE#6.

r InstreamConstruction: This elementmay affectcritical habitatby addingspawning gravel andlargewoody debris(LWD) to the streambedbelow Merwin Dam for fall Chinookspawning if graveldepletion is detectedafter the dateof licensing[SA Section 7.2(d)1.Gravel augmentation may slightly improvethe substrateamount, size, and

61 composition, thus slightly improving PCE#3. In-channel work may also include a pump station to be constructedon the river bank and a releasepipe from the ReleasePond to the Lewis River near the town of Woodland. Although instream construction activities may generutetemporary increasesin sedimentor turbidity, the likelihood of bull trout being presentin the CHU is so low as to be discountable,therefore theseactions are not likely to adverselyaffect criticalhabitat

Reintroduction of Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead: Reintroduction of salmon and steelheadwill contribute to an abundantfood basefor bull trout in the CHU. The expectationis that there will be greateruse of the reach below Merwin Dam and the CHU by bull trout in the future. This will benefit PCE#7.

Protect Habitat: The Utilities will manageall interestsin land they currently own, or land they purchaseor acquire in conservationeasements, for protection of fish and wildlife habitat. Landmanagementwill include buffering sensitive aquatichabitat from ground- disturbing activities. Thus, any habitat conservationcovenants or new parcels of land purchasedbelow Merwin Dam may contribute to improvedhabitat quality associated with critical habitat. These actions may contribute to lower water temperaturesfrom riparianprotection through the application of streamsidebuffers. This may benefit PCE#I.

Provide Instream Flows Below Merwin Dam: Below Merwin Dam, the proposedaction will guaranteethe current minimum flow of 1,200 cfs and reduce the maximum flow to 4,200 cfs during the fall Chinook salmon spawning period for the conservationof that species(SA Section 6.2.4). The currently required highest minimum flow is 5,400 cfs in late fall (FEIS Section3.3.2.2). During unusuallow flows PacifiCorpand resource agencieswill conduct "emergency low flow consultation" to keep existing Chinook salmon redds watered,provide sufficient rearing habitat for wild fall Chinook salmon, and releasepulsed flows from Merwin Dam if this is shown to be effective in promoting salmon and steelheadsmolt outmigration. Thesemeasures will apply atthe time of licensing(SA Section6.2). The FEIS (Section3.3.5.2) provides for "additional downramping restrictions, modifying minimum flows, and establishingflow plateau operations...thatwould protect...bull trout from strandingor dewatering." The FEIS (Section5.I.4) recognizesa baselinethat includesdownramping rates of 2 inches/hr.

In a relative sense,these FERC minimum flows are generally higher in the summerthan what might occur naturally. For instance,low flows in the natural systemupstream of the Projects can be as low as 600 cfs while the FERC required minimum is 1,200 cfs. The winter peak flows have been decreasedby hydroelectric operationson the Lewis River. The highest recorded flood in the basin was 129,000cfs which occurred in December 1933. Atthattime there was only Merwin Dam in place and it was operatedprimarily as a run-of-the-river facility. With all three dams in place there have been inflows higher than the 1933flood of recordbut the storagecapability of the Projectshas maintained flows below Merwin Dam to much lower levels (e.g. flood of 1996was 109,000cfs). The averageannual flow for the Lewis River is about 6,000 cfs. The actualamount of water that passesMerwin Dam at any given time (other than the summer months) is

62 much greaterthan the FERC minimum of 1,200 cfs. These flow requirementsare expectedto be sufficient to allow bull trout critical habitat to function as a migratory corridor (PCE#6) and to provide sufficient foraging and overwintering habitat. The downramping rates will improve streamflow conditions, decreasingthe chanceof strandingbull trout, and thus enhancingPCE#4 and #8.

This elementis also likely to benefit PCE#1. Although summer and fall temperatures below Merwin Dam in L999 indicatethe CHU is not likely to support bull trout spawning or early rearing,temperatures may support bull trout foraging, migration, and overwintering. Maximum daily temperatures(PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD 2002:WQ1) oC were 15 and 15.5 for Septemberand October,respectively. Maximum daily temperatureswere between 12.7 and 13.6 "C betweenJuly and November. The daily maximum did not exceed12oC in the othermonths. ProposedMerwin Dam operation would at least maintain baselinesummer flow, thus having a slight cooling effect on streamtemperatures.

PCE#8 requires suffrcient water quantrty and quality fol growth and survival of bull trout. The proposedaction will regulate flow to avoid stranding bull trout, thus promoting survival of individuals that may be foraging or migrating through the CHU. Additional proposedregulation of late-summerflows to ensuresurvival of fall Chinook salmon may incidentally benefit bull trout, and in any caseis not likely to impede growth. The water quality in the Lewis River subbasinwas not exceedingstate standards for any parumeter (WQ1) in 1999 and2000, nor are the proposedchanges to dam operationsanticipated to degrade any water quality parameter. In particular, operation of the Merwin powerhouse has not been shown to elevatedissolved gasesin the tailrace, and the anticipatedchanges to power generationare not likely to degradethat condition.

The proposedaction may affect bull trout critical habitat through bull trout passageprovisions, instream habitatenhancement,reintroduction of anadromoussalmonids, protection of habitat, andmarngement of instream flows. Theseeffects consideredtogether will likely improve PCEs #1, #3, #4, #6, #7 and#8 as describedabove, and will haveno effect on the other PCEs.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE IN THE ACTION AREA. BULL TROUT

The environmental baseline includes "the past and presentimpacts of all Federal, State,or private actions and other human activities in the action area,including the anticipated impacts of all proposedFederal projects in the action areathat have undergonesection 7 consultation and the impacts of Stateand private actions ttat arecontemporaneous with the consultation in progress" (50 CFR $402.02). The environmentalbaseline, therefore, encompassesthe effects of both human andnatutal factors leading to the current statusof the speciesin the actionarea, including the effects of the construction and past operation of the Projects. Impacts resulting from the future operationsof the Projects and any interrelatedand interdependentactivities constitute effects of the action.

63 Lewis River Subbasin Overview

Forestry, recreation,and agriculture dominate the Lewis River subbasin. Human population densities are generallylow. The largesturban center,the City of Woodland, is located near the mouth of the Lewis River. Development in the Woodland area has adverselyaffected aquatic habitatin the lower part of the Lewis River subbasin. Residential and agricultural land useshave eliminated most of the rtparianvegetationin the lower reaches,and extensivediking has almost entirely disconnectedthe lower 7 miles of the Lewis River floodplain from the river (Wade 2000).

Othertowns in the Lewis River subbasininclude Cougar, Ariel, Yale, Chelatchie,Amboy, Yacolt, andr.aCenter(Wade 2000). Their economiesare primarily dependentupon logging, agriculture,and recreation. The town of Cougar,located along the north shoreof Yale Lake,was originally establishedto serveas a stagingpoint for timberharvest activities. However,after the hydroelectricdevelopments and creation of the Mt. St.Helens National Volcanic Monument, recreationservices became the primaryindustry.

Thereare three private communities located afound Swift CreekReservoir. The largestof these is the 206-homeNorthwoods community on the easternshore. Yale Lakehas private developmentsclustered near Speelyai Canal Privateland ownershipis morecommon around LakeMerwin, wherethere are several large communities along the shoreline,including a 1,600- lot homeand trailer developmentalong the southshore. Scatteredprivate lands occur along the Lewis River adjacentto SR 503,increasing in numberas oneheads west to the Cify of Woodland.

Changesin landuse have also had significanthistorical effects on the Lewis River subbasin, resultingin: o Reducedfloodplain and off-channelhabitat connectivity from Merwin Dam to the ColumbiaRiver, primarily dueto extensivediking.

o Degradedriparianhabitatsthroughout the basin,which haslikely increased sedimentationand erosion, increased water temperatures, and reduced large woody debris (LWD) recruitmentpotential.

o Increasedroad densrty and drainage networks, which havelikely alteredhydrology (USFS1995, 1996, 1997,1998) and blocked bull troutpassage due to impassable culverts.

Fish Culture

The WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife (WDFW) operatesthree fish hatcherieson the LewisRiver:

o The Lewis River hatcherylocated 3 milesbelow Merwin Dam,is ownedby the WDFW and fundedby PacifiCorp.This hatcheryrears late-run coho.

64 o The SpeelyaiHatchery located on Lake Merwin at the mouth of Speelyai Creek is owned and funded by PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD. This hatchery rears spring Chinook, early- run coho, and kokanee.

o The Merwin Hatchery locatedjust downstreamof Merwin Dam is owned and funded by PacifiCorp. This hatchery rears winter and summer steelhead,and rainbow trout.

Federal Forest Management

The Lewis River subbasinupstream of Swift Creek Reservoir is largely on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Landmanagementon the Forest follows the Northwest Forest Plan, which overall provides a higher degreeof protection to fisheries,riparian zones,and watershedsthan regulations off the Forest. The Forest includes alarge part of the actualor potential range of bull trout in the subbasin,and the watersheddraining into this range, including:

o The Pine Creek subwatershedupstream of bull trout spawning grounds,

o Bull trout waters in the North Fork Lewis River from the Muddy River up to Lower Falls; and the Upper, Middle, and Lower Lewis watershedsthat upstreamof this reach;

o The Muddy River watershedupstream of River Mile (RM) 1.0 of the Muddy River; and

o The Lower Pine Creek subwatershedand all subwatershedsdraining into it.

In 1980Mt. St. Helenserupted, sending flows of mud, rock, and ash into Pine Creek andthe Muddy River system. These flows denudedthe valleys of forest, resulting in extreme flow variations, increasedturbidity, increasedfine sedimentin the streambed,decreased channel stability, a scarcity of large wood, and elevatedstream temperatures. Natural successionis moving thesewatersheds toward pre-eruption conditions. This has led to decreasingstream temperatures(Hiss et al. in prep.) and decreasingsuspended sediment (USGS online data.). These changesmay lead to an increasedrange of bull trout in the Lower Lewis and Muddy River watersheds.

Ilydropower Facilities

Construction

The Merwin Projectwas completedin 1931,terminating volitional fish accessfrom the Columbia River to the upperbasin. The reservoirformed by Merwin Dam is about 14.5miles long with a surfacearea of approximately 4,000 acres. Construction of the Yale Project began in 1951and was completeby 1953. The reservoirformed by Yale Dam is approximately10.5 miles long with a surfacearea of approximately3,800 acres. Constructionof the Swift No. I Projectwas completedin 1958. The reservoirformed by Swift Dam is approximately11.5 miles long with a surfacearea of approximately 4,680 acres. Construction of the Swift No. 2 Project was completedin 1958. Swift No. 2 consistsof a 3-mile canalbeginningat the Swift No. I tailrace,canal wasteway, canal drain, intake and surge arresting structure,powerhouse, switchyard, and transmissionline.

65 Construction of the four Hydroelectric Projects and the Lewis River Bypass Reach located in the North Fork Lewis River between RM 19 and RM 45 representedmajor modifications of the river's salmonid habitat and the ecological processesthat formed andmaintained salmonid habitat. The effects of Project constructionincluded:

o Limiting accessof anadromoussalmonids from the lower 20 miles of the Lewis River to the upper watershed,affecting 176 miles of potential habitat accessiblebefore construction. Thus, the dams may have eliminated the anadromouscomponent of the Lewis River bull trout.

o Converting36.5 miles of mainstemriver into reservoirs,inundating habitat for salmonids. The developmentand operationsof the Projectshave inueased the amount of lacustrine foraging habitat available to adfluvial bull trout to the detriment of streamforaging habitat.

o Diverting river flow, except during spill events,from the 2.7 mile-long BypassReach of the Lewis River aborreYah Lake into the Power Canal. The effect was the removal of any potential rearing arca, andperhapsspawning area,from the range of Yale Lake bull trout in the Bypass Reach.

o Reducedhabitat connectivity betweenCougar Creek and all points upstreamof Yale Lake for bull trout. This has probably increasedthe isolation of the Cougar Creek local population,compared to naturalconditions, and could led to reducedresiliency of the population in the future, although recent genetic analysis indicates no introgressionwhich is usually seenin isolatedpopulations (Pratt 2003).

o Altered temperatureand flow regimes in the mainstem Lewis River below Merwin Dam. This reducedhabitat quality by introducing the risk of stranding due to hydro operations. Bull trout have occurrednrely in this reach after construction of the dam.

. Reduceddownstream transport of gravel and LWD.

o Eliminated marine derived nutrients (MDN) from salmon carcassesabove Merwin Dam for 70+ years. The effect of this loss on aquaticproductivity,riparian vegetationand terrestrial food webs is impossible to accurately quantify but is considereda significant habitat managementis sue.

o A shift from natural salmonid production to artificial propagation, except for bull trout and fall Chinook. This has decreasedthe diversity of the prey base for bull trout.

Operation

The effectsof pastProject operations included:

o Entrainment of bull trout from the forebay of each of the four powerhousesinto the turbines, where they risk mortality or injury from abrupt pressurechanges, abrasion, or mutilation.

66 Entrainment of bull trout from the forebay of each of the three dams into the spillways, where they risk mortality or injury, either from abrasionon the spillway or falling onto the rocks below it.

The current trap-and-hauloperations, which do not fully remove the limit to passageof anadromoussalmonids from the lower 20 miles of the Lewis River to the upper watershed.

o Altered temperatureand flow regimes in the mainstem Lewis River below Merwin Dam. This reducedhabitat quality introducesthe risk of stranding due to rapid decreasesin spill and power production. Power generationcontributes to cooler instream temperature becausethis water is drawn from an intake 85 ft below the Merwin full pool elevation.

o Reservoir drawdown in the winter and spring to accommodateflood managementand spring runoff. This may prevent the developmentof aquatic plants atthe reservoir rim, and may slightly concentratebull trout, their predators,and their prey into a reduced aquatichabitat.

o Pastpower generationat Swift No. 1 and Yale powerhousesresulted in elevatedlevels of total dissolvedgases (TDG) in the tailraces. This has the potentialto injure or kill fish in the tailrace. PacifiCorphas remedied this condition atYale Lake by adjustingthe operation of the turbines and is seeking further refinementspursuant to the 401 Certifications under the new licenses. Similar measuresare being enactedat Swift No. 1 to reduceTDG.

RecentHydropower Facility His tory

On April 27,2002, the Swift No. 2 power canal failed, dewateringthe canal. The failure displaced approximately350,000 cubic yards of soil and rock that flowed aroundand into the powerhouse, filling the tailrace and extendinginto the upper reachesof Yale Lake. Fish, including bull trout, also enteredYale Lake. Immediately following the failure, Cowlitz PUD, in cooperationwith others,initiated emergencywork to recover and secureProject facilities and equipment. This work included:

Lowering the stoplogs in the check-structureto prevent water from flowing into thelower 213 of the canal andto allow Swift No. 1 to resumeoperations; Constructing a temporary coffer dam just downstreamof the check-structureto provide additional stability to the check structure; Opening the canal drain between the check structureand the coffer dam, allowing flows to enter an existing side channel of the bypassreach that is isolated from the main channeland is protectedfrom spill from Swift No. 1. This madeit possiblefor bull trout from Yale Lake to enter the lower half of the Bypass Reach; Lowering the top of the side-channelspillway approximately 3 ft to reduce the level of water upstreamof the check structure;

67 o Groutingand lining the wastewayof the sidechannel spillway with largeboulders to prevent erosion;

o ResumingSwift No. 1 operationswithin 6 daysafter the failure,using the checkstructure andside channel spillway to divertwater flowing out of Swift No. 1 throughthe wasteway into theLewis River Bypass Reach; and

o Reooveringbull trout strandedin poolswithin the dewateredpart of the powercanal, and releasingthem above the Swift No. 1 Dam.

In early 2006,Cowlitz PUD completedreconstruction of Swift No. 2 andachieved commercial operationin June2A06.

The Yale Lakebull trout population,which spawnsin CougarCreek, could have experienced an increasein spawnerscaused by the suddenentry of Swift CreekReservoir bull trout into Yale Lake duringthe failure. The WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife, FWS, andCowlitz PUD salvaged42liveadult bull trout from standingwater left in the canala er the failure. An additionalsix bull trout werefound dead in the canalafter the failure. The existinggenetic structureof the CougarCreek population was not affectedas Neraas and Spruell (2004) determinedthat the CougarCreek population akeady exhibited a mixtureof geneticmaterial from the upstreamRush and Pine Creek local populations.

Certainconservationmeasures were required under the InterimBiological Opinionissued June 28,2002. Theseactions, which wereongoing before the SA, includethe CougarCreek, Swift Creek,and Devil's Backboneconservation purchases and covenants, and the net-and-haul programat the Yale and Swift No. 2 tailraces.The conservation purchases ensure that timber harvestand rural residentialdevelopment do not affecteither the bull trout rearingarea in the Swift CreekArm of the Reservoir,or the bull trout spawninggrounds in CougarCreek.

Non-hydropowerManagement of Utility Lands

The utilities own certainlands surrounding the reservoirsand projects, which they managefor pu{posesnot directlyrelated to powergeneration; that is fish andwildlife conservation,timber production,andrecreation. PacifiCorp manages the iparian forestand adlacent uplands along CougarCreek to protectbull trout spawninggrounds and rearing areas. The Utilities managethe riparianforestalong Swift Arm to primarily to protectbull trout rearingin Swift Reservoir. PacifiCorpmanages its otherholdings for limited timberproduction, and operates recreation facilitiesalong the reservoirs including day use parks, campgrounds, boat launches, fishing accesspiers, and non-motorized trails.

Bull Trout Statusin the Action Area

Recoveryplanning for bull troutis basedon successivesubdivisions of populationsand land areas(Table 4).

68 Table4. Hierarchyof populationand geographic subdivisions in the Draft Bull Trout Plan (USFWS 2003 Population Population unit Relation to next higher Geographic area Name level Bull trout Population NA Ranseof the soecies Columbia InterimRecovery Oneof 5 in the rangeof the ColumbiaRiver Subreeion River Unit species;others include Coastal-PueetSound in WA Lower ManagementUnit Oneof 3 in InterimRecovery Lower Columbia Basin Columbia Units in Washington;the othersare Middle Columbia, UpperColumbia, and NortheastWashington Lewis River Core Area, with Oneof 2 CoreAreas in the Lewis River subbasin"which is the Core Habitat and ManagementUnit; the other Action Area Core Population is the Klickitat River. The White SalmonRiver is unoccuoiedCore Habitat Rush,Pine, Local Populations Rushand Pine Creeks are the Lower RushCreek subwatershed in andCougar 2Local Populationson the the Middle Lewis River watershed; Creek Swift CreekResewoir; the Lower andMiddle PineCreek and CougarCreek Local CougarCreek subwatersheds in the Populationis on Yale Lake Lower Lewis River watershed

Currently,reproducing populations of bull trout within the Lewis River CoreArea arefound in certaintributiries of Yale Lake andSwift CreekReservoir. Bull trout in the Lewis River are consideredto be predominatelyadfluvial. The numberof bull trout inhabitingthe Lewis River CoreArea is estimatedto be low but increasing.Spawning occurs in Cougar,Rush, and Pine Creeks.Rearing occurs predominantly in CougarCreek; Pine Creek; the Lewis River; Swift CreekReservoir, especially Swift Arm; andYale Lake. Rearingmay alsooccur in Swift Creek. The statusof a bull trout corepopulation can be describedbased on four key elements:1) numberand distribution of local populations,2) adultabundance, 3) productivity,and 4) connectivity.

Numberand Distribution of Local Populations

Threelocal populationsare known to occurin the Lewis River CoreArea, based entirely on distributionof their spawninggrounds: Cougar, Rush, and Pine Creeks. Spawning adfluvial bull trout in Yale Lake migrateinto CougarCreek from the middleof Augustthrough early Septemberand spawn from late Septemberthrough early October. The otherlocal populations occurin Swift CreekReservoir and spawn in Rushand Pine Creeks. Four adultbull trout were sightedin Swift Creekin August 2006,but it is unknownwhether these adults were moving up to spawnas there has been no documentedbull trout spawningin this stream.No juvenilebull trout were observedduring the daytimesnorkeling in Swift Creek. Giventhis new information, work hasnot begunto searchfor reproductionin Swift Creek.

69 Adult Abundance

The estimatedCougar Creek local populationranges from 0 to 40 individualsbased on annual adultcounts taken between t979 and2005.These low spawnernumbers, coupled with preliminarygenetic analysis (Spruell et al. 1998),indicated the CougarCreek spawners may representa geneticallydistinct stock at risk of inbreedingdepression. However, more thorough geneticanalysis conducted in2003 Q.{eraasand Spruell2004) indicate the CougarCreek local populationrepresented a mix of Rushand Pine Creek stocks.

The RushCreek local populationis estimatedto supportover 1,000spawners and thus is not at risk from geneticdrift or inbreedingdepression. The Pine Creek local populationis estimatedto be approximately140 adults, and is thusat risk from geneticdrift, althoughnot from inbreeding depression.The total core areaadultpopulation has been increasing since 1 999, and is now estimatedto be approximately1,220 adults.

Productivity

For a populationto contributeto recovery,its growthrate must indicate that the populationis stableor increasingfor a periodof time. Weighingthe long-termpopulation increase in the RushCreek local population against the low numberof local populationsand the smallsize of the PineCreek and Cougar Creek local population,this CoreArea is consideredto be at risk of extirpation

Connectivitv

Lack of passageat hydroelectricfacilities within the Lewis River CoreArea hasfragmented populationsand prevented bull trout from usingforaging and overwintering habitats in the mainstemLewis andColumbia Rivers. Migratorybull trout persistby adoptingan adfluviallife- historyform in Swift CreekReservoir and Yale Lake. Lack of passageand the low abundanceof two of threelocal populationslimits the possibilityfor geneticexchange and local-population refounding,placing the Lewis River CoreArea at increasedrisk of extirpation.

Bull trout maypass from Swift CreekReservoir to Yale Lake via the Swift No. I spillwayand the BypassReach, or they maypass through the Swift No. I turbinesto the PowerCanal. From therethey may enterthe BypassReach through the wastewayor the CanalDrain, or maypass throughthe Swift No. 2 turbinesinto Yale Lake.

The CougarCreek spawning population is considereddepressed due to consistentlylow adult counts,although past survey methods may haveunderestimated the run size. The currentsurvey methodsuggests alarger population but the new methodhas not beenapplied long enoughto detecta trend. Adult andjuvenile bull trout havebeen sighted in the BypassReach in recent years,and occasional spawningmay occur but is not likely to be successful.Bull troutfrom Yale Lake sometimespass downstream to Lake Merwin throughthe Yale Dam spillwayor turbines.Lake Merwin bull trout arenot considereda local populationbecause there are no suitablespawning streams entering that reservoir.

70 Although the Rush and Pine Creek local populations are increasing,their persistenceis precarious since they dependalmost entirely on two spawning streams. Rush Creek, which ordinarily supportsthe largest bull trout spawningpopulation in the Lewis subbasin,may be susceptibleto low flows or changesin the shapeof gravel bars which discouragebull trout entry in some years. Pine Creek and Muddy River remain vulnerable to debris flows from future eruptionsof Mt. St. Helens. The persistenceof the CougarCreek bull trout local populationmay depLndon restoring and maintaining two-way passagebetween Swift Creek Reservoir and Yale Lake.

ConservationNeeds

The Draft Columbia River Recovery Plan lists the following broad recovery measuresfor the Lewis River Core Area (USFWS 2002):

1. Protect, restore, and maintain suitablehabitat conditions for bull trout. 2. Identify barriers or sites of entrainmentfor bull trout and implement tasks to provide passageand eliminate entrainment. 3. Establish fisheries managementgoals and objectives compatible with bull trout recovery, and implementpractices to achievegoals. 4. Characterize,conserve, and monitor genetic diversity and gene flow among local populationsof bull trout. 5. Conduct researchand monitoring to implement and evaluatebull trout recovery activities, consistentwith an adaptivemanagement approach using feedback from implemented, site-specificrecovery tasks. 6. Use all availableconservation programs and regulations to protect and conservebull trout and bull trout habitats.

More specific recovery measuresare provided in Table 5.

Table5. Elementsof the Lower ColumbiaRecovery Unit Bull Trout RecoveryPlan addressed bv the prc actron. Item Bull Trout Recovery Plan Action t.2.1 Provide fish passageat Merwin, Yale, and Swift Dams. Evaluatepassage options andimplement actions necessary to restoretwo-way passage at Swift (includingboth No. 1 andNo. 2 powerprojects), Yale, andMerwin Damsthrough the relicensing process.Passage at Merwin Dam is necessaryto restoreconnectivity to the Colurnbia River. Passageat Swift andYale Damsis necessaryto reconnectCougar, Rush, and PineCreek local populations. Reconnecting these populations...would allow bull trout movementbetween reservoirs and strengthen spawning populations in CougarCreek 1,.2.4 Reduce entrainment. Quantify the level of entrainmentat Yale Dam and Swift Dam (Nos. 1 and 2) andrecommendactions to reduce impacts. Reducing entrainmentin the Lewis River is being addressedthrough the relicensingprocess. Blocking fish from entrainmentthrough the turbines or spillway may include the use of guide nets and a surfacecollector. Bull trout use of this type of collectorhas not beenverified. Therefore, evaluation and adaptive managementwill be neededto make sure bull trout can be capturedsafely and transportedsafely to provide downstreampassage...

71 Item Bull Trout Recovery Plan Action r.2.7 Provide fish passageat Merwin Dam. Partial passagecurrently exists at Merwtn Dam and implementing actions to improve passagewould allow bull trout accessto the mainstemColumbia River for overwintering and feeding. r.3.2 Protectand restorehabitat in upper Rush and PineCreeks. Implementhabitat restorationactivities in Rushand Pine Creek watersheds to addressproblems with shadine.slope stability, channel complexity, and riparian revegetatiolr. - r.3.4 Work with private landholdersin PineCreek drainage. Work with private landholders(A andE Forestof Lewis River andOlympic Resources Group) to assess habitatconditions and recommend restoration actions where appropriate within Pine Creekdrainase. 1.4 Operate dams to minimize negative effectson bull trout in reservoirs and downstream. 3.r.2 Conduct assessmentof nutrient levelsand cycling. Passagebarriers on the Lewis River prevent anadromoussalmon and steelheadfrom entering these systemswithout assistanceand may have negatively imtcaclednrrtrient levels and natural cycling 3.2.r Provide information to anglers. Provide information to anglers about bull trout identification, special regulations,fisheries managementof endangeredspecies, and how to reduce hooking mortality of bull trout caught incidentally in recreational fisheries. 4,1 Incorporateconservation of geneticand phenotypicattributes of bull trout into recovervand managementplans. 4.2 Maintain existing opportunities for geneflow among bull trout populations. 5 Conductresearch and monitoring to implementand evaluate bull trout recovery activitiesconsistent with an adaptivemanagement approach using feedback from implemented.site-specific recovery tasks. 5.2 Conductresearch evaluating relationships among bull trout distributionand abundance, bull trouthabitat, and recovery tasks. 6,7 Use partnershipsand collaborative processesto protect, maintain, and restore functioning core areasfor bull trout. 6.1.2 Protect habitat. Provide long-term habitat protection through purchasefrom willing sellers,land exchanges,conservation easements, with initial emphasison identifiedbull trout spawningand rearingstreams. 6.1.3 Coordinaterecovery efforts. Coordinatebull trout recoveryactivities with Federal, State.and Tribal anadromousfish reintroductionsand recovery plans. 6.2 Useexisting Federal authorities to conserveand restore bull trout. 6.2.1 Participatein relicensingactivities. Complete relicensing of Swift,Yale, Merwtn Damsand implement appropriate mitigation activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE IN THE ACTION AREA. SPOTTEDOWL

The WDFW databaseidentifies 20 pairsof spottedowls in the Lewis River watershed.No activity centersare known to exist on PacifiCorpor Cowlitz PUD lands,but somePacifiCorp or Cowlitz PUD landsare within 1.8miles of 9 known spottedowl activity centersand are within andadjacent to the SiouxonSpotted Owl SpecialEmphasis Area (SOSEA). The closestknown

72 spotted owl activity center is 0.26 mile from Utility-owned lands. Spottedowls have not been documentednesting on lands to be managedunder Wildlife Habitat ManagementPlans (WHMP).

The highest density of spotted owl territories in the action area is south of Swift Reservoir and eastof Yale Lake. This includes Range and Drift Creeks,the south side of the Lewis River Bypass Reach,and the eastshore of Yale Lake. Other territories are on the west shoreof Yale Lake and the north shore of Lake Merwin.

Utility-owned lands currently encompassover 10,000acrss, of which approximately 122 actes are old-growth and 713 aqes are mature mixed conifer forests; theselands are considered spottedowl nestinghabitat (C. McShane,EDAW, pers.comm. 2006). There is a total of approximately 5,238 acresof suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat on Utility-owned lands (PacifiCorp in litt.2006). Of the suitable habitat, most of the standsare small and isolated, or the "larget''stands are adjacentto industrial lands that have been clear-cut harvested. Only one spotted owl has been heard during field surveys;this spottedowl was heard in the early morning during breeding bird surveys and it was not located on Utility-owned lands. Spotted owl nesting is consideredunlikely on PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD lands becauseof the lack of large patches(>70 acres)of nesting habitat (F. Shrier, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006; C. McShane, EDAW, pers. comm. 2006). The FWS concurs there is a low likelihood the suitable habitat on Utility-owned lands is occupiedby a pair of spottedowls at this time. However, over the life of the licenses,suitable habitat conditions are likely to improve as a result of forest managementactivities, forest succession,or from the acquisition of lands containing suitable spottedowl habitat and, thus, the occupancyof theselands may change.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE IN THE ACTION AREA _ BALD EAGLE

According to the WHMP standardsand guidelines,since 1981,PacifiCorp has conducted surveys for nesting bald eaglesand osprey in the Project vicinity and along the Lewis River downstreamto Woodland. As in other areasof the State,the populations of these speciesin the Projectvicinity have increased(Table 6). Basedon the resultsof the 2005 surveys,there are 10 bald eagle nesting territories on or near WHMP lands-4 atLake Merwin, 2 atYaleLake,2 at Swift Creek Reservoir, and 2 downstreamof Merwin Dam. There were 3 new bald eaglenest sites discoveredin 2005. Most nest sites are inlarge conifer trees and are located within about 1 mile (1.6 km) of the reservoirs. Productivity (number of young per occupied territory) in 2005 was 0.60 and hasranged from 0.60 to 1.5 over the last 9 years. The numberof bald eagles recorded during the winter is highly variable, ranging from 5 to 80 over the 9 winter survey years. The WDFW has recordsof 17 bald eaglecommunal roost sites- 7,6, and4 alongYale, Swift No. 1, and Merwin reservoirs,respectively.

-a IJ Table 6. Bald eagleoccu Tence stribution in the actron area Bald Eagle Breeding Breeding Land Territoriesr and Activitya Territory Site Owne13 Communal Roost Sites2 numbera BLM & Communalroost in 1986on south shoreof BLM Communal Roost NA GPNF Lewis River iust eastof Eagle Cliff. Canyon Creek Communal PacifiCorp Communalroost 1984 to 1986. NA Roost Breeding Colvin Creek PacifiCorp Nestoccupied in 2005and2006. r66l Territory Breeding Cougar Creek PacifiCorpSuccessfulnesting in 2005. r662 Territorv Drift CreekCommunal GPNF Communalroost 1985 and 1986 NA Roost Drift CreekBreeding Successfulnesting 1996, 1997,2000, and GPNF 544 Territorv 2006. EastFork Lewis Breeding Nestoccupied in 2001,2002,2003, and Private 1356 Territorv 2005. Successfulnesting 1989, 1990, 1991,1992, 2000,and 2002. 1988 nest on northbank of E. Fork LewisRiver on outskirtsof La Breeding La Center Center;1991 nest site was on BreezeCreek Private 869 Tenitory on theeast edge of La Center;7996nest was 600 ft from a houseon the bluff; andthe 2002nest was on the southside of E. Fork Lewis River. Lake Merwin Communal PacifiCorp Communalroost 1984 to 1986. NA Roost Lake Merwin Breedins PacifiCorp Successfulnesting 1998,2001, and 2005. 1055 Territorv Meadow Breeding McKee PacifiCorp Successfulnesting in 2003,2004, and 2005. t486 Territorv Communalroost in 1986on south side of Miller Creek Communal GPNF Lewis River eastof confluence with Muddy NA Roost River.

Morgan Farm Breeding Successfulnesting in 1985,1986, 1988, Tenitory Private 784 1995,1996, 1997 ,2000,2001, and2002.

CreekCommunal Communalroost in 1986along Ole Creek, Ole WDNR NA Roost l/2 mile southof PowerCanal. Creek Communal Communal roosts at N and S sites on Siouxon WDNR NA Roost SiouxonCreek in 1986. WDNR Communal Siouxon Notch and Communalroost 1985 and 1986. NA Roost PacifiCom nesting1988, 1989, 1990,1994, SiouxonNotch / RM 35.5 WDNR & Successful 546 Breeding Territory PacifiCom 1997. 1999.2002. and 2005, SpeelyaiBay Breeding PacifiCorp Nestoccupied 1999,2005, and2006. t266 Territory 2006nest; Swift 2 Powerhouse WDNR Nestoccupied in 2006. numbernot yet BreedingTenitory assiened Swift Canal Communal Communalroost in 1986,south side of Private NA Roost PowerCanal. Swift Reservoir Communal WDNR Communalroost in 1986. NA Roost nesting1996, 1997, 2000, and Swift Reservoir Breeding WDNR & Successful 1056 Territory Private 2006. WoodlandBreeding Successfulnesting in 1997, 1998,2000, Private I 168 Territorv 2001.2003. 2005 and 2006. t This lists active territories only. Active nest site territories have been occupied within the last 5 years.WDFW 2006. BaldEagle Management.Accessed at http://wdfw.wa.gov/ wlmldiverstv /soc/baldeagle/on August 2l '2006.

2 Communal roosts information is obtained from PacifiCorp data. Roosts have not been monitored since 1986 and are assumedto be active.

3 Gpt tp:Gifford Pinchot National Forest; BLM=Bureau of Land Management;WDNR:Washington Department of Natural Resources. a Information was obtained from Washington Heritage Database,WDFW Bald Eagle Territory History website http ://wdfw. wa.gov/wlm/diverst-v/soc/baldeagle/t enitory / search/search.php?searchby:Name&search=COlVlN%20cREBK, and PacifiQqry 4ata.

Kirk Naylor and Todd Olson (PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006) noted the following regardingbald eagle statusin the action area:

o Bald eagleswere not observednesting along any of the Projectreservoirs until 1991 when an active nest site was noted at Siouxon Notch along Yale Lake; successfulnesting at this site was first documentedin 1994. o The numberof bald eaglenests increased to 10 by 2005. There hasbeen no declinein active nestsover the years surveyed. o Winter roostingwas documentedin the1980s;the greatestnumber of foragingbald eaglesrecorded during the winter was in 2005. o The pimary bald eagle foraging grounds are in the Yale and Merwin tailraces,as shown by surveys.

Dave Anderson (WDFW, pers. comm. 2006) noted the following regarding bald eagle statusin the action area:

a The bald eaglepopulation along the Lewis River hasboomed in recentyears. o Feedinglocations change seasonally. In winter, bald eaglescongregate at the tailraces. But during the breeding seasonit is not well known where they feed as foraging is scattered. Bald eaglesare susceptibleto disturbanceby boat traffic. July and August have the highest boattraffrc. Although bald eagles' nestsand summer foraging perches,as well as visitors' campsites,are generally both widely dispersed,Drift Creek Cove on the Swift Creek Reservoir experiencesconcentrated boating and camping in the vicinity of

75 two bald eagle territories. One nest may have shifted location in responseto human activity. o Surveyshave not identified any specific perchesused on a regular basis during spring and summer in the action area.

Boat traffic below Yale Dam is prohibited in the tailrace. Between the tailrace and CresapBay, boat speedis limited to 5 knots, and no wake is permitted. The Merwintaikace is a narrow reach and accessis prohibited near the tailrace. Therefore,this reach gets little fishing pressure. The majority of boat use downstreamof the dams is concentratedaround the three WDFW hatcheries. However, jet boats go as far upstreamas Cedar Creek. Most boating on the Lewis River is downstreamfrom this point.

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON BULL TROUT

Regulations implementing the ESA define "effects of the action" as "the direct and indirect effects of an action on the speciesor habitat togetherwith the effects of other activities that ate interrelated or interdependentwith that action, that will be addedto the environmental baseline" (50 CFR 402.02). Direct effects are the immediate effects of the action on thp speciesor its habitat. Direct effects result from the agency action and the interrelatedand interdependent actions. Indirect effects are causedby or result from the proposedaction, are later in time, and are reasonablycertain to occur. We organizedour assessmentof effects by the following project elements;these project elementsfollow the general outline containedin Table 1.4-1 in the BE, as describedin the proposedaction sectionof this Biological Opinion:

. ProjectElement 1: AnadromousFish Reintroduction o Project Element 2: Bull Trout Passage o Project Element 3: Instream Construction and Instream Habitat Restoration o Project Element 4: Habitat Protection o ProjectElement 5: InstreamFlows o Project Element 6: Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) o Project Element 7: Rainbow Trout and Kokanee Stocking o Project Element 8: Monitoring of Bull Trout o Project Element 9: Information and Education o Project Element 10: Wildlife Habitat ManagementPlan

Project Element L: Anadromous Fish Reintroduction

Section3.1 of the SA describesthe goal for this project elementas: ..."achievegenetically viable, self-sustaining,naturallyspawning, harvestable populations [of Chinook salmon, steelhead,and coho salmon] above Mervin Dam greaterthan minimum viable populations."

