J.6c. NMFS Section 7 combined.pdf

WEST COAST REGION

PROGRAMMATIC TRACKING & RESPONSE FORM

Project Name: ________________________________________________________________________

PROGRAMMATIC #: ___________________________

RCV’D DATE: ___________________________________

6th Field HUC: ___________________________________

Acres of Habitat Protected: __________________________ Lead Action Agency: ________________________________ Action Agency Contact: ______________________________ Project Biologist: _________________________________

NMFS TRACKING #:_______________________________

RESPONSE DATE:______________________________

Statutory Authority:

ESA only EFH only ESA & EFH

Applicant________________________________________ Agency Reference No.: _____________________________

NMFS Species/Critical Habitat Present in Action Area:

Identify the species found in the action area:

ESA Species

Upper Willamette River spring-run Chinook MCR steelhead Green sturgeon Upper Willamette River steelhead UCR spring-run Chinook Eulachon Lower Columbia River Chinook UCR steelhead PS Chinook Lower Columbia River steelhead SR spring/summer run Chinook PS Steelhead Lower Columbia River coho SR fall-run Chinook Whale (Killer) Columbia River chum SR steelhead Whale (Humpback) HC Summer-Run Chum SR sockeye

EFH Species Rockfish Bocaccio

Salmon, Chinook Canary Salmon, coho Yelloweye Coastal Pelagics Groundfish

NMFS RESPONSE NMFS

# EFH Conservation Recommendations: ______________

Leavenworth Fish Screens

FPRP III WCRO-2014-00004

11-17-2020

WCRO-2014-00004-2465

11/18/2020

170200110406, Lower Icicle Creek Fish Passage

DOD-USACE

BOR

David Child NWS-2020-279

BAMBRICK.FORREST.D.1365882505

Digitally signed by

BAMBRICK.FORREST.D.1365882505

Date: 2020.11.18 09:43:42 -08'00'

None needed

The project is in all ways consistent with the FPRP. Both the screen and diversion structure design have been thoroughly reviewed by NMFS area office and engineering office. The final designs are responsive to NMFS, WDFW, WDOE, and Tribal (both Yakama and Colville) input.

WEST COAST REGION

PROGRAMMATIC TRACKING & RESPONSE FORM

NMFS TRACKING #:____________________

(CONT.)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232

Refer to NMFS No.:

WCR-2014-1857 June 21, 2017

Michelle Walker Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District PO Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755

Re: Programmatic Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers Permitting of Fish Passage and Restoration Action in Washington State (FPRP III)

Dear Ms. Walker:

The enclosed document contains a programmatic biological opinion (opinion) prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on consultation on the effects of the Seattle District Corps of Engineers permitting of fish passage and restoration actions in the state of Washington (FPRP III). This is the third opinion on the Corps’ permitting of fish passage and restoration actions in Washington.

We issued previous programmatic opinions on similar actions in 2008 and 2014.

We concur with the Corps’ determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (B. physalus), the Mexico and Central America distinct population segments (DPSs) of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), sei whale (B. borealis), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochleys coriacea), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). Except for Southern resident killer whales, the other species mentioned above do not have critical habitat designated in the program action area. We also concur with the Corps’ determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound DPSs of yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), bocaccio (S. paucispinis), and their critical habitat. The Corps did not request informal consultation on the southern DPS of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) or their critical habitat. This species and their critical habitat are likely to overlap with the program action area.

However, our analysis shows, as further documented in this opinion, that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect green sturgeon or their critical habitat.

-2-

NMFS also concluded that the proposed program is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following 16 species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their proposed or designated critical habitats. The Corps did not request formal consultation on eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) or their critical habitat but this species and their critical habitat are found in the program action area and are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Similarly, the Corps did not request formal consultation for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon because most of this species’ habitat is on National Park Service lands. However, the Corps may be requested to issue permits to the Park Service for restoration actions that may affect this species or their critical habitat. Therefore, eulachon and Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are included in this opinion.

1. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

2. Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run Chinook salmon

3. Snake River (SR) spring/summer-run Chinook salmon

4. SR fall-run Chinook salmon

5. Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon

6. Columbia River chum salmon (O. keta)

7. Hood Canal chum salmon

8. LCR coho salmon (O. kisutch)

9. SR sockeye salmon

10. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon

11. LCR steelhead (O. mykiss)

12. Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead

13. UCR steelhead

14. Snake River Basin (SRB) steelhead

15. PS steelhead

16. Southern distinct population segment eulachon

As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS is providing an incidental take statement (ITS) with the opinion. The ITS describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this program. The ITS also sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements, that the Federal action agency 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 the listed species considered in this opinion, except eulachon because we have not yet promulgated an ESA section 4(d) rule prohibiting take of threatened eulachon. However, anticipating that such a rule may be issued in the future, we have included terms and conditions to minimize take of eulachon. These terms and conditions are identical to the terms and conditions required to minimize take of listed salmon and steelhead. Therefore, we expect the Corps will follow these terms and conditions regardless of whether take of eulachon is prohibited. The take exemption for eulachon will take effect on the effective date of any future 4(d) rule prohibiting take of eulachon.

