UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 Refer to NMFS No.: WCR-2015-1989 January 26, 2016 Daniel Mathis Federal Highways Administration Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 South Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98501 1284 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the 10th Avenue Bridge Local Programs Funding, Clark County, Washington (HUC 170900120401) Dear Mr. Mathis: The enclosed document contains a conference and biological opinion (opinion) prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) on the effects of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration’s proposal to fund Clark County’s construction of a new bridge over Whipple Creek, to connect NE 10th Avenue between NE 154th Street and NE 164th Street. In this opinion, NMFS concludes that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species: 1. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 2. LCR coho salmon (O. kisutch) 3. LCR steelhead (O. mykiss) NMFS also concluded that the proposed action is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitats designated for any of the above listed fish species, nor proposed critical habitat for LCR coho salmon. As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS is providing an incidental take statement with this opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action. It also sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements, that FHWA and the applicant must comply with to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA’s prohibition against the take of listed species. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History ........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Action Area ......................................................................................................................... 3 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Analytical Approach ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................ 4 2.2.1 Status of the Species ................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Status of the Critical Habitats ................................................................................ 15 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Effects of the Action ......................................................................................................... 20 2.4.1 Effects on Proposed Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 21 2.4.1 Effects on Listed Species ....................................................................................... 24 2.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 27 2.6 Integration and Synthesis .................................................................................................. 28 2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 29 2.8 Incidental Take Statement................................................................................................. 29 2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take ..................................................................................... 29 2.8.2 Effect of the Take .................................................................................................. 30 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ........................................................................ 30 2.8.4 Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................ 30 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 31 2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation ............................................................................................ 31 2.11 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations ......................................................... 32 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION ......................................................................32 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project ................................................................. 33 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................ 33 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations .................................................. 33 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement ...................................................................................... 34 3.5 Supplemental Consultation ............................................................................................... 34 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .....35 5. REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................37 -i- 1. INTRODUCTION This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 1.1 Background The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. We also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. We completed pre-dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-554). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Washington Coastal Area Office. 1.2 Consultation History On January 21, 2015, NMFS received a letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requesting initiation of an informal consultation for a project to fund via Local Programs, Clark County’s construction of a bridge at 10th Avenue improving traffic connection and transportation improvements between NE 154th and NE 164th streets. This project includes stormwater treatment, and mitigation for impacts to vegetation and wetlands. The FHWA determined that the project has No Effect on Pacific Eulachon or their designated critical habitat, nor on the designated critical habitat of Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River steelhead, or Columbia River chum salmon. The FHWA determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect Columbia River chum or Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, nor adversely modify proposed critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho salmon. The FHWA determined that the project is likely to adversely affect Lower Columbia River coho salmon and steelhead, and may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmon. We concur with the FHWA’s “Not Likely” determination on Columbia River chum. We determine that the project is likely to adversely affect Lower Columbia River coho, steelhead, and Chinook salmon, as well as critical habitat designated or proposed for these species. -1- On June 24th, the NMFS staff biologist met with representatives from WSDOT and Clark County to discuss project components, design, and potential impacts to habitat conditions. On July 16th WSDOT provided an email with design revisions to the stormwater outfall to further reduce habitat impacts, and the consultation was initiated. 1.3 Proposed Action “Action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 CFR 402.02). “Interrelated actions” are those that are part of