Responsible entity and legal authority for program

Reviews

Tags

responsible entity, legal authority, government entity, the authority, 40 cfr, policies and procedures, responsible authority, government data, public data, title 24, approved certification, the minnesota, governing body, state board, political subdivision

Stats

views:: 0
rating:: not rated
reviews:: 0
posted:: 9/19/2009
language:: English
pages:: 0

Public Domain

i CLACKAMAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR ROUTINE ROAD MAINTANENCE APPLICATION LIMIT 10 UNDER 4(D) RULES OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 11 JUNE 2009. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS: Part 1: Cover Letter to Regional Administrator of NOAA Fisheries……………………………………. 1 Part 2: Program description and legal authority………………………………………………………….. 2 2a. Description of program…………………………………………………………………………….. 2 2b. Responsible entity and legal authority for program………………………………………………… 2 Part 3: Geographic area where Clackamas County Road Maintenance program is conducted……… 4 3a. List of county roads/locations where maintenance activities may impact streams…………………. 4 3b. Location of critical salmon habitat in the watershed close to county roads…………………………7 3c. Analysis of salmon habitat environmental baseline ……………………………………………… 26 Part 4: Description of listed species distribution and status ………………………………………………34 4a. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)…………………………. 34 4b. Lower Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)…........................................................ 34 4c. Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch)…………………………………………….35 4d. Upper Willamette River Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ………………………………….35 4e. Upper Willamette River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ……………………………………… 36 Part 5: Relevant Reports…………………………………………………………………………………….. 378 5a. Reports on current status of listed Salmonid Species within Clackamas County…………………. 37 5b. Watershed Assessments…………………………………………………………………………… 39 5c. Technical Reference Library………………………………………………………………………. 40 Part 6: Affirmative conclusion that program is as protective as ODOT’s program in its implementation……………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 6a. Training……………………………………………………………………………………………. 41 6b. Monitoring/Tracking………………………………………………………………………………. 42 6c. Documentation/Reporting…………………………………………………………………………. 43 Part 7: Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………………………… 45 List of Tables Table 1. Watersheds with Listed Salmonid Species………………………………………………… 7 Table 2. Riparian Condition of Major Watersheds within Clackamas County………………………..26 Table 3. Summary of 2002 303(d) water quality listings by watershed from ODEQ…………………28 Table 4. Summary of 2004-2006 303(d) water quality listings by HUC watershed from ODEQ…….29 Table 5. Matrix comparing ODOT BMP section activity with Clackamas County implementation … 41 Table 6. Planned Clackamas County Road Maintenance Personnel Training……………………….. 44 List of Figures Figure 1. Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development Organizational Chart…………………………………………………………………………. 3 Figure 2. Clackamas County Fish Friendly Culvert Locations…………………………………………5 iii Figure 3. Identification of Restricted Activity Zones (RAZ) on Clackamas County Roads adjacent to streams……............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Identification of Riparian Management Areas on Clackamas County Roads associated with culverts............................................................................................................………………6 Figure 5. Restricted Area Zones (RAZ) on Clackamas County Roads …………………………… 8 Figure 6. Watersheds within Clackamas County……………………………………………………. 9 Figure 7. Critical Habitat of Chinook Salmon in Lower Columbia River ESU……………………….10 Figure 8. Critical Habitat of Steelhead in Lower Columbia River ESU ……………………………. 11 Figure 9. Critical Habitat of Chinook Salmon in Upper Willamette River ESU ……………………..12 Figure 10. Critical Habitat of Steelhead in Upper Willamette River ESU …………………………..13 Figure 11. Habitat distribution of Spring Chinook Salmon Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County ……….……………………………………………………………… 15 Figure 12. Habitat distribution of Fall Chinook Salmon Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County ……………………………….……………………………………… 16 Figure 13. Habitat distribution of Coho Salmon Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County ……………………………………………….………………………………..… 17 Figure 14. Habitat distribution of Summer Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County ………………………………….………………………………………………….18 Figure 15. Habitat distribution of Winter Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County ………………………………….………………………………………………. 19 Figure 16. Habitat distribution of Spring Chinook Salmon Upper Willamette ESU within Clackamas County ………………………………………………….………………………………. 20 Figure 17. Habitat distribution of Fall Chinook Salmon Upper Willamette River ESU within Clackamas County ………………………………………………………………………. 21 Figure 18. Habitat distribution of Coho Salmon in Upper Willamette River within Clackamas County Oregon…………………………………………………………………………. 22 Figure 19. Habitat distribution of Summer Steelhead Upper Willamette River ESU within Clackamas County ……………………………………..………………………………………………22 Figure 20. Habitat distribution of Winter Steelhead Upper Willamette River ESU within Clackamas County Oregon………………………..……………………………………………………23 Figure 21. Barriers to Fish Passage identified by ODFW……………………………………………..24 Figure 22. ODFW In-water work periods within Clackamas County………………………………. 25 Figure 23. Clackamas County Land Cover. …………………………………………………………. 27 Figure 24. 2002 303(d) listed stream sections within Clackamas County. …………………………… 31 Figure 25. 2004 303(d) listed stream sections within Clackamas County. ………………………….. 32 Figure 26. Locations of streams with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) established by ODEQ ..33 Appendix A. A Guide to Prioritizing Culvert Maintenance Projects for Fish Passage in Clackamas County Oregon………………………………………………………………………………………. 46 Appendix B Maps from NOAA Atlas of Salmon and Steelhead Habitat……………………………… 53 Sandy River: Figure B1. Accessibility within Sandy River Watershed for Lower Columbia River Coho, Spring and Fall Chinook Salmon…………………………..…………………………… 54 Figure B2. Accessibility within Sandy River Watershed for Columbia River Chum Salmon……….. 55 Figure B3. Accessibility within Sandy River Watershed for Lower Columbia River Winter Steelhead……………………………………………………………………… 56 iv Figure B4. Habitat distribution of Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU within the Sandy River Watershed…………………………………………………………….… 57 Figure B5. Habitat distribution of Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon ESU within the Sandy River Watershed………………………………………………..………………58 Figure B6. Habitat distribution of Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon ESU within the Sandy River Watershed………………………………………………………………. 59 Figure B7. Habitat distribution of Lower Columbia River Winter Steelhead ESU within the Sandy River Watershed………………………………………………………….…… 60 Figure B8. Population Density within the Sandy River Watershed ………………………………… 61 Figure B9. Land Cover within the Sandy River Watershed………………………………………… 62 Figure B10. Land Use within the Sandy River Watershed………………………………………….. 