This document also includes the results of our analysis of the program’s likely effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Programmatic Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat

Consultation for the

Fish Passage and Restoration Actions in Washington State (FPRP III)

NMFS Consultation Number: WCR-2014-1857

Action Agency: U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

Affected Species and Determinations:

ESA-Listed Species ESA Status

Is the action likely to adversely affect this species or its critical habitat?

Is the action likely to jeopardize this species?

Is the action likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for this species?

Blue whale E No No NA Mexico DPS of humpback whale T No No NA Central America DPS of humpback whale E No No NA Fin whale E No No NA Sei whale E No No NA Southern resident killer whale T No No No Leatherback sea turtle E No No NA Loggerhead sea turtle E No No NA Olive ridley sea turtle E No No NA Green sea turtle T No No NA Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon T Yes No No Puget Sound Chinook salmon T Yes No No Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon E Yes No No Snake River spring/summer run Chinook salmon T Yes No No Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon T Yes No No Columbia River chum salmon T Yes No No Lower Columbia River coho salmon T Yes No No Puget Sound steelhead T Yes No No Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon T Yes No No Snake River sockeye salmon E Yes No No Lake Ozette sockeye salmon T Yes No No Lower Columbia River steelhead T Yes No No Middle Columbia River steelhead T Yes No No Upper Columbia River steelhead T Yes No No Snake River Basin steelhead T Yes No No Southern green sturgeon T No No No Eulachon T Yes No No Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish T No No No Puget Sound/Georgia Basin bocaccio E No No No

-i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Consultation History

1.3 Proposed Action

1.3.1 Description of the Action Categories

1. Action consistent with Limit 8 but may affect endangered species in addition to threatened species

2. Fish Passage Restoration or Improvement

3. Installation of In-Water Habitat Structures and Streambank Stabilization

Features

4. Levee Removal, Levee Modification, and Public Access Facilities

5. Channel Restoration and Reconnection

6. Salmonid Spawning Gravel Restoration and In-Channel Nutrient

Supplementation

7. Beach Nourishment, Bioengineered or Living Shorelines, and Beneficial Use of Landslide Material

8. Livestock Crossings

9. Irrigation Screen Installation and Replacement

10. Debris and Structure Removal

11. Mitigation and Conservation Bank Construction

12. Riparian Invasive Plant Removal

1.3.2 General Conservation Measures that Apply to ALL Restoration Actions GCM 1 Pre-Construction Activities GCM 2 Construction Requirements GCM 3 Equipment and Barge Use GCM 4 Planting and Erosion Control GCM 5 Water Quality GCM 6 Turbidity Monitoring GCM 7 Piling GCM 8 Treated Wood GCM 9 Listed Species Considerations GCM 10 Minor Project Modifications

1.4 Action Area

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE

STATEMENT

2.1 Analytical Approach

2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat

2.2.1 Status of the Species

2.2.2 Status of the Critical Habitats

2.3 Environmental Baseline

2.4 Effects of the Action

2.4.1 Effects of the Action on ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead

2.4.2 Effects of the Action on ESA-Listed Eulachon

2.4.3 Effects of the Action on Designated Critical Habitat

-ii-

2.5 Cumulative Effects

2.6 Integration and Synthesis

2.6.1 Species at the Population Scale

2.6.2 Critical Habitat at the Watershed Scale

2.7 Conclusion

2.8 Incidental Take Statement

2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take

2.8.2 Effect of the Take

2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures

2.8.4 Terms and Conditions

2.9 Conservation Recommendations

2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation

2.11 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations

3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project

3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations

3.4 Statutory Response Requirement

3.5 Supplemental Consultation

4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .. 123

5. LITERATURE CITED

Appendix A: FPRP Programmatic Email Guidelines and Implementation Forms

-1-

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 programmatic 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 USC 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

In 2001, NMFS and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, together the Services) completed formal programmatic consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on Four Categories of Fish Passage Restoration Activities in Western Washington (the 2001 Fish Passage Restoration Programmatic, NMFS Tracking No.: WSB-01-197). A few years later, it became clear that this programmatic was so detailed and put so many restrictions on how projects could be constructed, that there was little incentive for project sponsors to use the programmatic rather than seek individual consultation. In meetings with stakeholders and the Corps, the Services collected information on how to improve on the 2001 Fish Passage Restoration Programmatic (FPRP) consultation. The Corps and the Services used this information in 2007 and 2008 to develop a new programmatic consultation for fish passage and restoration actions (refer to: NWR-2008-3598). On January 16, 2014, we issued a new one-year biological opinion to the Corps for their permitting of fish passage and restoration actions in Washington State (refer to NWR-2014-10665). This opinion was nearly identical to our 2008 opinion.

