United StatesDepartment of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CentralWashington Field Office 215 Melody Lane, Suite I l9 In ReplyRefer To: Wenatchee,Washington 98801 CWFO:13260-2006-P-0010 Phone:(509) 665-3508 FAX: (509)665-3509 HUC:1702001I
August37,2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Project Leader, LeavenworthNational Fish Hatchery Complex Leavenworth,Washington
From: Supervisor,Central Washington Field Office Wenatchee,'Washington
Subject: Biological Opinion for the LeavenworthNational Fish HatcheryOperation and Maintenance
This correspondencetransmits the EcologicalServices (ES) Division of the U. S. Fish andWildlife Service's(Service) biological opinion (Opinion),which is basedupon our review of the LeavenworthNational Fish Hatchery Operationsand Maintenance Biological Assessment,for the LeavenworthNational Fish Hatchery(Project), located along Icicle Creek in Chelan County, Washington. The attachedOpinion and documentationof informal consultationdescribes the effects of the Project on the bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentius) and other listed speciesin accordancewith Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (Act) of 7973,as amended (16 U.S.C. l53l et seq.).
In the last biological assessment(BA) datedJuly 10,2006,you requestedconcurrence with your determinationsof "no effect" from hatchery operationsand maintenance activitiesfor the following species:gray wolf (Canis lupus),Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis),gizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Pacific fisher (Martespennanti), northern spottedowl (Srrrx occidentalis caurina), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus),yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), Wenatchee Mountainschecker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva),Ute ladies' tresses(Spiranthes diluvialis), and showy stickseed(Hackeliavenusta) in accordancewith section1(a)(2) of the Act, You also requestedconcuffence with your determinationof "not likely to adverselyaffect" bald eagle(Haliaeetus I euco cephalus).
Concurrencefor "no effect" determinationsis not required from ES, but we appreciate you notiffing us of your determinations. Basedon the information provided, ES agrees that no impacts will occur as a result of the proposedaction to marbled murrelet, 2 yellow-billed cuckoo,Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow, Ute ladies' tresses,and showy stickseed(Hackelia venusta).
\Me do not concur with your "no effect" determination for gray wolf, Canadalynx, gizzly bear,Pacific fisher,and northernspotted owl. EcologicalService's opinion is that the Project "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect" gray wolf, Canadalynx, gnzzly bear,northem spottedowl, andbald eagle. ES concludesthat project implementation"will not jeopardizethe continuedexistence" of the Pacifìcfisher. Since the fisher is proposedfor listing; your responsibilityto "conference"is complete.
In the enclosedOpinion, ES has determinedthat the proposedProject, as described, is "likely to adverselyaffect" the bull trout; however, the level of anticipatedtake is not likely to resultin'Jeopardy" to the species.Critical habitatfor the bull trout doesnot occurwithin the actionarea; therefore, the Projectwill not destroyor adverselymodifz proposedcritical habitat for bull trout.
ES acknowledgesand appreciatesthe patience and participation of the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery,Fisheries Resource Office, YakamaNation, andregional ofhce personnelin completing this consultation. Thank you all for providing technical information and coopèrationneeded to completethis consultation.
If you havequestions about this Opinion or your responsibilitiesunder the Endangered SpeciesAct, pleasecontact David Morgan of the Central.WashingtonFish andWildlife Office in Wenatcheeat (509) 665-3508x24 or via e-mail at david [email protected].
Attachment
Cc Sentby Email to: Brian Cates,Mid-Columbia FisheriesResource Off,rce, Leavenworth, WA JanaGrote, Fisheries Resources, Pacihc RegionalOffice, Portland,OR Mariel Combs,Office of the RegionalSolicitor, Portland, OR Dale Bambrick,National Marine FisheriesService, Ellensburg, WA CourtneyTaylor, U.S. Departmentof Justice,Washington, DC Kurt Beardslee,Washington Trout, Duvall, WA Biological Opinion
For the
Operation and Maintenanceof LeavenworthNational Fish llatchery through 2011 FWS ReferenceNumb er 7326A-2006-P-0010
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service UpporColumbia Fish andWildlife Office, Spokane,Washington
CONSULTATIONIIISTORY ...... ,..4
INFORMAL CONSULTATION ...... 5
BTOLOGICALOPTNION ...... 7
B. CurrentStatus and Conservation Needs...... 15
H. Genetic
A. WenatcheeRiver Core Area - Abundanceand Distribution...... 21 B. FactorsAffecting the Bull Trout's CurrentCondition in the Vy'enatcheeRiver Core Area...... 28 C. Summaryof Bull Trout Statusin theWenatchee River CoreArea...... ,...... 32 D. Bull TroutStatus in theAction Area ...... : .....,...... 33 E. Bull TroutDistribution and Abundance in theAction Area...... ,...... 36 F. Role of the Action Area in the Persistenceof the WenatcheeRiver CoreArea Populationof the Bull Trout....39 G. FactorsAffecting the Species'Environment in theAction Area...... 40 H. Summaryof EnvironmentalBaseline ...... 50
D. Historic
I. Release J. Bull TroutPrey Base in theHistoric Channel ...... 6l K. Hatchery/WildInteraction Effects on Bull TroutPrey Base...... 62 INCIDENTALTAKE STATEMENT...... 66
II. AnticipatedAmount or Extent of Take of Bull Trout...... 66
IV. Reasonableand Prudent Measures ...... 67
CONSERVATIONRECOMMENDATIONS,...... 72
RE-INITIATION NOTICE ...... 75
LITERATURECIT8D...... ,76
ATTACHMENTA...... 86 Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Map of LNFH andvicinity Figure 2: 2004leicle Creek hydrog¡aph upstreamfrom all diversions Figure 3: Map summarizing effects of the proposedaction on bull trout passage Table 1: Diversion rates from lower Icicle Creek in cfs ' TabIe2: Average monthly flows in Icicle Creek INTRODUCTION
This documenttransmits the Fish andWildlife Service's(Service or USFWS) biological opinion (Opinion) basedon our review of the proposedoperations and maintenanceof the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LNFH or Project) located in Chelan County, Washington, and its effects on the threatenedbull trout (Salvelinusconfluenhts). This intra-serviceconsultation was conductedin accordancewith section7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) of 1973,as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.). Your July 10, 2006,request for formal consultationand the fìnal biological assessment(BA; USFWS 2006a)were receivedthat day.
This biological opinion is basedon informationprovided in: the BA and four draft BAs; numerouse-mails and meeting notes about the Projectcompiled since 2003; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentspertaining to LNFH; published literature and unpublishedreports; the proposedand final rules for listing of the bull trout; the draft Bull Trout RecoveryPlan (especiallythe chapteron the upper Columbia River recovery unit); the proposed and final designationsof critical habitat for the bull trout; local watershedanalysis and field surveysprepared by the U.S. ForestService; State of Washingtonlimiting habitatfactors analysis;Upper Columbia SalmonRecovery Plan and associatedanalyses; watershed planning documents;and field visits to the project site. A completeadministrative record of this consultationis on file at the Service'sCentral Washington Field Offìce (CWFO) in Wenatchee, 'Washington.
LeavenworthNFH Complexwas authorizedby the GrandCoulee Fish MaintenanceProject in 7937 andreauthorized by the Mitchell Act of 1938. The hatcheryis one of threemid-Columbia stations(Leavenworth, Entiat, and Winthrop NFHs) constructedby the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) as fish mitigation facilitiesfor the GrandCoulee Dam, ColumbiaBasin Project. Constructionbegan in 7939,and funding was providedthrough a transferof funds from the BOR to the Serviceuntil 1945. From 1945to 7993,the Servicehad funding,management, and operationresponsibilities for the complexof 3 hatcheries.Beginning in FiscalYear (FY) 1994 the BOR assumedfunding responsibilityfor the complexwhile the Servicecontinued to manage and operatethe three facilities. In FY 2004 the direct funding agreementbetween BOR and Servicefor O&M at the Complexwas approximately$3.9 million. Annual funding is projected to average$4.4 million per year for FY07-09 (BPA 2006).
CONSULTATION HISTORY
March 1999:The MosesLake Field Offrce issueda memorandumto the LNFH concurringthat operationsand maintenanceof the hatcherymay effect, but was not likely to adverselyaffect bull trout.
April 2003: The Service'sEcological Service's program (ES), LNFH, andthe mid-Columbia FisheriesResource Office (MCFRO) met to discussnew or updatedconsultations for several activitiesthat would be neededat LNFH over the next few years,including Icicle Creek RestorationProject Phase II, andthe IntakeRehabilitation Project. ES advisedLNFH to initiate formal consultationon operationsand maintenance(O&M) at LNFH becauseadverse affects on bull trout were occurrine due to O&M at LNFH.
June2005: LNFH advisedES that it would begin developinga BA for O&M at LNFH.
November 2005: LNFH submitted a draft BA for O&M to ES; ES reviewed draft and requested additional information.
January2006: LNFH submitted a seconddraft BA for O&M to ES; ES reviewed draft and requestedadditional information.
March 2006 LNFH submittedthe third and fourth draft BAs.
April 2006: Upon reviewingthe BAs, ES recommendedmodifications to the proposedaction in order to reduceproject effects on bull trout, and advisedthat the modifications should be incorporatedinto the proposedaction as an amendmentto the final BA.
July 2006: LNFH submittedfinal BA andrequested concurrence on a"may affect,likely to adverselyaffect for bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus)."
INFORMAL CONSULTATION
In July 2006,LNFH requestedconcurrence with their determinationsof "no effect" from O&M for the following species:gray wolf (Canis htptts),Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis),gnzzly bear ((Jrsusarctos horribilis), Pacific fisher (Martespennanti), northern spotted ow7 (Strix occidentaliscaurina),marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzttsamericanus occidentalis), Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva),Ute ladies' tresses(Spiranthes diluvialis), and Showy stickseed(Høckelia venttsta) in accordancewith sectionl(a)(2) of the Act. The LNFH requestedconcurrence with their determinationof "not likely to adverselyaffect" bald eagle(Haliaeetr,ts leucocephalus). RegardingPacific fìsher,this speciesis proposedfor listing andtherefore "conference" rather than "consultation"is technicallywhat is requiredunder ESA, but the proceduresare the same andthat is what will be provided.
The Service(ES) doesnot provide concurrencefor "no effect" determinations.Based on the information provided it appearsthat no impacts will occur as a result of the proposedaction to the flowing species:marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzttsamericanus occidentalis), Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva),Ute ladies' tresses(Spiranthes dilrnialis), and showy stickseed(Hackeliavenusta). The habitat for thesetwo bird speciesat LNFH is unsuitable,and surveysindicate that the plant speciesdo not existon LNFH grounds. 6 The Service (ES) doesnot concur with the LNFH "no effect" determinationfor gray wolf, Canadalynx, gnzzly bear,Pacific fisher,and northem spotted owl. The Service(ES) would concurwith a "not likely to adverselyaffect" determinationfor listed speciesas describedbelow. For the candidatespecies, Pacifìc fisher, the Servicewould concurwith conclusionof the proposedaction and conclude"would not jeopardizethecontinued existence of'the species.
Gray wolf, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, Pacific fìsher Thesespecies have not beenobserved at LNFH or its facilities for many years. While habitatat the LNFH is generally not suitable due to high road density and human activity, high quality habitatfor thesespecies is presentin the vicinity of the Snow Lakes. Sightingsof wolves,lynx, and gnzzlies in the North Cascadesin Washingtonhave been sporadic,and in recentyears none have occurredwithin severalmiles of the Projectarea. Pacific hshermay be extirpatedfrom Washington. Habitat suitability is low and high levels of human disturbancemay precludeuse of the lower Icicle. Noise disturbancemay minimally and temporarilyaffect prey speciesfor these carnivores,but due to otherhuman activities in the lower Icicle valley, thesespecies are extremelyunlikely to occurin the immediatearea. Thesecamivores could possiblybe undetectedor transientin the WildernessArea nearSnow Lakes,but their presenceduring brief Projectactivities that could affectthem (periodichelicopter flights to adjustwater releases, workers in the areafor a few hours) is unlikely. No habitat effects are anticipatedfor any of thesespecies. Overall, Project effects to thesecarnivores are anticipatedto be insignificantand discountablebased on the presumedlow abundanceand activity of thesespecies in the Project area,and the limited potentialfor indirect effectsto their habitatand prey base.
Northern spotted owl The project arealies within the rangeof the northernspotted owl. One half mile to the southof the LNFH on National Forestlands lies the BoundaryButte Late SuccessionalReserve (LSR). This LSR was burnedover in the 1994Rat CreekFire, thoughit is still managedto protectand enhanceconditions of late-successionalforest ecosystems and relatedspecies. No known or suspectednest or roost sitesfor spottedowls havebeen located near the Projectarea, Most of the hatchery grounds are currently non-habitatfor spottedowls. Northern spottedowl surveyswere conductedin habitatwithin onemile of the project areain 2003 andno spottedowls were detected(USF\MS 2003a). However,the forestedlands adjacent to the project areaprovide connectivityfor spottedowls moving acrossthe landscapefrom the Swaukand Boundary Butte LSRs to the Icicle and DeadhorseLSRs.
Although spottedowls have attemptedto nestat otherlocations within a few miles of the Project in the past,they havenot beenobserved near the Projectarea itself. The Serviceanticipates that disturbanceof spottedowls from the Project,including periodic helicopter flights to Snow Lakes, is unlikely to occurbased primarily on pastpatterns of spottedowl habitatuse in the area. Projectactivities will not precludethe future developmentof suitableor dispersalhabitat nor reducethe total areaof thesehabitats available to spottedowls. Therefore,the Service anticipatesProject effects to the spottedowl to be discountableand insignificant. Designated critical habitatis not locatednear or within the Proiectarea and will not be affected. 1 Bald eagle Eagle activity in the areaappears to be very limited. In 2001 a bald eagleused a winter roost site near the intake, and in 2002 abald eagleused a winter roost site located approximatelyone mile upstreamof the intake (USFWS 2004). Bald eagleshave nestedat Fromm's field, within about 0.5 mile of the LNFH, from 2001 to 2005, achievingabout a 50 percentrate of fledging. Based primarily on past patternsof bald eagleactivity in the area,the Serviceanticipates that disturbanceof bald eaglesfrom the proposedproject is unlikely to occur if helicopter flight paths avoid the Fromm's field nestby greaterthan 800 meters (m). No habitat effects are anticipated. As a result,effects on bald eagleare expected to be discountable.
Conclusion of Informal Consultation and Conference Basedon the informationprovided in the BA, the Service(ES) concludesthat the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to adverselyaffect" the gray wolf, Canadalynx, gnzzly bear, northernspotted owl, andbald eagle. In addition,the Serviceconcludes that project implementation "will not jeopardizethe continued existence"of the fisher. This concludes informal consultationpursuant to regulationsimplementing the Act. This Project should be reanalyzedif new information revealsthat the action may affect listed or proposedspecies or designatedor proposedcritical habitat in a manner or to an extent not consideredin this consultation;if the action is subsequentlymodified in a malìner that causesan effect to a listed or proposedspecies or designatedor proposedcritical habitatthat was not consideredin this consultation;and/or, if a new speciesis listed or critical habitatis designatedthat may be affectedby this Project. Effects to thesespecies will not be analyzedfurther in this Opinion.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSEDACTION
The following discussionis a summaryof the proposedoperation of LNFH; a complete descriptionis containedin the final BA, which is hereinincorporated by reference(LNFH 2006).
LeavenworlhNFH is locatedthree miles southof Leavenworth,Washington, near the mouth of Icicle Canyon. Most of LNFH's facilities arelocated on the westbank of Icicle Creeknear river mile (m) 2.8.
The proposedoperation of LNFH canbe broadly separatedinto threecomponents: (1) the collectionof adult fish (brood);(2) the releaseof juvenile fish; and (3) the operationof the water supply system. The term of the proposedaction is May 2006 throughDecember 2011, at which time a revised operationalplan is anticipatedto be put into effect following any appropriate formal consultationunder section 7 of the ESA. Collectionof Adult Fish
LeavenworthNFH is a singlespecies facility rearingonly the "Carsonlineage" stock of spring Chinook salmon. The LNFH hasnot importedeggs or fry for releaseinto Icicle Creekin more tban20 years.
Adult spring Chinook salmonreturn to the hatchery from May into July (brood collection period). The fish ladder is operatedat this time providing retuming fish accessto the adult holding pond. Adult salmonin excessof brood needs(1,000 adult salmon)support a tribal and sportfishery in Icicle Creekand othersmay be "surplused"to Native Americantribes. In years with large adult returns,the fish ladderis closedperiodically to preventovercrowding in the holding pond. This strategyalso allows additional harvest opportunitiesby sport and tribal anglers.Peak fishing activity in the spillway pool occursbetween late-May andmid-June. Any non-targetfish (e.g.,steelhead, bull trout) encounteredin the adultholding pond during sorting are netted and immediately returnedback to Icicle Creek under the supervisionof hatchery personnel. Sortingtakes place at leastweekly during the brood collectionperiod. The first spawningdate is mid-August and spawningis normally completedby Labor Day.
Sinceconstruction in 1939,LNFH has,with few exceptions,blocked adult salmonfrom accessingareas upstream of LNFH throughoutthe year. This is done by installing racks and dam boardsat the downstreamterminus of the historic channelat structure5 (a.k.a.dam 5; seeFigure 1). When racksare installed at structure5 the radial gatesat the upstreamterminus of the historic channelat structure2 (a.k.adam2) havebeen closed to minimize flow throughthe historic channel.There areseveral reasons for blocking spring Chinook salmonfrom accessing upstreamareas including the needto assureadequate hatchery brood, facilitation of the sportand tribal fishery, and minimizing the risk of diseaseinherent with having adult spring Chinook salmon(and/or Coho salmon)in the areaof the hatcherywater supply. krclr Cererà
^ L¡,rl 'ì'\' ' lr l.l,tt,r¡',¡-''¡1 ,lì I Ìrlr'
I l' ¿ln il
a F
T ß
o
Fj-g'ure 1. Ieavenworth National Fish Hatchery and Vj-cinity
Figure 1. LNFH andvicinity
The LNFH hasbeen working on long-termfish passagesolutions and habitat improvements throughthe Icicle CreekRestoration Project (see page 8 of the BA). In the meantimehowever, LNFH hasproposed the following changes(see pages 22-24 of the BA) to the operationsof the 10 historic channelstructures that will improve flow conditions(habitat benefit) andincrease passageopportunities for native fish, such asbull trout and steelhead,through the historic channelcompared to past operations.
Starting in 2006,LNFH will operatestructures 2 and 5 asþllows:
During periodswhen broodstockactivities are not occurring(generally 8 July to 30 September, and 1 Decemberto 15 May) all racks and damboards will be removedat structure5, andat least one of the two radial gatesat structure2 will be maintainedin an open position with a minimum 4-foot openingto promotepassage of fish. An adaptivemanagement approach will be usedto limit, to the extentpractical, the May 15 to July 7 broodstockcollection period. LNFH will considerannual run timing of spring Chinook at ColumbiaRiver dams(e.g. Priest Rapids, Rock Island)to adjustthe May 15 date. For example,early run timing may requireinstallation of racksslightly earlierthan May 15 while later run-timing may allow for a slightly later installation. An attemptwill alsobe madeto minimize the durationfish passageis blocked throughthe historic channel. Again, this will requirean adaptivemanagement approach. It may be possibleto openpassage earlier than July 7 when Chinookretums are not excessiveand brood andharvest needs have been satisfied. At non-broodstockcollection times the radial gatesmay be operateddifferently (one open and one closed)to concentratelow flows to benefit fish passage.It is alsopossible that passagewill be blockedfor up to two additionalweeks after July 7 if more than 500 Chinook arestill presentin the spillway pool, but thesecircumstances haveonly occured twice during the pastdecade when returnsto LNFH wereunusually large (2001 and2002).
During the May 15 to July 7 broodstockcollection period LNFH will usetwo methodsto improve interim passageopportunities by capturing and transportingbull trout upstreamof the hatchery. First, all adultbull trout collectedin the spring Chinookholding pond will be released upstreamof the hatcheryat specificlocations described below. Second,LNFH will developand implement a trapping operationat structure 5. Any adult bull trout capturedat the trap will be releasedupstream of the hatchery. The trap at structure5 has not beentried before andits successat attractingand capturingbull trout is unknown. Very few fluvial sized bull trout are capturedin the adultholding pond in a given year--mostyears none areencountered. Without a geneticsbaseline LNFH is assumingthat bull trout capturedwith eitherof the abovetwo methodsare trying to migrateupstream. These two methodsmay facilitaterelocation of an unknown number of bull trout to upstreamareas which may benefit the Icicle Creek subpopulation.
Adaptivemanagement approaches will alsobe usedto investigateother altemativesto achieve passagein this interim period including suchideas as openingthe structuresfor a shorttime during the broodstock collection window or capturing and transportingbull trout upstream. Decisionswill be basedon flow conditions,bull trout retum datesand rates, Chinook salmon retum datesand rates. tribal fisherv needs.disease risks. andhabitat conditions. 11 Note that during the summerof 2006 LNFH intends to remove the rack structurein front of the north gatewhich would allow for the opening of the secondgate. LNFH will maintain the radial gate(s)in the openposition during the non-broodstockcollection period unless emergency conditionsrequire gate closure. Emergencyconditions which may require a gateclosure include: 1) Flood 2) Smolt emigration 3) Canal water recharge 4) Maintenanceof flow characteristicsinto the spillway pool during the broodstock collectionperiod.
Gateclosure is necessaryunder the aboveconditions and is directly linked to maintaining hatcheryoperations. These circumstances are expected to last for only a few days,or at most two weeks. If emergencyconditions continue LNFH will consultwith ES on an emergencybasis. Theseemergency conditions are more ful1ydescribed in the BA.
During routine operationand maintenanceat LNFH bull trout may be encounteredand need to be handledto returnthem to Icicle Creek. To minimize harm associatedwith handlingbull trout severalprecautions will occur. Prior to handlingbull trout handswill be free of sunscreen, lotion, or insectrepellent. When practicalall bull trout handlingprocedures will be implemented at times that avoid temperaturestress of affectedfish. It may be necessaryto conductthe activity in the morning or eveningon hot summerdays to avoid temperaturestress to capturedfish. If bull trout are held in a tank, a healthy environmentfor the stressedfish will be provided and the holding time will be minimized. Water to watertransfers, the use of shaded,dark containets,and supplementaloxygen will all be consideredin implementingfish handlingoperations. If a bull trout is showingsigns of stressor injury, it will only be releasedwhen ableto maintainitself. It may be necessaryto nufiure the fish in a holding tank until it hasrecovered. All dip net or seine meshnetting will be composedof fine mesh(no knot) material.
The releaselocation for a capturedbull trout dependson whereit was capturedand what river conditionsprevail at that time. The generalprocedure is describedin the tablebelow:
CaptureLocation ReleaseLocation
Adult holding pond* Call ES, WenatcheeMonday of eachweek during broodstockcollection to determinerelease location
Trap at structure5 Call ES, WenatcheeMonday of eachweek during broodstockcollection to determinerelease location
Insidetrash rack at intakediversion Below andnear intake diversion dam (rm 4.5)
Screenchamber/sand settling pond In pool below spillway dam (rm 2.8)
Other Closest.safe release location in Icicle Creek *If structure5 is not impedingfish passage,release fish in the spillway pool. I2 It also should be noted that the Yakama Nation may collect adult Coho salmon for broodstock at structure5 from Octoberthrough November. During this time, dam boards and adult fish traps are installed at structure5 and the radial gatesat structure2 arc operated(only partially opened) to minimize flow into the historic channelto maintain the integrity of the racks and traps at structure5. Any non-targetfìsh capturedare supposedto be releasedupstream. The Yakama Nation, in conjunctionwith the BonnevillePower Administration (BPA), initially consultedwith NOAA Fisheriesand the Serviceon the Coho ReintroductionProject in 2001 (ServiceReference Number 0 I -I-EO23 1). Subsequentlythere have been minor updatesand modifications to that consultationin 2001, 2003, and2006 (on file at CWFO).
Releaseof Jlwenile Fish
A completedescription of incubation and rearing operationsare included in the BA. The LNFH targetsa mid-April releaseof 1.625million spring Chinook salmonsmolts annually into Icicle Creekatrm2.8.
All spring Chinook salmon rearedand releasedat LNFH receive an adiposefin clip and up to 50 percentare implanted with a codedwire-tag. Someof the fish releasedalso receive a Passive IntegratedTransponder (PIT) tag. Tagging of hatchery fish is done to facilitate evaluation of the program(i.e,, identi$i straying,determine contribution to fisheries,migration rates, survival, etc.).
All smoltsare force released directly from the hatcheryto Icicle CreekaI a sizeat releaseof 18 fish/pound. This releasetime coincideswith normal springsmolt migration and spill at ColumbiaRiver dams. This size at releaseresults in a fish which is in good health,migrates to the oceanrapidly, and generatesadult escapementto sustainthe program and provide harvest opportunities.Rapid migration of smoltsto the oceanalso decreases competition with native fìsh. Although it hasnot happenedin recentmemory, an emergencyearly fish releasecould occurat anytime (seeBA, Appendix E).
LeavenworthNFH alsosupports the YakamaNation's Coho SalmonReintroduction Project by providing rearingspace for approximately750,000 Coho salmonpresmolts that are acclimated on stationfor approximatelytwo to four monthsprior to releasein mid-April.
The Olympia Fish Health Center(FHC) in Olympia, Washington,provides for all aspectsof fish health at LNFH. The primary objective of fish health programs at Servicehatcheries is to producehealthy smolts that contributeto the programgoals of that particularstock. Another equallyimportant objective is to preventthe introduction,amplification or spreadof certainfìsh pathogensthat might negatively affect the health of both hatchery and naturally producing stocks. 13 Ilater SttpplySystem
A completedescription of the water supply systemis includedin the BA on pages18-22,48, 53-55, 57,63, and66. In brief, the LNFH withdrawsup to 42 cubic feet per second(cfs) of surfaceflow from Icicle Creek throughout the year at the intake dam located at rm 4.5. During low flow periods(mid-August through September), especially in drier wateryears, there may be insufficient flow over the water intake dam for adequatefish passage.There is also no fish screeningat the intake and entrainedfish have to travel approximately a mile of pipe before they are screenedand returnedback to Icicle Creek. LNFH maintains and operatesthe intake diversiondam andits associatedstructures as paft of a 1939contract between the federal governmentand the CascadeOrchard Irrigation District.
During constructionof the hatchery,it was recognizedthat surfaceflow and temperaturesin Icicle Creekwere at times insufficientto meetproduction demands. A supplementarywater supplyproject in Snow Lake andNada Lake was thereforedeveloped. Water drainingfrom Snow Lake entersNada Lake which drainsinto Snow Creek,a tributarywhich entersIcicle Creekat rm 5.5,upstream of the hatcherywater intake. The LNFH hashistorically released water from thesesupplementation lakes from aboutmid-July through Septemberto maintain water levels and reducewater temperaturesin the hatcherywater supply. Additional cool water is suppliedto the hatcheryby a seriesof wells.