Under the proposedaction, the Utilities will reintroducespring Chinook salmon,coho salmon, and late-winter steelheadinto the upper Lewis River basin above Merwin, Yale, and Swift Dams. Adult andjuvenile Chinook salmon,coho salmonand steelheadwill be transportedand released above the dams,with the adults spawning and the juveniles rearingbefore migraling

76 downstream. Overall, the reintroduction of salmon and steelheadwill increasefish production in the Lewis River basin thereby increasingthe available prey basefor adult and sub-adultbull trout. The reintroduction effort will also indirectly increasethe bull trout prey baseby restoring marine-derivednutrients (MDNs) into the ecosystem. However, the reintroduction effort may also createsome level of interspecific competition betweenjuvenile salmon, steelhead,and bull trout for food and space;competition for spawning sites; and the potential for juvenile bull trout predation by salmon and steelhead.

The risk of introducing diseasesthat may affect bull trout is considereddiscountable. There have beenno direct diseaseimpacts noted acrossthe rangeof bull trout and it is assumedno known diseasedhatchery fish would be released.The risk of introducingwhirling disease,specifically, is consideredlow. Although whirling diseasehas been found in Washington (GrandeRonde system) it would most likely have to be accidentally introduced into the Lewis River system becausethe risk of it spreadingnaturally is consideredlow.

Marine-D erived Nutrients

Reintroduction of anadromousfish to the upper watershedwill have an indirect benefit to bull trout by restoring MDNs back into the watershed. The watershedhistorically had anadromous fish accessbefore the damswere built. The enrichmentof the freshwater ecosystemfrom input of salmon carcassesmay have far reaching benefits throughout the food web by increasing primary productivity. The increasein MDNs will likely increasethe aquatic invertebrate tlontuir, tttereby increasingthe forage base for the reintroducedjuvenile anadromoussalmonids as well asjuvenile bull trout and other native fishes. There are no data on the potential for MDNs to have adverseeffects on the aquatic environment.

Interspecific Competitionfor Food and Space

The draft Lewis River Hatchery and SupplementationPlan (Mobrand-Jones& Stokes2005) states"offspring of the adult salmon and steelheadplants are likely to residualize inlatge nurnbersin Swift [Creek] Reservoir." We anticipatethe sameto be true in Yale Lake and Lake Merwin as a result of downstreampassage. With regardto potential competition for foraging, overwintering and rearing habitat in the reservoirs,juvenile adfluvial bull trout prefer colder water and aremore closely associatedwith the deeperportions of lakes than other salmonids (Goetz 1989,Watt I992,Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Therefore, we do not anticipatea substantialdegree of overlap in habitat use of the reservoirsby juvenile bull trout and reintroducedjuvenile salmonids. In addition,juvenile bull trout may be more closelyassociated with the shorelinethan juvenile coho salmon which may be more pelagic (Shrier, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). Bull trout distribution in lakes is likely a function of temperature(Pratt 1992), As a thermocline developsin a lake or reservoir, shoreline feeding declines and bull trout move to deeper,cooler waters further differentiating these speciesuse of habitats and potential for competitive interactions.

In the streamenvironment, juvenile bull trout do not predominately occur in the same microhabitat niche as any Oncorhynczs species. Rather, bull trout are more benthic, nocturnal, and cryptic (Goetz in titt.2006) than salmon and steelhead. Therefore, we do not anticipate

77 substantialcompetitive interactionsbetween reintroduced salmonid speciesand bull trout in stream environments.

The severity of competition, if it occurred,would probably increaseover the period of implementation. It would likely be greatestafter full reintroduction and when anadromousfish passageis in place. Adverse competitive interactionsbetween the speciescould result if the population of reintroduced salmon and steelheadincreased such that they were forced to use habitats marginal to those speciesbut preferred by bull trout. This risk is consideredgreatest in the Yale Lake systemas a result of limited available streamhabitat for bull trout in Cougar Creek. However, becauseof niche partitioning and historic co-existenceof these speciesin the Lewis River basin, we do not expectthis potential competitive interaction for food and spaceto affect alarge percentageof bull trout in Cougar Creek and thus we do not anticipate an appreciablereduction in the local population of bull trout in Yale Lake.

Competitionfor SpawningHabitat

Although coho salmon and steelheadspawning may improve spawning gravel conditions for bull trout the following fall through their excavationof redds which loosen and clean spawning gravels, reintroducedcoho salmon pose a risk of competition for bull trout spawning habitats. Steelheadand Chinook salmon do not spawn during the sametime as bull trout and therefore do not pose a risk of competitionfor availablespawning grounds (Goetz in \iu.2006). Coho salmon are likely to competewith bull trout for availablespawning habitat becausetheir spawning period and preferencefor spawning habitat overlap (Goetz in \itt.2006, Pratt 2003, Burley in litt. 2006). "Coho spawningcould havenegative interactions for bull trout...with superimpositionof spawning over existing bull trout redds and the loss of depositedeggs" (Pratt 2003). Frank Shrier (PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon, in litt. August 2006) supportsthis possibility, stating that coho salmonspawn locally from October 15 throughDecember 20, immediately afterbull trout, which spawnfrom July 15 throughOctober 5. He citesredd depthsrange from 0.18 to 0.39 m for coho salmon,and 0.16 to 0.46 m for bull trout. On the otherhand, Dave Beauchamp (University of Washington, pers, comm. 2006) expectsthat "bull trout and coho salmonredds might segregate...spatiallyin responseto subtledifferences in thermal and substratesize preferences." F. Shrier (in litt. August 2006) supportsthis possibility, citing a spawning oC oC temperaturerange of 5.6 to 13 for coho salmon and4 to 9 for bull trout.

Becausecoho salmon are able to spawn in a wide variety of habitats we expect the overlap in bull trout spawning grounds to be relatively small above Swift Creek Reservoir as a result of a large amount of spawning habitat available for coho salmon and the relative inaccessibility of Rush Creek to coho salmon. A potential for spawning overlap could occur in Pine Creek. Although specific spawning areasfor bull trout are not known in Pine Creek it is believed substantialspawning habitat for bull trout and coho salmon occur in this system.

In the Yale Lake system,there are three high potential spawning locations for coho salmon: Cougar Creek, Siouxon Creek and the Bypass Reach. Bull trout do not spawn in Siouxon Creek. The risk of redd superimposition is consideredgreatest in Cougar Creek for the Lewis River core population due to the small size of the local population of bull trout and the historic use of CougarCreek by coho salmon. Chambers(1956) documentedcoho salmonspawning in Cougar

78 Creek prior to construction of the Swift Dam; however, he did not documentwhere the coho spawning occurred.

Bull trout are expectedto spawn in the higher reachesof streams and areknown to use stream gradients greaterthan 4 percent whereascoho salmonprefer gradientsless than 4 percent (Sandercockin Groot and Margolis 1991). Therefore,the risk of redd superimpositionis greatest in the lower reachesof Cougar Creek and Pine Creek, but we do not expect a full overlap of bull trout and coho salmon spawning as a result of streamgradient. This expectationis consistent with other systemswhere co-occurrenceof thesespecies occurs. Becausecoho salmonexcavate deeperredds than bull trout, redd superimpositioncould result in the loss of some bull trout eggs, but a complete loss of bull trout spawning effort in Cougar Creek and Pine Creek is not anticipated. There are no spawning areasavailable to bull trout associatedwith Lake Merwin.

Reintroduction of coho salmon will occur in Yale Lake in Year 13. In Year 8 of the new licenses,PacifiCorp will begin the Yale segmentof the Habitat PreparationPlan (HPP) which will include the releaseof hatchery coho salmon to spawn in the Yale Lake streamsand thus preparethe spawning gfounds fot future reinttodueed salmon and steelhead. ThOseefforts will be monitored. This would require documentationof coho presenceduring the bull trout and kokanee spawning surveys (SA 9.6) and further evaluation of spawning activity in the 5 years prior to full reintroduction. If it were determinedthat redd superimpositionmay be occurring in Cougar Creek then this new information would be consideredprior to Year 13 when the reintroduction efforts are scheduledto take place in order to limit future risk to bull trout from coho salmonpresence in CougarCreek

Coho salmonused the BypassReach historically and it is likely they would resumeuse of this area if streamflows and water temperatureswere suitable after their reintroduction. The flow managementregime proposedis likely to provide the appropriateenvironmental conditions for coho salmon use of the Bypass Reach. Based on available water temperaturedata, bull trout are likely to forage and overwinter in the Bypass Reach,but water temperatureis likely to preclude successfulspawning. If bull trout attemptedto spawn in the Bypass Reach, spawning would be expectedto fail becauseof water temperaturesduring the egg developmentstage. Therefore, even if redd superimpositionof coho salmon over bull trout occurred in the Bypass Reach,there would be no population level effect as bull trout spawning would have failed despitethe superimposition. Overall, coho salmon production in the Bypass Reach is likely to provide good foraging opportunities for adult bull trout.

Predation of Juvenile Bull Trout

Although the risk is consideredlow that reintroduced salmon and steelheadjuveniles may prey upon juvenile bull trout, bull trout would be expectedto actively prey upon the reintroduced juvenile salmonidswhile co-inhabitingthe reservoirs.D. Beauchamp(pers. comm. 2006) supportsthis prediction:

"Our operating hypothesisis that the [Skagit River] bull trout primarily function as a predator, starting at a fairly small size, so re-establishinganadromous fishes would probably be a net benefit to most life stagesof bull trout. [Preliminary] data indicate that

79 bull trout ...have eatensteelhead, age-0 coho salmon,whitefish, sculpin, and perhaps spring Chinook salmon...Sincesome of thejuvenile salmonmight rear in the reservoirs for significantperiods (especially Chinook, but possibly coho,too), they could be vulnerableto predationby bull trout thereas well...I suspectpredation by bull trout ratherthan competitionfor food would be the strongerinteraction in the reservoirs..."

This risk ofjuvenile bull trout predation would probably increaseover the period of implementation and be greatestafter full reintroduction of salmon and steelheadand when bull trout passageis in place (Kirkendall in litt.2006). The magnitude of the effect is unknown. However, we anticipatebull trout fry would be more susceptibleto predation than larger juveniles. Fry typically emergein February and occur in the upper watershedswhen the feeding activity of the reintroduced specieswould be low due to cold water temperatures. In addition, bull trout fry tend to be cryptic and associatedwith the substratewhich helps them avoid predation.

Under the proposedaction, monitoring will be implementedto determine impacts on bull trout, if any, from the anadromoussalmon reintroduction program. The SA (8.2.2.10)states the Hatchery and SupplementationPlan must contain "measuresto minimize...negative impacts...onlisted species." Section9.7 cornmitsPacifiCorp to "monitor ...the interaction between reintroduced... salmonidsand resident fish." This monitoring program will provide a mechanismto implement adaptivemanagement as new information becomesavailable to limit impacts to bull trout that may arise from competitive interactions.

Effects of Recreational Fishing on Bull Trout

With the reintroduction of anadromoussalmonids, we anticipaterecreational fishing pressureto increasepossibly resulting in the bycatch of bull trout in the reservoirs and tributaries. Bull trout are known to be susceptibleto angling pressures. However, angling, and the potential bycatch or harvest of bull trout, is managedthrough the Washington StateFishing Regulations,therefore, this potentialindirect effect will not be addressedin this Biological Opinion as it is regulatedby other means. As per the SA, PacifiCorp will provide an additional Law Enforcement Officer which will have indirect benefits to bull trout through the enforcementof the fishing regulations.

Summary of Effects of the Reintroduction of AnadromousFish

Anadromous salmonid reintroduction could either increaseor decreasethe growth, survival, and resiliency of the Lewis River core population of bull trout. The reintroduction of salmon and steelheadwill increasefish and primary production in the Lewis River basin thereby increasing the available prey base for bull trout. However, the reintroduction effort may also create interspecific competition betweenjuvenile salmon, steelhead,and bull trout for food and space; competition for spawning sites; and the potential for juvenile bull trout predation. We anticipate only a small degreeof overlap in habitat use of the reservoirsand tributaries by juvenile bull trout and reintroducedjuvenile salmonids. We do not anticipate this level of competition for food and spaceto result in a declinein the local populationsof bull trout. Coho salmonare likely to competewith bull trout for availablespawning habitat. We considerthe risk of redd superimpositionto be greatestin Cougar Creek due to the small size of the Yale Lake local

80 population of bull trout and the historic use of Cougar Creek by coho salmon. However, because bull trout are expectedto spawn in the higher reachesof streamsand areknown to use stream gradients greater than4 percent whereascoho salmonprefer gradientsless than 4 percent,we do not expect a complete overlap in coho salmon and bull trout spawning. Therefore, even if redd superimposition occurred it is not expectedto result in a complete loss of bull trout spawning effort. Monitoring will occur after the implementation of the HPP, but before the reintroduction efforts; therefore, if information is gained that demonstratesa high risk of redd superimposition adaptive managementactions would be implementedto reducethis risk/impact. Bull trout fry would be susceptibleto predation by the reintroducedspecies. However, since bull trout fry typically emergein February when the feeding activity of the reintroduced specieswould be low and bull trout fry tend to be cryptic and associatedwith the substrate,we do not anticipate predation would result in population level declinesof bull trout. In addition, if through monitoring it is determined the reintroduction efforts are having negative impacts on bull trout, adaptive measureswould be taken to minimize theseimpacts.

Bull trout, Chinook and coho salmon and steelheadhave co-existedand evolved sympatrically in the Lewis River and throughout most of the bull trout range (USFWS 2004b). Nonethelessit will take time to reach equilibrium betweenthese sympatric populations that have been separated for over 60 years, and this equilibrium may be different than what existed prior to dam construction due to changesin habitat types and habitat availability within the watershed. The reintroduction of coho salmon posesthe greatestrisk of negatively affecting bull trout. Despite the potential for negative interactions,coho salmon and bull trout have co-evolved sympatrically in the Lewis River and in many other river basins,such as the Skagit and Snohomishrivers where they currently co-exist. Therefore, natural coho salmon production is not likely to eliminate bull trout production, but may causereductions in at least the Yale Lake local population.

Overall, the anadromousfish reintroduction program will likely be beneficial by providing MDNs and increasingthe forage basefor bull trout. This strategywill be aided by the reintroduction scheduleas laid out in the SA where salmon and steelheadare reintroducedabove Swift Creek Dam 4 lzyears after the licensesare issued. Yale Lake reintroduction begins with the HPP calling for adults to be transportedto Yale Lake 8 years after the licensesare issued. Finally, Merwin Lake reintroductionbegins with the HPP in year 12 of the new licenses.This strategy allows time for assessmentsto occur prior to massivereintroductions at eachproject.

Project Element 2: Bult Trout Passage

The following proposedaction and SA activities will be evaluatedunder this Project Element:

. UpstreamPassage o 4.1.8Mode of Transport o 4.2 Merwin Trap o 4.3 Merwin (JpstreamCollection and Transport Facility o 4.7 Yale UpstreamPassage o 4.8 Swift UpstreamPassage o 4.10.2 UpstreamPassage Absent Anadromous Facilities

81 o Interim UpstreamPassage o 4.9.1 Collect and Haul at Yale and Swift No. 2 o 4.9.2 Investigation of Alternative Collection Methods o Interim Downstream Passage o 4.9.i Yaleand Merwin Bull Trout EntrainmentReduction o Downstream Passage o 4.4 Passageat Swift Dam o 4.4.2Satellite Collector o 4.4.3Release Pond o 4.5 Passageat YaleDam o 4.6 Passageat Merwin Dam o 4.10.1Downstream Passage Absent Anadromous Facilities o 5.1 Yale Spillway Modifications

Implementation of bull trout passageactivities may negatively affect bull trout during collection, upstreamor downstreamtransportation, handling, and release. However, bull trout passageat the fadilities wilf piotide Subatantialconservation benefits to the speciesby iestoring connectivityof local populationswithin the corepopulation as well aspotentially allowing for the recovery of the anadromousform (if this life history were to be expressedin the population) in this core population which would strengthenthe genetic resiliency of the core population. This project elementwill meet one of the key Recovery Plan Objectives for bull trout.

The magnitude of negative effects will dependon the bull trout attraction efficiency at each facility as well as the injury and mortality rates due to passagethrough the facilities, including both the mechanical effect of the structuresand the effect of human handling.

Permanent UpstreamPassage

4.1.8Mode of Transport

At Yale Lake (Swift No. 2 tailrace) and Lake Merwin (Yale tailrace) the Utilities will continueto use their existing collect and haul processuntil full upstreampassage is implemented. Prior to completionof upstreampassage facilities at Yale Dam and the Swift Projectsin Year 17,the Utilities in conjunction with the FWS and other entities will evaluatepotential alternative methods to collect and haul. It is assumedif an alternative method of transport is chosen;the negative effects to bull trout would be no greaterthan the current effects of collect and haul.

4.2 Merwin Trap

At Merwin Dam there is no upstreampassage for bull trout, nor have bull trout been capturedin the Merwin Trap since 1992. Within ayear after licensing, the Merwin Trap would be upgraded and any bull trout capturedwould be hauled to Yale Lake. In Year 4.5 the Merwin Trap would be further upgraded anda new sorting/transportfacility would be built to achieve more efficient capture and handling of transport species(steelhead, coho salmon, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout and bull trout).

82 Upstreamfish passagewill be designedto meet 99.5percent adult bull trout survival and2 percent injury standards;however, in the event those standardsare not achieved,PacifiCorp will implement facility adjustmentsor modifications as directed by the Servicespursuant to the SA. For purposesof this analysis,to be conservative,we assumethat upstreampassage survival will not meet 99.5 percent survival and2 percent injury performancestandards. Severalstudies have shown that entrancerates and overall steelheadpassage success and survival exceeded98 percent at eachof the 5 mid-Columbia projects (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reachand Wells Dams) (Nordland,NMFS, pers.comm.2006, as reportedby Shrier,PacifiCorp, pers.comm.2006). While actualdata on bull trout upstreampassage survival doesnot exist, it is reasonableto assumethat bull trout would survive as well if not better than steelhead. Therefore, we will assume98 percent adult bull trout survival. Injuries could occur such as descalingand abrasionsfrom contact with the facilities or from human handling. To be conservative,we assumethat injuries could affect up to 10 percent of the fish captured,but will not result in mortality. The current likelihood of bull ffout being below Merwin Dam and being trappedis low. With the restorationprovisions for bull trout passage,the probability of bull trout passing through this facility would increaseover time. Bull trout passageover Merwin Dam will benefit bull trout through genetic exchangewith other core populations through the restoration of connectivity.

Attraction flows and traps will be designedusing the best available technology to meet the Adult Trap Efficiencies (ATE) statedin the SA. Although thesestandards will be designedto meet salmon and steelheadrequirements, it is assumedthe standardswould also meet the needsfor bull trout passage. Currently, the lowest ATE measuredat Merwin Dam is approximately 52 percent. It is assumedthe new designswould achieve substantiallygreater efficiencies although they cannot be determinedprecisely today. Assuming a worst-caseATE of 52 percent,the genetic benefits statedabove would still be achieved. Since no bull trout are currently being passedover Merwin Dam, even if only half of the future potential migratory bull trout are safely passedabove the dam this would be beneficial to bull trout genetics. In addition, not all migratory bull trout spawn every year so the potential loss of reproduction would likely be less than half which is an improvement over current conditions.

4.7 Yale UpstreamPassage

In Year 17 anew permanentupstream trap will be built below Yale Dam. Upstreamfish passage will be designedto meet 99.5 percent adult bull trout survival and2 percent injury standards; however, in the event those standardsare not achieved,PacifiCorp will implement facility adjustmentsor modifications as directed by the Servicespursuant to the SA. For purposesof this analysis,to be conservative,we assumethat upstreampassage survival will not meet 99.5 percent survival and2 percent injury performancestandards. Severalstudies have shown that entrancerates and overall steelhead passagesuccess and survival exceeded98 percent at eachof the 5 mid-Columbia projects (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Wells Dams) (Nordland,NMFS, pers.comm.2006, as reportedby Shrier,PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). While actualdata on bull trout upstreampassage survival does not exist, it is reasonable to assumethat bull trout would survive as well if not better than steelhead. Therefore, we will assume98 percent adult bull trout survival. Injuries could occur such as descaling and abrasions from contact with the facilities or from human handling. To be conservative,we assumethat

83 injuries could affect up to 10 percent of the fish captured,but will not result in mortality. Bull rour passageover Yaie Dam will benefit bull trout through genetic exchangewith other local populations through the restoration of connectivity.

Attraction flows and traps will be designedusing the best available technology to meet the ATE statedin the SA. Although these standardswill be designedto meet salmon and steelhead requirements,it is assumedthe standardswould also meet the needsfor bull trout passage. Currently, the lowest ATE measuredat Merwin Dam is approximately 52 percent. It is assumed, therefore, the new designswould achieve substantially greaterefficiencies although they can not be determinedprecisely today. Assuming a worst-caseATE of 52 percent,the genetic benefits statedabove would still be achieved. In Yale Lake, bull trout wanting to spawn upstreammay spawn in Cougar Creek or they may not spawn thereby reabsorbingtheir eggsto spawn another time. This may or may not result in a risk of loss of reproduction that yearby somepercentage of migratory bull trout, the reasonbeing that bull trout may or may not spawn every year. Some bull trout are repeatannual spawnersbut this behavior is not consistentin every population or even within a population (Shepardet al. 1984). The new permanentupstream trap would be - expectedto more safely and effeetr'velyeollect and fansport bull trout upstream,but at a minimum it would not result in a reducedATE over culrent conditions. Thesemeasures would benefit bull trout spawning opportunities and genetic exchange.

4.8 Swift UpstreamPassage

In Year 77 anew permanentupstream trap would be built somewherebetween the Swift No. 2 tailrace and the Upper ReleasePoint. Upstream fish passagewill be designedto meet 99.5 percent adult bull trout survival and2 percentinjury standards;however, in the event those standardsare not achievedPacifiCorp and CowlitzPUD will implement facility adjustmentsor modificationsas directedby the Servicespursuant to the SA. For purposesof this analysis,to be conservative,we assumethat upstreampassage survival will not meet 99.5 percent survival and 2 percentinjury performance standards. Severalstudies have shown that enffancerates and overall steelheadpassage success and survival exceeded98 percent ateachof the 5 mid- Columbia projects (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Wells Dams) (Nordland,NMFS, pers.comm.2006, as reportedby Shrier,PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). While actualdata on bull trout upstreampassage survival doesnot exist, it is reasonableto assumethat bull trout would survive as well if not better than steelhead. Therefore, we will assume98 percent adult bull trout survival., Injuries could occur such as descalingand abrasions from contact with the facilities or from human handling. To be conservative,we assumethat injuries could affect up to 10 percent of the fish captured,but will not result in mortality. Bull trout passageover the Swift projects will benefit bull trout through genetic exchangewith other local populations through the restoration of connectivity.

It is assumedattraction flows and traps will be designedusing the best available technology to meet the Adult Trap Efficiencies (ATE) statedin the SA. Although these standardswill be designedto meet salmon and steelheadrequirements, it is assumedthe standardswould also meet the needsfor bull trout passage. Currently, the lowest ATE measuredat Merwin Dam is approximately 52percent. It is assumed,therefore, the new designswould achieve substantially greaterefficiencies although they can not be determinedprecisely today. Assuming a worst-case

84 ATE of 52 percent,the genetic benefits statedabove would still be achieved. Bull trout wanting to spawn upstreamof Swift Creek Reservoir may drop back down into Yale Lake and spawn in Cougar Creek or they may not spawn thereby reabsorbingtheir eggsto spawn anothertime. This may or may not result in a risk of loss of reproduction that year by somepercentage of migratory bull trout, the reasonbeing that bull trout may or may not spawn every year. Some bull trout are repeat annual spawnersbut this behavior is not consistentin every population or even within a population(Shepard et al. 1984). The new pennanentupstream trap would be expectedto more safely and effectively collect and transport bull trout upstream,but at a minimum it would not result in a reducedATE over current conditions. Thesemeasures would benefit bull trout spawning opportunities and genetic exchange.

It is assumedbased on strong homing behaviors of bull trout, that Cougar Creek bull trout would not likely be capturedand hauled above Swift Dam. If Cougar Creek bull trout enteredthe upstreamtrap and they were transportedinto Swift Creek Reservoir they would spawn in Pine or Rush Creeks, not spawn due to disorientation, or move back downstreamthrough the Swift downstreamcollector into Yale Lake. The most likely outeomeis that the Cougar Creek bull trout would migrate back downsfieam into Yale Lake. Similarly, it is assumedany Rush or Pine Creek bull trout that migrated downstreaminto Yale Lake would be attractedto the Swift upstreamfacility due to a strong desire to move upstreamto spawn in their natal streams.

4.10.2 (Ipstream PassageAbsent AnadromousFacilities

At Year 17 if no anadromousupstream facilities are built at the Yale and Swift facilities, the Utilities will continue to collect and haul bull trout or provide other permanentbull trout passage that meets or exceedsthe collect and haul methods currently being used. The effect of this option would be to maintain or improve bull trout passageas it exists inYear 17.

Interim Upstream Passage

Schedule4.9.1 describesthe interim upstreampassage requirements for the Yale and Swift facilitiesas:

OOYALEAND SWIFT No. 2 TAILRACE BULL TROUT COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION

PacifiCorp for Yale, and Licenseesfor Swift No. 2, implementan annual bull trout collection and transportprogram. Currently, PacifiCorp contractswith WDFW for portions of this program, but PacifiCorp and Licenseeshave the obligation for the program,as describedin this schedule.

Bull trout are capturedfrom the Yale and Swift No. 2 tailwaters using variable mesh gill nets (0.75- 3 inch stretch). Collection activitiesbegin in Juneto allow capturedbull trout time to acclimate to their releasesites and possibly provide better representationin the CougarCreek counts. Collectiontypically occursbetween the hours of 0800 and 1200 dependingon operational constraints. During collection, the Yale powerhouse generatorsare taken off-line to enable deployment of the nets. Swift No. 2 doesnot need to be offline for collection due to the configuration of the tailrace. The duration of

85 collection dependson the number of bull trout capturedand time of year. Initially, collectionoccurs once-a week. As time nearsthe bull trout spawningperiod, collection frequency increasesto twice per week. If bull trout are not capturedin two successive trappingsessions, collection will be delayedfor at least 1 week, but not more than2 weeks. Collection attemptscontinue until September30. To reducethe chanceof injuring spawningbull trout, no collectionwill occurpast this date.

The method for setting gill nets in the taikace is as follows: The number of nets (or sets) deployed will be no more than 3 per boat. This is necessaryto reducethe amount of time a bull trout may be entangledin the net. Nets are tied to the powerhousewall and then stretchedacross the tarkacearea using a powerboat. The nets are then allowed to sink to the bottom. Depending on conditions or capturerate, the nets are held by hand on one 'fish' end or allowed to fish unattended. The maximum time nets are allowed to unattendedis less than 10 minutes. Upon capfureof a bull trout, the fish is immediately freed of the net and placedin a live well. Oncebiological information is gathered(such as length and sometimesweight) and a Floy Tag tt is inserted,the bull trout are placed in a water-filled, soft sided hypalon fabric tube with ametalingat the top to hold it open. A rope is tied to the tube, which allows hatchery crews on the work platform to hoist the bull trout out of the taikace areaand into hatchery trucks. The entire process,from capture to hatchery truck, takes only a few minutes. Bull trout placed into hatchery trucks are transportedto Yale reservoir and releasedeither at Cougar or Yale Park. Swift No. 2 fish are taken to Cougar unless otherwise directed by the FWS. If necessary,the tank water will be temperedif a significant temperaturedifference (> 2 deg.C) exists betweentank and reservoir water. Reservoir water temperaturewill be comparedto transport tank water eachtime fish are released."

Prior to the operationof the Yale and Swift upstreamfacilities, under Section4.9.2 of the SA, the Utilities will investigatethe use of alternative methodsto collect bull trout more safely and effectively than the method in use atthat time. If more effective collection methods are identified, and the FWS concurs,those methods will be implemented.It is potentiallypossible that the investigation of alternative collection methodscould temporarily decreasethe efficiency of the collection method in comparisonto that currently in use. However, thesedecreases in effectivenesswould be readily apparentand the alternative collection method would be discontinued quickly. The effect of the investigation of the alternative upstreamcollection methods would be no appreciabledecrease in the efficiency in the collection method or increase in injury, but it may result in finding an altemativemethod that is more effective than current methods.

During interim upstreampassage, the collect and haul operationswould occur as describedabove (accordingto Schedule4.9.I or as modified throughinvestigation of alternativemethods) until permanentupstream passage facilities expectedto meet or exceedthe current/interim collect and haul methods are provided. The effect of the interim upstreampassage operations would be the potential to injure bull trout through descalingand other mechanisms,but this level of injury is not expectedto result in eventual death of bull trout. The FWS anticipatesno more than one bull trout would be killed per year as a result of the interim capture and haul operations. The capture and haul operationswould benefit bull trout passageas describedabove.

86 Interim DownstreamP ass age

In a given year,we expectspent adult bull trout migratingdownstream from spawninggrounds to peakin latefall. Fry bull trout migratingdownstream from incubationand early rearing areas areexpected to peakin the springaround March andApril while olderjuveniles are expected to migratedownstream in the fall (McPhailand Murray L979). Spill eventshave typically occurred in Decemberthrough February, when the downstreammovement of bull troutjuveniles is not likely althougha potentialexists for a few bull troutjuveniles to migrateat anytime of theyear.

Effectsof Spill

Regardingdownstream passage over spillways, baseline conditions at the Swift projectsand Merwin Dam will persistindefinitely while the conditionsat Yale Dam will persistuntil spillway modificationis completein Year4.5. Theremay be asmany as 15adult and juvenile bull trout (primarily adults)entrained atthe Yale andSwift Dam spillwayswhen spill occurs,which on avetageis aboutonce every 2.3 years(Table 6). Thisestimate of 15bull troutis basedon Yale tailracecollect.and.haul efforts which have collected as manyas 19bull trout in oneseason with an averageof 10per yearwhen the projectsspill. This was estimatedas the midpointbetween the annualmean and the maximumannual estimated entrainment. Survival at the Swift Dam spillway is expectedto be low. For Yale Dam,the majority of bull trout entrainedin the spillwaywill likely surviveto residein Yale Lake. Thereis someevidence adult bull trout residingin LakeMerwin enteredthere through Yale spillwaysince spawning habitat does not existin Lake Merwin tributaries(Shrier, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). The movementof adult bull trout from their spawninghabitatto their downstreamoverwintering habitat can occur duringthe winter spili period. However,given the Lewis River bull trout populationis adfluvial, we do not expectmany adult bull trout to migratefarther than their lake of origin afterspawning. Experienceat BakerDam, where bull trout exist,shows an averageof four bull troutjuveniles arc capturedin the existingfloating surface collector per dayduring the peakmigrations (Puget SoundEnergy 2006) suggesting that numbers of bull trout at the Lewis River damsare likely to be low in relationto the local bull troutpopulations. Downstream passage at the Merwin spillway is discountabledue to the low probabilityof bull trout occurringdownstream of the Yale tailrace.

Effectsof TurbinePassage

Theexisting effects of downstreampassage through turbines at SwiftNo. 1, SwiftNo. 2, Yale andMerwin Damswill persistuntil permanentdownstream collectors are installed in License Years4.5,73 and17 , at SwiftNo. 1,Yale andMerwin Dams, respectively (Table 6). According to the SA, thesefacilities will be built to certainperformance standards including an Overall DownstreamSurvival (ODS) of 75 percent.So, for the interimperiod until year4.5 of thenew licensesit is expectedthat lossof bull trout throughturbine entrainment could be approximately threebull trout or lessper yearat Swift Dam andat Yale Dam. Giventhe type of turbinesat Yale and Swift No. I andthe net headat eachproject,survival through turbine entrainment is estimatedto be about45 percent(Eicher Associates 1987). Sincethere are presently so few bull trout in Lake Merwin andhydroacoustictagsuryeys show the adultsspend the majorityof their time in the Yale taibace,noeffects are anticipated at Merwin Dam.

87 Swift No. 2 Canal

There are four featuresat the Swift No. 2 Canalthat are unique to the Lewis River hydroelectric projects. Theseare the Upper ReleasePoint, Canal Spillway, Canal Drain, and SurgeArresting Structure. The purpose of the Upper ReleasePoint and CanalDrain is to releasewater into the Bypass Reach to meet minimum flow requirements. The Canal Drain is an existing open, lined pipe with a short drop at its outlet and is consideredcompatible to any fish wanting to safely exit the Canalvia this structure. The Upper ReleasePoint is a new facilify and will be designedand built to accommodatefish that want to safely exit the Canal.

The Canal Spillway is an overflow weir and provides a safe exit for any fish wanting to exit the Canal. The Utilities anticipateusing the Canal Spillway and wasteway for high flow events, operationalreasons or during emergencycircumstances as provided in SA 6.1.5a. We do not anticipate any negativeeffects to bull trout from the operation of the Canal Spillway and,in fact, view the operation of the Canal Spillway as a mechanismfor bull trout to safely exit the Canal and return to the nafixal environment.

The Surge Arresting Structure (SAS) was designedand constructedduring the Swift No. 2 canal rebuild to allow for an outlet at the Swift No. 2 intake for quick releaseof water in the event of an unexpectedoutage at the Swift No. 2 power plant. The SAS is set to open automatically and releaseflow in the equivalent of one turbine unit capacity (about 4,500 cfs) into Yale Lake. Since the SAS releaseswater through a cone-typevalve, fish are not expectedto survive going through this structure. The SAS can also pass flows when one or more Swift No. 2 turbines are off-line. We assessedthe risk of mortality at this facility to be equivalent to that at Swift No. 1 Dam assuming< 3 bull trout per year move through the Swift No. 1 turbines and into the Swift No. 2 canalprior to installationof the downstreamcollector. The SAS is expectedto be used infrequently resulting in no more than 3 bull trout per year being killed by this structure(Table 7). The SAS would not affect all bull trout that enteredthe Power Canal becausesome would leave the canal through the Upper ReleasePoint, the Canal Spillway, or the Canal Drain.

Table 7. Estimated annual mortality of interim downstreampassage on bull trout at the Lewis River dams. Passage Passage Passage throughUpper through Canal throughSurge Passagethrough Passageover ReleasePoint Drain Arresting collector or turbine snillwav Structure Site Swift < 3 bull < 15bull No mortality, N/A N/A No. 1 trouVyear for trout/year in designedto be Swift No. I and yearsof spill; fish friendly No. 2 together spills are until installation expectedto of downstream occur,on collector inyear average,every 4. 2.3 years.

88 Swift No mortality N/A No mortality, < 3 bull No.2 due to low head passiveexit troul/yeat spill. Also structure provides avenuefor bull trout to leave canal safely. Yale < 3 bull < 15bull N/A N/A N/A trott/year for trout/yearin Yale Dam until yearsof spill; installation of an spills are entrainment expectedto reduction device occur,on by November average,every 2007 which 2.3 yearc. would reduce the potential for entrainment. Merwin Not anticipated Not anticipated due to effect of due to effect of upstreamdams upstreamdams on bull trout on bull trout abundancein abundancein Lake Merwin. Lake Merwin.

Downstream Passageand Permanent Collectors

Downstreampassage facilities will be constructedto meet 99.5 percentdownstream bull trout survival and2 percent injury standards;however, in the event such standardsare not achieved, PacifiCorp will implement facility adjustmentsand modifications as directedby the Services pursuant to the SA in an effort to achievethose standards. We expect high survival of captured individuals,but for the purposeof this Biological Opinion, to be conservative,we assume downstreampassage survival will not be lower than 98 percent and injury will not be greater than 10 percent.

For those bull trout that arc not capturedand becomeentrained, we expect that about 1 percent of those bull trout could survive below Merwin Dam having passedthrough all the projects. This estimateis basedon the 10O-yearpopulation cycle model usedin the Lewis River Fish Planning document (PacifiCorp and CowlitzPIJD 2004). Based on experiencesat Baker Dam, the potential loss of bull trout from downstreampassage either through the collection systemor through the turbines is less than2 fish per day during peak migration. Therefore, with surface collectors and entrainmentreduction equipment in place along with spillway improvement, annual entrainmentinto the turbines is estimatedto improve slightly to <2 bull trout peryear at Swift Dam and at Yale Dam and for entrainmentatthe spillways to be < 12 bull trout in years when spills occur at Swift Dam and < 8 bull trout in years when spills occur at Yale Dam (Table 8).

89 Table 8. Estimatedannual bull trout mortality from downstreampassage after permanent facilities are constructedat the Lewis River dams. Passage Passage Passage through Upper through Canal throughSurge Passagethrough Passageover ReleasePoint Drain Arresting collector or turbine snillwav Structure Site Swift < 2 bull < 12bull No mortalify, N/A N/A No. I troutlyearfor trout/yearin designedto be SwiftNo. l and yearsof spill; fish friendly No. 2 together spillsare expectedto occur,on average,every 2.3years.

Swift No mortality N/A No mortality, < 2 bull No.2 due to low head passiveexit troutlyear spill and structure provides avenuefor bull trout to leave canal safelv. Yale < 2 bull < 8 bull N/A N/A N/A trottlyear for troutlyearin Yale Dam yearsof spill; spills are expectedto occur,on average,eYery 2.3years.

Merwin Not anticipated Not anticipated because because downstream downstream migrants at Yale migrants at Dam will be Yale Dam will transportedto be transported below Merwin to below Dam. Merwin Dam.

Bull troutcollected atthe downstream surface collectors will encountera separatoras soon as they enterthe mainbody of the collector. The separatorwill segregatebull trout into threesize categories:adult, smolt-size, and fiy. Adult bull trout (estimatedto be two bull trout per day duringpeak migration) will be nettedfrom the separatorand placed into a transporttank assoon aspossible. It is assumedthese adult bull trout aremaking an effort to movedownstream so they will be transportedto the next reservoirdownstream, adults collected in the Merwin forebaywill be releaseddownstream. This protocolmay changeonce more is understoodabout adult

90 behaviorin the Lewis River corepopulation. Therefore, based on new information,adult bull trout may be movedto anotherlocation besides downstream if the scienceis sufficientto determinewhere the adultbull trout areattempting to go.