With the completion of several species recovery plans, restoration actions needed to achieve recovery for several listed fishes have become clearer. Along with the recovery plans, many groups have developed, working under the Washington State process for habitat restoration led by the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), specific plans prioritizing restoration actions for their watersheds. The RCO’s process includes 3-year implementation schedules of recovery actions for specific watersheds that are used by Lead Entities to prioritize funding. In addition to the RCO’s process, several programmatic consultations to support habitat restoration [for example, invasive plant treatment programs by the United States Forest Service

-2-

(FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)] have been developed. This proposed action for a statewide restoration programmatic covering listed species under the responsibility of NMFS would address fish passage and restoration actions that trigger Corps permitting, some of which are not addressed in any of the existing restoration programmatic consultations.

In 2007, NMFS approved the Washington State conservation program for habitat restoration under ESA section 4d Limit 8, which has become the framework for the RCO’s process. For endangered species, we see this programmatic consultation with the Corps as mirroring the Limit 8 process for actions common to the RCO program and the Corp’s proposed action. The Corps’ proposed action also includes more types of habitat restoration actions.

On December 17, 2014, we received a letter dated December 10, 2014, requesting programmatic formal and informal consultation on a new proposed action to permit fish passage and restoration activities in Washington State. The proposed action has been refined from the Corps’ 2008 and 2013 proposals and several new categories of restoration actions have been added. A programmatic biological assessment was attached to the letter. Consultation was initiated on December 17, 2015.

The Corps determined the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Fin whale (B. physalus), Mexico and Central America DPSs of Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Sei whale (B. borealis), Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochleys coriacea), Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Southern resident killer whales and the other species mentioned above do not have critical habitat designated in the program action area. The Corps also determined the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound distinct population segments (DPSs) of canary rockfish (S. pinniger), rockfish (S. ruberrimus), bocaccio (S. paucispinis), and their critical habitat. The Corps did not request informal consultation on the southern DPS of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) or their critical habitat. This species and their critical habitat are likely to overlap with the program action area. However, our analysis shows, as further documented in Section 2.11, that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect green sturgeon or their critical habitat.

The Corps concludes the proposed action is likely to adversely affect the following list of species and their proposed or designated critical habitats. The Corps did not request consultation on eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) or their critical habitat but this species and their critical habitat are found in the program action area and are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Therefore, they are included in this opinion.

1. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

2. Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run Chinook salmon

3. Snake River (SR) spring/summer-run Chinook salmon

4. SR fall-run Chinook salmon

5. Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon

6. Columbia River chum salmon (O. keta)

7. Hood Canal chum salmon

-3-

8. LCR coho salmon (O. kisutch)

9. SR sockeye salmon

10. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon

11. LCR steelhead (O. mykiss)

12. Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead

13. UCR steelhead

14. Snake River Basin (SRB) steelhead

15. PS steelhead

16. Southern distinct population segment eulachon

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). For this consultation, the proposed action is the Corps’ permitting of stream restoration and fish passage activities regulated under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including Nationwide Permit 27, or that are carried out by the Corps as part of civil works programs authorized by sections 206, 536, and 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act in Washington State. Use of the Fish Passage and Restoration Programmatic III (FPRP) will ensure that the Corps’ regulatory oversight of these aquatic habitat restoration actions will continue to meet requirements of the ESA and MSA with procedures that are simpler to use, efficient, and accountable for all parties.

The Corps is proposing to use the FPRP for twelve categories of actions related to aquatic habitat restoration, including mitigation and conservation bank construction, which is an addition from previous versions of this programmatic. There are two potential pathways of review that would qualify an action for consideration as a restoration action that could receive Section 7 and MSA Essential Fish Habitat coverage under the FPRP.

The first pathway of review is for projects that are consistent with the Limit 8 process but cannot qualify for inclusion under that limit because the action could result in a take of endangered species (Limit 8 only applies to threatened species). Limit 8 takes advantage of the well documented and proven Washington State process for review, approval, and funding of habitat restoration projects under the Salmon Recovery Funding Board multi-tiered and multi-year process overseen by the state Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). This review process includes local and regional reviews to ensure consistency with approved recovery plans and a high likelihood of effectiveness with minimal potential for adverse effects during construction.