Operationof otherupstream water diversionsby Icicle/PeshastinIrrigation District (IPID) and the City of Leavenworth(COL) aT.rn5.7 alsodecrease flow andincrease water temperatures (during irrigation season)in the streamreach between the IPID/COL dam andthe hatchery intake. Operationof LNFH's water delivery system,along with CascadeOrchards Irrigation Company,can decreaseflow and increasewater temperatures in Icicle Creekbetween the hatcheryintake (rm a.5) and the hatchery(rm 2.8) whereall hatchery-usedwater is returnedto Icicle Creek. However,the hatchery'ssummeftime release of supplementalwater from Snow andNada Lakes,and from its wells, helpsminimize this effect,and in fact slightly coolslower Icicle Creek.
The LNFH intendsto continue to pursuepermanent improvements to the intake structure (screeningand passage) and water supply systemthrough the Water Supply System RehabilitationProject (see page 9 of the BA). In addition,LNFH hasproposed the following changes(see BA page2l) to the use of the SnowA{adaLake SupplementationWater Supply Reservoirs.
Starting in 2006,LNFH will operatewater supplyreservoirs as follows:
From July 20 throughSeptember of 2006,the hatcherywill operatethe SnowA{adaLake SupplementationWater Supply Reservoirsto meet its 42 cfs water right in Icicle Creek. This commitmentequates to a releaseof nearly7,000 acre-feet of storage(70 daysat 50 cfs) with an estimated60 percentprobability that inflows to Upper Snow Lake will meet or exceedthe releasedvolume. LFNH will alsowork with otherresource agencies (NOAA, other Service I4 programs,WDOE, etc.)to developand refine a water releaseplan. This plan will lay out reservoirwater release specihcs (volumes and times) to minimize LNFH impactson the environment. The goal would be to assurehatchery water needs,increase summertime stream flows below the LNFH diversion, dilute nutrient loading from LNFH effluent, all while balancingthe reservoirrecharge (i.e. refill) risk.
Water from the Icicle Creek surfacewithdrawal and wells used at LNFH is dischargedinto Icicle Creekat one of four locations:(1) throughthe openbypass ditch at rm 3.8; (2) at the baseof the adult salmonreturn ladder aIrm2.8; (3) throughthe adult salmonreturn fish ladderat rm 2.8; or (4) through the pollution abatementpond at rm2.7. The majority of river and well water used for hatchery operationsreturns to Icicle Creek at the baseof the adult salmon return ladder exceptduring pond cleaning and maintenanceactivities when all water is routed through the pollution abatementpond. All of the river and well water used at the hatchery is returnedto Icicle Creek, minus any leakageand evaporation. LNFH operatesand monitors its water dischargecompliance with applicableNPDES permit effluentdischarge limitations.
A. Action Area
The implementingregulations for section7 of the ESA define actionarea as "...all areasdirectly or indirectly affectedby the proposedFederal action and not merely the immediatearea involved in the action" (50 CFR 402.02).For this consultation,the affectedarea consists of the main LNFH facilities on the westbank of Icicle Creeknear Ín 2.8, all portionsof Icicle Creekfrom its mouth to the historical barrier near rrn 26 (above Leland Creek), and areasaffected by water storagein Snow Lakes(Snow andNada LakesBasin), and Snow Creekbetween Snow Lakesand Icicle Creek.
II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES
A. Listing Status
The coterminousUnited Statespopulation of the bull trout (Salvelinusconfhtenttr) was listed as threatenedon November1,1999 (64 FR 58910). The threatenedbull trout occursin the Klamath River Basin of south-centralOregon and in the JarbidgeRiver in Nevada,north to variouscoastal rivers of Washington to the Puget Sound and eastthroughout major rivers within the Columbia River Basin to the St. Mary-Belly River, eastof the ContinentalDivide in northwestemMontana (Cavender1978, Bond 7992,Brewin and Brewin 1997,Learyand Allendorf 1997).
Throughout its range, the bull trout is threatenedby the combined effects of habitat degradation, fragmentationand alterationsassociated with: dewatering,road constructionand maintenance, mining, and grazing;the blockage of migratory corridors by dams or other diversion structures; poor water quality; incidental angler harvest; entrainment(a processby which aquaticorganisms are pulled through a diversion or other device) into diversion channels;and introduced non- nativespecies (64 FR 58910). 15 The bull trout was initially listed asthree separate Distinct PopulationUnits (DPSs)(63 FR 31647,64FR 17110). The preambleto the fìnal listing rule for the United Statescoterminous populationof the bull trout discussesthe consolidationof theseDPSs, plus two otherpopulation segments,into one listed taxon and the application of the jeopardy standardunder section7 of the ESA relativeto this species(64 FR 58930):
Although this rule consolidatesthe fìve bull trout DPSsinto one listed taxon, basedon conformancewith the DPS policy for purposesof consultationunder section7 of the Act, we intendto retainrecognition of eachDPS in light of available scientific information relating to their uniquenessand significance. Under this approach,these DPSs will be treatedas interim recovery units with respectto applicationofthejeopardy standarduntil an approvedrecovery plan is developed. Formal establishmentof bull trout recovery units will occur during the recoveryplanning process.
Thus, the Service'sjeopardy analysis for the proposedProject is done at the scaleof the ColumbiaRiver DPS.
B. CatrrentStatus and ConservationNeeds
A summary of the culrent statusand conservationneeds of the bull trout within theseunits is providedbelow. A comprehensivediscussion of thesetopics is found in the Service'sdraft recoveryplan for the bull trout (USFWS 2002a;2004a,b).
The conservationand habitat needs of the bull trout aregenerally expressed as the needto provide the four Cs: cold, clean,complex, and connectedhabitat. Cold streamtemperatures, clean water that is relatively free of sedimentand contaminants,complex channelcharacteristics (including abundantlarge wood and undercutbanks), and large patchesof such habitat that are well connectedby unobstructedmigratory pathways are all neededto promoteconservation of bull trout at multiple scalesranging from the coterminousto local populations.The recovery planningprocess for the bull trout (USFWS 2002;2004a,b)has alsoidentified the following conservationneeds for the bull trout: (1) maintainand restore multiple, interconnected populationsin diversehabitats across the rangeofeach interim recoveryunit; (2) preservethe diversityof life-historystrategies; (3) maintaininggenetic and phenotypic diversity acrossthe range of eachinterim recovery unit; and (4) establisha positive population trend. Recently,it has alsobeen recognizedthalbull trout populationsneed to be protectedfrom catastrophicfires acrossthe rangeof eachinterim recoveryunit.
Central to the survival and recovery of the bull trout is the maintenanceof viable core areas (USFV/S 2002a,2004a,and b). A core areais definedas a geographicarea occupied by one or more local bull trout populationsthat overlap in their use of rearing, foraging, migratory, and overwintering habitat, and in some casesin their use of spawninghabitat. Each of the interim recoveryunits listed aboveconsists of one or more core areas.About 114 core areasare recognizedacross the United Statesrange of the bull trout (USFWS 2002a;2004a,b). 16 As noted above,in recognition of available scientific information relating to their uniquenessand significance,five segmentsof the coterminousUnited Statespopulation of the bull trout are consideredessential to the survival and recovery of this speciesand are identified as interim recoveryunits: (1) JarbidgeRiver; (2) Klamath River; (3) ColumbiaRiver; (4) Coastal-Puget Sound;and (5) St. Mary-Belly River. Eachof thesesegments is necessaryto maintainthe bull trout's distribution, as well as its genetic and phenotypic diversity, all of which are important to ensurethe species'resilience to changing environmentalconditions,
JarbideeRiver
This interim recovery unit currently containsa single core areawith six local populations. Less than 500 resident and migratory adult bull trout, representingabout 50 to 125 spawners,are estimatedto occur within the core area. The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is attributedto the effects of livestock grazing,roads, anglerharvest, timber harvest,and the introduction of non-native fishes (USFWS 2004a). The draft bull trout recovery plan (USFV/S2004a) identifies the following conservationneeds for this unit: maintainthe currentdistribution of the bull trout within the core area;maintain stable or increasingtrends in abundanceof both residentand migratory bull trout in the corearea; restore and maintain suitablehabitat conditions for all life history stagesand forms; and conservegenetic diversity and increasenatural opportunities for geneticexchange between resident and migratory forms of the bull trout. As notedin the draft recoveryplan, an estimated2T0to 1,000spawning fish per year are neededto provide for the persistenceand viability of the core areaand to supportboth resident and migratory adult bull trout (USFWS 2004a).
Klamath River
This interim recovery unit currently contains3 core areasand l2local populations. The current abundance,distribution, and range of the bull trout in the Klamath River Basin are greatly reducedfrom historicallevels due to habitatloss and degradationcaused by reducedwater quality, timber harvest,livestock grazing,water diversions,roads, and the introductionof non- native fishes(USFWS 2002). Bull trout populationsin this unit facea high risk of extirpation (USFWS 2002). The draft bull trout recoveryplan (USFV/S2002) identifies the following conservationneeds for this unit: maintain the current distribution of the bull trout and restore distributionin previouslyoccupied areas; maintain stable or increasingtrends in bull trout abundance;restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all life history stagesand strategies;conserve genetic diversity and provide the opportunity for genetic exchangeamong appropriatecore area populations. As notedin the draft recoveryplan, 8 to 15 new local populationsand an increasein populationsize from about3,250 adults currently to 8,250adults areneeded to provide for the persistenceand viability of the 3 coreareas (USFWS 2002).
Columbia River
This interim recovery unit currently containsabout 90 core areasand 500 local populations. About 62 percentof thesecore areasand local populations occur in central Idaho and I7 northwesternMontana. The condition of the bull trout within thesecore areasvaries from poor to good but generally all have been subjectto the combined effectsof habitat degradation, fragmentationand alterationsassociated with one or more of the following activities: dewatering; road constructionand maintenance;mining, and grazing;the blockage of migratory corridors by dams or other diversion structures;poor water quality; incidental anglerharvest; entrainment into diversion channels;and introduced non-native species. The draft bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2002) identifies the following conservationneeds for this unit: maintain or expandthe current distribution of the bull trout within core areas;maintain stableor increasingtrends in bull trout abundance;maintain/restore suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and strategies;and conservegenetic diversity and provide opportunitiesfor genetic exchange. Becausethere are so many individual units they are not all listed here. Recovery criteria for the upper Columbia RecoveryUnit (Entiat, Methow, and Wenatcheebasins) include the following: the areamust contain at least 17 local populations;the areamust have estimatedabundance between6,322 and 10,246migratory fish; the areamust have stableor increasingtrend for at least two generationsat or abovethe recoveredabundance level; and connectivity criteria will be met when specificbarriers to bull trout migration in the areahave been addressed (USFWS 2004c).
Coastal-PusetSound
Bull trout in the Coastal-PugetSound interim recovery unit exhibit anadromous,adfluvial, fluviai, and residentlife history patterns. The anadromouslife history form is unique to this unit. This interim recovery unit currently contains 14 core areasand 6l local populations(USFWS 2004b). Bull trout are distributed throughout most of the large rivers and associatedtributary systemswithin this unit. With limited exceptions,bull trout continue to be presentin nearly all major watershedswhere they likely occurredhistorically within this unit. Generaliy,bull trout distribution has contractedand abundancehas declined especiallyin the southeastempart of the unit. The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is attributedto the adverseeffects of dams,forest management practices (e.g., timber harvestand associatedroad building activities),agricultural practices (e.g., diking, water control structures,draining of wetlands,channelization, and the removal of riparian vegetation),livestock grazing,roads, mining, urbanization,angler harvest, and the introduction of non-native species. The draft bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2004b)identifies the following conservationneeds for this unit: maintain or expandthe current distribution of bull trout within existing core areas;increase bull trout abundanceto about 16,500adults across all coreareas; and maintain or increase connectivitybetween local populationswithin eachcore area.
St. Marv-Be11)¡River
This interim recovery unit currently contains 6 core areasand 9 local populations(USFWS 2002). Currently, the bull trout is widely distributed in the St. Mary River drainageand occursin nearly all of the watersthat it inhabitedhistorically. Bull trout arefound only in a 1.2-milereach of the Norlh Fork Belly River within the United States.Redd countsurveys of the North Fork Belly River documentedan increasefrom 2l reddsin 1995to 119redds in 1999. This increase 18 was attributedprimarily to protection from angler harvest (USFWS 2002). The current condition of the bull trout in this interim recovery unit is primarily attributedto the effects of dams,water diversions,roads, mining, and the introduction of non-native fishes (USFWS 2002). The draft bull trout recoveryplan (USFWS 2002)identifies the following conservationneeds for this unit: maintain the current distribution of the bull trout and restoredistribution in previously occupied areas;maintain stableor increasingtrends in bull trout abundance;restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for alllife history stagesand forms; conservegenetic diversity and provide the opportunity for genetic exchange;and establishgood working relations with Canadianinterests becauselocal bull trout populationsin this unit are comprisedmostly of migratory fìsh, whose habitatis mostly in Canada.
C. Ltfe History
Bull trout exhibit both residentandmigratory life history strategies. Both resident and migratory forms may be found together,and either form may produce offspring exhibiting either residentor migratory behavior(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Residentbull trout completetheir entirelife cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streamsin which they spawn and rear. The residentform tends to be smaller than the migratory form at maturity and also producesfewer eggs (Fraley and Shepard1989, Goetz 1989). Migratory bull trout spawnin trìbutarystreams where juvenile fish rear 1 to 4 yearsbefore migrating to either a lake (adfluvial form), river (fluvial form) (Fraley and Shepard1989, Goetz 1989),or saltwater(anadromous ) to rear as subadultsor to live as adults (Cavender1978, McPhail andBaxter 1996,WDFW et al. 1997). Bull trout normally reach sexualmaturity in 4 to 7 yearsand may live longer than 12 years. They are iteroparous(they spawn more than once in a lifetime), and both repeat-and altemate-yearspawning has been reported, although repeat-spawningfrequency and post-spawningmortality are not well documented(Fraley and Shepard1989, Pratt 1992,Rieman and Mclntyre 1996).
The iteroparousreproductive systemof bull trout has important repercussionsfor the managementof this species.Bull trout requiretwo-way passageup and downstream,not only for repeatspawning but alsofor foraging. Most fìsh ladders,however, were designed specifically for anadromoussemelparous (fishes that spawn once and then die, and therefore requireonly one-waypassage upstream) salmonids. Therefore, even dams or otherbarriers with fish passagefacilities may be factorsin isolatingbull trout populations,if they do not provide a downstreampassage route or the passageladder does not accommodatesmaller, weaker swimming fish.
Growth variesdepending upon life-history strategy.Resident adults range from 6 to 12 inches total length; andmigratory adultscommonly reach 24 inchesor more (Goetz 1989). The largest verified bull trout is a 32-poundspecimen caught in Lake PendOreille, Idaho,ln 1949(Simpson andWallace 1982). 19 D. Habitat Characteristics
Bull trout have more specific habitat requirementsthan most other salmonids(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Habitat componentsthat influence bull trout distribution and abundanceinclude water temperature,cover, channelform and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrate,and migratory corridors(Fraley and Shepard1989; Goetz1989; Sedell and Everest 'Watson 1991;Pratt 1992;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993,1995; and Hillman 1997). Watsonand Hillman (1997) concludedthat watershedsmust have specific physical characteristicsto provide the habitat requirementsnecessary for bull trout to successfullyspawn and rear and that these specificcharacteristics are not necessarilypresent throughout these watersheds. Because bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993), fish are not expectedto simultaneouslyoccupy all availablehabitats (Rieman eI aL.1997).
Cold water temperaturesplay an important role in determiningbull trout habitat. Bull trout are primarily found in colder streams(below 59 degreesFahrenheit) and spawning habitats are generally characterizedby temperaturesthat drop below 48 degreesFahrenheit in the fall (Fraley and Shepard1989, Pratt 1992,Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).
Thermal requirementsfor bull trout appearto differ at different life stages. Spawning areasare often associatedwith cold-watersprings, groundwater infiltration, andthe coldeststreams in a given watershed(Pratt 1992,Rieman and Mclntyre 1993,Rieman et al. 1997). Optimum incubationtemperatures for bull trout eggsrange from 35 to 39 degreesFahrenheit whereas optimum water temperaturesfor rearing range from about 46 to 50 degreesFahrenheit (McPhail and Murray 7979,Goetz 1989, Buchanan and Gregory 1997). In GraniteCreek, Idaho, Bonneau and Scamecchia(1996) observed that juvenile bull trout selectedthe coldestwater availablein a plunge pool, 46 to 48 degreesFahrenheit, within a temperaturegradient of 46 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit. In a study relating bull trout distribution to maximum water temperaturesacross a landscape,Dunham et al. (2003a)found that the probability ofjuvenile bull trout occuffence doesnot becomehigh (i.e., greaterthan 0.75)until maximum temperaturesdecline to 52 to 54 degreesFahrenheit.
Although bull trout arefound primarily in cold streams,occasionally these fish arefound in larger, warrnerriver systemsthroughout the ColumbiaRiver basin(Fraley and Shepard1989; Rieman and Mclntyre 1993,1995;Buchanan and Gregory1997; Rieman et al. 1997a). Factorsthat can influence bull trout ability to survive in warmer rivers include availability and proximity of cold waterpatches and food productivity (Myrick 2003). In Nevada,adult bull trout havebeen collectedat 63 degreesFahrenheit in the'WestFork of the JarbidgeRiver andhave been observed in Dave Creekwhere maximum daily water temperatureswere 62.8to 63.6 degreesFahrenheit (Werdon2000). In the Little Lost River, Idaho,bull trout havebeen collected in waterup to 68 degreesFahrenhei! however, bull trout made up less than 50 percentof all salmonidswhen maximum summerwater temperatureexceeded 59 degreesFahrenheit and less than 10 percent of all salmonidswhen temperatureexceeded 63 degreesFahrenheit (Gamett 1999). In the Little Lost River study, most sitesthat had high densitiesof bull trout were in an areawhere primary productivity increasedin the streamsfollowìng a fire (Gamett,8., pers.comm., USFS, 2002). 20 Increasesin streamtemperatures can causedirect mortality, increasedsusceptibility to diseaseor other sublethaleffects, displacement by avoidance(McCullough et al.2001, Bonneauand Scarnechia1996), or increasedcompetition with speciesmore tolerantof warm stream temperatures(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Craig and Wissmar 1993cited in USDI (1997); MBTSG 1998). Brook trout, which canhybridize with bull trout, may be more competitivethan bull trout and displacethem, especiallyin degradeddrainages containing fine sedimentand higherwater temperatures (Selong et aL.2001;Clancy I993;Leary et al. 1993). Recent laboratory studiessuggest bull trout areat aparticular disadvantagein competition with brook trout at temperaturesgreater than 72" C (McMahon et al. 200I Selonget aL.2001).
All life history stagesof bull trout areassociated with complexforms of cover,including large woody debris,undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraleyand Shepard1989, Goetz 1989, Sedell andEverest 1991, Pratt |992,Thomas 1992, Sexauer and James 1997, Watson and Hillman 1991). Maintainingbull trout habitatrequires stability of streamchannels and maintenance of natural flow pattems (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit sidechannels, stream margins, and pools with suitablecover (Sexauer and James I99l). Theseareas are sensitiveto activities that directly or indirectly affect streamchannel stability and alter natural flow pattems. For example,altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the spawningperiod, and channelinstability may decreasesurvival of eggsand young juvenilesin the gravelfrom winter throughspring (Fraleyand Shepard1989, Pratt 7992,Pratt and Huston 1993). Pratt (1992) indicatedthat increasesin fìne sedimentreduceegg survival and emergence.
Bull trout typically spa\¡/nfrom August to November during periods of decreasingwater temperatures.Preferred spawning habitat consists of low-gradientstream reaches with loose, cleangravel (Fraley and Shepard1989). Reddsare often constructedin streamreaches fed by springsor nearother sourcesof cold groundwater(Goetz 1989,Pratt 1992,Rieman and Mclntyre 1996). Dependingon watertemperature, incubation is normally 100to 145 days(Pratt 1992), and afterhatching, juveniles remain in the substrate.Time from egg depositionto emergenceof frymay surpass200 days. Fry normally emergefrom early April throughMay, dependingon water temperaturesand increasingstream flows (Pratt 7992,Ratliff and Howell 1992).
Migratory corridorslink seasonalhabitats for all bull trout life histories. The ability to migrateis importantto the persistenceof bull trout (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993;Gilpin 1997;Rieman et al. 1991). Migrationsfacilitate gene flow amonglocal populationswhen individualsfrom different local populationsinterbreed or strayto nonnatalstreams. Local populationsthat are extirpated by catastrophicevents may be reestablishedby bull trout migrants. However,it is importantto note that the genetic structureof bull trout indicatesthat there is limited geneflow among populations,which may encouragelocal adaptationwithin individual populationsand reestablishmentof extirpatedpopulations may take a very long time (Spruellet al. 1999,Rieman andMclntyre 1993).
Migratory forms of the bull trout appearto develop when habitat conditions allow movement betweenspawning and rearing streamsand larger rivers or lakes, where foraging opportunities 2l may be enhanced(Frissell 1993). For example,multiple life history forms (e.g.,resident and fluvial) and multiple migration patternshave been noted in the GrandeRonde River in Oregon (Baxter 2002). Parts of this river systemhave retainedhabitat conditions that allow free movementbetween spawning and rearing areasand the mainstem SnakeRiver. Suchmultiple life history strategieshelp to maintain the stability and persistenceof bull trout populationsto environmentalchanges. The benefits of the migratory strategyinclude gteatergrowth in the more productive waters of larger streamsand lakes, greaterfecundity resulting in increased reproductivepotential, and dispersingthe population acrossspace and time so that spawning streamsmay be re-colonizedshould local populationssuffer a catastrophicloss (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993,MBTSG 1998,Frissell 1999). In the absenceof the migratorylife form, isolated populations cannotbe replenishedwhen disturbancemakes local habitatstemporarily unsuitable, the range of the speciesis diminished, and the potential for enhancedreproductive capabilities are lost (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).
E. Diet
Bull trout are opportunistic feeders,with food habits primarily a function of size and life-history strategy. Residentand juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquaticinsects, macrozooplankton,and small fish (Boag 1987,Goetz 1989,Donald andAlger 1993). Adult migratorybull trout feedon variousfish species(Fraley and Shepard1989, Donald andAlger 1993). In coastalareas of western'Washington,bull trout feedon Pacific herring(Clupea pallasi), Pacific sandlance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosr'ts) in the ocean(WDFW et al.1997).
Bull trout migration and life history strategiesare closely relatedto their feeding and foraging strategies.In the SkagitRiver systemof Washington,anadromous bull trout makemigrations as long as 121miles betweenmarine foraging areas in PugetSound and headwaterspawning grounds,foraging on salmoneggs and juvenile salmonalong their migratoryroute (WDFV/ et al. 1991). Anadromousbull trout alsouse marine waters as migratory corridors to reach seasonal habitatsin non-natalwatersheds to forageand possibly overwinter (Brenkman and Corbett, 2003).
As fish grow, their foraging strategychanges, as their food changesin quantity, stze,or other characteristics.Resident and juvenile migratorybull trout prey on terrestrialand aquaticinsects, macrozooplankton,mysids and small fish (Shepardet al. 1984,Boag 1987,Goetz 1989,Donald and Alger 1993). Bull trout that are 4.3 inches long or longer commonly have fish in their diet (Shepardet al. 1984),and bull trout of all sizeshave been found to eatfish half their length (Beauchampand Van Tassell2001).
Migratory bull trout begin growing rapidly once they move to waterswith abundantforage that includesfish (Shepardet al. 1984,Carl1985). As thesefish maturethey becomelarger bodied predatorsand are able to travel greaterdistances (with greaterenergy expended) in searchofprey speciesof larger size and in greaterabundance (with greaterenergy acquired). In Lake Billy Chinook in Oregon,as bull trout becameincreasingly piscivorous with increasingsize, the prey 22 specieschanged from mainly smallerbull trout andrainbow trout for bull trout lessthan 17.7 inches in length to mainly kokaneefor bull trout greaterin size (Beauchampand Van Tassell 2001).
Migration allows bull trout to accessoptimal foraging areasand exploit a wider variety of prey resources.Bull trout likely move to or with a food source. For example,some bull trout in the 'Wenatchee basin were found to consumelarge numbersof earthwormsduring spring runoff in May at the mouth of the Little WenatcheeRiver where it entersLake'Wenatchee (USFWS, in prep.). In the WenatcheeRiver, radio-taggedbull trout moved downstream after spawningto the locations of spawning Chinook and sockeyesalmon and held for a few days to a few weeks, possiblyto prey on dislodgedeggs, before establishing an overwinteringarea downstream or in Lake'Wenatchee(USFWS, in prep.).
F. Reproù.rctiveBiology
Bull trout becomesexually mature between 4 and9 yearsof age,and may spawnin consecutive or alternateyears (Shepard et al. 1984;Pratt 1992). Spawningtypically occursfrom August throughDecember in cold, low-gradient1"- to 5'n-ordertributary streams,over loosely compactedgravel and cobblehaving groundwaterinflow (Shepardet al. 1984;Brown 1992; Riemanand Mclntyre 1996;Swanberg 1997; MBTSG 1998;Baxter and Hauer 2000). Surface/groundwaterinteraction zones,which are typically selectedby bull trout for redd construction,have high dissolvedoxygen, constant cold watertemperatures, and increased macro-invertebrateproduction. Spawningsites frequently occur near cover (Brown 1992).
Hatching occursin winter or early spring, and alevins may stay in the gravel for up to 3 weeks before emerging. The total time from egg depositionto fry emergencefrom the gravel may exceed220 days.
Post-spawningmortality, longevity,and repeat-spawning frequency are not well known (Rieman andMclntyre 7996),but lifespansmay exceed10 to13 years(McPhail andMurray I979;Pratt 1992;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Adult adfluvialbull trout may live aslong as 20 years,and may requireas much as 20 monthsin the lake or reseloir habitatto facilitateadequate energy storageand gametedevelopment before they retum to spawn again(67 FR 71236).
Migratory bull trout arehighly visible during spawningdue to their large sizeand locationin relatively small streamsduring periodsof low flow. Channelcomplexity and coverare importantcomponents of spawninghabitat to reduceboth predationrisk andpotential for poaching.
G. PopulationDynamics
Bull trout are consideredto display complex metapopulationdynamics (Dunham and Rieman 1999). Sizeof suitablehabitat patches appears to play an importantrole in the persistenceof bull trout populations,along with habitat connectivity and human disturbance,especially road 23 density. Analyses of spatial and temporal variation in bull trout redds indicatesweak spatial clustering in pattemsof abundancethrough time (Rieman and Mclntyre 1996). Spatial heterogeneityin pattemsof abundance\üas high, however,at a regionalscale. This combination of patternssuggests that maintenanceof stableregional populationsmay require maintenanceof connectedpatches of high quality habitat where dispersaland demographicsupport can occur readily amongpatches (Rieman and Mclntyre i996).