Smolt-sizejuvenile bull trout that enterthe separator(estimated to be two bull trout per day duringpeak migration) will be processedtogether with the otherdownstream migrating salmonidsand hauled to the ReleasePond. Duringpeak migration times there could be asmany as48,000 salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout juveniles passing through the floatingsurface collectorper day. Eventhough the SA calls for the FWS to determinewhere to placejuvenile bull trout, the sortingof bull trout from amongstthe otherfishes is not necessaryfor the followingreasons:

1. With 48,000downstrearnmigrants and only2 of themlikely to bejuvenile bull trout,all of the fish would needto be anesthetizedinorder to locatethe bull troutjuveniles. This placesundue stress on the bull trout andthe restof the fish in the collectorand may cause unnecessarymortalities ; and

2. TheCowlitz River collector can currently handle approximately 10,000 to 12,000fish per dayfor sorting.If 48,000fish wereto comethrough the collector atany Lewis River project,it is unlikely they couldall be processedin oneday resulting in significantdelays for bull trout andother species potentially causing injuries or mortality from overcrowding.

Bull trout fry will be separatedfrom adultsand smolt-sized fish andwill be transferredto a fry tank for transport.The SA statesthat bull trout fry collectedin Swift andYale forebayswill be releasedinto Yale Lake, and,thatbulltrout fry collectedin the Merwin forebaywill be released backinto LakeMerwin.

. Migration delayscan be expectedat fish passagefacilities because bull trout may eitherhave difficulty finding the entranceor be hesitantto enterthe passagefacility, andat leastsome delay would occurwhile bull trout areheld in the holdingarea of the collectionfacility beforethey are transported.Bull trout, on the otherhand, may chooseto remainin the collectionfacility to capitalizeon foragingopportunities. Short delays in downstreammigration are likely to have little impacton bull trout survival,but long delayscould result in increasedpredation by larger bull trout. It is assumedthe passagefacility will be designedcorrectly and sufficient attraction flows would be provided,thus only temporarilydelaying migrations without the risk of mortality.

Althoughthe installationof downstreambull troutpassage facilities would be an improvement overthe presentcondition, some injury andmortality maystill occuras a resultof the collection, temporaryholding and transport of bull trout. The injury standardstated in the SA (SA 4.T.4b) will providea mechanismto assessinjury andmake adjustments to preventfuture injury to bull trout passingthrough afacility. We thereforeanticipate a low incidenceof injury at thesefish passagefacilities.

9I Sat ellite Coll ecti on F acility

A satellite collection facility is anticipatedfor the mainstemLewis River where it entersSwift Creek Reservoir. This facility may be used for either supplementingspring Chinook outmigrant capture or as a capture facility to mark downstreammigrants for fish passageevaluations. There is no intention to mark bull trout for evaluationsat this facility so we expect bull trout to simply be counted and releasedback to the mainstem Lewis River without injrry. The capturefacility may causesome delay in downstreammigrating bull trout juveniles but we do not anticipate delays that would causeinjury or a significant disruption in their downstreammigratory behavior becausethe collection facility would be checkeddaily.

Swdt No.2 Canal

There are four featuresat the Swift No. 2 Cutal that areunique to the Lewis River hydroelectric projects. Theseare the Upper ReleasePoint, Canal Spillway, CanalDrain, and SurgeArresting Structure. The purpose of the Upper ReleasePoint and CanalDrain is to releasewater into the Bypass Reach to meet minimum flow requirements. The Canal Drain is an existing open, lined pipe with a short drop at its outlet and is consideredcompatible to any fish wanting to safely exit the Canal via this structure. The Upper ReleasePoint is a new facility and will be designedand built to accommodatefish that want to safely exit the Canal.

The Canal Spillway is an overflow weir and provides a safe exit for any fish wanting to exit the Canal. The Utilities anticipateusing the Canal Spillway and wasteway for high flow events, operationalreasons or during emergencycircumstances as provided in SA 6.1.5a. We do not anticipate any negative effects to bull trout from the operation of the Canal Spillway and, in fact, view the operation of the Canal Spillway as a mechanismfor bull trout to safely exit the Canal and return to the natural environment.

The Surge Arresting Structure (SAS) was designedand constructedduring the Swift No. 2 canal rebuild to allow for an outlet atthe Swift No. 2 intake for quick releassof water in the event of an unexpectedoutage at the Swift No. 2 power plant, The SAS is set to open automatically and releaseflow in the equivalentof one turbine unit capacity(about 4,500 cfs) into Yale Lake. Since the SAS releaseswater through a cone-typevalve, fish are not expectedto survive going through this structure. The SAS can also pass flows when one or more Swift No. 2 turbines are off-line. Once permanentcollectors are constructed,we assessedthe risk of mortality at this facility to be equivalent to that at Swift No. 1 Dam assuming< 2 bull trout per year move through the Swift No. 1 turbines and into the Swift No. 2 canal. The SAS is expectedto be used infrequently resulting in no more than? bull trout per year being killed by this structure. The SAS would not affect all bull trout that enteredthe Power Canalbecause some would leave the canal through the Upper ReleasePoint, the Canal Spillway, or the Canal Drain.

ReleasePond

A releasepond willbe constructedabout lz-mile downstreamof the City of Woodland and upstreamof the confluence of the East Fork Lewis River with the mainstem Lewis River. The releasepond will serve as the site for releaseof all downstreammigrants captured atthe floating

92 surfacecollectors. The main purpose of the releaseponds is to allow for an assessmentof downstreamtransport survival. Downstreammigrants will be held in theseponds for about 24 hours and volitionally releasedinto the mainstemLewis River. Any bull trout juveniles that are transportedto this site willbe releasedalong with the rest of the downstreammigrants. We do not anticipate anybull trout mortality during this operationbecause similar facilities on the Cowlitz River hydroelectric project exhibit high survivals for juvenile salmonidstransported and releasedthere (LaRaviere,Tacoma Power perc. comm. 2006).

Bull trout PassageSummarY

Implementation of bull trout passageactivities may negatively affect bull trout during collection, upstreamor downstreamtransportation, handling, and release. However, bull trout passageat the facilities will provide substantialconservation benefits to the speciesby restoring connectivity of local populations within the core population as well as potentially allowing for the recovery of the anadromousform (if this life history were to be expressedin the population) in this core population which would strengthenthe genetic resiliency of the core population. ThiS Biojeet elemenfwill mecf one of the key Recovery Plan Objoetives for bull trout. Howevef, all bull trout passagefeatures, while beneficial overall, may injure or kill a small number of bull trout (Tables 7 and 8).

Upstream survival at eachof the facilities is expectedto be at least 98 percent of the adult fish captured. Injuries could occur such as descalingand abrasionsfrom contact with the facilities or from human handling. To be conservative,we assumethat injuries could affect up to 10 percent of the bull trout captured and arenot expectedto result in mortality. We assumeall facilities will attractand captureat least 52 percentof all adult bull trout attempting to migrate upstreamto spawn. Under theInterim UpstreamPassage, no more than I bull trout per year is expectedto Ui tiUea and a small number of bull trout may be injured that would not result in eventualdeath.

There may be as many as 15 adult andjuvenile bull trout (primarily adults) entrainedat the Yale and Swift Dam spillways when spill occurs, which on averageis about once every 2.3 yeats. Survival atthe Swift Dam spillway is expectedto be low. For Yale Dam, the majority of bull trout entrainedin the spillway will likely survive to reside in Yale Lake. Downstream passageat the Merwin spillway is discountabledue to the low probability of bull trout occurring downstreamof the Yale tailrace.

The existing effects of downstreampassage through turbines at Swift No. 1, Swift No. 2, Yale and Merwin Dams will persist until permanentdownstream collectors are installed in License Years 4.5,13 atd !7 , at Swift No. 1, Yale and Merwin Dams,respectively. For the interim period until year 4.5 of the new licensesit is expectedthat loss of bull trout throughturbine entrainment could be approximately 3 bull trout or lessper yeu at Swift Dam and atYale Dam. In the absenceof data from the Lewis River, the settlementparties assumedthat turbine survivai was zero; however,based on EichnerAssociates (1987), given the type of turbinesat Yale and Swift No. I and the net head at eachproject, survival through turbine entrainmentis estimatedto be about 45 percent. Since there are presently so few bull trout in Lake Merwin and hydroacoustic tag surveys show the adults spendthe majority of their time in the Yale taibace, no effects arc anticipatedat Merwin Dam.

93 Entrainment into turbine intakes will be greatlyreduced by the construction of the downstream floating surfacecollectors and the installation of forebay entrainmentreduction equipment. We expect high survival (: 98 %o)of capturedindividuals and assumeno more than 10 percent will be injured, but for those bull trout that are not capturedand becomeentrained, we expectthat about 1 percent of thosebull trout could survive below Merwin Dam having passedthrough all the projects. Therefore, with surfacecollectors and entrainmentreduction equipment in place along with spillway improvement, annual entrainmentinto the turbines is estimatedto improve slightly to <2bu11 trout per year at the Swift projects and at Yale Dam and for entrainmentat the spillways to be < I2bull trout in years when spills occur at Swift Dam and < 8 bull trout in years when spills occur atYale Dam (Table 8). The assessedrisk of mortality at the SAS is < 3 bull trout per year when operated. The downslreamsurface collectors and satellite collectors may causeslight delays in bull trout migration that are not anticipatedto causea significant disruption in their behavior.

The proposedimprovements in bull trout passagewould tend to increasepopulation size by reducing previous mortality from entrainmentinto the powerhouses,spillways and surge arresting structure,and indirect mortality from delay or blockage of migration. The improvementswould tend to expandthe distribution of the population becausemore suitable habitatwould be availableto eachindividual passingbetween the projects.

Bull trout passagewill facilitate expressionof any migratory tendency innate in the local populations but not allowed by existing dams. That is, an anadromousand fluvial component may develop in the core population. Increasedvariability in life history would enablethe population to take advantageof different environmentsnot previously available after dam construction, and thus we anticipate an overall increasein the population and its resiliency.

The persistenceof the CougarCreek local populationwould be more likely becauseof the bull trout passageprovisions. Removal of artifrcial barriers may restore the genetic integrity of the local populations. Isolation of local populationswould decreasewith constructionof the passage facilities. We expect passage-relatedmortality due to handling to be low enough as to not affect populationpersistence given the beneficialeffects of providing passage.

Project Element 3: Instream Construction and Habitat Restoration

Proposedactivities with at least some componentsthat may occur in fish-bearing waters include: 1. An unspecified number of acclimation ponds on or upstreamof the reservoirsto imprint hatchery-rearedsalmonids on local water sources. 2. Three floating collectors, one in eachreservoir forebay to capture downstreammigrant salmonids,plus facilities to haul them downstream. 3. If needed,one floating collector at the head of Swift Creek Reservoir to capture downstream migrantspring Chinook salmon,plus facilities to haul them downstream. 4. Upgradesto the existing upstream migrant collect-and-haulfacility at Merwin Dam. 5. Construction of two new upstreammigrant collect-and-haulfacilities, one each at Yale and the Swift Projects. 6. Construction of a releasepond along the Lewis River near the town of Woodland for observationof fish trapped at the reservoirs and hauled downstream.

94 7. Removal of rock outcrops thatmaybe ahazard to downstreammigrant fish from the base of the Yale spillway. 8. Additional instream habitat improvementsin the existing ConstructedChannel. 9. Construction of the Upper ReleasePoint and a fish-friendly channel from there to the BypassReach. 10. Enlargementof several existing boat launches. I 1. Repair to the intake pump and associatedscreens at the SpeelyaiHatchery. 12. Gravelaugmentation in the BypassReach, and, if needed,below Merwin Dam. 13. Instreamhabitat improvement under the Aquatic Fund at three known sites on Pine Creek not on U.S. ForestService land. Helicopterswill install clustersof boulders,logs, and rootwads in the channelmigration zone. Due to the high quality of habitat in Cougar Creek and PacifiCorp's conservationcovenant in the watershed,there are no habitat improvementprojects proposed in CougarCreek. All Aquatic Fund projectson U.S. ForestService land will be consultedon under section7 of the ESA as separateactions. Therefore,such projects are not consideredpartofthe proposedaction in this consultation.

SedimentImpacts

Mechanism of Effect

Instream or near streamconstruction canresult in elevatedsediment levels that arise from resuspensionof instream sediment or by entry of material from onshore. Construction can result in several short-term impacts on bull trout or their prey base(Table 9). Thesemechanisms may act simultaneouslyand are not arrangedin any particular order of severity, but rather, taken as a group, form the basis for determining the Severity of Effect score as describedbelow.

Table 9. Mechanismof effectsto bull trout resultingfiom elevatedsuspended sedtment. Sediment Impacts to Bull trout Summary of Adverse Affects Related to SuspendedSediment iilt trauma lediment can clogs gills which impedescirculation of water over the gills rnd interferes with respiration. Preybase iediment can disrupt both habitat for and reproductive successof nacroinvertebratesand other salmonids that serye as bull trout prey Feedingefficiency Sedimentcan reducebull trout visibility which can impact feeding rates and rrev selection. Aabitat Sedimentcan fill pools" and simplifv and reduce suitable habitat. lhysiological Jedimentcan increasestress, resulting in decreasedimmunological :omoetence.srowth and reoroductive success. fehavioral iediment can result in avoidanceand abandonmentof preferred habitat.

Effect of SpecificActivities on Bull Troutfrom SuspendedSediment

Construction activities associatedwith existing structuresare not expectedto adverselyaffect bull trout in that they are not likely to causeelevated suspended sediment levels; theseinclude activitiesNos. 4 and 11.

95 ActivitiesNos. 2, 3,5,7, and 10 arelikely to resuspendsediment entirely within thereservoirs, outsideof flowing waters.Activities Nos. 2 and3 arenot expectedto appreciablyaffect bull trout becausethey require little or no alterationof the shoreline,and because any resulting sedimentwould not travelfar from the constructionsite thereby limiting thepotential exposure to bull trout. Activity No. 5 would be unlikely to elevatesediment level if they werebuilt entirelyinside the existingpowerhouses or the protectedshorelines adjacent to them. This activity could,however, detectably elevate sediment in the taikaceif the new trap wereto expandthe footprint of theexisting powerhouses; see discussion below. Activity No. 7 would leavefine materialat the baseof theYale spillwaywhich would be washedinto the taikace during spill, whenbackground turbidity would probablybe sohigh that materialleft overfrom thespillway modification would not detectablyadd to backgroundlevels. ActivityNo.l0 would be doneprimarily in the dry with only minor amountsof sedimentbeing detectable during a rising reservoirstage that arenot expectedto appreciableaffect bull trout.

ActivitiesNos. 1, 5,6,8,9, 12,and 13 are likely to resuspenddetectable levels of sedimentinto a streamchannel. Activity No. 1, constructionof acclimationponds, could significantly increase Sedim€nflevels and thefefofe affedt bull tiodt ifthe aCtiVityoddurred inside an bccupiedieach of if the sedimentplume extended downstream into an occupiedreach. Activity No. 5, construction of a permanentupstream migrant trap at an undeterminedpoint alongthe BypassReach, which would occurafter flow wasprovided at the UpperRelease Point, is likely to affectrearing bull trout whereverit may be built. The effectof Activity No. 6 would be discountableatpresent, becausebull trout arehighly unlikely to occurnear Woodland, Washington. If a migratory componentof thebull trout corepopulation developed in the future,it is assumedconstruction would not occurduring migration and the impactsto bull trout would still be insignificantdue to a low likelihoodof bull troutpresence during construction. Activity No. 8 is likely to elevate sedimentlevels in the vicinity of bull trout becausethe speciesis likely to be rearingin the ConstructedChannel. Activity No. 9 may elevatesediment levels as far downstreamas the lower BypassReach which supportsbull trout,but the effectis expectedto be insignificant becausethis point is greaterthan 600 feet downstreamfrom the constructionsite. Activity No. 12 could significantlyelevate sediment levels in the BypassReach downstream of the ConstructedChannel, and could have the sameeffect in the BypassReach upstream of the ConstructedChannel if that rcachwasreceiving flow from the UpperRelease Point at the time of gravelaugmentation. Gravel augmentation below Merwin Dam would havediscountable effects on bull troutfor the samereasons as Activity No. 6. Activity No. 13could cause a significant short-termrise in sedimentlevels with the potentialto adverselyaffecting bull trout in Pine Creek.

Magnitude of the Effect

Exposureof bull trout to excesssediment is likely to occurat randomintervals during the constructionperiod associated with activitiesNos. 1, 5, 8, 12 and13. We assumethe potential exposureof bull trout to excesssediment will occurup to 8 hoursa day,for oneor moredays betweenJuly I andSeptember 30. This is basedon the assumptionsthat 1) all instreamwork donein oneday is completedin an 8-hourshift, 2) elevatedturbidity declineswithin a shorttime afterthe shift ends,3) in-waterwork will takemore than one day to complete,and 4) the work is likely to takeplace in the summerlow flow season.Effects will probablysubside within a day

96 after construction or peak flow events. Sedimentationmay reoccur one or more times during the next high flow season,as rising streamstage resuspends fine materials left from constructionand runoff brings material from newly-disturbed surfacesat the construction site into the stream.

To calculate the minimum intensity and duration of the rise in suspendedsediment which supports that atleast one of the adverseeffects in Table 8 would occur, we followed the guidance of Newcombe and Jensen(1996). We determinedthat a Newcombe and JensenSeverity of Effect Score of at least "6" was the threshold of when adverseeffects would occur becauseonly adult andjuvenile bull trout are likely to be presentat instream construction sites, not eggs or alevins. This scorerepresents several combinations of rise in suspendedsolids, measured in milligrams per liter (mglL), and the duration of this rise, meaburedin hours or days.

To estimatethe rise in suspendedsediment we assumethe actionswill meet,but will not exceed, the standards(RCW 940.48 and WAC 173-201A) set forth by the Washington Departmentof Ecology (2003). This standardis basedon the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology classof project waters,which in this caseare "AA," "A," or "Lake" (DEIS Table 3.3.2-5). For these waters; rurbidity, nreasuredinNephelometricTurbidity Units (NTU); may not excood5 NTU over background. To convert NTU to mglL we usedUSGS data from the North Fork Lewis River immediately below Merwin Dam obtained from http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/walnwis/qwdata/.We only considereddata from July through Septembersince construction would most likely be limited to thosemonths. A total of 12 samples,taken from1979 through 1986,generatedaratio of 2.7 mglLperNTU. Thus, an increaseof 5 NTU times 2.7 equalsan increaseof 13.5 mglL in suspendedsolids. To evaluate the duration of elevatedsediment we estimatedthat in-water work would occur during business hours, up to 8 hours a day. From thesedata we determinedthat adverseeffects (Table 8) to bull trout would occur if the actionscontinuously exceeded background turbidityby I,I04 NTU for up to I hour, 406 NTU between 1 and 3 hours, or 149 NTU for up to 7 hours.

At the initial point of sedimentdisturbance, turbidity will be at concentrationsthat will adversely affectbull trout thal arc in the immediate vicinity. As the suspendedsediment enters the stream and moves downstream,the concentrationlevels will becomediluted and heavierparticles will settle out. Even with the use of Best ManagementPractices for construction activities, these effects may occur as far downstreamas 600 feet basedon monitoring of other projects in western Washington. Therefore, the FWS anticipatesthat sediment/turbidity could adverselyaffect bull trout as describedin Table 8 associatedwith activitiesNos. I , 5, 8, 12, and 13.

Spawning Gr avel Embe dd e dnes s

Increasedembeddedness is likely to occur during the constructionperiod and possibly during post-constructionrunoff if there is not enough instream flow to remove excessivefine material. Increasedembeddedness is most likely to be detectablebetween the habitat improvement and pond sitesand the tail-out of the next pool downstream.We expectembeddedness to increase during each instream constructionproject. Embeddednessis expectedto return to its natural level after the first few high-flow eventsin the fall after construction. However, if excessivefine sedimentremains in place during bull trout spawning,the embeddedstreambed can make redd construction difficult and can impede respiration of depositedeggs, thus potentially decreasing their survival.

97 We assumethat only those activities that may signifi cantly elevate instream sedimentlevels can also significantly elevatesediment embeddedness. Thus, instream construction activities associatedwith Nos. I,5,6,8,9,12, and 13 couldincrease sediment embeddedness by resuspendinginstream sediment. Activities Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 13 could alsoincrease embeddednessby way of surfacerunoff from the construction site.

However, not all of theseactivities are likely to have significant effects on bull trout. Activities Nos. 5, 8, 9, and 12 would be locatedin the BypassReach, Constructed Channel, and the Upper ReleasePoint which are not likely to affect spawning grounds,because instream temperaturesin the Bypass Reach appeartoo high, even with flow from the Canal Drain and Upper Release Point, to support bull trout spawning and egg survival in this location. Activity No. 6 and that portion of Activity No.12 which would place gravelbetween Merwin Dam and Woodland, Washington are not expectedto significantly affect bull trout becausethere is an extremely low likelihood of bull trout spawning in this location. In the long-term, gravel augmentationin the Bypass Reach is likely to expandthe rearing and foraging distribution of the Cougar Creek local population, both by providing potential interstitial cover and by expandingthe spawning grounds of their feintroduced salmonid prey species. The net result should be increasedresilience of the local CougarCreek population.

The only activities remaining which may significantly increaseembeddedness are activities Nos. 1 and 13, if acclimation ponds or instream habitatwere located on or within one or two meander bends upstreamof bull trout spawning grounds. Currently acclimationponds are anticipatedon the lower Muddy River, lower Clear Creek, and the upper mainstem I.ewis River near the Lower Falls and habitat improvements are proposedfor bull trout-bearing reachesof Pine and Rush Creeks. There is a high probability that bull trout will be presentduring and after anticipated instream habitat improvements in Pine Creek. There is lessprobability that bull trout will be present during and after construction of acclimation ponds, becauseof their anticipatedlocations. We expect habitat improvement projects to restore 1) the natural variability in local gradient and riffle/pool ratio, by turning excessivelylong runs into a seriesof riffles and pools, 2) na1nxal variability in streamvelocity, by placing energy-dissipatinglogs, and 3) the quality of spawning gravels, whose size composition will be chosento meet the needsof reintroduced salmonids.

Potentialfor Direct linjury or Death

Activity No.12 may directly injure or kill bull trout that arepresent at the gravel augmentation sites by the placement of gravel in the wetted channel. However, injury or mortality is not consideredlikely due to the low likelihood of bull trout being presentbelow Merwin Dam and for bull trout possibly residing in the Bypass Reach during construction it is assumedthey will leave the site and seekrefuge in deeperpools until the deployment of gravel is complete.

Project Element 4z Habitat Protection

Acquiring andprotectingripuianbuffers, old-growth stands,and covenant lands is expectedto positively affect bull trout through:

98 . Decreasedinstream temperaturesby allowing growth of trees that increaseshade on the water surface; o Reducedsuspended sediment and restorationof streambankerosion to its naturaltange, by stabilizing the bank through root growth and by intercepting surfacerunoff from unprotecteduplands; o Reducedembeddedness and increasedgravel porosity by reducing sedimentinput from the streambanks; o Increasedlarge woody debris as a result of allowing riparian trees to mature and allowing the streamchannel to migrate naturally, thus recruiting large trees; o Preseryedrefugia by securingthe natural hydrologic processesthatmaintain local bull trout populations; o Decreasedwidth/depth ratios as a result of naturally stabilized banks; reducedratio of peak/baseflows by contributing to the hydrologic maturity of the watershed.

The effects of improved instream habitat and watershedfunction on the Lewis River bull trout core population may include increasedpopulation size, due to improved habitat quality; an eipanded distribution, due to increasedextent of suitable habita! improved resiliency in population growth, due to improvementsin both quantity and quality of habitat; and higher likelihood of persistenceand genetic integrity, due to a combination of the above factors.

Project Element 5: Instream Flows

The following proposedaction and SA activities will be evaluatedunder this Project Element:

BypassReach Flow o 6.1 Flow Releasesin the BypassReach: ConstructedChannel o 6.1.4 Interim Flow Schedule: CombinedFlow Schedule Merwin Streamflow o 6.2.1 Ramping RatesBelow Merwin o 6.2.2 Plateau Operations at Merwin Dam o 6.2,4 Minimum Flows Below Merwin Dam o 6.2.5 Low Flow Procedures

BypassReach Flow In their draft 40I Water Quality Certifications for Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2, Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) requires the following instream flow schedule,based on the SA flow provisions. These may be altered in the future by mutual agreementof WDOE and the Aquatic Coordination Committee (ACC) following the adaptive managementprocess described in the SA (6.1.4.c).

For the Canal Drain release,the instream flow releasewill commence following completion of the Constructed Channel and will be 14 cfs. For the Upper Release Point, the instream flow releasewill commencefollowing completion of the Upper ReleasePoint and will follow the scheduleprovided in Table 10:

99 Table 10. Upper ReleasePoint instreamflows month. November 1 to November 15 76 cfs November i6 to November30 56 cfs December1 to January31 51 cfs February1 to February28 (29 on leapyears) 75 cfs (74cfs only for 1" week in leapyear) March 1 to Mav 31 76 cfs June I to September30 54 cfs OctoberI to October3l 6lcfs

The proposedUpper ReleasePoint is expectedto supply sufficient instream flow to the upper Bypass Reachto support year-round bull trout use. The Utilities anticipatethe releaseswill maintain instreamtemperature at the downstreamend of the Bypass Reach at Swift No. 2 within the preferred range for spawning cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and mountain whitefish (FEIS Section3.3.3.2,pg.3-74). This temperattre,whileat timeshigher than the 12oC optimumfor bull trout rcaring, may be sufficient to support bull trout uso t€?r-round, but is not expectedto provide adequatetemperatures for successfulspawning in the Bypass Reach.

A Iggg evaluation (PacifiCorp & CowlitzPuD 2002) looked attemperaturesin the Power Canal at the Swift No.1 tailrace and severalmiles downstreamat Swift No. 2. Neither location had optimum temperaturesfor bull trout reproductionin 1999,but individual bull trout would have been able to seektemperatures in which they could survive. Water temperaturesdid not drop to oC 9 or lower at either location until late in October or November. The temperaturesdid not fall to7ocuntilDecember. Pratt(2003 pgs.8-9)confirmedthatSwiftNo. I taikacewouldnot provide optimum temperaturesduring this period. Both the observedand the modeled temperatureregimes peakedin October (PacifiCorp 2002 SectionWTS-4), when spawning is oC. expected, The observedpeak temperaturein 1999 was close to 14 The modeled peak was 12 oC. This implies that optimum spawning temperatureswould not occur in the Bypass Reach until November or December. Therefore, the temperatureof the Bypass Reach flows, delivered from the Power Canalthrough the Upper ReleasePoint and Canal Drain, while improving spawning conditions, are expectedto delay or abort bull trout spawning.

The relationship betweentemperature and survival of eggs in the gravel dependsupon timing of spawning, which warlner temperaturesmay delay. If we assumebull trout can delay spawning oC, until temperaturesdrop to 7 andtemperaturescontinue to drop during the spawning period, then there may be some egg survival. If the adults do not delay spawning, then either they will oC, reabsorbtheir eggs or they will spawn and exposetheir eggs to temperaturesover of 10 and mortality of eggswill likely occur (Pratt 2003).

Providing instream flow in the upper Bypass Reachwill directly increasebase flows. These relatively steadyflows may increasethe amount of off-channel habitat which could provide additional foraging areasfor bull trout, may improve streambank condition (through erosion, deposition, and revegetation),and may improve riparian function. These flows may also alter substrate characterin the main channel of the Bypass Reach. Peak flows, resulting from periodic spill at Swift No. 1, will remain about the sameas under current conditions, thus some of the benefitsto bull trout may be overshadowedby the souringeffects of spills. Theseflows will also

100 provide bull trout accessto the existing large deeppools in the Bypass Reach. Overall, instream flows in the Bypass Reach will contribute to restorationof the aquatic function of the Bypass Reach,but will not provide for successfulbull trout spawning.

Steadyflows from the CanalDrain will maintain streambank condition, riparian function, and substratecharacter in the existing ConstructedChannel. Natural channel migration may also indirectly createadditional off-channel habitat for bull trout. This channel is isolated from the main Bypass Reach and is expectedto be isolated from, and not affected by, periodic spill from Swift No. 1. As such, the benefits to bull trout from steadyflows in the ConstructedChannel are expectedto accrueover the life of the licenses.

Merwin Streamflow

The proposedflow regime mimics the natural flow pattern although peak winter flows are lower and summer low flows are higher than historical (Figure 2). Given the size of the Lewis River downstreamof Merwin Dam, the minimum flow of 1,200 cfs, and the lack of bull trout presence in the lower river cunently, We do not expect Merwin flows to appreciably effectbull trout. If bull trout were to enter the lower Lewis River from the Columbia River, they would have access to diverse habitats (including pools interspersedwith runs and small rapids, and cool water within the mainstem and in side-channelrearing areasin the lower 19 miles of the Lewis River. Assessto the upper watershedwould be provided through passagefacilities.

l-Oct l-Nov l-Dec l-Jan l-Feb I-Mar l-Apr l-May l-Jun l-Jul l-Aug l-Sep l-Oct

Figure 2. Pre-constructionand post Merwin constructionplot of averagedaily flow for pre- (October 1910to Jily 1923)and post-construction(Water Year 1994to present).

101 Project Element 6: Reduce Total Dissolved Gas (TDG)

The following proposedaction and SA activities will be evaluatedunder this Project Element:

o Water Quality Standards

o 401 Certifications

Elevated total dissolved gas (TDG) pressuresresulting from power generationwith the Lewis River hydropower complex are limited to the Swift No. I talkace, Swift No. 2 canaland the tallrace area immediately below the Yale Project. No WDOE exceedanceshave been observed in the Merwin tailrace(FEIS, Section3.3.2.I,p9.3-22). Water Quality ManagementPlans are a requirementof WDOE's draft Section401 certifications. Theseplans call for monitoring of TDG in eachof the project tailraces.

Total Dissolved Gas - Swft No. I Tailrace 1'or the Swift No. 1 project; TDG exceedaneeshave been observedwhich are directly telated to turbine operationsin the inefficient range (typically when units are passing less than 1,000cfs) (Shrier, PacifiCorp, pers comm.2006). PacifiCorp is currently testing a new algorhythm to operatethe air entrainmentvalves in a coordinatedfashion with turbine operation. This procedurehas been shown to bring the Yale project into compliance with the WDOE standardof lessthan 110percent saturation. Once this procedurefor TDG reductionis established,TDG will be monitoredas provided in the WDOE 401 Certification.

Total Dissolved Gas - SwiJi No.2 Tailrace Prior to the embankmentfailure, Swift No. 2 generationdid not result in TDG exceedances (PacifiCorp and CowlitzPrJD 2004). New turbines were installed at Swift No. 2 during reconstructionand TDG will be monitoredas provided in the 401 Certification. Cowlitz PUD expectsTDG in the Swift No. 2 taibace to remain below WDOE standards.

Total Dissolved Gas - Yale Tailrace Since installation of automatedair entrainmentvalves atYale, monitoring has shown that Yale is in compliancewith TDG WDOE standards.TDG will be monitoredas provided in the WDOE 401 Certification.

Total Dissolved Gas - Merwin Tailrace While no exceedanceshave been observedin the Merwin taikace, monitoring will be established and will be continued under the Water Quality IvlanagementPlan as provided in the WDOE 401 Certification.

With upstreampassage facilities likely to be associatedwith project tailraces,TDG above WDOE standardswould pose a threat to bull trout especially if they are held in shallower depths prior to removal from such facilities. The Merwin Upstream Transport Facility is the key to successfulreintroduction efforts on the Lewis River and Merwin tailrace waters are expectedto meet the WDOE's TDG standardduring normal operations. Therefore, TDG are not expectedto significantly impair bull trout in the Merwin tailrace.

r02 The Yale tailraceTDG levelsalso meet WDOE standardsand TDG arenot expectedto significantlyimpair bull trout presentin the tarkaceor accessingupstream passage facilities. Bull trout areknown to frequentthis areaespecially when turbine units arerunning since this operationprovides cold waterto the taibace.Investigations have shown that juvenile salmonids that areallowed to seekgreater depths in the presenceof elevatedTDG (119percent to 128 percentsaturation) did not suffermortality (Bell et al. 1974).Backman et al. (1998)found a ten- fold increasein fish survivalfor juvenile salmonidsthat wereable to moveto deeperwater to compensatefor gassaturation. Since the Yale taikaceis over60 feet deepand compensation depthis usuallyless than 7 feet,it is possiblethat bull trout couldstill takeadvantage of the coolerwater in the Yale tailracewithout experiencinggas bubble trauma.

We assumePacifiCorp, through its ongoingefforts, will resolveTDG exceedancesin the Swift No. 1 tailraceand that monitoringof the new turbinesat Swift No. 2 confirmsthat Swift No. 2 tailwaterscontinue to meetthe WDOE standards.The Swift No. 2 tailraceis about48 feetdeep, allowingbull trout to moveto deeperwater to compensatefor gassaturation if it wereto be present.In addition,based on the designandlor function of the UpperRelease Point, Swift No. 2 wasteway,Canal Drain, andSAS; we assumethese structures do not produceorcontribute to TDG exceedancesin theBypass Reach or Swift No. 2 Iaihace.Therefore, TDG arenot expected to significantlyimpair bull trout presentin the Swift No. 2 tailrace,Bypass Reach, or the Power Canal.

ProjectElement 7: RainbowTrout and KokaneeStocking

Kokaneeare not commonin Swift CreekReservoir. A naturally-reproducingpopulation in Yale Lake spawnsin CougarCreek. Kokaneeare maintained by hatcheryproduction only in Lake Merwin. No changeis proposedin the stockingof kokaneein Lake Merwin. Becausekokanee arepredominately plankton feeders and there are few bull trout areexpected to be in Lake Merwin, the risk of bull trout beingconsumed by kokaneeis discountable.

Underthe SA, the samepoundage of rainbowtrout would be stockedin Swift CreekReservoir as hasbeen over the past30 years. The stockingof rainbowtrout in Swift CreekReservoir has coincidedwith an increasein thebull trout'spopulation despite major habitat perfurbations (eruptionof Mt. St. Helens).The previousstocking of 40 rainbowtrout per poundcorresponded to an averagelength of about4 inches.This sizeclass of rainbowtrout likely providesa prey basefor bull trout. Becauserainbow trout, especiallyat this size,are predominately insectivorous,the risk of rainbowtrout feedingupon bull trout fry is consideredlow. The overall effectof rainbowtrout stockingon bull trout haslikely beenbeneficial from the standpointof providinga substantialprey base for bull trout.

TheHatchery and Supplementation Plan will includemeasures to minimizethe potential negativeimpacts of hatcheryfish on bull troutand other ESA-listed species (SA 8.2.2.10). Therefore,we assumeif it is documentedthat stockedrainbow trout areadversely affecting the bull trout populationactions would be takento reducethese effects.

103 Project Element 8: Monitoring of Bull Trout

This element includes bull trout captureand tagging to estimatethe adult population. Bull trout will not be handled andtaggedto test the efficiency of upstreamor downstreamcollect'and haul facilities. Project Element 1 completely describesbull trout handling in routine passage operations.The descriptionof ProjectElement 8 presentedin here,plus the following analysis, along with the Incidental Take Statementin this Biological Opinion, provide sufficient informationto servein place of a Section10(aX1XA) permit.

Adult bull trout will continue to be collected by netting at the head of the Swift Creek Reservoir, Swift No. 2 tailrace, and Yale taibace. A permanentupstream collection facility somewhere betweenthe Swift No. 2 tailrace and the Upper ReleasePoint will eventually replacenetting at the Swift No. 2 tailrace, and apermanentcollection facility at the Yale taikace will replace netting there. Adult bull trout are insertedwith a Floy@ tagin the spring of eachyear. During late summer and fall snorkeling sutveys, all bull trout that are observedare counted and those with tags are noted thus providing a meansto estimatethe population without further handling. This method is not likely to significantly disrupt holding or spawning bull trout.

The effect of netting and capture dependson the degreeof stressto individual bull trout; the amount of abrasionby entanglement,removal from nets, and activity in live boxes and holding tubes; the temperatureand dissolved oxygen while the bull trout are being held or transported; and disorientation of bull trout upon release. The effect of gill netting has been minimized by using short sets(less than 20 minutes) or drift sets. Bull trout are usually entangledin netting for lessthan 10 minutes. Due to the long experienceof Stateand Utility field technicianswith juvenile and adult bull trout collection in the Lewis River, thesepotential effects are expectedto be minimized to the greatestextent possible. The risk of mortality is expectedto be <1 bull trout per year from theseactivities. From 200I to 2005,4 bull trout were injured and I bull trout was killed in gillnetting.

Project Element 9: Information and Education

This elementwill likely have a positive effect on bull trout by reducing incidental catch, minimizing incidental hooking mortality, and improving anglers' catch-and-releasetechniques.

Project Element 10: Wildlife Ilabitat Management Plans

The SA (10.8.1)calls upon the Utilities to executeWildlife Habitat ManagementPlans consistentwith specific standardsand guidelines (EDAW 2006). Specific standardsand guidelines thatmay affect bull trout include:

o Old-Growth Habitat Goals and Objectives, Objective c: Protectand manageforested buffers adjacentto streams,wetlands, and reseryoir shorelinesto promote the developmentof large trees where appropriate;

o Riparian Habitat Goals and Objectives, objective a: Identify and establishbuffers to protect, maintain, and enhanceriparian habitat structure and functions, using...300 ft or

104 the height of 2 site potential trees,whichever is greater,for perennial fish-bearing streams that potentiallysupport bull trout...;

o Riparian Habitat Goals and Objectives, objective b: Maintaina2}}-ftbuffer around the reservoirsto protect shorelinehabitat as a minimum when planning forest managementactivities;

o Riparian Habitat Goals and ObjectivesoObjective d: Protectexisting large snagsin the riparian habitats; and

o Riparian Habitat Goals and Objectives, Objective e: Identify fiparian sitesdamaged by anthropogenicprocesses and preparerestoration plans within 5 years of identification, if feasible.