Because Lead Entities develop proposed restoration actions according to the current state technical guidance (WDFW 2016), which is peer-reviewed and adjusted per results of ongoing monitoring for effectiveness (RCO 2016), NMFS has assurance that relevant design criteria are sufficient to minimize potential adverse effects. A project sponsor would vet an action under this or a similar process and agrees to complete the action using all applicable state technical guidance as shown below, or the most updated version. This guidance includes:

Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2015. National Large Wood Manual: Assessment, Planning, Design, and Maintenance of Large Wood in Fluvial

-4-

Ecosystems: Restoring Process, Function, and Structure. 628 pages + Appendix. Available:

www.usbr.gov/pn/.

USBR (2016). Rock Weir Design Guidance. Technical Service Center, Denver, CO.

USBR (2007). Qualitative evaluation of rock weir field performance and failure mechanisms.

Technical Service Center, Denver, CO.

USBR (2009). Quantitative investigation of the field performance of rock weirs. Technical Service Center, Denver, CO.

WDFW Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (SHRG), 2012 WDFW Water Crossing Design Guidelines (WCDG), 2013 WDFW Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (ISPG), 2002 WDFW Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines (MSDG), 2014 NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design, 2011 WSDOT Pile Driving Guidance, 2008

The second acceptable pathway of review is for projects that fit within one of the remaining 11 action categories (#2-12, below) and comply with all conservation measures for that category. To ensure suitable project design, the proposed action may require specific review by an engineer or NMFS technical staff depending on the activity type. The descriptions of each action category will specify if review is required and by whom.

1.3.1 Description of the Action Categories

The Corps proposes to permit riverine, lacustrine, wetland, estuarine and marine restoration activities designed to maintain, enhance and restore aquatic functions as well as projects specifically designed to recover listed fishes. Design constraints described below are found in Washington state technical guidelines, as described in Section 1.3, and also taken from other programmatic consultations to strive for consistency across programs. Actions covered by this programmatic consultation are fish passage and habitat restoration projects that include one or a combination of the following restoration action categories:

1. Action Consistent with Limit 8 but May Affect Endangered Species in Addition to Threatened Species.

2. Fish Passage Restoration or Improvement

3. Installation of In-Water Habitat Structures and Streambank Stabilization Features

4. Levee Removal, Levee Modification, and Public Access Facilities

5. Channel Restoration and Reconnection

6. Salmonid Spawning Gravel Restoration

7. Beach Nourishment, Bioengineered or Living Shorelines, and Beneficial Use of

Landslide Material

8. Installation of Livestock Crossings

9. Irrigation Screen Installation and Replacement

10. Debris and Structure Removal

11. Mitigation and Conservation Bank Construction

12. Invasive Plant Control

-5-

1. Action consistent with Limit 8 but may affect endangered species in addition to threatened species.

Description This action is identical, with one exception, to the proposed action described in in our biological opinion (refer to NMFS No.: NWR-2006-5601) on qualification of the Washington State Habitat Restoration programs under limit 8 of the 4(d) protective rule for listed salmon and steelhead (56 FR 42422). The only difference is the inclusion of endangered species as well as threatened species. Under this action category, the Corps proposes to issue permits to projects that qualify for Limit 8 but may affect endangered species as well as threatened species (Limit 8 only addresses threatened species).

The habitat restoration program, covered under Limit 8 includes six action categories:

1. Instream passage

2. Instream diversion screening

3. Instream habitat

4. Riparian habitat restoration

5. Upland habitat restoration or protection

6. Estuarine and marine nearshore habitat restoration

Exclusions Any project that does not meet all of the requirements for coverage under the Limit 8 are excluded from this category.

Conservation Measures To be covered under this category, a project must meet all of the requirements of Washington’s Habitat Restoration program as qualified under Limit 8. These requirements are listed in the NMFS biological opinion dated February 28, 2007 and incorporated here by reference (refer to NMFS No.: NWR-2006-5601).

2. Fish Passage Restoration or Improvement

Description The objective of passage barrier removal is to allow all life stages of salmonids and other applicable ESA listed fishes access to historical habitats from which they have been excluded by nonfunctioning drainage structures (road, trail, and railroad crossings) and water impoundments (tide gates, temporary dams). Typical construction methods involve the use of equipment to excavate and remove existing structures and/or place new structures in the channel, and conduct associated channel improvements. Temporary structures such as culverts or bridges or placement of fill necessary for construction access are included provided that they will be completely removed at project completion.

