UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 Refer to NMFS No: WCR-2020-00007 June 30, 2020 Hanh Shaw Water Quality Standards Unit Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155 Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the proposed EPA promulgation of freshwater aquatic life criteria for aluminum in Oregon Dear Ms. Shaw: Thank you for your letter of January 2, 2020, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to promulgate freshwater aquatic life criteria for aluminum in Oregon. This consultation was conducted in accordance with the 2019 revised regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402, 84 FR 45016). Thank you, also, for your request for consultation pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)(16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) for this action. In your request, EPA asked NMFS to concur with their determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the Southern Distinct Population Segment (sDPS) of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). NMFS did not concur with the EPA’s determination. Rather, NMFS determined the proposed action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the sDPS green sturgeon. Accordingly, we address sDPS of green sturgeon and our rationale for our non- concurrence in the biological opinion (Opinion) portion of the document. In this Opinion, NMFS concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following 18 species or result in the destruction or modification of their critical habitats: 1. Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 2 2. Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon 3. Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon 4. Snake River Spring/summer-run Chinook salmon 5. Snake River Fall Chinook salmon 6. Columbia River Chum salmon (O. keta) 7. Lower Columbia River Coho salmon (O. kisutch) 8. Oregon Coast Coho salmon 9. Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho salmon 10. Snake River Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) 11. Lower Columbia River Steelhead (O. mykiss) 12. Upper Willamette River Steelhead 13. Middle Columbia River Steelhead 14. Upper Columbia River Steelhead 15. Snake River Basin Steelhead 16. sDPS Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) 17. sDPS Green Sturgeon 18. Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS provides an incidental take statement (ITS) with the Opinion. The ITS describes reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action. The take statement sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements, that the EPA and any permittee who performs any portion of the action must comply with to carry out the RPM. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA take prohibition. This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action’s effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and includes three Conservation Recommendations to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on EFH. These Conservation Recommendations include a subset of the ESA Terms and Conditions. Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA requires federal agencies provide a detailed written response to NMFS within 30 days after receiving these recommendations. If the response is inconsistent with the EFH Conservation Recommendations, the EPA must explain why the recommendations will not be followed, including the justification for any disagreements over the effects of the action and the recommendations. In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many Conservation Recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, NMFS asks that you clearly identify the number of Conservation Recommendations accepted. 3 Please contact Johnna Sandow, Fish Biologist in the Southern Snake Branch, at (208) 378-5737 or at [email protected] if you have any questions concerning this consultation, or if you require additional information. Sincerely, Michael Tehan Assistant Regional Administrator Interior Columbia Basin Office Enclosure cc: M. Jankowski – EPA R. Labiosa – EPA P. Henson – USFWS M. Lopez - NPT D. Pigsley – CTSIO M. Ingersoll – CTCLUSI C. Kennedy – CTGRCO B. Meade – CIT D. Courtney – CCBUTI D. Gentry – KT G. Burke – CTUIR E. Green - CTWSR Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Federal Promulgation of Freshwater Aluminum Aquatic Life Criteria in Oregon NMFS Consultation Number: 2020-00007 Action Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Affected Species and NMFS’ Determinations: Is Action Is Action Is Action Is Action Likely to Likely To Likely to Likely To Adversely Destroy or ESA-Listed Species Status Adversely Jeopardize Affect Adversely Affect the Critical Modify Critical Species? Species? Habitat? Habitat? Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon Threatened Yes No Yes No (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon Threatened Yes No Yes No (O. tshawytscha) Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon Endangered Yes No Yes No (O. tshawytscha) Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon Threatened Yes No Yes No (O. tshawytscha) Snake River fall Chinook salmon Threatened Yes No Yes No (O. tshawytscha) Columbia River chum salmon (O. keta) Threatened Yes No Yes No Lower Columbia River coho salmon (O. kisutch) Threatened Yes No Yes No Oregon Coast coho salmon (O. kisutch) Threatened Yes No Yes No Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho Threatened Yes No Yes No salmon (O. kisutch) Snake River sockeye salmon (O. nerka) Endangered Yes No Yes No Lower Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Yes No Yes No Upper Willamette River steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Yes No Yes No Middle Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Yes No Yes No Upper Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Yes No Yes No Snake River Basin steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Yes No Yes No Green sturgeon, Southern (Acipencer medirostris) Threatened Yes No Yes No Eulachon, Southern (Thaleichthys pacificus) Threatened Yes No Yes No Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Endangered Yes No Yes No Fishery Management Plan That Does Action Have an Adverse Are EFH Conservation Identifies EFH in the Project Area Effect on EFH? Recommendations Provided? Pacific Coast Salmon Yes Yes Pacific Coast groundfish Yes Yes Coastal pelagic species Yes Yes Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: Michael Tehan Assistant Regional Administrator Date: June 30, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. III TABLE OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... IV ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................................. VI 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 CONSULTATION HISTORY ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ........................................................................................................................... 4 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 RANGEWIDE STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ..................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Status of the Species ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.2.1.1 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ..................................................................................................