The benefits of these standardsand guidelines are similar to those discussedunder Project Element 4, above. Although small amountsof sedimentmay enter bull trout water from restorativeactivities undeithese objectives, they arenot anticipatedto reacha level wherethey would be detectableto bull trout and therefore would be insignificant. The WHMP allows some timber haryest. On the stand scale,it appearsthatriparian buffers will be wide enough,and activities within them limited enough,to avoid detectableloss of streamsideshade, increased suspendedsediment carried into the streamfrom storm runoff, diminished LWD input, or acceleratedstreambank erosion. On the watershedscale, PacifiCory's proposed timber managementis not likely to significantly increasethe peak/baseflow ratio becausemost operationswould not involve commercial thinning to a degreethat would acceleratestorm runoff. Even if a timber harvest did degradethe hydrologic maturity of a stand,the concentrationof PacifiCorp lands atthe lower point of small, hydrologically independent catchmentsalong the shore of eachreservoir, would prevent significant concentrationof canopy removal in any one subwatershed.

The other standardsand guidelines are not expectedto appreciableaffect bull trout except for Public AccessManagement, especiallyObjective a: Identify roadsfor closureand type of closure (abandonment,temporary closure, seasonalclosure) to motorized use by the public, and scheduleappropriate treatments... and Objective f: Consider buffers for wetland and riparian habitatand ways to minimize potential disturbancesto wildlife, especially TES species.

These landmanagementobjectives are expectedto contribute to reducing the ratio of peak to baseflows in the watershed,and slightly decreasingthe drainagenetwork which would have beneficial effects on bull trout through slightly improved habitat conditions.

Summary of Effects

Overall, the long-term effects of the action on bull trout and its habitat would be beneficial. The action is likely to result in an increasedbull trout population due to instream habitat enhancements,habitat protection, anglereducation, improvements in the Bypass Reach, guaranteedincreased instream flows, passagefor bull trout betweenthe reservoirs,nutrient enrichment of the watershed,and an expandedprey base. The probable benefits of these

10s elementsare expectedto offset the negative effects of anadromoussteelhead and salmon reintroduction, injury or mortality to bull trout during passageor capture and handling, and sediment from instream construction.

Habitat restoration and reintroduction of salmon and steelhead,with its consequenceof increased marine-derivednutrients and improved quality of spawning gravel, may improve bull trout survival from fertilizationto emergence. The action will have a mixed effect on bull trout survival from emergenceto juvenile out-migration from natal streamsand continued rearing in the reservoirs,depending on the effects of competition and predation involving reintroduced species. The action will greatly improve adult bull trout passagefrom Yale Lake to Swift Creek Reservoir. The action may have a slight negative effect on adult bull trout before spawningdue to instream construction,but habitat improvementsare likely to benefit all life stagesover the long-term. The action is not likely to reduce bull trout gametesurvival and maturation before spawning. The action may have a mixed effect on bull trout spawning, dependingon the effects of competitionbetween the speciesfor space,and superimpositionof coho salmonredds on bull trout redds.

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPOTTED OWL

ConservationRole of Utility-Owned Landsfor SpottedOwls

The draft recovery plan for the spottedowl identified specific conservationroles that non- Federallands provide for the conservationand recoveryof spottedowls. Theseroles include: 1) providing habitat (suitable or dispersal)to supportthe conservationof spottedowls in Federal reservesin areaswhere non-Federallands are mixed with Federal lands, 2) providing for clusters of breeding pairs on non-Federallands in locations where Federal lands are not adequateto provide for recovery, 3) provide habitat for existing spotted owl pairs to avoid take of those owls as defined by the ESA, and 4) providing dispersalhabitat for connectivity between Federal reserves(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b,p.106).

Much of the spotted owl habitat that occurs on Utility-owned lands is widely scatteredin small patches,and much of this habitat doesnot exist in sufficient quantities to support territorial spotted owls on Utility-owned lands. However, theselands do support spottedowl territories with active nest sites off of Utility-owned lands, and these small patchesof habitat are potentially important for spottedowl connectivity by providing important dispersaland foraging habitat functions for spottedowls dispersingacross these lands between areaswith large blocks of habitat on adjacentState and Federal lands.

Summary oJ'scientific ResearchRegard.ing the Effects of Timber Harvest to Spotted Owls

Habitat loss is a well-known factor influencing spottedowl populations throughout the species range,and is the primary reasonthe specieswas listed as a federallythreatened species in 1990 (55 FR 26114-26194).Spotted owls have largehome rangesencompassing thousands of acres of forest. Spottedowls prefer to use mat're and old forest habitats,presumably becausethey are most effective at capturing their preferred prey in thesehabitats. Spotted owls move acrosstheir

106 home rangesover the course of the year searchingfor prey (Forsmanet al. 1984). Loss of suitable habitat reducesthe amount of foraging areaavailable and likely reducesthe overall population and availability of prey, and thus reducesthe capability of the landscapeto support spotted owls. Landscapesbelow a certainthresholdof habitat amount will not support spotted owls. Bart and Forsman(T992) found that spottedowls in somelandscapes were capableof reproducing in areas with20 to 40 percent suitable habitat. However, approximately 50 times more young spotted owls were fledged in areaswith greaterthan 60 percent suitable habitat than in areaswith less than or equal to 20 percent suitablehabitat.

Timber harvestpractices have the potential to reduce availabllity of spottedowl nest and roost sites. Spottedowls do not constructtheir own nests,but dependupon existingstrucfures'such as cavities and broken tree tops, characteristicsassociated with standsin later seral stagesof development(Forsman et al. 1984; Buchananet al. 1995; LaHaye and Guti6rrez 1999). Silvicultural prescriptionsthat specifically targetthe oldest, most-decadenttrees in the standfor economic purposes,or require removal of hazardtrees and snagsto addresshuman safety concerns,are likely to result in loss of nesting opportunities for spotted owls by removing the trees that contain those structufes.

Removal or downgrading of habitat within home ranges,and especially close to the nest site, can reasonablybe expectedto havenegative effects on spottedowls. Bart (1995)reported a linear reduction in spottedowl productivity and survivorship as the amount of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitatwithin a spottedowl home range declined. Timber harvest resulting in relatively open standsor patch clear-cuts can fragment forest stands,creating more forest edge, and reducing the areaof interior old forest habitat (Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991). Extensive habitat fragmentationhas the potential to isolate individual spottedowls or populations of spottedowls by increasing distancesbetween suitable habitatpatchesand reducing habitat connectivity. Such isolationdecreases the likelihood of successfuldispersal ofjuvenile spottedowls (Miller 1989).

Although there are recognizedbenefitsto spottedowls from thinning, the effects of commercial thinning on spotted owls are unclear and not well documentedin the published literature. In a recsnt scientific review of the statusof the spottedowl, Courtney et al. (200$ identified spotted owl responsesto various silvicultural treatmentsas an important researchneed. Hansenet al. (1993) suggestthat commerciallythinned standswould be functionally non-suitableduring project implementation becausespotted owls are likely to avoid theseareas during the commercial-thinning operation due to the presenceof logging equipment and the activities associatedwith timber harvest. Meiman et al. (2003)tracked the responseof a singlemale spotted owl following commercial thinning in young Douglas-fir standsin the Oregon Coast Range. The data collected in this study indicated that commercial thinning resulted in significantly reduceduse of the thinned area during and after harvest, and a shift in use away from the thinned stand. Hicks et al. (1999) documentedspotted owls using partially harvested standsfor roosting 6 months after treatment,suggesting that use of thinned standsby spotted owls may occur rapidly following treatment in someareas.

In extreme cases,timber-harvest activities can result in direct mortality of adults, eggs,or young. Such casesare rare, but direct mortality due to timber felling has been documented(Forsman et a|.2002). The potential risk for spottedowls to be struck and killed or injured by falling trees

r07 during timber harvest is highest in the arearelatively close to the nest tree. During timber harvest,non-breeding adult spottedowls can reasonablybe expectedto move away from the area and avoid injury. However, nesting spottedowls tending to reproductive activities such as incubation or brooding may be reluctant to leave the area(Delaney et al. 1999), and therefore, may be vulnerable to such injury. Fledglings, whether in or out of the nest, may also be at risk of direct mortality due to the effects of tree falling, or might disperseprematurely in responseto the disturbanceand thus be subject to predation or starvation outside of the nest grove. Potential effects to eggs rungefrom parental abandonmentto destructionduring tree falling. Thesekinds of effects are only likely during the breeding seasonand then only if breeding activities are underway.

Habitat loss from timber harvest has the potential to increasethe competitive interactions between barred owls and spotted owls in the remaining habitat patchesthat are left. Because spotted owls and barred owls are competitive with each other andutilize the samehabitats, the loss of suitable habitat could result in increasedcompetitive interactionsbetween spottedowls and barred owls in the remaining patchesof suitable habitat (Courtney et aL 2004). It is imponant to note that the recent scientifie review of the stafusof spotted owls completedby Courtney et al. (2004) concluded that there is no direct scientific evidencethat has clearly demonstratedthat forest managementhas an effect on the outcome of interactionsbetween barred owls and spottedowls (Courtney et al. 20Aq.

Effects of Disturbance to Nesting Spotted Owls Associatedwith Forest Practices Activities

Road building, maintenance,and repair; timber harvesting; and timber hauling require the use of heavy equipment, chainsaws, andlarge vehicles, all of which introduce an increasedlevel of sound into the environment. The Washington Forest PracticesBoard recognizedthat noise disturbancemight disrupt spotted owl breeding behavior; therefore,the Board adoptedrules to protect spottedowls from disturbanceby imposing an operatingrestriction during the spotted owl nestingseason (March 1 throughAugust 31) (WashingtonForest Practices Board 1996). Restricted activities include road construction, operation of heavy equipment,blasting, timber felling, yarding, helicopter operations,and slash disposal or prescribedburning. Theseactivities areprohibited within 0.25 mile of spottedowl site centerslocated within SOSEA boundaries (WACs 222-24-030and222-30-050, -060, -065, -070, -100).

The FWS previouslycompleted an analysisof the potentialfor injury associatedwith disturbance(visual and sound) to spottedowls (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). In this analysis,we concluded that behaviors indicating potential injury to spottedowls are: flushing from the nest and aborted feedings. These determinationsand the associatedinjury threshold distancesare basedon researchby Delaney et al. (1999) who documentedthat Mexican spotted owls (^!rrix occidentalis lucida) flushed from their roosts when chainsawswere operatedwithin a distanceof 197 feet (60 meters). Based on these data,the FWS determinedthoinjury threshold distancefor chainsawsfalling trees is 65 yards, and the threshold distancefor heavy equipment (e.g., excavators)is 35 yards, It was noted that scientific data related to injury threshold distancesassociated with sound and visual disturbanceis limited, and we continue to collect pertinent data related to the issue. Therefore, theseinjury threshold distancesmay be adjustedin the future basedon best availablescience. Because of a lack of scientific datarelating to

108 blasting,the FWS considersblasting within 1 mile of a spottedowl nest site during the early nesting season(March 1 to July 15) to be an activity thatmay result in potential injury to spotted owls.

Other situations that could lead to disturbanceto spottedowls include harvesting suitablehabitat within a median home rangecircle, or timber harvesting adjacentto unsurveyedsuitable habitat. on Federal lands. The result could be that spottedowl foraging behavior would be disruptedin the harvest areas,precludingspotted owl use of imporfant foraging habitat during the nesting season.

Elements of the ProposedAction that May Affect the Spotted Owl

The project elementsthat may affect the spottedowl include: construction of fish passage facilities; enhancementof an aquatic habitat channel;construction of aquatic habitat enhancementprojects; wildlife habitat acquisition, protection and management;and recreational facilities upgrades andmanagement. All other activities, such as anadromousfish -release reintroduetions,eonstfliction of a pond in Woodland, coRstructiorrof a visitor's eenterin the town of Cougar, streamflow management,cultural and historic resourcesprotection, public education,monitoring and evaluation,human presenceat the facilities or for recreational pulposes, and law enforcementare not anticipatedto adverselyaffect spottedowls becausethey will have no effect on spottedowl habitat and arc not likely to disturb spottedowls because either they are not located in close proximity to suitable habitat or the activity will not generate loud and unaccustomedsounds with the potential to disturb spottedowls, if presentin the vicinity of the activity (usFWS 2003).

Aquatic H abitat Enhancement Proi ects

Becausethe Utilities are uncertain where instream habitat enhancementprojects will occur, the FWS is unable to conduct an analysisof potential effectsto spotted owls from this activity. Therefore, this aspectof the proposed action in relation to effectsto spotted owls must be addressed,as appropriate, in a separatesection 7 consultation when site- specific conditions are known. This Biological Opinion, therefore, doesnot include an analysis of potential effectsof instream habitat enhancementprojects on spotted owls.

Construction of Fish PassageFacilities and Aquatic Habitat Channel

Construction related to fish passagefacilities and the enhancementof the aquatic habitat channel are all located at existing project facilities, which do not support spotted owl habitat. As a result no spotted owl habitat will be removed or altered. In addition, the closestknown spottedowl activity centeris estimatedto be 0.5 mile from the closestfuture-built fish passagefacility (the Swift Downstream Facility). This distanceis greaterthan the distancewhere disturbanceto spotted owls could occur from construction-relatedsounds and activities (USFWS 2003). Therefore, the potential to disturb known occupied spotted owl nest sites as a result of construction-relatedactivities is consideredinsignificant at this distance. In addition,because there is a low likelihood that spottedowls are nesting on Utility-owned lands, the potential to disturb unknown nesting spotted owls on Utility-owned lands is discountable.

109 If constructionwould occurwithin 0.25 mile of unsurveyedsuitable habitat on landsnot owned by the Utilities, either 1) the habitatwill be surveyedto protocolprior to constructionto confirm the presenceor absenceof spottedowl nesting,or 2) high-impactsound-generating activities associatedwith construction (such as pile driving, rock drills or impact hammers)will be scheduledto occur outside the early nesting seasonof March 1 to July 15 to avoid potentially disturbing nesting spottedowls. If through protocol surveys it is determinedthere is no activity center within 0.25 mile of the construction site, spottedowls would not be adverselyaffected through sound generatedby construction activities at any time of the year. If an activity centeris detectedthe Utilities will restrict sound-generatingactivities fromMarch 1 to July 15 to reduce the impacts of sound on known nesting spottedowls. Implementation of theseconservation measureswill reducepotential impacts from sound-generatingactivities on known or assumed nesting spottedowls to an insignificant level (USFWS 2003). Similarly, if constructionrequires the use of helicopters or blasting within 0.25 mile of unsurveyedsuitable habitat or known occupiedareas, these activities will occur outsidethe full nestingseason of March 1 through September30, which will precludedisturbance of known or assumednesting spotted owls.

Witdlife Habitat Acquisition, Protection, and Management

The Utilities will mana gepartof their current holdings for wildlife habitat and acquire additional land for the samepurpose over the life of the licenses.SA Schedule10.8 identifies the broad wildlife objectives that will guide and inform the developmentof the Wildlife Habitat ManagementPlans (WHMPs). The WHMP standardsand guidelines were finalized in July 2006 (EDAW in litt.2006). All lands acquired in the future under the land acquisition andhabitat protection funds will be addedto those lands already managedunder the PacifiCorp WHMP. The FWS assumesthese standards and guidelines will be adheredto in the managementof all lands under the WHMPs.

Of the 10,085acres (4,081 ha) currentlyincluded in PacifiCorp'sWHMP, thereare:

. 9,629 acres(3,900 ha) for which wildlife habitat managementis the primary priority. These lands will be managedas per the WHMP standardsand guidelines describedand analyzedbelow.

. 159 acres(64ha) (34 sites)for which wildlife habitatis a secondarypriority. Secondary managementareas include parts of somerecreation developments,lands leasedto other entities, and maintenanceareas. In general,secondary WHMP lands will be managedfor wildlife provided that there is no conflict with the primary purpose of these areas.

Theselands are developedsites and arenot locatedwithin 0.25 mile of a known spotted owl activity center. Although theselands may contain individual standingtrees, they do not provide suitable nesting structure and are not likely to be occupied by nesting spotted owls (K. Naylor, pers.comm., PacifiCorp 2006). Becausethese lands are developed, have existing and ongoing activities associatedwith them, and do not occur in an area assumedor known to be occupied by spottedowls, the FWS concurs that activities associatedwith theselands would have discountableeffects to spottedowls.

110 . 23 acres(9.3 ha) in the CresapBay RecreationArea that will be managedfor wildlife except during the peak recreationseason (Memorial Day to the end of September)when PacifiCorp will managefor both wildlife andrccreation. This areawill be closedto public vehicle accessduring the off-seasonwith the intent of minimizing disturbanceto wildlife. PacifiCorpmay needperiodic accessto CresapBay during the off-seasonfor scheduledmaintenance; these activities will be timed to minimize disturbanceto wildlife and will be discussedwith the TCC on an annual basis, except for emergencies.

This RecreationArea is a campgroundand it doesnot support spottedowl habitat (K. Naylor, pers.comm., PacifiCorp 2006). Becausethis locationdoes not supportsuitable spottedowl habitat, is gleater than 0.25 mile from known activity centers,and has ongoing activities associatedwith it, the FWS concursthat actions conductedin this area are discountablein regardsto the spottedowl.

. 308 acres(100 ha), includ ing273 acres(1 10 ha) in the Cougar/PanamakerConservation Covenantand 35 acres(14 ha) in the Swift Creek Arm ConservationCovenant, which are to be maintained in perpetuity for bull trout.

Although theseareas may provide spottedowl dispersalhabitat,there are no planned activities that would remove dispersalhabitat (K. Naylor, pers. comm., PacifiCorp 2006). In addition, any activity conductedpursuant to the Covenantsis not expectedto disturb nestingspotted owls becausethe activitieswould not occur within 0.25 mile of known or assumedoccupied stands. Therefore, the FWS concurs thatmanagementof theselands would have discountableeffects to the spottedowl.

CowlitzPUD will manage 525 acresof wildlife habitatunder its WHMP. Of that, 397 acresis forestland. Cowlitz PUD's ownership includes 87 acreswithin the Devil's Backbone ConservationCovenant which will be protected for bull trout in perpetuity. Although the Devil's Backbone ConservationCovenant may provide suitable spottedowl habitat, there are no planned activities that would remove or degradesuitable habitat. In addition, any activity conducted pursuant to the Covenant is not expectedto disturb nesting spottedowls becausethe activities would not occurwithin 0.25 mile of known or assumedoccupied stands. Therefore,the FWS concurs that managementof these lands would have discountableeffects to the spottedowl.

Project facilities, hatcheries,and parts of some recreationaldevelopments are excluded from the WHMP and representabout 263 acres(106 ha) of PacifiCorp's ownership. Theselands arc all developedand do not provide spottedowl habitat (K. Naylor, pers. comm., PacifiCorp 2006). Approximately 138 acres(56 ha) of Cowlitz PUD-ownedlands, primarily Pmject facilities,are excluded for the samereasons as for the PacifiCorp-owned lands. Becausethese lands are developed,do not provide suitable habitaq have existing and ongoing activities associatedwith them, and do not occur in an area assumedor known to be occupiedby spotted owls, the FWS concurs that activities associatedwith theselands would have discountableeffects to spotted owls.

111 Of the WHMP standardsand guidelines (EDAW 2006),the followingmay affect the spottedowl on those lands managedunder the WHMP as aprimary priority. The following goals and objectives have been excerptedout of the EDAW (2006) report verbatim.

Old-Growth Huhitat Goals and.Obiectives (3,1.4)

Goal: Promote the development,maintenance, and connectivity of old-growth coniferous forest andlorassociated habitat components (e.g., snags, down wood, "wolf trees," multistoried stands)for wildlife speciesthat use old-growth habitat.

Objective a: Within 5 years of WHMP implementation,evaluate existine old-growth stands (basedon maps in PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD 2004) to determinethe number of snagsand trees(>:20 in. [51 cm] dbh), and developa scheduleto createsnags where needed and appropriateto improve habitat for pileated woodpeckers. The number and size of snagscreated will be consistentwith the intent of WDFW Priority Habitats and Species(PHS) guidelinesfor nestingand roosting(2 snagsllOacre >:30 in. dbh; 12-18in. diameteratthe top of the created inagl2 snags/4ha,76 cm dbh, 30-45Cm diameter at topl).

Objective b: Protect and maintain existins old-growth conifer stands(based on maps in pacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD 2004) to provide high quality habitat for pileated woodpeckers, other cavity nesters,and other speciesover the life of the licenses.

Objective c: Protect andmanagefufe;led_bUlfers.(see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 for a discussionof buffer widths) adjacentto streams,wetlands, and reservoir shorelinesto promote the developmentof large trees where appropriate,and to provide connectivity between existing old- growth conifer standsover the life of the licenses.

Objective d: Within 5 years of WHMP implementation,identifu and evaluatespecific matare conifer standsor other areasthat could improve habitat connectivity between old-growth stands or increasenumber or sizeof old-growth patches,and develop a scheduleto managelprotect theseareas.as appropriate. Complete identificationlevaluation processwithin 5 years of the acquisition of Interestsin Land.

Objective e: Within areasto be thinnedto developold-growth characteristics(see Objectives c and d), leave LWD in sizesthat reflect the trees in the stand or import wood from other locations where possible and appropriate.

Riparian Habitut Goals and Obiectives (3.3.4)

Goal: Protect, maintain, andlor enhanceriparian areasto include a diversity of native plant speciesand vegetation structuresto benefit wildlife speciesthat use riparian habitats.

Objective a: Identify and establishbuffers to protect, maintain, and enhanceriparian habitat structure and functions, using the following guidelines as a minimum when planning forest managementactivities: 1) 300 ft (90 m) or the height of two site potentialtrees, whichever is greater,for perennial fish-bearing streamsthat potentially support bull trout (Salvelinus

r12 confluentus)or anadromousfish, 2) 300 ft (90 m) for perennial fish-bearing streamsthat support residentialfish speciesonly, 3) 150 ft (a5 m) for perennialnon-fish bearing streams, and 4) 100 ft (30 m) for intermittent streams. Buffer widths are measuredhorizontally from the ordinary high water mark or the outer margin of the channelmigration zone and are applied to both sides of the sffeam. Buffers will be larger for streamsshowing evidenceof masswasting or erosion (as per Table 3-5). Reducedbuffer widths and other managementactivities would only be allowed for the purposeof meetingspecific wildlife habitatobjectives.

Objective b: Maintain a200-ft (60 m) buffer around the reservoir to protect shorelineriparian habitat as a minimum when planning forest managementactivities. Reducedbuffer widths would only be allowed for the purposeof meetingspecific wildlife habitatobjectives.

Objective c: Within 5 years of WHMP implementation, evaluatethe number of live conifers and snags>:20 in. (50 cm) dbh in riparian mixed stands.

conifers.

additional large snagsis neededto increasesnag numbers (at least I per 6 acre >:20 in. dbh [ 1 per 2.4 ha, 50 cm dbh]) and snag averagedbh i>: 25 in. [63 cm] dbh) for pileated woodpecker. Develop a scheduleto createadditional snags,if needed.

Objective d: Protect existing large snagsin riparian habitats.

Objective e: As part of implementationof the WHMP, identify riparian sitesdamaged by anthropogenicprocesses and preparerestoration plans within 5 yearsof identification,if feasible. Restorationplans shouldincorporate measures to meetapplicable objectives for invasivespecies and public accessmanagement (see Sections 4.1.4 and4.3.4).

Forestland Habitat Goals and Objectives(3,9,4)

Goal: Promote forestland speciescomposition and structuresthat benefit wildlife and provide an appropriatemosaic of big game hiding cover and forage.

Objective a: At the ManagementUnit level, provide arange of altematives for developing and maintaining a mix of forage and hiding cover for elk, considering activities on adjacentlands, over the life of the licenses. Revise ManagementUnit Plans for WHMP lands associatedwith the Merwin Project and createnew plans for WMHP lands at the Yale and Swift No. 1 Projects.

Objective b: Over the life of the licenses,maintain or createat least 8 snags(>: 20 in. [50 cm] dbh), greenretention trees (>: 15 in. [38 cm] dbh), or wildlife reservetrees (>=15 in. [38 cm] dbh) per acre (19.8 per ha) if available within the harvest area. Retain larger trees and snags representativeof the harvest area. A different number of snags,retention, or reservetrees would

113 be allowed only to meet specific wildlife objectives. To the extent possible, retain or create4 logs/acre(9.9lha) (>:24 in. [60 cm] diameterand 50 ft [15 m] long).

Objective c: At the ManagementUnit level, promote forest habitat diversity for wildlife by increasingor maintainingminor nativetree species(e.g., cottonwood, big-leaf maple fAcer macroplryllura], western red-cedar)composition where appropriatesite conditions exist over the life of the licenses.

Raptor Site Management Goal and Obiectives(4.2,4)

Goal: Provide and protect habitat for, and minimize or avoid disturbanceto, raptors, including bald eagles,buteos, ospreys, accipiters, and owls. Note: only thoseobjectives pertaining to spottedowls are reiteratedhere (C. Mcshane pers. comm. EDAW 2006).

Objective g: In accordancewith USDI-FWS Limits of OperatingPeriods (Harke [FWS] 2003; seeTable 4-4.),limitWHMP activitiesthatmay generatenoise-related disturbance near spotted owl nestsites.

In cooperationwith the USDI-FWS, the USDA-FS recentlyestablished "limited operatingperiods" (LOPs) to minimize impacts to spottedowls during implementationof various projects on the GPNF (Harke [FWS] 2003). TheseLOPs include the following:

. Removal of saitable northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat from Murch l-Aagust 31 (primary nesting andfledging seasonon the GPNF). This LOP applies to the following situations:

o Planned activities are located within unsurveyedsuitable spottedowl habitat. o Plannedactivities would remove nesting or foraging habitat located within an active northern spottedowl home rangethat is below the incidentaltake thresholdsof 500 acres(202 ha) and 2,663 acres(1,078 ha) within 0.7-mile (1.1 km) and L82-mile radius (2.9 km), respectively, of an active northern spottedowl home range. o Plannedactivities are locatedwithin the 7}-acre (28 ha) core of the bestnesting, roosting, and foraginghabitat surrounding an active northern spottedowl nest. o Planned activities that result in the removal of foraging habitat only (i.e., the habitat lacks the structural featuresnecessary for nesting habitat) may be subject to an early seasonLOP (March l-June 30) to avoid disturbing spotted owls that are using the stand early in the nesting season.

. Disturbance from noise and smokefrom March 7-June 30 (early season when spotted owls are most vulnerable to nestingfailure). This LOP applies in the following situations:

o Plannedactivities are locatedwith the specifieddisturbance distance (Table 11) of unsurvevednestin s habitat.

tr4 o Planned activities are located within the specified disturbancedistance (Table 11) of an active spottedowl 100-acre(40 ha) core area.

o For projects that generatesmoke, planned activities are located within 0.25 mile (0.4 km) of unsurveyedhabitat.

Table 11. Iniury distancethresholds for he northernspotted owl on the GPN.F Type of Activity Combined Iniury Threshold Distances Blasts> 2 lbs 1 mile Blasts< 2 lbs 120vards Imoact oile drivers 60 vards Helicootersor sinsle-engineaimlanes 120vards Heaw equioment 35 vards Chainsaws 65 vards Source:Harke IFWSI 2003

Objective h: Unless separatedby a reservoir from the nest site center,manage WHMP lands > 2 miles (3.2krrr) from the SiouxonSOSEA and within SpottedOwl ManagementCircles (Status 1- 3) to maintain at least 50 percent submaturehabitat or better, as defined by WAC 222-16-085(I) (a), within the Licensees' ownership in eachmanagementcircle. In addition, all conifer trees ) 2l in. dbh within Spotted Owl ManagementCircles will be retained unless otherwise determined by the TCC.

Objective i: Unlessseparated by a reservoirfrom the SOSEA over the life of the licenses, manageat least 50 percent of WHMP lands withina2-mile (3.2 km) buffer outside of the Siouxon SOSEA to provide/develop high quality nesting spottedowl habitat, as defined by WAC 222-16-08s(1) (a).

Objective j: ManageWHMP landswithin the SOSEA under ForestPractices, especially WAC 222-16-080 and 222-10 -041.

In summary, the above WHMP standardsand guidelines would protect and maintain all existing old-growth habitat; promote the protection and developmentof old-growth stand structuresuch as large live trees, shrub and tree speciesdiversity, snagsand downed wood; and protect and manageforested buffers, mature conifer habitats and riparian areasto provide for connectivity of old-growth areas.

Snagcreation in existing old-growth or mature standswould be the only forest management activity conductedin suitable spottedowl nesting habitat, if neededto meet snag density objectives. Commercialthinning and snagcreation may occur in mid-successionalstands and upland mix vegetation,which provides suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat, to achievethe goals of promoting late-successionalstand structure. The WHMPs would also provide for a mosaicof big gamehiding cover and forage. To achievethis objective, commercial thinning or clearcut harvesting (5 30 acresin size) will be conductedin mid-

115 successionalstands and upland mix vegetationwhich provides spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat, or in spotted owl dispersalhabitat.

The only activity that would occur in suitable spotted owl nesting habitat (old-growth and mature stands)would be snag creation, if snag densitieswere below the statedgoals. The action of snag creation would not reduce the amount of suitable spottedowl nesting habitat on Utility-owned lands and would not be expectedto degradethis habitat, but may actually enhancethe habitat by providing nest sites for either the spottedowl or its prey species. With the implementation of the noise Limiting OperatingPeriods (Table 11) for snagcreation activities (use of chainsawsor blasting), there is a low risk of disturbing unknown nesting spottedowls in close proximity to the treatmentareas. Because there is a low likelihood of spottedowl nestingon Utility-owned lands and snagswould be createdoutside of the LOP, there is a correspondinglylow likelihood that snag creation would remove a spottedowl nest tree. Further reducing this potential risk is the fact that snagsare usually createdfrom trees with limited defects for safety reasonsand these types of trees generally do not support spottedowl nesting

To achievesome of the other WHMP goals,active forest management will occur in suitable spotted owl roosting andforaginghabitat or in dispersalhabitat (which is consideredunsuitable) andmay include the creation of snags,commercial thinning, and small clearcuts. The action of creating snagswould not reducethe amount of suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat or dispersalhabitat on Utility-owned lands and would not be expectedto degradethese habitats, but may actually enhancethe habitat by providing nest sites for spottedowl prey species. With the implementationof the noiseLOPs (Table 11) for snagcreation activities (use of chainsawsor blasting), there is a low risk of disturbing unknown nesting spottedowls in close proximity to the treatment areas.

Commercial thinning within spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat or dispersalhabitat is not expectedto reducethe stand'sfunction from pre- to post-treatment(PacifiCorp in litt.2006). Commercial thinning prescriptionswould be designedto acceleratelate-successional forest habitat characteristicswhich may degradethe standsin the short-term,but would be expectedto improve those standsfunctionality for spottedowls and other late-successionalassociated speciesover the long-term. Short-term degradationmay result from ground disturbancewhich may trarcrpleunderstory vegetation important to spottedowl prey speciesor from opening the canopy (removal of trees) which may affectthe microclimate in the standuntil the canopy closes in again. However, degradationof thesestands would not changethe function of that stand between pre- and post-treatmentconditions. Commercial thinning in dispersalhabitat may improve thathabitat's dispersalfunction by allowing greaterflying spacebetween trees if the stand was densely stockedprior to treatmentwhich restricted the ability of spotted owls to easily fly through the stand. Commercial thinning in dispersalstands may also promote understory vegetation developmentthat is usually lacking in thesetreated standswhich would benefit spotted owl prey species. Therefore, commercial thinning would not result in the loss of suitable spotted owl habitat or dispersalhabitat,but may likely in the long-term enhancethe treated stand's function as suitable spottedowl habitat or dispersalhabitat. Becausethe noise and smokeLOPs (Table 11) would be appliedto theseactivities, there is a low risk of disturbing unknown nesting spotted owls in close proximity to the treatment areas.

r16 Small clearcuts(10 - 30 acresin size)will be conductedto improve the distributionand abundanceof elk forage on Utility-owned lands. Clearcutsmay occur in suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat, and dispersalhabitat. For clearcutsto be conductedin dispersal habitat,at least 50 percent of the Utility-owned lands would need to provide dispersalhabitatat any point in time. If 50 percent of the Utilities landscapeis retained in at least a dispersalhabitat condition or better, spottedowl dispersalthrough this landscapewould not be precluded. In addition, LOPs would be applied to this activity which would reducethe potential of disturbing unknown nesting spottedowls during the breeding seasonin close proximity to the activities'

The creation of small clearcutsin mid-successionaland upland mix vegetation would adversely affect the spottedowl through removal of suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat. Cowlitz PUD proposesto clearcut harvestno more than 10 acresof upland mix vegetationon their properties(MacDonald, Cowlitz PUD, pers.comm.2006). PacifiCorpproposes to harvest 65 acresper year of mid-successionaland uplandmix vegetationover the term of their license (50 years) (PacifiCorp in litt. 2006). This would equateto 3,283 acresor 63 percent of the 5,238 acresof extant suitable spottedowl habitat on PacifiCorp-owned lands being harvest over the neit S0 years. Over the life of the license, it is anticipatedthat many aCresof currently unsuitable spottedowl habitat would develop into suitable spottedowl habitat. PacifiCorp anticipatesover the next20 years approximately 895 acresof currently dispersalhabitat would mature into suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat. The distribution of the loss of suitable spottedowl habitat on PacifiCorp-owned lands is anticipatedto be approximately 2,047 acressulrounding Lake Merwin, predominately on the north side of the reservoir; approximately 878 acres surroundingYale.Lake, predominately on the west side of the reservoir; and approximately 358 acresnear Swift Creek Reservoirwith most of the harvest occurring on the north side of the reservoir.

Although nesting is not known to occur on Utility-owned lands, many acresof Utility-owned lands occur within known spotted owl home ranges,especially along the easternshore of Yale Lake, and betweenYale Lake and Swift Creek Reservoir. Some of theselands also occur within the Siouxon SOSEA. Due to a lack of spottedowl surveys on Utility-owned lands, other Utility- owned lands may also be providing suitable spottedowl habitat to unknown spottedowl home ranges. Therefore, all Utility-owned lands proposedfor harvest are consideredunsurveyed suitable spottedowl habitat for purposesof our analysis.

Cowlitz PUD owns land in the generalvicinity of the downstreamend of Swift Creek Reservoir to the upper end of Yale Lake. The parcel of land thatmay be subject to clearcut harvestingis located adjacentto the downstreamend of Swift Creek Reservoir (MacDonald, Cowlitz PUD, pers.comm .2006) and is not locatedwithin the SiouxonSOSEA, but is within the 2-mile buffer around the SOSEA. However, the lands are separatedfrom the SOSEA by the reservoir, therefore no specific managementrequirements are applied to theselands from a spottedowl habitatperspective. The FWS assumesthe 10 acresof suitable spotted owl habitat to be harvestedwould more than likely occurwithin spottedowl home range#1159. However, harvest would not occur within the immediate 7\-acre core area of this home range which is on the south side of the Lewis River. Becauseof mixed landownership in the action areawe are unable to determinethe statusof spottedowl habitat within each of the home rangesand therefore assumethe worst-casethat each of thesehome rangescontains less than 40 percent

tt7 suitable spottedowl habitat. This would meanthat additionalhabitat removal could impair the breeding behavior of spottedowls in the known home rangesas a result of insufficient habitat to support successfulbreeding. However, the Cowlitz PUD lands to be harvestedwould occur at the outer periphery of this spotted owl pair's home range which are separatedfrom the activity center by the reservoir. Harvest would result result in reduced foraging capacityfor this pair of spotted owls if they foraged in this location. This relatively small loss of disjunct foraging and roosting habitat is not likely to result in the abandonmentof this home range, but it would reduce the amount of foraging and roostinghabitat available within the home range. If Cowlitz PUD harvestedtheir lands outside of this home range,this would result in the loss of unsurveyed suitable habitat assumedto be within an unknown spotted owl home range. Becausewe do not anticipate nesting on Utility-owned lands and harvestwould not occur within suitable nesting habitat,this activity would not result in the loss of nesting habitat or likely habitat within a 70- acre core area. Therefore, the impacts to an unknown home rungewould be similar to those describedfor home runge#1159.

The vast majority of proposedhabitat removal (approximately 2,047 acres)on PacifiCorp lands Would occur on lands surrounding Lake Merwin. There is currently only one known pair of spotted owls that has a home range(#799) that oveilaps theselands. None of theselands occur with the Siouxon SOSEA or the 2-mile buffer around the SOSEA. In this general arcatherc are approximately 3,286 acresof suitable spottedowl habitat; habitat removal would representa 62 percentloss of availablespotted owl habitatover the 5O-yearlife of the license. Given that 62 percent of the available spottedowl habitat would be harvested,there is a chancethat harvest could occur within the one known spottedowl home rangethat overlapsthis area;however, harvest would not occur within the 7\-acre core area of this home range and would only remove roosting and foraginghabitat atthe outer periphery of the home range. As describedabove, we assumethis home range has insufficient habitat to support a viable home range. Therefore, additional habitat loss would reducethe foraging opportunities for this pair of spottedowls, but given the location of PacifiCorp lands in relation to the nest site and the relatively few acresthat might be harvestedwithin the home rangewe do not anticipateharvest would result in the abandonmentof the home range. In addition, we can not ru1eout the presenceof other spotted owl home rangessurroundingLake Merwin due to alackof spottedowl surveys. Therefore, habitatremoval in this location has the potential to affect unknown spotted owl pairs through the removal of roosting and foraging habitat. Becausewe do not anticipate nesting on Utility-owned lands and harvestwould not occur within suitable nesting habitat, the harvest of unsurveyed suitable habitxwould not result in the loss of nesting habitat or likely habitat within a7l-acre core area. Therefore, the impacts to unknown home rangeswould be similar to those described for home runge#799.