The importanceof maintaining the migratory life-history form of bull trout, as well as migratory runs of other salmonidsthat may provide a forage basefor bull trout, is repeatedlyemphasized in the scientificliterature (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;MBTSG 1998;Dunham and Rieman 1999:' Nelson et al.2002). Isolationand habitat fragmentation resulting from migratorybarriers have negativelyaffected bull trout by: (1) reducinggeographical distribution (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;MBTSG 1998);(2) increasingthe probability of losing individual local populations (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993;MBTSG 1998;Nelson et a\.2002;Dunham and Rieman 1999); (3) increasingthe probability of hybridization wìth introducedbrook trout (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993);(4) reducingthe potentialfor movementsin responseto developmental,foraging, and seasonalhabitat requirements (MBTSG 1998;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993);and (5) reducing reproductive capability by eliminating the larger, more fecund migratory form from many subpopulations(MBTSG 1998;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Therefore,restoring connectivity and restoring the frequency of occurrenceof the migratory form will reducethe probability of local and subpopulationextinctions. Remnant populations, that lack connectivitydue to eliminationof migratory forms,have a reducedlikelihood of persistence(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Rieman and Allendorf 2001).
The bull trout hasmultiple life-history strategies,including migratory forms,throughout its range (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993). Migratory forms appearto developwhen habitatconditions allow movementbetween spawning and rearing streamsand larger rivers or lakes, where foraging opportunitiesmay be enhanced(Frissell 1997). For example,multiple life-historyforms (e.g., residentand fluvial) andmultiple migrationpatterns have been noted in the GrandeRonde River (Baxter 2002). Parts of this river systemhave retainedhabitat conditions that allow free movementbetween spawning and rearing areas and the mainstemof the SnakeRiver. Such multiple life-history strategieshelp to maintainthe stability andpersistence of bull trout populationsin the face of environmentalchanges. Migratory bull trout may enhancepersistence of metapopulationsdue to their high fecundity, large size,and dispersalacross space and time, which promotesrecolonization should resident populations suffer a catastrophicloss (Frissell 1997;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;MBTSG 1998).
Barriersto migration are an importantfactor influencingpattems of geneticvariability in bull trout (Spruellet a\.2003; Costelloet a|.2003). Although barriersincrease the vulnerabilityof isolatedpopulations to stochasticfactors, they alsoinsulate these populations from the homogenizingeffects of geneflow. If isolatedpopulations were foundedby ancestorswith rare alleles,genetic drift, unimpededby geneflow, can leadto fixation of locally rare alleles. These populationsmay subsequentlyserve as reservoirs of rare alleles,and downstreammigration from 24 isolatedpopulations may be imporlantin maintainingthe evolutionarypotential of metapopulations(Costello et al. 2003).
Lakes and reservoirsprovide important refugia for bull trout that display the adfluvial life-history strategy. In general,lake and reservoir environmentsare relatively more securefrom catastrophicnatural eventsthan streamsystems (67 FR 71236). They provide a sanctuaryfor bull trout, allowing them to quickly rebound from temporary adverseeffects to spawning and rearing habitat. For example,if a major wildfìre burns a drainageand eliminatesmost or all aquatic life (a rare occurrence),bull trout sub-adultsand adults that survive in the lake may retum the following year to repopulatethe burned drainage. This underscoresthe needto maintain migratory life forms and habitat connectivity in order to increasethe likelihood of long- term populationpersistence.
For bull trout, a subpopulationis consideredto be a reproductivelyisolated group that spawns within a particulararea of a river system. The spatialscale of bull trout subpopulations correspondsroughly to geographicsub-basins. The Service analyzeddata on bull trout relative to subpopulationsbecause fragmentation and barriers have isolated bull trout throughouttheir current range,and most monitoring data is compiled at the subpopulationscale. The Service recognizes141 subpopulationsof bull trout in the ColumbiaRiver DPS within Idaho,Montana, Oregon,and Washington, and notes that additionalsubpopulations occur in British Columbia (usDr1ee8b).
The Servicerated each subpopulation as either"strong," "depressed,"or "unknown" using criteriafrom Riemanet ql. (1991a)with somemodifications. A subpopulationwas considered "strong" if 5,000individuals or 500 spawnerswere likely to occurin the subpopulation, abundanceappears stable or increasing,and all currently presentlife-history forms are likely to persist, A "depressed"subpopulation has lessthan 5,000individuals or 500 spawners, abundanceappears to be declining,or a life-history form historicallypresent has been lost. If informationabout abundance, trend, and life-historyinformation was insufficientto classiflithe statusof a subpopulationas either"strong" or "depressefl'1,the statuswas considered"unknown" (usDr1ee8b).
Generally,where status is known andpopulation data exist, bull trout subpopulationsin the ColumbiaRiver DPS aredeclining (Thomas 1992;Pratt and Huston 1993;Schill 1992). Bull trout in the Columbia River basin occupy about 45 percent of their estimatedhistoric range (Quigley andArbelbide 1997). Quigley andArbelbide (1997) consideredbull trout populations strongin only 13 percentof the occupiedrange in the interior ColumbiaRiver basin. Riemane/ al. (1997a)estimated that populationswere strongin 6 to 24 percen|of the sub watershedsin the entire Columbia River basin. The few bull trout subpopulationsthat are considered"strong" are generally associatedwith large areasof contiguoushabitats such as portions of the SnakeRiver basin in central Idaho, the upper FlatheadRivers in Montana, and the Blue Mountains in Washingtonand Oregon. Approximately27 percentof the bull trout populationsin the ColumbiaRiver DPS arethreatened by the effectsof poaching(USDI 1998a). 25 The Service also identified subpopulationsat risk of extirpation from naturally occurring events. At-risk subpopulationswere: (1) unlikely to be reestablishedby individualsfrom another subpopulation;(2) limited to a single spawningarea; (3) charactenzedby low individual or spawnernumbers; or (4) comprisedprimarily of a single life-history form. In the Columbia River DPS, approximately79 percentof all subpopulationsare unlikely to be reestablishedif extirpatedand 50 percent are at risk of extirpation from naturally occurring eventsdue to their depressedstatus (USDI 1998b). Many of the remainingbull trout subpopulationsoccur in isolated headwatertributaries, or in tributarieswhere migratory corridors have been lost or restricted.The listing rule characterizesthe ColumbiaRiver DPS as generallyhaving isolated subpopulations,without the migratory life form to maintain the biological cohesivenessof the subpopulations,and with trendsin abundancedeclining or of unknown status.Recolonization of habitatwhere isolated bull trout subpopulationshave been lost is eitherunlikely to occur (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993)or will only occurover extremelylong time periods.
H. Geneticand PhenotypicDiversily
Geneticdiversity promotes both short-termfitness of populationsand long-termpersistence of a speciesby increasingthe likelihood that the speciesis ableto survivechanging environmental conditions. This benefìcialeffect can be displayedboth within and amongpopulations. Within a geneticallydiverse local populationof bull trout, differentindividuals may havevarious alleles that confer different abilities to survive and reproduceunder different environmentalconditions (Leary et al. 1993;Spruell et al.7999;Hard 1995). If environmentalconditions change due to naturalprocesses or humanactivities, different allele combinationsalready present in the populationmay be favored,and the populationmay persistwith only a changein allele frequencies.A geneticallyhomogeneous population that has lost variationdue to inbreedingor genetic drift may be unable to respondto the environmentalchange and be extirpated. The prospectof local extirpationhighlights the importanceof geneticdiversity amonglocal populations.Recolonizatton of locationswhere extirpations have occurredmay be promotedif immigrantsare availablethat possessalleles that conferan advantagein variableenvironmental conditions. Extendingthis reasoningto the entirerange of the species,reduction in rangewide geneticdiversity of bull trout throughthe lossof local populationscan reduce the speciesability to respondto changingconditions, leading to a higher likelihood of extinction(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Learyet al. 7993;Spruell et al. 1999;Hard 1995;Rieman and Allendorf 2001).
The amountof geneticvariation necessary for a populationto adaptto a changingenvironment canbe estimatedusing the conceptof effectivepopulation size (N"). Effectivepopulation size is the averagenumber of individuals in a population which are assumedto contribute genesequally to the succeedinggeneration. Effective population size provides a standardizedmeasure of the amount of geneticvariation that is likely to be transmittedbetween generations within a population.
Specifrcbenchmarks for bull trout havebeen developed concerning the minimum N" necessaryto maintain geneticvariation important for short-termfitness and long-term evolutionarypotential. Thesebenchmarks are based on the resultsof a generalized,age-structured, simulation model, 26 called VORTEX (Miller and Lacy 1999),used to relate effective population size to the number of adult bull trout spawning annually under a range of life histories and environmentalconditions (Riemanand Allendorf 2001). Using the estimatethat N" for bull trout is between0.5 and 1.0 times the mean number of adults spawning annually, Rieman and Allendorf (2001) concluded that (1) an averageof 100 adultsspawning each year would be requiredto minimize risks of inbreedingin a population,and (2) an averageof 1,000adults is necessaryto maintaingenetic variation important for long-term evolutionary potential. This latter value of 1,000 spawners may alsobe reachedwith a collectionof local populationsamong which geneflow occurs.
Bull trout populationstend to show relatively little geneticvariation within populations,but substantialdivergence among populations (e.9., Spruell et al. 2003). For example,Spruell et al. (1999) found that bull trout at five different spawning siteswithin a tributary drainageof Lake PendOreille, Idaho, were differentiatedbased on geneticanalyses (microsatellite DNA), indicatingfidelity to spawningsites and relatively low ratesof geneflow amongsites. This type of geneticstructuring indicates limited geneflow amongbull trout populations,which may encouragelocal adaptationwithin individual populations(Spruell et al. 1999;Healey and Prince 1995;Hard 1995;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993).
Current information on the distribution of genetic diversity within and amongbull trout populationsis basedon molecularcharacteristics of individual genes.While suchanalyses are extremelyuseful, they may not reflect variability in traitswhose expression is dependenton interactionsamong many genesand the environment(Hard 1995,Reed and Frankham 2001; but seePfrender et al.2000). Therefore,the maintenanceof phenotypicvariability (e.g.,variability in body size and fotm, foraging efficiency, and timing of migrations, spawning,and maturation) may be best achievedby conservingpopulations, their habitats,and opportunitiesfor the species to take advantageof habitatdiversity (Healeyand Prince 1995;Hard 1995).
Local adaptationmay be extensivein bull trout becausepopulations experience a wide variety of environmentalconditions across the species'distribution, and because populations exhibit considerablegenetic differentiation. Thus, conservingmany populationsacross their rangeis essentialto adequatelyprotect the geneticand phenotypic diversity of bull trout (Hard 1995; Healeyand Prince 1995; Taylor et a1.1999;Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Spruell et al. 1999; Leary et al. 1993;Rieman and Allendorf 2001). If geneticand phenotypic diversity is lost, changesin habitatsand prevailing environmental conditions could increasethe likelihood of bull trout suffering reductionsin numbers,reproductive capacity,and distribution.
Basedon this informationabout the life history and conservationneeds of bull trout, the Service concludesthat eachsubpopulation or local populationis an importantgenetic, phenotypic, and geographiccomponent of its respectiveDPS. Adverseeffects that compromisethe persistenceof a bull trout subpopulationor local populationcan reduce the distribution,as well asthe phenotypicand geneticdiversity of the DPS. 27 III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section analyzesthe current condition of the bull trout in the action area,the factors responsiblefor that condition, and the role of the action areain the intended conservation function of the Columbia River interim recovery unit.
The action areais part of the WenatcheeRiver core areafor the bull trout. For context, the status of the bull trout within the corearea is discussedfirst followed by a discussionof bull trout status in the actionarea.
A. WenatcheeRiver CoreArea
The WenatcheeRiver Basin encompassesapproxim ately 7,37 | squaremiles (mi') in central Washington(NPPC 2001c,USFS I999a, WSCC 2001). Major tributariesare the White and Little WenatcheeRivers, which drain into Lake Wenatchee(source of the WenatcheeRiver), the ChiwawaRiver, andNason Creek. Additional tributariesto the'WenatcheeRiver includeIcicle Creek,Peshastin Creek, and Mission Creek.
Sevenmigratory local populations of the bull trout are known within this core area;they are locatedin: (1) the ChiwawaRiver (including Chikamin,Phelps, Rock, Alpine, Buck andJames creeks);(2) the White River (including Canyonand Panther creeks); (3) the Little Wenatchee River (below the falls); (4) NasonCreek (including Mill Creek);(5) ChiwaukumCreek; (6) PeshastinCreek (including Ingalls Creek);and (7) Icicle Creek(De La Vergne,J., pers.comm., usFws,2002).
Adfluvial, fluvial, and residentforms of the bull trout currently exist in the WenatcheeRiver CoreArea (WDFW 1993). The majority of spawningand fry-rearinghabitat is within U.S. ForestService lands, including the GlacierPeak and Alpine Lake Wildernessareas. Data collectionfor bull trout reddshas become standardized across the CoreArea sinceabout 2000, and sincethen the total numberof reddsdetected in the WenatcheeCore Area has fluctuated betweenabout 300 and 600. The 1O-yearaverage is 405 redds(unpublished data compiled by the USFWS CWFO 2006). It is importantto notethat thesenumbers reflect redds made by migratory fish. There may be a small number of residentfish that make reddswhich are difficult to detect. Becauseresident bull trout are small, and fecundity and survival is directly relatedto size, the Servicebelieves that redd counts for migratory spawnersare a useful way to track changesin bull trout population abundanceover time, and that this method provides an accurate estimateof the populationat the Core Area scale.
The Chiwawa River local population complex is the stronghold for bull trout in the upper WenatcheeRiver Basin (WDFW 1998). Rock Creekrepresents the strongestpopulation in the Chiwawa. Since1995 annual surveys have documentedbetween 250 and 440redds in the Chiwawa. The 1O-yearaverage is 335 redds(unpublished data compiled by USFWS CWFO 2006). 28 The combined Little WenatcheeRiver and White River redd countshave been between20 and 125 since2000. Below Lake Wenatcheeadditional spawning areas in the WenatcheeRiver Core Area include Nason, Chiwaukum, and Peshastincreeks. Limited redd surveyshave detectedup to 15 reddsin Nason Creekand its tributaryMill Creek,25 to 40 reddsin Chiwakum Creek,and up to 10 in PeshastinCreek (unpublished data compiled by USFWS CWFO 2006).
The Icicle Creekpopulation of the bull trout is the smallestof all sevenpopulations in the core area,and it is the only local population that is reproductively isolated from the metapopulation. Bull trout reddshave not beendetected in Icicle Creek. However,multiple ageclasses of resident-sizedfish have been observedin upper Icicle Creek indicating that bull trout successfullyspa,wn in Icicle Creek. All reproductionin the Icicle Creeklocal population dependson what appearsto be a small,resident-only population. Migratory fish that stagein the lower Icicle Creekare unable to accessupstream spawning habitats in upperIcicle Creekdue to year-roundbarriers at LNFH, and, during certain times of year, barriers at other locations in lower Icicle Creek upstreamof LNFH. Large migratory bull trout are frequently observedbelow the spillway dam at LNFH throughout the year. Some of thesefrsh likely belong to other spawningpopulations (Kel1y-Ringel, B., USFWS,pers comm.,2006). The Servicebelieves it is unlikely that thesefrsh spawnedin lower Icicle Creekbecause the habitatis unsuitable. In2002 four migratory-size bull trout (approximatelengths: 26", 22", 19", and 13"), and a fifth in 2004 (20") were seenat approximatelyrm 6, aboveall diversiondams and the boulder area(De La Vergne,J., pers.comm., USFWS, 2002;personal observation 2004). It is unknown whether thesefish spawnedin mid or upperIcicle Creek.
Residentbull trout areknown to occurin upperIcicle Creekin low densitiesin Jackand French Creeks(USFWS 1997). An unspecifiednumber ofjuvenile bull trout were locatedin Eightmile Creekby the USFS andWDFW (Brown 1992a).There is a singlerecord of a bull trout in Leland Creeknear the headwatersof Icicle Creek(Merritt, G., pers.comm., WDOE, 2002). The statusand distributionof theseresident bull trout arepoorly understood.In Septemberof 2004, night snorkel surveysof the mainstem of upper Icicle Creek and Jack Creek found more resident bull trout than previous daytime surveysof theseareas, possibly becausenight surveysare more effective (Thurow et al 2006). Jack Creek may be an important refugium for bull trout in the Icicle Creekwatershed (USFWS 2005c).
B. FactorsAffecting theBull Trout's CuruentCondition in the WenatcheeRiver CoreArea
The current condition of the bull trout in the WenatcheeRiver core areais attributedto several factors: dams, forest managementactivities, agricultural practices(including water withdrawals for inigation), mining, residentialdevelopment, and fisheriesmanagement activities. Connectivityamong local populationshas been impacted by dams,agricultural practices, roads, and dikes. Maintenanceof life history diversity is likewise compromisedby the factors that fragment populations. Bull trout genetic and phenotypic diversity is in peril and their abundance has declineddue to all of the abovefactors. 29 Dams and Aericultural Practices
Numerous small damswithin the core areacontinue to limit bull trout migratory movementsand impact habitat quality due to associatedwater withdrawals and affects on fluvial processes.The most signifìcantremaining passage barriers are dams on Icicle Creek. The LNFH hasblocked upstreamfish passagein Icicle Creek atrm2.8 andat otherlocations since 1941. A boulderfield upstreamof the hatchery at rm 5.5 was previously thought to be anatural barrier to fish passage. However, severalmigratory-size bull trout were observedduring a snorkel survey abovethe boulderarea on September15,2002, indicating that this obstacleis passableunder some conditions(De La Vergne,J., pers.comm., USFWS, 2002). On September9,2004, during a brief spot-checkof the samearea, another migratory-sized bull trout was observed(D. Morgan, USFWS,pers. obs. 2004). The Servicebelieves this areais only a barrierto upstreampassage during certainflow conditions,and that it is passablewhen streamflow is moderate.
Irrigation diversionscan result in passagebarriers by creatingstructural blockages, reducing in-streamflow or even dewateringstreams, and increasingwater temperatures.Decreased stream flow and high temperaturescan createbarriers to upstreamhabitat and poor habitat conditions. High temperaturescan result in negative effects to foraging and migration pattems. Irrigation diversionsnot directly locatedin bull trout spawningstreams can remove in-stream flow and may impact important foraging and high water refuge habitat. Recentand ongoing improvementsto diversion dams for fish passagehave improved habitat accessin the Wenatchee River corearea (Peshastin Creek diversion).
Within Icicle Creek,diversions for irrigation,hatchery operations, and municipal use remove significant portions of water during August, September,and October (USFWS 1992). Low flows in the lower reach are the result of natural conditions compoundedby water diversionsfor municipal water supply,agricultural irrigation, andthe LNFH (WDFW 1998).
Adequatefrsh protectiondevices and structuresare lacking at Icicle Creekdiversions. The Icicle/PeshastinIrrigation District operatesan irrigation diversiondam on Icicle Creekabove LNFH that presentsa temporarybarrier to summer and fall migration when low flows trickle over the crest of the dam, which has no fish ladder. In low water years during late summer,the streamis essentiallydewatered for 1OO-feetdirectly downstreamof the diversion,completely blocking all fish passage(USFS 1998c). The fish exclusionscreens at the Icicle/Peshastin Irrigation District diversion do not currently meet NOAA Fisheriesand Service criteria. BOR initiatedthe processto chosethe best option to upgradethis facility in the summerof 2006, and will likely designa solutionwithin the next year or two (Kolk, S., pers.comm., BOR, 2006). The water diversion dam for the LNFH and the CascadeOrchards Irrigation District intake blocks fish passageat low flows andis improperly screened(USFWS 2002b). During some drought years,the streamhas been nearly dewateredfrom the diversion downstreamto the fish hatchery.
In PeshastinCreek the diversionin the lower river, which was a barrierduring low flows, was modified in late 2005 to improve passageduring summer. 30 Within the upper WenatcheeRiver, there are severalwater diversions and a diversion dam; it is unknown whetherthese diversions meet NOAA Fisheriesand Servicescreening criteria (USFS 1999). The Chiwawa Irrigation District water diversion is located at rm 3.6 on the Chiwawa River and can divert up to 33.3 cfs,but more commonly diverts 12 to 16 cfs (USFS 1999). The diversionis screened(updated in the mid 1990's),but it is unclearif the screenmeets the NOAA Fisheriesand Service fish screencriteria, or how the alteredflow regime may affect rearing or sub adult bull trout. The U.S. Forest Service and the Chiwawa Irrigation District currently monitor flows and temperaturesabove and below the diversion to determineimpacts to aquatic habitat.
A diversion in the upper Chiwawa River in Phelps Creek is located within bull trout spawning andrearing habitat (USFS 1999). The Trinity water diversionis locatedapproximately 0.75 miles upstreamof the 8-foot high naturalfalls at rm 1.0,which blocks upstreamfish passage. Bull trout have not been found in the areaof the diversion headgatestructure, but have been located spawningwithin the return channelfrom the settling ponds and in PhelpsCreek below the falls. The Trinity diversion is currently being relicensedby the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission. It is unknownhow thesechanges in in-streamflows affectrearing and spawning bull trout downstreamin PhelpsCreek.
ForestManagement
Both direct and indirectimpacts from timber harvesthave altered habitat conditions in portions of the core area. Impactsfrom timber halest managementinclude the removalof largewoody debris,reduction in riparianareas, increased water temperatures,increased erosion, and simplificationof streamchannels (Quigley andArbelbide 1997). Bull trout areless likely to use streamsfor spawning and rearing in areaswith high road densitiesand were typically absentat meanroad densities above 1.7 miles per mi' (Quigleyand Arbelbide 1997).
In the WenatcheeRiver, natural channelcomplexity and riparian conditions have been altered over time by pasttimber-related activities (WSCC 2001). Theseactivities have resulted in reducedriparian andwetland connectivity, reduced high flow refugehabitat, reduced sinuosity and side channeldevelopment, increased bank erosion,reduced large woody debris,and reduced pool frequency. Road constructionassociated with timber harvestadjacent to streamsor rivers has resultedin the straighteningof streamchannels (channelization), alteration of stream gradients,and an overall changein habitat type (USFS 1999).
High road densitieswithin certainportions of U.S. ForestService lands in the WenatcheeRiver Basin may contributeto habitatdegradation. Areas of specialconcern where road densitiesare high include: Lower Chiwawa River, Middle Chiwawa River, Lake Wenatchee,Lower V/hite River, Lower Little Wenatchee,Upper Little'Wenatchee,Lower NasonCreek, Upper Nason Creek,the headwatersof NasonCreek, Wenatchee River (Upper,Middle, and Lower portions), Lower Icicle Creekdrainage, and Peshastin Creek (USFWS 2002b). 31 Road culvertsin watershedswith bull trout canblock or impedeupstream passage (WSCC 1999, 2000, 2001;NPPC2001a,b,c). Culverts may precludebull trout from enteringa drainageduring spawningmigrations, emigration ofjuveniles, and foraging activities, and may also limit access to refuge habitat neededto escapehigh flows, sediment,or higher temperatures. Specific culverts have been identified as passagebarriers in the WenatcheeRiver Core Area including Mill Creek and PeshastinCreek (USFWS 2002b).
Minine
Mining can degradeaquatic habitats used by bull trout by altering water chemistry (e.g.,pH); altering streammorphology and flow; and causingsediment, fuel, and heavy metals to enter streams(Nelson et al.1991,Spence et al. 1996). The U.S. ForestService has issueda specialuse permit in the upper Chikamin Creek drainagefor an exploratory mining operation. Bull trout spa\/n just downstreamin Chikamin Creek and hold within the Chiwawa River for most of the year. Small-scalerecreational gold mining occursat placerclaims in otherthe WenatcheeRiver core area,particularly in the Peshastinwatershed.
ResidentialDevelopment
Numerous areaswithin this core areaare experiencinga shift from an economybased on natural resources(agriculture, forestry, and mining) to an economymorb dependenton industries associatedwith tourism,recreation, and generalgoods and services.Some increased population growth has occurredwithin the core area.
As describedin the draft bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002b), the WenatcheeRiver core areais affectedby residentialdevelopment. Areas and habitat concernsinclude the following: the WenatcheeRiver downstreamof Leavenworlh (loss of side channels,bank revetment,and floodplain development);the WenatcheeRiver through the communitiesof Plain and Ponderosa (degradedwater quality due to improperly functioningseptic systems); Peshastin Creek (below the Ingalls Creek confluence,the natural channeland floodplain function has been disturbeddue to channelconstriction and confinement);Icicle Creek(lower portion of the river hasbeen impactedfrom loss of riparianvegetation, bank hardening,and residential development); Nason Creek (lower Nason Creek has been impactedby channelconfinement, removal of riparian vegetation,and reduction in large woody debris recruitment); the White River (below Panther Creek there has been loss of riparian and large woody debris recruiþent); and Lake Wenatchee (shorelinedevelopment and associatedloss of riparianvegetation, increased nutrient loading, and inadequatesewage treatment from old septicsystems).
FisheriesManaqement
Fisheriesmanagement can affect bull trout through stocking of non-native species,harvest management,and effectson prey base. Problemswith non-nativespecies in the'Wenatchee River Core Area areprimarily brook trout (WSCC 1999,2000,2001), In the WenatcheeRiver, brook trout are presentin the Chiwawa River including Chikamin and Big Meadow creeks 32 (USFS 1999). The introductionof brook trout into SchaeferLake in the 1940'swas most likely the sourcepopulation. Efforts to eradicatebrook trout from SchaeferLake have been unsuccessful.Brook trout arealso present in upperIcicle Creek(USFWS 1997).
Fisheriesmanagement can also impact bull trout by promulgating fishing regulationsthat lead to the incidental harvestof bull trout and trampling of bull trout reddsby wading anglers. Injury andmortality from incidentalcatch of bull trout andharvest as a resultof misidentihcationstill continuesunder existing fishing regulations(e.g., only 44 percentof surveyedMontana anglers correctlyidentified bull trout; Schmetterlingand Long 1999). In experimentaltests, a single wading eventjust before hatching can result in up to 43 percentmortality of eggs(Roberls and White 1992). Harvest of bull trout is currently prohibited on all stocksin the core area. However, many other speciesare targetedin sport and tribal fisheriesin the areawhere bull trout may overlap.
C. Summarvof Bull Trout Statusin the I(enatcheeRiver CoreArea
In the WenatcheeRiver core areathere is good connectivitybetween most local populations(USFWS 2005b). However,low flow andphysical barriers exist in Icicle Creek,Peshastin Creek, and Mill Creek. The populationof residentbull trout in upper Icicle Creekhas been isolated by man-madebarriers at LNFH sinceabout 1940 (Brown 7992a,USFWS 2005c,WDFW 1998). Barriersin Mill andPeshastin Creeks arescheduled for replacementor haverecently been modified to addressthese problems.
In the WenatcheeRiver corearea, diverse life historiesar.e expressed in most local populations(unpublished data compiled by USFWS CWFO 2006). Thereare migratory fìsh (fluvial and/or adfluvial) throughoutthe system,although they are distributedunevenly. The exceptionto this is Icicle Creek,where only residentfish areknown to be reproducing(USFWS 2005c). Residentfish arethe leastfecund and most vulnerablelife historv form lRieman andMclntvre 1993).
Lake Wenatcheein the upperbasin may provide opportunitiesfor greaterlife history diversityfor local populationsin the Chiwawa,Little Wenatchee,Nason, and White rivers comparedto lower basinpopulations in the Chiwaukum,Icicle, and Peshastin creeks(USFWS 2005b). The Chiwaukumand Peshastin populations include large migratory fish that use otherhabitat outside of their headwaterspawning areas to feed and grow, andthese fish canreturn to the natal streamto spawn;the Icicle Creek populationdoes not.