Exclusions

1. Projects must comply with the specific exclusions for each action subcategory listed below.

-6-

Conservation Measures

1. Projects must comply with the general conservation measures (GCMs) listed in the

General Conservation Measures section of this FPRP as well as the specific conservation measures for each action subcategory listed below.

Replacement and/or Relocation of Existing Causeways with Elevated Structures

Existing causeways, which are often placed on fill that disrupt passage of fish and other aquatic species, water, and large wood at road, trail, or railroad crossings, will be replaced with elevated structures and longer spanning bridges. These new structures will allow for significantly improved ecosystem functions including debris/sediment flow, channel movement, habitat connectivity, tidal exchange, and passage for aquatic organisms. The bridges and causeways may be replaced with slightly wider structures to accommodate safety improvements and pedestrian and bike lanes. A small increase in width of a structure is overall less impacting when evaluated together with elevating and spanning a waterway to a larger extent. Elevating and providing longer spans for a structure is likely to result in fewer in-water structures, more of the structure being above the high water mark or high tide level, and less shading. Causeways may be relocated to restore a more natural stream or delta alignment.

Depending on the specific project, the timing and sequence of any of these work elements may vary and may span more than one construction season. The number of piles to be driven to support the new structure will depend to a large measure on pile diameter, the length of the elevated structure, and load to be carried. Pile driving may only occur if it is in uplands or where an existing or temporary dike isolates the pile driving from an adjacent water body.

Construction methods typically include the use of heavy equipment and barges, construction of bypass channels, and pile driving/drilling.

Exclusions

1. Causeway replacements associated with any increase in road or rail capacity are not covered under this consultation. Causeways may be widened to bring existing road and railroad crossings up to modern safety standards provided that there is no related increase in vehicle capacity and the action improves ecosystem functions.

2. This action subcategory is excluded for projects requiring a Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization for an ESA-listed marine mammals. For projects requiring removal or installation of a large number of pilings, please refer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, West Coast Region, Marine Mammal webpage.

3. In-water pile driving is excluded.

1. Projects must comply with the GCMs listed in the General Conservation Measures section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measure.

2. Installation of piling either in uplands or where an existing or temporary dike isolates the pile driving from an adjacent water body is covered under the proposed action.

-7-

Road Crossing Replacement, Relocation, or Removal

Description Existing road crossings are frequently too small to accommodate high flows and associated debris and thus can create mass slope failures from blockages during floods or create barriers to upstream movement of salmonids. Three physical circumstances can also result from improperly installed road crossings: 1) confinement of a stream which does not allow natural channel movement and channel formation; 2) “perching” where the substrate at the outlet end of the crossing is eroded away and forms a waterfall, or turbulent chute, that is impassable to upstream movement of salmonids, and 3) installation in a configuration that does not provide for fish passage, such as being too steep, sheet flow across a concrete apron, debris racks at the inlet, debris jam or active headcut within the crossing. Road crossings will be replaced with bridges or culverts, appropriately sized to provide for passage of fish, sediment, and woody debris. Design alternatives in order of their preference is as follows:

Decommission and fully restore the crossing Bridge Open bottom culvert Closed bottom culvert (box or round) Squashed pipe

The stream simulation design method should be used at all road crossings unless there is a

(1) strong rationale for using an alternative design method and (2) the alternative design method will provide equal or better passage for salmonids at all life stages. Professional engineering justification for alternative designs must be provide in writing to NMFS and are subject to NMFS engineering review and certification. While culverts may be replaced with slightly longer culverts to accommodate safety improvements and pedestrian and bike lanes, vehicle capacity improvements are not covered in the FPRP. Culverts may be relocated to restore a natural stream alignment. Typical construction methods involve use of excavating equipment to remove existing structures and/or place new structures per Barnard et al.

(2013).

Exclusions

1. Culvert replacements associated with any increase in road capacity are not covered under this programmatic. Culverts may be lengthened to bring existing roads up to modern safety standards provided that there is no related increase in road capacity and the action improves fish passage.

2. Stream simulation designs (Barnard et al 2013) longer than 150 feet unless written approval from the relevant tribal government (if applicable) is provided with the Project Information Form (Appendix A) submittal.

3. No-slope culverts longer than 75ft. Hydraulic design culverts longer than 75ft.

4. Crossing in tidally influenced areas that cannot provide full tidal exchange through the crossing.

5. Projects containing grade control consisting of anything other than rock or wood are excluded from this programmatic.

-8-

1. Projects must comply with the GCMs listed in the General Conservation Measures section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measures.