PacifiCorpproposes to harvestapproximately 878 acresor 66 percentof the availablesuitable spotted owl habitat near Yale Lake,predominately on the west side of the reservoir where there is only one known spottedowl home range (#849). However, as statedbefore, other spottedowl pairs can not be ruled out due to alack of spottedowl surveys in this location. On the eastern shore of Yale Lake to the downstreamend of Swift Creek Reservoir there are five known spotted owl homeranges (#759,652,1009,740, and 1159). Thesefive homeranges occur within the Siouxon SOSEA. Given that 66 percent of the habitat around Yale Lake is expectedto be harvestedover the next 50 years, there is a likelihood that one or more of thesehome ranges

118 would experiencesome habitat loss. However, habitat loss would not occur within any core area as there are no PacifiCorp lands in the7}-acre core areas. There are few acresof PacifiCorp land within home runge#849 which is outside of the SOSEA. Harvest in this location would remove roosting and foraging habitat atthe outer edgesof the home rangehaving a similar impact on this home range as previously described;continued loss of available habitat to support spotted owl reproduction but no anticipatedabandonment of the home range. On the eastern shore of Yale Lake there are PacifiCorp lands adjoining the downstreamend of Yale Lake that do not occur within a known home range,but do occur within the2-mile buffer around the SOSEA. Objective i would apply to theselands which states"manage at least 50 percent of the WHMP lands to provide/develop high quality nesting spottedowl habitat." As such,no more than 50 percent of theselands are assumedto be clearcut harvested. These lands are still consideredunsurveyed suitable habitat and therefore tnay result in the loss of roosting and foraging opportunities for unknown nesting spottedowls. The rest of the lands along the eastern shore of Yale Lake occur within a known spottedowl home range and are within the SOSEA; therefore, Objective j applies to theselands which states"manage WHMP lands within the SOSEA underForest Practices, especially WAC 222-26-080atd222-I0-041." Therefore,we assumethese lands will be managedto protectthe viability of spottedowls; that is, all suitable spotted owl habitat would be maintainedwithin 0.7 mlle of each spotted owl site center and a total of 2,605 acresof suitable spottedowl habitat would be maintained in the median annual home range. Harvest activities that met thesecriteria would result in adverseeffects from the removal of suitable spottedowl habitat, but it would not rise to the level where spottedowl nestingviability would likely be precluded.

PacifiCorpproposes to harvestapproximately 358 acresnear Swift CreekReservoir with most of the harvest occurring on the north side of the reservoir. Two parcels of PacifiCorp lands occur within a known spotted owl home range which occurs within the 2-mile buffer of the SOSEA. Two other parcels do not occur within a known home range,but due to a lack of surveysthese parcels may occur within an unknown spotted owl home rarge. Given that 57 percent of the habitat around Swift Creek Reservoir would be harvestedit is likely that the known spottedowl home rangewould experiencehabitat loss outside of its 7}-acre core area,as there are no PacifiCorp lands in the core areas. This would result in the reduction of available suitable roosting and foraging habitat within the home range which would reduce the breeding spotted owls ability to forage, but is not anticipatedto result in the abandonmentof the nest site due to the proximity of the lands to the nest stand and the relatively limited loss of habitat. The removal of unsurveyed suitable habitat outside of this home range would have similar impacts as previously described.

In summary, over the 50-year life of the licenses,Cowlitz PUD would harvestno more than 10 acresof suitable spotted owl roosting and foraging habitat near Swift Creek Reservoir. PacifiCorp would harvest approximately 3 ,283 acresor approximately 63 percent of existing suitable spottedowl habitat. Habitat removal would occur within known and unknown spotted owl home rangeswhich are assumedto exist given a lack of surveys in the action area. No suitable nesting habitat would be removed and no known or suspectedcore areaswould be affected. Therefore, the loss of suitable spotted owl roosting and foraging habitat is anticipated to reduce the ability of reproducing spotted owls to successfullyforage which may reducetheir ability to successfullyrear young except for harvest thatmay occur along the easternshore of

119 Yale Lake where managementcan not exceedthe criteria to maintain home range viability which would apply to five of the eight affected home rangesin the action area. In addition, given the proximity of Utility-owned lands to the three other known home ranges,we do not anticipate spotted owls would abandontheir nesting territories as a result of theseactions. This analysis does not considerthat many of the unharvestedforested standswould likely mature into suitable roosting and foraging habitat within the next 50 years. Use of LOPs would reducethe potential of disturbing potential breeding spottedowls in close proximity of the harvestunit.

Recreational F acilities Upgradesand Management

Becausethe lands associatedwith existing recreationalfacilities are developed,do not provide suitable spottedowl habitat, have existing and ongoing activities associatedwith them, and do not occur within a disturbanceradius assumedor known to be occupied by spottedowls, the FWS concurs that activities associatedwith theseexisting facilities are not likely to adversely affect spottedowls.

The SA and WHMPs identify other remeationalactivities that may affect spottedowls. These include the managementof hazardtreesalong trails or in recreational/visitoruse areas, conversion of the International Paper(IP) Road to a non-motorized trail, developmentof trailheads and trails, expansionof campgrounds,and road closures.

The Utilities may need to managehazardtrees in areasof human use. Hazardremoval, while not appreciably reducing suitable acreage,hasthe potential to remove large, defective live trees and . snags thathave high habitat value for late-successionalspecies. Although most hazardremoval will occur at trailheads,parking lots, and campgrounds,some may also occur along developed trails (T. Olson, PacifiCorp, pers. corrlfil; 2006). If hazardtree removal occurred in suitable spotted owl habitat, the impact is not likely to appreciablyreduce the value of that standas suitable habitat,but may slightly reduceavailable prey habitat. Becausethese suitable standsare not likely to be occupiedby spottedowls, this actionis not anticipatedto result in the lossof a spotted owl nest site. This action may degradethe habitat conditions at the localized scale,but is not anticipatedto appreciably affect the suitability of the standif spottedowls were to forage, roost or dispersethrough the stand. Likewise, the implementation of the limited operating periods would preclude the potential to adverselyaffect spottedowls through disturbancedue to the use of chainsaws.

The l2-mile IP road spansfrom Yale Dam to the IP sort yard south of the Bypass Reach. The RecreationResource Management Plan (Exhibit C, Yale Lake, Item 2) intends to "have the existing roadway open to non-motorizedmulti-use recreation accessfrom the bridge over the Lewis River atthe easternterminus fthat is, south of the Bypass Reach] to Healy Road on the west [that is, the vicinity of Yale Dam]." The conversion of a road to a non-motorizedtrail would reducepotential disturbanceof spotted owls in close proximity to thatroad/trail. If PacifiCorp can secureeasements to the IP Road, the Plan (Exhibit C, Yale Lake, Item 3) will include consffuction of "two end trailheadsfor [a] continuoustrail, [and] a mid-point trailhead...Studieswill be completedfor bridge safety" (SA 11.2.2.3). Resurfacingthe trail is alsoproposed (SA II.2.2.4). Two new trails areproposed: one betweenYale Camp and Cougar Camp, and anotherin the Eagle Cliff area. The FWS assumesno suitable spotted owl habitat

r20 would be removed for the construction of the trailheadsor trails andthat an LOP would be followed to precludedisruption of potentiallynesting spotted owls in closeproximity to these sites. The availability of new trails may introduce disturbanceinto forested areasthat are currently not accessibleto hikers, cyclists, or equestrians.However, effects on spottedowls are unlikely becausethe areassurrounding thesetrails are not likely to be occupied by nesting spotted owls and non-motorized activities are not anticipatedto adverselyaffect spottedowls.

Expansionof Swift Campground(SA SectionLL2.I.6) and CougarCampground (SA Section 11.2.2.14)may entail removal of forest that may be providing limited habitatfor dispersing spotted owls. Theselands are not expectedto provide foraging or roosting opportunitiesbecause of the existing activities associatedwith the campgroundsand they are not in close proximity to known spottedowl core areas. The Utilities will managetheir lands to provide at any point in time at least 50 percent of their lands in a dispersalhabitat condition or better. Therefore,this minor removal of dispersalhabitat is not expectedto appreciably affect the ability of spotted owls to dispersethrough the landscape.

Implementation of road closuresmay benefit spottedowls if current activities on thoseroads ate in close proximity to spottedowl use areasand the closed roads may eventually provide suitable habitat conditions.

Implementation of other habitattype standardsand guidelines, such as wetlands and unique habitats, containedin the EDAW (2006) report, but not reported here are not anticipatedto affect the spotted owl becausethe activity would not affect suitable spottedowl habitat or be likely to disturb nesting spottedowls.

Summary of Effects

Construction related to fish passagefacilities and the enhancementof the aquatic habitat channel are all located at existing project facilities. As a result no spottedowl habitat will be removed or altered. In addition, there is a low likelihood that construction-relatedactivities would disturb known or unknown nesting spottedowls.

Managementof lands not coveredby the provisions of the WHMPs would have discountable effects on spottedowls becauseeither they do not provide suitable habitat or activities would not affect suitable or dispersalhabitat conditions and theselands either have existing and ongoing activities associatedwith them or do not occur in an areaassumed or known to be occupiedby spottedowls therefore activities would not disrupt normal behavior patternsof nesting spotted owls.

For those lands managedunder the WHMPs, the only activity that would occur in suitable spotted owl nesting habitat (old-growth and mature stands)would be snag creation. Snag creation would not reducethe amount of suitable spottedowl nesting habitat on Utility-owned lands and would not be expectedto degradethis habitat, but may enhancethe habitat by providing nest sites for either the spottedowl or its prey species. With the implementation of the noiseLOPs, thereis a low risk of disturbingunknown nestingspotted owls in closeproximity to the treatment areasor felling a potentially active nest tree.

12T Commercial thinning may occur in mid-successionalstands and upland mix vegetation,which provide suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat. Commercial thinning would not result in the loss of suitable spottedowl habitat or dispersalhabitat,but may likely in the long- term enhancethe treatedstand's function as suitable spottedowl habitat or dispersalhabitat. Becausethe noise and smokeLOPs would be appliedto theseactivities, there is a low risk of disturbing unknown nesting spottedowls in close proximity to the treatment areas.

Clearcutharvesting (< 30 acresin size)wilt be conductedin mid-successionalstands and upland mix vegetation which provides spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat, or in spottedowl dispersalhabitat. The Utilities would maintainat least 50 percent of the landscapein at least a dispersalhabitat condition or better; therefore, spottedowl dispersalthrough this landscape would not be precluded.

However, the creation of small clearcutsin mid-successionaland upland mix vegetationwould adversely affect the spottedowl through removal of suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat. Cowlitz PUD proposesto clearcut harvestno more than 10 acresof upland mix vegetationon their properties(MacDonald, Cowlitz PUD, pers.comm.2006). PacifiCorp proposesto harvest 65 acresper year of mid-successionaland upland mix vegetation over the term of their license(50 years)(PacifiCorp in litt.2006). This would equateto 3,283 acresor 63 percentof the 5,238 acresof extantsuitable spotted owl habitaton PacifiCorp-ownedlands. Habitat removal would occur within known and unknown spottedowl home rangeswhich are assumedto exist given a lack of surveys in the action area. No suitable nesting habitat would be removed and no known or suspectedcore areaswould be affected. Therefore, the loss of suitable spotted owl roosting and foraging habitat is anticipatedto reducethe ability of reproducing spotted owls to successfullyforage which may reducetheir ability to.successfullyrear young except for harvest that may occur along the easternshore of Yale Lake where managementcan not exceedthe criteria to maintain home rungeviability which would apply to five of the eight affected home rangesin the action area. In addition, given the proximity of Utility-owned lands to the three other known home ranges,we do not anticipate spottedowls would abandontheir nesting territories as a result of theseactions. Clearcut harvesting would follow the LOPs to reduce the potential of disturbing potential breeding spottedowls in close proximity of the harvest units.

Hazardtree removal may occur in suitable spottedowl habitat; however, this activity is not likely to appreciably reduce the value of the stand as suitable habitat, but may slightly reduce available prey habitat. Becausethese suitable standsare not likely to be occupied by spotted owls, this action is not anticipatedto result in the loss of a spottedowl nest site. In addition, implementation of the LOPs would preclude the potential to adverselyaffect spottedowls throush disturbancedue to the use of chainsaws.

r22 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON BALD EAGLE

Elements of the ProposedAction that May Affect the Bald Eagle

The Final BE and FEIS describethe project elementsthat may affect the bald eagle. In addition to Project operationsand upgrades,the Utilities will expand and improve campgroundsand boat launches,remove or harden existing dispersedcamp sites, construct/upgradenew trails, manage forests to maintain old-growth and old-growth forest characteristicsand for other wildlife values such as elk forage, reintroduce anadromoussalmon and steelhead,and manageroads and trails to minimize impactson wildlife species,including bald eagles. Table 12 identifiesthe elementsof the proposedaction potentially having a direct effect on bald eagles.

r23 Table 12.Proposedconstruction-type actions and their proximity to known bald eagle roostitns andnd nestinenestlng sites.st Site SA Item Action Year llithin 800 m of nest/roostsite? 1 IslandRiver 11.2.4.r Constructnew toilet I No Access JohnsonCreek rt.2.4.1 Constructnew toilet I No CedarCreek r1.2.4.1 Constructnew toilet I No Lewis River 8.7 Upgrade Schedule No Hatcherv d Merwin Park r1.2.3.8 Constructnew shelters 4 No Merwin 8.7 Upgradehatchery Schedule No Hatcherv d Merw n tailrace 4.2 Construct trap Yrs 2-3 No Merw n forebav 4.6 Install collector 17 No 1a Lake Merwin 8.8.2 Constructacclimation site. t1 No Marble Creek tt.2.3.3 Improvetrail 4 No Trail Speelyai 8.7 Upgradehatchery Schedule No Hatchery d Yale tailrace 4.7 Provide upstreampassage t7 No Yale spillway 5.1 Modifv to improve passage 4.5 No Yale Dam tt.2.2.5 Develop SaddleDam trail No Yale forebav 4.5 Install collector 13 No Yale Lake 8.8.2 Constructacclimation site l3 Yes,Siouxon Notch 11.2.2.1 Manage dispersedcampsites 1-50 CommunalRoost; t1.2.2.6 Renovatefacilities for ADA r-7 (Cougar Creek nest compliance 1662-1is>ImL from acclimation site and > 800 mfrom ADAfacility chanses) Yale-IP Road r1.2.2.3 Develop trail, parking, 2 Yes,Siouxon Notch reservoiraccess, and day use CommunalRoost facilities (Ole Creek n.2.2.4 Resurfacetrail l5-16 CommunalRoost is > 1 mi.from anyof the trail work; Swft CanalCommunal Roostis > 2 mi.from anv of the trail work YaleBridse 1r.2.3.7 Constructboatins access 6 No Yale Park 11.2.2.7 Extend boat ramp, replace +A No docks Cougar Park rr.2.2.11Renovaterestroom 6 No tt,2.2.14Expand campground When needed Cougar and 11.2.2.5 Develop trail betweencamps 5 BeaverBav Camps Beaver Bay 11.2.2.8 Reolacedocks 4 No Camp tt.2.2.r2Replacerestrooms 13 Bypass Reach 4.6 Provide upstreampassage T7 Yes,the Swift No. 2 Powerhousenest ConstructUpper Release I No Point 6.r.3 Construct channel 2 Yes,the Swift Canal CommunalRoost is within 800 m Swift forebay 4.4 Install collector 4.5 No Swift Reservoir 8.8.1 Construct acclimation sites 4 Yes,depending on 1r.2.1.1 Maintain dispersedsites 1-50 site chosen,Swift Reservoir Communal Roost and Swift Resewoir nest 1056- I SE of Swift Dam; Drift Creek CommunalRoost 7389 & Drift Creek nests544-1,544-2, and 544-3 r1.2.1.4 RenovateADA sites l-7. No Swift Forest Ir.2.r.s Construct new picnic shelter 5 No Camp 12.2.r.6 Expand campground When needed EagleCliff Park tr.2.r.5 Constructtoilets and other 11 No improvements Easle Cliff Trail I I .2.1.2 Build trail 4 No

12s Table 13 identifiesthose elements of the proposedaction potentially having an indirect effect on bald eaglesby either alteringthe prey baseor acquiring more land for wildlife conservation.

Table13. Elementsof theproposed action potentially having an indirect effect on bald es bv elither alterinalterins the prey base or acqulrrngirins more landlano forror wildlifewlloll conservatioIl. Purpose Measure in Description BE Improve 4.2 Merwin upstream traP imqrovement fish passage 4.3 Merwin upstream collection and transport facility over dams 4.4 Downstream passageat Swift No. I Dam 4.5 Downstream passageat YaleDam 4.6 Downstream passageat Merwin Dam 4.7 Upstreampassage at Yale Dam 4.8 (Jpstreampassage in BypassReach 4.9 Net-and-haul at YaleDam and Swift No. 2 tailrace 4.9 Yale and Merwin entrainment reduction 4.r0.1 Yale and Merwin downstreambull trout passage 4.t0.2 YaIeand Swift upstreambull trout passage 5.1 Yales p illwav modi/ication Increase 4.4.3 Releasepond below Merwin Dam naturaland' 7.1 LarEe WoodvDebris and Asuatics Fund artifrcial 7.2 Placement of spawnins sravel below Merwin Dam fish 401Certs Gravel ausmentation in the BypassReach production 8.8.i Juvenile acclimation pond above Swift Creek Reservoir 8.8.2 Juvenile acclimation ponds above Yale and Merwin Dams Reintroduce 1A Salmon oassapefor habitat preparation anadromous 8.3 Anadromous hatcherv ocean recruits specles 8.4 Supplementationof iuvenile salmon above dams Acquire and 10.1 Yale land acquisition fund manageland r0.2 Swift I & 2 land acquisition fund for wildlife 10.3 Lewis River Fund conservation 10.8 Implementation of the Wildlife Habitat Management Plans Change 6.1.1 Flow from the Canal Drain to the Constructed Channel instream 6.t.2 Construction of Upper ReleasePoint flows to 6.1 Flow from Upper ReleasePoint increase 6.2.1 Ramp rates below Merwin Dam natural fish 6.2.2 Plateau flow below Merwin Dam production 6.2.4 Minimum flow below Merwin Dam 6.2.5 Low flow consultation process Produce 8.6 Stockresidentfish resident salmonids

126 ConservationMeasures Proposed by the Utilities

The Utilities will managepart of their current holdings for wildlife habitat and acquire additionalland for the samepulpose over the life of the licenses. SA Schedule10.8 identifies the broad wildlife objectives that will guide and inform the developmentof the Wildlife Habitat ManagementPlans (WHMPs). The WHMP standardsand guidelines were finali zedin July 2006 (EDAW in litt. 2006). A11lands acquired in the future under the land acquisition andhabitatprotection funds will be included in PacifiCorp's WHMP. The FWS assumesthese standardsand guidelines will be adheredto in the management of all landsunder the WHMPs over the life of the licenses.

Of the 10,085acres (4,081 ha) currently includedin PacifiCorp'sWHMP, thereare:

. 9,629 acres(3,900 ha) for which wildlife habitat managementis the primary priority. These lands will be managedas per the WHMP standardsand guidelines described and analyzed below.

159 acres(64ha) (34 sites)for which wildlife habitatis a secondarypriority. Secondarymanagement areas include parts of somerecreation developments, lands leasedto other entities, and maintenanceareas. In general,secondary WHMP lands will be managedfor wildlife provided that there is no conflict with the primary pulpose of theseareas.

23 aqes (9.3 ha) in the CresapBay RecreationArea that will be managedfor wildlife except during the peak recreationseason (Memorial Day to the end of September)when PacifiCorp will managefor both wildlife and recreation. This areawill be closed to public vehicle accessduring the off-seasonwith the intent of minimizing disturbanceto wildlife. PacifiCorpmay needperiodic accessto CresapBay during the off-seasonfor scheduledmaintenance; these activities will be timed to minimize disturbanceto wildlife and will be discussedwith the TCC on an annual basis, except for emergencies.

308 acres(100 ha), including 273 acres(110 ha) in the CougarlPanamaker ConservationCovenant and 35 acres(14 ha) in the Swift Creek Arm Conservation Covenant,which are to be maintained in perpetuity for bull trout.

Cowlitz PUD will manageapproximately 240 acressurrounding the Swift No. 2 project works on the north side of the Bypass Reachunder its WHMP and will adhereto the WHMP standardsand guidelines.

Cowlitz PUD will alsomanage 283 acreson the Devil's Backbone,including the Devil's Backbone ConservationCovenant on the north side of Swift Creek Reservoir under its WHMP and will adhereto the WHMP standardsand guidelines.

Project facilities, hatcheries,and parts of some recreationaldevelopments are excluded from the PacifiCorp WHMP and representabout 263 acres(106 ha) of PacifiCorp's

r27 ownership. Approximately 138 acres(56 ha) of Cowlitz PUD-ownedlands, primarily Project facilities,are excludedfor the samereasons as for the PacifiCorp-ownedlands.

The WHMP standardsand guidelines refer to the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI-FWS 1986)which providesguidelines for minimizing disturbanceto bald eagles. In general,logging, construction,habitat improvements,and other activities are discouragedwithin I,320 ft (a00 m) of nest androost sitesor within 2,640 ft (800 m) of thesesites when bald eagleshave line-of-sightvision of an activity. The critical nesting period is defined as January I through August 31, although this can vary by location; the key winter period for protection of feeding and roost sites is approximately November 15 through March 3 1 (USDI-FWS 1986).

Of the WHMP standardsand guidelines,the following may affect the bald eagle on those lands managedunder the WHMPs as a primary priority. The following goals and objectives have been excerptedout of the EDAW (2006) report verbatim.

Old-Growth Hubitat Goals and Obiectives(3.L4)

Goal: Promote the development,maintenance, and connectivity of old-growth coniferousforest and/orassociated habitat components (e.g., Snags, down wood, "wolf trees," multistoried stands)for wildlife speciesthat use old-growth habitat.

Objective b: Protect and maintain existins old-growth conifer stands(based on maps in PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD 2004) to provide high quality habitat for pileated woodpeckers,other cavitynesters, and other speciesover the life of the licenses.

Objectivec:Protectandmanage@Ifers.(seeSections3.2and3.3fora discussionof buffer widths) adjacentto streams,wetlands, and reservoir shorelinesto promote the developmentof large trees where appropriate,and to provide connectivity betweenexisting old-growth conifer standsover the life of the licenses.

Objective d: Within 5 years of WHMP implementation, identify and evaluatespecific mature conifer standsor other areasthat could improve habitat connectivity betweenold- growth standsor increasenumber or size of old-growth patches,and develop a schedule to managelprotectthese areas as appropriate. Complete identificationlevaluation process within 5 years of the acquisition of Interestsin Land.

Riparian Habitut Goals and Objectives(3,3,4)

Goal:. Protect, maintain, andlor enhancerrparian areas to include a diversity of native plant speciesand vegetationstructures to benefitwildlife speciesthat use riparian habitats.

Objective a: Identify and establishbuffers to protect, maintain, and enhanceriparian habitat structureand functions ...

128 Objective b: Maintaina200-ft (60-m) buffer aroundthe reservoirto protectshoreline riparian habitatas a minimum when planning forest managementactivities. Reduced buffer widths would only be allowed for the purposeof meeting specific wildlife habitat objectives.

Objective c: Within 5 years of WHMP implementation, evaluatethe number of live conifers and snags>:20 in. (50 cm) dbh in riparianmixed stands.

large conifers.

creation of additional large snagsis neededto increasesnag numbers (at least 1 per 6 acre>:20 in. dbh [1 per 2.4 ha, 50 cm dbh]) and snag averagedbh 1>: 25 in. [63 cm] dbh) for pileated woodpecker. Develop a scheduleto createadditional snags, ifneeded. Objective d: Protectexisting large snagsin riparianhabitats.

Raptor Site Management Goal and Obiectives(4.2.4)

Goal: Provide and protect habitat for, and minimize or avoid disturbanceto, raptors,including bald eagles,buteos, ospreys, accipiters, and owls. Note: only those objectives pertaining to bald eaglesare reiteratedhere'

Objective a: Use protocol surveys in areasscheduled for road construction, heavy maintenance,or forestland managementactivities to identify specific raptors and their active and inactive nest sites and roost sites (including bald eaglewinter roosts in suitable habitat), if possible [pending landownership],and implement appropriatemeasures to protectthese sites.

Objective b: Develop amanagementplan for nestingbald eagles,considering site- specific requirements,within 3 years of WHMP implementation, and revise upon discoveryof a new activenest site.

Objective c: Opportunistically identify areasthat could be enhancedto provide future nesting, perching, or roosting habitat for raptors. Develop a scheduleto implement enhancementmeasures, if needed.

Objective d: Conduct2 annual aerial surveys of PacifiCorp WHMP lands to determine bald eagle nest site occupancyand productivity and osprey nest site occupancy.

Objective e: Continue to managePacifiCorp electrical, distribution, and transmission facilities according to PacifiCorp guidelines,which are basedon industry standardsfor avian protection on power lines (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee IAPLIC] 1994,1996;APLIC and USDI-FWS 2005). UpdatePacifiCorp guidelines over the license period, if needed,to reflect changesin industry standards.

t29 Objective f: If identified, manage avian interaction problems with CowlitzPUD electricaland transmissionfacilities, as describedin SA Exhibit B (seeExhibit B in this document), consistentwith the APLIC guidelines(1994 and 1996; APLIC and USDI- FWS 2005).

Effects of the Action

The BE and FEIS describeseveral ways the proposedaction could affect bald eagles;in general,the proposedaction is likely to benefit bald eaglesby increasingthe forage base, but it may also increasedisturbance to individual bald eaglesassociated with improved or expandedrecreational facilities, increased recreational fisheries and associated visitor/angler use.

Direct Effects to Habitat

For those construction activities identified in Table 12 that may occur within 800 m of a nest or roost site, only constructionof the acclimationsite at Yale Lake (SA 8.8.2), managementof dispersedcamping sites along Yale Lake (SA 11.2.2.1),renovation of Yale Lake facilities to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements(SA 11.2.2.6),improvements to the Yale-IP Road (SA II.2.2.3 and II.2.2.4), activities associatedwith the BypassReach (SA 4.8, 6.L2 and6.1.3), and construction of acclimation sites and managementof dispersedsites along Swift Creek Reservoir (SA 8.8.1and 11.2.1.1)wouldoccurwithin800mof aknownnestorroostsite. Of these activities,construction of the acclimationsites, renovation of existingfacilities, resurfacing of existing trails, provisions for upstreampassage in the Bypass Reach, and activities associatedwith ConstructedChannel would all occur in non-suitablehabitat and would not result in the modification of suitable bald eaglehabitat features(large trees). Managementof dispersedcamping sites would include closing somesites posing unacceptableenvironmental damageor impacts to wildlife including bald eagles. Other dispersedcamping sites not posing such effects would be hardenedto reduce visitor-use impacts. Hardening of thesesites will not remove bald eaglehabitat featuresexcept possibly dangertress which will be addressedbelow (Shrier,PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). Development of a trail, parking facilities, provision for reservoir accessand day- use facilities associatedwith the Yale-IP Roadwould occur within 800 m of the Siouxon Notch Communal Roost, but would not result in the loss of bald eagle habitat (Naylor, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). Therefore, none of the construction activities within close proximity to known nest or roost sites would affect suitable bald eagle habitx.

The remaining construction activities identified in Table 12 would not occur within 800 m of a known bald eaglenest or roost site. Construction includes: new toilets and shelters;upgrades to hatcheryfacilities; traps,collectors and acclimationsites; improvementsto fish passage;boating access; boat ramp and dock upgrades;renovation of existing facilities; and the Upper ReleasePoint. Theseconstruction activities would not occur in or affect suitable bald eagle habitat. The developmentor improvement of trails greaterthan 800 m from known nest or roost sites may occur in the forested environment, but would not result in the removal of suitable bald eagle habitat (Naylor,

130 PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). Although the expansionof the Cougar Creek and Swift Forest Campgroundsmay remove large standingtrees that could be providing now or in the future roost or perch trees,these campgrounds do not currently occur within a bald eagle nest or roost territory and the provision of maintaining a200 foot riparian buffer along the reservoirswill likely limit the removal of present or future perch or roost trees; future nesting in the immediate vicinity of active campgroundsis not anticipated.

Stand managementactivities may occur in the CotsgarlPanamakerand Swift Creek Arm ConservationCovenants for the benefit of bull trout. Although these areasmay provide bald eagleperching habitat, there are no known bald eagle nest or communal roost sites within 800 meters of the Covenantsand no activities associatedwith the PacifiCorp WHMP or SA would affect available perching habitat (K. Naylor, pers. comm. PacifiCorp 2006).

Project facilities, hatcheries,and parts of somerecreational developments are excluded from the PacifiCorp'sWHMP and representabout 263 aqes (106 ha) of PacifiCorp's ownefsaip. In addition th€ie aie 159 acfes (34 sites) for which wildlife habitat is a secondarypriority. The 23 acresCresap Bay RecreationArea will be managedfor wildlife except during the peak recreation season(Memorial Day to the end of September)when PacifiCorp will managefor both wildlife and remeation. Approximately 138 acres(56 ha) of Cowlitz PUD-ownedlands, primarily Project facilities, are excludedfor the samereasons as for the PacifiCorp-ownedlands. For all of theseareas there are no managementactivities that will affect suitable bald eaglehabitat, exceptpotentially the needto managedanger trees, as discussedbelow.

Standardsand guidelines for the WHMPs for raptor managementinclude:

Objective a: Use protocol surveys in areasscheduled for road construction,heavy maintenance,or forestland managementactivities to identify specific raptors and their active and inactive nest sites and roost sites (including bald eaglewinter roosts in suitable habitat), if possible [pending landownership], and implement appropriatemeasures to protectthese sites.

Objective b: Develop amanagementplan for nestingbald eagles,considering site- specific requirements,within 3 years of WHMP implementation, and revise upon discoveryof a new active nest site. If new nestor roost sitesare discovered[on Utility- owned landsl, the fappropriate]Utility.will preparea Bald Eagle ManagementPlan which will incorporate the recommendationsin the Bald Eagle RecoverSrand specifically the managementof habitat effects within 800 m. Therefore, it is assumedno construction activitieswithin closeproximity to recentlydetected nest or roost siteswould affect suitablebald eaglehabitat,

Although WHMPs will allow forest managementactivities to occur, all existing old- growth conifer standswill be protected andmaintained. Forestedbuffers along streams, wetlands and reservoirswill be protected and managedto promote the developmentof large trees where appropriate. A minimum of a 200 foot buffer around the reservoirswill

131 be maintained when planning forest managementactivities. In addition, existing large snagswill be protected in riparian habitats. As statedabove, surveys will be conductedin areasscheduled for forest managementactivities to identify active or inactive nest and roost sites of raptors, including bald eagles. Although forest managementactivities pose a risk of removing an unknown bald eagleperch or roost tree, the provisions provided above greatlyreduce this risk. It is anticipatedbald eaglenest sites would be easily detectedand protected from forest managementactivities as describedpreviously. In addition, the Utilities will opportunistically enhanceor provide for future nesting, perchingand roost trees.

In order to provide worker and public safety, the Utilities will managedanger trees. The Utilities have been managingdanger trees for many years and the largest number of danger treesthat required felling was 20 in one year after a wind storm. Danger treeswill be felled around human-useareas such as parking lots, campgrounds,facilities, and trails if they pose a significant risk and the trail cannot be re-routed. Danger trees that are known to be usedby bald eagleswill not be felled Q.{aylor,PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). Given the proximity of thesehigh human-useareas and the provision not to fall existing bald eagleuse trees,there is a low likelihood that dangertree managementwould substantiallyreduce available perch, roost or nest trees now or in the future.

Indirect Effect: Increasein ForageBase

Increasesin the forage base are expectedas a result of the Project. In particular, reintroducing salmon and steelheadover the dams,restoring salmon and steelhead habitat, providing upstreamand downstreamfish passage,stocking salmon and trout above the dams, and regulating instream flows below Merwin Dam to enhanceChinook production(Table 13) will increasethe distributionand populationof fish in the Lewis River Basin which make up the majority of the bald eagle's prey base. In addition, flow releasedinto the Bypass Reach at the Upper ReleasePoint is likely to restore rearing habitat for salmonidsand spawning habitat for salmon and steelheadin about 3 miles of the mainstem Lewis River. The increasein the prey base from all theseelements is likely to appreciably improve foraging conditions for resident,nesting or overwintering bald eagles. David Anderson (WDFW, pers. comm. 2006) expectsall fishery-relatedelements of this action to support a continuing increasein year-round residentbald eaglesaround the Lewis River reservoirs. An increasein the availability of prey throughout the year is expectedto enhancethe survival of adults through the winter and improve nesting successthrough the ability to adequatelyfeed eaglets.

Increasein Disturbanceas a Direct Effect of the ProposedAction

Someconstruction-related elements of the actionare proposed at siteswithin 800 m of currently activenests or roost sites(Table 12). Noise and visual disturbancemay arise from implementing these actions: constructionof acclimation sites, managementof dispersedsites, renovation of existingfacilities atYale Lake; developmentof recreational facilities associatedwith Yale-IP Road;provisions for upstreampassage in the Bypass Reach and activities associatedwith the ConstructedChannel; and the construction of

r32 acclimationsites and the managementof dispersedsites at Swift CreekReseryotr. Construction and activities at thesesites may disturb bald eaglesdue to the movement of people and equipment,as well as noise, but conservationmeasures described in the WHMP standardsand guidelines are expectedto reducethese disturbances to a level that is not expectedto significantly disrupt normal behaviors. That is, the FWS assumesif theseconstruction activities occurred within 400 m or in 800 m line-of-sightof an active nest or roost site that the activities would not occur during the critical nesting period or key winter period, as appropriate.

Some construction-relatedactions are proposedat sites greaterthan 800 m from known bald eaglenests and roost sites(Table 12). Theseactions and activitiesare not expected to disturb nesting or roosting bald eagles.

For the lands to be managedunder a WHMP, the standardsand guidelines are designedto protect all presentand future raptor, including bald eagle,populations in the action area from disturbance. The WHMPs commit the Utilities to developing managementplans for nesting bald eagles,ConSidefing site-speCif,rc requirements, within 3 yearSof WHMP implementationand reviseupon discoveryof new sites. Theseplans would follow the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Speciesand Management Recommendationsfor Bald Eagles(Watson and Rodrick 2001). The standardsand guidelines also commit the Utilities to "use protocol surveys in areasscheduled for road construction, heavy maintenance,or forestlandmanagement, to identify specific raptors and their active and inactive nest sites and roost sites, including bald eaglewinter roosts, in suitable habitat, and implement appropriatemeasures to protect thesesites." Therefore, managementactions conductedunder the WHMPs could disturb bald eagles due to the movement of people and equipment,as well as noise, but conservation measuresdescribed above are expectedto reducethese disturbances to a level that is not expectedto significantly disrupt normal behaviors. In particular, the FWS assumesthe statement"appropriate measuresto protect thesesites" implies if thesemanagement activities occurredwithin 400 m or in 800 m line-of-sightof an activenest or roost site that the activities would not occur during the critical nesting period or key winter period, as appropriate.

Not all lands will be managedunder the standardsand guidelines for the WHMPs. These include the 159 acres(34 sites)for which wildlife habitatis a secondarypriority. These lands include parts of somerecreation developments,lands leasedto other entities, and maintenanceareas. Of theseareas, the SpeelyaiBay and Swift No. 2 Powerhousebald eaglenest sitesare within 800 m line-of-sightof the SpeelyaiBay Day-UseArea and Beaver Bay Campground,respectively. However, both of thesenest sites have been establishedin the past 5 years despite ongoing activities in thesenearby secondary managementareas. In general,recreation and maintenanceactivities occur during the summer months, long after bald eagleshave establishedtheir annual nesting territories. Continued ongoing activities at thesesecondary management areas are not expectedto disturb nesting bald eaglesto such an extent as to appreciably alter their behaviors or nestingsuccess due to their relative acclimationto activitiesin theselocations. Although secondarymanagement areas may contain individual standingtrees capableof supporting

r33 bald eaglenests or roosts,bald eaglenesting is unlikely due to the frequencyof human activity in proximity to thesetrees (K. Emmerson,pers. comm. PacifiCorp,2006). Therefore, future impacts are anticipatedto not changeover culrent conditions.

The23 acre CresapBay RecreationArea will be managedfor wildlife except during the peak recreation season(Memorial Day to the end of September)when PacifiCorp will managefor both wildlife and recreation. This areawill be closedto public vehicle access during the off-seasonwith the intent of minimizing disturbanceto wildlife. PacifiCorp may needperiodic accessto CresapBay during the off-seasonfor scheduled maintenance;these activities will be timed to minimize disturbanceto wildlife and will be discussedwith the TCC on an annualbasis,except for emergencies.The CresapBay RecreationArea is not within 800 m of an existingbald eaglenest or known communal roost site (K. Emmerson,pers. comm. PacifiCorp 2006). However, this recreation area has trees capableof supporting nesting bald eagles,and is closed during courtship, egg laying, and brooding seasons.Therefore , if a paft of bald eaglesnested in the area in ilte fufure, the FWS assumesit would be managedas describedabove for existing nest sites.

The273 acresCougarlPanamaker Conservation Covenant and 35 acresSwift Creek Arm ConservationCovenant will be maintained in perpetuity for bull trout. Although these areasmay provide bald eagleperching habitat, there are no known bald eaglenest or communal roost sites within 800 m of the Covenantstherefore disturbanceto nesting or roostingbald eaglesare not anticipated.

The Swift No. 2 Powerhousebald eaglenest is within 800 m line-of-sightof the Swift No. 2 project works property. This site has been establishedin the past 5 years despite ongoing activities including year-round reconstructionof the Swift No. 2 project. Continued ongoing activities atthe Swift No. 2 projects are not expectedto disturb nesting bald eaglesto such an extent as to appreciablyalter their behaviors or nesting successdue to their relativeacclimation to activitiesin this location.

Increasein Disturbance as an Indirect Effect of the ProposedAction

The principal sourcesof indirect disturbanceof bald eaglesin the action areamay arise from the anticipated increasein boating, hiking, camping, and fishing. The proposed action includes managementof roads and trails, expanding and improving campgrounds and other recreationalfacilities, and the reintroduction of salmon and steelhead.