Analysisof geneticsamples from bull trout populationsin the WenatcheeRiver core areais underway,but resultsare not availableyet. All the local populationsin the core area,except the ChiwawaRiver population,aÍe at risk of deleteriousgenetic effects associatedwith small populations(Rieman and Allendorf 2001). The Icicle Creek populationis the smallestin the corearea. JJ
. Genetic exchangeis assumedto occur infrequently, basedon genetic analysesfrom other core areas. There is no direct evidenceof current geneticexchange between the WenatcheeRiver and other core areas;however migration monitoring suggeststhis may be possible(USFWS 2005b). Geneticexchange at this scaleit is assumedto be less frequentthan geneflow among local populationswithin the Wenatcheecore area.
. The short-termpopulation trend for the'WenatcheeRiver core areais stablewith high interannualvariation; the Chiwawa River population representsa stronghold for the bull trout. The Chiwawa River population may drive the population trend for this core area(unpublished data compiled by CWFO 2006).
D. Bull Trout Stahn in theAction Area
Icicle Creekenters the WenatcheeRiver at town of Leavenworth.The watershedis214 mi'in size(136,960 acres) and is 87 percentNational Forestland, with 74 percen|of the watershed locatedin the Alpine LakesWilderness. The USFS managestheir portion of the watershedas a Tier 1 Key Watershedunder the Northwest Forest Plan (USFS 1994a). Key watershedsare describedin the North West ForestPlan Recordof Decision:
"Key watersheds[are] a systemof large refugia comprising watershedsthat are crucial to at-risk fìsh speciesand stocks and provide high quality water (pageB- 12). Refugiaarc a cornerstoneof most species'conservation strategies. They are designatedareas that eitherprovide, or areexpected to provide,high quality habitat. A systemof Key Watershedsthat serveas refugia is crucial for maintaining and recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of anadromoussalmonids andresident fìsh species.These refugia include areasof high quality habitatas well as areasof degradedhabitat. Key Watershedswith high quality conditions will serveas anchorsfor the potentialrecovery of depressedstocks. Thoseof the lower quality habitat have a high potential for restorationand will becomefuture sourcesof high quality habitat with the implementationof a comprehensive restorationprogram (page B-18)."
Icicle Creekis the largestsub watershedof the WenatcheeRiver, andprovides 19 percentof low seasonflows (secondonly to the White River basin). It is 31.8miles long from its headwatersat Lake Josephine,elevation 4,681 feet, near StevensPass to its confluencewith the Wenatchee River in the town of Leavenworth,elevation 1,200 feet. The geologyof the watershedcontrols the hydrologicprocesses. The areawas glaciated,with steepslopes of cirqueheadwalls and failure escarpmentsthat have very little water storage capacity. The storagecapacity exists in the high elevationbasins and in glacial till in the valley bottoms. Precipitationranges from 120 inches near the Cascadecrest to 20 inches near the mouth. Tributary streamsin the watershed aregenerally very steepRosgen A-type channels(USFS 1994a). 34 Wildfires arecommon in portionsof the drainage.There have been three large fires in the past 11 years(1994,2001,2004) that haveburned approximately i5 percentof the Icicle Creek watershed.The USFS determinedthat thesefires and suppressionactivities did not changethe environmentalbaseline in the actionarea (USFS 2004,USFWS 2004c). Roughly 5 percentof the watershedhas been impactedby logging (USDA 1994a).
Water is storedand released from severalhigh elevationlakes, and later divertedfrom lower Icicle Creek for irrigation, the LNFH, and city drinking water. Thesewater withdrawals contribute to low streamflow and high water temperaturesduring the summerin the lower reachesof Icicle Creek. Rain-on-snow eventsare common in fall, and the hydrographis typical of snow melt systems,with the peak runoff in late spring. Mean, minimum, and maximum flows in Icicle Creekat the USGS gagingstation at rm 5.8 are614, 44, and 14,100cfs, respectivelyfor the period ofrecord froml93l to 2005.
A samplehydrograph from the 2004 wateryear (the most recent dataavailable from USGS) is shownbelow (Figure2). Note the rapidly decreasingflows in July as snowmeltrunoff endsand the river transitionsto baseflowconditions. This is typical of most hydrographsover the last decade.The increasein August and Septemberis unusual;most yearsthis did not happenuntil Octoberwhen fall rainsbesan. 35 Figure2.2004Icicle Creekhydrograph upstream frorn all diversions. æUSGS JSGs1,2458000lclcLE cREEK ABOVESNOW CREEK NEAR LEAVENWORTH, WI Ð LrJ 3E6E
E l¡J 2OEE J.[/\r
H lTEB
¡=
=
= l¡J E i v1 ìI = ì I E F lEB Jan BlFeb 6llar Elffpr 01Ìlag Ot.Jun 81Jul Blffug 015ep fìlfìct Blllov Oltec 01
EHFLffHffTITH ....------I]ÊILY ItEffH STREHTIFLÍ}I{ - ESTIÌIffTET STREÊTIFLO'{
Fish habitaton National Forestlands throughout the majority of the watershedis in excellent condition. Upper Icicle Creek,where bull trout spawn,is unalteredby humanactivity (WDFW 'Watershed 1998). According to the USFS Analysis,the majority of the fish habitatin the watershedis "in pristine stateand very capableof producingfish" (USFS 1994a). Thereare localizedareas where the USFS accessroad and campgroundsimpinge on the streamcorridor and consequentlystream shade, large woody debris(LWD), or pool frequencyis reduced.As a percentageof total length of Icicle Creek,these areas are very small. The accessroad and campgroundsare located on the north sideof the river. Due to the aspectof the valley (the river flows from west to east),these impacted areas have little effecton streamshade. Comparedto otherwilderness areas, the backcountryof the Alpine LakesWildemess Area is heavily used. Most of this activity is limited to July, August,and September,and occursin areasthat arefar from bull trout habitat. Rock climbing is a popularrecreation activity alongthe accessroad.
Passageis blockedby damsat LNFH nearnn 2.8, 3.8, and4.5 which preventmost or all migratory-sizedfish from accessingmost of the watershed(see Figure 1). The historicalfish barrier in Icicle Creekis locatednear the headwaters(Bryant and Parkhurst1950). Thereis a 36 distinctdifference between habitat quality in the upperand lower basinat rm 5.7,just abovethe uppermostirrigation diversion(Andonaegui, 2001). Upstreamof this point thereare no water diversionsor damsand anthropogenicdisturbance activities aneverylimited. The USFS (1994b, 2000, 2004d)and the USFV/S (2004c)evaluated the baselineconditions in the watershed.In general,habitat indicators were ratedas "properly functioning" in the watershedabove the USFS boundary at about rm 5. There were some instanceswhere, for examplestream temperature (too high) or quality pool habitat(too low) did not meet the standardsand guidelinesin all placesat all times,but most of thesedepartures reflect naturalconditions (USFS 2000). It is importantto notethat virtually all watershedsin the area,even those where anthropogenicimpact is very low (White River) or thosethat areprolific fish producers(Chiwawa River) includesome indicators that arenot 100percent "properly functioning". Yet thesewatersheds support healthy and diversefish communities.
Basedon substrateand gradient,there is abundantspawning habitat available in upperIcicle Creek,especially between rm 18 and rm 25. The USFWS (2001a)estimated that suff,rcient gravelexists in this reachto supportnearly 2,000 spawningpairs of bull trout (basedon total area of suitablesubstrate divided by averageredd size). Thereis no known bull trout spawningin lower Icicle Creekbelow LNFH, and due to flow andtemperature conditions that habitatis generallynot suitablefor bull trout spawningduring the appropriatetime of year. Stream temperaturein upperIcicle Creekis suitablefor spawningand rearing, but that cold water also limits growth rate,size at maturity, and fecundityof fish that exhibit the residentlifeìistory phenotype(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). All of thesefactors limit the reproductivepotential for the resident-typebull trout in Icicle Creek. Migratory fish would not havethese same limitations and canmove to rnoreproductive habitats where rapid growth is possible.
The fish communityin Icicle Creekhas been affected by both extirpationof native species, severereductions in abundanceof somespecies, and introductionof exotic species.Salmonid speciespresent in the watershedinclude hatchery spring Chinook salmon,hatchery Coho salmon, steelhead,bull trout, non-nativebrook trout, westslopecutthroat trout (O. clarki lewisi),redband trout (O. mykissgairdneri), and Mountain whitefish (Prosopir.tmwilliamsoni). Thereare also native andnon-native non-salmonids in Icicle Creekincluding dace(Rhinichthys spp.), lamprey (Lampetraspp.), sculpin(Cotttts spp.), suckers (Catostomus spp.), and others. Recorded historicaldata from upperIcicle Creekprior to about 1930is limited, which is about60 years afterthe peak of ColumbiaRiver salmonruns (basedon canneryoutput; see Lichatowich 1991). It is likely that the extirpationof anadromousand migratory salmonidlife forms in upperIcicle Creek have affectednutrient dynamics in the watershedand predatorprey relationshipswithin the fish community,resulting in reducedprirnary and secondaryproductivity.
E. Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance
The bull trout is a perrnanentresident in the actionarea. Icicle Creekis the smallestlocal populationin the'WenatcheeRiver core area(USFWS 2005c). It containsboth residentand migratory frsh,but only the former have accessto spawningareas in upperIcicle Creek,and the latter doesnot reproducein Icicle becauseit cannotmigrate back to natal areas.In this way it is 37 differentthan all othersin the'Wenatcheebasin. It is one of two bull trout populationsin the lower'WenatcheeRiver Basin aboutwhich little is known. Otherthan the PeshastinCreek local population, which is also locatedbelow Tumwater Canyon, all other bull trout populationsin the WenatcheeRiver core areaspawn and rear in the upper basin tributaries,most of which are severaltens of miles upstream,where there is more diversehabitat and a largerprey base. Both of the lower basinpopulations are very small. Since 1940and the completionof damsat LNFH, the Icicle Creekpopulation has been the only bull trout populationin the WenatcheeRiver basin where only the residentlife-history form can reproduce.
Snorkel surveysand radio telemetry monitoring revealedthat migratory-sizedbull trout use the lower portionsof both Icicle andPeshastin creeks (unpublished data compiled by USFWS CWFO). Limited spawningby migratorybull trout hasbeen detected in Ingalls Creek(Peshastin Basin),and resident-size fish havebeen detected in nearbyNegro Creek(Haskins, J., pers. comm.,USFS, 2005). No redd surveyshave been conducted in Icicle Creek. Habitatconditions in Icicle Creekand Peshastin Creek are different than thosein the upperbasin where other local populationsof bull trout exist. Thesedifferences include the absenceof local lacustrinerefugia and other selectionpressures such as the lack of anadromousprey. Thesefactors may have led to geneticand otherdifferences between these two small populationsand the otherfive local populationsin the WenatcheeRiver core area.
Therehas been very little surveyeffort to locatebull trout in Icicle Creekabove LNFH. In 1937, prior to the constructionof LNFH, 12juvenile bull trout were capturedduring suleys for anadromousfish in a downstreammigration trap operatedintermittently in the Icicle and PeshastinCanal alrm 5.J fiust upstreamof the boulder area)from May throughearly October (Brennani938). Ln1994 and 1995,day snorkelsurveys in the Icicle watershedfound 11 resident bull trout (generally8" to 12" in length)in dispersedlocations in Icicle Creekabove the LNFH spillway andin the lower end of JackCreek, an upperIcicle Creektributary. Bull trout comprisedless than 0.2 percentof all fish detected,and were found up to rm 24 (USFWS 1997). In2002. one small bull trout was observedin Leland Creek,an upperIcicle Creektributary (Merritt, G., pers.comm., WDOE, 2002). Fieldwork by Blown (1992)located a few juvenile buli trout in Frenchand Eightmile creeks,which areupper andmid-Icicle Creektributaries, respectively.
The only sulvey that specificallyattempted to locatesmall residentbull trout in Icicle Creekwas a night snorkelsurvey in2004, which found 22 residentbull trout (generally8" to 12" in length) scatteredthroughout upper Icicle Creek as far downstreamas Ín 14, andin lower Jack Creek (USFWS 2005c). Therehave been a few opportunisticsurveys as well. During a site visit in August 2005,one bull trout about6" long was seenfrorn the bank at the trashrack locatedat the water intake atrm 4.5 (D. Morgan,USFWS, pers.obs. 2005). During a day snorkelsurvey of the historic channelin June2005, one bull trout about8" in lengthwas seenimmediately downstreamof dam2 atrm 3.S(D. Morgan,pers. obs. 2005). In 200i and2005, a total of four deadbull trout were found on the trashrack at the LNFH intake atrm 4.5, two of which were 14" long (2006BA). 38 Theseobservations suggest that most residentor immature fish are rearing in upper Icicle Creek, presumablynear the spawning area(s),but some immature individuals are rearing and emigrating at least as far downstreamas the historic channel,even in summer. Immature bull trout are known to move long distancesboth upstreamand downstream(Muhlfeld and Marotz 2005). The Service assumesthat there are more immature bull trout presentin lower Icicle Creek during coolermonths, because water temperaturein summeris higher in this arealhanbull trout typically prefer, and emigration may be more common in spring and fall (Fraley and Shepard 1989). The Serviceestimates that during suÍrmer months,which is when LNFH activitiesare most likely to affectbull trout due to reducedflow, increasedtemperature, and passage barriers, therewould be a maximum of 10 immaturebull trout presentbetween rm2.8 (dam 5 andthe spillway pool) andrm 4.5 (the waterintake).
Many largemigratory bull trout are commonlyobserved in the largepool in Icicle Creekjust below the LNFH canalspillway from July throughNovember. This pool is the locationof the YakamaNation Fisheryfor LNFH Chinook salmon. According to the BA, most anglinghere occursbetween late-May andmid-June. The BA indicatesthat most snorkelingand bull trout observationsin the spillway pool occurin August. However,in late spring and early summer high flows andthe tribal hshery at LNFH limit opportunitiesto snorkelsurvey the pool, which resultsin a datagap for bull trout activity in the area. The BA indicatesthat the most bull trout observedon a singleday was 125 in August 2004 (specificdate unknown). Telemetrystudies have shownthat migratory bull trout havemoved from the spillway pool to the Wenatcheeand Columbiarivers (De La Vergne,J., pers, comm., USFWS, 2005; Bio Analysts2002and 2003). The Serviceassumes that when very largenumbers of bull trout arepresent in the spillway pool, the majority of thesefish arefrom otherlocal populationsin the Wenatcheebasin, and they may be holding in the areadue to cool water and depthcover. Basedon limited telemetrydata and direct observationwhile snorkeling, the Serviceestimates that up to 20 of the largemigratory fish locatedin the spillway pool arelikely part of the Icicle Creeklocal population.
It is not known whereresident bull trout spawnin Icicle Creek. Basedon detectionsof multiple ageclasses of bull trout in upperIcicle Cleek andtributaries such as Jack Creek, it is assumed that spawningis probablylimited to theseareas and nearby French and Leland Creeks(WDFW 1998). The numberof spawningindividuals is unknown,but given the low densityof bull trout observeclduring a week of night snorkelsurveys specifically designed to locatebull trout (USFWS 2005c),the effectivepopulation size is assumedto be very small (<50).
Larger,more fecundmigratory bull trout cannotspawn in Icicle Creekbecause passage above LNFH is generallyimpossible. Thereis no known bull trout spawningin Icicle Creekbelow LNFH. Habitatbelow LNFH is not suitablefor successfulbull trout spawningand incubation due to elevatedtemperatures and other degradedhabitat factors. 39 F. Role of theAction Area in the Persistenceof the I4/enatcheeRiver CoreArea Populationof the Bull Trout
The majority of bull trout in the WenatcheeRiver core areaoccur in the Chiwawa River local population. Like all watershedsin the core area,the Chiwawa River Basin is subjectto natural disturbanceevents, such as large fires, that could adverselyaffect the reproduction,numbers, and distribution of the bull trout population and its resiliency in that watershed. This in tum would reducethe prospectsfor persistenceofbull trout at the core areascale'
To ensurebull trout persistencein core areas,the draft recovery plan for the bull trout identifies four conservationneeds: (1) maintainthe currentdistribution of the bull trout andrestore its distributionin previouslyoccupied areas; (2) maintainstable or increasingtrends in the abundanceof the bull trout; (3) restoreand maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stagesand strategies;and (4) conservegenetic diversity and provide opportunitiesfor genetic exchange(USFWS 2002).
The actionarea plays an importantrole in the conservationof the bull trout becauseit includes one of only sevenlocal populationsof the bull trout in the WenatcheeRiver corearea. Six of thesepopulations are currently at an increasedrisk of extirpationdue to their srnallsize, which makesthem lessresilient to environmentalchange and increases the potentialfor deleterious geneticeffects.
The spatialdistribution of thesepopulations is suchthat most of them occurin the upperbasin. Icicle Creekis one of only two populationsin the lower basin, This may haveresulted in distinct genotypicor phenotypicvariation in this population,and it could insulatethis populationfrom disturbancesin the upperbasin that would affectrnost of the others. For example,radio telemetrysuggests that migratory fish from theselower basinpopulations are likely to usethe lower Wenatcheeand ColumbiaRivers as overwinterhabitat (USFWS 2005c). In contrast,Lake Wenatcheeis heavily utilized by populationsin the upperbasin where fish from severallocal populationscongregate as they overwinter,and changesin that habitatcould affectall of those populationssimultaneously. This would decreasethe long-termstability of bull trout in the Wenatcheecore area, which a populationin the lower basinthat doesnot rely on the lake could help to buffer.
All sevenlocal populationsin the WenatcheeRiver core area,including Icicle Creek,need to be conservedto ensurethe long-term persistenceof bull trout in the core area. With the exception of the ChiwawaRiver, theselocal populationsare currently at an increasedrisk of extirpation due to their small size. Icicle Creekis the smallestpopulation, and based on the limited informationavailable, appears to be the most imperiledof theselocal populations.Maintenance and expansionof the Icicle Creeklocal populationis dependent,in part, on restoringthe migratory life history form, which is likely to enhancethe viability of this local populationby reducingdemographic, distributional, and geneticrisks. 40 Bull trout populationsare genetically more highly differentiatedthan populations of other salmonids.This may be due to local adaptationor geneticdrift. Whateverthe cause,genetic diversity is higherbetween, and lower within, local populationsof bull trout. If one local populationwere lost, it is likely that new recruitsinto a watershedwould possesa significantly different genotype,reflecting a different set ofselection pressuresor history ofgenetic drift, which makesits long-term survival under the new environmentalregime less certain. It may be very difficult to establisha new population of bull trout in a watershedonce the native populationis lost.
G. Factors Affectingthe Species'Environment in theAction Area
Miqration Barriers
The LNFH operatesfour structuresthat are impedimentsor barriers to fish migration in Icicle Creek:(1) a spillway atrm 2.8 which is the terminusof a canalthat conveysmost of the flow of Icicle Creekacross the LNFH grounds;(2) a weir (referredto as dam 5) on the historic channel of Icicle Creekadjacent to the canalspillway; (3) a headgate(dam 2) at rm 3.8 that splitsthe flow betweenthe LNFH canaland the historic channelof Icicle Creek;and (4) the LNFH water diversionintake dam at rm 4.5 (seeFigure 1). The operationof thesestructures is describedin detail,in the orderthey occurfrom downstreamto upstream,in the following paragraphs.
The canal spillway is at the downstreamend of the canal,and immediately upstreamfrom the LNFH ladder. The canalwas dug when LNFH was built in about 1939so that the natural channelcould be regulatedand used for fish culture.' In orderto accommodateIcicle Creek's higher flows, andto averl "blow-out" of thosestructures, the canalwas built to conveymost of Icicle's flow andto bypassthe facilitiesinstalled in the historic channel. The spillway provides gradecontrol; the lengthof the canalis shorterthan the historic channel. The spillway is a smoothconcrete ramp, roughly 2}-leet high and 12O-feetlong. At its basethe water surface elevationis againequal to the naturalchannel of Icicle Creek. Thereis a deeppool (referredto as "the spillway pool") at its basewhere water from the canaland water in the historic channel merge. Icicle Creekcontinues as a single-threadchannel from this point downstream.Upstream fish passageis currentlyimpossible at the spillway dam.
Justupstream from the spillway pool, in the historic channelof Icicle Creek,LNFH operatesa secondstructure (dam 5) that traversesthe historic channel. This structureis a weir, and in recentyears it hasblocked all fish passageboth upstreamand downstreamfor about6 to 8 weeks every spring betweenMarch and the end of April when the pool upstreamof this weir is used to acclimateCoho salmonpre-smolts.' Thereafterpickets are removed from this structure,allowing
' ln 1919,artificial ploductionwas discontinuedin the histolic channel. Instead,the main fish ladderinto LNFH was built that year,and artificial productionwas transferredto ponilsand raceways on the floodplainwhere they exist today. t In 2005 and 2006,Coho were not acclimatedin the sidechannel, and thereforepassage was not barredin the early spling as it was in the past. Pel an agreernent(Malch 2006)between BPA, the Service,and the YakamaNation, in the future Coho salmon will be acclirnatedin pondsand not in the channel,thus ensuring tìsh passageat Darr 5 in the springuntil urid-May when it is erectedfor LNFH's Chinooksahnon broodstock collection. 4I fish passage.In a slightly differentconfiguration pickets are installed later in May, andkept in placefor abouttwo months,removed in mid-summer,and thenreplaced for two or threemonths in the fall. For the first part of the interval this weir blocks all large fish during LNFH spring Chinook salmonbroodstock collection, which alsofacilitates the YakamaNation fishery,and in the secondinterval it blocks and/ortraps all largefish during Coho broodstockcollection.
Continuingup the historic channelone mile to rm 3.8, the headgate(dam 2) is alsoa barrierto fish migration. This headgateis primarily operatedto control the flow that is split betweenthe historic channelof Icicle Creekand the LNFH canal. Originally the headgatewas neededto protect the fìsh culture facilities in the historic channelthat were later abandonedand partially removed. Currently it continuesto affect the morphology of the historic channelbecause it restrictsthe amountof waterthat can flow in the historic channel. The rest is conveyedby the canal. An analysisdone by the BOR suggeststhat the maximum flow that canbe passedthrough dam2 and into the historic channelis about2,600 cfs (Montague,S., pers. comm., BOR, 2006), which is generallyslightly lessthan the normal springfreshet. The 2,600 cfs assumesthat both doorson the headgateare fully open. Sinceonly one door is currentlyused, the maximum flow thatcan be passedis about1,300 cfs. Accordingto theUSGS gageat rm 5.9,on May 18,2006, flow peakedat about6,000 cfs. Thus,nearly 80% of the high flow in2006 went throughthe canal.
Basedon numerouspersonal observations (D. Morgan,USFWS) betweenApril 2003 andJune of 2005,frsh passageat the headgatewas generallyimpossible because the gatesare kept nearly closed,and the concretestructure at the basecreates impassable hydraulic conditionswhen the gatesare in that positìon. When the gateis openedonly slightly or when the creekis high and waterleaks around the gateseven when they areclosed, it is possiblefor fish to jump at the attractorflow, but they cannotpass. For example,when the gatewas only openslightly during the summer o12004,salmonids were observedrepeatedly jumping andhitting the metal gate and/orconcrete walls without passingthrough (D. Morgan,USFWS). One hsh is known to have landedon a "shelf in the gatedoor abovethe water surfacewhere it lodgedand died (Rieman, D., local resident,pers comm.,2006). In 2001,a few daysafter the gatewas openedwide in early July, bull trout andother fish were observedswimrning through the gateat dam 2 (USFWS 2006a). Accordingto the BA, the gatewas alsoopened for part of the summersof 1993,1997, and 2005 and large adult hsh including bull trout passedthrough and moved upstream(USFWS 2001b;Bambrick, D., pers.comm., NMFS, 2005). Otherthan thesefour times,any other opportunitiesfor fish passageare believed to havebeen very rare for severaldecades.
The fourth and final structureat LNFH that affectsfish movement is the intake dam at rn4.5. This structureis approximately6-feet high and spansIcicle Creekfrom bank to bank,which is about75-feet at this location. Sìncethe dam is a chevronshape, it is actuallyabout 15O-feet across.This structureis known to passlarge fish during higher flows (USFWS 2001c),but for most of the yearit preventsor inhibits upstreamfish passage.In recentyears, no frsh ladderwas in placebecause the original designf,rlled with sediment.As of August 2006,LNFH was in the processof retrofrttingweirs to the dam to improvepassage. It is unknown whetherthis will be effective. Although the dam itself is not higherthan fish canjump under certaincircumstances, 42 there is no pool areaalong the face of the dam to facilitate a jump over it. A concretefooting extendsdownstream. At moderately low flows, this footing appearsto prevent hydraulic conditions neededto facilitate a big leap over the dam crest. During very low flow, the dam crest is "checkedup" by LNFH using tarps and other methodsto ensureenough water is diverted until flow increases.
Phase1 of the Icicle Creekrestoration project, completed in the summerof 2003,removed dams 3 and 4, which were locatedin the historic channelbetween dams 2 and 5. Removing dams 3 and 4 allowed somenatural sedimenttransport to occur in the areawhere thesedams used to be, and has initiated a beneficial responsein channelmorphology, primarily by reducing the width to depthratio of the stream(D. Morgan,USFWS, pers.obs. 2006). However,the removalof these damsdid not affectfish passagebecause they were alreadyfilled with sedimentand did not cause barriersto fish movement.
Since 1940,migratorybull trout have generallybeen limited to the lower 2.8 miles of Icicle Creek due to dams at LNFH that block all or nearly all upstreamfish passagein Icicle Creek at the hatchery. Basedon a streamsurvey in 1935(described in Bryant andParkhurst 1950), anadromousfish had accessto 24 miles of Icicle Creek.' ln lg3l,juvenile steelhead/rainbow trout, "dolly varden",and Pacific lampreywere capturedin atrap on the Icicle Irrigation District irrigation ditch nearrm 5.7 (Brennan1 93 8). This report doesnot provide a clearindication whether this meant that anadromousfish were accessingthe areaor not. These"dolly varden" were what \Menow call bull trout. This trap was operatedonly briefly in the spring and summer of 1937. Neverthelessit caught12 bull trout between6" to 10" long. This is more than we would expectto find at this locationtoday.