2. When a series of barriers in one drainage is scheduled to be addressed within the same project year, work will start at the most upstream barrier. This way, the work at the upstream sites can be done without listed fish in the action area. If these barriers will be addressed over several years, the work will be conducted from downstream to upstream.

3. All designs will demonstrate that ecological functions including bedload movement, large wood and other debris movement, and flood flows, including anticipated flows into the future for the design life of the culvert can occur as appropriate to the site.

4. Road crossings will be designed to provide upstream and downstream passage for juvenile and adult salmonids and downstream movement of sediment and woody debris using the design criteria set forth in the most current version of the NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Fish Facility design manual (NMFS 2011a or subsequent version) or the WDFW technical guidance manual Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage (Barnard et

al. 2013).

5. Grade control structures will provide fish passage for juvenile and adult salmonids and other applicable ESA-listed fishes and will be designed to the most current version of the NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Fish Facility design manual (NMFS 2011a or subsequent version) or WDFW’s fish passage criteria for salmon and trout (Barnard et al. 2013). See action subcategory: Channel Reconstruction and Grade Control for additional requirements related to grade control actions.

6. Tidally Influenced Crossings: The stream simulation method of road crossing design is inappropriate for tidal crossings. The crossing span must facilitate full tidal exchange to be approved. Professional engineering justification for a tidally influenced road crossing design must be provide in writing to NMFS. Designs will be reviewed and certified by NMFS engineering.

7. Bridges: For crossings where the bankfull width exceeds 20ft the required span for fish passage is project and site specific. Bridge sizing follows sizing requirement and habitat recommendations found in chapter 4 of Barnard (et al. 2013). NMFS engineering review and certification is required.

8. Stream Simulation Design: This design can be achieved with either a bridge or culvert as the crossing structure (see potential exclusion parameters for culverts in the Exclusion section of this action). Projects are defined by a bankfull width that is less than 20ft.

Project designs for stream simulation will meet the WDFW (Barnard et al. 2013) design standards for width (for confined to moderately confined channels: width of the crossing bed to equal 1.2 * bankfull width + 2 feet. Minimum embedment depth for closed bottom pipes is 3ft. All other design criteria can be found in chapter 3 of Barnard et al. (2013) or NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Fish Facility design manual (NMFS 2011a or subsequent version). Stream simulation culverts longer than 150ft require NMFS engineering review and certification.

9. Hydraulic Design Method: A design process that matches the hydraulic performance of a culvert with the swimming abilities of a target species and age class of fish. Hydraulic design shall only be used where stream simulation or no-slope designs are not feasible or applicable. Professional engineering justification for a hydraulic design must be provide in writing to NMFS. NMFS engineering will certify that hydraulic designs actions meet

-9-the conditions of this programmatic consultation. This design method may be applied to the design of new and replacement culverts and may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of retrofits of existing culverts. Design criteria can be found in chapter 6 of Barnard et al.

(2013).

10. No-Slope Design Method: This method provides a simplified design methodology that is intended to provide a culvert of sufficient size and embedment to allow the natural movement of bedload and the formation of a stable bed inside the culvert. It is intended for use only at low risk sites in low gradient streams where the bankfull width < 10ft (Barnard et al. 2013). This design shall only be used where a stream simulation design is not feasible or applicable. Professional engineering justification for a no-slope design must be provide in writing to NMFS and may be subject to NMFS engineering review and certification. Applicable design criteria can be found in chapter 2 of Barnard et al.

(2013).

11. For any design, the proponent will demonstrate that the design condition can be maintained over the expected life of the culvert. This includes maintaining placed bed material in, above and downstream of the culvert.

12. All sites will have a maintenance plan appended to the Project Information Form that assures the culvert will be in design condition prior to each fish passage season.

13. Bridge footings will be located outside of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).

14. Hard bank stabilization at crossing structures will be minimized and limited to the amount necessary to avoid erosion at the new culvert.

Retrofitting Road Crossings

Description Where crossing replacement is not currently feasible due to funding or other limits, crossings may be temporarily retrofitted in the short term to improve passage by installing structures including baffles and geomorphic appropriate hydraulic control (i.e. riffle, step, or cascade) to backwater the crossing outlet. These temporary measures should be considered for a life span of no more than three years.

None for this action subcategory.

section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measures.

2. Projects will be retrofitted to meet the most current version of the NMFS Anadromous

Salmonid Passage Facility design manual (NMFS 2011a or subsequent version) or WDFW’s fish passage criteria for salmon and trout (Barnard et al. 2013).

3. Hydraulic control downstream of the crossing outlet must maintain a minimum 1ft of depth at the crossing outlet at the low fish passage design flow. Low fish passage design flow is found in CH6 of Barnard (et al. 2013).