Proposedmanagement of roadsand trails will reducethe exposureof bald eaglesto disturbancefrom the use of trails and roads. None of the existing nestsare visible from any designatedtrail or proposedtrail, and the forest along the east shore of Yale Lake partially screensfeeding perchesfrom trails. Only the Yale-IP Trail would occur within 800 m.of a communalroost; however,trail use during the winter when this roost would be used is not anticipatedto be heavy and would occur during daylight hours when bald eaglesare off the roost thereby limiting impacts of recreationistson this trail on this roost site. PacifiCorpwill convertthe Yale-IP Road to atrail in a mannerthat will not increase the visibility of bald eaglefeeding perches to recreationists.The public accessobjectives

t34 for the WHMP standardsand guidelines are intended to restrict motorized vehicle use of Utility roads. The intent of PacifiCorp is to reducethe use of All Temain Vehicles on WHMP lands and keep them off the IP Road, using signs and possibly placing gatesand boulders. PacifiCorp will also coordinatewith Stateand County law enforcement, neighboring private landowners,and the WDNR to enforce the changeto non-motoized use. Theseactions will reducethe intensityof noiseand activity in the vicinity of bald eagle nestsand perches,thus reducing recreationaldisturbance ofbald eagles. In the long-term, the improvements in road and trail managementwould reduce disturbanceof bald eaglesfrom recreationists,but may not eliminate all potential for disturbance especiallyat perch sites.

Expansion of campgroundsand improvementsin recreationalfacilities are expectedto increasethe number of recreationistsin the action area and especiallythe number of boaters and anglers. The managementof dispersedcamping sites is anticipatedto decreasedisturbance of bald eaglesas sitesnear bald eagleswould be closed. If a hardeneddispersed camping site is in close proximity to an occupied bald eagle site appropriateClosures would be implementedto eliminate diSfuibanCeof bald eagleS (Naylor, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). The expansionof campgroundsis expectedto reduce the pressureon dispersedcamping sites. Campgroundexpansion will increasethe number of sites at CougulBeaver Campgroundfrom 108 to at most 198 sites and from 93 sitesat Swift Campgroundto at most 143 sites. Theseincreases are expectedto some degreeto increasethe number of boatersand anglerson the reservoirswhich have the potential to disturb and disrupt bald eaglebehavior associatedwith nesting or foraging. Of the day-useand campgroundusers, it is estimatedthat 50 percent are water-based recreationists(Shrier, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006).

There is a partial timing overlap betweenthe bald eaglebreeding seasonand the boating season. In the action er:ea,baldeagles remain near nest sites from February through August, but eggstend to hatch in April and bald eagletstypically fledge in June (D. Anderson,WDFW, pers.comm.2006). Few boatsare present from Septemberthrough late April. On Swift Creek Reservoir, the rainbow trout fishery opens on the last weekend in April, causingthe highest visitor use; then use tapersoff through the summer. Lake Merwin and Yale Lake are open year-round for fishing, but the high-use seasonis from June through August (Naylor and Olson, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. 2006). The peak recreation seasonat all reservoirsbegins in June and lasts through August (D. Anderson, WDFW, pers. comm. 2006). Thus boating and fishing during late spring and early summerwould avoid the sensitiveperiod of nestingand incubation,but would coincide with the period when bald eaglesare feeding young at the nest. Bald eaglesare susceptibleto disturbanceby boat traffrc but the affect of disturbancedepends on proximity to nest and perch trees and foraging sites, as well as time of year. Foraging bald eagleson the Columbia River estuarymaintained an averagedistance of 400 m from stationary boats, and they respondedto boat presenceby reducing feeding time and the number of foraging attempts(McGarigal et al. 1991). The closestnests to the water's edge in the action area arethe Swift No. 2 Powerhouseand Drift Creek East nest sites. The Swift No. 2 Powerhousenest site is located near the confluence of the Lewis River Blpass Reachwith Yale Reservoir and boating in this areais low year-round becausethe

135 water is shallow evenat full pool. Disturbancefrom recreationis also likely to be low in the vicinity of the Drift CreekEast nest sitebecause boating and campingaccess to Drift Creek during the peak fishing seasonis prohibited by the >20-foot drawdown of Swift Creek Reservoir typical at this time of year. Therefore, we do not anticipateboat use on the reservoirswill result in abandonmentof nestsor flushing from nests.

However, bald eaglesmay shift foraging areasbased on boat traffic (Anderson, WDFW, pers. comm.2006; McGarigal et aI. I99l). Grubb and King (1991) found bald eagles were more often flushed from perchesthan nestsand were most easily disturbed when foraging. Stalmasterand Kaiser (1998) found that bald eaglefeeding on the SkagitRiver declined exponentially with increasesin disturbanceevents associated with recreation. When more than 40 recreationalevents occurred per day there was an 89 percent reductionin bald eaglefeeding time. Bald eaglesalso fed 30 percentless on the weekendswhen the recreationaluse was highest. Although increasedboat use is not expectedto changecurrent traffic patternsor boat use areasassociated with the reservoirs, an overall increasein boat traffic may causedisturbance of foraging bald eagles. Therefore,the FWS anticipatesindividual foraging bald eaglesare likely to be flushed from perchesor reducetheir foraging efforts associatedwith increasedboat traffic over the terms of the licenses.

Wintering bald eaglesare also susceptibleto disturbanceon their foraging grounds. Human activity that results in disturbanceof wintering bald eagleson foraging areascan have a wide range of effects on bald eaglesfrom brief disturbanceflights to displacement from a local area(Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). Disturbancethat causesbald eaglesto flush reducestheir food intake, increasesenergy expenditureduring critical winter periods and forces bald eaglesto use marginal habitats (Stalmasterand Kaiser 1997). Knight et al. (1991) determinedanglers influenced scavenging behavior of bald eaglesat gravelbars along the South Fork of the Toutle River. Bald eagleswere more frequently observedon the ground during days when anglerswere not present,and more frequently in trees on days when anglerswers present. Feedingperiods shifted to late aftemoon and less fish was consumedon days when anglerswere present. The proposedreintroduction of salmon and steelheadwill result in large numbers of thesefish returning to the upper Lewis River basinto spawn. It is expectedthese reintroduced fish will spawnabove Swift Creek Reservoir, most likely in the Pine Creek, Rush Creek and Muddy River. There is a known winter roost site in closeproximity to this area. The FWS believesboth bald eaglesand anglerswould be attractedto thesespawning fish. So although the reintroduction of salmon and steelheadare likely to provide an enhancedprey base,it will also bring in anglers that arelikely to disturb those bald eaglestrying to forage on the spawning fish. The co-occuffenceof foraging bald eaglesand anglers are likely to flush bald eaglesor reducetheir foraging efforts.

Summary of Effects

Constructionactivities would not result in the lossof suitablebald eaglehabitat except for possibly the expansionof Cougar Creek and Swift Forest Campgroundswhich may remove large standingtrees that could be providing now or in the future roost or perch

136 trees. Thesecampgrounds do not currently occur within 800 m of a bald eaglenest or roost site and the provision of maintaining a 200-foot riparian buffer along the reservoirs will likely limit the removal of presentor future perch or roost trees; future nesting in the immediate vicinity of active campgroundsin not anticipated. Although forest managementactivities pose a risk of removing unknown bald eagle perch or roost trees, the standardsand guidelines for the WHMPs greatlyreduce this risk. Becausedanger trees will be felled in areasof high human use and the provision to not fall existing bald eagle use trees,there is a low likelihood that danger tree managementwould substantially reduce available perch, roost or nest trees now or in the future. The reintroduction of salmon and steelheadover the dams,restoration of salmon and steelheadhabitat, provisions for upstreamand downstreamfish passage,stocking of salmon and trout above the dams,provision of instream flows in the Bypass Reach, and regulating instream flows below Merwin Dam to enhanceChinook salmon reproduction (Table 13) will increasethe distribution and abundanceof fish in the Lewis River Basin. This increasein prey for bald eaglesis likely to appreciablyimprove foraging conditions for resident, nesting, and overwintering bald eagles.

Construction and activities at thesesites within 800 m of known nest or roost sites may disturb bald eaglesdue to the movementof peopleand equipment,and dssociatednoise, but conservationmeasures described in the WHMP standardsand guidelines are expected to reducethese disturbances to a level that is not expectedto significantly disrupt normal behaviors. That is, the FWS assumesif theseconstruction activities occurred within 400 m or in 800 m line-of-sightof an activenest or roost site thatthe activitieswould not occur during the critical nesting period or key winter period, as appropriate. Managementactions conductedunder the WHMPs could disturb bald eagles,but the conservationmeasures are expectedto reduce thesedisturbances to a level that is not expectedto significantly disrupt normal behaviors. In particular, the FWS assumesthe statement"appropriate measuresto protect thesesites" implies if thesemanagement activitiesoccurred within 400 m or in 800 m line-of-sightof an active nestor roost site that the activities would not occur during the critical nesting period or key wintdr period, as appropriate. Of the areasnot managedundera WHMP, the SpeelyaiBay and Swift No. 2 Powerhousebald eaglenest sitesare within 800 m line-of-sightof the SpeelyaiBay Day-Use Area and Beaver Bay Campground,respectively. The Swift No. 2 Powerhouse bald eaglenest is also within 800 m line-of-sightof the Swift No. 2 project works property. Both of thesenest siteshave been establishedin the past 5 years despite ongoing activities in theseareas, including year-round reconstructionof the Swift No. 2 project. Continuedongoing activities at the Swift No. 2 project,Speelyai Bay Day-Use and Beaver Bay Campgroundare not expectedto disturb nesting bald eaglesto such an extent as to appreciably alter their behaviors or nesting successdue to their relative acclimationto activitiesin this location. Proposedtrail and road managementactions will reducethe intensity of noise and activity in the vicinity of bald eaglenests and perches,thus reducing recreationaldisturbance of bald eagles,but they may not eliminate all potential for disturbanceespecially atperch sites. Expansion of campgroundsand improvementsin recreationalfacilities are expectedto increasethe number of recreationistsin the action area andespecially the number of boaters and anglers. Over the terms of the licenses.boat traffic associatedwith theseincreases is anticipatedto be

r37 likely to flush from perchesor reducethe foraging efforts of individual bald eagles. The propose reintroduction of salmon and steelheadwill result in large numbers of thesefish returning to the upper Lewis River basin to spawn. It is expectedthese reintroduced fish will spawn above Swift Creek Reservoir, most likely in the Pine Creek, Rush Creek and Muddy River. There is a known winter roost site (Eagle Clif| in close proximity to this area. The FWS believes both bald eaglesand anglerswould be attractedto these spawning fish. So although the reintroduction of salmon and steelheadare likely to provide an enhancedprey base,it will also bring in anglers that arelikely to disturb those bald eagles tryingto forage on the spawning fish. The co-occurence of foraging bald eaglesand anglersare likely to flush bald eaglesor reducetheir foraging efforts.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State,Tribal, local or private actionsthat are reasonablycertain to occur in the action area. This sectiondoes not considerfuture Federal actionsunrelated to the proposedaction becausethey require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.

Bull Trout

Cumulative effects to bull trout may result from timber harvest,recreation, and land developmentin the action areanot associatedwith Federal or Utility-owned lands (FEIS 3.2). Timber harvest and land developmenthave the potential to increasethe peak-to- baseflow ratio and to deliver sedimentto streams(FEIS 3.3.1.3). Timber harvestand road building in the upper PanamakerCreek basin also could have a downstreameffect on bull trout habitatin CougarCreek (Interim BO; BE 5.1.3). The upper watershedof PanamakerCreek, a major tributary of Cougar Creek, is owned by private timber companies.

Increasedrecreational use both at developedand dispersedsites has the potential to affect bull trout. The effects include large wood removal by recreationistsfor firewood, and trampling alongbull trout streams(BE 5.1.2).

Land developmentis reasonablycertain to occur along the eastand west banksof Pine Creek for severalmiles upstreambeginning at its confluencewith the Lewis River, the north bank of the Lewis River from Pine Creek to the Muddy River, and along approximately 1 mile of the right bank of the Muddy River betweenthe Lewis River and U.S. ForestService land in CedarFlats. SkamaniaCounty has approvedseveral new wells in the Pine Creek East area,a planned 200-houserecreation community opposite the Three Rivers Resort. Other lands farther upstreamin the Pine Creek subwatersheds are also being consideredfor conversion from forest to rural homes. SkamaniaCounty haspermitted 100building lots on logged-overcommercial timberland north of Swift Creek Reservoir since 2000 (Durbin 2006).

138 Landmanagement along lower Pine Creek posesthe most immediate cumulative threat to bull trout in the Lewis River subbasin. Future road constructionwould continue to affect aquatichabitat (FEIS 3.3.3.3). The ThreeRivers Resortmay affect bull trout in Pine Creek,the Muddy River, and Lewis River (WDFW in litt.2005). To ensureenough groundwater to servethe areaunder a full build-out of available property, the developers have askedfor a "reseryation" of water in the upper Lewis River adequateto supply 500 lots (Environmental Technology 2005). In this report the developershave identified potential environmental effects. "Probably the most serioussource of erosion and sedimentationwould be the use of any motorizedvehicles to accessthe streams.Direct particulatemovement and sedimentationwould occur where vehicles were operated acrossor within the watercourses.Indirect effects would be disturbed soil adjacentto streamsthat would be transportedby high water or precipitationevents...ATVs and motorcycleswould destroyexisting vegetation, compact soils...The possible changes in hydrology during the summer months could lower the river flows due to groundwater withdrawal by developedwater wells serving the site." The report contains detailed recommendationsto mitigate theseand other effects. Additional concernsinclude loss of riparian functions including shade,large woody debris, bank stability, and captureof upland runoff in new roadside ditches (WDFV/ in litt.2005). Water quality degradation and improper stormwater managementmay also result.

SkamaniaCounty is in the processof completing the 2006 Critical Areas Update as required under the Washington StateGrowth ManagementAct. This entails amending the county-wideComprehensive Plan, and developinga Swift SubareaPlan. The SubareaPlan will determinewhere the best locations are for future residential development,taking into considerationsthe terrain, accessroads, location of critical area resources,location of commercialforest lands,future serviceneeds of residents,and future water usagefor residential development. The SubareaPlan is expectedto provide for streamsidebuffers, to locate most new roads outside of riparian areas,and to implement low impact developmentconcepts which would minimize some of the anticipatedcumulative effects. However, for purposesof this Biological Opinion, to be conservative,we consider as cumulative effects the potential adverseeffects that such activities may involve, but we do not rely on any potential beneficial effects from these endeavorsbecause we cannot reasonablydetermine whether such benefits will in fact accrueto bull trout.

Two large timberland owners, Pope Resourcesand United Fruit Growers, own a total of 18,000 acresin SkamaniaCounty north of Swift Creek Reservoir and are starting the processof converting their holdings from timber to rural residence(Durbin 2006). The United Fruit Growers has approachedthe county about developing one section of logged- over land at the headwatersof a fish-bearing Pine Creek tributary.

Although the SA commits to a fixed poundageof rainbow trout being stocked in Swift Creek Reservoir, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) makes all decisionsregarding what size fish to stock and thereforethis aspectof stockingis considereda cumulative effect and not an effect of the proposedaction. The stocking untll2004 was about 40 fingerling rainbow trout per pound, correspondingto an average

139 length of about 4 inches (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishlplantslweekly/archive05.htm). These fish were expectedto grow to catchablesize in the reservoir within one year and support the 2005 sport fishery. No additional rainbow trout were stocked in 2005. In2006 WDFW began a new prograln by stocking catchable-sizedrainbow trout at three fish per pound, correspondingto an averagelength of about 9 inches. These fish were expected to contribute to the 2006 sport catch. This catchablerainbow trout program is reasonably certain to continue in the coming years unlessmonitoring demonstratesthat the program is adverselyaffecting bull trout or may do so in the future.

Increasingthe body size of stockedrainbow trout mayhave a positive or negativeeffect on bull trout due to potential changesin predation and competition in Swift Creek Reservoir. The increasein body size of rainbow trout stockedin Swift Creek Reservoir may result in increasedpredation on bull trout fry and less availability of rainbow trout as prey for subadultbull trout. The amount of bull trout fry that rainbow trout may prey on may increaseas a result of stocking larger rainbow trout than in the past. A 9-inch rainbow trout would be more likely than a 4-inch rainbow trout to prey on bull trout fry. However, this type of predation is unlikely in either the reservoir or the Lewis River becauserainbow trout at all sizeshave a strong preferencefor insectsover fish as prey and most rainbow trout stockedin Swift Creek Reservoir rcmain in the reservoir and do not ascendthe Lewis River where bull trout fry arepresent. In addition, bull trout fry are not readily available as prey to other fish speciesbecause bull trout are benthic, cryptic, and nocturnal.

The increasein rainbow trout size might make the speciesless available as prey for subadult or smaller adult bull trout. Juvenile bull trout are thought to enter the Lewis River primarily at 1 year of age (Byrne in litt.2006b), probably at a length of about 4 inches. Eventually, they move into the Swift Creek Reservoir where they soon grow large enough to prey on fish. Bull trout usually remain in Swift Creek Reservoir until they migrate up the Lewis River at a length ranging from 12 to 30 inches (Lesko 2006), either to feed or to spawn at an aveiage age of6 years.

Several outcomesare possible if the catchablerainbow trout program has any effect on bull trout growth in the reservoir. First, the catchablerainbow trout program could negativelyaffect bull trout of all sizes. This would happenif bull trout of all sizes dependedon fingerling rainbow trout for their primary prey; we know that bull trout eat a variety of prey in the reservoir from rainbow trout to mountain whitefish and suckers. Alternatively, the catchablerainbow trout program could negatively affect smaller bull trout that can not feed upon the larger rainbow trout, but may positively affect larger bull trout that can consumethese larger rainbow trout. These effects could lead to diminished growth of subadultbull trout or improved growth of larger bull trout. The result could be a changein the size andage structureof bull trout in the reservoir. However, alternate prey is available in the Swift Creek Reservoir. The two most abundantfish speciesin Swift Creek Reservoir, with all or some individuals small enough for smaller bull trout to consume,are three-spinedstickleback and suckers(F. Shrier, PacifiCorp, pers. comm. September5,2006).

140 The Hatchery and SupplementationPlan will include measuresto minimize the potential negativeimpacts of hatcheryfish on bull trout and otherESA-listed species(SA 8.2.2.10). Also, becauseWDFW must preparea HatcheryGenetics Management Plan (HGMP) and a Fish Managementand Evaluation Plan (FMEP) which assessesimpacts of hatchery programs on listed fish, impacts to bull trout will be consideredand hatchery actions selectedfor implementation are expectedto minimize impacts. Therefore,we expect hatchery rainbow trout programsto minimally affect bull trout.

Spotted Owl

Cumulative effects to the spottedowl rnay result from timber harvest and land developmentwhich removes suitable spottedowl habitat or dispersalhabitat, or disturbs nesting spottedowls from noise generatedby constructionactivities. The majority of spottedowls and spottedowl habitatin the actionarea is believedto occur on U.S. Forest Service lands or in the Siouxon SOSEA. Therefore, only limited cumulative effects to the spottedowl are anticipated.

Bald Eagle

Cumulative effects to the bald eaglemay result from timber harvest,recreation activities, and land developmentin the action area (FEIS 3.2). Timber harvest and developmentof non-Federaland non-Utility-ownedlands will reducethe amountof mid-successional, mature,and old-growth timber (FEIS 3.3,4.3)that would otherwisesupply treessuitable for roosting, nesting, and foraging. Noise during construction at new sites or timber harvest "could causedisturbance if implemented during the breeding seasonat locations within...[thedisturbanceradius]...ofnestsites"(BE5.5.1.3).Therequirementbythe Stateto preparebald eaglemanagement plans would be expectedto minimize these effects.

As recreationaldemand for boating and camping increases"some visitors may be displacedto dispersedsites foutside] the projects"(FEIS 3.3.6.3). Recreationaluse "rnay increaseindependent of the constructionof new facilities, due to expectedpopulation increasesin nearbyurban areas,such as Portland and Vancouver" (FEIS 3.3.6.3). PacifiCorp estimates"the demandfor boating-relatedactivities will increaseby at least 100 percentduring the term off the new licenses...and...the demandfor trail-related activitieswill increaseby well over 100percent (BE 5.4.2.2). Long-term increasesin human activifi will occur along the shorelines. Increasedrecreation, especially boating, is expectedto cumulatively affect bald eagleforaging at the reservoirs.

Land developmentis reasonablycertain to occur acrossthe Lewis River from Eagle Clifl a documentedwinter roost since 1985. This land developmentsite is within 1,000feet of the roost on the North Fork Lewis River in Section24. The WDFW (in litt.2005) stated "Concems [exist] regarding visual disturbancefrom home sites; disturbancefrom human accessalong the fl,ewis] river and adjacentto nest and roost sites, [and] disturbancefrom vehicular traffrc." In response,Environmental Technology (2005) statedthat "The

I4I impact...on...communalroosts is estimatedto be minimal due to the distance...fromthe nearestcabin site."

CONCLUSION

Bull Trout

After reviewing the best scientific and commercial data available, the current statusof bull trout in their coterminousrange, the environmentalbaseline for the action area,the effectsof the proposedaction, and the cumulativeeffects, it is the FWSs biological opinion that implementationof the proposedaction is not likely to jeopardizethe continued existenceof the bull trout.

Bull trout were listed and continue to be threatenedthroughout their range due to the combined effects of habitat degradationand fragmentation,population isolation, and nonnativespecies (64 FR 58910). Poachingand incidentalmortality of bull trout during other targetedfisheries are additional factors in the species' decline.

The action areaencompasses the Lewis River core population of bull trout, including its three local populations. Bull trout numbersare estimatedto be low, but increasing. This core population has been at risk of extirpation due to poor connectivity, few local populations, and low overall abundance

In the EnvironmentalBaseline section of this Biological Opinion, we establishedthat bull trout habitat within the action areahas been degradedand population connectivity has been reduced,due to land managementactivities, nonnative fish introductions, and the construction and operation of Merwin, Yale, and Swift Dams. Adverse effects from non- Federal activities in the action areahavecontributed tohabitat degradationand population declines, and arereasonably certain to occur in the future. These activities include timber harvest,road construction,recreation, and land development.

The following bull trout conservationneeds are applicable to the action area: 1) provide fish passageat Swift, Yale, and Merwin dams,2) reduce entrainment,3) standardizeand implement a sampling protocol, 4) assessnutrient levels and cycling, 5) maintain quality spawning habitat in Rush and Cougar Creeks, 6) protect and restore habitat in Pine Creek, Muddy River, and the Lewis River, 7) reduce impacts of roads, 8) minimize adverse effects of dam operationsto bull trout in reservoirsand downstream,9) eliminate or reduce negative effects of nonnative fishes, and 10) minimize incidental or illegal catch of bull trout (USFWS 2002).

The proposedaction is anticipatedto result in a small annual reduction in bull trout numbers and reproduction from three project elements: 1) anadromoussteelhead and salmon reintroductions (long-term competition, predation, and redd superimposition),2) passage,capture, and handling (long-term injury or mortality), and 3) instream constructionand elevatedsuspended sediments (short-term injury). Bull trout

r42 distribution in the action areawill be improved over the long-term through significant improvements in connectivity and restoration of the forage base. Our analysis establishes the likelihood that the Lewis River core population will be sufficiently resilient to the adverseeffects of the action to benefit from long-term improvements,all of which addresskey corepopulation recovery needs.

We basethis conclusionon the fact that despitethe constructionof Merwin Dam over 70 years ago and the subsequentconstruction of other hydroelectric facilities on the Lewis River, which have likely causedannual mortality of bull trout, and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 which had significant effects to Pine Creek, the Pine and Rush Creek bull trout local populations have been slowly increasingover the past 20 yearswhile the Cougar Creek local population appearsto be somewhatstable at low numbers. Despite historic impacts to bull trout in this core area,the bull trout population continuesto slowly increase. As a result of the proposedaction, the annual mortality and injury associatedwith the facilities would be less than historically, further supporting the conclusionthat bull trout local populationswould likely be resilient enoughto withstand small annual losses,piarticxlarly in light of the recovery actions designedto support a healthier bull trout core areapopulation. Theseimprovements include fish passageand connectivity between reservoirs,habitat enhancementand protection, angler education, protective instream flows, nutrient enrichment, and an expandedprey base. Consequently,we do not anticipate a reduction in the likelihood of survival and recovery of bull trout in the Lewis River core population or in the coterminousrange as a result of the proposedaction.

Spotted Owl

After reviewing the best scientific and commercial dataavailable, the current statusof the spotted owl, the environmental baselinefor the action arc4the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the FWSs biological opinion that implementation of the proposedaction is not likely to jeopardizethecontinued existence of the spotted owl.

Much of the spottedowl habitat that occurs on Utility-owned lands is widely scatteredin small patches,and much of this habitat doesnot exist in sufficient quantitiesto support territorial spottedowls on Utility-owned lands. However, theselands do support spotted owl territories with active nest sites offof Utility-owned lands, and thesesmall patchesof habitat are potentially important for spottedowl connectivity by providing important dispersaland foraginghabitat functions for spottedowls dispersing acrossthese lands between areaswith large blocks of habitat on adjacentState and Federal lands.

The only potential action thaLmay occur within suitable nesting habitat on Utility-owned lands is snag creation. This action is not expectedto reduce the available quantity of nestinghabitat or result in the loss of a nesttree. Use of Limited OperatingPeriods would precludethe risk of felling an active nestsite.

143 The creationof small clearcutsin mid-successionaland uplandmix vegetationwould adversely affect the spottedowl through removal of suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat. Commercial thinning in roosting and foraging standsmay causeshort- term degradationof thesestands, but would not result in the loss of thesestands. Commercial thinning may enhancestand structurethereby benefiting spottedowls especially through the increasein prey habitat in treated stands.

Cowlitz PUD proposesto clearcut harvestno more than 10 aues of upland mix vegetationon their properties.PacifiCorp proposes to harvest65 acresper year of mid- successionaland'upland mix vegetationover the term of their license(50 year). This would equateto 3,283 acresor 63 percent of the 5,238 acresof extant suitable spotted owl habitat on PacifiCorp-owned lands being harvest over the next 50 years. The distribution of the loss of suitable spottedowl habitat on PacifiCorp-owned lands is anticipatedto be approximately 2,047 acressulrounding Lake Merwin, predominately on the north side of the reservoir; approximately 878 acressutrounding Yale Lake, predominately on the west side of the reservoir; and approximately 358 acresnear Swift Creek Reservoir with most of the harvest occurring on the north side of the reservoir.

Although nesting is not known to occur on Utility-owned lands, many acresof Utility- owned lands occur within known spottedowl home ranges,especially along the eastern shore of Yale Lake, and betweenYale Lake and Swift Creek Reservoir. Some of these lands also occur within the Siouxon SOSEA. Due to alack of spotted owl surveys on Utility-owned lands, Utility-owned lands proposedfor timber managementmay be providing suitable spottedowl habitat to unknown spottedowl home ranges. Therefore, all Utility-owned lands proposedfor harvest are consideredunsurveyed suitable spotted owl habitat for purposesof our analysis.

Clearcut harvesting would not remove spottedowl nesting habitat and would not impact any known spottedowl 70-acrecore area. All removal of spottedowl roostingand foraging habitat would occur on the outer peripheriesof known spotted owl home ranges or in unsurveyedsuitable spottedowl habitat. Given the unlikely occwrence of nest sites on Utility-owned lands,removal of small patchesof roostingand foraging habitatacross the landscapeover a 50-yearperiod of time is not expectedto result in the abandonment of known or potential home ranges,but may reducethe foraging opportunities for nesting spotted owls adjacentto Utility-owned lands or for those spottedowls dispersingthrough the action area.

For clearcutsto be conductedin dispersalhabitat, at least 50 percent of the Utility-owned landswould needto provide dispersalhabitat at anypoint in time. Therefore,if 50 percent of the Utilities landscapeis retained in at least a dispersalhabitat condition or better spottedowl dispersalthrough this landscapewould not be precluded.

For all activities with the potential to disturb nesting spottedowls a LOP would be applied which would preclude the risk of spottedowl nest failure due to disturbancefrom activities conductedduring the breeding seasonin close proximity to the activities.

r44 Therefore, the conservationrole of Utility-owned lands (landscape-levelconnectivity and supportto SOSEAs)would be maintained. In addition,there would be no direct lossof spotted owl individuals, and no anticipatedloss of reproduction due to disturbanceor significantlosses of habitat.

Bald Eagle

After reviewing the best scientific and commercial dataavailable, the current statusof the bald eagle,the environmental baselinefor the action arca,lhe effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the FWSs biological opinion that implementation of the proposedaction is not likely to jeopardizethe continued existenceof the bald eagle.

Since 1989the bald eaglenesting population has increased at an averagerate of approximately8 percentper year (USDI 1999). Bald eaglerecovery goals have generally been met or exceededthroughout its range (USDI 1999). In the Pacific Recovery Area population delisting goals have been mct sinee 1995;the produetivity objectivo of aii averageof 1.0 young per occupied breeding areahas been met since 1990, and the averagesuccess rate for occupiedbreeding areas of65 percenthas beenexceeded since 1994 (USDI 1999). However, as of 1999,the distribution objective among management zoneshad not yet beenfully achieved.

Bald eagleswere first observednesting at the resewoirs in the action areain 1991. The number of bald eaglenests has increasedsince then to 10 in 2005. Productivity (number of young per occupiedterritory) in2005 was 0.60 and it hasranged from 0.60 to 1.5 over the last 9 years. WDFW has recorded 17 bald eagle communal roost sites with the number of wintering bald eaglesranging from 5 to over 80.

Constructionactivities would not result in the loss of suitablebald eaglehabitat except for possibly the expansionof Cougar Creek and Swift Forest Campgroundswhich may remove large standing trees that could be providing now or in the future roost or perch trees. Thesecampgrounds do not currently occur within 800 m of a bald eagle nest or roost site and the provision of maintaining a 200-foot riparian buffer along the reservoirs will likely limit the removal of present or future perch or roost trees; future nesting in the immediate vicinity of active campgroundsis not anticipated. Becausedanger trees will be felled in areasof high humanuse and the provision to not fall existingbald eagleuse trees, there is a low likelihood that dangertree managementwould substantiallyreduce availableperch, roost or nest trees now or in the future.

Conservationmeasures described in the WHMP standardsand guidelines are expectedto reduce the potential of significantly disrupting normal behaviors of nesting and roosting bald eaglesfrom management-relatedactivities. Of the areasnot managedunder a WHMP, the SpeelyaiBay and Swift No. 2 Powerhousebald eagle nest sites are within 800 m line-of-sightof the SpeelyaiBay Day-UseArea and BeaverBay Campground, respectively. The Swift No. 2 Powerhousebald eaglenest is alsowithin 800 m line-of- sight of the Swift No. 2 project works property. Both of thesenest siteshave been

t4s establishedin the past 5 years despiteongoing activities in theseareas, including year- round reconstructionof the Swift No. 2 project. Continued ongoing activities at the Swift No. 2 project, SpeelyaiBay Day-Use and Beaver Bay Campgroundare not expectedto disturb nesting bald eaglesto such an extent as to appreciably alter their behaviors or nesting successdue to their relative acclimationto activities in this location.

Expansion of campgroundsand improvementsin recreationalfacilities are expectedto increasethe number of recreationistsin the action area andespecially the number of boatersand anglers. Over the terms of the licenses,boattraffrc associatedwith these increasesis anticipatedto be likely to flush bald eaglesfrom perchesor reducetheir foraging efforts. Although there is likely to be an increasednumber of boaterson the reservoirsover the period of the licenses,the pattem and timing of use of the reservoirs by boatersis not anticipatedto change.Because bald eagleshave only recentlystarted nesting along the reservoirs despite fairly high on-goingreueational use, thesebald eagles appearfairly tolerant of humansand they have been able to successfullyforage and fledge young despitethese disturbances. Therefore,with an improved prey base,the increasein recreationalusers is not anticipatedto result in the abandonmentof existing nesting territories or appreciablyreduce their overall productivity.

The proposedreintroduction of salmon and steelheadwill result in large numbers of these fish returning to the upper Lewis River basin to spawn. It is expectedthese reintroduced fish will spawn above Swift Creek Reservoir, most likely in the Pine Creek, Rush Creek and Muddy River. There is a known winter roost site (Eagle Clif| in close proximity to this area. The FWS believes both bald eaglesand anglerswould be attractedto these spawning fish. So although the reintroduction of salmon and steelheadare likely to provide an enhancedprey base,it will also bring in anglersthat are likely to disturb those bald eaglestrying to forage on the spawning fish. Currently, wintering bald eaglesforage extensively at the tailraces where there is limited disturbanceby boats/anglers. This condition is not expectedto changeas a result of the proposedaction. The proposed action would, however, provide a new wintering foraging areafor bald eagleswhere the reintroduced salmon and steelheadspawn and although angler presencemay reducethe foraging efficiency of wintering bald eagles,the increasedamount and distribution of prey may benefit the wintering population of bald eaglesin the action area.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the ESA and Federalregulation pursuantto section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangeredand threatenedspecies, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,harm, pursue,hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engagein any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the FWS to include significant habitat modification or degradationthat results in death or injury to listed speciesby significantly impairing essentialbehavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harassis defined by the FWS as intentional or negligent actions that createthe likelihood of injury to listed speciesto such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patternswhich include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding

146 or sheltering. Incidentaltake is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(bX4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not consideredto be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliancewith the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

Bull Trout

Upon implementation of the proposedaction, bull trout may be incidentally taken through the following mechanisms:

o A small number of bull trout may be incidentally taken as a result of competition for food and spacewith introduced salmonidsin Cougar Creek. This incidental take would be in form of harm through reducedavailable habitat. The amount of incidental take is difficult to quantify, but is expectedto be < 10 percent of juvenile bull trout.

o A small number of bull trout redds may be excavatedby coho salmon (redd superimposition)in Pine and CougarCreek causing the loss of thoseeggs. This incidental take would be in form of harm through the death of bull trout eggs. The amount of incidental take is difficult to quantify, but is expectedto be < 10 percentofredds.

o A small number ofjuvenile bull trout may be incidentally taken as a result of predation by reintroduced salmon and steelhead. This incidental take would be in form of harm through the death of individuals. The amount of incidental take is difficult to quantify, but is expectedto be < 10 percent ofjuvenile bull trout.

o Adult bull trout may be incidentally taken as a result of permanentupstream and downstreampassage at the facilities. Upstream and downstreamadult bull trout survival is expectedto be at least 98 percent. Injuries could occur such as descalingand abrasionsfrom contact with the facilities or from human handling. Injuries may affect up to 10 percent of the fish captured,but will not result in mortality. This incidental take would be in form of harm through the death of no more than 2 percentof the adults and through injury of no more than 10 percent of the bull trout passing each facility. In addition, all bull trout would be incidentally taken in the form of harassfrom being captured,handled and transported.

o A small number of adult bull trout may be incidentally taken as a result of not being capturedand moved upstreamto spawn as a result of less than 100 percent adult trap efficiencies (ATE). Currently, the lowest ATE measuredat Merwin Dam is approximately52 percent. It is assumedthe new designswould achieve substantiallygreater efficiencies although they cannot be determinedprecisely today. Assuming a worst-caseATE of 52 percent, bull trout wanting to spawn upstreammay spawn in non-natal waters or they may not spawn thereby

t47 reabsorbingtheir eggsto spawn anothertime. This may or may not result in a risk of loss of reproduction that yearby somepercentage of migratory bull trout. The amount of incidental take is difficult to quantify, but < 5 percent of adult bull trout may not spawn as a result of not being capturedand moved upstreamto their natal waters. This incidental take would be in form of harm through the reduced ability to spawn and would only likely occur downstreamof Yale Lake and Swift CreekReservoir.

Bull trout may be incidentally taken in the form of harm (5 I bull trout per year) as a result of the interim upstreampassage, in additionallbull trout would be incidentally taken in the form of harassfrom being captured,handled and transported

Bull trout would be incidentally taken in the form of harassfrom being captured, handled and transportedduring interim downstreampassage. In addition, bull trout may be incidentally taken in the form of harm through mortality as a result of the interim downstreampassage as describedin Table 7 andrepeated hefe:

Table 7. Estimated annual mortality of interim downstreampassage on bull ffout at the Lewis River dams. Passage Passage Passage through through through Passagethrough Upper CanalDrain Surge collector or Passageover ReleasePoint Arresting turbine snillway Structure Site Swift < 3 bull < 15bull No mortality, N/A N/A No. 1 trout/year for trout/year in designedto be Swift No. 1 and yearsof spill; fish friendly No. 2 together spills are until installation expectedto of downstream occur,on collectorin year average,every 4. 2.3 years.

Swift No mortality N/A No mortality, < 3 bull No.2 due to low passiveexit trouVyear headspill. strucfure Also provides avenuefor bull trout to leave canal safelv.

148 Yale < 3 bull < 15bull N/A N/A N/A trout/year for trout/yearin Yale Dam until yearsof spill; installation of spillsare an entrainment expectedto reduction occur,on device by average,every November2007 2.3 yearc. which would reducethe potential for entrainment. Merwin Not anticipated Not due to effect of anticipated upstreamdams due to effect on bull trout ofupstream abundance in dams on bull Lake Merwin. trout abundancein Lake Merwin.

o Bull trout would be incidentally taken in the form of harassfrom being captured, handled and transportedduring permanentdownstream passage. In addition, bull trout may be incidentally taken in the form of harm through moltality as a result of the pefinanent downstreampassage as describedin Table 8 and repeatedhere:

Table 8. Estimated annual bull trout mortality from downstreampassage after permanent facilities are constructedat the Lewis River dams. Passage Passage Passage through Upper through Canal throughSurge Passagethrough Passageover ReleasePoint Drain Arresting collector or turbine snillwav Structure Site Swift <2bilI < 12bull No mortality, N/A N/A No. 1 trout/yearfor trout/yearin designedto be SwiftNo. 1 and yearsof spill; fish friendly No. 2 together spills are expectedto occur,on average,every 2.3 years.