In 2001, shortly after dam 2 was intentionally openedfor a few weeks during an experimentby LNFH, 8 migratory-sizedbull trout (72" to 24" long) were found during a snorkel survey betweendam2 andthe boulderarea (USFV/S 2001b). In2002 and2004,a total of 5 migratory- sizebull trout were found abovethe boulder cascadesin a largepool nearrm 5.9. Thesefish were26", 22", 20", 19", and 13" in length. The largerindividuals were very large-bodied(i.e. muscular,not cigar-shaped)and colorful, similar to migratorybull trout seenelsewhere in the Wenatcheebasin (De La Vergne,J., pers.comm., USFV/S, 2006). The observationsof migratory-sizebull trout abovethe boulder area'wereboth opportunisticsamples. No systematic efforts have been attemptedto look for migratory fish in the middle reachesof Icicle Creek abovethe boulderareas. Apparently under someconditions fish passageis possibleat both the damsin the historic channelat LNFH (dam 5 atrm2.8 and dam 2 atrm 3.8),plus the intakedam atrm 4.5, aswell asthe boulder aÍeaneatthe Snow Lakesparking lot nearrm 5.6. The boulder areaappears to be a combination of natural substrate(worn, rounded,presumably native river rock) plus side-castmaterial from the adjacentroad which wasbuilt in the 1930sand improved r The text andmap in this surveydo not agreeon the barrierlocation. The map placesthe ban'ierat -RM30 fiust abovethe LelandCreek confluence). A USFS survey(1994b) concluded: "Bedrock canyonat approxirnateRM26.4 is a seriesof chutes/fallsand cascadeswith an averagegradient of 28 percent. Believe this is the historicalbarier to anadromywhere previous repoftshave located it at RM 24." If this is correct,this banier eliminatedot nearlyeliminated nrigratory access to about23.5 rnilesof habitat. 43 in the 1960s(angular, car-sized boulders, some with drill holes asif from blastingactivity). Visually it appearsto be a barrierfor most of the year,beginning in mid-summeras flow decreases,which occursgenerally sometime in July. The Serviceassumes it is only passable during relatively high flows in late spring and early summer,and possibly during rain-on-snow runoff that occurperiodically at othertimes.
The LNFH suggeststhat the large fish observedin2002 and2004 were very large residentfish, not migratory, and refers to an article (Boag and Hvengaard 1997)to validate this hypothesis. However,based on our analysisof the article,the Servicebelieves it presentssome uncertainties. For example: 1. The authorsacknowledge that their trappingperiod, beginning in mid- to late-August, was later than the time when migratory bull trout were most likely to be present; 2. The authorsfound "few fish greaterthan 300mm" (about 12"), addedthat migratory fish are typically longer and larger, and concluded,in part due to their small size, that they had collectedmany resident-typefish; 3. The authorspresented data in a table indicatingthat a small numberof largefish up to 600mm (about24") werepresent in this system,and in the text they did not commenton thesefish at all, or indicate that they had grown that large in this small stream.
The Serviceacknowledges that it is impossibleto simply look at an individual bull trout that is greaterthan roughly 12" long (the rule-of-thumb cut-off abovewhich bull trout are assumedto be migratory) andknow with certaintywhether it is indeeda migratory fish. For the following reasonsthe Servicebelieves that the large fish seenin Icicle Creekabove the boulderarea in 2002 and2004 weremigratory individuals:
All bull trout populationsin the WenatcheeRiver basin,except Icicle Creek,include migratory fish. Theselarge fìsh havebeen seen during redd surveysin all spawning areasexcept Icicle Creek. Bull trout havenot beenstocked in Icicle Creek. They were ableto migrateto upper Icicle at somepoint in the past,or they would not exist theretoday. Basedon local radio-telemetrystudies, all of the largebull trout that havebeen tagged locally migratelong distancesto placeslike Lake'Wenatchee,the lower river, or the Columbia;it appearsthat migratory accessto thesehabitats is essentialfor that kind of growth;they do not spendtheir entirelives in smallertributaries such as Icicle Creek. We are not awareof any residentfish in the Upper Columbia RecoveryUnit that rival migratoryfish in size, There aresome resident bull trout populationsin the Methow basin including Bluebuck Creek, Early Winters Creek, and Lost River. The former do not grow as large asthe fish observedin Icicle Creek in2002 and2004,and the latter are either much smaller, or have accessto Cougar Lake (i.e. they are likely adfluvial migrants)(Molesworth, J., perscomm., USFS, 2006). The 1950report by Bryant andParkhurst includes a narrativebased on a 1935survey which singledout rm 24 as"a seriesof impassablefalls" in Icicle Creek. The map specifìcallyrefers to an "impassablewaterfall" at a locationnear Leland Creek (actuallynear rrn 30). The map specificallydoes not label the mainstemIcicle up to 44 that point as "stream of no value to salmon", (which is how nearly all its steep tributarieswhich arenot accessibledue to gradientwere labeled). The map alsolabels the IPID diversion atrm 5.7 as "passableto fish". The narrativeadds that IPID is "usually a barrierduring irrigation season"(as it remainstoday). The Servicebelieves it is reasonableto concludethat a detailedreport like this onewould not have overlookedthe boulder areaat rm 5.6 if it was a barrier. . LNFH has generallyblocked upstream fish passagesince 1940. . The 1992 Mullan report issuedby MCFRO refers to the historic anadromybarrier at rm 24. . The 1994USFS surveyof Icicle Creeknoted a waterfall at approximatelyrm26, mentionedthat it matchedthe narrativedescription included in the 1935survey, and commentedthat it appearedto be the historic limit of anadromyas describedin that survey. . It is commonto seedozens of bull trout in the pool below the LNFH barriers, including somevery largeindividuals. Radio-telemetrystudies have tracked tagged fish in that pool. . Somelocal bull trout in the Wenatcheebasin have surmountedimpressive cascades, chutes,and waterfalls (such as Nason Creek cascades near Whitepine, which is below where migratory bull trout spawn in Mill Creek). . In 2001, LNFH conducteda limited exercisein altemativeoperations at dams2 and5 and as a result, large numbersof migratory salmonidsincluding bull trout passed aboveLNFH. . The following year,for the first time in recenthistory, a USFWS fish biologist saw large,colorful bull trout abovethe Snow Creekboulder area,including somethat were abouttwice aslarge as any residentfish in the Wenatcheebasin.
The MCFRO attemptedto evaluatefìsh movementin Icicle Creek,including the boulder areaat rm 5.6,using radio telemetry(USFWS 2001c). In 1999and 2000,the MCFRO radio-tagged about 15 spring Chinook and20 steelheadeach year. In 2000, 5 bull trout were alsoradio- tagged.All anadromoushsh were collectedin the laddersystem at LNFH. Bull trout were collectedin the spillway pool at rm2.8 using hook and line. All fish were releasedabove the main spillway dam. No fish were detectedabove the boulderarea.
All of the Chinook salmon and nearly all of the steelheadwere producedat LNFH (only four steelheadhad adiposefins). It is possiblethat thesefish would havelittle inclinationto move aboveLNFH infrastructure;instead they would be more likely to home in on andreturn to the ladderat LNFH wherethey were originally collected,or perhapsto Snow Lakesattractor flow. The five bull trout were not taggedor releaseduntil mid to late-Augustwhich coincideswith the period when flows in Icicle Creekare very low. Indeed,none of the bull trout moved abovethe LNFH intake structureatrm 4.5, which is known to be a passagebarrier during low flow, aswas the casefor most of August that year.
The final featureknown to affect upstreamfish migration in Icicle Creek is the IPID/City irrigation diversionjust abovethe boulder areaatrm 5.1. Accordingto the BA, the IPID was 45 built in 1915. In 1935this structurewas identified as abarrier during irrigation season(Bryant and Parkhurst1950). Basedon site visits since2003, the 1935survey appears to be accurate,and that it would be passableat high flows, similar to the LNFH diversiondam (Morgan D., pers. comm.,USFWS, 2006). Most of the time since1940, migratory fish wereunable to accessthis areadue to LNFH damsdownstream.
Typical operationsat the spillway and at dams2 and 5 greatly limit the potential for fish passage into upper Icicle Creek. Generally, with the exceptionof 2005 and a few other limited instances when it was openedmore than usual practice, dam 2 has renderedpassage out of the upper end of the historic channelimpossible most of the year. Generally,dam 5 blocks all adult fish passage for portionsof the year. Other areasin Icicle Creekjust upstreamfrom LNFH becomeseasonal barriers to upstreammigration once river flow drops (generally sometimein July; seeFigure 2). Therefore,determining whether a bull trout can successfullymigrate from lower to upper Icicle Creek and potentially spawn with its sourcepopulation that sameyear dependson the following threefactors: (1) Was the fish ableto passupstream at dam 5, dam2, andthe intake dam at LNFH?; (2) If so, did passageoccur during the spring/summerreproductive migration period?; and (3) If so, did passageat LNFH damshappen prior to low summerflows which "activate" otherbarriers in Icicle Creekjust upstreamfrom LNFH?
Becauseno informationabout the timing of bull trout migrationin Icicle Creekis available,the likely timing of spawningmigration is inferredbased on the behaviorof bull trout in nearbylocal populations.Tumwater Dam, locatedon the WenatcheeRiver about5 river miles upstreamfrom Leavenworth,provides a reasonablesurrogate. Like the damsat LNFH, TumwaterDam is locatedin the lower WenatcheeRiver basin,and is nearthe mouth of a canyonthat providesa bull trout migratory corridor to spawninghabitat many miles upstream. LNFH and Tumwater Dam are about 3 air miles aparI. The hydrographpattems for both Icicle Creek near LNFH and the WenatcheeRiver near Tumwater aresimilar.
Thereis a strongcorrelation between stream discharge and fìsh passageat TumwaterDam. Bull trout upstreammigration consistentlypeaks about one month after the peak of the hydrograph, which variedbetween early May and late Juneduring the period of record(1998-2005) (unpublisheddata available from the USFWS, CWFO). It is a reasonableassumption that bull trout at LNFH and Tumwater would naturally move past theselocations at roughly the sametime of year. Additional evidencesupporting this assertionis found in the bull trout technical literature(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993)and known movementpatterns in the lower'Wenatchee basin,(Bio Analysts2004, USFV/S 2005b). In many systems,some migratory bull trout are known to move out of lower basinlocations in the spring,well beforespawning occurs in late summer and early fall.
Spawningmigration is the most critical movementnecessary for the survival of bull trout populations. Although the precisetiming and location of spawning areunknown in Icicle Creek, in other spawning areasin the WenatcheeRiver Basin, peak activity occurs in mid- to late September. It is uncertainwhether fish typically move directly from overwinter habitat to spawningareas, whether some intermediate location is usedas holding habitat,or whetherthis is 46 highly variable. We assumethat the phenologyof the Icicle Creekbull trout populationis similar to othersin the WenatcheeRiver core area,meaning that most upstreammigrant fish would attempt to move past LNFH primarily betweenlate May and early September,with a distinct peak in the migration about one month after peak runoff. During this period, spawning migrationpast LNFH is precludedby currentoperations of dams2 and5. By mid- to late- summer as river flow drops,it appearsthat the boulder areaat rm 5.7 and the IPID diversionjust upstreamof it are impassablebecause insufficient flow remains in the river to surmountthem. Note that the pattern at Tumwater Dam shows that, during most yearssince 1998 when record keeping began,most bull trout moved past this structurebefore July 7. This reflects the correlationbetween passage and discharge(i.e. the hydrographgenerally peaks in mid to late- May). It is only during yearswith unusually late spring runoff ( 1999, 2002) that there were still large numbersof bull trout moving upstreamafter July 7.
Small bull trout from the upstreamresident population can emigratefreely from Icicle Creek via the spillway at the end of the LNFH canal,but theseindividuals, were they to survive and grow to migratory size in the lower Wenatcheeor Columbia Rivers, could not return to the source population. The importanceof maintaining the migratory life-history form of bull trout, as well asthe presenceof migratoryruns of other salmonidsthat may provide a foragebase for bull trout, is emphasizedin the scientificliterature (USDI 2005b). The ability to migrateis important to the persistenceof local bull trout populations(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;Rieman and Clayton 1997;Rieman et a|.1997a). Bull trout rely on migratory corridorsto move from spawning and rearing habitatsto foraging and overwintering habitatsand back. Migratory bull trout becomemuch largerthan resident frsh in the more productivewaters of largerstreams and lakes,leading to increasedreproductive potential (McPhail andBaxter 1996). Migratory corridorsare alsoessential for movementbetween local populations,as well aswithin populations.Local populationsthat havebeen extirpated by catastrophicevents may become reestablishedas a resultof movementsby bull trout throughmigratory corridors(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993;MBTSG 1998). Corridorsthat allow suchmovements can supporlthe eventual recolonizationof unoccupiedareas or otherwiseplay a significantrole in maintaininggenetic diversity andmetapopulation viability.
One final elementrelated to migrationbarriers that likely impactsbull trout in the actionarea is the frsheryat LNFH for fish producedby the hatchery,which peaksbetween mid-May and early- June. This is alsothe time of yearwhen bull trout are commingledwith the salmontargeted by the fìshery in the spillway pool. The Chinook that are the target of the fìshery are concentrated herebecause of the attraclorflow from the LNFH fish ladderin this pool, andbecause they cannotmigrate upstream. There is a very high concentrationof fish (dozensto hundreds)and fishermen(up to half a dozen)in this small area. Although the anglersindicated that bull trout havenever been caught (Parker, S., pers. comm., YIN, 2006),it is likely that somebull trout are hooked and injured or killed in this fishery. The number of ìndividuals directly affectedin this manner is unknown. The Serviceassumes that all or nearly all bull trout are released,but it likely someof thesefish die later from hooking injury. The Serviceis unawareof independentor systematicattempts to obtain information about the effects on bull trout that likely result from the fìshery at LNFH for hatchery-producedfish. 4'7 Reductionsin Flow
There are two water diversionsin Icicle Creek that influence fish accessto upper Icicle Creek, one at rm 5.7 and anotherat rm 4.5. Both diversionsrestrict fish passagebecause of their physical structureand water withdrawal.
Water in Icicle Creekis over allocated.Four waterusers divert up to 174 cfs from lower Icicle 'Water Creek(see Tables 7 and2 below). rights at the diversionaI rm 5.7 totaljust over 120 cfs. The Icicle andPeshastin Irrigation Districts (IPID) usetheir waterright ofjust over 117 cfs generally from mid April through late Septemberor October. The City of Leavenworthdiverts from a separateintake on the oppositebank its water right of about 3 cfs year-round. The other diversionis at rm 4.5, wheretotal waterrights at two diversionsequal 54 cfs. The LNFH uses42 cfs of wateryear-round while CascadeOrchard Irrigation Companyuses 12 cfs of water generally from May through September. Thus, year-round,up to 45 cß are withdrawn, and generally from May through Septemberup to 174 cß may be withdrawn.
It appearsthat lessthan the full waterright of 117 cfs is actuallydiverted at IPID (USGS 1992) becausethe canalis not big enough. Data collectedin the early 1990sindicated that IPID diverteda maximum of about 100 cfs (MontgomeryWater Group,Inc. 2004b). Thereis a small amountof water addedto baseflowbelow the USGS gage(see discussion below). Flows are typically very low in lower Icicle Creekfor severalmonths each year. In 7 of the last 8 years,the total amountof waterin Icicle Creekas measured (often well under 100 cfs)just upstreamfrom thesediversions is lessthan the sum of thesewater rights (174 cfs) for at leasta portion of the late summerirrigation period. In 2005, flow was exceptionallylow. During late September measuredflow at the USGS gageabove all intakes\üas as low as 60 cfs (provisionaldata providedby USGS; availablefrom CWFO).
Table 1. Diversionrates from lower Icicle Creekin cfs. DiversionTimins WaterUser Year-round Irrigation Season Diversion Maximum lAnr - Oct) Location (rm) Diversion Rate LNFH 42 4.5 IPID r17 5.1 City of 7 5.1 Leavenworth COID t2 4.5 Total 45 t29 nla 174 48 Table2. Averagemonthly flows in IcicleCreek for theperiod of record(water years 1936-I971 and 1994-2004)measured at USGS 2458000in cfs. Month CFS January 216 Februarv 293 March 289 Aoril 669 Mav 1.693 June 1.910 Julv 881 Auzust 268 September 162 October 240 November 316 December 338
Someof the watertaken out of Icicle Creekis supplementedby waterreleased from Snow Lakes, (actuallythree impounded natural lakes). LNFH has a water right for 16,000acre-ft from the Snow Lakes. That water entersIcicle Creekvia Snow Creekat nn 5.4. This confluenceis betweenthe IPID diversionand LNFH's diversion,and it is downstreamof the USGS stream gagelocated at rm 5.9. The periodof recordfor flow datafrom SnowLakes is 1998-2005,but dataarc incompletefor most years. Basedon the raw flow data,releases from Snow Lakes variedbetween 15 and 45 cfs. Generallyreleases were lessthan 30 cfs. The initial dateof water releasevaries from late Juneto early September,and releases end from late Septemberto mid- October. This contrastswith the naturalrunoff pattemfor Snow Lakes,which would be a snowmeltpattern with peak dischargein late springfollowed by a gradualdecrease, The natural baseflowof Snow Lakes appearsto be about3-5 cfs (unpublishedflow data). Water released from Snow Lakesprovides less water to Icicle Creekduring most of the yearthan what would occurunder a naturalregime (asthe Snow Lakesare filling up and stoling water). However the waterreleased augments flow in lower Icicle Creekwith mole than the naturalflow for the short reachbefore it is takenout at LNFH's intakeat rm 4.5 during a time of yearwhen flows are criticallylow (USFWS2004b, 2005d). IPID alsoreleases water (generally less than 5,000 acre- feet per year) from storagereservoirs similar to Snow Lakes,but all or nearly all of that water entersIcicle Creekupstream of the USGS gageat rm 5.9.
Water temperatureis generallyinversely related to flow. Therefore,diversions probably lead to increasedstream temperature during the summermonths. Icicle Creekis on the 1998 'Washington StateClean Water Act section303(d) list for flow alteration(it hastoo little in- streamflow), and for exceedingwater temperature standards (it is warmerthan 15 degrees 'Water Celsius). temperaturesmay exceedthis standardin Icicle Creek,even above all LNFH facilities. Limited temperaturedata were providedin the BA, parlicularlyfor the upperbasin. Generally temperaturesare warrner where flow is reduced(such as in the historic channelwhen dam2 restrictsinflow), andwater temperature is greaterat downstreamlocations. However, 49 LNFH addswater from Snow Lakeson a seasonalbasis. Basedon datacollected in 2005, Snow Lakeswater decreasesIcicle Creekwater temperaturein Augustby about2 degreesCelsius betweenrm 5.5 (Snow Creekconfluence) and rm 4.5 (LNFH waterintake). This cooling effect slowly dissipatesbelow the diversion. However,water released at the main hatcheryfacilities nearrrn 2.8 lowers Icicle Creekwater temperature by about3 degreesCelsius, compared to the lower historic channel(USFWS 2006c). The lower end of the historic channelis probably wanner than normative due to the flow restrictions at dam2 and the high width to depth ratio causedby dam 5 (discussedin detail in sectionIV).
SpeciesInteractions
Brook trout are presentin the Icicle Creek watershedas well as other areasin the Wenatchee River watershed. The stocking programsfor brook trout were discontinuedseveral years ago. The presenceof brook trout suggeststhat hybridizatton with the bull trout as well as increased competitionfor habitatand foragemay occur (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993). It is unknown whether this is the casein Icicle Creek, but during a snorkel survey biologists founclbull trout andbrook trout in closeproximity, suggestingthat hybridizationis a risk (USFWS 1997).
Icicle Creekwas alsostocked with rainbow trout. It is unknownwhether stocking continues. Direct competition betweenrainbow and bull trout could limit the latter, becausewhen they overlap in areaswhere temperaturesare not ideal for bull trout, rainbow trout are dominant (Dunham,Rieman, and Chandler2003a; Haas 2001). This situationcould apply in the lower and middle sectionsof Icicle Creek where, during midsummer, water temperaturecan exceedthe thermal optimum for bull trout for severalweeks. In the upper porlion of the watershed,where most residentbull trout havebeen found in Icicle Creek,water is slightly cooler,and in these areasrainbow dominanceis lesslikely to be a problem. For example,water temperatures recordedduring surveysin 1995 and2004 in upperportions of the watershedgenerally had lower minimum andmaximum daily temperaturesthan areasseveral miles downstream(USFWS 1997, USFWS 2005c). Rainbowtrout densitywas still higher thanbull trout in theseareas, but bull trout are generally outnumberedby other speciesin all systems;and in this system,bull trout are limited to resident-onlylife history,which inhibits populationgrowth (Riemanand Mclntyre 1993).
Follow-up work is neededto test thesehypotheses and to assesshow stockingbrook trout and rainbow trout in upper Icicle Creek may have affectedbull trout in that watershed. It is importantto note that many river systemsin the'Wenatcheebasin have been affected by brook trout and rainbow trout stocking. Neverthelessin someof those areasbull trout are numerous, for example,in the Chiwawa River, which appearsto be the local strongholdfor bull trout. In Icicle Creekthe local populationof the bull trout is very small, so that demographicand genetic risks are alreadyvery high even without the stressof competition from other trout species. Becausethis populationis currentlyphysically and geneticallyisolated from all otherbull trout populationsin the core area,the threatposed by brook trout andhigh-densities of rainbow trout in Icicle Creekis heightenedcompared to other drainageswith more robustpopulations of bull trout. 50 H. Summaryof EnvironmentalBaseline.for the Bull Trout
Most of the upperIcicle Creekwatershed is a WildernessArea, wheremanagement activities are very limited and conditionsmimic naturalprocesses, or thoseactivities have no appreciable effect on bull trout habitat. There are a few locations where the Icicle Road impinges on the creek. Recentfires and suppressionactions that occurredin the upper watershedwere not suffrcientin intensityor extentto significantlychange the conditionof bull trout habitat. In contrast,the lower Icicle Creekwatershed is degradedas a directresult of managementactions and otherhuman activities, including thoseassociated with the operationand maintenance of the LNFH which preventsor restrictsfish migration at threestructures in the lower Icicle Creek.
The bull trout is a perrnanentresident in the actionarea. Basedon limited information,it appears that Icicle Creeksupports the smallestlocal populationin the WenatcheeRiver corearea. Maintenanceand expansionof the Icicle Creeklocal populationis largely dependenton restoring the migratory life history form, which is likely to enhancethe viability of this local populationby reducingcompetition, demographic, distributional, and geneticrisks.
Icicle Creekcontains both residentand migratory fish, but only the former has consistentaccess to spawningareas in upperIcicle Creek. It is not known whereresident bull trout spawnin Icicle Creek. Basedon detectionsof multiple ageclasses of bull trout in upperIcicle Creekand tributariessuch as JackCreek, it is assumedthat spawningis limited to theseareas and nearby Frenchand Leland Creeks. The numberof spawningindividuals is unknown,but is assumedto be very small (<50). Inbreedingdepression, genetic drift, and other consequencesof very small populationsize area significantconcem for this population.
Larger,more fecundmigratory bull trout cannotspawn in Icicle Creekbecause passage above LNFH is generallyimpossible. Thereis no known bull trout spawningin Icicle Creekbelow LNFH sincehabitat below LNFH is not suitablefor successfulbull trout spawningand incubationdue to elevatedtemperatures and otherfactors. Due to the managementactivities and water managementstructures controlled by the LNFH, about23 miles of high-qualitybull trout habitatis not availableto migratorybull trout.
IV. Effects of the Action
The Serviceregulations for implementingthe ESA define "effectsof the action" as "the direct and indirect effectsof an actionon the speciestogether with the effectsof other activitiesthat are interrelatedor interdependentwith that action,that will be addedto the environmentalbaseline" (50 CFR 402.02). "Indirect effects"are those that arecaused by the proposedaction and arelater in time, but arestill reasonablycertain to occur. Both discretionaryand non-discretionary componentsof the proposedfederal action are considered in evaluatingthe effectsof the action on listed species. 51 The proposedO&M of LNFH is likely to havethe following effectson the bull trout:
A. Fish passagepast LNFH
As discussedabove under theEnvironmental Baseline section, the passageof most migratory bull trout through the reach of Icicle Creek where the LNFH is located is likely to occur during June and early July. This period correspondswith proposedhatchery operations that involve the placementof racksat dam 5. The Serviceestimates that theseracks will block accessfor about 20 migratory bull trout that would otherwiseascend Icicle Creek past the LNFH, where about 23.5 miles of historically accessiblehabitat exists upstream of the hatchery,including several miles of high quality spawningand rearing habitat in upperIcicle Creek. The estimateof 20 fish is approximately 20 percentof the maximum number of bull trout that have been detectedat Tumwater (a surrogatefor Icicle Creek) during the time of year when bull trout passageis blocked outright by dam 5 at LNFH, or delayedlong enoughthat passageelsewhere in Icicle Creekis not possiblethatyear.
Typically LNFH blocked the historic channelat dam 5 from mid-May through late July during Chinookbroodstock collection, and, to a lesserextent, at othertimes of year. Under the proposedaction, during periodswhen brood stock activitiesare not occurring(generally July 8 through September,and December to May 15) all racksand damboards will be removedat dam 5 (unless500 or more Chinook salmonare present in the spillway pool). At leastone of the two radial gatesat dam2 will be openedso that bull trout passagethrough the hatcheryreach of Icicle Creekis possibleprovided flows are suffrcient. However,beginning shortly after July 7, flows in Icicle Creekare likely to be too low for bull trout to passthe LNFH intake dam andthe boulder areaatrm 5.6. In most years,the Icicle Creekhydrograph drops very rapidly in July (Figure2). By mid-July, streamflow is generallyonly 10 percentto 30 percentof the peak flow occurringjust a few weeksearlier. In yearswith normalrunoff timing andnotmal snowpack, thereshould be a very brief window (severaldays to a coupleof weeks)after July 7 when bull trout could swim through the historic channelpast LNFH and then reach the boulder areabefore flows diminish to the point that this areabecomes impassable. In yearswith early runoff and/or minimal snowpack,by the time bull trout canpass LNFH it will probablybe too late to passthe boulder areathat year. In yearswith late runoff and/orheavy snowpack,there should be a longer window of opportunityfor bull trout to migratepast both LNFH andthe boulderarea.
For the abovereasons, the proposedaction is likely to precludedemographic and genetic contributionsby migratorybull trout to the small known residentbull trout populationin Icicle Creek,unless they areable to accessthe 1.7miles of habitatbetween darn 5 (rm 2.8) andthe intake dam (rm 4.5) after dam 5 is opened,survive in this areauntil the following spring,and thenmove upstream.The likelihood of bull trout accessingand holding in this reachis low becausemost of this reach is subjectto high water temperaturesand low water depth during late summer,which will adverselyinfluence the survival of any migratory bull trout that hold in this area. The areaimmediately below the Snow LakesCreek confluence, which is cooledby midsummerrelease of Snow Lakeswater, and has at leastone deeppool, is an exceptionto this generalcondition. 52 SeeFigure 3 for a summaryof passageeffects.
B. Fish trapping at LNFH
Previously LNFH removedbull trout that ascendedthe main ladder and arrived in the adult holding ponds,and retumed them to the spillway pool below dam 5. Thesehsh werethus unable to migratepast LNFH by dam 5 and/or dam2. Under the proposedaction, LNFH will return thesefish to Icicle Creekabove these dams. But accordingto the BA, "most yearsnone fbull trout] are encountered". Therefore this changein operationsis unlikely to result in significant numbersof bull trout passingLNFH. LNFH will attemptto operatetheir laddermore often to attractfish to enterit. Due to logisticalreasons related to limited spacein the adultholding ponds,and the antibioticsadministered to the Chinook that areheld thereprior to spawning, thereis limited flexibility in what canbe doneto achievethe goal of attractingmore bull trout into the adultponds and thence passing them upstream(Collier, T., pers.comm., LNFH, 2006).