63 Figure B11. Land Ownership within the Sandy River Watershed…………………………………….64 Figure B12. Riparian Condition within the Sandy River Watershed………………………………… 65 Figure B13. Water Right withdrawals within the Sandy River Watershed………………………… 66 Clackamas River: Figure B14. Accessibility within the Clackamas River Watershed for Lower Columbia River Coho, Spring and Fall Chinook Salmon…………………………………………………. 67 Figure B15. Accessibility within the Clackamas River Watershed for Columbia River Chum Salmon…………….……………………………………………………………….68 Figure B16. Accessibility within the Clackamas River Watershed for Lower Columbia River Winter Steelhead…………………….………………………………………………… 69 Figure B17. 2002 303d Listed water courses within the Clackamas River Watershed……………… 70 Figure B18. Habitat distribution of Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU within the Clackamas River Watershed………………………………………………………… 71 Figure B19. Habitat distribution of Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon ESU within the Clackamas River Watershed……………………………………………….. 72 Figure B20. Habitat distribution of Lower Columbia River Winter Steelhead ESU within the Clackamas River Watershed……………………………………………….. 73 Figure B21. FEMA Q3 Flood Data within the Clackamas River Watershed………………………… 74 Figure B22. Population Density within the Clackamas River Watershed……………………………. 75 Figure B23. Land Cover within the Clackamas River Watershed………………………………….. 76 Figure B24. Land Use within the Clackamas River Watershed…………………………………….. 77 Figure B25. Land Ownership within the Clackamas River Watershed………………………………. 78 Figure B26. Riparian Condition within the Clackamas River Watershed……………………………. 79 Figure B27. Water Right withdrawals within the Clackamas River Watershed……………………. 80 Molalla River: Figure B28. Accessibility within the Molalla River Watershed for Upper Willamette River ESU Spring Chinook Salmon…………………………….……………………………… 81 Figure B29. Accessibility within the Molalla River Watershed for Upper Willamette River ESU Winter Steelhead. …………………….……………………………………………. 82 Figure B30. 2002 303d Listed water courses within the Molalla River Watershed………………… 83 Figure B31. Habitat distribution of Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook Salmon ESU within the Molalla River Watershed……………………………………….…………….84 Figure B32. Habitat distribution of Upper Willamette River Winter Steelhead ESU within the Molalla River Watershed…………………………………………………….. 85 Figure B33. FEMA Q3 Flood Data within the Molalla River Watershed………………………….. 86 v Figure B34. Figure B35. Figure B36. Figure B37. Figure B38. Figure B39. Population Density within the Molalla River Watershed……………………………… Land Cover within the Molalla River Watershed……………………………………… Land Use within the Molalla River Watershed………………………………………… Land Ownership within the Molalla River Watershed………………………………… Riparian Condition within the Molalla River Watershed……………………………… Water Right Allocations within the Molalla River Watershed………………………… 87 88 89 90 91 92 Appendix C. Excerpts from Clackamas County’s BMP Field Manual of Routine Road Maintenance..93 1 Part 1. Cover Letter to NOAA Fisheries. 2 Part 2: Program description and legal authority 2a. Description of program: The Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development (CCDTD) is responsible for the planning, design, construction and operation of Clackamas County County’s transportation related infrastructure. The objectives of this plan are to enhance the recovery of native salmon and steelhead runs in Clackamas County. The specific objectives include: Implement the ODOT Routine Road Maintenance Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the impacts of CCDTD activities on salmon and steelhead runs. Train CCDTD personnel on these BMPs and the use of the CCDTD BMP Field Manual. Submit annual monitoring reports that will document complaints received on the impact of road maintenance activities and their resolution and summarize the implementation of the BMPs on Clackamas County Roads and suggestions to improve CCDTD effort to protect and restore salmon and steelhead habitat. Identify and prioritize capital improvement projects that will help restore native salmon and steelhead habitat within Clackamas County Insure that CCDTD complies with the 4(d) rules published by NOAA Fisheries, prohibiting take of listed salmon and steelhead by securing a programmatic limitation under Limit 10: Routine Road Maintenance. 2b. Responsible entity and legal authority for program This program is implemented by the Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development (CCDTD). All activities are carried out by county road maintenance staff (and/or contractors) under the supervision of Cam Gilmour, Director (Figure 1). Routine road maintenance is coordinated by the Transportation Maintenance Division Manager with cooperation with the Engineering and Planning Divisions. The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners reviewed ODOT’s 2004 Routine Road Maintenance: Water Quality and Habitat Guide Best Management Practices and adopted these methods on 26 July 2007. This plan is intended to meet the requirements for a 4(d) submittal for programmatic limitation. Identified within this plan are two main categories of habitat enhancement efforts: (1) Implementation of BMPs for all activities performed by CCDTD that are believed to impact salmon habitat (2) Prioritization, by ODFW, of capital improvements in the county to improve fish habitat. This plan is designed to operate as a training tool and a field guide to ensure that CCDTD’s actions support the recovery of threatened Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead. In this Plan, words and phrases such as “where feasible,” “where appropriate,” and “where practicable,” are used in 3 conjunction with some minimization or avoidance activities. These phrases, which allow some exercise of professional judgment, are not to be used for convenience or ease of operation. Rather, they are included because CCDTD must prioritize its activities in accordance with constraints such as weather, equipment, safety considerations to both the motoring public and CCDTD staff, physical/topographical restrictions and federal, state, and local laws. Compliance with this Plan means that CCDTD staff will use the discretion provided by these phrases where one or more of those constraints make implementation of the full measure impossible. Implementation of this program will be under the supervision of an environmental specialist (ES). The ES is the initial contact/resource for environmental issues involving Clackamas County’s road maintenance program. This includes providing training for CCDTD personnel on best management practices (BMPs) approved by NOAA Fisheries under section 4, Limit 10 of Endangered Species Act. The ES will respond to questions from the public, DTD and Road personnel about implementation of these BMPs and consult with various regulatory agencies as needed. The ES will also inspect work sites to ensure that BMPs are being properly implemented by CCDTD personnel. CCDTD funds an ODFW fish biologist to assist Clackamas County in the permitting, monitoring, design and inventory of road/stream crossings affected by State listed native migratory fish and federally listed threatened and endangered salmonids. Figure 1. Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development Organizational Chart. 