Swift No mortality N/A No mortality, < 2 bull No.2 due to low head passiveexit trouVyear spill and structure provides avenuefor bull trout to leave canal safely.

t49 Yale

Merwin Not anticipated Not anticipated because because downstream downstream migrants atYale migrants at Dam will be Yale Damwill transportedto be transported below Merwin to below Dam. Merwin Dam.

All bull trout within 600 feet downstreamof the following construction activities may be incidentally taken through harm as a result of elevatedsuspended sediments, as describedin Table 9 of the Biological Opinion: acclimation ponds, two upstream migrant collect and haul facilities (Yale and Swift projects), instream habitat improvement projects in the ConstructedChannel, gravel augmentationin the Bypass Reach,and three instream habitat improvement projects in Pine Creek.

Incidental take in the form of harm and harassmentof bull trout may occur as a result of monitoring activities in which bull trout will be netted and captured,recorded and then transported. No more than 1 bull trout would be harmed (killed) per year as a result of theseactivities. All capturedbull trout are assumedto be harassed.

Spotted Owl

CowlitzPUD proposesto clearcut harvestno more 10 acresof suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat, and PacifiCorp proposesto clearcut harvest 3,283 acresof suitable spottedowl roosting and foraginghabitat over the life of their licenses. Given a lack of spottedowl surveys on Utility-owned lands, any of this habitat removal could occur within a known or unknown spotted owl home range. Therefore, the loss of suitable spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat is anticipated to reducethe ability of reproducing spottedowls to successfullyforage which may reduce their ability to successfullyrear young except for harvestthat may occu( along the eastern shore of Yale Lake where managementcannot exceedthe criteria to maintain home range viability which would apply to 5 of the 8 affected home rangesin the action area. Becauseit is unknown what percentageof proposedharvest would occur in the SOSEA, the FWS anticipates the incidentaltake of spottedowls associatedwith the removal of 10 acresof spottedowl roosting and foraging habitat from Cowlitz PUD-owned lands and up to 3,283 acresfrom PacifiCorp-owned lands. This incidental take would be in the form of harm from habitat removal. The FWS does not anticipatethe incidental take of spotted owls in the form of harass due to provisionsto implementLOPs.

1s0 Bald Eagle

The proposedaction is expectedto indirectly incidentally take bald eaglesthrough an increasein recreationalboaters and anglerswhich are likely to harassnesting and wintering bald eaglesby reducing the amount of time they can forage or from flushing them from feeding stations. A11 breeding and wintering bald eaglesare likely to be harassed.The FWS doesnot anticipatethe incidental take of bald eaglesin the form of harm due to habitat modifications.

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

Bull Trout

In the accompanyingBiological Opinion, the FWS determinedthis level of incidental take is not likely to jeopardizethe continuedexistence of bull trout.

Spotted Owl

In the accompanyingBiological Opinion, the FWS determinedthis level of incidental take is not likely to jeopardize the continued existenceof the spottedowl.

Bald Eagle

In the accompanyingBiological Opinion, the FWS determinedthis level of incidentaltake is not likely to jeopardizethe continuedexistence of the bald eagle.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

The FWS believes the following reasonableand prudent measures(RPMs) are necessaryand appropriateto minimize the incidental take of bull trout in the action area. The FWS believesthe proposedaction includes all reasonableconservation measures to minimize the incidental take of spottedowls and bald eaglesand, therefore,has not identified any RPMs necessaryto further minimize the incidental take of these species.

Bull Trout

RPM 1: Minimize bull trout reddsexcavated by coho salmonin Pine and Cougar Creeks.

RPM 2z Manage adult bull trout migration below the Swift Dam for the greatestpossible reproductivesuccess.

RPM 3: Minimizepredation on bull trout by reintroduced salmon and steelhead.

RPM 4: Minimize sedimentationimpacts from all constructionsites.

151 RPM 5: Minimize harm and harassmentof bull trout as a result of monitoring and capture and haul facilities.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section9 of the ESA, the FERC or its applicant must comply with the following Terms and Conditions, which implement the Reasonableand Prudent Measuresdescribed above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These Terms and Conditions are non-discretionary. Becauseno RPMs were identified to minimize the incidental take of spottedowls and bald eagles,there are no associatedTerms and Conditionsfor thesespecies.

Bull Trout

T&C 1.1: In restoringcoho to Yale Lake, selectfor early spawners,if feasible,so that Cougar Creek bull trout will spawn at least partly after coho, thus reducing coho redd superimpositionon bull trout.

T&C 2.1: Conduct annual bull trout surveysin the Swift No. 2 tailrace,Bypass Reach, and Lower and Upper ConstructedChannels to documentpresence or absenceof bull trout spawning and egg survival, if approprrate,in theselocations. This will occur for a minimum of 3 years following completion of the Upper ReleasePoint and implementation of the Bypass Reach flows (as directed by the WDOE) or until it is demonstratedthat bull trout spawning doesnot occur in theseareas'

T&C 3.1: If bull trout occur in the required random sample of mixed downstream migrant speciesin the Swift Creek Reservoir and Yale Lake traps, smolt-sizedbull trout should be placed immediately in the recovery tank and transportedto the next reservoir downstream. Bull trout fry should be separatedfrom larger fish and be transferredto a separatefry tank. If possible, bull trout fry should be separatedfrom other fry and releasedback into Swift Creek Reservoir away from the surface collector.

T&C 4.1: Determine the appropriatetiming windows for instream construction in the Bypass Reach basedon annual patternsof flow, temperature,and adult bull trout abundance,with a view toward minimizingsuspended sediment impacts on bull trout and substrateembeddedness.

T&C 4.2: Where feasible and appropriatefor the type, magnitude and duration of the instream activity, isolate instream construction from the flow during the work period by installing temporary dams and pumping or diverting the water around the work zone. Dewatering may require fish rescueto avoid stranding.

T&C 5.1: The Licenseesare authorizedthedirect take (harassby survey,capture, handle, and release)of bull trout while conducting annual monitoring activities and

r52 surveys for the purpose of enhancingbull trout survival, as well as to take bull trout in interim and permanentbull trout passageoperations in accordancewith the conditions statedbelow. Permitted activities are restrictedto the Lewis River Subbasin,from the Columbia River to North Fork Lewis River Mile12.5 (Lower Falls), including Lake Merwin, Yale Lake, and Swift Creek Reservoir, and all Lewis River tributaries up to Lower Falls.

T&C 5.2. The Utilities areresponsible for assuringthat the individualsconducting monitoring or collect and haul operationsare properly trained and educated,and complying with the following Terms and Conditions. The Utilities shall retain a current list of suchpeople and the list shouldinclude the following:

1) The name of each individual; 2) The resumeor qualifications statementof each,detailing their experiencewith each speciesand type of activity for which they will be conducting; and 3) The names and phone numbersof a minimum of two references.

T&C 5.3: All capture,handling, and observationmethods shall be implementedat times that will avoid temperaturestress of bull trout being surveyed,collected, monitored, rescued,or relocated.

T&C 5.4: All live bull trout capturedshall be releasedas soonas possible. Any bull trout capturedand showing signs of stressor injury should only be releasedwhen able to maintainitself. Nurture such individuals in a holding tank until they have recovered. If bull trout are held in atank, ahealthy environment for the stressedbull trout must be provided, and the holding time must be minimized. Water-to-water transfers,the use of shaded,dark containers,and supplementaloxygen shall all be consideredin designing bull trout handling operations. Any bull trout fry must be held in a separatecontainer from other bull trout (including juvenile bull trout), to avoid predation by larger bull trout during captivity.

T&C 5.5: The period of time that capturedbull trout are anesthetizedshall be minimized. The number of bull trout that are anesthetizedat one time shall be no more than what can be processed(biosampled) within severalminutes.

T&C 5.6: Prior to conducting activities that involve handling of bull trout, the permittee shall ensure that hands are free of sunscreen,lotion, or insect repellent.

Reporting Requirements

In order to monitor the effectivenessof implementing the Reasonableand Prudent Measures,the FERC or its applicantswill preparea report describing their progressin implementing the Terms and Conditions and the licenses. An annual progressreport should be sent to the FWS attention: Division Manager, Division of Conservationand Hydropower Planning. The report may be included in the Annual Report required under the SA and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

153 1) Significant researchresults and its importancewith regardsto recovery of bull trout; 2) Maps or descriptionsof locations sampledfor each species; 3) The resultsof all samplingefforts including estimatesof populationsize; 4) Quantification of take, including numbersof individuals incidentally killed, including dates,locations, and circumstancesof lethal take, and an estimateof the numbersof individualsotherwise harmed or harassed(e.g., displaced during snorkelingsurveys); 5) Other pertinent observationsmade during sampling efforts regarding the statusand ecology of the bull trout, including size of individuals and presumedlife-history form; 6) Progresswith implementing the RPMs; 7) Activities carried out in the ConservationCovenants; 8) Activities conductedunder the WHMPs; 9) Changesto dam operationsthat improve or protect the speciesor their habitat; and 10)Implementation of any ConservationRecommendations.

The FERC or its Licenseesare to notify the FWS within 3 working days upon locating a dead, injured, or sick endangeredor threatenedspecies specimen. They must make initial notification atthenearest FWS Law Enforcement Office. Contact the FWS Law Enforcement Office at (425) 383-8122or the FWS WesternWashington Fish and Wildlife Office at (360) 753-9440. Notification must include the date, time, precise location of the injured animal or carcass,and any other pertinent information. Care should be taken in the handling of sick or injured specimensto preservebiological materialsin the bestpossible state for later analysisof causeof death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangeredor threatenedspecies or preservationof biologicalmateials from a dead anrmal,the finder has the responsibility to ensurethat evidenceassociated with the specimenis not unnecessarilydisturbed. Reports of incidental injury or killing must include the date, time, precise location of the injured animal or carcass,and any other pertinent information such as causeof death or injury. In regardsto bull trout, all incidental mortalities shall be preservedin a fashion to best provide maximum scientific information (otoliths, scales,genetic samples,general fisheries statistics,etc.). Any specimen killed shall be kept whole and put on ice or frozen, and a small sample of tissue (fin clip approximately 1 squarecentimeter) shall be preservedin a vial of 95 percent ethanol for genetic analysis.

The FWS will not refer the incidental take of any migratory bird or bald eagle for prosecution underthe Migratory Bird TreaIyAct of 1918,as amended(16 USC Section703-712), or the Bald and GoldenEagle Protection Act of 1940,as amended(16 USC Section668-668d), if such take is in compliance with the Terms and Conditions (including amount and/or number) specifiedherein.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(I) of the ESA directs Federal agenciesto utllize their authorities to further the purposesof the ESA by carrying out conservationprograms for the benefit of endangeredand threatenedspecies. Conservationrecommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverseeffects of a proposedaction on listed speciesor critical habitat, help implement recovery plans, or develop information. Becauseof the FWS's extensive

154 involvement in the developmentof the SA and our continued involvement on the ACC and TCC, the FWS doesnot proposeany conseryationrecommendations.

SECTION 7 REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludesformal consultation for the proposedrelicensing of the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects(Merwin (FERC No. 935), Yale (FERC No. 2071),Swift No. 1 (FERC No. 2111),and Swift No. 2 (FERC No. 2213)) by the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission and the interdependentactions containedin the SettlementAgreement (PacifiCorp et al. 2004a),dated November 30,2004, as outlined in your requestof October11, 2005, and the 401 Certifications. As provided in 50 CFR $402.l6,reinitialion of formal consultationis requiredwhere discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained,or is authorizedbylaw, and if: 1) the amountor extentof incidentaltake is exceeded;2)new information reveals effects of the action thatmay affect listed speciesor critical habitatina manner or to an extent not consideredin this Biological Opinion; 3) the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causesan effect to the listed speciesor critical habitat not considered in this Biological Opinion; or,4) anew speciesis listed or critical habitatdesignated that may be affected by the action. In instanceswhere the amount and extent of incidental take is exceeded, FERC and the applicantsmust immediately consult with FWS regarding how to proceedand whether the operationscausing such exceedanceshould ceasepending reinitiation.

155 LITERATURE CITED

Anderson,D.E. 1990.Nest-defense behavior of red-tailedhawks. Condor 92:99I-997.

Anthony,R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin,D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz,J. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H.Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell,P.C. Carlson,L.V. Diller, K.M.Dugger,K.E. Fehring,T.L. Fleming,R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel,R.J. Guti6nez,P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl,J.A. Reid, andS.G. Sovern. 2A04. Statusand trends in demographyof northern spottedowls, 1985-2003. Final Reportto the InteragencyRegional Monitoring Program, Portland,Oregon. September2004. 179pages.

Anthony,R.G., and F.B. Isaacs.1989. Characteristics of baldeagle nest sites in Oregon. Journalof WildlifeManagement. 53:148-159.

Anthony,R.G., R.J. Steidl, and K. McGarigal.1995. Recreation and bald eagles in thePacific Northwest. pp.223-241,in'. R.L. Knight andK. J. Gutzwiller. Wildlife and Recreationists:coexistence throughmanagement and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C.372pp.

Anthony,R.G., and L.S. Andrews. 2004. SummaryReport - Winter habitatuse by spottedowls on USDI Bureauof LandManagement Medford District Landswithin the boundariesof the TimberedRock Fire. Unpublishedreport, OCWRU, OSU, Corvallis, Oregon. 29 pp Barrowclough,G.F. and R. I. Gutienez. 1990. Geneticvariation and differentiation in the spottedowl.

Backman,T., A.Evans,and M. Robertson.1998. Gas bubble ffauma in juvenilesalmonids in the lower Columbiaand Snake Rivers. ColumbiaRiver Inter-TribalFish Commission. Portland,Oregon.

Barrowclough,G.F. andR. J. Guti6rrez. 1990. Geneticvariation and differentiation in the spottedowl. Auk 107:737-744.

Barrowclough,G.F., R.J. Guti6nez, andJ.G. Groth. 1999.Phylogeography of spottedowl (Strix occidentalis)populations based on mitochondrialDNA sequences;gene flow, genetic structure,and a novelbiogeographic pattern. Evolution 53(3):919-93I.

Barrows,C.C. 1980.Feeding ecology of thespotted owl in California.Joumal of Raptor Research14:73-71.

Barrows,C.W. andK. Barrows. 1978. Roostcharacteristics and behavioral thermoregulation in thespotted owl. WestemBirds 9:1-8.

Bart,J. 1995.Amount of suitablehabitat and viability of northernspotted owls. Conservation Biology9 ($:9a3-946.

ts6 Bart, J., and E.D. Forsman. 1992. Dependenceof northern spottedowls (Srrzxoccidentalis caurina) on old-growth forestsin the westernUSA. Biological Conservation62:95-100.

Baxter, C.V. and F.R. Hauer. 2000. Geomorphology,hyporheic exchange, and the selectionof spawning habitat by bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus). CanadaJournal of Aquatic Science57:1470-1481.

Baxter, C.V. 2002. Fish movement and assemblagedynamics in a Pacific Northwest riverscape. Ph.D. Thesis,Oregon State University, Corvallis,Oregon.

Baxter, C.V. and J.D. McPhall. 1997. Diel microhabitatpreferences ofjuvenile bull trout in an artificial streamchannel. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 17:975-980.

Baxter, J.S.,E.B. Taylor, R.H. Devlin, J. Hagenand J.D. McPhail. 1997. Evidencefor natural hybridization betweenDolly Varden (Salvelinusmalma) and bull trout (S. confluentus)in a northcentral British Columbia watershed. CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences54:421-429.

Beauchamp,D.A., and J.J.VanTassell. 200I. Modeling seasonaltrophic interactionsof adfluvial bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety T30:204-216.

Bell, M.B., M. Erho, and B. Leman. L974. Occur:renceof gasbubble diseasesymptoms on fish in mid-ColumbiaRiver reservoirs.Public Utility district of Grant County, Public Utility District of DouglasCounty, and Public Utility District of ChelanCounty, Washington.

Bevis, K.R.,G.M. King, and E.E. Hanson.1997. Spottedowls and 1994fires on the Yakama Indian Reservation.Pages ll7-22 in: J.M. Greenlee,(ed.). Proceedings- Fire Effectson Rare and EndangeredSpecies Habitats Conference, November t3-16,1995. Coeur D'Alene, Idaho.International Association of Wildland Fire.

Bingham, B.B., and B.R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat "take": Application tohabitat conservationplanning. ConservationBiology 11(1): I27 -I38.

Bisson,P.A., R.E.Bilby, M.D. Bryant,C.A. Dolloff G.B. Grette,R.A.House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. Koski and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Streamsidemanagement: forestry and fishery interactions.Pages I43-I90 in: E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (eds.). Large woody debris in forestedstreams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present,and future. University of Washington,Institute of ForestResources, Seattle, Washington.

Blakesley,J.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J. Gutienez. 1992. Spottedowl roost and nest site selectionin northwesternCalifomta. 1992. Journalof Wildlife Management56(2):388- 392.

Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habitsof bull char(Salvelinus confluentus)and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), coexisting in the foothills streamin northern Alberta. CanadianField- Naturalist| 0 | (I) :5 6 - 62.

r57 Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclatureand distribution of the bull trout and the effects of human activity on the species.Pages T-4 in: P.J.Howell and D.V. Buchanan(eds.). Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapterof the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutienez,A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye,C.A. May, and M.E. Seamans.2002' Short-term effects of wildfires on spottedowl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductivesuccess. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 30(a) : rc22-1028.

Bonneau,J.L., and D.L. Scamecchia 1996. Distribution ofjuvenile bull trout in a thermal gradient of a plunge pool in Granite Creek, Idaho. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 125(4):628 - 63 0 .

Bortolotti, G.R. 1984. Physicaldevelopment of nestlingbald eagleswith emphasison the timing of growth events. Wilson Bulletin 96:524-542

Brenkman,S.J., and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromyin bull trout and implicationsfor conservationof a threatenedspecies. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 25:1073-1081.

Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brewin. 1997. Distribution mapsfor bull trout in Alberta. Pages209- 216 in: MacKay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M.Monia (eds.). Friendsof the Bull Trout ConferenceProceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited, Calgary.

Brown, L.G. 1992. On the zoogeographyand life history of Washington native char Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Washington Department of Wildlife, FisheriesManagement Division Report, Olympia, Washington.

Brown, L.G. 1994. The zoogeographyand life history of WA native char. Report#94-04 November 1992. Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, FisheriesManagement Division, Olympia, Washington.

Bryant,M.D. 1983. The role and managementof woody debris in West Coast salmonid nursery streams.North American Journalof FisheriesManagement3:322-330.

Buchanan,D. M. and S. V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperaturestandards to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water speciesin Oregon. Pages1- 8 in: W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (eds.). Friendsof the bull trout conferenceproceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Buchanan,J.8., L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutcheon. 1993. Characteristicsof spottedowl nest treesin the WenatcheeNational Forest. Journalof RaptorResearch 27(l):l-7.

158 Buchanan,J.8., L.L. Irwin, andE.L. McCutchen.1995. Within-stand nest site selection by spottedowls in the easternWashington Cascades. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:301-310.

Buchanan,J.B., R.G. Anthony, T. Cullinan,L.V.Diller, E.D.Forsman, A.B. Franklin,and R.J. Gutienez.December 2005. Researchandmanagement options to addressinterspecific relationshipsbetween barred owls and spotted owls. UnpublishedReport. 36 pages.

Buchanan,J.8., and P. Sweeden.2005, Finalbriefing report to theWashington State Forest PracticesBoard regardingspotted owl statusand forest practices rules. August2005. WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife, Olympia,Washington.

Buchanan,J., E. Hanson,D. Hays,andL. Young. 1994.An evaluationof theWashington ForestPractices Board Wildlife Committeepreferred alternative for a spottedowl protectionrule. WashingtonForest Practices Board Spotted Owl ScientificAdvisory Group.Olympia, Washington.

Buehler,D.A. 2000. BaldEagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: TheBirds of NorthAmerica, No. 506(A. Pooleand F. Gill, eds.).The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Burkey,T.V. 1989.Extinction in naturereserves: Implications for populationsin fragmented habitats.Conservation Biology 9:527 -54I.

Caffrey,C. 2003. Determiningimpacts of WestNile Virus on crowsand other birds. American Birds(103rd Count) 57:14-21.

Caffrey,C. andC.C. Peterson. 2003. WestNile Virusmay not be a conservationissue in northeasternUnited States. American Birds (103rd Count) 57:14-21.

CaliforniaDepartment of Forestryand Fire Protection(CDF). 2005. CaliforniaForest Practices Rules:200I. Title 14,Califomia Code of Regulations,Chapters 4,4.5, and10. Sacramento,California.

Carey,A.B. 1993.Prey ecology and northern spotted owl diet.Abstract of presentation,Spotted Owl Symposium,annual meeting of theRaptor Research Foundation, Inc., Bellevue, Washington,November 11-15, 1992. Joumal of RaptorResearch 27(l):53-54.

Carey,A.B. 2001. Experimentalmanipulation of spatialheterogeneity in Douglas-firforests: effectson squirrels.Forest Ecology and Management 152 (2001,) 13-30.

Carl,L. 1985.Management plan for bull troutin Alberta.Pages 71-80 in: MacDonald,D.D. (ed.). Proceedingsof theFlathead River basin bull troutbiology and population dynamicsmodeling information exchange. British ColumbiaMinistry of Environment, FisheriesBranch. Cranbrook. British Columbia.

159 Cavender,T. M. 1978. Taxonomyand distribution of the bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) (Suckley),from theAmerican northwest. California Bull troutand Game 64:139-174.

Clancy,C.G. 1993. StatewideFisheries Investigations, Bitterroot Forest Inventory. Montana Departmentof Fish,Wildlife, andParks, Fisheries Division, Helena. [not paged]. Job CompletionReport. Project F-46-R-4. (As referencedin U.S.Department of Interior 1998d).

Connor,E., D.Reiser, K. Binkley,D. Paige,and K. Lynch.1997. Abundance and distribution of an unexploitedbull trout populationin the CedarRiver Watershed,Washington. Pages 403-411in: W.C.Mackay, M.K. Brewin,and M. Monita(eds.). Friends of thebull trout conferenceproceedings. Bull Trout TaskForce (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary.

Courtney,S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody,J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin,J.F. Franklin, R.J. Guti6rrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski.2004. Scientific evaluationof the statusof the northernspotted owl. SustainableEcosystems Institute. Portland,Oregon. September 2004.

Dark,S.J., R.J. Gutienez,and G.I. Gould. 1998.The barred owl(Strixvaria) invasion in California.Auk 115:50-56.

Deubel,V., L.Fiette,P. Gounon,M.T.Drouet, H. Khun,M. Huerre,C. Banet,M. Malkinson, andP. Despres.200L Variationsin biologicalfeatures of WestNile viruses.Annals of theNew York Academyof Sciences95I:195-206.

Delaney,D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L.Pater,and M.H. Reiser.1999. Effects of helicopter noiseon Mexicanspotted owls. Joumalof Wildlife Management63:60-76.

Dolloff, C.A. 1986. Effectsof streamcleaning on juvenile cohosalmon and Dolly Vardenin southeastAlaska. Transactionsof theAmerican Fisheries Society II5:743-755.

Donald,D.B. andD.J. Alger. 1993.Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche overlapfor lake trout andbull trout in mountainlakes. CanadianJournal of Zoology 7l:238-241

Dugger,K.M., F. Wagner,R.G.Anthony, and G.S. Olson. 2005.The relationship between habitatcharacteristicsand demographic performance of northernspotted owls in southern Oregon.The Condor 107:863-878.

Dunbar,D.L., B.P.Booth, E.D. Forsman, A.E. Hetherington,and D.J. Wilson. L99L Statusof the spottedowl, (S/rlx occidentalis),and barred owl, (Slruxvaria), in southwesternBritish Columbia. CanadianField NaturalistI 05:4 64-468.

Dunham,J. B. andB.E. Rieman.1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout:influences of physical,biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. Ecological Applications, 9(2):642-655.

160 Dunham,J.B. and G.L. Chandler. 2001. Models to predict suitablehabitat forjuvenile bull trout in WashingtonState. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.

Dunham,J., B. Rieman,andG. Chandler. 200L Developmentof field-basedmodelsof suitable thermal regimes for Interior Colombia Basin salmonids. Interagencyagreement #00-IA- II2220I4-52I, final report to EnvironmentalProtection Agency, SeattleWashington.

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

Durbin, Kathie. 2006. Skamaniaat center of developmentdebate. The Columbian, Stevenson, Washington,Sunday, April 30, 2006.

Eicher Associates. 1987. Turbine-relatedfish mortality: review and evaluation of studies. Preparedfor EPR[, November 1987. EPzu AP-5480.

Elliott, S.T. 1986. Reductionof a Dolly Vardenpopulation and macrobenthosafter removalof logging debris. Transactionsof the AmericanFisheries Society 115:392-400.

Entrix, Inc. 2003. Biological Assessmentof potential effects on threatenedand endangered speciesof repair and reconstructionof Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Project. Preparedfor Public Utility District No.1 of Cowlitz County,Washington, Longview, Washington.

Environmental Technology Consultants. 2005. Wildlife and habitat assessmentreport prepared for Three Rivers Recreation Area, SkamaniaCounty, Washington. June 14,2005, Vancouver, Washington.

FERC 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Statementfor hydroelectric licenses,Lewis River projectsSwift No. 1 (ProjecrNo. 2111),Swift No. 2 (ProjectNo. 2113),Yale (Project No. 2071), and Merwin (Project No. 935), Washington. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,Office of EnergyProjects, Division of HydropowerLicensing. Washington,DC.

FERC 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statementfor hydroelectric licenses,Lewis River projectsSwift No. 1 (ProjectNo. 2111),Swift No. 2 (ProjectNo. 2113),Yale (Project No. 2071),and Merwin (ProjectNo. 935), Washington. FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission,Office of EnergyProjects, Division of HydropowerLicensing. Washington,DC.

Fitzgerald,S.D., J.S.Patterson, M. Kiupel, H.A. Simmons,S.D. Grimes,C.F. Sarver,R.M. Fulton, B.A. Fulton, B.A. Steficek,T.M. Cooley,J.P.Massey, and J.G. Sikarskie. 2003. Clinical and pathological featuresof West Nile Virus infection in native North American owls (family Strigidae). Avian Diseases47:602-610.

t6r Folliard,L. 1993.Nest site characteristics of northernspotted owls inmanagedforest of northwestCalifomia. M.S. Thesis. University of Idaho,Moscow, Idaho.

Forsman,E.D. 1981.Molt of thespotted owl. Auk 98:735-742.

Forsman,E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984.Distribution and biology of thespotted owl in Oregon.Wildlife Monographs87:l-64.

Forsman,E.D., S. Destefano, M.G. Raphael,andR.J. Gutierrez, (editors). 1996. Demography of thenorthern spotted owl. Studiesin AvianBiology No. 17. CooperOrnithology Society.

Forsman,E.D., and A.R. Giese. lgg7. Nestsof northernspotted owls on theOlympic Peninsula,Washington. Wilson Bulletin I09(I):28-4I.

Forsman,E.D., LA. Otto,S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor,D.W. Hays,H. Allen, S.L.Roberts, and D.E. Seaman.2001. Spatialand temporal variation in dietsof spottedowls in Washington. Journalof RaptorResearch 35(2):141-150.

Forsman,E.D., R.G. Anthony, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor,B.L. Biswell,A. Ellingson,E.C. Meslow, G.S. Miller, K.A. Swindle,J.A. Thrailkill, F.F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman.2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northernspotted owls. Wildlife Monographs149:1-35.

Forsman,E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow, and C.J. ZabeL 2004.Diets and foraging behavior of northernspotted owls in Oregon.Journal of RaptorResearch 38(3):214-230.

Fraley,J.J. and B.B..Shepard. 1989. Life history,ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) in the FlatheadLake andRiver system,Montana. NorthwestScience $@):133-143.

Franklin,A.B. 1992.Population regulation in northernspotted owls: theoretical implications for management.Pp 815-827in: D. R. McCulloughand R. H. Barrett(eds.), Wildlife 2001: populations.Elsevier Applied Sciences, London, England.

Franklin,A.8., K.P.Burnham, G.C. White, R.J. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, C. Sanchez,J.D. Nicols andJ. Hines. 1999. Range-widestatus and trends in northernspotted owl populations. ColoradoCoop. Fish and Wildlife Res.Unit, Fort Collins,Colorado and Oregon Coop. Fishand Wildlife. Res.Unit, Corvallis,Oregon. Unpublished report.

Franklin,A.B., D.R.Anderson, R.J. Guti6rrez, and K.P. Bumham. 2000. Climate,habitat quality,and fitness in northernspotted owl populationsin northwesternCalifornia. EcologicalMonograph s, 70(4): 53 9-590.

r62 Franson,J.C., L. Sileo, andN.J. Thomas. 1995. Causesof eagledeaths. In: LaRoe,E.T., G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett,P.D. Doran and M.J. Mac, (eds.). Our living resources:a reportto the nation on distribution, abundanceand health of U.S. plants, animals and ecosystems. U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Biological Service,Washington D.C. 530 pp.

Fraser,J.D., L.D. Frcnzel,and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of humanactivities on breeding bald eaglesin north-centralMinnesota. Journalof Wildlife Management49:585-592.

Frissell, C.A. 1993. Topology of extinction and endangermentof native fishes in the Pacific Northwestand California. ConservationBiolo gy 7(2):342-3 5 4.

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

Gaines,W.L., R.A. Strand,and S.D. Piper. 1997. Effectsof the HatcheryComplex Fires on northern spotted owls in the eaSternWashington Cascades.Pages 123-129in: Dr. J.M. Greenlee,(ed.). Proceedingsof the First Conferenceon Fii"eEffects on Rare and EndangeredSpecies and Habitats,November 13-16,1995. InternationalAssociation of Wildland Fire. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

Gamett, B. 1999. The history and statusof fishes in the Little Lost River drainage,Idaho. Salmon-ChallisNational Forest,Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game,U.S. Bureauof Land Management,Sagewillow,Inc. May 1999 dtaft.

Ganey,J.L., W.M. Block, J.K. Dwyer, B.E. Strohmeyer,and J.S. Jenness. 1998. Dispersal movementsand survival rates ofjuvenile Mexican spottedowls in northern Arizona. Wilson Bulletin 110:206-217.

Garmendia, A.E.,H.J. Van Kruiningen,R.A. French,J.F. Anderson,T.G. Andreadis,A. Kumar, and A.B. West. 2000. Recovery and identification of West Nile virus from a hawk in winter. Journalof ClinicalMicrobiology 38:3110-3111.

Gerking, S.D. 1994. FeedingEcology of Fish. AcademicPress, San Diego, California.

Glenn,E.M, M.C. Hansen,and R.G. Anthony. 2004. Spottedowl home-rangeand habitatuse in young forestsof westernOregon. Journalof Wildlife Management68(1):33-50.

Goetz,F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinusconfluentus, literature review. Willamette National Forest,Eugene, Oregon.

Goetz,F. 1994. Distribution andjuvenile ecologyof bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) in the CascadeMountains. Master'sThesis. OregonState University, Corvallis, Oregon.

r63 Goetz,F.A.,E. Jeanes,and E. Beamer. 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore.Preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle, Washington.Graves, S. K. 1982. Merwin, Yale and Swift CreekReservoir study: L978- 1982. WashingtonDepartment of Game. Battleground,Washington.

Goheen,E.M., E.M, Hansen,A. Kanaskie,M.G. Williams, N. Oserbauer,and W. Sutton. 2002. Suddenoak deathcaused by Phytophthoraremorum in Oregon. Plant Disease86:441.

Graham,P. J., Shepard,B. 8., and Fraley,J. J. 1981. Use of streamhabitat classifications to identify bull trout spawningareas in streams.Pages 186-190 in N.B. Armantrout(ed.). Acquisition andutilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. American Fisheries Society. Portland,Oregon.

Gremel, S. 2000. Spottedowl monitoring in Olympic National Park: 2000 Annual Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington.

Gremel, S. 2003. Spottedowl monitoring in Olympic National Park 2003 Annual Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington.

Grubb, T.G., and R.M. King. 199I. Assessinghuman disturbance of breedingbald eagleswith classificationtree models. Joumal of Wildlife Management55:500-511.

Grubb, T.G., W.W. Bowerman,J.P. Giesy, and G.A. Dawson. 1992. Responsesof breeding bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)to human activities in northcentral Michigan. Canadian Field Natur alist | 0 6 : 443- 45 3 .

Guti|nez, R.J. 1994. Changesin the distribution and abundanceof spottedowls during the past century. Studiesin Avian Biology 15:293-300.

Guti6nez,R.J. 1996. Biology and distributionof the northernspotted owl. Pages2-5 in: E.D. Forsman et al., (eds.).Demography of the northern spottedowl. Studiesin Avian Biology No. 17. CooperOrnithological Society.

Gtrti6rrez,R.J.,A.B. Franklin, and W.S. LaHaye. 1995. Spottedowl (Strix occidentalis)in A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The birds of North America, No. 179. The Academyof Natural Sciencesand The American Ornithologists'Union. Washington,D.C. 28 pages.

Haig, S.M., R.S. Wagner,E.D. Forsman,E.D., and T.D. Mullins. 2001. Geographicvariation and geneticstructure in spottedowls. ConservationGenetics 2(I):25-40.

Haig, S.M., T.D. Mullins, E.D. Forsman,P. Tratl, and L. Wennerberg. 2004. Genetic identificationof spottedowls, barredowls, and their hybrids: legal implicationsof hybrid identity. ConservationBiology 18:1347-1357 .

r64 Hamer,T.E. 1988.Home range size of thenorthern barred owl andnorthern spotted owl in westernWashington. M.S. Thesis.Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.

Hamer,T.E., S.G. Seim, and K.R. Dixon. 1989.Northern spotted owl andnorthern barred owl habitatuse and home range size in Washington:preliminary report. Washington Departmentof Wildlife, Olympia,Washington.

Hamer,T.E., E.D. Forsman, A.D. Fuchs,and M.L. Walters.1994. Hybridizationbetween barredand spotted owls. Auk 111(2):487-492.

Hamer,T.E., D.L. Hays,C.M. Senger,andF,.D. Forsman. 200L Dietsof northernbarred owls andnorthem spotted owls in an areaof sympatry.Journal of RaptorResearch 35(3):221' 227.

Hansen,A.J., and J.I. Hodges. 1985. High ratesof nonbreedingadult bald eagles in southeasternAlaska. Journal of Wildlife Management49:454-458.

Hanson,E., D.Hays,L. Hicks,L. Young,and J. Buchanan.1993. Spotted Owl Habitatin Washington:A Reportto the WashingtonForest Practices Board. WashingtonForest PracticesBoard, Spottedowl AdvisoryGroup. Final Report: December 20,1993. Olympia,Washington. 116 pages.

Hard,J. 1995.A quantitativegenetic perspective on the conservationof intraspecificdiversity. AmericanFisheries Society Symposium 17 :304-326

Harestad,A., J. Hobbs,and I. Blackbum. 2004. Pr6cisof the NorthernSpotted Owl in British Columbia.Pages I2-I4 in: Zimmerman)K., K. Welstead,F. Williams,J. Tumer,(eds.). NorthernSpotted Owl WorkshopProceedings. Forrex Series (online No. 14), Vancouver,British Columbia,Canada.

Healy,M.C. andA. Prince. 1995.Scales of variationin life historytactics of Pacificsalmon and the conservationof phenotypeand genotype. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:176-184.

Henke,A.L., T.Y. Chi, J. Smith,C. Brinegar.2005. Unpublished Draft. MicrosatelliteAnalysis of Northernand California Spotted Owls in California. ConservationGenetics Laboratory,Deparlment of Biological Sciences,San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Hershey,K.T., E.C.Meslow, and F.L. Ramsey.1998. Characteristics of forestsat spottedowl nestsites in thePacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management62(4):t398-1410. Herter,D.R., andL.L. Hicks. 2000. Barredowl andspotted owl populationsand habitat in the centralCascade Range of Washington.Journal of RaptorResearch 3a@):279-286.

16s Herter,D.R., L.L. Hicks,H.C. Stabins,J.J. Millspaugh, A.J. Stabins,and L.D. Melampy.2002. Roostsite characteristics of northernspotted owls in the nonbreedingseason in central Washington.Forest Science 48(2):47 -446.

Hicks,L.L.,H.C. Stabins,and D.R. Herter. 1999.Designing spotted owl habitatin a managed forest.Journal of Forestry,July 1999.pp.20-25.

Hoelscher,B., andT.C. Bjornn. 1989.Habitat, density, and potential production of troutand charin PendOreille Lake tributaries. Project F-710R-10, Subproject III, JobNo. 8. IdahoDepartment of Fishand Game, Boise,Idaho.

House,R.A., andP.L. Boehne. 1987. The effect of streamcleaning on salmonidhabitat and populationsin a coastalOregon drainage. Western Joumal of AppliedForestry 2:84-87.

Howell, P.J.,and D.V. Buchanan.1992. Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain Bull Trout Workshop.Oregon Chapter of theAmerican Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Irwin, L.L., D.F.Rock, and G.P. Miller. 2000. Standstructures used by northernspotted owls in managedforests. Journal of RaptorResearch 3aQ):175-186.

Iverson,W.F. 2004. Reproductivesuccess of spottedowls sympatric with barredowls in westernWashington. Journal of RaptorResearch 38(1):88-91.

Jakober,M. 1995. Autumnand winter movementand habitat use of residentbull trout and westslopecutthroat trout in Montana.Master's Thesis, Montana State University, Bozemart,Montana.

Johnson,D.H. Ig92. Spottedowls, greathorned owls, andforest fragmentation in the central OregonCascades. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Johnston,A. 2002. Northernspotted owl surveyand monitor report. U.S. Departmentof Interior,National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park, Crater Lake, Oregon.

Keister,G., andR.G. Anthony. 1983.Characteristics of baldeagle communal roosts in the KlamathBasin, Oregon and California. Journal of Wildlife Management47:1072-1079.