PreviouslyLNFH installedpickets all the way acrossdam 5. Under the proposedaction a trap or traps will be adaptedand fitted to this structurein an effort to collect bull trout here and place them aboveLNFH. LNFH has never tried to trap bull trout at this structurebefore and its effectivenesscannot be predictedwith certainty. However,in orderto continuecollecting adult broodstockvia the main hatcheryladder, a trap at dam 5 will not be operatedso that it is so attractivethat it divertsfish away from the ladder. Dam2 will generallybe clampeddown during broodstockcollection to keep asmuch flow aspossible in the canaland asmany Chinook aspossible in the spillway pool, which therebymakes the trap lesseffective. If more flow were releasedat dam 2 to createincreased attractor flow into the trap at dam 5, thereis the possibility that many (dozensor perhapshundreds) of Chinookwill crowd it. The largenumbers of Chinook,which aretwice the length andmany times the body weigh of largebull trout, arelikely to discouragebull trout from enteringthe trap.
Bull trout may simply avoid the trap,regardless of other fish in the area,as they havebeen known to do at a similar trap and weir on the lower ChiwawaRiver (USFWS 2005b). Of the approximately25 fish trackedat the Chiwawatrap, only 8 usedit. All the otherspassed when the trap was down. That trap is operatedon a four-days-onand-three-days-off schedule. Some radio taggedbull trout havebeen located holding just below it during the daysit is up, and passingquickly throughit onceit is lowered,indicating that a fish trap may excludecertain individualsby alteringtheir migratory behavior.
Trappingantl hauling fish is alsoproblematic because handling fish createsthe potentialfor deathor injury. Due to passageand flow issuesin Icicle Creek,moving andreleasing fish could contributeto otherconcems, such as strandingand poaching. However,if fish arehandled and releasedappropriately, adverse effects can be effectivelyminimized. Basedon bestavailable informationand professional judgment, for purposesof this analysis,at leastone bull trout per yearwill be assumedto ascendthe ladderand the trap at dam 5. 53 C. Incidental Harvest
Treatiesand other agreementsallow a tribal Chinook fishery at the LNFH spillway pool. Adult returnsto LNFH generallyexceed the numberof broodstockneeded (approximately 1,000), underthe currentproduction regime. Approximately 1.6million smoltsare released each year. Once approximately 1,000 adult Chinook sampledfrom different portions of the run have entered the hatchery,the ladder is closedfor the season. Often there are hundredsof salmon in the spillway pool that cannotascend the ladder,exit the spillway pool, or move upstreambecause of dam 5. Sometimesthere are severalanglers actively fishing all day. This activity lasts for six or eight weeks every year, with peak activity occurring about the first half of the season(mid-May through early-July). The Serviceis unawareof any bull trout being caughtin the spillway pool, but steelheadhave been caught (Craig, J., pers.comlr., USFWS, 2006),so it is assumedthat bull trout may be caughtas well.
In 2000,the Servicecaught 25 bull trout for researchpulposes in Lake'Wenatcheeusing hook and line in threedays of effort. One died from injuries causedby hooking. In2002, the Service caught11 bull trout for researchputposes in the spillway pool using hook andline in two daysof effort. Snorkel surveysin the spillway pool have not detectedhook scarringin bull trout, but this would be difficult to observedue to poor water clarity andthe difficulty of gettingclose enough for thoroughinspection. Consideringthe intensityof fishing activity, the confinedarea, and the fact that bull trout are co-mingled with Chinook salmon,the potential for bull trout to be caught andreleased is high, and someof thesefish arelikely to be injured or killed. The numberof bull trout potentiallycaught during the 5-yearterm of the proposedaction cannot be estimatedbased on currentlyavailable information; to date,this fishery is not monitored,and the anglersare not required to report capturesofbull trout.
Openingdam 5 on or about July 7 is expectedto slightly reducethe risk of bull trout being captured,injured, or killed incidentalto the salmonfishery in the spillway pool by giving bull trout otherplaces to hold upstream,where fishing pressureis minimal. This changeis likely to producea small benefìtto bull trout becauseby July 7 fishing in the spillway pool is greatly reduced. Most of the tribal fishing occursduring the first part of the Chinookrun when more fish arepresent in the pool, and flesh quality and fishing successis high.
D. Historic ChannelHabitat Oualitv
Dams 5 and2 aresituated at oppositeends of the historic channel.They havevarious effects on bull trout habitatelements in the historic channel,and alsoin the lower Icicle River below LNFH. Theseeffects are summarized below.
Dam2 is operatedto restrict the volume of flow that entersthe historic channel,and dam 5 traps sediment. This inhibits flushing flows and alters channelmorphology, effectively increasingthe width to depth ratio. The channelis thereforewider, shallower, and a grealpercentageof the wetted width lacks shadecover, all of which contribute to elevatedwater temperature, particularly near dam 5. Nearerto dam 2 the channelis narrower and has more shade;frsh 54 habitatand wetland conditions in this upperportion arebetter than at the oppositeend. Overall, theseconditions influence the watertemperature conditions caused by the waterwithdrawals just upstream(see Figure 1). Icicle Creekis on the CleanWater Act section303(d) list for exceeding maximum allowable temperature.
Under the proposedaction, habitat conditions should be slightly improvedcompared to past operationsbecause dam2 will aliow more water to enter the historic channel,particularly in the summerwhen temperaturebecomes a limiting factor for fish. However, the proposedaction will continueto maintain degradedconditions by elevating streamtemperature in the historic channel. Elevatedstream temperatures will likely reducethe survival of bull trout and their prey basein the historic channelbecause it will reducethe amount of suitablehabitat and crowd fìsh into remainingpockets of colderwater (e.g.,the spillway pool andthe pool below dam2). These locations subjecthsh to higher predationrisk, particularly for juvenile prey fish which rear in the historic channel. This adversetemperature effect may be somewhatoffset due to the input of cold waterreleased at Snow Lakesduring a portion of the summer.
Restrictingthe volume of Icicle Creekflow at dam2 impactssubstrate composition and embeddingsby reducing water volume and current velocity in this reach. Sixty-five yearsof flow regulation at dam2 has changedmuch of the substratein the historic channel.A thick depositof sand(up to severalfeet deep)has settledin the areasbehind severalold damsin that reach,and those particles are not transportedout of the systemexcept during high flows (Lorang andAggett 2005). Dam2 is operatedto directmost high flows into the canal,and to prevent them from enteringthe historic channel,so effectiveflushing flows do not occur. The proposed actionis an improvementcompared to past O&M, but it will continueto maintaina degraded habitatby maintainingartificially high substrateembeddedness. Proposed operation of dam 2 will reduceinterstitial hiding cover,particularly for juvenile fish, which havebeen observed in the upper end of the historic channelin spring when water temperatureis still cool (Morgan, D., pers.comm., USFWS). This would reducethe survival of the bull trout prey basein the historic channel.
Dam 2 doesnot passlarge woody debris(LWD) becausewater cannotspill over the crest. Water is forced through small openingsthat are generally submergedand through which only small debriscan pass. Thereis also a rackjust upstreamfrom the dam from which debrisis periodicallyrernoved. Given how the gradientchanges at this location,as Icicle Creekemerges from the canyonupstream, this areaprobably used to accumulateLWD that was flushed from the upperbasin. The resultinglack of LWD in the historic channelinhibits pool development,limits hiding cover,and restricts habitat corrrplexity downstrearn. LWD frorn upperIcicle Creekis "blown out" of the systemvia the canaland over the spillway, and doesnot remainin the reach that flows pastLNFH in the canalor the historic channel.Under the proposedaction, these conditionswill not change.
Due to developmentat LNFH and on otherlands in the lower Icicle Creekarea, there is very little accessiblefloodplain. Floodplainaccess provides refugia for fish during floods,and contributesto groundwaterstorage, increased stream flow, and moderatesstream temperatures. 55 The LNFH canalhas high berms, which generally contain all flood flows, and prevent water from spreadingout as it emergesfrom the naturally confìned Icicle Canyon immediately upstream. This channelmorphology exacerbatesbank erosion and other adversehabitat conditionsdownstream. Some intact floodplainremains in the historic channel,but dam 2 is adjustedto keepmost of the water out of this area. Even if it was openedall the way, its maximum capacilyis inadequateto convey flood flows, so most water is forced into the canal (Montague,S., perscomm., BOR, 2006). Severalreports have identified currentfloodplain developmentas one of the main habitat limiting factors in lower Icicle Creek (Andonaegui et al 200I;NPPC 2001c;WSCC 2001). The proposedaction will not changefloodplain accessibility. Habitatfor bull trout and their prey basewill continueto be maintainedin a degradedcondition becausefloodplain accesswill continueto be limited by the proposedaction.
Near the bottom of the historic channel,dam 5 spansthe channel,restricts flow, and createsa backwater,especially during spring flows. This leadsto a wider, shallowerchannel and more sedimentdeposition (especially sand), and compoundsthe temperatureand depositionissues describedimmediately above. The simplifiedhabitat conditions created by dam 5 extendseveral hundredyards upstream. Under the proposedaction this conditionwill not change.This habitat providesvery little benefit to bull trout andtheir prey basebecause it lacks coverand has a high width to depthratio. Streamsidedeciduous vegetation, which is abundant,is not tall enoughto cast shadefar from the banks. A snorkel survey of the historic channelin June2005 found very few juvenile salmonidsin the lower half of the historic channel. In contrast,many Coho salmon which had emergedfrom the gravel a few weeksbefore were observedin the upper end of the historic channelwhere pools and coverwere present (Morgan, D., pers.comm., USFWS, 2005).
Immaturebull trout may be rearingin the historic channelyear-round. Based on limited information,collected in periodic snorkelsuryeys, the numbersare believed to be low, especially in summer. The Service estimatesthat up to 5 immature bull trout will be presentin the historic channeldepending on the time of year,with fewer expectedin late summerwhen water temperatureis highest.
E. Alteration of In-streamFlows
LNFH withdraws42 cfsfrom Icicle Creekduring a time of yearwhen the total of all water rights on Icicle Creekexceecls total streamflow,sometimes by a factor of two or three(see Tables 1 and 2). As notedabove, Icicle Creekcan go dry or nearly so in a few areasnear the diversions. Water is addedto Icicle Creekfrom releasesto Snow Creekat rm 5.5, removedatrm 4.5, and piped about 1.7miles to LNFH, whereit is retumedback to lcicle Creek atrm2.8. Under the proposedaction, beginning in 2006,LNFH will annuallyrelease 50 cfs from the Snow Lakes reservoirsystem between July 20 and September30. Unusualevents such as equipment malfunctionor consecutiveyears of very limited snowpackcould alterwater storageand release. Severaleffects on bull trout habitatin the reachbetween rrn 5.5 and 2.8 arelikely to occur.
By accountingfor I00% of its surfacewater consumptionvia Snow Lakesreleases during a critical time period,it is likely that watertemperatures will be slightly decreasedin this reach. 56 Snow Lakeswater is 2 or 3 degreesCelsius colder than Icicle Creekat this time. Previouslythis reach had extremely low flow and elevatedwater temperatureduring late summer. Some of the causes,both natural and anthropogenic,will still exist, so the problems will not disappear. Due to the proposedaction, the currentnegative conditions are expected to be ameliorated. Generally,in mid-July, streamflow in Icicle Creekis droppingrapidly, and is still abovebase flow. At aboutthis time, the Snow Lakesrelease will begin. As Icicle Creekbase flow drops through the rest of the summer,Snow Lakes water will provide habitat benefits (flow and temperature)through September.By early October, Icicle Creek streamflow generally increases due to a combination of irrigation diversion shutdownupstream of LNFH, plus natural weather p atterns(precipitation).
Most of the year Snow Lakeswill be storingwater, and thus Snow LakesCreek will not augment Icicle Creekflow. However,since Snow Lakes Creekbaseflow is lessthen 5 cfs, and sincemost of its snowmeltwould normally runoff in late springwhen flow in Icicle Creekis high (at least severalhundred cß), comparedto its unimpoundednatural state,the negativeeffects of storage are expectedto be slight.
Becauseslightly more waterwill be releasedunder the proposedaction than will be diverted, somewhatmore habitat areawill be availableto bull trout in the reachbetween the LNFH intake atrm 4.5 andthe fish ladder atrm2.8, wheremost LNFH waterreturns to Icicle Creek. The amountwill vary dependingon channelmorphology, and will be most noticeablein reaches wherethere are shallowmargins near a naffow thalweg. For example,in the relativelynaffow reachadjacent to the RV park nearnn 4.2, additionalshallow margin habitatis likely to remain submergeddue to the approximately8 cfs addedto this reachduring the low flow period.This may benefitbull trout prey, suchas young-of-year juvenile salmonids,which havebeen observed in thesemargins in the past(D. Morgan,pers. obs., August 2004). In contrast,where the width to depthratio is very high, suchas immediately upstream of dam 5, therewill be little difference in habitatavailable.
Additional waterover the crestof the intake dam may slightly improvepassage for both upstreamand downstreambull trout migrants, particularly if the retrofit to the ladder,which beganas this documentwas being completedin August 2006,is effective. 51 Figure 3. Map of LNFH areaand summaryof effectsof the proposedaction on migratorybull trout passage.
RM 5 6: Migratory- sized bull trout have beenseen above this bouldelalea. It is not RM 4 5: The LNFH known exactlyunder intake darr is a wbatflows bull uout rniglationbauiel for havepassed beyond the rnuchofthe year. lt is LNFH Plesurnablyit passablewhen flows only occursduring ale high, such as late high flow in latespring spling and eally and eady surnttler. surnmer But shuctute Stluctule5 will block 5 will block fish 1ìshrriglation rniglation downstrcam
downstteamrnost of fìrcnrhere duling rnost Ll:,\h.'lv'':.s.ìì' thattirne Thereis also of the tir¡e when the N¡n¡f¡¡rF,l[ ¡l¡,í.::rIl:ì a citylilligation intakedam is passable. diversionjust k n;l¿z.e upstlearn,which, like the LNFH divelsion,is RM 2 8: Sh'ucture5 will only passableat high block all migratoryfìsh llows. during LNFH broodstock collectionfrorn 5/l 5 until 717 (or laler); and again duringBPA/ YN Coho broodstockcollectìon liorn ¡bout l0/l untilabout l2ll everyyear'. At othertirnes, passageis possible.
RM 5.5:LNFH will use the Snow Lakesstorage systelnto release50cfs, about as rnuch \ryatelas LNFH uses(surlàce watet plus shallowwell watercornbined) via Snow Cleek durìng a clitical low-lìow period RM 3.8: Stl'ucture2 hasno (1120 - 9 130). fish ladder,but its "doors" will be openedrnore than in the Fignrre 1. f,eavenr¡ortlr National FJ-sh Hatchery past. lfstlucture 5 is not opelating,nriglation may be possiblethlough these dools when certainflow conditions arernet. Theseconditions al'e not well undelstood.Very low and very high fìows through thesedoors plobably create passageban'iers. Howevet, the longel tbe seasonand wider thesedoors ale opened,the rnole opporlunitiesthele will be for Iatgefìsh to pass thtough 58 F. Groundwater Pumping
LNFH has a well systemcomponent of its water supply systemthat is usedin conjunctionwith its surfacewater diversion. Well water moderatesthe temperatureof the waterused in the hatchery,warming it in winter, cooling it in summer,and it addsto the volume of water available for operations.The systeminvolves 7 wells. One of thesewells drawscompletely from the deep aquifer, and has no influence on the shallow aquifer. A secondwell can draw from both. The other 5 wells draw water from the shallow aquifer only, which influences and is influenced by surfacewater. These 5 wells pull water that percolatesinto the ground from the canal and the historic channel(which has a higher elevation than the historic channel). Due to this connection betweensurface flow and groundwater,typically only two or threewells areused simultaneously,and it is necessaryto rotatewells becauseas water levels drop, pumpíng at a given well becomesunsustainable. Wells aregiven severalweeks to rechargeand then they are usedagain. The maximum combinedsustainable yield from all wells is roughly 6,000gallons per minute (gpm), or 13 cfs (GeoEngineers,Inc. 1995). Of this amount,about 11 cfs comesfrom the shallow aquifer. Basedon the connectionbetween these wells and streamflow, it is assumed that this amountis affectingIcicle Creekbetween approximately rm 3.8 (wherethe well field begins)and rm 2.8 (the outfall wherewater is retunedto Icicle Creek).
Habitat conditionsin the historic channelare likely to be degradedby pumping of the shallow aquiferbecause this is the streamreach that is hydrologicallyconnected to the well field and groundwaterpumping reducessurface flow. Elevatedwater temperatureand reducedwater depthare expectedfrom well use. Theseconditions are interrelated with operationsat dam2 becausethat structureregulates surface flow into the historic channel.The negativeeffects of groundwaterpumping on temperatureand volume of habitat for bull trout and their prey baseare similar to, and compoundedby, the effectsof activitiesat dam 2 discussedpreviously. It is possiblethat waterreleased from Snow Lakes(in excessof the amountLNFH diverts)will amelioratesomewhat the in-streamflow effectsof groundwaterpumping. Downstreamof LNFH, below the historic channel,groundwater purnping will slightly cool Icicle Creekduring summerruSFWS 2006c).
G. Screening
The LNFH waterintake systemconsists of miles of pipes,and severalchambers, ponds, screens, and valveswhere as recently as 2005, bull trout havebeen found dead. Oncefish enterthe systemalrm 4.5, thereis no way to retum to Icicle Creekexcept by passingthrough most or all of the network,and emergingat the downstreamend at rm 3.8, if the fish returnis operating,or more likely, via one of two water outfallsin the spillway pool at rm2.8, or thoughtthe pollution abatementpond at rm2.6. For a variety of reasons(including a lack of automatedcleaning, approachvelocity distributionissues, fish bypassmalfunctions, and otherproblems), the intake systemdoes not comply with NOAA Fisheriesor WDFW regulatorycriteria, and doesnot minimize fish deathand injury. The intake systemwas designed65 yearsago before there were effectivestandards for fish protection. Under the proposedaction, this will not change.Up to two small bull trout per year arelikely to be killed outright on the screensnear the intakebased 59 on hatcheryrecords. Small fish that approachthe intake may be unable to swim free of its influenceonce they aretoo close. Becauselarger, migratory bull trout are strongswimmers, the Servicedoes not anticipatethat thesefish will be at significant risk of deathor injury in the water intakesystem.
The sandsettling basin is located betweenthe intake and the raceways. This is where the undergroundpipeline emergesand Icicle Creek water is briefly containedin a pool upstreamof the rearingfacilities. Live juvenile trout havebeen observed here in the past(Croci, S., pers. comm., USFWS, 2006). These fish were likely entrainedat the intake and carried through the pipe aboutone mile to this location. Normally this pond is drainedand sedimentremoved once every year. It is not known how many trout are presenthere or how long they remain in the basin. LNFH currently has no procedurefor checking or removing them. Thesefish are likely swept over the overflow weir where they go back into an undergroundpipe and into the raceways (D. Morgan,pers. obs., 2006), or they may exit the basinvia anotherset of pipesthat lead to the spillway pool. A small number of sub-adultbull trout emigrating from Icicle Creek are likely to be affectedevery year. Under the proposedaction, this will not change.
H. Salmon Sr,trplus/Excess
When more adult Chinook enter the ladder at LNFH than neededfor the annual artificial productionquota (about 1000 hsh), the extrafish aregiven to receivinggroups including local Native American tribes or Trout Unlimited. Theseextra fish are consideredFederal properly and areexcessed to the Bureauof Indian Affairs aspart of a 1982interagency agreement (S. Aiken, pers.comm. 2006). Chinook and any otherspecies that ascendthe ladderat that time of year, includingbull trout, areconfined in a seriesof two holding pondsat LNFH. With so many Chinookin the pond, it may not be possibleto isolateand remove a bull trout prior to processing the Chinook. The water is drawn down, the fish are crowded and one or two people enterthe pond. Chinook arecaught by hand andkilled with a blow to the heador othermeans. Generally the receiving groups conducting this activity areunder the supervisionof LNFH personnel,who attemptto remove bull trout and steelheadas they encounterthem, and retum them to Icicle Creek. To date,LNFH hasnot kept recordsof bull trout presenceor absenceduring the surplus/excessoperations. According to earlierdrafts of the BA, "few if any" bull trout are presentin the pond in any given year. On one occasiona bull trout was killed with a blow to the head(Croci, S.,pers. comm., USFWS, 2006). Under the proposedaction, LNFH staff will attemptto removebull trout from the pond prior to surplus/excessactivities. Assumingthat it is unusual for bull trout to be presentin the holding pond in any given year and that they would be handled and releasedappropriately befbrehand, or täiling that, that LNFH staff will closely supewisethe public when they are killing excessChinook, no significant adverseeffects to the bull trout are anticipatedfrom this activity. 60 I. Releaseof Effiuent into lcicle Creek
Under the proposedaction, the LNFH will continueto use about 100,000pounds of fish food everyyear. It takesabout 1.1pounds of food to create1 pound of fish body mass. Basedon empiricaldata (Casteldine 1986; Westers 1993, cited in Idaho Departmentof Environmental Quality (IDEQ), no date)and assuminga conversionrate of 1.2,each pound of fìsh feedwill generateabout 0.3 poundsof solids. Therefore100,000 pounds of feed annuallywould produce the following wasteproducts in a year: 30,000pounds of Total SuspendedSolids (TSS) and SettleableSolids (SS); 3,830 pounds of ammonia;760pounds of totalphosphorus; and other wastesnot listed here.
Much of the solid mattersettles in the pollution abatementpond at LNFH and is eventually removedand spreadout on dry land at LNFHU. Liquid and dissolvedmaterial passes through the pond and is releasedinto Icicle Creek. The effectivenessof pollution abatementponds like the one at LNFH can vary dependingon pond volume, flow-throughrate, cleaning schedule, and many otherfactors. Although thereare no requirementsin Washington,the stateof Idaho suggeststhat minimum harvestfrequency for off-line settlingponds like that at LNFH shouldbe every six months(IDEQ no date). The more frequentlythe solidsare removed, the less opportunitythere is for solidsto breakdown andrelease dissolved nutrients into receivingwaters (Freeborn,P., pers. comm., WDOE, 2006). The LNFH pondwas last cleaned in 1998.
LNFH operatesunder a NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES),and it measuresTSS and SS asrequired by EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) underthat permit. The valueswere not includedin the BA. It is assumedthat LNFH complieswith the regulatory standardsset by EPA underthe termsof that permit. LNFH appliedfor a new permit in November2005, and is currentlyworking with EPA to updateits permit. The Serviceanticipates that the NPDES permit will limit effluentdischarges to the extentthat adverseeffects on bull trout would be minimal.
The specificbiological effectsof this effluentdischarge at LNFH areunknown. According to WashingtonDepartment of Ecology (WDOE) eutrophicationis a concernin the lower Wenatcheebasin, because it canlead to dissolvedoxygen (DO) andpH fluctuationsthat harm aquaticlife. According to WDOE, regulatorystandards may be loweredsoon for lower Icicle Creekfor DO, pH, and temperature(Carroll, P., pers.comm., WDOE, 2006). Under their permit, the LNFH dischargesnitrogen and phosphorus. LNFH is the sourceof 90 percentof the phosphorousin Icicle Creek(P. Carroll, WDOE). WDOE measureda phosphorusconcentration crf13 ug/ L at theLNFH outfallin2002. Accordingto WDOE (1989)that ooncenLration has beenreported in the literatureas likely to causeeutrophication, and the assimilativecapacity of Icicle Creekmay requirethat the level releasedat the LNFH outfall must be lessthen 5 ugl L (WDOE 2005). A final reportwill be issuedsoon and it is expectedto be consistentwith the 2005 draft (Carroll, P., pers.comm., WDOE, 2006).
4 Futurecleaning of and disposalof sedimentsfrom the pollution abatementpond is not part of the proposedaction. That actionwill requirea separatesection 7 consultation. 6l A small numberof water quality sampleshave been collected in Icicle Creekfor PCBs and similar compounds.Some of thesechemicals are detectable in very low concentrations (generallybelow the most conservativestandards used anywhere in the US), andin some instancesdetections were registered both upstreamand downstreamof LNFH. Paint appliedto fìsh holding tanks,which were takenofÊline in 2005,had elevatedlevels of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs). Samplescollected from the top layer of sedimentsin the pollution abatement pond at LNFH did not havesignificantly elevated levels of PCBs (USFWS 2005e). The fish food usedat LNFH is a sourceof very small amountsof PCBs. Becausefish feedis derived from marinesources it is impossibleto completelyeliminate all PCBs. The levelsfound in the feedused today arenot expectedto causebioaccumulation problems (Hansen, J., pers.comm., usFws,2006).
Antibiotics, formalin and other chemicalsused in fish culture at LNFH are administeredin accordancewith pertinentFDA and EPA regulations.Use of approvedchemicals is not expected to causetoxicity in receivingwaters when appliedaccording to directions(WDOE 1989).
J. Bull Trout Prey Basein theHistoric Channel
Numerousjuveniles (mostly age0 Coho) of severalfish speciesthat areknown prey of the bull trout have been observedduring a spring snorkel survey in the upper end of the historic channel when water temperatureswere cool (D. Morgan,pers. obs. 2005). It is unknownwhat happensto thesefish when temperaturesin the historic channelbecome elevated. The combinationof elevatedwater temperature,reduced flow in the historic channel,and simplified habitatin the lower end of the historic channel,likely reducesbull trout prey basein the historic channel, particularlyin late summer. Releasesfrom Snow Lakesunder the proposedaction are likely to contribute to cooler water temperaturesin the historic channelduring a portion of the year, which may help reducethis effect. Theseongoing effects are expectedto continueunder the proposed action.
Under the proposedaction, dam 5 will not be operatedin the spring (mid-Marchthrough April), which will help steelheadmigration and allow them to spawnin the historic channel,and potentiallythroughout suitable habitat in the upperIcicle Creekwatershed. Since it is unclear exactlyhow dam 2 wlllbe operated,or whetherfish canpass through the velocity banier at this dam in the springwhen flows may be very high, it is uncertainwhether steelhead will be ableto accessmost of Icicle Creek. If not, this would maintaina lower distributionand abundanceof bull trout prey in Icicle Creek.
Fish releasedfrom LNFH may temporarilyprovide prey for migratorybull trout. However,since thesesmolts rapidly migrateto the ocean)with most presumablyleaving the areaas soonas they arereleased, they are expectedto provide little benefit as a prey source. For example,in2004 and 2005,travel time for smoltsmigrating from LNFH to BonnevilleDam (about350 miles downstream)took about35 days. Assuminga steadyspeed, the smoltsmoved 10 miles per day, which would meanthat thesefish areonly in Icicle Creekand the lower WenatcheeRiver for a few daysat most. 62 K. Hatchery/ Wild Interaction Effects on Bull trout Prey Base
There are five generalcategories of effects or impacts on wild salmonidsthat may be causedby hatcheryproduced fish on a system-widescale throughout the Columbia River basin and Pacific Ocean(Witty et al 1995). Theseinclude competition,disease, predation, straying, and harvest.
Witty et al (1995)determined that competitionfor spacedue to crowdingat damsand in mainstem Columbia River reservoirswas unlikely to have a large effect on survival of wild salmonids.Competition in the estuarywas consideredlikely to negativelyaffect growth and survivalof wild salmonids,in part becauseestuary habitat is severelyreduced compared to historic levels,and in part becauselarge numbers of hatcheryfish were vying for the same limited space,particularly in springwhen estuaryproductivity is low. Of the five kinds of salmonid speciesconsiclered, yearling Chinook, such as LNFH producesand which arrive in the estuaryin the spring,was consideredto havethe secondhighest negative impact on wild fish.