4 This plan encompasses all CCDTD Transportation Maintenance activities which may impact salmon and steelhead habitat. These activities are subdivided in the following programs: Vegetation Management, Surface Maintenance, Drainage Maintenance, Traffic Operations, Bridge Maintenance, and Building/Facility Maintenance. CCDTD is the responsible entity for all of these programs. Implementation Schedule Formal County Approval and Adoption of BMPs (enacted 26 July 2007) Initial training & implementation of programs (in progress) Review of BMPs by NOAA Fisheries (in progress) Adjustments to BMPs based on NOAA Fisheries recommendations (in progress) Acceptance of BMPs by NOAA Fisheries Biannual updates (internal) Annual reports (internal and NOAA Fisheries) Five year review (internal and NOAA Fisheries) 3. Geographic Area where CCDTD Road Maintenance Program is conducted 3a. County roads/locations where maintenance activities may impact streams Currently the Clackamas County roadway system consists of 1,413 center-lane miles of roads, streets and highways. This includes approximately 75 miles of Urban Arterial, 377 miles of Rural Arterial, 56 miles of Urban Collector, 226 miles of Rural Collector, 200 miles of Urban Local and 479 miles of Rural Local roadways, of which only 5.79 miles are gravel. There are also 168 bridges in the system and 8,270 culverts (1,304 of these are greater than 24 inches) maintained by CCDTD (CCDTD 2007). Eight hundred ninety-nine culverts have been classified as “fish friendly” through consultation with ODFW fish biologists (Figure 2). These culverts cross a stream that may provide habitat for native migratory fishes or threatened and endangered salmonids. Using Geographic Information System (GIS) data, CCDTD has mapped the Clackamas County roads, bridges and culverts (data from RIMS) and then added layers containing environmental parameters to identify Restricted Area Zones (RAZ) road segments. The hydrologic layers added were: Wetlands as identified in the National Wetland Inventory (http://www.fws.gov/nwi/). River and stream locations obtained from ODFW. These data have been used to identify RAZ sections of county road system within 150 feet of any of these aquatic resources (Figures 3 and 4). Location of these sections will be confirmed by inventory field crews to ensure that all road segments are identified. Crews will consult with ES if there are questions. Clackamas County will apply ODOT BMPs to all routine road maintenance activities throughout the county. These are detailed in the ODOT Routine Road Maintenance Water Quality and Habitat Guide Best Management Practices (2004). RAZ segments will be identified in the RIMS system by mileage markers. When work orders are generated, these mile markers will identify the RAZ sections where ES will be consulted for additional recommendations to minimize the impact of routine road maintenance on the aquatic ecosystem. These recommendations may include further timing restrictions, erosion and sediment control methods and maintenance of roadside vegetation. These 5 Figure 2. Location of Clackamas County Fish Friendly Culverts. 6 prescriptions will be identified within the RIMS database so that future work orders contain these recommendations. For example, significant consideration will be given to retaining trees over 12-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) that may provide shade and bank stability. If removal of the trees is required due to public safety concerns, 2 seedlings will be replanted within the same watershed. Replanted trees will be located so not to pose a future threat to the transportation system. Figure 5 is an example of RAZ sections within Clackamas County. Stream 150 ft Road 150 ft Begin End Restricted Activity Figure 3. Identification of Restricted Activity Zones (RAZ) on Clackamas County Roads with adjacent streams Stream Culvert 150 ft 150 ft Road 150 ft Begin MP End MP Restricted Activity Figure 4. Identification of Restricted Activity Zones (RAZ) on Clackamas County Roads associated with culverts.. 7 Culvert inspection is an ongoing CCDTD program with culverts in the poorest conditions being inspected the most frequently. This data is used to develop a priority listing of culverts to be replaced. CCDTD consults with ODFW and local watershed councils (Clackamas River Basin Council, Sandy River Basin Watershed Council, Johnson Creek Watershed Council, Greater Oregon City Watershed Council, and Pudding River Watershed Council, Tualatin River Watershed Council, Molalla River Watch, and Friends of Kellogg Creek) to integrate their fish passage concerns. This data is maintained in a database to prioritize culvert replacement/fish passage projects within the county (Appendix A) (Mouser 2004). This database rates culvert condition using the Federal Highway Administration scale (Arnoult 1986), cost of replacement, upstream length recovered, upstream habitat quality, watershed area, barriers to fish passage downstream (natural or artificial), and fish species present. CCDTD has been very active in applying for grants with various cooperators (US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service and watershed councils) to address these maintenance needs. 3b. Location of critical salmon habitat in the watershed close to county roads There are five major watersheds within Clackamas County: Clackamas, Molalla, Sandy, Tualatin and Willamette (Figure 6). Critical habitat for Lower Columbia River (LCR) and Upper Willamette River (UWR) steelhead and chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) has been identified within Clackamas County (Figures 7-10). As of September 2008, no critical habitat for LCR coho salmon has been established. Coho salmon are not native above Willamette River Falls. Within Clackamas County, the threatened and endangered salmonid populations are grouped into five ESUs: Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Steelhead Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon Steelhead Table 1. Watersheds with Listed Salmonid Species Watershed Species ESU1 Population 2 LCR Spring, Fall Run Chinook UWR3 Spring, Fall Run Clackamas River Steelhead LCR Winter, Summer Run Coho LCR Chinook LCR Spring, Fall Run Sandy River Steelhead LCR Summer, Winter Run Coho LCR Chinook UWR Spring, Fall Run Molalla/Pudding River Steelhead UWR Summer, Winter Run Tualatin River Steelhead UWR Winter Run Chinook LCR Spring Run Johnson Creek Steelhead LCR Winter Run Coho LCR Chinook UWR Spring. Fall Run Upper Willamette River Steelhead UWR Summer, Winter Run 1 ESU: Evolutionarily Significant Unit 2 LCR: Lower Columbia River 3 UWR: Upper Willamette River 8 Figure 5. Examples of Restricted Area Zones (RAZ) on Clackamas County Roads 9 Figure 6. Watersheds within Clackamas County. 10 Figure 7. Critical Habitat of Chinook salmon in Lower Columbia River ESU. 11 Figure 8. Critical Habitat of Steelhead in Lower Columbia River ESU. 12 Figure 9. Critical Habitat of Chinook Salmon in Upper Willamette River ESU. 13 Figure 10. Critical Habitat of Steelhead in Upper Willamette River ESU. 14 This habitat has been further classified as either spawning and rearing, rearing and migration or migration habitat by ODFW (http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?p=259) for spring and fall chinook salmon, summer and winter steelhead, and coho salmon. (Figures 11-20). ODFW has also located barriers to fish passage within Clackamas County http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarriermaps) (Figure 21). Additionally these data have also been identified on NOAA Atlas of Salmon and Steelhead habitat for the Sandy River, Clackamas River and Molalla River watersheds (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/atlas_salmon.cfm) (Appendix A, Figures A1-A39). ODFW has identified in-water work periods to minimize the potential impact of work done below ordinary high water (OHW) on fish and wildlife resources (ODFW 2008). The time periods were established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of threatened, endangered or sensitive fish including migration, spawning and rearing. Within Clackamas County seven distinct periods have been identified (Figure 22). This map is consulted by CCDTD personnel planning road maintenance projects. 