Keister,G., R.G.Anthony, and H.R. Holbo. 1985.A modelof energyconsumption in bald eagles:an evaluationof nightcommunal roosting. Wilson Bulletin 97:148-1,60.

KeisterG.P., R.G. Anthony, E.J. O'Neill. 1987.Use of communalroosts and foraging areas by baldeagles wintering in theKlamath Basin. Joumalof Wildlife Management51: 415- 420.

Kelly, E.G. 2001. Rangeexpansion of thenorthern barred owl: an evaluationof the impacton spottedowls. M.S.Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

r66 Kelly, E.G.,E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003.Are barredowls replacing spotted owls? TheCondor 105:45-53.

Kelly, E.G.and E.D. Forsman. 2004. Recent records of hybridizationbetween barred owls (Strixvaria) and northern spotted owls (S.occidentalis caurina). Auk 121:806-810.

King, G.M.,K.R. Bevis,M.A.Rowe, E.E. Hanson. 1997. Spotted owls use of habitatimpacted by 1994fires on the YakamalndianReservation: three years post fire.

Knight,R.L., V. Marr, andS.K. Ifuight. 1983.Communal roosting of baldeagles in Washington.In: Anthony,R.G., F.B. Isaacs and R.W. Frenzel, (eds.). Proceedings of a workshopon habitatmanagement for nestingand roosting bald eaglesin the western United States.Corvallis, Oregon.

Komar,N., N.A. Panella,J.E. Burns, S.W. Dusza, T.M. Mascarenhas,and T.O. Talbot. 2001. Serologicevidence for WestNile virus infectionin birds in the New York City vicinity 1999.Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(4):62I-5. duringan outbreak,in KuntzII, R.C.and R.G. Christophersen. 1996. A surveyof thenorthern spotted owl in North CascadesNational Park Service Complex. NPS Technical Report NPS/CCSONOCA/NRTR-96/05.U.S. Department of theInterior, National Park Service, NorthCascades National Park, Sedro Woolley, Washington.

LaHaye,W.S.,and R.J. Gutierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitatof the northern spotted owl in northwesternCalifomia. The Condor 10l:324-330.

LaHaye,W.S., R.J. Guitenez, andJ.R. Dunk. 200I. Nataldispersion of the spottedowl in southemCalifornia: dispersal profile of aninsular population. The Condor 103:691-700.

Laidig,K.J., and D.S. Dobkin. 1995.Spatial overlap and habitat association of BarredOwls and GreatHorned Owls in southernNew Jersey.Journal of RaptorResearch 29:I5l-T57.

Laymon,S.A. 1991. Diurnal foraging by spottedowls. Wilson Bulletin 103(1):138-140.

Leary,R.F. andF.W. Allendorf. 1997. Geneticconfirmation of sympatricbull trout andDolly Vardenin westernWashington. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 126:715- 720.

Leary,R.F.,F. W. Allendorl andS.H. Forbes. 1993. Conservation genetics of bull troutin the Columbiaand Klamath River drainages. Conservation Biology 7(4):856-865.

Leathe,S.A., andP. Graham. 1982. FlatheadLake fish food habitsstudy. Environmental ProtectionAgency, through Steering Committee for the FlatheadRiver Basin EnvironmentalImpact Study. ContractR008224-0I-4 to MontanaDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, andParks.

167 Lehmkuhl,J.F. and L.F. Ruggiero.1991. Forest fragmentation in thePacific Northwest and its potentialeffects on wildlife. Pages35-47 in: L.F. Ruggiero,K.B. Aubry,A.B. Carcy, andM.H. Huff technicaleditors. Wildlife andvegetation of unmanagedDouglas-fir forests.PNW-GTR-2}1. 533 pp. USDA ForestService, Pacific Northwest Research Station,Portland Oregon.

Leskiw,T., andR.J. Guti6nez. 1998.Possible predation of a spottedowl by a barredowl. WesternBirds 29 :225226.

Lesko,8.2006. Annualreport---2005 for FederalFish and Wildlife PermitNo. TE025429-I, LewisRiver hydroelectric projects Merwin FERC No.935, Yale FERC No. 2071,and SwiftNo 1 FERCNo. 2111. PacifiCorp,Portland, Oregon.

Lint,J., technicalcoordinator. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan - thefirst 10years Q99a-2003): statusand trends of northernspotted owl populationsand habitat. PNW-GTR-648, USDA ForestService, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon'

Lisle,T.E. 1986.Effects of woodydebris on anadromoussalmonidhabitat, Prince of Wales Island,Southeast Alaska. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 6:538-550.

Livezey,K.B. 2005.Iverson (2004) on spottedowls and barred owls: comments on methodsand conclusions.Joumal of RaptorResearch 39(1):I02-I03.

Loehle,C.,L.Irwin, D. Rock,and S. Rock. 2005.Are survivalrates for northernspotted owls biased?Canadian Journal of Zoology83 : 13 86- 1 3 90.

Lohr, S.,S. Duke, T. Cummings,and W. Fredenberg.2001. Listing of bull troutas a threatened speciesin theUnited States and initial stepsin recoveryplanning. Pages 199-205 in: M.K. Berwin,A.J. Paul, and M. Monita(eds.). Bull troutII conferenceproceedings- 200r.

Marra, P.P., S. Griffing, C. Caffrey, A.M. Kilpatrick, R. Mclean, C. Brand, E. Saito,A.P. Dupuis, L. Kramer, and R. Novak. 2004. West Nile Virus and wildlife. BioScience s4(s):393-402.

MBTSG (MontanaBull TroutScientific Group). 1998.The relationship between land managementactivities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Reportprepared for the MontanaBull Trout RestorationTeam, Helena, Montana.

McCullough,D., S. Spalding,D. Sturdevant,and M. Hicks. 200L Summaryof technical literatureexamining the physiologicaleffects of temperatureon salmonids.Issue paper 5. Preparedas part of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency Region 10 water quality criteriaguidance development project. Seattle,Washington.

McGarigal,K., R.G.Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs.1991. Interactions of humansand bald eagles on the ColumbiaRiver estuary. Wildlife Monographs115.

168 Mclean, R.G., S.R.Ubico, S.E.Docherty, W.R. Hansen,L. Sileo,and T.S. McNamara. 2001. West Nile Virus and transmissionand ecology in birds. Annuals of the New York Academyof Sciences95I:54-57.

McMahon, F., A. ZaleoJ.Selong, and R. Barrows. 2001. Growth and survival temperature criteria for bull trout. Annual report 2000 (year three). National Council for Air and StreamImprovement. 34 pp.

McPhail, J.D. and J.S.Baxter. 1996. A review of bult trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) life-history and habitat use in relation to compensationand improvement opportunities. Fisheries managementreport no. 104. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

McPhail, J.D. and C. Murray. 1979. The early life history of Dolly Varden (Salvelinusmalma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Report to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Kootenay Department of Bull trout and Wildlife. University of British Columbia, Department of Zoology, andInstitute of Animal Resources,Vancouver (As referencedin usDI 1997).

Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Prinicplesof conservationbiology. SinauerAssociates, Inc., Sunderland,Massachusetts. 600 pp.

Meyer, J.S.,L.L. Irwin, and M.S. Boyce. 1998. Influenceof habitatabundance and fragmentationon northern spottedowls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 139: 1- 51.

Mieman, Susan,Robert Anthony, Elizabeth Glenn, Todd Bayless, Amy Ellingson, Michael C. Hansen, and Clint Smith. 2003. Effects of commercial thinning on home-rangeand habitat-usepatterns of a male spottedowl: a casestudy. Wildlife SocietyBulletin, 3l(4):1254-1262.

Miller, G.S., S.K. Nelson, and W.C. Wright. 1985. Two-year-oldfemale spotted owl breeds successfully.Western Birds 16:69-73.

Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersalofjuvenile spottedowls in westernOregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis,Oregon.

Miller, G.S.,R.J. Small, and E.C. Meslow. lgg7. Habitatselection by spottedowls during natal dispersalin westernOregon. Journalof Wildlife Management61(1):140-150.

Mobrand-Stokesand Jones. 2005. ACC draft: Lewis River Hatcheryand SupplementationPlan (FERC Projectnos. 935, 2071,2111,2213). Preparedfor PacifiCorpand Cowlitz PUD. Portland,Oregon.

Moen, C.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J. Gutilnez. 1991. Age determinationof subadultnorthern spottedowls in northwestCalifomia. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 19:489-493.

r69 Murphy, M.L. 1995. Forestry impacts on freshwaterhabitat of anadromoussalmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska-requirementsfor protection and restoration. NOAA CoastalOcean Program Decision Analysis SeriesNumber 7. NOAA CoastalOffrce, Silver Spring,Maryland. 156pp.

Murphy, M.L., J.Heifetz, S.W. Johnson,K.V. Koski and J.F. Thedinga. 1986. Effects of clear- cut logging with and without buffer strips on juvenile salmonidsin Alaskan streams. CanadianJournal of Fisheriesand Aquatic Sciences43:152I-1533.

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. ZaIe. 2002. Bull ffout temperaturethresholds. Peer review summary preparedfor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Nelson, M., T. McMahon, and R. Thurow. 2002. Decline of the migratory form in bull char, (Salvelinusconfluentus), and implications for conservation. Environmental Biology of Fishes 64:321-332.

Neraas,L. and P. Spruell. 2004. Genetic analysis of Lewis River bull trout-final report WTSGL04-101to PacifiCorpand CowlitzPllD. Wild Trout and SalmonGenetics Lab, Division of Biological Sciences,University of Montana,Missoula, Montana.

North, M.P., G. Steger,R. Denton,G. Eberlein,T. Munton, and K. Johnson. 2000. Association of weather and nest-sitestructure with reproductive successin California spottedowls. Journal of Wi ldlife Management 64(3) :797 -807.

Olson, G.S.,E.M. Glenn,R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman,J.A. Reid, P.J.Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographicperformance of northern spottedowls relative to forest habitatin Oregon. Journalof Wildlife Management68(4):1039-1053.

Olson, G.S., R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman,S.H. Ackers,P.J. Loschl, J'A. Reid, K.M Dugger, E.M. Glenn,and W.J. Ripple. 2005. Modeling of site occupancydynamics for northern spotted owls, with emphasison the effects of barred owls. Journal of Wildlife Management69(3):91 8-932.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2000. Forest PracticesAdministrative Rules and Forest PracticesAct. Salem,Oregon.

PacifiCorp. 1999. Final TechnicalReport for Aquatic Resources.Yale Hydroelectricproject, FERC ProjectNo. 2071. Portland,Oregon.

PacifiCorpand CowlitzPIJD. 2000. Initial informationpackage for the Lewis River hydroelectricprojects. PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon, and CowlitzPUD, Longview, Washington.

170 pacifiCorpand Cowlitz PUD. 2002. SwiftBypass Reach synthesis (WTS 4) PacifiCorp& CowlitzPUD. LewisRiver Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project Nos. 935, 207I,2111, 2113.Project, FERC Project No. 2071. Portland,Oregon. PacifiCorpand CowlitzPIJD. 2003.Final licensee's 2001 technical study status reports for the Lewis River HydroelectricProjects. PacifiCorp and Public Utility District No. 1 of CowlitzCounty. Portland,Oregon and Longview, Washington.

PacifiCorpet aI. 2004a.Final SettlementAgreement concerning the relicensingof the Lewis River hydroelectricprojects, between Cowlitz PUD, NOAA Fisheries,National Park Service,US Bureauof LandManagement, US Fish andWildlife Service,USFS Forest Service,Confederated Tribes and Bands of the YakamaNation, CowlitzIndian Tribe, WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife, WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources,Interagency Committee for OutdoorRecreation, Clark County,Cowlitz County,Skamania County, Cowlitz-Skamania Fire District No. 7, North Country EmergencyMedical service, City of Woodland,Woodland Chamber of Commerce, Lewis River CommunityCouncil, Lewis River Citizens-at-Large,Lower ColumbiaBull trout RecoveryBoard, American Rivers, Fish First andRocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Inc. Portland,Oregon. November 30,2004.

PacifiCorp,Meridian Environmental, Inc., andPublic Utility District No. 1 of Cowlitz County. 2004b.Draft Biological Evaluation of listed,proposed, and candidate species as related to PacifiCorpand Cowlitz PUD's Lewis River hydroelectric projects. PacifiCorp, Portland,Oregon.

Parmesan,C. andG. Yohe. 2003. A globallycoherent fingerprint of climatechange impacts acrossnatural systems. Nature 42I:37-42.

Pearson,R.R., and K.B. Livezey. 2003.Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spottedowls andbarred owls in the CascadeMountains of Washington.Journal of RaptorResearch 37 (4):265 -27 6.

Pierce,D.J., J.B. Buchanan, B.L. Cosentino,and S. Snyder.2005. An assessmentof spottedowl habitatonnon-federal lands in Washingtonbetween 1996 and2004. Department of Wildlife ResearchReport.

Pratt,K.L. 1985.Habitat use and species interactions ofjuvenile cutthroat, Salmo clarki, and bull trout, (salvelinusconfluentus), in the upperFlathead River basin. Master'sThesis, Universityof Idaho,Moscow.

Pratt,K.L. 1992.A reviewof bull troutlife history.Pages 5-9 in P. J. Howell andD. V. Buchanan(eds.). Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapterof theAmerican Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Pratt,K.L. andJ.E. Huston. 1993.Status of bull trotrt.(Salvelinus confluentus) in LakePend Oreille andthe lower Clark Fork River (draftreport). Preparedfor the WashingtonWater PowerCompany, Spokane, Washington.

t7l Pratt, K.L. 2003. Evaluation of three proposedmanagement scenarios to enhancethree potential bull trout nursery habitats,accessible to Lake Merwin and Yale Lake, Lewis River. Preparedfor PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon.

Puget Sound Energy. 2006. Native Char Investigations:Results of 2005 activities [draft]. Puget Sound Energy, SeattleWA

Quigley, T.M. and S.J.Arbelbide. 1997. An assessmentof ecosystemcomponents in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume III. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-405. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,and U.S. Departmentof Interior, Bureauof Land Management.

Ratliff, D.E., and P.J.Howell. 1992. The statusof bull trout populationsin Oregon. Pages10 - 17 in: Howell, P.J.and D.V. Buchanan(eds.). Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain Bull Trout Workshop. OregonChapter of the American FisheriesSociety, Corvallis, Oregon.

Rich, C.F., Jr. 1996. Influenceof abiotic and biotic factorson occuffenceof residentbull trout in fragmentedhabitats, western Montana. Master's Thesis, Montana StateUniversity, Bozeman, Montana.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirementsfor conservation of bull trout. US Forest Service,Intermountain ResearchStation. General Technical Report INT-302.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. Mclntyrc. 1995. Occurrenceof bull trout in naturally fragmentedhabitat patchesof varied size. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 2aQ):285-296.

Rieman,B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre. 1996. Spatialand temporalvariability in bull trout redd counts. North American Journalof FisheriesManagement 16: 132-141.

Rieman,B.E., D.C. Lee and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, statusand likely future trendsof bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath Basins. North American Journal of FisheriesManageme nt T7(4) : I I I | - I I25 .

Rieman,B. E., and J. B. Dunham. 2000. Metapopulationsand salmonids:a synthesisof life history patternsand empirical observations.Ecology of FreshwaterFish 9:I-2.

Rieman,B.8., D. Lee, D. Bums, R. Gresswell,M. Young, R. Stowell,P. Howell. 2003. Status of native fishes in western United Statesand issuesfor fire and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management178(I-2):197 -211.

Rizzo,D.M., M. Garbeloto,J.M. Davidson,G.W. Slaughter,and S.T. Koike. 2002. Phytophthore ramorum as the causeof extensivemortality of Quercus spp. and Lithocarpusdensiflorus in California. Plant Disease86:205-214.

t72 Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R.Brooker, E. H. Lachner,R. N. Lea, and W. B. Scott. 1980. A list of commonand scientificnames of fishesfrom the United Statesand Canada.American FisheriesSociety Special Publication 12, Bethesda, Maryland.

Rosenberg,D.K., K.A. Swindle,and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Influenceof prey abundanceon northern spotted owl reproductive successin western Oregon. CanadianJournal of Zoology 8I:1715-1725.

Saunders,D.A., R. J. Hobbs,and C. R. Margules. 1991. Biologicalconsequences of ecosystem fragmentation:A review. ConservationBiology 5:18-32.

Schill, D.I. 1992. River ald streaminvestigations. Job PerformanceReport, Project F-73-R-13. Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game,Boise, Idaho.

Schmidt, K. 2003. Northern spottedowl monitoring and inventory, Redwood National and State Parks, 2002 annualreport. Redwood National and StateParks, Orick, California.

Schmitt,C.J., and C.M. Bunck. 1995. Persistentenvironmental contaminants in fish and wildlife. Pp.4l3-4I7 InLaRoe,E.T., G.S.Fanis, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doranand M.J. Mac, (eds.). Our living resources:a report to the nation on distribution,abundance and health of U.S. plants,animals and ecosystems.U.S. Departmentof the Interior,National Biological Service,Washington D.C. 530 pp.

Sedell,J.R., and F.H. Everest. 1991. Historic changesin pool habitatfor ColumbiaRiver Basin salmon under study for TES listing. Draft U.S. Department of Agriculture Report, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, Corvallis, Oregon.

Sexauer,H.M., and P.W. James. 1997. Microhabitatuse by juvenile trout in four streams locatedin the easternCascades, Washington. Pages36I-170 in: MacKay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita (eds.). Friendsof the Bull Trout ConferenceProceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Shepard,B., S.A. Leathe,T.M. Weaver,and M.D. Enk. 1984. Monitoring levels of fine sedimentwithin tributaries to FlatheadLake, and impacts of fine sedimenton bull trout recruitment. Proceedingsof the Wild Trout III Symposium. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. On file at: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Kalispell, Montana.

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

Singleton,P, S. Grahaffi,W. Gaines,and J. Lehmkuhl. 2005. The ecology of barredowls in fire-proneforests. USDA PNW December2005 ProgressReport; Wenatchee, Washington.

Sisco,C.L. 1990. Seasonalhome rangeand habitatecology of spottedowls in northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt StateUniversity, Arcata,California.

t73 SkamaniaCounty Commission. 2006. Ordinance2006-02. (an ordinanceestablishing a moratorium on the acceptanceand processingof land divisions (subdivision, short subdivision and exempt division by deed),the acceptanceand processingof building permit applicationsrequiring the creation of a new water source(individual wells andlor water systems)after the adoption of this moratorium, and the acceptanceand processing of stateenvironmental policy act (SEPA) checklistsrelated to forest practices conversionsfor any parcel located within township 6 north, range 5 east;township 7 north, range5 east;township 6 north, range 6 east;and township 7 north, range 6 east, Willamette meridian. All the aforementionedarea is generally known as the Swift Subareaof SkamaniaCounty, Washington.)

Solis,D.M., and R.J. Gutilnez. 1990. Summerhabitat ecology of northem spottedowls in northwesternCalifornia. The Condor 92:739-748.

Sovern,S.G., E.D. Forsman,B.L. Biswell, D.N. Rolph, and M. Taylor. 1994. Diumal behavior of the spottedowl in Washington. The Condor 96(l):200-202.

Spangle,S. 1992. Narratives for the final designationof criticalhabitat for the northern spotted owl in California. Unpublishedreport. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon.

Spence,B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughs,and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approachto salmonidconservation. TR-450 I-96-6057. ManTechEnvironmental ResearchServices Cotp., Corvallis,Oregon. (Available from NOAA's National Marine FisheriesService, Portland, Oregon.).

Spruell,P., B.E. Rieman,K.L. Knudsen,F.M. Utter, and F.W. Allendorf. 1999. Genetic population structurewithin streams:microsatellite analysis of bull trout populations. Ecologyof FreshwaterFish 8:ll4-I21.

Stalmaster,M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. UniverseBooks. New York. 227 pp.

Stalmaster,M.V., and J.R.Newman. 1978. Behavioralresponses of wintering bald eaglesto human activity. Joumal of Wildlife Management42:506-513.

Stalmaster,M.V., and J.R.Newman. 1979. Perch-sitepreferences of wintering bald eaglesin northwestWashington. Journalof Wildlife Management43:221-224.

Stalmaster,M.V., and J.L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreationalactivity on wintering bald eagles. Wildlife Monograph 137. 46 pp.

Steidl,R. J., and R. G. Anthony. 1996. Responsesof bald eaglesto humanactivity during the summerin interior Alaska. EcologicalApplications 6:482-49I.

Stinson,D.W., J.W. Watson,and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washingtonstate status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

t74 Swanberg,T. 1997. Movements of and habitatuse by fluvial bull trout in the Blackfoot River, Montana. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 126:735-746.

Tehan, M. 1991. Narratives for the final designationof critical habitat for the northern spotted owl in Washington. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon.

Thomas, G. 1992. Statusof bull trout in Montana. Report preparedfor Montana Departmentof Fish, Wildlife, and Parks,Helena, Montana.

Thomas,J.W., E.D. Forsman,J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservationstrategy for the northern spottedowl. Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to addressthe conservationof the northern spottedowl. Unpublished interagencydocument. 458 pages.

Thomas,J.W., and M.G. Raphael(eds.). 1993. ForestEcosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic,and SocialAssessment. Report of the ForestEcosystem Management AssessmentTeam (FEMAT). July 1993.Portland, Oregon: USDA ForestService and the USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Thomas,J.W., M.G. Raphael,R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman,A.G. Gunderson,R.S. Holthausen, B.G. Marcot, G.H. Reeves,J.R. Sedell,and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assessmentsand managementconsiderations for speciesassociated with late-successionaland old-growth forests of the Pacif,rcNorthwest. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Tweten, R. 1992. Narratives for the final designationof criticalhabitat for the northern spotted owl in Oregon. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USDA ForestService and USDI Bureauof Land Management. 1994a. Recordof decisionfor amendmentsto Forest Service and Bureau of Land Managementplanning documents within the rangeof the northern spottedowl; standardsand guidelines for managementof habitat for late-successionaland old-growth forest related specieswithin the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental impact statementon managementof habitat for late-successionaland old- growth forest related specieswithin the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon. 2 vols. and appendices.

U.S" Departmentof Interior. 1978. Endangeredand threatenedwildlife and plants; determination of certain bald eaglepopulations as endangeredor threatened. Final rule. Fish and Wildlife Service. FederalRegister Vol. 43. No. 31:6230-6233.February 13, r978.

U.S.Department of Interior. 1986.Recovery plan for thePacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon. 160 pp.

175 U.S. Departmentof Inteior. 1994. Endangeredand threatenedwildlife andplants; Proposed rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangeredto threatenedin most of the lower 48 states.Fish and Wildlife Service. FederalRegister. Vol. 59, No. 132:35584-35594.July 12,1994.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1999. Endangeredand threatenedwildlife and plants; Proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 statesfrom the list of endangeredand threatenedwildlife. Fish and Wildlife Service. FederalRegister. Vol. 64, No. 128:36454-36464.July 6, 1999.

USFS. 1995. Middle Lewis River WatershedAnalysis. Gifford PinchotNational Forest,Mount St. HelensNational Volcanic Monument,Gifford PinchotNational Forest,Pacific NorthwestRegion, USDA ForestService. Amboy, Washington.

USFS. 1996. Lower Lewis River WatershedAnalysis. Mount St. HelensNational Volcanic Monument, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest ServiceAmboy, Washington.

USFS. 1997. Muddy River WatershedAnalysis. Mount St. HelensNational Volcanic Monument, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service. Amboy, Washington.

USFS. 1998. Upper Lewis River WatershedAnalysis. Mount St. HelensNational Volcanic Monument, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service. Amboy, Washington.

USFS. 2004. Analytical processfor developingBiological Assessmentsfor Federalactions affecting bull trout within the Northwest Forest Plan arca. USDA Forest Service, National Oceanographicand Atmospheric Administration Fisheries,Bureau of Land Management,and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland,Oregon.

USFWS. 1997. Endangeredand threatenedwildlife andplants; proposal to list the Klamath River population segmentof bull trout as an endangeredspecies and Columbia River populationsegment of bull trout as a threatenedspecies. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 13, 1997. FederalRegister 62(1 1 4) :32268-32284.

USFWS. I998a. Endangeredand threatenedwildlife and plants; determination of threatened statusfor the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segmentsof bull trout. June10, 1998. FederalRegister 64(IIl):31647-31674.

USFWS. 1999. Endangeredand threatenedwildlife andplants; determination of threatened statusfor bull trout in the coterminousUnited States;final rule. Notice of intent to prepare a proposedspecial rule pursuantto section4(d) of the EndangeredSpecies Act for the bull trout; proposedrule. Fish and Wildlife Service. November l,1999. Federal Register64(210) : 5891 0-5 8 93 6.

176 USFWS. 2000. Bull troutoccurrence andhabitat selection. Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office,Lacey, Washington. October 23,2000.

USFWS. 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) draft recovery plan. Chapter20, Lower ColumbiaRiver recovery unit. Portland,Oregon. 88 pp.

USFWSand NMFS . 2002.Endangered Species Act section7 Consultation:Biological Opinion for the interimoperation of the Lewis River hydroelectricprojects Merwin FERCNo. 935,Yale FERC No. 2071,Swift 1 FERCNo. 2111,and Swift 2 FERCNo. 2213. United StatesDepartment of Interior,Western Washington Fish andWildlife Office, Lacey,Washington.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.1987. The northern spotted owl statusreview. USDI Fishand Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.1989. The northern spotted owl; a statusreview supplement. US Fishand Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.1990. The 1990status review: northern spotted owI: (Strix occidentaliscaurina.) Report to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon. 95pages.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.1992. Draft final recoveryplan for thenorthern spotted owl. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon. 2 Volumes.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.2001. A rangewide baseline summary and evaluation of data collectedthrough section 7 consultationfor the northernspotted owl andits critical habitat:T994-200T. Portland, Oregon. Unpublisheddocument. 41 pages.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.2004. Draft Recovery Plan for theCoastal-Puget Sound Distinct PopulationSegment of Bull Trout (Salvelinusconfluentus). Volume I: PugetSound ManagementUnit, 389+xviipp andVolume II: Olympic PeninsulaManagement Unit, Portland,Oregon. 277 +xvi pp.

U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 2QA4a.Northern Spotted Owl: Five Year ReviewSummary and Evaluation.USDI Fishand Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon. 73 pages.

U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 2004b.Estimated trends in suitablehabitat for the northern spottedowl (Strix occidentaliscaurina) on Federallands from 1994-2003.For useby: SustainableEcosystems Institute for the northernspotted owl 5-yearreview.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife andplants; designationof criticalhabitat for thebull trout;Final rule. FederalRegister (70) 185: 56212-563rr.

r77 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.2005. Bull troutcore area template-complete corc area by core areaanalysis. Fredenberg, W. andJ. Chan(eds.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,Oregon.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Serviceand National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered SpeciesAct consultationhandbook. Procedures for conductingconsultation and conferenceactivities under section 7 of theEndangered Species Act. U.S.Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. ISBN 0-16-049596-2.

Wade,G. 2000. Salmonand steelhead habitat limiting factors,Water Resource Inventory Area 27. WashingtonState Conservation Commission, Olympia, Washington.

Wagner,F.F., E.C. Meslow, G.M. Bennett,C.J. Larson, S.M. Small, and S. DeStefano. 1996. Demographyof northernspotted owls in the southemCascades and Siskiyou, Mountains, Oregon.Pages: 67-761n: Forsman, E.D., S. Destefano, M.G. Raphael,and R.J. Gutierrez,(eds.). 1996. Demography of thenorthern spotted owl. Studiesin Avian BiologyNo. 17. CooperOrnithology Society.

Ward,J. W. Jr. 1990. Spottedowl reproduction,diet andprey abundancein northwest California.M.S. Thesis.Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Ward,J. W. Jr.,R.J. Guti6nez, andB.R. Noon. 1998.Habitat selection by northernspotted owls:the consequences of prey selection and distribution. The Condor 1.00:79-92.

WashingtonDepartment of Ecology. 2003. Waterquality standardsfor the surfacewaters of Washington.Chapter 173-201 A WAC.

WashingtonDepartment of Fishand Wildlife. 1998.Washington State salmonid stock draft inventory: bull trout/DollyVarden. WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife, Olympia,Washington.

WashingtonDepartment of Fishand Wildlife, FishPro Inc., and Beak Consultants. 1997. GrandyCreek trout hatcherybiological assessment. March 1997. Olympia,Washington.

WashingtonDepartment of Fishand Wildlife. 2003.Summary of Washingtonbald eagle nestingdata for 1980-2003.Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.October 27, 2003. Unpublishedreport.

WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife . 2005.Summary of WDFW Fish andWildlife ManagementPlan Recommendations, Sauer/Creagan Conversion, September 05, 2001. Tablepresented at meetingwith SkamaniaCounty.

WashingtonForest Practices Board. 1996. Final environmentalimpact statement on forest practicesrule proposalsfor northernspotted owl, marbledmurrelet, western gray squirrel. WashingtonForest Practices Board, Olympia, Washington.

178 WashingtonForest Practices Board. 2005. EmergencyRule CR 103. Ammendmentto WAC 222-16-010"northern spottedowl site center";WAC 222-16-041(4)(b).November 30, 2005. WashingtonForest Practices Board, Olympia, Washington'

Watson, G., and T.W. Hillman. 1991. Factors affecting the distribution and abundanceof bull trout: an investigationathierarchical scales. North American Journal of Fisheries Management17 t237 -252.

Watson, I.W. 2004. Responsesof nesting bald eaglesto experimentalpedestrian activity. Journalof RaptorResearch 38(4):295-303.

Watson,J.W., M.G. Garrett,and R.G. Anthony. 1991. Foragingecology of bald eaglesin the Columbia River estuary. Journalof Wildlife Management55:492-499.

Watson,J.W., and D.J. Pierce, I998a. Ecology of bald eaglesin westernWashington with an emphasison the effects of human activity. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Watson,J.W., and D.J. Pierce. 1998b. Migration, dietsand home rangesof bald eaglesbreeding along Hood Canal and atlndian Island, Washington. Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, 41 pp.

Watson,J.W., and D.J. Pierce. 200I. SkagitRiver bald eagles:movements, origins and breeding population status. Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 80 pp.

Weathers,W.W., P.J.Hodum and J.A. Blakesley. 200I. Thermal ecology and ecological energeticsof the California spottedowl. The Condor 103(4):678.

Weaver,T.M. and R.G. White. 1985. Coal CreekFisheries monitoring studyNo. III. Quarterly progressreport. U.S. forest Service,Montana StateCooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Bozeman, Montana.

Weidemeier,D.J. and S.P.Horton. 2000. Trendsin spottedowl and barredowl detectionsin the Olympic ExperimentalState Forest from 1991to 1999. NorthwesternNaturalist 8t(2):93.

Whiteley, A., P. Spruelland F.W. Allendorf. 2003. Populationgenetics of Boise Basin bull . trout (Salvelinusconfluentus). Final report to Bruce Rieman, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Universitv of MontanaWild Trout and SalmonGenetics Lab, Missoula, Montana.

Wyman, K. H, 1975. Two unfishedsalmonid populations in Lake ChesterMorse. Master's Thesis,University of Washington,Seattle, Washington.

179 Zabel,C. J.,K.M. McKelvey,and J.P. Ward, h. 1995.Influence of primaryprey on home- rangesize and habitat-use patterns of northernspotted owls (Srrzxoccidentalis caurina). CanadianJournal of Zoology73:433-439.

ZabelC.J., S.E. Salmons, and M. Brown. 1996.Demography of northernspotted owls in southwesternOregon. Pages 77-82 in: E.D.Forsman eIal., (eds.). Demography of the northernspotted owl. Studiesin AvianBiology No. 17. CooperOrnithology Society.

Zabel,C.J., J.R. Dunk, H.B. Stauffer,L.M. Roberts,B.S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northernspotted owl habitatmodels for researchandmanagement application in California(USA). EcologicalApplications 13(4): 1027 -1040'

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Anderson,David. 2006.Telephone discussions regarding bald eagle use of theLewis River reservoirs.Washington Department of Fish andWildlife.

EDAW, Inc. 2006. Lewis River Wildlife HabitatManagement plan Standardsand Guidelines Document:Final. UnpublishedReport dated July 2006.

Gamett,Bart. 2002. Telephoneconversation discussing relationship between water temperature andbull trout distributionand abundance in the Little Lost River, Idaho;on June20, 2002.U.S. Forest Service.

Gritten-MacDonald,Diana. 2005.Conversation discussing the design of the SwiftNo. 2 Power Canal;on October26,2005. Biologist,Cowlitz Public Utility District,Longview, Washington.

Naylor,Kirk andTodd Olson. 2006.Telephone discussions regarding bald eagle use of the Lewis River reservoirs.PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon.

PacifiCorp. 2006.Unpublished report: Proposed Timber Harvest Levels Effects on Current SuitableSpotted Owl Habitat. Receivedon August23,2006.

Shrier,Frank. 2006. Discussionat meetingwith WashingtonDepartment of Ecologyon instreamflow provisionin BypassReach, Janvary 18, 2006. PacifiCorp,Portland, Oregon.

Shrier,Frank. 2006.Discussion at meetingwith USFWSon effectsof relicensingon bull trout on August15,2006. Biologist, PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon.

Spruell,Paul. 2006. Telephoneconversation discussing 2004 bull troutgenetics report; on or aboutJune 15, 2006. University of Montana,Division of BiologicalSciences, Wild Trout andSalmon Genetics Lab, Missoula,Montana.

180 IN LITTERIS REFERENCES

Brenkman,S., OlympicNational Park. 2003. Additionsto recoveryplan L3. January2003.

Brenkman,S., andS. Corbett,Olympic National Park. 2003. Seasonalmovements of threatened bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) in the Hoh River basinand coastal Washington. Abstract.Northwest Scientific Association meeting 2003, Forks, Washington.

Burley,C. 2006.Comments on PacifiCorpand Public Utility DistrictNo. 1 of Cowlitz County'sNovember 2005 Draft Lewis River Hatcheryand Supplementation Plan. Letter to Kim McCuneof PacifiCorpdated February 9,2006. Stateof Washington,Department of Fishand Wildlife, Vancouver, Washington.

Byrne,J. 2006. AppendixD: AgencyReview Comments on 2005. Emailattachment to Joe Hissof USFWS,Lacey,Washington dated March 2,2006. WashingtonDepartment of Fishand Wildlife, Vancouver, Washington.

Byrne,J. 2006.Comments on draftbiological opinion on FERCrelicensing of LewisRiver. E- mall attachmentto JoeHiss of USFWS,Lacey,Washington dated April 19,2006. WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife, Vancouver,Washington.

EDAW, Inc. 2006. Lewis River Wildlife HabitatManagement plan Standardsand Guidelines Document:Final. UnpublishedReport dated luly 2006.

Gilpin,M., Universityof Califomia,San Diego. 1997.Bull troutconnectivity on theClark Fork River. Letterto ShelleySpalding, Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife andParks, Helena,Montana.

Goetz,F.,U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers.2003a. Unpublished snorkelingdata in theHoh River, Washington.

Goetz,F., U.S.Army Corpsof Engineers.2003b. Unpublished ultrasonic telemetry data from the SnohomishRiver basin and Puget Sound.

IdahoDepartment of Fishand Game, in litt. 1995.List of streamscompiled by IDEG where bull trout havebeen extirpated, fax from Bill Horton,IDFG, to Trish Klahr, U.S. Fishand WildlifeService, Boise,Idaho. 3 pp.

Hiss,J. 2006.Modeled effect of SwiftNo. 1 Damon spawningsuccess of adultbull troutin Yale Lake. Memorandumto file 1-3-06-F-0177,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Western WashingtonFish and Wildlife Office,Lacey, Washington.

181 Kirkendall,K. 2006.Comments on PacifiCorpand Public Utility DistrictNo. 1 of Cowlitz County'sNovember 2005 Draft Lewis River HatcherySupplementation Plan. Letterto Kim McCuneof PacifiCorpdated February 8,2006. UnitedStates Department of Commerce,National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine FisheriesService, Portland, Oregon,

Meyer,K. 2005. First reviewdraft steamsuryey, 2005-Pine Creek,Skamania County, Washington.June, 2005. Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, Washington.

Mobrand-Jones& Stokes.2005. Draft Hatcheryand Supplementation Plan. Unpublishedreport.

PacifiCorpand CowlitzPUD 2002:WQ1

PacifiCorp. 2006. Unpublishedreport: Proposed Timber Harvest Levels Effects on Current SuitableSpotted Owl Habitat.Received on August23,2006.

Shrier,F. 2006. LewisHydro baseline. E-mail to ShelleySpalding, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Western Washington Office, Lacey,Washingtondated June 13, 2406. PacifiCorp,Portland, Oregon.

Shrier,F. 2006. Reviewof CY 2005Aquatic Fund proposals. Memo to LewisRiver Aquatics CoordinationCommittee representatives dated February L7, 2AQ6.

Shrier,Frank. 2006.Discussion at meetingwith USFWSon effectsof relicensingon bull trout on August75,2006. Biologist, PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon.

Susewind,K. . 2006a.Swift No. 2 HydroelectricProject (FERC No. 2213)401 Certiftcation. Draft letterto Holly Harwoodof PacifiCorp,Portland Oregon. Washington State Departmentof Ecology,Southwest Regional Office, Lacey, Washington.

Susewind,K. 2006b.Yale Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2071)401 Certification. Draft letterto Holly Harwoodof PacifiCorp,Portland Oregon. Washington State Department of Ecology,Southwest Regional Office, Lacey, Washington'

WashingtonDepartment of Fishand Wildlife. 2005. Summaryof WDFW Fishand Wildlife ManagementPlan Recommendations, Sauer/Creagan Conversion, September 05, 2001. Tablepresented at meetingwith SkamaniaCounty'

IN PREPARATION

Hiss,J., J. Byrne,and K. ThompsonIn prep. Potentialsummer habitat for bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)in the Lewis River watershedupstream of the Swift CreekReservoir, SkamaniaCounty, Washington, as indicated by instreamtemperatures. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office,Lacey, Washington.

t82