Fish releasedfrom hatcheriesare generally larger than their wild counterpartsbecause increased sizeis believedto equateto increasedsurvival. The extentto which LNFH smoltsout compete wild smoltsduring their early freshwaterphase has not beenevaluated, but it hasbeen demonstratedin the Yakima basinthat the presenceof hatcheryChinook salmonnegatively impactedthe growth of wild Chinook (Pearsonset al 1996). This couldhave long-term implicationsfor the bull trout prey basebecause the smolt to adult retum rateis generallymuch higherfor wild fish (Waples1991).'
The natural productivity of the ocean,and its ability to support large numbersof hatchery fish, in additionto wild counterparts,is alsonot known. Although oceanconditions vary in ways that affectthe numbersof fish that retum to the ColumbiaRiver basin(Beamish i993), the numbers of fish releasedby LNFH (andmost hatcheries)do not fluctuatein ways that would reflect cyclical changesin oceanconditions.o Whether this affectswild populations,and whether it affectsthe long-termstability of the bull trout prey base,is unknown.Witty et al (1995) indicatedthat sincefood productionvaries in the oceanin time and space,it was reasonableto concludethat competitionbetween hatchery and wild salmonidswould be most acuteduring periodsof low oceanproductivity, especially in near shoreareas.
Witty et al. (1995)concluded that diseasetransmission from hatcheryfrsh to wild fish was likely to be a problem,particularly at crowding locationssuch as collectionand transportation facilities at mainstemdams. LNFH samplesits fish prior to releaseand follows protocolsto help minimize the risk of spreadingdisease to wild lìsh. No diseaseeffects relative to the bull trout areanticipated with implementationof the proposedaction.
5 Fish leleasedas srnoltsfrom LNFH do not linger in rivers post-release,but insteadthey rnoverapiclly to the ocean,and therefore donotplovidemuchoppofunityaspreyforbulltrout. Incontl'ast,wildjuvenilesresideinsmalìerstrealnsforaboutlSmonths beforesrnolting, and providea long-lastingprey basefor bull tlout, 6 LNFH cun'entlyreleases about 1.625million smoltsper year,which is a telatively largenumber compared to most hatcheries. The total numberof smoltsreleased by all hatcheryprogralÌ.rs in the WenatcheeRiver basinis about5 l¡illion, andfor the Colur¡biaRiver basin. about 85 million. 63 Witty et al (1995)separated predation risk into two categories:hatchery fish on wild fish, andthe responseby salmonidpredators on all wild fish, when hatcheryfish increasedthe prey baseand thus the densityof predators.For spring Chinooklike LNFH's, the former wasbelieved to be minor. The latterwas believedto be significant,especially near mainstem dams.
As previously mentioned,LNFH stock is largely derived from an admixture of upper and lower Columbia River stocks,and is not native to the Wenatcheebasin. Recentdata indicate that the relative number of LNFH straying to Nason Creek and the Little WenatcheeRiver, where the number of wild spawnersis low, is high enoughthat NOAA Fisheriesand WDFW are concemed that LNFH "Carson-lineagestock" may be interbreedingin significantnumbers in these tributarieswith native,ESA-listed stock (Petersen,K., NOAA Fisheriesand Murdoch 4., WDFW, respectively,pers. comm. 2006). Basedon preliminary data,for 2001-2003an average of roughly 50 percentof the spawningpopulation in the Little WenatcheeRiver and20 percentin Nason Creekwere straysfrom LNFH (USFWS 2006b). From a theoreticalperspective, there are so many LNFH fish returningto the basin (primarily becauseLNFH releasesso many smolts every year) that a small percentageof this large number could inundatethe smaller population of wild frsh,particularly if strayingis concentratedin vulnerableareas, as may be happeninghere. In the long run, this interbreedingcould reducesurvival andrecovery of the ESA-listedstock on which bull trout will dependon for prey base.
Accordingto Witty et al (1995),artifrcial production stimulates increased harvest effort, and that could lead to increasedcatch of wild fish in mixed-stockfisheries. On the otherhand, if harvest regulationsrestrict fishing, the oppositeresult could occur. Thereforethe implicationsof LNFH operationsrelated to harvestof wild fish is not clear.
L. Sedimentation
PeriodicallyLNFH removessediment from the headof the waterintake canal using a craneand truck to haul it awayfor uplanddisposal, or by removingsome flashboards in the canaland intakehouse (not the flashboardson the dam itself) and flushing the materialdownstream. This activity is performed nearly every year and is necessaryto maintain adequatesurface water supply. The materialthat is mobilized during theseactivities is nativematerial from Icicle Creek which settledin the marginsnear the intake afterhigh flow events.Therefore this activity is not introducingnew sedimentto the system. The associatedturbidity increaseis brief (usuallya few hours spreadout over a day or two) and is plobably insignificant.
Similarly, adjustmentsto damsare expected to causeminor andbrief sedimentdisturbance and increasedturbidity. Someof theseactivities include the following kinds of actions:
. adjustingtainter gatesat dam2 . installingor removingpickets at dam 5 . installingor removingflashboards at the intake dam . cleaning,moving, or removingtrash racks at all of thesestructures 64 The BA included some data about suspendedsediment monitoring in the vicinity of dams 2 and 5. Basedon thosedata, turbidity samplevalues collected about 300-feet downstream from the work activity were generallysimilar to samplevalues collected about 10O-feetupstream of the work activity. Most sampleswere less than 10 NephelometricTurbidity Units (NTUs); a few were about 20 NTUs. It appearsthat the higher readingswere related to ambient conditions more than the work activities. Regardless,the NTUs were generally low. Comparing the highest valuesprovided to informationsummarizedby Waters (1995) indicates that this turbidity is too low to harm fish. Furthermore,it is reasonableto assumethat thesekinds of activities causeonly brief pulsesof turbidity, thereforehave little effect on primary productivity.
V. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects include the effects of future State,tribal, local or private actionsthat are reasonablycertain to occurin the actionarea considered in this biological opinion. Future Federalactions that are unrelatedto the proposedaction are not consideredin this section becausethey requireseparate consultation pursuant to section7 of the ESA.
Diversions
Upstreamfrom the LNFH intakethere is a non-Federalwater diversion atrm 5.7 which is likely to continue to adverselyaffect in-stream flow and fish passage,particularly during low flows. The irrigation districtshave a waterright to nearly 118 cfs of Icicle Creekwater between approximatelymid-March andmid-October, but usually diversiondoes not begin quite that early. Data collectedin the early 1990sindicated that IPID diverteda maximum of about 100 cfs (MontgomeryWater Group,Inc. 2004b). The municipal water intake at the samelocation (oppositebank alongthe samedam) takes3 cß year-round.The irrigation districtssupplement in-streamflow abovethe point of diversionusing alpinelakes fitted with small dams,but the amountof water stored(about 10,000aclft) andreleased (about 5,000 aclftper season)is much lessthan the amountdiverted. That amountof water divertedoften exceedsthe total flow of Icicle Creekmeasured by a USGS gagejust upstreamfrom this location,which in late September of 2005 was aslow as 60cfs. This water is carriedby a long open canalto areasdownstream in the lower Wenatcheevalley as far eastas Monitor. Carrying water is returnedto the Wenatchee River at severallocations along the way. The diversiondam doesnot passfish during low flow. It is unknown whether this diversion is screenedadequately to prevent fish from enteringthe diversioncanal which operatesfrom April to October. Given that%" gravelwas observed impingedon the screenitself (Kolk, S.,pers. comm., BOR, 2006),it is likely that fìsh are at high risk of the same. At the time of this Opinion (summer2006), the BOR was beginninga process to updateand replace the screen,and possibly to addressfìsh passageand otherconcems. For example,this diversionalso has a f,rshreturn that shuntsfish out of the canal,over a rock ledge, and dropsthem about 15-feetdirectly onto a boulderthat is not submergedfor most of the irrigation season. Any bull trout that passthrough this return when flows are low (August and September)are likely to be injured or killed.
ResidentialDevelooment and Recreation 65 As the human population in Washington Statecontinues to grow, residential growth and demand for dispersedand developedrecreation is likely to occur,including areaswithin the lower Icicle Creek watershed. This trend is likely to result in increasinghabitat degradationfrom riparian road construction,levee building, bank armoring, and campsitedevelopment on private lands in the lower watershed.Despite some local permittingrequirements and regulations, experience indicatesthat theseactivities tend to remove riparian vegetation,disconnect rivers from their floodplains, intemrpt groundwater-surfacewater interactions,reduce stream shade (and increase streamtemperature), reduce ofÊchannel rearing habitat, and reducethe opportunity for large woody debris recruitment.
Eachsubsequent action by itself may haveonly a small incrementaleffect, but takentogether they may substantivelydegrade the watershed'senvironmental baseline and undermine the improvementsin habitatconditions necessary for listed speciesto surviveand recover. Watershedassessments and othereducation programs may reducethese adverse effects by continuing to raise public awarenessabout the potentially detrimental effects of residential developmentand recreation on salmonidhabitats and by presentingways in which a growing humanpopulation and healthy fish populationscan co-exist'
The above effectsmay fuither degradein-stream conditions for migratory bull trout ascending Icicle Creekbelow the LNFH. As discussedabove, most of the upperIcicle Creekwatershed is on Federallands designated as Wilderness, which adequatelyprotects bull trout habitatin that porlion of the watershed.
VI. Conclusion
The Servicehas reviewed the current statusof the bull trout, the environmentalbaseline, the effectsof the proposedProject, and cumulativeeffects. Basedon this review, it is the Service's biological opinion that the Project,as proposed, is not likely to jeopardizethe continued existenceof the ColumbiaRiver distinctpopulation segment of the bull trout.
The environmentalbaseline for the RecoveryUnit indicatesthat althoughbull trout are widely distributed,abundance is generallylow andproductivity highly variable. The Wenatcheecore areais heavily dependenton a singlelocal populationin one sub-watershedin the upperbasin, which contributesover three-quafiersof the total reproductionin the core area. Numerous historic and ongoing factors continueto limit the potential for population recovery within the RecoveryUnit. In the Icicle Creekwatershed, most habitatpathways are "functioning appropriately"in the upperwatershed, which is mostly land managedby the US ForestService as'Wildemess,and most are"functioning at risk" or "functioning at unacceptablerisk" in the lower watershed,whieh is mostly privateland. The Icicle Creeklocal populationof bull trout is the smallestand most vulnerableto extirpationof all populationsin the Wenatcheecore area.
Bull trout occupy the action areayearround. Direct effects are expectedand may lead to injury and mortality. Indirect effects are expectedto include impacts on habitat quality that will impede bull trout migration and reducesurvival of bull trout and their prey. However, the anticipated 66 amount of injury and mortality over the 5-year term of this Opinion is not expectedto appreciablychange the likelihood of survival or recovery of bull trout in terms of their numbers, reproduction,and distribution. The duration of the proposedaction is equivalentto about one generationof bull trout. Every year about 150 individuals are anticipatedto be affected,up to 10 lethally. In the short term, reproduction for residentfish is not likely to be measurablyimpacted becauseit takesplace many miles upstreamof LNFH. The long-termpopulation effects of blocking migratory fish from reproducing in Icicle Creek would be significant at the core area scale,but the duration of this action is limited to 5 years, and that blockage at LNFH has existed since 1940. Bull trout distributionis not anticipatedto be affectedby the proposedaction.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
I. Introduction
Section9 of the Act andFederal regulation pursuant to section4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangeredand threatened species, respectively, without specialexemption. Take is defined asto harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, captureor collect,or attemptto engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by Serviceto include significant habitat modificationor degradationthat resultsin deathor injury to listed speciesby significantly impairing essentialbehavioral patterns, including breeding,feeding, or sheltering.Harass is definedby Serviceas intentional or negligentactions that createthe likelihood of injury to listed speciesto suchan extentas to signifrcantlydisrupt normal behavior patterns which includebut arenot limited to, breeding,feeding or sheltering.Incidental take is defìnedas take that is incidentalto, andnot the purposeof the carryingout of an otherwiselawful activity. Under the terms of section7(bX4) and section7(o)(2), taking that is incidentalto andnot intencledas part of the agencyaction is not consideredto be prohibitedtaking underthe Act providedthat such taking is in compliancewith the termsand conditionsof this IncidentalTake Statement.
The measuresdescribed below arenon-discretionary, and must be undertakenby the LNFH so that they becomebinding conditionsof any grantor permit issuedto the applicant,as appropriate,for the exemptionin section7(o)(2) to apply. The LNFH has a continuingduty to regulatethe activity coveredby this incidentaltake statement.If the LNFH fails to assumeand implement the terms and conditions of the incidental take statementthrough enforceableterms that areadded to the permit or grantdocument, the protectivecoverage of section7(o)(2) may lapse. In orderto monitor the impact of incidentaltake, the LNFH must reportthe progressof the actionand its impact on the speciesto the Serviceas specifiedin this IncidentalTake Statement[(50 CFR 5402.14(Ð(3)].
II. Anticipated Amount or Extent of Take of Bull Trout
In the "Effects of the Action" sectionof the accompanyingbiological opinion,the Service estimatedthe anticipatedincidental take from this Project after making severalsimplifuing assumptions.The rationalefor theseassumptions is alsopresented in the "Effects of the Action" 61 section. Theseassumptions necessarily decrease the accuracyand precision of this incidental take estimate.
The primary mechanismsof incidental take where it is possible to quantify the number of bull trout involved are 1) handling fish that enter LNFH facilities, 2) killing fish in the water intake system,and 3) killing fish in the surplus/ excessprotocol. Incidentaltake will alsooccur in otherways wheremeaningful quantification is not possible,and thesewill include 1) blocking 23.5 miles of historicallyaccessible habitat above LNFH, 2) alteringin-stream flow via surface water storage,release, and groundwaterpumping, and 3) habitat alterationin the historic channel. Note that the Effects Sectionin this documentestimates the number of individuals which the Servicebelieves will be affectedby the proposedaction, but that is not necessarilythe sameas the numberexpected to be taken(i.e.- not all of thesefrsh will be harmed,harassed, killed, etc).
The Servicedetermined amount of incidentaltake expectedto occur as a combinationof project effects and the number of bull trout exposedto them: . Sublethalexposure to handling when it is necessaryto remove fish from LNFH facilities including the adult holding pond, the sandsettling basin, and the trap at dam 5 (10 individualsper year). . Lethal exposureto componentsof water intake system(10 individuals per year) . Lethal exposureto the surplus/excessprotocol (1 individual per year)
Otherpossible incidental take of bull trout is difficult to detectfor the following reasons:(1) low density of individuals in the action areafor most of the year; (2) primarily nocturnal activity patterns;(2) tendencyto hide in or nearthe substrate;(3) small body size;(4) cryptic coloration andbehavior ofjuvenile and sub-adultfish; (5) the needto use snorkelingtechniques to detect bull trout; (6) low likelihood of fìnding an injured or deadindividual in the relativelycomplex habitatsin the action area;(7) high rate of removalof injured individualsby predatorsor scavengers;and (8) uncertaintyof volitional movementby migratory-sizefish; thereforewe cannot quantifu any other forms of take. Reports of any detectionsof incidental take are valuable in enabling the Serviceto further refrne estimatesof incidental take for future projects of a similar naturein similar contexts.
III. Effect of the Take
In the accompanyingBiological Opinion,the Servicedetermined that this level of anticipated takeis not likely to resultin jeopardyto the species.
IV. Reasonableand Prudent Measures
The Servicebelieves that the following reasonableand prudent measures (RPM) arenecessary and appropriateto minimize take of bull trout.
RPM 1. Minimize the impactsof incidentaltake from handling andrelease of bull trout encounteredat hatchery facilities. 68 RPM2. Minimize the impacts of incidentaltake from entrainmentinto the water delivery system. RPM3. Minimize the impactsof incidentaltake resultingfrom the surplus/excessprotocol. RPM4. Minimize the impacts of incidentaltake from operationsof structures2 and 5. RPM5. Minimize the impacts of incidentaltake associatedwith waterwithdrawal.
V. Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section9 of the Act, the LNFH must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonableand prudent measures describedabove, and aredesigned to minimize impactsto bull trout. Theseterms and conditions are mandatory.
To implementRPM 1: T&C 1. Prior to conductingactivities that may involve handlingbull trout, ensurethat handsare free of sunscreen,lotion, or insectrepellent. T&C 2. To the extentpossible all handlingand observationmethods shall be implementedto avoid temperaturestress of affectedfish. It may be necessaryto conduct the activity in the morning or evening on hot summer days to avoid temperaturestress to capturedfish. T&C 3. If bull trout areheld in a tank, a healthyenvironment for the stressedfish must be provided and the holding time must be minimized. Water to watertransfers, the use of shaded,dark containers,and supplementaloxygen shall all be consideredin designingfish handlingoperations. T&C 4. If a bull trout is showingsigns of stressor injury, it shall only be releasedwhen able to maintain itself. It may be necessaryto nurture in a holding tank until the fish hasrecovered. T&C 5. Collect fish statistics(estimated length andweight, sex,scale sample, marks, condition/health,angling injury, etc.)from bull trout prior to release. T&C 6. All dip net or seinemesh netting shallbe composedof fine mesh(no knot) material. T8.C I . The releaselocation for a capturedbull trout depenclson whereit was captuled , andwhat river conditionsprevail at that time. The intent is to choosea release locationwhere the habitatis favorablefor the fìsh, and is aboveLNFH barriers, which, dependingon thoseconditions, may includedam 5, dam 2, andthe intake dam. ThereforeLNFH must call USFWS CWFO Monday of eachweek during broodstockcollection to discussthe likely releaselocation for that week. If a fish is captured,LNFH must call USFWS CWFO againprior to releaseto finalizethe specificrelease location. Barring somethingunforeseen, fish will not be releasedabove the confluenceof Snow Creek. The generalprocedure is describedbelow: 69 Capture location Releaselocation Adult holding pond If dam 5 hasthe racksin place,or if passageat dam2 appearsto be impossiblebased on flow and gatesettings, fish will be released upstreamof dam 2 nearSleeping Lady. But if flow is too low atthatlocationthe pool below the bridge at the Snow Lakes trail bridge (rm -5.5) will be usedinstead. If dam 5 doesnot have the racks in, and if passageat both darrt2 andthe intakedam appearpossible, frsh will be releasedin the spillway pool. Trap at dam 5 Fish will be releasedupstream of dam 2 near SleepingLady, but if flow is too low at that locationthe pool below the bridge at the Snow Lakestrail bridge (rm -5.5) will be used instead. If passageat both dam2 andthe intake dam appearpossible, fish releasein the historic channelabove dam 5 may also be considered. Insidetrash rack at intakediversion Below and near intake diversion dam Screenchamber/sand settling pond In oool below spillway dam Other Closest.safe release location in Icicle Creek
T&C 8. Keep written recordsof when the gateat the bottom of the fish ladderwas openedand closed. Include this information in the annualreport (seenext section)to ES.
ToimplementRPM 2: T&C 9. Monitor all areasof the water intake systemwhere fish have been found in the past, every day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon,at a minimum. T&C 10. If a bull trout is found anywherein the water intake systemdownstream of the trashrack. refer to T&C 7. T&C 11. Keep written recordsof eachinstance when otherfish speciesand/ or significant debris were found in the system. Provide ES with an annualrepofi (seenext section). T8.C 12. Do not operatethe fish retum oppositedam2 unlessit is modified so that it doesnot strandfish. T&C 13. Onceevery week initially, removeand release bull trout from the sandsettling basin using a crowder net and/ or dip nets. If the initial weekly removal efforts demonstratethat no fish are present,the interval betweenremoval efforts may be extendedto monthly insteadof weekly. The frequencyof this activity may vary by time of year. For example,more frequentremoval efforts may be neededin spring and fall. Provide ES with an annualreport describingwhen 70 this work was doneand the numbersand types of fish observed(see next section). T&,C 14. Install a screenor other deviceto preventfish from exiting the sandsettling basin via the overflow weir. Monitor this location to ensurethat fish are not impinged. ProvideES with an annualreport describingwhat was installedand whetherit appearsto meet the objectives(see next section).
To implement RPM 3: T&C 15. Attempt to removebull trout prior to allowing public into the area. LNFH staff must adequatelysupervise the excessoperation unless they areabsolutely certain that no bull trout arepresent. If any bull trout are killed during surplus/ excessprotocol, ES must be contactedfor reinitiationof consultationas soonas possible. Keep written recordsof this activity and includeit in the annualreport to ES (seenext section).
To implementRPM 4: T&C 16. By November17,2006, the LNFH will convenea groupof federal,state, and tribal co-managersto begin developmentof an aclaptivemanagement strategy that addressesfuture passage of bull trout abovethe hatchery. In additionto the immediateefforts to passbull trout outlinedin the BA, this strategywill define additionalresearch, data collection and analysisnecessary to further addressand refine bull trout passageduring the time of spring Chinook salmonretums and the concurrenttribal fishery. The adaptivernanagelnent strategy and its associatedresearch and investigationshall lead to the developmentof a comprehensivebull trout passageplan for the Icicle Creekbasin. The plan will take into accountannual flow conditions,bull trout return ratesand dates, productionpotential of the watershed,Chinook salmonreturn datesand rates, considerationof changingconditions of suchelerìents as habitat quality and access,tribal fishery needs,and potential disease risks that may result at the hatcheryfrom passingspring Chinook salmonabove the facility. This plan shallbe consistentwith Servicedefined bull trout recoverygoals as definedfor this watershedand bull trout distinctpopulation segment as well as other Servicelegal obligationsfor mitigation andtribal fishery needs. The stlategy will be completedby March 9,2001 with annualprogress reporls on its implementationmade to Servicemanagers and externalco-managers. The plan will be modified asneeded through 201I, or until this consultationis superseded. T &.C 17. Keep written recordsof all adjustmentsat dams2 and5 . Include staff gage readingsat dam 2 andinclude that information in the annualreport to ES (see next section). T&C 18. Keep the fish ladderopen at LNFH asmuch aspossible when picketsare installedat dam 5. Includethis informationin the annualreport to ES. T&C 19. When dam 5 doesnot havethe racksinstalled, operate dam2 so it is openas wide aspossible, except when necessaryto achievethe following: (1) 71 gfoundwaterrecharge for shallowwells; (2) flood control; (3) smolt emigration; (4) conditionsthat facilitateupstream passage during periodsof low discharge (e.g.,open one gateinstead of two); and (5) maintenanceof desiredspillway pool characteristics(attractor flow near the fish ladder), during broodstock collection. Tec 20.Remove the remaining portion of the trash rack at dam 2 on the north side. T&,C21. The annual default period for pickets to be installed at dam 5, and flow reduced at dam 2 (i.e,- fish passagewill not be possible),shall be May 15 until July 7. The LNFH may adjustthe defaultperiod based on input from the USFWS (ES, MCFRO, and LNFH), NOAA Fisheries,the YakamaNation, andthe 'Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife fishery co-managers,who will meet eachyear, as needed to review in-seasoninformation on springChinook run timing, environmentalconditions, and other factors likely to affect spring Chinook and bull trout movementsin the action area. Annual shifts in the default period shall be valid for that year only and are intendedto maximize fishery benefits, addressdisease and water quality and quantity concerns,and provide safe,timely, and effectivebull trout passageinto the upperIcicle basin. T&.C22. Install and operatethe trapsat dam 5 so that somepassage might be possible during Chinookbroodstock collection. Checktraps a minimum of two times everyday (onceAM, oncePM). Releasebull trout consistentwith T&,c 1. Include this information in the annualreporl to ES. T&,C23. when adjustingdam2 use flow rampingrates of l" per hour to minimize potential strandingofjuvenile fish in the historic channel. Survey the historic channel arealo confirm ramping rateswork. If the surveysconfirm absenceof fìsh strandingwithin the historic channelthen subsequentsureys would not be necessary. Survey the canal areaif gate adjustmentsdecrease water in the canal.
To implementRPM 5: T&.C 24. Releasethe equivalentof 50cfsfrom the Snow Lakesreservoir system between July 20'nand September30'n. T&C 25. If it appearsthat snowpackwill be inadequateto provide 50 cfs from Snow Lakesreservoir, in the springof that year,notifu ES as soonas possible to report this information and possibly gain advice for fui1her action. T&C 26. Keep written recordsof waterrelease from Snow Lakes. Includedates when changeswere made,plus valve settingsand/or Snow Creek staff gage information. Include this information in the annualreporl to ES (seenext section). T&,C 21. Removesediment from the fish retum below the water intake,using handtools asneeded, so that surfaceflow persistsall the way from the building to Icicle Creek. T&C28. During the low flow conditions(generally mid- to late July throughlate September)remove at least one flashboardfrom near the apex of the intake dam, or operatethe old fish ladder in order to increaseupstream and downstreamfish passageopPortunities. 72
VI. Reporting Requirements
In orderto monitor the impactsof irnplementationof the reasonableand prudent measures, the LNFH shallprepare a report describingthe progressof the proposedProject, including implementationof the associatedterms and conditions,and impacts to the bull trout (50 CFR S 402.14(l)(3)).Annual reportsdescribed in the Terms and Conditionssection above, shall be submittedby February1 to the Central'WashingtonField Office (CWFO) at:
US Fish andWildlife Service CentralWashington Field Office 215Melody Lane, Suite 119 Wenatchee,V/A 98801 509-665-3508phone s09-665-3s09FAX
RegardingRPM 1, contactCWFO at 509-665-3508(David Morgan, Judy DelaVergne, or Karl Halupkain that order)before a bull trout is handledor moved in LNFH facilities. Theremay be circumstanceswhen it is not possibleto contactCWFO beforeit is necessaryto move a bull trout, in which casecontact should be madeas soonas possible afterward.
Upon locatinga dead,injured, or sick endangeredor threatenedspecies specimen, initial notificationmust be macleto the nearestService Law EnforcementOffice (Bellingham, Washington;telephone 360-733-0963). Care should be takenin handlingsick or injured specimensto ensureeffective treatment and care,or in the caseof handlingdead specimens, to preservebiological material in the bestpossible state for later analysisof causeof death. In conjunctionwith the careof sick or injured listed speciesor preservationof biological materials from a deadanimal, the finder hasthe responsibilityto cany out instructionsprovided by Law Enforcementto ensurethat evidenceintrinsic to the specimenis not unnecessarilydisturbed.