15 Figure 11. Habitat distribution of Spring Chinook Salmon in Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County. 16 Figure12. Habitat distribution of Fall Chinook Salmon in Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County . 17 Figure 13. Habitat distribution of Coho Salmon in Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County. 18 Figure 14. Habitat distribution of Summer Steelhead in Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County. 19 Figure 15. Habitat distribution of Winter Steelhead in Lower Columbia River ESU within Clackamas County. 20 Figure 16. Habitat distribution of Spring Chinook Salmon in Upper Willamette ESU within Clackamas County. 21 Figure 17. Habitat distribution of Fall Chinook in Upper Willamette River ESU within Clackamas County. 22 Figure 18. Habitat distribution of Coho Salmon in Upper Willamette River in Clackamas County Figure 19 Habitat distribution of Summer Steelhead in Upper Willamette River ESU in Clackamas County 23 Figure 20. Habitat distribution of Winter Steelhead Upper Willamette River ESU in Clackamas County. 24 Figure 21. ODFW identified barriers to fish passage. 25 Figure 22. ODFW In-Water Work Periods within Clackamas County. 26 3c. Analysis of salmon habitat environmental baseline Clackamas County extends over 1,879 square miles (1,203,510 acres) with elevations ranging from 10 -11,235 feet. Within Clackamas County, 88 % of the land use is classified as agricultural/timber. The remaining land use within the county has been classified as rural residential (6%), urban (5%) and rural community (1%). Land ownership within the agricultural/forest component is under a mix of ownerships – federal 57%, private 41%, tribal 1.2%, state 0.9% and county 0.4% (Clackamas County Planning Division 2005 data). Watershed Condition Watershed Classification: Land cover within Clackamas County varies from Alpine Fell Snowfields on Mt Hood to Urban development. Figure 23 was generated from data obtained from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program Gap Analysis. Riparian conditions vary widely throughout the county. Today approximately 50% of riparian areas are classed as agricultural or urban (Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan 2004). Table 2. Riparian Condition of Major Watersheds within Clackamas County. Data from Maher et al. 2005. Moderately No Data Water Stream length Functional Impaired Impaired Watershed (%) (%) (km) (%) (%) (%) Sandy 787 75 4 11 10 Clackamas 2994 58 20 17 4 Molalla 2524 39 39 22 1 1 The Table 2 data summarizes the “health” of the vegetation within a 30-metter buffer along historically accessible stream reaches. The vegetation data were obtained from Bureau of Land Management Vegetation Mapping Project data and Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium data. These data were grouped into 5 classes- later seral vegetation, mid-seral vegetation, early seral vegetation, other forested lands, and non-forested lands. Field observations were used to divide each vegetation class into a proportion functional or impaired class (Maher et al 2005). Water Quality Water quality within Clackamas County is monitored by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to protect the beneficial uses of rivers, streams, and lakes. Water bodies identified as water quality limited are summarized biannually in the 303(d) reports by ODEQ. These data are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 from the 2002 and 2004 reports (Figures 24 and 25). TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Load) have been developed to outline how much pollution a water body can safely handle to support beneficial uses. Within Clackamas County, the Sandy (April 2005), Tualatin (August 2001), and Willamette (September 2006) river watersheds have had TMDLs developed (Figure 26). A draft of the Molalla/Pudding River TMDLs was released 29 August 2008. 27 Figure 23. Clackamas County Land Cover. 28 Table 3. Summary of 2002 303(d) water quality listings by watershed from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqldata/wqlsdata2004/parametersearchintgrpt04.asp). USGS 4th Field HUC WATERBODY Bacterial1 Biological2 Bull Run River Cedar Creek 1 Sandy River Salmon River 1708001 Sandy River Total 2 Butte Creek Molalla River 4 Molalla River Pine Creek 1709009 Pudding River 6 Table Rock Fork Total 10 Bargfeld Creek 1 Clackamas River 2 Cow Creek 1 Deep Creek 2 Eagle Creek Clackamas River 17090011 Fish Creek North Fork Deep Creek 1 Rock Creek 1 Sieben Drainage Ditch 2 Tickle Creek 2 Total 12 Abernethy Creek Johnson Creek 8 Kellogg Creek 2 Mount Scott Creek 1 Willamette River Phillips Creek 1 17090012 Spring Brook Creek 2 Tryon Creek Willamette River 6 6 Total 20 6 1. Bacteria- fecal coliform and E. coli 2. Biological criteria- habitat fatures that limit the aquatic community found 3. Metal –iron, mercury and manganese 4. PAH – Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 5. PCB – Polychlorinated biphenyles 6. Pesticide Residues – DDT, DDE, Dieldrin, Aldrin and Pentachlorophenol Dissolved Oxygen Metal3 PAH4 PCB5 Pesticide Residue6 3 2 2 7 2 9 1 3 2 17 3 1 3 2 Temperature Grand Total 3 1 2 4 11 2 13 1 12 2 30 1 5 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 21 2 24 2 1 1 2 1 72 105 2 2 3 3 9 2 4 8 4 15 15 6 10 30 38 1 6 9 3 7 29 Table 4. Summary of 2004-2006 303(d) water quality listings by HUC watershed from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqldata/wqlsdata2004/parametersearchintgrpt04.asp). Biological Criteria2 Flow Modification3 Algae or weeds Motor vehicle10 Habitat Modification4 Sedimentation Temperature Phosphorus Nutrients5 Bacterial1 Ammonia Alkalinity Pesticide8 USGS 4th Field HUC Water Body PAH6 Sandy River 1708001 Molalla River 17090009 Bull Run River Cedar Creek Salmon River Sandy River Total Butte Creek Molalla River Pine Creek Pudding River Table Rock Fork Total 1 1 2 3 2 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 4 9 5 5 10 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 10 14 2 1 2 5 1 4 3 1 9 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 2 4 3 2 11 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 2 4 11 2 2 1 1 2 8 2 2 2 7 9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Bacteria- fecal coliform and E. coli Biological criteria –habitat features that limit the aquatic community found Flow Modification – water withdrawal that may impact water quality (DO and temperature) Habitat Modification – lack of structure either large woody debris or stream cover Nutrients – aquatic community indicates increased nutrient concentrations PAH – Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB –Polychlorinated biphenyles Pesticide residues – Acenapthene, Aldrin, Atrazine, Carbaryle, Carbofuran, Chlordane,2,4-D, Diazinon, Dioxin,DDT, DDE, Dieldrin, Furans, Lindane, Malathion, Parathion, Pentachlorophenol, Simazine and Trifluralin 9. Metal –arsenic, chromium, cooper, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc 10. Motor vehicle – hydrocarbons and rubber byproducts of vehicle traffic and exhaust Grand Total 14 4 6 26 50 10 30 1 41 9 91 Chloride PCB7 DO Metal9 pH 30 Table 4 continued Algae or weeds Flow Modification3 Habitat Modification4 Motor vehicle10 4 6 10 