United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office - Spokane 11103 East Montgomery Drive Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 January 30, 2018 Erin Chipps Environmental Protections Specialist Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 E. Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661 Subject: Idaho Panhandle National Forests Roads and Bridges Repair Project—Bonner County, Idaho—Biological Opinion In Reply Refer to: 01EIFW00-2018-F-0035 Dear Ms. Chipps: Enclosed are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and concurrence with the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) determinations of effect on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, for the proposed Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) Roads and Bridges Repair Project in Bonner County, Idaho. In a letter received by the Service on December 1, 2017, the FHWA requested formal consultation on the determination under section 7 of the Act that the proposed project is likely to adversely affect bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The FHWA determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) and bull trout critical habitat, and requested our concurrence with these determinations. The enclosed Opinion and concurrence are based primarily on our review of the proposed action as described in your December 2017 Biological Assessment (Assessment) and additional emails, as well as the anticipated effects of the action on listed species, and were prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Act. Our Opinion concludes that the proposed project will not jeopardize the survival and recovery of bull trout. A complete record of this consultation is on file at this office. Clean Water Act Requirement Language: This Opinion is also intended to address section 7 consultation requirements for the issuance of any project-related permits required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Use of this letter and Biological Opinion to document that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has fulfilled its responsibilities under section 7 of the Act is contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The action considered by the Corps in their 404 permitting process must be consistent with the proposed project as described in the Assessment such that no detectable difference in the effects of the action on listed species will occur. Erin Chipps, Environmental Protections Specialist 01EIFW00-2018-F-0035 Western Federal Lands Highway Division Idaho Panhandle National Forests Roads and Bridges Repair Project 2. Any terms applied to the 404 permit must also be consistent with conservation measures and terms and conditions as described in the Assessment and addressed in this letter and Biological Opinion. Thank you for your continued interest in the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Please contact Megan Kosterman at (509) 893-8013 if you have questions concerning this Opinion. Sincerely, For Gregory M. Hughes State Supervisor Enclosure cc: IDFG (Siitari) 2 BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE IDAHO PANHANDLE NATIONAL FORESTS ROADS AND BRIDGES REPAIR PROJECT 01EIFW00-2018-F-0035 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IDAHO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON _____________________________________ For Gregory M. Hughes State Supervisor Date __________________________________ Erin Chipps, Environmental Protections Specialist 01EIFW00-2018-F-0035 Western Federal Lands Highway Division Idaho Panhandle National Forests Roads and Bridges Repair Project Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Consultation History .............................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Concurrences ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Bull Trout Critical Habitat ............................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Canada Lynx .................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.3 Grizzly Bear ..................................................................................................................... 9 2. BIOLOGICAL OPINION ........................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Action Area .................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy Determination ...................................................... 17 2.2.1 Jeopardy Determination ................................................................................................. 17 2.3 Status of the Species ............................................................................................................ 18 2.3.1 Listing Status .................................................................................................................. 18 2.3.2 Reasons for Listing and Emerging Threats ..................................................................... 19 2.3.3 Species Description ......................................................................................................... 20 2.3.4 Life History................................................................................................................. 21 2.3.5 Population Dynamics ...................................................................................................... 22 2.3.6 Status and Distribution .................................................................................................... 25 2.3.7 Conservation Needs ........................................................................................................ 30 2.4 Environmental Baseline of the Action Area ........................................................................ 32 2.4.1 Status of Bull Trout in the Action Area ......................................................................... 32 2.4.2 Factors Affecting Bull Trout in the Action Area ............................................................ 39 2.5 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 40 2.6 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 45 2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 45 2.8 Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................................... 46 2.8.1 Form and Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated ......................................................... 47 2.8.2 Effect of the Take ........................................................................................................... 47 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ................................................................................. 48 2.8.4 Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................... 48 5 Erin Chipps, Environmental Protections Specialist 01EIFW00-2018-F-0035 Western Federal Lands Highway Division Idaho Panhandle National Forests Roads and Bridges Repair Project 2.8.5 Reporting and Monitoring Requirement ........................................................................ 48 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 48 2.10 Reinitiation Notice ............................................................................................................. 49 3. LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 50 3.1 Published Literature ............................................................................................................. 50 3.2 In Litteris References .......................................................................................................... 58 3.3 Personal Communications ................................................................................................... 58 List of Tables Table 1. Redd counts within the Lightning Creek drainage, Idaho from 1983 through 2017. Surveys are conducted annually by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. ............................ 37 Table 2. Tributary monitoring results by stream, abundance, and density estimates sampled in 2012 (IDFG 2013)......................................................................................................................... 38 List of Figures Figure 1. Map showing the locations of the Lightning Creek repairs. Red denotes the location of the repair actions (FHWA 2017, p. 5)..........................................................................................