The reasonableand prudent measures, with their irnplementingtenns and conditions)are designedto minimize the impact of incidentaltake that might otherwiseresult frorn the proposed action. If, during the courseof the action,this level of incidentaltake is exceeded,such incidentaltake represents new informationrequiring reinitiating of consultationand review of the reasonableand prudent measures provided. The LNFH must immediatelyprovide an explanationof the causesof the taking andreview with the Servicethe needfor possible modificationof the reasonableand prudent measures.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section7(aX1) of the Act directsFederal agencies to utilize their authoritiesto fuilher the purposesof the Act by carryingout conserr¡ationprograms for the benefit of endangeredand threatenedspecies. Furthermore the Service'conservation recommendations are discretionary agencyactivities to minimize or avoid adverseeffects of a proposedaction on listed speciesor -a IJ critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. The Service recommendsthat the LNFH:
DataNeeds CR1. Coordinateand cooperatewith other agenciesand entities to collect information on the abundance,genetics, life history, and temporal and spatial distribution of bull trout throughout the Icicle Creek watershed. The methods and techniques should be applicableto accountfor various life stagesand distributions and could include radio telemetry, snorkeling, walking, angling, tagging,marking, and geneticanalysis. CR2. Evaluatewhat flow conditions are neededfor fish passageat structure2 and the intake dam in their current form. CR 3. Oncein the next frve years,after the pollution abatementpond is excavated, sampleand monitor the sedimentin the settling pond, abovethe hatcheryintake, and below the hatchery outfall for PCB and pesticide contamination,using methodsidentified in FWS (2005). Futurework would essentiallyduplicate the 2005 work, andwould include a new searchfor potentiallyapplicable contaminantb enchmarks,criteri a, or standards. CR 4. Work togetherwith the CWFO's bull trout recoverylead on FONS proposal(s). One specificgoal shouldbe to establishthe geneticbaselines in the areathat are essentialfor a completeunderstanding of bull trout interactionsand population dynamics.
Tribal FisheriesEffects CR 5, Collaboratewith the YakamaNation to increasemonitoring of the tribal fishery at LNFH and documentincidental impacts to non-targetspecies. Investigate opportunitiesto fund the tribe to do this work. CR 6. In additionto maintainingthe high-qualitytribal fishery in the spillway pool, investigateopportunities to provide additional locations for a tribal fishery upstreamof the spillway pool, so that the fìsherydoes not rely on blocking all fish in the spillway pool. Possibleadditional locations for good fishing could include the pool below dam2 or nearthe LNFH diversiondam'
For a long-termsolution at dam 5, commissiona teamto investigateoptions for replacingdam 5 with a new designwhich minimizeshabitat disturbance; consider an inflatableor hydraulicweir if neededto collect adultbroodstock which would essentiallydisappear when not in use. This would improve not only passage opportunitiesbut also habitat conditions in the area. CR 8. For a long-termsolution at dam 2, commissiona team to investigateoptions for fish passageyear-round; the design should be appropriategiven site conditions wherejuvenile presenceis well-known; the designshould accommodate all swimming life stagesof native speciesunder a rangeof flow conditions. 74 CR 9. Improveupstream and downstreamfish passageat the LNFH point of diversion. Someoptions to considerinclude relocating the waterintake structureto a new locationcloser to LNFH, using more well water,combining the point of diversion with other entities,and withdrawing water using a pump systeminstead of a gravity diversion. CR 10. Explore optionsto coordinatewith BPA andYN to usethe hatcheryladder and other facilitiesat LNFH for Cohobroodstock collection so that it is not necessary for dam 5 to block Icicle Creekfor as long eachfall. For example,installation of the racksat dam 5 could be removedsooner under some scenarios. Annual circumstances(projected run size,flow conditions,disease concerns, etc.) should determinewhat is feasible,and in someyears this may not be possible. CR 11. Continueto provideBPA andYN an alternative(such as an unusedpond at LNFH) so Coho smolt acclimationis not necessaryin the sidechannel, which will eliminatethe associatedbarrier and improve passagefor wild fish. CR 12. Exploreopportunities to createwindows of opportunityfor naturalpassage (i.e.- not reliant on trapsor ladders)for bull trout past LNFH dam2 and dam 5 during the Chinookbroodstock collection period. Habitat Implovement CR 13. Work with appropriateagencies and entitiesto developa watermanagement plan for LNFH which minimizesimpacts to listed speciesand the environment.The plan shouldconsider additional water releases from SnowÀ{adaLakes, releasing progressivelymore water asthe surnmerproceeds, flow in the historic channel andhatchery canal, and passage at structure2 andthe intakediversion (which are influencedby flow). CR 14. Explorethe potentialof providing the irrigation districtswith hatcheryreturn water to meetirrigation needs,reduce nutrient loads, and improve in-streamflow in Icicle Creek. CR 15. Providefor a more normativehydrograph in the historic channelto restore naturalconditions and transport sediment when broodstockcollection is not underway. Use springrunoff andhigh flow eventsin the fall to simulatenatural events. If peakdischarge through dam2 is reducedoverall for safetyreasons or potentialflooding concerns,verify that it is indeednecessary to restriotflow in orderto avoid overbankflow downstream;develop a model and compare floodplainelevations if needed. CR 16. If LWD is lodgedon the upstreamside of dam 2,place it downstreamof darn2 in the historic channelprovided it is savefor personnelto do so. Contaminants CR 17. After the pond is cleanedof its currentmaterial, ensure that in the future the pollution abatementpond is cleanedfrequently enough that it adequatelyprotects water quality,regardless of whetherit is physicallyfull or not. This effort should not contradict any instructions or requirementsthat may be included by EPA in the NDPES permit. Guidancehow to calculateefficiency of a pollution abatementpond, when to cleanit, and other considerationscan be found at: In order for the Serviceto be kept informed of actionsminimizing or avoiding adverseeffects or benefiting listed speciesor their habitats,the Servicerequests written notification of the implementation of any conservationrecommendations.
RE-INITIATION NOTICE
This concludesformal consultationon the actionoutlined in the request.As providedin 50 CFR 5402.16,reinitiating of formal consultationis requiredwhere discretionary Federal agency involvementor control over the actionhas been retained (or is authorizedby law) andif: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;(2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed speciesor critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agencyaction is subsequentlymodified in a matìnerthat causesan effect to the listed speciesor critical habitatnot consideredin this opinion; or (4) a new speciesis listed or critical habitatdesignated that may be affectedby the action. In instanceswhere the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded,any operationscausing such take must ceasepending reinitiating. 76
LITERATURE CITED
Andonaegui,C. et al. 200I. WashingtonState Conservation Commission. Salmon,Steelhead, and Bull Trout Habitat Limiting Factors for the WenatcheeSubbasin. Final Report. November2001. Olympia, WA.
Baxter, C.V. 2002. Fish Movement and AssemblageDynamics in a Pacific Northwest Riverscape.Ph.D. Dissertation,Oregon State University, Corvallis,OR. 174 pp.
Beamish,R.J. 1993:Climate and exceptionalfish productionoff the west coastof North America. Can.J. Fish.Aquat. Sci., 50,2270-2291.
Beauchamp,D. A. and J. J. Van Tassell.2001. Modeling trophic interactionsof bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook,Oregon. Transactions of the AmericanFisheries Society 130:204-216.
Bioanalysts,Inc. 2002. Movementsof bull trout within the mid-ColumbiaRiver andtributaries, 2001 - 2002. Final Report preparedfor Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee,Washington.
BioAnalysts,Inc., 2004. Movementof Bull Trout in the Mid-Columbia River andTributaries, 2001-2004.Reporl preparedfor Chelan,Douglas, and GrantPUDs.
Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habitsof bull char(Salveliru.s confluentus), and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), coexistingin the foothills streamin northernAlberta. CanadianField- Naturalist1 01 (1): 56-62.
Boag,T. andP. Hvenegaard.1991.Spawning movements and habitat selection of bull trout in a small Alberta foothills stream. Pages317-323 inMacKay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, editors.Friends of the bull trout conferenceproceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Canada,Calgary.
Bond, C.8.1992. Notes on the nomenclatureand distributionof the bull trout andthe effectsof humanactivity on the species.Pages l-4 In: Howell, P.J.and D.V. Buchanan,eds. Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain bull trout workshop. OregonChapter of the AmericanFisheries Society, Corvallis, OR.
Bonneau,J. L. andD. L. Scamecchia1996. Distribution ofjuvenile bull trout in a thermal gradientof a plungepool in GraniteCreek, Idaho. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 125(4): 628-630. 77 BonnevillePower Authority. March 16,2005. Corpsof Engineersand Bureau of Reclamation Operations& MaintenanceCosts and CapitalInvestments. Downloaded February 23, 2006 at:http://www.bpa.gov/Powerþl/revi ewl03-76-2005_discussion-handout2.pdf
Brennan,B.M. 1938. Reportof the preliminaryinvestigations into the possiblemethods of preservingthe ColumbiaRiver salmonand steelheadat the GrandCoulee Dam. WashingtonDepartment of Fisheries,Seattle, Washington. 121 pp.
Brenkman,S. J. and S. C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromyin bull trout and implicationsfor conservationof a threatenedspecies. North AmericanJournal of FisheriesManagement 25(3):1073-1081.
Brewin P.A. and M. K. Brewin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta. Pages206- 216 in; Mackay,W.C., M.K. Brewin andM. Monita, editors. Friendsof the Bull Trout ConferenceProceedings. Bull Trout Task Force(Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Brown, L.G.. 1984. Lake ChelanFisheries Investigations. Cheian County Public Utility District, ChelanCounty, WA andWashington Department of Game.
Brown, L.G. 1992a. Draf| ManagementGuide for the Bull Trout, SalvelinusconJhtentus (Suckley)on the WenatcheeNational Forest. WashingtonDepartment of Wildlife, Wenatchee,WA.
Brown, L.G. 1992b. Onthe zoogeographyand life history of Washingtonnative charDolly Varden(Salvelinrts malmc) andbull trout (Salvelinus conflttentus).Washington Depaltmentof Wildlife, FisheriesManagement Division Report. Olympia,'Washington.
Bryant,F.G. andZ.E. Parkhurst. 1950. Surveyof the ColumbiaRiver andits tributaries-PartIV. U.S.Fish andWildlife Service,Special Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 37, 108pp.
Buchanan,D. M. and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Developmentof watertemperature standards to protectand restole habitat for bull trout and other cold water speciesin Oregon. Pages1- 8 in: Mackay,W.C., M.K. Brewin andM. Monita, editors. Friendsof the Bull Trout ConferenceProceedings. Bull Trout Task Force(Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Ca7gary, Alberta. Canada.
Carl,L. 1985. Managementplan for bull trout in Alberta. Pages71 to 80 in: D.D. MacDonald, Proceedingsof the FlatheadRiver basinbul1 trout biology andpopulation dynamics modelinginformation exchange. Cranbrook, BC: British ColumbiaMinistry of Environment.Fisheries Branch. 78 Cavender,T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distributionof the bull trout Sqlvelirusconfluentus (Suckley),from the Americannorthwest. Calif. Fish and Game64:139-174.
Donald, D.B. andD.J. Alger. 1993. Geographicdistribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. CanadianJournal of Zoology 71:238-241.
Dunham,J. 8., B. Rieman,and G. Chandler. 2003a. Influencesof temperatureand environmentalvariables on the distribution of bull trout within streamsat the southem ' margin of its range. North AmericanJournal of FisheriesManagement23:894-904.
Dunham,J. 8., M. K. Young, R. E. Greswell,and B. E. Rieman. 2003b. Effectsof fire on fish populations:landscape perspectives on persistenceof nativefishes and nonnative fish invasions. ForestEcology andManagement 17 8(l -2):183-1 96.
Fraley,J.J. and B.B. Shepard.1989. Life history, ecologyand population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) in the FlatheadLake and River system,Montana. NorthwestScience $@): 133-1 43.
Frissell,C,4. 1993 . Topology of extinctionof native f,rshesin the PacificNorthwest and Califomia. ConservationBiology I : 342-354.
Gamett,B.1999. The history and statusof fishesin the Little Lost River Drainage,Idaho. Final Reporl.}i4ay 1999. 297pp.
GeoBngineers,Inc. 1995. Reportof Phase1 andPhase 2 HydrogeologicServices at the LNFH. File No. 0758-022-R041020295.Redmond, WA.
Goetz,F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salveliru,nconflr.tenhts, literature review. Willamette National Forest,Eugene, Oregon.
Haas,G.R. 2001.The mediatedassociations and preferences of nativebull trout andrainbow trout with respectto maximum water temperatures,its measurementstandards, and habitat.Pages 53-55 in Brewin,M.K., A.J. Paul,and M.Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conferenceproceedings. Trout Unlimited, Canada,Calgary, Alberta.
IdahoDepartment of EnvironmentalQuality. No date. IdahoWaste Management Guidelines for AquacultureOperations.
Leary,R.F. andF.W. Allendorf. l99l. Geneticconfirmation of sympatricbull trout andDolly Vardenin westernWashineton. Transactionsof the AmericanFisheries Society 126:715- 720. 19 Lichatowich,J. 1991. Salmonwithout rivers: A history of the Pacific salmoncrisis. Island Press. Washington,DC.
MBTSG (MontanaBull Trout ScientificGroup). 1998. The relationshipbetween land managementactivities and habitat requirementsof bull trout. Report preparedfor the MontanaBull Trout RestorationTeam, Helena, MT'
McPhail, J.D. and J.S.D.Baxter. 1996. Areview of bull trout (SalvelinusconJluentus)life- history and habitat use in relation to compensationand improvement opportunities. Fisheriesmanagement report no. 104. University of British Columbia. Vancouver,B.C.
McPhail, J.D. and C. Murray. 1979.Theearly life history of Dolly Varden (Salvelinusmalma) in the upper Arow Lakes. Report to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Kootenay Departmentof Fish and Wildlife. University of British Columbia, Department of Zoology and Instituteof Animal Resources,Vancouver, B.C. (As referencedin USDI, 19e7).
Muhlfeld C.C. andB. Marotz. 2005. Seasonalmovement and habitat use by subadultbull rout in the upper FlatheadRiver System,Montana. North American Joumal of Fisheries Management 25:7 91 -8 I 0.
Myrick, C.A. 2003. Bull Trout temperaturethresholds peer review summary. USFWS, Lacey wA.
Nelson,R. L., McHenry,M.L., andW. S. Platts. 1991. Mining. Chaptet72,pgs.425 - 458 in; W. R. Meehan,(editor), Influences of Forestand RangelandManagement on Salmonid Fishesand Their Habitats. AmericanFisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland.
NPPC (NorthwestPower Planning Council). 2001a.Draft Methow subbasinsummary. Prepared by J. Foster.
NPPC (NorthwestPower Planning Council). 2001b.Draft Entiat subbasinsummary. Prepared by L. Berg and S. Matthews.
NPPC (NorthwestPower Planning Council). 2001c.Draft Wenatcheesubbasin summary. Preparedby L. Berg andD. Lowman.
Pearsons,T. et al. 1996. Yakima River speciesinteractions studies. Annual report 1994. B onnevillePower Administration.
Pratt,K.L. 1992. Areview of bull trout life history. In:P. J. Howell andD. V. Buchanan(eds.). Proceedingsof the GearhartMountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapterof the AmericanFisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. Pp. 5-9. 80
Pratt,K.L. and J.E. Huston. 1993. Statusof bull trou| (Salvelinusconfluenh,rs) in Lake Pend Oreille and the lower Clark Fork River: (draft report), Preparedfor the V/WPC, Spokane, V/A..
Quigley,T.M. and S.J.Arbelbide, tech. editors. l99l. An assessmentof ecosystemcomponents in the interior Columbiabasin and portions of the Klamath and GreatBasins: volume III. GeneralTechnical Report PNW- GTR-405. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture,Forest Service,and U.S. Departmentof Interior,Bureau of Land Management.
Rieman,B.E. and F.W. Allendorf. 2001. Effectivepopulation size and geneticconservation criteriafor bull trout. North AmericanJoumal of FisheriesManasement2T:756-764.
Rieman,8., and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildfire andnative fish: Issuesof foresthealth and conservationof sensitivespecies. Fisheries 22(l 1):6-15.
Rieman,B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre. 7996. Spatialand temporal variability in bull trout redd counts. North AmericanJournal of FisheriesManasement 16:132-141.
Rieman,B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre.1995. Occurrenceof bull trout in naturallyfragmented habitat patchesof varied size. Transactionsof the AmericanFìsheries Society. Yol. 124(3): 28s-296.
Rieman,B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre.1993. Demographicand habitat requirements for conseruation of bull trout. U.S. ForestService" Intermountain Research Station. General Technical ReportINT-302.
Rieman,8.E., D.C. Lee andR.F. Thurow,1997a, Distribution, status and likely futuretrends of bull trout within the ColumbiaRiver andKlamath Basins. North AmericanJournal of FisheriesManagement 17 (4): I I 1I -l 125.
Roberts,B. C. and R. G. White.1992. Effectsof anglerwading on sulival of trout eggsand pre-emergentfry. North AmericanJournal of FisheriesManagement 72: 450-459.
Sedell,J.R. and F.H. Everest.1991. Historicchanges in pool habitatfor ColumbiaRiver Basin salmonunder study for TES listing. Draft USDA Report. Pacific NorthwestResearch Station. Corvallis-OR.
Sexauer,H.M. and P.W. James. l99l . A surveyof the habitatuse by juvenile andpre-spawning adultbull trotú,Salveliruts confluentus, in the WenatcheeNational Forest. Ellensburg, WA, Central Washington University
Shepard,8., S.A. Leathe,T.M. Weaver,and M.D. Enk. 1984. Monitoring levelsof fine sedimentwithin tributaries to FlatheadLake. and imoacts of fìne sedimenton bull trout 81 recruitment. Proceedingsof the Wild Trout III Symposium.Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. On file at: Montana Departmentof Fish Wildlife, and Parks,Kalispell, Montana.
Simpson,J.C., and R.L. Wallace.1982.Fishes of Idaho.University Pressof Idaho.Moscow, ID. spence,B. c., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughs,and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approachto salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6051. ManTech Environmental ResearchServices Cotp., Corvallis,OR. (Availablefrom the NationalMarine Fisheries Service,Portland, Oregon.).
Spruell,P., B.Rieman, K. Knudsen,F. Utter andF. Allendorf. 1999. Geneticpopulation structurewithin streams:microsatellite analysis of bull trout populations.Ecology of FreshwaterFish 1999:8: 114-721.
Thurow, R. J. Peterson,and J. Guzevich.2006.Utility andvalidation of day andnight snorkel counts for estimatingbull trout abundancein fìrst- to third-order streams. Nofih AmericanJoumal of FisheriesManagem erfi . 26:177-I32.
USDI (United StatesDepartment of the Interior). 2005b. Endangeredand Threatened Wildlife and Plants;Designation of Critical Habitatfor the Bull Trout. FederalRegister, Vol 70: 5621r-56311.
USFS (United StatesForest Service), I994a. Icicle CreekWatershed Analysis. Leavenworth RangerDistrict, OkanoganNational Forest.
USFS (United StatesForest Service), 1994b Icicle Creekstream survey report. Leavenworth RangerDistrict, OkanoganNational Forest.
USFS (United StatesForest Service). 1998c. Peshastinstream survey. WenatcheeNational Forest. Wenatchee,Washington.
USFS (United StatesForest Service). 1999. MainstemWenatchee River watershedassessment. WenatcheeNational Forest,Wenatchee, Washington.
USFS (United StatesForest Sevice). 2000. Aquatic consultationpackage for'Wenatchee River Subbasin.Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest,Wenatchee, Washington.
USFS (United StatesForest Service). 2004. Icicle ComplexFires, Emergency Consultation for Fisheries,Leavenworth RD, WenatcheeNF.
USFV/S (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).1992. Productionand habitat of salmonidsin mid-ColumbiaRiver tributary streams.USFWS MonographI,1992. Mid-Columbia River Fish ResourceOffice, Leavenwofih,Washington. 82
USFWS (United StatesFish andV/ildlife Service).1991. An analysisof fish populationsin Icicle Creek,Trout Creek,Jack Creek, Peshastin Creek, Ingalls Creek,and Negro Creek, Washington,7994and 1995. Mid-Columbia River FisheryResource Office, Leavenworth,'Washington.Prepared by B. Kelly-Ringel.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service). 2001a. Draft report. Analysis of spawning habitat availability in Icicle Creek. Leavenworth,Washington.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service). 2001b. Draft report. Analysisof habitatand fish populationin Icicle Creek,river miles 3.8-5.5,Washington 1998. Leavenworth, Washington.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).2001c. Movementsofbull trout(Salveliru.rc confluentus),spring chinook (Oncorhynchr.tstshawytscha), and steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss)in Icicle Creek,Washington. Leavenworth,Washington.
USFWS (United StatesFish andV/ildlife Service).2002a. Chapter1, Introduction. 1n:Bull trou| (Salvelinusconfluenttr) draft recoveryplan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Selice, Portland,Oregon. 137 pp.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).2002b. Chapter22,Upper Columbia RecoveryUnit, Washington.In: Bt;Jl trouf (Salvelinusconfluentus) draft recoveryplan. U.S.Fish andWildlife Service,Portland, Oregon, 113 pp.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Servicé).April 2003a. Biological Assessmentfor the LNFH FuelsReduction Project, MCFRO, Leavenworth, Washington, p.18.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service). September2003. Hatchery Water System RehabilitationSystem, Final EnvironmentalAssessment. LNFH, Leavenworth,WA.
USFWS (United StatesFish and Wildlife Service).2004a. Biological Assessmentfor the LNFH water supply systemrehabilitation project. MCFRO, Leavenworth,WA.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).2004b. Snow Lake OutleI2004 Data Review and ManagementRecommendations. Portland, OR.
USFWS, 2004c. RecoveryTeam Meeting Notes from December18, 2003 andFebruary 18,2004.Judy De La Vergne,Fish and Wildlife Biologist, RecoveryTeam Unit Lead. CWFO, Wenatchee.WA. 14p
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).2005b. Draft MovementPatterns of Adult Bull Trout in the WenatcheeRiver Basin,Washington. MCFRO and ES, Leavenworth andWenatchee. WA. 83
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).2005c. Surveysfor Bull Trout Distribution and Abundancein Icicle and JackCreeks, ChelanCounty,'Washington. ES office, Wenatchee,WA.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).2005d. Hydrologic Monitoring in the Snow 'Water LakesBasin: Year 2005 Review. Portland.OR.
USFWS (United StatesFish andWildlife Service). 2005e. LNFH Pesticideand PCB ContaminantsInvestigation. Spokane,WA
USFWS. 2006a.BA for Operationand Maintenance of LNFH through2011.
USFV/S (United StatesFish andWildlife Service).2006b. Fish ProductionReview of the LeavenworthNational Fish hatcheryComplex, 2005 . MCFRO, Leavenworth, Washington.
USGS. 1992. Water Quantityand Quality Data, September-October1991 for SourceWater to the LeavenworthNational Fish Hatchery,Washington. Open-FileReporl 92-93. Tacoma,WA.
Waples,R.S. 1991. GeneticInteractions between Hatchery and Wild Salmonids:Lessons from the Pacific Northwest. CanadianJottrnal of Fisheriesand Aqtntic Sciences,Volume 48 (Supplement1) 124-133. 'Waters, ThomasF. 1995.Sediment in Streams:Sources, Biological Effects,and Control. AmericanFisheries Society Monograph 7. 'Watson, G. andT. V/. Hillman. 1997. Factorsaffecting the distributionand abundanceof bull trout: an investigationat hierarchicalscales. North AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management17 :231 -2 52.
WDOE (WashingtonDepartment of Ecology). 1989. Quality and fate of Fish of Fish Hatchery Effluentsduring SummerLow flow Season.Publication No. 89-17. Olympia,WA.
WDOE (WashingtonDepartment of Ecology). 2005. WenatcheeRiver Basin Dissolved Oxygen,pH, andFecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Assessment.Draft May 2005. PublicationNo. 05-03-012.
WDFW (WashingtonDepartment of Fish andWildlife). 1998. WashingtonState salmonid stock draft inventory: bull trout/Dolly Varden. Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,WA. 84 Werdon,S.J. 2000. JarbidgeRiver watershedstream temperature monitoring. PreliminaryDraft report,U.S. Fish andWildlife Service,Reno, Nevada.
Witty, K. et al. 1995. A review of PotentialImpacts of HatcheryFish on Naturally Produced Salmonidsin the Migration Corridor of the Snakeand ColumbiaRivers. S.P.Cramer and Associates,Inc. Gresham,OR.
WSCC (WashingtonState Conservation Commission). 2001. Salmonand steelheadhabitat limiting factors. Water ResourceInventory Area 45: WenatcheeWatershed. Washington StateConservation Commission, Olympia, Washington.
WSCC (WashingtonState Conservation Commission). 2000. Salmonand steelheadhabitat limiting factors. Water ResourceInventory Area 48: Methow Watershed.Washington StateConservation Commission, Olympia, Washington.
WSCC (WashingtonState Conservation Commission). 1999. Salmonand steelhead habitat limiting factors. Water ResourceInventory Area46: Methow Watershed.Washington StateConservation Commission, Olympia, Washington.
PersonalCommunications
Aiken, Scott, USFWS Tribal liaison. Portland,OR
Bambrick,Dale. NMFS, Fish Biologist. EllensburgOffrce, 304 S. Water St, Ellensburg,WA, 98926.
Brenkman,S. and Corbett,S.C. FisheriesBiologists, Olympic NationalPark, Port Angeles, 'Washington.
Carroll, P. WashingtonDepartment of Ecology. Yakima, WA
Collier, T. LNFH hatcherystaff, Leavenworth,WA.
Craig,Jim. USFWS Fish Biologist.MCFRO 2006
Croci, Steve. USFWS, AssistantHatchery Manager, LNFH. Leavenworth,WA.
De La Vergne,J., USFWS, Fish andWildlife Biologist,Central'Washington Field Offrce,215 Melody Lane,Suite 119, Wenatchee,'Washington, 98801
Freeborn,Phelps. WashingtonDepartment of Ecology. Yakima, WA
Hansen,Jim. USFWS, ContaminantsSpecialist, Spokane, WA. 85 Haskins,Jackie. USFS,Fish Biologist. WenatcheeNational Forest, 215 Melody La, Wenatchee, v/A 98801.
Kelly-Ringef Barb. USFV/S Fish Biologist. MCFRO. 2006
Kolk, Steve. BOR ProfessionalEngineer, Wenatcheq V/4.
Merritt, G. Washington StateDepartmentof Ecology, 300 DesmondDrive, Olympia, WA 47770
Molesworth, J., USFS, FisheriesBiologist, Methow Valley RangerDistrict, 24 West Chewuch Road, Winthrop, V/ashin,gton98862
Montague,S., BOR ProfessionalEngineer, Boise, ID.
Murdoch,A. WDFW Fish Biologist. Wenatchee,WA 2006 .WA. Parker, S., Yakama Nation. Toppenish,
Petersen,K. NMFS Fish Biologist. Portland,OR. 2006
Ragsdale,Dave. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle,WA
Rieman, Dick. Local resident of Iciele valley. 86 Attachment A: Projects subjectto prior section 7 consultationthat may have had effects on bull trout in the Icicle Creekwatershed*.
Project Name FWS Reference Date LeavenwofthNational Fish HatchervFuels 1-9-2003-I-W0222 }ifay 6,2003 Reductionproject Eightmile Salvage r-3-r995-r-824 Icicle CampgroundVegetation 1-3 - 1998-I-256lIC-257 Management Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction 1-9-2001 -F -80231
Icicle CreekDredging 1-9-2001-F-80456
Icicle CreekRestoration 9-2002-F-E0081 Eightmile andMountaineer Bridge Replacements t-9-2002-r-0852 Minor activitiescovered under the forest- 1-3-1997-r-600 wide programmatie LeavenwofthNational Fish Hatcherry 05-0153 May16,2005 Interim Operations Fire EmergencyConsultation for Fisheries Februarv2.2004
* This list doesnot includeprojects that were determinedto have "no effect" on bull trout or their habitator projectsthat were coveredunder programmatic consultations.