Sedimentation Temperature Phosphorus Grand Total 1 93 5 6 5 4 7 208 329 1 40 5 8 11 9 6 12 7 2 101 Biological Criteria2 Chloride Water Body Bacterial1 Ammonia Alkalinity USGS 4th Field HUC Nutrients5 Pesticide8 PAH6 PCB7 DO Willamette River 17090012 Clackamas River 17090011 Abernethy Creek Johnson Creek Kellogg Creek Mount Scott Creek Phillips Creek Spring Brook Creek Tryon Creek Willamette River Total Bargefeld Creek Clackamas River Cow Creek Deep Creek Eagle Creek Fish Creek North Fork Deep Creek Rock Creek Sieben Drainage Ditch Tickle Creek Total 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 16 28 1 6 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 20 4 4 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 54 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 11 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 14 14 16 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 6 10 5 3 4 7 9 3 5 1 3 5 1 56 110 2 1 1 14 18 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 6 8 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 4 7 5 3 9 1 1 1 9 8 5 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Bacteria- fecal coliform and E. coli Biological criteria ––habitat features that limit the aquatic community found Flow Modification –– water withdrawal that may impact water quality (DO and temperature) Habitat Modification- lack of structure either large woody debris or stream cover – Nutrients – aquatic community indicates increased nutrient concentrations PAH – Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB –Polychlorinated biphenyles Pesticide residues – Acenapthene, Aldrin, Atrazine, Carbaryle, Carbofuran, Chlordane,2,4-D, Diazinon, Dioxin,DDT, DDE, Dieldrin, Furans, Lindane, Malathion, Parathion, Pentachlorophenol, Simazine and Trifluralin 9. Metal –arsenic, chromium, cooper, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc 10. Motor vehicle – hydrocarbons and rubber byproducts of vehicle traffic and exhaust Metal9 12 63 75 11 11 pH 31 Figure 24. 2002 303(d) listed stream sections within Clackamas County. 32 Figure 25. 2004 303(d) listed stream sections within Clackamas County. 33 Figure 26. Location of streams with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) established by ODEQ. 34 4: Description of listed species distribution and status 4a. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Listing Status: Threatened (64 FR 14308, reaffirmed 70 FR 37160) Range: The Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point east of Hood River in Oregon and the White Salmon River in Washington. The historical site of Celilo Falls on the Columbia River is considered the transitional point for this ESU, since it may have been a migration barrier to Chinook salmon at certain times of the year. The ESU includes spring Chinook in the Willamette River up to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River. Seventeen artificial propagation programs are part of this ESU (see list at 70 FR 37174). Population Identification: 32 historical populations in the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU have been identified. Within Clackamas County, the Sandy River, Clackamas River and Johnson Creek watersheds contain spring and fall Chinook populations within this ESU (Table 1, Figures 11 and 12). NOAA Fisheries’ 2005 Report to Congress for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (see http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm ) identified the following major factors limiting recovery of this ESU: • Reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat in tributaries • Hatchery impacts • Loss of habitat diversity and channel stability in tributaries • Excessive sediment in spawning gravel • Elevated water temperatures in tributaries • Harvest impacts on fall Chinook 4b. Lower Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Listing Status: Threatened (63 FR 13347) Range: The Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind rivers in Washington (inclusive) and between the Willamette and Hood rivers in Oregon (inclusive). Steelhead above Willamette Falls are excluded. On June 14, 2004, NMFS proposed to reaffirm this listing as threatened (69 FR 33102). Population Identification: Twenty-three historical populations are in this ESU (Myers et al.2006). Within Clackamas County LCR summer and winter run steelhead are found in the Clackamas River, Sandy River and Johnson Creek watersheds (Table 1, Figure 14-15). NMFS’s 2005 Report to Congress for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (see http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm ) identified the following major factors limiting recovery of this ESU: • Degraded floodplain and stream channel structure and function • Reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat • Altered streamflow in tributaries • Excessive sediment and elevated water temperature in tributaries 35 • Hatchery impacts Additional information on this ESU is available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-SalmonListings/Salmon-Populations/Steelhead/STLCR.cfm 4c. Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Listing Status: Threatened (70 FR 37160) Range: The Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon, from the mouth of the Columbia up to and including the Big White Salmon and Hood rivers, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, as well as twenty-five artificial propagation programs (see list at 70 FR 37178) Population Identification: There are twenty-five historical populations in this ESU (Myers et al., 2006). These population designations are currently undergoing revision. Critical habitat has not been established for LWR coho salmon. Within Clackamas County, coho salmon are found in the Sandy River, Clackamas River and Johnson Creek watersheds (Table 1, Figure 13). NMFS’s 2005 Report to Congress for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (see http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm) did not address this ESU because it was not listed at the time. NMFS’s listing decision for the Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU (70 FR 37160) identified the following factors limiting recovery of this ESU (70 FR 37188). Habitat loss Loss of spawning populations Low abundance of extant populations Diminished diversity Fragmentation and isolation of remaining naturally produced fish Additional information on this ESU is available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-SalmonListings/Salmon-Populations/Coho/COLCR.cfm. 4d. Upper Willamette River Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) Listing Status: Threatened (64 FR 14308, reaffirmed 70 FR 37160) Range: The Upper Willamette spring Chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring and fall run Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River and in the Willamette River and its tributaries above Willamette Falls, Oregon. The following seven artificial propagation programs are part of this ESU: Willamette, McKenzie, Clackamas, Marion Forks/North Santiam, and the South Santiam hatcheries in the Molalla, Calapooia, and South Santiam rivers (see list at 70 FR 37177). Population Identification: Seven historical populations were identified in this ESU (Myers et al., 2006). This ESU contains only one stratum. All 7 populations are part of the Cascade spring run. Within Clackamas County chinook salmon are found in Clackamas River, Molalla/Pudding River and 36 Middle Willamette River watersheds (Table 1, Figure 16-17). NMFS’s 2005 Report to Congress for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (see http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/PCSRF/Index.cfm ) identified the following major factors limiting recovery of this ESU: • Reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat in tributaries • Altered water quality and temperature in tributaries • Lost/degraded floodplain connectivity and lowland stream habitat • Altered stream flow in tributaries • Hatchery impacts Identification of these limiting factors was based on existing information in sub-basin plans and other documents. Based on this existing information, NMFS staff assessed limiting factors at the population scale and aggregated them to the ESU scale; major limiting factors for particular populations may differ from those identified above for this ESU. Additional information on this ESU is available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-SalmonListings/Salmon-Populations/Chinook/CKUWR.cfm . 