4. Culvert depth is provided through designing a downstream grade control structure that backwaters the culvert. This control is designed to mimic the geomorphology of the adjacent channel. Very generally this would include riffles, steps, or cascades. Please

-10-refer to subcategory Channel Reconstruction and Grade Control for additional requirements related to grade control actions.

5. NMFS engineering will certify that retrofit design actions meet the conditions of this programmatic consultation.

6. Projects will be part of a commitment to a long-term solution. A culvert can be retrofitted if a long-term solution is already scheduled and funded, and meets the most current version of the NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility design manual.

7. All retrofitted culverts will have a maintenance plan that assures that the fishway will be maintained to provide original design conditions prior to each fish passage season, if fish passage conditions change on a yearly basis, and inspected at least after every 10-year flow event. The maintenance plan must be appended to the Project Information Form.

Road Crossing Removal

Removal of unnecessary road crossings to improve salmonid access and habitat functions.

None for this action subcategory section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measures.

2. Where extensive grade control is required to stabilize the re-constructed channel, there may be unforeseen adverse effects on passage conditions. See action subcategory:

Channel Reconstruction and Grade Control for additional requirements related to grade control actions. When a series of barriers in one drainage is scheduled to be addressed within the same project year, work will start at the most upstream barrier. This way, the work at the more upstream sites can be done without listed fish in the action area. If these barriers will be addressed over several years, the work will be conducted from downstream to upstream.

Removal of Tidegates/Floodgates; Replacement of Tidegates/Floodgates in Setback Levees

Description This action subcategory includes the removal of tidegates and floodgates to restore salmonid access to historic estuarine and floodplain habitats. This subcategory also includes tidegate and floodgate replacement in conjunction with levee setback projects (see action category:

Levee Modification and Removal). When proposing a levee setback to restore habitat and the original levee has tidegates, the tidegates may be re-installed in the setback dike, if necessary, to protect infrastructure or private property behind the setback dike. If the dike is completely removed, the tidegate may be re-installed in a setback location. If tidegates are moved back to open up habitat, the applicant will propose a fish-optimum tide gate for the specific location.

-11-

1. Tidegate and floodgate replacement are not covered under this programmatic unless they are a component of a broader-scale habitat restoration action or with a setback levee.

2. Tidegates and floodgates that would restrict fish passage, duration and stage of inundation to lower standards than base line, pre-restoration conditions, are not covered.

Conservation Measures

1. Projects must comply with the GCMs listed in the General Conservation Measures section of this proposed action as well as the following conservation measures.

2. The setback tidegate or floodgate operability will allow for maximum possible fish passage and duration and stage of inundation for the specific location.

3. NMFS engineering review and certification is required for projects that have an active migration passage component through a gated pipe. This is defined as projects where adult or juvenile salmonids require access to upstream freshwater habitats or access to adjacent sloughs for rearing through tide or flood gates.

4. Tide gates that only function to provide egress passage from behind overtopped levees are designed with side hinge lightweight gates made of fiberglass or aluminum.

5. A maintenance plan will be required to assure the passage restoration action remains within design conditions.

Removal or Modification of Sediment Bars or Terraces that Block or Delay Salmonid Migrations

Description A variety of geologic processes, including natural landslides and land use practices such as timber land management, agriculture and urban development have resulted in increased delivery of generally fine grained size sediment to streams. This sediment can accumulate in low velocity areas and contribute to widening of stream mouths, forming bars or terraces.

Typically, the bar or terrace can spread the streamflow into finely braided or sheet flow patterns, forming low flow fish passage barriers. These temporary blockage points often provide impaired fish passage and opportunities for illegal snagging of holding adult salmon.

This action subcategory is intended to allow a one-time limited removal of sediment to restore flow conditions and allow for fish passage.

1. Sediment bar and terrace excavation is not allowed in existing or potential salmonid spawning habitats, or in areas where it could cause headcutting that could damage spawning habitats.

section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measures.

2. Remove only the minimum amount of sediment to achieve adequate fish passage. The maximum amount of material allowed to be removed from a passage impediment is 100 cubic yards.

-12-

3. If the removed material contains more than 60% silt or clay it will be disposed of in uplands. Material with more than 40% gravel will be deposited within the active floodplain, but not in wetlands. Material with more than 50% gravel and less than 30% fines (silt or clay) may be deposited below the OHWM. If material is deposited below the OHWM the applicant will explain the expected benefits in the Project Information Form.

4. If the removed material is suitable for spawning it may be used within the watershed for spawning gravel supplementation including below dams and in sediment-starved reaches.