4e. Upper Willamette River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Listing Status: Threatened (64 FR 14517) Range: The Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of winter and summer run steelhead in the Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River (inclusive). Originally listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1999, this status was reaffirmed for Upper Willamette River Steelhead on January 5, 2006. Population Identification: Four historical populations and one “population sink” area (the estside tributaries) are in this ESU. The estside tributaries were unlikely, individually or collectively, to have constituted a demographically independent population and so were included as a population sink. This designation recognizes that winter steelhead may intermittently utilize some of these tributaries for spawning or rearing and underscores the influence of these tributaries on water conditions in the main stem Willamette River (Myers et al. 2006). This ESU contains only one stratum. All 4 populations are part of the Cascade winter run stratum. Within Clackamas County winter steelhead populations are found in the Molalla River, Tualatin River and Willamette River watersheds (Table 1, Figure 19-20). NMFS’s 2005 Report to Congress for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (see http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm ) identified the following major factors limiting recovery of this ESU: • Reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat in tributaries • Altered water quality and temperature in tributaries • Lost/degraded floodplain connectivity and lowland stream habitat • Altered stream flow in tributaries Identification of these limiting factors was based on existing information in sub-basin plans and other documents. Based on this existing information, NMFS staff assessed limiting factors at the population scale and aggregated them to the ESU scale; major limiting factors for particular populations may differ from the ESU factors listed above. Additional information on this ESU is available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Steelhead/Index.cfm. 37 Part 5: Relevant Reports 5a. Reports on current status of listed Salmonid Species within Clackamas County Clearwater Biostudies, Inc. 1997. Smolt Production Estimates for Lower Bull Run River. Technical Memorandum to City of Portland Water Bureau. September 29 1997. Friesen, T. A., H. K. Takata, J. S. Vile, J. C. Graham, R. A. Farr, M. J. Reesman and B. S. Cunningham. 2003. Relationship between Bank Treatment/Nearshore Development and Anadromous/Resident Fish in the Lower Willamette River. Annual Progress Report: July 2001-June 2002. ODFW. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=51654 Friesen, T. A. (ed.). 2005. Biology, Behavior and Resources of Resident and Anadromous Fish in the Lower Willamette River: Final Report of Research 2000-2004. ODFW. Clackamas OR. Contracted by City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services Endangered Species Program. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=75479 Firman, J., M Buckman, R. Schroeder, K. Kenaston, M. Hogansen and B. Cannon. 2005. Work Complete for Compliance with the Biological Opinion for Hatchery Programs in the Willamette Basin, USACE funding 2004. Task Order: NWP-OP-FH-02-01. http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/willamette/pdf/04Report.pdf Good, T. P., R. S. Waples and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NMFSC-66. 598 p. (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-StatusReviews/upload/SR2005-allspecies.pdf) Graham, J. C. and D. L. Ward. 2002. Distribution of fish in Portland Tributary Streams. Annual Report 2001-2002. Columbia River Investigations Program. ODFW. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=51653 Howell, Philip. 1986. Willamette Basin Fish Management Plan: Status and Progress 1970-1985. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.fishlib.org/Documents/Oregon/DFW/FMPwill1979-85.pdf King, Steve. 2001. Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan- Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook in the Freshwater Fisheries of the Willamette Basin and Lower Columbia River Mainstem. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland OR. 67p. http://www.fishlib.org/Documents/Oregon/DFW/FMPupperwill.pdf Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2004. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan. (http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/lowerColumbia/plan/2004_05/BiState/Default.asp) 38 McElhany, P., T. Backman, C. Busack, S. Kolmes, J. Myers, D. Bawding, A. Steel, C. Steward, T. Whitsel and C. Willis. 2004. Status Evaluation of Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basins. WLC-TRT Report. NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA. (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/wlc_docs/wlc_pop_eval_7_28_04.pdf). Murtagh, T., V. Niles-Raethke, R. Rohrer, M.Gray, T. Rien, and J. Massey. 1992. Tualatin Subbasin Fish Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.fishlib.org/Documents/Oregon/DFW/FMPTualatin.pdf Murtagh, T., R. Rohrer, M.Gray, E. Olsen, T. Rien, and J. Massey. 1992. Clackamas Subbasin Fish Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.fishlib.org/Documents/Oregon/DFW/FMPClackamaspart.pdf Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, and A. Marshall. 2003. Historical population structure of Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basin Pacific Salmonids. WLC-TRT Report. NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA. (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/staff/displayallinfo.cfm?docmetadataid=5437) Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, D. Teel, A. Marshall, D. Van Doornik, M. Maher. 2006. Historical Population Structure of Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basin Pacific Salmonids. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-73. 311 p. (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/staff/displayallinfo.cfm?docmetadataid=6490) North, J. A., L. C. Burner, B. S. Cunningham, R. A Farr, T. A Friesen, J. C. Harrington, H. K. Takata and D. L Ward. 2002. Relationship between bank treatment/nearshore development and anadromous/resident fish in the Lower Willamette River. Annual Progress Report: May 2000-June 2001. ODFW. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=51656 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1988. Willamette Basin Fish Mangement Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.fishlib.org/Documents/Oregon/DFW/FMPwill1988.pdf Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Sandy River Basin Fish Mangement Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Schroeder R. K. and K. R. Kenaston. 2004. Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette ad Sandy Rivers. Annual Progress Report. Project Number: F-163-R-09. http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/progress-reports/ChSannual_04_finalweb.pdf Schroeder R. K., K. R. Kenaston and R. B. Lindsay. 2003. Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette ad Sandy Rivers. Annual Progress Report. Project Number: F-163-R-08. http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/progress-reports/Chsfinal03.pdf Suring, E. J., E. T. Brown and K. M. S, Moore. 2006. Lower Columbia River Coho Status Report 2002-2004: Population Abundance, Distribution, Run Timing, and Hatchery Influence. ODFW Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2006-6. http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/reports/LCReport02-04.pdf 39 Tinus, E. S., J. A. Koloszar and D. L. Ward. 2003. Abundance and Distribution of Fish in the City of Portland Streams. Final Report 2001-03. Volume 1: Final Report of Research. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=51651 Tinus, E. S., J. A. Koloszar and D. L. Ward. 2003. Abundance and Distribution of Fish in the City of Portland Streams. Final Report 2001-03. Volume 2: Supplemental Maps http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=51652 5b. Watershed Assessments Clackamas County Water Environment Services. 2001. Tributaries of the Sandy River WatershedWater Quality Monitoring Report. Prepared in conjunction with Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District and funded in part by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Clackamas River Basin Council. 2002. Clear and Foster Creek Watershed Assessment. http://www.clackamasriver.org/basins/clear/Clear%20Creek%20Report.pdf Cole, M. B., R. J. Blaha and M. P. Millian. 2004. Lower Molalla River and Milk Creek Watershed Assessment. Final Report. Molalla River Watch. ABR Inc- Environmental Research Services. Forest Grove OR 97116 Clackamas River Basin Council. 2005. Deep and Goose Creek Watershed Assessment. Hawksworth, J. T. 2001. Lower Tualatin Watershed Analysis. Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District. http://www.trwc.org/tualatin-info/lower/Lower-Tualatin-Report.pdf Maher, M., M Sheer, E. Steel and P. McElhany. 2005. Atlas of Salmon and Steelhead Habitat in the Oregon Lower Columbia and Willamette Basins. (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/atlas_salmon.cfm Primozich, D and R. Bastasch. 2004. Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power Conversation Council. http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/willamette/plan/ Clackamas River Basin Council. 2000. Rock and Richardson Creek Watershed Analyses. http://www.clackamasriver.org/basins/rockRichardson/rr.html Sandy River Basin Partners. 2005. Sandy River Basin Characterization Report. U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Salmon National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Upper Sandy National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan U.S. Forest Service. 1995 Watershed Analyses/Upper Clackamas Watershed. PNW Region http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/documents/Watershed_Analyses/Upper_Clackamas_WA.pdf U.S. Forest Service. 1996 Oak Grove Watershed Analyses. PNW Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/documents/Watershed_Analyses/Oak_Grove_WA.pdf 40 U.S. Forest Service. 1996 North Fork Clackamas River Watershed Analysis. PNW Region http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/documents/Watershed_Analyses/North_Fork_Clackamas_River_WA. pdf U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Lower Clackamas River Watershed Analysis. Mt Hood National Forest and Bureau of Land Management. PNW Region http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/documents/Watershed_Analyses/Lower_Clackamas_River_WA.pdf U.S. Forest Service. 1997 South Fork Clackamas River Watershed Analyses. PNW Region http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/documents/Watershed_Analyses/South_Fork_Clackamas_River_WA. pdf 5c. Technical Reference Library Barker, C. O. and F. E. Votapka. 1990. Fish Passage Through Culverts. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Report No FHWA-FL-90-006. Robinson, E. G., A. Mirati and M Allen. 1999. Oregon Road/Stream Crossing Restoration Guide: Spring 1999. Advanced Fish Passage Training Version June 8 1999. Robinson, E. George. , M Allen and A. Mirati. 2000. Draft Forest Road Fish Passage Guide: Spring 2000. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Environmental Engineering Division. 1999. Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts; A Design Manual for Fish Passage at Road Crossings. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. Restoring Fish Passage Through Culverts on Forest Service and BLM Lands in Oregon and Washington Could Take Decades. GAO-02-136. Mouser, M. 2004. Prioritizing Fish Passage Projects in Clackamas County. Developed by Clackamas County Salmon Recovery Team. 41 Part 6. : Affirmative conclusion that program is as protective as ODOT’s program in its implementation Table 5. Matrix comparing ODOT BMP section activity with Clackamas County implementation. ODOT Program Section Activity Stormwater Management Stockpiling Surface Work Shoulder Blading/Rebuilding Sweeping/Flushing Ditch Shaping and Cleaning Culvert/Inlet Cleaning, Repair, Erosion Repair Channel Maintenance Water Quality Facilities Mowing, Brush Mowing, Brush Spraying (no 4(d) coverage available from NOAA Fish) Striping Sign Installation Accident Clean-up Guardrail Replacement/Cleaning Attenuator Maintenance Bridge Maintenance/Repair/Vegetation management Snow and Ice Removal/Deicing Emergency Maintenance Settlement and Slides Extraordinary Maintenance Fish Habitat and Passage Improvement/Restoration Identical to ODOT Manual (Yes/No/NA) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The level of protection of CCDTD BMPs exceeds ODOT BMPs because of the expansion of the RAZ definition, which protects streams with resident native migratory fish as well as endangered and threatened salmonids. 6a. Training Employees will be instructed on all aspects of the ODOT BMP guide. The goals of the training program are: To educate our staff on Best Management Practices (BMPs) To educate our staff on when permits might be required and who to contact To interest our staff so they take ownership To modify our practices to enhance fish runs To develop our standards to enhance fish runs, and to establish what resources we need to stockpile to achieve that end To establish consistency throughout the County. To provide sufficient training and information so that staff members can suggest improvements to the recommended BMPs and other salmon recovery efforts 42 The training elements are identified in Table 6. Training opportunities will be scheduled throughout the year and will involve personnel from various agencies such as Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries, ODFW, ODOT and ODEQ. Topics to be covered will include ACOE and DSL regulations and permitting, ODFW fish passage regulations, NOAA Fisheries ESA salmonid population management, ODEQ water quality regulation. Initial training will discuss all BMPs and discuss possible scenarios where they would be implemented, when an Environmental Specialist needs to be consulted, and what to do in emergency situations. After initially training CCDTD