5. If removal of sediment at the same location is proposed for a second time within ten years, an induvial consultation on sediment management will be required.

Temporary Placement of Sandbags, Hay Bales, and Large Concrete Blocks to Improve Salmonid Passage

Description Base flows have been observed to decrease in some stream reaches, likely triggered by a mixture of natural processes and land use practices such as agriculture, including irrigation and urban and residential development. Temporary placement of sandbags, hay bales, and large concrete blocks with plastic sheeting have been successful in providing short-term fish passage, especially in Eastern Washington. These are techniques to temporarily restore fish passage where deemed necessary by a state or federal agency or Tribe during seasonal low flow periods.

Exclusions

1. This action subcategory is not allowable in existing or potential salmonid spawning habitats, or in areas where it could cause headcutting that could damage spawning habitats.

section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measure.

2. All material placed in the stream channel to aid fish passage will be removed prior to the main spawning period.

Construction of Structures to Provide Passage over Small Dams and Other Manmade Barriers

Description Structures such as diversion dams often present partial or complete barriers to fish passage.

This action subcategory allows construction/placement of fishway structures at existing dams to improve or restore permanent fish passage. Design preference is based on project type, level of maintenance, and required monitoring essential for reliable fish passage. Typical designs include channel spanning morphologic based or concrete sill grade control (see subcategory Channel Reconstruction and Grade Control) and technical fishways, to include pool and chute and pool and weir designs. Guidelines for technical fishway designs are located in NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design (NMFS 2011a or the most recent version)

-13-

1. This action subcategory is limited to use on existing manmade structures of no more than

10 feet in height from the channel bed to the spillway crest. Projects creating passage over larger structures are excluded.

2. Passage structures associated with new dams or barriers are excluded.

Conservation Measures

1. Projects must comply with the GCMs listed in the General Conservation Measures section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measures.

2. NMFS engineering will certify all fishway designs where the project exceeds 3feet between the upstream bottom of the dam and the spillway crest, to ensure consistency with NMFS fish passage guidelines. Review will include any appurtenant facilities (i.e., fish counting equipment, pit tag detectors, lighting, trash racks, attraction water, etc.) that may be included within the project.

3. Where extensive grade control is required to provide fish passage and stabilize the re-constructed channel, there may be unforeseen adverse effects on passage conditions. See action subcategory: Channel Reconstruction and Grade Control for additional requirements related to grade control actions.

4. The design of fishways will follow the appropriate design standards in the most current version of the NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility design manual.

Removal of Dams and Other Manmade Barriers

This subcategory includes the removal of small dams and other manmade barriers to fish passage. Small dams, weirs, and other structures constructed for irrigation diversions, private ponds, and other purposes are widespread throughout Washington State. This action subcategory allows the removal of these structures to restore fish passage and natural channel conditions. Typical construction methods are likely to include temporary fish exclusion and dewatering, followed by the excavation of accumulated sediments and demolition of the structure using heavy equipment. The action may include the installation of grade control engineered log jams, boulder weirs, and soft bank stabilization features to stabilize the restored channel (see action category: Installation of In-Water Habitat Structures).

Exclusions

1. This action subcategory is limited to manmade structures no more than 25 feet high from channel bed to overtopping crest. Structures and impoundments exceeding this dimension are not covered under this programmatic.

section of this FPRP as well as the following conservation measures.

2. Structures greater than 3 m (10 feet) in height (measured at the upstream side of the structure at the approximate centerline of the stream) require a long-term monitoring and adaptive management plan that will be developed between the Action Agencies. The monitoring and adaptive management (MMA) is submitted to NMFS and is reviewed by

-14-

NMFS biologists and engineering for comment and final certification before it can be covered under this programmatic. The MMA includes the following:

a. Introduction

b. Project review team members; to include a NMFS biologist and engineer.

c. Existing monitoring protocols

d. Project effectiveness monitoring plan

e. Project review team triggering conditions

f. Monitoring frequency, timing, and duration

g. Monitoring technique protocols

h. Data storage and analysis

i. Monitoring quality assurance plan

3. Where extensive grade control is required to stabilize the re-constructed channel, there may be unforeseen adverse effects on passage conditions. See action subcategory:

Channel Reconstruction and Grade Control for additional requirements related to grade control actions.

4. The cross-sectional area, slope, and roughness of the new channel and floodplain will approximate these features as found in the channel above and below the dam.

Constructed channels and floodplains should follow the requirements of this programmatic for channel restoration and reconnection (Category 4, below)

5. If accumulated sediments in the impoundment contain more than 60 percent silt or clay they will be excavated and disposed of in uplands.