road crews on BMPs, training will be held annually to discuss implementation of BMPs, reporting of problems, suggestions for improvement, identifying methods in need of improvement. Road maintenance supervisors will be responsible for instructing contractors on appropriate BMPs. CCDTD has produced BMP field manuals that will be used during the training and kept in all CCDTD vehicles for reference (Hempstead 2008). Two excerpts from this manual are in Appendix B. CCDTD Road Maintenance Personnel will be responsible for the following: Look up planned activity in ODOT BMP and/or CCDTD BMP Field Manuals Review BMPs for activity and determine how they affect project Reference RIMS work order to determine if work is scheduled within RAZ Contact ES or supervisor if questions concerning BMPs arise Contact ES if situation develops that may affect implementation of BMP or if project site requires major restoration or an emergency exists Relay problems and suggestions about how BMPs might be improved or revised to protect aquatic and riparian 6b. Monitoring/Tracking The objective of CCDTD monitoring program will be to determine if BMPs are being used consistently and appropriately (implementation monitoring) and if these BMPs are having the desired effects of protecting fish habitat, improving water quality and passage for native fishes (effectiveness monitoring). Every employee will be responsible for knowing, implementing and monitoring the BMPs. All Clackamas County vehicles will contain BMP field manuals to be consulted on site if questions arise. The ES will be available to respond to questions concerning implementation of the BMPs and identify when specific ACOE and DSL permits may be required. Implementation of Routine Road Maintenance BMPs on Clackamas County roads will be monitored by CCDTD and tracked by work orders in RIMS that will identify when crews worked within RAZ road sections and the function codes the crew members used to code their time sheet. The CCDTD ES will conduct field inspections to ensure compliance with BMPs. The results from these inspections will be included in the annual report. Complaints regarding routine road 43 maintenance activities from the public, agencies or CCDTD staff will be investigated immediately, addressed appropriately and summarized in the annual report. The CCDTD ES will work with the Road Inventory Crew to ensure that RAZ segments located by GIS system and identified in RIMS systems are confirmed by field verification. In addition bi-weekly Roads and Engineering meetings, attended by Road Operations Supervisors, Transportation Operations Manager, Environment Staff and Engineering managers, will be used to discuss upcoming road maintenance projects, resolve problems that have arisen and plan BMP training. 6c. Documentation/Reporting Work orders will be used to summarize the number of miles and location of roadway by watershed where BMPs have been implemented and fish passage blockages removed. This information will be summarized in annual reports to NOAA Fisheries. These reports will also include: Summary of contacts and coordination with ODFW, DSL, ACOE and NOAA Fisheries Emergency response activities and outcomes Complaints reported and resolution of complaint Summary of CC Road crew’s training (courses given and number of employees attending) Suggested revisions to BMP implementation and monitoring 44 Table 6. Planned Clackamas County Road Maintenance Personnel Training: Course Employee Orientation Blood-borne pathogens ODOT BMPs Overview Vegetation Road Erosion Bridge/culvert Personnel New employees Appropriate personnel Road, Bridge , Vegetation and Traffic maintenance personnel Frequency As needed Annually (certification lasts 2 yrs) Annually (after all personnel trained, move to new employee training) Provider CC personnel CC personnel Time 8 hr 3 hr- initial/ 1 hr review 8 hrs first session Comments Introduction to BMPs and ESA concerns along with other topics Currently implemented Review BMP manual. Ensure manuals are in every truck. Present how to track activities/ recording problems, who to contact. Effectiveness of BMPs Implementation of BMPs Problems – used to generate monitoring report for NOAA Fisheries and review for road crews After initial training topic will be reviewed annually. Discussion focused implementation, inspection and problems encountered Part of monthly safety meeting sequence Discuss various projects, problems coordination Safety Committee (management and employees) meet monthly to discuss problems and program Currently implemented Strongly support this program. Good way to network with other state and county transportation employees Topics will vary. CC/ODOT personnel BMP Review Road, Bridge, Vegetation and Traffic maintenance personnel Road, Bridge, Vegetation and Traffic maintenance personnel Road, Bridge, Vegetation and Traffic maintenance personnel Road Supervisors and Engineering personnel All employees All employees Road, Bridge and Traffic personnel All employees Vegetation Management Coordinator/ Spray crews Open to all Open to all Open to all Annually CC personnel 4 hrs Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection Road Safety Meeting Incident/ Emergency Response Hazardous Materials Winter Road Operations Roads/ Engineering Meeting Safety Meetings First Aid/CPR Oregon Roads Scholar Program Every 4 years ODOT or contractor 8 hrs Annually Bi-weekly Monthly Annually (certification lasts 2 yrs) 4-5 yr commitment CC personnel CC personnel CC personnel Clackamas Fire Department (Medic First Aid/CPR) Oregon Technology Transfer Center CC personnel, other agency or consultants (ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, DLS and ACOE) ODA approved provider 8 hr Approx 1 hr 1 hr 8 hr variable ESA/Permitting awareness Annually Annual Recertification required Annually As offered As offered 2 hrs Pesticide Certification Program 8 hr Currently implemented Stormwater and sanitary collection system maintenance NW Passage Seminars Professional conferences APWA varies varies varies 2 hrs varies varies varies varies 45 Part 7. Literature Cited Arnoult, J. D. 1986. Culvert Inspection Manual supplement to the Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual. Federal Highway Administration Final Report. FHWA-IP-86-02. Contract No. DTFH62-84-C00075. 215 p. Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development. 2007. Clackamas County Roadway Infrastructure Management System (RIMS). Hempstead, D. 2008. Clackamas County’s BMP Field Manual: Routine Road Maintenance 2008-2013. Primozich, D and R. Bastasch. 2004. Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power Conversation Council Maher, M., M. Sheer, E. Steel and P. McElhany. 2005. Atlas of Salmon and Steelhead Habitat in the Oregon Lower Columbia and Willamette Basins (Appendix B – this document) (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/atlas_salmon.cfm) Mouser, M. 2004. Prioritizing Fish Passage Projects in Clackamas County. Developed by Clackamas County Salmon Recovery Team (Appendix A- this document). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008. Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources. (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/inwater/Oregon_Guidelines_for_Timing_of_%20InWater_Wor k2008.pdf). Oregon Department of Transportation Environmental Services, 2003. Salmon Resource and Sensitive Area Mapping Project: Data Dictionary for the Restricted Activity Zone Map Series [RAZ] Volume II. This application was prepared by Pamela Porter with the graphic assistance from Randall Gray and Susan Ottersen.